You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Could the tide be turning
It's open to a billion variables...under this theory every subsequent album from an artist would sell less than the one prior because of the people who didn't like the last album...when it's not quite that simple...
but for the sake of this discussion...and given physical sales of albums have been in decline for the past decade or so I'd be prepared to say that it's possible the next album may sell less copies than the last.
However, there is no way in which it could sell so few copies so as to not be profitable. Even if the drop in sales was insane the numbers are just too great considering the recording costs for CD2 are 90% covered by the deal that paid back CD1 - because we know the songs are already pretty much done..other than some overdubs from DJ which will cost fuck all.
Have a look at the numbers smaller rock acts like Alice in Chains and Buckcherry and bands like that do internationally - it's no where even remotely near Chinese Democracy - yet those bands get re-signed to make a new album - so they're profitable for the label....then factor in that the label has already recouped the bulk of the recording costs.
Do you seriously believe you can't recoup the mastering cost from a brand like GNR?
Re: Could the tide be turning
Metallica gained a lot of goodwill with the public doing that Monster documentary, and for "keeping it real" playing "badass guitar". Carried the whole album afterwards, and that album was atrocious. Like Axl coming back with snakepit 2.
Face it. Bands like Metallica and AC/DC are hot stuff in 2011 despite not having good material for over 20 years. It's not about the music, it's about making the corporate goons happy. Axl might be the worst person in the world for that.
Re: Could the tide be turning
buzzsaw wrote:So...if people streamed it and didn't like it, and people bought it and didn't like it, it's reasonable to expect that sales would be lower for a subsequent album, correct?
Not really.
The quality of Album #2 doesn't depend on CD. The main selling point is the name Guns N Roses.
What if Album #2 is streamed and people who disliked CD would like it? Wouldn't it be a safe bet to expect the sales to increase to reflect that?
How many people that didn't like CD would bother to stream it? Lets play in the real world at least.
Re: Could the tide be turning
It's open to a billion variables...under this theory every subsequent album from an artist would sell less than the one prior because of the people who didn't like the last album...when it's not quite that simple...
St Anger and Death Magnetic have both reached double platinum, even if people generally liked the latter album more.
(I notice Neemo just beat me to include this - funny that 
)
But you're right, the law of diminishing returns doesn't quite cut it. Axl (or any other recording artist) will never again receive the treatment GNR had from 94 to 2004. That was just a big spending party and Axl just ran with it. I blame Geffen for putting on the cotton gloves whenever they tried to deal with him. So that option is done away with.
But as you say, there's enough material for an additional album. Whatever production still needs to be done, Axl may have to self-finance it and make a compensation arrangement with the label when it's ready to be released. Hard to say, I don't know the specifics of the revised recording agreement.
I find it funny that we have to justify common sense in various elaborate ways. 
Re: Could the tide be turning
It's open to a billion variables...under this theory every subsequent album from an artist would sell less than the one prior because of the people who didn't like the last album...when it's not quite that simple...
but for the sake of this discussion...and given physical sales of albums have been in decline for the past decade or so I'd be prepared to say that it's possible the next album may sell less copies than the last.
However, there is no way in which it could sell so few copies so as to not be profitable. Even if the drop in sales was insane the numbers are just too great considering the recording costs for CD2 are 90% covered by the deal that paid back CD1 - because we know the songs are already pretty much done..other than some overdubs from DJ which will cost fuck all.
Have a look at the numbers smaller rock acts like Alice in Chains and Buckcherry and bands like that do internationally - it's no where even remotely near Chinese Democracy - yet those bands get re-signed to make a new album - so they're profitable for the label....then factor in that the label has already recouped the bulk of the recording costs.
Do you seriously believe you can't recoup the mastering cost from a brand like GNR?
You're operating under the assumption that album 2 is actually done and not going to be tinkered with. I have no idea why you would operate under that assumption.
Those other bands cost quite a bit less to make an album, so it's easier to turn a profit. Take a look at the movie industry...it's why remakes are huge right now...saves a lot of money. They hire unknown actors and make a movie people already like and profit even if it flops. You can do that with those bands; you can't do that with Axl Rose.
Re: Could the tide be turning
i think a good benchmark for this theory would be St Anger to Death Magnetic
Did Metallica come back with just James? (Maybe they did...not a huge Metallica fan)
If not, the comparison is even a bigger stretch than it would have been anyway. Metallica didn't go 15 years between releases.
Re: Could the tide be turning
buzzsaw wrote:How many people that didn't like CD would bother to stream it? Lets play in the real world at least.
People who are curious to a new Guns N Roses album.
Ummm...those people lost their curiosity with CD. It's not like they're going to magically find new fans at this point.
Come on, quit with the crazy talk. If you're not interested in a serious discussion, back off.
