Jump to content

Euchre

Members
  • Content count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About Euchre

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

452 profile views
  1. Duff interview.

    I think both sides have clearly stated their positions, and perhaps they may be largely irreconcilable hence the continued debate. It is pretty clear Izzy's position is there needs to be an equal split of $. I suspect his thoughts are we started this band together, the whole legacy is from the music I helped write, record and tour to build the band up. (Let's face it, if there is no Appetite, the band isn't touring stadiums now.) Back then it was one for all, all for one, everything shared and if we are going to do it again, this is how it needs to be. It's a fair argument. (And also applies to Steven). The other side obviously wasn't prepared to do an equal split. I suspect their point is we retained ownership & subsequent obligations to keep the entity functioning. And by functioning I don't mean touring - certainly there would be arguments about whether that did more damage than good. I mean the annual cycle of dealing with accountants, lawyers and the whole business side of things that goes along with an entity the size of GNR. This is a fair argument as well. So how do you reconcile this ? I wonder if the only way we would ever see a reunion would be for the $ to be completely taken off the table. For example a one off show where all the proceeds go to charity. I think the thing that should be acknowledged and the facade dropped on is that this band is all about 'the music' or 'integrity' or 'putting on the best possible show'. That is BS, all that is now secondary to the $. If any of the former were true, they would have somehow worked out the $ issue as it would be secondary. Ironically, the guy who cops the most crap (ie Steven) the the only one that doesn't care about the $ and just wants to play with best lineup. It's also sad, that 5 people, from one of the most successful bands can't put $ aside. They don't need more of it, and are basically giving up something special in the pursuit of more of what they most likely don't need. I can understand a struggling band needing to do things for cash, but once your at the position GNR are at, is it better to do something that you really want to do even if it doesn't maximise your $ return or accept a little less of something you most likely don't need and do exactly what you want to do ?
  2. Duff missed a few shows in 88 and was replaced by Haggis aka Kid Chaos from the Cult. Could it be that guy ?
×