Billboard Exclusive: Axl Rose Speaks

[Bridge]

I think Slash and Duff signed over the rights to the name not thinking about what could happen down the road.  And, no offense, but I don't think you understand what constitutes duress.  Duress is defined as compulsion by threat.  Axl threatening to do anything, not go on stage, not do a tour, not play a show, would all constitute duress.  That is duress.

Duress or no duress, you're basically agreeing with the notion that Slash and Duff AND let's not forget IZZY all just shrugged and signed over the name without a second thought.  Bear in mind Izzy was completely sober at the time, so at least he should've been mindful about it.  And yes, I will believe what I want, and what I believe is that it's rather tough to believe that Slash, Izzy, and Duff signed over the name without thinking twice about it.  And of course Axl is going to say he didn't force them to sign over the name under duress.  What the hell do you think he'd say if that were indeed the case?  Publicly admit to doing it?

^^even that is not being totally proven. for example Tracii Guns' story is different. Axl still "uses" his name in a way.

Yeah, let's address that shall we?

Axl certainly "remembers" coming up with the name differently than Tracii remembers it.  Tracii said that HE came up with the name. and he's been saying that for years, and his story HASN'T CHANGED.  Axl on the other hand, has only recently made that claim, and he furthermore claims that the name has nothing to do with Tracii Guns (all of this is courtesy of the recent Q&A).

Of course, people around here are going to believe anything Axl says and disparage Tracii, but that doesn't mean Axl "remembers" it correctly.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  The name should be owned by those who gave identity to it, unless someone goes to the legal trouble of trademarking it in advance.

[Layflats]

I don't buy any of that "just bandmates" shit.

Been in a touring band before?  Actually, the relationships with most of your bandmates are just the opposite of what you've described.  You have a couple, maybe one you are really tight with, and the rest of them, whether you realize it or not are an ends to a means, the music and the thrill of playing live. Doesn't matter if you live 10 in one house or live in a bus.

Closeness in bands is often just proximity, not emotion. Once that relationship ends, it often gives you a chance to express how you really felt.  Usually if you step away from it, the differences end up healing themselves.  In the case of Axl and Slash where the differences keep coming back up in litigation, I'd imagine at one point you want to crush the other person.  As far as I've seen/read Duff hasn't been the one stoking the legal fires, so Axl is more open.  Izzy broke out before the real legal shit started happening, add the history.  Steven from all accounts is still a 16 year old wrapped in a 45 year old body, kinda harmless other than to himself.

[GypsySoul]

You're implying that the GNR relationships were all strictly, "let's play our instruments and then never have anything at all to do with each other", which is ridiculous.

I'm not 'implying' anything ... I'm saying it straight out ... THEY WERE CO-WORKERS!!!  THAT'S IT!!!  NOTHING MORE!!!

Did you miss all the interviews where one or the other talked about how (for better or worse) A LOT of their collaborating was done over the phone?

hello slash ... just thought I'd call to let you know we've decided we're not changing the lyrics in PC to "where the girls have big titties."  Say 'hey' to Renee for me.  Bye.

[Ali]

I think Slash and Duff signed over the rights to the name not thinking about what could happen down the road.  And, no offense, but I don't think you understand what constitutes duress.  Duress is defined as compulsion by threat.  Axl threatening to do anything, not go on stage, not do a tour, not play a show, would all constitute duress.  That is duress.

Duress or no duress, you're basically agreeing with the notion that Slash and Duff AND let's not forget IZZY all just shrugged and signed over the name without a second thought.  Bear in mind Izzy was completely sober at the time, so at least he should've been mindful about it.  And yes, I will believe what I want, and what I believe is that it's rather tough to believe that Slash, Izzy, and Duff signed over the name without thinking twice about it.  And of course Axl is going to say he didn't force them to sign over the name under duress.  What the hell do you think he'd say if that were indeed the case?  Publicly admit to doing it?

You have no leg to stand on with this argument.  You say that Slash, Duff and Izzy would have been so protective of their interests in owing a portion of the GN'R name that they wouldn't have signed over their rights to begin with.  If that's true, if they really were that cognizant of the ramifications of the contract and protective of their own interests, wouldn't they have sought whatever legal remedy possible after the fact to null and void the contract?

And my belief in the validity of Axl's argument has nothing to do with him saying anything publicly or otherwise.  It has to do with the law in this situation.  The law sides with the argument that there was no duress when the contract transferring name ownership was signed.

And, if you really think it is so out of the question that Slash signed the contract without full regard to the ramifications, perhaps you should read his book again.  This time a bit more clearly.

Ali

[Jim Bob]

I think Slash and Duff signed over the rights to the name not thinking about what could happen down the road.  And, no offense, but I don't think you understand what constitutes duress.  Duress is defined as compulsion by threat.  Axl threatening to do anything, not go on stage, not do a tour, not play a show, would all constitute duress.  That is duress.

Duress or no duress, you're basically agreeing with the notion that Slash and Duff AND let's not forget IZZY all just shrugged and signed over the name without a second thought.  Bear in mind Izzy was completely sober at the time, so at least he should've been mindful about it.  And yes, I will believe what I want, and what I believe is that it's rather tough to believe that Slash, Izzy, and Duff signed over the name without thinking twice about it.  And of course Axl is going to say he didn't force them to sign over the name under duress.  What the hell do you think he'd say if that were indeed the case?  Publicly admit to doing it?

^^even that is not being totally proven. for example Tracii Guns' story is different. Axl still "uses" his name in a way.

Yeah, let's address that shall we?

Axl certainly "remembers" coming up with the name differently than Tracii remembers it.  Tracii said that HE came up with the name. and he's been saying that for years, and his story HASN'T CHANGED.  Axl on the other hand, has only recently made that claim, and he furthermore claims that the name has nothing to do with Tracii Guns (all of this is courtesy of the recent Q&A).

Of course, people around here are going to believe anything Axl says and disparage Tracii, but that doesn't mean Axl "remembers" it correctly.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  The name should be owned by those who gave identity to it, unless someone goes to the legal trouble of trademarking it in advance.

you need to move on

[victor08]

who really cares about any of this? i don't. i love guns n roses, but i don't give a shit about all the drama.

p.s. i'm glad axl has enough integrity to never wanna play with slash again. i just don't wanna hear about all of it anymore. everyone needs to move on. guns n roses are awesome, past and present, nothing else matters.

 

[Jim Bob]

p.s. i'm glad axl has enough integrity to never wanna play with slash again. i just don't wanna hear about all of it anymore. everyone needs to move on. guns n roses are awesome, past and present, nothing else matters.

 

i don't either.  it would be nice if everybody could join us in 2009.   None of this stuff even matters anymore.

[Layflats]

who really cares about any of this?

Every interviewer that will interview Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven the rest of their lives.  They thirst for the next answer so they can post it over and over on the internet.  Every headline for the last week after this interview "Axl says either him or Slash will die..."

As a fan of GN'R, it blows.  You see it here on the forum, rehashing these old stories about who said what, when, and why.  In reality only the guys in "Old Guns" really know what happened.  I too wish it were left at that and all of "Old Guns" just take the "next question" approach.  Or like Dexter kept saying "asked and answered".

[H76]

who really cares about any of this?

Every interviewer that will interview Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven the rest of their lives.  They thirst for the next answer so they can post it over and over on the internet.  Every headline for the last week after this interview "Axl says either him or Slash will die..."

  It might not be that much fun 4 them to go on and on about that old stuff.. they've all moved on. Axl surely seems very frustrated with questions conserning reunion.

[wadey]

You're implying that the GNR relationships were all strictly, "let's play our instruments and then never have anything at all to do with each other", which is ridiculous.

I'm not 'implying' anything ... I'm saying it straight out ... THEY WERE CO-WORKERS!!!  THAT'S IT!!!  NOTHING MORE!!!

Did you miss all the interviews where one or the other talked about how (for better or worse) A LOT of their collaborating was done over the phone?

hello slash ... just thought I'd call to let you know we've decided we're not changing the lyrics in PC to "where the girls have big titties."  Say 'hey' to Renee for me.  Bye.

        straight to the point with that paragraph gypsy.......some guys just dont get it do they

[sorryforyou]

I think Slash and Duff signed over the rights to the name not thinking about what could happen down the road.  And, no offense, but I don't think you understand what constitutes duress.  Duress is defined as compulsion by threat.  Axl threatening to do anything, not go on stage, not do a tour, not play a show, would all constitute duress.  That is duress.

Duress or no duress, you're basically agreeing with the notion that Slash and Duff AND let's not forget IZZY all just shrugged and signed over the name without a second thought.  Bear in mind Izzy was completely sober at the time, so at least he should've been mindful about it.  And yes, I will believe what I want, and what I believe is that it's rather tough to believe that Slash, Izzy, and Duff signed over the name without thinking twice about it.  And of course Axl is going to say he didn't force them to sign over the name under duress.  What the hell do you think he'd say if that were indeed the case?  Publicly admit to doing it?

^^even that is not being totally proven. for example Tracii Guns' story is different. Axl still "uses" his name in a way.

Yeah, let's address that shall we?

Axl certainly "remembers" coming up with the name differently than Tracii remembers it.  Tracii said that HE came up with the name. and he's been saying that for years, and his story HASN'T CHANGED.  Axl on the other hand, has only recently made that claim, and he furthermore claims that the name has nothing to do with Tracii Guns (all of this is courtesy of the recent Q&A).

Of course, people around here are going to believe anything Axl says and disparage Tracii, but that doesn't mean Axl "remembers" it correctly.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  The name should be owned by those who gave identity to it, unless someone goes to the legal trouble of trademarking it in advance.

Doesn't the way Velvet Revolver treated Scott Weiland add credence to Axl's fear that he might be kicked out of GNR and he deserved full credit for the name?

Read Scott Weiland's press release:

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/scott_weiland_calls_velvet_revolver_statement_a_cover-up.html

In it, he says he was thrown out and he created the name. History repeating itself?

[Annie]

I think Slash and Duff signed over the rights to the name not thinking about what could happen down the road.  And, no offense, but I don't think you understand what constitutes duress.  Duress is defined as compulsion by threat.  Axl threatening to do anything, not go on stage, not do a tour, not play a show, would all constitute duress.  That is duress.

Duress or no duress, you're basically agreeing with the notion that Slash and Duff AND let's not forget IZZY all just shrugged and signed over the name without a second thought.  Bear in mind Izzy was completely sober at the time, so at least he should've been mindful about it.  And yes, I will believe what I want, and what I believe is that it's rather tough to believe that Slash, Izzy, and Duff signed over the name without thinking twice about it.  And of course Axl is going to say he didn't force them to sign over the name under duress.  What the hell do you think he'd say if that were indeed the case?  Publicly admit to doing it?

^^even that is not being totally proven. for example Tracii Guns' story is different. Axl still "uses" his name in a way.

Yeah, let's address that shall we?

Axl certainly "remembers" coming up with the name differently than Tracii remembers it.  Tracii said that HE came up with the name. and he's been saying that for years, and his story HASN'T CHANGED.  Axl on the other hand, has only recently made that claim, and he furthermore claims that the name has nothing to do with Tracii Guns (all of this is courtesy of the recent Q&A).

Of course, people around here are going to believe anything Axl says and disparage Tracii, but that doesn't mean Axl "remembers" it correctly.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  The name should be owned by those who gave identity to it, unless someone goes to the legal trouble of trademarking it in advance.

Doesn't the way Velvet Revolver treated Scott Weiland add credence to Axl's fear that he might be kicked out of GNR and he deserved full credit for the name?

Read Scott Weiland's press release:

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/scott_weiland_calls_velvet_revolver_statement_a_cover-up.html

In it, he says he was thrown out and he created the name. History repeating itself?

When Velvet Revolver first formed, I knew that Scott and Slash would have issues.

[February]

p.s. i'm glad axl has enough integrity to never wanna play with slash again. i just don't wanna hear about all of it anymore. everyone needs to move on. guns n roses are awesome, past and present, nothing else matters.

 

i don't either.  it would be nice if everybody could join us in 2009.   None of this stuff even matters anymore.

Plus one. Loved the past, preaty happy with present. why care who said what 10-15 years ago. Beasides there's court decisions, n guess they were the ones with the burden to have to judge. It's the RockNRoll that matters. And in all it's formats GNR deliver...it can take time but they do  

[victor08]

p.s. i'm glad axl has enough integrity to never wanna play with slash again. i just don't wanna hear about all of it anymore. everyone needs to move on. guns n roses are awesome, past and present, nothing else matters.

 

i don't either.  it would be nice if everybody could join us in 2009.   None of this stuff even matters anymore.

Plus one. Loved the past, preaty happy with present. why care who said what 10-15 years ago. Beasides there's court decisions, n guess they were the ones with the burden to have to judge. It's the RockNRoll that matters. And in all it's formats GNR deliver...it can take time but they do  

i have no idea what you just said.

