If Slash/Duff Didnt Sign Over the GNR Name, Would Axl Really No-Show at the Concerts?

[ChristmasFnatic]

Do you think he would really do it? Or is it all empty threats?

And if they didnt sign it that day, do you think Axl will find a way to still get the name eventually?

[Rovim]

I think he was capable of doing it. You never know with crazy. I think if they didn't sign it would have been very hard for anyone to still secure the name. It would have been ugly, but it's kinda like how Roger Waters lost in that lawsuit about the band's name.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Rovim

[GivenToFly]

According to what he posted on the forum that was never an option for him because they could have sued him into bankruptcy. He used that as an argument for the rumour of that threat's existence not being true. I believe him on this. I think that threat was made for him without his knowledge. "Sign this or who knows what Axl could do, he might not even show up for shows. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Sign this."

[The Black]

According to what he posted on the forum that was never an option for him because they could have sued him into bankruptcy. He used that as an argument for the rumour of that threat's existence not being true. I believe him on this. I think that threat was made for him without his knowledge. "Sign this or who knows what Axl could do, he might not even show up for shows. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Sign this."

Still made under duress, even though a third party intervened.

If they signed that contract on the basis of that information, then the contract would have been made redundant in the court of law.

So, given that the contract is still intact, there's some other side to the story. But even so, it's an incredible dickish move by Axl. He was an important part of the original band, but he forgot how important the rest were.

[wasted]

But I guess Axl never really was saying he was GNR, just that the name was his. There was no plan to be GNR on his own. He didn't even want Izzy to leave. He may have felt his band was falling apart on him.

[Rovim]

But I guess Axl never really was saying he was GNR, just that the name was his. There was no plan to be GNR on his own. He didn't even want Izzy to leave. He may have felt his band was falling apart on him.

Said he tried to bring Slash back for 3 years or something. It wasn't a choice, the show must go on. He had to keep the band alive and he put it in a coma and stopped performing for years and focused on coming up with a modern Guns sound and said it was a nightmare too. Wanted to live like the stones, wanted Slash and Izzy in the band. He probably thought that it was his job as the frontman of the band to keep it going no matter what. I don't think he trusted Duff and Slash with the future of the band.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Rovim

[magisme]

He probably would have no showed at life. He and Beta would have run off and hid for even longer than he did when he had the name.

[Strange Broue]

Do you think he would really do it? Or is it all empty threats?

And if they didnt sign it that day, do you think Axl will find a way to still get the name eventually?

Probably Axl just "quit" and take the case to the court, another huge legal battle

According to what he posted on the forum that was never an option for him because they could have sued him into bankruptcy. He used that as an argument for the rumour of that threat's existence not being true. I believe him on this. I think that threat was made for him without his knowledge. "Sign this or who knows what Axl could do, he might not even show up for shows. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Sign this."

this is also very possible

Lawyers and managers fucked up band members relationships all the time

[Coma16]

Duff and Slash didn't sign under duress...

[AxlsMainMan]

Duff and Slash didn't sign under duress...

Being told the singer of your band won't show up if you don't sign something before a show is pretty much the definition of duress.

[Rustycage]

Taking the name, dissolving the band and trying to hire back the members as employees is a little more than just "securing the name." That's a straight up shit head move.

[Coma16]

Duff and Slash didn't sign under duress...

Being told the singer of your band won't show up if you don't sign something before a show is pretty much the definition of duress.

Never happened though. Even if it did, it wouldn't hold up in court.

[The Black]

But I guess Axl never really was saying he was GNR, just that the name was his. There was no plan to be GNR on his own. He didn't even want Izzy to leave. He may have felt his band was falling apart on him.

So his motive was to keep the Guns N' Roses name going then? Even though the band fell apart?

He had the name, therefore he could call all the shots. All the shots he's called have had so many musicians leave him, and not just the original band either. Now he's got a band full of musicians that couldn't write a classic song to save their lives, but are there just to put on a show, filling Axl's bank account so much that he doesn't even have to bother to prepare for a tour or anything like that.

Still the word I think of most is "enabling".

By signing the contract, Slash and Duff enabled Axl to get the name.

By playing with Axl, these musicians are enabling Axl to use the Guns N' Roses name, even though only one original member (albeit very important) is remaining.

By buying tickets, fans are enabling Axl not to bother about giving a damn.

Anway the past is definite, the future uncertain.

We'll see what way Axl's mood will swing.

[Rustycage]

Never happened though.

You were there? Cool.

Even if it did, it wouldn't hold up in court.

Why not? Civil court is pretty lax.

[GN'R Forever]

I feel like one of the members of GN'R management might've drummed something up between them Becuase that's how they communicated that deal apparently.

[niceguy]

Of course he would've no-showed.

Heck, at that point, he'd already been no showing at gigs anyway. It wasn't crazy to think that Axl would flat out just leave the tour completely if they didn't sign.

And both slash and duff readily admit that if they hadn't been such fucked up addicts at the time, they'd never have signed. They know they messed up.

[Apollo]

Never happened though.

You were there? Cool.

Even if it did, it wouldn't hold up in court.

Why not? Civil court is pretty lax.

The problem with the "court" thing is that it really doesn't hold water. It is really easy to look back at something that happened 20-plus years ago between people who are strangers (to us) and say "Oh, they could have just taken it to court."

Can you imagine what that would have done to the reputations of the "rock" stars? My singer put me under duress because he was being mean to me. Well, my guitar player is a big druggie so I had to make him shape up. They all would have looked like absolute fools.

Also, they were a FAMILY back then. That's what some posters don't realize.

If you catch your sister raiding your change drawer.........or if the parents go out of town and the teenage son throws a party and steals the parents booze, takes their car for a joy ride, etc. Do the parents then come back and call the police and take their son to court??? If two people have been married for ten years and get in a huge fight over something, do they go to court because they said mean things to each other or one threatened to leave the other one? OF COURSE NOT.

These guys were a family, in a band together that was the most popular act in the world. Nobody was going to sue or fight or go to court because of internal band issues. They didn't take Axl to court when he was blowing millions of dollars on back stage theme parties and extravagant non-music related "events" did they?

It's easy to look back and be an arm-chair quarterback. But come on people. Let's leave the Slash-vs-Axl idiotic crap behind us and just be realistic and look at the actual facts. It was a dick move and a total power play by Axl. And it was a huge step in the band eventually breaking up. Not one of his finer moments.

[BangoSkank]

Axl saw what he worked hard for going in the toilet. He asked that if anything should happen, they break up, etc. that he retain the rights to the name so it could be protected. Slash & Duff were (admittedly) not in a clear head space during this time. They shouldn't have signed it over (it was a ridiculous business move), but did and now are saving-face to look cool years later.

Their version of the story makes no sense. It'd be a contract under duress and they could have sued the pants off Axl a hundred times over if it were true. Instead, the contract is valid because they signed during a break on the Use Your Illusion tour, when their was no show that he could threaten bailing on, and now they sue him for possible infringements on the rights to the old songs (Vegas DVD, etc.).

[Apollo]

Axl saw what he worked hard for going in the toilet. He asked that if anything should happen, they break up, etc. that he retain the rights to the name so it could be protected. Slash & Duff were (admittedly) not in a clear head space during this time. They shouldn't have signed it over (it was a ridiculous business move), but did and now are saving-face to look cool years later.

Their version of the story makes no sense. It'd be a contract under duress and they could have sued the pants off Axl a hundred times over if it were true. Instead, the contract is valid because they signed during a break on the Use Your Illusion tour, when their was no show that he could threaten bailing on, and now they sue him for possible infringements on the rights to the old songs (Vegas DVD, etc.).

Yes, no, no, no and no.

Nobody did anything to "try and look cool"........that's just ridiculous.

Their version of the story makes perfect sense. It sounds EXACTLY like something that Axl would do.

They all would have been laughingstocks if Slash/Duff tried to take Axl to court. Our singer was gonna quit the band if we didn't sign over the name. Judge: that's ludicrous, you two are awarded a billion dollars. Give me a break. What would the outcome be even if that was true?

Think about that. A year later they go to court - AFTER the tour was over. What could they sue for? Their own portion of the "name"? So they spend millions of dollars in court fees, win the case.....and Axl says "OK, I quit the band." Then what do they do in 1995? What exactly would they be suing for or "winning"????

So you think they are just trying to "look cool"........again, a completely idiotic statement, but whatever. So what do you think happened?

"Fellas, I think you guys are getting sick of my ego diva act, and I'm getting sick of your being drunk and high all the time. Would you kindly just sign the name over the band over to me please?"

"Sure dude, no problem. Sounds good."

Please give us "your" version of what you think actually happened.

The way Axl fans try and discredit everything that Slash/Duff do while also finding a way to paint everything Axl does in a positive light is just mind blowing sometimes.

[jmapelian]

But I guess Axl never really was saying he was GNR, just that the name was his. There was no plan to be GNR on his own. He didn't even want Izzy to leave. He may have felt his band was falling apart on him.

So his motive was to keep the Guns N' Roses name going then? Even though the band fell apart?

He had the name, therefore he could call all the shots. All the shots he's called have had so many musicians leave him, and not just the original band either. Now he's got a band full of musicians that couldn't write a classic song to save their lives, but are there just to put on a show, filling Axl's bank account so much that he doesn't even have to bother to prepare for a tour or anything like that.

Still the word I think of most is "enabling".

By signing the contract, Slash and Duff enabled Axl to get the name.

By playing with Axl, these musicians are enabling Axl to use the Guns N' Roses name, even though only one original member (albeit very important) is remaining.

By buying tickets, fans are enabling Axl not to bother about giving a damn.

Anway the past is definite, the future uncertain.

We'll see what way Axl's mood will swing.

People need to stop showing up to the shows like me

[wasted]

But I guess Axl never really was saying he was GNR, just that the name was his. There was no plan to be GNR on his own. He didn't even want Izzy to leave. He may have felt his band was falling apart on him.

Said he tried to bring Slash back for 3 years or something. It wasn't a choice, the show must go on. He had to keep the band alive and he put it in a coma and stopped performing for years and focused on coming up with a modern Guns sound and said it was a nightmare too. Wanted to live like the stones, wanted Slash and Izzy in the band. He probably thought that it was his job as the frontman of the band to keep it going no matter what. I don't think he trusted Duff and Slash with the future of the band.

He seemed be saying without the name he'd be in trouble financially and probably would never recover his career. Basically like Izzy. Slash has done stuff/anything to have a career and its still not Rock in Rio.

All you say is Axl forced them out by not being willing to just do whatever they wanted as Guns. Plus being a train wreck on tour.

The you can't just make a GNR album doesn't hold because so many bands have different line ups later in their career. It only means you don't have to like it. Who's to say GNR should just be the same thing over and over. Especially when they had a different line up/sound on UYI.

Don't player hate, find your own game.

[combos]

Do you think he would really do it? Or is it all empty threats?

And if they didnt sign it that day, do you think Axl will find a way to still get the name eventually?

GNR would have just broken up in the same way they did. The only difference is Axl wouldn't have been able to create a solo band and use the name.

[IncitingChaos]

Didn't Axl say he had it put in a contract that was signed in 91 bc he wanted to insure the survival of the band even if it fell apart or Slash died?

The contract was an updated version of the old one and all parts had to be signed off on by each member, including the part about the name belonging to Axl. According to Slash he didn't care about the name, so it didn't matter.

I don't believe it was signed under duress...sure it was in Axl's nature to not show up...that's what makes it a good lie on Slash and Duffs part.

Did Axl just show up with a napkin that said the name "guns n roses" is mine written in sharpie and make them sign away?

Idk I could be completely wrong but in my opinion there is no way Axl would have gotten away with something like that. Especially after the band broke up.

Edited October 26, 2014 by IncitingChaos

[wasted]

Of course he would've no-showed.

Heck, at that point, he'd already been no showing at gigs anyway. It wasn't crazy to think that Axl would flat out just leave the tour completely if they didn't sign.

And both slash and duff readily admit that if they hadn't been such fucked up addicts at the time, they'd never have signed. They know they messed up.

I don't think they foresaw what would happen. They went into the studio to try to make the next GNR record. I doubt Axl knew how it would pan out either. I mean all its meant is he can tour for a living.

[bigcountry]

Management and the Label pushed for Axl to have the rights to the GNR name. It only made since everyone else was fucked up on Drugs, booze or both. Axl was not an addict by that time and they seen this as a way for the

band to live on if anyone died or quit or was kicked out for not being able to perform or record because of there drug/booze problem(remember Steven). There families would have no say about the GNR brand name going

forward but they would still retain the future royalty rights of material that was completed when the member was still in the band.

I no way can you force someone to sign a contract whether it be directly on indirectly that goes for Axl, management and the label, it would get booted out in court no if and or but about it.

I am sure management, the label and Axl where all aware if this.

But one release in 13 years it not what management, the label or even Axl wanted when this was a done deal.