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

[pilferk]

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.

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".

[pilferk]

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.

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....

[pilferk]

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.

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

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).

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Chief]

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

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

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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...

[pilferk]

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

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

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.

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.

[D-GenerationX]

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.

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.

[jarmo]

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

[pilferk]

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.

I completely disagree. 

As I said you would...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[overmatik]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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

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

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.

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.

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 as they were the only remaining members in the original partnership after Axl left on 12/95.

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.

[overmatik]

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

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...

[Ginger King]

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

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.


 

[carmiedisco12]

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.

[jarmo]

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?

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.

Jarmo.

How is this not a Dead Horse topic??

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



/jarmo

[Ginger King]

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?

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.





Come on.  You're justifying/excusing the fact that no one (outside of HTGTH) knows any current band member but Axl with "yeah, but that was true back then too so it's the same."  I disagree.  If you asked people 20 years ago "who's Izzy Stradlin?", a good majority would say Guns.  That's how mainstream and omnipresent the original (AFD) lineup was.  If you ask people today, "who's Richard Fortus?" how many people (not named Jarmo or Fortus) would connect him to Guns?  The circumstances and issues surrounding the current lineup are in no way similar to the old lineup, and it's unfair to equate them.

[pilferk]

Come on.  You're justifying/excusing the fact that no one (outside of HTGTH) knows any current band member but Axl with "yeah, but that was true back then too so it's the same."  I disagree.  If you asked people 20 years ago "who's Izzy Stradlin?", a good majority would say Guns.  That's how mainstream and omnipresent the original (AFD) lineup was.  If you ask people today, "who's Richard Fortus?" how many people (not named Jarmo or Fortus) would connect him to Guns?  The circumstances and issues surrounding the current lineup are in no way similar to the old lineup, and it's unfair to equate them.

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.

[Ginger King]

Come on.  You're justifying/excusing the fact that no one (outside of HTGTH) knows any current band member but Axl with "yeah, but that was true back then too so it's the same."  I disagree.  If you asked people 20 years ago "who's Izzy Stradlin?", a good majority would say Guns.  That's how mainstream and omnipresent the original (AFD) lineup was.  If you ask people today, "who's Richard Fortus?" how many people (not named Jarmo or Fortus) would connect him to Guns?  The circumstances and issues surrounding the current lineup are in no way similar to the old lineup, and it's unfair to equate them.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

[nick6sic6]

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 .