Bumblefoot Interview (bunch of GNR questions)

[JAEBALL]

http://www.hotmetalonline.com/2013/02/07/bumblefoot-guns-nroses-should-release-one-song-at-a-time/


i would sign for one song at a time !

[EvilSmurf]

That's a great idea for GNR and it's basically how music is released nowadays through Spotify and iTunes. The 14 song album is slowly becoming a thing of the past and the "singles" model of yesteryear is making a comeback.

Personally, I'm wondering what happened to the days of bands like The Beatles releasing 2 full length albums EVERY YEAR?

[Poops Magee]

That's a great idea-in addition to doing an album. To have new songs just popping up at random times, and then possibly hearing them at upcoming shows would be really exciting! And that process could be ongoing while the album is being hammered out. But it shouldn't be that difficult to make a record...

[Ali]

That's a great idea for GNR and it's basically how music is released nowadays through Spotify and iTunes. The 14 song album is slowly becoming a thing of the past and the "singles" model of yesteryear is making a comeback.

Personally, I'm wondering what happened to the days of bands like The Beatles releasing 2 full length albums EVERY YEAR?

I think releasing one song at a time would be great.  My biggest concern would be would a major label really be in favor of that?  I know in the past labels were concerned with the release of singles, digital or otherwise, for fear of cannibalizing the sales of the more profitable full albums/CDs.

If anyone here works in the industry and could shed some light on this, that would be great.

Ali

[jarmo]

Also, keep in mind that record contracts are usually about "records".

I don't think it means singles.

So if a band is signed to a label for three records, it means three full length albums.


No idea what GN'R's contract is like, but wouldn't be surprised if it was about records/albums.




/jarmo

[cineater]

Have to agree with Ron.  I look at it like history repeating itself.  First it was the single and then we went to albums.  I think I-Tunes and youtube knocked us back into the single.  To get back to being album snobs (70's era), we're going to need to see the concept album again (if that's the right term, you know where one song leads into the next and the whole album has a theme).

[Ali]

Also, keep in mind that record contracts are usually about "records".

I don't think it means singles.

So if a band is signed to a label for three records, it means three full length albums.


No idea what GN'R's contract is like, but wouldn't be surprised if it was about records/albums.




/jarmo

Yes, but Jarmo, if the band records said single based off of advance money from the label, wouldn't the label own the rights to the masters for that song?  In other words, would the band be legally allowed to drop a single from an album without the label's buy-in?

Ali

[jarmo]

I don't know.

All I'm saying is that if the record company expects an album, and the artists tells them "I wanna record a song at a time and release as singles one after another", it might be a tough sell to convince the record company....





/jarmo

[Ali]

I don't know.

All I'm saying is that if the record company expects an album, and the artists tells them "I wanna record a song at a time and release as singles one after another", it might be a tough sell to convince the record company....





/jarmo

I don't know either, I was just posing the question for discussion.  I posed it for exactly the reason you stated above.  If the label wants an album for revenue/margin reasons, getting them to buy into releasing a song at a time could be difficult.

Ali

[EvilSmurf]

I'm only speaking as a musician myself and the limited knowledge I have in how the industry works, but it's my understanding that now bands can make a direct profit with their singles rather than be beholden to major labels thanks to the glorious invention of the MP3. iTunes takes a small cut out of every 0.99 cent download and the rest of the profit goes back to the artist. I think in the old days the label would take almost the entire cut of the profits from the album sales because of all the production overhead, marketing, and manufacturing of physical CDs.

I have no idea what GNR's current contract is, but Axl and his team are definitely rich enough to get a producer and a studio to cut one single and stick it on iTunes/Amazon. The GNR buzz alone would guarantee millions of downloads, most of the profit going back to the band. It would be great buzz for the band because it shows they are actively creating new stuff. It would also be great for the fans so we don't have to wait decades for another album!  

[Z?phyr]

Always thought that GN'R could be better off as an independent band these days, it's not like it is a new band trying to establish themselves and build a fanbase, everything is in place already.
Anyway, record labels don't invest in their artists and albums anymore, the only thing they might be good for is distribution, PR and tour support (though these are available elsewhere as well)

Cheers

[JAEBALL]

i guess we would all be speculating on what they would or wouldnt be allowed to do with concerns to their contract .. in theory it sounds like an amazing idea.. but who knows if its really plausible

unfortunately the interview hints at more struggles when it comes to putting together songs for this group

Ron doesnt hold back on all these topics

[Pinball Wizard]

Also, keep in mind that record contracts are usually about "records".

I don't think it means singles.

So if a band is signed to a label for three records, it means three full length albums.


No idea what GN'R's contract is like, but wouldn't be surprised if it was about records/albums.




/jarmo

Yes, but Jarmo, if the band records said single based off of advance money from the label, wouldn't the label own the rights to the masters for that song?  In other words, would the band be legally allowed to drop a single from an album without the label's buy-in?

Ali

Usually that is how it works. If I'm the label and you're the artist and we have an album contract, I own all the masters of whatever songs you have recorded under my budget - even the ones that didn't make the cut for the album. But I don't know if the band can release something recorded without the company's money, but I think you can't either because those contracts are usually made regarding future releases under the name of the artist.

Joss Stone had a problem like that...she recorded an album by herself and gave it to EMI, they didn't want to release it though, so she just went on tour and played those songs until EMI agreed to release it...later she bought herself off her contract and now she is a free agent who releases music under her own label.

[One.In.A.Million]

I would personally prefer GN'R just release albums, no matter how long that takes. I think releasing one song at a time is a nice idea, but in practice it would be too much trouble. I mean this in regards to keeping up GN'R's legend so to speak with "albums", and also I think on a wider scale, people still want albums... just the feeling I get.

Maybe I just want an album on the shelves next to the Illusions and Chinese Democracy, I just want THAT album as a concept, and nothing more (or less).

[peter7411226]

I'm only speaking as a musician myself and the limited knowledge I have in how the industry works, but it's my understanding that now bands can make a direct profit with their singles rather than be beholden to major labels thanks to the glorious invention of the MP3. iTunes takes a small cut out of every 0.99 cent download and the rest of the profit goes back to the artist. I think in the old days the label would take almost the entire cut of the profits from the album sales because of all the production overhead, marketing, and manufacturing of physical CDs.

I have no idea what GNR's current contract is, but Axl and his team are definitely rich enough to get a producer and a studio to cut one single and stick it on iTunes/Amazon. The GNR buzz alone would guarantee millions of downloads, most of the profit going back to the band. It would be great buzz for the band because it shows they are actively creating new stuff. It would also be great for the fans so we don't have to wait decades for another album!  

Im a musician too. If they are under contract with a label no way would that label go for this scenario. Legally they wouldnt allow GNR to put out music independent of them.

[AXLGNR123]

Also, keep in mind that record contracts are usually about "records".

I don't think it means singles.

So if a band is signed to a label for three records, it means three full length albums.


No idea what GN'R's contract is like, but wouldn't be surprised if it was about records/albums.




/jarmo

So what do you think it holding them back from releasing a new album?

[Ali]

I'm only speaking as a musician myself and the limited knowledge I have in how the industry works, but it's my understanding that now bands can make a direct profit with their singles rather than be beholden to major labels thanks to the glorious invention of the MP3. iTunes takes a small cut out of every 0.99 cent download and the rest of the profit goes back to the artist. I think in the old days the label would take almost the entire cut of the profits from the album sales because of all the production overhead, marketing, and manufacturing of physical CDs.

I have no idea what GNR's current contract is, but Axl and his team are definitely rich enough to get a producer and a studio to cut one single and stick it on iTunes/Amazon. The GNR buzz alone would guarantee millions of downloads, most of the profit going back to the band. It would be great buzz for the band because it shows they are actively creating new stuff. It would also be great for the fans so we don't have to wait decades for another album!  

Im a musician too. If they are under contract with a label no way would that label go for this scenario. Legally they wouldnt allow GNR to put out music independent of them.

This is exactly what I've always, thought or feared.

I see a lot "why can't GN'R put out one song at a time or an EP" and sometimes I see an independent band like Radiohead, NIN or the Pumpkins mentioned.  But, the fact is, GN'R is still tied to a major label and it's an apples to oranges comparison to bring in the name of a band like those I mentioned.  The situations are completely different.
Ali

[FunkyMonkey]

For Ron to say something like this, you would think he would know that it's a possibility.  Right?

Ron Thal: ?Personally, I don?t want to do an album. I would like to just do a song. Let?s just bite off a song and get a song out there and then bite off another song and get that out there."

[Spirit]

For Ron to say something like this, you would think he would know that it's a possibility.  Right?

Ron Thal: ?Personally, I don?t want to do an album. I would like to just do a song. Let?s just bite off a song and get a song out there and then bite off another song and get that out there."

Not really. Could just be his thoughts on how he would have done it if he'd be in charge, not the record company.

[FunkyMonkey]

For Ron to say something like this, you would think he would know that it's a possibility.  Right?

Ron Thal: ?Personally, I don?t want to do an album. I would like to just do a song. Let?s just bite off a song and get a song out there and then bite off another song and get that out there."

Not really. Could just be his thoughts on how he would have done it if he'd be in charge, not the record company.

I don't think he would go on at length about it if he knew it was not at least possible.

Ron Thal: ?Personally, I don?t want to do an album. I would like to just do a song. Let?s just bite off a song and get a song out there and then bite off another song and get that out there.

?It?s easier to do. Look, waiting for an album to get done is just too much. I can?t do it myself. If I waited to finish an album, it still wouldn?t be done and the album still wouldn?t be out.

?When there?s so much touring and so much other stuff going on, don?t try and take on 14 songs. Do a song, then another song, then another song and then figure it out from there.?