The "New Album" Thread. Thanks to the long ass thread, I’m going home!

[ChrisW]

1 hour ago, DeNfr said:

 

1:  It's can't be marketed if they don't know the actual band name, so the decision to put Slash's name on it is required.  There's also the approach of whoever's coming up with a side band, which is why the band wasn't called "Paul McCartney's Wings" whereas Prince kept his name at the front whether the band was Revolutions or the New Power Generation.

2:  You say Slash wanted to take over the band.  I point out that he didn't try to take over Velvet Revolver or any other band he's played in and he hasn't tried to take over G'n'R since he was re-hired.  He's been playing in a tv talk show band recently, isn't trying to take them over.  So, out of everyone he's played with in the last few decades, why was this one time in G'n'R the only exception?

3:  Unless they're doing instrumentals, they need lyrics, so by definition the songs aren't complete.

4:  "After a few days, I chose to spend my evenings at the strip bar around the corner, with orders for the engineers to call me if Axl decided to show up." (Slash, Autobiography)

5:   So you're not talking about someone who's in the band, not someone who's been with the band all these years, not someone who's contributed anything whatsoever to the band's success all these years, but he is someone that everyone who's actually in this band needs to shut up and obey.

Axl turning against all the guys he's worked with for years to side with his true love, that's not going to work very well.

[Blackstar]

50 minutes ago, ChrisW said:

2:  You say Slash wanted to take over the band.  I point out that he didn't try to take over Velvet Revolver or any other band he's played in.

Have you read Matt Sorum's autobiography? He has one or two things to say about that - although a valid point can be (and has been) made that Matt is telling these stories now because he's been bitter about the reunion.

But regardless of what Sorum says and what Snakepit was called, it was Slash's band. Slash was in charge (and rightfully so) - I don't think anyone would seriously question that. So Slash didn't really need to take over a band that was actually his.

As for Velvet Revolver, Slash did take over in a way, since he was the one who didn't want to continue after Weiland, so the band didn't continue (even though the other three wanted it to).

[Free Bird]

51 minutes ago, ChrisW said:

1:  It's can't be marketed if they don't know the actual band name, so the decision to put Slash's name on it is required.  There's also the approach of whoever's coming up with a side band, which is why the band wasn't called "Paul McCartney's Wings" whereas Prince kept his name at the front whether the band was Revolutions or the New Power Generation.

2:  You say Slash wanted to take over the band.  I point out that he didn't try to take over Velvet Revolver or any other band he's played in and he hasn't tried to take over G'n'R since he was re-hired.  He's been playing in a tv talk show band recently, isn't trying to take them over.  So, out of everyone he's played with in the last few decades, why was this one time in G'n'R the only exception?

3:  Unless they're doing instrumentals, they need lyrics, so by definition the songs aren't complete.

4:  "After a few days, I chose to spend my evenings at the strip bar around the corner, with orders for the engineers to call me if Axl decided to show up." (Slash, Autobiography)

5:   So you're not talking about someone who's in the band, not someone who's been with the band all these years, not someone who's contributed anything whatsoever to the band's success all these years, but he is someone that everyone who's actually in this band needs to shut up and obey.

Axl turning against all the guys he's worked with for years to side with his true love, that's not going to work very well.

Even when here still people calling GNR Axl’s band, that GNR was never his band. Every true band member had a voice and there’s a difference between wanting to take over the band or disagreeing with fundamental changes. 

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Have you read Matt Sorum's autobiography? He has one or two things to say about that - although a valid point can be (and has been) made that Matt is telling these stories now because he's been bitter about the reunion.

But regardless of what Sorum says and what Snakepit was called, it was Slash's band. Slash was in charge (and rightfully so) - I don't think anyone would seriously question that. So Slash didn't really need to take over a band that was actually his.

As for Velvet Revolver, Slash did take over in a way, since he was the one who didn't want to continue after Weiland, so the band didn't continue (even though the other three wanted it to).

Not continuing and taking over isn’t the same either.

[DeNfr]

1 hour ago, Free Bird said:

I’m not pretending to know what happened and how it went down. I’m just pointing out that a lot of things that have been said don’t make any sense imo. 
 

