You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Only hardcores were interested in the leaks and they bought the album anyway.
I beg to differ. Any fan of rock music knew the leaks existed and listened to them. Sure they didn't obsess over them like we did, but they heard them and as time went by it became more and more of a joke. They played the leaks on radio stations, talk shows, the press reviewed the leaks. They were a pretty big deal for obvious reasons.
I'll agree that hardcores would have bought the album regardless of the leaks, but I also think a large percentage of people were not going to buy the album regardless of the leaks as well, again for obvious reasons.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
buzzsaw wrote:faldor wrote:What do you expect "the most anticipated album of all time" to sell like? I'd imagine it'd sell pretty well out of the gates, then fall off. Most albums fall off after a few weeks, unless they're unknown or are slow builders. An album that was leaked to death and opinions had been drawn on it years before its release probably didn't have a good chance at "picking up steam". Especially when you consider the lack of promo and the fact that they didn't tour to promote the album for a full year after its release. I don't see how the greatest album of all time could sustain huge sales numbers put in the same context. I know what you are trying to point out, but I think you are negating a number of important factors.
They don't fall off like CD did. Funny how people forget the sales threads bragging on how great it was doing, then about 3 weeks in they suddenly stopped updating it. You guys remember what you want to remember about it, which is fine, but don't make up stuff to justify what happened. They are still touring on the album 4 years later - I think the only revivial it ever had was when BB gave away copies. You can claim whatever you want to claim...people were interested at $1.99, so they had no problem getting them from their local BB then, did they?
People just didn't like it. Why can't you guys accept that? It's okay. It shouldn't keep you from enjoying it.
I have no problem accepting anything. I realize a lot of people didn't like the album. I've never said anything contradicting that. But for you to pretend like there weren't other factors at play is unfair in my mind. That's all I'm saying. And I don't need to outline all these factors for the 900th time. We all know they existed. But if you want to solely go on the fact that nobody bought the album after 2 weeks because they didn't like it, fine. You're free to believe that. All I'm saying, is that wasn't the ONLY factor at play. Not sure why you can't accept THAT.
I never said it was the only factor. I even have stated other reasons in the past. You're not telling me anything I haven't said already.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Myself I don't see the fall in sales as being about quality, I see it as about people not being open to a new band selling songs under the name of the old.
I think if the other albums people mentioned like Ac/Dc had contained entirely new lineups other than the singers then they would also have reduced success.
It did ok at first cos there's a % of people who will buy any GNR release, and any Axl release...but it didn't go down well with the general public because it's well known that "THIS ISN'T GNR".
Doesn't mean they arn't great songs, just means people don't accept Axl's version of the world.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Myself I don't see the fall in sales as being about quality, I see it as about people not being open to a new band selling songs under the name of the old.
I think if the other albums people mentioned like Ac/Dc had contained entirely new lineups other than the singers then they would also have reduced success.
It did ok at first cos there's a % of people who will buy any GNR release, and any Axl release...but it didn't go down well with the general public because it's well known that "THIS ISN'T GNR".
Doesn't mean they arn't great songs, just means people don't accept Axl's version of the world.
The fact remains that if CD was as strong as some people seem to think it is, it would have continued to sell strictly based on word of mouth considering how much it sold initially.
As for not accepting Axl's version, part of that is the quality of the music. How can you claim otherwise? Yes, there are people that would never give it a chance, but how much did it sell the first few weeks? Are you claiming none of them gave it a fair chance either? Are you claiming none of them would have told a friend it was a good album because they would have been embarrassed to claim to like Axl's new band? Are you claiming none of those friends would have given it a shot based on a friend's recommendation? It just doesn't add up unless you consider that the music quality didn't meet at least some of the people's standards. There's literally no rational way around it. None.
Now if you want to claim their standards were higher because it's GnR, I'd listen to the case for that...I think one could be made, and possibly even a good one. But still, that is a direct reflection of the quality of the music.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Ali wrote:The statute of limitations on written contracts in California is four years, which would place the timeline to take legal action against Axl's ownership of the name into 1997 or 1996 depending on which timeline you believe. As I said, Axl left the partnership in 1995. So, he did not in fact wait until the statute of limitations had passed. So, sorry, but that is a non-factor.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ … 29941.html
Ali
If it's four years then that certainly makes it a plausible scenario. Not sure why you are suggesting they could only have signed over the name in 1992 or 1993. Other than that fits for you to say that this wasn't an issue since Axl took off with the name in 1995.
Nobody knows for sure when they signed over the name. It's suggested it took place either on the UYI Tour or when the Geffen renegotiation Niven set up was finalised. Axl sacked Niven in March 1991 and Niven has stated in past interviews there was no formal partnership agreement between the members when he was there. He had the bands lawyer Peter Paterno draw one up but it sat in a draw unsigned because the redhead refused to sign it. So after he sacked Niven in March 1991 they eventually signed the Geffen renegotiation and quite possibly this partnership agreement about the name.
So it's a plausible scenario that it was signed in 1991 and then after 4 years expired - 1995 Axl left.
Not saying this was definitely a factor in Axl's thinking but for you to dismiss it like you did is inaccurate, it's quite possible.
Excuse me? I'm saying that the contract was signed in 1992 or 1993 because it "fits"?
Wrong. I'm saying that because depending on what you go by, the contract was signed in 1992 or 1993. The lawsuit Slash & Duff filed against Axl about the rights to license the old songs and the ASCAP royalty checks stated that on or around Sept. 1st, 1992 the contract was signed. Going by Duff's book, it was in 1993 during the latter stages of the UYI tour.
My dismissal of your theory is not inaccurate. It's based off sources that I cited above. There is no source that I've seen that would support a timeline in which Axl leaving the partnership by the end of 1995 was AFTER the statute of limitations on the contract had expired.
It's an interesting thought, but it's just not supported by any source I've ever seen. So, sorry, but your theory hold no water that I can see.
"On, or around September 1, 1992, Axl, Slash and Duff entered into a written partnership agreement defining the rights of the Original GNR partners, and obligations entitled "Memorandum of Agreement". [...] Among other things, the Agreement provided that Axl would own the rights to the name "Guns N' Roses" if he was expelled or voluntarily withdrew from the partnership." (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)
http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.p … 633#p54633
http://i53.tinypic.com/ih5b1g.jpg
Ali
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
aaaaand 20 years later it grinds on...and you know what?..I'm STILL interested in what went down!!..keep going guys!
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
When was the letter saying Slash left issued?
I ask because it is possible that 1992 is the correct date and 1996 was when everything took place. For some reason the end of 1996 is sticking out as the date for the Slash letter...Slash made it sound like he didn't think about the offer to join as a contractor very long before saying no (on Piers Morgan's show at least), but he wasn't very detailed in his response.
- Mikkamakka
- Rep: 217
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
buzzsaw wrote:When was the letter saying Slash left issued?
I ask because it is possible that 1992 is the correct date and 1996 was when everything took place. For some reason the end of 1996 is sticking out as the date for the Slash letter...Slash made it sound like he didn't think about the offer to join as a contractor very long before saying no (on Piers Morgan's show at least), but he wasn't very detailed in his response.
#7. However*******Slash will not be involved in any new Guns N' Roses
endeavors? as far has not been musically involved with Guns N" Roses
since April 1994 with the exception of a BRIEF feel period with Zakk
Wylde and a 2 week initial period with Guns N' Roses in the late fall
of '95. He (Slash) has been "OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY" outside of the
Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995.
That's when Axl took his ball, left the band, created a new one with the same name and invited his ex-banmembers to be his employees.
They might have tried to continue as Axl's back-up band, since Axl announced Slash's departure in late 1996, almost a year after he took absolute control.
