Jump to content

Gnr Missing Out


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cineater said:

$12.99/mo?  Go fuck yourself Metallic.  Doesn't sound like a sound business plan to me.  Maybe they have elite fans, lots of elite fans.

I don’t think it’s THAT expensive and to be fair, there are loads of other bands on the service too (Pearl Jam/Springsteen if u like that stuff). Better to have the opportunity to say ‘no thanks’ than not have anything in the first place.

 

 

Edited by DTJ80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps their record contract with Universal doesn’t make something like this worth visiting.  They can’t just release shows and have a streaming site without losing the majority of the revenue to the label and working out a deal. 

Metallica now has their own independent label to facilitate releases and also owns their old masters. Not really fair to compare the two 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just one of many things that they could be making money on but would rather give us $1000 box sets with tattoos.

Metallica and Pearl Jam set the bar for fan clubs and how to treat fans. I saw Metallica a few nights ago and they must have thanked the fans 5 or 6 times during the concert. Mentally I couldn’t help but think about how Axl usually doesn’t even speak 5 or 6 times at any concert, but I have been a massive GN’R fan for so long that it has just become exceptable. It is pretty sad, but this is the band we love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is in regards to streaming is that this all becomes a mute point in the future when Vevo monetizes via subscription and pulls all its artists from YT. Then to entice us they will add more content then was previously available by all the acts on YT, including Guns. Theres not much point in Vevo existing, except if they plan to monetize.

That being said, if there were a Guns stream, Im not one who chooses to spend money on more then 2 video streaming services at once (more power to those who do, though). And I fear that a Guns Streaming would loose me to Disney in a heart beat come December.

Guns is my favourite band ever, but at that price point Id want access to the entire Universal roster, especially so there would be new content added regularly like Netflix offers. Im thinking about how empty the periscope threads got on show days on here towards the end of each leg. Star of legs theyd be a hot thread and then by the end of the leg there'd be barely any action in those threads. By that measure Id say people agree with me to some extent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gimpy Hewitt said:

Recently Metallica announced that they joined a streaming service to stream the audio of over 600 of their previous shows, I think it costs $12.99 a month. I cannot fathom why GNR wouldn’t just make some money like this streaming their soundboards from over the years. What’re your guys thoughts?

That is what happens when you have your house keeper and her family as your managers. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -W.A.R- said:

This seems like a very niche thing. How long will people justify $12.99 (or $24.99) a month for something like this?

Depends how often they update it. If they want $25 a month I'd expect them to start with at least 50 shows and a documentary or two (the Perfect Crime documentary, South America 2010 documentary, 2006 European tour documentary, Troubadour 2016 soundcheck and rehearsals, etc.) and add at least 15-20 shows a month, UYI rehearsal footage, NITL rehearsal footage, documentaries, all in high quality... y'know, stuff that would actually be worth the price. I'd pay $25 for a copy of the Calgary 2010 show I saw, or the Seattle 2016 show. I could see a lot of people doing 1-3 month trials just to get a copy of a show they attended.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are people really busting their balls over $13/month? Who the hell doesn't have that? And if you don't have it, you can very simply not buy it. It ain't life or death, it's Metallica recordings (a really good live band to, btw). 

I don't know the exact details with it, but if I was a hardcore fan I'd almost definitely sign up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, guitarpatch said:

Perhaps their record contract with Universal doesn’t make something like this worth visiting.  They can’t just release shows and have a streaming site without losing the majority of the revenue to the label and working out a deal. 

Metallica now has their own independent label to facilitate releases and also owns their old masters. Not really fair to compare the two 

I guess my point was that with proper powerhouse management in place early doors, they have been able to get to the point where they make all own choices, have the Blackened label, own their masters etc.

GNR being a top level group should have had that kind of management in place from the moment they went stratospheric. That’s not to say the management they have had has been sub-par, it’s the fact they should have had elite level management that may have steered the band through post UYI choppy waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DTJ80 said:

I guess my point was that with proper powerhouse management in place early doors, they have been able to get to the point where they make all own choices, have the Blackened label, own their masters etc.

GNR being a top level group should have had that kind of management in place from the moment they went stratospheric. That’s not to say the management they have had has been sub-par, it’s the fact they should have had elite level management that may have steered the band through post UYI choppy waters.

They signed that deal back in the early 90’s. Not much they could have done outside of releasing albums and for UMG to accept those albums to fulfill the deal (Frank Zappa killed the ploy of releasing albums without label acceptance and time frames to get out of record deals)

The label wants control of all releases and more importantly during the last decade, a possible release with Slash’s involvement. No management team can get them out of their deal. UMG would rather put the band in limbo than drop them and lose out on that revenue 

Edited by guitarpatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it's up to the band what they want to do with their business.  Some fans keep asking for more, more, more, bigger, bigger, bigger.  The only thing Axl has really said he wanted was "a god damn band".  Slash tells us all the time, his interest is being on the stage.  The band may just be in that sweet spot where they are doing what they want.  Maybe they aren't going to complicate/grow the business any more than what it takes to let them do what they want to do with their life.  I haven't really seen or heard of the band wanting these things the fans keep thinking they should be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, guitarpatch said:

They signed that deal back in the early 90’s. Not much they could have done outside of releasing albums and for UMG to accept those albums to fulfill the deal (Frank Zappa killed the ploy of releasing albums without label acceptance and time frames to get out of record deals)

The label wants control of all releases and more importantly during the last decade, a possible release with Slash’s involvement. No management team can get them out of their deal. UMG would rather put the band in limbo than drop them and lose out on that revenue 

Fair enough - but perhaps a better deal could have been negotiated in the first place! And let’s not forget MetallicA even went as far as suing their own record company to get control of the masters - which was extremely shrewd. On the flip side, Def Leppard didn’t have control (not sure if that’s changed) and were churning out re-recorded versions for digital platforms.

Weirdly, I’m sure they are/were also represented by Q-Prime so go figure as to why they were in that scenario. Maybe Lars was more ‘fuck you - that’s ours’ than Leppard were as is his personality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early days no one wanted to manage Guns. And that was before riots and no shows. I'm not sure that Q Prime would touch them with a 10 ft poll.

Azoff got some shit done and Axl sued him to show his appreciation :lol:

And even today their tour management is getting layered with LN people.

Edited by soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tourettes2400 said:

This is just one of many things that they could be making money on but would rather give us $1000 box sets with tattoos.

Metallica and Pearl Jam set the bar for fan clubs and how to treat fans. I saw Metallica a few nights ago and they must have thanked the fans 5 or 6 times during the concert. Mentally I couldn’t help but think about how Axl usually doesn’t even speak 5 or 6 times at any concert, but I have been a massive GN’R fan for so long that it has just become exceptable. It is pretty sad, but this is the band we love.

Metallica setting the bar on treating fans?! Really?! Is that the reason they brought down Napster since they "love" the fans?? I love Metallica but let's kinda be realistic about being fan friendly.

On the other hand, Pearl Jam actually  does care for the fans by going against TicketMaster in the 90s. I give them a lot of credit for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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