Jump to content

The Evolution of Axl


Vincent Vega

Recommended Posts

No. Axl put a gun to Slash's head, screamed "SIGN BITCH!", and Slash began whimpering, saying, ""No-No Axl..No..Think of the fans...I only love the fans...Not money at all. NO AXL!" Axl proceeded to beat innocent, sweat, childlike Slash, who only loves music and the fans, senseless and then forged his signature. And then he beat Slash again just because he could, that evil man that he is!

As I recall, that's just the way it happened. Axl also screamed repeatedly "And initial here... And initial here..." as they had to initial each changed section to acknowledge that they saw the changes.

How evil! Pure, innocent, simple Slash and Duff probably thought "I hereby acknowledge the changes" simply referred to Axl's concert costume changes, and in their childlike innocence, they signed.

And then for years after, at every interview in which the band name ownership came up, Axl held a gun to Slash's head (which the interviewer somehow couldn't see. He might've been using a cloaking device Yoda gave him), forcing him to say he didn't give a damn about the name. Poor Slash. An innocent babe in an evil lion's den.

Edited by Indigo Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No. Axl put a gun to Slash's head, screamed "SIGN BITCH!", and Slash began whimpering, saying, ""No-No Axl..No..Think of the fans...I only love the fans...Not money at all. NO AXL!" Axl proceeded to beat innocent, sweat, childlike Slash, who only loves music and the fans, senseless and then forged his signature. And then he beat Slash again just because he could, that evil man that he is!

As I recall, that's just the way it happened. Axl also screamed repeatedly "And initial here... And initial here..."

Were you there?????? Cause there are more than one story about this incident.

I don't know the truth, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of all the stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Axl put a gun to Slash's head, screamed "SIGN BITCH!", and Slash began whimpering, saying, ""No-No Axl..No..Think of the fans...I only love the fans...Not money at all. NO AXL!" Axl proceeded to beat innocent, sweat, childlike Slash, who only loves music and the fans, senseless and then forged his signature. And then he beat Slash again just because he could, that evil man that he is!

As I recall, that's just the way it happened. Axl also screamed repeatedly "And initial here... And initial here..." as they had to initial each changed section to acknowledge that they saw the changes.

How evil! Pure, innocent, simple Slash and Duff probably thought "I hereby acknowledge the changes" simply referred to Axl's concert costume changes, and in their childlike innocence, they signed.

And then for years after, at every interview in which the band name ownership came up, Axl held a gun to Slash's head (which the interviewer somehow couldn't see. He might've been using a cloaking device Yoda gave him), forcing him to say he didn't give a damn about the name. Poor Slash. An innocent babe in an evil lion's den.

And to this day when the dreaded words Axl or reunion are mentioned you can still see Slash cringe, in fear. It still curls his hair to think of the horror, the horror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 has more " balls " than any artist in the history of popular music. Other artisr will stand by that too. I aint trying to shit on anybody for being on a little forum, but you are ignorant if you think U2 are without " balls ". when Axl was talking about making electronic music , U2 was doing it , with Zooropa then A world tour, POP. There are also eclectronic elements to Achtung Baby. If you could go to a U2 show and not be blown away then thats cool, but to sit on a computer and say shit like you have ever taken a real chance with your own life, or even attempted to create something worthwhile at all, is a joke. Bono is just as real as Axl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hardly the person to ask about whose music sucks...

I have pretty damn, wide ranging tastes. But Bono is a a feg and his music sucks ass.

nah, you can hate but if what you said were true U2 wouldn't have found any audience.

The reason U2 has an audience is because they're as edgy as a glass of milk. They're not offensive. They're family friendly, radio friendly, commercialized CRAP.

none of what you described is crap. :shrugs:

You sound like my old metalhead friends.

They're like all those pussy "let's all share our touchy feely feelings" bands. All that post grunge shit like Bush and whatnot. Except at least Grunge and post Grunge had good guitar riffs and some aggression.

U2 is just Disney rock.

Touch feely bands? axl is the touchy, feely person in rock and the reason why i love him so . When I was a child it was Axl that thought me that I could be in touch with my emotions, whatever those emotions are. Maybe you meant bands that bemoan life is pain type shit and feel sorry for themselves. You appear to lack a broad enough perspective to be debating these subjects. It is fun to fuck around on here and debate with you, but in real life i would not waste anytime speaking with a " douch" like you. Bono a douche, ha! Anybody who is living out there dream is doing more than you indigo child, which by the way is a touchy feeling little philosphy to begin with. "Iam special, my aura is purple" ( douche bag IC voice).

Edited by Butters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U2 has more " balls " than any artist in the history of popular music. Other artisr will stand by that too. I aint trying to shit on anybody for being on a little forum, but you are ignorant if you think U2 are without " balls ". when Axl was talking about making electronic music , U2 was doing it , with Zooropa then A world tour, POP. There are also eclectronic elements to Achtung Baby. If you could go to a U2 show and not be blown away then thats cool, but to sit on a computer and say shit like you have ever taken a real chance with your own life, or even attempted to create something worthwhile at all, is a joke. Bono is just as real as Axl.

damn straight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sort of debate always makes me think of the difference between American bands and British bands. I think there's an inherent melancholy to British bands, even Zepp there's a softer side. Whereas US bands have more of a bombastic rage thing going. Look at GNR and Nirvana, then look at Oasis and U2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sort of debate always makes me think of the difference between American bands and British bands. I think there's an inherent melancholy to British bands, even Zepp there's a softer side. Whereas US bands have more of a bombastic rage thing going. Look at GNR and Nirvana, then look at Oasis and U2.

U2 British? Don't let them know you said that ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sort of debate always makes me think of the difference between American bands and British bands. I think there's an inherent melancholy to British bands, even Zepp there's a softer side. Whereas US bands have more of a bombastic rage thing going. Look at GNR and Nirvana, then look at Oasis and U2.

U2 British? Don't let them know you said that ;)

well you know same difference, I've done that so many times now lol but british bands (european or something) aren't quite as hard hitting. there's a sadness to the songs, whereas I feel like american bands more up for a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has gone to the shit!

GNR v U2?!! What next!?!

Bono is an amazing singer, and without him U2 would be bollocks. It's just a shame he has to be such a cunt.

The edge is wank and has secret guitar players under the stage to help him play at gigs.

BUT the big problem with U2 is that they've been boring for at least 10 years and save for Staring at the Sun, pop was a pile of arse.

AND U2 are not 'gay' grow the fuck up you petulant little cunts. They just turned into a pensioners Coldplay. And coldplay were more influenced by Radiohead than U2.

Nothing will take away from the great moments that U2 had though. Just like Sorry can't take away from GN'Rs best moments however hard it tries.

Bad is one of the greatest songs ever though.

Anyways, how fat is Axl's head gonna be this year??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try not to think about Bono when I listen to U2. I read Bono this book and it's haunted me ever since. He said he wasn't a rock star and he comes from a long line of salesmen. I'll take Rattle and Hum and Zooropa. But the whole Jehovah Witness style just kills me. Supposedly Bono is a great guy to go on the piss with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try not to think about Bono when I listen to U2. I read Bono this book and it's haunted me ever since. He said he wasn't a rock star and he comes from a long line of salesmen. I'll take Rattle and Hum and Zooropa. But the whole Jehovah Witness style just kills me. Supposedly Bono is a great guy to go on the piss with.

Well I know HUGE life-long U2 fans, they go to all the tours as a family, they're even irish themselves - the whole shebang - and even they think Bono is a dick.

Can't knock his voice, or the 80's to mid 90's albums, but after that you're left with a dullness with a prick singing. Still good live (when they do the older stuff) though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sort of debate always makes me think of the difference between American bands and British bands. I think there's an inherent melancholy to British bands, even Zepp there's a softer side. Whereas US bands have more of a bombastic rage thing going. Look at GNR and Nirvana, then look at Oasis and U2.

U2 British? Don't let them know you said that ;)

well you know same difference, I've done that so many times now lol but british bands (european or something) aren't quite as hard hitting. there's a sadness to the songs, whereas I feel like american bands more up for a fight.

I know a huge expection, Iron Maiden is right there in people faces, they are certainly up for a fight.

But I see you point and I agree.

By the way, U2 was great in the beginning, now not so much. I don't like the musically direction they have taken.

Bono is doing some good work, can't agrue about that. But he is kind of annoying.

Edited by MBRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sort of debate always makes me think of the difference between American bands and British bands. I think there's an inherent melancholy to British bands, even Zepp there's a softer side. Whereas US bands have more of a bombastic rage thing going. Look at GNR and Nirvana, then look at Oasis and U2.

U2 British? Don't let them know you said that ;)

well you know same difference, I've done that so many times now lol but british bands (european or something) aren't quite as hard hitting. there's a sadness to the songs, whereas I feel like american bands more up for a fight.

The ones reallyup for a fight are the aussie effers (case in point - Acca Dacca/ Rose Tattoo) Gotta hand it to them. They rock. rock3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try not to think about Bono when I listen to U2. I read Bono this book and it's haunted me ever since. He said he wasn't a rock star and he comes from a long line of salesmen. I'll take Rattle and Hum and Zooropa. But the whole Jehovah Witness style just kills me. Supposedly Bono is a great guy to go on the piss with.

Well I know HUGE life-long U2 fans, they go to all the tours as a family, they're even irish themselves - the whole shebang - and even they think Bono is a dick.

Can't knock his voice, or the 80's to mid 90's albums, but after that you're left with a dullness with a prick singing. Still good live (when they do the older stuff) though.

At the end of the day, as he says, he got to point where he could use his position for good and took that on. All power to him.

But he's nowhere near real, which is kind of part of the deal. He's the fake with the heart of gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sort of debate always makes me think of the difference between American bands and British bands. I think there's an inherent melancholy to British bands, even Zepp there's a softer side. Whereas US bands have more of a bombastic rage thing going. Look at GNR and Nirvana, then look at Oasis and U2.

U2 British? Don't let them know you said that ;)

well you know same difference, I've done that so many times now lol but british bands (european or something) aren't quite as hard hitting. there's a sadness to the songs, whereas I feel like american bands more up for a fight.

I know a huge expection, Iron Maiden is right there in people faces, they are certainly up for a fight.

But I see you point and I agree.

By the way, U2 was great in the beginning, now not so much. I don't like the musically direction they have taken.

Bono is doing some good work, can't agrue about that. But he is kind of annoying.

Maiden is theatre but they do have aggressive tracks, Holy Smoke/Bring your Daughter off the top of me head. There probably is other bands like Raging Speedhorn come to mind but they aren't a big band. Not zeitgest big.

I think he might be more of a laugh in real life, he just plays up to the dick it's ok to like role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other hand he strong arms his band into signing over the name, and tries to take full control of the band and reduce his friends to employees. So I think it had a little to do with money....

According to Slash, he didn't give a shit at the time.

There was no strong arming. It was put in the contract. They signed. No one put a gun to their head.

Poor Slashie, so weak.

And do you know why Axl obtained the name G N' R? Because Alan Niven (former manager) didn't trademarked the name Guns N' Roses. They (Axl and co.) got know about this during the Steven Adler lawsuit against his ex G N' R bandmates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other hand he strong arms his band into signing over the name, and tries to take full control of the band and reduce his friends to employees. So I think it had a little to do with money....

According to Slash, he didn't give a shit at the time.

There was no strong arming. It was put in the contract. They signed. No one put a gun to their head.

Poor Slashie, so weak.

Actually, Axl threatened the band that he would stop touring imediately if they didn't sign the contract, they signed it over due to they're poor knowledge of the legal implications behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other hand he strong arms his band into signing over the name, and tries to take full control of the band and reduce his friends to employees. So I think it had a little to do with money....

According to Slash, he didn't give a shit at the time.

There was no strong arming. It was put in the contract. They signed. No one put a gun to their head.

Poor Slashie, so weak.

Actually, Axl threatened the band that he would stop touring imediately if they didn't sign the contract, they signed it over due to they're poor knowledge of the legal implications behind it.

Wrong. Axl could've been sued into the poor house for making them sign a contract under duress if this was really the case. He could've been even put in jail.

"Duress in the context of contract law is a common law defense, and if one is successful in proving that the contract is vitiated by duress, the contract may be rescinded, since it is then voidable.

Duress has been defined as a "threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment; esp., a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition". - Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)

Duress in contract law falls into two broad categories:[3]

Physical duress, and

Economic duress

Physical duress

Duress to the person

Professor Ronald Griffin, Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, KS, puts physical duress simply: "Your money or your life." In Barton v. Armstrong [1976] AC 104, a decision of the Privy Council, Armstrong threatened to kill Barton if he did not sign a contract, which was set aside due to duress to the person. An innocent party wishing to set aside a contract for duress to the person need to prove only that the threat was made and that it was a reason for entry into the contract; the onus of proof then shifts to the other party to prove that the threat had no effect in causing the party to enter into the contract. Duress can be made also by social influence. Courts frown on this type of contract because there is really no manifestation of mutual assent "meeting of the minds" or agreement to the terms. Rather, when someone is threatened and agrees to act to avoid physical harm by the party making the offer, all you truly have is a mirror of the other party's manifestation of mutual assent not the manifestation of mutual assent by the party being forced or induced to assent to the terms of the contract. Therefore, the meeting of the minds "in truth" does not exist. Since, there is no meeting of the minds there can be no contract.

