Jump to content

Vintage: Doug Goldstein's hilarious letter to Axl ~2009


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

I think the point about Queen with Adam Lambert is that a lot of Queen fans, those who got to see the real deal back in the day and new fans that never got the chance to see it, still see the value in experiencing these songs live, even if the heart of it is not there anymore (Freddie) it's better than nothing.

not the same with Gn'R simply cause they're all still alive thankfully. So it would be very ridiculous to try and play AFD/UYI without Axl. Way more than the Queen situation imo. They've got good reason to do it cause there is a demand for it and he died.

I agree about the quantity of albums and it being an important factor when it comes to acceptance of a lineup.

do you think Axl should have just released Chinese as a solo artist? or even released a different album maybe? I think he tried to kinda reverse engineer the Gn'R sound cause he didn't have Slash and Izzy anymore so on some level it was valid I suppose, but personally I believe that had he tried to just write an album with no harsh quality standard, or at least not as harsh as the Gn'R standard, I would have probably really liked it just as an Axl fan and maybe there were enough Axl fans out there that would have given it a chance and he could have found a nice following but maybe that wasn't enough for him and he didn't think there was a good reason to walk away from Gn'R, a band that seem to be such an important part of his life.

 

As for Queen – to each their own, of course.
Regarding NuGuns, I agree. I personally think Axl did the right thing, if keeping the old gang together wasn’t an option. He definitely could have gone solo, but would that attract as many people as the let's say 2006 version of Guns? I don’t think so. Also, the thing about standards is, are you sure he would lower them any significantly had he gone solo? Again, I’m doubtful. The definitely easier part for him in such situation would be that he wouldn’t have to adhere to the “style” so much, and therefore things like “Eye on You” (paradoxically recorded as a part of GN’R sessions) could be accepted more easily as opposed to if he tried to sell this kind of music under the GN’R name. Compare that with PC or WTTJ and people would completely sweep it off the table, laughing. 
Yes, he’s said Guns are an intrinsic part of his life, and I’ve never had a problem with his touring/releasing new music under the band’s name but with completely different musicians – to me, it was better than any “solo” endeavour would have been. The constant line-up changes is a different thing, which didn’t help the situation at all. 
And as usual, there are the “GN’R = always complicated” aspects. Like, we would be wiser if there was at least one other CD era album. The situation would have been different if there weren’t the problems with labels, managers, lawsuits, etc. If there was proper promotion, interviews, official background information, videos… like normal bands do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rovim said:

not the same with Gn'R simply cause they're all still alive thankfully. So it would be very ridiculous to try and play AFD/UYI without Axl. Way more than the Queen situation imo. They've got good reason to do it cause there is a demand for it and he died.

I agree about the quantity of albums and it being an important factor when it comes to acceptance of a lineup.

 

We agree on a lot as I know we both say the AFD5 is the real deal and they all contributed heavily to Appeitite/Lies & even UYI. So bear in mind with all I say below that my preference is to have Axl singing for GNR., but......

where I don't think we agree and where I think this great myth/misperception has grown over the decades now is how integral Axl was VS how integral the other members was and with regard to Axl the perception is far over-weighted now (no pun intended) 

I don't understand why AFD/UYI without Axl is ridiculous. Evidence :

* the band had to do this a number of times, granted not full scale tours, but where he didn't or couldn't show up a few times the band went on without him. There were even those covers Duff did on tour.

* There aren't that many UYI tunes I listen to regularly, but of that few both DTJ and 14 Years are on there - great tunes......sung by Izzy (infact the Axl part in 14 Years is the only part of the song that annoys me). I can easily imagine Izzy doing Pretty Tied Up as well and an album in this vein would be great. I think they still play DTJ now don't they, so must have went over alright ?

* Slash/Duff had to start from scratch without the brand behind them - what did they end up with a #1 album ? Contrast Axl - had the brand name and whole machine (ie record co/deal, management) behind him. Takes a long time to perfect everything - hence becomes one of the most anticipated albums ever, most expensive album ever, exclusive deal to ship platinum....and only manages #3....decline continues until he has to call Slash / Duff back

It seems to me that the others do just fine without Axl but not so much the other way round.

 

5 hours ago, jamillos said:

Sure, AC/DC handled it, so have Deep Purple etc. But Axl is somehow more essential as a frontman to the band than the singers in those other cases. Both in terms of his unique voice and his presence on the stage, as well as other things.

The Don’t Cry – November Rain – Estranged trilogy is about his life. This stuff was written by him. The origin of the most famous songs is legendary now, and it’s entwined with his presence forever. 

Some singers/frontmen are just irreplaceable, and Axl is one of them. He’s just too iconic for the band to exist without him. Plus, the band only has like two or three major albums, not like the others where you have e.g. 15 records and a change of such magnitude could be more... diluted. 

You really think Axl was more iconic than Bon Scott or David Lee Roth both in terms of voice and presence ?

