This does not seem like a band...

[jamillos]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That also a contested topic. Back then Slash would repetitively talk about how Axl was chasing trends and wanted Guns N' Roses to evolve while he (Slash) just wanted to do what they were good at. This culminated in Axl rejecting the music Slash had been working on (Axl and others would later claim Slash insisted on Axl just putting vocals to the finished songs). Axl, on the other hand, would claim this isn't true and that he was willing to make an Appetite sounding record and that's why be agreed to bring in Zakk Wylde. The reason why it didn't happen, according to Axl, was that the songs Slash submitted simply weren't good enough (they ended up on the first Snakepit album) and that Slash wasn't willing to put in the effort to make better songs (Slash was basically checking himself out of the band at this time, focusing instead on Snakepit and other projects), although Slash sort-of hung around until 1996 with a few more writing sessions. Only after Slash had left did Axl, almost out of necessity, change the music of GN'R (while still trying to make music in what he considered to be the spirit, so to say, of the band). Or so he say. All the rumours about Axl wanting to bring in Trent Reznor and work with programming and digital tools and make music in that reaction, was, if you believe him, Axl's plans on a solo album. With things falling apart, the ideas of this more modern solo album and the next GN'R album kind of merged.

So what would we have got if they hadn't split? Well, if Axl had budged we would have got the Snakepit songs released by Guns N' Roses, with Axl on vocals. Or, if Slash hadn't quit, we would have got whatever they worked on before Slash split, and some of these songs we know of today as This I Love, Fall To Pieces and Hardschool. Personally, I think that could have been a great record, in the vein of classic GN'R. And maybe Axl would have released a solo album with a different sound. 

Yeah... how cool would it be if they decided one day to address the whole break-up era and tell us everything? I mean, if they did it together, it wouldn't necessarily mean "stirring up old shit", and it would be awesome for the fans, because when you think about it, an important part of a history of one of the greatest bands ever is still shrouded in mystery to quite a large degree. One can dream... 

[Rovim]

On 6/5/2021 at 4:03 PM, RussTCB said:

That Gorman book changed my perception of some amazing Crowes shows I saw. It didn't make my memories of them bad, but it made me think about exactly what you mentioned. 

just saw this: https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/the-black-crowes-have-written-20-new-songs/

[SoulMonster]

23 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Yeah... how cool would it be if they decided one day to address the whole break-up era and tell us everything? I mean, if they did it together, it wouldn't necessarily mean "stirring up old shit", and it would be awesome for the fans, because when you think about it, an important part of a history of one of the greatest bands ever is still shrouded in mystery to quite a large degree. One can dream... 

I don't know if there really is much more to be said, it is more a case of who to trust. Do we trust Axl and his claims that he was willing to make an album that was similar to what they had done before, but that Slash's focus was elsewhere? Or Slash who claims Axl wanted to go places he didn't and that their different points of view as far as the future of GN'R went, couldn't be reconciled? The truth is likely neither one or the other, but something in between. Axl was definitely difficult to work with and his ideas of of what he wanted was probably not clearly understood by the others. And Slash clearly wanted something done quickly or to tour Spaghetti, and when his music was rejected he decided to do other things than GN'R. Ultimately, Slash has had enough and he decided to replace his fiancée (GN'R) with his girlfriend (Snakepit) - as it often is when you are unhappy in a relationship and a possible escape manifests itself.  I don't think there are any unknown plot twists here. They could have reconciled sooner when Slash realized Snakepit didn't go anywhere, but by then it was too late, it had become too ugly. Axl felt abandoned and betrayed and Slash likely was uneasy returning to something that was incredibly frustrating even to a person as laidback as himself. Then followed numerous lawsuits, snipes back and forth, interviews and biographies that didn't help, before they got back together again. And that reunion is more a mystery to me. Is it as simply as Axl realizing his nuGuns project had irretrievably stalled, that the lust for money got too big, that the fans demanded it, or that some reconciliation happened behind the scenes? And how stable is it now?

[downzy]

38 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Yeah... how cool would it be if they decided one day to address the whole break-up era and tell us everything? I mean, if they did it together, it wouldn't necessarily mean "stirring up old shit", and it would be awesome for the fans, because when you think about it, an important part of a history of one of the greatest bands ever is still shrouded in mystery to quite a large degree. One can dream... 

Perhaps Axl has changed, but I can't see it being anything other than everyone but Axl acknowledging their role in how and why the band broke up.

To be honest, I don't think there's much mystery about it all.  Both Slash and Duff have given their accounts in their books.  Axl has given bits and pieces of how he believes things fell apart through interviews over the years.  A "Friends Reunion" type show where everyone talks about what happened way back when likely wouldn't produce much groundbreaking info that we haven't heard before.  My bet is it would be more like a televised "kiss the ring" moment where everyone other than Axl accepts their own role in what happened.  Since Slash and Duff are already making bank with a GNR reunion; there's really no need for them to grovel on air in order to keep their pay cheques.   

[Rovim]

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

Perhaps Axl has changed, but I can't see it being anything other than everyone but Axl acknowledging their role in how and why the band broke up.

To be honest, I don't think there's much mystery about it all.  Both Slash and Duff have given their accounts in their books.  Axl has given bits and pieces of how he believes things fell apart through interviews over the years.  A "Friends Reunion" type show where everyone talks about what happened way back when likely wouldn't produce much groundbreaking info that we haven't heard before.  My bet is it would be more like a televised "kiss the ring" moment where everyone other than Axl accepts their own role in what happened.  Since Slash and Duff are already making bank with a GNR reunion; there's really no need for them to grovel on air in order to keep their pay cheques.   

Axl has never truly went into detail about his side of the Gn'R breakup and the story from his point of view. Axl said Slash's book wasn't truthful. That alone makes me want to know how he thinks it really went down.

realistically, the only way it's going to happen is an Axl autobiography many years from now when the band is over and enough time has passed to talk about it without hurting other member's feelings.

Axl also seems to have a better memory compared to Slash and Duff and a genuine interest to share his views on the matter.

[foreverguns]

13 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Yes. It's under my avatar.

Is that you? I always thought that pic is Patti Smith 

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Axl has never truly went into detail about his side of the Gn'R breakup and the story from his point of view. Axl said Slash's book wasn't truthful. That alone makes me want to know how he thinks it really went down.

I think Axl's main objections to Slash's book was the allegations that Axl had forced the others to give up the name and Slash's account of how he was kind-of pushed out of GN'R because Axl was so unwilling to compromise on the music of GN'R. At least that's how I interpret it from Axl's forum chats in late 2008. There could definitely be other things. 

In a sense, Axl has only himself to blame. He could have done more interviews and posted more to give his side of the story, but as it was, he decided to stay silent and Slash got to steer the narrative. Axl would claim he didn't do interview because the media was so much against him and so pro-Slash. That's silly. Magazines would pay lots of money for interviews with Axl and he could of course insist on quote checking before publishing. He decided to go underground and Slash, as media savvy as he is, got to say his side of the story unopposed by Axl except for a few rare instances. This very much formed the public perception of things, correct or not. 

Now no one would want to stir the sleeping bear, so we cant expect any honest interviews as long as the tour is rolling.

[jamillos]

51 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know if there really is much more to be said, it is more a case of who to trust. Do we trust Axl and his claims that he was willing to make an album that was similar to what they had done before, but that Slash's focus was elsewhere? Or Slash who claims Axl wanted to go places he didn't and that their different points of view as far as the future of GN'R went, couldn't be reconciled? The truth is likely neither one or the other, but something in between. Axl was definitely difficult to work with and his ideas of of what he wanted was probably not clearly understood by the others. And Slash clearly wanted something done quickly or to tour Spaghetti, and when his music was rejected he decided to do other things than GN'R. Ultimately, Slash has had enough and he decided to replace his fiancée (GN'R) with his girlfriend (Snakepit) - as it often is when you are unhappy in a relationship and a possible escape manifests itself.  I don't think there are any unknown plot twists here. They could have reconciled sooner when Slash realized Snakepit didn't go anywhere, but by then it was too late, it had become too ugly. Axl felt abandoned and betrayed and Slash likely was uneasy returning to something that was incredibly frustrating even to a person as laidback as himself. Then followed numerous lawsuits, snipes back and forth, interviews and biographies that didn't help, before they got back together again. And that reunion is more a mystery to me. Is it as simply as Axl realizing his nuGuns project had irretrievably stalled, that the lust for money got too big, that the fans demanded it, or that some reconciliation happened behind the scenes? And how stable is it now?

 

45 minutes ago, downzy said:

Perhaps Axl has changed, but I can't see it being anything other than everyone but Axl acknowledging their role in how and why the band broke up.

To be honest, I don't think there's much mystery about it all.  Both Slash and Duff have given their accounts in their books.  Axl has given bits and pieces of how he believes things fell apart through interviews over the years.  A "Friends Reunion" type show where everyone talks about what happened way back when likely wouldn't produce much groundbreaking info that we haven't heard before.  My bet is it would be more like a televised "kiss the ring" moment where everyone other than Axl accepts their own role in what happened.  Since Slash and Duff are already making bank with a GNR reunion; there's really no need for them to grovel on air in order to keep their pay cheques.   

I see these points, but... I maintain that at least an interview – something like that Axl’s China Exchange thing in '16 – would shed light on things and officially give us an account of what happened, with these two/three sitting there together. Apart from the books back from the feud era, they haven’t really talked about it. And the casuals don't know anything. And yes, plus the reunion. "It’s all on the Coachella promoter". Bullshit. 

[Blackstar]

10 minutes ago, foreverguns said:

Is that you? I always thought that pic is Patti Smith 

I meant that it says "female" under my avatar (yes, the avatar is Patti Smith).

[RussTCB]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

just saw this: https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/the-black-crowes-have-written-20-new-songs/

I'm not really interested in anything Chris & Rich are gonna do without Steve, but I appreciate the heads up

[Padme]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think Axl's main objections to Slash's book was the allegations that Axl had forced the others to give up the name and Slash's account of how he was kind-of pushed out of GN'R because Axl was so unwilling to compromise on the music of GN'R. At least that's how I interpret it from Axl's forum chats in late 2008. There could definitely be other things. 

Duff in his book said something similiar to what Slash said about giving up the name. I remember Axl saying in some interview that he only read Slash book. That means he didn't read what Adler and Duff wrote. Duff wasn't very happy about Paul Tobias either.  But I believe that today they are older. And they have their own lives and family. They are far from being the guys they were in 1987. They don't live in the streets anymore. The music industry is not what it used to be either. Sure I wish GN'R  could handle some issues in a different way these days. But nobody can expect them to be the band they used to be.

[Beto 22]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

Axl has never truly went into detail about his side of the Gn'R breakup and the story from his point of view. Axl said Slash's book wasn't truthful. That alone makes me want to know how he thinks it really went down.

realistically, the only way it's going to happen is an Axl autobiography many years from now when the band is over and enough time has passed to talk about it without hurting other member's feelings.

Axl also seems to have a better memory compared to Slash and Duff and a genuine interest to share his views on the matter.

I believe if Axl would do a Biography today, he would probably blame Doug Gouldstein... Slash and Duff said the same thing about giving up the name and both said it was through Goldstein and never said that there were any pressurre by Axl personally to make them give up the name.

And Axl said sometimes he wanted to have some control of the name to protect himself from being fired the way it hapenned in the past with Niven attempt. So if Axl does a biography these days he would probably say that he wants some kind of protection and Doug handle it making the impression he wanted the name and this was never his intention.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

Duff in his book said something similiar to what Slash said about giving up the name.

I haven't added quotes from the biographies yet, but they talked about this a few times before the biographies started to come out, too:

(19) 19. DECEMBER 1994-OCTOBER 1996: AXL AND SLASH FIGHTS, SLASH QUITS (a-4-d.com)

An aspect with this name conflict is that Slash has repeatedly said he never wanted the name, but still he has publicly contested Axl's takeover quite a few times. Axl provides a solution to this apparent paradox by suggesting Slash only started to oppose Axl getting the name when it became public and after the media started to look at Slash as having lost face:

"In my opinion the reality of the shift and the public embarrassment and ridicule by others (which included a lot of not so on the level business types he was associating with at the time) for not contesting the rights to the brand name, were more than Slash could openly face."

It makes some sense.

[Here's the chapter on why Axl's decided to continue with the band name: (19) 20. NOVEMBER 1996-AUGUST 1997: ROBIN REPLACES SLASH BUT MATT AND DUFF QUITS (a-4-d.com)]

Edited June 17, 2021 by SoulMonster

[Blackstar]

Curiously enough, in the book Slash didn't repeat the story of signing the name over to Axl under pressure before a show; he only made a general reference to Axl's "insistence" on litigating the band name - which, according to him, started after Steven was out of the band - but didn't get into specifics as to when exactly and how the rights to the name were signed over (although he did say that he and Duff were "forced"). Nor did he emphasize on their musical differences and their dispute over the Snakepit songs (but he went into more detail about Paul Tobias). So, basically, what Axl was responding to in the chats regarding those issues was Slash's claims over the years, and not in the book specifically. But there were probably a few other stories in the book concerning events throughout the history of the band that Axl took issue with.

The thing Slash stressed in the book - and in some interviews after that - in regards to the breakup was the second phase of the ownership of the name saga, ie. Axl's "legal takeover" in 1995. That part of the story has remained dark and Axl hasn't really explained it. He had already secured the rights to the name for himself in case the band broke up (and gave his side on why he wanted to do that) - it was his. Why did he need to make that additional move in 1995? The thing he said about that was that his intention was "to salvage Guns, not steal it." Salvage it from what? He alluded to an attempted takeover from Slash that would have destroyed the band and led him (Axl) "to bankruptcy," but didn't elaborate on what exactly Slash had done. So we can only speculate that Axl interpreted Slash's actions  (taking the Snakepit songs and focusing on his solo project, then leaving to tour with it and blaming Axl in interviews) as part of a strategy with malicious intent. And the question is, did Axl arrive at that interpretation all by himself or was he instigated/encouraged to it by third parties? Slash attributed a "facilitating" role to Doug Goldstein and a leading role to people (that he did not name) who were after Axl's money. Who were those people? Lawyers? The Sedona people, maybe?

Whatever the case, it seems that towards the end there was a power play - regardless of whether it was premeditated or not - where each party underestimated how far the other one could take it.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Blackstar

[rocknroll41]

In my eyes it stopped being a real band the moment Axl forced Dizzy into the lineup against everyone else’s wishes, way back in 1990.

[Rovim]

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Curiously enough, in the book Slash didn't repeat the story of signing the name over to Axl under pressure before a show; he only made a general reference to Axl's "insistence" on litigating the band name - which, according to him, started after Steven was out of the band - but didn't get into specifics as to when exactly and how the rights to the name were signed over. Nor did he emphasize on their musical differences and their dispute over the Snakepit songs (but he went into more detail about Paul Tobias). So, basically, what Axl was responding to in the chats regarding those issues was Slash's claims over the years, and not in the book specifically. But there were probably a few other stories in the book concerning events throughout the history of the band that Axl took issue with.

The thing Slash stressed in the book - and in some interviews after that - in regards to the breakup was the second phase of the ownership of the name saga, ie. Axl's "legal takeover" in 1995. That part of the story has remained dark and Axl hasn't really explained it. He had already secured the rights to the name for himself in case the band broke up (and gave his side on why he wanted to do that) - it was his. Why did he need to make that additional move in 1995? The thing he said about that was that his intention was "to salvage Guns, not steal it." Salvage it from what? He alluded to an attempted takeover from Slash, that would have destroyed the band and led him (Axl) "to bankruptcy," but didn't elaborate on what exactly Slash had done. So we can only speculate that Axl interpreted Slash's actions  (taking the Snakepit songs and focusing on his solo project, leaving the band to tour with it and blaming Axl on interviews) as part of a strategy with malicious intent. And the question is, did Axl come to that conclusion all by himself or was he instigated/encouraged to it by third parties? Slash attributed a "facilitating" role to Doug Goldstein and a leading role to people (that he didn't not name) who went after Axl's money. Who were those people? Lawyers? The Sedona people, maybe?

Whatever the case, it seems that towards the end there was a power play - regardless premeditated or not - where each party underestimated how far the other one could take it.

as a side note, I've always believed that a lot of what Slash said in his book (which I've enjoyed reading multiple times) was calculated to not upset Axl too much. A lot of it was even diplomatic. Maybe Slash was interested in burying the hatchet cause he knew VR wasn't going to last or at least in the case of that band's demise.

it could have been a much bitter autobiography. I also remember something about Axl saying he didn't want wives of ex band members taking over the name?

I think both Axl and Slash didn't trust one another anymore in the few years leading to the breakup of Gn'R. Slash slowly checked out and my guess is he didn't want to put all the eggs in one basket anymore, he wanted to carve his own niche outside of it and maybe he thought that Axl would never even try to keep Gn'R going without him, so when he left, maybe there was an intention there to comeback after Axl realized he had to have Slash in his band.

also Axl maybe viewed Gn'R as bigger than just the classic members, an entity that must continue to exist even without Slash so the name was a part of it and also to protect what Axl saw as his anyway.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, rocknroll41 said:

In my eyes it stopped being a real band the moment Axl forced Dizzy into the lineup against everyone else’s wishes, way back in 1990.

Dizzy's inclusion in the band is a part of GN'R history that I feel we should know more about, or that I feel we are missing some passive-aggressive quotes from Slash about how he opposed it, but curiously we don't have a lot of quotes from 1990 about it. Here's what I have written so far: (19) 11. 1990: MOVING FORWARD WITH A NEW LINEUP (a-4-d.com)

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Rovim said:

as a side note, I've always believed that a lot of what Slash said in his book (which I've enjoyed reading multiple times) was calculated to not upset Axl too much. A lot of it was even diplomatic. Maybe Slash was interested in burying the hatchet cause he knew VR wasn't going to last or at least in the case of that band's demise.

it could have been a much bitter autobiography.

Definitely. Slash said so himself, too. And this was around when he was considering trying to rejoin GN'R again, so it could absolutely have been a strategic decision to prepare for that; but it could also have been just, you know, him being an alright guy. I don't know. But he definitely could have been tougher on Axl. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if Axl thinks Slash could have been more explicit in defending him and dispelling some of the public myths about Axl. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Axl considered the book another betrayal. But unfortunately, Axl hasn't spoken much about the book (at least not up till 2009, which is where I am in my reading).

Here's my chapter on Slash's biography: (19) 27. JANUARY 2007-JUNE 2008 - LEAKS AND TOURING (a-4-d.com)

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Slash slowly checked out and my guess is he didn't want to put all the eggs in one basket anymore, he wanted to carve his own niche outside of it and maybe he thought that Axl would never even try to keep Gn'R going without him, so when he left, maybe there was an intention there to comeback after Axl realized he had to have Slash in his band.

