Appetite For Democracy Blu-ray/DVD - live in Las Vegas Nov 21 2012

[Jbat81]

I understand what your sayin Volcano62. I have a feeling it wont get approved cuz they see that Metallica is releasing theirs in September... Theres some sensetive band members in GNR... Im sure deep down most of you know wt i mean... I dont even care anymore if its release or not. Im used to it by GNR... It will always b my fav bnd tho! Regardless...

[jarmo]

Is there something that the label doesn't like about this release? Is the band and management in the same situation as us? Clueless?

To answer your questions, I don't know.

Someone was saying they cant release this because if features music written by past members

I don't understand that.

What exactly would stop it?




/jarmo

[pilferk]

I understand 100% of what you are saying but you can easily compare GNR to Smashing Pumpkins and Megadeth.

All three of those bands are in the same situation.

However the other 2 bands have no issues releasing past and new material.

So, 3/5th of Smashing Pumpkins has sued the one, continuing, member for more control over publishing rights of old material (ie: how things can be used, where, and when)?  And they now have a detailed court order explaining the very exacting process that has to occur, giving all 5 stakeholders equal say in use (and, apparently, by looking at the court documents, "veto power")?

2/5ths of Smashing Pumpkins has, on more than one occasion, objected to the use of old material in TV, films, or other media....refusing to sign the necessary releases?

And on, and on, and on.....

Yes, there are bands that have somewhat (but even then not exact) similar histories.  But they might not be in the exact same situation.  And that's my point: What has gone one with GnR membership has, historically, been a little bit more contentious, and a little bit more unusual, than what has gone on with other bands.  Why that is isn't really the point in THIS discussion.  Just that it is.

And, after departing, membership from the bands you've mentioned seem more willing to "play ball" and collect publishing royalties, rather than be contrary just to be contrary...or, depending on you POV, take principled stance over collecting royalties.

That, in itself, makes the situations different.

[volcano62]

I don't understand that.

What exactly would stop it?

/jarmo

I would not want to pay past members that quit.....

[volcano62]

I understand 100% of what you are saying but you can easily compare GNR to Smashing Pumpkins and Megadeth.

All three of those bands are in the same situation.

However the other 2 bands have no issues releasing past and new material.

So, 3/5th of Smashing Pumpkins has sued the one, continuing, member for more control over publishing rights of old material (ie: how things can be used, where, and when)?  And they now have a detailed court order explaining the very exacting process that has to occur, giving all 5 stakeholders equal say in use (and, apparently, by looking at the court documents, "veto power")?

2/5ths of Smashing Pumpkins has, on more than one occasion, objected to the use of old material in TV, films, or other media....refusing to sign the necessary releases?

And on, and on, and on.....

Yes, there are bands that have somewhat (but even then not exact) similar histories.  But they might not be in the exact same situation.  And that's my point: What has gone one with GnR membership has, historically, been a little bit more contentious, and a little bit more unusual, than what has gone on with other bands.  Why that is isn't really the point in THIS discussion.  Just that it is.

And, after departing, membership from the bands you've mentioned seem more willing to "play ball" and collect publishing royalties, rather than be contrary just to be contrary...or, depending on you POV, take principled stance over collecting royalties.

That, in itself, makes the situations different.

Dave Ellefson tried to get money from Mustaine for many years

[pilferk]

Dave Ellefson tried to get money from Mustaine for many years

Ellefson is only legally due what he has authorship rights (and thus, publishing rights) for.  That's 12 songs through their first 4 albums, all of Youthanasia, and then 2 songs off their next two albums (which brings us to the 2000's, when Ellefson left).  And in almost all cases, Ellefson is co-writing with Mustaine (meaning there's only 2 people that need to approve it's use).

Pretty much the entirety of Appetite is credited to the ENTIRE BAND (Guns n Roses)...which means all 5 members get equal say in how that material can be published and used.

And Ellefson lost his suit (circa 2004) against Mustaine....so the courts sided with Mustaine on that one.

[jarmo]

I would not want to pay past members that quit.....

Doesn't that apply to live performances as well? The people who wrote the songs you perform live get paid.

Same thing with songs used in movies, television commercials and so on.





/jarmo

[spgunner]

Maybe it's just waste of time to keep on asking ourselves why or when. We better hold our horses and wait. We might end up watching this OR not for several different reasons we will never know. So let's just...hope for the best!
Guessing around makes people start gossips here and there on the supposed reasons this is not released yet and that's the last thing this band needs right now.

True but it's not fair to get teased with trailers..... (im not blaming anyone yet)

Maybe I'm wrong but who knows who's behind this teaser. Maybe it's the people who produced the show, trying to force the band to release it the same way other bands are doing. Who knows! Or maybe the band wants to release it and it was supposed to happen but it's not happening for reasons we have no idea. Or maybe it's gonna happen and the teaser teased us n' we're looking ofr something we gonna have. One again.. who knows! lol
I don't think Axl goes "Oh release the teaser" and then he goes "Oh nevermind, we won't do it". I really don't buy it.

[slash&axl]

I understand 100% of what you are saying but you can easily compare GNR to Smashing Pumpkins and Megadeth.

All three of those bands are in the same situation.

However the other 2 bands have no issues releasing past and new material.

So, 3/5th of Smashing Pumpkins has sued the one, continuing, member for more control over publishing rights of old material (ie: how things can be used, where, and when)?  And they now have a detailed court order explaining the very exacting process that has to occur, giving all 5 stakeholders equal say in use (and, apparently, by looking at the court documents, "veto power")?

2/5ths of Smashing Pumpkins has, on more than one occasion, objected to the use of old material in TV, films, or other media....refusing to sign the necessary releases?

And on, and on, and on.....

Yes, there are bands that have somewhat (but even then not exact) similar histories.  But they might not be in the exact same situation.  And that's my point: What has gone one with GnR membership has, historically, been a little bit more contentious, and a little bit more unusual, than what has gone on with other bands.  Why that is isn't really the point in THIS discussion.  Just that it is.

And, after departing, membership from the bands you've mentioned seem more willing to "play ball" and collect publishing royalties, rather than be contrary just to be contrary...or, depending on you POV, take principled stance over collecting royalties.

That, in itself, makes the situations different.

Slash released a dvd with mostly GNR songs, so I don't that is the reason
After the failed London release you'd think the band would know what they're doing.
Also Axl sounds great on the trailer

[raindogs70]

GnR isn't even listed in Interscope's roster of artists. They probably forgot Axl's still with the label.

I'll predict for a fall/winter release, a year after they played The Joint. I think that's still sooner than the time the GnR show at the O2 was shot on video and aired on TV.

The Grateful Dead are releasing a concert film this week to theaters, and that took - 41 years.

[pilferk]

Doesn't that apply to live performances as well? The people who wrote the songs you perform live get paid.

Same thing with songs used in movies, television commercials and so on.





/jarmo

Interestingly, it doesn't apply (in the US) to live performances.  That is, for whatever reason, considered fair use. You can, essentially, cover any artist, any song, during a concert and not have to pay royalties for it (and, since you're not publishing it, no publishing rights either).

But if you record that show, and try to sell it (either in album form or as a DVD/Blu-Ray), the rules change.

[pilferk]

Slash released a dvd with mostly GNR songs, so I don't that is the reason
After the failed London release you'd think the band would know what they're doing.
Also Axl sounds great on the trailer

Which means Slash got "most" of the old membership to sign on the dotted line.  At least for the Appetite songs.

He has to....that's the law.

I can't remember..did that release predate the lawsuit resolution, which laid out pretty strict rules for how it was decided the old material could be used?

[jarmo]

Doesn't that apply to live performances as well? The people who wrote the songs you perform live get paid.

Interestingly, it doesn't apply (in the US) to live performances.  That is, for whatever reason, considered fair use. You can, essentially, cover any artist, any song, during a concert and not have to pay royalties for it (and, since you're not publishing it, no publishing rights either)..

Are you sure?

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx#general



/jarmo

[slash&axl]

Slash released a dvd with mostly GNR songs, so I don't that is the reason
After the failed London release you'd think the band would know what they're doing.
Also Axl sounds great on the trailer

Which means Slash got "most" of the old membership to sign on the dotted line.  At least for the Appetite songs.

He has to....that's the law.

I can't remember..did that release predate the lawsuit resolution, which laid out pretty strict rules for how it was decided the old material could be used?

They don't have to get anyone to sign but they do have to pay royalties

[volcano62]

Doesn't that apply to live performances as well? The people who wrote the songs you perform live get paid.

Interestingly, it doesn't apply (in the US) to live performances.  That is, for whatever reason, considered fair use. You can, essentially, cover any artist, any song, during a concert and not have to pay royalties for it (and, since you're not publishing it, no publishing rights either)..

Are you sure?

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx#general



/jarmo

A live concert is different.
I'm sure GNR is not sending any money to Bob Dylan when the play KOHD or Paul McCartney when they play Live and let die.

[One.In.A.Million]

I'm very excited for this DVD, but it seems like the brakes are starting to take effect yet again. What can be the hold up?, if there is one at all. And if not, then why not release this thing when the Vegas shows are still fresh in fans minds. It's such a shame nothing ever seems to be straightforward with anything this band releases... For whatever reason that is. 

[HBK]

This History GNR 4EVER... You like ??

I Yes

 

[Siamese Democracy]

I would not want to pay past members that quit.....

Doesn't that apply to live performances as well? The people who wrote the songs you perform live get paid.

Same thing with songs used in movies, television commercials and so on.





/jarmo

If a concert is not televised or broadcasted, former members don't need to be paid correct?   I thought during concerts all bets are off, and any artist can perform any song?

[rebelhipi]

Doesn't that apply to live performances as well? The people who wrote the songs you perform live get paid.

Interestingly, it doesn't apply (in the US) to live performances.  That is, for whatever reason, considered fair use. You can, essentially, cover any artist, any song, during a concert and not have to pay royalties for it (and, since you're not publishing it, no publishing rights either)..

Are you sure?

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx#general



/jarmo

A live concert is different.
I'm sure GNR is not sending any money to Bob Dylan when the play KOHD or Paul McCartney when they play Live and let die.

im not sure but i think that there is a system for bands that play covers live that makes them pay. i suspect that playing old gnr tunes is different cause axl owns the rigths for gn'r

''Public performances of copyrighted music at live music venues, with limited exceptions, require payment''
http://www.askamusiclawyer.com/archive/do-i-need-to-pay-to-perform-cover-songs-at-live-music-venues.html

[jarmo]

I thought during concerts all bets are off, and any artist can perform any song?

You can probably perform the songs, but I suspect the songwriter(s) should be compensated for it.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx#general




/jarmo