GNR Finish CD?

[misterID]

No, no, no.  If they said to Axl, "you need to go back and record more songs" for whatever reason, they were basically instructing him to spend some more of their money.  Anyway, $13 million is too much to spend on recording an album.  They should have cut him off sooner.  There is no way it should have taken the $13 million barrier being crossed before they saw the situation was out of hand.  They were enablers in this situation by allowing it to get so far out of control.

That was nearly ten years ago when they told him to go back and work on the album! They wanted it to be better, so how is that being an enabler? They could have just released it, saved some bucks, and if it tanked they could cut their losses there. That was for HIS benefit as well as theirs, you might want to remember. Calling them enablers is just the lamest cop out I've ever heard. They didn't give him money to allow him to procrastinate ten years to finish an album. If you're handed a finished product, and you tell someone to work on it some more, you don't expect them to take 8 years to do it!

Plus, there have been many people on the label who came and went, starting when GNR was still relevant, which they're not now, who tried to help him, and even more people have inherited this burdon known as GNR and Chinese Democracy since then who've tried to help him. This isn't just one person who's been forking out money, people have tried to make this album a success and as good as it could be for a very long time. And business practices in music, and the music business itself has drastically changed since then as well.  And don't try to tell me that its somehow the labels fault because of Axl's behavior. He decided to drag ass, and again, he's paid/paying the price for it.

To give an artist support and huge funding, there is a trust factor there... Somehow you believe Axl is the only human in the world immune to this, and he should have free range to do whatever he wants, without having any responsibility to meet his obligations.

Yeah, he was enabled by the big mean record label who gave him money and support to finish his album because they had the gaul to think he should actually release it within a reasonable timeframe in return. Those mean ole bastards! How dare they!

There is a world of difference between creating a work of art and painting a house.  One can be easily put on an estimated time table, the other cannot.  And if you saw what the people painting your house were doing and said "I don't like this, I changed my mind on what I want, start over", YOU would be contributing to the delay in getting the job done.  That doesn't mean that the person doing the job is relieved of their responsibility to do it.  It just means that by either not being clear about what you wanted in the first place or by changing your mind mid-stream, you are playing in role in what is transpiring.

Therein lies the problem with the analogy.  You can tell someone to paint a house blue, but you cannot tell an artist what to create or else it won't be genuine and will ring hollow and false to all those listening to the music.

What are you talking about? Artists are put on time tables all the time. Let me try this again. You are in a business. You pay someone to make a product. It is then their responsibility to meet it. Axl obviously didn't, and they pulled the funding. So how in the world can you justify your argument when four years after the label stopped paying for recording that they are still at fault for enabling him? From his explanations, and those of Merck, he recorded when he "felt" like it. How many times since 2002 did Tommy, Brain and Richard say the album was finished/their parts were finished? The album has been in the final recording process for TEN YEARS!

If you have a huge investment, you want to get it out and for it to be a success. It's as easy as that. So if you want to throw full fault on the label, because 9 years ago they told him he could make the album better, then you are comepletely delusional and there is no getting through to you.

If I told someone to paint my house, decided I didn't like it, and told them to paint it another color, that does not give them a right to take ten years to do it. That's why business and artists are taken to court all the time.

In legal language its known as Good Faith.

Everyone played a role in the situation getting to where it is now, not necessarily to the same extent, but the only way to make the best of it is for everyone to work together.  It's about getting the record out.  That's what's best for all involved.

