Jump to content
cqleonardo

The Axl Rose doesn't like Michael Jackson story

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, LunsJail said:

Yes, Slash played on MJ’s History album which came out in 1995, several years after the first official allegations. He had also played on the 91 Dangerous album. So what’s plausible is that Axl had issues with Slash continuing to work with MJ. 

Yes, I posted a quote from a Slash interview conducted after he had played on HIStory and before the album was released, where he said that "people" he had talked to before playing had expressed disapproval and objections. He didn't elaborate who those "people" were, but they could have been from the GnR camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

I don't know about the court document - to me proper research on a case like this would mean reading all the documents from an official source (supposing they're available, which I don't know) and then everything else that was said and written, which I have neither the time nor the interest to do, so I avoid commenting on the MJ case itself.

As far as the timeline goes, I provided an explanation - I'm not saying this is what happened, only that it's plausible.

I have read a significant amount of the court documents related to the MJ allegations and I can tell you that at no point did he continually share a bed with a child for an extended period of time. He would occasionally give his bed to children staying as guests at Neverland while he would sleep on the floor. But those situations would only go on for a few days at a time. Zutat is either misinformed or simply talking out of his ass. 

 

Your explanation for the timeline is definitely plausible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let me just say for the sake of the discussion, I think that MJ having these sleepovers with children was very inappropriate and wrong for a grown man. But it does not make him a pedophile. He never hung around children again after the trial which is inconsistent behavior with that of a pedophile. Not to mention him being acquitted and cleared by the FBI on top of all else 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, History2010 said:

So sad to see people here that have done no research into MJ. It's pretty damn obvious that the man was being extorted throughout his life and didn't actually do anything. People here have pointed out documentaries and resources that back it up but there's no way to try and change the minds of people that won't listen in the first place.

That Zutat quote is completely inaccurate. No such court document exists. The whole timeline of Axl being mad at Slash for working with MJ doesn't make any sense because no one had ever said a peep about MJ being inappropriate with kids until years after Slash started working with him.

Thank you for clearing up the Zutat quote. I didn’t know if that was true. Axl did make that comment at the VMAs. And that is telling to some extent. 

Edited by The Holographic Universe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, History2010 said:

And let me just say for the sake of the discussion, I think that MJ having these sleepovers with children was very inappropriate and wrong for a grown man. But it does not make him a pedophile. He never hung around children again after the trial which is inconsistent behavior with that of a pedophile. Not to mention him being acquitted and cleared by the FBI on top of all else 

You mean the trial in 2005? The one AFTER the 93 allegations where he was strip searched by police and his reputation was basically ruined? Then he kept hanging out with children until he was accused again? Are you referring to the 4 years between 2005 and 2009 until he was killed with drugs because he literally couldn’t sleep at night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, adamsapple said:

Axl's position on Slash working with MJ back then could have had to do with Axl trying to protect the GNR name at a time when it was still kind of uncertain if Michael Jackson was guilty or not as during the first accusations Jackson tried to solve the issue and protect his brand without the legal system that left somewhat of a bitter taste.

Next time Jackson was accused he went all the way through the legal system. I remember the news reporting about it on a daily basis just waiting to slaughter him alive - but eventually he walked out a free man, declared innocent on all charges. Maybe that's when Axl might have somewhat changed his opinion, if it ever even was about Michael Jackson and not about Slash devalutating the exclusivity of the GNR brand by playing with everyone and his dog, even though Jackson was the biggest star on the planet back thedoesn't n and certainly one of the greatest musicians ever. I wonder Axl ever met him in person? Sure would have made for one hell of a vocal duet.

Your timeline just doesn't fit. Axl saved the name in '92 when there was no accusation against Michael. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LunsJail said:

You mean the trial in 2005? The one AFTER the 93 allegations where he was strip searched by police and his reputation was basically ruined? Then he kept hanging out with children until he was accused again? Are you referring to the 4 years between 2005 and 2009 until he was killed with drugs because he literally couldn’t sleep at night?

Yep. The trial in 2005 where he was acquitted of all charges. The one that came after the 93 allegations and the strip search that proved the boy's description wasn't even close. You can't charge someone with a crime when the alleged victim is shown to be completely fabricating their description. 

MJ slept relatively normally from 2005 to 2008. He spent his time working on music and raising his children. The sleeping problems that killed him only began to creep up when This Is It was on the horizon. You would know that if you did a little bit of research into the man instead of acting like you know everything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Free Bird said:

Your timeline just doesn't fit. Axl saved the name in '92 when there was no accusation against Michael. 

Exactly. The timeline doesn't fit, so there are really only 2 explanations for Axl's comment regarding the Video Vanguard Award:

1) Michael Jackson worked with Slash in '91. In '92 GNR got that award and Axl was concerned that anyone could think that GNR got that award due to their association with Jackson.

2) In an unprecedented move MTV renamed that award after a living contemporary artist to "Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award" in '91, which, I don't think, has ever happened before or since and a petty, competitive and insecure little person like Axl, as one of the first artists who got awarded that renamed award, probably took issue with that.

Edited by PatrickS77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Georgina Arriaga said:

@Blackstar Zutaut talking about Axl is the Museum of Indiana episode? If is that, Zutaut has not right to tell that story.

Yes, that was the other story Zutaut told (to be exact, he didn't say the museum was in Indiana), and he shouldn't have told it - the only excuse I can think of is that he didn't remember that Axl hadn't told that story in RS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if anyone here has mentioned it but Axl sang some Jackson 5 as part of a jam on the first show of the CD tour in 09.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CAFC Nick said:

Not sure if anyone here has mentioned it but Axl sang some Jackson 5 as part of a jam on the first show of the CD tour in 09.

WELL THAT PROVES IT! I don't know what exactly it proves but definitely one of the following: Axl was convinced MJ was innocent/he just really admired MJ's singing/he wasn't aware that the little black kid in Jackson 5 was the same individual that years later would morph into the alien, malfigured, chalky creature with a fondness for sleeping with little boys that became MJ/he just liked that particular song.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me I found axl was just jealous and bitter of anything Slash did outside of GNR. He either wanted the material for himself/gnr or was jealous of the fame slash could generate without him.

He acted like he owned him. Just my opinion only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vloors said:

To me I found axl was just jealous and bitter of anything Slash did outside of GNR. He either wanted the material for himself/gnr or was jealous of the fame slash could generate without him.

He acted like he owned him. Just my opinion only.

I can write more on this later, but very quickly:

Axl's opinion on Slash playing with other musicians may have shifted. At first he was all for it and very supportive, but later, in 1994/1995 he seems to possibly have changed his opinion. But the context of this is of course that now Slash wasn't juggling both GN'R and other projects as he had been doing successfully previously, he had now stopped coming to GN'R rehearsals and instead focused on Snakepit and other collaborations over GN'R. Around the same time Slash would repeatedly say that Axl considered everything Slash did as GN'R property but this seemed to be connected to Axl wanting parts of the Snakepit material for GN'R - and those songs had initially been written and presented for GN'R. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I can write more on this later, but very quickly:

Axl's opinion on Slash playing with other musicians may have shifted. At first he was all for it and very supportive, but later, in 1994/1995 he seems to possibly have changed his opinion. But the context of this is of course that now Slash wasn't juggling both GN'R and other projects as he had been doing successfully previously, he had now stopped coming to GN'R rehearsals and instead focused on Snakepit and other collaborations over GN'R. Around the same time Slash would repeatedly say that Axl considered everything Slash did as GN'R property but this seemed to be connected to Axl wanting parts of the Snakepit material for GN'R - and those songs had initially been written and presented for GN'R. 

Just a few quotes in-between emails.

Axl couldn't possibly be more supportive than this:

Axl: "It's like the first time I met Slash, I said, "The world's gotta see this guy." That's why when he plays with other people or does solo things it totally gets me off and makes me happy. It secures his place in rock history as a guitarist." Hit Parader, June 1993.

Yet a few years later Slash would say:

Slash: "[…] [Axl]’s got this distorted vision, or thought, that when I apply my talents to the guitar - or however we wanna call it – that it’s automatically Guns N’ Roses material, which isn’t the case. That means Lenny Kravitz stuff, Iggy Pop, Michael Jackson and Carole King would all be Guns N’ Roses material (laughs). That’s not the case at all." French TV, February 1995.

I believe that Axl's problem with Slash working with other artists in 1994/1995 was likely to be his anger over Slash down-prioritising GN'R as well as taking the Snakepit songs for himself. I simply don't trust Slash when he claims that Axl had a problem with Slash playing with Kravitz or Iggy etc. It simply doesn't fit with the quote from Axl above and if this was the case then I am sure that Axl would have expressed this opinion in some of all the interviews he did in the 90s when Slash was playing with other artists. So Slash is probably exaggerating a bit. That being said, as Slash continued to play with almost anyone over the next years and into the 2000s, and as the bitterness between Axl and Slash grew, it is quite possibly Axl felt that Slash was diluting his own brand and that he decided to lash out against Slash for this.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To add to the quotes @SoulMonster posted, the exact quote from Matt Sorum's book:

Matt: [Referring to Axl paying the bill for Matt's birthday party in 1990] The meal cost around 3,500 bucks, but Axl really did pay the check. Unlike Slash, he was a giver. The fact he later became more controlling was probably largely down to how Slash was. It really pissed off Axl that Slash would hang out with people like Michael Jackson. And I think he had a point; no one in Metallica would have done that. But Slash would just disappear from time to time and end up playing with Billy Joel or someone like that. He never asked the band for permission. Slash did what Slash wanted to do.

Matt mentions Billy Joel, too, as an example, but I think he probably just threw the first random name he could remember of all the people Slash has played with. Slash jammed with Billy Joel only once on stage in Dec. 1993, and I can't imagine Axl having a problem with that, as he was a big fan of Billy Joel and all the band had developed a casual friendship with him. But I can believe that he might have had a little problem with Slash playing with MJ even before the scandal broke out (besides playing on Dangerous and appearing on a video, Slash also played with MJ at two shows in 1992). And then, of course, the scandal, in combination with the rift between Axl and Slash in 1994-1995, magnified the problem.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Re: The Tom Zutaut quote. Apparently Zutaut couldn't have had in mind an actual court document, as I can't imagine that he, Axl or anyone outside the case would have had access to court documents. But maybe he had in mind a lengthy piece in Vanity Fair, Jan. 1994 issue (which was picked up by Associated Press and every media outlet) that contained statements from MJ's lawyer and private investigator: 

Quote

Michael Jackson's defense: "If it's a 35-year-old pedophile, then it's obvious why he's sleeping with little boys. But if it's Michael Jackson, it doesn't mean anything," says [MJ's private investigator] Anthony Pellicano. "You could say it's strange, it's inappropriate, it's weird. You can use all the adjectives you want to. But is it criminal? No. Is it immoral? No." Bert Fields, Jackson's lawyer, agrees. "Michael never had a childhood. He was on the stage from the time he was five, and while he's a highly intelligent person, he has a lot of childlike qualities. He really lives the life of a 12-year-old." Fields believes Michael's behavior is that of any normal 11- or 12-year-old boy. "One of the things he has done—the things I did when I was 11 or 12, probably all of us did—was to have sleepovers. So he'll have kids stay over at his ranch or wherever he is. And almost always he has their parents along on all these things."

Pelicano readily admits that Jackson has shared his bed many times with little boys over the years. "If you hide something like that, then people are going to be even more suspicious, and my view of this whole thing is just to tell the truth. He did sleep in beds with little boys. There's no question about it. He's got a gigantic bed." Pellicano isn't bothered by admitting that Jackson slept with Jamie at Jamie's house at least 30 days in a row, either. "They invited Michael to stay there. Michael didn't crash their house. He didn't say, 'I want to stay here.' They wanted him to stay there."

According to Pellicano, there was no cause for alarm in Jackson's having a friend like Jamie. "If Michael has no sexual preference one way or another, male or female, to my knowledge, and the parents of the children are allowing this, you have to look at it in the context—especially at the ranch. They go out and they play and they go on the rides and they have water fights and do all this stuff. And then they kind of like crash. Now, Michael is always fully dressed." Even at Jamie's house? "When [Jamie] went to bed, he had pajamas on, and sweats, and Michael had sweats and pajamas on. Michael goes to bed with his hat on. I'm serious." Adds Pellicano, "It would make you nuts if you didn't know Michael. It would make you crazy. Not only that—I thought to myself—if a mother or a father doesn't want this to happen, it's not going to happen."

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1994/01/orth199401

AP, Dec. 7, 1993 (as printed in The Akron Beacon Journal on Dec. 8):

michae10.jpg

Edited by Blackstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think it is clear that Slash's collaboration with MJ, and all allegations of child molestations aside, was something quite different from the other collabs Slash got involved in. Usually his collaborations would be rather short-time things which he got involved in while the band was having downtimes. To keep himself busy and sharp. It worked for everyone because it helped brand GN'R and it helped keep Slash clean and active. And Axl likely thought it was great to see someone he admired get out there and share his art with the rest of the world, as he stated in that quote from my previous post. With MJ it was quite different. This was a much more long-term thing that involved studio-work and live playing (Slash even took time off from the UYI touring to feature in a MJ music video) and Axl might have seen this as a possible threat to GN'R in 1994/1995 when Slash was starting to obviously be less interested in GN'R.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, I think it is clear that Slash's collaboration with MJ, and all allegations of child molestations aside, was something quite different from the other collabs Slash got involved in. Usually his collaborations would be rather short-time things which he got involved in while the band was having downtimes. To keep himself busy and sharp. It worked for everyone because it helped brand GN'R and it helped keep Slash clean and active. And Axl likely thought it was great to see someone he admired get out there and share his art with the rest of the world, as he stated in that quote from my previous post. With MJ it was quite different. This was a much more long-term thing that involved studio-work and live playing (Slash even took time off from the UYI touring to feature in a MJ music video) and Axl might have seen this as a possible threat to GN'R in 1994/1995 when Slash was starting to obviously be less interested in GN'R.

He didn't take "time off". The video was shot in Munich, Germany in June '92, sometime between the 17th and the 26th, while GNR had shows in Germany, Switzerland and Netherlands. But yeah, someone as insecure as Axl might feel threatened, if his guitarist strikes up a working relationship with the biggest star in the world.

 

And as for quoting that hit piece by a cunt, who claimed that Michael Jackson bathed in blood of 42 cows, to put a spell on his enemies, why not quote a more balanced and objective article on the '93 case, called "Was Michael Jackson framed?". Since it all but disappeared people who are interested can read about it here:

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

and then follow up from there on all anyone would would want to know about it.

Edited by PatrickS77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

And as for quoting that hit piece by a cunt, who claimed that Michael Jackson bathed in blood of cows, to put a spell on his enemies, why not quote a more balanced and objective article on the '93 case, called "Was Michael Jackson framed?".

What? Are you talking to me? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

And as for quoting that hit piece by a cunt, who claimed that Michael Jackson bathed in blood of cows, to put a spell on his enemies, why not quote a more balanced and objective article on the '93 case, called "Was Michael Jackson framed?". Since it all but disappeared People who are interested can read about it here:

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

and then follow up from there on all anywould would want to know about it.

You're referring to my post, I suppose? First off, the article I cited doesn't contain the claim you mention (that was in a much later article by the same writer, as I found out).

Most importantly, my aim was to show what Axl and Zutaut could have been reading at the time (that may very well have been defamatory or imbalanced), along with the rest of the public, which could have made Axl believe in MJ's guilt then (and I quoted only the part containing the comments from Michael Jackson's defense). This is the topic of the thread and this is what I'm interested in. Like I said, I have no interest in making a point about the actual Michael Jackson case and about his innocence or guilt.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What? Are you talking to me? 

Obviously not.

 

3 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

You're referring to my post, I suppose? First off, the article I cited doesn't contain the claim you mention (that was in a much later article by the same writer, as I found out).

Most importantly, my aim was to show what Axl and Zutaut could have been reading at the time (that may very well have been defamatory or imbalanced), along with the rest of the public, which could have made Axl believe in MJ's guilt at the time (and I quoted only the part containing the comments from Michael Jackson's defense). This is the topic of the thread and this is what I'm interested in. Like I said, I have no interest in making a point about the actual Michael Jackson case and about his innocence or guilt.

Yeah. But it shows that the writer is nuts, biased and nothing she says is to be taken serious. And anybody following that link and reading it, should know what kind of person that writer is.

And once again, I know why I asked to "let it rest". :facepalm:;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah. But it shows that the writer is nuts, biased and nothing she says is to be taken serious. And anybody following that link and reading it, should know what kind of person that writer is.

However, the 1994 article, for the most part, relies on quotes from named sources from both sides (including from MJ's defense team) and not on the writer's claims, whereas the later article just presents claims and stories without citing a source. 

10 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

And once again, I know why I asked to "let it rest". :facepalm:;)

By this logic, many of the forum discussions should be let to rest, as people have always been posting opinions and coming up with theories about subjects where there is even less information than about this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackstar said:

By this logic, many of the forum discussions should be let to rest, as people have always been posting opinions and coming up with theories about subjects where there is even less information than about this one.

But few of the topics descend into people, who have no clue, accusing a dead man of being a child molestor, which was not the original topic. Unless the OP, who is awfully quiet in this thread, intended just that with his question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RussTCB said:

For the record, I have no problem with anyone questioning Michael's innocence. Whether it's Axl Rose, or anyone else. 

I've mentioned this several times on my podcast, but I myself really didn't know what to think back in 93. So of course I have no problem with anyone else wondering. 

However, after all of the research I've done and the clear aids out there (such as Square One), it's very clear to me that he is in fact innocent. So the only exception I take is when people who haven't done any research (not you) claim they've made up their mind. 

As you know I tend to lean more the other way on the MJ stuff. I didn't know there was a new documentary though. I will go watch it in the interest of balance so thanks for the heads up.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×