Jump to content

Dropping the Needle: Alan Niven talks GNR


AndreCC

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by gnrfan2007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

You must have missed the part where I said that hypotheticals like "would be viewed" does not hold any substantial weight.

And it doesn't matter what prior to 1987 entailed, what matters is that by 1987 when the lineup that actually mattered came to fruition that hypothetical became irrelevant.

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

Lol yes you absolutely can. If I own a house but have people staying with me and I forbid them from touching anything in the house, that is called being controlling. But Axl was not the "boss" until 1991 so that is irrelevant

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You must have missed the part where I said that hypotheticals like "would be viewed" does not hold any substantial weight.

And it doesn't matter what prior to 1987 entailed, what matters is that by 1987 when the lineup that actually mattered came to fruition that hypothetical became irrelevant.

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

Lol yes you absolutely can. If I own a house but have people staying with me and I forbid them from touching anything in the house, that is called being controlling. But Axl was not the "boss" until 1991 so that is irrelevant

It's not hypothetical! You just trying to cope out! LOL

If you claim that prior to 1987, they were all equal partners, then that makes Axl a MAJORITY OWNER. Hence, there was never a time Axl was never a MAJORITY OWNER of his band/corporation.

My positioned is that prior to 1987, the historical facts show that:

1. Axl owned the name "Guns n' Roses"

2. Axl auditioned/recruited/approved all the members

Point#1 alone gives Axl the right to be the "boss". If anybody were to start a new band and named it "Guns n' Roses", Axl could go to court to say he owns the name. All Axl would need to prove is that he was the first to use the name "Guns n' Roses".

And really, if somebody does something to your property that you do not approve off, you consider it to be a control freak to tell them not to do it? Please invite me to your house then! LOL

Edited by gnrfan2007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is from 85-90 they were all equally messed up and noone was really in charge. Then Axl started to dive deeper into songs and Slash & Duff's alcohol problems worsened. That's life. Axl took control. I wouldn't trust Guns N' Roses to a guitar player who can barely stand up on his own two feet. It's obvious who cares more about the band.

that to me is the crossroads. Izzy would have been happy to stay low key and be like Motorhead with the same manager and way of doing things. And why not? But you can see that Axl always has eyes on the prize. I doubt anyone else was think let's change the sound. But it was probably what they had to do. U2 had to do it, INXS did it, Metallica, Stones, AC/DC - they've all gone though changes to stay on top. Izzy's comment about the Stones was they should have died when they were still cool.

What they had left seemed like it would be like GNR's Draw the Line, a 9 track album with one decent rocker and a ballad, then split in acrimony only to return with a reunion record. That seemed to be what their destiny was. What happened was Axl waited 20 years and released what could have been the reunion record without doing a Draw the Line or Stones mid period. CD seems way better than Permanent Vacation or Steel Wheels. It's more the Back in Black of Nu Metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not hypothetical! You just trying to cope out! LOL

The phrase "would be" implies a hypothetical. I am sorry if you do not know what a hypothetical is but that does not equate to a "cop out"

My positioned is that prior to 1987, the historical facts show that:

1. Axl owned the name "Guns n' Roses"

There are no legalities that officially state it, as I have said time and time again. Look we are going in circles, that point is not an objective fact - never was and never will be. Sorry but no dice (and I get the feeling that you will just keep this broken record type of posting nonetheless so whatever)

He was controlling in the band, simple as that.

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So either Axl outwitted everyone else in the band, or those other people didn't care enough about the band (or have the balls) to challenge Axl. It's funny, Slash's most ardent supporters care more about the name thing than he does. Which is some delicious irony if I do say so myself.

Slash can posture all he wants, deep down it stings to know he gave away the band to Axl.

Blame Axl all ya want. But Slash and Duff aren't the idyllic little perfect band members people make them out to be. There's plenty of evidence to suggest Slash's ego was every bit as big as Axl's. Axl was just a little smarter.