Ali

I'm not putting full blame on Axl, I know he's had to deal with bullshit, and he's very unconventional, but there is a price for that. And I do not believe that this delay was all because of his "artistic" indulgences. Some of you really think he doesn no wrong. I hope, and truley believe Chinese Democracy will be released (this year    ), but I am completely baffled how people try to justify his bullshit. And they're not even on his payroll!!.... I don't think.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

That was nearly ten years ago when they told him to go back and work on the album! They wanted it to be better, so how is that being an enabler

You could argue that they mindfucked him and hurt his confidence in what they'd been working on, fueling the perfectionist fire.  They gave him money to record, the band made what Axl thought was an album good enough to release, they sent him back to work.  It's possible that such a rejection bruised his ego and/or made him totally rethink everything they'd done to that point.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is a possibility

Artists are put on time tables all the time. Let me try this again. You are in a business. You pay someone to make a product. It is then their responsibility to meet it. Axl obviously didn't, and they pulled the funding. So how in the world can you justify your argument when four years after the label stopped paying for recording that they are still at fault for enabling him?

If you have a huge investment, you want to get it out and for it to be a success. It's as easy as that. So if you want to throw full fault on the label, because 9 years ago they told him he could make the album better, then you are comepletely delusional and there is no getting through to you.

If I told someone to paint my house, decided I didn't like it, and told them to paint it another color, that does not give them a right to take ten years to do it. That's why business and artists are taken to court all the time.

Your math is off.  Interview from 2001, it's 2008, I'm counting 7 years, not 9.  You're also assuming that the record label didn't reject or suggest revisions to subsequent versions of the album which could very well have happened. 

I'm not saying the label is the only party at fault.  But you don't know the whole story.  You don't know how many times the label made "suggestions" about songs they'd recorded that may have caused Axl to second guess the work and added years onto the process.  You don't even know for sure that the label cut off funding, that's never been confirmed by anyone but an anonymous source for one newspaper article, who Merck said hadn't been involved with CD in many years.  You can't compare art and entertainment to painting a house.  Many albums and movies get delayed for years longer than anticipated, for a myriad of reasons, even with millions of dollars already invested.  It is a very frequent process in the entertainment industry.  The latest Superman movie took 9 years from the time they started production, they spent $50 million on pre-production costs just trying to get the project off the ground.  Same with Terminator 3, they spent millions in development costs and hit repeated snags throughout the 90's until it came out in 2003.  Batman Begins, again, development began in 1998 and they didn't start filming until 2004.  All of these are examples of movies that took many millions and many years more to get off the ground than was originally anticipated.  Shit happens, studio magnates have creative differences with the producers/directors/writers, studio execs come and go, the producers can't find a writer to capture their vision, whatever.  The point is that in the entertainment business, amount of money involved and the complexity of the behind the scenes stuff and label/studio politics are way too detailed to compare to such a simple process as painting a house.  And to further that point, what us outsiders do know is very little, about 99.99999% of what we've heard about why the album isn't out, including the supposedly cut off funding, rumor and innuendo from unverified/anonymous sources

[faldor]

Great post ShotgunBlues.  Well said.  Once again, it does no good to choose sides and figure out who's to blame.  It's all pure speculation on what actually has gone on.  If you've followed GNR (and Axl) for any length of time you'd know that they don't do things by the book and they're tight lipped on the goings on within the band.  That's the way it always has been, in the past to the present.  So it's really not worth the time and effort to take what you think you know and use that to try to place blame.  All parties have played a part in this.  There's no reason to put anyone on trial, it doesn't bring the album any closer to being released.  So in the meantime, enjoy your life and let the chips fall where they may.

[ppbebe]

  Basically, What is the blame for?

Now the album is finished and there're a few more succeeding ones. is that horrible?

It's not GNR's fault that the industry is in the mess, is it?

[Ali]

No, no, no.  If they said to Axl, "you need to go back and record more songs" for whatever reason, they were basically instructing him to spend some more of their money.  Anyway, $13 million is too much to spend on recording an album.  They should have cut him off sooner.  There is no way it should have taken the $13 million barrier being crossed before they saw the situation was out of hand.  They were enablers in this situation by allowing it to get so far out of control.

