Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I dont konw if this topic has been brought up im sure at has but nonetheless im curiuos this groupl when they first came out completely changed the rock world everyone said they didnt care about what was popular or whatever at the time they did what they wanted however they wanted and it was all about the music but it seems in the past 10yrs it all seems to be about money when you read about axl and the other guys fighting over money and all that shit it makes me wonder where everyones priorities are im not saying this is all on axl or slash and co. i think its obvious its both sides who are at fault in some way shape or form but why has this band we came to love gone from greatest band to come around since the rolling stones become more of a business now then anything else.

Other Axl4pres,

  I disagree with your supposition.  If it was "all about the money," you'd be seeing Axl, Slush, Daff, and Mutt on their 5th tour, and 7th or 8th album already.  The very subject of this thread is wrong.

  Currently, most folks out there think Axl is dead or in an insane asylum.  (or wish he was  :hihi:)   This isn't quite the best strategy to "do everything for the money."

Sincerely
-The original Axl4Prez (2004, established in 2003) 

Sometime between yesterday and tomorrow.

i don't think they are all about the money......

When they started to get more money things got bigger and bigger.

But i don't think money is or has been a driving factor, else we'd have seen a reunion by now :-\

You can thank slash and duff for making gnr about the money and wanting to whore out their classic songs for stupid truck ads and snapple ads.

Dave, that is just wrong. Ever seen the commercial for GTA:San Andreas? Ever been to a sporting event? Slash and Duff have pretty much moved on. They have both released several albums since the GNR breakup. It is Axl that never moves on and always has to stick his hand in the AFD cash cow. I'm not saying they are 100% innocent in regards to the money and lawsuits, but you cant lay all this shit on them. Axl is a big part of it. Just look at the Sanctuary deal largely based on past success. Also look at the AFD remake. A potential lawsuit is pretty much the only thing that stopped that. What's next: Lies Vol.2? Use your Illusion 3?  Spaghetti Vol.2? Axl says he wants to 'Bury' AFD. Instead of milking it, prove it.

There is a difference using it for a video game or movie. You can use it on somethings but slash and duff want to use them all the time and over and over again. Its a huge difference. As for a sporting event, guns n roses have NO control over if WTTJ is used or not, gnr doesnt make? money off that when they are played.?

How has Axl not moved on? Slash and Duff are the ones who still always use the gnr name eventho they quit the band. They keep proving it time and time again.? What is wrong with the AFD remake? Axl never said he was going to release it, he just did it to get the band into playing those songs.

What about VR playing gnr songs at their shows? OH that is right, that is ok right? I fail to see how axl is milking AFD?
OH and dont say? he is by playing them at the 2002 shows because you know damn well if he didnt you would be first in line crying why isnt Axl playing the classic gnr songs live.

The fact is, slash and duff need to more on, they quit gnr they shouldnt have any say in the old songs and how they are used. Yes they should collect their checks,, and we will find out why they have not very soon.

What did Slash & Duff have to do with Paradise City being in 'The Longest Yard'? U know the movie, the biggest  meathead, pice of shit made in 2005, yeah, that one. Can't wait to hear the excuse.

Dave, I am actually one of the people who thinks he should only play new material on his next tour. I agree with you about VR. There isnt really a need for them to play GNR tunes. I guess its just to please the crowd. The reason I say Axl milks it is because instead of doing new work, he basically makes his living off the old stuff. Until Axl can do something new, he hasn't really moved on.

When you're 20 years old it can be easy to ignore money and concentrate on the music.  However when you're 40 and have a wife and kids who are as accustomed to the good life and all that comes with it you suddenly become very interested in money. 

It was not  used in the movie just the trailer. And again, learn to read. I know its hard but come on now. I said using the songs in movies is one thing but Slash and Duff want to use it for stupid ads and for other stupid shit. They quit guns n roses and really should not even have a say how the songs are used.

I get tired of repeating myself because some people are too slow.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=10652.0

 :hihi:

Your dishonesty just gets more blatant with each post.

Please show us evidence that Slash and Duff want to use the songs in truck and Snapple ads.

You dont find it interesting that one of the only commercials a GNR song was used in was for a project that Axl himself was involved in?  Nobody complains when "Welcome To The Jungle" is used to push a video game, as long as its Axl-approved.  You understand that Axl is allowing for GNR songs to be used in commercials, right? 


You mean the commercial for the movie?  What kind of logic are you using?  Youre arguing his post by pointing out that the song wasnt in the movie, but rather the commercial for the movie...then you add:



??? :hihi:

If that wasnt enough:


Evidence?


Were not even talking about movies or video games...the songs were used in the commercials for The Longest Yard and Grand Theft Auto.

And again, I ask you for evidence that Slash and Duff want to use them "all the time."  Youre conveniently ignoring the dozens of projects GNR licensed music to (assumedly with Axls approval) and only referencing to the 4 or 5 movies he blocked (one of which being Black Hawk Down, which was a very questionable move on Axls part).  Weve gone through this before, and youve come up very, very short.


I believe they might...I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that artists are paid small fees each time their music is played at those kind of events.


One could reference the last 14 years of almost no new matereial, briefly touring almost entirely on old material, using (or attempting to use) re-recordings of old material material in movies, ranting about ex-members on-stage...Im not necessarily saying I believe he hasnt "moved on," but if I were to use silly criteria similar to yours, I could make that argument.


They do?  How?  They play two (occassionally three) of the songs they wrote with their new band, within sets of new music.  But how do they use the name?


Well, if you want to get technical (and I suspect you would if it was somehow discrediting an ex-member), he kind of did:

"I don't know what I'm going to do with it, exactly, when I would be putting that out." - Axl (MTV interview 1999, on the re-recorded AFD)

He doesnt say "if," but "when I would be putting it out."  So he certainly entertained the idea, didnt he?


Yes, they cover 2 or 3 songs in a 16-18 song set.  Would you like to tell us how many old songs Axl performed from 2001 to 2002?


 :hihi:

Of course you do.


Theyve moved on greatly, but moving on doesnt mean relinquishing rights to songs that they wrote.  They have those right legally and morally.

Oh booker and his famous quoting of every line of every person in this thread. Ill make it short and sweet.
How do duff and slash still use the name guns n roses? Do you ever see when anyone uses their names, they said slash and duff formerly of guns n roses. That is just one of the many ways.? Oh did? you forget about that?

As for what slash and duff want to use the songs for, its really simple, we dont know all of them because they have not been allowed to do so, but its a fact since they said it themselves that they could be using it for a lot of things.? That is whoring the songs of guns n roses.? They want to get ever drop of money they can from the old songs while they are not even in the band anymore while Axl is selective of what songs are used.

Remember that list that duff and slash gave that were things songs could have been used but Axl never used them. OH did you forget about that too? I love your selective memory. You always have this. You also claim to so know much yet you ask the questions that are common knowledge, why is that?

You still have not gave a reason how Axl is milking AFD. He never did put it out, so you have no leg to stand on.


As for my dishonesty, that is a good one, what have I said that is not true? Do tell. I really wish you would get a life because its really sad you waste so much time here bashing Axl and the new band.

As for how many old songs Axl played in 2002, the last time i checked the band was still called guns n roses or did? you forget that?

You really need to start dealing in facts something you never like to do. You always like to deal with half truths with is your M.O.

Just look at your quote of Axl.

"I don't know what I'm going to do with it, exactly, when I would be putting that out." - Axl (MTV interview 1999, on the re-recorded AFD)

Axl said he does not know what is going to do with it first.? That means he was not sure if he was going to put it out or not, he even later said in another interview that he was never going to put it out and it was just to get the band into the old songs. So again, you love to deal with half truths.? Keep up the great work.

PS look up what tongue and cheek means since you really cant seem to understand when people use that. Thanks.

well you do have to pay bills so...

Haha, so in order to prove your point of Slash & Duff using the GNR name, you refer to other people using it. ?: ok: ?How expected...


