Jump to content

Contracts


Recommended Posts

Hi Marc,

Thanks for all the time you've spent here filling in holes in the GNR history. You really are probably our best source into the inner workings of the band, besides ex-members themselves.

My question is about the signing over of the GNR name by Slash and Duff, to Axl. I know it's a very touchy subject where Slash and Duff have claimed they did it in an effort to coax Axl on stage in an effort to prevent another riot. However, recent documents have leaked onto the internet showing when Slash and Duff initaled the contracts and the dates they signed were on seperate occasions, neither of which coincided with a GNR concert.

Did Slash or Duff ever pass off this "preventing a riot" senario to you, or have you never really asked them about why they signed over the name. Any insights you may have would be really great, thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slash and Duff were often not aware of what country they were currently in during the UYI tour. So it's not surprising their story regarding this is all over the place. Documents have proven they were actually off-tour when they initialed it.

A lot of dysfunction within the band as the UYI tour went on, with Slash and Duff consuming insane amounts of alcohol and cocaine constantly. They were also marrying starlets and crackheads, which Axl would've become partners with had he not assumed control of the band name. It didn't affect their royalties or rights, just the final control over decisions made regarding the band. Axl had every right to do that, and considering both Slash and Duff quickly divorced, I think it actually worked out to their benefit in the long run that Axl did that. These weren't guys up to normal partying, remember. Slash's heart became so weakened he had to have a pacemaker at 30. Duff's pancreas exploded around the same age. This is extreme, decadent behavior of individuals who have sunk deep into addiction. As I said, if I were Axl, I would've done the same thing.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slash and Duff were often not aware of what country they were currently in during the UYI tour. So it's not surprising their story regarding this is all over the place. Documents have proven they were actually off-tour when they initialed it.

A lot of dysfunction within the band as the UYI tour went on, with Slash and Duff consuming insane amounts of alcohol and cocaine constantly. They were also marrying starlets and crackheads, which Axl would've become partners with had he not assumed control of the band name. It didn't affect their royalties or rights, just the final control over decisions made regarding the band. Axl had every right to do that, and considering both Slash and Duff quickly divorced, I think it actually worked out to their benefit in the long run that Axl did that. These weren't guys up to normal partying, remember. Slash's heart became so weakened he had to have a pacemaker at 30. Duff's pancreas exploded around the same age. This is extreme, decadent behavior of individuals who have sunk deep into addiction. As I said, if I were Axl, I would've done the same thing.

Just my opinion.

What health and divorce has to do with anything? Many musicians have health problems and more than one divorce. And their bandmates never stripped them for their share of a band name. And I don´t see the benefit for Duff and Slash. Besides in the Slash case he had a prenuptial agreement. So there wasn´t much his ex wife could do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mech,

I'm not debating if I think it was right what Axl did (even though I do), I think Slash and to a lesser extent Duff told a story that they both knew was fabricated to media outlets for years to gain public support. And I'm interested to see if they told this same lie to close personal friends as well. As for Slash and Duff using hazy memories to justify creating this entire story, thats laughable. Your telling me that they BOTH have the same "memory" of an incident that has now been proved to of never hapened??? I'm fully aware of each ones drug history , but when you write 2 books on the time period, speaking at great length about a numer of topics and events that took place before and after this "amost riot" , trying to chalk up this incident as just a foggy memory is bullshit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mech,

I'm not debating if I think it was right what Axl did (even though I do), I think Slash and to a lesser extent Duff told a story that they both knew was fabricated to media outlets for years to gain public support. And I'm interested to see if they told this same lie to close personal friends as well. As for Slash and Duff using hazy memories to justify creating this entire story, thats laughable. Your telling me that they BOTH have the same "memory" of an incident that has now been proved to of never hapened??? I'm fully aware of each ones drug history , but when you write 2 books on the time period, speaking at great length about a numer of topics and events that took place before and after this "amost riot" , trying to chalk up this incident as just a foggy memory is bullshit!

Tom Zutaut also verifies Slash's and Duff's claims so you figure all three of them got together and created the same lie to fuck over Axl?

And exactly how was it proven that it never happened by the couple of pages of a document posted here? How do you know it is real were you there?

Do I think Axl confronted them and asked them to sign? no................. Do I think it was presented to Slash and Duff that if they did not sign Axl might derail the tour? not beyond the realm of possibility given his history......Do I think Axl knew it was going to happen and sanctioned it? absolutely.........Do I think Slash and Duff were dumb fucks for signing it and have no one to blame but themselves?......no question but that does not make it right that Axl would do this to his band mates.....Do I think we have the whole truth........no and doubt we will ever know...........

Edited by classicrawker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mech,

I'm not debating if I think it was right what Axl did (even though I do), I think Slash and to a lesser extent Duff told a story that they both knew was fabricated to media outlets for years to gain public support. And I'm interested to see if they told this same lie to close personal friends as well. As for Slash and Duff using hazy memories to justify creating this entire story, thats laughable. Your telling me that they BOTH have the same "memory" of an incident that has now been proved to of never hapened??? I'm fully aware of each ones drug history , but when you write 2 books on the time period, speaking at great length about a numer of topics and events that took place before and after this "amost riot" , trying to chalk up this incident as just a foggy memory is bullshit!

Duff was the one who tell us in great detail his side of the story. Slash was more vague saying Axl used a legal trick to ended up with the name. Izzy said in a long interview in 2001 that Axl was obsessed with contracts. He was making everybody to sign papers even for the most irrelevant little thing.

According to Axl (he told us in the chats here) What Duff claims is illegal. Documents signed under duress are invalid. It is believed Doug Goldstein was not present at the time in the Barcelona show in 1993 because apparently he was the U.S. with his newborn son. Duff mentioned some Goldstein assistant as being the one who gave the papers to Slash and himself. Axl was not present at that meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said this before, weather they were on tour or not or on tour but on a off day doesn't matter, they both still believed that if Axl didn't get what he wanted, that he would not move forward. Based on Axl history, they felt if they didn't sign it, Axl was out. So when Slash says if we didn't sign it , he wouldn't go on stage doesn't have to mean that night. The fact is they believed that he wouldn't ever go on with out them signing it and nobody knows what management said to Slash and Duff about what Axl would do if they didn't sign it.

I just have one question, Why would anybody sign over there right in the band for no reason? Does that make any sense? Duff is a very smart business man and Slash is no fool either. Why would they just sign over something that was worth so much and that they worked so hard to get?

Answer, they felt they had to or Axl was gone. However they knew that the band wouldn't have that much value without them but still why would they do that?

Do you think Axl would have chosen to go back to working at Tower if he didn't get his way? Was he that stubborn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said this before, weather they were on tour or not or on tour but on a off day doesn't matter, they both still believed that if Axl didn't get what he wanted, that he would not move forward. Based on Axl history, they felt if they didn't sign it, Axl was out. So when Slash says if we didn't sign it , he wouldn't go on stage doesn't have to mean that night. The fact is they believed that he wouldn't ever go on with out them signing it and nobody knows what management said to Slash and Duff about what Axl would do if they didn't sign it.

I just have one question, Why would anybody sign over there right in the band for no reason? Does that make any sense? Duff is a very smart business man and Slash is no fool either. Why would they just sign over something that was worth so much and that they worked so hard to get?

Answer, they felt they had to or Axl was gone. However they knew that the band wouldn't have that much value without them but still why would they do that?

Do you think Axl would have chosen to go back to working at Tower if he didn't get his way? Was he that stubborn?

What Tower? Axl was already a millionaire in 1993. He was a well known and established rock star. He just should´ve started his solo project ( as he did) without the name Guns N´Roses. Look if they hate each other it is a good thing they are apart. What it is wrong here is Axl with a bunch of hired guys touring under the name Guns N´Roses. Even if he legally and lawfully got it. Just because something is legal it doesn´t necessarily mean it is ethical. Axl can tour all he wants and make 100 albums but not with the name. I don´t give a shit that the name was his idea. He didn´t care about it back in 1986 when they signed with Geffen. That was the right time to bring up issues not 5 or 6 years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said this before, weather they were on tour or not or on tour but on a off day doesn't matter, they both still believed that if Axl didn't get what he wanted, that he would not move forward. Based on Axl history, they felt if they didn't sign it, Axl was out. So when Slash says if we didn't sign it , he wouldn't go on stage doesn't have to mean that night. The fact is they believed that he wouldn't ever go on with out them signing it and nobody knows what management said to Slash and Duff about what Axl would do if they didn't sign it.

I just have one question, Why the FUCK would anybody sign over there right in the band for no reason? Does that make any sense? Duff is a very smart business man and Slash is no fool either. Why would they just sign over something that was worth so much and that they worked so hard to get?

Answer, they felt they had to or Axl was gone. However they knew that the band wouldn't have that much value without them but still why would they do that?

" Duff is a very smart business man and Slash is no fool either"

24/7, during that period. Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said this before, weather they were on tour or not or on tour but on a off day doesn't matter, they both still believed that if Axl didn't get what he wanted, that he would not move forward. Based on Axl history, they felt if they didn't sign it, Axl was out. So when Slash says if we didn't sign it , he wouldn't go on stage doesn't have to mean that night. The fact is they believed that he wouldn't ever go on with out them signing it and nobody knows what management said to Slash and Duff about what Axl would do if they didn't sign it.

I just have one question, Why the FUCK would anybody sign over there right in the band for no reason? Does that make any sense? Duff is a very smart business man and Slash is no fool either. Why would they just sign over something that was worth so much and that they worked so hard to get?

Answer, they felt they had to or Axl was gone. However they knew that the band wouldn't have that much value without them but still why would they do that?

" Duff is a very smart business man and Slash is no fool either"

24/7, during that period. Really?

