comparing Slash's interviews over the years

[whatashame]

I have listened to thousands of GNR interviews over the years. I have noticed a trend

 

A few times over the years Slash has been asked the same couple of questions but he answered them differently.

Now I KNOW anybody is entitled to change an opinion, but just follow me on this one

 

let's talk about music related questions. Those are universal topics that change the least, I guess. Especially for Slash.

 

Back when GNR were together for the first time round, 80-90s, Slash talked about, say, Led Zeppelin. He said a) they were awesome and when Bonham died it was a tradegy. But I would have given Led Zeppelin a chance without Bonham. It was just too cool to stop.

 

During the VR days he said b) the remaining remembers of Led Zeppelin should have formed a new band and change a name from Led Zeppelin to something else.

 

During post VR he said c) "when there was no Bonham in it, it was only fair to stop playing because it could never be re-created. (notice the "was no Bonham in it" not the "when he died") "

 

so if he ever speaks about Led Zeppelin again, I guess he will say "the THREE remaining players should have taken a break and then reunite"

 

so the a) answer sounds like an honest music fan. The other ones are just Slash at work. Kinda sucks. I dont like that in people. But this is just one example, I have noticed way more instances of such behavior. Haven't you?

Edited December 22, 2016 by whatashame
typo

[The Holographic Universe]

That's a horrible example. I have personally changed my mind on GNR multiple times over the years. I'm not famous, so my opinion will not be analyzed, dissected,magnified, and compared to other statements that I have made about subjects. If any human being had a large portion of their words analyzed you would find contradictions thru out their words. I'm a music lover .

[The Black]

"There's zero possibility of me having anything to do with Slash other than by ambush, and that wouldn't be pretty. In a nutshell I personally consider him a cancer and better removed, avoided and the less anyone heard from him or his supporters, the better." - Axl Rose

I guess opinions change.

[Original]

 

[nonok]

5 hours ago, The Black said:

"There's zero possibility of me having anything to do with Slash other than by ambush, and that wouldn't be pretty. In a nutshell I personally consider him a cancer and better removed, avoided and the less anyone heard from him or his supporters, the better." - Axl Rose

I guess opinions change.

Maybe he was actually ambushed and someone's forcing him at gunpoint to act happy and friendly with Slash and Duff, and that's the reason for the "reunion".

[AlexC]

The comment Slash made about Led Zeppelin was clearly stemmed from his opinions on Axl keeping the GN'R name with no other members. When he was asked the first time, that hadn't happened yet.

Personal experiences change your point of view drastically.

[wasted]

It's Guns N Roses without Adler and Izzy but it's not Guns N Roses without Slash and Duff?

I wonder if Axl, Izzy, Adler would be Guns N Roses. 

I guess Izzy is Brian Jones and Slash is Keith Richards, even though Izzy is Keef Whitfield and Slash is Angus Perry. 

Duff is Sid Thunders and Axl is Bon Rotten. 

Adler is Criss Cross, he'll make you jump. 

 

[IncitingChaos]

Anything with Axl is Guns N Roses...just ask the butt hurt ACDC fans, they still think Axl's voice is too "distinct" "it's like GNR playing ACDC songs..." 

so really as long as Axl is singing its Guns N Roses...Axl could go solo and he's still Guns N Roses

[Free Bird]

In a perfect world GNR are the AFD 5.

Now we know history and I think at least there has to be a signature sound, so you can call it GNR. To me the most essential parts are Axl's voice and Slash's guitar. Of course Steven's and Duff's flow are important for us, but the gereral public doesn't care.

That said, had Slash quit back in the day and would have Axl, Izzy, Steven and Duff continued to release albums successfully with a new lead guitarist, albums worth the legacy of Guns, then I'm sure people would have accepted that. But same goes for anybody else in the band, including Axl. There are more than one examples for that.

Sabbath, Purple, ACDC, just to name few.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Free Bird

[Rovim]

5 hours ago, Free Bird said:

In a perfect world GNR are the AFD 5.

Now we know history and I think at least there has to be a signature sound, so you can call it GNR. To me the most essential parts are Axl's voice and Slash's guitar. Of course Steven's and Duff's flow are important for us, but the gereral public doesn't care.

