You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Duff Book
Everyone has the same story about the name issue, except one. The one who got it
yep
recalling the recent alan niven cr interview niven said something similar which ties in with Aussie saying about Goldstein being a cunt
While Axl claims he sought rights to the name to protect his position in the band from Niven, the former manager suggests that he was fired so that Axl could wrestle control of GN’R: “What I find interesting is that after I was fired, by his own admission, Axl took the band name as part of the Geffen renegotiation. I believe he got rid of me to do that, amongst other things. I think that he always intended to take total control. And he knew I would not stand for such a move. I could be wrong, but I rather think there you have it.
“Axl always had a problem that I made it clear that I represented the interests of all five members of the band, not just and exclusively his.”
& just ftr here's axl's side:
"So let’s start here… the whole Axl wouldn’t go on stage yada yada… is complete and utter crap.
Never happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case I would’ve have been cremated years ago legally, could’ve cleaned me out for the name and damages. It's called under duress with extenuating circumstances. In fact the time that was mentioned the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler depositions.
When Guns renegotiated our contract with Geffen I had the bit about the name added in as protection for myself as I had come up with the name and then originally started the band with it. It had more to do with management than the band as our then manager was always tryin’ to convince someone they should fire me. As I had stopped speaking with him he sensed his days were numbered and was bending any ear he could along with attempting to sell our renegotiation out for a personal payday from Geffen.
It was added to the contract and everyone signed off on it. It wasn’t hidden in fine print etc as you had to initial the section verifying you had acknowledged it.
Now at that time I didn’t know or think about brand names or corporate value etc. All I knew is that I came in with the name and from day one everyone had agreed to it being mine should we break up and now it was in writing.
I still didn’t grasp any other issues until long after I’d left and formed a new partnership which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it.
In my opinion the reality of the shift and the public embarrassment and ridicule by others (which included a lot of not so on the level business types he was associating with at the time) for not contesting the rights to the brand name, were more than Slash could openly face. Also we aren’t lawyers or formally business educated so it was just a matter of all of us being naïve and doing what we thought was right at the time. Slash was imo being on the up and up in agreeing I had the rights and I wasn’t trying to be some snake in the grass pulling a fast one. The others could’ve cared less.
But when the reality of the breakup hit and the strategy to have me crawl back was put into play Slash had to save face and get business team and public support. Painting me as the one who held a crowd hostage forcing the others to sign over the name worked out pretty well in that regard. I’m the bad guy and Duff, the fans and most importantly himself were the victims. Oh and they had actually made the sacrifice for the crowd, the people, the fans at the show. But again…. IT NEVER HAPPENED."
Re: Duff Book
"With the crowd outside already getting rowdy, the guy then implied Axl wouldn't go onstage that night unless we signed the documents."
That part is sketchy...."implied"? Maybe Doug simply tricked them himself? Maybe Axl didn't threaten that? Maybe Doug did it as a ploy to get them to sign?
Re: Duff Book
"With the crowd outside already getting rowdy, the guy then implied Axl wouldn't go onstage that night unless we signed the documents."
That part is sketchy...."implied"? Maybe Doug simply tricked them himself? Maybe Axl didn't threaten that? Maybe Doug did it as a ploy to get them to sign?
Just sayin....but I believe the overall story.
Yeah that is definitely a possibility, Axl never said it, but it doesn't mean Duff and Slash weren't told by someone, eg Goldstein that he said he wouldn't go onstage unless they signed.
Axl gets pissed at Duff and Slash accusing them of lying yet they are simply telling the truth regarding what they were told Axl said. At the same time Axl is telling the truth in that he never said it.
Re: Duff Book
Axl gets pissed at Duff and Slash accusing them of lying yet they are simply telling the truth regarding what they were told Axl said. At the same time Axl is telling the truth in that he never said it.
That seems to be what happens quite often. Axl doesn't seem to aware of that though.
Re: Duff Book
I saw Mark Canter post these comments in a similar bread at gunsnfnroses:
Also maybe it could have been better written. Maybe saying something like if Slash or Duff were to pass away that the remaining members should have control. That way they wouldn't have to deal with the wife's. That is why Duff probably said it was the lawyers. Lawyers always make things better for their own clients and due more than what was asked to. Also if you have ever tried to read one of those contracts, you will find that you almost have to be a lawyer to understand what it really says. Duff and Slash should have told Duog that we will have our lawyers take a look at it and will get back to you soon. Also Axl did not know how Doug presented those papers to Slash and Duff. That is why Axl tells a different story about this subject. I'm not even sure if Axl was aware of what all the fine print might have said in that contract. I know Axl would have been fine with Slash and Duff letting their lawyers take a look at it first. I also believe that Slash and Duff felt that if they didn't sign that their could be problems with Axl taking the stage. One thing I do know for sure, about two years ago I spoke to Doug on the phone and when I had told him that Ola Slash's mother passed away he cried and than told me to tell Slash that he was sorry for the way he handled some things back then.
And this:
I know both parties better than anyone else in the world and I'm telling you I believe all the parities are telling you the truth. I wish that it would have worked out better for everyone but the fact is by Slash and Duff signing that contract, all it did was help break up what was left of the Appetite line up and it also made it a lot harder for Axl to get new music out. Thats the short version. If they didn't sign it, they would have had to somehow work out their differences or break up. If they had to break up Axl still would have ended up with Robin and or Bucket and the other guys in 1997/98 and would have bean able to get out the new music much easer under a different name. By now there would be a least 5 times more music out from Axl. Also there would have been a much better chance of some type of reunion some day. Now there is almost no chance of that because there is already a band named Guns N' Roses out there. And Axl does have control of it and Slash would never work with Axl again unless they were both on the same level. Also Axl hates slash so much, so why would he work with him id he doesn't have to. It's just a big mess.
And this:
There is a lot of different things that held up the record and it would take a thousand words to explain and i'm not going to list the details and even then there is a lot that I don't know. One thing for sure, there was talk in 2001 of Slash playing on 3 songs with Axl for the record if Slash would apologize for some of the things he said about Axl that Axl said were not true. One of the big problems that Axl has with Slash is that he says Slash has lied about a lot of stuff. The problem is and I can't speak for everything, is some of the things that Slash has said is just Slash's point of view and if they sat in a room with a good middle man they would be able to work out about half of their problems, but I'm not so sure that all their problems would be worked out so soon.
Re: Duff Book
Aussie wrote:Axl gets pissed at Duff and Slash accusing them of lying yet they are simply telling the truth regarding what they were told Axl said. At the same time Axl is telling the truth in that he never said it.
That seems to be what happens quite often. Axl doesn't seem to aware of that though.
Yeah it's definitely a recurring theme. Reminds me of the "No Slash t-shirts allowed into the concert". I bet Axl didn't say it, I sure as hell bet someone else did and claimed it was under his direction.
Sadly he needs to cut out communicating thru middleman and other handlers because experience has shown they bull shit to him and end up causing more harm for him than good.
Re: Duff Book
Lawyers always make things better for their own clients and due more than what was asked to. Also if you have ever tried to read one of those contracts, you will find that you almost have to be a lawyer to understand what it really says. Duff and Slash should have told Duog that we will have our lawyers take a look at it and will get back to you soon. Also Axl did not know how Doug presented those papers to Slash and Duff. That is why Axl tells a different story about this subject. I'm not even sure if Axl was aware of what all the fine print might have said in that contract. I know Axl would have been fine with Slash and Duff letting their lawyers take a look at it first. I also believe that Slash and Duff felt that if they didn't sign that their could be problems with Axl taking the stage.
I know both parties better than anyone else in the world and I'm telling you I believe all the parities are telling you the truth. I wish that it would have worked out better for everyone but the fact is by Slash and Duff signing that contract, all it did was help break up what was left of the Appetite line up and it also made it a lot harder for Axl to get new music out. Thats the short version. If they didn't sign it, they would have had to somehow work out their differences or break up. If they had to break up Axl still would have ended up with Robin and or Bucket and the other guys in 1997/98 and would have bean able to get out the new music much easer under a different name. By now there would be a least 5 times more music out from Axl. Also there would have been a much better chance of some type of reunion some day.
i think that first part is as close & clear to the truth that we have.
Duff & Slash should have had their own lawyers look it over - BUT they thought Doug was their manager & that's kinda where they got screwed, which is the confrontation Duff speaks about in his book.
but they are all culpable for treating each other so poorly & by default the band & the fans.
i can't see how there was ever gonna be another way out given the personalities & strained relationships, lawyers were always gonna get a way in & divide & conquer.
as for his claim there'd have been 5 times more material from Axl i highly doubt it. i don't doubt the legal wranglings did hamper his songwriting & production & releasing music under the GnR name but there's only so long that excuse can wash - well, except for the fact Axl still finds himself with a new lawsuit or two every year.. it's nearly 20years after the fact & all we've got is one album from Axl. the litigation excuse, the treacherous sea of horrors doesn't fly anymore as reason for not producing new GnR material.
Re: Duff Book
polluxlm wrote:Aussie wrote:Axl gets pissed at Duff and Slash accusing them of lying yet they are simply telling the truth regarding what they were told Axl said. At the same time Axl is telling the truth in that he never said it.
That seems to be what happens quite often. Axl doesn't seem to aware of that though.
Yeah it's definitely a recurring theme. Reminds me of the "No Slash t-shirts allowed into the concert". I bet Axl didn't say it, I sure as hell bet someone else did and claimed it was under his direction.
Sadly he needs to cut out communicating thru middleman and other handlers because experience has shown they bull shit to him and end up causing more harm for him than good.
it is a recurring theme. it's been a problem now for over 20years.
i can't see it changing now
i would love to be wrong. i believe a lot of the beggars & hangers-on have spoiled a lot of what was good & great about this band & it's frontman & are guilty of a lot more than even that.
Re: Duff Book
That reminds me of the press release on the RiR-Lisboa cancellation/Bucket leaving.
"Last time I talked to Bucket..."
"Then, in February we got word from Brain...."
"According to those who have actually spoken with Buckethead...."
The wording just goes on to show Axl hadn't had a recent one-on-one with Bucket for some time, possibly not for several months. Whatever the truth in the situation, middlemen create a possibility for misunderstandings and Axl, prone to go from zero to one hundred in a heartbeat, would then make up his mind based on potentially faulty information.
The end result is never one to be desired.
Re: Duff Book
Everyone on this board needs to read Marc Canter's comments. He truly is an objective middleman. But, alas, you won't. You will spin things however you want to spin them. 
"I know both parties better than anyone else in the world and I'm telling you I believe all the parities are telling you the truth."
That line says it all.....
