Jump to content

Kasanova King

Member
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About Kasanova King

  • Rank
    Young Gun

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Some random dude yelled at me at the aftershow because "your buddy was ruining everybody's night jumping all over the place waving his arms about". I asked him what the fuck he expected to see in the pit at a Guns n Roses gig and he shut right the fuck up. Hahaha....I was dancing around like a 16 yearold fanboy...it was awesome..lol.
  2. I was there both nights. Night one was amazing in itself but night two was on an entirely different level. They brought it all and killed it on just about every song ....some songs sounded better live during night 2 than when I saw them in 1991 during their peak. They are back. Absolutely amazing.
  3. I tried posting the pic here but it won't let me. Slash's back looks really ripped in the pic in the op of the mygnr Troubadour thread.
  4. 1. Pretty sure that's a bogus rumor/publicity stunt 2. See 1. 3. They're both grown up now....nothing really to fight about anymore, especially when there is $3-$5 million per show on the line and both of their legacies hang on this reunion/tour.
  5. US Bank stadium tweeted a screen grab from the official G N' R promo teaser earlier tonight and local station 93x said they have a huge concert announcement in the morning....(and their tweets hint G N' R.)
  6. You should have seen the reactions from people when I posted it on Nightrain & HTGTH..... The Mods have been cool about it though....haven't taken it down.....yet.
  7. Some crazy version of it popped up on MyGnR and G N' R's Facebook page last night....basically saying stuff like people paid thousands to go to the shows and expected to see Izzy there, etc etc etc....we toned it down (a lot) and got this version out there before the other one had too much momentum.....this is by far the better of the two....
  8. http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/we-want-izzy-stralin-in-the-upcoming-guns-n-roses-reunion-sh Sign away if you want to see Izzy in!
  9. Yeah, idk anymore. If he re-tweeted that as early as a few hours ago, that sort of puts a damper in our theory.
  10. Izzy apparently told Downliner in an email that his tweet was intended to "have some fun with the fans" aka, he was basically getting a rise out of people...and it worked. If you look at his initial tweets, he comes out and says stuff like "no longer avocado farming" "wanted to update fans on the April gigs" "writing new music" and that "he just bought a computer"....all lighthearted stuff..... but wasn't involved in the April shows "at this point in time"....meaning if he really wanted to troll fans, he could have said it moments before signing on for the Vegas shows. Odd sense of humor but Izzy has always had that sort of odd, recluse type of sense of humor....and that's very apparent in some of the lighter songs he's written. I could totally see him tweeting that, then putting his phone down and signing on for Vegas. If he wanted to get a rise out of people, that would be the way to do it. lol
  11. Doubt it. Pretty sure Slash is 100% sober now (including alcohol) and has been for a while. Axl supposedly drinks on occasion, that's about it. Not sure if either one of them still smokes or not.
  12. Guns has always existed as two units, "the band" (public thing) and the "legal band". When Adler was fired in 1990, the band changed legally and legally. Think of a band as a corporation, with shares (shares of overall income, shares of publishing revenues etc). When Adler was dropped, a new legal Guns N' Roses was constituted where Axl, who already had 25%, probably received Adler's share of the legal band (Adler would sue in 1993 and 1996 due to this money issue). The new legal GN'R now constituted Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff as legal partners. Then, Izzy quit; Izzy's share in the legal partnership in terms of royalties, publishing and operating income also likely went to Axl. However, when he left, Izzy secured an agreement that he would receive a percentage of all GN'R's earnings (live shows, memorabilia, etc) until November 1997. After Izzy left, a new legal partnership had to be drawn up. This happened in 1992 and codified Axl, Slash and Duff as the only legal members of Guns N' Roses. Gilby, Matt, and Dizzy, while members onstage, were salaried employees, not "partners". Monetarily, this new split left Axl, Slash and Duff as equal partners in the business aspect of Guns, but with Axl as majority shareholder so to speak. Included in this new partnership agreement was a clause which stated that if Axl were to be fired from Guns N' Roses, or quit, the legal name Guns N' Roses and such would belong solely to him. Axl invoked this clause in December 1995 and resigned from the existing GN'R partnership, and created a new operating legal