Jump to content

Izzy Stradlin comments on reunion


Recommended Posts

So is there truth to the rumour that Izzy was backstage at one of the US shows recently? Seem to recall someone saying that he was backstage and pissed off at Steven. Is it possible that Izzy wanted Steven to hold out for better terms but Steven just went ahead and played

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sanity_lost said:

You know what is kind of hilarious? Following Duff & Axl's interview the media headlines were the following:

"Axl explains why Izzy isn't part of the tour"

"Axl doesn't know why Izzy isn't part of the tour"

And other variations on that theme. Which never happened. Axl never said he didn't know why Izzy was not part of the tour. Axl was asked and replied to the question on if Izzy and Steven will be joining them on tour. Which is a completely separate question from "why isn't Izzy part of the tour?".  Axl answered the Steven part saying that Steven had joined them on tour, but he wasn't sure of the future as Steven had back surgery when they started this and didn't know how things would go.  To answer the Izzy part of the question he said:

ie "I don't know, I can't predict Izzy". Which is the same thing Axl has been saying about Izzy for a decade:

 

That is just how Axl see's Izzy. It is their relationship. Izzy didn't have a problem with it before as he continued to join NuGNR on stage after Axl made the comment. However, I get that the past does not necessarily dictate the present and it might get under his skin now that they are at odds over money.

 

What I find interesting is that Izzy's tweet is an explanation on why he is not on tour with GNR. Which better answers the medias misconstrued "Axl doesn't know why Izzy isn't part of the tour" better than answering "Will Izzy join you on tour in the future?

Izzy tweeted:

 

 

 

 

People like to say Axl lies. I see no proof of that here. Media always spin stories. More often than not, headlines are misleading at best.

Isn't it possible Izzy agreed on one thing, or semi agreed, then thought about it some more and the next day said he would only do it if he got x%? Axl never said money wasn't the problem, he just said that you never know with Izzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, GibsonLP said:

So is there truth to the rumour that Izzy was backstage at one of the US shows recently? Seem to recall someone saying that he was backstage and pissed off at Steven. Is it possible that Izzy wanted Steven to hold out for better terms but Steven just went ahead and played

I believe he was supposedly spotted at the hotel before the Nashville show....along with the rest of the band.  He supposedly seemed to be frustrated with Steven and was talking to Duff a lot.  Which now, would make a lot of sense, if true...lol.  Duff handles most of the business side of things within the band so it's plausible. 

 

At the time we thought that the girl that spotted them had mistaken Fortus as being Izzy...but looks like she may have been right.

 

AND the Nashville show is when Axl made that comment to the fan that was holding up the "Where's Izzy" sign....and later, security took it away.

 

This is some CSI: MYGNR shit right here....:lol:

Edited by Kasanova King
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to feel that guy who claimed to have a contact at NY backstage was right when he said Adler's assistant told his contact that Izzy wanted a full Appetite reunion, just the five of them, new music and tour (Axl saying NO and Duff and Slash saying "whatever Axl says"). Izzy being pissed at Steven for finally accepting to play with them makes all sense to me now.

Edited by Darkenchantress
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Really? You really missed the people reducing Izzy's songwriting contributions to a much smaller amount than reality, criticised his live persona and/or lambasted his entire solo career (having obviously heard none of it - that much is obvious)?

One poster even provided a list of Mygnr's top twleve GN'R songs, citing it as an example of mygnr's indifference to Izzy's songwriting contributions.

The list contained five Stradlin credits!

Another accused Izzy of ditching the Ju Ju Hounds, just like he ditched Guns.

Ju Ju Hounds, his own band!!

You really missed all of this?

 

Why is it obvious that I haven't heard Izzy's solo work just because I said I preferred Axl/Slash's solo efforts? You are wrong by the way, I have listened to Izzy's solo work. It's not bad, but without Axl's vocals and Slash's guitar, it's really just some guy aping Keith Richards.

Why do you struggle so much accepting that others have a different opinion to yours?

And you accuse fans on here of wearing Rose-tinted glasses, but it's pretty obvious you do exactly the same with Izzy. 

