Jump to content
Gibbo

DUFF MCKAGAN Says AXL ROSE Has Come Up With 'Some Magnificent Stuff' For New GUNS N' ROSES Album

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RONIN said:

From the old interviews, it appears that they amended the contract after Steven was forced out -  a partner who was leaving would have to be bought out by the other partners iirc. Prior to leaving, Izzy was facing a demotion in the band and Axl was threatening to cut his share of royalties (as per Izzy) - Slash and Duff went along with this. With his hand forced, Izzy decided to quit - but in order to do so, he had to sell his shares to the others. By the time Duff and Slash walked out on Axl, the contract obviously had been reconfigured so that an exiting partner could still retain their shares in the band regardless of their resignation. Therefore, the situation with Izzy was quite different given what preceded his ouster from the band.

As far as this talk about Izzy leaving and then wanting back in when he found out how successful the band was - let's get real here, Izzy walked out in the Fall of 1991 - basically the peak of GnR's fame and success, on the eve of the Illusion records being released. He didn't leave like Tracii Gunns in the early days. Meaning, Izzy knowingly walked away from the fame and riches he was due simply to be done with Axl. Given his sobriety, he couldn't deal like Slash could by drinking himself to death to forget the insanity of being in that band. But if people want to boil the whole thing down as basically - yeah he sold his shares and so he isn't entitled to anything - that's their prerogative but the situation is a little more nuanced than that. 

Thank you for being a voice of reason and having the energy - I don't anymore - to explain how it is. The debates always end up going in circles, it's maddening. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This interview from Dayton Daily News also implies that Slash was very much involved in the decision to demote Izzy:

Slash: "So then Axl and I decided that he wasn’t an equal partner, per se, unless he decided to change his ways about a few things — at least do like a couple videos a year, and work harder on the road. And Izzy said, ΌΚ, I resign' "[Dayton Daily News, January 10, 1992].

Come to think of it, it makes more sense that Slash would be behind it rather than Axl considering Axl's friendship with Izzy, whereas it is likely that Slash's professional nature would conflict with Izzy slowly giving less and less of a fuck about GN'R and his "obligations" as a band member. Slash had also gone through the experience of having to work with Izzy in the studio, and having to cover for him, and was likely a bit fed up at the time.

As for why Izzy wanted to leave. I think we all agree there were more than one reason (frustration with Axl, his sobriety, the band becoming too big, frustration with the waste of money etc), but we really shouldn't downplay how the threat of being demoted was the final straw and possibly a big factor in his decision. As such, the blame cannot be put on any one reason or any one person, but basically how they grew apart as the they and the band changed. 

  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RONIN said:

From the old interviews, it appears that they amended the contract after Steven was forced out -  a partner who was leaving would have to be bought out by the other partners iirc. Prior to leaving, Izzy was facing a demotion in the band and Axl was threatening to cut his share of royalties (as per Izzy) - Slash and Duff went along with this. With his hand forced, Izzy decided to quit - but in order to do so, he had to sell his shares to the others. By the time Duff and Slash walked out on Axl, the contract obviously had been reconfigured so that an exiting partner could still retain their shares in the band regardless of their resignation. Therefore, the situation with Izzy was quite different given what preceded his ouster from the band.

As far as this talk about Izzy leaving and then wanting back in when he found out how successful the band was - let's get real here, Izzy walked out in the Fall of 1991 - basically the peak of GnR's fame and success, on the eve of the Illusion records being released. He didn't leave like Tracii Gunns in the early days. Meaning, Izzy knowingly walked away from the fame and riches he was due simply to be done with Axl. Given his sobriety, he couldn't deal like Slash could by drinking himself to death to forget the insanity of being in that band. But if people want to boil the whole thing down as basically - yeah he sold his shares and so he isn't entitled to anything - that's their prerogative but the situation is a little more nuanced than that. 

I know that you are a big Izzy fan. Like you, I know the history of the band. With that being said, it's still a business decision that Izzy made. It sucks what happened, but that's still the reality of it. Izzy made his money and is doing very well for himself. 

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CAFC Nick said:

OK fair but maybe I should clarify. More to a live setting in terms of versatility - i.e. can play all of the GN'R catalogue. As great as Izzy is, can you imagine him playing Buckethead's Chinese Democracy solo?

why on earth would izzy play that?

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Izzy situation, although it stemmed from disagreements about the band (creative and business differences - the way the band operated in general), was also - and probably still is - deeply personal and emotional. Many times we tend to overlook this aspect, but there were relationships, friendships, hurt feelings... Things got emotional and even childish sometimes.

Izzy was seemingly concerned about the money the band was loosing because of Axl. Plus, being sober made him much less tolerant to Axl's and the band's volatility. So, as he said, he called a band meeting and tried to set terms in regards to Axl's liability (and, according to Slash, he was asking the accountants for reports on the money spent). Axl somehow thought that the band - and I guess more so Izzy, because he was a longtime friend - should stick up for him because he was doing therapy etc. So Axl was hurt.

Then Axl and Slash threatened Izzy to demote him. And I guess Izzy was hurt mostly by Axl, because they'd known each other for so long, since Axl was a kid with a bowl haircut in Lafayette who "couldn't get pussy in high school", so how could he do that to him? So Izzy resigned with a letter. Right after that he and Axl talked on the phone, Axl told him that they could get together again to write for the next record, and they agreed to meet in person and talk. And then there was a ridiculous misunderstanding: Izzy talked to Duff and bitched about Axl apparently; Axl heard about that and was angry, because he thought things were cool between them after the phone call, and when Izzy went to his house, he just kicked him out, and Izzy was in turn angry and hurt because Axl treated him like that there. 

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Thank you for being a voice of reason and having the energy - I don't anymore - to explain how it is. The debates always end up going in circles, it's maddening. 

my exact thoughts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, megaguns1982 said:

Slash probably has a whole bunch of Izzy recordings from the sessions leading into his first solo album. Izzy was the only guitarist other than himself to play on that album and I seriously doubt that “ghost” was the only song they recorded.

if any more slash/Izzy recordings exist from those sessions and slash still has them, he should dust them off and present them to axl and duff.

hopefully you are right but if I had to bet i would bet that izzy recorded his guitar for ghost and left pretty fast in the slash solo album sessions

maybe they jammed a bit but there is not many indication of that, is there?

maybe slash wasn't even there on the day izzy recorded his parts for ghost

is there any photo of them in studio together?

i don't remember

good news though is that slash and izzy have done countless other sessions over the years

and according to slash they (izzy, slash, duff, matt) have recorded "the best instrumental GNR album" in one of these sessions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Creed said:

'Jackie Chan' is a leftover from 1996/1997. And i would say that Slither, Fall to Pieces and Set me free are also from these sessions, cause they fit in this darker tone Axl wanted to go. The same with Cure me or kill me.

And of course lot of Snakepit.

This i love was most probably a totally different song and Slash thought it was a heavy ballad.

There is/was definately good stuff for an upcoming album. Not as good as AFD and UYI, but as good or even better as GnR Lies.

With the speculation about the 1996 sessions tapes...wasn't there a guy from a warehouse that said that someone from GnR pick them up a few months ago? So...maybe...theiy are really reworking some of them.

set me free is a riff that matt sorum came up with and presented to the guys in velvet revolver

cure or kill me is from 1994

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Draguns said:

As much as I like and want Izzy back, he did sell his share of the partnership. You can't fault the rest of the guys for Izzy selling his part. It's unfortunate that he felt he had to as a result of stress, drugs, etc. However, you can't sell your part of the partnership and then want back in. This is similar to what happened at my employer, Bloomberg. Mike Bloomberg wrote in his biography that a partner in the early days sold his share of the partnership.  The guy wanted back in after seeing how successful the company would become. He was denied since the other partners all took the risk. The guy would have been a billionaire if he had not sold his share. Similar situation. 

if izzy had "sold his share" after, let's say, the gig at music machine in 1986, or even the marquee in 1987, then maybe you would have a point

izzy left in 1991 when GNR was at the top of the world, and after years of hard work with the four other guys that resulted in taking GNR from the gutter to the very top of rock n roll.

his last gig was at wembley fucking stadium

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CAFC Nick said:

OK fair but maybe I should clarify. More to a live setting in terms of versatility - i.e. can play all of the GN'R catalogue. As great as Izzy is, can you imagine him playing Buckethead's Chinese Democracy solo?

Lol nobody wants Izzy playing that. Not because he cant, but because he doesnt fuckin need it. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Some "new" (uncirculated online before) Slash interviews from 1991-1992 in combination to what Axl and Izzy have said (each from their side) shed some more light on what happened in the autumn of 1991. It looks like the threat to demote Izzy (=cut his royalties and make him a "lesser partner") was an Axl and Slash thing, and Duff wasn't involved so much, e.g.:

 

great read thanks for posting

:headbang:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

if izzy had "sold his share" after, let's say, the gig at music machine in 1986, or even the marquee in 1987, then maybe you would have a point

izzy left in 1991 when GNR was at the top of the world, and after years of hard work with the four other guys that resulted in taking GNR from the gutter to the very top of rock n roll.

his last gig was at wembley fucking stadium

 

The point being that it was still a business decision that was made. I'm taking the emotion of this one. I'm also comparing this to a similar situation that Mike Bloomberg wrote in his book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I think that the Izzy situation, although it stemmed from disagreements about the band (creative and business differences - the way the band operated in general), was also - and probably still is - deeply personal and emotional. Many times we tend to overlook this aspect, but there were relationships, friendships, hurt feelings... Things got emotional and even childish sometimes.

Izzy was seemingly concerned about the money the band was loosing because of Axl. Plus, being sober made him much less tolerant to Axl's and the band's volatility. So, as he said, he called a band meeting and tried to set terms in regards to Axl's liability (and, according to Slash, he was asking the accountants for reports on the money spent). Axl somehow thought that the band - and I guess more so Izzy, because he was a longtime friend - should stick up to him for all that because he was doing therapy etc. So Axl was hurt.

Then Axl and Slash threatened Izzy to demote him. And I guess Izzy was hurt mostly by Axl, because they'd known each other for so long, since Axl was a kid with a bowl haircut in Lafayette who "couldn't get pussy in high school", so how could he do that to him? So Izzy resigned with a letter. Right after that he and Axl talked on the phone, Axl told him that they could get together again to write for the next record, and they agreed to meet in person and talk. And then there was a ridiculous misunderstanding: Izzy talked to Duff and bitched about Axl apparently; Axl heard about that and was angry, because he thought things were cool between them after the phone call, and when Izzy went to his house, he just kicked him out, and Izzy was in turn angry and hurt because Axl treated him like that there. 

You know I was thinking about this on my way to work. It's interesting to see from the outside as to how complicated the relationships were for the AFD5.  It seems like the only friendship that was started and maintained was between Slash and Duff.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even with Duff and Slash, Duff slagged-off Slash's snakepit stuff, describing it as southern rock. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slash and Axl have spoken about how business people and entities put a wedge between them back in the day. Suggesting that their reconciliation included really coming to terms with how much outside forces contributed to the deterioration of their relationship. Slash has acknowledged that coke is at the heart of a great many rock and roll conflicts and he was also drunk and everything else too. And Axl was out of his mind, something he nods to when he points out how much therapy he was doing and being unprepared to tour given his mental/emotional state.

So somewhere in that storm the attention of this great beast that was GNR 1991 turns its attention to Izzy. Shady business people who place wedges, insanity, drug abuse, ego. And its not long after that he's out. Sure he had his money and sobriety issues - the only sane and reasonable things in the entire story imo.

So, if I were Izzy and Axl comes to me in 2016 and say "sorry how business people, my ego, my insanity, Slashs addiction and our reckless spending forced you out of the band. Please come back?" But you werent going to take actions to actually act on that apology, then what does the acknowledgement and apology mean? It means nothing. It means, in fact, that its a direct continuation of 1991 with an offer to Izzy for a lesser pay and a lesser standing. The same thing he walked from! 

People can demonstrate their business acumen all day about 'he left the partnership.' But that doesn't speak to the larger picture imho. It can highlight the poor business acumen of whatever business people floated Izzy the same type of contract that he walked from to begin with. Not sure he ever asked to be reinstated in the partnership, thats just a theory that stems from his demand for equal pay so far as I can tell.

From the info we have, Axl did not make an equal effort to heal the past with Izzy as he did with Slash. Seems to fit into the notion that Axl, Slash and Duff figured theyd be just fine on their own and made no efforts to restore trust and make amends with Izzy. If they wanted him they knew better then to just pick up where they left off in 1991 with his demotion and pay cut.

Edited by soon
  • Thanks 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, soon said:

Slash and Axl have spoken about how business people and entities put a wedge between them back in the day. Suggesting that their reconciliation included really coming to terms with how much outside forces contributed to the deterioration of their relationship. Slash has acknowledged that coke is at the heart of a great many rock and roll conflicts and he was also drunk and everything else too. And Axl was out of his mind, something he nods to when he points out how much therapy he was doing and being unprepared to tour given his mental/emotional state.

