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

[pilferk]

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

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

Why not? It has been in the past..and will be in the future.  There are hundreds of artists who sign record contracts who never, ever, actual release an album...not because they didn't create music. But because they either didn't create music the label believed would sell "enough" or because they couldn't remake the image of that artist to something the label thought was commercial "enough".  How many artists (who eventually make it) do you need to hear that same story from for it to be proof enough?

The label cares about one thing..and it ain't the band or the fans happiness or even the creative quality of the music.  It's about huge, enormous piles of cash and using it's resources to acquire them. It's about how much can you sell..not "how good is it".

Not itty bitty piles of cash.....they're not satisfied with those. Even if those smaller piles come from "critical successes".

Think of it this way:

The label has a finite number of albums on the contract.  They have already paid out the advance money..that's gone and off the books.  So waiting costs them nothing extra.

They want an album that THEY THINK will make a pile of cash.  To their logic, just releasing "anything" is a waste of their contract priviledge.  That would make THEM very unhappy.

Waiting costs them nothing.  And, while waiting, they are robbing the band of making money...while the label is still raking in dollars like mad based on the money OTHER artists are making them.  That, really, is why the game is rigged in the house's (labels) favor.  They can simply outwait you.  And, if they have to, they'll make their money off you posthumously.

Sure, if they did this to EVERY artist, and EVERY artist stood up to the label, it might hurt them.  But that never happens.

Not having the band do what the label wants them to makes the label slightly annoyed.  But hey hold the trump cards ($$).  

The artist gets to capitulate or (figuratively) starve.

The only entity in all of this who has any consideration for the fans...trust me...is the artist.  

But is making your fans happy worth either compromising your creative vision OR your principals?

[Limulus]

so that would make

label = happy regardless of what the artist does
band = unhappy
fans = unhappy

??

sorry, but this still is 1:2 loss!

[pilferk]

so that would make

label = happy regardless of what the artist does
band = unhappy
fans = unhappy

??

sorry, but this still is 1:2 loss!

You're missing the point.

The label doesn't care if the band and fans are happy or unhappy. They care whether they have product to sell that will make them piles of cash.  Everything else be damned.

And they hold the contracts. Period. End of story.

There is no ratio, here.  There is one controlling entity who's "happiness" (or, in this case, goal, really because souless, nameless, faceless corporations don't "feel", they just make money) is the only thing that matters to it.  They hold all the cards.  It's that simple.....

Now you're going to say something like: But if the fans are unhappy, they won't buy anything from the label, and the label will lose money.

To which I will respond: Except consumers are. generalyl, sheep, and...while theoretically that's true...it hasn't ever actually WORKED in the music market place.  They just don't care enough about the way labels do business (or how the labels continue to rob them of some basic consumer rights) to stand up to them.

If you'd like it to work...feel free to attempt to organize a "consumer revolt" against the labels.  I'd love to see it.  It's a long time coming...and the label system is pretty much what's wrong with the industry, today.

I want to reiterate: I'm not saying this IS what's happened with Axl/GnR and their label.  I don't know.  But, if you understand this stuff, you can certainly see clear as to how it COULD be happening to them.  Yes, over 14 years....labels are like elephants.  They live a LONG time and they never forget.

[jarmo]

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).

You're also assuming the compilation albums were part of the number of albums. Which isn't always the case.

As far as I know, usually the contracts are for studio albums and then the record company also gets to release compilations and/or live albums.


I mean, what kind of record company would sign an artist and be happy with live recordings?




/jarmo

[Limulus]

pilferk,
i can see the point of power in this possible scenario, sure. doesnt change the fact that bands and fans more than less remain unhappy.
life is a huge compromise in the end.
following Axl for some longer time, sorry, fans do not get the feeling he's eager to sing in studio, making decisions and to release -or even talk about- anything some more frequently. the ball does not seem to be in the label's guard only, ya know?

[LunsJail]

I think Jarmo might be right about the number of albums. Usually live albums and Greatest Hits don't count towards a contract fulfillment number. In fact, Green Day released 3 albums recently and I read in an interview that their label was counting that as one towards their contract.

