When did GnR go from all about music to all about money?

[Axl4Pres]

Im sorry maybe i didnt specify when i started this thread but i started this in reference to this stuff with slash n duff suing axl it just seems to be yet another situation where money is more important to these guys then having slash n duff just move on. I mean to me whenever u hear those guys names first thing that comes to mind is guns n roses no matter how good velvet revolver is or becomes they will always be affiliated with the GnR name and if they ever wanna seperate themselves from the affiliation i would just have tried to reach axl himself i mean im sure they know how to get in touch with axl instead of using lawyers and court rooms but not even just this it just seems over the years these guys axl included are going to court over something that has to do with money and who is owed what.

[nesquick]

Yesterday.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

So Slash has to change his look to gain attention or make his music ability any more credible?? Personally I would commend someone for being themselves and not changing their perception to sell albums (not that I think Axl is doing that.)? Slash and Duff have just as much of a right to be proud and take credit for the past albums as Axl.? Generally Slash and Duff play It's So Easy ( a song written almost entirely by Duff) and Mr. Brownstone at the VR shows.? Neither of which are famous GNR songs or even ON THE GREATEST HITS.? So only real GN'R fans are going to know these songs and associate them with the GN'R who wrote them, 2/5 being Slash and Duff.?
? ?
? ? Granted Slash and Duff have left Guns N' Roses so they have no input on future material, but from their point of view as stated in their legal argument, the entire partnership ended and Axl just retained the name.? To my knowledge, they never gave up their rights to GN'R material, but took the high road because they wanted to move on and realized they couldn't have promising careers living off the name.? Never once on stage have Slash or Duff pointed at Axl directly, although the Halloween concert could be conceived as such.? I'm not against Axl in anyway, I'm a huge fan and love the material thus far presented.? But if you're going to make an argument about who's milking the old band and who's moved on, it's a one sided argument.? Every other member of Gn'R has released multiple albums and Axl has only given us Oh My God.? When Chinese Democracy comes out, I believe it will be better than the combined efforts of all the other band members follow up efforts, but this is my opinion.

? Dave, I respect your post and agree that you know alot, but I think you're wrong on this one.? I love all of the trio, but like you, Axl is my favorite.? However, only Axl has had any say on making money off the GnR name and catalogue.? So to insinuate that Slash and Duff are the money grubbers is misguided IMO.

How have Duff and Slash taken the high road? They bash Axl in every interview, they have sued him ?claiming he left the partnership when Axl has not since they, joined him in the lawsuit against the GHs being released, they also renewed that copyright as late as 2003. ?Slash and Duff are LIARS, and have in fact not taken the high road. I cant even believe you would claim this.

As for Axl being the the only one having a say in guns n roses ?making money, if that is true or not remains to be seen but like I said before Axl is still in guns n roses while Slash and Duff are not, why should they have any say in how the guns n roses songs are used or not used. ?

Slash and Duff are money grubbers they just want to make the most money off the name guns n roses as they can even tho they quit the band ten years ago. They never should have quit if they wanted to do that.

The fact is, there is tons of evidence to show that Axl never left the partnership and only the claim by Slash and Duff that Axl left the partnership when he gave that letter of intent, which is not even binding by law if? you read that link that Eva gave us.

Slash and duff are all about the money judging by their first lawsuit.
The new one is only warrented if Axl knowning cut them out of the loop but that remains to be seen. And with the buyout of  Sact falling through it could just be a money issue with Sact not yet giving them their checks.

[Booker Floyd]

Im sorry maybe i didnt specify when i started this thread but i started this in reference to this stuff with slash n duff suing axl it just seems to be yet another situation where money is more important to these guys then having slash n duff just move on.

I dont get it with you guys...how could you possibly imply that Slash and Duff havent moved on?  Are you (and I mean "you" collectively) so simple-mind to think that in order for one to move on they must have absolutely nothing to do with their past achievements or business dealings?  Do you honestly expect Slash and Duff to allow themselves to be screwed over in dealings over what is partially theirs in the interest of "moving on?"  Disconnect themselves completely to songs they wrote so they appear a certain way to die-hard Axl fans on the internet?  Come on...This is a business these guys are in, and money is a part of it.  Its what they do for a living, and stuff like this happens.  If you want to know about moving on, review Slash and Duffs careers over the past 3 years.   

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Im sorry maybe i didnt specify when i started this thread but i started this in reference to this stuff with slash n duff suing axl it just seems to be yet another situation where money is more important to these guys then having slash n duff just move on.

I dont get it with you guys...how could you possibly imply that Slash and Duff havent moved on?? Are you (and I mean "you" collectively) so simple-mind to think that in order for one to move on they must have absolutely nothing to do with their past achievements or business dealings?? Do you honestly expect Slash and Duff to allow themselves to be screwed over in dealings over what is partially theirs in the interest of "moving on?"? Disconnect themselves completely to songs they wrote so they appear a certain way to die-hard Axl fans on the internet?? Come on...This is a business these guys are in, and money is a part of it.? Its what they do for a living, and stuff like this happens.? If you want to know about moving on, review Slash and Duffs careers over the past 3 years.? ?

So you think its ok for duff and slash to claim that axl is not in the partnership and should have no say in gnr dealings yet claim they should have a say in a band that are not in anymore?

Wow, great logic.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Dave if I remember correct;y, Axl stated that workin with Slash and Duff was worse than hell and he wouldn't wish that on his worst enemies. ?Axl is the one who goes on stage and has made comments regarding Slash and Duff. ?All things considered, all parties have made negative comments towards the others. ?However, Slash and Duff are being interviewed a hell of alot more than Axl, and that is by Axl's choice. ?
 ?You contradict yourself in the post:

they also renewed that copyright as late as 2003.

This shows that they still have an interest in Gn'R material that they helped create and have a legal and in my opinion moral right to monitor. ?To the best of my knowledge, all that Axl has ownership of is the Gn'R name, not the exclusive rights to the material created by member of the ended partnership. ?If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

I stated that they took the high road by not getting involved with lawsuits until recently Axl has completely removed them from all decisions (and possibly royalties) to music they helped create. ?If you and I created a band but we agreed that you could keep the band's name if we ever ender our partnership, that doesn't mean that you have control over the music just becuase you have the name of the band. ?Slash and Duff could be like Steven Adler where every interview or comment is about Gn'R or an attack on Axl. ?More often than not they avoid making any negative reference to Axl. ?I assume you'll bring up Duff's comment from last year, but Duff disputes that he said that. ?Since we have no record of the interview, I see no reason to believe that Duff is lying since we all know the media loves to distort the truth. ?

I'm not saying that Slash and Duff are different or better than Axl. ?I'm saying that they're the same and by god they have a right to the music they helped create legallly and morally. ?Why do you assume that because Axl retains the name Guns N' Roses that he also retains complete rights to the music? ?Slash and Duff have repeatedly said that they are proud of the work they did in Gn'R and they should be. ?The band from 1985 to 1993 is just as much their's as it is Axl's. ?For the life of me I can't understand how some of you are so against two people that were so instumental in making the music we all love and cherish. ?Without Duff and Slash, Gn'R would not have existed. ?Conversely, GnR would not have existed without Axl. ?All that I and other's are advocating is that they should have the same input on material they helped create as Axl. ?Why do you feel otherwise? ?Axl only has the name Gn'R, not the music.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Dave if I remember correct;y, Axl stated that workin with Slash and Duff was worse than hell and he wouldn't wish that on his worst enemies. ?Axl is the one who goes on stage and has made comments regarding Slash and Duff. ?All things considered, all parties have made negative comments towards the others. ?However, Slash and Duff are being interviewed a hell of alot more than Axl, and that is by Axl's choice. ?
 ?You contradict yourself in the post:

they also renewed that copyright as late as 2003.

This shows that they still have an interest in Gn'R material that they helped create and have a legal and in my opinion moral right to monitor. ?To the best of my knowledge, all that Axl has ownership of is the Gn'R name, not the exclusive rights to the material created by member of the ended partnership. ?If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

I stated that they took the high road by not getting involved with lawsuits until recently Axl has completely removed them from all decisions (and possibly royalties) to music they helped create. ?If you and I created a band but we agreed that you could keep the band's name if we ever ender our partnership, that doesn't mean that you have control over the music just becuase you have the name of the band. ?Slash and Duff could be like Steven Adler where every interview or comment is about Gn'R or an attack on Axl. ?More often than not they avoid making any negative reference to Axl. ?I assume you'll bring up Duff's comment from last year, but Duff disputes that he said that. ?Since we have no record of the interview, I see no reason to believe that Duff is lying since we all know the media loves to distort the truth. ?

I'm not saying that Slash and Duff are different or better than Axl. ?I'm saying that they're the same and by god they have a right to the music they helped create legallly and morally. ?Why do you assume that because Axl retains the name Guns N' Roses that he also retains complete rights to the music? ?Slash and Duff have repeatedly said that they are proud of the work they did in Gn'R and they should be. ?The band from 1985 to 1993 is just as much their's as it is Axl's. ?For the life of me I can't understand how some of you are so against two people that were so instumental in making the music we all love and cherish. ?Without Duff and Slash, Gn'R would not have existed. ?Conversely, GnR would not have existed without Axl. ?All that I and other's are advocating is that they should have the same input on material they helped create as Axl. ?Why do you feel otherwise? ?Axl only has the name Gn'R, not the music.

I love when people talk about how Axl talks about Slash and duff on stage during the 2002 tour. Its funny since Slash and Duff have been talking shit about Axl since 1998 and Axl never really said anything about him.  So when he finally gives his side at the shows people start to cry.  Axl barely even said anything about then yet you look at a lot of the recent interviews slash and duff talk shit about axl.  And they do it in a way where they throw a few compliments before bashing him.  Its such a joke. 

As for the so called ended parternship. It NEVER ended and we have already proved it never ended. How many times do i have to show you all the evidence. Like I said, Axl, slash and duff sued geffen to block the GHs. If Axl was not in the partnership then axl would not have been able to join slash and duff in that lawsuit since Axl would have no say in it. Also, like I said in 2003 they renewed the copyright and uses  in 2003. So again that shows the partnership never ended. Look a few pages back what Eva posted and how many times it reads axl, slash, duff and partnership.

What more evidence do  you want? That is all you really need that Axl never left the partnership.

AGAIN about you claiming Axl removed duff and slash from royalties there is no proof of that yet. Lets wait and see what Sact has to say. For all we know it was a snafu and something got mixed up.  I love how you guys are so quick to jump on Axl with out getting all the facts first.  Wait until there is  a statement by Axl or Sact and see why Slash and Duff did not get their checks.

Like I said Slash and Duff QUIT guns n roses, they should NOT have a right to the old songs since they  are not in the band anymore.  How hard is that to understand? It would be like Zakk Wylde trying to sue ozzy for rights to the songs he made when he was in ozzys band.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I assume that Zakk was a hired musician for Ozzy much like the current members of Gn'R are.  I'm not stating that Axl should not have voice in old Gn'R matters, he absolutely should.  When I say ended partnership, that means that they quit making music together.  Therefore Axl has no say in VR, loaded or snake pit and Slash and Duff have no say in Chinese Democracy or anything created after 1995 or so with the GN'R name.  I'm not saying that Axl has attacked them any more or any less.  All of them have their opinions and are entitled to them.  You have Izzy who has completely removed himself and never comments on Gn'R and you have Steven who does nothing but live of his quick association with Gn'R.  Axl, Slash and Duff fall somewhere in the middle.  Axl Rose is Guns N' Roses now, but it wasn't always that way.

If Slash and Duff are trying to prevent Chinese Democracy, then they are wrong and should be criticized for that.  I'm not saying nor do I believe that Axl left the original partnership and relinquished his rights to Gn'R material as Slash and Duff would like us to believe.  That's bullshit and I agree with you on that.  However, I also state that Slash and Duff never gave their rights away to the music either.  I'm routing for Axl through all of this.  But he makes it so damn hard to continue to do so with very little information ever being released.  Duff and Slash wanting a share of the money generated from their work isn't not moving on.  they're doing everything they can with VR to disassociate themselves from the modern GN'R and bring attention to their new music (something I don't know if they can ever do.)  But here lie the basis for my argument.  They are so associated with Gn'R because they were part of what made Gn'R a success.  I don't want anything taken away from Axl, but don't you think Duff and Slash are entitled to some of the profits from the music they created?

[ppbebe]

I'm not one of those who'd believe, lets alone spread, any rootless story
but Ok,
don't trust me, it's true.

Okay, so back it up.  What did Duff say and where did he say it?

Where did I say Duff?
I refrain from backing it up cos it isn't necessary. If S n D were winning the case, you would be seeing it. But I guess the game's over.
The point is that we hear S n D wanted to release the old films, which you agree and other fans here would back up, and the fact that they started the suit after the GH release.

see the order of the events.
1 S n D wanting to release DVD of old footage
2 GH suit
3 GH hits expectedly. (EDIT* unexpectedly)
4 their claim for the control over GN'R catalogue


at that point (2) it wasn't expected to go platinums.
besides It has a hell lot of covers. that means far little royalities than a selection of more originals would bring them.
So the interests of both side met.

BTW, Why was the action so late?

Thats for the lawsuit thread.  But again, youre doing a whole lot of speculating...On what do you base the "covers" theory?  Did they ever say that?  Was it in the suit?  I dont recall seeing it, so you can refresh my memory.

You get less Royalties form covers than that from your originals. for instance, you don't get the writing royalties.?do I have to find the source for this?
Where is my speculation in the above bit? I think They are all the facts and common knowledge, well maybe except for the word "so".

And your point, if Im not mistaken (the language barrier isnt helping) is that Axl rejected the Greatest Hits while Slash and Duff are "milking it."  If you werent talking about Axl rejecting GHs, what were you talking about?

Remember, It was a reply to this

Who joined Axl in "rejecting" the Greatest Hits?

my point there is that just because S n D joined Axl to reject GH doesn't mean they reject milking their old band. Their motive for that could have been totally different from this.

The biggest difference is that for Axl the band is his present and for S n D it's the past. who is more likely to treat it as all about money? Common sense and the series of events tell me it's Not the residents who live there now.



PS My apologies If With the language barrier, You mean I write poorly.

[Booker Floyd]

Where did I say Duff?

Well I explained that Duff mentioned the footage once, but if you insist theres more to it (a release date and such) or that Slash also said it, I think you should back that up.  If not, youre just spreading a rumor and referencing it in your argument as fact (which certainly doesnt say much for your argument).

I refrain from backing it up cos it isn't necessary. If S n D were winning the case, you would be seeing it. But I guess the game's over.

 

Is that the real reason you refrain from backing it up?  Or is it because you cant?  Because that sounds like a very dishonest excuse to be honest.  And Im not sure, was that footage part of the case?  And is the case over?  You claim that wed be seeing it if Slash and Duff were "winning" the case?     How does that work?  I believe that those kind of rights are determined when the case is over, not when its pending.

The point is that we hear S n D wanted to release the old films, which you agree and other fans here would back up, and the fact that they started the suit after the GH release.

Youre all over the place.  First of all, youre using embellished rumors to form your points.  Youre also using little more than speculation.  That footage Duff referred to hasnt been the issue in either lawsuit.  And whats the siginificance of GHs when Duff and Slash themselves were dissatisfied with the release and filed the first lawsuit based on events that occured prior to the GHs. 

You get less Royalties form covers than that from your originals. for instance, you don't get the writing royalties.?do I have to find the source for this?

Yes...find a source where Duff or Slash discuss this.

my point there is that just because S n D joined Axl to reject GH doesn't mean they reject milking their old band. Their motive for that could have been totally different from this.

Yes...more speculation.  You could also make the same questions about Axls motives (of course you wont).

The biggest difference is that for Axl the band is his present and for S n D it's the past. who is more likely to treat it as all about money?

As a participants in the songs handling, its Slash and Duffs present as well.  They havent relinquished their rights to those songs.  And lets not get carried away.  Axl still uses the Guns N' Roses name, but were not talking about present-day GNR songs, were talking about songs from the past...songs that Slash and Duff helped write and retain rights to.  And considering Axls sale of his own rights to those songs, I suspect money is a bigger factor than youre suggesting.



PS My apologies If With the language barrier, You mean I write poorly.

[ppbebe]

When you say it doesn't say much for my argument, why should I back it up? Besides, It's complicated and would give me too much trouble (which I don't mind taking for the mods if they want but I doubt it).

I didn't say Sn D mentioned about it. Duff did complain about the amount of covers in some interview tho.

Axl stated his reasons in the press release. I don't mind posting it cos it?s easy to find.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Here is the facts of this whole milking thing. slash and duff are still trying to milk off the old stuff of guns n roses, a band that are not a part of, while Axl want to move gnr forward with the new line up. You dont think it would be strange seeing a live DVD of lets say guns n roses 1988 the ritz and then in the same week lets say a DVD of Guns n roses live 2002 from MSG? Slash and Duff quit guns n roses they should leave the old gnr in the past.

[Booker Floyd]

When you say it doesn't say much for my argument, why should I back it up? Besides, It's complicated and would give me too much trouble (which I don't mind taking for the mods if they want but I doubt it).

 

Im not sure what youre trying to say here. ?You should back it up so that youre not basing opinions and arguments on embellished rumors, because thats exactly what youre doing.

I didn't say Sn D mentioned about it.

So they didnt mention it? ?Then Ill ask you again, on what did you base that "covers/royalties" theory?

Duff did complain about the amount of covers in some interview tho.

I dont recall that. ?Im sure its possible, but how do you know that has anything to do with royalties?

Axl stated his reasons in the press release. I don't mind posting it cos it?s easy to find.

And Slash and Duff stated their reasons in interviews...Coincidentally, they were pretty much the same as Axls.

[ppbebe]

So they didnt mention it?  Then Ill ask you again, on what did you base that "covers/royalties" theory?

As I said, what I wrote there was not a theory but general knowledge.

And Slash and Duff stated their reasons in interviews...Coincidentally, they were pretty much the same as Axls. ok

So they were worring that GH might hinder Chinese Democracy?
Care to post them here?

Is the board slow or my Pc?

[Booker Floyd]

As I said, what I wrote there was not a theory but general knowledge.

Im asking you...how do you know that "general knowledge" applies to Duff and Slash?  How do you know the royalty distribution was one of their concerns in the suit?  Please do not dance around the subject, just provide solid reasoning for thinking that royalty distribution as it pertains to cover songs was a factor in joining Axl...like a source.

So they were worring that GH might hinder Chinese Democracy?

Again, this is either a symptom of oblivousness or dishonesty, because apparently you recall the statement, but not the reasons.  So Ill help you out and post them (since you seemingly have a problem with sources):

"The band has not been given the opportunity to approve the choice of songs, the artwork, the release date or the re-mastering done on the tracks included on this compilation." 

"There has been a massive outcry among the band's loyal audience against the Greatest Hits record, as they too believe the track selection is fundamentally flawed, does not reflect the band's best work and is clearly not the ultimate package that would be selected by the band or their fan base if they were given the opportunity."

Slash and Duff agreed with these reasons...and while hindering Chinese Democracy may not have been a priority for them, hindering Contraband might have been since RCA pushed it back partially because of the GHs release.  But above all, they, like Axl, were dissatisfied with the overall product and their lack of participation.

[ppbebe]

As I said, what I wrote there was not a theory but general knowledge.

Im asking you...how do you know that "general knowledge" applies to Duff and Slash?  How do you know the royalty distribution was one of their concerns in the suit?  Please do not dance around the subject, just provide solid reasoning for thinking that royalty distribution as it pertains to cover songs was a factor in joining Axl...like a source.

So they were worring that GH might hinder Chinese Democracy?

Again, this is either a symptom of oblivousness or dishonesty, because apparently you recall the statement, but not the reasons.  So Ill help you out and post them (since you seemingly have a problem with sources):

"The band has not been given the opportunity to approve the choice of songs, the artwork, the release date or the re-mastering done on the tracks included on this compilation." 

"There has been a massive outcry among the band's loyal audience against the Greatest Hits record, as they too believe the track selection is fundamentally flawed, does not reflect the band's best work and is clearly not the ultimate package that would be selected by the band or their fan base if they were given the opportunity."

Slash and Duff agreed with these reasons...and while hindering Chinese Democracy may not have been a priority for them, hindering Contraband might have been since RCA pushed it back partially because of the GHs release.  But above all, they, like Axl, were dissatisfied with the overall product and their lack of participation.

Didn't I say "Their motive for that could have been totally different from this." This line is ok, my speculation.

honestly I haven't seen an interview in which S n D agreeing with those reasons yet.