Richard Fortus Interview To Be Released Monday

[mortismurphy]

So you know that much. Yet you can't even use your free thinking abilities to extend that thinking to something more present. Why not?
What's stopping you? Your negativity? Or is it because I introduced the thought so it can't be possible?

Probably because there is no more evidence that Axl used the Budweiser money to fund his music, than there is, that he, say, lost the money betting on the horses. There was evidence that the 2006 tour was connected with funding for Chinese Democracy, evidence provided by Merck I believe.

[Ginger King]

You use this "where is the evidence to back up your opinion" approach often.  But where is yours?  Because you are there, we are supposed to take your opinions as irrefutable facts, such that you don't need to provide a basis for them?  For example:  the name (Guns n Roses) was Axl's to begin with.  Where's your proof for that?  We're just supposed to believe that?  

Also, regarding the self-doubt opinion, Chinese Whispers is replete with interviews from former band members, managers, people that were there, who commented on Axl's fear on completing/releasing this material.  I don't think it's off base to come to that conclusion.  Are we not supposed to believe those (first-hand) accounts, and instead believe your (second hand accounts)? I'm not sure exactly when you started traveling with the band, but I don't think it was when CD was being created in the late 90's/early 00's.

All true.  And just on a baser level, what is the "evidence" of an opinion?

I had already thought Axl was working on a healthy bit of self doubt here.  How could he not be?

But then when you read that one of the producers (I forget which) told him he had *maybe* three good songs in his batch, and he was crushed...it made sense to me.

I'm guessing all those hacks had ulterior motives and can't be trusted...

[JAEBALL]

Ginger King...

the name Guns N Roses did come from Axl and Izzy working with Tracci... I believe... So while yes Jarmo does sometimes say things without "proof"... I don't think that was a good example.

So while Axl and Izzy didn't alone create the GNR legacy without Slash Duff and Steven... the name did originate prior to them forming the group that changed history.

[jarmo]

Checked into this particular thread and found our daily argument between Jarmo and DX. Nothing ever changes on this site.

Well, I didn't come here for attention.....

You use this "where is the evidence to back up your opinion" approach often.  But where is yours?  Because you are there, we are supposed to take your opinions as irrefutable facts, such that you don't need to provide a basis for them?  For example:  the name (Guns n Roses) was Axl's to begin with.  Where's your proof for that?  We're just supposed to believe that?  

Axl's own words. I choose to believe him over any of you on the Internet. Sorry!

Also, regarding the self-doubt opinion, Chinese Whispers is replete with interviews from former band members, managers, people that were there, who commented on Axl's fear on completing/releasing this material.  I don't think it's off base to come to that conclusion.  Are we not supposed to believe those (first-hand) accounts, and instead believe your (second hand accounts)? I'm not sure exactly when you started traveling with the band, but I don't think it was when CD was being created in the late 90's/early 00's.

You're free to believe anything you want.
Doesn't mean I have to agree.

But it's ironic how something like that it's easy for some of you to believe, but not regarding where the money to pay recordings might come from.

Probably because there is no more evidence that Axl used the Budweiser money to fund his music, than there is, that he, say, lost the money betting on the horses. There was evidence that the 2006 tour was connected with funding for Chinese Democracy, evidence provided by Merck I believe.

So, to use your friend's term, track record. You have this history that you believe in, but you have a reason to believe Axl changed his way of operating all of a sudden?
Do you have evidence that Universal Music/Interscope has invested their money in this project since the 2000s? Why do you believe they are that involved all of a sudden? I'm curious. Is it just "because that's how record companies operate"?



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Ginger King...

the name Guns N roses did come from Axl and Izzy working with Tracci... I believe... So while yes Jarmo does sometimes say things without "proof"... I don't think that was a good example.

So while Axl and Izzy didn't alone create the GNR legacy without Slash Duff and Steven... the name did originate prior to them forming the group that changed the music world.

All true, JAEBALL.

But, let's be real here.  Axl kept the name because  :

- it was near and dear to his heart having though it up as a lad
- its one of the most recognizable brands in rock and worth a ton of loot

I would say the overriding reason was the second one.  Wouldn't you?

[JAEBALL]

Ginger King...

the name Guns N roses did come from Axl and Izzy working with Tracci... I believe... So while yes Jarmo does sometimes say things without "proof"... I don't think that was a good example.

So while Axl and Izzy didn't alone create the GNR legacy without Slash Duff and Steven... the name did originate prior to them forming the group that changed the music world.

All true, JAEBALL.

