Richard Fortus Interview To Be Released Monday

[mortismurphy]

I will tell you one little anecdote. I was at a GN'R gig in, 2012 I think it was (their last European tour?). And everybody is in the foyer at 10:30 waiting for Axl. Everybody is joking and getting a bit drunk, saying things like ''I wonder if Axl shows up'' - you yourself have probably been in one or two of those scenarios. The guy selling the merchandise says to one guy (who was trying to quiz him on, how the whole work team operate when they are on 'Axl time'), ''well, it has never been the same band since Slash left''.

This is the guy selling new gnr t-shirts and posters saying this! I think it is fairly representative of the general rock crowd. They do not consider it Guns without Slash. That is the general consensus. That is how I see the general feelings on the band, anyway.

Yeah, anecdotes don't really do much for me, either. Sorry.  I think too often people hear the bits they want to hear, and forget the bits that don't support their POV.  That's not just true for GnR, but for life, in general. 

Good story, though. (note, that isn't meant to be read with any sarcasm, seriously).

Well I do not think there is much more I can do to persuade you. Metal Sludge gives you the '1980s rock fanbase' also, not specific GN'R but GN'R, Crue, Telsa etc. I suppose they are 'haters' also. Can I just point out however that metal sludge, youtube, are all large demographics.

One other person I can add is my sister. My sister will not entertain the notion that Slash is not in Guns. When I told her that I was seeing them, in 2006, she could not comprehend the concept that GN'R could continue without Slash. She wouldn't buy a ticket.  

[jarmo]

I will tell you one little anecdote.

I got one too. I was at the O2 in 2010 and somebody complained to me about Axl being late and how "Simple Minds started on time!".

 

Simple Minds! Nothing against them. But nice comparison!
And even if that was the old band, Simple Minds would've still started earlier than GN'R!

I am getting the chop here, am I? Can I just remind you that you are the one swearing and getting irate here!

Negativity Jarmo?

What's swearing got to do with anything?
I've played nice with you, but you keep doing the same act month after month. It's becoming boring and not the reason I run this site for. Sorry.

Maybe you need to switch your diet to something else. Maybe more of the stuff you actually like and less GN'R since you don't like it all that much.

So you read his book? How did you find it? Neil certainly has an eccentric way of organising it. Some people did not like it for that, for its lack of chronology. I liked it, in its own, eccentric, slightly mad aging hippy, way. Neil could only write a book in an uniquely, Neil way.

That's true. It's his book, it should be his way, his words.
Otherwise, what's the point...




Regarding what other people think of GN'R. What the hell does it matter? Opinions are like assholes...




/jarmo

[pilferk]

You certainly set things up to get the answer you wanted.

Then you're incorrectly supposing the answer I wanted.

I wanted reading material.  That's it.  You're creating a scenario, assigning me some sort of opinion, and then arguing against it.

What was that term again?

I had no point in my question. I even added the prefix I did, to let that be known.

But let's even try to play by your rules.  You want "proof" of "reputable industry types" not taking GNR seriously as an operation in the present day.

I don't want proof of anything.  I would like to read a well reasoned, well presented, differing opinion by someone of repute.

I don't think I specified "in present day"..you added that qualifier when you started to assign an opinion to me.

Post 2000...so contemporary, sorta...but not present day.

I don't think you'll find them.  To be fair, I don't think you'd find too much gushing positivity either.  In truth, I don't think you'd find anything.

Isn't that an indicator they are something of an afterthought?  Or does the lack of anything negative mean that the feeling is positive, even if that positivity is similarly unexpressed?

Meh, it's probably a big combination of things.

They get some press when they're "doing stuff".  Vegas residency or tours or the like.  The band members seem to do interviews pretty often, too...and the topic of conversation usually turns to GnR (I'd argue that, for most of them, that's what GETS them their interviews..their associations with GnR), so...there's press.

Are the journos turning out articles by the boatload? No...but then, they're writing about the biggest acts on the planet right now. I'm not sure that's indifference, exactly, so much as preoccupation with selling their content.

[pilferk]

I think its a deflection in the sense that you knew what he meant, as evidenced by the fact you said so right away.  His "half the internet" point was speaking to the vast majority of folks not really being down with GNR version 3.0 in 2015.  And a lot of that was going to be average folk.

Nope, not deflection. QUALIFIER.  If I'm asking (nobody else was), I'm doing it because I wanted to see it.  Again, there has to be some overarching conversation topic or point for me to "deflect" from or to.  There isn't.

The thing about "average folk"? Not many of them post to forums, youtube, etc.  That's a very targeted set of folk, and their posting, in general, removes them from the term "average", in many respects.

And I've read it. So why would I want to read it again?  That's not deflection...it's staving off boredom.

So you shut all that down.  That, right there, pretty much kills the conversation.

It kills my part in it...but only my part.  Because I wanted something specific...'cause I'd find that interesting.

How do I know what he's seen and read?  I'm perfectly willing to admit I have not read every single bit of content generated, since 2000 til now, on GnR.  I was hoping (yup, hoping) he had something I might find interesting in his back pocket.

I'm genuinely disappointed he didn't.

You're the one trying to make that mean something more.

But, then you set up a wild goose chase of sorts, asking him to come up with specific quotes that run the operation down.  Presumably, you did not think he would be able to find them, and I'd agree with you.  And if he can't produce them he must be talking about his ass.

I asked him for content.  I didn't ask him to go on a wild goose chase.  I didn't ask him to PROVE anything.  I didn't imply he was talking out his ass or that he was full of shit.

I asked for reading material.

I precluded that the request was for any confrontational reason RIGHT IN THE FIRST LINE.

He can't. That's a pity. Seriously. No sarcasm. No agenda. I'd like to read that piece (or pieces). If ANYBODY READING THIS has links to pieces like I'm describing, please link them. Hell, PM them to me. I want to read them!

Man, you'd make a terrible librarian!

But he can't produce them, because they don't exist.  He couldn't produce a collection of gushing praise either.  Because within this industry, who is paying attention to a rock band with replacement players that aren't making any impact on the marketplace?

To make a long story short (too late) I'm not sure the premise could be proven or disproven, based on how you'd like the search orchestrated.

I don't have a premise, so....I'll leave you to prove or disprove the one you've falsely ascribed to me.  Whatever floats your boat..

[mortismurphy]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

[jarmo]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And then a few years later Izzy was playing with the band in 2006 and 2012.


Izzy in 2006: Izzy: I spent my summer vacation touring with Axl's new GUNS N' ROSES and had some fun playing live again. Amazing fans out there.... It's hard to believe at times. Fantastic! GNR tour: Axl and I connected via cell phone this year. I stopped by to see if he looked as old as he might be... Same age as myself, you know, and he looked great! It was nice to reconnect with an old friend/war buddy/fellow musician. I told him later I'd like to join the fun in some way and he said I was welcome to come and play something, so I did! Took me about three weeks to recover from the six weeks of touring!!!!
http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/izzy-stradlin-talks-about-touring-with-axl-rose-s-new-guns-n-roses/


/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And what other artist is out there is lauding what Axl is has done?

Because we have all heard Alice Cooper, Vince Neil, Ozzy Osbourne, Joe Perry, among others, weigh in.  Running the gamut from "its a shame what happened" to "this whole thing is a fucking sham".

[D-GenerationX]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And then a few years later Izzy was playing with the band in 2006 and 2012.

Yep.

Which is why we like Izzy again.

[pilferk]

Well I do not think there is much more I can do to persuade you.

I'm just looking for shit to read, man.

Metal Sludge gives you the '1980s rock fanbase' also, not specific GN'R but GN'R, Crue, Telsa etc. I suppose they are 'haters' also. Can I just point out however that metal sludge, youtube, are all large demographics.

I read their content, sometimes.  I've not seen much from their ACTUAL content that says "GnR isn't legitimate and Axl shouldn't use their name".  I see it from the posters, but....again.

While Sludge and Youtube have large audiences, and demos...only a fraction of those content consumers are commenting or are active on forums and in discussions.  That's largely my point on that front.  They are a subset of a subset, and it's hard to ferret out who is being honest and sincere, and who's just there to troll and get a rise out of folks.  Also, there is a LOT of toxicity in those "communities", largely because those commenting tend to be the ones who are trolling, butthurt, upset, or have a bone to pick with something.  I just don't find that stuff compelling or interesting to read.

[D-GenerationX]

Youtube comments make one weep for humanity.  I would certainly not use them as a barometer of anything, save for mental illness.

[jarmo]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And then a few years later Izzy was playing with the band in 2006 and 2012.

Yep.

Which is why we like Izzy again.

Who's we?
I always liked his solo material more than some other former members solo material. Whatever he said in that interview, it didn't seem to bother him years later.
If it's ok to use one single appearance in a beer commercial to undermine Axl's musical integrity, then surely touring with GN'R will put those comments in different light. Only fair isn't it?



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I always liked his solo material more than some other former members solo material.

I was underwhelmed by it.  Which was odd, because I consider him second most important guy in band history after Axl.

If it's ok to use one single appearance in a beer commercial to undermine Axl's musical integrity, then surely touring with GN'R will put those comments in different light. Only fair isn't it?

The appearance in the beer commercial undermines Richard's point he doesn't just do things for money.  It had noting to do with music.  You set all that up.

[mortismurphy]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And then a few years later Izzy was playing with the band in 2006 and 2012.



/jarmo

Ehh, yes!

