SoulMonster

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).

Boy, have I got news for you. Thanks to @Blackstar we have details about Axl's counter lawsuit from 2006 where he really lashed out as Slash: Axl's claim that Slash sabotaged three attempts at make a traditional record, is particularly interesting. It could be some truth to it, that Slash didn't want to proceed with an album because it would shift even more power to Axl through an agreement placed in escrow at the time. It is hard to say what actually happened, although Axl typically has a crystal sharp mind and good recollection he can re-interpret events in the light of new grievances and the quote above was from a lawsuit where one typically resorts to exaggerations and overstatements to win the favor for one's legal argument. For more on this lawsuit: AUGUST 2005-MARCH 2006: SLASH, DUFF AND AXL'S LEGAL BATTLE, PART II

A partnership can be 100% biased toward one partner or completely unbiased. It solely comes down to what the partners agree to. Maybe you were thinking about an "equal partnership" in which each partner has equal rights? GN'R hasn't really been an equal partnership at least since 1987 when they signed an agreement were profits were biased towards Axl - because the rest of the band accepted that he deserved more. This was continued into the 1992 partnership agreement where Axl also got more rights to the name of the band (which, in a sense makes sense since he is the founder of the band) and where Slash and Axl were given more power (over Duff) in regards to band decisions.

You think other bands typically have an entirely flat structure with no band member wielding more power than the others? Oh, how naive. Now, go and read about the Rolling Stones. Axl has been dominating GN'R since the 80s, either because he had the will to force others to do as he wanted through threats and craziness, or because they recognized him as a leader with a vision for the band, or because they signed a partnership agreement biased towards him. So both legally and in practical terms, Axl has had more power in GN'R. The 1992 partnership agreement between Slash, Axl and Duff gave Axl a larger share of profits, provided Axl with better control over ownership of the name, and identified Slash and Axl as more important than Duff when it came to band decisions. Slash has stated that no new agreements have been signed as he rejoined GN'R. I don't think we should interpret this as him being laissez faire in regards to the legal aspects of returning to the band, I am sure he has had his legal team look over the existing agreements to make sure his interests are protected, and that at least some verbal agreement, or understanding, exists between Axl and him. I would also think this means the 1992 agreement still regulates the band. This means that no one can force Axl to release music but Axl can't force Slash and Duff to do things, either. They have to all agree. Which is how it should be, of course.

Is your point that Slash and Duff have joined this new identity and thus it is Axl's band and not a true partnership? It is a bit hard to decipher what your points are when you just cut and paste quotes without any further explanation. Anyway, that letter from Axl is interesting. As would be litigated in court in the 2000s when Slash and Duff argued that since Axl had withdrawn he had the name but not the assets of the old partnership and hence couldn't stop them from licensing the old music out to third parties, Axl's position would be that his withdrawal from GN'R has never been fully realized (and that besides, Slash had withdrawn, too). The legal cases were dismissed by Slash, Axl and Duff themselves, presumably after some settlement outside of the court, so we don't know exactly what a court verdict would have been, but we know the practical implications: Slash and Duff stopped the legal fights against Axl but business continued as usual with very little out-licensing being done. Much more here: AUGUST 31, 1995: AXL WITHDRAWS FROM THE PARTNERSHIP; OWNERSHIP OF "GUNS N' ROSES"

It is not a punk song as such but in my opinion it absolutely conveys a punish sentiment. Rarity I used because I couldn't find the right English word I meant curiosa, but I don't know if that is an English word, either.

The Village material doesn't have the attention to detail because the Village material represents an early snapshot of the songs. Just look at what happend to Sorry or Shackler's Revenge in the 8 years or so that passed from the Village versions were recorded until Chinese Democracy came out. Most of the songs only existed in an early form where the attention was on the general instrumental arrangements. As I have said before, I think all of the four singles we have had could easily have replaced songs on Chinese Democracy. Replacing If The World, This I Love, Scraped and Riad, with Perhaps, Hardskool, Absurd and The General would have made that record much, much better... in my subjective opinion. Not only that, but these four singles are very varied from simple straight-forward rocker like Hardskool, to punkish rarity like Absurd, to mid-tempo and introspective piano-driven ballad like Perhaps, and to the more experimental fusion of styles with very heavy subject matter like The General. Not sure I agree they don't have the same "attention to detail" as songs off Chinese Democracy.

Why do you think that Axl doesn't want to release more of the music that he's got?

I am not so sure it won't come out without Slash. It wouldn't make a lot of sense now when the band is touring and caching in on Slash having rejoined the band, but this touring won't last forever and if Slash hasn't already added his parts to the song I suppose Axl will release them without Slash. Maybe after the current lineup has disbanded or as part of some box set in the band's sunset years. I agree with you that new music written by this lineup is required to make the band relevant again. That being said, I don't think they can become relevant again except to old fans who still listen to rock. Slash and Duff clearly wants to make a new record, a physical testament to them being back in the band and possibly - in their mind - to end the band on a better note after the detour that was Chinese Democracy. But I am not so sure Axl has it in him to do that. So don't get your hopes up.

I don't see why they need a good song stemming from the reunion. The tours are going spectacularly, new music won't make a difference either way. I am also not sure new music from this lineup would ever materialize even if they tried, nor that it would be good. Who knows? What I do know, though, is that there is killer music that is not released, like State of Grace and Quick Song. I would much rather have that in a finished form (and without Slash if they can't integrate his parts without making it all sound disjointed).

I find it difficult to rank Just Ken with the other songs, totally different genres, like apples and oranges. Sometimes I like to eat and apple, sometimes I like to eat an orange. That being said, Just Ken is great for what it is, but not something I would put on to listen to. I am going to put Killing Floor at the bottom, not because it is a bad song (it is a killer blues track originally) nor because Slash's rendition is bad, but just because it is a bit uninteresting to hear Slash rock up a blues classic. 1. Hardskool (although the version from the Village leaks is just as good if not better) 2. The General 3. Perhaps 4. Absurd