You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
I found this part from that interview interesting too, for those who say he doesn't want Loaded to be bigger than an opening slot band (in regards to Loaded recording their debut album)
We’re gonna choose the best label and go on tour throughout the world. We want to be a big band.
mate there's degrees to this - if you're opening for a band of GnR's stature chances are you're already an established 'big' band. it's not like they're opening band for Joe & The Jerkoffs @ The Speakeasy. a lot of big bands, bigger than Loaded, have opened for GnR.
hell in 06 Guns were meant to be the support band for The Stones - or what about '89 when they did open 4 them, did that make GnR a bunch of small time charlies?
i really don't think Duff had any intentions r ambition for Loaded to become a 'massive' big band like U2 REM The Stones GnR. theyre successful & can carry their own tour, but would be stupid to turn down a support slot off a bigger band & the exposure that comes w/that.
u can be a successful, big band & still play support slots. the two aren't mutually exclusive.
like i said b4, IF Duff was still in GnR i'd have wanted them to open for Guns.
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
You know, other people feel the same: they just can't believe that someone in the caliber of Duff McKagan would open for a Guns N' Roses with DJ Ashba, Richard Fortus, Frank Ferrer or anyone who is not an original member.
I do know that, but obviously Duff doesn't feel that way, and that's all that really matters. People tend to take these things too seriously. It's just a rock show, everyone's out to have a good time. Why over analyze it to death? I think Duff is smart enough to know that this isn't HIS Guns N' Roses, but Axl's. He looks back fondly on his time in GNR, but that was a long time ago. He's moved on, as has Axl. They've reconciled. I really don't see the big deal here.
- Mikkamakka
- Rep: 217
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
Well, if you were a founder of a huge company, but later you lost control and decided to leave the ship, said nasty things about your ex-partner and even sued him, then you just don't go there with your tiny new company to get a few bucks for a few days, for old time's sake. Even if you once had a drink since then. (Axl's case is different - with Duff opening for him, he can celebrate that 'he is the stronger'.)
This situation is a victory itself for Axl, but I'm sure that Duff has hidden plans. Be it getting publicity, taking a dig at Slash, or trying to build a bridge between the two icons. It's not two old buddies meet again and have a great time, believe me.
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
Again, I think Duff is over the fact that his days in GNR are over. He has moved on, we all have. THIS version of Guns N' Roses really has nothing to do with Duff. Yes they're playing songs he had a hand in writing, but he likes the guys in the band so I don't think he has a problem with it. I don't really see the ulterior motive/conspiracy theory here. Axl asked Duff if he'd open for him for 2 dates in his hometown/area. I doubt this is going to take Loaded to new heights. I hope they're able to smooth the Slash issue out, but I really don't see that as the REASON Duff agreed to this either. I don't see why it can't be two old buddies getting together to have a good time. Not everything has to be so calculated.
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
saw this at the Velvet Rope yesterday...it's from an industry insider/band manager who is very knowledgeable of the Gnr situation...my two cents, Axl and Duff's stories match up. The only thing that doesn't is Axl saying he would cancel the show/tour if they didn't sign over the name. Personally, I don't think Axl did that. I think Doug Goldstein did that on his own....anyhow, good stuff.
"Thanks for posting that.
I'd add, because of the way the kooky editor slanted the video with his own interpretations and suggested conclusions, it is far from exact.
A better scrutiny of what was presented shows that NONE of the material presented contradicts Axl's version.
Let's start with the timing issue.
* The Niven reports do not specifically address the timing of the name rights transfer. His contention that it was the "first thing Axl did" "after I was fired" is hollow and vague, and leaves a load of unanswered questions.
Slash doesn't address timing with any concrete insight - quite vaguely leaving it at, in the "the 90s" and "give me the name or we're not going to finish the tour".
That leaves Axl and Duff, both who did address timing issues with relation to more specific events.
And what does Duff say? He says it was at a point with 5 Europe shows left.
Which would be consistent with Axl saying it was (a) in Europe and (b) during a time when lawyers were on tour because of Adler depositions.
And how does that stack up?
The European tour was after Adler filed suit, and while not knowing the discovery schedule, you can almost be sure there was some activity that the lawyers needed to meet with the band to discuss, and catching them on a tour schedule, while far from ideal, beats trying to catch them once they return home and scatter to the four winds.
Especially these druggies.
The timing of Niven's termination
Just because Niven was fired, it does not negate that Axl was already persuaded he needed to act to secure rights to the band name. Anyone (other than the person who created the video here) can easily see that Axl was getting his ducks in a row as he sensed a possible mutiny against him. Recall his concerns that he'd be the one who was fired before he had the band name rights secured. So the timing of first getting rid of Niven, then asking the 4 others to declare Axl had the right to control use of the name, makes a lot of sense. Had Niven still been the manager, he might have helped the other members resist Axl's efforts here.
The duress issue
It is often a sign of bullshit talking when someone says, "I signed an agreement, which I REGRETTED RIGHT AWAY, under duress of avoiding a riot", then never does anything to address his feeling of victimization except put it in his biography or book.
Either Duff did not feel confident that he could prove duress, or he felt a successful duress claim would not advantage him, so he let it go.
Either way, his version when coupled with his own actions, amounts to the equivalent of bullshit."
Yep
I've felt the same way since the beginning, actually leaning to giving Niven more credibility, but mainly Axl's.
The bottom line -- Axl's story lines up and makes sense. He also didn't spend years running around telling different versions of it.
Slash & Duff's story, as well as Izzy's have been wildly inconsistent, have swayed greatly from moment to moment, and where there's smoke there's fire.
The only chink with Axl's is I think he correlated the agreement being made in the new band deal that Niven scored them in 1990, while Duff said it was a Doug Goldstein move in 1993. Which would lean to make more sense, because by late 1995, was when Axl who had the namesake ownership, left the band agreement that had been created and took the name with him to his new arrangement, and they were "welcome to join him". Basically as contract players in their own band.
I don't think Axl did anything to slight them. I think Axl was proposed an idea by a snake (Doug) that "any of them could die at any moment! You have to protect YOUR investment and YOUR future! Axl, we know you love them, but you have to protect yourself too!"
And so Doug played both sides against each other, Axl was basically told they were "glad to sign it, and all is well", and the others were told "I don't want to do this, but Axl made me, he's out of control guys"
And the whole thing got lost in translation that easily. THAT easily, the greatest rock band of the last quarter century, got broke up over bullshit like that.
Like I said... Terminator back in time to make sure Doug Goldstein doesn't make it past 1988, all is solved.
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
Well, if you were a founder of a huge company, but later you lost control and decided to leave the ship, said nasty things about your ex-partner and even sued him, then you just don't go there with your tiny new company to get a few bucks for a few days, for old time's sake. Even if you once had a drink since then. (Axl's case is different - with Duff opening for him, he can celebrate that 'he is the stronger'.)
This situation is a victory itself for Axl, but I'm sure that Duff has hidden plans. Be it getting publicity, taking a dig at Slash, or trying to build a bridge between the two icons. It's not two old buddies meet again and have a great time, believe me.
well thanks 4 explaining where ur coming from & i concede you MAY have a point (or 2).. BUT - Duff has shares in Microsoft/Starbucks fuck knows what else, at this stage Guns is relatively small fry in his concerns, i'm guessing. i don't see him as being bitter about his ex-partner. hell i've had rows w/mates i used to love like a brother & after a while we pqtched things up & we able to be civil & friends again. obv not on the financial/successful scale as Guns but when there's a genuine bond time can heal..
as to his & axl's motivations again i think you do present interesting theories. BUT, FOR ME i'm prepared to wait & analysis inthe aftermath & take the gesture on face-value & goodwill. maybe that's foolish of me, maybe it's cynical what you've put forth, we'll soon see.....
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
I also think it's a great opportunity for Loaded, so why should they pass that up? I haven't followed them too closely, but I figure they don't get to play arenas very often. Obviously money is a factor, it always is. They're not going to play for free, but I don't see it as a cold hearted cash grab and nothing else.
Re: It's Official: DUFF'S LOADED To Open For GUNS N' ROSES
Mikkamakka wrote:Well, if you were a founder of a huge company, but later you lost control and decided to leave the ship, said nasty things about your ex-partner and even sued him, then you just don't go there with your tiny new company to get a few bucks for a few days, for old time's sake. Even if you once had a drink since then. (Axl's case is different - with Duff opening for him, he can celebrate that 'he is the stronger'.)
This situation is a victory itself for Axl, but I'm sure that Duff has hidden plans. Be it getting publicity, taking a dig at Slash, or trying to build a bridge between the two icons. It's not two old buddies meet again and have a great time, believe me.
well thanks 4 explaining where ur coming from & i concede you MAY have a point (or 2).. BUT - Duff has shares in Microsoft/Starbucks fuck knows what else, at this stage Guns is relatively small fry in his concerns, i'm guessing. i don't see him as being bitter about his ex-partner. hell i've had rows w/mates i used to love like a brother & after a while we pqtched things up & we able to be civil & friends again. obv not on the financial/successful scale as Guns but when there's a genuine bond time can heal..
as to his & axl's motivations again i think you do present interesting theories. BUT, FOR ME i'm prepared to wait & analysis inthe aftermath & take the gesture on face-value & goodwill. maybe that's foolish of me, maybe it's cynical what you've put forth, we'll soon see.....
There might be a point in what you both are saying, but don't make this out to be a reflection of world politics. This is music. There is a business side involved, but guys like Duff and Axl are just guys playing music. If they wanna do something, it doesn't have to be more than what it is. There doesn't have to be a bigger plan or a conspiracy involved. People take music so fucking serious, like some sort of religion. I despise religion. Just loosen up those shoulders and look at it as a fun day out with Axl and Duff. It doesn't have to mean anything more than what it represents on stage.
