Rumor So GNR Handed Over A New Album in 2010?

[axlsalinger]

Personally I consider MSL to be a legitimate source of information (however, information that has been "laundered" through an MSL filter, so to speak). However, this rumour is so far-fetched that I simply don't believe it without seeing any concrete proof. It's much more possible that somebody passed MSL bad information, or that the details were lost in translation somewhere, than to think that the label would turn down a new Guns n' Roses album after going through the difficulty they went through, in obtaining CD. Also that we would not have heard of this from some other source, ie. Bumblefoot or the record label. Or that Axl would not have ranted about this.

The burden of proof is high on this one, and to this point there isn't a shred of proof to go on, other than a vague post by MSL who really needs to provide more information. where did he hear this, exactly what was said, etc.

Now MSL, your Blood in the Water comment is quite tantalizing. Please elaborate.

[Axl_morris]

He claims he's heard silkworms - prove it. Come on, lets here it.

How about him releasing all these documents that he was giving in 2011 and went out to bribe the band. Oh wait i forgot "he cant talk about anything from that year"

Anyone who claims to have as much as him wouldn't be bragging on forums through fear of copyright fraud.

Now ill admit he seems like a smart guy and doesn't post here often but i just feel there are some fish in this forum biting his hook.

[Apollo]

Ali - I believe that is, what some refer to as, Groghanism

And I don't take offense to that. The people who use that phrase are the ones who do nothing but kiss Axl and Beta's ass 24/7, and constantly argue/insult anybody who doesn't worship their idol. And they are the ones who almost always attack other posters rather than answer actual questions.

As for Ali - who even defended Axl in the topic about Axl physically beating at least four different woman - I almost always answer his questions. So his little rant there is 99% simply not true. I didn't insult him in anyway in my post, and HE refused to answer my question! (which he is complaining about me not doing.....but whatever. I don't mind his double standards).

As for the actual question, I think we heard about one other time (if memory serves). Seems like Axl turned in a CD to the company several years before it was actually released and the record company rejected it. I think it was even Beta who revealed this information (I could be wrong) and said that they had like 90 songs or something in the library?

As for Ali's poor attempt to misdirect people on this subject, which is a common tactic of his, how about we look at the actual SITUATION here and not just look at it with pro-Axl/Beta eyes.

Axl, Beta and Gnr have taken a beating from fans/critics for their inability to release new music (one ablum in 20 years) but also because they rarely give the fans updates about it. Because of those two very specific reasons, it would make PERFECT sense for Axl's management team to defend the band if this was actually the case. Remember the 5-questions and Beta's lame response from last week? Try this on for size:

"We know GnR fans would love to hear new music and we are doing our best to put a new album in your hands. Three years ago we delivered a completed CD to our label, but unforunately they chose not to release that album. Over the past three years we've been working on those songs, adding some new songs, (as well as touring the world) to try and deliver an album that will be acceptable to GnR, the label and our millions of fans."

DO THAT and 90% of the bashing goes off the band and heads toward the label.

Why guys like Ali don't get this is beyond me.

A normal band doesn't have to put out statements like this, because normal bands regularly release albums and they regularly gives their fans UPDATES on what the band is doing. These are two things that Axl/Beta and her kids don't do.

I answered both your questions Ali - let's see if you answer mine.

He claims he's heard silkworms - prove it. Come on, lets here it.

How about him releasing all these documents that he was giving in 2011 and went out to bribe the band. Oh wait i forgot "he cant talk about anything from that year"

Anyone who claims to have as much as him wouldn't be bragging on forums through fear of copyright fraud.

Now ill admit he seems like a smart guy and doesn't post here often but i just feel there are some fish in this forum biting his hook.

I just checked out a couple topics in his GnR section. Funny thing is how often they reference things that are said on this forum.

[Black Sabbath]

He claims he's heard silkworms - prove it. Come on, lets here it.

Anyone who claims to have as much as him wouldn't be bragging on forums through fear of copyright fraud.

HV proved the legitimacy of the tracks MSL claimed to have, Silkworms included.

[Axl_morris]

He claims he's heard silkworms - prove it. Come on, lets here it.

Anyone who claims to have as much as him wouldn't be bragging on forums through fear of copyright fraud.

HV proved the legitimacy of the tracks MSL claimed to have, Silkworms included.

ok so that could be discussed. Perhaps every rumour that comes from msl should be proved via HV or a mod before being allowed on the forum. That goes for all rumours.

[ll_tj1]

MSL is legit, no reason for him to make this up. I believe it 100%, for two reasons. Legitimate source, and it makes a lot of sense, and sure explains more.

[Black Sabbath]

He claims he's heard silkworms - prove it. Come on, lets here it.

Anyone who claims to have as much as him wouldn't be bragging on forums through fear of copyright fraud.

HV proved the legitimacy of the tracks MSL claimed to have, Silkworms included.

ok so that could be discussed. Perhaps every rumour that comes from msl should be proved via HV or a mod before being allowed on the forum. That goes for all rumours.

Well, not all rumors can be proven, nor will all of them. It's just not possible.

[axlsalinger]

Sounds like someone needs to visit www.yourdictionary.com and look up the word "rumour".

[Black Sabbath]

Sounds like someone needs to visit www.yourdictionary.com and look up the word "rumour".

And why is that?

[Ali]

Ali - I believe that is, what some refer to as, Groghanism

And I don't take offense to that. The people who use that phrase are the ones who do nothing but kiss Axl and Beta's ass 24/7, and constantly argue/insult anybody who doesn't worship their idol. And they are the ones who almost always attack other posters rather than answer actual questions.

As for Ali - who even defended Axl in the topic about Axl physically beating at least four different woman - I almost always answer his questions. So his little rant there is 99% simply not true. I didn't insult him in anyway in my post, and HE refused to answer my question! (which he is complaining about me not doing.....but whatever. I don't mind his double standards).

As for the actual question, I think we heard about one other time (if memory serves). Seems like Axl turned in a CD to the company several years before it was actually released and the record company rejected it. I think it was even Beta who revealed this information (I could be wrong) and said that they had like 90 songs or something in the library?

As for Ali's poor attempt to misdirect people on this subject, which is a common tactic of his, how about we look at the actual SITUATION here and not just look at it with pro-Axl/Beta eyes.

Axl, Beta and Gnr have taken a beating from fans/critics for their inability to release new music (one ablum in 20 years) but also because they rarely give the fans updates about it. Because of those two very specific reasons, it would make PERFECT sense for Axl's management team to defend the band if this was actually the case. Remember the 5-questions and Beta's lame response from last week? Try this on for size:

"We know GnR fans would love to hear new music and we are doing our best to put a new album in your hands. Three years ago we delivered a completed CD to our label, but unforunately they chose not to release that album. Over the past three years we've been working on those songs, adding some new songs, (as well as touring the world) to try and deliver an album that will be acceptable to GnR, the label and our millions of fans."

DO THAT and 90% of the bashing goes off the band and heads toward the label.

Why guys like Ali don't get this is beyond me.

A normal band doesn't have to put out statements like this, because normal bands regularly release albums and they regularly gives their fans UPDATES on what the band is doing. These are two things that Axl/Beta and her kids don't do.

I answered both your questions Ali - let's see if you answer mine.

He claims he's heard silkworms - prove it. Come on, lets here it.

How about him releasing all these documents that he was giving in 2011 and went out to bribe the band. Oh wait i forgot "he cant talk about anything from that year"

Anyone who claims to have as much as him wouldn't be bragging on forums through fear of copyright fraud.

Now ill admit he seems like a smart guy and doesn't post here often but i just feel there are some fish in this forum biting his hook.

I just checked out a couple topics in his GnR section. Funny thing is how often they reference things that are said on this forum.

You still never answered my second question in the sense that you have never provided a concrete example for when GN'R ever informed us that an album had been rejected by the label. If it hasn't been done in the past, why would you expect it to happen this time? Note, I did not ask why you think it should happen this time or why you think it would be great or make "PERFECT sense" if it happened this time. I'm asking to ascertain what your basis is for thinking we would be informed of such a development if we've never been informed of that in the past.

Also, what was your question? And by that, I mean what was your question about the topic at hand?

As far as "poor attempt to misdirect people on this subject, which is a common tactic of his", all I can is that I'll take "Irony" for $500, Alex

Ali

[downzy]

The problem I have with this rumor is the economics of it all. I can somewhat understand the label refusing to release another GNR album under Axl's desired time-frame ("we've got a show in two months, here you go - have this out before then"), but I have a difficult time accepting any notion that UMG would prevent the release of a GNR album in general. So few albums make money these days that labels need albums from bands who can move several hundred thousand units to subsidize their losses from other bands. The brand GNR can still move a million plus units internationally so why a label would refuse to release another disc by the band defies common sense.

If the label refused to release the next album simply because it didn't make logistical sense, I don't see why efforts weren't made to release it at other moments when GNR was about to tour. How long did we know of RIR4? I can't remember but I think everyone was given at least eight to ten months notice about that show. There would have been plenty of time to plan for a proper release then.

I would really advise against any attitude that wishes to place blame on the label for the lack of GNR material. Unless UMG is being run by bat-shit idiots who don't care about their personal or corporate bank accounts, there's no plausible explanation why a label would hold up a release.

There are other reasons why the label may be reluctant to release a new GN'R album without certain conditions. Two I can think of right off the bat are: 1) a desire or need to have assurances that Axl will more actively participate in the promotion of this album. 2) As much as I love CD, IMO, it does not have an abundance of radio-friendly singles. Perhaps that is something the label desires this time around. Additionally, perhaps Axl and the band will not commit to participation in a promotional/marketing plan without knowing what the promotional/marketing plan and/or budget are.

So, there are potential reasons why the label may hold up the release of an album. The degree of plausibility may depend on each individual's perspective.

Ali

As for your first point, Axl and the band had a bevy of tour dates lined up if I recall correctly. With the band out and about promoting the material, you would think this would have given the label enough assurance that the band was committed to another release. When Chinese Democracy was released the band wasn't out there touring. That wasn't the case in 2010 (or 2011, 2012, 2013) when the label could easily count on the band to do promotion while on the road.

As for your second point, how many "radio-friendly" tracks did Chinese Democracy have and ultimately how many albums did it sell? Despite having little to no radio exposure the album still managed to move millions. Do you know how many artists UMG has on its roster that's capable of doing that? (Hint: not many). UMG is in the business of making money. They lose money on something like 80 percent of all albums they release. They need their big artists to recoup their losses. This is how the record industry works. The lack of radio-friendly songs on a GNR follow up wouldn't have prevented the company from bringing in the much needed revenue. The only financial reason for pushing back a release is because a company wants to pad its year-end or a particular quarter.

Moreover, are you telling me that the label was willing to risk holding off the release of a GNR album considering what they went through to get Chinese Democracy? How many millions of dollars did UMG burn through to entice Axl to turn something in. How long did they wait before they finally got something from Axl? Now all of sudden Axl's dropping off 12-14 tracks and the label thinks it's best to write "return to sender" because they don't hear any hits? You obviously have a different understanding of the music industry than I have.

Touring is one form of promotion. There are others, most notably doing press for an album. Obviously, there is a ongoing reluctance on Axl's part to work with the press. Perhaps that is a factor.

Not being happy with the radio-friendly nature or tone of a particular album would not be an uncommon reason for a label to push out or reject an album by an artist. Keep in mind this is the same label that told MIA that rejected her album because they were "having a bit of an issue" about the tone of the album. "I've been told it's 'too positive'," MIA explained to Australia's Gold Coast Bulletin. "They're like, 'You need to, like, darken it up a bit'." (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jun/18/mia-fourth-album-interscope).

So, to put it past Interscope to reject an album for reasons that are incredibly subjective and possibly difficult to comprehend would be short-sighted.

You say the label would make money on a GN'R release. Sure, they would. But, why do you assume it is just about making money instead of making the most money possible by maximizing sales? We'll never know if CD would've sold more if "Better" was chosen as a lead single instead a song like the title track, which doesn't have any radio-friendly hooks to speak of, or if more catchy songs like "Better" were on the album. But, it's possible. Also, a more active role from Axl in the album's promotion and more singes may help in that regard. To be clear, I'm merely offering a possible reason why the label would not accept an album as is. The MIA situation shows that this particular label has exhibited that sort of behavior, and done that recently.

I understand you're playing devil's advocate here, but your suggestions are a bit unreasonable considering the history and context surrounding the band and Chinese Democracy. Sure, anything is possible, but I'd rather peddle in the probable. Just pointing out a possibility doesn't make it likely. This isn't a criminal court, there is no need to hold out for absolute certainty.

As for your MIA example, you're comparing apples to oranges. MIA is a hit-based artist. If her album doesn't have a hit, it won't sell. GNR is a different proposition. Much like Dave Matthews, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, U2, GNR will sell a million albums whether it has a hit or not. Would a label prefer for such artists to include hits to make the album more profitable? Of course, but they're not likely going to pass on an album from such an established act because they don't have a certifiable hit. They're not in any economic position to do so. Moreover, this is a label that leveraged a Greatest Hits album to finagle a new album from GNR. If it's been so difficult in the past to get Axl to turn over new material, why would they ever hold off on a follow up at the risk of not getting that material again?

