Izzy's "demotion"

[EmilyGNR]

I actually think slash and duff new exactly what they were signing.   I believe Axl when he says everyone agreed that he came in with the name and it was his to take with th him if the band were to ever break up

What I don't think slash or duff were expecting.  Was for Axl to quit the band/partnership.  And start over fresh with the name guns n roses and try and put both slash and duff u set a contract.   I am pretty sure that was a surprise to those guys.

And really that move has nothing to do about protecting Axl or protecting the name guns n roses.  It comes across as a true power play.  Where he wanted full control and wanted to be the boss

Totally agree.

I have long thought that they didn't think there was much of a Guns N' Roses without them anyway.

Slash definitely didn't think GNR could exist without him but in reality GNR existed both before Slash and after him.

Him quitting was a power play, if anything.

The only reason any of this became a point of contention and so publicized is because Slash became bitter when he wasn't allowed to return to the band after quitting multiple times.

 So, rather than being honest with the public and explaining that he quit as a power play and then was rebuffed when he tried to rejoin, it was more beneficial and convienient to his career to  lie and spin the story that the band was stolen from him.

He and Duff both lied about signing under duress and about the actual time they signed it..or else they were too stoned and drunk to remember accurately.

[D-GenerationX]

I agree that "sign or I don't go onstage" thing is not real.  Just like Axl said, no court would ever enforce that.

[EmilyGNR]

I agree that "sign or I don't go onstage" thing is not real.  Just like Axl said, no court would ever enforce that.

Exactly, they did not sign under duress and did not sign at the times they both said they did.

 It was agreed from day one that Axl was the one bringing the name to the table. Slash and Duff were joining a pre-existing band.

They were given their fair share of ownership in the band and there were no complaints, there was no issue until much later after Slash quit and decided it looked better to be a victim, PR spin.

A band's partnership agreement has to establish protocol for voting rights, distribution of assets, resolutions for departures, etc.

Slash and Duff did not give up their voting rights. A majority was still needed for band decisions.

Slash and Duff were not giving up anything at all. They were simply agreeing that they couldn't vote Axl out and then use the name he created for a band he founded before they ever joined.

(Note-it was no accident that VR had the Gun-name connection, it was to be called "loaded" initially and if they could have legally called it GNR they undoubtedly would have IMO.)


Nobody is disputing that Slash and Duff were an important part of GNR's success. Nobody is disputing that the name's value increased during Slash and Duff's tenure-This was nothing unusual nor was it a point of contention. It was simply putting something into writing that had been understood from day one.

Also -they quit, they were not fired nor forced out.Axl, Slash and Duff are still business partners. They all receive money from record sales and merchandise. It's not Axl paying the others. It's the label paying all of them, merchandise companies paying all of them, publishing companies paying all of them, etc.

[TheBaconman]

I actually think slash and duff new exactly what they were signing.   I believe Axl when he says everyone agreed that he came in with the name and it was his to take with th him if the band were to ever break up

What I don't think slash or duff were expecting.  Was for Axl to quit the band/partnership.  And start over fresh with the name guns n roses and try and put both slash and duff u set a contract.   I am pretty sure that was a surprise to those guys.

And really that move has nothing to do about protecting Axl or protecting the name guns n roses.  It comes across as a true power play.  Where he wanted full control and wanted to be the boss

Totally agree.

I have long thought that they didn't think there was much of a Guns N' Roses without them anyway.

Slash definitely didn't think GNR could exist without him but in reality GNR existed both before Slash and after him.

Him quitting was a power play, if anything.

The only reason any of this became a point of contention and so publicized is because Slash became bitter when he wasn't allowed to return to the band after quitting multiple times.

 So, rather than being honest with the public and explaining that he quit as a power play and then was rebuffed when he tried to rejoin, it was more beneficial and convienient to his career to  lie and spin the story that the band was stolen from him.

He and Duff both lied about signing under duress and about the actual time they signed it..or else they were too stoned and drunk to remember accurately.

But neither slash or duff quit the original parntership. 

Ask was the one that quit and then tried to restart the band with both slash and duff as employees under contract.    The terms of those contracts I have no idea.   They could of been totally in the favour of slash and duff.  Or not. 

But the they were not the first ones to leave.   Axl left.   Reformed the structure of the band.   Slash never left as he never signed a contract.   Duff quit a few years later.   

And don't get me wrong I am a huge supporter that Axl was the only one that if the band broke up could carry on with its legacy

But this bs that the band was around before slash and duff and around after is just be

Yes the name was around before.  And yes the brand was around after.    I would argue that the strengh of the brand now has as much to do with slash, who hasn't been in the band for years, as it does with Axl

[TheBaconman]

I agree that "sign or I don't go onstage" thing is not real.  Just like Axl said, no court would ever enforce that.

Yep no way that was real.   Maybe there was something that happens.  But it defently wasn't a legal document.     Sounds like them just trying to save face

[CherryGarcia]

I agree that "sign or I don't go onstage" thing is not real.  Just like Axl said, no court would ever enforce that.

Exactly, they did not sign under duress and did not sign at the times they both said they did.

 It was agreed from day one that Axl was the one bringing the name to the table. Slash and Duff were joining a pre-existing band.

They were given their fair share of ownership in the band and there were no complaints, there was no issue until much later after Slash quit and decided it looked better to be a victim, PR spin.

A band's partnership agreement has to establish protocol for voting rights, distribution of assets, resolutions for departures, etc.

Slash and Duff did not give up their voting rights. A majority was still needed for band decisions.

Slash and Duff were not giving up anything at all. They were simply agreeing that they couldn't vote Axl out and then use the name he created for a band he founded before they ever joined.

(Note-it was no accident that VR had the Gun-name connection, it was to be called "loaded" initially and if they could have legally called it GNR they undoubtedly would have IMO.)


Nobody is disputing that Slash and Duff were an important part of GNR's success. Nobody is disputing that the name's value increased during Slash and Duff's tenure-This was nothing unusual nor was it a point of contention. It was simply putting something into writing that had been understood from day one.

Also -they quit, they were not fired nor forced out.Axl, Slash and Duff are still business partners. They all receive money from record sales and merchandise. It's not Axl paying the others. It's the label paying all of them, merchandise companies paying all of them, publishing companies paying all of them, etc.

You're ignoring one major point.
On August 31st 1995, Duff and Slash were still in the band, and it was Axl who decided to leave the legal partnership, and sent them a letter informing his intent to do so, and that he was going to form a new band called Guns N' Roses, which they could join - on his terms. Not as equal members with equal voting rights. A new legal partnership from which they could be jettisoned by Axl at any time. This move is what helped them to leave the 'name'.

[EmilyGNR]

I actually think slash and duff new exactly what they were signing.   I believe Axl when he says everyone agreed that he came in with the name and it was his to take with th him if the band were to ever break up

What I don't think slash or duff were expecting.  Was for Axl to quit the band/partnership.  And start over fresh with the name guns n roses and try and put both slash and duff u set a contract.   I am pretty sure that was a surprise to those guys.

And really that move has nothing to do about protecting Axl or protecting the name guns n roses.  It comes across as a true power play.  Where he wanted full control and wanted to be the boss

Totally agree.

I have long thought that they didn't think there was much of a Guns N' Roses without them anyway.

Slash definitely didn't think GNR could exist without him but in reality GNR existed both before Slash and after him.

Him quitting was a power play, if anything.

The only reason any of this became a point of contention and so publicized is because Slash became bitter when he wasn't allowed to return to the band after quitting multiple times.

 So, rather than being honest with the public and explaining that he quit as a power play and then was rebuffed when he tried to rejoin, it was more beneficial and convienient to his career to  lie and spin the story that the band was stolen from him.

He and Duff both lied about signing under duress and about the actual time they signed it..or else they were too stoned and drunk to remember accurately.

But neither slash or duff quit the original parntership. 

Ask was the one that quit and then tried to restart the band with both slash and duff as employees under contract.    The terms of those contracts I have no idea.   They could of been totally in the favour of slash and duff.  Or not. 

But the they were not the first ones to leave.   Axl left.   Reformed the structure of the band.   Slash never left as he never signed a contract.   Duff quit a few years later.   

And don't get me wrong I am a huge supporter that Axl was the only one that if the band broke up could carry on with its legacy

But this bs that the band was around before slash and duff and around after is just be

Yes the name was around before.  And yes the brand was around after.    I would argue that the strengh of the brand now has as much to do with slash, who hasn't been in the band for years, as it does with Axl

Well there you are dead wrong, there was a GNR before Slash and fact is he joined a pre-existing band- not saying it was more successful, not saying he didn't contribute to GNR, you cannot change facts no matter how much they inconvenience you or your argument.

Also-Slash quit, Duff quit-that is a fact as well.

Guess the circle jerk has come full circle and now people want to argue about original band members again.

Not surprised.

[EmilyGNR]

I agree that "sign or I don't go onstage" thing is not real.  Just like Axl said, no court would ever enforce that.

Exactly, they did not sign under duress and did not sign at the times they both said they did.

 It was agreed from day one that Axl was the one bringing the name to the table. Slash and Duff were joining a pre-existing band.

They were given their fair share of ownership in the band and there were no complaints, there was no issue until much later after Slash quit and decided it looked better to be a victim, PR spin.

A band's partnership agreement has to establish protocol for voting rights, distribution of assets, resolutions for departures, etc.

Slash and Duff did not give up their voting rights. A majority was still needed for band decisions.

Slash and Duff were not giving up anything at all. They were simply agreeing that they couldn't vote Axl out and then use the name he created for a band he founded before they ever joined.

(Note-it was no accident that VR had the Gun-name connection, it was to be called "loaded" initially and if they could have legally called it GNR they undoubtedly would have IMO.)


Nobody is disputing that Slash and Duff were an important part of GNR's success. Nobody is disputing that the name's value increased during Slash and Duff's tenure-This was nothing unusual nor was it a point of contention. It was simply putting something into writing that had been understood from day one.

Also -they quit, they were not fired nor forced out.Axl, Slash and Duff are still business partners. They all receive money from record sales and merchandise. It's not Axl paying the others. It's the label paying all of them, merchandise companies paying all of them, publishing companies paying all of them, etc.

You're ignoring one major point.
On August 31st 1995, Duff and Slash were still in the band, and it was Axl who decided to leave the legal partnership, and sent them a letter informing his intent to do so, and that he was going to form a new band called Guns N' Roses, which they could join - on his terms. Not as equal members with equal voting rights. A new legal partnership from which they could be jettisoned by Axl at any time. This move is what helped them to leave the 'name'.

How am I ignoring you and your little history lesson you are trying to push here? Fyi- I think there are a good many members here aware of the facts as well as the history.

 I am stating facts about what actually happened and why the new partnership needed to be redefined.

The facts surrounding the '92 partnership have not changed in the last 7 years, but the tone has changed a bit since it was definitively proven that Axl was telling the truth all along and that Slash and Duff were lying all along.

Axl took over the band out of necessity. Who exactly was supposed to be running the band? Slash? Duff? They were passed out half the time and were in no condition to be running anything. If anything, it was fucked up to put all of that burden on Axl.

Slash definitely quit...

"Slash came back for some writing down at the studio, totally negative and belligerent, quits the fucking band and then publicly spins it into somehow he got pushed out." (Del James, Mudkiss, 2008)

I called our management office, BFD, and told Doug that I wouldn't be coming back. [...] Later that night, I called Duff, Matt, and Adam Day and let them know." (Slash, autobiography)

"I worked with Slash quite a few months before [my time with Axl in '98] for a few days (when he was still in the band, he mentioned he was quitting, I saw the announcement on MTV two weeks later)." (Dave Dominguez, 2004)

Axl from the 08 chats-
"Why keep the name? I?m literally the last man standing. Not bragging, not proud. It?s been a fucking nightmare but I didn?t leave Guns and I didn?t drive others out.
With Slash it?s been nothing more than pure strategy and saving face while manipulating the public like he used to me. I earned the right to protect my efforts and to be able to take advantage of our contract I?d worked hard for where Slash?s exact words were that he didn?t care.

[CherryGarcia]

I agree that "sign or I don't go onstage" thing is not real.  Just like Axl said, no court would ever enforce that.

Exactly, they did not sign under duress and did not sign at the times they both said they did.

 It was agreed from day one that Axl was the one bringing the name to the table. Slash and Duff were joining a pre-existing band.

They were given their fair share of ownership in the band and there were no complaints, there was no issue until much later after Slash quit and decided it looked better to be a victim, PR spin.

A band's partnership agreement has to establish protocol for voting rights, distribution of assets, resolutions for departures, etc.

Slash and Duff did not give up their voting rights. A majority was still needed for band decisions.

Slash and Duff were not giving up anything at all. They were simply agreeing that they couldn't vote Axl out and then use the name he created for a band he founded before they ever joined.

(Note-it was no accident that VR had the Gun-name connection, it was to be called "loaded" initially and if they could have legally called it GNR they undoubtedly would have IMO.)


Nobody is disputing that Slash and Duff were an important part of GNR's success. Nobody is disputing that the name's value increased during Slash and Duff's tenure-This was nothing unusual nor was it a point of contention. It was simply putting something into writing that had been understood from day one.

Also -they quit, they were not fired nor forced out.Axl, Slash and Duff are still business partners. They all receive money from record sales and merchandise. It's not Axl paying the others. It's the label paying all of them, merchandise companies paying all of them, publishing companies paying all of them, etc.

You're ignoring one major point.
On August 31st 1995, Duff and Slash were still in the band, and it was Axl who decided to leave the legal partnership, and sent them a letter informing his intent to do so, and that he was going to form a new band called Guns N' Roses, which they could join - on his terms. Not as equal members with equal voting rights. A new legal partnership from which they could be jettisoned by Axl at any time. This move is what helped them to leave the 'name'.

How am I ignoring you and your little history lesson you are trying to push here? Fyi- I think there are a good many members here aware of the facts as well as the history.

 I am stating facts about what actually happened and why the new partnership needed to be redefined.

Axl-from the chats in 08'

"Why keep the name? I?m literally the last man standing. Not bragging, not proud. It?s been a fucking nightmare but I didn?t leave Guns and I didn?t drive others out.

With Slash it?s been nothing more than pure strategy and saving face while manipulating the public like he used to me. I earned the right to protect my efforts and to be able to take advantage of our contract I?d worked hard for where Slash?s exact words were that he didn?t care.

I get that some like a different version or lineup the same way some like a specific team line up or a particular year of a specific car but because you and I are getting played I?m supposed to throw the baby out with the bath water?"

"I didn?t make a solo record. A solo record would be completely different than this and probably much more instrumental. I made a Guns record with the right people who were the only people who really wanted to help me try, were qualified and capable while enduring the public abuse for years .

"The songs were chosen by everyone involved. I didn?t want to do This I love in anyway shape or form and Robin and Caram insisted gaining Tommy?s and the others support."

" There?s been a lot of pressure to go with using my name (all external) but that never felt right to me for this band and the parameters in regard to this music have lots more to do with the mindset of Guns than something else. The instrumental I wrote for End of Days that?s more a solo effort at least presently."

"As far as a new name?this is who I am not whatever else someone else thinks of. I don?t see myself as solely Guns but I do see myself as the only one from the past making the effort to take it forward whether anyone approves or not and giving beyond what many would or fight for to do so. "

"The name helped the music more than you could ever know and I?m not talking in regards to studios or budgets I mean it as in being pushed by something and having to get the music to a place where I can find my peace regardless of what anyone says."

" And that wasn?t fully achieved until the last round of mastering and swapping out a version of a track at the pressing plant that had gotten inadvertently changed at the last minute."

"Also the name was what the industry wanted as well and the burden of keeping it was something to endure in order to make the record. After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide."

"The cost of legal battles has been astronomical but I felt the deal made with Universal was fair for where it is and most things balanced out for both sides."

"David Bowie likes Floyd with Barret, many with Waters and those without. And there are those who like all the different lineups. Imo what makes our situation a bit more unique at least in how it?s played out is the ugliness of what really took place."

" If I?d done what was said then I?d say fuck me too. I also realize this is just one issue in something with upteen however many more so conclusions can?t be formulated off this little bit alone by most which is more than understandable."

"That said because someone leaves the shop I started in which I still legally have the rights to the name I started it with? makes up a bunch of nonsense to win public and legal support in an effort to get whatever it is they want at mine and the public?s expense?"

" I don?t feel any reason whatsoever I should have to throw what I?ve not only worked for but fought and suffered for away because some hurt, angry, betrayed, misguided and lied to people with a lynch mob mentality, joined by others who could care less (especially in the media), enjoying the controversy and hate, choose one over the other regardless of what?s right because they want what they want. And you can still prefer then as opposed to now and no one?s arguing your right to do so."

"In regard to nuGuns, I get that sometimes it helps to be able to clarify. Personally I call this Guns and the Illusions or previous lineups old Guns."

"We can play what we want as far as I?m aware."

"It wasn?t so much that it was a good course or that if looking back I could do something differently it?s that for better or worse it was the only course and had I not done this Slash would have succeeded in destroying me publicly much more than he, others or myself have so far and I would have gone bankrupt."

"I don?t know where I?d be but there?s clearly no happy ending there and with everything else that had gone on in every other area of my life the devastation isn?t something I feel I would have overcome at least to any real degree publicly. "

"Hopefully I would?ve been able to pick myself up enough to get a job or sing somewhere else but I doubt anything that significant."

"The sharing thing is interesting but even with all this time the complications of the red tape and trying to get something out fall on my world to sort and not theirs. They are amazingly supportive and do their best to keep me in up spirits and focused which I had less and less of in Guns way before Sweet Child caught on. If that were to change then that may be something to look at. I hope for us to grow more together as we continue so who knows."

"If I hadn?t secured the rights I don?t know where I?d be and I?d probably call what would then be the current lineup ?Those mother fuckers!!? rofl-lol.gif

"The name is something I take great pride in as I feel anyone who?s been a part of it should, the same as other bands or teams etc. The burden when it is such is a nightmare but not as much or as hopeless as I?d imagine without it could have been."

"On the what?s the difference? I think I get what you?re asking? I feel it depends on how and in what ways either the formers members are using the association and what the true circumstances regarding why they moved on from both the band and the name that would or could affect the decision to continue on with the name by in this case this lineup and or myself."

You realize that nowhere in that diatribe is there an actual reason given for the August 1995 thing. Because that action was inexcusable.
I could see if Guns N' Roses existed for several years and had put out a few albums before Slash and Duff joined. But it didn't. It existed for perhaps 4 months at most and went nowhere until they joined. And if you want to be technical about it, Izzy also founded the band with Axl. Let's not act like the band was Axl's solo project from day one; We can rest the pom poms down for a minute.

[EmilyGNR]

You realize that nowhere in that diatribe is there an actual reason given for the August 1995 thing. Because that action was inexcusable.
I could see if Guns N' Roses existed for several years and had put out a few albums before Slash and Duff joined. But it didn't. It existed for perhaps 4 months at most and went nowhere until they joined. And if you want to be technical about it, Izzy also founded the band with Axl. Let's not act like the band was Axl's solo project from day one; We can rest the pom poms down for a minute.

Nobody has any pom poms Miser, it is common for trolls like you to mount a personal attack when they are running out of ammo  or when the discussion doesn't go to suit them.

Nobody ever said Izzy was not a co-founder- straw man argument.

The facts surrounding the '92 partnership have not changed in the last 7 years, but the tone has changed a bit since it was definitively proven that Axl was telling the truth all along and that Slash and Duff were lying all along.

Axl took over the band out of necessity. Who exactly was supposed to be running the band? Slash? Duff? They were passed out half the time and were in no condition to be running anything. If anything, it was fucked up to put all of that burden on Axl.

The agreement did not allow Axl to fire either of them. Both of them quit.

"Slash came back for some writing down at the studio, totally negative and belligerent, quits the fucking band and then publicly spins it into somehow he got pushed out." (Del James, Mudkiss, 2008)

The old partnership agreement outlined various scenarios based on four votes. A new agreement was needed to outline various scenarios based on three votes. What Axl wanted was protection from Slash and Duff voting him out and then Slash and Duff having sole ownership of the GNR name even though they did not create the name and had joined an existing band as replacements.

There was no objection to this nor was it anything out of the ordinary or controversial. It was common sense.