Just out of interest Jarmo, have you read that Izzy Stradlin interview and would I be allowed to quote its contents on your very fine forum?

[pilferk]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

Yeah, I remember the article, and the interview. I might even have it stashed somewhere as a scan. I might revisit it if I can find it.

It WAS interesting...I'm a big Izzy fan, quite franklky.  But it was an interview with a former band member....so there is a certain amount of emotion and personal "stuff" in there, for his reasoning.  Which, FYI, is FINE. It doesn't invalidate anything he said.  It's just not quite what I was thinking when I asked.

I was looking more for something...IDK....editorial-like.  Less interview-y (unless it was an interview with someone "outside" the bands sphere of direct influence...that might be interesting, too).

And I'm not saying it exists...just hoping it might.

[mortismurphy]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

Yeah, I remember the article, and the interview. I might even have it stashed somewhere as a scan. I might revisit it if I can find it.

It WAS interesting...I'm a big Izzy fan, quite franklky.  But it was an interview with a former band member....so there is a certain amount of emotion and personal "stuff" in there, for his reasoning.  Which, FYI, is FINE. It doesn't invalidate anything he said.  It's just not quite what I was thinking when I asked.

I was looking more for something...IDK....editorial-like.  Less interview-y (unless it was an interview with someone "outside" the bands sphere of direct influence...that might be interesting, too).

And I'm not saying it exists...just hoping it might.

Stay with Classic Rock. There was this one issue which contained this cover feature which went something like, ''the strange and mad world of W. Axl Rose'. It basically explored his ''mad life'' (this was during one of the hiatuses - perhaps between 2003-05). You do not have to read to much between the lines that it did not consider Axl's band, bona fide. They usually got good reviews though.

[Spirit]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And what other artist (or even just about public figure) is out there is lauding what Axl is has done?

Because we have all heard Alice Cooper, Vince Neil, Ozzy Osbourne, Joe Perry, among others, weigh in.  Running the gamut from "its a shame what happened" to "this whole thing is a fucking sham".

M. Shadows, Billy Corgan, Sebastian Bach, Zakk Wylde, Pierce Morgan, Josh Freese, Eddie Trunk and Kurt Loder are some people off the top of my head that doesn't seem to have any problem with GN'R of today.

[pilferk]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And what other artist is out there is lauding what Axl is has done?

Because we have all heard Alice Cooper, Vince Neil, Ozzy Osbourne, Joe Perry, among others, weigh in.  Running the gamut from "its a shame what happened" to "this whole thing is a fucking sham".

Yeah.....pepsi would say the same thing about coke.  And no, I don't mean it's ALL sour grapes, etc.  Just that the hint of competition takes away some of the genuineness of the comments.

Which isn't to say that stuff isn't sometimes amusing to watch and read. It is.

[pilferk]

Stay with Classic Rock. There was this one issue which contained this cover feature which went something like, ''the strange and mad world of W. Axl Rose'. It basically explored his ''mad life'' (this was during one of the hiatuses - perhaps between 2003-05). You do not have to read to much between the lines that it did not consider Axl's band, bona fide. They usually got good reviews though.

That one I don't remember....I'll hunt it down!

[Ginger King]

You want paper Pilferk? Well I would suggest you look no further than Classic Rock magazine. It is, if not anti-Axl, certainly pro-Slash. It ran an interview with Izzy in which Izzy said that Axl's band was ''certainly not Guns N' Roses''.

And what other artist is out there is lauding what Axl is has done?

Because we have all heard Alice Cooper, Vince Neil, Ozzy Osbourne, Joe Perry, among others, weigh in.  Running the gamut from "its a shame what happened" to "this whole thing is a fucking sham".

That's a good point.  These guys don't have any skin in the game, and would be included as people in the music business.  Why are their opinions of little value?

[jarmo]

The appearance in the beer commercial undermines Richard's point he doesn't just do things for money.  It had noting to do with music.  You set all that up.

Any way you look at it, the same can be done with Izzy and his comments versus him touring with GN'R. Disagreeing with that?

Just out of interest Jarmo, have you read that Izzy Stradlin interview and would I be allowed to quote its contents on your very fine forum?

Why would you need to quote something from ten years ago when the guy has toured with the band multiple times since?
Unless you're only after to stir shit up. Again.

Because we have all heard Alice Cooper, Vince Neil, Ozzy Osbourne, Joe Perry, among others, weigh in.  Running the gamut from "its a shame what happened" to "this whole thing is a fucking sham".

That's a good point.  These guys don't have any skin in the game, and would be included as people in the music business.  Why are their opinions of little value?

What? Why would the opinions of friends of Slash be of little value? Really?
And Vince Neil? Haha.


Name discussion. Is it really 2015? Hard to believe.



/jarmo