Jump to content

The Evolution of Axl


Vincent Vega

Recommended Posts

Thanks for your opionins. I don't think that drugs were involved JMO. Duff jokes about not being able to remember certain things but then later he will write something or say something in an interview and it becomes apparant that he remembers alot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Indigo, you brought up some good points.

I don't know now, why they did it. Maybe they really didn't care.... :shrugs:

I really don't think they did.

And I think Slash "quitting" was a bluff move.

In an interview from January 1997, Slash explicitly says he hasn't "really quit". Yet in his autobiography, he kind of laughs at Axl thinking he would come back, that Axl and Geffen had fooled themselves into thinking he would come back.

Slash has alway sent mixed messages and never really had his story straight. He couldn't even be honest and tell the public he had quit, Axl had to do it for him. As late as the middle of October 1996, Slash was still acting as if he was in the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

Edited by Indigo Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indigo, you brought up some good points.

I don't know now, why they did it. Maybe they really didn't care.... :shrugs:

I read Slash's book and I don't think there was any place in it that said Axl said he wouldn't go on stage if they didn't sign over the name. I believe what was said was that he 'felt' that the tour would end right then if they didn't sign it over and they didn't want it to end. They wanted to add the last leg. So he may have felt compelled to sign but was not coerced into signing.

My opinion is that they signed at the time because they didn't disagree that Axl brought in the name and maybe didn't really understand all the implications of signing it over because at the time those implications were not issues yet. It wasn't the big deal at the time. Once things really soured, the story of the 'threat' to not go on stage began to grow, at least in the media and in some of the versions that they gave in interviews. I still don't think I ever heard Slash or Duff specifically say that they signed because Axl threatened not to go on stage. I stand to be corrected if someone has an interview.

Edited by Orsys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

I find it interesting also that Slash says Axl's side is just as valid as his. But he and Duff still maintain Axl gave them the ultimatium. Slash even repeating it again in an interview last month. Thats what makes me wonder about these "yes" men that Duff talked about. I'm a Slashite as you know but I have never thought is was all Axl's fault. It is like any human relationship it usually takes all parties to fuck things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

I find it interesting also that Slash says Axl's side is just as valid as his. But he and Duff still maintain Axl gave them the ultimatium. Slash even repeating it again in an interview last month. Thats what makes me wonder about these "yes" men that Duff talked about. I'm a Slashite as you know but I have never thought is was all Axl's fault. It is like any human relationship it usually takes all parties to fuck things up.

The fact of the matter is, the whole "who owns the name" issue is just scenery, as is "their musical directions differed."

The matter of the break up came down to one man being unwilling to compromise. Which man you feel is the more guilty party goes by who you choose to support. The fact that Slash publicly scoffed at every idea that he claimed Axl put forth ("Stephanie Seymour ballads"), going on MTV Unplugged, going a Pearl Jam type route, and then not handing the Snakepit songs back to Axl, dissing Axl in the press as a "diva" while still in the band, says a lot to me about Slash's character. It also IMO goes right in hand with Axl saying that whenever he'd show any interest in doing something, Slash would turn away or be a dick about it.

Were they both responsible? Yeah. But I'd say Slash and him deciding to be the big man on campus when he did and the way he went about it is what sealed the deal. To be quite honest, I'd be fine if he never came back to Guns. The only original member I want to see return, even in a writing basis, is Izzy. To me, Guns was always more Axl & Izzy than Axl & Slash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

I find it interesting also that Slash says Axl's side is just as valid as his. But he and Duff still maintain Axl gave them the ultimatium. Slash even repeating it again in an interview last month. Thats what makes me wonder about these "yes" men that Duff talked about. I'm a Slashite as you know but I have never thought is was all Axl's fault. It is like any human relationship it usually takes all parties to fuck things up.

The fact of the matter is, the whole "who owns the name" issue is just scenery, as is "their musical directions differed."

The matter of the break up came down to one man being unwilling to compromise. Which man you feel is the more guilty party goes by who you choose to support. The fact that Slash publicly scoffed at every idea that he claimed Axl put forth ("Stephanie Seymour ballads"), going on MTV Unplugged, going a Pearl Jam type route, and then not handing the Snakepit songs back to Axl, dissing Axl in the press as a "diva" while still in the band, says a lot to me about Slash's character. It also IMO goes right in hand with Axl saying that whenever he'd show any interest in doing something, Slash would turn away or be a dick about it.

Were they both responsible? Yeah. But I'd say Slash and him deciding to be the big man on campus when he did and the way he went about it is what sealed the deal. To be quite honest, I'd be fine if he never came back to Guns. The only original member I want to see return, even in a writing basis, is Izzy. To me, Guns was always more Axl & Izzy than Axl & Slash.

I feel the same way. Too many lies from Slash over the years, and a lot of the information adds up to make me think he's not honest at all.

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about in 1995, when Axl supposedly formed the new contract? The new "legal" Guns N' Roses?

Duff was sober, I believe Slash was as well.

Again, if they were high/drunk in 1992 at the time of the contract signing, they could've contested it later in court on the grounds that they entered into a legal agreement while not in a state of mind which would enable them to make consenting decisions. They've never contested it legally. I wonder why.

This is the same Slash who first claimed he never went to Axl's house, and then only months later reversed his original story and said he did.

Slash never reversed his original story. He made a dismissive and ambiguous reply on a radio show. He never flat out said that he never went to the house.

Axl clearly lied to us forum members about his motive when he got Slash and others to sign away the name. That's most important that anything. I believe Slash is the one telling the truth.

I have serious doubts about the enforceability of the contract that signed over the name. If the contract getting Steven to sign away his rights wasn't legally binding there could very well be significant flaws in the contract that signed away the band name.

Were you there? You say he lied about his motive...How do you know? Do you live in his head?

Well, obviously Slash's lawyers since 1992 haven't seemed to find any flaws in it, or Slash at least since he hasn't tried to contest it. Please, face it, he is never going to be back in Guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about in 1995, when Axl supposedly formed the new contract? The new "legal" Guns N' Roses?

Duff was sober, I believe Slash was as well.

Again, if they were high/drunk in 1992 at the time of the contract signing, they could've contested it later in court on the grounds that they entered into a legal agreement while not in a state of mind which would enable them to make consenting decisions. They've never contested it legally. I wonder why.

This is the same Slash who first claimed he never went to Axl's house, and then only months later reversed his original story and said he did.

Slash never reversed his original story. He made a dismissive and ambiguous reply on a radio show. He never flat out said that he never went to the house.

Axl clearly lied to us forum members about his motive when he got Slash and others to sign away the name. That's most important that anything. I believe Slash is the one telling the truth.

I have serious doubts about the enforceability of the contract that signed over the name. If the contract getting Steven to sign away his rights wasn't legally binding there could very well be significant flaws in the contract that signed away the band name.

Were you there? You say he lied about his motive...How do you know? Do you live in his head?

Well, obviously Slash's lawyers since 1992 haven't seemed to find any flaws in it, or Slash at least since he hasn't tried to contest it. Please, face it, he is never going to be back in Guns.

Agreed. To leave Guns was the biggest mistake of Slash's career imo. He will always regret that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about in 1995, when Axl supposedly formed the new contract? The new "legal" Guns N' Roses?

Duff was sober, I believe Slash was as well.

Again, if they were high/drunk in 1992 at the time of the contract signing, they could've contested it later in court on the grounds that they entered into a legal agreement while not in a state of mind which would enable them to make consenting decisions. They've never contested it legally. I wonder why.

This is the same Slash who first claimed he never went to Axl's house, and then only months later reversed his original story and said he did.

Slash never reversed his original story. He made a dismissive and ambiguous reply on a radio show. He never flat out said that he never went to the house.

Axl clearly lied to us forum members about his motive when he got Slash and others to sign away the name. That's most important that anything. I believe Slash is the one telling the truth.

I have serious doubts about the enforceability of the contract that signed over the name. If the contract getting Steven to sign away his rights wasn't legally binding there could very well be significant flaws in the contract that signed away the band name.

Were you there? You say he lied about his motive...How do you know? Do you live in his head?

Well, obviously Slash's lawyers since 1992 haven't seemed to find any flaws in it, or Slash at least since he hasn't tried to contest it. Please, face it, he is never going to be back in Guns.

Agreed. To leave Guns was the biggest mistake of Slash's career imo. He will always regret that decision.

He sees it as one of the best decisions he ever made, so I doubt he would be regretting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about in 1995, when Axl supposedly formed the new contract? The new "legal" Guns N' Roses?

Duff was sober, I believe Slash was as well.

Again, if they were high/drunk in 1992 at the time of the contract signing, they could've contested it later in court on the grounds that they entered into a legal agreement while not in a state of mind which would enable them to make consenting decisions. They've never contested it legally. I wonder why.

