You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#511 Re: Guns N' Roses » GN'R Twitter Updates » 694 weeks ago
madagas wrote:Axlin12 wrote:You know it fucking stuns me beyond all belief that we're actually still having this conversation.
You people assume way too much that some of us "people that can't back up anything" have had conversations with other people other than forum nerds that actually worked/work with the mother fucker.
But the experts can continue their circle jerk.
nobody said they were an expert, you are claiming Axl lied about the Philly incident. You have NOTHING to back that up. One of my best buddies worked for Clear Channel then and still works for Live Nation now. He has an idea of what went on. Clear Channel was losing money on the tour. Those are facts and was looking to cancel the tour. Axl, as usual, provides plenty of ammo to help their cause.
It is very plausible that Clear Channel wanted to cancel the tour due to poor ticket sales. That was the rumbling in the industry at the fuckin' time. They had the right to cancel the tour and they eventually did.
Sounds more like poor wording on Axl's part..."wanted the tour to fail" actually, in his world without admitting failure, means wanted to cancel the tour.
I am not getting in to Axl's personal relationships or am going to debate his other statements from the past. He lives in his own little world and has a pretty warped sense of reality. I don't know how honest Axl is and don't really care. I do believe there is some form of truth to the things he says. He's too smart to completely lie all the time so he just twists things around to fit his agenda....kinda like Slash!
How is that different from what I already said?
madagas wrote:Intercourse wrote:I doubt companies like Clear Channel / Live Nation etc are in any way hesitant to cancel whatever the fuck they want while looking you in the eye when they do it.
If the $$$ made no sense I'd say they would call it as such. Was Axl not on some enormous per gig fee at the time and would not row back on that when asked to because the numbers didn't add?My take on it is that he went off in a huff when they told him they wouldn't continue to pay at that rate and after the riot they said 'fuck it' and did the same..
You are in the right park. They were getting a huge fee upfront at the time ($400,000 to $500,000). I know that from my buddy who was involved directly with the Atlanta promoter for Clear Channel at the time in 2002. If you remember, Atlanta wasn't booked on that US tour. Why? Because the Atlanta promoter saw no profit in the fee vs ticket sales for a third generation Gnr. He was right. He also said Gnr was a complete pain in the ass to deal with back on the Illusion tours and he wanted nothing to do with them.
I imagine Clear Channel wanted to renegotiate fees for the remainder of the tour, Axl said "fuck you pay me" and Clear Channel said "fuck you we will cancel the tour".
So, JR, my EDUCATED guess is yes, Clear Channel wanted the tour to fail because they couldn't find a way to make any money. Plus, after shit like Vancouver and poor initial ticket sales outside of a few markets, who could blame them? They aren't a charity. Truth lies somewhere in the middle. I stand my ground.
That makes more sense.
But under that theory, it makes "sick" just as much as a fake excuse as "Lakers basketball".
Axl S said it best, Axl is the boy who cried wolf. He's done it too many times, and i'm sorry if people want to believe him, go ahead. Plenty of people still believe Newt Gingrich, who's about as trustworthy.
And yes I agree on the Slash analogy, but Slash's statements don't sound like a spoiled child. Axl's do. Axl's statements are constantly the same thing, everyone is out to get him... I figured that would've gotten old 25 years ago. It's tired and pathetic at this point.
That's all I was ever trying to convey.
No, I still don't get the sickness as being "fake". The reason why Axl did not perform that night could be a completely separate issue from why the entire remainder of the tour was cancelled.
The reason why Axl couldn't perform that night was because he was sick. Clear Channel, frustrated by the overall tour performance, and the inability to make money on that Philly show with a cancellation a final straw, cancels the tour being GN'R will not back down from a previously agreed upon guaranteed payment per show. That is an entirely plausible scenario, IMO.
Ali
#512 Re: Guns N' Roses » I want a reunion » 694 weeks ago
I don't think that's something they would want as public knowledge, Axlin.
Agreed.
Ali
#513 Re: Guns N' Roses » I want a reunion » 694 weeks ago
Yes it's very much occured to me Ali.
How about telling everyone? How hard is that?
All Axl would have to do is tell the band (which Tommy would tell everyone else), or make a statement regarding it on GNR.com
Instead... nothing...
Maybe he has told the band. I think the band knows far more about what's going on than they let on for reasons that BBF has gone into several times in the past.
But, I don't feel the need personally as a fan to know that level of detail as to the band's business affairs. Or, more precisely, I don't feel it is knowledge I deserve to be privy to. Furthermore, telling us doesn't rectify the situation.
Ali
#514 Re: Guns N' Roses » I want a reunion » 694 weeks ago
And for all those that are frustrated by the "endless" touring. Here's a point that I wonder if some of you have actually considered:
If it is true that Interscope will no longer fund what is needed to complete a new album, then did it ever occur to you that perhaps touring is needed not out some sense of greed (as the he's "in it for the money" comment implies IMO), but out of a legitimate need to raise money to complete work on the next album?
Ali
#515 Re: Guns N' Roses » I want a reunion » 694 weeks ago
Ali wrote:It's quite simple: If you think his sole motivation is money, then how do you explain him pursuing an option that is obviously much less lucrative than a reunion?
Really, I'd love to hear an explanation that can cover that gaping hole in logic
AliYou are so unbelieveable it's not even funny. Axl doesn't want a reunion that's why he doesn't do it. Could he make more money with a reunion. Sure he could but I could also make more money working in the oilfield yet I don't do that. I also don't continue to do something in my life that is safe, nostalgic and living off the past just to turn a buck when I claim to want to move forward with things.. What Axl is doing now is the best way he can make as much money as possible while not moving forward or reunitng. To ignore this is stupid. No new music, no plans for new music, no signs of new music + Endlessly touring of the old bands hits with a cover band of a cover band = DOING IT FOR THE MONEY. Is he having fun? Sure. Could he have fun moving forward with a new album and playing more new songs? Probably but that wouldn't bring in as much money now would it. Gee never considered that did ya.
you don't have to involve yourself with the biggest money making mechanism out there to be in what you're currently doing for the money. An ounce of common sense would tell you that.
You will never acknowlegde this though because it's your duty to defend Axl at all costs and at all expense of common sense.
And keep in mind I've not once said the shows aren't good. Last I saw them in 2010 it was a great show. I have no doubt it's still great. Doesn't mean they're not just doing these endless tours to fund some paychecks or what have you. Even Axl's own band wants to release new fucking music yet here the are just touring again and gain. My god figure it out.
Nice horseshit answer there. If someone's sole motivation was to make money, common sense dictates they would pursue whatever means met that end to the greatest extent. If he only wanted to tour off the old band's catalog and make money, then why bother turning in a mixed and mastered version of Chinese Democracy?
Look, his job is a musician, so of course he wants to make money at his job. That is one of his motives. But, to say that he's in it for the money, as if that's his only motivation, does not make any sense for the reasons previously stated. You will ignore them, I'm sure, or find some creative argument around them that, as you said, ignores common sense.
Ali
#516 Re: Guns N' Roses » I want a reunion » 694 weeks ago
You guys are arguing stuff as if people only have ONE motivation.
Which is why I said, " If you think his sole motivation is money, then how do you explain him pursuing an option that is obviously much less lucrative than a reunion?"
To clarify, when someone says a person is in it "for the money", to me that means that's their sole motivation, or by far and away primary motivation.
Ali
#517 Re: Guns N' Roses » I want a reunion » 694 weeks ago
Ali wrote:russtcb wrote:I love all the people who are certain they know "what Axl is in it for".
Sorry, but having seen Axl Rose and Guns N' Roses perform many many times over the past few months, I can tell you from personal first hand experience that the man is out there performing because he wants to put on great performances for those interested in seeing it. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
How can you constantly talk about of both sides of your mouth about it? "He's in it for the money!" Oh really?? Then why oh why wouldn't he just take your option (a reunion) and run with it?? That's where the huge pay check is.
