The "New Album" Thread. Thanks to the long ass thread, I’m going home!

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

I suppose my definition of an 'employee' is always someone who works for someone else.....so if they're not equal partners, they are employees really. 

That's a truly weird and unusual way to look at "employment" and "partners".

[allwaystired]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is hard to understand what you mean by "survive". If you mean "continue to tour with the same amount of people coming to the shows" then of course you are right, GN'R wouldn't be able to do that without Slash. But "survive" is much more broad than that, it simply means that the band doesn't cease to exist. In my opinion, and this is really elementary, GN'R could continue to exist but as a less popular band without Slash. Slash's absence wouldn't make it impossible for Axl to release music, nor for him to tour with much less people coming to the shows (if he still wanted to tour). So you are wrong.

And my perspective on this has of course nothing to do with defending anything but purely with logic and reason. You constantly trying to ridicule my opinions as if they are solely moved by me wanting to "defend" the band is incredibly immature and simplistic and only makes you appear like a simpleton who are not able to understand the finer points of arguments and perspectives.

Actually, it's not me constantly trying to ridicule your Defence League position (I think this is the first time I've ever mentioned it) but there are obviously many on here who have been saying that, so it's easy to get us confused.

If you want to be pedantic about the word 'survive', go for it. I think we all know without Slash, GNR are as dead as a dodo. 

Yes they could probably limp around half sold bowling alleys and private parties again, if that helps the matter. In the eyes of the ticket buying public, they'd be done. 

[allwaystired]

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's a truly weird and unusual way to look at "employment" and "partners".

Nothing 'weird and unusual' about it in the slightest. 

A partner can also be an employee, depending on what setup they have. And we don't know what setup they do have. 

https://www.foxwilliams.com/2017/02/28/status-symbols-what-factors-will-decide-whether-your-partners-are-employees/

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Actually, it's not me constantly trying to ridicule your Defence League position (I think this is the first time I've ever mentioned it) but there are obviously many on here who have been saying that, so it's easy to get us confused.

If you want to be pedantic about the word 'survive', go for it. I think we all know without Slash, GNR are as dead as a dodo. 

Yes they could probably limp around half sold bowling alleys and private parties again, if that helps the matter. In the eyes of the ticket buying public, they'd be done. 

Then it seems like we more or less agree, it is just you throwing expressions like "survive" and "dead as a dodo" around with very little accuracy. 

You also seem to forget that a band doesn't need to tour to be an active band, it would be enough to work on and release music. 

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Nothing 'weird and unusual' about it in the slightest. 

It is certainly unusual and weird to operate with the assumptions that partners are always equal and that the only other alternative is an employee-employee relantionship. 

A partnership simply means that two or more people or entities work towards some defined objective. 

[allwaystired]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is certainly unusual and weird to operate with the assumptions that partners are always equal and that the only other alternative is an employee-employee relantionship. 

A partnership simply means that two or more people or entities work towards some defined objective. 

Right. So they could well be employees. Which I think was my original point? 

[ChrisW]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, of course not. I think he was being entirely honest in the chat.

If we are to trust Axl, then Slash has lied or at least exaggerated Axl's desire to broaden out the music of GN'R after the 1990 touring when he (Axl) really wanted or agreed to make an album more in the vein of classical rock, but Slash sabotaged this; and when Slash had left GN'R, Axl wouldn't be able to make such a record because he didn't have the players for it any more, so that steered the music more in the direction of what would eventually be Chinese Democracy.

In my opinion, I think Axl was interested in keeping GN'R music fresh and exciting and not stagnating, but eventually agreed or decided to make a more traditional sounding record (either because of pushback from Slash or simply because he thought that the current lineup, with Slash, wouldn't be the right vehicle for that). That Slash then sabotaged this sounds crazy, but as I alluded to above, there is a possibility that Slash realized he would be better off by not helping to realize that record. In either case, Slash's focus was on Snakepit and as he admitted himself, he stopped coming to rehearsals. So the outcome was, regardless of whether this was Slash consciously trying to sabotage GN'R or just not being present and motivated, that things didn't move forward (also of course due to Axl's peculiarities). Then Slash left and Axl was more free to move GN'R in whatever musical direction he wanted, but also still limited by the musicians at hand. And those musicians came in with very different skills and interests, and also changed frequently. Looking at the Village leaks the music really is a schizophrenia of styles and genres, from very traditional sounding songs that could have fit on Appetite or UYI to much more experimental (both electronic but also avant garde guitar from Buckethead). 

