Article About Izzy/Guns on the Wall Street Journal

[Padme]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Maybe he asked them for a lot more money than they thought he was worth? Maybe he had some stipulations regarding starting times and ending times that they couldn't accept? Maybe he had some demands regarding length of the tour and where to travel? 

My point remains that we still don't know all the details of the negotiations and then we can't really blame any of the parties for the outcome.

What is "a lot more money"? Making the same amount of money Slash and Duff are making? I don't see anything wrong with that. Nor I think it's impossible to reach that goal. In the past the only problems he had was Axl being three hours late, the riots. And Slash and Duff being high and drunk 24/7. Those problems are gone. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Padme said:

What is "a lot more money"? Making the same amount of money Slash and Duff are making? I don't see anything wrong with that. Nor I think it's impossible to reach that goal. In the past the only problems he had was Axl being three hours late, the riots. And Slash and Duff being high and drunk 24/7. Those problems are gone. 

You are just speculating. It is a waste of time.

[Padme]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

You are just speculating. It is a waste of time.

And you are speculating about Izzy asking a lot of impossible to achive demands in order to join the band. I guess we're even

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Padme said:

And you are speculating about Izzy asking a lot of impossible to achive demands in order to join the band. I guess we're even

No, I dont speculate at all. My argument is that we can't blame any parties for anything since we aren't privy to the details of the negotiations. We don't know who is being unreasonable, maybe both parties, maybe none of them. As I stated above, it is a black box and I find it strange that people take any side.

[killuridols]

People take side because 2 years ago Izzy tweeted that "they didn't want to split the loot equally". Also added "simple as that".

He is the only part speaking but Izzy is a man of few words and not much bullshitting around, so people tend to believe those who come across as pretty straightforward.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, killuridols said:

People take side because 2 years ago Izzy tweeted that "they didn't want to split the loot equally". Also added "simple as that".

He is the only part speaking but Izzy is a man of few words and not much bullshitting around, so people tend to believe those who come across as pretty straightforward.

Isn't it a shame that the party that decided to not disclose anything from a negotiation automatically becomes the loser?

I have done a fair amount of negotiations and rarely do parties have the same understanding of why an agreement wasn't reached, and rarely will a deal fail because of one section, but because of the totality of the agreement. It's give and take, give and take.

[Politania]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I dont speculate at all. My argument is that we can't blame any parties for anything since we aren't privy to the details of the negotiations. We don't know who is being unreasonable, maybe both parties, maybe none of them. As I stated above, it is a black box and I find it strange that people take any side.

exactly. thank you

[Padme]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I dont speculate at all. My argument is that we can't blame any parties for anything since we aren't privy to the details of the negotiations. We don't know who is being unreasonable, maybe both parties, maybe none of them. As I stated above, it is a black box and I find it strange that people take any side.

I can blame one side. Because we have the manager of the band saying "no comment". Axl and Duff had a chance to explain things in the T.V. interview they did a couple of years ago. But they didn't explain anything. As long as the band doesn't explain things clearly. I won't take their side

[bigpoop]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I dont speculate at all. My argument is that we can't blame any parties for anything since we aren't privy to the details of the negotiations. We don't know who is being unreasonable, maybe both parties, maybe none of them. As I stated above, it is a black box and I find it strange that people take any side.

Yeah, actually we do know. They tried to lowball him and dick him out of his fair share.  And he refused their offer. That's what happened. You can pretend that isn't known, but in actuality, it is.

 

[PeterNorth]

Band vs. Brand

This group of individuals stopped being a band in 90/91 and morphed into a brand thereafter.  The NITL tour just super charged that trend.

The GNR brand doesn't get hurt in 2018 with Izzy and Steven no longer in the touring party.  The GNR brand only needs their 1986 era skeletons to push merchandise and sell AFD box sets.

For any longtime fan like myself that saw the original lineup in person, what's happening now is disgusting.  But for Slash, Duff and Axl (and leaches like Team Brazil) it's just business - keep growing the brand and you keep growing your bank account.

[killuridols]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Isn't it a shame that the party that decided to not disclose anything from a negotiation automatically becomes the loser?

I have done a fair amount of negotiations and rarely do parties have the same understanding of why an agreement wasn't reached, and rarely will a deal fail because of one section, but because of the totality of the agreement. It's give and take, give and take.

What do you mean "automatically becomes the loser"?

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, bigpoop said:

Yeah, actually we do know. They tried to lowball him and dick him out of his fair share.  And he refused their offer. That's what happened. You can pretend that isn't known, but in actuality, it is.

We don't know that. Well, I don't, at least Do both parties agree this is what happened? Btw, what is "his fair share"? What other parts did they agree upon/not agree upon? What were his obligations if he was paid his "fair share"? All of this is unknown and must be known to figure out if anyone was being unreasonable.

What we have here are fans who really, really, really want Izzy back in the band and thus automatically take his side when the band couldn't reach an agreement with him. It is understandable. I would love to see Izzy back, too. But I won't jump to conclusions based on a short statement from Izzy when so much is unknown.

3 minutes ago, killuridols said:

What do you mean "automatically becomes the loser"?

Those who honor the confidentiality of negotiations are easy victims to those that don't.

[killuridols]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Those who honor the confidentiality of negotiations are easy victims to those that don't.

 wow, GNR victims of Izzy's big mouth? 

No way and I'm sure Izzy would have not said anything if Axl wouldn't have made him look like an asshole in that Globo interview.

What Izzy heard on TV is clearly what unleashed his tweet.

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, killuridols said:

 wow, GNR victims of Izzy's big mouth? 

No way and I'm sure Izzy would have not said anything if Axl wouldn't have made him look like an asshole in that Globo interview.

What Izzy heard on TV is clearly what unleashed his tweet.

Axl didn't say so much about the negotiation, at least not getting into why they couldn't make a deal. He did imply that it was hard to negotiate with Izzy because he would change his position all the time  I can understand why Izzy might have been slightly miffed about it, sure, but it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that Izzy's a bit flaky and hard to pin down. But anyway, my point was, and is, that by saying it was about the band not splitting the loot, Izzy has been able to direct public's perception of what was the reason they couldn't make an agreement. The other party might have a different opinion but feel it would be wrong to disclose those, and even if it was money that broke the camel's back, which I personally find likely, without knowing the details, especially what obligations would follow with a specific monetary compensation, it is hard for me to pass judgment. It is all in the details and totality. Not too hard for most people here, I see  I suppose it is another example of GN'R fans "voting along party lines".

[killuridols]

28 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is all in the details and totality. Not too hard for most people here, I see  I suppose it is another example of GN'R fans "voting along party lines".

If you expect that active fans in this forum will wait for "details and totality" to be able to discuss any GNR topic, then call Downzy and tell him to shut the board down.

We will NEVER have any details and totality of nothing. When it comes to GNR, you either go picking pieces from the floor to build the puzzle, assuming a bunch of shit from their cryptic promotions or eating the leftovers they feed us once in a while. Not only that, every now and then, they will slap fans in the face publicly, for daring to "talk shit".

It is history repeating from decades ago... Axl complaining about Slash being a media whore and using his media skills to make him look like the bad guy. Well, I'm sorry Axl, if you never explain what's going on with you then of course, people will listen to the one who talks. Mind reading is not something we can count on, yet 😏

If fans are taking Izzy's side is because he spoke and when GN'R are inquired about it, they refuse to talk, so....  in soccer, we call that leaving the ball in your opponent's field. Waste your time complaining and another guy will score a goal. Simple as that.

Edited May 28, 2018 by killuridols

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

If you expect that active fans in this forum will wait for "details and totality" to be able to discuss any GNR topic, then call Downzy and tell him to shut the board down.

We will NEVER have any details and totality of nothing. When it comes to GNR, you either go picking pieces from the floor to build the puzzle, assuming a bunch of shit from their cryptic promotions me or eating the leftovers they feed us once in a while. Not only that, every now and then, they will slap fans in the face publicly, for daring to "talk shit".

It is history repeating from decades ago... Axl complaining about Slash being a media whore and using his media skills to make him look like the bad guy. Well, I'm sorry Axl, if you never explain what's going on with you then of course, people will listen to the one who talks. Mind reading is not something we can count on, yet 😏

If fans are taking Izzy's side is because he spoke and when GN'R are inquired about it, they refuse to talk, so....  in soccer, we call that leaving the ball in your opponent's field. Waste your time complaining and another guy will score a goal. Simple as that.

The football analogy fails because we don't have to pick a side. We can just enjoy the game.

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

The football analogy fails because we don't have to pick a side. We can just enjoy the game.

It doesn't fail. You have two parties negotiating: GNR and Izzy.

Izzy apparently "lost" the game and losing a soccer match may seem simple for most people (you either score more goals than the other team or not), but the reasons for losing the game are varied and can be discussed, by fans of the teams and other commentators.

Fans of soccer teams are as passionate as GNR fans, so picking sides is not unusual.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

It doesn't fail. You have two parties negotiating: GNR and Izzy.

It fails in the sense that we aren't like fans of football teams who are obligated to take our team's side. You might feel you have to pick a side despite not knowing the details, I don't. I am not that kind of person.

[Tori72]

Hahaha, I really like the soccer analogy.

By the way, there will be this ominous GnR interview on June 11. I do think it will be Lortus or Dizzy talking but what IF one Axl, Duff or Slash would be talking? Too bad they already did the interview before the article and thus won’t comment on it.

We will never have all the details of negotiations and still we see what came out if it. Izzy wanting to be part of it and lashing out to accusations saying he was a bit flaky and changing his mind. Then he got down to what it was about: no equally shared loot „simple as that“. Nobody ever said anything afterwards. Izzys tweets were pretty clear on him being pissed of. The others never said anything again. Why? Because they would not have looked better if they did. Probably because Izzy didn’t want much and they would have looked like the greedy business fuckers they are.

 

[killuridols]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It fails in the sense that we aren't like fans of football teams who are obligated to take our team's side. You might feel you have to pick a side despite not knowing the details, I don't. I am not that kind of person.

Your initial question was "Why do people take sides? We don't know the whole story", which is a valid and logical question.

I tried to respond by telling you why I think people take sides. Despite you trying to be utter logical, we are not here in a legal case where we have to wait for all evidence before deciding a sentence, this a fan forum and people are passionate about the band and its members (or former members).

People taking sides is mostly an emotional reaction, not so much logical. And I think it obeys to people having an affinity for those who open up and seem honest, rather than those who keep it all to themselves and live in secrecy.

Izzy is like one of the most coherent, if not the only, (former) members of the band. He's kept his coherence for a long time, he rarely speaks or gets involved in controversy. He has not badmouthed his band mates, like, almost ever. In the eyes of (many) fans, he is more credible than anyone else in the GN'R camp and that's probably why people believe him, take his side.

I agree no one is obligated to take sides but this band has always been fragmented, in all senses, so expecting that fans remain mute to this article is a bit... unrealistic.

Edited May 28, 2018 by killuridols

[Blackstar]

14 minutes ago, Tori72 said:

By the way, there will be this ominous GnR interview on June 11. I do think it will be Lortus or Dizzy talking but what IF one Axl, Duff or Slash would be talking? Too bad they already did the interview before the article and thus won’t comment on it.

The WSJ journalist asked Fernando for a comment, so they most likely knew about Izzy's e-mail before the article was published.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Your initial question was "Why do people take sides? We don't know the whole story", which is a valid and logical question.

I tried to respond by telling you why I think people take sides. Despite you trying to be utter logical, we are not here in a legal case where we have to wait for all evidence before deciding a sentence, this a fan forum and people are passionate about the band and its members (or former members).

People taking sides is mostly an emotional reaction, not so much logical. And I think it obeys to people having an affinity for those who open up and seem honest, rather than those who keep it all to themselves and live in secrecy.

Izzy is like one of the most coherent, if not the only, (former) member of the band. He's kept his coherence for a long time, he rarely speaks or gets involved in controversy. He has not badmouthed his band mates, like, almost ever. In the eyes of (many) fans, he is more credible than anyone else in the GN'R camp and that's probably why people believe him, take his side.

I agree no one is obligated to take sides but this band has always been fragmented, in all sense, so expecting that fans remain mute to this article is a bit... unrealistic.

I have never expected fans to be mature about this. I expect them to take the side of whoever they have become affiliated with, or against whoever they have decided is the "bad guy" -- as I said, voting along part lines -- just like people here have always done. My role is more to point out that it is a bit too early to jump to conclusions here, as a response to people claiming it is a cold-cut case. Be the voice of everyone who are still on the fence, as a balance to all the hasty and passionate posts. But no, nothing here surprises me and I never expected anything else.

[kiwiguns]

16 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Your initial question was "Why do people take sides? We don't know the whole story", which is a valid and logical question.

I tried to respond by telling you why I think people take sides. Despite you trying to be utter logical, we are not here in a legal case where we have to wait for all evidence before deciding a sentence, this a fan forum and people are passionate about the band and its members (or former members).

People taking sides is mostly an emotional reaction, not so much logical. And I think it obeys to people having an affinity for those who open up and seem honest, rather than those who keep it all to themselves and live in secrecy.

Izzy is like one of the most coherent, if not the only, (former) member of the band. He's kept his coherence for a long time, he rarely speaks or gets involved in controversy. He has not badmouthed his band mates, like, almost ever. In the eyes of (many) fans, he is more credible than anyone else in the GN'R camp and that's probably why people believe him, take his side.

I agree no one is obligated to take sides but this band has always been fragmented, in all sense, so expecting that fans remain mute to this article is a bit... unrealistic.

I get your passion but you are getting way to court up in this. Unless you are Izzy in real life or even Axl , Duff or Slash why do you act as if this affects you?

“The current GNR tour has been a great success for the guys. My nonparticipation was simply not being able to reach a happy middle ground through the negotiation process,” Mr. Stradlin said in an email. “That’s life, sometimes things don’t work out.” He didn’t respond to further inquiries.

 

It seems the man himself is at peace with his decision and has moved on in life.

As a fan of  past lineups, including  Izzy and the current direction the band is taking, I respect that.

 

Why cant you?

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by kiwiguns

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I have never expected fans to be mature about this. I expect them to take the side of whoever they have become affiliated with, or against whoever they have decided is the "bad guy" -- as I said, voting along part lines -- just like people here have always done. My role is more to point out that it is a bit too early to jump to conclusions here, as a response to people claiming it is a cold-cut case. Be the voice of everyone who are still on the fence, as a balance to all the hasty and passionate posts. But no, nothing here surprises me and I never expected anything else.

Having emotions is being immature? 

lol, okay, if that's how you perceive it... you might be a robot then. Need some hugs? 

I don't know why you have elected yourself as the referee of this story or this thread (more soccer analogies for your pretty eyes ) but if that's where you want to stand on, it's all yours! 

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, kiwiguns said:

I get your passion but you are getting way to court up in this. Unless you are Izzy in real life or even Axl , Duff or Slash why do you act as if this affects you?

“The current GNR tour has been a great success for the guys. My nonparticipation was simply not being able to reach a happy middle ground through the negotiation process,” Mr. Stradlin said in an email. “That’s life, sometimes things don’t work out.” He didn’t respond to further inquiries.

 

It seems the man himself is at peace with his decision and has moved on in life.

As a fan of  past lineups, including  Izzy and the current direction the band is taking, I respected that.

 

Why can't you?

On the verge of clicking the report button (because you always approach me in this disrespectful manner), I advice you to discuss the topic without personal attacks.