Here Today... Gone To Hell!

This is a topic that I have been kicking around for a bit. 

Before we get started, I want to go on record.

I personally feel that someone like me downloading and listening to leak does not do one iota of disservice to the band.  As far as I'm concerned, I'm such a megafan of these guys, I'm willing to scour the internet for anything I can get my hands on to tide me over.  That's a good thing, not a bad thing.  And never is there even one scintilla of doubt that I will buy the album the day it comes out.  I have not taken one penny out of the band's pocket.

So, having established that, here's another thing I believe.  I do not believe one person who tells me they never listened to a leak. 

Oh, I can see why they would *say* they never did.  If they are invested in painting anyone that ever downloaded a leak as some monster, logically, they have to claim that they don't engage in the practice.  But I don't believe them for a second.  You did not hang for all that time and hear those 14 songs for the first time on 11/23/08.

Where do you guys stand on this one?

Honestly, I can see both sides of the coin.

On one hand, if something is not finished, as an artist I can see how it would bum me out if somehow something I was working on got out and was openly both admired and scrutinized. 

On the other hand, GNR is not your typical band.  It took over 10 years for GNR to finish and release Chinese Democracy.  We are now going on 6 years of waiting for the followup album.  To say GNR fans are "starved" for new material would be a gross understatement.  Curiosity can only be tapered for so long.

For example, if, say, The General leaked tonight...Yes, you bet your ass I would download it and listen to it about 500 times in a row.  Would I also buy the album it ends up on?  Again, you bet your ass.

So, it depends.  GNR fans are going to buy the album no matter what.  Passive rock fans on the other hand, not so much.  I think both make a decent percentage of who buys Guns N' Roses albums, so I can definitely see the harm in leaks ending up on their itunes.

Tough question, really. 

Oh, I absolutely see artist's problems with leaks, and you do a good job laying it out.  All valid.

But the fellow fans giving each other shit is odd to me.  Like you, if a leak comes out tonight, I'm all over it.  Shit, I listened to that 30 second snippet of 'I.R.S.' in horrendous quality probably 500 times.

But when a fellow fan started to lecture me, I'd look at him a bit askew, to put it mildly.

I'm convinced those kinds of fans just like the sound of their own voice when they chide other fans.  They're non-factors, really. 

In my opinion, anyone on a GNR forum in 2014 who would take the time to download a GNR song that they know does not feature Slash, is 99% sure to buy the album when/if it drops.  It's pretty much a given.

Did it matter for Chinese Democracy?  It's certainly debatable, especially when you consider all the hype surrounding that album.  But now?  No, no leak could hurt this band.  If the song is good, quite the opposite, actually.

I have difficultly squaring their unhappiness over the leaks with them turning around and streaming the whole album online days before release.

I did not hear people say that an internet leak in 2006 stopped them from buying the album.  But I did hear people to say they listened to the stream and took a pass.

I listen to leaks when I am aware of them, but I always support the artists and buy songs/albums legally if I like them.  To me, leaks can be like radio play as long as you don't abuse them illegally.

Agreed.

I see them as no different than concert bootlegs.  Look, if a band does like Pearl Jam and puts a bunch of shows out there to buy, I'd buy them.  I have bought them.

But if you don't, fine.  But I am going to seek out a concert bootleg.  I am not robbing you, because you aren't giving me the chance to buy it from you.

Furthermore, its not serving as a replacement for anything.  I'm not going to not buy a studio album if I got a concert from the tour.  The two are not the same thing.

Finally, if I am willing to both seek out and then listen to one of your concerts, perhaps not even in great quality, you should be damn thankful you have fans like me.  I am looking to further supplement my collection of your work.  That is a good thing for you, not a bad thing.

I truly have never downloaded a leak of any kind...

At the time of the CD leaks I wasn't very computer savvy, and I was always scared downloading music would fuck up my computer...lol

I recently heard Going Down after a friend of mine had it... thats the only GNR leak ive ever heard



but I agree with everything you said, anybody here who takes the time to download it and look for it is ALWAYS going to buy the hard copy when it becomes available

There's different kinds of leaks.
You have the leaks of unfinished tracks, and then you have leaks of finished tracks/albums.

It's possible when you ask somebody if they listen to leaks they'll say "no" because they associate the term with one of those kinds of leaks.

Not all fans are computer savvy enough to find out how to get the leaked albums the second they leak. They just wait until it's on iTunes, Amazon or their local store.





/jarmo

True.

And I think when a finished album is leaked a week before its set to drop, that is people looking to avoid paying for it.  I agree that is not good.

But the 3 leaks we all got in 2006, I considered placeholders.  Like seeing a trailer for a movie.  It got me excited this album might actually come out, which was an absolute fair question at that time.

It's not like seeing a trailer. A trailer is usually approved by the people responsible for the movie. Not somebody deciding there needs to be a trailer out when the movie has no premiere date set.

If you wanna use the trailer analogy, Shackler's Revenge in Rock Band 2 was the "trailer". Or the band performing new and then unreleased songs live.




/jarmo

After the total radio silence that was 2003-2005, there wasn't a whole lot to keep the belief going that this might even still happen.

The leaks in 2006 were an oasis in the desert to most of us.  As in, holy shit, he really does have more than the same 3 songs he's played us so far.  Hearing those leaks got a lot of us back onboard.

As for how they got out there, I don't know I subscribe to the theory the band was behind them.  Yes, they came out right before the first tour in 4 years.  And yes, what do you know, all the leaked songs happened to be in the setlists.  But that is largely circumstantial type evidence.

But let's also not dismiss that for all the supposed terribleness of the leaks, they got played on the radio and some even charted.  Wasn't like people shit on them.  That might have been a sign that was the time, and not a sign to wait 2 and a half more years to put in extremely minor changes.

Yes, you can say that the good thing that came out of those leaks was the increased excitement among fans.

My point was, it's not like a movie trailer which usually is sanctioned by the people who create the movie/tv series.


Yes the theories on how it happened are amusing. Just like you can find "evidence" for your theory, other evidence or past history suggests otherwise.
The band managed to play new songs live in 2001 and 2002 without leaking anything first. So why would they need to do it in 2006? Maybe they played those songs live because of the events.


The leaks charting just shows how hypocritical some of the media is. Once the album was out, suddenly they weren't so positive. The forbidden is cool and "edgy". Playing the song you're not supposed to play creates interest. Playing the new single when it's out is less "interesting".



/jarmo

Most of the reviews in the press were positive.

Sure there were a few jokes about nothing should ever take this long, but that's just too damn bad.  If an otherwise positive interview is downgraded to negative in your eyes because of a little joke about what can only be honestly described as a ridiculous situation, that's pretty unfair, in my opinion.

Most negative reviews I saw were from fans, and fans that had long been on record they weren't going to accept the new line-up anyway.  You could have written those reviews before they even heard it.

I meant a magazine like Classic Rock who named the album album of the year before it was out!

Just like some fans, their review was done way before the album was out. But is suspect it's "cool" to hype the album that wasn't supposed to ever come out...




/jarmo

And you saw that as a diss?  Interesting.

I know one publication (maybe it was them) said that Axl should release it because "its already better than Velvet Revolver".  Was that a diss?  Yeah, of VR, maybe.

Look, the album took a flat out ridiculous amount of time to come out.  I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect people not to have some fun with that.  But its just that...fun.  You have to be able to laugh at yourself, no?

Even as far back as the Vegas gig in 2001, doesn't Axl make a similar joke about the album that "god willing, we will finish someday"? 

Not every little bit of ball breaking is a declaration of war or some sign of disrespect out of a mafia movie.

No, I just saw it as an example of somebody using something "forbidden" to sell more magazines and then when they had the chance to actually support the artist, they chose not to.
Sensationalism sells.






/jarmo

Perhaps the artist might have talked to them.

I have to be honest, I just don't see this near constant level of persecution you seem to see.  Axl took forever to get this thing out there, did not lift a finger to give these outlets anything to work with in terms of cooperation, and still got pretty good reviews.  That's pretty amazing.

Choosing to focus on the few that weren't blown away by the album seems like small potatoes.

I'm not talking about reviews or anything, just observations of what happened before and after the release.

Like you said, radio stations were quick to play leaks until they were told to stop. Magazines speculated and wrote sensationalistic articles about the album because it wasn't supposed to come out.
Then it came out and then it was "just another record" among the others that came out at the time...

If you have ten songs coming out this week, and one of them isn't actually out. You're not supposed to play it. Suddenly it's more interesting. But if it was an actual single, it's just one of ten tracks that came out this week... That's the point I'm making.





/jarmo

I see what you mean.

But "just another album"?  I expected it to be savaged.  All the build-up, the delay, Axl's general poor reputation with the media...I kind of expected a bloodbath.

The fact most were pretty positive I thought was proof the album was pretty decent.  It had next to nothing going for it momentum wise.

I think the momentum was there in 2006.

Well, in a way when an album is released it becomes "just another" album for whoever has to review it.
In this case, before it was released, it was the album that was never coming out. That alone gave people reasons to write a bunch of articles on the subject.





/jarmo

But is Axl not painting himself into that same corner again though?

So because the album didn't come out when it was "supposed to", it's ok for the media to act like that?
I get that need they have to write something to get readers. And what's better than some "secrets" and "revealing" information about the album that's never coming out?

Imagine if they had saved some of that energy and excitement for once it was actually out....
But then again, once the album came out, everybody who said it wasn't coming out, were proven wrong... Not always easy for some people to take.



/jarmo

No rock album takes 10 years.  That's just ridiculous.  And its fairly pie in the sky to think everyone is just going to roll with that.  At best, people make jokes.  At worst, they never even give it a chance.

I am arguing still Axl got the best.  Yes, some jokes were made.  But he still got decent reviews anyway.

Axl was one of the biggest rocks stars of his era.  He dropped off the face of the damn Earth as far as most people knew.  But let's stop pretending he was kidnapped and held against his will in some basement.  His disappearance off the grid was his own choice, was it not?

If anything, its encouraging people still cared what he was up to.



Imagine if Axl had. 



So you really see this as a big victory, huh?  A real "in the face!!" type comeuppance for anyone that dared to doubt?

On a base level, I guess I see that.  But the reality is that Axl just waited far too long.  There was some momentum for a release in both 2002 and 2006.  He failed to deliver both times.  So when he finally gets his act together in 2008, yeah, there was a general feeling of "oh yeah, that thing."

Who's fault is that though?

Rock albums, or anything else, can take as long as the artist wants.
I'm still not talking about reviews. Just talking about what I observed.

There was still excitement and interest in 2008. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.
One guy was a bit too interested and got a visit from the Feds...



/jarmo

So...wait a sec.

Did you expect anyone that dared doubt it was coming out to have to pen a column where they beg for forgiveness?

What was not done correctly, in your opinion? 

No, I don't expect shit from these people. I only observe. :)

What was not done properly? They did everything according to their plan. The way they operate.
The root of it all is the fact that people like to read sensationalistic articles with "secrets" and "revelations".

For example, nobody wants to hear about some celebrity flying down and helping people after a natural disaster! But if that same celebrity is drunk in public or goes out with another celebrity.... Suddenly it's interesting!  :hihi:



/jarmo

I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

I actually found it pretty cool that that leaks from a band that hadn't been heard from in 12 years got such attention.  I can understand the bit about Axl not being happy they got out in unfinished form.  But the bigger picture view to me was, holy shit, people actually still care.

It hasn't been as long, but a if a few Metallica songs leaked today, would they generate such attention and actually chart?  I doubt it.

I think is fair to say the two of you are never going to agree on much  :D

I dont think its that people thought CD would never come out, but I think people just got tired of waiting, so it was easy for journalists to make snotty remarks about the whole process. The lineup changes did not help in painting a pretty picture for the whole process either. Not hard to understand. No matter how you spin it, the constant departures (not even talking about the original guys) made Axl look bad. 

There's always good in most things.

Taking away the surprise element because somebody leaks tracks onto the Internet has the positive effect that people has some proof of existence of material they started doubting existed.
I don't think it makes it right though and I'm not gonna defend it based on that.





/jarmo