You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#381 Re: Guns N' Roses » Someone Is In Big Trouble » 748 weeks ago
misterID wrote:he was probably getting slammed with messages on facebook and twitter about it and he probably had enough. I doubt he was cruising mygnr one night and snapped. I think it was building up from outside the forums.
And he chose mygnr because that's where the douchebags are. HTGTH doesn't let anyone talk about anything and, well... We're not exactly the forum Ron would have a problem with. I don't think there's anyone here he'd have to tell to slob his knob or make him some pancakes
I looked at his Twitter and fb in the days prior. He posted some stuff about having to put his cat to sleep and people were actually making fun of it and posting vile stuff back to him.
That and in his mygnr posts, he mentioned that people had been messing with his family. Seems like what you're saying is accurate, it's just a case of "enough is enough".
But he has control over who can post those messages to him on FB/Twitter. Why not moderate that instead of seeking it out?
If he wanted to send a message regarding the situation, Jarmo's is the most sanitized of all the GnR forums. He could have sent his message, talked to a group of GnR apologists and non contrarians.
To step into that sewer and make a comment about forcible sodomy, for example, is pretty awful, especially considering it is a member of THE band.
#382 Re: Guns N' Roses » Someone Is In Big Trouble » 748 weeks ago
Bah, Ron attacked some of the most miserable and twisted fuckers to ever grace the forums, so what. Everyone vents now and then, it does you good to get it out. These are not policticians with silver tongues, they're just average joes in a band who will give as good as they get.
I can understand some folk would find Rons comments distasteful, thats fair enough. Not me however, I have more respect for him for biting back at some of these miserable fucks who sneer and take potshots daily at everyone around them for their own perverse pleasure.
It too simple and to say , oh he was unprofessional blah blah... hindsight is a wonderful thing.
One rant in the heat of the moment every 5 years or so wont do his reputation any harm, the guys in the band must have the patience of saints if they spend any time reading the boards reguarly, cause I'm reactionary and I'd be spitting bullets every other day.
It's beneath him and the band.
Why he chose MyGnR to defend himself is a mystery. But within what was a general good discussion were pockets full of vileness. Of course, it reflects poorly on the random anonymous MyGnR troll, but no one stands to judge some fool hidden behind a computer and a few thousand miles of fiber optics. BBF lacks that anonymity and, therefore, his words stay with him.
My question is, why bother? He only drags himself down in the gutter with that trash. By addressing them, the trolls only become empowered.
#383 Re: Guns N' Roses » Someone Is In Big Trouble » 749 weeks ago
russtcb wrote:I've said comments similar to this recently but I want to clarify something; I don't think any member of GN'R "deserve" things like this MSL situation and the havoc it's caused. I do think there there would be no opportunity for something like it to happen if GN'R functioned like a "normal band" but they don't. And in any case, I certainly don't think any one deserves to have their personal business invaded no matter how the organization they're associated with is run.
We can certainly agree on the band members not deserving all that what is being thrown in their direction, by the MSL circus or otherwise.
But that goes on to show how strained a relationship Axl himself has with his fanbase. Is it just me or does he only pick up the bad things said on the boards and tweet back in retaliation? It's a hate-hate relationship, when everybody gets the bad stuff from him and he only picks up things that rile him up.
Axl has the undisputed right to the b(r)and name, doesn't owe anything to the fans, etc. That's all good. But all things would be better if he would live up to his end of the bargain, which means accepting the fact that some people will always have a problem with him being the sole surviving original member.
Badmouthing Slash and random people on the internet isn't the way forward, neither is subjugating the biggest fan-ran message boards to only display your view of the world. Coming on to those boards and communicating directly with those who care is, and it remains a great example of how Axl can reach out and make the lot of us happy to be fans of (t)his band.
The online communities may come across as bitchy and petty when it comes to the band, and that's understandable. But one should never encourage anyone to behave like an asshole, as then that person is bound to behave like an asshole again in the future.
And frankly, I think we have enough bad behavior on both sides of the fence without the bearded one joining in.
