IZZY STRADLIN (and MATT SORUM) show up at movie festival in Palm Springs

[RONIN]

3 hours ago, Modano09 said:

"Low ball" offer because they already paid him when he sold his percentage of the band. I get wanting him there but it's not their fault he wanted to sell his percentage in the band and then years later be paid like he didn't.

What does one have to do with the other? Why would selling off his stake in the partnership negate him being paid a reasonable fee to participate in the tour? So because he isn't a partner, he should agree to a paltry sum like Adler? It's all speculation at this point but if Gilby and Matt are telling the truth about turning down guest spots on the tour, then I'd say that lends more weight to Izzy's "loot" tweet.

If Izzy wanted the entire tour proceeds to be split equally, that would be unreasonable and worthy of criticism. If he wanted equal pay just for the shows while the partners enjoy the merchandising and licensing loot, that's not an entirely unreasonable request from the co-founder of the band. We don't know the context of the tweet nor the extent of the negotiations. I think they could have worked it out if they had wanted him to be part of the reunion shows. My position is that I don't think they wanted him to be part of this (nor Adler) - imho it seems like some halfhearted attempt to get his services on the cheap and pay lip service to an "AFD reunion". A quick way to add legitimacy to an illegitimate albeit lucrative venture. Izzy didn't agree with their terms and bailed. 

It's hard to take the partners at face value considering they have contradicted themselves innumerable times. Their credibility is a lot more in question than Izzy's. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by RONIN

[Derick]

34 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Fair enough, perhaps Izzy doesn't want to be there. But then why should he bother to defend himself with that Loot tweet? He's never bothered to reply back to Axl in the press during the innumerable "Izzy rants" on Double talkin' Jive during the Illusion tour. Why call out the partners now when he doesn't care about GnR and he doesn't care about saving face? Why not just say that he's semi-retired instead of saying publicly for the last decade that he'd love to do a GnR reunion? Your theory doesn't quite add up mate.

One can also argue that the 3 partners potentially didn't want Izzy (and Adler) to be part of the reunion and deliberately gave Izzy an insulting offer so he would decline. There's also the possibility that Izzy was not offered the opportunity to join the tour full-time, but rather only offered a chance to do guest spots due to Axl's commitment to Fortus - which would again be insulting to Izzy, the co-founder of the band.

You seem to believe Axl, Duff, and Slash's version of the story and that's completely fair. Personally, I think when Gilby, Matt, and Steven have all turned down guest spots on the tour - there's probably more to this story than what the partners are saying. And that story more than likely revolves around $$$. There's been "insider" rumors here since early 2016 that Izzy got lowballed. Axl's version of events states that Izzy was unreliable and he flaked out. As unreliable as Izzy might be though, he still did every show on the Appetite world tour and even the entire 1st leg of the Illusion tour before quitting. What was Axl's attendance record like from 1985-2014? I'm going to take a guess that he missed a few shows. Why would Axl be concerned about Izzy not following through on a world tour when we can assume the contracts are ironclad for a tour of this magnitude? You think it's a coincidence that the first time Axl had perfect attendance for a tour was in 2016? Is it possible that perhaps he was facing potential lawsuits and being sued into oblivion if he stayed home to watch a basketball game instead of go out on time to play a show? So why the concern over Izzy when Izzy has publicly said that he couldn't stand the fact that he was taking a bus and beating the guys to the Illusion shows when they had a private jet? Something doesn't quite add up here in Axl's story of why Izzy is not part of NITL.

As far as Izzy being all about what he wants and not being amenable to the needs of the band, I'm not entirely sure how reasonable that assertion is based on his reputation of being the most low maintenance member in the band. Izzy does not have a reputation for being an ego-driven diva like Axl and Slash nor a savvy businessman like Duff. The guy just wants to make new music and play. The other guys don't. It's as simple as that.

Look, you can blame Izzy for many other things and perhaps they would be reasonable complaints but the position you've taken seems a bit unlikely imho.

 

Well, you're guessing a lot of things we can not be so sure about these things that you say. I just used Izzy's solo career as a reference. Apparently he's not a guy who likes to be in a band, otherwise he'd already have his own band. Apparently he does not like to do shows, otherwise he would be playing the thousands of songs he has, even if in a small place. But where´s Izzy to care on his own caree? This is no guesswork, it's an observation of his solo career.

"But then why should he bother to defend himself with that Loot tweet? He's never bothered to reply back to Axl in the press during the innumerable "Izzy rants" on Double talkin' Jive during the Illusion tour."

-He did not make that statement in the press. He used Twitter (which did not exist in the 90s) and then deleted the message.

 

" The guy just wants to make new music and play. The other guys don't. It's as simple as that."

-When and were was the last Izzy show that you attend?

 

"Why not just say that he's semi-retired instead of saying publicly for the last decade that he'd love to do a GnR reunion?"

He´s not retired, he´s still put songs out there. When and were he said that he´d love to do a GN´R reunion? If he said that he may have changed his mind. Saying something and doing something can be completely different things.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Derick

[ludurigan]

15 hours ago, Derick said:

I´m not sure about that... Izzy hides himself behind this money bullshit but it seems that the real thing is that he is not a guy who likes to be in a band. Don´t believe me? Just take a look at his solo career and you´ll have a good panorama from that..the guy has released a lot of songs in the last two decades and doesn´t shows himself, don´t make tours, don´t works on his own songs to make this songs bring the money that he, apparently, loves a lot! Sorry but he´s that kinda of person that If things are not exactly according to what he wants he just leaves, there´s no deal. Simple as that. And that's his problem, not the band's...With this attitude, he hardly fits into a band, any band not just GN´R.

 

yeah, izzy wont tour, izzy wont commit, izzy cant tour, izzy cant play, steven cant play, steven cant tour

its always the same garbage

gimme a fucking break

 

[WhazUp]

I am seeing a ton of polarized opinions based on stuff none of us could ever fully be privy to, only guesswork.  We don't know what is going on behind the scenes, the inner thoughts and intentions of why certain people arent touring, or are, or anything

[WhazUp]

4 hours ago, tremolo said:

I think it’s safe to say that’s their goal for this tour and what has been going on with gnr since this whole thing started. So far they have nothing to show for other than that. Now that is a fact.

"Nothing to show for other than that", I mean to be fair though - that is one HELL of a great thing to have for showing in the first place though

 

Playing packed stadiums and arenas for the better part of 2 years, making millions of fans around the world happy, having fun playing legendary songs, etc.  I cannot possibly knock them for doing what they did, and I think it was a wonderful thing and I am satisfied with what has been going on.  I would love new music, but realistically if I was in GNR's position - I sure as hell would do exactly what they did and love making all that money as I did it

[DieselDaisy]

How much money do they possibly want? They already had more money than they could spend before this tour even happened.

[PatrickS77]

6 hours ago, Modano09 said:

"Low ball" offer because they already paid him when he sold his percentage of the band. I get wanting him there but it's not their fault he wanted to sell his percentage in the band and then years later be paid like he didn't.

They were lucky that he sold his share. Imagine moving forward with an ex-member, who still has a stake in the band and could veto everything they decide. That shouldn't be held against him. And there is still the possibilty that upon leaving, he was required to sell his share.

[StrangerInThisTown]

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

How much money do they possibly want? They already had more money than they could spend before this tour even happened.

What some people may overlook is that maybe for Izzy it wasn't so much about the money but about the principle that no one is above the other. Not the amount of money, just that it's equally split between the core members. That was one of the reasons he left in 1991, he didn't want to be Axls employee and with less pay, when he started the band with him, maybe he just wanted equality for everyone, atleast in terms of splitting the pay for the tour. That's obviously not possible in other parts such as owning the name since Axl owns it but maybe that would have been good enough for him to join NITL.

Just a possibility I haven't heard people consider yet. All I read was he just wants more money than he was offered, which of course could also have happened but judging by how it went down in 1991 I don't believe it. Not to mention the guy is a millionare already anyway.

Edited January 11, 2018 by StrangerInThisTown

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

What some people may overlook is that maybe for Izzy it wasn't so much about the money but about the principle that no one is above the other. Not the amount of money, just that it's equally split between the core members. That was one of the reasons he left in 1991, he didn't want to be Axls employee and with less pay, when he started the band with him, maybe he just wanted equality for everyone, atleast in terms of splitting the pay for the tour. That's obviously not possible in other parts such as owning the name since Axl owns it but maybe that would have been good enough for him to join NITL.

Just a possibility I haven't heard people consider yet. All I read was he just wants more money than he was offered, which of course could also have happened but judging by how it went down in 1991 I don't believe it. Not to mention the guy is a millionare already anyway.

You'll not get many arguments from me on this but I was more referring to the 'three' cashing in on mindless hits jaunts.

[Derick]

20 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

What some people may overlook is that maybe for Izzy it wasn't so much about the money but about the principle that no one is above the other. Not the amount of money, just that it's equally split between the core members. That was one of the reasons he left in 1991, he didn't want to be Axls employee and with less pay, when he started the band with him, maybe he just wanted equality for everyone, atleast in terms of splitting the pay for the tour. That's obviously not possible in other parts such as owning the name since Axl owns it but maybe that would have been good enough for him to join NITL.

Just a possibility I haven't heard people consider yet. All I read was he just wants more money than he was offered, which of course could also have happened but judging by how it went down in 1991 I don't believe it. Not to mention the guy is a millionare already anyway.

But he's already sold his share. I mean, Axl, Slash and Duff already paid him and now he goes back to the band and wants to get the same as the Big 3 (even between them I believe that it's not equally splitted)... What kind of principles are these? If that is the case, an equal division of NITLT profits would be uneven, in the end of the day he would be getting more than the other 3 guys. He would have the same tour profit as the Big 3 plus the money he got from Axl,Slash and Duff for sold his share.

[Modano09]

1 hour ago, Derick said:

But he's already sold his share. I mean, Axl, Slash and Duff already paid him and now he goes back to the band and wants to get the same as the Big 3 (even between them I believe that it's not equally splitted)... What kind of principles are these? If that is the case, an equal division of NITLT profits would be uneven, in the end of the day he would be getting more than the other 3 guys. He would have the same tour profit as the Big 3 plus the money he got from Axl,Slash and Duff for sold his share.

I'll use the house example. 4 guys build a house and each own 25% of it. One day one guy decides he doesn't want to live there anymore and doesn't want to deal with the day to day upkeep of the house so he wants them to buy him out and let him be on his way obligation free. They do. Off he goes. The other 3 take care of the house for 20 years, sometimes fighting with each other over what was best for it, often times at their own financial expense. Then they realize their house is actually worth a lot of money and decide to sell it. Once the 4th guy realizes how much the house is going to be sold for he strolls back in expecting an equal share because he was an original builder too. When you think of it like that, it really doesn't sound so far, does it?

[WhazUp]

50 minutes ago, tremolo said:

I don’t care about how full the stadiums are and how much money they have made.

The tour has been of a very sub-par quality considering what it is/was (what it represents) and what it could have been. The return of Axl and Slash on stage was one of the most anticipated and desired reunions in rock history. This should have been just the ignition and motivation, bit it ended up being the only focus. Who cares about quality of performance? Who cares about the stale setlist? Who cares about the endless covers in detriment of actual gnr songs?

 

So, yeah, I guess if all that matters is that A,S and D are back playing together, sure, it’s a beautiful thing. But to me that means nothing if the effort wasn’t there to make this truly memorable.

I can only speak for myself at the two shows I was at in person, but I didn't find it sup-par in quality at all.  And the setlist was fine line in person, and as a musicians I saw the effort put in.  And I can fairly confidently say that this was a truly memorable tour

 

To me it was not mediocre at all, and I think that it indeed was a beautiful thing - what transpired from 2015 up until now even with the imperfections along the way.  I suppose I just enjoy looking at it from a positive POV

1 hour ago, tremolo said:

If Izzy joined GNR just to tour, with very mediocre performances, at such high prices, and not release ONE song in 2 years... Yeah, that would tarnish his reputation and integrity as the kind of musician he has always been.

Tarnish his reputation to who though, the three people on a GNR online forum who actually know who he is by name and think that the last tour was mediocre?

Edited January 11, 2018 by WhazUp

[Derick]

1 hour ago, Modano09 said:

I'll use the house example. 4 guys build a house and each own 25% of it. One day one guy decides he doesn't want to live there anymore and doesn't want to deal with the day to day upkeep of the house so he wants them to buy him out and let him be on his way obligation free. They do. Off he goes. The other 3 take care of the house for 20 years, sometimes fighting with each other over what was best for it, often times at their own financial expense. Then they realize their house is actually worth a lot of money and decide to sell it. Once the 4th guy realizes how much the house is going to be sold for he strolls back in expecting an equal share because he was an original builder too. When you think of it like that, it really doesn't sound so far, does it?

