Who could possibly act as a bridge?

[T.wa.T]

Maybe Axl feels a real sense of loyalty towards the guys who helped recreate GnR. Although I think if there ever were to be a reunion all the new members would give Axl their blessings and tell him to go tear it up again with his old bandmates.

[DieselDaisy]

It is certainly Slash's view point on the break-up that has become 'the truth' for the mass majority, but then, whose fault is that? Between 1994 and 1999 Axl made no interviews whatsoever while Slash must have made hundreds while plugging Snakepit. If Axl agreed to interviews and released an autobiography we would have had his viewpoint also.

Between 1994-99 Axl let Slash have the playing field all to himself. Even now Axl is rarely interviewed. We, as fans, can only go off what exists.

[shotgunblues1978]

Slash's statement that Axl refused to go onstage and threatened to torpedo the entire UYI tour unless Slash & Duff signed over the name to him did more damage than all other statements made by former band members combined. The general public still believes that it's true, even though it has been verified by multiple sources that it didn't go down like that.

I'm sure there are plenty of other things behind the scenes that contributed to it, but that one statement has done a ton of damage to Axl in terms of general public perception. Slash's version of events simply wasn't true, and he has never admitted that. I'm guessing he doesn't want to look foolish; the decision probably cost him millions and it's easier for him to play the role of someone victimized by Axl's ego and control issues rather than just saying he made a bad business decision.

[DieselDaisy]

Slash's statement that Axl refused to go onstage and threatened to torpedo the entire UYI tour unless Slash & Duff signed over the name to him

This was verified by Duff McKagan in his autobiography.

[shotgunblues1978]

Slash's statement that Axl refused to go onstage and threatened to torpedo the entire UYI tour unless Slash & Duff signed over the name to him

This was verified by Duff McKagan in his autobiography.

It has also been refuted by multiple other sources, including Marc

People can say what they want Axl was absolutely correct from a legal perspective in his statement on the forum chats. If it happened as they claimed, the contract would've been invalidated due to it being signed under duress.

[recklessroad]

I have said before that I believe that both Axl and Slash are both telling what they think is the truth regarding the signing over of the name. Axl was unaware what was said to Slash and Duff by their manger who wanted to make Axl happy in getting that signed off on. Also keep in mind Slash could have gotten the date and times wrong when that all took place. I believe that Duff and Slash felt that if they didn't sign it that Axl would have walked away but not right before a gig.

Edited May 7, 2013 by recklessroad

[Bobbo]

Slash's statement that Axl refused to go onstage and threatened to torpedo the entire UYI tour unless Slash & Duff signed over the name to him

This was verified by Duff McKagan in his autobiography.

It has also been refuted by multiple other sources, including Marc

People can say what they want Axl was absolutely correct from a legal perspective in his statement on the forum chats. If it happened as they claimed, the contract would've been invalidated due to it being signed under duress.

I don't exactly think Marc, or anybody that wasn't on Axl's payroll had outright refuted it. Show me where Marc stated this as fact.

And even if so; Duff had made amends with Axl playing a show with him, released his book containing information pretty much backing Slash on how the name thing went down, and yet Axl STILL played with Duff again afterwards. It's also not just a matter of just claiming duress. There's more to it than just that; and more complex legally than you're leading on. It could've been they didn't care enough to pursue anything legally until the statute was up; figuring things were overwhelmingly unbearable within the band (regardless of who's fault it was) and that Axl would fall flat on his face if he pulled such a move without them; which he more or less did.

So that theory doesn't add up.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Bobbo

[DieselDaisy]

I have never heard it refuted by Marc or anyone. Duff says it came through a tour manager, not Axl personally which supports what Marc has just said above (nobody is saying that Axl personally came up to them and said he wasn't going on: that is a straw man argument).

So Slash and Duff's accounts are the same. We also have some comments by Izzy which seem to hint at a similar thing which was happening:

"For [Axl] the money wasn't as big a deal. But he had this power thing where he wanted complete control. And you can say, well, it goes back to your fucked up childhood where his dad used to smack him around, you know, and he had no control, so now he's getting it back. But it's like, it's still kooky, you know? You don't have to have everybody signing stuff."

When Axl finally gave his old school friend a contract to sign, it was the final straw. "This is right before I left - demoting me to some lower position. They were gonna cut my percentage of royalties down. I was like 'Fuck you! I've been there from day one, why should I do that? Fuck you. I'll go play the Whiskey'. That's what happened. It was utterly insane."

- Izzy, Classic Rock, 2001.

[m_rated96]

It is certainly Slash's view point on the break-up that has become 'the truth' for the mass majority, but then, whose fault is that? Between 1994 and 1999 Axl made no interviews whatsoever while Slash must have made hundreds while plugging Snakepit. If Axl agreed to interviews and released an autobiography we would have had his viewpoint also.

Between 1994-99 Axl let Slash have the playing field all to himself. Even now Axl is rarely interviewed. We, as fans, can only go off what exists.

yeah but (a) marc has said he was going thru some crazy shit at that time and (b) he probably feels like "why do i need to put in all this time and effort to defend my self from Slash's shit". I'm not saying the dude's an angel, i'm just saying I see his side. I think Slash should make the first moves. there's no reason for him to right now though, given how amazing he's doing.

& marc's interpretation seems totally realistic re: name rights. they probably just "felt" Axl would walk away, but wouldn't be able to prove it in court. if they even wanted to.

Marc, I wonder, does Axl know it's probably just a misunderstanding? Or does he actually think its just a cold & calculated Slash lie? and does Slash now know that it was probably just Doug's manipulation not Axl?

Edited May 7, 2013 by m_rated96

[shotgunblues1978]

I have never heard it refuted by Marc or anyone. Duff says it came through a tour manager, not Axl personally which supports what Marc has just said above (nobody is saying that Axl personally came up to them and said he wasn't going on: that is a straw man argument).

Slash's original statement heavily implied (though it did not state it explicitly) that it was Axl himself who did it, and that it was right before a show. That is the story that the general public believes, and it was originally put out there by Slash. I'm guessing there are a number of other factors at play, but that is likely a major factor as to why he is more upset at Slash than the others. The general public and the media have clung to that story.

Second, read Marc's post at the top of this page. It didn't go down the way it has been portrayed, and management had their own reasons for wanting Axl to control the name as well. In any case, it's just my opinion that Slash being the first to put that story out there may be a large cause of the resentment Axl harbors toward him, at least compared to other actions and statements that the public/fans know about.

Edited May 7, 2013 by shotgunblues1978

[recklessroad]

It is certainly Slash's view point on the break-up that has become 'the truth' for the mass majority, but then, whose fault is that? Between 1994 and 1999 Axl made no interviews whatsoever while Slash must have made hundreds while plugging Snakepit. If Axl agreed to interviews and released an autobiography we would have had his viewpoint also.

Between 1994-99 Axl let Slash have the playing field all to himself. Even now Axl is rarely interviewed. We, as fans, can only go off what exists.

yeah but (a) marc has said he was going thru some crazy shit at that time and (b) he probably feels like "why do i need to put in all this time and effort to defend my self from Slash's shit". I'm not saying the dude's an angel, i'm just saying I see his side. I think Slash should make the first moves. there's no reason for him to right now though, given how amazing he's doing.

& marc's interpretation seems totally realistic re: name rights. they probably just "felt" Axl would walk away, but wouldn't be able to prove it in court. if they even wanted to.

Marc, I wonder, does Axl know it's probably just a misunderstanding? Or does he actually think its just a cold & calculated Slash lie? and does Slash now know that it was probably just Doug's manipulation not Axl?

I don't even know if Slash has put together the fact that it was how Doug put it. I did tell Slash that when I talked to Doug a few years ago that he said to tell you that he was sorry. Also the fact that Axl even had those papers prepared in the first place is enough for Slash to still be upset that Axl wanted the control of the band that Slash had worked hard every day to help keep it going.

Edited May 7, 2013 by recklessroad

[Guest NGOG]

I don't think Axl sent Beta. I think Beta made sure that Axl was not there because she knew Slash was going to be there. My guess is that Axl was sleeping and Beta just didn't wake him?

And this wouldn't cause Axl to flip out? We've heard reports he's temporally ousted Beta from his home in the past. How would Beta purposely facilitating him missing your son's Bar Mitvah not provoke Axl?

He had to lie about it after Axl went public with it or he would have been in deep with the VR guys.

So it is now proven that Slash is capable of lying to protect his own interests.

[DieselDaisy]

I have never heard it refuted by Marc or anyone. Duff says it came through a tour manager, not Axl personally which supports what Marc has just said above (nobody is saying that Axl personally came up to them and said he wasn't going on: that is a straw man argument).

Slash's original statement heavily implied (though it did not state it explicitly) that it was Axl himself who did it, and that it was right before a show. That is the story that the general public believes, and it was originally put out there by Slash. I'm guessing there are a number of other factors at play, but that is likely a major factor as to why he is more upset at Slash than the others. The general public and the media have clung to that story.

Second, read Marc's post at the top of this page. It didn't go down the way it has been portrayed, and management had their own reasons for wanting Axl to control the name as well. In any case, it's just my opinion that Slash being the first to put that story out there may be a large cause of the resentment Axl harbors toward him, at least compared to other actions and statements that the public/fans know about.

Have you got a link to Slash's original statement?

[Guest NGOG]

I guess if I stopped promoting my work and told Axl I was wrong for doing what I do and pretended not to like the old band anymore and told him that he is right and Slash is evil, maybe we could be friends again.

I don't believe that is what Axl requires of you.

[recklessroad]

We have to be who we are and right now we are not into the same things. I don't have a problem with what he is into, he is the one that has the problem with what I do. The difference is I'm not the one who chanced. I know that he is not happy with anyone that promotes the old band but it was not enough for him to give up a good friend over it. I still support the New GNR but can not dump the old. There is plenty of room for both. As much as it hurts me where were at, I'm sure because of the way he sees things that he is also hurt.

Edited May 7, 2013 by recklessroad

[shotgunblues1978]

I have never heard it refuted by Marc or anyone. Duff says it came through a tour manager, not Axl personally which supports what Marc has just said above (nobody is saying that Axl personally came up to them and said he wasn't going on: that is a straw man argument).

Slash's original statement heavily implied (though it did not state it explicitly) that it was Axl himself who did it, and that it was right before a show. That is the story that the general public believes, and it was originally put out there by Slash. I'm guessing there are a number of other factors at play, but that is likely a major factor as to why he is more upset at Slash than the others. The general public and the media have clung to that story.

Second, read Marc's post at the top of this page. It didn't go down the way it has been portrayed, and management had their own reasons for wanting Axl to control the name as well. In any case, it's just my opinion that Slash being the first to put that story out there may be a large cause of the resentment Axl harbors toward him, at least compared to other actions and statements that the public/fans know about.

Have you got a link to Slash's original statement?

There are several different versions. Here is one from 1995, where he says Axl owns the name:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/508988/axl-rose-buys-guns-n-roses-name.jhtml

"That's something that happened," Slash said this week from his L.A. home. "I was blindsided by it, more or less a legal faux pas. I don't know what he's gonna do, as far as that goes. But I'd be lying to say I wasn't a little bit peeved at that. It'd be one thing if I quit altogether. But I haven't, and the fact that he can actually go and do that without the consent of the other members of the band ..."

However I would have to look for the one where he first mentions the backstage story.

[DieselDaisy]

That is the one I want, the backstage story. It is curious because it is not in Slash's autobiography. It is however in Duff's autobiography and Duff even provides us with a date and place when the backstage threat happened (5th July 1993, Barcelona). I want to compare Slash's version with Duff's.

[shotgunblues1978]

The court documents from the 2004 lawsuit

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?pid=54633#p54633

"On, or around September 1, 1992, Axl, Slash and Duff entered into a written partnership agreement defining the rights of the Original GNR partners, and obligations entitled "Memorandum of Agreement". [...] Among other things, the Agreement provided that Axl would own the rights to the name "Guns N' Roses" if he was expelled or voluntarily withdrew from the partnership." (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)

This Rolling Stone article about the Axl forum chats has the quote that I remember from but I haven't been able to locate the original article. Hopefully I can dig it up.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/did-axl-rose-swindle-guns-n-roses-and-steal-slashs-song-a-guide-to-roses-online-rants-20081215

"Unfortunately, we signed it," said Slash. "I didn't think he'd go on stage otherwise."

[DieselDaisy]

The interesting thing about the court documents is it provides an earlier date from Duff's.

[Babooshka]

Maybe things were said and done that haven't been made public?

I also wonder if perpetuating a public feud with Slash serves a purpose with the label wranglings too. If the powers that be got a whiff of there being a chance that he would work with Slash or get on a stage with him the way he has done with Duff and Izzy any support there is for the current line up would vanish. I think all this not in my lifetime/cancer stuff helps keep the wolves at bay.

Yes, I have thought this too. It serves him well to keep the feud going. If they were cordial with each other, the pressure to reform would be much much greater.

[Lim666]

the fact remains that it was AXL's first move to get the full control of the band name. aint that evil? imagine you being Slash....wouldnt you be upset aswell realizing when time went by and things got even more bad that Axl just could walk away with EVERYTHING? which is what he basically did by driving the others out.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Whaf If axl and beta break up one day? Would that make it easier for slash to reach axl? Assuming he wanted to that is.

[Lim666]

as sad/bad it might sound but some tragic death could make things happen aswell.

i wish they'd make peace as long as they're alive. i mean....just watch what happened with Pantera!!

[Naupis]

He works for 16 years on a record, abandoned by Slash and ridiculed in the media, only to have the release of his album probably covered in reviews going "no Slash". Can't tour guns without constant calls for reunion.

Meanwhile Slashis releasing books with more stuff making him look bad, doing Guns songs everywhere etc. starting VR.... The dude is a cancer in his life, and he hates him because he probably points to him as the main source of shit-ness in his life.

The level of hubris involved on Axl's part to think that he could use the band name and expect none of that would happen is truly unparalleled.

Everything bad you mentioned existed in Axl's life entirely through his own choosing, as he would have faced 1/100th of the resistance he has had he not decided to use the GNR band name even though he was the only one left.

He made a calculated decision that financially it was beneficial to keep using the name, even if it basically drove a stake through the heart of any hope that people would take his band seriously as anything other than Axl and the non-Slash's.

There is nothing Slash could have done after leaving the band really to make Axl's life easier as long as he insisted on calling that band GNR.

Axl has always wanted his cake and to eat it too in that he wanted all the financial benefits the GNR name brought, but also the open mind people would have had were he to have named it something else and started his own band.

That was never realistic, and instead of dealing with that up front he and his inner circle of enablers doubled down with the "woe is me, it's everyone elses fault" mentality that has him in the lurch he is still in today.

Axl actively chose to sabotage his own post Slash career through his own choices, and there is nothing Slash has said or done in that period that would have made things tangibly different for Axl and his situation.

I think when push came to shove he genuinely believed that he was the real star of the band, and that he could go on without Slash without missing a beat. Clearly it was a ludicrous idea and exposed a woeful underestimation of Slash's popularity on his part, but I think he was letting his ego make decisions in that post 96 period that if he was being honest he would love to have back.

Axl doesn't seem to understand he could have everything Slash has right now, but it would mean dumping the name and getting back to basics. Make music, tour, and stand on your own and create your own identity.

Instead of putting in that hard work to carve out his own niche, he chooses to feel sorry for himself and blame others that the public won't move on from Slash and won't give him a fair shot.

That is entirely his own choice, and he is reaping what he sowed from the decisions he has made.

Ticket sales and the GNR recording contract were ultimately more important to him than the respectability and public acceptance he would have had a much better shot at having by carving out an Ozzy type career for himself under his own name. Slash is not the one who made him choose the route he did, so he has no one to blame but himself for how his career turned out.

[machinegunner]

the fact remains that it was AXL's first move to get the full control of the band name. aint that evil? imagine you being Slash....wouldnt you be upset aswell realizing when time went by and things got even more bad that Axl just could walk away with EVERYTHING? which is what he basically did by driving the others out.

He couldn't have done a damn thing had they objected to him wanting a lot of control, like Izzy did, but no, they went along with it. One could fairly surmise that this just suited them at the time, like with so many times that Axl had to take the reigns and make decisions for the band. They were drug addicts who didn't really want to concern themselves with the responsibilities of the band's business. It was also necessary for Axl to take control because of managers like Alan Niven.

Edited May 14, 2013 by machinegunner