ThinkAboutYou Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I haven't seen any evidence except a few people saying they have unnamed sources that say Slash is at fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris 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.Oh, ok. I'll tell you what, come round to my house and dictate my life to me. Fortunatley I can forgive your straight forward thinking as I realise you are defending your baby, slash. He has screwed us over, he has had well over a year to voice his concearns instead of a last minute snub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceguy Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Holy shit. I can't believe people are taking a rumor of completely-unknown origin as a fact. This is a fascinating study in human psychology, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Val22 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I checked rockfuel.com and dates for the release of the GNR movie are all TBA.Guess that tells us nothing much right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew07 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I checked rockfuel.com and dates for the release of the GNR movie are all TBA.Guess that tells us nothing much right now.saw that today as well, not a good sign but who knows these days anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naupis Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 He has screwed us overAxl screwed everyone, not Slash, by allowing the project to get this far down the road without having the proper clearances in place beforehand.Not to mention the fact it would be in his best interest to take control of his career and stop living in the past by allowing himself and his band to be at the mercy of a bandmate who left 18 years ago as to whether they can release something or not.If Axl wasn't trying to milk Appetite for the 100th time he wouldn't have to worry about getting Slash's permission to do anything.Maybe he should take the hint that it's time to move on with new material Slash wasn't a part of. It would be easier to release, and make the fans happier than this latest attempt to cash in on Appetite. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkAboutYou Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Is it normal practice in Business to announce a cinema release and product release dates without contracts being finalized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Holy shit. I can't believe people are taking a rumor of completely-unknown origin as a fact. This is a fascinating study in human psychology, however.Well UK Subs has been right in the past and a lot of us have non reason to doubt him.It might just be fine print details and something where the contract contriticted itself and things can move on as planned or it could be a blatant snub in regards to HOF, guitar hero, his own dvds and generally hating Axl. Edited March 14, 2014 by Axl_morris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damn_Smooth Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) 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!It's called the blocking of a video. You're very much welcome.Edit: Oh yeah, linkYou're still welcome. Edited March 14, 2014 by Damn_Smooth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) 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 reasoning is very disappointing. If you're a bit ignorant about this subject you shouldn't comment.Oh, ok. I'll tell you what, come round to my house and dictate my life to me.Fortunatley I can forgive your straight forward thinking as I realise you are defending your baby, slash. He has screwed us over, he has had well over a year to voice his concearns instead of a last minute snub.Oh, you're mad at Slash because he has screwed you over? That has nothing to do with being ignorant about a royalties-related subject.The context is irrelevant here, like I said, your reasoning about royalties and sync licenses is disappointing. Stating that Slash should be thankful because the songs *aren't* the same is dumb. You know that applies to everyone, no? That wouldn't be fair to Axl or any musician in the world. But hey, that's how your mind works. "You're defending your baby, Slash" - Someone is very upset. Relax bro, breathe. Edited March 14, 2014 by Nosaj Thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naupis Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion?Axl should just do what Slash had to do here in the States and release the DVD without any songs Slash played on.Slash made it work, so could Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) These two douchebags would both be better off to just let either one release anything with Guns N' Roses songs in them instead of blocking everything. They would get more money, which seems to be the main concern for BOTH right now, and the fans would be much happier. But no, let's both behave like little bitches and fuck our fans, that have been constantly fucked in the last 20 years. Edited March 14, 2014 by Cosmonaut 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion?I can understand your frustation. However, I can't understand the assumptions you're freely making.Who confirmed that Slash is trying to stop or stopping a worldwide release? Would you mind if you can provide me a link to read about it? Now, what does "trying to stop or stopping" mean? It means that Slash doesn't want the gig to be released at all. Not for money, not for a mansion in Hawaii. As far as I could read about it, he wanted more revenue and we don't have the details for that.The law in the UK is different than in the USA. If Slash released an uncut gig in the UK, Axl could do the same. It's hard to believe or assume that Axl had to approve that BUT if he approved the release of the Slash's DVDs in UK but Slash is refusing to do the same then I will fully agree with you that this is a shit move from Slash. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkAboutYou Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I doubt we will ever seen the details of the negotiations or the contracts related to this so let the speculation roll on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion?I can understand your frustation. However, I can't understand the assumptions you're freely making.Who confirmed that Slash is trying to stop or stopping a worldwide release? Would you mind if you can provide me a link to read about it? Now, what does "trying to stop or stopping" mean? It means that Slash doesn't want the gig to be released at all. Not for money, not for a mansion in Hawaii. As far as I could read about it, he wanted more revenue and we don't have the details for that.The law in the UK is different than in the USA. If Slash released an uncut gig in the UK, Axl could do the same. It's hard to believe or assume that Axl had to approve that BUT if he approved the release of the Slash's DVDs in UK but Slash is refusing to do the same then I will fully agree with you that this is a shit move from Slash.I don't think that is exactly the case. A sync license could be granted with territorial restrictions from what I understand, or a lack thereof. So, just because one person has a license that cuts out only the US, that doesn't necessarily the other person will automatically get the same.Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion?I can understand your frustation. However, I can't understand the assumptions you're freely making.Who confirmed that Slash is trying to stop or stopping a worldwide release? Would you mind if you can provide me a link to read about it? Now, what does "trying to stop or stopping" mean? It means that Slash doesn't want the gig to be released at all. Not for money, not for a mansion in Hawaii. As far as I could read about it, he wanted more revenue and we don't have the details for that.The law in the UK is different than in the USA. If Slash released an uncut gig in the UK, Axl could do the same. It's hard to believe or assume that Axl had to approve that BUT if he approved the release of the Slash's DVDs in UK but Slash is refusing to do the same then I will fully agree with you that this is a shit move from Slash.I don't think that is exactly the case. A sync license could be granted with territorial restrictions from what I understand, or a lack thereof. So, just because one person has a license that cuts out only the US, that doesn't necessarily the other person will automatically get the same.AliFair enough.We need more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceguy Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion?Yes, I'm very confused. How do you know that Slash stopped it? And even if he did, do you know why?Please, just facts. Oh that's right, there are no facts here, none at all. Nothing more than unchecked gossip based on Internet rumors that have zero facts to back them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-GenerationX Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 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. Yeah, I had the same thought. Strange rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Comstock Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 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.Yeah, I had the same thought. Strange rationale.Not really. It's "an eye for an eye" I don't really care, as long as it's just the cinema release that's effected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion?Axl should just do what Slash had to do here in the States and release the DVD without any songs Slash played on.Slash made it work, so could Axl.the set list would read like:Chinese Democracy Better Richard Fortus Guitar Solo (Blacklight Jesus of Transylvania)Live and Let Die (Wings cover)This I Love Motivation (Tommy Stinson song) (Tommy Stinson on lead vocals, with band introductions)Dizzy Reed Piano Solo (No Quarter by Led Zeppelin)Catcher in the Rye Street of Dreams DJ Ashba Guitar Solo (Mi Amor)Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 (Pink Floyd cover) (with Axl on piano)Glad to Be Here (Bumblefoot cover) (Bumblefoot on lead vocals)The Seeker (The Who cover)Knockin' on Heaven's Door (Bob Dylan cover) (with Izzy Stradlin)Jam Encore:Don't Let It Bring You Down (Neil Young cover)Dead Flowers (The Rolling Stones cover) (with Izzy Stradlin)Jam Jam without slash's work, this DVD would be a real fucking snoozer 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.Yeah, I had the same thought. Strange rationale.Karma's quite the bitch ain't it Edited March 14, 2014 by jmapelian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoon87 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 This is all a joke, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I can look over to my slash and velvet revolver dvds and see GNR songs on it that Axl must have approved. I don't care whats not on it in the US, I dont live there.I go over to my vegas dvd...except I cant because slash stopped it.Now can you understand the confusion?Axl should just do what Slash had to do here in the States and release the DVD without any songs Slash played on.Slash made it work, so could Axl.the set list would read like:Chinese Democracy Better Richard Fortus Guitar Solo (Blacklight Jesus of Transylvania)Live and Let Die (Wings cover)This I Love Motivation (Tommy Stinson song) (Tommy Stinson on lead vocals, with band introductions)Dizzy Reed Piano Solo (No Quarter by Led Zeppelin)Catcher in the Rye Street of Dreams DJ Ashba Guitar Solo (Mi Amor)Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 (Pink Floyd cover) (with Axl on piano)Glad to Be Here (Bumblefoot cover) (Bumblefoot on lead vocals)The Seeker (The Who cover)Knockin' on Heaven's Door (Bob Dylan cover) (with Izzy Stradlin)Jam Encore:Don't Let It Bring You Down (Neil Young cover)Dead Flowers (The Rolling Stones cover) (with Izzy Stradlin)Jam Jam without slash's work, this DVD would be a real fucking snoozer 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.Yeah, I had the same thought. Strange rationale.Karma's quite the bitch ain't itSo. Many. Covers.According to Setlist.fm, "Jam" is the most played GNR song. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 That's an actual set list from the last vegas residency w/ out any of the good stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Yeah.... Axl is lucky he has a nice back catalogue, cause that show would suck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts