Something from Keith Richard's book--could be applicable to the whole 'new Guns' thing

[Count Drugcula]

This little except from Keith's book--about the Stones mid 80s breakup period--was interesting, especially in the way that what Keith says could very easily be applied to Axl's version of Guns post 1998:

"Said Mick, 'The Rolling Stones....cannot be, at my age and and after spending all these years, the only thing in my life....I certainly have earned the right to express myself in another way.' And he did. The way he expressed himself was to go on tour with another band singing Rolling Stones songs.

I really believed Mick wouldn't dare tour without the Stones. It was too hard a slap in the face to deliver to us. It was a death sentence, pending appeal. And for what? But I was wrong and I was outraged and I was hurt. Mick was touring.

So I let him have it, mostly in the press. An opening shot was, if he doesn't want to go out with the Stones and then goes out with Schmuck and Ball's band instead, I'll slit his fucking throat. And then Mick responded loftily, "I love Keith, I admire him...But I don't feel we can really work together anymore." I can't recall all the jibes and barbs I let loose--Disco Boy, Jagger's Little Jerk Off Band, why doesn't he join Aerosmith?--That's the kind of stuff I fed to the grateful tabloids. It got really bad. One day a reporter asked me, "When are you two going to stop bitching at each other?" "Ask the Bitch", I replied.

Then I thought, let the guy have his way. I took it like that. Let him go out there and fall flat on his face. He'd shown a total lack of friendship, of camaraderie, of everything that's necessary to hold a band together. It was a dump. Charlie felt even worse about it then I did, I think.

I saw a clip of Mick's show, and he had a Keef-look alike guitar player stepping in tandem, doing guitar hero moves. When it was on the road, I was asked what I thought, and I said that it was sad that a high percentage of his show was Rolling Stones songs. I said, if you're going to do something on your own, do stuff off the two albums you did. Don't pretend you're a solo artist and have two chicks prancing around doing "Tumbling Dice." The Rolling Stones spent a lot of time building up integrity, as much as you can get in the music industry. And the way Mick handled his solo career jeopardized all that, and it severely pissed me off.

Mick had misjudged something by a hundred miles. He took it for granted that any bunch of good musicians would be as compatible with him as the Rolling Stones. But he didn't sound like himself. He had great players, but it's kind of like the World Cup. England's not Chelsea or Arsenal. It's a different game, and you've got to work with a different team.

Now you've got the best hired hands around and you've got to form a relationship with them. Which is not Mick's forte. He could certainly strut around and have the star on his dressing room door and treat the band like hirelings. But you don't get good music that way."

Edited April 3, 2011 by Count Drugcula

[cancerface]

keith who?

apples and oranges. guns n' roses has every right to perform guns n' roses songs. mick strarted a new band. axl kept the band going after captain cancer and the spiders who crawl through your veins abandoned him.

Edited April 3, 2011 by cancerface

[axl_on_drums]

Keith is jealous of Mick.

He would hit the road solo if he could sing or hold a show together on his own. Look at Jimmy Page, stranded without Plant, should Plant not be singing Zeppelin songs?

The guitarist needs the singer in most cases. Sadly a lot of us feel were not missing anything without Slash, Izzy wasn't that missed, UYI toured just rolled on, quickly replaced.

[The Glow Inc.]

To me, this is EXACTLY the same situation.

Thanks for sharing

[Count Drugcula]

keith who?

apples and oranges. guns n' roses has every right to perform guns n' roses songs. mick strarted a new band. axl kept the band going after captain cancer and the spiders who crawl through your veins abandoned him.

Axl in the legal and realistic sense, though, formed a new band. The name is the same but the workings, partnership, dynamics and legalities of it are not at all the same as Guns N' Roses was from 1985 to 1990/1992--as a team of guys in a band; a gang. A family.

When Guns renegotiated their contract, they created a new legal partnership, which now consisted of Axl, Slash and Duff, in September 1992. In this new contract, Axl had the bit added in which stipulated that if he was ever fired from Guns involuntarily, or if he was to ever quit GN'R, the legal and brand name "Guns N' Roses" would go with him and become his.

Axl sent a letter on August 31st 1995 to Slash and Duff stating in essence effective December 31st 1995 he was quitting Guns N' Roses. His intent was to start a new band called "Guns N' Roses", and a form new legal partnership consisting solely of himself.

Slash and Duff, if they wanted to continue on, could join this new Guns as hirelings on contract. Which they did until they left in 1996 and 1997 respectively. But unlike the 1992 agreement, they were not equal partners in Guns---They now were hired members of a new band and legal entity which happened to share the same name as the original entity.

For all intents and purposes, after 1995, they had been reduced to having the same status in the band as Matt Sorum or Dizzy Reed: Hired Guns operating under the Guns brand name at Axl's beck and call.

But unlike Matt or Dizzy, Slash and Duff had helped create and shape the Guns name, sound, brand, songs, image and legacy, and as such, this idea of a new band being named Guns and their participation in it as hired hands on contract was a giant spit in the face to them and on their integral role in creating Guns in the first place.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Count Drugcula

[Precious time..]

Good post!

Amazing how many parallels there are.

[cancerface]

you took a lot of words to say that axl once fronted a band called guns n' roses and now fronts a band called guns n' roses. so essentially, you proved my point. thank you.

if you want to buy a copy of chinese democracy, where do you look? the guns n' roses section. the same section where all their albums can be found, regardless of which musicians performed on it..

Edited April 3, 2011 by cancerface

[grigori]

Great topic OP. Amazing parallels.

[Count Drugcula]

Keith is jealous of Mick.

He would hit the road solo if he could sing or hold a show together on his own. Look at Jimmy Page, stranded without Plant, should Plant not be singing Zeppelin songs?

The guitarist needs the singer in most cases. Sadly a lot of us feel were not missing anything without Slash, Izzy wasn't that missed, UYI toured just rolled on, quickly replaced.

Keith did hit the road with his own band after Mick did, just to spit in Mick's face. And he was pretty successful, not as successful as the Stones as a collective would be, but successful enough. And Mick's tour did Ok--Meh.

Page had a great thing going with David Coverdale in the early '90s, very highly anticipated, and I forget the details but essentially they fucked it up in the execution. Also, Page was a HIGHLY successful and much in demand session guitarist long before Led Zeppelin came into being.

The guitarist more often than not greatly determines the sound of the band. A singer does too...But a singer can't create the riffs, the solos, the licks, etc--And that's what people look more for in a Rock N' Roll band. Izzy wasn't that missed? Even Axl begged for him to come back. The only reason the Illusion tour rolled on was because they'd have been in the poor house if they cancelled the rest of a two year tour. The UYI tour, IMO, was the main thing that kept Guns from imploding in 1992 as opposed to when they eventually imploded in 1998. The UYI Tour and Gilby being a capable touring replacement is the only thing that kept Guns together for those next few years.

As soon as Guns got off the road from that tour, things quickly began to collapse and the band really in many ways stopped functioning. Axl and Slash couldn't see eye to eye over anything, especially the future of the band, where they should go, what they should do, how they should handle the mid 90s with it's onslaught of post GN'R trends. After Izzy left, there was no glue left to hold Axl and Slash together anymore--nothing to bridge their totally opposite mindsets.

Basically, the UYI tour from '92-'93 was the original GN'R's life support system, even though it didn't seem so at the time.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Count Drugcula

[Count Drugcula]

Keith is jealous of Mick.

He would hit the road solo if he could sing or hold a show together on his own. Look at Jimmy Page, stranded without Plant, should Plant not be singing Zeppelin songs?

The guitarist needs the singer in most cases. Sadly a lot of us feel were not missing anything without Slash, Izzy wasn't that missed, UYI toured just rolled on, quickly replaced.

There are a lot of similarities between what happenned in the Stones and with Guns but the big difference is Mick can never tour as the Stones with a new band without permission of Keef and Charlie, which would never happen as long as Keef is breathing, while Axl owns the Guns name and can do with it as he pleases....

IMHO Keith is not jealous of Mick but rather he was hurt that Mick would go out as a solo artist and perform Stones songs. You have to understand these two were closer than brothers for close to 20 years, starting in 1963, until they had a falling out in the 81-82 timeframe..In Keef's book he talks about how Mick changed over the years and became distant from their friendship which I think still hurts him to this day......Despite Keef's objections Mick has the right to play Stones songs during his solo tours just as any ex-member of Guns N Roses has the right to play Guns songs on their solo tours...

And Keef did actually release two solo albums and did solo tours in the late 80's and early 90's with his band the Expensive Winos. I went to his show at the Boston Orpheum which was actually excellent and he did sing at those shows and was really not that bad. He did some Stones songs but the majority of the Winos setlist was from Keefs solo albums.

He also toured with a band Woody put together, sans Mick, The New Barbarians, in 1979 which was a traveling drunks circus but the shows were very enjoyable.......

I do agree that as long as Axl fronts any incarnation of Guns most casual fans would not notice the difference but there is a large number of old school hardcore Guns fans, many who frequent the forums, who will never accept NuGnR as the real deal but will still support Axl making new music..........

Pretty much. I used to be a really adamant supporter of Axl's vision and thiss band (because I thought there was some grand vision--something that would validate the death of the original band. I really was a true believer in his genius and felt he could pull off the next Led Zeppelin), felt this new band was GN'R but now...

While I do await whatever the new band puts out, the next record, and I will buy it, I just I've just realized that what we call GN'R is just Axl and his boys. Not GN'R in the way that it existed with the old band--not a band. A very talented crew of guys that Axl is sadly wasting the talent (at least until a record comes out with them on it) of.

I guess part of my dissatisfaction stems from Axl's lack of desire to do really anything great with this band, to make it feel like a band and promote them as such, to act consistently and put out records, and the way that it's a revolving door lineup (and as such you can't truly come to love a member if they only stay 3 years) kind of makes me wonder why he wanted to rebuild a "New Guns" if he wasn't going to do anything really momentous with it? I'm an Axl fan (but I wish his music was a little funner in spirit), but I don't see why he needs the GN'R name anymore. He could go solo and I'd still attend.

That isn't to say I'm in Slash's camp, because I'm not a big fan of most of his recent material either to be honest. Nor do I accept Slash's account that the break up all 100% Axl's fault. But what I am coming to terms with is the belief that Axl shouldn't have kept the GN'R name by himself.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Count Drugcula

[moreblack]

He had great players, but it's kind of like the World Cup. England's not Chelsea or Arsenal. It's a different game, and you've got to work with a different team.

I seriously think media scrutiny fucks up the England team every time they get something decent going...

[axl_on_drums]

I guess part of my dissatisfaction stems from Axl's lack of desire to do really anything great with this band

Well in the past 3 years we've had CD, A massive tour and the best line up/shows since 88 and incredibly candid interaction with Axl and the band, a band interview And now we have RIR booked this year. Sure more could be done but you are a fan of Axl Rose right.

It would appear Axl has nothing but desire, and given the hints we've gotten new material is coming sooner or later.

I doubt you could tell more more could be done, what do you want? GNR at the grammys, on Letterman, on Oprah? Some posters and calanders to hang on your hall. I'll pass thanks.

[Kickingthehabit]

If you're upset about Axl using the name... don't be. History will judge him harshly (and it already has). He's easily a top ten frontman, but any legitimacy he had being compared to someone like Jagger vanished a long time ago. Frankly, anyone who still believes he'll somehow rebound is insane. In GNR's chapter in music, all this Chinese Democracy stuff will be a few brief sentences preceded by the subtitle: "Where it all went wrong.."

-Kickingthehabit

[star]

To me, this is EXACTLY the same situation.

Thanks for sharing

+1

The difference between Axl and Mick are, Axl has far more issues. His ego refuses to allow him to back track. Axl would rather destroy GN'R than get back with Slash.

[Trilogy]

keith who?

apples and oranges. guns n' roses has every right to perform guns n' roses songs. mick strarted a new band. axl kept the band going after captain cancer and the spiders who crawl through your veins abandoned him.

Exactly,nice screen name!

[Trilogy]

I guess part of my dissatisfaction stems from Axl's lack of desire to do really anything great with this band

Well in the past 3 years we've had CD, A massive tour and the best line up/shows since 88 and incredibly candid interaction with Axl and the band, a band interview And now we have RIR booked this year. Sure more could be done but you are a fan of Axl Rose right.

It would appear Axl has nothing but desire, and given the hints we've gotten new material is coming sooner or later.

I doubt you could tell more more could be done, what do you want? GNR at the grammys, on Letterman, on Oprah? Some posters and calanders to hang on your hall. I'll pass thanks.

Good insight and it reflects my feelings as well,I don't want to see Guns selling out on late night purgatory,or whoring themselves out,for the almighty $$,

integrity matters to me,even if its not popular,or widely accepted

[STARABOSTES]

In GNR's chapter in music, all this Chinese Democracy stuff will be a few brief sentences preceded by the subtitle: "Where it all went wrong.."

-Kickingthehabit

neh.

GNR in any form and at anytime weren't that much praised at the right time but by their fans.

give me the main 1987/1988 reviews over AFD...

only from 1989/1990 were GNR taken more as a popular band, and that happened,

sorely you know, because of the MUSIC VIDEOS. that is if you do know GNR history.

so stop, assuming.

because far as the critiques go, the album - Chinese Democracy received good reviews from the ones that matter, and got world wide Gold and Platinum discs.

what did lack for this album were the music videos to promote the new band,

and, as far as we know now, it could very well had to do with Azzof's intention to get Slash back in GNR (one must take into consideration the fact that this guy was Slash's manager a while back, so...), or let's use the wider term - reunion old GNR B)

the purist would go more for that term,when in fact it's all about Slash, because I didn't see here, or anywhere for that matter,

fans who argue against new GNR because of the lack of Izzy or Steven or Duff, and you know why? exactly because of The Rolling Stones split, and of the image that people form in their mind when thinking a rock band, that is the singer and the solo guitarist's bond, that is, this bond is the most important in a rock band. but where that is true for The Rolling Stones it wasn't for the GNR.

this band was more a 3 to 4 piece, that is Izzy, Axl, Slash and Duff were all getting in songs, but the main ones were Izzy and Axl.

but, the image the was sold by the media and was bought by the fans, was that Axl and Slash are the main parts of GNR. and that's way fans couldn't care less of Steven was out, then Izzy was out, even if Duff were send out or fall out of the band in 1992 it wouldn't matter for the fans... what really got them on their knees was when Slash left the band, and of course, eating from his hands... as Axl gave no interviews about it, they come to assume the it was indeed Axl' fault for everything that when wrong with GNR, and it might be that it was... but was it?

now seriously, look at the facts, look at who was all the time in the face of the public eye, chating about why he left, why Izzy left, why Duff left, i mean come on people! it's like those guys couldn't figure it out for them selfs why they left the band? and here comes the great thinker, the old man of the tribe to tell the world and to them why... Slash...

and also now, the only one still talking about it is Slash, and yes, of course Steven, when ever the press gets to him.

I know this much, that, none of the albums of the rest of the former gunners, sound as GNR music to me.

I like Axl's poetic style, and voice. he never sang on crappy songs, he never gave his talent for anyone one just for the sake of it, just to be out there, in the spot light. but, is not like he wouldn't do it, as in do a duet with Fergie... I am just saying what he didn't. he is more of a rocker in my books than... well, it got to that even Fergie is more of a rocker than Slash. if the one attitude that drives you is to be in the spot light, then, you're just an entertainer man, just.

what I can make of this is that some of GNR fans would like it to be a normal band, that is, let's ask for mediocrity...

and the title of this thread is not ok. because there are differences to great not to see them, but the intention is there,

that wishful thinking that if the stones got together...

well fuck that man! if Slash was to ever rejoin GNR I will through out all GNR music I have. seriously.

past is past. whoever wants to recreate past is someone who doesn't want to face the reality present.

I like The Doors a lot, but I wouldn't want them in my room anyway than I have them, that is, their music.

I can't sleep, so that's why the long writing... B)

[ITW 2012]

GNR is a NIN style backing band at this point. The 2002 lineup was the actual New GNR. I don't ever expect an album beyond the rest of the material that the 02 lineup and Paul Huge came up with. And frankly, I'm quite alright with that; Axl's almost 50 at this point and I don't really see him writing and recording a new album with the current touring lineup anyway.

Edited April 3, 2011 by ITW 2012

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I read through that book, and came to the conclusion that Keith Richards is an asshole. How is Mick touring stabbing him in the back? It's not. Keith is very Slash like in his bullshit slanting. In the book, he pathetically uses quotations from other people about he and Mick's feud, stop putting that shit out there. Ever heard of privacy? I guess The Rolling Stones non-stop cash grab touring isn't putting enough in his pocket to support his drug habit.

Edited April 3, 2011 by ShadowOfTheWave

[Trilogy]

In GNR's chapter in music, all this Chinese Democracy stuff will be a few brief sentences preceded by the subtitle: "Where it all went wrong.."

-Kickingthehabit

neh.

GNR in any form and at anytime weren't that much praised at the right time but by their fans.

give me the main 1987/1988 reviews over AFD...

only from 1989/1990 were GNR taken more as a popular band, and that happened,

sorely you know, because of the MUSIC VIDEOS. that is if you do know GNR history.

so stop, assuming.

because far as the critiques go, the album - Chinese Democracy received good reviews from the ones that matter, and got world wide Gold and Platinum discs.

what did lack for this album were the music videos to promote the new band,

and, as far as we know now, it could very well had to do with Azzof's intention to get Slash back in GNR (one must take into consideration the fact that this guy was Slash's manager a while back, so...), or let's use the wider term - reunion old GNR B)

the purist would go more for that term,when in fact it's all about Slash, because I didn't see here, or anywhere for that matter,

fans who argue against new GNR because of the lack of Izzy or Steven or Duff, and you know why? exactly because of The Rolling Stones split, and of the image that people form in their mind when thinking a rock band, that is the singer and the solo guitarist's bond, that is, this bond is the most important in a rock band. but where that is true for The Rolling Stones it wasn't for the GNR.

this band was more a 3 to 4 piece, that is Izzy, Axl, Slash and Duff were all getting in songs, but the main ones were Izzy and Axl.

but, the image the was sold by the media and was bought by the fans, was that Axl and Slash are the main parts of GNR. and that's way fans couldn't care less of Steven was out, then Izzy was out, even if Duff were send out or fall out of the band in 1992 it wouldn't matter for the fans... what really got them on their knees was when Slash left the band, and of course, eating from his hands... as Axl gave no interviews about it, they come to assume the it was indeed Axl' fault for everything that when wrong with GNR, and it might be that it was... but was it?

now seriously, look at the facts, look at who was all the time in the face of the public eye, chating about why he left, why Izzy left, why Duff left, i mean come on people! it's like those guys couldn't figure it out for them selfs why they left the band? and here comes the great thinker, the old man of the tribe to tell the world and to them why... Slash...

and also now, the only one still talking about it is Slash, and yes, of course Steven, when ever the press gets to him.

I know this much, that, none of the albums of the rest of the former gunners, sound as GNR music to me.

