Billy Corgan on Axl Rose: "When I look at Axl Rose, I see a free person"

[EvanG]

29 minutes ago, themadcaplaughs said:

I doubt D'arcy would be as big of liability to herself and others as Stven Adler would be if he toured with Guns N' Roses full time, but she would definitely have a lot of work to do getting to the place where she could keep up with Corgan. His relentless touring, recording, and rehearsing schedule led to her leaving the band in 1999, and by all accounts, Billy only pushes his band mates even harder than he used to. 

I think she left because she started doing drugs and they didn't want to go through that again. I think Billy is less of a hardass these days.

[RONIN]

Does anyone actually agree with Corgan that Axl breaking up the band and disappearing at the height of his fame for half a decade helped make GnR a durable brand? Billy seems to think that was a good career move.

Like if they had been out there as Metallica was, releasing albums for the last 20 years - their brand may not be as strong as it is today. Their appeal might be the "what If? scenario" - that they broke up too soon and have a tiny catalogue but could have been one of the greatest of all time had they kept it going.

In essence, the trainwreck aspect and missed potential is a large part of the allure that helps them play stadiums now.

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by RONIN

[The Glow Inc.]

Was he "being free" or was he just avoiding any responsibility ? The line frankly is not that blurry ...

[EvanG]

4 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Does anyone actually agree with Corgan that Axl breaking up the band and disappearing at the height of his fame for half a decade helped make GnR a durable brand? Billy seems to think that was a good career move.

Like if they had been out there as Metallica was, releasing albums for the last 20 years - their brand wouldn't be as strong as it is today.

 

No, because it's not like too many people gave a shit during the nu-GnR days. Of course there's a buzz now because something is happening that no one was expecting, but that goes for most reunions that are unexpected.

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

30 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Does anyone actually agree with Corgan that Axl breaking up the band and disappearing at the height of his fame for half a decade helped make GnR a durable brand? Billy seems to think that was a good career move.

Like if they had been out there as Metallica was, releasing albums for the last 20 years - their brand may not be as strong as it is today. Their appeal might be the "what If? scenario" - that they broke up too soon and have a tiny catalogue but could have been one of the greatest of all time had they kept it going.

In essence, the trainwreck aspect and missed potential is a large part of the allure that helps them play stadiums now.

 

Finally!  Someone notices that part of the interview, thanks @RONIN.  It's really intriguing that he said that.  First of all, what is a durable brand?  What does he mean by that?  I'm not sure GNR have proven that yet.

He also mentions something along the lines that it doesn't matter that GNR only released a few albums, they have proven themselves durable.  Is he saying that quality, not output corresponds with durability?   Again, we come back to what exactly does he mean by durability.  

I think Billy's statement about Axl Rose being a 'free person' is also intriguing and worthy of discussion.  I must say, I don't know what he means by it (which is why I wondered about it a page back).  

Edited November 14, 2017 by MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

23 minutes ago, The Glow Inc. said:

Was he "being free" or was he just avoiding any responsibility ? The line frankly is not that blurry ...

Good question!  Not sure Axl himself would agree he was 'free' during the CD making era.  If anything, I get the opposite impression.  But I actually thought Billy was referring to 2017 Axl as being free? 

[Free Bird]

9 hours ago, EvanG said:

Nah, Corgan has been a real douche in the past, he seems to be more reasonable lately, though. But as a musician I've always liked him... musically a lot more interesting and 'intelligent' than most of his peers from the 90s.

Never liked that music

[J Dog]

Not surprised Corgan feels the way he does. He's always had some Axl type qualities. I always liked the Pumpkins, good band.

One time I heard a chick call them The Pumpkin Smashers and she was dead serious 

[soon]

I saw them play one of the very last gigs in the original run (with Melissa on bass by then) and it was so raw and inspired.  He said they broke up because the world wanted the Brittanys and he couldnt compete.  Whether thats true or not I do feel like the authenticity they were bringing wasnt valued at the time and I could see it took a lot out of them.  Maybe culture didnt deserve good rock anymore.

Not sure what exactly he means about Axl, but I had the nagging suspicion that he really wanted the interviewer to say: "you're like that too!"

[EvanG]

42 minutes ago, soon said:

I saw them play one of the very last gigs in the original run (with Melissa on bass by then) and it was so raw and inspired.  He said they broke up because the world wanted the Brittanys and he couldnt compete.  

Maybe that was part of it, but they also quit because James wanted to, and Billy didn't want to continue without him... but few years later he changed his mind again and continued under the Pumpkins name without him.

[Blackstar]

23 hours ago, RONIN said:

Does anyone actually agree with Corgan that Axl breaking up the band and disappearing at the height of his fame for half a decade helped make GnR a durable brand? Billy seems to think that was a good career move.

Like if they had been out there as Metallica was, releasing albums for the last 20 years - their brand may not be as strong as it is today. Their appeal might be the "what If? scenario" - that they broke up too soon and have a tiny catalogue but could have been one of the greatest of all time had they kept it going.

In essence, the trainwreck aspect and missed potential is a large part of the allure that helps them play stadiums now.

I like Billy Corgan for more or less the same reasons I like Axl: they're both interesting musically and as characters (Axl has the interesting character aspect in larger amounts). But of course  I don't like/agree with everything they -Axl mostly- have done or said. 

I don't agree with what Billy says here. First of all, I don't think that was a quite conscious career move on Axl's part; keeping the name was his choice, but he didn't intend to break the band or disappear without releasing anything for years.

The "what if's" are mainly two: 1) What if the band hadn't broken up or had reunited shortly, after, say, 2 years. I can't say if they would have stayed big and relevant/held their position like other bands have; maybe they would, maybe they'd have faded. 2) What if Axl, after everybody else left, had continued as a solo artist or had formed a band under another name. I think that would have been better for the "brand" and for everybody (himself included).

23 hours ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Good question!  Not sure Axl himself would agree he was 'free' during the CD making era.  If anything, I get the opposite impression.  But I actually thought Billy was referring to 2017 Axl as being free? 

I think Billy simply meant that Axl didn't give a fuck about what the industry, the fans etc wanted from him (reunite the band, release music, "behave" etc) and did what he wanted the time he wanted it. I agree he wasn't as "free" as Billy Corgan thinks.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Blackstar

[AXL_N_DIZZY]

Axl/Billy always seemed like very natural allies to me. Both revere Queen- and the album Queen II in particular I believe. The flourishes, orchestration and overall Sturm und Drang of “Disarm” and “Tonight, Tonight” (including the video) for example always reminded me much more of what Axl was doing with the Illusion epics than anything in the alt/grunge world. Then of course how the line-up issues shook out, etc.

Anyway- good to see the respect there- and agreed- pairing up for a tour would be a good way to keep the NITL train rolling- if that is an objective...

Edited November 16, 2017 by AXL_N_DIZZY

[RONIN]

On 11/14/2017 at 9:47 AM, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Finally!  Someone notices that part of the interview, thanks @RONIN.  It's really intriguing that he said that.  First of all, what is a durable brand?  What does he mean by that?  I'm not sure GNR have proven that yet.

He also mentions something along the lines that it doesn't matter that GNR only released a few albums, they have proven themselves durable.  Is he saying that quality, not output corresponds with durability?   Again, we come back to what exactly does he mean by durability.  

I think Billy's statement about Axl Rose being a 'free person' is also intriguing and worthy of discussion.  I must say, I don't know what he means by it (which is why I wondered about it a page back).  

By "durability", I guess he means that they've managed to retain a lot of their commercial viability 25 years after their prime. A lot of people are shocked they sold out stadiums last year. Many of the GnR haters were predicting they'd struggle to fill arenas because they were an outdated "hair band". A lot of critics have been silenced in the past year. Once they do the European leg next year and get the #2 ranking tour of all time under U2, it will just be the final feather in their cap. I just read a snarky article from Esquire about Dave Grohl playing with GnR - the same writer who wrote that article drubbed GnR's Coachella performance. This is GnR's "durability" in action - where people who wrote them off as a cheesy, flash in the pan, hair band are in shock not only over their commercial success, but also over how much critical/peer respect they're garnering - particularly from the critically beloved almighty grunge band stalwarts like Grohl and co.

Getting back to Corgan, he's saying that Axl stayed true to the GnR brand and his artistic integrity with Chinese Democracy rather than compromise his vision and put out a diluted product with the original band. He's saying it doesn't matter if Chinese Democracy or Spaghetti Incident weren't well received, what matters is the total package, the oeuvre of GnR which paint a more complete picture. Cherry picking favorite albums doesn't tell the whole story or give the most accurate picture of the band - that seems to be the basis of Corgan's argument. 

That ofcourse isn't entirely accurate because Chinese Democracy has evolved quite a bit from what it was initially intended as. There is no question that post-2001, Axl felt the pressure of commercial sensibilities weighing heavily on how the album should sound like. Maybe if we had the original Sean Beavan album in 2000, I could agree with Billy. But I don't even think Chinese Democracy was envisioned as what it turned out to be.

Edited November 16, 2017 by RONIN

[RONIN]

16 hours ago, Blackstar said:

The "what if's" are mainly two: 1) What if the band hadn't broken up or had reunited shortly, after, say, 2 years. I can't say if they would have stayed big and relevant/held their position like other bands have; maybe they would, maybe they'd have faded.

I think had they continued to put product out there, they would have leveled off and established themselves like Metallica. Their exit basically left the playing field wide open for Metallica. Would they have been a cultural phenomenon like during the Illusions days? Perhaps not, but that kind of fame is rarely sustainable unless they were able to release a relevant album and given Slash and Izzy's predilection for mining the same musical territory - I can't see that happening. And if they had gone more experimental as Axl wanted, I think they would have had an even better chance of staying on top. They really blew it imho - no matter who ultimately controlled the band (Axl or Slash) - had they just kept things going, GnR would have the stature of U2 and Metallica. It's a shame really.

That being said, and going back to what Corgan seems to be hinting at, perhaps the story of GnR as a band that burned brightly and flamed out in their prime, a Sex Pistols-ish band w/ Led Zeppelin aspirations - cut short at their peak - well that story is really compelling. Perhaps even more compelling than the longevity of other bands. Everyone loves a trainwreck. Look at the enduring appeal of Nirvana compared to the biggest grunge band of that era, Pearl Jam.

Quote

2) What if Axl, after everybody else left, had continued as a solo artist or had formed a band under another name. I think that would have been better for the "brand" and for everybody (himself included).

That would have been the best possible solution. No matter how you feel about Nu Guns or Chinese Democracy, I think any neutral and objective person would have to see the last 20 years as a hugely damaging time period for the GnR brand. There's a Matt Sorum interview from 2001 where he describes the persona Axl has cultivated for himself with his silence and disappearing act as one of legendary mystique. That's a very savvy PR move for a guy who was the laughing stock of the industry at the height of his fame in '93/94. He flipped that around into a reverential awe from his peers and the industry at large. What he did next however, messed everything up. The smartest move would have been to simply go solo at that point in the late 90's/early 00's - or not lose your nerve and drop a trilogy of albums w/ Buckethead as the lead guitarist. Everything that happened from 2002 onwards was a blackmark on the brand and it nullifies whatever credibility he may have regained in the late 90's because the totality of the GnR breakup looks like a PR and artistic catastrophe.  

Quote

 

I think Billy simply meant that Axl didn't give a fuck about what the industry, the fans etc wanted from him (reunite the band, release music, "behave" etc) and did what he wanted the time he wanted it. I agree he wasn't as "free" as Billy Corgan thinks.

Agreed. Axl's "punk" attitude was all well and good up till that disastrous 2002 tour which jettisoned his reputation into the ether. From there he just became a joke to most casual fans - and the Nu Guns era was capped off with the legendary FAT AXL. The 2010-2014 years really were the proverbial bullet to the head that just destroyed whatever cache and good will Axl/GnR's reputation had. 2001 in my mind was the make or break moment for Axl. That's why I think Corgan was wrong. I don't think Axl was able to do what he wanted. If we're talking about Axl basically disappearing after '94 and the reunion happening in 2016 with no activity in between or Axl dropping a trilogy of albums in the early 2000's and not becoming a sad Vegas act by the end - then yes, I could agree with Billy. But given how that entire era turned out - if anything, Axl basically sold out his integrity which is the opposite of what Billy's essentially saying. 90's Axl never wanted to play AFD for the next 20 years and do cock rock with AC/DC. That's what Slash wanted to do. That's the whole reason that band broke up. And yet - that's what Axl ended up doing.  

I think Corgan is saying this kind of stuff about Axl to rehab his own PR and draw a direct line between the GnR story and his band's lineup issues. "Hey GnR did it for the art and so did I" basically. And for the record, I think Billy did a much better job of maintaining the Smashing Pumpkins brand than Axl. He never let his band fall to the levels that we saw in 2011 with GnR.

Edited November 16, 2017 by RONIN

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, RONIN said:

I think Billy did a much better job of maintaining the Smashing Pumpkins brand than Axl. He never let his band fall to the levels that we saw in 2011 with GnR.

Definitely, he released 4 albums under the Smashing Pumpkins name since he started using that name again in 2005.