Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I was thinking that the main reason why Izzy and Steve, were not part of the reunion was that making money was more important for Axl than creating music, at least that was my perception, since Izzy by his side, was a great contributor to GNRs compositions.

I miss Izzy, I wish he'd still be in the band but I see he is not recognized by Axl and the current members, which seem to be doing fine financially without him or steven, kind of like they do not need them.

I think if it was money he would have done the reunion a lot sooner. I think it's loyalty to Frank and Fortus as well as the perceived lack of dependability of Adler and Izzy.

I kinda get the feeling Izzy didn't really want to go back to the madness of GnR the guy could be on stage with them if he really wanted to but I always got the impression he didn't like how big GnR got and the demands and commitments that go with being in a big band ,they've been on the road for the last 5 years he may not have wanted to commit to that amount of touring or when he did turn up for the reunion rehearsals it reminded him of why he left the band In the first place and that he didn't wanna go through that again.

Steven was in rehearsals with them early on until something happen, shoulder problems?, and he couldn't go on tour.  I thought he would have been in the mix a while back but it never happen.

Bingo. Everybody wants it to be some salacious conspiracy but Occam's Razor applies.

I think it comes down to need. Axl needed Slash and Duff to make this feel like a true reunion. But once you have a majority of the original members (and the three most well-known ones) you don't need the rest.

I think in Axl's mind steven is just a drummer like anyone else in terms of contribution in writing music (i'm not talking about the "sound" he brings) plus he's always been a pain in the ass, so even tough he knows that steven he's loved by fans, he doesn't think he deserves that spot. Frank is a better choice in the long run, even if he doesn't fit like steven (or maybe even like another drummer).


Let's talk about Izzy now in Axl's perspective... Izzy left by choice in 1991 leavin' Axl  in a less power position over the other members (duff and slash). They were longtime friends and suddenly he found himself alone to carry the gnr burden. And after 25 years he found that his friend wants the same amount of money knowing well that he doesnt bring 1 more guy into the arena (dont get me wrong, everyone knows the importance of izzy, but he already gets the money from the works he made on AFD an UYI). So it was like, izzy you have to be realistic (all another story would be the making of a new album), don't ask for that.

So yes, to me money is the main reason, at the end of the day it's work... And i don't really understand Izzy's choice, he had everythin' to lose from his refusal and he lost it ... money, fun, a new beginning even for his solo work.

For Izzy it probably came down to need, too. I'm sure he's doing just fine, and felt like he didn't need to take less than the others to disrupt his life and go on a grueling, worldwide, and seemingly never ending, tour.

Naaa, they are pushin 60 ... this is like their last ride. And "the less" money we are talking about is probably a pile. So, i don't know, the "they didn't want to split the loot equally" thing to me is very childish at this point in his life as an artist (if that is the true reason). U will never have another chance to play in big stadiums in your whole life, is not something that happens every day. If it's just for the money, it's stupid. because 10000 100000 1000000 are better than 0 in any case.

I don't know man...didn't Izzy say he was turned off to the reunion because they didn't want to "split the loot equally"? Seems like he made a business decision not to take less. While that may seem crazy to most (even half a shit ton of money is a lot) by all accounts Izzy leads a pretty low-key, non-extravagant life (there's no house in Malibu).

Izzy doesn't want to play stadiums, that's part of the reason he left in the first place.

Izzy just doesn't care really. He's a nomad anyway, he was never a reliable guy.

depends of the guys.

about Izzy, yeah, that's clearly money. they didn't think he deserves as much as them.
in what world Izzy deserves less than Duff, that's a legitimate question. probably they think Duff
worked hard to hoist himself up at the level of notoriety where he is today, and Izzy did the opposite,
without acknowledging his songwriting crucial role.

for Steven, it's his addictions and reliability. he didn't reach the professional level the others are at.

always better to share a big loot in 3 parts than 4, for just pleasing the hardcore fanbase.
never forget GNR is a 80's Reagan era band, with values of that period.

Steven was fired before the Use Your Illusion tour. Izzy quit during the tour.

The others had to continue and finish the tour. Now the assumption is that if the reason the two didn't rejoin the band is purely about money?



Let's assume it is. Is it a fair deal to split everything five ways? Considering what happened in the past?

If you think yes, then your opinion probably is that it's all the band's fault for not paying the other two enough.

If you think no, maybe you realize the reason might be more complex than just them not splitting the money equally.


For example, Richard's been in the band for over 20 years. He's toured with them since 2002. Frank's been there since 2006.

Steven did the Appetite tour with the band. No major international headlining tours. Izzy quit during their first major international headlining tour and hasn't toured since 1993, unless you count his three date Japan tour in 2000 as a tour...



You can miss past members if you want. But the above are facts. If you're in the band and you are looking at your options, one option is to stick with what you have, guys who have completed multiple international tours and have toured with you for years, or go with past members who haven't, then maybe the choice is a bit trickier....




/jarmo

It is true Izzy did not stay in the band as long as the other members, but his contribution to the sound of GN'R is undeniable, that is why IMO, he deserves to be paid good money, more than Duff in my opinion, for his contribution and legacy.

He gets paid for his songwriting contributions even if he's not in the band.




/jarmo

ok, but he could be in the band, and give his sound to new songs. They used to be able to write amazing songs together, and they are missing it.

But you asked why he's not in the band, and now you're saying he could be....



/jarmo

While Izzy's contributions to the band should always be held with high regard i think we also have to look at this from a timeline perspective. Axl & Izzy did alot of their writing together in the mid to late 80s lets say in a time of excess with sex,drugs and rock & roll. I know Izzy has written quite a few solo albums but what would izzy's realistic contributions have been in to this iteration of the band would their have been different songs then we got? I know there is always gonna be a sentimental feeling towards cuz of his contributions to the beginnings of this band. But i think we do owe guys like Richard who as others have said here been with this band for 20 years thats what almost 4 to 5 times longer then izzy was in the band for.

Uh, I'm pretty sure they were opposed to most of what Reagan stood for...

I agree, all the music Izzy has written since Guns has been a snoozefest. He's highly overrated.

That said, the only role I could see him even wanting to take would be helping with songwriting. He clearly has no desire to play live because he doesn't even do it with his own band. There's no reason he couldn't pop in while they're writing and offer some ideas, but let Fortus play the rhythm parts.

If I remember correctly back in the days Axl said somewhere that Izzy wasn't very much interested in touring big stadiums and wanted GN'R to remain to The Ramones level which was the reason he left. That says it all, no?

which one? individualism? greed? free enterprise? American Exceptionalism? prominence of the public image? marketing? freedom?
all this doesn't look to be incompatible with GNR to me...


about Izzy, it seems the perception is different if you're talking about his touring abilities, or his songwriting abilities...
which is very enlightening about the goal of this "reunion" (in fact Duff & Slash rejoining the "new" GNR) : touring.

you don't need Izzy in your band if the goal is mainly touring and not writing new material.
the "new" material was already done before Slash & Duff rejoined.

LOL you really bought their marketing pitch hook, line and sinker, huh?

Of course, Reagan loved freedom, that's why he backed the Christian "moral majority" in their crusade to censor everything that offended them! Including bands like Guns and Roses.

Civil War was clearly an anti-war song. Garden of Eden takes anti-greed and anti-religion stances.

The only overlap with Reagan could be found in One in a Million.

Izzy laid the foundation to a lot of classic GNR songs but he needed the rest of the band to make it mega hits! same goes for the rest really, they never recaptured that song writing level since they split. I wish Izzy guested in a couple of shows at some point!  : ok:

no, I'm talking about what libertarians & conservatives consider  freedom. I'm pretty much myself something you would call a communist in your country, which I'm not (call me a democrate then, even if it's not very far left from my point of view...)

not really your candidate to buy anything from Reagan and his affiliates.

and I'm not referring to lyrics to define the personality of band members, that's too easy to paint yourself as a hero of some sort in a song, or taking positions you don't stand for in your daily life, but mostly in real life acts.

I don't know many communists that attribute freedom to conservatism... but whatever, I'll take your word for it.

Here's a question; if your one true passion also happens to make you a ton of money, does that make you greedy for doing what you love?

If the boys wanted to cash in, they would have reunited when they were offered millions for just one show, multiple times over the years. They didn't get back together until they decided they wanted to on their own terms, and they had actually resolved their differences. There's no avoiding the fact that a reunion would make a lot of money.

They probably needed to mend some things before reuniting even though the offers were good.
If they hated or couldnt stand each other that means no amount of money was gonna solve it. It is also an ego thing

the freedom to work, the freedom to enjoy the fruits of your labor, the freedom to own and
control one's property, the freedom to participate in a free market, the freedom of free speech, etc...

that said, it's all questions of perspective, there wasn't much freedom in Staline regime I can assure you.  :hihi:


doing what you love and making money of it isn't a problem, it's always *how* you do it.
even Duff said Axl was a greedy friend, and he's not the only one. I don't judge, I'm not here to give moral lessons,
it's just the perception I have of a 80's band, who where rebelious about things but at the same time the result of their era.


and about the cash in thing for one show...well, that's *exactly* what they've done with Coachella, Axl told that, they had an offer
and that was the starter for a "reunion". nothing wrong with that either, but just a fact.

Maybe Axl separates personal greed from institutional greed/corruption.

I don't recall Axl saying that. Didn't he say the offer was only brought up after they reconciled?

According to Axl in that July 2016 video interview, he and Slash didn't reconcile until Coachelle came up.  However, Duff had shared the stage with Axl several times before that, so they had reconciled before Coachella came up.

This is the only mention of Coachella in that interview:

"Axl: I am a big fan of our previous line up before getting back with Slash and Duff. And we did a lot of work with that and with our drummer Frank and Dizzy and Richard. To Slash's credit, what I got to say is- he and Duff… Duff had played with the last line up a few shows. He came in and played the way we did the songs. Then going into getting ready for Vegas and Coachella they all chose to… they just worked very hard, and Duff and Slash came in and worked very hard with Frank on the rhythm."

I like this, they were family they did not have to pretend they were... like Slash said it.

We seem to be thinking of two different interviews.  Here is the one I am referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBh6Ey7pTtM&t=844s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBh6Ey7pTtM&t=844s)

They start discussing the Coachella issue right away.

yeah that was the only real reunion interview we had, with very evasive answers.

and without Slash.

Slash and Duff left in the mid 90s and Slash was less than complimentary about Axl in the press and even writing a book where he dishes the dirt on him so the fact that he was let back in the band was a bigger surprise than Izzy's absence,obviously Slash had bigger box-office appeal as we saw with how successful the reunion tour was as before that they were struggling to sell out mid sized Arena's so bringing Slash was definitely a financial move as opposed to anything else .

With the exception of a few moments where he seemed to be venting frustration, and in some cases with lips loosened by alcohol, Slash has been overwhelmingly diplomatic about Axl to the press. After all, it wasn't Slash who called Axl a "cancer". Every member has at some point said something less than kind about another publicly.

His book was a tell all that criticises Axl quite a bit and a lot of personal issues that should have not have been revealed to the public ,how he remembered so much is bizzare as he claims to have been on a serious drink and drugs binge through most of that time ,Axl  was annoyed with what he had said about him and of course had every right to defend his corner  obviously they've resolved their grievances for the sake of the reunion tour but money was the main driving factor otherwise they wouldn't have waited so long to resolve their differences.

the money and the *need* of money. Slash's divorce has probably something to do with him being less proud and more pragmatic.
we're talking about a multimillion dollars gig here, not a SMKC tour.

about Duff, that's a bit different in my opinion, the guy apparently has done well with placing his money,
I think it was more a question of public image for him, in a quest to elevate himself at the level of Slash & Axl in terms of celebrity & legacy.

I read it not that long ago and it really wasn't any kind of hit piece on Axl or anything. He in fact offered some very genuine words of praise for Axl. Of course it aired a lot of internal stuff, it's an autobiography. Slash simply told his story the way he saw it. In fact, I think he may have explicitly said in there that if you asked Duff or Axl, you'd get two entirely different stories than his.

I think a good example is the situation with the band name being signed over to Axl. It can be simultaneously true that Slash was told by Goldstein that Axl would not go onstage unless he signed, and also true that Axl never said that to Goldstein. Two different perspectives, both true. I also think Slash may not have fully realized that giving Axl the name effectively meant giving Axl the band.


... huh? How does that follow? They had countless offers for millions of dollars throughout the 2000s. If money was the main factor, they wouldn't have waited, if anything. They held their grudges because it was bigger than any money offer for them, it was personal. The reunion only followed after a true reconciliation. It would have been the other way around if it was about money.

What is with this cynicism? Duff can't just have a love for his childhood friends, the music they made and the legacy they created? He can't want to join a historic moment that fans have been waiting for for decades?

And the idea that Slash is suddenly a beggar because he got divorced is just silly. He's got royalties for one of the biggest bands in history, plus the platinum selling VR and all his work with Myles, as well as his own record company (Dik Hayd) and various other things like Guitar Hero and whatnot. To think that he would be desperate enough to reunite with somebody he hates (when he left in the first place because he'd rather play dingy bars with his Blues Ball band than be in the biggest band in the world with people he couldn't stand) is just silly.

I won't call it cynicism but more realism. do you have any idea of how much cost a bad (is there good ones?  :hihi:) divorce?
is child support for two kids rings a bell? plus, we're talking about millionnaires here, and charges who comes with a very, very good way of life.
there's a very interesting interview of Scott Weiland you can find on youtube, with Howard Stern, he tells how much he must do per month to cover all that. that's expensive. very.


that said, yes, Duff can have whatever feelings for Axl, even if they didn't talk for 10 years, and he probably missed that.
but rejoining the band for the sake of the fans?

never idolize and buy the public narrative seems to be a good begining to understand the motivations of every guy.

The subject line is interesting. Some people keep going on and on about how the band shouldn't tour, how it's all about money etc., also are the same ones who'd love to see the AFD5 together. A bit ironic.

Steven didn't hesitate when he was given the chance to play with the band in 2016. Maybe it wasn't what he, or some fans, wanted. But it's at least something.




/jarmo

yup, was a bit emotional to see the guy there.

I would have love to see Matt from time to time, but I suppose it's between him & Axl.

This is like complaining about paying thousands in taxes while you're making millions.

The popular narrative seems to be that they reunited for money. All I can do is apply common sense that they had plenty of opportunities to cash in before 2016.

"No matter how much money they stick in our faces, there's no reason for us to get together to do ANYTHING unless there is some form of mutual respect or understanding.  And we're WAY, WAY far away from that, so I don't see it happening anytime in the foreseeable future."

-- Slash, Behind the Music, 2004

Says it all, I'd say.

There is no amount of money that could get me to work the tour life.  Beta is lucky her family is with her on these tours.  Vanessa gets to bring the kids.  But that's not the kind of career I would want.  We are lucky they are out there touring as much as they do.

Money whether you have a lot or not enough is just a pain in the ass.

If a musician is your career choice, it's probably going to involve touring.  If you're going to do it for a lifetime, you're probably going to work your way up to getting paid well.  But some where in there I think people chose this career path because they are following their heart's desire and money is not what keeps them there.

I'd say that's true all the time.  Contrary to what people have always believed, there's never any money in the entertainment industry (movies, music, etc).  It's a starving artist endeavor.  0.0001% actually make money doing it, but the successful ones are the ones most visible, so people see them and assume that everybody makes money.

Spot on my friend. I've tried myself back in the days and no matter how much I wanted to make music and play there was no how doing it because there was no money in it. I now work a regular job from Monday to Friday on a laptop that has nothing to do with music. Of course, I'm far away from being a genius on the guitar but I'm not that bad. In addition, if we are talking about a small country as Bulgaria is it gets much more difficult to do music and get decent amount of money from it. The fact that the young generation is not much into rock music in general doesn't help either. Most of the rock musicians here, even the ones that are known and let's say famous in the country do have a separate job they are working. Sad but true.

"According to a new report from ByZegut, Guns N' Roses will receive $14 million for their performance at Coachella Festival this April.

As widely reported, the band will perform two concerts at the festival - on April 16 and April 23.

Based on Coachella's previous set times and general festival set times, the guys will grace the stage for 1.5 hours max during each of the nights.

This brings us to $14 million for less than three hours of work, and that ain't half bad.

It was previously reported that "semi-reunited" Guns are seeking around $8 million for a single performance, as Amnesia Rockfest founder Alex Martel revealed that GN'R "wanted to be paid 4x what I paid SOAD," which was 4x $2 million."

GnR were in free fall in 2014 I saw them in Dublin that year in a venue that holds 14000 it wasn't even half full a good part of the Arena was blocked off and there were similar stories in other venues, Axl hit the panic button and called in the old crew who he knew would be a box office succes most notably Slash who was such a big part of the GnR brand and would guarantee they would be playing to full capacity Stadiums for the next few years.

You see $14 million and I'm thinking holy shit how much does it cost to run that GNR machine?  I wonder how much individuals actually walk away from that show with?  And then what they take off their taxes as self employed business expenses. 

You think Duff does everybody's taxes?  Runs around collecting all the receipts.  Someday during tax season he may fuck up the lyrics and start singing debit, debit, credit!   :hihi:

I'm not sure I remember correctly and I don't want to be inacurate here but I remember it was 3 millions for Ax, Duff & Slash each I think.
so 5 millions for the rest for additional musicians and crew?

not sure at all about that, just a memory, could be wrong.

Exactly this.

Slash is back in GN'R because he and Axl talked, cleared the air, and IMO likely realized that they can still enjoy playing together.

Remember when RS asked Slash about the GN'R name? He said it was a dead issue.

That doesn't happen without communication, compromise and mutual respect and understanding.

Ali

I don't think Axl has ever shown any reason to believe he would compromise or deviate from his own plans for any reason. I think he always intended to reconcile with Slash, the only question was when. And I think it was that he made his point with Chinese and saw that through.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-how-coachella-pulled-off-the-guns-n-roses-reunion-20160424-story.html

One of the keys was Paul Tollett, the president and chief executive of Goldenvoice, who started Coachella in 1999. He launched his career as a rock promoter in Los Angeles in the 1980s, and one of the up-and-coming bands he promoted was Guns N’ Roses.

In an interview a few hours before Guns N’ Roses took the stage Saturday, Tollett said he didn’t want to be seen as taking credit for the group’s return. But when pressed on how came together, he replied, “I went to them.”

“But I’ve been trying for a while,” he quickly added. “Those types of things, it can’t be one person. It’s got to be a lot of people and different reasons it’s happening.”

Speaking from a shaded picnic table outside the trailer he calls home during Coachella, Tollett offered some insights into the art of reuniting fractious ensembles.

“When I go for something that’s not together, I never lead with the money, because it offends those artists,” he said. “It can turn them off and the communication stops. Not because of the number, it’s just because commerce is the first discussion.”

 :hihi:

Not exactly....

“There’s zero possibility of me having anything to do with Slash other than by ambush, and that wouldn’t be pretty.  Slash either should not have been in Guns to begin with, or should have left after GNR Lies. In a nutshell, personally I consider him a cancer -- better removed, avoided, and the less anyone heard of him or his supporters, the better.”

-- Axl Rose, 2009

(https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/axl-rose-calls-slash-a-cancer-in-new-chinese-democracy-interview-73816/)

Not to mention Axl's more infamous quote:

"NOT IN THIS LIFETIME!"

 :o

Also, in the 2016 interview I posted previously, Axl even mentions that Fernando thought it was a joke when Axl asked for Slash's phone number.

When Axl is angry you better not be around, i think it's that kind of guy. But barking dog does not bite, probably that interview was done at the wrong time. 2009 is the year after CD and, more than anythin, after slash's bio which obviously ruffled his feathers.

The point is, the previous poster stated that he believed that Axl ALWAYS INTENDED to reconcile with Slash.  I was pointing out that obviously wasn't the case, and that in fact, Axl stated multiple times in several different ways that he wouldn't ever reconcile with Slash.

Beginning with Axl's December 2008 message boards rants, Axl finally began speaking out about things that had pissed him off for years, namely Slash's claim that Axl had held up the band for the GNR name -- a claim which, for the record, predates Slash's book (it was covered in the 2004 Behind the Music episode).  So it wasn't just a matter of Axl reacting to one particular time period.  He mentioned that he wasn't able to speak publicly until 2008 due to all the "legal nonsense" that was going on.

And for the record, I've encountered LOTS of barking dogs that bite.  :hihi:

Do you guys seriously think Axl was having the time of his life as he watched one of the biggest brand names in rock of his era playing smaller and smaller places...and not even selling them out?

Does that mean this is all about money?  No.  Played a role, but I don't think it was #1.

I think even the most stubborn people in the world are still capable of having a "what the hell am I doing" type moment.

There was zero juice for Guns N' Roses in 2014 outside diehard, message board type fans.  That's a niche of a niche.

If you had a way to get your band back in the public consciousness they way you feel it should be seen, wouldn't you explore that?

I think Axl prefers to be remembered this way.  To have his band remembered this way.  I don't think he wanted playing "Up Close And Personal" <wink> type places to be the public's last memory of his once mighty band.

Misleading. The band was at the end of the touring cycle by then. No Trickery was the end of the touring cycle and before that the band toured in South America.   

Was the 2016 tour more successful? Yes. No doubt.

Was 2014 as bad as some like to think/remember? No.


You can say what you want about the years before 2016, but they managed to keep the GN'R name out there. For example, they still headlined major festivals around the world.





/jarmo

I think all of that was a mix of saying things you don't mean out of anger and hurt, as well as deliberately stirring the pot to make the reunion all the more shocking and spectacular when it does happen.

To turn it around; How can you square those statements with the reunion if they were 100% genuine?

Oh, I totally agree that Axl was angry and hurt, but given the way Axl worded that, it's hard to imagine that he didn't mean it, at least at the time he said it.

Saying there is "zero possibility" that he'll ever have anything to do with Slash... . calling Slash a "cancer" and saying people should avoid him....  saying Slash "shouldn't have been in GNR" in the first place....  I mean, all of that is pretty strong and definitive and pretty much nailed the coffin shut as tightly as it could've been.  That's just some shit that you just don't say if you actually have intentions of reuniting with them down the road.

I highly doubt Axl was deliberately stirring the pot way back in 2008 to tease a reunion (more than 7 years before it happened), especially since he repeatedly shot down reunion rumors for YEARS, and was obviously agitated whenever people asked him about the issue.

I would chalk the 2016 reunion up to the simple philosophy that things change.  Obviously, Axl and Slash both had a lot to forgive in order for it to happen, but they did it, and quite miraculously so.  I certainly never in a million years thought it would happen!

I don't think it's all money. But may have helped. I remember watching Guns live in various times and forms from 2005 when there looked to be a hunger again, passion and excitement. From Axl and the band. Fast forward to 2012-2014 I felt he and possibly the band didn't want to be there doing the shows from his body language (personally).  Something wasn't right anymore and it showed in performances and it felt like it was going through the motions and I think he felt something HAD to change.

Of course he really meant it but u know, as i said before, when u are the kind of guy who never say anything till your anger explodes, you spit out even the things u maybe have thougt about for 1 second only. They are true, but true for that 1 second only ;). We always think about the worst things about anybody, but them are something that belong only to our thinkin' process. At the end of the day love belongs to hate and viceversa, in order to deny a big love u have to spread out even a bigger hate, so everything is needed  :hihi:.

I completely disagree with that. As I pointed out before, Axl mentioned in 2008 that he was not able to publicly voice his opinions because of all the legal nonsense going on. He’d been dealing with lawsuits from Slash and Duff for years, as well as the well publicized allegation that he had held up the fans in order to get Slash and Duff to sign the Guns N’ Roses name over. This was undoubtedly something that pissed Axl off for years, and he was finally able to vent all of it, and did so in multiple interviews.

So I’m definitely not going to believe that Axl just said all of that on a whim without any forethought whatsoever. Just the opposite — it was obvious that it had been festering inside him for years.

It can be, but what i wanted to say is that when u stay in silence for years (forced or not) when u finally speak out you do it with the meanest words. It's like you don't have any inhibitions and all the things you have thought trough the years come out in the worst way possible cause they became a kind of mantra cause you can't speak them out at the moment (or decide not to speak them out). That's why i was talking about the 1 second thing, it's not that he thought about that for 1 second only, obviously, it was more like it was the less important thought but at same time the meanest thought he could bring up, i mean the "cancer" thing. Its' all a matter of non talking and stubbornes more than anything else, things just get bigger and bigger senslessy trough the years. If not, how they could make amends in a couple of months? So they don't really hated each others to the point of calling the other "cancer".