Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Read more:

http://mistersaintlaurent.proboards.com/thread/10998/proof-slash-duff-lied-signing

It was the foolish business decision of all time.  Can't be a day goes by they don't kick themselves.

Also believe "Velvet Revolver" would have been "Guns N Roses" if it legally could have been.  Never believed the "oh, they would never do that" routine.  That's convenient because they always had legal reasons they could not.

Meh.  Whenever I see evidence from either side, however damning, I can't help but think "What's done is done." Does any of this really matter in 2013/14?

No, not even a little bit.

That's why I was sort of disappointed in Axl's chats.  Not that he did them, that part was great.  I'm talking content.  Look how much time was spent rehashing all this old shit about the old band.  So little time spent talking up the current operation.

And the reactions from some of the fans were disheartening too.  Here's a guy that never talks to us directly giving us his time, and all people are focusing on is "getting to the bottom of what happened" back in 1995/96. 

For who?  For what?

Exactly.  People are acting like MSL blew the doors open on this, like it affects GNR one iota.  I just want the next album lol...

Hold on. Maybe if you had read and heard all kinds of shit said about you for over a decade, you'd want to tell your fans what's actually true and what's not.
Isn't that exactly why some of these people wrote books? To "set the record straight"?

One minute people complain that there's no word from Axl about anything. Then when he tells us his side about some of the biggest misconceptions about GN'R, it's not good either.... If he hadn't mentioned it, I'm sure some would've said he refused to answer questions about old GN'R because he doesn't wanna talk about it. 

A lose-lose situation.
Nothing is ever good enough. For some people.




/jarmo

three egomaniac rockstars who came from nothing got rich and famous and did lots of drugs and groupies and then  couldnt get along anymore and they broke up.... what a sad story......... ha

its sad and stupid that 20 years later its still going on

and its sad that people take sides like they know anything about it ...... theres what Axl says what Slash/Duff say and the truth is somewhere in the middle... that is the ONLY truth about it

Well, who made that bed?

Axl had over 10 years to tell that story and could not be bothered.  Clearly had time to brood about people "spreading lies", but never moved enough to correct the record.  That's on him, I'm afraid.

But what is the upside or endgame of talking about all that old shit?  And let's not pretend he didn't relish talking about it.  At any point he could have pivoted more to his current band or his current album, no?  Instead, we talk about Slash?  A guy out of the band 12 years by that point?

I didn't know there's a time frame when you're allowed to talk about things before they "expire"...

It was the first time Axl had participated in anything of the sort where he was talking straight to his fans. Maybe he had an idea what was important t talk about or maybe it was a spur of the moment kinda thing. I don't know.

I don't sit here five years later complaining about it knowing damn well that nothing he might've said would've made everybody happy.  : ok:



By the way, now it's been over 17 years since Slash quit. Do you think he's still being asked about GN'R? Wasn't he on Larry King recently talking about that? Why can't he skip talking about GN'R? Isn't it in the past by now?  :P


/jarmo

I don't blame Axl for wanting to "set the record straight", but it's not as though he hasn't given his remaining fan base reason to complain.
Fair or not, when he made the decision to continue on as Guns N' Roses w/o Slash, Duff, Izzy etc he set himself up for criticism.
He had to know he was probably going to lose some fans completely, and it may be an uphill battle to keep and obtain others.
Sure there are plenty of fans who will accept and support anything Axl does, and there are those who will continue to buy tickets just to hear him sing the Guns N' Roses songs they love, but it wasn't going to be a free ride. For many, he was going to have to prove his decision to continue on as GN'R w/o vital members was warranted.

Years and years of not releasing new music, of not doing interviews, or explaining why new music isn't being released hasn't helped his cause.
At this point it is what it is. I personally no longer care the reasons why. Regardless of fault, I just know it's unfortunate that a once such incredible singer/songwriter's creative career essentially ended, or took an extended vacation right in his prime. Hindsight is 20/20, but as it stands today, 21 years later, winning the rights to the GN'R name seems a small victory, because he's failed to do much with it, and unlike the alumni, nothing without it.

I don't get people complaining about the timeframe of this coming out. It's part of the public record, just no one bothered to go looking (or perhaps no one realized it was available) til now. It's still interesting. It backs up Axl's side of the story, after a lot of people simply assumed that what Slash/Duff said was true. It's not a smoking gun, but it go my attention, and it basically makes you wonder about other claims that have been made in the past.

I doubt we'll ever know what really led to the original band breaking up in full because I think those sorts of complications are way too complex, and if you're not living them you just won't get it, but this makes an interesting little footnote in GNR history.

What Jarmo said.

That some people chose to release a book and others not to.. shouldn't figure in.

Axl chose to spill some of what went down on a fan messageboard. Others wrote books (and made a dollar). Others also promote themselves via articles and tie ins. And spill what went down (according to them).

Complaining that Axl chose to answer the allegations by his former close bandmates - thrown his way over a 14 year period relentlessly - is something a lot of people have whined and complained about NOT getting... for years and years.

Really now?

You seem to be treating this like it's Axl releasing this information. From what I know someone simply made an information request. Criminal court docs can be obtained via the PACER system (or at least that was the case years ago, it has been a while since I've looked into it) and I'm sure there's a civil court equivalent. No doubt someone just finally dug this up, it has nothing to do with Axl, and his online chats were years ago.

Its not complaining, it was an observation that came up in the flow of conversation.  But I realize you take such things as declarations of war and a general impossibility to please.

But tell me this.  If any time from 1997 onwards, if Axl calls up Rolling Stone and pitches them "Guns N Roses : The Inside Story Of How It All Went To Hell", is he not on the cover?  And in such a piece he can give his spin and refute how people that write books are just liars and he's really the one done wrong. 

Wouldn't that make sense?  You give you side and then move on to your current band and current album?  Why not vent and be done with it?  Then your chat can be more about what you are doing now and how you are excited about it.

But most of the "get to the bottom of it" crowd also held some pie in the sky belief that the band would get back together. 

I was online that night at MYGNR.  The overwhelming number of people asking those questions has spent 5 years saying Axl was a disgrace that soiled the band's legacy and ruined the band's good name.  Now I'm supposed to believe they were interested in Axl's side?  Yeah, if he was going to say he fucked it all up and begged their forgiveness maybe.

Look how many simple minded idiots put all their eggs in the RNR HOF basket.  That was going to be the miracle Hollywood ending where Axl "did the right thing".  People were pissed when that didn't happen. 

Well, if he wanted to be on the cover of said magazine... Not everybody wants that. Not everybody wants to be on reality TV
Is that horrible?

He chose a direct line to the fans. The people who are the ones wondering about what really happened. I bet a bunch of magazine readers wouldn't even know who quit GN'R and when...


Anyway, you chose to ignore the fact that former members get asked about GN'R to this day....
Also, the subject isn't about the chats. It's about what we've been told over the years.

Personally I don't believe everything I read... Even if it's in an official biography...


/jarmo

I have enjoyed reading ur knocks on Slash's books for the past several years lol...

what a despicable human being he is....

as far as how Axl speaks out...that his prerogative... you can agree with his method or not , if he doesnt want to do Rolling Stone or something like that...thats his choice


but it puzzles me why people cant look at GNR objectively and realize the truth is not on one side or the other  but somewhere in the middle

As other people have said, for whatever reason, he wanted to wait until a particular, perhaps when CD was set to come out, to clear the air and tell his side of the story.

Slash and Duff both told their sides of the story years after it happened, Slash in a 2002 interview and Duff in his 2011 autobiography.

So, really, all of them waited to tell their side of this particular story, and Duff even waited longer than Axl to tell his.

In reality, that question could be asked of all of them, couldn't it?

Ali

True, they do.

But do they spend years working on a new album and then say what they'd like to talk about it something Axl Rose said 10 years ago?  I realize this is not a perfect analogy, as it suggests Axl would be doing official promotion.  But you get my point.

I am one of the first ones that tell the reunion zealots to move the hell on already.  Its over and done and not coming back.  The same could be said to Axl.  Tell me about your new band.  Tell me about your new album.  Don't tell me that you or Slash will be in a coffin before you speak again.  Who gives a fuck?  Was there some sort of doubt about how much Axl hates Slash?

Not even getting into the fact that "he's a cancer best removed" and whatnot gets you nothing but grief.  You lectured me earlier about "the Axl Rose asshole myth".  Comments like that?  Not a myth, guy.

A better balance could have been struck between rehashing old shit and talking about the present and future.

People on the street could not name you 5 members of this band, and that's spotting them Axl and Dizzy.  That's a problem.  These guys stuck with him for 10 years, presumably thinking they would get their due when the album came out.  Instead, we talk about Slash.  Its a disservice to the current line-up.

I don't dispute that until recently, the current lineup has not been marketed as much as they should have been.  But, again, these are issues that he had not spoken about publicly and he had every right to present his case publicly.  Also, I think there was plenty of discussion of the CD material during the course of those several chats.

Ali

The ship carrying casual fans interested in knowing who makes up GN'R today sailed, or should I say sunk long ago.
An interview with Axl talking about them isn't going to change that.
Create new music, and if people like what they hear, they will be interested in knowing who's playing it.

Until that happens, an article written about the lineup that disbanded over a decade ago will generate far more traffic than an interview with any active member.

True.  But partly because that's the bed that Axl has made.  You gotta start somewhere, right?

Yes, and I can say as someone that was at the Hard Rock Hotel during the Vegas Residency, there was a concerted effort to market the band.  There was memorabilia from the current members displayed, along with t-shirts with their pictures on them, as well as elevators in the hotel having a group photo with everyone's name beneath their image.

Long overdue, but a welcomed sight nonetheless.

Ali

No, they write books about it.  :hihi:

 ;)


The same people who keep asking Slash if there's a chance of him ever reuniting with Axl!
And some of them are GN'R fans. Not just your average Joe who has no idea about what's happened....



Anyhow, this still isn't about the chats. It's about something else... ;)



/jarmo

Oh, agreed.  How many years did we joke there wasn't even a group photo of the entire band?

Good to hear though.

At this point who cares. Each one is at fault for the demise of the original GNR. They could have been the Rolling Stones of Generation X and Y. Now looking to the present and future, the GNR name should have been retired by Axl. I think that he still would have garnered interest as just Axl. He needs to do something with the GNR brand. If Slash and Duff can be productive and successful as solo acts, I don't see why Axl cannot do the same with or wouth the GNR name. 

I wonder.  Keeping the name was a business decision, and I can't see how it was the wrong one.

Was "The Axl Rose Band" headlining festivals when the album was still little more than a rumor?  Because "Guns N' Roses" did.

Haha, who cares? You have been around a while, you should know a lot of Guns fans are fanatical. They live and breathe the band, it's music and it's history. The integrity of all the members is a huge issue beit old or new members.

This strikes at the heart of old debate. It appears Slash and Duff have defined Axl's path quite heavily post their departure. For the first time, we see proof of the path they were following.

For me, I wonder how has this potentially affected 'New GN'R'? Whatever your opinions of Axl are, no one deserves to be bastardised like this.

Without having asked all the people of Planet Earth, I'm guessing it hasn't helped the band to have the whole "Axl forced them to sign over the name" issue hanging over them....



/jarmo

Absolutely. When I say affected, I mean damaged. Just being politically correct  :hihi:

It's Earl's fault. He twisted their arms with one hand behind his back.

I've no real response to any of this anymore other than reading these threads sometimes makes me feel a little embarrassed and a little pathetic.  Let's fucking move on already...somebody please leak some new material and get me excited again about my favorite band.  Fucking A, what is happening to us?

Assuming that copy is legit it is not a contract. It is ONLY a Memorandum Of Agreement. That?s what tha copy says. So I can sign a Memorandum today and changed my mind tomorrow about the whole thing. All I have to do is inform the other party I have changed my mind. So at the end the only thing that matters in the final contract.

This only means there was an agreement at some point. That Memorandum alone didn?t give Axl anything.

A lose-lose situation.
Nothing is ever good enough. For some people.




/jarmo

[/quote]

Well said. I don't know how come Axl deals with so much shit. Press. Insane fans. It's not easy.

The memo of agreement may have been an attachment to the actual GNR/Geffen contract.

Saint-Laurent sounds like he's got a book in the works about the courtroom drama. Can't wait to see the movie!

Yes, it may have been. But we don?t know. If I?m going to make a public claim that you lie. I have to show everything not just one little paragraph of a memorandum. Because I?m making a serious accusation against you.

That?s why I don?t understand why Axl didn?t act a lot earlier. The first time I read about the threat Axl might have made to force Slash and Duff to sign over the name was more than 10 years ago in a Rolling Stone article. Why Axl didn?t say anything at that time?

I couldn't agree more.

Well said. I don't know how come Axl deals with so much shit. Press. Insane fans. It's not easy.
[/quote]

I'd actually tweak that a little bit.  A more accurate statement would be "Nothing IS good enough for some people."

Look how many people at this board take that approach.  Nothing ever happens, and that's all fine.

Why should Axl, Slash, or Duff have to defend themselves about anything they did? Whatever happened at whatever point in time is done with whatever is going on at that point in time.  Drama happens everywhere and the main point of drama is to have something to talk about, hence talking about the past upteen years later. When I chose to listen to a band it's about the music, it has nothing to do with whatever they got going on in there closet. Axl is Axl. SLash is SLash. Duff is Duff. Personally, I just want to listen to music.

the general public doesn't really care how or why Axl got the name. they just have an issue with Axl using the name without Slash. end of story.

this would be true for most bands, but especially bands that are generally accepted as having 2 key members (as was the case for GnR). Axl/Slash is arguably one of the top duos in rock history. Aside from Page/Plant, Mick/Keith, i wouldn't put anyone else above them.

and most bands would have a hell of a time selling their band, minus one of the 2 key members, to the public. no one is going to get the benefit of the doubt, but especially someone like Axl who many people hated due to his reputation even when they were extremely popular.   

I think for the most part this is very accurate.  That said, they might be a bit more lenient if Axl appeared to give a shit.  All this drama getting the name, and he does little with it.

What was that old Matt Sorum quote?  "He could either take the ball and run with it or drop the ball, and he dropped the ball"?  If I have some of the wording wrong, that was the gist.  And I can't see how that is wrong.

Had Axl gotten an album out quicker, built up more of a rep touring with a consistent band, he might have pulled it off.  it was never going to be what it was, but he could be doing well.

i totally agree. 100%. Axl was facing a tough task. but the new band could have been extremely successful. even with the delays and lack of communication/info, they were selling out venues in 2002.

Van Halen had a hell of a battle replacing their lead singer (another top rock duo). but they pulled it off. they were a marketing machine and more importantly, they made great music. part of me wanted to hate Van Hagar, but to this day i still crank their songs when i hear them. they kick ass. is it the same as having Diamond Dave??? no way! but good music is good music. 

I'm not so sure about that.  I remember when Duff was on the Opie and Anthony show and one of the specific things they asked him about was the contract issue and how and when it was signed.

It may not be something that ultimately sticks out in people's minds, but it seems to be a curiosity for me and other portions of the fanbase.  I think it has been used to help perpetuate a certain perception of Axl as well.  Whether or not that perception would hold regardless of this incident is another discussion and an entirely subjective one at that, but at the very least, if you're going to give examples to support a perception of someone - make sure they are true.

Ali

I think its a very, very small niche portion of even the GNR fanbase that thinks this is the Zapruder film.  Let alone the general public, who knows nothing of it.

As to your first point, I tend to agree.  People were worst of starving for a rock band at that time.  I think they'd have rolled with even a watered down Guns N' Roses.

But the Van Hagar point, that's the money point.  And if I'm not mistaken, when they did their first tour with Sammy, they were opening for Bon Jovi.  They still sell that marquee ad on the Ocean City boardwalk.  Because they knew it wasn't exactly the Van Halen people knew, so they had to put in some work and win the people back.

Hard to say that was the wrong play.  They had a new album out 2 years after their first one, and they were headliners again.  And even though people never stopped loving the Diamond Dave incarnation, they rolled with the 2.0 version of the band in the meantime.

It just kills me that Axl says in that interview with Kurt Loder right after "how do you rebuild something that was so big".  At the time, I, like most I assumed, though Axl did have some sort of plan.  Sadly, if he has a plan, he's still sitting on it.

I'm not sure that's true on both counts.  You have multi-page threads on several boards dedicated to the topic.  As far as the general public knowing or not knowing, I don't know how you'd measure that, but I can think of two major publications that have put out stories repeating this story as it has been portrayed by Slash and Duff.

RS 2000:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=32

In the early nineties, Axl demanded and was granted sole control of the Guns N' Roses name. As to precisely where and when this happened, memories are fuzzy and contradictory, perhaps lost in the mists of rock & roll tour memory. Axl, backstage somewhere is said to have basically issued an ultimatum: He'd get the name of the band or he wouldn't perform. Papers memorializing this transfer were drawn up and guitarist Slash and bassist Duff McKagan signed them.

Spin 1999:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=71

TOM ZUTAUT: On the eve of the tour, Axl told the rest of the band that the only way he would play was if they'd give ownership of the name to him. They were looking at canceling the tour and losing millions and millions of dollars, [so] they capitulated.

That doesn't even include Slash's comments and Duff's book.

So, I don't know how many people know or remember this, but the story certainly has been perpetuated for more than a decade.

Ali

Yeah, but even if you follow the conversation over there, its the same handful of folks.  And just as many people asking what all this is accomplishing.

General public?  I'm not sure they give Axl much thought, to be honest.  Ask most people their opinion, they tend to just think he's a strange cat.

Although I found Slash's book enlightening when it came out,it's not that accurate after all.
In fact,he was stoned every day back then and he shouldn't have remember anything.Duff's book as well.
The truth comes from the clear minded and sober which was Axl.
Plain and simple.

I disagree that the truth comes from Axl because he was sober. There is always three sides to every story.

Wait a minute I thought slash and duff discussion was forbidden in this section but because this subject is supposed to be pro Axl since they are "liars" guess it's ok? Ha

Like draguns said ... three sides to every story

Who is well known for his common & romantic point of view about the things of life :hihi:  :rofl:

My turn to disagree  :)
there are 2 sides.the correct and the fake.Pick one.

No if you're sarcastic,yes if you're right .who is well known to speak only the truth no matter what.
My Michelle for example  ;)

C'mon we're talking about a guy who could ban you forever from his life because in 1986 you didn't hand him a cigarette..

And try to sing a song about Axl Rose without being sued even if you tell the truth about him. (and your answer would be "which truth?")

I never heard that adam sandler or matt damon got sued.or courtney love or whoever else made fun of him.

I disagree because you can't always be either the hero or the victim in all your stories. 

Logically, there have to be some times you screwed up or the other side has a point.

Nope, there are 3 sides.

1) The correct version
2) The fake version
3) The truth

This could go on for ever. But there is only ever two sides to any story. The truth and the lie.

Not sure how many people care how the name was actually obtained.
I think people were initially shocked/confused to hear that Axl thought it was a good idea to continue on as GN'R w/o the other architects behind it's sound/success.

Judging by how little he has since accomplished, the shock has worn off, but I'd say the confusion was and still is very much warranted.

Some might not care because they've made up their minds.

I think there also might be a certain element of naivety involved regarding bands in general. From some fans.

Just because a band is started by a few people with a common goal doesn't mean they'll always agree, always be in a band together, always be friends or always live in a rehearsal space together. At some point the band becomes a business. I think some people still fail to acknowledge this.

So when bands break up, people might not understand why these old high school friends suddenly don't get along. For example.



/jarmo

that is not true. Van Hagar was an instant success. they released 5150 quickly after Dave was out (1986?), and they had a few huge hits. they did a big headlining tour and it was very successful. they followed that up with OU812 about two years later and continued to tour as headliners.

the only time i know of VH opening for bon jovi was overseas in the 90's. and that was primarily due to the fact that VH never toured outside of North America and their worldwide popularity is limited.

there may have been a one-off show in the U.S. that i am not aware of, but no tours. please post a link if you are aware of a U.S. show where VH opened for them.

i will agree that the story was one factor in Axl generally having a bad reputation. and that people hear that, believe it, and it has a negative impact on their view of him.

but i guess i have 2 points:

1. those people generally already had a negative view of Axl. all of his antics turned alot of people off.  so the story about him stealing the name was just another factor that justified the negative view they already had.

2. if Axl had obtained the name in an acceptable manner, the negativity towards him and the new lineup would be the same. people want Axl/Slash. period. it's one of the greatest duos in the history of music.

As I said, I've been going to the Ocean City boardwalk my whole life.

The Surf Mall sells all sort of rock stuff like t-shirts, hats, posters, etc.  They have one from the 'Slipper When Wet' tour which is listed as Bon Jovi, special guest, Van Halen.

http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/33000972/images/vintage-rocknroll-144.jpg

Agreed on both.

But, Axl isn't exactly helping his public perception by calling him "a cancer best removed".

i believe this is a fake poster. i'm from philly and have never heard of freedom hall. i followed VH big time in the 80's and my sister was a huge bon jovi fan. i have no recollection of them playing together.

that did not help at all!

and i appreciate Axl not wanting to get into a public "he said, she said" situation, but his decade plus of silence on many issues did not help things either. if he gave a shit about what people think, he would have squashed the BS story from the get go.

has anyone reached out to Duff for his thoughts on this? (i don't check many gnr sites these days.) with today's social media, all of these people are more accessible than ever. Duff and his wife are fairly active on twitter. Duff has danced around this issue a little bit....someone should contact him and put his feet to the fire. i love Duff, and as a fan of GnR, we deserve the truth. and if he helped spread any lies, he should clarify that with the fans.

There are 2 sides to every story.

1) Person 1's perception of the events that occurred.
2) Person 2's perception of the events that occurred.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle and no compromise can be agreed upon due to stubborness, fear of looking weak or lack or communication.

Yeah, I'm from Philly too.  I wasn't sure if based on your sig you were local or just a fan of the team.  (P.S. - What the hell is Amaro doing?)

If you guys are saying that the issue of how he acquired the band name is but one in a long line of stories over the years that have painted Axl in a negative light, to the point where it wouldn't be sufficient to change an already existing perception of him, I agree.

I wasn't arguing otherwise.

But, if something isn't true, it isn't true.  Clarifying that fact isn't an attempt to try and outweigh or erase any negative stories that exist.  It's just correcting one particular falsehood that has been perpetuated through the years.

Ali

In cases of perceptions, opinions, impressions, i.e. he said/he said scenarios, I would agree with what you're saying.

But, this isn't one of those cases.  There are definitive documents with dates that prove that story of this partnership agreement being signed before a show is just not true.

Ali

Let's not forget it was purely Axl's intention to secure the name:

"The details are that my attorney shit when I made the move. He was very against it fearing long litigation but even then no one talked about brand names or individual interests in a brand name. I look back and have no idea why. Not my people, not his people, no one.
No one pressured me, everyone was afraid and no one including myself wanted to break up Guns or the relationship."

It was all Axl himself starting all the trouble to come, fans are still talking about today.

We will all be here to see Axl's side put into words or some random dude shitty rip-off book filled with lies.
The whole name and rights to the name debate is still so big after all these years.
But who cares anyway ? life goes on.
I suggest to close this thread and focus on fighting for other reasons.
If a new album comes out,or when and if Bumblefoot quits or not  :hihi:

I don't think that has ever been in dispute.  What's been in dispute was how and when it occurred.

Ali

@Ali:
maybe in a topic like this, maybe in lots of other topics regarding the name issue. but IMO we rarely discussed the importance and the how and why Axl made this move in the first place. time has proven that this one had such an impact and such an rat-tail for about 20 years on and still doesnt seem to have an ending in discussions yet. i mean, without Axl's first move, we'd not be talking about this in here right now, huh?

"It was all Axl who started the trouble..."  You seriously believe that?  What part of what we know about the dynamics of the band in 1992 makes you think the band was going to last? 
The reunionists love to demonize Axl for "starting trouble."  I say bullshit. 
Who was it that lied about "signing the deal under duress backstage?"  I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Axl.

That document proves nothing other than Duff and Slash signed a MOA on those dates.  That may have been the 2nd document that Slash or Duff signed.  Or the 3rd.  Management could've easily presented bullshit papers to Duff and Slash backstage, and the matter could've been pursued later... perhaps in October 1992.  Obviously the matter of Axl acquiring the name took time regardless of the semantics.

I always thought it was interesting that Duff stated something like, "a member of the touring crew" handed him the documents backstage.  Of course, one could easily say, "well, the story was bullshit!  Of course Duff doesn't remember his name!"  But on the other hand, it could indicate the lack of legal validity anything presented under that context could be.  Don't attorneys typically handle that stuff?  Not members of the touring crew?  Unless the October '92 MOA was presented later, after any earlier backstage agreement was signed.  Again, a story that could be up in the air, since we don't have all the facts, just a few and a whole lot of perceptions (or arguments).

Slash's signature on this MOA is merely his stage name.  He would've signed "Saul Hudson" on any truly legal document.  Some people debated about this on the other site, but it is something that sticks out to me.

I'll credit Ali since I noticed that he brought it up elsewhere, but the terminology is obviously what can leave this matter hotly debated.  Duff and Slash have always referred to the documents as "contracts", which could easily be a simplified way of explaining the matter, even if the alleged backstage papers were merely letters of intent, good faith agreements, etc.  Given the admittedly hazy memories of both Duff and Slash, they could've easily gotten the dates wrong as to when they signed backstage.  However, they both admitted in their books that they never thought GNR could exist without them, so their hazed mindset didn't include foresight of the matter we're discussing today -- meaning they didn't realize they needed to put the pieces together until years later.  Again, the accusation could go either way --you could say they put the pieces together in duplicitous ways to benefit themselves, or you could assume there is more to the story than one document can tell us.  Or maybe somewhere in the middle.

But yes, as others have pointed out, why does this matter now?  If the original post weren't so pro-Axl, this topic would've been deleted by now.  I highly doubt anyone's opinions are going to be changed.  People who believe Axl didn't need to see this "evidence" to keep believing him.  People who don't believe Axl didn't either because their minds aren't changed.  People in the middle are going to treat any such "evidence" with complete skepticism, regardless of whose side it supports.  And then a lot of people are just gonna say, "who cares?"  It's a hackneyed issue, regardless of who was right or wrong.  And of course -- as others have pointed out -- their allegiance to either side isn't based on how the GNR name ownership got decided...

Axl said this in the 2008 Q&A...

You've been lied to so much that sorting out the truth is impossible to do here.

What's interesting about that isn't Axl's opinion, but the revelation that this matter is way too complicated for any one person, one statement, or (in this case) one document to ever put the matter to rest.

This document proves quite a bit, actually.  It was presented into evidence as part of Slash and Duff's 2004 lawsuit.  Furthermore, that 1992 MOA and its establishment that Axl would own the band name if he voluntarily left or was expelled from the partnership is cited in the lawsuit in the section "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION"

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

If there was a later, revised version of the partnership agreement, THAT would be valid, standing and binding partnership agreement, and THAT would've been submitted into evidence by Slash and Duff's legal team.  The agreement MSL has, though, is the one submitted into evidence and cited in the "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION" section of the 2004 suit because it is the standing, binding agreement.

As far as Slash's signature and the legally binding issue, if you look at the first page of the lawsuit, it states Saul Hudson, p/k/a Slash.  Once it is established in the first page that Saul Hudson is "professionally known as" Slash, he can be referred to as Slash throughout the rest of the document.

Ali

So true! The document only proves a document was signed on those dates. It doesn't prove Slash or Duff didn't sign simular documents earlier when they were on tour in 1992.

To what end though?

You can do a postmortem on every relationship that goes south.  End of the day, the relationship is still over. 

If that were the case I would have expected it to be

A) also submitted in the lawsuit
B) mentioned in one of their books
C) mentioned in an interview at some point that they had to re-sign later

Imo it's possible but not likely.

A) Maybe Duff and Slash didn't have those documents if Axl still had to sign them
B / C) Reconfirming something you already agreed isn't as important as the original agreement so maybe it wasn't worth mentioning.

I don't know what happened in 1992 but this document doesn't "proof" Slash or Duff lied.

No, but it is proof that they were incorrect in their recollections IMO.

If there was a revised partnership agreement in 1993, that would render the 1992 agreement null and void.  So, Slash and Duff's legal team would not present a null and void partnership agreement into evidence in their lawsuit against as the standing, binding agreement.

Ali

Yeah, the only sentiment worth expressing is that Slash and Duff believe Axl forcibly imposed the agreement upon them (or that GNR management led them to believe he was).  In the end, that notion is more important than when and where it happened, whether it was backstage, at their houses, or on the eve of a tour as Tom Zutaut claimed (see below).


Exactly... people can believe this document constitutes proof of "lies" all they want, but it doesn't.  The truth is buried under so much discord both privately between the band, and publicly among warring fans, that we'll never know exactly what happened.



I'll offer no disagreement there.  Obviously time/place aren't consistent through any of Duff's and Slash's recollections... though we can't forget Tom Zutaut either.  He claimed in July 1999 in Spin magazine that "on the eve of the tour" Axl demanded ownership of the name or he wouldn't play.  Zutaut doesn't say what year this was, but his comments could've easily referred to the November 1992 worldwide leg, which was imminent at the time Slash and Duff signed the document presented in this thread.  It's interesting that in some ways, Zutaut may have a more plausible theory than Slash or Duff.

Either way, despite the hazy recollections of a then-alcoholic (Duff) and a then-junkie (Slash), the one constant is their belief that Axl had some forcible influence over it -- or at least management led them to believe he did.  Personally, I find it easier to believe that both sides have valid points, as opposed to accepting either of the two polar opposites stories told by Axl and Duff/Slash.

Doug Goldstein and his underlings may very well have put pressure on Duff and Slash.  Duff and Slash said in their books that Goldstein was a major brown-noser who did anything to please Axl and keep his job.  So it's perfectly believable that Goldstein could've orchestrated something where he said or implied Axl was going to quit, not go onstage, etc, and in their impaired states, Duff and Slash believed it.  On the other hand, this theory does exonerate Axl personally from making explicit threats and blackmailing the band.  So on Axl's side, he's pissed off that Duff and Slash would say that, and on the Slash/Duff side, they are pissed off at what they believed Axl did (or had a hand in doing).


Thanks for posting that.... I'd actually read it some time ago, and then again when I saw you post it on the other site.  It's interesting reading.

After reading the scanned pages and the opinions of various people here and on other boards, I just hope Slash and Duff will come out and say something. Yes, they might have signed the contract under some kind of pressure, but the story that was told by them was that the contract was presented backstage and that they could hear the crowd noise outside...

I never believed Axl would do something like that, but the idea that someone from the management would was never a doubt in my head. Now, if even that is not true, than all the bad feelings Axl have towards Slash and Duff would be justified...

What the partnership agreement does prove, is that Slash and Duff signed it on different days in October of 1992 (the 15th and 21st) according to the dates next to their signatures and that on GN'R was not on tour on either one of these days (GN'R played in Seattle on 10/6/92 and they didn't play their next show until 11/25/92 in Caracas).  Therefore, the story that were strong armed into signing the agreement on the day/night of a show, cannot be accurate.

But, I agree that the document doesn't prove Slash and Duff lied.  To know that, you'd have to know whether they deliberately said something that was inaccurate, or were simply just mistaken in their recollections.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt knowing that they were heavy drug and alcohol users, and say that they probably mistook signing one document before a show with the partnership agreement they signed between tour legs.

Ali

I don't think that the document shows that Duff or Slash lied. I also believe that the Axl is not lying about his position that it was presented to them before a concert. Although, who knows if a different document was presented to them before a concert that is not tis one. Nevertheless, I do believe that there is a missing piece of the puzzle and that there were people on both sides probably pressuring and manipulating Axl, Slash, and Duff into to doing certain things which were probably neither in the interest of the Axl, Duff, Slash, or GNR but in the interest of those individuals that were trying to position themselves on what they believed would be the winning side.

Originally, I used to believe that Axl did force the issue before the concert as a power move over the other members, but not personally, but by a third party. However, after all these years and with this new information, I believe at the time his intention was more along the lines of being overly concerned with Slash and Duff's drug and alcohol abuse and if something happened to them that it would be a huge legal battle to sort out the rights to the name. Slash and Duff being in a constant state inebriation probably did not give a fuck when they signed the documents because they just wanted to get back to playing and/or addictions at the time then deal with this shit, and never considered the ramifications this could have down the road.

What is also clear is that these documents were not signed with all the parties in one room at the same time over a formal discussion as to why these clauses were being presented to the parties. As such I'm sure whoever, presented those documents to Duff and Slash also sold them the myth that who cares, there is no GNR without you guys as a selling point.

I also believe that after the illusions tour wrapped up and things settled down, and the time came around to get back in the studio and talk business Axl realized that he had all the power and may have tried to impose his authority on the others members with regards to the musical direction of the band and other business decisions. This is where Slash and Duff also started having issues with Axl because of the music direction of the band and then this is where matters escalated to a boiling point. I think thats when Slash and Duff did there solo projects probably thinking they could take a break come back and get back to how things used to be, but Axl may have been offended by their actions and dug his heels in, for his vision of the band. I do think Axl wanted to keep Slash and Duff around but on his terms and on his time table. When Slash saw Axl taking this position I think he also decided to say fuck it, I'm not compromising on my vision for GNR either, resulting in him leaving. I think he believed that when he left Axl would cave in and tried to call Axl's bluff, but Axl did not cave in and took it personal. Everybody's egos where at an all time high and not willing to compromise which ultimately lead to the band imploding. In doing so, I would say everybody has a side to the story and partially to blame. Clearly it did not end on good terms at the time and feelings were hurt on both sides.

I understand Axl has been upset as to Slash and Duff's versions of the events, and that they left the band because he believes that they did not care. However, I would say Slash and Duff, Izzy, and Steven still care to this day about GNR, not because of money but because I do believe that they felt like brothers and a gang when they were together and were able to accomplish something great together as a band.

The issue I do take with Axl, is that whatever happened with Duff and Slash happened a long time ago when these guys were drug addicts and alcoholics and in their twenties. Therefore, I can understand how Axl grew tired of dealing with whatever shit he had to put up with when these guys where constantly high and probably difficult to work with. However, everyone has grown up and roughly 50 years old now with families and kids. These guys have done a complete 360 with regards to their lifestyles and addictions. Its also apparent that Slash and Duff would probably like to squash things with Axl just to put this behind them and move on regardless of any reunion. I think its apparent by now they are not trying to reunite. However, Axl is still holding a grudge against them over this, after all these years.

In the end it is his prerogative not to forgive or forget, but at this point I think it would be better even for the sake of the new band to completely put all this shit behind him and move forward. No one knows if these guys ultimately mend their fences but as a fan of GNR, I feel this would be good not only for the old members, but will greatly benefit Axl and the new band going forward.

All of what you said may have its merits, but your last paragraph is the nub of the problem, once the "forgiveness" was to take place, then there would be the "how about giving it ago....." Steven defiantly would be buzzing around like a wasp, Izzy  wouldn't give a fuck, Duff likewise, has built his bridges and is cool at that. Add Slash to the mix and not necessarily by him, but certainly with his sympathizers would be giving it large that the cash grab bullshit is on. Axl could have used the RRHOF to put this to bed but has chosen the  path that suits him and his vision.

Who cares? This subject is old and is irrelevant.

People claim that they aren't trying to re-write history, but I don't see any other motivation here.

You are either very, very emotionally invested in proving/disproving Axl is a power mad monster, or very, very emotionally invested in proving/disproving Slash and Duff are just big liars.

Once you tell me that you accept that none of this will change anything big picture, I just don't know what else your motivation could be other than trying to change perceptions.

What do you mean?
It's not a case of rewriting history any more than people writing books with inaccurate accounts of events is.

Is it a piece of the puzzle or just a piece of another puzzle? That's something that's being discussed here.




/jarmo

Its just like I said.

You are either super emotionally in trying to correct the thinking that Axl is power mad monster, or you are super emotionally invested in "proving" Slash and Duff are liars.

End of the day, does it matter? 

The reality is that if you are still pissed over the break-up in 2013, you blame Axl.  You likely always will.  This thinking that if a few things could be "clarified", you would have a better view of him is just not going to happen.  So all this effort to say "See?  See?  Its not like Slash and Duff said!  Axl is not a bad guy!" is wasted effort.  That's very inside baseball stuff.  Far more people are simply bummed the band is no more.  Who said what, when...who cares?  What does it change?  They still don't have a band anymore.

But aren't most people often claiming they want the truth?
No matter what the issue is, they want to know the truth. Like when watching the news...




/jarmo

The truth?  I'd say it more that people want their pre-conceived notions confirmed.

I never got into taking sides in the classic line-up's break-up.  I thinks it ridiculous that we have segments of this fanbase that hate any of these guys.  But let's fact it, its out there.

So if you are one of those "Axl the big bad meanie took it all away from me" types, you want it confirmed that he got the name in some underhanded way.  If you are all pro-Axl all the time and feel he does no wrong, you want it confirmed he has been painted in an unfair light.

The truth?  Well, I'd ask this.  Those 2 factions I just described, will they ever concede the point to the other side?  I'd say no.  The "truth" will be what they want to hear.

Sure, there's people who want to be told they're right.

But what about the ones who aren't in those groups?




/jarmo

I don't think they care about this supposedly big story.  I'd say the only ones interested have their own agenda and are unlikely to budge.

The thread at MYGNR went on for an eon.  I didn't see too many people without a dog in the fight.

Late to the party, a bit, but...

The people who keep asking the questions obviously do.  Because the media, and the fans, do keep asking.  All you have to do is listen to the interviews that Slash and Duff do, or to look back at the chat transcript from Axl's chat, or look at listen to the Eddie Trunk tapes (and, more specifically, AFTER the Axl piece was over) or a hundred other sources.

Now, we can debate whether they should, or whether you do, or whether I do (hint: not really).

But there are obviously those that still do give a fuck...for better or for worse.

Here's where you an I largely part company with our opinions.

I think the only person who can guage whether he's "doing well" is Axl.  Because...well...he's the one setting the benchmark for success.  You're assigning goals to him (getting an album out quicker or building up a rep wtih a consistent bannd) that may not actually be anywhere near HIS goals or aspirations.

You could say "he could be more prolific than other bands are", or even "putting out music as frequently as other bands I like" and I might, at least, give you the litmus.

But  you're gauging HIS success...a guy who is reportedly pretty well off, seems to be happy in what he does for a profession, is famous around the world for it (some would say infamous..I don't think he discerns between the two), and seems to be living in a style he's happy with.

My guess?  He thinks he's doing pretty well for himself.

Oh, I don't think he's unhappy with his set-up.  I call the "anything good that happens is gravy" approach. 

The accepted approach to releasing a new album it to market it, promote it, all in the hopes of maximizing its success.  Axl?  He throws it out there with no promotion, and whatever it sells...hey, look at that.  Gravy.

The accepted approach to launching a tour is a press release, perhaps even a press conference.  Interviews with national publications, and maybe even some glad handing of local radio or TV.  Axl?  He throws dates out on the internet, and whoever shows up...hey, look at that.  Gravy.

He hates doing all the established promotional activities anyway, so he skips them.  I doubt he misses it.  But we, the fans, wind up following a half ass operation.

No such show was ever played as part of the Slippery When Wet Tour.

Bon Jovi was in Thomville, Ohio on May 24th, and then in Detroit on the 26th - 27th, and 29th - 30th.  No show was scheduled on the 25th.   The opener for all 5 shows was Cinderella (as they were for most of the NA leg...Queensrych opened for most of the Euro shows).

I'd be shocked if they flew to Philly (out of the way) to play a one off with Van Halen...even as some sort of charity or award show. It DEFINITELY was not part of the tour, thoguh. And if they did, I can't find any record of it happening (other than the linked poster) and given it's "special nature", you'd think there'd be some, somewhere.

Maybe true.

Maybe circumstance.

We've heard enough to at least give you pause on the whats and whys he might not participate.  Again, we might part company on the specifics.  And, for the record, I do not think it's completely disassociated from him, either.

And I don't know, as I'm (edit) NOT (end edit) in the room.

But that wasn't the point, really.

The point you initially made was to postulate that "he could be doing well".

Nobody in this forum is really in any place to make that assessment.  Really, only he is.

A semantic nit pick, maybe..but it also speaks to a larger point:  Many of the assessments made around here (including, in part, the one above) assume Axl wants to do things the "accepted way", or that doing them the "accepted way" would make him think he's "doing well" or "doing better".

I'm not on board with that assumption.

Might make me happier.  Might make you happier.  Might make him more money, garner him more fame, and sell more albums.  All that could be true.

But none of it might actually have anything to do with HIS metrics for success, or his feeling of "doing well".

On that, we definitely agree...though I'm not sure about the last bit (starting trouble).

Axl started the process of acquiring the name.  No argument.

But the devil is in the details....

OK...but Duff said it happened in 1993.  So, unless there was a time machine involved, Duff was incorrect or was lying.


Even if they signed a letter of intent, there is a cool off period which would allow them to change their mind.  They simply did not HAVE to sign the name away if you consider the circumstances they presented.  They could have signed the letter of intent, went on with the show, and then invoked their cooling off period rights (typical in any signed contract).  And then dealt with the whole thing in a more timely manner, in a more appropriate setting.

They didn't do any of that.

And if they plead ignorance...shame on them.  These guys were surrounded by attorneys, and had their OWN PRIVATE representation outside the band they could call for advice..


If the preamble specifies his aka, stage name, or nome de plume...he could sign any legal documentation using it.  Especially if established in previous legal documentation.


We know what we know.  And we know, via MSL's report, that HE got a copy via the legal filings in their lawsuit.  Notice the judge did not overturn the MOA based on conflicting evidence?  That speaks volumes.


I don't think it changes peoples minds, but I do think this adds interesting new wrinkles and information to a subject that hasn't had much in the way of concrete information in the past, given the "he said, he said, he said" nature of the topic, before.

I can't recall but what happened as a result of that lawsuit mentioned in that PDF?  Was it resolved?

Do I care? Not really.

Do I find it interesting?  Undoubtedly.

I'm not sure I'd peg Slash and Duff as lying. 

But it certainly looks like they were not accurate.

Which colors some of their other recollections of the time, and the accuracy of their books chronicaling events around that time.  Events that, in many cases, don't have anything to do with Axl.

It's interesting...

Settled.

The specifics, I believe, were sealed, though.  Which isn't unusual.

But neither side seemingly had enough to "slam dunk" the other.  Otherwise I'm reasonably sure it would have been going on longer.  There was lots of discovery, not much judications/litigation.  If you looked at the scheduled proceedings at the time....it painted a picture of a lot of people claiming they were injured, without much concrete proof of injury (or intent)..ON BOTH SIDES.

I completely disagree. 

Anyone with eyes and who follows the music business can make an assessment.  And only at this board might it be deemed a successful operation.

He's rolling with a line-up made up of guys no one outside internet diehards can name.  He put out a decade long awaited album that made no impact on the marketplace and no one could tell you a song off of it.  If you called a radio station and requested 'Street Of Dreams', overwhelming chance they would have no idea what you were talking about.  Or if they attempted to honor that request, would have to download it as it would not be in house.  They are touring smaller and smaller places domestically.

I have a Guns N' Roses baseball cap I wear everywhere.  Most common question is some variation of "man, what ever happened to those guys?"  People don't even know they are still a thing.

A lot of people online, and here especially, will immediately try and spin it that Axl doesn't care about any of that, so all is well.  You did that very thing.  I disagree with that premise as I don't feel that is the discussion.  I don't disagree that Axl might not care.  But any objective analysis of his current operation, you can't possibly call it successful.  And I'd argue, it might be a stretch to even call it relevant.

But all this talk ever seems to get me is some sort of condemnation that since I am not Axl Rose, I can't say any of this.  I find that lame, personally.  Those are the words of a diehard fan that would rather not look at things fairly or objectively.  I actually do like and support the current band, but I'm not going to sit here and lie to myself about them.

Even at the height of a band's popularity, the chances that the general public knows all the names of the band members, are pretty slim.

The two other guys in U2, or in Nirvana. Even a band like Aerosmith, can people who like I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing name all the band members?



/jarmo

As I said you would...


Again, you said "he could be doing well".

That has nothing to do with the music industry, how it's run, r what it's metrics for success might be.

Because you soley are assessing his state of being/doing.

Say he could have a band that makes more money, music, or is more famous..and you have a better litmus. It might not be relevant to him, but at least it's arbitrary enough that WE can find a point of discussion in it.  His state of being, though...that's really his judgement. If he's happy..who are you to tell him he's not?


And he's seemingly ok with all of it.  Right? I mean...have you heard otherwise?

So his endeavors are not as well known as YOU would like them to be.

That's not a reflection of his state if being....it's a reflection of your wants and expectations. My point exactly. Your definition if him "doing well" is him doing what you want.  Not him being content with what he has, and in what he's doing.


So? What does that have to do with him "doing well"? That has to do with him being more famous, making more music, and meeting someone else's expectations.

Nobody knows who I am. I make a good living. I'm comfortable financially, happy in my professional endeavors, happy with my family life. I'm doing well.

You could sit back and critique my life...tell me I could make more money if I changed jobs, could have a higher profile if I went about my business differently, etc. And I would look at you, realize where you were coming from, and still be doing well.

Not as well as YOU would like me to be, or think I could be doing for some reason, but honestly...you assessment wouldn't mean much. Because you are not me.


Then you should phrase your assessment better. Because it's not of him. Or how HE is doing. It about how well you think he should be doing with this band and his brand given his potential and resources. And that's a very different, subjective, discussion.  And we can have it...so long as you realize that the human being you are discussing might not agree, and might not have any interest in your metrics, so will never achieve what you see as success...and will be quite happy while thumbing his nose at you. And he will be doing well, all the while.


And that's a dismissal of contrary opinion without substance. Since I am saying something contrary, you dismiss it as not being objective or simply fan speak. The truth is...none of that is really true. It's just a convenient excuse for you to try to wave it away.

Here's the thing: I am not a die hard axl fan. And I have had enough experience, and enough exposure, to not lay the blame for everything at any one persons feet in all this. And I've been around the block enough to know better than to judge someone else's level of well being  based solely on what I want out of them, and their ability or willingness to supply it.

Whatever they settled upon doesn't seem like Duff and Slash got what they wanted, because if they did we would have seen an explosion of GNR licensed products, right? One of the main things in the suit was the allegation that they were the ones who should take these decisions. They argued that Axl was denying the use of GNR songs on movies, TV etc... and that this attitude was harming them financially. Also, as Axl left the original partnership in 12/95, Axl could not be deciding on those matters alone.

I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.  Seems like nothing really obvious changed after the settlement. Still seems like they all get equal say in publishing/media use.

You are right regarding the general public knowing the names of all the members of even hugely famous bands. But as long as the names of the main members are concerned, I guess the majority of people who listen to U2 and Aerosmith at least know who Bono/The Edge and Steven Tyler/Joe Perry are. I am curious to see whether the general public will end up accepting Bon Jovi without Richie...

No way.  Back in the day, even the casual Guns fan could rattle off Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, and Steven.  Now?  The casual Guns fan stops at Axl, and the guy that wears a mini-me Slash hat.

Do you think that by diminishing the importance and impact of old lineup you're elevating the new one? And who gives a shit on what may or may not have happened 20 years ago regarding a contract that may or may not have been signed while on tour?  It's topics like this that, IMO, hinder the current lineup from getting out of the shadow of the old.  Let.  It.  Go.


 

Jarmo.

How is this not a Dead Horse topic??

If the title was Axl Lied about.....would it still be in the main forum. How is this a discussion on the current band? I thought the accepted rebuttal on this topic was "get over it move on" when it came to this topic?

Just curious.

I'm not diminishing shit. Just stating the simple fact that just because somebody enjoys Sweet Child O' Mine, it doesn't guarantee they know who Izzy is.




Partly because it hasn't been discussed before. From this angle.



/jarmo

I just tested this earlier today...not the same and anecdotal, but..interesting.

Talking to a friend of mine about music.  Mentioned SCOM and got "I LOVED that song back in High School".

I asked her to name the members of the band.

I got "Axl, Slash, that guy with the big blond hair, and the drummer who did a lot of drugs and got fired".

No mention of Izzy, at all.

One person, so not compelling..but not a hardcore GnR fan, just someone who remember some of their music from "back in the day".

My guess: There are a LOT of those types of folks out there.  I know I've gotten similar responses from people in the past.  For sure, I've gotten others that have a much more passing familiarity with the membership too...but I'm not sure it's a majority.  Completely anecdotally....it seems 50/50 to me.  If not, it happens enough that it stands out in my brain.

Perhaps, but if you asked your friend that same question in 1992, chances are Izzy (and/or Duff and Steven) are named.  That's my point: during the old lineup's reign, everybody knew them, hardcore fans, casual fans, and the general public.  Now, only the hardcore fans can name multiple members.

That's why I prefaced with it's not quite the same thing.

Maybe she would have known "back then".  Short of a time machine, we'll never be sure.

But she's a contemporary of mine (meaning pushing 40) and was certainly alive, and exposed to their music, during that time period.

Maybe she knew and forgot....but she sure doesn't remember, now.

Maybe from a neutral point of view,no one cares about who is who.The majority of people just like a song when played on the radio or Mtv(back when Mtv was all for music).
Even some concert-goers don't know and don't care who will be up on stage.

Only fans that chat in boards and forums make too much out of it  :)

And the "back-in-the-day" folks who just listen to Bon Scott and Phil Lynott. and go up until Nirvana .

I disagree.

You are arguing a different point. Saying a name compared to naming band members. Different thing.

Does it mean Izzy Stradlin and the rest of the guys were less famous or popular? No it doesn't. The band was the biggest band in the world. Still doesn't mean your class mates in high school who listened to Iron Maiden could name all members of the band. ;)




/jarmo

I disagree.  Knowing who's who in the band is a good indicator of how relevant the band is.  It's undeniable that the AFD lineup was/is more relevant than the current lineup.  It's just a fact...and this is coming from someone who loves the current lineup and is excited as hell about what 2014 can potentially bring.  IMO, the only way the current lineup can break free of the AFD shadow is for people to stop trying to compare them to the old lineup.  It has to start somewhere, why not here?  : ok:

Your gonna have your hardocre fans who know everyone in the band and then your gonna have the fans who don't know anyone and still listen to music. It is possible to not know who is the band and that band has huge success. I love Queensryche and I couldn't tell you who besides Geoff Tate is in that band ( Yes, I know there in a controversy with the name) This point of relevance of who is in a band  is a mute point especially when that band has huge success in terms of album sales and ticket sales.

True, it's just that GnR, as a brand, an entity, is not as relevant today as it was in the past [insert reason/conspiracy theories as to why].  Nowadays, it's looked at as "Axl's band", a cover act, or (even worse) not even thought about at all.  I'm hoping that can change, but the only way to improve their image is to play/release new music...more touring and playing the hits ain't gonna cut it.  That's why I'm excited about the recent news that this band is thinking to the future and getting creative (for the first time).

The thing with guns is that they were absolutely HUGE up until the mid-90's. Larger than life,iconic,everyone knew them.
Even in small Greece the hype was big. Axl and Slash that is....
And I'm talking about the majority,not the hardcore fans.

And hold on, wasn't during the Illusions tour that it became Axl and co ? that's my point.
But we've gone way off topic here.It's dead and long ago buried horse.

Yeah, but times have changed.  Obviously Guns isn't as big now as they were back then, but few rock bands are.  Rock bands/musicians aren't nearly as popular today as they once were.  So your comparison really doesn't stick.  Hell, I can name more members of One Direction than I can some of the so called popular rock bands of today and I'm sure that goes for most people.  And no, I don't like One Direction.

No line up current or previous will ever overshadow the original for the masses.that is a fact.
Even for some in here.
Others(me included) know that the current band has every potential to deliver great music and live shows and leave the previous lineups buried,though well celebrated.

Completely agree.  It's possible to both look to the future and respect the past, which they've done by bringing back Izzy and Duff for a few shows.  It's time that the current lineup forges its own path.  No doubt the potential is there, it's just a matter of capitalizing on it and having the passion to be a creative force.

Agreed, that is just the simple truth and that is not to say that the band today is not as equally talented musicianship wise as the old band. Right people at the right time. I am excited for the future of GNR.

Completely agreed.

But I still say Axl could do a better job on this front too.  Talk up your current band.  Talk up your current project.  We don't need to know that it would be a bad idea for Slash to try and "ambush" you somewhere.  In fact, we're all pretty set on the fact you hate the guy.  Just stop talking about him.

im sorry i know this is a dead horse but it doesnt help the new guys identity when the name of the fanclub is Nighttrain and the backplane thing is called Paradise City ... that reallllllly doesnt help break away from the original band...



in the past weve heard that GNR has never broken up and its just morphed in to what it is today....

but thats just Axl's view of it...and it does no favors to him and the new guys in terms of forming their own identity

Well, as far as I know, the Nightrain fan club is for Guns N' Roses fans. Same with ParadiseCity.com.

A bunch of us like the band. Not one specific line up or era only.

Personally I like to focus on the present and future instead of reminiscing about the past, but that's just me. Doesn't mean I hate the past or anything. No matter what some of you claim.



/jarmo

Well I fall in to that bunch who appreciates different era's

my point is just certain things (like the name of those sites) hinder the current one from forming their own identity IMO

Ha. It's like 15 years of media "coverage" of GNR just went down the toilet. Look at how many times it's been written that Axl "fired Duff and Slash" and how many people have blamed him for the implosion of the original lineup.

Yet this document shows that wasn't the case at all. Very interesting stuff!
 : ok:

This case has been blown WIDE OPEN.

Don't think it changes much if anything at all, really.
Classic lineup essentially disbanded because they couldn't go along to get along.
Yet, Slash, Duff, Matt (and for a short while, Izzy) got along well enough to form a new band.

For me, the real question remains unanswered. Why?
Why all the trouble for the name, only to do next to nothing with it?

Couldn't have been the plan, right?
So how did GN'R go from being the most dangerous band in the world to the soap opera it's become today?

Do you remember the 80s/90s? There was always drama, speculation, lies and controversy around GN'R. Nothing has changed.

Negativity sells.

Imagine if the Internet with social media was around, the way it is today, back then.



/jarmo

Valid point. I know it has it's perks, but I prefer the mystery of the old days over the constant information bombardment of today. Could probably due with a little less of the mystery Axl offers these days, but I don't care to know what band members are eating for breakfast, either.

I agree, it changes nothing.  To most people, the band broke up because Axl is a crazy person.  Who signed which document when will not alter that.

As for the name, he kept it for business purposes, and I can't see an argument that was the wrong play.  People latch on to brand names.  That's marketing 101.

Why hasn't he done more with it?  Personally, I think because of fear.  Fear of wearing it on his sleeve, laying it all on the line, and having it blow up in his face.  So he half asses it and stays under the radar as much as possible.  He's fortunate to have a fanbase with a large segment that believes this is not only "so rock n roll", but downright righteous.

Interesting...People give Axl a hard time cause he dosent like to talk about it

"rockerman" from another board wrote this:

"Legally speaking this GNR is not structured the same as the old GNR and id bet that there is some behind the scenes legal suites to block access to any and all of the old material. Axl cockblocked the old band from capitalizing on the idea that the old music could be utilized in movies..even went so far as to have the new band record the whole AFD material ..(and did so under the guise that they had to learn it in the first place)The real reason was to reduce actual revenue streams to the old group. Its complicated but the actual playing and using of the song increase in % depending on who is playing on the recording.
But take for instance the use of WTTJ in BlackHawk Down...that would have been a bonanza for old GNR to make some revenue off of but Axl flat out denied the use of it.


That legal manouver is so common in the US. A corporation can disperse and cease to exist legally and then turn around and restructure with the same name, same CEO,Same board and same players/employees etc BUT dump its stockholders and its pension plans and benifit policies.It can even change the terms of employment. It declares that it has gone out of business when in fact all it has done is shift laterly. It has dicked millions of people out of their retirement pensions and investment portfolios while consolidating its assets under another legal entity.Most of our car manufactures have done it, major electronic firms and manufacturing firms like Whirlpool. Its a shitty and unfair thing to do but it is legal.Insideof that manouver is also the protection of any of the old assets and business affairs from lawsuits. It absolves any wrongdoing of the Ceo and board from further legal threats to their assets etc...(for Axl that could have been a motivating factor given the myriad of legal issues he commented on in 08)
This is exactly what Axl did with GNR. He got the name, ended the old corporation and then turned around and made former memebers of that corporation ..hired employees and it changed thier ability to capitalize on OLD GNR ASSETS.

So many in this forum dont understand when they say "Slash quit the band" No Slash was reduced to a minor player and hired hand for AXLS new GNR entity.He and Duff and the rest of the crew were no longer able to make any decisions or choices in the direction , execution and image of GNR. Axl stated that way back in 95 when he said that Slash hadnt done business with GNR for something like 2 years.
When a band is signed they form a legal entity that defines who and what their business is about. Depending on the structure.. often its equal imput from the members. This was true of OLD GNR. TO make financial and business decisions required a vote. Just as in any and all corporations do. That was eliminated when Axl "quit" and legally disolved the old GNR legal entity and turned around and formed new GNR. That is what Paul Huge was doing on the record without consultation to the rest of the newly formed GNR entity but at that time the same band structure of old UYI era GNR. It was a shot across the bow of Slash and the rest of them that they would have NO SAY in the future business of GNR. That was Axls legal right. Thats what was behind him seeking out Fink before Slash departed. Absolute control over the GNR empire and its future enterprises.
Consider how controlled the present era is on band exposes like magazines features,photoshoots, cross over promotions, celebrity functions particularly when it is GNR related. Notice how squimish some of them get when asked about the future of GNR. Evasive to a large degree or vague about concrete plans. Im betting that none of them feel tremedously secure in thier positions. That isnt because the band doesnt want recognition or promotion individually as rockstars and music makers- that is Axls doing. The take home message is teh band...are employees and will remain in the background until further notice.

To further demonstrate how it would work. One day your the vice president of a megamillion dollar enterprise and you sit on the board making major decisions. You have a corner office and accesses to the companies assets, wealth fame control.... then the next day your a desk jockey in a cubicle getting coffee for your former equals with a reduced role and reduced salary and subject to termination at will. "

Outstanding post Limulus.

I still have no idea why this is not a dead horse topic and why those that bang on about moving on from the past have discussed this topic (the past) more than the bands future plans. Strange days indeed.

Very interesting.
I'm sure financially the move has paid off quite well for him.
Unfortunately, in terms of creativity and moving the band forward, it hasn't.
Maybe the right move for Axl, but hard to say it's paid off for Guns N' Roses.

yeah, this is why I cringe when people say well the old guys quit on GNR/ Axl....


if i was in something from the beginning and then was forced in to being a hired hand.... id be gone too....

were they foolish to relinquish the name and the power to Axl? yeah absolutely, and they have nobody to blame but themselves for that...

but once they were told they had to sign on to be employees.... Axl had to know theyd walk... and if he didnt.. then he was shortsighted



bottom line... ALOT of ego on all sides ... it was destined to end sooner rather than later .... people can take all sides all they want because they "like" axl or slash etc


but there was no victim here.... except for the fans

Well said, all around.

Holy cow, that was well said...

Just some comments on the post:

The author of the above post is technically right, that the % of publishing fees changes depending on who's playing the song..but not by much.  And his insinuation isn't technically correct.

The Lions share goes to the artist(s) credited with WRITING the song.  The people playing get, relatively, less.  And all the AFD material is attributed, under authorship, to "Guns n Roses", rather than a specific member of the partnership.  That's right..the legal GNR PARTNERSHIP is recognized and, even though dissolved, those 5 original members are still in control of that material.  It has nothing to do with Guns n Roses, the band name (which was an asset of the original partnership).