That was nearly ten years ago when they told him to go back and work on the album! They wanted it to be better, so how is that being an enabler? They could have just released it, saved some bucks, and if it tanked they could cut their losses there. That was for HIS benefit as well as theirs, you might want to remember. Calling them enablers is just the lamest cop out I've ever heard. They didn't give him money to allow him to procrastinate ten years to finish an album. If you're handed a finished product, and you tell someone to work on it some more, you don't expect them to take 8 years to do it!

Plus, there have been many people on the label who came and went, starting when GNR was still relevant, which they're not now, who tried to help him, and even more people have inherited this burdon known as GNR and Chinese Democracy since then who've tried to help him. This isn't just one person who's been forking out money, people have tried to make this album a success and as good as it could be for a very long time. And business practices in music, and the music business itself has drastically changed since then as well.  And don't try to tell me that its somehow the labels fault because of Axl's behavior. He decided to drag ass, and again, he's paid/paying the price for it.

To give an artist support and huge funding, there is a trust factor there... Somehow you believe Axl is the only human in the world immune to this, and he should have free range to do whatever he wants, without having any responsibility to meet his obligations.

Yeah, he was enabled by the big mean record label who gave him money and support to finish his album because they had the gaul to think he should actually release it within a reasonable timeframe in return. Those mean ole bastards! How dare they!

There is a world of difference between creating a work of art and painting a house.  One can be easily put on an estimated time table, the other cannot.  And if you saw what the people painting your house were doing and said "I don't like this, I changed my mind on what I want, start over", YOU would be contributing to the delay in getting the job done.  That doesn't mean that the person doing the job is relieved of their responsibility to do it.  It just means that by either not being clear about what you wanted in the first place or by changing your mind mid-stream, you are playing in role in what is transpiring.

Therein lies the problem with the analogy.  You can tell someone to paint a house blue, but you cannot tell an artist what to create or else it won't be genuine and will ring hollow and false to all those listening to the music.

What are you talking about? Artists are put on time tables all the time. Let me try this again. You are in a business. You pay someone to make a product. It is then their responsibility to meet it. Axl obviously didn't, and they pulled the funding. So how in the world can you justify your argument when four years after the label stopped paying for recording that they are still at fault for enabling him? From his explanations, and those of Merck, he recorded when he "felt" like it. How many times since 2002 did Tommy, Brain and Richard say the album was finished/their parts were finished? The album has been in the final recording process for TEN YEARS!

If you have a huge investment, you want to get it out and for it to be a success. It's as easy as that. So if you want to throw full fault on the label, because 9 years ago they told him he could make the album better, then you are comepletely delusional and there is no getting through to you.

If I told someone to paint my house, decided I didn't like it, and told them to paint it another color, that does not give them a right to take ten years to do it. That's why business and artists are taken to court all the time.

In legal language its known as Good Faith.

Everyone played a role in the situation getting to where it is now, not necessarily to the same extent, but the only way to make the best of it is for everyone to work together.  It's about getting the record out.  That's what's best for all involved.

Ali

I'm not putting full blame on Axl, I know he's had to deal with bullshit, and he's very unconventional, but there is a price for that. And I do not believe that this delay was all because of his "artistic" indulgences. Some of you really think he doesn no wrong. I hope, and truley believe Chinese Democracy will be released (this year    ), but I am completely baffled how people try to justify his bullshit. And they're not even on his payroll!!.... I don't think.

The interview where Axl revealed that the record company instructed them to go back and record more was only seven years ago, for one thing.

It's not a cop out at all.  If you basically instruct someone to redo their work and spend more money in that effort, you are helping to push that overall total of money spent on recording sessions higher.

And please, don't say it was for Axl's benefit that they instructed him to go back and record more.  They instructed him to do that for their own benefit as much as anything, so that they could have an album that would sell more.

And I'm not saying eight years is a reasonable amount of time to finish a record.  But, first off, let's be clear here.  It isn't ONE record.  It's several RECORDS, plural.

No matter what you think or say, they could have cut off funding sooner so that this would be a less glaring expense.  If their argument was a pattern of not finishing the record prompted them to release the GH, then the pattern had long since been established.

