You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
This is good news.
Nov Dec Jan dates being looked at. Once the US dates pass, then we can move on to new material, I hope.
Yes, because the US can't wait for another AFD rehash tour disguised as a CD Tour. 
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
All of these people saying GN'R didn't tour the U.S. because they didn't want to are incredibly ignorant.
Azoff is friggin' Christ in the booking business. Total monopoly. Axl HAS to play ball with Azoff. HAS TO.
That's the reason the final agreement including GN'R touring. They'll probably be working with Azoff again, simply because it makes sense, and it helps Axl to have a guy like that FOR HIM and not against him. Trust me.
GN'R are only going to tour if it's profitable, because they aren't pushing a new product in 2010/11.
There's no reason to go into the red ink on a club acoustic tour for hardcores, when GN'R (who can't even maintain a website) are going to try to book an entire tour by themselves. That's what happens when a professional housekeeper does that job.
Azoff made it his life's business to blacklist Axl in the U.S., and guess what? It worked.
I live buisness. Trust me, if Azoff thought he could make money off a tour, it would have happened in a second. The only reason a tour didn't happen is because of Axl or because there was no money to be made.
When's the last time GnR completed a tour in the US? I don't think Azoff blacklisted GnR in the US; I think Axl did. He made it where they were unmarketable and nobody wanted to touch them. THAT is why the touring clause is in there. It wasn't happening any other way...and it still might not happen.
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
Naltav wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Business is business. If there was money to be made, it would have happened.
And Axl is Axl!
I'd bet this isn't the first time Axl has refused to do something because of a personal or professional "grudge".
I don't disagree, but it's an Axl issue. That was my point. He could have done whatever he wanted to. I think he did what he wanted to and used this as an excuse, but that's just my opinion.
he didn't use it as an excuse....he used the countersuit and allegations as a negotiating point/counterpunch. He threw in the kitchen sink against Azoff to try and force a quick resolution. I am sure some allegations held more weight than others. It obviously worked as they settled their differences.
There is NO WAY IN HELL to know who had the upper hand unless you were somehow privy to the discovery and ultimately, the settlement documents.
Yes, I agree with you that if there was money to be made, Azoff would not just blacklist Gnr with Live Nation. Axl could have booked some form of US Tour if he really wanted to....no doubt. However, I do believe Axl had some legitimate claims as well.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
When's the last time GnR completed a tour in the US? I don't think Azoff blacklisted GnR in the US; I think Axl did. He made it where they were unmarketable and nobody wanted to touch them.
For sure things have happened over the years that fuck with pitching the band to promoters - riots, late starts, fines, changing the original line up etc.
However if the band can find promoters that will take a risk sending them out to places like Australia - increased trasnport cost - limited population - high risk for touring - then I'm sure SOMEONE would be willing to promote them in the USA.
I admit some places like the south american market are deeply into rock and will go no matter what, but other places the band has toured are not like that - places like Australia are very much like suburbs of the USA these days - nothing but Gaga, Rhianna and that kind of stuff on the radio - there's no reason an australian punter will be any more forgiving for the absence of slash than a north-armerican punter. In fact probably less so - culturally here I'd say there's very low tollerance for famous person bullshit and that kind of stuff too.
Anyway, the band has managed to tour here and many other places like here - yet for some reason can't find any promoter in the usa - a market that's culturally identical but economicly and geographically less risky for touring? Doesn't make sense. Pretty sure something hapened other than Axl's reputation which is worldwide.
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
Axlin08 wrote:All of these people saying GN'R didn't tour the U.S. because they didn't want to are incredibly ignorant.
Azoff is friggin' Christ in the booking business. Total monopoly. Axl HAS to play ball with Azoff. HAS TO.
That's the reason the final agreement including GN'R touring. They'll probably be working with Azoff again, simply because it makes sense, and it helps Axl to have a guy like that FOR HIM and not against him. Trust me.
GN'R are only going to tour if it's profitable, because they aren't pushing a new product in 2010/11.
There's no reason to go into the red ink on a club acoustic tour for hardcores, when GN'R (who can't even maintain a website) are going to try to book an entire tour by themselves. That's what happens when a professional housekeeper does that job.
Azoff made it his life's business to blacklist Axl in the U.S., and guess what? It worked.
I live buisness. Trust me, if Azoff thought he could make money off a tour, it would have happened in a second. The only reason a tour didn't happen is because of Axl or because there was no money to be made.
When's the last time GnR completed a tour in the US? I don't think Azoff blacklisted GnR in the US; I think Axl did. He made it where they were unmarketable and nobody wanted to touch them. THAT is why the touring clause is in there. It wasn't happening any other way...and it still might not happen.
If it's really about making money, then why now would Axl and Azoff strike a touring agreement? Is a GN'R tour more profitable now for some reason I don't see? Nothing has changed to make GN'R more popular.
Axl made it so that GN'R was unmarketable only in the US, where it so happens that Live Nation has a complete stranglehold on ticket sales and concert promotion? If you say so.
I heard that argument of Axl making GN'R unreliable and unmarketable and how no promoter would take a chance on them before, after 2002 tour. Obviously, that did not ultimately prove to be the case.
Ali
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
I heard that argument Axl making GN'R unreliable and unmarketable and how no promoter would take a chance on them before, after 2002 tour.
It's a rubbish argument in my opinion.
That in the whole of the United States, there isn't one single promoter that's prepared to stomach Axl's reputation to put on a GNR show - even when the band has played sucessful shows in places like England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.
Not one person wants to take a risk? Not one person feels that the GNR brand could make them any money in a live show despite the line up changes and so on? Yet worldwide there's promoters who clearly take such risks, but none can be found anywhere in the usa.
It's just not true.
And if it is true...then I see a massive business opportunity....I should move to the USA and become a promoter....
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
Ali wrote:I heard that argument Axl making GN'R unreliable and unmarketable and how no promoter would take a chance on them before, after 2002 tour.
It's a rubbish argument in my opinion.
That in the whole of the United States, there isn't one single promoter that's prepared to stomach Axl's reputation to put on a GNR show - even when the band has played sucessful shows in places like England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.
Not one person wants to take a risk? Not one person feels that the GNR brand could make them any money in a live show despite the line up changes and so on? Yet worldwide there's promoters who clearly take such risks, but none can be found anywhere in the usa.
It's just not true.
And if it is true...then I see a massive business opportunity....I should move to the USA and become a promoter....
Well, I'm just saying that I actually agree with you. And after 2002, I heard the same sounding-of-the-death-knell crap when it comes to GN'R and touring. Yet, low and behold, a major 2006 tour was undertaken.
Ali
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
monkeychow wrote:Ali wrote:I heard that argument Axl making GN'R unreliable and unmarketable and how no promoter would take a chance on them before, after 2002 tour.
It's a rubbish argument in my opinion.
That in the whole of the United States, there isn't one single promoter that's prepared to stomach Axl's reputation to put on a GNR show - even when the band has played sucessful shows in places like England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.
Not one person wants to take a risk? Not one person feels that the GNR brand could make them any money in a live show despite the line up changes and so on? Yet worldwide there's promoters who clearly take such risks, but none can be found anywhere in the usa.
It's just not true.
And if it is true...then I see a massive business opportunity....I should move to the USA and become a promoter....
Well, I'm just saying that I actually agree with you. And after 2002, I heard the same sounding-of-the-death-knell crap when it comes to GN'R and touring. Yet, low and behold, a major 2006 tour was undertaken.
Ali
Yes...4 years later. Hardly a ringing endorsement...and how did that tour end?
Re: Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement"
buzzsaw wrote:Axlin08 wrote:All of these people saying GN'R didn't tour the U.S. because they didn't want to are incredibly ignorant.
Azoff is friggin' Christ in the booking business. Total monopoly. Axl HAS to play ball with Azoff. HAS TO.
That's the reason the final agreement including GN'R touring. They'll probably be working with Azoff again, simply because it makes sense, and it helps Axl to have a guy like that FOR HIM and not against him. Trust me.
GN'R are only going to tour if it's profitable, because they aren't pushing a new product in 2010/11.
There's no reason to go into the red ink on a club acoustic tour for hardcores, when GN'R (who can't even maintain a website) are going to try to book an entire tour by themselves. That's what happens when a professional housekeeper does that job.
Azoff made it his life's business to blacklist Axl in the U.S., and guess what? It worked.
I live buisness. Trust me, if Azoff thought he could make money off a tour, it would have happened in a second. The only reason a tour didn't happen is because of Axl or because there was no money to be made.
When's the last time GnR completed a tour in the US? I don't think Azoff blacklisted GnR in the US; I think Axl did. He made it where they were unmarketable and nobody wanted to touch them. THAT is why the touring clause is in there. It wasn't happening any other way...and it still might not happen.
If it's really about making money, then why now would Axl and Azoff strike a touring agreement? Is a GN'R tour more profitable now for some reason I don't see? Nothing has changed to make GN'R more popular.
Ali
You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Maybe Axl wanted to tour the US, but couldn't (regardless of the reason), so he puts this language into the agreement. I don't know...just throwing out a plauseable theory.
