You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#91 Re: Guns N' Roses » GUNS N' ROSES Guitarist BUMBLEFOOT Says He's Been 'Impatiently Waiting » 753 weeks ago
Interesting to see him speaking out candidly more often now rather than in the measured replies we're used to hearing. You can tell he's frustrated by the situation and rightfully so.
#92 Re: Guns N' Roses » GNR Annual Song Royalties » 755 weeks ago
Does the old band get a slice of the pie when new gnr play the old songs live?
In most circumstances they would, but it probably depends on what kind of contract renegotiations and agreements they've come to terms with between Axl, the label, former management, etc.
#93 Re: Guns N' Roses » GNR Annual Song Royalties » 755 weeks ago
Restaurants, bars, clubs, stadiums, radio stations, etc. all have to pay annual licensing fees to BMI and ASCAP for the rights to play music by artists that are represented under their publishing agreements. I'm not sure exactly how they break it out (like if they have to keep track of their playlists) but yes, there are copyright cops who go out and bust places that don't pay their licenses.
#94 Re: Guns N' Roses » FTV.com - GUNS N ROSES CONCERT & AFTER PARTY AT THE BOX, VIENNA » 755 weeks ago
FTV? Yeah, I love their videos with Allison Angel and... what? Oh, it's not the same FTV? Nevermind.
#95 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns n Roses in Studio 2011 » 755 weeks ago
As for watching White Lion - I wouldn't recommend it - they suck. But you're ALL WRONG on why I referenced them, BUT I FORGIVE YOU because you are unfamiliar with them. White Lion, like Faster Pussycat, like LA Guns, like Whitesnake... all have something in common with Guns N' Roses. Those bands as they exist today are all former popular LA rock bands from the 80's, who tour now as nostaligia acts with JUST their original lead singer, and an entirely different backing band, but still called by their original name.
THAT'S why I referenced them. Not to say "GN'R suck", they don't. Far from it. The band is wonderful. But the circumstances are identical. The difference is, all of those other bands were modestly successful and the same thing happened. Guns N' Roses is a case of a "high-profile" band from LA, having the same thing happen to them.
Ha, I never thought of it that way, but you're totally right. If GNR had only been a moderate success, you'd still have Axl playing with four or five other guys most people have never heard of, only they'd be headlining state fairs and dive bars instead of Euro festivals. And then you'd also also have a competing "Guns N Roses featuring Slash, Duff, and Steven Adler" with Jizzy Pearl or John Corabi singing!
#96 Re: Guns N' Roses » This picture of Axl--1996? » 757 weeks ago
Unskewed in Photoshop:
#97 Re: Guns N' Roses » GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF » 759 weeks ago
Yeah, I mean Axl would do well to follow Trent's example. Every time Reznor gives an album or DVD away on the web, he earns massive goodwill from both his fan base and the press. Axl should finish up whatever contractual obligation he has left with Universal, then just tell them to fuck off and go the independent route.
#98 Re: Guns N' Roses » GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF » 759 weeks ago
madagas wrote:bigbri wrote:They/he could just drop the album true indie-style like Bucket does. Do your own artwork, simple sleeve packaging, sell it through the band's web site and iTunes, but they/he are not ambitious enough.
I am sure you are quite aware of this but they can't just drop an album on an indie label. I don't think Uni is just going to give Axl his left over Chinese tracks and let him walk to another label. From the chats after the release of Chinese.
"Universal has Guns under contract but I own the name."
No, I don't get into all the boring contractual bullshit. It wouldn't be a label. It would be just dumping it. They could burn their own CDs if they wanted.
If they end up being contractually prevented from ever properly releasing the material, they could just dump it all on the web, like Trent Reznor did with the Broken Movie DVD, the Closure double DVD, the 400 gig torrent of 3 full shows in multicam HD footage, etc. Or like Billy Corgan did with Machina II. Kind of a big "fuck you" to the label - if they won't put it out then just fucking give it away.
#99 Re: Guns N' Roses » GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF » 760 weeks ago
Nothing against the current lineup, but I'd much rather hear the 28 finished songs from the CD sessions before anything from the new band. Besides, even if Axl was moving ahead with the newer songs we know it would take five or six years before they were reworked to his satisfaction, so they might as well put out the older stuff in the meantime.
And what this guy says does explain a whole lot, it just seems like he's got a personal agenda there.
#100 Re: Guns N' Roses » Axl Rose Suing Activision / Guitar Hero » 761 weeks ago
This is all a classic example of seeing the world through Axl's rose colored glasses. I'm sure if there was an Activision exec at the show, he probably knew that Axl was pissed so he came over and apologized, probably hoping to avoid a lawsuit or keep their relationship professional for future music games and songs licensing. Somehow I doubt that he was literally in tears, though.
And did Activision misrepresent themselves? Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if they told Axl (or his housekeeper) whatever he wanted to hear to score the rights to use the song in the game. But if he didn't get it in writing, or doesn't have some reasonable proof of an implied verbal contract, then he doesn't have much to go on.
Just another example of Axl dragging up the past. If he wanted to look forward to the future (or at least put a positive spin on this lawsuit), he would have put The General or Checkmate or something fucking new on Rock Band 3.
