AXL ROSE says SLASH Made Unannounced Visit to his Home in October 2005

[Ant]

OK this is really messed up if it's true, and if that means no VR followup album, and now no reunion, then fuckin' A man, that sucks.

[Funeral]

Here's my badass theory:

Slash goes to Axl's house back in Oct...Agrees to drop lawsuit, etc..etc..

Both agreed to keep this meeting confidential for obvious reasons...Slash

even uses the "mutual friend heard CD" excuse..

Thus they both start saying good things about each other, etc..

Axl's waiting around for something to happen....Then walla, the leaks hit.

Was it Slash that had a copy of the demos and dropped the leaks?

Was it a test by Axl?

Within a week later, Axl seems to have lashed back out....

The latter part may be a stretch, but I am 99% certain they did meet

and want to keep it confidential.

This puzzles not that hard to figure out folks.

^^^^ this is taken from another forum HTGTH...... it kind of make sense!

could Slash be the leaker himself?

something might have pissed off Axl for saying all this!

[LoungeFly04]

This was added to the news section of Velvet Revolver's official site today:

"Velvet Revolver in the Throes of Creation [3/7/2006]

Velvet Revolver is currently writing new music for their next record. Stay tuned for more information."

Apparently even if Slash made those comments it hasn't ended the band. It's hard to say though, because that update is pretty vague. Hopefully there will be more clarification in the coming days.

[GOLDEN]

OK, *takes a deep breath* its been a very strange last 48 hours or so with this statement from Axl, and with my mind fairly clear, I thought I'd finally address a few points...

Firstly (as has been noted by a number of people before this post) the timing of this statement has to be for me the strangest part of this whole episode. Of course we're all pre-guessing what happened/whats happening(mind, you would think some of you had inside information the way some have you have responded!)

What on earth possesed Axl to release this statement in response(as far as we are currently aware) from a claim from Slash and Duff back on 24th August 2005? makes no sense to me at all I have to say.

I personally think the statement is a very clear and professional one, until that paragraph which was first left out, then wasn't, then added or something? hmm - not good either way.

Statement from August 2005:

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=49372

Axl then responded directly to this claim - and very well I might add - basically in my opinion making the legal team supporting Slash and Duff look more than a little silly by "jumping in" presuming Axl had withheld payments - which(would be easy to check) was clearly not the case in my opinion.

Axl's response from August 2005:

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=49846

The only other official statement we're aware of is the delay of the claim that Axl denied Slash and Duff royalties on music which Axl blocked (sound tracks to movies such as Black Hawk Down).

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=61440

I wonder(because I don't know) if Axl saw that as another kick in the bollocks bearing in mind this was going to be a potentially big date for Guns N' Roses - Album released/near to release? touring, etc...

Maybe on the back of that, and also Slash 'promoting' Chinese Democracy on various Radio stations and other media outlets seemingly supporting Axl(or being two faced whilst promoting his own/VR's profile - whichever stance/opinion you care to chose?).

I always thought it was rather odd Slash saying "yeah, its going to be released in March...." thinking about it, that must have really pissed off Axl no end - he has privacy agreements with his current band members and I'm sure anyone directly connected to the running/promoting of Guns N' Roses, then the very person who is suing him tells the world its due out in March.. er.. H E L L O!! would you not be fucked off!?

Then(and this is the main reason its so strange for me), Slash confirmed in two radio interviews that he was cool with Axl despite not seeing him for over 10 years, and that he supported what he's doing, blah, blah..

Axl then responds and says he wants everyone to know he loved Slash and he hadn't spoken to him in 10 years. Well, if Slash visited Axl last October, then there are both lying! so why?

In my mind there no doubt that Slash must have visited Axl(I presume if needed Axl can back this up - well, if Slash doesn't deny the visit shortly that will be enough for me anyway), so what the hell was Slash doing calling in at Axl's house at 5.30am doesn't make sense... who knows what was said, I have no reason to think Axl is lying about comments Slash made and besides they are very clear quotes. Maybe Axl never actually saw Slash - it doesn't say anywhere that he did!? maybe Beta or someone else was also there that can verify it? maybe Axl has a top of the range security system and has it recorded?(ok, a little far fetched I admit).

