Jump to content

To Everyone blaming GNR for lack of New Album


sailaway

Recommended Posts

I think it's a little foolish for anyone here to pretend like they know what's going on and what the problems are. There are just far too many variables and unknowns to identify the main source of the problem. Assuming the next GNR album doesn't cost the same amount that the last one did, it would be ludicrous to assert that it is the inclination of the label to hold up a new album by GNR. Very few bands actually make money for labels. They need the big sellers to subsidize the losers. It's the Eminems, Justin Beibers, Cold Plays, and Nickelbacks that pays the bills and keeps the lights on at the labels. A new album by GNR, while not offering the same kind of returns years ago, would provide the same kind of monetary benefit that would make holding up its release a self-defeating act.

That's not to say that labels don't play a part. Music execs are known for their brash egos and self-serving natures; if you couple this with how they likely feel about Axl and his past history with them you might understand why they might feel the need to impose a little retribution on the band. A lot of labels are now asking the artists to take smaller portions of album sales due to the smaller sales of music in general. 360 deals and the like seek to extort profits out of areas that labels once had no hand in. Someone like Axl, who's been around awhile, may not take to kindly to give up a greater share of the proceeds that newer artists are required to.

But I do agree that if Axl really wanted to release new music we would have heard it by now. Self-distribution a la Radiohead or NIN would be one means, another would be to absolve the relationship between GNR and Universal and to sign with someone else. Sailaway, I'm not sure where you're getting your information that GNR owes the label one more album. This doesn't seem like a FACT but speculation on your part. If I recall properly, GNR signed a seven album deal with Geffen when they released AFD. If you include AFD, Lies, UYI1&2, SP, Greatest Hits, and Chinese Democracy, that indeed would be seven albums. There was some speculation that the contract was renegotiated by Irving Azoff at the time of Chinese Democracy's release, so perhaps more albums were added to the contract or a new contract altogether was forged that included subsequent albums. But again, this was based on speculation and not concrete information reported by reputable news outlets (unless I missed something). Even Axl did not seem to fully understand his requirements dictated by his contract with the label (assuming there even is one) when he was interviewed by Trunk last year. Apparently you're aware of something that even Axl himself has little understanding of.

While you're correct to suggest that the label may be playing a part in the hold up, based on Axl's history of delays (this includes the UYI albums as well), I'm more inclined to believe that we haven't heard anything news due to Axl's choices. Personally, I don't fault the guy wanting to tour behind Chinese Democracy for a few years. Four to five year separations between albums is pretty much par for the course for most major bands operating today. I think most people are annoyed simply because Axl alluded to the fact that there's a lot more material sitting on the shelf right now that could be released if the will was there. Since he seems set on running the course for the last album, I'll cut him some slack. I think if by 2014 we haven't heard anything new this place is going to be pretty quiet.

Edited by downzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Universal owns the Chinese Democracy sessions. Axl Rose can't go out on his own unless he's released from the contract. He can't just release a track on the Internet for free, he can't put something up on iTunes by himself, he has to work within the recording contract. Maybe the label would support those kind of moves, but Axl can't unilaterally do them. He also can't just say "hey, here's the record" and the record company wishes for the best that he'll agree to do marketing and appearances. It's probably also not in his best interests to say "here's the record" and just wish for the best as far as label support. There's probably got to be assurances on each side.

For Chinese, Axl wanted a marketing plan, I think he got one, and in his eyes it was broken and then stopped completely or was powerless to do anything himself* (Axl Chats). You don't just call up talk shows and SNL and get on. It's complicated and you need clout working for you. We also don't know what he was told to do by the people advising him.

From the label's point of view, they might be thinking that as long as they don't spend any more money on Axl, they'll be ahead of the game. They MIGHT make money on a new record. Or they MIGHT lose money.

But for SURE they will make some money by doing nothing off the back catalog. If they release him, they run the risk of him going off and selling 5 million records somewhere else, or missing out on some kind of 'reunion' project (Not going to happen, but I'm sure labels have heard THAT before). And if they release him from his contract, Axl would have to buy-back all the material they had unused if he wanted to use it, since the label owns the masters and the copyright. "Leaving" isn't an easy option when there's money at stake.

What's to be done or settled? Who is going to pay for mastering? Will they reimburse Black Frog/Axl Inc/Guns N' Roses for all the recording they've done since Chinese Democracy, and since 2006, that the label wasn't paying for? Will the label pay the producers and engineers or will Axl have to do that out of pocket? Will the label reimburse the producers and engineers who have already worked on things since Chinese? Will the label want to use any of the Chinese material or will they demand a new record, fresh, but won't be putting up any advance money?

Last time Axl mentioned next album was something about "We're working on new management, and we'll be figuring out to do with the label, and feeling things out in the U.S. as we're going across the country."*(That Metal Show).

THE issues can be these, or others, or something like all of them, or nothing like them and none of the above.

-c

Edited by Gagarin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People think Geffen's still GNR's label. ChiDem was the end of their contract, but because Axl has the publishing and Geffen has the masters, they could still maintain a relationship, long enough to put another album out. I highly doubt Axl will get much money for it.

EMI's pretty much non-existent anyway.

Established artists have to be the ones to treat the recording industry like their bitch, but most people who have been recording music for decades don't want to rock the boat with any of the CEOs.

Rush tours frequently enough, Peart wants to keep things from becoming "Moving Pictures in its entirety" for the rest of the time they're out there playing.

All true Dalsh,but the label could well be making situation less than ideal,and Im sure GNR wants guarantee that future releases are not handled or mishandled like CD was.

Not being sarcastic - but what were those things?

The label appeared to be very lenient and free with Axl. In terms of Axl spending 14 million dollars and over a decade to release the album. Axl going through producers left and right. Axl missing every deadline that the label gave him.

Couldn't you at agree that as a Label exec, working with Axl must have been a nightmare on Chinese?

Taking into account all of that, topped with Axl not doing any personal publicity and all the complaining he has done about them ---- can you blame the lable for not being anxious to go through it all again?

The Best Buy deal wasn't that great in terms of exposure for the album. But......if the label had spent 10-14 million dollars on the album, of course they would want to recoop that money.

Album booklet with mistakes........how hard is it for the band to supply this? The label went with the last thing they were given. It isn't like the release of the album happened overnight and was a big surprise to the band. They knew it was coming and what their deadline was.

Music videos.........still not sure who is to blame for that.

Don't get me wrong. CD is my favorite albume of the 00s - hands down. And I would pay $100 for a new GnR album tomorrow.

But it seems like if the label is leery of working with GnR on an album, it is becuase of Axl's past actions?

Not being facetious but who plays music videos anymore?

Azoff was involved with the last release,so the approved booklet wasnt released,the multi-covers werent released.It was a clusterfuck of a mess,if I felt I was being sabotaged,and had been betrayed I would refuse to play the promotion game as well.

TBH, I don't watch MTV or music videos anymore either. But whenever these promotion/album discussions come up, people tend to bring up videos on youtube that recieve millions of views.

So, the clusterf*ck includes the label refusing to release the booklet that Axl wanted............and they weren't willing to spend the money to have multi-covers released?

Again, just asking - not being sarcastic. Instead of just arguing with you, I'm trying to understand the way you look at these things.

What is the purpose of multi-covers? I don't get the reasoning for that? Did Axl think more people would buy copies of the album if it had different covers - that people would want to own each of the covers?

Wouldn't Axl be screwing himself and the band by refusing to play along with the promotion game? His lack of involvement only HURT the sale of HIS album. Wouldn't that be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? If you are mad at the label, why would you sabatoge your own album just to get "even" with them?

The label sold the rights to CD for $14 million bucks. They got their money. So Axl refusing to do promotion......wouldn't that hurt him and GnR more than it would hurt the label?

Finally, do you understand the label's point of view at all? (At least what we all speculate has happened, since all of this is actualy just fans speculating). Imagine you were the head of the company, and weren't tied to GnR as a fan. You had 20 different bands to watch over.

You pour over 10 million dollars into one band........the band takes over a decade to finish the album.......the band constantly fires everybody you send over to help them produce the album........the band misses deadline after deadline.........at some point, wouldn't you be frustrated and stop bending over backwards to please that band? At the 12 year and 12 million dollar mark, you wouldn't finally have enough and say "sorry guys, release date is in six months, Give us what you have."

I understand Axl's frustrations. But I just find it hard to believe that labels, producers, managers, music writers - basically everybody involved in the music industry since 1986 - has a personal vendetta to try and screw Axl Rose.

He refuses to play the "game" and it constantly gets in the way of him releasing music. And the fans are the unlucky ones! Just my opinion.

*****************Downzy and gagarin --- great posts.

Sailway - thank you for starting a topic that is drawing such a wide range of opinions from people.

Edited by Groghan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People think Geffen's still GNR's label. ChiDem was the end of their contract, but because Axl has the publishing and Geffen has the masters, they could still maintain a relationship, long enough to put another album out. I highly doubt Axl will get much money for it.

EMI's pretty much non-existent anyway.

Established artists have to be the ones to treat the recording industry like their bitch, but most people who have been recording music for decades don't want to rock the boat with any of the CEOs.

Rush tours frequently enough, Peart wants to keep things from becoming "Moving Pictures in its entirety" for the rest of the time they're out there playing.

All true Dalsh,but the label could well be making situation less than ideal,and Im sure GNR wants guarantee that future releases are not handled or mishandled like CD was.

Not being sarcastic - but what were those things?

The label appeared to be very lenient and free with Axl. In terms of Axl spending 14 million dollars and over a decade to release the album. Axl going through producers left and right. Axl missing every deadline that the label gave him.

Couldn't you at agree that as a Label exec, working with Axl must have been a nightmare on Chinese?

Taking into account all of that, topped with Axl not doing any personal publicity and all the complaining he has done about them ---- can you blame the lable for not being anxious to go through it all again?

The Best Buy deal wasn't that great in terms of exposure for the album. But......if the label had spent 10-14 million dollars on the album, of course they would want to recoop that money.

Album booklet with mistakes........how hard is it for the band to supply this? The label went with the last thing they were given. It isn't like the release of the album happened overnight and was a big surprise to the band. They knew it was coming and what their deadline was.

Music videos.........still not sure who is to blame for that.

Don't get me wrong. CD is my favorite albume of the 00s - hands down. And I would pay $100 for a new GnR album tomorrow.

But it seems like if the label is leery of working with GnR on an album, it is becuase of Axl's past actions?

Not being facetious but who plays music videos anymore?

Azoff was involved with the last release,so the approved booklet wasnt released,the multi-covers werent released.It was a clusterfuck of a mess,if I felt I was being sabotaged,and had been betrayed I would refuse to play the promotion game as well.

TBH, I don't watch MTV or music videos anymore either. But whenever these promotion/album discussions come up, people tend to bring up videos on youtube that recieve millions of views.

So, the clusterf*ck includes the label refusing to release the booklet that Axl wanted............and they weren't willing to spend the money to have multi-covers released?

Again, just asking - not being sarcastic. Instead of just arguing with you, I'm trying to understand the way you look at these things.

What is the purpose of multi-covers? I don't get the reasoning for that? Did Axl think more people would buy copies of the album if it had different covers - that people would want to own each of the covers?

Wouldn't Axl be screwing himself and the band by refusing to play along with the promotion game? His lack of involvement only HURT the sale of HIS album. Wouldn't that be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? If you are mad at the label, why would you sabatoge your own album just to get "even" with them?

The label sold the rights to CD for $14 million bucks. They got their money. So Axl refusing to do promotion......wouldn't that hurt him and GnR more than it would hurt the label?

Finally, do you understand the label's point of view at all? (At least what we all speculate has happened, since all of this is actualy just fans speculating). Imagine you were the head of the company, and weren't tied to GnR as a fan. You had 20 different bands to watch over.

You pour over 10 million dollars into one band........the band takes over a decade to finish the album.......the band constantly fires everybody you send over to help them produce the album........the band misses deadline after deadline.........at some point, wouldn't you be frustrated and stop bending over backwards to please that band? At the 12 year and 12 million dollar mark, you wouldn't finally have enough and say "sorry guys, release date is in six months, Give us what you have."

I understand Axl's frustrations. But I just find it hard to believe that labels, producers, managers, music writers - basically everybody involved in the music industry since 1986 - has a personal vendetta to try and screw Axl Rose.

He refuses to play the "game" and it constantly gets in the way of him releasing music. And the fans are the unlucky ones! Just my opinion.

*****************Downzy and gagarin --- great posts.

Sailway - thank you for starting a topic that is drawing such a wide range of opinions from people.

Lets just say I tend to look at it from the artist's view,I identify with that more than some conglomerate label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. Who knows? The whole thing is a mess. For the record, I don't care about Slash and don't care if they ever reunite. Actually I'd rather they not...but say they release a new album next month. The new album has songs recorded by a guy who left almost 10 years ago. Or songs from a guy who left almost 5 years ago. That's why nobody takes them serious as a band, by the time an album comes out the guys in the band aren't the guys who recorded the album. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can ever go simple or smooth with this band, so if it's at all possible to get tangled up in some record company issues that prevent the album from being released I'm sure they'll find a way to do it.E

EDIT: And was CD's release really mishandled? It's not 1991, things are different now, the music industry isn't what it used to be, and GNR isn't what it used to be. If anything CD went from mythical album to long running joke by the time it came out. They record company sunk millions into it. They didn't get the album at a time when a new GNR album would have mattered. As usual Axl has whatever issues going on at the time with management, which might not be his fault, but comes off as more of the same "nothing ever goes smoothly" shit that seems to follow him. They got an amazing deal with Best Buy that would immediately recoup what they spend on the album (and really, they didn't spend all that money to release an album in 2008) so they released it. They just wanted to be rid of the whole project by that point. I'm sure they had long since given up on it being a monster album. They got their money back and just put it out. It's not their fault Axl didn't want to promote it....and why re-issue it with a new booklet? or have multiple covers? Or re-issues at all? Again, it wasn't 1991 and it wasn't the epic release the band may have thought of it as .....my favorite band is Nine Inch Nails. They disappeared for years, music changed, and when they returned there was no telling how much interested there was in the band. So the new album came in a very basic, bare package, and the first tour was in small clubs. It's just smart business - don't sink a lot of money into something when you're not sure it will make a big return. CD, in 2008, minus promotion by the band, was not a sure thing hot seller worth spending extra money on to make it everything the artist wants it to be.

Edited by Modano09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People think Geffen's still GNR's label. ChiDem was the end of their contract, but because Axl has the publishing and Geffen has the masters, they could still maintain a relationship, long enough to put another album out. I highly doubt Axl will get much money for it.

EMI's pretty much non-existent anyway.

Established artists have to be the ones to treat the recording industry like their bitch, but most people who have been recording music for decades don't want to rock the boat with any of the CEOs.

Rush tours frequently enough, Peart wants to keep things from becoming "Moving Pictures in its entirety" for the rest of the time they're out there playing.

All true Dalsh,but the label could well be making situation less than ideal,and Im sure GNR wants guarantee that future releases are not handled or mishandled like CD was.

Not being sarcastic - but what were those things?

The label appeared to be very lenient and free with Axl. In terms of Axl spending 14 million dollars and over a decade to release the album. Axl going through producers left and right. Axl missing every deadline that the label gave him.

Couldn't you at agree that as a Label exec, working with Axl must have been a nightmare on Chinese?

Taking into account all of that, topped with Axl not doing any personal publicity and all the complaining he has done about them ---- can you blame the lable for not being anxious to go through it all again?

The Best Buy deal wasn't that great in terms of exposure for the album. But......if the label had spent 10-14 million dollars on the album, of course they would want to recoop that money.

Album booklet with mistakes........how hard is it for the band to supply this? The label went with the last thing they were given. It isn't like the release of the album happened overnight and was a big surprise to the band. They knew it was coming and what their deadline was.

Music videos.........still not sure who is to blame for that.

Don't get me wrong. CD is my favorite albume of the 00s - hands down. And I would pay $100 for a new GnR album tomorrow.

But it seems like if the label is leery of working with GnR on an album, it is becuase of Axl's past actions?

Not being facetious but who plays music videos anymore?

Azoff was involved with the last release,so the approved booklet wasnt released,the multi-covers werent released.It was a clusterfuck of a mess,if I felt I was being sabotaged,and had been betrayed I would refuse to play the promotion game as well.

TBH, I don't watch MTV or music videos anymore either. But whenever these promotion/album discussions come up, people tend to bring up videos on youtube that recieve millions of views.

So, the clusterf*ck includes the label refusing to release the booklet that Axl wanted............and they weren't willing to spend the money to have multi-covers released?

Again, just asking - not being sarcastic. Instead of just arguing with you, I'm trying to understand the way you look at these things.

What is the purpose of multi-covers? I don't get the reasoning for that? Did Axl think more people would buy copies of the album if it had different covers - that people would want to own each of the covers?

Wouldn't Axl be screwing himself and the band by refusing to play along with the promotion game? His lack of involvement only HURT the sale of HIS album. Wouldn't that be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? If you are mad at the label, why would you sabatoge your own album just to get "even" with them?

The label sold the rights to CD for $14 million bucks. They got their money. So Axl refusing to do promotion......wouldn't that hurt him and GnR more than it would hurt the label?

Finally, do you understand the label's point of view at all? (At least what we all speculate has happened, since all of this is actualy just fans speculating). Imagine you were the head of the company, and weren't tied to GnR as a fan. You had 20 different bands to watch over.

You pour over 10 million dollars into one band........the band takes over a decade to finish the album.......the band constantly fires everybody you send over to help them produce the album........the band misses deadline after deadline.........at some point, wouldn't you be frustrated and stop bending over backwards to please that band? At the 12 year and 12 million dollar mark, you wouldn't finally have enough and say "sorry guys, release date is in six months, Give us what you have."

I understand Axl's frustrations. But I just find it hard to believe that labels, producers, managers, music writers - basically everybody involved in the music industry since 1986 - has a personal vendetta to try and screw Axl Rose.

He refuses to play the "game" and it constantly gets in the way of him releasing music. And the fans are the unlucky ones! Just my opinion.

*****************Downzy and gagarin --- great posts.

Sailway - thank you for starting a topic that is drawing such a wide range of opinions from people.

Very interesting viewpoint Groghan. Let's say that Axl is a complete headache to this faceless corporation that we know nothing about. Shouldn't it be safe to assume that they should have dropped him at least at the moment that the Best Buy deal was signed and they had their money back? Why force this relationship to continue? If there's one thing that we know, it's that it's not Axl keeping the relationship alive. Seems he's done as well as anybody could to get dropped to me. :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EMI is being merged with UMG and this has prompted an antitrust suit.Many Artists are at odds with their Labels at the current time,not just GNR.

In a recent RS interview Neil Peart from RUSH was discussing an impending New Album,and Pete Townsend said "why bother?"

Also,consider the following letter:

Divestments in the wake of mergers should first offer copyrights, at market rates, to nhe artists who created them. To sell them to other corporations, whether large or small,is just a perpetuation of an old business model, which has seen the recorded music business halve in value over 10 years. During that time, the technological revolution has displaced the old music business players. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It would be good to have music business people rather than financiers owning and running music companies again. It would be even better to have artists owning their work and entering into partner relationships with service-providing majorand independent record companies with all the finance and expertise an artist needs to develop their own business.

That letter is signed by Ed O'Brien of Radiohead and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd.

Of course, I imagine that the labels and the artists might disagree about what "market rates" are. Also,givenhowfocused the labels are on fighting copyright termination in their continuing efforts to try to screw Artists over,and unwilling to make the cuts/changes that would be their only salvation in the current state of affaiirs and in this economy.

Ever think just maybe GNR is touring While in negotiations with the Label?

axl rose is 2 blame for lack of new album in 2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EMI is being merged with UMG and this has prompted an antitrust suit.Many Artists are at odds with their Labels at the current time,not just GNR.

In a recent RS interview Neil Peart from RUSH was discussing an impending New Album,and Pete Townsend said "why bother?"

Also,consider the following letter:

Divestments in the wake of mergers should first offer copyrights, at market rates, to nhe artists who created them. To sell them to other corporations, whether large or small,is just a perpetuation of an old business model, which has seen the recorded music business halve in value over 10 years. During that time, the technological revolution has displaced the old music business players. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It would be good to have music business people rather than financiers owning and running music companies again. It would be even better to have artists owning their work and entering into partner relationships with service-providing majorand independent record companies with all the finance and expertise an artist needs to develop their own business.

That letter is signed by Ed O'Brien of Radiohead and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd.

Of course, I imagine that the labels and the artists might disagree about what "market rates" are. Also,givenhowfocused the labels are on fighting copyright termination in their continuing efforts to try to screw Artists over,and unwilling to make the cuts/changes that would be their only salvation in the current state of affaiirs and in this economy.

Ever think just maybe GNR is touring While in negotiations with the Label?

axl rose is 2 blame for lack of new album in 2012

Shut the Hell up Queenie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People think Geffen's still GNR's label. ChiDem was the end of their contract, but because Axl has the publishing and Geffen has the masters, they could still maintain a relationship, long enough to put another album out. I highly doubt Axl will get much money for it.

EMI's pretty much non-existent anyway.

Established artists have to be the ones to treat the recording industry like their bitch, but most people who have been recording music for decades don't want to rock the boat with any of the CEOs.

Rush tours frequently enough, Peart wants to keep things from becoming "Moving Pictures in its entirety" for the rest of the time they're out there playing.

All true Dalsh,but the label could well be making situation less than ideal,and Im sure GNR wants guarantee that future releases are not handled or mishandled like CD was.

Not being sarcastic - but what were those things?

The label appeared to be very lenient and free with Axl. In terms of Axl spending 14 million dollars and over a decade to release the album. Axl going through producers left and right. Axl missing every deadline that the label gave him.

Couldn't you at agree that as a Label exec, working with Axl must have been a nightmare on Chinese?

Taking into account all of that, topped with Axl not doing any personal publicity and all the complaining he has done about them ---- can you blame the lable for not being anxious to go through it all again?

The Best Buy deal wasn't that great in terms of exposure for the album. But......if the label had spent 10-14 million dollars on the album, of course they would want to recoop that money.

Album booklet with mistakes........how hard is it for the band to supply this? The label went with the last thing they were given. It isn't like the release of the album happened overnight and was a big surprise to the band. They knew it was coming and what their deadline was.

Music videos.........still not sure who is to blame for that.

Don't get me wrong. CD is my favorite albume of the 00s - hands down. And I would pay $100 for a new GnR album tomorrow.

But it seems like if the label is leery of working with GnR on an album, it is becuase of Axl's past actions?

Not being facetious but who plays music videos anymore?

Azoff was involved with the last release,so the approved booklet wasnt released,the multi-covers werent released.It was a clusterfuck of a mess,if I felt I was being sabotaged,and had been betrayed I would refuse to play the promotion game as well.

TBH, I don't watch MTV or music videos anymore either. But whenever these promotion/album discussions come up, people tend to bring up videos on youtube that recieve millions of views.

So, the clusterf*ck includes the label refusing to release the booklet that Axl wanted............and they weren't willing to spend the money to have multi-covers released?

Again, just asking - not being sarcastic. Instead of just arguing with you, I'm trying to understand the way you look at these things.

What is the purpose of multi-covers? I don't get the reasoning for that? Did Axl think more people would buy copies of the album if it had different covers - that people would want to own each of the covers?

Wouldn't Axl be screwing himself and the band by refusing to play along with the promotion game? His lack of involvement only HURT the sale of HIS album. Wouldn't that be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? If you are mad at the label, why would you sabatoge your own album just to get "even" with them?

The label sold the rights to CD for $14 million bucks. They got their money. So Axl refusing to do promotion......wouldn't that hurt him and GnR more than it would hurt the label?

Finally, do you understand the label's point of view at all? (At least what we all speculate has happened, since all of this is actualy just fans speculating). Imagine you were the head of the company, and weren't tied to GnR as a fan. You had 20 different bands to watch over.

You pour over 10 million dollars into one band........the band takes over a decade to finish the album.......the band constantly fires everybody you send over to help them produce the album........the band misses deadline after deadline.........at some point, wouldn't you be frustrated and stop bending over backwards to please that band? At the 12 year and 12 million dollar mark, you wouldn't finally have enough and say "sorry guys, release date is in six months, Give us what you have."

I understand Axl's frustrations. But I just find it hard to believe that labels, producers, managers, music writers - basically everybody involved in the music industry since 1986 - has a personal vendetta to try and screw Axl Rose.

He refuses to play the "game" and it constantly gets in the way of him releasing music. And the fans are the unlucky ones! Just my opinion.

*****************Downzy and gagarin --- great posts.

Sailway - thank you for starting a topic that is drawing such a wide range of opinions from people.

Very interesting viewpoint Groghan. Let's say that Axl is a complete headache to this faceless corporation that we know nothing about. Shouldn't it be safe to assume that they should have dropped him at least at the moment that the Best Buy deal was signed and they had their money back? Why force this relationship to continue? If there's one thing that we know, it's that it's not Axl keeping the relationship alive. Seems he's done as well as anybody could to get dropped to me. :shrugs:

Thank you Damn Smooth,was wondering when somone would pick up on that. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even if the record label is part of the reason it still goes back to then why doesnt Axl vocalize this to at least the hardcore fans so then we understand the situation better and lay off on him some?

So that we can get another 300 threads complaining about how Axl just blames everything on everybody else and can't handle responsibility?

A better question is why should Axl communicate anything to us at all when everything he says gets twisted to fit the agenda of whoever is discussing it at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universal owns the Chinese Democracy sessions. Axl Rose can't go out on his own unless he's released from the contract. He can't just release a track on the Internet for free, he can't put something up on iTunes by himself, he has to work within the recording contract. Maybe the label would support those kind of moves, but Axl can't unilaterally do them. He also can't just say "hey, here's the record" and the record company wishes for the best that he'll agree to do marketing and appearances. It's probably also not in his best interests to say "here's the record" and just wish for the best as far as label support. There's probably got to be assurances on each side.

