Jump to content

Steven Adler on Eddie Trunk's Show Today


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Asia said:

Really? That's interesting. Cause it has never once been called a reunion and right from the first statement or announcement of this happening it was said as clear as possible that this is a regrouping of Axl, Slash and Duff. So I don't know what you read that made you think Izzy or Adler were involved or that it was an AFD-5 reunion but it must have been some wishful reading on your part.

How did you take from my post that I said Izzy was involved? I "as clear as possible" said the deal fell through with Izzy. He's obviously not involved then. My point is he was SUPPOSED to be involved. Just like Adler. They contacted BOTH for it. What more evidence do you need? You said it was never meant to be an AFD reunion, and that's what I'm arguing is false. After negotiations failed with Izzy, the Adler thing, we got what we got now. No AFD reunion that was SUPPOSED to happen. It fell through. And THEN they started marketing it as the Axl Slash Duff thing..and that's completely irrelevant to my post. Maybe you mistook my line "we have every right to believe it was meant as a full reunion" as in they decepted us with the line up, that's not what I meant. I know it was never promoted as that. Though a point can still be made that the promotion was a fail when a reclusive Izzy was forced to make a twitter account just so people would know he's not involved.

I too, believe Eddie Moneys sources, but what most likely is the case is that the guest spots comment was made after said negotiations failed, which would make sense. If he doesn't want to be there full time, he can do guest spots then. But Izzy was supposed to be their 2nd guitar player for the tour once again, because (shock) he obviously wasn't asking for equal payment just for guest spots. It doesn't take a genius to figure out fulltime would be a requirement for that.

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

24 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

How did you take from my post that I said Izzy was involved? I "as clear as possible" said the deal fell through with Izzy. He's obviously not involved then. My point is he was SUPPOSED to be involved. Just like Adler. They contacted BOTH for it. What more evidence do you need? You said it was never meant to be an AFD reunion, and that's what I'm arguing is false. After negotiations failed with Izzy, the Adler thing, we got what we got now. No AFD reunion that was SUPPOSED to happen. It fell through. And THEN they started marketing it as the Axl Slash Duff thing..and that's completely irrelevant to my post. Maybe you mistook my line "we have every right to believe it was meant as a full reunion" as in they decepted us with the line up, that's not what I meant. I know it was never promoted as that. Though a point can still be made that the promotion was a fail when a reclusive Izzy was forced to make a twitter account just so people would know he's not involved.

I too, believe Eddie Moneys sources, but what most likely is the case is that the guest spots comment was made after said negotiations failed, which would make sense. If he doesn't want to be there full time, he can do guest spots then. But Izzy was supposed to be their 2nd guitar player for the tour once again, because (shock) he obviously wasn't asking for equal payment just for guest spots. It doesn't take a genius to figure out fulltime would be a requirement for that.

The thing is, no one ever said he asked for "equal money".  All he said was they didn't want to "split the loot".  That doesn't mean he wanted equal money.  

Further, my take on it in reading between all the lines is that Izzy wanted to be involved full time (with Adler) and when that didn't come to fruition he ran to Twitter to talk to his fans.  My speculation is he was never offered a full time part in this and therefore is claiming that is bc they "didn't want to split the loot", which may be wholly true, partially true or just plain BS.

There's lots of ways this may have went down, there is in my opinion a lack of information to know for sure.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

The thing is, no one ever said he asked for "equal money".  All he said was they didn't want to "split the loot".  That doesn't mean he wanted equal money.  

Dude..you are saying to "split the loot equally" does not mean he wanted equal money. Sorry but are you drunk? Really? I am rather sure that is exactly what splitting the loot equally means. What else would you interpret into that? or did you just not remember the quote correctly because you missed that he used the word "equally"? Izzy wrote exactly:  'They Didn't Want to Split the Loot Equally' . EQUALLY. Yes someone asked for "equal money".

Edited by StrangerInThisTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

Further, my take on it in reading between all the lines is that Izzy wanted to be involved full time (with Adler) and when that didn't come to fruition he ran to Twitter to talk to his fans.  My speculation is he was never offered a full time part in this and therefore is claiming that is bc they "didn't want to split the loot", which may be wholly true, partially true or just plain BS.

There's lots of ways this may have went down, there is in my opinion a lack of information to know for sure.

 

So you think Izzy was lying about them lying. And lying that he was offered a full time spot. You are assuming all this because you think Izzy is a liar? COME ON..he told us why he's not involved. That's the information we got, and you just go out and say no that's probably not true. I'd rather believe Izzy than think he's bullshitting his fans. Yes there's a lack of information, and the only information we got you claim is bullshit. smh..

Edited by StrangerInThisTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

Dude..you are saying to "split the loot equally" does not mean he wanted equal money. Sorry but are you drunk? Really? I am rather sure that is exactly what splitting the loot equally means. What else would you interpret into that? or did you just not remember the quote correctly because you missed that he used the word "equally"?

Correct, I am fairly certain he did not use the word "equally".  Could be wrong, but don't care enough to search through the Official Media Thread to find it

And, at any rate, fact femains even if he did say "equally" that doesn't make it so as I stated earlier.

17 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

I can't believe there's people out there who would think Izzy would lie about them lying. You are just assuming all this because you think Izzy is a liar? COME ON..he told us what happened. That's the information we got, and you just go out and say no that's not true. I'd rather believe Izzy than think he's bullshitting his fans.

Not what I'm saying.   I'm saying he is representing his version of the events that occurred, and amazingly yes people do lie lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tsinindy said:

Correct, I am fairly certain he did not use the word "equally".  Could be wrong, but don't care enough to search through the Official Media Thread to find it

And, at any rate, fact femains even if he did say "equally" that doesn't make it so as I stated earlier.

That doesn't make - what - so? That he asked for equal money? ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

Correct, I am fairly certain he did not use the word "equally".

Wrong, he did use the word ''equally'' in his tweet.

Anyway, we can all speculate until the cows come home, but we don't know. Maybe one day we will hear how it all exactly went down and maybe not. Life's too short for speculating so much on issues like this concerning a rock 'n roll band.

Edited by EvanG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

That doesn't make - what - so? That he asked for equal money? ...

That that is what happened...

Duff:. Yo, we getting back together, you in?

Izzy: sure man, avocado farming ain't all that.

Duff:. Word, we got Richard and Frank full time so we'll let you play three tunes a show every so often bro-ski.

Izzy:. Fuck that, tell Axl the five of us (including Steven), no other hacks except Dizzy and we split the shit five ways equally.

Duff:. Dude, that just ain't gonna happen 

Izzy:. Well fuck you guys for not wanting to split the loot equally, I'm gone go on Twitter and post vague shit and diss all you mother fuckers.  Hope Steven does too, y'all a bag of dicks.

Duff:. Sorry man, too much money to be made to be haggling over the deets. peace out

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

How did you take from my post that I said Izzy was involved? I "as clear as possible" said the deal fell through with Izzy. He's obviously not involved then. My point is he was SUPPOSED to be involved. Just like Adler. They contacted BOTH for it. What more evidence do you need? You said it was never meant to be an AFD reunion, and that's what I'm arguing is false. After negotiations failed with Izzy, the Adler thing, we got what we got now. It fell through. And THEN they started marketing it as the Axl Slash Duff thing..and that's completely irrelevant to my post. Maybe you mistook my line "we have every right to believe it was meant as a full reunion" as in they decepted us with the line up, that's not what I meant. I know it was never promoted as that.

I too, believe Eddie Moneys sources, but what most likely is the case is that the guest spots comment was made after said negotiations failed, which would make sense. If he doesn't want to be there full time, he can do guest spots then. But Izzy was supposed to be their 2nd guitar player for the tour once again, because (shock) he obviously wasn't asking for equal payment when he would only do guest spots. Only a fulltime gig would warrant equal payment. 

Not necessarily. Based on what @Eddie Money said (including that the tour wasn't planned yet when the negotiations with Izzy took place, so the talk was only about the April shows), it seems that Fortus and Frank would be there regardless. Most likely Izzy was offered guest spots for those shows and he said "either I'm fully in with equal share or nothing". Or maybe he was offered a full time gig, but as part of a three guitarists lineup and with less money than Axl/Slash/Duff, and he refused. But since we don't have any other information except for this source and Izzy's tweet, it's all speculation at this point.

As for how the thing was promoted, the truth is that it was never marketed as anything more than the threeunion. It's a reunion (Axl called it such in China Exchange) of the 1993 band (its three core members* with different "additional musicians" who "happened" to have been in NuGnR), i.e. of the last lineup that the majority of the public considered "real" GnR. Of course we fans were hoping for a proper reunion of the original band, but the marketing wasn't misleading.

*Oh, and poor Dizzy - always forgetting him, lol

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

1 hour ago, starlight said:

Well it wasn't quite obvious imo. It's normal fans were going to speculate and question who was gonna take part of the GNR tour besides Axl Slash and Duff because the full line up hadn't been announced. We didn't know who was going to play the Troubadour and it was obvious to expect Izzy and Steven to play it since it was the Troubadour.

 

Well, that was overinterpretation based on wishful thinking and in this case it was not the band that misled the fans but the fans that misled themselves and are now blaming the band for this.

Also, let me remind you that the Troubadour was confirmed right on the day it happened and there was not even much time to have any expectations. And very soon it was all clear who is in the band. How could they possibly mislead the fans by chosing this particular venue into thinking this is the AFD-5 when it was a surprise gig annunced the day it happened?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Not necessarily. Based on what @Eddie Money said (including that the tour wasn't planned yet when the negotiations was Izzy took place, so the talk was only about the April shows), it seems that Fortus and Frank would be there regardless. Most likely Izzy was offered guest spots for those shows and he said "either I'm fully in with equal share or nothing". Or maybe he was offered a full time gig, but as part of a three guitarists lineup and less money than Axl/Slash/Duff, and he refused. But since we don't have any other information except for this source and Izzy's tweet, it's all speculation at this point.

As for how the thing was promoted, the truth is that it was never marketed as anything more than the threeunion. It's a reunion (Axl called it such in China Exchange) of the 1993 band (its three core members with different "additional musicians" who "happened" to have been in NuGnR), i.e. of the last lineup that the majority of the public considered "real" GnR. Of course we fans were hoping for a proper reunion of the original band, but the marketing wasn't misleading.

 

I find it hard to believe Duff, a guy who very much admires Izzy and even worked with in 2015, would only offer him "a couple of songs" at the first reunion shows. That's fucking silly. Slash would never agree to that either, he has preached for years he would only do it with all 5 guys and for the right reasons. And then he'd backstab Izzy by choosing Fortus over Izzy? Yeah no. Of course Fortus would be there because Slash can't do the pitch pedal stuff for the CD solo, and Fortus would be able to play rhythm on all other CD songs aswell, I can see that. I can even see that they might have wanted Frank fulltime because with Steven they just wouldn't trust him. The rest is just fucking silly IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

I find it hard to believe Duff, a guy who very much admires Izzy and even worked with in 2015, would only offer him "a couple of songs" at the first reunion shows. That's fucking silly. Slash would never agree to that either, he has preached for years he would only do it with all 5 guys and for the right reasons. And then he'd backstab Izzy by choosing Fortus over Izzy? Yeah no. Of course Fortus would be there because Slash can't do the pitch pedal stuff for the CD solo, and Fortus would be able to play rhythm on all other CD songs aswell, I can see that. I can even see that they might have wanted Frank fulltime because with Steven they just wouldn't trust him. The rest is just fucking silly IMHO.

Maybe the issue wasn't the number of songs Izzy would play or choosing Fortus over Izzy, but just the money. As for Slash, I remember him saying something about "the right reasons" but not anything clear about what the right reasons would be for him or about the AFD 5 specifically.

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

1 hour ago, bigpoop said:

The point of the Troubadour is what is symbolizes. The history of Guns n Roses. Going back to where it all started. Nothing to do with the '93 lineup' or whatever.

Do you think the average person that heard that did the math in their head and instantly thought of this bit with the 93 lineup? Do you think the average person even knows what the 93 lineup was without looking it up?  Of course not.  They hear that and think, "Wow. Guns n Roses got back together. This is a really big deal. I can tell by the way this guy's shouting 23 years!"

Anyone who says they weren't hyping this as a Guns n Roses reunion is either lying, just playing some kind of word game, or such  an extreme Axl loyalist that they can't think straight. Just because they never explicitly said it doesn't mean that's not what they were selling.

 

And just because I know someone's gonna come back and say it's my own fault for expecting...blah blah...I didn't. I didn't expect it.  I'm not saying I felt personally deceived or that I expected a full reunion. I'm saying that's what they were selling.  If  people can't see the distinction I don't  know what to say.

 

The reason I didn't really expect it is I follow this stuff enough to know not to.  Most people don't.  Most people don't look at boards like this or follow bands on twitter etc. They just hear/see advertising and go Wow! Guns n Roses!  Not "oh this is probably GnR '93, augmented by Richard Fortus and Frank Ferrer of Nu-Guns fame. Great."

To the average person, Axl and Slash is a Guns N'Roses reunion. Duff is a bonus. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, bigpoop said:

The point of the Troubadour is what is symbolizes. The history of Guns n Roses. Going back to where it all started. Nothing to do with the '93 lineup' or whatever.

Do you think the average person that heard that did the math in their head and instantly thought of this bit with the 93 lineup? Do you think the average person even knows what the 93 lineup was without looking it up?  Of course not.  They hear that and think, "Wow. Guns n Roses got back together. This is a really big deal. I can tell by the way this guy's shouting 23 years!"

Anyone who says they weren't hyping this as a Guns n Roses reunion is either lying, just playing some kind of word game, or such  an extreme Axl loyalist that they can't think straight. Just because they never explicitly said it doesn't mean that's not what they were selling.

 

And just because I know someone's gonna come back and say it's my own fault for expecting...blah blah...I didn't. I didn't expect it.  I'm not saying I felt personally deceived or that I expected a full reunion. I'm saying that's what they were selling.  If  people can't see the distinction I don't  know what to say.

 

The reason I didn't really expect it is I follow this stuff enough to know not to.  Most people don't.  Most people don't look at boards like this or follow bands on twitter etc. They just hear/see advertising and go Wow! Guns n Roses!  Not "oh this is probably GnR '93, augmented by Richard Fortus and Frank Ferrer of Nu-Guns fame. Great."

But the average person cares only for Axl, Slash and the hits.

Or do you think that after all those months the concert-goers still believe that they're gona see the full classic lineup?

Of course the whole marketing could have been better / more accurate,

but on the other hand they were showing vids with only the 3, so I don't agree that they sold this as a full reunion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

I find it hard to believe Duff, a guy who very much admires Izzy and even worked with in 2015, would only offer him "a couple of songs" at the first reunion shows. That's fucking silly. Slash would never agree to that either, he has preached for years he would only do it with all 5 guys and for the right reasons. And then he'd backstab Izzy by choosing Fortus over Izzy? Yeah no. Of course Fortus would be there because Slash can't do the pitch pedal stuff for the CD solo, and Fortus would be able to play rhythm on all other CD songs aswell, I can see that. I can even see that they might have wanted Frank fulltime because with Steven they just wouldn't trust him. The rest is just fucking silly IMHO.

I wouldn't rule out Axl being loyal to Fortus but I'd find it hard to believe Fortus would be standing in the way of Izzy coming back full time if he wanted to and terms could be agreed upon. But if Izzy wanted equal share to Axl/Duff/Slash, I think that's probably the deal breaker right there. I get the belief that "it's his band, he wrote the songs", but legally it's a lot more complicated than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigpoop said:

Do you think the average person that heard that did the math in their head and instantly thought of this bit with the 93 lineup? Do you think the average person even knows what the 93 lineup was without looking it up?  Of course not.  They hear that and think, "Wow. Guns n Roses got back together. This is a really big deal. I can tell by the way this guy's shouting 23 years!"

Agreed. But then, this average person also knows probably only Axl and Slash as GnR, so...

1 hour ago, bigpoop said:

Anyone who says they weren't hyping this as a Guns n Roses reunion is either lying, just playing some kind of word game, or such  an extreme Axl loyalist that they can't think straight. 

I could easily reverse this so that the three options could apply to anyone who says the opposite, but I prefer to think that there is also the possibility of different perception/understanding.

Edited by Blackstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im a big fan of Izzy and I always support him, but I always wondered that would Izzy be ok if he got the same share as Slash, Duff and Axl? but Steven getting a low share?

That time would he stand up for Steven? 

Edited by Słash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tsinindy said:

Correct, I am fairly certain he did not use the word "equally".  Could be wrong, but don't care enough to search through the Official Media Thread to find it

And, at any rate, fact femains even if he did say "equally" that doesn't make it so as I stated earlier.

Not what I'm saying.   I'm saying he is representing his version of the events that occurred, and amazingly yes people do lie lol

Bullshit
They didn't want to split the loot equally . Simple as that . Moving right along……..

His exact tweet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Słash said:

Im a big fan of Izzy and I always support him, but I always wondered that would Izzy be ok if he got the same share as Slash, Duff and Axl? but Steven getting a low share?

That time would be stand up for Steven? 

He was disappointed that Steven caved in on the guest appearances. I think Izzy and the rest of them would be ok with Steven getting paid less the rest of the guys including Richard knowing his history. Maybe the same as Frank but more than Melissa. 

More importantly Steven would be ok with it. He just wants to play. As does Izzy but he is a man of principle 

Edited by Top-Hatted One
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BOSSY78 said:

Bullshit
They didn't want to split the loot equally . Simple as that . Moving right along……..

His exact tweet

K, sorry I missed the small type in grey that is his tweet.  So I missed a word.  Fact remains this is just what Izzy says.  It may or may not be true and there may be extenuating circumstances involved regardless.  

Thanks for finding that though.

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...