You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
Tejas is right.
Axl didn't really fight for the band name to do something with it, because there was never really a post-GN'R court battle for the name, unlike other late 80's rock acts in LA.
Regardless of which story you believe on how Axl acquired the rights to the band name, I tend to believe Axl's 1990 re-negotiation story.
And here's why...
Axl already knew that Alan Niven had "suggested" to Slash & Duff that had they ever wanted to fire Axl, Niven would back them.
Funny, the re-negotiation happens, Axl gets his name, and then Niven gets fired. A page right out of 'ol JR's playbook.
As Tejas was getting at, it was a total self-protect move on Axl's part to keep the band from firing him. Then his move in late 1995/early 1996 leaving the band partnership (the band basically), and taking the name with him, and then encouraging the others to join him in a new partnership (effectively contract employees of Axl's) was another move to further ensure -- they would NOT fire him.
I think in 2012 it's even more obvious today that it was a financial interest move on Axl's part, and not a creative one. I don't think he EVER had a master plan for that name.
Like a spoiled family after the death of a family member... Axl just wanted to make damn sure his brothers (Slash & Duff) didn't get the GN'R estate under any circumstances, just out of spite. Axl like a jealous brother HATED Slash at that point, and resented how much closer Duff was getting with Slash, rather than Axl. Izzy had abandoned him, and Axl I think felt alone and cornered in the band and was throwing up MASSIVE self-defense walls, and clawing for his power and influence back and to stay perminately.
Instead it was the final straw for the band, and left Axl with a name, no band, and no idea what to fucking do with it.
And with that... ladies and gentlemen...
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
Ah, but the truth is a complicated matter.
As for the name,
Axl says he got his clause inserted in 1990 during the Alan Niven renegotiation.
S & D claim the clause was inserted in a 1992 revision, which links to the 'Axl wouldn't come on stage' story.
Duff has alluded Doug Goldstein did present them a stack of papers to sign. Slash has said to have been blindsided by the whole name affair as it happened. Now, let's look at this differently.
In 1990, Axl puts in the name clause (as Axlin describes, possibly) during the Alan Niven renegotiation. Not much is ever made of this, and Axl's happy. Slash & Duff don't bother reading through the contract at this point.
In 1992, Doug Goldstein has Slash & Duff sign the revision mentioned in the lawsuit. The Axl clause for the partnership is there already, has been for two or so years. There may be a lot of stuff in the revision S & D might be curious about, but Goldstein is alluding Axl's show depends upon them signing.
The Death Clause (to which Duff refers to in his book) can be seen as Axl putting his seatbelt on. S & D are in the deep end with their substance abuse, and one wouldn't be surprised to find one OD'ing and another with a burst pancreas. So if the Death Clause of '92 would've been Axl's idea, one has to admit it does have something of a point.
S & D got curious over the contract some three years later, when Axl sent them a letter saying he'll disband the partnership.
Here's one from the Greatest Hits lawsuit:
"Since 1992, [GNR and Geffen Records] have executed various amendments to the Recording Agreement, including most notably, two amendments dated as of May 1, 1998.
One of these amendments [...] confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as "Leaving Members" under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album.
Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band."
Ok, so let's look at that differently.
Alternative reality; Axl, Slash, Duff & co complete the '96 album. S & D remain in the band throughout. Based on the description above, S & D retain royalties for their contributions to the '96 album. They also share the financial responsibility for the recording costs. With me so far?
What kind of hired hands are treated with rewards and responsibilities comparable to the Man himself?
Slash called it escrow. What does that mean, really?
When you put money in escrow it is held by a neutral third party (called an escrow agent) who works for both the lender and the borrower. The agent's role is to carry out the instructions agreed upon by both parties. The money is released when all the terms of the agreement are met. - here
The money coming from the GNR organization to Slash and Duff for their ongoing work on the '96 album would be held by, perhaps, Doug Goldstein. They'd still have their share as partnership members, but their continued presence would be dependant on their ability to complete an album with Axl.
Slash & Duff would've been the victims of some ruthless powerplay. Axl's not too innocent here, as the claim to the name (which he dates back to 1990) seems a particular sore spot.
But the possibility that rises from this haggling is that Axl's enablers encouraged him to contain Slash & Duff, his equal partners and collaborators, both contractually and financially.
Why would Doug Goldstein or anyone else choose to feed Axl's insecurities to such ends? Well, in 1992, GNR was a very big band in the middle of a very big tour. Whoever had the ultimate say on the brand name became the one all the sharks zeroed in on.
They'd know who to go to because of the Name Clause Axl had inserted two years earlier.