I felt exactly this way for a long time, going back to the days when Beta would pop on Jarmos to attack some idle fan who dared criticize the band for all the delays, blackouts, and near-death experiences. There was plenty of support and open arms out there to latch onto, but it was largely ignored to, I can only surmise, funnel energy against the hatred.
This philosophy befuddles me on nearly every level. It is not surprising that Bumble would fall into the same trap and use a corrupted forum to unleash more venom and negativity into a seering pot of sewage. Not only was his behavior unprofessional, but it also makes me wonder just how healthy the band is.
The fact that the Bumble thread was locked down and deleted seems completely understandable at this point.
#384 Re: Guns N' Roses » 101 Document Titles From Axls Laptop (No Actual Documents Tho) » 749 weeks ago
I suspect they were playing to pay for the next album.
#385 Re: Guns N' Roses » 101 Document Titles From Axls Laptop (No Actual Documents Tho) » 749 weeks ago
In tough times, Axl turtles.
#386 Re: Guns N' Roses » 101 Document Titles From Axls Laptop (No Actual Documents Tho) » 749 weeks ago
I agree with a colleague who corrected me on another board that the context of these emails is not known to us. That makes it difficult to judge what was actually discussed.
But if the title of the email listed in any way parallels the context of the discussion, then it is quite worrisome that the firing of DJ and Tommy was being discussed, the cutting of pay of the players was being discussed, and, more ominously, the dissolution of the band was discussed multiple times.
It might be inevitable that these materials leak out. Regardless, the band appears superficially to be on weak financial ground and now there most certainly could be trust issues.......if the material is genuine, of course.
#387 Re: Guns N' Roses » Axl Rose Suing Activision / Guitar Hero » 761 weeks ago
apex-twin wrote:Ax doesn't control his share of the publishing rights. Uni does, following their buyout of Sanctuary.
Are you sure? Normally when someone licenses rights like Axl did they maintain approval/rejection rights over specific uses like syncs to movies/films and so on, despite the profits going to the publisher.
If not, the sanctuary deal was done circa 2005 I think, so why was Axl giving approval for Jungle to be used in GH3 circa 2007? I'm almost certain he'd still have say so about what gets the use of his music.
I am confused how Axl suddenly owns the majority stake in the publishing rights. Slash and Duff were still part of the original partnership and had rights to 1/3 of the royalties for publication of the old catalog, including rights to allowing it used.
Did something change that allowed Axl to take a greater share? If not, then Slash and Duff are as large an owner of WTTJ as Axl. Thus Slash cannot be separated intellectually from any use of Jungle.
#388 Re: Guns N' Roses » Axl Rose Suing Activision / Guitar Hero » 761 weeks ago
ok all that aside, i truely get what you are saying
but....
Gun N Roses as a legal entity is controlled by Axl Rose, Slash and Duff left the partnership in 1995 and 1998 respectively (or whatever cant recall the year duff left at the moment) so all decisions regarding GnR and its recordings go through Axl....including distribution of royalties and associated fees and debts that GnR has incurred right? Axl was the one left holding the ball when GnR desolved in the 90's it was his responsibility to pay back...or in this instance renegotiate all contracts, and by all accounts the recording and release of CD wasnt fun for anyone involved,
But that might not be accurate. What we discovered from the Duff & Slash vs. Axl suit was that Axl had the power to leave the band and take the name with him. In effect, he created a new partnership with him as the primary shareholder once he left. This effectively became G&R and covered all materials recorded since 1996. Remember all that discussion centered around Axl asking Slash to look over and sign documents by a certain deadline.....
However, the old partnership still exists as a legal entity and including publication rights. All three, Duff, Slash, and Axl, must agree when and where to use the old material. In effect, each has a veto vote as it was used when WTTJ was axed from Black Hawk Down.
I am utterly confused about Axl's claim that he is the majority share holder of the old catalog. That claim does not jibe with what we have read in previous suits.
In this case, if he did accept Activision's word verbally, he is screwed.
#389 Re: Guns N' Roses » Stinson Vents at Del James During Dublin Concert » 773 weeks ago
[youtube]wpuvl1xycRE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
