The Flashback: Sympathy for the Devil

[sky dog]

Speaking of removing guitar parts or playing over them and mixing them out, didn't Izzy accuse Slash of this during the UYI recording sessions? Hmmmm

[D-GenerationX]

I still didn't see the evidence of the erasing of guitar parts. I did read his book and he doesn't mention Axl erasing anything. Only that the parts were added on top of his.
If you think that's the same thing, then, fair enough. Even though I don't agree.... Putting something in addition to something doesn't remove what was there. Removing something to add something else, obviously removes what was originally there.... Which I'm sure most people would agree with.

True.

Its just that Slash made absolutely no secret how little he though of Paul and how little interest he had working with him on anything Guns N' Roses related.  That's the part that I don't feel is either in dispute, nor concerns that Axl should have just shrugged off and decided (on his own) Slash would just have to get over it.

I think that's a bad way to go about things.  I think its stuff like this that led Slash to say things like "Axl considers GNR his solo project".  Stuff like this is what gives the impression Axl considered himself in charge and with more of a say than his partners.

[D-GenerationX]

Speaking of removing guitar parts or playing over them and mixing them out, didn't Izzy accuse Slash of this during the UYI recording sessions? Hmmmm

Or turning him down at the concerts. 

[EmilyGNR]

in the liner notes for the Greatest Hits, it says:
Slash - Lead and Rhythm Guitar
Paul Huge - Rhythm Guitar

first of all, slash's rhythm work is still there, it was never "erased".

the solo for this song was [originally] by keith richards (notice how the solo of the original song was done amazingly on time if you had timing right) and keith richards is exclusively a rythm guitarist,therefore he did no"lead work"

and the solo actually works quite well, an improvement pulled off quite well

the trick was,that it sounds like call and response, but it's really not-

- by muting slash's guitar and having tobias lay down the solo at a much louder tone, you have the same effect at the opening guitar note of iron man by black sabbath(which made it sound creepy in that song) only a little more off, so as to simulate call and response with the exact same line, making the line never get dull on the first 20 or more repeated listens

[jarmo]

Its just that Slash made absolutely no secret how little he though of Paul and how little interest he had working with him on anything Guns N' Roses related.  That's the part that I don't feel is either in dispute, nor concerns that Axl should have just shrugged off and decided (on his own) Slash would just have to get over it.

I think that's a bad way to go about things.  I think its stuff like this that led Slash to say things like "Axl considers GNR his solo project".  Stuff like this is what gives the impression Axl considered himself in charge and with more of a say than his partners.

No, he didn't like the guy. Is it fair? Did he give him a chance? Did he offer any solutions to the problem other than "let's get Gilby back"?
A lot of things that might have affected the event...

On top of that, you had Duff, Matt and Slash. Is it possible after Izzy quit that Axl felt he needed somebody who had a sense of what he was about and Gilby wasn't that guy?




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

No, he didn't like the guy. Is it fair? Did he give him a chance? Did he offer any solutions to the problem other than "let's get Gilby back"?
A lot of things that might have affected the event...

On top of that, you had Duff, Matt and Slash. Is it possible after Izzy quit that Axl felt he needed somebody who had a sense of what he was about and Gilby wasn't that guy?

I could take or leave Gilby.  Certainly never felt his spot was in stone.

As for letting Paul into the fold, think of like challenging jurors.  When one side has a concern, that potential juror is bounced.  Its not like one side gets to say despite your objections, too damn bad, they are staying.

Jarmo, do you completely dismiss the idea that Axl perhaps should have gone back to Paul and told him it just wasn't going to work out?

I ask because you seem to imply that if Slash could not produce someone, Paul then gets the spot by default?  Do you not see how his inclusion was toxic?

[LongGoneDay]

There was obviously more to the story, but Paul?s inclusion appears to have been the tipping point.
The nail in the coffin of the UYI era.

Paul Huge or Slash?

I?d like to think Axl would take a do-over on that one, given the chance.

[jarmo]

Jarmo, do you completely dismiss the idea that Axl perhaps should have gone back to Paul and told him it just wasn't going to work out?

I ask because you seem to imply that if Slash could not produce someone, Paul then gets the spot by default?  Do you not see how his inclusion was toxic?

I have my copy of Chinese Democracy and that alone tells me it did work out.....
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say?


If we're only talking about Sympathy For The Devil and its recording, and nothing that happened after. From Axl's point of view, it worked. If it sounded crap, do you think it would've been released? They got the song recorded and it was released..... In that sense it worked.

Now all the drama involved. Maybe he didn't see that it was gonna pan out that way? Other stuff might have been bigger issues. Like them rejecting Slash's songs for example?


And yeah, I do see it somewhat like that.
If you're replacing a player in the team, and somebody is brought in, and you disagree with it, that's fine. But not constructive. Playing with one less player isn't an option, so then what?

Maybe a better way of dealing with is would be: No, I don't agree. But how about this guy?


It wasn't the first time Axl brought in a friend from Indiana to appear on a GN'R track....


/jarmo

[Ringoturtle]

Not well handled by Axl. It's not about whether Pauls addiotional playing was recorded secretly at 4 a.m. It's just about bringing a new guy in with whom an important member of the band didn't want to work with. plus, letting him play on an recorded song without telling the main axeman. yeah, Slash was not around, but you can not expect him to be around 24/7. they even got phones back than.

Slash tried out with Zakk but he was an undenialble a leadplayer himself. it's no wonder that didn't work out.
Slash kinda tried out Dave Navarro but he didn't even appear at rehearsals due to drug abuse and/or lack of interest.
Slashs suggestion was GILBY. Axl didn't see it that way --> Gilby was gone. same should've applied to Paul.

point is, if you can not agree on someone you've got to continue the search. It's not that bog of an issue to let Slash play all the guitars for ONE song.

But don't you think I'm not critical about Slash. while rading his book I got the impression that he wasn't/isn't really aware of how annoying his drug/alcohol abuse might have bothered Axl. Saying "at least I was a functioning addict" is half the truth, even though an important factor.

[D-GenerationX]

Jarmo, do you completely dismiss the idea that Axl perhaps should have gone back to Paul and told him it just wasn't going to work out?

I ask because you seem to imply that if Slash could not produce someone, Paul then gets the spot by default?  Do you not see how his inclusion was toxic?

I have my copy of Chinese Democracy and that alone tells me it did work out.....
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

Well...haha.  I'm sure not saying that.  That an album I got a mere 15 years later shows it all worked out.

No, what I was saying was that it was obvious that Axl wanted Paul in the fold.  Slash did not.

What I am asking, is after making his pitch, and even then arguing the point some, how at that point do you not go back to your buddy Paul and say its just not going to work out?  And he has to respect Slash's opinion just as he would expect Slash to expect his, roles reversed.

You sort of seem like you are saying Axl is under no obligation to do such a thing.

[D-GenerationX]

Not well handled by Axl. It's not about whether Pauls addiotional playing was recorded secretly at 4 a.m. It's just about bringing a new guy in with whom an important member of the band didn't want to work with. plus, letting him play on an recorded song without telling the main axeman. yeah, Slash was not around, but you can not expect him to be around 24/7. they even got phones back than.

Slash tried out with Zakk but he was an undenialble a leadplayer himself. it's no wonder that didn't work out.
Slash kinda tried out Dave Navarro but he didn't even appear at rehearsals due to drug abuse and/or lack of interest.
Slashs suggestion was GILBY. Axl didn't see it that way --> Gilby was gone. same should've applied to Paul.

point is, if you can not agree on someone you've got to continue the search. It's not that bog of an issue to let Slash play all the guitars for ONE song.

Spot on.  That's how I see it.

Bits in bold especially.

[Ringoturtle]

Looking back Slash made little effort to make things work. His demos werent good enough to be the next guns record. He reacts by making the record with half of guns n roses anyway.
6 months later, He was not happy with the new guitar players that was brought in. Fair thing.
Slash reacts by going on tour with the old guitar player and talking  shit about Axl and Paul in numerous interviews.

Slash made little effort...

he wrote an whole record! doesn't matter if you think it sucked or not
he recorded SFTD (even though he wasN#t fond of covering the song) to bring the whole band back to work

but yeah, he most probably wasn't on good speaking terms during that time. talking didn't seem to be their area of expertise.

[jarmo]

No, what I was saying was that it was obvious that Axl wanted Paul in the fold.  Slash did not.

What I am asking, is after making his pitch, and even then arguing the point some, how at that point do you not go back to your buddy Paul and say its just not going to work out?  And he has to respect Slash's opinion just as he would expect Slash to expect his, roles reversed.

You sort of seem like you are saying Axl is under no obligation to do such a thing.

It's obvious Axl wanted someone in the fold instead of "dunno".

I didn't say no obligation. I merely pointed out the fact that the song was released so in that sense it seems like Axl was happy enough with it to release it. So Paul did what Axl wanted.

What you're saying is that after the song was done, Axl should've gone: Well, the song came out how I had planned, your playing sounds great, I wanna write songs with you for the next album, we have nobody else to take this spot, but since Slash hates, bye....

Look at it from that perspective and it makes less sense. The only sense it makes is if your idea of making sense is to do what Slash wanted... 




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

What you're saying is that after the song was done, Axl should've gone: Well, the song came out how I had planned, your playing sounds great, I wanna write songs with you for the next album, we have nobody else to take this spot, but since Slash hates, bye....

I'm actually saying the song should never have been done that way and that Paul should have been on it in any capacity.  It was totally inappropriate, the way it was handled.

You are arguing what's done after he pulls that bush league move.  I'm arguing the bush league move should have never occurred.

[jarmo]

So you think that even after you've thought about all the other stuff?

What I'm trying to say is, there's a lot more to the story than "Axl secretly masterminded this coup to have his friend Paul erase Slash's guitar parts and record them himself in the secret hidden studio in the middle of a school night so nobody would notice" scenario.

So, if you take into account all the things that happened, what was going on and so on, then suddenly the whole thing might not seem like the doomsday event it's been portrayed as?

I'll give you an example. Which do you think would be a bigger blow for a songwriting lead guitar player in an unnamed band: Having your songs rejected or not having the say on who plays rhythm guitar on a cover song for a movie you hate?



Yes, you're saying it shouldn't have happened and they should've just kept going on without any idea of who might take the spot vacated by Gilby's departure from the group.
I'm saying that wasn't possible so you choose something else to get it done.

Ironic that you're here proclaiming not doing something should've been the right thing to do!
"Serious People Find Ways To Get Things Done.  Unserious People Find Excuses Why They Can't.  Results Determine Which You Are."

Axl found a way to get it done. 




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

What I'm trying to say is, there's a lot more to the story than "Axl secretly masterminded this coup to have his friend Paul erase Slash's guitar parts and record them himself in the secret hidden studio in the middle of a school night so nobody would notice" scenario.

Fortunately, I saw this coming, hours ago :

You know what?  Let's get out ahead of the next deflection.

Is there much of a difference between erasing a Slash rhythm track and putting Paul on there, or putting Paul on there before the rhythm track was laid down?

I ask because I can sort of see those wheels already turning.   

Does either choice fundamentally change the fact Paul Huge winds up on a Guns N' Roses track without the knowledge of anyone else in the band but Axl?

I think it misses the point to focus on how exactly Paul wound up there when the reality is that he should not be on there under any circumstances.

As for the rest of your post, this was one song on a soundtrack.  It was not the entire future of the band here. 

And as was pointed out by someone a few posts ago, Slash can't be the lone guitarist on one cover song on a soundtrack?  Of course he could.  No one is saying that was the recipe for the band's future.

[LongGoneDay]

I think this one is about as cut and dry as they come.
Slash didn?t like Paul. Duff didn?t like Paul. Matt didn?t like Paul. That?s 3 reason why he shouldn?t have been involved.

Guns N? Roses at the time had one of rock?s greatest guitarists at their disposal in Slash.
Paul wasn?t exactly a virtuoso. Take away his contributions to Sympathy, or for that matter Guns N? Roses altogether, and they are no less successful.

No reason Slash couldn?t have done what Paul brought to the table on Sympathy for the Devil.
No reason to think he couldn?t have done it better. There was no reason to bring anyone else into the fold for one song.

Again, maybe Axl didn?t realize he was essentially slapping his bandmates in the face by including Paul against their wishes, but that?s exactly what he did.

[D-GenerationX]

I think this one is about as cut and dry as they come.
Slash didn?t like Paul. Duff didn?t like Paul. Matt didn?t like Paul. That?s 3 reason why he shouldn?t have been involved.

This is what I could never grasp.

Paul was just SO great, just SO essential, that if bringing him into the fold implodes the band, well...that's how the cookie crumbles.

Insane "logic", right there.

[sky dog]

must say I agree....a cover song on a soundtrack? Cobbled together piecemeal. Last I checked, Led Zep did alright with one guitar player, bass, drums, and vocals. It was a hot mess then no matter what angle you take. 

Like someone said before, it was the sound of a great band falling apart. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Just being honest.

[jarmo]

I think it misses the point to focus on how exactly Paul wound up there when the reality is that he should not be on there under any circumstances.

I think it misses the point of a discussion when you're not even remotely interested in having one.
Yeah, good job. you already figured out hours ago that I'd ask you questions and try to make you think beyond the "this is what I think and I don't need to take anything else into account" routine.

You: It shouldn't have happened. End of story.
Me: It happened, and here's things that might have played a role in why it did.
You: No, those are just deflections because you don't wanna talk about the fact that it shouldn't have happened.
Me: Yes, you can dwell on the fact that it shouldn't have, but it did. Now, are you gonna try to discuss it past the point of "I don't wanna talk about it because it shouldn't have happened"?
You: It shouldn't have happened! It was wrong!
Me: Riiight.... So anyway....

 

As for the rest of your post, this was one song on a soundtrack.  It was not the entire future of the band here. 

And as was pointed out by someone a few posts ago, Slash can't be the lone guitarist on one cover song on a soundtrack?  Of course he could.  No one is saying that was the recipe for the band's future.

No, you made it seem like it was a big deal and I pointed out that maybe it wasn't. It's all relative.
Also, are you saying the two guitar band should've been a one guitar band because that's what Slash preferred? What's next, him writing all the lyrics too?

Slash didn?t like Paul. Duff didn?t like Paul.

Do you think any of these feelings were based on anything other than "he can't play"?
Do you think it was more about the fact that they had no other suggestions and that he was Axl's idea? Axl's idea = bad.
Also, do you think Duff siding with Slash could have anything to do with him trying to keep the peace in the band? He had already sided with Axl on the songs Slash had written, so with that in mind, is it possible he was kinda gonna go with Slash on this issue to please Slash? Is that possible? I know, it's a hypothetical question. Don't have any evidence to back it up. But neither do those who posted about guitar tracks being erased so....

Paul was just SO great, just SO essential, that if bringing him into the fold implodes the band, well...that's how the cookie crumbles.

Insane "logic", right there.

You believe that the band broke up because of this cover song and the rhythm guitar player on it?


Maybe i wouldn't ask this if you had answered my question to you already. So let's try again. Which do you think would be a bigger blow for a songwriting lead guitar player in an unnamed band: Having your songs rejected or not having the say on who plays rhythm guitar on a cover song for a movie you hate?


By the way, sometimes I put, or at least try to, some thought into my posts. So when you just choose to focus on one sentence and ignore the rest, it kinda goes against the whole idea about being a person who's interested in discussions.....

Am I typing in invisible letters? Maybe that's it. Maybe I need to make my posts red so they get noticed.....  



/jarmo