Umm...did Ali ever say he was a lawyer?

otto wrote:

I don't know, man... Up and until Axl letter, Slash was all over expecting a reunion at the Hall.
For him to come out now, almost a year later, and say he wasn't disapointed or act as "I don't care" to me is lame.

To me that is lying and that is being a revisionist.

I always take Slash's answers with reference to what would happen if he said the opposite though, like if he said he was hoping Axl would come and it sucks he didn't the headline would be

"Slash Speaks: "I'm still disappointed in Axl" - EX- GNR guitarist admits he Expected Axl to give into reunion at Rock Hall. "

How much shit would that start

I don't see Slash's answers as lies, but I think he phrases things in ways HE THINKS will minimise controversy.

And again...I don't think it's a direct lie. I think maybe initially when it was years out...Slash had considered the Hall a natural opportunity  for a reunion  - but when it became obvious that it wasn't going to happen in an Amicable way - when Izzy started being vague about coming (in private) - and when Axl's camp was still silent but the date was getting closer...I think Slash became fearful that it was going to be awkward, a royal cock-up - and distract attention from his album with Myles and began to dread it and what was going to happen - so when Axl bailed at that point it was a "relief".

I think Slash wants GNR to go back to what it was in 1988 or Not at All. He's not up for working in Axl's band on Axl's terms - and he's not interested in a reunion at the hall where they can't look each other in the eye. He wanted a real reunion but when it was clear that's not happening - he was happier to have nothing than a forced fake reunion.

Not having him front the damn cover would probably have been a sufficient compromise. Axl surely puts himself in a lot of conundrums when he's trying to sell a new band, but that doesn't mean he didn't get fucked over here. And of course it's about the money. He's letting them use his product.

Mikkamakka wrote:

It's a very good post.

Ain't it funny that Activision could have killed Axl's pain and could have compensated the "damage" on his "artistic vision" with 20 million dollars? I thought we are having a guy here, who's not interested in money.

It is funny if you actually believe he's some sort of altruistic musician, or that he believes it. Obviously he's not, he got into this to get rich from the start. There's a difference between going the Led Zeppelin route or the Kiss route though. He might no be very successful at the former, but clearly he's trying not to be the latter either.

Axl could benefit from letting someone else write his business and pr shit though. Either that or his lawyer is cooked.

Scabbie wrote:

So the company screw you over by using Slash's image (I cannot believe it took an attorney to tell him the news btw, the game was literally everywhere) which was a fundamental principal of the deal, but that's suddenly ok if they offer you a reciprocal deal? Sounds naive if you ask me.

I suppose it shows he's not stubborn enough to turn down what he considered fair compensation.

But sounds like he got outsmarted here. Activisions laywers probably knew very well they could present this argument if they strung him along for the necessary time period.

Typical for a modern corporation. Maximizing profits with no adherence to ethics, morals or even the law may make sense from an immediate profit stand point, but I don't see how it makes sense long term. When the mafia shows more care and aptness in customer relations you got a problem.