You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Yeah it was all about control ultimately from what I can see.
In some respects I don't blame him. Besides, you could also argue that Slash now with what he is doing is about control - persuing the solo stuff over VR. He can just do it his way now without having to truly consult the others and get agreement.
Sure Slash doesn't appear to exercise his control in the same overt, dictatorial manner as Axl exerts his authority. But subtely he is the one in control and no doubt he likes that. He can do things in his own laidback fashion.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Surprise, surprise, I disagree pretty much 100%
I think whatever plan Axl had backfired, but tbh, I don't think Axl has any kind of set plans for anything. I haven't seen any kind of agenda in the way he operates this band. If it weren't for the other guys and even semi-competent managers back in the day, GN'R would operate exactly how it does now from the very start, as a meandering disaster with loads of wasted potential.
To see Axl as some evil genius, plotting and scheming (from when exactly?) to take the "brand name" I just don't buy, because to say Axl plans anything is laughable. I see it as more a, "It's my way or the highway." And seeing he asked Slash to stay, and Marc saying he wanted him to play on CD if he apologized for lying, I just don't get his "agenda" was to destroy Slash, or whatever. Not using the band name, no matter what anyone says, would not have changed a single thing, or a single ounce of hatred towards him from the old line up fans. Zero. If you hate him now, you'd hate him anyway.
I do agree he hates Slash and that Slash is and will always be a part of his life, which probably drives him insane, but it has nothing to do with Slash "not" disappearing, or he being successful. It's the fact that he his permanently joined at the hip with someone he hates, someone he's had animoisty towards since the beginning of their relationship, even when he loved the guy. I don't see Axl being anything other than apathetic when it comes to his career.
Could he base all his feeling on spite, anger, betrayal, hurt and pettiness over Slash... Well, yeah... Is he jealous over Slash's success? I think so.
The thing I don't understand, how was Slash asked to join the new Guns N' Roses when the new Guns N' Roses didn't even exist? Did this happen after he left? Why is this coming out now, when all this time, it was Axl's inability to co-exist with Slash and make an album? I'd like to hear Duff's side of this.
I'm not discounting the fact that there probably was a contract involved. I absolutely believe that could be legit. I just find it hard to believe that all of this rests on the shoulders of one person, Axl or Slash.
And FTR, they did try interventions with Slash and even hired a bodyguard to stay with him around the clock to keep him off heroin, which didn't work.
If Axl's plan was to use the brand name for his own benefit, then why wait until the end of 1995 to form a new partnership, when he had secured ownership of the band name for all future endeavors by 1993 at the latest (depending on what timeline you believe)? Why even go to the effort of trying to bring Zakk Wylde in with Slash before forming a new partnership? Why agree to put the contract in escrow to see if things could be worked out if there is no intention to work things out?
I just don't buy that was his plan from the get go. Yes, obviously, at some point, he wanted and felt the need to take control (his way or the highway so to speak). It wasn't from the get go, though, as he had ownership of the name by 1993 and did not act on it until 1995.
Ali
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Yeah it was all about control ultimately from what I can see.
In some respects I don't blame him. Besides, you could also argue that Slash now with what he is doing is about control - persuing the solo stuff over VR. He can just do it his way now without having to truly consult the others and get agreement.
Sure Slash doesn't appear to exercise his control in the same overt, dictatorial manner as Axl exerts his authority. But subtely he is the one in control and no doubt he likes that. He can do things in his own laidback fashion.
It seems like all of the AFD five have gravitated towards situations where they are in control since VR seems to be on a very, very extended hiatus.
Axl - leading the new GN'R
Slash - leading his solo band (Slash feat. Myles Kennedy and the Conspirators)
Duff- leading his solo band Loaded
Izzy - continuing to make solo records
Steven Adler - leading his solo band called Adler
Ali
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Bottom line is it's pretty hard for 5 people to work together as equal partners over decades especially when art is also involved. It's kinda rare for it to happen I think. At some point it becomes easier to do your own thing.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
If Axl's plan was to use the brand name for his own benefit, then why wait until the end of 1995 to form a new partnership, when he had secured ownership of the band name for all future endeavors by 1993 at the latest (depending on what timeline you believe)? Why even go to the effort of trying to bring Zakk Wylde in with Slash before forming a new partnership? Why agree to put the contract in escrow to see if things could be worked out if there is no intention to work things out?
I just don't buy that was his plan from the get go. Yes, obviously, at some point, he wanted and felt the need to take control (his way or the highway so to speak). It wasn't from the get go, though, as he had ownership of the name by 1993 and did not act on it until 1995.
Ali
Why wait, maybe a couple of reasons.
1. Waiting until the statute of limitations had passed for Duff and Slash to take legal action regarding the contract they signed. Axl has directly mentioned this saying they have engaged him in litigation long after the statute of limitations had expired.
2. In the event it does go to court anyhow, he can at least show that he tried to work with the current lineup even after he got the name. He didn't just take the name and then immediately piss off (even if that was his intention). He can say (as he does) that he took the name as protection in the event one of them dies etc etc. He can show that he fully intended to continue on with them as his actions post the UYI tour showed. But it got to the point where it was unworkable therefore he exercised his legal right and left with the name.
That scanario would have to be looked on more favourably by a court than simply he coerced them into signing the name then ran off immeditely the UYI tour finished. If I was Axl's legal counsel at the time, I would have suggested he go through the motions with the guys for a period of time to make it look like he tried everything before he left with the name.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
If Axl's plan was to use the brand name for his own benefit, then why wait until the end of 1995 to form a new partnership, when he had secured ownership of the band name for all future endeavors by 1993 at the latest (depending on what timeline you believe)? Why even go to the effort of trying to bring Zakk Wylde in with Slash before forming a new partnership? Why agree to put the contract in escrow to see if things could be worked out if there is no intention to work things out?
I just don't buy that was his plan from the get go. Yes, obviously, at some point, he wanted and felt the need to take control (his way or the highway so to speak). It wasn't from the get go, though, as he had ownership of the name by 1993 and did not act on it until 1995.
Ali
Why wait untill 1995? Maybe because that is the point where he realized the guys he was partners with weren't willing to simply be musicians in the Axl Rose project. Before 1995 they were Guns N' Roses the band. He secured the rights to the brand while on tour and when the time came to begin the process of writting and recording a new album he realized the guys in the band at the time actually wanted to have some input. When he wasn't willing to let them have input on the future vision of Gn'R(Axl Rose project) he acted on what he had created for himself. He had the best band in the world going for him and he thought they'd just play HIS music and when it became clear that wasn't gonna be the case and that they actually wanted to be involved in the process he went a different direction, essentially leaving the other guys. The band was on tour untill midway through 1993 they then recorded and released TSI by November 1993 so really all there was inbetween was 1994. One year in band time is like a weekend. Axl acted on it at the first available opportunity really. He wasn't gonna bail on the tour to announce he was going in a new direction and the old guys were out. he'd have been eating alive.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
If Axl's plan was to use the brand name for his own benefit, then why wait until the end of 1995 to form a new partnership, when he had secured ownership of the band name for all future endeavors by 1993 at the latest (depending on what timeline you believe)? Why even go to the effort of trying to bring Zakk Wylde in with Slash before forming a new partnership? Why agree to put the contract in escrow to see if things could be worked out if there is no intention to work things out?
I just don't buy that was his plan from the get go. Yes, obviously, at some point, he wanted and felt the need to take control (his way or the highway so to speak). It wasn't from the get go, though, as he had ownership of the name by 1993 and did not act on it until 1995.
Ali
I believe Axl when he said he made it clear from day one that if anyone left the band he was continuing on with GN'R. I think the UYI recording sessions (which seems to be THE source of the problems between Axl and Slash, creatively anyway) along with the drug abuse, was probably a terrifying prospect for Axl, and the fact he had to share control of the band with these guys. Even when he got the name, which personally, I'm glad he did and don't blame him, he wasn't working with employees, he was working with people he had to co-exist with who had a say in everything they did. He secured the name legally, but creatively the dude was stuck.
I do think he tried working with Slash in his own way, like you mentioned bringing in Zakk, but he had a vision, Slash had his vision. And working with Slash was probably a nightmare (probably vice versa), going by what Marc Cantor and Axl both have said, where Slash vindictively would bury anything Axl showed interest in, becuase Axl didn't like Slash's "Snakepit" direction.
So it makes sense that Axl would try to make Slash an official "employee," giving Axl full control, because then Slash would make the album Axl wanted him to make. Not saying that's actually what happened, but it makes sense if it did. The big thing back then was that they weren't making music that each other liked. Bottom line. That's what it all comes down to. They couldn't work together anymore.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
If they could have, they would have. It's clear Axl needs musical inspiration, getting the music first, unless writing through his piano. If Slash's work post-GN'R up to VR work was any indication of what he was giving Axl, there's no way they'd work together. I think if Slash would've done things Axl's way, there would have been another album. But that wasn't going to happen. If Dave Navarro did indeed join the band instead of RHCP, there would have been another album and I'm confident Slash would have quit shortly there after.
I think Axl wanted GN'R to be GN'R and so did Slash. They just had different, and very stubborn opinions on what that should be.
