Ali wrote:

Mikkamakka wrote:

Common sense, Ali. You know, that something other people use. Believe me, nobody on Earth would sign over a million dollar worth property for nothing, just to see Axl smile. Except you, maybe.

I have common sense,  but I think the problem is your definition of common sense is tantamount to presumptions that suit your pre-existing notions of how this situation unfolded.  You say Axl surely knew that dirty tricks were used by Big FD to get Slash/Duff to sign over the name.  Unless there is some recording or paper trail where he gives explicit instructions to try and coerce Slash/Duff into signing over the name, or he was actually in the room when it happened (which we know is not the case), then you have bases to say he SURELY knew.  Is it possible he knew?  It's possible.  Is it a certainty as you claim?  Absolutely not.  IMO, that is a more reasoned assessment than what you stated.

Ali

I love when people make a conscious effort to sound smarter than they are by using ridiclous vocabulary. Ali we're on a  Gn'R message board, not a court room. Seriously drop the act already. You know how I know it's an act? Cause you'd never talk that way in real life to any of us.  I've never seen anyone buy into their own online persona like you do. The more people suggesed you act like Gn'R's attourney the more you play it up. It's so fucking weird.

monkeychow wrote:

It does show the lengths people will go to if they think they can get back in the inner circle.

Some of these ideas would have been interesting too like the festival.

But at the same time even if it was Doug who told Slash and Duff Axl would bail on the tour if they didn't sign the rights over:

1. It was a plausible lie only because Axl was constantly showing up late, refusing to do things, getting angry, storming off stage etc and making life hard for the others.

2. Axl created an environment where there's a wall of handlers between him and the band so they can't discuss anything informally to check the record.

3. It wasn't doug who had the term inserted into the contract.

4. It wasn't doug who relied on the term when he quit the band in 1995 and asked Slash and Duff to join a new GNR with Axl as boss.

So i think there's only so many stones that can be cast in doug's direction.

Axl wanted the name and Doug got it for him. Plain and simple.

Noone can doubt that Axl was satisfied with the outcome. Anyone with half a brain could have found out that Slash and Duff didn't signed over the name just to make Axl happy. Axl knew money wasn't involved. He surely knew that Douggie made some dirty tricks to get the name for him. Axl was fully aware of his puppet's dirty politics, but didn't do anything, cause he got what he wanted. It's another story that he's a proven hipocrite who'd lie till hell freezes over to make himself look innocent.

BTW this whole blackmailing story wouldn't matter too much today, if Axl proved to be a good captain (and owner) in the past 18 years. Unfortunately he got the wheel and drove the car off the cliff.

Ali wrote:

And yet he puts on a three hour show or more, night after night.  If he didn't want to be there, why go to that extent?

I'm not saying he doesn't want to be there...but for the sake of discussion it's worth noting:

* Much of the 3 hour set time is actually time that does NOT involve axl. 3 guitar solos. A piano solo. A  bass lead segment. Extended band jams before and after songs. All of this gives Axl a lot of time to go off stage, do oxygen, discuss the staging elements or whatever he does. Academically these things could be seen as a way to provide a headline length presentation without creating much burden on an Axl that wasn't inspired. Even many of the covers seem chosen for their ability to feature the band and not Axl - eg Riff Raff, While Lot of Rosie are essentially guitar jam sessions.

* Axl is contending with the "it's not really GNR" from a large part of the potential audience, who even if they go would turn into a "where's slash" crowd at the slightest hint of a fuckup from the new band. Along with an audience that is half anticipating him being late, walk off, or in some other way have an attitude. Extending the set to this type of length helps create the perception that it's value for money when people complain about these types of issues. Look at how often it's brought up as a justifcation for nearly anything at HTGTH....the 3 hour setlist is a defensive  posture.

It's cloaked with a 3 hour set, but actually it seems they're doing the minimum possible - Axl couldn't be on stage less time and bill the show as GNR, there's not been any new GNR music premiered at a GNR show since rio3, the only new changes are occasional new covers which even then don't focus on Axl, as a response to bitching about a stagnant 6 year old setlist the band responded with the introduction of ONE classic song from the UYI era....and still seems to be only able to play works like OMG during soundcheck. MEanwhile as you pointed out - it seems Axl's tone is able to swap between his classic sound and this new sound at will yet 99% of the time is without rasp even when it doesn't artistly suit the tone of the songs or indeed the way they sounded to become the classic hits they are.

I wouldn't phrase it as he doesn't want to be there, as we don't know what he really feels,  but there's def an argument that these things demonstrate the band is attempting to minimise the strain on him, that could be for health reasons (mental or physical) or some other reason....but it's obviously there. The last time something happened that was really above and beyond was that epic show in Tokyo that ran for record length, and before that at RIR3 when they premiered a lot of new songs that they didn't have to. The current situation - as excited as I am to be going to a show soon - seems to be a holding pattern.

buzzsaw wrote:

I don't know how or why, but Axl doesn't sound that bad when you're there.  I can't explain it; it defies logic.

Slash plays the songs with such ease and flow that GnR can't replicate.  They play the right notes, but it just doesn't sound right.  I can't really explain that either because I respect them all as musicians...it's almost like they play it too clean if that makes any sense.  I don't really care about the drummers, but maybe this is what people that love Adler hear vs Matt on the AFD songs.  To my ears Matt is fine, but I'm not a drums guy at all.

As far as Axl goes I think it's a combination of being caught up in the moment when you're there and the vocals not being as clear when you're there so you don't realize how bad he sounds. I agree that he sounds so much better when you're there but this weird phenomenon of Axl sounded great when you're there and sounding like crap on film seems to only apply to Axl.  I can't think of another artists who is so night and day when you see them in person compared to seeing them on video.

I have no idea what it is about the band. Like you I respect the guys in Guns big time but for whatever reason it just doesn't sound right. People have mocked the idea that suggests they can't match Slash's tone but it's just a simple fact for those who hear it. There's somehting about the way Slah can perform the songs that nobody else can truly replicate even when they hit all the same notes. It's weird.