Was Axl a Poser during UYI Era?

[GnR Chris]

2 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Yeah, and he made In Utero with Steve Albini to make sure it wouldn't sound as commercial as Nevermind, but then afterwards he started complaining about the sound and that he wanted certain songs on it to sound more like Nevermind. I don't care how contradictive he was, I guess my point is that no matter how many books are written about him, no one will ever really know what that guy was really about. Maybe he didn't even know himself.

Right. And I didn't mean for my above post to sound overtly negative as it came off when I just read it back. I was trying to say it's unfortunate that he is forever young in people's minds due to an untimely death. Had he lived, I think he would have offered a much different perspective on the actions of his youth. Just as silly feuds from then no longer exist. Grohl lent Axl his throne, you know? Duff and Noveselic are buds. Most everyone is young and dumb for a spell, especially when dealing with that much fame thrust upon you. 

[EvanG]

9 minutes ago, GnR Chris said:

Right. And I didn't mean for my above post to sound overtly negative as it came off when I just read it back. I was trying to say it's unfortunate that he is forever young in people's minds due to an untimely death. Had he lived, I think he would have offered a much different perspective on the actions of his youth. Just as silly feuds from then no longer exist. Grohl lent Axl his throne, you know? Duff and Noveselic are buds. Most everyone is young and dumb for a spell, especially when dealing with that much fame thrust upon you. 

No, I was agreeing with you. There's been so much written and said about Cobain, he has become such a larger than life phenomenon since his death, but I don't think most people really knew him. But that was also his own doing, before he was famous he was already writing stories in his journals that later turned out not to be true. He never lived under a bridge for example, but it's his own doing that people started running with that story. It's like he tried to paint this picture of himself that wasn't really him. Maybe that's also why he always contradicted himself. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by EvanG

[Sunset Gardner]

10 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

It's  not an opinion. It's a fact. It's gnr. I brought it up in response to others in this thread. 

 

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. 

 

dear gnr chris,

it is a FACT that CD was written and recorded by employees working for their boss.  that is not a band.  that is not guns n' roses.  CD was so un-organic and it shows in the mess that it was released as.  it's NOT gnr.  this is a fact.  not an opinion.  get it straight, kid.  this argument is old but still nessecery until people realize CD was written and recorded by people axl rose hired to work with him.  they were and always will be EMPLOYEES of their boss axl rose.  it's clown sites like GNRTRUTH that send out these fictitious versions of different lineups and casts.  no, rob garder and tracy guns were not a legitimate lineup of gnr.  nor was any of the million ridiculous cartoon characters axl hired for his solo record and solo tours.  

I HAVE ONE QUESTION, and it's yes or no only.  if mick jagger hired people to write with him and for him on a new record and it was mick and ONLY MICK would you call it a rolling stones album?  would you call it a rolling stones tour if it was only mick?  

of course you wouldn't. 

but staying on topic… axl was never a "poser", ever, it was always real.  it was always real until he lied to himself and to his fans and called his solo project "guns n roses" to spite his real bandmates and to sabotage himself.  he was posing then.    

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Sunset Gardner

[downzy]

To me a poser is someone who does things that they themselves don't actually subscribe to but do so for the purpose of achieving respect, fame, currency.

I've just never seen Axl in that light.

It's always been my impression that Axl took himself very seriously as an artist and as a person (when he's not joking around, of course).  You either agreed or disagreed with his assessment of himself.  If you disagreed, like Manson, you probably viewed him as a poser.  If not, you accepted him for who he is or wanted to be as a genuine expression.

I find it a shame that some instantly label others as inauthentic or being a poser for wanting to grow or expand as a person or as an artist if that's truly where their heart lies.   I do think that Axl during this time was aware of and concerned about how people perceived him (like everyone else most of the time), but I'm not sure if that's what drove him.  

[Derick]

20 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

dear gnr chris,

it is a FACT that CD was written and recorded by employees working for their boss.  that is not a band.  that is not guns n' roses.  CD was so un-organic and it shows in the mess that it was released as.  it's NOT gnr.  this is a fact.  not an opinion.  get it straight, kid.  this argument is old but still nessecery until people realize CD was written and recorded by people axl rose hired to work with him.  they were and always will be EMPLOYEES of their boss axl rose.  it's clown sites like GNRTRUTH that send out these fictitious versions of different lineups and casts.  no, rob garder and tracy guns were not a legitimate lineup of gnr.  nor was any of the million ridiculous cartoon characters axl hired for his solo record and solo tours.  

I HAVE ONE QUESTION, and it's yes or no only.  if mick jagger hired people to write with him and for him on a new record and it was mick and ONLY MICK would you call it a rolling stones album?  would you call it a rolling stones tour if it was only mick?  

of course you wouldn't. 

but staying on topic… axl was never a "poser", ever, it was always real.  it was always real until he lied to himself and to his fans and called his solo project "guns n roses" to spite his real bandmates and to sabotage himself.  he was posing then.    

 

The concept of what is or is not a band, at least here in the forum, has been defined according to personal taste (or hate). In fact, Guns N 'Roses has never ceased to be a band !! It may not be the band that you like, or that you idealize, but it is, and always has been, a band.

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, Derick said:

The concept of what is or is not a band, at least here in the forum, has been defined according to personal taste (or hate). In fact, Guns N 'Roses has never ceased to be a band !! It may not be the band that you like, or that you idealize, but it is, and always has been, a band.

agree to disagree.  gnr was a band and then axl's lawyers got him the name and then he turned it into a tragic circus of employees.  i don't see it as a "band" at that point, i see it as the projection of a lunatics ego.  

[Derick]

6 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

agree to disagree.  gnr was a band and then axl's lawyers got him the name and then he turned it into a tragic circus of employees.  i don't see it as a "band" at that point, i see it as the projection of a lunatics ego.  

It´s ok, it´s your point of view. Like i say before,  the concept has been defined according to personal taste (or hate). I just don´t agree with you, based on my point of view of what is a band.

[vail2004]

22 hours ago, maynard said:

He doesn't give a shit about who he is but has a thin skin? That doesn't make sense!

He gives a lot of shit about what people are thinking IMO. He has a thin skin IMO.

And that sucks because he's talented and should release more music but he's afraid of people's reaction. And his music shouldn't use layers and layers to hide his insecurity.

He doesnt give a shit enough to change who he is...he is incapable of that.  Having a thin skin doesnt mean you are contrived or a poser...just mean you have low tolerance for criticism

[GnR Chris]

2 hours ago, Sunset Gardner said:

dear gnr chris,

it is a FACT that CD was written and recorded by employees working for their boss.  that is not a band.  that is not guns n' roses.  CD was so un-organic and it shows in the mess that it was released as.  it's NOT gnr.  this is a fact.  not an opinion.  get it straight, kid.  this argument is old but still nessecery until people realize CD was written and recorded by people axl rose hired to work with him.  they were and always will be EMPLOYEES of their boss axl rose.  it's clown sites like GNRTRUTH that send out these fictitious versions of different lineups and casts.  no, rob garder and tracy guns were not a legitimate lineup of gnr.  nor was any of the million ridiculous cartoon characters axl hired for his solo record and solo tours.  

I HAVE ONE QUESTION, and it's yes or no only.  if mick jagger hired people to write with him and for him on a new record and it was mick and ONLY MICK would you call it a rolling stones album?  would you call it a rolling stones tour if it was only mick?  

of course you wouldn't. 

but staying on topic… axl was never a "poser", ever, it was always real.  it was always real until he lied to himself and to his fans and called his solo project "guns n roses" to spite his real bandmates and to sabotage himself.  he was posing then.    

 

What is "unorganic" about being allowed the absolute time and freedom to show up in a studio and jam with bandmates, create your own music, go over samples, compose, etc? That's as organic as it gets.

That's basically how many songs from UYI were written as well. Izzy had his songs. Slash had his. Axl had his. And they worked on each other's and fine-tuned songs and built off of them.

Employment status shouldn't matter. Axl is the co-founder and leader of GNR. Slash and Duff are currently on payroll, so am I to assume when they come out with new music as GNR that you won't consider it a "real" GNR record? Is that even possible by your narrow definition?

Gardner and Tracii were indeed original members to the band, shortlived and unimportant as they might have been to the GNR timeline. You can't argue events that ACTUALLY happened. They played shows as GNR. They didn't cut a record as GNR. Axl and Izzy are original members. There were a handful of songs already written before Slash, Duff and Adler came on board. 

How can you on the one hand call CD a solo record but then on the other hand say Axl and his hired employees wrote it. So which is it? A solo record or a group effort (ie a band)?

GNR has a history of outside contributions. Paul Tobias is credited with "Back off Bitch" and "Shadow of Your Love" from the early days. West Arkeen with "It's So Easy" and "Yesterdays." So now I gotta draw a line in the sand and say, "THAT's gnr" but "Street of Dreams" and "Oh My God"?  Sure, they were written by Dizzy and Axl (and Tobias on OMG), but no, no, no, that can't be Guns N' Roses. That's just an Axl solo record masquerading as GNR. 

Whatever, man. I choose to be a little more *objective (edit). I can enjoy it all and not get caught up in the pettiness of which band is legitimate. I can appreciate all the different lineups for different reasons. That doesn't besmirch the AfD lineup. Those five are the ones who cemented the band's legacy. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by GnR Chris

[Sunset Gardner]

Just now, GnR Chris said:

What is "unorganic" about being allowed the absolute time and freedom to show up in a studio and jam with bandmates, create your own music, go over samples, compose, etc? That's as organic as it gets.

That's basically how many songs from UYI were written as well. Izzy had his songs. Slash had his. Axl had his. And they worked on each other's and fine-tuned songs and built off of them.

Employment status shouldn't matter. Axl is the co-founder and leader of GNR. Slash and Duff are currently on payroll, so am I to assume when they come out with new music as GNR that you won't consider it a "real" GNR record? Is that even possible by your narrow definition?

Gardner and Tracii were indeed original members to the band, shortlived and unimportant as they might have been to the GNR timeline. You can't argue events that ACTUALLY happened. They played shows as GNR. They didn't cut a record as GNR. Axl and Izzy are original members. There were a handful of songs already written before Slash, Duff and Adler came on board. 

How can you on the one hand call CD a solo record but then on the other hand say Axl and his hired employees wrote it. So which is it? A solo record or a group effort (ie a band)?

GNR has a history of outside contributions. Paul Tobias is credited with "Back off Bitch" and "Shadow of Your Love" from the early days. West Arkeen with "It's So Easy" and "Yesterdays." So now I gotta draw a line in the sand and say, "THAT's gnr" but "Street of Dreams" and "Oh My God"?  Sure, they were written by Dizzy and Axl (and Tobias on OMG), but no, no, no, that can't be Guns N' Roses. That's just an Axl solo record masquerading as GNR. 

Whatever, man. I choose to be a little more subjective. I can enjoy it all and not get caught up in the pettiness of which band is legitimate. I can appreciate all the different lineups for different reasons. That doesn't besmirch the AfD lineup. Those five are the ones who cemented the band's legacy. 

right, but you didn't answer the yes or no question - which was 

I HAVE ONE QUESTION, and it's yes or no only.  if mick jagger hired people to write with him and for him on a new record and it was mick and ONLY MICK would you call it a rolling stones album?  would you call it a rolling stones tour if it was only mick?  would you claim to a friend to have seen "the rolling stones" in concert?   

would that be fair and appropriate?  

 

[bucketfoot]

The cycling shorts were a terrible idea, never ever a good look on a bloke. That was the beginning of the end.

[rocknroll41]

If there's one thing Ive learned here, it's that Mike Patton is an even bigger asshole than I thought.

on topic, the Making Fucking Videos series is proof enough that Axl was turning into a poser. The way he behaves in those is cringey and the rants during the UYI tour seem so childish in hindsight.

The CD era was even worse when he wore the jerseys and had cornrows and the rants got even more absurd ("slash should've never been in guns").

At least now he's mellowed out and doesn't do any stupid rants anymore. He seems to have accepted his place in the world as a hard rock nostalgia act (and I mean that as a compliment, cause nostalgia acts have their benefits and can still come out with good new music).

Edited March 14, 2017 by rocknroll41

[sanity_lost]

8 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I had in mind this exact 1987   interview when I said that it was important to him to be acknowledged as an artist all along. He even had predicted his future in a way in that interview.

