How much control of the band has Axl relinquished for the tour?

[Dan H.]

I like to imagine that the process behind this reunion involved a lot of paperwork, and awkward handshakes with lawyers. So the question I have been wondering with that in mind, is how much like, quantitative control of the band (in terms of management, merch, promotion, setlist choice, guest appearance, etc) has Axl given up?

In other words, do you think Team Brazil will still be the decision making force behind the band, or will the group outsource management to a third party, or have involvement with Slash and Duff's personnel? It just seems unlikely considering

Slash's fame and influence in the business, and even Duff's, that they would just be along for the ride and the paycheck without having some or perhaps even EQUAL weight in the behind the scenes stuff.

I also think it would be uncharacteristically humble and bizarre of Axl to sign away his 100% control of the group. It's seemed like Axl has dedicated the past decade to establishing that he is in total control of the band, band name, licensing, and merch. Maybe I am just ignorant as to how these things work, but I would just love to be a fly on the wall during the meetings leading up to the reunion.

[alfierose]

If I recall correctly Slash and Duff have always had a say in old GNR merch and licensing, I would say the new array of shop merch and the GNR online slots are indicative of their involvement in that side of it, Slash already had a similar gambling app of his own a while back. They have lost a lot of potential revenue over the years I would guess due to Axl mostly promoting a smallish amount of new logo and CD stuff so probably want to make up for lost time on that score.

It might be clearer after the first few shows and set lists as to what musical compromises may have been made but I imagine Axl still fully owns the name G N'R.

[6lake sa66ath]

Something very interesting mentioned in the new BBC documentary is that the original contract written up, which of course ended up with Axl having control, was in actual fact intended to prevent the band from breaking up!

Don't ask me to break it all down for you as I'm just going off of memory here from last night's screening, but it was something that's said by Marc Canter or Tom Zutaut, one or the other in the film. There's another name, which totally escapes me right now, but he was in fact the guy who wrote this contract up for everyone to sign.

Maybe some proper diehards on here might know who I am talking about, but anyhow I digress..

[sonofnazareth]

Axl has FULL control over the setlist.

[gunsfanoldie]

I can only speculate.

My guess is that Axl still owns the name. It would be insane for him to give that up. And he has nothing to lose. Either this reunion does work, or it doesn't and I have to imagine he retires. But I don't think anything changed on that front.

As for Slash and Duff, I'm not confident enough to say they have an equal vote. They certainly have more of a voice than NuGuns members had, but I just don't envision Axl being like "OK guys, its the 3 of us now!" I still think in the end it all comes down to Axl. Most likely Duff and Slash are gonna be the ones having to do interviews if and when those ever happen, so I do think there's gotta be some incentive there that they are more than just hired hands.

I think its kind of like a law firm at this moment: Axl Slash & Duff. I don't know if its a necessary equal vote thing, but I think if Axl agreed on something and Duff and Slash didn't, there's enough in their contracts to say it couldn't happen. OR if there was a situation where Axl and Duff agreed on something, and Slash didn't, either Duff could be the peacemaker, or by the majority rules Slash's concern is overruled. That sort of thing. I don't think its like old times where they all have to be in agreeance on something because its all their band. I think there's still a lot Axl can do without their complete input, and Slash and Duff are being paid handsomely for Axl having the ability to do that.

Really, I don't know. I don't feel like Axl gave up any control in this thing, but obviously Slash and Duff have a big say. I guess my point is Slash and Duff are getting paid like they are equal members, but in the end I still think Team Brazil will be there and I still think Axl will have the majority say in what's happening. Its a weird band.

[Estranged1]

I'm guessing that some major (legal/in writing) compromising was done across the board by all. Slash has worked too hard to build up his band and Duff seems to have a great life going on- no way they agreed to get Guns back together and walk back into an Axl dictatorship. And the fact that Axl softened and was willing to reunite means (to me at least) that that he has softened big time. At end of day all I care about is what happens when they are on stage, so hopefully the sets are influenced by the 3 of them equally and they have that chemistry still. Have I mentioned that I can't wait for Vegas?

[gunsfanoldie]

I'm guessing that some major (legal/in writing) compromising was done across the board by all. Slash has worked too hard to build up his band and Duff seems to have a great life going on- no way they agreed to get Guns back together and walk back into an Axl dictatorship. And the fact that Axl softened and was willing to reunite means (to me at least) that that he has softened big time. At end of day all I care about is what happens when they are on stage, so hopefully the sets are influenced by the 3 of them equally and they have that chemistry still. Have I mentioned that I can't wait for Vegas?

Agreed.

I guess what I was trying to say is I don't see either party winning fully. Slash did not come crawling back and Axl didn't give up all his control. I think its pretty equal with the 3 of them, with Axl having slightly more power than the other 2. It makes no sense that Slash and Duff came back and are now equals with Axl. The same way it makes no sense Slash is just being present and having no say in any of the proceedings.

[Estranged1]

I'm guessing that some major (legal/in writing) compromising was done across the board by all. Slash has worked too hard to build up his band and Duff seems to have a great life going on- no way they agreed to get Guns back together and walk back into an Axl dictatorship. And the fact that Axl softened and was willing to reunite means (to me at least) that that he has softened big time. At end of day all I care about is what happens when they are on stage, so hopefully the sets are influenced by the 3 of them equally and they have that chemistry still. Have I mentioned that I can't wait for Vegas?

Agreed.

I guess what I was trying to say is I don't see either party winning fully. Slash did not come crawling back and Axl didn't give up all his control. I think its pretty equal with the 3 of them, with Axl having slightly more power than the other 2. It makes no sense that Slash and Duff came back and are now equals with Axl. The same way it makes no sense Slash is just being present and having no say in any of the proceedings.

And (thank god) no way Duff n Slash will put up with Axl being more than 30 minutes late.....my guess (we are all really guessing) is that start times are already in legal stone!

[Babooshka]

Something very interesting mentioned in the new BBC documentary is that the original contract written up, which of course ended up with Axl having control, was in actual fact intended to prevent the band from breaking up!

If it was meant to prevent the break-up, then it was a shitty contract. But then I'm sure no one ever imagined that Axl himself would quit the band. The documentary sounds interesting, I've always wondered about the other players in that saga.

Agreed.

I guess what I was trying to say is I don't see either party winning fully. Slash did not come crawling back and Axl didn't give up all his control. I think its pretty equal with the 3 of them, with Axl having slightly more power than the other 2. It makes no sense that Slash and Duff came back and are now equals with Axl. The same way it makes no sense Slash is just being present and having no say in any of the proceedings.

This sounds sensible, but it's hard to imagine that after being so hateful towards Slash, Axl is now capable of a collaborative relationship. I hope the arrangement is something equitable, I do beileve Duff and Slash have negotiated to their satisfaction, but things still need to work in real terms. When they're in the studio, or rehearsals, or a meeting, and Slash says, "No disco lights". Does Axl have it in him to listen? I'm not sure he does.

[gunsfanoldie]

When they're in the studio, or rehearsals, or a meeting, and Slash says, "No disco lights". Does Axl have it in him to listen? I'm not sure he does.

I think Axl must have to. Or at the very least he'll need Duff's support so he can sign off on it. It seems Slash and Axl really both trust Duff's opinion. If Axl wants something and Duff also thinks its fine, Slash will go along with it just by trusting Duff. And if Slash is adamant about something, and Duff can show Axl the reason it works then Axl will eventually agree.

I don't think its as cut and dry as Slash says no disco lights, Axl says they are essential, and Slash walks. But I also think it must be in Slash's contract that he's not just gonna be bossed around, and be a part of something thats ultimately gonna be embarrassing.

Duff should use his power to his advantage. "OK, I say that we have to let me play any Johnny Thunders songs I want, I get the royal treatment here, you two have to go to marriage counseling, and from now on I get to call all the shots cause I'm awesome." I'd trust THAT band more than I'd trust GNR in the hands of solely Axl or solely Slash.

[SoulMonster]

This is something I am curious about. On one side it is hard to imagine Axl relinquising any of his hard.earned control, on the other side is is equally hard to imagine Slash and Duff coming in as "hired hands". Some compromises must have been made -- but what are they? Hope we will find out soon.

[TKesseli]

Slash and Duff's "silence" shows that Axl may still have some force in it. They are sharing the shows' banners for promotion but they are not speaking as a band should do.

Or maybe there are still negotiations going on regarding remaining former members, steven and izzy, and they will all make a better promotional impact later when everything is "confirmed."

Edited January 27, 2016 by TKesseli

[GNRfan2008]

Axl has FULL control over the setlist.

Isn't that how it has always been, even when Adler was still in the band?

[Ralphelmo]

33%

[Babooshka]

When they're in the studio, or rehearsals, or a meeting, and Slash says, "No disco lights". Does Axl have it in him to listen? I'm not sure he does.

I think Axl must have to. Or at the very least he'll need Duff's support so he can sign off on it. It seems Slash and Axl really both trust Duff's opinion. If Axl wants something and Duff also thinks its fine, Slash will go along with it just by trusting Duff. And if Slash is adamant about something, and Duff can show Axl the reason it works then Axl will eventually agree.

I don't think its as cut and dry as Slash says no disco lights, Axl says they are essential, and Slash walks. But I also think it must be in Slash's contract that he's not just gonna be bossed around, and be a part of something thats ultimately gonna be embarrassing.

Duff should use his power to his advantage. "OK, I say that we have to let me play any Johnny Thunders songs I want, I get the royal treatment here, you two have to go to marriage counseling, and from now on I get to call all the shots cause I'm awesome." I'd trust THAT band more than I'd trust GNR in the hands of solely Axl or solely Slash.

Yeah, I think Ambassador Duff is going to be a key person, even if the star power lies elsewhere. I've wondered if Axl and Slash have had formal counselling sessions. I know Marc advocated this for years, and it's hard to think they just suddenly started talking after all the animosity and issues. You'd think they'd have to work through that stuff first.

[DieselDaisy]

Slash and McKagan's management and lawyers probably thrashed out an initial agreement with the Axl camp. If I had to guess, Axl's camp will be left in control of the day to day running of things, however during the original discussions, Slash and Duff would have obtained certain demands, their side of the bargain, and had them put on paper. Things like setlists, guest spots and the inclusion of CD material (or not) are the sole preserve of the band members; the three of them have to have discussed things like this beforehand, and will probably continue to discuss them during rehearsals. They are not the type of things you put into contracts.

[BadApples87]

I scoff at the thought that Slash and Duff are hired hands. They have more than proven to be Axl's equal (or in the case of Slash possibly Superior). I think that the Big 3 are the ones that have a "say" in all things GNR. Everyone else, be it Dizzy, Frank, Fortus, or whoever else.........is just along for the ride.

[Modano09]

So we know that after they left GNR, Slash and Duff fought Axl legally over some GNR business. I assume just sorting out what percentage of what they were still entitled to (old logos, music, etc).

But what about Izzy? Everyone talks about GNR like it's a pie divided among Axl, Duff and Slash but wouldn't Izzy be in there to? Or did he forfeit that when he left the band?

[tat2d1]

If Slash & Duff are smart there's a clause that will prevent Axl from going out under the GnR name without Slash & Duff's involvement, or consent. Kinda like how Ozzy did Tony with Sabbath once they reunited in 97, hence the "Heaven & Hell" thing with Dio in 2007.

[Babooshka]

So we know that after they left GNR, Slash and Duff fought Axl legally over some GNR business. I assume just sorting out what percentage of what they were still entitled to (old logos, music, etc).

But what about Izzy? Everyone talks about GNR like it's a pie divided among Axl, Duff and Slash but wouldn't Izzy be in there to? Or did he forfeit that when he left the band?

Izzy was bought out of the partnership when he left. Same with Steven.

[DieselDaisy]

If Slash & Duff are smart there's a clause that will prevent Axl from going out under the GnR name without Slash & Duff's involvement, or consent. Kinda like how Ozzy did Tony with Sabbath once they reunited in 97, hence the "Heaven & Hell" thing with Dio in 2007.

It is a separate group, Axl and the hirelings, nugnr. For Slash and Duff to do that would require persuading Axl to relinquish the controversial name clause which the two signed during the Illusion tour. I cannot see that happening!

So we know that after they left GNR, Slash and Duff fought Axl legally over some GNR business. I assume just sorting out what percentage of what they were still entitled to (old logos, music, etc).

But what about Izzy? Everyone talks about GNR like it's a pie divided among Axl, Duff and Slash but wouldn't Izzy be in there to? Or did he forfeit that when he left the band?

Yes. Izzy is a 'terminated partner' as of November 1991 and would normally have sold his stock to the rest of the band when he left. His case is special however as he still apparently gained a percentage of Guns's future earnings until November 1997; thereafter, he is completely excluded. He still of course obtains royalties for his song contributions.

Your analogy of the pie is pretty much exactly what happened.

Even if Izzy, founding member and all, returns, he will be on a contract. Ace and Peter were on contracts when they reunited with Kiss.

The great mystery is whether Slash and Duff are on contracts, or whether they have resumed the partnership.

[GNRfan2008]

If Slash & Duff are smart there's a clause that will prevent Axl from going out under the GnR name without Slash & Duff's involvement, or consent. Kinda like how Ozzy did Tony with Sabbath once they reunited in 97, hence the "Heaven & Hell" thing with Dio in 2007.

Tony owns the name to Sabbath just like Axl with GN'R. How did Ozzy convince Tony to do what you said? Maybe Tony really needed the money from that reunion with Ozzy. Who knows.

[bigpoop]

If Slash & Duff are smart there's a clause that will prevent Axl from going out under the GnR name without Slash & Duff's involvement, or consent. Kinda like how Ozzy did Tony with Sabbath once they reunited in 97, hence the "Heaven & Hell" thing with Dio in 2007.

Tony owns the name to Sabbath just like Axl with GN'R. How did Ozzy convince Tony to do what you said? Maybe Tony really needed the money from that reunion with Ozzy. Who knows.

Iommi, owner of the Black Sabbath name, decided to call the touring group Heaven & Hell^[1] to differentiate the project from the Ozzy Osbourne-led Black Sabbath.^[2] The moniker was taken from the first Dio-fronted Black Sabbath album,Heaven and Hell. According to Iommi, the name change was made so that fans at concerts would not expect "to hear “Iron Man” and “War Pigs” and all that... it’s none of the old stuff, it’s none of the Ozzy period. It’s all Dio stuff. So by calling ourselves Heaven and Hell, it’s revisiting that period."^[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_%26_Hell_(band)

[PatrickS77]

If Slash & Duff are smart there's a clause that will prevent Axl from going out under the GnR name without Slash & Duff's involvement, or consent. Kinda like how Ozzy did Tony with Sabbath once they reunited in 97, hence the "Heaven & Hell" thing with Dio in 2007.

Tony owns the name to Sabbath just like Axl with GN'R. How did Ozzy convince Tony to do what you said? Maybe Tony really needed the money from that reunion with Ozzy. Who knows.

Iommi, owner of the Black Sabbath name, decided to call the touring group Heaven & Hell^[1] to differentiate the project from the Ozzy Osbourne-led Black Sabbath.^[2] The moniker was taken from the first Dio-fronted Black Sabbath album,Heaven and Hell. According to Iommi, the name change was made so that fans at concerts would not expect "to hear “Iron Man” and “War Pigs” and all that... it’s none of the old stuff, it’s none of the Ozzy period. It’s all Dio stuff. So by calling ourselves Heaven and Hell, it’s revisiting that period."^[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_%26_Hell_(band)

Wikipedia proofs nothing. And even Tony saying that proofs nothing.

[GNRfan2008]

If Slash & Duff are smart there's a clause that will prevent Axl from going out under the GnR name without Slash & Duff's involvement, or consent. Kinda like how Ozzy did Tony with Sabbath once they reunited in 97, hence the "Heaven & Hell" thing with Dio in 2007.

Tony owns the name to Sabbath just like Axl with GN'R. How did Ozzy convince Tony to do what you said? Maybe Tony really needed the money from that reunion with Ozzy. Who knows.

Iommi, owner of the Black Sabbath name, decided to call the touring group Heaven & Hell^[1] to differentiate the project from the Ozzy Osbourne-led Black Sabbath.^[2] The moniker was taken from the first Dio-fronted Black Sabbath album,Heaven and Hell. According to Iommi, the name change was made so that fans at concerts would not expect "to hear “Iron Man” and “War Pigs” and all that... it’s none of the old stuff, it’s none of the Ozzy period. It’s all Dio stuff. So by calling ourselves Heaven and Hell, it’s revisiting that period."^[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_%26_Hell_(band)

That doesn't answer the question I asked.