Over to Slash. If he does not deny visiting Axl UN-INVITED at 5.30am then I'm sorry, I find that very very odd. Wonder how his other band mates would think of this if it were true??

However that said, I find Axl's statement very disappointing - I have to say not the statement I'm sure me and the large majority of other Guns N' Roses fans wanted to hear, and the timing? well, just baffling to me...

..and then there's this bit:

"In October of 2005 Slash made an unannounced 5:30 AM visit to Axl Rose's house. Not appearing to be under the influence, Slash came to inform Axl that: 'Duff was spineless,' 'Scott [Weiland] was a fraud,' that he 'hates Matt Sorum' and that in this ongoing war, contest or whatever anyone wants to call it that Slash has waged against Axl for the better part of 20 years, that Axl has proven himself 'the stronger.' Based on his conduct in showing up at Rose's home, Axl was hopeful that Slash would live up to his pronouncements that he wanted to end the war and move on with life. Unfortunately that did not prove to be the case"

20 years, what the hell is all that about ? back to 1986, '87, '88 and that only a short time AFTER the statement refers to the past "10 years".... so which is it guys, "10" or "20" because I'm confused!

I'm hugely disappointed by this statement, both the content and the timing. The only real people who suffer is us - the long-term suffering fans! The 'extreme' Axl and Slash fans will just blindly back their superstar, and certainly moderating this forum could be interesting over the next few weeks!

It actually is very sad either way. Slash has been(and will always be in my eyes) at true musical Icon(certainly in terms of what he did whilst in GNR), and obviously I feel the same way about Axl Rose.

A terrible mess, its such a shame for the mud-flinging to start again. Next you'll hear from Slash, then maybe Duff or someone else in VR>> then back to Axl and so on.....

Personally speaking, Axl would have been best advised to leave that paragraph out, in the long term I see this as potentially doing him harm.

Anyone still reading? well done!

UK SUBS.

I read it all, and I must say...I am impressed

[lllll]

Well, the 1 thing I have noticed is the hypocritical behaviour of Slash fan-zoids.

When Slash and co make these kind of statements, attacks and sue Axl for NOTHING, then it is all ok....then Axl makes 1 statement back and immediately all hell breaks loose and it is strange behaviour?

get over yourselves, Axl is doing the right thing here, and if the things said in this statement are true, then Slash shows his true face ....which many people already know about......a backstabbing TWAT :xmasschef2:

[Rick]

OK, *takes a deep breath* its been a very strange last 48 hours or so with this statement from Axl, and with my mind fairly clear, I thought I'd finally address a few points...

Firstly (as has been noted by a number of people before this post) the timing of this statement has to be for me the strangest part of this whole episode. Of course we're all pre-guessing what happened/whats happening(mind, you would think some of you had inside information the way some have you have responded!)

What on earth possesed Axl to release this statement in response(as far as we are currently aware) from a claim from Slash and Duff back on 24th August 2005? makes no sense to me at all I have to say.

I personally think the statement is a very clear and professional one, until that paragraph which was first left out, then wasn't, then added or something? hmm - not good either way.

Statement from August 2005:

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=49372

Axl then responded directly to this claim - and very well I might add - basically in my opinion making the legal team supporting Slash and Duff look more than a little silly by "jumping in" presuming Axl had withheld payments - which(would be easy to check) was clearly not the case in my opinion.

Axl's response from August 2005:

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=49846

The only other official statement we're aware of is the delay of the claim that Axl denied Slash and Duff royalties on music which Axl blocked (sound tracks to movies such as Black Hawk Down).

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=61440

I wonder(because I don't know) if Axl saw that as another kick in the bollocks bearing in mind this was going to be a potentially big date for Guns N' Roses - Album released/near to release? touring, etc...

Maybe on the back of that, and also Slash 'promoting' Chinese Democracy on various Radio stations and other media outlets seemingly supporting Axl(or being two faced whilst promoting his own/VR's profile - whichever stance/opinion you care to chose?).

I always thought it was rather odd Slash saying "yeah, its going to be released in March...." thinking about it, that must have really pissed off Axl no end - he has privacy agreements with his current band members and I'm sure anyone directly connected to the running/promoting of Guns N' Roses, then the very person who is suing him tells the world its due out in March.. er.. H E L L O!! would you not be fucked off!?

Then(and this is the main reason its so strange for me), Slash confirmed in two radio interviews that he was cool with Axl despite not seeing him for over 10 years, and that he supported what he's doing, blah, blah..

Axl then responds and says he wants everyone to know he loved Slash and he hadn't spoken to him in 10 years. Well, if Slash visited Axl last October, then there are both lying! so why?

In my mind there no doubt that Slash must have visited Axl(I presume if needed Axl can back this up - well, if Slash doesn't deny the visit shortly that will be enough for me anyway), so what the hell was Slash doing calling in at Axl's house at 5.30am doesn't make sense... who knows what was said, I have no reason to think Axl is lying about comments Slash made and besides they are very clear quotes. Maybe Axl never actually saw Slash - it doesn't say anywhere that he did!? maybe Beta or someone else was also there that can verify it? maybe Axl has a top of the range security system and has it recorded?(ok, a little far fetched I admit).

Over to Slash. If he does not deny visiting Axl UN-INVITED at 5.30am then I'm sorry, I find that very very odd. Wonder how his other band mates would think of this if it were true??

However that said, I find Axl's statement very disappointing - I have to say not the statement I'm sure me and the large majority of other Guns N' Roses fans wanted to hear, and the timing? well, just baffling to me...

..and then there's this bit:

"In October of 2005 Slash made an unannounced 5:30 AM visit to Axl Rose's house. Not appearing to be under the influence, Slash came to inform Axl that: 'Duff was spineless,' 'Scott [Weiland] was a fraud,' that he 'hates Matt Sorum' and that in this ongoing war, contest or whatever anyone wants to call it that Slash has waged against Axl for the better part of 20 years, that Axl has proven himself 'the stronger.' Based on his conduct in showing up at Rose's home, Axl was hopeful that Slash would live up to his pronouncements that he wanted to end the war and move on with life. Unfortunately that did not prove to be the case"

20 years, what the hell is all that about ? back to 1986, '87, '88 and that only a short time AFTER the statement refers to the past "10 years".... so which is it guys, "10" or "20" because I'm confused!

I'm hugely disappointed by this statement, both the content and the timing. The only real people who suffer is us - the long-term suffering fans! The 'extreme' Axl and Slash fans will just blindly back their superstar, and certainly moderating this forum could be interesting over the next few weeks!

It actually is very sad either way. Slash has been(and will always be in my eyes) at true musical Icon(certainly in terms of what he did whilst in GNR), and obviously I feel the same way about Axl Rose.

A terrible mess, its such a shame for the mud-flinging to start again. Next you'll hear from Slash, then maybe Duff or someone else in VR>> then back to Axl and so on.....

Personally speaking, Axl would have been best advised to leave that paragraph out, in the long term I see this as potentially doing him harm.

Anyone still reading? well done!

UK SUBS.

Great post Mr. SUBS - no one else could have written that so well. I know where you're coming from on all your points and agree with them without exception. It's all very strange. I look forward to hearing from Slash.

R.

[KyleMac]

Christ people...... slash didnt say this, period, just look at the quotes... the one who said this shit is AXL himself

[Rick]

Christ people...... slash didnt say this, period, just look at the quotes... the one who said this shit is AXL himself

That's not what it says, read it:

"Slash came to inform Axl that: 'Duff was spineless,' 'Scott [Weiland] was a fraud,' that he 'hates Matt Sorum'"

R.

Edited March 8, 2006 by x_Estranged_x

[A_Sense_Of_Rage]

Christ people...... slash didnt say this, period, just look at the quotes... the one who said this shit is AXL himself

That's not what it says, read it:

"Slash came to inform Axl that: 'Duff was spineless,' 'Scott [Weiland] was a fraud,' that he 'hates Matt Sorum'"

R.

Anyone consider the possibility that neither Axl or Slash said those words? That's just as big a possibility as any other. It might explain why it seems so bizarre...

The press releases were confirmed, sure, but not by Axl and Slash. There's a very important distinction. And responses from Merck don't indicate anything beyond the normal arms length recitation of their closed door policy. No specifics were addressed, and thus what kind of credibility do we assume to have just because they have knowledge of the event? They are very careful not to verify what happened as described...

[brobot]

Slash said it to Axl latenight when he was loaded. Axl kept quiet (no surprise there). Slash was at least coherent enough to remember Axl telling him that CD would be reseased in March. Maybe Axl had a few Petron shots himself. Later on, Slash tells the press the album is coming out in March. Axl can't believe Slash blew the big surprise and is getting attention for betraying him. Axl retaliates by revealing what Slash said.

[Carne_asaDA]

This might be a possibility. Slash visiting Axhole is total bullshit. It's all a publicity stunt to promote the upcoming single I.R.S. which lyrically is based on a court case. Axhole withdrew the paragraph right before it hit business wire, so there is nothing legally Slash could do. And now it floats around as an internet rumor and nothing documented. Who gives a fuck what Merck says. Keep in mind that Merck is Axl's manager. Unlike many of you who work at Burger King where your manager is your boss. Axl is his manager's boss.

nothing but a publicity stunt.

......maybe, hopefully.

Edited March 8, 2006 by da_illest_in_402

[lllll]

This might be a possibility. Slash visiting Axhole is total bullshit. It's all a publicity stunt to promote the upcoming single I.R.S. which lyrically is based on a court case. Axhole withdrew the paragraph right before it hit business wire, so there is nothing legally Slash could do. And now it floats around as an internet rumor and nothing documented. Who gives a fuck what Merck says. Keep in mind that Merck is Axl's manager. Unlike many of you who work at Burger King where your manager is your boss. Axl is his manager's boss.

nothing but a publicity stunt.

......maybe, hopefully.

You seem very upset abut this. Drink somre milk and go to bed kiddo

[KBear]

In my mind there no doubt that Slash must have visited Axl(I presume if needed Axl can back this up - well, if Slash doesn't deny the visit shortly that will be enough for me anyway)...

It doesn't surprise me that Slash hasn't responded yet. If you were in his shoes, what would your first move be, especially if the accusations were false? Mine would not be to issue some sort of press release. My first move would be to pick up the phone and call my lawyer, discuss the situation, and then slap Axl with a slander lawsuit. I think we'll hear from Slash within ten days or so, and it'll proably be a short release of his own, letting us all know he's suing for slander.

If he does nothing then IMO the story is either pretty close to the truth or he's in on it.

And today we get all this talk of a single...apparent confirmation from various independent sources. Now if that is true, then this release obviously was designed with ulterior motives in mind.

[KBear]

Christ people...... slash didnt say this, period, just look at the quotes... the one who said this shit is AXL himself

That's not what it says, read it:

"Slash came to inform Axl that: 'Duff was spineless,' 'Scott [Weiland] was a fraud,' that he 'hates Matt Sorum'"

R.

Anyone consider the possibility that neither Axl or Slash said those words? That's just as big a possibility as any other. It might explain why it seems so bizarre...

The press releases were confirmed, sure, but not by Axl and Slash. There's a very important distinction. And responses from Merck don't indicate anything beyond the normal arms length recitation of their closed door policy. No specifics were addressed, and thus what kind of credibility do we assume to have just because they have knowledge of the event? They are very careful not to verify what happened as described...

But these are pretty serious accusations against Slash, and even if Axl wasn't really involved, he's got his fingerprints on this by way of comments made by Sactuary and his attorney. That may not be him speaking directly, but they are his mouthpiece...that's what they get paid for. If the accusations are false then Axl will have to answer to them - and I'm afraid soon is the word as Slash would surely have his legal team on the clock by now to respond to this.

Anything is possible, and I agree the release didn't get into specifics. But what was said is damaging enough. It's hard to imagine this gets out there and Axl has nothing at all to do with it. He'd have surely denied things by now I believe.

[brobot]

Maybe Slash is the source of the leaks and he just leaked the instrumental of Better in retaliation?

[aussie_axl]

Slash said it to Axl latenight when he was loaded. Axl kept quiet (no surprise there). Slash was at least coherent enough to remember Axl telling him that CD would be reseased in March. Maybe Axl had a few Petron shots himself. Later on, Slash tells the press the album is coming out in March. Axl can't believe Slash blew the big surprise and is getting attention for betraying him. Axl retaliates by revealing what Slash said.

you know what, slash might have blown the surprise for axl, axl fights fire with fire, tells the world that slash is a 2 faced son of bitch!.........not based on cold hard facts, well not that i know of

[brobot]

Heresay and speculation is good enough for me when management won't say anything.

[wasted]

I think it's time to let the music do the talking.

[Guest Apollo]

I don't disagree. Mysteon is claiming Businesswire has edited the PR, though. I have no idea why they'd do that. I just find it weird that he's insisting that Sanctuary / Merck stand by the unedited copy (the part w/ the Slash visit info intact)

-darknemus

That makes no sense; Businesswire wouldn't edit out the juiciest part of a story. That would be like reporting that the LAPD stopped Rodney King for a traffic violation but leaving out that they beat his ass, you know?

Subs, Businesswire is a reputable media outlet; whereas Blabbermouth is anything but.

Anyway, you guys do what you think is best. I just thought that we always believed reputable outlets over gossip-mongers, especially ones that continuously lie like blabbermouth.

Thanks for the note, Subs!! B)

WHAT THE FUCK?????

Are you saying that the LAPD beat up Rodney King????

[LA_0013]

It actually is very sad either way. Slash has been(and will always be in my eyes) at true musical Icon(certainly in terms of what he did whilst in GNR), and obviously I feel the same way about Axl Rose.

A terrible mess, its such a shame for the mud-flinging to start again. Next you'll hear from Slash, then maybe Duff or someone else in VR>> then back to Axl and so on.....

UK SUBS.

Great post.

Sad but true. Yet more suffering for the fans, and a real mess as far as Axl and Slash is concerned. The timing, the contradictions, the ridiculousness of it all...? WTF is going on?? Axl is now counter-suing, yet has a tour planned and a supposed album on the way (according to all the recent signals).

(**Deep down my feelings are that Slash visited Axl trying to make peace and diffuse everything that has happened,... well as far as Axl thought. However, over the past 3 months, there has been no sign at all of Slash and Duff dropping their claim despite the clear administration mix-up that happened. As a result, with the case coming ever closer we now have an extremely pissed off Axl revealing details of their meeting and sticking the knife right in.... ("Axl was hopeful that Slash would live up to his pronouncements that he wanted to end the war and move on with life. Unfortunately that did not prove to be the case......It would have been Axl's preference to resolve disputes with Slash and Duff in private".....)).

At the end of the day, the only real winners from this whole scenario will unfortunately be the lawyers..... I can't see how it will benefit either Axl or Slash. Both parties have what seems to be a super important year in front of them without lawsuits, mud-slinging and court cases.

LA

Edited March 8, 2006 by LA_0013

[Padme]

Yahoo is reporting the story.

The important parts are that Slash and Duff were not available for comment. There is no mention of Slash going to Axl's house. And the lawsuit is because Axl doesn't want VR to play old hits like Paradise City

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/...4178680000.html

[Alan Niveen]

And the lawsuit is because Axl doesn't want VR to play old hits like Paradise City

I hope VR will continue playing Paradise City !

[brobot]

GNR tribute bands play it, so why not?

[Carne_asaDA]

The headlines for that article reads: Axl "un-loads" on ex-gunners.

[Sjakalen]

GNR tribute bands play it, so why not?

Agree.