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

[mortismurphy]

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.

Can, what I have put in bold, not connect back to a new album though? Tom Jones released an album in 2012, which is old but still much more recent than 2008, and Jones has consistently been in the public eye on things like The Voice. ELO have now reformed! They are undergoing a reunion! All these fulfill the criteria you mentioned, of human interest. Axl refuses to release new material; there is literally nothing interesting to be seen in a Vegas act such as Axl's. The only potential things Axl could do, to reverse this, would be to release new material or reunite - neither of which looks likely.

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

Come on Jarmo, in terms of personal attack it is fairly light. Are you telling me that if Axl played the Grammys, say next year, you would not suddenly alter your theory, to an one which makes the Grammys a 'positive organisation', fulfilling the requirements of your pro-Axl agenda. This is, how you operate. I accept it. I am not criticising you for it per se. i am not personally attacking you per se. I have difficulties comprehending, such a stance, but I accept you are always going to see things as, a battle, between pro-Axl and anti-Axl forces, pitted against each other in Armageddon, you as cheerleader par excellence for the forces of good, of Axl. This is how you see things. This is how you see gnr fans. This is how - pertinent here - you see the music industry.

If Axl has had something 'negative' against him such as a slight at an awards show, it stands to reason the award show must be anti-Axl. Axl can do nothing bad, cannot fail.

Your philosophy jarmo.

[JAEBALL]

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....

Pilferk.. I agree with a lot of what you have said about the grammys and how Axl is perceived and how ACDC is perceived... except for one thing... I see kids in GNR gear ALL the time... maybe it's not as much as ACDC ... but if you go in to any of those Spencers gifts stores... they are littered with GNR t shirts and posters and stuff...I see teenagers all the time in the old style shirt. (I'm sure half of them don't know one song other than Jungle or SCOM, but thats another story)

[pilferk]

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.

Can, what I have put in bold, not connect back to a new album though? Tom Jones released an album in 2012, which is old but still much more recent than 2008, and Jones has consistently been in the public eye on things like The Voice. ELO have now reformed! They are undergoing a reunion! All these fulfill the criteria you mentioned, of human interest. Axl refuses to release new material; there is literally nothing interesting to be seen in a Vegas act such as Axl's. The only potential things Axl could do, to reverse this, would be to release new material or reunite - neither of which looks likely.

I agree on Tom Jones and ELO..that was my point. You said the Grammys favor those who have released new material within the past couple years.  While that's MOSTLY true, there are other things that get you on stage.  That's why I pointed them out.  You just agreed, above.

My point is: I don't think new material, alone, makes them an attractive "get" for the Grammy organizers. I just don't. For exactly the reasons given. The jumping off point of this whole discussion was "if they had a new album out".

And, again, I don't think Axl's looking for ways, overtly, to impress the Grammy organizers....so I'm not sure there is a "this" to reverse.

[mortismurphy]

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....

Pilferk.. I agree with a lot of what you have said about the grammys and how Axl is perceived and how ACDC is perceived... except for one thing... I see kids in GNR gear ALL the time... maybe it's not as much as ACDC ... but if you go in to any of those Spencers gifts stores... they are littered with GNR t shirts and posters and stuff...I see teenagers all the time in the old style shirt. (I'm sure half of them don't know one song other than Jungle or SCOM, but thats another story)

The Appetite cross t-shirt? That is as ubiquitous as the DC logo.

[JAEBALL]

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....

Pilferk.. I agree with a lot of what you have said about the grammys and how Axl is perceived and how ACDC is perceived... except for one thing... I see kids in GNR gear ALL the time... maybe it's not as much as ACDC ... but if you go in to any of those Spencers gifts stores... they are littered with GNR t shirts and posters and stuff...I see teenagers all the time in the old style shirt. (I'm sure half of them don't know one song other than Jungle or SCOM, but thats another story)

The Appetite cross t-shirt? That is as ubiquitous as the DC logo.

I see that shirt all the time too, but I was referring to the yellow circle with the two guns and two roses.

[pilferk]

Pilferk.. I agree with a lot of what you have said about the grammys and how Axl is perceived and how ACDC is perceived... except for one thing... I see kids in GNR gear ALL the time... maybe it's not as much as ACDC ... but if you go in to any of those Spencers gifts stores... they are littered with GNR t shirts and posters and stuff...I see teenagers all the time in the old style shirt. (I'm sure half of them don't know one song other than Jungle or SCOM, but thats another story)

I see KIDS wearing AFD cross shirts, GNR hoodies, etc, too.  Not nearly as many as AC/DC or Metallica, but..sure. They are out there.

I don't see the pop royalty/hipster crew that really makes up the Grammy attendees wearing them, though. I think the last GNR shirt (and it was AFD era logo) I saw on one of those folks was Avril Lavigne...and it was a LONG time ago (10 years, maybe?).  But I see TONS of AC/DC shirts and Metallica shirts. On Social media, on stage, in their "out and about" photos by the paps. They are all over. And the hipster hangers on wear them a lot, too.

That's the difference.  For the Grammy's "audience" (literally, the folks sitting in the lower level of the show) AC/DC and Metallica are their "cred" bands.  

[mortismurphy]

The bullet logo? Yes, that too. At some point various rock and metal t-shirts were appropriated by hipster trendy young things who had never heard of the band. These are,

- the ACDC logo
- The Stones lips
- The appetite cross
- the bullet logo
- The motorhead snaggletooth
- Metallica's damage inc shirt, and one or two others.

[pilferk]

The Appetite cross t-shirt? That is as ubiquitous as the DC logo.

I know what you're going for..but that's too big an exageration to be hyperbole, even.  At least in the states.  I can't go out and not see a DC logo on a shirt, hoodie, or jacket.  I see a GnR shirt (that I'm not wearing), in person, MAYBE once a month..and that's being generous. And I spend a ridiculous amount of time on a college campus, surrounded by undergrad and grad students (related to work).

They are out there. Yes.  It's who's wearing them that is the difference, though.

[mortismurphy]

I do not agree. I see Appetite crosses all over. I see them worn by a lot of girls whose default music is pop music. I certainly agree with you about the ACDC logo, but I see the crosses virtually as much as the DC shirt.

I actually think I see the crosses more than Metallica shirts.

[pilferk]

I do not agree. I see Appetite crosses all over. I see them worn by a lot of girls whose default music is pop music. I certainly agree with you about the ACDC logo, but I see the crosses virtually as much as the DC shirt.

I actually think I see the crosses more than Metallica shirts.

Must be more popular in the EU then (or the DC logo is a lot LESS popular)..because not here in the states. Not by a long shot. And..for the grammy's, that's obviously what matters.

Though, again..contrarian.

[mortismurphy]

Though, again..contrarian.

Just describing it how I see it. I suppose it is a hard thing to quantifiably prove.

How does this relate to the Grammys. Are not award shows usually judged by old industry types?

[jarmo]

Come on Jarmo, in terms of personal attack it is fairly light.

Yes, but as I said, expected. You couldn't produce anything that resembled a counter argument.

Are you telling me that if Axl played the Grammys, say next year, you would not suddenly alter your theory, to an one which makes the Grammys a 'positive organisation', fulfilling the requirements of your pro-Axl agenda.

But it wouldn't change the fact that up until this exact moment, GN'R never won a Grammy. It wouldn't change my opinion that it's organizations, to me, is based on politics and who knows who.
Would it be nice to see GN'R perform there, sure.

This is, how you operate. I accept it. I am not criticising you for it per se. i am not personally attacking you per se. I have difficulties comprehending, such a stance, but I accept you are always going to see things as, a battle, between pro-Axl and anti-Axl forces, pitted against each other in Armageddon, you as cheerleader par excellence for the forces of good, of Axl. This is how you see things. This is how you see gnr fans. This is how - pertinent here - you see the music industry.

A lot of assumptions.

If Axl has had something 'negative' against him such as a slight at an awards show, it stands to reason the award show must be anti-Axl. Axl can do nothing bad, cannot fail.

Your philosophy jarmo.

Not my philosophy, more like a fallacy from somebody who likes to think he knows!
All because you guys seem to think the Grammy Awards are the best thing since sliced bread and somebody disagrees!

Here's my philosophy on the Grammy awards. Don't care. I don't care if any of the artists or albums I enjoy won anything. Congratulations to all the winners, good for them.




/jarmo

[Ginger King]

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

But what is your opinion based on?  Is it your belief that because they were the biggest band at that time and didn't win, that something else (politics) must have been at play?  

[jarmo]

But what is your opinion based on?  Is it your belief that because they were the biggest band at that time and didn't win, that something else (politics) must have been at play?  

My opinion that I think it's more likely GN'R would play somewhere else is based on the fact that GN'R never won anything, so there's no history with that whole organization, and because I think it's about politics and who knows who, it's also less likely they'd acknowledge GN'R.

It's an industry award. Not about the fans.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

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''.

O'Toole got robbed, ROBBED for 'My Favorite Year'.

As for the rest of that, I largely agree.  Axl must be protected at all times, it seems.

And I don't even mean from outright hostility.  Even something as innocuous as "he didn't feel like it".  Even that is treasonous, it would appear

[mortismurphy]

But it wouldn't change the fact that up until this exact moment, GN'R never won a Grammy.

Take a big swig of whisky Jarmo. Axl lost. Pure and simple. I know it is difficult to contemplate, Axl losing anything, but he did. There were no politics involved. He lost against credible opposition. There was no arguments from him. He lost because somebody thought, others deserved the award more.

All because you guys seem to think the Grammy Awards are the best thing since sliced bread and somebody disagrees!

I have never once stated my opinion here, on The Grammys! (Trying desperately to not mention a certain man made out of a dried agricultural product, here).

[D-GenerationX]

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.

Oh, it works against him.  Absolutely.

Crazy thing is, a lot of the time, I think he uses it to his advantage.  He's not bothered with a lot of things because many times people will just say they don't want to deal with him.

But there are other times it can hurt him, or the band.  Like with concert promoters and the like.  Or the situation with the label.  In those cases, acting like a child is not doing him, or them, any favors.

[pilferk]

Though, again..contrarian.

Just describing it how I see it. I suppose it is a hard thing to quantifiably prove.

How does this relate to the Grammys. Are not award shows usually judged by old industry types?

Ditto. Describing how I see it.  But, considering, the regional observation of someone in the US would be a bit more valid/compelling considering the thread topic because the genesis of the observation was in relation to "could gnr be a cred band at the grammy's and thus get booked".

What the kids are wearing likely doesn't have any relation to the Grammys. That's true...we got off track a bit.

What the popular artists wear, what they like, and what they think does, though.  And it really is a herd mentality...and they've adopted AC/DC and Metallica, en masse.  Could that change? Sure..but it's been that way for a LONG time (years and years) and I don't see any anecdotal or circumstantial evidence that the tide is changing.

"Judged", yes.

Organized? As in the show, itself...who performs, what, when, how....a bit less. They're still stuffy, conservative (relative term..not politically..but they're not letting Miley lapdance Robin Thicke like the VMA's did) pretentious wankers, though.  And it's geared, really, toward entertaining the people in the audience (and hopefully the millions and millions watching at home). It's meant, really, as a music festival FOR the pop royalty/hangers on, so they book performances pretty much to make those folks squeal, fist pump, and dance in the aisles (thanks T. Swift, for literally years of laughter)....and to make them feel even more important and validated than they already do.

I mean..it's not even ABOUT the awards anymore (evidenced by the fact that more and more of them are being given out pre-telecast). It's about the concert...with some of the really high profile POP oriented awards given out so they can have their shining moment on stage.  It's roman spectacle of the best kind....with the committee playing the role of emperor (thumbs up/thumbs down) between performances.

[D-GenerationX]

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?

YOU, ALRIGHT!!  He learned it by watching you!!

Moderators that sink to that level, have posters that sink that to that level.

[pilferk]

But what is your opinion based on?  Is it your belief that because they were the biggest band at that time and didn't win, that something else (politics) must have been at play?  

I can't speak for jarmo, but....30 years of watching the awards show, and watching them make pretty boneheaded choices does make one wonder. ESPECIALLY in the rock/hard rock/metal categories (once they were added).

It's either:
a) politics
b) the committee is deaf
c) the committee knows almost nothing about certain types of music
d) the committee knows almost nothing about anything
e) some combination of all of the above

I'm being a bit glib...but you only really have to have eyes, and to watch what goes on, to "get" how it works. You don't even have to read between the lines, really.  Politics is a big part of it.  Not all of it..but a big part.