Tom2112 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Hey Marc,Not sure if you want to touch this or not, but It's a pretty hot topic on here right now.My question would be about ex-members, and if it's still a bitter pill concerning the break up and new GnR. I mean when they talk guns in interviews they are proud of it but always stress they have no desire to go back (for the most part) and are mostly happy for Axl that he's getting out and playing.Is there actually as much fighting (blocking releases, suing for royalties etc) behind the scenes as fans like myself speculate about. Seems crazy that they wouldn't have worked out solid agreements on releases at this stage of the game. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recklessroad Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music. Edited March 16, 2014 by recklessroad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman007 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 We are only talking about the old songs, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom2112 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) As a fan, that's just depressing...! This band should come with a warning sign, what a mess! I can understand the guys being protective of the original recordings, not wanting a re-mastered version with guitar parts from current members flown in or drums re-done etc. a live dvd is a different in my book, that's promotion for the brand and everyone get's paid including the ex-members that had nothing to do with the project bar writing credits. You have to scratch your head and wonder why they have to make a very simple thing into a complex situation at every opportunity. Thanks for the reply! Edited March 16, 2014 by Tom2112 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicguns4life Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 As usual, Axl started it. Slash has every right to fire back, and should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom2112 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 As usual, Axl started it. Slash has every right to fire back, and should."he started it!!!" we're not talking about children here... grown men, men with arrested development maybe... they are rockstars - but come on! Also with a sudoname like classicguns4life how impartial can you be there's indicators that an ex-member blocked this dvd, where's the indicators that Axl or Axls management blocked releases from the other guys (VRs dvd included guns songs, Slash included Paradise city on the first solo album). If you go and use the movie soundtrack thing that's fine but you have to realise all shareholders have to agree to license materials... if the films in question weren't particularly good not licensing songs to them was a good decision, I can't remember the films off the top of my head, but I can kinda recall a list somewhere of prospective soundtracks and not being particularly impressed. I'm not saying Axl and co have not blocked releases It's highly likely they have but we don't really have any hard facts, and we don't have them for the others either so...!? Also, who "started it" isn't really the important thing or the point of this discussion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicguns4life Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Axl made Slash take off the GNR songs from his New York DVD and possible the Stoke one in the US. Axl started it. And don't say that makes them sound like children, because if you haven't noticed Axl is a big stubborn child, so the phrase absolutely applies here. And I can be very impartial. These are just the facts. Axl blocked GNR songs on one of Slash's releases, so if Slash is doing it now he has every right to fire back. Yes, these are children we are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padme Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music.The thing is that it seems to be an Axl and Slash problem only. I never heard Izzy, Duff and Steven say anything on the matter. They might not be very happy about it. But they just don´t find it worthy of a eye for an eye fight that only turns the world blind.Let´s say that Walking Papers wants to release a DVD with It´s So Easy and Fall To Pieces performed by them. Do you think that Slash is going to block that hypothetical DVD? I don´t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangoSkank Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music.The thing is that it seems to be an Axl and Slash problem only. I never heard Izzy, Duff and Steven say anything on the matter. They might not be very happy about it. But they just don´t find it worthy of a eye for an eye fight that only turns the world blind.Let´s say that Walking Papers wants to release a DVD with It´s So Easy and Fall To Pieces performed by them. Do you think that Slash is going to block that hypothetical DVD? I don´t.Exactly. This is about waaaay more than royalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Replacing the original lineup with the Robin/Tommy lineup halfway thru SCOM on the Big Daddy soundtrack probably went a long way toward souring things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Replacing the original lineup with the Robin/Tommy lineup halfway thru SCOM on the Big Daddy soundtrack probably went a long way toward souring things.What about Paradise City with Fergie and Cypress Hill? I think both sides don't always musically respect their past material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Replacing the original lineup with the Robin/Tommy lineup halfway thru SCOM on the Big Daddy soundtrack probably went a long way toward souring things.What about Paradise City with Fergie and Cypress Hill? I think both sides don't always musically respect their past material.But as far as timeline goes, the Big Daddy thing was probably the first instance of anything funny going on with the old material. I don't think any of the former Gunners had touched any of the old material in any kind of official release. Big Daddy SCOM was when apparently it became ok to mess with stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangoSkank Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Replacing the original lineup with the Robin/Tommy lineup halfway thru SCOM on the Big Daddy soundtrack probably went a long way toward souring things.Lawsuits probably do too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadcaplaughs Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Marc:Any chance you could ask Slash if the rumors are true about him holding up the release of this show for money and/or to spite Axl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lim666 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 the big problem i see with Axl's 2012 dvd is that it is being promoted like an release from the AFD line-up/era. it has titles, promotional videos with songs mainly from Appetite and not even 1 song after 1991! the dvd cover basically IS Appetite. and thats where the hyporcrisy sets in......"moving on"-crappy words by Axl but his Team Brazil is very fine with such a promotional AFD stunt! Axl doesn want to bury the old band but -more evil- cashes in with purely Appetite related art to make more money!i guess his weak vocals will clearly turn off lots of casual fans and show watchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spgunner Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music.I understand that. BUT Slash quit GN'R. If he didn't want it (other musicians playing his songs), he should never quit. When you quit something, looks like you're letting it go. So this is what's not right in the picture. From the moment Slash quit GN'R, he should move on - ok to play a few tunes here and there, it's his past as well, but to try to control and or manipulate the current plans of the band HE quit... I don't think it's right. In the other hand, Axl's been fighting for this band for so many years (I believe you know much more about all the shit he's been through than any fan here) so is it fair to have issues to release new stuff, when related to old songs? I wish Slash could quit for real. People are so used to say Axl lives in the past but when Slash plays GN'R (all the time) and when he (seems like, I don't think it's 100% sure) tries and/or blocks new things GN'R wants to release, people in general don't say a word. It's so unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music.I understand that. BUT Slash quit GN'R. If he didn't want it (other musicians playing his songs), he should never quit. When you quit something, looks like you're letting it go. So this is what's not right in the picture. From the moment Slash quit GN'R, he should move on - ok to play a few tunes here and there, it's his past as well, but to try to control and or manipulate the current plans of the band HE quit... I don't think it's right. In the other hand, Axl's been fighting for this band for so many years (I believe you know much more about all the shit he's been through than any fan here) so is it fair to have issues to release new stuff, when related to old songs? I wish Slash could quit for real. People are so used to say Axl lives in the past but when Slash plays GN'R (all the time) and when he (seems like, I don't think it's 100% sure) tries and/or blocks new things GN'R wants to release, people in general don't say a word. It's so unfair.One thing I agree with you: he should never quit.he doesn't try to control and manipulate the new band, he just wants money for his work. you'd the same in his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recklessroad Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music. I understand that. BUT Slash quit GN'R. If he didn't want it (other musicians playing his songs), he should never quit. When you quit something, looks like you're letting it go. So this is what's not right in the picture. From the moment Slash quit GN'R, he should move on - ok to play a few tunes here and there, it's his past as well, but to try to control and or manipulate the current plans of the band HE quit... I don't think it's right. In the other hand, Axl's been fighting for this band for so many years (I believe you know much more about all the shit he's been through than any fan here) so is it fair to have issues to release new stuff, when related to old songs? I wish Slash could quit for real. People are so used to say Axl lives in the past but when Slash plays GN'R (all the time) and when he (seems like, I don't think it's 100% sure) tries and/or blocks new things GN'R wants to release, people in general don't say a word. It's so unfair.According to Slash he didn't really quit, he just didn't join the new GNR that Axl started because he didn't have his part ofthe say so like he used to. However in a way, when he signed over the name is when you can say he sort of quit. Those guys made some special music together and I can see why neither one wants the other to fuck with it. Playing it live is one thing because they all had a hand in making it and it will always be a part of who they are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 So is there 2 GNRs? the one that we knew and loved, and Slash/Duff still have some degree of legal control of, and the other newer one that Axl started on his own, is that how that goes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lim666 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) don't forget Axl left the GN'R partnership end 1995 just to start a new one on 01/01/1996 with "hired musicians" Duff and Slash....so Slash kinda never left the real band but was driven out!Axl has some very big power ego-problems, not only the Slash man. Edited March 19, 2014 by Lim666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music. I understand that. BUT Slash quit GN'R. If he didn't want it (other musicians playing his songs), he should never quit. When you quit something, looks like you're letting it go. So this is what's not right in the picture. From the moment Slash quit GN'R, he should move on - ok to play a few tunes here and there, it's his past as well, but to try to control and or manipulate the current plans of the band HE quit... I don't think it's right. In the other hand, Axl's been fighting for this band for so many years (I believe you know much more about all the shit he's been through than any fan here) so is it fair to have issues to release new stuff, when related to old songs? I wish Slash could quit for real. People are so used to say Axl lives in the past but when Slash plays GN'R (all the time) and when he (seems like, I don't think it's 100% sure) tries and/or blocks new things GN'R wants to release, people in general don't say a word. It's so unfair.According to Slash he didn't really quit, he just didn't join the new GNR that Axl started because he didn't have his part ofthe say so like he used to.But didn't he sign on in some form to Axl's reconstituted band, as, according to Slash's book he attended about twelve sessions at The Complex; this would have been about August-September 1996, ending with Slash quiting. Apparently his contract during this period was in escrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padme Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 So is there 2 GNRs? the one that we knew and loved, and Slash/Duff still have some degree of legal control of, and the other newer one that Axl started on his own, is that how that goes?I´m afraid GN´R has been dead for 20 years. What we have now is a tribute band but with a decadent Axl as singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlisOld Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Basically they're Queensryching it without the name issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I just saw the ad for this shit. Is it being sold on a late night shopping channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangoSkank Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 No one wants the other one to put things out. The thing is I sort of understand why. Neither side wants to see someone else play their music. I understand that. BUT Slash quit GN'R. If he didn't want it (other musicians playing his songs), he should never quit. When you quit something, looks like you're letting it go. So this is what's not right in the picture. From the moment Slash quit GN'R, he should move on - ok to play a few tunes here and there, it's his past as well, but to try to control and or manipulate the current plans of the band HE quit... I don't think it's right. In the other hand, Axl's been fighting for this band for so many years (I believe you know much more about all the shit he's been through than any fan here) so is it fair to have issues to release new stuff, when related to old songs? I wish Slash could quit for real. People are so used to say Axl lives in the past but when Slash plays GN'R (all the time) and when he (seems like, I don't think it's 100% sure) tries and/or blocks new things GN'R wants to release, people in general don't say a word. It's so unfair.According to Slash he didn't really quit, he just didn't join the new GNR that Axl started because he didn't have his part ofthe say so like he used to. However in a way, when he signed over the name is when you can say he sort of quit. Those guys made some special music together and I can see why neither one wants the other to fuck with it. Playing it live is one thing because they all had a hand in making it and it will always be a part of who they are.Marc, to your knowledge, did any legal actions from Slash hold up CD? I just wonder if he's mad at the name being used for something official or if he wants a bigger royalty cut from the songs that he helped write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts