BadApples87 Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Do you think Stevie Young and Chris Slade are equal to Angus? Same deal. Additional musicians. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 8 hours ago, BadApples87 said: Guns N Roses The Band Axl Rose, Slash, Duff McKagan Additional Musicians Fortus, Ferrer, Reed, Reese This. Thank you for posting it, so I didn't have to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtle Signs Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) It's no knock on Diz,Melissa,Fortus and Frank to say that outside of these boards,few people know who they are. Why should they care? They are on one of the biggest rock tours of the year and that is a gig many wish they had. Maybe Axl will throw them a bone and let them contribute to the next album (yeah,I know -LOL-next album) Fans want to see and hear from Axl and Slash and Duff,then Izzy and Steven/Matt to a lesser extent. That's about it. Edited August 16, 2016 by Subtle Signs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mendez Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Asia said: Sorry, but that's BS. If they are "full members of the band" for him, then why the hell they have nothing to say? Why aren't they in the partnership? It's nothing but marketing - "we are a band and these guys are full-time Guns and Roses members" sounds so much batter than "Hey, it's me and my bunch of slaves" You seem to have a misconception of what being an official member of the band is, and what being in the partnership is. Slash & Duff werent in the band for some time, and in their place were other musicians. Just like how Josh Klinghoffer is an official member of Red Hot Chili Peppers (filling the roll as lead guitarist after longtime guitarist John Frusciante left the band), Fortus is an official member of the band, as was Buckethead, Robin Finck, Tommy Stinson, Brain, (and Paul Huge and the keyboardists) They dont have a say in what goes on with the album after they record any songs (just like how Klinghoffer likely doesn't have a say in Red Hot Chili Peppers releases, whether or not if he is an essential part of the band). Slash and Duff remained in the partnership, while not staying in the band. Izzy will likely never be in the partnership again even if he comes back because he signed it off (and because he has a repupation among the band of dissapearing after a while, so they likely wouldnt risk him joining the partnership after rejoining the band, then taking off after a couple of months) Thats not to say he isnt/wasnt important. And thats not to say any one is equal or unequal to any other in terms of importance, its just that they are part of the band. Edited August 16, 2016 by Mendez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asia Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 9 minutes ago, Mendez said: You seem to have a misconception of what being an official member of the band is, and what being in the partnership is. Slash & Duff werent in the band for some time, and in their place were other musicians. Just like how Josh Klinghoffer is an official member of Red Hot Chili Peppers (filling the roll as lead guitarist after longtime guitarist John Frusciante left the band), Fortus is an official member of the band, as was Buckethead, Robin Finck, Tommy Stinson, Brain, (and Paul Huge and the keyboardists) They dont have a say in what goes on with the album after they record any songs (just like how Klinghoffer likely doesn't have a say in Red Hot Chili Peppers releases, whether or not if he is an essential part of the band). Slash and Duff remained in the partnership, while not staying in the band. Izzy will likely never be in the partnership again even if he comes back because he signed it off (and because he has a repupation among the band of dissapearing after a while, so they likely wouldnt risk him joining the partnership after rejoining the band, then taking off after a couple of months) Thats not to say he isnt/wasnt important. A band to me implies some kind of partnership (not necessairily legal, which, as you correctly pointed out is a little more complex). When there's one man who tells everyone exactly what to play, when to play it and how to play it and then he cuts and pastes whatever he pleases from their work, when there is only one man who has everything to say regarding what is going to be on a record, when there is absolutely no need for this man to compromise his vision for the vision of the others who would never even dare contradicting him cause then they'd lose their jobs and when additionally the other people change all the time, then this is one man band with session musicians and not a band, the way old Guns N'Roses was a band. In old GNR Slash had to sign under every decision made and thus these decisions were discussed and made together, regardless of whether it was about the record, the tour, the business, the promotion, anything. In old GNR Slash had as much chance to contribute as Axl, pretty much as many rights as Axl and the same amount of responsibility. That was a band. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RooSaa Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 21 minutes ago, Asia said: In old GNR Slash had to sign under every decision made and thus these decisions were discussed and made together, regardless of whether it was about the record, the tour, the business, the promotion, anything. In old GNR Slash had as much chance to contribute as Axl, pretty much as many rights as Axl and the same amount of responsibility. That was a band. Totally agree with you! Just wondering: now that Axl seemed to have become more matured, etc ... do you guys think there might be a chance that he shares the name GNR with Slash and Duff again (not including Izzy and Steven in my question as they are not on stage with them)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asia Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 11 minutes ago, RooSaa said: Totally agree with you! Just wondering: now that Axl seemed to have become more matured, etc ... do you guys think there might be a chance that he shares the name GNR with Slash and Duff again (not including Izzy and Steven in my question as they are not on stage with them)? Nah, don't think so, too much at stake here, too much money and his entire future in case anything goes wrong, I don't believe he'll risk it. But that doesn't necessairily mean that in this particular entity called Guns N'Roses they can't have or even don't have equal rights. Then, if anything, they can just put it on hold again and Axl will continue with his one man band under the same name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philipm787 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Does anyone have any idea what kind of salary the additional musicians are on? Like, any ideas how much those members would make come the end of this NA leg? Or how much they'd take away per show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trev Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Axl, Slash, Duff, Fortus, Frank, Dizzy, and Melissa are the current line up of the band. Period. Axl, Slash, and Duff are the most popular and important members. That's it in a nutshell. There is no other way it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asia Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, trev said: Axl, Slash, Duff, Fortus, Frank, Dizzy, and Melissa are the current line up of the band. Period. Axl, Slash, and Duff are the most popular and important members. That's it in a nutshell. There is no other way it is. Really? No, they are THE BAND. The rest are additional musicians that are totally dependent on the three. Period. Mind yu that even team brasil was scared to advertise the "current line-up" until months into the tour, not knowing if they last until the beginning of the tour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstar Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 According to the tour program: - All of them are listed as "the band". - The Guns 'N' Roses management is the same as before the reunion (Team Brazil). - Slash and Duff have their own managers. Judging from this, the legal status of the touring band seems to be a partnership between Slash, Duff and Guns 'N' Roses (which is legally Axl's band). Dizzy, Richard, Frank and Melissa are band members under contract, which makes them legally GnR's (Axl's) employees. Of course Slash and Duff, as partners, have a say on everything that has to do with the tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fallglimmer Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 9 hours ago, Mendez said: You seem to have a misconception of what being an official member of the band is, and what being in the partnership is. Slash & Duff werent in the band for some time, and in their place were other musicians. Just like how Josh Klinghoffer is an official member of Red Hot Chili Peppers (filling the roll as lead guitarist after longtime guitarist John Frusciante left the band), Fortus is an official member of the band, as was Buckethead, Robin Finck, Tommy Stinson, Brain, (and Paul Huge and the keyboardists) They dont have a say in what goes on with the album after they record any songs (just like how Klinghoffer likely doesn't have a say in Red Hot Chili Peppers releases, whether or not if he is an essential part of the band). Slash and Duff remained in the partnership, while not staying in the band. Izzy will likely never be in the partnership again even if he comes back because he signed it off (and because he has a repupation among the band of dissapearing after a while, so they likely wouldnt risk him joining the partnership after rejoining the band, then taking off after a couple of months) Thats not to say he isnt/wasnt important. And thats not to say any one is equal or unequal to any other in terms of importance, its just that they are part of the band. Something similar happened with KISS, even after Peter and Ace left in the 80's they remained partners for a few years. Peter was bought out, not sure when or how Ace turned his share over. All replacement members, including Ace and Peter during the reunion, were hired hands of KISS Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trev Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 4 hours ago, Asia said: Really? No, they are THE BAND. The rest are additional musicians that are totally dependent on the three. Period. Mind yu that even team brasil was scared to advertise the "current line-up" until months into the tour, not knowing if they last until the beginning of the tour Really. It's not a band without drums and the rythm guitar...or keys for that matter. They were advertising Axl, Duff, and Slash playing