China Exchange: 60 Minutes with Axl Rose

[Jordan Rose]

41 minutes ago, The Archer said:

There is almost universal consensus that Axl has stepped up and done a phenomenal job - barring a few hold outs who insist that he sounds terrible.  This does not mean automatic or majority acceptance of Axl as the new frontman course. There are some very vocal Axl haters, though they are a minority (similar to the Axl/DC haters on here); these include people who claim to be GN'R fans who prefer to see him singing him only in GN'R, but also some people who just hate the very sight of Axl - and go on and on about his clothes, how he talks between shoes, his previous history (the St. Louis incident is a big favorite and it is a commonly shared video, with some people praying for Axl to repeat it, so that he can get fired by Angus), etc. But since the forum is a meeting place of die-hards, their online polls still show that a majority of people prefer Brian's return. What is interesting though, is that the debate about Axl has been left behind, because of how well he has done on both the Brian and Bon era tracks and how well the band have accepted him and how Angus seems excited - it has turned into a debate about Angus' character, the merits of Brian continuing, Brian's merits a singer in the last few years, and eventually morphed into a fierce debate about the Bon vs Brian eras. The last one in particular is surprising because there had been almost universal acceptance of Brian. But the vociferousness which some of the Brian fans have been tearing down Axl has caused some of those who are calling them out for their dishonesty, to compare Brian to Bon and this has really caused some serious division. There are also many Bon era fans who are really thrilled with Axl singing the deep cuts from the Bon era and that's caused a lot of them to think that the change could be a good thing, if it goes on long term. There are many who believe that if Angus continues with Axl, it should be called the Angus Young project (similar to the calls that we's seen on here for Axl to abandon the Gn'R name). But it does seem that most people are willing to consider an AC/DC fronted by Axl, and some are even entertaining the idea that Axl contributing to lyrics would be a positive thing.

Edit - another significant thing is that one thing that everyone agrees on is that at this point, is that any replacement for Brian other than Axl would be unthinkable. Even the Axl detractors admit that his performances have sealed the deal on that question.

Thanks so much for that, it's really cool to hear. Could you link to any threads/posts where haters have come around on Axl?

On a personal level, i'm not that keen on the idea of Axl doing much more touring with them only because singing like that is going to surely take years off his career and if he does it i'd rather him do it on Twat, Estranged, Atlas, The General etc. 

[Fitha_whiskey]

I finally got the chance to watch this. Very cool of Axl. As everyone else has said, my god that fuckin moderator was an asshole. He wasn't even listening, just always pointing at the next person with that fuckin slack jawed look on his face. 

Cool to hear him say they're getting along great. Bummed to hear "soon is not the word", and that it sounded more likely there will be new Axl/DC material before new GnR...

[Rovim]

19 hours ago, starlight said:

Everyone is to blame for the GNR breakup although it's normal to make mistakes especially when you're young. Slash,Izzy, and also Duff had their weakness and weren't able to deal with a lot of things related to their lives but they were willing to work together as a band in order to function. On the other hand Axl alienated himself ,didn't take part to the rehearsals, was causing riots and wanted to control the band and yet he hasn't admitted his part of responsability in all of this. Slash said in his book that the major problem with Axl was the lack of respect he showed with his behaviour and the distance he put between him and the rest of the band.

Slash said a lot of things in his book. Even if everyone is to blame, which I think to some extent is true, I'm curious to know the details and Axl's full perspective of it. It's interesting to me cause he's the frontman that got blamed for most of it or even all of it by some of the fans and the media and band members as well.

Izzy quitting could have triggered arrogance in the band that could have damaged what Axl was trying to do. (move forward) Slash said he didn't even like playing with Izzy and that Gilby's work on Incident was perfect. Not interested in Seymour weeping or trying to be Pearl Jam. Axl wasn't the only one who wanted to have more control.

But in his book he said he would have done anything Axl wanted. Industrial, whatever. Very different compared to Axl's version and Slash's and Duff's refusal to work on some songs like November Rain and Estranged, and Slash's own material.

Doesn't add up, someone is lying or doesn't remember. This is just one example. Too many holes in the story, Slash lied once about going to Axl's house probably because of his band mates in VR, the media, and the fans.

If he did it once, is it possible he did it before and at least some of what Axl is saying for years is true? an Axl Autobiography could give new insight.

Those who think Slash left Guns with the intention of never coming back are blind, you can sell them anything. That was a power play. How can you have Guns without me? so I'll sign to keep it going but no Gn'R without me. It was a mistake and him running his mouth off on top of it meant 20 years in exile making disposable albums with people that were not Axl Rose. Even if Axl is crazy, Slash should have listened to Keith and could have been more open to shit he didn't really want to do back then. He's doing it now. What a waste of time. Liked some of the material in the vault, it seems like it's still possible for Guns to be Pearl Jam.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Rovim

[Modano09]

8 hours ago, Rovim said:

Slash said a lot of things in his book. Even if everyone is to blame, which I think to some extent is true, I'm curious to know the details and Axl's full perspective of it. It's interesting to me cause he's the frontman that got blamed for most of it or even all of it by some of the fans and the media and band members as well.

Izzy quitting could have triggered arrogance in the band that could have damaged what Axl was trying to do. (move forward) Slash said he didn't even like playing with Izzy and that Gilby's work on Incident was perfect. Not interested in Seymour weeping or trying to be Pearl Jam. Axl wasn't the only one who wanted to have more control.

But in his book he said he would have done anything Axl wanted. Industrial, whatever. Very different compared to Axl's version and Slash's and Duff's refusal to work on some songs like November Rain and Estranged, and Slash's own material.

Doesn't add up, someone is lying or doesn't remember. This is just one example. Too many holes in the story, Slash lied once about going to Axl's house probably because of his band mates in VR, the media, and the fans.

If he did it once, is it possible he did it before and at least some of what Axl is saying for years is true? an Axl Autobiography could give new insight.

Those who think Slash left Guns with the intention of never coming back are blind, you can sell them anything. That was a power play. How can you have Guns without me? so I'll sign to keep it going but no Gn'R without me. It was a mistake and him running his mouth off on top of it meant 20 years in exile making disposable albums with people that were not Axl Rose. Even if Axl is crazy, Slash should have listened to Keith and could have been more open to shit he didn't really want to do back then. He's doing it now. What a waste of time. Liked some of the material in the vault, it seems like it's still possible for Guns to be Pearl Jam.

This is only one example, but for years, the story coming from Slash and Duff was that Axl threatened not to go on stage/tour if they didn't give him control of the GNR name, so, for the good of the fans, they let Axl blackmail them out of the name and were then pushed out of the band once he had control. That was the accepted truth for years and Axl didn't comment to give his side of the story. Then, when he does, it's a short, logical explanation that pretty much discredited what Slash and Duff were saying for years. Again, only one example, but there's definitely a perception that Axl's the bad guy based on 20 years of Slash saying so, which might not be entirely true.

 

 

[Rovim]

34 minutes ago, Modano09 said:

This is only one example, but for years, the story coming from Slash and Duff was that Axl threatened not to go on stage/tour if they didn't give him control of the GNR name, so, for the good of the fans, they let Axl blackmail them out of the name and were then pushed out of the band once he had control. That was the accepted truth for years and Axl didn't comment to give his side of the story. Then, when he does, it's a short, logical explanation that pretty much discredited what Slash and Duff were saying for years. Again, only one example, but there's definitely a perception that Axl's the bad guy based on 20 years of Slash saying so, which might not be entirely true.

 

 

But such a thing wouldn't hold if it happened under duress. Axl said it never happened:

Q: We learnt in the press, that you asked the former members to sign a paper giving up the rights to the GUNS N' ROSES name and threatening not to go on stage unless they co-operated. Bullshit?

