If Slash hadn't left...

[TeeJay410]

never stole from the band. not sure what you're referring to.

if somebody is lying, what is wrong with exposing the lie by asking them to put their money where their mouth is?

in this instance, i didn't even do that. i offered 100k NSA.

people are entitled to their own opinions. they are not entitled to their own facts.

the truth is the truth. bring it on fuckers.

Do you happen to know for a fact Rod Jackson wasn't payed the same as slash for shows? You can't accuse someone else of lying when you make the opposite claim while presenting the exact same amount of evidence, none.

[Crash Diet]

never stole from the band. not sure what you're referring to.

You leaked official material

You're a liar.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Crash Diet

[TeeJay410]

Do you happen to know for a fact Rod Jackson wasn't payed the same as slash for shows? You can't accuse someone else of lying when you make the opposite claim while presenting the exact same amount of evidence, none.

i haven't accused him of lying. i've been asking him repeatedly to tell us how he knows. he's refusing. i know he's full of shit, but i'm giving him enough rope to hang himself.

Well you certainly implied he was lying. Regardless, do you have evidence that they were not equals in earnings for performances? Unless you do, and if so you should present it, it is hard to say someone else is full of shit when you have presented as much evidence as they have. Sure, you can use common sense and say that in a band called Slash's snakepit, it is unlikely guys not named slash made as much as slash, however it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility like you make it seem.

Really someone could turn around to you and say that you're full of shit and offer you a hundred grand if you can prove that you're right.

Edited July 7, 2012 by tuyfuvk17

[TeeJay410]

Well you certainly implied he was lying. Regardless, do you have evidence that they were not equals in earnings for performances? Unless you do, and if so you should present it, it is hard to say someone else is full of shit when you have presented as much evidence as they have. Sure, you can use common sense and say that in a band called Slash's snakepit, it is unlikely guys not named slash made as much as slash, however it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility like you make it seem.

Really someone could turn around to you and say that you're full of shit and offer you a hundred grand tour you can prove that you're right.

classic rawker explicitly stated that both slash's snakepit and velvet revolver were partnerships with each member owning an equal share.

i don't believe him.

i'm not calling him a liar . . . yet . . . but i don't believe him. i think he's full of shit.

so much so that i have NO problem offering $100,000 since he said it wasn't worth his time to "find" the information.

do you think it's worth his time now?

Considering that there's no way he could possibly know that you have $100,000 to give, and that a forum post is hardly a legally binding agreement, it's probably not worth his time.

[classicrawker]

Well you certainly implied he was lying. Regardless, do you have evidence that they were not equals in earnings for performances? Unless you do, and if so you should present it, it is hard to say someone else is full of shit when you have presented as much evidence as they have. Sure, you can use common sense and say that in a band called Slash's snakepit, it is unlikely guys not named slash made as much as slash, however it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility like you make it seem.

Really someone could turn around to you and say that you're full of shit and offer you a hundred grand tour you can prove that you're right.

classic rawker explicitly stated that both slash's snakepit and velvet revolver were partnerships with each member owning an equal share.

i don't believe him.

i'm not calling him a liar . . . yet . . . but i don't believe him. i think he's full of shit.

so much so that i have NO problem offering $100,000 since he said it wasn't worth his time to "find" the information.

do you think it's worth his time now?

I did offer you proof but you are too lazy to check it out.........Go read the interviews mate and do your homework it is all there...you might actually learn something instead of throwing shit against the wall hoping people take you at your word.......

and you repeatedly make claims you can never back up claiming som insider priviledge..give us citations for your claims or GTFO...

[DirtyDeeds]

Put that shit in escrow, MSL.

[WillieC]

give us citations for your claims or GTFO...

Affidavits or GTFO?

[The Archer]

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........

Angus is the true frontman. AC/DC is the Young brothers' band.

[WillieC]

I think Axl is repressed in refining his music over and over again in hopes that the public will like it. He should go all out and make his modern art music and not care if people like it or not. It would be very cathartic.

[bacardimayne]

MSL is the best poster in D&N.

[WillieC]

Not really.

He kind of kills threads in my opinion.

[Bards]

Not really.

He kind of kills threads in my opinion.

I'll give you $100,000 to back that up.

[TeeJay410]

Not really.

He kind of kills threads in my opinion.

I'll give you $100,000 to back that up.

I think it would be a safe bet that he had posted within the last few posts on any given thread he decided to post in.

[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.

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.

They joked about "Mick's Demotion" when the song came out.

Keith never wanted to do anything outside of the Stones, but it goes back to having material rejected. Most of "She's the Boss" wouldn't have made it on a Stones album. "Just Another Night", probably was the one that could've been a Stones song.

Mick started taking over the band back when Brian Jones was falling apart. Keith hooking up with Anita was prob. a big mistake, but Brian's behavior was already pretty bad. I think Keith let Mick down with the Exile sessions and at some shows where he was completely smacked out, but the heroin bust in Canada was where Mick was prob. working on a Stones without Keith in it. That to me sounds like where the battle began between them. And "One Hit" was a great video, because they weren't acting pissed off.

Charlie Watts put Mick in his place as far as his ego went :-) Classic.

What you said about Izzy, is on the mark. Once you're actually in the bubble of fame, and experience it for yourself, can have an affect on you. People who looked at you like dogshit were kissing your ass and saying how great you are. Girls who were out of your league a year ago were throwing themselves at you because they see you like a lottery ticket. But his bandmates were off the rails, so was he, and I just think he didn't want to be another junkie death in the news. He saw how bad some musicians outside the band were, but within the band, prob. had days where he didn't feel like going to work because it was so repressive and dysfunctional, and they had all these responsibilities - to the crew and to the fans.

Maybe Izzy should have just told the band he would rather be a part of it behind the scenes from that point instead of quitting the band altogether, and searched out for a replacement player he thought would fit in, that the band would've been cool with.

Like Duff wrote in the book, they could hear from the dressing room the mood of the crowd changing. Donington seems to still loom over them. No one wants to see kids getting killed at a show. There is one thing a band owes its fans - whenever a death happens, they should set some sort of trust up in their names, do what they can for the families. Put shows on hold if need be. But show that you give a shit. I don't know much about the Lamb of God thing, but if the singer didn't know until now that the guy died, he prob. would've done something for the family much sooner.

[Bards]

My irony meter just exploded.

[TeeJay410]

i do kill threads. i kill threads that are full of lies by presenting the truth, which often scares away the liars, thus killing a thread that only existed for the purpose of spreading lies.

at least a few times a day i will catch someone posting complete bullshit, call them on it, and then they stop posting for a couple days until they think it's safe to return.

why is this a bad thing? who is in favor of people posting lies with no consequences?!?

[ironmt]

Keep up the good work msl. You are the forum saviour and most likely well on your way to becoming a forum mod If you find that the position and title aren't beneath you.

[ironmt]

Between getting laid as often as you do and all the bubble baths you take In a day, are you sure you would have the time.

[The Wicked Hand]

Step away from the Twinkie.

I want to see these sea donkeys you are sleeping with.

[November_rain]

Of the 35,000+ members here or whatever the number is, is there anybody other than Classic Rawker that believes Slash's Snakepit and Velvet Revolver were partnerships with complete and equal financial participation amongst all members?

Is there anybody that actually expects him to have proof of this on his site? (Proof that he can't seem to find, even when offered 100k?)

No proof needed. It´s just common sense that Slash and the members/collaborators of his projects/bands wouldn´t get equal financial participation, "maybe Duff and/or Matt" could have got equal or close as for the rest...no fucking way.

[Apollo]

Between getting laid as often as you do and all the bubble baths you take In a day, are you sure you would have the time.

hardly ever work. hardly ever sleep. i do try to get laid 3-4 times a day, but that really only takes up a couple hours tops. same thing for the bubble baths. only takes up a couple hours. there are 24 hours in a day. 2 hours working. 2 hours fucking. 2 hours bathing. 2 hours eating. 4 hours sleeping. 12 hours mygnr.

When you drink beer.....is it Dos Equis?

[DirtyDeeds]

What was the original reason anyone should give a fuck as to how much money a band member makes in comparison to other band members?

Edited July 8, 2012 by DirtyDeeds

[shotgunblues1978]

What was the original reason anyone should give a fuck as to how much money a band members makes in comparison to other band members?

People like classic rawker claiming that "bands" like Slash's Snakepit and Slash's current solo group were/are somehow real bands where everyone had equal power, equal creative input, equal paychecks for live shows, etc.

Edited July 8, 2012 by shotgunblues1978

[The Wicked Hand]

*1000,000. listen to the music and shut the fuck up. []

[DirtyDeeds]

And this is so important that it's worth $100 grand because...?