Ex G N' R manager blames Slash and Axl Rose’s feud on Michael Jackson

[D-GenerationX]

Technically you can replace any person, but you can?t replace the chemistry/synergy they take with them out the door.
I think as fans we want to believe certain players are replaceable so that bands we enjoy can move forward when someone inevitably leaves, and we justify it with writing credits, who?s vision it was, technical ability, lack thereof,  etc etc, but the proof is in the pudding. Great bands are few and far between, and their parts aren?t interchangeable.

But don't you think you have to see if the product suffers once a person leaves or is replaced?

In other words, if you can say that you think the drumming on UYI is at least as good, if not better than it was on AFD...where's the argument here?  Isn't it a stronger argument if you could say that there was an appreciable drop off in the drumming once Steven left?

[JAEBALL]

Technically you can replace any person, but you can?t replace the chemistry/synergy they take with them out the door.
I think as fans we want to believe certain players are replaceable so that bands we enjoy can move forward when someone inevitably leaves, and we justify it with writing credits, who?s vision it was, technical ability, lack thereof,  etc etc, but the proof is in the pudding. Great bands are few and far between, and their parts aren?t interchangeable.

But don't you think you have to see if the product suffers once a person leaves or is replaced?

In other words, if you can say that you think the drumming on UYI is at least as good, if not better than it was on AFD...where's the argument here?  Isn't it a stronger argument if you could say that there was an appreciable drop off in the drumming once Steven left?

Still doesn't make his contributions to AFD less important if the next guy happened to be better or just as good.

[pilferk]

Technically you can replace any person, but you can?t replace the chemistry/synergy they take with them out the door.
I think as fans we want to believe certain players are replaceable so that bands we enjoy can move forward when someone inevitably leaves, and we justify it with writing credits, who?s vision it was, technical ability, lack thereof,  etc etc, but the proof is in the pudding. Great bands are few and far between, and their parts aren?t interchangeable.

But don't you think you have to see if the product suffers once a person leaves or is replaced?

In other words, if you can say that you think the drumming on UYI is at least as good, if not better than it was on AFD...where's the argument here?  Isn't it a stronger argument if you could say that there was an appreciable drop off in the drumming once Steven left?

Not really, because history is history. None of the above diminishes his contribution AT THE TIME.  It was those 5 guys...whether you replace one of them down the road or not.

The other problem is this: We only know about performance/technical ability.  In that respect, Matt was as good or better than Adler.

What we DON'T know is...creatively...was the entity "stronger" with Matt shaping/writing the percussion parts of new material. 

This is largely a similar argument to the one I make regarding Gilby.  There's not much debate that he was able to play Izzy's parts, live, as well (and at times better) than Izzy was.

But I still say Izzy's loss was the one that pretty much damned that incarnation of the band...because what he brought to the table, his real strength, wasn't quantifiable, necessarily, in a performance or even, necessarily, his recorded parts on an album. I don't think there's ANY argument that he was more valuable than Gilby, regardless of whether the technical playing from Gilby was better on stage.

Now, the difference with Adler is...his sobriety issues were effecting EVERYTHING else in the band, from interpersonal stuff to his ability to play, at all. They literally couldn't function as a unit in the state he was in.  That doesn't, though, reduce the contributions he DID make, up to that point.

[JAEBALL]

Technically you can replace any person, but you can?t replace the chemistry/synergy they take with them out the door.
I think as fans we want to believe certain players are replaceable so that bands we enjoy can move forward when someone inevitably leaves, and we justify it with writing credits, who?s vision it was, technical ability, lack thereof,  etc etc, but the proof is in the pudding. Great bands are few and far between, and their parts aren?t interchangeable.

But don't you think you have to see if the product suffers once a person leaves or is replaced?

In other words, if you can say that you think the drumming on UYI is at least as good, if not better than it was on AFD...where's the argument here?  Isn't it a stronger argument if you could say that there was an appreciable drop off in the drumming once Steven left?

Not really, because history is history. None of the above diminishes his contribution AT THE TIME.  It was those 5 guys...whether you replace one of them down the road or not.

The other problem is this: We only know about performance/technical ability.  In that respect, Matt was as good or better than Adler.

What we DON'T know is...creatively...was the entity "stronger" with Matt shaping/writing the percussion parts of new material. 

This is largely a similar argument to the one I make regarding Gilby.  There's not much debate that he was able to play Izzy's parts, live, as well (and at times better) than Izzy was.

But I still say Izzy's loss was the one that pretty much damned that incarnation of the band...because what he brought to the table, his real strength, wasn't quantifiable, necessarily, in a performance or even, necessarily, his recorded parts on an album. I don't think there's ANY argument that he was more valuable than Gilby, regardless of whether the technical playing from Gilby was better on stage.

Now, the difference with Adler is...his sobriety issues were effecting EVERYTHING else in the band, from interpersonal stuff to his ability to play, at all. They literally couldn't function as a unit in the state he was in.  That doesn't, though, reduce the contributions he DID make, up to that point.

Very well said.

Steve gets shit on by just about every faction of GNR fans...

I think it's just more to do with the way he presents himself .. aside from his obvious life long fight... he doesn't come off being very intelligent. he is an easy target... plus he hasn't had much success in music since that time.

Still, his contributions to the beginning of the band and those songs should not be sneezed at. Duff and Izzy have repeatedly said over the years how important he was to the sound. Even Axl stated in one of his interviews that the drumming on Appetite was "perfect".

[jarmo]

Steve gets shit on by just about every faction of GNR fans...

I think most of it has nothing to do with his musical input while he was in GN'R. It's all the other stuff.

Like some would say, there's a track record to go by. Stuff didn't stop happening because he was fired from GN'R..... Hopefully most of that kind of stuff is in the past by now though.




/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

Steve gets shit on by just about every faction of GNR fans...

I think most of it has nothing to do with his musical input while he was in GN'R. It's all the other stuff.

Like some would say, there's a track record to go by. Stuff didn't stop happening because he was fired from GN'R..... Hopefully most of that kind of stuff is in the past by now though.




/jarmo

Yeah I think I pointed out some of the reasons... Just think his importance to Appetite, Lies and whatever he started on illusions get overlooked because of it.

[D-GenerationX]

Still doesn't make his contributions to AFD less important if the next guy happened to be better or just as good.

But wouldn't you rank him 5th out of the 5?  And the gap between he and #4 a bigger distance than the gap between anyone else on the list?

[JAEBALL]

Still doesn't make his contributions to AFD less important if the next guy happened to be better or just as good.

But wouldn't you rank him 5th out of the 5?  And the gap between he and #4 a bigger distance than the gap between anyone else on the list?

That's something different. But, yes of course.

[D-GenerationX]

Steve gets shit on by just about every faction of GNR fans...

I think it's just more to do with the way he presents himself .. aside from his obvious life long fight... he doesn't come off being very intelligent. he is an easy target... plus he hasn't had much success in music since that time.

Oh, the way he presents himself is absolutely the reason for fan scorn.

He's just all over the map.  He'll tell you one month that Axl is a fucking asshole and then the next month say he's loves him like a brother.

Remember the public tantrum he threw when Matt played on one of Slash's albums instead of him?  Its not even that he was in the wrong being pissed, but do you do all that publically?

[D-GenerationX]

But wouldn't you rank him 5th out of the 5?  And the gap between he and #4 a bigger distance than the gap between anyone else on the list?

That's something different. But, yes of course.

I personally just feel his contributions have been totally overromantacized in hindsight.  What else has he done of note in 25 years time?

At the time he was kicked out, I sure don't remember much consternation over it.  Compared to when Izzy left, which everyone knew was a problem.

And then you get those diehard reunionists that take things to absurd levels.  They are so unhappy with what Axl has done, they not only reject any sort of new band, they start running down the UYI band as "not Guns N' Roses".  They are like political voters with purity tests.  To them, the "real Guns N' Roses" only did one album and a EP.