But, let's be real here.  Axl kept the name because  :

- it was near and dear to his heart
- its one of the most recognizable brands in rock and worth a ton of loot

I would say the overriding reason was the second one.  Wouldn't you?

I'd say it was a combination... Im sure he feels the name is indeed "his"...

The financial benefit surely played a part as well.

[Ginger King]

Ginger King...

the name Guns N roses did come from Axl and Izzy working with Tracci... I believe... So while yes Jarmo does sometimes say things without "proof"... I don't think that was a good example.

So while Axl and Izzy didn't alone create the GNR legacy without Slash Duff and Steven... the name did originate prior to them forming the group that changed the music world.

All true, JAEBALL.

But, let's be real here.  Axl kept the name because  :

- it was near and dear to his heart having though it up as a lad
- its one of the most recognizable brands in rock and worth a ton of loot

I would say the overriding reason was the second one.  Wouldn't you?

But that's my point.  I believe Jarmo is saying that Axl, and Axl alone, came up with the name Guns n Roses, and therefore it was only logical (and right) that he keep the name.  I think there were more people involved in its creation.

[D-GenerationX]

But that's my point.  I believe Jarmo is saying that Axl, and Axl alone, came up with the name Guns n Roses, and therefore it was only logical (and right) that he keep the name.  I think there were more people involved in its creation.

I have found that Jarmo (along with many others, to be fair) take umbrage when you try and suggest he did so for business reasons.

They much prefer the version where he kept the name because he came up with it, and darn it, him keeping it was just the right thing to do.

[D-GenerationX]

So, to use your friend's term, track record.

A lot of my phrases and expressions sure seem to find their way into many of your posts.  Its very flattering.

Do you have evidence that Universal Music/Interscope has invested their money in this project since the 2000s? Why do you believe they are that involved all of a sudden? I'm curious. Is it just "because that's how record companies operate"?

Hell no.

They cut him off in...04?  It was around there.

He's been on his own dime for years now.  And his own pace.

[mortismurphy]

True, Tracii and Axl basically stuck their names together. But legally, to say that it was 'his to begin with' so 'he should have it' is incorrect since Axl had to subsequently legally obtain the name when he modified the partnership agreement with Slash and Duff sometime during the Illusion tour. He would not have to do that if it simply, was automatically his to begin with. Presumably there was no prior legal writ when Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven signed as 'Guns N' Roses' in 1986, so, theoretical, ownership could have been disputed between them until the amendment of that partnership agreement in, either 1992 or 1993. Even Adler had as valid claim as anyone until he got the booted out of the band.

So, to use your friend's term, track record. You have this history that you believe in, but you have a reason to believe Axl changed his way of operating all of a sudden?
Do you have evidence that Universal Music/Interscope has invested their money in this project since the 2000s? Why do you believe they are that involved all of a sudden? I'm curious. Is it just "because that's how record companies operate"?

I do not follow.

But that's my point.  I believe Jarmo is saying that Axl, and Axl alone, came up with the name Guns n Roses, and therefore it was only logical (and right) that he keep the name.  I think there were more people involved in its creation.

Tracii Guns. You do not have 'Roses' without the 'Guns' after all! If legal ownership was decided by mere, invention, Tracii would have at least as good a-claim as Axl has.

[jarmo]

That whole last post was dynamite, Jarmo.  Really added to the discourse.

If you actually answered simple questions, I might take your responses seriously. Gotta give credit though, you got quite the talent for saying one thing and doing the opposite. Mr "I never avoid questions".

I asked you: What part of legally owning a name that's yours doesn't make sense to you?
Instead of a clear answer, you dance around it and talk about how it's worth money so it must be the motivation for getting the rights to a name. A name that was morally yours even before it was made legally yours.

I believe Jarmo is saying that Axl, and Axl alone, came up with the name Guns n Roses, and therefore it was only logical (and right) that he keep the name.  I think there were more people involved in its creation.

Nope. I'm not making that statement, unlike those of you who make claims that Axl is motivated by money.

I made the point that he was there since day one. Those other guys joined later, they weren't there when the name was first used. If you think Izzy or Tracii Guns deserves the name, fine. I disagree!

He's been on his own dime for years now. 

Amazing!
Thank you.

True, Tracii and Axl basically stuck their names together. But legally, to say that it was 'his to begin with' so 'he should have it' is incorrect since Axl had to subsequently legally obtain the name when he modified the partnership agreement with Slash and Duff sometime during the Illusion tour.

Ok, morally it was his to begin with. Happy now?

I do not follow.