I think this is an astute observation. Slash has alluded to not fearing Axl could do anything with the band name without him. Apparently he was wrong and while he only reached some success with Velvet Revolver, he would watch Axl, without really doing anything (in fact, by most metrics Axl did everything wrong - lack of promotion, no releases, controversy after controversy) manage to grow the GN'R brand to such a a size where people were much more curious about Axl and GN'R than Slash and whatever he was up do. And in hindsight, and to Axl's credit, this is in my opinion an outcome of Axl always keeping things interesting and never sort-of standing still artistically (well, except the last...uhm, 10 years? :D) while Slash has been catering to the ever-dwindling market segment of simple bluesy rock and roll music. In hindsight one might conclude that Axl's perceptively realize they needed to evolve, but on the other hand it could just be that he had to when Slash left.

[Padme]

20 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Curiously enough, in the book Slash didn't repeat the story of signing the name over to Axl under pressure before a show; he only made a general reference to Axl's "insistence" on litigating the band name - which, according to him, started after Steven was out of the band - but didn't get into specifics as to when exactly and how the rights to the name were signed over. Nor did he emphasize on their musical differences and their dispute over the Snakepit songs (but he went into more detail about Paul Tobias). So, basically, what Axl was responding to in the chats regarding those issues was Slash's claims over the years, and not in the book specifically. But there were probably a few other stories in the book concerning events throughout the history of the band that Axl took issue with.

The thing is, way too much water under the bridge. So they are not the band they used to be. And for one reason or another, there was disfunction and all kind issues. So very few times they look like a band. And not just GN'R many rock bands had all kind of problems. The diference is that bands like Rolling Stones, Metallica or Van Halen were capable to release several albums despite everything.

[Rovim]

42 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think this is an astute observation. Slash has alluded to not fearing Axl could do anything with the band name without him. Apparently he was wrong and while he only reached some success with Velvet Revolver, he would watch Axl, without really doing anything (in fact, by most metrics Axl did everything wrong - lack of promotion, no releases, controversy after controversy) manage to grow the GN'R brand to such a a size where people were much more curious about Axl and GN'R than Slash and whatever he was up do. And in hindsight, and to Axl's credit, this is in my opinion an outcome of Axl always keeping things interesting and never sort-of standing still artistically (well, except the last...uhm, 10 years? :D) while Slash has been catering to the ever-dwindling market segment of simple bluesy rock and roll music. In hindsight one might conclude that Axl's perceptively realize they needed to evolve, but on the other hand it could just be that he had to when Slash left.

I think it's possible that the need to somewhat evolve and progress from album to album was always there for Axl and it had reached a point before the breakup where him and Slash didn't see eye to eye anymore because of this (among other things) and then the need to do something other than riff based hard rock was even greater when Axl didn't have Slash anymore to provide the building blocks for that type of album. Tunes like My World and Oh My God were already an indication Axl wasn't afraid of incorporating musical elements that were new to Gn'R while according to Axl, Slash and Duff didn't even want to work on piano tunes like NR and Estranged.

it seems there are a lot of musicians who don't mind treading the same water artistically where for others they have to change from album to album.

I believe the biggest challenge and obstacle for Axl and Slash wasn't their ability to create another great Gn'R album together after UYI, even without Izzy. it was the lack of a shared musical goal and approach. Enough material was there to give them direction but it was probably too late for that cause their egos made them think each of them knew best when it came to Gn'R.

 

[guitarpatch]

3 hours ago, Beto 22 said:

I believe if Axl would do a Biography today, he would probably blame Doug Gouldstein... Slash and Duff said the same thing about giving up the name and both said it was through Goldstein and never said that there were any pressurre by Axl personally to make them give up the name.

And Axl said sometimes he wanted to have some control of the name to protect himself from being fired the way it hapenned in the past with Niven attempt. So if Axl does a biography these days he would probably say that he wants some kind of protection and Doug handle it making the impression he wanted the name and this was never his intention.

When you’re relying on intermediaries for communication, you’re also beholden to their personal slants and even agendas 

They all have a version to what happened because they weren’t mentally and/or physically there to address it. They have no one to blame but themselves 

A band can function or not function in many different ways. Who’s to say what’s the official definition. I think we all know what the band’s focus has been these last few years. I think we all know the focus for a few periods of the band’s history. 

There have been multiple off ramps and reasons for fans to abandon over the years. Personally new music is at the end of that list for myself. There’s been one album in 30 years. Why is this tour the last straw? It is what’s its always been with this band. If something gets released, then that’s great. If not, it’s what exactly what GNR has been for the majority of its existence 

 

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Rovim said:

Axl has never truly went into detail about his side of the Gn'R breakup and the story from his point of view.

With any specificity?  No.

But the broad strokes are there, based on the few interviews he's done.  We know that Axl felt pressured by Slash to conform to Slash's creative vision that contrasted with what Axl wanted to do.  According to Axl he wasn't feeling all that confident about his songwriting abilities around this time (which seems kind of crazy to me considering November Rain was the biggest hit from the Illusion albums).  When asked point bank, I believe by the LA Times in an interview back in 2013 or 2014, about whether he shares any responsibility for the band's demise, he responded with an analogy of being tripped on a plane (i.e., how can anyone blame him for being tripped).

Axl is and can be a very kind and courteous person.  The two times I met him he was friendly and very social.  So this isn't an indictment of him as a person.  But has anyone ever heard him take any responsibility for what happened during that period?  Maybe I missed an interview, but I don't believe I've ever heard him own any element of what happened.  You can't say that about either Slash or Duff, who do make it clear that their drug and booze habits made them less than reliable bandmates.  Also they've been upfront of not wanting to rock the boat to the point where it was just easier for them to walk away then to confront Axl directly.  

Perhaps Axl has changed now that things are patched up with Slash and Duff.  But more than likely the three of them are making way too much money on the reunion that it's just not worth it financially to dive back into what blew the band up.  All three have obviously found a place that works for them; one that perhaps involved a few private comments or discussions that really don't need to be litigated or examined by the public.  My only argument here is that considering Axl's history of not taking any responsibility for what happened, it would serve nobody's interests to see them provide a public platform to analyze the past.  Axl's unlikely to show any attrition or accept responsibility for his part in why the band imploded.  Moreover, Slash and Duff probably care more about the money they're making than getting any personal satisfaction of seeing Axl trying to defend their past issues with him.  

 

[MaskingApathy]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know if there really is much more to be said, it is more a case of who to trust. Do we trust Axl and his claims that he was willing to make an album that was similar to what they had done before, but that Slash's focus was elsewhere? Or Slash who claims Axl wanted to go places he didn't and that their different points of view as far as the future of GN'R went, couldn't be reconciled? The truth is likely neither one or the other, but something in between. Axl was definitely difficult to work with and his ideas of of what he wanted was probably not clearly understood by the others. And Slash clearly wanted something done quickly or to tour Spaghetti, and when his music was rejected he decided to do other things than GN'R. Ultimately, Slash has had enough and he decided to replace his fiancée (GN'R) with his girlfriend (Snakepit) - as it often is when you are unhappy in a relationship and a possible escape manifests itself.  I don't think there are any unknown plot twists here. They could have reconciled sooner when Slash realized Snakepit didn't go anywhere, but by then it was too late, it had become too ugly. Axl felt abandoned and betrayed and Slash likely was uneasy returning to something that was incredibly frustrating even to a person as laidback as himself. Then followed numerous lawsuits, snipes back and forth, interviews and biographies that didn't help, before they got back together again. And that reunion is more a mystery to me. Is it as simply as Axl realizing his nuGuns project had irretrievably stalled, that the lust for money got too big, that the fans demanded it, or that some reconciliation happened behind the scenes? And how stable is it now?

The details behind how the reunion came together are what I'm more interested in. Why did Axl call Slash, what did they say, etc.

[19AT5]

8 minutes ago, MaskingApathy said:

The details behind how the reunion came together are what I'm more interested in. Why did Axl call Slash, what did they say, etc.

Axl: "Pint?"

Slash: "Aye."

Axl: "Cool."

Duff: "Time?"

Axl: "Noo."

Duff: "K."

That's how it went doon. According to legend.