You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR
buzzsaw wrote:he has to live with the expectations that go with keeping the name.
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 $$$ to pay back the advance so he decided to continue as GnR ... we really have no idea as to the thought process that went through Axl's mind as to why he insisted to keep the GnR name alive (albiet in stasis for the majority of the past 15 or so years)...and unless he relases a book (and maybe not even then) i doubt if we ever will know
He kept on under the name after Slash left because he financially had to. He was already in huge debt at that point due to recording costs for the new album. It would have been financial suicide for him if he never delivered another Gnr record.
May 1, 1998. One of these amendments confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as Leaving Members under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose (the only Remaining Member of Guns N' Roses) in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album. Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band. In the other May 1, 1998 amendment Al Rose agreed, among other things, to deliver that new studio LP (which was even then long overdue under the Recording Agreement) no later than March 1, 1999 and received a substantial advance from Geffen in return.
Re: RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR
going back to this:
to be honest i still dont know why he just didnt do the "Axl Rose Band" thing would've made more sense (to me at least) ... though i guess that things just kinda happened that way ... maybe the intent was there to continue as GnR after Slash left .... i mean there was still Axl, Duff, Matt and Dizzy then they signed the contract extension with Geffen but over time Duff and Matt left and then it wasnt looking at all like the same band anymore...maybe axl didnt have the $$$ 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.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR
I don't see where Axl is off... he pretty much confirms he took the name and the reasons why.
Buzz was referring to this: "the whole Axl wouldn’t go on stage yada yada… is complete and utter crap."
Who do ya believe? 
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR
Buzz...
You da man, Buzz.
- dave-gnfnr
- Rep: 16
Re: RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR
dave, it must be so difficult responding to others' posts when you have all the different tones coming your way; sarcaasm, dislike, humor, etc.
I don't know how you do it.
if you don't single handedly restore integrity and harmony to this thread you will be a failure.
Its because they cannot refute what I am saying because they know i am right, so they have to joke or be sarcastic about it.
That is the problem with people not debating the topic at hand.
Like I said, no one can dispute tones of people on these boards were claiming CD was going to be a huge success and "save rock"
it doesnt mean everyone was saying it but a good majority of the people were, the fact that there are mostly newbies on these boards now who were not here back in 98-2005 shouldnt be comementing on it because they were not here, so how would they know?
Anyone who defends Axl at this point is living in Jarmoland.
- dave-gnfnr
- Rep: 16
Re: RUMOR: GN'R Planning SA tour around RIR
buzzsaw wrote:he has to live with the expectations that go with keeping the name.
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
Its simple, interscope would not have shelled out $15m for the Axl Rose band, and hell CD would have flopped even more if it was called the Axl Rose band.
Axl would have had less pressure as well if it was called the Axl Rose band, maybe it would have came out sooner, but the pressure to live up to the old band was too much and that is what CD was such a clusterfuck.
Also, bestbuy never would have shelled out $15m for an exclusive for CD if it was called just the Axl Rose band.
But the real question is, would Axl have been better off if this band was not called guns n roses.
