Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://www.hotmetalonline.com/2013/02/07/bumblefoot-guns-nroses-should-release-one-song-at-a-time/


i would sign for one song at a time !

That's a great idea for GNR and it's basically how music is released nowadays through Spotify and iTunes. The 14 song album is slowly becoming a thing of the past and the "singles" model of yesteryear is making a comeback.

Personally, I'm wondering what happened to the days of bands like The Beatles releasing 2 full length albums EVERY YEAR?

That's a great idea-in addition to doing an album. To have new songs just popping up at random times, and then possibly hearing them at upcoming shows would be really exciting! And that process could be ongoing while the album is being hammered out. But it shouldn't be that difficult to make a record...

I think releasing one song at a time would be great.  My biggest concern would be would a major label really be in favor of that?  I know in the past labels were concerned with the release of singles, digital or otherwise, for fear of cannibalizing the sales of the more profitable full albums/CDs.

If anyone here works in the industry and could shed some light on this, that would be great.

Ali

Also, keep in mind that record contracts are usually about "records".

I don't think it means singles.

So if a band is signed to a label for three records, it means three full length albums.


No idea what GN'R's contract is like, but wouldn't be surprised if it was about records/albums.




/jarmo

Have to agree with Ron.  I look at it like history repeating itself.  First it was the single and then we went to albums.  I think I-Tunes and youtube knocked us back into the single.  To get back to being album snobs (70's era), we're going to need to see the concept album again (if that's the right term, you know where one song leads into the next and the whole album has a theme).

Yes, but Jarmo, if the band records said single based off of advance money from the label, wouldn't the label own the rights to the masters for that song?  In other words, would the band be legally allowed to drop a single from an album without the label's buy-in?

Ali

I don't know.

All I'm saying is that if the record company expects an album, and the artists tells them "I wanna record a song at a time and release as singles one after another", it might be a tough sell to convince the record company....





/jarmo

I don't know either, I was just posing the question for discussion.  I posed it for exactly the reason you stated above.  If the label wants an album for revenue/margin reasons, getting them to buy into releasing a song at a time could be difficult.

Ali

I'm only speaking as a musician myself and the limited knowledge I have in how the industry works, but it's my understanding that now bands can make a direct profit with their singles rather than be beholden to major labels thanks to the glorious invention of the MP3. iTunes takes a small cut out of every 0.99 cent download and the rest of the profit goes back to the artist. I think in the old days the label would take almost the entire cut of the profits from the album sales because of all the production overhead, marketing, and manufacturing of physical CDs.

I have no idea what GNR's current contract is, but Axl and his team are definitely rich enough to get a producer and a studio to cut one single and stick it on iTunes/Amazon. The GNR buzz alone would guarantee millions of downloads, most of the profit going back to the band. It would be great buzz for the band because it shows they are actively creating new stuff. It would also be great for the fans so we don't have to wait decades for another album!  :peace:

Always thought that GN'R could be better off as an independent band these days, it's not like it is a new band trying to establish themselves and build a fanbase, everything is in place already.
Anyway, record labels don't invest in their artists and albums anymore, the only thing they might be good for is distribution, PR and tour support (though these are available elsewhere as well)

Cheers

i guess we would all be speculating on what they would or wouldnt be allowed to do with concerns to their contract .. in theory it sounds like an amazing idea.. but who knows if its really plausible

unfortunately the interview hints at more struggles when it comes to putting together songs for this group

Ron doesnt hold back on all these topics

Usually that is how it works. If I'm the label and you're the artist and we have an album contract, I own all the masters of whatever songs you have recorded under my budget - even the ones that didn't make the cut for the album. But I don't know if the band can release something recorded without the company's money, but I think you can't either because those contracts are usually made regarding future releases under the name of the artist.

Joss Stone had a problem like that...she recorded an album by herself and gave it to EMI, they didn't want to release it though, so she just went on tour and played those songs until EMI agreed to release it...later she bought herself off her contract and now she is a free agent who releases music under her own label.

I would personally prefer GN'R just release albums, no matter how long that takes. I think releasing one song at a time is a nice idea, but in practice it would be too much trouble. I mean this in regards to keeping up GN'R's legend so to speak with "albums", and also I think on a wider scale, people still want albums... just the feeling I get.

Maybe I just want an album on the shelves next to the Illusions and Chinese Democracy, I just want THAT album as a concept, and nothing more (or less).

Im a musician too. If they are under contract with a label no way would that label go for this scenario. Legally they wouldnt allow GNR to put out music independent of them.

So what do you think it holding them back from releasing a new album?

This is exactly what I've always, thought or feared.

I see a lot "why can't GN'R put out one song at a time or an EP" and sometimes I see an independent band like Radiohead, NIN or the Pumpkins mentioned.  But, the fact is, GN'R is still tied to a major label and it's an apples to oranges comparison to bring in the name of a band like those I mentioned.  The situations are completely different.
Ali

For Ron to say something like this, you would think he would know that it's a possibility.  Right?

Ron Thal: ?Personally, I don?t want to do an album. I would like to just do a song. Let?s just bite off a song and get a song out there and then bite off another song and get that out there."

Not really. Could just be his thoughts on how he would have done it if he'd be in charge, not the record company.

I don't think he would go on at length about it if he knew it was not at least possible.

Ron Thal: ?Personally, I don?t want to do an album. I would like to just do a song. Let?s just bite off a song and get a song out there and then bite off another song and get that out there.

?It?s easier to do. Look, waiting for an album to get done is just too much. I can?t do it myself. If I waited to finish an album, it still wouldn?t be done and the album still wouldn?t be out.

?When there?s so much touring and so much other stuff going on, don?t try and take on 14 songs. Do a song, then another song, then another song and then figure it out from there.?

Maybe not, but it might just be "a message" for the record company.

I personally think this is ridiculous. Bands release albums- that's just the way it is. Ron said this exact same thing in an interview he did a year ago in Newcastle, UK. Nearly a year on and there is no change. I don't understand how after 16 years there is not enough material/ideas for the band to be in a positive state of mind with regards to a new album. Really disappointing to hear.

A theoretical possibility is one thing. A realistic possibility is yet another. I can't name any major label artists that have abandoned the album format for releasing a song or EP at a time.

I still can't tell if Ron was seriously discussing what he thought was a realistic possibility or just tossing out his vision of an ideal scenario.

Ali

I think Ron is like some fans: wondering why on Earth is GnR not recording new music! I guess that's just his way to say, Come on, Axl! Let's do something... It doesn't have to be difficult, you know... Maybe just one song, see how it goes...

It seems there's a whole load of speculation from fans (and indeed bumble himself) about what the future holds for Guns in terms of new music (if any).

I just think it would be really cool if we could get some word from Axl, Beta or Fernando about future plans.

Hate to say it but I agree. Bring on any new music - not bothered if it is one song at a time or an album. Or even demos / dropped ideas for the fans.

Better than nothing.

record company disagree?

leak one song.

still disagree?

leak another song.

OH WELL WE LOSE MONEY.
record company agreed, release one song at a time, then the complete LP with booklet and stuff.

The thing is though, they can't leak something themselves. The leaks that came out before came from different hoarders and people that somehow got the material. Hell, wasn't it Mike Piazza that leaked I.R.S.? I highly doubt the band had anything to do with the leaks. And I also highly doubt the record company is going to think that their "losing money" from the leaks. There isn't much money is records anymore anyway, there's much more ways artist's can sell their music and there's much more ways people can get music other than a compact disc.

Almost half the album was out before Chinese Democracy came out. If Azoff never became the manager and got the Best Buy deal, we probably would still be waiting for Chinese Democracy. 

What they could do to get the record companies attention is play a new song live and see the reaction. Maybe put a song on movie soundtrack like they did with Oh My God. They could put a song up on the website and allow people to buy it, and see how many people buy it.

"they can't leak something themselves"

really? is that difficult to put a mp3 online?
Axl can do it in person, nobody can tell.
of course you don't want the record company knowing it's the band or the management who do it.


maybe there's isn't much money to make with records these days, but there's still.
plus, new music means new publicity, new tours, meaning more money.

at the begining there's always be music.
and if it's release for free, it's no good for the record company.

" They could put a song up on the website and allow people to buy it, and see how many people buy it."

I've posted something like that months or years ago : via facebook, more than 20 millions potential buyers.

1 dollar the title, release directly by the band, with a pre-order system, people buying it in advance to avoid piracy
even if only half of the fans buys it > 10 millions dollars.

let the music flow, the cash will follow

QFT

You're all assuming the record company will allow the band to sell music on sites such as Facebook.

If there's a contract, they expect to be the ones selling the music. Not Facebook or any other site.





/jarmo

just assuming the record company wanna makes money...

if it's the best way for them to make money, why not?
"facebook or any other site" are not the seller, just a thing to promote the product.

and every contract can be rediscussed anyway...

Just a wild thought but...what if a contractual discussion is what has been holding back the next record?

yeah, maybe, the thing is, we don't know shit about the current contract.

one thing is sure : where there's a system, there's a flaw you can exploit

Exactly! We don't know shit about anything, but people keep on bitching or placing guesses on what they ought to do...this pisses me off sometimes. I say: just relax and let things flow, whenever whatever happens, it will happen.

BTW: This wasn't a comment directed to you, but fans in general. : ok:


No doubt about that. And for both sides...

I think it's cool that people keep on bitching, arguing, placing guesses, talking,
jerking, having right or wrong ideas, making assumptions, etc...I mean, this kinda
prove Guns history is somewhere fascinating and original, and still alive.

and this is the purpose of a board

Don't get what Ron is trying to achieve by making comments like the 'one song release' thing.

How privy can he possibly be to all the contractual/legal issues - past & present - to how/when/what GNR music is released?  (And we all know that in the end Axl's the one held responsible for everything.)

IMHO, comments like this only seem to stir up the fans hoping for something we probably can't have for a variety of legitimate legal reasons.

So again my question is:  what is Ron hoping to achieve by saying that?  does he want "whomever" to come out and say exactly what those legal obstacles are?

I dont think he was trying to accomplish anything... he seems like a real cool dude.. and was just answering the questions honestly...

I mean he basically outed Axl as trying to let the HOF have the current guys be a part of it... or something to that nature

he answered honestly that he doesnt like waiting for hours for the show to start

and he answered honestly in that he thinks releasing a song at a time would be cool

he certainly doesnt give you the company line

That's sorta my point.  Like he's throwing 'the GNR company' under the bus by saying they should do something they probably legally can't.

Gypsy, I honestly just think that Ron sometimes get's tired of answering the same old questions all the time, regarding a new album, show times etc. That from time to time, he just let's loose and says things that are meant in a sarcastic and innocent way. I would guess that Ron sometimes forget's how big of a band GN'R is and all of the contracts which are tied to it, that sometimes he puts his "own" ideoligy into the equation, in the sense of what he would do as a solo artist.

I can't imagine Ron, really thinking that GN'R could just put out 1 song whenever they felt like it...  :confused:

I think Ron's best interviews are the times he's on the radio and going back and forth with the host.

1 standalone song can have a lot of impact. Civil War and Oh My God come to mind. Digital downloads didn't exist then.

I get what BBF is trying to say but its simply not that "simple" He wants to do things like he did in his solo career. BBF has always been essentially an indie artist GNR is not. Im not exactly sure but the label must approve all songs released publicly... but who knows with how the music business is nowadays the label may be for something like BBF is proposing

so Ron is an imbecile who don't know shit about Guns N'Roses, a band he's in since seven fucking years?

I think if he talks about it, he knows what he's talking about, when you're in a band you're involve in
the buziness side too at some point, you know for who you work, in which terms, with contracts and shit.

I don't know if he's necessarily saying it will, or should happen.  More like wishful thinking.

Whoa!!! Talk about lost in translation!!!  :o
In no way, shape or form was I saying that.
If that's how it came across to you or the google translator then I sincerely apologize to Ron.


*hope this comes across better than the first time*

I don't think so.  From where I sit, it appears that the band members are "shielded" from business/contractual side of things.  (Up until the current management team took over, it seems that even Axl was caught off-guard by some business things but still took the brunt of the backlash on himself instead of burdening the other band members.)

As for what I was asking about Ron & the 'one song release' thing...
My thinking was more along the lines that Ron was speaking from his heart and not necessarily from his head.  And by saying that out loud and publicly serves no purpose other than to get the fans (who are also only thinking with our hearts) riled up and jonesing for something that maybe isn't in the cards for whatever reason.

It never dawned on me (like One.In.A.Million said) that Ron was being sarcastic or tired of answering the same questions over n' over, etc. ... but that does make sense, too.

I wasn't trying to imply that Ron doesn't understand how the music business works.  It was more about because he does that what he said didn't make sense to me.
   

why do you think I pointed you personaly?  :)

and no, I don't think the band is ignorant of the contracts and future plans of the band.

I actually do think the guys in the band are clueless of future plans.... They just show up get paid and are told nothing... Why would anybody think differently based on what is presented?

I don't think Ron loves being in gnr and all that goes with it... But he loves the exposure he gets from it... Would he be in a movie or selling hot sauce without gnr?

I certainly didn't know who he was prior to his first show at the Hammerstein ballroom

I know that English in not the first language of many of the members here and that certain words/phrases can have different meanings in different countries.

To me, using words like "imbecile" or "ignorant" are extremely offensive and I want to make sure that everyone understands that my question was in no way meant to suggest that is how I feel about anyone in the band.

 :)