By the way, it’s not my fault if you don’t get my argumentation. The only person who can help you on this regard is yourself

spoiler: simply stating that someone is wrong is not an argument.
to argue effectively, you need to point out what you believe is wrong and explain why.
check out your friend ChrisW—he does this. he might have varying levels of success and clarity, but at least he presents his reasoning.

[Blackstar]

12 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

Not continuing and taking over isn’t the same either.

It is not, that's why I said "in a way".  But it's also an example to the fact that things don't always work according to what the majority wants. And that depends on who the "minority vote" is. Would VR have continued if Matt was the one who didn't want to continue but Slash did? We'll never know, of course, but it's likely that they would have with another drummer.

[DeNfr]

1 hour ago, ChrisW said:

4:  "After a few days, I chose to spend my evenings at the strip bar around the corner, with orders for the engineers to call me if Axl decided to show up." (Slash, Autobiography)

thanks now I understand where it comes from.

poor Slash, he didn't really have a choice, the record label called him back quickly to the Guns camp, abruptly cutting short his Five o'Clock tour. that doesn't mean he was very motivated*... nor that Axl would be going to the studio frequently 

_{*I would even say he was rather pissed off}

[Free Bird]

6 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

spoiler: simply stating that someone is wrong is not an argument.
to argue effectively, you need to point out what you believe is wrong and explain why.
check out your friend ChrisW—he does this. he might have varying levels of success and clarity, but at least he presents his reasoning.

We’ve been over this topic a thousand times. Heaving read your ”facts” I already know it doesn’t matter how I argue, you already built your opinion.

[DeNfr]

Just now, Free Bird said:

We’ve been over this topic a thousand times. Heaving read your ”facts” I already know it doesn’t matter how I argue, you already built your opinion.

you can't make a difference between facts and opinions, that's the problem here.

I'll help you :

Slash left Guns N'Roses. > fact
I think it was a big mistake > opinion

see, not hard.

[Free Bird]

20 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

you can't make a difference between facts and opinions, that's the problem here.

I'll help you :

Slash left Guns N'Roses. > fact
I think it was a big mistake > opinion

see, not hard.

 

Your initial post is full of wrong “facts”. Teaching me the difference between fact and opinion, really? Lol

Edit: I have another fact for you: Slash never left GNR. He just didn’t join Axl’s new band with the same name.

Edited Sunday at 07:30 PM by Free Bird

[ChrisW]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

But regardless of what Sorum says and what Snakepit was called, it was Slash's band. Slash was in charge (and rightfully so) - I don't think anyone would seriously question that. So Slash didn't really need to take over a band that was actually his.

Lead guitarist is usually in charge or at least higher ranking than most of the band.  Slash is "Slash from Guns'n'Roses" so there are very few bands he could join or form where that wouldn't be the case.  The issue is did he just want to hire some musicians to support him or was he trying to form an actual band.  Also whether or not he wanted his famous name to be up front for promotion.

Slash's Snakepit was supposed to be G'n'R but Axl refused.  Never heard the second album but it looks like it was just his employees at the time.  Velvet Revolver was supposed to be G'n'R without Axl, they just picked a singer I never liked so I generally ignored it.  The two solo albums are just bringing in as many other famous people as possible for a track or two, which led to him working with Myles Kennedy who's famous for some reason.

I don't know how they do it, but famous people do have employees who measure their fame for decisions like this, to demand more money and promotion, or whatever reason.  There's a reason some bands name after their main member and others don't.

And I'll add this because it's always amused me, this treatment of band names happens in reverse here.  Bill Bailey moves to L.A. and joins the band Axl.  He takes their name.  Then he's in Hollywood Rose and adds their name to his.  Then the band joins with LA Guns, to become Guns'n'Roses.  Axl has always seen himself as the band from the very start.  Everyone else is replaceable.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Free Bird said:

Edit: I have another fact for you: Slash never left GNR. He just didn’t join Axl’s new band with the same name.