Axl: "So let's start here… the whole 'Axl wouldn't go on stage' yada yada… is complete and utter crap. Never happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case, I would've have been cremated years ago legally, could've cleaned me out for the name and damages. It's called under duress with extenuating circumstances. In fact, the time that was mentioned, the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler [original GUNS N' ROSES drummer Steven Adler] depositions.

 

[Babooshka]

20 minutes ago, Modano09 said:

 Again, only one example, but there's definitely a perception that Axl's the bad guy based on 20 years of Slash saying so, which might not be entirely true.

 

Not based on Axl's own actions? Not based on him actually breaking the band up? Not based on what he did during those 20 years?  Always someone else's fault yeah?

I don't think he did discredit Axl and Duff, iirc he just claimed that it didn't happen. 

Idk, on the one hand the way you guys give Slash so much power is kind of a backhanded compliment, but on the hand he really has become a scapegoat for everything that went wrong with Axl and his "vision".

[Modano09]

Just now, Babooshka said:

Not based on Axl's own actions? Not based on him actually breaking the band up? Not based on what he did during those 20 years?  Always someone else's fault yeah?

I don't think he did discredit Axl and Duff, iirc he just claimed that it didn't happen. 

Idk, on the one hand the way you guys give Slash so much power is kind of a backhanded compliment, but on the hand he really has become a scapegoat for everything that went wrong with Axl and his "vision".

Did he break up the band? Slash left. Duff left. If there are musical differences between Axl and Slash, Axl's to compromise or else he's the bad guy? How come nobody's saying Slash should have shut up and done an Axl album?

Slash and Duff, for years and years, claimed Axl blackmailed them into signing over the name. Axl pointed out how legally, that could never have happened. That doesn't discredit their story? There's also the fact they both wrote books and weren't nearly as descriptive of the situation as you'd expect them to be. 

[dalsh327]

20 minutes ago, Rovim said:

But such a thing wouldn't hold if it happened under duress. Axl said it never happened:

Q: We learnt in the press, that you asked the former members to sign a paper giving up the rights to the GUNS N' ROSES name and threatening not to go on stage unless they co-operated. Bullshit?

Axl: "So let's start here… the whole 'Axl wouldn't go on stage' yada yada… is complete and utter crap. Never happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case, I would've have been cremated years ago legally, could've cleaned me out for the name and damages. It's called under duress with extenuating circumstances. In fact, the time that was mentioned, the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler [original GUNS N' ROSES drummer Steven Adler] depositions.

 

The "no Slash t-shirts at a GNR concert" is another one that no one wanted to own up to. Del or Fernando would probably own up to it now. 

[Rovim]

2 hours ago, Modano09 said:

Did he break up the band? Slash left. Duff left. If there are musical differences between Axl and Slash, Axl's to compromise or else he's the bad guy? How come nobody's saying Slash should have shut up and done an Axl album?

Slash and Duff, for years and years, claimed Axl blackmailed them into signing over the name. Axl pointed out how legally, that could never have happened. That doesn't discredit their story? There's also the fact they both wrote books and weren't nearly as descriptive of the situation as you'd expect them to be. 

Maybe when Axl and Slash disagreed on what the next Guns album should be musically, Slash didn't want to go the Queen/Axl influences route and thought a solo album could be the answer to kinda skip the problem. He didn't really want to do November Rain and Estranged, it was already an issue for UYI.

He also didn't want too many changes made to Snakepit if what Axl said about that was true. I guess in Slash's mind it could make sense cause that's his solo album.

It's not as black and white as that of course, cause there was another problem that even when Axl did like some of Slash's ideas (Fall To Pieces ideas for example) Slash wasn't willing to compromise. At that point in time him and Axl were the only ones with that kind of power in the band. I guess it was a power struggle.

I get the sense neither thought it was gonna destroy their musical bond. Axl trying to convince Slash to stay with daily 3 hour phone calls and Slash leaving, but perhaps thinking Axl will get over it given a little time cause Guns can't possibly continue without him and that will force Axl to compromise after Slash's return.

