You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#11 Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Detailed Slash interview by Ultimate Guitar » 563 weeks ago
- Mikkamakka
- Replies: 9
I guess it's a Slash guitar nerds exclusive
I tried to pick out the most interesting stuff.
Slash: 'You Can't Always Get Two Guys With Two Different Guitars to Do Something Unique'
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/intervie … nique.html
Michael Baskette had other ideas about guitar?
When I talked to him, he was very, very passionate about guitar tones and amps and getting a real, honest guitar sound. Whatever it was, the conversation was very inspiring. We went from there and it turned out that working with him was a really great move and it was something that must have been in the cards or something. 'Cause I really enjoyed working with him. A lot of guys when I go in the studio think well - I never even realized what they meant until recently - "Just do your thing. You're Slash."
They tend to default to you and what they believe you must know?
You're going, "No, I sort of could use a little support from the technician side of things so I know what's coming out of my amp is what I'm gonna hear coming through the monitors 'cause there's a lot of stuff in-between," hah hah hah. "There are microphones, cables and a whole console and EQs" and so on and so forth. And they think I just come in as is and it's all perfect and I just record it and that's about as much effort as they want to put into it. So Mike was great because he was really conscientious about getting what it was that I wanted, which freed me up to feel comfortable pushing to get the sounds I wanted. Even where my breaking point is for patience in the studio, Mike would carry it one step further, hah hah hah.
How would he do that?
I would find him in the control room with my guitar on - the first time I saw that freaked me out - and he would be tweaking his EQs. We had the amp sound and all that and he would be so diligently tweaking his EQs for hours getting the s - t right. That's way above and beyond my patience level so I really appreciated it.
You mentioned earlier Myles Kennedy is not playing any guitars on this album. Why?
When it comes to guitars, I know this is gonna sound crazy but I never intended to be in a two-guitar band. When Guns N' Roses came together, Izzy was already in it and he was already very tight with Axl and that's the way it went. It was fine. He and I had a certain unique double-guitar kind of thing. I wouldn't say the approach was unique but the way it sounded and the contrast between our guitar sounds was unique. It turned out to be a really cool double-guitar kind of thing. But since I've been working with Izzy, I only like two guitars for live.
Which is why Myles plays guitar for all the live shows.
In the studio, I'm not looking for somebody to bounce ideas off of. You can't always get two guys with two different guitars to do something noticeably unique. You can do harmonies and play off of each other but to have the kind of chemistry Izzy and I had, you don't know if you're ever gonna find that again.
Myles did play guitar on "Apocalyptic Love."
When I'm working with Myles in the studio, he is a great guitar player. He and I have a good rapport but he doesn't really wanna play guitar. He wants to sing. So when we did the last record, there was a lot of pressure on him because he was out with Alter Bridge and he came into the studio when we were actually recording. So he had to learn all the guitars really fast and then he had to write all the lyrics. Or finish writing the lyrics and get the vocals done within a certain time frame.
So on this record it was a pretty easy decision in just having Myles do vocals?
Yeah, on this record he was like, "I'd really rather do vocals and not have to worry about learning all the guitar parts and coming up with whatever needs to be done here." I was like, "Cool. I'll do all the guitars" because then I can focus on everything I'm hearing two guitars to do and the harmonies and the different rhythmic things. I know exactly what they are and I can make it sound very cohesive.
You know exactly what this Slash guy will play, right?
As opposed to trying to make it like two guitars where, "Oh, this guy plays this way and this guy plays that way" [laughs]. It's just impossible to do because you play like how you play. But you can change your tone a little bit and you can do different chord voicings and some real different rhythms and you know exactly what they are. So to me it works out well.
The guitar parts on "World on Fire" were amazing.
It's one of the things I always liked about Jimmy Page was his producing and the way he did the two guitars just worked. You just get into that guitar zone and you get ideas and you can execute them and you're not necessarily teaching them to another guy.
Even if you had a second guitar player, that person would be playing your ideas anyway.
Myles is such an incredible guitar player and he teaches me stuff. I'll see him doing stuff because he's obviously way more schooled and I'll be like, "What the f--k is that?" and it's some crazy a-s pattern and he'll show it to me. I'm like, "Wow, that's neat." But when it comes to what we're doing as a band, he's very much more focused on his vocals than he is on the guitar.
Also, Myles plays guitar in Alter Bridge so not having him play guitar with you changes things up.
Yeah, he does. Also when I write stuff and I send it to him, if he hears anything he can always put it on guitar and he'll show me what the basic is that he was thinking. So we definitely work from two-guitar ideas.
The guitar riff on "Wicked Stone" had such a great feel. Does your right hand instantly lock into that groove?
I appreciate the compliment but I don't know good it is. I appreciate that. That particular song, that two-string high riff is playing a double of the riff. That was originally the riff in the first place and then the lower one came after that. I used that style a lot when I'm playing solos. We do the stretched out version of "Rocket Queen" and I notice when I'm improvising, I'll fall into using that two-string kind of riffy thing. I think it is a rhythmic thing that just comes natural and in the pocket it just feels good. But maybe that's from years of jamming but I like that rhythmic style.
The solo on "Wicked Stone" was also very cool. Again it comes out of that rhythmic thing and then begins with that descending line. Is that all in the moment?
It's all in the moment but I'll tell you something. For me a guitar solo is only supposed to be a part of the song. It's not supposed to be a guitar pyrotechnics showcase. When you're doing it, you're really in the framework and the body of the song. The first notes you hit and the first things you go for are really what you hear in that context. Usually the solo is something that presents itself in the first rehearsal. You get to the solo section part and you've sort of figured out what chord changes are gonna underneath and then you just go for it. And nine times out of ten that first approach is pretty much the way it's gonna go.
What you're talking about is the difference between a good solo and a great one?
I can do a good solo in the first three takes give or take notes here and there or the structure of the solo. It's gonna be basically the same. Mike would make me do those first three or four takes and then make me come back and do it again. You get to a point and you do three or four takes and your inspiration is gone and then you just d-ck around for another couple of takes and you know you're gonna go back to the first two.
But Mike wouldn't allow you to stop there?
He would push me doing it beyond that where I wanted to kill him. And then the inspiration would come back and new notes would pop out of it. The structure would stay the same but newer ideas out of frustration or whatever it was would all of a sudden come in there. All of a sudden you have something that was better than the first take. I think when you get into your comfort zone, you have to get past your comfort zone.
That is a really hard leap to make.
Like, "OK, I know how the solo goes. I've played it 80 times in rehearsal and this is basically it. This is how I've been doing it and that's fine." He would get me to push it beyond that so that new s - t came into it that I hadn't done when I was at rehearsal. I think he was just learning me so he was just taking me out of my comfort zone.
You're playing slide on "30 Years to Life"?
That's the Melody Maker. I play slide out of necessity. If I hear a slide idea then I will focus on it but I'm not a slide player. There are some guys who are amazing slide players and it's really what they do. I always find slide to be one of those things when I do it it just sounds like me trying to be like those guys. But sometimes there's an idea where it really calls for slide and it's more the texture of the song. It's not about my slide technique so to speak or slide solo technique. I don't think I've done a slide solo in a long time but I like it for certain things and if I'm gonna use it I'll sit down and focus on it and make sure I get it together and then do it.
"Stone Blind" is a big rock song that sounds nothing like Guns N'Roses and yet it's instantly recognizable as the guitarist from GN'R. Does that make sense?
I get what you're trying to say and I assume that's flattering.
Absolutely.
I'm basically a riff guy and I have a certain sort of way of playing guitar I suppose. There's not a lot of guys that do that right now.
After you've written the music and then give the song to Myles for lyrics and melodies, how do you feel when you finally hear the song completed?
Really 'cause you're starting with nothing, right? OK, you have a guitar idea but to have the other things that come with it like the right drum beat or right bass line or right vocal, you can work with people and that can never happen. You know what I mean?
I do.
I've been in situations with people like that and it's not anybody's fault. It's just one's not inspiring the other and the ideas aren't coming because it's just not happening. But with Myles, Brent and Todd, it's like every time no matter what it is I come up with if it's good enough in my mind to show to them, I'd say nine times out of ten Myles comes up with a melody. There's a lot of different songs on this record that in a normal, straightahead rock band wouldn't normally work. They would hear it and go, "I don't know what to do with that but this one I do." But these guys seem to mold to whatever I come up with especially Myles. 'Cause I can play some pretty sort of left-field sh-t at him, hah hah, and he'll go, "Oh, yeah."
What makes this record so great are the less obvious songs like "Battleground? And "The Unholy."
I'm really excited about this record. We managed to do something on "Apocalyptic Love" and I listened to it for the first time in ages recently. It's a cool record but we were just scratching the surface. Now I think we've got a stride and all things considered I'm excited to get it out and do this tour and expand on these songs and see how they evolve live. Then at the same time write the next one.
#12 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Blames Media For Axl Feud. » 563 weeks ago
The way your painting Duff and Slash is they were drunken, passive, weak, gullibale, pathetic, professional victims and Axl was Satan. I don't buy that. And if that's the case, where in the world is their integrity in this scenerio? I don't think Slash is as pristine as you're painting him. He's had just as big of issues, not to mention that its been said he let Todd Crew die of an OD and Axl protected Slash with an alibi, according to Jetboy anyway.
I think you got major Axl hatred issues, dude.
![]()
We're not going to agree as I haven't taken things personal with the band (I don't mean that as a slight to you, btw), but I will say, you are by far the most dedicated original line up fan I've ever met.
Please. That OD case has nothing to do with this topic. I don't think Slash is a saint. I think he can easily be guilty of that death. If he is, then it's a worse crime that what Axl did against them/GN'R. But bringing up that in this case is parallel to when Axl supporters say that Slash is a thief, cause he stole his Top-hat, a leather belt and cassettes in the 80s. That OD, as sad as it is, had nothing to do with GN'R's music or existance.
Thanks for the latter comment, but I'm not that sure about that. I've lost my faith (both musically and personally) in Axl though in the early 2000s that CD only cemented.
#13 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Blames Media For Axl Feud. » 563 weeks ago
If Axl was that terrible they should have quit after AFD. Matter of fact, they should have never joined the band in the first place.
It's straight from an Axl interview or pr release, isn't it?
Without Slash's presence GN'R would have been Hollywood Rose 2, this board wouldn't exist and Axl would be long dead/in prison/in a mental asylum. Slash'd probably be dead, too. A win-win situation, lol.
#14 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Blames Media For Axl Feud. » 563 weeks ago
Mikkamakka wrote:I see a strong contradiction here.
You're acting like the name thing wouldn't have mattered at all. In fact this made Slash N' Duff an employee with zero say about the band. Axl was a dictator even before with his crazy antics, unbelievable agression and his move swings that risked the whole band's existance and even people's life. You are right that the others made serious compromises to avoid the band falling apart. But it wasn't Axl's puppet back-up band, like it is today. You and some other Axl worshippers are up to make others believe that getting the name was just for psychological reasons. No, it was obviously a power move, to gain full control. It was part of the plan. Axl's plan. It wasn't a coincidence that he got the name and then left the band and started a new one with the same name. Axl has no right to play innocent. With a little common sense, seeing this from a little distance even his fans should understand it. Just imagine if you were robbed out of your band the same way. You'd fuckin' kill the guy. I would, for sure. Slash N' Duff were gentlemen.
Please, I said it wasn't for economic reasons. I never said anything about psychology or power, but if I did I would include both. Yeah, his plan was to take over the band. Everybody admits to this. So what? If it was such a big deal they could have just said no. Or continued on as "employes" doing the exact same thing they'd been doing previously. You act like he swindled them out of the name through some elaborate scheme. All he did was write up a contract and tell them he'd like for them to sign it. Yeah, they probably knew refusal would mean some hard times ahead, but that's life, that's Axl. Deal with it. Their way of doing it was signing away their rights so they could hit the bottle again. No wonder Axl didn't trust them to be reliable long term members.
Yeah, I say he swindled them out. They both felt this way. Even Duff, who said to be supporting Axl's direction (whatever it was).
I repeat it - after their choice of making compromises or not, with this Axl dirty move (or more correctly: a serie of dirty moves) they were LEGALLY out of any decision making. It's a big difference.
On the alcoholism: do you think it's legit to rob drunks out of their property? Or old people? Or children? Or "bad men"? It's never right. Of course, Axl did it all for "good intentions" to "save the band". It's a lie. He's az egomaniac control freak who can't even handle his own life. Give him a gun and he'll shoot himself in the foot in a minute. That's happened with GN'R, too. He got full control, but with Axl's psychologically challenged mind, with his inability of leadership and with his inconsistence, only Steven Adler could have been worse as the man in charge. I think Axl's craziness was much more dangerous to GN'R than Slash's and Duff's addictions. History proved it.
#15 Re: Guns N' Roses » CD II info and potential release and tour plans in 2015-16 » 563 weeks ago
Mikkamakka wrote:In regard to a release date for the album itself, certain minor - and I do mean minor -- additions, as well as contract negotiations, need to be completed. Barring any unforeseen complications, these things have now been adequately scheduled. (...) It takes approximately eight weeks for an album to hit the shelves once it has been turned in to the record company. For whatever reasons, it appears that it may have been mistakenly inferred by management that this time period could be condensed to three weeks. With that being said, this is not a promise, a lie or a guarantee, but we do wish to announce a tentative release date of March 6. This is the first time we have done this publicly for this album. Others have made up all the other dates for their own reasons. We would like to assure the fans that everything in our power will be done to meet this date.
(Axl, December, 2006)
Minor, he did mean minor additions were left in late 2006. The album came out 2 years later. So not even a written Axl statement means anything. A he said, she said rumour means even less.
I guess you can take it any way you want. I choose to see it as a positive sign. He said in the statement it wasn't a guarantee. And it was well known that the label sat on the album for over a year before they released it.
It took him a year instead of 2 weeks to hand over the material to the label.
Next time they'll also need to negotiate with the label. So...
#16 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Blames Media For Axl Feud. » 563 weeks ago
Mikkamakka wrote:I still can't understand how you don't get that the name issue was dirty business. They signed over the name for whatever reason, but for not a single cent? Is it likely that anyone would do this without major pressure? Hell no. The only exception is if they're so high or crazy that they can't stand for their own interest. Any case, it was dirty. Also, they were pretty much fooled out of their own band and downgraded to employees. Isn't it dirty business? When Axl cut Izzy's money (which led to his leaving) was also dirty business, don't you think? Slash N' Duff had plenty of times to experience how business works in Axl's land. It's obvious that when their money income were directed to Axl, they pissed off.
What money were they supposed to be entitled to? The financial arrangement remained exactly the same as before as far as I recall. Axl never cared about money, taking over the band had nothing to do with that. The "major pressure" you're speaking of is, if true, that Doug told Slash and Duff that Axl might not go on stage if they didn't sign. Not exactly a novel prospect for them is it? And are we supposed to believe that Slash and Duff knew nothing about this name thing before Doug Goldstein popped up in their trailer before a gig? Likely this was a development with some time in the making, and with sober participants. The actual signing of the documents might have occurred before that gig. So why did they do it? Likely because the money stayed the same and Axl was already a Dictator in everything but writing, so what's the big deal? It's only later, when, according to Axl, Slash became embarrassed at the realization that he was now technically just an employee, so he put the entire band in limbo, eventually leaving, to try and pressure Axl into concessions.
The only dirty business I see here is Slash when he tries to overturn a decision he made willingly, and in the process ending the band. And Goldstein for weaseling in a threat which Axl probably didn't intend for him to do. Taking over the band like Axl did is certainly not the ideal image of a bandmate, but he was upfront about it, so nothing dirty. GN'R was always Axl's band in practice. Either he agreed to something or it didn't happen, so more of a natural progression as band matters became more formalized. Nobody got screwed out of any cash or real decision making.
I see a strong contradiction here.
You're acting like the name thing wouldn't have mattered at all. In fact this made Slash N' Duff an employee with zero say about the band. Axl was a dictator even before with his crazy antics, unbelievable agression and his move swings that risked the whole band's existance and even people's life. You are right that the others made serious compromises to avoid the band falling apart. But it wasn't Axl's puppet back-up band, like it is today. You and some other Axl worshippers are up to make others believe that getting the name was just for psychological reasons. No, it was obviously a power move, to gain full control. It was part of the plan. Axl's plan. It wasn't a coincidence that he got the name and then left the band and started a new one with the same name. Axl has no right to play innocent. With a little common sense, seeing this from a little distance even his fans should understand it. Just imagine if you were robbed out of your band the same way. You'd fuckin' kill the guy. I would, for sure. Slash N' Duff were gentlemen.
Hipsters go for the unknown, the obscure, the forgotten. They don't go for previously popular trends which are now uncool. There's a reason you don't see any hipsters with riding boots and swastikas. And if there's an Adolf Hitler in rock n' roll, it has to be Axl Rose.
I guess GNR forums are a different reality. Here suddenly supporting Axl Rose is equivavelent to having a gay truckdriver mustache in the real world as a 20-year old big city hetero. It's/he's not that bad as Adolf Hitler, just something obscure and forgotten.
#17 Re: Guns N' Roses » CD II info and potential release and tour plans in 2015-16 » 563 weeks ago
In regard to a release date for the album itself, certain minor - and I do mean minor -- additions, as well as contract negotiations, need to be completed. Barring any unforeseen complications, these things have now been adequately scheduled. (...) It takes approximately eight weeks for an album to hit the shelves once it has been turned in to the record company. For whatever reasons, it appears that it may have been mistakenly inferred by management that this time period could be condensed to three weeks. With that being said, this is not a promise, a lie or a guarantee, but we do wish to announce a tentative release date of March 6. This is the first time we have done this publicly for this album. Others have made up all the other dates for their own reasons. We would like to assure the fans that everything in our power will be done to meet this date.
(Axl, December, 2006)
Minor, he did mean minor additions were left in late 2006. The album came out 2 years later. So not even a written Axl statement means anything. A he said, she said rumour means even less.
#18 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Blames Media For Axl Feud. » 563 weeks ago
Slash has never admitted to the Snake pit as a GN'R album where he told Axl to just sing on it, which Matt backed up. Slash constantly calls Axl a dictator, when a lot of GNR's decisions were made by Slash: Gilby, Matt, Touring. I can't think of a bigger dictator move than to give someone some songs and say: "Sing on this." Slash lied about going to Axl's house to save face. He admitted that, finally. And the lawsuit: lawyers HAVE to have your permission before they file anything in your name, unless they have power of attorney over your estate. To even suggested this was done without their knowledge is laughable. This had ZERO to do with Velvet Revolver. These are personal cases. And all they had to do was contact the ASCAP... It goes to show how vicious and contentious this relationship is, and not just from Axl's side.
These two fuckers are never going to be in a studio again. That's the point. And it's ironic that you're ignoring the thread title here... Slash is now blaming the media after all these years of feeding them shit to stir against Axl. I haven't heard him come out and say in all these years that any press he's given was twisted and not his own. Hopefully, it's a sign that he's going to approach this in a more diplomatic way, perhaps one that gets him in Axl's good graces and we'll see them on stage again. But it will never be as GN'R, unless it's a one off farewell show. And Axlin and I didn't kill anyone over anything. We were saying, just because you're finding articles where Slash says something happened, doesn't mean IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THAT WAY. Again, reference the thread title and original article. And some articles were given where Slash said the reason for the breakup was specifically because they were moving into two distinctly different musical directions. What about when he says that? Nothing about dictatorship or anything. He actually supported the new band before he was against it, and before he became indifferent, actually wanting to support Axl's new direction and wanting to play on stage with the new band. Somehow, it all has to be against Axl, and Slash has to be the flawless victim.
You can't move forward when you're constantly wishing for things to move backward. It isn't going to happen, dude.
Problem is that you take Axl's words as gospel. They are not. I think Axl's supposed Slash quote "Just shut up and sing" could have been taken out of the context. First of all, some fans assume it meant that Axl was forced to sing Slash's lyrics. Absolutely untrue, since 1, Slash only wrote Be The Ball's lyrics for the 5 O' Clock album 2, some of the songs (written by Eric or Gilby) were about Axl 3, the lyrics were written AFTER Axl rejected the tracks/most of the tracks. So no fucking way Axl was forced to sing someone else's lyrics. It's more likely that the "shut up and sing" comment was about wanting Axl finally do something. I guess Youth told that in the late 90s the songs still had no vocals and all Axl wanted to do is recording vocals for the AFD remake. Also, slash admitted that he didn't hear Axl sing in the last 2 years.
On the other hand (and it goes back to the original subject) I absolutely agree that Slash can't criticize the media for all the shit that went through between them. He said a lot of cruel/nasty things about Axl, so he really played his major part. It's another story what Axl did publicly, but Slash is responsible, for sure.
BTW @ the "Slash lies" topic. Marc Canter stated that Slash is doing "white lies", and he's doing it to look cool. He mentioned his "I'm too cool of a rocker for ballads" attitude and said that Slash's story about hating SCOM never hold water. (I'd add the "I played the exact same NR solo when I first heard the song/I always come up with the right solo for the first time I try"-bullshit.) But that's it. Nothing major.
#19 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Blames Media For Axl Feud. » 563 weeks ago
Mikkamakka wrote:Axlin, I know that now, that Axl Rose officially became the synonym of failure, it's a hipster thing to defend him and not care about reality.You'd probably find HTGTH a better place than you used to.
Go fuck yourself with that statement. I consider that a HUGE insult considering my past history here.
I'm getting really tired of your bullshit that when i'm sucking Slash & Duff's dick you've got nothing but karma praise, but if I think objectively for once, or even provide sources, AGAIN you come out with this delusions and lack of reality bullshit.
So i'll just keep it petty. Nearly 18,000 posts. 712+ karma.
I know what the fuck i'm doing, just try to keep up boy.
Ouch, I must have touched a nerve.
First of all - are you saying that when you were "sucking off Slash & Duff's dick" it wasn't your honest opinion? Or what's the problem if I happened to like some of your posts and gave you positive karma? Is it a crime? Sorry, I don't get your point.
Also, check your karma points. Last time I gave you a + was during the "S.Hudson-gate", when I thought that the Axl camp tried to avoid calling Slash Slash in the dvd's liner notes. You, very wisely, asked me to check my Slash CDs to know how he credits himself. It turned out that he's now using "S. Hudson". I gave you a karma for that. So your argument about me liking only your pro-Slash and anti-Axl posts lost all credibility.
#20 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Blames Media For Axl Feud. » 563 weeks ago
Those are a lot of maybe's to swallow, Mikka... And why would they have needed to call Axl? It's the ASCAP's responsibility to pay them their money.
And I still haven't seen where Axl did anything dirty or ugly, or underhanded to get the name. All of those myths have pretty much been snuffed out, from how it went down to the manner. And how in the world did it become the hipster thing to do to defend Axl?
Those maybes were there for irony. We don't know if they called Axl or didn't, we only have Axl's lawyer's press release that doesn't prove anything.
I still can't understand how you don't get that the name issue was dirty business. They signed over the name for whatever reason, but for not a single cent? Is it likely that anyone would do this without major pressure? Hell no. The only exception is if they're so high or crazy that they can't stand for their own interest. Any case, it was dirty. Also, they were pretty much fooled out of their own band and downgraded to employees. Isn't it dirty business? When Axl cut Izzy's money (which led to his leaving) was also dirty business, don't you think? Slash N' Duff had plenty of times to experience how business works in Axl's land. It's obvious that when their money income were directed to Axl, they pissed off.
Hipsters: as far as I know hipsters hype something that isn't popular/mainstream. As soon as it gets trendy, they change horse and hype something else. Hardcore Axl defending isn't popular anymore on GN'R boards. Yet suddenly one of the biggest Axl critics, Axlin sees the light and changes horse. I like the guy but his posts in the past few months are screaming for attention. At least this is how I see it.