Could this be a possible scenario?

[Spirit]

Axl hasn't really done anything outside of being in GN'R since, well since GN'R started up. I know he's done the occasional guest appearance, but I'm talking about more elaborate side projects.

I was thinking about a possible scenario in case there's a GN'R reunion on the table. If Axl gets together with Slash & co to do some touring again, realistically that's probably the extent of the reunion. I'm not so sure we'll see an album of new songs from a reunited GNR, and if not, that's just fine with me. People will be out of their minds just seeing them on stage together.

If Axl at the same time feels the hunger of releasing and touring the rest of the material recorded with the new line-up. Could he make a transition with the current line-up, making a brand new band, Axl Rose's side project. Then he could get material already recorded out to the masses and tour with the songs as well. All this while doing shows with the original line-up of GNR.

He won't be doing stadiums, maybe not even arenas, but I know most of us on the boards would attend his shows, and they would probably be at the scale of what Slash is doing presently. Do you think Axl would consider doing something like this, or is he way too invested in GNR, with him practically being GNR in the past couple of decades...

[Spirit]

Just to add:

I know some will bring up the argument that the record company has paid for the recordings currently done, and they are done under the GN'R banner.

So, for Axl to continue with a side project he would either have to buy out the music laid down on tape, or the record company might be an easy-going part in negotiations once a reunion is on the table. Maybe they'll release the songs into Axl's hands for free even.

[ice cream sand pig]

I havent heard CD in a month, since I moved, but my fiance emailed it to me last night. Even just looking at the titles I had so many memories about what a great album it is and memories attached to it like when it was released, where I was at in my life, etc...  wouldnt that be kind of strange to release cd1 as gnr and cd2 as Axl rose? It kind of makes it seem like GNR has unfinished business, like it got cut short before it reached its destination.

I do remember hearing him saying something about not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Either way, I would love to see an Axl side project. Anything to get this guy to sing write perform and release more music. Hes the best and music needs him... music really sucks these days. It would be interesting to see what he could pull off on a smaller scale. I bet it would sound very different from CD, very different from everything he's ever done.

[Spirit]

wouldnt that be kind of strange to release cd1 as gnr and cd2 as Axl rose? It kind of makes it seem like GNR has unfinished business, like it got cut short before it reached its destination.

Yeah, it would be sort of strange for us hardcore fans. To the masses it wouldn't matter I think.

If a reunion is happening, what is the alternative? He could still release CD2 as GNR sure, but I doubt those songs will be played live by a reunited GNR.

I'm just looking at possibilities in case a reunion is happening and what Axl could do to best utilize his own material.

[EmilyGNR]

Couldn't this apply to the 2nd half of chidem as well though?

From 2008-


Axl: "I didn't make a solo record.
A solo record would be completely different than this and probably much more instrumental.

 I made a GUNS record with the right people who were the only people who really wanted to help me try, were qualified and capable while enduring the public abuse for years . The songs were chosen by everyone involved.

I didn't want to do 'This I Love' in any way shape or form, and Robin [Finck, current GUNS guitarist] and Caram [Costanzo; co-producer] insisted gaining Tommy's [Stinson, bass] and the others' support. There's been a lot of pressure to go with using my name (all external) but that never felt right to me for this band and the parameters in regard to this music have lots more to do with the mindset of GUNS than something else. The instrumental I wrote for 'End of Days' that's more a solo effort, at least presently.

"As far as a new name? this is who I am, not whatever else someone else thinks of. I don't see myself as solely GUNS, but I do see myself as the only one from the past making the effort to take it forward, whether anyone approves or not, and giving beyond what many would or fight for to do so.

The name helped the music more than you could ever know, and I'm not talking in regards to studios or budgets, I mean it as in being pushed by something and having to get the music to a place where I can find my peace regardless of what anyone says. And that wasn't fully achieved until the last round of mastering and swapping out a version of a track at the pressing plant that had gotten inadvertently changed at the last minute. Also, the name was what the industry wanted as well and the burden of keeping it was something to endure in order to make the record. After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide."


Read more at http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/axl-rose-why-i-am-continung-to-use-name-guns-n-roses/#rfpWMyLgjMSVi2ts.99

[Spirit]

Yes, I know about all this.

If there indeed is a reunion happening (that's the premise I've laid down here), would you be happy with a cd release only, with no touring of the new songs?


I am just looking at possibilities in case a reunion is happening, and Axl wants to avoid having to give up touring the songs already recorded.


Axl has entertained the idea of going solo, he did mention how it would sound like in the forum chats. Now, the scenario I'm painting here is probably not how Axl imagined going solo, but would it be a possibility maybe?

[ice cream sand pig]

Yes, I know about all this.

If there indeed is a reunion happening (that's the premise I've laid down here), would you be happy with a cd release only, with no touring of the new songs?

I would be happy with that. Not as happy as I would be with touring to back it up, bbut unimaginably happy nonetheless.

In regards to what Emily posted, I think Axl is not willing to compromise in any way shape or form his vision for Guns, and I dont think a reunion is going to change that.

Would it be realistic to do a hybrid tour, having old members play on old songs and new members play on new songs? That would be amazing. It would be more expensive, that's for sure, but such a grand event seems right up GNRs alley.

[ice cream sand pig]

Perhaps it is also worth noting that cd wasnt toured till well after its release. Perhaps a release could come, then a reunion tour, and then a continuing of Axls vision could follow with a tour of cd 2 material sometime in the future.

[Conan]

Yes, I know about all this.

If there indeed is a reunion happening (that's the premise I've laid down here), would you be happy with a cd release only, with no touring of the new songs?

I would be happy with that. Not as happy as I would be with touring to back it up, bbut unimaginably happy nonetheless.

In regards to what Emily posted, I think Axl is not willing to compromise in any way shape or form his vision for Guns, and I dont think a reunion is going to change that.

Would it be realistic to do a hybrid tour, having old members play on old songs and new members play on new songs? That would be amazing. It would be more expensive, that's for sure, but such a grand event seems right up GNRs alley.

Axl's 'vision' for Guns?

No album or new music released of any kind for 7 years.

No concert or performance of any kind in 18 months.

A Blu-Ray disc, the first release in 7 years, of a two year old show, with nothing released in addition that hasn't been on Youtube that entire time.

Bandmates quitting left, right and centre and every promised, hinted, speculated 'update' turns out, inevitably to produce nothing...

What exactly gives you hope Axl has any 'vision' whatsoever, other than just making it up as he goes along, or making a minimal effort, once the old bank balance starts to dip?

I like it as a concept that all of this is 'part of the plan' and is encompassed within some great vision, but one has to strain credulity rather a long way to imagine there even is a 'plan' at this point...

[AHUGEAxlFan]

Why would he take guns n roses material that was possibly written by former members (brain, Finck) and release it under a new band when the members who wrote it were in guns n roses? That makes no sense.

[ice cream sand pig]

Yes, I know about all this.

If there indeed is a reunion happening (that's the premise I've laid down here), would you be happy with a cd release only, with no touring of the new songs?

I would be happy with that. Not as happy as I would be with touring to back it up, bbut unimaginably happy nonetheless.

In regards to what Emily posted, I think Axl is not willing to compromise in any way shape or form his vision for Guns, and I dont think a reunion is going to change that.

Would it be realistic to do a hybrid tour, having old members play on old songs and new members play on new songs? That would be amazing. It would be more expensive, that's for sure, but such a grand event seems right up GNRs alley.

Axl's 'vision' for Guns?

No album or new music released of any kind for 7 years.

No concert or performance of any kind in 18 months.

A Blu-Ray disc, the first release in 7 years, of a two year old show, with nothing released in addition that hasn't been on Youtube that entire time.

Bandmates quitting left, right and centre and every promised, hinted, speculated 'update' turns out, inevitably to produce nothing...

What exactly gives you hope Axl has any 'vision' whatsoever, other than just making it up as he goes along, or making a minimal effort, once the old bank balance starts to dip?

I like it as a concept that all of this is 'part of the plan' and is encompassed within some great vision, but one has to strain credulity rather a long way to imagine there even is a 'plan' at this point...

the one album we got was worth its weight in gold. your claim that axl makes minimal effort is unfounded. you dont know how the guy spends his time. cd was worked on up till the moment before it was pressed. it was worth the wait. another one of those is worth as much time as he wants to take. the music is whats important. it will be the mark this guy left on the world long after hes dead. if he wants to take a few extra years to perfect what he will be remembered by, thats not very much time in the long run.

i want new music really bad too, dont get me wrong. im so anxious for it that it causes me physichal discomfort sometimes if i get too caught up in desire. but i refuse to resort to shit slinging towards my favorite artist of all time in a futile attempt to light a fire under his ass, especially when as far as i know, hes already sitting on a bonfire. even in the face of all that pressure, he is unmoved. that takes something that most people dont have, and if you cant appreciate that, then fine, but dont expect me not to.

[Lucky]

After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide."

can someone clarify this line, cus I'm struggling deciphering it.

[ice cream sand pig]

After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide."

can someone clarify this line, cus I'm struggling deciphering it.

maybe he couldnt drop the name because he would be obligated to pay back a lot of the money? at the time he thought it wouldnt work out in his favor but ultimately it did, or perhaps he was misquoted as not agreeing with the decisions made by geffen?

[CherryGarcia]

He might be referring to the fact that around 1995 or so Guns got a multi-million dollar advance for the next record? Which perhaps obligated him legally to make a "Guns N' Roses" record. By the time Slash and Duff had gone, perhaps some of that money been spent, which would've made it so Axl would've had to pay it back or face a lawsuit, if he didn't follow the contract and release a GN'R album?

[AHUGEAxlFan]

He might be referring to the fact that around 1995 or so Guns got a multi-million dollar advance for the next record? Which perhaps obligated him legally to make a "Guns N' Roses" record. By the time Slash and Duff had gone, perhaps some of that money been spent, which would've made it so Axl would've had to pay it back or face a lawsuit, if he didn't follow the contract and release a GN'R album?

I don't get why it would matter if technically slash, and duff were not founding members.

[Lucky]

He might be referring to the fact that around 1995 or so Guns got a multi-million dollar advance for the next record? Which perhaps obligated him legally to make a "Guns N' Roses" record. By the time Slash and Duff had gone, perhaps some of that money been spent, which would've made it so Axl would've had to pay it back or face a lawsuit, if he didn't follow the contract and release a GN'R album?

I don't get why it would matter if technically slash, and duff were not founding members.

they were a creative force allong side axl.
They even did some recording in 96. (The Slash-Zakk combo from that period).

Also, the rumored cost for CD is 13 million$.
In '99, it was said that the band had the most expensive Mac server cluster for sound effects (Pittman+Dizzy).

[CherryGarcia]

He might be referring to the fact that around 1995 or so Guns got a multi-million dollar advance for the next record? Which perhaps obligated him legally to make a "Guns N' Roses" record. By the time Slash and Duff had gone, perhaps some of that money been spent, which would've made it so Axl would've had to pay it back or face a lawsuit, if he didn't follow the contract and release a GN'R album?

I don't get why it would matter if technically slash, and duff were not founding members.

In a legal sense, Slash and Duff WERE founding members. While Guns N' Roses as a concept existed from late 1984/early 1985, Guns N' Roses didn't exist as a legal entity or in the eyes of the law until 1986 when they signed with Geffen and incorporated and trademarked the name etc. The members of that initial partnership would've been Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven in an equal, legal partnership. Once Steven was sacked, the contract would've become Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff. Then Izzy quit in November 1991. He was taken out of the partnership, with the caveat that he would earn a percentage of anything the band earned until November 1997.

Then in October 1992, a new legal partnership was formed and this included Axl, Slash, and Duff as equal legal partners - equal shareholders, basically, with equal power over decision making in Guns N' Roses. But at this time in October 1992, a clause was put into the contract wherein if Axl was fired, or if he quit the existing legal partnership, the name "Guns N' Roses" would automatically become solely his. They all signed.

Then on August 31st 1995, Axl sent Slash and Duff a letter announcing his intention to resign from the existing GN'R legal partnership as of December 31st 1995 and form a new group with the name Guns N' Roses and a new partnership which he would be sole member of. Slash and Duff were invited to join this partnership as contract members/employees for a trial period, and if the trial period was successful, their full and equal membership in the new partnership would then commence.

Slash and Duff are still members, technically, of the original Guns N' Roses legal partnership (the partnership which existed from 1985-1992 roughly) because they never left it, which is why they were able to block Axl with certain songs and block the release of the re-recorded AFD for example. That original partnership didn't dissolve just because Axl left. In essence, from a legal perspective, there exist two bands named Guns N' Roses - the one which existed legally until 12/31/1995, and the one which has existed since 1/1/1996.

But none of this matters with regard to the advance -

Let's say Guns got a multi-million dollar advance from Geffen on say (just throwing a date in the air), 1/1/1995 for a new album. That would legally bind Guns N' Roses as a legal entity - regardless of who was a member of the band - to put out an album. If let's say, a million was spent between 1/1/1995 and 10/31/1996, well, Axl would still be legally obligated to make a new Guns N' Roses record, or he would have to pay back the money spent or be potentially sued in breach of contract. So, what Axl was saying is true - From a legal perspective, he was probably OBLIGATED to keep the Guns N' Roses name going after Slash and Duff left, and keeping the name/the advance later helped him in regards to building the new band/making CD/getting promotion and other resources that Chinese D got access to due to the prestige of the Guns N' Roses name, as opposed to what an Axl Rose solo record might have gotten.

[EmilyGNR]

He might be referring to the fact that around 1995 or so Guns got a multi-million dollar advance for the next record? Which perhaps obligated him legally to make a "Guns N' Roses" record. By the time Slash and Duff had gone, perhaps some of that money been spent, which would've made it so Axl would've had to pay it back or face a lawsuit, if he didn't follow the contract and release a GN'R album?

I don't get why it would matter if technically slash, and duff were not founding members.

they were a creative force allong side axl.
They even did some recording in 96. (The Slash-Zakk combo from that period).

Also, the rumored cost for CD is 13 million$.
In '99, it was said that the band had the most expensive Mac server cluster for sound effects (Pittman+Dizzy).

No, the cost for CD was not 13mil...media spin.

There were lots of other songs worked on as well during that time period.

[EmilyGNR]

After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide."

can someone clarify this line, cus I'm struggling deciphering it.

Old Geffen refers to a period before the MCA/UMe takeover, many Geffen employees were let go and GNR lost some support at the label when this happened.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1999-01-22/business/9901220236_1_seagram-label-employees-geffen-record

"In January 1999 Seagram orchestrated a massive restructuring of its music division, firing 110 Geffen employees, including Mr. Rosenblatt [as well as Tom Zutaut, the A&R Man who'd originally signed the band and worked with them on every other release], and folding the unit into the corporation's bigger Interscope Records division. [...] Mr. Rose was said to be crushed by the departure of his Geffen contacts. [...] The unfinished album was placed in the hands of Interscope's chairman, Jimmy Iovine." (New York Times, 03/06/05)

In retrospect, the merger shook the music world to the core and by no means a minor feat. Numerous artists were dropped from their respective labels altogether, including Duff and Izzy, who had, at the time, record deals in place with Geffen. Duff's solo album, Beautiful Disease, was one of the casualties of the merger.

Much was at stake with Axl and Chinese Democracy as well, as the project undoubtedly faced more scrutiny than ever before, due to the fact that Jimmy Iovine at Interscope needed to get on top of things.

 But Axl had planned ahead. He'd taken control of the band name and assets in late August 1995, four months after David Geffen had left the building. This resulted with him claiming a degree of untouchability within the band, as the GNR name could not exist without him.

In May 1998, seven months before the Seagram-PolyGram-merger, Axl managed to amend the record deal with Geffen, relinquishing Slash and Duff from the contract. Axl was Guns N' Roses and anyone who wanted a GNR record had to deal with him.

"Sources close to Geffen Records say that Rose is back in the studio after a Christmas break working on a new Guns N' Roses album, and that tape is now rolling with producer Sean Beavan at the helm and engineer Critter at the controls. [...] Insiders say fans can expect a strong album with a big sound." (MTV, 01/09/99)

From Chinese whispers.

[D-GenerationX]

I can't see Axl doing this.

He's done very well using the benefits of the name, all of which go right out the window the second he drops it.

"The Axl Rose Band" is not headlining any festivals.  "Guns N' Roses", even in various stages of being watered down, still can.