Pretty much this! And Izzy sold his share at a time when the band was at the top and probably received a very very good money for it. Then, according to his statement on Twitter, to take part in the current tour he demands to receive the same as Axl, Slash and Duff...Seriously, that´s doesn´t sounds good..If we do the math Izzy´s idea of "split the loot equally" is not that equally, at all. 

 

1 hour ago, tremolo said:

No, I didn’t state that was wrong, that is your interpretation.

When I talk about his integrity, what I mean is what I have said 3or 4 times Lready in this thread: Izzy is a musician and he wants to make music and release it. If Izzy joined GNR just to tour, with very mediocre performances, at such high prices, and not release ONE song in 2 years... Yeah, that would tarnish his reputation and integrity as the kind of musician he has always been.

It’s not the case of Axl, he’s been doing it for a while and it has never been a problem. It is the way it is, and I don’t think that doing so tarnishes his reputation, because we are talking about 2 different people, and he built his own rep a while ago. This is more in line with what we can expect from him.

Same about Slash. It wouldn’t stain his reputation or integrity if he played in the next Bieber or Rihanna records, he’s been collaborating with pop recording “artists” since early on, it’s part of his career. I’m not saying this is wrong, it’s just what it is. Now, if Izzy played in the next Bieber or Rihanna record, it would be a big WTF and it would certainly raise many questions about his motivations and integrity.

 

That’s all.

Well, I can´t argue with that. It's your opinion, it's your point of view. If you like and admire Izzy's moves as a musician, good for you. Although I don´t agree with you and I think Izzy's career is boring AF at the end it's all a matter of taste.

[Padme]

5 hours ago, Modano09 said:

I'll use the house example. 4 guys build a house and each own 25% of it. One day one guy decides he doesn't want to live there anymore and doesn't want to deal with the day to day upkeep of the house so he wants them to buy him out and let him be on his way obligation free. They do. Off he goes. The other 3 take care of the house for 20 years, sometimes fighting with each other over what was best for it, often times at their own financial expense. Then they realize their house is actually worth a lot of money and decide to sell it. Once the 4th guy realizes how much the house is going to be sold for he strolls back in expecting an equal share because he was an original builder too. When you think of it like that, it really doesn't sound so far, does it?

The problem is that 3 guys didn't take care of the house. Two of them also left. Then one guy rebuilt the house with very low quality construction workers. So the house fell apart. Trying another rebuilding he called the 3 guys who built the original beautiful house. But 2 of them will be making more money? So the 3rd guy in question is supossed to work not only for less money than the main architect is making. But also for less money than the other 2 co-workers? After all this 3rd guy is question was also a main force behind the original construction of the house. He wasn't a mere microwave in the original house

[DieselDaisy]

The partnership, a merchandise and licensing arrangement, is stressed far too much pertaining to the instigation and profit share of this tour. Anyone can make a contract with anyone to tour x number of dates, for x division of the spoils. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by DieselDaisy
American English removal. Yack.

[Sunset Boulevard]

When (and IF) izzy returns, he will be the 3rd guitarist behind Slash/Fortus.

Slash/Fortus are the guitar players of the 4th biggest tour ever in music history : izzy is out of the picture.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Sunset Boulevard

[Lio]

57 minutes ago, Padme said:

The problem is that 3 guys didn't take care of the house. Two of them also left. Then one guy rebuilt the house with very low quality construction workers. So the house fell apart. Trying another rebuilding he called the 3 guys who built the original beautiful house. But 2 of them will be making more money? So the 3rd guy in question is supossed to work not only for less money than the main architect is making. But also for less money than the other 2 co-workers? After all this 3rd guy is question was also a main force behind the original construction of the house. He wasn't a mere microwave in the original house

Doesn't matter. He sold his part. The others didn't. Doesn't even matter if they took care of it or not. It is as simple as that.

[PatrickS77]

5 hours ago, Derick said:

Pretty much this! And Izzy sold his share at a time when the band was at the top and probably received a very very good money for it. Then, according to his statement on Twitter, to take part in the current tour he demands to receive the same as Axl, Slash and Duff...Seriously, that´s doesn´t sounds good..If we do the math Izzy´s idea of "split the loot equally" is not that equally, at all. 

Again. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER KEEPING HIS SHARES WAS EVEN AN OPTION. Sometimes after Izzy left that partnership agreement got renewed. After that apparently it was possible. We do not know whether a member could leave and keep his shares before that. And really, with giving up his shares and giving the remaining members full control and full profits, he did them a favour. It's pathetic that some "fans" hold that against him now. After Slash and Duff left, Axl formed a new GNR entity for him to work witout outside interference.

Edited January 11, 2018 by PatrickS77

[WhazUp]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

The problem is that 3 guys didn't take care of the house. Two of them also left. Then one guy rebuilt the house with very low quality construction workers. So the house fell apart. Trying another rebuilding he called the 3 guys who built the original beautiful house. But 2 of them will be making more money? So the 3rd guy in question is supossed to work not only for less money than the main architect is making. But also for less money than the other 2 co-workers? After all this 3rd guy is question was also a main force behind the original construction of the house. He wasn't a mere microwave in the original house

The problem is there are a ton of people commenting on the way the house is being kept without any knowledge as to what is going on behind the scenes/inside the house and the talks about how to deal with the business of said house

Without that knowledge, I dont know, I just find any assumption making silly and I just care about the current house we have to chill in at this point without those assumptions - and all accounts it is still a pretty damn cozy house

Edited January 11, 2018 by WhazUp

[Padme]

33 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

The problem is there are a ton of people commenting on the way the house is being kept without any knowledge as to what is going on behind the scenes/inside the house and the talks about how to deal with the business of said house

Without that knowledge, I dont know, I just find any assumption making silly and I just care about the current house we have to chill in at this point without those assumptions - and all accounts it is still a pretty damn cozy house

So you have the right to comment but others don't?

Good for you if you find the house cozy. Not everyone has to feel the same way

52 minutes ago, Lio said:

Doesn't matter. He sold his part. The others didn't. Doesn't even matter if they took care of it or not. It is as simple as that.

They all left. And Axl enjoyed a good relationship with Izzy during the NuGN'R days. When a reunion happens, nobody cares about Izzy?

[Juventino]

I've said it before, but I just feel it's a shame that five guys who are somehow all still alive and - relatively - healthy, cannot put whatever they have aside and go out and play together again. They have all shown in recent years they can still play. Think of all the bands who would love to have a full reunion of members but cannot due to death or whatever. An Appetite reunion is so close yet so far and whatever the reason for that not happening, it is a shame.

[WhazUp]

24 minutes ago, Padme said:

So you have the right to comment but others don't?

Good for you if you find the house cozy. Not everyone has to feel the same way

 

When did I say that?  I never said other's dont literally have the right to comment on it.  And yeah opinions are opinions, thats cool to

Again, just whenever assumptions are made and odd statements are made based on such assumptions that we as fans cannot be privy to, I just feel like it is worth pointing out the silliness and logical flaws

[Lio]

40 minutes ago, Padme said:

 

They all left. And Axl enjoyed a good relationship with Izzy during the NuGN'R days. When a reunion happens, nobody cares about Izzy?

He sold it, the other ones didn't.

It's not about caring for Izzy or not, that's not the point. I'm merely talking about the fact Izzy sold his share, the rest didn't. So it's only logical he wouldn't get an equal share. Whether he got an honest and fair offer or not, I don't know.

[PatrickS77]

12 minutes ago, Lio said:

He sold it, the other ones didn't.

It's not about caring for Izzy or not, that's not the point. I'm merely talking about the fact Izzy sold his share, the rest didn't. So it's only logical he wouldn't get an equal share. Whether he got an honest and fair offer or not, I don't know.

No. It's not logical. The only thing that is logical is that he doesn't have any leverage and is at the mercy of what Axl, Slash and Duff are willing to give to him.

[Padme]

50 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

When did I say that?  I never said other's dont literally have the right to comment on it.  And yeah opinions are opinions, thats cool to

Again, just whenever assumptions are made and odd statements are made based on such assumptions that we as fans cannot be privy to, I just feel like it is worth pointing out the silliness and logical flaws

What logical flaws and silliness? You make assumptions too. There has to be something else at stake here for Izzy to talk about the loot. I think Izzy knows what rights he has and what rights he lost after leaving the partnership.