Slash isn't a good speaker, he's trying to get along with others and the best way to dominate your subordinates is to keep changing things so they have no idea what is happening next.  Which Axl has a lot of experience at.

Slash's goal was to write and record a new album and everybody but Axl was fine with that.  Slash brings in a bunch of new tracks, Axl says "no."  He's in charge and everybody else has to obey him.  But if the goal of being in charge of others, they can't leave.  No point having a dog leash if you don't have a dog on it.

Because Axl is surrounded by people who tell him every day he uses time differently, he can delay Slash and try to tease him, that *maybe* he can do something with some parts of Slash's demos.  Meanwhile Slash already has the Snakepit album recorded and ready to release.  It's not classic G'n'R like "My World" and "Look At Your Game, Girl" but G'n'R owns it.

I can't find the quote or who actually said it, but at some point it was specified that yes, except for this one Snakepit album, whoever owns G'n'R owns every music Slash makes until he leaves the band.  We know who owns G'n'R.

A sensible person who has a Brian May solo would want other people to hear it as soon as possible, and keep the solo just the way Brian May did it.  Axl did neither because being in charge is more important, wasting Brian's time on a solo nobody will ever get to hear.  That's how every employee is treated and that's why there isn't any new G'n'R music.  Employees get paid whether they write new music for G'n'R or not.

A sensible person would realize that nobody wants to play with Paul Tobias so don't force him on everyone else.  But Axl's in charge, he owns the band and can hire anyone he wants.  So Paul stays, everybody else has to leave, and they do.

Other than the sycophants who surround Axl, who's going to claim that his new music in the 1990s is totally different from his new music in the 2000s which is totally different from his new music in the 2010s which is totally different from his new music in the 2020s?  No stagnation there and anyone who disagrees has a pussy full of maggots.

Slash wasn't sabotaging, he was just trying to get something done and move on.  The last 30 years show that Axl is not remotely capable of that and he doesn't have to because he's in charge.  Slash and Duff get paid more but they're still the sub, Axl is the dom.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Right. So they could well be employees. Which I think was my original point? 

But they aren't employees because they haven't signed employment contract which would regulate the relationship between them and Axl under US employment laws. They are partners as other people have pointed out and argued for earlier, because they are parties to a partnership agreement.

[Voodoochild]

Well, the thing is: could Axl release something now without Slash and Duff's approval? I strongly doubt it. So no, they are not just employees with minimal partnership status.

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, ChrisW said:

Slash wasn't sabotaging, he was just trying to get something done and move on. 

I only skimmed the rest of your post which was mostly based on what you want to believe and not supported by much facts. The quote above exemplifies this: "Sabotage" is quite possible a too strong word and implies ill-will on Slash's part which might not have been there, but he certainly wasn't "just trying to get something done and move on," unless you mean actually refer to record the Snakepit album and tour to support it. Again, as Slash himself has admitted, he stopped going to GN'R rehearsals. That does simply not align with someone doing all he could to move the band forward. He wasn't comfortable in GN'R at the time (for various reasons) and found happiness elsewhere, just like he did with Velvet Revolver and his solo record some years later. And there is nothing wrong with this. I am sympathetic to him feeling miserable while in GN'R, it can't be easy dealing with Axl (or his posse), but don't paint it as Slash was some valiant knight fighting to move GN'R forward. Like a husband in a miserable marriage he found himself a lover, and that mistress was Snakepit.. 

Edited March 27 by SoulMonster

[Voodoochild]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Like a husband in a miserable marriage he found himself a lover, and that mistress was Snakepit. Again, nothing wrong with it. 

Unless you're the wife.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

Well, the thing is: could Axl release something now without Slash and Duff's approval? I strongly doubt it. So no, they are not just employees with minimal partnership status.

I've thought about that. Slash has said that nothing was signed as he joined GN'R again, which would imply that the 1992 partnership agreement is still valid. According to it, as I interpret it, Axl can not release new GN'R music without Slash's agreement. And likewise, Slash and Duff couldn't release GN'R music without Axl's approval.

