SoulMonster

The rumors really started in late 2018 when Mitch Lafon mentioned that the band might have recorded the cover and that it would be included on an upcoming T-Rex tribute project (Angelheaded Hipster - Another Look at Marc Bolan). The producer of this project (Hal Wilmer) quickly shot down the rumors, stating that the cover of Children of the Revolution to be featured in this project was recorded by Kesha, not GN'R. But interestingly, Wilmer also stated that there were rumors that GN'R with Axl had recorded the song, but for another project....

Cool! I picked up a 1987 German pressing while in Germany in 1988. Now I know what it is worth.

Very disorganized and definitely something that needs to be cleaned up, but this thread has a few contemporary reviews of Appetite: (22) Appetite for Destruction (a-4-d.com)

I never used the words "wild" or "crazy", I said he is unpredictable.

You predicted him reuniting with Slash? You predicted him fronting AC/DC? You predicted him suggesting to cover Slither? You predicted him reworking Silkworms into Absurd and releasing it as the first single after Slash rejoined GN'R?

It is not only on paper when they are out touring and releasing music. "Only on paper" would be if the band was dormant.

It doesn't matter what people thought of Slash leaving or whether the band "might as well be dead". A band that releases music and tours simply isn't dead. It isn't Just because people didn't like it doesn't mean that it ceased to exist. People can't will away the existence of a bandor anything else. They can't cover their ears and eyes and go, "nananannanana!" and think the Guns N' Roses was dead and gone simply because they were more comfortable with that thought. It wasn't dead. It wasn't gone. The band released one new album and did more than 300 shows in that period. Yes, it was far from as popular as with the UYI lineup; yes, the band was periodically laughed at; yes, many fans of Slash got whiny about it and lost interest; yes, it was a crazy circus at times. But no, the band didn't end, the band didn't fold, the band didn't stop activity, the band survived - through all of this. And that's really the definition of surviving, to get through hard times without ending. Which is exactly what the band did. So when people claim the band didn't survive Slash leaving I can't help from laughing.

At your service. It kind of depends when you put the start to nuGuns, it is not straightforward to demarcate since the dissolution of the UYI lineup happened over a few years and the formation of a new touring lineup also took some time. Duff, as the last from the UYI lineup (besides Axl and Dizzy), left in 1997; the post-UYI lineup that did the first show was fully formed in 2000 when Brain joined. This first touring lineup then started touring in 2001 and 2002, but ended spectacularly. Then it took a few years before a new lineup was back at it in 2006. From then the band toured fairly regularly (with some lineup changes) until 2014. 2001: 4 2002: 23 2003: 0 2004: 0 2005: 0 2006: 74 2007: 20 2008: 0 2009: 4 2010: 71 2011: 40 2012: 69 2013: 22 2014: 24

Yes, Slash wrote a bunch of songs and wanted them to be the basis for a new GN'R album. Axl and Duff didn't agree. Slash then, because of this but also because of other things, gradually phased out and lost interest in GN'R. As I explained. His attention shifted away from GN'R to his other projects.

Only insomuch as the band was dead after Slash left in 1996. And a band that releases music and tours isn't really dead by any rational definition of the word. It takes a special kind of fanboy to argue that a band that does 351 shows has died and ceased to be. What I think they mean is that the band died to them when an important member of the band left. But one should be able to distinguish between these two things. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Axl would continue touring if Slash was to leave, but I do think he would continue releasing CD era music and thus keep the band active in that sense. And if he were to continue touring, and Axl often surprises me, I am sure he could put a new lineup together and do it with moderate success as was the case with nuGuns, unless he isn't capable anymore.

Well, it is a technicality in the way that it is the meaning of the word to survive Still, the band continued on, released new music and did 351 gigs. It seems like people here think that to survive or to die is not a binary thing.

Did the band survive Slash leaving in 1996? Err, yes? They continued on, released a record with new material, and did 351 shows all over the world. Did they do as well as back in the 90s or tour as successfully as after Slash and Duff rejoined the band? Of course not. But the continued to exist as a band, they survived.

Of course Axl might not want to do it. Who knows? But if he wanted to continue touring, he could do so even without Slash. But again, this isn't only about touring. He could easily stop touring (because he'd have to scale down the production or because he felt he couldn't deliver high enough quality or because he wanted to relax more) and still release music. Again, this notion that there is no other alternative for Axl if Slash was to leave then to end Guns N' Roses, doesn't take into account the unpredictability of Axl or the fact that if he wanted to, he could keep it going, both in terms of touring or releasing music.

No, actually if no employment contract is signed, then they aren't employees. One can get compensated for work and not be an employee (like external consultants). But if you have an employment contract you are per definition an employee.

I only said it would work, not that it would be identical in every aspect to the nuGuns era. That being said, I think a new lineup could draw similar crowds as in 2012-2014 (assuming Axl's voice was in similar shape and the rest of the lineup was good). As for how a record would fare in comparison to CD, well that's a tough call. On one hand you have an even worse climate for rock and the fact that Slash wasn't there would get a lot of attention, but if Slash left on amicable terms then Axl might benefit on a better reputation than in 2008 and hopefully the music would be judged based on how good it is and less on politics. Still, my point was not to argue it would sell the same as CD, only that Axl could release music and hence that GN'R would survive.

Hypothetically speaking, if Duff and Slash were to release an album by Guns N' Roses without Axl's approval, Axl could either sue them because it would be a breach of the 1992 partnership agreement or argue that he had left the partnership and hence owned the name. In either case I think Axl would have a good legal case. If Axl, on the other hand, were to release new GN'R music without Slash and Duff's approval, like more CD era music without their contributions, I think Slash and Duff could sue him for breaching the 1992 partnership agreement. Axl's defense then would be that he has withdrawn from that partnership and hence is allowed to release GN'R music as he sees fit. The problem with that, I believe, is that he would then possibly open himself up for (again) being sued for not having allowed Slash and Duff to out-license music earlier or be impotent in preventing them from doing so in the future. So in that sense they are locked together. A problem might come if they don't agree on new music, say if Axl wants to release more of the CD era music and Slash don't. Such an impasse could be broken by Axl (again) leaving the partnership, or arguing that he already did back in 1995, which would free him to do whatever he wants. But again, that would likely come at the cost of another lawsuit and possible compensation to Slash and Duff for having refused to out-license music earlier. For me, this would be a worst-case scenario since Axl could decide that the costs of such legal wranglings would be too high and just give up on releasing music again. Is it likely that Slash and Duff would agree to keep on adding to CD era songs and have these released? I think they would do it if Axl refused to work on new music, because that would be the only way to get new GN'R music out (especially if they kept touring with huge profits), but I also wouldn't be surprised if they just refused to keep releasing music they didn't help to write under the GN'R name, thus forcing the band into a standstill until either of them gave in. I am actually surprised that Slash and Duff agreed to work on CD era music, but I think this is representative of the good-will and positivity that existed (and possible still exist) after they rejoined the band. Axl suggested playing Slither and they suggested to work on CD era songs that obviously meant a lot to Axl. Axl was professional through and through and all was good and great.

I've thought about that. Slash has said that nothing was signed as he joined GN'R again, which would imply that the 1992 partnership agreement is still valid. According to it, as I interpret it, Axl can not release new GN'R music without Slash's agreement. And likewise, Slash and Duff couldn't release GN'R music without Axl's approval. Another question entirely is of course if the partnership agreement really is valid from a legal perspective considering that both Axl and Slash seem to have withdrawn from it at some point, but obviously this is of no practical interest because if the parties themselves think it is still valid, then it is valid. And since all lawsuits where the validity of it could be tested, were dismissed, we don't have a legal conclusion on this. Oh, my analogy failed! Yes, I did not mean that being unfaithful is morally right

I only skimmed the rest of your post which was mostly based on what you want to believe and not supported by much facts. The quote above exemplifies this: "Sabotage" is quite possible a too strong word and implies ill-will on Slash's part which might not have been there, but he certainly wasn't "just trying to get something done and move on," unless you mean actually refer to record the Snakepit album and tour to support it. Again, as Slash himself has admitted, he stopped going to GN'R rehearsals. That does simply not align with someone doing all he could to move the band forward. He wasn't comfortable in GN'R at the time (for various reasons) and found happiness elsewhere, just like he did with Velvet Revolver and his solo record some years later. And there is nothing wrong with this. I am sympathetic to him feeling miserable while in GN'R, it can't be easy dealing with Axl (or his posse), but don't paint it as Slash was some valiant knight fighting to move GN'R forward. Like a husband in a miserable marriage he found himself a lover, and that mistress was Snakepit..

But they aren't employees because they haven't signed employment contract which would regulate the relationship between them and Axl under US employment laws. They are partners as other people have pointed out and argued for earlier, because they are parties to a partnership agreement.

It is certainly unusual and weird to operate with the assumptions that partners are always equal and that the only other alternative is an employee-employee relantionship. A partnership simply means that two or more people or entities work towards some defined objective.

Then it seems like we more or less agree, it is just you throwing expressions like "survive" and "dead as a dodo" around with very little accuracy. You also seem to forget that a band doesn't need to tour to be an active band, it would be enough to work on and release music.

That's a truly weird and unusual way to look at "employment" and "partners".

It is hard to understand what you mean by "survive". If you mean "continue to tour with the same amount of people coming to the shows" then of course you are right, GN'R wouldn't be able to do that without Slash. But "survive" is much more broad than that, it simply means that the band doesn't cease to exist. In my opinion, and this is really elementary, GN'R could continue to exist but as a less popular band without Slash. Slash's absence wouldn't make it impossible for Axl to release music, nor for him to tour with much less people coming to the shows (if he still wanted to tour). So you are wrong. And my perspective on this has of course nothing to do with defending anything but purely with logic and reason. You constantly trying to ridicule my opinions as if they are solely moved by me wanting to "defend" the band is incredibly immature and simplistic and only makes you appear like a simpleton who are not able to understand the finer points of arguments and perspectives.

Guns N' Roses survived Slash quitting in the 90s and would survive Slash leaving now, too. Any albums released would sell less, sure, and tours would be far less profitable, but it worked before and would work again. Is Slash likely to leave? Definitely not as long as they keep the succesful tours going. But if they stop touring and start fighting over new music, Slash would likely shift his attention away from GN'R and maybe altogether leave. A possible scenario could be Axl insisting on prioritizing working on and releasing more CD era music with Slash insisting on writing new songs. In such a situation, with the band being deadlocked, Axl might force Slash out to be able to keep releasing his songs. And with no intention to tour, it wouldn't matter that much if Slash was gone.

No, of course not. I think he was being entirely honest in the chat. If we are to trust Axl, then Slash has lied or at least exaggerated Axl's desire to broaden out the music of GN'R after the 1990 touring when he (Axl) really wanted or agreed to make an album more in the vein of classical rock, but Slash sabotaged this; and when Slash had left GN'R, Axl wouldn't be able to make such a record because he didn't have the players for it any more, so that steered the music more in the direction of what would eventually be Chinese Democracy. In my opinion, I think Axl was interested in keeping GN'R music fresh and exciting and not stagnating, but eventually agreed or decided to make a more traditional sounding record (either because of pushback from Slash or simply because he thought that the current lineup, with Slash, wouldn't be the right vehicle for that). That Slash then sabotaged this sounds crazy, but as I alluded to above, there is a possibility that Slash realized he would be better off by not helping to realize that record. In either case, Slash's focus was on Snakepit and as he admitted himself, he stopped coming to rehearsals. So the outcome was, regardless of whether this was Slash consciously trying to sabotage GN'R or just not being present and motivated, that things didn't move forward (also of course due to Axl's peculiarities). Then Slash left and Axl was more free to move GN'R in whatever musical direction he wanted, but also still limited by the musicians at hand. And those musicians came in with very different skills and interests, and also changed frequently. Looking at the Village leaks the music really is a schizophrenia of styles and genres, from very traditional sounding songs that could have fit on Appetite or UYI to much more experimental (both electronic but also avant garde guitar from Buckethead).