Axl Rose: The Extended Interview

[Bridge]

Some of Axl's constant attempts to cast blame on Slash remind me of the absurdity found in the 2008 Q&A when Axl blamed Slash for "My World" being incomplete; claiming that Slash deliberately didn't work on it because he wanted the public to cast a negative light on Axl.  I thought to myself, "okay Axl, so THAT is why GNR broke up... not the drugs, not the tardiness.... just the infamous MY WORLD SCANDAL!"    Like anyone ever cared about "My World" sounding whatever way it sounded, but in Axl's very single-minded brain, it was an offensive weapon Slash was using against him.

I disagree, I think a lot of what Axl is saying is the truth.  You have to remember Slash was an addict at the time, if he meant it intentionally or not we don't know.  Axl was the only one with a clear head, and probably has every reason to believe Slash intended to break him.  Axl has stated he shouldn't have been on tour. 

Just because Axl wasn't on drugs doesn't mean he had a clear head.  I think that's an absurd statement to make.  Axl was facing the huge pressure of fame, money, and attention, and it's been documented that he had psychiatrists on tour with him during that time, so I strongly dispute any notion that Axl had his head straight.

I agree with others that it's outlandish for Axl to continuously suggest Slash was out to destroy him and the band, and that Slash's only motivation to tour in 1991 was to harm Axl.  Yeah, Slash was an addict and not clear-headed himself, but his track record of putting the work in each and every night on stage in front of tens of thousands of people, and doing whatever it took to get up there speaks for itself.



Axl makes some sense about tardiness, but he also downplays the frequency that it occurred and what cost to others (and when I say others, I don't mean just the band).  GNR was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in curfew violation fees in the 1990s; Axl's excuses don't quite extend to all of that.

[Ali]

Some of Axl's constant attempts to cast blame on Slash remind me of the absurdity found in the 2008 Q&A when Axl blamed Slash for "My World" being incomplete; claiming that Slash deliberately didn't work on it because he wanted the public to cast a negative light on Axl.  I thought to myself, "okay Axl, so THAT is why GNR broke up... not the drugs, not the tardiness.... just the infamous MY WORLD SCANDAL!"    Like anyone ever cared about "My World" sounding whatever way it sounded, but in Axl's very single-minded brain, it was an offensive weapon Slash was using against him.

I disagree, I think a lot of what Axl is saying is the truth.  You have to remember Slash was an addict at the time, if he meant it intentionally or not we don't know.  Axl was the only one with a clear head, and probably has every reason to believe Slash intended to break him.  Axl has stated he shouldn't have been on tour. 

Just because Axl wasn't on drugs doesn't mean he had a clear head.  I think that's an absurd statement to make.  Axl was facing the huge pressure of fame, money, and attention, and it's been documented that he had psychiatrists on tour with him during that time, so I strongly dispute any notion that Axl had his head straight.

I agree with others that it's outlandish for Axl to continuously suggest Slash was out to destroy him and the band, and that Slash's only motivation to tour in 1991 was to harm Axl.  Yeah, Slash was an addict and not clear-headed himself, but his track record of putting the work in each and every night on stage in front of tens of thousands of people, and doing whatever it took to get up there speaks for itself.



Axl makes some sense about tardiness, but he also downplays the frequency that it occurred and what cost to others (and when I say others, I don't mean just the band).  GNR was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in curfew violation fees in the 1990s.

There's a difference between struggling with stress and the scars of past emotional traumas and being high on drugs and alcohol.  There is nothing to suggest the former affects memory, while the latter does.

I don't see any suggestion in this interview that Slash was out to "destroy" Axl.  I see it as more of a potential power play, not an intent to harm physically or emotionally.

Ali

[Bridge]

There's a difference between struggling with stress and the scars of past emotional traumas and being high on drugs and alcohol.  There is nothing to suggest the former affects memory, while the latter does.

This is what I was responding to...

Axl was the only one with a clear head, and probably has every reason to believe Slash intended to break him.

Note the wording... Axl was the only one with a clear head.  Axl's memory is irrelevant when 1991 is the period being discussed as the present day.  Maybe Axl's memory is fine, but his interpretative capabilities at that time are what I would question.  He's only "remembering" what he could've misinterpreted to begin with.

I don't see any suggestion in this interview that Slash was out to "destroy" Axl.  I see it as more of a potential power play, not an intent to harm physically or emotionally.

Really?

That had a lot to do with Alan Niven, our then manager, and Slash. In my opinion Alan wanted money and Slash wanted the touring to get the better of me given my circumstances at the time. My safety and well-being were not their concern.

By this, I'd say Axl is very openly suggesting that Slash had an intent to harm him, and/or was acting with foreknowledge that his desire to tour might cause harm to Axl.

Paul was unfortunately being led on and used (by, and according to, Slash) at the time (as was I) for fun, with no real intention of working with him, so Steven could meet him.

It's a shame nobody addressed this earlier, because this statement shows you how "honest" Axl Rose really is.

Axl is completely misrepresenting what Slash said by leaving a lot out of the equation.  The part that Axl fails to mention is that Paul Stanley bullied his way onto a GNR soundboard one night at a show (without the band's knowledge or permission), then was extremely persistent in pursuing the band, even after they blew him off.  Slash did say that the FIRST meeting with Paul went ahead without any resistance simply because the band (not just Slash himself) realized that Steven wanted to meet Paul.  That doesn't change the fact that Paul Stanley -- both before and after that meeting -- pursued GNR because he wanted to produce the record, rewrite their songs, etc.

For Axl to say that Slash used and led on Paul Stanley is a blatant distortion of what Slash said (despite the fact that Axl claims to be repeating Slash's very words), and serves only as another attempt to disparage Slash  -- and also illustrates how Axl isn't as truthful as some people try to convince us that he is.

[Ali]

There's a difference between struggling with stress and the scars of past emotional traumas and being high on drugs and alcohol.  There is nothing to suggest the former affects memory, while the latter does.

This is what I was responding to...

Axl was the only one with a clear head, and probably has every reason to believe Slash intended to break him.

Note the wording... Axl was the only one with a clear head.  Axl's memory is irrelevant when 1991 is the period being discussed as the present day.  Maybe Axl's memory is fine, but his interpretative capabilities at that time are what I would question.  He's only "remembering" what he could've misinterpreted to begin with.

I don't see any suggestion in this interview that Slash was out to "destroy" Axl.  I see it as more of a potential power play, not an intent to harm physically or emotionally.

Really?

That had a lot to do with Alan Niven, our then manager, and Slash. In my opinion Alan wanted money and Slash wanted the touring to get the better of me given my circumstances at the time. My safety and well-being were not their concern.

By this, I'd say Axl is very openly suggesting that Slash had an intent to harm him, and/or was acting with foreknowledge that his desire to tour might cause harm to Axl.

Paul was unfortunately being led on and used (by, and according to, Slash) at the time (as was I) for fun, with no real intention of working with him, so Steven could meet him.

It's a shame nobody addressed this earlier, because this statement shows you how "honest" Axl Rose really is.

Axl is completely misrepresenting what Slash said by leaving a lot out of the equation.  The part that Axl fails to mention is that Paul Stanley bullied his way onto a GNR soundboard one night at a show (without the band's knowledge or permission), then was extremely persistent in pursuing the band, even after they blew him off.  Slash did say that the FIRST meeting with Paul went ahead without any resistance simply because the band (not just Slash himself) realized that Steven wanted to meet Paul.  That doesn't change the fact that Paul Stanley -- both before and after that meeting -- pursued GNR because he wanted to produce the record, rewrite their songs, etc.

For Axl to say that Slash used and led on Paul Stanley is a blatant distortion of what Slash said (despite the fact that Axl claims to be repeating Slash's very words), and serves only as another attempt to disparage Slash  -- and also illustrates how Axl isn't as truthful as some people try to convince us that he is.

As far at the whole Paul Stanley thing, Axl was there and has more insight into the situation than you or I. What he may be referring to as Slash's words may in fact be what Slash said in private back then. Not necessarily his recounting of the situation after the fact.

