Slash calls Axl "fucking great"

[haydenwce27]

There is a lot of talk in the past week that the reason why Paradise City feat Fergie and Cypress Hill has been dropped from the Classic Rock edition of Slash's album is due to Axl taking legal action.

Is there any merit to this?

Has it been cut? Yes!

[BMo13]

Moderators PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD!!!

If it offends you go read something else...no one is holding a gun to your head to read it.............

What a crybaby bitch!

[plonker88]

Nice try at revisionist history. Slash and Duff have both tried (and failed) on numerous occasions to sue him over the name and failed. If it had been signed away under duress that contract would be void but with all the court proceedings they never prevailed. The fact that Steven was able to win his lawsuit against the band (not just Axl) shows, if anything, that Slash and Duff didn't have much of a case

Now you really got my interest up as I googled looking for any info about law suits from Slash and Duff and this is all I found.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1508091/20050822/guns_n_roses.jhtml

and evidently Axl filed a countersuit................http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1525498/20060306/guns_n_roses.jhtml?headlines=true

Just seems to be relatd to publishing rights...

So I would be very interested in where you got your information that Slash and Duff sued Axl over signing oiver their rights to the band name etc. s there does not seem to be anything on the internet?

I have seen court documents where Slash and Duff contest that Axl technically quit the band via a personal letter and therefore has no claim to the name. Photocopies of those documents were floating around here a while ago, Here's is where it was discussed but the link to the file is down.

Edited March 20, 2010 by plonker88

[Ali]

Axl worshippers like to keep repeating that we were not there so don't know what went down. It is true we were not there but we do have some insight into what happened as many of the people who were there have offered up their versions of the events so my opinions are based on comments from the ex band members and people who were there.

I don't think I'm an Axl worshipper. A big fan yes, and a fan of the ex members as well. But I think about how it must have looked to Axl back then. His whole career is hinged on this group of guys: serious drug addicts and alcoholics. And he sees a threat to something that he brought to the table, the name. So he takes steps to protect his interests. I completely understand how the other band members might be angry or offended by this, but I do not believe that it happened without them understanding, and that it happened under duress (Axl wouldn't go on if we didn't sign). Can't happen, legally that can't happen.

Again, not an Axl worshipper (if anything, lately a bit of a DJ worshipper ) but wondering how it must have looked to him back then, with things as they were, back then.

And what exactly was Axl protecting the name from that he had to have the other band members sign their rights away? You can spin it anyway you want but seems to me Axl could have protected the name without cutting his bandmates out of the picture. It's not like he did anything with the name after the Illusion tour for the next 7-8 years. Axl was looking out for himself and he fucked his so called brothers in the band...

If you believe their acounts Axl blackmailed them, they were all strung out and needed the money so they caved and signed........it may not have been ethical but they signed the papers so it is legal in the eyes of the courts....

Remember Steven had to sue Axl to get back his rights which he signed away under duress .....Slash and Duff could do the same I suppose but it does not seem to be in their character so Axl owns the name to do with as he pleases.........

Nice try at revisionist history. Slash and Duff have both tried (and failed) on numerous occasions to sue him over the name and failed. If it had been signed away under duress that contract would be void but with all the court proceedings they never prevailed. The fact that Steven was able to win his lawsuit against the band (not just Axl) shows, if anything, that Slash and Duff didn't have much of a case

Now you really got my interest up as I googled looking for any info about law suits from Slash and Duff and this is all I found.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1508091/20050822/guns_n_roses.jhtml

and evidently Axl filed a countersuit................http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1525498/20060306/guns_n_roses.jhtml?headlines=true

Just seems to be relatd to publishing rights...

So I would be very interested in where you got your information that Slash and Duff sued Axl over signing oiver their rights to the band name etc. s there does not seem to be anything on the internet?