To suggest that the label is responsible for the delay just doesn't add up considering everything we know about how difficult it was to get Chinese Democracy release. It makes no economic sense from the label's perspective. And logistically, why would a label not release an album when a band that's known for its reclusive nature was touring at the time? I get why a label may want to hold off a release for a better sales window (November is better than the summer months), but we're now three years out from this supposed submitted album. There is absolutely no way the label is holding out for three years when there's money on the table.

Edited August 13, 2013 by downzy

[Dariablue]

Downzy, do you think the label could be holding a grudge? Maybe "punishing" Axl for his lack of involvement and cooperation with CD?

[Axl_morris]

End of the day, msl hasn't given us anything since pre chinese leaks. He tells the stories, claims he's got stuff but i don't have any of it and neither does anyone else on this forum.

He doesn't have anyones interests at heart. He sells rare booklets for large sums of money that he got free. Says it all.

[T.wa.T]

End of the day, msl hasn't given us anything since pre chinese leaks. He tells the stories, claims he's got stuff but i don't have any of it and neither does anyone else on this forum.

He doesn't have anyones interests at heart. He sells rare booklets for large sums of money that he got free. Says it all.

Maybe because you have a bad attitude,

Im kidding of course

Edited August 13, 2013 by T.wa.T

[downzy]

Downzy, do you think the label could be holding a grudge? Maybe "punishing" Axl for his lack of involvement and cooperation with CD?

That's a fair point, but you have to ask yourself - what matters more to labels right now: ego or money. Is pursuing the grudge worth the loss of potential millions? Something tells me UMG shareholders may not approve of such childlike business practices.

I also question this rumor since such an act by the label might (and I stress might) violate its contractual obligations with the band and be grounds for litigation. If the label is contractually obligated to distribute another GNR album, then by shelving it they're running the risk of costly litigation. Now, I might be wrong, but Axl seems fairly trigger happy when it comes to the using civil court to settle arguments.

Sure, the label might have the right of refusal, but I would imagine there's a time limit on such a clause. We're now three years out from this supposed turned in album. Granted I'm speculating, but if the label is truly blocking any GNR release you would think the knives would be out by now.

So no, though I do think there's animosity between the two camps, I don't think such animosity rises above the amount of money and potential legal costs that would result from such a move by UMG.

[Ali]

The problem I have with this rumor is the economics of it all. I can somewhat understand the label refusing to release another GNR album under Axl's desired time-frame ("we've got a show in two months, here you go - have this out before then"), but I have a difficult time accepting any notion that UMG would prevent the release of a GNR album in general. So few albums make money these days that labels need albums from bands who can move several hundred thousand units to subsidize their losses from other bands. The brand GNR can still move a million plus units internationally so why a label would refuse to release another disc by the band defies common sense.

If the label refused to release the next album simply because it didn't make logistical sense, I don't see why efforts weren't made to release it at other moments when GNR was about to tour. How long did we know of RIR4? I can't remember but I think everyone was given at least eight to ten months notice about that show. There would have been plenty of time to plan for a proper release then.

I would really advise against any attitude that wishes to place blame on the label for the lack of GNR material. Unless UMG is being run by bat-shit idiots who don't care about their personal or corporate bank accounts, there's no plausible explanation why a label would hold up a release.

There are other reasons why the label may be reluctant to release a new GN'R album without certain conditions. Two I can think of right off the bat are: 1) a desire or need to have assurances that Axl will more actively participate in the promotion of this album. 2) As much as I love CD, IMO, it does not have an abundance of radio-friendly singles. Perhaps that is something the label desires this time around. Additionally, perhaps Axl and the band will not commit to participation in a promotional/marketing plan without knowing what the promotional/marketing plan and/or budget are.

So, there are potential reasons why the label may hold up the release of an album. The degree of plausibility may depend on each individual's perspective.

Ali

As for your first point, Axl and the band had a bevy of tour dates lined up if I recall correctly. With the band out and about promoting the material, you would think this would have given the label enough assurance that the band was committed to another release. When Chinese Democracy was released the band wasn't out there touring. That wasn't the case in 2010 (or 2011, 2012, 2013) when the label could easily count on the band to do promotion while on the road.

As for your second point, how many "radio-friendly" tracks did Chinese Democracy have and ultimately how many albums did it sell? Despite having little to no radio exposure the album still managed to move millions. Do you know how many artists UMG has on its roster that's capable of doing that? (Hint: not many). UMG is in the business of making money. They lose money on something like 80 percent of all albums they release. They need their big artists to recoup their losses. This is how the record industry works. The lack of radio-friendly songs on a GNR follow up wouldn't have prevented the company from bringing in the much needed revenue. The only financial reason for pushing back a release is because a company wants to pad its year-end or a particular quarter.

Moreover, are you telling me that the label was willing to risk holding off the release of a GNR album considering what they went through to get Chinese Democracy? How many millions of dollars did UMG burn through to entice Axl to turn something in. How long did they wait before they finally got something from Axl? Now all of sudden Axl's dropping off 12-14 tracks and the label thinks it's best to write "return to sender" because they don't hear any hits? You obviously have a different understanding of the music industry than I have.

Touring is one form of promotion. There are others, most notably doing press for an album. Obviously, there is a ongoing reluctance on Axl's part to work with the press. Perhaps that is a factor.

Not being happy with the radio-friendly nature or tone of a particular album would not be an uncommon reason for a label to push out or reject an album by an artist. Keep in mind this is the same label that told MIA that rejected her album because they were "having a bit of an issue" about the tone of the album. "I've been told it's 'too positive'," MIA explained to Australia's Gold Coast Bulletin. "They're like, 'You need to, like, darken it up a bit'." (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jun/18/mia-fourth-album-interscope).

So, to put it past Interscope to reject an album for reasons that are incredibly subjective and possibly difficult to comprehend would be short-sighted.

You say the label would make money on a GN'R release. Sure, they would. But, why do you assume it is just about making money instead of making the most money possible by maximizing sales? We'll never know if CD would've sold more if "Better" was chosen as a lead single instead a song like the title track, which doesn't have any radio-friendly hooks to speak of, or if more catchy songs like "Better" were on the album. But, it's possible. Also, a more active role from Axl in the album's promotion and more singes may help in that regard. To be clear, I'm merely offering a possible reason why the label would not accept an album as is. The MIA situation shows that this particular label has exhibited that sort of behavior, and done that recently.

I understand you're playing devil's advocate here, but your suggestions are a bit unreasonable considering the history and context surrounding the band and Chinese Democracy. Sure, anything is possible, but I'd rather peddle in the probable. Just pointing out a possibility doesn't make it likely. This isn't a criminal court, there is no need to hold out for absolute certainty.

As for your MIA example, you're comparing apples to oranges. MIA is a hit-based artist. If her album doesn't have a hit, it won't sell. GNR is a different proposition. Much like Dave Matthews, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, U2, GNR will sell a million albums whether it has a hit or not. Would a label prefer for such artists to include hits to make the album more profitable? Of course, but they're not likely going to pass on an album from such an established act because they don't have a certifiable hit. They're not in any economic position to do so. Moreover, this is a label that leveraged a Greatest Hits album to finagle a new album from GNR. If it's been so difficult in the past to get Axl to turn over new material, why would they ever hold off on a follow up at the risk of not getting that material again?

To suggest that the label is responsible for the delay just doesn't add up considering everything we know about how difficult it was to get Chinese Democracy release. It makes no economic sense from the label's perspective. And logistically, why would a label not release an album when a band that's known for its reclusive nature not release a follow up during a band's lengthy tour? I get why a label may want to hold off a release for a better sales window (November is better than the summer months), but we're now three years out from this supposed submitted album. There is absolutely no way the label is holding out for three years when there's money on the table.

Actually, I think my suggestions are perfectly reasonable given what happened in the immediate aftermath of Chinese Democracy - Axl's lack of participation in promotion of the album, apart from starting a word tour more than one year after the album came out, and the quick appearance and subsequent disappearance of the album's lead single, the title track, from rock radio. Likely? Who knows. Like I said, that depends on your perspective. Plausible? Yes, certainly, IMO.

I think any artist has a core fanbase that will buy an album regardless out of the gate. I don't think that is only true for the bands you mentioned. Furthermore, I think ANY artist's album can see a sales benefit with more radio or crossover friendly material. If making money is the driving force for labels, then making as much money as possible shouldn't be dismissed as a desire, IMO.

Ali

[downzy]

But you do understand the concept of opportunity cost right? Sitting on a GNR album for three years is a huge opportunity cost for a label that often needs to find ways to pad their bottom line.

