Enjoy the read: Chinese Democracy leak story

[GeorgeSteele]

Let's face it, Axl probably isn't the easiest guy to deal with, especially when it comes to business. He wants things done in a way that benefit him and the band. He's not concerned with making the label money. The label obviously is looking out for their own interests and after their less than stellar dealings with Axl over the years, they're probably not eager to bend over backwards to make things more comfortable for him. Plus, we all know they'd rather have other notable former members in the band and lots of people in the business seem to think if they make life difficult for Axl, they could accomplish this. It sure seems like a losing battle to me, but they really have nothing to lose. The 2 sides don't work well together, that's painfully easy to see. So why some think it'd be so easy to just release another album is beyond me. Have you not been following this saga for the last 10-15 years?

But in order to accept that premise, you need to accept this.

Axl is going to get a finished record done.  He's going to present it to the label.  The label will then say "eh...no thanks."

Simply put, is that credible?  The first part isn't even credible, because it suggests Axl gets to work.  But let's pretend that is real world.  He gets the album done and turns it in. 

At that point, the label is so dug in on forcing a reunion and/or just fucking with Axl, um...because (depending who you ask) that they tell him to piss off?

Thing is, the label's involvement comes before a record gets done.  The process of making a record costs big money.  Who pays for that?  There's been big numbers thrown around about how much the label paid to make Chinese; I don't know what to believe, but I'm sure it was a lot and not something that the label is interested in fronting this time around.

What's there to front, though?  Aren't there already songs completed?  It's not like they are at square one.  We know there are songs in the queue ready to go.  I find it hard to believe that the evil record company is the one preventing their release.

Like everyone else here, I've heard that there are songs out there, working titles, etc., but I don't know what, if anything, is actually 'ready to go'.  From past history, we know that songs that leaked almost 3 years before they were released were re-worked a great deal during that time.  So, I would guess that there's still a fair amount of time, work and money required to get whatever songs they have now to a stage that Axl is satisfied with. 

So maybe, that proves your point, the problem could be that it's difficult for him to reach a point where he's satisfied with the end product.  But therefore, what?  We should encourage him to release something he's not yet happy with?

[D-GenerationX]

What's there to front, though?  Aren't there already songs completed?  It's not like they are at square one.  We know there are songs in the queue ready to go.  I find it hard to believe that the evil record company is the one preventing their release.

Completely agree.  Its why I have never bought into this whole premise.

The costs the label has to put in have already been put in.  These songs are done.  Sure, Axl might have Bumble cut and paste a riff over top here or there.  Might have Frank throw in the odd drum fill on a finished song.  Then he can claim this was a collaborative effort.  But the lion's share of the work is already done.  Its not like these guys are showing up with notebooks filled with song ideas.  Its mostly done.

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

[The Wight Gunner]

What's there to front, though?  Aren't there already songs completed?  It's not like they are at square one.  We know there are songs in the queue ready to go.  I find it hard to believe that the evil record company is the one preventing their release.

Completely agree.  Its why I have never bought into this whole premise.

The costs the label has to put in have already been put in.  These songs are done.  Sure, Axl might have Bumble cut and paste a riff over top here or there.  Might have Frank throw in the odd drum fill on a finished song.  Then he can claim this was a collaborative effort.  But the lion's share of the work is already done.  Its not like these guys are showing up with notebooks filled with song ideas.  Its mostly done.

And its this point that I say that DJ IS writing material, to add to the mainly recorded CD2.  BBf saying that he isn't writing can also be true, his contribution is already done.... And neither is lying. 

Dizzy and Richard have both said they are recording stuff, maybe, just maybe that their previous recordings don't work as well with the DJ stuff, or that they needed to adjust some stuff. Me I think that CD was a lesson for the whole GnR set-up and that they will drop quickly CD2 with little in advance notice but with a more joined together promotion.

Well I can hope.

[sofine11]

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

Apologists love to ignore this fact.  It literally makes zero sense for the label to block the release of an album they poured millions of dollars into, which is the case here, as the lion's share of recording was done during the Chinese Democracy sessions.

[D-GenerationX]

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

Apologists love to ignore this fact.  It literally makes zero sense for the label to block the release of an album they poured millions of dollars into, which is the case here, as the lion's share of recording was done during the Chinese Democracy sessions.

Because it can't ever be Axl's fault.  That's the constant.

Bring that up, and you don't have "the facts".  You do however, get 4 straight lines all ending with question marks.

[Ali]

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

Apologists love to ignore this fact.  It literally makes zero sense for the label to block the release of an album they poured millions of dollars into, which is the case here, as the lion's share of recording was done during the Chinese Democracy sessions.

There are reasons why the label may not release a record despite investing money into it.   One reason has to do with the perceived quality or style/sound of the music. 

For instance, at one point, Axl wanted to mix the record, but Bob Ezrin, who was asked to meet Axl by Jimmy Iovine, told him the record wasn't ready to mix.  MIA had her record rejected by Interscope because the material was too dark.

Has that happened in this case?  Possibly, although it's obviously not known publicly.   

But, there are reasons why the record company may reject a record.  If it is like CD, where it doesn't have a lot of radio-friendly songs with the traditional verse-chorus-verse structure, they may not be so anxious to get it out.

Ali

[sofine11]

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

Apologists love to ignore this fact.  It literally makes zero sense for the label to block the release of an album they poured millions of dollars into, which is the case here, as the lion's share of recording was done during the Chinese Democracy sessions.

There are reasons why the label may not release a record despite investing money into it.   One reason has to do with the perceived quality or style/sound of the music. 

For instance, at one point, Axl wanted to mix the record, but Bob Ezrin, who was asked to meet Axl by Jimmy Iovine, told him the record wasn't ready to mix.  MIA had her record rejected by Interscope because the material was too dark.

Has that happened in this case?  Possibly, although it's obviously not known publicly.   

But, there are reasons why the record company may reject a record.  If it is like CD, where it doesn't have a lot of radio-friendly songs with the traditional verse-chorus-verse structure, they may not be so anxious to get it out.

Ali

That Bob Ezrin meeting happened in 2000 regarding what would have been the Sean Beaven produced album.  Add 14 years of recording & production and I HIGHLY doubt the yet to be released tracks have been rejected due to their sound or style. 

As I've said, Axl Rose is a rock titan and I just do not see them putting a road block in front of a new Guns N' Roses album, a definite money maker.  At this point, and after all we've seen over the years, this current drama seems utterly self-inflicted.

[Ali]

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

Apologists love to ignore this fact.  It literally makes zero sense for the label to block the release of an album they poured millions of dollars into, which is the case here, as the lion's share of recording was done during the Chinese Democracy sessions.

There are reasons why the label may not release a record despite investing money into it.   One reason has to do with the perceived quality or style/sound of the music. 

For instance, at one point, Axl wanted to mix the record, but Bob Ezrin, who was asked to meet Axl by Jimmy Iovine, told him the record wasn't ready to mix.  MIA had her record rejected by Interscope because the material was too dark.

Has that happened in this case?  Possibly, although it's obviously not known publicly.   

But, there are reasons why the record company may reject a record.  If it is like CD, where it doesn't have a lot of radio-friendly songs with the traditional verse-chorus-verse structure, they may not be so anxious to get it out.

Ali

That Bob Ezrin meeting happened in 2000 regarding what would have been the Sean Beaven produced album.  Add 14 years of recording & production and I HIGHLY doubt the yet to be released tracks have been rejected due to their sound or style. 

As I've said, Axl Rose is a rock titan and I just do not see them putting a road block in front of a new Guns N' Roses album, a definite money maker.  At this point, and after all we've seen over the years, this current drama seems utterly self-inflicted.

IMO, if Axl Rose is a rock titan now, he was a rock titan in the early 2000's.  Additionally, significant money was already invested in the project by then.

The point was you have someone working for the record company as a quasi/potential-A&R guy directly telling GN'R their record was not ready to be mixed, effectively rejecting it.

So, the rejection of material written by the post-classic lineup of GN'R by the record label has happened before.  So, I don't see how you or anyone else can rule it out as a possibility.  A GN'R album may be a money maker, but the question may be, is it enough of a money maker?  The record company may think not. 

There certainly have been rumors of another album being handed in.

Ali

[Ginger King]

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

Apologists love to ignore this fact.  It literally makes zero sense for the label to block the release of an album they poured millions of dollars into, which is the case here, as the lion's share of recording was done during the Chinese Democracy sessions.

There are reasons why the label may not release a record despite investing money into it.   One reason has to do with the perceived quality or style/sound of the music. 

For instance, at one point, Axl wanted to mix the record, but Bob Ezrin, who was asked to meet Axl by Jimmy Iovine, told him the record wasn't ready to mix.  MIA had her record rejected by Interscope because the material was too dark.

Has that happened in this case?  Possibly, although it's obviously not known publicly.   

But, there are reasons why the record company may reject a record.  If it is like CD, where it doesn't have a lot of radio-friendly songs with the traditional verse-chorus-verse structure, they may not be so anxious to get it out.

Ali

That Bob Ezrin meeting happened in 2000 regarding what would have been the Sean Beaven produced album.  Add 14 years of recording & production and I HIGHLY doubt the yet to be released tracks have been rejected due to their sound or style. 

As I've said, Axl Rose is a rock titan and I just do not see them putting a road block in front of a new Guns N' Roses album, a definite money maker.  At this point, and after all we've seen over the years, this current drama seems utterly self-inflicted.

IMO, if Axl Rose is a rock titan now, he was a rock titan in the early 2000's.  Additionally, significant money was already invested in the project by then.

The point was you have someone working for the record company as a quasi/potential-A&R guy directly telling GN'R their record was not ready to be mixed, effectively rejecting it.

So, the rejection of material written by the post-classic lineup of GN'R by the record label has happened before.  So, I don't see how you or anyone else can rule it out as a possibility.  A GN'R album may be a money maker, but the question may be, is it enough of a money maker?  The record company may think not. 

There certainly have been rumors of another album being handed in.

Ali

Clearly, it's more of a money maker for the label to release an album than it is collecting dust on the shelf?  Of course, it can't be ruled out as a possibility, but it does seem somewhat far-fetched.

[faldor]

Chinese Democracy was a money maker because Best Buy bailed them out. Without that it would've been a colossal failure. Axl didn't promote the album. The label did very little to promote the album. Axl was told there were 3 or 4 good songs back in the early 2000's so even though an album was ready for release, it wasn't deemed ready. So who's to say the label would be giddy about releasing a follow up even if it had the chance to? They're out to make money and I'm not sure how much time, effort, or money they'd want to put into a new album when it's return is far from a certain success.

And even if they are willing to put out a new GNR album, the 2 sides still need to come to an agreement. After the nightmare they went through last time, I can't imagine they'd kiss and make up so easily. I'm sure Axl probably has some demands that the record company isn't willing to meet. One of the sides has to give in a little and that could be a painstaking process.

Also, we don't really know the terms of their recording contract. Do they have one more release in their deal? If so, the label could certainly play hardball and try to force a reunion album somewhere down the line. Much more lucrative for them. Or even another greatest hits type album. Point is, I doubt it's as simple as "I have an album ready to go." "Oh good, we'll get that right out then."

[Princess Leia]

Chinese Democracy was a money maker because Best Buy bailed them out. Without that it would've been a colossal failure. Axl didn't promote the album. The label did very little to promote the album. Axl was told there were 3 or 4 good songs back in the early 2000's so even though an album was ready for release, it wasn't deemed ready. So who's to say the label would be giddy about releasing a follow up even if it had the chance to? They're out to make money and I'm not sure how much time, effort, or money they'd want to put into a new album when it's return is far from a certain success.

