Jump to content

Dropping the Needle: Alan Niven talks GNR


AndreCC

Recommended Posts

It's not called Izzy n' Roses, or Slash n' Roses, or Duff n' Roses, or Adler n' Roses. It was the merger of Axl Rose's band with Tracii Guns' band. Then Tracii quit. Then everybody else from the classic lineup was *HIRED* to join the band. The only person who never had to audition to join Axl's band was Izzy because they were childhood buddies.

They joined the band, not hired. Unless if you can show me the contract write ups from 1985 where Axl was named the legal owner and was authorized to hire. But alas, the members joined, they established a collaborative relationship where Axl was the frontman and singer but not "boss"

As for naming the band - look at Pearl Jam. Eddie Vedder was the last member to join the band yet he is essentially the main dude in Pearl Jam now. Origins of a band name in lineup DO NOT dictate a boss relatoinship with the other band members

So, if you want to view things from a HISTORICAL (FACTUAL) point of view, Axl became the sole owner of the "Guns n' Roses" band when Tracci left.

Lol that is not factual, that is you hating Slash and loving Axl so you rewite history in naming Axl as the "always have been boss" when that is not necceasrily the case. Original =/= owner, especially when band relationships gain a different context based on who is in the band and what they band does

So for folks like you to continually make ex-members of GnR the victims and Axl the abuser is once again completely ludicrous!

I am not, see here is the thing: you see things so black and white that you cannot comprehend a person like me who places the blame on everyone in the band. I don't just blame Axl.

So please stop twisting my words into an anti-Axl sentiment, because all it really is is a more objective realism than what your posts have to offer

So we agree! You want to use the word "join" ... and I used the word "hire" to emphasize the similarities to what happens when a band is incorporated as a legal business.

If Axl's band had money, management, and a backing record company back when he was auditioning people like Slash, then yes, Axl's management and lawyers would have had to draw up contracts and hire everybody on ... just like how Gilby and Matt were hired ... and just like the CD members were hired. Even Axl is legally an employee of his own corporation.

So no matter which terminology you want to use, the historical facts clearly establish Axl as being the "boss" of the band from the beginning. If the word "boss" is too much for you, then perhaps "hiring manager" or "recruiter" is better for you! Maybe those auditioning tapes exist somewhere!

So not only was the origin of the band name "Guns n' Roses" from Axl, Axl was the one "approving" (ie. hiring) the people who could join his band. For goodness sake, Axl hired Slash against Izzy's wishes! And without Slash, there would have been no Duff and Adler too.

If Axl is the one who assembled the parts, that clearly makes him the creative force behind the band. That original lineup would not have existed had Axl heed to Izzy's desires. And if my memory serves me right, Izzy quit the band not too long after Slash was hired too! He later rejoined of course.

So using your terminology and world view, the relationship in the band was clearly established as Axl being at the top of the band structure right from the beginning when Tracii quit and Axl began auditioning/recruiting/hiring people to *join* his band.

Never once, has Axl never been a majority owner of his band. Even when they incorporated the band in 1987, Axl remained a majority owner of his band. By the end of 1993, Axl became the LEGAL sole majority owner of the band.

Had GnR never been incorporated in 1987, the courts today would clearly favor Axl as the legal owner of the GnR name, and hence the GnR corporation (band). The courts would of course expect Axl to pay alimony or child-support (ie. royalties), but it would be very difficult to find a rational argument against not favoring Axl as the owner of the GnR name and hence, the owner of the GnR corporation (band).

So how you try to equate Pearl Jam's situation with GnR's situation makes no sense and doesn't help whatever it is you are trying to prove. I have no details of who owns what in Pearl Jam. But Pearl Jam just like GnR is a corporation. So whoever has majority control of the Pearl Jam corporation, could assert their ownership of the band if they wished.

If Eddie Vedder does not have equal or majority control, then clearly he has the confidence of the majority owners to run the corporation, ie. Eddie is the elected CEO

So yeah, you're the one who sees things as black and white! LOL

Folks like you want to place blame. Like you said, you blame mostly Axl, but you also place blame on the other ex members.

Cry me a river! I could careless who is to blame! At the end of the day, it doesn't fawking matter!

At the end of the day, Axl protected what he believed is his... what he believes he started. It doesn't matter how he did, who he pissed off, or if he screwed anybody. He did what felt he needed to do to protect what is his. He did what felt was necessary to continue GnR. He is in control of his band, business, and life. He did it by outsmarting everybody else.