Axl never used the word "destroy", nor did he ever say Slash meant to do him harm, directly, with forethought and malice. Just that there was a disregard for his well-being, the collateral damage, by pushing a tour. Sometimes people can be hasty and careless in not thinking through or putting enough regard or thought for the potential consequences of a course of action. It's not the same as directly and maliciously intending harm. I think "getting the better" was more in regards to control of the band.

Ali

[dolphins]

Great shit. On a personal level two things are a bummer. 1) I wish Axl was Vegan. Someone as thought provoking and displays a spiritual understanding and writes about compassion yet contributes to the absolute tragic and heartbreaking practices of factory farming is disappointing to say the least.

And 2) as a big time Batman fan The Dark Knight Rises was terrible. A superhero who really only was a superhero for maybe 2 years yet has all this damage done to his body from a fight with Ras, Joker and then some dogs. Then retires. Fights were shit and fuck me was there some terrible plot holes and fight choreography. Superhero retiring after only being a hero for a couple years. This was no Batman I have ever seen before and hope to never see again.

Interesting you say you wish Axl was a Vegan, is he vegetarian? Does anyone know for sure as you never see him with food but always with a drink in hand, plus this article which I read indicates he is. I also know you don't believe everything you read on the internet so someone close to him would have to answer whether this is right or not.

 


?W. Axl Rose is an American musician, and the lead vocalist of hard rock band Guns N' Roses.
?Axl Rose has been the frontman in a number of bands before forming Guns N Roses including Rapidfire, L.A. Guns, and Hollywood Rose.
?Born as William Bruce Rose, Jr. in Lafayette, Indiana, as the only child to Sharon E. Lintner, then 16 years old, and William Bruce Rose, then 20 years old.
?Rose is friends with Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder.
?He was ranked #11 in the Hit Parader's Top Metal Vocalists of All Time and #64 in Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers of All Time and also #4 in Roadrunner's 50 Best Frontmen in Metal History.
?Axl Rose is a Los Angeles Dodgers fan.
?Rose stated in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine in April 1992, that during his childhood, he was made to believe that women and sexuality were evil.
?Due to the violent treatment of his mother by his stepfather he witnessed as an impressionable child, he was led to think that domestic violence was normal in families.
?Rose is a strict vegetarian. 
?Axl Rose has stated that he has always been a big fan of Queen.
?Axl Rose is known for wearing skin-tight jeans, bandanas, and for his high screaming voice during his songs.
?Axl Rose paid tribute to one of his biggest influences, Freddie Mercury, at the 'Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert' in 1992.
?Axl sang in church from the age of five, and also performed at services with his brother and sister in the "Bailey Trio".
?Axl Rose challenged Kurt Cobain, former lead singer of Nirvana to a fist fight at the 1992 MTV Video Music Awards.
?Axl Rose was labeled a racist homophobe for the lyrics that he wrote for his song 'One in a Million'.
?At age 16, he was kicked out of his house for not cutting his hair.

[AdZ]

Interesting you say you wish Axl was a Vegan, is he vegetarian? Does anyone know for sure as you never see him with food but always with a drink in hand, plus this article which I read indicates he is. I also know you don't believe everything you read on the internet so someone close to him would have to answer whether this is right 

Pretty sure in the India interview (or an interview as recent) Axl said he likes to eat ribs or burgers after the show..

[Bridge]

=topic=65205.msg1351521#msg1351521 date=1362803955]
As far at the whole Paul Stanley thing, Axl was there and has more insight into the situation than you or I. What he may be referring to as Slash's words may in fact be what Slash said in private back then. Not necessarily his recounting of the situation after the fact.

Maybe so, but it stills begs the question of why a seen-it-all industry professional like Paul Stanley would be duped by the 21 year old novice kids that Slash and Steven were at the time.  Axl makes it sound like Slash was this cagey manipulator at the time and that a veteran like Stanley was a clueless pawn, which I don't believe.  I would imagine Paul Stanley had seen more than his share of duplicitous types and kids trying to use him for one thing or another, and would easily be able to discern the difference.

Stanley (along with Gene Simmons) is one of rock n roll's most notorious capitalists, so it doesn't seem unlikely that he would've aggressively pursued GNR, because how else would he if he saw something in them?  I doubt an established pro like Stanley would waste time monkeying around with an untested band unless he really felt they were worth something -- and in which case, he wasn't really being led on even if Slash did say "hey, let's get Paul in just to please Steven".

Axl never used the word "destroy", nor did he ever say Slash meant to do him harm, directly, with forethought and malice. Just that there was a disregard for his well-being, the collateral damage, by pushing a tour. Sometimes people can be hasty and careless in not thinking through or putting enough regard or thought for the potential consequences of a course of action. It's not the same as directly and maliciously intending harm. I think "getting the better" was more in regards to control of the band.

You're right, Axl didn't use "destroy", but my thinking was that Axl did seem to suggest rather surely that Slash was aware of his "circumstances" at the time, which Axl alludes was ill-health of some sort.  Intuitively, if Slash were aware of Axl's ills, but pushed him onto the road anyway for the sake of a power play or however you rationalize it, could easily constitute that Slash was aware that some form of harm may come to Axl if he pushed a tour.  Maybe not total destruction and maybe not according-to-Hoyle malice, but some forethought seems to have been implied. 

[peter7411226]

I know this isn't going to be a popular post but here goes. I don't feel like Axl comes looking good off of this interview. Especially his lateness answers or non answers. Im in a band. I feel extremely fortunate to be able to do this for a living. Nowadays its extemely rare for a band to be to do this for a living full time without having some sort of side gig. For this I am and will always be eternally grateful to the people who shelve out there hard earned pay to purchase any of our material or attend our live shows. I would never willingly disrespect them by coming out hours late. I am fully aware that people work for a living. People have children they have to go home to. Maybe this was cool in the past when the average GNR fan was in there 20s. But now they are anywhere from teens to 50s. Aside from the fans who come see the show, what about the people who work at the venue. They are forced to work later hours because the band comes on a couple of hours late? Never got why they do this. Maybe it was cool once upon a time. Not anymore. Thats my opinion though.

[LunsJail]

Aside from the fans who come see the show, what about the people who work at the venue. They are forced to work later hours because the band comes on a couple of hours late? Never got why they do this. Maybe it was cool once upon a time. Not anymore. Thats my opinion though.

I'm pretty sure people working at the venue get paid overtime if they work past a certain hour. But I agree with what you're saying, the going on so late thing is a very tired act at this point.  And it wasn't all that popular in 1991.

[jarmo]

He answered a question, and you don't agree with his answer? Because the answer doesn't fit your daily agenda?
Like I've said many times in the past. Axl can't win with some of you.

You don't like when he doesn't talk, but as soon as he does, you're there to point out the "problems" with what he says. Unbelievable.


Yes, there's been shows when the band had to wait to go on stage because of issues. There's been shows when many bands would've canceled because of issues, but GN'R didn't. But people are quick to point out that the show started "late".... 


By the way, the GN'R shows that have happened since last December have all started between 7 and 9PM. I know that's "too late" for some who wish the opening acts would start at 4PM and play for an empty venue... But that's not how GN'R operates.





/jarmo

[peter7411226]

He answered a question, and you don't agree with his answer? Because the answer doesn't fit your daily agenda?
Like I've said many times in the past. Axl can't win with some of you.

You don't like when he doesn't talk, but as soon as he does, you're there to point out the "problems" with what he says. Unbelievable.


Yes, there's been shows when the band had to wait to go on stage because of issues. There's been shows when many bands would've canceled because of issues, but GN'R didn't. But people are quick to point out that the show started "late".... 


By the way, the GN'R shows that have happened since last December have all started between 7 and 9PM. I know that's "too late" for some who wish the opening acts would start at 4PM and play for an empty venue... But that's not how GN'R operates.





