MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[Padme]

The show was very close to being cancelled

Which one?

I'm still befuddled by the July 5th '93 date that Duff picks for his book. It doesn't fit with anybody else's account or make sense in light of these documents.

The show was in Germany. I haven`t read Duff's book, I'm not sure of that reference. What exactly did he say? A lot went down after the agreement was signed as well. But I'm pretty sure it was Duff who mentioned the Germany fiasco in the first place, and Slash, the managers, etc, seemed to confirm that, tho nobody could remember the date or much else. Just the drama. I asked around because the dates didn't make much sense to me, either, but I think it was a just a pretty protracted event given the amendments, final docs, etc..

If I remember correctly Duff said they were in Barcelona at the time of the signing. He says he signed because he wanted to avoid a riot like the one in Germany. Both Slash and Duff said that besides the alledge Axl treat they signed because they never thought Axl would in fact be serious about rebuilding the band and using the name. They believed the name all by itself without the people was nothing.

[Ali]

The band's post-'91 contract doc is not that hard to find. I`ve seen it, may even have it, from memory that looks like it. From what I recall, it was being hammered out post-Izzy right through to the Nov. 1, 1992 effective date. There were amendments signed off on, the agreement would be dated Sept. 1, then Oct. 1, etc, and lord knows what before then. There also may have been a partnership deal and the Geffen contract separately, they were being negotiated at the same time, but I don`t recall the degree of separation. Whatever, it certainly wasn`t a one-day thing.

The managers weren`t lawyers or even sharp business guys, they were doing their clients` bidding. Axl had his own odd sense of reality, Slash didn't care and Duff was drunk.

There WAS a meltdown on tour, Axl was refusing to go on stage until he got his way re: the deal. The show was very close to being cancelled, I think they already had non-essentials and guests in getaway vehicles because they thought there`d be a riot. I don`t know if there was an interim agreement signed at that time or if it was the ongoing paperwork being waved around with more amendments or what, but everything was finalized by the lawyers in Oct. 92 after what was probably a year of haggling. The deal in many ways was the beginning of the end for the band.

MSL has accurate info but inaccurate conclusions.

Please don`t re-post any of this anywhere outside this thread, thanks.

At least MSL has documentation to back up his claims. You, on the other hand, are just making arbitrary claims to be fact and expecting you to be taken at your word.

Unfortunately for you/your position, the signatures are dated at a time when GN'R wasn't on tour (October 1992).

Ali

[Crash Diet]

Slash and Duff are the ones that entered this contract into evidence during the 2004 lawsuit! This is THEIR submission. So no, nobody doctored the dates. They entered this contract into evidence. It is their copy.

so you steal from them?

NGOG, Slash and Duff are the ones that entered this contract into evidence during the 2004 lawsuit! This is THEIR submission. So no, nobody doctored the dates. They entered this contract into evidence. It is their copy.

Very interesting - thanks.

I assume you lodged a freedom of information request?

I suspect these are publicly available documents, you just have to spend the time going there and shelling out fees to get it.

what? MSL said it's their copy

Edited December 2, 2013 by Crash Diet

[Ali]

Slash and Duff are the ones that entered this contract into evidence during the 2004 lawsuit! This is THEIR submission. So no, nobody doctored the dates. They entered this contract into evidence. It is their copy.

so you steal from them?

NGOG, Slash and Duff are the ones that entered this contract into evidence during the 2004 lawsuit! This is THEIR submission. So no, nobody doctored the dates. They entered this contract into evidence. It is their copy.

Very interesting - thanks.

I assume you lodged a freedom of information request?

I suspect these are publicly available documents, you just have to spend the time going there and shelling out fees to get it.

what? MSL said it's their copy

If the partnership contract was not sealed, then it doesn't need to be stolen in order to be accessed.

Ali

[Amir]

The show was very close to being cancelled

Which one?

I'm still befuddled by the July 5th '93 date that Duff picks for his book. It doesn't fit with anybody else's account or make sense in light of these documents.

The show was in Germany. I haven`t read Duff's book, I'm not sure of that reference. What exactly did he say? A lot went down after the agreement was signed as well. But I'm pretty sure it was Duff who mentioned the Germany fiasco in the first place, and Slash, the managers, etc, seemed to confirm that, tho nobody could remember the date or much else. Just the drama. I asked around because the dates didn't make much sense to me, either, but I think it was a just a pretty protracted event given the amendments, final docs, etc..

If I remember correctly Duff said they were in Barcelona at the time of the signing. He says he signed because he wanted to avoid a riot like the one in Germany. Both Slash and Duff said that besides the alledge Axl treat they signed because they never thought Axl would in fact be serious about rebuilding the band and using the name. They believed the name all by itself without the people was nothing.

Duff's book says Barcelona, 5th July 1993. Which Germany show was a riot? And I'm still confused by the 1st September 1992 date that's written down in that Slash and Duff lawsuit against Axl in '04 or '05 where they complain about him not letting them feature GNR songs in movies.

[Padme]

The show was very close to being cancelled

Which one?

I'm still befuddled by the July 5th '93 date that Duff picks for his book. It doesn't fit with anybody else's account or make sense in light of these documents.

The show was in Germany. I haven`t read Duff's book, I'm not sure of that reference. What exactly did he say? A lot went down after the agreement was signed as well. But I'm pretty sure it was Duff who mentioned the Germany fiasco in the first place, and Slash, the managers, etc, seemed to confirm that, tho nobody could remember the date or much else. Just the drama. I asked around because the dates didn't make much sense to me, either, but I think it was a just a pretty protracted event given the amendments, final docs, etc..

If I remember correctly Duff said they were in Barcelona at the time of the signing. He says he signed because he wanted to avoid a riot like the one in Germany. Both Slash and Duff said that besides the alledge Axl treat they signed because they never thought Axl would in fact be serious about rebuilding the band and using the name. They believed the name all by itself without the people was nothing.

Duff's book says Barcelona, 5th July 1993. Which Germany show was a riot? And I'm still confused by the 1st September 1992 date that's written down in that Slash and Duff lawsuit against Axl in '04 or '05 where they complain about him not letting them feature GNR songs in movies.

I think he was talking about Germany 91 when at some point Axl left the stage. And fans became too angry and they started some kind of riot. All band members went to talk to Axl and forced him to go back to stage to avoid another huge riot. Matt punched Axl or try to in order to make him go back

[grouse]

Do I really need to ask this again?

by Grouse

Could someone give me one good reason for not posting the complete document aside from him being his usual attention whoring self?

[Damn_Smooth]

Do I really need to ask this again?

by Grouse

Could someone give me one good reason for not posting the complete document aside from him being his usual attention whoring self?

So you want somebody to answer why somebody else won't do something as if they could read minds? You're going to be waiting awhile.

[rendestroi95]

What about the names? Is it legal to Have "Slash" and not "Saul Hudson" ?

And where's Izzy?

[Chunder Monkey]

To me the inconsistencies in the Slash/Duff version simply show:

1. Two guys who spent a decade out of their mind of Alcohol/Heroin can't recall dates well.

2. When giving interviews it's easier to summarise a complex situation into a soundbite.

I suspect if they were being truthful they would have said that, much like the current band experiences now, they often only see Axl at shows, that he travels independently and that all communication with him is done through a wall of his handlers.

If doug handed Slash a contract - to slash that is Axl handing him a contract - as the only way to get ANY message to Axl (and get one back) at that stage is to talk to someone like Doug.

Further in terms of duress, did Axl actually need to be backstage at ONE instance and saying he won't go on. Or does Axl's history of on-stage meltdowns, causing riots, random incidents of rage, and general dis-functionality from the creation of UYI onwards speak for itself to the band members. If someone like doug intimates Axl wants this, and he wants it like Axl wants things doesn't that speak for itself to guys who have seen Axl's darkside? Read interviews from anyone associated with the UYI tour and they all speak of the drama and the insanity of it all.

I think Slash summarised this as "Axl refused to go on" - to avoid giving the media a 10 page rant on the psychological pressure the whole band felt dealing with Axl's emotional state at the time - it may not be a specific single incident but there's little doubt the entire band felt held hostage to him. Hell - it's the very reason Axl wanted the name anyway - to protect himself from getting fired by the band WHEN he has another incident.

I'm not saying this to be anti-axl as he's an amazing musican. I just don't think it has to be so black and white as "people are liars" etc. Axl had emotional problems and did what he had to do, and Slash had drug problems and did what he had to do. Both of them were just trying to survive. However there's no doubt the band as a whole felt this kind of pressure to keep Axl happy - just as Axl probably felt pressure from them to record/tour more to keep them alive.

[saber_]

^loldamagecontrol

[ZoSoRose]

I'm sure all three of them have lied/ made things up/ have different memories, etc. It doesn't matter though, Axl was not giving them fair working conditions. They were still pushed out. I don't think he meant to but we all know he isn't the easiest to work with. They have every right to the name as he does, maybe not legally but they helped bring the band up.

Ah well, it's in the past! I support em all musically!

[snooze72]

Given the history of amendments and other docs referring to the Oct/Nov.1. '92 agreement as the final, who knows. Duff initially said Germany, I'm pretty sure of that, but it wasn't like he was looking it up, he just threw out the reference. I would think he'd look it up for the book. But they signed off on the clause in '92 at least as a statement of intent, and I'm pretty sure Geffen refers to a '92 final. Not sure why it would come up again in '93? Tho it continued being a sword Axl was holding over everyone's head, so it is possible. I didn't get the impression either Slash or Duff did much to fight it, so unlikely the arguments were still going on a year later? When I brought up the subject, I probably repeated Duff's Germany reference to the people I asked. Not sure what would have happened had I said Barcelona. Its entirely possible the earlier Germany drama was being confused with Barcelona drama. Its really just a detail. AGAIN, it was a protracted process.

Ali, I couldn't have made the suspected progression of amendments and memorandums more clear. I don't give a shit if you believe me or not.

Edited December 2, 2013 by snooze72

[jmapelian]

If you look at Slash's recollection of St. Louis 1991 in his book, it differs so significantly from what the video shows, it begs the question, how accurate are his other "recollections"? It's actually staggering how far off he is from the video.

It's easy to say when you're watching the video - yeah he was there 20+ years ago, probably drunk as hell -- sometimes time and alcohol dull your memory -- so you never went out drinking and the details of thenight totally escape you? If not your a better person than me -- but I'm guessing after that went down, slash and duff tied on a few that night

[Damn_Smooth]

If you look at Slash's recollection of St. Louis 1991 in his book, it differs so significantly from what the video shows, it begs the question, how accurate are his other "recollections"? It's actually staggering how far off he is from the video.

It's easy to say when you're watching the video - yeah he was there 20+ years ago, probably drunk as hell -- sometimes time and alcohol dull your memory -- so you never went out drinking and the details of thenight totally escape you? If not your a better person than me -- but I'm guessing after that went down, slash and duff tied on a few that night

You're guessing that people that tied one on every single night tied one on on a night during their bender? I'll do you one better. I know they tied one on. Look at me, I'm an insider too now.

[snooze72]

If you look at Slash's recollection of St. Louis 1991 in his book, it differs so significantly from what the video shows, it begs the question, how accurate are his other "recollections"? It's actually staggering how far off he is from the video.

Slash didn't even have his birth information right in that book. And yeah, Slash is both careless and self-serving about stuff like that. I don't believe much of what he says. Axl is worse because of his warped sense of reality. I've always found Duff to be careful and truthful, at least since he sobered up. But bad data in, bad data out. And a hell of a lot of grey area. The amount of paperwork generated was stunning, who knows which version of what contract got pulled out for a reference.

[jmapelian]

To me Regardless of the timing, weather it was on tour or off, or who delievered the message I'll bet it wasn't slash or duff's idea to sign the name over - it was still a dickhead move on axl's part - and he sure hasn't done anything in the last 20 years to justify his actions considering he's released 1 album over the last 20 yrs and has been touring the same album for over a dozen years -- the recollections of how it went down, or the or inaccuracies of what exactly went down really don't matter -- because the end result was slash duff and izzy all ended up quitting becausÉ of axl's deuchbag move

[cooker]

And to think most bands release music.... what a quaint idea.

[wasted]

If there was duress then they could have blocked Axl using the name.

[cooker]

If there was duress then they could have blocked Axl using the name.

Statue of limitations would come in to effect for that. I believe someone earlier said it was 4 years.

[Ali]

Given the history of amendments and other docs referring to the Oct/Nov.1. '92 agreement as the final, who knows. Duff initially said Germany, I'm pretty sure of that, but it wasn't like he was looking it up, he just threw out the reference. I would think he'd look it up for the book. But they signed off on the clause in '92 at least as a statement of intent, and I'm pretty sure Geffen refers to a '92 final. Not sure why it would come up again in '93? Tho it continued being a sword Axl was holding over everyone's head, so it is possible. I didn't get the impression either Slash or Duff did much to fight it, so unlikely the arguments were still going on a year later? When I brought up the subject, I probably repeated Duff's Germany reference to the people I asked. Not sure what would have happened had I said Barcelona. Its entirely possible the earlier Germany drama was being confused with Barcelona drama. Its really just a detail. AGAIN, it was a protracted process.

Ali, I couldn't have made the suspected progression of amendments and memorandums more clear. I don't give a shit if you believe me or not.

It doesn't matter how clear you make it, you have no documentation to support your statements. So, there is nothing to believe, ultimately. I just find it odd and a little humorous that after all the times a supposed "insider" has made claims to knowledge no one else has without any supporting documentation or evidence, it still happens.

Also, just for the sake of argument, if you're relying on asking people (as you stated yourself), you're relying on hearsay, which is inherently unreliable to begin with.

Ali

[Coma16]

If there was duress then they could have blocked Axl using the name.

Statue of limitations would come in to effect for that. I believe someone earlier said it was 4 years.

Lol Kramer

[wfuckinga]

I've got access to the account and have posted tweets from it in the UZI Suicidal thread. Warchild herself told me that's her on twitter

Edit: Typo

Then you should be banned from here

You pretend to be Izzy and now this...

fuck you

Warchild responsible for several idiotic forum wars and several people's youtube accounts get bans because of that stupid cunt

Fuck this stupid twitter stalker assholes like you and the psycho Warchild

Need a hug?

Could I have one Izzy?

[Damn_Smooth]

Yes, let's push this under the rug to discuss things that are already being discussed in other threads. Well, 2 out of 3 anyway, who gives a shit about Pittman? Like we didn't already know there would be no new music.

Great idea.

[saber_]