Free Bird Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.You seriously believe that? Got anything to suggest that they do care? Getting their fair share of the royalties is the only thing they've expressed as a legal matter. They've already stated why they did not, and do not care about who "owns the name." They don't think GNR exists without the proper pieces anyways so screw the name.Do you have 1 link, quote or 1 anything that shows that they want possession of the name?That should give Axl and his fans a little clue about Axl and his paranoia that they were going to fire him.Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. they do not care. Got something to show that the name is an issue for them? They still get their royalties. I'll wait.......... To show? no. I don't need something to show. I just need to not be as naive as you. If you think they wouldn't have continued or at least tried and used the name on their own like Pink Floyd did or AC/DC then you're insane or have no brain. Your point is ill conceivedIf this was true they would have started a band like Velvet Revolver straight out the gate to capitalise on their pulling power as a group of then very famous musicians and then publicly declared themselves "the real GNR" or some Queensryche shit like that. Instead it happened 8 years later and by accident. That does not smack of a bunch of guys desperate to hold what they had. They didn't care about the name because legally they part owned the name in a form.Read what the guys themselves had to say here: http://www.slashparadise.com/media/interviews-slash/the-big-bang-guitar-world-november-2003.pdfSorry it's off topic now but on which Izzy songs or albums did Slash play? Does anybody know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.You seriously believe that?Got anything to suggest that they do care? Getting their fair share of the royalties is the only thing they've expressed as a legal matter. They've already stated why they did not, and do not care about who "owns the name." They don't think GNR exists without the proper pieces anyways so screw the name.Do you have 1 link, quote or 1 anything that shows that they want possession of the name?That should give Axl and his fans a little clue about Axl and his paranoia that they were going to fire him.Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.they do not care. Got something to show that the name is an issue for them? They still get their royalties. I'll wait..........To show? no. I don't need something to show. I just need to not be as naive as you. If you think they wouldn't have continued or at least tried and used the name on their own like Pink Floyd did or AC/DC then you're insane or have no brain.Your point is ill conceivedIf this was true they would have started a band like Velvet Revolver straight out the gate to capitalise on their pulling power as a group of then very famous musicians and then publicly declared themselves "the real GNR" or some Queensryche shit like that. Instead it happened 8 years later and by accident. That does not smack of a bunch of guys desperate to hold what they had. They didn't care about the name because legally they part owned the name in a form.Read what the guys themselves had to say here: http://www.slashparadise.com/media/interviews-slash/the-big-bang-guitar-world-november-2003.pdfYou've missed my point. And just to be exact, it's not true. It's what I believe to be true. I can't prove it. Look how happy Duff looked up there on stage again with Axl, playing Chinese material as well. If Axl asked Slash to play a few shows with him, promise to not be late (he has improved in that department not late as shit at least) Izzy does shows with Axl anyway. They would all at least have considered it if they had the rights to the name back then imo. To not let Guns die, but maybe not cause how can you replace that iconic voice? we'll probably never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.You seriously believe that? Got anything to suggest that they do care? Getting their fair share of the royalties is the only thing they've expressed as a legal matter. They've already stated why they did not, and do not care about who "owns the name." They don't think GNR exists without the proper pieces anyways so screw the name.Do you have 1 link, quote or 1 anything that shows that they want possession of the name?That should give Axl and his fans a little clue about Axl and his paranoia that they were going to fire him.Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. they do not care. Got something to show that the name is an issue for them? They still get their royalties. I'll wait.......... To show? no. I don't need something to show. I just need to not be as naive as you. If you think they wouldn't have continued or at least tried and used the name on their own like Pink Floyd did or AC/DC then you're insane or have no brain. Your point is ill conceivedIf this was true they would have started a band like Velvet Revolver straight out the gate to capitalise on their pulling power as a group of then very famous musicians and then publicly declared themselves "the real GNR" or some Queensryche shit like that. Instead it happened 8 years later and by accident. That does not smack of a bunch of guys desperate to hold what they had. They didn't care about the name because legally they part owned the name in a form.Read what the guys themselves had to say here: http://www.slashparadise.com/media/interviews-slash/the-big-bang-guitar-world-november-2003.pdfSorry it's off topic now but on which Izzy songs or albums did Slash play? Does anybody know that?None. Izzy did however play on 'Ghosts' on Slash's eponymous debut solo album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intercourse Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.You seriously believe that?Got anything to suggest that they do care? Getting their fair share of the royalties is the only thing they've expressed as a legal matter. They've already stated why they did not, and do not care about who "owns the name." They don't think GNR exists without the proper pieces anyways so screw the name.Do you have 1 link, quote or 1 anything that shows that they want possession of the name?That should give Axl and his fans a little clue about Axl and his paranoia that they were going to fire him.Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes.they do not care. Got something to show that the name is an issue for them? They still get their royalties. I'll wait..........To show? no. I don't need something to show. I just need to not be as naive as you. If you think they wouldn't have continued or at least tried and used the name on their own like Pink Floyd did or AC/DC then you're insane or have no brain.Your point is ill conceivedIf this was true they would have started a band like Velvet Revolver straight out the gate to capitalise on their pulling power as a group of then very famous musicians and then publicly declared themselves "the real GNR" or some Queensryche shit like that. Instead it happened 8 years later and by accident. That does not smack of a bunch of guys desperate to hold what they had. They didn't care about the name because legally they part owned the name in a form.Read what the guys themselves had to say here: http://www.slashparadise.com/media/interviews-slash/the-big-bang-guitar-world-november-2003.pdfYou've missed my point. And just to be exact, it's not true. It's what I believe to be true. I can't prove it. Look how happy Duff looked up there on stage again with Axl, playing Chinese material as well. If Axl asked Slash to play a few shows with him, promise to not be late (he has improved in that department not late as shit at least) Izzy does shows with Axl anyway. They would all at least have considered it if they had the rights to the name back then imo. To not let Guns die, but maybe not cause how can you replace that iconic voice? we'll probably never know.I don't believe I did miss your point, you said "If you think they wouldn't have continued or at least tried and used the name on their own like Pink Floyd did or AC/DC then you're insane or have no brain."The thing is, they didn't even try to continue in any form. They didn't sue for the name, they didn't do anything together under any other name for 8 years. That is not a bunch of guys who wanted to stay on in GNR. They didn't even want to stay on together without Axl as a different band. I think they knew what they had in Axl and chose not to even consider trying to recreate it. Sure Duff was happy to be up there with Axl...what....20 years after the meltdown? Water under the bridge for each man obviously. Each has their truth and must have agreed to leave it at that. The fact is that Slash and Duff do still have the ownership of part of the original GNR Inc. They have always owned as much of GNR Inc. as they did when they were in the band. I beieve the issue was with them being relegated to employees in a band they helped build from the ground up. This was not a case of them being men, sucking it up and "not let Guns die" ... this was band members fighting to keep their equal part in that band's DNA alive. Edited November 13, 2014 by Intercourse 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Intercourse is a damn good poster. I don't recall disagreeing with anything he has ever posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Bird Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. What? They never cared about the name which is why they signed it over in the first place. They don't care. That's not proof of anything except the fact that they do not care.You seriously believe that? Got anything to suggest that they do care? Getting their fair share of the royalties is the only thing they've expressed as a legal matter. They've already stated why they did not, and do not care about who "owns the name." They don't think GNR exists without the proper pieces anyways so screw the name.Do you have 1 link, quote or 1 anything that shows that they want possession of the name?That should give Axl and his fans a little clue about Axl and his paranoia that they were going to fire him. Well then thank you for making an even stronger case for my point because had it happened the way they said it did they surely would have. And won. You're a swell guy sometimes. they do not care. Got something to show that the name is an issue for them? They still get their royalties. I'll wait.......... To show? no. I don't need something to show. I just need to not be as naive as you. If you think they wouldn't have continued or at least tried and used the name on their own like Pink Floyd did or AC/DC then you're insane or have no brain. Your point is ill conceivedIf this was true they would have started a band like Velvet Revolver straight out the gate to capitalise on their pulling power as a group of then very famous musicians and then publicly declared themselves "the real GNR" or some Queensryche shit like that. Instead it happened 8 years later and by accident. That does not smack of a bunch of guys desperate to hold what they had. They didn't care about the name because legally they part owned the name in a form.Read what the guys themselves had to say here: http://www.slashparadise.com/media/interviews-slash/the-big-bang-guitar-world-november-2003.pdfSorry it's off topic now but on which Izzy songs or albums did Slash play? Does anybody know that? None. Izzy did however play on 'Ghosts' on Slash's eponymous debut solo album.I know that Izzy played on Ghost. Just asking because it's written in this article as an cit. from Slash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Bird Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 "I've played on his records a couple of times, and Duff has done the same thing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigh Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Do you think he would really do it? Or is it all empty threats?And if they didnt sign it that day, do you think Axl will find a way to still get the name eventually? This is not what happened. Rose got the right to take the name with him. And when he quit Guns N Roses existing partnership in 1995, he took the name with him and then invited Slash and Duff to join a new partnership with Rose. I don't know if the terms of the partnership changed much or if Rose just wanted to make sure Slash and Duff knew that he was in charge because he could do what he wanted since he owned the name. Per Duff, Rose refusing to take the stage in Spain was what caused he and Slash to sign the provision which allowed Rose to "own" the name. By that time, they had experienced the riot in St. Louis and a near riot in Europe when Rose walked off the stage, plus all the "bullshit" chants from fans as they waited for Rose to get to the arena and take the stage. So I doubt they considered it an idle threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyndaRose Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 why did they have to sign since Axl left GNR in 95 and took the name already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wkuk04 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 To be honest I think the guys realised they could live happily just living off royalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Someone should find the Goldstein/Niven email posted a while back about this. I can see Axl wanting the name and threatening to fire Doug if he didn't do it, but he didn't know how it was done. This is something an entertainment lawyer would conjure up, but how it was delivered, that was on Doug even though he personally didn't do it. Don't shoot the messenger, basically. I think Slash, Duff, and Izzy would have been happy to bury GNR at that point, they quit, they moved on, end of story. They never got a proper compilation out and they were under contract to put the live album out, but that was about as live as LLAS, but it's like what they said about KISS Alive - you're getting a "typical" GNR concert and none of the live tapes worked for them, but that was late 90s. Now they could probably use 100 percent live recordings and make it sound even better.I just hope they were able to hold onto the UYI tour money for what they all went through. Once you factor divorce into the mix, they may have had their asses handed to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts