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

[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.

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

Honestly, promotion and distribution are both responsibilities of the label.   The label is the one with the advertising budget, the resources, the contacts in the media and industry, and the marketing department that is pretty much geared for this kind of stuff. That's their part of the contract.  Now, the artist can be involved.  They can even take it upon themselves to "do more".

But....if the label isn't promoting it AT ALL....I'm not sure why the artist would kill themselves to go it alone.  The lions share of the money from music sales go right back to the label...even after they recoup their advance money (which comes out of the artists share first, anyway).

[Limulus]

so $$$ is not only one of the main reasons for Axl keeping the band name, but also mainly for not releasing anything? this is sick!

[kunzerd]

Are there any rumors in this rumor thread?

[jarmo]

so $$$ is not only one of the main reasons for Axl keeping the band name, but also mainly for not releasing anything? this is sick!

Assumptions based on what?



/jarmo

[Limulus]

name:
Axl's online chats 12/14/2008: "After the monies invested by old Geffen [...] dropping the name became suicide."

no releases:
assumptions based from this recent discussion in this thread

[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.

Honestly, promotion and distribution are both responsibilities of the label.   The label is the one with the advertising budget, the resources, the contacts in the media and industry, and the marketing department that is pretty much geared for this kind of stuff. That's their part of the contract.  Now, the artist can be involved.  They can even take it upon themselves to "do more".

But....if the label isn't promoting it AT ALL....I'm not sure why the artist would kill themselves to go it alone.  The lions share of the money from music sales go right back to the label...even after they recoup their advance money (which comes out of the artists share first, anyway).

But you could make the same argument in reverse. If the artist doesn't appear willing to participate in the promotion then how much can the label do or even be willing to do. I saw TV ads for CD during primetime back in November 2008. I don't know if Best Buy or the label or both financed that but how often do you see ads on TV for album releases?

Plus you might be thinking too old school about how much advertising and marketing labels even do anymore. In this day and age they basically finance the production of the album and then it's pretty much up to the artist and their team. Maybe there is some exception for the big pop acts but not much.

[snead hearn]

Are there any rumors in this rumor thread?

No more than there's any "rare" photos in the 'Post Your Really Rare Axl Photos' thread. Come to think of it, both threads are fairly equal in principle.

Every last photo equals every last thought. Quantity over quality.

A few photos are decent, like a good statement or thought on the 'next album'. Most others are marginal, like most of the thoughts on the 'next album'.

Most photos are rumors pre 2008 look interesting in hindsight.

But now? 

[jarmo]

name:
Axl's online chats 12/14/2008: "After the monies invested by old Geffen [...] dropping the name became suicide."

Take one sentence out of the whole thing and you can make a point. Still, it doesn't prove that it's the only or even a proper reason.


The full sentence, by the way is: After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide.


So in essence, decisions were made for him, he didn't agree with them but he had to deal with them anyway.

no releases:
assumptions based from this recent discussion in this thread

So just assumptions.




/jarmo

[Ali]

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.

Honestly, promotion and distribution are both responsibilities of the label.   The label is the one with the advertising budget, the resources, the contacts in the media and industry, and the marketing department that is pretty much geared for this kind of stuff. That's their part of the contract.  Now, the artist can be involved.  They can even take it upon themselves to "do more".

But....if the label isn't promoting it AT ALL....I'm not sure why the artist would kill themselves to go it alone.  The lions share of the money from music sales go right back to the label...even after they recoup their advance money (which comes out of the artists share first, anyway).

But you could make the same argument in reverse. If the artist doesn't appear willing to participate in the promotion then how much can the label do or even be willing to do. I saw TV ads for CD during primetime back in November 2008. I don't know if Best Buy or the label or both financed that but how often do you see ads on TV for album releases?

Plus you might be thinking too old school about how much advertising and marketing labels even do anymore. In this day and age they basically finance the production of the album and then it's pretty much up to the artist and their team. Maybe there is some exception for the big pop acts but not much.

I'm not sure that is exactly true.  I've seen plenty of online banner ads for Black Sabbath's 13.  I still see print ads in RS and Revolver magazine, too.  Furthermore, it doesn't make any sense for the labels to leave it up to the artist and their team to do marketing and promotion for the reasons pilferk listed, most prominently:  1)  The labels are the ones that stand to benefit the most from sales of an album, not the artists.  2)  The labels will have much more marketing reach and ability than an individual artist.

Really, other than being fronted the money to record an album (which you'll have to pay back) and the marketing ability and reach, what advantage would their be to signing with a label?

Ali

[LunsJail]

Really, other than being fronted the money to record an album (which you'll have to pay back) and the marketing ability and reach, what advantage would their be to signing with a label?

Ali

I'm not sure there is any advantage anymore (especially if you have an established fan base) which was part of my point. But Guns is involved in a label relationship that goes back 20+ years when big labels were necessary.

[Ali]

Really, other than being fronted the money to record an album (which you'll have to pay back) and the marketing ability and reach, what advantage would their be to signing with a label?

Ali

I'm not sure there is any advantage anymore (especially if you have an established fan base) which was part of my point. But Guns is involved in a label relationship that goes back 20+ years when big labels were necessary.

I think the only thing that a label has that an individual artist and his or her team may not have is the wealth of marketing experience and contacts within the media and radio industries.  Whether or not that outweighs the costs is a more difficult question to answer.

But, nonetheless, that marketing experience and ability is one of the things that a label can offer that can be beneficial to an artist.  Given that and the fact that the label's bottom line depends on album sales, it behooves any label to actively participate in the promotion of a record by one of their artists.

Ali

[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.

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

Honestly, promotion and distribution are both responsibilities of the label.   The label is the one with the advertising budget, the resources, the contacts in the media and industry, and the marketing department that is pretty much geared for this kind of stuff. That's their part of the contract.  Now, the artist can be involved.  They can even take it upon themselves to "do more".

But....if the label isn't promoting it AT ALL....I'm not sure why the artist would kill themselves to go it alone.  The lions share of the money from music sales go right back to the label...even after they recoup their advance money (which comes out of the artists share first, anyway).

But you could make the same argument in reverse. If the artist doesn't appear willing to participate in the promotion then how much can the label do or even be willing to do. I saw TV ads for CD during primetime back in November 2008. I don't know if Best Buy or the label or both financed that but how often do you see ads on TV for album releases?

Plus you might be thinking too old school about how much advertising and marketing labels even do anymore. In this day and age they basically finance the production of the album and then it's pretty much up to the artist and their team. Maybe there is some exception for the big pop acts but not much.

No, you can't. Because promotion and distribution are specifically, in the recording contract, the responsibility of the label.

Not the artists. And the label can do a lot of promotion....print, radio, store flyers, shelf placement/ standees,etc...without the direct participation of the artist. Stuff that is widely effective.

The same really can't be said of the artist. They just don't have the ability to fund or get that kind of exposure. What he artist can do is much more narrow in its area of effect. Interviews, appearances, social media posts, etc. those are hit and run type promos...there and then gone...that are really focused on existing fans/ interest. Not the mass market.

I'm not thinking old school. Promotion has changed, but it still really is thel preview if the label. Yes, TODAY, things are a bit different with the massive move to social media.  But not nearly as much as you might think.

[pilferk]

Really, other than being fronted the money to record an album (which you'll have to pay back) and the marketing ability and reach, what advantage would their be to signing with a label?

Ali

I'm not sure there is any advantage anymore (especially if you have an established fan base) which was part of my point. But Guns is involved in a label relationship that goes back 20+ years when big labels were necessary.

They still are.

Try to get radio play, exposure, or shelf space/ iTunes placement without a big label.

You basically can't.

[HBK]

so $$$ is not only one of the main reasons for Axl keeping the band name, but also mainly for not releasing anything? this is sick!

You Work Free ?

[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.

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

Honestly, promotion and distribution are both responsibilities of the label.   The label is the one with the advertising budget, the resources, the contacts in the media and industry, and the marketing department that is pretty much geared for this kind of stuff. That's their part of the contract.  Now, the artist can be involved.  They can even take it upon themselves to "do more".

But....if the label isn't promoting it AT ALL....I'm not sure why the artist would kill themselves to go it alone.  The lions share of the money from music sales go right back to the label...even after they recoup their advance money (which comes out of the artists share first, anyway).

But you could make the same argument in reverse. If the artist doesn't appear willing to participate in the promotion then how much can the label do or even be willing to do. I saw TV ads for CD during primetime back in November 2008. I don't know if Best Buy or the label or both financed that but how often do you see ads on TV for album releases?

Plus you might be thinking too old school about how much advertising and marketing labels even do anymore. In this day and age they basically finance the production of the album and then it's pretty much up to the artist and their team. Maybe there is some exception for the big pop acts but not much.

No, you can't. Because promotion and distribution are specifically, in the recording contract, the responsibility of the label.

Not the artists. And the label can do a lot of promotion....print, radio, store flyers, shelf placement/ standees,etc...without the direct participation of the artist. Stuff that is widely effective.

The same really can't be said of the artist. They just don't have the ability to fund or get that kind of exposure. What he artist can do is much more narrow in its area of effect. Interviews, appearances, social media posts, etc. those are hit and run type promos...there and then gone...that are really focused on existing fans/ interest. Not the mass market.

