Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Just a thought. 

Seeing as how there's no chance that VR will ever bust out November Rain, Don't Cry, Sweet Child, etc. , I wonder if it ever crosses Slash's brain that he won't be playing some of his best work before a live audience anytime soon.

He never really like playing NR live anyway, but how do you just bury one some of your greatest solos & riffs in front of thousands of people after playing them your whole career.

I don't know, probably a stupid thought, but considering people start threads on Axl's fucking hair and what types of clothing he sports, at least this is music related. 

The fact that Robyne Finck has played the SCOM riff something like 150 times live over the last year and Slash to my knowledge has not done it once, seems a little fucked.

Or maybe he just does'nt give a shit either. : ok:

strange thought...but people who go see vr got to see that band...not gnr.  if you want to see scom played live, go to a gnr gig, not a vr concert.

Whoa, you have completely mis-understood the nature of the post

It has nothing to do with me or any other fan. ( of either band )

It has to do with a great guitarist who has laid down some of the most classic stuff in rock history, but is now in the position of not being able to play it live.

That's all -

I remember talking bout this earlier , I can imagine slash walking around the house like a kid bout to whack off hahaha closing all the doors double checking to make sure everyone is gone , than he plugs in a riff's out all the old gnr classic hahahaa.

I was under the impression that Slash signed over all his playing rights to Axl when they split.

Are you being sarcastic?

No, that's what the deal was.

Ever seen a VR setlist?

Enough said.

Yeh, looks like he didn't honour the deal.

Im almost certain you can't sign over PLAYING rights. I play GNR all the time , I have no contract with Axl. They may have signed over other rights such as how much they earn from the cd's and such , but bottom line is Slash can play whatever he wants!

Perhaps, but how much money has VR made out of playing GNR covers.

Not that much , I mean these guys made the songs it's their right to play it any where they want.

Not if you've signed over the rights.

Their isn't playing rights that would make NO sense at all. So you're telling me I can play any GNR song with my band live , but Slash can't even though he made them? I doubt that , they didn't sign over playing rights. There is no such thing as playing rights lol

I think Slash may be alittle better known than your band.

Big picture wise, this whole thing is a part of the ugly breakup saga. Another stab in the back....

Slash owns part of the back catalog for christ sake, he can play the songs whenever he wants. The only thing those guys signed over was the name of the band, allowing Axl to perpetuate it and release albums under it.

Any artist can cover any song they want live. You think Carrie Underwood called Axl to ask him if she could play Patience and SCOM at her concerts? The idea of signing over your playing rights is absurd and has never happened in the history of music.

Roger Waters had a whole tour recently devoted to playing the entire Dark SIde of the Mood album every night. Like Slash, he also does not own the band name and had a nasty divorce from Floyd, yet he can play every Floyd song every night if he wants because that is how the system works.

In this case you have to consider the terms that were set when the band broke up, then you also have to consider the bitchy comments by Weiland. It's pretty insulting that he is doing covers of songs that he has nothing to do with. Under these cricumstances the whole thing is wriong, wrong, wrong! Slash also knew that Axl didn't want to go through the whole suing bizzo....

You could say that about 85% of the GNR line-up at this point and yet there is no outrage on your part. I find that unsettling considering they are no different than Weiland in terms of covering material written by another musician. I think Duff one time recently made some kind of comment about how can you cover a song you wrote. Playing the GNR songs live are fair game to anybody who had any part in writing them. Leaving the band does not the fact that your name is still in the liner note of every Guns album ever.

Axl can do them, he owns the rights to them. Duff is just trying to justify his actions. Weiland, well, I'm not going to waste my breathe........

No he does not. I think the Axl/Slash/Duff partnership does. In fact I remember last year reading Axl sold off his interest in the back catalog and future catalog for like 20 million dollars in terms of licensing Gnr songs for commercial purposes.

Axl owns the band name and has the Guns recording contract to live off of, but he does not soley own those songs. It is a common occurance to own a band name but not own 100% of all your own songs.

Slash and Duff left GNR the band, but they didn't leave the partnership which owns the songs. Those are 2 separate entities.

Yes, I agree they are 2 separate entities. However, I remember reading that the rights to songs also got signed over....

In any event, as Christos said........."not all men are gentlemen......."

So you're saying VR or any ex gnr member playing songs they wrote is wrong?

You missed the entire point though hahaha!! Ugly breakup saga?

Yes, considering the circumstances of the split and the bitchiness that went on for years after.......the boys are just getting back at Axl....when considering the ethics of the situation you have to look at the particular circumstances.....that is my point. Get it?!

Does Izzy cover GNR songs?........I consider him to be a man of honour.....

But its ok for Axl to do it? THey play these songs because they wrote them and mean something to them , to say its them back stabbing Axl is RETARDED. What gives Axl the right to play them then?

Anyone, who tries to win an arugument by using the word RETARDED, is not worthy of arguing with. You are showing your age now......

Slash and Duff are part of a band who's lead singer openly taunts Axl. Enough said.

Who doesn't openly taunt Axl at this point? besides what does that have to do with the fact that back in 1985 Slash and Duff make the tunes that Axl still plays?

EDIT: So wait still why does AXL have the right to play them but not the other 4 ex members? No answer to that one...

Well, for one thing Axl is still in Guns N' Roses.   Huge difference between Guns N' Roses playing Guns N' Roses songs (whether or not the guys in the band now wrote the songs or not, they are Guns N' Roses songs) and VR playing GnR songs.

No its not in fact most of the people in the new guns n roses have no idea the thought put behind those songs. VR have every right to play those songs as does axl.

axls such a bastard with his contracts on those things....

thats as bad as a record company (if he actually did what you said)

Axl only owns the name 'Guns N'Roses', not ALL of the back catalogue. That is owned by Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven. Therefore it is perfectly alright by law for them to cover songs which they in part own. So don't give me this crap about them not being allowed to play it live.

On topic-of course he probably misses playing them, but he has a new band so why would he want to. I'm sure he's more excited about writing new music more than he is playing his old GnR songs.

 :beer:

I believe technically that anytime one makes money on a gig, the RIAA is entitled to a cut. There is a story floating around about Honeyboy Edwards playing in Miami when a 20 some year old rep. approached him and demanded compensation for a song she didn't know the name of the composer.

EDIT: unless you own it

HaHa - yes, this is exactly what I was getting at -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYH-G0S1tPM&mode=related&search=

Slash sounds as good or better on this version of Paradise City from last year than he probably ever has, so obviously hasn't refrained from practicing some of the old Guns songs even if on his own. On that song he certainly doesn't sound like someone who hasn't thought about Guns songs in 10 years or so. I suspect he could still play anything in the catalog even today with very little problem.

I've got very little doubt that the man could play any of it. But does he miss playing the stuff that he can no longer play in concert with VR? I guess that's the 100,000 dollar question

my guess is no... why? 2 things:
1. he can play them with Camp Freddy whenever he wants...
2. if he loves playing them he probably plays them at home....

you can look at the gigs like work... he has to do this and that in his "new job"...

that is ONE way of looking at it....

also, a band can play a song where and when they want to. as long as they dont earn money on it. so live is OK

I'd kill to see Slash belt out Nightrain , he's gotten so much more fluid man it be sweet.

Does he cover them routinely?  no!  Has he covered them?  yes!

I ofcourse don't know Slash personally, but this is my opinion based on what I can tell of the guy:

I think he's happy just playing music in general. That's not to say that I think he'd just go out and play music he doesn't like every night, but rather that I think as long as he's playing stuff he likes then he's happy. So essentially I would guess that he really doesn't care if he's playing SCOM or STB as long as he's enjoying it.

i think he thinks it's funnier and more of a kick to play the songs that gets the most crowd response.. and i know that if he'd play gnr songs the crowd woulda loved that more then if he played vr or stp songs

yes it is a huge difference and no it doesn't matter if the guys in the band wrote the songs or not.  If you joined a band as a guitar player at some point in the middle of that bands career, what songs will you be playing?

The name of the band is irrelevant. Its just a name. Remember, VR also play Nirvana and Pink Floyd songs so covering GnR and STP songs as well isn't a big deal. All bands do covers now and again when playing live. Its not like they re-recorded them.

All this stuff from Jim Bob and Stolat is nitpicking. If they wanna play the songs its their right. Just because they ain't in the band anymore doesn't mean they can't play the song.Roger Waters is a solo artist and is not a member of Pink Floyd but still plays Dark Side Of The Moon regularly. Robert Plant and the Strange Sensation playing Led Zepppelin is another example. I really don't see what's wrong with ex-members playing songs from a band they used to be in. Lots of people do it. They're entitled to play covers of any band they wish. The fact Axl has the GnR name is a technicality.

And yes, who wrote the songs is very important in deciding who has more right t play them. It's So Easy and Mr. Brownstone were largely written by Duff and Slash, along with Izzy and West Arkeen. Even HTGTH doesn't give Axl credit for either song. Writing credits is the biggest factor in who is entitled to play the songs. Even Axl said he wouldn't play Don't Cry because it was an Izzy song. He obviously changed his mind but the point still stands. Band name is irrelevant and a technicality, like I said.

