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

[JDA]

End this thread, it is stupid.

[JAEBALL]

people, during UYI Slash basically did ALL the interviews, he was the one talking on tv, radio, newspaper etc.! he did the job, he gave it all, he was always on stage on time (wait..."before" time!), rehearsed like a madman......he did all this since the clubdays! it's just unfair and totally out of line saying that Axl did the main work.

truth

but with any control freak... if the person doesnt do it on ur terms.. then its wrong

and this goes for both of them


but this really is all moot at this point... no matter waht anybody here says...it would be fucking cool to see... but its not gunna happen.. thats ok too

[D-GenerationX]

people, during UYI Slash basically did ALL the interviews, he was the one talking on tv, radio, newspaper etc.! he did the job, he gave it all, he was always on stage on time (wait..."before" time!), rehearsed like a madman......he did all this since the clubdays! it's just unfair and totally out of line saying that Axl did the main work.

Very true.

That's our problem now, in my opinion.  Back then, Axl couldn't be bothered, so we got Slash and Duff. 

Now, Axl can't be bothered, and our current guitarists can't even get a call back about their plans, let alone know enough to speak to the press on the band's behalf.

[pilferk]

people, during UYI Slash basically did ALL the interviews, he was the one talking on tv, radio, newspaper etc.! he did the job, he gave it all, he was always on stage on time (wait..."before" time!), rehearsed like a madman......he did all this since the clubdays! it's just unfair and totally out of line saying that Axl did the main work.

That's not necessarily "the work".

The work is dealing with management, the label, the promotional people, your schedulers and handler, your lawyers, your A&R guy, and all the other "business" folks.  It's approving signage, advertising us, and all the other bullshit that comes along with being the biggest band in the world.  Sure, some of that is handled by "people", but...ultimately, someone has to give the "people" marching orders and approvals.  Or, alternately,  you can be a puppet...but I don't think there's anyone here that thinks, given the personalities involved, that GnR was going to be puppets.

Again, I'm not saying Axl was doing all that...I don't know.  But what you're referring to as "most of the work"...well, it's not, by half.

The press stuff is, quite frankly, all rainbows and sunshine in comparison.  You're getting the glory and the "press masturbation"...limo rides, catering, ego stroking, and the like.  Even if you're doing remote radio, you're put in a nice hotel room with food, people to take care of everything you want (including booze and, potentially, drugs)...you're just shooting the shit.  You can function through that while being fucked up beyond all belief.  Being "out front" doesn't mean you're doing all the work.

[Princess Leia]

Ha. It's like 15 years of media "coverage" of GNR just went down the toilet. Look at how many times it's been written that Axl "fired Duff and Slash" and how many people have blamed him for the implosion of the original lineup.

Yet this document shows that wasn't the case at all. Very interesting stuff!
 

Don't think it changes much if anything at all, really.
Classic lineup essentially disbanded because they couldn't go along to get along.
Yet, Slash, Duff, Matt (and for a short while, Izzy) got along well enough to form a new band.

For me, the real question remains unanswered. Why?
Why all the trouble for the name, only to do next to nothing with it?

Couldn't have been the plan, right?
So how did GN'R go from being the most dangerous band in the world to the soap opera it's become today?

What it changes is the claims made by former band members that Axl essentially blackmailed them into signing off on deal that took their stake out of GNR. This oft repeated story has been used to vilify Rose in the press for two decades.

Essentially, you are correct. The band couldn't get along and it broke up, so why does this matter? However, what this changes is the nuance of how that occurred. It proves that it likely wasn't just one guy's issues. Like any relationship, when it breaks apart there is generally a pretty good amount of blame to be spread around. Duff was pretty candid in his book that he didn't blame Axl, and holds no ill will toward him. So where do "fans" and the press get off doing so?

I?m afraid it?s not that easy. When Steven was fired they rewrite the partnership agreement. They had to, one partner was gone. At the same time they were renegotiating their contract with Geffen. On top of that Niven was trying to get rid of Axl. So their first Momerandum of Agreement was about coming to terms about all this. That?s when they all agree that if Axl was fired he would keep the name. But were not inlove with the idea of firing Axl. Slash in his book says they thought about firing Axl many times even in the early days. But they would quickly reject the idea.  So yes, they signed a Memo as early as 1990 agreeing that if Axl was fired he would take the name. But what were the odds of Axl being fired?

