What happened to Steven Adler?

[Modano09]

4 hours ago, double talkin jive mfkr said:

no the whole thing is fucked up and fragmented - bottom line 91-93 GNR doesn't succeed as it had until NITL all based on izzy's huge 1/5 involvement and primary songwriting credit to boot and you have the entire failure years of GNR from 94-2015 all because of axl 

gonna say sorum is being quite neglected to say the least as well 

But, the fact that Izzy sold his share and washed his hands of it all, while the other 3 didn't, is a significant, relevant fact, whether we all like it or not. A lot of people dismiss it like it doesn't matter but it does matter.  

I'd like for Izzy to be there. Adler I could do without, Sorum I'd like. But if Izzy's hold-up was he wanted as much money as Axl/Duff/Slash, I don't agree with him. 

[Tadsy]

5 hours ago, Modano09 said:

If Axl were honest in that interview, his answer would be something like "Steven's unreliable and can be obnoxious if you have to see him every day, so we felt it was best to limit him to guest appearances and Izzy wanted to make equal money to us despite being bought out and washing his hands of the band's business 25 years ago, which he didn't think was fair." 

 

And my respect for that answer would be so high. 

We, as fans might argue over the answers merits, but at least we'd get Axl's real answer.

[craiggunslover]

On 23/08/2017 at 3:19 PM, IncitingChaos said:

5:25 Izzy looks way cooler than Fortus

Fortus looks like an emo kid while izzy is stones coolooking miles ahead of lame fortus

[paranoyd androyd]

On 8/23/2017 at 4:00 AM, rudolf1978 said:

What happened to Steven Adler?

Bill Bailey.

 

[Gnrcane]

2 hours ago, tremolo said:

Why wouldn't you agree with that?

I mean, the important points to consider if Izzy was involved have nothing to do with the past and all to do with what would be the present:

 

Izzy being involved would have meant an incarnation of the band closer to the original lineup reunion, which is what fans really want.

For promotional/marketing/money-making purposes, Izzy's involvement would play a positive role for the band. Izzy being a part of the band would bring in more cash than just having A+D+S. Why wouldn't he be entitled to a fair amount of money, considering that his presence and performance bring more revenue?

 

Hey, we'll make $X extra per show thanks to you being on stage, but you'll only get $X/30 because you know... you bailed 20-something years ago! I know, we'll be rocking the same setlist full of songs that you wrote or helped write because well... we don't have much else to play, but still, I AM GNR and my employees D and S agree with me, therefore I'm right cause I am a fair person and never lie. I am the definition and represent the highest standard for integrity.

It just doesn't make sense. The only way to justify this BS is greed, Axl's constant state of fear (remember, everyone is out to get him) and his clinical obsession of doing anything (no matter how fucked up) to have and keep the upper hand at all costs.

 

Hurray for integrity!

I truly wonder how much extra revenue Izzy would be worth to a tour.  He'd probably add huge value to new music but most people wouldn't know what he added, it would just be better because he was involved in writing it.  For the tour, I'd be surprised if even 10% of casual fans could name another member (current or former) outside of Axl and Slash.  Gilby has said in interviews that people would think he was Izzy when he first joined the band.  At that time, Izzy leaving was big news in the music press.

If Izzy was on the NITL tour, I'd be surprised if more than 100 additional people would have bought tickets to each show.  It is just really die hard purists.  Believe me, if there was huge revenue potential there, Live Nation would have pushed hard to get a deal done.

[Modano09]

3 hours ago, tremolo said:

Why wouldn't you agree with that?

I mean, the important points to consider if Izzy was involved have nothing to do with the past and all to do with what would be the present:

 

Izzy being involved would have meant an incarnation of the band closer to the original lineup reunion, which is what fans really want.

For promotional/marketing/money-making purposes, Izzy's involvement would play a positive role for the band. Izzy being a part of the band would bring in more cash than just having A+D+S. Why wouldn't he be entitled to a fair amount of money, considering that his presence and performance bring more revenue?

 

Hey, we'll make $X extra per show thanks to you being on stage, but you'll only get $X/30 because you know... you bailed 20-something years ago! I know, we'll be rocking the same setlist full of songs that you wrote or helped write because well... we don't have much else to play, but still, I AM GNR and my employees D and S agree with me, therefore I'm right cause I am a fair person and never lie. I am the definition and represent the highest standard for integrity.

It just doesn't make sense. The only way to justify this BS is greed, Axl's constant state of fear (remember, everyone is out to get him) and his clinical obsession of doing anything (no matter how fucked up) to have and keep the upper hand at all costs.

 

Hurray for integrity!

