You are not logged in. Please register or login.

#91 Re: Guns N' Roses » GN’R screenplay in the works » 689 weeks ago

So Matt proclaims on twitter that he has closed the G&R chapter of his life and will speak no more of it.

A week later, he is moving forward with a screenplay.

#92 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash in CD sessions 2001? Illusions reunion in 96? » 689 weeks ago

Smoking Guns wrote:

KV, it does explain some, but it paints Axl as even more of a paranoid type guy than we thought.  Blaming Slash for everything and stuff he didn't even do.

That's your opinion. The author does mention that Slash openly spread these stories in the press which festered the wound between the two even more.

#93 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash in CD sessions 2001? Illusions reunion in 96? » 689 weeks ago

Good stuff.

Explains circumstances behind the infamous name issue.

Pretty much what we all thought.

#94 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 689 weeks ago

Naltav wrote:
russtcb wrote:
Bono wrote:

I back my argument with common sense. Something you clearly lack. The fact you'll sit on this site and do your best to spin this as though Axl's letter was met with huge positivity is hilarious.  For an example of lack of objectivuty, see your belief that Dizzy refused to attend due to the cost per plate.

I brought up the Dizzy complaint about pricing because Dizzy himself did. I don't know why Dizzy didn't didn't go to the Rock Hall ceremony, nor do I care because I wasn't all that interested in it.

Like I said before. My bet is that within a short while, this whole RRHOF-thingy is gonna be forgotten (as far as the avarage Joe is conserned). I mean, fuck, if the RHCP came to my town, I'd buy a ticket in a heartbeat! And I wouldn't know jack shit that they were just inducted into this RRHOF.

THAT'S the reality of the situation!

Sure some of you die-hard-reunion fans are gonna be still pissed about the "Velvet Revolver feat. Adler/Myles"-performance on this private club going on in Ohio(!). But in a few weeks, GNR is starting a summer tour of Europe with sold out gigs! The RRHOF is NOT the Oscars of the music business! It just isn't! Just because a private company labels something the THE HALL OF FAME, doesn't really mean anything! The RRHOF wanted a specific thing to happen this weekend, they didn't get it! And I'm sure they're gonna suffer financially, because they are not gonna get the licence to air GNR-songs on TV (which is prolly why they played LIVE-clips from MTV during the show. At least that's what I heard) Boo-hoo! NEXT!

Mostly, I've stayed away from this discussion, because it doesen't mean anything to me.

Sure, label me as a nutswinger or whatever "original" thought passes through your brain. The pages here on this topic in the last couple of weeks has been a "last chance" for certain fans to see their wish come true. It didn't! And now you're angry! Or sad. I get that! But for some of you, maybe the time has finally come to either get on the bus, or.... Well you know. It's not a happy ending. But this is what you got.
And if the next album or tour DO suffer as a result of an "insult to the fans" and the band goes downhill from here on and we never hear from Axl again, then THAT'S what happens.

My life still goes on, and so does a lot of people's lives......

19

Well said, sir.

#95 Re: Guns N' Roses » Howard Stern/Eddie Trunk on GNR » 689 weeks ago

Good stuff. I'm glad Eddie got in there and cleared up a few of Howard's misconceptions about Axl. Even the Booey couldn't figure it out.

I think there is a shot Axl appears on Hoard at some point.

I remember Howard talked to him once on the phone and asked him if he was in bed with three girls. Axl said no, because someone always ends up pissed off.

#96 Re: Guns N' Roses » GNREVO HOF tribute to Guns N' Roses. » 689 weeks ago

Anyone hear Silkworms live and in person?

It is a completely different experience. So many raw electronic sounds. Loved it.

#97 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 689 weeks ago

polluxlm wrote:
killingvector wrote:

Remember though, it was an escape clause. Axl could leave with the name whenever he wanted. The old partnership continued to exist right up to the time that Axl executed the contract in 95.

Yeah sure, but that was just to ensure they'd have no recourse once reality became apparent to them. The clause as presented I believe was "if the band breaks up I get the rights".

It was more direct than that. Axl could resign from the original partnership at anytime and initiate the new partnership of which he was the only member.

#98 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 689 weeks ago

polluxlm wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

I'm sure lawyers could have figured out a way to make it work if they would have put an effort into it.  There's a middle ground somewhere.

What? Have a provision that says they can't fire him or have any say in financial matters? That's pretty much what he offered them. On financial benefits the terms seem to have been as fair as in the past.

I think he means that Axl should have negotiated a deal by representing both sides simultaneously. Or something like that. Realistically speaking, that was not gonna happen.

#99 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 689 weeks ago

polluxlm wrote:

Axlin:

I know of most the stories you talk about, but I think most of them can be attributed to misrepresenting the facts, hide your part in vague descriptions and bad memory. They're all guilty of this, but the Slash thing is the only one I remember where you can say it's a blatant lie.

Everybody will construe their stories to serve themselves, but that's different from pure lying. That's why I'm asking for proof.

+1

#100 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 689 weeks ago

polluxlm wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

There are other ways of helping them than just getting them off drugs.  There were other ways he could have altered the arrangement without taking complete control of everything.  I don't disagree that something needed to be done; I disagree with what Axl decided to do.

Not really. Either they have equal say or they don't. If they die, which at the time was a perfectly reasonable assumption, he will be stuck with negotiating about business and band matters with a bunch of self serving heirs. Ask Nirvana and the Beatles how fun that can be.

And just because they're junkies doesn't mean they're shooting heroin before a show or are so drunk to not know what they're doing. Basically Goldstein came and told them Axl wanted them to sign over the rights because in their state they couldn't be trusted with the responsibility, probably also followed with a little *wink*wink* from Doug as to what might happen if they didn't.

Sneaky, dickish, manipulative yeah, but if you're gonna sign over the rights to a multi million dollar enterprise just because you're too pussy to take one of Axls semi regular no shows you got it coming.

And that's probably whey they never made a huge fuzz about it in later years. They knew he was right and they knew they'd not been tricked into anything. Pushed for sure, but that's something else entirely. As they say in football, shoulder to shoulder is not a foul.

Remember though, it was an escape clause. Axl could leave with the name whenever he wanted. The old partnership continued to exist right up to the time that Axl executed the contract in 95.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB