Slash/Fortus combo, the best in the world right now? Fortus in the Partnership?

[Free Bird]

1 hour ago, BorderlineCrazy said:

What? What I hear around 1:00 is "it was great during that time to play with those guys and to make Chinese Democracy."

LOL you're totally right. 

WTF

[sonofnazareth]

Fortus is not fit to be Izzy or Gilby's toilet paper within a GNR context. Talented guitarist? Who gives a shit. He is not and will never be the right fit for GNR. 

[JustanUrchin]

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 3:11 AM, RONIN said:

Nailed it. Maybe Fortus will set the rock world on fire at the spry age of 49. You never know 

My understanding of the partnership between Axl, Slash, and Duff (correct me if I'm wrong please) -- the original partnership was modified after Izzy left (I'm assuming the other 3 bought him out essentially and absorbed his % to divide amongst themselves). Izzy was guaranteed a % of profits from GnR until the late 90's. Unfortunately for Izzy, GnR didn't release shit after he left. After '97 or '98, Izzy is cut out completely from profit sharing (I assume he still gets publishing royalties like Adler).

This modified partnership was rendered defunct by Axl who created a new GnR entity legally and left the original partnership at the end of 1995. This kills the old band symbolically and legally. Duff and Slash are essentially demoted to hired hands at this point and Axl tries to convince them to sign on as salaried employees into the new partnership. Duff signs on and Slash toys with the idea before ultimately refusing in '96. Duff leaves this partnership in the summer of '97. End of GnR and the original partnership is dead.

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is they somehow legally resuscitated the original partnership (The one Axl left in '95) -- this partnership makes the three founding members (Duff, Axl, Slash) fully in control of the band. I'm guessing Axl has legal rights to the name and "nu band" (probably a separate legal entity).

If you look at the original press releases for the NITL tour, iirc they refer to Axl as the band founder and Duff and Slash as original members -- that can't be a mistake and I assume Axl and GnR management worded it that way on purpose. To the layman, it still seems like Axl's band but Duff and Slash are included as equal partners in profit sharing. 

As of at least 2009, Gn’R was registered as a General Partnership with the California DoS.  Slash and Duff were the sole partners.  Beyond that perhaps a forum member has retained PDF copies of legal filings prior to settlement, but based upon my cursory research of filed Superior Court docs, this outline, digressions aside, is indisputable:

After Izzy was bought out subsequent to Adler’s firing, Axl maneuvered inside the PA by adding terms to a MOU that granted him the brand name if he withdrew or was otherwise removed from the p’ship.  Laertes would have approved of said tactics.

To the Axl apologists that suffered through a quarter century of 15 original Axl songs and who maintain that the Axl Rose Touring Band was Gn’R, Axl admitted in a 1995 legal notice that he was forming a new band, which left Duff and Slash as the only remaining Gn’R partners.  Taken a step further, these same apologists push a myth that Slash, Duff, and Adler are not original members of Gn’R despite those three (along with Izzy and Axl) signing the Geffen recording contract, forming and registering the first Gn’R partnership, and recording the first album.

Slash and Duff had sole control of p’ship assets after Axl withdrew from the p’ship in 1996 and proceeded with a solo career using the Gn’R brand name.  The Axl apologists continue, as ever, to make baseless assertions that it was Axl’s band.  In the mod'd MOU, Slash and Axl had equal decision-making authority.  Axl apologists are revisionists:  they push the myth that Slash and Duff quit.  As legal filings show, when Axl didn’t get his way on more and more Liberace piano pieces and appointing himself dictator, he quit, and with the brand name in tow, undertook a solo career that resulted in 15 songs, the compilation of 14 of which are listed on Wikipedia’s all-time worst albums.

To the handful of Axl apologists who push myths about Axl’s artistic purity as a decades-long excuse for Axl’s repeated lies about releasing new music and his rerecording of AFD songs with guys wearing fast food containers on their heads and hometown sycophants, the rerecording of those iconic songs was strictly for financial gain that largely never came to fruition.  Because Slash and Duff were the sole remaining partners, Axl rerecorded AFD to receive all profit from licensing minus whatever the pittance he paid the goth and chicken bucket container guys to mangle the music the original members wrote.  It is apparent that the movie studios and television ad companies wanted the original, not the Axl knock-off/cover music.

This is a roundabout way of stating what should be obvious and should be the forum’s overwhelming response to Axl apologists pushing myths:  Slash and Duff legally prevented Axl from hijacking the band and its music, even while they were winning Grammies with VR and Axl was the punchline of late-night talk show jokes.  The masses, of course, rejected Axl’s solo band and its music and Axl, though he legally attempted to erase Gn’R’s legacy and make it his own, failed.  Slash and Duff are the reason that 3/5 of the band is touring and 4/5 rocked Cincy and Nashville.

