Complaints, complaints, complaints!

[Nice Boy]

Obviously at this stage they wouldn’t say “actually yeah we used Duff’s name” even if they did, because they they would be in a situation of potentially owing him money 

[Billy Cundy]

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why would he make up a lies about it? (4) 06. JANUARY-DECEMBER 1986 - GETTING SIGNED - Page 2 (a-4-d.com)

YEAH THATS MY WHOLE POINT, why would he lie!? Thanks for the link but it just reiterates his quote and my point. 

https://time.com/5310066/duff-beer-origin/?amp=true

Mike Reiss who was showrunner and staff writer on the Simpsons from day 1 has regularly refuted this. In other interviews I’ve heard Al Jean and Josh Weinstein mention they just needed a monosyllabic word like famous US beers ‘Bud’ or ‘Busch’ which makes a lot more sense. 

I think it’s hilarious that people would trust the rambling recollections of a bloke who admitted he would drink a gallon of vodka a day in his 20s, over some of the sharpest harvard educated writers/satirists the TV biz has ever seen. 
 

before you clamber to defend ‘Duff infallible Rose McKagan’, think about it.. why would Mike Reiss, an extremely intelligent man who was deeply involved with the creation from day 1, and writing of the show, lie? 

[Billy Cundy]

11 minutes ago, Nice Boy said:

Obviously at this stage they wouldn’t say “actually yeah we used Duff’s name” even if they did, because they they would be in a situation of potentially owing him money 

Duff can’t copyright his bloody name, that’s like me suing a show because there’s something in it called ‘Cundy Crisps’. It’s just a noun. It’s like Slash suing Microsoft because of what they named these / / / 

 

lunacy, absolute lunacy 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[SoulMonster]

56 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

YEAH THATS MY WHOLE POINT, why would he lie!? Thanks for the link but it just reiterates his quote and my point. 

https://time.com/5310066/duff-beer-origin/?amp=true

Mike Reiss who was showrunner and staff writer on the Simpsons from day 1 has regularly refuted this. In other interviews I’ve heard Al Jean and Josh Weinstein mention they just needed a monosyllabic word like famous US beers ‘Bud’ or ‘Busch’ which makes a lot more sense. 

I think it’s hilarious that people would trust the rambling recollections of a bloke who admitted he would drink a gallon of vodka a day in his 20s, over some of the sharpest harvard educated writers/satirists the TV biz has ever seen. 
 

before you clamber to defend ‘Duff infallible Rose McKagan’, think about it.. why would Mike Reiss, an extremely intelligent man who was deeply involved with the creation from day 1, and writing of the show, lie? 

Litigation. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Billy Cundy said:

Duff can’t copyright his bloody name, that’s like me suing a show because there’s something in it called ‘Cundy Crisps’. It’s just a noun. It’s like Slash suing Microsoft because of what they named these / / / 

 

lunacy, absolute lunacy 

Yes, USA is completely loony when it comes to lawsuits. And although a suit from Duff regarding monies earned from using his name and moniker (King of Beers) will probably not go far in the courts, it would cost the makers of Simpsons very little to avoid any litigation unpleasantness - because a lawsuit is unpleasant regardless of how frivolous it might be - by simply denying Duff's claims.

That being said, it is also not impossible that Duff's got it wrong, or that he remembers things wrongly. Maybe it wasn't the makers of soon-to-be Simpsons that called and asked for his permission, maybe no one called him at all and he just dreamt it! Of course that is a possibility. 

Btw, it's not like he only claimed it once in his biography, my site (which I have now updated with the denial from the makers of The Simpsons) contains two additional quotes from Duff about this. He is adamant he is telling the truth.

[JanPetter88]

Complain 1: The vocals. Why cant he just sing either with more power and rasp, or if thats to hard like he did in London last year. Jesus christ.

 

Complain 2: Franks drumming. Enough said.

[Billy Cundy]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, USA is completely loony when it comes to lawsuits. And although a suit from Duff regarding monies earned from using his name and moniker (King of Beers) will probably not go far in the courts, it would cost the makers of Simpsons very little to avoid any litigation unpleasantness - because a lawsuit is unpleasant regardless of how frivolous it might be - by simply denying Duff's claims.

That being said, it is also not impossible that Duff's got it wrong, or that he remembers things wrongly. Maybe it wasn't the makers of soon-to-be Simpsons that called and asked for his permission, maybe no one called him at all and he just dreamt it! Of course that is a possibility. 

Btw, it's not like he only claimed it once in his biography, my site (which I have now updated with the denial from the makers of The Simpsons) contains two additional quotes from Duff about this. He is adamant he is telling the truth.

Imagine the transience and chaos those guys existed in back in ‘89, all the phone calls, the travelling, the hoopla. Coupled by the fact even Axl has come out and said a lot of content in the autobiographies ‘just didn’t happen’ (albeit this is in reference to Slash’, but I have no doubt Duff’s grasp on what happened over the years is shaky, what with his chemicals/alcohol intake rivalling slash’).

I was only making a silly comment really about that being my main complaint, but I’m far more inclined to trust Mike Reiss - the original Simpsons creators are an immensely bright and creative bunch (and more pertinently, a far more SOBER and compos mentis bunch)… I put more stock in their account. They also seem pretty self-effacing and down to earth (check out Conan’s round table with them, it’s brilliant).. if there was credit to be given, they would just give it and admit it.

i reckon at the height of Simpson-mania, duff probably said ‘hey my names duff’ and some hanger on was like ‘dude didn’t they ring you to ask if they could use your name?’ And over many many years and diminishing McKagan brain cells, it’s become warped and the myth has taken on a life of its own. Happens to all of us. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Imagine the transience and chaos those guys existed in back in ‘89, all the phone calls, the travelling, the hoopla. Coupled by the fact even Axl has come out and said a lot of content in the autobiographies ‘just didn’t happen’ (albeit this is in reference to Slash’, but I have no doubt Duff’s grasp on what happened over the years is shaky, what with his chemicals/alcohol intake rivalling slash’).

I was only making a silly comment really about that being my main complaint, but I’m far more inclined to trust Mike Reiss - the original Simpsons creators are an immensely bright and creative bunch (and more pertinently, a far more SOBER and compos mentis bunch)… I put more stock in their account. They also seem pretty self-effacing and down to earth (check out Conan’s round table with them, it’s brilliant).. if there was credit to be given, they would just give it and admit it.

i reckon at the height of Simpson-mania, duff probably said ‘hey my names duff’ and some hanger on was like ‘dude didn’t they ring you to ask if they could use your name?’ And over many many years and diminishing McKagan brain cells, it’s become warped and the myth has taken on a life of its own. Happens to all of us. 

That's all very plausible. It is also not implausible that a production company working on what would later become The Simpsons series covered all their bases by making sure Duff agreed to them naming their beer "Duff", and that now they preemptively deny this to make sure they have a good position if, and only if, a lawsuit would come their way from a band that is well-known to be rather litigious. I actually find it slightly more odd that Duff would be wrong about this than the Simpson guys making moves to disarm a possible lawsuit, although I am absolutely not confident and both scenarios are entirely possible.

Regardless, it was good to get this info and I have updated the chapter to include the Simpson guys' refutation of Duff's claims.

 

[Billy Cundy]

32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's all very plausible. It is also not implausible that a production company working on what would later become The Simpsons series covered all their bases by making sure Duff agreed to them naming their beer "Duff", and that now they preemptively deny this to make sure they have a good position if, and only if, a lawsuit would come their way from a band that is well-known to be rather litigious. I actually find it slightly more odd that Duff would be wrong about this than the Simpson guys making moves to disarm a possible lawsuit, although I am absolutely not confident and both scenarios are entirely possible.

 

Yep potentially. I’m not equipped to comment on the potential legal ramifications of using the noun ‘duff’, or whether duff McKagan would have any legal recourse… tbh Fox is owned by Disney now, even if the creators admitted the GNR connection, they wouldn’t need to worry about duff McKagan taking them to court. Disney could just buy GNR haha. The creators saying it was more of an homage to ‘working class favourite’ beers with monosyllabic names like ‘bud’, ‘Busch’, and ‘coors’ seems far far more sensible to me.
 

The dates do not add up for me either. Duff beer debuted on Simpsons episode #1 (‘Simpsons roasting on an open fire) Dec 17, 1989. With animation taking 6 months to create a show; not to mention the teething problems of the early series, let’s say they probably started in earnest in 1988 - writing the episode etc (all written months and months in advance before production as is standard practice with animation). At that point, GNR were a popular up and coming rock band. Nothing more. Far from the icons we picture today. A few big hits sure.. but Duff wasn’t even the focal point. He was just the bass player. I just don’t know why comedic geniuses would look to a bass player in a rock band for inspiration for a single syllable. 
 

but who really knows. As I said, his word against there’s. As I’ve mentioned though, more inclined to believe the guy who didn’t brag about drinking bottles of vodka daily throughout his 20s .. and oh yeah, was writing the script for the show. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[DoMw94]

4 hours ago, Billy Cundy said:

Duff can’t copyright his bloody name

But can he? Since his name is Michael and Duff is just a stage name, couldn't he potentially trademark and/or copyright 'Duff'?

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I want GNR to come back to Dallas soon. Otherwise I'm good.

[GnR Chris]

I really do think they named the beer after Duff McKagan whether they admit to it now or not. Reiss pretending to have never heard of him is hilarious. It’s in their best interests to publicly refute it when asked.

[Tom2112]

1 hour ago, GnR Chris said:

I really do think they named the beer after Duff McKagan whether they admit to it now or not. Reiss pretending to have never heard of him is hilarious. It’s in their best interests to publicly refute it when asked.

I don't understand why there's any positive to refuting it if it's true... And as far as I know the story has been confirmed in the past not just by Duff.

I don't think to there's any legal bs that can be done by either side. It's a playful nod, nothing more. Duff was the king of beers at the time, they heard it and decided to make a side character out of the concept and called him Duff.

[Rovim]

4 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I don't understand why there's any positive to refuting it if it's true... And as far as I know the story has been confirmed in the past not just by Duff.

I don't think to there's any legal bs that can be done by either side. It's a playful nod, nothing more. Duff was the king of beers at the time, they heard it and decided to make a side character out of the concept and called him Duff.

Reiss is saying otherwise though and both versions of what happened seem possible imo so I don't think we 100% know where the Duff beer idea originated from, who's lying or just misremembering.

Duff also said he came up with It's So Easy in one of his autobiographies and that West Arkeen's input was minimal, and the extent of it was that  West just showed him an alternate guitar tuning.

Axl said in the 2006 Trunk interview that a very different version of the song already existed with lyrics and it was West who came up with it and Gn'R just reworked it almost completely so... hard to say with a guy like Duff who's memory is not the most reliable and it was a long time ago as well.

always thought it was West who came up with ISE, but now I'm not sure about that either.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Rovim

[JimiRose]

On 4/6/2023 at 6:51 PM, DoMw94 said:

Plus, personally – and on a somewhat different point – I kind of like the mystery of it all. They're not some cookie-cutter corporate entity that does things to a set, predictable timeline (insert dull setlist joke here). That mystery is fun for me, and makes the one occasion every few years when they do something big all the more interesting.

They are literally a cookie cutter corporate entity that does things to a set, predictable timeline. It was intriguing and mysterious, between 1996-2007. then CD came out an we got a great tour and a hint of a trilogy of albums. then the rock in rio disaster happens and every single year things have got drastically worse. 2016 being the exception with the reunion, acdc, brief improvement in axls vocals and band energy. 2017 continued the decline the pit the band is in today. 

GnR are the dullest most predictable and pointless nostalgia act touring today. No new album in 15 years. No interviews from axl in 7 years. That's not mystery, that's pathetic. 

[rumandraisin]

On 4/8/2023 at 12:46 PM, allwaystired said:

You can't really blame the media though for people not liking a song! 

The band did sod all promotion for it too, which doesn't help in this day and age. 

I get it but we're back to the old "why do anything new, ever, when all people want is old stuff" debate again though. 

In regards to the "refreshened" set, I didn't realise we were comparing the set now to that pre the reunion! I think that's clutching at straws really. 

This implies there was some promotion carried out, genuine question if so but what promotion was there for Absurd or HS. 

[Rovim]

12 minutes ago, rumandraisin said:

This implies there was some promotion carried out, genuine question if so but what promotion was there for Absurd or HS. 

Medusa head clip on youtube and Axl cracked some jokes on stage while introducing Absurd. Then, they went full monumental with the HS lyric video, the release of the "EP" with 2 additional live performances of don't cry and you're crazy both on CD and Vinyl. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Rovim

[allwaystired]

1 hour ago, rumandraisin said:

This implies there was some promotion carried out, genuine question if so but what promotion was there for Absurd or HS. 

Not sure how saying "the band did sod all promotion for it" implies there was some promotion carried out? 

To my mind there was indeed nothing, other than the band playing them on stage and mentioning it on twitter/Facebook etc. 

[Rovim]

1 hour ago, allwaystired said:

Not sure how saying "the band did sod all promotion for it" implies there was some promotion carried out? 

To my mind there was indeed nothing, other than the band playing them on stage and mentioning it on twitter/Facebook etc. 

the AFD and UYI box sets and the NITL tour is where the focus went when it came to promotion, but not like Axl/Gn'R actively gave it the full treatment of doing rounds on talk shows, radio, and shit like that.

Axl personally has not promoted anything Gn'R related in a long time so maybe he's fine with making money from ticket sales and not interested in doing whatever he can the "get the word out there" when it comes to the couple of tunes released.

would have been nice if they did, but the effort seems to have been minimal. 

[allwaystired]

44 minutes ago, Rovim said:

the AFD and UYI box sets and the NITL tour is where the focus went when it came to promotion, but not like Axl/Gn'R actively gave it the full treatment of doing rounds on talk shows, radio, and shit like that.

Axl personally has not promoted anything Gn'R related in a long time so maybe he's fine with making money from ticket sales and not interested in doing whatever he can the "get the word out there" when it comes to the couple of tunes released.

would have been nice if they did, but the effort seems to have been minimal. 

I don't think UYI got promoted much at all really- certainly not compared to the AFD reissue which hit loads. I think it was reflected in sales too- UYI reissue sold very poorly. 

I'm not sure how bothered I am about promotion either really. If they don't want to maximise sales, that's kind of their lookout. 

If the lack of interest in Absurd is a reason for nothing more getting released though, then that is a real shame. I seriously doubt that it is though. 

[Guest]

Just now, allwaystired said:

I don't think UYI got promoted much at all really- certainly not compared to the AFD reissue which hit loads. I think it was reflected in sales too- UYI reissue sold very poorly. 

I'm not sure how bothered I am about promotion either really. If they don't want to maximise sales, that's kind of their lookout. 

If the lack of interest in Absurd is a reason for nothing more getting released though, then that is a real shame. I seriously doubt that it is though. 

Yeah I really don't care how popular the band is in the eyes of other people, I just want the songs. I understand the argument some have that lack of sucsess leads to further material maybe not coming out.

But I still find it hard to believe that if they went to there record company and said "Hey we want to put out these songs at such and such time" that the label would say "No"

 

[DoMw94]

4 hours ago, JimiRose said:

They are literally a cookie cutter corporate entity that does things to a set, predictable timeline. It was intriguing and mysterious, between 1996-2007. then CD came out an we got a great tour and a hint of a trilogy of albums. then the rock in rio disaster happens and every single year things have got drastically worse. 2016 being the exception with the reunion, acdc, brief improvement in axls vocals and band energy. 2017 continued the decline the pit the band is in today. 

GnR are the dullest most predictable and pointless nostalgia act touring today. No new album in 15 years. No interviews from axl in 7 years. That's not mystery, that's pathetic. 

A routine of album, talk show appearance(s), tour, break, album, talk show appearance(s), tour... would make them a predictable corporate entity.

We have no idea what they're doing or when they're doing it, unluke almost every other major act today. No interviews? That keeps us guessing. Absurd, who saw that coming? The will there/won't there be on a new album, Glastonbury came a bit out of nowhere, as did Slash and Duff's return really...

So many bands/acts are rinse and repeat. Yes, GN'R tour endlessly and that's somewhat tedious, but as for anything else, we never know what's really going on.

Mind you, they could release an album every two years and do regular interviews and the 'fanbase' would still find something to moan about 😂

Edited April 10, 2023 by DoMw94

[Rovim]

32 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

I don't think UYI got promoted much at all really- certainly not compared to the AFD reissue which hit loads. I think it was reflected in sales too- UYI reissue sold very poorly. 

I'm not sure how bothered I am about promotion either really. If they don't want to maximise sales, that's kind of their lookout. 

If the lack of interest in Absurd is a reason for nothing more getting released though, then that is a real shame. I seriously doubt that it is though. 

yeah I guess I meant that I think whenever it's a classic era product, it gets talked about more by the band, but both box sets sold poorly. Like I said, it would have been nice if we got the classic promotion treatment, more for the potential cool shit that interviews could have led to and less to do with how much more money the band could have made from it.

there was some cool stuff in both box sets imo, and at least they're releasing some products, but even the latest 6 song London ep leaves much to be desired, it could have easily been the full show as far as I know, but I guess it's still something.

about the Absurd reception: I think with Axl you never know why he's not consistent with his actions when it comes to releases.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Rovim

[allwaystired]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

yeah I guess I meant that I think whenever it's a classic era product, it gets talked about more by the band, but both box sets sold poorly. Like I said, it would have been nice if we got the classic promotion treatment, more for the potential cool shit that interviews could have led to and less to do with how much more money the band could have made from it.

there was some cool stuff in both box sets imo, and at least they're releasing some products, but even the latest 6 song London ep leaves much to be desired, it could have easily been the full show as far as I know, but I guess it's still something.

about the Absurd reception: I think with Axl you never know why he's not consistent with his actions when it comes to releases.

Yeah the boxsets had some cool stuff on them for sure, but really suffered from not paying attention to what fans wanted and being over-priced. I'm fairly sure any regular user of this board could sit down and create a better box set for both albums based on stuff we know to exist alone. 

1 hour ago, Shacklermyrye said:

Yeah I really don't care how popular the band is in the eyes of other people, I just want the songs. I understand the argument some have that lack of sucsess leads to further material maybe not coming out.

But I still find it hard to believe that if they went to there record company and said "Hey we want to put out these songs at such and such time" that the label would say "No"

 

Oh there's no chance any label in the land wouldn't want a new GNR album. Literally any label would bite their hands off to release it. 

[Blackstar]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:58 PM, DoMw94 said:

But can he? Since his name is Michael and Duff is just a stage name, couldn't he potentially trademark and/or copyright 'Duff'?

Duff has trademarked his stage name ("Duff McKagan"). So have Slash and (more recently) Axl.