Jump to content

Guns N' Roses - Family Tree - March 16th 2010 - CD

Guest King Of Spades

By Guest King Of Spades
in 2010

 Share

Recommended Posts

Granny Full

Granny

Posted
Posted

I like the concept. Honestly. I think "Family Tree" is a much more appropriate album-title than "Attitude for Destruction".

A lawsuit coming? Axl must have agreed to this. Partly his songwriting, his singing. They wouldn't publish this without his consent, would they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Shackler118 Full

Shackler118

Posted
Posted

I like the concept. Honestly. I think "Family Tree" is a much more appropriate album-title than "Attitude for Destruction".

Family Tree would be a good title for an official GnR album also. Considering the number of people who came and went, like it said in the Ashba article on gunsnroses.com

"Now, one step closer to the abyss, Ashba joins a band who's all time roster is nearly as long as it's founder Axl Rose's rap sheet!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Estranged Reality LEGEND

Estranged Reality

Posted
Posted

This just leaked onto the 'net and is getting awful feedback from fans.

I didn't even realize it was coming out. How are they authorized to release this under the actual GN'R name? You'd think given Axl's nature he'd be able to block this easily as it's being billed as GN'R but half the songs aren't them.

You can see the album artwork here: http://www.rlslog.net/guns-n-roses-family-tree-2cd-retail-2010-snook/#comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allen8R SUPER GOD

Allen8R

Posted
Posted (edited)

This just leaked onto the 'net and is getting awful feedback from fans.

I didn't even realize it was coming out. How are they authorized to release this under the actual GN'R name? You'd think given Axl's nature he'd be able to block this easily as it's being billed as GN'R but half the songs aren't them.

You can see the album artwork here: http://www.rlslog.ne...snook/#comments

The only way that I can see this being right is that the album title is actually "guns n' roses family tree" by "various artists" or something along those lines. Otherwise it would be absolutely illegal- this is not a guns n' roses album at all. What it is is Gilby Clark and Traci Guns at it again trying to make money off of the GNR name any fucking way they can. I'm sick of these two fucking smucks doing this, like what the fuck? Gilby is nothing but a complete chode who was Axl's first "hired gun" for a few years and then he spends 15 years making GNR tribute and mock albums with other musicians who played with Axl once years ago. Traci Guns is mostly a wash-up who never made it that far anyways and who probably spends 85% of his waking life trying to figure out where he fucked himself out of being a member of GNR and the other 15% wondering how he can make money off of a band that isn't his.

A8R

Edited by Allen8R
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutYou LEGEND

ThinkAboutYou

Posted
Posted

This just leaked onto the 'net and is getting awful feedback from fans.

I didn't even realize it was coming out. How are they authorized to release this under the actual GN'R name? You'd think given Axl's nature he'd be able to block this easily as it's being billed as GN'R but half the songs aren't them.

You can see the album artwork here: http://www.rlslog.net/guns-n-roses-family-tree-2cd-retail-2010-snook/#comments

the album name really is misleading

people could think this is the followup to Chinese democracy :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fallenbird77 Junior

Fallenbird77

Posted
Posted

This just leaked onto the 'net and is getting awful feedback from fans.

I didn't even realize it was coming out. How are they authorized to release this under the actual GN'R name? You'd think given Axl's nature he'd be able to block this easily as it's being billed as GN'R but half the songs aren't them.

You can see the album artwork here: http://www.rlslog.net/guns-n-roses-family-tree-2cd-retail-2010-snook/#comments

the album name really is misleading

people could think this is the followup to Chinese democracy :lol:

Sadly some people do...

"I just downloaded this and am now listening to it and I must say I am disappointed. Appetite for descruction was the first album I ever bought. Not just the first GnR album, but the first album ever. Several of those songs are on here. Welcome to the Jungle, My Michelle, Mr. Brownstone plus several others.. and you can hear distinct differences between the songs on this album and the songs on ALL their other albums. The main one being Axl. It doesn't sound like Axl. In fact, if you had told me this was a cover band, after listening to this, I'd have believed you. Also, I think Slash is gone now too, right? The guitar proves that. Even with the "new" Axl Rose.. This album sounds like GnR without Axl and Slash and you can't have GnR without those 2. For all the old 80's and 90's rockers, you may be disappointed with this album.

:shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GN'R Lies Full

GN'R Lies

Posted
Posted

Whoa this so doesn't look right to me. Not only has original Gn'R material been covered on an album (something I very much doubt Axl would approve), the artist is listed as "Guns N' Roses" when it clearly is not (bizarre!!!) :shocked:

If Axl doesn't challenge this, me points to conspiracy theory that Axl has possibly agreed on the basis of attaining performing rights to other/all Gn'R songs ... correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some songs "off limits" (particularly off UYI) for Axl to perform due to single or shared copyright with ex-Gn'R members? I distinctly remember Axl mentioning his frustration a while ago in not being able to play all Gn'R songs due to legal reasons.

Does anyone know the singer/s on the album? Cannot believe the price on Amazon for this thing is the same as CD and is priced higher than Lies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sturginho GOD

sturginho

Posted
Posted

Can someone please look into this and explain to to how in the fuck this is going on? This is really pissing me the fuck off!

I can only assume that Axl & Slash's lawyers don't know about it otherwise I think they would be all over the case, just like they were with the Greatest Hits and the Hollywood Rose album

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shackler Full

Shackler

Posted
Posted

Whoa this so doesn't look right to me. Not only has original Gn'R material been covered on an album (something I very much doubt Axl would approve), the artist is listed as "Guns N' Roses" when it clearly is not (bizarre!!!) :shocked:

If Axl doesn't challenge this, me points to conspiracy theory that Axl has possibly agreed on the basis of attaining performing rights to other/all Gn'R songs ... correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some songs "off limits" (particularly off UYI) for Axl to perform due to single or shared copyright with ex-Gn'R members? I distinctly remember Axl mentioning his frustration a while ago in not being able to play all Gn'R songs due to legal reasons.

Does anyone know the singer/s on the album? Cannot believe the price on Amazon for this thing is the same as CD and is priced higher than Lies!

I'm pretty sure any band can perform any song?

Maybe i'm wrong, but for example, local bands play whatever they want, why can't Axl?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seely GOD

seely

Posted
Posted (edited)

Whoa this so doesn't look right to me. Not only has original Gn'R material been covered on an album (something I very much doubt Axl would approve), the artist is listed as "Guns N' Roses" when it clearly is not (bizarre!!!) :shocked:

If Axl doesn't challenge this, me points to conspiracy theory that Axl has possibly agreed on the basis of attaining performing rights to other/all Gn'R songs ... correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some songs "off limits" (particularly off UYI) for Axl to perform due to single or shared copyright with ex-Gn'R members? I distinctly remember Axl mentioning his frustration a while ago in not being able to play all Gn'R songs due to legal reasons.

Does anyone know the singer/s on the album? Cannot believe the price on Amazon for this thing is the same as CD and is priced higher than Lies!

I'm pretty sure any band can perform any song?

Maybe i'm wrong, but for example, local bands play whatever they want, why can't Axl?

GN'R Lies, i don't know what you think you heard that, but you're wrong. Axl was asked that in his chats, about whether he was restricted from playing certain songs. In his open letter, he says: "We can play what we want as far as I'm aware"

And as for the topic at hand, these things come out loads. Bootlegs, tribute CDs like these and so on appear reguarly.

HMV's website has bootleg DVD's of the St. Louis show from 1991 and also the 2006 Rock In Rio show:

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;5;-1;-1;-1&sku=906299

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;5;-1;-1;-1&sku=927642

a bootleg live CD:

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;1;-1;-1;-1&sku=594028

Amazon.co.uk has the Rtiz 1988 show DVD available (which i bought):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Roses-Live-New-York/dp/B001L1H1O0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1279026213&sr=1-2

The Chicago 1992 show (only half the show is actually on there, mind)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Roses-Live-Chicago-DVD/dp/B000F8AF70/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1279026285&sr=1-15

Guns N' Roses- Live Rarities DVD:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Roses-Live-Rarities-DVD/dp/B000VZZSGK/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1279026327&sr=1-18

All of these are listed under the Guns N' Roses name. Not legal as such, as far as i'm aware, but there we go.

Edited by seely
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allen8R SUPER GOD

Allen8R

Posted
Posted

Whoa this so doesn't look right to me. Not only has original Gn'R material been covered on an album (something I very much doubt Axl would approve), the artist is listed as "Guns N' Roses" when it clearly is not (bizarre!!!) :shocked:

If Axl doesn't challenge this, me points to conspiracy theory that Axl has possibly agreed on the basis of attaining performing rights to other/all Gn'R songs ... correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some songs "off limits" (particularly off UYI) for Axl to perform due to single or shared copyright with ex-Gn'R members? I distinctly remember Axl mentioning his frustration a while ago in not being able to play all Gn'R songs due to legal reasons.

Does anyone know the singer/s on the album? Cannot believe the price on Amazon for this thing is the same as CD and is priced higher than Lies!

I'm pretty sure any band can perform any song?

Maybe i'm wrong, but for example, local bands play whatever they want, why can't Axl?

GN'R Lies, i don't know what you think you heard that, but you're wrong. Axl was asked that in his chats, about whether he was restricted from playing certain songs. In his open letter, he says: "We can play what we want as far as I'm aware"

And as for the topic at hand, these things come out loads. Bootlegs, tribute CDs like these and so on appear reguarly.

HMV's website has bootleg DVD's of the St. Louis show from 1991 and also the 2006 Rock In Rio show:

http://hmv.com/hmvwe...1;-1&sku=906299

http://hmv.com/hmvwe...1;-1&sku=927642

a bootleg live CD:

http://hmv.com/hmvwe...1;-1&sku=594028

Amazon.co.uk has the Rtiz 1988 show DVD available (which i bought):

http://www.amazon.co...79026213&sr=1-2

The Chicago 1992 show (only half the show is actually on there, mind)

http://www.amazon.co...9026285&sr=1-15

Guns N' Roses- Live Rarities DVD:

http://www.amazon.co...9026327&sr=1-18

All of these are listed under the Guns N' Roses name. Not legal as such, as far as i'm aware, but there we go.

All of these are GNR. This is a CD put together by Traci guns and gilby clarke and calling themselves Guns N' Roses!!. Different thing all together! And so are tribute albums, they're various artists paying tribute to GNR, not a bunch of quirks pretending to be GNR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seely GOD

seely

Posted
Posted

that's not my point. my point is that those things are still being marketed as official, new, and authorised GN'R material when in fact they are not, in the exact same way the CD being discussed here is, and that it is not an unusual occurance, which people in this thread believe is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allen8R SUPER GOD

Allen8R

Posted
Posted

that's not my point. my point is that those things are still being marketed as official, new, and authorised GN'R material when in fact they are not, in the exact same way the CD being discussed here is, and that it is not an unusual occurance, which people in this thread believe is the case.

I think you're blind. This album claims to be made by Guns N' Roses and it's not. This is very unusual. A tribute album is an official tribute by other artists. A bootleg is basicaly stolen footage and released despite copyright infringement but is still a real GNR performance. It's not every day LA guns and gilby clarke get together and fake an album by a band they don't play in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...