Rapid Fire demos... some news

[Subtle Signs]

But again, and obviously I'm not an expert on legalities, but if Axl has no legal standing, where are these difficulties? Why not tell him to kindly suck a dick, and proceed?

Because he is living in fantasyland.

Or more likely because Axl has unlimited finacial resources to drag this on for years.

[downzy]

I do not defend everything Axl does, but I can actually understand why he would be annoyed about this and try to stop it.

From what I've heard of the Rapidfire stuff, it's not particularly great. The only thing it has going for it, and the only reason it would be of interest to anyone whatsoever, is because Axl Rose happens to be the lead singer. In addition, the guy IS trying to make a profit - he's not planning on posting this all on YouTube for free to share the history with the world; he wants to release it for purchase. Even if he claims that Axl will get some royalties from it, since he claims he owns the copyrights, I daresay he's not giving Axl or any of the other musicians a large share. So he's essentially trying to make money off Axl Rose's identity and voice. Moreover, he's trying to make Axl seem like a villain for trying to block it.

If you make your living with your identity and voice - you might have an issue with someone else trying to cash in on it. Particularly when that person is digging up clips that show you when you're not yet at your best and they're trying to claim that they own your performance. An actor would probably be annoyed if someone unearthed his performance in his high school play, claimed that they owned all the rights to it because they'd recorded the show, and sold DVDs of it. It's the same sort of thing here.

I've also noticed that he hasn't indicated that any of the other guys in Rapidfire are down with his plans...it's just him.

If Axl has no legal claim to the recordings, it really doesn't matter how great (or shitty) they are - they belong to the dude who owns the rights. If Axl doesn't want them released, he can attempt to buy the recording rights. If they're not for sale, from a legal standpoint, he's shit out of luck.

From the sounds of things, the guy has invested a lot, both financially and personally, into this project. I don't fault him for trying to make a buck. We all do what we need to do to survive and live (so long as it's within the limits of the law). Why should this guy give away what he rightfully owns and has fought for? I'm fairly certain that anyone else in his position would do the exact same thing, including yourself. Nor should Axl receive a large share of the royalties if the guy (sorry, I don't know his name) owns the rights. That's the bitch about copyrights. Do you think Axl got a large share of Bach's album Angel Down because he appeared on three songs? Doubtful, despite the fact that having Axl on the album likely drove most of the album's sales.

How do you know Axl isn't a villain in these proceedings? If Axl doesn't want to give his side of the story, then he only has himself to blame.

"If you make a living with your identity and voice - you might have an issue with someone else trying to cash in on it." Funny, because this accusation could in no way (save for the voice component) be lobbed at Axl's direction regarding the GNR name... Please...

Hey, no one here has any idea whether this guy is legit. Maybe other members of Rapidfire are against the release (thought I have serious doubts about that). Maybe he's simply playing up Axl's legal obstructions to help garner publicity for his project. Who knows. But I think to side against someone without knowing all the facts is a fool's errand. If the courts decide that the legal ownership of these recordings belongs to this guy, it's his right to do what he wants with them.

If Axl has a problem with that and is so concerned about his public image, how about he spends more time focusing on releasing music in 2014 than worrying about music that was performed almost 30 years ago.

Edited February 27, 2014 by downzy

[stella]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

Edited February 27, 2014 by stella

[ohlovelyrita]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

Good post! I agree

[Nosaj Thing]

cotton tee of the flyer of the last gig Bill Bailey played with Rapidfire before he became Axl Rose.

[D-GenerationX]

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

Does anyone here actually dispute this?

If you do, I'd love to hear your rationale.

[dalsh327]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

I think it was explained pretty well that they had the right to put it out, but they screwed up in calling the website "Theaxltapes" and spent a lot of money at the time, so they're doing the hat in hand crowdsourcing this time around - maybe. If it does make it to Kickstarter or Indieagogo, they also had their legal team check whether or not they can allow it.

This is along the lines of the Steely Dan demos, they legally can't stop the recordings because they didn't own the publishing or the rights to the master tapes, so Axl's kind of in the same boat, except he didn't co-write songs so he has even less say in whether or not the tapes could be out there.

But Axl's lawyers can make it difficult on them to put it out there, costing a lot of money in taking it to court and creating delays, something Axl is an expert in.

Edited February 27, 2014 by dalsh327

[ohlovelyrita]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

I think it was explained pretty well that they had the right to put it out, but they screwed up in calling the website "Theaxltapes" and spent a lot of money at the time, so they're doing the hat in hand crowdsourcing this time around - maybe. If it does make it to Kickstarter or Indieagogo, they also had their legal team check whether or not they can allow it.

This is along the lines of the Steely Dan demos, they legally can't stop the recordings because they didn't own the publishing or the rights to the master tapes, so Axl's kind of in the same boat, except he didn't co-write songs so he has even less say in whether or not the tapes could be out there.

But Axl's lawyers can make it difficult on them to put it out there, costing a lot of money in taking it to court and creating delays, something Axl is an expert in.

So do you have any thoughts about them (Kevin) capitalizing on his image? Would like to learn more and understand about the legal ramifications.

[downzy]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

I think it was explained pretty well that they had the right to put it out, but they screwed up in calling the website "Theaxltapes" and spent a lot of money at the time, so they're doing the hat in hand crowdsourcing this time around - maybe. If it does make it to Kickstarter or Indieagogo, they also had their legal team check whether or not they can allow it.

This is along the lines of the Steely Dan demos, they legally can't stop the recordings because they didn't own the publishing or the rights to the master tapes, so Axl's kind of in the same boat, except he didn't co-write songs so he has even less say in whether or not the tapes could be out there.

But Axl's lawyers can make it difficult on them to put it out there, costing a lot of money in taking it to court and creating delays, something Axl is an expert in.

This. People have this preconceived notion that the legal apparatus is a streamlined affair where outcomes can be quickly produced. Rich people or wealthy interests have the resources to tie up disputes for years. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of this case, but if this guy ends up with the legal rights to do what he wants with the tapes, then why criticize? Or are people so use to not getting new material from Axl that they're now conditioned to fight it?

[Lim666]

Ha, i asked Kevin for a Tshirt about a week ago, thats awesome!!!

*ordered*

[Apollo]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

I think it was explained pretty well that they had the right to put it out, but they screwed up in calling the website "Theaxltapes" and spent a lot of money at the time, so they're doing the hat in hand crowdsourcing this time around - maybe. If it does make it to Kickstarter or Indieagogo, they also had their legal team check whether or not they can allow it.

This is along the lines of the Steely Dan demos, they legally can't stop the recordings because they didn't own the publishing or the rights to the master tapes, so Axl's kind of in the same boat, except he didn't co-write songs so he has even less say in whether or not the tapes could be out there.

But Axl's lawyers can make it difficult on them to put it out there, costing a lot of money in taking it to court and creating delays, something Axl is an expert in.

This. People have this preconceived notion that the legal apparatus is a streamlined affair where outcomes can be quickly produced. Rich people or wealthy interests have the resources to tie up disputes for years. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of this case, but if this guy ends up with the legal rights to do what he wants with the tapes, then why criticize? Or are people so use to not getting new material from Axl that they're now conditioned to fight it?

Exactly.

As for your last sentence....no, that's not the situation. More along the lines of a group of people on here see everything through Rose colored glasses instead of using common sense and logic. Axl is against the release - so they must be against it as well.

[downzy]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

I think it was explained pretty well that they had the right to put it out, but they screwed up in calling the website "Theaxltapes" and spent a lot of money at the time, so they're doing the hat in hand crowdsourcing this time around - maybe. If it does make it to Kickstarter or Indieagogo, they also had their legal team check whether or not they can allow it.

This is along the lines of the Steely Dan demos, they legally can't stop the recordings because they didn't own the publishing or the rights to the master tapes, so Axl's kind of in the same boat, except he didn't co-write songs so he has even less say in whether or not the tapes could be out there.

But Axl's lawyers can make it difficult on them to put it out there, costing a lot of money in taking it to court and creating delays, something Axl is an expert in.

This. People have this preconceived notion that the legal apparatus is a streamlined affair where outcomes can be quickly produced. Rich people or wealthy interests have the resources to tie up disputes for years. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of this case, but if this guy ends up with the legal rights to do what he wants with the tapes, then why criticize? Or are people so use to not getting new material from Axl that they're now conditioned to fight it?

Exactly.

As for your last sentence....no, that's not the situation. More along the lines of a group of people on here see everything through Rose colored glasses instead of using common sense and logic. Axl is against the release - so they must be against it as well.

I wonder if many see the irony in all of this. On the one hand, Axl attempts to legally block old recordings, greatest hits albums, books, associations with previous members, all the while successfully touring off most of the same content and associations.

[Rdeyahlxp]

I wish this guy all the best, his bro hung himself. Couldn't care less about Axl's feelings in this case and don't blame the guy for wanting to make a buck. Seems like a humble dude, not some greedy asshole some here paint him out to be.

[DieselDaisy]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

I think it was explained pretty well that they had the right to put it out, but they screwed up in calling the website "Theaxltapes" and spent a lot of money at the time, so they're doing the hat in hand crowdsourcing this time around - maybe. If it does make it to Kickstarter or Indieagogo, they also had their legal team check whether or not they can allow it.

This is along the lines of the Steely Dan demos, they legally can't stop the recordings because they didn't own the publishing or the rights to the master tapes, so Axl's kind of in the same boat, except he didn't co-write songs so he has even less say in whether or not the tapes could be out there.

But Axl's lawyers can make it difficult on them to put it out there, costing a lot of money in taking it to court and creating delays, something Axl is an expert in.

This. People have this preconceived notion that the legal apparatus is a streamlined affair where outcomes can be quickly produced. Rich people or wealthy interests have the resources to tie up disputes for years. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of this case, but if this guy ends up with the legal rights to do what he wants with the tapes, then why criticize? Or are people so use to not getting new material from Axl that they're now conditioned to fight it?

Exactly.

As for your last sentence....no, that's not the situation. More along the lines of a group of people on here see everything through Rose colored glasses instead of using common sense and logic. Axl is against the release - so they must be against it as well.

I wonder if many see the irony in all of this. On the one hand, Axl attempts to legally block old recordings, greatest hits albums, books, associations with previous members, all the while successfully touring off most of the same content and associations.

Too true. Do not forget he tried legal action against a video game character because it looked like, Slash: a fuckin computer game character; a bunch of pixals on a screen! The guy is a complete tool.

Axl also seems to lose everu lawsuit he ever pursues: greatest hits, hollywood rose, guitar hero - Axl must have lost loads of money on these cases. Serves him right.

[D-GenerationX]

I wish this guy all the best, his bro hung himself. Couldn't care less about Axl's feelings in this case and don't blame the guy for wanting to make a buck. Seems like a humble dude, not some greedy asshole some here paint him out to be.

I don't begrudge him making a buck. That's the American way.

I have 2 issues :

1) "I just want to get this in the fan's hands!!" Nonsense. You want to sell it to the fans. Which is no problem, but stop trying to church it up.

2) "The law is totally, absolutely, and complerely on my side." Again, nonsense. If it was, you'd be moving on this long before now.

And just as something of an aside, that 35 page manifesto on his site is laugh out loud funny. The way he talks up a never was garage band as if it were one of the defining rock acts of the 80s.

Edited February 27, 2014 by D-GenerationX

[kanudo19]

this guy goes on and on, on how he wrote all the material and axl just recorded it but he has all the rights and although that may be true i don't think that gives him the right to market everything with Axl's name and use his image on a t-shirt. Axl never signed off on it, i hope Ax sues this guy into oblivion

Edited February 27, 2014 by kanudo19

[DieselDaisy]

Pecuniary gain and altruism are not completely exclusive from one and another. Canter put his book out for the fans also, but there was nothing wrong with him at least breaking even or even desiring a profit (as it happens, he did not sell as many copies as he liked but that is besides the point). Also, we all know that Axl has a whole department of legal bloodhounds on his payroll, some of the biggest legal minds in the industry I suspect; it is easy for someone with the financial resources as Axl to tie a simple thing up in legal bullshit.

Personally I 100% support this Rapid Fire release. Axl Rose seems determined in life to stop the fans from listening to any unheard of music. I support any opportunity to frustrate this policy, be it a release such as this or Roots of GN’R, or, a hoarder leaking 'chinese leftovers' over the internet.

[ohlovelyrita]

this guy goes on and on, on how he wrote all the material and axl just recorded it but he has all the rights and although that may be true i don't think that gives him the right to market everything with Axl's name and use his image on a t-shirt. Axl never signed off on it, i hope Ax sues this guy into oblivion

I do too!

[ohlovelyrita]

I wish this guy all the best, his bro hung himself. Couldn't care less about Axl's feelings in this case and don't blame the guy for wanting to make a buck. Seems like a humble dude, not some greedy asshole some here paint him out to be.

I don't begrudge him making a buck. That's the American way.I have 2 issues :1) "I just want to get this in the fan's hands!!" Nonsense. You want to sell it to the fans. Which is no problem, but stop trying to church it up.2) "The law is totally, absolutely, and complerely on my side." Again, nonsense. If it was, you'd be moving on this long before now.And just as something of an aside, that 35 page manifesto on his site is laugh out loud funny. The way he talks up a never was garage band as if it were one of the defining rock acts of the 80s.

Poor Kevin does sound delusional at best

Doug Marks is very savvy and knows exactly what he's doing, I hope he shuts this drama queen's exploitation games down.

[Nosaj Thing]

Well no, actually, I wouldn't do what this guy is doing. Ever. I have ethics. And I believe in making money on my own steam; not capitalizing and exploiting other people's names and work.

If Axl had no legal rights to the recordings, there really wouldn't be any need for a court fight at all. This guy would show up in court, produce his paperwork, and go on his way. The facts that he's asking people to engage in letter writing campaigns and that this has dragged on so long do suggest there are at least some valid legal questions about the ownership and his rights to release this work.

The thing about copyright is that owning the rights to a song do NOT give you rights over someone's image. If I sing "Happy Birthday" in a movie I have to pay royalties and fees to the copyright holder of that song. However the copyright holders cannot sell my performance as their own, nor do they own it.

Angel Down's irrelevant here. Guesting on three songs for someone else's band is in no way, shape or form the same as FRONTING a band, performing on all their material and helping write it - as he did in Rapidfire. He's the lead singer and he's the sole reason this guy is getting ANY interest in the recordings. And the guy is going out of his way to capitalize on Axl's name and image. Damn right Axl deserves a large share of the royalties for that.

I think it was explained pretty well that they had the right to put it out, but they screwed up in calling the website "Theaxltapes" and spent a lot of money at the time, so they're doing the hat in hand crowdsourcing this time around - maybe. If it does make it to Kickstarter or Indieagogo, they also had their legal team check whether or not they can allow it.

This is along the lines of the Steely Dan demos, they legally can't stop the recordings because they didn't own the publishing or the rights to the master tapes, so Axl's kind of in the same boat, except he didn't co-write songs so he has even less say in whether or not the tapes could be out there.

But Axl's lawyers can make it difficult on them to put it out there, costing a lot of money in taking it to court and creating delays, something Axl is an expert in.

This. People have this preconceived notion that the legal apparatus is a streamlined affair where outcomes can be quickly produced. Rich people or wealthy interests have the resources to tie up disputes for years. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of this case, but if this guy ends up with the legal rights to do what he wants with the tapes, then why criticize? Or are people so use to not getting new material from Axl that they're now conditioned to fight it?

Exactly.

As for your last sentence....no, that's not the situation. More along the lines of a group of people on here see everything through Rose colored glasses instead of using common sense and logic. Axl is against the release - so they must be against it as well.

I wonder if many see the irony in all of this. On the one hand, Axl attempts to legally block old recordings, greatest hits albums, books, associations with previous members, all the while successfully touring off most of the same content and associations.

Too true. Do not forget he tried legal action against a video game character because it looked like, Slash: a fuckin computer game character; a bunch of pixals on a screen! The guy is a complete tool.

Axl also seems to lose everu lawsuit he ever pursues: greatest hits, hollywood rose, guitar hero - Axl must have lost loads of money on these cases. Serves him right.

Exactly. Serves him right.

Can't wait for him to lose this legal battle too!

[kanudo19]

So Hollywood Rose before GNR, and Rapidfire before Hollywood Rose, when did Axl play in the band that he took his name from? Was that just before Rapidfire?

before Hollywood Rose was Hollywood Rose it was Rose and before it was Rose it was Axl I think, but don't quote me on it.

I think the "AXL" band thing happened when he was still in indiana but what do i know.

Edited February 28, 2014 by kanudo19

[DieselDaisy]

"Axl called the name of the band AXL and then slowly but surely he wanted to take on that name for himself. So he took that name, but I never called him Axl. He was always Bill when I was in the band. Then he reinvented himself. AXL was the original name. After maybe 2 or 3 shows, the name was changed to ROSE. Axl Rose (then Bill) had some sort of fallout with Izzy [stradlin] and I and to continue playing as a band, Izzy said we were to change our name to ROSE, and we did. The word 'Hollywood' was added when I stumbled upon the name ROSE being used by another band.

