DJ's Letter

[LongGoneDay]

I think the songs on Chinese Democracy range from awful (Shackler?s, Riad, Scraped, Sorry) to good (Better, TWAT, I.R.S., Prostitute). Flirts with greatness on some (Street of Dreams, CITR) then has some meh moments (Chinese, Madagascar). Overall I was disappointed by it, but that doesn?t mean I expect to be disappointed by any future release.
My expectation are somewhat tempered now, as I?ve come to realize it?s not the early 90?s anymore(took me a while to come to terms), and I?m not going to love 9 out of every 10 albums I buy. We were spoiled then.

But Axl has put out far more music that I love then music that I don?t. I?d certainly buy whatever music he put out and listen with an open mind.

Cornell?s last solo album Scream was complete fucking trash(with exception of Two Drink Minimum). Far more disappointing than Chinese for me, but I?m very much looking forward to his new solo album next month, and have tickets to catch him on his Boston stop.

They can?t all be zingers.

[CherryGarcia]

Fair enough.

But keep in mind, all those stories about them being forced to sign a contract... We've already went over that one.

So now we are talking about certain members being equals versus everybody in the band being equals?

I don't buy the idea that a kitchen with many cooks is better than one with one head chef....  Also, you forgot to mention that during those days of equality, Steven was fired, Izzy quit. Even though it was all roses on the democracy front.... So, shit still went down.

Regarding your question what we got after 1995. An active band, despite people quitting one by one.... It's easy to forget that it had to be rebuilt.

/jarmo

Would you not say there is at least a *nugget* of truth to those stories?
I'm inclined to believe that perhaps Josh Reese or Doug Goldstein or someone, attempting to speak "on Axl's behalf" made the threat of a no-show or a cancellation to Slash & Duff if they didn't sign (when in reality, Axl himself never made such a threat). But Slash and Duff, seeing the history of Axl not showing up to shows or coming hours late and other erratic behavior, believed the threat was real and came from Axl himself. Considering what we know of Axl's behavior during the Appetite and UYI years, is that scenario not realistic? Considering also Slash was a heroin addict in 1993 and Duff was a drunk, they might not have cared about the name in any corporate sense - "It's just a name, who cares? We're GN'R."

And Axl can claim all he wants that no such threat was ever made - and maybe to him that's true because all he was told by one of the middle men was "The contract was signed, no problems." And, it's not admissible in court to challenge Axl on the ownership of the name because a verbal threat is just that - without a recording or documentation of said threat any lawsuit would just devolve into a battle of he said, she said.

Steven was fired due to drug abuse by all members of the band acting as equal partners, with the idea that they had to sack him so they could continue.

Izzy quitting was Izzy's own choice, but the trio of Axl, Slash and Duff remained and as such you had roughly half the original members.

Every band is a group of chefs. That's what separates a band from a solo project. You think Mick Jagger tells Keith Richards what songs he is going to play on, how to play the guitar parts , what the setlist is going to be and Keith just nods and says "I'll do whatever you say!"?

This band, with one head chef, hasn't done much compared to most other bands since said head chef took over the kitchen. Look at many of GN'R's contemporaries - Metallica, Pearl Jam, Skid Row - How many records have those bands put out since 1995 versus how many Axl has put out? Even the Stones, a band of old men, has put out more material and has had a lot more communication and positive interaction with their fanbase. Even Axl's favorite band, Queen, has done more with Freddie being dead, than Axl has done with himself as GN'R.

What got done when there were multiple cooks in the GN'R kitchen? You had a steady flow of communication with the media and audience, new songs being released and albums being put out.
 
The brand wouldn't have to have been rebuilt if a certain lead singer was easier to deal with.

[sky dog]

Long Duck Dong, yep, the late 80's to mid 90's was the shit for me....besides 60's early 70's...a lot of great bands a lot of great albums. It was rocks last bit of true greatness. Great time to be in college/just starting a career...actually have your own dough!

[CherryGarcia]

I have a habit of thinking!

Now I'm thinking, if people all leave at once, it's one thing to deal with. If they leave one by one over a period of years, it's another thing....
Amazing how you can see the difference by just thinking for like five seconds.

The departures of the last original Gunners were pretty much 'all at once' - Slash in October 1996, Duff in August 1997. Why did they leave the band?
Why, since 1995, have the following chosen to leave Guns N' Roses?

Slash (1996)
Duff (1997)
Josh Freese (1999)
Robin Finck (1999)
Paul Tobias (2002)
Buckethead (2004)
Brian Mantia (2006)
Robin Finck (2008)
Ron Thal (2014)
DJ Ashba (2015)

[sky dog]

CherryGarcia, the name issue was done in 1992 after Izzy left. It was a part of the partnership formation between Slash, Duff and Axl......

[CherryGarcia]

CherryGarcia, the name issue was done in 1992 after Izzy left. It was a part of the partnership formation between Slash, Duff and Axl......do your homework.

Yeah. There's debate over the date if you read various materials. Slash's book says a date of Sept 1992. Duff said it was July 5th 1993. Alan Niven says it was in the spring of 1991 at the outset of the UYI tour. The only concrete thing in terms of the date is that on December 31st 1995, Axl formed a new partnership legally and a new band also called Guns N' Roses and invited Slash, Duff and Matt to join as employees. That date is consistent with both Axl's 1996 fax, and Slash and others' statements about being served notice of Axl unilatrily deciding to disband the existing GN'R partnership, which included Slash and Duff as full partners.

[sky dog]

know that too...simple facts are the contracts are out there and people have seen them who are in the know...1992....again, Axl's POV...but let's be real, he was WAY WAY WAY more able at the time to make a serious business decision.

So let?s start here? the whole Axl wouldn?t go on stage yada yada? is complete and utter crap.

Never happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case I would?ve have been cremated years ago legally, could?ve cleaned me out for the name and damages. It's called under duress with extenuating circumstances. In fact the time that was mentioned the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler depositions.

Couldn't talk sooner as it could have jeopardized whatever nonsense was going on.

When Guns renegotiated our contract with Geffen I had the bit about the name added in as protection for myself as I had come up with the name and then originally started the band with it. It had more to do with management than the band as our then manager was always tryin? to convince someone they should fire me. As I had stopped speaking with him he sensed his days were numbered and was bending any ear he could along with attempting to sell our renegotiation out for a personal payday from Geffen.

It was added to the contract and everyone signed off on it. It wasn?t hidden in fine print etc as you had to initial the section verifying you had acknowledged it.

Now at that time I didn?t know or think about brand names or corporate value etc. All I knew is that I came in with the name and from day one everyone had agreed to it being mine should we break up and now it was in writing.

I still didn?t grasp any other issues until long after I?d left and formed a new partnership which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it.

In my opinion the reality of the shift and the public embarrassment and ridicule by others (which included a lot of not so on the level business types he was associating with at the time) for not contesting the rights to the brand name, were more than Slash could openly face. Also we aren?t lawyers or formally business educated so it was just a matter of all of us being na?ve and doing what we thought was right at the time. Slash was imo being on the up and up in agreeing I had the rights and I wasn?t trying to be some snake in the grass pulling a fast one. The others could?ve cared less.

But when the reality of the breakup hit and the strategy to have me crawl back was put into play Slash had to save face and get business team and public support. Painting me as the one who held a crowd hostage forcing the others to sign over the name worked out pretty well in that regard. I?m the bad guy and Duff, the fans and most importantly himself were the victims. Oh and they had actually made the sacrifice for the crowd, the people, the fans at the show. But again?. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

[jarmo]

The bootlegs I have from 2012 are horrifying.  So when he comes back in 2014 and sounds as bad, if not worse, there wasn't much reason to think things would improve.

Having said that, I thought he sounded great by the time the residency rolled around.  If I had to buy tickets based on those Vegas clips, I'd have done so.  Even having to drive over an hour by myself. 

The South American clips offered no such hope, however.

As somebody who was there, I'll just say that the shows kicked ass. Ask Duff. 

No, sounds like you are saying that.

I'm saying the people described in your original question ("vocal fans that need new music but didn't like 'Chinese Democracy'") do not exist.

If you didn't like 'Chinese Democracy', you don't give a damn about the second half of those sessions.

So this notion that there are allegedly these legions of people that say they can't wait for a new album, even though they hated the last one...these people do not exist.

Haha. No, I'm saying there are people who didn't enjoy Chinese Democracy all that much, and their reasons for continuing to post on GN'R fan sites is because they want new music....
And if they actually like Chinese, they're not openly admitting it.

Can you elaborate what you mean by your question above? Isn't it good for a "band" if fans want (don't view it as needing) to hear new music instead of being happy with the status quo? Just because someone didn't like CD doesn't necessarily mean they wont like the next one. Maybe CD didn't have any songs that connected with this hypothetical person and maybe the next release will.

Maybe it will.
I just find it ironic that if you didn't like one meal, you'll think the next one, that's rumored to be similar, will be to your tastes. That's all.

Would you not say there is at least a *nugget* of truth to those stories?

It makes for a more interesting story.

Steven was fired due to drug abuse by all members of the band acting as equal partners, with the idea that they had to sack him so they could continue.

Izzy quitting was Izzy's own choice, but the trio of Axl, Slash and Duff remained and as such you had roughly half the original members.

The original post was about equal members. I assumes the poster meant all members are equal. Now we're down to three out of five being equal.
It's the same thing regarding original members and whatever. It's always "it's not GN'R anymore". Well, that particular line up of the band stopped existing in 1990. But it wasn't really a problem....

Every band is a group of chefs. That's what separates a band from a solo project. You think Mick Jagger tells Keith Richards what songs he is going to play on, how to play the guitar parts , what the setlist is going to be and Keith just nods and says "I'll do whatever you say!"?

You don't think Jagger is more involved in the business side for example? Or even what songs he can sing at shows?

The brand wouldn't have to have been rebuilt if a certain lead singer was easier to deal with.

That's just you wanting to believe whatever you've read.

It all sounds nice about how much material the old band released. Considering many of those songs might not have gotten recorded without Axl....

The departures of the last original Gunners were pretty much 'all at once' - Slash in October 1996, Duff in August 1997. Why did they leave the band?
Why, since 1995, have the following chosen to leave Guns N' Roses?

Let me guess, your answer is: Axl?
Yeah, everybody changes their team because they don't like the captain. Everybody who changes their job does so because of their boss.

There's no one magical reason, no matter how much you wish there was. Different people, different situations.
Out of the ones you listed, mainly one has been talking about Axl since he quit.....



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Even if you believe the refusing to go onstage story, Axl is right that would be highly unlikely to fly in a court of law, an agreement under duress like that.

But he still aced them out later.  That is not in dispute.  So does it really matter if that story was true?  End result is still the same.

End of the day, he's a very difficult individual.  He the best rock frontman of my lifetime, but he's a total headache to deal with.

That is why the original guys left, ultimately.  Its why the 2002 line-up fell apart.  And its why guys have left within the past year.

He's not an easy guy to work with.  That's just how it is.  Far, far too many people telling the same stories for them ALL to be bullshit.

And there will always be someone ready to jump in with the "you don't know the real Axl" routine, followed by some unproveable anecdotal story that backs them up.  Great.  Good for you and good for that story.

But, professionally, this guy leaves a shit ton of scorched earth behind him.  How can anyone rationally deny that?

[jarmo]

That's the easy answer to everything.




/jarmo

[EmilyGNR]

Even if you believe the refusing to go onstage story, Axl is right that would be highly unlikely to fly in a court of law, an agreement under duress like that.

But he still aced them out later.  That is not in dispute.  So does it really matter if that story was true?  End result is still the same.

End of the day, he's a very difficult individual.  He the best rock frontman of my lifetime, but he's a total headache to deal with.

That is why the original guys left, ultimately.  Its why the 2002 line-up fell apart.  And its why guys have left within the past year.

He's not an easy guy to work with.  That's just how it is.  Far, far too many people telling the same stories for them ALL to be bullshit.

And there will always be someone ready to jump in with the "you don't know the real Axl" routine, followed by some unproveable anecdotal story that backs them up.  Great.  Good for you and good for that story.

But, professionally, this guy leaves a shit ton of scorched earth behind him.  How can anyone rationally deny that?

Show me quotes for your claim that the guys have left in the past year because of Axl.

You seem overly ready to buy into any sensationalized bad story, and to discount any positive stories, you are perfect mindset material to work at some trash rag like National Enquirer or Babbermouth.

Anyone that refuses to sell out, and refuses to compromise their vision is bound to be demeaned and ostracized by those that have no qualms about doing so- having integrity doesn't come without a price.

Honestly don't expect you to understand that at all.

[Ja5oN]

I don't know if I can explain this right, but here goes....

I think both Ron and DJ are 51% Entrepreneur and 49% Musician/Performer. Both great guys and I enjoyed both in GNR.  The fact that they lean towards that Entrepreneurial side though means they aren't gonna sit around.  There's Hot Sauce to be Made, there's Cirque Advertisement's to be done, etc.  Maybe some of the other band guys are 51% Musician/Performer and $49 Entrepreneur and therefore concentrating more on music and performance and willing to wait out certain periods.

I think some sort of explanation like this is much more along the real story lines than the ones being offered that Axl is the monster.

Hell I bet Axl is 80% Musician/Performer and 20% Entrepreneur (he did do that soda commercial).

[jarmo]

Yes.

In addition, Ron was a solo artist who joined a band. Suddenly you're in a team and it's not your team to manage.... Different environment.
If it's freedom to do what you want when you want that you're after, then it's probably not the most optimum place to be.

Dj, as you pointed out, isn't only about music. In his other band, he's the sole guitar player. Maybe that's more to his liking. I don't know.



/jarmo

[pilferk]

The only one missing is telling people they are fake fans, bad fans, disloyal fans, etc.  That sort of eating our own type behavior seems to be exclusive to us.

vs telling people they're cheerleaders, press agents, looking at things with rose colored glasses, eternal optimists, or aren't looking at things "realistically" (aka through my point of view).

Both sides engage in the same type of "accusations", with slightly different bents. No?

[pilferk]

I think if we are to hear the amazing talents of Axl again, it would require him joining a band, as an equal.
It worked out pretty well for him in the past.

It did?

Of course it did.  

Their run from 1988-1993 is rather hard to be described as anything but wildly successful.

Can you say the same about 2000 onwards though?  Tough sell.

And what is the difference between the 2 eras?  The set-up of the band and its whole operation.

'88 to '93: Professionally successful, personally disasterous (if you asked him, I'd bet).

2000 to 2015: Professionally less successful, maybe personally more successfu/liveable (other than "the worst year of his life").

So I guess it depends on which lens you view how well it's worked out for him.

[pilferk]

I think we should not be afraid to have an honest discussion about it with fellow fans.  They are only ones as interested in the comings and goings of this man and his band.

Where else are we supposed to have that conversation?  The dinner table?  On dates?

I agree.

I think an honest discussion actually entails considering both/all points of view...because very likely the truth lies somewhere in the midst of them, rather than at the extreme edges of them.

This is something BOTH sides probably need to get better at...

[jarmo]

The only one missing is telling people they are fake fans, bad fans, disloyal fans, etc.  That sort of eating our own type behavior seems to be exclusive to us.

vs telling people they're cheerleaders, press agents, looking at things with rose colored glasses, eternal optimists, or aren't looking at things "realistically" (aka through my point of view).

Both sides engage in the same type of "accusations", with slightly different bents. No?

He'd never do that!
It's only us mean people who do things like that!


Forget this ever happened:

I'm under no delusions as to what you are.  An advocate.  A cheerleader.  A press agent.

It's not important.



People in glass houses......




/jarmo

[pilferk]

I really don't understand the noble cause against the industry stance.  I mean, he still has to work with "the industry" even with the current lineup, for things like tours, residencies, AFD release, etc.  IMO, it's all pretext for he and Slash can't stand each other.  No righteous stance against "the man" or just cause to fight for.  He and Slash hate each other.  Period.

Yep.

Its only a small segment of the fanbase that puts all this stock in the nobility of it all.  Even amongst our own number, most roll their eyes at the concept.

This is a GREAT example of my point.

The above..that's 100% OK.  Discounting the opposing viewpoint, with a wink wink nudge nudge that they're just starry eyed sycophants or crackpots is just fine.

But when someone calls you a pessimist, or a whiner, or a chronic complainer....THATS off the table.  That's tantamount to a SERIOUS "yo momma" joke, and is cause for calling down the heavens to paint yourself as the downtrodden, put upon, martyr just fighting the good fight to bring the truth to the masses (or to re-educate the above sycophants).

You want an honest conversation?  The above quote, by you, is pretty much the quickest way to end that endeavor.

Just sayin'.

[pilferk]

CherryGarcia, the name issue was done in 1992 after Izzy left. It was a part of the partnership formation between Slash, Duff and Axl......do your homework.

Yeah. There's debate over the date if you read various materials. Slash's book says a date of Sept 1992. Duff said it was July 5th 1993. Alan Niven says it was in the spring of 1991 at the outset of the UYI tour. The only concrete thing in terms of the date is that on December 31st 1995, Axl formed a new partnership legally and a new band also called Guns N' Roses and invited Slash, Duff and Matt to join as employees. That date is consistent with both Axl's 1996 fax, and Slash and others' statements about being served notice of Axl unilatrily deciding to disband the existing GN'R partnership, which included Slash and Duff as full partners.

There was, awhile back, a legal filing which contained the partnership agreement, and all it's dated revisions/addendums, made the rounds.  This was part and parcel of the "Slash/Duff lied" conversation, and I think it came from Mr. Saint Laurant (but I'm not positive). 

They pretty much showed the exact dates, and that both Slash and Duff were mistaken.  The addendum in question was signed and witnessed AFTER they were off the road.  You can't "fake" those dates, since they're the dates it all became official (and, in fact, even if there was a verbal agreement made previously, it would be non-binding until the paperwork was signed...and any parties could refuse to sign if they wanted).  In addition, any addendum of that nature to a partnership contract has a "cooling off" period, which allows any party to opt out, after signature. The period ranges from 2 weeks to 30 days. And I'm not even going over the previously discussed "duress" issues.

You can revisit the appropriate thread and hunt through to find the link, if it's still active.  I'm too lazy to do it.

Suffice to say, it didn't happen the way Slash and Duff remember it. Whether there are parts that are true, or it's all just are being relayed through addled or confused brains, it doesn't really matter.   There isn't enough truth, or enough foundation for logic, to have any of it be compelling, at this point. So, no...I don't think there are any "nuggets".

[D-GenerationX]

That's the easy answer to everything.

Well, it certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than the notion Axl is actually a sweetheart, and all these people the past 25 years have just been lying, for whatever reason.