Then Izzy left. Another partner gone. So the copy of the Memo we have here is from 1992 because they needed to rewrite it again. And again Axl got that amedment about the name if he was fired. Was that necessary? Slash and Duff only wanted that Axl would show up on time for shows, sound check. And that was it.

Then this whole thing gets fucked up. Slash and Duff claim in 1993 they were forced to sign the Memo again. And this time Axl wants the name for himself but not on the event of being fired. He just wants the name. He just wants to terminate the partnership and start a new one as some other people previously posted. According to Duff book Axl never told them a word. It was someone connected to Goldstein who issued the threat because it was that someone who had a meeting with them. I still think there are missing parts in this puzzle.

[pilferk]

Ha. It's like 15 years of media "coverage" of GNR just went down the toilet. Look at how many times it's been written that Axl "fired Duff and Slash" and how many people have blamed him for the implosion of the original lineup.

Yet this document shows that wasn't the case at all. Very interesting stuff!
 

Don't think it changes much if anything at all, really.
Classic lineup essentially disbanded because they couldn't go along to get along.
Yet, Slash, Duff, Matt (and for a short while, Izzy) got along well enough to form a new band.

For me, the real question remains unanswered. Why?
Why all the trouble for the name, only to do next to nothing with it?

Couldn't have been the plan, right?
So how did GN'R go from being the most dangerous band in the world to the soap opera it's become today?

What it changes is the claims made by former band members that Axl essentially blackmailed them into signing off on deal that took their stake out of GNR. This oft repeated story has been used to vilify Rose in the press for two decades.

Essentially, you are correct. The band couldn't get along and it broke up, so why does this matter? However, what this changes is the nuance of how that occurred. It proves that it likely wasn't just one guy's issues. Like any relationship, when it breaks apart there is generally a pretty good amount of blame to be spread around. Duff was pretty candid in his book that he didn't blame Axl, and holds no ill will toward him. So where do "fans" and the press get off doing so?

I?m afraid it?s not that easy. When Steven was fired they rewrite the partnership agreement. They had to, one partner was gone. At the same time they were renegotiating their contract with Geffen. On top of that Niven was trying to get rid of Axl. So their first Momerandum of Agreement was about coming to terms about all this. That?s when they all agree that if Axl was fired he would keep the name. But were not inlove with the idea of firing Axl. Slash in his book says they thought about firing Axl many times even in the early days. But they would quickly reject the idea.  So yes, they signed a Memo as early as 1990 agreeing that if Axl was fired he would take the name. But what were the odds of Axl being fired?

Then Izzy left. Another partner gone. So the copy of the Memo we have here is from 1992 because they needed to rewrite it again. And again Axl got that amedment about the name if he was fired. Was that necessary? Slash and Duff only wanted that Axl would show up on time for shows, sound check. And that was it.

Then this whole thing gets fucked up. Slash and Duff claim in 1993 they were forced to sign the Memo again. And this time Axl wants the name for himself but not on the event of being fired. He just wants the name. He just wants to terminate the partnership and start a new one as some other people previously posted. According to Duff book Axl never told them a word. It was someone connected to Goldstein who issued the threat because it was that someone who had a meeting with them. I still think there are missing parts in this puzzle.

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

[Princess Leia]

Ha. It's like 15 years of media "coverage" of GNR just went down the toilet. Look at how many times it's been written that Axl "fired Duff and Slash" and how many people have blamed him for the implosion of the original lineup.

Yet this document shows that wasn't the case at all. Very interesting stuff!
 

Don't think it changes much if anything at all, really.
Classic lineup essentially disbanded because they couldn't go along to get along.
Yet, Slash, Duff, Matt (and for a short while, Izzy) got along well enough to form a new band.

For me, the real question remains unanswered. Why?
Why all the trouble for the name, only to do next to nothing with it?

Couldn't have been the plan, right?
So how did GN'R go from being the most dangerous band in the world to the soap opera it's become today?

What it changes is the claims made by former band members that Axl essentially blackmailed them into signing off on deal that took their stake out of GNR. This oft repeated story has been used to vilify Rose in the press for two decades.

Essentially, you are correct. The band couldn't get along and it broke up, so why does this matter? However, what this changes is the nuance of how that occurred. It proves that it likely wasn't just one guy's issues. Like any relationship, when it breaks apart there is generally a pretty good amount of blame to be spread around. Duff was pretty candid in his book that he didn't blame Axl, and holds no ill will toward him. So where do "fans" and the press get off doing so?

I?m afraid it?s not that easy. When Steven was fired they rewrite the partnership agreement. They had to, one partner was gone. At the same time they were renegotiating their contract with Geffen. On top of that Niven was trying to get rid of Axl. So their first Momerandum of Agreement was about coming to terms about all this. That?s when they all agree that if Axl was fired he would keep the name. But were not inlove with the idea of firing Axl. Slash in his book says they thought about firing Axl many times even in the early days. But they would quickly reject the idea.  So yes, they signed a Memo as early as 1990 agreeing that if Axl was fired he would take the name. But what were the odds of Axl being fired?

Then Izzy left. Another partner gone. So the copy of the Memo we have here is from 1992 because they needed to rewrite it again. And again Axl got that amedment about the name if he was fired. Was that necessary? Slash and Duff only wanted that Axl would show up on time for shows, sound check. And that was it.

Then this whole thing gets fucked up. Slash and Duff claim in 1993 they were forced to sign the Memo again. And this time Axl wants the name for himself but not on the event of being fired. He just wants the name. He just wants to terminate the partnership and start a new one as some other people previously posted. According to Duff book Axl never told them a word. It was someone connected to Goldstein who issued the threat because it was that someone who had a meeting with them. I still think there are missing parts in this puzzle.

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

Why would they introduce as evidence a document expossing them as liars? I?m not saying there was a new 1993 document.  I?m saying there are still missing parts in this puzzle.

[pilferk]

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

Why would they introduce as evidence a document expossing them as liars? I?m not saying there was a new 1993 document.  I?m saying there are still missing parts in this puzzle.

1) because they are legally obligated to supply the most recent version of their partnership agreement, as the plaintiffs in the suit. In 2004. After the partnership was dissolved.

2) I would guess they assumed evidentiary discovery would not make it to the public eye. And, honestly, it might not be something their lawyers noticed...given their primary concern wasn't fact checking it against their books and interviews.

3) There may be more pieces to the puzzle...but they are not the ones you are suggesting. If they had had to sign a more recent moa or partnership agreement in 1993, or any other time,..they would have had to have filed it.

They didn't.

What you see is it, including signatures and dates.

Which means this version is the one that held purview upon dissolution of the partnership.

[Limulus]

people, during UYI Slash basically did ALL the interviews, he was the one talking on tv, radio, newspaper etc.! he did the job, he gave it all, he was always on stage on time (wait..."before" time!), rehearsed like a madman......he did all this since the clubdays! it's just unfair and totally out of line saying that Axl did the main work.

That's not necessarily "the work".

The work is dealing with management, the label, the promotional people, your schedulers and handler, your lawyers, your A&R guy, and all the other "business" folks.  It's approving signage, advertising us, and all the other bullshit that comes along with being the biggest band in the world.  Sure, some of that is handled by "people", but...ultimately, someone has to give the "people" marching orders and approvals.  Or, alternately,  you can be a puppet...but I don't think there's anyone here that thinks, given the personalities involved, that GnR was going to be puppets.

Again, I'm not saying Axl was doing all that...I don't know.  But what you're referring to as "most of the work"...well, it's not, by half.

The press stuff is, quite frankly, all rainbows and sunshine in comparison.  You're getting the glory and the "press masturbation"...limo rides, catering, ego stroking, and the like.  Even if you're doing remote radio, you're put in a nice hotel room with food, people to take care of everything you want (including booze and, potentially, drugs)...you're just shooting the shit.  You can function through that while being fucked up beyond all belief.  Being "out front" doesn't mean you're doing all the work.

but Slash provenly did the absolute most of your so called "out front" work, thats a fact! and i highly disagree on press stuff being "all rainbows and sunshine in comparism" and fun, exspecially with all the interview runs during UYI tour and when they also did party so much.
for all the rest we dont know who did that work, surely Doug did lots of it, but we dont know much details about the band members, so thats just speculation. the Slash doing the "out front" work isnt.

[The Wight Gunner]

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

Why would they introduce as evidence a document expossing them as liars? I?m not saying there was a new 1993 document.  I?m saying there are still missing parts in this puzzle.

1) because they are legally obligated to supply the most recent version of their partnership agreement, as the plaintiffs in the suit. In 2004. After the partnership was dissolved.

2) I would guess they assumed evidentiary discovery would not make it to the public eye. And, honestly, it might not be something their lawyers noticed...given their primary concern wasn't fact checking it against their books and interviews.

3) There may be more pieces to the puzzle...but they are not the ones you are suggesting. If they had had to sign a more recent moa or partnership agreement in 1993, or any other time,..they would have had to have filed it.

They didn't.

What you see is it, including signatures and dates.

Which means this version is the one that held purview upon dissolution of the partnership.

All this was before mainstream internet, so #2 is not only plausible, but given their chemical state, wasn't even considered as a stumbling block, they had "Their truth" which may or may not have been viewed as problematic at the time. I concur with points 1 and 3, all legal agreements are based on the newest contract. The common phrase that affects most people will get to hear at some point " the last will and testament" beautifully demonstrates this, meaning this will, super-ceeds all other agreements.

[Princess Leia]

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

Why would they introduce as evidence a document expossing them as liars? I?m not saying there was a new 1993 document.  I?m saying there are still missing parts in this puzzle.

1) because they are legally obligated to supply the most recent version of their partnership agreement, as the plaintiffs in the suit. In 2004. After the partnership was dissolved.

2) I would guess they assumed evidentiary discovery would not make it to the public eye. And, honestly, it might not be something their lawyers noticed...given their primary concern wasn't fact checking it against their books and interviews.

3) There may be more pieces to the puzzle...but they are not the ones you are suggesting. If they had had to sign a more recent moa or partnership agreement in 1993, or any other time,..they would have had to have filed it.

They didn't.

What you see is it, including signatures and dates.

Which means this version is the one that held purview upon dissolution of the partnership.

Here is the problem that I see. Duff book was printed in 2011. In the book he made that 1993 claim. The real issue with that is if any person signs something under duress, as Duff claims, it is illegal. So if there was some 1993 document it would have been an illegal document. So Axl would not have any right to anything.

 If I know this, Duff has to know this as well. He had to know it back in 1993 and he clearly knew it in 2011. Duff was a different guy in 2011. He was sober and business savvy. And yet he made those "difamatory" accusations in his book. If he made that statement  it is because he is legally protected despite that 1992 Memo with signatures, dates and everyting. Printing in a book such a claim is very different than reading in a magazing from some annonymous source that Axl might have threat them. If what Duff says in his book is a lie well he shouldn?t be given a free pass.

The only way to solve this puzzle is to ask Duff why there is one thing printed in the 1992 Memo, that they still use if they have to. And why he printed in his book exactly the opposite when he knows that signing something under duress makes that document illegal.

 Something is missing here. It just doesn?t add up!

[pilferk]

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

Why would they introduce as evidence a document expossing them as liars? I?m not saying there was a new 1993 document.  I?m saying there are still missing parts in this puzzle.

1) because they are legally obligated to supply the most recent version of their partnership agreement, as the plaintiffs in the suit. In 2004. After the partnership was dissolved.

2) I would guess they assumed evidentiary discovery would not make it to the public eye. And, honestly, it might not be something their lawyers noticed...given their primary concern wasn't fact checking it against their books and interviews.

3) There may be more pieces to the puzzle...but they are not the ones you are suggesting. If they had had to sign a more recent moa or partnership agreement in 1993, or any other time,..they would have had to have filed it.

They didn't.

What you see is it, including signatures and dates.

Which means this version is the one that held purview upon dissolution of the partnership.

Here is the problem that I see. Duff book was printed in 2011. In the book he made that 1993 claim. The real issue with that is if any person signs something under duress, as Duff claims, it is illegal. So if there was some 1993 document it would have been an illegal document. So Axl would not have any right to anything.

