You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
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.
I'm sorry. If you support Axl that much, you really can't call anything Slash and Duff did embarrassing. Axl is the king of embarrassing.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
It's standard in a court case to argue things in the alternative.
So the reasoning would be:
Alternative 1: The document signing the rights to axl is void because the partnership had already been dissolved.
and then in the case that the court doesn't accept that - then whatever other alternative reasons it may be void - duress etc.
Anyway, of course they didn't claim it in court - as like I said - it doesn't meet the technical requirements of duress.
However that doesn't mean that they weren't otherwise manipulated into signing it for pragmatic purposes due to their own battles with substance abuse and a long standing (even then) pattern of volatile and abusive behaviour from Axl.
I hate to take sides in this kind of thing. Sick bit is I love Chinese Democracy, great album, I'm just saying the way Axl took control of the band is way uncool.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Frankly, Axl really doesn't deserve Bumble, DJ, etc. They are good people, I really dont think Axl is that good of a person.... Sad but true.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
I say again.
Do you think Slash and Duff would have been given a civil conversation with Axl to discuss the royalty confusion? Who do you think answers that call?
This reminds me of temple of doom when people are under the black sleep of the kali...wake up 
Either Axl did make deals on their behalf without asking them (It's so unlike Axl afterall to act like he was the old band ) or it was indeed an accident....but either way - the only method of resolving it if you are Slash is to file a suit.
When he goes to a gig he's thrown out. When he goes to the house he gets to talk to beta only. Axl will not talk to slash. So how the fuck else was he going to resolve it? A lawsuit is sadly the only way to get their attention.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
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.
More than just legally, you are implying an intent in making an ethical judgement. An intent to use his reputation for intimidation purposes. That's quite problematic because as Duff himself says ". 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."
If Duff isn't even so sure where this came from or who was pushing for it so hard, how can any of us be? He was there.
Ali
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Regarding what Russ said about fandom.
For me you don't have to like everything a person does or everything about them to be a fan. In life I accept the good and bad about people.
Axl is my favourite singer/frontman/composer of all time. That doesn't mean I have to think it's great that he took control of the band or that some of the domestic violence and things he's been associated with is acceptable conduct.
I don't wish him any ill will because I see the good in him too - but I'm not going to pretend the things that are bad are ok.
Same with Slash. He's my favourite guitarist of all time. But I'm not going to pretend that I in anyway condone the level of drug and alcohol abuse that he championed for decades, and I'm raising an eyebrow about the rise of his solo band with the man that some wanted in VR (pending more info on that). I also don't damn him - he's done some great stuff.
Myself I've had moments in my life I'm proud of and moments I'm ashamed of. These guys are just human beings.
As for Axl. I am his fan. I will buy the next album. Odds are based on his track record (chinese, and old gnr before it) I'll most likely include it's numbers amongst my favourite songs.
But despite being a fan I'm not going to apologise for times he does things that are questionable. I'll support him DESPITE those things, but unlike some people I don't feel the need to justify or take his side on his decisions. He is a man who does what he does. Some of it (the music) I adore, some of it (things like the RRHOF dispiute) I don't.
Thus in my opinion you can think this whole situation is utter bullshit and still call yourself a fan.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
It's standard in a court case to argue things in the alternative.
So the reasoning would be:
Alternative 1: The document signing the rights to axl is void because the partnership had already been dissolved.
and then in the case that the court doesn't accept that - then whatever other alternative reasons it may be void - duress etc.
Anyway, of course they didn't claim it in court - as like I said - it doesn't meet the technical requirements of duress.
However that doesn't mean that they weren't otherwise manipulated into signing it for pragmatic purposes due to their own battles with substance abuse and a long standing (even then) pattern of volatile and abusive behaviour from Axl.
I hate to take sides in this kind of thing. Sick bit is I love Chinese Democracy, great album, I'm just saying the way Axl took control of the band is way uncool.
No, not technical requirements of duress. It was NOT duress by any definition I've seen.
Also, Slash and Duff could've contacted ASCAP to see if it was a clerical error. For that, they did not have to sue Axl.
Ali