So re-recording, while taking a pittance out of Slash, Duff's, Izzy, and Steven's pockets wouldn't really amount to all that much.


Again, there's some truth in there, but the insinuation isn't quite right.  The process the poster is talking about, whether they know it or not, is a form of bankruptcy restructuring.  The existing corporation does NOT technically cease to exist, though, but it does "reform".  This is how they protect their IP, assets, and property from creditors claiming it and taking it from them. It's more than a semantic difference.

AFAIK, this is NOT what Guns n Roses did.  The name was an asset of the old partnership (NOT corporation, I don't think, but a limited partnership).  When the partnership was dissolved, Axl retained that asset (as stipulated in the MOA, posted here, and attached to their partnership agreement).  The existing partnership is still recognized as having control of pretty much all the other partnership assets (ie: their songs).  In fact, this was largely what the 2004 settled lawsuit was supposed to hash out and, at the end of the day, we had the status quo.

Much of the rest is actually sort of true, if you think it through.  Once Axl had control of the name under his belt..the rest of the band couldn't operate under the name without HIS express permission.  So, in essence, you had a controlling "partner".  Financially, the other members still received all the payouts they were entitled to for their material...Axl has no control over that except to control what material was put on which album, maybe.  But Axl, if he was of a mind, could certainly take his ball and go home.

But this:


just isn't true at all.  It's not an accurate reflection of what actually occurred, though the end result might have been functionally the same.

Slash and Duff signed that MOA.  They handed the band name over to Axl, in the event of the partnership dissolution.

It's more like you were a co-owner of a multimillion dollar corporation that had a poison pill in it's articles of incorporation, and one you knowingly signed and approved.  One of the shareholders used it to take the brand you'd built with him, as he dissolved your corporation, and took it somewhere else to use it.  Again, all with forewarning and your express permission to allow him to do so.  HOWEVER, you still have joint control (and an ability to generate income) of everything ELSE that was created by that initial corporation.

And you can choose to either join the guy leaving, in a lesser position, or not.  But you'll always have Paris. :)
   

Ding ding ding ding ding ding...we have a winner. :)

Too much ego, too much hostility, and too many creative differences.

Reminds me of the Pink Floyd 'exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage' lyric. 

Great Post by Lumilus and Jaeball.

I agree that there must be some legal issues that we are not privy to in the background that may be the cause of the new band not moving forward or at least partially to blame for taking the wind out of Axl's sails.

One of the things that always struck me was that back with the original band, Axl was the one that was out in front doing press interviews, coming out on MTV, wanting to perform on award shows, making videos, and promoting the shit out of the band to the point that they became the biggest band in the world. its common knowledge most of the old members hated doing videos, but did them because they were Axl's vision, which I believe is part of the reason they became so huge at the time. I always loved that they were the biggest band at one point in their career. However, Now it seems like Axl has done a 180 and decided not to promote the new band aside from touring, but not doing press interviews, or very few, no videos, and no promotions for CD when the album came out.

I understand that the music industry has now changed and they may not be able to attain that level of success again, but I think Axl has missed many opportunities to be back in the limelight and make GNR more popular than it is right now. I think we are getting a conflicting message by his actions that he wants the new band to be successful but yet their is no promotion  of the album. I don't think he is trying to be like Pearl Jam in that sense of being low key.

However, I  think he could have come out as the face of GNR and promoted the album with the new band to introduce the world to this version of GNR. The music is great, but as a previous poster noted when do you hear Street of Dreams on radio?

My point is, and Axl has said as much that he fought long and hard for the GNR name which is obviously important to him. Well now you have it, but you are not using it to its fullest potential. If you went through all these trials and tribulations and got what you wanted, don't let it go to waste. Im not saying he has to be a publicity whore and exploit the band commercially and sellout for the sake of making money, but I do think that its not fair to the fans and even more to the new members, because those guys have been putting in a lot of work and sacrifice flying under the radar for the last few years.

And yes before everybody starts bashing me I know... Axl doesn't owe anyone anything and he can do what he wants.

I never really cared about all this drama, reasons behind old gnr implosion have always been clear to me (the main one: rags to riches...) But I always find hilarious (almost embarassing) listening to Axl talking about Slash as the one who was trying to take over the band.
As you said,  everyone lost a lot in that war, and even the last man standing lost almost 10 years of artistic life... & for what?
The saddest thing is that they can't even shake hands after 20 years  :no:

True, in the beginning.

But even look by the time of the UYI tour.  Slash and Duff were doing a lot of the press.  I actually think that's one of the things holding back the new line-up.  If Axl couldn't be bothered, he could send Slash and Duff in his stead.  But can you send out DJ and Tommy?  I don't know.


This is a big beef of mine too.  I think he does these guys a disservice by not putting them over for all their hard work and loyalty to what was, at times, a floundering operation, at best.

I agree on the first part.
When I came to know and love this band Axl was somewhat of a ghost.Apart from seeing him on the official videos on mtv all the press interviews were mostly Slash.

Also,are we 100% sure that the documents are legit ? The only way to know the truth and only the truth is for a live TV/Radio debate between the 2.
Which will never happen so it's better to just drop the whole damn thing.
20 years have gone by....

100 percent .... Damn that Slash !!! he tried to take over the band and do exactly what I did !! how dare he lol

now Axl is entitled to not like him and not want to be cool with him ever again... thats his right....

but to hate the man for doing exactly what you did.... like I said....big ego's involved... never good

Marc Canter who very obviously cares about both guys personally says it best... they both come from different places and both really dont think they are wrong...

are Slash's dates wrong? yes they are

does he come off less than genuine sometimes? yeah he does

but to him... its the truth

and likewise for Axl..everything he thinks is the truth...is the truth to him... its always in the middle...so back to OP... this is not proof that Slash or Duff lied about anything

Very well said!

us poor poor victim fans  :crying:
rock stars with egos??  Whodda thunk it!  :o
oh fuckin' please.  Seriously?  ::)

you said it yourself ... it was destined to "end" sooner rather than later.
Whose to say if the AFD line-up stayed together at that time that it would have resulted in an implosion where everything GNR ceased to exist (including the spin-off bands/material by the ex-gunners).  They probably could've all retired and lived very comfortable lives on royalties alone.

And does anyone seriously think that till the day they die and beyond, each AFD members won't have "of GNR" associated with their name? 

Not only have the fans gotten to be witness to the amazing materials, artists & artistry in the evolution of Axl's vision of GNR, the fans also have gotten to be part of each & every ex-gunners' vision of where they want their art to go.

I'm no victim and I don't even have to pick a side.  I can have it all!!!
I WIN!!!  ;D

All I have to say is that they are fuckin' liars and I knew this since the very beginning.

Their books are full of fallacies and things don't add up.

Lol..... To each their own

That is the most ignorant post I've ever read on here.

The books are their opinions and their perception of events. 
They're not wrong, its just how they viewed events.

I know some pedantic fans read these books and look for any error they can find, even something as small as a date of a concert or anything like that. 

The reality is, the books are not supposed to be taken so seriously that every single date has to add up.

Good post.

Whenever I hear people lament that a movie "based on a true story" has a few details wrong, I always remind them its a movie, not a documentary.  I would say the same with any sort of memoir.

What it changes is the claims made by former band members that Axl essentially blackmailed them into signing off on deal that took their stake out of GNR. This oft repeated story has been used to vilify Rose in the press for two decades.

Essentially, you are correct. The band couldn't get along and it broke up, so why does this matter? However, what this changes is the nuance of how that occurred. It proves that it likely wasn't just one guy's issues. Like any relationship, when it breaks apart there is generally a pretty good amount of blame to be spread around. Duff was pretty candid in his book that he didn't blame Axl, and holds no ill will toward him. So where do "fans" and the press get off doing so?

I get that, to a point.

But Axl has a shit ton of baggage, very much of which he packed himself.  I know the story about how he got the name had been repeated for a few years, but I'm not sure that was the event that moved him into the "bad guy" column, you know?

In fact, if anything, Axl's own behavior for his first 10 years in the public eye likely helped make the repeated story sound extremely plausible and probably likely in the eyes of most.  If you heard the same story about a guy like Bono or Eddie Vedder, you'd think it was a bit off.  But who heard that story about Axl (accurate or no) and had to take more than 2 seconds to consider it might well be true?

And has been said many times, why let that story gain steam all that time?  Its too late to unring that bell now, which is unfortunate for him.

I think the knowledgable fan understands that it was Doug Goldstein who appeared to hint to Slash and Duff that they had no choice but to sign

and since he did so on Axl's behalf (with him knowing or not) thats why Slash and Duff felt that they were blackmailed...again.. they are not lying..just how it was presented to them

Duff is as chill as they come and realizes the issues and the mistakes he made... not sure why Axl and Slash cant

Agreed Jaeball.

Just got one question. Is this paper going to change anything today? No, it's not.

And I'm right with you.  I've been asking that question since all this broke.  What I'm told is that it does matter because a "false" story was put out and now we have the "correct" one.

I can only speak for myself, but this is the epitome of shoulder shrug "news" to me.  I'm more interested in hearing these supposed 2-3 new songs then overanalyzing some supposed "A-ha!!" moment from a document signed 20 years ago.

I just find it annoying that if this was something that Axl supposedly "lied" about then the original post would have been deleted immediately

But if we are going to discuss it, might as well point out the obvious issues with the whole drama on all sides

and ur right... i hope we hear some new songs during this south american run.... it will be a big let down if we dont

because when i leave work tonight or one night in the near future and pop on a cd in my car... id love to listen to a new song by Axl

No, it is the assuming fan who THINKS/BELIEVES it was Doug Goldstein who hinted that they had to sign off on a partnership agreement that included that stipulation.  Could Doug have played a role?  In some sense, yes.  But, given that the agreement was signed when GN'R wasn't even on tour, and that same agreement was cited into evidence by Slash and Duff in a lawsuit in 2004 against Axl (er go it is the standing partnership agreement), it could not have happened the way Slash and Duff have described.

Ali

You wanna know why all the trouble about the name? Ok. Back in 2008 or around that time, during his chats. I think it was in Mygnrforum Axl himself explained that back when Alan Niven was the manager Niven wanted to fire him. According to Axl, Niven was trying to persuade the other members about firing Axl. When Axl found out he wanted to strike back. So Axl and his entourage (Goldstein or Geffen or his lawyers) plan was to get the name for Axl. So if Axl was fired he was the one with the right to use the name. I don?t know who told Axl about the plan that Niven had. I don?t know if in fact Niven had that plan at all. But Axl was told that.

Keep in mind that I?m not quoting. I just made a long story short. Besides we all know that Alan Niven got fired not Axl. So any danger was gone. Still it seems Axl was determined, maybe still afraid. The name was his idea. He came up with it back at the time when Tracii, Ole and Rob were in GN?R. So technically only Axl and, if you want , Izzy were the bosses. Duff, Slash and Steven joined later. However they were no strangers. They all knew each other, they were somewhat friends.  That?s why they get it done quikly before their first show at the Troubadour back in june 1985.

I?m not saying I?m justifying Axl?s actions. I?m just giving you an anwer

I recall Axl telling that story as well.

I believe the gist was that Niven went to the others and said Axl was unpredictable and unreliable and would ultimately be a problem.  So get a new singer in place before you really hit it big and don't let that happen.

Kind of shitty?  Yeah, I suppose.  But was Niven wrong?  Look how this all turned out.  Niven was basically trying to pull an Iron Maiden.  Get rid of your Di'Anno now (Axl) and gets someone more reliable, their own Dickinson.

There's a pretty big "what if" in that, though...

Would they have gotten nearly as big without Axl?

We'll never know, but I suspect not.  It was the sum of those parts...all of them..that made AFD what it was.

So..was Niven wrong about there ultimately being strife in the band? No (and again, I'm not sure I lay that completely at the feet of Axl, alone...though he certainly bears a fair share of culpability).

But was he wrong in the advice he gave to get rid of Axl?  I think...and this is just me...that answer is yes.  And, another question...if he had left well enough alone, and all the back biting hadn't gotten back to Axl...would there still have been AS much strife, bitterness, and "combat"?