 If I know this, Duff has to know this as well. He had to know it back in 1993 and he clearly knew it in 2011. Duff was a different guy in 2011. He was sober and business savvy. And yet he made those "difamatory" accusations in his book. If he made that statement  it is because he is legally protected despite that 1992 Memo with signatures, dates and everyting. Printing in a book such a claim is very different than reading in a magazing from some annonymous source that Axl might have threat them. If what Duff says in his book is a lie well he shouldn?t be given a free pass.

The only way to solve this puzzle is to ask Duff why there is one thing printed in the 1992 Memo, that they still use if they have to. And why he printed in his book exactly the opposite when he knows that signing something under duress makes that document illegal.

 Something is missing here. It just doesn?t add up!

Not necessarily.

You can be wrong, even in print.

We don't know they lied. That I grant you. Because, unless they comment honestly, we don't know intent. We do know they were wrong, though. And to protect himself, all duff would reasonably have to say is " I was fucked up, confused and misremembered." Bam...protected. That drug use makes a pretty good defense/reason, in this case. And anyone interested in suing him for libel, or at least their attorneys, know it...and know it would be a waste of time considering damages (which have to be proven too, in a libel suit) would be so minimal, if you could come up with any at all.

But, they were most certainly wrong.No real ifs ands or buts about it. This document shows it. The legal logic behind it shows it.

If they signed something under duress, and thus thought it was invalid ...Slash and Duff would have had a whole lot more traction during the lawsuit. They WOULD have introduced it, because it would have made their case for them.  And they would have had to contest the "current" (meaning any Moa/partnership agreement supposedly signed in 93) agreement, and prove the duress at some point, likely as part of this suit. And, at that point, you'd likely see the courts make a ruling, because it would have been ample basis for at least a portion of their suit, or any previous suit.

This suit got well into discovery/evidentiary submission. And, if you look at the proceedings from back then, the judge basically kept telling them they (both sides) needed to actually provide a basis for their suits and counter suits. The scheduled proceedings made it look like the judge was giving them one more crack at it before he summarily dismissed it. And then it settled, and nothing changed, really. That's an important point: NOTHING really changed.

And yet...through all that, no newer Moa/agreement was ever presented.

[jarmo]

people, during UYI Slash basically did ALL the interviews, he was the one talking on tv, radio, newspaper etc.! he did the job, he gave it all, he was always on stage on time (wait..."before" time!), rehearsed like a madman......he did all this since the clubdays! it's just unfair and totally out of line saying that Axl did the main work.

Pretty much my thoughts.  Slash was able to function regardless of what he was doing.
It was mainly during breaks in their schedule when he had real issues with drugs.  Then he'd clean up a bit when he needed to for tours and other business related things.

You think someone who is truly addicted can just stop because he has an interview or a meeting? On what tour did he overdose in San Francisco?

Did you ever seen interviews with Duff or Slash from those days? They didn't always seem "sober"...





/jarmo

[pilferk]

but Slash provenly did the absolute most of your so called "out front" work, thats a fact! and i highly disagree on press stuff being "all rainbows and sunshine in comparism" and fun, exspecially with all the interview runs during UYI tour and when they also did party so much.
for all the rest we dont know who did that work, surely Doug did lots of it, but we dont know much details about the band members, so thats just speculation. the Slash doing the "out front" work isnt.

You can disagree on the "sunshine and rainbows", and you'd likely get some artists who agree. But if you like attention, and can get your ass out of bed (or just don't go to bed) to do drive time interviews, it's a relatively cushy gig. I've seen it, and been part of the process. In fact, I was part of the process around when this was going on (though not for them), when I was working for a venue (early 90s). A cursory, background part, but usually in or around the room (remember, this was pre cell phone era...I imagine it's a bit different, now).  Think "rider for their dressing room" type setup...scaled back a tad, with a few land lines and come computers/ info screens). Luckily, I was only working on the tech side, and usually (but not always) the artist(s) shared.

I said just that. We don't know. We know slash and duff were pretty fucked up, though. And we know axl was pissed off.  As I said, plainly, the rest is a big "what if". An interesting bit of theory craft.

Doug might have done the leg work, but you either have to accept that gnr were 100% his puppets...or that someone(s) in the band were giving him direction. 

