DownUnderScott Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Ok so I have noticed alot of speculation about GnR's Australian tour already suffering from poor ticket sales, with even one show downgraded to a smaller venue. Now I have already mentioned a few times that I believed the timing was bad for an Aussie GnR tour and the promoter should never have encouraged it for this time. But maybe that was all the GnR management could offer Australia with other plans for 2013?I went to see Deep Purple (with Journey as support act) the other night at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre where GnR will play in a few weeks. I got given two free Gold tickets for Deep Purple that were three rows from the stage as ticket sales were very poor. They had the entire top tier of the venue covered with black curtains and the crowd would have only been a few thousand. The week before I saw an Anthrax gig here with maybe just a couple of hundred people in the crowd at a different smaller venue. I think that bands are all out there trying to make money touring, but it is causing an effect of saturation on the market. So supply shoots up and people can't go to them all. So, I believe Axl is out there touring just to make money for either future music releases or maybe just for his retirement - whatever...Why can't he release singles to generate an income?I have read about the Aussie grammy-winning artist Gotye reaping millions of dollars from simply the success of his single - Somebody that I used to know. 99c for a download in the USA ($2.19 for the single download here in Aus) and he's raking it in. I also read that itunes only asks for about 35c in every dollar and this makes it a better deal than a record labels cut.So would you be satisfied with Axl just releasing a single every 3 - 6mths and drip-feeding us fans or would that just annoy you further?Obviously this would be better than no music being released at all, but not as good as getting a whole album in one hit. I just think it could make good business sense for Axl to do this. Obviously the singles would have to be great quality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprite Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I got given two free Gold ticketsInteresting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bellastar2355 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 He doesn't release an album, he hasn't had sex with me, and even now he won't release a single....What is wrong with him? He's hurting me, he's hurting .....us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 >Why can't he release singles to generate an income?Because UMG has the exclusive right to release GNR recordings and the terms of the contract call for albums, not singles.We do not know the nature of Axl's contract with interscope, since the original contract collapsed when they pulled the funding for cd. And Greatest Hits filled up the original old band quota. We simply do not know information about Axl's current contract with interscope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I think rec label controls evrfything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young_Gun Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 >Why can't he release singles to generate an income?Because UMG has the exclusive right to release GNR recordings and the terms of the contract call for albums, not singles.We do not know the nature of Axl's contract with interscope, since the original contract collapsed when they pulled the funding for cd. And Greatest Hits filled up the original old band quota. We simply do not know information about Axl's current contract with interscope.You admit you know nothing about the contract, yet then claim the contract "collapsed." Then, you claim GH filled up an "old band quota." Neither of which is true, but I'm curious to know how you came to those conclusions when you've admitted you don't know anything about the contract.And just because YOU know nothing about the contract, doesn't mean there aren't others that know more than you.I stand behind my original statement. Carry on.You back to posting here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashbalove Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Ok so I have noticed alot of speculation about GnR's Australian tour already suffering from poor ticket sales, with even one show downgraded to a smaller venue. Now I have already mentioned a few times that I believed the timing was bad for an Aussie GnR tour and the promoter should never have encouraged it for this time. But maybe that was all the GnR management could offer Australia with other plans for 2013?I went to see Deep Purple (with Journey as support act) the other night at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre where GnR will play in a few weeks. I got given two free Gold tickets for Deep Purple that were three rows from the stage as ticket sales were very poor. They had the entire top tier of the venue covered with black curtains and the crowd would have only been a few thousand. The week before I saw an Anthrax gig here with maybe just a couple of hundred people in the crowd at a different smaller venue. I think that bands are all out there trying to make money touring, but it is causing an effect of saturation on the market. So supply shoots up and people can't go to them all. So, I believe Axl is out there touring just to make money for either future music releases or maybe just for his retirement - whatever...Why can't he release singles to generate an income?I have read about the Aussie grammy-winning artist Gotye reaping millions of dollars from simply the success of his single - Somebody that I used to know. 99c for a download in the USA ($2.19 for the single download here in Aus) and he's raking it in. I also read that itunes only asks for about 35c in every dollar and this makes it a better deal than a record labels cut.So would you be satisfied with Axl just releasing a single every 3 - 6mths and drip-feeding us fans or would that just annoy you further?Obviously this would be better than no music being released at all, but not as good as getting a whole album in one hit. I just think it could make good business sense for Axl to do this. Obviously the singles would have to be great quality...I don't know if Axl wants to embrace itunes. David Bowie's embraced itunes. You can stream David's new album The Next Day for free on itunes today. The new David Bowie singles sound great on itunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 As the boss once said: "life doesn't owe you your own personal happy ending."Except Axl of course, he feels he deserves his happy ending with a boatload of cash in the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Because the label is out to get Axl. Or because the songs "in the can" have bad vibes and need to be reworked. Or because Axl has writer's block due to some mean meanies. Or because Axl is just so badass that he'll tour 25-year-old songs forever and dare people to pay for it as his voice gets worse and worse. Any explanation that allows us to avoid admitting that Axl is failing as an artist and that it's pretty much all on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prettytiedup88 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Not sure it's about needing to embrace iTunes. Fact is that is a fundamental route to market so by default he would have to embrace it. What it's really about is needing to release music. Ticket sales have been relatively steady, last year or two venues have got a touch smaller and I wouldn't be surprised if another European leg struggles like Oz clearly has. Another long break from the road or new music is the only thing that will boost sales again. Once Axl stops being able to play decent venues or income drops he may realise the necessity to release a new single or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nambis Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I'm glad they are not releasing singles on iTunes, that would suck. Albums are awesome, I have when bands release singles on the internet because they're too hard to keep track of and they just got lost in my collection. I'd rather have a full albums that I can play on vinyl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreCC Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 >Why can't he release singles to generate an income?Because UMG has the exclusive right to release GNR recordings and the terms of the contract call for albums, not singles.And thank god for that! I want albums not singles! As the boss once said: "life doesn't owe you your own personal happy ending."Except Axl of course, he feels he deserves his happy ending with a boatload of cash in the bank.+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimb0 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I'll take anything at this point. It's been four years and three months since I've last heard a new 'Guns N' Roses' song. Problem is... would the label and Lebeis allow Axl to do this if he wanted to. The only thing I worry about is potentially hurting sales of the next album, that is if we ever get a next album. I would kill to be able to hear anything from the vault. Axl probably has at least an album or two full of finished songs. I want to hear those and anything from the Wylde / Izzy / Slash / Duff / Paul / Dizzy / Matt period that was recorded and not finished. I wonder if any guitar was ever added to This I Love from that period, that would be awesome. But probably unlikely due to the 'No Stephanie Seymour Ballads' comment. I hate that comment because Axl's heart wrenching ballads are amazing. Come on Axl, Down By the Ocean... Play It! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts