"At Interscope, it felt like we were one of 50 bands, and we didn't sell as much as Eminem, so no one cared about us" - Trent Reznor, 2013

[Amir]

http://www.spin.com/featured/trent-reznor-upward-spiral-nine-inch-nails-spin-cover-september-2013/

In the time between 2007's Year Zero (released on Interscope) and Hesitation Marks(released on Columbia), Trent Reznor hocked a lot of thick loogies in the direction of major labels. Publicly and repeatedly, he chided them for sticking their collective heads in the sand with regards to file-sharing. He thought that the suits were more inclined to sue fans than serve them. So he left.

"At Interscope, it felt like we were one of 50 bands, and we didn't sell as much as Eminem, so no one cared about us," Reznor says, having finished the coffee and moved on to the Diet Coke. "Combine that with unquestionably wrong move after wrong move in terms of the response to new technologies — I just felt like I could figure things out better than they could."

Seems to mirror Axl's experience (though Axl doesn't seem quite so Internet-friendly). I know a lot of people believe that Axl just likes to blame everything on the label, but what Trent says here seems to suggest there was a genuine lack of interest for development of well-established artists (GNR, NIN) who weren't part of the contemporary popular 'sound'.

What's interesting is that Trent ended up working with Jimmy Iovine on the upcoming Beats Music service.

Axl on the label, from the 2009 Billboard interview:

What are your thoughts on how Universal has handled the album?

Unfortunately I have no information for me to believe [that] there was any real involvement or effort from Interscope. I'm not saying there wasn't. But in my opinion, without [interscope Geffen A&M chairman] Jimmy Iovine's involvement, it doesn't matter who anyone talks to or what they say -- virtually nothing will happen from their end.

Our involvement with Interscope has been more than frustrating for [the band].

Here's how things worked until they were no longer involved-that is, until recently. Jimmy [iovine] and whoever would come down to the studio. Things would be good for a month. Then, according to whoever was involved at the time from their side, someone above Jimmy would start putting pressure regarding us on him, Jimmy would start pressuring others at his label [and they] would begin doing the same with us. We get that it's just how business -- and perhaps especially this business -- tends to work, but after a month of this the whole thing would get ugly and extensively interfere with getting anything productive done, and near the middle of the third month we'd arrange for Jimmy to come down again. They'd go away happy and the entire process would repeat itself over and over and over.

We feel that, unfortunately, we've never been really anything all that much more other than a throw it at the wall, see if it sticks, no real ground work, something to take advantage of, last quarter, cook the books, write-off, fuck this headache, hoping to get lucky scam.

[cooker]

It's very interesting... I don't fully asign blame to as far as what happened with Chinese. It's his fault to extent yes of course, but the label didn't really help the process either. They let the budget get out of hand, they didn't lower the boom soon enough, they allowed what Chinese became. I think they probably liked having this mythlogical album in their midsts.

[Apollo]

http://www.spin.com/featured/trent-reznor-upward-spiral-nine-inch-nails-spin-cover-september-2013/

In the time between 2007's Year Zero (released on Interscope) and Hesitation Marks(released on Columbia), Trent Reznor hocked a lot of thick loogies in the direction of major labels. Publicly and repeatedly, he chided them for sticking their collective heads in the sand with regards to file-sharing. He thought that the suits were more inclined to sue fans than serve them. So he left.

"At Interscope, it felt like we were one of 50 bands, and we didn't sell as much as Eminem, so no one cared about us," Reznor says, having finished the coffee and moved on to the Diet Coke. "Combine that with unquestionably wrong move after wrong move in terms of the response to new technologies — I just felt like I could figure things out better than they could."

Seems to mirror Axl's experience (though Axl doesn't seem quite so Internet-friendly). I know a lot of people believe that Axl just likes to blame everything on the label, but what Trent says here seems to suggest there was a genuine lack of interest for development of well-established artists (GNR, NIN) who weren't part of the contemporary popular 'sound'.

What's interesting is that Trent ended up working with Jimmy Iovine on the upcoming Beats Music service.

Axl on the label, from the 2009 Billboard interview:

What are your thoughts on how Universal has handled the album?

Unfortunately I have no information for me to believe [that] there was any real involvement or effort from Interscope. I'm not saying there wasn't. But in my opinion, without [interscope Geffen A&M chairman] Jimmy Iovine's involvement, it doesn't matter who anyone talks to or what they say -- virtually nothing will happen from their end.

Our involvement with Interscope has been more than frustrating for [the band].

Here's how things worked until they were no longer involved-that is, until recently. Jimmy [iovine] and whoever would come down to the studio. Things would be good for a month. Then, according to whoever was involved at the time from their side, someone above Jimmy would start putting pressure regarding us on him, Jimmy would start pressuring others at his label [and they] would begin doing the same with us. We get that it's just how business -- and perhaps especially this business -- tends to work, but after a month of this the whole thing would get ugly and extensively interfere with getting anything productive done, and near the middle of the third month we'd arrange for Jimmy to come down again. They'd go away happy and the entire process would repeat itself over and over and over.

We feel that, unfortunately, we've never been really anything all that much more other than a throw it at the wall, see if it sticks, no real ground work, something to take advantage of, last quarter, cook the books, write-off, fuck this headache, hoping to get lucky scam.

How DARE a company only want to invest in a something that is going to make money. Evil!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Amir]

It's not the naïveté of believing that the company is evil to invest in artists that would make money, but just the myopia to not see the potential to make money with artists in genres other than say hip-hop or rap. And the record company did invest a lot of time and money, which Axl doesn't seem to acknowledge. I think most of the delay was on Axl/old GNR's part was from 1994-2000, and then in 2000 the label brought RTB in and just seemed to stretch things out from there. Trent seemed to do most of the promo for Year Zero himself (not on his own per se, but without label support).

[axlsalinger]

Maybe Axl thinks he's involved in a Mexican standoff with the label: "I'll hold these songs hostage goddammit, until such time as you meet my demands and offer me a better deal than i got for Use Your Illusion!"

Meanwhile, cut to the label offices and everyone in the building is 100% focused on the follow-up single to Blurred Lines.

[Guest NGOG]

Labels aren't supposed to be entirely concerned with making money. They have a moral responsibility to play a constructive role in the evolution of music. I'd take a GNR or NIN record before any of Interscope's money makers.

[twenty-nine]

"We feel that, unfortunately, we've never been really anything all that much more other than a throw it at the wall, see if it sticks, no real ground work, something to take advantage of, last quarter, cook the books, write-off, fuck this headache, hoping to get lucky scam."

Exactly, Axl. The record company hardly invested in you or your project at all. It's amazing to me you were able to get the songs done with pro tools and orchestration with the shoestring budget you had to work with.

[alfierose]

I've been in Kensington (UK) for a few days and walked past Universal HQ every day. I've been fighting the urge to wander in and demand they discuss GnR with me. I've also hung around the local bars in the hope of bumping into someone in the know but alas it wasn't to be.

If the people I was with had known this they would have thought I had lost the plot. Lol!

[Amir]

Warner Music and EMI are all nearby too (I live pretty close by in Queensway).

[GivenToFly]

http://www.spin.com/featured/trent-reznor-upward-spiral-nine-inch-nails-spin-cover-september-2013/

In the time between 2007's Year Zero (released on Interscope) and Hesitation Marks(released on Columbia), Trent Reznor hocked a lot of thick loogies in the direction of major labels. Publicly and repeatedly, he chided them for sticking their collective heads in the sand with regards to file-sharing. He thought that the suits were more inclined to sue fans than serve them. So he left.

"At Interscope, it felt like we were one of 50 bands, and we didn't sell as much as Eminem, so no one cared about us," Reznor says, having finished the coffee and moved on to the Diet Coke. "Combine that with unquestionably wrong move after wrong move in terms of the response to new technologies I just felt like I could figure things out better than they could."

Seems to mirror Axl's experience (though Axl doesn't seem quite so Internet-friendly). I know a lot of people believe that Axl just likes to blame everything on the label, but what Trent says here seems to suggest there was a genuine lack of interest for development of well-established artists (GNR, NIN) who weren't part of the contemporary popular 'sound'.

What's interesting is that Trent ended up working with Jimmy Iovine on the upcoming Beats Music service.

Axl on the label, from the 2009 Billboard interview:

What are your thoughts on how Universal has handled the album?

Unfortunately I have no information for me to believe [that] there was any real involvement or effort from Interscope. I'm not saying there wasn't. But in my opinion, without [interscope Geffen A&M chairman] Jimmy Iovine's involvement, it doesn't matter who anyone talks to or what they say -- virtually nothing will happen from their end.

Our involvement with Interscope has been more than frustrating for [the band].

Here's how things worked until they were no longer involved-that is, until recently. Jimmy [iovine] and whoever would come down to the studio. Things would be good for a month. Then, according to whoever was involved at the time from their side, someone above Jimmy would start putting pressure regarding us on him, Jimmy would start pressuring others at his label [and they] would begin doing the same with us. We get that it's just how business -- and perhaps especially this business -- tends to work, but after a month of this the whole thing would get ugly and extensively interfere with getting anything productive done, and near the middle of the third month we'd arrange for Jimmy to come down again. They'd go away happy and the entire process would repeat itself over and over and over.

We feel that, unfortunately, we've never been really anything all that much more other than a throw it at the wall, see if it sticks, no real ground work, something to take advantage of, last quarter, cook the books, write-off, fuck this headache, hoping to get lucky scam.

How DARE a company only want to invest in a something that is going to make money. Evil!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was complaining about the lack of a cohesive plan and about the company changing their mind about what they wanted very often with changes in who was in charge of the project at any time.

[there is no dana only zool]

Labels aren't supposed to be entirely concerned with making money. They have a moral responsibility to play a constructive role in the evolution of music. I'd take a GNR or NIN record before any of Interscope's money makers.

This. I bet if you were to go back in time to the lives of most current Interscope (or any major label, really) employees to when they were say, in their late teens, or even early 20s, and you asked them what their life's passion was, they'd say, "music." They were probably most interested in music that they found, well, just that: interesting, instead of what they considered popular on the mass scale (whereas today, if they were to be totally honest, their passion is probably more about money, strictly). But, as they grew older, yes- it became more about what would be a hotter seller, unfortunately.

I agree with NGOG: sure, a record company should have some element of business to it in order to stay afloat, but 90% of it should be about discovering and driving rich, fruitful, interesting music; not always just what is bound to sell that quarter.

Edited September 4, 2013 by there is no dana only zool

[Naupis]

I wonder if Axl's refusal to promote his own album or do any media had anything to do with the fact the label gave 2 shits about the album?

If the artist can't even be motivated enough to promote his own work, why on earth would the label?

[there is no dana only zool]

I wonder if Axl's refusal to promote his own album or do any media had anything to do with the fact the label gave 2 shits about the album?

If the artist can't even be motivated enough to promote his own work, why on earth would the label?

Just on the fact that they released the draft-only copy alone, I wouldn't either.

[drtydane]

Labels aren't supposed to be entirely concerned with making money. They have a moral responsibility to play a constructive role in the evolution of music. I'd take a GNR or NIN record before any of Interscope's money makers.

Haha that's a redic statement dude. A record label isn't going to release or not release sumthing based on "moral responsibilities".

A record label is a business, and they aren't going to do something without making money.

I'm a chef at a fine dining restaurant. If I start feeding the homeless based on morals, the owner is going to lose money, and ill b out on my ass. Gimme a break bro.

[WhazUp]

Labels aren't supposed to be entirely concerned with making money. They have a moral responsibility to play a constructive role in the evolution of music. I'd take a GNR or NIN record before any of Interscope's money makers.

I see record labels as always being intrested in where the money goes. If a new music scene or genre gets a lot of footing rest assured the labels would want to follow it because they want to go where the money will go and milk it as much as they can

I am not sure they have a moral responsibility as they are called a record "company" for a reason - for them I would argue that anything besides money is secondary and not nearly as important to them.

Edited September 4, 2013 by WhazUp

[jmapelian]

Labels aren't supposed to be entirely concerned with making money. They have a moral responsibility to play a constructive role in the evolution of music. I'd take a GNR or NIN record before any of Interscope's money makers.

Lmao - what planet are you from "labels have a moral obligation....." -

[bigcountry]

A major label or any label would be stupid not to follow the trends in music. At the end of the day they have to answer to the bottom line.

But I also believe is an artist has a huge record with great sales it helps keep the bands that are on the edge of being let go but the record company sees something special with them and ride them out longer and hope they make a break through.

As far as Interscope and Axl BOTH are to blame for the cost of CD.

Axl had turned in an album 2 times and it was rejected with interscope saying it needs to be better. So Axl spent there money. To me the whole time before CD was released they wanted a reunion or bust and that can be seen by there choice in the bands management and producers and actions toward the band and Axl by rejecting the album.

I think when Axl turned over CD the last time the record company still wasn't happy and he told them that's all your getting and then they released it with a fucked up booklet and almost no promotion from either side.

During this time I think Axl and the label where having a pissing contest and no one won.

If you push Axl he will push back 10X as hard and they should have known you can't handle him that way.

I think both sides are to blame.

[Tom2112]

"We feel that, unfortunately, we've never been really anything all that much more other than a throw it at the wall, see if it sticks, no real ground work, something to take advantage of, last quarter, cook the books, write-off, fuck this headache, hoping to get lucky scam."

Exactly, Axl. The record company hardly invested in you or your project at all. It's amazing to me you were able to get the songs done with pro tools and orchestration with the shoestring budget you had to work with.

while the label obviously funded him in the beginning it is fact that after a number of years Axl had to fund the project himself, out of his own deep pockets. He's not talking about money when he said that either, he's talking about investing in an artist: development, actively promoting them... doing the PR work a label is supposed to do. Not halt progress and drop the ball upon the release of the most anticipated album of the last 20yrs.

[wasted]

I think Axl had worse cos of the 14mil peoduction costs, no one knew how to make it commercially viable. To the label its all money its a given. In the end we got CD bcos Best Buy covered their ass.

Not sure when this will happen again. Only pisitive is maybe they have another record left over they could put without promo and if on tour sell another 3 mil.

[axlsalinger]

There is no evidence to suggest Axl turned in a finished record that was rejected twice. It is reasonable to believe he played them some songs at one point in 2000 and they said "you still need a single", and they agreed to sign Roy Thomas Baker to a contract. I highly doubt they ever dreamed this would lead to the loss of $10 million more dollars and an 8-year delay, though.

[dalsh327]

I've said before to keep reading up on how Interscope had been treating some of its artists, but we won't know much until people who had worked with the label start talking about what was foing on from 1998-2008, not just with GNR.

When you think about how much GNR MADE Geffen Records and Interscope, and he got peanuts compared to what David Geffen got off of AFD & UYI and Jimmy Iovine got off the back catalog and greatest hits, released without the band's consent?

Fuck 'em. What's 14 million dollars when he made Universal hundreds of millions?

There is someone new running Interscope/Geffen for the past year and the people who Axl had dealt with are probably gone by now. They're far more likely to leave GNR alone, let them do their thing, and do a better job promoting the next album, whether or not it sells 10 copies or 10 million.

[wasted]

In chinese whispers Axl was ready in 99 and the label wanted to bring in Baker. Then in 2000 Axl was ready to mix and Ezrin said no. I think around that time the blues and madagascar would be enough. It would have sold 4 mil. But the label wanted to sell 20 mil. Especially post Baker.

It seems like people could get paid for telling axl no, pay me ill help.

They seemed to be trying to make gnr relevant when they are a band out of time.

[TeeJay410]

I actually have a theory that Eminem and Dr. Dre's resurgence in the late 90's and early 00's had a great deal to do with the lack of label attention to Chinese Democracy.

Edited September 5, 2013 by TeeJay410

[wasted]

If you dont release a record when its done, buckethead will leave. That delays things.

I think the label were always hoping for a reunion. Even on the release of CD azoff wanted a reunion tour.

[TeeJay410]

If you dont release a record when its done, buckethead will leave. That delays things.

I think the label were always hoping for a reunion. Even on the release of CD azoff wanted a reunion tour.

Absolutely. Though who could blame them? Even today it would make them an insane amount of money.