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

[jarmo]

Is that a good thing though? Bands shouldnt really consist of interchangeable parts. No one plays or sings the songs like the people who wrote them.

Yeah well. People shouldn't break up, get divorced either and it happens. It's life.

I was referring to the potential future release that may, or may not contain contributions from Buckethead, Robin, Freese etc.

And I was referring to the fact that the last time you could see the AFD songs being performed by the people who recorded them was October 1989. After that they did Farm Aid in 1990 (no AFD songs) and that was it. Since then you've had time to get used to not getting the same guys that are on the albums playing the songs (this continued during the UYI tour).


The whole argument about song writing. There's song writers out there that have written some of the most known songs in the history and you wouldn't be able to recognize them on the street.
You're confusing a band's output and image with songwriting. Ringo Starr is known because he wrote all those classic songs? Not really, he's known because he was in the Beatles.





/jarmo

[Ow-So7411501]

Is that a good thing though? Bands shouldnt really consist of interchangeable parts. No one plays or sings the songs like the people who wrote them.

Yeah well. People shouldn't break up, get divorced either and it happens. It's life.

I was referring to the potential future release that may, or may not contain contributions from Buckethead, Robin, Freese etc.

And I was referring to the fact that the last time you could see the AFD songs being performed by the people who recorded them was October 1989. After that they did Farm Aid in 1990 (no AFD songs) and that was it. Since then you've had time to get used to not getting the same guys that are on the albums playing the songs (this continued during the UYI tour).


The whole argument about song writing. There's song writers out there that have written some of the most known songs in the history and you wouldn't be able to recognize them on the street.
You're confusing a band's output and image with songwriting. Ringo Starr is known because he wrote all those classic songs? Not really, he's known because he was in the Beatles.





/jarmo

Then again you have John, Paul and George who are known for writing all of those classic songs.

[jarmo]

Yeah, we get it. You think they are famous because they wrote those songs. Not because people liked the songs they performed. 
Poor Ringo.... He's not famous because he didn't write their most known songs. Only sang on some of them.




/jarmo

[GypsySoul]

Those guys did not have successful solo careers because of their song writing credits.  Of course, maybe their song writing led to good production with their solo stuff, but it wasn't something that most fans recognized before they went solo.  They had successful solo careers because they were once in the biggest band in the world and their faces were known.  People aren't going "hey I'm going to go watch Slash because he wrote the riff for Coma", what they are saying is "bro, it's slash.  I loved him in GNR with his Top Hat and cigar hanging out of his mouth".  And they are saying "I'm gonna go see Izzy, because he was in Guns N Roses". 

The same can be said for the GNR of today.  If it's not those fans who come watch GNR because they actually think its the same GNR of yesterday, then it is a fan who supports GNR  because of what GNR WAS.  Until they put out more and more music, it will be the same.  I would say a very small amount of fans are following this GNR because of just Chinese.  Some, maybe.  But with more music being released, the number will only grow.   

As to the points in the second paragraph, wouldn't you agree that the "success"/fan interest in solo careers of all the members of GNR past and present is primarily because of the fact that they are/were in GNR and that "interest" has little to do with what or wasn't their actual input into GNR (aside from being physically onstage with Axl)? i.e., Jarmo's point about Izzy having more song writing credits than Slash having little to no affect on solo career success/popularity.

Is there any question that Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven/Dizzy/Buckethead/Robin/Ron/Dj/Richard/Frank's solo careers all very much benefit from having "Guns N' Roses" associated with their names?  I would even go as far to say that the resurgence of the popularity of The 'Mats is very much in correlation with Tommy's visibility through his being in GNR.
 

[draguns]

I never claimed that you made that point.

You brought it up in your response.

My point is that if people didn't already respect them as songwriters ( which would imply that some people knew who wrote what) would they enjoy the following that they have?

You're saying they have fans only because people assume they wrote all those GN'R hits? Izzy probably had the most song writing credits of the two guitar players. Yet Slash is way more known. Shouldn't it be the other way around since Izzy is the one who wrote more songs? Shouldn't he be more popular since people apparently know that he wrote many of those hits?

Tell me...name another band in which multiple members went on to have successful solo careers? People connected with the original group for a reason.

Because they were in Guns N' Roses! And the most successful post-GN'R bands were the "GN'R reunions".

I made a point earlier about selling the current lineup. What I meant by that is that Axl should showcase the talent of this band by showing what they can come up with in the studio.

I think it was already established that we got your point.



/jarmo

Not the point I was trying to make. Your original point was that you don't think that people really pay attention to the songwriting credits. My point was that if people didn't pay attention would the members I mentioned have had as succesful solo careers as they've had? I never compared them to each other. Never compared there acomplishments. Obviously that band connected with a good chunk of the people on this board. It's the reason we are here isn't it?
There are probably a handful of special rock bands. Guns happened to be one of them. With the special ones you can name all of there members. Thats just my opinion though.

Those guys did not have successful solo careers because of their song writing credits.  Of course, maybe their song writing led to good production with their solo stuff, but it wasn't something that most fans recognized before they went solo.  They had successful solo careers because they were once in the biggest band in the world and their faces were known.  People aren't going "hey I'm going to go watch Slash because he wrote the riff for Coma", what they are saying is "bro, it's slash.  I loved him in GNR with his Top Hat and cigar hanging out of his mouth".  And they are saying "I'm gonna go see Izzy, because he was in Guns N Roses". 

Ok. But how why did they become the biggest band in the world? Why did they connect with so many fans? It was there songs. Guns like all of the great bands was pretty much an allstar band. Great singer, Great Guitarists, great bassist. All contributors to the songwriting process as well. If people were going out to see them based on there past with GNR there careers wouldve fizzled years ago. There has to be substance behind what they are producing. Then again im sure there are some fans who go to see them for the celebrity of seeing a former member of GNR.

Well said!

[Spirit]

I never claimed that you made that point.

You brought it up in your response.

My point is that if people didn't already respect them as songwriters ( which would imply that some people knew who wrote what) would they enjoy the following that they have?

You're saying they have fans only because people assume they wrote all those GN'R hits? Izzy probably had the most song writing credits of the two guitar players. Yet Slash is way more known. Shouldn't it be the other way around since Izzy is the one who wrote more songs? Shouldn't he be more popular since people apparently know that he wrote many of those hits?

Tell me...name another band in which multiple members went on to have successful solo careers? People connected with the original group for a reason.

Because they were in Guns N' Roses! And the most successful post-GN'R bands were the "GN'R reunions".

I made a point earlier about selling the current lineup. What I meant by that is that Axl should showcase the talent of this band by showing what they can come up with in the studio.

I think it was already established that we got your point.



/jarmo

Not the point I was trying to make. Your original point was that you don't think that people really pay attention to the songwriting credits. My point was that if people didn't pay attention would the members I mentioned have had as succesful solo careers as they've had? I never compared them to each other. Never compared there acomplishments. Obviously that band connected with a good chunk of the people on this board. It's the reason we are here isn't it?
There are probably a handful of special rock bands. Guns happened to be one of them. With the special ones you can name all of there members. Thats just my opinion though.

Those guys did not have successful solo careers because of their song writing credits.  Of course, maybe their song writing led to good production with their solo stuff, but it wasn't something that most fans recognized before they went solo.  They had successful solo careers because they were once in the biggest band in the world and their faces were known.  People aren't going "hey I'm going to go watch Slash because he wrote the riff for Coma", what they are saying is "bro, it's slash.  I loved him in GNR with his Top Hat and cigar hanging out of his mouth".  And they are saying "I'm gonna go see Izzy, because he was in Guns N Roses". 

Ok. But how why did they become the biggest band in the world? Why did they connect with so many fans? It was there songs. Guns like all of the great bands was pretty much an allstar band. Great singer, Great Guitarists, great bassist. All contributors to the songwriting process as well. If people were going out to see them based on there past with GNR there careers wouldve fizzled years ago. There has to be substance behind what they are producing. Then again im sure there are some fans who go to see them for the celebrity of seeing a former member of GNR.

Of course they became big because of the song material being solid. The question is, would the casual fan really know who has songwriting credits on say "You Could Be Mine"? All they know is that Slash kicked ass on the recording of that song. He has no songwriting credit.

I don't think the casual fans are reading the liner notes of the album.

The reason the past members are still popular is because people know that they are brilliant musicians based on the songs they've heard in the past. Not their songwriting record.


I think it comes down to your definition of songwriting. If we use the example of YCBM, Slash has no official credit for that. That doesn't mean he didn't come up with guitar licks and solos for that song, I'm positive he did that. I think you mean that his legacy is based on his performance on all the GN'R songs, not specifically the ones he's got a songwriting credit for. Am I right?



EDIT TO ADD:

I think it might be a different story among some hardcore fans, where it might matter more who wrote what and who didn't.

[mortismurphy]

About the 'old material v new material' debate, there is no real perfect strategy because of the strangeness of how Axl operates. No artist has essentially sat on certifiable 'a-list' material for fifteen years only to treat this as their next bona fide album (and not a mere archival release like Van Morrison's Philosopher's Stone). Obviously he has accumulated, 50% a new band  in the interim who would rather like their songwriting credits on this next release also. It is a bonkers scenario, created because of the delay of Chinese Democracy (2003-08) and the pointless touring thereafter (2010-15).

What scenarios do you have..

- Best scenario: a 2-4 CD release, amalgamating all of the 1998-2004 outtakes (or a great many of them) alongside, at least ten 2009-15 line-up songs (this would be a separate disc). This would be incredibly fan friendly. I think we would all collectively have a heart attack if it happened - it would almost make up for the wilderness years. The people who desire the Bucket/Finck material would be happy. Bumblefoot and Ashba would be happy as they would have songwriting credits. Everyone is happy. There are variations on this idea: a massive boxset; a twin album (a la Use Your Illusion); staggered albums (a la, Metallica's Loads). You could even do a quick release double album (of Chinese leftovers), entering the studio to release an album of new material a year later. These solutions however all seem, very, un-Axl haha - and therefore, unrealistic. But it is the obvious 'correct' solution as it would clear the vaults and erase the problem of accumulating a backlog of material while, at the same, making sure the 2009 band's identity is represented.

- Second best scenario: a sort of watered down one album version of the above. One album featuring, say about five-eight (about 60-70%) of the best Chinese outtakes and about four-five Ashba/Bumble songs. Again, everybody is happy but it does create the problem that there will still be a lot of Chinese outtakes in the vault. The album would also have a, 'Frankenstein' type character to it (grafting 2015 songs onto a 1999-2004 trunk!). But I suppose you could continue this approach, hybrid albums with 2-3 year touring intervals in between, until all of the Chinese stuff has finally been released. This, is also a good solution to the problem.

The other, more problematic, solutions, would be...

- Release an album of solely Chinese outtakes, perhaps sticking a few Thal/Ashba overdubs on them (basically, the approach taken with the original Chinese Democracy). This would be good in an archival sense, for those, like me, who believe the 2002 band was far superior to the current band, but the album will not be representative of the current band and will not give the new members potential songwriting credits (a possible source for discontent). It would also mean that Axl had not officially released a song, loosely representative of his then songwriting, since 1999's Oh My God. If I had to guess, this is probably the scenario Axl is plummeting for - with the new member overdubs in place.

- Release an album of solely new material. The new band would certainly be delirious. The album would be representative of the band you see live. But the problem of the 'vaults' is going to continue to linger. There would still be this gaping hole in Axl's songwriting. There are many who believe the Buckethead-Finck line-up was the best of the new band line-ups, potentially producing songwriting treasures. This will all still remain, buried.

[Ow-So7411501]

A safe and Happy New Year to all the posters!! Let's have some good positive discussions in the New Year.

[pilferk]

Then again you have John, Paul and George who are known for writing all of those classic songs.

And Paul has continued to play the songs he wrote, or contributed to writing, in concert, with Wings (and other various backup bands, depending on the tour) throughout his career.

So had George.

So has Ringo.

The only one of the 4 who really "avoided" (mostly) playing Beatles material, post breakup, was John.  And, given the tragedy that occurred which ended his life prematurely..there's no surety that would have continued forever.

[pilferk]

About the 'old material v new material' debate, there is no real perfect strategy because of the strangeness of how Axl operates. No artist has essentially sat on certifiable 'a-list' material for fifteen years only to treat this as their next bona fide album (and not a mere archival release like Van Morrison's Philosopher's Stone).

That's not ENTIRELY true.  It's rare, but there are examples (most notably Brian Wilson's "Smile" album) of it.

[pilferk]

The one thing being lost in this discussion is exactly what the band did for AFD for song writing credits.  By attributing each song to the collective entity of GNR, besides creating a future royalty and logistical nightmare, this band essentially obfuscated who contributed what, when, and how.

We have anecdotal stores about particular contributions (the calliope story for SCOM, for example), but nothing concrete. And we've seen the what the "credibility" of MANY of the bands, and band members, anecdotes is, more than once.  I'm not sure even THEY are the best basis for true belief.

Which sort of makes this debate a moot point....because it's an argument about a fictitious concept that the band, itself, propped up (that they all contributed equally to every single song).

I've LONG been of the opinion (so take it for what it's worth) that IZZY was, by far, the largest songwriting impetus in the band (both AFD and UYI era).  I've also LONG been of the opinion that HE was the harder member to replace, creatively, than any of the other departures.

But that's just me.  I don't often bring it up, or debate the point, because the band pretty much took steps to head off the discussion with one of it's very first acts as a commercial entity.

[Ow-So7411501]

The one thing being lost in this discussion is exactly what the band did for AFD for song writing credits.  By attributing each song to the collective entity of GNR, besides creating a future royalty and logistical nightmare, this band essentially obfuscated who contributed what, when, and how.

We have anecdotal stores about particular contributions (the calliope story for SCOM, for example), but nothing concrete. And we've seen the what the "credibility" of MANY of the bands, and band members, anecdotes is, more than once.  I'm not sure even THEY are the best basis for true belief.

Which sort of makes this debate a moot point....because it's an argument about a fictitious concept that the band, itself, propped up (that they all contributed equally to every single song).

I've LONG been of the opinion (so take it for what it's worth) that IZZY was, by far, the largest songwriting impetus in the band (both AFD and UYI era).  I've also LONG been of the opinion that HE was the harder member to replace, creatively, than any of the other departures.

But that's just me.  I don't often bring it up, or debate the point, because the band pretty much took steps to head off the discussion with one of it's very first acts as a commercial entity.

I agree. I think Izzy was the tie that binded that group. Wrote great lyrics with Axl and his guitar work with Slash was killer. The way they complimented each other is something that is hard to replicate. It's a chemistry thing.

[mortismurphy]

About the 'old material v new material' debate, there is no real perfect strategy because of the strangeness of how Axl operates. No artist has essentially sat on certifiable 'a-list' material for fifteen years only to treat this as their next bona fide album (and not a mere archival release like Van Morrison's Philosopher's Stone).

That's not ENTIRELY true.  It's rare, but there are examples (most notably Brian Wilson's "Smile" album) of it.

Smile is not the greatest analogy as, the majority of Smile was released on future albums, most predominantly Smiley Smile, e.g. 'Heroes and Villains'. Also, Brian Wilson continued to write and record on the Beach Boys albums following Smiley Smile, albeit on a reduced scale. Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower - all of these albums feature Brian Wilson's songwriting and recording. You also are dealing with a much more prolific time period. Pet Sounds was '66; Smile/Smiley Smile, 67; Friends, 68 - essentially every year featured a new Beach Boys album, featuring Brian's songs and voice. Axl has released only one album of new material within a twenty-five year period. Brian also did not merely, 'sit' on Smile (returning to what I wrote in my original post). Smile collapsed due to his own mental tortures - but as I said, most of the material was released anyhow. There is barely any similarity between the two. Beach Boys albums did not stop being released, with the collapse of Smile.

[pilferk]

About the 'old material v new material' debate, there is no real perfect strategy because of the strangeness of how Axl operates. No artist has essentially sat on certifiable 'a-list' material for fifteen years only to treat this as their next bona fide album (and not a mere archival release like Van Morrison's Philosopher's Stone).

That's not ENTIRELY true.  It's rare, but there are examples (most notably Brian Wilson's "Smile" album) of it.

Smile is not the greatest analogy as, the majority of Smile was released on future albums, most predominantly Smiley Smile, e.g. 'Heroes and Villains'. Also, Brian Wilson continued to write and record on the Beach Boys albums following Smiley Smile, albeit on a reduced scale. Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower - all of these albums feature Brian Wilson's songwriting and recording. You also are dealing with a much more prolific time period. Pet Sounds was '66; Smile/Smiley Smile, 67; Friends, 68 - essentially every year featured a new Beach Boys album, featuring Brian's songs and voice. Axl has released only one album of new material within a twenty-five year period. Brian also did not merely, 'sit' on Smile (returning to what I wrote in my original post). Smile collapsed due to his own mental tortures - but as I said, most of the material was released anyhow. There is barely any similarity between the two. Beach Boys albums did not stop being released, with the collapse of Smile.

Um...I wasn't comparing Smile to CD, or any other album.

I was demonstrating that the statement you made, the one i quoted, wasn't entirely true.  There have been artists who've done it. The only difference in there is "their next", which is sort of open to interpretation (because their newest release was, at some point, their next album).  It's also quibbling, if you're interpreting it as "didn't release anything else in the interim".

And while, yes, some of the material slated for Smile came out with other discs...NOT all of it did. Not even most of it did.

Some (I'd even say the majority) of it didn't get released until Smile did....and it was treated as his next bona fide album (and not as an archival...though that was the form the Smile Sessions, in 2011, took...sort of).

[mortismurphy]

About the 'old material v new material' debate, there is no real perfect strategy because of the strangeness of how Axl operates. No artist has essentially sat on certifiable 'a-list' material for fifteen years only to treat this as their next bona fide album (and not a mere archival release like Van Morrison's Philosopher's Stone).

That's not ENTIRELY true.  It's rare, but there are examples (most notably Brian Wilson's "Smile" album) of it.

Smile is not the greatest analogy as, the majority of Smile was released on future albums, most predominantly Smiley Smile, e.g. 'Heroes and Villains'. Also, Brian Wilson continued to write and record on the Beach Boys albums following Smiley Smile, albeit on a reduced scale. Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower - all of these albums feature Brian Wilson's songwriting and recording. You also are dealing with a much more prolific time period. Pet Sounds was '66; Smile/Smiley Smile, 67; Friends, 68 - essentially every year featured a new Beach Boys album, featuring Brian's songs and voice. Axl has released only one album of new material within a twenty-five year period. Brian also did not merely, 'sit' on Smile (returning to what I wrote in my original post). Smile collapsed due to his own mental tortures - but as I said, most of the material was released anyhow. There is barely any similarity between the two. Beach Boys albums did not stop being released, with the collapse of Smile.

Um...I wasn't comparing Smile to CD, or any other album.

I was demonstrating that the statement you made, the one i quoted, wasn't entirely true.  There have been artists who've done it. The only difference in there is "their next", which is sort of open to interpretation (because their newest release was, at some point, their next album).  It's also quibbling, if you're interpreting it as "didn't release anything else in the interim".

And while, yes, some of the material slated for Smile came out with other discs...NOT all of it did. Not even most of it did.

Some (I'd even say the majority) of it didn't get released until Smile did....and it was treated as his next bona fide album (and not as an archival...though that was the form the Smile Sessions, in 2011, took...sort of).

Done what?

I am trying to find a reason why you introduced Smile.

- A large part of Smile was released during the following years - some of it almost immediately after the collapse of the project. CD2, CD3, etc, remain unreleased officially (and, unofficially, there is only Silk Worms and Going Down).

- Brian Wilson continued to write, record and release songs for The Beach Boys up until his departure following the collapse of Smile. There has been no Guns/Axl release since CD.

For Smile to be similar, Axl would have had to have aborted CD2, reused the songs for another project almost immediately, and continued to contribute to albums during the following years.

[pilferk]

About the 'old material v new material' debate, there is no real perfect strategy because of the strangeness of how Axl operates. No artist has essentially sat on certifiable 'a-list' material for fifteen years only to treat this as their next bona fide album (and not a mere archival release like Van Morrison's Philosopher's Stone).

That's not ENTIRELY true.  It's rare, but there are examples (most notably Brian Wilson's "Smile" album) of it.

Smile is not the greatest analogy as, the majority of Smile was released on future albums, most predominantly Smiley Smile, e.g. 'Heroes and Villains'. Also, Brian Wilson continued to write and record on the Beach Boys albums following Smiley Smile, albeit on a reduced scale. Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower - all of these albums feature Brian Wilson's songwriting and recording. You also are dealing with a much more prolific time period. Pet Sounds was '66; Smile/Smiley Smile, 67; Friends, 68 - essentially every year featured a new Beach Boys album, featuring Brian's songs and voice. Axl has released only one album of new material within a twenty-five year period. Brian also did not merely, 'sit' on Smile (returning to what I wrote in my original post). Smile collapsed due to his own mental tortures - but as I said, most of the material was released anyhow. There is barely any similarity between the two. Beach Boys albums did not stop being released, with the collapse of Smile.

Um...I wasn't comparing Smile to CD, or any other album.

I was demonstrating that the statement you made, the one i quoted, wasn't entirely true.  There have been artists who've done it. The only difference in there is "their next", which is sort of open to interpretation (because their newest release was, at some point, their next album).  It's also quibbling, if you're interpreting it as "didn't release anything else in the interim".

And while, yes, some of the material slated for Smile came out with other discs...NOT all of it did. Not even most of it did.

Some (I'd even say the majority) of it didn't get released until Smile did....and it was treated as his next bona fide album (and not as an archival...though that was the form the Smile Sessions, in 2011, took...sort of).

Done what?

I am trying to find a reason why you introduced Smile.

- A large part of Smile was released during the following years - some of it almost immediately after the collapse of the project. CD2, CD3, etc, remain unreleased officially (and, unofficially, there is only Silk Worms and Going Down).

- Brian Wilson continued to write, record and release songs for The Beach Boys up until his departure following the collapse of Smile. There has been no Guns/Axl release since CD.

For Smile to be similar, Axl would have had to have aborted CD2, reused the songs for another project almost immediately, and continued to contribute to albums during the following years.

Done what the statement in that very first sentence i quoted says no artist has ever done. "Sat on" aaa material for 15 years and realeased it as their next bona fide album (depending on the interpretation of "next album" is).

If you are confused, you should reread what i wrote. Specifically the very first sentence. Then the very last one.  No where do i make any comparison to axl or cd. In fact, i specifically exclude those comparisons. Im simply demnstrating the scenario you specifically create, and then try to say is unique, isnt. Its rare, but not unheard of. Smile was simply the easiest and best known example. Def leppard with X (although not the whole album) is another. Some of that material was many, many years old when finally realeased, and had been "sat on".

Or continue to be obtuse. Your choice. But i wont hop to your attempts to change the subject, or broaden it, simply to try to "save face" or win "board warrior points".

I'm fairly certain everyone else gets the point, though....so i think we can move on, now.

[sofine11]

Anyone else thinkin' we might just get a surprise album release this year?  Seems to be the trend lately.

I would kill to know what Axl & Chris were doing in the studio, and what the current status is...    

[jarmo]

Anyone else thinkin' we might just get a surprise album release this year?  Seems to be the trend lately.

Would be cool in a way. Just release it out of the blue without any campaign behind it.

But I think some are wanting the album not only for the music, but also the big promotional campaign. It's almost like that's the more important thing.




/jarmo

[sofine11]

Anyone else thinkin' we might just get a surprise album release this year?  Seems to be the trend lately.

Would be cool in a way. Just release it out of the blue without any campaign behind it.

But I think some are wanting the album not only for the music, but also the big promotional campaign. It's almost like that's the more important thing.




/jarmo

Yeah, there's definitely pros to doing it both ways.  When an artist is big enough, the surprise release itself can act as sufficient promotion on its own, especially if the music is great (David Bowie's last album comes to mind).  I'd say a surprise Guns N' Roses release would be a huge deal in the music world and bring attention to it when perhaps a normal, announced, release would be met with perhaps less 'enthusiasm' in 2015. Perhaps.

The possibility is certainly there.  We know Axl was wrapping things up in the studio recently with Chris.  We just don't know the current status of things.  For all we know, it could be getting mastered as we speak.  We just don't know.

[jarmo]

It would be the opposite of Chinese Democracy. Which was marketed by the record company as something like "the most anticipated album of all time"....



/jarmo