How can anyone possibly say Slash is more successful than Axl?

[ManetsBR]

Slash's fortune is estimated on 32 million dollars while Axl's is 150 million! And that's extremely easy to explain and understand.

- From the 44 GNR songs released between 1987 and 1991, Axl has credits for writing 37, while Slash is only credited on 21. Use Your Illusion II is practically a Rose-Stradlin album with some Slash's and Duff contributions. Axl and Izzy wrote 12 of the 14 tracks. And Bob Dylan wrote one, meaning there's one song left.

- Like it or not, but Axl has been playing huge tours since 2001 while the only big concerts Slash plays are on festivals.

- Slash was a major drug addict, I'm sure his snorted or injected a considerable amount of his money.

[frozen_rose]

Happiness is the true measure of success, young Manets.

[TombRaider]

1. Who said Slash was more sucessful than Axl?

2. How do you even measure their success? Based on how much money they have on the bank account?

3. You do realize that Slash is basically a rock icon now, right? If that isn't being successful, then I don't know what is.

[supercool]

Slash's fortune is estimated on 32 million dollars while Axl's is 150 million! And that's extremely easy to explain and understand.

- From the 44 GNR songs released between 1987 and 1991, Axl has credits for writing 37, while Slash is only credited on 21. Use Your Illusion II is practically a Rose-Stradlin album with some Slash's and Duff contributions. Axl and Izzy wrote 12 of the 14 tracks. And Bob Dylan wrote one, meaning there's one song left.

- Like it or not, but Axl has been playing huge tours since 2001 while the only big concerts Slash plays are on festivals.

- Slash was a major drug addict, I'm sure his snorted or injected a considerable amount of his money.

cool story, bro

[ZoSoRose]

Celebrity net worth is 100% not accurate

[username]

Slash's fortune is estimated on 32 million dollars while Axl's is 150 million! And that's extremely easy to explain and understand.

- From the 44 GNR songs released between 1987 and 1991, Axl has credits for writing 37, while Slash is only credited on 21. Use Your Illusion II is practically a Rose-Stradlin album with some Slash's and Duff contributions. Axl and Izzy wrote 12 of the 14 tracks. And Bob Dylan wrote one, meaning there's one song left.

- Like it or not, but Axl has been playing huge tours since 2001 while the only big concerts Slash plays are on festivals.

- Slash was a major drug addict, I'm sure his snorted or injected a considerable amount of his money.

Those are some very valid points, but only up until 1993. I would definitely say that over the past 15 years Slash has been way more successful than Axl. I'm not sure about all the finances. But you can't argue that he's been way more productive, consistently getting positive press (snakepit, VR, solo) and most of all he's very well-respected (outside of this forum) and he and his band aren't the punchline of a joke in the average American sitcom.

Edited July 21, 2013 by username

[Kapitch_77]

Slash's fortune is estimated on 32 million dollars while Axl's is 150 million! And that's extremely easy to explain and understand.

- From the 44 GNR songs released between 1987 and 1991, Axl has credits for writing 37, while Slash is only credited on 21. Use Your Illusion II is practically a Rose-Stradlin album with some Slash's and Duff contributions. Axl and Izzy wrote 12 of the 14 tracks. And Bob Dylan wrote one, meaning there's one song left.

- Like it or not, but Axl has been playing huge tours since 2001 while the only big concerts Slash plays are on festivals.

- Slash was a major drug addict, I'm sure his snorted or injected a considerable amount of his money.

[Bobbo]

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

[Damn_Smooth]

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

Actually, Axl's shows were doing a lot better when he was playing more off of CD than they are now.

[Bobbo]

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

Actually, Axl's shows were doing a lot better when he was playing more off of CD than they are now.

Axl's shows were doing better when he could actually sing his trademark voice, when he took years worth of hiatuses, and wasn't ridiculously over saturating markets like he is today.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Bobbo

[niceguy]

God damn, the true measure of a person's stupidity is how seriously they quote celebritynetworth.com as truth.

[Damn_Smooth]

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

Actually, Axl's shows were doing a lot better when he was playing more off of CD than they are now.

Axl's shows were doing better when he could actually sing his trademark voice, when he took years worth of hiatuses, and wasn't ridiculously over saturating markets like he is today.