Jim Bob and Stolat are just coming up with any reason to bash VR. VR's members have earned the right to do whatever they want with their career.

No. Your thinking on the matter is very limited. We say something that you may not like to hear about VR and suddenly it's nit picking. No. Just presenting you with another point of view. Of course an ethical discussion about - it is right for Weiland to sing GNR songs - has gone over your heads.

Ok. You've come to the conclusion that any band can play any god damn song they like. Good for them. Doesn't necessarily make it right.

Well, if Slash/Duff want to play a couple of GNR tunes at their shows they need someone for vocals, correct?

Just as if Axl wants to play all of the old GNR songs he needs someone to play the instruments, correct?

Weiland singing a GNR song is no less ethical than Finck playing a Slash guitar solo. They are just filling out the other parts of the songs when the people who wrote them want to play them.

I guess you find it unethical that Plant, Mccartney and Waters play songs from their old bands even though they don't own the band name, and that every musician playing the rest of the songs is acting unethically as well.

According to the premise of your argument, the sole owner of a band name is the only person who should be entitled to play the songs, and that whether you wrote the song or not is irrelavent. I guess you are disgusted with Sebastian Bach then for playing Skid Row songs live because he doesn't own the band name either. What an unethical bumb. I guess his guitar players are unethical just like Weiland because they had nothing to do with the Skid Row songs.

You need to make sure you're consistent in applying the premise of your argument across the board. Singling out Weiland is ridiculous, because he is doing nothing different than any of the other musicians who play Guns songs with the original members that wrote them. Liking him or not liking him doesn't make him covering old GNR stuff any different than any of the other musicians doing it.

no its completely different.  Finck is playing some of Slash's original solos because he replaced Slash in Guns N' Roses.  Just as Gilby played Izzy's parts because he replaced Izzy years and years ago.     Weiland on the other hand has nothing to do with GnR and that disrespectful asshole shouldn't even be touching GnR songs - given the way he has ran his mouth about Axl and clearly dispises everything the GnR legacy stands for..

Yes, Jim Bob that the the point, right on the nosey!  : ok:

He plays in a band with 3 former GNR members, 2 of which contributed to the entire back catalog. When they choose to play a Guns song would you advocate they get another lead singer for those 2 songs every night?

Are you in the camp that suggests ownership of a brand name is the sole basis for playing the songs live, or do you fall in the class of those who believe if you wrote them you can play them?

Maybe Slash doesn't like the STP songs that much, but he plays them because they are his bandmates songs and a bandmember wants to play them. Scott singing on a GNR song is absolutely no different than Slash playing STP guitar parts. Besides, Scott has never said anything bad about GNR or the Guns legacy. Talking about Axl Rose in a negative fashion in no way constitutes not liking GNR, as impossible as that may be to believe.

Do you feel as passionately about every artist out there doing the exact same thing in terms of playing songs from previous members bands, or is it just because it is Scott? Richard Patrick does a few STP covers with the Deleo brothers for Army of Anyone, but I guess he has nothing to do with that band either so he should cease singing them immediately.

The  idea of it being not ethical is totally off the mark. Instead of concocting a straw man argument that those making the argument refuse to apply across the board to all other musicians in the same situation, just say you hate the guy and it drives you crazy he sings GNR songs with Slash, Duff.

Instead of tip-toeing around trying to use semantics to make a non-existant point people should just cut straight to the chase. The idea of their being an ethical component to this is absurd, and has nothing to do with ethics in the context of how it is being used in the original argument.

Our argument relates specifically to this particular situation. With ethics you have to consider the particular situation at hand. We are referring to Weiland and his open antagonism towards Axl.

How did this turn into a Weiland dicussion? The original topic was whether Slash misses playing some of his classic GNR solos live, which I think he does, that was some of his best stuff!

Well, that's what the discussion turned into......happens........

We can discuss the issue on many levels. It's not so black and white as some people think. Furthermore, when people use the words retarded, nit picking and "oh, you just hate Scott".......one has to reply. But it is getting rather tiresome. I say tomato........how do say say it........

But yes, the idea of Slash secretly playing the classic GN'R riffs behind closed doors is very funny.

Its just disgusting to see someone with no respect for the GnR legacy and no respect for the man whose words he sings, completely murdering GnR classics.  Sure, they have a right to play any song they want.  But VR should be their own band and quit playing the GnR classics.   

Now now Jim Bob, I know it's down to personal opinion and all, but VR or Scott hardly murder the GN'R classics that they play. They sounded great when I saw them live.

Everyone has their own opinion on how strong VR's material is (and it is irrelevant in this context), but it is impossible to say they aren't their own band at this point considering they have released 2 albums and took the leap to put themselves out there and build their own identity. Being stuck in the past would be them playing setlists every night consisting of 70-80% STP and GNR songs with only a handful on new tracks from their albums.

I have seen you numerous times make the argument in defense of the GNR setlist that the old stuff is what the fans want to hear, so they have to play them. In the same vein people who never saw the original Guns would like to see Slash/Duff play a few Guns tunes.

If you goto a McCartney or Roger Waters concert you want to hear Beattles and Floyd stuff even though they are not in those bands anymore. That exact same logic applies to any ex-gunner, whether it be Steven/Izzy and Slash/Duff. Bach does it every night when he plays Skid Row songs, as well as most every other ex-member of a famous band.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that Scott hates GNR's legacy and such, yet there is no merit to it. He might not be fond of Axl, but that has no bearing on how he feels about the music guns made 15-20 years ago. The argument you are trying to make would be like telling someone who hates Barry Bonds that they automatically have to hate the Giants as well. It just isn't reality.

Yes, there is merit to it. You need to do some research here. You use the word "fixtated", there is reason for our argument to exist.

You seem fixtated on bringing the Beatles and Floyd into this. As I mentioned before, this particular situation does not apply to the Beatles or the Pink Floyd scenarios and we have already addressed your argument regarding the fact bands can play whatever they want  - doesn't always mean it is right.

Just accept the fact that some GNR fans are not so hunky dory with what VR stands for and deal with it.

Slash may have missed playing some of thos old parts, but I think he's moved on now.  He's more than enough to focus on with playing his VR parts.

Ali

Back it up then. If you have no proof then your word means nothing. Scott has never dissed GN'R or it's legacy. FACT. The Giants/Barry Bonds argument is a perfect analogy here.


I really cannot understand how a band playing covers is a BAD thing. Why is Slash and Duff playing songs they helped WRITE a bad thing? If you wrote something wouldn't you like to play it? It's already been said that Axl doesn't own the songs... so it's not a legal thing either.


Bro if you're biased, you're biased. I can deal with it. These guys have the freedom to play whatever they want and I'm glad they do as it's partially THEIR songs. They play em to have a good time and please some fans, not to smite Axl. I think that's what some people forget.

And btw, what does VR "stand for"? I'm interested.

Look dude, I'm bored by this. I raised a few points as to why I am not impressed by Weiland doing GN'R songs.

There is another thread on this board where members refer to comments made by Weiland. Read it. There was also a thread showing a photo where Scott is dressed up to parody Axl.

If you can't understand an argument based on ethics, then your not at the stage to have an ethical discussion with me. You keep going on about, but they helped write it......so what, I don't think it's right. NOT ETHICAL. Understand we are arguing at different levels.

Don't call me bro, I'm a chick. My ethical argument is not based on bias, that why it's an ethical argument.

Since you can't understand why I think it is wrong for Scott to sing GN'R songs, you certainly won't understand what I think VR stand for.

Also, learn to identify when a discussion has come to an end. For me it was several posts ago. END OF DISCUSSION.

You're so sexy when you get all worked up like that stolat... ;D

What does VR and what they stand for have to do with whether or not it is ethical for Scott Weiland to be singing GNR cover songs?

I bring in the Beatles and Floyd comments because the situations are exactly the same as what goes on in terms of playing popular songs from their old bands. You dismiss those comments because it debunks your theory that Slash & Duff are unethical for playing Guns songs when I have established that what they are doing is standard protocal in the world of music for every other artist who is in a similar situation.

Your lack of outrage at any act partaking in playing songs from their old bands suggests you are not very passionate about the principle of the argument you are trying to make. If you really believed artists shouldn't be doing that, you would be applying your standard across the board and you are clearly unwilling to do that.

When you try and cherry pick only certain instances of artists doing this the way you have it lends itself to the idea you are just trying to promote some kind of agenda because the arguments you are making aren't important enough to you to be consistent to every artist partaking in these activities.

You are very limited in your understanding of the idea of ethics.

It is either ethical for any artists to play songs from their old bands or it is not. End of story, no gray area, and no case sensitivity.

Debating about whether it is right or wrong for them to do it is an entirely different conversation than whether or not it is ethical. They are mutually exclusive things.

It is a logical fallacy for you to argue as you have that the act of an artist playing music from an old band they were a member of is wrong in VR's case, but right in other artists cases.

Weiland, what VR stand for, and all the other directions you have pulled the conversation are to divert attention away from the fact your orginal premise that what they are doing is not ethical is wrong.

 :rofl: Ethics is the study of right and wrong! You know I'm a teacher don't you!  :o

PS. END OF DISCUSSION means END OF DISCUSSION

Didn't you end the discussion already? Why are you still discussing? Why do I have the feeling you'll come back just to try and have the last word?

Anyways, sis I guess everyone will have their own opinions. I'm glad VR songs that reflect the history of it's band members. Seems ethical to me  ;)

And btw, Naupis I get you man.. don't stress over this crap.  ::)

-Jack- I'm a teacher, it would be wrong of me to leave Naupis with the misguided impression that ethics and right and wrong are mutually exclusive things. That's all.  ;D

Oh yeah if he sings 2 or 3 gnr songs every gig he clearly despises their legacy...oh wait a minute that doesn't make any sense. He also called It's So Easy one of his favourite songs of the last 20 years and praised Axl's vocals. The recent dispute is over nothing, I wouldn't read too much into it. It was just because a lawsuit was going on at the time and everyone started running their mouths

Your point about Finck is valid, but you're ignoring the fact that lots of people (Sebastian Bach, Robert Plant, Roger Waters, loads more) play songs from their previous bands.

I find it ironic about Jim Bob bitching about the VR setlist, as he's always complaining when people do the same with GnR. "Just enjoy the show, if you're not going then why do you care, GnR give the fans what they want, people who bitch about the setlist need to get a life, bla, bla, bla". I agree with all that, but it all applies to VR as well. They're entitled to play whatever they want, its their show.

Its not end of discussion - if you keep talking shite, be hypocritical, and not back up your points, people are gonna call you on it.

Murder is unethical. So is robbery. Playing certain songs at a gig is not unethical. Each band is entitled to play whatever songs they like. It's not any different to Paul McCartney, Roger Waters, etc. If you think otherwise you're being a hypocrite/talking shite.

For the record, Roger Waters left Pink Floyd. The band continued without him. He also hates Dave Gilmour(re; axl vs weiland/slash). It didn't stop him playing Pink Floyd songs, many of which were sung by Gilmour. And nobody complained then. So there is a precedent.

You could also think of Chris Cornell doing Sleep Now In The Fire with audioslave. Lots of bands do this stuff, but for some reason special ethical rules apply to VR that make no sense.

Lol. Ok that's fine  ;D. End of discussion  :beer:

yes I think he misses so much.
but, can you imagine Weiland do SCOM, WTTJ, or Nightrain ?
Slash Know Scott limits. if Scott can sing all those song He'll do it.

they should have got a singer with more range i think.

do you reckon slash has much shorter solos than he did in guns because of weiland or because hes chosen not to?

Combo of both probably.

I don't think Scott's vision for the band has any long in the tooth type songs that would call for any extended wankering while the material Slash seems to be writing seems more focused and less repetitive (save his work on "Messages" :P)

If you compare to AFD, they're about the same length, with the exception of Nightrain, PC and SCOM which have long solos. But the likes of It's So Easy, My Michelle and Think About You have relatively short solos. Most of the others are in between. Most VR solos are in between, although Grave Dancer has  a fairly long solo.

The UYI albums were a different matter, but VR have much more in common with AFD than UYI.

The VR songs are all quite short so an extra-long solo would sound out of place. UYI songs were generally much longer and epic in nature, longer guitar solos were called for.

I remember in an interview for Contraband with Guitarist magazine where he said he wasn't into playing big long structured solos because he's not out to impress anyone anymore. He also used to create the GnR solos beforehand whereas now they are much more improvised.

I don't think anyone can have a problem with Slash's solos with VR - Sucker Train Blues, Headspace, Fall To Pieces, You Got No Right, Slither, Dirty Little Thing, Loving The Alien, Let It Roll, She Builds Quick Machines, American Man, Just Sixteen, Can't Get It Out Of My Head, all great and fairly long. Grave Dancer is probably the longest but I don't include in the list coz I don't like that song or solo.

I don't think they need a singer with more range - he suits the kinda music that VR are making, which worked for CB, but which is fairly limited on Libertad unfortunately.

This is idiocy. It has to do with who "owns" the song for purposes of royalties. It has absolutely nothing to  do with whether a song can be played in concert.

really, I  am  speechless  at  the level of misinformation  sometimes....

Looking on your posting average I've never considered this sentence possible. :hihi:

Furthermore I fully agree with Naupis and Jack about this discussion. I for myself also enjoyed that they played some GNR tunes when I saw them and also the whole crowd loved it and I think that's the most important part at a concert that everyone has fun. Both, musicians and the crowd.

Concerning the main topic I don't know if he misses it but it's funny to imagine that he sometimes could drop Use Your Illusion I in his CD player and plays along with "Coma" or so. :)