That Axl dissolved Guns N' Roses and created another band with the same name, is an interesting thing to discuss. Back when Slash left all of this wasn't really known to us. I think it was first with the three lawsuits that Slash and Duff threw at Axl in the 2000s that this argument was first presented. The argument was that Axl had left the partnership and taken the name with him, leaving Duff and Slash as the sole members of the partnership and hence in control of the assets (including rights to license out songs to movies). It is a plausible argument, after all Axl did send a letter stating that he did indeed intend to leave the partnership and form a new group called "Guns N' Roses". Parts of Axl's defense in the lawsuits were that it did not happen. He never left. And that Duff and Slash had acted as if the partnership was intact...until they decided to act as it it wasn't for monetary gain. Unfortunately, there was never a legal decision on this quarrel, all lawsuits were dismissed and presumably settlements were made. But interestingly, the practise of how GN'R was governed did not change, suggesting that it settlements were made, Duff and Slash did not get it their way, Axl continue to act as if he was wholly or partly in control of GN'R. 

After the lawsuits, Slash was interviewed by Piers Morgan and said that Axl did form a new group, and that he joined for less than 24 hours before he quit this new group.

So where does this leave us? Well, either Axl is right and he never really left the partnership and formed a new group, in which case you are wrong; or Slash is right and he did join this new group before quitting, in which case you are also wrong.

For the rest of us, I guess we just have to accept that they disagreed about this and we never got a legal decision. It doesn't really matter much now, anyway. Slash and Duff act like the partnership is intact so I guess they have now given up on the issue, regardless of what actually did happen back in the 90s. 

[Voodoochild]

I think it's weird how we are still arguing about all this.

Anyways, about Gilby: I'm with Axl on this one. The guy had the looks, but he was no better than a Dave Kushner. He didn't play the songs right (and yeah, I know he had to learn quickly, but then he had a lot of time to proper learn it) and added next to nothing on TSI. I still find amusing how people thought it would be a good idea for the band to have him in the semi-reunion. IMO, if Izzy couldn't be there, just leave Fortus where he is.

It's ok if you disagree with me, but it's just that I think people prioritized the looks instead of actually hearing what he brought to the band. And his solo album is ok, I kinda like it, but that's it.

[ChrisW]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

So where does this leave us? Well, either Axl is right and he never really left the partnership and formed a new group, in which case you are wrong; or Slash is right and he did join this new group before quitting, in which case you are also wrong.

For the rest of us, I guess we just have to accept that they disagreed about this and we never got a legal decision. It doesn't really matter much now, anyway. Slash and Duff act like the partnership is intact so I guess they have now given up on the issue, regardless of what actually did happen back in the 90s. 

It's probably much more complicated than that.  Did Axl think he was leaving the partnership?  Did he think he was taking all the rights with him to the new band of the same name?  Did his lawyers keep track of what they were doing?  Did they even have a clue what they were doing?  Was all of the paperwork handled properly?

Then there's Slash and Duff.  How much did they understand of what was even going on?  Duff was busy dying and would go on to take economics courses to learn something, but Slash didn't care in the first place.  Even if they weren't drunk/stoned, they would just see another batch of documents they're told to sign with no clue what any it means, same as always.  If Slash ever did join the new band, that's probably why.  He was told to sign something, he did, then he saw that things had suddenly changed and went 'hell no.'

It's why I totally believe that at some point, Axl refused to go on stage if they didn't sign ownership of the band over to him.  They *could* sue, sure, but they aren't interested in suing people.  Axl, however, is interested in suing people.  He would sue his ex-girlfriend for not returning gifts to her.  He would also sue the owners of Hollywood Rose recordings for releasing the recordings.  Slash and Duff would join that lawsuit for some reason, but they sued as individuals, not as Guns'n'Roses, so it was thrown out of court.

Anyway, there's no way to know what agreements they had or how legally they went through any of these deals.  Considering these guys had been dealing with sleazy lawyers right from the start, to have any chance of figuring this out, we'd need to know the basics of contract law and the music industry, then we'd need to know what options there were for deals, and try to guess which ones G'n'R has followed based on the available evidence.

I'm positive they all sign non-disclosure agreements, so they aren't going to be talking about this for a long time.  It's easy for Axl, he never talks to the public.  For Slash and Duff, they need to avoid answering questions or just make sure the interviewers never ask certain questions.

Edited Sunday at 10:02 PM by ChrisW
If you can read this, that's like the most awesome wonderful thing in the whole wide world.

[Blackstar]

1 hour ago, ChrisW said:

And I'll add this because it's always amused me, this treatment of band names happens in reverse here.  Bill Bailey moves to L.A. and joins the band Axl.  He takes their name.  Then he's in Hollywood Rose and adds their name to his.  Then the band joins with LA Guns, to become Guns'n'Roses. 

Just for the sake of accuracy, it isn't exactly how it happened. "AXL" was the name of a band Axl had with his friends in Indiana. Then, when he moved to L.A. and formed a band with Izzy and Chris Weber, he suggested the name "AXL" for it. That band was called "AXL" for a short while, then it was renamed to Rose (after either Izzy's or Chris Weber mother's suggestion - the accounts differ) and subsequently to Hollywood Rose.

More details:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t4925p30-03-1962-1984-before-guns-n-roses#33025

https://www.a-4-d.com/t4925p30-03-1962-1984-before-guns-n-roses#33027

https://www.a-4-d.com/t4925p30-03-1962-1984-before-guns-n-roses#33029

https://www.a-4-d.com/t4925p30-03-1962-1984-before-guns-n-roses#33031

 

[Blackstar]

11 hours ago, ChrisW said:

It's probably much more complicated than that.  Did Axl think he was leaving the partnership?  Did he think he was taking all the rights with him to the new band of the same name?  Did his lawyers keep track of what they were doing?  Did they even have a clue what they were doing?  Was all of the paperwork handled properly?

Then there's Slash and Duff.  How much did they understand of what was even going on?  Duff was busy dying and would go on to take economics courses to learn something, but Slash didn't care in the first place.  Even if they weren't drunk/stoned, they would just see another batch of documents they're told to sign with no clue what any it means, same as always.  If Slash ever did join the new band, that's probably why.  He was told to sign something, he did, then he saw that things had suddenly changed and went 'hell no.'

You're conflating two different phases of the issue. The first one was the 1992 partnership agreement, with which Axl would own the rights to the name in case either he or Slash and Duff left the partnership. The second phase was in 1995, when Axl sent that letter/notice saying he was withdrawing from the partnership taking the name with him.

Regarding the lawyers in relation to the partnership agreement:

Tom Zutaut:  [...] That whole concept was dreamed up by Peter Paterno, who's still the band's attorney. And it was written in a way where no-one ever thought the band would break up, because if the band broke up Axl would keep the name, but Axl would lose his say-so on the board of directors of original Guns N' Roses Incorporated. Peter Paterno told me he wrote it that way because he thought it would keep the band from ever breaking up, because he never believed that Axl would give up control of anything to do with Guns N' Roses and it would keep the band together. But, in spite of that, the band broke up anyway.

And indeed, according to the 1992 partnership agreement, if Axl left the partnership the only asset he could take was the name, not any of the other assets owned by the partnership.

A not very well known fact: In 1992, around the same time of the 1992 partnership agreement, Slash registered the name "Roadcrew" to himself to prevent Steven Adler from using it with his new band (Steven had formed a new "Roadcrew" band at the time). I guess that means that he understood at least some things about ownership of names.

11 hours ago, ChrisW said:

He would also sue the owners of Hollywood Rose recordings for releasing the recordings.  Slash and Duff would join that lawsuit for some reason, but they sued as individuals, not as Guns'n'Roses, so it was thrown out of court.

This is not fully accurate either. The lawsuit they sued as individuals was the Greatest Hits one (and that was a reason for the part of the lawsuit that was about trademark infringement to be dismissed, because the the trademarks have always been registered to the GN'R partnership).

In the Hollywood Rose case there was no lawsuit from Axl/GN'R, only a cease and desist letter (presumably from Axl and "Guns N' Roses Music", which is basically the GN'R partnership of Axl, Slash and Duff). Then Cleopatra Records (the label that released the Hollywood Rose demos) sued Axl and "GN'R Music", to which Axl/GN'R Music filed a counter-claim, but Cleopatra won.

Axl has been involved in A LOT of litigation, but the truth is he has been more on the receiving end - in other words: he has been sued way more times than he has sued.

Edited Monday at 09:04 AM by Blackstar

[evilfacelessturtle]

19 hours ago, Blackstar said:

So the songs are my representation of what Guns would sound like if I was at the helm. And it's probably good that I did it outside of Guns because I explored a lot of avenues I didn't normally get to. I had to write lyrics, and I had to get the melodies, and I had to get the songs into a cohesive state where they were worth showing to anybody. It's a real down to the bare bones kind of record, and I like that.

He's saying that he only got to explore the avenue of lyric writing because he did it outside of Guns, though. 

 

9 hours ago, DeNfr said:

Slash wanted to take over, tried to force a full complete LP in Axl's throat,
Axl said fuck off, Slash had his little revenge writing shit about Axl in almost
all of the lyrics of the album, had average sells so he returned to the band
then was pushed to the exit because he wasn't interested to do other's songs
and didn't want to work with Axl's real friend. 
end of story.

Yeah, Slash totally demanded Axl sing lyrics about him. That makes perfect sense. /s

This just further reinforces that Slash didn't have lyrics when he gave the material to Axl. There's no way on earth he gave Axl the song Take It Away with the lyrics "You and I have been playing this game for so damn long, these cards are too old, I'm gonna fold, bye-bye".

"Hey Ax, I want you to really put emphasis on the word 'precious' when you sing 'You ain't been out in days, will the sunshine burn your face? Preserve your precious skin. I'll go out, you stay in'"

[Blackstar]

2 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

He's saying that he only got to explore the avenue of lyric writing because he did it outside of Guns, though. 

 

Yeah, Slash totally demanded Axl sing lyrics about him. That makes perfect sense. /s

This just further reinforces that Slash didn't have lyrics when he gave the material to Axl. There's no way on earth he gave Axl the song Take It Away with the lyrics "You and I have been playing this game for so damn long, these cards are too old, I'm gonna fold, bye-bye".

"Hey Ax, I want you to really put emphasis on the word 'precious' when you sing 'You ain't been out in days, will the sunshine burn your face? Preserve your precious skin. I'll go out, you stay in'"

Yes, it's not likely that the songs had lyrics when Slash first presented the demos to Axl. But some of them seemingly did have lyrics from Slash a few months later, when Axl wanted them back (which most likely was before Slash found Eric Dover).

[evilfacelessturtle]

4 hours ago, Blackstar said:

As for Velvet Revolver, Slash did take over in a way, since he was the one who didn't want to continue after Weiland, so the band didn't continue (even though the other three wanted it to).

Did Slash prevent them from using the VR name and continuing without him?

 

2 hours ago, ChrisW said:

Slash's Snakepit was supposed to be G'n'R but Axl refused.  Never heard the second album but it looks like it was just his employees at the time.  Velvet Revolver was supposed to be G'n'R without Axl, they just picked a singer I never liked so I generally ignored it.  The two solo albums are just bringing in as many other famous people as possible for a track or two, which led to him working with Myles Kennedy who's famous for some reason.

And I'll add this because it's always amused me, this treatment of band names happens in reverse here.  Bill Bailey moves to L.A. and joins the band Axl.  He takes their name.  Then he's in Hollywood Rose and adds their name to his.  Then the band joins with LA Guns, to become Guns'n'Roses.  Axl has always seen himself as the band from the very start.  Everyone else is replaceable.

"Oh by the way, which one's Pink?"

You have to listen to Ain't Life Grand. Truly some of Slash's best work, and Rod Jackson, what a fucking voice.

2 hours ago, Voodoochild said:

I think it's weird how we are still arguing about all this.

Anyways, about Gilby: I'm with Axl on this one. The guy had the looks, but he was no better than a Dave Kushner. He didn't play the songs right (and yeah, I know he had to learn quickly, but then he had a lot of time to proper learn it) and added next to nothing on TSI. I still find amusing how people thought it would be a good idea for the band to have him in the semi-reunion. IMO, if Izzy couldn't be there, just leave Fortus where he is.

It's ok if you disagree with me, but it's just that I think people prioritized the looks instead of actually hearing what he brought to the band. And his solo album is ok, I kinda like it, but that's it.

Gilby's solo albums have way better songs than any of Izzy's, so there's that. Plus the songs he wrote for Snakepit, Dime Store Rock and Monkey Chow. What was he not playing right on the UYI tour?

I like Fortus' playing, though I have no idea what his writing skills are like.

[evilfacelessturtle]

9 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Yes, it's not likely that the songs had lyrics when Slash first presented the demos to Axl. But some of them seemingly did have lyrics from Slash a few months later, when Axl wanted them back (which most likely was before Slash found Eric Dover).

In fact, we can hear the riff to Back and Forth Again in the 1994 Making F'n Videos with Axl whistling over it, no lyrics yet at that point.

[Blackstar]

7 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Did Slash prevent them from using the VR name and continuing without him?

No. But although they could have continued in theory, there is no doubt that it could not have happened realistically without Slash.

[Free Bird]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

After the lawsuits, Slash was interviewed by Piers Morgan and said that Axl did form a new group, and that he joined for less than 24 hours before he quit this new group.

So where does this leave us? Well, either Axl is right and he never really left the partnership and formed a new group, in which case you are wrong; or Slash is right and he did join this new group before quitting, in which case you are also wrong

Did he sign anything? How many interviews did he gave where he stated being no part of the band? Strange thay you don’t post anything about that. Doesn’t fit your agenda, right? 
Anyway, let’s assume Slash did join for “less than 24 hours”, he still just left the new band, Axl’s GNR, not the band I’m talking about.

Edited Monday at 04:08 AM by Free Bird

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, ChrisW said:

It's why I totally believe that at some point, Axl refused to go on stage if they didn't sign ownership of the band over to him. 

This never happened.

The signing of the partnership agreement did not happen immediately before a live show, as Slash would imply and many fans believe,  but between two legs of a tour. Just look at the signing dates and this is easily realized. It seems like tour manager John Reese presented the agreement to Slash and Duff and said that it needed to be signed otherwise Axl would not do the next leg of the tour.

And the agreement did not "sign the ownership of the band" to Axl, but it stated that if Axl was to leave the partnership he could take the name of the band with him. Oher assets would still lie with the partnership that he had left.

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

Did he sign anything? How many interviews did he gave where he stated being no part of the band? Strange thay you don’t post anything about that. Doesn’t fit your agenda, right? 
Anyway, let’s assume Slash did join for “less than 24 hours”, he still just left the new band, Axl’s GNR, not the band I’m talking about.

Most likely he did sign the contract:

"I was, you know, given a contract to basically join his new band and you know and I did. It took about 24 hours before I decided, you know, I think this is the end of the line."

You said he didn't join Axl's new GN'R, I am saying you are wrong, based on the quote above it seems like he did, albeit for a very short time.

 

[Free Bird]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Most likely he did sign the contract:

"I was, you know, given a contract to basically join his new band and you know and I did. It took about 24 hours before I decided, you know, I think this is the end of the line."

You said he didn't join Axl's new GN'R, I am saying you are wrong, based on the quote above it seems like he did, albeit for a very short time.

 

Ok I didn’t knew that.

It still doesn’t effect my point that he didn’t leave original Guns

Edited Monday at 06:44 AM by Free Bird

[jamillos]

One of the smart-ass "what they should have done":
What Slash should have done in that 95/96 era was tell Axl he’d only communicate directly with him, and in person, if possible. No middle men, no yes men, no managers, producers, lawyers or anyone else. But I understand it was too late, the state of affairs was too far gone to save the whole unfortunate situation, and they’d drifted too apart by that point. 
Whatever happened legally or officially is secondary business. The egos and caprices were too huge and the pressure too high. 
Whatever record they woulda had released might have not been as good as Appetite, but it still theoretically could have been on the UYI level (and that was a great record). Oh well.