It's not simply that he bailed 25 years ago, it's that when he bailed he was bought out. The band paid him, I assume, a large sum of money for his percentage and he washed his hands of it entirely. Meanwhile, Axl/Duff/Slash had an active interest in the management of the band. Why wouldn't they feel entitled to more than someone who didn't? And why is Izzy supposed to be able to profit from selling something and then profit like he stills owns it?

[Tom-Ass]

13 hours ago, GoForJMark said:

Yeah and he played in Slash's solo album back in 2010. Seems pretty solid and I think he would fit well with Slash and Duff. 

Yeah I must have forgot who played drums on that album until someone mentioned it in this thread  Ghost came on my shuffle yesterday and he sounded good with Slash and Izzy. I have never heard him on any Gn'R tracks but he has to be better than Frank. He has worked with both Slash and Axl.. Fuck it, Add him to the list.

[Pishy]

2 minutes ago, tremolo said:

Because -again- we're not talking about what happened 25 years ago. We're talking about what it would mean today for the fans to have a tour with Izzy and Steven.

 

I'm glad it didn't pan out. I'm glad Izzy didn't compromise. He is by far the one GNR (former) member I respect the most, and considering the atrocious performances that Axl has been delivering this year, the whole $1,000 t-shirts bs, and the ridiculous ticket prices that put the true fans in a shitty position, it's good that Izzy is not part of it, no matter how much money he is not making. Let the holy trinity be the corporate rock whores they are, they're great at it.

It would be great to see the original 5, but for the right reasons, and all of them giving 100%. Anything less than that doesn't deserve much love.

When is the like button returning? 

[Pishy]

19 hours ago, double talkin jive mfkr said:

i dont think anyone has described it so well - the interviewer's mistakes in his questions created that weird vibe that told the entire truth through the non-verbal!!! 

 

Very true about the scared/restrained or just silly interviewer.  The whole thing came off so bad for axl & duff, duff is not the "nice guy" he markets himself to be and clearly ol Axl is not this honest man of integrity that he tries to convince people he is. The whole thing tainted GnR, the emperor has no clothes...well he has some to sell if you have 5G, lol

[Modano09]

22 minutes ago, tremolo said:

Because -again- we're not talking about what happened 25 years ago. We're talking about what it would mean today for the fans to have a tour with Izzy and Steven.

 

I'm glad it didn't pan out. I'm glad Izzy didn't compromise. He is by far the one GNR (former) member I respect the most, and considering the atrocious performances that Axl has been delivering this year, the whole $1,000 t-shirts bs, and the ridiculous ticket prices that put the true fans in a shitty position, it's good that Izzy is not part of it, no matter how much money he is not making. Let the holy trinity be the corporate rock whores they are, they're great at it.

It would be great to see the original 5, but for the right reasons, and all of them giving 100%. Anything less than that doesn't deserve much love.

But we are talking about what happened 25 years ago. Because decisions that were made 25 years are have a direct impact on Izzy's standing in the band today. 

If Izzy didn't sell his share 25 years ago, he'd own 25% of the band and he'd have a claim to the "equal loot" he wanted. But he did - so he doesn't. He already got his "loot". 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Modano09

[DieselDaisy]

You know what, Modano? You're probably right. You are correct about ''percentages'' and ''shares'' but all that does is betray the fact that this is not a genuine band but a business arrangement and a brand.

 

[baileyredrose]

2 hours ago, Modano09 said:

But we are talking about what happened 25 years ago. Because decisions that were made 25 years are have a direct impact on Izzy's standing in the band today. 

If Izzy didn't sell his share 25 years ago, he'd own 25% of the band and he'd have a claim to the "equal loot" he wanted. But he did - so he doesn't. He already got his "loot". 

what are you talking about? Izzy sell his share?? I don't remember this fact..

[soon]

7 minutes ago, baileyredrose said:

what are you talking about? Izzy sell his share?? I don't remember this fact..

Im always a little bit mistaken on this kinda trivia, but I believe he negotiated a very handsome exit to sell his shares.  I believe he was paid his full share until 1997.  As far as I gather, that would mean he was paid for the UYI tour.  

Irc he wanted to sell shares because he was paranoid about lawsuits against GNR and wanted a clean financial break.  

Edited August 25, 2017 by soon

[baileyredrose]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Im always a little bit mistaken on this kinda trivia, but I believe he negotiated a very handsome exit to sell his shares.  I believe he was paid his full share until 1997.  As far as I gather, that would mean he was paid for the UYI tour.  

Irc he wanted to sell shares because he was paranoid about lawsuits against GNR and wanted a clean financial break.  

Oh i see.. Thank you!!

[baileyredrose]

1 minute ago, tremolo said:

Exactly this.

But we've known it for a while: GNR is not a band. It was a band for only a few years, until Axl started the whole lawyer / contracts / corporate bullshit, which started while they were touring UYI I believe.

 

GNR is a b(r)and, one with the worst marketing possible, with the worst PR imaginable –in an era where PR is everything and technology is the nost powerful tool for excelling in that department for pretty much anyone–, the worst costumer care. Even as a fucking brand they suck at what they are and what is expected from them.

THIS.

Where the f**k is the like button? 

[Modano09]

2 hours ago, baileyredrose said:

what are you talking about? Izzy sell his share?? I don't remember this fact..

Look it up, it happened. 

[kiwiguns]

2 hours ago, tremolo said:

Exactly this.

But we've known it for a while: GNR is not a band. It was a band for only a few years, until Axl started the whole lawyer / contracts / corporate bullshit, which started while they were touring UYI I believe.

 

GNR is a b(r)and, one with the worst marketing possible, with the worst PR imaginable –in an era where PR is everything and technology is the nost powerful tool for excelling in that department for pretty much anyone–, the worst costumer care. Even as a fucking brand they suck at what they are and what is expected from them.

What is expected from them?.

They don't owe the fans anything.

I paid to see them preform live and they provided me and 60,000 other  people with a 3 hour performance that provided a high level of service to the paying customers in attendance.

Do you think the fans have a right to tell the band members, the shareholders ( the big 3), the bands management and booking agent how they operate and run their business?.

You say they are not good and what they do, but the facts at the band is touring the world selling out shows and seems from the outside as a fan, the guys are having fun playing together and more importantly the relationship between Axl and Slash seems to be a very good one at least a working relationship as I am not privey to thier personal relationship.

These guys ( the big 3) are not in their 20s any more and like most people in life have employment contracts, shareholding arrangements or something in writing to protect themselves and their interests.

They have families and bills and taxes to pay just like the rest of us.

Some fans post as if what they are saying is fact as if they are part of the discussion making and have knowledge of the inworks of the band.

This is a big difference between an opinion and staring facts.

What the big 3 do or what guns n roses does in relation to their business affairs and who they conduct themselves has no effect on you, me or the fans.

Fans expect as some kind of right that the big 3 share all their personal and business affairs , reasons why best members are not in the band etc.

Its not or business to know people..

The only people it effects are the people who are directly involved - the business owners, it shareholders or the people who work for that business.

If business is bad then these people will be the ones effected both financially and personally..

 

 

 

[rocknroll41]

Regarding the Izzy situation:

we also need to keep in mind that the main reason he quit the band and sold his share was because, in 1991, Axl and the management (Goldstein, I think) demoted him and cut his pay. 

With that being said, I agree that if Izzy wanted just as much money as Axl/Slash/Duff for only doing cameos on the NITL tour, then he's in the wrong of that case. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that what Axl and co did to him in 1991 was pretty shitty (unless there's more to that story that we just don't know). 

[Gnrcane]

26 minutes ago, rocknroll41 said:

Regarding the Izzy situation:

we also need to keep in mind that the main reason he quit the band and sold his share was because, in 1991, Axl and the management (Goldstein, I think) demoted him and cut his pay. 

I'd like to see a reliable source on this.  I've seen this stated many times but it makes no sense if you've ever been in a business partnership.  At the time Izzy, Duff, Slash and Axl each had a 25% share.  Assuming that they had the same percentage voting rights (which would be normal in that situation), for Izzy to be demoted and have his pay cut, the other 3 would have to all vote to do it.  Any employment agreements would have been intertwined with the partnership agreement.

[Blackstar]

1 hour ago, rocknroll41 said:

Regarding the Izzy situation:

we also need to keep in mind that the main reason he quit the band and sold his share was because, in 1991, Axl and the management (Goldstein, I think) demoted him and cut his pay. 

There was an attempt for that, but it didn't materialize. From what Izzy has said, towards the end of the first NA leg he was given a contract which would reduce his royalties and he didn't sign it. It seems that it stopped there, because he went to the European leg (he quit after that) and, according to the 1992 document (partnership agreement), he was an equal partner until the day he left.

31 minutes ago, Gnrcane said:

I'd like to see a reliable source on this.  I've seen this stated many times but it makes no sense if you've ever been in a business partnership.  At the time Izzy, Duff, Slash and Axl each had a 25% share.  Assuming that they had the same percentage voting rights (which would be normal in that situation), for Izzy to be demoted and have his pay cut, the other 3 would have to all vote to do it.  Any employment agreements would have been intertwined with the partnership agreement.

Yes, technically it couldn't happen without Slash's and Duff's consent. All we know about this comes from bits in Izzy's interviews. No one else (Axl, Slash, Doug Goldstein etc.) has talked about it.

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Blackstar

[Pishy]

@Blackstar and @Gnrcane Axl, slash and duff did team up to demote Izzy. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Also, by that point, Axl had already coerced them to sign over the GnR name for "safe keeping" by threatening to break up the band and saying he wouldn't perform otherwise.

Axl had previously insisted everyone give him 5 of their 20% and Adler did it to keep the peace and because he was trusting , naive and had an attitude that he just wanted to play, he didn't see what was coming. Slash and duff didn't give up 5%, Adler was the only one and Axl felt it was an incremental victory. 

Izzy doesn't lie nor make up wild tales, for him, the attempt to demote him was what made him walk and it rings very true considering the hired hand role they offered him for the current tour, which he refused, he wants to be an equal member, not more and not less.

I have no idea why so many pretend to not understand this, GnR is a band, not a brand that you just serve with blind loyalty, at least they were. But this conversion to a brand and the corporate conditioning that comes with it, is why no matter what happens , people comply. "Here is a new 'member' a day before the tour",  and brand loyalists exclaim, "we love you Melissa! She is awesome! So funny that Melissa!"

If Axl trotted a donkey in knickers out and announced they will now be singing all songs together as a duet, donkey avatars, photos and servile worship would immediately commence.  

[Modano09]

8 minutes ago, Pishy said:

@Blackstar and @Gnrcane Axl, slash and duff did team up to demote Izzy. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Also, by that point, Axl had already coerced them to sign over the GnR name for "safe keeping" by threatening to break up the band and saying he wouldn't perform otherwise.

Axl had previously insisted everyone give him 5 of their 20% and Adler did it to keep the peace and because he was trusting , naive and had an attitude that he just wanted to play, he didn't see what was coming. Slash and duff didn't give up 5%, Adler was the only one and Axl felt it was an incremental victory. 

Izzy doesn't lie nor make up wild tales, for him, the attempt to demote him was what made him walk and it rings very true considering the hired hand role they offered him for the current tour, which he refused, he wants to be an equal member, not more and not less.

I have no idea why so many pretend to not understand this, GnR is a band, not a brand that you just serve with blind loyalty, at least they were. But this conversion to a brand and the corporate conditioning that comes with it, is why no matter what happens , people comply. "Here is a new 'member' a day before the tour",  and brand loyalists exclaim, "we love you Melissa! She is awesome! So funny that Melissa!"

If Axl trotted a donkey in knickers out and announced they will now be singing all songs together as a duet, donkey avatars, photos and servile worship would immediately commence.  

Izzy wanted out because the whole situation wasn't working for him. He became serious about being sober and was avoiding the rest of the band because of it, and the size, magnitude and drama of GNR just didn't mesh with his personality. Nobody criticizes him for wanting out. But he wanted out. 

[Blackstar]

5 minutes ago, Pishy said:

@Blackstar and @Gnrcane Axl, slash and duff did team up to demote Izzy. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Also, by that point, Axl had already coerced them to sign over the GnR name for "safe keeping" by threatening to break up the band and saying he wouldn't perform otherwise.

Axl had previously insisted everyone give him 5 of their 20% and Adler did it to keep the peace and because he was trusting , naive and had an attitude that he just wanted to play, he didn't see what was coming. Slash and duff didn't give up 5%, Adler was the only one and Axl felt it was an incremental victory.

- The name was signed over to Axl after Izzy left, in 1992 or 1993. The signatures at the end of the contract have 1992 dates, but Duff (and Slash at one point) have said that it happened in Barcelona in 1993; it's possible that this particular clause was typed over the original 1992 document in 1993 and initialed by the partners.

- Steven: That -5% was only for him, and not from his share in the partnership, but from his publishing rights (ie. songwriting credits). Steven had 20% in the partnership as the rest of them and 15% publishing rights. Shortly before he was fired, he had been demoted to an employee (hence he lost his 20% in the partnership and the other 4 had 25% each).

I don't disagree with the rest of your comment.

[Pishy]

@Modano09 that's incorrect, he was 2 years sober when he left and said as much, he explained that was not the reason. I believe what Izzy says because it's not difficult to see who is lying when you consider all the statements and weigh all available information, plus do a little thinking. 

Personslly, I wish I didn't see or know of the current situation, I was completely into just the music, I would have preferred not seeing it all play out again.  For example, I really like Woody Allen and Polanski films, I would have rather not have known one married his adoptive daughter and the other molested a minor.  

[Modano09]

2 minutes ago, Pishy said:

@Modano09 that's incorrect, he was 2 years sober when he left and said as much, he explained that was not the reason. I believe what Izzy says because it's not difficult to see who is lying when you consider all the statements and weigh all available information, plus do a little thinking. 

Personslly, I wish I didn't see or know of the current situation, I was completely into just the music, I would have preferred not seeing it all play out again.  For example, I really like Woody Allen and Polanski films, I would have rather not have known one married his adoptive daughter and the other molested a minor.  

So what's the secret evil motivation behind Izzy leaving then?