Jump to content

The "New Album" Thread - Susan McKagan says album is coming


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Axl is close to 60 Reunion is now over 4 years old The last unheard new song was played in 2006 The last studio album was in 2008 The last new song before that in 1999 Every s

Grandma's hamster has never been in safer hands.

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought UMG is completely managing the whole anniversary?. Thats what i got from Troccolis post ....sounds like UMG isnt getting TB involved in this whatsoever. Which im sure will be for the best.

 

3 hours ago, MaskingApathy said:

They are, you are correct. Same as the AFD Locked N Loaded box.

So Universal releases this stuff without even having to ask the band for permission? That sucks, man. 

Edit: Then again, maybe we otherwise wouldn't have gotten anything at all in the last 4 years...

Edited by jamillos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, allwaystired said:

There was also the story about Slash and Duff coming to look at things like the stage banner too, so there must be some interaction. 

It's most likely a case of "this is happening whether you like it or not and you're welcome to be involved....but if you're not it's getting released whatever." I believe that's the case with a lot of reissues. Most bands choose to become involved to some degree simply to make sure nothing too bad gets released. 

Obviously (as with GH) the label will just go ahead without band involvement if they choose to. 

This is it exactly. 

I'm assuming that there is a limit to how many records the label could put out though, and if they were putting out very poor material  (Without GNRs involvement) I'm sure GNR could mount a case to prevent releases OR try to be released from their contract. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

This is it exactly. 

I'm assuming that there is a limit to how many records the label could put out though, and if they were putting out very poor material  (Without GNRs involvement) I'm sure GNR could mount a case to prevent releases OR try to be released from their contract. 

Yeah, definitely. They tried to prevent GH coming out of course but ultimately failed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Yeah, definitely. They tried to prevent GH coming out of course but ultimately failed. 

I guess that they hadn't released anything since 1994, and that it was stipulated in their contract didn't help! It probably didn't help that they 'probably' were made aware of the GH project months in advance and blew it off, only to get interested after the final track-listing was set along with release dates etc. Also, they probably couldn't prove that the GH release would harm the image of the band or anything like that, all they could say was that some of the song choices weren't as representative of what the band ultimately was. 

If the label decided to dig up c grade rough cuts etc. they might have managed to stop them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

I guess that they hadn't released anything since 1994, and that it was stipulated in their contract didn't help! It probably didn't help that they 'probably' were made aware of the GH project months in advance and blew it off, only to get interested after the final track-listing was set along with release dates etc. Also, they probably couldn't prove that the GH release would harm the image of the band or anything like that, all they could say was that some of the song choices weren't as representative of what the band ultimately was. 

If the label decided to dig up c grade rough cuts etc. they might have managed to stop them.

Wasn't that Axl's reason for fighting it - that it would harm the image of the band? Any idea why Slash and Duff were against it? 

I always thought it was an abysmal release - dreadful cover, no time or effort gone into it and edits of the tracks I believe. I say 'believe' because I've never owned a copy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Wasn't that Axl's reason for fighting it - that it would harm the image of the band? Any idea why Slash and Duff were against it? 

I always thought it was an abysmal release - dreadful cover, no time or effort gone into it and edits of the tracks I believe. I say 'believe' because I've never owned a copy. 

I think that was his reason, but image vs money? it's a easy decision for a bunch of lawyers. track-listing and image are the reasons for Slash / Duff too.

Yeah the GH was a piece of junk, but you can't argue with its success! and it did include all the hits... if it said best of that would be a different story. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamillos said:

 

So Universal releases this stuff without even having to ask the band for permission? That sucks, man. 

Edit: Then again, maybe we otherwise wouldn't have gotten anything at all in the last 4 years...

I thought the reason for the slash and duff lawsuit was because they didnt like yhe GH being released as it was. They wanted a say in the art work and tracklisting. Like live era.

Edited by Sydney Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought the reason for the slash and duff lawsuit was because they didnt like yhe GH being released as it was. They wanted a say in the art work and tracklisting. Like live era.

Correct. The label put together and released the album without any discussion or input from the “band” at that time. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought the reason for the slash and duff lawsuit was because they didnt like yhe GH being released as it was. They wanted a say in the art work and tracklisting. Like live era.

I meant Locked n Loaded. Guys say UMG completely runs that too. I didn't know that - thought it was the band's/TB's initiative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, allwaystired said:

There was also the story about Slash and Duff coming to look at things like the stage banner too, so there must be some interaction. 

It's most likely a case of "this is happening whether you like it or not and you're welcome to be involved....but if you're not it's getting released whatever." I believe that's the case with a lot of reissues. Most bands choose to become involved to some degree simply to make sure nothing too bad gets released. 

Obviously (as with GH) the label will just go ahead without band involvement if they choose to. 

Yup - agreed. As long as it ain’t about £1000 (it won’t....lessons will have been learned) I’m sure it will cool. As you say - If it’s being released then might as well get involved anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DTJ80 said:

Yup - agreed. As long as it ain’t about £1000 (it won’t....lessons will have been learned) I’m sure it will cool. As you say - If it’s being released then might as well get involved anyway.

Price is so critical regarding how a UYI reissue would be received. Really, the AFD super deluxe (4 disc+ blu ray) should never have been more than $50 from the start - i.e. the price it is now being sold for on the official site. That is was more than triple that on release helped the general idea that it wasn't worth bothering with. The Locked and Loaded was always going to be a tough sell at that insane price, so as you say, hopefully pricing will be a big consideration in the future. I fear it won't be though......but many people will know now not to get their fingers burned by buying straight away if not and wait until it falls to a quarter (or less) of it's starting price in a very short space of time.  

 

Edited by allwaystired
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamillos said:

I meant Locked n Loaded. Guys say UMG completely runs that too. I didn't know that - thought it was the band's/TB's initiative

First mistake thinking TB take initiative🤣 2nd mistake thinking GNR do too🤣

If it was up to Axl I'm sure he'd like to do some of that stuff! but in reality he would never finish it! he would probably start mixing everything, and then re-record everything! 

I think it's best the label runs the ship, so the band has zero excuses like "Our focus was on the remastered anniversary project"... their focus 'should' be on a new record. With bands with members located all around the world currently managing to either get together in person or record remotely GNR should in theory be able to get the finger out too, with all the resources they have available, pandemic or not! 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Price is so critical regarding how a UYI reissue would be received. Really, the AFD super deluxe (4 disc+ blu ray) should never have been more than $50 from the start - i.e. the price it is now being sold for on the official site. That is was more than triple that on release helped the general idea that it wasn't worth bothering with. The Locked and Loaded was always going to be a tough sell at that insane price, so as you say, hopefully pricing will be a big consideration in the future. I fear it won't be though......but many people will know now not to get their fingers burned by buying straight away if not and wait until it falls to a quarter (or less) of it's starting price in a very short space of time.  

 

If I remember, @troccolialluded to the fact that the company wanted to make sure they listened to what he fans want....that itself might not translate to a better price but a simple look at the sales figures/MI will show they completely missed the target. I’d be amazed if they made the same mistake.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thinking....see if Geffen/UMG etc have an option on another album (common thought was there was one more) how much power can the company wield to get it?

We all know about Chinese and how no-one could get it released for years/the record company were still willing to throw money at it....however that whole saga is a ‘one in a million’ case and we would never see a case like that again.

Could they legally force the/a album out if even to finish the contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DTJ80 said:

Just thinking....see if Geffen/UMG etc have an option on another album (common thought was there was one more) how much power can the company wield to get it?

We all know about Chinese and how no-one could get it released for years/the record company were still willing to throw money at it....however that whole saga is a ‘one in a million’ case and we would never see a case like that again.

Could they legally force the/a album out if even to finish the contract?

I'm not sure they could legally force it, and if they did try there's no way we'd ever hear anything GNR related again - outside of them suing and leaving the company with their recorded work! I think the band would take them to court and they would remain in court for years... in which time they could tour but that's about the sum of it! although, I guess they could do leak the record, think they know a thing or two about that!

Axl might be the 'chill Axl' now, but put into a corner and told 'Do it now!!' the old dog with come out again, especially now with Duff and Slash at his side. 

I think UMG would love a new GNR record for a sales bump (in whatever year it appears), but I think they are happy to wait... which is a good thing for all involved😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

I'm not sure they could legally force it, and if they did try there's no way we'd ever hear anything GNR related again - outside of them suing and leaving the company with their recorded work! I think the band would take them to court and they would remain in court for years... in which time they could tour but that's about the sum of it! although, I guess they could do leak the record, think they know a thing or two about that!

Axl might be the 'chill Axl' now, but put into a corner and told 'Do it now!!' the old dog with come out again, especially now with Duff and Slash at his side. 

I think UMG would love a new GNR record for a sales bump (in whatever year it appears), but I think they are happy to wait... which is a good thing for all involved😄

True. Maybe legally force is a bit extreme....but perhaps a decent bargaining tool....”if you give us an album then he deal is done and you can go and do whatever you like after” is maybe more realistic. I suppose they would already know this.....and there still hasn’t been anything primed for immediate release. I guess it could also be related to the terms of the contract which would be a fairly archaic one if it dates back to 80’s.

Just a random musing 😂

Edited by DTJ80
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before: I think GNR are in a position where no one can force them to do anything. Should there be any problem with any company, they could always bail out of any old agreement, pay a few million bucks and be off the hook. They made half a billion in the recent few years, let's not forget that. No quarter of a century old contract can hold them back or push them forward if they decide to erase it from their lives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jamillos said:

I've said it before: I think GNR are in a position where no one can force them to do anything. Should there be any problem with any company, they could always bail out of any old agreement, pay a few million bucks and be off the hook. They made half a billion in the recent few years, let's not forget that. No quarter of a century old contract can hold them back or push them forward if they decide to erase it from their lives. 

True. But all that NITL money doesn't go direct to their bank accounts, millions and millions goes to legal fees, touring fees (crew, travel, insurance, marketing and advertising, promoters, live nation)... so yes, they are all individually minted! but not as rich as if they took all those millions for themselves. Buying out of their contract would still be a hefty fee and a big headache and IF it is just one LP left then it's not worth it! 

Judging from what Axl has said publicly he has thought of GNR being an independent group, but obviously he stays with UMG because he doesn't to deal with any potential lawsuit or headache for trying to bail out on their agreement. 

100% agree that no label could force GnR/Axl to do anything though, only people I think that might be able to sway him is TB... and they have no vested interest in giving him no old tomatoes!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DTJ80 said:

True. Maybe legally force is a bit extreme....but perhaps a decent bargaining tool....”if you give us an album then he deal is done and you can go and do whatever you like after” is maybe more realistic. I suppose they would already know this.....and there still hasn’t been anything primed for immediate release. I guess it could also be related to the terms of the contract which would be a fairly archaic one if it dates back to 80’s.

Just a random musing 😂

Yeah, next time Niven is interviewed i'd love for him to clear up exactly how many records are left over. I think the reason they split UYI into to two releases was to knock a chunk out of the contracted amount of albums.

Anyway, we're aways way from new material, so get comfy!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

True. But all that NITL money doesn't go direct to their bank accounts, millions and millions goes to legal fees, touring fees (crew, travel, insurance, marketing and advertising, promoters, live nation)... so yes, they are all individually minted! but not as rich as if they took all those millions for themselves. Buying out of their contract would still be a hefty fee and a big headache and IF it is just one LP left then it's not worth it! 

Judging from what Axl has said publicly he has thought of GNR being an independent group, but obviously he stays with UMG because he doesn't to deal with any potential lawsuit or headache for trying to bail out on their agreement. 

100% agree that no label could force GnR/Axl to do anything though, only people I think that might be able to sway him is TB... and they have no vested interest in giving him no old tomatoes!

 

 

So they only made $100 Million each instead of $150 Million? My heart bleeds for them. :lol:

But yea, it's been clear for many years now that UMG won't be prying any material away from Axl until he decides to release it. I doubt even TB would be able to sway him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2020 at 3:49 PM, smokingarthur said:

I disagree with this statement. By “they”, you must omit the traveling circus as well as Duff and Slash. There’s nothing holding back the release of new music, this entirely falls on one Axl Rose. 

I can't argue with that..  Slash and Duff sold their soul and screwed over old friends for this crap....

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Yeah, next time Niven is interviewed i'd love for him to clear up exactly how many records are left over. I think the reason they split UYI into to two releases was to knock a chunk out of the contracted amount of albums.

Anyway, we're aways way from new material, so get comfy!

Ha ha - yeah, hope for something sooner.........but expect something to get released later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...