Blackstar

5 hours ago, AlterL said:

did someone see this

 

 

not a big deal or anything but a nice way to do light press.

It's not new. It's compiled of interviews Slash, Duff and Dizzy did for the "Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction" series in 2014 and 2015:

If Axl played piano on one of the tracks, it doesn't make much sense to me that he'd be on an original instrumental and not on one of the covers.

21 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

No idea if this is true or bs

Yeah, @kingcanyon posted about this, too.

But it's confirmed (official press release) that the song is an instrumental, so the only way this could be true is if Axl played piano. And unless the person who made the comment is one of the engineers listed in the credits for Killing Floor, they're just trolling.

4 hours ago, C.H. said:

This woman’s story is wishy washy and revisionist af. There, I said it. Looks as though Axl and his lawyers are going to try to get the lawsuit dismissed. 

https://people.com/axl-rose-files-to-dismiss-lawsuit-against-him-alleged-1989-sexual-assault-8606117 

Yeah, the media have picked up Axl's answer now, although it was filed about two weeks ago (was posted in this thread then). Axl's lawyers haven't filed a motion to dismiss yet, though.

16 minutes ago, volxluvr said:

Kennedy's lawyers attempted to serve Axl.for the seventh time on March 4th but instead of serving Axl they substitute served.someone who works for him a landscaper(s) or other worker. Tried to post a link to the document but posted the wrong ones. Sorry. 

You can post the link from the site of the court directly:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=ftu/cgokMOyUx2w5a6rZ0w==&system=prod

7 hours ago, kingcanyon said:

A little added update on this, I've messaged someone who allegedly worked as an engineer on the album who says Axl played on Metal Chesnut waiting to hear back again to see if it's legit or a troll, likely a troll imo

Is it one of the engineers listed in the credits for Killing Floor?

1 minute ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

is it this one? 

 

Yes.

You can listen with VPN set to Australia

Yeah, it's not Brian's signature AC/DC voice, but it's him.  Sounds great.

I expect it to sound something like Slash's solo spots during the 2021 and 2022 GN'R tours, where he jammed blues classics (Born Under A Bad Sign was one of them, iirc).

I like the idea of a blues covers album, so I'm not disappointed . A couple of months ago Slash described it (without mentioning it would be covers) as mainly blues, with some old school rock 'n' roll and R'n'B.

2 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

I couldn't care less who wrote what, I want to see who played and sings on the songs, goddamn it. The ACDC connection is exciting, must be either Angus or Brian then, or a cover of The Jack or Ride On which would be cool too. Imagine Axl and Angus on the same track.

My guess is that it's Brian.

1 hour ago, Free Bird said:

At least there’s a chance for an Axl appearance now that it’s a cover album. Not directly blues but Witchita would fit imo.

I don't think Wichita would fit, as it's a more country-crooner song. I'd love a GN'R studio version of it at some point, though. And I hope Axl is on one of the covers of blues classics, although he most likely won't be.

On 3/2/2024 at 5:54 PM, Arnuld said:

I can barely hear any strings at all on Monsters 

I hear more than on the General.

The album contains big-name guest stars such as Guns N’ Roses Slash playing guitar on the single ‘‘I’d Like to Help You With Your Problem’…

“I’ve bummed 300 cigarettes from that guy during my career! I asked his people about appearing on the song, and 40 minutes later, I got a text back saying ‘Slash loves the song. He wants to know what style you want’, and I replied: ‘Well, fucking Vietnam-era acid rock, dude!’. He ended up doing these amazing Guns N’ Roses ‘Don’t Cry’ riffs and it just fits the song.”

https://www.nme.com/features/music-interviews/the-dandy-warhols-dig-was-a-huge-turning-point-it-was-brutal-for-us-3578366

11 minutes ago, Karice said:

I'm worried that the sexual lawsuit against Axl is going forward. When this first broke out, I honestly assumed it would be laughed out of Court as an obvious cash grab from someone who just wanted money, filing about ONE day before the statue was set to expire. 🙄😒Bit now that Axl's been served and Sheila's Lawyers want to question Axl, I'm REALLY worried. I wish Sheila didn't get the news that the Statue was set to expire until TWO days later. 😡 Then Axl wouldn't be in this mess! 

Maybe you didn't know how courts work. A lawsuit is not thrown out like that from the first day.

2 hours ago, Georgina Arriaga said:

Wow!

@Blackstar and the lawsuit for the microphone, how Is going?

 

That lawsuit has gone to mediation (the parties have entered into discussions to find a solution with the mediation of a third party).

Another update:

This case seems to have turned into a mess. I'm not sure I fully understand what the new developments mean.

*
First, a summary/reminder of what happened until February 27th:

In July-November 2022, Kat registered a few of her pictures with the U.S. Copyright Office, and in January 2023, she filed a complaint for sexual harassment and employment discrimination with the Civil Rights Department of California, obtaining a right to sue. In April 2023, she tried to file a lawsuit against GN'R, Gundam (the GN'R touring entity) and Team Brazil, but there was a mistake in the filing (probably from her attorney), so it was unsuccessful.

In October 2023, three GN'R companies (two "Gundam" companies and Waterhead) sued Kat. The lawsuit was for declaratory relief, meaning that they were not asking for money, but for the court to assert that GN'R, and not Kat, owned the copyright of the pictures she registered.

Kat didn't respond to the lawsuit with a motion to dismiss or a counter-suit. Instead, she filed her own, separate lawsuit in November against GN'R, Gundam, Team Brazil and Fernando for copyright infringement and sexual harassment. Gundam and Team Brazil (served later) responded with motions to dismiss Kat's lawsuit and Kat filed her reply/opposition. Fernando and GN'R were not served (and still haven't been served).

The two lawsuits (Gundam/Waterhead Vs. Kat and Kat Vs. GN'R/Gundam/Fernando/TB) were assigned to the same judge, who suggested that they should be "consolidated" (joined together). The parties agreed to it, and the two cases were consolidated by court order, according to which Kat's lawsuit would be closed (and as a result the motions to dismiss it were denied as "moot" without being reviewed by the judge), and all filings from then on would take place in the earlier of the two lawsuits (Gundam Vs Kat), where a "consolidated complaint" should be filed.

So after the two cases were joined together, Kat refiled her lawsuit as a "consolidated complaint", and then the two parties filed motions to dismiss each other's lawsuits, or, alternatively, for "more definite statement" (meaning that if the court didn't think that the lawsuit should be dismissed, it should at least order for it to be amended so that certain allegations in it would become more specific). Kat responded to Gundam's and TB's dismiss motion with an opposition; Gundam responded to Kat's dismiss motion by filing an amended complaint (lawsuit) against Kat. And then the judge said that since there was an amended complaint, Kat's dismiss motion was denied as "moot"; curiously enough, Gundam's and TB's dismiss motion was denied, too, and so their reply to Kat's opposition was stricken as well. So, for a second time, motions were without being reviewed by the court. Also, the two parties submitted, as required by the court, a schedule and timeline for the case.

*

And now, with court orders issued on Feb. 27 and 28:

1) The judge retracted the previous order that a "consolidated complaint" should be filed and had Kat's "consolidated complaint" (her refiled lawsuit) stricken, and now Kat has to file a response to Gundam's amended complaint. So does that mean that her lawsuit has been thrown out altogether?

2) The parties who have not been served are dismissed. Fernando has not been served, so does this mean that he's not a defendant anymore?

3) The judge has shortened the proposed schedule. According to the court order, the "discovery" stage (depositions etc.) should be completed by August 2024 and the jury trial, if there is one, will take place in March 2025.

*

Court documents here:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t8097-katarina-benzova-sues-fernando-and-gn-r-for-copyright-infringement#34873

56 minutes ago, DeadSlash said:

Is this like basically a B-side from the new Slash album?  It didn't make the cut and he let them have it?

No, it's a Dandy Warhols song that Slash was asked to contribute guitar leads on.

4 hours ago, volxluvr said:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KIfXSUkkTk2zUVzW6dJVcb4IwquR0ZqR/view?usp=drivesdk

According to this second affadavit of service that her own lawyers filed  the summons was affixed to his gate on Jan 26th by the process server. 

 

Yeah, the 30-day time window to move the case to federal court is still about to expire with this second affidavit, but only if it's taken as if Axl actually received the summons and complaint on that date. And since it was just affixed and no one was there to receive it (and also Axl says his primary residence is not in Malibu), he probably can say that he actually received it a couple of days before his answer was filed.

We'll see if Axl's lawyers make the move to transfer the case. Maybe they just wanted to have that option.

Her lawyers have requested for the case to be assigned to a judge who will preside over a preliminary conference (unlike federal courts, in NY state courts the cases are not assigned to a judge right away)

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=NUGaOUkecc0IvSYy1gbDrA==&system=prod

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=O63WD_PLUS_RYA1uYzk_PLUS_uLwl6DA==&system=prod

This is likely for preventing Axl from moving the case to another court (the deadline to do so expires 30 days after defendant has received the complaint, and they're saying it was served on Jan. 22 - in Axl's answer though it is claimed that it has not been served properly).