machinegunner

Guess we might as well copy and paste the set-list from the last show for this one?

Am I right?

Maybe ron will incorporate waltzing matilda or 2 little boys by rolf harris into his guitar solo

'True Blue' would go off! Someone needs to tell Ron about it!

Also muddles the picture further about when Axl did the whole 'name contract' thing. Niven says it happened not long after he was fired, in May '91. Slash had the date as on or around September 1st 1992. Duff gives it as July 7th 1993.

It was Sept 1st 1992. The legal documents are on Chinese Whsipers.

Hi. is that gnrevolution site? can't find them - can you provide a link please?

Man Axl must have really been on tenterhooks with such a treacherous manager.

If not one of his own, Restless Farewell by Bob Dylan

http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/restless-farewell

Hey gnrfan2007, would you mind very much addressing the following as you seem to know some background (if you don't know and can't answer, maybe someone else can)? :

-With Axl being part equal owner with Slash, Duff & Izzy from '87-'93 (if that time period is correct), did it mean he could be outvoted on things and maybe even possibly have been kicked out of the band?

-With ownership going from being equallly shared to being solely owned by Axl, this would have involved the others being BOUGHT off, right? Did they receive big payouts? thanks in advance.

Great interview but it settles nothing as Axl fans will never believe anything negative that is said about Axl no matter how many people tell the same story..

But I will say Brainsaber has been the most reasonable fan in his posts here and made some good points...well done mate..I enjoyed reading your posts....and I agree the others were dumb for signing over the name but it doesn't make what Axl did right.....

Agreed

I can't believe that:

a. they wouldn't consider everything about it very, very carefully with lawyers and loved ones, AND

b. it would not have involved BIG sums of money coming their way.

And they obviously didn't sign it over one time when Axl supposedly said that otherwise he wouldn't go on stage!

So, after thinking through all of these, please provide a rational argument why you believe Axl was unjustified to act like the "boss" of GnR, and in your words a CONTROL FREAK.

I have answered those questions adequately and more importantly rationally. Look what is going here will just be a broken record. I answered and refuted your claims and answered the question.

I am sorry your bias does not have room for the logical arguments presented to the point where you ask questions I have already addressed quite well, but that isn't on me. Revisionist history such that you provided (Axl being the sole Mr. Boss in 1985 on) after all isn't not logical and sound because of reasons already stated

You have?

Your claim is: Axl is a CONTROL FREAK

My counter claim: You can't be a control freak of something that you own

Has there ever been a time in GnR's history, where Axl was never been a MAJORITY OWNER of the name and corporation (band) named "Guns n' Roses"?

If no, then Axl has every right as a MAJORITY OWNER to assert what he wants for the band.

It's that simple.

Show me the legal documents from 1987 saying Axl is the majority owner. And saying "well if the courts had hypothetically made a ruling back then..." doesn't cut it, because hypotheticals do not dictate certainty. And the whole "original member, name creation" aspect is not logically sound because as I have said many times once the AFD guys were in place the relationship fluxuated and shifted where one singer's believes does not equate fact.

Try again

It seems you do not understand the difference between MAJORITY OWNER and SOLE MAJORITY OWNER.

When the band was incorporated in 1987, legally it was an equal partnership between Axl, Izzy, Slash, and Duff. That makes them all legally MAJORITY OWNERS of the corporation known as "Guns n' Roses".

Post-1993, after Izzy, Slash, and Duff gave up all their rights to the GnR name, and hence corporation, Axl became the legal SOLE MAJORITY OWNER of "Guns n' Roses".

Prior to 1987, there was never a legal contract or document to assert ownership of the "Guns n' Roses" name.

But it seems you have a hard time accepting that Axl Rose would be viewed as the right-ful owner of the "Guns n' Roses" name prior to 1987.

Ok, put that aside. Do you accept that Axl was a MAJORITY OWNER of the "Guns n' Roses" band prior to its incorporation in 1987?

So, now I ask you again ... was there ever a time Axl was never a MAJORITY OWNER of the "Guns n' Roses" name and hence, corporation (band)?

If you answer NO ... then you have just proven your claim that ... Axl is a CONTROL FREAK ... is FALSE.

You cannot be a CONTROL FREAK of something that belongs to you.

It's that simple.

Hi. Been reading this thread with interest, particularly p9-12 concerning ownership of GN'R etc. I've been a fan since before AFD got big and from reading all the interviews in Hit Parader, Circus, Metal Edge, Rip, etc at the time it has always been pretty obvious who was in charge and was the main driving force. It was clear that Axl was running the show.

Just got a couple of questions. I never knew that Axl was an equal owner of GNR from 1987-93 with Izzy, Slash & Duff. But if this was the case then did it mean that he could be outvoted on band decisions like whether to use a song in a movie or whatever? I mean, if important decisions had to be made by committee i imagine that that would've been really fucked! To me, it always seemed like Axl held the reigns. And, before any new ownership arrangement could be made, couldn't a 2 or 3 majority even kick him out of the band?! Btw, if the others gave up their prior equal-part- ownership in '93 (or was it earlier, like around '91 when Izzy left? I recall he complained about contracts being put in front of him for this and that) to Axl, what is known publicly about this - eg. for how much?

Just an awesome new song!