Jump to content

Matt Sorum's Autobiography


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, I never figured out the spoiler thing (typing this on a phone) so proceed with caution. Here goes on NITL: - Matt and Duff are playing in South America sometime in 2015 with Hollywood Vampire

One strange thing is how Sorum was such a Casanova? He claims to have been touched-up by Stephanie Seymour. He claims Liz Taylor was wanting to shag him. He claims Naomi Campbell molested him. He appa

Let us stop being fanboys and think about a few facts on the NITL tour. Steven made a few appearances but these were not promoted or advertised beforehand. It sounds like he could have had more i

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Blackstar said:

In my opinion, Axl obviously wanted the rights to the name, and probably insisted on it and put some pressure, but I doubt the story of the blackmail before a show happened. I think Slash and Duff, in the state they were at the time, agreed to sign it over not thinking it might have any serious repercussions (and according to Tom Zutaut, the label and the lawyers themselves who drew up that contract didn't believe it would have serious repercussions either). But I wasn't there, of course, so who knows.

Also, I'm pretty sure blackmailing to sign a contract would be very easily considered as a crime and could be legally contested. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

Also, I'm pretty sure blackmailing to sign a contract would be very easily considered as a crime and could be legally contested. 

Axl said so to, when he pointed out that if this had been the case he would have been slaughtered in courts. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And  that is that. Axl and then his heirs own the name. Axl as owner of the name can do what he pleases with it. It was just not going out on tour post UYIs and prereunion as GnR, but he use it  and approve  it for anything ohhhh, like a  children's book.  I assume all band members  who wrote on all songs own that . Meaning Steven Izzy, Maty did not sell it out to Axl or The Big3. Thnx

Edited by Amaya
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Axl said so to, when he pointed out that if this had been the case he would have been slaughtered in courts. 

Hmmm... but didn't he actually use the clause after the statute of limitations passed? Which would suggest he was afraid that sth was not right in the process. It's enough that S & D could reasonably prove they were under influence of drugs/alcohol when they signed and they could go to court and as he said "slaughter him". It's just my opinion but I think Axl knew what he wanted, and wanted to get it at all cost, even if the meant going borderline.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bikka said:

Hmmm... but didn't he actually use the clause after the statute of limitations passed? Which would suggest he was afraid that sth was not right in the process. It's enough that S & D could reasonably prove they were under influence of drugs/alcohol when they signed and they could go to court and as he said "slaughter him". It's just my opinion but I think Axl knew what he wanted, and wanted to get it at all cost, even if the meant going borderline.

The "under the influence" thing could invalidate everything that band ever signed back then, including the recording agreements :lol: But, seriously, I doubt would have been so simple. Even from what is known about Steven's lawsuit case, where it was beyond doubt that he was under influence when he signed his probation contract, it doesn't seem that it was the factor that weighed the most, but rather that he didn't have his own attorney present when he signed.

From a quick look, the statute of limitations for breach of contract in California is four years. So, if that's the case, it hadn't expired when Axl made the move and used the clause. Moreover, Axl said that his lawyer was against it, fearing litigation, which suggests that the statute of limitations hadn't expired. However, Slash and Duff didn't contest it at that time:

Axl: The details are that my attorney shit when I made the move. He was very against it fearing long litigation but even then no one talked about brand names or individual interests in a brand name. I look back and have no idea why. Not my people, not his people, no one. [Forum chats, 2008]

I'm inclined to believe that Axl's use of the clause at that specific time wasn't premeditated or something he had been scheming to do since he obtained the option to keep the rights to the name if the band broke up. I think it was a decision he was led to (probably encouraged or under the advice of third parties who had personal interests in Axl taking control of the band) at that particular moment, after some events,  seeing it as a "solution" for preventing Slash from doing again stuff like leaving to tour with Snakepit.

Edited by Blackstar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Goldstein talked about Slash and Duff signing over the name in an interview from a few years back. He confirmed that this went down in Barcelona 1993 when he was back in the states for some family obligation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LunsJail said:

Doug Goldstein talked about Slash and Duff signing over the name in an interview from a few years back. He confirmed that this went down in Barcelona 1993 when he was back in the states for some family obligation.

The thing is that Goldstein hasn't been consistent in what he has said about this issue either. As far as I can remember, he didn't firmly confirm in that interview (I think it was the one with Mitch Lafon in 2015) that it happened in Barcelona. He just defended himself saying that it may have happened like Duff said, but in any case he wasn't there (he was in Hawaii because his son was born or something) and if it happened it was probably John Reese or one of the lawyers who did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blackstar said:

The thing is that Goldstein hasn't been consistent in what he has said about this issue either. As far as I can remember, he didn't firmly confirm in that interview (I think it was the one with Mitch Lafon in 2015) that it happened in Barcelona. He just defended himself saying that it may have happened like Duff said, but in any case he wasn't there (he was in Hawaii because his son was born or something) and if it happened it was probably John Reese or one of the lawyers who did it.

On the one hand, I find it unbelievable that Doug doesn’t remember exactly where/when this happened. On the other, Axl may have been firing off more bullshit demands and contracts at this point that no one could keep up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2020 at 10:08 PM, MaskingApathy said:

Marc's explanation seems to be the best one.

Which was?

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

The thing is that Goldstein hasn't been consistent in what he has said about this issue either. As far as I can remember, he didn't firmly confirm in that interview (I think it was the one with Mitch Lafon in 2015) that it happened in Barcelona. He just defended himself saying that it may have happened like Duff said, but in any case he wasn't there (he was in Hawaii because his son was born or something) and if it happened it was probably John Reese or one of the lawyers who did it.

Goldstein’s stories And recollections are on par with Prince Andrew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Holographic Universe said:

Which was?

Goldstein’s stories And recollections are on par with Prince Andrew.

 

On 11/15/2012 at 9:35 AM, recklessroad said:

I don't know that much about this. No one ever told me about this stuff until I read it in Slash's book and then again in Duff's book. I do know that Slash has been wrong with dates before and that he sometimes mixes up dates. With that much Vodka and dope that went in him in those days is probably why. Duff seams to remember things a bit clearer than Slash but he could be off a bit too. About a year ago I was talking to Duff about some of the things that Axl thinks that Slash has lied about. The signing over of the band was the topic. I explained to him what I thought may have happened with a tour manger selling that fact that Axl won't go on stage with out them signing the papers. Duff said that it was put to them that way. The only difference is who knows if it was backstage before a gig. It could have been on a off day but that doesn't change the fact that Slash and Duff believed that if they didn't sign it then Axl wouldn't go on stage when ever the next gig would be. For all we know it could have been a month before the next gig. Also Axl may have not known when those papers were presented to Slash and Duff and I already know that Axl was not aware of what management said to Slash and Duff. Axl said that he never said that he wouldn't go on if they didn't sign and I believe him. The only thing I do know is that a few years ago Doug told me to tell Slash and Duff that he was sorry for the way he handled things on their behave.

None of this really matters because I believe if Slash and Duff had not signed those papers, the band would have broken up anyways because they would have never agreed on how to make the next record.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bikka said:

Hmmm... but didn't he actually use the clause after the statute of limitations passed? Which would suggest he was afraid that sth was not right in the process. It's enough that S & D could reasonably prove they were under influence of drugs/alcohol when they signed and they could go to court and as he said "slaughter him". It's just my opinion but I think Axl knew what he wanted, and wanted to get it at all cost, even if the meant going borderline.

Not sure what you are getting at. What I think Axl said was that if he had forced Slash and Duff to sign over the rights to the name by threatening to not do a show, they could have taken him to court over that and won. It is simply not legal to force someone to do something they don't want to do by threatening with a riot, it is called "under duress". So Axl's argument is that Slash and Duff is lying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Not sure what you are getting at. What I think Axl said was that if he had forced Slash and Duff to sign over the rights to the name by threatening to not do a show, they could have taken him to court over that and won. It is simply not legal to force someone to do something they don't want to do by threatening with a riot, it is called "under duress". So Axl's argument is that Slash and Duff is lying. 

I for one have always backed Axl for keeping the name. I believed he could make an album worthy of the name. However, the names value is intertwined with Slash, Izzy, and Diff in ways that cannot be ignored. I don’t care what Axl did or didn’t do to gain control of the name. Slash and Duff admit they were both full-on junkies. Walking zombies in Izzys estimation. I seriously doubt they cared at that point. But, Axl could have stated I kept the name, but I’m fully aware the power of the name is due to the other guys, too. The biggest GNR fan on Earth is Axl. Nobody’s lives that band more than him, so I would have been broken hearted had he abandoned the name. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Holographic Universe said:

I for one have always backed Axl for keeping the name. I believed he could make an album worthy of the name. However, the names value is intertwined with Slash, Izzy, and Diff in ways that cannot be ignored. I don’t care what Axl did or didn’t do to gain control of the name. Slash and Duff admit they were both full-on junkies. Walking zombies in Izzys estimation. I seriously doubt they cared at that point. But, Axl could have stated I kept the name, but I’m fully aware the power of the name is due to the other guys, too. The biggest GNR fan on Earth is Axl. Nobody’s lives that band more than him, so I would have been broken hearted had he abandoned the name. 

I don't think Axl's ever particularly shied away from giving credit where it's due - in the sense that e.g. he's said that when he was looking for a new lead guitarist post-breakup, he was trying to replace someone who's virtually irreplaceable. If that's what you mean. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18.06.2020 at 7:52 AM, SoulMonster said:

Not sure what you are getting at. What I think Axl said was that if he had forced Slash and Duff to sign over the rights to the name by threatening to not do a show, they could have taken him to court over that and won. It is simply not legal to force someone to do something they don't want to do by threatening with a riot, it is called "under duress". So Axl's argument is that Slash and Duff is lying. 

Oh, my point was that they could do so - sue him for forcing them to sign a contract (not that I believe that is what happened) - only until the statue of limitations has passed. Most offences / crimes even can be pursued in court only within a specified time. I think someone at gnrevo (where some parts of the contract were posted) implied that Axl used the clause shortly after the statute passed (and I don't think it's the same period as for breach of contract).

My opinion on this is that both parties (Axl vs S & D) are not saints in this. The facts are that one party lost rights to a valuable trademark without getting anything as a recompensation (the contract that we have doesn't have anything about what they get in return for the name), while the other party got the rights to said trademark (possibly worth millions of $) without paying anything. Implying that it happened "just so" or "by chance" is, imo, ludicrous. Of course it was a planned action. There was a contract, they changed it (remeber, it's a foot note) in such a way that some of them lost something that was previously theirs. Noone in their right mind would give away such an asset for free, even if its value was only in the realms of possibilities. And no lawyer would let that kinda thing pass. Thus I would wager that S&D either were not in their "right mind" or they had no lawyer at their side (I think it was Duff who wrote in his book that from this point on Doug implied he was representing GNR and not Duff...) or were duped into believing it meant nothing. Either of this causes could make a good claim in court. You can't just fool someone into signing something, even if it's in small print (you can for example sue financial institutions if there are some clauses in small print that you were not made aware of when signing e.g. a mortage deal). But all this is invalid if you don't go to court within a specific time - if you let it go, it's your problem. Thus I find it quite believable that S&D fabricated that story about signing before a concert just to not look like utter fools. Because it's one thing to sign it under whatever circumstances and it's yet another to let it last after the tour ended and when they had plenty of time to reconsider. Such negligence does not make them look good, especially if, like Duff, they are tryin to look like "shrewed businessmen". On the other hand I also believe Axl when he says it happened in a different way in which he personally didn't take part. It was much safer for him not to know how Doug or whoever else got the signatures. I think he simply said what he wanted and someone got it done.