entity also called Guns N' Roses in which he was sole partner and shareholder. In this new partnership, Axl would get a percentage of all things Guns, and any new "members" would receive a set salary and contract. It is likely, considering that Axl, Slash and Duff are getting percentages of the live shows (rather than Axl getting a percentage and then dolling it out in salary as with nuguns), the old GN'R partnership created in 1992 (which never ended, hence how Slash and Duff were able to battle Axl with regard to using GN'R music in films etc) has been reinstated, with Axl as majority shareholder but all three as equal partners in the business. I could pull a wall of bullshit speculation out of my ass too, if that's what I was looking for. If you have a source for Axl buying out Steven's and Izzy's shares, or why it would make sense to give Axl all of Izzy's and Steven's shares, I will definitely look it over. Not sure if this helps, but this is Axl basically saying (in his mygner Interview from years ago) that he had the rights to the name but Slash (And Duff) still had the rights to play the songs as long as they didn't use the G N' R name. Q: Since you own the name, does it bother you at all when you see or hear things like "Slash of GUNS N' ROSES" and that he's still well recognized as one of the faces of the band? Axl: "It doesn't bother me unless it's being done at my expense and or to keep him associated as in Guitar Hero. Him being [in] Guitar Hero's fine but not when Activison is using 'Jungle', having Yahoo! use 'Sweet Child' unauthorized, claims no involvement with Slash, his or anyone's image or VR or anyone or anyone's music in either camp in promotion or commercials etc. I wasn't broadsided. I read about it as it moved along but Activision continually denied it right up to the release. That's some lowlife chicanery on all their parts. "Yes, Slash was in GUNS and on 'Jungle' (and the whole 'I came to him for his riff' is as much crap as him saying he brought 'Locomotive' and 'Coma' in as complete songs) and he has rights to perform it but not to be represented in this context in association with GUNS. And since they weren't granted the license, it'll take some sorting." Q: Does Geffen or Universal have any rights over the name, or is it soley yours? For example they released the "Greatest Hits" under the GN'R name, so I was a bit confused over exactly how much the name belongs to the label, if at all. Axl: "Universal has GUNS under contract but I own the name." Q: How do/did you feel about VELVET REVOLVER playing GN'R songs live? Did you worry about them mucking up the songs or decreasing their value by playing them? Are you glad the former members still play those songs so regularly on stage? I seen SLASH'S SNAKEPIT live in July 1995 and they started playing instrumental "Paradise City" for the first two minutes before Slash stopped it by jokingly saying something like, "We better stop so we don't get sued!" Axl: "I don't have problems with whoever doing the songs but film or video gets into sync rights and I don't have an interest in anyone new, old or whatever trying to sell themselves as GN'R under another name that way." http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/axl-rose-why-i-am-continung-to-use-name-guns-n-roses/ So it's pretty clear that Slash and Duff (at least) retained some rights to the songs. Adler and Izzy weren't mentioned at all during the interview, which would make one believe that neither was involved much in reference to rights/shares of the band or music....but that's 100% a guess. Here is an excerpt from a legal textbook regarding "How to run your band's business" where the author uses Adler's removal from the band as an example. Basically saying that Adler gave up his legal share of the band (under duress) but eventually settled in court, giving up his rights/partnership for $2.5 million. http://books.google.com/books?id=PtxxCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=guns+n+roses+legal+split&source=bl&ots=K4Yru-DsdX&sig=QBPE-lu7DBILBDkBDwX_DT_4E1U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia7Lb-xYfLAhVElB4KHdkVDVsQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=guns%20n%20roses%20legal%20split&f=false Another thing to note...that in all their court cases over song rights, etc....it was always Slash and Duff filing in court vs Axl....Izzy and Adler were never mentioned in most of those cases (Only time Adler was mentioned was in his own case). So reading between the lines would again, lead one to assume that any legal partenship was in terms of shares/rights to the songs/band were between Axl, Slash and Duff. We now know Adler signed his shares/rights away with his court agreement. Other than Izzy not being involved in lawsuits, not much is known about his situation....but an educated guess would make one believe he must have settled at one point or another,
×
×
  • Create New...