Euchre

3 hours ago, Rovim said:

not the same with Gn'R simply cause they're all still alive thankfully. So it would be very ridiculous to try and play AFD/UYI without Axl. Way more than the Queen situation imo. They've got good reason to do it cause there is a demand for it and he died.

I agree about the quantity of albums and it being an important factor when it comes to acceptance of a lineup.

 

We agree on a lot as I know we both say the AFD5 is the real deal and they all contributed heavily to Appeitite/Lies & even UYI. So bear in mind with all I say below that my preference is to have Axl singing for GNR., but......

where I don't think we agree and where I think this great myth/misperception has grown over the decades now is how integral Axl was VS how integral the other members was and with regard to Axl the perception is far over-weighted now (no pun intended) 

I don't understand why AFD/UYI without Axl is ridiculous. Evidence :

* the band had to do this a number of times, granted not full scale tours, but where he didn't or couldn't show up a few times the band went on without him. There were even those covers Duff did on tour.

* There aren't that many UYI tunes I listen to regularly, but of that few both DTJ and 14 Years are on there - great tunes......sung by Izzy (infact the Axl part in 14 Years is the only part of the song that annoys me). I can easily imagine Izzy doing Pretty Tied Up as well and an album in this vein would be great. I think they still play DTJ now don't they, so must have went over alright ?

* Slash/Duff had to start from scratch without the brand behind them - what did they end up with a #1 album ? Contrast Axl - had the brand name and whole machine (ie record co/deal, management) behind him. Takes a long time to perfect everything - hence becomes one of the most anticipated albums ever, most expensive album ever, exclusive deal to ship platinum....and only manages #3....decline continues until he has to call Slash / Duff back

It seems to me that the others do just fine without Axl but not so much the other way round.

5 hours ago, jamillos said:

Sure, AC/DC handled it, so have Deep Purple etc. But Axl is somehow more essential as a frontman to the band than the singers in those other cases. Both in terms of his unique voice and his presence on the stage, as well as other things.

The Don’t Cry – November Rain – Estranged trilogy is about his life. This stuff was written by him. The origin of the most famous songs is legendary now, and it’s entwined with his presence forever. 

Some singers/frontmen are just irreplaceable, and Axl is one of them. He’s just too iconic for the band to exist without him. Plus, the band only has like two or three major albums, not like the others where you have e.g. 15 records and a change of such magnitude could be more... diluted. 

You really think Axl was more iconic than Bon Scott or David Lee Roth both in terms of voice and presence ?

I appreciate you putting forward some evidence for your views, with the trilogy point, rather than just saying he is iconic. However I would point out that a lot of people find those videos extremely cringey and the sign of a band that has become bloated, pretentious and lost all touch. (ie alot would argue they were destructive to the band, a few bandmembers themselves. At the end of the day Izzy was so embarrassed he didn't even show up.) Personally I used to watch the NR video a bit when it came out, but haven't watched it in 25 years. I think I saw the Don't Cry one once and never wanted to see it again. I also saw Estranged once, I can't even remember if I watched it all the way through, but that was the final straw for me being a 'current' fan GN'R. Ever since they have just been the band that recorded my favourite album of all time a long time ago. (And out of those 3 tunes, the only part I still like now is the very ending of the Estranged - have no desire to hear any of them again).

4 minutes ago, Rovim said:

some bands fall apart cause they lose their musical identity as soon as you try to replace the frontman. 

Some do some don't. Roth would have seemed irreplaceable in VH in '85, biggest front man in the world fronting the biggest band in the world at that time and they pulled it off. AC/DC did it, Iron Maiden did it, FNM did it, RATM became Audioslave, like you mention VR did pretty well, which was basically that outcome.

Quote

your SCOM rock n' roll HOF comment is very telling. That wasn't Gn'R just like VR wasn't Gn'R. Sounded like a good cover band. 

Cover band because technically it didn't own rights to the GNR name ? Sounded more like classic GNR to me than anything the band with the name GNR has done this century. A rose by any other name.....