Duress to goods

In such cases, one party refuses to release the goods belonging to the other party until the other party enters into a contract with them. For example, in Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 298, the contract was set aside after Hawker Pacific's threats to withhold the helicopter from the plaintiff unless further payments were made for repairing a botched paint job.

Economic duress

A contract is voidable if the innocent party can prove that it had no other practical choice (as opposed to legal choice) but to agree to the contract.

The elements of economic duress

Wrongful or improper threat: No precise definition of what is wrongful or improper. Examples include: morally wrong, criminal, or tortuous conduct; one that is a threat to breach a contract "in bad faith" or threaten to withhold an admitted debt "in bad faith".

Lack of reasonable alternative (but to accept the other party's terms). If there is an available legal remedy, an available market substitute (in the form of funds, goods, or services), or any other sources of funds this element is not met.

The threat actually induces the making of the contract. This is a subjective standard, and takes into account the victim's age, their background (especially their education), relationship of the parties, and the ability to receive advice.

The other party caused the financial distress. The majority opinion is that the other party must have caused the distress, while the minority opinion allows them to merely take advantage of the distress.

Edited by Indigo Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other hand he strong arms his band into signing over the name, and tries to take full control of the band and reduce his friends to employees. So I think it had a little to do with money....

According to Slash, he didn't give a shit at the time.

There was no strong arming. It was put in the contract. They signed. No one put a gun to their head.

Poor Slashie, so weak.

Actually, Axl threatened the band that he would stop touring imediately if they didn't sign the contract, they signed it over due to they're poor knowledge of the legal implications behind it.

Wrong. Axl could've been sued into the poor house for making them sign a contract under duress if this was really the case. He could've been even put in jail.

He has sued when the band fell apart, nothing happened. They were only granted song rights.

Edited by LaRocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other hand he strong arms his band into signing over the name, and tries to take full control of the band and reduce his friends to employees. So I think it had a little to do with money....

According to Slash, he didn't give a shit at the time.

There was no strong arming. It was put in the contract. They signed. No one put a gun to their head.

Poor Slashie, so weak.

Actually, Axl threatened the band that he would stop touring imediately if they didn't sign the contract, they signed it over due to they're poor knowledge of the legal implications behind it.

Don't mix up my quotes with Indigo Child's quotes please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other hand he strong arms his band into signing over the name, and tries to take full control of the band and reduce his friends to employees. So I think it had a little to do with money....

According to Slash, he didn't give a shit at the time.

There was no strong arming. It was put in the contract. They signed. No one put a gun to their head.

Poor Slashie, so weak.

Actually, Axl threatened the band that he would stop touring imediately if they didn't sign the contract, they signed it over due to they're poor knowledge of the legal implications behind it.

Don't mix up my quotes with Indigo Child's quotes please.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other hand he strong arms his band into signing over the name, and tries to take full control of the band and reduce his friends to employees. So I think it had a little to do with money....

According to Slash, he didn't give a shit at the time.

There was no strong arming. It was put in the contract. They signed. No one put a gun to their head.

Poor Slashie, so weak.

Actually, Axl threatened the band that he would stop touring imediately if they didn't sign the contract, they signed it over due to they're poor knowledge of the legal implications behind it.

Wrong. Axl could've been sued into the poor house for making them sign a contract under duress if this was really the case. He could've been even put in jail.

He has sued when the band fell apart, nothing happened. They were only granted song rights.

He was sued in 2004 over song rights. That's 8 years after Slash left and 7 years after Slash left respectively.

Nothing regarding the name. They never went to court trying to reclaim the name or void the 1992 contract nor the 1995 contract, both of which Slash and Duff signed.

Slash, November 1995:

Looking at a hypothetical scenario where GN'R split up, who actually owns the Guns N' Roses name?

Slash "As far as contractually - and this is a discrepancy between myself and our attorneys - apparently Axl owns it. Now I should have known that, because I could have then said: "Okay." I don't give a fuck who owns the name. But I find out later that Axl legally owns it - apparently.

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...