Maybe Axl is obligated to continue Guns N Roses

[Nightcrawler]

I know traditionally when band names are used by one member of a band it's distasteful and most fans usually revolt and turn on that person.

But Axl owns the brand name, and maybe that makes him accountable for delivering on the rest of guns n roses contract. They did sign a rather lengthly album deal, for alot of money, maybe the label locked GNR into those albums, and if Slash and the guys owned a piece of the brand, maybe they wouldn't be free to do these other projects. It's possible that by not going on with Guns as a brand, Axl would default on thier contract. he'd surely lose the money promised to him, and maybe even have to pay penalities.

HE has said he had no choice but to rebuild guns. Maybe he really had no choice.

And even if he did have a choice to do a solo album, the guy is entitled to collect on that money that GNR signed to. They sold alot of albums to get that deal, why should he have to give it up because the other guys walked away? When Slash and duff walked away, they knew what kind of money the contract was worth. hell, maybe they even took some advance money, we know Axl did, they all probably got advance money for an album that never made it to release.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of All GNR members, Slash and Duff and Izzy and steve will always be guns to me. But Axl is carrying through with the contract GNR signed to, before they disbanded. That's why I think the GNR situation is different from other bands who move on without original members.

Maybe that's why Axl is mad at fans who don't "get it".

I posted a similar thread on HTGTH when this board was down, but this is much more complete.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Nightcrawler

[HOOSIER GUNZ]

(-?-)

[aussie_axl]

I know traditionally when band names are used by one member of a band it's distasteful and most fans usually revolt and turn on that person.

But Axl owns the brand name, and maybe that makes him accountable for delivering on the rest of guns n roses contract. They did sign a rather lengthly album deal, for alot of money, maybe the label locked GNR into those albums, and if Slash and the guys owned a piece of the brand, maybe they wouldn't be free to do these other projects. It's possible that by not going on with Guns as a brand, Axl would default on thier contract. he'd surely lose the money promised to him, and maybe even have to pay penalities.

HE has said he had no choice but to rebuild guns. Maybe he really had no choice.

And even if he did have a choice to do a solo album, the guy is entitled to collect on that money that GNR signed to. They sold alot of albums to get that deal, why should he have to give it up because the other guys walked away? When Slash and duff walked away, they knew what kind of money the contract was worth. hell, maybe they even took some advance money, we know Axl did, they all probably got advance money for an album that never made it to release.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of All GNR members, Slash and Duff and Izzy and steve will always be guns to me. But Axl is carrying through with the contract GNR signed to, before they disbanded. That's why I think the GNR situation is different from other bands who move on without original members.

Maybe that's why Axl is mad at fans who don't "get it".

I posted a similar thread on HTGTH when this board was down, but this is much more complete.

dude take a break from gnr, stop trying to analyze this band and axl!, trust me if you do try and analyze

it.....it just takes away from why you liked this guy and this band in the first place, just my hot tip!.

[Nightcrawler]

I know traditionally when band names are used by one member of a band it's distasteful and most fans usually revolt and turn on that person.

But Axl owns the brand name, and maybe that makes him accountable for delivering on the rest of guns n roses contract. They did sign a rather lengthly album deal, for alot of money, maybe the label locked GNR into those albums, and if Slash and the guys owned a piece of the brand, maybe they wouldn't be free to do these other projects. It's possible that by not going on with Guns as a brand, Axl would default on thier contract. he'd surely lose the money promised to him, and maybe even have to pay penalities.

HE has said he had no choice but to rebuild guns. Maybe he really had no choice.

And even if he did have a choice to do a solo album, the guy is entitled to collect on that money that GNR signed to. They sold alot of albums to get that deal, why should he have to give it up because the other guys walked away? When Slash and duff walked away, they knew what kind of money the contract was worth. hell, maybe they even took some advance money, we know Axl did, they all probably got advance money for an album that never made it to release.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of All GNR members, Slash and Duff and Izzy and steve will always be guns to me. But Axl is carrying through with the contract GNR signed to, before they disbanded. That's why I think the GNR situation is different from other bands who move on without original members.

Maybe that's why Axl is mad at fans who don't "get it".

I posted a similar thread on HTGTH when this board was down, but this is much more complete.

dude take a break from gnr, stop trying to analyze this band and axl!, trust me if you do try and analyze

it.....it just takes away from why you liked this guy and this band in the first place, just my hot tip!.

I'm not analying anything. Pretty basic, don't hate on me because you didn't see it.

