If Slash hadn't left...

[TeeJay410]

Few bands in history have been able to survive having two stars. U2 doesn't have two stars, at least not on the same level. The Edge is respected (though I don't know why, we all can use delay pedals) but he is not on Bono's level of stardom. Sure if Axl and Slash had stayed together I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say they could still be as big as U2, but it is a stretch to say they could ever have stayed together.

[classicrawker]

Few bands in history have been able to survive having two stars. U2 doesn't have two stars, at least not on the same level. The Edge is respected (though I don't know why, we all can use delay pedals) but he is not on Bono's level of stardom. Sure if Axl and Slash had stayed together I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say they could still be as big as U2, but it is a stretch to say they could ever have stayed together.

A couple of big differences mate...in U2 they are all equal partners which would not have been the case if Guns had stayed together as Axl wanted the others as his employees...and in U2 evidently Bono and the Edge are on the same page musically which Axl and Slash were not in the end......

And there are a number of Rock bands with two stars...The Stones with Mick and Keef, Aerosmith with Steven and Joe, Bon Jovi with John and Ritchie, AC/DC with Brian and Angus..Black Sabbath with Ozzy and Tony.....it is not that unique........

Edited July 6, 2012 by classicrawker

[Vincent Vega]

Few bands in history have been able to survive having two stars. U2 doesn't have two stars, at least not on the same level. The Edge is respected (though I don't know why, we all can use delay pedals) but he is not on Bono's level of stardom. Sure if Axl and Slash had stayed together I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say they could still be as big as U2, but it is a stretch to say they could ever have stayed together.

A couple of big differences mate...in U2 they are all equal partners which would not have been the case if Guns had stayed together as Axl wanted the others as his employees...and in U2 evidently Bono and the Edge are on the same page musically which Axl and Slash were not in the end......

And there are a number of Rock bands with two stars...The Stones with Mick and Keef, Aerosmith with Steven and Joe, Bon Jovi with John and Ritchie, AC/DC with Brian and Angus..Black Sabbath with Ozzy and Tony.....it is not that unique........

Mick and Keef patched it up cause they financially couldn't hack it alone and Mick is a sane person even if he is a control freak and an egomaniac. He is ultimately a man who likes money and is realistic with what he can and can't do. Keef doesn't give a fuck as long as he's making good music. Mick was never about art or integrity, but more about money and whatnot.

I'd imagine the story is much the same with Steve and Joe.

Don't know too much about Bon Jovi or AC/DC, but didn't Black Sabbath spend almost twenty years without Ozzy? They didn't patch up for around 20 years or so.....

Axl's an incredibly stubborn, strong willed, egotistical, proud man who will never admit he is wrong, who has tons of yes people telling him everything he does is right, and he is passionate about whatever he does most of the time. If he believes in something he tends to believe in it 200%...

Slash is weak willed yet also incredibly passive aggressive, obsessed with his own image and the idea of being "cool" and keeping his PR machine going, probably has his own yes people, is passionate about music and also very close minded about musical evolution, and is himself very proud.

On top of this, both eventually were able to forge ahead apart. Axl with the GN'R name, Slash by building himself into a brand...Mick and Keith were never able to do this. I'd bet green money if Mick could've taken the Rolling Stones' name, he would've in the '80s.

Axl and Slash have a lot more integrity, albeit in different ways, than Mick and Keef or any other musical partnership except for maybe Lennon and McCarthy...I don't think money is the number one aspect for either man because if it was, a reunion would've happened long ago...Both guys are proud bastards, neither of whom will bend. And both Axl and Slash expect the other to bend and take the fall for the past.

That's why they can't hack it together and couldn't without Izzy and Duff in the middle of them...Two larger than life personalities to begin with, which is why the public fell in love with them, and fame just amplified every negative aspect of their personalities. By '96 neither Izzy nor Duff had the energy, strength, or desire to be the middle man between two fighting children anymore.

Also as far as it being an equal partnership...Let's be honest: Even if Axl wasn't a control freak, GN'R was DESTINED to become the Axl N' Slash show. Both in the band and in the media, the rest of the guys were just that...the rest of the guys. Duff never cared much for power and fell too deep into his addiction to take it even if he wanted it. Izzy never wanted Guns to be anything more than a garage band and had an increasing disdain for GN'R's level of fame, he couldn't deal with it emotionally and as such wouldn't be able to share control (I think Izzy is a bit of a control freak in his own way), he'd want it for himself totally...Steven and Matt are not in the equation. To think that GN'R would've retained the "Family" like atmosphere, or been a full partnership like U2, with two guys like Axl and Slash in the band, is unrealistic.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Indigo Miser

[Apollo]

MLS.......so you are saying that Axl's camp/people spoke to the media about the twitter hacking.....without Axl's permission?

I responded to your post to me in the you're crazy topic but for some reason my phone froze, so it got lost. I will retype it up later today though.

But just a quick point - and I say this in a friendly manner.

These are the kind of arguements that I was talking about. You seem to take great offense and start these pissing matches about the slightest and most unimportant things.

You are calling Peter out on an issue that 99.99% of the world would agree with Peter's side.

Yes. We don't know that Axl specificially said "Somebody hacked my twitter account."

BUT, when a celebrity's spokesperson, agent, manager, camp says something - like in this case - "Axl's twitter was hacked"........then logically 99% of the world can conclude that Axl relayed that message to his spokesperson, and gave his spokesperson his approval to pass the message on.

You are arguing a point that really is confusing to most people (other than your soul and volcano) as to why anybody in the world would care. You argue these weird technicalities (sp) that really have no importance or relevance to what you guys are talking about.

Whenever a celebrity's spokesman, agent, manager, PR person, comments on a story involving their client, why wouldn't you assume that the "statement" came from and was approved by the celebrity? By fighting with Peter about this point, you are implying that Axl never said it. (Or at least approved the comment to REPRESENT HIS SENTIMENTS on the issue?)

Why do you think that Axl didn't actually say that his twitter was hacked?

Do you think that Axl actually was the author of the tweet. That his team then announced it was hacked - without his approval. Then rather than coming out and making a public statement to say that his "team" lied about it behing hacked, Axl just laughed off his "team" disobeying/lying about it?

You take Axl's "letters" as fact that they came straight from Axl. How do you know? Did you see him write it? How do you know his PR person didn't write the letter and sign Axl's name? You don't know. BUT we all can logically assume it came from Axl himself. Just like we can logically assume that a "statement" released by a GnR spokesman came directly from Axl.

Again, I ask all this in a friendly discussion. It just seems weird to a lot of posters on here as to why you get so passionate about little points like this that seemingly aren't really relevant to the actual topic. YOU take some weird point and extract that to the other poster as being a liar. Obviously Peter isn't lying or making things up. He is just voicing his opinion. And instead of coming to a conclusion (agreeing or disagreeing), you go into this mode of trying to discredit everything about the other poster - by calling him names like liar or stupid. It just seems weird and that you are more interested in fighting and insulting people, rather than just chatting about GnR. Just my two cents.

[iftheworld]

First off, your wording is incorrect. "If Slash hadn't left" should be, "If Slash hadn't given up and quit".

Now to answer.

If Slash hadn't given up and quit, we wouldn't have gotten to see two greatly superior guitarists in BucketHead and Ron.

[Damn_Smooth]

First off, your wording is incorrect. "If Slash hadn't left" should be, "If Slash hadn't given up and quit".

Now to answer.

If Slash hadn't given up and quit, we wouldn't have gotten to see two greatly superior guitarists in BucketHead and Ron.

This. Fucking this. The only negative is that with them, came two lesser guitarists; Finck and Ashba.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Damn_Smooth

[ironmt]

Spot on again groghan

[DirtyDeeds]

What was said, by whomever it was, on Axl's twitter that was later claimed to be hacked?

[stumbleine]

the right question is:what if Izzy hadn't left?

Izzy was the main songwriter and general inspiration.

[volcano62]

the right question is:what if Izzy hadn't left?

Izzy was the main songwriter and general inspiration.

[classicrawker]

To think that GN'R would've retained the "Family" like atmosphere, or been a full partnership like U2, with two guys like Axl and Slash in the band, is unrealistic.

Mick and Keef fought like cats and dogs and have barely talked to each other since the 70's but Mick never tried to cut Keef, Bill, Charlie and later Ronnie out of their share as partners...

Same with Aerosmith, Joe and Brad left and came back as full partners...In a recent 60 minutes interview the rest of the band pretty much made it evident that they don't like Steven and Joe said he was willing to put up with it becaus.ue Steven is still one of the best frontmen in Music but they are equal partners despite the acrimony.

Slash never tried to cut anyone out of their share, in fact Snakepit and VR were equal partnerships, but Axl did and once he got control to the band name he wanted the rest of the band to sign contracts to be his employees...the above bands never did that....

You don't have to be a "family" to have a full partnership of equal members so there is no reason it could not have worked for Guns but Axl's greed and meglomania got the best of him.........

Edited July 7, 2012 by classicrawker

[cuneo77]

realistically, had slash stayed we would have had at least 2 more albums and tours... if the band name/creative decisions wasnt an issue,they would be selling out nfl stadiums in the US....

slash could have tried to negociate something like.... "ok im in but lets not show up late. or 10 percent or something..

[dalsh327]

Few bands in history have been able to survive having two stars. U2 doesn't have two stars, at least not on the same level. The Edge is respected (though I don't know why, we all can use delay pedals) but he is not on Bono's level of stardom. Sure if Axl and Slash had stayed together I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say they could still be as big as U2, but it is a stretch to say they could ever have stayed together.

A couple of big differences mate...in U2 they are all equal partners which would not have been the case if Guns had stayed together as Axl wanted the others as his employees...and in U2 evidently Bono and the Edge are on the same page musically which Axl and Slash were not in the end......

And there are a number of Rock bands with two stars...The Stones with Mick and Keef, Aerosmith with Steven and Joe, Bon Jovi with John and Ritchie, AC/DC with Brian and Angus..Black Sabbath with Ozzy and Tony.....it is not that unique........

Mick and Keef patched it up cause they financially couldn't hack it alone and Mick is a sane person even if he is a control freak and an egomaniac. He is ultimately a man who likes money and is realistic with what he can and can't do. Keef doesn't give a fuck as long as he's making good music. Mick was never about art or integrity, but more about money and whatnot.

I'd imagine the story is much the same with Steve and Joe.

Don't know too much about Bon Jovi or AC/DC, but didn't Black Sabbath spend almost twenty years without Ozzy? They didn't patch up for around 20 years or so.....

Axl's an incredibly stubborn, strong willed, egotistical, proud man who will never admit he is wrong, who has tons of yes people telling him everything he does is right, and he is passionate about whatever he does most of the time. If he believes in something he tends to believe in it 200%...

Slash is weak willed yet also incredibly passive aggressive, obsessed with his own image and the idea of being "cool" and keeping his PR machine going, probably has his own yes people, is passionate about music and also very close minded about musical evolution, and is himself very proud.

On top of this, both eventually were able to forge ahead apart. Axl with the GN'R name, Slash by building himself into a brand...Mick and Keith were never able to do this. I'd bet green money if Mick could've taken the Rolling Stones' name, he would've in the '80s.

Axl and Slash have a lot more integrity, albeit in different ways, than Mick and Keef or any other musical partnership except for maybe Lennon and McCarthy...I don't think money is the number one aspect for either man because if it was, a reunion would've happened long ago...Both guys are proud bastards, neither of whom will bend. And both Axl and Slash expect the other to bend and take the fall for the past.

That's why they can't hack it together and couldn't without Izzy and Duff in the middle of them...Two larger than life personalities to begin with, which is why the public fell in love with them, and fame just amplified every negative aspect of their personalities. By '96 neither Izzy nor Duff had the energy, strength, or desire to be the middle man between two fighting children anymore.

Also as far as it being an equal partnership...Let's be honest: Even if Axl wasn't a control freak, GN'R was DESTINED to become the Axl N' Slash show. Both in the band and in the media, the rest of the guys were just that...the rest of the guys. Duff never cared much for power and fell too deep into his addiction to take it even if he wanted it. Izzy never wanted Guns to be anything more than a garage band and had an increasing disdain for GN'R's level of fame, he couldn't deal with it emotionally and as such wouldn't be able to share control (I think Izzy is a bit of a control freak in his own way), he'd want it for himself totally...Steven and Matt are not in the equation. To think that GN'R would've retained the "Family" like atmosphere, or been a full partnership like U2, with two guys like Axl and Slash in the band, is unrealistic.

Larry Mullen Jr founded U2. Bono's said he's the "integrity" guy in the band when everyone else's egos gets out of control.

Mick patched it up with Keith, not the other way around. Keith got the acclaim, Mick became a joke, but the biggest factors that caused the break between Dirty Work & Steel Wheels were Ian Stewart's passing and Charlie Watts going to rehab.

Izzy wanting to keep GNR as a garage band is so off, though. He didn't tough it out in LA for 5 years to be in a garage band.

[Vincent Vega]

Few bands in history have been able to survive having two stars. U2 doesn't have two stars, at least not on the same level. The Edge is respected (though I don't know why, we all can use delay pedals) but he is not on Bono's level of stardom. Sure if Axl and Slash had stayed together I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say they could still be as big as U2, but it is a stretch to say they could ever have stayed together.

A couple of big differences mate...in U2 they are all equal partners which would not have been the case if Guns had stayed together as Axl wanted the others as his employees...and in U2 evidently Bono and the Edge are on the same page musically which Axl and Slash were not in the end......

And there are a number of Rock bands with two stars...The Stones with Mick and Keef, Aerosmith with Steven and Joe, Bon Jovi with John and Ritchie, AC/DC with Brian and Angus..Black Sabbath with Ozzy and Tony.....it is not that unique........

Mick and Keef patched it up cause they financially couldn't hack it alone and Mick is a sane person even if he is a control freak and an egomaniac. He is ultimately a man who likes money and is realistic with what he can and can't do. Keef doesn't give a fuck as long as he's making good music. Mick was never about art or integrity, but more about money and whatnot.

I'd imagine the story is much the same with Steve and Joe.

Don't know too much about Bon Jovi or AC/DC, but didn't Black Sabbath spend almost twenty years without Ozzy? They didn't patch up for around 20 years or so.....

Axl's an incredibly stubborn, strong willed, egotistical, proud man who will never admit he is wrong, who has tons of yes people telling him everything he does is right, and he is passionate about whatever he does most of the time. If he believes in something he tends to believe in it 200%...

Slash is weak willed yet also incredibly passive aggressive, obsessed with his own image and the idea of being "cool" and keeping his PR machine going, probably has his own yes people, is passionate about music and also very close minded about musical evolution, and is himself very proud.

On top of this, both eventually were able to forge ahead apart. Axl with the GN'R name, Slash by building himself into a brand...Mick and Keith were never able to do this. I'd bet green money if Mick could've taken the Rolling Stones' name, he would've in the '80s.

Axl and Slash have a lot more integrity, albeit in different ways, than Mick and Keef or any other musical partnership except for maybe Lennon and McCarthy...I don't think money is the number one aspect for either man because if it was, a reunion would've happened long ago...Both guys are proud bastards, neither of whom will bend. And both Axl and Slash expect the other to bend and take the fall for the past.

That's why they can't hack it together and couldn't without Izzy and Duff in the middle of them...Two larger than life personalities to begin with, which is why the public fell in love with them, and fame just amplified every negative aspect of their personalities. By '96 neither Izzy nor Duff had the energy, strength, or desire to be the middle man between two fighting children anymore.

Also as far as it being an equal partnership...Let's be honest: Even if Axl wasn't a control freak, GN'R was DESTINED to become the Axl N' Slash show. Both in the band and in the media, the rest of the guys were just that...the rest of the guys. Duff never cared much for power and fell too deep into his addiction to take it even if he wanted it. Izzy never wanted Guns to be anything more than a garage band and had an increasing disdain for GN'R's level of fame, he couldn't deal with it emotionally and as such wouldn't be able to share control (I think Izzy is a bit of a control freak in his own way), he'd want it for himself totally...Steven and Matt are not in the equation. To think that GN'R would've retained the "Family" like atmosphere, or been a full partnership like U2, with two guys like Axl and Slash in the band, is unrealistic.

Larry Mullen Jr founded U2. Bono's said he's the "integrity" guy in the band when everyone else's egos gets out of control.

Mick patched it up with Keith, not the other way around. Keith got the acclaim, Mick became a joke, but the biggest factors that caused the break between Dirty Work & Steel Wheels were Ian Stewart's passing and Charlie Watts going to rehab.

Izzy wanting to keep GNR as a garage band is so off, though. He didn't tough it out in LA for 5 years to be in a garage band.

Whoever patched up first the point is they reconciled not for love of music but because they--mostly Mick--couldn't hack it financially or critically alone. Mick tried touring with his circus--Including guys who strutted like Keith and did guitar hero struts, Keith mentions it in his autobiography--And fell flat on his face. Keith got respect with his solo record but again monetarily it just wasn't the same as a STONES album. And there were a LOT of factors which influenced their unofficial breakup, not just Stu's death and Charlie's rehab stint. Those were blows yes, but, it was also:

1) Mick asserting more and more control over The Rolling Stones over the course of the '70s and into the 80s. Until '77 or '78 Keith was too fucked up to assert himself and so just went along for the ride. But then when he quit dope he came around and began asserting himself again. He saw that Mick wasn't just taking care of the Stones while he was sober, but that he was vying for more and more control of the band and it's direction. This friction--between Mick wanting to embrace every single new music trend and taking the Stones in an increasingly less guitar oriented direction--and Keith wanting to with what was tried and true--Split them.

2) Mick had become bored of the Stones and Rock N' Roll and had been saying as early as the 70s that Rock was over. He sent the band a note in the early 80s saying he in essence didn't need them anymore--He truly felt this and felt he, MICK JAGGER, could hack it on his own. He had become an egomaniac, obsessed with the star power and jet set scene.

3) The fact that Mick refused to tour Dirty Work basically broke up the band. Keith and Ronnie wanted to tour, Mick felt the band was in no shape to tour and that it might kill them. This was just another brick in the wall really.

4) That Mick took all of his better material and invested it in his first solo album, and the fact that he decided to make a solo album without consulting the others--which Keith saw as a betrayal--pissed Keith off majorly. He used all his better material for his solo record, and gave the rest of the scraps to the Stones for Dirty Work. And then refused to work with the rest of the band directly, recording his vocal parts separate from the rest of the band and not being there for many of the sessions to work on the songs--which resulted in Ronnie and Keith having to build many of them together.

There was a ton of things, and it was really a ten year or so battle...But it wasn't just Stu's death--which came at the worst possible time--or Charlie's addiction which did it, it was a ton of things.

As to Izzy, he may have wanted fame when he was coming up hungry in LA, but wanting fame and then experiencing it's effects are two very different things...Maybe once he got the taste of being so famous as to have very little privacy, to being on huge stage shows, with big music videos and the like--Bothered him, on top of his efforts to stay clean. Izzy's always seemed to be a VERY low key guy and according to Axl, Izzy would've been content to record the UYIs on 8 track tapes--Not very realistic for the biggest rock band in the world--this goes along with Slash saying Izzy only recorded bare bones chords and melodies and then refused to record any more or show up for the mixing sessions. For a variety of reasons, his heart just wasn't in it anymore, and I think at least part of it had to do with Guns becoming so big so quickly.

[MEXzilla]

I think they would have made their legacy bigger n probably remembered as the greatest rock band of all time. I don't think they would have topped what they had accomplished with AFD or the illusions but like many bands or artist the media would have made it look like they had. Like bob Dylan, he can make an average album n they will say it's the bomb n that would have happened to guns. The only thing I am sure of is that they would have made several great albums cause they were too talented; even with the shit between Axl n slash as I recall they made the illusions albums when they already hated each other.

[WillieC]

If they ever make a GN'R movie, and they film the scene where Slash leaves, the background music should be this:

[Saphyra]

If Slash hadn't left he would still left sooner of later.

[shotgunblues1978]

I'm sure Dave Kushner made the same amount of money for a VR live show as Slash did. They were a gang first, and a band second, right?

If Slash hadn't left GnR, he may still have a decent career in the music business. Sure, he can leach onto groups like Black Eyed Peas and Jamie Foxx in order to cover GnR songs on a massive stage like the Super Bowl or the Grammy Awards, but his own albums are massive flops and he's been reduced to playing in front of 1,000-2,000 people a night. Sure, I guess you can argue that people think he's "cool" but they don't buy his music, go to his shows or give a shit about anything he's done since 1991. Same things that all the idiots say about Axl, except Axl still sells more concert tickets, sells more records and makes more money. And before some moron brings up Contraband as an example of Slash's great post-GnR success, that album's strong sales had at least as much to do with Scott, Duff and Matt (allowed RCA to market them as "STP + GNR") and Clive Davis following Audioslave's marketing campaign to a tee as they had to do with Slash. Evidence? Slash's other post-GnR albums have all gone Double Wood at best. His latest one is out of the Top 100 after 5 weeks and will struggle to sniff 100,000 sold in the US. But yeah, he's still a huge rock star who is "relevant" in the current music scene, isn't he Slash fans? Because he has a bought and paid for #1 single?

[wasted]

I don't really know what Izzy and Slash were thinking. Like they go off and be huge solo stars? I just think they were loaded and thought fuck this noise.

[wasted]

So in a way I'm loaded fuck this is the answer. If they were penniless junkies they may have hung in there.

[classicrawker]

will we get a comment from classic rawker on how he knows that all members of slash's snakepit and velvet revolver were equal financial partners in those bands?

It is in the interviews of the magazines I uploaded last year...can't remember which one and can't be bothered wasting my time to try to find it but go take look if you doubt my word......you may actually learn something about Guns instead of constantly making claims you can't back up....

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/2Rv8fW5a/sharing.html?rnd=37

Edited July 7, 2012 by classicrawker

[AxlRose14]

If Slash hadn't left GNR would prolly still be relevant..oh well

[TeeJay410]

It is in the interviews of the magazines I uploaded last year...can't remember which one and can't be bothered wasting my time to try to find it but go take look if you doubt my word......you may actually learn something about Guns instead of constantly making claims you can't back up....

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/2Rv8fW5a/sharing.html?rnd=37

Bullshit. If you think Rod Jackson and Slash were making the same amount of money, you're out of your fucking mind.

I can back up every claim I've ever made about GNR. Can you? I'm willing to make it worth your while. $100,000 says the members of Snakepit were not equal partners. Can you be bothered to prove it now? Good luck.

Oh Jesus Christ again with the fucking wagers

[WillieC]

I think the whole betting thing should be done through the p.m. system.

[Crash Diet]

It is in the interviews of the magazines I uploaded last year...can't remember which one and can't be bothered wasting my time to try to find it but go take look if you doubt my word......you may actually learn something about Guns instead of constantly making claims you can't back up....

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/2Rv8fW5a/sharing.html?rnd=37

Bullshit. If you think Rod Jackson and Slash were making the same amount of money, you're out of your fucking mind.

I can back up every claim I've ever made about GNR. Can you? I'm willing to make it worth your while. $100,000 says the members of Snakepit were not equal partners. Can you be bothered to prove it now? Good luck.

For fuck sake, somebody ban MSL. He steal from the band, so this isn't worth a final ban?

I think the whole betting thing should be done through the p.m. system.

I think the whole betting thing should be rewarded with a permaban