Theyve talked about movies, and list specific examples in the suit. ?But feel free to show when theyve mentioned anything else (you wont ?;))


So Real Cancun, Cant Hardly Wait, The Longest Yard, Big Daddy, End Of Days, Grosse Pont Blank, and several others is "selective." ?


You mean the list of 4 or 5 songs that I just referenced in my last post? ?




I claim to know so much? ?When youre looking for evidence to support those other statements you cant back up, find that "claim" as well and post it up.


In addition to licensing its songs himself, I explained that hes recently toured on its songs and re-recorded its songs for public use (Big Daddy and Black Hawk Down, despite being blocked on the latter). ?


Well lets look at the comment that inspired my response:


And Ill just stop there, but please dont mistake that for a lack of material.


Right...so how many old songs did the new band play?


Its not only pointless to debate you, but its actually unfair. ?

Booker 1 - 0 Dave

Yeah, I've got to agree with Dave here. Playing Guns N' Roses songs when there's only one or two original members of GN'R in the band is wrong.

I think the more relevent question is at what point specifically did GN'R 'jump the shark'?

1.) One or two?  Are you not sure if either Slash or Duff are in the band?  Two is double the original members in the current GNR.  And Matt was a member for about 6 years.

2.) Theyre cover songs for VR.  They cover a lot of songs, and the fact that they co-wrote the songs and still retain rights over them only validates their choice of playing them. 

i think axl moved a lot on. the most important point is that he changed his style, unlike slash and duff who look exactly the same like 20 years ago, so that they can milk their old image and glory.

if axl would want to live from his old popularity, i think he wouldn?t have braids nor would he be wearing jerseys.  i think if slash and duff had the change to be in gnr again with axl they would definitely use it to make money.

and if axl was in gnr for the money, i think we`d have 3 chinese democracys by now...

Turn your sarcasm filter on and reread ;)

Why d'ya think I said one or two?

Thats just idiotic grasping for straws. Sorry.

Another way to spin that would be to say that Axl is updating his look in a desperate move to look 'cool' and 'modern' to the new generation of kids buying records. And it isn't working.

well   your opinion dude....      axl is wearing jerseys because he thinks they`re cool...    and that`s not the main point why i think axl moved forward, but it`s a point stating that he`s not milking his old image like those other has-beens do.       by the way i like the jerseys : ok:

and why isn`t it working?

 i don`t think that there`s a record, that could be bought anyway, to prove if he`s "cool enough" to be popular again...

Rumour has it that during the promotion trip for contra S n D talked a lot about their plans for releasing videos of old GN'R shows. Some people concerned even claimed S n D to have promised November 05 release.

->then, that GH sold far stronger than expected. Yeah GN'R makes moni.
->and then they brought the suit to gain the control over the GN'R catalogue.

Who's trying to milk the ship they abandoned and who's stubbornly rejecting it?

Go figure.

I'm not saying it's wrong.
But to say GN'R is all about money is wrong.
For Capt. A, it's not. I can safely assume this.

How can you call Slash and Duff has-beens??? I guess you're one of the sheep that believe they have to choose? Old or New?? It's totally rubbish.? The reason we are all here is because of the music made by those who made Appetite/Lies/Illusions .  And the excitment of all those guys  making new music.

S + D? are still making records, what you think of the music is a matter of your opinion. But they are far too busy and appearing in too many places, selling millions of records and u call them them has-beens?

Duff looks very different these days, go and check some of the pics circa '93 to remind yourself.? And as far as Slash goes... well he still looks cool as, he is a legend.? Axl hasn't changed that much, not in a Bowie sense of the word change.? He just looks older becasue we hadn't seen him for 10 years lol.

Anyway back on topic,? I think during the time when Axl wanted Izzy to take? a smaller cut of the money, because he didn't move enough on-stage. That's probably the start of the money over the band issues.

