Guns N' Roses' current record company

[Spirit]

It's been uncertain in the past years if GN'R is still with a record company, at least to me.

Interscope have no mention of the band on their website. Universal Music (at least in the US), currently have no mention either.

I think I've found evidence that they're indeed with Interscope still, when I came across a press release from late last year announcing a pop-up store called "Wear. Music.".



Here's a quote from the release:

"The pop-up features unique stores from Interscope artists including The 1975, Imagine Dragons, Guns N? Roses, Lady Gaga, Marilyn Manson, and The Rolling Stones ..."

https://www.interscope.com/wearmusic




So, not independent yet...

[GNR4LIFEJD]

I know nothing about record labels or companies so maybe someone can explain what is Black Frog that GNR is is that for publishing and what is the point of it?

[Spirit]

I know nothing about record labels or companies so maybe someone can explain what is Black Frog that GNR is is that for publishing and what is the point of it?

In short, the record label is responsible for the recording process (paying for studio time, producers, mixing, mastering etc.). They also arrange for the marketing of the recording afterwards. Then they gain back their money through sales of the music produced, which the artist gets a cut of.

The publisher arranges so the artist gets paid royalties when its songs are played on the radio, TV, movies or covered by other artists live or through a studio recording.


Edit: Yes, Black Frog Music is a publishing company.

[allwaystired]

I know nothing about record labels or companies so maybe someone can explain what is Black Frog that GNR is is that for publishing and what is the point of it?

In short, the record label is responsible for the recording process (paying for studio time, producers, mixing, mastering etc.). They also arrange for the marketing of the recording afterwards. Then they gain back their money through sales of the music produced, which the artist gets a cut of.

The publisher arranges so the artist gets paid royalties when its songs are played on the radio, TV, movies or covered by other artists live or through a studio recording.


Edit: Yes, Black Frog Music is a publishing company.

Could the lack of a label impact on potential live album? Not from a financial point of view as they could easily find a label, but from a legal view? Are the song licences a problem?

[rebelhipi]

Who released the appetite for democracy dvd in 2014?

[Spirit]

Who released the appetite for democracy dvd in 2014?

Geffen/Universal

Geffen is under the Interscope umbrella.

[allwaystired]

What sort of deal would they be on though, going forwards? Surely not one that requires the delivering of any new material within a set time?

I'd wager that interscope thing is in the past, and that any deal they have is expired, personally.

[Spirit]

What sort of deal would they be on though, going forwards? Surely not one that requires the delivering of any new material within a set time?

I'd wager that interscope thing is in the past, and that any deal they have is expired, personally.

That was my point of the first post though, GN'R are being promoted as an Interscope artist as late as December 2016. They are still with Interscope.

I don't know the details of their contract though.

[allwaystired]

I read it differently though- like they are an interscope artist, but maybe not currently. I just can't see them having an active deal, otherwise surely there would be some form of push from the label for them to release content- be it reissues, live, etc.

[Spirit]

I read it differently though- like they are an interscope artist, but maybe not currently. I just can't see them having an active deal, otherwise surely there would be some form of push from the label for them to release content- be it reissues, live, etc.

The pop-up store featured merchandise and records by GN'R. I don't think Interscope could legally promote and sell GN'R products if the contract with them had expired.

[allwaystired]

I read it differently though- like they are an interscope artist, but maybe not currently. I just can't see them having an active deal, otherwise surely there would be some form of push from the label for them to release content- be it reissues, live, etc.

The pop-up store featured merchandise and records by GN'R. I don't think Interscope could legally promote and sell GN'R products if the contract with them had expired.

I'm not sure. Bands labels that no longer have the bands signed to them still sell their records. Take prince as an example. He released his own stuff, fell out with Warner massively for years, but Warner still sold the albums.

[Spirit]

I read it differently though- like they are an interscope artist, but maybe not currently. I just can't see them having an active deal, otherwise surely there would be some form of push from the label for them to release content- be it reissues, live, etc.

The pop-up store featured merchandise and records by GN'R. I don't think Interscope could legally promote and sell GN'R products if the contract with them had expired.

I'm not sure. Bands labels that no longer have the bands signed to them still sell their records. Take prince as an example. He released his own stuff, fell out with Warner massively for years, but Warner still sold the albums.

You might be right. So, even if GN'R leaves Geffen, do they still have the rights to the material?

[allwaystired]

I read it differently though- like they are an interscope artist, but maybe not currently. I just can't see them having an active deal, otherwise surely there would be some form of push from the label for them to release content- be it reissues, live, etc.

The pop-up store featured merchandise and records by GN'R. I don't think Interscope could legally promote and sell GN'R products if the contract with them had expired.

I'm not sure. Bands labels that no longer have the bands signed to them still sell their records. Take prince as an example. He released his own stuff, fell out with Warner massively for years, but Warner still sold the albums.

You might be right. So, even if GN'R leaves Geffen, do they still have the rights to the material?

I believe so. I could be wrong, but as I understand it that's the case. Often certain image rights are contained too- hence why you sometimes see band shirts being sold in high street retailers.

The thing that makes me question it a bit though is the disagreement duff and slash had with axl regarding him refusing to licence songs for adverts. That might be related to publishing rights though- which axl could retain sole ownership of, while geofence have the rights to sell the material in the form they own it- I.e. The albums.?

[Spirit]

The thing that makes me question it a bit though is the disagreement duff and slash had with axl regarding him refusing to licence songs for adverts. That might be related to publishing rights though- which axl could retain sole ownership of, while geofence have the rights to sell the material in the form they own it- I.e. The albums.?

I believe this has to do with publishing rights only. Since Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff all have rights, with Axl having his own rights managed through his own company and the rest through the company "Guns N' Roses Music", all have to sign off on material being used. If one party doesn't want to sign, it can't be used.

That's why Axl re-recorded WTTJ. Once he did that, he could use the re-recording for Black Hawk Down with only him needing to sign off on it. It didn't work out in the end though, maybe due to Ridley Scott wanting the original song.

[FreddieJames]

It works like this:

When you RECORD music, the person PAYING for those recordings is automatically the OWNER of those recordings. He owns the recordings, not the music. Usually the record companies pay for the recording process, making them the owner. They can decide what to do with those recordings until 50 years after the recording.

When you WRITE a song, you're automatically the OWNER of what you wrote until 72 years after you die. This can be either MUSIC or LYRICS. Seeing that there are a lot rules, legislation and rights to be defended, interpreted or simply read, many ARTISTS sign their rights to a company that PROTECTS and EXPLOITS their music. These companies are called PUBLISHERS. They make sure their artist's music is protected and that they get what they deserve money wise. Some artists sign away their rights to those companies forever, some for a certain period of time and some start their OWN publishing company. That's what Axl did with Black Frog Music. BFM focuses solely on protecting the copyright to any music and/or lyrics he wrote.

Geffen was the record company that signed GnR 30 years ago, and paid for the recording of Appetite, Lies, Illusions etc. They OWN the copyright to the recordings and can do WHATEVER they want with it. Since Interscope bought up Geffen, they now own those rights. Depending on the kind of contract GnR has, they could still be signed to Interscope. Usually artists sign for a certain amount of albums, that was pretty much the rule in the 80's. It took Madonna 25 years to be done with the deal she signed in 1983: she had to release 10 albums before the deal ended. I can imagine GnR having something similar. So my bet is that they're still with Interscope b/c they still owe them one, two or maybe more albums.

Regarding their music being used for a game, commercial or whatever:

There are TWO main parties involved in that: the one that OWNS the copyright to the RECORDINGS (usually record company) and the person(s) owning the copyright to the MUSIC. In this case that's Geffen for the recordings and Axl, Slash and Duff for most of the music GnR wrote. If one of those parties decides not to sign off, no one can use the recording or the song.

I hope this might give some of you some insight how the music business works regarding records and music (publishing) 

[Spirit]

Thanks for that thourough explanation, much appreciated! 😃

[GypsySoul]

Geffen was the record company that signed GnR 30 years ago, and paid for the recording of Appetite, Lies, Illusions etc. They OWN the copyright to the recordings and can do WHATEVER they want with it. Since Interscope bought up Geffen, they now own those rights. Depending on the kind of contract GnR has, they could still be signed to Interscope. Usually artists sign for a certain amount of albums, that was pretty much the rule in the 80's. It took Madonna 25 years to be done with the deal she signed in 1983: she had to release 10 albums before the deal ended. I can imagine GnR having something similar. So my bet is that they're still with Interscope b/c they still owe them one, two or maybe more albums.

Regarding their music being used for a game, commercial or whatever:

There are TWO main parties involved in that: the one that OWNS the copyright to the RECORDINGS (usually record company) and the person(s) owning the copyright to the MUSIC. In this case that's Geffen for the recordings and Axl, Slash and Duff for most of the music GnR wrote. If one of those parties decides not to sign off, no one can use the recording or the song.

I hope this might give some of you some insight how the music business works regarding records and music (publishing) 

First off, thanks for your insight. Very educational. 

I quoted the last part because I have 2 questions as it would relate to GH. 
Would the release of GH count towards the number of albums possibly stilled owed the "paying owner"? 
And, if as you say "If one of those parties decides not to sign off...", how was GH able to be released against the wishes of both Axl and Slash?

[Bridge]

Would the release of GH count towards the number of albums possibly stilled owed the "paying owner"? 

I would say that Greatest Hits did indeed count as a release, and the purpose of that release was because Geffen was continuously funding Chinese Democracy so extensively that it needed to release something to recoup the ever-rising costs.

And, if you say "If one of those parties decides not to sign off...", how was GH able to be released against the wishes of both Axl and Slash?

As long as it is a Guns N Roses album, as Greatest Hits was, they can release anything without the band's permission.  That's why Axl, Slash, and Duff couldn't stop that album from being released.

"Signing off" applies to video games, TV commercials, movie soundtracks, etc.  Basically Slash, Duff, and Axl have to sign off on all original GNR recordings that are used elsewhere other than GNR records that are released under Geffen's name.

In they don't all sign off, there can be legal trouble -- remember when "Welcome to the Jungle" was used for a "Guitar Hero" game (the one that featured Slash), and Axl sued, publicly stating that they weren't granted the license, which means Axl obviously didn't sign off -- at least not with the awareness that Slash was going to be associated so heavily with the game.  I am guessing Axl had a pre-ordained provision for any deal that whenever he said "yes", former members weren't permitted to be used in context with GNR songs.

Then we had that re-recorded version of "Sweet Child o Mine" featured in the movie "Big Daddy" in 1999.  The obvious assumption is this was done so that Axl could circumvent having to ascertain Slash's or Duff's approval, since their parts were removed for this release.  It certainly was not done for money reasons, because Slash, Duff, Steven, and Izzy all retain writing credits (and thus royalties) for GNR songs no matter who records them.  But afterwards, Slash and Duff sued Axl for underpayment of rights, royalties, etc, so perhaps this was a sticking point for them.

[FreddieJames]

First off, thanks for your insight. Very educational. 

I quoted the last part because I have 2 questions as it would relate to GH. 
Would the release of GH count towards the number of albums possibly stilled owed the "paying owner"? 
And, if as you say "If one of those parties decides not to sign off...", how was GH able to be released against the wishes of both Axl and Slash?

You're very welcome!

Regarding Greatest Hits: usually a contract states specifically what kind of albums are part of the deal. So lets use the example of 10 albums. The contract could state: 7 albums worth of original music, 2 Greatest Hits and 1 Live Album. In this case GnR have delivered 8 so far, thus meaning one more GH and one with original music.

(Disclaimer: I don't know anything about GnR's contract. The numbers are just guesses)

And pretty much what Bridges said, except that the re-recording of Sweet Child could solely be not having to pay Slash and Duff royalties over the recording. Which is pretty spiteful, but I don't even know if that's the reason. Because they will always have a say in what happens with the music itself.

[GypsySoul]

BIG THANKS again to both you, FreddieJames, and to Bridge.   


My next question would be about songs re-done in whole or part by another artist and used commercially...

... specifically, does Axl/Slash/AFD5 have any say in SCOM being used this way in this commercial?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxL7BT7UDrY