You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
People, especially KV & Ali, are missing the point.
No, not at all. I've mentioned both reasons for Axl to fold on the invitation.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
What was your opinion of the two lawsuits Slash and Duff fired at Axl a few years back. The first alleged that Axl's current partnership and $20mil publication deal should be nullified, effectively taking the name from him. The second was an allegation of theft and fraud when ASCAP deposited funds into Axl's Black Frog publication arm by mistake.
I'll tell you my opinion:
Lawsuits trying to get back control of the band and the name were justified, at least to the extent of being worthy of having their day in court. No one held a gun to their heads - because no one needed to. Axl's public record of acting against his own interests, causing riots, refusing to perform and going on anger benders was more than enough manipulation to pressure the other members into doing his will for fear that if they didn't a protracted dispute will emerge. Slash and duff are not blameless, they are junkies, and it was stupid to think that with all the business cards in Axl's pocket that they could just go back to rocking out. Axl also isn't the devil - he needed to gain control to avoid being fired for the harm his temper tantrums do to the band - tantrums which I suspect are some kind of chemical imbalance or whatever and there for largely not under his control. In short he did what he had to do, but he did essentially blackmail the others into giving him the name then convert them from equal partners to paid employees. He didn't need a gun or to be in the room making a direct "I won't go on stage" threat to do this - his track record speaks for itself.
Think of it this way: Does Axl need to tell you to keep your hands of beta if you see them at an airport? Or will his history of violently defending her speak for itself. Same thing with the name issue. Axl's behaviour had been derailing the band for years at that stage - as had Slash and Duff's junky bullshit - I think they just basicly couldn't face the idea of another argument.
In relation to the publishing: Axl has the right to make publishing agreements for his share of the royalties, Slash and Duff have the right to maintain control of their own shares. My understanding is the law suit simply sort to rectify any confusion that Axl's agreement with the publisher related to their share as well as his own. As for the business with the theft and the royalties, yes, that was a little heavy handed, but then realistically, communicating with Axl via lawsuit is probably the only way they can get him to respond. I'm guessing that a friendly phonecal; wouldn't make it past the handlers. Axl pretty much keeps himself in noctrurnal recluse - half the time even from his own current bandmates. It's not like Slash could have phoned up to ask if the royalty thing was a mistake.
As for the house incident. Let me ask you? Did Slash get to see Axl when he came to the house? Or did he only get to say these alleged things to Beta? Sure, slash was purposely misleading about it when he first spoke to the press. But then if he had said upfront that he's never allowed to speak to Axl and it's really odd - then you'd be accusing him of running his mouth in the press.
There are countless examples of Izzy being directly rude to Axl in the press and yet it goes unpunished. It's slash who they hate.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
killingvector wrote:What was your opinion of the two lawsuits Slash and Duff fired at Axl a few years back. The first alleged that Axl's current partnership and $20mil publication deal should be nullified, effectively taking the name from him. The second was an allegation of theft and fraud when ASCAP deposited funds into Axl's Black Frog publication arm by mistake.
I'll tell you my opinion:
Lawsuits trying to get back control of the band and the name were justified, at least to the extent of being worthy of having their day in court. No one held a gun to their heads - because no one needed to. Axl's public record of acting against his own interests, causing riots, refusing to perform and going on anger benders was more than enough manipulation to pressure the other members into doing his will for fear that if they didn't a protracted dispute will emerge. Slash and duff are not blameless, they are junkies, and it was stupid to think that with all the business cards in Axl's pocket that they could just go back to rocking out. Axl also isn't the devil - he needed to gain control to avoid being fired for the harm his temper tantrums do to the band - tantrums which I suspect are some kind of chemical imbalance or whatever and there for largely not under his control. In short he did what he had to do, but he did essentially blackmail the others into giving him the name then convert them from equal partners to paid employees. He didn't need a gun or to be in the room making a direct "I won't go on stage" threat to do this - his track record speaks for itself.
The problem with this is that there was no blackmail as you say there was. It's only blackmail if Axl were to say, "sign this or else....". Duff even said nothing like that occurred. So, no ultimatum=no blackmail. There is no such thing as unspoken or implied blackmail. There has to be an overt threat, and there was none. That's an extreme twisting of the truth to call that blackmail. Even Duff isn't even sure this was an "Axl thing".
Opie & Anthony: Did he [Axl] really come to you and Slash and wanted you to sign paper before you went on stage.
Duff McKagan: No no no. I hope that part of the book is clear. In that part of our group, I don't think there was any connection between management and the band and all of that stuff. I do think people thought Slash and I were going to die. I think there were some safe guards...the point I was trying to make was our band had gotten so out of our control.
The papers were presented to us [by management].
Opie & Anthony: Do you think it was more of a management thing than from him [Axl] personally?
Duff McKagan: To this day I don't really know.
Ali
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
The one thing I don't get about the HOF is why is it Robert gets inducted with Metallica when he didn't even record a note with the band and Dio doesn't get inducted with Black Sabbath and he had a very important role with the band.
I mean, if the band is inducted, how is it that certain people are left out. I could say, if it's a band induction, induct the band. Or just induct certain musicians who are considered "part of the HOF club" or whatever the criteria is. This Axl thing really has me thinking about it, and I can say I'm more confused than ever about what the HOF is, or what it means now.
I know some of you guys hate the thought, but I could be down with Tommy going in with GN'R even if only the original 5 make the speeches. "If" that's what Axl wanted.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Lawsuits trying to get back control of the band and the name were justified, at least to the extent of being worthy of having their day in court.
They can be, but not in this case. Reading the details of the suit, Slash and Duff never claimed they were coerced into signing over the name. They produced a piece of paper (read like a cocktail napkin) in which Axl had allegedly scribbled that he quit. This was evidence that Axl left the band BEFORE they signed over the rights to him, hence he lost out on his share of the partnership and all publishing rights.
Not only was this suit based on pure silliness, the judge tossed it out without prejudice. Essentially, he challenged Duff and Slash to find better evidence that Axl left the band.
And, yes, it was extremely heavy handed AND harmful to accuse Axl of theft when ASCAP made the mistake.
Axl and Izzy have patched things up. So has Duff and Axl. Kinda makes you wonder if Axl is one conversation away from a reconciliation with Slash. I doubt it though. A liar is a liar is a liar.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
monkeychow wrote:killingvector wrote:What was your opinion of the two lawsuits Slash and Duff fired at Axl a few years back. The first alleged that Axl's current partnership and $20mil publication deal should be nullified, effectively taking the name from him. The second was an allegation of theft and fraud when ASCAP deposited funds into Axl's Black Frog publication arm by mistake.
I'll tell you my opinion:
Lawsuits trying to get back control of the band and the name were justified, at least to the extent of being worthy of having their day in court. No one held a gun to their heads - because no one needed to. Axl's public record of acting against his own interests, causing riots, refusing to perform and going on anger benders was more than enough manipulation to pressure the other members into doing his will for fear that if they didn't a protracted dispute will emerge. Slash and duff are not blameless, they are junkies, and it was stupid to think that with all the business cards in Axl's pocket that they could just go back to rocking out. Axl also isn't the devil - he needed to gain control to avoid being fired for the harm his temper tantrums do to the band - tantrums which I suspect are some kind of chemical imbalance or whatever and there for largely not under his control. In short he did what he had to do, but he did essentially blackmail the others into giving him the name then convert them from equal partners to paid employees. He didn't need a gun or to be in the room making a direct "I won't go on stage" threat to do this - his track record speaks for itself.
The problem with this is that there was no blackmail as you say there was. It's only blackmail if Axl were to say, "sign this or else....". Duff even said nothing like that occurred. So, no ultimatum=no blackmail. There is no such thing as unspoken or implied blackmail. There has to be an overt threat, and there was none. That's an extreme twisting of the truth to call that blackmail. Even Duff isn't even sure this was an "Axl thing".
Opie & Anthony: Did he [Axl] really come to you and Slash and wanted you to sign paper before you went on stage.
Duff McKagan: No no no. I hope that part of the book is clear. In that part of our group, I don't think there was any connection between management and the band and all of that stuff. I do think people thought Slash and I were going to die. I think there were some safe guards...the point I was trying to make was our band had gotten so out of our control.
The papers were presented to us [by management].
Opie & Anthony: Do you think it was more of a management thing than from him [Axl] personally?
Duff McKagan: To this day I don't really know.
Ali
There was no blackmail as Ali said. If there was, then this would have been a huge issue in court. Instead, the crux of S&D's case was a cocktail napkin. They wanted to Axl's share of the original partnership on a technicality and not based on coercion.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Ali that's just my point though.
Legally it wasn't blackmail, it wasn't duress - but Slash and Duff deserved a day in court to have a go at establishing it was. They couldn't because it didn't mean the technical requirements for that.
But ethically and in real life away from the technical definition of these laws. I believe there was substantial threat in terms of they knew the likely result if they disagreed.
It's like I don't need to receive a threat from the Mob to know not to mess with them. It's implicit from their history. Or like in those cases where a woman is abused for decades then snaps and kills her husband but it doesn't fit the legal requirement of provocation even when she was provoked.
It's the same, legally I agree with you - it wasn't blackmail.
But pragmatically, Slash and Duff just wanted to go on being a band and I don't think they realised Axl was likely to make them all paid employees and take so much control, but they did know how he's capable of responding if they reject his paperwork (more late starts, slow recordings, no showing, drama). So i think they just went with it. Stupid but understandable under that kind of situation.
I'm sure you'll disagree, as will KV and a few others, but in my world things arn't always quite as black and white, Axl doesn't need to have formally bullied them for their to be emotional and psychological forms of intimidation at work.
It's difficult for me because I love Axl's music. He's my fav of all time. But I call things as I see them, and I think the entire way he took control was self preservation for him, but ultimately is why the old band fell appart.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Legally it wasn't blackmail, it wasn't duress - but Slash and Duff deserved a day in court to have a go at establishing it was. They couldn't because it didn't mean the technical requirements for that.
The problem with your argument is that S&D never claimed in court that they were put under any duress. They wanted Axl's share of the partnership nullified b/c he allegedly quit the band in 1995. A judgement in their favor would have given S&D complete control over the old G&R catalog.
The judge threw out the claim with the signed kleenex.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
btw, here is the statement from S&D's lawyer concerning the royalty fraud:
Miskel said that only last week did they discover that Rose had notified ASCAP on or around May 26 that he was switching over the publishing from Guns N' Roses to Black Frog Music Publishing (which he owns) and Kobalt Songs Music Publishing (which is a joint venture with and handles the administration of Sanctuary's publishing). Consequently, the ASCAP check for the first quarter of 2005 — some $92,000 — went to Rose and "his accomplices" instead, the lawsuit contends.
"Rose's actions were malicious, fraudulent and oppressive, and undertaken in conscious disregard of [Slash and Duff's] property rights," the lawsuit reads. They're seeking damages for fraud, copyright infringement and breach of fiduciary duty, among other things.
LMAO. Embarrassing.
