guitarpatch

4 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Bands don't get advances to release albums. They get them to record albums. 

Not true. Once the label has decided pick up your option and facilitate a release, there’s an advance associated with it. Whether you waited for that advance to start funding your recording or put up the $ yourself beforehand is irrelevant

6 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Except that you can though. Anyone with a big enough name can do it. Many artists have done so and will continue to do so. 

Which is why Axl is Axl. None of this should be surprising. I just wouldn’t count on him playing that game or wanting something grandiose/outrageous that will never come to fruition. They prob need to find a way around him for all of that to work. Slash/Duff are there to lean on in that capacity 

Just now, allwaystired said:

Why is there more at stake than 'normal' releases? What makes it not a 'normal' release? Why does there 'need to be a more sold plan in place than other releases?' 

Yet again it all comes down to the same question: Why do these problems seem to only, ever, impact on GNR? 

There seems to be this constant idea that every other band is in one corner, GNR in the other, battling supposed 'problems' that don't effect anyone else. 

GNR gets an advance to release an album that’s stipulated in their contract. What’s that number?  I guarantee you that number isn’t in line with what advances are normally in 2020. Label contracts in 2020 also dip into other revenue streams to help offset the decline in record sales. GNR’s contract most likely relies solely on recouping from album sales/streaming alone. 

Everyone needs to plan out a strategy for that release to make sense 

1 minute ago, allwaystired said:

No- you CAN just release an album into the wild and let it sell. Especially if you're just about to go out on a massive tour you can use to promote it! It's what EVERY other band does! 

Not when there’s more financially at stake than normal releases these days. Not when albums don’t sell millions of copies and will be relying on streaming. Not when your artist generally doesn’t do any promotion to help it.
 

There needs  to be a more solid plan in place than other releases 

23 minutes ago, Sydney Fan said:

Im wondering out loud if it all comes to control, where axl wants the record promoted a certain way, and UMG are disagreeing. Or they are wondering what the reception to a new album would be like Tom has wrote above, and the band are getting second thoughts. 

It’s more about the reality of the music industry in 2020. 
 

What’s the realistic demand of a new GNR album in 2020? Who’s buying albums and what do those numbers look like for an artist these days? If GNR is going for maximum exposure, are there any alternative ways for a release that go beyond selling physical copies? Do they have that kind of support outside of rehashing Jungle/Paradise City with brand tie ins? 

4 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I don't mean this in a shitty way, but I think Axl is still stuck in 1991 as far we record promotion goes. Dude probably has no idea how things are done these days. 

He’s probably overwhelmed by all of the different avenues needed to make an impact. You can’t just release an album into the wild and hope it sells 

4 minutes ago, surforia said:

True, unless he had Slash/Duff sign a contract in connection with re-joining GN'R that required them to sign their rights in new material over to "Guns N' Roses."  Not exactly inconceivable.

I highly doubt that when you consider how they split things on tour 

Just now, surforia said:

My guess is that all this stems from that 20 year publishing deal Axl signed in 2005.  They're probably trying to figure out a way to circumvent having to pay someone else all the profits from the "new album."

Publishing is separate from album sales. It also wouldn’t include other songwriters, just Axl’s portion. He got his lump sum for the deal 

22 minutes ago, Sydney Fan said:

Musically no. I meant how vocal slash is when providing updates. I know SMKC isnt everyones cup of tea, but hes able to feel confident with saying whats going on. Able to give dates etc without having to be careful with his words because somone in the band might be annoyed if they read the interview.

Even going back to interviews pre 93 i dont think he was this coy.

Slash has no one really to answer to but himself there. It’s his band. At best in GNR, there’s 2 other people he needs to keep in mind, so by design he’s not nearly as free to provide consistent updates  

5 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

They've had QUITE a lot of time now in which they could have got busy with getting out of that contract, haven't they? 

Well that’s certainly the crux of it. It’s a unique situation compared to some of their peers 

4 minutes ago, GnR Chris said:

If the old contract from the '90s is what's holding everything up, and albums owed to Geffen, why not just come out and say that? Explain that they're bound by the old record contract and need to figure out the logistics and financials?

It isn't like GNR haven't had over eleven years since Chinese Democracy released to figure out the the best course of action for any new music.

 

Just a guess there...I’m sure it’s also been renegotiated countless times during the CD sessions 
 

Don’t think Slash/Duff like to get into those type of specifics. Business end is probably not that fun aside from the payout. 
 

Slash prob shouldn’t have even said that much. Keep it more vague and say you’re working on stuff... 

2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

"GNR would love to release new stuff" - now, now! Behave yourself! 

'Plans changed' 

Leaks happened...

Let me rephrase. GNR would love to release stuff under situations that mostly benefit themselves. I think the long term plan with most of it is to get out of that contract. It opens up a another revenue stream 

7 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I don't think Slash's answer is as vague as if he said something like "Yeah, we want to do it, we've started it and we'll see what happens." He said something more specific here and provided a reasoning.

The reasoning doesn't make much sense, though, considering that the band and the label released the AFD box set - based on the assumption, I guess, that there are still people who still buy records and even overpriced ludicrous box sets. 

Unless Universal doesn't think that there's a market for GnR mainly as a legacy act and there's no much interest in new music from them, so it doesn't want to invest much money on a physical release, packaging etc.

Reissue stuff is easier to get out. Less overhead in expenses. Easier to forecast long term sales. The box set fiasco aside... 

Im not sure what the expectations are for a new GNR release in 2020. Im sure they have the numbers for the AFD reissue to go off of. Maybe it doesn’t line up great. 

3 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

I see your point....but do we know if that's the case? I was under the impression they had fulfilled their contract with Appetite For Democracy and were essentially without one now? 

Live albums and compilations don’t count towards the deal. It needs to be new music 

I would think GNR would love to release stuff to finish their contract. It would open up possibilities such as a live archive and such. Doing that under UMG and their current contract just doesn’t make sense 

1 minute ago, allwaystired said:

That's just not true.

In the UK alone last year 4.3 million vinyl records were sold in 2019 and 23.5 million CDs. That's JUST in the UK. 

The BPI report from last year states that in 29 out of the 52 weeks physical accounted for over half of the sales of the number one album. It's a total fallacy that physical albums don't sell....they just don't sell like they used to in the 80s and 90s, for obvious reasons.  

Again, if the likes of Ozzy Osbourne can release a new album (or ANY OTHER band) then I don't buy any argument around "they need to be a bit creative to make an album happen". Even the fucking Who managed to put a new album out last year! You know, they toured it, promoted it, advertised it......and guess what? IT SOLD! 

The only realistic sticking point could be that  GNR are expecting the sort of mega-bucks that were floating about in the 90s of course, and refuse to acknowledge that there isn't as much money in the industry as there used to be. 

 

If their record contract stipulates a 3 million dollar advance for their next album, how do they circumvent that? 

Say they need to renegotiate. That also takes lawyers, time and more $ thrown against a project that’s now costing you $ 

11 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Again though, EVERY OTHER band manages to release something. Any debate about money, or whether it's worth the 'time and energy' has to be placed against that. Even Ozzy is able to make and sell a new album! 

Ozzy isn’t operating under a record contract from the 90’s 

Nowhere near the same situation

1 minute ago, allwaystired said:

All it really boils down to though is "market it, advertise it, promote it, package it nicely, sell it". Those who want it will buy it, those who won't, won't. 

There aren't really that many 'possibilities on how to release music' - it's all essentially done the same way as any other product in the world. 

Except no one buys music any longer. People stream or listen off of YouTube. If you’re dealing with an old record contract from even 20 yrs ago let alone 30, it makes thing a bit more complicated. The numbers don’t necessarily  line up with the $ that is being advanced. 

There’s a reason record contracts are constructed differently these days. I could def see a scenario where they need to be a bit creative to make an album happen 

Again it all comes down to Guns contract. What’s the advance to be paid for the album? What’s the realistic amount of sales/streaming the label is forecasting? Do those numbers make sense for everyone involved? 
 

Just because there may be songs completed, it doesn’t mean there’s an avenue for a traditional release. Nobody is releasing anything if it loses $. Nobody is releasing anything without it being worth their time/energy. 

Welcome to a legacy act in the music business in 2020...

Live Nation should just partner and buy a large amount of albums from UMG and include them with a ticket. Prob the easiest way to facilitate a release that makes sense for everyone. 

8 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Hmm... The vinyl jackets being cracked is interesting to an extent. That makes me think they're just selling leftovers that failed the quality control tests. From what I've seen, all the LPs included in the actual sets were perfect. 

My vinyl from the bundles were perfect. Could just be they aren’t handling the vinyl with care or something worse like throwing boxes around in the warehouse. 

So the merch store is having a clearance. Maybe there’s something big happening on the horizon and not just new tour related stuff

25 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Personally, I think the reunion took ALL of the air out of the argument that the record label has been the bad guy all these years. There's just no way that the label wouldn't have wanted to release an album in 2016 to strike while the iron was hot.  I'm sure Axl came up with some reason why that wasn't going to happen, but it's just easier to continue to blame the label. I've said this before, but nothing new happening in 2016 took a LOT of the wind out of my sails.

The only time I could see the label having not been interested in releasing a new album would've been 2009 - 2014. I can't blame them for that at all given Axl's ridiculous behavior once Chinese was finally released. If I were the label, I wouldn't have been in any hurry to work with an artist who refused to promote their own album. 

I would think that once the reunion happened, it’s in GNR’s best interest to release albums to somehow end their contract. The real $ for them would be a self release 

To expect something the very first year is a bit much. They were and did milk everything they could out of big payday live shows. They weren’t going to leave anything on the table to go in the studio. Especially if they didn’t want to put pressure on themselves as that situation didn’t go so well in the mid 90’s.

We’ll see what happens. If we actually get a release w 3 Duff songs, then they are truly trying the end their fulfillment to the label. If they are even close to that. 

9 minutes ago, jacdaniel said:

I think it’s important to remember that late last year, Slash said that they honestly hadn’t really properly started work on an album. He then said that there would be some dates in SA in 2020 and that was it for touring. 
 

He implied that this year they’d be working on an album. I can’t possibly imagine how they could have finished it by now.

Obviously, they then announced a Euro tour and Susan leaked a US tour later in the year. 
 

That leaves 2 possible outcomes.

1) Slash is full of shit and deliberately throwing us off the scent. 
2) Slash was telling the truth and the new album is getting kicked back again. 
 

I have to go with option 2. If there was an album, Susan would have leaked it by now.

Option 3: Slash was telling the truth, but in GNR land things change. Maybe there’s an album and a tour. I think that’s one of the reasons everyone is always vague

Maybe it’s just a tour. Maybe they have an album to go along with it. Maybe the album has been scrapped. Maybe the album has been pushed back. 

Welcome to GNR land. The same it’s always been. Nobody knows anything, because it all changes tomorrow  

1 hour ago, Caedo said:

I get that making sense isn't always the way with Gnr, but what would make perfect sense in terms of the reason for actually having this random gig would be to play the gig, play some or at least one new song and release a single on the same day, then the next day announce the US stadium tour with a release date for a new album. And put an ad during the Super Bowl for the album/tour. 

So much stuff that's known to be happening doesn't make any sense without new music, a random one off gig they won't profit from, talk of a "new show" and "new era" and a stadium tour when they've been playing progressively smaller arenas for the past 3 years. 

A SB ad is north of 5 million dollars. They aren’t spending that by themselves. They’re would be a brand tie in or where they are in someone else’s commercial. 

Then you get into the question of what is GNR’s worth to a brand in 2020? Or at least what’s a new song/album/tour worth? I’m sure they’d love to use Jungle or something people know. I just don’t see the allure to hitch your biggest ad on 50+ yr old rock stars new material. 

That being said, they could very well surprise release something between now and then. This show just screams a bigger than normal payday and ultimately a warmup before heading across the pond 

33 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

There's absolutely no reason to do a one off US arena show let alone tie it into the Super Bowl unless it's for promotional purposes. 

Uhhh....$$$$ and possibly more than their normal fee 

7 minutes ago, jamillos said:

I thought some of the stuff was either broadcasted or recorded for later in the past, but it doesn’t matter – in any case, it’s still a huge opportunity. Be a shame to miss it.

It probably won’t be broadcasted. It’s really just another show....

The SB commercial angle would be interesting. It would however have to be part of a bigger brand tie in with someone like Budweiser. Thing is I just don’t see the interest to tie in with some 50+ yr old rockstars new song that no one wants to hear. Not when you're spending 5 mil dollars on a spot 

I could see a single dropping unannounced to hype preorders for an album 4-6 weeks out. 

22 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

At the end of the day, this remains a non news story really.

19 or so CDs of unreleased GNR music hit the internet late last year and seemingly no one cared outside of the die hards left on the forums. If anything to do with this whole situation was going to make waves, that would have been it, but it didn't. 

I remain puzzled as to why TMZ ran the story months late but even with that, the story barely made any further waves. All the usual sites ran the story after TMZ did, but it didn't cause a massive amount of attention of anything. It's already old news after just a few days. 

As far as Rick's banning from shows is concerned, there's just no real way to enforce that. That's one thing Trunk was right about. If Rick hadn't bought a VIP ticket, he would have been just fine. The hardcore fans that travel from show to show are always concerned with getting as close to the stage as possible. They're not going to waste any time combing the stands for Rick. 

All Rick needs to do in order to keep attending GNR shows is wait til the openers are on, then just blend in with the general public and enjoy the show. Problem solved. GNR isn't going to send their team out to comb the crowd for a literal needle in a hay stack. So if it's truly about Rick just wanting to attend shows without attention on himself, it's an easy fix. 

The ban is really not about him attending shows. It’s about him attending shows as a VIP and having any access where he’d be seen. They don’t want to deal with him any longer. Can’t blame them honestly. 
 

Question for Rick is if that’s the type of experience he’s willing to accept from now on at a show. Keep being public about this and it probably won’t get any better. I honestly hope he’s getting good advice and listening to someone.

15 minutes ago, soon said:

They are?!?! I must have missed that. Can I trouble you for a link?

They’re not. That’s just what happens under the quoted scenario 

47 minutes ago, soon said:

Had Guns released the finished tracks via streaming they would have made pennies on the dollar compared to this locker sale. They really should have sold their own stuff storage wars style and once it circulated they could release official videos and cash in on that money and the publicity for a tour.

Now UMG is suing GNR for the entire cost of the Chinese Democracy sessions plus damages!