My guess is Slash misjudged Axl and what he was willing to put up with and Axl probably believed it was his responsibility to move forward with Guns so when Izzy left for example, he brought Paul in without getting Slash's consent cause maybe he truly believed that was the right move. Not enough compromise and respect, 2 people with very different personalities, big egos, were still young and musical differences were real imo, no matter what Slash said in his book.

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Rovim

[Modano09]

4 hours ago, dalsh327 said:

The "no Slash t-shirts at a GNR concert" is another one that no one wanted to own up to. Del or Fernando would probably own up to it now. 

I don't doubt that happened. I don't know if Axl ordered it or his people were just trying not to upset him, but he's an emotional guy and Slash leaving hurt him, whoever is at fault.

[dalsh327]

4 hours ago, Rovim said:

Maybe when Axl and Slash disagreed on what the next Guns album should be musically, Slash didn't want to go the Queen/Axl influences route and thought a solo album could be the answer to kinda skip the problem. He didn't really want to do November Rain and Estranged, it was already an issue for UYI.

He also didn't want too many changes made to Snakepit if what Axl said about that was true. I guess in Slash's mind it could make sense cause that's his solo album.

It's not as black and white as that of course, cause there was another problem that even when Axl did like some of Slash's ideas (Fall To Pieces ideas for example) Slash wasn't willing to compromise. At that point in time him and Axl were the only ones with that kind of power in the band. I guess it was a power struggle.

I get the sense neither thought it was gonna destroy their musical bond. Axl trying to convince Slash to stay with daily 3 hour phone calls and Slash leaving, but perhaps thinking Axl will get over it given a little time cause Guns can't possibly continue without him and that will force Axl to compromise after Slash's return.

My guess is Slash misjudged Axl and what he was willing to put up with and Axl probably believed it was his responsibility to move forward with Guns so when Izzy left for example, he brought Paul in without getting Slash's consent cause maybe he truly believed that was the right move. Not enough compromise and respect, 2 people with very different personalities, big egos, were still young and musical differences were real imo, no matter what Slash said in his book.

 

George Harrison packing the guitar up and going "see ya around the clubs"  was how it was when Slash quit GNR. You're also talking about a band that had just toured for almost 3 years and probably sick of each other. 

 

[sanity_lost]

Some days I hate my personality.  I listened to the Q&A again and was planning on doing a brief summary and time stamps of what was said so I could quickly find the spot on the video when people referenced it. I got tired of skipping through the video for fifteen minutes each time I tried to find a quote. What actually ended up happening was the irritating detailed oriented completionist in me wouldn't stand for such a sloppy reference and now I have a word for word transcript of the Q&A (sans many filler words, some stuttering, and some areas I could not decipher, but including everything else).

Kill me now. Writing a transcript of a 50 min video of questionable sound quality and mumbling takes up more time than you would think.

[oaka]

4 minutes ago, sanity_lost said:

Some days I hate my personality.  I listened to the Q&A again and was planning on doing a brief summary and time stamps of what was said so I could quickly find the spot on the video when people referenced it. I got tired of skipping through the video for fifteen minutes each time I tried to find a quote. What actually ended up happening was the irritating detailed oriented completionist in me wouldn't stand for such a sloppy reference and now I have a word for word transcript of the Q&A (sans many filler words, some stuttering, and some areas I could not decipher, but including everything else).

Kill me now. Writing a transcript of a 50 min video of questionable sound quality and mumbling takes up more time than you would think.

Can you post the transcript? 

Kudos for taking the time to do it!

[sanity_lost]

1 minute ago, oaka said:

Can you post the transcript? 

Kudos for taking the time to do it!

 

Err... how many words go in to the comment box? I wonder what kind of chunks I will have to break it up into. It is about 7600 words (a little over, I think).

@RussTCB could you help me with the answer to this?

[killuridols]

27 minutes ago, sanity_lost said:

Some days I hate my personality.  I listened to the Q&A again and was planning on doing a brief summary and time stamps of what was said so I could quickly find the spot on the video when people referenced it. I got tired of skipping through the video for fifteen minutes each time I tried to find a quote. What actually ended up happening was the irritating detailed oriented completionist in me wouldn't stand for such a sloppy reference and now I have a word for word transcript of the Q&A (sans many filler words, some stuttering, and some areas I could not decipher, but including everything else).

Kill me now. Writing a transcript of a 50 min video of questionable sound quality and mumbling takes up more time than you would think.

Please post it!!!!!!!

Make a new thread and as many necessary replies to it as you need!

[andy_rose]

Or make a google doc and post the link.

[Apollo]

On June 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Modano09 said:

Did he break up the band? Slash left. Duff left. If there are musical differences between Axl and Slash, Axl's to compromise or else he's the bad guy? How come nobody's saying Slash should have shut up and done an Axl album?

Slash and Duff, for years and years, claimed Axl blackmailed them into signing over the name. Axl pointed out how legally, that could never have happened. That doesn't discredit their story? There's also the fact they both wrote books and weren't nearly as descriptive of the situation as you'd expect them to be. 

Really?

Axl didn't prove legally that it couldn't have happened. 

You need to stop taking Axl's word as gospel. 

What Axl said was IF he did that then they COULD have sued him and won. 

Slash, Duff and Izzy all got tired of being in Axl's band and quit. Axl loved suing people. Slash/Duff aren't that type of people. 

Rather than spending millions on lawyers and having a nasty court case, Slash and Duff chose to walk away from the drama. 

If they would have taken Axl to court would they have won? Maybe. Probably. 

And then what? Spend the next decade fighting Axl in court and none of them being able to use the GnR name? Have two different versions of GnR touring? 

Also, Slash and Duff were in the doles of their addictions. You think they were thinking about the legal aspects of what band members were saying?

The way some people take Axl's every word as gospel and discredit what EVERY OTHER person in the world says is really amazing. 

Gnr has been a revolving door of band members, with only one constant: Axl. 

Everybody that leaves GnR ends up releasing multiple - if not numerous albums - except one GnR member. Axl. 

But hey. People on here are actually bashing Izzy for releasing a song yesterday. Meanwhile Axl has released one album on the last 25 years. How dare Izzy use his GnR background for publicity. The last thing we want is music from anybody associated with GnR. 

[Modano09]

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

Really?

Axl didn't prove legally that it couldn't have happened. 

You need to stop taking Axl's word as gospel. 

What Axl said was IF he did that then they COULD have sued him and won. 

Slash, Duff and Izzy all got tired of being in Axl's band and quit. Axl loved suing people. Slash/Duff aren't that type of people. 

Rather than spending millions on lawyers and having a nasty court case, Slash and Duff chose to walk away from the drama. 

If they would have taken Axl to court would they have won? Maybe. Probably. 

And then what? Spend the next decade fighting Axl in court and none of them being able to use the GnR name? Have two different versions of GnR touring? 

Also, Slash and Duff were in the doles of their addictions. You think they were thinking about the legal aspects of what band members were saying?

The way some people take Axl's every word as gospel and discredit what EVERY OTHER person in the world says is really amazing. 

Gnr has been a revolving door of band members, with only one constant: Axl. 

Everybody that leaves GnR ends up releasing multiple - if not numerous albums - except one GnR member. Axl. 

But hey. People on here are actually bashing Izzy for releasing a song yesterday. Meanwhile Axl has released one album on the last 25 years. How dare Izzy use his GnR background for publicity. The last thing we want is music from anybody associated with GnR. 

Slash and Duff had the legal option to retain the rights to the GNR name and the financial benefits that come with it, but just decided not to pursue it because they're not those type of people?  Now that's naive. 

There's also this

http://www.mtv.com/news/1508091/slash-duff-sue-axl-over-guns-n-roses-publishing-royalties/