Article About Izzy/Guns on the Wall Street Journal

[beautifulanddamned]

Audiences need to be undiscerning to a certain extent. How many bands have all their original (or classic) members?  I guess you could go see Aerosmith and Poison and U2 on a loop.  I'd rather pay to see 3/5 of GNR than 4/4 members of U2.   

[WhazUp]

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That Guns N' Roses lack certain key ''Guns N' Roses'' personnel I am sure poses no barriers to their purchasing of tickets. Crowds seem less discerning now - if I am going to be unkind ''dumber''. The ''having a good time'' is analogous to a sugar rush instigated by an American food product. These are not the people who see music in loftier terms but seem happy to be spoon fed slabs of regurgitated nostalgia at exorbitant prices. In actual fact the carnal presence of certified knowables (e.g. ''Axl and Slash'') is not always required hence the proliferation of hologram/tribute acts! But then what you are seeing is neither music to bring governments down nor an exclusive gateway into that band's current state of creativity. These are thirty year songs! 

Guns N' Roses have the audiences they deserve really.

You see this in films as well with Disney's franchises, the same formula recycled. Sporting events also! You see sporting events flooded these days with dimly aware inebriates. You also see sporting administrators pandering to these inebriates. 

So people go see GNR nowadays without Izzy and Steven because they are dumb?

I guess audiences have been dumb idiots since the Illusions era where Izzy and Steven weren't in the band that point either? 

GNR does have the audience they deserve, stadiums filled with people who dig the music

Edited May 31, 2018 by WhazUp

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, WhazUp said:

So people go see GNR nowadays without Izzy and Steven because they are dumb?

I guess audiences have been dumb idiots since the Illusions era where Izzy and Steven weren't in the band that point either? 

No. You didn't read what I said. 

[WhazUp]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

No. You didn't read what I said. 

I read what you said about audiences being less discerning and all that.  I just disagree

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, WhazUp said:

I read what you said about audiences being less discerning and all that.  I just disagree

Would you say current audiences care about new albums like audiences yesteryear did? Of course they don't. All they want is to drink beer whilst watching regurgitated nostalgia.

[soon]

I think every party is dumber, across the board.  And culture suffers as a result.

I think the bands are dumber. Like Zeppelin shut it down after Bonzos passing because it wouldnt be the real thing.

The near monopoly of ticket agencies and concert promoters in NA dumbs things down from the days of regional promoters who just loved rock n roll.

The labels are dumber: they missed the whole digital revolution! They used to be able to sell disco LP's to people, who just bought them to burn them. Now they go toe-to-toe with Taylor swift over the pennies on the table.

Rock journalism has... well cautiously I say... has largely turned its back on socio-political analysis, which was the norm in Rocks heyday. 

 

[Draguns]

In regards to ticket prices, the GNR tickets are in line with other music artist. Before spouting off, please research ticket prices for Metallica, Bon Jovi, Foo Fighters, Def Lepard/Journey, etc. You can see how high they are. Unfortunately, it's the fault of TicketMaster, promoters, and the fact that people just don't by  albums anymore.

In regards to Izzy, I would love for Izzy to be there. However, the fact is that with legal obligations Izzy took off during the UYI tour.  I saw Gilby  Clark's second show at MSG.  If I was Axl, Slash, and Duff, I would definitely  question his commitment even if he had valid reasons back in the day.  Izzy has a history as a free spirited person, which can be good and bad like anything else. 

[Blackstar]

To an extent, crowds have been like that since rock became music to be performed in arenas and stadiums, i.e. since the 70s. People bought albums then, but still, from the thousands of people attending a stadium concert, only a minority was familiar with the artist's catalogue or cared about a band's  lineup apart from the "iconic" members.

Nostalgia has also been a thing since the 80s at least. The Roger Water-less Pink Floyd, for example, packed stadiums in the 80s with people who mostly were there to hear Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall, not the new songs. In the 90s, old bands started to reunite, many greatest hits albums were released, remasters, etc.. The difference is that the music industry was still alive; teenagers bought albums and older people bought albums.

Also, there was a sort of "democracy" in regards to ticket prices. No "VIP" and "special" packages. In a book I read recently, the author described how the promoters' strategy had changed by the mid-00s: in the previous decades, the goal was the quantity (ie. to sell as many tickets as possible); then the goal became to sell the expensive tickets.

 

 

[Sydney Fan]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

That Guns N' Roses lack certain key ''Guns N' Roses'' personnel I am sure poses no barriers to their purchasing of tickets. Crowds seem less discerning now - if I am going to be unkind ''dumber''. The ''having a good time'' is analogous to a sugar rush instigated by an American food product. These are not the people who see music in loftier terms but seem happy to be spoon fed slabs of regurgitated nostalgia at exorbitant prices. In actual fact the carnal presence of certified knowables (e.g. ''Axl and Slash'') is not always required hence the proliferation of hologram/tribute acts! But then what you are seeing is neither music to bring governments down nor an exclusive gateway into that band's current state of creativity. These are thirty year songs! 

Guns N' Roses have the audiences they deserve really.

You see this in films as well with Disney's franchises, the same formula recycled. Sporting events also! You see sporting events flooded these days with dimly aware inebriates. You also see sporting administrators pandering to these inebriates. 

In terms of holograms if brian may could work out how to do hologram of freddie we would have a queen reunion in an instant.

[soon]

9 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

To an extent, crowds have been like that since rock became music to be performed in arenas and stadiums, i.e. since the 70s. People bought albums then, but still, from the thousands of people attending a stadium concert, only a minority was familiar with the artist's catalogue or cared about a band's  lineup apart from the "iconic" members.

Nostalgia has also been a thing since the 80s at least. The Roger Water-less Pink Floyd, for example, packed stadiums in the 80s with people who mostly were there to hear Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall, not the new songs. In the 90s, old bands started to reunite, many greatest hits albums were released, remasters, etc.. The difference is that the music industry was still alive; teenagers bought albums and older people bought albums.

Also, there was a sort of "democracy" in regards to ticket prices. No "VIP" and "special" packages. In a book I read recently, the author described how the promoters' strategy had changed by the mid-00s: in the previous decades, the goal was the quantity (ie. to sell as many tickets as possible); then the goal became to sell the expensive tickets.

 

 

Well said.

To reference Pink Floyd and their albums Dark Side and The Wall is especially apt for another reason. Floyd's Roger Waters, following the massive success of Dark Side in 1973, became increasingly off-put by the fact that audiences came to shows to party - not for valuing the artistic expression. In 1977 he became so enraged towards his own concert attendees that he spit on a fan who was 'raving and drooling' setting off fire works and such during a stadium concert. He wrote The Wall in response to his own actions. 

[DieselDaisy]

15 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

To an extent, crowds have been like that since rock became music to be performed in arenas and stadiums, i.e. since the 70s. People bought albums then, but still, from the thousands of people attending a stadium concert, only a minority was familiar with the artist's catalogue or cared about a band's  lineup apart from the "iconic" members.

Nostalgia has also been a thing since the 80s at least. The Roger Water-less Pink Floyd, for example, packed stadiums in the 80s with people who mostly were there to hear Dark Side Of The Moon and The Wall, not the new songs. In the 90s, old bands started to reunite, many greatest hits albums were released, remasters, etc.. The difference is that the music industry was still alive; teenagers bought albums and older people bought albums.

Also, there was a sort of "democracy" in regards to ticket prices. No "VIP" and "special" packages. In a book I read recently, the author described how the promoters' strategy had changed by the mid-00s: in the previous decades, the goal was the quantity (ie. to sell as many tickets as possible); then the goal became to sell the expensive tickets.

 

 

I do not really go to rock shows now - for much of the reasons outlined above, that and me being too lazy - but sporting events are now packed to the rafters with corporates, most of them drunk, practically all of them disinterested. I suspect it is the same for music? These Golden Circles seem symptomatic. Remember when Nugnr used to hand out free tickets to modeling agencies? I bet some of these casuals at GN'R shows are so drunk/inebriated they believe they are seeing Bon Jovi! 

There was a term which emerged in the '90s pertaining to these type of fans in English football: ''the prawn sandwich brigade''. 

[MaskingApathy]

4 hours ago, Tori72 said:

The D+N section of MyGnr: When rock’n roll, music and art is being discussed as brand business, corporate mangement and compared to BMW. 

Well it is a brand and a business. Any band that wants to make any money and retain it has to operate that way.

[Modano09]

1 hour ago, MaskingApathy said:

Well it is a brand and a business. Any band that wants to make any money and retain it has to operate that way.

