You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#3121 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
My World is good! there's a few stinkers on the UYI's but My World ain't one of them!
there are a few terrible moments in the catalogue..
we defo should do a collective song list/poll.. been thinking about doing for a couple of weeks now.. we dould dobest & worst simultaneously.
#3122 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
CD could be the same case. If we ever hear that vault, whether it's just another album or possibly two...
It could be the definitive Guns N' Roses.
nah it could never be
you're right that a combination of the UYI's would be better than AFD & it's there & on Nightrain that you find the definitive GnR - you NEED that blues based hard rock with a genuine rhythm section & the songwriting of Izzy especially if you are going to try & define what makes/made GnR one of the greatest rock bands ever. CD is a change-up & evolution & isn't the true & pure GnR & will never be no matter how close TWAT got.
#3123 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
CD, Better, Sorry, ITW & Prostitute 4 me are great & prob IRS as well.. TWAT is the obv masterpiece, TiL has it's moments.. don't really care for the offical Maddy.
#3124 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
i don't think that's quite what happened - he had the finished/alt booklet proofed & finalised but something or someone fucked up which is why we ended up with the shit one.
but there is a case for axl's mishandling of the situation in the final year in the lead-in to the release - CITR being added to the tracklist late & a song being switched for another version at the pressing plant.
i do agree it wouldn't have been released were it not for azoff & BB & that the album is the leaks + two or three others. as to whether he deemed the music 'finished' i'm unsure one way or the other.
i also don't think he's given up on it which is why GnR find themselves in a perpetually preposterous situation of touring CD & being undecided on what happens next regarding a new album..
#3125 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
fwiw, for me CD is worthy of the name Guns N Roses.
that's all i could have asked for & i think i got it, & more.
#3126 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
^ so funny. brilliant.
#3127 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
going back to this:
to be honest i still dont know why he just didnt do the "Axl Rose Band" thing would've made more sense (to me at least) ... though i guess that things just kinda happened that way ... maybe the intent was there to continue as GnR after Slash left .... i mean there was still Axl, Duff, Matt and Dizzy then they signed the contract extension with Geffen but over time Duff and Matt left and then it wasnt looking at all like the same band anymore...maybe axl didnt have the $$$ to pay back the advance so he decided to continue as GnR ... we really have no idea as to the thought process that went through Axl's mind as to why he insisted to keep the GnR name alive (albiet in stasis for the majority of the past 15 or so years)...and unless he relases a book (and maybe not even then) i doubt if we ever will know
axl did, kind of, answer this in the dexter chats.
the whole Axl wouldn’t go on stage yada yada… is complete and utter crap.
Never happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case I would’ve have been cremated years ago legally, could’ve cleaned me out for the name and damages. It's called under duress with extenuating circumstances. In fact the time that was mentioned the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler depositions.
When Guns renegotiated our contract with Geffen I had the bit about the name added in as protection for myself as I had come up with the name and then originally started the band with it. It had more to do with management than the band as our then manager was always tryin’ to convince someone they should fire me. As I had stopped speaking with him he sensed his days were numbered and was bending any ear he could along with attempting to sell our renegotiation out for a personal payday from Geffen.
It was added to the contract and everyone signed off on it. It wasn’t hidden in fine print etc as you had to initial the section verifying you had acknowledged it.
Now at that time I didn’t know or think about brand names or corporate value etc. All I knew is that I came in with the name and from day one everyone had agreed to it being mine should we break up and now it was in writing.
I still didn’t grasp any other issues until long after I’d left and formed a new partnership which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it.
In my opinion the reality of the shift and the public embarrassment and ridicule by others (which included a lot of not so on the level business types he was associating with at the time) for not contesting the rights to the brand name, were more than Slash could openly face. Also we aren’t lawyers or formally business educated so it was just a matter of all of us being naïve and doing what we thought was right at the time. Slash was imo being on the up and up in agreeing I had the rights and I wasn’t trying to be some snake in the grass pulling a fast one. The others could’ve cared less.
But when the reality of the breakup hit and the strategy to have me crawl back was put into play Slash had to save face and get business team and public support. Painting me as the one who held a crowd hostage forcing the others to sign over the name worked out pretty well in that regard.
Why keep the name? I’m literally the last man standing. Not bragging, not proud. It’s been a fucking nightmare but I didn’t leave Guns and I didn’t drive others out. With Slash it’s been nothing more than pure strategy and saving face while manipulating the public like he used to me. I earned the right to protect my efforts and to be able to take advantage of our contract I’d worked hard for where Slash’s exact words were that he didn’t care. I get that some like a different version or lineup the same way some like a specific team line up or a particular year of a specific car but because you and I are getting played I’m supposed to throw the baby out with the bath water?
I don’t see myself as solely Guns but I do see myself as the only one from the past making the effort to take it forward whether anyone approves or not and giving beyond what many would or fight for to do so.
Also the name was what the industry wanted as well and the burden of keeping it was something to endure in order to make the record. After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide.
The cost of legal battles has been astronomical but I felt the deal made with Universal was fair for where it is and most things balanced out for both sides.
That said because someone leaves the shop I started in which I still legally have the rights to the name I started it with… makes up a bunch of nonsense to win public and legal support in an effort to get whatever it is they want at mine and the public’s expense… I don’t feel any reason whatsoever I should have to throw what I’ve not only worked for but fought and suffered for away because some hurt, angry, betrayed, misguided and lied to people with a lynch mob mentality, joined by others who could care less (especially in the media), enjoying the controversy and hate, choose one over the other regardless of what’s right because they want what they want.
We can play what we want as far as I’m aware.It wasn’t so much that it was a good course or that if looking back I could do something differently it’s that for better or worse it was the only course and had I not done this Slash would have succeeded in destroying me publicly much more than he, others or myself have so far and I would have gone bankrupt.
I don’t know where I’d be but there’s clearly no happy ending there and with everything else that had gone on in every other area of my life the devastation isn’t something I feel I would have overcome at least to any real degree publicly.
The name is something I take great pride in as I feel anyone who’s been a part of it should, the same as other bands or teams etc. The burden when it is such is a nightmare but not as much or as hopeless as I’d imagine without it could have been.
I believe I should fight for Guns in a patriotic sense or sense of loyalty or honor. Not just my vision or direction for Guns as those things can evolve and you can make forward moving positive compromises by what others bring to the table but I mean more as in what principles I feel were important to Guns in regard to an overall commitment to the music.It helped us get here but most of that was with Universal and the positives of that wore off years ago until recently and after the initial run it’ll be about the music and us. Then it’s about touring and there’s not a question the name’s helped at most everywhere but not so much the states.
On one hand I knew the band was over before we started touring Illusions but you have hope… but I saw it more like the Titanic sinking than moving on or surviving. And in reality I went the distance with each and every one in Guns to where they felt for whatever reasons they either couldn’t or wouldn’t give what Guns required.
The name does come from mine and Traci’s as the original inspiration but was something I played with not Traci and Guns was Guns before Traci joined. It was Guns Before I knocked on Izzy’s window. Earlier I had gotten Tracii to use the name Guns (as he had mentioned a girl had called him Mr. Guns sometime) so he’d stop calling his band Persian Rose. So I guess we have the girl to thank.
The other’s having a sense of entitlement to the name isn’t completely off but has more to do with how Slash dealt with things and his particular strategy and I say strategy because that’s what it’s been. But since I managed to hold out that didn’t play out so well for him in regard to the name.
Slash never had ANY arguments for keeping the name until long after and again I feel that had a lot to do with seedy biz types and him feeling he had to save face.
The details are that my attorney shit when I made the move. He was very against it fearing long litigation but even then no one talked about brand names or individual interests in a brand name. I look back and have no idea why. Not my people, not his people, no one.
No one pressured me, everyone was afraid and no one including myself wanted to break up Guns or the relationship.
The battles were during the breakup. Our people and my individual legal basically forced me to go thru the motions with everything I had to make things work for over 2 years in the sense that if they felt I wasn’t making every effort 110% and with all the sincerity and all above board I wouldn’t have their support which I wanted, couldn’t afford to lose or risk losing.U have to realize we were on the street. It wasn’t the first band. Whoever thought of the name kept the name unless he gave it up or moved on. Everyone was always having a new version of whatever their band name was. I wouldn’t have thought of using LA Gunns or any of Slash’s band names. We all knew that we could break up the next week. You had to have that stuff somewhat sorted between each other going in. It was a deal that we made. The issue becomes the value or perceived value now and the fans attachment and or acceptance. Really weren’t things we consciously considered even during the breakup.
I don’t exactly know what Guns N’ Roses is but I know it’s my job in the sense of an obligation and I’m good with that.
The name and rights have nothing to do with the breakup. That’s all a created façade a decoy and a smoke screen. Now had what Slash said actually transpired then I’d say of course but in reality, No.I wasn’t legally obligated but we probably would have gotten dropped and I would have been driven into bankruptcy.
I’ve always thought of the symbolism since thinking of the 2 words together.
I looked up the definition of bitter once in a pocket dictionary and got "having anger at something unjust or evil". I'm not angry but when I am with this particular someone who I thought was once my friend... the definition fits.
#3128 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
he kept the name to avoid bankruptcy (the financial kind, not the moral kind)/because it's a great fucking name/because he thinks he is guns n roses.
he coulda gone solo & been just as successful (or unsuccessful) as he has been in keeping the name & in the long term it wouldn't have been any harder work than the slog he's gone thru in keeping the name alive
#3129 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
i don't think they quite wanted a game changer, rather another mega-profitable GnR album.
they certainly weren't banking on the avant-rock that they got & i'm sure were none too pleased when bucket came to play.
#3130 Re: Guns N' Roses » RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR » 812 weeks ago
just cause other bands are doing it doesn't make it right
i'm not normally one for saying what GnR/Axl SHOULD do - in fact that type of shit really pisses me off sometimes.. HAVING SAID THAT - GnR SHOULD be blazing their own trail, playing by their own rules & doing everything on their own terms - & that includes playing music that people will either get on board with or get off the train. there SHOULDN'T be any compromises of halfway houses in anything GnR do. if people don't like it then fuck them.
having said THAT you can't be charging people 50clams a ticket for them to sit through Shacklers Revenge & Oh My God. in that respect it's a matter of decency rather than obstinacy.