Such is life. You either protect what is yours to enable you to live your life the way you want, or you let others screw you over and rule all over you.

All the whiners feel like Axl screwed them and/or Axl's owes them. Then they use their whining and complaining to milk the fans of their money! And if you dig deep enough, they are just bitter losers whining and complaining because they are missing out on a lot money! That's it.

That is why your position of trying to place blame *fairly* is ridiculous! It is certainly not a position that deserves admiration.

It simply doesn't matter who is to blame. Axl remains in control of his destiny whether you think it is *fair* or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is why your position of trying to place blame *fairly* is ridiculous! It is certainly not a position that deserves admiration.

It isn't about being fair it is being a realist and rational, you may like what Axl has going on currently - as do I - but that doesn't mean he didn't play any negatvie part on the implosion of the old lineup

At the end of the day, Axl protected what he believed is his... what he believes he started.

What he believed was his does not dicate what it really was, at least up until 1991 that is

So how you try to equate Pearl Jam's situation with GnR's situation makes no sense and doesn't help whatever it is you are trying to prove.

It does help, because you clearly articulated in your post the whole "Axl own the band and is the boss" based on original membership as well as a hand in the name but that is not the case.

If Axl is the one who assembled the parts, that clearly makes him the creative force behind the band.

The creative force IS the band, there is nothing to be behind, the band's creative energy took off once the people got together and it modulated into a collaborative band - no more, no less - at least until the contract issues later on

, the historical facts clearly establish Axl as being the "boss" of the band from the beginning.

Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say it is simply will not ever come true. It is just revisionist history, not objective reality by any means. I admire your candor and enthusiam for Axl though, but it just won't make this true

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we also know now that Axl was full of shit when he said that he wanted to make an "Aerosmith Rocks" type of album that would have really pleased Slash back in 1996. He told Kurt Loder in the 1999 or 2000 interview that he wanted to make an Appetite sounding record.

Ummm ... NO.

What you think The Spaghetti Incident was? It was a compromise to keep things rolling because they couldn't agree on a creative direction. Axl did indeed wanted a simpler AFD-like rock album because it would been quicker to do given the situation he and the band was in.

Now listen to Slash's stuff post GnR. Slash's stuff sound more like the songs he wrote for UYIs.

Except for the solos, the overall AFD rock sound is not Slash's sound. Slash has been quoted as saying many times how he can't stand Izzy's style. The AFD rock sound is actually too simplistic for Slash's liking.

What Slash wanted post UYIs after the tour ended was what he eventually put out on his Snakepit albums. That's the rock sound he wanted for GnR.

To get Slash to want to do an AFD-like rock album, meant Slash would have to play second fiddler to Axl and Izzy again ... just like on AFD. Izzy was actually convinced to come back. But then as Marc Canter put it, Slash got BIG HEADED because Axl only liked 3-4 of his Snakepit songs. Then, everything just fell apart after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we also know now that Axl was full of shit when he said that he wanted to make an "Aerosmith Rocks" type of album that would have really pleased Slash back in 1996. He told Kurt Loder in the 1999 or 2000 interview that he wanted to make an Appetite sounding record.

Ummm ... NO.

What you think The Spaghetti Incident was? It was a compromise to keep things rolling because they couldn't agree on a creative direction. Axl did indeed wanted a simpler AFD-like rock album because it would been quicker to do given the situation he and the band was in.

Now listen to Slash's stuff post GnR. Slash's stuff sound more like the songs he wrote for UYIs.

Except for the solos, the overall AFD rock sound is not Slash's sound. Slash has been quoted as saying many times how he can't stand Izzy's style. The AFD rock sound is actually too simplistic for Slash's liking.

What Slash wanted post UYIs after the tour ended was what he eventually put out on his Snakepit albums. That's the rock sound he wanted for GnR.

To get Slash to want to do an AFD-like rock album, meant Slash would have to play second fiddler to Axl and Izzy again ... just like on AFD. Izzy was actually convinced to come back. But then as Marc Canter put it, Slash got BIG HEADED because Axl only liked 3-4 of his Snakepit songs. Then, everything just fell apart after that.

That's sad if Slash doesn't like Izzy's style. That's what made Guns N' Roses. I always thought it was a good compromise, have Slash play second fiddler to Al and Izzy. If only Slash didn't get all butt-hurt that Axl only wanted to use 3-4 songs... we could have had a good GNR album post UYI. Soo sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's sad if Slash doesn't like Izzy's style. That's what made Guns N' Roses.

Eh I wouldn't extrapolate any real conclusion out of Slash's one quote about Izzy back then. He has made a lot more comments complimenting Izzy, and more recently, that it is more likely to be a "in the moment" feeling as opposed to an overall dislike of Izzy's parts.

But yeah that one-two punch of Izzy and Slash's guitars were incredible on AFD :)

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's sad if Slash doesn't like Izzy's style. That's what made Guns N' Roses.

Eh I wouldn't extrapolate any real conclusion out of Slash's one quote about Izzy back then. He has made a lot more comments complimenting Izzy, and more recently, that it is more likely to be a "in the moment" feeling as opposed to an overall dislike of Izzy's parts.

Slash was extremely jealous of Izzy. The man constantly disrespected Izzy by turning his amps down. I could see him being jealous of Izzy's writing abilities.

14 Years & Dust N' Bones > Slash's work 1996-2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good to hear.

LOL @ when he says in the video he says 'When Axl says in the press that his well-being and safety was not being cared about, I don't know what the hell he's talking about..." That's probably what the whole crew feels.

"Once again you'd have to sit down and try to figure it out about the labyrinth of Axl's mind"



That's sad if Slash doesn't like Izzy's style. That's what made Guns N' Roses.

Eh I wouldn't extrapolate any real conclusion out of Slash's one quote about Izzy back then. He has made a lot more comments complimenting Izzy, and more recently, that it is more likely to be a "in the moment" feeling as opposed to an overall dislike of Izzy's parts.

Slash was extremely jealous of Izzy. The man constantly disrespected Izzy by turning his amps down. I could see him being jealous of Izzy's writing abilities.

14 Years & Dust N' Bones > Slash's work 1996-2012

I thought Axl said that was a band / crew decision in a 2002 rant. I'd take Izzy as a song writer over Slash any day. I still hope those Vegas Izzy / Axl recording rumors are true.

Edited by jimb0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slash was extremely jealous of Izzy. The man constantly disrespected Izzy by turning his amps down.

Do you remember Axl's comments about the raodies turning Izzy's gutiar down in the Boston 2002 gig? Unless Slash became a roadie and not the lead guitarist for GNR sometime during 1987 and 1991 you would be incorrect

And he could very well be jealous but he could also not be at all - we are fans and not personal psychics so we cannot conclude that as a certain fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slash was extremely jealous of Izzy. The man constantly disrespected Izzy by turning his amps down.

Do you remember Axl's comments about the raodies turning Izzy's gutiar down in the Boston 2002 gig? Unless Slash became a roadie and not the lead guitarist for GNR sometime during 1987 and 1991 you would be incorrect

And he could very well be jealous but he could also not be at all - we are fans and not personal psychics so we cannot conclude that as a certain fact

Maybe later roadies did. There's footage of Izzy being visually upset and Axl talking to him.

Edited by iftheworld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slash was extremely jealous of Izzy. The man constantly disrespected Izzy by turning his amps down.

Do you remember Axl's comments about the raodies turning Izzy's gutiar down in the Boston 2002 gig? Unless Slash became a roadie and not the lead guitarist for GNR sometime during 1987 and 1991 you would be incorrect

And he could very well be jealous but he could also not be at all - we are fans and not personal psychics so we cannot conclude that as a certain fact

Wasn't Slash who put them up to it. There's footage of Izzy being visually upset and Axl talking to him.
I would call that nothing more than fan speculation - although I have not seen the video personally so I can't comment on the footage itself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why your position of trying to place blame *fairly* is ridiculous! It is certainly not a position that deserves admiration.

It isn't about being fair it is being a realist and rational, you may like what Axl has going on currently - as do I - but that doesn't mean he didn't play any negatvie part on the implosion of the old lineup

At the end of the day, Axl protected what he believed is his... what he believes he started.

What he believed was his does not dicate what it really was, at least up until 1991 that is

So how you try to equate Pearl Jam's situation with GnR's situation makes no sense and doesn't help whatever it is you are trying to prove.

It does help, because you clearly articulated in your post the whole "Axl own the band and is the boss" based on original membership as well as a hand in the name but that is not the case.

If Axl is the one who assembled the parts, that clearly makes him the creative force behind the band.

The creative force IS the band, there is nothing to be behind, the band's creative energy took off once the people got together and it modulated into a collaborative band - no more, no less - at least until the contract issues later on

, the historical facts clearly establish Axl as being the "boss" of the band from the beginning.

Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say it is simply will not ever come true. It is just revisionist history, not objective reality by any means. I admire your candor and enthusiam for Axl though, but it just won't make this true

Let's try this one last time.

Recall your original claim: Axl is a control freak

1987-1993: Axl is LEGALLY a majority owner of the name, and hence the corporation.

post-1993: Axl is the LEGAL SOLE MAJORITY owner of the name, and hence the corporation.

What about pre-1987? If GnR never incorporated in 1987, who do you believe the courts would favor as being the owner of the "Guns n' Roses" name, and hence the corporation (band)?

Here are some HINTS:

Where does the name "Guns n' Roses" come from?

When Tracci Guns quits the band, and in effect gives up all rights to the name, who then owns the name "Guns n' Roses"?

Who is the one who auditioned and approved everyone else from the classic lineup?

Izzy never had to auditioned, but how many times did he quit and rejoin the band?

Did Izzy want Slash to join the band? Who recruited/hired Slash despite Izzy's wishes?

What are the chances Duff and Adler would have been auditioned/recruited/hired by Axl if they were not good friends of Slash?

So, after thinking through all of these, please provide a rational argument why you believe Axl was unjustified to act like the "boss" of GnR, and in your words a CONTROL FREAK.

And no, your Pearl Jam analogy is not a good answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember which show it was but Axl starts whispering in Izzy's ear he looks over at Slash, looks back and pats Izzy.I remember reading it was because Slash had be screwing with his amps. I'd have to find the clip. I may be wrong.

Edited by iftheworld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, after thinking through all of these, please provide a rational argument why you believe Axl was unjustified to act like the "boss" of GnR, and in your words a CONTROL FREAK.

I have answered those questions adequately and more importantly rationally. Look, what is going on here will just be a broken record effect. I answered and refuted your claims and answered the question, anything more would just be each other talking in circles from post to post.

I am sorry your bias does not have room for the logical arguments presented to the point where you ask questions I have already addressed quite well, but that isn't on me. Revisionist history such that you provided (Axl being the sole Mr. Boss in 1985 on) after all isn't not logical and sound because of reasons already stated. Again, I appreciate your candor and enthusiasm for Axl - he really is a brilliant mind. But he definately had a role in the implosion of the old lineup

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's sad if Slash doesn't like Izzy's style. That's what made Guns N' Roses.

Eh I wouldn't extrapolate any real conclusion out of Slash's one quote about Izzy back then. He has made a lot more comments complimenting Izzy, and more recently, that it is more likely to be a "in the moment" feeling as opposed to an overall dislike of Izzy's parts.

But yeah that one-two punch of Izzy and Slash's guitars were incredible on AFD :)

LMAO!

I guess this is one of your examples of how you are so fair and not black/white, huh?

What is more likely to be true ... a statement put out closer to the Izzy time era ... or those statements put out more recently to sell a GnR autobiography, hype a GnR reunion in the form of VR, hype a GnR reunion for RnR HOF, and to paint yourself as the good guy against Axl?

Don't fool yourself ... Izzy quitting was what Slash has wanted. Even better would have been if Axl joined his band.

Slash's has a habit speaking honestly about band members after they quit or he fires them. Just go find all the nasty stuff he said about Scott Weiland ... how Weiland fawked his creative control in VR.

His statements about Scott are similar to what he said about Izzy's primitive guitar playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, after thinking through all of these, please provide a rational argument why you believe Axl was unjustified to act like the "boss" of GnR, and in your words a CONTROL FREAK.

I have answered those questions adequately and more importantly rationally. Look what is going here will just be a broken record. I answered and refuted your claims and answered the question.

I am sorry your bias does not have room for the logical arguments presented to the point where you ask questions I have already addressed quite well, but that isn't on me. Revisionist history such that you provided (Axl being the sole Mr. Boss in 1985 on) after all isn't not logical and sound because of reasons already stated

You have?

Your claim is: Axl is a CONTROL FREAK

My counter claim: You can't be a control freak of something that you own

Has there ever been a time in GnR's history, where Axl was never been a MAJORITY OWNER of the name and corporation (band) named "Guns n' Roses"?

If no, then Axl has every right as a MAJORITY OWNER to assert what he wants for the band.

It's that simple.

Edited by gnrfan2007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is more likely to be true ... a statement put out closer to the Izzy time era ... or those statements put out more recently to sell a GnR autobiography, hype a GnR reunion in the form of VR, hype a GnR reunion for RnR HOF, and to paint yourself as the good guy against Axl?

First off this sentence is a bunch of assumptions of intentions. But to answer, both can be accurate. He could have been bugged by Izzy in the moment but not have those comments be representative of the entirely of their musical and personal relationships. So again, not so black and white there
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Manyards took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Axl to read aura's of Polaroids? Jesus. They charged him 100,000 for an exorcism. He had the crew go on weekend retreats they'd have to pay 10,000 to attend.

I feel really bad for Axl. I know that he had been abused as a child, and the combined with his level of fame must have been an extremely hard transition. I'm glad that Axl seems to have found his center these days. Even if he's a bit heavier and doesn't use rasp... it's good to know he's in a healthier place these days.

He also states that Slash and Duff signed over the name so that Guns N' Roses could tour, at one point he uses the term bullied.

This interview is very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Manyards took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Axl to read aura's of Polaroids? Jesus. They charged him 100,000 for an exorcism. He had the crew go on weekend retreats they'd have to pay 10,000 to attend.

I feel really bad for Axl. I know that he had been abused as a child, and the combined with his level of fame must have been an extremely hard transition. I'm glad that Axl seems to have found his center these days. Even if he's a bit heavier and doesn't use rasp... it's good to know he's in a healthier place these days.

Beta does the same faith-healing shit, and she's on Axl's payroll along with the rest of her family.

That's not a healthy place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, after thinking through all of these, please provide a rational argument why you believe Axl was unjustified to act like the "boss" of GnR, and in your words a CONTROL FREAK.

I have answered those questions adequately and more importantly rationally. Look what is going here will just be a broken record. I answered and refuted your claims and answered the question.

I am sorry your bias does not have room for the logical arguments presented to the point where you ask questions I have already addressed quite well, but that isn't on me. Revisionist history such that you provided (Axl being the sole Mr. Boss in 1985 on) after all isn't not logical and sound because of reasons already stated

You have?

Your claim is: Axl is a CONTROL FREAK

My counter claim: You can't be a control freak of something that you own

Has there ever been a time in GnR's history, where Axl was never been a MAJORITY OWNER of the name and corporation (band) named "Guns n' Roses"?

If no, then Axl has every right as a MAJORITY OWNER to assert what he wants for the band.

It's that simple.

Show me the legal documents from 1987 saying Axl is the majority owner. And saying "well if the courts had hypothetically made a ruling back then..." doesn't cut it, because hypotheticals do not dictate certainty. And the whole "original member, name creation" aspect is not logically sound because as I have said many times once the AFD guys were in place the relationship fluxuated and shifted where one singer's believes does not equate fact.

Try again

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from Izzy

"(The management ) It`s very important, and I have to say that since 1985, Alan Niven always dealt admirably with me. When he was fired by GN’R, that really annoyed me, and that definitely precipitated my decision to leave the band. What`s more, Niven knows rock music like the back of his hand, and that counts for a lot..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is from 85-90 they were all equally messed up and noone was really in charge. Then Axl started to dive deeper into songs and Slash & Duff's alcohol problems worsened. That's life. Axl took control. I wouldn't trust Guns N' Roses to a guitar player who can barely stand up on his own two feet. It's obvious who cares more about the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niven seems a little set in his ways. He sees something in a band and develops that and then just wants to repeat. That immeadiately seems to clash with the notion of making different records, evolving which was popular with bands in the 90s, like FNM or Nirvana for example. They changed their sound from record to record and even personel.

Then with pro tools, you can make great records with pro tools. It doesn't always have to be capture the live experience on record. Authenticity in rock is pretty much played out but bands can still do it well, like PJ. but to ignore other things that happened in rock, like NIN, to just repeat a formula.

In fact, when a band comes into the game now it really has to look at what's been before. Doing 10 Stones type album is going to get you nowhere quick. In three records you have to cover the whole of rock history and add something or you're just a footnote. If you're going to last 3 decades you cant keep putting out the same record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...