Rumor So GNR Handed Over A New Album in 2010?

[bran]

i really dont know what to think about this rumor just like i didnt know what to make of it when it was first revealed at the time. i do believe msl is a legit source. this rumor though is kind of weird to me, why would the label turn down another gnr album only 2 years after CD came out? any album with the gnr name on it is going to sell a large amount of copies.

especially if these songs came about with no new money being spent by the label to create, doesnt make a hell of a lot of sense to me, but this is gnr we are talking about

[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.

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

What does Dre have anything to do with GNR? That would be like Toyota holding off on the new Corolla because they want to release their new pickup truck first. Completely different markets. It would be a nonsensical move based on illogical thinking. Moreover, UMG is a big enough company that they can handle two big releases simultaneously (though Dre would be the much bigger release at this point).

And I could be wrong, but I believed the Dre references had to do with him producing a GNR track, nothing to do with conflicts over Detox and CDII.

[wasted]

I thought Iovine gave precedence to rap and rap rock and may have even encourage Axls nu metal direction. I the labe gave other bands back then more attention. But right now GNRs touring has brought them back.

[Coma16]

I thought Iovine gave precedence to rap and rap rock and may have even encourage Axls nu metal direction. I the labe gave other bands back then more attention. But right now GNRs touring has brought them back.

I agree. It was crucial for them to get over again in the US before the release of a future album.

[stumbleine]

What has Beta or Fernando said about this?

If this is true, why wouldn't the band tell us about it?

lol.are you outraged the band isn't communicating with the fans?

[Coma16]

What has Beta or Fernando said about this?

If this is true, why wouldn't the band tell us about it?

lol.are you outraged the band isn't communicating with the fans?

Why would they tell us about something that didn't materialize?

[rockerman]

I heard this rumour today, and wondered if anyone else had heard about this?

Apparently the follow-up to Chinese Democracy was handed over to the record company 3 years ago, but was rejected.

Can anyone confirm if this is true?

Why was it rejected? Financial reasons? The quality of the songs? As a response to Axl's previous refusal to promote Chinese Democracy?

If this is true, what the fuck happens now?

IF its true you have to laugh your ass off... talk about a fuck you of fuck yous!

[wasted]

I thought Iovine gave precedence to rap and rap rock and may have even encourage Axls nu metal direction. I the labe gave other bands back then more attention. But right now GNRs touring has brought them back.

I agree. It was crucial for them to get over again in the US before the release of a future album.

As I remember they sort of circled the US for a while before finally heading back in and Axl was on fire. Maybe the label weren't sure of the reaction to a new record would be at that time. Now after the Vegas residency it seems like GNR are more established. They were even given great live reviews for a while in the US. But then The HOF must have been another negative for the label. Each set back re-sets the clock again.

Theyve got to complate a successful tour playing some new material, release the record with a video then hit the road again.

[rockerman]

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.

radio friendly also means royaltys not just draw of the listening audience.. every single time a song is played on a commercial radio station they(the station) had to pay for the rights to play that song...if its a hot song they will pay to play it every hour on the hour. As "dead" as radio may seem to be up agains all the other outlets it still is a going source of revenue for record companies. When CD dropped and then subsequently dropped with very few stations playing it..that formula was a loss. Yes damn straight the record lable wants "hits' all over the next record...they want it out there in every concievable form possible. None of this " show up on the shelves one day" kind of bullshit approach...they need and want MASSIVE promotion. If CD 2 is avante garde and expreimental in nature like CD seemed to be...then id send it back as well and demand the shit that was going to make the money and capture the listening audiences attention. Thats the music business.

[wasted]

I agree maybe CD II was all Silkworms and unplayable on the radio. But CD radio could play Better, SOD, Catcher, TIL easily. But maybe CD isn't hard rock enough for those stations and isn't pop enough for others. Not nu metal enough for KNAC.com. etc.

[downzy]

radio friendly also means royaltys not just draw of the listening audience.. every single time a song is played on a commercial radio station they(the station) had to pay for the rights to play that song...if its a hot song they will pay to play it every hour on the hour. As "dead" as radio may seem to be up agains all the other outlets it still is a going source of revenue for record companies. When CD dropped and then subsequently dropped with very few stations playing it..that formula was a loss. Yes damn straight the record lable wants "hits' all over the next record...they want it out there in every concievable form possible. None of this " show up on the shelves one day" kind of bullshit approach...they need and want MASSIVE promotion. If CD 2 is avante garde and expreimental in nature like CD seemed to be...then id send it back as well and demand the shit that was going to make the money and capture the listening audiences attention. Thats the music business.

So basically you're saying that until Axl delivers an AFD caliber record the label isn't going to release it? One, I'm glad you don't run a record label. Two, if that were the case, we're never getting another GNR album ever again.

Finally, I don't think you understand how royalties work. Record labels do not collect performance royalties (or what you call radio plays). Only songwriters and publishers get to collect such royalties. Since Axl owns the publishing rights to any and all music coming out of the GNR barn these days (along with those individuals he wrote the songs with) (EDIT: actually, I'm not sure about this; I recall him selling his publishing rights to Sanctuary in 2006 for $19 million, but I'm not sure if that includes all future material), UMG wouldn't receive a dime whether a song gets played once or a million times. A record label is only interested in radio play because it drives album sales, which is really the only place they make money (along with licensing recording rights). The only royalties a record company makes is off mechanical royalties, which are essentially money made of the sale of the recordings (for example, a single sold on iTunes).

A label will always want hits, but it's far less essential for a band with an already established fanbase. Dave Matthews gets little to no radio play but still sells millions of albums. As does Radiohead, Pearl Jam (new material, no classic stuff), Metallica, and U2. These are marquee bands who will move product whether an album is hit-heavy or not. GNR is somewhat in the same boat, except since it's a new band they still have to prove themselves. Others have disagreed with me, but I'm of the opinion that UMG would release anything that Axl turned over so long as it's not too far from what's expected from a GNR album. Singles are great, but what makes labels money are albums. It's been argued that what has hurt record companies the most hasn't been illegal downloading but the cracking open of albums by services like iTunes that allow people to pick and choose what songs they want to buy. Labels need artists who can still move albums, not a flash in the pan single. GNR is a rare animal that can still do that.

Edited August 13, 2013 by downzy

[wasted]

CD sold 3 mil world wide say, that's 30 mil for the label. I'm not sure how much it costs to release a record but it can't be that much. With no promo with just touring the CD II could sell 3 mil again. I guess they could think with Axl and GNR and Dj we do this right it could sell much more than that. That might cramp they style.

I heard this rumour today, and wondered if anyone else had heard about this?

Apparently the follow-up to Chinese Democracy was handed over to the record company 3 years ago, but was rejected.

Can anyone confirm if this is true?

Why was it rejected? Financial reasons? The quality of the songs? As a response to Axl's previous refusal to promote Chinese Democracy?

If this is true, what the fuck happens now?

IF its true you have to laugh your ass off... talk about a fuck you of fuck yous!

They rejected CD at first, then lured Axl back with Roy Thomas Baker?

[vaida]

When will Axl show up and silence MSL ?

..or maybe he dosn't need to, as it's ll MSL BS

Edited August 13, 2013 by vaida

[estrangedtwat]

There's simply no possible way any record label would reject anything that has actual Axl vocals on it. It would be released immediately. It could be spoken word, it could be country western....anything. Anything with his voice and the name Guns N Roses would be slapped together and released so quickly it'd make your head spin.

The only reason we haven't had live albums, boxed sets with early demos, DVDs, etc is cause Axl won't allow it. If it were up to the label we'd have remastered versions of AFD and UYI and special boxed sets with bonus tracks, more Greatest Hits collections and even the Rapid Fire stuff.

It's ridiculous to even suggest that a label would reject a fully completed album because it's not "up to their standards." They don't give a shit, they just want money! They'd sell you the SAME album ten times if they could get away with it!

I have to roll my eyes when people claim a fully-finished version of CD was "rejected" by the label back in 1999 or so....the label was desperate for ANYTHING at the time....and they still would be now.

Other than the 14 songs we got, there's no way on earth Axl has turned a damn thing over to the record company, cause if he had, we'd have it. Even if he gave them ONE song, they'd release it as a single or on a soundtrack the next day.

[downzy]

^^^^^

This time a million.

Nice to see I'm not alone in understanding the financial motivations of the record label. It's strange that people would claim that the label is insistent on some sort of standard, as if such adherence to quality is ubiquitous among the industry. Do they not hear the tsunami of crap that gets put out on a weekly basis?

The notion that they're holding out for something better is just as laughable. If the first album tanks it's just another opportunity to release another one.

Edited August 13, 2013 by downzy

[wasted]

So why did Jimmy put up 10 mil for RTB when he could just said Axl it's awesome here's 10 mil to make some videos or get Bucket a Ferrari, let's go!

[estrangedtwat]

So why did Jimmy put up 10 mil for RTB when he could just said Axl it's awesome here's 10 mil to make some videos or get Bucket a Ferrari, let's go!

Dude. I can never understand your rambling sentences. What the hell are you trying to say?

[downzy]

So why did Jimmy put up 10 mil for RTB when he could just said Axl it's awesome here's 10 mil to make some videos or get Bucket a Ferrari, let's go!

Dude. I can never understand your rambling sentences. What the hell are you trying to say?

I think he's trying to argue that because the label spent $10 million (not sure where he got that figure) on RTB it's proof that the label was responsible for the holdup.

Which I believe distorts what actually happened. RTB was brought into help move the project along since Axl wasn't ready/willing to finish it. If RTB was really responsible for the hold up, explain the delay after 2002, when he was supposedly fired by Axl. Moreover, Axl acknowledged in 2002 that what was holding everything up was that they kept writing more songs, which bumped previously recorded material:

“There are a lot of new songs that were just done in the last year that we feel that ‘okay, well that bumps a lot of stuff off the previous list’… I think that we’ll go on to write some very interesting things with Richard and he’s already done some rhythm work and some leads on the album… but it’s time to stop [adding new songs] now and wrap up the baby.”

This attempt to make anyone other than Axl the boogieman for the delays is ridiculous. Let's all repeat, it's not the label. One could argue that they delayed the project by continually throwing money at it, allowing Axl to do whatever he wanted for as long as he wanted to (err, until 2004), but let's be real - in no way was the inclusion of RTB the fault of the label. They were just desperate for anyone to get Axl to finish the album.

Edited August 13, 2013 by downzy

[wasted]

How come Tommy said it was people interfering and bringing people like RTB, when it really didn't need it. According to Stinson people kept saying "you can make it sound better".

The delay after 2002, was that Bucket leaving? This was around the same time RTB came in and the label delayed it?

I think if they'd have got it out around 2002, then it might have sold much better, just cos records sold more. Like Contraband.

Part of the delay was the expectations of selling 10-20 mil. Obviously an advance of 4 mil then another 10 mil for RTB. That's all fine bcos GNR will sell 3 mil easy, right? Around that time they probably were indulging Axl knowing it would sell a boat load anyway.

But they waited and waited, aiming or hoping that in the end they'd have a smash, only to see record sales drop and drop, then they start back peddling and hoping, almost to the point where they might as well not bother. Then the Best buy deal saves the day. kind of.

So why would the label reject a record in 2010. Bcos it's basically all Silkworms or that it's just too early.

Or again that Axl won't let it go.

Have to admit CD is pretty bulletproof, it has about 8 singles too many on it.

