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

[jarmo]

I have a hard time believing that the record label would be the catalyst behind this plunge.

Jesus. Nobody said anything like that.

You're the naive one saying the good folks at the record company can't have anything to do with anything. They're just happy to release albums!

I don't doubt that in Axl's mind, the label is holding him back.

So let's say you finish an album and want to release it. Then eventually when it comes out you realize that the record company didn't show a whole lot of interest in the project. Now, the next time you're about to release an album, would you maybe be a bit hesitant about repeating the same pattern again?


That's pretty much what this is about. You fail to realize that judging by past experiences between the record company and artist, there might be some hesitation there. You solely blame the artist. Which is the natural way for some fans. While some of us do believe that we don't know the full picture here and therefore it's ignorant to be pointing fingers.

If the record company refuses to release your material, wouldn't you have some recourse to get out of the contract?

Nobody said that for a fact.

It was just brought up as a possible issue. It was an issue in 2008, maybe it's an issue in 2013. We don't know.

Some just fail to see these and blurt out "other bands release albums!".

There's no money making in sellin 1 album in 20 years (and there's no money making selling it at 1,99$ ...).

Says who? That's just hysterical.

Maybe there's more money in that, compared to releasing albums every other year... Or can you prove your point to be right?

Do you even realize why somebody would put an album on sale? Especially a store that's not a record store and doesn't stock a lot of titles....

The fact is that the label give a lot of money to axl in order to make an album thinkin' that the gnr moniker could still sell a lot.

It sold millions world wide.

It's not the 1990s anymore....

f.e. i bet the moderator of this forum liked that, too, back in 2005/2006, and still does.

[...]

They do more for their hardcore fans these days than you'd like to admit. 

[...]

make a serious list please!

Bigger online presence, fan club, smaller shows for hardcore fans, streaming shows on the Internet. A few examples of things that didn't happen a few years ago.




/jarmo

[DeN]

the first question is how many more LPs Guns owe to the label.
there's no communication from the band about that, too bad.

if it's one, maybe it's easy to do a live LP of the current band to be
free of the contract. if it's two, maybe a live and a new greatest hits
(easier to make a better one), then autoproduce the new LP and release
it through the label with a licence contract (like Daft Punk do, keeping
the rights of the songs).

of course if in the contract it's precised that the LPs must be new studio
material...it's a bit more complicated.

[jarmo]

of course if in the contract it's precised that the LPs must be new studio
material...it's a bit more complicated.

I think that's the normal contract. Studio albums and compilations on top of that.

That's why you see some bands release greatest hits, compilations and/or live albums just before the go independent.




/jarmo

[Gavgnr]

I guess we could be looking at seeing one of two possibilities (?)

1) Deluxe edition of Chinese with approved artwork, and (hopefully) extra bonus tracks, possibly incorporating a DVD?
2) Release of Chinese part 2 (whatever that may be called) with 10-14 brand new tracks.

I would be very excited to see either. The 10 million dollar question is when we might see this!

NB - My two options could be, and most probably are(!), completely off the mark. Has the digital option been ruled out?

[raindogs70]

Does Axl want to put new music out?

[hunter80]

I think all the speculation on a new album is enough to make a person exhausted. I love GNR but really don't see an album coming anytime soon and I am ok with that. I would love to have something new or even a live cd from the Vegas shows to complement the Vegas dvd. I would love to hear a new song or two on the next concerts and have the same feeling of eagerness I did over new material like in 01, 02 and 06. If it happens it happens... if not.... the live shows are KILLER and the band is doing a ton of things for fans these days.

[DeN]

I think that's the normal contract. Studio albums and compilations on top of that.

That's why you see some bands release greatest hits, compilations and/or live albums just before the go independent.

/jarmo

If it's the case, it's not so difficult to do the same for Guns.

they could do a double live LP "Live Era: '01-'13" and/or a Greatest Hits II before going inde and release the new LP...

[jarmo]

What I meant was, a lot of bands who only owe their record company a compilation album to fulfill their contract, release that and then go independent.

Nowhere did I imply GN'R only owes a compilation album to fulfill their contract, because I have no idea.



/jarmo

[Gavgnr]

I remain optimistic about new music after Axl's comment to a fan earlier this year after a show.

I think the fan said something like "I love silkworms!", to which Axl replied along the lines of "yeah, we're hoping to put tht out later this year"

[DeN]

What I meant was, a lot of bands who only owe their record company a compilation album to fulfill their contract, release that and then go independent.

Nowhere did I imply GN'R only owes a compilation album to fulfill their contract, because I have no idea.



/jarmo

OK I thought you implied it's a "basic" contract with no specifications about the type of music they must deliver (live, studio, compilation).

[GnR-NOW]

This is just a thought I had but when recording for CD. Assuming GNR had about 30 songs wouldn't they technically be owned by the record company? Therefore that could be a major block for releasing new music

[BOILER GUNZ]

http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/05/hear-axl-rose-sing-in-his-pre-guns-n-roses-band-rapidfire/

I'd like to hear and see the rest of it.

[ecwfan]

http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/05/hear-axl-rose-sing-in-his-pre-guns-n-roses-band-rapidfire/

I'd like to hear and see the rest of it.

                   Me too...it seems weird to not have Axl do his trademark vocals. Maybe he was still trying to find that and would hit on it with Hollywood Rose.

[pilferk]

Ali, then there needs to be steps taken to negotiate an end to the relationship....broker a deal that works best for both parties. If neither party is happy with the other, then why carry on the relationship?    As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

Keep in mind, there is some spitballing in the below post, based not on GnR's specific situation, but on some A&R knowledge.

The answer (as it usually is) is money.

The label wants to recoup it's investment, and turn a healthy (read: obscene) profit.  They think that a very specific type of material (or very specific members of the band, maybe) are giong to yield that.  They're going to push for that, hard, until the band gives in...because NOT giving in means the band doesn't make money, either.  And the label has the resources, usually, to hold out much longer than the band does.

The band wants to release material they're happy with and that they feel reflects their creative work product well...but, honestly, they NEED to make money to pay the bills.

So, the A&R guys basically withhold the ability for them to release music until they capitulate.  Because the contract the band signed usually expressly prohibits them from releasing material by any other method (self publish, using another label...whatever).  The band is stuck: Release what the label wants, with the membership the label wants...or be poor.

Now, this works well with many acts because a) they're not established enough to make money through other methods (touring, etc), especially without new music behind them and b) they don't have another constant source of income off material that sells well across the ages.

With GnR...that's a little different.  And you have a frontman who, like them or not, seems to stick to his principles.  He also has a steady source of income, seems to have not pissed away every dime he's ever made, and isn't easily intimidated.

So, you have a record label who is used to getting their way, a contract that (reportedly) wasn't all that specific on delivery dates of material, and a band that really, honestly, does not need the labels support to be successful at this point.

In short, neither side really has leverage over the other, and neither side really has incentive to "move".  There's no actual reason for either side to negotiate.

The label is content to sit there and wait (after making unreasonable demands).

The band is content to sit there and wait, and ignore the labels unreasonable demands.

I know, as fans, we want new material.   And the band probably would like to get some out there..but not at the expense of caving to the labels demands.  Honestly, I'm not sure WE would actually WANT the music the label would demand....

[pilferk]

In no scenario does it make sense for a record label to keep one of it's artist from releasing new material.

Actually, there are MANY scenarios that would do just that.  And the labels think they make a ton of sense.

It's why you continue to see "new" material from The Beatles, Jimmy Hendrix, The Notorious B.I.G, etc.

Studios sit on material all the time, for a variety of reasons (with, really, one main goal: making money).

Many, many, many artists (Green Day, Fiona Apple, Amy Winehouse,etc, etc, etc) have recorded entire albums that studios squashed and threw in the vaults...telling those artists to go back to the drawing board...because the material didn't meet some A&R execs definition of "commercial" or "sellable".  Translation: It might not make us piles and piles and piles of cash....go back to the wheel, and keep pushing until you can do that.

Guess how often those A&R execs turn out to be wrong?  The answer is: pretty often.

[pilferk]

If the record company refuses to release your material, wouldn't you have some recourse to get out of the contract?

Nope, not really.

You could try to negotiate with them, to let you walk with the material to another label.  But you'd need to offer a pile of cash OR something of value (like, you know, the master recordings of AFD and UYI...but Axl doesn't own those, alone).

But nothing says they have to take any deal you offer.

[pilferk]

the first question is how many more LPs Guns owe to the label.
there's no communication from the band about that, too bad.

if it's one, maybe it's easy to do a live LP of the current band to be
free of the contract. if it's two, maybe a live and a new greatest hits
(easier to make a better one), then autoproduce the new LP and release
it through the label with a licence contract (like Daft Punk do, keeping
the rights of the songs).

of course if in the contract it's precised that the LPs must be new studio
material...it's a bit more complicated.

I THINK I remember that the contract extension was for 5 albums:
1 GH (done)
1 Live Album (done)
3 Studio Albums (I think CD being the only one so far/...though maybe Spaghetti was part of that contract, too).

But the extension was done SO long ago (early 90's), I'm going from memories almost 20 years old.

It's also possible that a new rewrite, or extension, has been done (or multiple rewrites/extensions) that just haven't made the news or been made public making the above info completely out of date (if my memory is even right in the first place).

[Limulus]

but the consequence cant be not to release anything, right?

label = not happy
band = not happy
fans = not happy

[One.In.A.Million]

I think it's obvious that Guns are still tied to some kind of contract with the label. Maybe they have 1 album left on the existing contract, and maybe the holdup is Axl not looking forward to going through "that" process again because he knows it did CD no good. Maybe he's trying to make Geffen so annoyed that they release Guns, so that they can create their own destiny. But in reality a label is not going to let a band of Guns N' Roses calibre out of any contract, especially if it involves new albums and money etc... Just hope it doesn't drag on for too long, IF that is indeed the holdup.

[DeN]

interesting, thank you Pilferk.

Am I the only one to think there's a possibility that the Brain's remix LP
was some kind of attempt to reduce the number of studio albums they owe?