Tommy: "We want to make a new album, it's a good time"

[jarmo]

Last time he spoke about it was in March last year, before the Australian tour:

CA: Can we expect new music from GN'R in 2013 by chance?
AR: I can give you a definite maybe.

Before that, USA Today in 2012:

New music: "All the guys are writing, and we recorded a lot of songs over the years. We'll figure out what we feel best about. Chinese was done in piecemeal with one person here and one there at different times. Appetite for Destruction was the only thing written with lyrics and melody fitting the guitar parts at the same time. After that, I got a barrage of guitar songs that I was supposed to put words to, and I don't know if that was the best thing for Guns. I do want to lean more toward lyrics and melody."

/jarmo

[GnR-NOW]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

[Ali]

He hasn't said anything on the subject of singles vs. albums.

I think it's moot point what his opinion is.  Even if he wanted to just put out singles or EPs periodically, instead of full length LPs, he doesn't have the freedom to do so being contracted to UMG.

Yes, but the overall point was that he does not seem terribly interested in either.

So before we go too far down the rabbit hole of what form the label would like to release new products in, I think first we need to figure out if Axl is even interested in doing it at all.

Last we heard on the matter was his chat 5 years ago where he said "don't know, don't care" when asked about future releases.  That, combined with no news of anyone doing anything towards a new album...well, that doesn't fill one with great optimism he's super pumped to get something out there.

If we can agree we are specuating either way (which I would say is accurate) the reality is that there is more in the "con" column than the "pro" column.

As Jarmo pointed out, "don't know, don't care" was not the most recent comment.  That was more directly after CD was released.  Is he super pumped about releasing anything?  I don't know.  He may not want to, or he may not want to under whatever terms dictated by the label.

Ultimately, though, and I think this point is lost on many people, it isn't just up to Axl.  It just isn't.  That's vague and unclear, but it is the truth.

I know people like black and white situations and simple narratives, but this is not black and white.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

[Ginger King]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too. 

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

It's a non-answer at best, and outright deflection at worst.

Its tough to put a good spin on the inactivity I suppose.  But why is that your problem?  Changing the subject to the marketplace now versus 20 years ago.  Or the "bias" against rock bands (that seems to affect no one but Guns N' Roses).  And of course, the unseen forces of evil at the label that live to fuck them over.

I'd also throw "wishing for it won't get it any faster" in that pile.  Who has ever said that?  When has the argument ever been made that if we close our eyes and clap along with Tinkerbell that we can spur Axl into action?  No one has said that in the history of ever.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too.

Yep.

Its like the fans become defense attorneys.  Their job is introduce whatever alternative theories that can get the spotlight off their client.

[GnR-NOW]

In my opinion too, sounds like everything we hear from Axl sounds like promotors, managers, etc...... All push for a reunion, and have ulterior motives, so Axl is probably like fuck it

[Ali]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too. 

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

That's fine if that's your stance.

But by your own admission, Axl is the one uninterested in doing anything.  He can stomp his feet and motherfuck them to his inner circle until God calls him.  If he is ever going to do anything again, he's going to have to eventually deal with them.  Correct?

So how salty can you really get when someone suggests they doubt he'll ever do anything again?  Nor can you really refute that he's cutting off his nose to spite his face, regardless of how principled you might find his stand.

I've never really understood people making this argument, almost suggesting there is some scenario where the label gets super remoreseful and begs for his forgiveness.  Not going to happen.  If anything further is ever heard from this band, is because Axl decided to stop holding his breath until he turned blue.

[Ginger King]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too. 

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

Ali

And while we?re on the topic of contract, can we stop with the notion (thrown around here often) that GnR?s contract with the record company is this iron clad agreement and they are forced to remain tied to the (evil) company in perpetuity?

There is a concept in the law called bad faith?meaning, even if two parties are contractually related, if one of the acts in bad faith (i.e. deliberately acts contrary to the agreement or takes action to prohibit the other party?s compliance) that is a breach and the non-offending party has the right to terminate the contract (or sue for damages).