I just find that silly.

[mortismurphy]

Still doesn't make his contributions to AFD less important if the next guy happened to be better or just as good.

But wouldn't you rank him 5th out of the 5?  And the gap between he and #4 a bigger distance than the gap between anyone else on the list?

But he got docked 5% so Adler's contribution did reflect itself in the money he was receiving. I think it went

1/ Axl (25%)
2/3/4/ Izzy, Slash, Duff (20% each)
5/ Adler (15%)

[mortismurphy]

He was a "member" as much as Matt Sorum, but not part of the actual band.... He wasn't part of the decision making.

This makes no sense whatsoever. A 'member' of what if not the 'actual band'? It is wooly headed Axl logic.

Regarding your song writing thing. Matt Sorum joined, and according to the Famous Last Words with Axl, Matt wrote his own material. But didn't get any song writing credits...
So even though the songs were written, he wrote something. So even with him, they had a history of working on original material with him. With Gilby, not so much.

If Gilby, Slash and Matt were demoing material for an upcoming GN'R album this presupposes that Gilby was admitted to the creative process, at least by Slash and Matt. He even obtained songwriting credits on It's five o' clock,

'Dime Store Rock (Gilby Clarke, Dover, Slash)
'Good to Be Alive' (Slash, Clarke, Dover).
'Monkey Chow' (Clarke)

It is reasonable to assume that Clarke's contributions happened when this material was intended for GN'R and not Snakepit, that is before Axl had rejected the demos.

You are also leaving out the fact that Slash, Duff and Matt disagreed with Gilby's sacking. Presumably they never grasped the mysterious distinction between being a 'member' but not a 'band member'.

[Bridge]

But wouldn't you rank him 5th out of the 5?  And the gap between he and #4 a bigger distance than the gap between anyone else on the list?

No, and I wouldn't rank them at all.  They were the right five guys thrown into the mixing pot who each brought the right elements to the fray, and elicited the right result out of each other.

All five original members were incredibly important to the songwriting due to the chemistry they had and the influence they had on each other.  Slash stated pretty strongly in his book that the public was unaware how critically important Steven's influence was to the overall musicianship of the band.  Izzy made a rather well-known statement in 1992 (quoted in "Guitar World") that Steven's drumming "made the band" and that "Afterwards, nothing worked."  Duff also mentioned in his book how difficult it was to replace Steven, and at one point mentioned being disoriented on stage because Steven wasn't there.

Basically, all of this means that Steven not only shaped and molded how the songs were written, but also how the band members composed different parts.  That's equally important to sitting down and writing a lyric and playing a guitar riff, especially if the influence in constant.  For example, given what the other guys said, I'm sure there were plenty of times where Slash or Izzy started bending a riff differently because they were listening to what Steven was doing groove-wise..... which may in turn have influenced the way Axl sang a vocal melody.  Stuff like that.

As for Matt Sorum, just because he sat in the drum seat and played Steven's parts doesn't mean he's Steven's equal.  Sure, Sorum was a competent drummer, but that doesn't mean he meant as much to GNR in the way of chemistry and influence over the way the other four members thought and composed music.  By all accounts, Matt just learned the songs and played Steven's parts.

[jarmo]

This makes no sense whatsoever. A 'member' of what if not the 'actual band'? It is wooly headed Axl logic.

It makes no sense for people who have this naive mentality about what a band really is.

Was Gilby in the band? Yes.
Was he a legal partner of the band? No.
Did he have any say in the band's decisions? Not really.

If Gilby, Slash and Matt were demoing material for an upcoming GN'R album this presupposes that Gilby was admitted to the creative process, at least by Slash and Matt. He even obtained songwriting credits on It's five o' clock,

Sure. His song writing was good enough for Snakepit. That doesn't really say a lot. Sorry.

