Alan Niven about Gn'R

[appetite4illusions]

What Doug's been up to since GNR. One can only wonder if past and present members of GNR have seen this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O65PHC7ycxU

Good god...Doug Goldstein looks entirely different. He's lost way more than a hundred pounds. The only thing I remotely recognize about him is his personality; the only thing that hasn't changed.

[vaida]

..and to think, no Alan Niven, and there just might have been no GN'R, and no Slash.

Edited February 21, 2012 by vaida

[Aussiegun]

Losing Steven was frustrating and painful. But we tried and tried to pull him through. The problem was, he just could not connect to the more intricate material Axl was writing for the Illusion albums. Time and again, Slash and the others would bemoan that he just couldn't get it, and that he would play the same section the same way twice instead of fixing it.

The bullshit that he was fired for his addiction is just that – bullshit. It was a performance matter.

Very important stuff here. Challenges our generally accepted view of the reasons behind it.

Why? Its nothing new, I thought it was common knowledge that it wasn't solely about the drugs but whether he could still function under the influence (which he could not) and general lack of skill. Even Slash mentions it in his book.

METAL SLUDGE: Oh, one thing I was wondering about: Was there ever a time when Guns N’ Roses almost broke up before all the success?

Yes, in Phoenix. There was a riot. I sat the band down and said, “Look, I made a commitment to this band, but if you decide on another singer, I’ll stand by you.” They thought about it, too.

Now this has always been interesting to me. There were apparently many instances where Axl was almost fired but they never went through with it and I wonder why. From the sound of things it seems like he was a major pain in the ass all around (controlling, temperamental, unprofessional, etc) so why did they decide against canning him every single time? Also if they had, would GnR have made it to the height that they did? That is the question I would ask Niven if I was interviewing him.

Its kinda obvious that Alan had no love for Axl from the gekko, he seemed to have more faith in the band itself since he states suggesting to fire Axl on more than one occasion. Perhaps he deemed Axl replaceable? That the music would have held its own regardless?

Maybe after Axl got wind that he could've been fired, he went on the warpath to systematically firing everyone...

[axlsalinger]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

[KiraMPD]

Maybe after Axl got wind that he could've been fired, he went on the warpath to systematically firing everyone...

Well, yeah, that's evident. Although, we need to remember that he didn't fire everyone, Slash Duff and Izzy left and he was quite upset about that. Mind you if my manager was trying to get me fired I would cut him loose too...

No, my point is that if Niven had plans to fire Axl then he must have had post-Axl plans for the band as well, right? I mean, by 1990 Axl was an essential part of their image (since he is the frontman, an eccentric one at that) so if he had been fired, how would the band have moved on? Alan must have had some plans regarding this situation or he would not have pushed the issue as much.

Ah... now this has me all curious...

[Aussiegun]

Maybe after Axl got wind that he could've been fired, he went on the warpath to systematically firing everyone...

Well, yeah, that's evident. Although, we need to remember that he didn't fire everyone, Slash Duff and Izzy left and he was quite upset about that. Mind you if my manager was trying to get me fired I would cut him loose too...

No, my point is that if Niven had plans to fire Axl then he must have had post-Axl plans for the band as well, right? I mean, by 1990 Axl was an essential part of their image (since he is the frontman, an eccentric one at that) so if he had been fired, how would the band have moved on? Alan must have had some plans regarding this situation or he would not have pushed the issue as much.

Ah... now this has me all curious...

I wonder what singer they would've lined up? Would UYI continued?

Or would they have fired Axl, and retained him as a hired hand?

[KiraMPD]

I wonder what singer they would've lined up

Or would they have fired Axl, and retained him as a hired hand?

I'm wondering if Niven already had some singers lined up for a try out... and if so, who they were.

And retaining Axl as a hired hand... how would that have worked exactly since he was part of the writing process? Not that it would have worked at all, if Axl had gotten fired he would have probably told them all to fuck off and set off on the search for a new band (and if Alan knew Axl at all, he would have predicted this).

I think either way the band would have disintegrated/fizzled out. It seems like that lineup just wasn't meant to last long. To me it seems the only way those five would have stuck together for a longer period of time (without exploding egos) would be is AFD wasn't such a success. I mean, they were basically a street band and within a year or two they were being hailed as the Rolling Stones of their era? What an ego trip that must have been... but I digress.

