Article About Izzy/Guns on the Wall Street Journal

[Modano09]

Just now, bikka said:

Have you actually looked at the vid? Izzy was NOT unprepared or unprofessional about these shows. The fact that Axl was is just a reminder, because, really, everyone knows it by now right?

So tell me again how Axl being erratic and unprofessional in 1993 proves Izzy wanted to tour the world for a reasonable sum of money in 2016?

[izzy92]

He looks like he has some major social anxiety, what 55 year old man posts and deletes dozens of posts on social media? It's something a 16 year old would do. Axl was clearly always the Alpha personality in GNR, and when he started taking over, Izzy pretty much folded without much of a fight, because his personality is to just abandon confrontation from everything I've seen. It's not like Axl escaped unscathed, the guy was torn to shreds by fans and media for 20 years doing everything in his power to keep the band alive while Izzy happily retreated to a private life. It's possible for people to disagree while still having integrity - chances are Izzy only wanted this tour to be done for the "right" reasons (original gang of 5, all sober, celebrate the spirit of the original GNR) whereas Axl/Slash/Duff were probably open to that arrangement as a marketing move, but weren't going to do anything other than what made them the most money possible. And they've earned the right to do that at this point without being accused of shortchanging the fans. All in all, it's as Izzy says. Sometimes things just don't come together. They had a different vision of what this tour was about, and that probably led to the differences in how the money would be split up. Izzy's probably tired at this point of being told by Axl how he should play, what his pay should be, how much stage presence he should have etc...Izzy built the band - the entire image of GNR was indisputably his vision from day one. And without that image nobody would have cared. It's understandable NOW that Izzy would have to abide by Axl's rules because it's been Axl's band since '95. Izzy was probably thinking this wasn't him joining Axl's band, but the original band collectively running things the way the original band would have run them and the beginning of a new era. Lots of speculation, but you can get a pretty clear vibe on people after following them forever. Doesn't make either of them wrong.

[Padme]

9 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Don't read then, no problem. It's not a pm and I don't post only for you.

You mean you're gonna keep making those kind of huge posts? Well thanks for telling me. I make sure I avoid them

[WhazUp]

15 hours ago, The Black said:

 

You do know that Izzy called upon Axl’s bullshit and said that negatiations fell through because they didn’t want to split the money equally?

None of know what the negotiations included and what each party wanted though, unless one of us fans happened to be a fly on the wall

[Blackstar]

3 minutes ago, Padme said:

You mean you're gonna keep making those kind of huge posts? Well thanks for telling me. I make sure I avoid them

Why do you continue? You believe the books and you don't like my long posts. I got it (and, no offense, I don't care). Is there anything else?

[soon]

15 minutes ago, Legendador said:

Izzy is not a part of the partnership agreement that involves Duff, Slash and Axl.

Izzy did not only sold his share of the name, but also he got out of the rights partnership, but still he wants to be paid exactly the same.

I think on this point that there isnt often enough context given as to why Izzy completely severed ties from the financial and business aspects of Guns. Its my understanding that he feared major lawsuits against Guns, namely for deaths at a riot caused by Axl. And I could imagine other reasons include suits involving OD's, including if a member administered a fatal dose to someone outside the group. Even lawsuits over future imagery or lyrics, possibly. Or a suit by a promoter or label for broken congrats by the band - the list goes on.

Even the videos and the after parties could've broke the bank. Or the CD journey. He saw the accounts being drawn of cash and wasnt convinced anymore would ever come in given the very real disfunction. And he was generally speaking correct in his baseline assumptions.

I think given the situation he surveyed at his departure there was good reason for him to wanna cash out while there was still cash to be had? And if so, that in respect to that there could be a reset of sorts - they could still chose to pay him like a rock star even if he couldn't use the law to produce that outcome.

Edited May 28, 2018 by soon

[thunderram]

On 5/27/2018 at 1:55 PM, Subtle Signs said:

I'm not really sure that one can be a gnr fan without being a fan of Izzy or at least respecting his contributions.

As a fan that grew up with them, I appreciate each of the AFD five's contributions and their uniqueness. I just scoff at the constant overstatements about Izzy's contributions and that it was somehow 'his' band.

I get that Izzy was involved going back to the beginning, along with Axl. And that Slash, Steven and Duff were added along the way. But they were all there when the band officially became known as Guns N' Roses in 1985. And each member contributed to that sound and success.

While I dig Izzy's vibe and his guitar playing in GN'R, I feel that of all the band members that went on to do their own solo stuff, Izzy's sounds and reminds less of GN'R than any of the others. So while he had lots of cool licks interwoven here and there and he wrote some cool lyrics, I don't feel he is as responsible for GN'R's signature sound as much as Slash, Duff and Axl are. I know Izzy fans disagree, and that's fine. But I believe that's exactly why the causal fan doesn't really care that Izzy or Steven is missing. As long as Axl and Slash are both involved, the fan turnout will continue to be fairly large. If one those 2 are missing, it becomes nowhere near as important.

We avid, hardcore fans all realize that without the AFD 5, we won't ever have the true and classic GN'R sound. But we're closer to it than we've been in 28 years. Like everyone else, I'd love for Izzy to return. But it just doesn't look like it's going to happen. While part of that has to do with disagreement over compensation, that's far from the only reason. Izzy himself has a lot to do with it too.

[shjtjustgotreal]

lmao why is anyone still talking about izzy  

dude doesn't want the spotlight so let him be

[Bitchisback]

All you guys fighting amongst each other pretending you guys know all the facts 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

The only fact we know for sure is none of us know.  So instead of arguing about silly things and putting the blame where you guys think it should be with no evidence just sit back and enjoy the music. 

 

Axl's fault,  Izzy's fault..  Who cares.   Like izzy said sometimes things don't work out.  I would rather see this line up of GnR over any line up of the last 25 years and I'm happy it exists.   Maybe in the future they can work things out with Izzy.  Until then there is no sense in arguing something that NONE of you guys have any evidence of. 

 

Everyone in this group talks like they know the band personally 😂

[Modano09]

2 hours ago, tremolo said:

What?

I'm talking about Izzy's tenure in GNR. When I talk about showing up to work I'm talking about showing up at the studio when he was supposed to and do his thing: play and record; and showing up to gigs in time to perform. I don't think his flaky behaviour ended up dictating what was to be done and when and where.

What did Izzy do (and not do) in GNR that made it difficult for the band to tour or release any music? Where does his lack of commitment show during his tenure in GNR?

It's funny how some fans try to project Axl's flaws or eccentricities on Izzy, it's absolutely baseless and pretty stupid (and I'm using the word stupid in the most literal way: blinding oneself to what is in front of you. I'm not saying you're dumb). The funny thing is that said fans are only repeating the crap that Axl has said about Izzy to save face... being unreliable, lack of commitment, flaky... that's Axl projecting himself, and fans repeating the same nonsense

How about this? We leave Axl out of this all together. You leave his unrelated flaws out of it, and I'll leave every word he's ever said about Izzy out of it.

And I'll still have a pretty solid argument that signing up for open ended years of world touring is likely not something he would have committed to. THIS VERY ARTICLE suggests that. As for while he's not involved at all, he's confirmed twice it had something to do with money and it's at the very least possible that he was being unreasonable. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Modano09

[Tucknroll]

1 hour ago, Bitchisback said:

All you guys fighting amongst each other pretending you guys know all the facts 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

The only fact we know for sure is none of us know.  So instead of arguing about silly things and putting the blame where you guys think it should be with no evidence just sit back and enjoy the music. 

 

Axl's fault,  Izzy's fault..  Who cares.   Like izzy said sometimes things don't work out.  I would rather see this line up of GnR over any line up of the last 25 years and I'm happy it exists.   Maybe in the future they can work things out with Izzy.  Until then there is no sense in arguing something that NONE of you guys have any evidence of. 

 

Everyone in this group talks like they know the band personally 😂

These kinds of posts get on my nerves. This is the fun of coming on here. If we did what you say then the forum should be shut down. We're here to argue and say what we think is going on and it's fun. People, stop saying no one knows shit so don't comment on it. This is what a forum is. Good grief 

[Bitchisback]

2 minutes ago, Tucknroll said:

These kinds of posts get on my nerves. This is the fun of coming on here. If we did what you say then the forum should be shut down. We're here to argue and say what we think is going on and it's fun. People, stop saying no one knows shit so don't comment on it. This is what a forum is. Good grief 

I'm not saying don't discuss it or talk about it,  but half these people here are acting like they were at the negotiation table.    None of us really know what happened.   Why assume we do? 

[WhazUp]

9 minutes ago, Tucknroll said:

These kinds of posts get on my nerves. This is the fun of coming on here. If we did what you say then the forum should be shut down. We're here to argue and say what we think is going on and it's fun. People, stop saying no one knows shit so don't comment on it. This is what a forum is. Good grief 

Although if someone makes a comment like how the big 3 are greedy or bashing Izzy, etc. that forum concept also gives me the freedom to call those things dumb as hell because of the fact none of us were there lol.  Speculation is different than harshness mixed with stupidity

[Dar97]

There's no wonder why this forum gets a bad reputation, it's just full of trash talkers who don't have all of the facts or barely any at all haha 

[RussTCB]

7 minutes ago, Dar97 said:

There's no wonder why this forum gets a bad reputation, it's just full of trash talkers who don't have all of the facts or barely any at all haha 

This forum doesn't have "a bad reputation". This forum is the place people are allowed to speak their minds. We're not even close to "full of trash talkers" and if you think so, you're just not paying attention. 

[Blackstar]

5 hours ago, tremolo said:

I didn’t know about that meeting with Bowie.

It’s funny how Bowie had such a strong influence in 2 of my favourite bands (beyond being a musical influence): motivated Trent Reznor to kick drugs and alcohol, and turned Axl into a corporate whore.

oh David... thank you and fuck you!

Axl credited Jagger for that. He said he watched how he operated as a businessman and took lessons from him.

But it's not really on anyone to blame. When you get that big, like GnR got, seeing the business side of things is unavoidable. You deal with lawyers, accountants, contracts and all that shit. In the 80s the music industry was already corporate. And you have two choices: either say "fuck that shit, I'd rather form my little band and play clubs" like Izzy did or stay and get deeper into the shit.

Axl tried to follow The Stones' model (not the 60s Stones, but the 80s Stones, who had become a corporation). But he couldn't succeed because his nature doesn't allow him to be a businessman. He has made many bad choices from a business perspective, and that's because they seem to have been driven more by emotions than by cold business calculation.

[RONIN]

8 hours ago, soon said:

I think on this point that there isnt often enough context given as to why Izzy completely severed ties from the financial and business aspects of Guns. Its my understanding that he feared major lawsuits against Guns, namely for deaths at a riot caused by Axl. And I could imagine other reasons include suits involving OD's, including if a member administered a fatal dose to someone outside the group. Even lawsuits over future imagery or lyrics, possibly. Or a suit by a promoter or label for broken congrats by the band - the list goes on.

Even the videos and the after parties could've broke the bank. Or the CD journey. He saw the accounts being drawn of cash and wasnt convinced anymore would ever come in given the very real disfunction. And he was generally speaking correct in his baseline assumptions.

I think given the situation he surveyed at his departure there was good reason for him to wanna cash out while there was still cash to be had? And if so, that in respect to that there could be a reset of sorts - they could still chose to pay him like a rock star even if he couldn't use the law to produce that outcome.

I think this may have been a factor but I imagine Alan Niven advised him exactly what the worth of the GnR partnership was prior to his departure. 1991 GnR was a behemoth brand. Any person with an iota of business sense wouldn't have sold their stake if given the choice imho. 

re: Izzy's buyout:

1. Steven being ousted out of the band and all of the partners dividing his stake required an amended partnership agreement. They had to essentially buy out Steven from my understanding. Therefore the amended agreement more than likely required a departing member to be bought out. I don't think Izzy had a choice as far as retaining his stake. 

2. Izzy was facing a demotion in the band as per vintage interviews from Izzy and Axl.  Axl and Slash were essentially running GnR by '89 and Izzy had less and less influence in band affairs. But the contractual demotion appears to be Axl's retaliation to Izzy's demands that Axl show up on time for shows. Izzy wanted any fines the band was incurring because of Axl's behavior to be directly paid by Axl instead of by the band. Redhead decided to go for the nuclear option as a result.

 If Izzy was going to continue in GnR, he had to take a lower percentage cut than the other three partners. Slash backed Axl on this. I vaguely recall reading innuendo that Duff had major reservations about the whole thing but whatever the case, it appears the partners were in agreement about Izzy's demotion. I think the timeline for this is during Spring of '91 all the way till the day before Izzy quit in September. Him not showing up for the Don't Cry video was basically an FU to Axl. That being said, Izzy even showed up to a few rehearsals in December '91, right before the 2nd leg of the tour (presumably to work things out?). Point being, signs seem to point to him being essentially ousted from the band. Yes he had a lot of other reservations that influenced him, but I believe the trigger issue was Axl's throwing down the gauntlet w/ the contract. There was no way Izzy could have remained in GnR without accepting a downgraded position - he was facing an ultimatum and so he called Axl's bluff and walked.

* Duff and Slash retained their partnership stake because Axl withdrew from the agreement and formed his own band. Axl couldn't demote Slash to an employee without Duff's approval in the original partnership. If Duff had backed Axl, it's conceivable that Slash could have faced the same situation as Izzy in 1996 : getting bought out of his stake in the band or accepting a demotion.

@Blackstar thoughts?

Edited May 29, 2018 by RONIN

[annabanana]

11 minutes ago, RONIN said:

I think this may have been a factor but I imagine Alan Niven advised him exactly what the worth of the GnR partnership was prior to his departure. 1991 GnR was a behemoth brand. Any person with an iota of business sense wouldn't have sold their stake if given the choice imho. I suspect 2 main factors

1. Steven being ousted out of the band and all of the partners dividing his stake required an amended partnership agreement. They had to essentially buy out Steven from my understanding. Therefore the amended agreement more than likely required a departing member to be bought out. I don't think Izzy had a choice as far as retaining his stake. 

2. Izzy was facing a contractual demotion in the band as per vintage interviews from Izzy and Axl. The precursor to this was Axl and Slash taking over the band from '89 onwards and Izzy having less and less influence in band affairs. But the contractual demotion was Axl's retaliation to Izzy's demands that Axl show up on time for shows and that any fines the band was incurring because of Axl's behavior be directly paid by Axl instead of by the band. If Izzy was going to continue in GnR, he had to basically take a lower percentage cut than the other three partners. Slash was complicit and went along with it. I vaguely recall reading innuendo that Duff had major reservations about it. I think the timeline for this is during Spring of '91 all the way till the day before Izzy quit in September. Izzy even showed up to rehearsals in December '91, right before the 2nd leg of the tour (presumably to work things out). Point being, signs seem to point to him being essentially ousted from the band. There was no way he could have remained in GnR without accepting a downgraded position - he was facing an ultimatum and so he called their bluff and walked.

* Duff and Slash retained their partnership stake because Axl withdrew from the agreement and formed his own band. Axl couldn't demote Slash to an employee without Duff's approval in the original partnership. If Duff had gone along with it, it's conceivable that Slash could have faced the same situation as Izzy in 1996 : getting bought out of his stake in the band or accepting a demotion.

@Blackstar thoughts?

Isn't it #1? I'm pretty sure it was written somewhere, that after Steven left, they ammended the partnership. Anyone who leaves the band must sell his shares to the remaining partners. So if you want to leave, you have to sell your share. I think it's in one of those contracts/documents that as shared a couple of years ago. 

[DeadSlash]

14 hours ago, Tucknroll said:

I don't own red robins. If I did, I would make more money. Lots more. Same as the big 3 owning gnr

So you're saying "it's all about the money."  Thanks for playing, Try again later.

[RONIN]

3 hours ago, annabanana said:

Isn't it #1? I'm pretty sure it was written somewhere, that after Steven left, they ammended the partnership. Anyone who leaves the band must sell his shares to the remaining partners. So if you want to leave, you have to sell your share. I think it's in one of those contracts/documents that as shared a couple of years ago. 

Exactly.

Izzy would have been insane to sell off his stake in the biggest band on earth at that time unless it was a contractual stipulation. 

[bikka]

8 hours ago, RONIN said:

* Duff and Slash retained their partnership stake because Axl withdrew from the agreement and formed his own band. Axl couldn't demote Slash to an employee without Duff's approval in the original partnership. If Duff had backed Axl, it's conceivable that Slash could have faced the same situation as Izzy in 1996 : getting bought out of his stake in the band or accepting a demotion.

@Blackstar thoughts?

The contract said that both Axl and Slash could veto any decision. So Slash couldn't have been ousted by Axl - even with Duff's support (nor vice versa). That was a stalemate, my guess is that's why Axl formed a new band.

[Legendador]

15 hours ago, soon said:

I think on this point that there isnt often enough context given as to why Izzy completely severed ties from the financial and business aspects of Guns. Its my understanding that he feared major lawsuits against Guns, namely for deaths at a riot caused by Axl. And I could imagine other reasons include suits involving OD's, including if a member administered a fatal dose to someone outside the group. Even lawsuits over future imagery or lyrics, possibly. Or a suit by a promoter or label for broken congrats by the band - the list goes on.

Even the videos and the after parties could've broke the bank. Or the CD journey. He saw the accounts being drawn of cash and wasnt convinced anymore would ever come in given the very real disfunction. And he was generally speaking correct in his baseline assumptions.

I think given the situation he surveyed at his departure there was good reason for him to wanna cash out while there was still cash to be had? And if so, that in respect to that there could be a reset of sorts - they could still chose to pay him like a rock star even if he couldn't use the law to produce that outcome.

I get your point, but considering he was offered a five digit figure to play each show, for the entire tour this is rock star money. I read somewhere he was offered 50k for each show, so do your math!

[soon]

12 hours ago, RONIN said:

I think this may have been a factor but I imagine Alan Niven advised him exactly what the worth of the GnR partnership was prior to his departure. 1991 GnR was a behemoth brand. Any person with an iota of business sense wouldn't have sold their stake if given the choice imho. 

re: Izzy's buyout:

1. Steven being ousted out of the band and all of the partners dividing his stake required an amended partnership agreement. They had to essentially buy out Steven from my understanding. Therefore the amended agreement more than likely required a departing member to be bought out. I don't think Izzy had a choice as far as retaining his stake. 

2. Izzy was facing a demotion in the band as per vintage interviews from Izzy and Axl.  Axl and Slash were essentially running GnR by '89 and Izzy had less and less influence in band affairs. But the contractual demotion appears to be Axl's retaliation to Izzy's demands that Axl show up on time for shows. Izzy wanted any fines the band was incurring because of Axl's behavior to be directly paid by Axl instead of by the band. Redhead decided to go for the nuclear option as a result.