1. We all know guns n roses signed a big album deal back in the 90's.

2. We all know Axl owns the name that signed that record deal.

3. We all know alot of advance money has been laid out.

Therefore:

A. I don't think suggesting Axl might want to collect all that money is crazy. A solo album doesn't pay out GNR money.

B. I don't think that the corporation of Guns N roses might be obligated to deliver the product they were contracted for is that crazy either.

I don't get it, people will discuss for pages the most ridiculous bullshit theories, but this is too much? The only problem with this htread is that it makes sense.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Nightcrawler

[icet224]

I think your right, dude... it totally makes sense... of course, I believe that Axl deserves the GNR name because its his voice... look at what happened to Motley Crue with Jon Corabi, noone liked the album cause it wasn't Vince... New Tatoo(the album without Tommy Lee) sold better because it still had the classic voice of the group and didn't sound like Crab(I skipped Generation Swine because that had all the original members and doesn't help prove my point about bands being known for certain vocals) and don't bring up Black Sabbath and Van Halen, Van Halen was Eddie, we all know it, it doesn't matter who sings with them, because their vocalists sound somewhat similar so as not to detract from Eddie, and Black Sabbath was Ozzy until Dio came around, Dio only replaced Ozzy because Dio was the only other guy in metal at the time with the same kind of dark at home feel Sabbath is driven by...

[TheAlien]

I know traditionally when band names are used by one member of a band it's distasteful and most fans usually revolt and turn on that person.

But Axl owns the brand name, and maybe that makes him accountable for delivering on the rest of guns n roses contract. They did sign a rather lengthly album deal, for alot of money, maybe the label locked GNR into those albums, and if Slash and the guys owned a piece of the brand, maybe they wouldn't be free to do these other projects. It's possible that by not going on with Guns as a brand, Axl would default on thier contract. he'd surely lose the money promised to him, and maybe even have to pay penalities.

HE has said he had no choice but to rebuild guns. Maybe he really had no choice.

And even if he did have a choice to do a solo album, the guy is entitled to collect on that money that GNR signed to. They sold alot of albums to get that deal, why should he have to give it up because the other guys walked away? When Slash and duff walked away, they knew what kind of money the contract was worth. hell, maybe they even took some advance money, we know Axl did, they all probably got advance money for an album that never made it to release.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of All GNR members, Slash and Duff and Izzy and steve will always be guns to me. But Axl is carrying through with the contract GNR signed to, before they disbanded. That's why I think the GNR situation is different from other bands who move on without original members.

Maybe that's why Axl is mad at fans who don't "get it".

I posted a similar thread on HTGTH when this board was down, but this is much more complete.

dude take a break from gnr, stop trying to analyze this band and axl!, trust me if you do try and analyze

it.....it just takes away from why you liked this guy and this band in the first place, just my hot tip!.

I'm not analying anything. Pretty basic, don't hate on me because you didn't see it.

1. We all know guns n roses signed a big album deal back in the 90's.

2. We all know Axl owns the name that signed that record deal.

3. We all know alot of advance money has been laid out.

Therefore:

A. I don't think suggesting Axl might want to collect all that money is crazy. A solo album doesn't pay out GNR money.

B. I don't think that the corporation of Guns N roses might be obligated to deliver the product they were contracted for is that crazy either.

I don't get it, people will discuss for pages the most ridiculous bullshit theories, but this is too much? The only problem with this htread is that it makes sense.

I think he is not obliged to release anything, and in fact it's since ... more then 10 years that he doesn't release anything!

I guess the contract could be something that IF or WHEN GnR would release a record it should be with them... or something like that, u can't constrict someone to make an album, so Axl could make a solo project named a solo project and no GnR..................it is just his choice maybe he feels it would be too risky going out "alone"

[Charles Manson]

I know traditionally when band names are used by one member of a band it's distasteful and most fans usually revolt and turn on that person.

But Axl owns the brand name, and maybe that makes him accountable for delivering on the rest of guns n roses contract. They did sign a rather lengthly album deal, for alot of money, maybe the label locked GNR into those albums, and if Slash and the guys owned a piece of the brand, maybe they wouldn't be free to do these other projects. It's possible that by not going on with Guns as a brand, Axl would default on thier contract. he'd surely lose the money promised to him, and maybe even have to pay penalities.

HE has said he had no choice but to rebuild guns. Maybe he really had no choice.

And even if he did have a choice to do a solo album, the guy is entitled to collect on that money that GNR signed to. They sold alot of albums to get that deal, why should he have to give it up because the other guys walked away? When Slash and duff walked away, they knew what kind of money the contract was worth. hell, maybe they even took some advance money, we know Axl did, they all probably got advance money for an album that never made it to release.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of All GNR members, Slash and Duff and Izzy and steve will always be guns to me. But Axl is carrying through with the contract GNR signed to, before they disbanded. That's why I think the GNR situation is different from other bands who move on without original members.

Maybe that's why Axl is mad at fans who don't "get it".

I posted a similar thread on HTGTH when this board was down, but this is much more complete.

dude take a break from gnr, stop trying to analyze this band and axl!, trust me if you do try and analyze

it.....it just takes away from why you liked this guy and this band in the first place, just my hot tip!.

I'm not analying anything. Pretty basic, don't hate on me because you didn't see it.

1. We all know guns n roses signed a big album deal back in the 90's.

2. We all know Axl owns the name that signed that record deal.

3. We all know alot of advance money has been laid out.

Therefore:

A. I don't think suggesting Axl might want to collect all that money is crazy. A solo album doesn't pay out GNR money.

B. I don't think that the corporation of Guns N roses might be obligated to deliver the product they were contracted for is that crazy either.

I don't get it, people will discuss for pages the most ridiculous bullshit theories, but this is too much? The only problem with this htread is that it makes sense.

I think he is not obliged to release anything, and in fact it's since ... more then 10 years that he doesn't release anything!

I guess the contract could be something that IF or WHEN GnR would release a record it should be with them... or something like that, u can't constrict someone to make an album, so Axl could make a solo project named a solo project and no GnR..................it is just his choice maybe he feels it would be too risky going out "alone"

Risky? I believe Scared is the word you are looking for...

[Voxy]

I think Axl was waiting for his contract to run out with Greffen before joining Sanctuary, thats why we have been waiting for this album to come out for so long and why they pushed him for the tour in 2002, but he wasnt ready..

[Anagram Of Oral Sex]

I think Axl has a personal obligation to himself, and to the fans to continue Guns n' Roses.

[TheAlien]

I know traditionally when band names are used by one member of a band it's distasteful and most fans usually revolt and turn on that person.

But Axl owns the brand name, and maybe that makes him accountable for delivering on the rest of guns n roses contract. They did sign a rather lengthly album deal, for alot of money, maybe the label locked GNR into those albums, and if Slash and the guys owned a piece of the brand, maybe they wouldn't be free to do these other projects. It's possible that by not going on with Guns as a brand, Axl would default on thier contract. he'd surely lose the money promised to him, and maybe even have to pay penalities.

HE has said he had no choice but to rebuild guns. Maybe he really had no choice.

And even if he did have a choice to do a solo album, the guy is entitled to collect on that money that GNR signed to. They sold alot of albums to get that deal, why should he have to give it up because the other guys walked away? When Slash and duff walked away, they knew what kind of money the contract was worth. hell, maybe they even took some advance money, we know Axl did, they all probably got advance money for an album that never made it to release.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of All GNR members, Slash and Duff and Izzy and steve will always be guns to me. But Axl is carrying through with the contract GNR signed to, before they disbanded. That's why I think the GNR situation is different from other bands who move on without original members.

Maybe that's why Axl is mad at fans who don't "get it".

I posted a similar thread on HTGTH when this board was down, but this is much more complete.

dude take a break from gnr, stop trying to analyze this band and axl!, trust me if you do try and analyze

it.....it just takes away from why you liked this guy and this band in the first place, just my hot tip!.

I'm not analying anything. Pretty basic, don't hate on me because you didn't see it.

1. We all know guns n roses signed a big album deal back in the 90's.

2. We all know Axl owns the name that signed that record deal.

3. We all know alot of advance money has been laid out.

Therefore:

A. I don't think suggesting Axl might want to collect all that money is crazy. A solo album doesn't pay out GNR money.

B. I don't think that the corporation of Guns N roses might be obligated to deliver the product they were contracted for is that crazy either.

I don't get it, people will discuss for pages the most ridiculous bullshit theories, but this is too much? The only problem with this htread is that it makes sense.

I think he is not obliged to release anything, and in fact it's since ... more then 10 years that he doesn't release anything!

I guess the contract could be something that IF or WHEN GnR would release a record it should be with them... or something like that, u can't constrict someone to make an album, so Axl could make a solo project named a solo project and no GnR..................it is just his choice maybe he feels it would be too risky going out "alone"

Risky? I believe Scared is the word you are looking for...

Ok u got it!

