rabia Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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.Like I said, the impasse between the two sides seemed so severe that Axl went ahead and added Paul Huge to the mix instead of waiting endlessly for things to thaw. Its not as if Axl had never suggested any other alternatives to Huge, Zakk Wylde was brought in for an experiment with Slash's consent. But the rejection of Huge from Slash seems pretty knee-jerk and as I said, it was similar to the coldness shown towards Dizzy. Such pettiness was matched by pettiness from Axl's side. The idea seems to be that while the others could be one big happy family on one end, Axl was supposed to stay alone or be flanked by a timid Dizzy. When has Slash taken blame for insensitively mocking Axl's personal troubles with the Stephanie Seymour ballad comments or for the ganging up behaviour? Slash presents Axl's public condemnation of his drug abuse as an act of control on Axl's part although it doesnt seem all that evil to be concerned about a band member pushing themselves to the brink of death. He has participated in painting this picture where his own reasons for accepting Steven's firing were all due to pragmatic concerns and Axl's as based on selfish, personal hatred. Slash himself said in an interview in 1992 that the material on UYI was beyond Steven's ability, so wouldnt Axl, the main guy pushing for the more complex material himself have a good reason to be concerned about this problem? Nobody seemed more interested in the musical direction of the band than Axl but his motivations are never presented as sensible ones, only hysterical self-centered ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabia Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) 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.No no, what should have happened is that Axl, the second biggest song-writer in GN'R should have waited to be thrown out and made space for the rightful "core" members like Matt Sorum to take their place at the center. Taking the name ensured that Axl couldnt be fired from Guns N Roses - as Marc Canter said in one thread, it was a safeguard against a messy legal battle over the name if one of the band members died as a result of an overdose. It ensured the continuation of the band rather than a swift implosion. The "plotting" idea is overly dramatic- Slash and Duff weren't hypnotized into signing. They had their lawyers and were given legal papers to sign which they could have refused. Also, they had the chance of opting out later or taking Axl to court if he had forced them to sign in the supposedly blackmail scenario that Slash recounts and which interestingly Duff never corroborated till recently in his book. Axl wasnt exactly getting a lot of love from the courts, infact his reputation had taken a severe beating as a result of the riots and the lawsuits from Erin Everly and Stephanie Seymour. Slash and Duff havent been shy to sue Axl, the fact that they didnt over the matter of the name suggests that their lawyers were able to "haggle" (Slash's words) their way into an arrangement which wasn't too damaging to them. Edited February 22, 2012 by rabia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleeper Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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.Like I said, the impasse between the two sides seemed so severe that Axl went ahead and added Paul Huge to the mix instead of waiting endlessly for things to thaw. Its not as if Axl had never suggested any other alternatives to Huge, Zakk Wylde was brought in for an experiment with Slash's consent. But the rejection of Huge from Slash seems pretty knee-jerk and as I said, it was similar to the coldness shown towards Dizzy. Such pettiness was matched by pettiness from Axl's side. The idea seems to be that while the others could be one big happy family on one end, Axl was supposed to stay alone or be flanked by a timid Dizzy. When has Slash taken blame for insensitively mocking Axl's personal troubles with the Stephanie Seymour ballad comments or for the ganging up behaviour? Slash presents Axl's public condemnation of his drug abuse as an act of control on Axl's part although it doesnt seem all that evil to be concerned about a band member pushing themselves to the brink of death. He has participated in painting this picture where his own reasons for accepting Steven's firing were all due to pragmatic concerns and Axl's as based on selfish, personal hatred. Slash himself said in an interview in 1992 that the material on UYI was beyond Steven's ability, so wouldnt Axl, the main guy pushing for the more complex material himself have a good reason to be concerned about this problem? Nobody seemed more interested in the musical direction of the band than Axl but his motivations are never presented as sensible ones, only hysterical self-centered ones.I'm sorry your just another fan that is making one excuse for Axl after another. It is always someone elses fault no matter what the situation is. The old band mistreeted him, the managers want listen to him, the record company is not doing what they are supposed to do, the venues are going behind his back and causing t-shirt problems, the list is endless. Axl is a very gifted man and the best frontman alive but does not want to take responsbility.As I said in an earlier post people just need to move on. It seems that Axl and Slash have why can't some of the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabia Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I'm sorry your just another fan that is making one excuse for Axl after another. It is always someone elses fault no matter what the situation is. The old band mistreeted him, the managers want listen to him, the record company is not doing what they are supposed to do, the venues are going behind his back and causing t-shirt problems, the list is endless. Axl is a very gifted man and the best frontman alive but does not want to take responsbility.As I said in an earlier post people just need to move on. It seems that Axl and Slash have why can't some of the fans.I anticipated just such a response because its so routine on this site. Why would Axl require an "excuse" as if you are some kind of judge and jury over him? Its just the simple fact that Axl also had a legitimate position in these matters and the childish "good vs evil" story that people construct here is laughable.You haven't been able to answer the issues here- the guys discussing firing Axl with the manager, the pettiness evident in marginalizing first Dizzy and then Huge as both were identified as Axl's friends, the fact that there was a clear legal recourse available to Slash and Duff if Axl had indeed forced their hand in the band name issue. The evidence of factions within the band is undeniable whether you call it "mistreatment" or something else. As far as the record company and managers are concerned, Slash, Duff and Tommy have complained of those issues too and nobody seems to mind when Doug Goldstein is the manager being criticized. The people who cant move on are those who keep demanding a reunion because to them time stopped in the mid 90s or even earlier when Steven was fired. Guns N Roses is not the first band to go through cleavages nor will it be the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. Being perceptive comes into play,when you enter a room and sense the atmosphere of what be going down,This is a very valid scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleeper Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) rabia,If you don't like this site why are you posting here?I can answer the issues I'm just not going to. In answering your issues