Another interesting thing Alan mentions is Axl asking for a bigger cut (according to Slash's book it was Axl-25%, Izzy-20%, Slash-20%, Duff-20% and Steven-15%). I just can't help but remember the Howard Stern Radio interview form 1989 in which Axl was a slightly different tune...

Edited February 21, 2012 by KiraMPD

[sailaway]

It's hard to tell that Axl's the crazy one.

Crazy by whose standards? We all have eccentricities and aren't stamped out in cookie-cutter modes.

Flayer you're mean, but funny.

Like a "Do Not Touch, Live Wire!" sign in Braille.

Or a braille drive-through menu at burger king.

[sleeper]

This is really all water under the bridge now. It cannot serve any purpose to continue to hash through it. It is apparant that the problems in the band were many and very complex. Also that it was no one band members fault, it took them all them to fuck it up.

[sailaway]

The bullshit that he (Alder) was fired for his addiction is just that – bullshit. It was a performance matter.

Interesting.

They had to. My understanding of the situation was that Axl stated to the band he would not go on tour if I remained as manager. Didn't give the others much of a choice there, did he?... By this point, Axl was kind of taking over. Let’s look at the first thing he did once I left: He had everyone else in the band sign the name over to him. It was a control move between Axl and Doug Goldstein. They both knew I would never stand for anything like that. Axl never even brought it up when I was the manager because he knew what I would tell him to do with it.

METAL SLUDGE: So what are you saying? Axl and Doug Goldstein had a secret alliance?

That sounds very accurate.

Axl taking over

I think that both Axl and Goldstein were, at that time, both controlling and greedy. Axl complained all the time that Steven Adler got a percentage of composing royalties. I had recommended that the band have a share-and-share-alike approach to such income -- as did Van Halen, Great White, and others – because my observation was that the primary factors that destroyed bands were women and arguing over differential splits of income, especially mechanical royalties. Hence, I would recommend equal sharing of royalties -- and not women!

Alan Niven just says it like it is. No BS

No, Niven is giving HIS view,and opinions.It's not canonized and accepted as "The Truth"

[rabia]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

Slash mentions in his book that there were 6 times in GN'R history that the idea of firing Axl was discussed, "very seriously" (page 217). He talks about one particular time when he and Izzy were "strategizing how to do it". Its also obvious that Alan Niven was encouraging this or at the least strengthening this move by promising his continued support to the band if they got rid of Axl.

All attempts at self-preservation by Axl are usually labelled as evil manipulations but in such a scenario when even Axl's close friend Izzy wasnt averse to the idea of having him removed, its not hard to see why he saw himself as under threat.

[sledzep]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

Slash mentions in his book that there were 6 times in GN'R history that the idea of firing Axl was discussed, "very seriously" (page 217). He talks about one particular time when he and Izzy were "strategizing how to do it". Its also obvious that Alan Niven was encouraging this or at the least strengthening this move by promising his continued support to the band if they got rid of Axl.

All attempts at self-preservation by Axl are usually labelled as evil manipulations but in such a scenario when even Axl's close friend Izzy wasnt averse to the idea of having him removed, its not hard to see why he saw himself as under threat.

Wow, even Slash admitted that? I guess the GNR name "hostage" sign-off to Axl (as he mentioned in the chats himself) comes together with these Alan plans.

[RockerRoller]

I really would like to know what his take on who to replace axl would have been. Back in 87,88,89 who could have been a suitable replacement really. Axl was really such a part of their image and sound that I find it hard to imagine who could take his place. But it says a lot about the music chemistry Slash, Izzy, Duff, and Steven had if Alan preferred Axl out. Wonder why they kept Axl, maybe because he had such a big role in GNR? Would have been interesting to see what GNR woulda been without him.

Edited February 21, 2012 by RockerRoller

[GnR Chris]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

Slash mentions in his book that there were 6 times in GN'R history that the idea of firing Axl was discussed, "very seriously" (page 217). He talks about one particular time when he and Izzy were "strategizing how to do it". Its also obvious that Alan Niven was encouraging this or at the least strengthening this move by promising his continued support to the band if they got rid of Axl.

All attempts at self-preservation by Axl are usually labelled as evil manipulations but in such a scenario when even Axl's close friend Izzy wasnt averse to the idea of having him removed, its not hard to see why he saw himself as under threat.

Don't make excuses for Axl please. Just do not.

You think the band wanted to fire Axl? I mean seriously lose him? No, because they never did. The fact that they discussed it doesn't reveal some sort of powerplay (as was the case with Axl systematically destroying what was left of Guns by the early-to-mid '90s). What it reveals is they were really at their wits end with his prima donna antics. Duff and Slash just wanted to play rock and roll. You see that today. They write music, they tour, they put out records. It shouldn't be as complicated as Axl always made it out to be.

I don't think Gn'R would have survived had they fired Axl, but I wonder if they're kicking themselves about it now since in the end he took over the name.

Edit: I do understand what you're saying, that if Axl caught wind that the band was trying to fire him that it would have been in his best interests to take over the name. But from everything we know, Axl was already getting power hungry, was extremely difficult to work with, was showing up late, and so forth. He made it almost impossible. Had he been respectful to his bandmates those talks never would have come up. Why would they?

Edited February 22, 2012 by GnR Chris

[rabia]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

Slash mentions in his book that there were 6 times in GN'R history that the idea of firing Axl was discussed, "very seriously" (page 217). He talks about one particular time when he and Izzy were "strategizing how to do it". Its also obvious that Alan Niven was encouraging this or at the least strengthening this move by promising his continued support to the band if they got rid of Axl.

All attempts at self-preservation by Axl are usually labelled as evil manipulations but in such a scenario when even Axl's close friend Izzy wasnt averse to the idea of having him removed, its not hard to see why he saw himself as under threat.

Don't make excuses for Axl please. Just do not.

You think the band wanted to fire Axl? I mean seriously lose him? No, because they never did. The fact that they discussed it doesn't reveal some sort of powerplay (as was the case with Axl systematically destroying what was left of Guns by the early-to-mid '90s). What it reveals is they were really at their wits end with his prima donna antics. Duff and Slash just wanted to play rock and roll. You see that today. They write music, they tour, they put out records. It shouldn't be as complicated as Axl always made it out to be.

I don't think Gn'R would have survived had they fired Axl, but I wonder if they're kicking themselves about it now since in the end he took over the name.

Well, Slash uses the words that I quoted and Niven has directly stated that he let the band know he would be there for them if they made such a move so the facts speak for themselves. The fact that they "never did" fire him does not mean that it was never intended. He just happens to be rather hard to replace. He may have made it complicated but his emotional troubles also brought the venom that set the band apart from other less authentic fare.

Its pretty routine here to paint Axl as some evil monster as if any move that he made was a "power play" but discussions to fire him were major shows of affection. As far as being at one's "wits end", that was the case with Steven's firing but interestingly Steven gets endless affection from some posters here and Alan Niven in this interview entirely discounts the role of drugs in Steven's ouster! I would imagine that in a band with so many drug addicts, Axl had some right to feel annoyed too. Or maybe you'll refuse to grant him that too.

Slash and Duff put out records, great. But what complicated things at that time in GN'R was partly also the human relationships in the band and ganging up against the lead singer certainly doesnt help matters. The whole soap opera version of Axl taking the name has been hashed out indefinitely but the fact remains that Slash and Duff had lawyers too-as Slash says in his book, lawyers for all three were "haggling" big time in the period before he left. If the deal was unacceptable to them, they could have opted out before the statute of limitations was over. Even the excuse that Axl gave them an ultimatum that he wouldnt go on-stage wasnt there once the tour was over.

[rabia]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

Slash mentions in his book that there were 6 times in GN'R history that the idea of firing Axl was discussed, "very seriously" (page 217). He talks about one particular time when he and Izzy were "strategizing how to do it". Its also obvious that Alan Niven was encouraging this or at the least strengthening this move by promising his continued support to the band if they got rid of Axl.

All attempts at self-preservation by Axl are usually labelled as evil manipulations but in such a scenario when even Axl's close friend Izzy wasnt averse to the idea of having him removed, its not hard to see why he saw himself as under threat.

Edit: I do understand what you're saying, that if Axl caught wind that the band was trying to fire him that it would have been in his best interests to take over the name. But from everything we know, Axl was already getting power hungry, was extremely difficult to work with, was showing up late, and so forth. He made it almost impossible. Had he been respectful to his bandmates those talks never would have come up. Why would they?

What we do know according to Duff is that Axl was very open-minded about everyone's ideas in the song-writing process during Appetite and this particular incident where Slash and Izzy talked about firing Axl happened during the tours following Appetite. So I dont know if the "power-hunger" idea quite works. Yes, Axl was being late but if that is a major flaw then so was the severe drug habit of the other guys that would also realistically create difficulties in running a band with a heavy schedule. Being respectful can be interpreted in various ways and I find it sad that while Axl did NOT fire Slash and Duff, he is demonized while the others discussing seriously the idea of firing him with he manager are not blamed at all.

