Does anyone else feel Duff's book is way more honest and truthful and less biased than Slash's and Adler's?

[Damn_Smooth]

Nope, they're both junkies that don't remember anything. They might be trying to tell the truth, but I've been fucked up enough times myself to know better; and I never reached anywhere near their level.

[Brunzopolis]

I read all three books right when each one came out - so it's been a while. I can't remember any specific instances where one book contradicts another.

But, I think Duff, just as a person, at least to me, seems like someone I would trust more than Steven or Slash. Slash has the whole 'guitar god' personna that probably colors his recollections and how he wants to be seen. Like that quote earlier in the thread about Slash from Canter illustrates

Adler to me, is a classic addict. Addicts will tell others, and themselves, ANYTHING to avoid facing the truth about their addictions. They get very good at spinning things, inventing new narratives, etc. I think this skill, that addicts develop, probably shows up in other areas as well; like for instance, verbalizing stories to the person writing your auto-bio.

But really, it's best not to take any of these books as 'truth'. Obviously. Everyone is going to remember things differently, even if they are all trying to be objective. That's how history works.

A great example of this, and one that is not at all far removed from GNR, is the book "Everybody Loves our Town", which is about the grunge scene. The 'author', went around and interviewd people involved in the scene, then compiled the quotes so that it reads like a chronological recounting. So, you'll have three different people recalling a fight that Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love had, and all three remember things very differently, and these people where THERE, IN THE ROOM!

[31illusions]

No. Slash's book was better written, more in depth about his personal life. Duff's book was written for the layman. It was almost boring. I never even finished it.

Edited December 29, 2013 by 31illusions

[Mr. Dude]

i voted 'no'. slash's book is as honest as duff's and steven's. all of them have pretty much the same version of the events concerning guns n'roses.

I don't find that true at all. One thing that stood out to me in reading their books are the sometimes strikingly different stories they have to tell regarding the same events. Take those Stones shows for example:

Duff felt that was the nail in the coffin, the beginning of the end for GNR. He felt Axl betrayed the band by calling them out for the drug use. He also said that those shows were pretty bad.

Slash on the other hand, said that he understood where Axl was coming from. He seems to think he was justified in saying what he said and he infers that it was a wake-up call of sorts for the band. He says the first couple shows were really bad, and the last few were okay.

Meanwhile, Steven acts as if Axl had absolutely no reason to say anything at all. He also acts as if their performance went off without a hitch and implies that they were amongst the best they'd ever played.

I know that's just one example, but I feel like there are several similar scenarios. The Farm Aid deal was another thing that they all seemed to have quite different perspectives on.

[Rustycage]

How is that an example? Those are just different opinions.

[Mr. Dude]

I'd expect something more like Mein GNR.

That's hilarious

How is that an example? Those are just different opinions.

Well, of course those are just different opinions. I guess that's what I"m saying, obviously all 3 books are primarily comprised of opinion- their individual perspectives...but even basic things about how/when/where they came together in the beginning differ to an extent.

I'd agree that Duff's is the most honest though. I'm not saying that Slash or Steven's accounts are necessarily dishonest though. I think Steven has trouble accepting personal responsibility and is somewhat dishonest with himself and that sometimes makes for a very different interpretation of events and circumstances. I feel like Slash divulges finer details than the other guys (especially about the writing and recording), but I also get the impression that he's holding back at times too. Overall, I think Duff is the least biased, most honest- with both himself and the reader.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Mr. Dude

[Stro]

Slash's felt like there was a lot of publicist talk in there.

[classicrawker]

Slash kept journals back then which is why he was able to remember events. In his book he noted that one was stolen which is why there is a gap in time in his story...............

[Mr. Dude]

Slash kept journals back then which is why he was able to remember events. In his book he noted that one was stolen which is why there is a gap in time in his story...............

I think he said he kept planners that he referred to and I do remember he said one was stolen.

[Nosaj Thing]

I'd expect something more like Mein GNR.

:rofl-lol:

"Only Available at BestBuy"

[Mr. Dude]

Yeah that's funny shit right there. Perfect picture for the cover too.

[Apollo]

I think most people's opinions on who is more biased will depend on the typical slash-vs-axl debate.

Those who worship Axl and hate Slash will think that Slash's book is terrible.

My guess would be that all three books are the author's authentic memory of what happened.

[Modano09]

How come neither Slash or Duff go into the vivid details of how the GNR name was stolen from them? You'd think such a major event would be detailed more than "a guy from the label on Axl's behalf made us sign something and we either didn't know what we were signing or we reluctantly signed it or Axl would cancel the tour". It felt like they were trying to stick to the same old story without giving any details or names that could contradict or sue for liable.

As for the books, I like Duff's. He does come off better. He comes off like a guy who just wanted everyone to get along. He'll say he was an addict and when he was an addict he did the typical dishonest irresponsible things addicts do...he admits that they all had issues that contributed to the end of GNR, while Slash's is more "I may have been drunk or high most of the time but it's no biggie because Axl's just crazy".

[wasted]

Overall I just think they had different lifestyles. Axl never seemed to get walking dead. But probably he couldnt. But if he did hed be late. Axl couldnt sing or perform in the state Slash and Duff were.

Neither really addressed if being that fucked was how GNR was meant to be. Izzy got sober and thought fuck touring. Once they sobered up both s and d left pretty soon after. Although Slash was still rolling with Snakepit.

Makes me wonder what Axl was doing. How was he getting through all that touring. Was he just pampered and spoiled.

For Axl nothing really changed? Axl seems to have more ambitions for the band. Axl always said this is what I wanted. No guilt. Not much problems being famous. Whereas the other guys hid behind booze and drugs, trying to be humble. Axl turns up in a limo with fur coat on and cigerette holder then spends 100k on a party he doesnt attend.

They just needed to slow down a bit. But Slash and Duff seemed hell bent on the road. They couldnt function in normal life.

Even if they didnt quit they would have eventually have to take a break.

It seems like Slash and Duff see their lifestyle as separate from the name thing. Which makes sense, that's what GNR was, they were a fucked up rock n roll band. So to them it should have ended when they left. That was them imploding and going out on top. Whereas maybe Axl saw it as his band and they self destructed. Why should he throw it all away after all that work and luck.

Edited December 30, 2013 by wasted

[niceguy]

Curious: what part of Slash's agenda is where he wrote, over and over, that his book is strictly his side of the story and that Axl's view is just as valid?

Or, how about the part where he praises Axl as an incredible artist?

Seriously, what part of the agenda is that? To say "this is my side of things, and the other person has his side, and his side is just as valid as mine." How does that fit into being biased?

I'm genuinely curious. Perhaps my sense of logic is warped. Please teach me how to think critically. Should Slash say "Axl is full of shit"? Would THAT be a good way to be non-biased? Please help me learn.

[Rovim]

Curious: what part of Slash's agenda is where he wrote, over and over, that his book is strictly his side of the story and that Axl's view is just as valid?

Or, how about the part where he praises Axl as an incredible artist?

Seriously, what part of the agenda is that? To say "this is my side of things, and the other person has his side, and his side is just as valid as mine." How does that fit into being biased?

I'm genuinely curious. Perhaps my sense of logic is warped. Please teach me how to think critically. Should Slash say "Axl is full of shit"? Would THAT be a good way to be non-biased? Please help me learn.

Well some could say it was just a way to leave the door open for a reunion or future collaboration (like in 2001 when Axl wanted Slash to play on 3 songs for Chinese)

I don't know if I believe that personally, but I wonder if the book had come out after the rock n' roll hall of fame thing, it would have been a different story (pun not intended)

[Mr. Dude]

Curious: what part of Slash's agenda is where he wrote, over and over, that his book is strictly his side of the story and that Axl's view is just as valid?

Or, how about the part where he praises Axl as an incredible artist?

Seriously, what part of the agenda is that? To say "this is my side of things, and the other person has his side, and his side is just as valid as mine." How does that fit into being biased?

I'm genuinely curious. Perhaps my sense of logic is warped. Please teach me how to think critically. Should Slash say "Axl is full of shit"? Would THAT be a good way to be non-biased? Please help me learn.

hey man, he didn't mean nothing by it. He was just kidding around. C'mon now, we don't want no trouble. Here let me get ya a drink. This one's on the house. He was just leaving anyway...

[wasted]

It seems like the only bone they have with Axl is the name, that he carried on without them. Nobody is saying Axl is talentless. But they do skip the part where they didn't want to do Nov Rain or if their lifestyles ever negatively effected the band. Like dougie used to have to kidnap Slash to get him to go to rehab. They acknowledge they might have died but not how that would impact on Axl's psyche from day to day. The only way to understand that is to say well this is GNR that's how it was meant to be. Like Izzy left when he sobered up. To them maybe a sober rock n roll band isn't really a rock n roll band, it's all live fast die fast. There's something where Adler says he was talking to Slash how they could have been the Stones but blew it.

[Modano09]

Overall I just think they had different lifestyles. Axl never seemed to get walking dead. But probably he couldnt. But if he did hed be late. Axl couldnt sing or perform in the state Slash and Duff were.

Neither really addressed if being that fucked was how GNR was meant to be. Izzy got sober and thought fuck touring. Once they sobered up both s and d left pretty soon after. Although Slash was still rolling with Snakepit.

Makes me wonder what Axl was doing. How was he getting through all that touring. Was he just pampered and spoiled.

For Axl nothing really changed? Axl seems to have more ambitions for the band. Axl always said this is what I wanted. No guilt. Not much problems being famous. Whereas the other guys hid behind booze and drugs, trying to be humble. Axl turns up in a limo with fur coat on and cigerette holder then spends 100k on a party he doesnt attend.

They just needed to slow down a bit. But Slash and Duff seemed hell bent on the road. They couldnt function in normal life.

Even if they didnt quit they would have eventually have to take a break.

It seems like Slash and Duff see their lifestyle as separate from the name thing. Which makes sense, that's what GNR was, they were a fucked up rock n roll band. So to them it should have ended when they left. That was them imploding and going out on top. Whereas maybe Axl saw it as his band and they self destructed. Why should he throw it all away after all that work and luck.

Axl struck me as a guy who had a terrible upbringing, who came from nothing, and had the desire and fire to make it one way or another - and when he did, he went from nothing to everything and wanted to take advantage of the things in life he now suddenly had. It was about making a better life for himself - and that's probably why he'd insist on lavish parties, helicopter tours, psychic advisers, etc...but that much money and that level of fame can be problematic for someone with the issues he had/has. It might be why he's spent so much time trying to heal himself, one way or another.

While Steven/Duff/Slash just wanted to keep making music and getting stoned and the fame/money just lead to more drugs and more enablers.

[DangerousCurves]

While Steven/Duff/Slash just wanted to keep making music and getting stoned and the fame/money just lead to more drugs and more enablers.

Not to jump on either side but Axl is notorious for surrounding himself with "yes" men. This is also a form of enabling.

[Cosmo]

I'd expect something more like Mein GNR.

LOOLLL

[wasted]

Overall I just think they had different lifestyles. Axl never seemed to get walking dead. But probably he couldnt. But if he did hed be late. Axl couldnt sing or perform in the state Slash and Duff were.

Neither really addressed if being that fucked was how GNR was meant to be. Izzy got sober and thought fuck touring. Once they sobered up both s and d left pretty soon after. Although Slash was still rolling with Snakepit.

Makes me wonder what Axl was doing. How was he getting through all that touring. Was he just pampered and spoiled.

For Axl nothing really changed? Axl seems to have more ambitions for the band. Axl always said this is what I wanted. No guilt. Not much problems being famous. Whereas the other guys hid behind booze and drugs, trying to be humble. Axl turns up in a limo with fur coat on and cigerette holder then spends 100k on a party he doesnt attend.

They just needed to slow down a bit. But Slash and Duff seemed hell bent on the road. They couldnt function in normal life.

Even if they didnt quit they would have eventually have to take a break.

It seems like Slash and Duff see their lifestyle as separate from the name thing. Which makes sense, that's what GNR was, they were a fucked up rock n roll band. So to them it should have ended when they left. That was them imploding and going out on top. Whereas maybe Axl saw it as his band and they self destructed. Why should he throw it all away after all that work and luck.

Axl struck me as a guy who had a terrible upbringing, who came from nothing, and had the desire and fire to make it one way or another - and when he did, he went from nothing to everything and wanted to take advantage of the things in life he now suddenly had. It was about making a better life for himself - and that's probably why he'd insist on lavish parties, helicopter tours, psychic advisers, etc...but that much money and that level of fame can be problematic for someone with the issues he had/has. It might be why he's spent so much time trying to heal himself, one way or another.

While Steven/Duff/Slash just wanted to keep making music and getting stoned and the fame/money just lead to more drugs and more enablers.

Axl's also seemed to take credit for the work and talent they put into the success, whether that was AFD or the shows. Whereas the other guys were like it was a fluke, but thanks for the booze. Axl seemed like that's why he wanted, be in a huge band, be famous and be Jagger or Mercury or Elton, to become one of the immortals. The other guys were trying to be punk rock swimming in pools of champagne. But they never seemed to go as sordid as the Crue so you wonder how much fun were they having really.

It seemed like once they made it, Axl was like we did it, let's just hold on a bit, but the others were hell bent on going at it again, solo tours or get another GNR album out and tour again. Slash is a warrior. Axl may have thought they'd done enough, they didn't need to go out and kill themselves anymore in the same way.

Axl didn't want to do the live fast, die fast thing anymore. But the others couldn't get into it much. Slash judging by Snakepit just wanted to rock on. A bit sloppy, but that's cool when you're a rich rock star. Duff seemed more open to Axl's more serious direction.

I can sort of see why Axl didn't want to become a cartoon character. Slash is more laid-back and that ACDC Kiss type thing he could do easily. But all Axl has is the vision and expressing through the music. I can't really see Axl doing Love in an Elevator or Don't Want to Miss a Thing just to have hits.

Edited December 31, 2013 by wasted

[DieselDaisy]

Duff's book is a different sort of book than Slash's. It is not really a typical chronological 'music bio'; it is not really a book about Guns N' Roses - GN'R are the least interesting thing in there. Duff's book is about, the descent into, and recovery from, addiction.

[ShirleyRocks]

Duff's book is a different sort of book than Slash's. It is not really a typical chronological 'music bio'; it is not really a book about Guns N' Roses - GN'R are the least interesting thing in there. Duff's book is about, the descent into, and recovery from, addiction.

This, and something else really jumped out at me when I read his and Slash's book back to back: one was clearly written by a man who had sons, and another was clearly written by a man who had two daughters. Duff's book even starts out with a story about not knowing how to handle issues with his own young girls. So in that sense, I felt like Slash's book was - maybe honest isn't a better word, but bigger on disclosure. I think Duff held back things he didn't want his kids reading. It's a story about growing up and almost dying. Slash's book is about rock n f'n roll and all the debauchery, drugs and baggage that went with it. I loved it. Duff's is maybe more inspirational, but I had fun reveling in sleaze with Slash's book. They're both very smart guys.

To me Steven's book was really superficial, but that's Steven, and it gave a lot of insight into everything going on.

And after reading this thread, I read "Last Remaining Slut" online. Wow. Crazy, disturbing, sad, but worth reading. I was surprised to find in reviews on Amazon that it's required reading for some courses. It made "I'm with the Band" seem tame, but in so many ways, it is. Anyway, thanks for sharing the link to it.

[DieselDaisy]

I would actually recomend Duff's book to people who, not only do not like GN'R, but people who do not like rock music full stop. So far as it does talk about GN'R, it basically backs up Slash but these a not very interesting. It is the 'life' story that is interesting. It is worlds away from Crue Dirt type stuff. Slash's is more like Crue's but it is also better on the Guns N' Roses-front. Even if you are a full Axl-loving volcano 'slash is a liar' type, the issues and GN'R polemics are there, in that book, and to be debated on, no doubt on boards like this - it is fuel for gnr debate in otherwords. The only criticisms I have ever heard of Duff's are, that it is lacking on Guns N' Roses stuff, so I would recomend Slash's first if this is what you are require. Adler's is an even sleazier and less interesting version of Slash's. I liked it but it was heavily ghosted (and there was a bit of a controversy about this, concerning a guy - the ghost - who was ripped off).

So I would recomend them all. Duff's first if you want a wonderfully literary life-confirming 'life story', Slash's for GN'R-information and sleaze. Then pick of Stevies. Isn't Matt meant to be writing one? Hopefully we get Matt's and possibly Gilby's and complete the set as I can not see us ever getting Axl or Izzy's.

PS

One thing Duff's provided in regards to gnr was the whole, partnership agreement 'in Barcelona 1993 under duress'' thing. I am not going to bring up that can of worms again but it was further fuel for the fire I supose. Also Adler's book did have at least one new anecdote about using firecrackers for the faux live track on LLAS; I had not previously heard that anecdote before (I have read millions of interviews) and have no reason to suspect its fabrication.

Edited December 31, 2013 by DieselDaisy