Yeah, no shit. That he's doing this for money argument is beyond idiotic. If that were the case, he would go for the most lucrative option, which is a reunion.:rolleyes:
Ali
There's way more money in touring than moving forward with a new album. there's way more money in keeping the name and living off the old Gn'R legacy ha trying soemething new. There's more money touring Europe than recording a new album. To say he's not motivated by money at this point is idiotic.To suggest the only proof of a guy being in it for the money would be signing up for a reunion is even more fucking idiotic. Some of you are hilarious in your never ending crusade to blindly justify Axl Rose no matter what.
It's quite simple: If you think his sole motivation is money, then how do you explain him pursuing an option that is obviously much less lucrative than a reunion?
Really, I'd love to hear an explanation that can cover that gaping hole in logic 
Ali
#518 Re: Guns N' Roses » GN'R Twitter Updates » 694 weeks ago
Intercourse wrote:I doubt companies like Clear Channel / Live Nation etc are in any way hesitant to cancel whatever the fuck they want while looking you in the eye when they do it.
If the $$$ made no sense I'd say they would call it as such. Was Axl not on some enormous per gig fee at the time and would not row back on that when asked to because the numbers didn't add?My take on it is that he went off in a huff when they told him they wouldn't continue to pay at that rate and after the riot they said 'fuck it' and did the same..
You are in the right park. They were getting a huge fee upfront at the time ($400,000 to $500,000). I know that from my buddy who was involved directly with the Atlanta promoter for Clear Channel at the time in 2002. If you remember, Atlanta wasn't booked on that US tour. Why? Because the Atlanta promoter saw no profit in the fee vs ticket sales for a third generation Gnr. He was right. He also said Gnr was a complete pain in the ass to deal with back on the Illusion tours and he wanted nothing to do with them.
I imagine Clear Channel wanted to renegotiate fees for the remainder of the tour, Axl said "fuck you pay me" and Clear Channel said "fuck you we will cancel the tour".
So, JR, my EDUCATED guess is yes, Clear Channel wanted the tour to fail because they couldn't find a way to make any money. Plus, after shit like Vancouver and poor initial ticket sales outside of a few markets, who could blame them? They aren't a charity. Truth lies somewhere in the middle. I stand my ground.
I hear what you're saying that CC may have wanted to try and renegotiate a lower per gig guarantee, but that simply could not have said, "We are now paying you a lower a per gig guarantee." If it was a guaranteed number, which I'd bet any sum of money it was, they couldn't simply change their minds without violating the terms of the contract.
I stand my ground that unless you have proof that he was not in fact ill as he claims now and was announced in the venue in Philly when it was announced GN'R wasn't playing that night, you cannot say what he said was a lie.
Ali
#519 Re: Guns N' Roses » GN'R Twitter Updates » 694 weeks ago
I doubt companies like Clear Channel / Live Nation etc are in any way hesitant to cancel whatever the fuck they want while looking you in the eye when they do it.
If the $$$ made no sense I'd say they would call it as such. Was Axl not on some enormous per gig fee at the time and would not row back on that when asked to because the numbers didn't add?My take on it is that he went off in a huff when they told him they wouldn't continue to pay at that rate and after the riot they said 'fuck it' and did the same..
There were rumors that GN'R had a sizable per gig guarantee. But, I think you're wrong on the last point as the per gig fee was negotiated and set in stone via contract prior to the tour and could not be amended afterwards. I'm sorry, but I think that scenario is completely unlikely. They couldn't back out of something agreed to in a contract simply because of how it was turning out for them. Hence, the motivation for wanting to cancel the tour.
Ali
#520 Re: Guns N' Roses » GN'R Twitter Updates » 694 weeks ago
You know it fucking stuns me beyond all belief that we're actually still having this conversation.
You people assume way too much that some of us "people that can't back up anything" have had conversations with other people other than forum nerds that actually worked/work with the mother fucker.
But the experts can continue their circle jerk.
Do you know for a fact that he was not sick that day? If not, then you are mistaken in saying it is an "obvious lie". It's really that simple.
The band members leaving have nothing to do with what happened in Philly. So, that's a completely irrelevant point.
I don't consider myself an expert in any way, shape or form. I just think to say a guy is lying about how being sick some day back in 2002, you have to know for a fact that he wasn't, that's all.
Ali
