Should Axl Play Hardball or Do What It Takes?....

[jarmo]

But the point you're missing is that if they only have one more album and have recorded 4 albums worth of material on Geffen's tab, the status of the subsequent albums is in limbo if a new contract isn't negotiated.  If that's the case, you can bet that part of the negotiations taking place involve future GnR albums after CD, not just CD

How can anybody prove that the money went to album #2 or #3?

They wanted one album. They invested some money in order to get it.

IF they are owed one album and they're not interested in negotiating a new deal, then that's what they should get.....





/jarmo

[ShotgunBlues1978]

But the point you're missing is that if they only have one more album and have recorded 4 albums worth of material on Geffen's tab, the status of the subsequent albums is in limbo if a new contract isn't negotiated.  If that's the case, you can bet that part of the negotiations taking place involve future GnR albums after CD, not just CD

How can anybody prove that the money went to album #2 or #3?

They wanted one album. They invested some money in order to get it.

IF they are owed one album and they're not interested in negotiating a new deal, then that's what they should get.....





/jarmo

If they are owed one album and aren't interested in more, then yeah, they should get one album and that's it.  But I don't see why they wouldn't want to re-sign GnR to a new contract. 

None of us knows the details but we've heard of "contract negotiations" being an issue dating back to 2006, and if the label just wanted to put out CD and part ways with GnR then I can't imagine there would be much to negotiate.  Seems like they would want to re-sign them and release these future albums in this trilogy, if the "one album left on the contract" theory is true.

[mrbucketfoot]

But I don't see why they wouldn't want to re-sign GnR to a new contract. 

I think that Jarmo's point is that if Geffen pays for 1 record from GN'R, then the band shouldn't have to do anything. They can release their record and be on their merry way.
And with a rapidly shifting music industry, I think that's just what they want to do. Give them that album, then promote, release, distribute, etc., the other albums all by their onesy, savvy?

Sorry, been watching too much Pirates of the Carribean...

[jarmo]

But I don't see why they wouldn't want to re-sign GnR to a new contract. 

I think that Jarmo's point is that if Geffen pays for 1 record from GN'R, then the band shouldn't have to do anything. They can release their record and be on their merry way.

That depends on what the band wants.

If they want to put out three or more albums and not just one...




/jarmo

[GypsySoul]

But the point you're missing is that if they only have one more album and have recorded 4 albums worth of material on Geffen's tab, the status of the subsequent albums is in limbo if a new contract isn't negotiated.  If that's the case, you can bet that part of the negotiations taking place involve future GnR albums after CD, not just CD

My point is that if the artist only wants to fulfill his contract obligations and then move elsewhere than the label doesn't really have any say in what they're given by said artist to complete that obligation.

The most infamous example is D's favorite artist, Prince:

In 1994, Prince's attitude towards his artistic output underwent a notable shift. He began to view releasing albums in quick succession as a means of ejecting himself from his contractual obligations to Warner Bros.

Chaos and Disorder, released in 1996 by Prince (his stage name at that time being an unpronounceable symbol, see cover art), was his final album of new material for Warner Bros, and as this conceived as a collection of leftovers only put on record to fulfill contractual obligations; it was one of his least commercially successful releases. It met mixed reviews upon release. Many fans appreciated hearing Prince experiment with rock sounds, while others found it stale and tired. Some reviewers commented that had it not been a Prince release, it would have been met with much wider approval. The album reached #26 in the US and #14 in the UK, and is now out of print.



P.S.  THIS IS ALL JUST SPECULATION ON MY PART IN RESPONSE TO THINGS POSTED IN THIS THREAD.  I have no knowledge what GNR's contractual obligations are or their intentions as far as negotiations are concerned.

[D]

Yeah, but Axl can't release some bullshit album to get out of a record deal.

Here is my point.

Right now, Axl doesnt own Chinese Democracy.

That album is propery of the label. He cant leave Geffen and take that album with him. So, Geffen can choose to not release it if they want to. Remember Fiona Apple and how they basically shelved her album and didnt want to release it but a huge fan campaign all but forced them to do so?


My point is, IF Axl recorded 4 albums on their dime and we are saying IF, then geffen could say that those 4 albums belong to them since they paid for them. so if Axl has 1 album left to deliver and they feel 4 belong to them, u have a huge problem.

We have been told their are "Legal" issues right?

Think about what Legal constitutes.  I definitely believe a big part is digital rights but I dont really see that cause Id say they would just cut Axl the standard Digital rights deal.

It could possibly be something more than that and I think this theory would greatly explain why they would have CD turned in but still no release date.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

But I don't see why they wouldn't want to re-sign GnR to a new contract.

I think that Jarmo's point is that if Geffen pays for 1 record from GN'R, then the band shouldn't have to do anything. They can release their record and be on their merry way.
And with a rapidly shifting music industry, I think that's just what they want to do. Give them that album, then promote, release, distribute, etc., the other albums all by their onesy, savvy?

Sorry, been watching too much Pirates of the Carribean...

I completely understand why they would want to go the independent route, completely makes sense.  And we know that Axl has paid for some of the album out of his own pocket.  But my point is that if the label has funded songs that are intended to appear on future albums, and the band wants to part ways with UMG, then major issues would arise as to who owns the rights to the unreleased material

My thoughts are that the label has at least partially financed songs that are intended for future albums, and that *may* be causing issues because the band doesn't have enough records left on their contract to put all the music out.  So, say, UMG paid $13+ million in recording expenses, Axl paid some more out of his own pocket, and they ended up with 3 or 4 albums of material, with only one album left on the contract.  So who owns the rights to the songs that extend beyond CD?  Could part of the issue be that the label knows that Axl can walk away after CD is released, so they won't release the album until they extend the contract so they can get money out of the subsequent releases?  It's all speculation but it's certainly possible

[D]

Exactly Shotgun

Im not saying Axl isnt right cause after CD he should be free BUT, u know how record labels work and this could definitley be a big holdup.

[jarmo]

Right now, Axl doesnt own Chinese Democracy.

That album is propery of the label.

Really? Because IF GN'R owes Geffen one album it has to be Chinese Democracy?

I think what you mean is they are owed an album?

My point is, IF Axl recorded 4 albums on their dime and we are saying IF, then geffen could say that those 4 albums belong to them since they paid for them. so if Axl has 1 album left to deliver and they feel 4 belong to them, u have a huge problem.

Do you think they have receipts to prove they paid for X amount of albums?

Remember Use Your Illusion I and II?

I bet they paid an advance to get the follow-up for Appetite For Destruction and got 30 songs instead.

What if GN'R had just decided to release 15 of those songs. Do you think the record company would've asked for the rest?

How often do you hear about artists recording a bunch of songs but only about a dozen make the album?



It makes sense that there could be issues that need resolving before the album's release.

The whole industry has changed.






/jarmo

[GypsySoul]

Only GNR knows the extent and intentions of the material they have so they have the upper hand in any negotiations.

You can't seriously believe that GNR hadn't taken into consideration what is owed the label BEFORE they showed and/or turned over the album to them.

[D]

True, Axl owes them "AN" album but Axl is somewhat into a corner himself. How he can release a CD that isnt Chinese Democracy?

After all these years etc.

Thats why I said the Prince thing was a bad example. Prince at that time could afford to mail one in although that album is pretty damn good but Axl doesnt have the ability to mail one in because this album has been so hyped and is now so mythical that it has to be excellent.

Like i stated. Im not saying Axl isnt right but if he is right but the label feel THEY are right, we are going to have a damn long standstill.

[jarmo]

True, Axl owes them "AN" album but Axl is somewhat into a corner himself. How he can release a CD that isnt Chinese Democracy?

After all these years etc.

Thats why I said the Prince thing was a bad example. Prince at that time could afford to mail one in although that album is pretty damn good but Axl doesnt have the ability to mail one in because this album has been so hyped and is now so mythical that it has to be excellent.

Like i stated. Im not saying Axl isnt right but if he is right but the label feel THEY are right, we are going to have a damn long standstill.

So you admit to being wrong and then go on about why you're not wrong.....

If the label thinks they have paid for more than one album, they need to prove it.


You don't buy a painting from an artist and then say you also paid for another painting that you'll have to get later. Just because the artist happened to do a lot of paintings.





/jarmo

[Howard2k]

True, Axl owes them "AN" album but Axl is somewhat into a corner himself. How he can release a CD that isnt Chinese Democracy?

After all these years etc.

Thats why I said the Prince thing was a bad example. Prince at that time could afford to mail one in although that album is pretty damn good but Axl doesnt have the ability to mail one in because this album has been so hyped and is now so mythical that it has to be excellent.

Like i stated. Im not saying Axl isnt right but if he is right but the label feel THEY are right, we are going to have a damn long standstill.

So you admit to being wrong and then go on about why you're not wrong.....

If the label thinks they have paid for more than one album, they need to prove it.


You don't buy a painting from an artist and then say you also paid for another painting that you'll have to get later. Just because the artist happened to do a lot of paintings.





/jarmo

And in the world of writing, it's quite common for an author to be working on multiple manuscripts at once, and even "sandbag" their manuscripts for a rainy day when they have a dry patch and need to meet their contractual obligations.

Let's face it, that vast majority of us know NOTHING about what is in the contract, the focus of the negotiations, or even the state of the negotiations.  It's almost exclusively conjecture.   But hey, we're limited in what we're allowed to discuss.   Regardless, IF this is a standard set of contracts then it's very likely that Axl has the ability to turn in a CD of material that is satisfactory to the record company and then do what he likes.   It could be speculated that the record company is asking for all the known big guns on one CD so that they DON'T get stiffed with the future tracks being released outside of their control.

[Smoking Guns]

Its hard to play "hard ball" when you have virtually zero leverage.

[D]

I think I am being misunderstood.

Im saying both sides feel they are right.


I dont know what the contract says or if this is even an issue. we are just sort of speculating

I can see where both sides would be coming from if this were the case.

Does Geffens money buy them 1 album?
Or does it buy them Everything recorded with their money?

That is the argument.

I can see where Axl and Co. would be right with only owning them 1 album however I can also see why the record label would feel that they should have control over future albums recorded on their dime as well.

Its definitely a very complex situation which is why I am saying could be the reason for the big hold up. The label could shelve CD as a negotiating ploy to get Axl to re-up for more albums so any other music recorded during this time would also be released on Geffen.

If they never release CD, Axl can never fulfill the contract and be free.


see what Im gettin at?

[mrbucketfoot]

Who knows what the deal is, I'm just boggled over that fact.

Axl said they would announce a release date when they had one, which makes sense, and they obviously don't have one yet or atleast one announced publicly. So one wonders if there is a standstill or negotiations still going on, what's stopped GN'R from dropping in and telling us that? I

I'm not saying I'm owed that, but it seems like they would. I mean if the album doesn't come out this year, then will they not say anything about it until they get the release date?

I mean they were quite prompt with the scheduling conflict thing. But whatever.

Anyone care to comment?

[Atillla]

This proves what I said before....the new management (eventhough they are so called though..) do not have control over Axl and he still will follow his instinct....therefor the way of informing the public won't change.

Behind closed door, the industry stuff, that probably has gone into higher gear yes, but we will know when it is finished 

[jarmo]

Its hard to play "hard ball" when you have virtually zero leverage.

You're not talking about some one hit wonder here.....

Does Geffens money buy them 1 album?
Or does it buy them Everything recorded with their money?

It doesn't really make sense that they would be "owning" like four albums of original material if they are only entitled to get one.


If the contract was fulfilled with that one album, what are they gonna do with the rest of the songs?


If the contract was for like three albums and they could prove that they had paid in advance for all of them, then you might have a point in my opinion.





/jarmo

[Fingers]

they might own geffen 1 album, but I'm sure Axl didn't pay for studio time and salaries for players and producers from the mid 90's til now, which at this point has to be through the roof-I would have to believe they were footing the bill for that, as well as the 2002 & 2006 tour-I know they released greatest hits to foot some of this bill, but I'm sure Geffen has been told for years the album is almost done by people in the GNR camp

[Axl4Prez2004]

Let's say Axl plays hardball.  What can the record company do, sue him?  Would that be free publicity in a way?
I don't know.

If I was Axl I'd turn in 13 tracks of nursery rhymes to get out from under the contract, then move my ass to Fiji to just get the hell away.