My point was the record company enabled the total cost of the recording reaching $13 million.  They could have cut off funding sooner.  They are not responsible for anything that has happened since they cut off funding in terms of money spent.  The label is not responsible for Axl's behavior.  They are responsible for the funding reaching the total it did.

Yet another reason why your house-painting analogy is flawed is that Axl and the band have been recording multiple albums, or painting multiple houses, so the timeframe expectation for one house is not applicable.  No matter what you say, you cannot compare the creative process to something like painting a house.  Sure you can put time frames on both, but one involves creativity, the other doesn't.  If you stifle the creative process by putting boundaries on it in terms of time, the art will suffer.  If the art suffers, no one, including the record label who is trying to profit off it, wins anything.  Sure, there are limits, but you have to balance the desire to have the product out so you can make money with what is best for the quality of the product.   Eight years would be too much for an album, but when they were pushing him to finish in 2000 or 2001, the band had only been together for a couple of years, really.  Then Robin left and Bucket was brought in as a replacement.  Then Josh Freese left and Brain was brought in.

For the last time, no one is throwing "full fault" at the label.  I am only saying that they played a role.  I'm not saying that role is larger than Axl's.  It is a role, however.

Now having said that, the only way to get this thing out with the interests of all parties taken to heart is for all parties to work together.

Ali

[Ali]

Oh yeah, I find it odd that Geffen would have a problem with the record as it was in '99 or 2000, when their own A&R man was quite fond of what he heard.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=1467

The Robin Finck/Josh Freese/Tommy Stinson/Billy Howerdel/Dizzy Reed version of the album that existed in 1998 was pretty incredible. It still sounded like GNR but there were elements of Zeppelin, Nine Inch Nails and Pink Floyd mixed in. If Axl had recorded vocals, it would have been an absolutely contemporary record in 1999.

Ali

[slashsbaconpit]

1. You could argue that they mindfucked him and hurt his confidence in what they'd been working on, fueling the perfectionist fire.  They gave him money to record, the band made what Axl thought was an album good enough to release, they sent him back to work.  It's possible that such a rejection bruised his ego and/or made him totally rethink everything they'd done to that point.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is a possibility

You're also assuming that the record label didn't reject or suggest revisions to subsequent versions of the album which could very well have happened. 

I'm not saying the label is the only party at fault.  But you don't know the whole story.  You don't know how many times the label made "suggestions" about songs they'd recorded that may have caused Axl to second guess the work and added years onto the process. 

2.  The latest Superman movie took 9 years from the time they started production, they spent $50 million on pre-production costs just trying to get the project off the ground.  Same with Terminator 3, they spent millions in development costs and hit repeated snags throughout the 90's until it came out in 2003.  Batman Begins, again, development began in 1998 and they didn't start filming until 2004.  All of these are examples of movies that took many millions and many years more to get off the ground than was originally anticipated. 

1. So basically, you're saying that instead of Axl saying "Fuck off" to the suits and finding another way to release it, he reacted like a pimply 12-year-old girl and lost all confidence in himself and his music because some guy in a tie told him that CD wasn?t good enough. Hmmm. Doesn?t sound like the Axl we all know and admire. If it is, then I think his days of being admired are in the toilet. Plus any record executive that is warm to the touch would be smart enough to know that dumping a substandard GNR album on the market would still bank big bucks. GNR was, and possibly still is, bullet proof from music critics. It still would have sold several million copies. It doesn't make sense that a guy in a suit would stop this album until the last year or so, because, for whatever reason, the powers that be waited until releasing the album was no longer financially viable. But even with that, you're going to recoup at least some of money by releasing it.
Sitting on it is a stupid business decision and is just kissing the millions spent good bye. Anyone with any business experience and or savy would recognize a bad investment, do what they could to get whatever they could out of it, write off their losses and move on.

Of course considering the current state of the music industry, it's dubious as to whether or not anyone involved has any business sense or savy.

2. Now your math is off. Production for Superman Returns (awful movie BTW) didn't start 9 years prior to release. You're confusing the different pitches that were made (my favorite was an adaption of the death of Superman comic story). Different story ideas and scripts were shopped around for years on all of the movies you mentioned, but not a single frame of film was spent, nor was a set built for any of these films until a year or two before their release. There were lots of rumors, story ideas and a few scripts, but nothing was started until the films got a green light.

And movies are a much larger investment than albums. SR was rumored to have cost upwards of $250 million to produce. Batman was over $100 million to produce. Plus these films are all tied into merchandising and marketing that would make any record company's head swim. Many movies' expenses double once marketing is figured in. So even if it did take SR nine years to be "produced" as you claim, there was a lot more riding on it than the  rumored $13 million spent on CD.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

1. You could argue that they mindfucked him and hurt his confidence in what they'd been working on, fueling the perfectionist fire.  They gave him money to record, the band made what Axl thought was an album good enough to release, they sent him back to work.  It's possible that such a rejection bruised his ego and/or made him totally rethink everything they'd done to that point.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is a possibility

You're also assuming that the record label didn't reject or suggest revisions to subsequent versions of the album which could very well have happened. 

I'm not saying the label is the only party at fault.  But you don't know the whole story.  You don't know how many times the label made "suggestions" about songs they'd recorded that may have caused Axl to second guess the work and added years onto the process. 

2.  The latest Superman movie took 9 years from the time they started production, they spent $50 million on pre-production costs just trying to get the project off the ground.  Same with Terminator 3, they spent millions in development costs and hit repeated snags throughout the 90's until it came out in 2003.  Batman Begins, again, development began in 1998 and they didn't start filming until 2004.  All of these are examples of movies that took many millions and many years more to get off the ground than was originally anticipated. 

1. So basically, you're saying that instead of Axl saying "Fuck off" to the suits and finding another way to release it, he reacted like a pimply 12-year-old girl and lost all confidence in himself and his music because some guy in a tie told him that CD wasn?t good enough. Hmmm. Doesn?t sound like the Axl we all know and admire. If it is, then I think his days of being admired are in the toilet. Plus any record executive that is warm to the touch would be smart enough to know that dumping a substandard GNR album on the market would still bank big bucks. GNR was, and possibly still is, bullet proof from music critics. It still would have sold several million copies. It doesn't make sense that a guy in a suit would stop this album until the last year or so, because, for whatever reason, the powers that be waited until releasing the album was no longer financially viable. But even with that, you're going to recoup at least some of money by releasing it.
Sitting on it is a stupid business decision and is just kissing the millions spent good bye. Anyone with any business experience and or savy would recognize a bad investment, do what they could to get whatever they could out of it, write off their losses and move on.

Of course considering the current state of the music industry, it's dubious as to whether or not anyone involved has any business sense or savy.

2. Now your math is off. Production for Superman Returns (awful movie BTW) didn't start 9 years prior to release. You're confusing the different pitches that were made (my favorite was an adaption of the death of Superman comic story). Different story ideas and scripts were shopped around for years on all of the movies you mentioned, but not a single frame of film was spent, nor was a set built for any of these films until a year or two before their release. There were lots of rumors, story ideas and a few scripts, but nothing was started until the films got a green light.

And movies are a much larger investment than albums. SR was rumored to have cost upwards of $250 million to produce. Batman was over $100 million to produce. Plus these films are all tied into merchandising and marketing that would make any record company's head swim. Many movies' expenses double once marketing is figured in. So even if it did take SR nine years to be "produced" as you claim, there was a lot more riding on it than the  rumored $13 million spent on CD.

You don't know what you're talking about.  WB was trying to develop a new Superman movie from 1997 forward.  In the end that movie became Superman Returns.  What you're talking about with different scripts and different stories wasn't free.   Pre-production for movies costs money.  The writers don't work for free. 

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117952909.html?categoryid=1350&cs=1

There you go.  $40 million in production costs before they even began shooting, which didn't occur until 2005.  Whether or not you thought it was a good movie has nothing to do with it.  But don't tell me I'm wrong when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.  And I don't see what pointing out the obvious (that movies cost more than albums) has to do with anything.  The point is that the entertainment industry has production and release delays constantly, even when people have spent millions on the project.  The music and film industries are a lot more closely tied than trying to compare a big budget entertainment industry projects to a process as simple as painting a house

Now as for Axl, yeah, he could've told the suits "fuck off".  But he's smarter than that.  You don't get to break your contract when the label has spent as much money as they did on CD.  Axl is wise enough to realize that by telling the label to fuck off, it would've ruined his chances of succeeding with the new band.  There is no "other way" of releasing the album short of buying it from them and then buying out your contract which isn't financially realistic.  This isn't a situation where he can just say "fuck you", take his recordings and release them another way.  It doesn't work like that, not when the label paid for the recordings. 

And on the other side the record label is smart enough to realize GnR is one of the few acts with true staying power, they would rather make money off of multiple future GnR albums, not just one.  So they're not going to be anxious to dump a "substandard" GnR record out there and risk ruining the brand name of one of the most valuable acts on their roster.  I take it you aren't in business.  You would've burned a lot of bridges and you have an extremely shortsighted view of things

[misterID]

Oh... My... God...

You could argue that they mindfucked him and hurt his confidence in what they'd been working on, fueling the perfectionist fire.  They gave him money to record, the band made what Axl thought was an album good enough to release, they sent him back to work.  It's possible that such a rejection bruised his ego and/or made him totally rethink everything they'd done to that point.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is a possibility


 
There's no real adult response to that statement.

Slashsbaconpit is the only one of a slim few who has made a remote lick of sense in this thread.

Since 1999 people have come and gone saying what a great album CD was and that it was finished. That's what Josh Freese said, who got so frustrated wth Axl that HE LEFT the band. Ask Youth...

1999 - 2008 = 9 years

Yes, its totally plausible that Universal didn't want to put out a great record and demanded he use more money and spend (lets say for argument sake 2000 to 2004) 4 more years to finish a finished album. 

Could they have asked him to go back some more during that time? Maybe, but we know of only one time, but we also heard from various sources that they wanted it FINISHED since at least 2003.

This isn't a situation where he can just say "fuck you", take his recordings and release them another way.  It doesn't work like that, not when the label paid for the recordings.

That's correct. And you could say he has said "fuck you" to them and he's paying for it. He had an obligation to finish the album within a reasonable timeframe, and he didn't do it.

Again, this whole argument is about people blaming Universal and not Axl for putting himself in this "mess."

[ShotgunBlues1978]

Oh... My... God...

You could argue that they mindfucked him and hurt his confidence in what they'd been working on, fueling the perfectionist fire.  They gave him money to record, the band made what Axl thought was an album good enough to release, they sent him back to work.  It's possible that such a rejection bruised his ego and/or made him totally rethink everything they'd done to that point.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is a possibility


 
There's no real adult response to that statement.

If you think that the rejection of his vision of the album couldn't have caused him to second guess everything they'd done and caused delays then you don't know much.  For an example of another band with ties to GnR, Duff and Slash have both stated in print that Rick Rubin's continued requests that they write more material hurt their current band's morale and made them question if their stuff was any good (I personally think Rubin was on to something but that's another story).   They ended up parting ways with Rubin instead of heeding his advice.  Axl didn't have the option of parting ways with his record label.  They recorded an album sometime between 1998-2001 that Axl was satisfied with and turned in to the label.  It got rejected.  That is from the mouth of one of the only two sources that really matters in terms of getting the album out (two parties being Axl and the label).  Everything else is pure speculation, and you're stating innuendo's and unfounded rumors like they're facts

[The Chad Cometh]

Exactly. Mr ID has no idea it would seem.
Still painting that house motherfucker?