[Coma16]

But you do understand the concept of opportunity cost right? Sitting on a GNR album for three years is a huge opportunity cost for a label that often needs to find ways to pad their bottom line.

Unless we're talking about a CD relaunch I don't think a 2010 release would have been wise.

[downzy]

But you do understand the concept of opportunity cost right? Sitting on a GNR album for three years is a huge opportunity cost for a label that often needs to find ways to pad their bottom line.

Unless we're talking about a CD relaunch I don't think a 2010 release would have been wise.

So you disagree with 2010. What about 2011? Or 2012? Both years the band was out touring, doing interviews (hell, Axl even showed up on Kimmel), doing their thing.

[Coma16]

But you do understand the concept of opportunity cost right? Sitting on a GNR album for three years is a huge opportunity cost for a label that often needs to find ways to pad their bottom line.

Unless we're talking about a CD relaunch I don't think a 2010 release would have been wise.

So you disagree with 2010. What about 2011? Or 2012? Both years the band was out touring, doing interviews (hell, Axl even showed up on Kimmel), doing their thing.

I think after UCAP would have been the best time.

What are you asking if I disagree with?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Coma16

[axlsalinger]

Sounds like someone needs to visit www.yourdictionary.com and look up the word "rumour".

And why is that?

Because is rumours could all be proved, they wouldn't be rumours!! Was referring to the quote below.

Perhaps every rumour that comes from msl should be proved via HV or a mod before being allowed on the forum. That goes for all rumours.

[Millions]

I'm on this GNR discussion forum most days, and this is the first I've ever heard of this rumour - hence the thread, It seems like a lot of other members hadn't heard it either.

Like I said in my oroginal post, I was just keen to find out more information - there seem to be posters who know a lot more about this than I do. So thanks for your reply, MSL and others - its appreciated.

I still find the whole thing curious though. If Axl wanted the album released in 2010, but the record company refused, saying it would be too rushed, why not release it in 2011? Or 2012? Why is the label just sitting on this album? There must be more to the story that hasn't been mentioned yet.

[downzy]

But you do understand the concept of opportunity cost right? Sitting on a GNR album for three years is a huge opportunity cost for a label that often needs to find ways to pad their bottom line.

Unless we're talking about a CD relaunch I don't think a 2010 release would have been wise.

So you disagree with 2010. What about 2011? Or 2012? Both years the band was out touring, doing interviews (hell, Axl even showed up on Kimmel), doing their thing.

I think after UCAP would have been the best time.

What are you asking if I disagree with?

The point I was making was that the opportunity cost of holding back a GNR release would be rather large for a company that works with a broken business model and is often desperate to juice their quarterly results. If the label is sitting on 12-14 tracks, why haven't they released them by now? Since Axl has handed them, they're now free to release them whenever they like. If that's the case, why haven't they released another GNR album? If you want to argue that 2010 was not the year, why would they hold off in 2011 or 2012? The only plausible explanation (in my opinion) why they haven't done so is because they never had the tracks to release in the first place.

Edited August 13, 2013 by downzy

[Coma16]

But you do understand the concept of opportunity cost right? Sitting on a GNR album for three years is a huge opportunity cost for a label that often needs to find ways to pad their bottom line.

Unless we're talking about a CD relaunch I don't think a 2010 release would have been wise.

So you disagree with 2010. What about 2011? Or 2012? Both years the band was out touring, doing interviews (hell, Axl even showed up on Kimmel), doing their thing.

I think after UCAP would have been the best time.

What are you asking if I disagree with?

The point I was making was that the opportunity cost of holding back a GNR release would be rather large for a company that works with a broken business model and is often desperate to juice their quarterly results. If the label is sitting on 12-14 tracks, why haven't they released them by now? Since Axl has handed them, they're now free to release them whenever they like. If that's the case, why haven't they released another GNR album? If you want to argue that 2010 was not the year, why would they hold off in 2011 or 2012? The only plausible explanation (in my opinion) why they haven't done so is because they never had the tracks to release in the first place.

It could really be something as stupid as them waiting to release Detox first. Maybe that's why Dre was mentioned in the emails?

[wasted]

Any chance the label were horrified by the record. It doesnt sound like GNR, has lots of pussy full of maggots, makes CD sound like Achtung Baby.

if they rejected Axl may have got pissed and said fuck them. And it takes a few years to talk him round.

Honestly i think he may have decoded to fuck it and try to make a new record. The label blew it with their delaying.