I like Axl's poetic style, and voice. he never sang on crappy songs, he never gave his talent for anyone one just for the sake of it, just to be out there, in the spot light. but, is not like he wouldn't do it, as in do a duet with Fergie... I am just saying what he didn't. he is more of a rocker in my books than... well, it got to that even Fergie is more of a rocker than Slash. if the one attitude that drives you is to be in the spot light, then, you're just an entertainer man, just.

what I can make of this is that some of GNR fans would like it to be a normal band, that is, let's ask for mediocrity...

and the title of this thread is not ok. because there are differences to great not to see them, but the intention is there,

that wishful thinking that if the stones got together...

well fuck that man! if Slash was to ever rejoin GNR I will through out all GNR music I have. seriously.

past is past. whoever wants to recreate past is someone who doesn't want to face the reality present.

I like The Doors a lot, but I wouldn't want them in my room anyway than I have them, that is, their music.

I can't sleep, so that's why the long writing... B)

Agree,with your post,insomnia looks good in writing!

[Trilogy]

I read through that book, and came to the conclusion that Keith Richards is an asshole. How is Mick touring stabbing him in the back? It's not. Keith is very Slash like in his bullshit slanting. In the book, he pathetically uses quotations from other people about he and Mick's feud, stop putting that shit out there. Ever heard of privacy? I guess The Rolling Stones non-stop cash grab touring isn't putting enough in his pocket to support his drug habit.

It is obvious from your post you don't know shit about the Stones or their history..You say you read Keef Autobiography but you saw only what you wanted to see without actually understanding what emotions Keef was trying to express ......

Keef and Mick used to be like brothers in their closeness and now are more like an old married couple and if you did read and understand the book you would have realized that Keef is not an asshole nor is he jealous or hate Mick. He is like a spouse who is sad that he and he mate have grown apart and no longer have much in common...Based on what he wrote, and has said in interviews throught the years, he wishes for the days when he and Mick were close again and could hang out together but those days have long passed.

Axl and Slash went though a similar estrangement in the mid 90's with Slash eventually quiting...If you read the old interviews Axl was pissed at Slash for doing Snakepit and actually thought of sueing Slash when he did that project and tour. IMHO Slash, despite his jabs at Axl in the press, also misses the old days when he and Axl were tight and is still hurt by Axl's power grab and how he shut the other old band members out one by one. Go here and read the old interviews I uploaded and you will have a better understanding of what went down with Gun back in the AFD, UYI, and the shit that went down that led to everyone quiting....

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/2Rv8fW5a/sharing.html?rnd=94

While the circumstances are not exactly identical there are many similarities between the two relationships with only the outcome being different with the Stones still together with 4 equal partners and Axl the only remaining original member of the AFD band..

As far as the Stones doing a money grab they are still touring close to 50 years later with three of the orginal members, are still making original music together, putting on great shows and filling Arenas here in the U.S. which is something Axl can only dream of......

interviews are only as accurate as the person being interviewed,the circumstances which surround the interview,and how accurately and true the interviewer is being at the time,so with all these varying factors,plus the addition of people changing their minds,you honestly cannot base any proven fact on a collection of interviews

[Dead Flower]

I can't sleep, so that's why the long writing... B)

What's to blame for the mountains of retarded shit found within the writing?

[wasted]

I think in hindsight it's easier to be objective.

I think people tend to forget how fucked up the original line up of Guns was.

[The Wicked Hand]

Unless we were actually there, all we to go by are the opinions of those that were there.

This might not be fact, by definition, but we can come up something pretty close to what happen, especially when everyone, except for one, of the parties involved say the same thing.

[dalsh327]

But Mick and Keith were able to put their differences aside. Mick never would've attempted to tour as the Stones without Keith and Charlie. Even when he did the concert for NYC, it was billed as Mick & Keith.

Jagger was focused on doing movies and recording stuff that never would've been recorded with the Stones.

I don't think Jagger played live solo outside of Japan. And as far as I know, that guitarist Keith's talking about was Satriani.