Axl even tried to show Slash he was making a mistake-

"Axl contacted those closest to me, telling them I should change my mind. He called my dad, my security guard, my wife, Renee, and told each of them that I was making the biggest mistake of my life. He said that I was pissing away so much money because of my decision." (Slash, autobiography)

Here's what Duff said after Slash left-
I am [in GNR] & everything is going to be cool as far as that is concerned. [...] Guns is doing a record so of course Matt & I will be in the studio for at least 3-4 weeks in February. [...] We have song titles, but no album title. I don't want to let the cat out of the bag. [...] We progress naturally. As far as the rumor that one person wants us to change, that's just not true." (Duff chat, 12/17/96)

[EmilyGNR]

Also in August of 95 Slash was still using according to Duff
It was hopeless... Slash was beyond the heavy nodding, but he was still using heroin. Still, that posed no immediate problem for me." (Duff, autobiography)

"Slash was [in my opinion] being on the up and up in agreeing I had the rights, and I wasn?t trying to be some snake in the grass pulling a fast one. The others could?ve cared less." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

"I?d left and formed a new partnership, which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

He (Slash) has been 'OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY' outside of the Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995." (Axl, 10/30/96)

"Slash QUIT Guns N' Roses after his solo projects flopped. Geffen Records President Eddie Rosenblatt literally begged Axl to keep the door open for Slash. And Axl did so what happened? Slash came back for some writing down at the studio, totally negative and belligerent, quits the fucking band and then publicly spins it into somehow he got pushed out. Didn?t go down that way, man.

Now you got me started! Slash and Nikki Sixx and countless others, their biographies are revisionist history, man. It's how they want their story to be remembered but not the way it actually occurred. That's the power that comes with the pen. Whoever is telling the story, if enough people read and believe something and there is no argument to the contrary, then it becomes accepted as gospel. Thieves, infidels, and compulsive liars somehow become noble and charming if they choose their words cleverly.
 (Del James, Mudkiss, 2008)

[CherryGarcia]

You realize that nowhere in that diatribe is there an actual reason given for the August 1995 thing. Because that action was inexcusable.
I could see if Guns N' Roses existed for several years and had put out a few albums before Slash and Duff joined. But it didn't. It existed for perhaps 4 months at most and went nowhere until they joined. And if you want to be technical about it, Izzy also founded the band with Axl. Let's not act like the band was Axl's solo project from day one; We can rest the pom poms down for a minute.

Nobody has any pom poms Miser, it is common for trolls like you to mount a personal attack when they are running out of ammo  or when the discussion doesn't go to suit them.

Nobody ever said Izzy was not a co-founder- straw man argument.

The facts surrounding the '92 partnership have not changed in the last 7 years, but the tone has changed a bit since it was definitively proven that Axl was telling the truth all along and that Slash and Duff were lying all along.

Axl took over the band out of necessity. Who exactly was supposed to be running the band? Slash? Duff? They were passed out half the time and were in no condition to be running anything. If anything, it was fucked up to put all of that burden on Axl.

The agreement did not allow Axl to fire either of them. Both of them quit.

"Slash came back for some writing down at the studio, totally negative and belligerent, quits the fucking band and then publicly spins it into somehow he got pushed out." (Del James, Mudkiss, 2008)

The old partnership agreement outlined various scenarios based on four votes. A new agreement was needed to outline various scenarios based on three votes. What Axl wanted was protection from Slash and Duff voting him out and then Slash and Duff having sole ownership of the GNR name even though they did not create the name and had joined an existing band as replacements.

There was no objection to this nor was it anything out of the ordinary or controversial. It was common sense.

Axl even tried to show Slash he was making a mistake-

"Axl contacted those closest to me, telling them I should change my mind. He called my dad, my security guard, my wife, Renee, and told each of them that I was making the biggest mistake of my life. He said that I was pissing away so much money because of my decision." (Slash, autobiography)

Here's what Duff said after Slash left-
I am [in GNR] & everything is going to be cool as far as that is concerned. [...] Guns is doing a record so of course Matt & I will be in the studio for at least 3-4 weeks in February. [...] We have song titles, but no album title. I don't want to let the cat out of the bag. [...] We progress naturally. As far as the rumor that one person wants us to change, that's just not true." (Duff chat, 12/17/96)

You keep going back to 1992. Axl did not have the name in 1992. Everyone was equal in 1992. Yes, Duff was nodding out in 1992. Axl only got the contract which said he would get the name if he quit the band or was fired. Axl got the name in 1995 by quitting the band.
I am talking about 1995. When Duff was sober and not nodding, and Slash was still dabbling but "beyond the heavy nodding" as your own quote demonstrates. There was no reason for the power grab in 1995.

He's certainly done a great job of "salvaging it" since 1995.

So, every single person is a liar except for Axl? Everyone except Axl engages in 'revisionist history'? It's a massive industry wide conspiracy against Axl? Are Bumblefoot, DJ, Robin, Brain and Josh Freese in on it, too? Why does it seem like tons of people quit around Axl or get tired of working with him?

It's pretty sick to be utterly blind. Cults are scary.

[EmilyGNR]

You realize that nowhere in that diatribe is there an actual reason given for the August 1995 thing. Because that action was inexcusable.
I could see if Guns N' Roses existed for several years and had put out a few albums before Slash and Duff joined. But it didn't. It existed for perhaps 4 months at most and went nowhere until they joined. And if you want to be technical about it, Izzy also founded the band with Axl. Let's not act like the band was Axl's solo project from day one; We can rest the pom poms down for a minute.

Nobody has any pom poms Miser, it is common for trolls like you to mount a personal attack when they are running out of ammo  or when the discussion doesn't go to suit them.

Nobody ever said Izzy was not a co-founder- straw man argument.

The facts surrounding the '92 partnership have not changed in the last 7 years, but the tone has changed a bit since it was definitively proven that Axl was telling the truth all along and that Slash and Duff were lying all along.

Axl took over the band out of necessity. Who exactly was supposed to be running the band? Slash? Duff? They were passed out half the time and were in no condition to be running anything. If anything, it was fucked up to put all of that burden on Axl.

The agreement did not allow Axl to fire either of them. Both of them quit.

"Slash came back for some writing down at the studio, totally negative and belligerent, quits the fucking band and then publicly spins it into somehow he got pushed out." (Del James, Mudkiss, 2008)

The old partnership agreement outlined various scenarios based on four votes. A new agreement was needed to outline various scenarios based on three votes. What Axl wanted was protection from Slash and Duff voting him out and then Slash and Duff having sole ownership of the GNR name even though they did not create the name and had joined an existing band as replacements.

There was no objection to this nor was it anything out of the ordinary or controversial. It was common sense.

Axl even tried to show Slash he was making a mistake-

"Axl contacted those closest to me, telling them I should change my mind. He called my dad, my security guard, my wife, Renee, and told each of them that I was making the biggest mistake of my life. He said that I was pissing away so much money because of my decision." (Slash, autobiography)

Here's what Duff said after Slash left-
I am [in GNR] & everything is going to be cool as far as that is concerned. [...] Guns is doing a record so of course Matt & I will be in the studio for at least 3-4 weeks in February. [...] We have song titles, but no album title. I don't want to let the cat out of the bag. [...] We progress naturally. As far as the rumor that one person wants us to change, that's just not true." (Duff chat, 12/17/96)

You keep going back to 1992. Axl did not have the name in 1992. Everyone was equal in 1992. Yes, Duff was nodding out in 1992. Axl only got the contract which said he would get the name if he quit the band or was fired. Axl got the name in 1995 by quitting the band.
I am talking about 1995. When Duff was sober and not nodding, and Slash was still dabbling but "beyond the heavy nodding" as your own quote demonstrates. There was no reason for the power grab in 1995.

He's certainly done a great job of "salvaging it" since 1995.

So, every single person is a liar except for Axl? Everyone except Axl engages in 'revisionist history'? It's a massive industry wide conspiracy against Axl? Are Bumblefoot, DJ, Robin, Brain and Josh Freese in on it, too? Why does it seem like tons of people quit around Axl or get tired of working with him?

It's pretty sick to be utterly blind. Cults are scary.

Nobody is in a cult here Miser, why do you have an issue with someone expressing their honest opinion? If you think people here are in a cult then why are you here?

Nobody is blind either simply for the reason they don't agree with your little opinion on things and events.

There are quotes from Del there too, who unlike you, was actually around- so is he a "cult member"  and "blind" too?
You are laughable.

None of the people you listed quit for the same reason, it isn't that black and white- go look up the individual accounts of them leaving.

In 1995 Slash took back songs he had written for GNR and went off to do Snakepit, legal repercussions were barely avoided over that. On 09/11/95, twelve days after Axl'd sent out his letter, Duff and Matt begun appearing at the Viper Room on a weekly basis with Steve Jones and John Taylor.
.there were a lot of issues and details that made the decision complicated.

The new contract came into effect here:
After the new contract came into effect on 12/31/95, Axl set up shop in the Complex. Apparently, Slash's relationship with the band was at a standstill for some time since the new contract negotiations began in August '95.

As far as contractually - and this is a discrepancy between myself and our attorneys - apparently Axl owns [the GNR name]. Now I should have known that, because I could have then said: "Okay." I don't give a fuck who owns the name. But I find out later that Axl legally owns it - apparently." (Slash, Metal Hammer, 11/95)

"This will serve as notice [that] effective [...] Decemeber 30th 1995, I will withdraw from the partnership. [...] I intend to use the name 'Guns N' Roses' in connection with a new group which I will form." (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)

I?d left and formed a new partnership, which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

He (Slash) has been 'OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY' outside of the Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995." (Axl, 10/30/96)

Duff:
I left the band two weeks before my daughter Grace (she is two now) was born [August 27th 1997]. It was not fun. That's the reason. The reason why I stayed in the band was to be a bridge between Axl and Slash." (Duff, Burrn Magazine, 12/99)

I was offered a lot of money to stay in Guns N' Roses, and I was very honored by that." (Duff, 1999)
Everybody was trying to persuade me to stay in the band for money." (Duff, Burrn Magazine, 12/99)

Slash quit, Duff quit- what part of that do you not get? They both quit and for years lied about the contract and tried to paint Axl in the worst possible light- much like you are trying to do, but you won't succeed here.

Another old argument that some "fans" persist in dragging up from time to time, it belongs in dead horse.

[jarmo]

But would they have tried to fire Axl in 1988 if he didn't have a problem with late starts or even sometimes not showing up for shows?

Somebody had the idea, and it was possibly a wake up call for Axl to realize that these people were prepared to fire him from the band he had started along with Izzy.

Also, while the contract was signed in 1992, Axl didn't activate the "name clause" until August 1995, by which point Duff was totally clean and sober and healthy, and Slash was occasionally dabbling but not addicted as he had been.

Duff was sober, but Slash I wouldn't say that for sure about considering what we've read.


The fact that you refer to those who don't share your opinion as blind and part of a cult is sad.
When you can't prove your point without without insults, you've kinda lost the discussion.



/jarmo

[Ringoturtle]

Was that "sign the contract or Axl won't go on" threat communicated by the manager without Axl's knowledge?
Just wondering because DUFF and Slash tell kinda the same story. kinda weird when there's absolutely no truth to it.

moreover, I once read Axl wanted the name because, in case of the death of Slash or Duff, there could've been trouble with the wives at that time? If so, why not typing up a contract which says that the remaining members have control over the name in case of a death case (wives excluded)

[JAEBALL]

Axl securing the rights to the name of the " band he started with Izzy" has nothing to do with then having Slash and Duff sign contracts to be his employees.

I see them as seperate issues, he could have secured ownership of the name without taking it there.

For the last time ... If he wanted to forge ahead with them like he claimed ... Then that was foolish and naive to believe they'd go along.

[JAEBALL]

For all of the 7 people who keep screaming to the high heavens on the Internet that Guns N Roses existed before Slash Duff and Steven played with Axl and Izzy ...

Keep fighting the good fight !

[EmilyGNR]

For all of the 7 people who keep screaming to the high heavens on the Internet that Guns N Roses existed before Slash Duff and Steven played with Axl and Izzy ...

Keep fighting the good fight !

Nobody is screaming to the high heavens, it is a fact that you obviously have an issue with, but it is still a fact regardless.

How dare fans on a fan forum state actual history, it's an outrage 

[EmilyGNR]

Axl securing the rights to the name of the " band he started with Izzy" has nothing to do with then having Slash and Duff sign contracts to be his employees.

I see them as seperate issues, he could have secured ownership of the name without taking it there.

For the last time ... If he wanted to forge ahead with them like he claimed ... Then that was foolish and naive to believe they'd go along.

It's foolish to be discussing a 20+ year old issue that probably happened when you were in diapers, or were sperm but it doesn't stop you, does it ?

Nothing said now will change a thing in the past, but people want to keep on beating that deceased equine because it didn't happen the way they thought it should.

[jarmo]

I once read Axl wanted the name because, in case of the death of Slash or Duff, there could've been trouble with the wives at that time? If so, why not typing up a contract which says that the remaining members have control over the name in case of a death case (wives excluded)

Even if you could, you'd think there'd be no legal issues? Just look at how many issues have started after somebody passed away and the family argue about the estate....



/jarmo