If Melissa is a band member, wasn't Teddy ZigZag a band member too?

Title says it all, really.

I guess one could argue that back in 1991/1992 GN'R was recognized as 5 guys and hence the additional backup singers, keyboard player and horn section was just touring musicians and not part of the band, per se. Whereas today, Melissa replaced Pitman who was a band member (had writing credits and was featured on CD and had played with the band for a long time), and hence she is a proper band member. Additionally, GN'R has gone from being a band partly defined by the members to today being more of Axl and whoever he invites to come along. So while we would object to considering Teddy a band member back in 1991, we don't really have much problems with it today with Melissa, because the whole concept of GN'R being those five guys have been diluted to a place where it has no meaning anymore. But objectively, there is little difference between what Teddy and Melissa do, they are both only touring musicians playing second keyboard (so far).

I think that already in 1992, after Izzy left, GnR had ceased to be a band of "5 guys," in Axl's mind at least.
This quote is very telling for me:

DEL: Is [Gilby] a "member" of Guns N' Roses?

AXL: This "member" thing is quite interesting, I read in an interview where Matt [Sorum, drummer] said that if he didn't get made a member, he wasn't going to be in Guns N' Roses. The truth of the matter is, Matt's a member of GN'R, but it doesn't really mean anything. It's kind of like a clubhouse/gang thing. We're all members of this gang. What it boils down to is, whose yard is the tree house in? Matt's a member of GN'R, and his opinions are taken into consideration. As far as that's concerned, Gilby is a member too, Dizzy is a member of the band. With all the background singers, horn players, keyboardists - we look at it like we're all Guns N' Roses. But the bottom line is, the business is basically run by Slash and myself. Then we run whatever it is we're discussing by Duff and see if he's cool with it. Guns N' Roses is basically Slash, Duff, Doug Goldstein and myself, but there's a lot of other people involved that are a part of our lives and a part of our family.

DEL: Do you think Matt's gonna be pissed when he reads this?

AXL: It would be nice if he wasn't. I love everybody in this band. It's kicking ass and feels really warm and really cool onstage. At this point it's the 12 of us that get onstage and f?!king go all out.

https://tinyurl.com/yavprxeg

What he seemingly says here is that, as he saw it, there was a clear distinction between partners/owners/"actual" members (Axl, Slash, Duff) and the "other" members, which included Matt, Gilby, Dizzy as well as Teddy, the backup singers and the horn players.
So, basically, he put Matt, Gilby and Dizzy in the same category (as far as "membership" goes) as Teddy. The difference is, I guess, that the drummer and the second guitarist were indispensable outside the tour, whereas the rest were touring members and/or just "added" something.

I think this is, more or less, how it works today.

Much as I view Teddy ZigZag as a member of the old "live band", Melissa is a member of the "live band" now. We'll have to wait and see if she'll contribute anything to a new album (knowing how it went with CD, she will be there and create some noises)...

Soulmonster wrote:Title says it all, really.

I guess one could argue that back in 1991/1992 GN'R was recognized as 5 guys and hence the additional backup singers, keyboard player and horn section was just touring musicians and not part of the band, per se. Whereas today, Melissa replaced Pitman who was a band member (had writing credits and was featured on CD and had played with the band for a long time), and hence she is a proper band member. Additionally, GN'R has gone from being a band partly defined by the members to today being more of Axl and whoever he invites to come along. So while we would object to considering Teddy a band member back in 1991, we don't really have much problems with it today with Melissa, because the whole concept of GN'R being those five guys have been diluted to a place where it has no meaning anymore. But objectively, there is little difference between what Teddy and Melissa do, they are both only touring musicians playing second keyboard (so far).  

I strongly disagree with the definitions of who is and who is not a band member and how Guns n' Roses is viewed.

Viewed where? In the internet GN'R forums? In the real world?

Viewed by whom? By Axl Rose fans? By Chinese Democracy fans? Or by (mostly casual, i can give you that) rock fans from the real world who (unlike us, GN'R forum people) do not obsess on GN'R on their daily lives?

Based on how my friends from the real world outside of Guns n' Roses internet forums see GNR, i can say that:

1) Pretty much anyone was a kid when GN'R existed and who grew up with Guns n' Roses will always recognize Guns n' Roses as Axl, Izzy, Slash, Steven and Duff. Seriously, this is not even a question. Most casual fans know that everyone left at some point and that Axl got alone and hired new "band members" and nobody knows who these people are and nobody cares.

2) Axl's band (2001-2014) is viewed as the ultimate joke in the real world. Nobody outside hardcore Chinese Democracy fans see Axl's band as "Guns n' Roses", everybody knows that it was just Axl with some musicians that nobody cared before Axl hired them and that nobody cares after Axl fired them.

Having said that, I strongly disagree that Chris Pittman was ever a GN'R member. This is an arbitrary and false statement. He was, in fact, a band member of another band, the Axl Rose led and owned band that decided to present itself to the world as Guns n' Roses from 2001-2014 for purely business/practical reasons and did so until it stop working (i.e. until people were not buying it anymore, in every sense of the world "buy" that you can think of)

I also strongly disagree that "the whole concept of GN'R being those five guys have been diluted to a place where it has no meaning anymore"

This is utterly absurd and false.

Whatever is left of Guns n' Roses today -- this Axl-Slash-Duff band that presents itself as Guns n' Roses and that attracted millions of people on the most lucrative tour in memory -- is nothing but a cheap, low re-enactment/imitation of the Axl-Izzy-Slash-Steven-Duff Guns n' Roses.

This band tries really bad (and fails miserably) to emulate the spirit, the music and the power of Guns n' Roses.

And it only exists because of the spirit, the songs and the image of Axl-Izzy-Slash-Steven-Duff Guns n' Roses.

Which is far from diluted.

On the contrary.

ludurigan wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:Title says it all, really.

I guess one could argue that back in 1991/1992 GN'R was recognized as 5 guys and hence the additional backup singers, keyboard player and horn section was just touring musicians and not part of the band, per se. Whereas today, Melissa replaced Pitman who was a band member (had writing credits and was featured on CD and had played with the band for a long time), and hence she is a proper band member. Additionally, GN'R has gone from being a band partly defined by the members to today being more of Axl and whoever he invites to come along. So while we would object to considering Teddy a band member back in 1991, we don't really have much problems with it today with Melissa, because the whole concept of GN'R being those five guys have been diluted to a place where it has no meaning anymore. But objectively, there is little difference between what Teddy and Melissa do, they are both only touring musicians playing second keyboard (so far).  

I strongly disagree with the definitions of who is and who is not a band member and how Guns n' Roses is viewed.

Viewed where? In the internet GN'R forums? In the real world?

Viewed by whom? By Axl Rose fans? By Chinese Democracy fans? Or by (mostly casual, i can give you that) rock fans from the real world who (unlike us, GN'R forum people) do not obsess on GN'R on their daily lives?

Based on how my friends from the real world outside of Guns n' Roses internet forums see GNR, i can say that:

1) Pretty much anyone was a kid when GN'R existed and who grew up with Guns n' Roses will always recognize Guns n' Roses as Axl, Izzy, Slash, Steven and Duff. Seriously, this is not even a question. Most casual fans know that everyone left at some point and that Axl got alone and hired new "band members" and nobody knows who these people are and nobody cares.

2) Axl's band (2001-2014) is viewed as the ultimate joke in the real world. Nobody outside hardcore Chinese Democracy fans see Axl's band as "Guns n' Roses", everybody knows that it was just Axl with some musicians that nobody cared before Axl hired them and that nobody cares after Axl fired them.

Having said that, I strongly disagree that Chris Pittman was ever a GN'R member. This is an arbitrary and false statement. He was, in fact, a band member of another band, the Axl Rose led and owned band that decided to present itself to the world as Guns n' Roses from 2001-2014 for purely business/practical reasons and did so until it stop working (i.e. until people were not buying it anymore, in every sense of the world "buy" that you can think of)

I also strongly disagree that "the whole concept of GN'R being those five guys have been diluted to a place where it has no meaning anymore"

This is utterly absurd and false.

Whatever is left of Guns n' Roses today -- this Axl-Slash-Duff band that presents itself as Guns n' Roses and that attracted millions of people on the most lucrative tour in memory -- is nothing but a cheap, low re-enactment/imitation of the Axl-Izzy-Slash-Steven-Duff Guns n' Roses.

This band tries really bad (and fails miserably) to emulate the spirit, the music and the power of Guns n' Roses.

And it only exists because of the spirit, the songs and the image of Axl-Izzy-Slash-Steven-Duff Guns n' Roses.

Which is far from diluted.

On the contrary.

If you don't accept any other lineups than the AFD lineup as "Guns N' Roses" then this discussion wasn't really for you, was it?

And if you are going to use this forum as a battle ground for your endless fight against any other version of the band than the one you prefer, and inject this opinion anywhere you can, then you will find I will quickly lose my patience with it.

Soulmonster wrote:

ludurigan wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:Title says it all, really.

I guess one could argue that back in 1991/1992 GN'R was recognized as 5 guys and hence the additional backup singers, keyboard player and horn section was just touring musicians and not part of the band, per se. Whereas today, Melissa replaced Pitman who was a band member (had writing credits and was featured on CD and had played with the band for a long time), and hence she is a proper band member. Additionally, GN'R has gone from being a band partly defined by the members to today being more of Axl and whoever he invites to come along. So while we would object to considering Teddy a band member back in 1991, we don't really have much problems with it today with Melissa, because the whole concept of GN'R being those five guys have been diluted to a place where it has no meaning anymore. But objectively, there is little difference between what Teddy and Melissa do, they are both only touring musicians playing second keyboard (so far).  

I strongly disagree with the definitions of who is and who is not a band member and how Guns n' Roses is viewed.

Viewed where? In the internet GN'R forums? In the real world?

Viewed by whom? By Axl Rose fans? By Chinese Democracy fans? Or by (mostly casual, i can give you that) rock fans from the real world who (unlike us, GN'R forum people) do not obsess on GN'R on their daily lives?

Based on how my friends from the real world outside of Guns n' Roses internet forums see GNR, i can say that:

1) Pretty much anyone was a kid when GN'R existed and who grew up with Guns n' Roses will always recognize Guns n' Roses as Axl, Izzy, Slash, Steven and Duff. Seriously, this is not even a question. Most casual fans know that everyone left at some point and that Axl got alone and hired new "band members" and nobody knows who these people are and nobody cares.

2) Axl's band (2001-2014) is viewed as the ultimate joke in the real world. Nobody outside hardcore Chinese Democracy fans see Axl's band as "Guns n' Roses", everybody knows that it was just Axl with some musicians that nobody cared before Axl hired them and that nobody cares after Axl fired them.

Having said that, I strongly disagree that Chris Pittman was ever a GN'R member. This is an arbitrary and false statement. He was, in fact, a band member of another band, the Axl Rose led and owned band that decided to present itself to the world as Guns n' Roses from 2001-2014 for purely business/practical reasons and did so until it stop working (i.e. until people were not buying it anymore, in every sense of the world "buy" that you can think of)

I also strongly disagree that "the whole concept of GN'R being those five guys have been diluted to a place where it has no meaning anymore"

This is utterly absurd and false.

Whatever is left of Guns n' Roses today -- this Axl-Slash-Duff band that presents itself as Guns n' Roses and that attracted millions of people on the most lucrative tour in memory -- is nothing but a cheap, low re-enactment/imitation of the Axl-Izzy-Slash-Steven-Duff Guns n' Roses.

This band tries really bad (and fails miserably) to emulate the spirit, the music and the power of Guns n' Roses.

And it only exists because of the spirit, the songs and the image of Axl-Izzy-Slash-Steven-Duff Guns n' Roses.

Which is far from diluted.

On the contrary.

If you don't accept any other lineups than the AFD lineup as "Guns N' Roses" then this discussion wasn't really for you, was it?

And if you are going to use this forum as a battle ground for your endless fight against any other version of the band than the one you prefer, and inject this opinion anywhere you can, then you will find I will quickly lose my patience with it.

Hmm. Really?

JustanUrchin wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:If you don't accept any other lineups than the AFD lineup as "Guns N' Roses" then this discussion wasn't really for you, was it?

And if you are going to use this forum as a battle ground for your endless fight against any other version of the band than the one you prefer, and inject this opinion anywhere you can, then you will find I will quickly lose my patience with it.

Hmm.  Really?

Yes.

Can't say that I know either of you from a can of paint.  Was having a look around beyond the @FromHell thread, biding time on further developments while getting a feel for the sitch on this forum.  The other dude in the quote is on solid footing, just not necessarily expressing it effectively.  His less tangential post is this:  

1.  Which original, and only partners--'members'--of the band are in the Rock n' Roll HOF?:

2.  What music is the catalyst for this record-breaking reunion of the three original partners' tour?; and

3.  Argue with those facts.

I'd add, necessarily, that anyone not named S/D/A is a for-hire musician much as a Starbucks franchisee hires at-will employees.  Fairly confident that basic legal fact is explained in the @FromHell thread.  And I know it's been impactful on other forums as I routinely receive captures summarizing my posts made two and three years back, including this week in a Duff and Izzy thread.

JustanUrchin wrote:Can't say that I know either of you from a can of paint.  Was having a look around beyond the @FromHell thread, biding time on further developments while getting a feel for the sitch on this forum.  The other dude in the quote is on solid footing, just not necessarily expressing it effectively.  His less tangential post is this:  

1.  Which original, and only partners--'members'--of the band are in the Rock n' Roll HOF?:

2.  What music is the catalyst for this record-breaking reunion of the three original partners' tour?; and

3.  Argue with those facts.

I'd add, necessarily, that anyone not named S/D/A is a for-hire musician much as a Starbucks franchisee hires at-will employees.  Fairly confident that basic legal fact is explained in the @FromHell thread.  And I know it's been impactful on other forums as I routinely receive captures summarizing my posts made two and three years back, including this week in a Duff and Izzy thread.

1. The HOF inclusion is based on the merits of the classical lineups of GN'R and hence has little impact on what we today should consider "band members". More explicitly, the fact that Melissa wasn't included in the HOF doesn't prevent her from being a band member today (especially since the HOF went down before she started playing in the band.

2. In my opinion irrelevant since band membership is granted based on credentials but on whether you simply play with a band.

As for your latter point, I don't know if the form of compensation (e.g. being a partner who receives publishing rights or a hired musician on a salary) influences whether you are a "band member" or not. I tend to look at this more simply: If you play with a band you are in that band, and that makes you a band member. So in that sense, both Teddy and Melissa and the horn players etc were band members. Although some of these clearly just drafted in for specific tours.

Soulmonster wrote:

JustanUrchin wrote:Can't say that I know either of you from a can of paint.  Was having a look around beyond the @FromHell thread, biding time on further developments while getting a feel for the sitch on this forum.  The other dude in the quote is on solid footing, just not necessarily expressing it effectively.  His less tangential post is this:  

1.  Which original, and only partners--'members'--of the band are in the Rock n' Roll HOF?:

2.  What music is the catalyst for this record-breaking reunion of the three original partners' tour?; and

3.  Argue with those facts.

I'd add, necessarily, that anyone not named S/D/A is a for-hire musician much as a Starbucks franchisee hires at-will employees.  Fairly confident that basic legal fact is explained in the @FromHell thread.  And I know it's been impactful on other forums as I routinely receive captures summarizing my posts made two and three years back, including this week in a Duff and Izzy thread.

1. The HOF inclusion is based on the merits of the classical lineups of GN'R and hence has little impact on what we today should consider "band members". More explicitly, the fact that Melissa wasn't included in the HOF doesn't prevent her from being a band member today (especially since the HOF went down before she started playing in the band.

2. In my opinion irrelevant since band membership is granted based on credentials but on whether you simply play with a band.

As for your latter point, I don't know if the form of compensation (e.g. being a partner who receives publishing rights or a hired musician on a salary) influences whether you are a "band member" or not. I tend to look at this more simply: If you play with a band you are in that band, and that makes you a band member. So in that sense, both Teddy and Melissa and the horn players etc were band members. Although some of these clearly just drafted in for specific tours.

Nothing for nothing, but this notification system is suspect.  The notification reads that @soulmonster "tagged [me] in [this] topic."  I fail to see where you tagged me in this topic.

If you had a half-way expectation that I was gonna sort this nearly incomprehensible mess, I ain't.  I wouldn't even know how to frame such a reply.

My brother from another mother said his piece, and there's nothing for me to add that'd clarify those basic facts or refute your reply, which ain't even in the same ballpark as the facts that he stated.

Just to clarify - or remind - a fact here:

The HOF induction (which I consider irrelevant to the topic of the thread) included the members who recorded the albums Appetite for Destruction, Lies and Use Your Illusion = the five original partners/members plus the later hired members Matt Sorum and Dizzy Reed (who is still in the band, btw).

FromHell wrote:

Soulmonster wrote:

JustanUrchin wrote:Can't say that I know either of you from a can of paint.  Was having a look around beyond the @FromHell thread, biding time on further developments while getting a feel for the sitch on this forum.  The other dude in the quote is on solid footing, just not necessarily expressing it effectively.  His less tangential post is this:  

1.  Which original, and only partners--'members'--of the band are in the Rock n' Roll HOF?:

2.  What music is the catalyst for this record-breaking reunion of the three original partners' tour?; and

3.  Argue with those facts.

I'd add, necessarily, that anyone not named S/D/A is a for-hire musician much as a Starbucks franchisee hires at-will employees.  Fairly confident that basic legal fact is explained in the @FromHell thread.  And I know it's been impactful on other forums as I routinely receive captures summarizing my posts made two and three years back, including this week in a Duff and Izzy thread.

1. The HOF inclusion is based on the merits of the classical lineups of GN'R and hence has little impact on what we today should consider "band members". More explicitly, the fact that Melissa wasn't included in the HOF doesn't prevent her from being a band member today (especially since the HOF went down before she started playing in the band.

2. In my opinion irrelevant since band membership is granted based on credentials but on whether you simply play with a band.

As for your latter point, I don't know if the form of compensation (e.g. being a partner who receives publishing rights or a hired musician on a salary) influences whether you are a "band member" or not. I tend to look at this more simply: If you play with a band you are in that band, and that makes you a band member. So in that sense, both Teddy and Melissa and the horn players etc were band members. Although some of these clearly just drafted in for specific tours.

Nothing for nothing, but this notification system is suspect.  The notification reads that @soulmonster "tagged [me] in [this] topic."  I fail to see where you tagged me in this topic.

Because I included the quote where you had been tagged.

Soulmonster wrote:

JustanUrchin wrote:Can't say that I know either of you from a can of paint.  Was having a look around beyond the @FromHell thread, biding time on further developments while getting a feel for the sitch on this forum.  The other dude in the quote is on solid footing, just not necessarily expressing it effectively.  His less tangential post is this:  

1.  Which original, and only partners--'members'--of the band are in the Rock n' Roll HOF?:

2.  What music is the catalyst for this record-breaking reunion of the three original partners' tour?; and

3.  Argue with those facts.

I'd add, necessarily, that anyone not named S/D/A is a for-hire musician much as a Starbucks franchisee hires at-will employees.  Fairly confident that basic legal fact is explained in the @FromHell thread.  And I know it's been impactful on other forums as I routinely receive captures summarizing my posts made two and three years back, including this week in a Duff and Izzy thread.

