Jump to content

My thoughts on the next album situation


Young_Gun

Recommended Posts

It's clear the record label are in no rush to put out anything new-Guns related, even if there are completed songs in the vault. They probably were eager to back Guns back in 1999-2003 but I think after they cut off funding in 2004, the ship had long sailed. They washed their hands with Axl. Wasn't the 2006-2007 tour to raise capital to finish off the record? I'm thinking Axl was the one all along who kept delaying the album all the way up until 2006. Some people(Marc Canter etc) have said that the label kept delaying Chidem to stronghold Axl into a reunion. I believe that is half true. There were probably stipulations in the negotiations in 2008 like "OK you want this done, we want a reunion tour" or something like that. Up until maybe 2004 at the latest, I'm sure the label would have put out the album ASAP. It makes no sense for the label to not want to get rid of(put out) the album just to cover up their expenses and try make a profit with minimum expenditure. Now that that is out of the way, if the label were to put out something by Guns, it would only be small scale. That could be what they is all about. Maybe they want a an online only release with no physical medium save for limited hard copies like The Slip by NIN. They probably do not see Guns as a powerhouse like fucken Gaga or Kayne or Beyonce. What else could the negotiations be over? I'm doubting the 2006 leaks even caused the label to sweat as it was Axl's liability at that point. The label had/have Guns on contract and Axl wanted the record out and could only do so via the label. They probably thought he would succumb to a reunion, hence why they did not put out the record in 2006/2007 when things were high. As for the next record, it's probably more of the same but the label has more power with this one. They have Guns on contract for X records left and they made their money back plus profit with Chidem. They win either way. Axl wants a record out and can't do it without the labels blessing and maybe promotional and distributional support..

Some people will say "Well why not play the new songs live?" which is a fair point but there could be two reasons. First off is maybe Axl doesn't want to spoil the new songs in a live setting ala Silkworms and Riad. The live setting doesn't really do some of the new Guns N Roses songs justice in my opinion. Secondly and maybe more importantly, the actual publisher can forbid artists from playing songs somehow. I'm not sure if the artist can be sued or if there is a fee, but check this video of Dave Mustaine where he plays his songs "upside down" to avoid dealing with the publisher(0:55 mark on the video):

Very interesting...

Any thoughts?

Edited by Young_Gun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, it makes a lot of sense. It sure is a better explanation than "Axl got nuts and is doing things based on a guru or something like that"

Thanks :)

We will probably never know, but lots of my theory is based on fact(like the 2006 tour existing only to raise capital, label cutting off funding etc) so I tried connecting the dots. It doesn't make sense to think Axl is just biding his time. He is 50 and is not getting younger. I really do think he wants the next album out and I do believe he wanted a re-release done with the proper artwork as per the Billboard interview. Rock and a hard place situation with the label I think.

Edited by Young_Gun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think while under contract with Geffen, the best thing he did was not discuss the songs in the vault, because they have the right to demand it from him. He completed his contract with them, but the only reason why he'd be able to go on with them, is because they have the master tapes, and because they have value to them, he can continue to work with them and have them promote new music. Now, with a lowered expectation on how sales would do, and if they release new songs, they'll know how much to spend on future GnR songs. I know it sounds bad, but if you know it's going to sell x amount of copies ahead of time, they'll budget the promotion accordingly.

He's not going to get the promotion money Beyonce or Lady Gaga would get, nor would he promote the way they do.

He kept holding off on releasing it for all sorts of reasons, but I just think part of him was afraid to let it go, even though people already heard half the songs by then. Sony is still looking to make money back they've spent on promoting Michael Jackson, which is prob. why that BS posthumous album was released in the first place... that's what happens when your tapes are in the hands of a record company. Paris should be taking business classes and learning how to produce, because she can make serious bank licensing the songs out with her siblings, and if she has Jackson 5 input, could prob. do a "Threetles" and just put out some of that unreleased stuff as "The Jacksons". I'm sure it's inevitable all the stuff in Motown and Sony vaults are going to become one and handled by the Jacksons.. but it might be another decade. It took the Sinatras about 10 years after he died to be able to release a career spanning greatest hits under one label.

Axl can put GnR songs out now if he wanted to. I would just start going through releasing a song here and there, add them into the setlist, and see what happens. I thought "Civil War" had pretty big impact when it came out, and people bought a benefit album just for one song.

They might not even be songs that wind up on the next CD... if CDs are even around then.

They make their money back on GnR with back catalog, and the money spent on ChiDem has been paid off. But to deal with someone who's publicly complained about them - I just don't know if they want to deal with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think while under contract with Geffen, the best thing he did was not discuss the songs in the vault, because they have the right to demand it from him. He completed his contract with them, but the only reason why he'd be able to go on with them, is because they have the master tapes, and because they have value to them, he can continue to work with them and have them promote new music. Now, with a lowered expectation on how sales would do, and if they release new songs, they'll know how much to spend on future GnR songs. I know it sounds bad, but if you know it's going to sell x amount of copies ahead of time, they'll budget the promotion accordingly.

He's not going to get the promotion money Beyonce or Lady Gaga would get, nor would he promote the way they do.

He kept holding off on releasing it for all sorts of reasons, but I just think part of him was afraid to let it go, even though people already heard half the songs by then. Sony is still looking to make money back they've spent on promoting Michael Jackson, which is prob. why that BS posthumous album was released in the first place... that's what happens when your tapes are in the hands of a record company. Paris should be taking business classes and learning how to produce, because she can make serious bank licensing the songs out with her siblings, and if she has Jackson 5 input, could prob. do a "Threetles" and just put out some of that unreleased stuff as "The Jacksons". I'm sure it's inevitable all the stuff in Motown and Sony vaults are going to become one and handled by the Jacksons.. but it might be another decade. It took the Sinatras about 10 years after he died to be able to release a career spanning greatest hits under one label.

Axl can put GnR songs out now if he wanted to. I would just start going through releasing a song here and there, add them into the setlist, and see what happens. I thought "Civil War" had pretty big impact when it came out, and people bought a benefit album just for one song.

They might not even be songs that wind up on the next CD... if CDs are even around then.

They make their money back on GnR with back catalog, and the money spent on ChiDem has been paid off. But to deal with someone who's publicly complained about them - I just don't know if they want to deal with that.

Was it substantiated that Guns are no longer obligated to Geffen/interscope/Universal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It originally was a 6 album contract but I'm pretty sure the contract was renegotiated in the 00's and he now owes more to the record company.

I remember reading about the contract being renegotiated. Wonder what it stipulated. I would have thought Axl would have been happy to be free of the record label but probably needed the funding and label support to achieve the vision he once had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people will say "Well why not play the new songs live?" which is a fair point but there could be two reasons. First off is maybe Axl doesn't want to spoil the new songs in a live setting ala Silkworms and Riad.

Then Axl has ruined all of "Appetite" and a lot of "UYI"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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