Any significance? Axl switches from ASCAP to SESAC

[sky dog]

Bullshit isn't cool either....and you are quite full of it. 

Pretty certain you have no idea what the current "biz org" of Guns is.

[EmilyGNR]

Bullshit isn't cool either....and you are quite full of it. 

Pretty certain you have no idea what the current "biz org" of Guns is.

Thoroughly enjoyed this foray into the attempted conversions of molehills into mountains, the attempts to place a flag on and name said mountain, the explanation(s) on why the molehill is not a mountain at all, and the followup description of why the potential mountain climber probably should invest in a topographical map in lieu of DVDs of season 1-3 of Boston Legal and a few VHS tapes of Perry Mason. 

Well done Pilferk and Freddie!

To steal a quote from another poster, ?what the hell is going on in here??

I walk out the front door a week or so ago with rum n? cola in hand, and a festering hobo sneaks in the back days later to lap at the filth and stench of the rotting, beaten carcass that I left behind and proclaims ?victory.?

It is quite obvious you are full of bullshit and suffer from verbal diarrhea- so that is shit to the 2nd power.

You like to hear yourself yap- the word Self Important comes to mind- It is more than obvious you have zero real knowledge about the internal business workings of GNR.

Nice try though. 

[pilferk]

Wow, you need a lot of words to say that you think we are too stupid to understand your reasoning or arguments (even though there aren't any  ). We get it, you are a lawyer. Now get this: I work in music publishing and you sir, have shown not even the slightest knowledge or understanding of what's being discussed or offered by Pilferk or me. Or if you do, you have great skills of continuously avoiding what's been said by writing long texts about something that does not really have to do with anything that's been said, and then conclude it with 'if you did not get the significance of what I you said you're not smart enough or experienced enough to converse with'. Look, it's quite clear to me that there's only one elephant in the room and that's that your attitude, behavior and passive aggressiveness are a tad bit rude and unnecessary. But hey, you're a lawyer and you know best. Even if you don't but that's just how you roll.

Also, I am out 

Yeah, i find if you have to rely on your resume, or "big timing" (aka...i know what i am talking about and you, and everone else don't...i am an EXPERT...I promise!), then its probably not because you've made a strong argument. And it's not because people don't understand the points you are making.

I try to refrain from citing my resume and work experience unless its absolutely essential to an anecdote. If i cant make my case based on logic and some evidence....its not worth making. The opinion should stand on its own....

My work was not done here, after all.

Many, many folks have more than a passing familiarity with biz orgs.  Investors, bondholders, and stakeholders come to mind.  As do partners, sole proprietors, executives and board members.  For good measure, while you?re standing there with your pants around your ankles, yet gain, why not continue to declare that you know my occupation while you trumpet yours.

Since you're replying to me...where exactly did I do that?  Unless you're talking to Freddie.  But if so..you replied to the wrong post.

Because you'll note: At no point have I brought up what I do (or have done) for work, where I do (or have done) it, or (more specifically) who I've discussed this with to fill in any gaps that might make me at all unsure of my underlying points. And, really, I try to ONLY reference those things when relaying an anecdote, where that context matters.  Like: "When I worked in a venue 20 years ago, we did/set things like this. YMMV.".

And there's a very good reason for WHY that is...and it's not because I'm afraid my epeen won't measure up.  It's because it's all bunk on an anonymous message board where every 14 year old kid is a lawyer and every basement dwelling bottom feeder is a tycoon of industry.

Having been exposed as a fraud without knowledge of the most basic biz org principles, you resort to parroting labels tossed about in another profession.  Is your familiarity with those labels from personal experience?  Or maybe too much Dr. Phil?

I think you're perhaps confused by who has, and hasn't, been exposed, in this thread, to who, and by who.  But that's OK.  Really.

Again, I don't need to put forth my resume, or use archaic, overly complex, quasi-legalese to make that point, either.  If you feel that's the only way to make your points appear to have merit...great.  But I think you'll find the BS meters around here are relatively refined....and the arrogant "I know what I'm talking about and you don't" routine is not only old, it's not very compelling.  If that's the way you want to frame your points, that's totally up to you.  And it's up to the readers of this thread to accept or discount them.  How do you think that's going for you?

It?s a simple matter:  your regurgitation of the mechanics of copyright clearinghouses is unrelated to my statement that resolution of the subject matter of a decade plus of litigation was had.  Settlement outside the judicial process of said litigation manifests itself in a variety of ways, depending upon the entity and its type of biz.  The discovery in this thread is one for this particular venture, regardless of which clearinghouse the individuals involved ultimately decide upon.  These three partners have modified an existing partnership agreement, created a new one, or dissolved the partnership and reregistered as a new entity.

I agree. It's completely unrelated.  And thus, unrelated to the topic at hand or the mechanics of the change. And thus, inappropriate for you to base any conclusions on, whatsoever. Finally, some understanding.  Thanks for admitting we were right all along.

And...I linked and provided you a way to search for the ACTUAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS YOU KEEP MENTIONING.  And evidence that any legal issues were long since squashed and settled. Long before the reunion.  The settlement, at the time, I'm sure provided more than enough structure and guidance to operate Guns n Roses, going forward, in perpetuity (both as a band, and as a shuttered partnership still owning assets).  And there has been no reason to think Axl feared any legal repercussions from operating as he had been since the apparent settlement.  And CERTAINLY nothing to stop something as remotely banal as changing clearing houses.  And in all of this, THATS THE POINT.  It's a minor move, personal to the artist, that would have zero effect on the status of GnR as a business unit (past or present).  ZERO.   And there is ZERO legal precedent, that I can find, for such a move by Axl, relating to any band, existing or broken up, causing any legal wrangling, litigation, or even raising so much as a mouse fart from other members of that band (biz org or musical construct). ZERO.  I've invited you, twice now, to provide some sort of evidence, example, or precedent of why such a minor move WOULD indicate anything..and all I've gotten is continued assurances that it would. Because you say so. Because you know.

As for the last sentence...um...yeah...given they're currently touring together, no kidding? Did anyone ever object to that premise?  Do you honestly believe ANYONE thinks they'd be on the road without some sort of contract between them? What form, shape, or makeup that might be is both irresponsible to speculate on (especially if you know "current biz org stuff") and, in absolutely NO way, indicated by Axl's move.

The objection is, was, and will be: It has nothing to do with Axl changing clearing houses.  You keep talking about how the mechanics of that process are irrelevant.  I'd invite you to look at the topic of the thread, again. They are, perhaps, the only relevant thing being discussed in this thread.

Tell the two or three followers of this thread again how clearinghouse mechanics affects, in any way, my conclusions.

They effect them because the action, and the mechanics behind them, were the foundation of your initial conclusions.  You used your conclusions to some how add merit to the move.  You added 2 + x and came up with 4.  Without actually KNOWING anything about music publishing, you assumed x was 2.  And when those who ARE familiar came in, and let you know that, in fact, x =0.....you decided to go on the full offensive, trying really really really hard to prop yourself up as an expert so as not to...IDK...lose board warrior points? not be taken seriously going forward? troll for all your worth? wahtever.....and, between you and me dude...you fucked it up hard.

If you want, I'm sure the few people actually reading this thread would chime in and let you know that.  sky dog looks to have already done that.  Now I have. I think we know where Freddie and Emily stand.

That pretty much leaves you alone on your own little island.  And hey...if you're happy there....please, by all means, stay.  You can use your illusion..let it take you where it may...

Contrarianism isn?t cool.  But knowledge is.  Gn?R is back as an unfettered, functioning biz org.

You're right, contrarianism isn't cool.  Thus, since you're not actually SUPPORTING your points with anything resembling...well...points...I'd suggest maybe you stop.  Or learn the definition of what a contrarian is.

Here, I'll help:

A contrarian is a person who takes up a contrary position, especially a position that is opposed to that of the majority, regardless of how unpopular it may be. Contrarian styles of argument and disagreement have historically been associated with radicalism and dissent.

Now, given the setting....who do you think the contrarian is again?

But I do agree that knowledge is cool!  When you feel like actually imparting some, let us know.  Because all I see here is self-aggrandizing, grandstanding, and chest thumping, on your part. And an insistence, without ACTUALLY knowing anyone here, that you know more than them about...well...EVERYTHING, and so should be believed without evidence.  Certainly, you have not actually DEMONSTRATED any knowledge in this thread..just an insistence you have some.

And that's the difference, here...if you're wondering.

With that, I'll let the overly verbose (and I thought I RAMBLED on....DX, I never, ever want to hear another objection about my style of prose, EVER again) have the last say.  I'm sure we'll get another tirade insisting that he knows because he knows and we're all just plebes.

Spirit...if you find anything else interesting, regardless of the ebbs and flows here...please continue to share it?

[sky dog]

can't wait for this response...

[pilferk]

can't wait for this response...

Honestly, I can.  I doubt it will vary much from the message of the past 3 or 4: I'm right. You're wrong. I'm smart. You're dumb. I know everything there is to know about business. You don't. I know all there is to know about the music industry, recording contracts, and publishing.  You don't (and what you do know isn't relevant, even though we're talking about actual musicians and artists).  I can't explain how I know it, and can't demonstrate that you don't....but its true. I promise. Because I am infailable.  All in as verbose and arrogant a way as can possibly be delivered, with as much quasi-legalese as they can muster (which any jury would, I promise you, laugh at, if spouted off by any true litigator, and any board room denizen would instantly discount if used to address them).

It's quite boring, actually.  But I'm sure we'll get it. And then we can all chuckle and move on.

[jarmo]

Tell that to his face!

 



/jarmo

[pilferk]

Tell that to his face!

 



/jarmo

Yeah, I mean...pretty much.

I have, to this point, questioned the tactics, not the poster.  We're waning from that a bit as his more...um...hostile response has hit.

But, as I said, I'm done with him.  If he's trolling, he's doing a bad job of it. If he's in earnest, he's doing a bad job of that, too.

[sky dog]

See, I have been chuckling since the beginning....the long and short of it is that he has NO clue as to what the current contracts and partnership agreements are between Axl-Slash-Duff...none.

[sky dog]

and if he does know, he has provided no proof.

[pilferk]

See, I have been chuckling since the beginning....the long and short of it is that he has NO clue as to what the current contracts and partnership agreements are between Axl-Slash-Duff...none.

Certainly, given they are on the road together, we can make some assumptions: There is a current contractual agreement between the 3 guys, of some sort...at least to cover the upcoming touring.  They might be more "harmonious" in terms of approving use of previously recorded material in other things (like TV, movies, concert DVDs, etc), given that, too, since the use of old material in many forms might be seen as promoting the upcoming tour, which puts more $$ in everyone's pockets.  If there is any thought of new music or publishing anything of any kind (like a concert DVD), there is likely some sort of new agreement about how that would go.  What form that all takes? Anybody's guess.  And, really, without actually seeing (or talking to someone who's seen) the contracts, not only is speculation idle on the topic, it's irresponsible (IMHO).  Because there are just SO many possibilities, and none is really more likely than the other (and this move to SESAC doesn't make any more likely than the last)

But, to base any conclusions on Axls move to SESAC seems like insisting that because he buys alpo instead of purina, his underwear is blue.  And that's because he'd only buy alpo if he was sure that NOBODY would catch him buying it, realize he has on blue underwear, and object.   

When it's more likely that alpo was just on sale this week, and sent him a shitload of coupons. It was the better deal!  Now, he MIGHT have blue underwear on, but....the alpo buy is not the key to that conclusion.

But, anyway.....onward and upward.

[ice cream sand pig]

Tell that to his face!

 



/jarmo

we need a new htgth shirt with that phrase on it! id buy it! good inside joke, like the spaghetti incident. or in more recent news, the bread incident.

[JustanUrchin]

When J.A. Urchin talks, people listen.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.  An entire page devoted to me?  If someone pares down this sea of words and posts the Reader?s Digest version of text addressing my conclusions (if such exists), I?ll reply in short order.  Scrolling through, it appears to be The Attack of the Contrarians, Vol. III so it?s doubtful anyone will provide me such.  If not, I?ll read through and reply when time permits.  I?m sure all will be waiting with bated breath.