New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[GNR2014]

It was hardly a debacle.

GNR broke the MySpace streaming record and garnered positive headlines: http://www.nme.com/news/guns-n-roses/41217

Do you think it help or hurt sales though?

I think sales were hurt most by the lack of any discernable chorus or hooks.
There was no single, and no front man to be found.
If the album were better, the stream would have helped them move more copies.
People didn't like what they heard, and moved on.

[D-GenerationX]

I think sales were hurt most by the lack of any discernable chorus or hooks.
There was no single, and no front man to be found.

Big time problems, agreed.

If the album were better, the stream would have helped them move more copies.
People didn't like what they heard, and moved on.

These are my assumptions as well. 

I just question the logic of giving them a free listen.  This was such a unique situation in that it was the first album in 15 years from a totally different line-up.  I'd have probably made people buy it to see if they liked it.  Even if they got it home, played it and hated it...they already bought it and you got their $15.

[GeorgeSteele]

^I might have to actually agree with that.  Stream a song, not the whole album.  Also, I've never liked any album ever on first listen and I think most people are the same in that sense.  To fully enjoy music, you have to know what's coming.  So, in that regard, I'll invest more time listening over and over to an album I've paid for, rather than something that's on a website streaming for free.

The lack of catchy hooks/choruses exacerbates the problem of only giving one listen.  It's the type of album that grows on you, not something you fall in love with on 1 or 2 listens.  It reminds me of the 80s cola wars,  where Pepsi would always beat Coke in taste tests, yet Coke would always outsell Pepsi by leaps and bounds.  Marketers figured out that tasters preferred a sample of Pepsi because it was sweeter, but preferred drinking Coke more regularly, because the sweetness of Pepsi was too much in large quantities for most people.  Much in the same way overly catchy songs, that are great at first few listens, get very quickly played out or annoying.

[JAEBALL]

^I might have to actually agree with that.  Stream a song, not the whole album.  Also, I've never liked any album ever on first listen and I think most people are the same in that sense.  To fully enjoy music, you have to know what's coming.  So, in that regard, I'll invest more time listening over and over to an album I've paid for, rather than something that's on a website streaming for free.

The lack of catchy hooks/choruses exacerbates the problem of only giving one listen.  It's the type of album that grows on you, not something you fall in love with on 1 or 2 listens.  It reminds me of the 80s cola wars,  where Pepsi would always beat Coke in taste tests, yet Coke would always outsell Pepsi by leaps and bounds.  Marketers figured out that tasters preferred a sample of Pepsi because it was sweeter, but preferred drinking Coke more regularly, because the sweetness of Pepsi was too much in large quantities for most people.  Much in the same way overly catchy songs, that are great at first few listens, get very quickly played out or annoying.

Good thoughts... SOD ,Sorry and Prostitute all took time for me...but now are 2 of my favorites. Sorry not as much because the lyrics kinda bum me out...

So if a casual fan hears it once for free...might not relate to it yet, and decide not to buy it.

[D-GenerationX]

Could never get into 'Sorry'.  The lyrics might as well have been written by a scorned 15 year old girl.

I think 'I.R.S.' is the most accessible song.  That is the one I have always gotten the best reaction to when I played it for non GNR diehards.

[JAEBALL]

Could never get into 'Sorry'.  The lyrics might as well have been written by a scorned 15 year old girl.

I think 'I.R.S.' is the most accessible song.  That is the one I have always gotten the best reaction to when I played it for non GNR diehards.

I liked the guitar work on SORRY... but when it came more and more clear who the song was about... I just didn't want to like a GNR song about the GNR feud.

That's why they make cars in all colors tho... IRS is not my thing.

[D-GenerationX]

Of all the CD songs I played for friends (and I did this a lot), 'Street Of Dreams' and 'I.R.S.' were the only one that people felt sounded like the GNR they knew.

[jarmo]

Because Guns is a band under a major label, I don't think they can sell albums at shows.  My understanding is that major labels require sales through specific distribution outlets and I don't think concert venues qualify.  Could be wrong on that, not 100% sure.

I know this hinders most of the ideas the hardcore fans can come up with.

Download with ticket purchase is a nice idea, don't think I've ever seen that.