He got his Queen II, didn't he?

Edited March 14, 2017 by sanity_lost

[skassi]

First post, please be kind.

Back in the day what I found most attractive about Axl was that, I don't give a shit what you think about me; what I wear, how move, what I say, what I do, attitude that he projected on stage and in his lyrics. Oh yes,  he was beautiful, and sexy, and all of it, (he still is in a lot of ways), but there was a sense of empowerment and strength to be gained for the impressionable minds of my own and those of my friend's when we went on that journey with him. 

I'm thankful for that, and I never got the impression that he was a poser but there was a "front" that he put on, and walls he built up to guard what I would later understand to be a deeply troubled inner core. This is not posing. He did a lot of dumb things but I think he is a beautiful, sensitive soul at heart and if knew then what I know now...it hits me hard occasionally, I think I would have found myself deeply troubled that he suffered so much (with his demons) for our/my entertainment. I would have seen him differently.

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by skassi

[gunsguy]

6 minutes ago, skassi said:

First post, please be kind.

Back in the day what I found most attractive about Axl was that, I don't give a shit what you think about me; what I wear, how move, what I say, what I do, attitude that he projected on stage and in his lyrics. Oh yes,  he was beautiful, and sexy, and all of it, (he still is in a lot of ways), but there was a sense of empowerment and strength to be gained for the impressionable minds of my own and those of my friend's when we went on that journey with him. 

I'm thankful for that, and I never got the impression that he was a poser but there was a "front" that he put on, and walls he built up to guard what I would later understand to be deeply troubled inner core. This is not posing. He did a lot of dumb things but I think he is a beautiful, sensitive soul at heart and if knew then what I know now...it hits me hard occasionally, I think I would have found myself deeply troubled that he suffered so deeply (with his demons) for our/my entertainment. I would have seen him differently.

 

Welcome to the forum!

[ZoSoRose]

[skassi]

5 minutes ago, gunsguy said:

Welcome to the forum!

Thank you.

[GnR Chris]

48 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

right, but you didn't answer the yes or no question - which was 

I HAVE ONE QUESTION, and it's yes or no only.  if mick jagger hired people to write with him and for him on a new record and it was mick and ONLY MICK would you call it a rolling stones album?  would you call it a rolling stones tour if it was only mick?  would you claim to a friend to have seen "the rolling stones" in concert?   

would that be fair and appropriate?  

 

I am not as familiar with the history of The Rolling Stones, so then forcing me to simply answer yes or no is unfair. Izzy left on his own accord. Axl shouldn't be punished by not being able to continue GNR. From what I know of the Stones, Jagger and Richards were akin to Axl and Izzy in they were the key songwriters, right? So then if you're asking me if Richards left the band and Mick wanted to continue, would it still be The Rolling Stones? Sure. 

The two have been together much longer than Izzy and Axl or Axl and Slash. 50+ years. Brian Johnson is the last one standing in AC/DC and he's still calling it AC/DC. 

[ZoSoRose]

14 minutes ago, GnR Chris said:

I am not as familiar with the history of The Rolling Stones, so then forcing me to simply answer yes or no is unfair. Izzy left on his own accord. Axl shouldn't be punished by not being able to continue GNR. From what I know of the Stones, Jagger and Richards were akin to Axl and Izzy in they were the key songwriters, right? So then if you're asking me if Richards left the band and Mick wanted to continue, would it still be The Rolling Stones? Sure. 

The two have been together much longer than Izzy and Axl or Axl and Slash. 50+ years. Brian Johnson is the last one standing in AC/DC and he's still calling it AC/DC. 

Brian Johnson is not callimg it ACDC. You mean Angus? Sure he is, but hes the last key member so you can surely see why it isnt the same band. Gnr ceased to exist back in the day because it naturally came to an end. Axl then started a new band he also called GNR. They are NOT the same band even though they share the same name. Sure, people left and Axl didnt but that doesnt mean it didnt end. So yeah, not the same band but they are the same band.

My brain... 

Edit- I guess for me Ive stopped caring. Its the dudes I like that made the music up there playing. If Jimmy Page put together a band of no names and called it Led Zeppelin and legally had the grounds, is it the same band we all know as Zeppelin? No, hes the only original guy and the others would have had zero to do with what was originally Led Zeppelin. Id still go, though. The name has just become arbitrary for me.

As for the reunion, yeah Ive been psyched to see more of the dudes that make the music play it together. Its definitely more authentic with Axl, Slash, and Duff on stage. Doesnt mean I dislike the NuGNR gigs I saw, those were cool too but Im glad to have what is closer to the old GNR band band

Edited March 14, 2017 by ZoSoRose

[ZoSoRose]

And since this threads become a GNR vs GNR argument I guess I might as well chime in lol

[AncientEvil80]

Yea, Axl got his poser phases, especially after 1991. As would be "normal" for anyone in his position.

Not that I'm justifying it. It was horrible when he was doing it. And you can still see big traces of it nowadays.....

[GnR Chris]

21 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Brian Johnson is not callimg it ACDC. You mean Angus? Sure he is, but hes the last key member so you can surely see why it isnt the same band. Gnr ceased to exist back in the day because it naturally came to an end. Axl then started a new band he also called GNR. They are NOT the same band even though they share the same name. Sure, people left and Axl didnt but that doesnt mean it didnt end. So yeah, not the same band but they are the same band.

My brain... 

Edit- I guess for me Ive stopped caring. Its the dudes I like that made the music up there playing. If Jimmy Page put together a band of no names and called it Led Zeppelin and legally had the grounds, is it the same band we all know as Zeppelin? No, hes the only original guy and the others would have had zero to do with what was originally Led Zeppelin. Id still go, though. The name has just become arbitrary for me.

As for the reunion, yeah Ive been psyched to see more of the dudes that make the music play it together. Its definitely more authentic with Axl, Slash, and Duff on stage. Doesnt mean I dislike the NuGNR gigs I saw, those were cool too but Im glad to have what is closer to the old GNR band band

 

*doh* Yeah, Angus Young. 

No one is saying it's the same band. It's not the same band as when Bon Scott was lead either. Still AC/DC? Sure. Like you, I see it as more arbitrary now where I don't get so caught up in what's the "REAL" version of the group. My favorite version is the AfD lineup and I don't think that will ever change. And I think history does and will always view that lineup (and to a slightly lesser extent the Illusions lineup) as being Guns N' Roses.

I just started looking at bands more like a sports team where a lot of players come and go but you always have your core franchise guys. Or you ideally have one or two core franchise guys, the team leaders.

And also like you, I am more pumped for this lineup. Slash and Axl were meant to be, like peanut butter and jelly. The sound of HIS guitar with Axl's voice is brilliant. And the GNR experience is enhanced for me when Slash and Duff are in the band. That's for sure. I never liked Ashba and Bumble. I did like Stinson and Fortus is great. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by GnR Chris

[ZoSoRose]

7 minutes ago, GnR Chris said:

 

*doh* Yeah, Angus Young. 

No one is saying it's the same band. It's not the same band as when Bon Scott was lead either. Still AC/DC? Sure. Like you, I see it as more arbitrary now where I don't get so caught up in what's the "REAL" version of the group. My favorite version is the AfD lineup and I don't think that will ever change. And I think history does and will always view that lineup (and to a slightly lesser extent the Illusions lineup) as being Guns N' Roses.

I just started looking at bands more like a sports team where a lot of players come and go but you always have your core franchise guys. Or you ideally have one or two core franchise guys, the team leaders.

And also like you, I am more pumped for this lineup. Slash and Axl were meant to be, like peanut butter and jelly. The sound of HIS guitar with Axl's voice is brilliant. And the GNR experience is enhanced for me when Slash and Duff are in the band. That's for sure. I never liked Ashba and Bumble. I did like Stinson and Fortus is great. 

I can agree with this (although I liked Bumble lol) 

[Billsfan]

1 hour ago, ZoSoRose said:

I can agree with this (although I liked Bumble lol) 

I'm sure if given the chance, Bumble would have liked you as well  

[ZoSoRose]

Just now, Billsfan said:

I'm sure if given the chance, Bumble would have liked you as well  

I have met Bumble and talk with him once in a while since he always graciously answers questions, I hope he likes me too lol