You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
In Slash's case... maybe. In Axl's case? No way.
There is no way what we got after 1993 was better than what came before.
Axl and Slash both never fully recovered from that breakup. They both haven't been the same since.
Now if they consider that "to be a good thing", that's their perogative, but in reality, the fact is it isn't.
They are going into the Hall for what they did from 1986-1991, not what they did after. Otherwise Gilby would be getting an invite.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
In Slash's case... maybe. In Axl's case? No way.
There is no way what we got after 1993 was better than what came before.
Axl and Slash both never fully recovered from that breakup. They both haven't been the same since.
Now if they consider that "to be a good thing", that's their perogative, but in reality, the fact is it isn't.
They are going into the Hall for what they did from 1986-1991, not what they did after. Otherwise Gilby would be getting an invite.
Once they became so successful, I think they wanted to focus on their own happiness more than their professional success. When you're a millionaire many times over, you'd rather have a less stressful life than fight with your bandmates all the time.
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
was it Axl who said that poverty was what kept them together as a band?
I've always believed that.
They were all so different, hence why they were so powerful when aligned to the same objective (stardom? enough money to never be poor again?).
Once they were rich and powerful, they didn't need each other, so Adler was disposable and Guns N' Roses, to Izzy, was disposable as well.
And so on untill Duff left in 97.
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
Axlin12 wrote:In Slash's case... maybe. In Axl's case? No way.
There is no way what we got after 1993 was better than what came before.
Axl and Slash both never fully recovered from that breakup. They both haven't been the same since.
Now if they consider that "to be a good thing", that's their perogative, but in reality, the fact is it isn't.
They are going into the Hall for what they did from 1986-1991, not what they did after. Otherwise Gilby would be getting an invite.
Once they became so successful, I think they wanted to focus on their own happiness more than their professional success. When you're a millionaire many times over, you'd rather have a less stressful life than fight with your bandmates all the time.
Exactly. I didn't say that what they've done since has been better than what they did together. But as tejas points out, it was what they needed to do at the time. They had differences of opinions, they needed to step away from each other.
Now you could make the argument that they could've done so without officially breaking up, but obviously that's not what happened. Things have been said and done over the years that have made the prospects of them ever working together again seemingly improbable.
Money and success change people. It's inevitable. That's what happened here. Some bands deal with it better than others, and some stick it out even when things are at their worst. GNR was a destructive force in more ways than one and they couldn't sustain, thus the many twists and turns we've been down, through the years.
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
are U2 the only mega band that actually like each other?
Maybe REM too..
Every other band I can think of don't get on that well..
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
In Slash's case... maybe. In Axl's case? No way.
There is no way what we got after 1993 was better than what came before.
Axl and Slash both never fully recovered from that breakup. They both haven't been the same since.
In my opinion it's about lifestyle for them.
Axl's (public) musical output is less frequent these days, but when I see him on stage I see a guy who seems relatively happy, or at a minimum has adapted to the life he has and knows how to survive. In 1993 I saw a person who was on the edge and may not have got through.
Likewise with Slash, most people don't like his new music as much as his old (although I'm a fan of both) - but if working in GNR means he has to take longer to record than he likes, tour less often, deal with an uncertain relationship with band members, be haunted by the ghosts of his drug use...maybe he's happier with myles.
Likewise I get the impression Axl finds working with his current band easy as they're all keen and accept him as leader...whereas a reunion with guys like Izzy and Slash - we'll they'll be keen if there's an agreement about what to do...but it's not as easy I'd guess.
In terms of musical collaboration Axl and Slash will go down as one of the grand partnerships of the ages, so I'm not minimising that. But if you are them personally it may be much easier and much better to do Chinese 2 and Slash 2 at this point.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
I think the other reason most bands don't get on so well is that in some ways it kinda sucks being in a band...next time Slash does a tour check out his schedule..I followed him for a couple of days and it's tiring..imagine it constantly....it's a plane flight every night almost...hours in busses and stuff....you're never at home....there's always somewhere else to be....
Sure there's the rock stuff and the drugs and groupies...but people get stressed when they travel...so like if you've spent 20 years on the road with the same 4 damn people or whatever you probably get to see them at their worst..
Let alone once industry people put pressure on to do stuff.
Also - it's easy for things to get personal with creative stuff...and people get passive aggressive...I find it hard to keep a band together even on a damn hobby level...something like a huge band must be both awesome and a nightmare at the same time!
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
Yeah i've never doubted bands are a bitch to keep going.
Just from personal experience. Just because someone else is ready to perform, doesn't mean you look and sound your best, nor are you there mentally. Nothing's worse than a half-hearted attempt to perform just for the sake of it.
Take into consideration all that you said, and then add that in for 5-8 variables at any given time, not to mention family bullshit.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Slash on RRHOF (NME Article)
Nothing's worse than a half-hearted attempt to perform just for the sake of it.
You mean like the reunion we're going to see at the Hall of Fame ceremony? 