So somewhere in that storm the attention of this great beast that was GNR 1991 turns its attention to Izzy. Shady business people who place wedges, insanity, drug abuse, ego. And its not long after that he's out. Sure he had his money and sobriety issues - the only sane and reasonable things in the entire story imo.

So, if I were Izzy and Axl comes to me in 2016 and say "sorry how business people, my ego, my insanity, Slashs addiction and our reckless spending forced you out of the band. Please come back?" But you werent going to take actions to actually act on that apology, then what does the acknowledgement and apology mean? It means nothing. It means, in fact, that its a direct continuation of 1991 with an offer to Izzy for a lesser pay and a lesser standing. The same thing he walked from! 

People can demonstrate their business acumen all day about 'he left the partnership.' But that doesn't speak to the larger picture imho. It can highlight the poor business acumen of whatever business people floated Izzy the same type of contract that he walked from to begin with. Not sure he ever asked to be reinstated in the partnership, thats just a theory that stems from his demand for equal pay so far as I can tell.

From the info we have, Axl did not make an equal effort to heal the past with Izzy as he did with Slash. Seems to fit into the notion that Axl, Slash and Duff figured theyd be just fine on their own and made no efforts to restore trust and make amends with Izzy. If they wanted him they knew better then to just pick up where they left off in 1991 with his demotion and pay cut.

e-fucking-xactly!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

you wrote this:

Mike Bloomberg wrote in his biography that a partner in the early days sold his share of the partnership.  The guy wanted back in after seeing how successful the company would become. He was denied since the other partners all took the risk.

 

- 1991 was not "early days". it was five years after "early days". In 1985-86 GN'R was in the gutter. A couple of years later they were at the top of the world. Even more so in 1991 when Izzy left.

- Izzy didn't want back in "after seeing how successful the company would become". He left after GNR became successful. Way after. Maybe you were not there and maybe you think GN'R became the biggest band in the world in 1992 thanks to the November Rain video. No. It happened three years earlier with Sweet Child o' Mine. And Jungle. And Paradise City. And Patience. And Knocking on Heaven's Door. And You Could Be Mine.

- Izzy took the risk like all the other four guys. He gave four to five years of his life to take GNR from the gutter to the very top -- just like the four other guys. Everyone that joined after Izzy left didn't take any risk. The game was won. And it still is, to this day. Thanks to the music that GNR wrote 1985-1990, which is what people pay to listen to -- to this day.

 

Add to this the fact that Izzy is an integral writer of Guns N' Roses songs...it truly boggles the mind when people intentionally or even unintentionally downplay Izzy's importance. He's certainly more important than Duff, who I've grown to dislike tbh as he seems like a two-face.

Ya know, my instinctive reaction to the repeated ad nauseum opinion of "Izzy is bad business man. Frank and Fortus there long time. Ergo, Izzy unimportant." is to want to throw my fucking phone through the god damn wall lol. But in the end it is what it is and there's no reasoning with the people committed to feeling how they feel because they don't want to be right, like us - and angry at 2am. We're in the trenches. :lol:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

you wrote this:

Mike Bloomberg wrote in his biography that a partner in the early days sold his share of the partnership.  The guy wanted back in after seeing how successful the company would become. He was denied since the other partners all took the risk.

 

- 1991 was not "early days". it was five years after "early days". In 1985-86 GN'R was in the gutter. A couple of years later they were at the top of the world. Even more so in 1991 when Izzy left.

- Izzy didn't want back in "after seeing how successful the company would become". He left after GNR became successful. Way after. Maybe you were not there and maybe you think GN'R became the biggest band in the world in 1992 thanks to the November Rain video. No. It happened three years earlier with Sweet Child o' Mine. And Jungle. And Paradise City. And Patience. And Knocking on Heaven's Door. And You Could Be Mine.

- Izzy took the risk like all the other four guys. He gave four to five years of his life to take GNR from the gutter to the very top -- just like the four other guys. Everyone that joined after Izzy left didn't take any risk. The game was won. And it still is, to this day. Thanks to the music that GNR wrote 1985-1990, which is what people pay to listen to -- to this day.

 

Let me start saying I agree with what you are saying.  However, GNR is worth a lot more now than it was when Izzy left in 1991.  These numbers are made up but let's say the Band/Brand was worth $20 million when he left.  His 25% share was worth $5 million.  In the ensuing crazy history, demand built up for the Axl/Slash reunion.  Let's say now the Band/Brand is worth $400 million.  That means that had Izzy not left, his share would have grown from $20 million to $100 million.  I don't think it is fair to ask for the same percentage (IF that is what he did) because he wasn't a partner during that valuation increase.  Some of the increase is due to his contributions.

Also, when he left, he received compensation for his share.  His current share to be back must be reduced to account for that as well.  Either that or he would actually need to buy the shares back.

It would be similar to buying Facebook stock at the IPO, selling it for a modest increase and then wanting your shares back when it is worth 4x your sale price.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it doesn't make sense to invite Izzy back into the band as an equal partner with equal compensation. He quit the band and they had to shoulder it without him. The work the rest of the guys did after Izzy departure (and before, really) should amount to something, more specifically it should amount to them getting a larger share of the proceeds. And the fact that the tour was an immense success even without Izzy really implies this is correct.

From a more personal perspective, though, as an original member of the band who were important in the early song-writing, I really would have liked to see Izzy part of it, and I hope the rest of the guys were willing to go far in the negotiations to satisfy him beyond what is fair...and I do expect they were. But if Izzy took the stance of "either I get the same as Slash or I am out!" then I have no problems accepting the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course it doesn't make sense to invite Izzy back into the band as an equal partner with equal compensation. He quit the band and they had to shoulder it without him. The work the rest of the guys did after Izzy departure (and before, really) should amount to something, more specifically it should amount to them getting a larger share of the proceeds. And the fact that the tour was an immense success even without Izzy really implies this is correct.

From a more personal perspective, though, as an original member of the band who were important in the early song-writing, I really would have liked to see Izzy part of it, and I hope the rest of the guys were willing to go far in the negotiations to satisfy him beyond what is fair...and I do expect they were. But if Izzy took the stance of "either I get the same as Slash or I am out!" then I have no problems accepting the outcome.

Not just "early songwriting", Appetite For Destruction, GNR Lies, Use Your Illusion 1 & 2

Hopefully he and Steven can return and bridges are mended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Not just "early songwriting", Appetite For Destruction, GNR Lies, Use Your Illusion 1 & 2

Hopefully he and Steven can return and bridges are mended.

You are right. But he started to fade out after Appetite., although they managed to get some of his songs onto UYI :) (fortunately).

Would be nice to see Izzy back in the band, yes.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

you wrote this:

Mike Bloomberg wrote in his biography that a partner in the early days sold his share of the partnership.  The guy wanted back in after seeing how successful the company would become. He was denied since the other partners all took the risk.

 

- 1991 was not "early days". it was five years after "early days". In 1985-86 GN'R was in the gutter. A couple of years later they were at the top of the world. Even more so in 1991 when Izzy left.

- Izzy didn't want back in "after seeing how successful the company would become". He left after GNR became successful. Way after. Maybe you were not there and maybe you think GN'R became the biggest band in the world in 1992 thanks to the November Rain video. No. It happened three years earlier with Sweet Child o' Mine. And Jungle. And Paradise City. And Patience. And Knocking on Heaven's Door. And You Could Be Mine.

- Izzy took the risk like all the other four guys. He gave four to five years of his life to take GNR from the gutter to the very top -- just like the four other guys. Everyone that joined after Izzy left didn't take any risk. The game was won. And it still is, to this day. Thanks to the music that GNR wrote 1985-1990, which is what people pay to listen to -- to this day.

 

Nice to see that you cherry picked my post to fit your narrative. Here is what I wrote:

 

As much as I like and want Izzy back, he did sell his share of the partnership. You can't fault the rest of the guys for Izzy selling his part. It's unfortunate that he felt he had to as a result of stress, drugs, etc. However, you can't sell your part of the partnership and then want back in. This is similar to what happened at my employer, Bloomberg. Mike Bloomberg wrote in his biography that a partner in the early days sold his share of the partnership.  The guy wanted back in after seeing how successful the company would become. He was denied since the other partners all took the risk. The guy would have been a billionaire if he had not sold his share. Similar situation. 

You left out the part where I said similar situation. I didn't say the same nor did I leave it without saying similar situation. . 

  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt Izzy's broke but I guess it would be nice to have him back involved somehow on the flipside I kinda don't mind Fortus in this band. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×