I appreciate you putting forward some evidence for your views, with the trilogy point, rather than just saying he is iconic. However I would point out that a lot of people find those videos extremely cringey and the sign of a band that has become bloated, pretentious and lost all touch. (ie alot would argue they were destructive to the band, a few bandmembers themselves. At the end of the day Izzy was so embarrassed he didn't even show up.) Personally I used to watch the NR video a bit when it came out, but haven't watched it in 25 years. I think I saw the Don't Cry one once and never wanted to see it again. I also saw Estranged once, I can't even remember if I watched it all the way through, but that was the final straw for me being a 'current' fan GN'R. Ever since they have just been the band that recorded my favourite album of all time a long time ago. (And out of those 3 tunes, the only part I still like now is the very ending of the Estranged - have no desire to hear any of them again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Euchre said:

We agree on a lot as I know we both say the AFD5 is the real deal and they all contributed heavily to Appeitite/Lies & even UYI. So bear in mind with all I say below that my preference is to have Axl singing for GNR., but......

where I don't think we agree and where I think this great myth/misperception has grown over the decades now is how integral Axl was VS how integral the other members was and with regard to Axl the perception is far over-weighted now (no pun intended) 

I don't understand why AFD/UYI without Axl is ridiculous. Evidence :

* the band had to do this a number of times, granted not full scale tours, but where he didn't or couldn't show up a few times the band went on without him. There were even those covers Duff did on tour.

* There aren't that many UYI tunes I listen to regularly, but of that few both DTJ and 14 Years are on there - great tunes......sung by Izzy (infact the Axl part in 14 Years is the only part of the song that annoys me). I can easily imagine Izzy doing Pretty Tied Up as well and an album in this vein would be great. I think they still play DTJ now don't they, so must have went over alright ?

* Slash/Duff had to start from scratch without the brand behind them - what did they end up with a #1 album ? Contrast Axl - had the brand name and whole machine (ie record co/deal, management) behind him. Takes a long time to perfect everything - hence becomes one of the most anticipated albums ever, most expensive album ever, exclusive deal to ship platinum....and only manages #3....decline continues until he has to call Slash / Duff back

It seems to me that the others do just fine without Axl but not so much the other way round.

 

You really think Axl was more iconic than Bon Scott or David Lee Roth both in terms of voice and presence ?

I appreciate you putting forward some evidence for your views, with the trilogy point, rather than just saying he is iconic. However I would point out that a lot of people find those videos extremely cringey and the sign of a band that has become bloated, pretentious and lost all touch. (ie alot would argue they were destructive to the band, a few bandmembers themselves. At the end of the day Izzy was so embarrassed he didn't even show up.) Personally I used to watch the NR video a bit when it came out, but haven't watched it in 25 years. I think I saw the Don't Cry one once and never wanted to see it again. I also saw Estranged once, I can't even remember if I watched it all the way through, but that was the final straw for me being a 'current' fan GN'R. Ever since they have just been the band that recorded my favourite album of all time a long time ago. (And out of those 3 tunes, the only part I still like now is the very ending of the Estranged - have no desire to hear any of them again).

Well, you know, these “some people”. There’ll always be some people. Also, you absolutely cannot judge it from a 2020s point of view; that would be like laughing at the 90s fashion. If you wanna do that, you should realize people in 30 years will do the same regarding us now. But I guess that’s obvious. So, even if the vids were perceived weird / overblown back then by some, that doesn’t change the fact that it was these very videos (plus AfD etc.) that made the band famous worldwide and sort of represented it during its absolute peak. And that was the point. 

I cannot assess Roth, as I don’t know that band/history that well. As for Bon, I see your point, but like I’ve said, it’s still incomparable, because the Aussies are a band that has been running over some 50 years, releasing dozens of albums and live videos. It’s just not the same. Besides, the guitarist in this band has quite a different impact/role/significance regarding the overall image etc. than in Guns’ case. If you still want to compare it, then imagine AC/DC without Angus. There. 

And sorry, what you’re saying about watching Don’t Cry etc. just once and never again – an unthinkable thing in the 90s – that just speaks for itself. I understand and absolutely respect that there are fans for whom Guns are basically a one-album band, which ended in 1990 at the latest. I get it, I know it wasn’t the same hungry raw thing during the UYI era anymore… but for me, they still were GN’R. In your case though, I think the speculations and comparisons of the theoretical versions (just the singer vs. anyone but him) are kind of futile, if you know what I mean. I can see your point of view, though. I can’t even begin to imagine what you must have thought about CD and the whole NuGNR era. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jamillos said:

As for Queen – to each their own, of course.
Regarding NuGuns, I agree. I personally think Axl did the right thing, if keeping the old gang together wasn’t an option. He definitely could have gone solo, but would that attract as many people as the let's say 2006 version of Guns? I don’t think so. Also, the thing about standards is, are you sure he would lower them any significantly had he gone solo? Again, I’m doubtful. The definitely easier part for him in such situation would be that he wouldn’t have to adhere to the “style” so much, and therefore things like “Eye on You” (paradoxically recorded as a part of GN’R sessions) could be accepted more easily as opposed to if he tried to sell this kind of music under the GN’R name. Compare that with PC or WTTJ and people would completely sweep it off the table, laughing. 
Yes, he’s said Guns are an intrinsic part of his life, and I’ve never had a problem with his touring/releasing new music under the band’s name but with completely different musicians – to me, it was better than any “solo” endeavour would have been. The constant line-up changes is a different thing, which didn’t help the situation at all. 
And as usual, there are the “GN’R = always complicated” aspects. Like, we would be wiser if there was at least one other CD era album. The situation would have been different if there weren’t the problems with labels, managers, lawsuits, etc. If there was proper promotion, interviews, official background information, videos… like normal bands do. 

yeah so maybe the price of releasing new music under the Gn'R moniker was the resistance to the music. From the label and from the fans. I mean Axl could have released the same album with the same style of music and with the same players without the Gn'R name. It's like enough Gn'R fans already knew it wasn't the old Gn'R and it was only Axl and Dizzy Reed.

I think it was more a case of maybe Axl saw it like the rest of the band abandoned him and he just had to continue without them. Maybe it wasn't worth it personally and artistically. I'm just thinking out loud here cause I think it's cool that he chose to do it anyway, against all odds.

but in the end he only managed to release 1 album in 30 years and it wasn't a huge success. I think he'll always be a perfectionist, but maybe he would have found a little bit of freedom in knowing it was an Axl Rose solo project everytime he released an album. This is why most successful musicians choose to go solo after their band implodes maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Euchre said:

We agree on a lot as I know we both say the AFD5 is the real deal and they all contributed heavily to Appeitite/Lies & even UYI. So bear in mind with all I say below that my preference is to have Axl singing for GNR., but......

where I don't think we agree and where I think this great myth/misperception has grown over the decades now is how integral Axl was VS how integral the other members was and with regard to Axl the perception is far over-weighted now (no pun intended) 

I don't understand why AFD/UYI without Axl is ridiculous. Evidence :

* the band had to do this a number of times, granted not full scale tours, but where he didn't or couldn't show up a few times the band went on without him. There were even those covers Duff did on tour.

* There aren't that many UYI tunes I listen to regularly, but of that few both DTJ and 14 Years are on there - great tunes......sung by Izzy (infact the Axl part in 14 Years is the only part of the song that annoys me). I can easily imagine Izzy doing Pretty Tied Up as well and an album in this vein would be great. I think they still play DTJ now don't they, so must have went over alright ?

* Slash/Duff had to start from scratch without the brand behind them - what did they end up with a #1 album ? Contrast Axl - had the brand name and whole machine (ie record co/deal, management) behind him. Takes a long time to perfect everything - hence becomes one of the most anticipated albums ever, most expensive album ever, exclusive deal to ship platinum....and only manages #3....decline continues until he has to call Slash / Duff back

It seems to me that the others do just fine without Axl but not so much the other way round.

the vast majority of Gn'R fans don't give a fuck about a version of Gn'R that doesn't include Axl. They're not interested in hearing Duff sing more than 1 song per show or Izzy singing lead. It's just not what Gn'R is all about. Every member has a defined and specific role in this band.

the commercial success of projects and bands outside of Gn'R don't prove anything really. We know Slash is capable of attracting an audience, a fanbase but it can never compare to a band with Axl in it. The interest is just on another level.

Axl's importance is just undeniable and Gn'R's accomplishments versus what the rest of the band achieved without him paint a very clear picture.  It's not as attractive of a band without him.

Edited by Rovim
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

Axl's importance is just undeniable and Gn'R's accomplishmets versus what the rest of the band achieved without him paint a very clear picture.  It's not as attractive of a band without him.

These are the types of things that are very easy to say - but where is any supportive evidence ? The only support for the statement 'his importance is undeniable' that has been put forward so far is that he had the vision for 3 music videos - videos that some love and others find bloated, pretentious, not particularly creative just throw a lot of money and hope it impresses type sagas.

 

I'll give some evidence to the contrary again :

Slash / Duff starting again from scratch = #1 album

Axl with the biggest asset of all the GN'R brand name + record deal / record co + existing management + whatever had been written / rehearsed + most expensive album ever made + long gestation leading to one of the most mythical and highly anticipated albums + deal with best buy guaranteeing it will ship platinum out of the gate + free promotion from huge soft drink manufacturer on release = anything half decent should have been a shoe in for one of the biggest albums of all time. Reality - peaked at #3 and nose dived from there. And zero musical output aside.

 

Conclusion : Slash and Duff prove they can do it without Axl. Axl proves even with unprecedented advantage he can't do it without the others. (And I think there is only 2 maybe 3 VR songs I even like - so its not like I'm even being biased here in some way as a big VR fan).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rovim said:

yeah so maybe the price of releasing new music under the Gn'R moniker was the resistance to the music. From the label and from the fans. I mean Axl could have released the same album with the same style of music and with the same players without the Gn'R name. It's like enough Gn'R fans already knew it wasn't the old Gn'R and it was only Axl and Dizzy Reed.

I think it was more a case of maybe Axl saw it like the rest of the band abandoned him and he just had to continue without them. Maybe it wasn't worth it personally and artistically. I'm just thinking out loud here cause I think it's cool that he chose to do it anyway, against all odds.

but in the end he only managed to release 1 album in 30 years and it wasn't a huge success. I think he'll always be a perfectionist, but maybe he would have found a little bit of freedom in knowing it was an Axl Rose solo project everytime he released an album. This is why most successful musicians choose to go solo after their band implodes maybe.

Probably less pressure, yeah. But still... it was his baby after all, as he said himself. And with his drifting away to the “industrial” and other waters already in the late 90s, why change the name anyway. I’m just one of those people who are glad he kept the name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2021 at 10:26 AM, Sisyphus said:


You make some valid points.

However, I don't really believe Axl was more entitled to the name because it was based on Rose/Guns combo. I think that everyone that contributed to the success of the original band is somewhat entitled to the name.  I abhor the fact people insist on calling Ole Beich, Rob Gardner and Tracii Guns "original" Guns N' Roses. It makes me laugh. I think Beich played ONE show and the other two split in a month or two. The original band is defined by their debut. The people who wrote and played on it. That's the way I see. But I digress.

Regarding the GN'R name Axl has stated that the others agreed from the beginning that the name was his because he originally came up with it. Fair play. If that was their agreement he has every right to do with it whatever he wants. 

It makes total sense for Axl to add the bit about the name to protect GN'R from outsiders, wifes, family members in case anything happens to Slash and Duff. I think that was a logical and understandable move. Just look at the whole Dave Grohl/Courtney Love nonsense or what happened between the parents of Jim Morrison and Pamela Courson. Or the arguments between the wife and daughters regarding Tom Petty estate. Disgusting. Axl wanted to avoid that and it was smart thinking on his part.

However, to my understanding the deal wasn't just that Axl keeps the names if Slash, Duff or both leave/die but Axl also keeps the name if he decides to leave or form a new band! The first option (Slash/Duff leaving or dying) makes total sense but the second one is a little shady and makes Axl's intentions questionable.

As it turned out Axl did exactly that. He withdrew from the partnership on 31st december 1995 and formed a new one. Then he offered Slash and Duff to be a part of this new partnership as basically glorified salaried musicians.  They still "owned" their share of GN'R brand but were now inferior to him. From that point on Axl was unequivocally at the helm. 

Why the hell did he have to do that? He claimed it was an effort to "salvage" Guns not "steal it". From what? Democracy? Sharing honest opinions? Must have been one hell of a salvation if it took another 13 years to release an album.

When Slash left the band Axl claimed "Slash had been out of the partnership since 31st december 1995". But that was Axl's doing not Slash's. 

This means Axl didn't legally obtain the name once Slash and Duff were out but did so while they were still trying to make it work. In January 1997 it was reported that Axl "bought the Guns N' Roses" name but to my understanding the name has been legally his since early 1996. 

I'm not an expert but maybe the official "buying of the name" meant that he was from then on the sole beneficiary of merchandise profits or other similar sources of income.
 

But, do you agree they could have said "no, I won't sign this! talk to my lawyer!"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Euchre said:

These are the types of things that are very easy to say - but where is any supportive evidence ? The only support for the statement 'his importance is undeniable' that has been put forward so far is that he had the vision for 3 music videos - videos that some love and others find bloated, pretentious, not particularly creative just throw a lot of money and hope it impresses type sagas.

 

I'll give some evidence to the contrary again :

Slash / Duff starting again from scratch = #1 album

Axl with the biggest asset of all the GN'R brand name + record deal / record co + existing management + whatever had been written / rehearsed + most expensive album ever made + long gestation leading to one of the most mythical and highly anticipated albums + deal with best buy guaranteeing it will ship platinum out of the gate + free promotion from huge soft drink manufacturer on release = anything half decent should have been a shoe in for one of the biggest albums of all time. Reality - peaked at #3 and nose dived from there. And zero musical output aside.

 

Conclusion : Slash and Duff prove they can do it without Axl. Axl proves even with unprecedented advantage he can't do it without the others. (And I think there is only 2 maybe 3 VR songs I even like - so its not like I'm even being biased here in some way as a big VR fan).

I like every song on Contraband but VR was short lived, short shelf life. Great timing putting out a record in 2004 when hard rock was in again for a second there. Slash came up with 2 hits, they sold 3 million copies give or take and then no one cared anymore after just a couple of years. They needed Scott to make it interesting for the public. They kinda marketed it as members fron Gn'R plus the singer from STP and now Contraband sounds dated. (I still like it)

of course Axl needs the others but how many people give a shit about Loaded or Duff's solo albums? SMKC is more successful but not anywhere near as successful as new Gn'R was so they need Axl too to draw huge crowds.

the cheesy and horridly bloated music videos Axl came up with were very important and grew the band's popularity. Under Axl's direction they managed to expand the Gn'R sound beyond Appetite with tunes that clicked with a lot of people, even those who were not into Gn'R like NR and Estranged for example.

Not like the only thing Axl did was sing and shit all over what the others tried to achieve. In many cases Axl's crazy shenanigans made Gn'R legendary and made the music interesting and different. It's rock n' roll, it's not supposed to be controlled and clean all the time and you can't have a great frontman like Axl without also getting the shit behavior back in his prime. Even Slash said it himself how some of Axl's greatness comes from him being volatile.

Axl had a part in it, but it wasn't just him that destroyed old Gn'R. It was a joint effort and all 3 need each other if they want to be a bigger band which is what they are currently doing.

 

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Legendador said:

But, do you agree they could have said "no, I won't sign this! talk to my lawyer!"?

Wasnt the story he would not go on stage until they (slash,duff) gave the name rights away. Would of been 1993. 

Then slash/duff went to court to get their name rights back as it was signed without proper legal representation etc etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, vloors said:

Wasnt the story he would not go on stage until they (slash,duff) gave the name rights away. Would of been 1993. 

Then slash/duff went to court to get their name rights back as it was signed without proper legal representation etc etc etc

That's what I'm saying! They were famous for cutting concerts short, delaying and even non-showing! That would be just another concert! They could've said no!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2021 at 1:19 AM, Euchre said:

Some do some don't. Roth would have seemed irreplaceable in VH in '85, biggest front man in the world fronting the biggest band in the world at that time and they pulled it off. AC/DC did it, Iron Maiden did it, FNM did it, RATM became Audioslave, like you mention VR did pretty well, which was basically that outcome.

 

Cover band because technically it didn't own rights to the GNR name ? Sounded more like classic GNR to me than anything the band with the name GNR has done this century. A rose by any other name.....

 

Well in some ways I agree with you, GNR is AFD5 as far as I'm concerned, including Axl.

But I am saying in my view Axl was the weakest link and hence the most replaceable, and what I'm trying to understand is why people think losing him would be more damaging that losing any other band members ? As I've pointed out with a long list of incidents if he had the control back in the 80's like he does now GNR wouldn't have got off the ground anywhere near the way it did.

It's easy to say Axl is essential, I haven't heard anyone give any evidence based reasons why. In fact all the evidence I see is the opposite - VR is a blue print for what could have been - Axl has done next to nothing without the others around him even while owning the most important asset in the brand name.

Well, the band essentially did make contraband without Axl. However, those guys are best with top tier frontman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo, they were fucked the moment they tried to undermine Izzys importance by getting him to sign that new contract. Izzy bailed and the band has been hamstringed ever since.

If you need evidence just look at the lack of new music since the "big three" reunited in 2016. Is five years not enough time to write and release a single song? :shrugs: With the 20 or so musicians that have been in GN'R since Izzy left they've only managed to release one album.

Izzy might not have had any "hits" since going solo, but it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to be a celebrity and he doesn't seem to care about chart positions. If he did he'd be out there giving interviews to every magazine, blog, podcast etc, but according to his drummer Taz: "Izzy hates the machine".

I think GNR lost all street cred as soon as Nirvana hit the scene with Nevermind, it just made GN'R look like the bloated rock stars theyd become with their OTT videos, horn section on stage etc. Had the band kept Izzy, and followed his Ju Ju Hounds back-to-roots example, I think they would have continued being successful throughout the nineties instead of imploding like they did as soon as the UYI tour ended. Thats the tour where they were still playing the songs which Izzy helped write, something they're still dependent on 30 years later.

Without Axl I doubt I'd even know who Izzy is though, so it definitely goes both ways <_<

Just my $0.02 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, downliner said:

Imo, they were fucked the moment they tried to undermine Izzys importance by getting him to sign that new contract. Izzy bailed and the band has been hamstringed ever since.

If you need evidence just look at the lack of new music since the "big three" reunited in 2016. Is five years not enough time to write and release a single song? :shrugs: With the 20 or so musicians that have been in GN'R since Izzy left they've only managed to release one album.

Izzy might not have had any "hits" since going solo, but it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to be a celebrity and he doesn't seem to care about chart positions. If he did he'd be out there giving interviews to every magazine, blog, podcast etc, but according to his drummer Taz: "Izzy hates the machine".

I think GNR lost all street cred as soon as Nirvana hit the scene with Nevermind, it just made GN'R look like the bloated rock stars theyd become with their OTT videos, horn section on stage etc. Had the band kept Izzy, and followed his Ju Ju Hounds back-to-roots example, I think they would have continued being successful throughout the nineties instead of imploding like they did as soon as the UYI tour ended. Thats the tour where they were still playing the songs which Izzy helped write, something they're still dependent on 30 years later.

Without Axl I doubt I'd even know who Izzy is though, so it definitely goes both ways <_<

Just my $0.02 :)

I hear you, but I think Axl wasn't interested in going back to his roots Izzy style, or follow the musical blueprint that was already in place like what Slash kinda wanted to do. The ambition of Axl, Slash, and I think even Duff was to continue to be the biggest band they could possibly be. This is not what Izzy wanted?

and Gn'R was always an over the top hard rock band. If you want scaled back rock n' roll, you're not going to listen to Appetite. Gn'R was more than just the product of Izzy's talent. His solo albums are great, and there are a lot of Gn'R elements that you can clearly identify in his music, but technically speaking, it's basic stuff compared to Gn'R with the huge solos and vocals and the intricate production.

so I'm not sure Izzy would have stayed even if Axl showed him the respect he deserved cause I believe he didn't want to be a part of the machine anymore. Not just the Gn'R machine and living with the drugs and Axl's drama.

after Nirvana there were still many, many fans of the more classic hard rock of Gn'R. Every genre has it's time just like the Seattle movement bands had theirs. It didn't last forever and in the end it's all just rock n' roll. You can trace what Nirvana did to The Beatles, Black Sabbath and old pop.

Kurt himself liked classic rock when he was younger. The fresh thing about them was the strong personality of the music and how they combined their influences to form something unique. Sounds familiar. Just another great retro band with a frontman that had something to say imo.

Edited by Rovim
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that it took all 5 original members to create that Appetite sound - and I also think Niven was an integral part in helping them achieve the heights of their success too.

I just get frustrated by the lack of forward momentum with GN'R. I've been a fan of Izzys solo music for 20 years and since day one I've thought "Wow, this could be a hit if Axl were singing it behind the GN'R brand". Instead of that we get GN'R releasing no music ever, and we get Izzy who refuses to tour as a solo act ever :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, downliner said:

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that it took all 5 original members to create that Appetite sound - and I also think Niven was an integral part in helping them achieve the heights of their success too.

I just get frustrated by the lack of forward momentum with GN'R. I've been a fan of Izzys solo music for 20 years and since day one I've thought "Wow, this could be a hit if Axl were singing it behind the GN'R brand". Instead of that we get GN'R releasing no music ever, and we get Izzy who refuses to tour as a solo act ever :facepalm:

both Axl and Izzy seem like interesting characters, idiosyncratic. It sucks but I believe in a way it's what made it possible to have Gn'R in the first place. I think Izzy knew how to adapt quickly and just threw the equation of his life out the window as soon as he was ready for a change cause he wasn't satisfied with the direction it was going.

Maybe he always knew what he wanted and went after it, like Axl but they wanted different things. For a time there they wanted the same thing but after their goals changed, the relationship fell apart. It happens.

the reason for the lack of forward momentum is a bit more complicated imo. I think it has a lot to do with Axl absolutely refusing to put out an album that won't deliver exactly what a modren Gn'R album is supposed to deliver musically in his mind, and also the focus on cashing in with the NITL tour.

if they want to support it with a tour right away it's one more reason for it to not come out anytime soon, even if Axl manages to complete it.

as for the potential of Izzy's material as Gn'R tunes, sure, but both Izzy and Axl seem to be satisfied with just doing their own thing. Axl hoarded a bunch of tunes that other talented guitar players helped compose and Izzy has created a very impressive solo catalog. Maybe we'll get to hear Down By The Ocean one day.

 

 

Edited by Rovim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rovim said:

both Axl and Izzy seem like interesting characters, idiosyncratic. It sucks but I believe in a way it's what made it possible to have Gn'R in the first place. I think Izzy knew how to adapt quickly and just threw the equation of his life out the window as soon as he was ready for a change cause he wasn't satisfied with the direction it was going.

Maybe he always knew what he wanted and went after it, like Axl but they wanted different things. For a time there they wanted the same thing but after their goals changed, the relationship fell apart. It happens.

To me this is the balance point - prior to Izzy leaving the band had already lost Adler & Niven and added Dizzy / elevated Goldestein (Axl yes men), so things were quite different. GNR was this finely tuned machine where they were quite different characters on one hand, but gelled perfectly on the other - because each bought something vital and left the whole thing in perfect balance. Axl held strong views, but his radar was quite often off. It was mainly Niven, Izzy and Adler that would check this. Niven had a strong personality and ensured the direction represented all 5. Izzy had known him a long time and wouldn't go along with anything he didn't think was right and Adler was vocal and just blurt out what the others were thinking but unwilling to say such that Axl would at least hear the message. Slash & Duff by there own admission would tip toe around and not rock the boat. At this point Axl had effective control of the band unchecked, which later got cemented with the ownership of the name. It's not surprise that the 3 outed were the ones outed and that the band went careering off into implosion subsequently. 

 

Quote

the reason for the lack of forward momentum is a bit more complicated imo. I think it has a lot to do with Axl absolutely refusing to put out an album that won't be exactly what a modren Gn'R album is supposed to deliver musically, and also the focus on cashing in with the NITL tour.

IMO the much simpler theory, which is what I've been arguing and providing evidence for is that Axl just isn't capable. Great frontman, awesome with the AFD5 around him to make up for his deficiencies. But musical genius that could carry the band on his own - not a chance. The combination of poor decisions, ego and perfectionism ground the whole creative thing to a halt. Given he has control now I don't expect there will ever be another album, even if there was one tomorrow 2 albums in 30 years is still a poor reflection.

There are a huge number of talented front ment out there who left bands they were known for and went on to renewed success either solo or in new bands (Rotten, Coverdale, Roth, Mustaine, Weiland, Idol, Ozzy, Anselmo, Plant, Clapton, Stewart, all the Beatles, Grohl, Halford etc etc). Alice Cooper, Bon Jovi, Iggy Pop, Mustaine again even lost all/most of their backing bands and kept the name and kept delivering.

If Axl was such an immense talent that carried GN'R how come he was incapable of doing what so many have done before - even with the unparalleled advantage he had ?

The much simpler explanation that I keep pushing is key & critical ingredient but a long way from the whole or even the majority of the story.

 

Quote

The ambition of Axl, Slash, and I think even Duff was to continue to be the biggest band they could possibly be. This is not what Izzy wanted?

The irony of this statement is because the whole balance was lost and the checks to behaviour & decisions were gone.....the whole thing imploded. If they wanted to achieve that goal it would have been better judgement to listen to the others instead of firing/forcing out. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Euchre said:

If Axl was such an immense talent that carried GN'R how come he was incapable of doing what so many have done before - even with the unparalleled advantage he had ?

like I said before, I think Axl needs other musicians to help him create the kind of music Gn'R fans are used to get from him cause that's the only band he chose to release his music with.

I think Axl always wanted Gn'R to be a huge success but not at the cost of compromising his musical integrity, at least when it comes to studio albums so the source of many of the problems between him and other band members was maybe that he wanted to realize his vision for Gn'R at almost all cost. He talked about how Slash and Duff refused to work on NR and Estranged and he kinda had to force them to do it for example.

He didn't think Gilby was a good enough writer for Gn'R, he thought Paul was the right guy to replace Izzy, he tried out Zakk Wylde cause he was more open to try shit to see if it works (I think this specifically was a mistake cause imo Zakk's style on his own didn't work with Slash's)

so maybe the intention wasn't to destroy Gn'R, or to drive them away, but to find the right direction to move forward. The only way to stay big without repeating yourself and if you seriously not interested in doing the AC/DC thing forever, why would you sell out if you actually care about the art?

maybe Axl wanted to stay musically fresh with Slash and incorporate new influences but Slash wasn't open for it? I still think it wasn't just Axl who ruined everything. That's just too easy of a way to dismiss what I think were real efforts to save Gn'R from becoming obsolete kinda like what U2 did with Achtung Baby for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I think Axl always wanted Gn'R to be a huge success but not at the cost of compromising his musical integrity, at least when it comes to studio albums so the source of many of the problems between him and other band members was maybe that he wanted to realize his vision for Gn'R at almost all cost. He talked about how Slash and Duff refused to work on NR and Estranged and he kinda had to force them to do it for example.

 

I think Axl massively compromised musical integrity for $$ and continues to do so. Why did he force the others to work on those tunes ? Commercial cross over, (some would say sell out) = $$. Would a wiser decision been to have put one out and hold one back. Remember Axl wanted NR on Appetite as well - what a stain it would have been on that album - how much wiser was it to keep it off that album ? As as been made in this thread, those songs/videos particularly NR crossed them over into the non-rock/more casual crowd, but at the same time made them look ridiculous next to Nirvana amongst the rock crowd. Why wasn't CD a solo album - answer GNR name brings in more $$. Why did he want the name - answer brand name = value = $$. Why are Duff & Slash back now - answer they were the only ones with the power to block things, need them for the $$ (plus ticket sales more $$). Why aren't Izzy / Steve back now - they clearly perform the material better than anyone else - answer they cost more $$ meaning less for the others. Highly successful bands have mountains of cash and can afford to have integrity. It is the bands struggling that need to make compromises they wouldn't have to otherwise. These guys have more cash than they can spend, and yet to get a bit more will go onstage with an inferior line up - that isn't integrity or credibility. KISS who often get ridiculed in this regard - for a long time paid to have a stand in at the ready in case Ace didn't make it to the stage - they were prepared to pay to give the best chance of the best line up being on stage. I don't get that attitude from Axl at all.

 

Band like Zep, RATM, Pantera have true integrity. Lose key band members = different band = new name or retire the name. 

 

There was another thread where someone had a T-shirt they released saying 'Freedom Through Musical Integrity' or something. I found it hilarious. Should have said 'Use Your Delusion'.

 

Quote

so maybe the intention wasn't to destroy Gn'R, or to drive them away, but to find the right direction to move forward.

I agree with you here - it certainly wasn't his intention to destroy GNR, I think he really believed in his head that the direction was vital for ongoing success. However I think his radar was way off and with unfettered power he was able to go in a poor direction without any checks. Which is my point all along with the various evidence if he had that power during the Appetite/Lies era he also would have went in a terrible direction, it was only because the others were there to not only reign him in but also give all these other great directions/inputs.

 

Quote

I still think it wasn't just Axl who ruined everything. That's just too easy of a way to dismiss what I think were real efforts to save Gn'R from becoming obsolete kinda like what U2 did with Achtung Baby for example.

I agree with you here as well. Everything wasn't Axl. The catalyst for the decline was ultimately heroin and the beginning of the end was Steve not being able to get out of its grip in mid-1990. If Steve had of been able to record and didn't get himself fired we would have seen a very different path for GN'R as the balance would have remained in tact. Having said that I don't think it was all Adler's fault either - he just happened to be the one having the issues at the wrong time. They had been trying to get that album recorded for well over a year and at various times it was Axl, Slash, Izzy or Adler fucking things up and delaying the recording - usually multiple of them. It just so happened that at the time the other 4 were ready to go and the pressure mounting up that Steve was the one with the issue at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Euchre said:

I agree with you here - it certainly wasn't his intention to destroy GNR, I think he really believed in his head that the direction was vital for ongoing success. However I think his radar was way off and with unfettered power he was able to go in a poor direction without any checks. Which is my point all along with the various evidence if he had that power during the Appetite/Lies era he also would have went in a terrible direction, it was only because the others were there to not only reign him in but also give all these other great directions/inputs.

even if you're not a fan of the direction Axl took, remember what Axl said about Slash, how he played him his early Fall To Pieces ideas and Axl got excited about it, wanted to work on it and then Slash just kinda put it back in his pocket and hoarded it for future use. It's funny cause I remember U2 saying they had no direction for Achtung Baby, they had nothing. Then The Edge came up with the riff for One and they wrote an entire album fairly quickly because they had that musical thread to pull on.

everyone got to contribute songs to UYI. And especially with such a varied album (for Gn'R at the time at least) I don't think Axl should have waited with his epics and I also don't think NR wasn't rock. It was more Queen influenced and it worked plus Slash turned it into something that contains one of the best moments in rock history imo. (NR outro)

so yeah.... how many Appetites do you think they could have made even if Axl was interested in selling out like that to live like The Stones and without Izzy? I'm guessing less than 5. I wonder if it would have been that good or interesting for a band like Gn'R to do that. It might look good on paper but I just don't think that was ever a direction Axl would have been very good at pursuing.

 

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rovim said:

even if you're not a fan of the direction Axl took, remember what Axl said about Slash playing him his early Fall To Pieces ideas and Axl being excited about it, wanting to work on it and then Slash just kinda put it back in his pocket and hoarded it for future use. It's funny cause I remember U2 saying they had no direction for Achtung Baby, they had nothing. Then The Edge came up with the riff for One and they wrote an entire album fairly quickly because they had that musical thread to pull on.

everyone got to contribute songs to UYI. And especially with such a varied album (for Gn'R at the time at least) I don't think Axl should have waited with his epics and I also don't think NR wasn't rock. It was more Queen influenced and it worked plus Slash turned it into something that contains one of the best moments in rock history imo. (NR outro)

so yeah.... how many Appetites do you think they could have made even if Axl was interested in selling out like that to live like The Stones and without Izzy? I'm guessing less than 5. I wonder if it would have been that good or interesting for a band like Gn'R to do that. It might look good on paper but I just don't think that was ever a direction Axl would have been very good at pursuing.

 

It would be interesting to hear Axl have a go at Fall To Pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, lame ass security said:

It would be interesting to hear Axl have a go at Fall To Pieces.

interesting for sure, but I kinda think it wouldn't work as well as Slither did. Maybe By The Sword. It has that Robert Plant thing to it that Axl can nail imo but I don't know if it's of a high enough of a caliber for Axl to touch.

Edited by Rovim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rovim said:

everyone got to contribute songs to UYI. And especially with such a varied album (for Gn'R at the time at least) I don't think Axl should have waited with his epics and I also don't think NR wasn't rock. It was more Queen influenced and it worked plus Slash turned it into something that contains one of the best moments in rock history imo. (NR outro)

I'm not really a fan of NR - I liked it when it came out, but have lost interest to the point I never want to hear it again.......ever. Having said that when I was into it, I did think the outro was the best part like you say. Out of those UYI ballads the only part I still like today is the ending of Estranged. Overall I find Patience infinitely more interesting than any of the UYI ballads - seems to have more originality to it, less repetitive and more relatable.

I'm probably not familiar enough with Queen to comment, but I find the Elton influence coming through, obviously the Motley influence with Home Sweet Home, but to be frank overall I just find them weak imitations of Stairway - following that 'epic ballad' formula.

 

Quote

so yeah.... how many Appetites do you think they could have made even if Axl was interested in selling out like that to live like The Stones and without Izzy? I'm guessing less than 5. I wonder if it would have been that good or interesting for a band like Gn'R to do that. It might look good on paper but I just don't think that was ever a direction Axl would have been very good at pursuing.

Probably something I haven't said enough in this whole debate is I love Lies as much as I love Appetite. I don't can't think of anyone who did an album like that in the 80's. It was massively different to Appetite so I think if they stuck together there would have been an evolution I just think it would have been in a cooler and more sustainable direction. I certainly agree Appetite 5x over wouldn't be interesting, but from the outset (evidenced by Lies and quite a few interviews) I don't think the band envisaged staying in one genre.

One of the things that made Appetite stand out was the way they pulled essentially different types of songs into one cohesive style which no-one else had really done (eg everyone was doing power ballads, but Appetite instead had RQ & SCOM : if you think about RQ its the same format as Patience & UYI ballads (ie the epic ballad), they just did it in a unique way. SCOM I don't even know what I can compare it to its like a hybrid of formulas). If they replaced either of those with say Don't Cry it would have made the album more like every other album doing the rounds at the time. Appetite/Lies were different, creative and showed the band was prepared to do their own thing.

Having a hit hard rock song is a really hard thing to do - having a hit ballad is much easier - just look at how many bands in the 80's had their biggest hit the power ballad. In the 80's GNR eschewed this, by the 90's they were embracing the cliche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...