[Limulus]

the press work had to be done, huh? and Slash basically did all of it, no matter how stoned he was, he did it. i'm not so sure if he was always happy about that though, f.e. there are video interviews where he openly said he doesnt like to do some special tv talking; also i for myself can rarely be motivated to do business when still being drunk (and IMO Duff was even more of a mess). if you've ever read Slash's book he says that lots of business was up to him not Axl, and that Slash would have liked some more support by him (f.e. check the Paris'92 soundcheck-story).
but i also dont see the problem in doing what you like. if you like to do interviews and interviews have to be done and you've proven to be able to do them some good.....then you should be the man doing it, as simple as that.

the "given direction" you've saying fits at least on the name thing, that was pure Axl's intend, he even confirmed this move in his 12/2008 online chats.

[pilferk]

the press work had to be done, huh? and Slash basically did all of it, no matter how stoned he was, he did it. i'm not so sure if he was always happy about that though, f.e. there are video interviews where he openly said he doesnt like to do some special tv talking; also i for myself can rarely be motivated to do business when still being drunk (and IMO Duff was even more of a mess). if you've ever read Slash's book he says that lots of business was up to him not Axl, and that Slash would have liked some more support by him (f.e. check the Paris'92 soundcheck-story).
but i also dont see the problem in doing what you like. if you like to do interviews and interviews have to be done and you've proven to be able to do them some good.....then you should be the man doing it, as simple as that.

There isn't any problem with doing the interviews if you're good at them, or enjoy doing them.  Nobody ever said there was....

The point was only that's not "all the work".  Its some work. It's certainly "visible" work.  But, honestly, of "all the work", it's some of the cushiest bits. How EASY it is largely depends on your desire for attention and ability to get to room/phone/location at a designated time and talk.  Again, you can do that stoned out of your goard or drunk off your ass.  I know...I've seen it done, and done well.  Hell, it might make the interviews better, sometimes.

And you're making my point...if there's work to be done, and you're only doing the bits you LIKE (and not the other stuff, that you fucking hate, even though it has to be done)....well, chances are your partners might not like getting "stuck" with the rest. If that's what happened. Maybe.

On the Soundcheck story...again, we're talking about perception.  It's perfectly possible that Slash felt HE was doing the heavy lifting (because he was doing press and musical "direction"), and Axl felt HE was doing the heavy lifting (because he was doing the business and logistical stuff), and they were both pissed off about it, not "seeing" what the other was doing.  By Paris 1992, though...I think a lot of the hard feelings were already built up.  I suspect both sides were taking passive aggressive steps to intentionally "punish" the other...

Again, completely theorycrafting, here. Big game of "what if".

the "given direction" you've saying fits at least on the name thing, that was pure Axl's intend, he even confirmed this move in his 12/2008 online chats.

But, then, that's more fuel for the fire.

It sort of goes to show that GnR were not "puppets"...someone(s) was doing that work.  They weren't being led around by their dicks by Goldstein.

I don't think anyone has ever disputed the "name thing" was at Axl's request (or at least suggestion).  I think the dispute is over timing, method, and reasoning.

[Ali]

Ha. It's like 15 years of media "coverage" of GNR just went down the toilet. Look at how many times it's been written that Axl "fired Duff and Slash" and how many people have blamed him for the implosion of the original lineup.

Yet this document shows that wasn't the case at all. Very interesting stuff!
 

Don't think it changes much if anything at all, really.
Classic lineup essentially disbanded because they couldn't go along to get along.
Yet, Slash, Duff, Matt (and for a short while, Izzy) got along well enough to form a new band.

For me, the real question remains unanswered. Why?
Why all the trouble for the name, only to do next to nothing with it?

Couldn't have been the plan, right?
So how did GN'R go from being the most dangerous band in the world to the soap opera it's become today?

What it changes is the claims made by former band members that Axl essentially blackmailed them into signing off on deal that took their stake out of GNR. This oft repeated story has been used to vilify Rose in the press for two decades.

Essentially, you are correct. The band couldn't get along and it broke up, so why does this matter? However, what this changes is the nuance of how that occurred. It proves that it likely wasn't just one guy's issues. Like any relationship, when it breaks apart there is generally a pretty good amount of blame to be spread around. Duff was pretty candid in his book that he didn't blame Axl, and holds no ill will toward him. So where do "fans" and the press get off doing so?

I?m afraid it?s not that easy. When Steven was fired they rewrite the partnership agreement. They had to, one partner was gone. At the same time they were renegotiating their contract with Geffen. On top of that Niven was trying to get rid of Axl. So their first Momerandum of Agreement was about coming to terms about all this. That?s when they all agree that if Axl was fired he would keep the name. But were not inlove with the idea of firing Axl. Slash in his book says they thought about firing Axl many times even in the early days. But they would quickly reject the idea.  So yes, they signed a Memo as early as 1990 agreeing that if Axl was fired he would take the name. But what were the odds of Axl being fired?

Then Izzy left. Another partner gone. So the copy of the Memo we have here is from 1992 because they needed to rewrite it again. And again Axl got that amedment about the name if he was fired. Was that necessary? Slash and Duff only wanted that Axl would show up on time for shows, sound check. And that was it.

Then this whole thing gets fucked up. Slash and Duff claim in 1993 they were forced to sign the Memo again. And this time Axl wants the name for himself but not on the event of being fired. He just wants the name. He just wants to terminate the partnership and start a new one as some other people previously posted. According to Duff book Axl never told them a word. It was someone connected to Goldstein who issued the threat because it was that someone who had a meeting with them. I still think there are missing parts in this puzzle.

If there were a more recent Moa or partnership agreement after the one posted here....it would have been the one introduced as evidence during the lawsuit in 2004.

There wasn't. This was the one duff and slash introduced.

Thus, no new agreement in 1993. This was the last one they signed.

This is the exact argument I've been using for weeks on this issue.  Finally, someone sees and understands the logical reasoning behind the argument and echoes it.

Thanks Pilferk.

As I said before, this MOA does not prove that Duff and Slash lied.  To know that you would have to know their intent.  But, at the very least, the stories they both told were absolutely false.

They were not on tour when the agreement including the clause about ownership of the band name was signed.  Er go, there could not have been any scenario where they were put under duress to sign the agreement before a show.

It's that simple.

Ali

[ITARocker]

Did you ever seen interviews with Duff or Slash from those days? They didn't always seem "sober"...

/jarmo

Right..I really don't remember a "sober" slash back in the days

And he never slept...he just passed out sometimes 

[Limulus]

The point was only that's not "all the work".  Its some work. It's certainly "visible" work.  But, honestly, of "all the work", it's some of the cushiest bits. How EASY it is largely depends on your desire for attention and ability to get to room/phone/location at a designated time and talk.  Again, you can do that stoned out of your goard or drunk off your ass.  I know...I've seen it done, and done well.  Hell, it might make the interviews better, sometimes.

And you're making my point...if there's work to be done, and you're only doing the bits you LIKE (and not the other stuff, that you fucking hate, even though it has to be done)....well, chances are your partners might not like getting "stuck" with the rest. If that's what happened. Maybe.

On the Soundcheck story...again, we're talking about perception.  It's perfectly possible that Slash felt HE was doing the heavy lifting (because he was doing press and musical "direction"), and Axl felt HE was doing the heavy lifting (because he was doing the business and logistical stuff), and they were both pissed off about it, not "seeing" what the other was doing.  By Paris 1992, though...I think a lot of the hard feelings were already built up.  I suspect both sides were taking passive aggressive steps to intentionally "punish" the other...

no, the point was that -right before i jumped in this discussion- people werent crediting Slash for much or any work during UYI tours, and that's just plain WRONG. he provenly did most of the "out front work" (nice term by the way!). all the other work we dont have stronger evidence about who did what exactly. is it possible Axl did more of the "behind the scenes"-work? sure! is it possible that Slash didnt do anything of that? i highly doubt that. his ego got very big aswell during UYI, it's hard to imagine him not wanting to take also care of behind-the-scenes-work. he had to sign much off anyway, unfortunately he got outtricked with the name issue - which intentions are some evil in the 1st place and which is smth. we havent discussed too much IMO.

anyway Slash did most of the "out front work" when the rest is as you've said:

Again, completely theorycrafting, here. Big game of "what if".

[gnrfan1797]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mh8HThNHdY

Looks pretty messed up to me. SLow speaking and everything. But none the less it's the past and what's done is done. Dwelling on who did what and when they did what isn't going to make a difference today.