 :-[

My apologies...But check out this thread.  Theres actually folks who believe what you wrote.  :no:

I don't see how any of you can criticize Axl for tying to get money off AFD and publishing rights.  If I'm not mistaken (I might be), Axl has spent millions of his own money of CD and it's follow ups.  I'm sure he lives very comfortably but given that he's using most of the money he makes off his old music to finance his new music is admirable.  I admire his conviction in releasing an album he views as perfect and the amount of time and his own money he's dedicated to it.  I haven't seen any of the other G'NR members dedicate so much of themselves to a project, so it's easier to view that Slash and Duff are more in it for the money.

/Ben

Im actually not.  But Im trying to explain how silly it is to criticize Slash and Duff for essentially the same thing while pretending that Axl doesnt, or that hes "moved on" more.

So is that what you base opinions on?  Unfounded rumors?

Actually, Duff commented that he would like to release some GNR footage someday.  I think he mentioned it once.  And I cant recall any mention of a possible release date.  So I think its unwise of you to perpetuate that rumor.


Who joined Axl in "rejecting" the Greatest Hits?  : ok:




If only more of your assumptions were as safe...

Since the captain remains in the ship, And they remain only in the partnership. ;)


Why you think he calls them has beens? are "those other has-beens" necessarily S and D?
I think Warose means the has-beens in general. Maybe it includes even Axl? I don't know. (never mind) :hihi:
I agree that Old vs New talk in the GN'R section is nonsense and nuisance because many of us are here to hear n discuss the news and look at the future n the present more than the past.


Some say otherwise. Can you tell them next time? :hihi:

lol You just remind me and I will tell them straight? :hihi:.? But seriously, from long straight hair to long braided hair, added weight/size and some new clothes, doesn't really make much of a change -, as was suggested does it? lol :peace:

well, i didn`t mean necessarily slash and duff.

i think in SOME point of view all gnr members are has -beens (axl included)
what i wanted to say is that i think slash didn`t really move on. ( he actually did, as he has family and so on...) but he tries to have the same look as he had 15 years ago, because he knows that he can make money out of it. ? and axl doesn`t really care what his fans want. (that`s not necessarily positive...) but he doesn`t fake it and i think that`s cool.

i think the main point in the split of gnr was that axl moved on with his musical idea of what gnr should be and slash wanted to continue the ?old way. ( there were personal problems, too ?AND I DON`T KNOW SHIT WHAT HAPPEND)

by the way i`m not one of the so-called "sheeps" ::)

 i`m a fan of gnr both old and new, but i have faith in the new gnr, whereas i don`t like velvet revolver that much, because of their "great" singer.

well   i`m not sure what i wrote, but i think i wrote that it`s ONE aspect.
and if you want to be popular it`s a very important aspect (the look).

i think if axl would look exactly like he did in 93 the whole situation was a lot easier for him, as it`s now.  (good old axl and shit....)

What do you mean by the same look?  And do you think its possible that thats genuinely what he likes?    On what do you base the "doing it for the money" assumption, and what do you think he should change?

I really seriously don't see Slash or any member of GN'R worrying about what people think of the way they dress or look. ?

And definatly don't see it as a marketing scam, that's a very negative/cynical thing to presume. Have you thought that maybe he is just comfortable? ?He's a very cool guy inspired millions to pick up the guitar. ?If he shaved off his hair tomorrow my opinion of him wouldn't change.

 Look at Lemmy or Angus Young or Brian May they haven't changed their appearence much either, truth is not many people do. Unless nature takes it''s toll and they get fat or bald ect but that happens (or will) to all of us.

Well i guess basically Slash is too lazy to mind/change his look...


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

see the order of the events.
1 S n D wanting to release DVD of old footage
2 GH suit
3 GH hits expectedly.
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?


Coming events cast their shadows before them. : ok:

The attempted cleverness returns...I guess it worked really well in the other thread?? :hihi:


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


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.

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?

Only in your warped little mind.

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.

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.

Yesterday.

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.

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.   : ok:

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.


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".


Remember, It was a reply to 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.

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. :-\

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).


 ???

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?   :hihi:  How does that work?  I believe that those kind of rights are determined when the case is over, not when its pending.


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. 


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


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


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. :-\

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.

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.

 ???

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.


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


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


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

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

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

Is the board slow or my Pc?

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.


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.