1999: The Thread - "Not working on all of this to keep it buried"

[wfuckinga]

I'm asking Slash if it's Live Era or Live: Era '87-'93 by the way

[ARBeast]

How would things have turned out had Slash apologized publicly...

How things would have been had Axl not hired team Brazil. Oh well.

[classicguns4life]

How would things have turned out had Slash apologized publicly...

How things would have been had Axl not hired team Brazil. Oh well.

Its ridiculous that people actually think Slash needed to apologize publicly. There's no reason he should have to and Axl doesn't as well. They were both bad to each other. Just because Axl is sensitive Slash is the one that needs to apologize? Are you kidding me? Bullshit my asshole.

[wfuckinga]

How would things have turned out had Slash apologized publicly...

How things would have been had Axl not hired team Brazil. Oh well.

Its ridiculous that people actually think Slash needed to apologize publicly. There's no reason he should have to and Axl doesn't as well. They were both bad to each other. Just because Axl is sensitive Slash is the one that needs to apologize? Are you kidding me? Bullshit my asshole.

Slash does need to apologise though. That's all it takes to make peace

[Apollo]

Great posts in this thread Amir and Estranged.

And NONE of us know that Slash "needs" to apologize. That's idiotic.

And to say he has to do it publically? Ridiculous.

None of us know what went on behind the scenes with these two men.

These aren't two 3rd-grade kids that were mean to each other and now have to stand in front of the class room and apologize and shake hands.

Fifteen years ago, I worked for a few years with a TERRIBLE co-worker. Guy was a complete prick. If you came up to me today and said "You must apologize PUBLICALLY to this person, and start working with him again" I'd tell you to go f*ck your mother because I was tired of doing it.

Axl and Slash don't "owe" each other anything.

If they BOTH decide to get together and hash things out - awesome.

If they don't - great.

But it doesn't need to be publicized. And none of us are in the position to tell either guy what he needs to do.

[classicguns4life]

How would things have turned out had Slash apologized publicly...

How things would have been had Axl not hired team Brazil. Oh well.

Its ridiculous that people actually think Slash needed to apologize publicly. There's no reason he should have to and Axl doesn't as well. They were both bad to each other. Just because Axl is sensitive Slash is the one that needs to apologize? Are you kidding me? Bullshit my asshole.

Slash does need to apologise though. That's all it takes to make peace

It makes absolutely no sense why Slash has to stoop down to Axl's level and Axl is unable to step up to Slash's. Axl's the one being the baby, why does Slash have to apologize. I understand it would fix things, but why should everyone HAVE to do what Axl wants. He's a 50 year old man. Time to accept things dude. I'm not saying Slash doesn't need to apologize. He does. But clearly Axl wants the apologize much more than Slash does, so why does Slash have to initiate?

[Gordon Comstock]

He wanted to release this in 2000 or so. Label said no, Roy Thomas Baker said re-record everything.

Axl wanted to release album in 2002. Ezrin said it was overproduced, with 2.5 good songs.

March 2007, Axl wanted to release album. Label hadn't decided on release strategy.

Not all the blame falls on Axl.

Bullshit.

Label had been trying desperately to get ANY material from Axl since 1994. Most likely they never even HEARD the fucking thing in the year 2000. Baker and Ezrin didn't speak for the label. Axl could have ignored what they said but it obviously got under his skin.

Every source from Geffen/Interscope as well as the revolving door of producers said they did everything possible to get anything from Axl and that all they had was a bunch of snippets and instrumental. No vocals.

IF there was an album's worth of material at any time between 1994 and 2008, it would have been released IMMEDIATELY.

Axl is 100% to blame, certainly not the label....they watched that big "Guns" profit they were counting on dwindle down to nothing as the years went on.

That's the thing the Axl apologists never seem to factor into the equation.

Maybe the music sucked and that's why the label didn't want to release it.

Imagine being 2000 and Axl handing you a demo that included Silkworms, Sorry and Scraped and a couple other songs just liked them.

And they forget the stories from band members and crew that talked about Axl renting studios and expensive equipment for years at a time when he WOULDN"T EVEN SHOW UP. Wasted money and time, just pissed down the drain because Axl didn't feel like making an effort. Somehow that's the label's fault as well though.

Somehow bands all over the world are able to work with their labels and release music.

Bands with little fanbase and little success of producing hits like Dokken, Great White and Ratt are able to put out albums - but for some reason, the label is AGAINST Axl Rose.

Sometimes it's just baffling that some posters on this forum seriously believe that the blame should fall on everybody except Axl.

I don't think anyone here believes NONE of the blame falls on Axl. We know he fucked around with the project and was unproductive for large stretches of time. However, when people like estrangedtwat make comments like "Axl is 100% to blame", that's just as stupid as saying "The label is 100% to blame".

[classicguns4life]

He wanted to release this in 2000 or so. Label said no, Roy Thomas Baker said re-record everything.

Axl wanted to release album in 2002. Ezrin said it was overproduced, with 2.5 good songs.

March 2007, Axl wanted to release album. Label hadn't decided on release strategy.

Not all the blame falls on Axl.

Bullshit.

Label had been trying desperately to get ANY material from Axl since 1994. Most likely they never even HEARD the fucking thing in the year 2000. Baker and Ezrin didn't speak for the label. Axl could have ignored what they said but it obviously got under his skin.

Every source from Geffen/Interscope as well as the revolving door of producers said they did everything possible to get anything from Axl and that all they had was a bunch of snippets and instrumental. No vocals.

IF there was an album's worth of material at any time between 1994 and 2008, it would have been released IMMEDIATELY.

Axl is 100% to blame, certainly not the label....they watched that big "Guns" profit they were counting on dwindle down to nothing as the years went on.

That's the thing the Axl apologists never seem to factor into the equation.

Maybe the music sucked and that's why the label didn't want to release it.

Imagine being 2000 and Axl handing you a demo that included Silkworms, Sorry and Scraped and a couple other songs just liked them.

And they forget the stories from band members and crew that talked about Axl renting studios and expensive equipment for years at a time when he WOULDN"T EVEN SHOW UP. Wasted money and time, just pissed down the drain because Axl didn't feel like making an effort. Somehow that's the label's fault as well though.

Somehow bands all over the world are able to work with their labels and release music.

Bands with little fanbase and little success of producing hits like Dokken, Great White and Ratt are able to put out albums - but for some reason, the label is AGAINST Axl Rose.

Sometimes it's just baffling that some posters on this forum seriously believe that the blame should fall on everybody except Axl.

I don't think anyone here believes NONE of the blame falls on Axl. We know he fucked around with the project and was unproductive for large stretches of time. However, when people like estrangedtwat make comments like "Axl is 100% to blame", that's just as stupid as saying "The label is 100% to blame".

Yes, but its much easier to believe that was the case. Axl has had 14 years of excuses. To be honest, whatever he says now sounds like or could be a lie. Its not unreasonable to assume he shoulders a lot more blame than he lets on. Sure, its of course over the line to say he's 100% to blame, but its for emphasis. Personally, I think he's definitely 50-75% to blame, and definitely moreso than anyone else involved. There's just too much piled up against him that doesn't make sense. And newflash, no one is out to get him. Only he thinks that.

[Gordon Comstock]

Yes, but its much easier to believe that was the case. Axl has had 14 years of excuses. To be honest, whatever he says now sounds like or could be a lie. Its not unreasonable to assume he shoulders a lot more blame than he lets on. Sure, its of course over the line to say he's 100% to blame, but its for emphasis. Personally, I think he's definitely 50-75% to blame, and definitely moreso than anyone else involved. There's just too much piled up against him that doesn't make sense. And newflash, no one is out to get him. Only he thinks that.

He's probably responsible for the majority of delays and fuck-ups. I don't believe the label is out ta get him, I think it's more Axl being stubborn and the label having washed their hands of new-Guns before the album even came out. I think Axl not "playing by the rules" is a large part of the blame, but on the flip side, the label and producers aren't innocent. They [apparently] rejected the album at least twice, there's the famous "You have 3 good songs" comment, Axl's comments about the label puting Guns on the backburner to promote new acts makes sense. Nobody is "100% to blame", it's more a vicious cycle of stubbornness and missed opportunities.

[Apollo]

Yes, but its much easier to believe that was the case. Axl has had 14 years of excuses. To be honest, whatever he says now sounds like or could be a lie. Its not unreasonable to assume he shoulders a lot more blame than he lets on. Sure, its of course over the line to say he's 100% to blame, but its for emphasis. Personally, I think he's definitely 50-75% to blame, and definitely moreso than anyone else involved. There's just too much piled up against him that doesn't make sense. And newflash, no one is out to get him. Only he thinks that.

He's probably responsible for the majority of delays and fuck-ups. I don't believe the label is out ta get him, I think it's more Axl being stubborn and the label having washed their hands of new-Guns before the album even came out. I think Axl not "playing by the rules" is a large part of the blame, but on the flip side, the label and producers aren't innocent. They [apparently] rejected the album at least twice, there's the famous "You have 3 good songs" comment, Axl's comments about the label puting Guns on the backburner to promote new acts makes sense. Nobody is "100% to blame", it's more a vicious cycle of stubbornness and missed opportunities.

Good post and I agree with most of that!

Only one small thing.............what if the songs weren't any good? The label is in business to make money. Some posters - not saying you - tend to use the "label rejected it" thing as a negative aspect against the label and a positive for Axl. Like "Hey man, Axl delivered the goods on several occasions but the label refused it." You have to ask yourself why the label refused it. Maybe it did really only have three good songs on it (in the label's eyes). Maybe it was Better, Catcher and Twat ---and 10 songs that sounded like Scraped and Silkworms. Axl said that he really liked Limp Bisquit and Fiona Apple. Maybe those other 10 songs were a combination of those two bands.

It took some balls for the label to reject somebody as powerful in the rock world as Axl Rose and the GnR brand. ANY GnR album at that time was gonna sell 3-4 million copies just out of people's curiosity. So for them to say "Naw, we'll pass on this" has to mean that the songs really weren't that good.

As a FAN of Axl, I'd personally love to hear that album.

[Amir]

I'm glad (for the most part) that CD ended up the way it did, but I'd still love to hear the '99 version with all the crazy electronica, and the '02 version once Bucket joined, and...

Basically I'd like to hear every version of every song. I'm sure, as with CD, I wouldn't like a lot of it, I'm sure there'd be a ton of stuff I'd really did, too.

[Gordon Comstock]

Yes, but its much easier to believe that was the case. Axl has had 14 years of excuses. To be honest, whatever he says now sounds like or could be a lie. Its not unreasonable to assume he shoulders a lot more blame than he lets on. Sure, its of course over the line to say he's 100% to blame, but its for emphasis. Personally, I think he's definitely 50-75% to blame, and definitely moreso than anyone else involved. There's just too much piled up against him that doesn't make sense. And newflash, no one is out to get him. Only he thinks that.

He's probably responsible for the majority of delays and fuck-ups. I don't believe the label is out ta get him, I think it's more Axl being stubborn and the label having washed their hands of new-Guns before the album even came out. I think Axl not "playing by the rules" is a large part of the blame, but on the flip side, the label and producers aren't innocent. They [apparently] rejected the album at least twice, there's the famous "You have 3 good songs" comment, Axl's comments about the label puting Guns on the backburner to promote new acts makes sense. Nobody is "100% to blame", it's more a vicious cycle of stubbornness and missed opportunities.

Good post and I agree with most of that!

Only one small thing.............what if the songs weren't any good? The label is in business to make money. Some posters - not saying you - tend to use the "label rejected it" thing as a negative aspect against the label and a positive for Axl. Like "Hey man, Axl delivered the goods on several occasions but the label refused it." You have to ask yourself why the label refused it. Maybe it did really only have three good songs on it (in the label's eyes). Maybe it was Better, Catcher and Twat ---and 10 songs that sounded like Scraped and Silkworms. Axl said that he really liked Limp Bisquit and Fiona Apple. Maybe those other 10 songs were a combination of those two bands.

It took some balls for the label to reject somebody as powerful in the rock world as Axl Rose and the GnR brand. ANY GnR album at that time was gonna sell 3-4 million copies just out of people's curiosity. So for them to say "Naw, we'll pass on this" has to mean that the songs really weren't that good.

As a FAN of Axl, I'd personally love to hear that album.

I dunno, I mean like you said, the GnR name alone will sell, so when people say "the label rejected it", I'd have to assume either everyone at the label wanted their hands in the pot and went "fix this, this and this, and come back to us", or Axl brought incomplete songs and tried to outline what would be completed later and the label told him to bring in complete songs. The former is what the band has said to have been the case.

Plus, the argument that the songs couldn't have been "good enough" doesn't really make sense, look at the [subjective] quality and variety of music that ended up on CD. I don't think they went "No. No. No. NO. NOOO. Ok fine release 'em like that."

[Amir]

Tommy lays the blame on the label and RTB in particular. On the other hand, Finck and Bucket both got frustrated by Axl/GNR's inability to complete an album. The two are probably not mutually exclusive, it's a case of both the label and Axl being to blame. It's Axl's bipolar attitude of "Fuck 'em all!" and trying to be experimental, and then trying to please people. I think this quote from Axl on David Bowie is really telling:

"Well, I don’t know about ‘best of buddies’. But I like him a lot, yeah. We had a long talk about the business and stuff and I never anybody so cool and so into it and so whacked out and so sick in my life...I remember lookin’ over at Slash and going: "Man, we’re in fucking deep trouble" and he goes "Why?" and I go "Because I got a lot in common with this guy. I mean, I’m pretty sick but this guy’s just fuckin’ ill!" And Bowie sitting there laughing and talking about "One side of me is experimental and the other side of me wants to make something that people can get into, and I DON’T KNOW FUCKING WHY! WHY AM I LIKE THIS?" And I’m sitting there thinking, I’ve got 20 more years of...that to look forward to? I’m already like that...20 more years? What am I gonna do?" (laughs)

Axl Rose, Kerrang, 21 April 1990

At the same time, Axl complained in the Billboard Feb '09 interview about not getting creative input from label:

"Here's how things worked until they were no longer involved-that is, until recently. Jimmy [iovine] and whoever would come down to the studio. Things would be good for a month. Then, according to whoever was involved at the time from their side, someone above Jimmy would start putting pressure regarding us on him, Jimmy would start pressuring others at his label [and they] would begin doing the same with us. We get that it's just how business -- and perhaps especially this business -- tends to work, but after a month of this the whole thing would get ugly and extensively interfere with getting anything productive done, and near the middle of the third month we'd arrange for Jimmy to come down again. They'd go away happy and the entire process would repeat itself over and over and over.

[Former Interscope Geffen A&M president] Tom Whalley brought in Roy Thomas Baker to produce and [A&R executive] Mark Williams suggested Marco Beltrami, among others, to play strings on the album. And Jimmy had an idea for low guitar in a track and the EQ on a drum part. That's it as far as I'm aware. They were all good things, but in all sincerity, that's it. Now, what efforts were made to help keep Universal or Vivendi off us for as long as possible could very well have been extensive, and in that regard either would have been or would be most appreciated. I like Jimmy, but I've never understood him in regard to us or this album. Everything's always been, "That's easy," or "We can fix that, no problem," but unfortunately rarely added up to any kind of reality for us until [he found] Bob Ludwig for mastering.

We'd love to have their and Jimmy's support after this. But to continue at this juncture feeling as we do, keeping things so behind the scenes, unfortunately feels like the same 'ol same 'ol for all of us and, at least momentarily, a bit much to digest. Jimmy did point us in the right direction for mastering, and I believe he's sincere in his appreciation of our record but still for whatever reasons gave up pretty early in those areas.

We feel that, unfortunately, we've never been really anything all that much more other than a throw it at the wall, see if it sticks, no real ground work, something to take advantage of, last quarter, cook the books, write-off, fuck this headache, hoping to get lucky scam."

Again, this might not be mutually exclusive with the label saying it's not good enough. They may have said the music wasn't good enough, but subsequently not offered much in the way of suggestions of what they wanted/were willing to release. But they still wanted an album with the name Guns N' Roses plastered on it to bring in millions of dollars that they desperately needed after the rise of Napster.

On the one hand, Axl was given a blank cheque in terms of money to spend on making an album, an enviable position for any artist to be in, and got years of support when many would cut their losses and drop him when he failed to deliver music after 5 years and as many millions of dollars (this is by 1999). On the other hand, the label didn't like whatever Axl kept eventually handing in (this is after 2000 or so).

As for if the label thought the final version of CD is good enough, I really think they stopped giving a shit for years at that point, and were absolutely delighted when Azoff came along, knowing his knack for reunions, and negotiated the deal with Best Buy. For 2009, the plan seems to have been to get some sort of reunion going. I really don't think Axl was paranoid with regards to Azoff trying to force him to reunite, just look at Azoff's track record, I really doubt him or anyone else at the label gave a shit about releasing follow-ups to CD, and wanted to ride the gravy train of the reunion, because they are ultimately a business, and an Axl/Slash GNR tour would be good business indeed.

And now the label is happy to rake in royalties from the old Guns stuff. I don't know if they get any cut of touring because all those "360-deals" tends to be for newer artists.