Izzy’s exclusion makes sense even though I and others—the masses based on the endless comments on GnR FB posts—resent it.  Why hasn’t the Slash/Duff/Axl p’ship made him an acceptable offer as they did Adler?  Or did they?  Given Izzy’s Twitter lyrics and F.P. Money, an offer was made but rejected.  Or S/D/A rejected Izzy’s counteroffer.  The partners are killing it on merchandising alone.  Look at clips of the 2016 shows—the new t-shirts say it all.  What was Izzy asking—a slice of the merchandising, a percentage of net ticket sales, or something greater like an equity share?  The partners are raking it in touring all songs that Izzy had a hand in, except 3 Axl solo songs each gig that kill the mood and have the fans collectively sitting, so why would Izzy not want a quarter share?  The band was over in ’91.  Axl had run off untold numbers of loyal fans beginning the summer of ’91 forward.  By the time TSI dropped, it hadn’t been GnR for at least two years (three for those who didn’t accept Sorum) and it reflected in TSI sales, but was masked by concert attendance in third world and European countries.  2016 is a AFD-UYI tour, yet Izzy was offered something significantly less than equal profit, hence the Twitter snippets.

The new or modified PA holds the answers to the future.  But it’s unlikely that the terms will be disclosed, and a biz entity need not disclose those incidental terms to the state DoS.

What is the percentage split of touring?  Of future publishing?  Is decision-making weighted?  If so, on biz matters alone or on creative matters as well?  Or is this just a p’ship for a specific venture?  It’s a virtual guarantee that terms require Axl to adhere to punctual start times, fulfill each date unless due to a force of nature/physical illness, specific division of loss due to any Axl hissy fits (no-shows/walk-offs/late starts), and Axl rehearsing/sound-checking.   LiveNation likely demanded similar terms regarding Axl on loss, punctuality, and hissy fit no-shows/walk-offs.  Some attribute piano gremlins to “maturity,” the throne to “toughness” and punctual start times to a “changed” man.  Really?  The first time since ’90 that Axl respects paying fans by performing each show on time is not because he had an epiphany about respect.  It is a direct result of coercive PA and promoter terms, including division of loss.

[RONIN]

Fantastic post @JustanUrchin -- so in your opinion, who actually runs this band now? Is it still Axl and Team Brazil or do you think it's back to the UYI era where Axl and Slash share the duties with Team Brazil reduced to being Axl's entourage?

If Duff and Slash are equally involved in managing this band, it's sad to see them not doing more to bring Izzy back into the fold. 

I agree with you about Axl's "changed man" behavior -- he probably stands to forfeit a huge sum of cash if he goes back to his old ways. When big money is on the line, you'd be surprised how quickly people clean up their act. 

On a lighter note, it's good to see them licensing their music again -- you rarely heard GnR music in films/tv because it was such a nightmare to deal with their management. As soon as the "re-recording AFD" news came out back in the day, I knew Axl was trying to screw his old friends out of profit -- which resulted in the lawsuit from Duff and Slash about lost income from Axl kiboshing licensing deals. I suppose this also explains his bizarre 2002-2006 rants about the old band and how they were trying to profit off the GnR name as a means of promoting their solo work. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by RONIN

[Rovim]

Its still built around slash's guitar playing but it gets a lot of energy from richard and his abilities. His rhythm is on point and its nice to hear he can play bucket's parts fairly easily. I conclude that slash is still one of the best in the world and that an album with a weaving guitar approach like in appetite but with richard, can work well.

[Philipm787]

18 hours ago, JustanUrchin said:

As of at least 2009, Gn’R was registered as a General Partnership with the California DoS.  Slash and Duff were the sole partners.  Beyond that perhaps a forum member has retained PDF copies of legal filings prior to settlement, but based upon my cursory research of filed Superior Court docs, this outline, digressions aside, is indisputable:

After Izzy was bought out subsequent to Adler’s firing, Axl maneuvered inside the PA by adding terms to a MOU that granted him the brand name if he withdrew or was otherwise removed from the p’ship.  Laertes would have approved of said tactics.

To the Axl apologists that suffered through a quarter century of 15 original Axl songs and who maintain that the Axl Rose Touring Band was Gn’R, Axl admitted in a 1995 legal notice that he was forming a new band, which left Duff and Slash as the only remaining Gn’R partners.  Taken a step further, these same apologists push a myth that Slash, Duff, and Adler are not original members of Gn’R despite those three (along with Izzy and Axl) signing the Geffen recording contract, forming and registering the first Gn’R partnership, and recording the first album.

Slash and Duff had sole control of p’ship assets after Axl withdrew from the p’ship in 1996 and proceeded with a solo career using the Gn’R brand name.  The Axl apologists continue, as ever, to make baseless assertions that it was Axl’s band.  In the mod'd MOU, Slash and Axl had equal decision-making authority.  Axl apologists are revisionists:  they push the myth that Slash and Duff quit.  As legal filings show, when Axl didn’t get his way on more and more Liberace piano pieces and appointing himself dictator, he quit, and with the brand name in tow, undertook a solo career that resulted in 15 songs, the compilation of 14 of which are listed on Wikipedia’s all-time worst albums.

To the handful of Axl apologists who push myths about Axl’s artistic purity as a decades-long excuse for Axl’s repeated lies about releasing new music and his rerecording of AFD songs with guys wearing fast food containers on their heads and hometown sycophants, the rerecording of those iconic songs was strictly for financial gain that largely never came to fruition.  Because Slash and Duff were the sole remaining partners, Axl rerecorded AFD to receive all profit from licensing minus whatever the pittance he paid the goth and chicken bucket container guys to mangle the music the original members wrote.  It is apparent that the movie studios and television ad companies wanted the original, not the Axl knock-off/cover music.

This is a roundabout way of stating what should be obvious and should be the forum’s overwhelming response to Axl apologists pushing myths:  Slash and Duff legally prevented Axl from hijacking the band and its music, even while they were winning Grammies with VR and Axl was the punchline of late-night talk show jokes.  The masses, of course, rejected Axl’s solo band and its music and Axl, though he legally attempted to erase Gn’R’s legacy and make it his own, failed.  Slash and Duff are the reason that 3/5 of the band is touring and 4/5 rocked Cincy and Nashville.

Izzy’s exclusion makes sense even though I and others—the masses based on the endless comments on GnR FB posts—resent it.  Why hasn’t the Slash/Duff/Axl p’ship made him an acceptable offer as they did Adler?  Or did they?  Given Izzy’s Twitter lyrics and F.P. Money, an offer was made but rejected.  Or S/D/A rejected Izzy’s counteroffer.  The partners are killing it on merchandising alone.  Look at clips of the 2016 shows—the new t-shirts say it all.  What was Izzy asking—a slice of the merchandising, a percentage of net ticket sales, or something greater like an equity share?  The partners are raking it in touring all songs that Izzy had a hand in, except 3 Axl solo songs each gig that kill the mood and have the fans collectively sitting, so why would Izzy not want a quarter share?  The band was over in ’91.  Axl had run off untold numbers of loyal fans beginning the summer of ’91 forward.  By the time TSI dropped, it hadn’t been GnR for at least two years (three for those who didn’t accept Sorum) and it reflected in TSI sales, but was masked by concert attendance in third world and European countries.  2016 is a AFD-UYI tour, yet Izzy was offered something significantly less than equal profit, hence the Twitter snippets.

The new or modified PA holds the answers to the future.  But it’s unlikely that the terms will be disclosed, and a biz entity need not disclose those incidental terms to the state DoS.

What is the percentage split of touring?  Of future publishing?  Is decision-making weighted?  If so, on biz matters alone or on creative matters as well?  Or is this just a p’ship for a specific venture?  It’s a virtual guarantee that terms require Axl to adhere to punctual start times, fulfill each date unless due to a force of nature/physical illness, specific division of loss due to any Axl hissy fits (no-shows/walk-offs/late starts), and Axl rehearsing/sound-checking.   LiveNation likely demanded similar terms regarding Axl on loss, punctuality, and hissy fit no-shows/walk-offs.  Some attribute piano gremlins to “maturity,” the throne to “toughness” and punctual start times to a “changed” man.  Really?  The first time since ’90 that Axl respects paying fans by performing each show on time is not because he had an epiphany about respect.  It is a direct result of coercive PA and promoter terms, including division of loss.

Unfortunately I'm out of likes, but every member on this forum should be made read this post. The truth.

[FuriousStyles]

On 2016-08-17 at 9:00 PM, JustanUrchin said:

As of at least 2009, Gn’R was registered as a General Partnership with the California DoS.  Slash and Duff were the sole partners.  Beyond that perhaps a forum member has retained PDF copies of legal filings prior to settlement, but based upon my cursory research of filed Superior Court docs, this outline, digressions aside, is indisputable:

After Izzy was bought out subsequent to Adler’s firing, Axl maneuvered inside the PA by adding terms to a MOU that granted him the brand name if he withdrew or was otherwise removed from the p’ship.  Laertes would have approved of said tactics.

To the Axl apologists that suffered through a quarter century of 15 original Axl songs and who maintain that the Axl Rose Touring Band was Gn’R, Axl admitted in a 1995 legal notice that he was forming a new band, which left Duff and Slash as the only remaining Gn’R partners.  Taken a step further, these same apologists push a myth that Slash, Duff, and Adler are not original members of Gn’R despite those three (along with Izzy and Axl) signing the Geffen recording contract, forming and registering the first Gn’R partnership, and recording the first album.

Slash and Duff had sole control of p’ship assets after Axl withdrew from the p’ship in 1996 and proceeded with a solo career using the Gn’R brand name.  The Axl apologists continue, as ever, to make baseless assertions that it was Axl’s band.  In the mod'd MOU, Slash and Axl had equal decision-making authority.  Axl apologists are revisionists:  they push the myth that Slash and Duff quit.  As legal filings show, when Axl didn’t get his way on more and more Liberace piano pieces and appointing himself dictator, he quit, and with the brand name in tow, undertook a solo career that resulted in 15 songs, the compilation of 14 of which are listed on Wikipedia’s all-time worst albums.

To the handful of Axl apologists who push myths about Axl’s artistic purity as a decades-long excuse for Axl’s repeated lies about releasing new music and his rerecording of AFD songs with guys wearing fast food containers on their heads and hometown sycophants, the rerecording of those iconic songs was strictly for financial gain that largely never came to fruition.  Because Slash and Duff were the sole remaining partners, Axl rerecorded AFD to receive all profit from licensing minus whatever the pittance he paid the goth and chicken bucket container guys to mangle the music the original members wrote.  It is apparent that the movie studios and television ad companies wanted the original, not the Axl knock-off/cover music.

This is a roundabout way of stating what should be obvious and should be the forum’s overwhelming response to Axl apologists pushing myths:  Slash and Duff legally prevented Axl from hijacking the band and its music, even while they were winning Grammies with VR and Axl was the punchline of late-night talk show jokes.  The masses, of course, rejected Axl’s solo band and its music and Axl, though he legally attempted to erase Gn’R’s legacy and make it his own, failed.  Slash and Duff are the reason that 3/5 of the band is touring and 4/5 rocked Cincy and Nashville.

Izzy’s exclusion makes sense even though I and others—the masses based on the endless comments on GnR FB posts—resent it.  Why hasn’t the Slash/Duff/Axl p’ship made him an acceptable offer as they did Adler?  Or did they?  Given Izzy’s Twitter lyrics and F.P. Money, an offer was made but rejected.  Or S/D/A rejected Izzy’s counteroffer.  The partners are killing it on merchandising alone.  Look at clips of the 2016 shows—the new t-shirts say it all.  What was Izzy asking—a slice of the merchandising, a percentage of net ticket sales, or something greater like an equity share?  The partners are raking it in touring all songs that Izzy had a hand in, except 3 Axl solo songs each gig that kill the mood and have the fans collectively sitting, so why would Izzy not want a quarter share?  The band was over in ’91.  Axl had run off untold numbers of loyal fans beginning the summer of ’91 forward.  By the time TSI dropped, it hadn’t been GnR for at least two years (three for those who didn’t accept Sorum) and it reflected in TSI sales, but was masked by concert attendance in third world and European countries.  2016 is a AFD-UYI tour, yet Izzy was offered something significantly less than equal profit, hence the Twitter snippets.

The new or modified PA holds the answers to the future.  But it’s unlikely that the terms will be disclosed, and a biz entity need not disclose those incidental terms to the state DoS.

What is the percentage split of touring?  Of future publishing?  Is decision-making weighted?  If so, on biz matters alone or on creative matters as well?  Or is this just a p’ship for a specific venture?  It’s a virtual guarantee that terms require Axl to adhere to punctual start times, fulfill each date unless due to a force of nature/physical illness, specific division of loss due to any Axl hissy fits (no-shows/walk-offs/late starts), and Axl rehearsing/sound-checking.   LiveNation likely demanded similar terms regarding Axl on loss, punctuality, and hissy fit no-shows/walk-offs.  Some attribute piano gremlins to “maturity,” the throne to “toughness” and punctual start times to a “changed” man.  Really?  The first time since ’90 that Axl respects paying fans by performing each show on time is not because he had an epiphany about respect.  It is a direct result of coercive PA and promoter terms, including division of loss.

I, ugh, hate to be that guy. But I have to correct you....

You forgot this at the end of your post

 

 

 

[RONIN]

^^Yeah, @JustanUrchin just killed it with that reply. Post of the year.

Axl-ites/nu-fans probably had a heart attack reading it.  

Should be pinned to the main forum as required reading

[RooSaa]

On 17.8.2016 at 3:00 AM, JustanUrchin said:

As of at least 2009, Gn’R was registered as a General Partnership with the California DoS.  Slash and Duff were the sole partners.  Beyond that perhaps a forum member has retained PDF copies of legal filings prior to settlement, but based upon my cursory research of filed Superior Court docs, this outline, digressions aside, is indisputable:

After Izzy was bought out subsequent to Adler’s firing, Axl maneuvered inside the PA by adding terms to a MOU that granted him the brand name if he withdrew or was otherwise removed from the p’ship.  Laertes would have approved of said tactics.

To the Axl apologists that suffered through a quarter century of 15 original Axl songs and who maintain that the Axl Rose Touring Band was Gn’R, Axl admitted in a 1995 legal notice that he was forming a new band, which left Duff and Slash as the only remaining Gn’R partners.  Taken a step further, these same apologists push a myth that Slash, Duff, and Adler are not original members of Gn’R despite those three (along with Izzy and Axl) signing the Geffen recording contract, forming and registering the first Gn’R partnership, and recording the first album.

Slash and Duff had sole control of p’ship assets after Axl withdrew from the p’ship in 1996 and proceeded with a solo career using the Gn’R brand name.  The Axl apologists continue, as ever, to make baseless assertions that it was Axl’s band.  In the mod'd MOU, Slash and Axl had equal decision-making authority.  Axl apologists are revisionists:  they push the myth that Slash and Duff quit.  As legal filings show, when Axl didn’t get his way on more and more Liberace piano pieces and appointing himself dictator, he quit, and with the brand name in tow, undertook a solo career that resulted in 15 songs, the compilation of 14 of which are listed on Wikipedia’s all-time worst albums.

To the handful of Axl apologists who push myths about Axl’s artistic purity as a decades-long excuse for Axl’s repeated lies about releasing new music and his rerecording of AFD songs with guys wearing fast food containers on their heads and hometown sycophants, the rerecording of those iconic songs was strictly for financial gain that largely never came to fruition.  Because Slash and Duff were the sole remaining partners, Axl rerecorded AFD to receive all profit from licensing minus whatever the pittance he paid the goth and chicken bucket container guys to mangle the music the original members wrote.  It is apparent that the movie studios and television ad companies wanted the original, not the Axl knock-off/cover music.

This is a roundabout way of stating what should be obvious and should be the forum’s overwhelming response to Axl apologists pushing myths:  Slash and Duff legally prevented Axl from hijacking the band and its music, even while they were winning Grammies with VR and Axl was the punchline of late-night talk show jokes.  The masses, of course, rejected Axl’s solo band and its music and Axl, though he legally attempted to erase Gn’R’s legacy and make it his own, failed.  Slash and Duff are the reason that 3/5 of the band is touring and 4/5 rocked Cincy and Nashville.

Izzy’s exclusion makes sense even though I and others—the masses based on the endless comments on GnR FB posts—resent it.  Why hasn’t the Slash/Duff/Axl p’ship made him an acceptable offer as they did Adler?  Or did they?  Given Izzy’s Twitter lyrics and F.P. Money, an offer was made but rejected.  Or S/D/A rejected Izzy’s counteroffer.  The partners are killing it on merchandising alone.  Look at clips of the 2016 shows—the new t-shirts say it all.  What was Izzy asking—a slice of the merchandising, a percentage of net ticket sales, or something greater like an equity share?  The partners are raking it in touring all songs that Izzy had a hand in, except 3 Axl solo songs each gig that kill the mood and have the fans collectively sitting, so why would Izzy not want a quarter share?  The band was over in ’91.  Axl had run off untold numbers of loyal fans beginning the summer of ’91 forward.  By the time TSI dropped, it hadn’t been GnR for at least two years (three for those who didn’t accept Sorum) and it reflected in TSI sales, but was masked by concert attendance in third world and European countries.  2016 is a AFD-UYI tour, yet Izzy was offered something significantly less than equal profit, hence the Twitter snippets.

The new or modified PA holds the answers to the future.  But it’s unlikely that the terms will be disclosed, and a biz entity need not disclose those incidental terms to the state DoS.

What is the percentage split of touring?  Of future publishing?  Is decision-making weighted?  If so, on biz matters alone or on creative matters as well?  Or is this just a p’ship for a specific venture?  It’s a virtual guarantee that terms require Axl to adhere to punctual start times, fulfill each date unless due to a force of nature/physical illness, specific division of loss due to any Axl hissy fits (no-shows/walk-offs/late starts), and Axl rehearsing/sound-checking.   LiveNation likely demanded similar terms regarding Axl on loss, punctuality, and hissy fit no-shows/walk-offs.  Some attribute piano gremlins to “maturity,” the throne to “toughness” and punctual start times to a “changed” man.  Really?  The first time since ’90 that Axl respects paying fans by performing each show on time is not because he had an epiphany about respect.  It is a direct result of coercive PA and promoter terms, including division of loss.

I already liked your post, but just wanted to thank you for writing that, thanks a lot!

[Swedish]

On 2016-08-17 at 3:00 AM, JustanUrchin said:

As of at least 2009, Gn’R was registered as a General Partnership with the California DoS.  Slash and Duff were the sole partners.  Beyond that perhaps a forum member has retained PDF copies of legal filings prior to settlement, but based upon my cursory research of filed Superior Court docs, this outline, digressions aside, is indisputable:

After Izzy was bought out subsequent to Adler’s firing, Axl maneuvered inside the PA by adding terms to a MOU that granted him the brand name if he withdrew or was otherwise removed from the p’ship.  Laertes would have approved of said tactics.

To the Axl apologists that suffered through a quarter century of 15 original Axl songs and who maintain that the Axl Rose Touring Band was Gn’R, Axl admitted in a 1995 legal notice that he was forming a new band, which left Duff and Slash as the only remaining Gn’R partners.  Taken a step further, these same apologists push a myth that Slash, Duff, and Adler are not original members of Gn’R despite those three (along with Izzy and Axl) signing the Geffen recording contract, forming and registering the first Gn’R partnership, and recording the first album.

Slash and Duff had sole control of p’ship assets after Axl withdrew from the p’ship in 1996 and proceeded with a solo career using the Gn’R brand name.  The Axl apologists continue, as ever, to make baseless assertions that it was Axl’s band.  In the mod'd MOU, Slash and Axl had equal decision-making authority.  Axl apologists are revisionists:  they push the myth that Slash and Duff quit.  As legal filings show, when Axl didn’t get his way on more and more Liberace piano pieces and appointing himself dictator, he quit, and with the brand name in tow, undertook a solo career that resulted in 15 songs, the compilation of 14 of which are listed on Wikipedia’s all-time worst albums.

To the handful of Axl apologists who push myths about Axl’s artistic purity as a decades-long excuse for Axl’s repeated lies about releasing new music and his rerecording of AFD songs with guys wearing fast food containers on their heads and hometown sycophants, the rerecording of those iconic songs was strictly for financial gain that largely never came to fruition.  Because Slash and Duff were the sole remaining partners, Axl rerecorded AFD to receive all profit from licensing minus whatever the pittance he paid the goth and chicken bucket container guys to mangle the music the original members wrote.  It is apparent that the movie studios and television ad companies wanted the original, not the Axl knock-off/cover music.

This is a roundabout way of stating what should be obvious and should be the forum’s overwhelming response to Axl apologists pushing myths:  Slash and Duff legally prevented Axl from hijacking the band and its music, even while they were winning Grammies with VR and Axl was the punchline of late-night talk show jokes.  The masses, of course, rejected Axl’s solo band and its music and Axl, though he legally attempted to erase Gn’R’s legacy and make it his own, failed.  Slash and Duff are the reason that 3/5 of the band is touring and 4/5 rocked Cincy and Nashville.

Izzy’s exclusion makes sense even though I and others—the masses based on the endless comments on GnR FB posts—resent it.  Why hasn’t the Slash/Duff/Axl p’ship made him an acceptable offer as they did Adler?  Or did they?  Given Izzy’s Twitter lyrics and F.P. Money, an offer was made but rejected.  Or S/D/A rejected Izzy’s counteroffer.  The partners are killing it on merchandising alone.  Look at clips of the 2016 shows—the new t-shirts say it all.  What was Izzy asking—a slice of the merchandising, a percentage of net ticket sales, or something greater like an equity share?  The partners are raking it in touring all songs that Izzy had a hand in, except 3 Axl solo songs each gig that kill the mood and have the fans collectively sitting, so why would Izzy not want a quarter share?  The band was over in ’91.  Axl had run off untold numbers of loyal fans beginning the summer of ’91 forward.  By the time TSI dropped, it hadn’t been GnR for at least two years (three for those who didn’t accept Sorum) and it reflected in TSI sales, but was masked by concert attendance in third world and European countries.  2016 is a AFD-UYI tour, yet Izzy was offered something significantly less than equal profit, hence the Twitter snippets.

The new or modified PA holds the answers to the future.  But it’s unlikely that the terms will be disclosed, and a biz entity need not disclose those incidental terms to the state DoS.

What is the percentage split of touring?  Of future publishing?  Is decision-making weighted?  If so, on biz matters alone or on creative matters as well?  Or is this just a p’ship for a specific venture?  It’s a virtual guarantee that terms require Axl to adhere to punctual start times, fulfill each date unless due to a force of nature/physical illness, specific division of loss due to any Axl hissy fits (no-shows/walk-offs/late starts), and Axl rehearsing/sound-checking.   LiveNation likely demanded similar terms regarding Axl on loss, punctuality, and hissy fit no-shows/walk-offs.  Some attribute piano gremlins to “maturity,” the throne to “toughness” and punctual start times to a “changed” man.  Really?  The first time since ’90 that Axl respects paying fans by performing each show on time is not because he had an epiphany about respect.  It is a direct result of coercive PA and promoter terms, including division of loss.

Out of likes but this is probably the best post here in a long, long time!

[Philipm787]

On 17 August 2016 at 2:00 AM, JustanUrchin said:

As of at least 2009, Gn’R was registered as a General Partnership with the California DoS.  Slash and Duff were the sole partners.  Beyond that perhaps a forum member has retained PDF copies of legal filings prior to settlement, but based upon my cursory research of filed Superior Court docs, this outline, digressions aside, is indisputable:

After Izzy was bought out subsequent to Adler’s firing, Axl maneuvered inside the PA by adding terms to a MOU that granted him the brand name if he withdrew or was otherwise removed from the p’ship.  Laertes would have approved of said tactics.

To the Axl apologists that suffered through a quarter century of 15 original Axl songs and who maintain that the Axl Rose Touring Band was Gn’R, Axl admitted in a 1995 legal notice that he was forming a new band, which left Duff and Slash as the only remaining Gn’R partners.  Taken a step further, these same apologists push a myth that Slash, Duff, and Adler are not original members of Gn’R despite those three (along with Izzy and Axl) signing the Geffen recording contract, forming and registering the first Gn’R partnership, and recording the first album.

Slash and Duff had sole control of p’ship assets after Axl withdrew from the p’ship in 1996 and proceeded with a solo career using the Gn’R brand name.  The Axl apologists continue, as ever, to make baseless assertions that it was Axl’s band.  In the mod'd MOU, Slash and Axl had equal decision-making authority.  Axl apologists are revisionists:  they push the myth that Slash and Duff quit.  As legal filings show, when Axl didn’t get his way on more and more Liberace piano pieces and appointing himself dictator, he quit, and with the brand name in tow, undertook a solo career that resulted in 15 songs, the compilation of 14 of which are listed on Wikipedia’s all-time worst albums.

To the handful of Axl apologists who push myths about Axl’s artistic purity as a decades-long excuse for Axl’s repeated lies about releasing new music and his rerecording of AFD songs with guys wearing fast food containers on their heads and hometown sycophants, the rerecording of those iconic songs was strictly for financial gain that largely never came to fruition.  Because Slash and Duff were the sole remaining partners, Axl rerecorded AFD to receive all profit from licensing minus whatever the pittance he paid the goth and chicken bucket container guys to mangle the music the original members wrote.  It is apparent that the movie studios and television ad companies wanted the original, not the Axl knock-off/cover music.

This is a roundabout way of stating what should be obvious and should be the forum’s overwhelming response to Axl apologists pushing myths:  Slash and Duff legally prevented Axl from hijacking the band and its music, even while they were winning Grammies with VR and Axl was the punchline of late-night talk show jokes.  The masses, of course, rejected Axl’s solo band and its music and Axl, though he legally attempted to erase Gn’R’s legacy and make it his own, failed.  Slash and Duff are the reason that 3/5 of the band is touring and 4/5 rocked Cincy and Nashville.

Izzy’s exclusion makes sense even though I and others—the masses based on the endless comments on GnR FB posts—resent it.  Why hasn’t the Slash/Duff/Axl p’ship made him an acceptable offer as they did Adler?  Or did they?  Given Izzy’s Twitter lyrics and F.P. Money, an offer was made but rejected.  Or S/D/A rejected Izzy’s counteroffer.  The partners are killing it on merchandising alone.  Look at clips of the 2016 shows—the new t-shirts say it all.  What was Izzy asking—a slice of the merchandising, a percentage of net ticket sales, or something greater like an equity share?  The partners are raking it in touring all songs that Izzy had a hand in, except 3 Axl solo songs each gig that kill the mood and have the fans collectively sitting, so why would Izzy not want a quarter share?  The band was over in ’91.  Axl had run off untold numbers of loyal fans beginning the summer of ’91 forward.  By the time TSI dropped, it hadn’t been GnR for at least two years (three for those who didn’t accept Sorum) and it reflected in TSI sales, but was masked by concert attendance in third world and European countries.  2016 is a AFD-UYI tour, yet Izzy was offered something significantly less than equal profit, hence the Twitter snippets.

The new or modified PA holds the answers to the future.  But it’s unlikely that the terms will be disclosed, and a biz entity need not disclose those incidental terms to the state DoS.

What is the percentage split of touring?  Of future publishing?  Is decision-making weighted?  If so, on biz matters alone or on creative matters as well?  Or is this just a p’ship for a specific venture?  It’s a virtual guarantee that terms require Axl to adhere to punctual start times, fulfill each date unless due to a force of nature/physical illness, specific division of loss due to any Axl hissy fits (no-shows/walk-offs/late starts), and Axl rehearsing/sound-checking.   LiveNation likely demanded similar terms regarding Axl on loss, punctuality, and hissy fit no-shows/walk-offs.  Some attribute piano gremlins to “maturity,” the throne to “toughness” and punctual start times to a “changed” man.  Really?  The first time since ’90 that Axl respects paying fans by performing each show on time is not because he had an epiphany about respect.  It is a direct result of coercive PA and promoter terms, including division of loss.

@SoulMonster

[RichardNixon]

Is anyone here an actual  attorney  who has read actual  contracts? No? That's what I thought.

Izzy didn't  want to tour with GNR and hasn't  since 1991, except  occasionally in 1993 and in the 00's. 

As for Richard  and  Slash as writing partners, we shall see. 

[DieselDaisy]

Yes Izzy 'didn't want to tour with GN'R'' in 1991, but for mitigating reasons, i.e. the lead singer was a colossal prat while Slash and Duff were drugging themselves into oblivion!

When Stradlin quit in 1991, what did he do? Tour. Tour worldwide, seventy-six shows 1992-93!

[RichardNixon]

And he hasn't  toured behind any of his albums since. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, RichardNixon said:

And he hasn't  toured behind any of his albums since. 

But the actions of a guy who quits a world tour, only to depart on his own world tour, are not the actions of a man who inherently hates touring.

[Nosaj Thing]

On 8/17/2016 at 8:00 PM, JustanUrchin said:

As of at least 2009, Gn’R was registered as a General Partnership with the California DoS.  Slash and Duff were the sole partners.  Beyond that perhaps a forum member has retained PDF copies of legal filings prior to settlement, but based upon my cursory research of filed Superior Court docs, this outline, digressions aside, is indisputable:

After Izzy was bought out subsequent to Adler’s firing, Axl maneuvered inside the PA by adding terms to a MOU that granted him the brand name if he withdrew or was otherwise removed from the p’ship.  Laertes would have approved of said tactics.

To the Axl apologists that suffered through a quarter century of 15 original Axl songs and who maintain that the Axl Rose Touring Band was Gn’R, Axl admitted in a 1995 legal notice that he was forming a new band, which left Duff and Slash as the only remaining Gn’R partners.  Taken a step further, these same apologists push a myth that Slash, Duff, and Adler are not original members of Gn’R despite those three (along with Izzy and Axl) signing the Geffen recording contract, forming and registering the first Gn’R partnership, and recording the first album.

Slash and Duff had sole control of p’ship assets after Axl withdrew from the p’ship in 1996 and proceeded with a solo career using the Gn’R brand name.  The Axl apologists continue, as ever, to make baseless assertions that it was Axl’s band.  In the mod'd MOU, Slash and Axl had equal decision-making authority.  Axl apologists are revisionists:  they push the myth that Slash and Duff quit.  As legal filings show, when Axl didn’t get his way on more and more Liberace piano pieces and appointing himself dictator, he quit, and with the brand name in tow, undertook a solo career that resulted in 15 songs, the compilation of 14 of which are listed on Wikipedia’s all-time worst albums.

To the handful of Axl apologists who push myths about Axl’s artistic purity as a decades-long excuse for Axl’s repeated lies about releasing new music and his rerecording of AFD songs with guys wearing fast food containers on their heads and hometown sycophants, the rerecording of those iconic songs was strictly for financial gain that largely never came to fruition.  Because Slash and Duff were the sole remaining partners, Axl rerecorded AFD to receive all profit from licensing minus whatever the pittance he paid the goth and chicken bucket container guys to mangle the music the original members wrote.  It is apparent that the movie studios and television ad companies wanted the original, not the Axl knock-off/cover music.

This is a roundabout way of stating what should be obvious and should be the forum’s overwhelming response to Axl apologists pushing myths:  Slash and Duff legally prevented Axl from hijacking the band and its music, even while they were winning Grammies with VR and Axl was the punchline of late-night talk show jokes.  The masses, of course, rejected Axl’s solo band and its music and Axl, though he legally attempted to erase Gn’R’s legacy and make it his own, failed.  Slash and Duff are the reason that 3/5 of the band is touring and 4/5 rocked Cincy and Nashville.

Izzy’s exclusion makes sense even though I and others—the masses based on the endless comments on GnR FB posts—resent it.  Why hasn’t the Slash/Duff/Axl p’ship made him an acceptable offer as they did Adler?  Or did they?  Given Izzy’s Twitter lyrics and F.P. Money, an offer was made but rejected.  Or S/D/A rejected Izzy’s counteroffer.  The partners are killing it on merchandising alone.  Look at clips of the 2016 shows—the new t-shirts say it all.  What was Izzy asking—a slice of the merchandising, a percentage of net ticket sales, or something greater like an equity share?  The partners are raking it in touring all songs that Izzy had a hand in, except 3 Axl solo songs each gig that kill the mood and have the fans collectively sitting, so why would Izzy not want a quarter share?  The band was over in ’91.  Axl had run off untold numbers of loyal fans beginning the summer of ’91 forward.  By the time TSI dropped, it hadn’t been GnR for at least two years (three for those who didn’t accept Sorum) and it reflected in TSI sales, but was masked by concert attendance in third world and European countries.  2016 is a AFD-UYI tour, yet Izzy was offered something significantly less than equal profit, hence the Twitter snippets.

The new or modified PA holds the answers to the future.  But it’s unlikely that the terms will be disclosed, and a biz entity need not disclose those incidental terms to the state DoS.

What is the percentage split of touring?  Of future publishing?  Is decision-making weighted?  If so, on biz matters alone or on creative matters as well?  Or is this just a p’ship for a specific venture?  It’s a virtual guarantee that terms require Axl to adhere to punctual start times, fulfill each date unless due to a force of nature/physical illness, specific division of loss due to any Axl hissy fits (no-shows/walk-offs/late starts), and Axl rehearsing/sound-checking.   LiveNation likely demanded similar terms regarding Axl on loss, punctuality, and hissy fit no-shows/walk-offs.  Some attribute piano gremlins to “maturity,” the throne to “toughness” and punctual start times to a “changed” man.  Really?  The first time since ’90 that Axl respects paying fans by performing each show on time is not because he had an epiphany about respect.  It is a direct result of coercive PA and promoter terms, including division of loss.

[Babooshka]

Such a massive truth bomb from @JustanUrchin 

 

[JustanUrchin]

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 8:42 AM, RichardNixon said:

Is anyone here an actual  attorney  who has read actual  contracts? No? That's what I thought.

 

I wouldn't stake much on that assumption.  Maybe a copy of ChiDem from the bargain bin, but little else.

I'd offer that Gn'R fans come in all stripes and sizes.  And attorneys enjoy music, to boot.  Or so I've heard.  Some have beating hearts, as well.  And some of them, I reckon, rocked out to the baddest of all badass rock bands back in the day.