It is reasonable to assume that Clarke's contributions happened when this material was intended for GN'R and not Snakepit, that is before Axl had rejected the demos.

Assuming he co-wrote those songs and Axl rejected them, more proof that his songwriting wasn't up to the GN'R standard then....

You are also leaving out the fact that Slash, Duff and Matt disagreed with Gilby's sacking. Presumably they never grasped the mysterious distinction between being a 'member' but not a 'band member'.

Of course they did. Which is easier: To keep the guy even though he's not good enough to write, but things are kinda comfortable or get somebody new that could be a better song writer?




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

It makes no sense for people who have this naive mentality about what a band really is.

Was Gilby in the band? Yes.
Was he a legal partner of the band? No.
Did he have any say in the band's decisions? Not really.

Neither was Matt either who you have cited (neither for that matter was Dizzy.) yet you have made the argument that Matt was somehow, more the band member than Gilby! Legally Matt had the same relationship to GN'R as Dizzy and Gilby.

Sure. His song writing was good enough for Snakepit. That doesn't really say a lot. Sorry.

Not 'for Snakepit', for Guns. The demos were original conceived for Guns N' Roses. Snakepit only appeared once they had been rejected. Around January 1994 Slash, Matt and Gilby created a series of demos for the next Guns album. This is simply fact.

Assuming he co-wrote those songs and Axl rejected them, more proof that his songwriting wasn't up to the GN'R standard then....

You are basically appointing Axl sole arbitrator on what constitutes 'GN'R' here (which of course is a view you hold anyway). The fact of the matter is, Gilby being admitted to the January 1994 demos is proof that Slash saw some sort of songwriting role for Gilby.

Of course they did. Which is easier: To keep the guy even though he's not good enough to write, but things are kinda comfortable or get somebody new that could be a better song writer?

Subjective. Irrelevant.

[jarmo]

Neither was Matt either who you have cited (neither for that matter was Dizzy.) yet you have made the argument that Matt was somehow, more the band member than Gilby! Legally Matt had the same relationship to GN'R as Dizzy and Gilby.

True. In the business sense.
But you're the one who started crying about how Gilby was a band member and how important he was to you at the time.

I pointed out that he was a touring musician. Who had recorded with other bands before, and has continued recording solo after GN'R.

Not 'for Snakepit', for Guns. The demos were original conceived for Guns N' Roses. Snakepit only appeared once they had been rejected. Around January 1994 Slash, Matt and Gilby created a series of demos for the next Guns album. This is simply fact.

If they were rejected for inclusion on the next GN'R album, and they were instead released under another band name, they obviously weren't up to the GN'R standard.
This is common sense.

You are basically appointing Axl sole arbitrator on what constitutes 'GN'R' here (which of course is a view you hold anyway). The fact of the matter is, Gilby being admitted to the January 1994 demos is proof that Slash saw some sort of songwriting role for Gilby.

Duh!

Of course Slash wanted to continue working with Gilby. That was his idea!
The only idea.

Of course they did. Which is easier: To keep the guy even though he's not good enough to write, but things are kinda comfortable or get somebody new that could be a better song writer?

Subjective. Irrelevant.

Why not answer the question?

Slash just wasn't into the idea of working too hard on things.





/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

If they were rejected for inclusion on the next GN'R album, and they were instead released under another band name, they obviously weren't up to the GN'R standard.
This is common sense.

They were demos. Of course they were not 'up to standard'. Neither were the GN'R demos from 1986! Also, Axl actually wanted to work on three of them and was dismayed to find that Slash had already began the Snakepit project. Presumably then at least three of them were considered songs that had potential by the lead singer.

Duh!

Of course Slash wanted to continue working with Gilby. That was his idea!
The only idea.

As I said, Gilby's dismissal infuriated Duff and Matt also. You have a scenario in which 1/6 of the band sacks 1/6 without consulting, and against the wishes, of the other 3/6.

Why not answer the question?

Slash just wasn't into the idea of working too hard on things.

