What if Axl didn't own the GnR name?

[jujuhound]

I've read where Slash said signing away his rights to the name Guns n Roses was one of his "biggest regrets."  I think the move turned out bad for everybody (including Axl).  

If Slash & Duff had refused to give Axl the rights to the name the Guns n Roses we once knew might be touring and recording today.  I think Axl taking ownership of the name and then actually releasing records & touring under the GnR banner ruined any chance of a reunion.  

Had history run a different course the following might have happened:
1992:  Axl tries to get Slash & Duff to sign away their rights to the name Guns n Roses.  If they refuse he will break up the band.  Duff & Slash refuse to sign and Axl cancels the Use Your Illusion tour.  Eventually he relents after a new band contract is signed in which he receives a larger amount of the tour profits.  

1993:  The Use Your Illusion tour ends.  Axl's Charles Manson cover "Look At Your Game Girl" is not included on The Spaghetti Incident because Duff & Slash out vote him.  

1994:  Recording sessions for the new album fall apart when Axl tries to fire guitarist Gilby Clarke and replace him with Paul Tobias.  Slash & Duff refuse to let Axl fire Gilby.   After six months Slash & Axl reach a compromise.  Clarke is replaced by Slash's friend Dave Kushner.  

1995-97: Slash, Duff and Matt Sorum concentrate on solo projects.  Axl takes a break from recording/touring.  

1998:  Guns attempts to record once again.  Axl is heavily into instustrial music.  Slash, Duff and Matt want to play rock.   The sessions fall apart due to musical differences.  Axl announces in the press that Slash, Duff and Matt have left Guns n Roses.  Slash & Duff announce that Guns N Roses is over.  

1999:  Axl continues to work on a "Guns n Roses record" according to Geffen and his management.  He once again tries to get Duff and Slash to sign over rights to the band name.  They refuse.  He goes to court claiming sole ownership of all things GnR.  The court denies Axl's claim and he is forbidden from touring or releasing records as Guns N Roses without Duff and Slash's permission.    

2000-2003:  Axl works on a solo album which he plans to call "Chinese Democracy."  He does a few solo gigs backed by Paul Tobias, Robin Finck, Brain and Dizzy Reed.  Slash tours with Slash's Snakepit.  Matt and Duff work with The Neurotic Outsiders.  

2004:  Axl releases his solo debut Chinese Democracy which receives rave critical reviews but sells poorly.  The subsequent tour is marred by cancellations, no shows and a mixed audience response ("Play more Guns N Roses").  Slash, Duff, Matt, Dave Kushner and Scott Weiland form Velvet Revolver.  

2005:  A Guns N Roses box set is released and sells incredibly well.  Slash shows up at an Axl solo gig and sits in for a few songs.  Rumors of a GnR reunion grow.  Axl and Slash announce in the press they have ended their feud.  But Slash rules out a GnR reunion.  Velvet Revolver feat. Slash, Duff, Matt, Dave & Scott Weiland release their debut album and go on tour.  The album is a critical disappointment but sells well.  The tour is plagued by audiences asking "Where's Axl?"  

2006:  Scott Weiland records a solo album.  Axl, Slash, Duff, Gilby and Matt hold a press conference to announce a Guns n Roses summer reunion tour.  The band's first tour since 1993.  Izzy Stradlin refuses to join and Steven Adler is still fighting drug addiction.  The reunited GnR will not record a new album but have not ruled out future tours.  Slash, Duff and Matt plan to continue working with Velvet Revolver.  And Axl hopes to continue his solo career.

[chinesedestruction]

I like the history as it is written in reality personally, but who am I. Maybe I am wrong.

[GFinkN'R]

if he didn't maybe we'd have an album before these Rock in Rio...... :\

[Kilamite]

Nice idea.

Was a good read...and who knows how it might have turned out.

[Bluest ii]

No, I think lawsuits from Slash and Duff (and thus greed) created unrealisitc animosity. That's what blew any hope or chance of a reunion  because it was like spitting in Axl's face. No trust .. no reunion  

[Fenderjaguar213]

That is The Worst "Dream" I've ever read. SCOTT WEILAND PRODUCES SOLO ALBUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN INJECTING????

Nah it werent that bad, but it wasnt really a happy ending, Guns Don't Produce an album together, Chinese Dem= Awesome= Shit Sales where Velvet Revolver= Shit= Sells Like teen spirit, and people are still stuck in the 80's with GNR And stop there. Overall, This is how shitty life could be if Slash didnt sign the contract, Thankyou Slash and Duff!!!!!!!!!

[Dark Globe]

No, I think lawsuits from Slash and Duff (and thus greed) created unrealisitc animosity. That's what blew any hope or chance of a reunion  because it was like spitting in Axl's face. No trust .. no reunion  

Slash and Duff didn't sue Axl until 2004, and their lawsuit would never have happened if Axl didn't spit in their faces by refusing to allow the original recording of WTTJ to be in Black Hawk Down, despite the fact that the song was used by the army in the real-life incident the movie was based on.  But Axl had to continue with a game plan of denying any licensing rights to the old catalog in an effort to promote his new band.  You criticize Duff and Slash for suing Axl, but you ignore the fact that Axl interfered with Duff and Slash's legal rights to license the old catalog.  If Duff and Slash prevented Axl from including an old-era song on a soundtrack, you'd be here saying that Axl should sue them.  Instead of basing your decisions on who is who, you should try looking at who is doing what, and who is right.  Refusing to license the original recordings and instead trying to license re-recordings (and hence deny Duff and Slash certain royalties) is a pretty shitty thing to do in my opinion.

[Bluest ii]

I think shit is shit. They signed, now are back peddling. Since their not 'starving artists' as you've said in other posts  .. why the frick sue Axl  then? More greed, obviously. The name VR sucks. Axl isn't into petty commercialism like them I guess. It has nothing to do with promoting the new GnR imo, if anything he'd want more money to support the new band and obviously he doesn't.

[Hillali2]

The whole point of Axl having the ownership of the name was so that he could have total control over his lifetimes work. I dont think it was ever about money, well, not to Axl anyway.

[mr. moustache]

That is The Worst "Dream" I've ever read. SCOTT WEILAND PRODUCES SOLO ALBUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN INJECTING????

err, Scott HAS a solo album...

[Dark Globe]

I think shit is shit. They signed, now are back peddling. Since their not 'starving artists' as you've said in other posts  .. why the frick sue Axl  then? More greed, obviously. The name VR sucks. Axl isn't into petty commercialism like them I guess. It has nothing to do with promoting the new GnR imo, if anything he'd want more money to support the new band and obviously he doesn't.

Actually, Duff and Slash signed a document stating that if Axl was ever outside the GN'R partnership, he would retain the rights to the GN'R name.  And then, on Dec. 31, 1995, Axl sent Slash and Duff a letter stating that he officially quit the GN'R partnership and planned on continuing on with the GN'R name.  That is what Slash and Duff allege in their lawsuit, and they claim to have both documents to prove it.  So contrary to your post, they haven't signed anything that would relinquish their control of the back catalog.  And they are suing Axl to enforce their legal rights in this regard.  I would too, if my legal rights were being interfered with.  And so would Axl.  It isn't about greed; it is about entitlement.

And you say Axl isn't about commercialism, yet he was the one who toured as "Guns N' Roses" playing 15 of 18 songs from the old-era catalog.  If you don't think that was an attempt to legitimize the new band by using the old band's legacy, then you are blind.

[Dark Globe]

The whole point of Axl having the ownership of the name was so that he could have total control over his lifetimes work. I dont think it was ever about money, well, not to Axl anyway.

Actually, Axl has overship of the name, not the partnership.  They are separate.  The whole point of Axl having the ownership of the name was so that he could never be fired or, should he decide to quit that configuration of the band, he could continue to operate using the brandname he worked so hard to build (despite Duff and Slash's mutual efforts to also build that brandname).  That contract never gave him sole rights to the back catalog, as he even admitted in the whole publishing fiasco.

[Athix]

That is The Worst "Dream" I've ever read. SCOTT WEILAND PRODUCES SOLO ALBUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN INJECTING????

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/scottweiland/albums/album/200715/rid/5943187/  

[Bluest ii]

No, as for the legalities that will prove itself in time. The commercialism is your Black Hawk notation .. read up. Also, Slash and Duff are NOT the originators of the GnR name .. Axl and Izzy are .. and Slash and Duff left GNR .. now they want it back monetarily ?????? Fucked up