Jump to content

Joe Perry: "I had great hopes of GNR carrying the torch"


Recommended Posts

full interview:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2014/07/07/after-44-years-aerosmith-is-rocking-at-same-velocity/12278329/

excerpt:

Tyler, Perry, drummer Joey Kramer, bassist Tom Hamilton and guitarist Brad Whitfordwill hit the road Thursday with opener Slash, who faced similar ups and downs withGuns N' Roses before the implosion of the classic lineup in the mid-'90s.

"I had great hopes of Guns N' Roses carrying the torch," Perry says. "I talked to Slash a lot about it and asked his advice because of what he's been through. It would be great for the original band to get back together, but it takes more than great songs to keep a band going. Slash has done an amazing job on his own."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did we all, so did we all...

I was thinking exactly this when I saw Aerosmith a couple of weeks ago, and when I saw the Stones last year. "GNR should be up there, playing the hits, along with playing songs from an album released in the past few years, with tens of thousands of fans screaming their name..."

So many missed opportunities. Not assigning blame to anyone in particular, just a sad situation.

"If you don't think I would've liked to have five 'Appetites' and been living like the Stones at the time, you're high."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 never changed to become popular. They were already massively popular before they changed. U2 could've sat back and put out Joshua Tree part 2 and stayed massively popular but they changed based partially out of not wanting to become caricatures of themselves and because they knew they music and what they were singing about wasn't going to be what was needed or wanted in the 90s. I hear what you're saying Wasted but U2 is an awful example of a band who changed their act of who and what they were to become popular. They already were massively popular and actually took a huge risk transforming from Joshua Tree/ Rattle and Hum U2 into Achtung Baby/Zooropa U2. Their change wasn't anything like the Aerosmith's change. Not even remotely close to it at all.

For once I agree with you! (If this was a U2 forum, I'd probably agree with you more than here anyway :lol: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what Ive read it seems like Axl was always jealous of Slash and the amount of attension he got from the fans. With Nu GNR Axl is the star and all eyes are on him. Its getting to a point now where Im almost glad that they don't reform and have a reunion. What Guns N Roses did (and i mean the REAL Guns N Roses) is an untouchable legacy in the history of rock. With every show Axl does with Nu GNR he tarnishes that legacy...

Idk what you've read but from all other reports Axl wasn't jealous of Slash. He was actually so impressed by his talents that it hurt him to see it thrown away by drug use and so forth.

Axl is the one that felt GNR could be the biggest rock band of all time.

Slash was the cool one who didn't care about that.

They had their musical disagreements but I think Axl understood how important Slash was to GNR. It's why he fought to keep him in the band and why when Kurt louder asked Axl what keeps him from making a traditional rock record with the new band, Axl said "Slash". He needed him to keep the sound of GNR alive. It wasn't about jealousy for Axl it was about what Slash threw away when he left.

This is why Axl maintains that he didn't break up the band. For Perry to say that Slash is still doing a good job carrying the torch is ridiculous!

The band broke up because Slash was tired of the temper tantrums and unpredictability of Axl and Axl was frustrated by the coked out brains of his fellow musicians.

That coupled with an unclear musical direction led to the breakup.

Slash didn't throw anything away. The others and himself may have been junkies and alcos but they were all functioning addicts (maybe Adler aside) and had a better work ethic than Axl ever had.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what Ive read it seems like Axl was always jealous of Slash and the amount of attension he got from the fans. With Nu GNR Axl is the star and all eyes are on him. Its getting to a point now where Im almost glad that they don't reform and have a reunion. What Guns N Roses did (and i mean the REAL Guns N Roses) is an untouchable legacy in the history of rock. With every show Axl does with Nu GNR he tarnishes that legacy...

Idk what you've read but from all other reports Axl wasn't jealous of Slash. He was actually so impressed by his talents that it hurt him to see it thrown away by drug use and so forth.

Axl is the one that felt GNR could be the biggest rock band of all time.

Slash was the cool one who didn't care about that.

They had their musical disagreements but I think Axl understood how important Slash was to GNR. It's why he fought to keep him in the band and why when Kurt louder asked Axl what keeps him from making a traditional rock record with the new band, Axl said "Slash". He needed him to keep the sound of GNR alive. It wasn't about jealousy for Axl it was about what Slash threw away when he left.

This is why Axl maintains that he didn't break up the band. For Perry to say that Slash is still doing a good job carrying the torch is ridiculous!

The band broke up because Slash was tired of the temper tantrums and unpredictability of Axl and Axl was frustrated by the coked out brains of his fellow musicians.

That coupled with an unclear musical direction led to the breakup.

Slash didn't throw anything away. The others and himself may have been junkies and alcos but they were all functioning addicts (maybe Adler aside) and had a better work ethic than Axl ever had.

Axl was upset because he thought Slash was slumming it by being happy with the guitar work on It's Five O' Clock Somewhere as is, and wanted to work on the songs a bit more. On the one hand you have Slash who seems happy to write, record and mix an album in barely over a month, and then on the other extreme you have Axl spending a decade on ChiDem.

Slash's albums to me sound like they definitely could do with more work and some of Axl's touch, while ChiDem was overproduced in parts and could do with being stripped down in places and have some good ol' Slash riffs.

Axl wanted to push the envelope, Slash just saw it as Axl being insecure and chasing trends (perhaps not entirely untrue) and wanted to play southern rock and blues-rock.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 never changed to become popular. They were already massively popular before they changed. U2 could've sat back and put out Joshua Tree part 2 and stayed massively popular but they changed based partially out of not wanting to become caricatures of themselves and because they knew they music and what they were singing about wasn't going to be what was needed or wanted in the 90s. I hear what you're saying Wasted but U2 is an awful example of a band who changed their act of who and what they were to become popular. They already were massively popular and actually took a huge risk transforming from Joshua Tree/ Rattle and Hum U2 into Achtung Baby/Zooropa U2. Their change wasn't anything like the Aerosmith's change. Not even remotely close to it at all.

they started out as a post-punk outfit, then became a christian rock band for a bit, then backed down, they've always tailored what they do to be big. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. They are more like Metallica, they seem to discuss as a band and it's been an on going thing, to remain relevant. With GNR it was more like whoops were huge, now I want to do what I want, no I want to, no I want to, no fuck you, fuck you, fuck you!

I'd disagree with that bit about Aerosmith though, it is but to different degrees. It was a conscious change. Both U2 and INXS openly stated they needed to change big time to remain relevant around early 90s. Achtung Baby and that Suicide Blonde/Baby Don't Cry album. GNR were right in the crosshairs too. It's just Axl's band didn't want to or couldn't. Slash isn't The Edge, he can't do the blues and industrial and dnace music in one. Also both Aerosmith and U2 benefitted from the MTV era. Whether it was Walk This Way/Run DMC or Where the Streets Have No Name video. They didn't say fuck videos like Slash. Bono found a way to parody and project an image which he disagreed with, that was smart but also kind of a bitch move.

I would compare CD to Achtung Baby but in a more retro way. But Axl had to do it with out them. Maybe doesn't work for the GNR fan base or maybe it does. In some ways a generation was denied its Aerosmith type band. The Strokes were next but they cut out the back door.

Anyway I'm not trying to hate on any band. I just see parallels and I type to much once I get going.

I hope, I think, I know.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was really GNR's inability to sell out like Aerosmith. Maybe that's really Axl n Izzy. Axl wanting to do something better than just hard rock and Izzy just not really wanting to be in a pop rock band. It has pros and cons. GNR came up going against the grain. They changed the course of music. Aerosmith were really always just riding the tail of The Stones so maybe they have less qualms or are more open minded. Even with U2, they had to change and tailor their act to get big in the first place, so the dance they do isn't a surprise. Jagger almost forced The Stones to be a stadium band, it's good gig. Joe Perry seems a bit more flexible than Slash, I just can't see them ever doing anything like Angel or Crazy or Don't Want to Miss a Thing. I guess maybe the milieu they found themselves in is significant. Aerosmith already big and could kind of ignore grunge/90s whereas GNR were always trying to hang with their peers like AIC, Soundgarden, FNM, Nirvana, whoever. So they didn't want to go all cheesy rock to sell. They built their career on killing poodles, then an era of 70s rock comes and they can't go soft and syrupy, it was their cross to bare, being punk and harder than hard rock. Even Axl's influences for CD are suicidal commercially. They needed to be making their Pump or Permanent Vacation or Voodoo Lounge after UYI, something more commercial, but they were too punk rock to go there. It's a bit like how Pearl Jam beat Nirvana long term. Axl took GNR down the Raod to Zeppelin not back into the Heartland. CD is really music for outsiders.

CD is just Axl's solo record with talented musicians

That's all

Nothing to do with GNR

From what Ive read it seems like Axl was always jealous of Slash and the amount of attension he got from the fans. With Nu GNR Axl is the star and all eyes are on him. Its getting to a point now where Im almost glad that they don't reform and have a reunion. What Guns N Roses did (and i mean the REAL Guns N Roses) is an untouchable legacy in the history of rock. With every show Axl does with Nu GNR he tarnishes that legacy...

Idk what you've read but from all other reports Axl wasn't jealous of Slash. He was actually so impressed by his talents that it hurt him to see it thrown away by drug use and so forth.

Axl is the one that felt GNR could be the biggest rock band of all time.

Slash was the cool one who didn't care about that.

They had their musical disagreements but I think Axl understood how important Slash was to GNR. It's why he fought to keep him in the band and why when Kurt louder asked Axl what keeps him from making a traditional rock record with the new band, Axl said "Slash". He needed him to keep the sound of GNR alive. It wasn't about jealousy for Axl it was about what Slash threw away when he left.

This is why Axl maintains that he didn't break up the band. For Perry to say that Slash is still doing a good job carrying the torch is ridiculous!

The band broke up because Slash was tired of the temper tantrums and unpredictability of Axl and Axl was frustrated by the coked out brains of his fellow musicians.

That coupled with an unclear musical direction led to the breakup.

Great post

I think we can mention the money hungry managers and assistants whom probably escalated the bad things more and boost each of every members ego's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe and Steven's falling out was more like Mick and Keith, and it wasn't a big deal for them to get back together because they were willing to work it out and compromise. Axl has no concept of what compromise is, the word doesn't exist in his world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is gonna come across as condescending. I don't mean it that way, but fuck it. Some of the post here make it very clear who was a fan during the heyday and breakup and who wasn't. And it shows that Axl's attempt at revisionist history has been at least somewhat successful.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't agree with you Wasted. U2 never changed to become popular. Sure they were kind of a Christian rock band in that they were Christians but never were they straight up Christian rock band. In fact it was after they recorded October where they almost broke up because Bono, Edge & Larry thought they wanted to be a Christian rock band and Adam wanted no part of it. they discussed it and decided if they wanted to make the music they wanted to make they couldn't be a straight up Christian band. they never changed to be popular they stayed who they were to make the music they wanted.

Also you can't say U2 benefited from the MTV in an attempt to suggest GnR didn't? My god GnR won an MTV Michael Jackson video vanguard award for contirbutions to music videos and MTV culture haha. GnR was HUGE on MTV.

U2's big change came after Rattle and Hum and it was a conscious change yes but it wasn't solely to be big and popular. They knew their style was being left behind in the 80s and they wanted to reinvent themselves. If their goal was just to remain big they'd have done Joshua Tree part 2 but they took one fo the biggest risks in music history. they changed their attitude, their image, their sound. You listen to The Fly and then listen to Where the Streets Have No Name, take out Bonos voice and it's not even the same band. That's a Massive change for artistic reasons just as much as it was for remaining popular. Their change could've totally backfired whereas Aerosmith's change was a straight up change to fit on modern rock radio with songs that were geared towards soccer moms. I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing, Jaded etc etc. Aerosmith's change had no artistic merit to it whatsoever. There was no risk involved. They knew they were kind exchanging one group of fans for another. U2 had no guarantee of that at all. Metallica is another band who's sound changed drastically but followed the norm. They didn't risk anything. Like Aerosmith they simply panderd to a more rock radio crowd exchanging one group of fans for another.

I know you're not trying to diss any band but I just don't agree with the U2 comparison. If anything U2 is guilty now of staying the same to remain popular and that's a big complaint I have with them at this point.

Oh and I Hope, I Think, I Know is one of my favourite Oasis songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is gonna come across as condescending. I don't mean it that way, but fuck it. Some of the post here make it very clear who was a fan during the heyday and breakup and who wasn't. And it shows that Axl's attempt at revisionist history has been at least somewhat successful.

Which points do you disagree with? Every interview around '95-'96 that I've come across has Slash complaining that Axl doesn't know if he wants to be Pearl Jam or NIN or whatever, and saying that he thought It's Five O' Clock Somewhere should be the next GNR album. These are points that both sides seem to have been consistent on throughout the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that people who weren't around at the time have little perspective on just how out to lunch Axl was getting. Of course I'm not saying that Slash didn't contribute to the problems, but Axl lost his marbles, well on his way to Yoda and past lives and exorcisms and all that shit, and that was THE problem. And just like today you couldn't get him to go near a studio with any sort of consistency, so the music side was fucked regardless of what material they might have chosen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that people who weren't around at the time have little perspective on just how out to lunch Axl was getting. Of course I'm not saying that Slash didn't contribute to the problems, but Axl lost his marbles, well on his way to Yoda and past lives and exorcisms and all that shit, and that was THE problem. And just like today you couldn't get him to go near a studio with any sort of consistency, so the music side was fucked regardless of what material they might have chosen.

Yeah but it's not like it's one or the other, sure all the Yoda/exorcism shenanigans would have delayed a new album, but I reckon if they were on the same page musically they could have had a new album by '97 or '98. Slash is the one who has pushed musical differences as the key reason for the split, Axl seems to focus more on personal differences, none of the factors are mutually exclusive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that people who weren't around at the time have little perspective on just how out to lunch Axl was getting. Of course I'm not saying that Slash didn't contribute to the problems, but Axl lost his marbles, well on his way to Yoda and past lives and exorcisms and all that shit, and that was THE problem. And just like today you couldn't get him to go near a studio with any sort of consistency, so the music side was fucked regardless of what material they might have chosen.

Yeah but it's not like it's one or the other, sure all the Yoda/exorcism shenanigans would have delayed a new album, but I reckon if they were on the same page musically they could have had a new album by '97 or '98. Slash is the one who has pushed musical differences as the key reason for the split, Axl seems to focus more on personal differences, none of the factors are mutually exclusive.

I think that's part of why the narrative that Slash has slandered Axl in the media is horseshit. For the most part, he shied away from the obvious answer that Izzy didn't shy away from - dude fucking lost it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Izzy saying some nasty things about Axl in the past. Worse than what Slash said actually.

When you look at the number of musicians who have come and gone over the years, it's kinda hard not to blame Axl for all the failures in GNR's history. I'm sure Axl cracks jokes all the time and is very very, really loyal to his people, but it must be hell to get any work moving forward with him on board.

Edited by ProstituteComa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All long term bands evolve... and move and shift... GNRs meltdown lies in what Duff said in an interview way back. GNR got too big too soon and the leeches and parasites beggers and hangers on become the paths of communication between a band of brothers.

We can psychoanalyze till the end of time and even place blame where blame is due from OUR POV but in the end is this and this alone.. every single member of the original troop lost sight of what GNR was and where it was going.. lost sight of who they were

Adler : his drugs and his party became more important than being in a world class rock band

Izzy: too much too big and too complicated for him to maintain

Duff: booze and booze and booze...till his health exploded.. superceded the vision of the future.

Axl :ego and sensitivity speaks for itself..past issues, relationship issues, lawsuits upon lawsuits ...etc, his own time and his own agenda...

Slash: Drugs and ego and ego and drugs....superceded the ablity to see what the the next 10 years could have been.

from the second they exploded on the scene they word on the street was these guys were the real deal and they would be remembered up there with the iconic bands that preceeded them... and they are to a degree.. but their longivity is tarnished by a very low discography... and try as Axl might.. this new band , no matter how profiecient they are.. will never ever come close to the universal appreciation that the originals are.

it all boils down to this: they simply couldnt get their shit together.

Edited by rockerman
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All long term bands evolve... and move and shift... GNRs meltdown lies in what Duff said in an interview way back. GNR got too big too soon and the leeches and parasites beggers and hangers on become the paths of communication between a band of brothers.

We can psychoanalyze till the end of time and even place blame where blame is due from OUR POV but in the end is this and this alone.. every single member of the original troop lost sight of what GNR was and where it was going.. lost sight of who they were

Adler : his drugs and his party became more important than being in a world class rock band

Izzy: too much too big and too complicated for him to maintain

Duff: booze and booze and booze...till his health exploded.. superceded the vision of the future.

Axl :ego and sensitivity speaks for itself..past issues, relationship issues, lawsuits upon lawsuits ...etc, his own time and his own agenda...

Slash: Drugs and ego and ego and drugs....superceded the ablity to see what the the next 10 years could have been.

from the second they exploded on the scene they word on the street was these guys were the real deal and they would be remembered up there with the iconic bands that preceeded them... and they are to a degree.. but their longivity is tarnished by a very low discography... and try as Axl might.. this new band , no matter how profiecient they are.. will never ever come close to the universal appreciation that the originals are.

it all boils down to this: they simply couldnt get their shit together.

I often feel that, Appetite's level of success, was the worse thing to happen for GN'R. Usually bands, build, build and build. GN'R had this instant success with their very first record. The Stones had about eight albums before reaching those heights. It might have been better if Appetite did not sell quite as many copies.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...