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

[D-GenerationX]

When were Guns nominated, again?

I am trying to look at moments they could potentially win. Now, there does not seem to have been a separate rock album category when the old band are active. I do not think anyone can expect them to take the main album category, against records like Graceland and Faith. There was a separate 'metal vocal performance' which Metallica won.

Basically, there is a lot more 'rock' categories now, then there were for 1987-91.

'90, '92, and '93, all for Best Hard Rock Performance.

Sadly, one was 'Live And Let Die'.

A cover song.  Why not YCBM or NR?

[pilferk]

Sadly, one was 'Live And Let Die'.

A cover song.  Why not YCBM or NR?

Just indulge me in a quick tangent:

Who wrote "Live and Let Die"?

I'd agree with you..there were more fitting performances released in '92 and early '93, than LALD. I don't think YCBM was eligible because it was released, officially, in June of '91, but...there were others.

Yet that's what got nominated. Makes you go "hmmmmmm" just a little bit, right?

Again, not an "agenda". Not someone out to specifically screw GnR. But something interesting to note, IMHO.

[mortismurphy]

Someone preferred 'Cult of Personality' over Lies, For Unlawful Carnage over Illusion I and 'Give It Away' over 'Live And Let Die'. It is that simple. None of them particularly surprise me - and I probably agree with the last one. Perhaps more surprising is the lack of Appetite nominations for the 1988 and 1989 awards.

[mortismurphy]

Sadly, one was 'Live And Let Die'.

A cover song.  Why not YCBM or NR?

Just indulge me in a quick tangent:

Who wrote "Live and Let Die"?

I'd agree with you..there were more fitting performances released in '92 and early '93, than LALD. I don't think YCBM was eligible because it was released, officially, in June of '91, but...there were others.

Yet that's what got nominated. Makes you go "hmmmmmm" just a little bit, right?

Again, not an "agenda". Not someone out to specifically screw GnR. But something interesting to note, IMHO.

The year does not seem to matter much considering Lies was nominated in 1990!

[pilferk]

Someone preferred 'Cult of Personality' over Lies, For Unlawful Carnage over Illusion I and 'Give It Away' over 'Live And Let Die'. It is that simple. None of them particularly surprise me - and I probably agree with the last one. Perhaps more surprising is the lack of Appetite nominations for the 1988 and 1989 awards.

Maybe....probably.

But, again....you're trying to ferret out an "agenda" when you've been told nobody thinks there is one.

[mortismurphy]

Someone preferred 'Cult of Personality' over Lies, For Unlawful Carnage over Illusion I and 'Give It Away' over 'Live And Let Die'. It is that simple. None of them particularly surprise me - and I probably agree with the last one. Perhaps more surprising is the lack of Appetite nominations for the 1988 and 1989 awards.

Maybe....probably.

But, again....you're trying to ferret out an "agenda" when you've been told nobody thinks there is one.

I am not trying to ferret anything out. Jarmo is adamantly against the 'agenda' word for some odd reason yet by his own admission, still maintains that there is political voting. I am merely trying to find evidence of that political voting.

(Personally, I do not see this great, distinction, between seeing something that is political, and possessing an agenda - but alright, we will leave this heinous word, 'agenda', to rest.)

[pilferk]

The year does not seem to matter much considering Lies was nominated in 1990!

Nope, it fits.  The rule is SUPPOSED to be the material is released AFTER the last nominations list was finalized and before the next list of nominations were finalized.  The date floats a little bit, but typically it's from around Oct 1 of the previous year til around Sept 30 of the following year.  In other words, for the 2015 grammys, the eligibility period was Oct 1 of 2013 - Sept 30 of 2014.

For 1990 Grammys, that would mean the material should have been released between (and these are approximations) Oct 1, 1988 - Sept 30, 1989. Lies fits for the US release (Nov 29, 1988).

For 1993, the material would have had to have been released between (again, approximation) Oct 1, 1991 and Sept 30, 1992. YCBM was released in June of 1991.

When they list nomination dates...really, they're listing the dates of the actual awards given.

[pilferk]

Someone preferred 'Cult of Personality' over Lies, For Unlawful Carnage over Illusion I and 'Give It Away' over 'Live And Let Die'. It is that simple. None of them particularly surprise me - and I probably agree with the last one. Perhaps more surprising is the lack of Appetite nominations for the 1988 and 1989 awards.

Maybe....probably.

But, again....you're trying to ferret out an "agenda" when you've been told nobody thinks there is one.

I am not trying to ferret anything out. Jarmo is adamantly against the 'agenda' word for some odd reason yet by his own admission, still maintains that there is political voting. I am merely trying to find evidence of that political voting.

(Personally, I do not see this great, distinction, between seeing something that is political, and possessing an agenda - but alright, we will leave this heinous word, 'agenda', to rest.)

A) No, he said there is politics involved in the way the organization runs and operates AND that GnR didn't win.  Did he say, anywhere, that they were screwed out of winning BECAUSE the voting was derailed by politics? In point of fact, he continually tells you that you're inferring something he didn't intend. So, continuing to do so doesn't make much sense. For someone who wants it noted what THEY haven't said, in a conversation...you're ignoring the same from jarmo.

B) Because they aren't the same thing.  They just aren't.  And it's been explained why.  If you want to cling to it, you can.  But you're clinging to being wrong.  Accept it and move on.

[TheBaconman]

4  categories that have been in the Grammies for ever    Album of the year,  record of the year and song of the year

Both song and record are the year are pretty much for one song off a album. That awards the song writer, producer and performer

Know doubt in my mind that sweet child of mine and November rain should of won both these awards.   

Guns should of won best new artist award. 

Afd should of won best hard rock album, if that category was around

Afd should of won album of the year.   

I don't care if they weren't nominated.   They should of won what I just said

[mortismurphy]

The two of you are really getting irate over semantics here. If there is an accusation that an award ceremony, which at least gives off the pretense of 'fairness', 'free voting', is voting 'politically' - 'politics' was the term Jarmo used' - that implies that they have an 'agenda', a 'political agenda' - no matter how you try and wrap it up. Now I do not know exactly what Jarmo means there as I found it nonsensical but I believe he meant some sort of preconceived preference voting, the judges having their 'likes' and GN'R not quite, 'fitting the bill'; you yourself believe this also. Is that not a fair interpretation of what you two think? Now just how, antithetical, is the word 'agenda' to this concept? It seems perfectly apt to me.

Noun[edit]
agenda (plural agendas)

(now rare) plural form of agendum
A temporally organized plan for matters to be attended to.  [quotations ▼]
A list of matters to be taken up (as at a meeting).
A notebook used to organize and maintain such plans or lists, an agenda book, an agenda planner.  [quotations ▼]

- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agenda

''A temporally organised plan for matters to be attended to''? A little like prearranged votes for bands to be voted for at a certain award show?

PS

I am taking 'political' in its broader sense, and not, governmental decision making!

[jarmo]

A) No, he said there is politics involved in the way the organization runs and operates AND that GnR didn't win.  Did he say, anywhere, that they were screwed out of winning BECAUSE the voting was derailed by politics? In point of fact, he continually tells you that you're inferring something he didn't intend. So, continuing to do so doesn't make much sense. For someone who wants it noted what THEY haven't said, in a conversation...you're ignoring the same from jarmo.

B) Because they aren't the same thing.  They just aren't.  And it's been explained why.  If you want to cling to it, you can.  But you're clinging to being wrong.  Accept it and move on.

Thanks!

Glad somebody gets what I said, instead of telling me what I meant. 