They shouldn't care about money! They should play the shows for no more than what it would cost them to meet Izzy's demands.

[moreblack]

8 hours ago, Modano09 said:

They're not playing Coma because it's a mainstream hit.

Exactly.

[RONIN]

2 hours ago, Modano09 said:

They shouldn't care about money! They should play the shows for no more than what it would cost them to meet Izzy's demands.

They should care only about money! They should play the shows for disgusting sums of money and blow the cash on a private jet, Axl's entourage, Del James' retirement fund and Duff's yachts.  

[dalsh327]

7 hours ago, Blackstar said:

This is a fuzzy part, because it's not quite clear what the "trial period" was exactly. Slash said in his book that, following the negotiations between the three parties's lawyers, he signed a mid-term contract according to which if he and Axl managed to work things out and make an album in X period of time, the new agreement (whatever its terms were) would be considered effective; if not, it would be considered "null and void". Duff hasn't mentioned anything about all that, whether there was a similar arrangement for him, if he signed anything etc.

---------

Another question that arises is if, supposing that Axl never formed a new partnership, Slash and Duff have been entitled to royalties from CD. Because, as far-fetched as it sounds, they might have been as partners. There was a clause in the 1992 agreement about "solo partners", but I don't know if CD fell into that since it was released under the GnR name.

So why did Axl need Slash and Duff to fight Geffen Records on the Greatest Hits? Axl got the rights to the GNR name so Slash and Duff couldn't form GNR with another singer or deal with a "Courtney Love" or "Yoko",  but when it comes to using the songs in movies and TV shows, it's a co-ownership - remember they sued each other having to do with Black Hawk Down? He "protected" the name but it came at a cost. 

As far as new music, it took Van Halen 5 years after they reformed to put "A Different Kind of Truth" out and they used a lot of old demos to put it together, the way I see it, we still have a few years to go until something's out, whether it's a single, double, or triple album - we'll see. They're not really beholden to CD length anymore. 

The box set was also about remastering for iTunes and Amazon. That's how people buy their music. The box set's for hardcores.  Whether or not they bother with UYI and TSI? - we'll see, but there's a lot of outtakes, alternate versions, and pro-shot and recorded concerts to mine from, plus the unreleased documentary. 

I don't think Axl's in his "reinventing the wheel" mindset anymore and the days of keeping multiple studios open are over. It's even possible GNR will have their album out before Tool. Maynard's even joked about calling the new Tool album "Chinese Democracy 2". 

[Modano09]

8 hours ago, RONIN said:

They should care only about money! They should play the shows for disgusting sums of money and blow the cash on a private jet, Axl's entourage, Del James' retirement fund and Duff's yachts.  

Why not? It's their money. It's not like they robbed a bank, they earned it.

[RONIN]

2 hours ago, Modano09 said:

Why not? It's their money. It's not like they robbed a bank, they earned it.

True, they earned it...at the expense of others that should have been there. 

I get where you're coming from btw. I've always enjoyed your posts. But there's a nuanced middle ground to take here instead of mocking people that are calling out Axl and co. for being greedy (a valid perspective imho given their behavior since reuniting).

On the flip side, from a purely business perspective, it makes perfect sense to exclude Izzy and Steven. I get why they went that route. I just don't think the decision they took reflects all that well on them as people or as a brand. IMHO, it just cheapens GnR a bit. You can be purely driven by commerce and still do what is best for the brand - putting the fans as your #1 priority. Marvel does this for example. Apple does this. There are successful brands that make a lot of money and still make their consumers the #1 priority. There are also other brands that compromise their integrity - driven by immediate returns than the longer play. GnR seems to be heading in that direction (imho). Maybe the opportunity cost of losing Izzy isn't a big deal for them. If they plan to stay as a legacy act, perhaps they made the right decision.

[Bitchisback]

6 hours ago, RONIN said:

True, they earned it...at the expense of others that should have been there. 

I get where you're coming from btw. I've always enjoyed your posts. But there's a nuanced middle ground to take here instead of mocking people that are calling out Axl and co. for being greedy (a valid perspective imho given their behavior since reuniting).

On the flip side, from a purely business perspective, it makes perfect sense to exclude Izzy and Steven. I get why they went that route. I just don't think the decision they took reflects all that well on them as people or as a brand. IMHO, it just cheapens GnR a bit. You can be purely driven by commerce and still do what is best for the brand - putting the fans as your #1 priority. Marvel does this for example. Apple does this. There are successful brands that make a lot of money and still make their consumers the #1 priority. There are also other brands that compromise their integrity - driven by immediate returns than the longer play. GnR seems to be heading in that direction (imho). Maybe the opportunity cost of losing Izzy isn't a big deal for them. If they plan to stay as a legacy act, perhaps they made the right decision.

You assume so much here. 

 

Bottom line is Steven was going yo be included and he hurt his back and proved to be unreliable and then kept mouthing off in the media. 

 

We have no idea what went on with izzy.   For all we know him and the other guys couldn't agree on the length of tour etc.   We don't know.   Stop acting like you do.   You weren't there. 

 

Comparing apple and gnr is a really bad and dumb comparison.   Lots of people wish apple would do different things but they stay the course and do what is best for their company business wise each time. 

[shotsfired cro]

On 30. 05. 2018. at 11:56 PM, Kasanova King said:

lol

I agree they're probably on some sort of payroll but zero chance it's as low as 10k a month.  10k a month is basically upper middle class in the U.S.   

At least 10k per show, imo. (Most likely more). 

belive it or not, most bands that earn big money pay hire hands that range.

they have a point, play a guitar/keys/drums for 10k and travel the world while playing stadiums, or someone else will do it for same sum.

Bon Jovi or GNR, Scorpions or whoever - politics doesn't differ much. Why do you think we have Fartus and not Gilby, Frank and no Sorum...needless say Izzy.

In Bon Jovi, all originals, Sambora, Bryan, Tico earn 2 million a month, tour or sitting at home.  Guess what Sambora replacement earns?

[Modano09]

9 hours ago, RONIN said:

True, they earned it...at the expense of others that should have been there. 

I get where you're coming from btw. I've always enjoyed your posts. But there's a nuanced middle ground to take here instead of mocking people that are calling out Axl and co. for being greedy (a valid perspective imho given their behavior since reuniting).

On the flip side, from a purely business perspective, it makes perfect sense to exclude Izzy and Steven. I get why they went that route. I just don't think the decision they took reflects all that well on them as people or as a brand. IMHO, it just cheapens GnR a bit. You can be purely driven by commerce and still do what is best for the brand - putting the fans as your #1 priority. Marvel does this for example. Apple does this. There are successful brands that make a lot of money and still make their consumers the #1 priority. There are also other brands that compromise their integrity - driven by immediate returns than the longer play. GnR seems to be heading in that direction (imho). Maybe the opportunity cost of losing Izzy isn't a big deal for them. If they plan to stay as a legacy act, perhaps they made the right decision.

But what if Izzy was the one who was being unreasonable? There seems to be this feeling that if they're making all this money they should give Izzy all he wants or else they're greedy, but maybe he's the one that's greedy? Axl/Slash/Duff were the ones who remained in the partnership and fought with and against each other managing the band/brand. Izzy didn't want anything to do with that. If he wanted "equal loot" to them, I think he's out of line. 

I don't think it's anyone's fault entirely. I don't think Izzy would agree to tour the world for as long as the other's decided to keep it going, but I can see why he would want equal money for whatever involvement he was up for. I just don't agree with him and I see why the other's wouldn't either. It's not necessarily just greed because at the end of the day they were all set for life a long time ago.

[Gnrcane]

21 hours ago, dalsh327 said:

So why did Axl need Slash and Duff to fight Geffen Records on the Greatest Hits? Axl got the rights to the GNR name so Slash and Duff couldn't form GNR with another singer or deal with a "Courtney Love" or "Yoko",  but when it comes to using the songs in movies and TV shows, it's a co-ownership - remember they sued each other having to do with Black Hawk Down? He "protected" the name but it came at a cost. 

Because Axl got the use of the name "Guns n' Roses" and associated copyrights.  They didn't sign over the rights to the performances.  When a song is sold or played on the radio/streamed, the writers get royalties and the performers get royalties.  The "Guns n' Roses" that performed AFD, Lies, UYI and TSI was the original partnership.  Therefore, Slash and Duff still owned a piece of the recordings.

[double talkin jive mfkr]

2 hours ago, Modano09 said:

But what if Izzy was the one who was being unreasonable? There seems to be this feeling that if they're making all this money they should give Izzy all he wants or else they're greedy, but maybe he's the one that's greedy? Axl/Slash/Duff were the ones who remained in the partnership and fought with and against each other managing the band/brand. Izzy didn't want anything to do with that. If he wanted "equal loot" to them, I think he's out of line. 

I don't think it's anyone's fault entirely. I don't think Izzy would agree to tour the world for as long as the other's decided to keep it going, but I can see why he would want equal money for whatever involvement he was up for. I just don't agree with him and I see why the other's wouldn't either. It's not necessarily just greed because at the end of the day they were all set for life a long time ago.

buddy one thing nobody is mentioning is i don't fucking think axl slash and duff are really involved with izzy negotiations Fernando tries to say its them 3 making the decisions - my hunch is TB is responsible for low balling izzy and preventing him from entering more sot than the others and they just follow suit cause their pussified because yes Sluff and Axl are set and so are the others but TB is a big family THEY want to be set 

 

when axl pretends to joke that he's under siege by TB with whips and chains, he's prob not far from truth there

Edited June 2, 2018 by double talkin jive mfkr

[RONIN]

5 hours ago, Bitchisback said:

You assume so much here. 

 

Bottom line is Steven was going yo be included and he hurt his back and proved to be unreliable and then kept mouthing off in the media. 

 Am I really making a wild assumption here? Axl Rose, the guy who spoke to Steven for 2 seconds through the entirety of his guest appearances (as per Steven), planned to include Steven on this tour in a larger capacity? You really believe that?  The same Steven he turned the lights off on after one song in Argentina? Sure thing. 

There's a lot we don't know about how this tour came together - but imho it's hugely improbable to consider a scenario in which Steven was seriously slotted in for a bigger role. But I'd love to be proven wrong here if someone in this band will talk. All we have is Steven's word and he's not always the most reliable source of information is he?

Quote

We have no idea what went on with izzy.   For all we know him and the other guys couldn't agree on the length of tour etc.   We don't know.   Stop acting like you do.   You weren't there. 

I'm speculating based on what we know, big difference. Izzy said two things (paraphrased) : "Bullshit. They didn't want to split the loot equally."  and "A deal couldn't be worked out." - I mean it's not a giant leap to assume the point of contention is money. Going by what Izzy is saying, I'm not sure what else we can infer here. Maybe it's also the length of the tour too. But money certainly seems to be one of the issues unless loot means something completely different than what I'm thinking.

Quote

Comparing apple and gnr is a really bad and dumb comparison.   Lots of people wish apple would do different things but they stay the course and do what is best for their company business wise each time. 

Agree to disagree on Apple. Sorry you think that comparison was dumb. If you don't like it, think of a brand that caters to fans and is successful. Then compare that brand to current day GnR. That's the point. Fan service is way down on the priority list for GnR. If that's cool with you though, great.  

 

[RONIN]

2 hours ago, Modano09 said:

But what if Izzy was the one who was being unreasonable? There seems to be this feeling that if they're making all this money they should give Izzy all he wants or else they're greedy, but maybe he's the one that's greedy? Axl/Slash/Duff were the ones who remained in the partnership and fought with and against each other managing the band/brand. Izzy didn't want anything to do with that. If he wanted "equal loot" to them, I think he's out of line. 

That scenario is entirely possible. The reason I don't think that's likely the case is simple: Who has the leverage in this negotiation? Izzy or the partners? - Axl and Slash are holding all the cards. There's very little incentive for them to give Izzy a fair deal unless they really wanted him to be on the tour and didn't mind carving into their profit. From what we know of Axl and Slash's past behavior - how likely is that scenario? But look - who knows? Maybe you're right and it was Izzy that proved to be unreasonable. 

Quote

I don't think it's anyone's fault entirely. I don't think Izzy would agree to tour the world for as long as the other's decided to keep it going, but I can see why he would want equal money for whatever involvement he was up for. I just don't agree with him and I see why the other's wouldn't either. It's not necessarily just greed because at the end of the day they were all set for life a long time ago.

Fair enough. There's probably a number of reasons behind why it probably panned out the way it did. I could definitely see Izzy being interested in a few one-off shows for a great payday. Maybe that's what he assumed - that he'd do Vegas and Coachella for a huge payday that was equally split 4 ways. That's certainly a plausible scenario. 

As far as your doubts about him touring, I say this: everyone has a price. Including Izzy. For the right amount of money, anything's possible. Look at Axl and Slash.