Aussie wrote:

I dunno do they want that dude in the basement to buy the Livestream?

I just feel as if there is literally nothing GN'R could do to make their fanbase on these forums happy from a set list stand point.

Merck was around when the renegotiation was occuring, not when it finished.

Actually, I think the renegotiation was one of the main reasons his relationship with Axl erupted.

I don't know if I'm having comprehension disabilites reading the Merck letter or if Ali is reading something completely different, but it's pretty clear there was a renegotiation in place in 2006 and, probably, until the album got to be released.

Ali wrote:

apex-twin wrote:

The recording agreement, as peré madagas is quick to point out, has been renegotiated multiple times over the years.

There was the original, in 1986(?), with Tom Zutaut signing them on.
There was the pre-UYI renegotiation by Alan Niven.
There was the infamous 'Axl is GNR' clause added by Doug Goldstein in '92.
There was the 1st CD-era renegotiation in 1998.
There was the 2nd CD-era renegotiation with Azoff/BestBuy in 2008.

And possibly more we don't know about.

I've never heard of the last two happening.  The only contract renegotiation with the label that has been confirmed is the one started by Alan Niven that Axl and he said also included the bit about Axl owning the name should the band ever break up.

Ali

I have to trot this out every now and then...from Geffen's attorney (Greatest Hits Lawsuit)

Since 1992, the parties have executed various amendments to the Recording Agreement, including most notably, two amendments dated as of May 1, 1998. One of these amendments  confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as Leaving Members  under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose (the only Remaining Member of Guns N' Roses) in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album.  Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band. In the other May 1, 1998 amendment Axl Rose agreed, among other things, to deliver that new studio LP (which was even then long overdue under the Recording Agreement) no later than March 1, 1999 and received a substantial advance from Geffen in return. Hence, although other individuals have joined Axl Rose in performing under the name Guns N' Roses since 1998, Rose is the only principal in the band.

As for the present, we have no idea what is currently "owed" to the label...no way to tell.

Ali wrote:

smoke wrote:

"Nothing to suggest that" and "definitive proof" are totally different things. Someone as supposedly prolific (though secretive) as Axl with his level of output could easily lead someone to ponder if he's tapped out.

I don't think so (yet), and certainly don't hope so, but it isn't at all ludicrous and the thought is certainly not snatched out of thin air. It's one of many potential conclusions whose internal logic is totally sound.

O.k. then let me try it one more time:  whether or not any fan has heard music means jack shit.  It doesn't suggest one way or another whether or not an artist is creative, just whether or not an artist's creation is deemed worthy of being packaged into a product for sale to public.  The public would be the last ones to hear an artist's creation, if ever (look at Smile for example).  I never said it was ludicrous, either.  Just that it's always possible that someone could suddenly run dry creatively, and as we are the last ones to be in a position to determine that, what's the point in this speculation when no answer can come of it?  Is it possible?  Yes, it's always possible  The lack of music being released does not answer the question, so what more really needs to be said on the subject.

Ali

What's the point in speculation? Seriously Ali get off it.  You said there's no reaosn to suggest it now here you are saying yes it's possible but to speculate anything is pointless. If we can't speculate what the fuck is the point of a Guns N' Roses discussion board? FACT is there's just as much reason to suggest Axl's creative juices have run dry as there are to suggest he's over flowing with creativity at this very moment. The difference is you'll go to any length to support the side that defends Axl Rose and you'll go to any length to disqualify a position that doesn't paint him in bright white light.  To even begin to say "nothing suggests this" is ludicrous. There's nothing wrong with acknowldeging BOTH sides to something we are SPECULATING on.

Ali wrote:

Bono wrote:

None of know anything for a fact Ali. It doesn't take a genius to understand what my point was but I'll spell it out for you. I was saying most of us might be affraid to admit that there is a POSSIBILITY that Axl's creative juices aren't really there anymore. If you don't believe that fine but there is the possibility of it. I don't know what melodies Axl works on in his spare time just like you don't know if he works on anything so....

Oh, I understand.  But, I think it is so ridiculous that it isn't even worth considering.  At ANY given time, an artist could be "tapped" creatively.  This could happen after one song, one album, one decade of work.  Is it possibly theoretically?  Yes, it always is.  But, there's nothing to suggest that.  We wouldn't be the ones to know that regardless.  So, there is nothing really to admit, when it's always possible and we have no way of knowing one way or another.

Ali

I understand not wanting to believe it, but how could you say there is "nothing to suggest that"?  I don't mean that rhetorically, I really would like to know.

He's released 15 songs in the last 21 years.  That simple fact suggests it.  Add onto that that we know a lot of those 15 songs existed for a long time before being released.

For the record I hope it isn't true, but there's plenty to suggest the possiblity.