And even if they are willing to put out a new GNR album, the 2 sides still need to come to an agreement. After the nightmare they went through last time, I can't imagine they'd kiss and make up so easily. I'm sure Axl probably has some demands that the record company isn't willing to meet. One of the sides has to give in a little and that could be a painstaking process.

Also, we don't really know the terms of their recording contract. Do they have one more release in their deal? If so, the label could certainly play hardball and try to force a reunion album somewhere down the line. Much more lucrative for them. Or even another greatest hits type album. Point is, I doubt it's as simple as "I have an album ready to go." "Oh good, we'll get that right out then."

True, Best Buy and Dr Pepper made it possible. But we will see all of the CD leftovers some day... The day of Axl?s funeral. That?s what record companies do these days. They release music when people die.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

Hey Jarmo, since your name is mentioned, any additional color you can add?

[stratus]

Axl was told there were 3 or 4 good songs back in the early 2000's so even though an album was ready for release, it wasn't deemed ready.

If you think any album hasn't been released simply because "there were [only] 3 or 4 good songs" ever. I bet you are wrong. The exercise here is simple: Think about it and let me know which rock album in the last 10 or maybe even 20 years was released with more than 3 or 4 good songs, aka hits. I would like to hear it. AFDs don't come out every year.

My point is that albums hardly have more than 3 or 4 good songs which appeal to the general public (the so called hits). I believe Axl was told he only had 3 or 4 album material songs by someone he brought in to give his 2 cents about the production. This is different than hits. I've never seen this label reference before and it doesn't make any sense. I think you are combining two different rumors into a new one.

[rebelhipi]

Axl was told there were 3 or 4 good songs back in the early 2000's so even though an album was ready for release, it wasn't deemed ready.

If you think any album hasn't been released simply because "there were [only] 3 or 4 good songs" ever. I bet you are wrong. The exercise here is simple: Think about it and let me know which rock album in the last 10 or maybe even 20 years was released with more than 3 or 4 good songs, aka hits. I would like to hear it. AFDs don't come out every year.

My point is that albums hardly have more than 3 or 4 good songs which appeal to the general public (the so called hits). I believe Axl was told he only had 3 or 4 album material songs by someone he brought in to give his 2 cents about the production. This is different than hits. I've never seen this label reference before and it doesn't make any sense. I think you are combining two different rumors into a new one.

Why make a good album when you can make a great album?

[jarmo]

Hey Jarmo, since your name is mentioned, any additional color you can add?

No.

It was 2008. A while ago.

I still don't think leaking music is good for the artists. In most cases. In this case, definitely not. That's my opinion and of course people who benefit from it personally would disagree.



/jarmo

[Ali]

So if we are to believe that the label refuses to put out another album, you need to believe the label would be this stubborn, despite already paying for the work to be done.

Makes no sense.

Apologists love to ignore this fact.  It literally makes zero sense for the label to block the release of an album they poured millions of dollars into, which is the case here, as the lion's share of recording was done during the Chinese Democracy sessions.

There are reasons why the label may not release a record despite investing money into it.   One reason has to do with the perceived quality or style/sound of the music. 

For instance, at one point, Axl wanted to mix the record, but Bob Ezrin, who was asked to meet Axl by Jimmy Iovine, told him the record wasn't ready to mix.  MIA had her record rejected by Interscope because the material was too dark.

Has that happened in this case?  Possibly, although it's obviously not known publicly.   

But, there are reasons why the record company may reject a record.  If it is like CD, where it doesn't have a lot of radio-friendly songs with the traditional verse-chorus-verse structure, they may not be so anxious to get it out.

Ali

That Bob Ezrin meeting happened in 2000 regarding what would have been the Sean Beaven produced album.  Add 14 years of recording & production and I HIGHLY doubt the yet to be released tracks have been rejected due to their sound or style. 

As I've said, Axl Rose is a rock titan and I just do not see them putting a road block in front of a new Guns N' Roses album, a definite money maker.  At this point, and after all we've seen over the years, this current drama seems utterly self-inflicted.

IMO, if Axl Rose is a rock titan now, he was a rock titan in the early 2000's.  Additionally, significant money was already invested in the project by then.

The point was you have someone working for the record company as a quasi/potential-A&R guy directly telling GN'R their record was not ready to be mixed, effectively rejecting it.

So, the rejection of material written by the post-classic lineup of GN'R by the record label has happened before.  So, I don't see how you or anyone else can rule it out as a possibility.  A GN'R album may be a money maker, but the question may be, is it enough of a money maker?  The record company may think not. 

There certainly have been rumors of another album being handed in.

Ali

Clearly, it's more of a money maker for the label to release an album than it is collecting dust on the shelf?  Of course, it can't be ruled out as a possibility, but it does seem somewhat far-fetched.

It already happened, though.

Nonetheless, as I said before, a GN'R album may be a money maker, but the question may be, is it enough of a money maker?  The record company may think not. 


Ali

[GypsySoul]

True, Best Buy and Dr Pepper made it possible.

Not true.  Dr Pepper had nothing to do with making the release of CD possible. 

In March 2008, as a publicity stunt, someone at Dr Pepper issued a press release stating that everyone in the USA would get FREE Dr Pepper IF the album were released within the year (thinking it would never happen).

Axl, knowing the release date and how much I like Dr Pepper, Axl instantly jumped on this FREE album promotion opportunity.   

You can read both Axl and Dr Pepper's press releases here:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=165



P.S. When CD was released, Dr Pepper tried to back out of this but GNR held them accountable to make good on their promise.
 
P.P.S.  I still have my FREE soda coupon!!! 

P.P.P.S.  Axl didn't really know that I like Dr Pepper.

[Siamese Democracy]

Dr. Pepper is one of my guilty pleasures.  The Swerl leaks really were a great spoiler to many people.  Instead of that first listen to a lot of fresh music the way Axl intended, that experiance and more was lost due to Skwerl. 

[D-GenerationX]

I have to ask something.

Axl has shown himself over the years to be a fairly petty and often vengeful man.  And look, please don't tell me about the story you heard about the guy that met him at a bar and he was just delightful.  You all know what I'm getting at.  People that cross Axl tend to get both barrels.

So how is it that so many people seem to be able to double cross him and fuck him over, and he takes it all in stride and suffers in silence?  Does that make sense?  The jerkoff label, crooked promoters, scheming managers, etc.  They all do him wrong, and he lets it slide.  Even if he's the one that takes the brunt of the public flack, he never speaks out.

That doesn't catch any of you...off guard, at all?

[faldor]

Axl was told there were 3 or 4 good songs back in the early 2000's so even though an album was ready for release, it wasn't deemed ready.

If you think any album hasn't been released simply because "there were [only] 3 or 4 good songs" ever. I bet you are wrong. The exercise here is simple: Think about it and let me know which rock album in the last 10 or maybe even 20 years was released with more than 3 or 4 good songs, aka hits. I would like to hear it. AFDs don't come out every year.

My point is that albums hardly have more than 3 or 4 good songs which appeal to the general public (the so called hits). I believe Axl was told he only had 3 or 4 album material songs by someone he brought in to give his 2 cents about the production. This is different than hits. I've never seen this label reference before and it doesn't make any sense. I think you are combining two different rumors into a new one.

it happens quite often. Happened to Velvet Revolver too with Libertad. They went through a number of producers who kept telling them to go back to the drawing board. I'm guessing the expectations for "the most anticipated album of all time" were a little higher than the norm. So I don't find it inconceivable that Axl would've been pushed to deliver the best product possible.