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
anyone rem when someone allegedly translated what the chinese voices were saying @ the start of CD?
something about "this is my truth"???
whatever the fuck.
thru all the bs, lawsuits, dtj or crappy songs on crappy albums i still do not know the sole truth as to why he hates slash so much. from where i'm sitting it's increasingly bizarre.
axl offers up these obfuscated rants where everyone else must be a phony liar by mere association w/slash, yet an explicit truth seems to stick in his throat.
BUT i don't think this yr & this rnrhof swindle is ANY different to anything we've heard from Axl since around '99.
the rampant hypocrisy of the whole thing is one of the most foul tasting aspects of the ordeal.
this theory of credibility & effort, esp when contrasted to the bizness savvy of slash etc., has been stretched threadbare by the touring regime & relations w/the record label in getting material released (& the shoddiness of it when it does, but we'll not get into specifics on these matters, we all know the dissatisfaction). it is absurd & sisyphean just reading the calamities & half-truths, it must be a hoot living it.
but, the fact that it's built on this ridiculous thing called rock n roll gives it an air of silliness, childishness & fun that kinda makes all the nonsense somewhat forgivable.
anyway what were we talking about??
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
What is hilarious is Axl has the name to one of the biggest bands ever and has managed to do nothing with it. Duff, Izzy, Adler, Slash don't have the GNR brand name, but forged ahead with new bands and solo stuff. Axl had the easiest path, and does the least!
Easiest path to continue making big bucks, but certainly not for his career and musical output. Carrying the name has been a heavy burden for him, incomparable to the rest of them really. In a way it's akin to trying to carry a brand like Zeppelin or the Stones on your own. There are certain standards to be held. The performance part of it can be handled fairly well with the right players, but the creative demands are something else entirely. In the end he did manage, perhaps amazingly so, to produce a good to great album. And he still didn't get much to any credit for it.
Of course much of this is his own doing, but I wouldn't call it easy. Apart from covering living expenses he doesn't seem very interested in fleecing the brand for cash either, so I don't think it was ever about that. Security perhaps but not greed.
I'd be interested to know how he feels about those things nowadays. Surely getting CD out there must have been a heavy load of his back, but that was 4 years ago and he supposedly has close to finished tracks laying around. Funnily I hope the lack of a follow up album is due to his infrequent work ethic and not some sort of jadedness as to releasing music at all.
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
Axl's fear of failure created the years of inactivity. Its a well documented consequence of that condition; you get blocked.
I wrote it in another thread but it probably better belongs here.
Slash called Axl out on being a dick for taking the name & band GNR.
The only way Axl could bury that accusation FULLY was to release an album of music so good that the world would look to Axl and say "you were right to take the band from the old guys, this music is SOOOOO much better".
As the years went by Slash continued to lay down his criticisms and the public continued to ask for a reply from Axl. None came.
All of this time, the level of sensitivity Axl appears burdened with and his OCD levels of perfectionism created such a huge fear of failure that it took him 15 years to have the balls to take on the GNR legacy (and in his mind Slash) with CD and even then, the album was ripped from his hands and forced to market.
He appears to blame Slash for the near impossible task he ended up with - bettering AFD and the UYIs... the fact is that this was his own doing. Thanks to Doug and the other agitators, his ego ended up writing checks his talent just couldn't cash, (no offence, no ones talent could).
On some level Axl must look at Mick Jagger etc and think about what could have been for him. We know he is prone to blaming others so of course he'll blame Slash.
It was Slash's challenge to Axl to show the world what was so amazing about his musicial vision that 'the greatest rock n roll band of all time' had to be sacrificied to deliver it that mired Axl in self doubt and obsessive tinkering that saw 15 years of his career vanish.
I reckon that is why he hates him so much. No fucking other peoples women, not the lawsuits etc.
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
The speeches were great, all very humble, especially Duff's. And I like how all of them went there to honour the fans.
By not going, Axl has come off as a major dick, which may unfortunately hurt his GN'R, while people will probably be keen to see Slash & Myles after that great performance.
Myles sounded the best on SCOM and Paradise, but all 3 sounded great overall.
I wonder this will spur any of these things - Slash, Duff & Matt get VR back on board, Slash, Duff & Matt get VR back on board with Myles, or Slash, Duff, Matt or Steven, Gilby and Myles put something new together down the track...?
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
On a lighter note - maybe this kind of technology can be used to give us a GNR reunion WITH Axl all be it CGI holographic axl?
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
I'm hearing that everywhere Riad. Not just here.
Diehard Axl fans are jumping ship to Slash.
That alone is just a total mindfuck. The rest are just walking, and retiring.
"God knows how long i'll have to deal with the fallout"
You'll have to deal with it the rest of your life Axl. Good job -- moron.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: On Truth, The Man Who Wasn't There and Happy Endings
Faldor, are you more of a Slash fan today than you were say last Monday? Seems like seeing him live left an impression.
