Blackstar

I just came across this. Probably the only one that competes with the Maiden one: But the Maiden one must definitely be the worst I've seen from a widely known artist. (Sorry for the O/T everyone - that's the last one from me)

Isn't the first one just a hoax? It would at least be funny, if it was real. The back cover of the second one is even worse: https://www.discogs.com/release/12744199-Alan-Franklin-Come-Home-Baby

I don't know the story behind it, but found this: In myriad lists ranking Iron Maiden album covers, the bottom rung is nearly always occupied by Dance Of Death. It’s as surprising as the sun rising and setting. The astonishingly bad cover art looks like somebody on a six-day bath salts binge broke into a department store and set up an orgy of mannequins wearing animal masks from the Halloween aisle. Dickinson ultimately referred to it as “embarrassing.” The artwork designer, David Patchett, reportedly disassociated himself from the finished product, alleging that the band used his “unfinished prototype.” https://www.loudersound.com/features/10-things-you-never-knew-about-iron-maidens-dance-of-death-album

This must be the worst album artwork that I've ever seen in my life

And after that article, the online store of Universal Italy removed the part about The General being vinyl exclusive.

No, that's a different track.

Here is everything about the circumstances under which Gilby was out of GN'R: https://www.a-4-d.com/t5017-18-november-1993-november-1994-axl-and-slash-disagrees-gilby-is-dismissed#20101 https://www.a-4-d.com/t5017-18-november-1993-november-1994-axl-and-slash-disagrees-gilby-is-dismissed#20103 https://www.a-4-d.com/t5017p30-18-november-1993-november-1994-axl-and-slash-disagrees-gilby-is-dismissed#20116 About Pawnshop Guitars: https://www.a-4-d.com/t5017-18-november-1993-november-1994-axl-and-slash-disagrees-gilby-is-dismissed#20105 And about Gilby suing GN'R: https://www.a-4-d.com/t5018-19-december-1994-october-1996-axl-and-slash-fights-slash-quits#20213 * I think Axl's "Enjoy your last show" to Gilby in Argentina 1993 (if Axl really said it like that) was a joke, because everything was still uncertain at that time, even though Axl had clarified from the beginning after Gilby was hired that they didn't know if Gilby would write with the band or would be only for the tour. I also don't think Gilby knew or understood what musical direction Axl wanted to go to at the time (probably not even Axl himself had a clear idea of what he wanted to do). Gilby talked about Axl's "industrial" direction only some years later, when Axl had started forming NuGnR and had hired Moby as the producer. But there's no indication that Axl wanted to go to an industrial direction with GN'R in 1994 (he had only talked about a potential solo album with Trent Reznor). Gilby most likely relied on what happened later to fill the blanks of what he didn't understand.

This is unrelated to Kat's lawsuit. It's a court ruling on another lawsuit GN'R filed two years ago for trademark infringement against a company named "Texas Guns and Roses" that runs a florist store but also sells guns in their store in Texas as well as on their website. Although the company is based in Texas, GN'R filed the lawsuit in a federal court in California, because trademark laws are federal laws (meaning they apply to all states in the U.S.). However, in order for litigation to take place in another state than the one a company is based, there has to be some relation or business activity of that company in that other state. The attorneys of the firearms store argued that the store didn't do business or sell guns in California, so the lawsuit should be dismissed on those grounds. GN'R's lawyers claimed that it did, but the only evidence they presented was that it was an online store, so it would sell everywhere and that some of the guns were labeled as manufactured and suitable for California. The court found that this wasn't sufficient evidence and didn't mean anything, as there was no proof that any guns were actually sold to customers from California and there were no advertisements aimed at the California market. And furthermore, that there are actually regulations that don't allow a Texas based store to sell guns in California. So the California court dismissed GN'R's lawsuit on the basis that it had no jurisdiction on it since the company sued by GN'R didn't do business there. And it is pointed out in the ruling that GN'R and their attorneys probably filed the lawsuit in California and not in Texas because it was convenient to them, but their convenience is not of importance to the court.

It looks like GN'R's lawyers really blew it in this case: In this case, Defendant does not direct any advertisements to the State of California and none of Defendant’s sales through the <http://texasgunsandroses.com> website or in conjunction with the TEXAS GUNS AND ROSES Marks have been made to any residents or customers located in the State of California. Docket No. 25-1, ¶ 7. Nevertheless, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s acts were expressly aimed at the forum state because Defendant identifies certain firearms offered for sale on its Website as “California Compliant," and “California Legal” and as having a “Compmag Compliant Magazine.” Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that such conduct is insufficient to satisfy the express aiming requirement. As pointed out by Defendant, federal regulations strictly limit a Texas-based store’s ability to sell or offer for sale firearms to residents and customers in California. See 18 U.S.C. § 922, et seq. Thus, it is not entirely surprising that Defendant has not directed any advertisements to the State of California or that Defendant has not made a single sale through its Website to any residents or customers located in the State of California. Furthermore, whether a product is “California Compliant” or “California legal” is simply a factual statement about the qualities of the product, and the Court concludes that such a statement does not, without more, indicate that Defendant had the intent or purpose to serve the California market. While the manufacturer may have designed these products with the California market in mind, these “California Compliant” or “California legal” products can also be purchased and used in Texas (or elsewhere). Defendant has merely included all relevant information regarding a particular firearm or other product within the product title or descriptions to assist a customer in making a purchasing decision. ... There is also no indication that this matter could be more efficiently resolved in California, and Texas appears to offer an appropriate alternative forum. Although Plaintiff may have an interest in litigating this action in California because it is more convenient, the Ninth Circuit has held that “the plaintiff’s convenience is not of paramount importance” to the reasonableness inquiry.