That said, had Slash quit back in the day and would have Axl, Izzy, Steven and Duff continued to release albums successfully with a new lead guitarist, albums worth the legacy of Guns, then I'm sure people would have accepted that. But same goes for anybody else in the band, including Axl. There are more than one examples for that.

Sabbath, Purple, ACDC, just to name few.

I'm not sure people would have accepted the 4 of them without Slash as Guns. The iconic sound and image are impossible to let go of for most casuals and hardcore fans alike. People didn't accept new Guns not because it lacked enough original members, Duff, Izzy, or Steven. It was for the lack of Slash.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Rovim

[Free Bird]

8 hours ago, Rovim said:

I'm not sure people would have accepted the 4 of them without Slash as Guns. The iconic sound and image are impossible to let go of for most casuals and hardcore fans alike. People didn't accept new Guns not because it lacked enough original members, Duff, Izzy, or Steven. It was for the lack of Slash.

Like I said. I think if Axl continued to release albums every few years, I mean successful albums, fans would accept that. Like fans accepted Dio in Sabbath and Brian in DC. It may have taken some time and some hit albums to get there but without the lack of quality and quantity I think casual fans would accepted that.

Of course you have always die hards who don't accept anything than the original.

[Rovim]

10 hours ago, Free Bird said:

Like I said. I think if Axl continued to release albums every few years, I mean successful albums, fans would accept that. Like fans accepted Dio in Sabbath and Brian in DC. It may have taken some time and some hit albums to get there but without the lack of quality and quantity I think casual fans would accepted that.

Of course you have always die hards who don't accept anything than the original.

But would fans accept AC/DC for example, without Angus? Steven Tyler tried to continue with Aerosmith without Joe Perry. Didn't go so well. I guess we'll never know, but I just think Slash's playing on Appetite, Lies, and Illusions and his image were too iconic to replace. He was the sound of the band and it was so unique, and went so well with Axl's voice, it created something irreplaceable really.

In a band like Guns, those 2 elements created this chemical reaction where it felt like 1 thing. Axl's voice and Slash's guitar complementing each other. Even more than Tyler and Perry.

Can't think of anyone that could replace Slash in Guns in that way for casuals and hardcore fans.

If you remove Slash's sound from Guns it loses a crucial part of what makes it what it is. No one can recreate it. Bob Dylan didn't want to use Slash cause he said it sounds too much like Guns N' Roses.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Rovim

[Free Bird]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

But would fans accept AC/DC for example, without Angus? Steven Tyler tried to continue with Aerosmith without Joe Perry. Didn't go so well. I guess we'll never know, but I just think Slash's playing on Appetite, Lies, and Illusions and his image were too iconic to replace. He was the sound of the band and it was so unique, and went so well with Axl's voice, it created something irreplaceable really.

In a band like Guns, those 2 elements created this chemical reaction where it felt like 1 thing. Axl's voice and Slash's guitar complementing each other. Even more than Tyler and Perry.

Can't think of anyone that could replace Slash in Guns in that way for casuals and hardcore fans.

If you remove Slash's sound from Guns it loses a crucial part of what makes it what it is. No one can replicate it. Bob Dylan didn't want to use Slash cause he said it sounds too much like Guns N' Roses.

You are completely right about the sound and I won't argue with that.

But purely hypothetical if Guns had released another 5 no1 albums with plenty of hits on them with... I don't know, Buckethead on leads. The band would have another sound but people would recognize them and probably accept them. 

I know it's not likely that this will ever happen to Guns but it happened to other bands. That's all I'm saying. I think success is everything. I don't say you are successful no matter what...

And yeah, fans accepted ACDC without Bon Scott. I think he was equaly important to the band as Angus.

They manged to get the right replacement. I personally never liked Brian as much as I liked Scott (musically speaking) but their success speaks for itself. 

So what had happened if Angus died in place of Bon? You would have a completely different sound than you have, but that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't be as successful as they are with the right replacement.

But again. Thats purely hypothetical. Slash and Axl are unice and that's what I wrote in my first post anyway. Everything else is pure speculation.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Free Bird

[wasted]

Don't you wonder sometimes bout sound and vision

 

[Gibson87]

I think it works both ways. If Slash and Duff don't sign over the rights to the name and decide to kick Axl out in '96, the band wouldn't have been successful and it would've been a shell of its former self. Everyone saw how the other scenario played out. The band toured endlessly for 15 years promoting one album. Axl and Slash need each other. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Gibson_Guy87

[DR DOOM]

No way a Guns N Roses without Rose would have been a thing.

I wasn't all that upset when Slash and then Duff left, thought Axl was going places.

I was wrong.

Anyway, they're back now, this is probably as good as we're going to get- enjoy.

[wasted]

Axl is GNR but the reunion was the right move. I like my rock stars loaded/rich and doing crazy shit. At the moment I'm feeling the rich but not so much the crazy shit. Maybe they are older and it's more a Bruce righteous melancholy thing. That could be the record. 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by wasted
Ultraman

[jacdaniel]

GNR was orignally the AFD 5.  Those guys were all responsible for the amazing sound of that album. 
And its a shame that they never recorded a similar follow up album. 
I would have loved an AFD 2 type album between Lies and the Illusions.

However, with the way the band evolved, Izzy and Steven were the 2 most likely to not fit in anymore.  
Izzy didn't seem to like how big the band had gotten and didn't seem too eager to play the longer, trickier
songs like Coma, locomotive and so on. He just didn't seem on board.  I don't think he enjoyed the big shows,
touring and making videos. He wanted to record everything in one take.

Steven just wasn't reliable enough.  We all know the reasons for that.

Axl himself said a few years back that if a reunion ever happened it would most likely be a hybrid and that Slash
and Duff were the only members he thought would have the talent / drive / ambition to do it properly.
Axl, Slash and Duff were the members that not only played the music but they handled the media, business end
and all the 1000 other small things that made them a big band + business.

Therefore, in my opinion, Guns N Roses is Axl / Slash and Duff.

[wasted]

1 minute ago, jacdaniel said:

GNR was orignally the AFD 5.  Those guys were all responsible for the amazing sound of that album. 
And its a shame that they never recorded a similar follow up album. 
I would have loved an AFD 2 type album between Lies and the Illusions.

However, with the way the band evolved, Izzy and Steven were the 2 most likely to not fit in anymore.  
Izzy didn't seem to like how big the band had gotten and didn't seem too eager to play the longer, trickier
songs like Coma, locomotive and so on. He just didn't seem on board.  I don't think he enjoyed the big shows,
touring and making videos. He wanted to record everything in one take.

Steven just wasn't reliable enough.  We all know the reasons for that.

Axl himself said a few years back that if a reunion ever happened it would most likely be a hybrid and that Slash
and Duff were the only members he thought would have the talent / drive / ambition to do it properly.
Axl, Slash and Duff were the members that not only played the music but they handled the media, business end
and all the 1000 other small things that made them a big band + business.

Therefore, in my opinion, Guns N Roses is Axl / Slash and Duff.

Without Axl, GNR doesn't happen as a stadium band. In my opinion. 

[BorderlineCrazy]

11 hours ago, wasted said:

Without Axl, GNR doesn't happen as a stadium band. In my opinion. 

True but I can't see Axl reaching the stadium status with Rapidfire or Hollywood Rose either.

[Free Bird]

So you guys don't think Guns could play stadiums with Steven Tyler or Brian Johnson instead of Axl? Or with Eddie van Halen or Brian May instead of Slash?

 

[wasted]

6 hours ago, BorderlineCrazy said:

True but I can't see Axl reaching the stadium status with Rapidfire or Hollywood Rose either.

But with Tracii Guns or some other guitarist in another dimension maybe. If Axl was in Cinderella or Ratt then his vocals and drive and he might still get to stadiums. But I really doubt the rest of GNR guys with an okay singer would ever get there. You need a Diamond Dave, Jagger, Tyler type frontman. In my opinion. But who knows, if there's an audience for a singerless band then why not. It's not written in stone. 

 

 

[moreblack]

On 12/22/2016 at 6:02 AM, whatashame said:

I have listened to thousands of GNR interviews over the years.

There's no need to do that.