Modano09

36 minutes ago, Gnrcane said:

Don't discount part of it being that they'd (translation Axl) rather play some covers so some of the royalties go to someone other than Izzy. When they play a song Izzy has writing credits on, he gets paid.

Could be a little dig to pay him a little less per night.

You get royalties if someone plays your song live?

15 minutes ago, adamsapple said:

Put simple they launch a whole new merchandise line (website, social media, corporate design and all) dedicated to a rented and spray painted tour plane.

Yeah, see I think that's stupid. I don't complain about the merchandise or money making opportunities they take part in but I don't see the appeal in this. If someone asks you what you're shirt means you're going to say it's about GNR's plane? And they'll assume you were ON the plane and then you tell them no, you just bought a t-shirt celebrating that they have a plane. 

I don't want to read 9 pages to get caught up, but the gist I'm getting is they're pushing more merchandise and we're all mad about that even though we're under no obligation to buy it?

Just now, zombux said:

yeah, what a poor boy!

He should be the drummer and he should be the king and wear crown!

Why doesn't Steven get to be king!!!!!

Found it! 

I don't love the music so far but his voice is straight fire. 

While I try to track this down, does anyone know where all these leaks are coming from all of a sudden?

I liked 2001 Axl. Then ya'll had to go and call him fat and made him run away again.

While I'm not an Adler fan myself, interviewing a member of GNR is awesome so congrats and, thanks again, @RussTCB !

2 minutes ago, Pskihq92 said:

Damn! I only checked Spotify. Don't have iTunes lol

 

AND IT'S HERE 

It must have just been added today, I looked for it yesterday and he somehow found it tonight trying to preview SOYL. 

My 4 year old nephew found it on itunes (Canada) tonight while he was looking for Shadow of Your Love.

These seem difficult to find.

9 hours ago, RONIN said:

True, they earned it...at the expense of others that should have been there. 

I get where you're coming from btw. I've always enjoyed your posts. But there's a nuanced middle ground to take here instead of mocking people that are calling out Axl and co. for being greedy (a valid perspective imho given their behavior since reuniting).

On the flip side, from a purely business perspective, it makes perfect sense to exclude Izzy and Steven. I get why they went that route. I just don't think the decision they took reflects all that well on them as people or as a brand. IMHO, it just cheapens GnR a bit. You can be purely driven by commerce and still do what is best for the brand - putting the fans as your #1 priority. Marvel does this for example. Apple does this. There are successful brands that make a lot of money and still make their consumers the #1 priority. There are also other brands that compromise their integrity - driven by immediate returns than the longer play. GnR seems to be heading in that direction (imho). Maybe the opportunity cost of losing Izzy isn't a big deal for them. If they plan to stay as a legacy act, perhaps they made the right decision.

But what if Izzy was the one who was being unreasonable? There seems to be this feeling that if they're making all this money they should give Izzy all he wants or else they're greedy, but maybe he's the one that's greedy? Axl/Slash/Duff were the ones who remained in the partnership and fought with and against each other managing the band/brand. Izzy didn't want anything to do with that. If he wanted "equal loot" to them, I think he's out of line. 

I don't think it's anyone's fault entirely. I don't think Izzy would agree to tour the world for as long as the other's decided to keep it going, but I can see why he would want equal money for whatever involvement he was up for. I just don't agree with him and I see why the other's wouldn't either. It's not necessarily just greed because at the end of the day they were all set for life a long time ago.

8 hours ago, RONIN said:

They should care only about money! They should play the shows for disgusting sums of money and blow the cash on a private jet, Axl's entourage, Del James' retirement fund and Duff's yachts.  

Why not? It's their money. It's not like they robbed a bank, they earned it.

1 hour ago, MaskingApathy said:

Well it is a brand and a business. Any band that wants to make any money and retain it has to operate that way.

They shouldn't care about money! They should play the shows for no more than what it would cost them to meet Izzy's demands.

2 minutes ago, Padme said:

Sure, the problem is the shows are not for free. They can play those songs in the shower if the love them so much. After all the masses (as someone put it) didn't bother to buy CD.  And The Seeker is not a priority for anyone either.

Well hopefully they add some deep cuts on the next leg so you can get mad at them for not adding the right deep cuts.

2 minutes ago, RONIN said:

So if Izzy is a free spirit who comes and goes as he pleases, does this mean that he cannot honor commitments or his word? The way Axl spoke about Izzy seemed to imply the latter. A signed contract is very hard to wriggle out of - especially when you're facing legal and financial repercussions. Which means Izzy would be held liable if he backed out of anything. 

 

No, it means he doesn't make commitments in the first place. This while debate gets turned into defending Izzy against the accusation he'd bail in the middle of tour, which nobody's actually accused him of. 

Just now, Padme said:

Two, again, Wow!!! There is no excuse for the amount of covers and CD songs they have been playing. 

Aside from the band apparently wanting to play them.  

3 minutes ago, RONIN said:

 

According to whom? The partners? And they're credible character witnesses? They haven't all gone back and forth about their assessments of each other in the last 30 years? 

 

This very story we're commenting on, for one. He's consistently described as some sort of free spirit who likes to come and go and do his own thing at his leisure. And nobody even says it in a negative way, that's just how he is. 

And what if it is because he demanded too much money? Is that their fault? Are they supposed to explain that publicly? 

2 minutes ago, Padme said:

Oh it worked out great during NuGN'R era. I didn't attened not a single show. I didn't like CD nor that line up. Thanks for asking 

One song. Wow!!! 

Double Talkin' Jive

6 minutes ago, Padme said:

Agree. But the masses care about the hits. Fine, the band plays them. But the ban also should add something for the die hard fans. If they are playing TIL then they also could play Pretty Tied Up. We're getting covers of artists that passed away. Ok, but they could perform the covers just in one show not in every single show.  Are you telling me you rather listen BHS and Wichita Line Man over Perfect Crime, Locomotive or Dead Horse? Do you think the masses are desperate to hear those covers? We still can't even be sure they will play SOYL

They're not playing Coma because it's a mainstream hit.

21 minutes ago, Padme said:

Well I've seen what I wanted to see. If they keep this tour going for ever with the same set list, no Adler, no Izzy and no new album. I won't be buying tickets. And I don't care about the box set or some other cash grab they may come up with. I'm drawing the line

Drawing the line on what? If you don't want to see them play again, don't. If you don't think the box set is worth the price, don't buy it. But stop acting like it's some righteous stance against the evil musicians who charge you money to hear their music.

20 minutes ago, RONIN said:

They attempted to shift the blame to Izzy and undermine his credibility by insinuating that he's unreliable and can't be depended upon. That he went back on an agreement they already had tentatively decided upon. Hence, the one guy who never makes a public statement in the band, starts a twitter account and calls their version of events "bullshit". It would appear that Izzy took some measure of offense to what they had said given his choice of words.

 

No they didn't, they didn't say he agreed to or backed out of anything. It was implied - which stating it's not meant to be a 'shot' at Izzy - that he tends to change his mind about things. Which is a pretty consistent description of him for the last 30 years. He's the one who ran to Twitter to say it was about money. Would you rather they be the ones to say Izzy wanted too much money to be there?

28 minutes ago, RONIN said:

 

This was your first mistake. Anyone who hires DJ Ashba as a partial replacement for Slash does not know GnR. Anyone who resuscitates said band from the grave and tries to continue without one-half of its songwriting team does not "know" GnR. Plenty of founders fuck up their own creations (see George Lucas).

And? A lot of people saw Transformers 3, 4, and 5 despite them being cinematic abortions. That franchise is near death though because the reputation and credibility of the IP is in the gutter. Disney minted money on that franchise but in doing so, have effectively killed the property. Commercial success does not give you a license to turn out mediocre product. The GnR brand is still so strong, they can afford to bring in people based on past glory. That may not last very long if they continue on the path they're going. 

You don't know that. They haven't even done a single interview together.

Opinions vary. The principals are generally well received. The replacements? A mixed bag and I'm being generous w/ Ferrer.

That they are. But apparently not enough to give Pitman a raise or pay Izzy what he was worth. That Axl entourage and his stage outfits are expensive to maintain.

At the prices they're charging, one would hope they could at least deliver that. Maybe we can aim a little higher here for a steak instead of a good burger.

I mean, that's their prerogative. But when they give BS reasons for why a key member of the band is missing, expect backlash. If I buy a porsche, I have certain expectations regarding the quality of the driving experience, the performance, etc. When I am buying a ticket for Guns N' Roses, there are certain basic expectations - expectations that are not being met for the most inane reasons. Now, perhaps this is okay with certain people who will take an inferior product without complaint - but others don't have to like what they're getting. 

What did they say that's so offensive about Izzy? Sometimes he wants to do something, then it can change? That's consistent with how everyone describes the guy and if it turns out he wanted more money than they were willing to give him, what good does it do to say the publicly? They can't win. And I know it's expected that they just give Izzy whatever amount of money he wanted but that's not fair either. 

Again, the vast majority of people attending these shows are having a good time because they're not going into it looking for reasons to pick apart the line up because it's not who they want it to be.