Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life
the moment izzy left they were a tribute band. hard to be GUNS N ROSES without tracii GUNS in the band

No they never recorded a lick with Tracii in the band. He was in it very briefly. The real GnR was Axl, Duff, Izzy, Slash and Steven.

so now the real lineup of a band is whoever recorded on the first album/single? without tracii guns the band wouldn't even be called guns n roses. tracii sold his share of the name to axl later in the 80's and owned a larger share of the name than duff or slash ever did.

He forgot to take patent on his name with LA Guns, though. Now, Phil Lewis's LA Guns has the right to use it. Tracii has started a new band, The Tracii Guns League Of Gentlemen.

nope. tracii owns 50% of the name and steve riley owns the other 50% unless he sold part of his share to phil lewis. tracii owned 100% of the name l.a. guns and when he left to form brides of destruction he sold half of the name to steve riley who was the 2nd longest tenured member of the band. thats why there was 2 l.a. guns for like 5 years because tracii still owned 50% of the name

Yep, I meant Steve Riley - my bad. Riley owns everything now, or at least he owns the right to use the name alone.

steve riley is a jackass anyways and not a very good drummer

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life
the moment izzy left they were a tribute band. hard to be GUNS N ROSES without tracii GUNS in the band

No they never recorded a lick with Tracii in the band. He was in it very briefly. The real GnR was Axl, Duff, Izzy, Slash and Steven.

so now the real lineup of a band is whoever recorded on the first album/single? without tracii guns the band wouldn't even be called guns n roses. tracii sold his share of the name to axl later in the 80's and owned a larger share of the name than duff or slash ever did.

He forgot to take patent on his name with LA Guns, though. Now, Phil Lewis's LA Guns has the right to use it. Tracii has started a new band, The Tracii Guns League Of Gentlemen.

nope. tracii owns 50% of the name and steve riley owns the other 50% unless he sold part of his share to phil lewis. tracii owned 100% of the name l.a. guns and when he left to form brides of destruction he sold half of the name to steve riley who was the 2nd longest tenured member of the band. thats why there was 2 l.a. guns for like 5 years because tracii still owned 50% of the name

Yep, I meant Steve Riley - my bad. Riley owns everything now, or at least he owns the right to use the name alone.

steve riley is a jackass anyways and not a very good drummer

Agree, Tracii has a better (and nicer) drummer now; Doni Gray.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life
the moment izzy left they were a tribute band. hard to be GUNS N ROSES without tracii GUNS in the band

No they never recorded a lick with Tracii in the band. He was in it very briefly. The real GnR was Axl, Duff, Izzy, Slash and Steven.

so now the real lineup of a band is whoever recorded on the first album/single? without tracii guns the band wouldn't even be called guns n roses. tracii sold his share of the name to axl later in the 80's and owned a larger share of the name than duff or slash ever did.

IMHO yes, until the band records I don't see it as the real band. Claiming otherwise is semantics .

Never heard Tracii sold his share to Axl and according to all I have read Axl, Duff , Izzy, Slash and Steven were all 20% partners in the band initially. Where did you hear Axl had a larger share?

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life
the moment izzy left they were a tribute band. hard to be GUNS N ROSES without tracii GUNS in the band

No they never recorded a lick with Tracii in the band. He was in it very briefly. The real GnR was Axl, Duff, Izzy, Slash and Steven.

so now the real lineup of a band is whoever recorded on the first album/single? without tracii guns the band wouldn't even be called guns n roses. tracii sold his share of the name to axl later in the 80's and owned a larger share of the name than duff or slash ever did.

IMHO yes, until the band records I don't see it as the real band. Claiming otherwise is semantics .

