The "Welcome To The Jungle: The Very Best of Guns N' Roses" thread

[chineseblues]

I don't really know what's going on, but you can't put a label stupid move like this as result of GN'R camp not trying hard enough.

Do you honestly believe the label would be releasing a second GH if they had CD in their hands? Absolutely not, as CD would make way more money for them than a GH2.

There isn't gonna be a GH2 

[Neemo]

I am guessing the "frustration" he shares with us is Axl's inability to complete a mere 14-15 songs so that a new album can be released. Nobody in the band but Axl can sings the songs, so they (just like all of us) are at his mercy until he decides to start singing.

Or the frustration they are feeling is that Geffen is leery of or unhappy with what they've heard.

Or aren't willing to release it with the current lawsuits surrounding GnR 's name. As was mentioned (by Eva I think) in the Lawsuit thread we have no information about most of the documents involved in that case.

The really sad thing is that we have no fucking clue as to what has/is going on in this band!!

[Naupis]

Or aren't willing to release it with the current lawsuits surrounding GnR 's name.

If that were entirely the case, I would think that would put a moratorium on releasing anything with the GNR name on it. To go ahead and release yet another compilation album, of songs made up of the back catalog no less, kind of blows us that whole "nothing can be released because of the lawsuits" business.

I actually think you made a better point about the label possibly not liking what they have heard. Rumors of that nature had floated in the past, and I would not be surprised one bit if that proved to be the case.

[fora]

from http://www.albumvote.co.uk/news/news.php?id=821

UPDATE (Thursday, 27 October 2005)

Apologies to the people (especially Guns N? Roses fans) who are upset by this news article and have requested its removal, albumvote can confirm that it is a rumour and the story has been modified accordingly.

The storey will not be removed as the source of the rumour is the same one that informed this site about the original Greatest Hits last year (months in advance).

[younggunner]

well thats good news

[Neemo]

Or aren't willing to release it with the current lawsuits surrounding GnR 's name.

If that were entirely the case, I would think that would put a moratorium on releasing anything with the GNR name on it. To go ahead and release yet another compilation album, of songs made up of the back catalog no less, kind of blows us that whole "nothing can be released because of the lawsuits" business.

I actually think you made a better point about the label possibly not liking what they have heard. Rumors of that nature had floated in the past, and I would not be surprised one bit if that proved to be the case.

Well, I said the thing about the Label not liking it cuz of past rumors but, and I know I'm gonna get shot donw by this, What if Interscope is entitled to give each "Partner" of Guns'n'Roses a specific cut of record sales? (I have no Idea how much they would be paid but I'll say say 10%). If Axl is the only PARTNER they pay him 10% if Axl, Slash and Duff are all partners they owe 30%. Am I right? I don't think it matters who wrote the music. But who is a Partner or Co-Owner of the Name GnR.

It just an Idea i have thought about for a while. For instance, If you work for a big company and it has 3 partners, but you only do stuff for one guy (Say your boss is a partner) don't all 3 partners get a cut regardless? If it's back catalogue all three guys get money anyway so old shit don't matter to them

Like i said don't crucify me on this thought, but maybe a person more KNowledgable in legal ramblings could shed light on that theory.

(wow how is that for post #700 )

[pilferk]

Or aren't willing to release it with the current lawsuits surrounding GnR 's name.

If that were entirely the case, I would think that would put a moratorium on releasing anything with the GNR name on it. To go ahead and release yet another compilation album, of songs made up of the back catalog no less, kind of blows us that whole "nothing can be released because of the lawsuits" business.

I actually think you made a better point about the label possibly not liking what they have heard. Rumors of that nature had floated in the past, and I would not be surprised one bit if that proved to be the case.

Well, I said the thing about the Label not liking it cuz of past rumors but, and I know I'm gonna get shot donw by this, What if Interscope is entitled to give each "Partner" of Guns'n'Roses a specific cut of record sales? (I have no Idea how much they would be paid but I'll say say 10%). If Axl is the only PARTNER they pay him 10% if Axl, Slash and Duff are all partners they owe 30%. Am I right? I don't think it matters who wrote the music. But who is a Partner or Co-Owner of the Name GnR.

It just an Idea i have thought about for a while. For instance, If you work for a big company and it has 3 partners, but you only do stuff for one guy (Say your boss is a partner) don't all 3 partners get a cut regardless? If it's back catalogue all three guys get money anyway so old shit don't matter to them

Like i said don't crucify me on this thought, but maybe a person more KNowledgable in legal ramblings could shed light on that theory.

(wow how is that for post #700 )

No.? That's not reallly how it works.

There is a set percentage of album sales (royalties) that go to the artists.? Say that # is 30% (and it ain't..not by a long shot).

If there are 3? partners/artists, that money is then distributed, via ASCAP (I think) as 10% to Slash, 10% to Duff, 10% to Axl (keep in mind, I'm simplifying things here, I know Steven, Izzy, et all also get a cut) less a "processing fee" levied by ASCAP.? The label just sends the money to ASCAP and lets ASCAP distribute it...the amount the label sends is no different.? In addition, the lawsuit has nothing to do with HOW the money is distributed to all the parties involved.  It's about publishing rights, not royalties/residuals.

What the lawsuit is all about is just WHO can say when material is used.? Even if Axl is no longer a member of the "parntership", he still gets royalties, etc, from the use of the material.? Slash and Duff say Axl's been overly stingy with the use of the material, so has cost them money by failing to use the catalog to generate revenue, or consult Slash and Duff when he HAS decided to use the catalog.? Axl maintains he has the sole publishing rights to the back catalog (which means only he can decide when/if the material is used).

[Neemo]

No.? That's not reallly how it works.

There is a set percentage of album sales (royalties) that go to the artists.? Say that # is 30% (and it ain't..not by a long shot).

If there are 3? partners/artists, that money is then distributed, via ASCAP (I think) as 10% to Slash, 10% to Duff, 10% to Axl (keep in mind, I'm simplifying things here, I know Steven, Izzy, et all also get a cut) less a "processing fee" levied by ASCAP.? The label just sends the money to ASCAP and lets ASCAP distribute it...the amount the label sends is no different.? In addition, the lawsuit has nothing to do with HOW the money is distributed to all the parties involved.? It's about publishing rights, not royalties/residuals.

What the lawsuit is all about is just WHO can say when material is used.? Even if Axl is no longer a member of the "parntership", he still gets royalties, etc, from the use of the material.? Slash and Duff say Axl's been overly stingy with the use of the material, so has cost them money by failing to use the catalog to generate revenue, or consult Slash and Duff when he HAS decided to use the catalog.? Axl maintains he has the sole publishing rights to the back catalog (which means only he can decide when/if the material is used).

OK that kinda clears up the amount paid out by Geffen, But aren't S&D claiming Axl left the partnership and vice versa? I understand back catalogue is the big part but we all know S&D are pissed that Axl insists on using the Name GnR. I find it hard to beleive that that isn't part of the suit.

Are we certain that Axl is not trying to remove S&D from the name GnR. so he has all rights to the name? Past, Present and Future?

[pilferk]

No.? That's not reallly how it works.

There is a set percentage of album sales (royalties) that go to the artists.? Say that # is 30% (and it ain't..not by a long shot).

If there are 3? partners/artists, that money is then distributed, via ASCAP (I think) as 10% to Slash, 10% to Duff, 10% to Axl (keep in mind, I'm simplifying things here, I know Steven, Izzy, et all also get a cut) less a "processing fee" levied by ASCAP.? The label just sends the money to ASCAP and lets ASCAP distribute it...the amount the label sends is no different.? In addition, the lawsuit has nothing to do with HOW the money is distributed to all the parties involved.? It's about publishing rights, not royalties/residuals.

What the lawsuit is all about is just WHO can say when material is used.? Even if Axl is no longer a member of the "parntership", he still gets royalties, etc, from the use of the material.? Slash and Duff say Axl's been overly stingy with the use of the material, so has cost them money by failing to use the catalog to generate revenue, or consult Slash and Duff when he HAS decided to use the catalog.? Axl maintains he has the sole publishing rights to the back catalog (which means only he can decide when/if the material is used).

OK that kinda clears up the amount paid out by Geffen, But aren't S&D claiming Axl left the partnership and vice versa? I understand back catalogue is the big part but we all know S&D are pissed that Axl insists on using the Name GnR. I find it hard to beleive that that isn't part of the suit.

Are we certain that Axl is not trying to remove S&D from the name GnR. so he has all rights to the name? Past, Present and Future?

Axl already has the rights to use the GnR name in perpetuity.  He could put 3 monkeys, a pig, and a camel on stage and call them GnR if he wanted to.  Again, that's not part of the suit.

The suit is, entirely, about publishing rights and who controls them. 

The part that's confusing is that there was a GnR LEGAL partnership that has nothing to do with GnR, the band, or GnR, the creative entity.  The fact that each entity can be called GnR leads to confusion.

The GnR LEGAL partnership was, originally: Izzy, Slash, Duff, and Axl. They had control over all the publishing rights of their material.  Izzy quit both the band and the partnership.  That left Slash, Duff, and Axl.   S&D claim Axl sent them a letter of intent to quit the partnership, and assume the BAND name of GnR, leaving THEM with the sole control over publishing rights.  Axl claims that S&D actually were the ones who quit the partnership, leaving him as the sole remaining member and thus, in control of the publishing rights.  That's what the suit actually pertains to.

GnR the BAND NAME is a trademark solely owned by Axl Rose.  He got the other band members to give it to him, essentially, provided he satisfied some list of requirements.  He did, apparently...and reading through the available material on the case, it doesn't seem like this is a bone of contention from S&D.

GnR the CREATIVE ENTITY is listed as having song writing credits on a number of GnR songs on AFD.  That means that the entire entity is given royalties on those songs, and then those songs have to be split among all the members of that entity (Adler, Izzy, Slash, Duff, and Axl)

[Neemo]

GnR the BAND NAME is a trademark solely owned by Axl Rose.? He got the other band members to give it to him, essentially, provided he satisfied some list of requirements.? He did, apparently...and reading through the available material on the case, it doesn't seem like this is a bone of contention from S&D.

GnR the CREATIVE ENTITY is listed as having song writing credits on a number of GnR songs on AFD.? That means that the entire entity is given royalties on those songs, and then those songs have to be split among all the members of that entity (Adler, Izzy, Slash, Duff, and Axl)

With that being said then. how come they want control over the catalogue then if they all get a cut regardless

That makes no sense to me.

Are you are saying Axl doesn't want to make money because Duff and Slash will make money too? (And Adler and Izzy apparently) That is just insane!!!

As a side. If Adler still gets money from AFD, then why did he sue them for money from royalties that he should've gotten? According to you ascap shoul have payed Adler, so why wasn't ASCAP sued instead then? I can't recall did Adler win that Case?

Also, How can one make money off GnR songs if one cant use the band name GnR? That is fucked up too. For instance. If Axl indeed own the name GnR then how can S&D put a song on a soundtrack by GnR? Do you get where I'm coming from? There is no difference in the old band GnR name and the new band GnR name. That would almost be like Roger Waters starting up a new band called Pink Floyd.  I'm sure Gilmour, Wright and Mason would have something top say about that

[Voodoochild]

I don't really know what's going on, but you can't put a label stupid move like this as result of GN'R camp not trying hard enough.

Do you honestly believe the label would be releasing a second GH if they had CD in their hands? Absolutely not, as CD would make way more money for them than a GH2.

I was talkin' about external problems pushing CD back, not the band. It's obvious that Geffen want to release GH2 because they don't have CD in hands for immediate release, but the thing is: right now (I'm not talkin' about past delays), who's the fault?

And what is Richard supposed to say? Axl is obviously the reason the album isn't done, everyone's parts have been done for years except him. The band isn't lazy, Axl is. Do you think Richard is going to come out and say that? He collects a monthly pay check and doesn't have to do anything except outside projects he enjoys doing. There is nothing more he can do with Guns until Axl pulls it together. He can't sing the songs.

Read the mail again. He's not a mercenary, only kissin' Axl's ass to get a pay check. And, for what I heard in bootlegs, OMG and IRS, I'm pretty sure Axl can sing the songs.

I am guessing the "frustration" he shares with us is Axl's inability to complete a mere 14-15 songs so that a new album can be released. Nobody in the band but Axl can sings the songs, so they (just like all of us) are at his mercy until he decides to start singing.

That's pretty ridiculous. Do you really think Axl can't complete 14-15 songs when A LOT of people already said they have tons of tracks already recorded? And what about member's words? All of them said the tracks are already done. Funny how negative people (I'm not talkin' about you, but in general) don't trust the members unless they talk about negative stuff.

If that were entirely the case, I would think that would put a moratorium on releasing anything with the GNR name on it. To go ahead and release yet another compilation album, of songs made up of the back catalog no less, kind of blows us that whole "nothing can be released because of the lawsuits" business.

It's obvious that the lawsuits can stop the release of unheard material (old or new). That's why Geffen is re-releasing a lot of old stuff. Jarmo already talked about this in previous posts, go read them.

[madagas]

Pilferk, no one has ever seen that document-where Axl was given the name. So, we really don't know any specifics and how it applies to these suits. However, it is clear that these lawsuits have nothing to do with the name issue. I still think that AXL should be concerned about being sued for that as well. They have sued for everything else. Neemo, it matters because Slash and Duff may authorize more songs to movies, commercials etc or may release more product. Axl would probably make more money if they were in charge. From a fan standpoint, I hope S/D prevail on the catalog dispute so we can get a real live album, dvd's, boxset etc! Axl has shown he doesn't want to release anything.....

[Naupis]

That's pretty ridiculous. Do you really think Axl can't complete 14-15 songs when A LOT of people already said they have tons of tracks already recorded? And what about member's words? All of them said the tracks are already done.

A lot of people have said the "music" is and has been done.

The general theme we seem to consistently hear is that vocals are never close to being done. So that can really only leave Axl as the problem.

It sounds ridiculous to imply that Axl couldn't finish 14-15 songs for an album. Problem is that we are 6-7 years into this project and still have no album. What else can you chalk that up to other than Axl not finishing the vocals? We know there is enough music to last a life time. What we have heard in every story written about the album is that none of the songs have finished vocals.

I just don't see how anyone other than Axl can be to blame when he has had however many years to lay down vocals but for whatever reason refuses to. 

[pilferk]

With that being said then. how come they want control over the catalogue then if they all get a cut regardless

That makes no sense to me.

Are you are saying Axl doesn't want to make money because Duff and Slash will make money too? (And Adler and Izzy apparently) That is just insane!!!

As a side. If Adler still gets money from AFD, then why did he sue them for money from royalties that he should've gotten? According to you ascap shoul have payed Adler, so why wasn't ASCAP sued instead then? I can't recall did Adler win that Case?

Also, How can one make money off GnR songs if one cant use the band name GnR? That is fucked up too. For instance. If Axl indeed own the name GnR then how can S&D put a song on a soundtrack by GnR? Do you get where I'm coming from? There is no difference in the old band GnR name and the new band GnR name. That would almost be like Roger Waters starting up a new band called Pink Floyd.? I'm sure Gilmour, Wright and Mason would have something top say about that

Slash and Duff contend that Axl is too stingy with the use of the catalog, yes. ?They haven't given a motive (at least not in open court documents...I'm sure that will come at trial, should it get that far). ?And that by being stingy with the use of the catalog, he is preventing them from making money. ?And that, in a nut shell, is the whole suit. ?They don't get a say in how the catalog is used and Axl vetos too many projects for their tastes.

On Adler being included in the GnR creative entity, I do that because he WAS granted rights/money/royalties as a result of that suit. ?I can't remember if he won, outright, or if the other members just settled with him. ?I'm sure someone can refresh our memory, but I know Axl has complained about having to give a piece of his rights up to Adler.

One can make LOTS of money from the publishing rights, for 2 reasons. ?First, the publishing rights inherently include the right to use the artists name as "credit". ?They couldn't brand merchandise with the GnR logo, but they could include the name on a movie credit or soundtrack. ?Second, you can also use the "assets" uncredited. ?For example: In a car commercial (ala the famous Sting song) or other advertising. ?

[pilferk]

Pilferk, no one has ever seen that document-where Axl was given the name. So, we really don't know any specifics and how it applies to these suits. However, it is clear that these lawsuits have nothing to do with the name issue. I still think that AXL should be concerned about being sued for that as well. They have sued for everything else. Neemo, it matters because Slash and Duff may authorize more songs to movies, commercials etc or may release more product. Axl would probably make more money if they were in charge. From a fan standpoint, I hope S/D prevail on the catalog dispute so we can get a real live album, dvd's, boxset etc! Axl has shown he doesn't want to release anything.....

True, to a point.

If you read the lawsuit, actually, S&D contend that Axl's letter of intent both gave them notice that he was leaving the partnership AND alerted them to his assumption, according to an existing agreement, of the GnR name.? While we haven't seen the documents in question, they must exist or else S&D would have, before now, sued to stop Axl from using the name.? It's a valuable property and, given Duff DOES have a business degree and neither Slash nor Duff is stupid, I'd find it impossible to swallow that they would not have acted MUCH sooner if there was any question as to who the name "belonged" to.? I'll grant you, that's an assumption, but it seems to be pretty well grounded in what we know.

In addition, I'm not sure the dvd's, live albums, rarities, etc material you're thinking would be released actually would be.? First off, I don't think they could do it without Geffen's approval (since they have an exclusive contract with the entity known as Guns n Roses).? Second, they would have to brand the merchandise as GnR, which I don't think they could do, legally (though I'm not sure), since Axl seemingly owns that trademark.

It's a convoluted issue, to be sure.

I also find it amusing that GH (the original) seems to be the stepping off point for this lawsuit.? S&D's attorneys found, I think, SOMETHING (something previously overlooked) during their contesting (with Axl) of GH's original release.? And THAT something seems to have been the impetus for the suit...

And now...we get rumors of GHII.....? Weird, eh?

[madagas]

Geffen would open up the vaults anytime if given the greenlight. It's a mess. No doubt. However, it took S/D 8-9 years before they decided to go after the partnership issues. Whose to say that the contract on the name issue is not disputable as well. They were under duress at the time, not capable of making a rational decision....I'm just throwing it out there.

[pilferk]

Geffen would open up the vaults anytime if given the greenlight. It's a mess. No doubt. However, it took S/D 8-9 years before they decided to go after the partnership issues. Whose to say that the contract on the name issue is not disputable as well. They were under duress at the time, not capable of making a rational decision....I'm just throwing it out there.

Certainly possible.? I would think that if the contract were assailable, they would have wrapped it into this suit. Easier and cheaper.? But that's just my supposition... I could be way off base.  Could also be that the time for them to protest is so far along that it would be tough for them to make the argument now, after 10 years or more, and have a judge not laugh at them.  With the catalog use, the argument is easier to make, since it's use is an ongoing thing, rather than a static event.  Again, just speculation....

And we don't really know they were under duress.? We all know the STORY that Axl sauntered in before a show and refused to go on unless they signed over the name to him.? How TRUE that story actually is...well, as with all things GnR...is certainly suspect.

For all we know, Slash, Duff, and Izzy coulda signed the contracts while sipping latte's around a conference table in some lawyers office.....or surrounded by sharks with fricken lazer beams all controlled by Dr. Rose.?

[ppbebe]

From a fan standpoint, I hope S/D prevail on the catalog dispute so we can get a real live album, dvd's, boxset etc! Axl has shown he doesn't want to release anything.....

From the start, I've suspected  that's the core of the lawsuit really.
First off Geffen would be more than happy to approve such releases.
Second, If they could get rid of the obstacle by the name of Axl from the pertnership, everything would go smoothly. everyones happy.

Except for me who's in favour of this GN'R and wants to hear the new music by them.

[madagas]

Obviously, I want the new music more than anything-but, we are not getting it. Pilferk, I agree. They would have went after the name already if they thought they could. The statute of limitations probably did run.

[Neemo]

It's a convoluted issue, to be sure.

I also find it amusing that GH (the original) seems to be the stepping off point for this lawsuit.? S&D's attorneys found, I think, SOMETHING (something previously overlooked) during their contesting (with Axl) of GH's original release.? And THAT something seems to have been the impetus for the suit...

And now...we get rumors of GHII.....? Weird, eh?

But before all the GH stuff, we have the failed 2002 Guns N' Roses tour. No real reason has yet been revealed about the cancelation. (We have all kinds of speculations yes but no official reason)

Also of note, is all the references to "Former GnR frontman, Alex Rose "

Also none of the currnet members seem to ever have GnR associated with their names, or if they do its always "ex"

But anyway thanks for the clarification (kinda) of the nature of the lawsuits Pilkferk (I hate legal jargon I need it dumbed down )