sailaway Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Given all the information/misinformation that has come forth from various sources how do you now view the 96breakup? Could/should it have been prevented? Had it run it's course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinegunner Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Given all the information/misinformation that has come forth from various sourcesSuch as..................?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Diet Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) Prevented?i don't think so...Maybe if Izzy comes to the picture and try to get together the bandBut the main problem is (was) the ego's. Esp. Axl n' Slash ego Edited May 9, 2013 by Crash Diet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinegunner Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 It wasn't a break up - Slash quit and then got replaced.I reckon Slash figured GN'R couldn't go on without him and that then they'd offer him big bucks for the big reunion at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinaleblood Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) I reckon Slash figured GN'R couldn't go on without him and that then they'd offer him big bucks for the big reunion at some point. Well said. Maybe Slash wanted GNR to record their "Rock in a hard place". Edited May 9, 2013 by Twinaleblood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
November_rain Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) It affected me a lot back in the day since GNR are my favourite band and I thought GNR would never be active again. Now with the years I see things from the distance and maybe the breakup was something that was meant to be. In most of the rock bands there is a feud between the singer and the lead guitarist and GNR were not an exception. From what I read back in the day, the atmosphere was more and more tense and the relationship between the guys was more and more distant plus drugs and alcohol played their role too. People usually think that the members of a band are friends but that is not necessarily true.We usually take sides and honestly, I´ve always been pro Axl but whether we accept the breakup of the old band or not we should be happy that ALL those guys are still alive and active and we will always have their music. Edited May 9, 2013 by November_rain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 We usually take sides and honestly, I´ve always been pro Axl but whether we accept the breakup of the old band or not we should be happy that ALL those guys are still alive and active and we will always have their music.Exactly, great post November_Rain.I don't really care who is in any band, and if they are friends or not, or who is responsible for what.........for me, the part that sucks is that the world's best rock and roll band really disbanded at that point. And the outcome ended up being Axl releasing one album since then.It sucks for music fans that we've only gotten one album of original material from Axl Rose in the past 20 years. Who really cares who caused the breakup. The final outcome is Chinese Democracy from 1994-through-2013. The greatest rock voice (or at least top 5) of our generation has released one album of music over the last 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknroll41 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The departure of Slash, Duff and Matt in 1996/1997 should've been the end of GNR, and everything Axl had done after that should've been under a different name. That's how I view it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinegunner Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The departure of Slash, Duff and Matt in 1996/1997 should've been the end of GNR, and everything Axl had done after that should've been under a different name. That's how I view it.If it was so important to have classic line-up members in GN'R, then why did those same members go on without Steven & Izzy? there's a double standard there. It's either alright to go on without them, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I view it as the end of Guns N' Roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The departure of Slash, Duff and Matt in 1996/1997 should've been the end of GNR, and everything Axl had done after that should've been under a different name. That's how I view it.If it was so important to have classic line-up members in GN'R, then why did those same members go on without Steven & Izzy? there's a double standard there. It's either alright to go on without them, or not.Not exactly.Adler was fired because of his drug addiction........so you still had four of the five original members.Izzy left when the GnR train was rolling full steam ahead. When he left, GnR was arguably the BIGGEST rock band in the world. They were breaking records with their touring numbers. Why would the other three guys (still the majority of the band) quit at that point????Comparing those two situations.......at the time of their departure...............to Slash/Duff walking away isn't even a valid comparison.Should a professional football player retire after his first concussion? Of course not.But should he retire after his fifth or sixth one? Of course he should.YOUR example would be the NFL player, who was just voted MVP of the league and signed a 5-year $75 million dollar contract, retiring because he got his first or second concussion.Slash and Dufff leaving were completely different apples/oranges than when Adler and Izzy left.************See Sailway, I can play nice.Great topic, thanks for starting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) Two contrasting visions between two equal entities who then comprised GNR (yes Axl was creatively on par with all of the other players combined). The only difference being Axl secured the legal upperhand prior to the tensions boiling over artistically and was therefore able to implement his agenda regardless of the participation of the other members. Who subsequently left disillusioned by where Axl wanted to go.Velvet Revolver wanted to maintain GNR's traditionalist style, essentially they were the old guard influence. Axl on the other hand was clearly enthused by new music movements and wanted to adapt GNR to that direction without completely losing GNR's identity. I think people like Slash were wrong to say Axl wanted to make a Nine Inch Nails record, it seems in reality all he wanted to do was update GNR's approach to things by incorporating the latest fads in the industry, much like what he did by adding keyboards and bringing in Dizzy. Which also irked the purist theory of Slash and co. Edited May 9, 2013 by NGOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinegunner Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The departure of Slash, Duff and Matt in 1996/1997 should've been the end of GNR, and everything Axl had done after that should've been under a different name. That's how I view it.If it was so important to have classic line-up members in GN'R, then why did those same members go on without Steven & Izzy? there's a double standard there. It's either alright to go on without them, or not.Not exactly.Adler was fired because of his drug addiction........so you still had four of the five original members.Izzy left when the GnR train was rolling full steam ahead. When he left, GnR was arguably the BIGGEST rock band in the world. They were breaking records with their touring numbers. Why would the other three guys (still the majority of the band) quit at that point????I'm not saying they should have all quit. Just saying that if it's alright to replace Izzy & Steven, then it's alright to replace Slash & Duff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I view it as the end of Guns N' Roses.Yep and the beginning of nuGn'R puppet show... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) It couldn't have happened any other way. Izzy couldn't stand being in a major rock band, Axl and Slash couldn't stand sharing the spotlight, it's just how it was. We could sit around and say "maybe if" and wonder all we want but it doesn't change what actually happened. All I'll say is that GNR should have ended there in the mid 90's, everybody could have gone their separate ways, cool off for a bit and work on their own projects (exactly how the ex GNR members in VR did) and MAYBE we could have seen them take another stab at it at some point, but who knows. Edited May 10, 2013 by sweetness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITG Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Thread title almost got my hopes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I think they got rich and all did what they wanted.Slash and Izzy just wanted more control to enjoy making music. Axl wanted to be in a huge rock band like Queen or Zepp. Adler and Duff would probably be in Guns if they could. Substance abuse aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I view it as, very confusing. I have tried to re-construct for myself just what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JONEZY Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I still think it comes down to the business side of things. Axl wanted and got complete control, and it rubbed the other guys the wrong way, and one by one they left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 I think they got rich and all did what they wanted.Slash and Izzy just wanted more control to enjoy making music. Axl wanted to be in a huge rock band like Queen or Zepp. Adler and Duff would probably be in Guns if they could. Substance abuse aside.No Apollo vs. dionysus classic conflict, or irresistible force vs. immovable object comparisons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts