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

[TheBaconman]

But if they only see money and it is already done, wouldn't that mean they would want to make some cash by releasing it as opposed to give it away for free with the next album (reconsidering my stance, I do admit that it may be a risk putting money into producing special packaging and all that)? I don't understand the possible contention with the label aspect, could you go into that some?

You still have to pay to press it, ship it, promote it.  Those are costs they have to put out on spec, in the hopes a profit is turned.

A standalone remix album is no sure thing. 

Are we really talking about pressing and shipping costs?    What is this amount?  I would say that its so low of a cost, that if they couldn't recoup it, it would be a easy write off for the label.

First off..lits more than youd think, in terms if share of each disc. Its not "low", for sure.

And now your suggesting a label, entities so obsessed with money they are legendary for it ( and thats saying sonething in the entertainment industry), releae ANYTHING where there is even a decent sized chance theyll have to write down costs associated with it.

Yeah, thats not really realistic. It would be great, as fans, if it was, but.....no.

Its gotta have a really good chance of covering the costs the label decides, in their infinite wisdom (note sarcasm), to attribute to it. Or it isnt coming out. And those cost are likely going to be a big number, bigger than youd think completely reasonable, cause thats the way they operate...unless there is a contractual obligation with costs written in, soe ificall, slready.

Labels dont always get it right...but when they dont, its usually the talent who gets screwed. Remember that before you suggest write downs...

So now you are saying Axl/GNR will get screwed if a remix album comes out?

If the album doesn't sell you think some how the label will be angry at the band??

I don't think so!  If for what ever reason it doesn't sell, no big deal for the label...   Move on..

You are right I do not think it costs much to press/ship a album...   Its a cheap piece of plastic, that could be shipped on a truck already headed to the store....  The online sites claim that a record label charges 25 perfect return for packaging...   I think that is a gross over charge.  Thing is they also charge this 25 percent for digital downloads, in most cases...  Where there is zero packaging or shipping

Labels dont move on. That might be how you want them to operate. It might be how any compassionate entity would operate. They dont. Theres too much history to pull from to look and think the label would say " hey....you know what...fugittaboutit.

And...i wouldnt say theyd be angry. They dont get angry. Id say theyd reassess their prorities and reconsider the return on investment calculations theyve done in relation to gnr., thus effecting their decisionmaking telated to that piece of meat...errr..talent. You're making it an emotional reaction. Its not. It the furthest thing from. Its a cold, calculated, unfeeling, and quite frankly borderline evil and usary calculation.

Again...what you and i think is reasonable doesnt much matter. I agree...the 25% is nuts. But its what they charge, its what they hold the artist and product accountable for And its what theyd write down. Thats all that matters because that write down effects the shareholders, and the shareholders hold the ceos nuts in a vice, and the ceo isnt gonna let sone measly "artist" effect his bonus ( oh, and sharehokder dividend).

By the by...those costs have to be completely covered, usually, BEFORE the artists share is payed out AND, because of that, before whatever portion of the artist advance ascribed to the product starts getting paid back. See how thst works? Ugly, eh?

I know...pulling back the curtain a little sucks. But thats it, in a nutshell.

That is on the most basic record deal...

From all reports Axl was able to negotiate a much more favorable deal for himself way back when..   Old band days...  So I would question exactly how much is held back, etc....

[D-GenerationX]

It became cool to hate Axl in the states, when fans should of been loyal

Not a huge fan of this argument.  Always comes off like Axl fan spin and deflection of blame.

If people were so down on him around here, why did the leaks in 2006 wind up as popular requests on radio?  Why did they actually chart?  Why did outlets like 'Rolling Stone' go as far as to review them, and say they sounded good and "put it out, because its already better than Velvet Revolver".

Are these things that happen with your average rock band?  Furthermore, does it happen with someone that people are supposedly programmed to hate?

[pilferk]

But if they only see money and it is already done, wouldn't that mean they would want to make some cash by releasing it as opposed to give it away for free with the next album (reconsidering my stance, I do admit that it may be a risk putting money into producing special packaging and all that)? I don't understand the possible contention with the label aspect, could you go into that some?

You still have to pay to press it, ship it, promote it.  Those are costs they have to put out on spec, in the hopes a profit is turned.

A standalone remix album is no sure thing. 

Are we really talking about pressing and shipping costs?    What is this amount?  I would say that its so low of a cost, that if they couldn't recoup it, it would be a easy write off for the label.

First off..lits more than youd think, in terms if share of each disc. Its not "low", for sure.

And now your suggesting a label, entities so obsessed with money they are legendary for it ( and thats saying sonething in the entertainment industry), releae ANYTHING where there is even a decent sized chance theyll have to write down costs associated with it.

Yeah, thats not really realistic. It would be great, as fans, if it was, but.....no.

Its gotta have a really good chance of covering the costs the label decides, in their infinite wisdom (note sarcasm), to attribute to it. Or it isnt coming out. And those cost are likely going to be a big number, bigger than youd think completely reasonable, cause thats the way they operate...unless there is a contractual obligation with costs written in, soe ificall, slready.

Labels dont always get it right...but when they dont, its usually the talent who gets screwed. Remember that before you suggest write downs...

So now you are saying Axl/GNR will get screwed if a remix album comes out?

If the album doesn't sell you think some how the label will be angry at the band??

I don't think so!  If for what ever reason it doesn't sell, no big deal for the label...   Move on..

You are right I do not think it costs much to press/ship a album...   Its a cheap piece of plastic, that could be shipped on a truck already headed to the store....  The online sites claim that a record label charges 25 perfect return for packaging...   I think that is a gross over charge.  Thing is they also charge this 25 percent for digital downloads, in most cases...  Where there is zero packaging or shipping

Labels dont move on. That might be how you want them to operate. It might be how any compassionate entity would operate. They dont. Theres too much history to pull from to look and think the label would say " hey....you know what...fugittaboutit.

And...i wouldnt say theyd be angry. They dont get angry. Id say theyd reassess their prorities and reconsider the return on investment calculations theyve done in relation to gnr., thus effecting their decisionmaking telated to that piece of meat...errr..talent. You're making it an emotional reaction. Its not. It the furthest thing from. Its a cold, calculated, unfeeling, and quite frankly borderline evil and usary calculation.

Again...what you and i think is reasonable doesnt much matter. I agree...the 25% is nuts. But its what they charge, its what they hold the artist and product accountable for And its what theyd write down. Thats all that matters because that write down effects the shareholders, and the shareholders hold the ceos nuts in a vice, and the ceo isnt gonna let sone measly "artist" effect his bonus ( oh, and sharehokder dividend).

By the by...those costs have to be completely covered, usually, BEFORE the artists share is payed out AND, because of that, before whatever portion of the artist advance ascribed to the product starts getting paid back. See how thst works? Ugly, eh?

I know...pulling back the curtain a little sucks. But thats it, in a nutshell.

That is on the most basic record deal...

From all reports Axl was able to negotiate a much more favorable deal for himself way back when..   Old band days...  So I would question exactly how much is held back, etc....

They are pretty industry standard numbers, and the only thing we have to go by. Axls sweet deal might have been in terms of milestones, advance, or other stuff. Those costs arent usually negotiated...but maybe.

Still, in abscence of real info....

And even if he did manage to negotiate down...youd prolly be talking 20%...not 10%.

G'night!

[TheBaconman]

It became cool to hate Axl in the states, when fans should of been loyal

Not a huge fan of this argument.  Always comes off like Axl fan spin and deflection of blame.

If people were so down on him around here, why did the leaks in 2006 wind up as popular requests on radio?  Why did they actually chart?  Why did outlets like 'Rolling Stone' go as far as to review them, and say they sounded good and "put it out, because its already better than Velvet Revolver".

Are these things that happen with your average rock band?  Furthermore, does it happen with someone that people are supposedly programmed to hate?

Its easy to say you support an Artist, but when push comes to shove money talks...   American culture can say they liked the leaks all they wanted too, requested songs, had media attention.  Didn't cost anyone anything to do this.   But when time came to poney up and start paying to support the band, the public stayed at home behind there computers.   Other countries, got out from behind there computers and showed there support

[D-GenerationX]

Its easy to say you support an Artist, but when push comes to shove money talks...   American culture can say they liked the leaks all they wanted too, requested songs, had media attention.  Didn't cost anyone anything to do this.   But when time came to poney up and start paying to support the band, the public stayed at home behind there computers.   Other countries, got out from behind there computers and showed there support

Well, they did buy tickets to see the band when they toured the country...3 years later.

- no shows in 2008
- no shows in 2009
- one show in 2010 at the motorcycle thing in Sturgis

The domestic tour to support the album starts on Halloween in 2011.  A mere 35 months after the album comes out.

AC/DC just dropped a new album.  Do you think the US tour starts in October 2017?

[TheBaconman]

Well that was fun!!  

Time to leave my house and hit the bars up now..

Different topic tomorrow...

[TheBaconman]

Its easy to say you support an Artist, but when push comes to shove money talks...   American culture can say they liked the leaks all they wanted too, requested songs, had media attention.  Didn't cost anyone anything to do this.   But when time came to poney up and start paying to support the band, the public stayed at home behind there computers.   Other countries, got out from behind there computers and showed there support

Well, they did buy tickets to see the band when they toured the country...3 years later.

- no shows in 2008
- no shows in 2009
- one show in 2010 at the motorcycle thing in Sturgis

The domestic tour to support the album starts on Halloween in 2011.  A mere 35 months after the album comes out.

AC/DC just dropped a new album.  Do you think the US tour starts in October 2017?

One last one before I leave

The new ac/dc album stinks..  I got it the other day..

I have seen them live 3 times..  They are not very good live..  All three times have been in the last 10 years.

They don't even have there original singer..  Now, will probably tour without there original rhythm guitar player/song writer and possibly there drummer/meth head

All the above is true and YET.   The American public will support ac/dc way more than gun n roses.   A band that is at least from the united states.  Makes no sense.   Other than the fact that it is cool to hate on Axl in the states

[D-GenerationX]

Well that was fun!!  

Time to leave my house and hit the bars up now..

Different topic tomorrow...

Until the next time, my friend. 

Have fun.  Be safe.

[ice cream sand pig]

Well I guess releasing the remix album as a standalone would be riskier than I thought. As for your question DX, would I still want this album if it potentially could hinder the release of the next album, I would say no. Maybe they could still release it at basically no cost to the label via itunes or something and it wouldn't be as much of a risk (is there any risk involved in this way of doing it if the album is already done? Sorry if someone has already explained this). Sure does suck that all the record company stuff gets in between Guns and us fans. Can't wait till we can deal with them directly someday.

[JAEBALL]

Please lord let tommorow be more interesting than big bad evil usa should be nicer to new GNR

 

[damnthehaters]

Well I guess releasing the remix album as a standalone would be riskier than I thought. As for your question DX, would I still want this album if it potentially could hinder the release of the next album, I would say no. Maybe they could still release it at basically no cost to the label via itunes or something and it wouldn't be as much of a risk (is there any risk involved in this way of doing it if the album is already done? Sorry if someone has already explained this). Sure does suck that all the record company stuff gets in between Guns and us fans. Can't wait till we can deal with them directly someday.

A remix album will not be risky unless they announce a remix album with no release date for a new album.  I think if this happens, they would get bad publicity.  However, a Chinese remix announced along side a new album announcement won't affect anything.  Any promotion they do for a new album, the remix album can be thrown into that same promotion...or not at all.  Very little money if any needs to be put into the remix album.  It's not a risk.  I don't think anyone would expect the remix album to have great sales.  It would just be a bonus.  And I'm sure the record company knows this.

[Gavgnr]

^^I agree with this, though I think an iTunes only release could work too.

 

[pilferk]

Its easy to say you support an Artist, but when push comes to shove money talks...   American culture can say they liked the leaks all they wanted too, requested songs, had media attention.  Didn't cost anyone anything to do this.   But when time came to poney up and start paying to support the band, the public stayed at home behind there computers.   Other countries, got out from behind there computers and showed there support

That's...not entirely true.

During their last tour, Guns made more individual dollars, and had more individual sets of eyes on them, in the US than they did in most of the rest of the world.  What I mean by that is....because it's a big country, and there were LOTS of stops, the volume meant more money and more people.  It's just the individual gigs that weren't sold out, or didn't make as much as individual gigs outside the US.

We can talk about why that is, if you want.  A lot of it isn't simply popularity.  There's both geographic, competition, and economic factors to consider that make the US unique to other countries.

You can take the stance that it's because of "America", and jump on the blaming of America for everything that's wrong in the world.  But it's a overly simplistic stance to take, IMHO, when it comes to GnR's success (or lack thereof) stateside.

You have no further to look than the VERY successful Vegas Residencies to see there IS support out there....and quite a bit of it.

[pilferk]

A remix album will not be risky unless they announce a remix album with no release date for a new album.  I think if this happens, they would get bad publicity.  However, a Chinese remix announced along side a new album announcement won't affect anything.  Any promotion they do for a new album, the remix album can be thrown into that same promotion...or not at all.  Very little money if any needs to be put into the remix album.  It's not a risk.  I don't think anyone would expect the remix album to have great sales.  It would just be a bonus.  And I'm sure the record company knows this.

Lower cost is not "no cost".  It costs the label something.  And I'd argue there are fixed costs for any release that you just can't get away from....so even a supposition of "low cost" means "lower costs in comparison to a huge, AAA, release".  One other thing: I think whatever number you (or I, or anyone) thinks it will cost....the record label will find a way for that number to be much, much higher. I know, it sucks.

The label is not going to agree to release something "they know" isn't going to cover costs. That's just now how they operate. Again (assuming the label is aware that sales would be limited and not cover costs), I suppose it's possible, if someone can convince them the remix would increase sales of new material by 20% or so when it was released...there might be some sort of way to get it out on it's own.  But I think the label would have to HAVE the new material (so there are assurances things work the way it's being pitched) at the time of negotiation. Not "almost"...actually have it....because they'd want to be assured of no delays in the time frames, so the remix album could actually have the effect being pitched.

And then that begs the question: If they have both albums in hand.....why go through their "process" twice in rapid succession? It would be cheaper to roll it all into one.....there would have to be some tangible (and by tangible, I mean monetary) benefit for them to do it.  And it would have to be balanced against the costs involved.

[pilferk]

Its easy to say you support an Artist, but when push comes to shove money talks...   American culture can say they liked the leaks all they wanted too, requested songs, had media attention.  Didn't cost anyone anything to do this.   But when time came to poney up and start paying to support the band, the public stayed at home behind there computers.   Other countries, got out from behind there computers and showed there support

Well, they did buy tickets to see the band when they toured the country...3 years later.

- no shows in 2008
- no shows in 2009
- one show in 2010 at the motorcycle thing in Sturgis

The domestic tour to support the album starts on Halloween in 2011.  A mere 35 months after the album comes out.

AC/DC just dropped a new album.  Do you think the US tour starts in October 2017?

 
And, during that leg of the tour, they sold an average of 7k tickets per show, doing 35 shows in 33 cities (pollstars 2011 top 200 grossing tours is the source for that), or about 245k tickets, total, in the US.  They grossed about 12 million bucks, or about 345k a show.

I don't think there is another single country where MORE people saw them or where they made MORE money, total.  More people per capita? Maybe. More money per show? Maybe.

Another thing I want to float is..I think they did MUCH better in the larger urban centers (NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago) than they did for their smaller city stops.....which I don't think is all that surprising.

And we can talk about scheduling and stuff, if anyone wants, too.  I'd argue they'd be better off doing fewer shows, and doing as many as possible in the larger urban centers on the weekends, if they could.  I know that's tough...because arena schedules aren't always flexible enough to allow, and promoters get sick of paying folks for being idle on the road..but...there you go.

It likely wouldn't lead to MORE ticket sales, in total..but it would probably lead to fuller arenas.  Rather than doing 3 or 4 shows in a 500 mile radius...1 or 2 might suffice. But that's just spitballing.

[jarmo]

Let me put it this way...as a stand alone, i would gridgingly part with my money for it.

As a bonus pack in, with a new album, as oart of a pricer, deluxe package (maybe limited edition??) i would pony up considerably more money than the "normal' version of same.

Does that logically make sense, given the sum totals might be roughly equivakent, or even tipoed toward the deluxe version? Nope..lbut its the way i feel.

That must be a record company's dream. 

If you had the choice of a remix album for $10 or a deluxe version of another album with those songs as a bonus for $25, you'd prefer the latter?
If both were released at once, I'd get both.... Just to complete the collection. 






/jarmo

[damnthehaters]

A remix album will not be risky unless they announce a remix album with no release date for a new album.  I think if this happens, they would get bad publicity.  However, a Chinese remix announced along side a new album announcement won't affect anything.  Any promotion they do for a new album, the remix album can be thrown into that same promotion...or not at all.  Very little money if any needs to be put into the remix album.  It's not a risk.  I don't think anyone would expect the remix album to have great sales.  It would just be a bonus.  And I'm sure the record company knows this.

Lower cost is not "no cost".  It costs the label something.  And I'd argue there are fixed costs for any release that you just can't get away from....so even a supposition of "low cost" means "lower costs in comparison to a huge, AAA, release".  One other thing: I think whatever number you (or I, or anyone) thinks it will cost....the record label will find a way for that number to be much, much higher. I know, it sucks.

The label is not going to agree to release something "they know" isn't going to cover costs. That's just now how they operate. Again (assuming the label is aware that sales would be limited and not cover costs), I suppose it's possible, if someone can convince them the remix would increase sales of new material by 20% or so when it was released...there might be some sort of way to get it out on it's own.  But I think the label would have to HAVE the new material (so there are assurances things work the way it's being pitched) at the time of negotiation. Not "almost"...actually have it....because they'd want to be assured of no delays in the time frames, so the remix album could actually have the effect being pitched.

And then that begs the question: If they have both albums in hand.....why go through their "process" twice in rapid succession? It would be cheaper to roll it all into one.....there would have to be some tangible (and by tangible, I mean monetary) benefit for them to do it.  And it would have to be balanced against the costs involved.

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. 

[D-GenerationX]

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.

[pilferk]

That must be a record company's dream. 

If you had the choice of a remix album for $10 or a deluxe version of another album with those songs as a bonus for $25, you'd prefer the latter?
If both were released at once, I'd get both.... Just to complete the collection. 


/jarmo

Yup.  I know..it defies logic to large extent.  But then...many consumer buying habits do.

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

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

[D-GenerationX]

It likely wouldn't lead to MORE ticket sales, in total..but it would probably lead to fuller arenas.  Rather than doing 3 or 4 shows in a 500 mile radius...1 or 2 might suffice. But that's just spitballing.

I'd agree.

Its why I made the earlier point about other countries.  if you are only playing 3 cities in the whole damn country, odds are, the arenas are fuller.  But its not like someone hits the Unites States and only plays 3 cities.  You are hitting most of the 48 contiguous states.