- Chris Weber

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/ex-hollywood-rose-guitarist-axl-rose-was-very-ego-motivated/

[dalsh327]

"Axl called the name of the band AXL and then slowly but surely he wanted to take on that name for himself. So he took that name, but I never called him Axl. He was always Bill when I was in the band. Then he reinvented himself. AXL was the original name. After maybe 2 or 3 shows, the name was changed to ROSE. Axl Rose (then Bill) had some sort of fallout with Izzy [stradlin] and I and to continue playing as a band, Izzy said we were to change our name to ROSE, and we did. The word 'Hollywood' was added when I stumbled upon the name ROSE being used by another band.

- Chris Weber

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/ex-hollywood-rose-guitarist-axl-rose-was-very-ego-motivated/

What are the odds Axl got tired of this song really fast?

[stella]

Exactly.

As for your last sentence....no, that's not the situation. More along the lines of a group of people on here see everything through Rose colored glasses instead of using common sense and logic. Axl is against the release - so they must be against it as well.

Opposing the release - or thinking that the guy is unethical - aren't "seeing everything through Rose colored glasses," and to assume so is to assume that people aren't capable of logical, independent thought. I don't like everything Axl does. In fact I don't like most of it. That doesn't stop me from thinking he has a point with this and that he's justified in wanting it squelched.

I wonder if many see the irony in all of this. On the one hand, Axl attempts to legally block old recordings, greatest hits albums, books, associations with previous members, all the while successfully touring off most of the same content and associations.

He didn't legally try to block Marc Canter's book, as far as I know. He just was upset that it was released when it was, and decided not to be friends with Canter anymore as a result. No legal blocking there, and he didn't say a word about it publicly.

As for Greatest Hits, perhaps it's important to remind that the GH opposition was probably the only time that Axl, Slash and Duff have agreed on anything in the last 20 years, because all three of them fought it. Not just Axl.

When has Axl tried to "legally block associations with old members?" The lawsuit against Steven Adler was 24 years ago and the entire band was involved. Other than that...when? He's played onstage with two of the four classic AfD members and one of the Illusions guys, he's buried the hatchet with ALL of the AfD and Illusions guys except one (although I'd be surprised if Adler wasn't back on his shitlist, given the drama with the RnR HoF and Adler's constant pleas for reunions). So he doesn't want to do a reunion and he didn't want to show up at the RnR Hall of Fame to play with the entire old band. So? People move on. There's no reason he shouldn't still be proud of the old music he helped write and play it. Velver Revolver proudly played GnR songs too.

And the Rapidfire stuff has nothing to do with the classic AfD lineup in any way, shape or form.

[PirateRadio]

Exactly.

As for your last sentence....no, that's not the situation. More along the lines of a group of people on here see everything through Rose colored glasses instead of using common sense and logic. Axl is against the release - so they must be against it as well.

Opposing the release - or thinking that the guy is unethical - aren't "seeing everything through Rose colored glasses," and to assume so is to assume that people aren't capable of logical, independent thought. I don't like everything Axl does. In fact I don't like most of it. That doesn't stop me from thinking he has a point with this and that he's justified in wanting it squelched.

I wonder if many see the irony in all of this. On the one hand, Axl attempts to legally block old recordings, greatest hits albums, books, associations with previous members, all the while successfully touring off most of the same content and associations.

He didn't legally try to block Marc Canter's book, as far as I know. He just was upset that it was released when it was, and decided not to be friends with Canter anymore as a result. No legal blocking there, and he didn't say a word about it publicly.

As for Greatest Hits, perhaps it's important to remind that the GH opposition was probably the only time that Axl, Slash and Duff have agreed on anything in the last 20 years, because all three of them fought it. Not just Axl.

When has Axl tried to "legally block associations with old members?" The lawsuit against Steven Adler was 24 years ago and the entire band was involved. Other than that...when? He's played onstage with two of the four classic AfD members and one of the Illusions guys, he's buried the hatchet with ALL of the AfD and Illusions guys except one (although I'd be surprised if Adler wasn't back on his shitlist, given the drama with the RnR HoF and Adler's constant pleas for reunions). So he doesn't want to do a reunion and he didn't want to show up at the RnR Hall of Fame to play with the entire old band. So? People move on. There's no reason he shouldn't still be proud of the old music he helped write and play it. Velver Revolver proudly played GnR songs too.

And the Rapidfire stuff has nothing to do with the classic AfD lineup in any way, shape or form.

Stellaaaaaa speaks the truth. Not many posts over the years, but they you sure make them count.