How could that play out here?  Well, presumably GnR?s contract requires them to produce a certain amount of albums/songs/concerts, etc.  And it requires the record company to take certain actions (promote/market the band, advance money, etc.)  If GnR did submit an album to be released, and the record company said no, or the record company is doing things that intentionally interfere with the band?s purpose (e.g. refusing to promote anything, pushing for a reunion), well then wouldn?t this be grounds for breach???  Yes, it would require lawyers and litigation, but the alternative is to remain slavishly bound to your enemy the record company, and forced to march to their beat.  Sorry, but that doesn?t really sound like Axl to me?he doesn?t strike me as a ?yes man? or one who would just sit there and take it?especially from a corporate conglomerate.  I mean, other bands have been able to get out of their record contracts, right?  I say that without knowing if it?s true, but I have to imagine it has happened before.

Before folks crucify me for this, know a few things:  (i) I (obviously) have no idea the terms of GnR?s contract, and thus am completely speculating as to its terms and the rights and obligations of the parties, (ii) I would really love to read it, and (iii) I was really hoping to be getting updates from the H&H fest tonight, so my little diatribe is merely filling the void left by the show?s cancelation.

[Ali]

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

That's fine if that's your stance.

But by your own admission, Axl is the one uninterested in doing anything.  He can stomp his feet and motherfuck them to his inner circle until God calls him.  If he is ever going to do anything again, he's going to have to eventually deal with them.  Correct?

So how salty can you really get when someone suggests they doubt he'll ever do anything again?  Nor can you really refute that he's cutting off his nose to spite his face, regardless of how principled you might find his stand.

I've never really understood people making this argument, almost suggesting there is some scenario where the label gets super remoreseful and begs for his forgiveness.  Not going to happen.  If anything further is ever heard from this band, is because Axl decided to stop holding his breath until he turned blue.

It's a stance.

I didn't see any suggestions that he won't do anything again.  Just that they don't see any signs of him doing anything now.  Which is fair.  But, to be honest, how the fuck would we know if Axl was writing songs or having conversations with the label about getting a record out?  We wouldn't be able to refute those things.

There's no suggesting remorse on the behalf of the label.  Just that if and when two entities don't see eye to eye on a situation, what develops is an impasse.  If there is no legal way around that impasse, or if there are continued efforts to work around the impasse, things can appear at a standstill.  Maybe that's what is occurring now. 

Ali

[Ali]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too. 

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

Ali

And while we?re on the topic of contract, can we stop with the notion (thrown around here often) that GnR?s contract with the record company is this iron clad agreement and they are forced to remain tied to the (evil) company in perpetuity?

There is a concept in the law called bad faith?meaning, even if two parties are contractually related, if one of the acts in bad faith (i.e. deliberately acts contrary to the agreement or takes action to prohibit the other party?s compliance) that is a breach and the non-offending party has the right to terminate the contract (or sue for damages).

How could that play out here?  Well, presumably GnR?s contract requires them to produce a certain amount of albums/songs/concerts, etc.  And it requires the record company to take certain actions (promote/market the band, advance money, etc.)  If GnR did submit an album to be released, and the record company said no, or the record company is doing things that intentionally interfere with the band?s purpose (e.g. refusing to promote anything, pushing for a reunion), well then wouldn?t this be grounds for breach???  Yes, it would require lawyers and litigation, but the alternative is to remain slavishly bound to your enemy the record company, and forced to march to their beat.  Sorry, but that doesn?t really sound like Axl to me?he doesn?t strike me as a ?yes man? or one who would just sit there and take it?especially from a corporate conglomerate.  I mean, other bands have been able to get out of their record contracts, right?  I say that without knowing if it?s true, but I have to imagine it has happened before.

Before folks crucify me for this, know a few things:  (i) I (obviously) have no idea the terms of GnR?s contract, and thus am completely speculating as to its terms and the rights and obligations of the parties, (ii) I would really love to read it, and (iii) I was really hoping to be getting updates from the H&H fest tonight, so my little diatribe is merely filling the void left by the show?s cancelation.

MIA tried several times to release a record with Interscope and they rejected her record several times before finally releasing it.  No lawsuit occurred there for reasons unknown.

If you think it is easy to get out of record contract, I suggest you watch the documentary Artifact about what happened when 30 Seconds to Mars tried to do just that.

That's a cautionary tale if I ever saw one.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

There is a concept in the law called bad faith?meaning, even if two parties are contractually related, if one of the acts in bad faith (i.e. deliberately acts contrary to the agreement or takes action to prohibit the other party?s compliance) that is a breach and the non-offending party has the right to terminate the contract (or sue for damages).

How could that play out here?  Well, presumably GnR?s contract requires them to produce a certain amount of albums/songs/concerts, etc.  And it requires the record company to take certain actions (promote/market the band, advance money, etc.)  If GnR did submit an album to be released, and the record company said no, or the record company is doing things that intentionally interfere with the band?s purpose (e.g. refusing to promote anything, pushing for a reunion), well then wouldn?t this be grounds for breach???  Yes, it would require lawyers and litigation, but the alternative is to remain slavishly bound to your enemy the record company, and forced to march to their beat.  Sorry, but that doesn?t really sound like Axl to me?he doesn?t strike me as a ?yes man? or one who would just sit there and take it?especially from a corporate conglomerate.  I mean, other bands have been able to get out of their record contracts, right?  I say that without knowing if it?s true, but I have to imagine it has happened before.

Could not agree more. 

If you want to tell me GNR is not a super high priority to them, I'll agree.  But so much so that if Axl wanted to put something out, they'd shut it right down?  Because that is what we are told to believe. 

That's a little much.

Just break this down by numbers.  They shelled out $14 million bucks to record all this material.  The work is largely done.  You just eat that? 

[Ginger King]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too. 

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

Ali

And while we?re on the topic of contract, can we stop with the notion (thrown around here often) that GnR?s contract with the record company is this iron clad agreement and they are forced to remain tied to the (evil) company in perpetuity?

There is a concept in the law called bad faith?meaning, even if two parties are contractually related, if one of the acts in bad faith (i.e. deliberately acts contrary to the agreement or takes action to prohibit the other party?s compliance) that is a breach and the non-offending party has the right to terminate the contract (or sue for damages).

How could that play out here?  Well, presumably GnR?s contract requires them to produce a certain amount of albums/songs/concerts, etc.  And it requires the record company to take certain actions (promote/market the band, advance money, etc.)  If GnR did submit an album to be released, and the record company said no, or the record company is doing things that intentionally interfere with the band?s purpose (e.g. refusing to promote anything, pushing for a reunion), well then wouldn?t this be grounds for breach???  Yes, it would require lawyers and litigation, but the alternative is to remain slavishly bound to your enemy the record company, and forced to march to their beat.  Sorry, but that doesn?t really sound like Axl to me?he doesn?t strike me as a ?yes man? or one who would just sit there and take it?especially from a corporate conglomerate.  I mean, other bands have been able to get out of their record contracts, right?  I say that without knowing if it?s true, but I have to imagine it has happened before.

Before folks crucify me for this, know a few things:  (i) I (obviously) have no idea the terms of GnR?s contract, and thus am completely speculating as to its terms and the rights and obligations of the parties, (ii) I would really love to read it, and (iii) I was really hoping to be getting updates from the H&H fest tonight, so my little diatribe is merely filling the void left by the show?s cancelation.

MIA tried several times to release a record with Interscope and they rejected her record several times before finally releasing it.  No lawsuit occurred there for reasons unknown.

If you think it is easy to get out of record contract, I suggest you watch the documentary Artifact about what happened when 30 Seconds to Mars tried to do just that.

That's a cautionary tale if I ever saw one.

Ali

I?m not saying it?s easy to get out of?what I?m saying is if one party is in breach of the contract, then it does provide grounds for terminating the contract.  Presumably, the contract involves both parties working towards putting out some product.  Let?s assume that the product is a new album.  If everyone is working towards that goal, then you?re right, it would be hard from GnR to terminate.  However, you imply that the record company has it in for the current lineup, has blocked a new album, etc.?if that?s true, there would seem to be an argument for the band to terminate.

Didn?t 50 Cent get out of his contract with Interscope recently?  How was he able to do it?  It?s not impossible to do, and using it as an excuse for no new album doesn?t make sense, IMO.

[D-GenerationX]

There's no suggesting remorse on the behalf of the label.  Just that if and when two entities don't see eye to eye on a situation, what develops is an impasse.  If there is no legal way around that impasse, or if there are continued efforts to work around the impasse, things can appear at a standstill.  Maybe that's what is occurring now. 

There is an glaring inconsistency in my stance.

I'm the same guy that never expects Axl to ever be the bigger man or mend any fences with Slash.  Yet its basically what I am suggesting with the label.  There is an inconsistency there, I realize.

But, bottom line, if he never talks to Slash again...so what?  This is his livelihood we are talking about.  And presumably why one becomes a recording artist.  Can he really write all that off the same way he has Slash?  Based on the same rationale that he has nothing to apologize for and the other side needs to reach out?

[D-GenerationX]

MIA tried several times to release a record with Interscope and they rejected her record several times before finally releasing it.  No lawsuit occurred there for reasons unknown.

If you think it is easy to get out of record contract, I suggest you watch the documentary Artifact about what happened when 30 Seconds to Mars tried to do just that.

That's a cautionary tale if I ever saw one.

Oh, I'm sure its a bitch.

But I think there are those of us that want him to make the best of a bad situation.  Work something out with the label just to get something out, and in the process, fulfill another part your obligation to the contract.  Speed up your freedom.

Every journey begins with a single step.  Axl needs to take that next step and keep things moving forward.  If he just sits and pouts, the situation will always be the same.

[Ginger King]

MIA tried several times to release a record with Interscope and they rejected her record several times before finally releasing it.  No lawsuit occurred there for reasons unknown.

If you think it is easy to get out of record contract, I suggest you watch the documentary Artifact about what happened when 30 Seconds to Mars tried to do just that.

That's a cautionary tale if I ever saw one.

Oh, I'm sure its a bitch.

But I think there are those of us that want him to make the best of a bad situation.  Work something out with the label just to get something out, and in the process, fulfill another part your obligation to the contract.  Speed up your freedom.

Every journey begins with a single step.  Axl needs to take that next step and keep things moving forward.  If he just sits and pouts, the situation will always be the same.

Correct.  I think the record company probably is apathetic about the current lineup, and doesn?t really give a shit what they do.  They probably don?t want to spend millions to get another album out?but aren?t the CDII songs already in existence?  How much more cash would it take to get to the finish line? 

And if the record company is reluctant to part ways because of the untold millions that would be made if a reunion were to happen, then can?t the parties agree, as part of release from the contract, that if a reunion ever happens, UMG will be their record company?  I mean, you?d think Axl would offer that deal, considering a reunion is never going to happen. 

Point being:  there are creative ways to get around any problem if you want to.

[D-GenerationX]

And if the record company is reluctant to part ways because of the untold millions that would be made if a reunion were to happen, then can?t the parties agree, as part of release from the contract, that if a reunion ever happens, UMG will be their record company?  I mean, you?d think Axl would offer that deal, considering a reunion is never going to happen. 

Point being:  there are creative ways to get around any problem if you want to.

This is very interesting.  I wonder if that would work.

I do agree they probaly don't give much of a shit about the current line-up, but aren't giving up their interest in the breand in case a miracle occurs and they re-unite.  That's smart business.

If you are Axl, and that gets you out from under them, aren't you 'bout it, 'bout it?  Yeah, rights to the reunion album.  All you, buddy.  He signs that with one hand as he makes a jerking off motion with the other.

[Ali]

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too. 

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

Ali

And while we?re on the topic of contract, can we stop with the notion (thrown around here often) that GnR?s contract with the record company is this iron clad agreement and they are forced to remain tied to the (evil) company in perpetuity?

There is a concept in the law called bad faith?meaning, even if two parties are contractually related, if one of the acts in bad faith (i.e. deliberately acts contrary to the agreement or takes action to prohibit the other party?s compliance) that is a breach and the non-offending party has the right to terminate the contract (or sue for damages).

How could that play out here?  Well, presumably GnR?s contract requires them to produce a certain amount of albums/songs/concerts, etc.  And it requires the record company to take certain actions (promote/market the band, advance money, etc.)  If GnR did submit an album to be released, and the record company said no, or the record company is doing things that intentionally interfere with the band?s purpose (e.g. refusing to promote anything, pushing for a reunion), well then wouldn?t this be grounds for breach???  Yes, it would require lawyers and litigation, but the alternative is to remain slavishly bound to your enemy the record company, and forced to march to their beat.  Sorry, but that doesn?t really sound like Axl to me?he doesn?t strike me as a ?yes man? or one who would just sit there and take it?especially from a corporate conglomerate.  I mean, other bands have been able to get out of their record contracts, right?  I say that without knowing if it?s true, but I have to imagine it has happened before.

Before folks crucify me for this, know a few things:  (i) I (obviously) have no idea the terms of GnR?s contract, and thus am completely speculating as to its terms and the rights and obligations of the parties, (ii) I would really love to read it, and (iii) I was really hoping to be getting updates from the H&H fest tonight, so my little diatribe is merely filling the void left by the show?s cancelation.

MIA tried several times to release a record with Interscope and they rejected her record several times before finally releasing it.  No lawsuit occurred there for reasons unknown.

If you think it is easy to get out of record contract, I suggest you watch the documentary Artifact about what happened when 30 Seconds to Mars tried to do just that.

That's a cautionary tale if I ever saw one.

Ali

I?m not saying it?s easy to get out of?what I?m saying is if one party is in breach of the contract, then it does provide grounds for terminating the contract.  Presumably, the contract involves both parties working towards putting out some product.  Let?s assume that the product is a new album.  If everyone is working towards that goal, then you?re right, it would be hard from GnR to terminate.  However, you imply that the record company has it in for the current lineup, has blocked a new album, etc.?if that?s true, there would seem to be an argument for the band to terminate.

Didn?t 50 Cent get out of his contract with Interscope recently?  How was he able to do it?  It?s not impossible to do, and using it as an excuse for no new album doesn?t make sense, IMO.

Again, you should see the movie 30 Seconds to Mars tried to terminate their contract deeming it unlawful since they had been under contract for more than seven years (nine years).  They are still under contract with EMI. That tells you how that turned out.

As far as 50 Cent, he admittedly leverage his friendships to be able to pursue new projects on a new label.  But, Interscope still retains the rights to release and market his back catalogue AND he is still under the Universal Music umbrella.  So, he really never left UMG.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/02/21/50-cent-explains-how-he-left-interscope-debuts-funeral-video/

Ali

[Ali]

MIA tried several times to release a record with Interscope and they rejected her record several times before finally releasing it.  No lawsuit occurred there for reasons unknown.

If you think it is easy to get out of record contract, I suggest you watch the documentary Artifact about what happened when 30 Seconds to Mars tried to do just that.

That's a cautionary tale if I ever saw one.

Oh, I'm sure its a bitch.

But I think there are those of us that want him to make the best of a bad situation.  Work something out with the label just to get something out, and in the process, fulfill another part your obligation to the contract.  Speed up your freedom.

Every journey begins with a single step.  Axl needs to take that next step and keep things moving forward.  If he just sits and pouts, the situation will always be the same.

Correct.  I think the record company probably is apathetic about the current lineup, and doesn?t really give a shit what they do.  They probably don?t want to spend millions to get another album out?but aren?t the CDII songs already in existence?  How much more cash would it take to get to the finish line? 

And if the record company is reluctant to part ways because of the untold millions that would be made if a reunion were to happen, then can?t the parties agree, as part of release from the contract, that if a reunion ever happens, UMG will be their record company?  I mean, you?d think Axl would offer that deal, considering a reunion is never going to happen. 

Point being:  there are creative ways to get around any problem if you want to.

Easy to say, but maybe not so easy to implement.  That sounds like an interesting idea, but who knows how practical that would be to implement. 

Regardless, I've always thought that the potential reunion could be a factor in not wanting to let GN'R go.

Ali