1. The HOF inclusion is based on the merits of the classical lineups of GN'R and hence has little impact on what we today should consider "band members". More explicitly, the fact that Melissa wasn't included in the HOF doesn't prevent her from being a band member today (especially since the HOF went down before she started playing in the band.

2. In my opinion irrelevant since band membership is granted based on credentials but on whether you simply play with a band.

As for your latter point, I don't know if the form of compensation (e.g. being a partner who receives publishing rights or a hired musician on a salary) influences whether you are a "band member" or not. I tend to look at this more simply: If you play with a band you are in that band, and that makes you a band member. So in that sense, both Teddy and Melissa and the horn players etc were band members. Although some of these clearly just drafted in for specific tours.

Sensitive in here--which was the basis of my initial comment in this thread.  It tends to silence speech.  The free variety, no?  And interest.

Regarding my second reply post, the numbered paragraphs were a more focused restatement of what I read that gentleman's post to convey as I was having a look-see at recent threads to get the vibe of this forum.

Conceptually seems to be where the problem lies.  Your reply is confused.  A "band," in this usage, is a high school marching band, some kids playing a kegger, Section-8ers "rapping" to a mixtape while gyrating on the handbars during the morning commute like male strippers then demanding cash handouts and the like.  The five original partners were likewise a band prior to registering as a General Partnership.  There, then, can be no "members."  Anyone not a partner is either an at-will employee--or for-hire musician for a term, in this case, if you prefer--a third party, an agent of the partners and the like.  

An employee signs, and labors under, various employment-related docs, as required by statute, irrespective of the cutesy, public-facing marketing term--associate, team member, crew, staff and similar.

This "band" is not a "band" with "members."  Using Starbucks frachisees, as I referenced earlier, the franchisor is a corporation with publicly-traded stock.  Its employees are employees, not publicly-facing "baristas" and so forth.  Corps, statutorily, have a Board.  Those sitting on the Board are Members.  Not to oversimplify, but similarly, this "band" is a registered GP biz org.  No GP has "members."

From a pragmatic perspective, the music made this biz.  Those that wrote and performed the music selling this tour, and whose literal faces of typed drawings are promoting it, are what drive this lucrative money-making machine.  Those that created, recorded it and toured it are in the Rock HOF.  This occurred after Axl began voting with the other two partners and nixed his solo band.

The Brooklyn thread details this.  And much more.  It is, in my estimation, a resource that cannot be found elsewhere, either on the supposed "expert, hardcore" forums or in media generally, regardless of whether one finds its author agreeable or likable.  And while it's not his or mine or the third individual who flies under the radar's main priority, posts of this type are an effective vehicle beyond what may be, or likely is, apparent.

JustanUrchin wrote:Sensitive in here--which was the basis of my initial comment in this thread.  It tends to silence speech.  The free variety, no?  And interest.

Regarding my second reply post, the numbered paragraphs were a more focused restatement of what I read that gentleman's post to convey as I was having a look-see at recent threads to get the vibe of this forum.

Conceptually seems to be where the problem lies.  Your reply is confused.  A "band," in this usage, is a high school marching band, some kids playing a kegger, Section-8ers "rapping" to a mixtape while gyrating on the handbars during the morning commute like male strippers then demanding cash handouts and the like.  The five original partners were likewise a band prior to registering as a General Partnership.  There, then, can be no "members."

Of course there can. Just like there are members of marching bands. Or members of unsigned rap groups. And like Tracii was a member of GN'R before the band got signed.

JustanUrchin wrote:Anyone not a partner is either an at-will employee--or for-hire musician for a term, in this case

And they are all members of the band since they play together.

JustanUrchin wrote:This "band" is not a "band" with "members."

I disagree and I look forward to hearing you try to argue both why it isn't a band and why it hasn't got members

JustanUrchin wrote:Using Starbucks frachisees, as I referenced earlier, the franchisor is a corporation with publicly-traded stock.  Its employees are employees, not publicly-facing "baristas" and so forth.  Corps, statutorily, have a Board.  Those sitting on the Board are Members.  Not to oversimplify, but similarly, this "band" is a registered GP biz org.  No GP has "members."

Irrelevant. We are talking about music groups here, bands, and a "band member" is any person playing in a band. It is that simple. It doesn't have to be formalized in anyway, a member is simply someone who is part of a group.

What is more interesting with GN'R, though, is to what extent a member of the band's touring lineup is also meant to be part of the writing team. Are they just there as temporary, salarized members serving a tour function or will they also write and record on any future releases? If so, some members become less important in the history of GN'R, like Tracy and Roberta and Dj Ashba and possibly Melissa (we will have to wait and see, I suppose).

JustanUrchin wrote:From a pragmatic perspective, the music made this biz.  Those that wrote and performed the music selling this tour, and whose literal faces of typed drawings are promoting it, are what drive this lucrative money-making machine.  Those that created, recorded it and toured it are in the Rock HOF.  This occurred after Axl began voting with the other two partners and nixed his solo band.

Irrelevant as to who are members of the band.

Blackstar wrote:Just to clarify - or remind - a fact here:

The HOF induction (which I consider irrelevant to the topic of the thread) included the members who recorded the albums Appetite for Destruction, Lies and Use Your Illusion = the five original partners/members plus the later hired members Matt Sorum and Dizzy Reed (who is still in the band, btw).

This domain is dedicated to, and advertises against, discussion of a General Partnership registered and marked, both trade and service, as GUNS N ROSES.

I'm aware, having read the Brooklyn thread, that you are out of your element but nonetheless choose to insert yourself into discussion as a contrarian.

As you are aware, you participated in a piling-on of me on another forum some two years ago. That matter, for other purposes, it seems to me, was likewise referenced in the Brooklyn thread from captures provided and produced by me. It does not, however, advance the discussion in the present thread for me to detail those unflattering captures. And it is of no consequence to what is and has been ongoing side work of a calculated nature. Meanwhile, each and every reader is presented opportunities to learn about this biz org and take from it what they may, both alarming and refreshing.

The theme—or topic, as you state—of this particular thread in which I posted questions whether for-hire for a term musicians are “band members” of this GP. The originating, and further reply posts, conclude that these for-hire for a term employees are “band members."

The nature of my involvement in this “topic” squarely rebuts the fictional presumption that there are “members” in a General Partnership so that any and all readers benefit. Knowledge and learning are our friends.

You have likewise, intentionally or otherwise, mischaracterized my factual statement about this GPs original partners' inclusion in the Rock HOF. The affected statement that you failed to quote is as follows:

"1. Which original, and only partners--'members'--of the band are in the Rock n' Roll HOF?"

JustanUrchin wrote:This domain is dedicated to, and advertises against, discussion of a General Partnership registered and marked, both trade and service, as GUNS N ROSES.

"This domain"? You are talking about the internet domain a-4-d.com? Well, it is not dedicated to anything and I speak with some authority when I say that neither this forum (Appetite for Discussion) is dedicated to any General Partnerships, including whatever partnership any present or former member of GN'R may have entered. This forum is dedicated to the music group Guns N' Roses, which exists outside of any business entities, including when it was formed in late 1984 and well into the future when any partnerships are long dissolved.

JustanUrchin wrote:I'm aware, having read the Brooklyn thread, that you are out of your element but nonetheless choose to insert yourself into discussion as a contrarian.

I am not particularly happy about new members coming here and referring to other members being "our of [their] element" and so on. I encourage discussion and disagreement is par for the course, but be respectful and argue your case or this will be another one of, what I assume, your many ex-forums.

JustanUrchin wrote:As you are aware, you participated in a piling-on of me on another forum some two years ago.  That matter, for other purposes, it seems to me, was likewise referenced in the Brooklyn thread from captures provided and produced by me.  It does not, however, advance the discussion in the present thread for me to detail those unflattering captures.

Then why bring it up at all?

JustanUrchin wrote:And it is of no consequence to what is and has been ongoing side work of a calculated nature.  Meanwhile, each and every reader is presented opportunities to learn about this biz org and take from it what they may, both alarming and refreshing.

This thread isn't about any business organizations.

JustanUrchin wrote:The theme—or topic, as you state—of this particular thread in which I posted questions whether for-hire for a term musicians are “band members” of this GP.

No, not at all. This thread is about the band Guns N' Roses, not whatever partnerships GN'R band members may have entered.

JustanUrchin wrote:The originating, and further reply posts, conclude that these for-hire for a term employees are “band members."

The nature of my involvement in this “topic” squarely rebuts the fictional presumption that there are “members” in a General Partnership so that any and all readers benefit.  Knowledge and learning are our friends.

How about reading comprehension? Is that an enemy of yours?

This thread isn't about any partnerships GN'R band members may have entered, but about the musical group Guns N' Roses, which exists beyond any businesses.

I can't help but agree with Soulmonster here - please keep the discussion about the "General Partnership" in the topic which FromHell has created for that purpose (and in which many things are detailed)...

JustanUrchin wrote:You have likewise, intentionally or otherwise, mischaracterized my factual statement about this GPs original partners' inclusion in the Rock HOF.  The affected statement that you failed to quote is as follows:  

"1.  Which original, and only partners--'members'--of the band are in the Rock n' Roll HOF?"

You chose to make your statement in the form of a question. The factual answer to this question is that the part in bold is not correct, as both partner members and other members were inducted.

If it was something else that you wanted to state, why don't you answer your own question and explain your statement - and please try to do it in a straightforward and comprehensible manner.

JustanUrchin wrote:
I'm aware, having read the Brooklyn thread, that you are out of your element but nonetheless choose to insert yourself into discussion as a contrarian.

As you are aware, you participated in a piling-on of me on another forum some two years ago.  That matter, for other purposes, it seems to me, was likewise referenced in the Brooklyn thread from captures provided and produced by me.  It does not, however, advance the discussion in the present thread for me to detail those unflattering captures.

 
You've been bringing up that post of mine on another forum, "threatening" to post screenshots of it, as if it's something that I am - or should be - embarrassed about. Well, no; I think it was a good and on-point post, and I wouldn't have a problem to link to it myself for everyone to read.

The nature of a-4-d is different, though, and so is my purpose of being here. This forum is more a GNR database than a typical active "discussion" forum  (and this is why it's been requested that the GP related posts stay within the "Brooklyn" thread).

Being such, a-4-d doesn't compete with other forums in any way, so anyone's history (mine included) with other forums is not of interest. More so when the references to other forums contain attacks towards their admins and their members - either directly or using cryptic names and word plays. We don't want this "forum drama" here, a rule that you don't seem to get or respect (take "you" as in plural form, if there's actually two - or three? - of you). So please respect it from now on - and this includes the "Brooklyn" thread, too.

Opinions on the band are, of course, welcomed, as long as they're substantiated, as well as presented in a way that makes them comprehensible by the average reader, and not as cryptic messages for "selected pairs of eyes" whatever that means. Opinions on band members, current or former, and their status are also allowed, provided that they don't contain ad hominem attacks towards them. Please respect this rule too, here and in the "Brooklyn" thread.

The sole, fixed, intelligible point that I understood was that you indeed piled-on--in a favorable grab for other purposes--two years back and have a link at the ready.

Post it.

You insert yourself only to be caught in the wash. Nothinge here or in the sweep of the larger, actual context has anything to do with you. Or this site. It is a conduit for a wider matter, and those reading these two threads get unfiltered, factual and insightful content that cannot be found elsewhere. And, as you note, a repository of published articles. It's a win-win and win.

Regarding your assumptions, D.C., Brooklyn and Pennsylvania are three distinct locales. Each is eyes-on IP accessible, intentionally.

On-theme--or on-topic, if you prefer--you attributed an inaccurate statement to me, and failed to address the actual quoted language in my prior post.

Blackstar wrote:
The nature of a-4-d is different, though, and so is my purpose of being here. This forum is more a GNR database than a typical active "discussion" forum  (and this is why it's been requested that the GP related posts stay within the "Brooklyn" thread).

Even in any other forum, I'd have asked that. Simply because it is a little off-topic here and the other topic is there for these questions...

As for the "Melissa" topic: she is (often) painted as a band member, appearing in photos on the official site, being tagged as GNR member etc. (Which wasn't so much the case with Eddie ZigZag - of course I'm aware there wasn't anything like an "official website" back then.)
I said it before, we'll have to wait and see if or how much she'll contribute to any new stuff (my guess is: not much, as most of it will have to come from Slash, Duff n' Axl)!

Looking back on the "Chinese Democracy" years: it seems like Axl always made any "newcomers" to "band members" - for him (I guess) it was like "welcoming them to the family" (no matter if they had to sign a contract or not). Nowadays this "tradition" has been kept up (it seems). Still, I'm certain that most of the fans are aware that "the original trio" is the nucleus of the band and the others are like "extras" (no disrespect to them - they are good players, otherwise they wouldn't be there).

JustanUrchin wrote:Was having a look around beyond the [author of the "Brooklyn"] thread, biding time on further developments while getting a feel for the sitch on this forum.

Prior to returning to the curious commentary in the present thread,  and as time permits, let us embark to the "Brooklyn" thread with the above quote, shall we?

FromHell/JustAnUrchin what a drag your posts are to read! And attacking Blackstar shouldn’t be tolerated, she is a much appreciated member of the fan community, unlike you.

Misfit79 wrote:FromHell/JustAnUrchin what a drag your posts are to read! And attacking Blackstar shouldn’t be tolerated, she is a much appreciated member of the fan community, unlike you.

Allow me to be the first to welcome you to the neighborhood, won't you?

You'd approach me--a stranger--on the streets in the same manner? I go about my business on and near 14th and L NW. Do let me know when you're in the area. I'd be pleased to make your acquaintance.

Regarding your baseless assertion about me "attack[ing]" another poster, kindly quote where that occurred. My posting history here and elsewhere is brief, but particularly here. A brief threading shows that, once again, the poster whom you identify places her nose in the door of her own volition. My replies to her--or anyone's--unsolicited interference are just that: watch the door.

I am honored, though, that you confuse my identity. That's quite the point re privacy. Part, anyhow. The superficial part.

On-theme, I eagerly await your substantive counter to my rebuttal re "band members."

JustanUrchin wrote:

Misfit79 wrote:FromHell/JustAnUrchin what a drag your posts are to read! And attacking Blackstar shouldn’t be tolerated, she is a much appreciated member of the fan community, unlike you.

Allow me to be the first to welcome you to the neighborhood, won't you?

You'd approach me--a stranger--on the streets in the same manner?  I go about my business on and near 14th and L NW.  Do let me know when you're in the area. I'd be pleased to make your acquaintance.

Regarding your baseless assertion about me "attack[ing]" another poster, kindly quote where that occurred.  My posting history here and elsewhere is brief, but particularly here.  A brief threading shows that, once again, the poster whom you identify places her nose in the door of her own volition.  My replies to her--or anyone's--unsolicited interference are just that:  watch the door.

I am honored, though, that you confuse my identity.  That's quite the point re privacy.  Part, anyhow.  The superficial part.

On-theme, I eagerly await your substantive counter to my rebuttal re "band members."

Which "neighborhood" and which "door" is that? Of this site? This thread? In case you have misunderstood, this is not "your" house and neighborhood  - it's definitely less "yours" than of @misfit79 you "welcomed" in your usual arrogant style.

Or maybe you mean the door of the "truth" that you - also - so arrogantly "own"?

You're abusing more and more the hospitality this site  has - much too kindly - offered you and your "buddy" (I assume the distinct locales are so far from each other that the time difference doesn't allow you two to log in and post simultaneously from these specific distinct locales and -non VPN- IPs).

I have a feeling that this abuse might be ended soon - hopefully by you.

Hi FromHell/JustAnUrchin, thanks for the welcome, although I’ve posted here before quite a few times actually . I live in the UK and no plans to travel your way any time soon, shame. I would tell you to your face that your posts are a drag to read and threatening a member of this forum that you’re going to post a post they made two years ago to try and embarrass them is quite a miserable thing to do. It makes you sound like a horrible internet bully.

Misfit79 wrote:Hi FromHell/JustAnUrchin, thanks for the welcome, although I’ve posted here before quite a few times actually . I live in the UK and no plans to travel your way any time soon, shame. I would tell you to your face that your posts are a drag to read and threatening a member of this forum that you’re going to post a post they made two years ago to try and embarrass them is quite a miserable thing to do. It makes you sound like a horrible internet bully.

The drama.

Moving the goalposts is convenient. Not only did you fail to quote an "attack," or more precisely you attributed it to the wrong individual as a simple quote would reveal, you proceed to attribute "threats." I indeed offered the aggressor to link her prior aggressive posts after she remarked about her pride in piling on in violation of TOS elsewhere.

If you want to get froggy with FromHell, then tag him.

And, unsurprisingly, you've failed to address the actual content of this thread or my--or any other's--participation in it.

It is no wonder, broadly speaking, why the first gentlemen who replied to this thread hasn't returned.

The for-hire musicians, presently or at any point subsequent to Izzy selling his stake, are employed by the GP. The GP consists of Slash, Duff and the singer. The theme of this thread evades you--it is posited in the title of the thread.

Blackstar wrote:

JustanUrchin wrote:

Misfit79 wrote:FromHell/JustAnUrchin what a drag your posts are to read! And attacking Blackstar shouldn’t be tolerated, she is a much appreciated member of the fan community, unlike you.

Allow me to be the first to welcome you to the neighborhood, won't you?

You'd approach me--a stranger--on the streets in the same manner?  I go about my business on and near 14th and L NW.  Do let me know when you're in the area. I'd be pleased to make your acquaintance.

Regarding your baseless assertion about me "attack[ing]" another poster, kindly quote where that occurred.  My posting history here and elsewhere is brief, but particularly here.  A brief threading shows that, once again, the poster whom you identify places her nose in the door of her own volition.  My replies to her--or anyone's--unsolicited interference are just that:  watch the door.

I am honored, though, that you confuse my identity.  That's quite the point re privacy.  Part, anyhow.  The superficial part.

On-theme, I eagerly await your substantive counter to my rebuttal re "band members."

Which "neighborhood" and which "door" is that? Of this site? This thread? In case you have misunderstood, this is not "your" house and neighborhood  - it's definitely less "yours" than of @misfit79 you "welcomed" in your usual arrogant style.

Or maybe you mean the door of the "truth" that you - also - so arrogantly "own"?

You're abusing more and more the hospitality this site  has - much too kindly - offered you and your "buddy" (I assume the distinct locales are so far from each other that the time difference doesn't allow you two to log in and post simultaneously from these specific distinct locales and -non VPN- IPs).

I have a feeling that this abuse might be ended soon - hopefully by you.

I missed this, initially. My immediate reaction is, "huh?"

See my prior post.

I could rest it as this: you're publicly stating that I'm flying to different locations in America in order to post on this forum with scant readership?

That's your statement? I mean, really. Forgetting the actual "privacy" work that a few of us have been conducting--none of which has to do with this site. Any yet you bring up IP?

There is no connection between you and I save for that you piled on a couple years back elsewhere, to which I never replied. I sense a coattail motive. What's the point in bringing out dirty laundry? Nothing to do with the theme of this thread, that's for damn sure. Nor does it have anything to do with the factual flow from the FromHell thread.

And we just had a brief "private" convo in which you stated that you moderate this forum.

Moderation?

On-theme, shall we? See my prior post.

This ends here and it ends now.

If you come from another forum with shit on your soles, wash it off before posting here. I won't have people importing drama to this site.

Be respectful to other forum members, both here and elsewhere.

Thread closed.