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

[jarmo]

Sure, it'll be "good" news for some. The same people who've had various stories thrown at them as "facts" by the opposite side of the argument.
For others, like myself, it's not exactly news. Just another thing for some to ignore....


But seriously, you must be excited that your beloved management isn't the problem right? That must really feel good.... 




/jarmo

[team-axl]

I was hoping to go to the cinema and watch this and then buy the dvd also Can't understand how people defend slash

[D-GenerationX]

But seriously, you must be excited that your beloved management isn't the problem right? That must really feel good.... 

Initially, they don't appear on the hook.  That's a good thing.

Although the question as to how things got this far without some sort of agreement worked out is a valid one.  If they choose never to say anything about that, they will need to live with some people assuming its because they fucked up.

[D-GenerationX]

I was hoping to go to the cinema and watch this and then buy the dvd also Can't understand how people defend slash

On this?  No, he looks bad on this one.

But, devil's advocate, do you ever wonder how people can defend Axl on certain things?  Or is everything defensible, as you see it?

[Ginger King]

I wish some theater would go ahead show it anyway...that would force the hand of the "original member(s)" to sue and publicly reveal themselves.  Then, we could remove all doubt who is the a-hole keeping this from the fans.

[slash&axl]

I was hoping to go to the cinema and watch this and then buy the dvd also Can't understand how people defend slash

On this?  No, he looks bad on this one.

But, devil's advocate, do you ever wonder how people can defend Axl on certain things?  Or is everything defensible, as you see it?

Mostly because they prefer him to any other musical artist ever

[Gaymo, the Hobbit]

Slash is scum. May he rot in hell

[thinkaboutyou]

I was hoping to see this in cinema and buy the bluray etc sucks

[pilferk]

If you announce something, promote it, and then weeks before the release you determine you don't have everything in order...is that a great advertisement for their services?

Is that an unfair question to be asked?   Seems odd, at least a little bit, no?

I'm SOOO late to this party, but, in general...no.  At least not in the sense you mean it.

OFTEN, you are proceeding, with licensing issues, on a handshake understanding [wink wink nod nod] that the people who have to sign off WILL sign off.

But, right up until they see the final product, they have the option to "opt out" and kabosh.

It's more than plausible that one of the license holders saw the final product and, while giving preliminary OK to it, then decided to kabosh it.

It doesn't happen frequently, but it can (and does) happen (it happened to Paul Simon with Art Garfunkel at least 4 or 5 times, for example).  It's not "odd", per se.  And given then contentiousness of the relationship between the parties involved, it's definitely not "odd" here.

So, then the person creating the process has to go back to the drawing board and placate whoever is holding up the bus.  And, until they do, they can't release their product.  And that, specifically, is why (as management) you might not comment or lay blame...because there is some hope you might still get the product out, and you don't want to piss off the guy(s) who's making things difficult, so they decide to walk away completely.

[pilferk]

Why do u assume it's slash's fault? It very well might be... But what if it's axles people trying to screw him out of royalties ..I mean you how would any of us know?

It sucks that this seems like a real long shot

Like I said earlier there is always something...

All royalties go through the RIAA system.  You can't "screw" with anyone, really..unless the RIAA screws up (see previous lawsuit regarding this) and sends the checks to the wrong place.

There is a flat royalty schedule for most publishing mediums.

What they COULD be hung up on would be the publishing/broadcast/media rights and fees.  But, honestly, I doubt it.  I'd expect that was all laid out and agreed upon in principal much earlier.

What's more likely is that one of the band members has an objection to the form and format of the final product...which is why the lateness of the pull.  They likely didn't see it in it's final form until relatively recently...and they had a deadline for disapproval which was right up against the release date.

And they excercized their right to kabosh the final products form.

Let me be clear: That's 100% speculation...but the timeline is right.   If it were over compensation....the product never would have been promoted in the first place, IMHO.

[pilferk]

I am assuming the past members want a cut of the publishing for the DVD because it contains songs that they wrote.  I mean what else could they possibly have to bitch about at this point?

i'm also not sure. but all around this DVD release is heavily promoted by AFD 1987 album: all the tour promotion, the show itself, the cover artwork basically IS Appetite, the promotional video contained mainly AFD songs (and only songs until 1991!!)......that all does make it some unfair marketing business issue and might rightfully make people, who were responsible for those older albums, interests in publishing cuts.

The rights to the cover art reside with the artist, not GnR (or former members of GnR).

As long as the artist consents to allow it to be on the cover....they're golden.

[pilferk]

To get the narrative proven some so desperately want to believe, here is what you need to start rooting for.  For it to come out that Team Brazil had all their ducks in a row and everything agreed upon, only to have that supervillain Slash come in with new demands at the 11th hour.  That should be your focus, if your goal is to absolve TB or Axl for any of this clusterfuck of a situation.

Having dealt with this kind of stuff in an ancillary way "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away".....

The above is what the timelines lend themselves to.

Because, otherwise, you'd have a court case filed seeking damages and an injunction by the former members.   They'd have had grounds, especially once the promotions started.

Witness their reaction to GH being released.  Ultimately that proved to be futile, due to the contractual language....but....ALL the former members jumped on that as soon as the announcement was made.

Is it logical to think that, if there was an objection at that point, they wouldn't do so again?

They didn't..and that, to me, speaks volumes.

Instead, it got pulled right around the time you'd think the film was out for "review" by the former membership.....since about 3 weeks prior to release is when you'd think it's just about ready to go into mass production (gold, in software speak) for release....which means it would finally be in it's final form.

[D-GenerationX]

If you announce something, promote it, and then weeks before the release you determine you don't have everything in order...is that a great advertisement for their services?

Is that an unfair question to be asked?   Seems odd, at least a little bit, no?

I'm SOOO late to this party, but, in general...no.  At least not in the sense you mean it.

OFTEN, you are proceeding, with licensing issues, on a handshake understanding [wink wink nod nod] that the people who have to sign off WILL sign off.

But, right up until they see the final product, they have the option to "opt out" and kabosh.

It's more than plausible that one of the license holders saw the final product and, while giving preliminary OK to it, then decided to kabosh it.

It doesn't happen frequently, but it can (and does) happen (it happened to Paul Simon with Art Garfunkel at least 4 or 5 times, for example).  It's not "odd", per se.  And given then contentiousness of the relationship between the parties involved, it's definitely not "odd" here.

So, then the person creating the process has to go back to the drawing board and placate whoever is holding up the bus.  And, until they do, they can't release their product.  And that, specifically, is why (as management) you might not comment or lay blame...because there is some hope you might still get the product out, and you don't want to piss off the guy(s) who's making things difficult, so they decide to walk away completely.

Thanks for this.

I said the same thing.  That if Slash comes in at the 11th hour and demands more than intended, that's not on Team Brazil.  They aren't psychic.

But several people told me what I was suggesting would never happen.  That Slash would have had to agree to a number when this was negotiated, and then can't come in at the last second and demand more.

Truthfully, I assumed this was about money because I can't believe after seeing it there would be some game changer.  It was a concert film.  You knew the songs that were going to be on it.  What changed once you saw it?  Unless they brought out a Slash impersonator they made fun of or something.  And let's face it, if something like that that was the case, we'd have heard about it the night after the show 18 months ago.

[pilferk]

but to me this is all moot...whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy did it take to the final hour for this issue to come up?

if Slash has the right to any publishing or whatever... shouldnt they have handled that early on with his attorney?

Its the question that everyone should be asking now.

I see only 2 scenarios :

1) Team Brazil and their lawyers went ahead before this was all wrapped up.

2) Team Brazil and their lawyers had everything in order, and Slash came back at the 11th hour with unreasonable, over the top demands.

But its got to be one or the other.  Someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong.

3) Team Brazil and the lawyers had everything in order, money was fine, and one of the former members ultimately decided to use their right of refusal after seeing the finished product (either because they weren't happy with the quality, they felt the material was being done a disservice, or they felt they were being disparaged at some point during the film).

Did Axl SAY anything about any former band members during the residency?  Were there any disparaging signs or anything toward former members at the shows?

[pilferk]

Thanks for this.

I said the same thing.  That if Slash comes in at the 11th hour and demands more than intended, that's not on Team Brazil.  They aren't psychic.

But several people told me what I was suggesting would never happen.  That Slash would have had to agree to a number when this was negotiated, and then can't come in at the last second and demand more.

Truthfully, I assumed this was about money because I can't believe after seeing it there would be some game changer.  It was a concert film.  You knew the songs that were going to be on it.  What changed once you saw it?  Unless they brought out a Slash impersonator they made fun of or something.  And let's face it, if something like that that was the case, we'd have heard about it the night after the show 18 months ago.

To be clear...he (or whoever it was) may not have demanded anything.

They could have just said "no".  And not for any reason related to money.  Because they just outright object to some part (or many parts) of the final format.

Now..."they" might be able to be placated with more money....

Ultimately, there was likely a contract presented to the former members.  They likely signed it and accepted the rate of compensation.  Those telling you they couldn't, then, turn around and ask for more are more right than not.

But in just about every contract of this type, everything is based on the parties being able to view the final product and, potentially, "opt out" if they don't like it.

[pilferk]

Slash is a fucking snake who has been lying to the fans and press successfully for the past 18 years. Axl always ends up being "the bad guy" but when all it's said and done he's the one that always speaks his mind and gives us the truth no matter what it is.

Be serious.

OK, so..the hyperbole is definitely not to be taken seriously.  We agree on that.

But this is the second time, in a relatively short period of time, where the "truth" (note the quotes) has kind of come to light and seems to be leaving Slash with egg on his face.

First with the "Axl held the show hostage to get the band name" thing...and now, seemingly, this.

I don't know what happened, in either case.  And I'm not going to pretend to.

However, it does bear mentioning that the worm has turned a little bit.....at least in terms of the information coming out.

Edit: and, to be clear, I'm not trying to shit on Slash, either.  It has long been my opinion that it takes two to tango.  But...you have to admit...Slash has largely trumpeted himself as the victim (as has Axl, to be fair), and the media has largely taken up that tune.

I think this sheds a bit more light that...maybe...just maybe...the truth lies much more "in the middle" than most people give credit for.

[pilferk]

Aside from all that, there is nothing less punk rock than discussing contracts, rights of refusal etc.  When the business side becomes exposed to the public it really makes the art seem disingenuous no matter what the situation is.  

I know...it's like discussing Disney's business practices.  Nobody really wants the curtain pulled back to see that Mickey is really some 20 year old girl making $10 an hour, suffering with heat stroke on an almost daily basis, who's wearing a big rubber head.  And, the kicker is, I think Axl would largely agree with your POV on this.....

But...the reality is...bands are both artist and business, all at once.  And, at different times, both artistic and business influences come into play. I agree: It robs the process of some of the artistic "magic"....so you have to sort of learn to compartmentalize it all.

That being said: The business aspects have to be acknowledged because, otherwise, you're missing (at least) half the picture. 

[Bodhi]

I wish some theater would go ahead show it anyway...that would force the hand of the "original member(s)" to sue and publicly reveal themselves.  Then, we could remove all doubt who is the a-hole keeping this from the fans.

That won't do the current band any good.  Chances are the court of public opinion is going to side with the ex members.  Fans like us do sort of live in a bubble.  Read any comment section of any story on the internet involving current GNR and Axl, it is absolutely brutal.  This band gets torn to shreds EVERYWHERE. 


Aside from all that, there is nothing less punk rock than discussing contracts, rights of refusal etc.  When the business side becomes exposed to the public it really makes the art seem disingenuous no matter what the situation is.

[pilferk]

For those a bit confused, here:

Bodhi's comment appeared, I commented on it, and then Bodhi's comment quickly disappeared.

It's now back...but AFTER my comment.

I did not read Bodhi's mind.  I'm not clairvoyant, either.

No tinfoil hats required (SLCpunk, where are you??)

[Ali]

but to me this is all moot...whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy did it take to the final hour for this issue to come up?

if Slash has the right to any publishing or whatever... shouldnt they have handled that early on with his attorney?

Its the question that everyone should be asking now.

I see only 2 scenarios :

1) Team Brazil and their lawyers went ahead before this was all wrapped up.

2) Team Brazil and their lawyers had everything in order, and Slash came back at the 11th hour with unreasonable, over the top demands.

But its got to be one or the other.  Someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong.

3) Team Brazil and the lawyers had everything in order, money was fine, and one of the former members ultimately decided to use their right of refusal after seeing the finished product (either because they weren't happy with the quality, they felt the material was being done a disservice, or they felt they were being disparaged at some point during the film).

Did Axl SAY anything about any former band members during the residency?  Were there any disparaging signs or anything toward former members at the shows?

I wasn't at the 11/21/12 show.  I was at the two shows after.  But, nothing was said about Slash or Duff at all at those shows.  I  never read any message board reviews of the 11/21/12 shows mentioning any disparaging comments about Slash.

They may have come in during the band interviews in the bonus features, but that would only be relevant for DVD/Blu-ray releases.  I don't see why that would result in pulling the theatrical release.

Ali