Axl and Duff interview this sunday for Brazilian TV (now with Izzy's response)

[sofine11]

He's always struck me as pretty laid back.  That message...didn't seem like a dude trying to set the record straight for the fans.  He seemed straight up pissed.

I'm not saying he's not.

But sometimes 140 characters of forced brevity adds context not intended.

And maybe he is a little pissed, and has a tinge of regret.  I think Izzy has some "what if" left in him, given the way he left.  And I think, knowing his zen nature, he'd like to find a way to purge it.

If that's so, I hope he gets the opportunity.  I honestly think, once this thing gets rolling, if it sustains itself, they'll have more room to be a little "nicer" in the splits going forward.  That risk, even if it blew up in them, would cause less damage.

I'm hopeful too. My feelings are that the biggest shame in this is how Axl and to a lesser extent Slash & Duff may feel attacked & embarrassed by this, making future collaborations a bit more difficult to put together.  Could care less about what's "fair" here.  We're so removed from the financial dynanics of a big machine like Guns N' Roses, it's damn near impossible to know what could be construed as "fair pay" within that circle.

[GeorgeSteele]

What I cant get is, why would Izzy leave the partnership of the band?   That's just crazy.  He quit, left, he wasn't fired.

Similar example is with The Rolling Stones. there base player Bill stopped touring years and years ago.  But, he stayed in the band and was part of the partnership up until just recently.....

I really think Izzy quit everything because he thought the band was going to spend was to much money/loose money and he didn't want anything to do with it.....    Again just a kid making choices

I think he was getting paranoid about band liability from things like the whole St. Louis and Montreal ordeals.   So he cut off his risk, but seems to not understand he cut off future rewards too.  

[TheBaconman]

So how old where all the band members when the split happened and all this future touring for the UYI albums came out 26-31 years old roughly?

I am 36 now and I can tell you 10 years ago is a lot different than now.   How can you blame anyone for anything when they are that young.   Especially debating the actions of these young adults, 30 years later.

People look back at things like this band was some kind of experience group of adults, who had bee serious pros for many years.......    Its the complete opposite really

They were a bunch of kids pretty much, most of them were abusing substances, they where living together, playing local clubs, not much more than a high school education for most......

Then in a couple of years they are in the 20s, the biggest band in the world with more money than anyone!!!!    

They were still just a bunch of very young adults when they broke up..

I am sure Izzy is a lot different now, just like most people are 30 years later

Because the person in question has done literally NOTHING on the size and scale of what you're proposing SINCE then.

So what else do you have?

You're proposing that they "trust" that he's changed in the past 25 years. With no actual evidence to the contrary. To be honest, Bacon, I say that's naive.

Because I knew folks in high school who are exactly the same 30 years later.  And I know folks who are radically different.  And the % aren't as lopsided as you'd think they'd be. Trust is a hard case to make, given the evidence on the table.

Especially when coupled with how MOMUNMENTALLY important this tour was to GnR, how much money was at stake, and how little bad PR this tour could have withstood. They turned a house of cards into a fucking skyscraper, but if Izzy had signed on, and then quit just before, or even after half a dozen shows (you saw the press about bad attendance?!)....can you imagine the blowback?

Friendship is friendship and business is business.

And from Izzy's side....you know you're in. You know you could commit 100% and do every date and damn it would be fun to be back with those guys, yucking it up, righting the wrongs of mispent youth and debauchery, and putting to bed that little "what if" that might live in your soul.

But they come to you, and you feel disrespected because they're offering you "less".  And you're worth it.  You made that material, you worked your ass off for years, and beared your soul for these guys.  And now they don't seem to trust you and want contingencies, either with you as a guest or by reserving some ducats to, the gall, pay for your replacement if you flake out. As if.

Look, they're both right.  I know people want black and white.  I just don't see it.  They're both in the right, here.

Guns isn't in a position to take on what they see is a risky bet, at full price.

Izzy doesn't see the risk and feels he's entitled to a full share (whatever that is).

Fair enough.  We'll try again next tour.

You are right, there is zero proof of anything suggesting that Izzy has changed or anything.  I am just using life examples that most people change something after 30 years.  30 years ago, I loved to play marbles in sandlots haha

Izzy really doesn't have a choice though about anything.....  Other than if the band guns n roses asks him to play, he could say yes or no

[D-GenerationX]

If that's so, I hope he gets the opportunity.  I honestly think, once this thing gets rolling, if it sustains itself, they'll have more room to be a little "nicer" in the splits going forward.  That risk, even if it blew up in them, would cause less damage.

I've wondered that myself.  If, god willing, there is a next tour in a 2019 or so, does Axl still get a bigger share?

I would think Slash and Duff, after coming off an obscenely successful world tour of stadiums can easily make the argument that doesn't happen without them.  And all they'll need do is compare the venues played and receipts generated in 2016-17 to the venues and receipts from 2012-14.  I'm not sure what Axl's counterargument might be there.

[pilferk]

I can get why Izzy didn't want to tour any more.   No big deal, hire a touring rhythm player to play Izzys stuff, Izzy can play the odd show

But

What I cant get is, why would Izzy leave the partnership of the band?   That's just crazy.  He quit, left, he wasn't fired.

Similar example is with The Rolling Stones. there base player Bill stopped touring years and years ago.  But, he stayed in the band and was part of the partnership up until just recently.....

I really think Izzy quit everything because he thought the band was going to spend was to much money/loose money and he didn't want anything to do with it.....    Again just a kid making choices

I doubt he had a choice, contractually speaking.  If he wasn't going to fulfill the duties outlined in the contract, he had to quit the partnership.  And the other members weren't willing to modify it (or ignore the pieces of it) to keep him in.  IE: You can't just do the stuff you like while we're all doing pieces we don't like, while we're also paying someone else to play your parts during live shows out of the partnerships funds".  It would likely be material breech of contract (and the vid no shows alone might have constituted that, IDK having never seen the original partnership agreements) and they'd have kicked him out.  Probably better to quit so you can engineer better terms and transition of royalties, etc.

[TheBaconman]

What I cant get is, why would Izzy leave the partnership of the band?   That's just crazy.  He quit, left, he wasn't fired.

Similar example is with The Rolling Stones. there base player Bill stopped touring years and years ago.  But, he stayed in the band and was part of the partnership up until just recently.....

I really think Izzy quit everything because he thought the band was going to spend was to much money/loose money and he didn't want anything to do with it.....    Again just a kid making choices

I think he was getting paranoid about band liability from things like the whole St. Louis and Montreal ordeals.   So he cut off his risk, but seems to not understand he cut off future rewards too.  

Yep I think this is totally what happened. 

[pilferk]

I'm hopeful too. My feelings are that the biggest shame in this is how Axl and to a lesser extent Slash & Duff may feel attacked & embarrassed by this, making future collaborations a bit more difficult to put together.  Could care less about what's "fare" here.  We're so removed from the financial dynanics of a big machine like Guns N' Roses, it's damn near impossible to know what could be construed as "fare pay" within that circle.

We all once heard "not in this lifetime" and look where we are.

This little dust up seems minor in comparison.

[TheBaconman]

If that's so, I hope he gets the opportunity.  I honestly think, once this thing gets rolling, if it sustains itself, they'll have more room to be a little "nicer" in the splits going forward.  That risk, even if it blew up in them, would cause less damage.

I've wondered that myself.  If, god willing, there is a next tour in a 2019 or so, does Axl still get a bigger share?

I would think Slash and Duff, after coming off an obscenely successful world tour of stadiums can easily make the argument that doesn't happen without them.  And all they'll need do is compare the venues played and receipts generated in 2016-17 to the venues and receipts from 2012-14.  I'm not sure what Axl's counterargument might be there.

Again back to who is actually getting what......

Slash and Duff, if getting less, but don't have to worry about paying any band member or other fees may be very happy with this arrangement...   The goose is laying the eggs, why kick it

[D-GenerationX]

I think he was getting paranoid about band liability from things like the whole St. Louis and Montreal ordeals.   So he cut off his risk, but seems to not understand he cut off future rewards too.  

I don't think it totally out of the realm of possibility that Izzy made the judgment in 1991 that there wouldn't be a Guns N' Roses in 5 years.

And really, was he wrong?

[pilferk]

I've wondered that myself.  If, god willing, there is a next tour in a 2019 or so, does Axl still get a bigger share?

I would think Slash and Duff, after coming off an obscenely successful world tour of stadiums can easily make the argument that doesn't happen without them.  And all they'll need do is compare the venues played and receipts generated in 2016-17 to the venues and receipts from 2012-14.  I'm not sure what Axl's counterargument might be there.

I think a lot, a lot, a lot depends on what the actual truth of the financials is now (esp who is covering Reese, Dizzy, Richard and Franks compensation), and what they create together going forward.

If there is a new album, I think everything gets turned on its ear.  Because if Axl, and Slash, and Duff, and Richard and Frank and Dizzy and Melissa have all contributed to that albums material, in terms of writing and performing...suddenly this all gets a little more homogenized, IMHO.

My gut feeling is, if the band becomes a functioning creative entity, things start to even out (at least for the big 3 players) more. 

If they remain a touring act working off their existing catalog, I think it stays pretty much the same way it is now, whatever that is, and pending more Adler/Izzy involvment (which I think would change things up a bit, too).

But who knows?

[sofine11]

I've wondered that myself.  If, god willing, there is a next tour in a 2019 or so, does Axl still get a bigger share?

I would think Slash and Duff, after coming off an obscenely successful world tour of stadiums can easily make the argument that doesn't happen without them.  And all they'll need do is compare the venues played and receipts generated in 2016-17 to the venues and receipts from 2012-14.  I'm not sure what Axl's counterargument might be there.

I think a lot, a lot, a lot depends on what the actual truth of the financials is now (esp who is covering Reese, Dizzy, Richard and Franks compensation), and what they create together going forward.

If there is a new album, I think everything gets turned on its ear.  Because if Axl, and Slash, and Duff, and Richard and Frank and Dizzy and Melissa have all contributed to that albums material, in terms of writing and performing...suddenly this all gets a little more homogenized, IMHO.

My gut feeling is, if the band becomes a functioning creative entity, things start to even out (at least for the big 3 players) more. 

If they remain a touring act working off their existing catalog, I think it stays pretty much the same way it is now, whatever that is, and pending more Adler/Izzy involvment (which I think would change things up a bit, too).

But who knows?

The new album bit is a good point.  If within the next year or so we get new music featuring all the members we see on stage now, it certainly helps legitimize the current lineup a bit.  Not they need help selling tickets.

[Sillything]

I guess there is no good time for a break up. If he didn't quit then was he supposed to have continued until Argentina in 93 just to be called reliable? At the time, I think, Axl was hurt that he quit, no matter the time frame. I think he felt let down.  Slash didn't seem to care so much at the time,( finding it more comfartable to handle Gilby wich could never be heard, talk about a guy who must have had his amp turned down very low the whole time! Never heard a riff/guitarr sound from that guy besides on Wild Horses.)

So it's not like Izzy just was a no show at a gig. That would be unreilable. He quit, he resigned. And people had the right to feel let down by that, but feeling let down by something is not the same thing as that person is some one you could not trust even if it may feel like it at the time.

I'm not saying he had to do anything different.

I'm saying what happened, happened.

And you can try to explain it away, but the fact is, he left them in the lurch.

As for that last bit...they are both varying degrees of unreliable.

If you don't show up for work one day, no call, no show, that's unreliable (aka the video shoots) in the eyes of the people you work with.

If you know there is a HUGE project going on at work, with a drop dead due date, and it hinges on your participation, included millions of dollars of investment, plus TIME SPENT from other people...and you quit just as it's about to happen...that, too, make you look unreliable to the people you work with.

He actually did both.

And you can argue that Axl and Slash have likewise had issues...but Axl has been the good citizen for about 5+ years, and Slash has been clean and reliable, DEMONSTRABLY, for about 15+ years.  They have a body of work they can point to that helps their case when talking to the other members.

Does Izzy have that?  Really?  All he has is the bad taste he left in their mouths when he walked away in a VERY SIMILAR situation.

I don't think they worry that Izzy will just not show up (maybe some of that, too).  I think they worry that 6 shows in he says "I'm done".  Or even 23 shows in, before the next leg is set to start.

You can sit there and argue that they shouldn't or it's not fair or whatever.

But it is what it is. It's not any more, or less, valid a point of view than Izzys.  I'm not trying to convince you that YOU should feel the same way Axl/Slash/Duff might.  I'm trying to lay out to you why THEY might feel that way, and be justified in doing so.  You don't have to agree..you just have to (well, you don't actually, but that's my intent here) see it from their side.

And realize that they're actually BOTH right.  BOTH sides are doing what they see as being in their best interests.

WE don't get the result we want, which sucks.  But thems the brakes.

If Guns don't trust Izzy with touring full time of course they should not let him in on the deal at all. I just think it's a shame they can't come to terms on the money if he indeed was offered in on full time touring. I don't know how much he was offered and I don't know how much he wanted. I brought up the old interviews whith Izzy and Axl because I do think it's silly to be getting paid less than you would if you had a different coreography on stage, if that was the case then (and now?) It's a rock band were sincere prescene is vital not dancing around like Britney Spears is n't it?

There should be enough millions for everone! Wouldn''t be nice if this took a Peter Criss turn. Hope they still can work it out in some way.

I do would be surprised if Izzy was interested in full time touring. He come's off as much more of some one who doesn't like the lime light, big stages and so on. But when and if he is there, that would be really cool and should get equal pay considering his contribution to the song catalouge.

[TheBaconman]

I've wondered that myself.  If, god willing, there is a next tour in a 2019 or so, does Axl still get a bigger share?

I would think Slash and Duff, after coming off an obscenely successful world tour of stadiums can easily make the argument that doesn't happen without them.  And all they'll need do is compare the venues played and receipts generated in 2016-17 to the venues and receipts from 2012-14.  I'm not sure what Axl's counterargument might be there.

I think a lot, a lot, a lot depends on what the actual truth of the financials is now (esp who is covering Reese, Dizzy, Richard and Franks compensation), and what they create together going forward.

If there is a new album, I think everything gets turned on its ear.  Because if Axl, and Slash, and Duff, and Richard and Frank and Dizzy and Melissa have all contributed to that albums material, in terms of writing and performing...suddenly this all gets a little more homogenized, IMHO.

My gut feeling is, if the band becomes a functioning creative entity, things start to even out (at least for the big 3 players) more. 

If they remain a touring act working off their existing catalog, I think it stays pretty much the same way it is now, whatever that is, and pending more Adler/Izzy involvment (which I think would change things up a bit, too).

But who knows?

Richard, Dizzy and Frank have already wrote music on existing GNR albums.     Axl/GNR toured the past decade, with band members that wrote and recorded music for guns.

I think it has been set already.  It seems to work.....    Players were previously on salary, then I think they moved to a per performance deal....   If they are so lucky to get a writing credit on a GUNs album featuring Axl, Slash and Duff.   The royalties off that would be enough compensation

[pilferk]

Richard, Dizzy and Frank have already wrote music on existing GNR albums.     Axl/GNR toured the past decade, with band members that wrote and recorded music for guns.

I think it has been set already.  It seems to work.....    Players were previously on salary, then I think they moved to a per performance deal....   If they are so lucky to get a writing credit on a GUNs album featuring Axl, Slash and Duff.   The royalties off that would be enough compensation

Dizzy is the only one of those 3 with a writing credit on CD, I think.

The other two guys have performance credits...but that's a different animal.

[TheBaconman]

Richard, Dizzy and Frank have already wrote music on existing GNR albums.     Axl/GNR toured the past decade, with band members that wrote and recorded music for guns.

I think it has been set already.  It seems to work.....    Players were previously on salary, then I think they moved to a per performance deal....   If they are so lucky to get a writing credit on a GUNs album featuring Axl, Slash and Duff.   The royalties off that would be enough compensation

Dizzy is the only one of those 3 with a writing credit on CD, I think.

The other two guys have performance credits...but that's a different animal.

I havmt looked for a while, but you are probably right

However the makers of CD did tour with Axl and the band......    So this has been done before.   

II would love to see Melissa hold the band for ransom, after she writes the #1 selling rock song of the past 20 years.   It will be called.  Lets Go Jays Lets Go!!!!!!!!

[superstarmc]

I think he was getting paranoid about band liability from things like the whole St. Louis and Montreal ordeals.   So he cut off his risk, but seems to not understand he cut off future rewards too.  

I don't think it totally out of the realm of possibility that Izzy made the judgment in 1991 that there wouldn't be a Guns N' Roses in 5 years.

And really, was he wrong?

It's interesting you bring that up because that same thing happened in Depeche Mode when Alan Wilder left in 1995 and thought the band wouldn't survive without him.  Look where they are now. 

[pilferk]

So, off the Izzy topic....I just rewatched the interview.

Axls comments on the Slash dinner, and some of his other comments in that vein, really put some of the OTHER band members comments, in an interesting perspective.

It explains why certain members were talking about exciting things coming.

It explains why the "seriously investigating things in that regard" changed so quickly after the 2014 Vegas shows.

It explains Tommy's comments about "leaving it all in Vegas" and puts his comments after leaving in even more perspective than the reunion had til now.

It all sort of fits nicely....

[GeorgeSteele]

I think he was getting paranoid about band liability from things like the whole St. Louis and Montreal ordeals.   So he cut off his risk, but seems to not understand he cut off future rewards too.  

I don't think it totally out of the realm of possibility that Izzy made the judgment in 1991 that there wouldn't be a Guns N' Roses in 5 years.

And really, was he wrong?

Assuming that was his calculation, which I doubt, he was right until he was wrong, otherwise, what is he looking to be equal partners of now?  

[TheBaconman]

So, off the Izzy topic....I just rewatched the interview.

Axls comments on the Slash dinner, and some of his other comments in that vein, really put some of the OTHER band members comments, in an interesting perspective.

It explains why certain members were talking about exciting things coming.

It explains why the "seriously investigating things in that regard" changed so quickly after the 2014 Vegas shows.

It explains Tommy's comments about "leaving it all in Vegas" and puts his comments after leaving in even more perspective than the reunion had til now.

It all sort of fits nicely....

Yep, with Axl also sending out those CD plaques as well....

With that and all the rumblings going on during the Vegas shows, its sorta like he was closing the CD era chapter.  I really think he was planning on moving on to this era...

I also get the feeling he never thought the boys would be keen on playing the CD material and didn't expect to be playing it live again, for a while.  That's why he has brought it up twice now in interviews that the boys went above and beyond to learn the material on there own.  He seems happy and surprised each time he brings this up

[D-GenerationX]

Yep, with Axl also sending out those CD plaques as well....

Yeah, that was telling.

And remember, people were wondering if he was just hanging it up entirely.  But it sure seemed like the end of something.