"Next Album" rumor / speculation thread *UPDATE AUG 22/2023*

[pilferk]

Most of the award shows bookers probably dont see GnRs 'pull' anymore anyway so wont invite them to such awards. Nothin against Guns but its all about pop and rnb stars right now.

Except AC/DC this year and Metallica last year.

See earlier "cred band" explanation.

These guys like people to THINK they like AC/DC and Metallica.  They wanna wear those shirts so they look like they have some "cred".

The Grammy organizers book them for a reason...and it ain't (IMHO) to actually pay homage to those bands. 

[pilferk]

Most of the award shows bookers probably dont see GnRs 'pull' anymore anyway so wont invite them to such awards. Nothin against Guns but its all about pop and rnb stars right now.

Except AC/DC this year and Metallica last year.

Yeah, I don't understand how people just gloss over that.

And I totally didn't follow what pilferk was trying to say with AC/DC being the go-to for rock cred, or whatever.  They were there because they have a new album out and went to play one of their new songs.

I'm unclear why GNR could not (at least theoretically) do the same thing this time next year if an album is out.  I don't see what's different.

Now, in my heart of hearts, I know Axl would probably rather remove one of his eyes with a fork than play such a show.  And that's fine.  But let's just say that. 

Do we really have to go into high spin mode and craft some tale how he's making some statement?  Why?  If doesn't want to, he doesn't want to.

You don't follow? Or you don't agree?

If you don't follow, I'll expound.

If you just don't agree...fair enough.

You outlined why AC/DC agreed to play the gig..not why they were asked to play.

I'm explaining why they were asked to play.

I'm not sure GnR gets the same ask or provides the same ego masturbation to the attendees.

I don't think Axl and the band would want to play the gig...I'm just not sure it matters, because I don't think they get asked, in the first place.

[pilferk]

I looked yesterday.  Nope.

American Music Awards, yes.  Slash's infamous speech.  They played 'Patience' the year prior, and they also sent the taped version of 'Yesterdays' in 1992.

Yes, they were.

3 nominiations, all best hard rock performance: GnR Lies (1990), UYI I (1992), and "Live and Let Die" (1993)

[D-GenerationX]

I'm not sure GnR gets the same ask or provides the same ego masturbation to the attendees.

But what would be the reason?  What makes it different for them?

I asked you if it was because of the bastardized line-up, which I thought was where you were going.  But you said its not.

So what's the story?  Are you telling us there is measurable difference in saying you like AC/DC, but not Guns N' Roses?  Or pretending to say you do, as you are claiming?

[D-GenerationX]

Yes, they were.

3 nominiations, all best hard rock performance: GnR Lies (1990), UYI I (1992), and "Live and Let Die" (1993)

Yeah, I was mistaken.  I guess I looked at the metal category.  I saw a lot of Metallica, Megadeth, and Ozzy.

[pilferk]

But what would be the reason?  What makes it different for them?

I asked you if it was because of the bastardized line-up, which I thought was where you were going.  But you said its not.

So what's the story?  Are you telling us there is measurable difference in saying you like AC/DC, but not Guns N' Roses?  Or pretending to say you do, as you are claiming?

Those bands generally look, sound, act, and conduct themselves in a very specific, "safe" way, now a days (and for awhile). There isn't exactly controversy, intrigue or any sense of "danger" around them.  They are, quite frankly, milquetoast in 2015.  They have been "good citizens" to certain aspects of the industry, up to, and including, the NARAS, as well.

It's not just about the lineup changes, really...it's about being able to wear that 1989 vintage AC/DC shirt that you paid $100 for, and...hey....it's exactly the same product on stage. Looks the same, sounds the same, but..hey...nothing really offensive or "in your face" about them.  It's about harkening back to those bands much more "dangerous" days...but not having to actually deal with that attitude, today.  It's all about appearances for those folks.  They wanna look good, they want others to SEE them looking good, and they want the "shine" off the cred of liking AC/DC and Metallica.

So, yes..there is a measurable difference for those people saying they like AC/DC or Metallica.  As to why..you'd have to ask them, and some of the pop culture icons, in general, why you see AC/DC and Metallica shirts all over the hipster pretender population..and not GnR.  It is what it is.

You asked previously "How do you overcome that". I didn't answer because I think that's the wrong question.  I think the real question is "Why would you want to"? So you can play the Grammys? Because, really..that's the only thing we're talking about.  I don't think that's a career goal of GnR, or an opportunity that's so profound that you HAVE to take steps to overcome ANY things to get there.  I don't think you change who you are, what you're about, or what you're doing (if you're content with it) just to make a committee of stuck up assholes happy, to get you on their show.  I don't think that's nobility...I think it's apathy.

[Princess Leia]

Grammys are important because they are to music what Oscars are to movies. So Grammys are the biggest award for artists and record companies. Having said that unfortunately for Grammys they have categories that are a joke. For example Best Electronic Dancing. WTF??? I?d put that into pop category. I?m not even sure if Rap should be a category.

Now who should be performing? In my opini?n only the nominees in different categories. The irony I see in the AC/DC performance is that the industry don?t give a fuck about rock, not the way they used to. However for the Grammys ceremony we have a legendary rock band. I don?t get it

I also suggest to organizers to use some dress code or some  kind of manners for dummies code. I don?t want to see J. Lo showing up pretty much naked in other to steal the show and get publicity for herself. Or some smart ass doing or saying something controversial and completely out of place.

[jarmo]

But you did say this:  "Possibly the biggest band on the planet at the time didn't win anything at the awards..."

That kind of eludes that you think there is some sort of bias (or politics at play) that prevented GnR from winning an award that they otherwise were entitled to.

Regardless, any performance at any show would necessarily involve promoting a new album.  Let's work on that first

Just pointing out facts. I also said why I understand they didn't win!
Why did you ignore that part?

Yes, I believe politics have a lot to do with who wins and who doesn't. They're not basing their selection on quality.... Or sales.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Grammys are important because they are to music what Oscars are to movies. So Grammys are the biggest award for artists and record companies. Having said that unfortunately for Grammys they have categories that are a joke. For example Best Electronic Dancing. WTF??? I?d put that into pop category. I?m not even sure if Rap should be a category.

I disagree, slightly.  For the Oscars, the focus is really on the awards, themselves.  For the Grammys, it's not.  It's on the attendees and the performances.  It's like a music festival for the pop music scene.  Many (if not most) of the performances have little, if anything, to do with the awards being presented, or the nominations for that year. 

Now who should be performing? In my opini?n only the nominees in different categories. The irony I see in the AC/DC performance is that the industry don?t give a fuck about rock, not the way they used to. However for the Grammys ceremony we have a legendary rock band. I don?t get it

That's been largely one of my points, too.  The attendees (and the industry) couldn't give too shits about rock, REALLY, unless the name of the person making it ends in "Grohl".

[D-GenerationX]

It's not just about the lineup changes, really...it's about being able to wear that 1989 vintage AC/DC shirt that you paid $100 for, and...hey....it's exactly the same product on stage. Looks the same, sounds the same, but..hey...nothing really offensive or "in your face" about them.  It's about harkening back to those bands much more "dangerous" days...but not having to actually deal with that attitude, today.  It's all about appearances for those folks.  They wanna look good, they want others to SEE them looking good, and they want the "shine" off the cred of liking AC/DC and Metallica.

Two things :

#1) Sounds like the line-up change is a dealbreaker, no?  In your example, you talk about how things are the same as they were in 1989.  So, by that rationale, if Axl was still up there with Slash and Duff, would that be the same thing?

#2) What, exactly, is modern day GNR doing that is so dangerous or in your face?

[sky dog]

Axl's rep definitely proceeds him....come on.

[jarmo]

What, exactly, is modern day GNR doing that is so dangerous or in your face?

Somebody told me they have a reputation of canceling shows!  

It's a joke!




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

You asked previously "How do you overcome that". I didn't answer because I think that's the wrong question.  I think the real question is "Why would you want to"? So you can play the Grammys? Because, really..that's the only thing we're talking about.  I don't think that's a career goal of GnR, or an opportunity that's so profound that you HAVE to take steps to overcome ANY things to get there.  I don't think you change who you are, what you're about, or what you're doing (if you're content with it) just to make a committee of stuck up assholes happy, to get you on their show.  I don't think that's nobility...I think it's apathy.

The Grammys simply made for a handy example because they had just happened.

But my question would be the same for any show or general appearance.  Would you want to see it?

Or, conversely, stick to the same way of not doing anything like that because...you know, integrity.  Respect.  DON'T PLAY THEIR GAME

[D-GenerationX]

Axl's rep definitely proceeds him....come on.

It doesn't help.

[D-GenerationX]

What, exactly, is modern day GNR doing that is so dangerous or in your face?

Somebody told me they have a reputation of canceling shows!  

Ah, but interestingly enough, somebody actually told me they don't do that anymore.

Ergo, aren't they a safer and less risk taking act these days?

[sky dog]

on a side note, speaking of American awards, sales etc, Gnr has shipped 44.5 million albums in the US...ranked 30th amongst top 100 artists all time. AFD has shipped 18 million copies....ranked 10th all time (highest selling albums in the US).  

For some reason I was looking at RIAA today.

[pilferk]

It's not just about the lineup changes, really...it's about being able to wear that 1989 vintage AC/DC shirt that you paid $100 for, and...hey....it's exactly the same product on stage. Looks the same, sounds the same, but..hey...nothing really offensive or "in your face" about them.  It's about harkening back to those bands much more "dangerous" days...but not having to actually deal with that attitude, today.  It's all about appearances for those folks.  They wanna look good, they want others to SEE them looking good, and they want the "shine" off the cred of liking AC/DC and Metallica.

Two things :

#1) Sounds like the line-up change is a dealbreaker, no?  In your example, you talk about how things are the same as they were in 1989.  So, by that rationale, if Axl was still up there with Slash and Duff, would that be the same thing?

#2) What, exactly, is modern day GNR doing that is so dangerous or in your face?

1) Nope, it's a sum total of a confluence of things.  They could overcome any one of them, I think, if they really wanted to.  But not all of them.  Not to the committees and people that "matter" for the Grammys.  The AFD cross doesn't help..but it's not the end all be all.  And...again...we're only talking about what matters to the GRAMMY FOLKS (and attendees). Not anything that "really" matters.

2) Nothing.  But that's not the perception.  It's not the appearance.  And, to be frank, Axl's not exactly a PC kinda guy, in any aspect of his life. Certainly not with the RIAA or the NARAS. That's enough.  Because, again, to these people it's all about appearances.  It's all about perceptions.  You can't be all that surprised.....

And again, all that's specific to THE GRAMMYS.  Not the AMA's, or the VMA's, or the Golden Globes...or, as jarmo has pointed out, the Kids Choice Awards.

[D-GenerationX]

on a side note, speaking of American awards, sales etc, Gnr has shipped 44.5 million albums in the US...ranked 30th amongst top 100 artists all time. AFD has shipped 18 million copies....ranked 10th all time (highest selling albums in the US).  

For some reason I was looking at RIAA today.

Pretty amazing cumulative figure, considering so few actual albums.

You look at those numbers...and then think about people wondering why Axl kept the name.  Yeah, real puzzler, that one.

[pilferk]

You asked previously "How do you overcome that". I didn't answer because I think that's the wrong question.  I think the real question is "Why would you want to"? So you can play the Grammys? Because, really..that's the only thing we're talking about.  I don't think that's a career goal of GnR, or an opportunity that's so profound that you HAVE to take steps to overcome ANY things to get there.  I don't think you change who you are, what you're about, or what you're doing (if you're content with it) just to make a committee of stuck up assholes happy, to get you on their show.  I don't think that's nobility...I think it's apathy.

The Grammys simply made for a handy example because they had just happened.

But my question would be the same for any show or general appearance.  Would you want to see it?

Or, conversely, stick to the same way of not doing anything like that because...you know, integrity.  Respect.  DON'T PLAY THEIR GAME

There is a difference between "would I want to see it" and "do I think we'll ever see it".

And, while the Grammy's may have just been a handy example, it's the question I'm answering.

Different situations would likely yield different answers.

I think we've covered the Grammys and, quite possibly, the Kid's Choice awards.

I can def see them playing the AMA's or the VMAs.

What else ya thinking?

[sky dog]

Axl is a better businessman than you think D Gen.