[Feel_The_Burn]

Exactly. Mr ID has no idea it would seem.
Still painting that house motherfucker?

I doubt any label would tell Axl to go back to work on this album......

[JDA]

With no news and no cd or tour in sight this band gets more disappointing and embarrassing by the day.  It has really become pathetic. 

[Feel_The_Burn]

With no news and no cd or tour in sight this band gets more disappointing and embarrassing by the day.  It has really become pathetic. 

OH NO ssssssssh don't speak of that stuff 'round these places!
 

 I think at the end of all this it will be " Chinese Democracy : The Greatest CD that never was ". Didn't Axl say he'd inform us if stuff was happening?

[Ben Derhover]

I think I read a quote of Axl saying that he would let the fans know if the ball was rolling. I wonder why it's not though?

He is supposed to be a real perfectionist right? I guess that's what is holding the album up. Either that or they are considering going in the direction of Radiohead or something. I doubt that though.

[misterID]

Oh... My... God...

You could argue that they mindfucked him and hurt his confidence in what they'd been working on, fueling the perfectionist fire.  They gave him money to record, the band made what Axl thought was an album good enough to release, they sent him back to work.  It's possible that such a rejection bruised his ego and/or made him totally rethink everything they'd done to that point.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is a possibility


 
There's no real adult response to that statement.

If you think that the rejection of his vision of the album couldn't have caused him to second guess everything they'd done and caused delays then you don't know much.  For an example of another band with ties to GnR, Duff and Slash have both stated in print that Rick Rubin's continued requests that they write more material hurt their current band's morale and made them question if their stuff was any good (I personally think Rubin was on to something but that's another story).   They ended up parting ways with Rubin instead of heeding his advice.  Axl didn't have the option of parting ways with his record label.  They recorded an album sometime between 1998-2001 that Axl was satisfied with and turned in to the label.  It got rejected.  That is from the mouth of one of the only two sources that really matters in terms of getting the album out (two parties being Axl and the label).  Everything else is pure speculation, and you're stating innuendo's and unfounded rumors like they're facts

I've heard this same speel since 2002, however, no one has ever sunk so low, or grasped that far for straws, to say the delay was the label's doing by giving him too much money and creative control to finish the album. That sure as hell wasn't said back then.

If it hurt him that badly as you suggest, why the fuck did he keep recording and touring, if his psyche and confidence was fractured that much? Have you heard the leaks from 1999? Are you going to tell me that the 2002 versions of the songs weren't better? Give me a break.

Everything is speculation, isn't it? I'm quoting "speculation" that ended up being confirmed, and quotes from people who worked on the project. I don't subscribe to the idea that only one source is being truthful, being Axl's word is golden, but I do give him benefit of the doubt. But you cannot deny that the predicament he is in is completely a result of his own doing. He did things his way, that's well reported, and he's paying for it.

And saying a producer telling a band during the writing process to write more songs, and a label, who according to you yourself, liked what they heard, telling an artist he could make it better, are two totally different things. You could also make a case that that pissed him off, and he was going to "show" them, if we're getting into speculation here.

Exactly. Mr ID has no idea it would seem.
Still painting that house motherfucker?

Awww, baby made a post. Good boy. Now go stay behind the chainlength fence with the others like you're supposed to. And stop eating the paint!

[bodine]

I think I read a quote of Axl saying that he would let the fans know if the ball was rolling. I wonder why it's not though?

He is supposed to be a real perfectionist right? I guess that's what is holding the album up. Either that or they are considering going in the direction of Radiohead or something. I doubt that though.

... or the label doesn't want to release it right now in middle of a recession or Axl and the label can't agree on terms or mercury and uranus are not aligned in the correct equinox.  Who knows? 

[ShotgunBlues1978]

I've heard this same speel since 2002, however, no one has ever sunk so low, or grasped that far for straws, to say the delay was the label's doing by giving him too much money and creative control to finish the album. That sure as hell wasn't said back then.

If it hurt him that badly as you suggest, why the fuck did he keep recording and touring, if his psyche and confidence was fractured that much? Have you heard the leaks from 1999? Are you going to tell me that the 2002 versions of the songs weren't better? Give me a break.

Everything is speculation, isn't it? I'm quoting "speculation" that ended up being confirmed, and quotes from people who worked on the project. I don't subscribe to the idea that only one source is being truthful, being Axl's word is golden, but I do give him benefit of the doubt. But you cannot deny that the predicament he is in is completely a result of his own doing. He did things his way, that's well reported, and he's paying for it.

And saying a producer teling a band during the writing process to write more songs, and a label, who according to you yourself, liked what they heard, telling an artist he could make it better, are two totally different things. You could also make a case that that pissed him off, and he was going to "show" them, if we're getting into speculation here.

Who said they gave him too much creative control?  Nobody has said anything resembling that.  If they rejected his initial vision of the album then he didn't have total creative control did he? 

Sure, the post-2000 demos are better than the 1999 versions of the same songs largely because of Buckethead's contributions.  So in that sense the label was right, they "could" have made the album better which they did on songs like IRS and TWAT.  The stuff should be better, Fortus and Bucket are much better players than Paul Huge was.  Nobody has suggested they gave him too much creative control.  What some people have suggested is that maybe the label created a monster by telling him to go back and rework the album or write new songs, which led to additional years of reworking, re-recording, writing new songs, all of which equals spending more money which they themselves put up.  You also don't know how many times the label has made additional suggestions about reworking or writing more songs.  For example in 2001 Axl said they thought they had the album and the record wanted them to work on it more.  Just because nobody has said anything about it publicly since then doesn't mean it hasn't happened again behind closed doors.  How do you know the same thing didn't happen in 2003?  You don't, nobody does except those close to the situation. 

I'm not sure which speculation you are saying turned out to be confirmed (by a credible source), but you have repeated ad nauseum that they were cut off by the label.  That has never been verified by a credible source.  It's been rumored that the label cut them off, and that Axl has funded the remainer of the album out of his pocket, but never confirmed by the label or the band.  Perhaps they cut him off because of the lawsuit spat, not because they'd given up on the album, and they worked things out.  People who worked on the album have credibility in many areas, but the only people whose opinions really mean anything in terms of an album release are Axl and the label executives.  Both sides have been very tightlipped about the whole thing aside from a handful of comments, most of them from many years ago.

[misterID]

Believe what you want. You know what I meant by creative "artistic" control which allowed him to bring in numerous producers and such. And according to documented proof by Axl, the only time they told him to go back was once. Anything else is speculation on your part, if I go by your logic. You are the one who's speculating on what happened behind closed doors. Not me. It was said several times that the label was tired of his bullshit, funding was cut, and I'm in no position to say that that's a lie.

If you want, believe whatever floats your boat.

For the record, I have said several times there is a good possibility that the label could be putting together a killer marketing plan, or figuring out how to market it properly. I have no idea why they're not releasing it. What I have been saying is that the idea that they somehow created a monster because Axl was unable to control himself and cared not for his obligations, is complete bullshit.

[Ben Derhover]

I think I read a quote of Axl saying that he would let the fans know if the ball was rolling. I wonder why it's not though?

He is supposed to be a real perfectionist right? I guess that's what is holding the album up. Either that or they are considering going in the direction of Radiohead or something. I doubt that though.

... or the label doesn't want to release it right now in middle of a recession or Axl and the label can't agree on terms or mercury and uranus are not aligned in the correct equinox.  Who knows? 

I know what you mean. This thing is supposed to have been out for a very long time now. Who really knows why it isn't? Here on the outside all we can do is speculate.