2009.02.27 - Axl Rose interview with Spinner Magazine

Del James: As reported, were you, either in your mind or otherwise, trying to create the "best album ever made"?
Axl Rose: No. That's f---ing ridiculous and more negative media nonsense. We were all just trying to do our best for the fans and ourselves.

At any point did you feel or say either you or the band had to make a "masterpiece"?
Of course not -- more unaccountable nonsense. Obviously, media, elements of the public, fans and our detractors had all kinds of things going on such as high hopes, expectations, pressure, naysayers, etc. I don't think anyone would mind discovering a diamond mine and I don't think anyone in any competitive field would get very far if they didn't have dreams, aspirations or simply hope to do well. That said, these types of comments are more from our detractors, pulled out of their ass if not thin air.

Do you feel that your alleged sense of perfectionism has delayed the release of the album?
No. Guns in any lineup wasn't going to release anything all that great any sooner. And no matter how any of us tried, that didn't happen, and often while any number of us were pushing to try and do so with whatever we had going at the time. In regard to so-called perfectionism, I feel that has a lot to do with your goals or requirements with whatever one's doing or creating. Different levels may be required for different objectives. If you're making brakes for a vehicle, what's required? It's all relative, right? You try to make the best calls you can at any given moment and go from there. Generally, when this term is used by others in regard to me or how I work, it's said in a negative way or as an excuse for their shortcomings -- and again by my detractors. Whether they are open about such or not, some people love putting others in a negative light; helps them feel better about themselves. Too many ears and too many stupid comments have proven that.

Did you break up the old Guns?
It is my belief that the commitment to end old Guns came long before the band started in the heart and soul of one man. After that, it became more visible sometime before/during [the 'Use Your Illusion' albums], when the others opted for personal reasons to change our approach, styles and methods of working together. At the time, I unwittingly chose as a means of what I felt was both my own and Guns' survival to adapt, and threw myself into whatever I could get out of that to support and promote our efforts.

The group shot of the band in front of the piece 'Dead' was not a coincidence but not something I felt could be talked about openly, and something I hoped would change. I couldn't reach Izzy [Stradlin] and couldn't manage or curtail Slash and his personal objectives to take over Guns anymore than I did at the time, and I'm lucky to have survived, got what we did out of it and some still enjoyed the results. But for all intents and purposes, the 'Appetite [for Destruction]' lineup and approach was already dead, and with the addition of Matt [Sorum], the end of the then-lineup and what Guns was really about was only a matter of time. Only heartfelt choices by the others could or would change that. Unfortunately, nothing did.

I'm generally blamed for the time it took to release 'Illusions,' but again the reality of my fault would be in not finding a way to manage Slash complete with his addictions and bring both him and Izzy together either similar to 'Appetite' or in some other progression more conducive to Guns than how 'Illusions' was accomplished. Unfortunately, that never truly happened, and both Guns and the public suffered for it. I'll take the responsibility in the sense that had I known how to achieve those goals we would have made what I feel would've been a more effective and powerful album at the time.

See? There's the catch, right? All this time, most thought I changed the direction with 'Illusions.' A lot of nonsense theories, speculation and complete nonrealities put together by others, based on Slash and others' crap and off one interview taken out of context I did with Kurt Loder where I said I hated 'Appetite.' That sentence has been used and twisted in every conceivable way since to vilify me and purports to prove my guilt and responsibility, when I wasn't speaking to the music itself but the overwhelming and at that time seemingly drowning success of our record.

My statement was in specific response to the feelings I had listening to DJs at the L.A. hard rock station KNAC at the time complaining about having to play the entire record for the umpteenth time for fans. I simply wanted to make another record and have it be as good or better. If you don't think I would've liked to have five 'Appetites' and been living like the Stones at the time, you're high. With that, any other avenue I hoped to pursue musically would more than likely been available as well. This was something I could never get through to the others with. Personal need to dominate in Guns was very important to them. Izzy has to be in charge or he's not comfortable, same with Slash. Duff [McKagan] tries convincing himself he's equal partners with Slash. Each to their own.

Why didn't you write 'Appetite'-style songs yourself then?
Part of what destroyed Guns was the battle between those guitars that works so well for 'Appetite.' I have no concept how to duplicate that with either the old guys or anyone else. I liked it then but can't say I truly understood their nature as I feel I do now. Make no mistake: That was a war and the efforts of one man to "successfully" remove another in his path between him and I. Neither player wants to deal with each other in those ways again. Those battles have already been fought, both sides went their prospective ways. Regardless of if they were to work together or not, the true dynamics of back then aren't something Izzy has an interest in or would allow himself to actually be in to such a degree other than for appearances, if that. Also, anything I had written I felt was in similar directions then, during and after the 'Illusions' tour was more than rejected by both Slash and Duff at a time, which greatly helped destroy whatever confidence I may have had at the time.

Why so many guitars on 'Chinese Democracy'?
Why not?

Seriously, past Guns records have only two. Why did you feel the need for more on this endeavor?
I understand it's for whatever reason a bit of a challenge for most people to feel comfortable in their minds with any band having more than two guitarists, but technically, as far as our recording goes, we're a bit more alike with the older recordings than one might think. On the older records, though, it's very distinct that there are generally two guitar parts -- each part is actually performed and recorded twice, giving a fuller sound, so in effect you have four guitars. Leads and fills are another pass, and often songs were originally written and demos were done with other guitarists as well.

On 'Chinese,' instead of having the same player double his part, we chose to add another voice and either each player's own take on the part or their take of another's, then there's leads and fills which vary from one person or a few on a track. Also on this record, though, you may have one player playing more than one part in a section; they generally tend to be two distinct parts and not overdubs or harmonizing with their own leads or fills. No way is better than another; it's just whatever works for what you're trying to do, what you personally want or for whatever reason you feel you either need, choose or like.

For this record, I wanted a blend of different-style sounds and approaches; some at least a bit unique to the individual players and their takes on these songs. I feel the different personalities and techniques give the material its own sense of originality. Live, I prefer the more solid approach of the three guitars now, especially as the performances with the rhythm are more energetic, consistent and reliable. It was fun having Izzy on board a bit adding yet another voice to the mix and seemed to work better for the songs this way, as opposed to having him by himself.

Would you consider a reunion with the 'Appetite' or 'Illusions' lineups?
No.

Why not?
A lot more reasons than I'll get into here now. Different reasons for each version and each individual. The Izzy bit was fun -- and also fun because we didn't have to rely on him in any way, which is how he prefers things and works better for everyone. That said, you never knew if Izzy would be there or not or if he'd remember the song or decide to leave early. It didn't cause any problems, because we were doing our show regardless and didn't have to depend on anything, but it did open everyone's eyes a bit and blow minds.

He called, asked to come out and negotiated a deal with management that it's probably best that none of us knew about or the fun would've seemed a bit more like being used or taken advantage of spoiling the moment. As it was, we had a great time.

It'd be highly doubtful for us to have more than one of the alumni up with us at any given time. I suppose Duff could play guitar on something somewhere, but there's zero possibility of me having anything to do with Slash other than by ambush, and that wouldn't be pretty. He wrote that whole bit about not having his guitar in Vegas, I'd assume, to save face. I was told by both the Hard Rock and different Guns industry people who had come out to be supportive of the new band and were a bit surprised to see him there, especially guitar in hand, but just assumed it was a surprise for the show and we were in on the arrangement.

Steven [Adler] brings assorted ambulance-chasing attorneys and the nightmare of his mother. One gig, or even a couple songs, could mean years of behind-the-scenes legal aftermath.

Wouldn't you make more money?
If the music was there, meaning new music, I can't say for sure right now -- and there have been market surveys, and various promoters have put together different projections and analysis that in areas where there could be more, it's not enough to sell your soul and live in hell the rest of your life for, that's definitely certain. But that's the catch, right, the music? If I believed in that as a reality which, no offense meant to anyone, I haven't seen anything in all these years to convince me or we'd be doing this interview under different circumstances of some sort, to say the least.

It's not some place I want to be or have any interest in being. If I believed in it in regard to the music, not in direction so much but in how it feels and to what degree, then maybe it'd be another story. I'm in no way trying to be offensive to anyone here, and I'm allowed to have my own feelings in regard to what inspires me, not someone else. Other than a one-off or something, I don't really do songs because someone else likes them.

There is the distinct possibility that having his intentions in regard to me so deeply ingrained and his personal though guarded distaste for much of 'Appetite' other than his or Duff's playing, Slash either should not have been in Guns to begin with or should have left after 'Lies.' In a nutshell, personally I consider him a cancer and better removed, avoided -- and the less anyone heard of him or his supporters, the better.

Didn't you say you loved him in what -- '06?
No. I said "loved," as in past tense. It was a misquote by a writer I mistook as a fan.

Do you think he can play guitar?
I prefer listening to others in general, especially those who both push their talents and infuse them with a level of energy that I've seldom heard in his efforts over the years. I'm not taking anything away from the man that are his to claim for his past efforts; it's just that for whatever reason for me, whether the approach, style or basic hands-on technique is there, the passion and true dedication to the art of guitar in his chosen area other than being, in my opinion, a whore for the limelight has generally seemed absent or lacking with most efforts for a long time. To me, it's sad. I don't get it. Where does it go? Is it a choice? Sometimes it's there on covers; I think Clive [Davis, legendary record executive] fell for that.

It wasn't there with me on 'Sympathy [for the Devil]' or ['The] Spaghetti [Incident?'] and it took years for me to get there again, in my opinion, and in the ways I wanted it to be. Will I keep it? Who knows? I'd like to, but who can say?

Who's your favorite drummer you've worked with?
I've liked elements that each brought in. Josh [Freese], [Brian] "Brain" [Mantia] and Frank [Ferrer] have been the easiest to work with and get along with, as well as it being fun to hang out with any of them. I do feel that all three were the right drummers to make this album. The rehearsals with [Dave] Abruzzesse and Pod as a duo were really cool; it was a shame then that it didn't work out but seemed for the best once we found Josh. In regard to old Guns, I don't listen much and for different reasons -- more because of the drums than anything else.

With 'Appetite,' for me the parts, playing, etc., timing flaws, whatever, are perfect, and as a moment in time for me, the whole record is. That said, the sound of the drums, which at the time in our niche of the woods was a bit of a bold statement and a somewhat successful effort to change things from the current flow at the time, and so may have been necessary but for me sound the most dated of anything there sound-wise.

With 'Illusions' several years ago, something came on the radio and I realized how the energy in the drums, though solid and consistent, brought me down in a way I feel damaged the material in the long run, if not from the get-go. Maybe it's there with some, most or all of us in ways, but I specifically notice it more with the drums. And when listening in that sense of analyzing how something feels to me in regards to its involvement or inclusion in the song, whether anyone disagrees I'm somewhat capable of removing myself and events from the picture.

For me it's more about certain energies and feel, and I'm not into what we did there for a good bit in regard to the drum work. To actually have a drummer that could play at the time, though, was a bit too overwhelming. The public has no idea what went into Steven's parts and the notion of getting through songs in rehearsal if ever, with no exaggeration, was unfortunately a nightmare that neither I or Izzy could take, and eventually the others as well, though they lasted longer for other reasons.

What do you think of Steven being on the VH1 rehab show?
I wish Steven the best; unfortunately Steven's given us the spoiler for that. I hope people are able to find answers and get the help they need; other than that, I'm not the biggest fan of the show.

Who's in the band?
I think we'll go with a combo of who's around and who's on the album for now and worry about that when we get ready to tour.

Is Robin [Finck] in the band?
Last I was aware, he had some interest in touring, though I can't say what that means until then. In our opinion, he's made things a bit awkward publicly, but that's just his way.

Is Brain in the band?
Last I checked. Brain works on several things with Guns either from his home or in the studio.

So you have two drummers? Will they both tour?
Yes, and who knows?

When's the next album?
Have no idea and don't care. Hopefully, we'll be working 'Chinese' for a good bit. Of course there's the same idiots that have been around forever already demanding release dates.

How much material is there?
Not as much as Baz [Sebastian Bach] thinks he heard! Really, it doesn't matter. If things go well enough, we'd like to get another out at some point in our lifetimes.

Is anything finished?
Depends how you look at it.

How do you look at it?
Not something we've focused on.

You're not saying much.
You got that? What I can say is if you don't like this, then you probably won't like that. Same people, lots more approaches, bit meaner in places and darker in some. Robin does a really great Stevie Ray Vaughan-type solo on one track.

Slash has said that the sessions they did with Izzy before Velvet Revolver were the best Guns album ever. What do you think of that?
Politics.

In what way?
Old Guns promotion.

Source: http://www.spinner.com/2009/02/27/axl-rose-insists-original-guns-n-roses-lineup-is-dead-and-burie/

In the first published version of this interview there was an additional part of Axl discussing Robert John:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slash has said that the sessions they did with Izzy before Velvet Revolver were the best Guns album ever. What do you think of that?

Politics.

In what way?

Old Guns promotion.

What happened between you and [photographer] Robert John?

Hmmm ... I don't know anyone who knows. Last I heard he was allegedly doing a lot of meth and sleeping on his mom's floor. Anyone whose opinions I trust seems to thinks he lost his mind, lives in a fantasy world and knows everything.

What's that about, if you don't mind me asking?

Have no idea. This is a guy that I got in the business, got him gigs, paid and treated well, promoted, etc. Helped him get a house, helped him keep his house, bought his photos, and when Merck [Mercuriadis, former G N' R manager], for whatever reasons took forever to pay him, Robert sues me ... but I didn't know anything about it. Next thing, I'm the Antichrist because I didn't like some photos. F--- if I know.

I called Robert out of the blue back when, because I felt I knew something was wrong. Finally, he says he was gonna kill himself. I put up about 60-something-K on the mortgage, got a couple payments, but that wasn't where the trouble started. It was that the bank was foreclosing on that money, so he was pissed at our accountant, who kept on him trying to sort out what we should do and Robert avoiding him -- who was the others' accountant as well. I only learned of any of this near the end. He and Robert knew each other for years. He's one of the guys who allegedly saw Slash with his guitar in Vegas. And it seems genuine because he didn't know anything was going on. He's like, "Why was Slash there with his guitar?" And the Hard Rock people -- what did they have to lie about? They deal with all the bands ... friends, enemies, whatever, so it's just business. As far as I know, we're all good with that.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20090518013044/http://www.gnrtv.com/profiles/blogs/axl-amp-del-interview

That part was later removed from the Spinner website (it wasn't there in the earliest archived version of the page from March 10, 2009) and there was a note that the article was edited at the interviewer's request:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090310194946/http://www.spinner.com/2009/02/27/axl-rose-insists-original-guns-n-roses-lineup-is-dead-and-burie/

The Spinner article was also shared on the band's official website. There the part about Robert John remained, but Axl's comment about RJ doing meth was removed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Axl Rose Insists Original Guns N' Roses Lineup Is Dead and Buried

GunsNRoses.com

Since releasing the long-awaited Guns N' Roses album 'Chinese Democracy' this past November, Axl Rose has said very little about it, taking to message boards and e-mails for the few comments he has made. But if there's one person who could get him to break his silence it's Del James, Rose's longtime friend, road manager and the man whose short story, 'Without You,' inspired the epic clip for 'November Rain.'

James, a music journalist who has covered G N' R for years, dating back to his days at metal mag Rip, as well as in several Rolling Stone articles, spoke with Rose and is sharing the results of that one-on-one exclusively with Spinner. Yes, here he is, W. Axl Rose, letting loose on Slash, answering whether he was trying to make the best album ever and waxing philosophically on when the original G N' R lineup really died.

[...]

What happened between you and [photographer] Robert John?

Hmmm ... I don't know anyone who knows. Anyone whose opinions I trust seems to thinks he lost his mind, lives in a fantasy world and knows everything.

What's that about, if you don't mind me asking?

Have no idea. This is a guy that I got in the business, got him gigs, paid and treated well, promoted, etc. Helped him get a house, helped him keep his house, bought his photos, and when Merck [Mercuriadis, former G N' R manager], for whatever reasons took forever to pay him, Robert sues me ... but I didn't know anything about it. Next thing, I'm the Antichrist because I didn't like some photos. F--- if I know.

I called Robert out of the blue back when, because I felt I knew something was wrong. Finally, he says he was gonna kill himself. I put up about 60-something-K on the mortgage, got a couple payments, but that wasn't where the trouble started. It was that the bank was foreclosing on that money, so he was pissed at our accountant, who kept on him trying to sort out what we should do and Robert avoiding him -- who was the others' accountant as well. I only learned of any of this near the end. He and Robert knew each other for years. He's one of the guys who allegedly saw Slash with his guitar in Vegas. And it seems genuine because he didn't know anything was going on. He's like, "Why was Slash there with his guitar?" And the Hard Rock people -- what did they have to lie about? They deal with all the bands ... friends, enemies, whatever, so it's just business. As far as I know, we're all good with that.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101113015931/http://web.gunsnroses.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090303&content_id=a1&vkey=news&fext=.jsp

Anyone understand this oblique sentence?



I assume he is talking about himself in the last part of the sentence ("the band started in the heart and soul of one man"), but that means the commitment ended before the band had even begun. I don't get it.

Soulmonster wrote:Anyone understand this oblique sentence?

It is my belief that the commitment to end old Guns came long before the band started in the heart and soul of one man.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

I assume he is talking about himself in the last part of the sentence ("the band started in the heart and soul of one man"), but that means the commitment ended before the band had even begun. I don't get it.

I think by "one man" he means Slash, saying that Slash had the goal to "end" the band before it started (!), I guess by planning to "take it over."

Axl must have been in a really bad mood when he did that interview.

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:Anyone understand this oblique sentence?

It is my belief that the commitment to end old Guns came long before the band started in the heart and soul of one man.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

I assume he is talking about himself in the last part of the sentence ("the band started in the heart and soul of one man"), but that means the commitment ended before the band had even begun. I don't get it.

I think by "one man" he means Slash, saying that Slash had the goal to "end" the band before it started (!), I guess by planning to "take it over."

Axl must have been in a really bad mood when he did that interview.

But he says the band "started in the heart and soul of one man", so I think he is referring to himself with those words. But it still means the commitment to end Guns (probably by Slash) came before it started. A bit of time travelling there.

I'm an not a huge fan of this interview. It feels less like an interview and more like a constructed defense manifest by Axl. Axl is best when the interview is oral and he is in a good mood.

Soulmonster wrote:

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:Anyone understand this oblique sentence?

It is my belief that the commitment to end old Guns came long before the band started in the heart and soul of one man.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

I assume he is talking about himself in the last part of the sentence ("the band started in the heart and soul of one man"), but that means the commitment ended before the band had even begun. I don't get it.

I think by "one man" he means Slash, saying that Slash had the goal to "end" the band before it started (!), I guess by planning to "take it over."

Axl must have been in a really bad mood when he did that interview.

But he says the band "started in the heart and soul of one man", so I think he is referring to himself with those words. But it still means the commitment to end Guns (probably by Slash) came before it started. A bit of time travelling there.

I'm an not a huge fan of this interview. It feels less like an interview and more like a constructed defense manifest by Axl. Axl is best when the interview is oral and he is in a good mood.

I don't know, I take it as the syntax is a little problematic and it actually is "It is my belief that the commitment to end old Guns came in the heart and soul of one man long before the band started."

But if he's talking about himself in the "hart and soul of one man" part, it means that Slash had committed to end the band not just long before it started, but before it was even "conceived" by Axl.

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:Anyone understand this oblique sentence?

It is my belief that the commitment to end old Guns came long before the band started in the heart and soul of one man.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

I assume he is talking about himself in the last part of the sentence ("the band started in the heart and soul of one man"), but that means the commitment ended before the band had even begun. I don't get it.

I think by "one man" he means Slash, saying that Slash had the goal to "end" the band before it started (!), I guess by planning to "take it over."

Axl must have been in a really bad mood when he did that interview.

But he says the band "started in the heart and soul of one man", so I think he is referring to himself with those words. But it still means the commitment to end Guns (probably by Slash) came before it started. A bit of time travelling there.

I'm an not a huge fan of this interview. It feels less like an interview and more like a constructed defense manifest by Axl. Axl is best when the interview is oral and he is in a good mood.

I don't know, I take it as the syntax is a little problematic and it actually is "It is my belief that the commitment to end old Guns came in the heart and soul of one man long before the band started."

But if he's talking about himself in the "hart and soul of one man" part, it means that Slash had committed to end the band not just long before it started, but before it was even "conceived" by Axl.  

It doesn't make sense with any interpretation.

Here Axl is referring to an MTV interview he did where he claims to have said he "hated Appetite". I can't find this interview, I suppose he meant the 1989 MTV interview where he claimed he wanted to "bury Appetite".

And another one of those missing references when Del James asks Axl if he hadn't stated he "love Slash" in ca 2006:



I can't find that interview, from 2006 or any other year after Slash left the band.

Soulmonster wrote:And another one of those missing references when Del James asks Axl if he hadn't stated he "love Slash" in ca 2006:

No. I said "loved," as in past tense. It was a misquote by a writer I mistook as a fan.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

I can't find that interview, from 2006 or any other year after Slash left the band.

It's this article:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t2882-2006-01-16-rolling-stone-axl-rose-breaks-his-silence-on-chinese-democracy

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:And another one of those missing references when Del James asks Axl if he hadn't stated he "love Slash" in ca 2006:

No. I said "loved," as in past tense. It was a misquote by a writer I mistook as a fan.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

I can't find that interview, from 2006 or any other year after Slash left the band.

It's this article:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t2882-2006-01-16-rolling-stone-axl-rose-breaks-his-silence-on-chinese-democracy

Perfect, I was searching for "love him", "love Slash" etc, but not "love the guy"

Who the hell is Pod?

Soulmonster wrote:

The rehearsals with [Dave] Abruzzesse and Pod as a duo were really cool; it was a shame then that it didn't work out but seemed for the best once we found Josh.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

Who the hell is Pod?

Chris Vrenna. His nickname is Pod Boy.

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:

The rehearsals with [Dave] Abruzzesse and Pod as a duo were really cool; it was a shame then that it didn't work out but seemed for the best once we found Josh.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

Who the hell is Pod?

Chris Vrenna. His nickname is Pod Boy.

I had no idea. Well, that fits.

Here's another interesting quote in regards to reuniting with Steven:



Does this imply Steven has sued Axl more than once? And it also suggests his mother has been involved somehow.

Soulmonster wrote:Here's another interesting quote in regards to reuniting with Steven:

Steven [Adler] brings assorted ambulance-chasing attorneys and the nightmare of his mother. One gig, or even a couple songs, could mean years of behind-the-scenes legal aftermath.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

Does this imply Steven has sued Axl more than once? And it also suggests his mother has been involved somehow.

According to Steven in his autobiography (probably in interviews, too), his mother had instigated the lawsuit in 1991. Axl had also attacked both Steven and his mother from the stage at one of the shows in 1991.

Based on the L.A. Superior Court database, Steven's lawsuit case continued through to 1996, but it was probably another part of the lawsuit which was against the GN'R attorneys.

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:Here's another interesting quote in regards to reuniting with Steven:

Steven [Adler] brings assorted ambulance-chasing attorneys and the nightmare of his mother. One gig, or even a couple songs, could mean years of behind-the-scenes legal aftermath.

Spinner Magazine, February 27, 2009

Does this imply Steven has sued Axl more than once? And it also suggests his mother has been involved somehow.

According to Steven in his autobiography (probably in interviews, too), his mother had instigated the lawsuit in 1991. Axl had also attacked both Steven and his mother from the stage at one of the shows in 1991.

Based on the L.A. Superior Court database, Steven's lawsuit case continued through to 1996, but it was probably another part of the lawsuit which was against the GN'R attorneys.

Fits with Slash stating that someone had been influencing Steven to sue.

According to a former member of Adler's Appetite, Steven's mother was something like his legal guardian (and probably had been for some time):

https://www.a-4-d.com/t5343-2005-12-26-jedbanger-via-blabbermouth-interview-with-steven#21290

I suppose Axl meant that he wouldn't want to have to deal with her.

Then there's the last couple of questions where Del James says that Slash said the sessions with Izzy before VR was the best Guns album ever. I have read through the quotes I have included in the first chapter on VR, and I can't find Slash saying exactly those words. I did find a quote, though, where Slash said the music sounded "too Guns". I am not saying there isn't a quote from Slash where he did say the material they worked on would have been the best Guns album, just that it doesn't seem to have been something he emphasized in many interviews, a prevailing statement from Slash emphasized in important interviews, and if he did say it, it seems to have been a one-off. Then why is Del James bringing this specific quote up?

Again, the whole interview seems designed for Axl to get things off his chest, for him to retort to things he has read (or believes he has read) that bothers him, and probably more than it should.

It is the same things with the two first questions of the interview where Axl is asked if he was trying to create "the best album ever made" or that he was trying to release a "masterpiece", two statements that although media referred to CD before its release as "Axl's masterpiece" and there was a suggestion Axl was working so long because he wanted it to be as great as possible, they never claimed (as far as I can tell) that he had said that. So Axl is responding to, at best, insinuations, really. Del James seems to have been fed (or independently raised them because he knew Axl would like to address them) questions on things that was gnawing on Axl, based off on quotes that are obscure or misread.

This leads me to wonder if Axl was trawling the media sort-of looking for things to be upset about, or just reading everything written and then taking notes of the negative stuff (imagined or not), or if someone was feeding him info (maybe distorted) to manipulate his feelings for their own benefit.

The quote about the VR sessions with Izzy being the best GNR album is from Slash's autobiography.

After the autobiography was released, it was kind of considered the definite source that represented Slash's point of view (and Slash himself had presented that way). Del James had read it and commented on it (and so had Axl, of course), so I guess that's why he asked.

The excerpt from Slash's book:
[Izzy] came down to the studio with his guitar and amp and he brought a couple of demos. We jammed with him for two weeks and it was great: we wrote about twelve songs that would have been the best Guns N’ Roses record, hands down. We talked about the old days, we shared war stories; we laughed a lot and we had a really good time.

No, I am wrong, Slash did say something similar in an interview:

I reckon that reading Slash's book might have been a very painful - even traumatic - experience for Axl. Not only because of what Axl considered inaccuracies or "lies," but also just for reading about events and about himself from Slash's point of view.

But I agree that the interview was staged so that Axl could vent about specific things. The segment about Robert John, which was then removed from the Spinner site, but remained on the band's website for the fans to read, is a very characteristic example. Apparently Axl wanted to lash out after what Robert said in Stephen Davis' book which had been released recently (and probably Axl hadn't read that book himself, but he was told about it).

In the end, Axl didn't do himself any favours with this interview.

Blackstar wrote:But I agree that the interview was staged so that Axl could vent about specific things. The segment about Robert John, which was then removed from the Spinner site, but remained on the band's website for the fans to read, is a very characteristic example. Apparently Axl wanted to lash out after what Robert said in Stephen Davis' book which had been released recently (and probably Axl hadn't read that book himself, but he was told about it).

In the end, Axl didn't do himself any favours with this interview.

I wonder how he looks on this interview (and others from the same period) today after having reunited with Slash. Does he regret what he said? Has he changed his mind or are he just suppressing it to not ruin the reunion? And on that tangent, he probably aren't too enthusiastic about us brining attention to it, both in discussions like this but also me including quotes in the history chapter. Well, at least not if this site gets some media attention. He would probably prefer that this sleeping dog is undisturbed to not rock the reunion boat (unless of course that Slash and Axl have squared up and can laugh about the things they said when the sores were raw - although I somehow doubt that).

Soulmonster wrote:

Blackstar wrote:But I agree that the interview was staged so that Axl could vent about specific things. The segment about Robert John, which was then removed from the Spinner site, but remained on the band's website for the fans to read, is a very characteristic example. Apparently Axl wanted to lash out after what Robert said in Stephen Davis' book which had been released recently (and probably Axl hadn't read that book himself, but he was told about it).

In the end, Axl didn't do himself any favours with this interview.

I wonder how he looks on this interview (and others from the same period) today after having reunited with Slash. Does he regret what he said? Has he changed his mind or are he just suppressing it to not ruin the reunion? And on that tangent, he probably aren't too enthusiastic about us brining attention to it, both in discussions like this but also me including quotes in the history chapter. Well, at least not if this site gets some media attention. He would probably prefer that this sleeping dog is undisturbed to not rock the reunion boat (unless of course that Slash and Axl have squared up and can laugh about the things they said when the sores were raw - although I somehow doubt that).

If I were to guess, I'd say he still has some issues with Slash (and so does Slash with him) - at least he had in the beginning of the reunion: in the China Exchange interview he said that one of the first things he told Slash when they talked again after 19 years was that he had lied in his book. But I think he probably regrets some of the harsh things he said, like in this interview, and I would imagine that they have talked about it. He already had started to mellow out in the interviews after 2011 - he would still complain about Slash, but he was not so bitter.

But I can't help thinking that there was something much deeper behind that resentment than a feeling of betrayal and abandonment or anger over what Slash had said in the press, and suspecting that it may not have been rational.

Blackstar wrote:But I can't help thinking that there was been something much deeper behind that resentment than a feeling of betrayal and abandonment or anger over what Slash had said in the press, and suspecting that it may not have been rational.

Yes, there seems to be a disparity between Axl's...I would have to say hateful statements, and the comments made publicly by Slash. This is not to disregard Slash's distortion of what happened for his own benefit and to Axl's loss, because Slash certainly exploited the fact that he could steer the narrative and at times kicked Axl when he was down, just that the reaction from Axl still seems a bit unfair or unbalanced. Then I have always thought that the explanation is found outside of public comments by Slash, like in the various lawsuits and legal litigation (a lot of details that aren't publicly disclosed) and how they affected Axl and his project. And also the betrayal Axl felt when Slash left him. Axl is a sensitive guy who values loyalty very highly, and when Slash, his comrade-in-arms, left him he probably took that harder than it seemed at the time.

Additionally, people often look for a focal point for their anger and disappointment, and I wouldn't be surprised if Axl heaped some of the fault for all that went wrong during the CD years (correct or not), on Slash. That is not rational, but is is very human thing to do. And as this interview demonstrates, Axl is adept at focusing on slights and grudges.

Lastly, one can't disregard the possibility that people around Axl were trying to manipulate him to be opposed to Slash; although it is harder to find a good motive for that (seems like most people around Axl could benefit from a reunion and thus wouldn't be opposed to it).

Soulmonster wrote:

Blackstar wrote:But I can't help thinking that there was been something much deeper behind that resentment than a feeling of betrayal and abandonment or anger over what Slash had said in the press, and suspecting that it may not have been rational.

Yes, there seems to be a disparity between Axl's...I would have to say hateful statements, and the comments made publicly by Slash. This is not to disregard Slash's distortion of what happened for his own benefit and to Axl's loss, because Slash certainly exploited the fact that he could steer the narrative and at times kicked Axl when he was down, just that the reaction from Axl still seems a bit unfair or unbalanced. Then I have always thought that the explanation is found outside of public comments by Slash, like in the various lawsuits and legal litigation (a lot of details that aren't publicly disclosed) and how they affected Axl and his project. And also the betrayal Axl felt when Slash left him. Axl is a sensitive guy who values loyalty very highly, and when Slash, his comrade-in-arms, left him he probably took that harder than it seemed at the time.

Additionally, people often look for a focal point for their anger and disappointment, and I wouldn't be surprised if Axl heaped some of the fault for all that went wrong during the CD years (correct or not), on Slash. That is not rational, but is is very human thing to do. And as this interview demonstrates, Axl is adept at focusing on slights and grudges.

Lastly, one can't disregard the possibility that people around Axl were trying to manipulate him to be opposed to Slash; although it is harder to find a good motive for that (seems like most people around Axl could benefit from a reunion and thus wouldn't be opposed to it).

There is still something that doesn't add up, though: that all of Axl's rage/resentment/"hatred" (I don't think it was real hatred, although it definitely came across like that) was directed almost exclusively at Slash, although Duff was with Slash in the lawsuits and had said some bad stuff about Axl as well, and even Izzy had said some nasty things. An explanation could be that he was seeing Slash as his main partner, that the two of them were Guns N' Roses after Izzy left, so the betrayal felt bigger, but still that's not enough. The difference seemed to come down more to considering only Slash malicious, even evil in a not human kind of way. That's what I mean with it not being rational. There is a later source pointing at Axl's belief in the supernatural being behind it, but I don't know how reliable that is.

Blackstar wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:

Blackstar wrote:But I can't help thinking that there was been something much deeper behind that resentment than a feeling of betrayal and abandonment or anger over what Slash had said in the press, and suspecting that it may not have been rational.

Yes, there seems to be a disparity between Axl's...I would have to say hateful statements, and the comments made publicly by Slash. This is not to disregard Slash's distortion of what happened for his own benefit and to Axl's loss, because Slash certainly exploited the fact that he could steer the narrative and at times kicked Axl when he was down, just that the reaction from Axl still seems a bit unfair or unbalanced. Then I have always thought that the explanation is found outside of public comments by Slash, like in the various lawsuits and legal litigation (a lot of details that aren't publicly disclosed) and how they affected Axl and his project. And also the betrayal Axl felt when Slash left him. Axl is a sensitive guy who values loyalty very highly, and when Slash, his comrade-in-arms, left him he probably took that harder than it seemed at the time.

Additionally, people often look for a focal point for their anger and disappointment, and I wouldn't be surprised if Axl heaped some of the fault for all that went wrong during the CD years (correct or not), on Slash. That is not rational, but is is very human thing to do. And as this interview demonstrates, Axl is adept at focusing on slights and grudges.

Lastly, one can't disregard the possibility that people around Axl were trying to manipulate him to be opposed to Slash; although it is harder to find a good motive for that (seems like most people around Axl could benefit from a reunion and thus wouldn't be opposed to it).

There is still something that doesn't add up, though: that all of Axl's rage/resentment/"hatred" (I don't think it was real hatred, although it definitely came across like that) was directed almost exclusively at Slash, although Duff was with Slash in the lawsuits and had said some bad stuff about Axl as well, and even Izzy had said some nasty things. An explanation could be that he was seeing Slash as his main partner, that the two of them were Guns N' Roses after Izzy left, so the betrayal felt bigger, but still that's not enough. The difference seemed to come down more to considering only Slash malicious, even evil in a not human kind of way. That's what I mean with it not being rational. There is a later source pointing at Axl's belief in the supernatural being behind it, but I don't know how reliable that is.

I think some of that can be explained by Slash being more important than Duff (and Izzy) and thus getting more media attention, as well as to a larger extent being a dick towards Axl than Duff was (Duff was frequently more diplomatic). And then comes that Axl probably considered Slash more important to Guns N' Roses than Duff and thus the betrayal was larger. Maybe they were also tighter as friends compared to Axl and Duff (although that alone couldn't explain it since Izzy was the largest friend of them all to Axl). I also believe Slash took a more active role than Duff in what happened behind the scenes (with lawsuits and visiting Axl in 2005 etc) and thus he became the ringleader of what Axl possibly considered a conspiracy out to get him. For someone like Axl, I think all of this together could satisfactorily explain what seemed like an unfair overreaction but I am not denying there could be something additional, even a supernatural explanation. In fact, I would be surprised if there aren't additional reasons for his grudges against Slash, which has simply not come fully out yet.