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

[pilferk]

Between $20 (for standard quality) and $50 (for really high quality, HD level, 7.1 mix).  Maybe a bit more if they threw in an exclusive bonus track or two (or, you know, a few remixes).

That's what I'd pay for "early digital access".

That's ASSUMING I can DL the files and rip them to a CD (because yes, Virginia, some of us oldsters still have CD players in our cars) AND that the DRM (digital rights management/copy protection) is reasonable (or, better yet, non-existent).

[Limulus]

i wont buy anything lesser quality than 16bit//44.1khz CD standard audio. so, nope, i wont buy any studio MP3s, period!

So you wouldn't pay a single cent to have a new GN'R album as mp3s before it was out on CD, vinyl and whatever other format(s)?




/jarmo

that is correct, Sir!
quality has its price, mp3 (for me) doesnt. i can create lossy stuff myself. and waiting is smth. GN'R fans suffered to succeed big time! so i'm not in hurry and would go for the lossless version only! i wanna enjoy music on expensive hifi set-up and stand by my word that i'm totally against any lossy music when it comes to official releases. why supporting quality that is inferior to CD standard from early 1980s? it makes ZERO sense to me, so zero cent from my pocket for that.

[Ow-So7411501]

Ok....What would the ultimate GnR album look like for you guys? Would it be release anything that's in the archives or start from scratch and start fresh with the current lineup ( whoever is in it)? I would prefer the latter. Let's see what this band can come up with. Record the songs while they are still fresh. As a musician myself ( this is my opinion), I feel that the longer you let songs sit around the more you seem to tinker with them and ultimately they lose there rawness. Especially on lyrics.

[jarmo]

that is correct, Sir!
quality has its price, mp3 (for me) doesnt. i can create lossy stuff myself. and waiting is smth. GN'R fans suffered to succeed big time! so i'm not in hurry and would go for the lossless version only! i wanna enjoy music on expensive hifi set-up and stand by my word that i'm totally against any lossy music when it comes to official releases. why supporting quality that is inferior to CD standard from early 1980s? it makes ZERO sense to me, so zero cent from my pocket for that.

Yes, I agree about the sound quality. But in this hypothetical scenario, it would be the only way to get the new music until there was a physical release later. Just like Radiohead did....
I don't remember if they offered lossless files or not though.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

People talk about lossy MP3s like they are the ebola virus.

[Limulus]

well, for audiophiles its a problem if MP3 is the one and only option. that happens with some live stuff, tv broadcasts etc., where fans aint getting the real deal - which, again, is an suuuper old standard from the early 1980s (=  CD Audio standard).
if such a big band only offers studio MP3s first only, i'm not goin to buy them and will wait for the lossless and/or physical CD/Blu-Ray Audio version to come later. a huge brand name like GN'R should manage to get out lossless audio in 2015+. i'm not expecting much from Axl and his camp anymore, but this would be my little quality expectation, if that doesnt happen, i'm simply not supporting it financially.

[Ginger King]

Ok....What would the ultimate GnR album look like for you guys? Would it be release anything that's in the archives or start from scratch and start fresh with the current lineup ( whoever is in it)? I would prefer the latter. Let's see what this band can come up with. Record the songs while they are still fresh. As a musician myself ( this is my opinion), I feel that the longer you let songs sit around the more you seem to tinker with them and ultimately they lose there rawness. Especially on lyrics.

You need to know who's in the current lineup first.  

The realistic scenario is what Axl told us last year...the second half of Chinese is done, along with some CD remixes.  My guess is, if and when a new album comes out, that's what we're going to get.  

My question is: what else is left to be done on the new album?  People have interpreted "already recorded" to mean not having been mixed and mastered yet...but how long does it take to mix and master songs?  My sources (read: the internet) tell me it takes a few hours per song, give or take, but I think it's been offered on here that mixing and mastering is a several month to year long process.  Which may be true for Guns, which begs the question, why does it take that long for Guns?

I'm sure there are other issues (marketing, label negotiations, dividing up contributions for former members, etc.) that make releasing the new album more complicated than...say, Art of Anarchy, but they're not new issues, and if they really want to release it, they'll find a way.  

It's just confusing trying to figure out why an album that's "already recorded" can't get released.

[Gavgnr]

I love the current line up but, for me, there's unfinished business in terms of the plethora of stuff recorded by Fortus, Bucket and Robin.

I am chomping at the bit to hear this stuff and imo we need to hear this before 'newer' music is contemplated.

Wouldn't surprise me at all though if there's one or two tracks recorded in the last 5 years or so, which is good with me.

[JAEBALL]

Ok....What would the ultimate GnR album look like for you guys? Would it be release anything that's in the archives or start from scratch and start fresh with the current lineup ( whoever is in it)? I would prefer the latter. Let's see what this band can come up with. Record the songs while they are still fresh. As a musician myself ( this is my opinion), I feel that the longer you let songs sit around the more you seem to tinker with them and ultimately they lose there rawness. Especially on lyrics.

You need to know who's in the current lineup first.  

The realistic scenario is what Axl told us last year...the second half of Chinese is done, along with some CD remixes.  My guess is, if and when a new album comes out, that's what we're going to get.  

My question is: what else is left to be done on the new album?  People have interpreted "already recorded" to mean not having been mixed and mastered yet...but how long does it take to mix and master songs?  My sources (read: the internet) tell me it takes a few hours per song, give or take, but I think it's been offered on here that mixing and mastering is a several month to year long process.  Which may be true for Guns, which begs the question, why does it take that long for Guns?

I'm sure there are other issues (marketing, label negotiations, dividing up contributions for former members, etc.) that make releasing the new album more complicated than...say, Art of Anarchy, but they're not new issues, and if they really want to release it, they'll find a way.  

It's just confusing trying to figure out why an album that's "already recorded" can't get released.

In that sense... waiting for this album is almost more frustrating than Chinese because... now... we know the songs are done and have been, in the past we weren't sure , the label hold ups, the former members all of that...

These songs are 15 years old!!!! Surely they are mixed and mastered no?

[Ginger King]

Ok....What would the ultimate GnR album look like for you guys? Would it be release anything that's in the archives or start from scratch and start fresh with the current lineup ( whoever is in it)? I would prefer the latter. Let's see what this band can come up with. Record the songs while they are still fresh. As a musician myself ( this is my opinion), I feel that the longer you let songs sit around the more you seem to tinker with them and ultimately they lose there rawness. Especially on lyrics.

You need to know who's in the current lineup first.  

The realistic scenario is what Axl told us last year...the second half of Chinese is done, along with some CD remixes.  My guess is, if and when a new album comes out, that's what we're going to get.  

My question is: what else is left to be done on the new album?  People have interpreted "already recorded" to mean not having been mixed and mastered yet...but how long does it take to mix and master songs?  My sources (read: the internet) tell me it takes a few hours per song, give or take, but I think it's been offered on here that mixing and mastering is a several month to year long process.  Which may be true for Guns, which begs the question, why does it take that long for Guns?

I'm sure there are other issues (marketing, label negotiations, dividing up contributions for former members, etc.) that make releasing the new album more complicated than...say, Art of Anarchy, but they're not new issues, and if they really want to release it, they'll find a way.  

It's just confusing trying to figure out why an album that's "already recorded" can't get released.

In that sense... waiting for this album is almost more frustrating than Chinese because... now... we know the songs are done and have been, in the past we weren't sure , the label hold ups, the former members all of that...

These songs are 15 years old!!!! Surely they are mixed and mastered no?

You'd think...but this gets us to the whole "artistic integrity" argument, which is a nice way of saying they'll come out when Axl wants them to.  Period.  It's possible he's re-mixing, re-mastering, and re-tinkering...didn't this happen the first time around?

[jarmo]

if such a big band only offers studio MP3s first only, i'm not goin to buy them and will wait for the lossless and/or physical CD/Blu-Ray Audio version to come later.

Blu-ray audio is a big format? Never seen anything on sale to be honest.

How long would you wait for a CD? Let's say the time between releases was a month. Two months? Three?



/jarmo

[Limulus]

Blu-Ray audio in the sense of higher resolution audio like 24bit/96khz (or higher), a Blu-Ray disc can hold that format. many bands do record in DSD or 24bit/384khz+ and downsample from there. i'd prefer to get the highest quality possible! i mean......you did buy the vegas show on Blu-Ray, not vhs, right? i'd really like the music industry to support more lossless audio in 2015(!!) finally, its such a slow process....

i think i'd easily wait 3 or 4 months for the CD before checking out MP3s on a friends home, i wouldnt buy them (MP3s) myself though.
that being said, i'm a bit extreme when it comes to quality, and might very well not be within the general mass with my thoughts regarding this issue.

[pilferk]

if such a big band only offers studio MP3s first only, i'm not goin to buy them and will wait for the lossless and/or physical CD/Blu-Ray Audio version to come later.

Blu-ray audio is a big format? Never seen anything on sale to be honest.

How long would you wait for a CD? Let's say the time between releases was a month. Two months? Three?



/jarmo

Not necessarily blu ray format, blu ray resolution (24/96) and true 7.1 mix.

[jarmo]

you did buy the vegas show on Blu-Ray, not vhs, right? i'd really like the music industry to support more lossless audio in 2015(!!) finally, its such a slow process....

Yes, but it's video, not only audio.
I think the music industry is going towards streaming rather than lossless audio.

Yes, it's kinda ironic that video went from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray and audio went from vinyl/tapes to CDs to mp3s...




/jarmo

[gnrfan1797]

I honestly think records sound better then CD'S.

[rebelhipi]

that is correct, Sir!
quality has its price, mp3 (for me) doesnt. i can create lossy stuff myself. and waiting is smth. GN'R fans suffered to succeed big time! so i'm not in hurry and would go for the lossless version only! i wanna enjoy music on expensive hifi set-up and stand by my word that i'm totally against any lossy music when it comes to official releases. why supporting quality that is inferior to CD standard from early 1980s? it makes ZERO sense to me, so zero cent from my pocket for that.

Yes, I agree about the sound quality. But in this hypothetical scenario, it would be the only way to get the new music until there was a physical release later. Just like Radiohead did....
I don't remember if they offered lossless files or not though.



/jarmo

Nine Inch Nails record The Slip is still free on their website, and they offer the album in Losseles and Lossily Flac, Wav, Different mp3 ect ect. (its the only NIN album that Robin has recorded on. Josh Freese also plays in it.


Like 99% of music i buy,i will buy the new guns album on CD, and on vinyl for collections sake,

Then illl burn the cd on my itunes, in Alac or mp3 320kbs, and probably listen to it 90% of the time, in my laptop and ipod.  With my music equipment theres no big need to have music in wav. I think.

[pilferk]

I honestly think records sound better then CD'S.

Because, since sound waves are analog constructs by definition, the analog (grooves in the vinyl) reproduction is going to be a "truer" reproduction.  Essentially, there's no loss built in.

Digital recording is, basically, a bunch of "snapshots" of that analog waveform.  CD resolution takes, basically, about 44k "snapshots" in a second..which is good, but...it's not perfect. It still misses pieces of the waveform as it goes.  In addition, the "range" of values it can capture are limited (16 bit, so about 65k "options), while those in a true analog soundwave (or format) are not...so you get more nuance to the sound on vinyl, too.

Then, whatever you're playing your music on translates that digital file BACK to analog format, probably amplifies it some to drive your speaker/headphones/etc...and that introduces some more loss, too.

FYI: I agree with you.  I think vinyl sounds "warmer" too...and more like live music.  The newer digital formats ARE better, and the loss is starting to approach a place where it's not distinguishable.  But even so....vinyl carries that "warmth" which is not apparent in digital.

The issue is...carrying vinyl with you, throughout your life, is not practical.  And the only real option to carry your music with you is...digital.

Quality vs convenience.

[pilferk]

Yes, but it's video, not only audio.
I think the music industry is going towards streaming rather than lossless audio.

Yes, it's kinda ironic that video went from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray and audio went from vinyl/tapes to CDs to mp3s...

/jarmo

There's a pretty good explanation for the different directions (besides irony):

"Portable" video is still a very new thing.  Until relatively recently, home video meant "Displayed in your living room, on your TV, surrounded by other "appliances".  In other words, physical size didn't much matter...and there wasn't much in the way of a "convenience" factor.

So....quality became the metric for video and cinema (plus...cinema is largely viewed as a visual medium, and the eye is a bit more discerning than the ear, generally).

With music...portability has been the goal since the mid 70's (8 TRACKS!!).  People want to bring their music with them...in the car, to work, as they wander, etc.  People were willing, right up front, to sacrifice some quality for that convenience AND for variety.  As we've progressed down that rabbit hole, to the point where MOST audio is NOT being listened to on a big hi-fi setup in a living room, but from a small, personal device with a set of headphones attached.....more and more quality has been sacrificed to satisfy that size, convenience, and variety side.  THAT seems to be what more consumers value, so that's what the industry has pushed. 

Another quick note: Digital (and CD) formats also are MUCH more durable than, say, vinyl (which not only degrades over time, it's relatively fragile to dust, scratches, etc).

I think there WILL come a time, as the price of storage space shrinks, and we are essentially walking around with cray super computers on our hips, that the quality demand from consumers will increase.  I think that's starting, now, with the new focus on vinyl that's starting to build.  We'll see......

[jarmo]

Of course there's explanations and reasons. But it is ironic that the technology moved forward and in one case quality went downhill. Convenience went up. You didn't have to bring all your CDs with you...



/jarmo

[kyrie]

Of course there's explanations and reasons. But it is ironic that the technology moved forward and in one case quality went downhill. Convenience went up. You didn't have to bring all your CDs with you...



/jarmo

You just sort of answered your own question as it were. Convenience. That's all it was ever about. No one goes for a jog while watching a movie. Movies are sit down entertainment. Maybe you watch one while on a treadmill, but they don't need to be portable. They are now - but that's a newer development.

The entire MP3 format and the way it came to be was tied in with the rising popularity of the internet, and the need to be able to distribute content in a matter that was convenient (i.e. didn't take hours to download at the speeds to be found in the late 90s, outside of utwente and whatever other schools had killer links). Remember that MP3 players didn't exist when the format was invented, and it wasn't the labels or even the tech companies that created it. MP3s exist because certain parties wanted to be able to distribute music online. There happened to be a format (MP3) available that made it possible at just the right time. L3enc (early MP3 encoder) wound up cracked, released into the wild, and suddenly anyone with a PC and the know-how was ripping MP3s. The format caught on, and companies produced hardware that could play it.

The industry just piggy-backed on the format. With Blu-Ray, the industry created and controlled the format. And it has still slowly followed the path of MP3, just at a slower rate (streaming copies, digital copies included with blu-rays, BR/DVD rips etc). Due to size constraints and bandwidth limits it never caught on as early as MP3s.

There's probably a host of other reasons too.