Here Today... Gone To Hell! | Message Board


Guns N Roses
of all the message boards on the internet, this is one...

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2021, 10:56:18 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
1218311 Posts in 42857 Topics by 8847 Members
Latest Member: Derick
* Home Help Calendar Go to HTGTH Login Register
+  Here Today... Gone To Hell!
|-+  Guns N' Roses
| |-+  Guns N' Roses
| | |-+  GN?R Reps Confirm Ron ?Bumblefoot? Thal Has Left The Band
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 25 Go Down Print
Author Topic: GN?R Reps Confirm Ron ?Bumblefoot? Thal Has Left The Band  (Read 85099 times)
pilferk
The Riddler
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11617


Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!


« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2015, 05:45:02 PM »

Who is this gnr rep?   How can it be an unnamed source when really....   How many people are in this gnr camp.    I know it wasn't me hahah


IT WAS ME!!!!

Oh, no, wait...that was me talking about Cespedes to the Mets.  MLB Trade deadline brain....

Never mind....
Logged

Together again,
Gee, it's good to be together again,
I just can't imagine that you've ever been gone
It's not starting over, it's just going on
Silex
Headliner
**

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 98



« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2015, 06:00:12 PM »

Too bad if true. Ron was not only amazing on guitar but his backup vocals on songs like Better etc. were top notch.  ok

https://youtu.be/8VB0tQc87yM?t=4m8s
Logged
Princess Leia
Guest
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2015, 06:03:00 PM »


One came from Billboard the other from Ron.  The difference is one says contractually obligated, the other that it was an agreement.


Hmm, I read those.  I didn't see that they specifically said who that agreement or contract was with... Back to reread them, I guess.


He added: "I've been honoring a request to not make any public statements about anything related to it, which continues to put me in a very awkward position that I don't want to be in. Not how I do things, repeatedly taking the bullet on this one."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-doesnt-want-to-make-any-public-statements-about-guns-n-roses/

His current status with GNR, meanwhile, is purposely vague and something he's contractually "not [able] to elaborate on."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6531768/bumblefoot-video-little-brother-is-watching-exclusive-premiere



Uh huh..that's what I read.

Where does it say "with Guns n Roses"

I'm not saying it's NOT with the band. I'm saying there's nothing specifically saying it IS with the band.

Which leaves open that the agreement or contract was with another entity....like a sponser or the label publishing his solo album or whatever.

I understand, but why BBF has some kind of agreement and DJ doesn?t? Shouldn?t the band have a specific policy about what to say, how to say it and when to say it despite sponsors or whatever?
Logged
Sosso
VIP
****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 985


Your Pong is no match for my Ping!


« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2015, 06:06:40 PM »


One came from Billboard the other from Ron.  The difference is one says contractually obligated, the other that it was an agreement.


Hmm, I read those.  I didn't see that they specifically said who that agreement or contract was with... Back to reread them, I guess.


He added: "I've been honoring a request to not make any public statements about anything related to it, which continues to put me in a very awkward position that I don't want to be in. Not how I do things, repeatedly taking the bullet on this one."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-doesnt-want-to-make-any-public-statements-about-guns-n-roses/

His current status with GNR, meanwhile, is purposely vague and something he's contractually "not [able] to elaborate on."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6531768/bumblefoot-video-little-brother-is-watching-exclusive-premiere



Uh huh..that's what I read.

Where does it say "with Guns n Roses"

I'm not saying it's NOT with the band. I'm saying there's nothing specifically saying it IS with the band.

Which leaves open that the agreement or contract was with another entity....like a sponser or the label publishing his solo album or whatever.

I understand, but why BBF has some kind of agreement and DJ doesn?t? Shouldn?t the band have a specific policy about what to say, how to say it and when to say it despite sponsors or whatever?

Different times, persons and situations.
Logged

"?the key to that band's success was Axl because at that time his singing really connected with people on a social level." - Tracii Guns
Spirit
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7484



« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2015, 06:06:49 PM »


One came from Billboard the other from Ron.  The difference is one says contractually obligated, the other that it was an agreement.


Hmm, I read those.  I didn't see that they specifically said who that agreement or contract was with... Back to reread them, I guess.


He added: "I've been honoring a request to not make any public statements about anything related to it, which continues to put me in a very awkward position that I don't want to be in. Not how I do things, repeatedly taking the bullet on this one."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-doesnt-want-to-make-any-public-statements-about-guns-n-roses/

His current status with GNR, meanwhile, is purposely vague and something he's contractually "not [able] to elaborate on."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6531768/bumblefoot-video-little-brother-is-watching-exclusive-premiere



Uh huh..that's what I read.

Where does it say "with Guns n Roses"

I'm not saying it's NOT with the band. I'm saying there's nothing specifically saying it IS with the band.

Which leaves open that the agreement or contract was with another entity....like a sponser or the label publishing his solo album or whatever.

I understand, but why BBF has some kind of agreement and DJ doesn?t? Shouldn?t the band have a specific policy about what to say, how to say it and when to say it despite sponsors or whatever?


What pilferk is saying is that Ron could have had an agreement with another party, not Guns N Roses but some sponsor maybe. I don't think Ron and Dj endorses the same products or uses the same promotion companies, so why would they be under the same policies?

Logged

Sweetness is a virtue
And you lost your virtue long ago
Princess Leia
Guest
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2015, 06:22:03 PM »


One came from Billboard the other from Ron.  The difference is one says contractually obligated, the other that it was an agreement.


Hmm, I read those.  I didn't see that they specifically said who that agreement or contract was with... Back to reread them, I guess.


He added: "I've been honoring a request to not make any public statements about anything related to it, which continues to put me in a very awkward position that I don't want to be in. Not how I do things, repeatedly taking the bullet on this one."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-doesnt-want-to-make-any-public-statements-about-guns-n-roses/

His current status with GNR, meanwhile, is purposely vague and something he's contractually "not [able] to elaborate on."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6531768/bumblefoot-video-little-brother-is-watching-exclusive-premiere



Uh huh..that's what I read.

Where does it say "with Guns n Roses"

I'm not saying it's NOT with the band. I'm saying there's nothing specifically saying it IS with the band.

Which leaves open that the agreement or contract was with another entity....like a sponser or the label publishing his solo album or whatever.

I understand, but why BBF has some kind of agreement and DJ doesn?t? Shouldn?t the band have a specific policy about what to say, how to say it and when to say it despite sponsors or whatever?


What pilferk is saying is that Ron could have had an agreement with another party, not Guns N Roses but some sponsor maybe. I don't think Ron and Dj endorses the same products or uses the same promotion companies, so why would they be under the same policies?



Clearly they are not. What I?m saying is that I guess the band also knows about their other activities. And DJ and BBF know that GN?R was above other things. I?d like to know if they were told by the band that despite other activities the band was their priority. And the band has it own policy that stands above anything else. 

If there is no such a policy then band made a mistake. They can?t have one guy free to talk and another who has to honor a request not to talk.
Logged
deadtotheworld
Headliner
**

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 51

Here Today...


« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2015, 06:24:47 PM »

Im sure Ron will shed some light when the time is right. I dont think he should be badmouthed just yet, for example his 'Guitarist in Guns N Roses' tag might be associated with charity appearances maybe - in a case like that I dont begrudge 'using' the GnR name a little longer if its for that reason.
All sorts of contracts exist - even Chris Broderick checked with Jackson guitars before leaving Megadeth, and I doubt it just 'how will this affect me and getting free stuff' but more how will this affect Jackson.... Like Jackson using Chris' Megadeth tag to sell guitars rather than Chris using Megadeth tag... So maybe Ron had some stuff with Vigier or wasnt he doing a Hot sauce or something ages ago. It is a music BUSINESS afterall - contracts exist for all sorts and anyone who has followed Axl for so many years understands that people try and sue you for allsorts of things. I think Ron is caught between rock and a hard place.
Logged
pilferk
The Riddler
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11617


Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!


« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2015, 06:37:24 PM »


One came from Billboard the other from Ron.  The difference is one says contractually obligated, the other that it was an agreement.


Hmm, I read those.  I didn't see that they specifically said who that agreement or contract was with... Back to reread them, I guess.


He added: "I've been honoring a request to not make any public statements about anything related to it, which continues to put me in a very awkward position that I don't want to be in. Not how I do things, repeatedly taking the bullet on this one."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-doesnt-want-to-make-any-public-statements-about-guns-n-roses/

His current status with GNR, meanwhile, is purposely vague and something he's contractually "not [able] to elaborate on."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6531768/bumblefoot-video-little-brother-is-watching-exclusive-premiere



Uh huh..that's what I read.

Where does it say "with Guns n Roses"

I'm not saying it's NOT with the band. I'm saying there's nothing specifically saying it IS with the band.

Which leaves open that the agreement or contract was with another entity....like a sponser or the label publishing his solo album or whatever.

I understand, but why BBF has some kind of agreement and DJ doesn?t? Shouldn?t the band have a specific policy about what to say, how to say it and when to say it despite sponsors or whatever?


What pilferk is saying is that Ron could have had an agreement with another party, not Guns N Roses but some sponsor maybe. I don't think Ron and Dj endorses the same products or uses the same promotion companies, so why would they be under the same policies?



Clearly they are not. What I?m saying is that I guess the band also knows about their other activities. And DJ and BBF know that GN?R was above other things. I?d like to know if they were told by the band that despite other activities the band was their priority. And the band has it own policy that stands above anything else. 

If there is no such a policy then band made a mistake. They can?t have one guy free to talk and another who has to honor a request not to talk.

Sponsorship deals, and the like, for individual members, are generally outside a band control. At least in terms of the specific contract details.

So if one sponsor has a clause that says "you can't disclose you have left your band until we say so", the other might not....and the band they both belonged to would have no control. Nor would the consider it when the member departed...thats not a gnr mistake, thats operating as expected/intended.

If that has ANYTHING to do with what actually happened. Again, i don't know. Its def possible the agreement was with the band. Then the why,what,and when is likely related to each individuals situation, etc.
Logged

Together again,
Gee, it's good to be together again,
I just can't imagine that you've ever been gone
It's not starting over, it's just going on
Spirit
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7484



« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2015, 06:37:37 PM »


What I?m saying is that I guess the band also knows about their other activities. And DJ and BBF know that GN?R was above other things. I?d like to know if they were told by the band that despite other activities the band was their priority. And the band has it own policy that stands above anything else. 

If there is no such a policy then band made a mistake. They can?t have one guy free to talk and another who has to honor a request not to talk.



I'm not sure I'm getting you? We're discussing the possibility of an agreement to keep quiet coming from someone else than GNR.

Just an example:

- Ron quits GNR to pursue his solo career, GNR says: "Ok".
- The company promoting his solo tour (not affiliated with GNR in any way) says to Ron not to make any statements about leaving Guns because they want to keep the "Guns N Roses guitarist" tagline in the promotional material and interviews for as long as possible. They know GNR is on hiatus, so they want to milk the name as long as they can. Think about it, if an interview headline has the words "Guns N Roses" in them rather than just "Bumblefoot", the amount of people reading it will be so much more.


- Dj quits GNR to join Sixx AM full time, GNR says: "Ok".
- Dj gives a statement about it



It's just a possibility and pure speculation, but from the quotes given by Ron and Billboard it's most probable that the "order" came from GNR. But by reading those quotes it doesn't specifically say so.
Logged

Sweetness is a virtue
And you lost your virtue long ago
FunkyMonkey
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 11085



« Reply #69 on: July 31, 2015, 07:20:32 PM »


He added: "I've been honoring a request to not make any public statements about anything related to it, which continues to put me in a very awkward position that I don't want to be in. Not how I do things, repeatedly taking the bullet on this one."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-doesnt-want-to-make-any-public-statements-about-guns-n-roses/

His current status with GNR, meanwhile, is purposely vague and something he's contractually "not [able] to elaborate on."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6531768/bumblefoot-video-little-brother-is-watching-exclusive-premiere


Uh huh..that's what I read.

Where does it say "with Guns n Roses"


It's pretty obvious he's talking about Guns N' Roses.

There is also this, he mentions Team Brazil:

Thal said: "Let folks know I'm not being forced, and TB [Team Brazil, the management company that manages GUNS N' ROSES and Rose] doesn't need to be treated like monsters, and I ask that they not be treated like villains. It's on me, I've been trying to please both sides at the same time that have a different approach to things, and everyone loses a little in the process ? that's on me, not them. I hate causing TB and the fans grief, there's just no smooth way to act on two opposing philosophies at the same time, and that's always been difficult for me."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-to-fans-dont-treat-guns-n-roses-management-as-villains/

Logged

Shut the fuck up. Yes, you. Ha!
Princess Leia
Guest
« Reply #70 on: July 31, 2015, 07:27:15 PM »

Thank you both. Now I understand a better. So if the sponsor tells Ron he has to pretend to be in the band because it is good business or part of his deal then why Ron was all the time hinting about leaving the band? He deleted the GN?R name from his social media among evasive things he said on interviews. It wasn?t a smart move from his part. That?s why I don?t buy that some sponsor or record label asked him to keep using the name GN?R despite not being the band. As someone else said, most of us get it when we see the clues. Only few keep in denial.

Now if it was the band who asked him to honor a request. Well in that case he didn?t honor the request anyway because he was hinting all the time about his status. On top of that how come now we have some spoke person from the band saying he doesn?t know why BBF didn?t speak freely about his status. So someone who is close to the band didn?t know about the request?Huh
Logged
Spirit
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7484



« Reply #71 on: July 31, 2015, 07:38:56 PM »


Thank you both. Now I understand a better. So if the sponsor tells Ron he has to pretend to be in the band because it is good business or part of his deal then why Ron was all the time hinting about leaving the band? He deleted the GN?R name from his social media among evasive things he said on interviews. It wasn?t a smart move from his part. That?s why I don?t buy that some sponsor or record label asked him to keep using the name GN?R despite not being the band. As someone else said, most of us get it when we see the clues. Only few keep in denial.


Look, go back and read the responses. No one said that they truly believed this was the case, it was just a possible explanation as to why the GNR rep was clueless to why Ron has acted the way he has.

I said the agreement he had most probable was with GNR, so I won't say that I'm 'in denial' in any way.  ok
Logged

Sweetness is a virtue
And you lost your virtue long ago
pilferk
The Riddler
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11617


Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!


« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2015, 07:58:32 PM »


He added: "I've been honoring a request to not make any public statements about anything related to it, which continues to put me in a very awkward position that I don't want to be in. Not how I do things, repeatedly taking the bullet on this one."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-doesnt-want-to-make-any-public-statements-about-guns-n-roses/

His current status with GNR, meanwhile, is purposely vague and something he's contractually "not [able] to elaborate on."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6531768/bumblefoot-video-little-brother-is-watching-exclusive-premiere


Uh huh..that's what I read.

Where does it say "with Guns n Roses"


It's pretty obvious he's talking about Guns N' Roses.

There is also this, he mentions Team Brazil:

Thal said: "Let folks know I'm not being forced, and TB [Team Brazil, the management company that manages GUNS N' ROSES and Rose] doesn't need to be treated like monsters, and I ask that they not be treated like villains. It's on me, I've been trying to please both sides at the same time that have a different approach to things, and everyone loses a little in the process ? that's on me, not them. I hate causing TB and the fans grief, there's just no smooth way to act on two opposing philosophies at the same time, and that's always been difficult for me."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bumblefoot-to-fans-dont-treat-guns-n-roses-management-as-villains/



I disagree that its obvious. And its defintely not explicitly said.

It's sort of implied, and it's probably the most logical implication, but the fact he doesnt explicityly say it leaves wiggle room, both for him and in interpretation. Even in his tb talk....he talks about a non-specifc "both sides", and even says its not on tb.

Those two things are mentioned in a way that could be taken to ge seperate things. Tb isn't necessarily one of the "both sides" in that sentence. They might (probably) be, but...again...hes not specific enough to be sure.

Which is part of the problem.
Logged

Together again,
Gee, it's good to be together again,
I just can't imagine that you've ever been gone
It's not starting over, it's just going on
pilferk
The Riddler
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11617


Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!


« Reply #73 on: July 31, 2015, 08:02:35 PM »

Thank you both. Now I understand a better. So if the sponsor tells Ron he has to pretend to be in the band because it is good business or part of his deal then why Ron was all the time hinting about leaving the band? He deleted the GN?R name from his social media among evasive things he said on interviews. It wasn?t a smart move from his part. That?s why I don?t buy that some sponsor or record label asked him to keep using the name GN?R despite not being the band. As someone else said, most of us get it when we see the clues. Only few keep in denial.

Now if it was the band who asked him to honor a request. Well in that case he didn?t honor the request anyway because he was hinting all the time about his status. On top of that how come now we have some spoke person from the band saying he doesn?t know why BBF didn?t speak freely about his status. So someone who is close to the band didn?t know about the request?Huh

I don't think a sponser would say "pretend to be in the band". They might say "don't publicize you are no longer in the band". See the difference?  And thats really what he's sort of done.

And again, i wouldn't peg this as a likely theory...just something thats possible.

And i agree...if it was the band who asked him to keep his staus under wraps...he didn't really honor it. Not in spirit.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 08:04:10 PM by pilferk » Logged

Together again,
Gee, it's good to be together again,
I just can't imagine that you've ever been gone
It's not starting over, it's just going on
pilferk
The Riddler
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11617


Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!


« Reply #74 on: July 31, 2015, 08:03:35 PM »


Thank you both. Now I understand a better. So if the sponsor tells Ron he has to pretend to be in the band because it is good business or part of his deal then why Ron was all the time hinting about leaving the band? He deleted the GN?R name from his social media among evasive things he said on interviews. It wasn?t a smart move from his part. That?s why I don?t buy that some sponsor or record label asked him to keep using the name GN?R despite not being the band. As someone else said, most of us get it when we see the clues. Only few keep in denial.


Look, go back and read the responses. No one said that they truly believed this was the case, it was just a possible explanation as to why the GNR rep was clueless to why Ron has acted the way he has.

I said the agreement he had most probable was with GNR, so I won't say that I'm 'in denial' in any way.  ok

I think the Princess meant only a few were in denial about Ron leaving (or not). And i don't think it was aimed at us. Smiley
Logged

Together again,
Gee, it's good to be together again,
I just can't imagine that you've ever been gone
It's not starting over, it's just going on
Spirit
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7484



« Reply #75 on: July 31, 2015, 08:10:41 PM »

Sorry if I misinterpreted, Leia.  Smiley
Logged

Sweetness is a virtue
And you lost your virtue long ago
Princess Leia
Guest
« Reply #76 on: July 31, 2015, 08:21:07 PM »

 Aimed at those around the world who despite the many hints by BBF refuse to see it.

 Anyway, it doesn?t matter from where the request came. He never honored it. He said himself he gave enough clues about his status.  If he really wanted to honor the request he would?ve pretended to be in the band.

As for DJ it looks like there wasn?t any request. If there was such thing he also didn?t care. And he just decided to be very clear about it

That?s how I see things until more information is available
Logged
FunkyMonkey
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 11085



« Reply #77 on: July 31, 2015, 09:37:01 PM »


I disagree that its obvious. And its defintely not explicitly said.


I don't know how it can be any clearer, when you are trying to say something, you agreed not to say. Cheesy

Hopefully everyone is free to speak now.
Logged

Shut the fuck up. Yes, you. Ha!
TheBaconman
Banned
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2944


« Reply #78 on: July 31, 2015, 09:50:35 PM »


What I?m saying is that I guess the band also knows about their other activities. And DJ and BBF know that GN?R was above other things. I?d like to know if they were told by the band that despite other activities the band was their priority. And the band has it own policy that stands above anything else. 

If there is no such a policy then band made a mistake. They can?t have one guy free to talk and another who has to honor a request not to talk.



I'm not sure I'm getting you? We're discussing the possibility of an agreement to keep quiet coming from someone else than GNR.

Just an example:

- Ron quits GNR to pursue his solo career, GNR says: "Ok".
- The company promoting his solo tour (not affiliated with GNR in any way) says to Ron not to make any statements about leaving Guns because they want to keep the "Guns N Roses guitarist" tagline in the promotional material and interviews for as long as possible. They know GNR is on hiatus, so they want to milk the name as long as they can. Think about it, if an interview headline has the words "Guns N Roses" in them rather than just "Bumblefoot", the amount of people reading it will be so much more.


- Dj quits GNR to join Sixx AM full time, GNR says: "Ok".
- Dj gives a statement about it



It's just a possibility and pure speculation, but from the quotes given by Ron and Billboard it's most probable that the "order" came from GNR. But by reading those quotes it doesn't specifically say so.

I think the big difference is when DJ is out promoting his new music he will be promoting just that.   There is nothing left to talk about, in regards to gnr.   The record is set straight

As per Ron.   I feel the only reason he got any interviews was because of his association with guns n roses.   Ron kept his status with the band vague, as to continue these interviews.   
Logged
GNR2014
Rocker
***

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 336


We've been through this such a long long time


« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2015, 12:51:20 AM »

It's an exciting time to be a GNR fan.  ok
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 25 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 19 queries.