Richard Fortus Interview To Be Released Monday

[D-GenerationX]

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.

First of all, I am long on record that if they had the name, "Velvet Revolver" is called Guns N' Roses.

Never, ever, EVER bought into the "oh, they'd never do that" routine.  Bullshit.  They never could, legally.  Doesn't mean they would not have if they could.

But if they still had right to the name, if nothing else, it prevents what Axl is doing with it these past 15 years.  Or not done with it, perhaps more accurately.

[mortismurphy]

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.

Since virtually the entire discography, image and commercial success of Guns N' Roses, up to the signing of the partnership agreement, was established by a combination of the talents of Axl, Slash, Stradlin and Duff - not Axl, Stradlin Tracii Guns, Ole Beich and Gardener - your point can be disputed.

Has Pete Best, a bigger claim in The Beatles over Ringo Starr?

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?

You are comparing a tour, as confirmed by the then, manager as being in support of studio recording, with a Budweiser commercial? I do not even think an one second appearance and song license in an advert would produce that much capital, compared with the amount of money generated from an arena tour! Perhaps one overdub? Your analogy is absolutely absurd, and all, to sustain a ridiculous will o the wisp scenario to exonerate Axl from a tacky commercial appearance!

You are also forgetting one thing Jarmo. The commercial is there, Axl swaying his bottle of Budweiser, for us to cringe at. It exists. CD2 does not exist for public consumption. This bonanza this advert allegedly provided for recording did not hasten the album on, did it?

 

[JAEBALL]

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.

First of all, I am long on record that if they had the name, "Velvet Revolver" is called Guns N' Roses.

Never, ever, EVER bought into the "oh, they'd never do that" routine.  Bullshit.  They never could, legally.  Doesn't mean they would not have if they could.

But if they still had right to the name, if nothing else, it prevents what Axl is doing with it these past 15 years.  Or not done with it, perhaps more accurately.

I guess we will never know...

Sober Duff just seems too smart and too down to earth to have done that... maybe it's naive on my part... again... we will never know.

Maybe Slash would have pushed to use the GNR name without Axl on Duff.

[D-GenerationX]

Sober Duff just seems too smart and too down to earth to have done that... maybe it's naive on my part... again... we will never know.

Maybe Slash would have pushed to use the GNR name without Axl on Duff.

Even if they truly would not have continued on without Axl, they could have prevented the last 15 years from happening.

A sort of "if we can't all have it, no one can".  The name could have sat in legal limbo all this time and spared them having to see all this happen.

[JAEBALL]

Sober Duff just seems too smart and too down to earth to have done that... maybe it's naive on my part... again... we will never know.

Maybe Slash would have pushed to use the GNR name without Axl on Duff.

Even if they truly would not have continued on without Axl, they could have prevented the last 15 years from happening.

A sort of "if we can't all have it, no one can".  The name could have sat in legal limbo all this time and spared them having to see all this happen.

That's true. I could see that.

[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...

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  

Hahah.   I do love shots.  

[TheBaconman]

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.

First of all, I am long on record that if they had the name, "Velvet Revolver" is called Guns N' Roses.

Never, ever, EVER bought into the "oh, they'd never do that" routine.  Bullshit.  They never could, legally.  Doesn't mean they would not have if they could.

But if they still had right to the name, if nothing else, it prevents what Axl is doing with it these past 15 years.  Or not done with it, perhaps more accurately.

I guess we will never know...

Sober Duff just seems too smart and too down to earth to have done that... maybe it's naive on my part... again... we will never know.

Maybe Slash would have pushed to use the GNR name without Axl on Duff.

Velvet revolver would have been guns n roses.   If duff and slash had the name

If slash alone had the name, ugh....   We would be looking at Myles Kennedy as the lead singer right now, of guns n roses

We think it's painfully waiting for Axl to release new music.   What is even more painfully is waiting for velvet revolver to announce there new lead singer.   How long has that search been going on for?

The best thing for guns, was for Axl to keep the name.   

The best thing that ever happend to slash was for duff to sober up and go to college and to help him fight for a few things in regards to prior business

Both slash and duff still make millions of the name gnr.   Even though Axl has the rights and ownership to the name

[jarmo]

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

It's one of the favorite topics for the people who think freely and like discussions. Name, setlist, Chinese Democracy promotion... And around we go.
 


/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

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

It's one of the favorite topics for the people who think freely and like discussions. Name, setlist, Chinese Democracy promotion... And around we go.
 

And you couldn't avoid them if we offered a cash prize.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.  Little bit.

[mortismurphy]

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.

First of all, I am long on record that if they had the name, "Velvet Revolver" is called Guns N' Roses.

Never, ever, EVER bought into the "oh, they'd never do that" routine.  Bullshit.  They never could, legally.  Doesn't mean they would not have if they could.

But if they still had right to the name, if nothing else, it prevents what Axl is doing with it these past 15 years.  Or not done with it, perhaps more accurately.

I guess we will never know...

Sober Duff just seems too smart and too down to earth to have done that... maybe it's naive on my part... again... we will never know.

Maybe Slash would have pushed to use the GNR name without Axl on Duff.

Velvet revolver would have been guns n roses.   If duff and slash had the name

If slash alone had the name, ugh....   We would be looking at Myles Kennedy as the lead singer right now, of guns n roses

We think it's painfully waiting for Axl to release new music.   What is even more painfully is waiting for velvet revolver to announce there new lead singer.   How long has that search been going on for?

The best thing for guns, was for Axl to keep the name.   

The best thing that ever happend to slash was for duff to sober up and go to college and to help him fight for a few things in regards to prior business

Both slash and duff still make millions of the name gnr.   Even though Axl has the rights and ownership to the name

I think Duff would have questioned an Axl-less Guns's validity if Izzy was not there, and Izzy would not be there if not for the simple reason that he does not like the limelight, the lack of Axl Rose aside. I am 50% on Slash attempting it. He might have. If he did attempt it, I think he would have roped in Gilby instead of Kushner. He would have went for Matt over Adler for obvious reasons.

The reason I mention the Duff-Izzy thing, is, Duff is still in regular contact with Izzy and plays on his solo albums. It would only take a few remarks from Izzy for Duff to question the whole thing.

[LongGoneDay]

Slash and Duff willingly left Guns N? Roses.
That leads me to believe that they no longer wanted to be in Guns N? Roses, which leads me to believe they wouldn?t want to be in Guns N? Roses without it?s iconic, legendary, irreplaceable frontman. "I think" they viewed him as such, even throughout all of their differences. Unfortunately, Axl underestimated their importance.

Ideally there would have been some language stating no one performs as GN?R without Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy.
Maybe with that in place, cooler heads could eventually prevail.

[TheBaconman]

Slash and Duff willingly left Guns N? Roses.
That leads me to believe that they no longer wanted to be in Guns N? Roses, which leads me to believe they wouldn?t want to be in Guns N? Roses without it?s iconic, legendary, irreplaceable frontman. "I think" they viewed him as such, even throughout all of their differences. Unfortunately, Axl underestimated their importance.

Ideally there would have been some language stating no one performs as GN?R without Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy.
Maybe with that in place, cooler heads could eventually prevail.

I am glad there was no language like that

Or I would haven't been able to see as many guns n roses shows as I have

[Ow-So7411501]

In terms of the name thing...I don't think Slash and Duff would want the baggage that comes along with being in one of the most legendary bands of all time (I wouldnt). Imagine having to answer questions about there legendary singer? Oh yeah, they do that and don't even own the name.

Though Axl has benefitted from the name, this band will always be compared to the original lineup, unless he's able to make a classic album with the current lineup. Until then whether some people on this board like it or not that will always be considered the classic lineup.

[jarmo]

And you couldn't avoid them if we offered a cash prize.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.  Little bit.

Like I said, I have a low tolerance for bullshit.
Don't bring those up and you won't see me starting new threads about them. 

People were discussing musical integrity and you brought up the name issue as some kind of evidence that he got it for the money.




/jarmo

[draguns]

As I said before, the name should have been retired. Axl could have gone on his name and do whatever he wants. I think he could have had an Ozzy like career. Jarmo, the name Guns N' Roses really didn't mean anything until the classic lineup was formed and AFD was released.  You can spin it however you like, but that's a fact.

[mortismurphy]

As I said before, the name should have been retired. Axl could have gone on his name and do whatever he wants. I think he could have had an Ozzy like career. Jarmo, the name Guns N' Roses really didn't mean anything until the classic lineup was formed and AFD was released.  You can spin it however you like, but that's a fact.

I would agree that keeping the name has been something of a mixed blessing for Axl.

[jazjme]

Could we retire this thread, it surely no longer makes any sense to the topic!

Reading relative post to the thread concerning what Richard said, as far as touring , He doesn't seem any touring anytime soon. OK Right, there is Sixx Am touring, The Dead Dasies Touring , Replacements Touring, so its pretty freaking OBVIOUS there isn't going to be touring any time soon pertaining to GNR. Now I dunno DJ said there would be touring in in 2015. Now there very well could be later in the year for GNR, in a 4th quarter, Doesn't make either one of them (Richard or DJ) wrong. As everyone else who are really supportive fans *wink*, it would be nice if indeed Axl is using this time as he said he was and what somewhat evidence it seems have been giving , in the studio and working towards the next release in ernest.  Knowing Richard and his character from talking to him over the yrs(even driving him back to a hotel in Manhattan after a gig kind of knowing), he speaks truthfully and he himself is all about the music, completely understands Axl, and is very attune to the fans.  I am pretty sure there is nothing left for him to do as far as contributing more , other than do what he does as a musician and go about his thing till its time to be called back. And its my hope as so many others here, that it comes with something new to look forward to and we can move on.

[D-GenerationX]

As I said before, the name should have been retired. Axl could have gone on his name and do whatever he wants. I think he could have had an Ozzy like career.

That's interesting.

If he went under his own name, but hooked up with a Buckethead type, would that have worked?  I think it would have.

But, much like things are now, only if he kept at it.  Ozzy, drunk though he may have been, worked pretty tirelessly to sell himself as a viable solo act.  

Is Axl doing that?  Dunno.  But doubtful.  

Is there less pressure though?  Yeah, maybe.  And maybe that changes things.

I would agree that keeping the name has been something of a mixed blessing for Axl.

I think I disagree.

I'm not sure he could have kept things going in the fashion he did without it.  Is 'Axl & Bunch Of Dudes' headlining RIR III?  Hard to believe.  But 'Guns N' Roses' does.

Would the label have poured all that money into an unproven name with an unproven band?  Seems like a stretch.  But you'll throw good money after bad for a new Guns N' Roses record.

The comparisons to the old band were inevitable, and no, they don't help him.  The fact some people would not give this much of a chance?  Obvious.

But I still think, on average, its done Axl far more good than bad to hold onto that name.

[D-GenerationX]

Could we retire this thread, it surely no longer makes any sense to the topic!

We need more active threads.  Spread out some of this variance.

Reading relative post to the thread concerning what Richard said, as far as touring , He doesn't seem any touring anytime soon. OK Right, there is Sixx Am touring, The Dead Dasies Touring , Replacements Touring, so its pretty freaking OBVIOUS there isn't going to be touring any time soon pertaining to GNR. Now I dunno DJ said there would be touring in in 2015. Now there very well could be later in the year for GNR, in a 4th quarter, Doesn't make either one of them (Richard or DJ) wrong. As everyone else who are really supportive fans *wink*, it would be nice if indeed Axl is using this time as he said he was and what somewhat evidence it seems have been giving , in the studio and working towards the next release in ernest.  Knowing Richard and his character from talking to him over the yrs(even driving him back to a hotel in Manhattan after a gig kind of knowing), he speaks truthfully and he himself is all about the music, completely understands Axl, and is very attune to the fans.  I am pretty sure there is nothing left for him to do as far as contributing more , other than do what he does as a musician and go about his thing till its time to be called back. And its my hope as so many others here, that it comes with something new to look forward to and we can move on.

I think he was being honest when he talked about their plans, or lack thereof.

He'd have to have gotten at least a slight heads up.  Even something vague might have allowed for a "yeah, we're going to try" or "stay tuned" sort of answer.

I think by not saying that sort of thing, he's being honest because he has heard of no such thing. 

[jazjme]

Could we retire this thread, it surely no longer makes any sense to the topic!

We need more active threads.  Spread out some of this variance.

Reading relative post to the thread concerning what Richard said, as far as touring , He doesn't seem any touring anytime soon. OK Right, there is Sixx Am touring, The Dead Dasies Touring , Replacements Touring, so its pretty freaking OBVIOUS there isn't going to be touring any time soon pertaining to GNR. Now I dunno DJ said there would be touring in in 2015. Now there very well could be later in the year for GNR, in a 4th quarter, Doesn't make either one of them (Richard or DJ) wrong. As everyone else who are really supportive fans *wink*, it would be nice if indeed Axl is using this time as he said he was and what somewhat evidence it seems have been giving , in the studio and working towards the next release in ernest.  Knowing Richard and his character from talking to him over the yrs(even driving him back to a hotel in Manhattan after a gig kind of knowing), he speaks truthfully and he himself is all about the music, completely understands Axl, and is very attune to the fans.  I am pretty sure there is nothing left for him to do as far as contributing more , other than do what he does as a musician and go about his thing till its time to be called back. And its my hope as so many others here, that it comes with something new to look forward to and we can move on.

I think he was being honest when he talked about their plans, or lack thereof.

He'd have to have gotten at least a slight heads up.  Even something vague might have allowed for a "yeah, we're going to try" or "stay tuned" sort of answer.

I think by not saying that sort of thing, he's being honest because he has heard of no such thing. 

And I believe that very well be the case he may not have heard that sort of thing, so he didn't perpetuate anything. I think if I remember after the last Vegas residency the Hard Rock was talking about again hosting them, and it very well could be that it was tossed around after at a party or whatever after show, about hey yeah we will go out again next yr(2015) and DJ who is more likely to be at those kind of things ran with that at the time, but Richard on the other hand doesn't go to the after show parties, its not his kind of thing. So he would of course not hear any such thing. And sometimes Richard doesn't know when the tours are happening to sometimes days before, as I know this from the UCAP tour. (I'm sure they are well aware of big tours of leaving the country kind of tours sometime before though).