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

[jarmo]

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

[sandman]

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.

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.

[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'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 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.

[D-GenerationX]

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.

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

[D-GenerationX]

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.

Agreed on both.

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

[sandman]

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.

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

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.

[sandman]

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.

Agreed on both.

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

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.

[jacdaniel]

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.

[D-GenerationX]

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.

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

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.

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?)

[Ali]

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.

Agreed on both.

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

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

[Ali]

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.

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

[Limulus]

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.

[nick6sic6]

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 

[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.

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

Ali

[Limulus]

@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?

[Axl4Prez2004]

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.

"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.

[Bridge]

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.

[Ali]

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

[suicide]

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.

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.

[D-GenerationX]

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.

To what end though?

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