Slash didn't have any power, even the band pretty much admits Axl was calling the business shots by 1989, thus the Mr. Brownstone incident at the LA Forum. Slash was too much a fucking junkie to have that much power.

What Axl HATED about Slash was the guy was just... Liked. People liked him MORE, trusted him MORE, wanted to deal with him MORE, even though Axl actually was the puppet master even then.

Slash's post-GN'R career pretty much proves he didn't have that much power. Sure Slash has been successful, but to say "more successful than Axl" is not really fair in the aspect... Axl never tried. Slash wins for sure, but by default because Axl never even attempted to do ANYTHING. The few times we've seen in the past that Axl did minimal promo for himself it was worldwide news instantly. I'd say that's pretty remarkable for a guy who's done jack shit since 1993,

Slash has BUSTED HIS ASS to get the promo he's gotten, which is rock star. He's arguably the most instantly recognizable rock guitarist in the world, but he worked his tail off to get that title. Shoving yourself down people's throats to get recognition versus just getting it because your beloved and/or infamous is a different story.

Axl still in the end holds the most power and always has. Slash never ever replaced Axl -- ever. No matter how many horrendous vocalists he gets to work with, short of Michael Jackson. Axl on the other hand, never ever replaced Slash. So on that level they neutralize each other. Where the advantage goes to Axl imo is that Slash in the end still turned his back on Guns N' Roses money. Slash money is A-L-O-T. But it'd be even more with GN'R, and he quit that job. Sure Axl quit the partnership and took the name, but offered Slash & Duff the same financial percentages in the new partnership. Slash is "no" to that.

So on that level = has a slight and ever so slight advantage on Slash in 2012 imo, and I still think it didn't come down to power as much as it was Axl feeling Slash's degenerative nature and unpredictability was a threat to the band's integrity and ultimately his financial security going into the future.

I will compliment you on trying to be positive, because you make alot of good points... but sometimes even taking control of your life still isn't fulfilling. It just isn't.

It might be rigidity, but sometimes people just have a clear cut decisive line of this and that, and without it they're out. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I certaintly don't see it as invalid thinking.

In other words, just saying "take control of your life" is totally different from it actually happening. Some people just don't have that option. I've actually been a little luckier/blessed that i've been allowed and able to hold on to my sense of self without compromise. Some don't get that luxury, so I certaintly feel for them. I'm allowed to have a soap box, even outside of this board.

But at the same time, that validates the "take control of your life". I know the day I stopped giving a crap what people thought and just took the gloves off, adapted a love or hate attitude and just wore 'me' on my sleeve, i've been ALOT happier and it's glued more and more people to me who see me as a dominate alpha-type. It's also gained me a Nixon-enemies list, but I always had that.

So there is some truth to it, but there are still requirements to life. Just being honest. Any compromise on that would not be being true to myself.

Does that make any sense? So like I took control of my life, and I have it and it's mine, like right out of JR's playbook, but at the same time if I compromise certain things i'm violating that and not being true to myself, and I have to make the decision to not compromise, or to compromise. If I compromise, I lose myself anyways.

It's lose lose. If you die, you're dead, if you give up who you are, you're dead already anyways.

"If I can't be my own..."

It's no big secret, what other job description gives you an excuse to grip a butcher knife daily, other than "The Shape" ?

I've had problems with it too, I just forgot to mention all busy n' stuff.

Dallas was more rooted and story and wrote from a male perspective. It's not nearly as glitz and glamour as Dynasty.

Dynasty looks hokey compared to today. Dallas holds up, because the stories at their core are still totally relevant. Especially the oil industry stuff.

Dallas kind of lost itself in the mid-80's around Seasons 7-9 (1983-1986). It was feeling the pressure to keep up with Dynasty which was starting to beat it in the ratings with all of the over-indulgent 80's excess. Miami Vice was another that was turning the pressure on.

Dallas reacting by involving more female-stories, brought some Knots Landing writers over, and turned the glamour up to Volume 11. The show lost it's spirit a bit, and by the infamous dream season 9 (1985-86), the show had basically turned into "Dynasty in a cowboy hat". Ultimately the original producer was not too happy, and that's why the dream season was made a dream. When Season 10 came back, the original Dallas spirit was restored, and the past year erased to get rid of all that crap.

Dallas is SUCH a long series that it is definitely a show that if you expect to make ANY progress, you're gonna have to sit down and watch hours and hours at a time, otherwise it'd take you a couple years to get through it all. There's 14 original seasons, and a 15th if you count the newest one.

I'd recommend it, but if you're looking for Dynasty you might be disappointed. If you want that, you might want to try Falcon Crest.