Apollo Show - Izzy & Steven Not Playing - Argue About It HERE

[Sydney Fan]

37 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They just looked like a lot of egotistical wankers and people hated Axl really - similar view as in America with the grunge movements.

I will say one thing which might be pertinent. Britpop was a rejection of 'Americaness' (and this included grunge as well as Guns). Bands like Pulp, Oasis and Blur spoke about British themes and dressed like British ''mods'' so people could relate to them. Slash looking like a swaggery rock dinosaur and Axl with his multiple costume changes and big budget videos and teeth implants - well, how were the British people supposed to relate to this any longer? 

 

Agree DD. I remember seeing a special about Britpop on ABC tv a few years ago and one woman who would have been early 40's and was probably a teen during Britpop ers said the reason why the bands like oasis was their generation was because the lyrics was a representation as to what young people in England were going through at the time. Whether it was about relationships or getting older or about life in general, the lyrics where a representation about what UK teens were going throughand those kids could relate to the bands so well.

[Sydney Fan]

39 minutes ago, RONIN said:

I do remember the brit pop movement making its way to MTV in the US. I was an Oasis fan in the 90's 

Essentially from what you're saying, their drama/image had begun to overshadow the music in the minds of young people in the UK. Therefore, even if they had released an Appetite style record, GnR would still have been perceived as "out of touch" and rejected for all their rock star trappings. 

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, RONIN said:

I do remember the brit pop movement making its way to MTV in the US. I was an Oasis fan in the 90's 

Essentially from what you're saying, their drama/image had begun to overshadow the music in the minds of young people in the UK. Therefore, even if they had released an Appetite style record, GnR would still have been perceived as "out of touch" and rejected for all their rock star trappings. 

 

 

correct ronin. The band by then looked and came across as an like an inflated version of the stones and they looked so far removed from their appetite days.When sympathy for the devil came out in 94- 95 that was pretty much the nail in the coffin.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Sydney Fan

[Blackstar]

 

3 hours ago, RONIN said:

So is there any truth to GnR becoming massively uncool by 1993 with teens when grunge was at it's peak in the US? I've had friends in the UK mention that GnR's fall from grace there was sudden - they became an uncool band soon after grunge hit there.

As far as I can remember (from the experience in my country and from what I was reading/hearing), GnR was "uncool" for the kids/young teenagers that got into music then. But older people that were already into GnR, although they might move to grunge and other 90s genres, didn't necessarily stop being fans. The fact GnR were inactive played a role too, although I don't think that they could have won over the grunge kids had they released an album ~94, but maybe they could have done something ~96-97.

2 hours ago, RONIN said:

Interesting insight. 

Couldn't pre-AFD GnR be considered an indie/alternative band since their sound was underground at the time? They were coming up the ranks with bands like Jane's Addiction (which is still considered an indie/alt rock band) - Guns just broke into the mainstream while Jane's Addiction remained a lower profile band with a cult following. 

I don't know... GnR were a strange and sui generis case for that era. Their sound wasn't mainstream or radio friendly for the standards of the period, but it also didn't resemble anything that was currently alternative (it was too stonesy/aerosmith-ish/classic 70s hard rock for that, although some songs were punky). Also they were associated with the LA scene (and looks wise) and at the time they would be perceived as being closer to metal. And I don't know if the themes/lyrics in AFD were the kind that a US college radio station would play (although they had played at a college party in 1986 along with RHCP). On the other hand, many veterans from the underground punk scene liked them. Maybe if they were first signed to a "prestigious" indie label, they would have been considered alternative, but they didn't have the "indie" mentality...

Edited July 25, 2017 by Blackstar

[Blackstar]

About britpop etc.:

The AFD/Lies period of GnR coincided with The Stone Roses and the Manchester scene (and, although The Smiths had broken up they were still very relevant and Morrissey continued solo) but this didn't prevent the success of GnR. They weren't the "gigantic" band of the Illusions era yet, but they were still very different (probably the audiences were different too). I guess there would be an audience in the UK in the 90s that wanted something "heavier" than britpop.

I remember britpop being "marketed" as the British response to grunge and a Beatles vs Stones hype made by the British music press for Oasis and Blur. Here (which is a "third"/"neutral" country), both grunge/post grunge and britpop were popular. I liked only Pulp and Oasis from britpop (Pulp were great, in a similar vein as The Kinks).

---------------

I always believed that, even though "grunge" came from a different place (not all; I think Pearl Jam, for example, wouldn't have been considered alternative had they broken earlier - it was just arena rock), it wouldn't have made it to the mainstream if AFD hadn't made it before. This is an "if", of course, but it was huge in that period that an album with a songs like Jungle and It's So Easy became No 1.

For years GnR were seen as representative of the pre-Nirvana "silly"hair metal era and were completely distinguished from grunge, musically, culturally and politically. But in the recent years this has started to change, and many magazines acknowledge that AFD prepared the ground for the 90s rock (the latest example is the Pitchfork video).

Edited July 25, 2017 by Blackstar

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

In Australia, when Nirvana hit, I distinctly remember it being OK to like both Nirvana and Guns at the same time, for a brief period.  I was 19...maybe 20.  I’d go to student parties and it was perfectly normal to hear AFD songs, usually Brownstone, or It’s So Easy, or My Michelle, NEVER the radio hits.  This may be why, to this day, those three songs are my favourites off AFD.  I was schooled in them.  And taught that PC, WTTJ, even RQ were to be avoided.  After being absolutely bloody massive in 91/92 in Aus - loved by all - by 93/94 Guns had become the kind of band that were considered to have ‘a few OK songs’ that would be played towards the end of a drunken night when the party was winding down. 

I guess Guns was acceptable for a bit longer Down Under than in the States or UK, mostly due to AFD, not UYI.  Well, we are the spiritual home of AC/DC; raw, honest, dirty rock was a matter of personal pride (or it used to be.  I haven't lived there for nearly 20 years and I'm told it's not the same these days).  Incidentally, I always find my perception of AC/DC – we still call them Acadaca - somewhat different to everyone else’s.  Think I just took them for granted because they were literally part of the very fabric of life, along with Cold Chisel, Midnight Oil, Rose Tattoo (who Guns claimed to love, think they covered one of their songs?).

Something else I remember from '93/94 period: Pearl Jam’s Versus, when it came out, was considered THE pinnacle of coolness and credibility.  Sure, Nirvana was cool, but Pearl Jam trumped those guys.  Eddie Vedder was The Man.  Also Alice in Chains.  Guns songs were your ‘guilty pleasure’.  After Kurt’s death, everything changed, as we know.  And GnR was something you didn’t admit to.    

Edited July 25, 2017 by MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle

[Tori72]

4 hours ago, Blackstar said:

 

As far as I can remember (from the experience in my country and from what I was reading/hearing), GnR was "uncool" for the kids/young teenagers that got into music then. But older people that were already into GnR, although they might move to grunge and other 90s genres, didn't necessarily stop being fans. The fact GnR were inactive played a role too, although I don't think that they could have won over the grunge kids had they released an album ~94, but maybe they could have done something ~96-97.

I don't know... GnR were a strange and sui generis case for that era. Their sound wasn't mainstream or radio friendly for the standards of the period, but it also didn't resemble anything that was currently alternative (it was too stonesy/aerosmith-ish/classic 70s hard rock for that, although some songs were punky). Also they were associated with the LA scene (and looks wise) and at the time they would be perceived as being closer to metal. And I don't know if the themes/lyrics in AFD were the kind that a US college radio station would play (although they had played at a college party in 1986 along with RHCP). On the other hand, many veterans from the underground punk scene liked them. Maybe if they were first signed to a "prestigious" indie label, they would have been considered alternative, but they didn't have the "indie" mentality...

I totally can relate to that. I can only speak for Germany. Considered to play time in radio stations, german mtv and viva as well as being a music talk topic among my peers, Guns n Roses were considered irrelevant or even ridiculous from 93-94 on. Guns losing respect and devotion was related to Axl's diva attitute, the riots, probably even Steven and Izzy leaving and a general catastrophic reception of Spaghetti Incident. I also think they could have done something if they'd released a somewhat decent album in 94-95 and later alongside the brittpop hype which was massive in Germany too, in 96-97.

By the way, I remember reading a music talk in Spex, an indie music magazine. The topic of the talk was Kurt Cobain's death and it's then probable meaning to the music scene, to rock, to grunge. And one - surely very sarcastic - questions of the participants of the talk was, what Axl Rose would do with his persona and image now that Kurt comitted suicide, as Rose was considered to be the suicidal, depressed self-proclaimed anti-hero. It was debated in a very mocking tone because 93 Axl with zillion costume changes, fake teeth and a personal life in the tabloids was nowhere near the credibility of Cobain. Regardless how cynical that attitute towards depression and suicidal tendencies is the non-existing respect for Axl Rose as a musician and rock persona really hit me there. He was not to be taken seriously then.

Thinking about it now looking back I think people were disappointed. Especially those in their late teens and early twenties as they knew how Guns started, what they stood for, what talent the band had. They couldn't relate to the pompousness and the time to grow from a rock band with a somewhat punk-ish attitude into this circus like a Queen type of pomp was just too short. 

[DieselDaisy]

One important point: it was rather easy to be disinterested in Guns post-1993 as the band were doing bugger all. I use 'disinterested' purposely seeing that it is difficult to hate (or like for that matter) something that doesn't exist and Guns released not a sausage - unless you include a crap cover.

If they had released something in say 1996 people could have formed some sort of response, whether negative or positive, but that scenario didn't happen and we are left speculating.

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

One important point: it was rather easy to be disinterested in Guns post-1993 as the band were doing bugger all. I use 'disinterested' purposely seeing that it is difficult to hate (or like for that matter) something that doesn't exist and Guns released not a sausage - unless you include a crap cover.

If they had released something in say 1996 people could have formed some sort of response, whether negative or positive, but that scenario didn't happen and we are left speculating.

Yeah, that's a good point.  Because I don't recall anyone I knew in the years post-Nirvana slating GnR for being a crap band (UYI went down really well) but for being an irrelevant band, though that word probably wasn't used.  They were has-beens.  Washed up.  And they were at that stage, as far as the general public were concerned.  

[EvanG]

14 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Yeah but none of those bands were considered grunge....not by my generation.  They were pop rock/alt rock bands....huge difference between that and grunge....grunge bands to us were Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots and a handful of others.

Yes, but what is grunge? Nirvana didn't sound like AIC and Soundgarden was way more metal than Pearl Jam. I don't think they considered themselves grunge either. It was just a name some British journalist gave those bands from the Seattle scene, no matter how different they were. Nirvana and Pearl Jam were pop rock/alt rock as you mentioned, so my point is that those ''grunge'' bands influenced the rest of the 90s and beyond, it wasn't a fad that quickly faded away. Even the way they dressed stayed popular throughout the 90s until those nu-metal guys started dressing like hiphop guys. Daniel Johns from Silverchair spent the entire 90s explaining in interviews that his band wasn't a grunge band.

 

14 hours ago, Blackstar said:

The only things all these bands had in common were that they were guitar based bands and they were all labelled "alternative", which was an even more vague and very problematic term (included almost everything, from the bands you mentioned to RATM, RHCP, Tool, etc).

Anything could be labeled alternative. I think in the 90s the term alt-rock became mostly associated with bands that made (aggressive) rock, primarily power chord based music with catchy and poppy melodies. That's what all those bands have in common that I mentioned in my previous post. In the 80s that was sorta called college rock, but when bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam brought it to the mainstream I guess it became alt-rock. I think that later on it was more popular in America than in Europe, we got more of the britpop wave in the mid 90s, although when you look at festival lineups from the late 90s you still see a lot of alt-rock bands appearing.

Edited July 25, 2017 by EvanG

[uzi your illusion]

MORE HOWARD STERN TALK ABOUT GNR!!!!!!!!!!

- Howard thanks the band again for letting them air the concert on Howard 101 (one of his Sirius channels)

- Howard apologizes for not making it to the show but says again that it's too late for him and even if Jesus himself put on a concert that late he wasn't going

- Said that members of his staff went, Gary (his producer) left at 1:00 and was chastised for leaving early. He mentioned that he saw someone leave after 2 songs!

- They ran down a few of the celebs in attendence

- Howard says they were scheduled to go on at 10, they started at 10:30 which is good for them. He said that Axl's limo rolled up, he got out and went right on stage.

-Howard played a clip of "It's So Easy", mentioned that's what they opened with. Richard Christie (member of Howard's staff) was in the upper deck and said he was scared how much it shook.

-They talked about how small the venue is and he mentioned that the only thing Axl said was "intimate", which they said speaks volumes coming from him. I guess making a reference to how little he talks to the press.

- Howard mentioned he changed outfits 3 times, and said it went well. Said that Axl introduced the band and was very gracious and polite.

-Played clips of Nightrain, Howard said "fabulous, they played all the hits". Robin commented that she thinks bands should sprinkle in some of the newer stuff, Howard said "only if I have to piss". I'm assuming they didn't know that some of the CD stuff is in the set.

-Howard mentioned BHS was added to the set list as a tribute and he said he loved it. They played a clip and he sung along.

-Howard played clips of Whole Lotta Rosie and mentioned how Axl sung for ACDC last year

-Talked about Slash's guitar playing and how he's underappreciated, and played some of the godfather theme. Mentioned how fun it sounded

-They played some of Layla, and they talked about how the band played it all (the opposite of what he said a few minutes before)

- Played Slash using the talk box on RQ, said "Don't you think Slash is a great player?"

-Played clips of KOHD, and Howard went on about how he doesn't like people singing along lol. He only wants to hear the singer. "I paid to see Axl Rose sing, you can shut the fuck up" lol.

-Said a lot of people were surprised they played for 3 hours but the band were way into it.

-Played a clip of PC, mentioned how since 1988 it's always been the closer.

-Mentioned that Axl threw the mic in the stand and that it was a $2,000 piece of equipment.

-Thanked the band again, plugged the NITL tour again.

- GNR Radio is extended until August 16th      YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 25, 2017 by uzi your illusion

[EvanG]

10 hours ago, tsinindy said:

Smashing Pumpkins are most definitely grumge....none of the others he mentioned were though.   Pumpkins on Singles Soundtrack pure grunge.  

They were considered grunge by some because they were alt-rock, and alt-rock was considered grunge by some. I didn't consider them grunge because I don't even know what grunge means. 

[magnumpi]

I went to college from 1991-1995.

And frankly I didn't caught up in this gibberish about what was cool or wasn't cool/.

I  was a big fan during the Appetite and Lies era.  I was disappointed the first times I listed to Illusions, it sounded like a different band to me.  Now I realize it was due to missing Adler's drumming and Izzy's lessened influence.  I grew to like the albums and remained a fan but I liked other bands better.

A reunion with all 5 would have been a happy ending from my point of view.  I was never interested in anything else.

 

In terms of other bands, I was really into classic rock during this time.  There was about 2 yrs where I mainly listened to LEd zeppelin.

But really I listened to alot of things: pearl jam, stp, smashing pumpkins, van halen, zeppelin, beattles, rush, yes, gensis (gabriel era), black crowes, allman brothers, pink floyd, the who, etc

 

NOt once did I get caught up in "is this cool or not"

 

 

[magnumpi]

and in terms of GNR influencing later acts, I assume its the case.

Back n 1987 it was all hair bands and it was so boring.

GNR sounded so different, it was a kick in the ass.

Everyone I knew love Appetite and GNR instantly became everyone's favorite band.  

I never found GNR becoming trite or worn out like hair bands so I never paid attention if there was discussion about GNR not being cool or part of the established order.  

I only worried about the quality of the music, not impressing people with what's playing on my record player. 

 

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, magnumpi said:

NOt once did I get caught up in "is this cool or not"

Me neither, I couldn't care less what the hipsters thought was cool or not. In the late 90s/early 2000s it wasn't cool to like GnR, and even though I always had to include that I thought Axl was an ass, I definitely had no problem in saying that I still listened to them. But up until that terrible nu metal shit became popular, I liked almost every rock genre. 

[double talkin jive mfkr]

guys not having at the very least a competent drummer and shunning izzy out of the picture as well is forcing me to offer up my 5 very well seated tickets at BC Place 

[Apollo]

On 7/21/2017 at 1:43 AM, RONIN said:

You seem to be very cut and dry about the legalities of Izzy's split. He sold his share, so he's entitled to jack. Fine.

Here's what you're missing - Izzy probably had no choice but to sell off his stake when he decided to quit the band. At that point, from what I understand, when a partner decides to quit or is fired, they are legally obligated/forced to sell their stake to the other partners who essentially will buy them out at for an agreed upon amount. This is what happened to Steven and Izzy. I imagine if they could have in any way retained their stake in GnR, they would have for obvious financial reasons.

Why didn't this happen to Duff and Slash? Because they didn't leave the original partnership. Axl did. Clearly he has legally amended the original partnership agreement in some way that blocked the other partners from buying him out - hence, the "new guns" contract which Slash and Duff were given to sign and which they ultimately refused to. Duff and Slash in essence lucked out into retaining their shares because Axl quit the original partnership and rendered it inert.

So when we look at hard facts, yes, Izzy and Steven forfeited their stake and sold it. Therefore, technically they aren't entitled to anything but the wages of hired help. When we look at this as decent human beings (which I'm assuming you are), it seems obvious that Izzy was not afforded the same luxury of retaining his stake in the band as the others. When you look at this as a fan and as a logical person - you would think -

"These guys are millionaires who are making 3 mil + / show - can't they carve out a decent sum to get Izzy on board - just for the fans? Is that a lot to ask for a reunion tour? Hey if they really want to bury the hatchet, no need to even offer to sell Izzy his stake in the band back, just write a new contract so that they can split the revenue equally like partners again. It would be a new beginning for the band after years of legal and ego motivated squabbling." Besides, it could only have helped their cause from a marketing, publicity and monetary standpoint.

The rumor from GnR "insiders" is that Izzy was offered an insulting sum of money on par with the hired help - which as a co-founder of the band, he naturally said fuck off to. Whether this rumor is true or not, who knows. Izzy doesn't seem to have diva tendencies so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt with this whole thing compared to the redhead and sellouts like Duff and Slash.

 “This is right before I left - demoting me to some lower position. They were gonna cut my percentage of royalties down. I was like ‘Fuck you! I’ve been there from day one, why should I do that? Fuck you, I’ll go play the Whiskey’. That’s what happened. It was insane.”

http://teamrock.com/feature/2016-11-07/izzy-stradlin-in-too-deep

Seems pretty clear that Axl and Slash were legally maneuvering Izzy to hired help prior to his quitting. That was the final straw before he decided to quit. Who can blame the guy?  He was going to be legally demoted whether he liked it or not and Axl was even going as far as releasing press releases to MTV stating that Dave Navarro was being considered as a replacement for Izzy....unless he gave in and signed the contract. This is what these clowns were trying to do to the co-founder and one of the main songwriters of the band. No wonder he told them to fuck off. 

After all that, he's expected to come back hat in hand and take a pittance to play onstage and legitimize this "reunion" so the other three greedy sellouts can make even more cash playing his songs? Does that make any sense?

Given Axl, Duff, and Slash's legal position and power - I expected them to do this. They fucked their friend over to make a ton of money. But the level of greed of these guys....after all these years, and the millions they made...I was just taken aback by that. A lot of fans were. Especially after the years of bullshit from Duff and Slash about how they would never come back without Izzy and that he was vitally important to the sound of the band, yada yada. They fed fans that shit for 20+ years.

I understand why things played out the way they did, but I don't like it. Just my 2 cents. I certainly can't blame Izzy for doing what he felt he had to do. 

As a fan of the band and just seeing all these rockstars dropping off like flies, you would think these guys could put their greed aside and make the fans happy for a single night with an actual legitimate reunion. But no, that was too much to ask. 

 

 

Re: touring

 

Great post. 

Imagine the balls these guys have to offer Izzy the same amount they were paying Melissa. Laughable. 

[magnumpi]

Great post Apollo, 

 

Frankly axl, slash, and muff are all pieces of garbage.

I have more respect for axl because he's very open and honest about how he operates.

 

Slush and Muff are phonies without any integrity or character.

I bet there's other reasons why izzy bailed on velvet revolver but he has too much class and integrity to comment.

 

Izzy and adler are the 2 out of the 5 that I respect.

[Apollo]

On 7/21/2017 at 9:50 PM, Modano09 said:

Do you think Izzy should have to pay back what he was paid for his share of the partnership if he wants it back?

Of course. If he wanted his "shares" in the band back then of course he would have to pay for them  

But why do you ask this question? Izzy hasn't ever said he wanted them back. So your question has no relevance. 

You are the only person obsessed with shares. 

In the real world you don't have do that. My dad worked for the city department for 30 years and retired. Five years into his retirement they needed an electrician to get a site up and running. It was a three month job. They offered my dad a salary for three months that was based on his experience and the fact he knew the facilities codes and operating procedures already. 

He didn't have to pay back his retirement.  Because this new job was for FUTURE work. 

I am absolutely baffled that you don't understand this concept. Absolutely baffled. 

Gnr offered Izzy a job in 2017. It has NOTHING to do with what happened 20 years ago. They offered him a wage to come work for the band in 2017. Izzy through the wage wasn't high enough, so he declined the job offer  

NOBODY in the band....NOT even Izzy....is talking about or using the sold shares as an issue for today's situation. 

Axl doesn't care. The Beta doesn't care. Izzy doesn't care. You are literally the only person in the world who thinks your PRETEND scenario has any relevance at all. Literally the only person. 

I don't get it. It's weird how you don't understand this basic concept. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Apollo

[Modano09]

Just now, Apollo said:

No. 

You are the only person obsessed with shares. 

In the real world you don't have do that. My dad worked for the city department for 30 years and retired. Five years into his retirement they needed an electrician to get a site up and running. It was a three month job. They offered my dad a salary for three months that was based on his experience and the fact he knew the facilities codes and operating procedures already. 

He didn't have to pay back his retirement.  Because this new job was for FUTURE work. 

I am absolutely baffled that you don't understand this concept. Absolutely baffled. 

Gnr offered Izzy a job in 2017. It has NOTHING to do with what happened 20 years ago. They offered him a wage to come work for the band in 2017. Izzy through the wage wasn't high enough, so he declined the job offer  

NOBODY in the band....NOT even Izzy....is talking about or using the sold shares as an issue for today's situation. 

Axl doesn't care. The Beta doesn't care. Izzy doesn't care. You are literally the only person in the world who thinks your PRETEND scenario has any relevance at all. Literally the only person. 

I don't get it. It's weird how you don't understand this basic concept. 

But it did have something to do with shares and 20 years ago if Izzy's thinking was "I'm a founding member, I deserve equal loot" and Axl/Slash/Duff's was "you sold your ownership 20 years ago, so you don't."

Izzy tweeted they didn't want to "split the loot equally". Likely because they don't see Izzy as an equal, business-wise. Why? Because he's not. Why? Because he sold his shares and washed his hands of managing the brand 25 years ago.

[Apollo]

1 minute ago, Modano09 said:

But it did have something to do with shares and 20 years ago if Izzy's thinking was "I'm a founding member, I deserve equal loot" and Axl/Slash/Duff's was "you sold your ownership 20 years ago, so you don't."

Izzy tweeted they didn't want to "split the loot equally". Likely because they don't see Izzy as an equal, business-wise. Why? Because he's not. Why? Because he sold his shares and washed his hands of managing the brand 25 years ago.

Please share the message from Izzy where he said that he wanted his "shares" back. 

Please don't share the post you keep referring to and adding what YOU think it means. You assume Izzy is talking about himself. "Share the loot equally"....he could be talking about what Axl makes compared to what everybody else is making. Maybe Axl gets 1.5 million and Slash and Duff and Izzy were offered 50G. Slash and Duff accepted that amount. Izzy didn't. 

You are making assumptions about what Izzy meant. 

Please show me the specific quote from Izzy that says "I want my GnR shares back that I sold 20 years ago."  The specific quote - not something you are making assumptions and adding your opinion to. 

Show us the quote and I will apologize and admit you are right. If you can share the post. 

[Modano09]

8 hours ago, Apollo said:

Please share the message from Izzy where he said that he wanted his "shares" back. 

Please don't share the post you keep referring to and adding what YOU think it means. You assume Izzy is talking about himself. "Share the loot equally"....he could be talking about what Axl makes compared to what everybody else is making. Maybe Axl gets 1.5 million and Slash and Duff and Izzy were offered 50G. Slash and Duff accepted that amount. Izzy didn't. 

You are making assumptions about what Izzy meant. 

Please show me the specific quote from Izzy that says "I want my GnR shares back that I sold 20 years ago."  The specific quote - not something you are making assumptions and adding your opinion to. 

Show us the quote and I will apologize and admit you are right. If you can share the post. 

I'm making assumptions? After an interview where Axl danced around why Izzy wasn't there, implying he just changed his mind, Izzy tweeted "bullshit, they didn't want to split the loot equally." So, it seems like it's in response to why he wasn't there. It certainly makes more sense than Izzy's mad that Duff and Slash aren't making as much as Axl or whatever you're trying to say there.

Axl/Slash/Duff own the band and managed it the last 25 years. Izzy doesn't and didn't. If you don't believe that's a key factor in what he was or wasn't offered, I don't know what to tell you.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Modano09

[Chris 55]

I remember GNR (and Metallica) being cool all the way through but the grunge thing was nipping at their heels. Once Cobain died, grunge fizzled and rap took over. 

[double talkin jive mfkr]

axl sounded as good as he did at the apollo as he did at the GODS OF ROCK CONCERT in 2014 - absolute mickey SHITE to the max 

[EvanG]

36 minutes ago, Chris 55 said:

I remember GNR (and Metallica) being cool all the way through but the grunge thing was nipping at their heels. Once Cobain died, grunge fizzled and rap took over. 

The grunge fad was already fading out by 1993. The so called ''grunge'' bands were still relevant, though, and as a result we got one alt-rock band after another throughout the 90s. It wasn't until the late 90s that the rap-rock thing became more popular. The sentiment that the alt-rock scene stopped being popular when Cobain died is incorrect.

[magnumpi]

Frankly,  I have my doubts that this is the real axl rose.

There's a community of people contending many celebrities have been replaced.

In the curious case of axl rose, the plastic surgery, the horrible Mickey mouse voice and the long period of disappearnce during the 90s are all huge red flags.