Duff McKagan On The Opie & Anthony Show; 30 Minute Audio Interview

[D]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

[jacdaniel]

The whole blackmail thing is irrelevant.   

The point is, they received these papers that they didnt want to sign right before a show.  Seems messed up to me.
Slash and Duff have both made it clear that they didnt like Doug and he is one of the biggest reasons that version of the band broke up. 

[AxlReznor]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

[LunsJail]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

[Limulus]

from Axl's online postings:

"When Guns renegotiated our contract with Geffen I had the bit about the name added in as protection for myself as I had come up with the name and then originally started the band with it. It had more to do with management than the band as our then manager was always tryin? to convince someone they should fire me. As I had stopped speaking with him he sensed his days were numbered and was bending any ear he could along with attempting to sell our renegotiation out for a personal payday from Geffen.

It was added to the contract and everyone signed off on it. It wasn?t hidden in fine print etc as you had to initial the section verifying you had acknowledged it.

Now at that time I didn?t know or think about brand names or corporate value etc. All I knew is that I came in with the name and from day one everyone had agreed to it being mine should we break up and now it was in writing."

"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."

[LunsJail]

^^That's totally different from what Duff says in the book. He says they signed these papers around June 1993. Guns renegotiated their contract just prior to the UYI releases.

[Ali]

^^That's totally different from what Duff says in the book. He says they signed these papers around June 1993. Guns renegotiated their contract just prior to the UYI releases.

See, I don't think so.  Axl never specifies a time period when the contracts were actually signed.  He says it was brought up during the contract renegotiation with Geffen.  He never actually says when the contract was signed.  He says it was a component of the Geffen contract renegotiation.  Alan Niven supports that actually.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=5840

?What I find interesting is that after I was fired, by his own admission, Axl took the band name as part of the Geffen renegotiation. "

Ali

[LunsJail]

^^That's totally different from what Duff says in the book. He says they signed these papers around June 1993. Guns renegotiated their contract just prior to the UYI releases.

See, I don't think so.  Axl never specifies a time period when the contracts were actually signed.  He says it was brought up during the contract renegotiation with Geffen.  He never actually says when the contract was signed.  He says it was a component of the Geffen contract renegotiation.  Alan Niven supports that actually.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=5840

?What I find interesting is that after I was fired, by his own admission, Axl took the band name as part of the Geffen renegotiation. "

Ali

Ok, that could be. But Duff doesn't act like he had heard anything about this until he was actually asked to sign. But it's possible Duff doesn't remember some details from this time period   

[Ali]

^^That's totally different from what Duff says in the book. He says they signed these papers around June 1993. Guns renegotiated their contract just prior to the UYI releases.

See, I don't think so.  Axl never specifies a time period when the contracts were actually signed.  He says it was brought up during the contract renegotiation with Geffen.  He never actually says when the contract was signed.  He says it was a component of the Geffen contract renegotiation.  Alan Niven supports that actually.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=5840

?What I find interesting is that after I was fired, by his own admission, Axl took the band name as part of the Geffen renegotiation. "

Ali

Ok, that could be. But Duff doesn't act like he had heard anything about this until he was actually asked to sign. But it's possible Duff doesn't remember some details from this time period   

I don't think Duff is lying about when he actually signed the papers.  I just think what Axl is talking about is when the issue was brought up from his side.  Duff is saying when it was actually signed.  I don't think they are or have to be the same time.

Ali

[sleeper]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

 
That will be the spin from some people.  Or here is a better one Duff said the papers were given to he and Slash by an assistant tour manager. Just maybe the assistant tour manager is the culprit! 

[Ali]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

 
That will be the spin from some people.  Or here is a better one Duff said the papers were given to he and Slash by an assistant tour manager. Just maybe the assistant tour manager is the culprit! 

I don't see anyone disputing that Axl asked for the name or that the paperwork was finally given to Duff and Slash before a show.   Not even Axl has disputed that.  The only thing in dispute is whether or not Axl made a threat to not go on stage if the paperwork wasn't signed.  Duff's story doesn't refute Axl's claim that he never made such a threat.

