Blackstar

I like it a lot for what it is (a rough song idea). I think it's a pretty cool idea. Has a D'yer Mak'er vibe and I love the voice Axl uses on it, especially in the end.

I'm not saying that whoever had them was the one who directly leaked them. It probably sounds far-fetched (and of course it's speculation), but there may be fans, not "insiders", but just people who casually talk to various people associated/working with the band currently or previously. So it could be through this kind of contact.

Was the second screenshot an updated version of the same post where she added the stuff about the subpoena? I've read that she and Axl talked on the phone around that time, but I haven't heard about them meeting in person. This is all so bizarre. I wonder what happened there. It's highly unlikely that Erin (or Stephanie) will get involved in this.

I think the full narrative of this claim was that The General and Monsters were one long song, but then GN'R decided to make it two songs so they could have two b-sides (which, of course, is not correct). I guess someone gave them wrong information, lol.

I don't know if that's a rumour or just a theory (because we all know how easily a random theory someone posts on a forum can turn into a "rumour" and then the rumour can turn into a "fact", lol). But that's a theory that has crossed my mind, too, though it applies only if the leaks are not final mixes. If they are rough or older mixes, they could be more than a year old, maybe two years. And the source could be someone who worked with the band then. If the leaks are the final mixes, they're definitely not a year old, since Axl and Slash went to that studio to listen to them this past summer. In this case, it could be, for example, from someone who recorded them from the studio soundboard for themselves (with no intention to trade or leak), but when the delay was announced they decided to leak them.

I don't think TB leaked them or that the GN'R camp wanted them to leak. There are other possibilities apart from being either the hoarders or TB.

Yeah, but then how did the songs leak with their correct titles? Whoever had them and whoever leaked them knew what was what. Yes, I believe because they had talked to the person who spoke to and bought the songs from Bird before Rick did

Maybe. But I believe that there are people who know the hoarders and talk to them, and at least they would know (like they knew what was in the Village discs before they leaked and before Rick got them). But this time, nobody knew about the song that was really on the phone recording.

This seems very unlikely to me. Slash and Duff most likely added their parts some time between 2019-2021. If the two tracks had been out there and traded etc. since then, there surely would have been word on the street that the phone recording was not The General. Moreover, if the leaks are from that time, it means that they're not the final mixes, because the final mixes seem to have been done this past spring or summer (when Axl and Slash went to that studio to listen to them). So if the leak turns out to be the final mix, probably someone who had access to the final mixes (not necessarily through the vinyl pressing) gave/sold them to someone else to leak them when the delay was announced. And either the original source (more likely) or the leaker messed with the quality of the mp3. If the leak is not the final mix, my theory is that it didn't come from the hoarding circles (for the reasons I mentioned) but the source is someone from "inside" (e.g. someone who worked with them at that time) who gave the songs to someone to leak them.

Well they approved the mix and master, and sent it for pressing. But the pressing turned out to be bad. So they scrapped it and sent the same mix and master to be pressed again. Regardless, all that doesn't have anything to do with whether the leak was the final mix or not.

They were clearly talking about the quality of the vinyl, hence the pressing. The mix is another thing.

We'll have to wait to see if what leaked was the final mix. If it was the final mix, the leak could have been from someone who had access to either the original vinyl pressing (which would mean that the original pressing had both songs) or to another source (e.g. recorded it from a studio soundboard, which would mean that the two songs were at least mixed at the same time). If it wasn't the final mix, it could have been from someone who had access to the songs at an earlier stage (like a former co-worker?). In this case, the question will be why the person chose to leak both songs together.

Drama will probably be over when they tour again.

That doesn't mean that Axl wrote the songs while under the influence. By all accounts, although he would use various substances, he was never addicted to them (in Slash's words: "he was never strung out") with the exception, as per Marc Canter, a brief heroin period in 1986. And even in the case of addicts, some people can be "functional addicts" and be creative. But there also have been examples of artists whose creativity and mind were blocked or destroyed by drug use, especially when there was an underlying mental illness, like Syd Barrett and Brian Wilson. But I think you're conflating two different things here. Writing songs while under the influence is a different situation and mindset from remembering what you did on one of many partying nights under the influence of a cocktail of substances.

There were written contracts, but most of the time she worked without a contract. Her lawsuit says that she doesn't claim ownership of the photos she took while under contract (excerpts from the written contracts signed in 2010, 2016 ad 2021 are quoted in GN'R's lawsuit, according to which GN'R would have full ownership of the photos, including copyright). The long "uncontracted" periods were in between written contracts, which likely weakens her case - it's safe to assume that GN'R will claim that since she signed a contract in 2021 which was identical to the one she had signed in 2016, it means that she accepted to work under the same terms during 2017-2020 (when there was no written contract).

It hasn't changed.

I don't interpret the "I was okay with it" as consent or that that particular sexual activity was what she wanted. She describes being scared and crying. She was "okay with it" afterwards: it wasn't the kind of sex she consented to, but she settled for it because she wanted Axl. Then they had more sex and then he apologized to her. Now in the documentary it's a bit different: she said Axl apologized to her for physically hurting her and became gentle with her before any sexual activity occurred. So in this version, although she can still claim that she didn't consent and was just terrified as a result of the physical violence, it's more hazy.

In the book the physical assault is part of the sexual assault: she's pulled by the hair and dragged into the bedroom to be sexually assaulted. Someone is not get dragged violently to have consensual sex. The two are interrelated. And then the sexual assault is followed by consensual sex. Anyway, all this is just in theory, because it's highly unlikely that Riki Racthman will confirm her story. He either won't testify at all (more likely) or, if he testifies, he'll say he doesn't remember or he'll support Axl.

It's probability: if her allegation about the physical assault that preceded the sexual assault is confirmed, that gives more credence to her allegation about the sexual assault.

I'm not an expert either, but I guess it depends on whether the physical assault is directly connected to the sexual assault, and in this case it is.

Her legal team seems to be very good and reputable, and specializes in this kind of cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAllister_Olivarius

According to her account, Riki Racthman witnessed at least the beginning of the physical assault (and did nothing), so if he supports her story he can confirm at least that part. He probably won't testify at all though. The jurisdiction of the court is in New York and I think he would have to be there or in close distance for the subpoena to be served. But he doesn't live there, so unless he visits NY and is located or wants to testify, he doesn't have to.

I think that guy was actually a security guy. Looks like it could be John Reese (who later became their tour manager), but I'm not sure if he was working with them already in 1988 (he was definitely working with them in '89).

He wasn't his bodyguard, but Jeff Kravitz, the photographer, thought he was.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8PslPKJTiH/ https://www.a-4-d.com/t3603-1990-09-06-the-dispatch-photographer-sues-rock-band