"Next Album" rumor / speculation thread *UPDATE AUG 22/2023*

[D-GenerationX]

To be clear, like I said....I'd BUY both if released seperately.

My satisfaction with my purchase would be a little different, though.

How could it not?  Is there any rational universe where they are equal?

If you are a person that says they'd still be interested in the remix album, OK, fine.  But to say you'd like a new album, but if its just a remix album, that's just as good...that makes no sense to me.

[damnthehaters]

But if I'm the record company, and I'm told they want to release a remix album now, followed by a new album behind it...I'm going to need both in hand, right now.

Axl burned them far too many times with missed deadlines.  They'd be fools not to insist on both, if Axl did indeed want that staggered plan.

Yes, this is what I've said.  I believe both need to be handed over and ready to go.  

[pilferk]

But your not going through the process twice.  It can be one process to put out a remix album followed up by a new album.  It doesn't have to be separate promotion, shipments, etc.  And I highly doubt the addition of a remix album would negatively affect the sales of a new album where the costs aren't being covered.  I actually think it would only help it. 

It just doesn't work that way in practice, in terms of costs and the process. Unless they are literally occurring at the exact same time.....and then...why not just package them together?

If you are "following up"...it's 2 separate processes.  Two orders to manufacture.  Two orders to distribute.  Two separate marketing campaigns and budgets.  

We can all want things to work differently, or try to apply our own logic or values to what the label does..but at the end of the day, it really only matters HOW they actually do it

It might not effect sales of the new material (or it might further push consumers away..depends on how it's received).  That's no the risk.  The risk is making the label THINK GnR is a higher risk investment, or that they might not be able to make "enough" money off their backs.  

It's all risk management calculations by that warehouse full of mbas.

[pilferk]

To be clear, like I said....I'd BUY both if released seperately.

My satisfaction with my purchase would be a little different, though.

How could it not?  Is there any rational universe where they are equal?

If you are a person that says they'd still be interested in the remix album, OK, fine.  But to say you'd like a new album, but if its just a remix album, that's just as good...that makes no sense to me.

I think jarmos scenario was a little different.

In scenario a) you buy the remix album for $10, and you get the new album, say, some acceptable quantifiable time (say, 6 months later) for $15 (or less).

In scenario b) you buy a deluxe version of the new album, with pack in remix album, for $25.

The two monetary expenditures are roughly the same number of dollars, and you ultimately end up with both products....

I'll freely admit that I would be a lot happier buying b) than a), even though there's really no "advantage" to doing it.

Thus, the fickle habits of the consumer.

[damnthehaters]

But your not going through the process twice.  It can be one process to put out a remix album followed up by a new album.  It doesn't have to be separate promotion, shipments, etc.  And I highly doubt the addition of a remix album would negatively affect the sales of a new album where the costs aren't being covered.  I actually think it would only help it. 

It just doesn't work that way in practice, in terms of costs and the process. Unless they are literally occurring at the exact same time.....and then...why not just package them together?

If you are "following up"...it's 2 separate processes.  Two orders to manufacture.  Two orders to distribute.  Two separate marketing campaigns and budgets.  

We can all want things to work differently, or try to apply our own logic or values to what the label does..but at the end of the day, it really only matters HOW they actually do it

It might not effect sales of the new material (or it might further push consumers away..depends on how it's received).  That's no the risk.  The risk is making the label THINK GnR is a higher risk investment, or that they might not be able to make "enough" money off their backs.  

It's all risk management calculations by that warehouse full of mbas.

I disagree with this.  You can do all the manufacturing at the same time.  You can distribute at the same time (or not, but its all the same distribution in the end).  And the same marketing campaign and budget can be used for both.  Once this is all done, the new album follows up the remix.  

If the record company has two albums and the plan is to release one shortly after the other.  One budget is used for this.  Just because one item is released in May and one item in July, doesn't mean you have a different budget.  It's all one plan

[pilferk]

But if I'm the record company, and I'm told they want to release a remix album now, followed by a new album behind it...I'm going to need both in hand, right now.

Axl burned them far too many times with missed deadlines.  They'd be fools not to insist on both, if Axl did indeed want that staggered plan.

Yes, this is what I've said.  I believe both need to be handed over and ready to go.  

But if they have both..I suspect the label is going to want to get that new music out ASAP....because I'd guess they'd view that as the better opportunity to make money.

Again, someone might be able to convince them that the remix album would move the needle on band recognition, and enlarge the market for new material....I can see someone trying to sell them that.  And then it would all come down to numbers (like...is this going to lead to 20% more sales for the new album? Vs the value of the release slot, the costs to get the remix on the shelf, etc, etc, etc).  It's a complex decision.

If you're of the mind they come out of that thinking the remix album makes "enough" difference that it's worthwhile....great.
I disagree.

Since we're both spitballing...we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

[D-GenerationX]

How can you distribute at the same time?

You would ship the new album at the same time and trust all retail outlets to just hold onto it until they give the green light?

[damnthehaters]

How can you distribute at the same time?

You would ship the new album at the same time and trust all retail outlets to just hold onto it until they give the green light?

I edited my post.  I'm not sure if you could distribute at the same time or not.  But I'm pretty sure that if you distribute 300k units in March and then 50k units in May, or 350k units all at once, its pretty much the same thing.  Nobody can convince me that's a make or break on the deal. 

[pilferk]

I disagree with this.  You can do all the manufacturing at the same time.  You can distribute at the same time (or not, but its all the same distribution in the end).  And the same marketing campaign and budget can be used for both.  Once this is all done, the new album follows up the l remix.  

If you are manufacturing and distributing at the same time....there is no "following up".  That means they are showing up at retail at the exact same time...ditto on the marketing (because part of your marketing is when stuff is on the shelf, and retail awareness stuff).

You're essentially saying you can use all the same stuff...but yet not. Because they'll actually show up at retail at different times.  It just doesn't work that way.  That's not opinion...it's just the way things work.

It's like saying you can film all 3 LOTRO movies at the same time, use the same marketing budget, distribution budget, etc..but they come out at the theaters a year apart.  That doesn't happen.  You might think it should....but it doesn't.

If the record company has two albums and the plan is to release one shortly after the other.  One budget is used for this.  Just because one item is released in May and one item in July, doesn't mean you have a different budget.  It's all one plan

Yeah, actually it does, and it's not. That's the way it works.

[pilferk]

How can you distribute at the same time?

You would ship the new album at the same time and trust all retail outlets to just hold onto it until they give the green light?

I edited my post.  I'm not sure if you could distribute at the same time or not.  But I'm pretty sure that if you distribute 300k units in March and then 50k units in May, or 350k units all at once, its pretty much the same thing.  Nobody can convince me that's a make or break on the deal. 

It's actually not the same thing.  There are initial costs in distribution you can't spread across product.  Same with manufacturing.

I hear your point....but it just doesn't work the way you think it should.

[damnthehaters]

I disagree with this.  You can do all the manufacturing at the same time.  You can distribute at the same time (or not, but its all the same distribution in the end).  And the same marketing campaign and budget can be used for both.  Once this is all done, the new album follows up the l remix.  

If you are manufacturing and distributing at the same time....there is no "following up".  That means they are showing up at retail at the exact same time...ditto on the marketing (because part of your marketing is when stuff is on the shelf, and retail awareness stuff).

You're essentially saying you can use all the same stuff...but yet not. Because they'll actually show up at retail at different times.  It just doesn't work that way.  That's not opinion...it's just the way things work.

It's like saying you can film all 3 LOTRO movies at the same time, use the same marketing budget, distribution budget, etc..but they come out at the theaters a year apart.  That doesn't happen.  You might think it should....but it doesn't.

If the record company has two albums and the plan is to release one shortly after the other.  One budget is used for this.  Just because one item is released in May and one item in July, doesn't mean you have a different budget.  It's all one plan

Yeah, actually it does, and it's not. That's the way it works.

Is this just in the music business?  Because I know for a fact in other professions, a budget can be used over time.  

[damnthehaters]

How can you distribute at the same time?

You would ship the new album at the same time and trust all retail outlets to just hold onto it until they give the green light?

I edited my post.  I'm not sure if you could distribute at the same time or not.  But I'm pretty sure that if you distribute 300k units in March and then 50k units in May, or 350k units all at once, its pretty much the same thing.  Nobody can convince me that's a make or break on the deal. 

It's actually not the same thing.  There are initial costs in distribution you can't spread across product.  Same with manufacturing.

I hear your point....but it just doesn't work the way you think it should.

"pretty much the same thing".  I highly doubt were talking millions of dollars here?  For one, in this day and age, less hard copies will even be sent because of ITunes.  People don't really buy CD's anymore.  Therefor, the physical CD costs should be very low in the whole process. 

Also, you think if Axl wanted it this way, wanted to release a remix album before the new album, that the record company would say no because IN THE END, the record company wont make enough money to cover costs.....(based on a remix album)??

I guess what your saying is that a remix album would be a complete dive and cost too much money.  I would have to disagree

[pilferk]

Is this just in the music business?  Because I know for a fact in other professions, a budget can be used over time.  

It's they way their capital budget processes work, and a lot of it is linked to contractual obligations, cost tracking, and royalties.  It's not unique to the music industry...but it's more common in the entertainment industry (movies, tv shows, books, and music) than it is anywhere else.

You're likely thinking of it as one capital project...like building a building.

This would be more like building 2 buildings, right next door to each other, but with construction dates starting about 6 months apart.

You can't order all your concrete for both projects at the same time...because your pour dates are going to be WAY apart, and the person acquiring materials for your process isn't going to a) want to hang on to those mats for 6 months after fronting the money and b) have any desire to give you a "deal" on delivery..since the costs are spread out so far apart.

