The Likelihood of A New Album In 2016

[faldor]

All that stuff doesn't erase what did happen though. The relationship may be healing, and it appears that it is. With Iovine hopefully out of the picture, maybe they can play nicer together. The DVD was certainly a good first step. Maybe an album is around the corner. We can only hope.

Indeed.

But I believe I saw it posted either here or one of the other GNR boards that the DVD sold pretty well, at least in terms of how those things sell.

If that's the case, it suggests at least some demand for current (or at least post-classic era) GNR.

Would you think it made sense to then have things working on the album front to try and strike while the iron is hot?  When did that DVD come out?  Last fall or so?  I'm not suggesting an album should have followed by last Christmas, but what about by this Christmas?  Or early next year?

Wouldn't there be some sort of indicator that was going on?

People often say we didn't know in 2008 it was coming.  That there were no signs.  Is that true though?  We got out last round of leaks 4-5 months before it dropped, as someone with sticky fingers grabbed up some rough demos being mixed and mastered.  We had a tracklist a few months before.  Then, the ultimate, we started hearing about a release date.

Weren't those signs?

Maybe an album release is a lot more involved and complicated than a live DVD. And with the way CD was "mishandled" on ALL fronts, I wouldn't expect a swift release for the follow up. Obviously! Maybe it's been in the works. Maybe Axl wanted to take a little time off after many years of touring before entering phase 2. I'd also think they'd like to keep things a little more under wraps after everything leaked out with the CD release. Things happened pretty quick in 2008. Not to say that will happen again this time, but I doubt we'd get a definitive release date and tour plans 6 months ahead of time like some other acts.

The target is apparently next year. Who knows if that's still the case. Next year could come and go with nothing but silence. We've been there before. But I hope some progress is made.

[jarmo]

I personally have never claimed that it's all on the record label. Obviously there are a lot of factors at play. Axl may want things done a certain way. The label may want things done another. But there are countless stories about how corrupt the music business is and how they've screwed over artists since the beginning of time. I can't say I blame Axl for not wanting to do everything the label's way, and being wary of their motives. We have it easy. We decide whether or not to purchase whatever music is released. We don't have to deal with the ugly business side of the industry unless you want to decide on buying vs. "stealing". So it's quite easy to complain about not having a new album to purchase after 7 years or 14 songs in 20 years. It makes no difference to us, how it gets done, but I'd venture to guess that it's vastly different on the other end.

It's just a defense tactic in order to ridicule anybody who questions those people who keep posting about how it's all up to Axl and management.

If you dare to point out that there's more then two parties involved in this and you shouldn't point fingers especially when you don't know the full story, you get ridiculed with this "you think there's a conspiracy at work against GN'R" type of crap.

These people are always quick to put blame solely on their favorite singer and the management they can't stand for some kind of personal reasons.....

Does the band want to do this?  That's the first question to ask...why do you point the finger at the label?  Also, the rest of your questions could be answered in less than a three hour meeting.

Well I was playing along the hypothetical game and assumed so. You know, let's say they do. Apparently if they do wanna do something like that, it's easy after that. Isn't that the whole idea we've been sold by the experts?


Meeting joke. Oh how funny.



/jarmo

[faldor]

Just to correct myself. I got my Def Leppard history a little mixed up. In 2011 they released a best of live 2 disc album, with 3 new songs included. So the new songs were tied to a best of release, not released on their own. FWIW.

[D-GenerationX]

The target is apparently next year. Who knows if that's still the case. Next year could come and go with nothing but silence. We've been there before. But I hope some progress is made.

Look how nuts people went it appeared that Axl tweeted that pic from the studio.

It subsided a bit when it was discovered he was simply re-tweeting something of Chris Pittman's, but even that is still good, I think.  It showed SOMEONE was in the studio.

[faldor]

Guns N? Roses does not release music like other bands, because Guns N? Roses is not like other bands.
Guns N? Roses does things their way, and their way is not doing things. It?s always been that way. Except when it wasn?t.
Like back when they used to release music like other bands. That was cool.
But, not releasing records is the new ?cool?, and no one is cooler than GN?R.

Who's saying it's cool? I'm just pointing out that's the way it is and some possible reasons for it. In no way do I think it's cool, and I find it hard to believe anyone else does either. But each week artists release albums. That doesn't change or have any effect on the current situation of GNR.

I know. Just a little light hearted ribbing at no one in particular, my friend.

Gotcha. Well I agreed with everything you said except for the not releasing music being cool part. I think we all want and would've hoped for more music. That's one thing we can all agree on. All the who's, why's, what's, and how's there are vastly different opinions on all of that and more.

[jarmo]

The Sisters of Mercy haven't released an album since the early 1990s. Wonder why none of the music business experts use them as an example of how easy it's to release a new album... 




/jarmo

[faldor]

The target is apparently next year. Who knows if that's still the case. Next year could come and go with nothing but silence. We've been there before. But I hope some progress is made.

Look how nuts people went it appeared that Axl tweeted that pic from the studio.

It subsided a bit when it was discovered he was simply re-tweeting something of Chris Pittman's, but even that is still good, I think.  It showed SOMEONE was in the studio.

It doesn't take too much to excite the fan base, as we're not often given much information. Unfortunately when we go long periods without getting any information, the worst is assumed. It seems that they're trying to be a little more open and fan friendly, but at the same time things seem to change with GNR more than your average band, again for a variety of reasons. So it's a tough line to dance around with how open you want to be with your fans. If you keep promising things and don't deliver, people will stop trusting you. Granted, inactivity and lack of information can do the same thing, but my guess is they want plans to be as close to 100% before they announce them.

[jarmo]

Faldor, thanks for making sense. Refreshing to read posts that don't just keep repeating the same old negativity.

Yet more evidence that certain mindsets and posters aren't necessarily the average fan they think they are. Fortunately not everybody acts like they do. 


Sorry, shouldn't have said that. I'm supposed to only reply to posts that I don't agree with by adult men who can't handle a discussion with me because I'm mean to them. Ooos!


/jarmo
 

[D-GenerationX]

It doesn't take too much to excite the fan base, as we're not often given much information. Unfortunately when we go long periods without getting any information, the worst is assumed. It seems that they're trying to be a little more open and fan friendly, but at the same time things seem to change with GNR more than your average band, again for a variety of reasons. So it's a tough line to dance around with how open you want to be with your fans. If you keep promising things and don't deliver, people will stop trusting you. Granted, inactivity and lack of information can do the same thing, but my guess is they want plans to be as close to 100% before they announce them.

But fans aren't looking for chapter and verse.  We don't need stuff as detailed as that memory stick or whatever MSL got his hands on and extorted them over.

Suppose Axl simply tweeted a pic of himself in the studio throwing us a thumbs up.  Just sitting at a board.

People would go bonkers.  If nothing else, it might stop the narrative Axl couldn't find the studio with both hands, a map, a lit miner's helmet.

I guess you could counter argue that's only going to bring more questions.  But, I say, let's cross that hypothetical bridge when we come to it.  Instead, look at what your current approach of total silence is getting you and determining if its ideal.

[Ginger King]

Does the band want to do this?  That's the first question to ask...why do you point the finger at the label?  Also, the rest of your questions could be answered in less than a three hour meeting.

Well I was playing along the hypothetical game and assumed so. You know, let's say they do. Apparently if they do wanna do something like that, it's easy after that. Isn't that the whole idea we've been sold by the experts?

Meeting joke. Oh how funny.

/jarmo

I mean, I thought it was pretty funny.  Aren't you telling us not to take this stuff so seriously?  Lighten up, man. 

[Ginger King]

I personally have never claimed that it's all on the record label. Obviously there are a lot of factors at play. Axl may want things done a certain way. The label may want things done another. But there are countless stories about how corrupt the music business is and how they've screwed over artists since the beginning of time. I can't say I blame Axl for not wanting to do everything the label's way, and being wary of their motives. We have it easy. We decide whether or not to purchase whatever music is released. We don't have to deal with the ugly business side of the industry unless you want to decide on buying vs. "stealing". So it's quite easy to complain about not having a new album to purchase after 7 years or 14 songs in 20 years. It makes no difference to us, how it gets done, but I'd venture to guess that it's vastly different on the other end.

It's just a defense tactic in order to ridicule anybody who questions those people who keep posting about how it's all up to Axl and management.

If you dare to point out that there's more then two parties involved in this and you shouldn't point fingers especially when you don't know the full story, you get ridiculed with this "you think there's a conspiracy at work against GN'R" type of crap.

These people are always quick to put blame solely on their favorite singer and the management they can't stand for some kind of personal reasons.....

Of course there are more than two parties involved, but you are as quick to shine the light on the label as we are to shine it on Axl...yet, you are justified and we are whiny adult men.

[jarmo]

Of course there are more than two parties involved, but you are as quick to shine the light on the label as we are to shine it on Axl...yet, you are justified and we are whiny adult men.

Surprise! I got a reason for you.
I'm a fan of Axl and GN'R.
Never became a fan of the record company or the people who work(ed) there.
Sorry. Maybe some of you did....

So i don't understand why it's a surprise or anything that I'd choose to pick the side of the artist I'm a fan of....
I don't need to protect my "online ego" by pretending to be objective.

I mean, I thought it was pretty funny.  Aren't you telling us not to take this stuff so seriously?  Lighten up, man. 

As long as you entertain yourself. 

I tell people who tell me it's not serious that it's not serious, after they have a meltdown and try to insult me while ignoring my posts because they love discussions and can't handle one with me because I'm so mean to them...



/jarmo

[Ginger King]

Of course there are more than two parties involved, but you are as quick to shine the light on the label as we are to shine it on Axl...yet, you are justified and we are whiny adult men.

Surprise! I got a reason for you.
I'm a fan of Axl and GN'R.
Never became a fan of the record company or the people who work(ed) there.
Sorry. Maybe some of you did....

So i don't understand why it's a surprise or anything that I'd choose to pick the side of the artist I'm a fan of....
I don't need to protect my "online ego" by pretending to be objective.

/jarmo

So, you?re saying that you acknowledge there are two side that must agree on an album release (Axl and the label) yet you choose to believe that Axl is doing everything he can to release it, and the label is the one to blame? 

I?m saying there?s no real evidence to support either being the hold up.  It?s probably some combination of the two.  But because you?re a fan that means you have to believe Axl is 100% doing everything he can, and the label?s refusing to play ball?  That just doesn?t add up.

I guess you can argue there is no hold up, and that Axl is still looking very seriously at what to do regarding the music that?s already done and recorded.  And maybe that?s true.  I think the first step in the entire process is Axl saying I want to release this.  Once that happens, I think the rest of the pieces can fall in line rather quickly.  The cost to make this album is already done?therefore, why wouldn't the label want this out?  It will obviously make more money than sitting in the vault.  The issues should really be marketing, promotion, etc., and of course the art work and booklet.  I?m just not aware of any of those things ever holding up the release of any album (for years at a time).  But again, as we?re often reminded, there is no comparison to Guns n Roses.

[D-GenerationX]

I?m saying there?s no real evidence to support either being the hold up.  It?s probably some combination of the two.  But because you?re a fan that means you have to believe Axl is 100% doing everything he can, and the label?s refusing to play ball?  That just doesn?t add up.

I'll go even further.  Its total fucking nonsense.

I can concede both sides need to come together.  This is not a 100-0 or 0-100 type of situation.  Clearly, that's not reality.

But who's career is it?  Is Universal spending a lot of time fretting over what's going on with Guns N' Roses?  Are their year end books going to be dependent on whether they get something from Axl Rose or not?  Nope.

I can understand the idea that both sides have to work together, but in terms of motivation...how is that possibly not heavier on Axl's side of the ledger?

Then we get back to that point that they have already paid an obscene amount of money to record all this stuff.  If you want to tell me that the time may have come and gone to get maximum return on that investment, I'll buy it.  But whatever the current projections are, its a number greater than zero.  Sitting in Axl's Magical Mystery Vault, that return is zero.

What business sense does it make to shutter all efforts to release it?  None.  So then we pivot to how they are vindictive and evil.  And at that point, any serious conversation on the matter is well in the rearview mirror.

[jarmo]

So, you?re saying that you acknowledge there are two side that must agree on an album release (Axl and the label) yet you choose to believe that Axl is doing everything he can to release it, and the label is the one to blame?

No, I didn't say that. More generalizations to try to prove a point.

I'm saying that if Axl doesn't wanna release the album until he's happy to do so, then that's fine. He doesn't need to do "everything" if he doesn't want to. He has that choice. Some people seem to almost feel like they are indeed owed music (I know, that's not something they'll agree on, but the feeling is almost the same), in reality the only ones who might be owed music are the ones who have paid for it, and/or who have a contract for it. In other words, the record label.

I'm saying, that I'm not gonna start assuming that it's only up to Axl to release music when the band is still under contract to a major label.


In short, yes, I choose to take Axl's side instead of taking the record company's side. Why does it make sense for you to come to a fan site and always point the fingers at the artist? Like if somebody says "Oh, but there's several parts that are involved in all this", you'll be there to remind everybody that it's mostly about Axl. How come? I find it puzzling to be honest.


Yes, let's say the album's done and has been paid for and all that.
Now, the record company wants to make some money. But what they plan, isn't what the artist wants. Who's to blame? Some of you say, it's Axl. No matter what, it's always Axl. Because other bands release music! And other record companies release music every week, they're the good guys. They just want what's best for us music fans and the artists. Everybody knows that.

Some of you basically want Axl to bend over backwards for the record company, as long as you get that album you can listen to and then disregard to repeat the cycle ASAP.... Sorry if that offends some of you sensitive discussion lovers. Fortunately there are fans who aren't that needy. And they can see the other side of the coin.



/jarmo

[jarmo]

I'll go even further.  Its total fucking nonsense.

Mr Music business expert here still hasn't understood that Axl isn't necessarily motivated by the mighty Dollar....
Unbelievable that Mr Superfan & Expert on all things still hasn't noticed this.

Remember kids, there's a difference between thinking you know and actually knowing.... 

"But Def Leppard releases an album  "




/jarmo

[Ginger King]

In short, yes, I choose to take Axl's side instead of taking the record company's side. Why does it make sense for you to come to a fan site and always point the fingers at the artist? Like if somebody says "Oh, but there's several parts that are involved in all this", you'll be there to remind everybody that it's mostly about Axl. How come? I find it puzzling to be honest.

Yes, let's say the album's done and has been paid for and all that.
Now, the record company wants to make some money. But what they plan, isn't what the artist wants. Who's to blame? Some of you say, it's Axl. No matter what, it's always Axl. Because other bands release music! And other record companies release music every week, they're the good guys. They just want what's best for us music fans and the artists. Everybody knows that.

Some of you basically want Axl to bend over backwards for the record company, as long as you get that album you can listen to and then disregard to repeat the cycle ASAP.... Sorry if that offends some of you sensitive discussion lovers. Fortunately there are fans who aren't that needy. And they can see the other side of the coin.

/jarmo

Not bend over backwards, but certainly understand it?s a negotiation process and he?s going to have to give on a few points.  That?s life.  

My point is that if Axl?s ?negotiating? position is ?I get everything I want? that?s not realistic.  That?s not a negotiating position at all, and certainly not real life?I don?t care if you?re releasing an album or buying a house.  But it seems you would support such a decision as preserving his artistic integrity.  IMO, such a position indicates he has no real desire to release it at all.  

Also, none of us here "always" point the finger at Axl.  That's a bit too dramatic.  Sometimes we do.  I get that that bothers you, but the man in not infallible.  He has, even by his own admission, made mistakes.

[D-GenerationX]

Not bend over backwards, but certainly understand it?s a negotiation process and he?s going to have to give on a few points.  That?s life.  

My point is that if Axl?s ?negotiating? position is ?I get everything I want? that?s not realistic.  That?s not a negotiating position at all, and certainly not real life?I don?t care if you?re releasing an album or buying a house.  But it seems you would support such a decision as preserving his artistic integrity.  IMO, such a position indicates he has no real desire to release it at all.

Certainly how I see it.

I would put it somewhere between not caring at all and wanting to on some level, but having already made peace in his head it might never happen.

I would think an artist's ultimate goal is to have his work released and heard.  Otherwise, what's the point?  And as you say, everyone goes into a negotiation looking for the best possible deal for their side, which can then either directly or indirectly start things off with the least favorable deal for the other side.  You throw out your wish list, and see how much of it you can get.

But a wish list is just that...a wish.  Yeah, it would rock the house if they just agreed with you right away.  Odds are, they are going to counter offer.  Just as he would towards them.  So that's when you start to see what you can live with and what you can't.

Assuming you do want to eventually see a productive resolution, you will hammer it out.  If you don't care if you get a productive resolution or not, you sit there with a scowl and your arms folded and insist you terms or met, or no deal.

In this case, the label gives Axl your basic "OK, well fuck you then."  Axl says "same to you", and that's that.

Did you stick to your guns?  Did you really show them?  Well...its a spin. 

At the end of the day, they go on with their business while yours stays ground to a halt.  Seems a pyrrhic victory, at best.

[EmilyGNR]

In short, yes, I choose to take Axl's side instead of taking the record company's side. Why does it make sense for you to come to a fan site and always point the fingers at the artist? Like if somebody says "Oh, but there's several parts that are involved in all this", you'll be there to remind everybody that it's mostly about Axl. How come? I find it puzzling to be honest.

Yes, let's say the album's done and has been paid for and all that.
Now, the record company wants to make some money. But what they plan, isn't what the artist wants. Who's to blame? Some of you say, it's Axl. No matter what, it's always Axl. Because other bands release music! And other record companies release music every week, they're the good guys. They just want what's best for us music fans and the artists. Everybody knows that.

Some of you basically want Axl to bend over backwards for the record company, as long as you get that album you can listen to and then disregard to repeat the cycle ASAP.... Sorry if that offends some of you sensitive discussion lovers. Fortunately there are fans who aren't that needy. And they can see the other side of the coin.

/jarmo

Not bend over backwards, but certainly understand it?s a negotiation process and he?s going to have to give on a few points.  That?s life.  

My point is that if Axl?s ?negotiating? position is ?I get everything I want? that?s not realistic.  That?s not a negotiating position at all, and certainly not real life?I don?t care if you?re releasing an album or buying a house.  But it seems you would support such a decision as preserving his artistic integrity.  IMO, such a position indicates he has no real desire to release it at all.  

Also, none of us here "always" point the finger at Axl.  That's a bit too dramatic.  Sometimes we do.  I get that that bothers you, but the man in not infallible.  He has, even by his own admission, made mistakes.

How would you know Axl's negotiating position? Nice fantasy you have concocted there.

It is a matter of post history that a certain few here are consistently critical of Axl, management and all things GNR-always whining, always complaining and always finding things to complain about.

We have all heard stories about the horrors and tribulations that major labels inflict on Artists- why is it so difficult to believe that they are being difficult with GNR?

[jarmo]

Not bend over backwards, but certainly understand it’s a negotiation process and he’s going to have to give on a few points.  That’s life.  

Ok. I see what you're saying.
There's always a but....

My point is that if Axl’s “negotiating” position is “I get everything I want” that’s not realistic.  That’s not a negotiating position at all, and certainly not real life…I don’t care if you’re releasing an album or buying a house.  But it seems you would support such a decision as preserving his artistic integrity.  IMO, such a position indicates he has no real desire to release it at all.  

It depends.
If you're buying a house, if you need the house next week, you're kinda in a tough spot to negotiate. If you'd like to have a house, but you can keep living at your current residence for an indefinite time, suddenly the negotiation is different. Wouldn't you agree?

That's the point. Maybe Axl's ace is that he doesn't "need" to do this or that until he's happy to do so. And if that's the case, isn't that amazing?

Also, none of us here "always" point the finger at Axl.  That's a bit too dramatic.  Sometimes we do.  I get that that bothers you, but the man in not infallible.  He has, even by his own admission, made mistakes.

Well, from my experience he's the default one to be blamed by certain fans.
I don't really get that mentality.


Serious question. Why does it bother you (anybody) that Axl isn't releasing music at a rate to your liking and would rather wait than to release something to please others (and make money for the record company)?



/jarmo