That's not necessarily true. It all depends on what the contract states. Generally, all bands owe back is the money borrowed or fronted by the label. How bands repay this debt is by handing over an album (or several albums, depending on the contract) that is sold and the resulting revenues pay off the band's debt. Again, depending on the nature of the deal, most bands will retain publishing rights and labels own the recording rights of those songs. Not going to explain the difference between the two but google if you're curious as to what the difference is. If Axl and/or whatever his corporate entity has repaid his debts to the label, all subsequent recordings should fall under his own individual or corporate ownership. Unless his contract with Universal explicitly states that all unreleased material recording using label money is also owned by the label, then he's free to do whatever he wants with those unreleased tracks.

Again, we do not know what was settled on when the contract was initially signed and what was renegotiated, but there is a strong possibility that Axl freed himself from any label commitments once Chinese Democracy was actually handed over and distributed. Assuming this transaction (facilitated by the Best Buy deal) cleared the band of any financial commitments to the label, the label should have no claim over any other material recorded during that period. Subsequently, any material recorded after funding was cut off in 2004-2005 would definitely not fall under the purview of any negotiated contract (or at least it shouldn't, unless Axl had hacks negotiating on his behalf).

For Chinese, Axl wanted a marketing plan, I think he got one, and in his eyes it was broken and then stopped completely or was powerless to do anything himself* (Axl Chats). You don't just call up talk shows and SNL and get on. It's complicated and you need clout working for you. We also don't know what he was told to do by the people advising him.

In all likelihood, Axl was not happy with the promotion put together or executed by the label around the time of release. But to suggest that the label would have preferred Axl to act the way he did and not do any personal appearances to promote the album is kind of crazy. If Universal wanted to simply wash its hands of GNR, why put out any promotion at all (here in Canada you couldn't walk down a downtown city street without seeing billboards posted everywhere, there were tons of radio and television ads for it, stores had plenty of promo material)? If Axl wanted to play SNL, it would have happened (hell, you think SNL would have passed on having GNR play their show at the time even if the label was fighting them on this?). I also have a hard time believing that any one in Axl's inner circle was telling Axl to stay at home and NOT do anything to promote an album he had been working on for almost 15 years (if you include songs that were written in the early 1990s).

From the label's point of view, they might be thinking that as long as they don't spend any more money on Axl, they'll be ahead of the game. They MIGHT make money on a new record. Or they MIGHT lose money.

But for SURE they will make some money by doing nothing off the back catalog. If they release him, they run the risk of him going off and selling 5 million records somewhere else, or missing out on some kind of 'reunion' project (Not going to happen, but I'm sure labels have heard THAT before). And if they release him from his contract, Axl would have to buy-back all the material they had unused if he wanted to use it, since the label owns the masters and the copyright. "Leaving" isn't an easy option when there's money at stake.

As I stated in my previous post, so long as the next album doesn't cost Chinese Democracy money, they're not going to lose on a Guns N' Roses album. Chinese Democracy still sold 5 million copies world wide, and that was with a MIA lead singer and a substandard single. The brand of Guns N' Roses caries a lot of weight and recognition - so long as the album isn't a complete disaster the label will come out on top. With so few artists today able to sell a million albums, labels need those artists who can pay not only the label's operating costs but also subsidize other artists who don't pan out commercially. For every Guns N' Roses or AC/DC there's 10 to 20 bands who lost money for the label.

Like I mentioned just above, Axl would only have to buy-back any material from the label if the label does retain ownership of all recording rights for those songs. But that's a hard thing to believe considering the financial obligation would have been met with Chinese Democracy's release. Moreover, since Axl would retain publishing rights, he could simply re-record those songs (a headache for sure) funded by another label. Universal would have no claim to those songs if they were re-recorded at another point in time. Again, this is assuming Axl is still obligated to Universal for those songs, which I'd argue he shouldn't be. There's only "money at stake" if GNR's contract was renegotiated during the Chinese Democracy period that explicitly stated that Universal owned all unreleased material (which is doubtful) or additional albums were included in the contract (which is unsure, since even Axl didn't seem to fully understand where he stood with the label).

Last time Axl mentioned next album was something about "We're working on new management, and we'll be figuring out to do with the label, and feeling things out in the U.S. as we're going across the country."*(That Metal Show).

THE issues can be these, or others, or something like all of them, or nothing like them and none of the above.

-c

I agree with you here. In some sense it seems like even Axl isn't that sure of where to go or how to deal with what's next. That's why I think threads that seek to place blame on one particular party (label, Axl, management, band members) are myopic and do little to provide actual information on the subject. There are so many cogs in the machine (though some are bigger than others), so many egos and emotions, so much money, that a clear and concise portrait of why this band has so many problems getting new music to fans isn't easy. My gut tells me it all stems from Axl (since so few other bands seem to have so much difficulty doing the thing that matters most), but a comprehensive perspective requires a broader understanding of the situation.

Edited by downzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smooth,

I wish I knew the answer to that. Wouldn't it be awesome to have an executive of the label do an interview and give their position?

Some people automatically take Axl's side on every issue. Some people automatically assume Axl must be at fault on every issue. It is unfair to act like either side is the dominating factor of how most people think and feel.

I would think that the reason the label doesn't release Axl is pretty simple.

The last album sold 3.5 to 5 million copies, depending on who you talk to.

Their touring appeal is still strong enough to make a profit for everybody involved.

The name GnR is still worth a lot in the music industry.

Axl Rose is still one of the most dynamic and interesting singers in rock music today.

With all that, why would they release the band from a contract before that band fulfills their end of the contract?

And I would not be surprised if there was some dual macho posering going on.

Axl is saying "f-u" because of the "clusterf*ck" that Sailway mentioned.

And the label is saying "F-u. We own your next record. If you don't want to give us one, then enjoy NOT putting out any new music for the remainder of your career."

I think that everybody probably shares some of the blame.

I just wish they could all work it out and GnR could release new music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smooth,

I wish I knew the answer to that. Wouldn't it be awesome to have an executive of the label do an interview and give their position?

Some people automatically take Axl's side on every issue. Some people automatically assume Axl must be at fault on every issue. It is unfair to act like either side is the dominating factor of how most people think and feel.

I would think that the reason the label doesn't release Axl is pretty simple.

The last album sold 3.5 to 5 million copies, depending on who you talk to.

Their touring appeal is still strong enough to make a profit for everybody involved.

The name GnR is still worth a lot in the music industry.

Axl Rose is still one of the most dynamic and interesting singers in rock music today.

With all that, why would they release the band from a contract before that band fulfills their end of the contract?

And I would not be surprised if there was some dual macho posering going on.

Axl is saying "f-u" because of the "clusterf*ck" that Sailway mentioned.

And the label is saying "F-u. We own your next record. If you don't want to give us one, then enjoy NOT putting out any new music for the remainder of your career."

I think that everybody probably shares some of the blame.

I just wish they could all work it out and GnR could release new music.

That's all very reasonable, but shouldn't the record company already be in posession of the next album if they want to release it? We do know that things are recorded that could be put out. I love your idea of getting an interview with one of these suits to get their side of the story, but I don't see that happening. It looks like we have no choice but to be stuck in the dark about a situation that is impossible to make sense of no matter how you look at it. Every possible scenario leaves more questions than answers and it seems to be a bit ridiculous no matter what perspective you take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smooth,

I wish I knew the answer to that. Wouldn't it be awesome to have an executive of the label do an interview and give their position?

Some people automatically take Axl's side on every issue. Some people automatically assume Axl must be at fault on every issue. It is unfair to act like either side is the dominating factor of how most people think and feel.

I would think that the reason the label doesn't release Axl is pretty simple.

The last album sold 3.5 to 5 million copies, depending on who you talk to.

Their touring appeal is still strong enough to make a profit for everybody involved.

The name GnR is still worth a lot in the music industry.

Axl Rose is still one of the most dynamic and interesting singers in rock music today.

With all that, why would they release the band from a contract before that band fulfills their end of the contract?

And I would not be surprised if there was some dual macho posering going on.

Axl is saying "f-u" because of the "clusterf*ck" that Sailway mentioned.

And the label is saying "F-u. We own your next record. If you don't want to give us one, then enjoy NOT putting out any new music for the remainder of your career."

I think that everybody probably shares some of the blame.

I just wish they could all work it out and GnR could release new music.

That's all very reasonable, but shouldn't the record company already be in posession of the next album if they want to release it? We do know that things are recorded that could be put out. I love your idea of getting an interview with one of these suits to get their side of the story, but I don't see that happening. It looks like we have no choice but to be stuck in the dark about a situation that is impossible to make sense of no matter how you look at it. Every possible scenario leaves more questions than answers and it seems to be a bit ridiculous no matter what perspective you take.

It sucks that it appears so complicated to just release rock n roll music!

How old are you? I only ask as a reference point. Back in the 80s and early 90s, when I was a teen and growing up, it seemed like every band put out an album every 1-2 years. I can remember going to the record store on pay day and every month there would be 2-3 albums I would buy. Today??? Now it seems the major bands are on more of a 5-year album cycle.

People will put that era down saying they want quality of quantity....and I understand that. But that is all PERSONAL preference. I loved the music being produced in that era - so constantly getting new music from the bands you love was an amazing time.

That's why i don't personally really have any bands that I'm a die-hard fan of anymore - except for GnR. In the old days you might get 5-6 albums in 10 years from your band. Today, you might get one album or two albums in a decade. It's hard to stay too die-hard when you don't get a new album for 5-6 years!

Imagine doing that today. Pick your 24 favorite bands. For the next 10 years, EVERY month you will get a new album from one of those bands. In 2013, you will get 12 albums from bands that you love. In 2014, you will get 12 more albums from bands you love. In 2015, you will get 12 more albums from bands you love. etc.

Look at the classic line up.

My dates could be off. But from 1987 through 1991 we got Appetite, Lies, Illusion, Illusion.

I love music. And every song or album doesn't have to be the masterpiece of the decade.

I will buy anything that Axl Rose releases - even if it is one ablum a year for the next 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Axl should try to buy his contract from the record company.

Depending on the contract, maybe releasing a live, remix or rereleased album would seal the deal?

That's possible also. He could release a live album quickly. No writing would be involved after all and no re-recording. Then he could make his new album under his own label. Musicans are doing it all the time at least the ones that can aford it. I know Axl can aford to do something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sucks that it appears so complicated to just release rock n roll music!

How old are you? I only ask as a reference point. Back in the 80s and early 90s, when I was a teen and growing up, it seemed like every band put out an album every 1-2 years. I can remember going to the record store on pay day and every month there would be 2-3 albums I would buy. Today??? Now it seems the major bands are on more of a 5-year album cycle.

People will put that era down saying they want quality of quantity....and I understand that. But that is all PERSONAL preference. I loved the music being produced in that era - so constantly getting new music from the bands you love was an amazing time.

That's why i don't personally really have any bands that I'm a die-hard fan of anymore - except for GnR. In the old days you might get 5-6 albums in 10 years from your band. Today, you might get one album or two albums in a decade. It's hard to stay too die-hard when you don't get a new album for 5-6 years!

Imagine doing that today. Pick your 24 favorite bands. For the next 10 years, EVERY month you will get a new album from one of those bands. In 2013, you will get 12 albums from bands that you love. In 2014, you will get 12 more albums from bands you love. In 2015, you will get 12 more albums from bands you love. etc.

Look at the classic line up.

My dates could be off. But from 1987 through 1991 we got Appetite, Lies, Illusion, Illusion.

I love music. And every song or album doesn't have to be the masterpiece of the decade.

I will buy anything that Axl Rose releases - even if it is one ablum a year for the next 20 years.

I am 34 so I do remember those days, and I completely agree that they were better than it is now. I am in the camp that believes that Axl would have been more productive without the name, so I wish he had dropped it. Now I'm not even sure that we'll hear anything new from him while he's still alive and that really does seem like a complete waste to me. I really hope I'm wrong, and that we'll get at least 2-3 new albums, but the more time that passes without anything other than more tours, the less hope I have that we'll ever get anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sucks that it appears so complicated to just release rock n roll music!

How old are you? I only ask as a reference point. Back in the 80s and early 90s, when I was a teen and growing up, it seemed like every band put out an album every 1-2 years. I can remember going to the record store on pay day and every month there would be 2-3 albums I would buy. Today??? Now it seems the major bands are on more of a 5-year album cycle.

People will put that era down saying they want quality of quantity....and I understand that. But that is all PERSONAL preference. I loved the music being produced in that era - so constantly getting new music from the bands you love was an amazing time.

That's why i don't personally really have any bands that I'm a die-hard fan of anymore - except for GnR. In the old days you might get 5-6 albums in 10 years from your band. Today, you might get one album or two albums in a decade. It's hard to stay too die-hard when you don't get a new album for 5-6 years!

Imagine doing that today. Pick your 24 favorite bands. For the next 10 years, EVERY month you will get a new album from one of those bands. In 2013, you will get 12 albums from bands that you love. In 2014, you will get 12 more albums from bands you love. In 2015, you will get 12 more albums from bands you love. etc.

Look at the classic line up.

My dates could be off. But from 1987 through 1991 we got Appetite, Lies, Illusion, Illusion.

I love music. And every song or album doesn't have to be the masterpiece of the decade.

I will buy anything that Axl Rose releases - even if it is one ablum a year for the next 20 years.

I am 34 so I do remember those days, and I completely agree that they were better than it is now. I am in the camp that believes that Axl would have been more productive without the name, so I wish he had dropped it. Now I'm not even sure that we'll hear anything new from him while he's still alive and that really does seem like a complete waste to me. I really hope I'm wrong, and that we'll get at least 2-3 new albums, but the more time that passes without anything other than more tours, the less hope I have that we'll ever get anything.

i remember (and sometimes miss) the days of frequent releases/record stores, blah blah. as a consumer, i think music is way better now because there's so much more available at a cheaper price. if anything, i think artists have to be MORE prolific now than in the old days. in the underground, a lot of bands are releasing at least an album a year with singles and EPs to boot. you have to work a lot harder now to keep things fresh for your audience.

axl seems to be having a blast onstage, and has been more visible in the last two years than at any time since UYI. if that's translating into any sort of new creativity/motivation artistically, i imagine we'll be hearing something sooner rather than later. artistically speaking, he's probably mulling over whether to release fresh material from the current lineup or the leftovers from CD. there's no telling what's going on from the business standpoint, but i imagine GNRs relationship with their label is somewhat strained to say the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think Axl would allow the record co. to keep him from putting out music if he wanted. He could release new stuff under Axl Rose and I'd be fucking ecstatic. Just one damn song, please.

you hit the nail on the head. axl doesn't need stupid labels 2 release albums of new material. axl can do it himself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if Axl really wanted to make things happen, and if the label is holding it back, he could easily buy his contract or release a live/remix album and go indie. He could end his contract and release music digitally and deluxe editions vynils, box-sets etc and make lots of money.

It's 2012, it's not that hard to release music. After CD release it's clear neither the label and Axl are interested in promoting new music, that might complicate things but I'm sure the label would not refuse money from a new record.

Axl is clearly the main reason we get 1 album per decade, you can try to find reasons and reasons, but if Axl REALLY wanted to release CD follow-up, he would already have done that.

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...