Appetite For Democracy Blu-ray/DVD - live in Las Vegas Nov 21 2012

[TheGeneralShrugged]

I really wish they'd have found a way to release this in time for Mother's Day.  But you can't blame the band.

[JAEBALL]

I really wish they'd have found a way to release this in time for Mother's Day.  But you can't blame the band.

I don't think anybody blames the band, they have nothing to do with the business of GNR.  It's probably close to 33 percent a piece for Axl/TB, Rockfuel, Slash.

[slash&axl]

Isn't is just so damn frustrating that we don't have this yet!?!!?

[pilferk]

Never mind.  Off topic...

[D-GenerationX]

Universal being involved is absolutely great news.

Put to bed all this ridiculous talk they lay their heads down on the pillow each night thinking of ways then can mess with Axl Rose in the morning.

Who says that or anything to that effect?  I and many others here have speculated that the label may be hesitant to financially support and promote a new album to the extent that Axl wants them to.  Perhaps rightfully so... recouping and profiting on any further investment in a new GNR album is far from a sure thing.  None of that can be in any way translated to mean the label is screwing Axl for the sake of it.

The label now getting behind a DVD (that is heavy on the AFD) is not exactly an indication of how willing it would be to support a new album. 

I suppose it comes down to want you want to believe.  Most things in life usually do.

If you feel that big nasty evil overlord label is out to get Axl, yeah, this probably doesn't do anything to move you off of that.  (would anything though?)

If you tend to reject that largely unsupported theory, you will tend to think the label having involvement on any level is a positive thing here.

[GeorgeSteele]

Universal being involved is absolutely great news.

Put to bed all this ridiculous talk they lay their heads down on the pillow each night thinking of ways then can mess with Axl Rose in the morning.

Who says that or anything to that effect?  I and many others here have speculated that the label may be hesitant to financially support and promote a new album to the extent that Axl wants them to.  Perhaps rightfully so... recouping and profiting on any further investment in a new GNR album is far from a sure thing.  None of that can be in any way translated to mean the label is screwing Axl for the sake of it.

The label now getting behind a DVD (that is heavy on the AFD) is not exactly an indication of how willing it would be to support a new album. 

I suppose it comes down to want you want to believe.  Most things in life usually do.

If you feel that big nasty evil overlord label is out to get Axl, yeah, this probably doesn't do anything to move you off of that.  (would anything though?)

If you tend to reject that largely unsupported theory, you will tend to think the label having involvement on any level is a positive thing here.

Where are you getting that anyone believes "that big nasty evil overlord label is out to get Axl"?  That theory is not only "largely unsupported" but also largely unexpressed. 

[D-GenerationX]

Where are you getting that anyone believes "that big nasty evil overlord label is out to get Axl"?  That theory is not only "largely unsupported" but also largely unexpressed. 

Is this a wind up?  There is a rather vocal segment of fanbase that absolutely believes that. 

Don't believe me?  Try suggesting Axl is the hold-up on getting anything done that might ever move this band forward in a positive direction.  In my experience, it does not get you "yeah, he needs to get his shit together already."

No.  You get a list of conspirators against him including, but not limited to : the dishonest label, "the industry", the unfair media, crooked promoters, unscrupulous management.

And to paraphrase the doctor from 'The Terminator', here's the genius of it.  There does not have to be one shred of proof to support any of that.  That argument is based on a bunch of cherry picked quotes from various statements given, by Axl of course, that weave a rather one sided and inevitably self serving tale of a man that just can't get a break.

Personally?  I see fault on both sides.  But I am not the least bit invested in making sure Axl takes no heat and it being everyone else's fault.  Does that help us in some way?  I can concede that things did not go smooth with the release of the last album.  I will never accept him storming off to pout for a year, and then determining to never work with the label again is helping anyone out.  Unless, of course, you have no intention of every doing anything new.  Then, that hardass approach makes sense.  But again, good luck trying to suggest that without huge pushback.

I am all about moving things forward.  I see no value in devising 47 cover stories for why we are nowhere.

[D-GenerationX]

To me, what is of utmost importance here is how we move things forward.  It is not, nor ever will be, here's why its not Axl's fault.

That difference is why some of you often seem to want to set me on fire.

[D-GenerationX]

I really wish they'd have found a way to release this in time for Mother's Day.  But you can't blame the band.

No, I'd agree.

I would suggest perhaps a call could be made to see what the hell is going on, since you are using my name to promote a product and you appear to be cocking it all up.  But they are not involved in the day to day, no.

[CheapJon]

Isn't is just so damn frustrating that we don't have this yet!?!!?

Nope, not at all.

[HBK]

The Important Actually Is...

LAS VEGAS 2014

 

[GeorgeSteele]

Where are you getting that anyone believes "that big nasty evil overlord label is out to get Axl"?  That theory is not only "largely unsupported" but also largely unexpressed. 

Is this a wind up?  There is a rather vocal segment of fanbase that absolutely believes that. 

Don't believe me?  Try suggesting Axl is the hold-up on getting anything done that might ever move this band forward in a positive direction.  In my experience, it does not get you "yeah, he needs to get his shit together already."

No.  You get a list of conspirators against him including, but not limited to : the dishonest label, "the industry", the unfair media, crooked promoters, unscrupulous management.

I don't go on the other forums, so I don't know what the fan base goes off about outside of this place.  Here, where I check in most days, I've seen mostly very well-reasoned, though speculative, thoughts on why the label may be contributing to a delay on a new album.  So you're either seeing something I'm not or you're exaggerating those thoughts to the point of total mischaracterization.

And to paraphrase the doctor from 'The Terminator', here's the genius of it.  There does not have to be one shred of proof to support any of that.  That argument is based on a bunch of cherry picked quotes from various statements given, by Axl of course, that weave a rather one sided and inevitably self serving tale of a man that just can't get a break.

I don't know exactly what evidence you're looking for because I still don't know what anti-Axl conspiracy theories you think other people believe.

If we're talking "dishonest label", there's no debate from any sane person that the label did not promote the last album.  It was its job to do so and it didn't.  That's not a talking point that the label conspires against Axl for the sake of it, it just is what it is.

"Industry," again, not sure what you mean, but these days, few if any musicians make money selling records.  Need evidence, compare record sales today to 1991.  I'll go out on a limb and speculate that, given the current state of the industry, a new album would not sell much.

"Unfair media", I think there's plenty of evidence out there that Axl generally does not get a fair shake from mainstream media.  Asking me or anyone else to compile 25+ years of evidence of that is just asking us to work for the sake of it.  I like this forum and this band, but not to the extent that I'm going to start doing intense Cold Case-style forensic investigations.  So just take that point or leave it.

"Crooked promoters", don't know anything about that.  Nothing to do with a new album anyway.

"Unscrupulous management", there was that lawsuit that Irving Azoff tried to coerce a reunion.  But again, nothing to do with a new album.

All that said, I understand (though disagree with) the opinion that Axl should take control, responsibility, etc. and get a new album out in spite of the label and industry problems, but to deny those problems exist is dishonest.

Personally?  I see fault on both sides.  But I am not the least bit invested in making sure Axl takes no heat and it being everyone else's fault.  Does that help us in some way?  I can concede that things did not go smooth with the release of the last album.  I will never accept him storming off to pout for a year, and then determining to never work with the label again is helping anyone out.  Unless, of course, you have no intention of every doing anything new.  Then, that hardass approach makes sense.  But again, good luck trying to suggest that without huge pushback.

I am all about moving things forward.  I see no value in devising 47 cover stories for why we are nowhere.

From my perspective, at least as far as a new album is concerned, I'm not sure there is 'fault' on either side.  In any record deal, the musician's job is to make the music and the label's job is to finance the making, marketing and distribution of the music.  I think neither side is eager to do their job because at the end of the day, it is unlikely that either side will make much, if any, money from doing their job.  I respect both of those positions because I would not want to work for free and I would not want to invest in something that is unlikely to make me any money.  

[D-GenerationX]

If we're talking "dishonest label", there's no debate from any sane person that the label did not promote the last album.  It was its job to do so and it didn't.

Well, when their star goes AWOL 2 months before it comes out, agrees to do no interviews or any serious promotion, and is in fact not seen again in public until 13 months later on the far side of the world...would you say he showed any real interest in the process?  Are you arguing they still should have busted their ass when the artist who just spent 10 years working on this thing would rather storm off in a huff over whatever slight, real or perceived?  Put yourself in their spot.

I know all about Axl's own justification for his actions.  I'm asking you, right here, right now, if they make sense to you.

"Industry," again, not sure what you mean, but these days, few if any musicians make money selling records.  Need evidence, compare record sales today to 1991.  I'll go out on a limb and speculate that, given the current state of the industry, a new album would not sell much.

1991, right on cue.  Its always "not 1991 anymore".  Tell me, why has the entire music business not ceased to function?  Are they all under the impression its still 1991?  Or do they, as artists, write, record and release music...because that's the freakin' job???

Is your argument seriously that since albums don't sell like they did 20 years ago, they should cease to be made?  Why does no other artist (or artist's fanbase) subscribe to this theory?  That doesn't strike you odd?  Is it an unfair statemtn to say that perhaps our particular fanbase chooses to believe that as a way to explain away the inactivity?

All that said, I understand (though disagree with) the opinion that Axl should take control, responsibility, etc. and get a new album out in spite of the label and industry problems, but to deny those problems exist is dishonest.

It is, but ultimately, its his career.  Does it make sense he seems to give such little of a shit about it?  If you see things going off the rails, do you not try and get things back on track?  Or do you just throw up your hands, say that you got fucked, and give up?  What sense does that make?

From my perspective, at least as far as a new album is concerned, I'm not sure there is 'fault' on either side.  In any record deal, the musician's job is to make the music and the label's job is to finance the making, marketing and distribution of the music.  I think neither side is eager to do their job because at the end of the day, it is unlikely that either side will make much, if any, money from doing their job.  I respect both of those positions because I would not want to work for free and I would not want to invest in something that is unlikely to make me any money.

Validity here, absolutely.

So then if I, or anyone, says that they have pretty much given up ever hearing anything new, should that draw responses like "gee, where do you get that?"

[GeorgeSteele]

Well, when their star goes AWOL 2 months before it comes out, agrees to do no interviews or any serious promotion, and is in fact not seen again in public until 13 months later on the far side of the world...would you say he showed any real interest in the process?  Are you arguing they still should have busted their ass when the artist who just spent 10 years working on this thing would rather storm off in a huff over whatever slight, real or perceived?  Put yourself in their spot.

I know all about Axl's own justification for his actions.  I'm asking you, right here, right now, if they make sense to you.

Makes perfect sense to me.  He busted his ass making the music, they then needed to bust their ass promoting it.  Myself in his shoes, any work I do on my own to promote the album is predominantly making the label money.  So I'd rather put my efforts into touring where I'll at least get paid (but also promotes the album).

Also, keep in mind, a lot of artists who are out there promoting their music through appearances and what not --- those appearances are typically coordinated through the record label.  As they should be, especially in the case of Universal, as the number of media outlets they could have plugged Axl into is exponentially greater than anything he has access to on his own.

1991, right on cue.  Its always "not 1991 anymore".  Tell me, why has the entire music business not ceased to function?  Are they all under the impression its still 1991?  Or do they, as artists, write, record and release music...because that's the freakin' job???

Is your argument seriously that since albums don't sell like they did 20 years ago, they should cease to be made?  Why does no other artist (or artist's fanbase) subscribe to this theory?  That doesn't strike you odd?  Is it an unfair statemtn to say that perhaps our particular fanbase chooses to believe that as a way to explain away the inactivity?

Yeah, that's pretty much my argument --- to the extent of making albums under a record label.  The old industry artist-label partnership no longer makes any sense for 99+% of musicians.  It only works for standard Top 40 pop music and, in that case, the 'musician' is actually a record label producer, not the performing artist.  Most musicians are better off on their own these days and should release music independently.  And more and more artists these days are subscribing to that theory, including Slash, for example. 

It is, but ultimately, its his career.  Does it make sense he seems to give such little of a shit about it?  If you see things going off the rails, do you not try and get things back on track?  Or do you just throw up your hands, say that you got fucked, and give up?  What sense does that make?

I don't think he doesn't give a shit about it.  He's doing the best he can to keep GNR active and the only way a business stays active is by making money.  In this case, the only way to make money right now is to tour.

So then if I, or anyone, says that they have pretty much given up ever hearing anything new, should that draw responses like "gee, where do you get that?"

I wouldn't give up but I wouldn't hold my breath.  My wish would be that Axl negotiate a termination of his record deal with Universal (and if they can't agree, then sue to get out of it).  I think the only reason the label keeps Axl on board is to cash in on a possible reunion with Slash.  So then negotiate a termination where if Axl and Slash reunite for any recording, then the label would get its standard lion's share of the sales proceeds for that recording.  Someone, I forget who, had suggested that a while back, I thought it was brilliant.

[D-GenerationX]

I think the only reason the label keeps Axl on board is to cash in on a possible reunion with Slash.  So then negotiate a termination where if Axl and Slash reunite for any recording, then the label would get its standard lion's share of the sales proceeds for that recording.  Someone, I forget who, had suggested that a while back, I thought it was brilliant.

Haha, it was me!

I see it as a win for all involved.  It frees Axl up to do as he pleases, but placates the label who don't want to lose the rights to any reunion miracle payday.

The curious part of that whole conversation was that I picture Axl signing such a deal with one hand as he makes a jerking off motion with the other, cause its never happening.  But hey, if that's what it takes, me signing a meaningless piece of paper...here you go, fellas.

But I got huge, HUGE pushback saying even so much as asking Axl to do that is an insult.  That he's never reuniting the band.  And I tired re-iterating that I agree with that, but if he gets him out from under them, why not?  He knows he's never doing it.

But I was told, often in heated tones, that even asking him to sign what is essentially in his mind a meaningless piece of paper...huge insult to the man.

[GeorgeSteele]

^ Ha, too late to take that back now I guess.  J/k, really is a great idea.  Also agree, not in the least bit insulting to Axl; really just a matter of whether the label would go for it. 

[Ginger King]

^ Ha, too late to take that back now I guess.  J/k, really is a great idea.  Also agree, not in the least bit insulting to Axl; really just a matter of whether the label would go for it. 

Hey D-X, not for nothing, but I think I was the one that originally posed the reunion contract clause concept.  If I recall, you were (and I see still are) a fan of that, as am I.  Sorry, but it's rare when someone here says I have a good idea. 

Anyway, it's a win-win for everyone:  Axl can break free from the chains of the industry and put out his record, his way...and UMG has the comfort that, if a reunion ever occurs, they're back in as the label.  It would be even more of a win for Axl, because a reunion is never going to happen, so he'd really give up nothing to gain his independence.

[JAEBALL]

^ Ha, too late to take that back now I guess.  J/k, really is a great idea.  Also agree, not in the least bit insulting to Axl; really just a matter of whether the label would go for it. 

Hey D-X, not for nothing, but I think I was the one that originally posed the reunion contract clause concept.  If I recall, you were (and I see still are) a fan of that, as am I.  Sorry, but it's rare when someone here says I have a good idea. 

Anyway, it's a win-win for everyone:  Axl can break free from the chains of the industry and put out his record, his way...and UMG has the comfort that, if a reunion ever occurs, they're back in as the label.  It would be even more of a win for Axl, because a reunion is never going to happen, so he'd really give up nothing to gain his independence.

While I think it all sounds good in theory...if there is no label...Axl comes out of pocket for all costs...is he willing to do that?

he doesnt want to deal with them...but he sure does want their money

[D-GenerationX]

In truth, this is really a way to call Axl's bluff.

If the talking point is going to be that its that damn label holding him down and the chief impediment to new material being released, I think that somewhat falls apart if he is unwilling to try and get out from under them.  The implication would obviously be that he doesn't exactly hate being able to use them as the fall guy for the fact there won't ever be another album.

And as I think I've said, I don't even know if any of this is even possible. 

[GeorgeSteele]

While I think it all sounds good in theory...if there is no label...Axl comes out of pocket for all costs...is he willing to do that?

he doesnt want to deal with them...but he sure does want their money

Well, he should want their money if they're going to get the bulk of the revenues from his music... and again, financing is the record company's job.  

As for being out of pocket if the label is out, I think that would be much easier for him to accept knowing he'd be getting most of the revenues instead of only pennies on the dollar.  

This isn't just theory, it's becoming reality for more and more recording artists and they're better off for it.  Because of technology, internet, etc., everything you needed a record company's money for in the past is much cheaper these days (recording, distribution, promotion, etc.).