Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

I'm not mindlessly discrediting Duff/Slash, they have their valuable points to make pertaining the demise of Old GNR. But while we're at it, the lengths at which people go to paint Axl as a demonic self-absorbed dictator are really what's mind-blowing sometimes.

As crazy as people think Axl is, no one walks into a room with their band members (and I'm sure legal professionals), demands that they sign a contract to give away their rights to a brand name worth millions of dollars or he will not play a show that night and potentially incite another riot, and not expect there to be some blow back from that. Functioning people just don't do that. The legal counsels there would had to have chimed in and said that that was not permissible, that it wouldn't fly in a court of law.

I'm not even saying Axl taking the name was the best idea in the world, but he did and that's the way of it. Documents have surfaced showing the date the contract was signed and it took place during a break between two of the legs of the Use Your Illusion tour. Now, how exactly does Axl threaten to not go on stage for a show that's not occurring?

And I have no idea what happened in the room when they signed. I just know that you can't threaten a person into signing a multi-million contract, essentially holding them hostage, without there being legal ramifications.

Also, why exactly would they be laughing stocks for suing over the rights to their band's name? They've sued Axl a zillion times so you better believe that they'd sue for that if they could, but alas, they cannot.

They probably did do it to appease Axl in some way. Who knows? No one was there and it was a horrendous business decision, but it seems to have happened through legal means.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not mindlessly discrediting Duff/Slash, they have their valuable points to make pertaining the demise of Old GNR. But while we're at it, the lengths at which people go to paint Axl as a demonic self-absorbed dictator are really what's mind-blowing sometimes.

As crazy as people think Axl is, no one walks into a room with their band members (and I'm sure legal professionals), demands that they sign a contract to give away their rights to a brand name worth millions of dollars or he will not play a show that night and potentially incite another riot, and not expect there to be some blow back from that. Functioning people just don't do that. The legal counsels there would had to have chimed in and said that that was not permissible, that it wouldn't fly in a court of law.

I'm not even saying Axl taking the name was the best idea in the world, but he did and that's the way of it. Documents have surfaced showing the date the contract was signed and it took place during a break between two of the legs of the Use Your Illusion tour. Now, how exactly does Axl threaten to not go on stage for a show that's not occurring?

And I have no idea what happened in the room when they signed. I just know that you can't threaten a person into signing a multi-million contract, essentially holding them hostage, without there being legal ramifications.

Also, why exactly would they be laughing stocks for suing over the rights to their band's name? They've sued Axl a zillion times so you better believe that they'd sue for that if they could, but alas, they cannot.

They probably did do it to appease Axl in some way. Who knows? No one was there and it was a horrendous business decision, but it seems to have happened through legal means.

Groghan?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug Goldstein owned up to how it was executed, and I'm sure Axl's lawyer was also behind it.

I'm sure Axl threatened that they'd be out of a job and he just went "I don't want to know how you do it, just do it". So he can say he had no knowledge of what was going on. And as Duff mentioned in the book, Doug came off as gloating that he was a part of the band, as if he was one of the band members that helped make them big. All he did was steal his predecessor's job but Alan was the one who got Doug to write that "confession" that we read. It probably should be pinned or bookmarked because it keeps coming up.

We know Duff is using GNR music in the documentary, I wonder if he just agreed to play bass to cover Tommy in exchange to let him use the songs. If that's the case, it saved them both a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with BangoSkank and also I don't think Axl would have not showed up to every show... that's retarded. Specially knowing what has happened before when he walked out of shows. He knows that inciting riots in a full arena could lead to deaths he would be held accountable for. No artist, or at least his advisors, would put his career into such danger.... I dont know....

Sounds like bullshit that they were forced to sign anything away. I think they did it by their own will, probably out of tireness and being fed up with the whole situation, out of desperation to end with the tour and go home. Years later, now calmed, they reflected on what they did and probably regretted it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

In which period? Slash has gone on record many times saying he hadn't spoken to Axl since he quit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Coma, I ran out of energy in this topic.

I love having conversations and even debates with people. But only when logic and common sense are being used.

When people have a huge Axl bias or Slash hatred tied to everything they do - then there really is no point of debating a topic.

When people put Axl on a level of existence that ignores his past behavior and elevates him to a god-like status - then having conversations purely based on facts, logic and common sense become impossible.

So how about this.

Axl is right. About everything.

Izzy, Slash, Duff, Robin, Bucket, Labels, record companies, rock media, all media in the world, every producer that's worked with the band, Stephanie, Erin, Activision, everybody who has ever filed a lawsuit against him, Madison..............etc, etc, etc.................they are all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to whether the contract was justified or not. I CAN see the argument about the management and the label wanting the name to be under Axl's control because he was the only member of the band who was in decent mental and physical shape at that point. It's not entirely unusual for the label to agree that one key band member should hold the rights to the name - Robert Smith for The Cure and Iva Davies of Icehouse have similar arrangements and hire and fire as they wish.

However...if they hadn't signed, and Axl hadn't shown up for the next leg of the tour? I think there WOULD have been court, and it wouldn't have been Slash and Duff bringing the case. Promoters and all the people who had been signed to work the tour were invested in it, and if Axl had bailed on the entire deal, the band might have been sued for breach of contract. Aaaand, since Slash and Duff hadn't signed, and they were still technically partners, and partners are liable for the torts of the partnership...they would have gone down financially right along with Axl.

Either way, signed or not, that contract didn't mean good things for the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to whether the contract was justified or not. I CAN see the argument about the management and the label wanting the name to be under Axl's control because he was the only member of the band who was in decent mental and physical shape at that point.

Axl has never been in decent mental shape

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to whether the contract was justified or not. I CAN see the argument about the management and the label wanting the name to be under Axl's control because he was the only member of the band who was in decent mental and physical shape at that point.

Axl has never been in decent mental shape

He's had better phases and worse phases - but it's a relative term. The label's other options to guard the band name at that time- if that in fact was what happened- were two guys who were very heavily addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and three others who had just been hired. Axl was sober and seemed to be working on his issues pretty actively at that point, and he participated in the business side of things. Of the available possible choices, he WAS in the best mental and physical shape at that particular moment, and one could see why the label might have wanted him to get the name over Slash or Duff at that point in time.

Edited by stella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Coma, I ran out of energy in this topic.

I love having conversations and even debates with people. But only when logic and common sense are being used.

When people have a huge Axl bias or Slash hatred tied to everything they do - then there really is no point of debating a topic.

When people put Axl on a level of existence that ignores his past behavior and elevates him to a god-like status - then having conversations purely based on facts, logic and common sense become impossible.

So how about this.

Axl is right. About everything.

Izzy, Slash, Duff, Robin, Bucket, Labels, record companies, rock media, all media in the world, every producer that's worked with the band, Stephanie, Erin, Activision, everybody who has ever filed a lawsuit against him, Madison..............etc, etc, etc.................they are all wrong.

Please, I haven't even come close to tapping into my Axl nutterness here. All of these last points are unrelated anyway.

What we're talking about is how the law works and you can't threaten a person into a contractual relationship without there being blow back. You can't do it in small businesses and you definitely can't do it with huge corporate entities.

Here's just a little explanation of what I mean:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

So if Axl made them sign over their rights to a multi million dollar brand name by threatening them, why haven't they sued him? They sued him for having Appetite songs on the Vega DVD, so what they waiting for? There's a thousand lawyers who would be dying to take this case because it's worth a ton of money and it's borderline open & shut.

Anyway, you failed to acknowledge my point that the contract was signed during a break on the Use Your Illusion Tour. IE - There was no show happening that night... so was he threatening to not show up for a nonexistent show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Coma, I ran out of energy in this topic.

I love having conversations and even debates with people. But only when logic and common sense are being used.

When people have a huge Axl bias or Slash hatred tied to everything they do - then there really is no point of debating a topic.

When people put Axl on a level of existence that ignores his past behavior and elevates him to a god-like status - then having conversations purely based on facts, logic and common sense become impossible.

So how about this.

Axl is right. About everything.

Izzy, Slash, Duff, Robin, Bucket, Labels, record companies, rock media, all media in the world, every producer that's worked with the band, Stephanie, Erin, Activision, everybody who has ever filed a lawsuit against him, Madison..............etc, etc, etc.................they are all wrong.

Please, I haven't even come close to tapping into my Axl nutterness here. All of these last points are unrelated anyway.

What we're talking about is how the law works and you can't threaten a person into a contractual relationship without there being blow back. You can't do it in small businesses and you definitely can't do it with huge corporate entities.

Here's just a little explanation of what I mean:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

So if Axl made them sign over their rights to a multi million dollar brand name by threatening them, why haven't they sued him? They sued him for having Appetite songs on the Vega DVD, so what they waiting for? There's a thousand lawyers who would be dying to take this case because it's worth a ton of money and it's borderline open & shut.

Anyway, you failed to acknowledge my point that the contract was signed during a break on the Use Your Illusion Tour. IE - There was no show happening that night... so was he threatening to not show up for a nonexistent show?

I wasn't there so I can't say for sure what happened behind the scenes.

The contract was signed on a break in the tour? Makes sense. Did you think that Axl went up to Slash/Duff with all the paperwork in his hand ten minutes before a show started? Or did he verbally make his claim before a show and then a week later when the band went HOME, his lawyers drew up the paperwork and presented it to the rest of the band? See how that works? All the assumptions you are making are totally pro-Axl.

Your two examples of when/when not to sue having nothing in common, so I can't really comment on it. Two completely different situations.

I also disagree with you on thousands of lawyers with the open-and-shut case.

What exactly ......or how exactly would the band win money from Axl?

They didn't sign over their rights to the songs that they helped create. They didn't sign over their royalties. They signed over the "name" of the band so Axl could control it. What exactly did they sign over that they could have sued for back then?

Your link - again - has nothing to do with this case.

Axl simply said "sign this or I quit."

You actually think the rest of the band could sue him for millions of dollars because of "duress" because of that? LOL.

But none of this discussion really matters.

You weren't there.

I wasn't there.

Everything you are

You aren't a lawyer.

presenting has a HUGE Axl-bias to it.

I love Axl's music. My favorite singer of all time by a landslide.

But I'm not so much of a fanboy that I base all my opinions on situations depending on how they make him look.

*********

So let's just look at what actually happened. And maybe you can educate me as I'm not sure of what the "official" time line or reason is.

Why did Slash and Duff sign the rights to the name over? If Axl didn't pressure them to do it. What's the company line? Surely they didn't just do it out of the kindness of their hearts.

Once quitting the band, how has this negatively effected them financially? Specifically how has this cost them millions upon millions of dollars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we're talking about is how the law works and you can't threaten a person into a contractual relationship without there being blow back. You can't do it in small businesses and you definitely can't do it with huge corporate entities.

Contract under duress would be enforceable if the statute of limitation expires, which is only a few years in California.

So if Axl made them sign over their rights to a multi million dollar brand name by threatening them, why haven't they sued him? They sued him for having Appetite songs on the Vega DVD, so what they waiting for? There's a thousand lawyers who would be dying to take this case because it's worth a ton of money and it's borderline open & shut.

The did eventually sue in 2005.

Anyway, you failed to acknowledge my point that the contract was signed during a break on the Use Your Illusion Tour. IE - There was no show happening that night... so was he threatening to not show up for a nonexistent show?

There were various points documents were signed. Goldstein, Slash, Duff all backed up the duress. Edited by FCBarcelona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to whether the contract was justified or not. I CAN see the argument about the management and the label wanting the name to be under Axl's control because he was the only member of the band who was in decent mental and physical shape at that point.

Axl has never been in decent mental shape

He's had better phases and worse phases - but it's a relative term. The label's other options to guard the band name at that time- if that in fact was what happened- were two guys who were very heavily addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and three others who had just been hired. Axl was sober and seemed to be working on his issues pretty actively at that point, and he participated in the business side of things. Of the available possible choices, he WAS in the best mental and physical shape at that particular moment, and one could see why the label might have wanted him to get the name over Slash or Duff at that point in time.

Seems that those 2 guys that were so waysteds and highz all the time showed up to every show on time, never once left the stage in a childish huff or an unprofessional way, continued to write songs with each other and with others and wanted to record and play live (and did) and the so-called sober one with the great mental capacity was the exact opposite

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to whether the contract was justified or not. I CAN see the argument about the management and the label wanting the name to be under Axl's control because he was the only member of the band who was in decent mental and physical shape at that point.

Axl has never been in decent mental shape

He's had better phases and worse phases - but it's a relative term. The label's other options to guard the band name at that time- if that in fact was what happened- were two guys who were very heavily addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and three others who had just been hired. Axl was sober and seemed to be working on his issues pretty actively at that point, and he participated in the business side of things. Of the available possible choices, he WAS in the best mental and physical shape at that particular moment, and one could see why the label might have wanted him to get the name over Slash or Duff at that point in time.

Seems that those 2 guys that were so waysteds and highz all the time showed up to every show on time, never once left the stage in a childish huff or an unprofessional way, continued to write songs with each other and with others and wanted to record and play live (and did) and the so-called sober one with the great mental capacity was the exact opposite

*shrug* You're welcome to disagree, but from a legal standpoint, you go with the sober person. Both Duff and Slash have said that they were too high to know what the hell was going on during half of that tour. In fact, that's probably why they signed what they did; they were too out of it to think ahead very much. And the rumor about the label wanting Axl to have the name in case Slash died holds some credence when one considers that within four years both Slash and Duff had very close calls with death thanks to their addictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather go with the sane ones rather than the insane and the ones that continue to work to make money for me rather than the guy that sits on his ass and sues everybody whilst bringing in no money.

And Axl was sober? Like the time he was so drunk he bit a security guard? That sober guy?

The guy that contributed to the magazine High Times? That sober guy?

And the guy that had a Yoda like figure in his life? He of the great mental stability..that guy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as I said, it's a relative term, not some great declaration of Axl's stability. I'm looking at it from an objective standpoint; not from whether I like Axl or the others. And certainly not in the lens of wht has happened since. He bit a security guard when he was drunk in 2007 or so. This was 1991 or 1992. In *1992* Axl was the only straight one of the three who wasn't abusing various controlled substances and the only one who wasn't slurring his words in interviews. And he actually did seem lucid and with it AT THAT TIME. As for his work ethic, at the time the entire band was working and recording; Axl's output at the time wasn't any more or less than any other band member.

Does Axl have some serious mental issues? Sure. Does he have other problems? Yep. If the label was truly behind it they probably regret their decision, and if they were making that choice NOW, they'd probably go hands down with Duff and Slash over Axl, or insist on a three way partnership. At THAT finite moment of time, though, Axl was only one with it.

Edited by stella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as I said, it's a reltive term, not some great declaration of Axl's stability. I'm looking at it from an objective standpoint; not from whether I like Axl or the others. And certainly not in the lens of wht has happened since. He bit a security guard when he was drunk in 2007 or so. This was 1991 or 1992. In *1992* Axl was the only straight one of the three who wasn't abusing various controlled substances and the only one who wasn't slurring his words in interviews. And he actually did seem lucid and with it AT THAT TIME. As for his work ethic, at the time the entire band was working and recording; Axl's output at the time wasn't any more or less than any other band member.

Does Axl have some serious mental issues? Sure. Does he have other problems? Yep. If the label was truly behind it they probably regret their decision, and if they were making that choice NOW, they'd probably go hands down with Duff and Slash over Axl, or insist on a three way partnership. At THAT finite moment of time, though, Axl was only one with it.

umm, no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine. If you honestly think the label wanted the name of a multi-million dollar enterprise going with someone who was overdosing often or someone who drank so much his pancreas exploded, over someone who seemed to have cleaned up, that's your choice, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.

I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.

I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.

I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.

I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.

On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.

That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyes

Edited by Sixes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl was the show at that point and no one stopped the show for Stevie or Izzy. It may have been that switch over to Dougie. The fact that switch was made before for the tour the label kind of not caring as long as Axl and Slash got out their to sell records. The train couldn't stop.

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...