You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Doug Goldstein Letter to Axl
^ If that was the intent his lawyers should be fired....could have easily made it a term of the partnership agreement that in the event of Duff's body exploding or Slash injecting too much THEN he gets all rights....not before hand....and besides given he relied on the clause to quit the band when Duff and Slash were very much alive - it's hard to think the motivation was insurance against a death.
Isn't that what it was though? If the band broke up (meaning one of the 3 are not there anymore) Axl would retain rights. Don't know if a clause involving only Slash or Duff would be any better, what if something happens to Axl? Or what if they don't die but just quits instead and tells the rest they can't keep going?
I think one thing is for sure, without that clause there would definitely not be a GN'R today (not with Axl anyways).
- Mikkamakka
- Rep: 217
- Mikkamakka
- Rep: 217
Re: Doug Goldstein Letter to Axl
CD is better than nothing. At least we got TWAT from it.
On second thought, perhaps an Axl Rose forced to go solo would have given us more material.
Yeah, I agree. I think part of the fan base is to desperate to have "Guns N' Roses" around, whatever that means. They want to get their illusion that their favourite band still exists. The others (me included) are exactly the opposite. We have the name fixation, too, but we "want to protect" our memories and would be happier if the brand weren't used after 1995-1996. Anyway, a serious amount of quality new material under whatever name would give these debates a rest forever.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Doug Goldstein Letter to Axl
monkeychow wrote:^ If that was the intent his lawyers should be fired....could have easily made it a term of the partnership agreement that in the event of Duff's body exploding or Slash injecting too much THEN he gets all rights....not before hand....and besides given he relied on the clause to quit the band when Duff and Slash were very much alive - it's hard to think the motivation was insurance against a death.
Isn't that what it was though? If the band broke up (meaning one of the 3 are not there anymore) Axl would retain rights. Don't know if a clause involving only Slash or Duff would be any better, what if something happens to Axl? Or what if they don't die but just quits instead and tells the rest they can't keep going?
I think one thing is for sure, without that clause there would definitely not be a GN'R today (not with Axl anyways).
I guess my point was that people say Axl put that term in to cover himself against Slash/Duff letting him down by dying...however to me the fact that he executed the clause while they were very much alive shows that that was only a secondary intent if it was a consideration at all.
The fact he subsequently also invited them to join the new band shows he also considered them capable of functioning too, so it basically comes down to needing control for himself to make sure HE wasn't fired next time something like St Louis went down.
Re: Doug Goldstein Letter to Axl
polluxlm wrote:CD is better than nothing. At least we got TWAT from it.
On second thought, perhaps an Axl Rose forced to go solo would have given us more material.
Yeah, I agree. I think part of the fan base is to desperate to have "Guns N' Roses" around, whatever that means. They want to get their illusion that their favourite band still exists. The others (me included) are exactly the opposite. We have the name fixation, too, but we "want to protect" our memories and would be happier if the brand weren't used after 1995-1996. Anyway, a serious amount of quality new material under whatever name would give these debates a rest forever.
I think the theory that Axl has run the GNR name into the ground or has tarnished their legacy is way overblown. When the dust settles, people are going to remember GNR from 87-93 and that's it. Especially if things continue on their current course. The CD years will be a footnote at best in the annals of history.
However, I do hope Axl changes that and makes people take notice of this era. He's got his work cut out for him though, as he has since he took the reigns.
Re: Doug Goldstein Letter to Axl
Way I interpreted it was that he wanted security against stuff like death and disintegration.
His intention is not all that clear though. Why did he wait until 95? It doesn't seem to have been any major event either being that nobody really talked about it back in the mid 90s.
It's possible he didn't do it until he saw things weren't working at all, or he wanted to jack the band all along. Contract or no contract though, it was really just a case of the band falling apart. His actions are more a response to that than a reason.
Re: Doug Goldstein Letter to Axl
Hindsight being 20/20, I sometimes wonder if Axl would have chosen to abandon the name and go solo if given a do-over.
Absolutely, as I alluded to in the "Bye" thread. I think if Axl could have envisioned things unfolding the way they did, he would have done things a lot differently. Perhaps starting with GNR vs. solo. At this point though, it's way too late to turn back. He's stuck with what has been built up the last decade plus and he has to deal with it.
Re: Doug Goldstein Letter to Axl
Totally. My negativity comes almost entirely from him NOT dealing with it. When its all said and done though, he's the man who wrote the songs that spoke the most to me. And now I'm angry not just because he hasn't given me more, but also at the mismanagement at every step.
If Ax could read this he'd probably call me a c---. But fact is he's my number one favorite writer/vocalist/performer bar none.
Sometimes I think the internet has brought us too close to our heroes. Everything is too demystified. It was more magical to get interviews through MTV, magazines and police blotters 
. Ah well.