[Classic Case]

who really cares about any of this? i don't. i love guns n roses, but i don't give a shit about all the drama.

p.s. i'm glad axl has enough integrity to never wanna play with slash again. i just don't wanna hear about all of it anymore. everyone needs to move on. guns n roses are awesome, past and present, nothing else matters.

 

love ur post! agree with you!....fuck the drama! we have the best of GNR, past were great and present even better bcuz we are living it... what else can we ask?

[February]

p.s. i'm glad axl has enough integrity to never wanna play with slash again. i just don't wanna hear about all of it anymore. everyone needs to move on. guns n roses are awesome, past and present, nothing else matters.

 

i don't either.  it would be nice if everybody could join us in 2009.   None of this stuff even matters anymore.

Plus one. Loved the past, preaty happy with present. why care who said what 10-15 years ago. Beasides there's court decisions, n guess they were the ones with the burden to have to judge. It's the RockNRoll that matters. And in all it's formats GNR deliver...it can take time but they do  

i have no idea what you just said.

Fan of old and new Guns, because regardless of the line up they made great music,  the only reason i'm fan in first place. I don't understand why the fan base just keeps judging Slash n Axl long past actions, mostly what they think they know. The drama to the original line up break it's mostly legal and financial issues, the qualified to make judgement, were the courts, and they have ruled over all the lawsuits they filed one another. Without disrespect for the personal pain that all of this probably meant to Axl, Slash, Duff...We are the lucky ones we got the music. Clear for you now?

[victor08]

p.s. i'm glad axl has enough integrity to never wanna play with slash again. i just don't wanna hear about all of it anymore. everyone needs to move on. guns n roses are awesome, past and present, nothing else matters.

 

i don't either.  it would be nice if everybody could join us in 2009.   None of this stuff even matters anymore.

Plus one. Loved the past, preaty happy with present. why care who said what 10-15 years ago. Beasides there's court decisions, n guess they were the ones with the burden to have to judge. It's the RockNRoll that matters. And in all it's formats GNR deliver...it can take time but they do  

i have no idea what you just said.

Fan of old and new Guns, because regardless of the line up they made great music,  the only reason i'm fan in first place. I don't understand why the fan base just keeps judging Slash n Axl long past actions, mostly what they think they know. The drama to the original line up break it's mostly legal and financial issues, the qualified to make judgement, were the courts, and they have ruled over all the lawsuits they filed one another. Without disrespect for the personal pain that all of this probably meant to Axl, Slash, Duff...We are the lucky ones we got the music. Clear for you now?

what? all i'm saying is......i don't give a shit about their problems with each other. it's none of my business. i just wish happiness for all of them. ......and more new music for all of us!

[ppbebe]

I for one care when axl speaks up. 
The corrupt press has been so unfair to axl and gnr. Toleration toward wrong is wrong.
Why the hell should axl's side of the story be disregarded?

[ppbebe]

"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."

Exactly, Zutaut didn't say Axl was backstage when he made the demand, he just said that Axl made the demand before the tour.  As everyone remembers, the UYI tour started well before the release of the UYI albums, so Axl's statement in a way jives with what Zutaut said, because Axl said it was when they were renegotiated their contract with Geffen.  Which presumably could've been around the time the tour started since the album releases were still months and months away.

the eve is the previous nite.

I found the article of 2002 where slash tells the story which is similar but doesn't really agree with toms.

''Before a gig one night in '92, [Axl] hands us a contract saying that if the band breaks up, he's taking the name,'' says Slash. ''Unfortunately, we signed it. I didn't think he'd go on stage otherwise.''

That's all. Nowhere it says axl actually made any threat but slash was threatened by his own thinking too much.
Axl is not responsible for others overanxiety.

Toms 'axl said he wouldn't play at the shows starting the following day if they'd not give him?' allegation doesn't jive either with this or with axls. And Tom told this in 1999, like 8 year later? even before axl's facts, the story was logically flawed as ali patiently explained to you again and again. flat-out null and void.  Moreover,  the rights were sold to axl much later like sometime in 1996 /7.  Till then, if not the drunks, their lawyers, managers or anyone should have had all the time in the world to annul the said contract but for some reason they didn't. didn't want to do it perhaps?

You're in denial.

[Annie]

Where can I buy the BILLBOARD magazine with the AXL cover?