I have more interest in Axl and Slash because they simply have more to offer. Axl is a great frontman, good songwriter, decent pianist and was an incredible vocalist in his prime. Slash plays with a tonne of soul, his tone is instantly recognisable, he's created some awesome riffs and has serious stage presence. Izzy? He's a good songwriter and a decent guitarist. That's just the facts. I'm not trying to take anything away from his importance to the original lineup, his songwriting speaks for itself. But there is a reason why Axl and Slash are seen as more important members and that's because they are.

No matter how desperately you try to spin it, Izzy never was the Keith Richards of GNR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RONIN said:

Relevant Izzy quotes:

AXL STILL HAS HIS CONTRACTS, and still owns the band’s name. But in achieving these hard-fought goals he has sacrificed the one thing worth fighting for: the band themselves.

:(

 

Reading this thread, it kinda surprises me that people are surprised that Duff is 'as greedy' as Axl, Slash and Izzy. Why are people surprised about that fact? I doubt anybody believed that Duff only got Axl and Slash back together because he wanted his friends to be happy again. It probably was a part of it, but the money was for sure a thing too. He is a businessman and he knows exactly what he is doing and what amount of money he can get out of it if he is on stage with Axl and Slash again.

Dont wanna bash Duff here!!!!!!!! I really like him and i am glad that he achieved what many people wanted, to get Axl and Slash back together. But that doesnt make him a saint in this whole scenario. Plus i still wanna know if the quote about him saying that Izzy will never get his % back, is true or not ... can`t find anything on google ...

We can probably agree on the fact, that Steven is the only one who is not greedy in this GNR-Circus ...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there were a few primary factors that drove this reunion to happen....their legacy/reputation in rock n' roll history, etc (The band's legacy and each of their own, individual legacies) and of course money.  In  which order?  I don't know....I'd like to think it's about a tie but only they could tell you how they feel about it all. 

  And there is nothing wrong with that.  If they are capable of grossing hundreds of millions of dollars on a  world tour then why would anyone criticize it as being a "cash grab"?  NEWSFLASH:  Every tour is a "cash grab" for bands, it's how they make their money....lol.

Edited by Kasanova King
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Darkenchantress said:

I'm starting to feel that guy who claimed to have a contact at NY backstage was right when he said Adler's assistant told his contact that Izzy wanted a full Appetite reunion, just the five of them, new music and tour (Axl saying NO and Duff and Slash saying "whatever Axl says"). Izzy being pissed at Steven for finally accepting to play with them makes all sense to me now.

I don't think so. Izzy is talking about "the loot" in his twitter. That's the only reason he gave us so far. He never said anything about AFD 5 and new music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RONIN said:

Agreed. Just another irrelevant album like Chinese Democracy that would further tarnish the legacy of this once legendary band.

They can't write a good album without Izzy and history has proven this to be the case. Enjoy more bloated synth ballads and cock rock Axl fans -- if he ever gets around to releasing anything this decade.

What a waste -- this band can't do anything right. Just one trainwreck to the next.

I'll take that irrelevant album tarnishing the legacy of the band (e.g. with songs like Coma or Estranged) any time and any place and so would millions of other people who didn't get absurdly hysterical over one twitter post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RooSaa said:

:(

 

Reading this thread, it kinda surprises me that people are surprised that Duff is 'as greedy' as Axl, Slash and Izzy. Why are people surprised about that fact? I doubt anybody believed that Duff only got Axl and Slash back together because he wanted his friends to be happy again. It probably was a part of it, but the money was for sure a thing too. He is a businessman and he knows exactly what he is doing and what amount of money he can get out of it if he is on stage with Axl and Slash again.

Dont wanna bash Duff here!!!!!!!! I really like him and i am glad that he achieved what many people wanted, to get Axl and Slash back together. But that doesnt make him a saint in this whole scenario. Plus i still wanna know if the quote about him saying that Izzy will never get his % back, is true or not ... can`t find anything on google ...

We can probably agree on the fact, that Steven is the only one who is not greedy in this GNR-Circus ...

That quote was told to the user who posted it here himself, the way I understood it, so of course you won't find anything on google. You can either choose to believe that guy or not.

They're all as bad as each other and they all love money. According to Alan Niven, Slash once told him he'll do whatever it takes, as long as the money keeps rolling in. Izzy frequently only seems to be motivated by money as well to do anything (demanding high sums from TB just for guest spots or the same amount as the others now for god knows what) and Duff is a pretty shrewd business guy, he didn't get as rich as he is by not caring about money. And Axl likes the luxurious life, he needs the money to keep that up and pay for his entire entourage.

