Here Today... Gone To Hell!

So,
not that it's sth any fan would care,but i thought i'd start a topic.

Anyone noticed at the end credits of Appetite For Democracy the songs rights are changed.
I mean everyone knows that Estranged and Nov. Rain are Axl's songs.You could be mine is Izzy and Axl.
Every classic GN'R song on the dvd has Slash's name first as the writer and the others follow.Even the aforementioned ones...

Now it all comes clear.....Think all the trouble,lawyers and court time and meetings everyone went through to change songwriting credits...

Don't know anything about it, but it could be part of some legal resolution between Axl and Slash/Duff/Izzy. Maybe a compensation of sorts, not sure.

Probably a huuuuuuuge compensation from Axl's part ,to give away his writing treasures.

I think he's gotten credit for songs were he previously didn't. Looks like it goes both ways.

Checking the ASCAP directory, Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy have writing credits for all Illusion songs. The four of them + Adler have credits for all Appetite and Lies songs.

Cover songs excluded of course.

you beat me to it!  ;D Since the Illusions, somehow the booklets only gave credit to the guys the band credits as the "majority" songwriter. ASCAP has the real legal writing credits....good thread on it here at Gnrevolution.... :peace:

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=7377&p=1

Now we need the 3 amigos....Ginger King, Mortismurphy and D-Gen to ride in and give us their "theory" on how Axl has robbed ALL former band members and employees of their writing credits. What is the conspiracy? Read all the prior interviews from band members (don't read Axl's though) and tell us what the REAL truth is.  ::)

There is really nothing to say on the subject as I am not privy to the machinations. All that can be said is, the songwriting publishing has been amended at some stage. If I had to guess, it seems like it was related to the delay of the DVD. I've always thought Slash deserved a credit for Estranged however.

Haha the 3 amigos  :hihi:

Without all their clueless input, pseudo e-expertise on subjects they don't know about and their marvelous psychic abilities reading people's minds off the internet how would the rest of us ever survive?

Considering the fact I have already resigned myself from this hypothetical debate based on lack of knowledge, I hardly think your insult here (in bold) applies to me - I repeat,

all you need to know is who is credited at ASCAP. Easily obtainable information. Slash is credited at ASCAP for Estranged....as is Izzy and Duff. Simple facts Mortis....no spin zone.  ;D

Alright then; I will take your word for it - this is your own straw man.

 ESTRANGED      (Title Code: 350180431) 
  Writers:
   HUDSON SAUL
   MC KAGAN DUFF ROSE
   ROSE W AXL
   STRADLIN IZZY

  Performers:
GUNS AND ROSES
GUNS N ROSES
GUNS N' ROSES


  Variations:
  ESTRANGED AXL ROSE

  Publishers/Administrators:
  BLACK FROG MUSIC
    % UNIVERSAL POLYGRAM INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING INC
    99440 COLLECTIONS CENTER DRIVE
    CHICAGO, IL, 60693
    Tel. (310) 235-4700

  GUNS N' ROSES MUSIC
    % SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES
    ATTN: CHARLES SUSSMAN
    1222 16 AVE SOUTH
    THIRD FLOOR
    NASHVILLE
 

You are trying to create an argument with yourself here lol. I have no opinion on the songwriting change whatsoever beyond the fact that it has seemingly changed at some point prior to the release of the dvd.

And they added Robin to every Chinese song.

Its propably a complete writing credits. You wrote a solo, you get credit, you wrote a bass line for one riff, you get credit.

So probably they get money from every song they wrote anything, maybe one guitar riff gives you 10% of revenue or whatever.

And on the albums they just tell us who wrote the song it self. lets say the core, of the song. Drum fills and guitar solos aside.


Why they used different credits on the dvd. i have no idea.

On the alternative booklet Robin is credited with more songs than the released error-prone booklet. From memory, I believe he gets a credit for Shackler's Revenge and Catcher in the Rye.

the fuckin booklets are meaningless....the Illusion booklets as well. For fuck's sake, the legal writing credits are with ASCAP and NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!!!!! :hihi:

read the thread at Gnrevo I linked to!!!!!!
We beat this issue to death....
http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=7377&p=1

The rumour prior to the release of the dvd ,that Slash was delaying for some reason (...) should have been true then.
Probably what Ascap credits which and who,is sth most fans don't check.
The closing titles in a major dvd release though,is more likely that everyone notices.

Very possible.

One reason for delay could have been that they didnt get the rights for Don't Let It Bring You Down. At least i assume thats why its cut from the film.

I dont agree. i think the booklets give a indication on who created the song.

ASCAP gives info on who contributed on the writing of the song, its two different things.

I don't think it means song writing, as in who wrote what song, I suspect it might be more about who gets compensated (publishing).




/jarmo

correct...ascap is legal compensation...booklets let you know who the artist thinks wrote the majority of the song. Booklets are meaningless "compensation" wise. Thanks Jarmo.....

Compare Live Era to Appetite For Democracy. The song writing of the old songs didn't change. Just the fact that on Live Era it says "Guns N' Roses Music ASCAP", like the old albums.

Now it's split between Black Frog and GN'R music.




/jarmo

Big time.

We've all heard that piano demo without the guitars.

So that's the issue with every Guns release,so far at least.
Damn ,it's easier to get rights for cover versions,and by artists like Paul McCartney and Dylan,big names in the industry,than it is for GN'R to release anything  :P

You are really wanting an argument about something here!

Ah, the world of music rights. Feel free to jump in-there's no shallow end of the pool here, people.

There's the writers share of a composition. Then there's the publishing share of a composition. For example, you could have 4 writers on a song split evenly @ 25%. But if all 4 of those writers are signed to the same publisher, then that publisher has 100% share of the publishing. Then there's the question-does the publisher own or administrate for the writers? Or you can have various publishers for the song, adding up to 100%. There's an infinite way of splitting things up between writers share and publishing share.

As for registering the song with a Performing Rights Organization (such as ASCAP or BMI or SESAC here in the States), that can be the writer or if they are represented by a publisher, then the publisher can register the composition. So that anytime the song is, ahem, 'performed', then a compulsory royalty would be paid. There's a publishing royalty on the performance, and there's also a writer's royalty on the performance. 'Performed' can be, but not limited to: played on the radio, tv, jukebox, and so forth. The current rate is something like a fraction of a penny per 'performance'.

Don't get me started on streaming or digital or satellite radio rights breakdown. Or Mechanical Rights. And all of this info, short summary as it is, does not EVEN cover the master/record label side of things. At all.

Rights can be negotiated. It's all Intellectual PROPERTY. Point here: it's PROPERTY. It can be divided up, gained, subtracted, transferred, assigned, etc. As long as it's papered correctly.

What the record label prints in a booklet/liner note may or may not always be correct. Hell, that's the label, not the publisher. The label is just printing stuff and crediting, and let's hope all of that info is correct, at the time.

Yes, the PRO's list writers alphabetically. It's not in hierarchy of who has the more share on the song or not. And information can change at any time.

If your head is not exploding out through your nose yet, then consider going to law school or getting yourself committed.

Just curious: why did Axl name it Black Frog? Where did he get the name from?

So if the uyi albums ever get re-released.  I wonder if they will have updated song credits?   Sorta like the blue ray that just came out

Also have the songs always been legaly registered this way?  Or was this a change that happend recently

If so that's huge change on some of the older songs and even on The CD album

It all comes down to how GNR decided to credit writing for those albums: lyrics and melody (chord progression). It's entirely up to the artist how to give credit.

Just going by those criteria (lyrics and melody), can you recognize the piano demo as Estranged? If so, the guitars don't matter in that context.


I'm not saying that the guitars don't matter, they certainly makes the song better (epic even), full credit to Slash for doing that. I'm saying that the criteria laid down by the band don't qualify those guitar parts for writing credits. Slash created that on top of an existing melody, which is the core of the song.

So what I see is that when a song like Estranged first came out.   Only Axl got paid for it.   Now from looking at things Axl, slash, duff and izzy all get paid for it

Is this right? 

Not sure if it was like this from the beginning. Could be that the credits in the liner notes of the album differed from the actual, legal royalty credits all along. If not, my guess is it was changed within the last 10 years. There were some legal action going on between Axl and Duff/Slash/Izzy regarding royalties around 2005 I believe. Could be mistaken though.

Usually the chords, vocal melody and lyrics, and any main riff or significant intro riff (such as Sweet Child O' Mine) qualify a contribution as a songwriting credit. Things like guitar solos and fills, bass lines and drum tracks do not. The problem with Estranged is, those guitar lines by Slash are like 'riffs', in giving that song such a strong identity.

So I remember a interview with slash were he said he asked Axl to give him a writting credit on estranged because of the time effort etc.. And what ended out comming out he thought he deserved a credit.  What he got wasnt a writting credit but a nice thank you in the liner notes.  Slash also went on to say that was really nice of Axl and he was happy with that.   

So I really do doubt that slash or duff got paid for this song when released.   I am just guessing, but I would think royalties were orgininly split up via what was listed on the liner notes.   

So i am thinking this is a result of the lawsuit....    The change....    Never thought izzy was a part of the law suit.  Mb he wasn't and just benifited from it

Is it talked about in either duffs of slashes book?

I see Slash's guitar parts on Estranged as harmony that is part of the arrangement of the song. If Axl released the song with only him on the piano, and singing, you'll still recognize it as Estranged.


This has been discussed before, and there's always people with different views on this. I know you'll probably never agree, but that's how I view it. Once more, I'll just say that I think Slash's guitar playing raised the song to a new level, it's amazing.

too funny...the lack of reading comprehension baffles me and scares me at the same time. I can't imagine being in Axl's shoes and having to be able to explain these things to a fan base as dense as Gnr's. And you wonder why he doesn't talk..... :-\

So I read a lot in the link your provided.  And yes, as it was a good read to start.   It trailed off very fast

So where is this lack of reading comprehension?   

is there something wrong with posting questions and having discussions on a guns n roses forum?   

You would recognize it but it would be a different animal. Slash's lines alter the song to such an extent that I feel they warranted a credit.

what we got here is failure to communicate  ;D

Oh I know where he is coming from. It appears that he is alluding to the fact that there are two credits on the Illusions, a de jure ASCAP one and a de facto one created for the booklet simply to show 'who wrote what?'. The ASCAP credit reflects the business partnership as it then existed. Then it was @1991 Guns N' Roses ASCAP so obviously this entailed, Axl/Slash/Duff/Izzy (Matt and Dizzy were hired hands).

Before 1991 it included Adler. On the Appetite booklet they did not have demarcated credits so the booklet and ASCAP credit correspond making it something of a moot point.

It's still harmony, extremely good harmony. The guitar parts are following the chord progression of the piano. It makes the song sound different yes, but you could say the same thing about Guns' version of KOHD. The sound is different from Dylan's original, but it's the same song.


I'll add this: the band could have said that "significant harmony parts should be credited for this album", but they didn't. That was totally up to themselves. When laying their own criteria on the line, Slash's parts in Estranged don't warrant credit. That's how they chose to do it.

I do not agree. I think it is a riff. Harmony implies something in the background, something subtle.

Well that's not how they choose to do it though

Slash asked for a writting credit for Estranged, asked Axl.  Axl responded by giving Slash a written thank you.   Which slash appreciated.    

If it was democrated the 4 guys would like of voted for it.   Seems like when it was a specific guys song, he was given say as to who or what got credited

And we can't compair Estranged in the pre recoreed writting stage.   To guns use of kohd.    One is being written by a band.  The other song already has a copywriter on it. For not just lyrics but for the melody and music.   Soon and copywrite gets involved u are screwed when it comes to covering it.   
If Axl already had a cooywrite on estranged it would be a different story

Look, I'm not saying it's possible to get a credit on a song you cover. I was just comparing to show that two different versions of the same song is still the same song. It's just different arrangements. Estranged had lyrics and melody when Slash started to work on it. He then improved it, without altering the main melody.

He added a riff though. Colloquial term for 'melody' = 'riff'.

Who gets compensated for publishing versus who wrote what.




/jarmo

Come again?

Sky dog seems to be more well versed on it than me. You are better off talking to him.

I only know the basics....read Snead Hearns post again. He knows what he is talking about. I think Pilferk may know a thing or two as well.

Sure, just ask him.

It's more of me being courious

I actually think the liner notes did a great job representing who wrote what.   And we can discuss who should of been credited more on the liner notes all day

Regardless.

I am pretty sure that's how the royalties were split up.     So I am now just wondering if the boys are getting a bigger cut for something they never used to....

I posted the same thing you said later. Using different words.

Actual songwriting credits versus publishing credits (who gets compensated).



/jarmo

There are various ways the artists get paid for the songs, publishing is a big deal, however with the likes of PRS, all performers involved in the creation or crediting of a song get paid. This applies to album sales, radio/tv play etc. Even when guns gig these days, there is a % from that which goes to duff, slash etc due to the songs still being played

remember when old Geffen stopped paying for CD album, around that time Axl sold his publishing rights for an amount near 20 mio $$.

can someone clear up please how this might also have had an effect of the already complicated splitting costs and stuff?
publishing money does not get to Axl anymore, but partly still to Slash and Duff? or is this another animal?

not to fan the flames, but what the hell, it's Friday!  :hihi:

http://www.mtv.com/news/1508091/slash-duff-sue-axl-over-guns-n-roses-publishing-royalties/


before you get all hot and bothered, all lawsuits filed by Slash/Duff against Axl were dropped. Long story short....the partnership between Slash/Duff/Axl created in 1992 still stands today. When that partnership was created is when Axl got the rights to the name. However, any use of the original bands material has to be authorized by all three of them.

Not 100% sure on this, but wasn't the original publishing partnership Axl/Slash/Duff/Izzy? Then, in the late '90s it got divided into Black Frog Music (Axl) and the other three (Slash/Duff/Izzy) remained in Guns N' Roses Music.

Again, I'm just going by a vague memory on this, no sure at all..

But the guitar part doesn't hold the structural framework of the song. It is built upon the piano. Slash wrote those part as a compliment to the already existing melody. I'm just arguing for why it didn't get a credit at the time, it's technicalities.

It would be something else if Slash came up with the chord progression, and made the guitar parts from the ground up. He made them with basis in the piano.

I see where you're coming from, I really do, it is a significant piece of the song. Especially since Slash put so much work into those parts.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. I know we have different views on this.

To me the songs are sum of all their parts... I love the song Estranged... it might be Axl's baby... but they all added to it.

I really could care less who gets the writing credit for it.

It's like people care so they can say see well that guys contributions don't mean much...

Of course it is. I'm not saying that Estranged (or any song for that matter) would have been equally good without everyone's contributions. I think I've said that in every post as well. Like I said, this is basically about technicalities. It doesn't matter much to us really.

As we've seen they all get paid for this anyways...  ;D

Like I said, Live Era lists Guns N' Roses Music ASCAP, and Appetite For Democracy lists both (GN'R Music & Black Frog).




/jarmo

I'm just a little confused about the big picture.

Live Era lists the same writing credits as the original albums (for example November Rain credits only Axl)
Greatest Hits and Appetite For Democracy lists new writing credits for the Illusion songs (Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy on all songs)

Obviously something changed between Live Era (1999) and Greatest Hits (2004).



Has this something to do with Axl establishing Black Frog Music, or is there no connection there?

One is song writing credits, one is publishing. That's what I suspect.

Axl wrote November Rain. It didn't change.

What might have changed is what publishing company gets compensated for its performance (used to be Guns N' Roses Music), now it's GN'R Music & Black Frog.
I suspect old band's songs are still associated with Guns N' Roses Music like always. But Axl has Black Frog, so his piece of the GN'R Music pie is now listed separately.




/jarmo

So they only changed the way credits are written in the album liner notes, then.

Before it was the actual writer named in the booklet, while everybody involved was still paid from day one.

And now everybody who gets paid royalties for the song are put in as "writer" in the liner notes.




This is what I think as well.

It's honestly not confusing at all. 8)

Then, why did they change the way they write credits?

I think they might have written who gets compensated (publishing), not who technically wrote what song.

Kinda like mentioning an author of a book compared to the publishing company.




/jarmo

So then edm the liner notes of the album CD has different people listed than this publishing website

On this website Robin has almost double the credits

This is one topic that's really hard to discus over the Internet.   I have  too many questions!!!!  And it's almost miller time

So the website lists both the different publishing companies for all individuals involved in the song.  Then it lists every individual invved in writting the song

So you are right it is two things.   

But the website lists both

And from what i see it has changed the writting credits for some songs

Where it could of just listed the publishing credits alone....

This is 100% what they seem to be doing now.

I was just curious to the fact that they changed their way of writing the credits in the booklet. Some sort of new industry standard, or just pure coincidence maybe.

New people in charge of creating the liner notes and maybe they just took the easy way and used the publishing as a source.

I think the "publishing writer credit" and "actual writing credits" are two different things.

As for Chinese Democracy, Robin is only credited for one song in the booklet, while he has publishing rights for several songs.

By the artists criteria, Robin only co-wrote Better. By the publishing criteria he co-wrote more songs.

It's a bit confusing, but this is what I have gathered.



EDIT:
The only thing that doesn't add up is that the publishing is mentioned in the liner notes of the album.

In Robin Finck's case his publishing is only mentioned on Better.

In the ASCAP directory he has publishing for writing Better, Catcher, Chinese, Prostitute, Riad, Shacklers and Street of Dreams.

This could perhaps be attributed to the booklet being faulty. There were other mistakes, so..

It's very confusing. 

So for example

Axl is really hard up for a relpacment for Ron.  So he calls TheBaconman.   After a bit of negotiations, accept.   But I can't really play anything, my guitar work sounds like crap.  But I have a great smile and that's all that counts.   So now Axl wants this guitar work on his next album.   All the songs are wrote.  But he wants a solo from me on each song.    Now no matter how bad the work I do is, if I am on a song.   Do I now get publishing writes?   

I think there's a fuck up in the booklet. The ASCAP directory is pretty official, right?

They would have needed to fill out some documents to register the credits with ASCAP I would think.

You would think there would have to be lawyers and legal legs involved

But then it gets back to point about estranged

Where all slash did was ask Axl for a writing credit    Is that how it works?   You just ask someone?  Lol. That doesn't seem right

I know not all studio performers receive publishing royalties for there music being played.   If it was not part of there "deal"

When it comes to writing credits, the way I understand it, it's all up to the artists. There is a norm that says lyrics and melody gives you the credit, but it's all up to the artist how they want to do it.

Take Appetite as an example. They just decided that everyone gets credit, regardless of who actually wrote the songs.

It was a business arrangement. It is a bit like Lennon-McCartney. 'Yesterdays' was Lennon-McCartney even though it was essentially a McCartney solo song. Around 1968, Lennon and McCartney ceased to write together completely but Lennon-McCartney still functioned as a business arrangement and dumping ground for their respective solo songs. Guns seem to have created 'Guns N' Roses ASCAP' which included all full partners of the band (as it was then). So long as the songs were credited to 'Guns N' Roses' (Appetite) the distinction did not really matter, but when they decided to have demarcated song writing credits (Illusion) you ended up with a scenario of having two separate credits.

One way to look at it is, the ASCAP credit is de jure whereas the booklet credit is de facto.

That seems right.

Yes you seemed to sum up what I was thinking

So just a couple more questions

Afd.  Writing credits equal.   Lies.  Equal

Uyi.  Split up individually.    And everyone was fine in the band with that.  So I really have nothing to say

But now have they gone back and changed this?  So that all the writing credits are equal again.

Or

Is this totally separate.   And is this just a reflection of a performers right to receive publishing royalties for playing on a song

I think it's just the way they decided to put it down in the liner notes of the album. They still got paid equally.

Awwww see there is where I don't think they did 

Maybe not. There's some piece of info we're missing to know for sure.

They all gained publishing royalties. The Illusion booklet credit does not have any impact on the ASCAP credit.

Yes there is something missing other than our opinion     I still want to know.   And it's 4am here.   And I am being good

Just watched a video by a great band No Doubt, song.... Sunday morning

Actually watched probably 10 times tonight. M. Love it. 


Gwen.  Is my girl.   Thing is.  She left to do her solo career.    I read into it.  The boys made a ton of her blonde ass in the band.    Then she left.   Made mad cash as a solo artist    Then came back to the band

So?


Should would of been the best thing for gnr?

No Doubt was around almost as long as GnR were, most of her solo stuff wouldn't have worked as No Doubt songs and all the collaborations she did was a good change of pace from what she had been doing with them. I think it's because they worked through tragedy early on and her brother leaving the band before they hit it big (but still wrote songs with them) and her and Tony having broken up before the band made it big, they put a lot of the drama behind them.

She's in the same position Stevie Nicks is in,  they can choose to work in a band or stay solo, but both found a nice balance in doing either one. Axl's more like Eddie Van Halen when it comes to the band, they don't see a point to doing solo projects. I think he should go the Maynard Keenan route of quirky side projects just to have fun performing, step outside of being "Axl Rose" once in a while and do projects he would never do in GNR.

Are you 100% sure it was like that since 1991. That the ASCAP credits didn't change at any point after the release?

There could be a scenario where the booklet credits and the ASCAP credits were identical at the time of the release, and then years later, it changed.

I don't think so.....

Yeah, you're right. Just checked the UYI booklets. It's Guns N Roses Music ASCAP, not individual publishing companies.

The only thing that remains a mystery to me then is Chinese Democracy. The discrepancy between the publishing credits in the booklet and the actual ones in the ASCAP directory.

Could it be anything else than a error-filled booklet?

I have not had a look at the CD ASCAP credits but it might even be a scenario of having three credit.

- The 'erroneous' booklet one
- the 'correct' booklet one
- the publishing one

I do know that Robin was the main loser of the erroneous credit, comparing his contributions in the correct booklet,

and you know this how?

The correct booklet (the grenade or red hand cover) is easily obtainable online. Have a look for yourself; you will see that Robin is credited for Shackler's and Catcher. Stinson and Reed also get credited for Catcher. Tobias loses a credit for Prostitute.

I already assume you own the erroneous (bike) booklet.

The ASCAP credits, quoting from another forum (because I can not be bothered to go into the ASCAP database),


http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=7377&p=1

Three sets of credits for Chinese Democracy.

No my question was you are saying that Robin wrote the others as per the credit in Ascap, but that doesn't make him songwriter. You are saying you know this because of that? I think you are still hung up on Estranged, in your mind.

Robin was robbed of (booklet) songwriting credits (presumably, not royalties) in the sense that, there were errors in the released booklet, removing his name. I do not really know how they worked out the difference between the ASCAP credit and the (unreleased) booklet credit. If I had to guess, there may have been some scheme of 'main writers' and 'peripheral writers' but I don't know. You would probably have to ask a member of the band (as it was then).

My feelings on Estranged have nothing to do with it.

Just one more thing,

With the ASCAP democracy credit, they have not employed the scheme they used on the old albums whereby all the full time band members had a business arrangement and got credited. But then those were all full time 'partners' (even Adler on Appetite) and there is only one partner left now, Axl. Matt and Dizzy were not getting credits on Illusion either.

If you put 'Chinese Democracy grenade artwork' into google images, and scroll through the various artworks for the listed songs, you will see that,

Chinese Democracy's, Shackler's Revenge's (+ Finck) and Catcher's (+Stinson, Finck, Reed) credit are the same as the ASCAP credit. The alternative booklet is therefore closer to the ASCAP but there are still differences,

Prostitute on the bicycle booklet is 'Rose, Tobias', on the alternative booklet 'Rose', on ASCAP 'Rose, Tobias, Finck'!.

Extra ASCAP 'Finck, Tobias' credit on Streets of Dreams.

Extra ASCAP 'Stinson' credit on TWAT

Extra ASCAP 'Finck, Reed, Tobias' on Riad

ASCAP 'Martin Luther King 14' on Maddy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the alternative artwork had errors also and the ASCAP credit is the bona fide one that would have went out for the booklet also. The removal of Tobias on the alternative booklet seems to support that theory. I would certainly not rule that possibility out.

band members want credit with ASCAP because that is how they get paid as "writers".....pretty simple. The booklets do not put coin in their pocket.

Perhaps when the whole music industry changed around 1998-2000 there were some changes in the way ASCAP works and credits the artists too.
That was when Geffen was bought by Universal.And that also was when Axl's new boss cut the funds for CD by the way.
So yes,maybe the song-writing credits changed along the way.

pretty sure they didn't.  ;D

Funds were cut on Axl in 2004...had nothing to do with writing credits.  : ok:


'Having exceeded all budgeted and approved recording costs by millions of dollars,' the label wrote in a letter dated Feb. 2, 2004, 'it is Mr. Rose's obligation to fund and complete the album, not Geffen's.'

Tobias ascap writing credits

1.BACK OFF BITCH Work ID: 320373851

2.CATCHER IN THE RYE Work ID: 334474378

3.CHINESE DEMOCRACY Work ID: 334393698

4.I.R.S. Work ID: 393950199

5.JUNKIE Work ID: 400272308

6.OH MY GOD Work ID: 450485146

7.PROSTITUTE Work ID: 463436497

8.RIAD N' THE BEDOUINS Work ID: 482479334

9.SHADOW OF YOUR LOVE Work ID: 490851844

10.SHOTGUN MARY Work ID: 491520468

11.STREET OF DREAMS Work ID: 497227195

12.THERE WAS A TIME Work ID: 506275776

True, it's nice to get a mention in a booklet or on album credits, but the ASCAP credits are the ones that entitle you to moola and pesos  : ok:

The opposite situation seems kind of odd though, where someone would have no booklet credits, but has ASCAP credits.  For example, I'm clueless as to why Robin would have ASCAP credit on almost every Chinese Democracy song but was noted in the booklet credits for only some of those songs.  I'm sure he'd rather have the $ than the recognition, but still... why not the recognition? 

Steven Adler didn't write any songs on Appetite, but he still was compensated by getting part of the publishing.

Robin probably wrote guitar parts that aren't necessarily the main melody of the song. Or something.



/jarmo

OK, understood.  I guess that supports the idea that the booklet is a better reflection of who 'really' wrote the songs. 

Except Appetite... :)

This "who wrote what" versus who gets compensated for the songs is one of the things that causes problems in bands.  :nervous:





/jarmo

Right, and battles over 'creative control' are not just about artistic expression but about who will reap the financial windfall of a band's success. 

Since it's up to the artist how they want to credit, it has to be important to have played down the criteria before they write a single note. So then, everybody have an understanding of how it will play out.

This has never been a problem in Guns to my knowledge. I'm sure it has been the reason of break ups in other bands, understandably.