Yet another (horror) scenario - Record Company VS. GN'R

[conny]

What if Axl and the guys long wanted to release the album, but the record company always said no?

Maybe the album is not what the record company expected to get in return for their investment. Let's say the version the bands wants to release is full of epics, contoversal lyrics and progressive music without any hit single, it could be real good music, but to be that, it would have to be the total oposite of anything out there now - and that could fear away the record company, since they could think it won't match the popular "taste" and won't sell...

Not impossible, is it?

[Luigi]

no, but who knows ?

[Naupis]

That's a tough one.

On one hand, the band should not have to compromise their musical integrity to produce an album that label approves of.

On the other hand, for 13 million dollars I wouldn't blame the record company for demanding the band produce an album that has a chance at commercial success so they can make a profit on their investment.

If this type of thing is really happening between the band and the label, Axl should either make the album the way they want it or buy out his contract and release the album he wants to make. ?

[Falcon]

Not impossible, is it?

The record company rejecting the album is a possibility, but i doubt it, at least not for being "too progressive". ?If anything, Axl's weakness as stated on Behind The Music has been trying to remain current, but taking to long too long to have that come to pass and missing the window. I do think your "full of epics" scenario is viable though, not too 5+ minute songs on the radio these days...

[Scabbie]

In that case they come to an agreement to release one more GH and then the new album as a trade off, or Axl simply moves record companies.

[busngabb]

You have the right title, but not the right background.

Guns n' Roses are not currently making any effort to release an album, lets set that straight.

Whilst a record company may want the music to be different, they wouldn't prevent Guns releasing an album over it. They would know that it would shift a couple of million copies if it had German lullabies on it, so they would just hype it up and get it out there.

My theory is that the record company is so fed up of Axl's refusal to release any new material or to make any effort at all towards that goal that they are releasing another Greatest Hits CD without his permission simply to get some money back on their failed investment.

[Jamie]

I doubt that this is the scenario preventing the release of CD. If this was the case, knowing what we do about Axl he probably would have left the label a long time ago and released the album independently, or on a different label.

[conny]

If the record company wants to have (at least a part of) its money back, then what's the use in pissing the artists off even more with yet another GH? That won't get them any closer to the real deal (CD that is). So why not just release re-mastered versions of the classic albums? Why not release SACD's? Audio-DVD's? Concert DVD's? A box set? They had their GH, why another one? I mean it's GN'R, they only had three real albums - the record company is making a joke of themselves, the band and the audience with another GH. Makes no sense, unless the record company considers the new material to be absolutely unmarketable at this point in time. I've heard the 2002 songs and IRS and I don't think that market-compatibility is the problem, but maybe the record company thinks different?