Steven is the only one who isn't like that, but that's mostly just because he isn't smart enough to be and wouldn't stand a chance against the others anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just saw this thread now and read the first 10 pages. I will continue reading, but I thought to make a post regarding it.

Whatever my friend @ZoSoRose and my other friends have said is absolutely correct. 

 

Shame on some of you who are dissing Izzy and saying he can't play, are you kidding me? I really don't get the hate towards Izzy, I go to a GNR concert cause those 5 guys wrote amazing songs, not cause how much money they earn or how much Pyro they do. I go for the SONGS and the PERFORMANCES

If he is asking for an equal share then its nothing wrong, I love Duff, but Izzy wrote more songs, if you want to be fair, then give the bass player less money rather one of the main song writer.

You know who was the most unreliable, it was AXL, not Izzy. He simply left by informing like how Slash and Duff did. Izzy could not take shit before, after 6 years Slash and Duff could not take.

Did Izzy jump off stage? did he cause riots? did he refuse to come for rehearsals? did he not show up?

Friendships are more important than money, but Duff and Axl did fuck up this time cause of money with Izzy. It won't matter that much to Slash as he and Izzy were never buddies. In this case I honestly don't blame Izzy. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said at an other thread, Izzy was an integral part of GnR, wrote some very good songs and it's dumb to underestimate his work.

BUT: when we talk about money things are rather simple. Axl Slash and Duff were offered 3 millions per show.

If Izzy took part in this reunion as a full time member, would that offer be greater? Would it be 4 million e.g.?

Would the demand for the shows be significantly bigger?

If the answer is 'yes' then he obviously should take as much as the others. If it's 'no'...

 

Anyway, I hope that they solve their differences asap and Izzy takes his place in this cash grab as Izzyists call it (or it will stop being a cash grab if Izzy gets in?).

Edited by WhenYou'reTalkinToYourself
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stress Fracture said:

The contrast between Steven and Izzy is startling.

Steven has turned up for his guest spots and acted with dignity, making many fans (and presumably himself) happy in the process. Had things gone to plan, he very well might have got to do some AFD30 shows next year.

Izzy has sat at home petulantly tweeting and writing songs about money and contracts, throwing said AFD30 shows into doubt.

Until Izzy gets that chip off his shoulder, I'm no longer that fussed about seeing him back because he obviously only cares about one thing. Maybe the same could be said of Axl, Slash and Duff, but at least they're not stupid enough to admit they're only playing for the 'loot'.

Any reunion of the AFD line up was always going to be a short term thing. There's only so far you can take one album.

Well to be completely fair, not getting an equal share represents more than just money. It represents what they think of his value on many levels and it is also about respect.

That said, I think there is good reason to pay Izzy less. Not Fortus levels, but a bit less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of people defending the greedy three's actions with terms like 'branding', 'business' ('Izzy not promoting himself during his solo career'). If this is how you personally want to defend Guns N' Roses in 2016, if this is what is important to you, then that is your prerogative - and, it is probably a valid defense if those are your concerns - but in my opinion that merely symbolises that the band are well and truly dead.

And Duff used to be a punk rocker. Shame.

3 hours ago, Changes said:

I see Duff gets bashed here all of a sudden. I believe in terms of live shows and press he is more valuable than Izzy. He is more well known because he was one of three originals who remained through the huge UYI tour, when GNR was plastered all over magazines and TV. He was also always more visible and energetic onstage and he has always done a lot of press.

Duff, unlike Izzy, is not an original member.

1 hour ago, Towelie said:

Why is it obvious that I haven't heard Izzy's solo work just because I said I preferred Axl/Slash's solo efforts? You are wrong by the way, I have listened to Izzy's solo work. It's not bad, but without Axl's vocals and Slash's guitar, it's really just some guy aping Keith Richards.

Why do you struggle so much accepting that others have a different opinion to yours?

I can accept that you do not like his solo work, but I do not accept your description of it as simply ''aping Keith Richards'', albeit there is a heavy Stones presence certainly, but there are areas Izzy ventures where Keith has never ventured. I do not recall Keith doing many Link Wray-esque surf instrumentals, neither for The Stones nor his solo work,

Further, Izzy has more punk influence than Keith. His solo albums are littered with short sharp - quite heavy - punk rockers, which you only see occasionally in the Stones oeuvre (during perhaps Some Girls period - ''Respectable'' maybe). (This was the chap who wrote ''Perfect Crime'' after all!). See for yourself,

You do not see much of this in Keith's work, do you?

You have to remember that Izzy's influences are not solely confined to The Rolling Stones: Hanoi Rocks and New York Dolls also shaped his musical style.

1 hour ago, Towelie said:

I have more interest in Axl and Slash because they simply have more to offer. Axl is a great frontman, good songwriter, decent pianist and was an incredible vocalist in his prime. Slash plays with a tonne of soul, his tone is instantly recognisable, he's created some awesome riffs and has serious stage presence. Izzy? He's a good songwriter and a decent guitarist. That's just the facts. I'm not trying to take anything away from his importance to the original lineup, his songwriting speaks for itself. But there is a reason why Axl and Slash are seen as more important members and that's because they are.

Subjective. I could quite easily write something similar, describing Axl and Izzy as 'the most important'. None of this matters anyhow when you consider the fact that Appetite was great because of the sum of its parts, i.e. five equals basically. Remove Adler and the album collapses. Remove Izzy and the album wouldn't exist.

1 hour ago, Towelie said:

No matter how desperately you try to spin it, Izzy never was the Keith Richards of GNR.

Guns have a different dynamic than The Stones so most analogies do not hold up.

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

54 minutes ago, Stress Fracture said:

The contrast between Steven and Izzy is startling.

Steven has turned up for his guest spots and acted with dignity, making many fans (and presumably himself) happy in the process. Had things gone to plan, he very well might have got to do some AFD30 shows next year.

Izzy has sat at home petulantly tweeting and writing songs about money and contracts, throwing said AFD30 shows into doubt.

Until Izzy gets that chip off his shoulder, I'm no longer that fussed about seeing him back because he obviously only cares about one thing. Maybe the same could be said of Axl, Slash and Duff, but at least they're not stupid enough to admit they're only playing for the 'loot'.

Any reunion of the AFD line up was always going to be a short term thing. There's only so far you can take one album.

this waaaaay of the track.

why would anyone have to admit they are playing for money, for fuck sake!?!?

Everyone playing music for crowd paying tickets is playing for money! Period!

Izzy has every right to complain about money if t ain't equal.

Damn, the band is earning millions playing music he co wrote or started with his ideas, where is your logic!?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I see a lot of people defending the greedy three's actions with terms like 'branding', 'business' ('Izzy not promoting himself during his solo career'). If this is how you personally want to defend Guns N' Roses in 2016, if this is what is important to you, then that is your prerogative - and, it is probably a valid defense if those are your concerns - but in my opinion that merely symbolises that the band are well and truly dead.

And Duff used to be a punk rocker. Shame.

Duff, unlike Izzy, is not an original member.

 

I agree with this. I couldn't give a shit about the branding...

And it is an absurd argument to say that Duff is more worthy of being considered one of the "big 3" simply because he kept up a public profile whereas Izzy didn't. I actually think if anyones place in GNR is overstated, it is probably Duff's. I know he seems like a cool guy and everything, and acts as a good mediator, and he wrote a few bits here and there, but if you had to remove one of the AFD5 from the equation and still be left with something which closely resembles the sound of the original band, then I think Duff is the one who brings the least to the table, strictly musically speaking. That's not to say I think he's the least vital member overall, and I know there's that whole argument about a great band being better than the sum of its parts yada yada yada. But I could still see Axl, Slash, Izzy and Steven making a record which sounded pretty close to Appetite without Duff, whereas if you took any one of the other four out of the equation, I think the sound of AFD would've changed pretty drastically.

As for Izzy's influences, to me I just can't get into his stuff, much in the same way I can't with Keith's solo stuff. For me, I can't really get on board with good songwriters who have averages voices. That's just my personal taste. You ain't gotta be Whitney Houston or nothing, but a voice has to have some sort of character or charm to it for me to enjoy a song. Maybe some of Izzy's solo stuff would turn me on a bit more if it was sung by someone else, but as it stands, it's just not for me.

Edited by Towelie
  • 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...