Did the legal subterfuge with Axl regarding the GNR name change your opinion of him?

[ITG]

One of the odd things I believe I read was that you didn't know about the whole name thing for years. It was one of the sticking points with Slash talking about Axl not going on stage thing unless Slash surrendered the rights to the band name. And Axl claimed Slash lied about it but Duff McKagan also backed up this claim. I honestly would scratch my head and how Axl could be looked at diplomatically when he was an apparent villain.

[recklessroad]

I don't think Axl ever said that he wouldn't go on stage if they didn't sign but Slash and Duff knew from things that have happened in the past for what ever reason Axl didn't go on was enough to believe that he wouldn't go on or do anything else unless he had control of the name.

Also Doug or who ever may have presented those papers to Slash and Duff could have sold it that way to them. I don't know for sure but I don't think it would have chanced the way they split their money but just that Axl would be in control of the name if needed to be. I don't even know if they were on tour at the time or not but I also think it still would not matter because they would still believe that there would be no more gigs or records with out them signing over the name.

As you probably already know Slash didn't want to sign over the name but felt it was the only way they would be able to continue on. Also Slash felt that the name wouldn't be worth anything without the people that were in the band that helped make the band famous.

I would bet that if they didn't sign it, that the band would have just broke up in 1995/1996 and no one would be able to use the name until they got back together or reach some kind of agreement.

I know how Axl thinks and even though I would not support that fact that they signed it, it doesn't change the way I feel about Axl. I know that he believes that he had to do it that way. It was not about greed Axl is not a greedy person.

[Dariablue]

Do you think Axl would have done a solo record or just taken some time off and figured out what he wanted to do with GNR going forward?

[recklessroad]

I don't think Axl ever said that he wouldn't go on stage if they didn't sign but Slash and Duff knew from things that have happened in the past for what ever reason Axl didn't go on was enough to believe that he wouldn't go on or do anything else unless he had control of the name.

Also Doug or who ever may have presented those papers to Slash and Duff could have sold it that way to them. I don't know for sure but I don't think it would have chanced the way they split their money but just that Axl would be in control of the name if needed to be. I don't even know if they were on tour at the time or not but I also think it still would not matter because they would still believe that there would be no more gigs or records with out them signing over the name.

As you probably already know Slash didn't want to sign over the name but felt it was the only way they would be able to continue on. Also Slash felt that the name wouldn't be worth anything without the people that were in the band that helped make the band famous.

I would bet that if they didn't sign it, that the band would have just broke up in 1995/1996 and no one would be able to use the name until they got back together or reach some kind of agreement.

I know how Axl thinks and even though I would not support that fact that they signed it, it doesn't change the way I feel about Axl. I know that he believes that he had to do it that way. It was not about greed Axl is not a greedy person.

I do think he would have done one if he couldn't work it out with Slash, but the fact that he didn't have to work it out because he already had the name is why it will be very hard to get them to talk again. Its not like they have to putt together to save the band.

[ohlovelyrita]

I don't think Axl ever said that he wouldn't go on stage if they didn't sign but Slash and Duff knew from things that have happened in the past for what ever reason Axl didn't go on was enough to believe that he wouldn't go on or do anything else unless he had control of the name.

Also Doug or who ever may have presented those papers to Slash and Duff could have sold it that way to them. I don't know for sure but I don't think it would have chanced the way they split their money but just that Axl would be in control of the name if needed to be. I don't even know if they were on tour at the time or not but I also think it still would not matter because they would still believe that there would be no more gigs or records with out them signing over the name.

As you probably already know Slash didn't want to sign over the name but felt it was the only way they would be able to continue on. Also Slash felt that the name wouldn't be worth anything without the people that were in the band that helped make the band famous.

I would bet that if they didn't sign it, that the band would have just broke up in 1995/1996 and no one would be able to use the name until they got back together or reach some kind of agreement.

I know how Axl thinks and even though I would not support that fact that they signed it, it doesn't change the way I feel about Axl. I know that he believes that he had to do it that way. It was not about greed Axl is not a greedy person.

I do think he would have done one if he couldn't work it out with Slash, but the fact that he didn't have to work it out because he already had the name is why it will be very hard to get them to talk again. Its not like they have to putt together to save the band.

Re: ownership of name. From what I understand, there was a real concern on Axl's part that if anyone in the band passed that their immediate family would then take over that percentage of the band. I can't imagine anything worse then to be in business with people who inherited the position. I also read separately where Slash and Duff said that they handed over the name and didn't mention being strong-armed.

I believe Slash said it in Stepping Out magazine and Duff said something in an interview -admitting he didn't care at the time- to the effect of,"We just walked away". Is it possible that Slash changed his mind and his story? Duff, too?

A solution with the name issue would be a charity with all the present and past members involved. Also, I think Axl saved the band and he deserves to stop getting flack for keeping the name.

Edited September 2, 2013 by ohlovelyrita

[Crash Diet]

Also, I think Axl saved the band and he deserves to stop getting flack for keeping the name.

I think Axl didn't deserve the name, beacuse what he' doin' since post-2000...

Edited September 2, 2013 by Crash Diet

[recklessroad]

You can't blame Axl for not getting new music out, its not his fault.

[Babooshka]

I don't think Axl ever said that he wouldn't go on stage if they didn't sign but Slash and Duff knew from things that have happened in the past for what ever reason Axl didn't go on was enough to believe that he wouldn't go on or do anything else unless he had control of the name.

Also Doug or who ever may have presented those papers to Slash and Duff could have sold it that way to them. I don't know for sure but I don't think it would have chanced the way they split their money but just that Axl would be in control of the name if needed to be. I don't even know if they were on tour at the time or not but I also think it still would not matter because they would still believe that there would be no more gigs or records with out them signing over the name.

As you probably already know Slash didn't want to sign over the name but felt it was the only way they would be able to continue on. Also Slash felt that the name wouldn't be worth anything without the people that were in the band that helped make the band famous.

I would bet that if they didn't sign it, that the band would have just broke up in 1995/1996 and no one would be able to use the name until they got back together or reach some kind of agreement.

I know how Axl thinks and even though I would not support that fact that they signed it, it doesn't change the way I feel about Axl. I know that he believes that he had to do it that way. It was not about greed Axl is not a greedy person.

I do think he would have done one if he couldn't work it out with Slash, but the fact that he didn't have to work it out because he already had the name is why it will be very hard to get them to talk again. Its not like they have to putt together to save the band.

Re: ownership of name. From what I understand, there was a real concern on Axl's part that if anyone in the band passed that their immediate family would then take over that percentage of the band. I can't imagine anything worse then to be in business with people who inherited the position. I also read separately where Slash and Duff said that they handed over the name and didn't mention being strong-armed.

I believe Slash said it in Stepping Out magazine and Duff said something in an interview -admitting he didn't care at the time- to the effect of,"We just walked away". Is it possible that Slash changed his mind and his story? Duff, too?

A solution with the name issue would be a charity with all the present and past members involved. Also, I think Axl saved the band and he deserves to stop getting flack for keeping the name.

This is such a fallacy. If that was his true concern, there are contracts that can be drawn up, that come into effect on the event of person's death. This happens in the business world all the time, there is no need for someone to grab all the rights then and there. This line of reasoning is based on some very conceited thinking. The horror, at the idea their families could inherit a portion of GNR, is very miserly. There is nothing wrong that, it is the right thing, there are established legal remedies to ensure the business can go on, while still keeping the assets in the family's hands.

I wonder who Axl intends to leave GNR to when he passes? Why is his next of kin any more deserving than Duff or Slash's?

Edited September 2, 2013 by Babooshka

[ohlovelyrita]

I don't think Axl ever said that he wouldn't go on stage if they didn't sign but Slash and Duff knew from things that have happened in the past for what ever reason Axl didn't go on was enough to believe that he wouldn't go on or do anything else unless he had control of the name.

Also Doug or who ever may have presented those papers to Slash and Duff could have sold it that way to them. I don't know for sure but I don't think it would have chanced the way they split their money but just that Axl would be in control of the name if needed to be. I don't even know if they were on tour at the time or not but I also think it still would not matter because they would still believe that there would be no more gigs or records with out them signing over the name.

As you probably already know Slash didn't want to sign over the name but felt it was the only way they would be able to continue on. Also Slash felt that the name wouldn't be worth anything without the people that were in the band that helped make the band famous.

I would bet that if they didn't sign it, that the band would have just broke up in 1995/1996 and no one would be able to use the name until they got back together or reach some kind of agreement.

I know how Axl thinks and even though I would not support that fact that they signed it, it doesn't change the way I feel about Axl. I know that he believes that he had to do it that way. It was not about greed Axl is not a greedy person.

I do think he would have done one if he couldn't work it out with Slash, but the fact that he didn't have to work it out because he already had the name is why it will be very hard to get them to talk again. Its not like they have to putt together to save the band.

Re: ownership of name. From what I understand, there was a real concern on Axl's part that if anyone in the band passed that their immediate family would then take over that percentage of the band. I can't imagine anything worse then to be in business with people who inherited the position. I also read separately where Slash and Duff said that they handed over the name and didn't mention being strong-armed.

I believe Slash said it in Stepping Out magazine and Duff said something in an interview -admitting he didn't care at the time- to the effect of,"We just walked away". Is it possible that Slash changed his mind and his story? Duff, too?

A solution with the name issue would be a charity with all the present and past members involved. Also, I think Axl saved the band and he deserves to stop getting flack for keeping the name.

This is such a fallacy. If that was his true concern, there are contracts that can be drawn up, that come into effect on the event of person's death. This happens in the business world all the time, there is no need for someone to grab all the rights then and there. This line of reasoning is based on some very conceited thinking. The horror, at the idea their families could inherit a portion of GNR, is very miserly. There is nothing wrong that, it is the right thing, there are established legal remedies to ensure the business can go on, while still keeping the assets in the family's hands.

I wonder who Axl intends to leave GNR to when he passes? Why is his next of kin any more deserving than Duff or Slash's?

I would like Marc's thoughts on this. He is friends with Slash and Duff so he might not want to say much. It does seem like those band members didn't care about the name until later and then Axl looked like the bad guy. Isn't it better for Duff and Slash that name continued instead of nothing happening?

I think is is very valid that you don't want your ex-bandmembers family members as decision makers. Look at Courtney Love!!! It also happens in the business world that people don't care about a matter at the time and later feel ripped off. Altho Axl didn't do anything wrong, he should consider those feelings of his ex-bandmembers and try to appease them to a degree.

The whole ethos of young people is not caring about this or that so I tend to believe no one was forced out and they did just walk away. It apparently didn't get that far to modify the agreement as to what rights and responsibilities a successor wold have as you suggested. Maybe that remedy was suggested or should have been.

[recklessroad]

Duff and Slash did care about the name of the band. It is something they all worked hard for. As I said before, they didn't think they had a choice. It was either sign or Axl is done. Now I know Axl never said that but thats they way they felt at the time.

Edited September 2, 2013 by recklessroad

[Lim666]

But let's not forget it was Axl's first evil move with the name. it was his pure intention to secure the name, a power-ego decision no matter how he tries to "nice-talk" it. he even later agreed "yes, i wanted power".

also to remember that in his 2008 online chats he was asked about splitting name rights with the new members and thought it was an interesting idea but said he is the one making the decisions.....wanna bet, NOONE from the new band has or will ever have rights to the name?

[dalsh327]

You can't blame Axl for not getting new music out, its not his fault.

I think the delays had to do with people working under Jimmy Iovine (even though I think Iovine did delay the album and Axl doesn't want to burn bridges with him) as well as Robin and Buckethead coming and going. Did the greatest hits lawsuit factor into the setback?

[ohlovelyrita]

Duff and Slash did care about the name of the band. It is something they all worked hard for. As I said before, they didn't think they had a choice. It was either sign or Axl is done. Now I know Axl never said that but thats they way they felt at the time.

It makes total sense that they cared about the name but I don't get why they'd say these things below if they didn't mean it. My biggest thought is the public doesn't need to get involved since the time to complain was some 17 years ago. Axl has grown the fan base so he made the right decision. I still think there is a way to make everyone happy with a non-music related project. Deep down they are connected by their art. They don't need to be close friends to be involved in some project together.

Someone explain this please:

Duff said,"What you’re saying is the public perception is that Axl went crazy, kicked everybody out of the band. Now our band is a partnership, and actually is still a partnership. So you can’t kick out your partners, to clear that up. Look man, it’s not so easy for me to say, “Yeah, we left and that’s it.”

Steppin Out: "What's your opinion of Axl Rose?

Slash: I haven't talked to him since I quit. That puts that concept to rest.

There has to be more to the story than that.

No, its pretty simple. He was heading in one direction and I was heading in another.It was actually a slow progression from the days when we first made a record all the way up to the final record. When our last tour ended, he made it clear which way he wanted to go musically. I tried to hang on and stay with the band as long as I could, but there was definatly limitations. It just got to the point where we couldnt work together anymore.

Steppin Out: How do you feel about Axl continuing to tour as Guns N' Roses?

Slash: Axl is making the call for whatever his 3 percent of the band is worth. He's making the call these days. My life was just miserable then. I couldn't deal with it. So I just left. So when he wanted to use the name Guns N' Roses I said sure, I didn't want anything to do with it."

[Lim666]

Axl has grown the fan base so he made the right decision.

well, that surely aint right since they were one of the biggest rock bands playing stadiums during UYI times but surely never have been that during CD times. and he doesnt play bigger but smaller venues these days, unless its like 1-2 shows in one country only.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Lim666

[Bards]

Duff and Slash did care about the name of the band. It is something they all worked hard for. As I said before, they didn't think they had a choice. It was either sign or Axl is done. Now I know Axl never said that but thats they way they felt at the time.

Do you believe it was Doug who put it to Slash and Duff that way? He seems quite remorseful about that period.

You can't blame Axl for not getting new music out, its not his fault.

I apologize for the loaded question, but if it's not his fault then who's is it? I'm not trying to pile on but I can't envision a set of circumstances that leads to one album release in twenty years, yet Axl Rose bears no responsibility.

[cooker]

You know. I wonder why Slash and Duff never won the case citing duress. That's why I will never totally believe Axl threatened not go onstage. He would've lost the case in a heart beat.

[ITG]

Statute of limitations in California is 4 years right now. In 1995, Axl announced he was leaving the legal entity, which would have been 2-3 years after the name was signed away through the documents. Slash and Duff and didn't sue until many years later. Even if the contract was under duress it could still stand from my understanding if the statute of limitations ran out.

[cooker]

Statute of limitations in California is 4 years right now. In 1995, Axl announced he was leaving the legal entity, which would have been 2-3 years after the name was signed away through the documents. Slash and Duff and didn't sue until many years later. Even if the contract was under duress it could still stand from my understanding if the statute of limitations ran out.

Fair enough.