I don't know. I only read these forums, but it seems to me that the fans of the band complain more about the setlist than they do the voice or freqeuncy of shows. I think the only thing that tops setlist in complaints is lack of info on a new album. I don't care about the world outside of here, because realistically it is only going to be the hardcore fans that support and promote it to the sheeple anyway. It's actually the drop in hardcores that should concern this idiot management team the most in my opinion.

[Bobbo]

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

Actually, Axl's shows were doing a lot better when he was playing more off of CD than they are now.

Axl's shows were doing better when he could actually sing his trademark voice, when he took years worth of hiatuses, and wasn't ridiculously over saturating markets like he is today.

I don't know. I only read these forums, but it seems to me that the fans of the band complain more about the setlist than they do the voice or freqeuncy of shows. I think the only thing that tops setlist in complaints is lack of info on a new album. I don't care about the world outside of here, because realistically it is only going to be the hardcore fans that support and promote it to the sheeple anyway. It's actually the drop in hardcores that should concern this idiot management team the most in my opinion.

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

Actually, Axl's shows were doing a lot better when he was playing more off of CD than they are now.

Axl's shows were doing better when he could actually sing his trademark voice, when he took years worth of hiatuses, and wasn't ridiculously over saturating markets like he is today.

I don't know. I only read these forums, but it seems to me that the fans of the band complain more about the setlist than they do the voice or freqeuncy of shows. I think the only thing that tops setlist in complaints is lack of info on a new album. I don't care about the world outside of here, because realistically it is only going to be the hardcore fans that support and promote it to the sheeple anyway. It's actually the drop in hardcores that should concern this idiot management team the most in my opinion.

Most of the masses don't care about nu songs, and that's important because they really are the ones at the end of the day financially supporting Axl. The main reason they aren't doing better is because Axl isn't giving them time for them to miss him, and because he's quickly becoming a sad parody of himself, not because he's not playing more songs from his black sheep album.

And even from your pov, I think most are complaining about the set lists being stale than they are about less CD songs. But I do strongly agree with your last sentence at the same time. Sadly, we are small and few in numbers, and nothing but a blimp on Axl's and Team Brazil's radar for what they seemingly want to accomplish. Nostalgic cash grabbing.

[Damn_Smooth]

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

Actually, Axl's shows were doing a lot better when he was playing more off of CD than they are now.

Axl's shows were doing better when he could actually sing his trademark voice, when he took years worth of hiatuses, and wasn't ridiculously over saturating markets like he is today.

I don't know. I only read these forums, but it seems to me that the fans of the band complain more about the setlist than they do the voice or freqeuncy of shows. I think the only thing that tops setlist in complaints is lack of info on a new album. I don't care about the world outside of here, because realistically it is only going to be the hardcore fans that support and promote it to the sheeple anyway. It's actually the drop in hardcores that should concern this idiot management team the most in my opinion.

Slash played a huge role in an album that was overall the most successful post '96 GNR album. It connected to the masses and was overall much more successful than the sole nu album Axl released.

Axl's only success has been touring, and that's overall because of milking heyday material to the point that he was nothing but a diet coke parody of himself. He totally failed in his venture of output. Here's a post I made on thegnrforum that puts it best.

You can't really compare the two from a touring perspective. Axl has not only the name, but he milks the success of the heyday way more than Slash does. And realistically, it's MUCH easier replacing an instrumental aspect to a group and having it sound exactly the same to the audience, in terms of nostalgia, than it is to replace a voice. Axl's only real success has been milking the glorly days with, essentially, a cover band, and has nothing to do with his actual post Slash and co output.

But it would be interesting to see not only what Axl could put up without the GNR name, but also being on the same playing field in terms of set lists as Slash. If Axl like Slash, without the GNR name, played the '87-'91 heyday stuff to a minimum, and his post '87-'91 heyday stuff for the majority of the setlist like Slash currently does, Axl would be at the very least, where Slash is, probably even lower. Especially since the general public took to Contraband (Specifically Slither and Fall to Pieces) much better than they did Chinese Democracy.

Do we even wanna think what would happen to his touring numbers if he followed VR's example, and about 90% of his shows were nu output? That would be LMAO galore.

Actually, Axl's shows were doing a lot better when he was playing more off of CD than they are now.

Axl's shows were doing better when he could actually sing his trademark voice, when he took years worth of hiatuses, and wasn't ridiculously over saturating markets like he is today.

I don't know. I only read these forums, but it seems to me that the fans of the band complain more about the setlist than they do the voice or freqeuncy of shows. I think the only thing that tops setlist in complaints is lack of info on a new album. I don't care about the world outside of here, because realistically it is only going to be the hardcore fans that support and promote it to the sheeple anyway. It's actually the drop in hardcores that should concern this idiot management team the most in my opinion.

Most of the masses don't care about nu songs, and that's important because they really are the ones at the end of the day financially supporting Axl. The main reason they aren't doing better is because Axl isn't giving them time for them to miss him, and because he's quickly becoming a sad parody of himself, not because he's not playing more songs from his black sheep album.

And even from your pov, I think most are complaining about the set lists being stale than they are about less CD songs. But I do strongly agree with your last sentence at the same time. Sadly, we are small and few in numbers, and nothing but a blimp on Axl's and Team Brazil's radar for what they seemingly want to accomplish. Nostalgic cash grabbing.

We've reached the point where Slash has to be brought into this. It was inevitable anyway. Slash is gaining ground on the merit of his own material. Even though I believe it's shit, pure shit and nothing but shit, I recognise what is happening. For Guns to move forward, they have to attempt to do the same. If not, this downward spiral is only going to go to the bottom.

[ITG]

 

Slash's fortune is estimated on 32 million dollars while Axl's is 150 million! And that's extremely easy to explain and understand.

- From the 44 GNR songs released between 1987 and 1991, Axl has credits for writing 37, while Slash is only credited on 21. Use Your Illusion II is practically a Rose-Stradlin album with some Slash's and Duff contributions. Axl and Izzy wrote 12 of the 14 tracks. And Bob Dylan wrote one, meaning there's one song left.

- Like it or not, but Axl has been playing huge tours since 2001 while the only big concerts Slash plays are on festivals.

- Slash was a major drug addict, I'm sure his snorted or injected a considerable amount of his money.

 

1. Axl was/is never-has-been a prolific songwriter. He is famous for aggrandizing songwriting credit exclusively. Buckethead gets no credit on There Was a Time. Slash is given a "Thank You" on the liner notes on UYI for Estranged and November Rain. The ASCAP credits are different. Remember the icecream lady's obit in the Indiana Newspaper? Axl's a greedy selfish fucker. If Axl was a such a prolific songwriter then why did he hire TWO teams of songwriters for Chinese Democracy? This is ridiculous. Also, if people can get "minus" points for writing bad songs then "This I Love" deletes a lot of respect I had for him as a songwriter.

2. Axl has been able to tour under the GN'R name. People will be willing to go just for the nostalgia. If CD and Axl was so successful he would not have had to re-introduce the original GN'R area as part of his tour promotion.

3. That's all you got? I mean you had to come up with 3 things to say against Slash and the last one is that he is a drug-addict? He has been clean and he survived his excesses. Want to watch to the RIR4 video again and tell me Axl looks fine?

Tell you what Manets, why don't you post that article about Axl inviting the stagehands for Mac n' Cheese back in 1991 for the 5th time. I'm sure it will make you feel better.

[dalsh327]

It's hard to know what anyone's net worth is until they die. Sometimes it's shocking at how little their estate's worth, or how in debt they were.

When it comes to celebrities, sometimes dealers just want to be part of the VIP world so they have more customers, and having an association with a celeb is more worth it to them than the money they'd get supplying the rock star. Also look into why Doc McGhee was busted in the 80s. Some of them traffic drugs because they have private planes and former police working private security. It's only when it shows up on the DEA's radar where they start to worry, or Izzy's incident on a plane.

 

Slash's fortune is estimated on 32 million dollars while Axl's is 150 million! And that's extremely easy to explain and understand.

- From the 44 GNR songs released between 1987 and 1991, Axl has credits for writing 37, while Slash is only credited on 21. Use Your Illusion II is practically a Rose-Stradlin album with some Slash's and Duff contributions. Axl and Izzy wrote 12 of the 14 tracks. And Bob Dylan wrote one, meaning there's one song left.

- Like it or not, but Axl has been playing huge tours since 2001 while the only big concerts Slash plays are on festivals.

- Slash was a major drug addict, I'm sure his snorted or injected a considerable amount of his money.