Another question entirely is of course if the partnership agreement really is valid from a legal perspective considering that both Axl and Slash seem to have withdrawn from it at some point, but obviously this is of no practical interest because if the parties themselves think it is still valid, then it is valid. And since all lawsuits where the validity of it could be tested, were dismissed, we don't have a legal conclusion on this.

1 minute ago, Voodoochild said:

Unless you're the wife.

Oh, my analogy failed! Yes, I did not mean that being unfaithful is morally right

[SoulMonster]

Hypothetically speaking, if Duff and Slash were to release an album by Guns N' Roses without Axl's approval, Axl could either sue them because it would be a breach of the 1992 partnership agreement or argue that he had left the partnership and hence owned the name. In either case I think Axl would have a good legal case.

If Axl, on the other hand, were to release new GN'R music without Slash and Duff's approval, like more CD era music without their contributions, I think Slash and Duff could sue him for breaching the 1992 partnership agreement. Axl's defense then would be that he has withdrawn from that partnership and hence is allowed to release GN'R music as he sees fit. The problem with that, I believe, is that he would then possibly open himself up for (again) being sued for not having allowed Slash and Duff to out-license music earlier or be impotent in preventing them from doing so in the future.

So in that sense they are locked together. A problem might come if they don't agree on new music, say if Axl wants to release more of the CD era music and Slash don't. Such an impasse could be broken by Axl (again) leaving the partnership, or arguing that he already did back in 1995, which would free him to do whatever he wants. But again, that would likely come at the cost of another lawsuit and possible compensation to Slash and Duff for having refused to out-license music earlier. For me, this would be a worst-case scenario since Axl could decide that the costs of such legal wranglings would be too high and just give up on releasing music again.

Is it likely that Slash and Duff would agree to keep on adding to CD era songs and have these released? I think they would do it if Axl refused to work on new music, because that would be the only way to get new GN'R music out (especially if they kept touring with huge profits), but I also wouldn't be surprised if they just refused to keep releasing music they didn't help to write under the GN'R name, thus forcing the band into a standstill until either of them gave in. I am actually surprised that Slash and Duff agreed to work on CD era music, but I think this is representative of the good-will and positivity that existed (and possible still exist) after they rejoined the band. Axl suggested playing Slither and they suggested to work on CD era songs that obviously meant a lot to Axl. Axl was professional through and through and all was good and great. 

Edited March 27 by SoulMonster

[JimiRose]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Guns N' Roses survived Slash quitting in the 90s and would survive Slash leaving now, too. Any albums released would sell less, sure, and tours would be far less profitable, but it worked before and would work again. 

This is the most naïve thing ever said here. It is in no way comparable. How can you type that and not be obviously sarcastic?

Axl was mid 30s, chinese democracy rumours and unbelievable expense to make the record, most gnr fans still being there from their pomp, the constant reunion rumours, the mystery, the fact that axl was still an angry and motivated man. We got CD, we got leftover follow ups, we got the reunion an 8 years of touring with literally everyone saying from 2018 onwards Axl was shot, slash was the only thing good about the show. Axl has become less and less famous, less and less mystical and worse and worse as a performer. Slash is more famous than ever. 

Sure if Axl wanted to tour 900 capacity venues for axl die hards and call it guns n roses without slash and duff he could, but he won't. He's 62, he can barely sing at all. if slash said in 2025 im done with GnR, then GnR are done. To even suggest they would carry on in 2025 like they did in 1996 is preposterous 

[Lio]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That's a truly weird and unusual way to look at "employment" and "partners".

No, it's plain wrong. You can't make up your own definition of something and then blame people for not getting your personal definition of something and pretending they're being willingly obtuse for not getting it.

[SoulMonster]

18 minutes ago, JimiRose said:

This is the most naïve thing ever said here. It is in no way comparable. How can you type that and not be obviously sarcastic?

I only said it would work, not that it would be identical in every aspect to the nuGuns era. That being said, I think a new lineup could draw similar crowds as in 2012-2014 (assuming Axl's voice was in similar shape and the rest of the lineup was good). As for how a record would fare in comparison to CD, well that's a tough call. On one hand you have an even worse climate for rock and the fact that Slash wasn't there would get a lot of attention, but if Slash left on amicable terms then Axl might benefit on a better reputation than in 2008 and hopefully the music would be judged based on how good it is and less on politics. Still, my point was not to argue it would sell the same as CD, only that Axl could release music and hence that GN'R would survive. 

[Lethalis]

On 3/26/2024 at 1:21 AM, Rovim said:

does Axl wants to make a final musical statement with Gn'R? my guess is he does.

Not sure about that. His "musical statement" was Chinese Democracy. Axl probably wants to keep releasing reworked Chinese era songs.

We got a Monsters leak with Slash on it. There's more. But completely new material with Duff and Slash? I don't know. Would be great for sure, but it seems far away.

[allwaystired]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

But they aren't employees because they haven't signed employment contract which would regulate the relationship between them and Axl under US employment laws. They are partners as other people have pointed out and argued for earlier, because they are parties to a partnership agreement.

Again, that doesn't mean they're not employees.

Plenty to read on the matter, but I don't think that's going to happen! 

https://aghlc.com/resources/articles/2016/partners-as-employees-160822.aspx

 

[allwaystired]

17 minutes ago, Lio said:

No, it's plain wrong. You can't make up your own definition of something and then blame people for not getting your personal definition of something and pretending they're being willingly obtuse for not getting it.

Have a look at those articles posted. It's not wrong at all - you can be a partner and an employee, depending on many factors. 

I mean this place is full of opinions, and all the better for it, but it is tiresome when people just say 'wrong' without reading the facts. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Again, that doesn't mean they're not employees.

Plenty to read on the matter, but I don't think that's going to happen! 

https://aghlc.com/resources/articles/2016/partners-as-employees-160822.aspx

 

No, actually if no employment contract is signed, then they aren't employees. One can get compensated for work and not be an employee (like external consultants). But if you have an employment contract you are per definition an employee. 

[jamillos]

Ha, your typical everyday forum material – spewing out monologues without even trying to understand each other. Does it really freaking matter how exactly we call it? It’s a question of percentage one way or the other. Think of it as shareholders. Is one of the two (I’m not counting Duff here) a major one and the other minor? Or are these two on a 50/50 basis? That’s the real question! 

And my view would be that Slash had no reason to come back into an arrangement as crazy and disadvantageous as the one in the heydays was. Which means even if he’s surely not going to make Axl go to the studio or write new material, he definitely could, for example, say 'look, I’m not doing another tour unless we’re supporting a new album with it.'
There you go. 
But as usual, we know fuck all anyway. 

[allwaystired]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, actually if no employment contract is signed, then they aren't employees. One can get compensated for work and not be an employee (like external consultants). But if you have an employment contract you are per definition an employee. 

Sure. 

Plenty to read about it online, but I'm done debating it round and round on here! 

[allwaystired]

2 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Ha, your typical everyday forum material – spewing out monologues without even trying to understand each other. Does it really freaking matter how exactly we call it? It’s a question of percentage one way or the other. Think of it as shareholders. Is one of the two (I’m not counting Duff here) a major one and the other minor? Or are these two on a 50/50 basis? That’s the real question! 

And my view would be that Slash had no reason to come back into an arrangement as crazy and disadvantageous as the one in the heydays was. Which means even if he’s surely not going to make Axl go to the studio or write new material, he definitely could, for example, say 'look, I’m not doing another tour unless we’re supporting a new album with it.'
There you go. 
But as usual, we know fuck all anyway. 

Doesn't matter in the slightest. It's Axl's band, he calls all the shots, and that's about all we need to know anyway really.

That and when the new album is out of course.......

[DTV88]

2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Doesn't matter in the slightest. It's Axl's band, he calls all the shots, and that's about all we need to know anyway really.

That and when the new album is out of course.......

I get what you’re trying to do here, but it’s really pointless to engage with people who are lapping at Axl’s nuts. It’s like trying to get a MAGA chump to act like a human being with compassion for others. 

[jamillos]

15 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Doesn't matter in the slightest. It's Axl's band, he calls all the shots, and that's about all we need to know anyway really.

That and when the new album is out of course.......

Never doubted that, but if Slash doesn't like something and puts his foot down, Axl's in a real pickle, that's what I'm saying. 

10 minutes ago, DTV88 said:

I get what you’re trying to do here, but it’s really pointless to engage with people who are lapping at Axl’s nuts. It’s like trying to get a MAGA chump to act like a human being with compassion for others. 

Just in case - please don't put me in any boxes here. If anything, I happen to agree with 99% of what Allwaystired writes on this forum...

Edited March 27 by jamillos