misterID wrote:

A Slash lead GNR would have been on the level of a Snakepit album, with lame throwback songs, with multiple throw away singers and he'd be touring with Poison and opening for Motley Crue and he wouldn't be the least bit ashamed of it.

GNR is STILL headlining festivals with major, current bands, had a Rockband VG for their Chinese Democracy, which still sold well and was very well received. None of Slash's music post GNR has showed me any evidence that it would be near the same if he had the name. But we'd probably have like ten really awful GNR albums in the time it took Axl to make Chinese Democracy.

How many people do you think go to see GnR because of CD?  Cut whatever imaginary number you have by 90% and you're probably close.  People are going to see the classics.  That is an undeniable fact that people just can't seem to accept.  They don't really care who is playing (or singing) them.  They will hear those same songs regardless of who is in and who is out.

Naltav wrote:

Communist China wrote:

I wish I had the quote but I think that Rogers Stevens of Blind Melon said it best back when people called the Hoon-less reunion of Melon a sell out. His point was, of course it's a sell out. You're doing it to make money. There's no degree of acceptable commercialization - either you're in it for the money or you're not.

I think what he said was "if we weren't sell outs we would just play music in our houses. the act of touring is selling out, recording an album on a label is selling out, anything where you make money is selling out".

It's a business. You're in it to make money.

I've never heard about the Hoon-less reunion.

Just because Roger Stevens thinks that way, doesn't mean every artist that does music is in it to make money.

I have plenty of friends here in Norway who has released a lot of albums and toured all over Norway, Europe and even Mexico. Neither of them made a profit. They make just enough to cover their costs and make up for the time they had to take off their dayjobs to be able to do what they love.

And didn't Tom Zutaut say Axl is the only artist he ever worked with who truly didn't care about money?

Axl and Slash seems to have different values when it comes to certain things. And I know which I prefer.... 

The thing about him saying that is that he isn't saying "we're selling out" he's saying "everyone that lives off their music is selling out" or even broader, "selling out is a meaningless term."

Just because your friends aren't talented enough to draw a large enough following to profit from doesn't make them 'true artists'. It makes them 'unsuccessful'. If they had thousands of people willing to pay them, and specifically them, for albums or concerts, they would take that deal. The fact that they took money to cover their expenses is "selling out" in a way. If you want to make a distinction between "music that makes money" and "music to make money" then go right ahead, but it's more trouble than it's worth.

How do they judge their success as artists? If they play a gig to 3 people and they think they sound good, do they call it a success? Or does crowd response influence their opinion of themselves? If it does, then using personal profit as a way to discredit an artist is ridiculous.

If you really don't care what anybody else thinks of your art, then congratulations, I'll be over here participating in an ever present economy like everyone else that isn't Shoenberg.

@Naltav: There's two different meanings to selling out that you can object to. I'm not too fond of an artist throwing away their artistic integrity myself, if that means that said artist only or mainly puts out unlistenable crap that is designed to attack the charts without being based on something the artist actually likes. I'm against artists performing/writing/releasing songs they don't actually like or can get behind.
(although things are slightly different in a band situation obviously. I don't really think Slash was selling out when he played SCOM live all those years, despite him not liking the song.) For instance, Robbie Williams doing boyband-type stuff in Take That when he was in fact mocking the music, I would consider that selling out and no sir, I don't like it. I don't know for sure, but I don't think you can say Slash has ever done anything like that. Yes, this means that I think he actually likes Blackstreet & Cypres Hill.

However, earning money by doing cheesy commercials to cash in on the image and respect that you've built up over the years, leveraging your artistry to make a (very decent) living, ... that I don't have a problem with. As a matter of fact, I'd be inclined to think you're a dumb ass motherfucker if you don't do those things. That'd be like stumbling upon a beautiful vineyard filled with the juiciest grapes and not eating some 'cause that's not what you set out to do in the first place... (excuse the odd analogy, this one might work better in my native language ).

Either way, if VW commercials and silly Guitar Hero/Bill Gates appearances help him foot the bill for things like his solo album (or a new car, Malibu house or whatever,... ), I'm all for it!

Naltav wrote:

Mikkamakka wrote:

"...have good lawyers, and last, but not least, don't forget to get the name"

It's normal in "band-world", the guy who starts the band gets to keep the name. Many bands go through a lot of incarnations. If it gets big, be smart, get in writing. Axl did. Blackie Lawless prolly did, Hetfield & Ullrich prolly did... 

Problem is that Axl thinks (to be correct: he says) that the name defines the band, hence he, found out the name, is Guns N' Roses. In reality Guns N' Roses was nothing till the classic line-up got together and would have remained nothing without Slash & Co. 5 made the band, it wasn't a 'lead singer only' band.

If we are talking about greed, then Axl Rose is one of the firsts whose name comes to my mind.