 
1. Axl was/is never-has-been a prolific songwriter. He is famous for aggrandizing songwriting credit exclusively. Buckethead gets no credit on There Was a Time. Slash is given a "Thank You" on the liner notes on UYI for Estranged and November Rain. The ASCAP credits are different. Remember the icecream lady's obit in the Indiana Newspaper? Axl's a greedy selfish fucker. If Axl was a such a prolific songwriter then why did he hire TWO teams of songwriters for Chinese Democracy? This is ridiculous. Also, if people can get "minus" points for writing bad songs then "This I Love" deletes a lot of respect I had for him as a songwriter.

2. Axl has been able to tour under the GN'R name. People will be willing to go just for the nostalgia. If CD and Axl was so successful he would not have had to re-introduce the original GN'R area as part of his tour promotion.

3. That's all you got? I mean you had to come up with 3 things to say against Slash and the last one is that he is a drug-addict? He has been clean and he survived his excesses. Want to watch to the RIR4 video again and tell me Axl looks fine?


Tell you what Manets, why don't you post that article about Axl inviting the stagehands for Mac n' Cheese back in 1991 for the 5th time. I'm sure it will make you feel better.

There's a lot of bands where one person got sole songwriter credit even when bandmembers helped out in putting the song together.

[supercool]

axl is one of the worst musicians ever

[TombRaider]

axl is one of the worst musicians ever

November Rain, Better, Street of Dreams, Coma and Estranged prove you're wrong.

Edited July 21, 2013 by TombRaider

[ManetsBR]

axl is one of the worst musicians ever

Why are you here?

[Bobbo]

I don't know DS. I don't think output matters that much to the masses at this point in their careers. I think Slash is relatively popular because his guitar chops are still up to snuff unlike Axl's voice nowadays, he's still entertaining, he mixes up the set list, and he doesn't over saturate markets like Axl's currently doing. And of course, because he's Slash and is legacy is already well set in stone. The one thing Slash has been able to do that Axl hasn't was putting out one post '96 GNR album that was overall well accepted by the masses.

I do agree Slash's output leaves a lot to be desired. Aside from Contraband where I found myself liking most of the album and about half of Snakepit I, I've only enjoyed maybe 2-4 songs off each of his outputs at best.

[TombRaider]

@ManetsBR to complain, complain, complain

Edited July 21, 2013 by TombRaider

[DieselDaisy]

Slash's fortune is estimated on 32 million dollars while Axl's is 150 million! And that's extremely easy to explain and understand.

- From the 44 GNR songs released between 1987 and 1991, Axl has credits for writing 37, while Slash is only credited on 21. Use Your Illusion II is practically a Rose-Stradlin album with some Slash's and Duff contributions. Axl and Izzy wrote 12 of the 14 tracks. And Bob Dylan wrote one, meaning there's one song left.

- Like it or not, but Axl has been playing huge tours since 2001 while the only big concerts Slash plays are on festivals.

- Slash was a major drug addict, I'm sure his snorted or injected a considerable amount of his money.

Depends on how you look at it. Slash formed a new band and released an album which crushed cd. Slash has a family. Slash is well-liked by the music industry and the public. Axl released a flop, calls a Brazilian nanny 'mommy' and is universally hated by the music industry and the public. Yes, Axl was playing arenas in 2002 but Slash was playing arenas with VR. Now Axl plays Vegas and bowling allys. In my opinion Slash has been far more successful.

[TombRaider]

...and Slash wears a hat.

/End thread.

[drtydane]

Both have more money than kno wat to do with, but as far as who has been more successful, I think it goes to slash... Hands down.

Both had great careers. But slash is out playing and creating new music on a regular basis, but at the end of the day, slash has a wife and a couple of kids, and is genuinely happy with life. That's why it isn't even close.

Axl has to play the songs that made him famous, from period that he would probably want to try and forget. He does this so he can pay the salaries of two dozen or so hangers on, and his manager/mother/maid and her spoiled children. Not to mention he is always villanized and ridiculed every chance writers get, and slash is usually considered the victim/good guy as far as the gnr situation goes.

So as far as success, they're both monetarily successful, but over all, I think slash is the one with the most success. He's happy, genuinely. When's the last time you think axl could say he was truly "happy"?

Slash is def the victor in this situation. Hands down.

[Rustycage]

God damn, the true measure of a person's stupidity is how seriously they quote celebritynetworth.com as truth.