Sup bro, give us some leaks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wasn't trying to open up another debate about if it was right or wrong, I simply wanted to know if Slash or Duff said to Marc "we were doing a show and Axl wouldn't come out until we signed it". Sounds to me from Marc's answer that they did not tell him that story, thank you for answering the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't tell me when it happened but when I asked them both at different times they both came up with the same thing. They both said if we didn't sign he would have not played anymore gigs but remember that doesn't mean Axl made that threat, it's just what they believed would happen if they didn't sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc,

Do you think it's possible that Axl made this legal move as a result of his manic depressive bi-polar ways that weren't being treated properly at that time? He said that he shouldn't have been on that tour and that Slash and Duff beat him down so bad. In your opinion, could all this ugliness have been avoided if he would have been on the right dosage of benzodiazepine. Something I've always wondered. Could xanax have saved Guns N Roses?

Edited by BIack Sabbath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they sign via representation (lawyers) or alone? I thought if you sign when "fucked up" (under the influence) it's challenge able?

The biggest problem is we don´t know for sure what and when they signed. There is this Memorandum of Agreement from 1992. If that´s the only thing they signed they did it at different dates while not on tour. And it doesn´t look like someone else printed their initials for them. Duff and Slash introduced that document as evidence in their favor during the 2004 lawsuit against Axl. So that Memo doesn´t seem to be the problem. The thing that doesn´t add up is the Duff story about the Barcelona show in 1993 he tell us in his book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the significance of the background to the contracts. Why does it matter how the signing came about ? It just seems completely irrelevant to me.

Axl ended up with the name and all that matters is how he chooses to exploit that brand name. I think most would agree he's made a real mess of the name, but at the end of the day he is selling way more tickets using it than if he released CD and toured under a solo name or new band name. It's probably all he cares about, because he sure doesn't care about credibility.

Not sure Duff and Slash have much reason to complain, what Axl has done by continuing on with different members is no different to what that did when Steve and Izzy left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't tell me when it happened but when I asked them both at different times they both came up with the same thing. They both said if we didn't sign he would have not played anymore gigs but remember that doesn't mean Axl made that threat, it's just what they believed would happen if they didn't sign.

Thanks again Marc I appreciate that this is a delicate subject and that it might put you in a sensitive area betwen friendships. What they told you about Axl not willing to perform anymore unless he had rights to the name is probably exactly how they felt and maybe even what they were told directly from management. However, once the whole story about holding a specific crowd hostage, and preventing a possible riot from happening, and signing over the rights for the fans safety, it becomes a totally different matter. One that paints Axl in the worst possible light, as someone who is so petty he would put thousands of people in harms way as a legal maneuver. As Axl said in the chats here , "if I did what they said I did, I'd say "fuck me" too".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSL, I think you are overstating the whole 'Slash and Duff' as replacement members angle. Wer'e not talking about Paul Huge here. Slash & Duff basically replaced nobodies. Took that 'band' that you refer to to new and dizzying heights and conquered the world with the aid of their individual and collective talent and charisma. So take your hand off it and talk sensible if you wish to earn back any respect around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSL, I think you are overstating the whole 'Slash and Duff' as replacement members angle. Wer'e not talking about Paul Huge here. Slash & Duff basically replaced nobodies. Took that 'band' that you refer to to new and dizzying heights and conquered the world with the aid of their individual and collective talent and charisma. So take your hand off it and talk sensible if you wish to earn back any respect around here.

Ha, there - posted it twice just for extra emphasis!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is disputing the overwhelming contributions Slash and Duff made to GNR.

However, Axl would have been an absolute fool to proceed without protection from being voted out of the band 2-1. They joined his band. No matter how much they helped it grow, for them to be able to vote him out of the band 2-1 and end up with 100% ownership of the band he founded, fronted, named, and contributed the most creatively to, would have been absolutely ludicrous.

About as ludicrous as what Axl ended up doing. Continue with your agenda though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is disputing the overwhelming contributions Slash and Duff made to GNR.

However, Axl would have been an absolute fool to proceed without protection from being voted out of the band 2-1. They joined his band. No matter how much they helped it grow, for them to be able to vote him out of the band 2-1 and end up with 100% ownership of the band he founded, fronted, named, and contributed the most creatively to, would have been absolutely ludicrous.

Look both Slash and Duff said in their books that back in the late 80s the 4 of them thought about firing Axl several times. One of them being when Axl missed the Alice Cooper show. But they would always dismiss the idea. They needed and they wanted Axl.

As for your claim that they joined Axl´s band. Axl didn´t hire them. There was no partnership nor contracts, nothing. They were all a bunch of guys that they just got together in the streets of L.A. They were all just trying to figure out how to build a good band. There was nothing memorable that Tracii, Ole and Rob did for the band except getting out of the way at the right time. As I said before if Axl was so concerned about the name he should´ve brought that up back in 1986 when they signed with Geffen and not years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...