MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[ITG]

Then go home MSL. You don't have anything to add and your narcissistic rhetoric won't be missed. Just say you won't post the rest of the document and leave. No need to dance around it. You are wasting everyone's time making up claims you can't substantiate only to move onto other claims. You already look like a fool based on what you've said several pages back. May as well give up while you're behind. You're just continuing to dig a bigger hole.

[Nick85]

This....this is getting fun...

[Mysteron]

This....this is getting fun...

It is

The post from GN'R Evo is interesting, and we have had our first deflective, defensive email from MSL (which was banned)

And the GN'R world is allowing discussion as well.

I am happy to be swayed either way to be fair.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Mysteron

[Nick85]

This....this is getting fun...

It is

The post from GN'R Evo is interesting, and we have had our first deflective, defensive email from MSL

And the GN'R world is allowing discussion as well.

I am happy to be swayed either way to be fair.

No doubt. Everything's so dramatic and "cloak and daggers" with certain individuals, you'd forget at the heart of this is a rock band that we just want to produce more fucking music.

[HubbaBubba]

And further blah, before I go to bed, older members here will know by now that all members old and new will be at least 'aware' of this story by now given the links of certain members, old and new, here.

And, given there has been no reaction officially, and also Jarmo is allowing ongoing conversation about it, I think this says more than anything written here.

It is what it is

But who made Jarmo the great giver of truth on all things gnr?

He's likely to allow anything that's pro-Axl whether he can substantiate it or not. I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't post this - he bears no responsibility for its veracity.

[Chunder Monkey]

Silly question....

But isn't it entirely possible that this agreement is not the "first" partnership agreement but a revision of the document?

That the guys might have singed a version to keep Axl on stage a month earlier, then some other changes are made to terms that arn't about the name, a new draft of the whole document is executed for convenience and they sign the follow up on the wrong date - but it's actually already after they've lost their rights previously from the prior version of the agreement.

Just a thought.

[snooze72]

I posted the full pages over at GNRevolution mainly in response to some bad info posted about management there (and because that's where the email from Goldstein and Niven was posted).

But I'm probably only going to post two pages (maybe three) as well. The rest aren't relevant. Nothing else addresses the situation under discussion.

http://www.gnrevolut...hp?id=13024&p=2

[ITG]

I posted the full pages over at GNRevolution mainly in response to some bad info posted about management there (and because that's where the email from Goldstein and Niven was posted).

But I'm probably only going to post two pages (maybe three) as well. The rest aren't relevant. Nothing else addresses the situation under discussion.

http://www.gnrevolut...hp?id=13024&p=2

Thanks for posting snooze72. Really great find all in all.

[HubbaBubba]

Snooze how did you come by your copy?

[Bobbo]

Silly question....

But isn't it entirely possible that this agreement is not the "first" partnership agreement but a revision of the document?

That the guys might have singed a version to keep Axl on stage a month earlier, then some other changes are made to terms that arn't about the name, a new draft of the whole document is executed for convenience and they sign the follow up on the wrong date - but it's actually already after they've lost their rights previously from the prior version of the agreement.

Just a thought.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Everyone's focusing on something being signed in '93 or whatever. But maybe the guys did sign some kind of legal mumble jumbo on tour, and then signed this legal shit/revised document in between legs.

No way to ever know for sure without the whole document being posted. What's stopping you MSL?

[HubbaBubba]

I posted the full pages over at GNRevolution mainly in response to some bad info posted about management there (and because that's where the email from Goldstein and Niven was posted).

But I'm probably only going to post two pages (maybe three) as well. The rest aren't relevant. Nothing else addresses the situation under discussion.

http://www.gnrevolut...hp?id=13024&p=2

Where is the mythical 1993 contract you made up?

Where's the mythical slash initial you added yourself?

[ITG]

I'm in favor of renaming this the "snooze72 discusses Guns N Roses" thread. His links to Goldstein email, the doc pics, etc is far more substantial and interesting. It's not tainted like other sources.

[Damn_Smooth]

I posted the full pages over at GNRevolution mainly in response to some bad info posted about management there (and because that's where the email from Goldstein and Niven was posted).

But I'm probably only going to post two pages (maybe three) as well. The rest aren't relevant. Nothing else addresses the situation under discussion.

http://www.gnrevolut...hp?id=13024&p=2

Where is the mythical 1993 contract you made up?

Where's the mythical slash initial you added yourself?

So you're dense enough to believe that Slash never signed away the name and that MSL was there to forge his name?

Unbelievable.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Damn_Smooth

[HubbaBubba]

Hehe. Below the belt I know. Nah, not really.

Managed to cut you off mid-sentence tho. Did your head explode??

Msl take it easy with that escrow shit!

[Damn_Smooth]

Nearly. That was a bit much.

[HubbaBubba]

I think snooze is right, it's a legal clusterfuck.

You could choose your own adventure depending on which version of the agreement you have.

[Facekicker]

I posted the full pages over at GNRevolution mainly in response to some bad info posted about management there (and because that's where the email from Goldstein and Niven was posted).

But I'm probably only going to post two pages (maybe three) as well. The rest aren't relevant. Nothing else addresses the situation under discussion.

http://www.gnrevolut...hp?id=13024&p=2

Where is the mythical 1993 contract you made up?

Where's the mythical slash initial you added yourself?

Are you willing to back up your accusation? Because we can easily have someone get the court docs from the '04 lawsuit and find out which of us is telling the truth. I think you should go do that. If I added Slash's initial, I'll give you $100,000 US.

100,000 to prove a point on a guns n roses forum Sounds legit.

How about something more realistic. Like a Burrito?

[ITG]

I'm just glad this story is not going to revolve around MSL anymore. What a relief. Now we got more of the docs posted.

[jmapelian]

All he has since done is use it for financial gain.

would it of been preferable to run it into the ground?

He did that as well unless you consider what he's done witht he band since then a good thing

[snooze72]

Where is the mythical 1993 contract you made up?

MSL, I'm not attacking you, I never have. I'm just pointing out that there is more than one version. When somebody files a copy in court, they grab a copy from their files. Its entered into evidence. Its not up to the court to determine whether it was a final copy or if the information is correct, it's up to the opposition to correct it if they think its wrong. Admin stuff isn't a strong point with this crew. I haven't looked too closely, I may have another version in my files, too. Hanging everything on the dates just isn't that valid. Sorry.

Nobody added Slash's initial, this particular version was obviously copied before he initialled that clause. Maybe he initialled it an hour later and it was copied and filed, maybe months later and it was copied and filed, who knows. Copies are constantly being made and distributed to a whole lot of involved parties. Both versions are real and valid. If you want to contact me privately and compare the date reference on the front page, the rest of amendments or whatever, I'm good with that.

[classicrawker]

I posted the full pages over at GNRevolution mainly in response to some bad info posted about management there (and because that's where the email from Goldstein and Niven was posted).

But I'm probably only going to post two pages (maybe three) as well. The rest aren't relevant. Nothing else addresses the situation under discussion.

http://www.gnrevolut...hp?id=13024&p=2

Where is the mythical 1993 contract you made up?

Where's the mythical slash initial you added yourself?

Are you willing to back up your accusation? Because we can easily have someone get the court docs from the '04 lawsuit and find out which of us is telling the truth. I think you should go do that. If I added Slash's initial, I'll give you $100,000 US.

100,000 to prove a point on a guns n roses forum Sounds legit.

How about something more realistic. Like a Burrito?

Or one of Beta's enchiladas

Being that Beta is Brazilian I would think an Empanada would be more appropriate.............

[HubbaBubba]

What a mess. So slash could've initialed the key clause at ANY time before or after signing? Then why are we picking over the dates on the last page??

[classicrawker]

What a mess. So slash could've initialed the key clause at ANY time before or after signing? Then why are we picking over the dates on the last page??

So MSL, A.K.A. the defender of the faith, can stir the shit and get attention would be my guess..............

[Kush]

Maybe MSL isn't posting the whole doc because it would greatly hurt his already weak position that Slash and Duff had intentionally lied?

I'm willing to bet that's pretty fucking close to being fact.

And AndreCC - Why not just continuously type "I am desperately trying to gain MSL's approval with the hope that it will lead to him sharing his boring remixes with me"? Sometimes the truth will set you free, bro.

Plus, is there a reason that MSL is posting this on a forum that he wants to see die? I mean, aside from the fact that only like 10 people would see it otherwise?

Edited December 6, 2013 by Kush

[wasted]

I think Axl did pretty well with CD. Theres a lot of GNR elements to the songs. Guitar parts, structure, solos, lyrics, overall attitude very GNR. Different guitar players and lack of Izzy n roll. Definitely overall has a 90s alternative feel but stillGNR. Im glad this kind of band exists. Obviously Axl could go solo and it would lose those theatrical big rock dynamics probably.

If you take 10 songs off CD you have a Latter Day Zepp disc. Add early Guns songs and you have a very good Best of GNR.