Because it is subjective. It is pointless arguing the merits of Snakepit as it is pure musical opinion. The person who 'likes' the album's opinion is not necessarily more correct than the person who 'hates' it. Besides, Axl's idea of working hard on things is to sit in a studio for twenty years twiddling overdubs. I think even CD was yanked out of his hands in the end by inerscope; if it was left to his own initiative he may have not released that record! Why not take this 'quality over quantity' argument to its extreme in having for the entire duration of Axl's career, himself working on this hypothetical masterpiece forever which will never be released? We can always say, ''Axl's album is the greatest album ever. We have not heard it yet but this does not confirm otherwise. So let's maintain that it is?''.

But to return to Slash, obviously there was something more 'raw', and 'jam orientated' which Slash brought to the 1985-93 band, contributing to its musical and commercial success as well as image.

[jarmo]

They were demos. Of course they were not 'up to standard'. Neither were the GN'R demos from 1986! Also, Axl actually wanted to work on three of them and was dismayed to find that Slash had already began the Snakepit project. Presumably then at least three of them were considered songs that had potential by the lead singer.

The version of Don't Cry that's on the single is also a demo. You can still hear that it's a great song.
Your Gilby defense spin doesn't have validity.

Potential to be better than they were. Probably.

As I said, Gilby's dismissal infuriated Duff and Matt also. You have a scenario in which 1/6 of the band sacks 1/6 without consulting, and against the wishes, of the other 3/6.

Matt doesn't really matter since he wasn't part of the band.

So you're saying that's the reason they didn't manage to come up with any ideas for a replacement in all that time?

Because it is subjective. It is pointless arguing the merits of Snakepit as it is pure musical opinion.

It wasn't about the music on that album. It was a question about whether or not it's easier to change or to take the path of least resistance.
So which one is easier?




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

They were demos. Of course they were not 'up to standard'. Neither were the GN'R demos from 1986! Also, Axl actually wanted to work on three of them and was dismayed to find that Slash had already began the Snakepit project. Presumably then at least three of them were considered songs that had potential by the lead singer.

The version of Don't Cry that's on the single is also a demo. You can still hear that it's a great song.
Your Gilby defense spin doesn't have validity.

Potential to be better than they were. Probably.

As I said, Gilby's dismissal infuriated Duff and Matt also. You have a scenario in which 1/6 of the band sacks 1/6 without consulting, and against the wishes, of the other 3/6.

Matt doesn't really matter since he wasn't part of the band.

So you're saying that's the reason they didn't manage to come up with any ideas for a replacement in all that time?

Because it is subjective. It is pointless arguing the merits of Snakepit as it is pure musical opinion.

It wasn't about the music on that album. It was a question about whether or not it's easier to change or to take the path of least resistance.
So which one is easier?




/jarmo

The only reason you needed a replacement  in the first place is, 1/6 of the band has just sacked Gilby, over the head of 4/6 (I am assuming Gilby wanted to stay). Dizzy's opinion is unrecorded. By the way, Izzy's tracks on TSI were replaced with Gilby's; studios during the Illusion tour were purposely booked to this purpose. Is this a sign that Gilby was some, 'live stand in'. And you laugh and dismiss Gilby's imagery being included but I think it is a significant argument.

''Easier to change or to take the path of least resistance''? Hmm, sounds like something Axl would say. You mean in terms of musical experimentation?

[jarmo]

Live in the sense that he was there for the tour. That's why he was hired. So they could keep touring.
It wasn't that they were gonna go into the studio and record the follow up to Appetite (like the case was with Matt).

It's two different kinds of scenarios.


I mean in terms of anything. Generally speaking from your own life experiences. Which is easier?
Then apply that to a work setting where you could either keep working with somebody or bring somebody new in.

Then also add the fact that your idea is to keep the co-worker who you know will not try to challenge you in any way. You have no idea about a new guy who might actually push you and have demands!



Glad you were able to admit that even a demo can be used to judge a song and whether or not it's up to a certain standard.




/jarmo