another "did it really happen?" -Frank interview ("Broken" song)

[25]

Maybe the parts were re-recorded so that buckethead and whoever doesn't get royalties.

Yeah, I'm sure that they'd drop a few thousand dollars on re-recording so they can deprive ex-members of  0.001 cents per unit.

[jak0lantern01]

Are you kidding? If there is ANY form of lawsuit (and Axl knows about those things), it will cost a whole heck of a lot more than .001 cent per unit after you factor in all the legal fees. You don't get out much, do you?

[25]

Are you kidding? If there is ANY form of lawsuit (and Axl knows about those things), it will cost a whole heck of a lot more than .001 cent per unit after you factor in all the legal fees. You don't get out much, do you?

You think that Buckethead would start a lawsuit because GNR used his parts (produced under contract) on the album and paid him royalties? I don't follow your logic. Maybe I don't get out enough, if that's how the world works these days.

[Neemo]

Del James.

I thought that didn't happen

but other than that i've never seen a statement directly from frank or ron saying they had recorded for chinese democracy...can somebody post those quotes please?

besides, no statement claims they did some recording of Chinese Democracy tracks. Not even the one that didn't happen. to play a few new tracks that will be on cd wouldn't necessarily imply some recording on cd, lets alone rerecording.

Exactly and all statements we do have from ron or others in the band (richard, tommy, dizzy) clearly state that Bucketheads parts are remaining and that rond came too late....if ron came too late then you can bet your ass that frank did too....unless there has been a total 180 degree turn


IF this is true and what was in the Del James article, to me, said that the recording was for the followup album

And why would Axl withold royalties from any contributer? if he still lets the orig band get royalties i can't see this being any different...but of course the album needs to be out before royalties are a concern

[25]

And why would Axl withold royalties from any contributer?

The second part of that question; Why wouldn't Axl have royalty shares clearly defined and laid out in the band's contracts? Seems like that's the sort of legal protection you'd have nailed down if you had GNR's history of litigation.

[jak0lantern01]

Let me tell you something, anytime there's a lawyer involved in anything, you're talking about $$$. There's plenty of cases in the entertainment industry where someone makes a claim to a property that is necessarily their's to claim, but the lawyers (who are paid very generously) always try to find a way. The lawyer is guaranteed a win, regardless. If Mr. Chicken-head feels financially needy at any point, he can always call his lawyer. Now, I'm only using this as an example, but I recall a concert during the 2002 era (RIR3?) where Axl comments that there were people that were trying to stop GNR from happening (Performing? Recording? Name/song rights? I don't know). My point is, when the lawyuers are involved, it gets expensive and there may be an effort to remove performers no longer associated with the band from the new CD to avoid any potential for future lawsuits. It has to get tiring after a while.

[Neemo]

And why would Axl withold royalties from any contributer?

The second part of that question; Why wouldn't Axl have royalty shares clearly defined and laid out in the band's contracts? Seems like that's the sort of legal protection you'd have nailed down if you had GNR's history of litigation.

well yeah, i mean in this day and age, you'd think that all that shit would be clearly defined before they even set foot into the studio

jakolantern why would you think axl would withhold royalties i understand legal fees are expensive

[jak0lantern01]

It's not a matter of royalties being withheld, but there could be two factors involved in this situation: 1. GNR have no interest in paying royalties to someone no longer associated with the organization and would rather have Ron re-record BH's parts (oversimplified, but you get my point, but it definitely happens. This IS a business) or 2. Perhaps there was a well defined contract, but sometimes contracts are disputed, regardless, and the lawsuit can get messy. I'm just generalizing here, I really don't know ANYTHING that goes on inside the GNR camp, I'm just tossing general examples out. We've created a culture of litigation in this country, and everyone suffers from it.

[Six Strings]

Jesus, guys calm down! From song named "Broken" to a fuckin' lawsuit? Hahaha...

[Neemo]

Jesus, guys calm down! From song named "Broken" to a fuckin' lawsuit? Hahaha...

haha totally

GNR have no interest in paying royalties to someone no longer associated with the organization and would rather have Ron re-record BH's parts (oversimplified, but you get my point, but it definitely happens. This IS a business)

it's been stated numerous times that bh is still on the record....and in the lawsuit it was proven that Duff and Slash still receive royalties from long ago so if axl is content that those guys get $$ for their contributions when there was never ever a contract layed out at that time then why would it change now when in all likely hood there was negotiations for this kinda thing before bh even got involved...

this is a bit much to talk about until the album is out and we know who did what on the songs but for now i gotta beleive the guys in the band and managemnet when it was said BH parts are staying

[25]

1. GNR have no interest in paying royalties to someone no longer associated with the organization and would rather have Ron re-record BH's parts (oversimplified, but you get my point, but it definitely happens. This IS a business)

There's a couple of points which negate your arguement there (and I'd appreciate a bit of clarification from someone who knows their stuff if I muddle this);
The royalties for appearing on the recordings are usually quite small in comparison to publishing royalties (because the label claims "authorship" of the actual recording), so there'd be very little gain to be had from a costly lawsuit (which would probably involve Interscope as well as GNR if it was a copyright issue pertaining to the recording) and if a former member had a significant role in writing a song he'd have a claim to the publishing royalties anyway - re-recording his parts on the song would have such a comparitively negligable monetary value as to make the idea a pointless expense.

And that's before you even consider "work-for-hire" contracts and any other legal clauses the musicians signed their names to. I wouldn't be surprised if all former member's contributions to the recording are  wholly owned  by GNR, like any other  "work-for-hire" agreement. 

[ppbebe]

Haha, true Six Strings.

GNR have no interest in paying royalties to someone no longer associated with the organization and would rather have Ron re-record BH's parts

Brain is ovbiously associated with the organization and they would't rather have frank re-record his parts.
although BH himself is no longer, his contributions are appreciated by the GNR members. axl stated so on BH's departure.

[guns_n_motley]

whats he mean by

"He did alot of free-style drum beats, but they are just scraps, not actual songs."

[25]

whats he mean by

"He did alot of free-style drum beats, but they are just scraps, not actual songs."

I guess it means he recorded some fills and beats, not entire tracks.

[jak0lantern01]

Kinda like Kirk Hammett begging James Hetfield to play a single note on the song NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. He was shutdown.    This discussion has gotten out of hand. Either way, still no CD. Someone needs to be beaten with a rubber hose.

[bigbri]

It's not a matter of royalties being withheld, but there could be two factors involved in this situation: 1. GNR have no interest in paying royalties to someone no longer associated with the organization and would rather have Ron re-record BH's parts (oversimplified, but you get my point, but it definitely happens. This IS a business) or 2. Perhaps there was a well defined contract, but sometimes contracts are disputed, regardless, and the lawsuit can get messy. I'm just generalizing here, I really don't know ANYTHING that goes on inside the GNR camp, I'm just tossing general examples out. We've created a culture of litigation in this country, and everyone suffers from it.

Why would they want to cut off BH anyway? He was a member of the band for several years, and Axl hasn't exibited any hard feelings toward him, and if you believe the rumors, Axl tried to get Bucket back. Bucket helped craft those songs, and he deserves the credit even if his parts are re-recorded.

[gotohell]

I got this from Cd.com
there's no way to tell if its for real or not.
I dont care if this gets deleted... I think it's a bunch of poop.


After Monday nights gig, I asked the drummer Frank what tracks he's been working on. He couldn't tell me. Why? He's not allowed to discuss it. Please? Sorry he can't. Anything, please? He said that he worked on the title track recently along with a couple new ones. He did alot of free-style drum beats, but they are just scraps, not actual songs. Favorite Track?? Better, Maddy and Broken. My eyes lit up when I heard him mention a title that I never heard of before. I asked him what Broken sounds like. He said sorry, but he can't discuss it any further.

This guy Dan, that I met at the gig, was at the so called after-party at Bubbles Mansion, he didn't see any band members, but he claimed to have seen a disc with three track on it. 1. "Better" & 2. "The Blues" and 3 was also "The Blues" but some kind of edit or remix or alt. take. It was on a disc with cover art similar to the curtains behind the stage at the live shows. He thought it was the upcoming single, but they never played it. The guy that worked at the club was showing it around because it was autographed.

Take it and beat off, or whatever you guys do to rumours.
http://gnrnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=382
 
Back to top? ? ? ?
 



Better" will most likley be the first single( common knowledge), but I do not see "The Blues" as B-side material (more likely to be the 3rd or 4th single).........soooo, this probably BS

[SPUNKY]

yeah how the hell can u av the blues as a B-side??

Unless the other slow songs are even beta OMFG if so!!

 

[Chinese Democracy]

Honestly,

I don't like the idea of any of Brains drum tracks being re-recorded.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

whats he mean by

"He did alot of free-style drum beats, but they are just scraps, not actual songs."

I guess it means he recorded some fills and beats, not entire tracks.

Like the maddy looping beat. Maybe he did those just so he will be on the album. Basically frank just did drum bits here and there and didnt do a drum track for the whole song, that is what i take it he means