Tommy: I Had To Walk Away And Take Care Of My Stuff, Hopes Axl/Slash Mend Fences

[C0ma]

The Foo Fighters reference is the point I'm making... yes they were there long enough and contributed material. IF Axl adds 2 new (never before in a GnR lineup) guitar players, and Tommy is in fact gone for what ever reason. We are 'generations' removed from anyone (except for Reed and Pitman) who has contributed material that anyone outside Axl's inner circle (and maybe a few random Portuguese hoarders) has heard. That to me screams Solo act and touring band (which isn't a bad thing).

Touring band? Band.

Seriously. This is getting ridiculous.

When somebody quits a band, a team or a company, doesn't mean those things cease to exist.


/jarmo

No... of course nothing changes what was created. Nothing changes or removes 1985-1990, 1991, 1992-1993, 1998-2002, 2006-2007, 2009-2014 from the equation...

BUT once everyone from those periods is gone from the band (Dizzy and Pittman kind of hide in the shadows so I am sort of glazing over them admittedly), and now you are just touring on what others have done without releasing new material, what separates 'Band' from solo act with 'hired touring musicians' (want to be careful not to say band there)?

I reject the idea that because DJ 'added' to the show by playing a guitar solo, that he was a contributing member until I see a new track with his writing credit. I loved Gilby when he was in the band, but I wouldn't say he was a contributing member because played 'Wild Horses' from 1992-1993.

The table example I don't think works... If John and Paul make tables as part of John and Paul Furniture, then John leaves, but Paul buys the business trademark. You can never take away from the history that John and Paul created... the tables they designed and may continue to sell will always be THEIR legacy. However if Paul deigns a new table with say three leaves instead of two, then off shores the production and packaging of the new table, I wouldn't say that the off shore company who is just assembling and packaging it could be considered partners at the level of John and Paul... If Paul decided to hire a new designer who collaborated on a new design, then I would agree (like Tommy, Robin, and Bucket) that they would be considered partners.

Does any of this discredit Paul and or the table assembly company off shore... no... but it does mean that it is not a partnership... which again doesn't mean that the assembly company isn't the best in the business or pour their heart into making sure the packaging of that table looks perfect when it shows up in your kitchen or dining room.

**EDIT** I am forever going to see GnR as a table now... And where this is HTGTH and Jarmo is where he is why not make that above example IKEA.

[C0ma]

Also, to address the "BBF/DJ did nothing" stuff.  We don't know that.  We have comments from both people saying otherwise.  They could very well have contributed to future material, or not.  We can't really assume either way.

GnR is "in flux" right now, from what we know.  That doesn't mean they're not a band. It just means we don't know what form that band is going to take as we go forward.

I'm not saying they didn't do anything, they may have done something amazing that we haven't seen/heard yet. Which is why the point I am trying to make is that with them gone, and Tommy in a sort of state of Limbo right now... If you replace all 3 with people who have never been in a GNR line up prior, that is where you now have Axl and a bunch of people who absolutely have no contributions... That specific point in time is where I wonder if you have to start calling it a solo act.

[jarmo]

This is boring.

They played shows together for years. It's a band. It doesn't operate as one guy telling everybody else what to play, where to stand, what to wear and so on.

You're desperate to make up rules as you go along to fit whatever you believe in, "that's a band because those guy released an album, but this isn't because that guy quit before they released anything".
It's boring.


I also love your idea of using writing credits as some kind of measurement whether or not somebody contributes. Steven Adler played drums. Nobody (?) here would question his contribution to the GN'R history. I'm sure you could make the argument that his contribution was minimal, just using your own logic. The same is true for anybody who doesn't have their name as a song writer. I'm not talking about publishing credits here....

So be careful what kind of "rules" you use because they can be used against you.

Everybody who's been in the band was there for a reason and things wouldn't have been the same without them.



/jarmo

[Princess Leia]

Also, to address the "BBF/DJ did nothing" stuff.  We don't know that.  We have comments from both people saying otherwise.  They could very well have contributed to future material, or not.  We can't really assume either way.

GnR is "in flux" right now, from what we know.  That doesn't mean they're not a band. It just means we don't know what form that band is going to take as we go forward.

I'm not saying they didn't do anything, they may have done something amazing that we haven't seen/heard yet. Which is why the point I am trying to make is that with them gone, and Tommy in a sort of state of Limbo right now... If you replace all 3 with people who have never been in a GNR line up prior, that is where you now have Axl and a bunch of people who absolutely have no contributions... That specific point in time is where I wonder if you have to start calling it a solo act.

 So far according to Tommy they all left in Vegas. Why would Tommy lie? Even if it is a lie, why nobody has denied? For me there is no limbo regarding Tommy. He said he played his last show in Vegas and he had to walked away.

As of today, at this very moment, Tommy left and all the others left as well.

[C0ma]

This is boring.

They played shows together for years. It's a band. It doesn't operate as one guy telling everybody else what to play, where to stand, what to wear and so on.

You're desperate to make up rules as you go along to fit whatever you believe in, "that's a band because those guy released an album, but this isn't because that guy quit before they released anything".
It's boring.


I also love your idea of using writing credits as some kind of measurement whether or not somebody contributes. Steven Adler played drums. Nobody (?) here would question his contribution to the GN'R history. I'm sure you could make the argument that his contribution was minimal, just using your own logic. The same is true for anybody who doesn't have their name as a song writer. I'm not talking about publishing credits here....

So be careful what kind of "rules" you use because they can be used against you.

Everybody who's been in the band was there for a reason and things wouldn't have been the same without them.



/jarmo

I'm not saying all members need to have writing credits... We know Steve, Gilby, DJ (for now) and a few others haven't contributed material... which is why my point above is that from 1985 until 2014 I would fit all lineups of GNR into my bastardized definition of a band... HOWEVER when they are all gone, and it is truly just Axl and a hiring set of backing musicians who have contributed nothing (but toured like brothers) I'm wondering if that is where you need to consider the solo act tag.

We are talking very recently about having to replace BBF, DJ, and possibly (who know) Tommy. Anyone who has had any contribution on released or even material played live is pretty much gone.
 
This topic normally is made to discredit NuGnr, modern line up, whatever you want to call it... That's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm asking at what point in the future do you apply that tag?

Also as far as DJ... If a tree falls in the forest and you weren't there did it make a sound? I don't care if he wrote a million songs, I don't care when he quit... if they never get released, what did he really do? If they do get released, I don't think his status as a member affects what he gave us as fans. Bucket wasn't here when CD hit, but we all know and appreciate (some more than others) what he helped give us.

[jarmo]

When is it a solo act? When Axl says so.

If Axl went solo, and went on tour billed as Axl Rose only, with no mention of anybody else. Then you could start posting about it being a solo act...
But, if it was billed as the Axl Rose Band, then....

Just because a band has a person who's more recognized, and has written more songs, than the other members, doesn't mean it's a solo act.


/jarmo

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

Honestly, why does anyone care what its called?  You don't like Axl playing without Slash, all good, move on with you life.  You're ok without Slash, all good, enjoy the music because nothing else matters.

[C0ma]

When is it a solo act? When Axl says so.

If Axl went solo, and went on tour billed as Axl Rose only, with no mention of anybody else. Then you could start posting about it being a solo act...
But, if it was billed as the Axl Rose Band, then....

Just because a band has a person who's more recognized, and has written more songs, than the other members, doesn't mean it's a solo act.


/jarmo

I can respect that opinion...

I think the prospect of guitarists #10 and #11 in the history of this band worries me a little.

1. Izzy 2. Slash 3. Gilby 4. Paul 5. Robin 6. Bucket 7. Richard 8. Ron 9. DJ 10. ? 11. ?

I get that Axl and Axl only has say in what something is called, named, or labeled... but at some point the history and legacy of this band meant something for you to have created, improved, and maintained this site for nearly 2 decades. I also know you have had 'unique' access to all members of the band since the mid 2000 time frame so your relationship and view of these line up iterations is different than mine (which I can respect) but at some point the sheer number of guitar players becomes a Spinal Tap Drummer like parody. I don't want to come off like a purely 'original' GnR reunionist, but I do feel like the band NEEDS Robin or Slash in the lead spot, and it NEEDS Tommy or Duff on bass. To fully reshuffle the deck (while it is 100% Axl's prerogative to decide) hurts the legacy of this band which in the 90's was on target to be continually spoken about in the same breath as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Aerosmith... now we are crossing our fingers and driving traffic to websites hoping the beat Motley Crue in a who's better live March Madness rip-off.

I get that this can be taken as hating... but it is the polar opposite. I get that it is my own selfish feelings (and totally irrational), but I want more for them (Axl).

[dmathski]

A band to me would be a partnership. My understanding is there's no partnership. Everyone is under contract.

[EmilyGNR]

A band to me would be a partnership. My understanding is there's no partnership. Everyone is under contract.

A band does not require a partnership- see the definition? GNR is a band, period. This is a stupid non-argument imo.

[band]
noun
1.
a company of persons or, sometimes, animals or things, joined, acting, or functioning together; aggregation; party; troop.

2.
Music.
a group of instrumentalists playing music of a specialized type.

[CherryGarcia]

A band to me would be a partnership. My understanding is there's no partnership. Everyone is under contract.

A band does not require a partnership- see the definition? GNR is a band, period. This is a stupid non-argument imo.

[band]
noun
1.
a company of persons or, sometimes, animals or things, joined, acting, or functioning together; aggregation; party; troop.

2.
Music.
a group of instrumentalists playing music of a specialized type.

"In popular music, a side project is a project undertaken by one or more people already known for their involvement in another band. It can also be an artist or a band temporarily switching to a different style.
Side project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_projectWikipedia"

Usually these projects emphasize a different aspect of that person's or that band's musical interests that they feel they cannot explore within the boundaries established by their main project. Side projects can later become full-time endeavours, but should not be confused with quitting a band for a solo career or another band. Peter Hartlaub of San Francisco Chronicle called the solo side project "the biggest longshot bet in mainstream music".[1]

A solo album, in popular music, is an album headlined by a current or former member of a band. A solo album may feature simply one person performing all instruments, but typically features the work of other collaborators; rather, it may be made with different collaborators than the artist is usually associated, though just how different that group is varies widely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_album

"I didn't really know what else to do after Axl sent a letter on August 31, 1995, saying that he was leaving the band and taking the name with him under the terms of the new contract. After that we tried to put it back together." (Slash, Autobiography)

"I?d left and formed a new partnership, which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

"This will serve as notice [that] effective [...] Decemeber 30th 1995, I will withdraw from the partnership. [...] I intend to use the name 'Guns N' Roses' in connection with a new group which I will form." (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)

"The perception I have of what Axl's doing at the moment is that he's basically making a solo album but retaining the GN'R name so that he can get at the major contractual advance that's waiting at Geffen for a new Guns N' Roses-titled record. I can't give you the exact figure but I will tell you it's in the multi-million-dollar range. This renegotiation was effected just before I was fired." (Alan Niven, Icon Magazine, 10/97)

[Wooody]

When is it a solo act? When Axl says so.

If Axl went solo, and went on tour billed as Axl Rose only, with no mention of anybody else. Then you could start posting about it being a solo act...
But, if it was billed as the Axl Rose Band, then....

Just because a band has a person who's more recognized, and has written more songs, than the other members, doesn't mean it's a solo act.


/jarmo

I can respect that opinion...

I think the prospect of guitarists #10 and #11 in the history of this band worries me a little.

1. Izzy 2. Slash 3. Gilby 4. Paul 5. Robin 6. Bucket 7. Richard 8. Ron 9. DJ 10. ? 11. ?

I get that Axl and Axl only has say in what something is called, named, or labeled... but at some point the history and legacy of this band meant something for you to have created, improved, and maintained this site for nearly 2 decades. I also know you have had 'unique' access to all members of the band since the mid 2000 time frame so your relationship and view of these line up iterations is different than mine (which I can respect) but at some point the sheer number of guitar players becomes a Spinal Tap Drummer like parody. I don't want to come off like a purely 'original' GnR reunionist, but I do feel like the band NEEDS Robin or Slash in the lead spot, and it NEEDS Tommy or Duff on bass. To fully reshuffle the deck (while it is 100% Axl's prerogative to decide) hurts the legacy of this band which in the 90's was on target to be continually spoken about in the same breath as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Aerosmith... now we are crossing our fingers and driving traffic to websites hoping the beat Motley Crue in a who's better live March Madness rip-off.

I get that this can be taken as hating... but it is the polar opposite. I get that it is my own selfish feelings (and totally irrational), but I want more for them (Axl).

I agree with Coma. Its not all hating. Its because we love the band that we want what is best for them. So sometimes constructive criticism might be beneficial.

[Lucky]

are they a band... yes they are.
are they typical; no they are not.

her's a few bands with similar situation, that might help us "diagnose" GNR, since we're to much personally involved with it.

1) NIN, which is still considered 1 man band + touring band

2) Depeche Mode is strange also.
Martin Gore writes all the songs and I guess runs the show
But still they are viewed as a band despite his predominance.

3) Smashing Pumpkins (Billy replaced all band members)
and is similar to GNR.

so objectively: if those are considered bands... so is GNR.
imo new band is a band. a band that could function and produce more; but a band nonetheless.

[EmilyGNR]

When is it a solo act? When Axl says so.

If Axl went solo, and went on tour billed as Axl Rose only, with no mention of anybody else. Then you could start posting about it being a solo act...
But, if it was billed as the Axl Rose Band, then....

Just because a band has a person who's more recognized, and has written more songs, than the other members, doesn't mean it's a solo act.


/jarmo

I can respect that opinion...

I think the prospect of guitarists #10 and #11 in the history of this band worries me a little.

1. Izzy 2. Slash 3. Gilby 4. Paul 5. Robin 6. Bucket 7. Richard 8. Ron 9. DJ 10. ? 11. ?

I get that Axl and Axl only has say in what something is called, named, or labeled... but at some point the history and legacy of this band meant something for you to have created, improved, and maintained this site for nearly 2 decades. I also know you have had 'unique' access to all members of the band since the mid 2000 time frame so your relationship and view of these line up iterations is different than mine (which I can respect) but at some point the sheer number of guitar players becomes a Spinal Tap Drummer like parody. I don't want to come off like a purely 'original' GnR reunionist, but I do feel like the band NEEDS Robin or Slash in the lead spot, and it NEEDS Tommy or Duff on bass. To fully reshuffle the deck (while it is 100% Axl's prerogative to decide) hurts the legacy of this band which in the 90's was on target to be continually spoken about in the same breath as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Aerosmith... now we are crossing our fingers and driving traffic to websites hoping the beat Motley Crue in a who's better live March Madness rip-off.

I get that this can be taken as hating... but it is the polar opposite. I get that it is my own selfish feelings (and totally irrational), but I want more for them (Axl).

I agree with Coma. Its not all hating. Its because we love the band that we want what is best for them. So sometimes constructive criticism might be beneficial.

The problem is how many fans actually want what is best for GNR, and not just best for them personally-as a fan. GNRs are well able to decide what is in their best interest without any "constructive criticism" unsolicited amateur advice.

[SOLGER]

"The perception I have of what Axl's doing at the moment is that he's basically making a solo album but retaining the GN'R name so that he can get at the major contractual advance that's waiting at Geffen for a new Guns N' Roses-titled record. I can't give you the exact figure but I will tell you it's in the multi-million-dollar range. This renegotiation was effected just before I was fired." (Alan Niven, Icon Magazine, 10/97)

This.

Axl's solo band using the name through legal force.

You think anyone with an IQ over 15 is gonna believe its GNR after 96?........ (you know how the rest goes... )

[The Wight Gunner]

So how does any body square this circle.  The beatles, post Pete Best , remained unchanged until they split for good with the Let it Be Album, now can anybody seriously say that they were the same band as the one that released Please, please me? Same members, different agenda, different priorities, same fans.  No matter how you dress it up, the '63 group bares no comparison to the one on the edge of the 70's. Times change, as do fashions, as do social trends and attitudes.

 This "Gn'R" aren't a band BS is what it is to any one individual, there are no gauges that can measure this like its a distance, a weight or a  colour, its an opinion..... Get a life peeps, some will roll with your views and others won't. Simple as.....

[EmilyGNR]

So how does any body square this circle.  The beatles, post Pete Best , remained unchanged until they split for good with the Let it Be Album, now can anybody seriously say that they were the same band as the one that released Please, please me? Same members, different agenda, different priorities, same fans.  No matter how you dress it up, the '63 group bares no comparison to the one on the edge of the 70's. Times change, as do fashions, as do social trends and attitudes.

 This "Gn'R" aren't a band BS is what it is to any one individual, there are no gauges that can measure this like its a distance, a weight or a  colour, its an opinion..... Get a life peeps, some will roll with your views and others won't. Simple as.....

No.

By the dictionary definition GNR is a band, period. Nobody needs to 'get a life' 

Band
noun
A band is defined as a group of people working together, particularly in the field of music.

[EmilyGNR]

"The perception I have of what Axl's doing at the moment is that he's basically making a solo album but retaining the GN'R name so that he can get at the major contractual advance that's waiting at Geffen for a new Guns N' Roses-titled record. I can't give you the exact figure but I will tell you it's in the multi-million-dollar range. This renegotiation was effected just before I was fired." (Alan Niven, Icon Magazine, 10/97)

This.

Axl's solo band using the name through legal force.

You think anyone with an IQ over 15 is gonna believe its GNR after 96?........ (you know how the rest goes... )

It is GNR whether you like it or not, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

It is not a solo act, It's Guns N' Roses.

[CherryGarcia]

"The perception I have of what Axl's doing at the moment is that he's basically making a solo album but retaining the GN'R name so that he can get at the major contractual advance that's waiting at Geffen for a new Guns N' Roses-titled record. I can't give you the exact figure but I will tell you it's in the multi-million-dollar range. This renegotiation was effected just before I was fired." (Alan Niven, Icon Magazine, 10/97)

This.

Axl's solo band using the name through legal force.

You think anyone with an IQ over 15 is gonna believe its GNR after 96?........ (you know how the rest goes... )

It is GNR whether you like it or not, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

It is not a solo act, It's Guns N' Roses.

So do you believe that any of the guys besides Axl have any say in the following:
-When and where they as GN'R tour
-When any albums(s) are to be released
-What parts they are to play on the album(s)

Do any of them have any legal say in what goes on with 'Guns N' Roses'? Do any of them besides Axl take part in any major decisions? Can any of them be fired at will by Axl, and Axl alone at any time? Who decides who is a member of 'Guns N' Roses' or not besides Axl and Team Brazil?

Do you think in the Rolling Stones, Mick tells Keith "We're going to play at this stadium on this date and you're going to play this and that song" and that's how it goes?

If John Lennon quit The Beatles in 1969, George Harrison quit in 1970, and Ringo was fired in 1971 and Paul got legal ownership of The Beatles name and decided to tour with Mick Taylor, Peter Greene and Keith Moon as The Beatles, would it still have been The Beatles to you?

[Wooody]

When is it a solo act? When Axl says so.

If Axl went solo, and went on tour billed as Axl Rose only, with no mention of anybody else. Then you could start posting about it being a solo act...
But, if it was billed as the Axl Rose Band, then....

Just because a band has a person who's more recognized, and has written more songs, than the other members, doesn't mean it's a solo act.


/jarmo

I can respect that opinion...

I think the prospect of guitarists #10 and #11 in the history of this band worries me a little.

1. Izzy 2. Slash 3. Gilby 4. Paul 5. Robin 6. Bucket 7. Richard 8. Ron 9. DJ 10. ? 11. ?

I get that Axl and Axl only has say in what something is called, named, or labeled... but at some point the history and legacy of this band meant something for you to have created, improved, and maintained this site for nearly 2 decades. I also know you have had 'unique' access to all members of the band since the mid 2000 time frame so your relationship and view of these line up iterations is different than mine (which I can respect) but at some point the sheer number of guitar players becomes a Spinal Tap Drummer like parody. I don't want to come off like a purely 'original' GnR reunionist, but I do feel like the band NEEDS Robin or Slash in the lead spot, and it NEEDS Tommy or Duff on bass. To fully reshuffle the deck (while it is 100% Axl's prerogative to decide) hurts the legacy of this band which in the 90's was on target to be continually spoken about in the same breath as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Aerosmith... now we are crossing our fingers and driving traffic to websites hoping the beat Motley Crue in a who's better live March Madness rip-off.

I get that this can be taken as hating... but it is the polar opposite. I get that it is my own selfish feelings (and totally irrational), but I want more for them (Axl).

I agree with Coma. Its not all hating. Its because we love the band that we want what is best for them. So sometimes constructive criticism might be beneficial.

The problem is how many fans actually want what is best for GNR, and not just best for them personally-as a fan. GNRs are well able to decide what is in their best interest without any "constructive criticism" unsolicited amateur advice.

That can be seen as ''your opinion''. After just one album of released material. in more than 20 years I could argue, that they have a hard time deciding what is in their best interest, and I don't think voicing my opinion on that is really ''hating''.  Especially when Axl, and other members have said that there would be more material, I think he told Kurt Loder on the VMA's tha they planned to released  Chidem I, II and III with a 1 year gap between them, or so,  that never happened.  Maybe Chidem II is right around the corner, but if it comes out in 2016, its 8 years after the first one. Chidem III in 2024 ? That just sounds wrong, and no, it doesnt sound like it would be in their best interest, and saying such things, that I find obvious is not amateur advice. Its more like common sense in plain observation.