Dropping the Needle: Alan Niven talks GNR

[wasted]

He seems bitter that he got kicked out. And thw only one to make him feel better is to blame Axl.

Why did you guys take the most popular GNR thread on the board and move it to a section that almost nobody reads? Axl's put out one new original album in twenty plus years. New GNR isn't worthy of their own section anymore.

This thread transcends east coast/west coast. Its like who shot Biggie Smalls.

[useyorappetite]

When did axl complain about the renegotiation?

[Kapitch_77]

Cut the drama and the bullshit. Stop caring so much about comments that came from a fkn manager that's gone. He's getting the attention that he wanted you pathetic old bitter fanboys to give to him. I dont know what he said, I dont care and honestly... fuck him. He's a nobody now. Nobody cares about him, so he must comment on something that happened two decades ago. Pathetic, truly pathetic and laughable. You don't have to discuss other people's lives let alone accuse someone of being asshole or mental ill. In fact that's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Listen, Axl bullshitted in the press and talked shit about Alan over something that happened 2 decades ago (lol), he's allowed to talk back. Get it? I know you don't like that because your hero looks like a liar and an asshole, sorry.

I'll take Alan's words over Axl's.

[Bruno P.]

You'd take anyone's words over his, we all know that. Even words coming from a known liar. I am not taking sides, I truly do not care either way.

[izzydoezit]

Axl is a known liar.

[Ragnar]

Bitter squad is angry as usual

[classicrawker]

Great interview but it settles nothing as Axl fans will never believe anything negative that is said about Axl no matter how many people tell the same story..

But I will say Brainsaber has been the most reasonable fan in his posts here and made some good points...well done mate..I enjoyed reading your posts....and I agree the others were dumb for signing over the name but it doesn't make what Axl did right.....

[wasted]

What does Axl stand for?

To me he's like Mercury and Jagger. This is the kind of band he wanted to be in. He's more like the underdog hero, maybe an anti hero. He wasn't out to save the world. Even on AFD which they love it's about honesty of street life not sugar coating it.

And that got carried through on UYI. And it's an emotional honesty to the point of catharsis. That's what we response to. Not so much ideological or political points but more capturing emotions that we all feel. Whether its used to love her or Right Next door to hell. Or sweet child. But Axl can also do CW or Garden of eden. Remembering of course that AFD is by far more soulless than UYI. There was a very confessional therapy thing that happened in the 90s rock. And got that right. The fact these guys don't get these points is shocking.

Plus all this stuff around UYI being all ballads. Let's remember Nov Rain and are hits and huge iconic videos around the world.

Axl doing a new thing on UYI was the right thing with all the scrutiny anything less would have been underwhelming.

Also AFD was made like it is by choice they left off Don't Cry and Nov Rain. That gives AFD a clarity. But they didn't really do the same with AFD.

Coma is also a fan favorite really keeping up with Metallica and other metal bands. Guns did everything. That's why they were the biggest. Doing another AFD may have resulted in them being Hanoi Rocks. But they hit the public consciousness. And that really what as a knack of. As much as those vids aren't cool they really communicate with a wider audience right across the world.

[wasted]

Axl has also developed to be more spiritual not that I'm much into this sort thing. But through illusions and into CD he's written songs for the dispossessed, the oppressed. To a lot of people he's that kind of hero. Maybe in person this kind of individuality is kind of annoying. But the level of defiance and inspiring qualities and emotional honest across the board, it's not all righteous, also authentic rage it connects. Someways Axl stands for pure expression, freedom.

[machinegunner]

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

It seems you do not understand the difference between MAJORITY OWNER and SOLE MAJORITY OWNER.

When the band was incorporated in 1987, legally it was an equal partnership between Axl, Izzy, Slash, and Duff. That makes them all legally MAJORITY OWNERS of the corporation known as "Guns n' Roses".

Post-1993, after Izzy, Slash, and Duff gave up all their rights to the GnR name, and hence corporation, Axl became the legal SOLE MAJORITY OWNER of "Guns n' Roses".

Prior to 1987, there was never a legal contract or document to assert ownership of the "Guns n' Roses" name.

But it seems you have a hard time accepting that Axl Rose would be viewed as the right-ful owner of the "Guns n' Roses" name prior to 1987.

Ok, put that aside. Do you accept that Axl was a MAJORITY OWNER of the "Guns n' Roses" band prior to its incorporation in 1987?

So, now I ask you again ... was there ever a time Axl was never a MAJORITY OWNER of the "Guns n' Roses" name and hence, corporation (band)?

If you answer NO ... then you have just proven your claim that ... Axl is a CONTROL FREAK ... is FALSE.

You cannot be a CONTROL FREAK of something that belongs to you.

It's that simple.

Hi. Been reading this thread with interest, particularly p9-12 concerning ownership of GN'R etc. I've been a fan since before AFD got big and from reading all the interviews in Hit Parader, Circus, Metal Edge, Rip, etc at the time it has always been pretty obvious who was in charge and was the main driving force. It was clear that Axl was running the show.

Just got a couple of questions. I never knew that Axl was an equal owner of GNR from 1987-93 with Izzy, Slash & Duff. But if this was the case then did it mean that he could be outvoted on band decisions like whether to use a song in a movie or whatever? I mean, if important decisions had to be made by committee i imagine that that would've been really fucked! To me, it always seemed like Axl held the reigns. And, before any new ownership arrangement could be made, couldn't a 2 or 3 majority even kick him out of the band?! Btw, if the others gave up their prior equal-part- ownership in '93 (or was it earlier, like around '91 when Izzy left? I recall he complained about contracts being put in front of him for this and that) to Axl, what is known publicly about this - eg. for how much?

[WhazUp]

Great interview but it settles nothing as Axl fans will never believe anything negative that is said about Axl no matter how many people tell the same story..

But I will say Brainsaber has been the most reasonable fan in his posts here and made some good points...well done mate..I enjoyed reading your posts....and I agree the others were dumb for signing over the name but it doesn't make what Axl did right.....

Agreed

[machinegunner]

Great interview but it settles nothing as Axl fans will never believe anything negative that is said about Axl no matter how many people tell the same story..

But I will say Brainsaber has been the most reasonable fan in his posts here and made some good points...well done mate..I enjoyed reading your posts....and I agree the others were dumb for signing over the name but it doesn't make what Axl did right.....

Agreed

I can't believe that:

a. they wouldn't consider everything about it very, very carefully with lawyers and loved ones, AND

b. it would not have involved BIG sums of money coming their way.

And they obviously didn't sign it over one time when Axl supposedly said that otherwise he wouldn't go on stage!

Edited March 18, 2013 by machinegunner

[gnrfan2007]

Attacking him for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK is contrary to his ownership rights of "Guns n' Roses".

Doesn't matter how many times you type it - it won't magically become valid.

It doesn't require *magic* to become valid ... unlike the *magic powers* you need to see that Slash was only joking when he dissed Izzy's guitar playing and Scott Weiland's song-writing skills! LMAO

It just requires a brain capable of understanding and accepting the rights a person has to their property. The constitution of every democratic society has laws that clearly state and protect a person's rights to their properties.

Axl founded GnR and maintained LEGAL OWNERSHIP of his corporation (band) throughout GnR's entire life. He can do whatever he pleases with GnR. If you don't like it, tough poop!

So just like if you owned a home or business, you have every right to do whatever you want with it (within the law) and nobody else can tell you what to do or take it away from you. I can't come into your house and do whatever I please. If you tell me to leave, I must comply. If I want to work for your business, as long as the work conditions you provide are lawful, I must fulfill the duties you are paying me for. If I don't ... you as the owner of your business can fire me.

It's that simple.

Attacking Axl for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK over a property that he owns ... is contrary to his ownership rights.

So no matter how many times you try to deny Axl's right to operate his corporation - his property - the way he sees fit ... the unbiased and objective LAW ... clearly says you are in the wrong. Your magic powers can't erase this truth.

Edited March 19, 2013 by gnrfan2007

[machinegunner]

Hey gnrfan2007, would you mind very much addressing the following as you seem to know some background (if you don't know and can't answer, maybe someone else can)? :

-With Axl being part equal owner with Slash, Duff & Izzy from '87-'93 (if that time period is correct), did it mean he could be outvoted on things and maybe even possibly have been kicked out of the band?

-With ownership going from being equallly shared to being solely owned by Axl, this would have involved the others being BOUGHT off, right? Did they receive big payouts? thanks in advance.

[WhazUp]

Attacking Axl for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK over a property that he owns ... is contrary to his ownership rights.

Not really, you can be super controlling over something you own... not that he was the band's boss in 1987 anyway

unlike the *magic powers* you need to see that Slash was only joking when he dissed Izzy's guitar playing and Scott Weiland's song-writing skills! LMAO

Never did I say he was "joking", that is out of context, as usual coming from you.

Not that it really matters anyway, the music is the most important part. But judging by your overall posting history (and avatar) you seem more obsessed with Slash and hating the old lineup than you are with loving GNR and have been since day 1 here. Kinda sad really....

Hey gnrfan2007, would you mind very much addressing the following as you seem to know some background (if you don't know and can't answer, maybe someone else can)?

If I were you I would direct your questions toward the "Canter Banter" section - Marc is someone who actually knew the GNR dudes and can offer you more than a biased poster such as him. All you need to do is look at how many stars his profile has plus his posting history to see how distorted he can be

Edited March 19, 2013 by WhazUp

[wasted]

Axl was really under valued. If the other 4 thought Dust N Bones could be a hit or they could rock stadiums without Axl then they should have formed their own band. They could still do that.

On the other hand if you have a lead singer who is more Queen or Zepp making front a punk rock band seems a bit counter intuitive.

[williambailey01]

Attacking him for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK is contrary to his ownership rights of "Guns n' Roses".

Doesn't matter how many times you type it - it won't magically become valid.

It doesn't require *magic* to become valid ... unlike the *magic powers* you need to see that Slash was only joking when he dissed Izzy's guitar playing and Scott Weiland's song-writing skills! LMAO

It just requires a brain capable of understanding and accepting the rights a person has to their property. The constitution of every democratic society has laws that clearly state and protect a person's rights to their properties.

Axl founded GnR and maintained LEGAL OWNERSHIP of his corporation (band) throughout GnR's entire life. He can do whatever he pleases with GnR. If you don't like it, tough poop!

So just like if you owned a home or business, you have every right to do whatever you want with it (within the law) and nobody else can tell you what to do or take it away from you. I can't come into your house and do whatever I please. If you tell me to leave, I must comply. If I want to work for your business, as long as the work conditions you provide are lawful, I must fulfill the duties you are paying me for. If I don't ... you as the owner of your business can fire me.

It's that simple.

Attacking Axl for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK over a property that he owns ... is contrary to his ownership rights.

So no matter how many times you try to deny Axl's right to operate his corporation - his property - the way he sees fit ... the unbiased and objective LAW ... clearly says you are in the wrong. Your magic powers can't erase this truth.

Clearly your brain isn't capable of checking any facts first, instead you simply sprout garbage and claim them as facts.

Axl did not maintain ownership of GN'R throughout his entire life. Until Axl had the others sign over their rights in the name, GN'R was a California sub Chapter S Corporation and they were all recorded as equal members of that corporation by the State. That is a matter of public record, it was never exclusively Axl's.

The partnership agreement that Niven referred to was drawn up to refine that Corporations by laws and give Axl a larger share of the composing royalties, so as Adler could get a smaller share, the other 3 had 20% each. This is also a matter of public record, go and look at the Adler court case.

In addition it's worth remembering Niven signed a Management Agreement that made him responsible to each band member EQUALLY. As much as the Axl nutswingers think he should have just pandered to Axl at the expense of the others, this would have caused him to be in breach of that agreement. Again this is a matter of public record, in fact the actual signed management agreement was sold on ebay not that long ago. Someone from Peter Paterno's office had obviously decided to make some dollars by selling off some old stuff. Here is the original auction link for it, the pics are broken but I still have them saved.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350476234907&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

Edited March 21, 2013 by williambailey01

[williambailey01]

One final follow up posted a couple of days ago by Dropping The Needle:

http://droppingtheneedle.com/alan-niven-one-time-only-answers-your-comments/

Alan Niven One Time Only Answers Your Comments

Alan Niven reached out to us again saying he would like to answer some to the statements being made online. We are happy to share his words with all of you. If you haven’t yet viewed his video clips I suggest you do, it will help with the context of his response.

FROM ALAN NIVEN:

OK … I have done that which I don’t ever do … which is to follow some threads on GnR sites.

My friend Ron, of Little Caesar, suggested, however, this a worthwhile thing to do, and that he answers questions in such situations. He says ya gotta put it out there …

So for one time and one time only I will grab a few of the comments and answer them … against my better judgement – there’s so much prejudice and ugly posturing between the fractured camps.

OK …. so lets start with the motive for doing the interviews with DTN…

1/. I was asked by them …

I did not ask them.

Would be somewhat graceless not to do it – I did not select the questions or set the agenda – until the third session … and was so prompted by yet another Axl bitch ….

but I could care less about seeing my name in print …

I learned the value of anonymity a long time ago.

I live in the desert for a reason.

I came here to get away from the LA bullshit and figure out what my experiences really amounted to … the visions realised beyond wild dreaming – and yet, perhaps it was only one set of problems replaced by a different set of problems – could it be that ‘success’ is only the figment of the envious mind?

There’s no free lunch in this world – there’s always a bill.

2/. For years, and back in the day, when I was constantly asked, I never did interviews. I left it for the music and the bands to speak for themselves. Now I have another motivation … to talk of the past, which in my case is not limited to Guns n Roses, allows for a quid pro quo – I get the chance to talk of contemporary bands I care about … its a trade I am happy to be given. Storm of Perception btw make GnR sound dainty …

3/. For years Ax has said this and said that in public and complained. And complained. And complained. Whatever …

In the interview I clearly made the point that none of us are perfect … but that it would be nice if Axl showed, just once, a modicum of appreciation. After all he wasn’t in very good position when we started out together …. the band were about to be dropped. But they had their hands firmly on the prize once we parted ways …

4/. I am not motivated by material reward exclusively – ask Little Caesar – done things for them recently purely out of the respect I have for their grit and the love I have for their latest record. Ask Razer – who I am also helping out for free. Again this topic was more than adequately addressed in the interview. BUT – nota bene – I never charged back my expenses, for example, and I paid Goldstein’s salary while he was GnR’s tour manager … which was their bill to pay. That was over a million in 33 months. I also bought him a Mercedes. Axl said that “it was cool to be a part of that.” I paid for the car. Axl didn’t … but now you see how imperious his thought process is.

Furthermore …

I never saw a dime from The Angels or Havana Black. The Brewster Brothers went so far as to rip me off

[i won a court case a while ago on that matter] … whatever … I make, and own, my own decisions, and their consequences … However we really play the game because we love to play the game. I love making records and seeing the shows that follow in that process. The ref can call the fouls, the accountants can pick up the checks, but I wanna see the scoreboard at full time.

5/. I am not a bad manager for not booking more than one Wembley in 1991.

To the person who said that I’d point out that whilst I had the show put up I was fired just before the tickets went on sale … whoever took over is at fault for not booking further Wembley shows … and they may have had their reasons – or been so directed by Axl. I don’t know. What I would say to this person is that they should know what they are talking about before they make statements like that. Good rule of thumb all round actually.

6/. As regards boarding school etc … my personal experience was a hell, and at a very young age, and thats as far as I will go with that … and I did not go to Eton. If you actually listen to what I said I used a ‘Downton Abbey’ character to allude to that experience. My point, I think, is we all have shit to deal with. As Don Henley said – get fuckin’ over it … move on.

I could be wrong here and I certainly never made light to Axl of his traumas – but I just have the sense that now and then he uses his traumas as an excuse for certain things he’s done.

7/. As for what he did … there are those of us that were there, lived it, day by day, and we know the truth … or at least our perspective of the experience … and thats another whatever … [these events occurred in the last century for God's sake! Yet Axl's the one we still hear complaining - contemporary Adelaide interview - which was printed before the last interview session.]

But anyways … I like to believe in the brotherhood of a band, and as a manager I encourage that, and try to avoid the circumstances of dischord – fighting over shares of money etc … I love bands that share equally and who try to maintain the brotherhood … who try to live the myth. Thats heroic.

And I have learned first hand what destroys bands – therefor my encouragement to share and employ a degree of equality. The one agreement I had drawn up by Peter Paterno, then the band’s lawyer, that was never activated, was a partnership agreement that Axl refused to sign, after the others had done so – it called for equal ownership of the name, an equal share of the revenues, except for composing royalties – which Axl wanted a greater share of, and was granted.

And btw I came up with the name Great White – but I’ve never made a claim on it. For Axl to lay claim to the name GnR is not in the spirit of the history of the band.

Both Russell and Rose have presented themselves exclusively under the name of former bands … it is my personal opinion that Russell does this because he has proven in the past he cannot sell tickets bannered by his own name alone. Axl would not have that same problem … but it is also my opinion that he wouldn’t sell nearly as many tickets on the strength of his name as opposed to using Guns n’Roses – and therein is a powerful motive to hold and use the name exclusively – money honey.

Another question I’d ask you all – how many Eagles songs do you think Henley would perform when touring as a solo artist? On the average he does five, two of those being in the encore …. and he plays @ 15/16 songs. So three out of fourteen in the set are from his former band. How does that ratio compare to a GnR/Chinese Democracy set? I dunno – just asking …

But to get back on point, if you were to ask me, I would again say that Axl has every right to pursue his muse, destiny and fate. It would, however, be cool if he did it with integrity. Thats all …

Be brave. Be on the up n’ up. Be Axl Rose – he certainly has talent enough to do that. He was genuinely brilliant on Appetite. Gave some brilliant ‘live’ performances. But he isn’t, alone and himself, GnR. That entity played its final show on April 7th 1990. And thats just my opinion. My sense of the experience.

Now my dear little cupcakes I bid you adieu for the next thirty years .. and to those who were there – my eternal thanks – despite the daily crisis and the stress, there were incredible magical moments in those hectic and sometimes very difficult years – and it was a privelege to have those experiences.

In some ways GnR was my life too for a while … as were Great White, Clarence Clemons, Motley Crue, The Angels, The Brewster Brothers, Berlin, Dokken, Havana Black, MTB, WINZ, Virgin and Enigma etc etc … some of it bad, as with all things, but the most of it really good.

I am having an amazing ride, as a manager, a producer, a composer, a player, an executive and even as a disc jockey …

and remember – we’re all of us on a journey here – figure it the fuck out.

Love always and always Imagine

Alan

PS …it is irresistible to comment on the Forum’s themselves – the commentary on one makes my herd of pet javalinas look entirely decent and well behaved. Sadly most of the vicious and obnoxious comments come from the extreme Axl acolytes – no surprise there I suppose – but they don’t do Red any favours … and he, in my experience, made an effort to be a gentleman – most of the time. Of course hitting people with wine bottles, throwing others downstairs, hurling chairs from balconies and spitting at others, were among the unfortunate momentary lapses in reason. As said before – no one amongst us is perfect – but the world turns more easily with a careful and kind word. If you dare to judge, judge people for their best … you don’t walk in our shoes and few, if any of you, have contributed as we have. AN

Edited March 21, 2013 by williambailey01

[alfierose]

Mmm. Stop digging now! Seriously Alan if you don't like the forum responses stop fueling the fire, this topic had pretty much died down.

There are those that agree, those that don't and some in the middle. It will always be thus.

[Kapitch_77]

I understand that he might want to clarify and respond to some things, but there are no remedy for Axl and his nut swingers.

[wasted]

Honestly it just seems like he's coming up with reasons to cover up for getting fired, which he doesn't mention is because he tried to get Axl fired, which at the time might have made sense, based on what he's saying (he seems like a great creative, positive guy for a band to have on their side). It's like the contradiction is too hard to take. Here's this epic asshole (sensitive misunderstood genius) who we all need to do the shows and have hit songs. and this little melee hinges on these events and that's where it's stuck.

Axl hasn't really talked about it "for years" he only really started in 2008. and he only talks about it because he gets blamed with keeping the name. which he shouldn't cos they quit. and they have that right. but unless you stay and fight you're a douche bag. this is america, if you don't earn money...

Past that I don't see what the problem was, why they had to bag on Axl's songs so much. Nov Rain is the classic song on UYI and Estranged isn't far behind.

The problem if anything was that the songs done by Slash and Izzy weren't as good as Jungle or Brownstone. Putting Axl's songs aside, Axl sang on their songs or let Izzy sing them. Dust N Bones is great song but it's no Welcome to the Jungle. I guess what they had was YCBM, DC and Nov Rain. And the rest was pretty much for fun. They indulged themselves, all basically doing songs they wanted. Different production isn't going to change UYI into AFD. I guess it's difference definitions of artistic integrity. Doing the same record over and over maybe isn't either. Saying Axl is great but it's shame he doesn't have integrity because he doesn't have the same musical taste as us isn't really a great point.

The frustrating thing is that Axl really did incorporate everyone on UYI and did do all the songs like like DTJ and Bad Obsession, Pretty Tied Up, Dust N Bones. Duff got songs on UYI and did a cover song like Tommy does now. Even Lenny Kravitz came on stage to do a song with Slash. I don't see where Axl was dictating the band, other than wanting to do his songs which is not really supernatural.

Also, I think Axl wanted to carry on as GNR, he wanted there to be a GNR touring band like the Alice Cooper band or something or to be like The Stones, and for line up changes not to effect GNR. If Alan Niven isn't in it for the money and Axl is then somethings really wrong with my brain. The money might be nice but surely Axl has enough, and taking the name caused him so much hassle if he didn't believe in it he would have given up. Done a Wolfmother. He still could go solo.

Another thing that is crazy is that Slash and Duff quit after they got the advance money for CD?

We weren't there, but that nothing to do with the perceptions of what happened. In fact being there makes you biased, where as from outside you can see things more clearly. You can see both sides of coin and have no stake in the outcome. We now know questioning Axl's integrity trying to get him fired didn't work out. There's no real way to know if a stripped down UYI would have been a hit or Axl being on time would really make any difference. We know there were hits off UYI despite these things. And a legendary tour and epic videos that will go down in rock history.

Things gone change, maybe it was time to kick heroin and try to do a different GNR album. They weren't living on the street anymore how could they really capture that again. UYI is them looking around for a direction. CD was that direction.

[AndreCC]

I don't understand how can anyone take Axl's side after listening to that interview.

I'm not saying Axl's a bad person or anything of that kind, but he's certainly a "special" Character, and he certainly is a fuckin' prima donna...we all know that, no mistery there!

What he did in the Illusions years... he continues to do it now that he's alone with a new band... we have all experienced the late starts and what not... my question is... do you think he's still dealing with Adler's Lawyers?! Obviously not... it's been 20 something years..

Axl is a wonderful artist and a great singer, a great writer and a great showman, but his ego and greed drove him to hell! He Fucked up! It's as simply as that

He started to fuck up things with the late starts and his unprofessional behavior when the illusion albums were recorded, he went against everyone to have his will granted, he did the same while on tour...

When the band started to doubt Axl would be a good member in the team, they talked about getting rid of Axl (nothing official, just talkin'). If you had a team of guys who despite their health not being the best cause of the drugs, were doing things 100% and you had one member in the team, that was actually sober by then not working... you obviously would complain to, and you obviously would feel he's not doing a good job and talk about it.

Instead, Axl took that so serious... he took it as a threat, in his mind because Slash and the others talked about firing him once or twice, he assumed they were doing a takeover on him and proceed to do that stupid contract where he would receive all the power to the GNR name... It's as clear as that!

The thing is, When you assume something, you better set everything straight first before you do something about it...

If Axl was feeling uncomfortable then all he needed to do is to speak with all his colleagues (band members and managers) and explain his side and come up with a solution for it together... instead, he took the wrong turn and went on a self destructive path as an artist and career is concerned, he did what in his own mind he thought the others were gonna do in the future (and i think Goldstein had a huge influence on that) and he took over Guns N'Roses.

Then even after all that shit, he went further into making sure others understood he was the boss, by refusing most of what Slash had wrote for the next album, and by spending the band's budgets in synths and all kinds of shit to put in on songs that were gonna be made for the next record...

When everyone else wanted to do an Appetite kind of record!

Edited March 21, 2013 by AndreCC

[machinegunner]

Man this shit is getting confusing... not really clarified much for me by Niven's last post he doesn't help clear the muddied waters (largely muddied by him in the first place, it musst be said) much at all. The patronizing 'what the fuck do you know, you weren't there' attitude doesn't help make him seem one bit more believable, either... seems like a convenient 'just take my word for it' bullshit smokescreen.

What is most interesting to me is that he clarifies that Axl refused to sign off on that contract (that would make the band members equal owners). I wish this had been said a lot earlier! It raises questions - like, was Axl's attitude (in refusing to sign it) actually WELL JUSTIFIED? Had it always been considered by him and the other band members to be HIS band in which he did the hiring, etc? Was Niven trying to pull some kind of power play? etc.

Since when is it a band manager's place to determine the power structure of a band? Who the fuck cares what romantic notions a manager might (ostensibly) have about what is ideal...that is just fantasy! "trying to live the myth... heroic"... STOP JERKING US OFF, NIVEN!

Did anyone tell Simmons and Stanley, or Jon Bon Jovi, or David Coverdale, or Angus and Malcolm Young, that their bands should be owned equally by all the other band members...? Of course NOT!!! - it was THEIR bands and they were the benevolent dictators. Band managers know this more than anyone! Those major bands would not still be around today had they been set up as committees. In fact I doubt anyone could name many that are! Just U2, probably.

[NicoRourke]

Axl was really under valued. If the other 4 thought Dust N Bones could be a hit or they could rock stadiums without Axl then they should have formed their own band. They could still do that.

On the other hand if you have a lead singer who is more Queen or Zepp making front a punk rock band seems a bit counter intuitive.

Amen to this.

[Sigh]

Niven is bitter and full of shit. UYI is "entirely" an Axl solo album? Are you fucking kidding me? How could anyone agree with or defend that statement?

I think most objective people would agree with it. Not only do we have the Rose penned ballads in NR and Estranged, but we have the other Rose penned songs in Dead Horse and Breakdown and Back Off Bitch, etc., PLUS, we have the ridiculous overdubs and demonic vocals all throughout the album, piano everywhere, synthesizers everywhere (not just in the Rose penned ballads), etc.

Are you suggesting that all of that piano and those synthesizers and those overdubbed demonic voices, etc., were the desire of Izzy, Slash or Duff? Please. That was Rose, and just like Rose insisted on One in a Million being included on Lies, Rose insisted on all of those things just mentioned being included on UYI albums.

Now, maybe you are saying that referring to it as a "solo" album is incorrect. I would agree with that. But I would say that it is a continuation of the trend of Rose insisting on things being the way he wanted them to be, and I consider UYI albums to be much more Rose influenced than AFD.