Proof that Slash & Duff lied about signing over the GNR name.

[sandman]

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.   

[D-GenerationX]

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.

[sandman]

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. 

[Ali]

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'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

[D-GenerationX]

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.

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.

[D-GenerationX]

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. 

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.

[Ali]

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.

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.

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

[D-GenerationX]

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.

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.

[nick6sic6]

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.

[draguns]

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

[JAEBALL]

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

[ITARocker]

The truth comes from the clear minded and sober which was Axl.
Plain and simple.

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

[nick6sic6]

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

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

[nick6sic6]

The truth comes from the clear minded and sober which was Axl.
Plain and simple.

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

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 

[ITARocker]

The truth comes from the clear minded and sober which was Axl.
Plain and simple.

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

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?")

[nick6sic6]

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

[D-GenerationX]

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

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.

[snead hearn]

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

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

Nope, there are 3 sides.

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

[gnrfan1797]

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

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

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.

[LongGoneDay]

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.