 If Izzy was going to continue in GnR, he had to take a lower percentage cut than the other three partners. Slash backed Axl on this. I vaguely recall reading innuendo that Duff had major reservations about the whole thing but whatever the case, it appears the partners were in agreement about Izzy's demotion. I think the timeline for this is during Spring of '91 all the way till the day before Izzy quit in September. Him not showing up for the Don't Cry video was basically an FU to Axl. That being said, Izzy even showed up to a few rehearsals in December '91, right before the 2nd leg of the tour (presumably to work things out?). Point being, signs seem to point to him being essentially ousted from the band. Yes he had a lot of other reservations that influenced him, but I believe the trigger issue was Axl's throwing down the gauntlet w/ the contract. There was no way Izzy could have remained in GnR without accepting a downgraded position - he was facing an ultimatum and so he called Axl's bluff and walked.

* Duff and Slash retained their partnership stake because Axl withdrew from the agreement and formed his own band. Axl couldn't demote Slash to an employee without Duff's approval in the original partnership. If Duff had backed Axl, it's conceivable that Slash could have faced the same situation as Izzy in 1996 : getting bought out of his stake in the band or accepting a demotion.

@Blackstar thoughts?

Great points as always, dude!

I dont know the ins and outs of the various contracts and agreements.  So, Axl could leave the original agreement with out having to be bought out?

I would say though, that Izzys business acumen is fair game for questioning imo. Other then the surging popularity and mark up of avocados he isnt necessarily known for his business savvy, I dont think? And sure Niven was there to advise the paranoid Izzy but isnt Niven a bit of a fatalist when it came to GNR? If Axls to be believed on this, Niven thought the band would fall apart and Slash would die of OD and therefore booked the UYI tour in a rush before it all ended? Niven cashed out at a tremendous mark down from his own GNR interests if Im not mistaken?

Ill have to look up some references to Izzy fear of lawsuits and poor band finances when I have the chance. Although if he had to be bought out thats a whole other thing then.

[soon]

42 minutes ago, Legendador said:

I get your point, but considering he was offered a five digit figure to play each show, for the entire tour this is rock star money. I read somewhere he was offered 50k for each show, so do your math!

Oh 50k? Yeah, that's rock star pay. The 10k that I was speaking to, not so much imo. Especially if Izzy would be covering his own travel expenses like Adler or any other associated costs. But if he were full time, traveling as a part of the band and covered by the bands insurance, etc that would be pay worthy of the one and only Mr Stradlin'!

[Modano09]

6 hours ago, tremolo said:

Words vs actions... which speaks louder? Do I think Izzy would be absolutely cool playing the number of dates and for as long as this tour has been going on? No. I think he wouldn’t be thrilled about going on for this long, BUT Ithink that under the current state of the band (no drugs/alcohol abuse, no riots, no late starts, etc) he would stick to his word. I think Izzy knows a bit more about life on the road as a touring band than we do.

Of course there is a chance he was being unreasonable. But didn’t even Gilby reject an offer? That speaks volumes.

So of course it could be anything, from an insulting low offer all the way to Izzy making crazy demands, but given the (little) info we have, past behaviour and current state of business in gnr land, I find Izzy’s side of the story way more believable.

And I only brought Axl into this because the redhead, you and other fans insist of projecting Axl’s flaws on Izzy, when there is no real reason to say all that crap about him.

Personally I don’t even care that Izzy is not a part of this, in fact I’d rather him not being involved in this reunion and tour given what this new version of gnr turned out to be.

It's not about whether he'd stick to his word or not, it's about whether he'd give it in the first place - and given how he likes to do things I highly doubt he's suddenly going to commit to touring the world for years on end. Maybe he wanted more flexibility, maybe he wanted to take it leg to leg, but I'm fairly confident in saying Izzy wasn't going to commit to touring the world with GNR for years at a time.

As far as his "size" of the story, nobody's really given any sides. Izzy's said they couldn't come to an agreement and earlier said they wouldn't split the loot equally. I can see why he would want that, especially to make doing something he doesn't care to do worthwhile, and I can see why Axl/Slash/Duff wouldn't agree to it. So, in the end, they just couldn't come to an agreement.