Music's been given away in multiple ways. You get cds with magazines, you pick up download codes at Starbucks and so on. I'm sure this could be done if there was a will to do it. But who knows what the contracts look like. I know many artists still have this kind of issues because of the move from actual records to digital sales.

Spirit noted that the band has 30 million followers on FB.  Christ, I had no idea it was that high.  I'm no marketing guru, but if the band can introduce a fraction of that number to new music through that platform, I cannot imagine it would not have a positive effect on concert attendance.  

In addition there's the 1.6 million Twitter followers as well.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Because Guns is a band under a major label, I don't think they can sell albums at shows.  My understanding is that major labels require sales through specific distribution outlets and I don't think concert venues qualify.  Could be wrong on that, not 100% sure.

I know this hinders most of the ideas the hardcore fans can come up with.

Let's get an album to actually release first.  Then we can break balls about distribution ideas.

[Ali]

I am not much of a Pearl Jam fan either but I do respect PJ much more than GN'R for the way they are still creative (changing setlists around and releasing albums) and the way they treat their fanbase. The ability to buy a legal bootleg of the show you attended is superb - imagine if gnr gave their fanbase this sort of respect?

Any third party analysis of both band's operations would arrive at the only logical conclusion that one does things the right way and other is a cautionary tale as to how not to operate.

Not my scene, Vegas. I find the playing of nostalgia sets in casinos, cheap and tacky. It is certainly not where I envisioned Axl Rose ending when he re-emerged in 1999! I did by the way see Axl in 2012 and it was a good show, certainly, but somehow empty without a direction from this band. It is probably my last gnr show (I have seen them a number of times) unless Axl releases an album.

Yeah, this was what I was alluding to earlier in the thread.  That is sort of the perception of Vegas.

Of course, bring it up and the answer you get is that the person had fun at the show and so did the people around them, which obviously totally misses the point.

No offense, but that perception of Vegas seems a little antiquated when I consider the fact that there are artists from different genres, like country and pop, in addition to rock, who do residencies in Vegas.  I understand historically that is the perception of what it means to perform in Vegas and do a residency, but that is worth revisiting and actually revising.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

No offense, but that perception of Vegas seems a little antiquated when I consider the fact that there are artists from different genres, like country and pop, in addition to rock, who do residencies in Vegas.  I understand historically that is the perception of what it means to perform in Vegas and do a residency, but that is worth revisiting and actually revising.

Oh, its absolutely antiquated, but its out there.

Just like people still using the term "lounge act".

[Ali]

^I might have to actually agree with that.  Stream a song, not the whole album.  Also, I've never liked any album ever on first listen and I think most people are the same in that sense.  To fully enjoy music, you have to know what's coming.  So, in that regard, I'll invest more time listening over and over to an album I've paid for, rather than something that's on a website streaming for free.

The lack of catchy hooks/choruses exacerbates the problem of only giving one listen.  It's the type of album that grows on you, not something you fall in love with on 1 or 2 listens.  It reminds me of the 80s cola wars,  where Pepsi would always beat Coke in taste tests, yet Coke would always outsell Pepsi by leaps and bounds.  Marketers figured out that tasters preferred a sample of Pepsi because it was sweeter, but preferred drinking Coke more regularly, because the sweetness of Pepsi was too much in large quantities for most people.  Much in the same way overly catchy songs, that are great at first few listens, get very quickly played out or annoying.

I agree whole-heartedly.  The decision to stream the entire album was a mistake.  It gave people a legal option to listen to the entire album without making a purchase.

I also agree that the lack of traditional pop song structures (verse-chorus-verse) and hooks makes the streaming option an even bigger problem.  It took me several listens to appreciate songs like "Sorry" and "Prostitute".  Once they did sink in, I loved them.  Now, "Prostitute" is on the level of "November Rain" and "Estranged" for me as Axl-penned epics.  

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

I also agree that the lack of traditional pop song structures (verse-chorus-verse) and hooks makes the streaming option an even bigger problem.  It took me several listens to appreciate songs like "Sorry" and "Prostitute".  Once they did sink in, I loved them.  Now, "Prostitute" is on the level of "November Rain" and "Estranged" for me as Axl-penned epics.  

Yep, yep.  Very much agreed.

[Ali]

No offense, but that perception of Vegas seems a little antiquated when I consider the fact that there are artists from different genres, like country and pop, in addition to rock, who do residencies in Vegas.  I understand historically that is the perception of what it means to perform in Vegas and do a residency, but that is worth revisiting and actually revising.

Oh, its absolutely antiquated, but its out there.

Just like people still using the term "lounge act".

Yes, the "lounge act" term is the quintessential example of how antiquated people's perception of Vegas can be.

As someone who attended both residencies, I can safely say that you're just seeing a GN'R show with a different stage production.  In fact, given that I saw "There Was A Time" and "Prostitute" for the first time ever, along with "Yesterdays" for the first time in more than two decades (and all very strong versions at that), I can safely say that you can see a great GN'R show with a different stage production.

Ali

[mortismurphy]

Was there posts deleted here? I refuse to believe my reference to a bona fide comment Beta herself made is deemed, pliable to deletion. This forum is really something else!

Oh, you get used to it.

Truthfully, this place is not nearly as bad as its rep at the other sites, but you do have to put up with some state run media type practices.

Its the trade off for having a place you can talk about the current band in any real way.

Apparently you are not allowed to paraphrase comments by, Team Brazil!!

I have never seen censorship so heavy handed and unnecessary.

[jarmo]

If you're here to look for attention, you're in the wrong place. 

Your comment had nothing to do with anything. Other than trying to take cheap shots about a situation you seem to know nothing about.
Now move on.



/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

Because Guns is a band under a major label, I don't think they can sell albums at shows.  My understanding is that major labels require sales through specific distribution outlets and I don't think concert venues qualify.  Could be wrong on that, not 100% sure.

I know this hinders most of the ideas the hardcore fans can come up with.

Let's get an album to actually release first.  Then we can break balls about distribution ideas.

If we're told the album is 'done', then I would think there is an album to release and maybe it's just figuring out things like distribution and other post-production stuff before it's actually released.  In which case, breaking balls is fair game.  Besides, since when did you decide that a lack of action from the band is a reason not to speculate or discuss hypotheticals?  

[mortismurphy]

If you're here to look for attention, you're in the wrong place. 

Your comment had nothing to do with anything. Other than trying to take cheap shots about a situation you seem to know nothing about.
Now move on.



/jarmo

This is not true. In fact it is a blatant lie. The comment in question was a reply to the managerial competence of Merck, a former manager of Guns N' Roses. I merely paraphrased a statement which demonstrates that Team Brazil are not doing a much better job - or certainly have made one or two 'media errors'. My post was relevant to the prior point in other words.

Things are sad when, comments by the very people the website is trying to defend are erased because it makes them look bad!!!

[D-GenerationX]

Because Guns is a band under a major label, I don't think they can sell albums at shows.  My understanding is that major labels require sales through specific distribution outlets and I don't think concert venues qualify.  Could be wrong on that, not 100% sure.

I know this hinders most of the ideas the hardcore fans can come up with.

Let's get an album to actually release first.  Then we can break balls about distribution ideas.

If we're told the album is 'done', then I would think there is an album to release and maybe it's just figuring out things like distribution and other post-production stuff before it's actually released.  In which case, breaking balls is fair game.  

Dude, I'm on your side on this.  I was responding to Jarmo's little dig with one of my own.

Jarmo made the ultimate cart before the horse argument, mocking ideas about how it could be distributed.  I was just commenting that maybe we get a completed album before talking distribution.  And I mean actual confirmation.  Not DJ or Dizzy telling us they supposedly have all this stuff.

Besides, since when did you decide that a lack of action from the band is a reason not to speculate or discuss hypotheticals? 

I'm also on your side here.  But I can tell you firsthand that Jarmo and some of the rest of the gang ain't.  Speculation, which I would think is just that, as well as away to pass the time, is deemed dangerous and unfair.  You are never going to hear me shutting down speculation talk.  You will from others.

[D-GenerationX]

This is not true. In fact it is a blatant lie. The comment in question was a reply to the managerial competence of Merck, a former manager of Guns N' Roses. I merely paraphrased a statement which demonstrates that Team Brazil are not doing a much better job - or certainly have made one or two 'media errors'. My post was relevant to the prior point in other words.

I am 100% with you on this.

But I'm also 100% when I tell you this sort of talk goes nowhere.  I have had several of my own posts disappear, and you are best just letting it go.  He makes the call but he is also the appellate judge for his own decisions.

As he said, best to move on.