We'll never know...

It's time for an Axl tell all book  :)

if he does.... I hope he gets all of his dates precise  ;)

Well yeah I think Goldstein played a very large role in the confusion and turmoil

Yep, lots of what if's in that situation.  If Duff and Slash kept the name and turned to a different singer they may have gone through similar struggles that Axl has gone through and the burdens (and royalties) the brand name brings.  We've already seen they haven't exactly been able to keep Velvet Revolver together for more than 5 years, so who's to say what would've happened. 

The way I look at it, that original lineup was explosive and made their mark on the musical landscape.  They will never be forgotten, but they just weren't meant to last long.  It's unfortunate, but Slash is doing better than ever right now it seems.  Duff seems quite content as well.  And as much as you want to bag on Axl for his lack of productivity, he seems happier now than he has in many years.  At least the last time we saw and heard from him.  Obviously he's still dealing with some legal matters and has his issues with the label, but it seems he's genuinely satisfied with the current lineup and enjoys performing.  I could be way off, but that's the perception I get.

If they stayed together, who knows what would've happened.  But I don't see how it could've had a happy ending.  So I just enjoy what we have now, whatever that may be.  I hope for new music someday, but certainly don't expect anything.

And lastly, people want to compare GNR to other pop acts, current rock groups, or their contemporaries.  There's simply no comparison.  Times have changed, players have changed, etc.  GNR is simply not run like other bands and the reasons for that seem pretty obvious so people are either choosing to ignore them or are underestimating them.

This is definitely the most positive thing with the current band.  Axl does seem to be having fun onstage.

Many shows of the UYI tour, it almost looks like he's being sent out there at gunpoint.  Didn't seem happy, didn't even try to hide it.

Even some shows with the current lineup it seemed that way.  First his mini rant in Japan when they re-emerged about 2007 being the worst year of his life.  Then at Rock in Rio he seemed disappointed in his performance and in Dublin when he stood in one place the whole show after walking off stage.  I didn't like seeing him like that.  More recently though, he seems to be in a much better place, which is good to see. 

Agree, all the way around. Just be careful, though. There are those who find fans who are generally content to be unfathomable creatures!

Here's what I don't get about Axl and Slash. It seems like Niven and Goldstein were the two driving forces that started the demise of Guns N' Roses. Now that both of them are out why doesn't Axl and Slash at least talk things out and air out their differences? At least there could be  peace between them two. I just don't get their egos. 

I don't get how Axl still speaks about it in such raw terms.  He talks like this all happened last week.

I can understand if he doesn't want anything to do with the guy, because that happens to all of us in life with someone or another.  But he's so over the top about it.  The "cancer" thing, and what have you.

With all due respect, I think the "cancer" comment is overblown.  I can't even count how many times I heard a particular athlete (e.g. Terrell Owens) labeled as a "locker room or clubhouse cancer".  It's just a metaphor for a destructive presence in a partnership or team.  I just read an interview with Ace Frehley discussing how Gene Simmons called him a "cancer".

The other aspect is that when you don't speak about something for a while, perhaps it still seems fresh, or more fresh than it might actually be, because you haven't expressed your emotions about it.  That's one possibility I can see.

Ali

Don't forget Axl's comment on Jimmy Kimmel, when asked what year he would redo, he answered "one within the last 5 or 6", so we're talking 2006-2011 -- years that involve the current lineup, not the original.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he was talking about his dealings with the label and their reluctance to help out with the release of CD and a corresponding marketing campaign.  They were also in the midst of a change in management and he mentioned how they were touring without any management at the time.  There was a lot going on that we had no idea about, always is.

But you're right, I do remember that comment on Kimmel now and it stuck out to me at the time. 

And I'm sorry, the date was 2009 when he made that comment as they weren't on tour in 07.  I believe it was towards the end of that epic show in Tokyo.

yes, they were on tour in 2007 but his japan mini rant was end of 2009 where he spoke about his last year being the hardest/ugliest (or so). this should fit somwhere in between 2008-2009 and most likely must have smth. to do with CD and not before 2008.

Here's what Axl said in Tokyo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzRrDNS7epE

Oh, I'm with you on that.  Very common sports reference.  Made it myself many times.

And, unrelated...is T.O. everyone's goto on that, or what?  Its uncanny.  Its mine too.  He's the knee jerk example, always, all sports.

I agree with all of you. But at the same time I'd like to say that some relationship couldn't be compared to any others

 Thinkin' to me,5 years ago, I was in love with a girl I had known for 2 years...obviously she was already engaged ... She loved me too since day 1, but she couldn't left her bf at the time (1 year after she would have left him anyway).  I left her since she said me "I can't leave him", breaking a nice friendhsip, without saying any word... She looked for me for almost 2 year, but  I didn't care and i haven't talked with her for all this time and I actually don't know what I would do If i would meet her somewhere out there...
Thinkin' about that, probably I wouldn't do the same things with another girl, but i would redo the same things with her..

You know...sometimes you just do things without knowing why, because you feel you have to act that way, even if you wouldn't act the same way with other people or even if it's not the best thing to do.

Anyway, it's 5 years ago, here we're talking about 20 years ago... :nervous:... And Axl is the one who actually "won", so I really don't get his anger and hate and, at the same time, his interest on what the others band member, including slash, are doing. Ex: why reading a book of a man you don't care about, that is a liar, and you want to put out of your life forever?

Have to wonder how many of the Japanese audience actually understood what he was saying, apart from the thank you very much. He tends to make some odd statements that don't mean anything to the audience, I've heard him say "they put chocolate in the peanut butter" but that's all he seemed to say - what was that about??

The rant in Tokyo was about behind the scenes stuff which we don't know what's going on but I guess he gets it off his chest & sends a message to those 'in the know' who he isn't happy about. Lets them know he's not afraid to speak his mind but I think everyone knows that already, but still it's nice to hear his speaking voice as I love his voice & his accent.  :yes:

Its not that simple though is it?  Why don't you pick up the phone and contact an old friend that you fell out with and haven't spoken to in over 10 years? 
Surely it would be awkward, what do you say, where do you start, what happens if the other person isn't interested in hearing from you? 

Clearly Slash made some sort of drunken attempt to talk to Axl in 2006 but it didn't end well for Slash. 

The problem with Axl and Slash is that they have both clearly hurt each other and they both only see things from their own perception of what happened without trying to understand things from the others point of view.

Of the 2, I think it would benefit Axl more to air out their differences.  He still seems very bitter and hateful of Slash which is an unhealthy way to live.

Does anyone else think that Drugs had a role in all of this to? Seems to me after reading Slash's book and Duff's book that neither were in great shape.

absolutely. I read the recent Rolling Stone article on Kiss getting into the Hall and Gene was saying how Ace and Peter were out of the band was because of the drugs and alcohol. Not that Axl is a saint but he wasn't a junkie like Slash back in the day and a raging alcoholic like Duff. However, both are seemingly clean now, so while drugs and alcohol may have played a part in the breakup of the band, it isn't much of a factor currently.

Drugs and alcohol only work if everyone is onboard and doing them.  Then, no one judges, no one sees a problem. 

Anytime you got a junkie and a drunk paired up with a guy that does such things in moderation, or perhaps not at all, there are going to be problems.

Probably not half as much as its made out to be.  Slash mainly done lots of drugs when Guns weren't touring or had breaks in their schedule.  Its just the way he was / is.  He needs to keep busy.

When Guns were on tour though, although I'm sure he drank very large volumes everyday and maybe did some drugs at night, Slash was always up early doing the media rounds and always on time at every show. 

I don't think drugs or drinking were that much of an issue though to be honest.

I would think the problems would be when you are trying to talk to him about business shit or something coming up, and the guy is wrecked.  At its like 3PM.

Annoyance and resentment are going to be natural reactions.

And you're going to feel put upon (that you are now stuck being clear headed and making the business decisions), too.  All while you're watching the people who are supposedly your partners "having fun" while you're left doing the "work".

Not saying that's what was happening..I don't know...but if it was, and I was the one expected to be doing the work, I'd be pretty pissed off.

Spot on. 

Its going to get old after awhile.  You feel like the only grown up.

I always assumed that's what the thing at the Stones concert in 1989 was.  I think Axl meant exactly what he said that day.  He was at wit's end trying to get these guy's attention on the matter, but he knew they could not possibly continue the way things had been going.

For all the crap Axl takes about being juvenile at times, that was probably the most grown up thing you will ever see a guy do in that spot. 

I think that was part of it.

We also have a pretty good idea that Axl is a bit of a perfectionist, and has a whole lot of professional pride.

We've heard the stories of Izzy being so fucked up during shows they had to turn his guitar amps down so they were almost completely out of the mix.

I think AXL was noticing more of that from some of the other band members, too...with the worst offender being Steven.

So, now, maybe...you've got a guy who is having to deal with all the work crap, and he's now watching the product he takes pride in get fucked up by his partners.

I would find that very frustrating, and be REALLY pissed, if that happened to me.  All theorycrafting on my part, of course.

people, during UYI Slash basically did ALL the interviews, he was the one talking on tv, radio, newspaper etc.! he did the job, he gave it all, he was always on stage on time (wait..."before" time!), rehearsed like a madman......he did all this since the clubdays! it's just unfair and totally out of line saying that Axl did the main work.

Pretty much my thoughts.  Slash was able to function regardless of what he was doing.
It was mainly during breaks in their schedule when he had real issues with drugs.  Then he'd clean up a bit when he needed to for tours and other business related things.

End this thread, it is stupid.

truth

but with any control freak... if the person doesnt do it on ur terms.. then its wrong

and this goes for both of them


but this really is all moot at this point... no matter waht anybody here says...it would be fucking cool to see... but its not gunna happen.. thats ok too

Very true.

That's our problem now, in my opinion.  Back then, Axl couldn't be bothered, so we got Slash and Duff. 

Now, Axl can't be bothered, and our current guitarists can't even get a call back about their plans, let alone know enough to speak to the press on the band's behalf.

That's not necessarily "the work".

The work is dealing with management, the label, the promotional people, your schedulers and handler, your lawyers, your A&R guy, and all the other "business" folks.  It's approving signage, advertising us, and all the other bullshit that comes along with being the biggest band in the world.  Sure, some of that is handled by "people", but...ultimately, someone has to give the "people" marching orders and approvals.  Or, alternately,  you can be a puppet...but I don't think there's anyone here that thinks, given the personalities involved, that GnR was going to be puppets.

Again, I'm not saying Axl was doing all that...I don't know.  But what you're referring to as "most of the work"...well, it's not, by half.

The press stuff is, quite frankly, all rainbows and sunshine in comparison.  You're getting the glory and the "press masturbation"...limo rides, catering, ego stroking, and the like.  Even if you're doing remote radio, you're put in a nice hotel room with food, people to take care of everything you want (including booze and, potentially, drugs)...you're just shooting the shit.  You can function through that while being fucked up beyond all belief.  Being "out front" doesn't mean you're doing all the work.

I?m afraid it?s not that easy. When Steven was fired they rewrite the partnership agreement. They had to, one partner was gone. At the same time they were renegotiating their contract with Geffen. On top of that Niven was trying to get rid of Axl. So their first Momerandum of Agreement was about coming to terms about all this. That?s when they all agree that if Axl was fired he would keep the name. But were not inlove with the idea of firing Axl. Slash in his book says they thought about firing Axl many times even in the early days. But they would quickly reject the idea.  So yes, they signed a Memo as early as 1990 agreeing that if Axl was fired he would take the name. But what were the odds of Axl being fired?

Then Izzy left. Another partner gone. So the copy of the Memo we have here is from 1992 because they needed to rewrite it again. And again Axl got that amedment about the name if he was fired. Was that necessary? Slash and Duff only wanted that Axl would show up on time for shows, sound check. And that was it.

Then this whole thing gets fucked up. Slash and Duff claim in 1993 they were forced to sign the Memo again. And this time Axl wants the name for himself but not on the event of being fired. He just wants the name. He just wants to terminate the partnership and start a new one as some other people previously posted. According to Duff book Axl never told them a word. It was someone connected to Goldstein who issued the threat because it was that someone who had a meeting with them. I still think there are missing parts in this puzzle.

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

Why would they introduce as evidence a document expossing them as liars? I?m not saying there was a new 1993 document.  I?m saying there are still missing parts in this puzzle.

1) because they are legally obligated to supply the most recent version of their partnership agreement, as the plaintiffs in the suit. In 2004. After the partnership was dissolved.

2) I would guess they assumed evidentiary discovery would not make it to the public eye. And, honestly, it might not be something their lawyers noticed...given their primary concern wasn't fact checking it against their books and interviews.

3) There may be more pieces to the puzzle...but they are not the ones you are suggesting. If they had had to sign a more recent moa or partnership agreement in 1993, or any other time,..they would have had to have filed it.

They didn't.

What you see is it, including signatures and dates.

Which means this version is the one that held purview upon dissolution of the partnership.

but Slash provenly did the absolute most of your so called "out front" work, thats a fact! and i highly disagree on press stuff being "all rainbows and sunshine in comparism" and fun, exspecially with all the interview runs during UYI tour and when they also did party so much.
for all the rest we dont know who did that work, surely Doug did lots of it, but we dont know much details about the band members, so thats just speculation. the Slash doing the "out front" work isnt.

All this was before mainstream internet, so #2 is not only plausible, but given their chemical state, wasn't even considered as a stumbling block, they had "Their truth" which may or may not have been viewed as problematic at the time. I concur with points 1 and 3, all legal agreements are based on the newest contract. The common phrase that affects most people will get to hear at some point " the last will and testament" beautifully demonstrates this, meaning this will, super-ceeds all other agreements. :yes:

Here is the problem that I see. Duff book was printed in 2011. In the book he made that 1993 claim. The real issue with that is if any person signs something under duress, as Duff claims, it is illegal. So if there was some 1993 document it would have been an illegal document. So Axl would not have any right to anything.

 If I know this, Duff has to know this as well. He had to know it back in 1993 and he clearly knew it in 2011. Duff was a different guy in 2011. He was sober and business savvy. And yet he made those "difamatory" accusations in his book. If he made that statement  it is because he is legally protected despite that 1992 Memo with signatures, dates and everyting. Printing in a book such a claim is very different than reading in a magazing from some annonymous source that Axl might have threat them. If what Duff says in his book is a lie well he shouldn?t be given a free pass.

The only way to solve this puzzle is to ask Duff why there is one thing printed in the 1992 Memo, that they still use if they have to. And why he printed in his book exactly the opposite when he knows that signing something under duress makes that document illegal.

 Something is missing here. It just doesn?t add up!

Not necessarily.

You can be wrong, even in print.

We don't know they lied. That I grant you. Because, unless they comment honestly, we don't know intent. We do know they were wrong, though. And to protect himself, all duff would reasonably have to say is " I was fucked up, confused and misremembered." Bam...protected. That drug use makes a pretty good defense/reason, in this case. And anyone interested in suing him for libel, or at least their attorneys, know it...and know it would be a waste of time considering damages (which have to be proven too, in a libel suit) would be so minimal, if you could come up with any at all.

But, they were most certainly wrong.No real ifs ands or buts about it. This document shows it. The legal logic behind it shows it.

If they signed something under duress, and thus thought it was invalid ...Slash and Duff would have had a whole lot more traction during the lawsuit. They WOULD have introduced it, because it would have made their case for them.  And they would have had to contest the "current" (meaning any Moa/partnership agreement supposedly signed in 93) agreement, and prove the duress at some point, likely as part of this suit. And, at that point, you'd likely see the courts make a ruling, because it would have been ample basis for at least a portion of their suit, or any previous suit.

This suit got well into discovery/evidentiary submission. And, if you look at the proceedings from back then, the judge basically kept telling them they (both sides) needed to actually provide a basis for their suits and counter suits. The scheduled proceedings made it look like the judge was giving them one more crack at it before he summarily dismissed it. And then it settled, and nothing changed, really. That's an important point: NOTHING really changed.

And yet...through all that, no newer Moa/agreement was ever presented.

You think someone who is truly addicted can just stop because he has an interview or a meeting? On what tour did he overdose in San Francisco?

Did you ever seen interviews with Duff or Slash from those days? They didn't always seem "sober"...





/jarmo

You can disagree on the "sunshine and rainbows", and you'd likely get some artists who agree. But if you like attention, and can get your ass out of bed (or just don't go to bed) to do drive time interviews, it's a relatively cushy gig. I've seen it, and been part of the process. In fact, I was part of the process around when this was going on (though not for them), when I was working for a venue (early 90s). A cursory, background part, but usually in or around the room (remember, this was pre cell phone era...I imagine it's a bit different, now).  Think "rider for their dressing room" type setup...scaled back a tad, with a few land lines and come computers/ info screens). Luckily, I was only working on the tech side, and usually (but not always) the artist(s) shared. :)

I said just that. We don't know. We know slash and duff were pretty fucked up, though. And we know axl was pissed off.  As I said, plainly, the rest is a big "what if". An interesting bit of theory craft.

Doug might have done the leg work, but you either have to accept that gnr were 100% his puppets...or that someone(s) in the band were giving him direction. 

the press work had to be done, huh? and Slash basically did all of it, no matter how stoned he was, he did it. i'm not so sure if he was always happy about that though, f.e. there are video interviews where he openly said he doesnt like to do some special tv talking; also i for myself can rarely be motivated to do business when still being drunk (and IMO Duff was even more of a mess). if you've ever read Slash's book he says that lots of business was up to him not Axl, and that Slash would have liked some more support by him (f.e. check the Paris'92 soundcheck-story).
but i also dont see the problem in doing what you like. if you like to do interviews and interviews have to be done and you've proven to be able to do them some good.....then you should be the man doing it, as simple as that.

the "given direction" you've saying fits at least on the name thing, that was pure Axl's intend, he even confirmed this move in his 12/2008 online chats.

There isn't any problem with doing the interviews if you're good at them, or enjoy doing them.  Nobody ever said there was....

The point was only that's not "all the work".  Its some work. It's certainly "visible" work.  But, honestly, of "all the work", it's some of the cushiest bits. How EASY it is largely depends on your desire for attention and ability to get to room/phone/location at a designated time and talk.  Again, you can do that stoned out of your goard or drunk off your ass.  I know...I've seen it done, and done well.  Hell, it might make the interviews better, sometimes.

And you're making my point...if there's work to be done, and you're only doing the bits you LIKE (and not the other stuff, that you fucking hate, even though it has to be done)....well, chances are your partners might not like getting "stuck" with the rest. If that's what happened. Maybe.

On the Soundcheck story...again, we're talking about perception.  It's perfectly possible that Slash felt HE was doing the heavy lifting (because he was doing press and musical "direction"), and Axl felt HE was doing the heavy lifting (because he was doing the business and logistical stuff), and they were both pissed off about it, not "seeing" what the other was doing.  By Paris 1992, though...I think a lot of the hard feelings were already built up.  I suspect both sides were taking passive aggressive steps to intentionally "punish" the other...

Again, completely theorycrafting, here. Big game of "what if".


But, then, that's more fuel for the fire.

It sort of goes to show that GnR were not "puppets"...someone(s) was doing that work.  They weren't being led around by their dicks by Goldstein.

I don't think anyone has ever disputed the "name thing" was at Axl's request (or at least suggestion).  I think the dispute is over timing, method, and reasoning.

This is the exact argument I've been using for weeks on this issue.  Finally, someone sees and understands the logical reasoning behind the argument and echoes it.

Thanks Pilferk.

As I said before, this MOA does not prove that Duff and Slash lied.  To know that you would have to know their intent.  But, at the very least, the stories they both told were absolutely false.

They were not on tour when the agreement including the clause about ownership of the band name was signed.  Er go, there could not have been any scenario where they were put under duress to sign the agreement before a show.

It's that simple.

Ali

Right..I really don't remember a "sober" slash back in the days ;D

And he never slept...he just passed out sometimes  ;D

no, the point was that -right before i jumped in this discussion- people werent crediting Slash for much or any work during UYI tours, and that's just plain WRONG. he provenly did most of the "out front work" (nice term by the way!). all the other work we dont have stronger evidence about who did what exactly. is it possible Axl did more of the "behind the scenes"-work? sure! is it possible that Slash didnt do anything of that? i highly doubt that. his ego got very big aswell during UYI, it's hard to imagine him not wanting to take also care of behind-the-scenes-work. he had to sign much off anyway, unfortunately he got outtricked with the name issue - which intentions are some evil in the 1st place and which is smth. we havent discussed too much IMO.

anyway Slash did most of the "out front work" when the rest is as you've said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mh8HThNHdY

Looks pretty messed up to me. SLow speaking and everything. But none the less it's the past and what's done is done. Dwelling on who did what and when they did what isn't going to make a difference today.

Drunk, high, sober...tough to question Slash's work ethic based on what he accomplished with Guns and everything since.
Axl's on the other hand seems more the mystery to me.

Here's what was written, and you subsequently responded right after:


Was the specific reference to "business" stuff not enough context?  Because thats what was being discussed...not the "out front" stuff.  THAT was the point.

It might not have been YOUR point..but then I'm not sure why the tangent started.



You provided a good bit of evidence by pointing out the Doug seemed to be taking his direction from Axl, mostly.


Your basis for "doubt" isn't any more, or less, founded in speculation than the rest of the "what if" going on here, right?


I think its very easy to imagine, considering that typically that stuff is soul suckingly awful, with very little "glory".  I suppose some people might like it..but it's far easier to imagine trying to avoid it at all costs. ESPECIALLY given we know that Slash and Duff were fucked up most of the time...hardly the best time to be making life altering, career defining business decisions.


Tricked?  How so?

He signed a contract.  And not under duress (as he claimed).  And he had somewhere between 24 hours and 30 days (depending on the instrument(s)/documents he signed) "cooling off" period where he could have rescinded.  And he didn't.

Don't make it more than it is: A bad business decision. And one he entered into with eyes open, just like any other contract. Hard to argue he was "fooled".

By the looks of things, Axl got the name because Niven tried to coordinate a coup, and get Axl fired.  Axl found out about it, and outmaneuvered him.  Didn't trick anybody...just did what he had to do to ensure that, if he left, so did the name.  Was it a dick move?  Maybe....but then I'd guess Axl thinks that what happened via Niven was a dick move, too.


Yup, sure is.

We also know SOMEONE was doing the other "business" stuff.

And we know Izzy, Steven (before he left), Duff, and Slash were fucked up most of the time.  Matt was an "employee".  So was Gilby.

It's not a big, huge, leap to think the only relatively sober guy in the parnership was handling the stuff that required a somewhat clear head.  Definitely not "for sure", granted.  But not a huge leap.

Sober?

Sure, the guy has accomplished a good bit post GnR.  As has Duff.  Both POST sobriety.  Heck, Duff has even become something of a business mogul.  Again, that was AFTER finding sobriety though.  The work ethic is definitely improved.

And...what's sort of ironic..is that with VR they had someone who was fucked up, and they got the boot because THAT PERSON'S work ethic (not just creatively) suffered.

Drunk and high?  I don't know if I'd agree....creatively, they seemed OK.  But, in a functioning professional aspect...there was easily as much bad as good.

He definitely gave good interview...even if he was fucked up.

There was an MTV "backstage" with him in the early 90's where he is so high, it's nuts.  And it's a GREAT interview.

pilferk, out-front-work is part of business to me. any marketing is! and Slash was Guns 24h/7days a week up until 7/17/1993, that was pointed out by me, evidence is all over youtube. the Doug thing aint, thats still grey era as we've agreed (the behind-the-scenes-world), so please dont twist my words in this.

name tricked out was meant in the long run. again, thats what still has discussion potential.

Then when it was further explained in later posts, it should gave been clear that was not the point the rest of us were making.

And I'm not twisting your words. You said it...nothing to twist.


Maybe for you. The rest of us are still discussng the other pieces we find interesting...

This Celebration Whit:

GUNS N' ROSES WORLD TOUR 2014 + New Album

 :beer:

 :beer: yes !
On the tour part.We'll see on the new album.  :)