You are not logged in. Please register or login.

RussTCB
 Rep: 633 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

RussTCB wrote:

removed

Intercourse
 Rep: 212 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

Intercourse wrote:

this shit is like the rapper dudes employing their cousin Crunk to be their 'Entertainment Consultant'. This shit always ends in tears..oh wait...it pretty much has already.

Aussie
 Rep: 287 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

Aussie wrote:

We all know that Axl can't keep a manager for too long, what I wanna know is what happens when he fires the Lebeis clan?

Olorin
 Rep: 268 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

Olorin wrote:

He wont fire them, as usual they will all just blame some other poor cunt.

Intercourse
 Rep: 212 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

Intercourse wrote:

I'd love to know what he's paying them for their new 'roles'.
Probably a fortune.

I bet every manager got canned because they got pissed off with the toxic influences on Axl.

Its his ship to sink now I guess.
I am predicting here and now than CD II will tank as hard as Slash II will followed swiftly by VR III,  forcing all men involved to knock their shit on the head for good and sort things or just fade away...

Aussie
 Rep: 287 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

Aussie wrote:

I'm willing to bet the past managers haven't been able to do their job properly because of others interfering anyhow. Perhaps the failure of others was "assisted"to ensure this baton change was eventually effected.

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

johndivney wrote:

axl should deal face-to-face w people like tony soprano.
not in back channels & tittle-tattle like some washed up hollywood prima donna.

smoke
 Rep: 77 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

smoke wrote:

No matter how bad Slash II tanks, he won't be in that position. The media love him, and he has no problem showing up EVERYWHERE. I know we've talked about it before, but he can just go Carlos Santana if nothing else.

monkeychow
 Rep: 661 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

monkeychow wrote:

People who are anti the Lebeis family may get their wish with this development...if they really are as bad as people make out then this sort of power could be the proverbial rope they use to hang themselves - as when things go south it's going to be hard to pass the blame.

Myself I take a softer view on them.

I look at Axl in 1993 and I see a man who is emotionally unstable, not dealing with superstardom and who,  frankly, I was expecting to die in true rock and roll martyrdom style (drugs, suicide, shoot out with cops he took a dislike too)  before the end of the decade.

Here we are 18 years later, and while Axl may not be on the cover of time magazine, he's alive, touring, and making plans for a new album.

Good for him. And if it's adopting the Lebeis family that keeps him functioning then good for them too.

Also, I know you guys will hate me for being the apologist, but we don't really know the context of Beta's comments. On stage Axl is all smiles at the moment. But pianos don't push themselves out windows. Guessing the mirrors in his old apartment didn't get smashed from the high notes in jungle. Beta's lived with that for 18 years.  Didn't seem in a great mood the night he hit that photographer at the airport last year. Or the video from a few months back of him exiting a taxi very distressed about something and clearly pissed off. I'm not listing this stuff to say Axl's a bad guy. He's probably not. But he's obviously someone who gets upset and emotional. And Beta and her crew clean up that and get him back to rights by sticking by him in ways that no girlfriend or blood family appears to have.

So consider the context, maybe Axl hires a manger, gets excited, the industry guys let him down (because lets be honest - of course anyone in the industry is going to want a reunion - it's just common math for them) and then he gets upset and beta has to calm him. Maybe the same pattern has happened 15 times in a row now and she's just getting sick of watching him proverbially  smash his head against a brick wall.

Just saying, sure - maybe it's an evil agenda she's had since day 1 - or maybe she's just trying to keep him happy (which seems to be part of her job in a way)  and too much shit has gone down with managers upsetting him and she's over it.

As for them fucking up stuff...well most of the music business is street smarts...and if they're half as manipulative as you guys seem to think they are I'm sure they'll pick up fine.

Could be wrong, but I just figure Axl had a long history of turbulence long before he even knew beta...seems real convenient to ascribe everything Axlish that he does now to her pulling the strings.

Aussie
 Rep: 287 

Re: LA Times Interview With Axl

Aussie wrote:

I have no doubt that Beta and co have been good for Axl on some levels, particularly in the early days. Emotionally and from a family perspective they appear to have been great for him.

I just don't think their involvement in the business side of things is necessarily a good thing. It's often good to have someone that is removed from you emotionally that can tell you how it is, tell you what you don't wanna hear etc etc.  They can do this without worrying  about going home to you that night and dealing with the fallout, moods, tantrums etc. It's a clear separation of business and family.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB