Sweet Child O' Mine - Big Daddy

[ManetsBR]

The outro is way better than the original version.

Agreed---it's FINALLY back to the way Buckethead wrote it back in 86. I mean, the way Paul Tobias wrote it. Eh, whatever, either way, it's back to the way (insert new employee) wrote it back when (insert new employee) wasn't even in the band and hated GNR.

This is one of the most stupidiest posts I've read in a while. What does one thing has to do with the other? Just because someone wrote a song that means no one will ever peform it better? That is just plain stupid, it is.

[volcano62]

Axl sounds incredible at the end.

[Randy Lahey]

Axl enjoys messing with perfection.

[downzy]

Other than Finck's solo, I think it sounded pretty good. It's interesting that he still has his raspier vocals in this version when many of 1999 leaks have the cleaner sounding vocals.

I remember around this time I was worried that Axl might not be able to sing anymore, but this track eased some of my fears. It's too bad he can't sound like that anymore.

[Dean]

I have a feeling Slash and Duff (and possibly even Steven or Izzy also) would have blocked an Appetite re-release as an attempt by Axl to deny them their mechanical royalties. They would have certainly been successful in this as they are collectively majority copyright holders of the Appetite material.

Would they have had a say on whether or not Axl was allowed to give it to Big Daddy? Could Axl have maybe used the first half of the song from the old line-up to avoid any lawsuits?

I quite like the first couple of Where Do We Gos. That's about all I can say for it really.

I wish the original version was as dark sounding, that's definitely one of the pro's of the new version.

I honestly think this is awful and Axl really shot his foot by allowing this to be released on a soundtrack... awful way to start New GNR.

I love to once have the opportunity to ask Axl what was he thinking when he allowed this to be released.

I think it's quite a classy way to move on from the old band. The way the new band is introduced is quality, Robin's guitar and Axl's ear piercing vocals gave somewhat hope and encouragement for the fans, that he was going to re-invent himself all over again. The synth made it relative for the 90's, which now makes it sound fairly dated, which isn't the case with the original version, IMO.

[DieselDaisy]

haven't compared them in a while, but i was under the impression it was either the exact same vocal track as 'live era' or from the same sessions. it's the new band playing in the second half.

mind you, axl tried this a few times. ridley scott wanted 'welcome to the jungle' for Black Hawk Down and axl would only hand over the rights if they would play a re-recorded version of the song (the 1999 track, most likely). of course, the film producers said no, since the movie took place during the '90s and they wanted the song to help place the movie within historical context. hearing a re-recorded version would have just confused audiences. so axl lost that battle.

i think his comments about re-releasing 'appetite' were partly said just to annoy the ex-bandmembers. i'm not sure even he would have been quite delusional enough to attempt that. but i do think he had an interest in 'burying' the old lineup and this is confirmed by the rumour i read about how he wanted robin to re-write slash's solos during the 2002 tour.

Yes, and Slash and Duff brought up the Black Hawk Down thing in their May 2004 lawsuit. They claimed the denial of mechanical royalties. This certainly confirms that there would have been a massive lawsuit if Axl had decided to re-release that re-recorded version of Appetite.

[workingmanblues]

What's with the figaro thing in the beginning?

The only thing this version made me want was the whole album of AFD re-recorded. I'm not even saying that it would have been better than the orginal but I think it would have been interesting to hear and quite enjoyable. The fullness of the sound at the end of the song sounds so good. Wasn't the rumour that other hits like You Could be mine and patience were going to be on this re-release instead of some other AFD tracks?

Edited May 8, 2013 by workingmanblues

[SweetRose]

: ( butchered

[bran]

I have a feeling Slash and Duff (and possibly even Steven or Izzy also) would have blocked an Appetite re-release as an attempt by Axl to deny them their mechanical royalties. They would have certainly been successful in this as they are collectively majority copyright holders of the Appetite material.

i dont know how that would work. ozzy re recorded blizzard and diary with studio musicians and cut out kerslake and daisly(who had songwriting credits) kerslake and daisley sued and won for royalties on the albums. the re recorded albums were still sold(and still can be bought),so my guess as long as the old band received royalties from the sold albums, they could not stop anything.

Edited May 8, 2013 by bran

[trqster]

Axl should now re-record this track with his nuGn'R v3 (or v4) and with his infamous mickey mouse voice. It'd be a killer.

[DieselDaisy]

I have a feeling Slash and Duff (and possibly even Steven or Izzy also) would have blocked an Appetite re-release as an attempt by Axl to deny them their mechanical royalties. They would have certainly been successful in this as they are collectively majority copyright holders of the Appetite material.

i dont know how that would work. ozzy re recorded blizzard and diary with studio musicians and cut out kerslake and daisly(who had songwriting credits) kerslake and daisley sued and won for royalties on the albums. the re recorded albums were still sold(and still can be bought),so my guess as long as the old band received royalties from the sold albums, they could not stop anything.

I do not know the specifics of the case but I assume Kerslake and Daisley failed to obtain an injunction on the newely recorded Blizzard of Oz (or filed the suit too late!).

There are some differences though. Kerslake and Daisley do not possess a majority on publishing. Daisley has 33% on 7/9 tracks (same as Ozzy and Rhodes) whereas Kerslake only has 25% on one track. Slash/Duff possess a clear 40% majority for the whole of Appetite - increase that by 15% if Adler gets involved (Adler is not likely going to want to see his Appetite royalties, the very things which have funded his drug habit for so long, be compromised). Additionally, Blizzard of Oz was conceived as a solo project - or perhaps, a semi solo project with Ozzy dominant; Ozzy Osbourne's name is on the sleeve. Guns N' Roses were conceived as a partnership; Guns N' Roses's name is on the sleeve. With Ozzy, there was probably no such thing as a Partnership Agreement put into place - Daisley and Kerslake may have even been on a salary (again, I do not know the specifics). A civic tribunal would take that into account.

I certainly feel Slash and Duff would have filed and had a better chance than Daisley/Kerslake.

Edited May 8, 2013 by DieselDaisy

[Daedalus]

Re-record a classic song like SCOM - the stupidest thing ever (in the GN'R world).

[Russel Nash]

Re-record a classic song like SCOM - the stupidest thing ever (in the GN'R world).

it's not like they change the past.. it's another version, a plus for the listeners. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.

[trqster]

Obviously it was something that Axl planned to do at a certain point in time, probably mainly intended to piss the f@ck off Slash and other Gn'R founding members....

[Coma16]

The drums sound amazing. Is it Sorum or Adler on the kit?

[Daedalus]

Re-record a classic song like SCOM - the stupidest thing ever (in the GN'R world).

it's not like they change the past.. it's another version, a plus for the listeners. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.

I don't listen to it because I think it's terrible (compared to the original song). And I seriously doubt that they have get any new listeners/fans because of this song.

If they wanted to do a "favour" for the fans, they should record a new song - like they did for the End of Days movie.

[nathanhall]

It's Sorum

[nathanhall]

Just listen to it. It easy to pick who is playing as it's easy to pick who is singing. Unless of course you think some re-recorded version sounds 'better' or 'fuller'because of course in that case you have a hearing problem. If you say that any re-recorded version or live version is even slightly better in any way, then you are either an antagonist, a liar, wrong or stupid. End of story. Fuck you all.

[Coma16]

Just listen to it. It easy to pick who is playing as it's easy to pick who is singing. Unless of course you think some re-recorded version sounds 'better' or 'fuller'because of course in that case you have a hearing problem. If you say that any re-recorded version or live version is even slightly better in any way, then you are either an antagonist, a liar, wrong or stupid. End of story. Fuck you all.

What a wanker. I think Shaklers and TIL are much better live. Fuck you.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Anyone that thinks any part of this song is better than the original is just plain dumb. Fincks solo sucks fucking monkey balls. I've honestly heard bar bands play the solo better than finck does here.

I honestly like the new band, and have been accussed of being "an axl nut swinger" but come on people. We get caught up in this new vs old band stuff that all logic goes out the door. The original appetite version of scom was a #1 hit for like 5 weeks. Its considered an all time rock classic. How in any way can this version be considered better? Even the part with the old band isn't better than the appetite version. And I'm sorry but finck can't play classic stuff properly, this is just another example of that.

[recklessroad]

Is was a mistake to switch out Slash's lead at the end of the song with Robin's. It just goes to show you how upset Axl was with Slash at that time. At a time that Robin was trying to prove himself. The best way for that was to do it with new materiel not changing the way the classic lead was played.

Edited May 8, 2013 by recklessroad

[James Bond]

Is was a mistake to switch out Slash's lead at the end of the song with Robin's. It just goes to show you how upset Axl was with Slash at that time.

I agree. The "switch" from the live take to the new studio one sounds awful. He should have either just given them the whole new studio take or just used the original studio version.

[DieselDaisy]

I think there are two reasons why Axl did a 'mash up'. One is that having the Paris 92 bit there gives Slash/Duff their mechanical royalties and therefore saves Axl from any messy litigation. The second, I think Axl was trying to make some sort of rhetorical point: ''there is the old band. And look how they have morphed into the new band.''

Just a theory.

It is a mess of a version and a very poor introduction for 'Nugnr' - remember, this was the first thing we ever heard.

Edited May 8, 2013 by DieselDaisy

[Scumcat Esq.]

This theory makes sense. Hence he chose a No. 1 hit.

[rockerman]

What are your views on this? I remember reading people saying how it was taken straight from Live Era, then it was the new line up coming in at the end. However, the vocals seem to be totally different to the Live Era version. It doesn't sound good, did they take the entire vocals from the re-recorded version and put effects on it? it's got horrible echo, but Axl sounds incredible at the end. Would a re-recorded version of Appetite have been poorly recieved back then? Do you think there were any concrete plans to release it, or do you think Axl was only interested in getting the band familiar with the tracks in preperation for future touring?

When this came out it was the new band version...this was viewed by many as a kick in the crotch to the legacy GNR because it bypassed any royalty payments due to them . About this same time was when a lawsuit was ensued against Axl veto for blocking Welcome to the Jungle from being used in "Black Hawk Down soundtrack or his veto on using any GNR songs in movie soundtracks. Of course like 99% of anything that is known it was largely specualtaion and rumour.