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

[pilferk]

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

To be completely up front...I think that WOULD be his answer, if he got asked.  OK, maybe not exactly. We'd get something akin to his RRHOF explanation, likely.

I just don't think they'd ask. Not now, not any time soon. Get back to me in 2020.

[D-GenerationX]

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? 

1988 VMAs (performer)
1989 AMAs (performer)
1989 VMAs (performer)
1992 VMAs (honoree & performer)
1994 HOF (inductor & performer)
2002 VMAs (performer)
2006 VMAs (introducing a band)
2014 Golden Gods (honoree & performer)

1991 VMAs and 1992 AMAs were just recorded performances from concerts.

But of that list, what's not there?  Him in the crowd.  Him on the red carpet.  Him as a presenter.  Him at the after parties.

What I was getting as it that its not his scene.  Which is fine, its not for everybody.  But ever year these shows have people on them that aren't peforming or nominated.  Axl has no real track record of being that guy.

Kinda like Chinese bring a major flop huh?

Right, it was a huge hit.  That's my bad.

[jarmo]

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.

You're assuming that just because I point out the facts, that I give a fuck. I don't.
Yet another fallacy from yourself.  To use your own word.

Unlike you, I don't focus on the what I don't have, I focus on what I do have.

Now get back to me when you can point out how wrong what I've said is, instead of this silly "you think there's a conspiracy and you're upset because Axl lost" bullshit.

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

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

What are you, eight?
I tend not to do what you guys always go for. Steer away from the topic only to try to insult you. I address the issue, I occasionally make fun of you for some of the things you say, because honestly, you can't help but laugh at some of the stuff you post.....



/jarmo

[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?

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.

My own theory is, it is inherently preoccupied with 'what is selling; what is popular?' That is the question the organizers ask before planning the show, and try to deliver on. If there is an institutional bias, it would perhaps be, RnB-centric (but then, that is what is selling!). The rock-pop 'royalty', McCartney, Tom Jones, usually get the nod also. They are also obsessed with unusual collaborations, pairing up an aging member of English rock royalty with an US RnB act - stuff like that. I think ACDC are proof however that there is room for a vintage hard rock act, with a new album out. I see DC and Guns somewhat comparable in that they have a similar genre.

[D-GenerationX]

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

To be completely up front...I think that WOULD be his answer, if he got asked.  OK, maybe not exactly. We'd get something akin to his RRHOF explanation, likely.

And I'm right with you.

But you saw the pushback I got on that yesterday.  Even an innocuous answer like that sounds the alarm.  It can't just be he doesn't want to.  So we need to start throwing all sort of stuff at the wall in hopes something sticks :

- don't understand the process
- it's all politics
- they didn't exactly promote GNR
- they don't care about rock
- INTEGRITY

Why can't we just say he didn't feel like it?  That's no crime.

[mortismurphy]

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.

You're assuming that just because I point out the facts, that I give a fuck. I don't.
Yet another fallacy from yourself.  To use your own word.

Unlike you, I don't focus on the what I don't have, I focus on what I do have.

Now get back to me when you can point out how wrong what I've said is, instead of this silly "you think there's a conspiracy and you're upset because Axl lost" bullshit.




/jarmo

Jarmo, if you believe there is a political agenda against GN'R, you have to provide some sort of evidence. Your point is merely a hypothesis which I do not agree with it. They were nominated. Presumably, if any real political agenda existed, it would be easier to simply not nominate them in the first place. Usually a mere 'nomination' is seen as counting for something.

Who did they lose to, RHCP and Van Halen? They seem like valid loses to me. Both good acts. If Guns lost to Dokkon, I would perhaps smell a conspiracy.

What else do you what me to say? I find your theory nonsensical.

[jarmo]

Jarmo, if you believe there is a political agenda against GN'R, you have to provide some sort of evidence.

I didn't say there's a political or any agenda against GN'R!
Fucking hell.

I said there seems to be politics involved in how they operate. In general!

This just taking something I said out of context and mixing it with whatever nonsense makes sense to you. It's obvious after reading your post about my "philosophy".
Guess what? You're wrong.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

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

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

What are you, eight?
I tend not to do what you guys always go for. Steer away from the topic only to try to insult you. I address the issue, I occasionally make fun of you for some of the things you say, because honestly, you can't help but laugh at some of the stuff you post.....

Well, that's good you got a laugh, because it was a joke.  Because that is a reference to an anti-drug ad that was big here when most of us were kids.

The gist is that the Dad is coming down on the son for getting high, when, in fact, the Dad gets high himself.  The kid learned it by watching him.

And as the Dad has very little credibility taking the son to task on the drugs, you are simillarly devoid of credibility telling people to knock off personal insults.  Your shit is LOADED with them.

You taking people to task for a personal insult is like me telling people to stop being a smartass.  In both cases, we should be told to shut the fuck up and be serious, given our own posting styles.

[pilferk]

My own theory is, it is inherently preoccupied with 'what is selling; what is popular?' That is the question the organizers ask before planning the show, and try to deliver on. If there is an institutional bias, it would perhaps be, RnB-centric (but then, that is what is selling!). The rock-pop 'royalty', McCartney, Tom Jones, usually get the nod also. They are also obsessed with unusual collaborations, pairing up an aging member of English rock royalty with an US RnB act - stuff like that. I think ACDC are proof however that there is room for a vintage hard rock act, with a new album out. I see DC and Guns somewhat comparable in that they have a similar genre.

Fair enough.  I see way too much ego stroking and circle jerking to think that their motivations are simply driven by popularity and sales charts. I think the VMAs, and even the AMAs, are a LOT more about that. And the VMAs, especially, seems to push the envelope a little more.

The Grammy's, for me, are about the INDUSTRY, and what THEY want to see. It's been that way for awhile now. And the reason you get all those odd collaborations is because it gets the younger artist on stage with that rock icon/god some "shine" from the icon.  It's an ego stroke (Hey, look, I can share the stage with FUCKING ANNIE LENNOX!!).  It's like the old, established guy putting over the young up and coming star.  That's not for OUR benefit...it's for the younger star.

I agree, there is room for probably ONE vintage hard rock act per Grammy show.....and hopefully not in an oddball collaboration (I see that coming...).

I think AC/DC and GnR, other than genre, are not really comparable in this situation.  Certainly not in the perception/mindset of the folks we're talking about.

So, I guess we agree to disagree.

[D-GenerationX]

Jarmo, if you believe there is a political agenda against GN'R, you have to provide some sort of evidence. Your point is merely a hypothesis which I do not agree with it. They were nominated. Presumably, if any real political agenda existed, it would be easier to simply not nominate them in the first place. Usually a mere 'nomination' is seen as counting for something.

Who did they lose to, RHCP and Van Halen? They seem like valid loses to me. Both good acts. If Guns lost to Dokkon, I would perhaps smell a conspiracy.

What else do you what me to say? I find your theory nonsensical.

As do I, but you know that's going to be how he couches it.

However, if there is an agenda, it might be thanks to a hammered Slash dropping 2 f-bombs on live TV within 30 seconds when they won that AMA that year.

[pilferk]

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

To be completely up front...I think that WOULD be his answer, if he got asked.  OK, maybe not exactly. We'd get something akin to his RRHOF explanation, likely.

And I'm right with you.

But you saw the pushback I got on that yesterday.  Even an innocuous answer like that sounds the alarm.  It can't just be he doesn't want to.  So we need to start throwing all sort of stuff at the wall in hopes something sticks :

- don't understand the process
- it's all politics
- they didn't exactly promote GNR
- they don't care about rock
- INTEGRITY

Why can't we just say he didn't feel like it?  That's no crime.

For my side...because I don't think it's the complete story.

I think, really, they wouldn't call, and if they did, he wouldn't answer.  OK...maybe he'd pick up the phone (or have someone else pick it up)..but I don't think he/they would say yes.

[mortismurphy]

I didn't say there's a political or any agenda against GN'R!
Fucking hell.

I said there seems to be politics involved in how they operate. In general!




/jarmo

'Political' and 'politics' are cognates, one being the adjective of the noun. As to an anti-GN'R agenda, I can only assume that that is what you mean, if the 'politics involved in how they operate' unfairly leaves out Guns N' Roses!

I am simply following your argument through to its logical conclusion.

[pilferk]

As do I, but you know that's going to be how he couches it.

However, if there is an agenda, it might be thanks to a hammered Slash dropping 2 f-bombs on live TV within 30 seconds when they won that AMA that year.

Again, not agenda.

But....perceptions....

[D-GenerationX]

I am simply following your argument through to its logical conclusion.

Axl = in the right
You = in the wrong

But don't you know that before most conversations even start?

[pilferk]

I didn't say there's a political or any agenda against GN'R!
Fucking hell.

I said there seems to be politics involved in how they operate. In general!




/jarmo

'Political' and 'politics' are cognates, one being the adjective of the noun. As to an anti-GN'R agenda, I can only assume that that is what you mean, if the 'politics involved in how they operate' unfairly leaves out Guns N' Roses!

I am simply following your argument through to its logical conclusion.

An agenda, for me (in the context of this conversation) is a predetermined, premeditated set of objectives with a specific outcome in mind.

Just because there are politics involved in how the grammy's operate (and, honestly, I'm not sure how you watch that show, consistently, or know anything about the organization voting/judging, and NOT think politics is in play) doesn't mean there is an "agenda" to screw GnR.

You can fall on the wrong side of politics and not be a "target" of politics.  I'm not even sure jarmo is saying that GnR LOST because of politics.  Just that politics is very much in play in that organization, and the way it operates. In addition, Axl has shown a very "no politics" bent in his dealing with other organizations (RRHOF, for example).

[D-GenerationX]

You can fall on the wrong side of politics and not be a "target" of politics.  I'm not even sure jarmo is saying that GnR LOST because of politics.  Just that politics is very much in play in that organization, and the way it operates. In addition, Axl has shown a very "no politics" bent in his dealing with other organizations (RRHOF, for example).

I think this is fair.

Axl's attitude and demeanor is what it is, and we've seen it going on 30 years now.  I think it very plausible it starts him behind the 8 ball with some folks.

[mortismurphy]

I am simply following your argument through to its logical conclusion.

Axl = in the right
You = in the wrong

But don't you know that before most conversations even start?

If I was Axl, and I held Jarmo's perception of me, I would consider myself God, Zeus or Thor. I mean here is a guy who is always correct, always makes the correct decisions (in life) and cannot possibly fail!! There is no human being ever, who has risen to this level of excellence, except Jarmo's interpretation of W. Axl Rose.

[damnthehaters]

Kinda like Chinese bring a major flop huh?

Right, it was a huge hit.  That's my bad.
[/quote]

Nope, never used the words "huge hit".  😴

[D-GenerationX]

Nope, never used the words "huge hit".  😴

Well, I never used the words "major flop", so I guess we'll call it even, mate.

[jarmo]

'Political' and 'politics' are cognates, one being the adjective of the noun. As to an anti-GN'R agenda, I can only assume that that is what you mean, if the 'politics involved in how they operate' unfairly leaves out Guns N' Roses!

I am simply following your argument through to its logical conclusion.

Nobody said there was an agenda to begin with until you started daydreaming about it.
You introduced that whole concept to the discussion.

I never said there was an anti-GN'R agenda. Stop repeating your bullshit.


The politics involved in their decision making makes for some questionable choices. That's my opinion. Is there an agenda against the whole music industry? That's what you're saying.

You assume too much.


I just pointed out the fact that Guns N' Roses put out two albums on the same day, a feat nobody else had done at that point, even less one of those bands that is labeled hard rock. For an award show that acknowledges industry achievements, this was overlooked. Their show, their choice. It's fine. That's a fact. You assume that because I pointed this out that I think there's a conspiracy and an agenda against GN'R. No, I didn't say anything like that.

I just said they never won a single award, they don't seem to be the kind of band that you want at one of those politically correct award shows and so on.

If I was Axl, and I held Jarmo's perception of me, I would consider myself God, Zeus or Thor. I mean here is a guy who is always correct, always makes the correct decisions (in life) and cannot possibly fail!! There is no human being ever, who has risen to this level of excellence, except Jarmo's interpretation of W. Axl Rose.

Aww, more talk about me. You guys are so adorable.
Quite sad this need for you to focus on what you think I'm like. Don't you have anything better to waste your time on?




Read pilferk's posts. He explains it way nicer than I did. But, you need to read it. Not just look at the words and think you read it because you are dreaming up some kind of agenda theories.



/jarmo