Would'nt there be an element of cost involved in studio time as most of it was done at RAK studios plus the cost of Chris Thomas who was involved on the production side.

Trying to make sense of "the business" of Roxy Music is not easy for anyone on the outside. I don't know how the recording sessions were financed, but I recall that considerable recording was done at PM's own Gallery Studio and my sense was that PM also heavily involved in mixing and producing the tracks.

Contracts of various sorts were no doubt written and signed, but BF clearly reserved the right to wait and see what came of the sessions before he agreed to the release of an album.

I don't know how someone like Chris Thomas would have been compensated for his time. Maybe he too will only get "paid" if and when some product is officially released. Thus he might never get paid for his efforts. The same goes for the rest of Roxy...

Surely this adds to the mystique of Roxy, but is this really the aim? In interviews Bryan seems to be such an agreable guy that I can`t think of him nor as a "milker" or as a "keep them waiting" kind of guy. However, there sure is musical treasures almost at the level of the worth of gold stored somewhere, presumably in Phil`s hardware...

As I recall, I don't think any words were written to any of the songs. Hence an under pressure BF did the Dylan thing. I also recall PM saying they had 18 or so good tracks enough for 2 albums that were almost finished - I assume no lyrics. Then a while later it was abandoned with AM saying he couldn't feel the commitment/passion to get through to the end of a long road especially with tracks he hadn't been involved with from the start.

The issue of lyrics (or the desire to write better lyrics) seems to have played some part in BF's unwillingness to finish the album. But at the time PM also made comments about how he liked the sound of BF's mature voice, so I believe there were at least some songs in which vocals were tracked.

Some commentary was offered at the time that BF's reluctance to proceed with the new album derived from concern on his part that his gruffer (or more "mature" in a gentler phrasing) could not match the sweet lyricism of Avalon. Thus he didn't want to suffer criticism for how the "new" Roxy failed to meet the standard of the "original" Roxy. Who knows if this is true, but it is clear that he does not want to diminish the Roxy brand and perhaps the quality of his vocals are a part of that equation.

Regarding AM's comments about Roxy recordings, it may be that they refer to a proposal by BF to AM and PM that what became the Olympia album be completed as a Roxy album. Thus AM's comments were not directed toward the Roxy recordings of 2005-06, but towards Olympia. Olympia (like Mamouna back in the mid-90s) made use of contributions by PM, AM, and Eno, and some of the promotional hype surrounding the release of Olympia strongly played up the idea of how it represented a Roxy Reunion. If nothing else, this represented one of the reasons that AM and PM felt a bit used by BF. In the end, BF wanted the promotional benefit of hyping Olympia as a Roxy Reunion, but in all other respects it remained a BF solo project.

"In the end, BF wanted the promotional benefit of hyping Olympia as a Roxy Reunion, but in all other respects it remained a BF solo project."

I think J.O.B will agree that this came across due to a misprint by Murray Chalmers PR - who covered BF's press at the time....

His press release stated:

"It is the first album to reunite Bryan Ferry with Phil Manzanera, Andy Mackay and Brian Eno since Roxy Music’s seminal album “For Your Pleasure” in 1973. It also features contributions from Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour....."

This was a mistake - as they last all played together - albeit overdubs - on Mamouna....

All of this could have been avoided if BF had either just removed - or replayed the small contributions from RM members that actually made the record:

Eno pad on Tender and the first few bleeps of alphaville
(Eno's Tender and alphaville contributions were pre RAK session - they can be heard on horoscope sessions)

Phil Manz guitar on reason (lost in the mix)
Manz guitar on BF Bass (2.56 onwards)
Maz guitar on Siren (3.48-3.52)
Mackay oboe on Heartache / Siren....

I guess he just thought they added to the mix....

DCJ:

"The reason that PM thinks that Roxy almost completed an album is because that is exactly what happened."

Have you heard it?

I think J.O.B will agree with me in saying that a few sketchy sketches does not equate to an 'almost completed album'.

Why would BF release something substandard, unfinished and harmful to Roxy's brand..... to massage Phil's Ego?

My view/opinion on the fate of the 2005-06 Roxy recordings are derived from my consideration of all the things that were said by various parties over the years. And back in 2005-06 the Manzanera website was quite active and PM provided no small amount of info about the project as it evolved.

Anyway, it is simply my opinion that the new Roxy album came very close to completion. If some one wishes to hold a different opinion that is their right, although I may not find it very convincing.

Whether or not something is "sub-standard" is a rather subjective determination. And it is also rather easy to invoke the notion of something being "sub-standard" as a way of masking other issues and motives. Perhaps the 2005-06 Roxy recordings deserve to be characterized as "sub-standard." Perhaps not. I do know that I don't consider anything on PM's 2004 album 6PM to be sub-standard and I believe it reasonable to think that what Roxy did a year or two later could easily be as good. But that's my opinion. Others might differ.

The problem remains that since siren Roxy haven't been a band just BF ,PM and AM and a small army of session players, wasn't there mention of Neil Hubbard being involved in the Roxy sessions (presumably Colin Good and Ollie Thompson would be in there too) ? if so how many others would have ended up playing on it? The biggest single stumbling block is that BF can't/won't be constrained by working within a band format and unlike 1978 when he needed the band name he can pick and choose when to work with the others. There would also seem to have been a marked shift in emphasis from the 2001 ALL Roxy no solo stuff and BF being more integrated into the band to LST creeping into the playlist and the diluting of PM and AM's roles on the subsequent tours.

wrighta - I agree that when Roxy disbanded after Siren BF was focused on his solo career and he was not interested any future for Roxy. But when his solo career didn't take-off -- and especially after the commercial flop of The Bride Stripped Bare -- he basically was forced by economics to resuscitate Roxy because the record company had no interest in releasing any more of his his solo albums. The return of Roxy with Manifesto never would have happened if In Your Mind and Bride/Bare had been more successful. So Roxy lasted for three more albums until BF was able to finally cut the cord and establish a successful solo career.

BF is certainly a major star in Europe and Asia (not so much the US) but Roxy Music as a band and a brand outshines him, and I think this still rankles him. So he has a strangle love/hate relationship with Roxy where he is proud to be associated with the band but at the same time resentful that it is more famous/renowned/respected than he is.