Never heard Tracii sold his share to Axl and according to all I have read Axl, Duff , Izzy, Slash and Steven were all 20% partners in the band initially. Where did you hear Axl had a larger share?

when the band first got named guns n roses tracii, izzy and axl owned the entire name. when l.a. guns got signed and i think its right before AFD hit it huge tracii sold his 33% to axl which axl then divided among slash, duff and steven. izzy had also sold part of his share to axl prior to leaving the band in 1991 when he sold axl the rest

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life
the moment izzy left they were a tribute ba Ty UVnd. hard to be GUNS N ROSES without tracii GUNS in the band

No they never recorded a lick with Tracii in the band. He was in it very briefly. The real GnR was Axl, Duff, Izzy, Slash and Steven.

so now the real lineup of a band is whoever recorded on the first album/single? without tracii guns the band wouldn't even be called guns n roses. tracii sold his share of the name to axl later in the 80's and owned a larger share of the name than duff or slash ever did.

IMHO yes, until the band records I don't see it as the real band. Claiming otherwise is semantics .

Never heard Tracii sold his share to Axl and according to all I have read Axl, Duff , Izzy, Slash and Steven were all 20% partners in the band initially. Where did you hear Axl had a larger share?

when the band first got named guns n roses tracii, izzy and axl owned the entire name. when l.a. guns got signed and i think its right before AFD hit it huge tracii sold his 33% to axl which axl then divided among slash, duff and steven. izzy had also sold part of his share to axl prior to leaving the band in 1991 when he sold axl the rest

Citation please

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
oldschool

Quote
keefriffhard4life
the moment izzy left they were a tribute ba Ty UVnd. hard to be GUNS N ROSES without tracii GUNS in the band

No they never recorded a lick with Tracii in the band. He was in it very briefly. The real GnR was Axl, Duff, Izzy, Slash and Steven.

so now the real lineup of a band is whoever recorded on the first album/single? without tracii guns the band wouldn't even be called guns n roses. tracii sold his share of the name to axl later in the 80's and owned a larger share of the name than duff or slash ever did.

IMHO yes, until the band records I don't see it as the real band. Claiming otherwise is semantics .

Never heard Tracii sold his share to Axl and according to all I have read Axl, Duff , Izzy, Slash and Steven were all 20% partners in the band initially. Where did you hear Axl had a larger share?

when the band first got named guns n roses tracii, izzy and axl owned the entire name. when l.a. guns got signed and i think its right before AFD hit it huge tracii sold his 33% to axl which axl then divided among slash, duff and steven. izzy had also sold part of his share to axl prior to leaving the band in 1991 when he sold axl the rest

Citation please

it was from a tracii guns interview but i don't have a link for it as its not on youtube

The current 4 Stones are equal partners? That's news to me.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
The current 4 Stones are equal partners? That's news to me.

I know wikipedia is not always the most reliable source but it states Ronnie was made a fully fledged partner in the Stones financial organization in 1990 which to me implies equal member and I have read this in other Stones books as well but I agree that since I can't find any reference to what % he was granted this may not mean he gets equal shares to Charlie, Keef and Mick.

But the point really is the Stones are a band of partners and not one person owning the name with the other members being paid employees like Axl's current band is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-18 16:30 by oldschool.

No need to be too formal here. The "original" setting is usually the "classic" one. In the case of Guns N' Roses, it's without a doubt Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff and Steven. Before that they weren't really Guns N' Roses as they were known to be. You basically got the same with the Stones; the "original" setting is the one with Charlie and Brian. Deep Purple is different -- in that case the second incarnation (Mk 2) of the group is by far the most "classic" and popular, but you can still not call that one the "original", because that was obviously Mk 1, which recorded three albums. It's all pre school logic.

why is this allowed to be a topic on this board?

Quote
oldschool

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
The current 4 Stones are equal partners? That's news to me.

I know wikipedia is not always the most reliable source but it states Ronnie was made a fully fledged partner in the Stones financial organization in 1990 which to me implies equal member and I have read this in other Stones books as well but I agree that since I can't find any reference to what % he was granted this may not mean he gets equal shares to Charlie, Keef and Mick.

But the point really is the Stones are a band of partners and not one person owning the name with the other members being paid employees like Axl's current band is.

Ah. That makes more sense. Ronnie being a equal partner in theory is still better than Axl'N'Roses.

Prediction: This residency never makes it past night two!

It's one thing to be the rebellious "bad boy(s) of rock n roll", but if you don't do the gig, you ain't sh*t!

No respect for this Ass Clown!