No offense, but it is naive to think that with the army of lawyers surrounding Guns that any sort of illegality in regards to the contracts would not have been caught. Steven didn't win back his rights to the band name, if that is what you're saying. Axl and Axl alone owns the rights to the band's name. That isn't because of any bullshit "blackmail" theory. If that were the case, the contract would've been rendered null and void by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of contract law. Also, I've read Slash's book multiple times and he never, not once, does he even hint at this blackmail scenario where Axl forced him and Duff to sign over the band name. In fact, he mentions that he and Duff both had lawyers working through the contracts with them. If such a blackmail event had occurred, as important as it was to Slash's career and the history of GN'R, he would've mentioned it in the book. He obviously had no problem mentioning it in interviews. It just never happened, plain and simple. That is the only reasonable conclusion to draw.

Ali

Edited March 20, 2010 by Ali

[plonker88]

Nice try at revisionist history. Slash and Duff have both tried (and failed) on numerous occasions to sue him over the name and failed. If it had been signed away under duress that contract would be void but with all the court proceedings they never prevailed. The fact that Steven was able to win his lawsuit against the band (not just Axl) shows, if anything, that Slash and Duff didn't have much of a case

Now you really got my interest up as I googled looking for any info about law suits from Slash and Duff and this is all I found.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1508091/20050822/guns_n_roses.jhtml

and evidently Axl filed a countersuit................http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1525498/20060306/guns_n_roses.jhtml?headlines=true

Just seems to be relatd to publishing rights...

So I would be very interested in where you got your information that Slash and Duff sued Axl over signing oiver their rights to the band name etc. s there does not seem to be anything on the internet?

I have seen court documents where Slash and Duff contest that Axl technically quit the band via a personal letter and therefore has no claim to the name. Photocopies of those documents were floating around here a while ago, Here's is where it was discussed but the link to the file is down.

Thanks Plonkers it is an interesting read for sure and only seems to muddy the waters........would love to se a copy of the court document as I find this whole soap opera facinating.........

It's an interesting read, I'm assuming the case didn't pan out since it was filed back in 05 I believe, unless they have managed to stretch it out for a long long time. If you're desperate to read it your best port of call would be John Bonham, the guy is a wealth of knowledge when it comes to this stuff.

Edited March 20, 2010 by plonker88

[Ali]

Axl worshippers like to keep repeating that we were not there so don't know what went down. It is true we were not there but we do have some insight into what happened as many of the people who were there have offered up their versions of the events so my opinions are based on comments from the ex band members and people who were there.

I don't think I'm an Axl worshipper. A big fan yes, and a fan of the ex members as well. But I think about how it must have looked to Axl back then. His whole career is hinged on this group of guys: serious drug addicts and alcoholics. And he sees a threat to something that he brought to the table, the name. So he takes steps to protect his interests. I completely understand how the other band members might be angry or offended by this, but I do not believe that it happened without them understanding, and that it happened under duress (Axl wouldn't go on if we didn't sign). Can't happen, legally that can't happen.

Again, not an Axl worshipper (if anything, lately a bit of a DJ worshipper ) but wondering how it must have looked to him back then, with things as they were, back then.

And what exactly was Axl protecting the name from that he had to have the other band members sign their rights away? You can spin it anyway you want but seems to me Axl could have protected the name without cutting his bandmates out of the picture. It's not like he did anything with the name after the Illusion tour for the next 7-8 years. Axl was looking out for himself and he fucked his so called brothers in the band...

If you believe their acounts Axl blackmailed them, they were all strung out and needed the money so they caved and signed........it may not have been ethical but they signed the papers so it is legal in the eyes of the courts....

Remember Steven had to sue Axl to get back his rights which he signed away under duress .....Slash and Duff could do the same I suppose but it does not seem to be in their character so Axl owns the name to do with as he pleases.........

Nice try at revisionist history. Slash and Duff have both tried (and failed) on numerous occasions to sue him over the name and failed. If it had been signed away under duress that contract would be void but with all the court proceedings they never prevailed. The fact that Steven was able to win his lawsuit against the band (not just Axl) shows, if anything, that Slash and Duff didn't have much of a case

Now you really got my interest up as I googled looking for any info about law suits from Slash and Duff and this is all I found.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1508091/20050822/guns_n_roses.jhtml

and evidently Axl filed a countersuit................http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1525498/20060306/guns_n_roses.jhtml?headlines=true

Just seems to be relatd to publishing rights...

So I would be very interested in where you got your information that Slash and Duff sued Axl over signing oiver their rights to the band name etc. s there does not seem to be anything on the internet?

No offense, but it is naive to think that with the army of lawyers surrounding Guns that any sort of illegality in regards to the contracts would not have been caught. Steven didn't win back his rights to the band name, if that is what you're saying. Axl and Axl alone owns the rights to the band's name. That isn't because of any bullshit "blackmail" theory. If that were the case, the contract would've been rendered null and void by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of contract law. Also, I've read Slash's book multiple times and he never, not once, does he even hint at this blackmail scenario where Axl forced him and Duff to sign over the band name. In fact, he mentions that he and Duff both had lawyers working through the contracts with them. If such a blackmail event had occurred, as important as it was to Slash's career and the history of GN'R, he would've mentioned it in the book. He obviously had no problem mentioning it in interviews. It just never happened, plain and simple. That is the only reasonable conclusion to draw.

Ali

Never said Steven got any rights to the name but he did get $$$ and other rights back so there must have been something there or he never would have gotten the settlement.....so how is it that Steven signed his rights away and got them back through courts but it is impossible the same happened to Slash and Duff......what happned to your theory of " rudimentary understanding of contract law" in Stevens case?...........Axl tried to fuck him and Steven finally woke up and won back his rights in court..............

And because Slash did not mention the blackmail in his book but did in later interviews means it never happened? How do you come to that conclusion? Did ever think that Slash did not want to stir the shit at the time but decided later to make it public? I also read his book several times and he seemed to go out of his way to state the events he described were his point of view and that Axl may have seen things differently.....

You seem to want to ignore all the shady bulshit Axl has pulled in the past as if it never happened. Tried to take advantage of Steven, tried to reduce Izzy's take of the money, allegedly blackmailed Slash and Duff to give up their rights to the band name. Gilby ended up sueing Axl the band photographer sued Axl. in an interview in Classic Rock Alan Niven revealed he sold his rights to Axl for short money to get away from having to deal with him...the list goes on....Are all these people lying?

Also interesting in the Classic Rock article Niven comments that he believes Axl got rid of him so he could gain control of the band. He claims the following "What I find interesting is after I was fired , by his own admission Axl took the band name as part of the Geffen renegotiation. I believe he got rid of me so he could do that amoung other things. I think he always wanted total control" He contradicts Axl claim that it was Slash who was trying to take control of the band. "Slash never tried to run the band from my point of view. He had a hard enough time trying to run a bath." This was a man who was there not some journalist making things up...

So what is it Ali are all these people lying and is poor Axl the victim? Seems to me that there are many people who were there with similar horror stories of dealing with Axl while ony Axl is trying to spin his side of the story....So where are all the people who were there defending Axl's take on the events? If you have links send them my way as I don't see anyone defending Axls view of things..................While none of us were there based on all the evidence it seems all these things most likely did happen...it is the only logical conclusion you can draw.............with all due respect to your opinion

You seem to be quite desperate to villianize Axl. Instead of making it about this specific incident regarding the transfer of the rights to the name, you bring in other issues and allegations all to make a point about what a bad guy Axl is. But, that is changing the original topic. No one is saying Axl is an angel. That was never the point. The point is that you are incredibly naive if you think that Axl would have gotten away with forcing Slash and Duff to sign away the band name under duress. Incredibly naive. There is no way any lawyer would allow that to stand. The fact that Slash doesn't even mention this alleged incident in his book, let alone mention it and say Axl may have a different viewpoint, is quite telling.

Quit trying to dilute and confuse the issue in order to stand on your soapbox and denounce Axl as the villain. Of course, he's no angel. None of these guys were. If they were, they wouldn't have been in Guns N' Roses to begin with. Other than Slash's uncorroborated allegations, there is nothing to prove Axl forced Slash and Duff to sign away the band name to him. Nothing.

Ali

P.S. The interview I read where Slash alleged this blackmail was way before his book came out, not after.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Ali

[Black Horse]

Now you mention Alan Niven, you should also bare in mind that his relation with Axl wan´t good and that they never liked each other so, you can´t expect him to say anything good about Axl. Plus, the guy was resentful because he was fired...

[Ali]

Not desperate to make Axl a villian just showing the pattern of deceit he had with multiple people who he was close to or worked with......Also not deflecting the issue I am trying to show that Axl has a pattern of fucking over past associates for his personal gain...The Slash and Duff's claim is not an isolated incident as Axl seems to have no problem taking what he wants and throwing past associates under the bus...I think the other examples are very pertinent to the Slash/Duff "alledged" incident. Also Axl claims Slash was trying to take over the band but Alan Niven seems to indicate otherwise. Again I am trying to show Axl's spin on events may not be accurate...........

I also found it interesting that you keep claiming it never could have happend legally...Are you lawyer? It happened to Steven where he signed his rights away under duress only to recover them in court later but it could not happen to Slash/ Duff..please explain this logic....

I also find your conclusion that since Slash did not mention this in his book that this proves he is lying..how do you know why he did not put this in his book?? He may have gotten legal advice not to do this or he may have not wanted to stir the pot any more. Rather than spew venom like Axl has at him I thought Slash went out of his way in the book to portray some of the more negative incidents with Axl in a less confrontational manner by giving Axl the benefit of the doubt. Slash has said lots of stuff in interviews which he did not put in the book so what does this prove?? nothing. You are really reaching here.

It is true we will most likely never know the true story on how Axl ended up with the rights to the name but personally I find the evidence more on the side of Slash/ Duff then with Axl's denials. You have muitiple people claiming it happened vs only Axl denying it did. So who is more believable the many or the one?? I put my money on the many.............You can continue to believe Axl based on his raving "chats" if it gives you comfort.............

If what Slash originally said happened was true, he would not be setting himself up for a libel lawsuit. The fact that he didn't include the story about the blackmail, and in fact told a completely different story is very telling. You just seem to be in complete denial of this. He told a completely different story about what happened. There's a difference between not rehashing something because you don't want to stir the pot and telling a different story. If you really want to bring up history to show a pattern of behavior, I could easily say that Slash lied about visiting Axl's house in 2005 and later recanted and admitted he lied to show that Slash has a history of lying about incidents involving Axl.

What Steven recovered was not any rights to the band name, he recovered his royalty rights. Not the same thing and hardly comparable because his suit was against GN'R as a whole, not just Axl and the circumstances were not comparable to those surrounding the transfer of the name. I've never heard any indication he was put under duress to sign away his royalty rights either. See the following: In October 1991, he filed a lawsuit against his former Guns N' Roses bandmates, claiming that they were responsible for his drug addiction and that the contracts he had signed actually took away his financial interest in the band.[14] In a 2005 interview he stated, "Doug Goldstein called me into the office about two weeks later. He wanted me to sign some contracts. I was told that every time I did heroin, the band would fine me $2,000. There was a whole stack of papers, with colored paper clips everywhere for my signatures. What these contracts actually said was that the band were paying me $2,000 to leave. They were taking my royalties, all my writing credits. They didn't like me anymore and just wanted me gone. That's why I filed the lawsuit - to get all those things back."

You bring up Alan Niven, but you seem to fail to realize that he was dismissed prior to the release of the GN'R record so he has no idea what happened after he left.

Ali

[Nintari]

I'd just like to state that the above debate is EXACTLY what we need more of in here and less of the (Axl is teh god....Slash likes men) stuff.

[plonker88]

I'd just like to state that the above debate is EXACTLY what we need more of in here and less of the (Axl is teh god....Slash likes men) stuff.

It's really not.

[Shackler]

Just to pitch in, Mark Canter has somewhat agreed with Axl.

Duff hasnt exactly said much, though mentioned Slash's book as being questionable

[Jackie Moon]

The only person I see defending Axl's version of the story is Axl...so if what he is saying is true don't you think it is strange that not one exband member or someone who was there is calling Slash/ Duff and the other liars and that Axl's version is the truth?

marc canter has publically stated (on this board) That slashs portrayal of axl in the media hasnt been truthful and that is part of the reason there is so much bad blood. he has even asked slash to set the record straight but slash wont because it will make him look uncool, and everything has to be cool with slash.

everybody knows marc is the 6th member

The problem is that Slash has said some things over the last 15 years about Axl that was wrong. Its true Slash has said a lot of nice things about Axl this year but I think if Slash were to come out now and say that some of the things he said over the past 15 years were not realy true, I think there would be a little less bad blood. That does not mean they get back together just less bad blood.

What I was trying to say is Slash should come clean and apologize to the press for some things he has said and done over the years. I have asked Slash to do that and to stop saying things to the press about axl. I think the reason Slash won't do that is because in his mind he won't look Cool. With Slash everything has to be so cool. So the fact that Slash won't do that I feel that its like being in kindergarten.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[DebbieNgeorgia]

Don't say those things about Slash.....cough,cough....he has always taken the "high" road and everyone needs to remember that. Lol

I don't have anything personally against Slash, and I am a fan of his earlier music, but, get real people. His accounts are laced, with various things. We will probably never know the whole story and it really makes no difference to me. I love Guns N' Roses and Axl Rose. I am here to talk about my favorite band in the world. But, some things are just hard to over look.

[tomazrui]

[Jackie Moon]

Interestng stuff Jackie, did Marc specify what it was that Slash said which wasn't true? just curious..........

he didnt but i think its pretty clear..slash wanted to look like the good guy, make axl look like the villian. it would give slash popular support in the 'axl slash wars' and you gota hand it to him, it worked. the general consensus is slash good, axl bad. and of course duff and matt went along with him, they have common interests (velvet revolver didnt happen till 2004 but you knew it was comin). also slash quit in 1996. duff left in 1998. if axl really was what some people think, duff would have jumped ship with slash.

the 'sign the name over or we dont go on' story is clearly bullshit. it was made up to make it look like axl hijacked the name and stole the band (Again, it worked, general consensus is 'THATS NOT GUNS N ROSES AXL IS A BAD MAN".

you say all ex members tak shit about axl so it must be axls fault right? well, wrong. there are lots of positive axl mentions that people just like to ignore. moby said kind things, bucket, brain, check out josh freese

"Axl was always nice to me and always generous," Josh said. "People want to hear horror stories, but I personally don't have any."

bolded is the important part. people are just waiting to hear "yeah he put his dick in my ass they locked me in a closet? it was a weird night"

[WhazUp]

[Jackie Moon]

O.K. so since Marc did not specify what stuff Salsh said is untrue then how do you link that to the fact that Slash and Duffs claims on being extorted to sign over their rights is untrue? It could be related to anything Slash said and I doubt Marc was privy to the business dealings within the band so I am guessing it was something personal Slash said about Axl.......

You also state Slash's and Duff's claims are bullshit yet you and others produce no evidence. So why do you believe it is bullshit? show me evidence not opinions...

When you say ex members say kind things about Axl you are talking about nuGnR members who were Axl's employees not the classic band ex members who were Axl's partners.

Please don't muddy the waters as this issue is related to AFD members not Axl's employees of the various Nu GnR lineups

I will ask you the same questions I asked Ali..why did Slash and Duff sign over their rights to the GnR name? what was their motivation? they had a lot to lose and nothing to gain in the case so why would they do it if they weren't blackmailed or did it under duress. I have yet to get a an Axl disciple to give me the reasoning behind this other to say Slash and Duff are lying...Show me the money!!

ok so slashs account of axl is more reliable than josh freese because....im still waiting for it. these issues we are discussing arent time specific, they are questions of character (is axl a bad man) so accounts from the 00's are just as valid. josh was barley a band member and his comment was 10 years removed from his tenure in the band.

marc canter has, lets do this again, publically stated slash has lied about axl and the break up to the media. thats good enough for me, and its also clear that isnt good enough for some people. when marc posted that johnny utah / BMo13 basically called him out for being full of shit / a bad friend. some battles you just cant win so if thats the case then ill back away slowly and smile.

im not sure the specifics of the deal but i do think it was something along the lines of axl got the name and slash / duff got the rights to the songs but im not too sure, either way its not very relevent as only one thing matters:

if axl had pulled that stunt they would have had them in court by 1995. you give adler as an example of someone who was screwed and got his rights back, how? he sued. why havent duff / slash sued? cause it didnt happen.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[ThinkAboutYou]

I think neither party is squeaky clean

They both obviously had lawyers looking after their financial interests

Obviously some bad blood was bound to happen

[Jackie Moon]

I think neither party is squeaky clean

this.

im not trying to promote a axl right - slash wrong agenda, im just against the axl bad - slash good bullshit that it seems most people subscribe to. his own BFF (best friend, not bumblefoot) comes on and tells us he has lied. thats pretty substantial. you dont have to join team axl but at least question the guy who is doing reality show.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=161640#entry2630272

Edited March 21, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[Jackie Moon]

marc said what he said, i do agree with you i have questioned the motivation in doing so, but he clearly said slash has lied and he refuses to appologize cause it wont look cool. what else do you want? its not like i pulled that out of my ass.

im not trying to create peace. not my agenda. all im saying is rethink the "axl bad - slash good" mentality. its clear its totally blown out of proportion.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[Jackie Moon]

And you are helping by repeating that Slash lied according to Marc Canter? Why should people rethink what they have already read about? BBA isn't here anymore. You are still fighting a dirty war. People are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions. After looking at what facts I have been able to gather on the storied history of Guns N' Roses, I look at the situation in a completely opposite direction with respect to yours.

because if you accept slash purposely lied about axl then you question 1.anything he has ever said 2.the image of axl re : the break up of guns n roses 3.the general consensus as to how it went down.

its clear most people think axl was crazy and was mean and made slash quit because of craziness and now he has hijacked the name and is pretending his own band is guns n roses. Coltrane, anyone?

But if you accept slash has lied bout all of this then wouldnt you go , wait, so, who am I supporting here?

Thats what I did 2 years ago and im glad. I think you should too. But dont worry, there are still plenty of reasons to hate / cupcake on axl. Ive got my own issues with him too, you know.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[ThinkAboutYou]

I think Marc's posts should be left out of discussion unless people are 100% sure what he was referring too

we don't want statements misinterpreted with assumptions or twisted

Edited March 22, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[Jackie Moon]

I am willing to change my mind if someone can give me facts as opposed to opinions that Slash is a lier just because....... come back when you have some facts to back up your opinions.

i was going to reply to most of this then i got to this end part and just said fuck it. im pretty sure the marc canter quote is proof that slash has lied about axl. what specifically? i do not know. but that is enough to question his entire version of events. he has knowingly lied and refuses to acknowelage it in which case i dont want to take his word on the whole gnr debacle. thats the entire point of the canter quotes, it should raise doubt.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[ThinkAboutYou]

marc said what he said, i do agree with you i have questioned the motivation in doing so, but he clearly said slash has lied and he refuses to appologize cause it wont look cool. what else do you want? its not like i pulled that out of my ass.

Marc was just answering questions because Rancid asked fans to submit questions for Rancid's radio interview with Marc discussing Reckless Road. The radio segment ran out of time on the air so Marc followed up answering the questions submitted on the board. I think it was very cool of Marc to answer the fan's questions

Edited March 22, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[Jackie Moon]

i honestly always wondered why he came on like that and said what he did.. what was his motivation? he said some heavy shit that night. coming out and saying your BFF lied is quite a thing to do...enspecially in this whole fucked up situation.

i dont know, i dont want to twist his words or fit them into contexts where they dont belong, that was never my intention. it still seems pretty basic to me.

1.marc says he lied about axl.

2.then why would you believe slash about axl?

thats it.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon