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

[Ginger King]

I hope the title will be completely different, with no connections whatsoever to Chinese Democracy.

- it will not be a wise choice, commercially speaking (yeah I know the album was doing *OK* but not at his full potential...I think we all agree on that)

- please don't go on the eponymous road : OK it *could* sounds like a statement "yeah, we're Guns N'Roses, like it or not", but that's not really
  appealing/original/surprising. it could even sounds like a Greatest Hits name, and the band don't need to give credits to their detractors...

- so I just hope it will be an original, impacting and absurd name, like some result of surrealist game Exquisite Corpse.

If the songs (or a majority of them) were created by the current lineup, then I'd agree that the album name should be completely different.  But Axl's vision was to always have CD be a multi-album creation...and he's not exactly one to move from his convictions. 

Regardless, it's the quality of the music, not the name of the album, that controls how it will be received.

[jarmo]

I base most things on percentages.

In this case, there is a better percentage chance Axl was in on these decisions than the percentage of the time a bunch of guys went rogue and did their own thing.

So, for example, if I see a situation that skews 90/10 in one direction, its the 90 that I consider the norm.  I'm not going to cling to that other 10 and try to run some false equivalence up the flagpole.

But your numbers are based on what? The past?

Do you think Axl oversaw the budget? The gear rental receipts? Mailed the paychecks?



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I base most things on percentages.

In this case, there is a better percentage chance Axl was in on these decisions than the percentage of the time a bunch of guys went rogue and did their own thing.

So, for example, if I see a situation that skews 90/10 in one direction, its the 90 that I consider the norm.  I'm not going to cling to that other 10 and try to run some false equivalence up the flagpole.

But your numbers are based on what? The past?

Do you think Axl oversaw the budget? The gear rental receipts? Mailed the paychecks?

I tend to not subscribe to the rationale that Axl is the big chief, the "last man standing"...except when its convenient to paint him as detached bystander.

On balance, this is what I think happened.  Most of what went on during the recording process heavily included Axl Rose.  That is my belief.

Really, its just the difference in starting points :  "what do you think happened?" vs. "what do you think happened (that does not reflect poorly on Axl in any way)"?

I don't consider the second part of the latter to be paramount to any discussion.  Its fine if you (or anyone else) do, but to a lot of us, we aren't bound by that caveat.

[jarmo]

I think he was very involved in the creative part. I don't think he was as involved in the business side.

Maybe he had an idea of a specific sound he wanted and told people to get that gear to make it possible. Other than examples like that, I don't think he oversaw as much of the business side as some think.
So all the so called waste that you wanna latch onto him, I don't buy that part. I think it's a combination of kids in a toy store and hoping/thinking that this is what needs to be done.


How often in your life did somebody tell you: "But I thought you....."? Instead of asking you what you want....



/jarmo

[Ginger King]

I base most things on percentages.

In this case, there is a better percentage chance Axl was in on these decisions than the percentage of the time a bunch of guys went rogue and did their own thing.

So, for example, if I see a situation that skews 90/10 in one direction, its the 90 that I consider the norm.  I'm not going to cling to that other 10 and try to run some false equivalence up the flagpole.

But your numbers are based on what? The past?

Do you think Axl oversaw the budget? The gear rental receipts? Mailed the paychecks?



/jarmo

Of course not, but I don't think he was as hands off as you're projecting him to be.  This is a guy who transformed GnR into an entity solely controlled by him, hand picked musicians to help create his vision of Guns, created these songs with painstaking detail, and we're supposed to believe that he had a laissez fair attitude toward the actual making of the record?

You don't think at some point, someone says to him, "hey man, we're spending $10g a month on cymbals."  He had to have known the production costs, rent for the recording studio(s), etc.

[D-GenerationX]

I think he was very involved in the creative part. I don't think he was as involved in the business side.

Maybe he had an idea of a specific sound he wanted and told people to get that gear to make it possible. Other than examples like that, I don't think he oversaw as much of the business side as some think.
So all the so called waste that you wanna latch onto him, I don't buy that part. I think it's a combination of kids in a toy store and hoping/thinking that this is what needs to be done.

I do not discount these scenarios, but I think they are far more the exception than the rule.

And even in your one example (here is what I want, make that happen) I still put that decision on Axl.  Its his call.  I'm not sure that accountability goes away if he was not the one specifically placing the order.  I'm sure he has underlings for that, as most stars do.

[norway]

Hai I r speshul poster with sekrat internetz-info  pay attention nao

Does anybody think the album title will reference the previous album? Or will it be something unrelated?

It will be called Norwegian Dictatorship. Here is a leak of a song. 100% Axl. Srsly.

(lol) 

[jarmo]

Of course not, but I don't think he was as hands off as you're projecting him to be.  This is a guy who transformed GnR into an entity solely controlled by him, hand picked musicians to help create his vision of Guns, created these songs with painstaking detail, and we're supposed to believe that he had a laissez fair attitude toward the actual making of the record?

I think there's a reason why artists have managers, accountants, lawyers, record companies and so on.

Just because he's involved artistically, doesn't mean he's involved in every single detail regarding the band in other ways.

You don't think at some point, someone says to him, "hey man, we're spending $10g a month on cymbals."  He had to have known the production costs, rent for the recording studio(s), etc.

If the record company is paying the bill, why would they tell him?





/jarmo

[Ginger King]

Of course not, but I don't think he was as hands off as you're projecting him to be.  This is a guy who transformed GnR into an entity solely controlled by him, hand picked musicians to help create his vision of Guns, created these songs with painstaking detail, and we're supposed to believe that he had a laissez fair attitude toward the actual making of the record?

I think there's a reason why artists have managers, accountants, lawyers, record companies and so on.

Just because he's involved artistically, doesn't mean he's involved in every single detail regarding the band in other ways.

You don't think at some point, someone says to him, "hey man, we're spending $10g a month on cymbals."  He had to have known the production costs, rent for the recording studio(s), etc.

If the record company is paying the bill, why would they tell him?





/jarmo

But he's got to know.  With each passing month/year, he's got to know the costs are astronomical...even if they don't specifically tell him.  I think his general business IQ is pretty high (wait, are you saying it's not...are you criticizing Axl - relax, just a joke) so he just has to know (plus it's not like the cost of the album was a real secret).

Now, does he care?  That's a different question.  I don't think he cared in the slightest.  Maybe it was his little comeuppance to the label for dicking him around and bringing in new RC execs to (try and) control him.

[The Wight Gunner]

So you read one side of the story and decided based on that. How open minded of you.

Next.

/jarmo

I mean, the label did pour a lot (and by a lot I mean the most ever contributed to an album) of money into getting CD finished.  And maybe they balked at a robust marketing plan...

Don't forget there is more than CD though, the $13M rumour is a bit out of context when you factor in the unreleased stuff. Sure there will be added costs to get the next album out, but not multi-millions 

[D-GenerationX]

Don't forget there is more than CD though, the $13M rumour is a bit out of context when you factor in the unreleased stuff. Sure there will be added costs to get the next album out, but not multi-millions 

Very true.

Which is why I never bought the theory that the label is fucking with him.

They've already paid for this stuff.  They are keeping it under wraps, why?  Spite?  That's not how business works.

[norway]

I wonder if it is the musicians or the record company who took them closer to classic rock from Oh My God.

I just hope we get a music video and instead of Axl wearing a sign saying "where's izzy?" i want him to wear one saying "where's Bucket?"

I  The bucket-era of gnr and the 'new gnr'-vibe. That was a VERY intresting band 'back in the day'. Wow, 2 decades huh.

Didn't quite get what I expected on chidem, but there is Rammstein and bands like Hanzel and Gretyl doing it.

The infamous Burning Hills fax..classic....

LIVE!!!! From "Burning Hills", California...

Due to overwhelming enthusiasm, and that "DIVE IN AND FIND THE MONKEY" attitude....

#1. There will NOT be a Guns N' Roses tour.

#2. There will NOT be an official Guns N' Roses web site.

#3. There will NOT be any NEW Guns N' Roses videos.

#4. There will NOT be any new Guns N' Roses involved merhandise.

#5. There will NOT be a Guns N' Roses Fan Club.

#6. There will be a new Guns N' Roses 12 song minimum recording with
three original "B" sides.

     NOTE: If all goes well this will be immediately repeated.

#7. However*******Slash will not be involved in any new Guns N' Roses
endeavors? as far has not been musically involved with Guns N" Roses
since April 1994 with the exception of a BRIEF feel period with Zakk
Wylde and a 2 week initial period with Guns N' Roses in the late fall
of '95. He (Slash) has been "OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY" outside of the
Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995.

                      ***************************************************

                Nothing here is Subject To Change
                Without A PERMANENT SUSPENSION
                Of the "Pseudo Studio Musician Work Ethic"



                                SINCERELY,
                               
                                W. Axl Rose

Big FD Ent., Inc.
Mike "Duff" McKagan
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDYWyACutsg thar

[ice cream sand pig]

Of course not, but I don't think he was as hands off as you're projecting him to be.  This is a guy who transformed GnR into an entity solely controlled by him, hand picked musicians to help create his vision of Guns, created these songs with painstaking detail, and we're supposed to believe that he had a laissez fair attitude toward the actual making of the record?

I think there's a reason why artists have managers, accountants, lawyers, record companies and so on.

Just because he's involved artistically, doesn't mean he's involved in every single detail regarding the band in other ways.

You don't think at some point, someone says to him, "hey man, we're spending $10g a month on cymbals."  He had to have known the production costs, rent for the recording studio(s), etc.

If the record company is paying the bill, why would they tell him?





/jarmo

But he's got to know.  With each passing month/year, he's got to know the costs are astronomical...even if they don't specifically tell him.  I think his general business IQ is pretty high (wait, are you saying it's not...are you criticizing Axl - relax, just a joke) so he just has to know (plus it's not like the cost of the album was a real secret).

Now, does he care?  That's a different question.  I don't think he cared in the slightest.  Maybe it was his little comeuppance to the label for dicking him around and bringing in new RC execs to (try and) control him.

I have to ask Ginger's question: did he care? I would have to say no, and I don't see why it's a big deal. What's the point? Who cares about that as long as the music is good? "Oh, Axl might have wasted a lot of money on renting equipment he didn't use during the recording of CD so _____". What goes in those blanks? I can't figure it out for the life of me. I understand that speculation can be interesting but sometimes I feel like "speculation" can be used as a kind of excuse for never ending fault finding. Yeah, I know there's another side to the argument and I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do their thing on the forums, but that's just my take on it.

[jarmo]

But he's got to know.  With each passing month/year, he's got to know the costs are astronomical...even if they don't specifically tell him. 

I'm assuming at some point the record company said something.
But at the same time, they were the ones with many of the ideas that cost more money... So who knows!

They've already paid for this stuff.  They are keeping it under wraps, why?  Spite?  That's not how business works.

But you've already been told on numerous occasions about record companies having finished albums and them deciding not to release it. How's that possible if that's not how business works?
According to you, it shouldn't happen. But it does. So, who's wrong? You, saying that's not how things work in the real world, or the record companies?



/jarmo

[GypsySoul]

There you go again, making unnecessary comments. Trying to have a somewhat civil discussion and you gotta go there....
Not that I was expecting anything less.

/jarmo

Come on...now who can't take a joke?  Haven't you told us to lighten up?  Sorry for my (obvious) attempt at sarcasm.  I'll stand by the rest of my post. 

Sarcasm aside, what are your thoughts as to the name of the next album?

Since Axl/GNR have an obvious affinity to the month of November, the next album title is without a doubt "Happy Chris Day!!!" and will be released on November 16, 2015 .... or February 25 .... or August 4.

Axl    Pitman

Yes.  A man can only take so many Happy Chris Days...

[ice cream sand pig]

Maybe the name will be two words that start with C and D, that way the album could be called CDII as a kind of subtitle and have it's own unique name at the same time.

Something like:

CDII

"Canned Delusions" (as in "canned goods", in reference to the songs being left in the vault for so long)

For the CD remix I like

Chinese Democracy Remix:
"Cantonese Dialect"

[TheBaconman]

Regardless of the next album title shouldnt there be some kind of copywrite on a name, so no other band can use it   I am thinking we should of heard something by now.  Copywriters are public domain.  So it's not like they can keep it secret   Why are they waiting till the last min to pick a name?

[D-GenerationX]

But you've already been told on numerous occasions about record companies having finished albums and them deciding not to release it. How's that possible if that's not how business works?

Because, no offense, your examples...or, I should say "example" (singular) pretty much sucks balls.

This is a big time band. 

It's not the 3rd, if not 4th guy in a band's pecking order's solo album, 5 years after said band was relevant...and he's not even in that band by that point anyway.

Come on, guy.  If you are this hellbent on pushing this narrative, give me a better example.

[ice cream sand pig]

Regardless of the next album title shouldnt there be some kind of copywrite on a name, so no other band can use it   I am thinking we should of heard something by now.  Copywriters are public domain.  So it's not like they can keep it secret   Why are they waiting till the last min to pick a name?

Maybe they already have one picked but they want it to remain a surprise up until the last minute. Last time we were all expecting "Chinese Democracy". The name already had a lot of ideas attached to it which could have added to some preconceived notions about the album. I think it's actually pretty exciting that we may be close to a release and still don't know the title of it.

[ice cream sand pig]

But you've already been told on numerous occasions about record companies having finished albums and them deciding not to release it. How's that possible if that's not how business works?

Because, no offense, your examples...or, I should say "example" (singular) pretty much sucks balls.

This is a big time band. 

It's not the 3rd, if not 4th guy in a band's pecking order's solo album, 5 years after said band was relevant...and he's not even in that band by that point anyway.

Come on, guy.  If you are this hellbent on pushing this narrative, give me a better example.

I googled "artist trouble with record company" and got this almost right away:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/azafar/what-happens-when-your-favorite-artist-is-legally-unable-to

"It?s been almost seven years since JoJo has put out an official release, though that doesn?t mean she hasn?t been trying. ?I?ve recorded about three incarnations of this third album,? JoJo tells BuzzFeed. ?We?ve chosen the track listing, we?ve done multiple album photo shoots, chosen the cover, chosen the credits, everything.? But every time her team tried to present the album to her label, Blackground Records, they never received a response.

?Blackground Records lost their distribution deal through Interscope, and if you can get the answer from them on why that happened, that would be a miracle,? JoJo says, ?because I am sure they would not engage you in that conversation.?

It's apparently not that uncommon of an issue. The article lists many different artists that have had major trouble with their labels (Lupe Fiasco,Sky Ferreira, Bow Wow, Metallica, Big Boi, Amanda Palmer, and according to them "the list goes on").

The article includes sections like "What are the reasons a label would keep an artist under contract but not release their music?" and "The obvious answer is that artists should walk away from their label and find a better contract somewhere else, but it?s not always that easy. Bailing on a contract can be next to impossible because of ..."

This little tidbit was also interesting: "?They?re exclusive contracts, the record company has absolute authority with respect to the decision of whether to release the albums that are turned in or not...?

This one too: "When speaking out against his label in 2010, rapper Lupe Fiasco said that Atlantic Records made it clear that if he didn?t sign a 360 deal, he wouldn?t be promoted by the label:

?I was also told that because you didn?t sign this 360 deal, we may or may not push your record. So when ?Shining Down? came out, and you didn?t hear it on the radio station, that?s because they never took it to a radio station.? A ?360 deal? is the term for a modern major label contract that allows the label to take a percentage of an artist?s earnings from all of their activities. That means touring grosses and merchandise sales, says McLane: ?They?re going to take a percentage of your Revlon commercial, they?re going to take a percentage of your appearance on Fallon.?