This version sucks. They should THANK GN'R for doing a cover, which by the way, is not illegal to do. Plus, they never released it as a track so there's no case.
It was recorded in 1977 by the Mentors. The Mentors have spoke to Member of GnR Over this subject. GnR are big fans of the band and send Christmas cards and fruitcake for the Holidays.
First off, by using the same title - that isn't stealing this song. Secondly, the lyrics are completely different. Same concept, totally different turns. Lyrics, melodies, everything is different. Only thing GNR "stole" was the same name. That could be debated since there wasn't a copyright exclusively on the song title. It's a phrase that Duff just so happend to use.
@Nils Nilsen "That's the thing with a cover, you don't need permission, " Not only you need permission, you also have to write a contract about the royalties. You can't just "do a cover". Without the contract it's stealing.
@@mmestari Well, you need to write a contract about the royalties, if you want to sell your cover as a commercial product. But G&R never did that, so what is the original artist going to sue them for? He could demand "100% of the profits!" and it would still be zero dollars.
True, but Otis Redding didn't really record anything until 1964 (he was 23) but El Duce was only 19 here I find that a little more interesting ( I am not saying that Otis wasn't talented).
I perefer The Mentors' version. Firstly because they made it in a great British punk-rock style, and secondly because the GNR's version is too "common" for my taste :)
I think GN'R didn't even do a cover because the text is so different.They just took one verse.And how can you even think of getting 90% percent of the profits.That is a lot money!!!And this song didn't make them famous.The melody is different.What do The Mentors think they are doing?!
If there was to have been a legal case it would have happened years ago, but it didn't because it's nothing more than an unreleased cover song on a bootleg, never released and no money ever made from it! GnR 'stole' nothing. Bands do cover versions. Stop trying to get attention for some unlistenable 'underground' punk schlock band.
1. Whole lyrics except chorus are different 2. GN'R didn't release this song on any album 3. It's called COVER! If you think they stole it, better read the definition of cover, because I'm sure you don't know this goddamn word PS. Both bands are cool, but this version of Cornshucker sucks
@Vera "3. It's called COVER! If you think they stole it, better read the definition of cover, because I'm sure you don't know this goddamn word" Before you you wrote that moronic garbage, you should have read what a cover is actually yourself: A license can be negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder through an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original author. A similar service was provided by Limelight by RightsFlow, until January 2015, when they announced they will be closing their service. The U.S. Congress introduced the mechanical license to head off an attempt by the Aeolian Company to monopolize the piano roll market.[5] Although a composer cannot deny anyone a mechanical license for a new recorded version, the composer has the right to decide who will release the first recording of a song. Bob Dylan took advantage of this right when he refused his own record company the right to release a live recording of "Mr. Tambourine Man".[4] Even with this, pre-release cover versions of songs can occasionally occur. Live performances of copyrighted songs are typically arranged through performing rights organizations such as ASCAP or BMI.
Someone sounds a tad biased...considering GN'R didn't release it, because of the profanities, tis group/guy/whatever couldn't get 90% of anything. GN'R sounds better than this as well...And it's like one or two lyrics, if anything Duff was inspired by the lyric...so get over it...Also if GN'R were fans of this band then it wasn't meant as harmful, but respectful to them if anything.
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
the lyrics are completely different in this song vs the GnR song
This version is horrible
@@noneofyourbusiness6764it’s not a version it’s the original
Lol 90% of profit, this didn't even make a gnr album, so the mentors aren't getting much money from this.
This version sucks. They should THANK GN'R for doing a cover, which by the way, is not illegal to do. Plus, they never released it as a track so there's no case.
Guns and roses version sucks donkey dicks
Guns N’ Roses didn’t even release the fucking song!
It was recorded in 1977 by the Mentors. The Mentors have spoke to Member of GnR Over this subject. GnR are big fans of the band and send Christmas cards and fruitcake for the Holidays.
Guns n roses version is way better.
TeddyxxMexx very true
This isn't the version on the mentors album. Guns & Roses could never play this song right.
Maddog is right this was written in 77 by the Mentors its on the b side of the Oblivion Train 7 inch
thanks buddy for posting this. u got great taste in music.
Está versión original está culerisima :y
Prefiero gnr
horrible band, my god!
A MASTERpiece
First off, by using the same title - that isn't stealing this song. Secondly, the lyrics are completely different. Same concept, totally different turns. Lyrics, melodies, everything is different. Only thing GNR "stole" was the same name. That could be debated since there wasn't a copyright exclusively on the song title. It's a phrase that Duff just so happend to use.
MENTORS 4EVER!!!
Two versions of a song that didn't make either band any money. Such a stupid thing to claim the rights to.
That's the thing with a cover, you don't need permission, you just have to credit whoever wrote lyrics/melody if it ends up on an album.
@Nils Nilsen
"That's the thing with a cover, you don't need permission, "
Not only you need permission, you also have to write a contract about the royalties. You can't just "do a cover". Without the contract it's stealing.
@@mmestari Well, you need to write a contract about the royalties, if you want to sell your cover as a commercial product. But G&R never did that, so what is the original artist going to sue them for? He could demand "100% of the profits!" and it would still be zero dollars.
great song im sure the mentors appreciate your support
I love it!
True, but Otis Redding didn't really record anything until 1964 (he was 23) but El Duce was only 19 here I find that a little more interesting ( I am not saying that Otis wasn't talented).
I perefer The Mentors' version. Firstly because they made it in a great British punk-rock style, and secondly because the GNR's version is too "common" for my taste :)
SAEZ Virginia you got no taste in music
@@adamgriffith-smith9106You eat corn the long way if you think the GnR version is better
first off the lyrics are different, and guns didn’t even release the song so they made no profit
Quite interesting that El Duce was only 19 when he sang this (he sounds A Lot older than 19, in my opinion).
I know they took the name and the chorus, but they did it better
These guys r awesome.
@ArticSabbathGwar75 i dont just listen to GN'R...
Find the real story here inside the full-length documentary film www.mentorsrockumentary.com
This version is much more creative and original than this one by the GNR.
I think GN'R didn't even do a cover because the text is so different.They just took one verse.And how can you even think of getting 90% percent of the profits.That is a lot money!!!And this song didn't make them famous.The melody is different.What do The Mentors think they are doing?!
GUNS N ROSES LOL!!!!!
And it's longer
It's called a cover dude
If there was to have been a legal case it would have happened years ago, but it didn't because it's nothing more than an unreleased cover song on a bootleg, never released and no money ever made from it! GnR 'stole' nothing. Bands do cover versions. Stop trying to get attention for some unlistenable 'underground' punk schlock band.
Guns N Roses never had any imagination or style. I never liked them. Thanks for this demo by the Mentors, never heard it before :)
SAEZ Virginia listen to welcome to the Jungle and get back to me
Otis Redding died at 26. Don't you think that his voice sounded like a 40 years old man?
LMAO??? 90% of GN'R profits? Just, because they made a demo cover of The Mentors song? Dude, you should take a head surgery..
WTF
its called a cover if thats what it was. but in actuality guns stole this track they had no permission to record it.
gnr had no permission to record it so they didn't record it...they covered it live once in '87 that was iy
they did record it. they just never released it. you can look for the recorded version on here but of course it gets taken down regularly.@@joeylebar
guns do not kick the mentors ass guns is a good band back in the day but mentors way more better. the mentors r 100% original guns wasnt
1. Whole lyrics except chorus are different
2. GN'R didn't release this song on any album
3. It's called COVER! If you think they stole it, better read the definition of cover, because I'm sure you don't know this goddamn word
PS. Both bands are cool, but this version of Cornshucker sucks
@Vera "3. It's called COVER! If you think they stole it, better read the definition of cover, because I'm sure you don't know this goddamn word"
Before you you wrote that moronic garbage, you should have read what a cover is actually yourself:
A license can be negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder through an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original author. A similar service was provided by Limelight by RightsFlow, until January 2015, when they announced they will be closing their service. The U.S. Congress introduced the mechanical license to head off an attempt by the Aeolian Company to monopolize the piano roll market.[5]
Although a composer cannot deny anyone a mechanical license for a new recorded version, the composer has the right to decide who will release the first recording of a song. Bob Dylan took advantage of this right when he refused his own record company the right to release a live recording of "Mr. Tambourine Man".[4] Even with this, pre-release cover versions of songs can occasionally occur.
Live performances of copyrighted songs are typically arranged through performing rights organizations such as ASCAP or BMI.
It's called a cover.
It isn't the exactly same song it like one row that is the same. And GnR says that She's a Cornchucker. Not I'm. And GnR version is so much better!
Someone sounds a tad biased...considering GN'R didn't release it, because of the profanities, tis group/guy/whatever couldn't get 90% of anything. GN'R sounds better than this as well...And it's like one or two lyrics, if anything Duff was inspired by the lyric...so get over it...Also if GN'R were fans of this band then it wasn't meant as harmful, but respectful to them if anything.
@TheJackal92
So if I steal your car, but I like you, it's not car theft, but I'm doing it out of respect?
Guns N Roses didnt steal it. They did a cover of it, theres a difference
Garbage, not missed
jesus, "stole"? ever heard of a cover ?
Guns 01 x 00 Mentors. Lol.
This is horrible!! So glad GnR improved this!! Total garbage band.
This version sucks. you should thank guns n roses for stealing it.