Also I think its hypocritical of Alan Niven here to play to the gallery over how Guns was never the same without Steven and how his drug addiction wasn't a real issue when Slash says in his book that Alan Niven and Axl had both backed giving Steven the ultimatum to clean up. So Niven had to know that there was a high possibility of Steven's ouster through this measure and yet here he makes it seem as if it was primarily motivated by Axl's personal animosity and greed.

[GnR Chris]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

Slash mentions in his book that there were 6 times in GN'R history that the idea of firing Axl was discussed, "very seriously" (page 217). He talks about one particular time when he and Izzy were "strategizing how to do it". Its also obvious that Alan Niven was encouraging this or at the least strengthening this move by promising his continued support to the band if they got rid of Axl.

All attempts at self-preservation by Axl are usually labelled as evil manipulations but in such a scenario when even Axl's close friend Izzy wasnt averse to the idea of having him removed, its not hard to see why he saw himself as under threat.

Don't make excuses for Axl please. Just do not.

You think the band wanted to fire Axl? I mean seriously lose him? No, because they never did. The fact that they discussed it doesn't reveal some sort of powerplay (as was the case with Axl systematically destroying what was left of Guns by the early-to-mid '90s). What it reveals is they were really at their wits end with his prima donna antics. Duff and Slash just wanted to play rock and roll. You see that today. They write music, they tour, they put out records. It shouldn't be as complicated as Axl always made it out to be.

I don't think Gn'R would have survived had they fired Axl, but I wonder if they're kicking themselves about it now since in the end he took over the name.

Well, Slash uses the words that I quoted and Niven has directly stated that he let the band know he would be there for them if they made such a move so the facts speak for themselves. The fact that they "never did" fire him does not mean that it was never intended. He just happens to be rather hard to replace. He may have made it complicated but his emotional troubles also brought the venom that set the band apart from other less authentic fare.

Its pretty routine here to paint Axl as some evil monster as if any move that he made was a "power play" but discussions to fire him were major shows of affection. As far as being at one's "wits end", that was the case with Steven's firing but interestingly Steven gets endless affection from some posters here and Alan Niven in this interview entirely discounts the role of drugs in Steven's ouster! I would imagine that in a band with so many drug addicts, Axl had some right to feel annoyed too. Or maybe you'll refuse to grant him that too.

Slash and Duff put out records, great. But what complicated things at that time in GN'R was partly also the human relationships in the band and ganging up against the lead singer certainly doesnt help matters. The whole soap opera version of Axl taking the name has been hashed out indefinitely but the fact remains that Slash and Duff had lawyers too-as Slash says in his book, lawyers for all three were "haggling" big time in the period before he left. If the deal was unacceptable to them, they could have opted out before the statute of limitations was over. Even the excuse that Axl gave them an ultimatum that he wouldnt go on-stage wasnt there once the tour was over.

"Ganging up"? Come on, now. We all know how Axl is or was. All the reports aren't lies. The guy was notoriously difficult to work with. Voicing displeasure doesn't mean you're ganging up on the guy. It means he needed to change his attitude. But he never actually had to since they stupidly signed the name over to him.

[GnR Chris]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

Slash mentions in his book that there were 6 times in GN'R history that the idea of firing Axl was discussed, "very seriously" (page 217). He talks about one particular time when he and Izzy were "strategizing how to do it". Its also obvious that Alan Niven was encouraging this or at the least strengthening this move by promising his continued support to the band if they got rid of Axl.

All attempts at self-preservation by Axl are usually labelled as evil manipulations but in such a scenario when even Axl's close friend Izzy wasnt averse to the idea of having him removed, its not hard to see why he saw himself as under threat.

Edit: I do understand what you're saying, that if Axl caught wind that the band was trying to fire him that it would have been in his best interests to take over the name. But from everything we know, Axl was already getting power hungry, was extremely difficult to work with, was showing up late, and so forth. He made it almost impossible. Had he been respectful to his bandmates those talks never would have come up. Why would they?

What we do know according to Duff is that Axl was very open-minded about everyone's ideas in the song-writing process during Appetite and this particular incident where Slash and Izzy talked about firing Axl happened during the tours following Appetite. So I dont know if the "power-hunger" idea quite works. Yes, Axl was being late but if that is a major flaw then so was the severe drug habit of the other guys that would also realistically create difficulties in running a band with a heavy schedule. Being respectful can be interpreted in various ways and I find it sad that while Axl did NOT fire Slash and Duff, he is demonized while the others discussing seriously the idea of firing him with he manager are not blamed at all.

Also I think its hypocritical of Alan Niven here to play to the gallery over how Guns was never the same without Steven and how his drug addiction wasn't a real issue when Slash says in his book that Alan Niven and Axl had both backed giving Steven the ultimatum to clean up. So Niven had to know that there was a high possibility of Steven's ouster through this measure and yet here he makes it seem as if it was primarily motivated by Axl's personal animosity and greed.

Drug habits are flaws to be sure. But they showed up on time to perform. Axl was making people wait, he incited riots. He stomped off stages. He created a wall around him. He wouldn't show up to work in the studio when they were supposed to. What about disrespecting Slash by laying his little buddy's guitar parts over Slash's? It's an endless list of shit he put those guys through. So yeah, he forced their hand. They left because they couldn't deal with his shit. And some apologists on this forum actually paint that as Slash walking out in the band. They had become hired hands themselves via signing the name over and their contributions were being marginalized by the dictator.

Why does his current "band" deal with his shit? Because it isn't a band. It's Axl and his employees.

Honestly, people go to no end to take up for Axl, but let's be realistic. The guy is an enigma. And there are too many people who all take up pretty much one story. It's Axl against what so many others have said through the years. Even today Axl continues to blame management and every little thing under the sun for being "late." Why doesn't he just tell us what takes so long? 'Cause honestly, these days, he hasn't been late at all. He's been showing up in the 11 o'clock (central) hour and thing have been going without a hitch.

[Kill Devil Hill]

He has mentioned an attempt by a manager to have him fired in the past.

I thought Axl said this was exactly why he took the name in the tip of the iceberg bit?

[rabia]

"Ganging up"? Come on, now. We all know how Axl is or was. All the reports aren't lies. The guy was notoriously difficult to work with. Voicing displeasure doesn't mean you're ganging up on the guy. It means he needed to change his attitude. But he never actually had to since they stupidly signed the name over to him.

Well, Scott Weiland has also said that he felt like it was 3 against 1 in Velvet Revolver complaining against similar ganging up behavior. So its important to remember that there are "reports" about Slash, Duff and Matt too. Its not as if the other guys all cleaned up and stopped taking drugs or abusing alcohol as a result of Axl's complaints about this. So I guess, attitudes were entrenched on all sides. When the other guys had such meetings behind Axl's back, it caused legitimate create fear and mistrust.

[GnR Chris]

It isn't just the guys within the band. It's former management. It's other members, like Buckethead (though he's a weirdo) leaving because nothing ever got released. Finck left for the same reason, I believe.

Weiland isn't a good source of info in my opinion because he ignorantly lashed out at Axl and then when the guys in VR basically told him to fuck off because of his drug habits (and I believe I read reports he was on the sly trying to get STP going again), he turns face and says he understood what Axl may have been going through as well.

I mean, there is always gray areas, but I truly don't understand the length to which some people will defend Axl. Duff seems to have changed course in recent years because he seems at a good place in life. He seems at peace with everything in his past and doesn't hold grudges. Props to him because I'd be livid with what Axl did and how he acted. But at the end of the day, they were the boners who gave him the name.\

Remember, Axl stopped talking to anybody except his yes men at one point. The band were going through intermediaries just to discuss SONGS and business matters. That's ridiculous.

[Kill Devil Hill]

Well, Scott Weiland has also said that he felt like it was 3 against 1 in Velvet Revolver complaining against similar ganging up behavior. So its important to remember that there are "reports" about Slash, Duff and Matt too. Its not as if the other guys all cleaned up and stopped taking drugs or abusing alcohol as a result of Axl's complaints about this. So I guess, attitudes were entrenched on all sides. When the other guys had such meetings behind Axl's back, it caused legitimate create fear and mistrust.

I don't want to give Axl any excuses, but I've always gotten that vibe from Slash, Duff, and Matt, even in Slash's and Duff's (to a lesser extent) books. Whenever I'm around those kinds of people, I tend to shut down or act irrationally. I think it's very plausible.

Doesn't excuse a thing, but I definitely think "ganging up" is a factor.

[sleeper]

I guess Scott should have taken measures to send Doug Goldstein to get the VR name then. Of course he was already fired so I guess refusing to go on stage would not have been effective for him. The bottom line here is Alan Niven is just one in a string of people who were involved that said Axl and Doug plotted to take the band and the name. It always comes back to Axl saying one thing and everyone else saying the opposite.

Axl should just be grateful he was dealing with Duff and Slash because they pussyed out and gave it to him. That is all that really matters now.

Edited February 22, 2012 by sleeper

[rabia]

Drug habits are flaws to be sure. But they showed up on time to perform. Axl was making people wait, he incited riots. He stomped off stages. He created a wall around him. He wouldn't show up to work in the studio when they were supposed to. What about disrespecting Slash by laying his little buddy's guitar parts over Slash's? It's an endless list of shit he put those guys through. So yeah, he forced their hand. They left because they couldn't deal with his shit. And some apologists on this forum actually paint that as Slash walking out in the band. They had become hired hands themselves via signing the name over and their contributions were being marginalized by the dictator.

Why does his current "band" deal with his shit? Because it isn't a band. It's Axl and his employees.

Honestly, people go to no end to take up for Axl, but let's be realistic. The guy is an enigma. And there are too many people who all take up pretty much one story. It's Axl against what so many others have said through the years. Even today Axl continues to blame management and every little thing under the sun for being "late." Why doesn't he just tell us what takes so long? 'Cause honestly, these days, he hasn't been late at all. He's been showing up in the 11 o'clock (central) hour and thing have been going without a hitch.

See, I've always heard people say this and Slash says the same in his book - that despite the drugs etc, everybody but Axl always showed up and did their job. But it makes me wonder. According to Slash and Duff's own accounts, they went through absolutely horrific times when they were very much out of it. They would drink till they passed out and didnt know where they would wake up. But somehow Slash had the time to keep meticulous journals according to his book. Were they really totally on time everywhere always and performed to the best of their ability and never wasted any studio time or missed any appointments with the record company or legal team or album mixers etc? That would be miraculous if true.

As far as bringing in Paul Huge, I find it really strange the horrible injustice that has been made out to be. Slash often chooses to work with his friends and Axl has often written songs with friends like West Arkeen and Izzy. He even wrote Back Off Bitch with Paul Huge, so it seems natural for him to bring in somebody that he had an already established song-writing rapport with. But Huge was resisted intensely by the others and the idea that he wasnt "rock n roll enough" seems quite childish to me. When Axl brought in Dizzy, there was the same kind of resistance while nobody referred to Matt as anybody's "little buddy"- instead he has loudly claimed that he was part of the "core" of the band along with Slash and Duff thus leaving out the two biggest song-writers Axl and Izzy. It seems that everything was made into such a battle that it was just an ego-match and finally Axl just decided to push ahead. It may seem disrespectful that he put Huge on Sympathy for the Devil but the others reaction towards Huge and Dizzy was petty too.

In what way were Slash and Duff's contributions being marginalized after Axl took the band name? According to what Matt said in the mid 90s they had recorded songs oriented more towards Appetite in terms of their more straightforward style. So, it doesnt seem as if Axl was showing no flexibility. In fact it was Slash who said publicly in interviews that he didnt want to be part of any Stephanie Seymour ballads- funny considering the fact that Erin Everly ballads like SCOM and NR are two of the most recognizable songs in Slash's career.

Slash and Duff walked out of GN'R but they couldnt make Velvet Revolver stick either. There again all blame was neatly placed on the lead singer but bands are more complex than that and the continuous good vs evil fairy-tale descriptions just dont gel.

As I see it, Ax probably does have some serious anxiety related to going on stage which probably makes him late. But it would be unrealistic to expect him to say that in his interviews. If he has a less than perfect day as a singer, people pounce asking him to "retire". If he talked of such difficulties it would be interpreted by some as signs of "craziness"- another popular explanation for all things Axl. What would he gain from that?

Edited February 22, 2012 by rabia

[GnR Chris]

Commenting on the Paul Huge thing ... imagine if Slash brought in his friend, a singer, much to the chagrin of Axl. Then without Axl's knowledge, Slash went in and had his friend record vocals on top of Axl's. You don't think that's disrespectful?

Everyone (but Axl) seems to have said at some point or another that none of them were innocent. That they all shoulder some blame for the way certain things went down. Only Axl is steadfast, as far as I can recall. He has never backed down and has always made excuses for his own behavior, at least publicly.