ThinkAboutYou Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I like how all GNR's problems come back to Slash a person who Axl hasn't seen since 1996 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Explain why Axl should give up the band name if:1) He never left2) It's named after him3) He named it4) He doesn't want to be a solo artist, he wants to continue his vision1/ Technically he did. On 31st December 1995, Guns N' Roses were dissolved. The band created after this, also called 'Guns N' Roses', are a seperate legal entity from the band which was formed in 1985.2/ 3/ You are ignoring Tracii Guns. You are also ignoring Izzy Stradlin who is also a founding member.4/ Fine 'vision', reducing GN'R to a cheesy Vegas act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlslash Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 This thread proves that there is literally no subject, GNR related or otherwise, that we can talk about on this board without it turning into:1) Shitting on Dj Ashba;2) Shitting on Slash;3) Shitting on Axl; or4) Shitting on any or all combinations of the above.Guys. We're getting a new release. Enjoy it.Axl could release that Legend of the Red Panda was dropping tomorrow and we'd have a 200 page thread about how much better the album would have been if Slash had either been on it or not sued to delay the release or just left Dj alone or........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yesterdays-Civil-War Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Guys. We're getting a new release. Enjoy it.We are? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Guys. We're getting a new release. Enjoy it.I suggest going back and reading through this thread a little more, no dvd. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damn_Smooth Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 This thread proves that there is literally no subject, GNR related or otherwise, that we can talk about on this board without it turning into:1) Shitting on Dj Ashba;2) Shitting on Slash;3) Shitting on Axl; or4) Shitting on any or all combinations of the above.Guys. We're getting a new release. Enjoy it.Axl could release that Legend of the Red Panda was dropping tomorrow and we'd have a 200 page thread about how much better the album would have been if Slash had either been on it or not sued to delay the release or just left Dj alone or........Fuck Slashbaxl. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 as a fan of gnr (old and new) he fucked me today...Axl is the one you should be mad at.He fucked you when he decided to keep a band name in which he needed Slash to sign off on stuff for it.Possibly the worst business model I have ever seen. Axl runs a nostalgia business that he doesn't even have the rights to do as he'd wish with.He should get out of the tribute band business and back into music at some point the way the other members have. Then these types of things wouldn't be such an issue.That is not true. Axl does not need Slash to sign off on sync licenses for the old songs because of the band name. He needs Slash's approval because he, Slash and Duff are all partners in the entity that decides on the licensing of GN'R music. Slash also needs Axl's approval to include GN'R songs in live videos using GN'R music.Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlsend Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Slash should be greatful for the $3.50Unless it was a performance of which he was in. It was't though, and the songs arent the same, the new guitarists add there own style and keysboards are added etc.Slash was paid for his songs when the album came out. He willingly signed the name over to axl and quit the band.My rant is more toward the laws that exist being complete bullshit than a direct dig at slash.Tell me something groghan, do you still prophet from a job you previously had? Do you still get paid for a days work you did 25 years ago that someone else is doing?Didn't Axl remortgage his home to pay the other members in the 90's? It's madness that this is still happening and it's the fans who lose out and get screwed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkAboutYou Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Slash and Duff might of been drunk and high but not stupid enough to give away their approval/royalty rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I think it is great haha. Typical Guns N' Roses soap opera bullshit. There is never anything interesting happening musically anyway so the political drama is why I still follow this absurd band. And, I would have not bought the dvd anyway so it not being released does not affect me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohlovelyrita Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Explain why Axl should give up the band name if:1) He never left2) It's named after him3) He named it4) He doesn't want to be a solo artist, he wants to continue his vision1/ Technically he did. On 31st December 1995, Guns N' Roses were dissolved. The band created after this, also called 'Guns N' Roses', are a seperate legal entity from the band which was formed in 1985.2/ 3/ You are ignoring Tracii Guns. You are also ignoring Izzy Stradlin who is also a founding member.4/ Fine 'vision', reducing GN'R to a cheesy Vegas act.1) Axl didn't quit the band by working out those legalities. Corporation change officers/names forall different reason. Even to financial responsibility.2/3) I was aware he named it with Traci Guns. I think "guns" came from how a girl referred to Traci. Ididn't know Izzy helped name it if that is what you are saying.4) When Axl procured the name, he saved kept the band alive. For those who are happy with thatchoice, let them enjoy it. Slash seemed to allude in that interview that the magic was gone. Whyshould anyone blame either one of them for their personal choices? Everyone is happy now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 So the old members blocked the release? Good…about time they stood up for themselves. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-GenerationX Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Explain why Axl should give up the band name if: 1) He never left 2) It's named after him 3) He named it 4) He doesn't want to be a solo artist, he wants to continue his vision With up until that last one. If this was his "vision", he's got eyes like Mr. Magoo. He kept it so he could still tour as it. Is 'Axl's Roses' headlining festivals with no new material in 10 plus years? Nope. But 'Guns N' Roses' does. He kept it for business reasons. Don't go churching it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlrod Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 So the old members blocked the release? Good…about time they stood up for themselves.Advantage for the current line-up 'though they nailed Vegas shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdHeartBreaker Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 If Axl had done this he'd be crucified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damn_Smooth Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 If Axl had done this he'd be crucified.The Slash fans are already trying to blame him for it by claiming that Axl did it with Made In Whatever, as if that would be some sort of justification even if it were true. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohlovelyrita Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 If Axl had done this he'd be crucified.The Slash fans are already trying to blame him for it by claiming that Axl did it with Made In Whatever, as if that would be some sort of justification even if it were true. Desperate times call for desperate measures.Is there any proof that Axl blocked anything? I thought it was debunked. Just trying to learn the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkAboutYou Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 No proof and speculation is this whole thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciusfunk Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Still confused at how you people can make character judgments about Slash because of this, without knowing what the facts are.If Axl and Beta offered him $3.50 for the rights to use (and for them to make a profit off of) songs that he owns publishing rights to - then how would Slash be the bad guy in that situation? I know some of you weirdly hate Slash just because Axl does, but how about waiting for the actual facts before you crucify the guy? I didn't know Slash was an eight-story tall Crustacean from the Paleolithic Era. Best post in this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damn_Smooth Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 If Axl had done this he'd be crucified.The Slash fans are already trying to blame him for it by claiming that Axl did it with Made In Whatever, as if that would be some sort of justification even if it were true. Desperate times call for desperate measures.Is there any proof that Axl blocked anything? I thought it was debunked. Just trying to learn the facts.No proof whatsoever and debunked by the fact that other DVDs involving Slash have been released featuring Guns songs. Further debunked by the fact that Slash's hissy fit is preventing release worldwide, while an imaginary Axl hissy fit only blocked it in the U.S. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Well, if I was slash, duff matt izzy and steve - I wouldn't want axl to enrich himself and his bunch of hired hands off the sweat off my back either - as with the live irving pla* show slash put and and live in stoke dvd, let axl and his bunch of hired hands make their $$ off their own creativity - which in that case, this DVD should be scrapped since they've written as many gnr songs together as I have - at least slash can put together a 15-17 song live dvd w out any of the gnr stuff he does in addition to his own shit - weren't they playing about 2-3 CD songs during their residency? The rest is afd, uyi songs that should be prohibited from a DVD as well as all the covers and band jams? Shouldmake for a great bedtime viewing for insomniacs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 If Axl had done this he'd be crucified.The Slash fans are already trying to blame him for it by claiming that Axl did it with Made In Whatever, as if that would be some sort of justification even if it were true. Desperate times call for desperate measures.Is there any proof that Axl blocked anything? I thought it was debunked. Just trying to learn the facts.No proof whatsoever and debunked by the fact that other DVDs involving Slash have been released featuring Guns songs. Further debunked by the fact that Slash's hissy fit is preventing release worldwide, while an imaginary Axl hissy fit only blocked it in the U.S.I missed the "hissy fit".............can you link me to that story?Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew07 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 so just got home from work, i assume there are no new updates from rockfuel or anyone else......god damn it slash, like you have every right to block this dvd but it doesnt mean you fucking should....fucking cuntass.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Hell yea slash should! He should make as difficult as possible for axl to milk the gnr gravy train that the old guys created Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Slash should be greatful for the $3.50Unless it was a performance of which he was in. It was't though, and the songs arent the same, the new guitarists add there own style and keysboards are added etc.Slash was paid for his songs when the album came out. He willingly signed the name over to axl and quit the band.My rant is more toward the laws that exist being complete bullshit than a direct dig at slash.Tell me something groghan, do you still prophet from a job you previously had? Do you still get paid for a days work you did 25 years ago that someone else is doing?You're reasoaning is very disappointing. If you're a bit ignorant about this subject you shouldn't comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts