If Slash/Duff Didnt Sign Over the GNR Name, Would Axl Really No-Show at the Concerts?

[maynard]

Wow.

[Rovim]

Hmmmm... Even though we have documents to the contrary, people are still sticking with the Axl no-show fantasy. Okay, so they did it to prevent lawsuits now right? What exactly was it that prevented them from taking stage without him? It's not like having Axl there was necessary when everyone would have understood that he quit and they wouldn't have rioted over what would have been front page news all over the country. The band could even have had *gasp* guest vocalists until they found a permanent replacement. Would it really be so hard to find anybody that wanted to front the biggest band on earth at the time? I would think that there would be many people willing to do it.

But no one could ever do it. No one. Axl is the only one who can be the frontman of Guns N' Roses. No one else can give it the crucial elements his voice provides to this particular blend of hard rock. His voice is quite unique and his personality is just as important as Slash's irreplaceable guitar sound and way of playing. You won't get the same result without Axl. It will not sound right. (same goes for Slash)

Edited November 7, 2014 by Rovim

[Damn_Smooth]

Wow.

Wow what? Are you saying that you too would be stupid enough to sign over your rights to the biggest band in the world when you clearly had other options?

Hmmmm... Even though we have documents to the contrary, people are still sticking with the Axl no-show fantasy. Okay, so they did it to prevent lawsuits now right? What exactly was it that prevented them from taking stage without him? It's not like having Axl there was necessary when everyone would have understood that he quit and they wouldn't have rioted over what would have been front page news all over the country. The band could even have had *gasp* guest vocalists until they found a permanent replacement. Would it really be so hard to find anybody that wanted to front the biggest band on earth at the time? I would think that there would be many people willing to do it.

But no one could ever do it. No one. Axl is the only one who can be the frontman of Guns N' Roses. No one else can give it the crucial elements his voice provides to this particular blend of hard rock. His voice is quite unique and his personality is just as important as Slash's irreplaceable guitar sound and way of playing. You won't get the same result without Axl. It will not sound right. (same goes for Slash)

I'm not saying it would sound right, but it would be a much smarter option than giving up your rights and at worst they'd have to refund some tickets. All lawsuits easily avoided in this situation that never happened anyway.

[Rovim]

Wow.

Wow what? Are you saying that you too would be stupid enough to sign over your rights to the biggest band in the world when you clearly had other options?

Hmmmm... Even though we have documents to the contrary, people are still sticking with the Axl no-show fantasy. Okay, so they did it to prevent lawsuits now right? What exactly was it that prevented them from taking stage without him? It's not like having Axl there was necessary when everyone would have understood that he quit and they wouldn't have rioted over what would have been front page news all over the country. The band could even have had *gasp* guest vocalists until they found a permanent replacement. Would it really be so hard to find anybody that wanted to front the biggest band on earth at the time? I would think that there would be many people willing to do it.

But no one could ever do it. No one. Axl is the only one who can be the frontman of Guns N' Roses. No one else can give it the crucial elements his voice provides to this particular blend of hard rock. His voice is quite unique and his personality is just as important as Slash's irreplaceable guitar sound and way of playing. You won't get the same result without Axl. It will not sound right. (same goes for Slash)

I'm not saying it would sound right, but it would be a much smarter option than giving up your rights and at worst they'd have to refund some tickets. All lawsuits easily avoided in this situation that never happened anyway.

Oh ya. It was fuckin' stupid and everyone here knows it was fuckin' stupid. Tbh, I don't think Slash and Duff are idiots, but it's like they've both just let out a huge brain fart at the very same moment and it stank bad. No excuse. It was dumb. Should have told whoever to fuck off and die and not sign away the rights to the BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD and hand it over to a ginger lunatic. :rofl-lol: :facepalm:

Edited November 7, 2014 by Rovim

[Damn_Smooth]

Wow.

Wow what? Are you saying that you too would be stupid enough to sign over your rights to the biggest band in the world when you clearly had other options?

Hmmmm... Even though we have documents to the contrary, people are still sticking with the Axl no-show fantasy. Okay, so they did it to prevent lawsuits now right? What exactly was it that prevented them from taking stage without him? It's not like having Axl there was necessary when everyone would have understood that he quit and they wouldn't have rioted over what would have been front page news all over the country. The band could even have had *gasp* guest vocalists until they found a permanent replacement. Would it really be so hard to find anybody that wanted to front the biggest band on earth at the time? I would think that there would be many people willing to do it.

But no one could ever do it. No one. Axl is the only one who can be the frontman of Guns N' Roses. No one else can give it the crucial elements his voice provides to this particular blend of hard rock. His voice is quite unique and his personality is just as important as Slash's irreplaceable guitar sound and way of playing. You won't get the same result without Axl. It will not sound right. (same goes for Slash)

I'm not saying it would sound right, but it would be a much smarter option than giving up your rights and at worst they'd have to refund some tickets. All lawsuits easily avoided in this situation that never happened anyway.

Oh ya. It was fuckin' stupid and everyone here knows it was fuckin' stupid. Tbh, I don't think Slash and Duff are idiots, but it's like they've both just let out a huge brain fart at the very same moment and it stank bad. No excuse. It was dumb. Should have told whoever to fuck off and die and not sign away the rights to the BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD and hand it over to a ginger lunatic. :rofl-lol: :facepalm:

That's exactly why it didn't happen the way they say it did. Neither one of them could be that fucking stupid. Nobody could.

[Rovim]

Wow.

Wow what? Are you saying that you too would be stupid enough to sign over your rights to the biggest band in the world when you clearly had other options?

Hmmmm... Even though we have documents to the contrary, people are still sticking with the Axl no-show fantasy. Okay, so they did it to prevent lawsuits now right? What exactly was it that prevented them from taking stage without him? It's not like having Axl there was necessary when everyone would have understood that he quit and they wouldn't have rioted over what would have been front page news all over the country. The band could even have had *gasp* guest vocalists until they found a permanent replacement. Would it really be so hard to find anybody that wanted to front the biggest band on earth at the time? I would think that there would be many people willing to do it.

But no one could ever do it. No one. Axl is the only one who can be the frontman of Guns N' Roses. No one else can give it the crucial elements his voice provides to this particular blend of hard rock. His voice is quite unique and his personality is just as important as Slash's irreplaceable guitar sound and way of playing. You won't get the same result without Axl. It will not sound right. (same goes for Slash)

I'm not saying it would sound right, but it would be a much smarter option than giving up your rights and at worst they'd have to refund some tickets. All lawsuits easily avoided in this situation that never happened anyway.

Oh ya. It was fuckin' stupid and everyone here knows it was fuckin' stupid. Tbh, I don't think Slash and Duff are idiots, but it's like they've both just let out a huge brain fart at the very same moment and it stank bad. No excuse. It was dumb. Should have told whoever to fuck off and die and not sign away the rights to the BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD and hand it over to a ginger lunatic. :rofl-lol: :facepalm:

That's exactly why it didn't happen the way they say it did. Neither one of them could be that fucking stupid. Nobody could.

I see the logic. Truth is, we don't know what went down. I don't know who to believe, and I still can't explain to myself why they signed that shit? why? I always come back to they were cowards and/or dumb while high.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Rovim

[Damn_Smooth]

Wow.

Wow what? Are you saying that you too would be stupid enough to sign over your rights to the biggest band in the world when you clearly had other options?

Hmmmm... Even though we have documents to the contrary, people are still sticking with the Axl no-show fantasy. Okay, so they did it to prevent lawsuits now right? What exactly was it that prevented them from taking stage without him? It's not like having Axl there was necessary when everyone would have understood that he quit and they wouldn't have rioted over what would have been front page news all over the country. The band could even have had *gasp* guest vocalists until they found a permanent replacement. Would it really be so hard to find anybody that wanted to front the biggest band on earth at the time? I would think that there would be many people willing to do it.

But no one could ever do it. No one. Axl is the only one who can be the frontman of Guns N' Roses. No one else can give it the crucial elements his voice provides to this particular blend of hard rock. His voice is quite unique and his personality is just as important as Slash's irreplaceable guitar sound and way of playing. You won't get the same result without Axl. It will not sound right. (same goes for Slash)

I'm not saying it would sound right, but it would be a much smarter option than giving up your rights and at worst they'd have to refund some tickets. All lawsuits easily avoided in this situation that never happened anyway.

Oh ya. It was fuckin' stupid and everyone here knows it was fuckin' stupid. Tbh, I don't think Slash and Duff are idiots, but it's like they've both just let out a huge brain fart at the very same moment and it stank bad. No excuse. It was dumb. Should have told whoever to fuck off and die and not sign away the rights to the BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD and hand it over to a ginger lunatic. :rofl-lol: :facepalm:

That's exactly why it didn't happen the way they say it did. Neither one of them could be that fucking stupid. Nobody could.

I see the logic. Truth is, we don't know what went down. I don't know who to believe, and I still can't explain to myself why they signed that shit? why? I always come back to they were cowards and/or dumb while high.

Can't blame the drugs, it took them 20 years to try and do something about it legally. They had to have sobered up for at least a bit of time sometime in that period. Would be really nice if we could get our hands on court transcripts, but I will never in a million years believe the excuse that they were just incredibly stupid and that is the only thing that their story says about them.

[Rustycage]

Can't blame the drugs, it took them 20 years to try and do something about it legally.

Where did you learn to count?

[Rustycage]

Can't blame the drugs, it took them 20 years to try and do something about it legally.

Where did you learn to count?

Rough estimate. Are you saying the 2000's weren't 20 years after the 90's?

LOL are you serious?

[Damn_Smooth]

Can't blame the drugs, it took them 20 years to try and do something about it legally.

Where did you learn to count?

Obviously I didn't. Let's go with 10.

Doesn't change my point in any way whatsoever though.

[Rustycage]

Can't blame the drugs, it took them 20 years to try and do something about it legally.

Where did you learn to count?

Obviously I didn't. Let's go with 10.

Doesn't change my point in any way whatsoever though.

For starters, yes it was around 10.

Second, they never sued over the name issue. The case was about publishing royalties. They didn't and still don't care about the name. They aren't the ones to ever express that they wanted to carry on with the name. The document was a side piece of that suit and THAT'S why no one can claim it's the only document in this argument. Why? Because they weren't suing over the name.

You're making claims about their motives or their aspirations to get the name back when that NEVER even happened.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Rustycage

[Damn_Smooth]

Can't blame the drugs, it took them 20 years to try and do something about it legally.

Where did you learn to count?

Obviously I didn't. Let's go with 10.

Doesn't change my point in any way whatsoever though.

For starters, yes it was around 10.

Second, they never sues over the name issue. The case was about publishing royalties. They didn't and still don't care about the name. They aren't the ones to ever express that they wanted to carry on with the name.

You're making claims about their motives or their aspirations to get the name back when that NEVER even happened.

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

[Rustycage]

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.

[Damn_Smooth]

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.

You seriously believe that?

[Rovim]

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

they do not care.

[Rustycage]

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.

You seriously believe that?

Got anything to suggest that they do care? Getting their fair share of the royalties is the only thing they've expressed as a legal matter. They've already stated why they did not, and do not care about who "owns the name." They don't think GNR exists without the proper pieces anyways so screw the name.

Do you have 1 link, quote or 1 anything that shows that they want possession of the name?

That should give Axl and his fans a little clue about Axl and his paranoia that they were going to fire him.

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

they do not care.

Got something to show that the name is an issue for them? They still get their royalties. I'll wait..........

[Rovim]

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.

You seriously believe that?

Got anything to suggest that they do care? Getting their fair share of the royalties is the only thing they've expressed as a legal matter. They've already stated why they did not, and do not care about who "owns the name." They don't think GNR exists without the proper pieces anyways so screw the name.

Do you have 1 link, quote or 1 anything that shows that they want possession of the name?

That should give Axl and his fans a little clue about Axl and his paranoia that they were going to fire him.

Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.

they do not care.

Got something to show that the name is an issue for them? They still get their royalties. I'll wait..........

To show? no. I don't need something to show. I just need to not be as naive as you. If you think they wouldn't have continued or at least tried and used the name on their own like Pink Floyd did or AC/DC then you're insane or have no brain.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Rovim

[Rustycage]

To show? no. I don't need something to show.

K. That's all I needed to know and that's where I stopped.

Maybe come back with all of this speculation over something that hasn't happened when you have something to stand on.

[Damn_Smooth]

Niven had them considering it. There are other quotes out there stating that they were considering it on multiple occasions but I only needed to search for one, but you should be able to easily find the rest on your own. Here you go.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Damn_Smooth

[Rustycage]

That's it? The rumblings over them possibly firing their erratic and constantly dramatic singer before they made it big?

Well then, I guess that totally proves they wanted the name and that this document is the only document regarding this issue. I guess that put it all to bed. Er mah gawd eff you, Biff and Stash!111

[Damn_Smooth]

Learn to listen Rusty, you asked for one. There are plenty of stories out there about them wanting to fire him when recording was taking place for the Illusions as well. But you're right. Why would they care about the biggest thing they would ever be a part of. It is completely common sense that they don't. Nobody would.

[Rustycage]

Learn to listen Rusty, you asked for one. There are plenty of stories out there about them wanting to fire him when recording was taking place for the Illusions as well. But you're right. Why would they care about the biggest thing they would ever be a part of. It is completely common sense that they don't. Nobody would.

You're grasping. No one said they didn't care about being a part of GNR. They sued for royalties. They have never claimed to care about the name. What you are talking about has NOTHING to do with this phantom lawsuit over the name that you seemed to think happened.

Suing for royalties or considering an outsider's suggestion to fire an erratic singer that is putting your band at risk with his behavior = they wanted the name and they can't get it because they're liars!

I know, while chilling under MSL's umbrella of horseshit you too bought into that story about how their claims are baseless but just so you know, his whole argument regarding this is baseless.

You claim to despise Axl fans as well but you're sounding JUST like them.

[Damn_Smooth]

Learn to listen Rusty, you asked for one. There are plenty of stories out there about them wanting to fire him when recording was taking place for the Illusions as well. But you're right. Why would they care about the biggest thing they would ever be a part of. It is completely common sense that they don't. Nobody would.

You're grasping. No one said they didn't care about being a part of GNR. They sued for royalties. They have never claimed to care about the name. What you are talking about has NOTHING to do with this phantom lawsuit over the name that you seemed to think happened.

Suing for royalties or considering an outsider's suggestion to fire an erratic singer that is putting your band at risk with his behavior = they wanted the name and they can't get it because they're liars!

I know, while chilling under MSL's umbrella of horseshit you too bought into that story about how their claims are baseless but just so you know, his whole argument regarding this is baseless.

You claim to despise Axl fans as well but you're sounding JUST like them.

You say I'm sounding like a blind fanboy while claiming that people just signed over the biggest thing they will ever be a part of because they didn't care? That's.... yeah. Have fun with that.

[Rustycage]

Learn to listen Rusty, you asked for one. There are plenty of stories out there about them wanting to fire him when recording was taking place for the Illusions as well. But you're right. Why would they care about the biggest thing they would ever be a part of. It is completely common sense that they don't. Nobody would.

You're grasping. No one said they didn't care about being a part of GNR. They sued for royalties. They have never claimed to care about the name. What you are talking about has NOTHING to do with this phantom lawsuit over the name that you seemed to think happened.

Suing for royalties or considering an outsider's suggestion to fire an erratic singer that is putting your band at risk with his behavior = they wanted the name and they can't get it because they're liars!

I know, while chilling under MSL's umbrella of horseshit you too bought into that story about how their claims are baseless but just so you know, his whole argument regarding this is baseless.

You claim to despise Axl fans as well but you're sounding JUST like them.

You say I'm sounding like a blind fanboy while claiming that people just signed over the biggest thing they will ever be a part of because they didn't care? That's.... yeah. Have fun with that.

What part of "they didn't sign away their royalties and rights to what they've contributed to" are you n0ot understanding?

Just because YOU think everyone should be fighting over the GNR name means nothing. They, like everyone else without their head in someone's ass knows that without all of the guys together, the GNR name means nothing. Like they have said, it meant nothing to them then when they signed and it still means nothing.

I understand that I'm trying to reach someone that thinks 10 years = 20 and that suing over royalties = trying to get the name back. Maybe I'm being stupid for trying.

[Damn_Smooth]

Learn to listen Rusty, you asked for one. There are plenty of stories out there about them wanting to fire him when recording was taking place for the Illusions as well. But you're right. Why would they care about the biggest thing they would ever be a part of. It is completely common sense that they don't. Nobody would.

You're grasping. No one said they didn't care about being a part of GNR. They sued for royalties. They have never claimed to care about the name. What you are talking about has NOTHING to do with this phantom lawsuit over the name that you seemed to think happened.

Suing for royalties or considering an outsider's suggestion to fire an erratic singer that is putting your band at risk with his behavior = they wanted the name and they can't get it because they're liars!

I know, while chilling under MSL's umbrella of horseshit you too bought into that story about how their claims are baseless but just so you know, his whole argument regarding this is baseless.

You claim to despise Axl fans as well but you're sounding JUST like them.

You say I'm sounding like a blind fanboy while claiming that people just signed over the biggest thing they will ever be a part of because they didn't care? That's.... yeah. Have fun with that.

What part of "they didn't sign away their royalties and rights to what they've contributed to" are you n0ot understanding?

Just because YOU think everyone should be fighting over the GNR name means nothing. They, like everyone else without their head in someone's ass knows that without all of the guys together, the GNR name means nothing. Like they have said, it meant nothing to them then when they signed and it still means nothing.

I understand that I'm trying to reach someone that thinks 10 years = 20 and that suing over royalties = trying to get the name back. Maybe I'm being stupid for trying.

The GN'R name means nothing? Then how is it that Axl is still making a killing off of it today with a band that realistically shouldn't be able to draw a dime?