Ali

[sleeper]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

 
That will be the spin from some people.  Or here is a better one Duff said the papers were given to he and Slash by an assistant tour manager. Just maybe the assistant tour manager is the culprit! 

I don't see anyone disputing that Axl asked for the name or that the paperwork was finally given to Duff and Slash before a show.   Not even Axl has disputed that.  The only thing in dispute is whether or not Axl made a threat to not go on stage if the paperwork wasn't signed.  Duff's story doesn't refute Axl's claim that he never made such a threat.

Ali

The assistant tour manager that Doug Goldstein sent implied Axl would not go on stage if the document was not signed. Like I said maybe he was the culprit. After all surely he had a lot to gain from taking the name from Slash and Duff. 

[Ali]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

 
That will be the spin from some people.  Or here is a better one Duff said the papers were given to he and Slash by an assistant tour manager. Just maybe the assistant tour manager is the culprit! 

I don't see anyone disputing that Axl asked for the name or that the paperwork was finally given to Duff and Slash before a show.   Not even Axl has disputed that.  The only thing in dispute is whether or not Axl made a threat to not go on stage if the paperwork wasn't signed.  Duff's story doesn't refute Axl's claim that he never made such a threat.

Ali

The assistant tour manager that Doug Goldstein sent implied Axl would not go on stage if the document was not signed. Like I said maybe he was the culprit. After all surely he had a lot to gain from taking the name from Slash and Duff. 

What an idiotic comment.     Maybe this person thought for whatever reason that Axl was upset and would not go on stage if he didn't get everything he wanted, including getting this contract signed.  Maybe Axl said "I'd like to get this done with before the show tonight" and this was taken to mean "Axl may not go on stage without this being signed".  Maybe Doug Goldstein was so interested in getting on Axl's good side that he told this tour manager that Axl wouldn't go on stage without it being signed.

You can make all the snide, idiotic comments you want, but the fact remains that none of what Duff says refutes what Axl said on the matter.  Hell, even one of Slash's oldest buddies (Marc Canter) believes that Axl is telling the truth on this.

Ali

[sleeper]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

 
That will be the spin from some people.  Or here is a better one Duff said the papers were given to he and Slash by an assistant tour manager. Just maybe the assistant tour manager is the culprit! 

I don't see anyone disputing that Axl asked for the name or that the paperwork was finally given to Duff and Slash before a show.   Not even Axl has disputed that.  The only thing in dispute is whether or not Axl made a threat to not go on stage if the paperwork wasn't signed.  Duff's story doesn't refute Axl's claim that he never made such a threat.

Ali

The assistant tour manager that Doug Goldstein sent implied Axl would not go on stage if the document was not signed. Like I said maybe he was the culprit. After all surely he had a lot to gain from taking the name from Slash and Duff. 

What an idiotic comment.     Maybe this person thought for whatever reason that Axl was upset and would not go on stage if he didn't get everything he wanted, including getting this contract signed.  Maybe Axl said "I'd like to get this done with before the show tonight" and this was taken to mean "Axl may not go on stage without this being signed".  Maybe Doug Goldstein was so interested in getting on Axl's good side that he told this tour manager that Axl wouldn't go on stage without it being signed.

You can make all the snide, idiotic comments you want, but the fact remains that none of what Duff says refutes what Axl said on the matter.  Hell, even one of Slash's oldest buddies (Marc Canter) believes that Axl is telling the truth on this.

Ali

I'm not so sure what you are so bothered about. If you think my comments are idiotic then don't bother answering them. That is not the story Marc is telling now BTW. He now sees both sides of the issue. And your thoughts on what could have went down with the assistant tour manager or Doug Goldstein are no more valid than mine!

[FunkyMonkey]

Opie & Anthony: Do you think it was more of a management thing than from him [Axl] personally?

Duff McKagan: To this day I don't really know.

[Ali]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

 
That will be the spin from some people.  Or here is a better one Duff said the papers were given to he and Slash by an assistant tour manager. Just maybe the assistant tour manager is the culprit! 

I don't see anyone disputing that Axl asked for the name or that the paperwork was finally given to Duff and Slash before a show.   Not even Axl has disputed that.  The only thing in dispute is whether or not Axl made a threat to not go on stage if the paperwork wasn't signed.  Duff's story doesn't refute Axl's claim that he never made such a threat.

Ali

The assistant tour manager that Doug Goldstein sent implied Axl would not go on stage if the document was not signed. Like I said maybe he was the culprit. After all surely he had a lot to gain from taking the name from Slash and Duff. 

What an idiotic comment.     Maybe this person thought for whatever reason that Axl was upset and would not go on stage if he didn't get everything he wanted, including getting this contract signed.  Maybe Axl said "I'd like to get this done with before the show tonight" and this was taken to mean "Axl may not go on stage without this being signed".  Maybe Doug Goldstein was so interested in getting on Axl's good side that he told this tour manager that Axl wouldn't go on stage without it being signed.

You can make all the snide, idiotic comments you want, but the fact remains that none of what Duff says refutes what Axl said on the matter.  Hell, even one of Slash's oldest buddies (Marc Canter) believes that Axl is telling the truth on this.

Ali

I'm not so sure what you are so bothered about. If you think my comments are idiotic then don't bother answering them. That is not the story Marc is telling now BTW. He now sees both sides of the issue. And your thoughts on what could have went down with the assistant tour manager or Doug Goldstein are no more valid than mine!

What?  When did I ever say my thoughts were more valid?  And, yeah, I thought that little snide remark is idiotic since not even Duff is claiming that Axl threatened them to not go on stage.

Marc said he thinks everyone is telling the truth.  That's what he said.  In other words, he doesn't think Axl is lying or Duff is lying.  Hence, what I said about him believing Axl is telling the truth is accurate.

Ali

[AxlReznor]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

Yes. Because of the (very good) reasons given there, he thought he'd be better off himself if Axl owned the name. He'd have had a lot of trouble on his hands personally if the very real fears came true that one/both of them ended up dead, and there was trouble from family members trying to get rights to the name. It's perfectly sensible for the one of them who wasn't in danger of killing himself to have the rights to the name, and it's also a headache that any manager would want to avoid for themselves, too.

It's well known that Doug was in it for himself and only himself. Even if it was with Axl's blessing, the "implication" that Axl wouldn't go onstage if they weren't signed seems more like a lie that Doug told them to ensure cooperation.

[D]

Here is how I look at it:

Does it seem somewhat shady how the whole thing went down? Sure

BUT

They had a choice.  Just don't sign. If there is a riot, Axl will be the one taking the blame anyway.

[Ali]

In all honesty, wasn't a bad idea to have protection in case one of them died.

I think so, too. And it seems to me like Duff could see their point there also.

Regardless, though... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the only time that management did something "on Axl's behalf" without Axl having a fucking clue about it happening. Doug Goldstein seemed to give everybody in the band only half of the story at that time... whichever half would keep them happiest.

So Doug Goldstein acted on his own and decided Axl should own the name "Guns N' Roses"? Come on now 

Yes. Because of the (very good) reasons given there, he thought he'd be better off himself if Axl owned the name. He'd have had a lot of trouble on his hands personally if the very real fears came true that one/both of them ended up dead, and there was trouble from family members trying to get rights to the name. It's perfectly sensible for the one of them who wasn't in danger of killing himself to have the rights to the name, and it's also a headache that any manager would want to avoid for themselves, too.

It's well known that Doug was in it for himself and only himself. Even if it was with Axl's blessing, the "implication" that Axl wouldn't go onstage if they weren't signed seems more like a lie that Doug told them to ensure cooperation.

Yeah, no matter what anyone says, the 15-18% or whatever Goldstein was making from GN'R would be a lot more with the GN'R name attached as opposed to just "Axl Rose" or some other band name.  So, yes, it would be in Goldstein's financial interest to be able to manage Guns N' Roses with no obstacle.

Ali