And btw, this famous clause is probably why we now get GNR children books and toy trucks - S&D probably don't have a word in this... :lol: I don't think it's a source of much income in the end.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2020 at 1:18 PM, bikka said:

Oh, my point was that they could do so - sue him for forcing them to sign a contract (not that I believe that is what happened) - only until the statue of limitations has passed. Most offences / crimes even can be pursued in court only within a specified time. I think someone at gnrevo (where some parts of the contract were posted) implied that Axl used the clause shortly after the statute passed (and I don't think it's the same period as for breach of contract).

My opinion on this is that both parties (Axl vs S & D) are not saints in this. The facts are that one party lost rights to a valuable trademark without getting anything as a recompensation (the contract that we have doesn't have anything about what they get in return for the name), while the other party got the rights to said trademark (possibly worth millions of $) without paying anything. Implying that it happened "just so" or "by chance" is, imo, ludicrous. Of course it was a planned action. There was a contract, they changed it (remeber, it's a foot note) in such a way that some of them lost something that was previously theirs. Noone in their right mind would give away such an asset for free, even if its value was only in the realms of possibilities. And no lawyer would let that kinda thing pass. Thus I would wager that S&D either were not in their "right mind" or they had no lawyer at their side (I think it was Duff who wrote in his book that from this point on Doug implied he was representing GNR and not Duff...) or were duped into believing it meant nothing. Either of this causes could make a good claim in court. You can't just fool someone into signing something, even if it's in small print (you can for example sue financial institutions if there are some clauses in small print that you were not made aware of when signing e.g. a mortage deal). But all this is invalid if you don't go to court within a specific time - if you let it go, it's your problem. Thus I find it quite believable that S&D fabricated that story about signing before a concert just to not look like utter fools. Because it's one thing to sign it under whatever circumstances and it's yet another to let it last after the tour ended and when they had plenty of time to reconsider. Such negligence does not make them look good, especially if, like Duff, they are tryin to look like "shrewed businessmen". On the other hand I also believe Axl when he says it happened in a different way in which he personally didn't take part. It was much safer for him not to know how Doug or whoever else got the signatures. I think he simply said what he wanted and someone got it done.

When I searched for information about the statute of limitations (note for other members who still might not know what it means: it's the time limit the law allows for taking legal action/suing over something, which varies depending on the violation) in California regarding signing a contract under duress, it returned me results related to contract law, according to which the statute of limitations for written contract violations in general is four years. Another result, that was about a case where someone claimed they had to pay money to someone else "under duress", said that this offence fell under "fraud" (for which the statute of limitations in California is three years) - however, that case wasn't about signing a contract, so I guess it didn't fall into the provisions of contract law. Still, supposing that it falls under fraud where the SoL is three years, it hadn't expired when Axl allegedly made the move (Aug. 31, 1995) - especially if the clause was signed in 1993, but also, marginally, if it was part of the partnership agreement that was signed in Oct. 1992. This is what I get (as well as that "under duress" is a vague concept in U.S. law) with my basic knowledge of legal concepts and from the information I could find. But I'm no law expert, even more so U.S. law expert, and I don't know if the person who posted on GNREvo that it had expired is an expert.

Here is a page summarising civil statutes of limitations in California:

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-civil-statute-of-limitations-laws.html

---------

There is this interesting quote from Tom Zutaut about the 1992 partnership agreement:

Zutaut: That whole concept [partnership agreement] was dreamed up by Peter Paterno, who's still the band's attorney. And it was written in a way where no-one ever thought the band would break up, because if the band broke up Axl would keep the name, but Axl would lose his say-so on the board of directors of original Guns N' Roses Incorporated. Peter Paterno told me he wrote it that way because he thought it would keep the band from ever breaking up, because he never believed that Axl would give up control of anything to do with Guns N' Roses and it would keep the band together. But in spite of that, the band broke up anyway. [BBC, The Most Dangerous Band In the World, 2016]

And indeed, there is another clause in the partnership agreement, on the same page with the name clause [p. 5, (f)], which stated that any "terminated" partner (i.e. one who would leave or be expelled from the partnership) would be obliged to a) sell his share of assets to the remaining partners and b) resign from all positions in the old GnR entity, without making an exception for the case the "terminated" partner owned the rights to the name. So, based on the combination of the two clauses, Axl would have the right to own the name and continue with it if he quit/was expelled from the partnership, but, at the same time, if Slash and Duff remained in the old partnership and held their shares to the entities owned by it even without owning the name (which is seemingly what happened), he would have no rights in the old partnership - in other words he would have to start from scratch with his new GnR entity.

So, maybe, Slash and Duff were convinced to sign the agreement because of that other clause as it was explained to them by the attorneys? Because, even though the name clause, in the copy that we have, is clearly added as an asterisk, it's not in fine print and it's initialed by Slash and Duff; which means that they were encouraged/prompted to pay attention to that added clause, as they were required to initial it.

Actually, that other clause (about who had rights to the assets of the old band) was the ground for Slash's and Duff's lawsuit in 2004: the claim was that, based on the partnership agreement, Axl had no say in managing the assets of the old GnR entity (in which Slash and Duff were still shareholders), including having no say in licensing music created by classic GnR or vetoing Slash and Duff from doing so. But, from what has become publicly known about the outcome of that lawsuit, neither party won. And this is where, among some other clues, I base my assumption that Axl, in the end, managed to form a new entity/band (NuGnR) without quitting the old one and giving up his rights to it.

Quote

And btw, this famous clause is probably why we now get GNR children books and toy trucks - S&D probably don't have a word in this... :lol: I don't think it's a source of much income in the end.

We don't know what the exact legal status of the band is today. What we know for sure, as there is evidence for it, is that it's a partnership of Axl, Slash and Duff. The current partnership could be a revival of the old 1992 partnership under the GnR name or a new partnership formed under different terms. If it's a revival of the 1992 partnership agreement, then they all own the name again currently (so they do have a say) with Axl having the right to maintain it if the band breaks up again.

EDIT: Moreover, it's not just about the band name, but about the classic GnR logo (which is owned by Slash and that's why Axl had do use a different logo for NuGnR). So I reckon, even if the current partnership is a new arrangement and Axl owns the name, at least Slash has a say in regards to merchandise bearing the GnR logo, like the toy trucks.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Blackstar said:

When I searched for information about the statute of limitations (note for other members who still might not know what it means: it's the time limit the law allows for taking legal action/suing over something, which varies depending on the violation) in California regarding signing a contract under duress, it returned me results related to contract law, according to which the statute of limitations for written contract violations in general is four years. Another result, that was about a case where someone claimed they had to pay money to someone else "under duress", said that this offence fell under "fraud" (for which the statute of limitations in California is three years) - however, that case wasn't about signing a contract, so I guess it didn't fall into the provisions of contract law. Still, supposing that it falls under fraud where the SoL is three years, it hadn't expired when Axl allegedly made the move (Aug. 31, 1995) - especially if the clause was signed in 1993, but also, marginally, if it was part of the partnership agreement that was signed in Oct. 1992. This is what I get (as well as that "under duress" is a vague concept in U.S. law) with my basic knowledge of legal concepts and from the information I could find. But I'm no law expert, even more so U.S. law expert, and I don't know if the person who posted on GNREvo that it had expired is an expert.

Here is a page summarising civil statutes of limitations in California:

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-civil-statute-of-limitations-laws.html

Okay, I read the post on GNREvo claiming this:

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=13024

I see the poster there also found that the statute of limitations for contracts is four years, but used it in reference not to when Axl used the clause/made the move (which was in August 1995, so before the SoL expired) but in reference to when Slash left the band (October 1996), and then made the (invalid and arbitrary, imho) assumption that Axl "fired" Slash and the timing had to do with the expiration of the SoL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/06/2020 at 12:28 PM, Blackstar said:

He discussed it at the forum chats in 2008, like @alfierose said. Not much about the details can be made out of his answers though, because he sent a long text that was compiled of his answers to various questions asked by fans without quoting the questions (that happened because he had entered the forum the previous day wanting to discuss only that subject, but some fans kept asking irrelevant questions so he was pissed off and left, and then sent his answers without the questions) and the result was that the text wasn't very coherent - plus his writing style makes it more difficult. But it's clear that he vehemently denied that he made Slash and Duff sign it under duress before a show, and said that Slash's various claims (Slash has given contradictory versions over the years) about it were lies. He also said that the thought of wanting the rights to the name signed over to him came to him because Alan Niven had suggested to the rest of the band that they should fire him (or tried to get him fired), which would take it (as an idea) as back as early 1988.

As far as I've researched, two copies of that document (partnership agreement) "leaked" (it's probably discussed in @Lio's links, too). One was a copy of the full document, which was presumably an exhibit in Slash and Duff's lawsuit in 2004 and can be found here (images of the pages and transcript):

https://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

And the other was only the page with the name clause and the last page with the dates and signatures. The respective pages of the two documents are almost identical (the content and dates are the same - there are only slight differences in the spot where the members' initials were placed).

The name clause was clearly an amendment/modification in the existing document, as it was typed over as an asterisk at the bottom of the page. So it couldn't have been added earlier. It either was added at the time the document was signed, which was in October 1992 when the band was on a tour break, or at an unknown later time on the already signed document. 

MRCxCgki_o.jpg

As you can see in the image and in the link with the transcript, the initial clause said that if any of the partners became "terminated" (i.e. if they quit or were expelled), they wouldn't have any rights to the band name. The asterisk at the bottom added the exception for Axl (i.e. if Axl quit, or was expelled, or Slash and Duff quit the partnership, he could maintain the rights to the name).

Slash gave different versions about the circumstances over the years. It should be noted that there were two different events related to that whole story: one was in 1992 the earliest, when the above document that granted Axl the right to keep the name if the band broke up was signed; the other was when Axl used that clause in 1995.

At first Slash said that he hadn't realised what he had signed in 1992 and that it was the attorneys' fault:

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. [Metal Hammer, November 1995]

Slash: That's something that happened. 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... [Addicted to Noise, January 30, 1997]

Later he would say that when he and Duff realised it (which was probably in 1994, as it was then that there was the first mention in the press about Axl owning the rights) they just let Axl have it:

Slash: When Duff and I quit, it was a question as who wants to deal with the name. And me and Duff were like, “We don’t want it. What are we gonna do with it?” you know? (chuckles) And Axl chose to keep the name and go on, and promote it as such, so... [Musikbyrån SVT, December 9, 2000]

Then he would say, seemingly about signing the original agreement, that he and Duff had signed over because they wouldn't want the name if the band broke up:

Slash: We had a revised contract stating that if the band breaks up, Axl could keep the name. Izzy and Steve were already gone, so Duff and I said, "Yeah, go ahead - we don't want it. If Guns n' Roses breaks up, what are we gonna do with the name?" [Classic Rock Revisited, July 2001]

But a little later, he said that he and Duff might contest it, and he was looking for a legal loophole to do that:

Slash: And what happened was, the guys in the band said, “If we’re not in the band, what do we need the name Guns N’ Roses for?” And so we very easily said, “Yeah, Axl, take the name. Anything, let’s just get out of our hair,” okay? […] But he chose to do it and we allowed him to do it, which at this point I think it’s come up a few times where we might contest that, because it doesn’t seem... […] People are walking around with new Guns N’ Roses jackets not knowing what Guns N’ Roses is (laughs). [The Howard Stern Show, September 7, 2001]

Slash: That's actually a topic which we're trying to get to the bottom of. Originally, the other guys in the band gave it up. Now that I know a little bit more about this stuff, I'm trying to look for a loophole [to get some control back].  [Chart Attack, September 12, 2001]

And then, in 2002, he changed the stories he had told before (that he didn't know what he had signed in 1992 or that he had agreed to it) and said that Axl had blackmailed them before a show:

Slash: Before a gig one night in ’92, [Axl] hands us a contract saying that if the band breaks up, he’s taking the name. Unfortunately, we signed it. I didn’t think he’d go on stage otherwise. [Entertainment Weekly, November 2002]

Slash continued telling the blackmail/under duress story in 2003. Then Duff said that it happened at the show in Barcelona in 1993, and that it was Doug Goldstein and John Reese (tour manager) who had blackmailed him and Slash on behalf of Axl (Goldstein had being denying it saying that he wasn't even in Barcelona when it supposedly happened, then in Mick Wall's book he said he was there, then he again said that he wasn't there).

Curiously enough, Slash didn't write anything in his book about the circumstances under which the privilege to keep the rights was signed over to Axl and jumped straight to 1995. Maybe he just didn't remember, so he chose not to say anything, knowing that it was a very sore point for Axl and not wanting to piss him off too much (but he didn't avoid that, lol).

Also oddly, Steven talked about the issue, too, and claimed that Axl had approached all the members and offered them money to buy the name (it should also be noted here that the reports in the press after Slash left were that Axl had "bought" the rights to the name, which, if true, would mean that Slash and Duff were compensated). Steven's claim could give credit to what Axl said, i.e that he was thinking about it in 1988 already. But Steven said that he was approached after he was out of the band, which doesn't make sense at all, as Steven wasn't a partner anymore then so he wouldn't have any rights to the name to sell. 

Steven: [Axl] went by person-by-person [trying to buy the name]. First I was out of the band, and I said, "I am not in the band, go ahead, give me some money." […] "Show me the money, you got it." "Show me the money, you got anything." [The Howard Stern Show, January 22, 1997]

So either Steven made it up or there was truth in what he said,  but it happened at an earlier time than he said.

------------

In my opinion, Axl obviously wanted the rights to the name, and probably insisted on it and put some pressure, but I doubt the story of the blackmail before a show happened. I think Slash and Duff, in the state they were at the time, agreed to sign it over not thinking it might have any serious repercussions (and according to Tom Zutaut, the label and the lawyers themselves who drew up that contract didn't believe it would have serious repercussions either). But I wasn't there, of course, so who knows.

Thanks for clarifying with further proof!

It seems that they didn't care much about it, because they didn't believe Axl would do something with it in the future without them being in the band, but then Axl found these new guys and started promoting a possible new album (CD) and before that "Oh My God", and suddenly they were like... "Oh Fuck! He's really gonna do it!"

Edited by Propaganda
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Lio said:

I haven't finished the book yet, but I wonder if it's shelved because of all these things. I am far more apalled/grossed out by all of that than I am shocked by his sneers towards Slash, Duff or anyone else. Seriously, I am not a loud feminist who yells ME TOO! at every corner, but all of this I find genuinely awful, and reading on here: 'He's just a guy fucking as many women as he could' as if it's some kind of feat? Ugh. He's talking about breaking in and rating exploited girls FFS. And as far as I can see, he feels quite good about it. Drawing the parallel with what's going on today, could you imagine a slave handler breaking in some slaves and a publisher publishing that book?

I have never liked Matt, but reading his book makes me find him an absolutely atrocious, despicable person. I read Duff's and Slash's books too, and I'm not saying they were/are noble men, but this is taking it a whole lot further imo.

I always wondered why Jimmy Page had a get out for jail free card.....that guy was a true piece of shit

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wonder whether the book will be published (if at all) without any revisions (censorship). I'd think Matt quoting Duff dissing Frank and Fernandon't must be the reason it's been postponed/cancelled. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Creed said:

Just read a bit about Jimmy and young girls. As said before...probably every musician slept with teens. And its not like the girls were forced to do it. They wanted to and many of them were groupies who slept with other musicians, too. There is a difference between Epstein, Wildstein, Cosby, etc and musicians. It sounds weird, but what musicians do is actually fan service.

This.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, sackxl said:

I always wondered why Jimmy Page had a get out for jail free card.....that guy was a true piece of shit

Well was it only the one girl jimmy did have was Lori, who was 14 when jimmy started dating or seeing her when the band where at the Rainbow which was mid 70s i think?.  

I think considering Led Zep were kind of UK rock royalty, or look that was,  with the other big UK bands they could get away with it.

Edited by Sydney Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...