Even Terrified would fit

[ssiscool]

I think Axl was waiting for his contract to run out with Greffen before joining Sanctuary, thats why we have been waiting for this album to come out for so long and why they pushed him for the tour in 2002, but he wasnt ready..

that sounds reasonable but he must have been ready to some degree

[Chris Axl]

I think Axl was waiting for his contract to run out with Greffen before joining Sanctuary, thats why we have been waiting for this album to come out for so long and why they pushed him for the tour in 2002, but he wasnt ready..

that sounds reasonable but he must have been ready to some degree

Yeah, I dont belive Axl was FORCED to go on tour in 01/02

[shootingstar]

I like the aspects in this thread. For once we got some new ones without bashing any current or pre-member.

It´s possible he was payed in advance,

Remember I read in some paper that Robbie Williams was payed 100 million $+ to deliver an album..

Something like that..

[Dead Flower]

It's been well established that there's a big monetary bonus waiting for Axl if he delivers a new album under the Guns N' Roses name. Not sure if he's actually contractually obliged to do so, though.

[Doghan]

It could be true. The latest Megadeth album was Dave Mustaine's solo record but he still owed an album under the Megadeth name so he had no choice.

[November_rain]

If Axl continues with GNR is because he wants not because he feels obliged. He could have been solo and he didn´t, he had the guts to rebuild the band and go on doing what he believes in.

[shootingstar]

If Axl continues with GNR is because he wants not because he feels obliged. He could have been solo and he didn´t, he had the guts to rebuild the band and go on doing what he believes in.

Some people think it was the easy way

What I´ve understand, this thread wasn´t about if Axl FEELS obliged. It was about if he was/is obliged more in a formal and bureaucratic way..

Still I agree with you in your aspect

[Axl-rocks]

can't wait for the album.

I don't think he feels obligated to continue Guns n Roses.

[TeeJay410]

well for the legal reasons he listed he is obligated, but in my opinion axl really felt obligated to get out the album after it was done in 99 but they re-recorded it, thats when he felt pressure and more of a personal need

[Nightcrawler]

If Axl continues with GNR is because he wants not because he feels obliged. He could have been solo and he didn´t, he had the guts to rebuild the band and go on doing what he believes in.

Some people think it was the easy way

What I´ve understand, this thread wasn´t about if Axl FEELS obliged. It was about if he was/is obliged more in a formal and bureaucratic way..

Still I agree with you in your aspect

I'm convinced most people here don't read more than the thread title. Your right shooting star. it has nothing to do with how he feels, this thread I mean.

It's big business, I know most people like to think different, but GNR sold alot of product in a huge industry. As the owner of the guns n roses name, which to the industry is a brand. The GH package sold 4 million copies or something, that makes it still very valuable today. The band signed a big contract, but axl owns the band and it's obligation to complete the contract. Individual members were paid through the corporation of GNR, that makes the owner of that corporation accountable, not individuals, for delivering the record. After the success of the GH album, it's doubtful geffen wants him to default on that deal. IT's more than likely he can't walk away from his business commitments without costing himself alot of money.

Axl can probably not release music for the rest of his life, but if he does, the contract probably requires it's under the brand name of GNR. Being the owner of the name he'd be the only one bound by the contract. Everyone else would, in the eyes of the industry, be employees.

I know alot of people can't grasp that GNR is a corporation, but it is. it's a business within an industry. The band was made up of individuals, not a name. The name is a Business.

I notice alot of fans can't seperate the illusion from the reality, Guns n Roses it's a business, not some sacred cow. It's the individual members that are the artists. But Slash and Duff and Izzy and Steve, they don't own a part of that business.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Nightcrawler

[Maddergascar]

It could be true. The latest Megadeth album was Dave Mustaine's solo record but he still owed an album under the Megadeth name so he had no choice.

Yeah, but what would be the point in a solo Mustaine record; he pretty much is Megadeth.

[Doghan]

It could be true. The latest Megadeth album was Dave Mustaine's solo record but he still owed an album under the Megadeth name so he had no choice.

Yeah, but what would be the point in a solo Mustaine record; he pretty much is Megadeth.

Yes, Mustaine is the sole owner of the Megadeth name just like Axl is the sole owner of the Guns N Roses name.

[JeanGenie]

I don't know what the contract said that they signed in the 90's but couldn't it be that this contract was fullfilled with the release of the Live Era and GH?

[lawrence]

all this talk of gnr & owning the brand-makes me think of it as a pair of designer trainers

[eschman]

I don't know what the contract said that they signed in the 90's but couldn't it be that this contract was fullfilled with the release of the Live Era and GH?

Yeah... I know there was a lot of talk about that.

I enjoy all of this discussion, but I think it's funny that some people purport to know that this thing or another is right or wrong. None of you really know...you're speculating, so stop dissing one another over it. (Not directed at jean)

Edited July 6, 2006 by eschman