Even 2 months...it's too much.  Maybe in sequential weeks? But then, again, you come to "why not just release at the same time or as one package".

[pilferk]

"pretty much the same thing".  I highly doubt were talking millions of dollars here?  For one, in this day and age, less hard copies will even be sent because of ITunes.  People don't really buy CD's anymore.  Therefor, the physical CD costs should be very low in the whole process. 

Also, you think if Axl wanted it this way, wanted to release a remix album before the new album, that the record company would say no because IN THE END, the record company wont make enough money to cover costs.....(based on a remix album)??

I guess what your saying is that a remix album would be a complete dive and cost too much money.  I would have to disagree

You're talking a decent sized % of total costs. 

And here's where the great evil genius of the label lies: They figure 25% of the sale of a unit goes toward the fixed costs we're talking about.....digital or physical media.  That's the calculation (approximately) they're going to use for their costs.

I absolutely think the label would tell Axl "no" if they thought the thing he wanted to do wouldn't cover costs.  You don't? Seriously?

What I'm saying is: I think the label would think it's risky.  Maybe riskier than they are interested in dealing with.

[damnthehaters]

"pretty much the same thing".  I highly doubt were talking millions of dollars here?  For one, in this day and age, less hard copies will even be sent because of ITunes.  People don't really buy CD's anymore.  Therefor, the physical CD costs should be very low in the whole process. 

Also, you think if Axl wanted it this way, wanted to release a remix album before the new album, that the record company would say no because IN THE END, the record company wont make enough money to cover costs.....(based on a remix album)??

I guess what your saying is that a remix album would be a complete dive and cost too much money.  I would have to disagree

You're talking a decent sized % of total costs. 

And here's where the great evil genius of the label lies: They figure 25% of the sale of a unit goes toward the fixed costs we're talking about.....digital or physical media.  That's the calculation (approximately) they're going to use for their costs.

I absolutely think the label would tell Axl "no" if they thought the thing he wanted to do wouldn't cover costs.  You don't? Seriously?

What I'm saying is: I think the label would think it's risky.  Maybe riskier than they are interested in dealing with.

No, I would certainly agree.  I think your right that they would say no IF they thought it wasn't going to cover cost.  However, my point was that I disagree with a remix album causing the record company to lose on the deal (not cover costs).  I'm one that believes it would help sales overall in the end.  Two releases over a span of time I believe would create a longer buzz and keep them in the spotlight for a longer period of time.  An announcement of multiple albums (regardless if one of them is a remix) would be great publicity.     

I believe the only thing a remix album coming out before a new album can do, is help the sales of the new album.  The people who are NOW interested in GNR aren't going to listen to the remix album and then not listen to the new album.  As Axl said, if you didn't like Chinese, your probably not gonna like the next album. 

[pilferk]

No, I would certainly agree.  I think your right that they would say no IF they thought it wasn't going to cover cost.  However, my point was that I disagree with a remix album causing the record company to lose on the deal (not cover costs).  I'm one that believes it would help sales overall in the end.  Two releases over a span of time I believe would create a longer buzz and keep them in the spotlight for a longer period of time.  An announcement of multiple albums (regardless if one of them is a remix) would be great publicity.     

I believe the only thing a remix album coming out before a new album can do, is help the sales of the new album.  The people who are NOW interested in GNR aren't going to listen to the remix album and then not listen to the new album.  As Axl said, if you didn't like Chinese, your probably not gonna like the next album. 

We're actually not that far apart.

My difference is....will the record company think it will help the sales of the new album ENOUGH to make it worthwhile?  That's where we depart.  I don't think GnRs reps can sell the label that it will help "enough" to make it worthwhile.  Maybe...we'll see!

[rebelhipi]

Im not into deluxe editions, especially in new releases,a deluxe edition of for example led zeppelin albums in 2014 is a little different.

I  prefer just sleep in my hotel and eat somewhere else than do both for the same price at the hotel.
Im that kind of a guy.

[pilferk]

Im not into deluxe editions, especially in new releases,a deluxe edition of for example led zeppelin albums in 2014 is a little different.

I  prefer just sleep in my hotel and eat somewhere else than do both for the same price at the hotel.
Im that kind of a guy.

Not into those all inclusive resorts, eh?

[jarmo]

You're all assuming the remix record, if released separately, would be available at regular retail stores (which are becoming less and less easy to find).

There's all kinds of ways they could release it on its own without going down that avenue. If the band and record company wanted to.

Digital only, digital and vinyl in an online exclusive. And so on.





/jarmo

[damnthehaters]

You're all assuming the remix record, if released separately, would be available at regular retail stores (which are becoming less and less easy to find).

There's all kinds of ways they could release it on its own without going down that avenue. If the band and record company wanted to.

Digital only, digital and vinyl in an online exclusive. And so on.





/jarmo

Exactly