What makes you think something, regarding who pays for GN'R's recordings or filming of the shows, changed between say 2006 and now?
You think that in 2006, the tour was used for that because you read it somewhere. Now, because you didn't read it anywhere, you're assuming that can't be true anymore... Why?



/jarmo

[TheBaconman]

True, Tracii and Axl basically stuck their names together. But legally, to say that it was 'his to begin with' so 'he should have it' is incorrect since Axl had to subsequently legally obtain the name when he modified the partnership agreement with Slash and Duff sometime during the Illusion tour. He would not have to do that if it simply, was automatically his to begin with. Presumably there was no prior legal writ when Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven signed as 'Guns N' Roses' in 1986, so, theoretical, ownership could have been disputed between them until the amendment of that partnership agreement in, either 1992 or 1993. Even Adler had as valid claim as anyone until he got the booted out of the band.

So, to use your friend's term, track record. You have this history that you believe in, but you have a reason to believe Axl changed his way of operating all of a sudden?
Do you have evidence that Universal Music/Interscope has invested their money in this project since the 2000s? Why do you believe they are that involved all of a sudden? I'm curious. Is it just "because that's how record companies operate"?

I do not follow.

But that's my point.  I believe Jarmo is saying that Axl, and Axl alone, came up with the name Guns n Roses, and therefore it was only logical (and right) that he keep the name.  I think there were more people involved in its creation.

Tracii Guns. You do not have 'Roses' without the 'Guns' after all! If legal ownership was decided by mere, invention, Tracii would have at least as good a-claim as Axl has.

This is the best way to actually look at the whole name thing...

Who cares who had what prior to the old band starting...  It doesn't mean anything

It's like telling the divorce judge you had something prior to marriage and then the judge saying, sorry pal you were married, give half

Some of the songs in gnr where written prior to gnr, yet you never hear anyone say anything when Axl sings them still to this day.   Some he never even wrote....   So if people are going to use the argument, Axl had the name before the other guys so it's his, well he can't then use some songs that were not his etc....

Like I said that's a stupid argument

What is true is that the name is Axls because the rest of the band was stupid enough to sign off on it for what ever reason.  They didn't even get paid to sign over the name.  They just did it.  So it's his...

[D-GenerationX]

What is true is that the name is Axls because the rest of the band was stupid enough to sign off on it for what ever reason.  They didn't even get paid to sign over the name.  They just did it.  So it's his...

Exactly.

He laughs all the way to the bank, and the other two were complete fools.

[mortismurphy]

Morally? Strange usage of words.

What makes you think something, regarding who pays for GN'R's recordings or filming of the shows, changed between say 2006 and now?
You think that in 2006, the tour was used for that because you read it somewhere. Now, because you didn't read it anywhere, you're assuming that can't be true anymore... Why?

It is a rather moot point. Firstly, we have no idea of the contractual relationship between Interscope and Axl; presumably, a large segment of interscope's funding for the first installment was also spent on the second (and possibly the third) album since we are told Axl has all of this material in the can, that 'only needs sorting'. Thirdly, I have just in fact brought up my third point. We are told much was recorded prior to 2008 which therefore does not require further work. Fourthly, I have my own personal doubts (and I freely admit, this is just my own opinion) about his seriousness in releasing new material. I do know he lives an expensive lifestyle and has a gigantic entourage of hirelings. I know this, but I have no evidence that he has been active in the studio much. Budweiser Ad? Do you want me to honestly hedge my bets that Bud's money went on new vocals for Oklahoma?

[jarmo]

Morally? Strange usage of words.

Maybe you never heard of it?

Five guys starts a band named X. Three guys leave, three other guys join from band Y. They become successful.
Who's name is X? Many would make the point that whoever came up with it has rights to it. Makes sense.

It is a rather moot point. Firstly, we have no idea of the contractual relationship between Interscope and Axl; presumably, a large segment of interscope's funding for the first installment was also spent on the second (and possibly the third) album since we are told Axl has all of this material in the can, that 'only needs sorting'. Thirdly, I have just in fact brought up my third point. We are told much was recorded prior to 2008 which therefore does not require further work. Fourthly, I have my own personal doubts (and I freely admit, this is just my own opinion) about his seriousness in releasing new material. I do know he lives an expensive lifestyle and has a gigantic entourage of hirelings. I know this, but I have no evidence that he has been active in the studio much. Budweiser Ad? Do you want me to honestly hedge my bets that Bud's money went on new vocals for Oklahoma?

All this free thinking just to assume Axl doesn't pay for anything so you can go on and on about a commercial? Wow.

But you still didn't explain what exactly you think has changed. If he paid for sessions in 2006, as you think. You don't think he'd do the same in 2014? It's 100% impossible? No doubts? Is that your final answer?

It just seems like you're too stubborn to admit the possibility because then you "lose" your right to whine!



/jarmo

[TheBaconman]

What is true is that the name is Axls because the rest of the band was stupid enough to sign off on it for what ever reason.  They didn't even get paid to sign over the name.  They just did it.  So it's his...

Exactly.

He laughs all the way to the bank, and the other two were complete fools.

Well like you have said

I can be put into the group that thinks Axl had no financial basis for getting the name.  I do believe Axl when he talks he or anyone else new about brands back then and all that jazz

But damn it sure paid off for him in the end.  He has made millions just off the name alone

[JAEBALL]

What is true is that the name is Axls because the rest of the band was stupid enough to sign off on it for what ever reason.  They didn't even get paid to sign over the name.  They just did it.  So it's his...

Exactly.

He laughs all the way to the bank, and the other two were complete fools.

Of all the name fights ... this rings the loudest... If it was truly Axl's name... he wouldn't have had to legally obtain it from Slash and Duff to begin with...

Slash and Duff and Izzy all have just as much claim to the GNR name imo.. without the 4 of them growing and building it... there really is no name to fight for... saying Slash and Duff came in after the GNR name really is flabbergasting to me... ha.. no offense to anybody... but come on, you want to say technically this...technically that... OK

At the time... they were foolish enough to let Axl grab it , I'm sure one day their manager or accountant or whatever looked at the two of them with complete disgust!
 

[D-GenerationX]

At the time... they were foolish enough to let Axl grab it , I'm sure one day their manager or accountant or whatever looked at the two of them with complete disgust!
 

Guy it has to really eat at is Duff.

Now that he's sobered up and gotten into the business world...he has to just be sick about it.

[JAEBALL]

True, Tracii and Axl basically stuck their names together. But legally, to say that it was 'his to begin with' so 'he should have it' is incorrect since Axl had to subsequently legally obtain the name when he modified the partnership agreement with Slash and Duff sometime during the Illusion tour. He would not have to do that if it simply, was automatically his to begin with. Presumably there was no prior legal writ when Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven signed as 'Guns N' Roses' in 1986, so, theoretical, ownership could have been disputed between them until the amendment of that partnership agreement in, either 1992 or 1993. Even Adler had as valid claim as anyone until he got the booted out of the band.

So, to use your friend's term, track record. You have this history that you believe in, but you have a reason to believe Axl changed his way of operating all of a sudden?
Do you have evidence that Universal Music/Interscope has invested their money in this project since the 2000s? Why do you believe they are that involved all of a sudden? I'm curious. Is it just "because that's how record companies operate"?

I do not follow.

But that's my point.  I believe Jarmo is saying that Axl, and Axl alone, came up with the name Guns n Roses, and therefore it was only logical (and right) that he keep the name.  I think there were more people involved in its creation.

Tracii Guns. You do not have 'Roses' without the 'Guns' after all! If legal ownership was decided by mere, invention, Tracii would have at least as good a-claim as Axl has.

This is the best way to actually look at the whole name thing...

Who cares who had what prior to the old band starting...  It doesn't mean anything

It's like telling the divorce judge you had something prior to marriage and then the judge saying, sorry pal you were married, give half

Some of the songs in gnr where written prior to gnr, yet you never hear anyone say anything when Axl sings them still to this day.   Some he never even wrote....   So if people are going to use the argument, Axl had the name before the other guys so it's his, well he can't then use some songs that were not his etc....

Like I said that's a stupid argument

What is true is that the name is Axls because the rest of the band was stupid enough to sign off on it for what ever reason.  They didn't even get paid to sign over the name.  They just did it.  So it's his...

Bacon... preach on brotha haha

If there is another Vegas residency.. We must do shots together.

I don't know why we are on the GNR name today... I guess all Jarmo/Mortis/DX triple threat matches lead towards it  

[JAEBALL]

At the time... they were foolish enough to let Axl grab it , I'm sure one day their manager or accountant or whatever looked at the two of them with complete disgust!
 

Guy it has to really eat at is Duff.

Now that he's sobered up and gotten into the business world...he has to just be sick about it.

Yeah... but what would Duff do with the GNR name without Axl anyway? Same for Slash... as great as they are... they both know they couldn't be GNR without Axl anyway.

Axl... he doesn't see it the same way obviously ha.. It's GNR with or without them.