I would have to bash Axl and the old band members. As far as a reunion I don't want one. Edited February 22, 2012 by sleeper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabia Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) rabia,If you don't like this site why are you posting here?I can answer the issues I'm just not going to. In answering your issues I would have to bash Axl and the old band members. As far as a reunion I don't want one.Sadly, that's another predictable response. I said nothing about hating this site. I simply pointed out certain attitudes that are common here such as labeling any statement as an "excuse" if it presents Axl Rose as a human being who dealt with a complicated band dynamic rather than an evil, cold-blooded master-mind locked into battle with Mary's little lambs. The fact that I dont share this attitude doesnt mean that there's no room for me here nor am I the only one who thinks the way I do. Edited February 22, 2012 by rabia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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.Totally agree Sleeper, a group of forum members discussing an event won't change a thing,the band imploded long before the explosion. When a band implodes fact is,it has a lot to do with egos and power struggles,look at the Lennon-McCartney rift that ended the Beatles,or the Waters/Gilmour animosities that shattered P.F.Good call Sleeper,I don't always agree with you,but you make valid and coherent posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleeper Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 rabia,If you don't like this site why are you posting here?I can answer the issues I'm just not going to. In answering your issues I would have to bash Axl and the old band members. As far as a reunion I don't want one.Sadly, that's another predictable response. I said nothing about hating this site. I simply pointed out certain attitudes that are common here such as labeling any statement as an "excuse" if it presents Axl Rose as a human being who dealt with a complicated band dynamic rather than an evil, cold-blooded master-mind locked into battle with Mary's little lambs. The fact that I dont share this attitude doesnt mean that there's no room for me here nor am I the only one who thinks the way I do.Rabia, I did not say anything about you "hating" this site. I in no way have implied that you do not belong here or that your opionin is any less valid than anyone elses. As far as Axl goes no one in any of these post has refered to Axl as a "cold-blooded master mind" and I don't think anyone here thinks that any of the old members were "little lambs". The fault lies with them all. My point is that I see no reason to re-hash things that happened a long time ago and cannot be resolved by fans posting on a fan forum.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.Totally agree Sleeper, a group of forum members discussing an event won't change a thing,the band imploded long before the explosion. When a band implodes fact is,it has a lot to do with egos and power struggles,look at the Lennon-McCartney rift that ended the Beatles,or the Waters/Gilmour animosities that shattered P.F.Good call Sleeper,I don't always agree with you,but you make valid and coherent posts.Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Reading this made me feel like he was a daddy telling us how hard it was to raise his spoiled kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GET OFF AXLS BACK Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Round and round we go, where stop nobody knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabia Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Sadly, that's another predictable response. I said nothing about hating this site. I simply pointed out certain attitudes that are common here such as labeling any statement as an "excuse" if it presents Axl Rose as a human being who dealt with a complicated band dynamic rather than an evil, cold-blooded master-mind locked into battle with Mary's little lambs. The fact that I dont share this attitude doesnt mean that there's no room for me here nor am I the only one who thinks the way I do.Rabia, I did not say anything about you "hating" this site. I in no way have implied that you do not belong here or that your opionin is any less valid than anyone elses. As far as Axl goes no one in any of these post has refered to Axl as a "cold-blooded master mind" and I don't think anyone here thinks that any of the old members were "little lambs". The fault lies with them all. My point is that I see no reason to re-hash things that happened a long time ago and cannot be resolved by fans posting on a fan forum.You asked me why I was posting here if I disliked this site when I had said nothing like that. I'm sure there are things you dislike about some posts here as well, doesnt mean that you dislike the entire site. Nobody needs to use those words directly for Axl but to try to reduce his behavior to a "power play" and to refuse to acknowledge his perspective as anything but cold calculation or control issues is an equivalent to the same thing. I dont propose to resolve anything but unfortunately many posters do have difficulty with moving forward and the past has been used to put a label on Axl which colors their perspective on the present also. So it couldnt hurt to have a more balanced view of the past and that was my intention here. No hard feelings though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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.No, not really. The issue has never been whether or not Axl wanted the band name. The issue has been whether or not he gave Slash and Duff and ultimatum of either sign the contract or I don't go on stage tonight. The fact is even Duff admits he doesn't know who had things done that way. He said he does believe there were people who were legitimately worried Slash and Duff would not make it. Oh, and Alan Niven was not around when all this actually transpired that fateful night, so you can't really look at him as an accurate barometer of those circumstances.Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleeper Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Round and round we go, where stop nobody knows.I agree 1000 percent!!!! And I'm not staying around for this one. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Another thing that stands out as a contradiction is that Alan Niven says that Axl never brought up the issue of litigating the band name while he was around. Slash said that Axl first brought up the issue of litigating the name after Steven was fired Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Ali,Do you think Axl is at fault for any of the bad things he has ever been associated with in his entire life? Or has the entire world just conspired to treat him unfairly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Ali,Do you think Axl is at fault for any of the bad things he has ever been associated with in his entire life? Or has the entire world just conspired to treat him unfairly?What a stupid comment. Of course, he's like everyone else in the world. He's at fault every time he steps on stage late, he has his share of blame for the demise of the old lineup. It's just incredibly asinine to blame him for everything that goes wrong with GN'R like so many people do. I just don't get my rocks off by lambasting someone I don't know and projecting all my life's frustrations onto them. I also don't get anything from continuing to belabor certain points.What does that have to do with Alan Niven talking about things that he was not present for or contradicting something Slash said?Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts