Guns n Roses Chinese Democracy

MEGATRON wrote:

so what's the problem with Axl doing it?

It's like selling a false product, that's it

I can listen to SPAGHETTI INCIDENT without any reservation because I know it's a GNR album

I don't know how'd you feel with SKID ROW or SEPULTURA, the same? no?

EmoElmo wrote:

MEGATRON wrote:

so what's the problem with Axl doing it?

It's like selling a false product, that's it

I'd argue that Axl has every right to call the band Guns N' Roses since he owns the name, but I don't really want to get into any debates about whether or not the album he's selling is a "false product". My question was mostly directed at people who are okay with Black Sabbath (or any other band) having one original member, but not okay with the current Gn'R lineup being called Gn'R.

MEGATRON wrote:

EmoElmo wrote:

MEGATRON wrote:

so what's the problem with Axl doing it?

It's like selling a false product, that's it

I'd argue that Axl has every right to call the band Guns N' Roses since he owns the name, but I don't really want to get into any debates about whether or not the album he's selling is a "false product". My question was mostly directed at people who are okay with Black Sabbath (or any other band) having one original member, but not okay with the current Gn'R lineup being called Gn'R.

That's simply a case to case basis (depends upon who laid the foundation)... Bruce Dickinson, Dio and Brian Johnson were considered as replacement vocalists at some point, but look at what they have done, it's just a matter of who's being effective and who's not...

Can you say the same to Ripper Owens, Derrick Greene, Rob Dukes, Chris Broderick or even Bumblefoot from (uhm) GnR? highly debatable,

As with Al Pitrelli and Chris Broderick's case (MEGADETH) , IMO Mustaine only hired them to mimic Friedman's playing onstage and in the studio, as technical as they can be, neither of them recreated the Friedman magic, I for one could only care less about post-Friedman albums, Megadeth to me is Mustaine and Friedman

EmoElmo wrote:

That's simply a case to case basis (depends upon who laid the foundation)... Bruce Dickinson, Dio and Brian Johnson were considered as replacement vocalists at some point, but look at what they have done, it's just a matter of who's being effective and who's not...

I was referring to bands with only one original member, like the Glenn Hughes/Tony Martin eras of Sabbath, rather than the Dio era. But I do agree with you on this point though.

EmoElmo wrote:

Can you say the same to Bumblefoot from (uhm) GnR? highly debatable.

Well, I would say yes, because I think Chinese Democracy is a great album.

^I think most of us would agree Hughes/Martin era were faux-Sabbath, with Iommi unabashedly milked the trademark name to death

MEGATRON wrote:

I'm fine with Axl releasing the album under the Guns N' Roses name.

Iommi did the exact same thing with Black Sabbath for many years and a lot of people here don't seem to have a problem with that, so what's the problem with Axl doing it?

I didnt know that, learn something new everyday

MEGATRON wrote:

I'm fine with Axl releasing the album under the Guns N' Roses name.

Iommi did the exact same thing with Black Sabbath for many years and a lot of people here don't seem to have a problem with that, so what's the problem with Axl doing it?

Because, if memory serves, the label wouldnt back Iommi if the albums were not labeled as Black Sabbath. I wonder how many copies of Chinese Democracy would have been printed if the album was released as an Axl solo album?

Whenever the sitting President of the United States steps on any plane it instantly becomes Airforce One, and I feel that whenever Iommi straps on his guitar and steps on stage, no matter who is the band at any given time, that band instantly becomes Black Sabbath.


I have no issue with Axl using the Guns n Roses name, but he forced the other band members to capitulate to his demand they hand over the name or he would refuse to finish the tour which would cost the band tons of money in legal fees etc, Iommi never did any such thing.

I'm not a fan of Axl running the name of GnR into the ground with his band of hacks, but on the other hand, it's his business and I'm sure he doesn't give a flying f**k what I or other fans think. At this point, it is what it is.

And yes, Manny is correct. Axl more or less forced the original band members to sign over their rights. He did "steal" the name from everyone in a sense.

manny wrote:

I have no issue with Axl using the Guns n Roses name, but he forced the other band members to capitulate to his demand they hand over the name or he would refuse to finish the tour which would cost the band tons of money in legal fees etc, Iommi never did any such thing.

I bet Slash wished they would have called his bluff...

manny wrote:

I have no issue with Axl using the Guns n Roses name, but he forced the other band members to capitulate to his demand they hand over the name or he would refuse to finish the tour which would cost the band tons of money in legal fees etc, Iommi never did any such thing.

Eh i wouldn't trust this story. Axl denied it heavily and i also read that he got the name rights in the late 90's, after Slash and Duff left. Slash claims it but that doesn't mean it's true. If it was, i would be so pissed off to never work on anything related to Guns n' Roses. Yet Slash happily recorded overdubs and even through the manager got in contact with Axl to know what he had to work on for the Live Era album in 1999.

Axl and Slash contradict each every time they open their mouths. Just as Slash claims that it was only Axl working on that never released follow-up album they wanted to get out around 1995/1996. While Axl claimed it was all Slash and he didn't allow Axl to do anything. Same with the song Fall to Pieces, where Slash claims it was written by the members of VR, while Axl claims that it was created during those 1995 recordings.
I wouldn't believe anything they say, unless they both tell the exact same story and Duff verifies it

Slash, Duff and Steven have all said the same thing about Axl forcing their hands. I'd believe those 3 over Axl's denial.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Slash, Duff and Steven have all said the same thing about Axl forcing their hands. I'd believe those 3 over Axl's denial.

But with Steven Adler it was different: He was kicked out of the band in 1990 (quite some time before they started the UYI tour where that alleged contract thing happened) and all the other members had a hand in him giving the contract which made him sign away all rights of the band and the material. That's why he later went to court and got 2,2 million dollars ouf of the lawsuit against the contract. Which makes me wonder why the others didn't do the same.

True, Steven's situation was a bit different. It was an effort to get him sober.

But Slash and Duff both seem to give the same reasoning in the end. They were fed up with Axl's shenanigans and basically said "Fine. Enough. Here's my signature. The band is yours now. Have fun, I'm outta here".

The band's former manager Alan Niven cooborates that story as well. If the others didn't go to court to fight it, it makes me think they did sign away their rights and the case would get thrown out. They don't have anything to stand on. Steven's defense was that he was too f**ked-up to know what he was signing and therefore the contract was void.

The answer to the question of how many would've been printed up if it wasn't labeled a GnR album is: 9.

The original 4 members did not give up their publishing, Axl, Izzy, Slash and Duff still own the publishing. Apparently Axl's company or managers control how the money gets doled out, since a few years ago they had to sue Guns N Roses Inc, to get some back due royalties which was quickly settled.


The 'Live Era' album was going to released by Geffen anyway, and Axl and Slash agreed to work on it, to make it a good product, but they never worked on it together. They had producer Mike Clink act as they go between

Axl should hook up with Sharon. What an unholy shite of a mess that would be.

manny wrote:

The original 4 members did not give up their publishing, Axl, Izzy, Slash and Duff still own the publishing. Apparently Axl's company or managers control how the money gets doled out, since a few years ago they had to sue Guns N Roses Inc, to get some back due royalties which was quickly settled.

No. Axl owns all the rights to the Guns n' Roses Name, also owns all the rights to the GN'R songs, though apparently he sold them for 15 million dollars to Geffen Records (i at least read that once) so even he only gets royalties from the albums sold and as far as i know, that's the reason went on court and tried to prohibit the release of that Guns n' Roses Best-of Album (Slash accompanied him as far as the story goes, they were completely against a Greatest Hits album, for whatever reason) and they failed, so the album was released was a major success.
And there's no Management with Alx. As far as he told and as far as i read, there was first that Merck guy who smurfed all up and was fired. Then Irving Azoff was his manager, but Axl fired him and it ended in a lawsuit and now he has a new manager group around him. It's weird.

to be honest - I just with GNR would go away. all this dramatic stuff is just way over the top and just serves to destroy any legacy they might have built.

exact33 wrote:

to be honest - I just with GNR would go away. all this dramatic stuff is just way over the top and just serves to destroy any legacy they might have built.

The big question is, will they make the Van Halen or Blondie fiasco's at the Rock 'N Roll Hall of Fame look tame in comparison? Anything involving Axl Rose makes the potential of things going awry a very distinct possibility...

exact33 wrote:

to be honest - I just with GNR would go away.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

manny wrote:

I have no issue with Axl using the Guns n Roses name, but he forced the other band members to capitulate to his demand they hand over the name or he would refuse to finish the tour which would cost the band tons of money in legal fees etc, Iommi never did any such thing.

I bet Slash wished they would have called his bluff...

amen

T-Roy wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

manny wrote:

I have no issue with Axl using the Guns n Roses name, but he forced the other band members to capitulate to his demand they hand over the name or he would refuse to finish the tour which would cost the band tons of money in legal fees etc, Iommi never did any such thing.

I bet Slash wished they would have called his bluff...

amen

You know part of Slash & Duff deep down inside looks back on that moment and thinks "we should have told him to piss off"...then they could have got a new singer and kept going.

If Steven Adler can change "somewhat" we have hope for that red heaeded guy

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

manny wrote:

I have no issue with Axl using the Guns n Roses name, but he forced the other band members to capitulate to his demand they hand over the name or he would refuse to finish the tour which would cost the band tons of money in legal fees etc, Iommi never did any such thing.

I bet Slash wished they would have called his bluff...

amen

You know part of Slash & Duff deep down inside looks back on that moment and thinks "we should have told him to piss off"...then they could have got a new singer and kept going.

No doubt. I guess it's like anything else though. Axl was literally imploding, I'm sure everybody's emotions were high. Then to have him threatening to walk out in the middle of tour and cost everybody everything....but yeah, if they had it to do over, buh-bye Mr Brownstone.