This is the same Slash who first claimed he never went to Axl's house, and then only months later reversed his original story and said he did.

Slash never reversed his original story. He made a dismissive and ambiguous reply on a radio show. He never flat out said that he never went to the house.

Axl clearly lied to us forum members about his motive when he got Slash and others to sign away the name. That's most important that anything. I believe Slash is the one telling the truth.

I have serious doubts about the enforceability of the contract that signed over the name. If the contract getting Steven to sign away his rights wasn't legally binding there could very well be significant flaws in the contract that signed away the band name.

Were you there? You say he lied about his motive...How do you know? Do you live in his head?

Well, obviously Slash's lawyers since 1992 haven't seemed to find any flaws in it, or Slash at least since he hasn't tried to contest it. Please, face it, he is never going to be back in Guns.

Agreed. To leave Guns was the biggest mistake of Slash's career imo. He will always regret that decision.

He sees it as one of the best decisions he ever made, so I doubt he would be regretting it.

That puts him at odds with a lot of his loving fans, who desperately want to see him back with Axl :rofl-lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

I find it interesting also that Slash says Axl's side is just as valid as his. But he and Duff still maintain Axl gave them the ultimatium. Slash even repeating it again in an interview last month. Thats what makes me wonder about these "yes" men that Duff talked about. I'm a Slashite as you know but I have never thought is was all Axl's fault. It is like any human relationship it usually takes all parties to fuck things up.

The fact of the matter is, the whole "who owns the name" issue is just scenery, as is "their musical directions differed."

The matter of the break up came down to one man being unwilling to compromise. Which man you feel is the more guilty party goes by who you choose to support. The fact that Slash publicly scoffed at every idea that he claimed Axl put forth ("Stephanie Seymour ballads"), going on MTV Unplugged, going a Pearl Jam type route, and then not handing the Snakepit songs back to Axl, dissing Axl in the press as a "diva" while still in the band, says a lot to me about Slash's character. It also IMO goes right in hand with Axl saying that whenever he'd show any interest in doing something, Slash would turn away or be a dick about it.

Were they both responsible? Yeah. But I'd say Slash and him deciding to be the big man on campus when he did and the way he went about it is what sealed the deal. To be quite honest, I'd be fine if he never came back to Guns. The only original member I want to see return, even in a writing basis, is Izzy. To me, Guns was always more Axl & Izzy than Axl & Slash.

We can agree on one thing I do not want a reunion either. It's really strange that Slash gets along with everyone professionally but Axl. And he also has a relationship with all his old bandmates but Axl. Slash has even spoken with Scott Weiland and can get along with him now. He is known to be easy to work with and very professional to work with. But I guess you might be right he has a character problem that no one else sees but you Axl and some other Axlites. I doubt Izzy will return to GNR because of his problem with lead singers (I cannot imagine where he could have developed such a problem) maybe he has a character problem also. We all know that Axl does not have problems with people and can get along with any and everybody so I guess Slash was the problem. He is painted on this board to be lazy, a lier, a sellout, and whatever Axlites can come up with a the time. Now were are to believe that he so good at PR that he has everybody but a few Axlites fooled. Hell if he was that all powerful he would have never needed Axl in the first place and your man would be a know body in Indiana.

Edited by sleeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

I find it interesting also that Slash says Axl's side is just as valid as his. But he and Duff still maintain Axl gave them the ultimatium. Slash even repeating it again in an interview last month. Thats what makes me wonder about these "yes" men that Duff talked about. I'm a Slashite as you know but I have never thought is was all Axl's fault. It is like any human relationship it usually takes all parties to fuck things up.

The fact of the matter is, the whole "who owns the name" issue is just scenery, as is "their musical directions differed."

The matter of the break up came down to one man being unwilling to compromise. Which man you feel is the more guilty party goes by who you choose to support. The fact that Slash publicly scoffed at every idea that he claimed Axl put forth ("Stephanie Seymour ballads"), going on MTV Unplugged, going a Pearl Jam type route, and then not handing the Snakepit songs back to Axl, dissing Axl in the press as a "diva" while still in the band, says a lot to me about Slash's character. It also IMO goes right in hand with Axl saying that whenever he'd show any interest in doing something, Slash would turn away or be a dick about it.

Were they both responsible? Yeah. But I'd say Slash and him deciding to be the big man on campus when he did and the way he went about it is what sealed the deal. To be quite honest, I'd be fine if he never came back to Guns. The only original member I want to see return, even in a writing basis, is Izzy. To me, Guns was always more Axl & Izzy than Axl & Slash.

We can agree on one thing I do not want a reunion either. It's really strange that Slash gets along with everyone professionally but Axl. And he also has a relationship with all his old bandmates but Axl. Slash has even spoken with Scott Weiland and can get along with him now. He is known to be easy to work with and very professional to work with. But I guess you might be right he has a character problem that no one else sees but you Axl and some other Axlites. I doubt Izzy will return to GNR because of his problem with lead singers (I cannot imagine where he could have developed such a problem) maybe he has a character problem also. We all know that Axl does not have problems with people and can get along with any and everybody so I guess Slash was the problem. He is painted on this board to be lazy, a lier, a sellout, and whatever Axlites can come up with a the time. Now were are to believe that he so good at PR that he has everybody but a few Axlites fooled. Hell if he was that all powerful he would have never needed Axl in the first place and your man would be a know body in Indiana.

Axl should really just retire, right?

See we've come to the point in the conversation where it can't go any further, so I'll give it the same dignity that I give every Slashite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl should really just retire, right?

See we've come to the point in the conversation where it can't go any further, so I'll give it the same dignity that I give every Slashite.

And a semi intelligent conversation comes to a typical sad Miser conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

I find it interesting also that Slash says Axl's side is just as valid as his. But he and Duff still maintain Axl gave them the ultimatium. Slash even repeating it again in an interview last month. Thats what makes me wonder about these "yes" men that Duff talked about. I'm a Slashite as you know but I have never thought is was all Axl's fault. It is like any human relationship it usually takes all parties to fuck things up.

The fact of the matter is, the whole "who owns the name" issue is just scenery, as is "their musical directions differed."

The matter of the break up came down to one man being unwilling to compromise. Which man you feel is the more guilty party goes by who you choose to support. The fact that Slash publicly scoffed at every idea that he claimed Axl put forth ("Stephanie Seymour ballads"), going on MTV Unplugged, going a Pearl Jam type route, and then not handing the Snakepit songs back to Axl, dissing Axl in the press as a "diva" while still in the band, says a lot to me about Slash's character. It also IMO goes right in hand with Axl saying that whenever he'd show any interest in doing something, Slash would turn away or be a dick about it.

Were they both responsible? Yeah. But I'd say Slash and him deciding to be the big man on campus when he did and the way he went about it is what sealed the deal. To be quite honest, I'd be fine if he never came back to Guns. The only original member I want to see return, even in a writing basis, is Izzy. To me, Guns was always more Axl & Izzy than Axl & Slash.

We can agree on one thing I do not want a reunion either. It's really strange that Slash gets along with everyone professionally but Axl. And he also has a relationship with all his old bandmates but Axl. Slash has even spoken with Scott Weiland and can get along with him now. He is known to be easy to work with and very professional to work with. But I guess you might be right he has a character problem that no one else sees but you Axl and some other Axlites. I doubt Izzy will return to GNR because of his problem with lead singers (I cannot imagine where he could have developed such a problem) maybe he has a character problem also. We all know that Axl does not have problems with people and can get along with any and everybody so I guess Slash was the problem. He is painted on this board to be lazy, a lier, a sellout, and whatever Axlites can come up with a the time. Now were are to believe that he so good at PR that he has everybody but a few Axlites fooled. Hell if he was that all powerful he would have never needed Axl in the first place and your man would be a know body in Indiana.

Axl should really just retire, right?

See we've come to the point in the conversation where it can't go any further, so I'll give it the same dignity that I give every Slashite.

No Axl should not retire! He is as amazing now as he always has been. He has many years ahead of him. He is one of the best at his craft. But there is no way I will not defend Slash in a situation like this. But you are correct this conversation is over!

Edited by sleeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl should really just retire, right?

See we've come to the point in the conversation where it can't go any further, so I'll give it the same dignity that I give every Slashite.

And a semi intelligent conversation comes to a typical sad Miser conclusion.

You Slashites fight, I fight back. I see the world in terms of friends and enemies.

Slashites and Axlites cannot and should not be friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they still cared they were still going into the studio and rehearshing and trying to make new music. They still wanted to perform so they must have cared. I think things happened on both sides that none of us will never know about. I have often wondered about all those "yes" people that Duff has spoken about that were around the band at the time.

He's probably referring to guys like Josh Ricman, Dave Lank, Dougie, maybe even Del. Those guys were probably in Axl's "circle" in the early '90s and thus perceived to be "yes men."

What I think is interesting is Slash saying that Axl's side of the story is just as valid as his. There can't be two versions of the truth with both being valid. Either one side is the truth, or the other. I prefer to see it through Axl's side because while he's very much an asshole, Axl is very blunt and is a straight shooter. He's brutally honest. Slash has lied before and is very much a "PR friendly" person. He is also very politically correct when it comes to controversy which makes him seem more likable and thus more believable. People are more willing to believe the nice, seemingly down to Earth guy than they are to believe the seemingly mean, eccentric asshole--Even if the mean asshole's story is the truth. Slash knows how to play the game of public perception--He's the "Guitar Hero", whereas I don't think Axl, at least nowadays, gives a shit about the public or media's perception of him. He probably did back in 1990, 1991, etc but I don't think so now.

I find it interesting also that Slash says Axl's side is just as valid as his. But he and Duff still maintain Axl gave them the ultimatium. Slash even repeating it again in an interview last month. Thats what makes me wonder about these "yes" men that Duff talked about. I'm a Slashite as you know but I have never thought is was all Axl's fault. It is like any human relationship it usually takes all parties to fuck things up.

He AND Duff? Where has Duff ever commented and backed Slash's version of events? Compared to Slash, Duff has spoken very little about the GN'R breakup. I don't remember him ever backing Slash's story.

What's interesting to me is that Slash has claimed in interviews that he was blackmailed into signing over the name, yet he never mentioned said incident in his book. Interesting how such a huge moment in the band's history was omitted, and even more so that it was replaced by a discussion about how he and Duff had lawyers helping them work through the contract. Which, completely negates the coercion aspect of his claim.

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about in 1995, when Axl supposedly formed the new contract? The new "legal" Guns N' Roses?

Duff was sober, I believe Slash was as well.

Again, if they were high/drunk in 1992 at the time of the contract signing, they could've contested it later in court on the grounds that they entered into a legal agreement while not in a state of mind which would enable them to make consenting decisions. They've never contested it legally. I wonder why.

This is the same Slash who first claimed he never went to Axl's house, and then only months later reversed his original story and said he did.

Slash never reversed his original story. He made a dismissive and ambiguous reply on a radio show. He never flat out said that he never went to the house.

Axl clearly lied to us forum members about his motive when he got Slash and others to sign away the name. That's most important that anything. I believe Slash is the one telling the truth.

I have serious doubts about the enforceability of the contract that signed over the name. If the contract getting Steven to sign away his rights wasn't legally binding there could very well be significant flaws in the contract that signed away the band name.

Were you there? You say he lied about his motive...How do you know? Do you live in his head?

Well, obviously Slash's lawyers since 1992 haven't seemed to find any flaws in it, or Slash at least since he hasn't tried to contest it. Please, face it, he is never going to be back in Guns.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=170485&st=45&p=2786711entry2786711

I don't think you live anywhere else other than your head.

I don't know why you went on to say "Please, face it, he is never going to be back in Guns" like it's supposed to get some emotive response out of me. Seriously I think you walk up and down the street IRL and say "Hi BBA" "Hi Madison" to random strangers. You need to get out more.

Fact of the matter is that Axl said to journalist David Wild in 2000 that he was upset friends thought he couldn't go anywhere without Slash. Ten years gone, bye. Well, they were right. Axl failed. Many people wouldn't want a reunion including me. Axl is done.

So I'll put you in the "You want Axl to die/retire" crowd. He's done. He's crap. Hail Slash, cocksucker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl should really just retire, right?

See we've come to the point in the conversation where it can't go any further, so I'll give it the same dignity that I give every Slashite.

And a semi intelligent conversation comes to a typical sad Miser conclusion.

You Slashites fight, I fight back. I see the world in terms of friends and enemies.

Slashites and Axlites cannot and should not be friends.

Damn, GnR fans can't be friends with other GnR fans because one of those fans may like Chinese Democracy while the other does not.

You're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl should really just retire, right?

See we've come to the point in the conversation where it can't go any further, so I'll give it the same dignity that I give every Slashite.

And a semi intelligent conversation comes to a typical sad Miser conclusion.

You Slashites fight, I fight back. I see the world in terms of friends and enemies.

Slashites and Axlites cannot and should not be friends.

Damn, GnR fans can't be friends with other GnR fans because one of those fans may like Chinese Democracy while the other does not.

You're an idiot.

One group is out to try and stop the new band and do whatever they can to either get Axl to go away or make him reunite with Slash.

The other group just wants to be left alone and enjoy the new band.

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...