I'm not thinking old school. Promotion has changed, but it still really is thel preview if the label. Yes, TODAY, things are a bit different with the massive move to social media.  But not nearly as much as you might think.

That's fair enough, but it's a sad thing if Axl didn't think it was worth it to ring around a few talk show shows, magazines, radio stations, channels, to try to get something going to promote a CD. Especially considering the length and effort it took to getting it to a point of potential release. He did more interviews to promote the various tours than he did for THE album of a lifetime... Seems strange to me to be honest.

[pilferk]

That's fair enough, but it's a sad thing if Axl didn't think it was worth it to ring around a few talk show shows, magazines, radio stations, channels, to try to get something going to promote a CD. Especially considering the length and effort it took to getting it to a point of potential release. He did more interviews to promote the various tours than he did for THE album of a lifetime... Seems strange to me to be honest.

Again, we don't know WHY he didn't do those things.  Only that they didn't happen.

We know that, typically, those things are coordinated by/with (sometimes initiated by the label) the artists management.

We know that, at the time, there were issues between the artist and management.

Maybe it was Axl not being interested.  Maybe it was the fact there was no real, reliable, point of contact or organization going on, on the management side, to get those things to happen.  Maybe it was something else, entirely.

We just don't know.

It seems strange to me, too.....which makes you think that maybe we don't really have the full story.

[The Wight Gunner]

 Given that its common knowledge for bands to make more money from touring than anything else, I for one know why more effort was put into touring  Do the MATHS(and  not math  )

[One.In.A.Million]

Given that its common knowledge for bands to make more money from touring than anything else, I for one know why more effort was put into touring  Do the MATHS(and  not math  )

I agree that touring is where money is made, but I still feel that Axl would of wanted to do all he could to expose his 17 years in the making masterpiece. It's easy to forget, but this was THE album, the mythical Chinese Democracy. And if we all knew how much promotion Axl would do for it lets say in 2006, I think we'd be shocked as hell. I honestly think that Axl probably lost a lot of the fire he had for the album, and became just happy it was out there finally. Maybe that was all of the trouble with managers, and record companies etc, but in 2008 it honestly seemed like to me Axl didn't give a crap about sales once it was actually released... IF not, you have to feel he would of done more, much more.

[Buddha_Master]

I think looking at this logically the material just isn't there. Or the drive to produce isn't there. There has to be a reason other "artists" deliver and Axl doesn't. Contracts? If there was contractual reasons holding things back we would hear about it. How many other musicians went way public about how fucked up the suits were being to them and their fans for making it hard for their music to be put out there. Even someone like Howard Stern made it fucking known when he had beef and made sure everyone knew how fucking lame his employers were.

But, Axl is quiet about it? Yea let's just keep playing the hits! Look let's be honest here.

Axl doesn't look hungry. He isn't actively training looking to fuck shit up. In '06 he actually looked like he had fire in his belly. He isn't performing to the best of his ability when he has let himself go soft. And now there is a complacent attitude regarding new music.

He obviously is still getting pussy and doing shows is paying the bills. And that's that. Otherwise his inner rebel would be fucking screaming and dictate otherwise. But its gone quiet. A complacent Axl Rose. Never thought I'd live to see that.

[Ali]

I think looking at this logically the material just isn't there. Or the drive to produce isn't there. There has to be a reason other "artists" deliver and Axl doesn't. Contracts? If there was contractual reasons holding things back we would hear about it. How many other musicians went way public about how fucked up the suits were being to them and their fans for making it hard for their music to be put out there. Even someone like Howard Stern made it fucking known when he had beef and made sure everyone knew how fucking lame his employers were.

But, Axl is quiet about it? Yea let's just keep playing the hits! Look let's be honest here.

Axl doesn't look hungry. He isn't actively training looking to fuck shit up. In '06 he actually looked like he had fire in his belly. He isn't performing to the best of his ability when he has let himself go soft. And now there is a complacent attitude regarding new music.

He obviously is still getting pussy and doing shows is paying the bills. And that's that. Otherwise his inner rebel would be fucking screaming and dictate otherwise. But its gone quiet. A complacent Axl Rose. Never thought I'd live to see that.

We would hear about it?  Really?  How much did we hear from Axl during the run-up to the release of CD?  Not much at all.  It's clear that GN'R business is not made public frequently, if at all.  I don't know why you assume we'd hear about it.  I think history says otherwise.

Sometimes in the desperation to find answers, the answer the most easily fits the narrative you want to believe in or subscribe to, is the one that is believed irrespective of anything else. 

There is no logical reason to believe that the material isn't there.  We know other material has been recorded.  As far as the drive to produce, writing new music and releasing it through a corporate entity like a record company are not one and the same.

Ali