You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
Saw Mark Canter posted this at mygnr, referring to the Lebeis':
They have been running things for a long time. They will also save 15% that they would have to had paid someone else to do the things that they have already been telling a manger to do. I know that sounded a bit twisted but what I'm trying to say is that they are the ones who have been running things anyways, so why pay the extra cash. It will free up money to get more things done.
Nothing new obviously as we all knew those guys were really pulling the strings and management had to go thru them. But interesting to hear someone close to Axl confirm it.
It makes sense, if you are paying someone for management and advice that you aren't taking, you are wasting your money.
The logical next question following that statement is if they are the ones that have been running things anyway, why should we expect anything different going forward when they are "officially" in control?
Hope I'm wrong because I want new music from Axl and bloody anyone he cares to get in the studio at this stage. Plus I would love to see this band function even remotely like a normal band. So I will cross my fingers and hope for the best, but sadly my expectations are low. I hope I end up with egg on my face and they prove me wrong.
I think the Leibeis family running the GNR operations is just as wierd as a lot of you guys have stated in the past pages.
But when I really think about what I actually KNOW for sure about ANY of them and what they have done in the past or what they haven't done, I find out that I really don't have ANYTHING concrete to base my sceptisism on.
And like Canter said, they have been running things for a very long time. But all though there are episodes in the past that the fans have been dissapointed about, when it comes to touring since '09, things have been running fairly smooth as far as I can tell. And during these last tours in South America and the US, prolly as smooth as it ever has! Not to mention a welcomed increase in fan-interaction (fb, twitter, interviews with the band AND Axl(!), live streaming of concerts, possible new website).
Hopefully these last positive things will continue into 2012 and beyond!
But like someone mentioned a few pages ago, letting family or close ones run the business, can cause some unwanted tension. For my own selfish reasons, I hope that doesn't happen for Axl, so that he can continue to put on shows and hopefully release new music in the future.
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
I agree with that but at the same time I feel like it's me wanting to hear new Axl Rose material and the Gn'R thing isn't that importnat cause in a sense if this version of the band does nothing Gn'R no longer exists and in reality the CD era would have never been a Guns n' Roses thing either.
.
I don't care anymore if it's new music with the current lineup, new music with the AFD lineup or new music with whoever takes his fancy. I just think the guy is extremely talented and all I hope is he continues to share that talent with us, be it guns n roses or whoever, it's not important to me anymore what banner he chooses to release new material under, please just give me some more!
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
The Lebeis clowns have been running the show for awhile?
Actually that makes perfect sense, that's why there is no new album in sight,
Who the hell in the industry is going to take these seriously oh I know, fucking no-one , not even a carrot.
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
My main impressions of Beta are of her using quite vulgar language over at htgth a few years ago when ripping into fans who were questioning things, that apparently shouldn't be questioned, and she showed no class whatsoever.
If that's what's running the GN'R ship these days, we've got no hope...
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
Saw Mark Canter posted this at mygnr, referring to the Lebeis':
They have been running things for a long time. They will also save 15% that they would have to had paid someone else to do the things that they have already been telling a manger to do. I know that sounded a bit twisted but what I'm trying to say is that they are the ones who have been running things anyways, so why pay the extra cash. It will free up money to get more things done.
Nothing new obviously as we all knew those guys were really pulling the strings and management had to go thru them. But interesting to hear someone close to Axl confirm it.
It makes sense, if you are paying someone for management and advice that you aren't taking, you are wasting your money.
The logical next question following that statement is if they are the ones that have been running things anyway, why should we expect anything different going forward when they are "officially" in control?
Hope I'm wrong because I want new music from Axl and bloody anyone he cares to get in the studio at this stage. Plus I would love to see this band function even remotely like a normal band. So I will cross my fingers and hope for the best, but sadly my expectations are low. I hope I end up with egg on my face and they prove me wrong.
Things have to change cause they now have no body to blame. It is now 100 percent all ON THEM. So to prove their methods right, Beta better push the right buttons to get Axl to continue on with what he is doing.
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
I'm just putting this out there don't hate me for it but..... If say 2012 comes and goes and nothing much new happens and it causes some of the members to leave and then be replaced again do we as fans simply stop aknowldeging the whole thing as "Guns N' Roses"
I mean there's a very real chance that members of this band decide to walk if by the end of 2012 nothing new seems to be on the horizon and if that does in fact happen at what point does it simply become a touring Menudo situation(if it isn't already
Of course
If u can replace Steven,Izzy,Slash,Matt,Duff and then Robin,Brain,Bucket.... Axl is GNR now and people will take it as such regardless.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
Smoking Guns wrote:Pitman is a leftover from the "industrial" phase that Axl went though. Real rock doesn't need Chris Pitman, but if it makes Axl feel better that he has a guy that can do electronica on a few tunes, who gives a fuck. Having 3 guitar players isn't necessary either, but Axl thinks it means a better show.. I guess.. But I don't see the need. Lynyrd Skynrd had the need, GNR, don't think so. And, if you are going to have 3 guys, how about some fucking harmony every now and then like Maiden and Judas Priest.
you are way over the top Slashite nuts now. All three Sknyrd guys can play with Slash....Izzy is gone so no one can replicate those riffs unles you have a big three like this....
Umm, I LOVE LYNYRD SKYNYRD!!! I live in Alabama after all, you have to! But my point was, they all play different parts, and they interchanged with each other so awesome! Iron Maiden has 3 too, and they do awesome harmony type stuff, as does priest. In GNR, it's not really that needed. And though there may be 3 guitars on a lot of the original band's stuff, its usually like an acoustic guitar or something, and minor stuff. On CD, its stuff you can hardly make out, too layered. Skynyrd was bad ass in how you could hear all three guitars very distinctly...
Re: LA Times Interview With Axl
Agreed. We're talking about Beta negotiating with the label. Not doing grunt work or being Axl's personal assistant. Everyone thinks they can be a manager for their kid or spouse, and it doesn't usually end up very good. It's not that easy. What sway does she have? The moment she starts "throwing her wait around," they'll hang up on her and not take her calls. Laughing while they do it.
I read people over at mygnr say that no one will fuck with her... No, they just won't deal with her. I think it will end up that Axl is the manager, just without the title.
