|
Title: Should the next album be a double? Post by: CherryGarcia on August 25, 2015, 12:14:05 PM Since '91 we've only gotten 15 songs of new material.
Would you be opposed to the next album being a double to 'make up for lost time' in a sense? GN'R never technically released a double album. The UYIs were a double set, but were two separate albums. Imagine say, the next GN'R album being comprised of 28 totally original songs. I think that'd make the wait worth it. Axl in 2006 said they were working on 32 songs; CD had 14. That leaves 18 songs still unreleased - more than your usual 1 Disk CD. I'm sure from the hundreds of sessions from 1995 to 2010 or so there could be enough material in there for another ten or so songs. Title: Re: Should the next album be a double? Post by: EmilyGNR on August 25, 2015, 12:26:22 PM Since '91 we've only gotten 15 songs of new material. Would you be opposed to the next album being a double to 'make up for lost time' in a sense? GN'R never technically released a double album. The UYIs were a double set, but were two separate albums. Imagine say, the next GN'R album being comprised of 28 totally original songs. I think that'd make the wait worth it. Axl in 2006 said they were working on 32 songs; CD had 14. That leaves 18 songs still unreleased - more than your usual 1 Disk CD. I'm sure from the hundreds of sessions from 1995 to 2010 or so there could be enough material in there for another ten or so songs. How has time been lost exactly? All your little statistics are very impressive I suppose, but the next album will be out when it is deemed ready for release. I don't think anyone would complain if it were a double, but considering the slump in the recording industry and the abysmal sales figures, it may be unlikely. Title: Re: Should the next album be a double? Post by: D-GenerationX on August 25, 2015, 01:01:41 PM They referred to UYI as "clearing the vaults". A double here would be the same idea.
But, walk before you can run. He's been working on a single disc tracklist for 7 years now, going on 8. Most people can do that in iTunes in about 30 seconds. Title: Re: Should the next album be a double? Post by: Virolec on August 26, 2015, 05:19:11 PM The UYI records were great, but also flawed. I guess a bit like The White Album (but two of it at once...), the sprawling, self-indulgent nature of it is part of what makes it so legendary, and you have to respect the cojones of a band doing something so massive at such a relatively early stage in their career; but there's a lot of stuff on there that is pretty unremarkable to say the least. I imagine we could all come up with different tracklists for a slimmed down version, but at the end of the day for every Estranged there's a My World, for every November Rain there's a So Fine, for every Don't Cry there's... uh... a rather self-indulgent version of the same song with different lyrics. And this is taking place in the context of what's already a pretty slim back catalogue, by the standards of other big league rock bands (with obvious exceptions like Nirvana, of course).
Personally, I wouldn't want a double album if it's going to be as patchy and inconsistent as UYI. Of course, Iron Maiden are just about to release their first studio double album, so the format isn't dead - but they've built up a lot more credit (in terms of people being willing to give such an ambitious project it a shot) than Guns N' Roses have, with pretty consistent album releases, tours and general public activity and visibility. Would I buy a Guns N' Roses double album? The very day it came out, of course I would. But I wouldn't expect a general world-going-nuts for it repeat of 1991, not unless it was messianically good (cf. Chinese Democracy). Title: Re: Should the next album be a double? Post by: LongGoneDay on August 27, 2015, 08:59:05 AM The UYI records were great, but also flawed. I guess a bit like The White Album (but two of it at once...), the sprawling, self-indulgent nature of it is part of what makes it so legendary, and you have to respect the cojones of a band doing something so massive at such a relatively early stage in their career; but there's a lot of stuff on there that is pretty unremarkable to say the least. I imagine we could all come up with different tracklists for a slimmed down version, but at the end of the day for every Estranged there's a My World, for every November Rain there's a So Fine, for every Don't Cry there's... uh... a rather self-indulgent version of the same song with different lyrics. And this is taking place in the context of what's already a pretty slim back catalogue, by the standards of other big league rock bands (with obvious exceptions like Nirvana, of course). Personally, I wouldn't want a double album if it's going to be as patchy and inconsistent as UYI. Of course, Iron Maiden are just about to release their first studio double album, so the format isn't dead - but they've built up a lot more credit (in terms of people being willing to give such an ambitious project it a shot) than Guns N' Roses have, with pretty consistent album releases, tours and general public activity and visibility. Would I buy a Guns N' Roses double album? The very day it came out, of course I would. But I wouldn't expect a general world-going-nuts for it repeat of 1991, not unless it was messianically good (cf. Chinese Democracy). I must admit I find it funny when some say they?d prefer less music. It?s an interesting point of view. I don?t really think the Illusions were all that flawed. Some songs aren?t as strong as others, but none of them (with the exception of My World) are begging to be skipped. I personally dig So Fine, and a lot of the tracks some posters here seem less keen on. I think for the most part, if you are a fan of a bands music, you will usually appreciate the majority of songs they put out(especially in their prime). Obviously some bands hang on too long, start mailing it in, or personnel changes alter their direction, but for the most part, I can dig the majority of songs by bands I enjoy. So I say the more the merrier. In the case of a potential new release, it may work in the opposite respect. I found Chinese to be very patchy, with songs like Rhiad, Scraped, even the title track, sounding like filler. A new release by the CD era lineup isn?t anywhere near as appealing to me as unheard material by the classic lineup. But if they want to clear the vaults, clear them. Get it all out there, and hopefully for every Rhiad, there will be a Catcher in the Rye. Title: Re: Should the next album be a double? Post by: Lucky on September 15, 2015, 11:13:06 AM I dont understand The point of this topic. Its like asking an american if he wants hotdogs on his icecream.... Of course he does.
But to be serious... The nex album should be whatever Axl wants. Id be happy with a single for start (a single as a song...not an album)...or a soundtrack to a calrappy di Caprio movie.. I dont care |