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

[TheBaconman]

^ I know there's a lot of music recorded and I can't wait to hear it!

We're looking at potential reasons why releases for Guns post 94 are few and seemingly frought with difficulties.

Is the label hoping for a reunion, and limiting releases from guns until that happens? It's a theory I guess - how many albums does guns owe? One/two?

I was just thinking a little and this is what I came up with.   I don't think guns owes the label any more albums..   I am thinking this because of the lack of demand we have seen from the label in demanding a new record.  There is zero label pressure.  As during the recording process of CD, there was huge label pressure.  With them putting out greatest hits albums as a result of a album delay.   Why are they not doing that now?
I am sure the band is signed and everything to the label.  I think the label has first rights when it comes to any new release of guns o roses material, but there is not a specific amount of releases required
I am also thinking that there is an expire date on this contract.  So say after 10 years for example, Axl is allowed to shop an album around to other labels.
You have to remember that Axl/guns inc... has a lot of there own money tied up in what is now recorded.  If there was going to be any release he/they will want to recoup as much as that money as possible.  The best way for that to happen would be to shop the record around different labels.... 
Just me thinking

[TheBaconman]

you play 3 hour shows, but you can't find 4 - 8 minutes to play a new song?  There's no reason why that can't be done. 

I'll give you one reason since you're unable to think of any, for some reason: Maybe the band doesn't wish to premiere a new song in a live concert this time around because they already did that in the past? Maybe they don't want to play anything new until they have a release date that's set in stone and everything is in place for the album's release?

Oops, look how easy it was. I accidentally gave you two reasons.



/jarmo

Guns have pretty much played a little new music every tour, up until these past couple years.  So we cant complain that much, if the complaint was we never get to hear new music, because we have...   Time has just gone by...
I think these last few tours have been sort of nostalgic ones.   And have been sold as such.   With that you are going to get older songs played live.
The tours before that were supposed to be the CD world tour.  I didn't think we got to hear enough music off the album as we should of, but we still got some
Before CD came out, we got tours, with new music!!!   Guess that's what a lot of people are hoping for, for when they tour again.  I am sure am.

I think for an artist that hasn't released an album yet and Is sitting on a massive amounts of recorded songs.  Touring and playing a good portion of them live would be a great tool to use.  You can see the reaction of the audience you fan base right in front of you, in real time, to this new material.  This could help the artist to see what works and what dosnt work.  Bands use this approach all the time, but more so comedians use it.  If a comedian has say a 1000 joke wrote, he will tour all over playing smaller shows, saying ever joke he can and seeing what sticks with the public.   Now he was a few solid tracks for either an album or a big comedy show some place

[TheBaconman]

We have no information.

Not once, in 18 years, has Axl Rose done an interview where he says the label is holding-out for a reunion. Not. Once.

I don't know how a reunion would benefit the label at all....   

The partnership that is was guns broke up almost 20 years ago.   Axl owns the band.  So if any former band member were to be brought back in they would be brought back in on a recording salary, with writing credit futures, sort of like the artists that were on CD.   
This is not what I would call an reunion.   A true reunion would be if Axl, formed a new partnership with the past band members, giving all an equal say.  With writing credits spread out equal the entire album.  That would then ne a true recording reunion and why in the world would Axl just give up all that money/power that he has earned
A touring reunion would be easier to do, as its easy to equally pay members off of the gate of the concert, or what ever the promoters offered.  However this, would not benefit the label at all and in no way.   Other than stirring up mainstream attention for guns and possibly selling copies of old albums

[jarmo]

So many artists have done so this year. There really isn't any excuses. Sorry, but I'm taking a hard stance since other musicians have released music this year.

Your assumption is that GN'R's case is 100% like every other band's. How do you know that? How can you make that comparison if you don't know the cases are comparable to begin with?



/jarmo

[Ginger King]

So many artists have done so this year. There really isn't any excuses. Sorry, but I'm taking a hard stance since other musicians have released music this year.

Your assumption is that GN'R's case is 100% like every other band's. How do you know that? How can you make that comparison if you don't know the cases are comparable to begin with?



/jarmo

So is your assumption that GnR's case is different than every other band's? 

[Sosso]

The situation in every band is different.

[Ginger King]

The situation in every band is different.

And yet in only one case does it impact the ability to release music.

[jarmo]

The situation in every band is different.

And yet in only one case does it impact the ability to release music.

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

People like yourself who believe that still didn't manage to explain to me why the 1999 solo album by Duff McKagan wasn't released. I mean, many other artists released albums that year and the record companies are such nice people who'd never do anything bad.... Yes, different artist, different case. Still the album was done, and it never came out. I know, makes no sense and I don't expect you to believe me since you seem to think record companies are such great friends of us music fans. But it happened! This must be the only case in history where a record company did something even remotely bad right? It just does not happen according to some GN'R fans.




/jarmo

[TheBaconman]

The situation in every band is different.

And yet in only one case does it impact the ability to release music.

I don't exactly get what the point you are trying to make is?   For what ever reason Axl hasn't released any new music.   Sure lots of other bands have released albums recently and many artists do so regualary   So what.  
I don't know why you keep bringing up Neil young.    He is a freak when it comes to releasing music   But when was the last time Neil Young produced a album with production costs topping 13+ million?   With a big portion of that production cost comming out of his pocket?    If I was an artist that had that type of production bill.   I would want to get the maximum amount of return on my investment

The above is just what I think and why I give Axl the benifit of the doubt when it comes to releasing new music.   I think he is sitting on a ton of finished material thiugh and for what ever reason is not releasing it

However the above argument regarding the non release of new music in no way what so ever is an excuse not to play sId new material live.   If on the next guns tour if they are not playing new material live I will be extremely pissed.  I feel there is no excuses for not playing newaterial with the next tour.  

[TheBaconman]

The situation in every band is different.

And yet in only one case does it impact the ability to release music.

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

People like yourself who believe that still didn't manage to explain to me why the 1999 solo album by Duff McKagan wasn't released. I mean, many other artists released albums that year and the record companies are such nice people who'd never do anything bad.... Yes, different artist, different case. Still the album was done, and it never came out. I know, makes no sense and I don't expect you to believe me since you seem to think record companies are such great friends of us music fans. But it happened! This must be the only case in history where a record company did something even remotely bad right? It just does not happen according to some GN'R fans.




/jarmo

Again I hate the arguement of compairong one artost to the next
It's like me telling my son.   Son, why can't you be more like little johny over there, he is great at swimming.  Then son says, but dad I am great at baseball and soccer and football isn't that good enough.   Nope I want u to do what johny does

Well fuck little johny  fuck other bands.   God forbid someone/a band/a artist wants to be an individual

[GNR2014]

True, Jarmo, 'Believe in Me' didn't come out in 1999.
Duff did, however, manage to release 7 more albums after that.
So, I don't see how this is a comparable analogy.

[norway]

Not once, in 18 years, has Axl Rose done an interview where he says the label is holding-out for a reunion. Not. Once.

Axl sued the former gnr-manager on those grounds. Says it all.

[jarmo]

True, Jarmo, 'Believe in Me' didn't come out in 1999.
Duff did, however, manage to release 7 more albums after that.
So, I don't see how this is a comparable analogy.

It was Beautiful Disease.
None of those albums were released on the record company involved with that album.

Still, nobody who "defends" the record companies have been able to explain how come they chose to can Duff's album and not release it. Considering how nobody's ever had any issues with their record companies.

If some of you cared enough to look around, you could find all kinds of stories about artists who got fucked over by their record companies, but you don't care. Because in your minds, these so called excuses are lame. They're not valid. Because so many "other bands release albums".

If you wanna have this discussion, do your homework for once. Don't give us the old "but other bands release albums". It's irrelevant. Show us some evidence that you're in fact interested in an actual discussion. And if you're too fucking lazy to do so, be honest and say "Maybe that's a possible scenario but I'm too lazy to look into it and I choose to believe all record companies are good people".  
 



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

Probably because Duff was dropped by Interscope when the big mergers happened.

Last I checked, Axl is still signed with Geffen-Interscope.

Terrible analogy - looking for needles in a haystack to try and justify Axl's lack of creative drive.

[TheBaconman]

Probably because Duff was dropped by Interscope when the big mergers happened.

Last I checked, Axl is still signed with Geffen-Interscope.

Terrible analogy - looking for needles in a haystack to try and justify Axl's lack of creative drive.

I wouldnt say Axl has a lack of creative drive.   They have albums of material recorded.  You dont need any more of a creative drive at all...   You just need to release it.   And they arnt.   I wouldnt say it has anything to do with Axls creative drive though, when everything is recorded.  It has to do with other reasons... 

[mortismurphy]

Probably because Duff was dropped by Interscope when the big mergers happened.

Last I checked, Axl is still signed with Geffen-Interscope.

Terrible analogy - looking for needles in a haystack to try and justify Axl's lack of creative drive.

I wouldnt say Axl has a lack of creative drive.   They have albums of material recorded.  You dont need any more of a creative drive at all...   You just need to release it.   And they arnt.   I wouldnt say it has anything to do with Axls creative drive though, when everything is recorded.  It has to do with other reasons... 

My own belief is the poor sales and reaction to CD has scared Axl off new material and turned him into an 80s revival act. It is so much easier to play the hits, free from such irritating things as fans scrutinizing a new release and reviews in music publications. He has lost the incentive, yes, his drive.

It does not matter about all of this material then.

[TheBaconman]

Probably because Duff was dropped by Interscope when the big mergers happened.

Last I checked, Axl is still signed with Geffen-Interscope.

Terrible analogy - looking for needles in a haystack to try and justify Axl's lack of creative drive.

I wouldnt say Axl has a lack of creative drive.   They have albums of material recorded.  You dont need any more of a creative drive at all...   You just need to release it.   And they arnt.   I wouldnt say it has anything to do with Axls creative drive though, when everything is recorded.  It has to do with other reasons... 

My own belief is the poor sales and reaction to CD has scared Axl off new material and turned him into an 80s revival act. It is so much easier to play the hits, free from such irritating things as fans scrutinizing a new release and reviews in music publications. He has lost the incentive, yes, his drive.

It does not matter about all of this material then.

Well at first you were saying his creative drive, now its just his drive...

I dont think the sales of CD were all that poor, if you look at world wide numbers.  And then through in the garanteed money best buy gave the label for the purchase of 1.5 million albums.   All in all, I think we are looking at some pretty strong sales numbers, depending on what you want to beleive it is between 2.5-5 million world wide.  Not to bad.   Sure it could of always of been more, but it could of been a lot less,  And with those sales numbers the album was profitable and the writers/artisits that contributed to it have made a ton of money

I guess we will see what the new tour brings in the form of new music at the shows.  I really hope we dont see the same old same old.   It was fine for the last tour, but lets celebrate the present and future of guns music

I think the lack of new music, just comes down to money and Axl trying to get the most out of his investment.

[mortismurphy]

I do not agree. I believe it undersold. And I do not even want to see Axl anywhere near a stage to be quite honest. What is Axl doing playing Vegas, with an album that is six years old? He should not be anywhere near a stage. He should be doing what he feels he has to do to get CD2 to a shop rack.

[Ginger King]

The situation in every band is different.

And yet in only one case does it impact the ability to release music.

I don't exactly get what the point you are trying to make is?   For what ever reason Axl hasn't released any new music.   Sure lots of other bands have released albums recently and many artists do so regualary   So what.  
I don't know why you keep bringing up Neil young.    He is a freak when it comes to releasing music   But when was the last time Neil Young produced a album with production costs topping 13+ million?   With a big portion of that production cost comming out of his pocket?    If I was an artist that had that type of production bill.   I would want to get the maximum amount of return on my investment

The above is just what I think and why I give Axl the benifit of the doubt when it comes to releasing new music.   I think he is sitting on a ton of finished material thiugh and for what ever reason is not releasing it

However the above argument regarding the non release of new music in no way what so ever is an excuse not to play sId new material live.   If on the next guns tour if they are not playing new material live I will be extremely pissed.  I feel there is no excuses for not playing newaterial with the next tour.  

I think you have me confused with someone else...I've never mentioned Neil Young.  Anyway, that point I'm trying to make is that, when it comes to Guns, there are a myriad of reasons (or excuses) why the new material (that we know is done) is not released.  Most people here are convinced that the record company is the main villain, constantly stopping Axl from getting that album out.  Now, I don't think the record company is this benevolent, ready to help at all times entity...clearly they're out to make a buck and if something's not going to make them money, then they're not going to support it.

And even if there are people at the record company that have it out for Axl...do they still exist in 2014? I mean yeah, he pissed a lot of people off in the 90's, but is there still a "How do we thwart Axl Rose" Dept.?  And, if the record company was unfairly and unreasonably treating him, don't you think he'd sue to get out of his contract?  He's not exactly litigation adverse.

I just find it odd that the rush here is to blame everything and everyone else...from the record company, current trend in album sales, decline in importance of rock, as the reason why this music (again, which we know is done) it not getting released.  Isn't it just as plausible that he's not ready/willing to release it yet (for whatever reason)?  Or maybe it's a combination of that plus lack of label support.  Why does it have to be one or the other?  

[norway]

Nazareth is still touring 'love hurts'.

Kinda, sort of...

Terrible analogy - looking for needles in a haystack to try and justify Axl's lack of creative drive.

How do u figure?