together for the 1st time in 25 years. It's simple stuff, I don't know what you're having trouble understanding. There's a difference between a partnership and a band. The band is the group of musicians playing the songs. Really simple concept here folks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archtop Posted August 16, 2016 Author Share Posted August 16, 2016 59 minutes ago, trev said: There's a difference between a partnership and a band. The band is the group of musicians playing the songs. Really simple concept here folks. The lineup we see now is a band, if you take the definition as a group of Muscians playing together, I agree with you. As stated elsewhere in this thread, this lineup is being advertised in the tour programs as the band. However is the band Guns n Roses? I see Slash, Axl and Duff as GnR, wth everyone else as touring/additional or replacements to the band. A lot of posts point out the difference between the partnership and hired hands, most agree on this. So I can't help thinking, marketing the "Big 3" would have been a stronger way fordward for GnR. It seemed to start off this way with the reunited Slash, Axl and Duff. As the other band members were revealed this concept seems to have gotten lost or watered down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 It depends on how you look at it and it is rather complicated. Firstly, there is the 'marketed band'. The surest way to find out who is in the marketed band is to look at formal photo shoots or the credits on albums - both difficult with this band! - but somebody mentioned them being marketed as such in the tour book, thus Frank, Richard and co. are 'Guns N' Roses' (or that is what they want to put across). Incidentally Gilby and Matt were also 'GN'R' until Axl had them relegated in the Live Era booklet - all of the memorabilia and TSI booklet had Gilby as present as the rest. Then there are 'additional musicians' who are not GN'R. There does not seem to be any present now, but this included in the past Tracy, Roberta, Teddy etc. Incidentally, this can include 'core members' (guitar/bass/drums): Darryl Jones for instance, bassist for The Stones, is not included in The Rolling Stones. He does everything Wyman did, yet he is not, fairly or unfairly, a Stone! I think it is similar with The Who. Then you have the legal relationship and leadership. Axl, Slash and Duff are the three partners who control all of the licensing and no doubt have ironed out this tour between them. They are the leadership. They are probably taking a cut on gate receipts. The rest are salaried and have little power. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mendez Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 On 8/16/2016 at 1:25 AM, Asia said: A band to me implies some... Alright i see your point, fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babooshka Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 Thing is, when people reference The Who or The Stones etc. those are bands with core line-ups that have been consistent for decades. So the concept of the band is clearer. Guns has been a mess for 23 years, then Duff and Slash return under shrouded circumstances. So who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archtop Posted August 18, 2016 Author Share Posted August 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Babooshka said: Thing is, when people reference The Who or The Stones etc. those are bands with core line-ups that have been consistent for decades. So the concept of the band is clearer. Guns has been a mess for 23 years, then Duff and Slash return under shrouded circumstances. So who knows. yeah, I get that it would be difficult. This is why IMO if they had stuck to the concept of the Big3 it wouldn't matter if you had a revolving door of members in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlRoseCDII Posted August 19, 2016 Share Posted August 19, 2016 The only member I'd argue is a "touring member" is Melissa. How anyone considers Dizzy a backing musician is beyond me. He's been an official member since 1990 and has played on every album since the UYI Albums. Richard and Frank both had key parts in Chinese Democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 I've always seen GN'R as the AFD members, then Matt, then Gilby and now Richard and Frank. Everyone else is either seriously massively pushing the need to be called a member (Dizzy for the past 26 years), a nu Guns member or seriously confusing (Melissa, what the hell does she do and why is she needed?). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 5 hours ago, AxlRoseCDII said: How anyone considers Dizzy a backing musician is beyond me. He's been an official member since 1990 and has played on every album since the UYI Albums. Richard had key parts in Chinese Democracy. 1. Look at the instrumental credits on UYI and TSI?. If that justifies being a member of a band, as opposed to being compared to the likes of West Arkeen or someone like that, then he wasn't a fifth Beatle, George Martin was the second Beatle. 2. Richard seems to always get elevated above Paul Tobias because no one likes the latter because his role in the breakup of the original band when really Paul was the CD rhythm guitarist (of course, in conjunction with Robin, Bucket and Bumble). Richard plays on like 4 songs, doesn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts