Joe Perry: "I had great hopes of GNR carrying the torch"

[Apollo]

All long term bands evolve... and move and shift... GNRs meltdown lies in what Duff said in an interview way back. GNR got too big too soon and the leeches and parasites beggers and hangers on become the paths of communication between a band of brothers.

We can psychoanalyze till the end of time and even place blame where blame is due from OUR POV but in the end is this and this alone.. every single member of the original troop lost sight of what GNR was and where it was going.. lost sight of who they were

Adler : his drugs and his party became more important than being in a world class rock band

Izzy: too much too big and too complicated for him to maintain

Duff: booze and booze and booze...till his health exploded.. superceded the vision of the future.

Axl :ego and sensitivity speaks for itself..past issues, relationship issues, lawsuits upon lawsuits ...etc, his own time and his own agenda...

Slash: Drugs and ego and ego and drugs....superceded the ablity to see what the the next 10 years could have been.

from the second they exploded on the scene they word on the street was these guys were the real deal and they would be remembered up there with the iconic bands that preceeded them... and they are to a degree.. but their longivity is tarnished by a very low discography... and try as Axl might.. this new band , no matter how profiecient they are.. will never ever come close to the universal appreciation that the originals are.

it all boils down to this: they simply couldnt get their shit together.

This post should probably end this topic.

Well done.

Thankfully now we have Beta and Fernando to keep the current GnR alive and well!!!

[classicrawker]

It seems to me that people who weren't around at the time have little perspective on just how out to lunch Axl was getting. Of course I'm not saying that Slash didn't contribute to the problems, but Axl lost his marbles, well on his way to Yoda and past lives and exorcisms and all that shit, and that was THE problem. And just like today you couldn't get him to go near a studio with any sort of consistency, so the music side was fucked regardless of what material they might have chosen.

Yeah but it's not like it's one or the other, sure all the Yoda/exorcism shenanigans would have delayed a new album, but I reckon if they were on the same page musically they could have had a new album by '97 or '98. Slash is the one who has pushed musical differences as the key reason for the split, Axl seems to focus more on personal differences, none of the factors are mutually exclusive.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't seem to remember Slash ever pushing musical differences as the key reason for the split or that he expected Snakepit to be the next GnR album?.....I have 80-90 different magazine interviews, which I posted access to here at one point, from that era and can't remember Slash ever saying what you claim..........But then again I have not read them in a couple for years so maybe Slash did say the things you claim in some interview I have forgotten..........

If you read his book he gave his reasons in the last chapter for the split and Axl trying to make them all his employees and becoming a dictator was the main reason for him leaving which is the same thing Duff and Izzy have said in interviews.....and I don't believe he ever said Snakepit was the next Guns album only that he gave Axl a collection of songs to be considered for the next album and Axl rejected them so he took them solo.............

Now personally I don't believe for a minute musical differences were part of the reason he left but according to Slash it was not the main reason which I believe...........

Edited July 9, 2014 by classicrawker

[tomfriend]

If Axl wasn't insane, GNR would have just been talented also-rans in the rock game. Him being a genuinely crazy motherfucker both elevated and destroyed their game.

[SoulMonster]

It seems to me that people who weren't around at the time have little perspective on just how out to lunch Axl was getting. Of course I'm not saying that Slash didn't contribute to the problems, but Axl lost his marbles, well on his way to Yoda and past lives and exorcisms and all that shit, and that was THE problem. And just like today you couldn't get him to go near a studio with any sort of consistency, so the music side was fucked regardless of what material they might have chosen.

Yeah but it's not like it's one or the other, sure all the Yoda/exorcism shenanigans would have delayed a new album, but I reckon if they were on the same page musically they could have had a new album by '97 or '98. Slash is the one who has pushed musical differences as the key reason for the split, Axl seems to focus more on personal differences, none of the factors are mutually exclusive.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't seem to remember Slash ever pushing musical differences as the key reason for the split or that he expected Snakepit to be the next GnR album?.....I have 80-90 different magazine interviews, which I posted access to here at one point, from that era and can't remember Slash ever saying what you claim..........But then again I have not read them in a couple for years so maybe Slash did say the things you claim in some interview I have forgotten..........

Slash has given numerous reasons for why he left, and I think all of them were real and cumulatively made him leave. He has also on many occasions claimed that he primarily left because of musical differences with Axl:

Slash: I quit the group because of musical differences. I wanted to continue doing the hard rock thing, and he wanted to do techno-rock or something [Slash’s Heroes & Villains, NME, October 2000].

Slash: I just wish the fucker would get the fuckin’ record out so I could see why he took something so cool and systematically, destroyed it. I want to hear where he was headed, and what he was trying to communicate that none of us in the band could relate to [Modern life is rubbish, Kerrang! 10th of June, 2000].

Slash: I think the split-up between [us] was a little more bitter [than with other GNR members]. But it wasn't so much personal as it was a disassociation from what I thought he was doing and consequently what it was that I wanted to do. So we just parted ways and I haven't talked to him since [boston Globe, April 2000]

As for Slash bashing Axl, there are many quotes from him describing Axl in less than flattering words, to bashing Axl's music (Slash wasn't really fond of Axl's piano-driven ballads) and friends (Paul Huge). He also attacked Axl through lawsuits. I do not for one second feel that Axl's vehemence is in proportion to what Slash has said, but I can honestly understand where some of Axl's animosity comes from (because regardless of what Axl thought about Slash he kept it to himself til Slash had left the band, whereas Slash started to spew bitterness in the media way before that point). Anyway, Slash should know Axl enough to understand that when his loyalty was flipped due to Slash going public with the criticism, then Axl would turn his back to him.

Edited July 9, 2014 by SoulMonster

[classicrawker]

If Axl wasn't insane, GNR would have just been talented also-rans in the rock game. Him being a genuinely crazy motherfucker both elevated and destroyed their game.

“There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.” Oscar Levant................I think Axl may cross this line on a regular basis..............

and evidently there is some truth to the saying and it may be genetic..........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6243747/Fine-line-between-genius-and-madness-scientists-find.html

[rudolf1978]

From what Ive read it seems like Axl was always jealous of Slash and the amount of attension he got from the fans. With Nu GNR Axl is the star and all eyes are on him. Its getting to a point now where Im almost glad that they don't reform and have a reunion. What Guns N Roses did (and i mean the REAL Guns N Roses) is an untouchable legacy in the history of rock. With every show Axl does with Nu GNR he tarnishes that legacy...

Agree.And dont know what Joe Perry sees in Gnr to think them carrying the torch.Maybe in 2010 with the real gnr would be a chance but now.....

[classicrawker]

It seems to me that people who weren't around at the time have little perspective on just how out to lunch Axl was getting. Of course I'm not saying that Slash didn't contribute to the problems, but Axl lost his marbles, well on his way to Yoda and past lives and exorcisms and all that shit, and that was THE problem. And just like today you couldn't get him to go near a studio with any sort of consistency, so the music side was fucked regardless of what material they might have chosen.

Yeah but it's not like it's one or the other, sure all the Yoda/exorcism shenanigans would have delayed a new album, but I reckon if they were on the same page musically they could have had a new album by '97 or '98. Slash is the one who has pushed musical differences as the key reason for the split, Axl seems to focus more on personal differences, none of the factors are mutually exclusive.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't seem to remember Slash ever pushing musical differences as the key reason for the split or that he expected Snakepit to be the next GnR album?.....I have 80-90 different magazine interviews, which I posted access to here at one point, from that era and can't remember Slash ever saying what you claim..........But then again I have not read them in a couple for years so maybe Slash did say the things you claim in some interview I have forgotten..........

Slash has given numerous reasons for why he left, and I think all of them were real and cumulatively made him leave. He has also on many occasions claimed that he primarily left because of musical differences with Axl:

Slash: I quit the group because of musical differences. I wanted to continue doing the hard rock thing, and he wanted to do techno-rock or something [Slash’s Heroes & Villains, NME, October 2000].

Slash: I just wish the fucker would get the fuckin’ record out so I could see why he took something so cool and systematically, destroyed it. I want to hear where he was headed, and what he was trying to communicate that none of us in the band could relate to [Modern life is rubbish, Kerrang! 10th of June, 2000].

Slash: I think the split-up between [us] was a little more bitter [than with other GNR members]. But it wasn't so much personal as it was a disassociation from what I thought he was doing and consequently what it was that I wanted to do. So we just parted ways and I haven't talked to him since [boston Globe, April 2000]

As for Slash bashing Axl, there are many quotes from him describing Axl in less than flattering words, to bashing Axl's music (Slash wasn't really fond of Axl's piano-driven ballads) and friends (Paul Huge). He also attacked Axl through lawsuits. I do not for one second feel that Axl's vehemence is in proportion to what Slash has said, but I can honestly understand where some of Axl's animosity comes from (because regardless of what Axl thought about Slash he kept it to himself til Slash had left the band, whereas Slash started to spew bitterness in the media way before that point). Anyway, Slash should know Axl enough to understand that when his loyalty was flipped due to Slash going public with the criticism, then Axl would turn his back to him.

Thanks SM as I could not remember reading that he said musical differences were the main reason behind him leaving which I still don't believe is the case based on all the other issues they had.......... In fact in his book he claims the opposite in that that he would have made Axl's industrial album if they could have overcome the other issues which poisoned their relationship........Maybe Slash did not handle the split the best by complaining in the press, as he was pretty pissed at Axl for treating them all like his employees amongst other things, but, you have to admit Axl is pretty juvenile when it comes to holding grudges.....the slightest thing sets him off and puts someone on his shit list...I mean look at what he has done to Marc simply for releasing a book about the old Guns which had nothing negative about Axl in it...........

[SoulMonster]

Absolutely

[Zint]

So did we all, so did we all...

This ^

..so much so

[themadcaplaughs]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

[Zint]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Steven Tyler isn't up their with a bunch of Joe Shmoes under the Aerosmith banner, he's up there with the guys who put the band on the map and earned the right to be playing the classic shit.

[themadcaplaughs]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Steven Tyler isn't up their with a bunch of Joe Shmoes under the Aerosmith banner, he's up there with the guys who put the band on the map and earned the right to be playing the classic shit.

I made a point of saying that Aerosmith has the benefit of being able to say it has its original members. I asked if, besides that, there was a lot different the two were doing?

[Zint]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Steven Tyler isn't up their with a bunch of Joe Shmoes under the Aerosmith banner, he's up there with the guys who put the band on the map and earned the right to be playing the classic shit.

I made a point of saying that Aerosmith has the benefit of being able to say it has its original members. I asked if, besides that, there was a lot different the two were doing?

One band is celebrating their legacy, one band is reminding people of their legacy.

[dalsh327]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Steven Tyler isn't up their with a bunch of Joe Shmoes under the Aerosmith banner, he's up there with the guys who put the band on the map and earned the right to be playing the classic shit.

There was the Crespo/Dufay era and the Joe Perry Project...

[Zint]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Steven Tyler isn't up their with a bunch of Joe Shmoes under the Aerosmith banner, he's up there with the guys who put the band on the map and earned the right to be playing the classic shit.

There was the Crespo/Dufay era and the Joe Perry Project...

Yeah and how long did that last?

Original guys are back together and have been for three decades now, or close to it.

[Amir]

Some stuff on musical differences from Chinese Whispers:

"At one point he said he was gonna a solo project, then he decided his solo-project he could do with Guns, which I was like, after doing all those videos and this and that and the other, I was like: "No". [laughs] No, I don't wanna get involved in any kind of Stephanie Seymour ballads or any of that shit." (Slash, Canadian Radio, 04/20/95)

"On the first Snakepit-record I used some ideas which were really planned for the next GN'R-record, but Axl and I disagreed on the future direction of the band. I played Axl a demo with some of my ideas for songs, and all he said was: "I don't feel like playing this kind of music." I answered: "But this could be a excellent Gunner-record, hundred percent in GN'R style." He didn't really care 'cause he only wanted to play industrial and Pearl Jam-sounding crap." (Slash, 'Rock Hard' Magazine, 03/00)

"The Snakepit album could have been the new GNR album, but Axl didn't think it was good enough." (Matt, 1996)

"Kerrang!: How's the next GN'R album progressing?
Gilby: "There is no 'next GN'R album'!"

K!: EVER?!
G: "I don't know about ever. For now. We started working on one, and it got canned."

K!: How come?
G: Well, it's an Axl thing. He just wasn't into what we were doing, so he's kind of rethinking what he wants to do. He just kind of threw a wrench into everything that me, Slash and Matt had worked to. And then Duff came in. Duff and Axl have an idea what the album should be, and the rest of us have another idea." (Gilby, Kerrang, 05/24/94)

"What people don't know is, the [slash's] Snakepit album, that is the Guns N' Roses album. I just wouldn't do it. [...] Duff walked out on it, and I walked out on it, because I wasn't allowed to be any part of it. It's like, 'No, you do this, that's how it is.'" (Axl, MTV, 11/08/99)

"One of the points of contention between Slash and Axl was a batch of songs Slash brought to the table. Axl thought it was Southern rock - not Guns N’ Roses material. I backed Axl." (Duff, Autobiography)

"I didn’t walk till several months after having 3-4-hour phone conversations nearly every day with Slash, trying to reach a compromise. I was specifically told no lyrics, no melodies, no changes to anything and to sing what I was told or fuck off." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

"And I didn't believe in it. I thought that there were riffs and parts and some ideas, I thought, that needed to be developed. I had no problem working on it, or working with it, but you know, as is, I think I'm with the public on that one." (Axl, MTV, 11/08/99)

"My last conversation with [Axl] was when he called me and was trying to explain what he wanted to do. And, basically, it was: I want to change the sound of the band. You know, I want to go more into a current direction. You know, I want to use, you know, more industrial type things. You know, he was really into bands like Jane's Addiction, Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails. And I just kinda laughed and said: You know, look - I want to play guitar in a loud version of The Rolling Stones, you know?" (Gilby, Spin, 07/99)

"All of a sudden, after the album was finished, [Axl] goes: "Remember those tapes I have. You know, I want to..." He didn't know we'd finished the record. And he goes: "This song, this song, this song, this song and this song." And I went: "Dude, we finished it already. It's gone". And he goes: "You couldn't have done an album in two weeks." I said: "Oh yeah. I can". You can do that. And it turned into a big fight." (Slash, Canadian Radio, 04/20/95)

"G: Was it true about Axl wanting to sue you over use of songs?
S: Yeah. At one point he didn't like the songs, and all of a sudden he wanted them and the [snakepit] record was already done. That set me off. What the f.ck is that? It turned into a bit of a fight." (Slash, Metal Edge, 10/95)

Paul Huge seems to be a big point of contention as well, I recommend checking it out: http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=3382

[Apollo]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Except Aerosmith has released over 30 albums in their career.

And I believe they released "original" new songs on two of the greatest hits/compilation albums they've released in the last 10 years.

And since GnR released Illusions...........Aerosmith has released 16 different albums.

So the comparison isn't really that valid.

In terms of personal preference? I'll take one Axl album over 10 Aerosmith albums any day of the week.

But if you are an Aerosmith fan, you have to be pretty happy that they release music on a pretty regular basis. A complete foreign concept to Axl and Beta.

[themadcaplaughs]

Fair enough. And I do not, in anyway, ignore the fact that Aerosmith was putting out music for years while GN'R was lying dormant. That being said, the last Aerosmith album I enjoyed in any capacity was probably Nine Lives. The last one I loved was Get a Grip.

I guess in my eyes, even with Chinese Democracy not being a product of a "classic" lineup, the music by GN'R is less "diluted" so to speak.

[dalsh327]

Slash said "some ideas" - when Weiland said he heard a "Bad Company sounding" demo, it must have been from the same tape Axl and Duff heard, minus the songs that wound up on "It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere".

[dalsh327]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Steven Tyler isn't up their with a bunch of Joe Shmoes under the Aerosmith banner, he's up there with the guys who put the band on the map and earned the right to be playing the classic shit.

There was the Crespo/Dufay era and the Joe Perry Project...

Yeah and how long did that last?

Original guys are back together and have been for three decades now, or close to it.

When Slash left, a lot of people figured it was going to be like Aerosmith and the Stones - a few years break and they'd get around to working it out, they were going to sit out the whole grunge thing (which they helped bring in) and get back to business.

[Babooshka]

It seems to me that people who weren't around at the time have little perspective on just how out to lunch Axl was getting. Of course I'm not saying that Slash didn't contribute to the problems, but Axl lost his marbles, well on his way to Yoda and past lives and exorcisms and all that shit, and that was THE problem. And just like today you couldn't get him to go near a studio with any sort of consistency, so the music side was fucked regardless of what material they might have chosen.

Yeah but it's not like it's one or the other, sure all the Yoda/exorcism shenanigans would have delayed a new album, but I reckon if they were on the same page musically they could have had a new album by '97 or '98. Slash is the one who has pushed musical differences as the key reason for the split, Axl seems to focus more on personal differences, none of the factors are mutually exclusive.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't seem to remember Slash ever pushing musical differences as the key reason for the split or that he expected Snakepit to be the next GnR album?.....I have 80-90 different magazine interviews, which I posted access to here at one point, from that era and can't remember Slash ever saying what you claim..........But then again I have not read them in a couple for years so maybe Slash did say the things you claim in some interview I have forgotten..........

Slash has given numerous reasons for why he left, and I think all of them were real and cumulatively made him leave. He has also on many occasions claimed that he primarily left because of musical differences with Axl:

Slash: I quit the group because of musical differences. I wanted to continue doing the hard rock thing, and he wanted to do techno-rock or something [Slash’s Heroes & Villains, NME, October 2000].

Slash: I just wish the fucker would get the fuckin’ record out so I could see why he took something so cool and systematically, destroyed it. I want to hear where he was headed, and what he was trying to communicate that none of us in the band could relate to [Modern life is rubbish, Kerrang! 10th of June, 2000].

Slash: I think the split-up between [us] was a little more bitter [than with other GNR members]. But it wasn't so much personal as it was a disassociation from what I thought he was doing and consequently what it was that I wanted to do. So we just parted ways and I haven't talked to him since [boston Globe, April 2000]

As for Slash bashing Axl, there are many quotes from him describing Axl in less than flattering words, to bashing Axl's music (Slash wasn't really fond of Axl's piano-driven ballads) and friends (Paul Huge). He also attacked Axl through lawsuits. I do not for one second feel that Axl's vehemence is in proportion to what Slash has said, but I can honestly understand where some of Axl's animosity comes from (because regardless of what Axl thought about Slash he kept it to himself til Slash had left the band, whereas Slash started to spew bitterness in the media way before that point). Anyway, Slash should know Axl enough to understand that when his loyalty was flipped due to Slash going public with the criticism, then Axl would turn his back to him.

This isn't true at all. At the time he made public comments deriding the first Snakepit album among other things.

[classicrawker]

Some stuff on musical differences from Chinese Whispers:

"At one point he said he was gonna a solo project, then he decided his solo-project he could do with Guns, which I was like, after doing all those videos and this and that and the other, I was like: "No". [laughs] No, I don't wanna get involved in any kind of Stephanie Seymour ballads or any of that shit." (Slash, Canadian Radio, 04/20/95)

"On the first Snakepit-record I used some ideas which were really planned for the next GN'R-record, but Axl and I disagreed on the future direction of the band. I played Axl a demo with some of my ideas for songs, and all he said was: "I don't feel like playing this kind of music." I answered: "But this could be a excellent Gunner-record, hundred percent in GN'R style." He didn't really care 'cause he only wanted to play industrial and Pearl Jam-sounding crap." (Slash, 'Rock Hard' Magazine, 03/00)

"The Snakepit album could have been the new GNR album, but Axl didn't think it was good enough." (Matt, 1996)

"Kerrang!: How's the next GN'R album progressing?

Gilby: "There is no 'next GN'R album'!"

K!: EVER?!

G: "I don't know about ever. For now. We started working on one, and it got canned."

K!: How come?

G: Well, it's an Axl thing. He just wasn't into what we were doing, so he's kind of rethinking what he wants to do. He just kind of threw a wrench into everything that me, Slash and Matt had worked to. And then Duff came in. Duff and Axl have an idea what the album should be, and the rest of us have another idea." (Gilby, Kerrang, 05/24/94)

"What people don't know is, the [slash's] Snakepit album, that is the Guns N' Roses album. I just wouldn't do it. [...] Duff walked out on it, and I walked out on it, because I wasn't allowed to be any part of it. It's like, 'No, you do this, that's how it is.'" (Axl, MTV, 11/08/99)

"One of the points of contention between Slash and Axl was a batch of songs Slash brought to the table. Axl thought it was Southern rock - not Guns N’ Roses material. I backed Axl." (Duff, Autobiography)

"I didn’t walk till several months after having 3-4-hour phone conversations nearly every day with Slash, trying to reach a compromise. I was specifically told no lyrics, no melodies, no changes to anything and to sing what I was told or fuck off." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

"And I didn't believe in it. I thought that there were riffs and parts and some ideas, I thought, that needed to be developed. I had no problem working on it, or working with it, but you know, as is, I think I'm with the public on that one." (Axl, MTV, 11/08/99)

"My last conversation with [Axl] was when he called me and was trying to explain what he wanted to do. And, basically, it was: I want to change the sound of the band. You know, I want to go more into a current direction. You know, I want to use, you know, more industrial type things. You know, he was really into bands like Jane's Addiction, Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails. And I just kinda laughed and said: You know, look - I want to play guitar in a loud version of The Rolling Stones, you know?" (Gilby, Spin, 07/99)

"All of a sudden, after the album was finished, [Axl] goes: "Remember those tapes I have. You know, I want to..." He didn't know we'd finished the record. And he goes: "This song, this song, this song, this song and this song." And I went: "Dude, we finished it already. It's gone". And he goes: "You couldn't have done an album in two weeks." I said: "Oh yeah. I can". You can do that. And it turned into a big fight." (Slash, Canadian Radio, 04/20/95)

"G: Was it true about Axl wanting to sue you over use of songs?

S: Yeah. At one point he didn't like the songs, and all of a sudden he wanted them and the [snakepit] record was already done. That set me off. What the f.ck is that? It turned into a bit of a fight." (Slash, Metal Edge, 10/95)

Paul Huge seems to be a big point of contention as well, I recommend checking it out: http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=3382

Slash never claims it was the new Guns album only that he had a batch of songs he proposed for the next Guns album which Axl rejected so he took them solo..when Axl changed his mind it was too late as he already committed to Snakepit....a little different then what you are impying IMHO.

Reasons for leaving Guns page 454 of his auto Biog...and I paraphrase

1. Axl constantly going on late...which by the way was a reason Izzy also gave for quitting the band

2. Axl grabbing for the name of the band and wanting them all to sign contracts making them employees...again Izzy and Duff gave similar reasons for leaving

3. Losing Izzy and Steven as he felt it was no longer Guns without them.....................a little weak as he could have quit after Izzy left

He goes on to say the following..a direct quote:

"My departure had nothing to do with artistic differences as many people claim to know"

Paraphrasing again: he goes on to say if Axl had been willing to treat them all as equals and they worked together on new music he was willing to try new sounds and he would have hung in there if Axl wanted to make and industrial record but when it stopped begin an equal collaboration and Axl became a dictator he did not feel it was a team effort anymore.........

Just reporting what he said in his autobiog as I do believe he did not want to do industrial music but he may have given it a try if Axl had not taken over the band..........IMHO of course...........

Edited July 9, 2014 by classicrawker

[Zint]

Yes, Aerosmith had a touch more relevancy in the 1990s and early 2000s from making their sound more "modern rock," but are current Aerosmith and current Guns N' Roses really that different? I suppose you could say Aerosmith has all the original members, but it's not like the two bands are doing different things.

Aerosmith tours around the world and mainly plays arenas in the United States. Their set lists are 90% older material, and both bands have only put out one album of original material in the last ten years. I will actually say Chinese Democracy was a much better album (a whole league really) than the last album Aerosmith put out, which was absolutely terrible.

Steven Tyler isn't up their with a bunch of Joe Shmoes under the Aerosmith banner, he's up there with the guys who put the band on the map and earned the right to be playing the classic shit.

There was the Crespo/Dufay era and the Joe Perry Project...

Yeah and how long did that last?

Original guys are back together and have been for three decades now, or close to it.

When Slash left, a lot of people figured it was going to be like Aerosmith and the Stones - a few years break and they'd get around to working it out, they were going to sit out the whole grunge thing (which they helped bring in) and get back to business.

Yeah, well......

[Amir]

Both Axl and Slash have said it wasn't due to musical differences, but I really can't see how that wasn't a factor. Slash wanted a GNR album at the very least in the vein of It's Five O' Clock Somewhere, and Axl and Duff wanted something more progressive, with Axl specifically trying to draw inspiration from Pearl Jam and NIN (My World seems to have been Axl trying to go Trent, and Dead Horse an attempt at a lo-fi grungey Nirvana sound, though both weren't entirely successful in their attempts in my opinion).

Yes, undeniably the egos of both Axl and Slash meant they both wanted greater control of the band, but I can see that being less of an issue if they were on the same page musically. What's interesting to me is this comment from Axl:

Axl from 2002: "Had Slash stepped up and written what we captured glimpses of, it would have created an environment that was beyond Slash’s ability to control. He did not want to do that or put himself through the rigours of taking the band to that level even if he was capable of writing it. Was he capable of doing it? Absolutely 100%. I think that some of the riffs that were coming out of him were the meanest, most contemporary, bluesiest, rocking thing since Aerosmith’s Rocks. The 2000 version of Aerosmith Rocks or the 1996 Aerosmith Rocks by the time we would have put it out. "

So yeah, maybe it wasn't due to musical differences all the time, but I think around the time of the first Snakepit album Slash probably thought he could meet with greater success than he did because of the UYI tour and tried to push for the next GNR album to be a southern rock/blues-rock deal. I can't blame him for wanting to go solo with all the late starts and spats during the UYI tour, and I do agree that the loss of Steven and later Izzy was huge for GNR. AFD was a group effort, the songs that weren't leftovers from those sessions on the UYI albums seem to have a singular voice (November Rain and Estranged from Axl, 14 Years and Dust N' Bones from Izzy), though I still think some of them are brilliant.

[IncitingChaos]

Some great points and great quotes in this thread. Always makes me change up my opinion.

My personal opinion on why Axl hates Slash and doesn't hate Izzy is because Axl saw Slash as more of an asset than izzy. He felt Slash had more talent and as long as it was Axl and Slash then Guns N Roses could exist. But when Slash left it ruined all of the great extravagant plans Axl had for the band. I think it disgusted and hurt him that Slash was passing up this opportunity to be the greatest rock band ever. When he left Axl tried to find a way to rebuild Guns N Roses in spite of Slash leaving. I think part of him knew it wouldn't work.

The thing that confuses me is we really don't get an angry feud until 2001. Every thing between 97-00 seemed to be less heated (as far as the interviews go) Even talk of Slash playing on Chinese Democracy. So the break up seemed to get bad with the lawyers and law suits that occurred after Axl reformed GNR.