Really Chi dem, SOD etc could have come out in 2002.

Then Better, Shackler's, ITW, Sorry, TIL in 2008.

Edited August 13, 2013 by wasted

[downzy]

Where are you getting $10 million for RTB? And RTB was fired by 2002 by most accounts. Bucket supposedly left in 2004, two years after RTB got the boot.

Seriously Wasted, I would love to see some sources on your version of events. Because it mostly contradicts everything I've ever read about the album's production. Most accounts illustrate a desperate label sending in producer after producer trying to get the album wrapped. Ultimately, until Axl signed off on it and handed over an actual disc, there wasn't much the label could do but appease. Which is what they did until 2004/2005.

I've read that interview by Tommy, but he doesn't exactly clear up who wanted the album to be better. Yeah, the label kept sending them producers, but I have a hard time seeing how Axl wasn't calling the shots on this issue. Was Tommy talking to the label directly or was everything run through Axl? Something tells me with Tommy it's a case of broken telephone.

Another issue was that labels at the time were trying everything they could to get their big artists to release whatever music they had with the advent of pirated music. Label execs knew what was coming - the total decimation of their business model. It would make no sense to hold off on a GNR album if it meant that more illegal downloads. For every year the album was pushed back was another substantial loss in album sales. There was zero economic incentive to delay this album from the label's point of view. It's just wishful thinking to see it any other way.

But they waited and waited, aiming or hoping that in the end they'd have a smash, only to see record sales drop and drop, then they start back peddling and hoping, almost to the point where they might as well not bother. Then the Best buy deal saves the day. kind of.

Seriously, where are you getting this from? Why would they rather not bother when they've already sank $12 - $15 million on the project? It sounds like you're just making this stuff up.

[wasted]

Where are you getting $10 million for RTB? And RTB was fired by 2002 by most accounts. Bucket supposedly left in 2004, two years after RTB got the boot.

Seriously Wasted, I would love to see some sources on your version of events. Because it mostly contradicts everything I've ever read about the album's production. Most accounts illustrate a desperate label sending in producer after producer trying to get the album wrapped. Ultimately, until Axl signed off on it and handed over an actual disc, there wasn't much the label could do but appease. Which is what they did until 2004/2005.

I've read that interview by Tommy, but he doesn't exactly clear up who wanted the album to be better. Yeah, the label kept sending them producers, but I have a hard time seeing how Axl wasn't calling the shots on this issue. Was Tommy talking to the label directly or was everything run through Axl? Something tells me with Tommy it's a case of broken telephone.

Another issue was that labels at the time were trying everything they could to get their big artists to release whatever music they had with the advent of pirated music. Label execs knew what was coming - the total decimation of their business model. It would make no sense to hold off on a GNR album if it meant that more illegal downloads. For every year the album was pushed back was another substantial loss in album sales. There was zero economic incentive to delay this album from the label's point of view. It's just wishful thinking to see it any other way.

I've never read a coherent history of the making of CD. So I'm piecing it together. It's just as easy to think the other thing.

Tommy said 10 mil. That's how you get to 14 mil really.

What I'm saying is they had a great record in 2000 with Bucket. Tommy must have thought it was fine. Bucket is obviously a go. So Axl didn't like it enough to put it out at that point?

So the label desperately wants it out, so they give Axl 10 mil to get RTB to finish it?

Was it in 2004 that they cut Axl off? After that Axl funded it or the tours did.

[wasted]

Where are you getting $10 million for RTB? And RTB was fired by 2002 by most accounts. Bucket supposedly left in 2004, two years after RTB got the boot.

Seriously Wasted, I would love to see some sources on your version of events. Because it mostly contradicts everything I've ever read about the album's production. Most accounts illustrate a desperate label sending in producer after producer trying to get the album wrapped. Ultimately, until Axl signed off on it and handed over an actual disc, there wasn't much the label could do but appease. Which is what they did until 2004/2005.

I've read that interview by Tommy, but he doesn't exactly clear up who wanted the album to be better. Yeah, the label kept sending them producers, but I have a hard time seeing how Axl wasn't calling the shots on this issue. Was Tommy talking to the label directly or was everything run through Axl? Something tells me with Tommy it's a case of broken telephone.

Another issue was that labels at the time were trying everything they could to get their big artists to release whatever music they had with the advent of pirated music. Label execs knew what was coming - the total decimation of their business model. It would make no sense to hold off on a GNR album if it meant that more illegal downloads. For every year the album was pushed back was another substantial loss in album sales. There was zero economic incentive to delay this album from the label's point of view. It's just wishful thinking to see it any other way.

But they waited and waited, aiming or hoping that in the end they'd have a smash, only to see record sales drop and drop, then they start back peddling and hoping, almost to the point where they might as well not bother. Then the Best buy deal saves the day. kind of.

Seriously, where are you getting this from? Why would they rather not bother when they've already sank $12 - $15 million on the project? It sounds like you're just making this stuff up.

I think they were hoping to sell more records than 3 mil. They are or were looking at 10-20 mil. It's possible with GNR. There's more expectations, you've got Axl who could at any point write a SCOM or Nov Rain. 12-15 mil is nothing when you will make that back by selling 3 mil in 2002. So I don't think they were really in a rush, in fact they seem to have been indulging Axl, encouraging until it got a bit out of hand, and then suddenly realised it's not really going to sell that much.

actually part of the problem is that i live in china so anything about CD on internet is blocked. I can't access wikipedia entry to get the order of events. I'm basically working off quotes from other sources.

So when Tommy for example talks about it, to me that's the most recent account of what happened. Of course Axl is always accountable for his side of it. I think he really did have a vision or was shooting for the stars. But they indulged him too.

In terms of the record it worked out great.

Edited August 13, 2013 by wasted

[estrangedtwat]

The making of the album was well-documented. Go read "Chinese Whispers" on gnrevolution. It's excellent and it paints a VERY clear picture that the entire problem and delay of the release was simply Axl's refusal to record vocals or give any material to the label.

There were never any "finished" records submitted to the label. Period.

[wasted]

So in 2010 or now you'd say that Axl is still not ready to release anything else. He hasn't done any vocals since 2000?

[prettytiedup88]

Quite an interesting debate. IMO - Downzy has been pretty much bang on, financially its a no brainer to release a Guns album. The only way I think the label would reject an album is if it was a full album of Silkworm style songs that are too dated and would have limited appeal beyond die hards who just want to hear something GNR related.

Few thoughts:

- You wouldn't have to do much to get a GNR album to shift quantities above and beyond the average album. Press takes care of itself because its the follow up to the most anticipated, expensive album ever. Every music magazine, newspaper, culture website will pick up the story and run with it. Throw a decent sized, targeted advertising campaign behind it and you'll shift numbers. Any tour dates supporting the album will be a bonus.

- CD didn't have a radio friendly single and the single did pretty well on the charts, especially considering it sounded nothing like what was out there at the moment. Fact is, labels release hundreds of rock albums with nothing suited for radio. I don't think its that big of a criteria now the charts are dominated with dance and pop.

- I've always said Guns is a viable commerical proporsition so long as costs for release are kept in line with unit sales expectations. They are a cash cow when compared to many rock acts out there. The name alone will shift a strong initial load, positive PR will give sales a boost and a tour around release will do the rest to get it to a few million sales which, in today's rock market is as good as anyone can hope for. Days of 10 - 20 million for rock albums were gone before CD were released. More fool the label for spending bucket loads and thinking they could still shift that volume in 2008.

It doesn't matter if its CD type material or Ashba influenced material, the sales will come in around the same and so long as the timing is right and it doesnt sound too dated or obscure, there is no reason why UMG would turn down any album turned in by Axl. It will sell.