GUNS N' ROSES TO PLAY COACHELLA APRIL 2016 - CONFIRMED!

[mr. ritz88]

One thing I noticed is that he fact that this thing could implode at any time. Is finally bringing back some danger to this band.

Edited January 14, 2016 by mr. ritz88

[alfierose]

IF YOU READ WHAT I JUST WROTE A SAID " BAND ", WASNT COMPARING WITH SOLO ARTISTS , BUT YOU CANT COMPARE GNR TO ADELE TILL GNR DECIDE TO DO THE SAME " OHH FUCK STOP IT ITS EVERY CHANEL, TV SHOW , E ENTERTAIMENT, ETC" KIND OF PROMOTION. ITS INSANE THE WAY PEOPLE LIKE PERRY, ADELE, GAGA OR WHATEVER PROMOTE THEMSELVES THIS DAYS. IF GUNS DO THAT KIND OF THING? WITH THE CUALITY, MUSIC, PASION, MAGNETISM, HISTORY THAT GNR HAVES? THERE WILL BE NO SPACE FOR THAT KIND OF NUMBERS.

BUT IVE GOT TO SAY, WHEN YOU SEE THAT PERHAPS NOVEMBER RAIN OFICIAL HAVE MORE VIEWS THAN MICHAEL JACKSON THRILLER?? WOW!!

THE THING IS U GUYS ARE ALWAYS TRYNG TO FIND NEGATIVE STUFF TU ARGUE ABOUT. BUT THATS BECAUSE THIS IS GUNS N ROSES, THATS THE KIND OF GREATNESS GNR HAVES.

I REPEAT " BEST YOUTUBE NUMBERS THAT ANY OTHER BAND IN THE WORLD"

ISNT THAT ENOUGH TO PROVE MY POINT?

PD: DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUNREAD ABOUT ADELE, GAGA, BIEVER, CYRUS, PERRY, ETC. MOST OF THAT ITS PURE PROMOTIONAL BS AND NOT REAL REAL NUMBERS. IN FACT THEY ALL ARE " EMPLOYEES", TRUE ARTISTS LIKE GNR AREN'T. THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM THAT ONLY REAL DEAL ( IN ART AND SALE NUMBERS) KIND OF ARTISTS BRINGS TO THE TABLE.

Sorry... I hate to have to do this but... One Direction.

I can't believe they keep popping up on this forum.

[m_rated96]

I wonder what the split is. Are slash duff and axl taking equal amounts?

Given Steven silence and the lack of line up clairty, I would guess that Steven and Izzy are being offered in at a lower rate still to be negotiated.

Thinking about it now, I reckon axl slash and duff have formed a joint venture for the reunion (with differential rights) which means they'll be the employers of the rest of the band (hence why those three will be confirmed). Which means axl slash and duff will share in reunion profits rather than just getting a fee.

This would be similar structure to the 1993 partnership

Point is, it is the 1993 partnership.

Well no. There is no way it would just "be the 1993 parntership". It'd be a new parternship with a completely different power balance, probably protecting the fuck out of all Axl's existing NuGnR rights, with Slash and Duff having protections around Axl performance standards.

Why so? That makes no sense. Nugnr are a different entity. That makes no sense whatsoever as there is nothing Slash and Duff can do which affects nugnr.

Well that's the point. You'd have clauses that make that clear "Axl grants Slash and Duff the non-exclusive right to use the Guns N' Roses name for the purpose of promoting the tour". "Nothing restricts Axl's right to tour with other members under the GnR name during the reunion tour" etc, "The partnership owns IP created only during course of tour"

[DieselDaisy]

I wonder what the split is. Are slash duff and axl taking equal amounts?

Given Steven silence and the lack of line up clairty, I would guess that Steven and Izzy are being offered in at a lower rate still to be negotiated.

Thinking about it now, I reckon axl slash and duff have formed a joint venture for the reunion (with differential rights) which means they'll be the employers of the rest of the band (hence why those three will be confirmed). Which means axl slash and duff will share in reunion profits rather than just getting a fee.

This would be similar structure to the 1993 partnership

Point is, it is the 1993 partnership.

Well no. There is no way it would just "be the 1993 parntership". It'd be a new parternship with a completely different power balance, probably protecting the fuck out of all Axl's existing NuGnR rights, with Slash and Duff having protections around Axl performance standards.

Why so? That makes no sense. Nugnr are a different entity. That makes no sense whatsoever as there is nothing Slash and Duff can do which affects nugnr.

Well that's the point. You'd have clauses that make that clear "Axl grants Slash and Duff the non-exclusive right to use the Guns N' Roses name for the purpose of promoting the tour". "Nothing restricts Axl's right to tour with other members under the GnR name during the reunion tour" etc, "The partnership owns IP created only during course of tour"

The Partnership of 1992/1993 would suffice for Axl, Slash and Duff to hold the right ''to use the Guns N' Roses name for the purpose of promoting the tour". Slash and Duff do not need Axl to grant them that power since they already possess it: it already exists and is right there in the Partnership Agreement. There is also no reason to enclose a clause restricting Axl's right ''to tour with other members under the GnR name'' since he has that power already, when he withdrew from the partnership in late 1995.

Think of them as two bands. The old band eventually became a partnership between Axl, Slash and Duff and still remains in being for licensing and marketing purposes. The new band is something set up by solely Axl.; every member who has been in it is a hireling.

[xBrownstonex]

sorry for the caps lock. It justa helpsme to read better what i'm writing when im using the celphone

That doesnt make any sense

[Eric Cantona]

IF YOU READ WHAT I JUST WROTE A SAID " BAND ", WASNT COMPARING WITH SOLO ARTISTS , BUT YOU CANT COMPARE GNR TO ADELE TILL GNR DECIDE TO DO THE SAME " OHH FUCK STOP IT ITS EVERY CHANEL, TV SHOW , E ENTERTAIMENT, ETC" KIND OF PROMOTION. ITS INSANE THE WAY PEOPLE LIKE PERRY, ADELE, GAGA OR WHATEVER PROMOTE THEMSELVES THIS DAYS. IF GUNS DO THAT KIND OF THING? WITH THE CUALITY, MUSIC, PASION, MAGNETISM, HISTORY THAT GNR HAVES? THERE WILL BE NO SPACE FOR THAT KIND OF NUMBERS.

BUT IVE GOT TO SAY, WHEN YOU SEE THAT PERHAPS NOVEMBER RAIN OFICIAL HAVE MORE VIEWS THAN MICHAEL JACKSON THRILLER?? WOW!!

THE THING IS U GUYS ARE ALWAYS TRYNG TO FIND NEGATIVE STUFF TU ARGUE ABOUT. BUT THATS BECAUSE THIS IS GUNS N ROSES, THATS THE KIND OF GREATNESS GNR HAVES.

I REPEAT " BEST YOUTUBE NUMBERS THAT ANY OTHER BAND IN THE WORLD"

ISNT THAT ENOUGH TO PROVE MY POINT?

PD: DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUNREAD ABOUT ADELE, GAGA, BIEVER, CYRUS, PERRY, ETC. MOST OF THAT ITS PURE PROMOTIONAL BS AND NOT REAL REAL NUMBERS. IN FACT THEY ALL ARE " EMPLOYEES", TRUE ARTISTS LIKE GNR AREN'T. THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM THAT ONLY REAL DEAL ( IN ART AND SALE NUMBERS) KIND OF ARTISTS BRINGS TO THE TABLE.

Are you Steven Tyler or is your Caps Lock button stuck?

[RussTCB]

Septem will be sitting in the corner for 24 hours.

Seriously, knock it off with the caps lock shit.

[m_rated96]

The Partnership of 1992/1993 would suffice for Axl, Slash and Duff to hold the right ''to use the Guns N' Roses name for the purpose of promoting the tour". Slash and Duff do not need Axl to grant them that power since they already possess it: it already exists and is right there in the Partnership Agreement. There is also no reason to enclose a clause restricting Axl's right ''to tour with other members under the GnR name'' since he has that power already, when he withdrew from the partnership in late 1995.

Think of them as two bands. The old band eventually became a partnership between Axl, Slash and Duff and still remains in being for licensing and marketing purposes. The new band is something set up by solely Axl.; every member who has been in it is a hireling.

There is no way in hell there is not a new agreement between the three of them. That agreement is over 20 years old The old partnership agreement was terminated when the old band broke up. You can see that by the drafting of the old agreement which was tendered in evidence during the greatest hits litigation.

Not to mention the fact that there are all kinds of new media rights in 2016 (digital, IPTV etc) which affect the structure of the agreement. And Axl, Slash and Duff have different commercial intentions to 1993.

And given that Axl, Slash and Duff have definetely created a new agremeent, that agreement would create new rights for each of the members . So the new agreement would to state very cleary that whatever new rights are created, they do not affect Axl's existing rights to tour with NuGnr. Or maybe they do to some limited extent, depending on whats negotiated.

[Black Sabbath]

What did Zeppelin get paid for their one-off?

[Frozen Inferno]

14 million for playing Coachella. Thats 10 mil for pitman, and the others dudes in the band split the rest. c'mon, guys. it's not rocket science.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Frozen Inferno

[DieselDaisy]

The Partnership of 1992/1993 would suffice for Axl, Slash and Duff to hold the right ''to use the Guns N' Roses name for the purpose of promoting the tour". Slash and Duff do not need Axl to grant them that power since they already possess it: it already exists and is right there in the Partnership Agreement. There is also no reason to enclose a clause restricting Axl's right ''to tour with other members under the GnR name'' since he has that power already, when he withdrew from the partnership in late 1995.

Think of them as two bands. The old band eventually became a partnership between Axl, Slash and Duff and still remains in being for licensing and marketing purposes. The new band is something set up by solely Axl.; every member who has been in it is a hireling.

There is no way in hell there is not a new agreement between the three of them. That agreement is over 20 years old The old partnership agreement was terminated when the old band broke up. You can see that by the drafting of the old agreement which was tendered in evidence during the greatest hits litigation.

Not to mention the fact that there are all kinds of new media rights in 2016 (digital, IPTV etc) which affect the structure of the agreement. And Axl, Slash and Duff have different commercial intentions to 1993.

And given that Axl, Slash and Duff have definetely created a new agremeent, that agreement would create new rights for each of the members . So the new agreement would to state very cleary that whatever new rights are created, they do not affect Axl's existing rights to tour with NuGnr. Or maybe they do to some limited extent, depending on whats negotiated.

Axl's new band is a completely different band. Imagine it with a different name? To include clauses about nugnr would be exactly the same thing as including clauses about Conspirators and Loaded. There is simply no need for it. Axl gained the right to form a different band with the same name (i.e. GN'R). Unless you are going to attempt to overturn the original Partnership Agreement, the original document from the Illusion tour, there is no need to even mention nugnr. That ship has sailed.

Edited January 15, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Trin9498]

Never understood the hate for CD... It's still GNR to me goddamint lol

It's a guns n roses album. It just has only axl and dizzy. Some people don't think that's enough apparently..

Guns n Roses became the name of Axl's solo project. Like Trent has NIN, Maynard has Puscifer, etc.

So yeah, there's Guns n Roses written on the cover but it's not the band, it's Axl's solo project. Now old Guns n Roses is back and I hope they don't play songs from Axl's project because they are very bad.

They may want to though. Duff said on the Jericho podcast how he liked playing the songs, noting catcher in the rye as the one that reall "caught his eye". We'll see if they do but I believe it to be entirely possible, knowing how much axl spent to make the record under the name "guns n roses" qualifies it to be under the same collection as the rest of the songs.

Personally, after hearing ashba butcher a song like this I love, it'd be cool to her slashs take on the solo. I think he'd make ashba look like a puppy compared to the big dogs.

Duff must have been drinking again! Kidding....but I still don't understand the love for that song.

[m_rated96]

Axl's new band is a completely different band. Imagine it with a different name? To include clauses about nugnr would be exactly the same thing as including clauses about Conspirators and Loaded. There is simply no need for it. Axl gained the right to form a different band with the same name (i.e. GN'R). Unless you are going to attempt to overturn the original Partnership Agreement, the original document from the Illusion tour, there is no need to even mention nugnr. That ship has sailed.

Trust me, you're wrong. I'm a lawyer. It wouldn't be the same as including clauses about those other bands because income made from NuGnR activities and Reunited GnR activities will need to be carefully deliniated so there's no overlap or confusion about who gets what.

So you need a document which says e.g. "NuGNRInc merch may be sold at ReunionInc concerts and will belong solely to NuGnr."

Also, as an aside, there's very likely to be clauses about Conspirators and Loaded. For example, "Nothing in this agreement limits Slash's rights to perform with Conspirators during the reunion tour period".

The whole point of most contracts is to make clear what's 'in the bucket' and what's 'out of the bucket'. So you would always include clauses to clarify what's what.

Also, the original partnership agreement is gone. Slash left in 1995, and Duff left in 1997 = terminated. Even Axl said "(Slash) has been 'OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY' outside of the Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995.""

The control that Slash and Duff have over licensing and merch is likely because they co-own the intellectual property, has nothing to do with the original partnership still being around. There is no more original partnership!!

Edited January 15, 2016 by m_rated96

[Apollo]

IF YOU READ WHAT I JUST WROTE A SAID " BAND ", WASNT COMPARING WITH SOLO ARTISTS , BUT YOU CANT COMPARE GNR TO ADELE TILL GNR DECIDE TO DO THE SAME " OHH FUCK STOP IT ITS EVERY CHANEL, TV SHOW , E ENTERTAIMENT, ETC" KIND OF PROMOTION. ITS INSANE THE WAY PEOPLE LIKE PERRY, ADELE, GAGA OR WHATEVER PROMOTE THEMSELVES THIS DAYS. IF GUNS DO THAT KIND OF THING? WITH THE CUALITY, MUSIC, PASION, MAGNETISM, HISTORY THAT GNR HAVES? THERE WILL BE NO SPACE FOR THAT KIND OF NUMBERS.

BUT IVE GOT TO SAY, WHEN YOU SEE THAT PERHAPS NOVEMBER RAIN OFICIAL HAVE MORE VIEWS THAN MICHAEL JACKSON THRILLER?? WOW!!

THE THING IS U GUYS ARE ALWAYS TRYNG TO FIND NEGATIVE STUFF TU ARGUE ABOUT. BUT THATS BECAUSE THIS IS GUNS N ROSES, THATS THE KIND OF GREATNESS GNR HAVES.

I REPEAT " BEST YOUTUBE NUMBERS THAT ANY OTHER BAND IN THE WORLD"

ISNT THAT ENOUGH TO PROVE MY POINT?

PD: DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUNREAD ABOUT ADELE, GAGA, BIEVER, CYRUS, PERRY, ETC. MOST OF THAT ITS PURE PROMOTIONAL BS AND NOT REAL REAL NUMBERS. IN FACT THEY ALL ARE " EMPLOYEES", TRUE ARTISTS LIKE GNR AREN'T. THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM THAT ONLY REAL DEAL ( IN ART AND SALE NUMBERS) KIND OF ARTISTS BRINGS TO THE TABLE.

?

Lol.

[SL138]

IF YOU READ WHAT I JUST WROTE A SAID " BAND ", WASNT COMPARING WITH SOLO ARTISTS , BUT YOU CANT COMPARE GNR TO ADELE TILL GNR DECIDE TO DO THE SAME " OHH FUCK STOP IT ITS EVERY CHANEL, TV SHOW , E ENTERTAIMENT, ETC" KIND OF PROMOTION. ITS INSANE THE WAY PEOPLE LIKE PERRY, ADELE, GAGA OR WHATEVER PROMOTE THEMSELVES THIS DAYS. IF GUNS DO THAT KIND OF THING? WITH THE CUALITY, MUSIC, PASION, MAGNETISM, HISTORY THAT GNR HAVES? THERE WILL BE NO SPACE FOR THAT KIND OF NUMBERS.

BUT IVE GOT TO SAY, WHEN YOU SEE THAT PERHAPS NOVEMBER RAIN OFICIAL HAVE MORE VIEWS THAN MICHAEL JACKSON THRILLER?? WOW!!

THE THING IS U GUYS ARE ALWAYS TRYNG TO FIND NEGATIVE STUFF TU ARGUE ABOUT. BUT THATS BECAUSE THIS IS GUNS N ROSES, THATS THE KIND OF GREATNESS GNR HAVES.

I REPEAT " BEST YOUTUBE NUMBERS THAT ANY OTHER BAND IN THE WORLD"

ISNT THAT ENOUGH TO PROVE MY POINT?

PD: DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUNREAD ABOUT ADELE, GAGA, BIEVER, CYRUS, PERRY, ETC. MOST OF THAT ITS PURE PROMOTIONAL BS AND NOT REAL REAL NUMBERS. IN FACT THEY ALL ARE " EMPLOYEES", TRUE ARTISTS LIKE GNR AREN'T. THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM THAT ONLY REAL DEAL ( IN ART AND SALE NUMBERS) KIND OF ARTISTS BRINGS TO THE TABLE.

Lol.

jeez

lol

gn'r is now finally entering that promotional, money-making side of the music world - they couldn't survive in the purely instinct driven, wild, drug-addict part of the music world - in fact that world has long gone with the passing of amy winehouse

so i'm sorry for the death of your favorite music band

you can thank duff mckagan's accounting studies for it

he put the guys back together realizing that it's the only way axl can cover his debt and slash can make even more $$$

[LovelessNL]

Dude...

[Asia]

Axl's new band is a completely different band. Imagine it with a different name? To include clauses about nugnr would be exactly the same thing as including clauses about Conspirators and Loaded. There is simply no need for it. Axl gained the right to form a different band with the same name (i.e. GN'R). Unless you are going to attempt to overturn the original Partnership Agreement, the original document from the Illusion tour, there is no need to even mention nugnr. That ship has sailed.

Trust me, you're wrong. I'm a lawyer. It wouldn't be the same as including clauses about those other bands because income made from NuGnR activities and Reunited GnR activities will need to be carefully deliniated so there's no overlap or confusion about who gets what.

So you need a document which says e.g. "NuGNRInc merch may be sold at ReunionInc concerts and will belong solely to NuGnr."

Also, as an aside, there's very likely to be clauses about Conspirators and Loaded. For example, "Nothing in this agreement limits Slash's rights to perform with Conspirators during the reunion tour period".

The whole point of most contracts is to make clear what's 'in the bucket' and what's 'out of the bucket'. So you would always include clauses to clarify what's what.

Also, the original partnership agreement is gone. Slash left in 1995, and Duff left in 1997 = terminated. Even Axl said "(Slash) has been 'OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY' outside of the Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995.""

The control that Slash and Duff have over licensing and merch is likely because they co-own the intellectual property, has nothing to do with the original partnership still being around. There is no more original partnership!!

It wasn't that way with Slash. Axl left the original partnership or suspended it or whatever, I don't know exactly, but many sources close to the band (like Marc) claimed the partnership wasn't terminated and it still existed. Anyway Axl started a new entity with the same name and tried to include Slash in that new entity under different conditions that Slash never specified in details. Anyway Slash signed some temporary contract that was supposed to be prolonged if things were right but things weren't, he walked out, and no new deal was made. That's how Slash was legally out of GNR, he left the new partnership, not the old one.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems logical that if the old partnership existed, there was no point to make a new one but add some clauses to the existing one, if necessary, and continue with it, leaving the NuGNR entity aside as Axl's business.

[GNRfan2008]

I don't think the old partnership was terminated. Otherwise the guys would not have been signing off on each other's DVD projects and whatnot. There have been a number of legal issues that seem to indicate the old partnership didn't just disappear in the mid-90's when the band broke up.

[James Bond]

I don't think the old partnership was terminated. Otherwise the guys would not have been signing off on each other's DVD projects and whatnot. There have been a number of legal issues that seem to indicate the old partnership didn't just disappear in the mid-90's when the band broke up.

Let's not forget that Axl, Slash, and Duff collectively filed a lawsuit against the label together to prevent the release of Greatest Hits. If the partnership didn't exist, only Axl would have sued. I'm no legal expert but I think that Axl simply owns "Guns N' Roses" as a name, but the brand is collectively maintained by him, Slash, and Duff. That would explain the joint lawsuits, signing off on each other's stuff, and so on.

[GNRfan2008]

I don't think the old partnership was terminated. Otherwise the guys would not have been signing off on each other's DVD projects and whatnot. There have been a number of legal issues that seem to indicate the old partnership didn't just disappear in the mid-90's when the band broke up.

Let's not forget that Axl, Slash, and Duff collectively filed a lawsuit against the label together to prevent the release of Greatest Hits. If the partnership didn't exist, only Axl would have sued. I'm no legal expert but I think that Axl simply owns "Guns N' Roses" as a name, but the brand is collectively maintained by him, Slash, and Duff. That would explain the joint lawsuits, signing off on each other's stuff, and so on.

I was going to mention that lawsuit but wasn't sure if they filed it as the GN'R partnership or if they were just filing it together as individuals who wrote the songs. Granted, I don't remember Izzy being part of that lawsuit and we know damn well he is credited on a lot of the songwriting so it is quite possible the lawsuit was specifically the Big 3 partnership.

[IncitingChaos]

I don't think the old partnership was terminated. Otherwise the guys would not have been signing off on each other's DVD projects and whatnot. There have been a number of legal issues that seem to indicate the old partnership didn't just disappear in the mid-90's when the band broke up.

Axl owns the rights to the name, but not the material created under the name between 87-97. So logos, song writing, or any of the copywrited material still falls under the original partnership and that's not going to change. I don't think that partnership can be terminated, you'd have to buy out Slash and Duff from their side.

[GNRfan2008]

I don't think the old partnership was terminated. Otherwise the guys would not have been signing off on each other's DVD projects and whatnot. There have been a number of legal issues that seem to indicate the old partnership didn't just disappear in the mid-90's when the band broke up.

Axl owns the rights to the name, but not the material created under the name between 87-97. So logos, song writing, or any of the copywrited material still falls under the original partnership and that's not going to change. I don't think that partnership can be terminated, you'd have to buy out Slash and Duff from their side.

The songwriting doesn't necessarily fall under the partnership. Izzy left the partnership in 1991 but he is a huge part of the songwriting.

[Pedrolg]

At his point it really seems like Coachella organizers have a gag order on GNR until the show, and at some point this was not quite clear with the band, with some members saying more than they should

[cooker]

I don't think the old partnership was terminated. Otherwise the guys would not have been signing off on each other's DVD projects and whatnot. There have been a number of legal issues that seem to indicate the old partnership didn't just disappear in the mid-90's when the band broke up.

Axl owns the rights to the name, but not the material created under the name between 87-97. So logos, song writing, or any of the copywrited material still falls under the original partnership and that's not going to change. I don't think that partnership can be terminated, you'd have to buy out Slash and Duff from their side.

The songwriting doesn't necessarily fall under the partnership. Izzy left the partnership in 1991 but he is a huge part of the songwriting.

This all depends on how the Original partnership was created. Perhaps when Izzy quit he also quit the partnership, still receives royalties off the material but doesn't have an legal say.

[GNRfan2008]

I don't think the old partnership was terminated. Otherwise the guys would not have been signing off on each other's DVD projects and whatnot. There have been a number of legal issues that seem to indicate the old partnership didn't just disappear in the mid-90's when the band broke up.

Axl owns the rights to the name, but not the material created under the name between 87-97. So logos, song writing, or any of the copywrited material still falls under the original partnership and that's not going to change. I don't think that partnership can be terminated, you'd have to buy out Slash and Duff from their side.

The songwriting doesn't necessarily fall under the partnership. Izzy left the partnership in 1991 but he is a huge part of the songwriting.

This all depends on how the Original partnership was created. Perhaps when Izzy quit he also quit the partnership, still receives royalties off the material but doesn't have an legal say.

Ultimately it doesn't seem any of them had much of a say on the Greatest Hits. They sued because they didn't like the track listing or something and Geffen/Universal still released the thing probably exactly as originally planned.