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

[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?

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.

So they have a name picked out with no cooywrite on it.   That makes zero sense as they risk loosing the name without one
Same thing happend before the release of CD when the offspring where going to steal the name and release there latest album being called that.  However since guns had a cooywrite on the name they couldn't.   Just weird they don't have a name locked down.   Which is why I think it may just called CD V 2.0

[TheBaconman]

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

I think Axl had a general idea what the cost of the production was but wasn't to heavily involved in seeing all the bills and day to day things
Until..
Until the label cut off funding and Axl had to pick up the tab for the rest of production.  I think he was very involved then

[GypsySoul]

So they have a name picked out with no cooywrite on it.   That makes zero sense as they risk loosing the name without one
Same thing happend before the release of CD when the offspring where going to steal the name and release there latest album being called that.  However since guns had a cooywrite on the name they couldn't.   Just weird they don't have a name locked down.   Which is why I think it may just called CD V 2.0

You are wrong.  GNR did not and could not copyright the album title before it was released.

Ultimate Guitar
Offspring Frontman On 'Chinese Democracy', date: march 13, 2009

To be clear, the Offspring never actually tried to steal any material or recordings from Guns N' Roses - they merely considered stealing the long-awaited album's title, just for laughs.

"I think it got blown up a little more than we intended it to," singer Dexter Holland tells Spinner.

While recording in 2003, the band was at a loss for an album title. "When the record's coming together, you try to seriously think of a title for ten minutes and then everyone in the band jokes around for the next two hours with ideas like 'Offspring Bloody Offspring,'" Holland says.

"One day, somebody suggested 'Chinese Democrarcy' and we couldn't stop laughing about it." At that point, the Guns N' Roses album had been in the works for nearly a decade.

The idea grew into a longer title, "Chinese Democracy (You Snooze, You Lose)," when the band decided to put out a press release as a gag. "We got a lot more attention than we thought we would," Holland says. "I heard Axl [Rose] was looking into legal options but there aren't any, since you can't copyright an album title before it's released."

Eventually the band dropped the ruse and titled the album "Splinter."

[TheBaconman]

So they have a name picked out with no cooywrite on it.   That makes zero sense as they risk loosing the name without one
Same thing happend before the release of CD when the offspring where going to steal the name and release there latest album being called that.  However since guns had a cooywrite on the name they couldn't.   Just weird they don't have a name locked down.   Which is why I think it may just called CD V 2.0

You are wrong.  GNR did not and could not copyright the album title before it was released.

Ultimate Guitar
Offspring Frontman On 'Chinese Democracy', date: march 13, 2009

To be clear, the Offspring never actually tried to steal any material or recordings from Guns N' Roses - they merely considered stealing the long-awaited album's title, just for laughs.

"I think it got blown up a little more than we intended it to," singer Dexter Holland tells Spinner.

While recording in 2003, the band was at a loss for an album title. "When the record's coming together, you try to seriously think of a title for ten minutes and then everyone in the band jokes around for the next two hours with ideas like 'Offspring Bloody Offspring,'" Holland says.

"One day, somebody suggested 'Chinese Democrarcy' and we couldn't stop laughing about it." At that point, the Guns N' Roses album had been in the works for nearly a decade.

The idea grew into a longer title, "Chinese Democracy (You Snooze, You Lose)," when the band decided to put out a press release as a gag. "We got a lot more attention than we thought we would," Holland says. "I heard Axl [Rose] was looking into legal options but there aren't any, since you can't copyright an album title before it's released."

Eventually the band dropped the ruse and titled the album "Splinter."

Thanks for clearing that up.  I never new that     

[The Wight Gunner]

So they have a name picked out with no cooywrite on it.   That makes zero sense as they risk loosing the name without one
Same thing happend before the release of CD when the offspring where going to steal the name and release there latest album being called that.  However since guns had a cooywrite on the name they couldn't.   Just weird they don't have a name locked down.   Which is why I think it may just called CD V 2.0

You are wrong.  GNR did not and could not copyright the album title before it was released.

Ultimate Guitar
Offspring Frontman On 'Chinese Democracy', date: march 13, 2009

To be clear, the Offspring never actually tried to steal any material or recordings from Guns N' Roses - they merely considered stealing the long-awaited album's title, just for laughs.

"I think it got blown up a little more than we intended it to," singer Dexter Holland tells Spinner.

While recording in 2003, the band was at a loss for an album title. "When the record's coming together, you try to seriously think of a title for ten minutes and then everyone in the band jokes around for the next two hours with ideas like 'Offspring Bloody Offspring,'" Holland says.

"One day, somebody suggested 'Chinese Democrarcy' and we couldn't stop laughing about it." At that point, the Guns N' Roses album had been in the works for nearly a decade.

The idea grew into a longer title, "Chinese Democracy (You Snooze, You Lose)," when the band decided to put out a press release as a gag. "We got a lot more attention than we thought we would," Holland says. "I heard Axl [Rose] was looking into legal options but there aren't any, since you can't copyright an album title before it's released."

Eventually the band dropped the ruse and titled the album "Splinter."

Thanks for clearing that up.  I never new that     

Offspring mentioned that at Leeds on the  same day as Gun n' Roses were appearing.

[jarmo]

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.

Are you really naive enough to think I'd argue about a subject like this and only know of one single example of a record company refusing to release a finished album?

Here's one from last year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/mia-album-delayed-too-positive_n_2424151.html
Some more from the past: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/2011/01/top_six_artist_vs_record_label.php

I'm sure you can use Google yourself if you still think these are the only examples.

So the question remains, who's wrong? Business doesn't work like that?




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Are you really naive enough to think I'd argue about a subject like this and only know of one single example of a record company refusing to release a finished album?

I know we have talked about this several times now, and the only thing you ever had for me was Duff McKagan.  You never presented anything else in all this time.  I'm always open to having a debate, but I shouldn't have to do both parts, should I?

Looking at that list of 6, I think you throw out Palmer and Cash.  One was over an album cover, the other, a concept album which was a stark departure with non-commercial music.  You can also throw out Radiohead, because that was a vengeful label doing something to fuck with an artist that left them. 

None of those are going with Guns N' Roses in 2014.

Wilco and Fiona Apple is a case where the label rejected the material on merit.  I personally don't think that is happening here.  And based on our general stances, I would think, of the two of us, I'd be the much more likely one to make this argument about GNR in 2014.  I'm not though.  Are you?

The outlier is Tom Petty.  It not only shows that sometimes labels are idiots (they didn't hear any singles?  really??) it shows that regime change at a label can help.  And we know in GNR's case, its likely hurt.

[D-GenerationX]

And just as an addendum, I believe what I have actually been pushing back against is this notion the label is out to get him and fucking with him.

If he turned something in they felt was crap (no proof of this) that's not really the same thing, is it?  I'm more in the camp they haven't heard from the guy in awhile.  Not that he works tirelessly to turn shit in only to have it sent back to him.

[jarmo]

The link supplies was not titled "The complete list of artists vs record labels battles". It was somebody's personal Top Six. Just to prove to you that there are more examples.

So, do you believe me now? As you read, there are examples of record companies doing what you claim does not happen because that's not how you do business.

So what exactly do you know about that business and how it's done? Because I know very little and I would not tell somebody that something can not happen, unless I knew for damn sure. To act like you know something as a fact, when in reality you're as clueless as the rest of us, it just makes you look like a clueless wanna-be know-it-all. Or just plain ignorant. Ignorant enough not to care to find out more because you think you know.

Whatever the case may be, the fact is, record labels make stupid decisions. We know it, they know it. They refuse to put out albums to the left and right that makes no sense to anybody else. Maybe you're only arguing about this because in your mind it's just an excuse that's not valid, because it's used in the world of GN'R. Your "mission" seems to be to invalidate any possible reason for anything relating to GN'R. Even when you seem to have zero idea of the subject, you're there to tell everybody how that's not how things are done or how business works.

Well sorry to tell you, but business isn't always done according to your model. What can you do?
Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it can't happen or didn't happen. It's life. Don't take it personally, not everything in life makes sense. You won't understand every reason or motive behind every decision in the GN'R world. Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it's not a valid real reason. Because, at the end of the day, you're a fan. You're not in the band, management or record company personnel....




/jarmo

[sky dog]

Neil Young had a few albums shelved in the mid 70's...Wilco's album ended up their best seller....Tommy's band Perfect had their album shelved in 1997...a finished album with some damn good songs on it. That incident was what lead him to taking the Gnr gig in 1998. He was looking for stability....little did he know that bands the size of Gnr go through the ringers with labels too.

Your grasping at straws DX....I am quite sure there have been literally hundreds of albums rejected by labels over the last 40 years.

And, we have no idea what is going on NOW between Axl and the label. Your obsession over it and endless speculation just gets tiring to read after a while.

[D-GenerationX]

Neil Young had a few albums shelved in the mid 70's...Wilco's album ended up their best seller....Tommy's band Perfect had their album shelved in 1997...a finished album with some damn good songs on it. That incident was what lead him to taking the Gnr gig in 1998. He was looking for stability....little did he know that bands the size of Gnr go through the ringers with labels too.

Your grasping at straws DX....I am quite sure there have been literally hundreds of albums rejected by labels over the last 40 years.

And, we have no idea what is going on NOW between Axl and the label. Your obsession over it and endless speculation just gets tiring to read after a while.

You could always skip over my stuff.  We have tens of other posters here.

[D-GenerationX]

The link supplies was not titled "The complete list of artists vs record labels battles". It was somebody's personal Top Six. Just to prove to you that there are more examples.

So, do you believe me now? As you read, there are examples of record companies doing what you claim does not happen because that's not how you do business.

So what exactly do you know about that business and how it's done? Because I know very little and I would not tell somebody that something can not happen, unless I knew for damn sure. To act like you know something as a fact, when in reality you're as clueless as the rest of us, it just makes you look like a clueless wanna-be know-it-all. Or just plain ignorant. Ignorant enough not to care to find out more because you think you know.

Whatever the case may be, the fact is, record labels make stupid decisions. We know it, they know it. They refuse to put out albums to the left and right that makes no sense to anybody else. Maybe you're only arguing about this because in your mind it's just an excuse that's not valid, because it's used in the world of GN'R. Your "mission" seems to be to invalidate any possible reason for anything relating to GN'R. Even when you seem to have zero idea of the subject, you're there to tell everybody how that's not how things are done or how business works.

Well sorry to tell you, but business isn't always done according to your model. What can you do?
Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it can't happen or didn't happen. It's life. Don't take it personally, not everything in life makes sense. You won't understand every reason or motive behind every decision in the GN'R world. Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it's not a valid real reason. Because, at the end of the day, you're a fan. You're not in the band, management or record company personnel....

All largely stuff I'd accept.  Many vaild points here. (along with some nonsense...it ain't all gold)

This seems to come down to our usual battle of you giving Axl every single benefit of the doubt and absolution, and my not being as willing to join you on that.

[Ginger King]

The link supplies was not titled "The complete list of artists vs record labels battles". It was somebody's personal Top Six. Just to prove to you that there are more examples.

So, do you believe me now? As you read, there are examples of record companies doing what you claim does not happen because that's not how you do business.

So what exactly do you know about that business and how it's done? Because I know very little and I would not tell somebody that something can not happen, unless I knew for damn sure. To act like you know something as a fact, when in reality you're as clueless as the rest of us, it just makes you look like a clueless wanna-be know-it-all. Or just plain ignorant. Ignorant enough not to care to find out more because you think you know.

Whatever the case may be, the fact is, record labels make stupid decisions. We know it, they know it. They refuse to put out albums to the left and right that makes no sense to anybody else. Maybe you're only arguing about this because in your mind it's just an excuse that's not valid, because it's used in the world of GN'R. Your "mission" seems to be to invalidate any possible reason for anything relating to GN'R. Even when you seem to have zero idea of the subject, you're there to tell everybody how that's not how things are done or how business works.

Well sorry to tell you, but business isn't always done according to your model. What can you do?
Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it can't happen or didn't happen. It's life. Don't take it personally, not everything in life makes sense. You won't understand every reason or motive behind every decision in the GN'R world. Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it's not a valid real reason. Because, at the end of the day, you're a fan. You're not in the band, management or record company personnel....

All pretty much stuff I'd accept.  Many vaild points here.

This seems to come down to our usual battle of you giving Axl every single benefit of the doubt and absolution, and my not being as willing to join you on that.

We have no evidence of the label preventing a release, right? If there is I am not aware of any. 

What we do have is Axl's words that the next album is "already recorded" and that the CD remix album has "been done for a while too."  But then we have Richard's latest comments that Axl is laying vocals this week (or last week, whenever the interview was given).

How do you reconcile those two?  Did Axl decide (post-Revolver interview) to go back and re-record vocals?  Are these new songs that were not part of the list he was referring to during the Revolver interview?

[Ginger King]

Sooooo... Since people love to speculate.

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



/jarmo

How about Round 2?

[D-GenerationX]

We have no evidence of the label preventing a release, right? If there is I am not aware of any. 

I believe there was a rumor along these lines, but not concrete.  

[sky dog]

DX....hard to see other people's posts when every half way interesting thread is clouded and bottled up by your endless regurgitation of your opinion...key word being opinion.

[D-GenerationX]

DX....hard to see other people's posts when every half way interesting thread is clouded and bottled up by your endless regurgitation of your opinion...key word being opinion.

Again, skip over them.  If something catches your eye and you want to have a conversation, great.  You think I'm a dumbass, ignore me.

But you are not powerless to ignore something you don't like that I (or anyone, really) has to say.  If there is a gun to the back of your head, I can assure I didn't hire the guy.  And I do hope you are able to break free from captivity absent any real bodily harm.

[jarmo]

We have no evidence of the label preventing a release, right? If there is I am not aware of any. 

No. We have evidence from the past suggesting that the relationship between Axl and record company wasn't exactly the best.

The whole issue of the examples I posted is to make certain posters understand that there's more to the picture than record companies just doing what these people assume they do (release albums).
I'm not saying these issues are happening with GN'R, I'm saying that there might be issues we are not aware of that has made the process more difficult. Other posters claim none of that matters because things like that don't happen.

DX....hard to see other people's posts when every half way interesting thread is clouded and bottled up by your endless regurgitation of your opinion...key word being opinion.

Ouch.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

No. We have evidence from the past suggesting that the relationship between Axl and record company wasn't exactly the best.

No one alive disputes that.  The dispute always, always, always comes down to how you divvy up the responsibility for that breakdown.

DX....hard to see other people's posts when every half way interesting thread is clouded and bottled up by your endless regurgitation of your opinion...key word being opinion.

Ouch.

Its his opinion.  Some people in life don't like you.  It happens. 

I'm not running for class president here.  I'll live.

[sofine11]

On topic....Has it been spelled out yet whether recording has been finished for the next album?  Some members say Axl has two "finished" albums ready to go, while other members (DJ) keep saying they're sorting through tracks deciding what needs work blah, blah, blah. 

If the tracks just need proper mixing and mastering, we could foreseeably have the new album late winter/early spring.  If the plan is to do more recording......God only knows....