/jarmo

[pilferk]

The two of you are really getting irate over semantics here. If there is an accusation that an award ceremony, which at least gives off the pretense of 'fairness', 'free voting', is voting 'politically' - 'politics' was the term Jarmo used' - that implies that they have an 'agenda', a 'political agenda' - no matter how you try and wrap it up. Now I do not know exactly what Jarmo means there as I found it nonsensical but I believe he meant some sort of preconceived preference voting, the judges having their 'likes' and GN'R not quite, 'fitting the bill'; you yourself believe this also. Is that not a fair interpretation of what you two think? Now just how, antithetical, is the word 'agenda' to this concept? It seems perfectly apt to me.

Noun[edit]
agenda (plural agendas)

(now rare) plural form of agendum
A temporally organized plan for matters to be attended to.  [quotations ▼]
A list of matters to be taken up (as at a meeting).
A notebook used to organize and maintain such plans or lists, an agenda book, an agenda planner.  [quotations ▼]

- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agenda

''A temporally organised plan for matters to be attended to''? A little like prearranged votes for bands to be voted for at a certain award show?

PS

I am taking 'political' in its broader sense, and not, governmental decision making!

I actually suggest it's you who are clinging to the semantic argument...and it still falls flat.  You're trying..because...contrarian...and it's really the only bone you can hold on to at this point in the discussion, on this topic.

And, yes...that's what, I think, he's saying doesn't exist.  A formal plan to screw GnR or rig the vote.  Any type of conspiracy, or mass organization, of voters to ensure GnR didn't win.  I'll let him confirm or deny..but that's what I take from his posts.

Edit: And there you go..he already has!

[mortismurphy]

The two of you are really getting irate over semantics here. If there is an accusation that an award ceremony, which at least gives off the pretense of 'fairness', 'free voting', is voting 'politically' - 'politics' was the term Jarmo used' - that implies that they have an 'agenda', a 'political agenda' - no matter how you try and wrap it up. Now I do not know exactly what Jarmo means there as I found it nonsensical but I believe he meant some sort of preconceived preference voting, the judges having their 'likes' and GN'R not quite, 'fitting the bill'; you yourself believe this also. Is that not a fair interpretation of what you two think? Now just how, antithetical, is the word 'agenda' to this concept? It seems perfectly apt to me.

Noun[edit]
agenda (plural agendas)

(now rare) plural form of agendum
A temporally organized plan for matters to be attended to.  [quotations ▼]
A list of matters to be taken up (as at a meeting).
A notebook used to organize and maintain such plans or lists, an agenda book, an agenda planner.  [quotations ▼]

- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agenda

''A temporally organised plan for matters to be attended to''? A little like prearranged votes for bands to be voted for at a certain award show?

PS

I am taking 'political' in its broader sense, and not, governmental decision making!

I actually suggest it's you who are clinging to the semantic argument...and it still falls flat.  You're trying..because...contrarian...and it's really the only bone you can hold on to at this point in the discussion, on this topic.

And, yes...that's what, I think, he's saying doesn't exist.  A formal plan to screw GnR or rig the vote.  Any type of conspiracy, or mass organization, of voters to ensure GnR didn't win.  I'll let him confirm or deny..but that's what I take from his posts.

Edit: And there you go..he already has!

It was actually you who resurrected the controversy surrounding the word, 'agenda'. Although I still fail to see the problem with my usage of the word, I was quite willing to put the thing to rest, here,

Jarmo, alright, you have never claimed that they possess an anti-gnr agenda.

[pilferk]

4  categories that have been in the Grammies for ever    Album of the year,  record of the year and song of the year

Both song and record are the year are pretty much for one song off a album. That awards the song writer, producer and performer

Know doubt in my mind that sweet child of mine and November rain should of won both these awards.   

Guns should of won best new artist award. 

Afd should of won best hard rock album, if that category was around

Afd should of won album of the year.   

I don't care if they weren't nominated.   They should of won what I just said

AFD would have been on the slate for the 88 Grammys.

Springsteen won best rock vocal for Tunnel of Love
Best Rock Performance by a group or duo went to U2 for Joshua Tree
Record of the Year went to Paul Simon for Graceland
Album of the Year went to U2 (et all) for Joshua Tree
Song of the Year went to Josh Ingram and Linda Ronstadt for "Somewhere Out There"
Best New Artist went to Jody Watley

Having said that...GnR did not really "blow up" until AFTER the eligibility for the album had passed...once the WTTJ video premiered on MTV (another link to the VMA's).  I suspect some of their lack of nominations for AFD were directly related to timing, etc.

BUT, there were releases that could have been grabbed for the 89 grammies (like WTTJ) and were passed over.  Those, to me, are inexplicable.

[pilferk]

It was actually you who resurrected the controversy surrounding the word, 'agenda'. Although I still fail to see the problem with my usage of the word, I was quite willing to put the thing to rest, here,

Jarmo, alright, you have never claimed that they possess an anti-gnr agenda.

You abandoned the term, but not the concept..thus why I used the quotes around the term in my response.

You have to let BOTH go.

[D-GenerationX]

BUT, there were releases that could have been grabbed for the 89 grammies (like WTTJ) and were passed over.  Those, to me, are inexplicable.

Indeed.

But I do believe that was also the year Jethro Tull beat Metallica.

I assume there was heaving drinking at the voting meeting that year.

[pilferk]

BUT, there were releases that could have been grabbed for the 89 grammies (like WTTJ) and were passed over.  Those, to me, are inexplicable.

Indeed.

But I do believe that was also the year Jethro Tull beat Metallica.

I assume there was heaving drinking at the voting meeting that year.

When it comes to the rock and roll categories (all of them), the noms and awards have been nonsensical in so many years, it makes the credibility of those awards laughable.  I think, if you were to say they get it "right" about 50% of the time (with 50% comic relief) you'd be being generous.

They're just not good at it, for whatever reason.  Actually, I think partly for some of the things I've said previously about them..but..YMMV.

[mortismurphy]

This was how you resurrected the argument. I was actually ascertaining, hypothetical moments when Guns could have been robbed of a vote and saw no cause for concern. You both claim a preference based system. I was seeing if there was evidence of this, from the nominations.

Someone preferred 'Cult of Personality' over Lies, For Unlawful Carnage over Illusion I and 'Give It Away' over 'Live And Let Die'. It is that simple. None of them particularly surprise me - and I probably agree with the last one. Perhaps more surprising is the lack of Appetite nominations for the 1988 and 1989 awards.

Maybe....probably.

But, again....you're trying to ferret out an "agenda" when you've been told nobody thinks there is one.

But then you started the whole thing up again. The dreaded 'a' word!!

[pilferk]

This was how you resurrected the argument. I was actually ascertaining, hypothetical moments when Guns could have been robbed of a vote and saw no cause for concern. You both claim a preference based system. I was seeing if there was evidence of this, from the nominations.

Someone preferred 'Cult of Personality' over Lies, For Unlawful Carnage over Illusion I and 'Give It Away' over 'Live And Let Die'. It is that simple. None of them particularly surprise me - and I probably agree with the last one. Perhaps more surprising is the lack of Appetite nominations for the 1988 and 1989 awards.

Maybe....probably.

But, again....you're trying to ferret out an "agenda" when you've been told nobody thinks there is one.

But then you started the whole thing up again. The dreaded 'a' word!!

Yup, notice the quotes.

Like I said...look at the "robbed of a vote" in your explanation. I was getting your inference...so you communicated it exactly as you meant. An there's the concept, under a different name. Reference/Inference to some agenda or conspiracy theory or activity (robbing) to skew the vote. Same concept, different terms. Abandon both, and we'll be good.

And I don't claim a preference based system, anywhere.  I haven't seen jarmo do so, either. Not specifically levied against the voting.

[jarmo]

I assume there was heaving drinking at the voting meeting that year.

They have a meeting?

I'm just asking since I thought it was done differently. Maybe you know how it works and can enlighten us.


/jarmo