This, they did n`t have have balls to challenge Axl and quit like little bitches they are

But how do you deal with a crazy person? How do you deal with someone who asks for photos to show to someone named Yoda? At one point it's normal to say fuck it. Slash, Izzy, Duff, they all moved on, while Axl's still bitching about the past. It's pathetic.

if Slash cared as much about Guns` as he claims he should have sent Axl to fuck himself he should n`t have signed over his rights he should have fought for his principles and for the band but no, instead he opted for easy option and quit because he had no balls to challenge Axl he had more power than Duff and could easily confront Axl if he wanted but drugs and alcohol fried out few bran cells he had left guy is a quitter I doin`t get why do some of you have problems to accept it. Axl is n`t innocent he largely contributed to classic lineup`s demise but Slash and Duff are n`t as innocent angels as they claim to be or their fans want to believe they did their share amount of damage and shouild be held accountable for their actions

Edited by Dark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end of GN'R is actually simple. Axl=arsehole.

Why do you people insist on licking his balls? I mean he has even fallen out with nugnr members (Buckethead)!! Everyone who has ever worked with this dickhead has suffered what Slash and Niven went through. Yet a few dicksucker fans, with no doubt Estranged on the top of their playlist, still defend this awful human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end of GN'R is actually simple. Axl=arsehole.

Why do you people insist on licking his balls? I mean he has even fallen out with nugnr members (Buckethead)!! Everyone who has ever worked with this dickhead has suffered what Slash and Niven went through. Yet a few dicksucker fans, with no doubt Estranged on the top of their playlist, still defend this awful human being.

So Buckethead is your only proof? LOL

Please tell us, what mean stuff has Buckethead said about Axl?

How many other CD members have attacked Axl? Seriously, really?

What about Slash's falling out with Scott Weiland? Have you read some of nasty stuff Slash said about Scott? What about Slash running drunk to Axl's house begging for his old job back while still being in VR with Scott Weiland? Surely, that is proof that Slash is the bad guy ... the awful human being!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Slash's falling out with Scott Weiland?

Lol have you been aware that Scott Weland has been sacked from Stone Temple Pilots again?? http://www.stonetemplepilots.com/

Scott has a lot of issues, I hope he gets the help he needs so he won't be sacked from yet another band (good thing he is going solo right now)

What about Slash running drunk to Axl's house begging for his old job back while still being in VR with Scott Weiland?

The only certainty we know is that he was at Axl's house. "Begging for his old job back" is not certain and therefore total speculation on your part.

Surely, that is proof that Slash is the bad guy ... the awful human being!

Nope

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bucket said, ''due to his incapability to release anything'' he resigns. There is also a Finck interview where he said he had 100 songs with no vocals. Rose is a joke and a wanker. Face facts. Look at the list of managers he has had. Look at the list of band members he has went through. NORMAL PEOPLE do not do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not hypothetical! You just trying to cope out! LOL

The phrase "would be" implies a hypothetical. I am sorry if you do not know what a hypothetical is but that does not equate to a "cop out"

My positioned is that prior to 1987, the historical facts show that:

1. Axl owned the name "Guns n' Roses"

There are no legalities that officially state it, as I have said time and time again. Look we are going in circles, that point is not an objective fact - never was and never will be. Sorry but no dice (and I get the feeling that you will just keep this broken record type of posting nonetheless so whatever)

He was controlling in the band, simple as that.

LOL! So now Axl was just "controlling" and not a CONTROL FREAK? Softening your words huh?

Axl has every right to be "controlling" or in your words a "control freak" of his band ... just like a boss or owner has every right to assert his control over his business or property.

I'm sorry if that is too complicated for you to understand.

I'm also sorry you have a hard time understanding that there was never a time in GnR's history where Axl did not have MAJORITY OWNERSHIP of the name "Guns n' Roses", and hence, his corporation/band.

And no, it's not hypothetical to assert that Axl Rose had SOLE OWNERSHIP of the name "Guns n' Roses" prior to 1987. You don't need a legal contract or document to assert ownership or copyright. When no such legal document exists, all you need is proof of first use.

The historical facts clearly show the name "Guns n' Roses" came from the merger of Axl Rose's band with Tracii Guns band. And when Tracci quit, Axl continued the band and hired/auditioned/recruited everybody else. Prior to 1987, nobody else in the band could claim ownership of the name "Guns n' Roses" other than Axl Rose.

There is nothing "hypothetical" about these historical facts.

If you have any other facts to prove that Axl did not own the name "Guns n' Roses" prior to 1987, well ... please share it!

Otherwise, Axl has every right to assert his ownership rights even during the time period of 1987-1993 when he had shared MAJORITY OWNERSHIP with the other members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! So now Axl was just "controlling" and not a CONTROL FREAK? Softening your words huh?

Umm no? I never said "control freak" . Please stop putting words in my mouth ("super controlling" is the original phrase used in my post here, if you want to split hairs you can, but softening my words is not an accurate assessment)

Prior to 1987, nobody else in the band could claim ownership of the name "Guns n' Roses" other than Axl Rose.

You still do not understand that this point became totally irrelevant as soon as 1987 arrived.

If you have any other facts to prove that Axl did not own the name "Guns n' Roses" prior to 1987, well ... please share it!

The burden of proof is technically on you and since you have yet to post any... well too bad I suppose.

*sigh* Your broken record type of posting will most likely continue, unforuntaly the logic is equivalent to a house of cards. Axl was not the "boss" in 1987 - simple as that. No amount of house of cards arguments you present will change that

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Niven ducked VR, couldn't re-create the magic?

Slash auditioned for Poison? Let's not talk about that.

Surely the person who's band it is decides whether it's GNR? Which was preceded by when Slash going Axl's band. None of this stuff really makes sense to anyone paying attention.

So it's rock n roll to be less than professional early on, it's the real deal, then later it's like get on stage and sing?

Definitely interesting interview with someone in the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we also know now that Axl was full of shit when he said that he wanted to make an "Aerosmith Rocks" type of album that would have really pleased Slash back in 1996. He told Kurt Loder in the 1999 or 2000 interview that he wanted to make an Appetite sounding record.

Ummm ... NO.

What you think The Spaghetti Incident was? It was a compromise to keep things rolling because they couldn't agree on a creative direction. Axl did indeed wanted a simpler AFD-like rock album because it would been quicker to do given the situation he and the band was in.

Now listen to Slash's stuff post GnR. Slash's stuff sound more like the songs he wrote for UYIs.

Except for the solos, the overall AFD rock sound is not Slash's sound. Slash has been quoted as saying many times how he can't stand Izzy's style. The AFD rock sound is actually too simplistic for Slash's liking.

What Slash wanted post UYIs after the tour ended was what he eventually put out on his Snakepit albums. That's the rock sound he wanted for GnR.

To get Slash to want to do an AFD-like rock album, meant Slash would have to play second fiddler to Axl and Izzy again ... just like on AFD. Izzy was actually convinced to come back. But then as Marc Canter put it, Slash got BIG HEADED because Axl only liked 3-4 of his Snakepit songs. Then, everything just fell apart after that.

You might want to read this regarding Slash saying he "can't stand Izzy's style."

http://www.chopaway.com/viewtopic.php?id=555

"Slash has accused you of turning in sloppily made demo tapes."

"That's not Slash talking. That's Axl talking and Slash repeating it. Axl did say the tapes weren't up to GNR standards. Well, in the beginning nobody owned an eight-track. All our tapes were made on a cassette player. Whatever, I'm credited with just about everything I wrote. I will say that Slash was much better at keeping tapes in order. He always labeled stuff."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.chopaway.com/viewtopic.php?id=555

"Slash has accused you of turning in sloppily made demo tapes."

"That's not Slash talking. That's Axl talking and Slash repeating it. Axl did say the tapes weren't up to GNR standards. Well, in the beginning nobody owned an eight-track. All our tapes were made on a cassette player. Whatever, I'm credited with just about everything I wrote. I will say that Slash was much better at keeping tapes in order. He always labeled stuff."

Axl must be "God" or Slash is an Axl YES-MAN then.

But no, here you go: http://hem.passagen.se/snoqalf/art-199311-OK.html

I love recording like this. During Appetite..., Lies and Use Your... I had to put up with Izzy the whole time. I never liked playing with him. It was wonderful to escape him on this record. It sounds tighter and so much cooler than anything we've done before. I always got irritated over Izzy's way of playing. It didn't sound right. Before "Spaghetti", we erased his guitar and Gilby put on a new one. It sounded perfect!

Very intresting interview, thanks for posting.

Not really a revalation that Axl is a CONTROL FREAK, but it is still intresting to hear stories about the old days

Nice try liar ... edited your post after I exposed you. You ain't foolin' anybody.

Edited by gnrfan2007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try liar ... edited your post after I exposed you. You ain't foolin' anybody.

Nope that was way before. Seriously man? First you argue with out of context rehetoric and faulty logic and now you are manipulating edits and lying to make it seem like you are on some sort of moral high ground?

My posts edit shows clearly 3:03pm - over an hour earlier than your first initial response to me at 4:42pm.

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try liar ... edited your post after I exposed you. You ain't foolin' anybody.

Nope that was way before. Seriously man? First you argue with out of context rehetoric and faulty logic and now you are manipulating edits and lying to make it seem like you are on some sort of moral high ground?

My posts edit shows clearly 3:03pm - over an hour earlier than your first initial response to me at 4:42pm.

Come on now ... why don't use your super insightful mind reading powers ... you know the ones where you could figure out Slash was joking about hating Izzy's guitar style?!

How do you know I did not read your post before you made your edit and didn't respond until afterwards? Not everybody has time to respond right a way.

You made an edit. Probably to keep @ifftheworld from reporting you.

Regardless, SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK ... same thing.

And no, the logic is not flawed. You didn't even understand differences between ownership and how copyright/ownership can be establish without a contract or legal document.

It's a simple concept called PROPERTY RIGHTS and OWNERSHIP. What is your property ... you have CONTROL over it.

From inception to today, Axl has either had MAJORITY OWNERSHIP or SOLE MAJORITY OWNERSHIP of "Guns n' Roses".

Axl has every LEGAL RIGHT to do what he pleases with his property.

Attacking him for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK is contrary to his ownership rights of "Guns n' Roses".

It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On _Illusion_, we did the basic tracks in about a month. Then there was a time lag of about a year before the vocals were finished. I went back to Indiana and painted the house. If you've got a group and people are focused, it just shouldn't take that long."

Why did Axl take so long?

"I never really knew, I guess. Just one of those things. On tour he had a real hard time finishing the sits. And he had a hard time getting onstage. So you're sitting there in the dressing room at a hockey rink and for, like, two hours the walls are vibrating while the audience is going, `Bullshit! Bullshit!' That time goes _slow_ when you're sober. And they have to send a helicopter to the hotel to get him. He would just `get ready,' and sometimes he would `get ready' for a long time. I don't know what goes on upstairs with him. To me it's simple. Get an alarm clock, ya know? There's a modern invention that seems to work for people. You set it, and then you wake up when you're supposed to."

Slash has accused you of turning in sloppily made demo tapes.

"That's not Slash talking. That's Axl talking and Slash repeating it. Axl did say the tapes weren't up to GNR standards. Well, in the beginning nobody owned an eight-track. All our tapes were made on a cassette player. Whatever, I'm credited with just about everything I wrote. I will say that Slash was much better at keeping tapes in order. He always labeled stuff."

What more confirmation do we need??? Axl took over... if there's anyone that wanted to do a take over in Guns is Axl...he has lied!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now he's saying Axl wasn't really making the decisions as the leader of the band before the UYI tour. Seems more like Niven was orchestrating everything. Blackmailing David Geffen into renegotiating the bands contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't they think Axl could sustain a tour?

On one hand Niven says who know what Axl is talking about, on the other they are saying Axl might not make the tour, so let's just do the record how he wants to and get out on tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no spin, that basically what Niven said. It reminds me of the Slash book, they say stuff and they don't realise how it sounds. Slash saying he didn't mind compromising on UYI as long as they get out on tour. I think they probably thought Axl was crazy enough to just pull the plug on everything if he didnt get what he wanted. That's what they feared, how real that was we don't know.



The thing that strikes me is that even if Axl took over the band he still had no power, David Geffen or Niven was setting everything up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...