Yeah, GN'R's attorneys claimed in the lawsuit that the company did business in California, too (although based in Texas), but they apparently didn't have any evidence to support the claim. https://www.docdroid.net/ua36C7y/20221201-jersey-village-florist-guns-lawsuit-pdf It's the same legal team that has represented GN'R in all the other trademark related lawsuits

Yes, it was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, because the lawsuit was filed in the District Court of California. The judge ruled that there was no proof that the company did business there, so GN'R should have filed it in Texas: https://www.docdroid.net/LbAi6Zr/20230606-jersey-village-florist-guns-lawsuit-pdf

Yeah, he also involves King Charles and Dianna in all his lawsuits. In the GN'R one (and likely in the other ones, too) he requested for the court to pay his basic filing fees and the request has been granted

No, he felt that the money he was paid by the company that works with GN'R and handles the concert merchandise was not enough and that he should be able to sell copies himself: https://www.mygnrforum.com/topic/215649-tour-lithographs-and-show-specific-artwork/?do=findComment&comment=4893442

Real lawsuit filed in L.A. Superior Court (I have just removed the guy's personal info - phone, email, etc.)"

Here is the full document. I had posted the link on one of the first pages of this thread: https://www.docdroid.net/ecAH9bW/20231024-lawsuit-gundam-touring-services-us-llc-v-benzova-pdf

I haven't felt foolish spending reasonable amounts of money for music I like. And in the case of GN'R I have spent the absolute minimum over the course of 30+ years, considering their small output, my lack of interest in having different versions of the same thing or compilations of stuff I already have, and (in the post-internet era) that I don't need to buy a physical copy of something in order to have access to it. And merchandise of any kind (from any band) is something I have never had the slightest interest in. So it's just the music they have put out (well, most of it), two concerts, and that's it. Now, if time is money, I have spent a lot of time on GN'R in the last 8 years and maybe I should feel a bit foolish for that (and for getting to a point of knowing the most obscure facts about them). But I see it basically as a form of harmless and cheap entertainment or a guilty pleasure kind of similar to being addicted to a soap opera. And I feel that if/when it stops being that, I'll just check out completely (as shitposting is not entertaining for me at all). In reality, though, we all know that in this day and age a physical product is never going to be the only way to get the content of it. For example, technically the only way to get the video of The Ritz was to buy the whole UYI package. Although I wanted it, I wouldn't spend that amount of money, but I knew that I would get it anyway (and we all did).

I was surprised by that, too. One explanation I can think of is that sometimes Axl used the working titles the band members came up with as a source of inspiration for the lyrical subject matter in the way of free association. A general is an authority figure, so he made the association with his stepfather and his rough childhood overall, and then with how that affected his future relationships. Or maybe he didn't come up with the subject matter through that process, but decided to keep the title because of the association.

He wanted to be allowed to sell some signed copies himself, if I remember correctly, but it didn't seem it was part of the agreement with him or any of the other artists.

Better than anything with skulls and skeletons (like most lithos).

Two more interviews (audio): https://music.apple.com/us/station/strombo-with-duff-mckagan/ra.1716437908 (available only on Apple Music for the time being) https://loudwire.com/listen-live/ (press Play and then go to "Loudwire Nights: On Demand") In the second one he talks a bit about the GN'R tour and the Perhaps video.

It says so on the Japanese online store: This CD single release is available in Japan only, coupling the remarkable "Perhaps" with another new song "The General." Comes with lyrics and a description. https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/feature/Guns-N-Roses-Perhaps-Japan-only-SHM-CD-release

Maybe just bad memory regarding that. I assume her lawyers found out about The Mayflower, too (through the Stern interview) and that's why the lawsuit says that the hotel was on Central Park West. If I'm not mistaken, The Pierre and The Plaza are on the other side of Central Park. According to Matt Sorum's book (leaked version), Axl stayed at The Mayflower (which Matt describes as "a typical rock 'n' roll hotel") also in July 1989, when he and Izzy jammed with The Cult at the Scrap Bar (and I suppose he was still staying there when he was joined by West Arkeen around the same date).

It's been confirmed that at the time of the Stern interview (and Riki's audition) Axl was staying at The Mayflower. Not only from Riki Rachtman, but It is mentioned in the later Stern interview with Axl and Sebastian Bach that The Mayflower was the hotel Stern had called Axl at.

Definitely not an insider, but I think there's a small chance that he's not a troll and really has information from Universal Italy. Trolls usually pretend to know details and provide a "narrative" with patterns that are familiar to the fans (e.g. it's been delayed because Axl fell out with the label, etc.). This user didn't do that, so if he's a troll he's smarter than most of them.

It's this guy (picture from her book): The picture from the documentary: The two pictures could be from the same night because he's wearing the same Cathouse shirt, but it's not certain. And the picture of Axl from the documentary: