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

[jarmo]

It is based on a fallacy. You say that ''GN'R never won anything there''? Neither had any act that has ever been inducted, up until the point when they were actually inducted.

It's based on facts. I don't know what the hell you're talking about inducted to what? The Grammy awards, you get nominated and win or lose.
GN'R has won zero Grammy awards. Twist it how you want it, that's a fact.

These bands Guns lost to? RHCP and Van Halen? These seem like credible and commercially successful acts, Guns lost to. I do not sense some conspiracy, that (quoting you), it was ''based on politics and is out of touch with reality''! Guns lost. That is it. That simple. They lost against worthy opposition. Some bands lose and win later. Axl did not put out another album until 2008, so how was he expected to win (up until that time)?

Did I say there was a conspiracy? Once again, you push this agenda of yours that anybody who disagrees with you, even though the opinion is based on FACTS, is somehow misinformed.

GN'R never won any Grammy awards. Fact.
I'm glad you're so informed about this "closed" award show and their system of determining the winners. Personally, with what I've read, I'm not gonna change my opinion that there's politics involved.

Fallacy. Rrrright.

I meant the capacity of the stadiums they are playing.

Yeah, big venues. But it's interesting how there's not that many shows in the US. I think it's an indication of the current climate for that kind of shows.




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

You know what your problem is. You cannot except something negatively happening to Axl without some, ulterior explanation explaining away the miss-hap, because Axl (the philosophy of Jarmo) must be made to look perfect at all times. Yes, they never won a Grammy. Why? They lost. It happens! Hitchcock never won an Oscar (although some of his films did win the individual categories). Peter O' Toole was nominated seven times - seven times - and lost every Oscar.

The ironic thing Jarmo is, if Axl suddenly decided to play at The Grammys, say in 2016, you would instantly proclaim it an ''excellent institution''.

[draguns]

look at AC DC.. they are going to do a MONSTER football stadium tour right after this performance...

That monster tour is interesting. The North American leg that is. 13 shows in total, 7 are in Canada, 6 in the USA.
North Americans are getting about half the amount of shows Europe is getting....




/jarmo

I meant the capacity of the stadiums they are playing.

I agree. They are playing at Giants (aka Metlife) Stadium, which holds 80,000 people. They will sell out easily. I'm most definitely going to this.

[draguns]

But what would be the reason?  What makes it different for them?

I asked you if it was because of the bastardized line-up, which I thought was where you were going.  But you said its not.

So what's the story?  Are you telling us there is measurable difference in saying you like AC/DC, but not Guns N' Roses?  Or pretending to say you do, as you are claiming?

Those bands generally look, sound, act, and conduct themselves in a very specific, "safe" way, now a days (and for awhile). There isn't exactly controversy, intrigue or any sense of "danger" around them.  They are, quite frankly, milquetoast in 2015.  They have been "good citizens" to certain aspects of the industry, up to, and including, the NARAS, as well.

It's not just about the lineup changes, really...it's about being able to wear that 1989 vintage AC/DC shirt that you paid $100 for, and...hey....it's exactly the same product on stage. Looks the same, sounds the same, but..hey...nothing really offensive or "in your face" about them.  It's about harkening back to those bands much more "dangerous" days...but not having to actually deal with that attitude, today.  It's all about appearances for those folks.  They wanna look good, they want others to SEE them looking good, and they want the "shine" off the cred of liking AC/DC and Metallica.

So, yes..there is a measurable difference for those people saying they like AC/DC or Metallica.  As to why..you'd have to ask them, and some of the pop culture icons, in general, why you see AC/DC and Metallica shirts all over the hipster pretender population..and not GnR.  It is what it is.

You asked previously "How do you overcome that". I didn't answer because I think that's the wrong question.  I think the real question is "Why would you want to"? So you can play the Grammys? Because, really..that's the only thing we're talking about.  I don't think that's a career goal of GnR, or an opportunity that's so profound that you HAVE to take steps to overcome ANY things to get there.  I don't think you change who you are, what you're about, or what you're doing (if you're content with it) just to make a committee of stuck up assholes happy, to get you on their show.  I don't think that's nobility...I think it's apathy.

I'm not quite seeing the point of GNR as as "dangerous" band anymore. They USED to be when they were younger and had the original lineup. NOW, Axl is in his 50s and really not dangerous anymore.  Would you really want a guy in his 50s to be dangerous?? Also no one in this band really brings that danger or craziness factor in this lineup. So I think that's a false argument about why Guns shouldn't or couldn't do the Grammys.

[JAEBALL]

look at AC DC.. they are going to do a MONSTER football stadium tour right after this performance...

That monster tour is interesting. The North American leg that is. 13 shows in total, 7 are in Canada, 6 in the USA.
North Americans are getting about half the amount of shows Europe is getting....




/jarmo

I meant the capacity of the stadiums they are playing.

I agree. They are playing at Giants (aka Metlife) Stadium, which holds 80,000 people. They will sell out easily. I'm most definitely going to this.

Me too!

[GNR2014]

I think that comparing GNR to AC/DC is an 'apples to apples' comparison.

[mortismurphy]

But what would be the reason?  What makes it different for them?

I asked you if it was because of the bastardized line-up, which I thought was where you were going.  But you said its not.

So what's the story?  Are you telling us there is measurable difference in saying you like AC/DC, but not Guns N' Roses?  Or pretending to say you do, as you are claiming?

Those bands generally look, sound, act, and conduct themselves in a very specific, "safe" way, now a days (and for awhile). There isn't exactly controversy, intrigue or any sense of "danger" around them.  They are, quite frankly, milquetoast in 2015.  They have been "good citizens" to certain aspects of the industry, up to, and including, the NARAS, as well.

It's not just about the lineup changes, really...it's about being able to wear that 1989 vintage AC/DC shirt that you paid $100 for, and...hey....it's exactly the same product on stage. Looks the same, sounds the same, but..hey...nothing really offensive or "in your face" about them.  It's about harkening back to those bands much more "dangerous" days...but not having to actually deal with that attitude, today.  It's all about appearances for those folks.  They wanna look good, they want others to SEE them looking good, and they want the "shine" off the cred of liking AC/DC and Metallica.

So, yes..there is a measurable difference for those people saying they like AC/DC or Metallica.  As to why..you'd have to ask them, and some of the pop culture icons, in general, why you see AC/DC and Metallica shirts all over the hipster pretender population..and not GnR.  It is what it is.

You asked previously "How do you overcome that". I didn't answer because I think that's the wrong question.  I think the real question is "Why would you want to"? So you can play the Grammys? Because, really..that's the only thing we're talking about.  I don't think that's a career goal of GnR, or an opportunity that's so profound that you HAVE to take steps to overcome ANY things to get there.  I don't think you change who you are, what you're about, or what you're doing (if you're content with it) just to make a committee of stuck up assholes happy, to get you on their show.  I don't think that's nobility...I think it's apathy.

I'm not quite seeing the point of GNR as as "dangerous" band anymore. They USED to be when they were younger and had the original lineup. NOW, Axl is in his 50s and really not dangerous anymore.  Would you really want a guy in his 50s to be dangerous?? Also no one in this band really brings that danger or craziness factor in this lineup. So I think that's a false argument about why Guns shouldn't or couldn't do the Grammys.

I agree. I would also like to add the fact that DC had their 'dangerous period'. In Bon Scott, they possessed a genuine hard drinking wild man of rock, unparalleled in the annals of rock n' roll history. He died for his, lifestyle. They had the booze, women, drugs (although they were more, a 'drinking band') - just like Guns. Lyrics such as Night Prowler attracted controversy because of the Ram?rez case. DC in the 1970s were seen as a misogynist wild bunch of hard-drinking Aussies. There is not a great deal which makes Guns N' Roses more, inherently dangerous, than AC/DC.

[sky dog]

Axl still carries alot of his rep with him...again. It is not rocket science. His rep is much more notorious than Brian Johnson's or Angus' for that matter...come on. It is what it is...for good and bad.

[mortismurphy]

Axl still carries alot of his rep with him...again. It is not rocket science. His rep is much more notorious than Brian Johnson's or Angus' for that matter...come on. It is what it is...for good and bad.

We are using the term 'dangerous' here. Bon Scott died because of his 'dangerous' lifestyle. Axl was not particularly political in a John Lennon sense or a Sex Pistols sense. He merely made a reputation for, being a bit of an arsehole which is where his reputation is today. Does not make him dangerous. Not turning up for gigs does not make one dangerous: it merely makes you, late - or lacking a watch.

[damnthehaters]

Never having been a fan of award shows in general, it does seem hard to believe he'd want to play one.

What?  What makes you believe Axl isn't a fan of award shows?  The fact that he's only appeared at like 8 of them?  Are your expectations that he should appear at one every other year or more?  Kinda like Chinese bring a major flop huh?

[pilferk]

But what would be the reason?  What makes it different for them?

I asked you if it was because of the bastardized line-up, which I thought was where you were going.  But you said its not.

So what's the story?  Are you telling us there is measurable difference in saying you like AC/DC, but not Guns N' Roses?  Or pretending to say you do, as you are claiming?

Those bands generally look, sound, act, and conduct themselves in a very specific, "safe" way, now a days (and for awhile). There isn't exactly controversy, intrigue or any sense of "danger" around them.  They are, quite frankly, milquetoast in 2015.  They have been "good citizens" to certain aspects of the industry, up to, and including, the NARAS, as well

Is this the same AC/DC whose drummer was arrested recently for attempting to procure murder and possession of narcotics?

Yup, well after the Grammy gig was booked.

It's a nice nitpick, and, quite frankly, I was waiting for it.  But it's not really relevant, given the timing.

[pilferk]

I'm not quite seeing the point of GNR as as "dangerous" band anymore. They USED to be when they were younger and had the original lineup. NOW, Axl is in his 50s and really not dangerous anymore.  Would you really want a guy in his 50s to be dangerous?? Also no one in this band really brings that danger or craziness factor in this lineup. So I think that's a false argument about why Guns shouldn't or couldn't do the Grammys.

With the people we're talking about...perception trumps reality pretty much every time.

The PERCEPTION is that Axl isn't a "good citizen", that he's unpredictable, etc.  The Grammy organizers just wouldn't ask them.

[pilferk]

I agree. I would also like to add the fact that DC had their 'dangerous period'. In Bon Scott, they possessed a genuine hard drinking wild man of rock, unparalleled in the annals of rock n' roll history. He died for his, lifestyle. They had the booze, women, drugs (although they were more, a 'drinking band') - just like Guns. Lyrics such as Night Prowler attracted controversy because of the Ram?rez case. DC in the 1970s were seen as a misogynist wild bunch of hard-drinking Aussies. There is not a great deal which makes Guns N' Roses more, inherently dangerous, than AC/DC.

A rep AC/DC shed 20+ years ago (maybe longer).  The most recent bit of controversy surrounding their drummer might be the first bit of negative or controversial press that the band is had since...I don't know...the early 90's? Maybe longer than that. They've not done ANYTHING that might reflect poorly on the Grammys, by association.  They've not been late to a gig, or had a riot break out at one of their gigs, or a thousand other things, big and small, that might make them seem dangerous/risky/objectionable to put on live TV.

They've said nothing really controversial (or, really, anything substantive). They are "safe".

Can you say the same about Axl and GnR?

Axl and the bands rep continues to follow them, warrented or not.

And keep in mind, that's just one aspect.  GnR also isn't, for whatever reason, one of the "cred" bands amongst the hipster/pop royalty scene.  They just aren't.

[pilferk]

We are using the term 'dangerous' here. Bon Scott died because of his 'dangerous' lifestyle. Axl was not particularly political in a John Lennon sense or a Sex Pistols sense. He merely made a reputation for, being a bit of an arsehole which is where his reputation is today. Does not make him dangerous. Not turning up for gigs does not make one dangerous: it merely makes you, late - or lacking a watch.

You can fixate on one word, and ignore the entirety of the point, if you'd like. Play semantic games, and quote definitions, and argue exactly how the term "dangerous" might apply.

But, honestly, it's not really all that interesting to do so.

[mortismurphy]

I agree. I would also like to add the fact that DC had their 'dangerous period'. In Bon Scott, they possessed a genuine hard drinking wild man of rock, unparalleled in the annals of rock n' roll history. He died for his, lifestyle. They had the booze, women, drugs (although they were more, a 'drinking band') - just like Guns. Lyrics such as Night Prowler attracted controversy because of the Ram?rez case. DC in the 1970s were seen as a misogynist wild bunch of hard-drinking Aussies. There is not a great deal which makes Guns N' Roses more, inherently dangerous, than AC/DC.

A rep AC/DC shed 20+ years ago (maybe longer).  The most recent bit of controversy surrounding their drummer might be the first bit of negative or controversial press that the band is had since...I don't know...the early 90's? Maybe longer than that.

Can you say the same about Axl and GnR?

Axl and the bands rep continues to follow them, warrented or not.

It is sort of difficult to compare DC's career trajectory with Axl's, as Axl's is all broken up, riddled with numerous 'hiatuses'. I cannot describe Axl as particularly dangerous since the Vegas years, the Ashba era, began. He is even, occasionally, on time, these days!

[pilferk]

It is sort of difficult to compare DC's career trajectory with Axl's, as Axl's is all broken up, riddled with numerous 'hiatuses'. I cannot describe Axl as particularly dangerous since the Vegas years, the Ashba era, began. He is even, occasionally, on time, these days!

Yup, and if he can be milquetoast for a couple decades more, maybe the elephants that are the grammy organizers will forgive (or forget).

[mortismurphy]

It is sort of difficult to compare DC's career trajectory with Axl's, as Axl's is all broken up, riddled with numerous 'hiatuses'. I cannot describe Axl as particularly dangerous since the Vegas years, the Ashba era, began. He is even, occasionally, on time, these days!

Yup, and if he can be milquetoast for a couple decades more, maybe the elephants that are the grammy organizers will forgive (or forget).

I am finding it difficult to buy into this concept of an, anti-Axl agenda. (Original) Guns N' Roses lost their nominations in a fair battle against credible and commercially successful opposition, namely the RHCP and Van Halen. I did not hear any comments from Guns N' Roses - Axl or otherwise - complaining about the fact, complaining about the Grammys. Axl did not release an album, 1992-2007. Potentially, hypothetically, he could have played the Grammys in 2009 but he didn't, he was on one of his numerous 'hiatuses' - I see no use in assigning a conspiracy theory to it. Axl now refuses to release new material. The Grammy organisation seem to favour acts who release new material. All of the acts who played that have released new material, either recently or in a two year time frame.

[pilferk]

I am finding it difficult to buy into this concept of an, anti-Axl agenda. (Original) Guns N' Roses lost their nominations in a fair battle against credible and commercially successful opposition, namely the RHCP and Van Halen. I never heard any comments from Guns N' Roses - Axl or otherwise - complaining about the fact, complaining about the Grammys. Axl did not release an album between 1991-2008. Potentially, hypothetically, he could have played the Grammys in 2008 or 2009 but he didn't, he was on 'hiatus' - I see no use in assigning a conspiracy theory to it. Axl now refuses to release new material. The Grammy organisation seem to favour acts who release new material. All of the acts who played that have released new material, either recently or in a two year time frame.

I don't think it's an "agenda. I was being "cute" with the "forgive and forget" line. Prolly should have reversed it.

It's just a perception.  And then....a consideration that the attendees aren't crash hot on seeing GnR, because they are not one of the big t-shirt "cred" bands.  I dont think anyone on the committee is laughing maniacally and monologuing about keeping Axl out of the grammy's.  The truth is: I don't think they're thinking of GnR much, at all.

You're the one creating a conspiracy theory.  I'm simply saying, when the grammy organizers sit down.....there are other acts they feel are more suited to their stage..for exactly the reasons outlined.

You can disagree....that's fine.  I'm totally OK with that, given your stance on most things, and the fact you are usually a contrarian.

On the recent material thing....mostly.  There are exceptions, every year. Tom Jones and Electric Light Orchestra were the two that stood out this year.  There have been (and probably will continue to be) exceptions due to name value and previous success (or some sort of human interest story that's currently in the limelight).

But I think the jumping off point to this discussion was that GnR would HAVE new material before the "what if" played out.

[jarmo]

You know what your problem is. You cannot except something negatively happening to Axl without some, ulterior explanation explaining away the miss-hap, because Axl (the philosophy of Jarmo) must be made to look perfect at all times. Yes, they never won a Grammy. Why? They lost. It happens! Hitchcock never won an Oscar (although some of his films did win the individual categories). Peter O' Toole was nominated seven times - seven times - and lost every Oscar.

The ironic thing Jarmo is, if Axl suddenly decided to play at The Grammys, say in 2016, you would instantly proclaim it an ''excellent institution''.

So instead of proving me to be wrong, you try to insult me as a person.
The problem with you is that once you have no answers, you take this route. Never fails does it?

Since you somehow managed to miss it, I said it's possible they will play this award show. But I explained MY PERSONAL OPINION on why I think it would be more likely that they'd play somewhere else.

Nowhere did I claim there was a conspiracy. That's what your mind made up because I pointed out the fact that GN'R never won anything. I pointed out that this, as an industry award, it' not exactly open and voted by the fans. Yes, I believe there are politics involved.
My opinion.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

What I find amusing in all this, though, is that some of the same people who point out that they think Axl is difficult, that he's erratic, that he's unpredictable, that he's overly litigious, that he poses a risk when considering to attend a show, that he's not dependable, that he's ALWAYS late, that he's this egomaniacal control freak (in essence), that he says controversial things that largely aren't true, and that he's this and that and not this and that....

...are some of the same people now saying that organizers of a huge, stuffy, pretty conservative, award show might not have similar perceptions (warranted or not), and then consider them when booking acts for their show.

And while it's amusing, it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me....