Quote

Axl is still an essential part of Gn'R. You take him out of the equation, and it's not Gn'R anymore.

even if they did fire Axl, which would have been a very stupid thing to do, it would have ceased to be Gn'R

Well in some ways I agree with you, GNR is AFD5 as far as I'm concerned, including Axl.

But I am saying in my view Axl was the weakest link and hence the most replaceable, and what I'm trying to understand is why people think losing him would be more damaging that losing any other band members ? As I've pointed out with a long list of incidents if he had the control back in the 80's like he does now GNR wouldn't have got off the ground anywhere near the way it did.

It's easy to say Axl is essential, I haven't heard anyone give any evidence based reasons why. In fact all the evidence I see is the opposite - VR is a blue print for what could have been - Axl has done next to nothing without the others around him even while owning the most important asset in the brand name.

So looking at the results.... a couple of interesting things :

1) The thing the band is most likely to do (ie keep touring current lineup), got the lowest support. Well aside from the cartoon option which was a bit of a joke - a sad, sad joke given they actually did this partially. I do like that someone voted for it though !

2) The headline numbers are easy enough to read, but if you group different categories :

i) Touring in some form got 18% (thanks to AFD5 options)

ii) New music in some form got 66%, easily the most desired (CD2 reworked being the least desirable)

iii) CD2 interest at 26%

iv) AFD5 doing something together comes in at 31% (with AFD5 + extra members being lowest)

Maybe I'll run this like a survivor series and see where it ends up......

43 minutes ago, downliner said:

Would be cool to see folk like Izzy, Tommy, Bucket, BBF, Gilby, Adler etc do some solo sets throughout the day, and then get various GN'R lineups to do the GNR songs on the main/closing set.

That would be interesting to see - I wonder if a band has ever done anything like that before - the closest I can think of is the Metallica 30th Anniversary shows, but they didn't do the various members non-Metallica stuff (Then again aside from Mustaine there isn't really any non-Metallica stuff from the originals.)

7 hours ago, Rovim said:

it's not like the band managed to actually replace him with a different frontman and there was zero chance for that to happen even if it wasn't just an empty threat. He was/is essential. Can't have Gn'R without Axl. It's as simple as that.

his voice is iconic and his personality is a big part of Gn'R.

Again I think this is revisionist - I agree Axl was an integral part and I agree they didn't take any concrete steps to replace him.

However to say you can't have GN'R without Axl - well it might seem this way today as he has owned the name and had the control and was the only member still in the band for 20 years. When they first came out though there were a lot of GN'R fans, but I also knew a lot of people who like the music but hated his voice. His behaviour didn't help things either - a lot just thought he was a dick. These sentiments grew in the Illusion era.

Personally, these days the only post 1991 GNR thing that I might occasionally pull up on Youtube (ie listen to at all), is SCOM from the HoF. Axl ain't there and to me it sounds more like GNR to me than anything else from the 2000's. Every year or so I think recent era can't be as bad as I remembered and pull up a random clip and last about 10 seconds before going it really is.

Speculation is one thing, evidence from the horses mouth is another - by his own admission he himself was worried enough about being fired that he said it was one of the reasons he made the play to get control of the band name......

So he is either paranoid and delusional or there was a real risk one day the band would say enough's enough. 

2 hours ago, Legendador said:

There's his name in it, the band is his, the name is his! It always has! It was just a formality and imagine been "sober or using recreationally" and working with people 24/7 out of their minds?

By the end of the day it's a multi-million dollar business,

I think this is revisionist history - there wouldn't be the success of the "multi-million business" without the other 4 + Niven.

As far as having to deal with people 24/7, Axl was the most regular one to either screw things up or attempt to screw things up. Without the other 4 and a strong manager in Niven around, we would never have heard of GN'R.

I think Axl was fired something like 3 times in the 80's. He wasn't as essential as people like to now believe. He also threatened to quit once, which of course he was never going to follow through with, for the same reason CD was released under the GNR name - he knows he is nothing without it. Even with the brand name, he managed to completely run things into the ground to the point where he had to bring Slash/Duff back to lift things again.

Here is a quick list of Axl incidents that could have caused major issues for the original band :

* band gets signed. Axl throws tantrum on the day of signing and goes missing - band/Vicky save the day

* club band plays one of first shows with International act, Alice Cooper, Axl fails to show - band/Niven save the day

* Appetite recorded, set for release - Axl overdoses and ends up in a coma - Doctors save him

* 2nd tour with major act is again with Alice Cooper and again Axl doesn't show up for the first show - band saves the day

* Ritz being recorded for MTV, Niven piggy backs of Great White to even get this to happen - Axl refuses to go onstage as he doesn't have a bandanna, MTV crew threatening to pack up - management / possibly Adler saves the day. This show on MTV is a huge factor in their success.

* Headlining shows in Phoenix early '88- Axl fails to show, band goes into major meltdown, almost splits

* SCOM Video shoot - Axl upset about something and fails to show for first 1 or 2 days of attempted shooting. This is their breakout video.

* Iron Maiden tour - Axl upset about something, causes major issues between the bands eventually quits the tour citing 'voice issues'

* Aerosmith tour - most critical tour for the band, Axl doesn't want to do it. Niven saves the day, Axl participates against his will. This is the tour that puts them over the top.

* Paradise City video shoot - Duff, Slash & Steve show up for the NY shoot - where are Axl & Izzy ?

* Axl insists on the lyrics for OIAM and it being on Lies against the advice of the remainder of the band. Kicks off one of the biggest controversies for the band.

* Rehearsals for follow up to Appetite in Chicago - Slash, Steve, Duff there rehearsing in another city at Axls insistance. Axl (Izzy also) doesn't show up for weeks. Causes a major rift in the band.

* Rolling Stones shows - biggest show of the bands career and he threatens not to show up. Niven saves the day and then Axl quits on stage - severely undermining the band

In fact the only major things for the band he didn't fuck up in the 80's was : Cult Tour, Motley Tour & WTTJ & Patience Video shoots - and even then who knows - even the Cult tour I think he got arrested trying to take contraband across the Canadian border. (He also missed at least 1 show for being arrested)

That is not a good record, he was the most problematic to work with of them all, no one else had issues that extensive - and like I said upfront once he got in a situation where he had control and there was no one to save him from himself things went to shit pretty quickly - which is exactly what they would have done if he had that same control in the 80's.

Niven helped 2 bands with difficult personnel break out simultaneously in Great White and GNR. That is pretty impressive. I think he was a great manager and the thing that hurt him in the end was he could be a bit insensitive at times - but at the same time that was needed to a degree.

Goldstein was a great tour manager but terrible band manager and being all about appeasement and not making the tough, right decisions things very quickly nosedived.

I’ve said it before but it is always underestimated what the personnel changes in basically that 1 year period starting mid-1990 had on the band.

Adler, Niven, Izzy out - the 3 voices most prepared to stand up to Axl.

Keyboard player bought in by Axl against the will of the others - so u know who he is going to support.

Grovelling manager brought in obsessed with appeasing Axl.

So suddenly the whole balance shifts and you end up with the band effectively in hands of one person with let’s be frank, mental issues - and things grind to a halt.

If the balance was this way in ‘86 we wouldn’t have even heard of GNR.

Remember as well UYI was majority written at this point, so since the shift mentioned above there hasn’t been much creative output to show for 30 years - one original album.

He’s in Slash’s ass, that’s where Axl is...

11 minutes ago, F*ck Fear said:

Call it a day.

Whats the reason ? Axls voice is shot and never coming back ? Axl and Slash are too fat and you are scared one of them might try out the bike shorts again ? No hope of putting out something decent ? No matter whatever they put out it can't be worth the wait its been already ? They've been in a steady decline since they first emerged and you can't stand to watch it anymore ? They always sucked ? All of the above ?

3 hours ago, ©GnrPersia said:

Asking out of curiosity, what do you think the original 5 could write together?
'Cause "Daddies" are probably not alive anymore to watch porno and "Rocket Queens" are all having grandchildren by now. LA scene is full of Justin Biebers and K-POP. There's literally no LA scene.

Imagine Axl writes another song like "turn around bitch I got a use for you". It will look like a shameful accidental youtube upload by a drunk pervert grandpa.

The fact that he still sings these things live is already awkward! 

I'm trying not to sound arrogant, but this whole "original 5 get back together" makes no sense to me from whatever aspect I'm thinking.

It's a really good question - and yeah I agree there are some things that don't age so well !! (I love AC/DC but am I the only one that finds it really creepy a 60 year old man running around in a school boys uniform ?!?)

I also realise that it could be a huge disappointment - I'm under no illusions that you aren't going to see the same energy or attitude that the band had 30 years ago..

But I do think the combination is what works - that band was all about balance for me and when they lost Adler that was the beginning of the balance shifting, then Niven, then Izzy and suddenly its all lopsided with a particular personality & style dominating. Lyrics aside I think they could still bring it musically, most likely not the same energy but I think the music will go over well - even if I think about the various solo releases and I imagine Slash elevating some of Izzy's song foundations with Duff/Steve bringing the groove and the ultra interesting parts they always seemed to put together, I start imagining yeah this would sound awesome.

With the lyrics even in the old days not all their lyrics were so 'youthful' for lack of a better term - I think that is what gave them depth. Patience for instance I think is great lyrically and could still work. I'd imagine they could go in a direction of the Zeppelin vein who started out in a similar, rawer way to GNR but quickly evolved. I think the main thing is it would have to be real & relevant.

Basically I think the best chance of something interesting coming out will be with the original 5 - but only if they all have input both writing and recording - the creative balance needs to be there. (If it turns out like Kiss did when they brought back Ace & Peter but barely let them contribute it'll end up the same way - generic, watered down crap and wasted potential).

I went with the 3 AFD5 options, because this band is quite polarising for me - I love that original era pretty much the perfect RnR band to me, but post 1990 ranges from meh to really don’t like to I can’t even be bothered to listen. I did go watch on the UYI tour, but wouldn’t go see them again unless it was the 5 original.

The only post 1990 thing I have watched  multiple times is HoF performance and in particular SCOM - it’s the only time it has sounded right to me. I think that was down to the Duff / Adler foundation. I think it would have been even better with Axl/Izzy there as well.
 

In a perfect world, I’d have the original 5 get back together, write together and record an EP worth of material and then tour indoor shows kept to 2 hours max (I hate stadiums and I hate long shows).

Seems to be a lot of hate recently. What are people actually most interested in - bonus points for reason why ?

4 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Doug Goldstein changed his version for the second time about whether he was in Barcelona (when allegedly the name was signed over to Axl). He can't do that and then expect to be considered credible. 

 

It’s a bit off topic but I was reading some interviews relating to the Adler lawsuit recently and it was claimed there, and given Adler won, presumably true, that Goldstein presented him with a stack of papers to sign and told him that it said one thing when it said something different.

So it seems he had form in regards to pulling bullshit tricks with contracts on people who were paying him to supposedly look after their interests.

Money has been the bands primary motivator since at least the early 90’s

Theory #1 - he is delusional and thinks if they tour enough CD will finally break

Theory #2 - the only creative angle he knows is make product bigger and longer. Figures he will tour NITL until its the highest grossing tour of all time, even if it takes 15 years.

Theory #3 - he needs the cash. It ain’t cheap to pay a band, studio and producers for over a decade to pretend to be working toward something

Theory #4 - his nanny told him he had to

5

53 minutes ago, Gnrcane said:

Would you pay the extra $200 for a distancing circle if Izzy and Steven replaced Richard and Frank for the AFD songs?  I'd have to think about it!

If they had Izzy and Steve for all the songs I’d actually pay to go - as opposed to not going at all which is what I’d be doing otherwise.

I’d then pay extra if they didnt have anyone else on stage, then pay more if guaranteed no covers, even more if they promised not to play November Rain, Estranged or anything from CD, even more if they guaranteed the show wouldn’t be longer than 2 hrs, more again if there was no additional production requiring them to play along in synch to, and finally even more if Axl got in shape and could sing properly.

Looking back it seems I’d pay quite a bit for them to put on a cheaper, shorter and easier production - because I know I’d enjoy it a lot more.

GNR & hence Slash was deeply unpopular at the time - or at least where I was in Oz.

’93 they were riding high but by ‘94/‘95 bands like Pantera were the rage and GNR sounded weak by comparison. I remember 2 things distinctly from that era. One was I had started collecting GNR vinyl a few years before and I tried to sell the 12” It’s So Easy PD in ‘95 and I couldn’t sell if for half what I’d paid a few years before.

the other was photos in a magazine of Donnington ‘95 I think it was, where Slash played and how out of place/dated he looked compared to all the other bands. It just looked wrong.

actually I remember a third but can’t remember the year. Hole was playing a festival in Oz and covering Sweet Child and the crowd booing at the concept of GNR and Courtney Love telling the crowd to shut up and that GNR were a great band.

It was quite a few years before I noticed people warming back up to GNR again and it’s just kind of kept building for that classic era.

Why does everyone think TB is the problem ? I would have assumed they can't make any moves without the say so of Axl, and likewise if he wants them to do something its not like they are going to say no ?

10 hours ago, DurhamGirl said:

Interesting.  If this is the case why has Axl been so fated as the 'genius' of GnR?  A personality cult maybe?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'if this is the case', everything I said was factual.

As for Axl the genuis of GNR, that is the exact thing I've never understood. ? I certainly don't see it. I guess part of it is that he owns the name and the value lies in the name - so people don't want to upset him or lose access to that value, so you end up with a disproportionate amount of platitudes.

At the end of the day, Axl has done nothing worthwhile without the other  4 around him. - and clung desperately to the GNR name - all the rest have at least done something under another banner. Now I wonder why that is ? (Again Axl is a vital ingredient of GNR but not the 'geniuis' who did it all).

1 album in 30 years is pathetic. I mean Beatles did 13 in 7 years, Led Zep 8 in 10 years, the original VH 6 in 6 years,, Bon era AC/DC 7 in 4 years......High quality albums at those rates show talent.

The saddest thing for me in all this is that its been 31 years now since we've seen that band that actually did it all perform together....

From memory they said the ‘where do we go part came about in the studio’. They didn’t say when recording Appetite. I had always assumed it was when they were recording the demo of it at Spence Proffers studio. (Ie didn’t have that part when first written/rehearsed but the demo recorded before it was played live, so the part was already there for the first live performance)

Brownstone and SCOM came quite late so weren't on the Sound City. There were demo'd with a few other songs (eg Nightrain with a cool Steve/Izzy intro) with Spencer Proffer at Pasha. This was the same time they recorded Live Like A Suicide.

I have no idea why they weren't on L&L. Maybe Spencer Proffer owns the recordings (pure speculation) ?

Having said that I found L&L quite bizarre in that it was almost complete but not quite (eg left like 2 of the Sound City demos off for some reason).  

I know they had a shirt in 86 that I think was pink and had just the basic Guns N roses logo similar to the logo used on Live Like a Suicide.

I have a vague recollection of seeing an early shirt around similar time in white as well, but could be wrong on that point.

The other early one which I think was from early ‘87 was the welcome to the jungle shirt with a cartoon of Slash with a wooden arm. There are quite a few pics of that one around.

they are the first 2 I know of.

11 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

i personally think skid row upstaged GNR. Skid row seemed like a very hungry band, no lengthy solos just one song after another.

 

 

I was at the Sydney show and that view was pretty universal at the time, both amongst people that went and in the local mags. 
 

Rose Tattoo were awesome that day as well.