[The Wight Gunner]

If there is a stand-off with the labels saying "what you've presented isn't good enough...." then why not slip in a new track or three into the tour and let the fans/media reaction work as a nudging influence into that the label might be wrong 

I'm trying to see things from Axl's POV, he may well stand behind what's he offer up thus far, but if the reason for the label is that it won't sell in the numbers they want, then surely the way he needs to move things forward is to do the live pre-CD 2 thing and start offering new music as a touring option. The  Gn'FR new music compedium, in which they play NOTHING but unreleased stuff, which might be a head-fuck to casual fans but this could be played out in a smaller budget way playing smallish venues without the production monster in tow also.

It could be done as a mystery act booking a theatre as Soul Monster at one venue, Atlas at another etc.  This would spike an interest in a pre-CD way and maybe get the label to think differently

[DeN]

so if I understand correctly, if the contract extension was really for 5 albums
and there's only one done (CD), Guns owe *FOUR* more LPs to the label...

so we can clearly say in that case that GNR will never be free.

[Spirit]

Axl mentioned in the TMS interview that they were in negotiations with the record company. It could have been for a renewed record-deal. Maybe Axl wants to cut the number of albums owed to the label before releasing the next one.

[jarmo]

Axl mentioned in the TMS interview that they were in negotiations with the record company. It could have been for a renewed record-deal. Maybe Axl wants to cut the number of albums owed to the label before releasing the next one.

Or he just doesn't wanna repeat what happened in 2008.





/jarmo

[Spirit]

Axl mentioned in the TMS interview that they were in negotiations with the record company. It could have been for a renewed record-deal. Maybe Axl wants to cut the number of albums owed to the label before releasing the next one.

Or he just doesn't wanna repeat what happened in 2008.





/jarmo

Sure, that too.


If that's the case, it would mean he was already thinking about marketing and promotion of the next release, and that's a good sign.

[pilferk]

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).

You're also assuming the compilation albums were part of the number of albums. Which isn't always the case.

As far as I know, usually the contracts are for studio albums and then the record company also gets to release compilations and/or live albums.

I didn't mean it was for 5 albums and here's what might have counted toward it.

I mean, what kind of record company would sign an artist and be happy with live recordings?




/jarmo

What I meant was, from memory, the contract specifically enumerated them that way.
1 live album, 1 greatest hits album, an 3 studio albums for a total of 5 albums.

[pilferk]

so if I understand correctly, if the contract extension was really for 5 albums
and there's only one done (CD), Guns owe *FOUR* more LPs to the label...

so we can clearly say in that case that GNR will never be free.

Again, from what I remember, it specifically called for one live album, 1 gh album, and three studio albums. Not a generic 5 albums.

This is one of the reasons the gh album was released without explicit approval from axl/gnr, and why they lost their court battle to stop its release. It was contractually mandated AND the label didn't remaster it or mess with the master recordings at all.

What I don't remember is if the extension was signed per or post si, or how an album of covers would be counted.

[pilferk]

pilferk,
i can see the point of power in this possible scenario, sure. doesnt change the fact that bands and fans more than less remain unhappy.
life is a huge compromise in the end.
following Axl for some longer time, sorry, fans do not get the feeling he's eager to sing in studio, making decisions and to release -or even talk about- anything some more frequently. the ball does not seem to be in the label's guard only, ya know?

Which sucks.

But, ultimately, the label is the gatekeeper.

And, while it sucks, the label could give two shits about the fans or band being happy.

So, while you and I can look at it and say it sucks...unfortunately, it doesn't change the way the label will handle it.

[pilferk]

If there is a stand-off with the labels saying "what you've presented isn't good enough...." then why not slip in a new track or three into the tour and let the fans/media reaction work as a nudging influence into that the label might be wrong 

I'm trying to see things from Axl's POV, he may well stand behind what's he offer up thus far, but if the reason for the label is that it won't sell in the numbers they want, then surely the way he needs to move things forward is to do the live pre-CD 2 thing and start offering new music as a touring option. The  Gn'FR new music compedium, in which they play NOTHING but unreleased stuff, which might be a head-fuck to casual fans but this could be played out in a smaller budget way playing smallish venues without the production monster in tow also.

It could be done as a mystery act booking a theatre as Soul Monster at one venue, Atlas at another etc.  This would spike an interest in a pre-CD way and maybe get the label to think differently

You have to be a little bit careful, as copyright and publication rights hinge, a lot, on actual release.  Or, at least, the clock starts at release.  You wanna be careful playing unreleased material that isn't at least slated for release...because it becomes harder to prove and establish your ownership of the material.

So when some garage band plays the general on its home ep release...and axl hasn't yet released cd2...the court battle over ownership gets a lot harder to deal with. Not impossible, but more difficult.

[One.In.A.Million]

Look, as much as the label messed up Chinese Democracy's release in 2008, you can't blame it all on them exclusively. At the end of the day, Axl could of booked talk shows, Axl could of did interviews in all the major music mags, Axl could of worked with music channels to promote it (VH1, MTV, etc) BUT he chose not to. Maybe it was all of the errors in the booklet, or Finck's departure, or even the fact that he was forced to release it... I don't think it justifies Axl doing completely nothing to promote the record, and leaving it to the likes of Ron, who travelled to Europe to do meet n' greets, and magazine stuff (everything he could basically). We all love Axl right, but you've gotta take a step back and look at what exactly happened around that time.

[pilferk]

Look, as much as the label messed up Chinese Democracy's release in 2008, you can't blame it all on them exclusively. At the end of the day, Axl could of booked talk shows, Axl could of did interviews in all the major music mags, Axl could of worked with music channels to promote it (VH1, MTV, etc) BUT he chose not to. Maybe it was all of the errors in the booklet, or Finck's departure, or even the fact that he was forced to release it... I don't think it justifies Axl doing completely nothing to promote the record, and leaving it to the likes of Ron, who travelled to Europe to do meet n' greets, and magazine stuff (everything he could basically). We all love Axl right, but you've gotta take a step back and look at what exactly happened around that time.

It's a good point.

But here's another.  We don't know exactly what happened at that time. We only know what didn't happen.  We don't know why, exactly.  I do know that they were having management problems (because we heard about them, and then saw a management change)....which seemed to coincide with the release issues.

[LunsJail]

Look, as much as the label messed up Chinese Democracy's release in 2008, you can't blame it all on them exclusively. At the end of the day, Axl could of booked talk shows, Axl could of did interviews in all the major music mags, Axl could of worked with music channels to promote it (VH1, MTV, etc) BUT he chose not to. Maybe it was all of the errors in the booklet, or Finck's departure, or even the fact that he was forced to release it... I don't think it justifies Axl doing completely nothing to promote the record, and leaving it to the likes of Ron, who travelled to Europe to do meet n' greets, and magazine stuff (everything he could basically). We all love Axl right, but you've gotta take a step back and look at what exactly happened around that time.

Self-sabotage? Don't promote the thing and blame poor sales on that.

[jarmo]

Poor sales? Come on.

You think appearing on talk shows still sells albums? Maybe for some, but a lot of artists do that and their albums still don't sell millions.

Do some of you even remember November 2008?

I went to Best Buy in West Hollywood and instead of seeing Chinese Democracy at the door, I saw a stand for the latest Will Smith DVD.... And this is the chain who has the exclusive deal on the album while every retailer that that DVD. Go figure.

The record company promoted it as the most anticipated album of all time. That was it. It was up on Myspace for everybody to listen to for free, those listens don't count as sales either. Millions of listens.




/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

Look, as much as the label messed up Chinese Democracy's release in 2008, you can't blame it all on them exclusively. At the end of the day, Axl could of booked talk shows, Axl could of did interviews in all the major music mags, Axl could of worked with music channels to promote it (VH1, MTV, etc) BUT he chose not to. Maybe it was all of the errors in the booklet, or Finck's departure, or even the fact that he was forced to release it... I don't think it justifies Axl doing completely nothing to promote the record, and leaving it to the likes of Ron, who travelled to Europe to do meet n' greets, and magazine stuff (everything he could basically). We all love Axl right, but you've gotta take a step back and look at what exactly happened around that time.

Self-sabotage? Don't promote the thing and blame poor sales on that.

That scenario might make sense if Axl was paid out of the record company advance and then would not get a share of record sales until total sales exceeded a certain threshold.  If that threshold was an unrealisticly high benchmark, then any promotion by Axl would be only to make money for the record company, so then why bother?