/jarmo

He answered the question by giving excuses for lateness. This is the only band that has been consistently late since the early 90's. Where did i say that i didnt like his answer? I called the lateness disrespectful. I should also point out that in the interview after he gives excuses he admits to not being the most punctual person. I dont believe many bands would cancel shows because of said issues? At least the majority wouldnt. It would cost too much money. Somebody made the point about the people who work there getting paid overtime. Thats all good but what about the people who want to go home to there families? I applaud them for being better at showing up on time lately. I was just critiquing his answer. Like I said though Jarmo...its my opinion. No need to get bent out of shape.

[rebelhipi]

personally i like late starts, i get the feeling that the whole band plays better when they start late. it adds something to it, compared to a performance which starts at 8 o'clock sharp. its less mechanic, more human.  even the audience gets better when more excitiment, cause we dont know when it starts and when it ends.
i think live music needs that nowdays.

[jarmo]

He answered the question by giving excuses for lateness. This is the only band that has been consistently late since the early 90's. Where did i say that i didnt like his answer? I called the lateness disrespectful. I should also point out that in the interview after he gives excuses he admits to not being the most punctual person.

Where did you say you didn't like the answer? You're here commenting on it aren't you?
Making generic comments based on your biased opinion.

Excuses?

He answered the question and gave a reason.

As I said, you don't like the answer because it's not "good enough" for you.

I dont believe many bands would cancel shows because of said issues? At least the majority wouldnt. It would cost too much money.

You don't even know the issues I was talking about, but you claim other bands wouldn't cancel...

Somebody made the point about the people who work there getting paid overtime. Thats all good but what about the people who want to go home to there families? I applaud them for being better at showing up on time lately.

This whole "what about people and their families/work" excuse.

See? You didn't like Axl's answer, not all of us have to buy the "poor ticket buyers won't get home to their families" line either.

People spend hours daily stuck in traffic on their way to/from work/school, away form their families. But oh the horror if they "lose" a few hours every other year at a rock concert!

It's all relative.

I was just critiquing his answer.

Where did i say that i didnt like his answer?

Why would you be criticizing something you like?







/jarmo

[peter7411226]

He answered the question by giving excuses for lateness. This is the only band that has been consistently late since the early 90's. Where did i say that i didnt like his answer? I called the lateness disrespectful. I should also point out that in the interview after he gives excuses he admits to not being the most punctual person.

Where did you say you didn't like the answer? You're here commenting on it aren't you?
Making generic comments based on your biased opinion.

Excuses?

He answered the question and gave a reason.

As I said, you don't like the answer because it's not "good enough" for you.

I dont believe many bands would cancel shows because of said issues? At least the majority wouldnt. It would cost too much money.

You don't even know the issues I was talking about, but you claim other bands wouldn't cancel...

Somebody made the point about the people who work there getting paid overtime. Thats all good but what about the people who want to go home to there families? I applaud them for being better at showing up on time lately.

This whole "what about people and their families/work" excuse.

See? You didn't like Axl's answer, not all of us have to buy the "poor ticket buyers won't get home to their families" line either.

People spend hours daily stuck in traffic on their way to/from work/school, away form their families. But oh the horror if they "lose" a few hours every other year at a rock concert!

It's all relative.

I was just critiquing his answer.

Where did i say that i didnt like his answer?

Why would you be criticizing something you like?







/jarmo

How can you possibly compare being stuck in traffic ( which is something you cant control) to an artist coming on late continually ( which can be controlled)? You claim that my opinion is biased. No shit. I respect my fan base. And I respect the fact that once GNR goes on stage they give it there all. Apparently you made it clear that you really dont care about the poor ticket buyers getting home to there families. Its all good if you dont care...but when bands dont care then I have a problem. They afford me a chance to do what I love for a living. Of course im going to treat them with the respect that I would expect from them too. I can stay out all night and see a GNR show. I dont have to go to work the next day. I've always been a huge fan of this band but this has always been an issue for me. Show some humility.

[jarmo]

How can you possibly compare being stuck in traffic ( which is something you cant control) to an artist coming on late continually ( which can be controlled)?

I didn't. I said people "lose" time every single day. So you expect to be late because of traffic, planes being delayed etc. and it's fine. But not if a rock concert doesn't finish by 11pm?
Sometimes you're not in control. Deal with it. Have another beer.  It's not the end of the world. Probably just one night of the year you can't control everything in your life!

By the way, as I said, the band hasn't been late recently. So, there you go.

And I respect the fact that once GNR goes on stage they give it there all.

Good!

Apparently you made it clear that you really dont care about the poor ticket buyers getting home to there families.

No, not what I said.

I said I don't buy that excuse! The excuse that people's need to be home before 11PM is the most important thing when putting on a rock concert....

I'd put the art first. Then bed time.


And sometimes I don't know what's going on with people. For example, if you're in Las Vegas and you're upset that a show didn't start at 9PM. 

Its all good if you dont care...but when bands dont care then I have a problem. They afford me a chance to do what I love for a living. Of course im going to treat them with the respect that I would expect from them too. I can stay out all night and see a GNR show. I dont have to go to work the next day. I've always been a huge fan of this band but this has always been an issue for me. Show some humility.

And I think it's all relative.

I'm sure you, and those who's main concern about going out to a rock concert is the time they'll be back home, would be thrilled if GN'R were on stage at 9PM and played for 90 minutes so you'd be out of the venue well before 11PM.

But then again, some would rather stay until midnight and get a three hour show....

See, it's all relative and about what's important to you.

For most fans, the show is important. They look forward to it for months. Their main concern isn't what time they'll be back home.... 

Just like their main concern isn't the setlist. It's only very important to the special people of the Internet who read setlists and compare without attending the shows.



/jarmo

[Lord Stan]

I've never understood why there are so many people all around the world only worrying how to get home from somewhere. What's the point of going if you only want to get back home?

Surely, you sort of need to have a plan how to get home but if it fails take a cab. If you don't have that much of emergency cash available then maybe you really shouldn't go at all with your last money. And I'm not only talking about rock concerts.

People won't go away for a weekend break because "what time we'll be back on Sunday?" even when going by car. If your flight is cancelled or the car breaks down and you can't get to work on Monday you call your boss and explain.

[One.In.A.Million]

I've never understood why there are so many people all around the world only worrying how to get home from somewhere. What's the point of going if you only want to get back home?

Surely, you sort of need to have a plan how to get home but if it fails take a cab. If you don't have that much of emergency cash available then maybe you really shouldn't go at all with your last money. And I'm not only talking about rock concerts.

People won't go away for a weekend break because "what time we'll be back on Sunday?" even when going by car. If your flight is cancelled or the car breaks down and you can't get to work on Monday you call your boss and explain.

Nice post...

I personally make sure I never have any plans the day after a GN'R show, and if I was scheduled to work I book it off, simple. I have never left a GN'R show early, and would never do so, the entire concept seems alien to me, how could you do that???...

People need to stop whining and enjoy themselves...

[FreddieJames]

I've never understood why there are so many people all around the world only worrying how to get home from somewhere. What's the point of going if you only want to get back home?

Surely, you sort of need to have a plan how to get home but if it fails take a cab. If you don't have that much of emergency cash available then maybe you really shouldn't go at all with your last money. And I'm not only talking about rock concerts.

People won't go away for a weekend break because "what time we'll be back on Sunday?" even when going by car. If your flight is cancelled or the car breaks down and you can't get to work on Monday you call your boss and explain.

I don't get that either. You're going to a Guns N Roses show...so you shouldn't even care how or when you get home....I mean, have you never heard of Axl Rose? If I go to a Guns show, I don't care about the next day....go to a Bon Jovi show if you want to be safe and sure....wtf....

[dolphins]

I know how notorious they've been getting on stage "on time" and holding up audiences for hours at times. These days seem to have slowly passed as the time they hit the stage after the previous act seems to get shorter and shorter.

We were caught out at the Melbourne show still in our seats when suddenly the lights went out & people came from nowhere. I was pulled to the barrier before my mind even registered that the band were about to come on - I expected a delay & some sort of "announcement" they were about to start but no. It was a pleasant if not surprising start to the show - just wish they'd played longer like 4hrs 
This band are like an addiction, they just leave you wanting more.