Author Topic: Guns & Roses  (Read 883 times)

Offline WMLute

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4512
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2008, 12:40:32 AM »
Oh...You talking about this here??----->>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_axl_rose_net_worth
Yeah.....I'd take that as accurate and completely true too!! :rofl

Get real man...  Axl's a hoot on stage and in real life...  Remember the whole Monsters of Rock incident?
Give me some legitimate proof of what the dude makes/has, and I'll believe ya...  But, I honestly think the
dude is in the same boat as Michael Jackson (financially)...   :lol

The RIAA has Guns with 42.5 million units sold in the U.S. alone  (you can more than double that for worldwide sales) tied with Eric Clapton.

I did find a refrence to Axl's net worth in 1994 as being @ $100,000,000 and that number has only grown in the past 14yrs.  I don't think putting his net worth near the 200 million mark is that much of a leap.

At the very least the guy is not hurting for cash what so ever.
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
— George Patton

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit

Offline Wyld45

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • AH2 Rough Rider Bugler
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2008, 03:03:59 AM »



                Hmmm,...you know, if it was Slash, Duff, Izzy, and YES, even ol Stevie boy
                doing this song, I'd probably like it. Minus "Ax-hole" of course.

                Then again, I'd like it if it was "Velvet Revolver" playing it.
           
RRWyld45  1138th "Rough Riders" Bomber Wing

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2008, 03:21:27 PM »
The RIAA has Guns with 42.5 million units sold in the U.S. alone  (you can more than double that for worldwide sales) tied with Eric Clapton.

I did find a refrence to Axl's net worth in 1994 as being @ $100,000,000 and that number has only grown in the past 14yrs.  I don't think putting his net worth near the 200 million mark is that much of a leap.

At the very least the guy is not hurting for cash what so ever.

Heroin isn't cheap and I GUARANTEE you he is still on it at times. 
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2008, 07:44:46 PM »
I always thought G&R was way overrated, with a moron for a lead singer, juvenile and amateurish lyrics, and so-so music.  That's my opinion anyway.
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline Fugita

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2008, 08:28:04 PM »
Axle Roses net worth is somewhere @ 277 million.

'm pretty sure he isn't worried about money.

I'm sure if he could find a way to jam that into his arm without killing himself he wouldn't be worth 5 cents. :rock

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2008, 08:43:04 PM »
I always thought G&R was way overrated, with a moron for a lead singer, juvenile and amateurish lyrics, and so-so music.  That's my opinion anyway.

It's mine as well.   Only two musicians worth mentioning were Matt Sorum (got smart and left) and Slash.   The rest are "just there". 
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2008, 09:04:39 PM »
What happen to the band?  i was never up with bands in the 80s and 90s
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2008, 09:32:30 PM »
Axle Roses net worth is somewhere @ 277 million.

'm pretty sure he isn't worried about money.

I seriously doubt that.  Records don't make musicians much money, it comes mostly from concerts, and he is too stupid to handle money and make it grow.

They weren't around long enough, playing enough concerts to make that much money.  Not near that much.

Can you post a reliable source proving that kind of worth?
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline WMLute

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4512
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2008, 12:51:02 AM »
I seriously doubt that.  Records don't make musicians much money, it comes mostly from concerts, and he is too stupid to handle money and make it grow.

They weren't around long enough, playing enough concerts to make that much money.  Not near that much.

Can you post a reliable source proving that kind of worth?

The artist makes between 8 and 11 cents EVERY time the song is played in royalties, of which Axl get's 25% being the song writer.  The band was one of the biggest band in the world for well nigh a decade.  And they toured heavily.  Their songs are played in every market in the US many, many times each day.  Got to a sports stadium.  You are likely to hear a Guns song as a players intro.  All this adds up.

The artist usually makes @ 5% of the CD/Album sales...  At 10 bucks a pop x 90million / .05 = 45million right there.  Now factor in tour cash for 10 years, and lastly the 8-10cents a pop each time a Guns song was played for the past 20 years.

But alas no, I have no "credible" source for how much money the band or Axl made/has.  And I searched pretty hard.  I was surprised I couldn't find anything definitive on the subject.

Found an article where Axl bought some artwork for 2.7 million, payed half ish, and then tried to back out.  The guy can't be "poor" if he's dropping 3 million on "art".  (granted, he's being sued by the dealer for the 1.1 million he shorted them, but broke people don't give art galleries 1.6million bucks for art)
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
— George Patton

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2008, 07:54:42 AM »
The artist makes between 8 and 11 cents EVERY time the song is played in royalties, of which Axl get's 25% being the song writer.  The band was one of the biggest band in the world for well nigh a decade.  And they toured heavily.  Their songs are played in every market in the US many, many times each day.  Got to a sports stadium.  You are likely to hear a Guns song as a players intro.  All this adds up.

The artist usually makes @ 5% of the CD/Album sales...  At 10 bucks a pop x 90million / .05 = 45million right there.  Now factor in tour cash for 10 years, and lastly the 8-10cents a pop each time a Guns song was played for the past 20 years.

But alas no, I have no "credible" source for how much money the band or Axl made/has.  And I searched pretty hard.  I was surprised I couldn't find anything definitive on the subject.

Found an article where Axl bought some artwork for 2.7 million, payed half ish, and then tried to back out.  The guy can't be "poor" if he's dropping 3 million on "art".  (granted, he's being sued by the dealer for the 1.1 million he shorted them, but broke people don't give art galleries 1.6million bucks for art)

Michael Jackson was spending like a drunken sailor right up to the bitter end, when he could no longer pay any of his bills.  Seems he shorted some art sellers too.  Foolish spending doesn't always indicate remaining substantial wealth.
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2008, 09:11:49 AM »
Axl is faaaaar from broke and prolly never will be. The new album will sell tons even if it turns out to suck. I actually think it will be OK. Not a great classic, but ok. He has turned out to be a guy that everyone reall wants to hate and see fail, but he won't.


Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2008, 09:33:08 AM »
It's not really G&R it's Axle and whoever he can beg to play with him.

G&R died a long time ago when their lead singer stuck his head firmly up his bum, and there it stays to this day.

So say we all.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2008, 09:40:16 AM »
Axl is faaaaar from broke and prolly never will be. The new album will sell tons even if it turns out to suck. I actually think it will be OK. Not a great classic, but ok. He has turned out to be a guy that everyone reall wants to hate and see fail, but he won't.



It will suck because he is the only "Original Member".   
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline redman555

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2008, 09:55:43 AM »
its not THAT BAD, but the classic G&R is way better


-BigBOBCH
~364th C-HAWKS FG~

Ingame: BigBOBCH

Offline 442w30

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: Guns & Roses
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2008, 09:59:17 AM »
the official thread of the mullet!  ;)
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

"The plural of anecdote is no data."- statistician's axiom