Out of Patience, Give Us Chinese Democracy! Antimusic.com

[Voodoochild]

I don't think the problem is how to release, but also how much they will get. I mean, isn't possible that Universal wants to get some cash with GN'R tours?

[chriskon72]

I think Universal should go fuck themselves.

 It was Universal in the first place who signed the cheque on (however) much CD has cost until now. Go hunt those guys, I love how in most businesses the guys who call the shots are never held responsible. If the record company is as smart as they are they should have pulled the plug on this project years ago (if it had no chance to make money) but at that time Axl was the cash cow, so I assume it was like "give him what he wants"

So again who made the decision "give him what he wants"?

Now release it, we are talking about a billion dollar industry not a fuckin hot dog stand on sunset.  Instead of the execs. getting 2 Ferraris as a bonus they get JUST one and Cherokee. I feel so bad for them.

[ppbebe]

I mean, isn't possible that Universal wants to get some cash with GN'R tours?

how can the label milk the tours?
I donno maybe it's also about  how to promote who to aim at etc.

why would a "ransom release" stop leaks?

because the dl sales doesn't start until they gets a certain amount of preorder.
That might prevent premature leaks.

[Bodhi]

I dont think CD losing money is going to make or break the record company....we arent talking about BILLIONS of dollars here...yes CD cost somewhere in the range of 15 million dollars...so what?? its going to make a good buck and besides that i have seen record labels piss away alot more money than that on some terrible artists....just look at the state of music the past 10 or so years....

[CheapJon]

why would a "ransom release" stop leaks?

because the dl sales doesn't start until they gets a certain amount of preorder.
That might prevent premature leaks.

oh i see, thanks

[ppbebe]

My pleasure, man.

I dont think CD losing money is going to make or break the record company....we arent talking about BILLIONS of dollars here...yes CD cost somewhere in the range of 15 million dollars...so what?? its going to make a good buck and besides that i have seen record labels piss away alot more money than that on some terrible artists...

yep like emi's paid 20 millions for an robbie williams album. and if your going with the NYT article, the label's inputs can't be more than  $13 million.

[D]

I must be stupid or i'm really smart



why would a "ransom release" stop leaks?

Because no physical copy of CD exists, record plant people or whomever can't steal a copy and stick it online.

2 million people have to buy it before ANYONE can DL it.

So u don't pay your money and then DL it. U have to wait to the number is reached before the DL is reached.


once the DL is reached and people get it, sure then it will be available for free but they will already have 2 million copies of it sold before it can leak.

Then when the CD comes out, u figure at least a million will buy it and thats a way u can recoup your money.

[chriskon72]

I dont think CD losing money is going to make or break the record company....we arent talking about BILLIONS of dollars here...yes CD cost somewhere in the range of 15 million dollars...so what?? its going to make a good buck and besides that i have seen record labels piss away alot more money than that on some terrible artists....just look at the state of music the past 10 or so years....

I apologize that my post was not to clear. When I talk of billions of $$ I mean all of Universals business... of course it is not the only thing goin' on.

[irgspice]

If this position was posted already, my apologies for the redundancy...

I think a serialized release of GNR material would make a lot of sense for this fan-base.  We are used to being spoon-fed, a song or two at a time.  There is no doubt I would have paid for demos of the songs that were leaked.

From Mark Cuban's blog:

The Album is Dead...

Jan 17th 2008 9:29PM
There once was a time when the release date of an album was exciting. For our favorite artists we knew when the last album came out and when the next album was due. If you loved the artist you bought it. If you didn't you either bought the single or you listened to the album with your friends and then decided.

As the price of records and then CDs increased year by year, spending 20 bucks for a CD became a purchase you needed to be sure of rather than a no brainer or impulse buy.

Then free became an option.
Then aggregating almost unlimited free music on a PC and then an IPOD became easy.

So here we are in 2008 and the only given in the music industry is that CD sales have and will fall. And fall. And fall.

Reading last weeks billboard, something interesting popped out at me. The song Low Rider by Flo Rida sold 467,000 units in a single week. There were 27 digital singles that sold more than 100k units in that week. The obvious trend continues that people are ready, willing and able to buy singles of songs they like.

So the question arises, why don't artists serialize the release of songs ? Why not create a "season" of release of songs, much like the fall TV season and promise fans that Flo Rida is going to release a new single every week or 2 weeks for the next 10 weeks ?

Sure, its not easy to come up with a great song every 2 weeks. But isnt that exactly the same problem you have with an album ? Maybe thats not the "creative process" for certain artists. That's a problem for them.

What we do know is that music fans will spend 99c and that its easier to ask them for 99c a week than it is to get 9.99 at one time from them for 10 songs.

Serializing the release of music also allows for the marketing arms to be in constant touch with sales and radio outlets. Rather than having to initiate marketing plans and hope to reinvigorate the interest in an artist, it becomes a digital tour that never ends.

If an artist commits to release music on a weekly or bi weekly basis, then consumers can make a commitment knowing they are going to get something new and hopefully exciting for their 99c. If the commitment is strong enough its feasible that artists could sell subscriptions to their serialized releases. My guess is that consumers will feel better about subscribing to an artist and getting a song a week or every 2 than dropping 10 dollars at a time for an album.

In reality thats exactly how I buy my music right now. I dont do it by artist. I go to ITunes and I go through the top 10 lists and listen to samples and thats how I determine what music im going to buy.

If there was an option when I bought a single to subscribe to an RSS feed that would send me a sample of that artists song when they released a single, I would add that RSS feed to my browser. Add a 1 click to buy, and chances are Im going to buy a lot more music.


Is this idea so great Im going to start a music label ? No chance. I wouldnt get in the music industry if you paid me. However, as a customer and a buyer of music , if I knew that my favorite artists were releasing music weekly, i would certainly check by every week or listen to what was in my RSS aggregator to see what new stuff they had for me.

Consumser are buying music 1 track at a time. I think people will pay 99c to get a single rather than steal it. I think people would rather steal a full album rather than pay 10 dollars or more for it.

Labels need to make the effort to get artists to deliver in a manner that realizes these perspectives.

The album is dead

[Axl4Prez2004]

I really like the Ransom Release Idea posted by D although:

1. I'd want a refund if the release didn't take place (incl if it was leaked)
2. They would commit to a traditional release if the download figure was met (they could factor this into the numbers)
3. It would be cool if you could use the download contribution to get discount off the trad release.
4. A tracklisting or some evidence of the album is made available. This way when it is released we know we're getting what we've contributed to!
5. There's some kind of PR from record company to try to help achieve the required no. of downloads.

Is D taking credit for my release strategy?  My lawyers will be in touch soon D.   

[D]

I really like the Ransom Release Idea posted by D although:

1. I'd want a refund if the release didn't take place (incl if it was leaked)
2. They would commit to a traditional release if the download figure was met (they could factor this into the numbers)
3. It would be cool if you could use the download contribution to get discount off the trad release.
4. A tracklisting or some evidence of the album is made available. This way when it is released we know we're getting what we've contributed to!
5. There's some kind of PR from record company to try to help achieve the required no. of downloads.

Is D taking credit for my release strategy?  My lawyers will be in touch soon D.   

HAHAHAHA

No No, I didn't take credit for that.


I guess I post so many amazing well thoughout intelligent posts, that anytime people see one, they automatically assume it was me.

Usually they'd be correct. This is one of the times they are wrong

Not my idea.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Thank you for ceasing and desisting.  I've got the same lawyers as Axl, you're lucky! 

Honestly, I can't take credit for the idea of initially offering the digital download first.  My idea was just a straight-forward ransom.  If fans want the album, here's what we need.  If x amount of albums are ordered, the album is released to those folks on a set day.  It guarantees profits for the record companies...if fans want the music badly enough. 

I can see a day where instead of Top 10 CD sales in terms of quantity sold and what week the album's been out...there'd be a Top 10 list of "Fastest Pre-Ordered Albums of the Year."  It only took 3 weeks for Album X to hit the 1 million order mark.  It would build up excitement.  Honestly, traditional album sale methods are destined to fail.

Think outside the box and hold this bitch for ransom Axl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

 

[mrbucketfoot]

Is D taking credit for my release strategy?  My lawyers will be in touch soon D.   

I know this forum supports respecting others and blah blah-Politically Correct Garbage-blah blah, but are you seriously arguing over an idea that has been repeated hundreds of times that neither of you are being paid for, for an album whose release you have no control over?

 

[Axl4Prez2004]

Yes Mrbucketfoot...I do believe we've already determined it only takes 3 years of posting frequently on this board to legally declare yourself fucking insane!!!!!!!!!!  I'm well past that point. 

hint, hint...we're joking.   

Just havin' a good time speculating.  It's all in good fun.   

If somebody mentioned the ransom idea before 2004, then I forfeit my rights.   

[Scabbie]

I really like the Ransom Release Idea posted by D although:

1. I'd want a refund if the release didn't take place (incl if it was leaked)
2. They would commit to a traditional release if the download figure was met (they could factor this into the numbers)
3. It would be cool if you could use the download contribution to get discount off the trad release.
4. A tracklisting or some evidence of the album is made available. This way when it is released we know we're getting what we've contributed to!
5. There's some kind of PR from record company to try to help achieve the required no. of downloads.

Is D taking credit for my release strategy?  My lawyers will be in touch soon D.   

Taking someone else's idea (preferably your staff's), repackaging it (with a few extra little twists here and there) and then presenting as if it were your own is perfectly acceptable business behaviour 

[D]

I went crazy a few days ago. just check out the thread in the Admin. What the fuck happened to me?

[mrbucketfoot]

I've got to say, I'm a little goggled why the album isn't out or in the process of coming out.

I'm not in the loop but seems like the band has working hard for awhile to get the bitch out. I'm not bashing or want to come off as ungrateful but I just can't imagine the holdup.

Maybe plans are done, who knows. 

[The Prez]

I'm curious: who the fuck still cares for CD to come out? (except for some die hards on the several GN'R forums)

It is already a joke for several years. We all need to move on and forget about CD.

[Limulus]

i dont like the idea dealing with mp3 only releases weeks (months??) before i would be able to buy the real cd or the boxset for my hifi but well, thats how it is these days, thanks to people with the "i dont pay for music"-attitude.

about the bonus coming along: no old band stuff and no dvd whole show here please. old band stuff would probably be a goldmine $$$ but it just doesnt fit with cd......old stuff better could and should be used later like "the history of gnr" or "the early days"- dvd releases (compare Iron Maiden releases!). to the general public watching live dvds is not something they are getting pumped for, its actual a boring thing for them and would be a better option for a release in 3-4 years or so just like a live album. the "working" idea would be to release some special mix dvd:

cd itself has such a long history that exactly this should be concentrated on to make smth positive out of it and what could reach not the harder fans but the general public, too. as axl + new band are not the media friendliest people this could be some marketing aswell (the general public dont care or even know from Rock Am Ring footage, news-clips, etc.) mixing lots of stuff (new band) is the trick.....some 2001/2002 footage (the "new" start), some studio stuff (new members), interviews (new members), some 2006 stuff warm-up shows, festival shows, headliner shows.....they have so much video material that its easy to get some kick-ass mix out of it: for the 2006/07 shows you can start with the warm-up shows: fan interviews, the hype, some minutes of the 1st and last show (izzy!) then switching to some parts of the festival shows. those festivals shows look all very different from the stage, crowd and wheater itself: sunlight in ireland, bottle-throwing at donington, acoutic shows, dont-cry in japan, nice boys in australia, etc. etc.......being mixed correctly (not even whole songs - tough that would rock off course) this could lead not only us but the general public to statements like "wow, you have seen that bonus dvd coming along with cd? thats killer!!"

on the other hand a bonus dvd might only be downloaded by them just like cd, hmmmm

[wight gunner]

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3264556.ece

Might help explain the direction the industries going. Take a look at the comments too, do you agree with them?