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

[russkwtx]

I have no inside information or any evidence, but I believe that Axl is not done making new music. I understand that he works slowly, but I think that the crucial variable is how much Slash and Duff have bought into the idea of new GNR music. If they are in then the prospects are quite good. Slash is a recording machine and his song writing has really improved in the past few years. Duff is also productive. I think that they can push Axl to get something out sooner rather than later. Just my thoughts.

[Voodoochild]

Didn't Axl talk about this topic in June? At the China Exchange?

Yes, that's what I was mentioning. And he also kinda reiterate to the Brazilian TV interview, which took place during the proper NITL tour.

I have no inside information or any evidence, but I believe that Axl is not done making new music. I understand that he works slowly, but I think that the crucial variable is how much Slash and Duff have bought into the idea of new GNR music. If they are in then the prospects are quite good. Slash is a recording machine and his song writing has really improved in the past few years. Duff is also productive. I think that they can push Axl to get something out sooner rather than later. Just my thoughts.

The record company certainly would be more keen to promote an album with Slash and Duff on it. Especially considering how successful was/is the tour.

[LIGuns]

Would there be an issue with the record companies if Axl were to do an album with GNR and AC/DC?

[ITARocker]

Would there be an issue with the record companies if Axl were to do an album with GNR and AC/DC?

Earning milions of dollars is an issue? 

[TheBaconman]

Didn't Axl talk about this topic in June? At the China Exchange?

Yes, that's what I was mentioning. And he also kinda reiterate to the Brazilian TV interview, which took place during the proper NITL tour.

I have no inside information or any evidence, but I believe that Axl is not done making new music. I understand that he works slowly, but I think that the crucial variable is how much Slash and Duff have bought into the idea of new GNR music. If they are in then the prospects are quite good. Slash is a recording machine and his song writing has really improved in the past few years. Duff is also productive. I think that they can push Axl to get something out sooner rather than later. Just my thoughts.

The record company certainly would be more keen to promote an album with Slash and Duff on it. Especially considering how successful was/is the tour.

So I have read rumors for ever that there could be issues with the record company....

I don't see it any more regardless. 

What issues? 

So they record company doesn't want to release any gnr music?  Then why keep them around? 

The waited all this time for Slash and Duff to come back into the fold, hoping to put there name on new music?

Nah

Groups leave record labels all the time......

Big groups release music all the time....

[sky dog]

TOOL hasn't released an album in 10 years.....

[TheBaconman]

TOOL hasn't released an album in 10 years.....

This week

[sky dog]

God willing...LOVE Tool. 

[Virolec]

All the reasons why Guns N' Roses releases have been.... let's say "sparse", over the last two decades are entirely valid - there is more money in touring, record labels can be a bitch, albums don't sell like they used to.  All true.  Still, other bands seem to manage it.  It all boils down to what Axl does or does not want to do.  If he made releasing the last who-knows-how-many years' worth of material his priority, he'd have done it and we'd have it, no question about it.  That's entirely his choice, and he doesn't owe us anything.  He's already given us what he's given us.  If he wants to prioritise touring, or his privacy, or collecting stamps or whatever, that's up to him.  He's made enough money to air-condition hell, and doesn't need to give us any more of what he may have done in the past, or might do in the future.  It's about what he wants.  Has been for a long time.  If what he wants is to tour, then tours we shall have.

Re: nostalgia, there are ways to manage it, and still produce new, high-quality work.  For instance, Iron Maiden have done "history" (i.e. nostalgia) tours in the past, where they only play material from their first four albums, or the '84 - '88 period.  And these are tied in with the set design, with a documentary about that period etc.  It also allows them to break out some fairly deep cuts, and songs that haven't been played in ages as well.  You go to that show, you know what you're getting: it's 1984 (or whatever) again, and you can either relive your youth (minus hair, plus beer-gut or whatever), or, if you're younger, experience what it might have been like for the first time.

But they still produce new music, and promote it well.  Last year they released a double album - hardly phoning it in or taking the lazy option.  New songs still make their way into setlists.  Most notably, they toured 2006's album, "A Matter of Life and Death" by playing a set that was the new album start-to-finish, and doing a handful of classics as encores.  Ballsy as hell, that.  Very ballsy.  From what I understand, it didn't go down so well in the States, but was well received in Europe.  I saw them on that tour in Glasgow, and it was a fucking amazing experience.  Best show I've seen, I think. 
Actually, I think the reception to that tour allowed everyone to indulge in their favourite reductive, essentialist stereotypes of entire cultures: sophisticated Euro-types stroking our chins and nodding appreciatively like a bunch of asshole posers, entitled Americans huffily demanding their favourite classics they've heard a hundred times already, Latin Americans just going fucking crazy with the ferocious, roaring intensity they bring to every gig, football match, or round of grocery shopping... All very misleading, but the kind of talk you heard a lot of around that tour.

Could Guns ever do a similar thing?  Would people go to see a show of unknown new material, with WTTJ, SCOM, PC and NV at the end?  How would the numbers compare to a strictly "historical" setlist?  (Of course, Iron Maiden have sixteen studio albums, five since the turn of the century.  Guns N' Roses have six.  Does that alter things?).  What about a tour - even just a run of festivals - playing the whole of AFD? 

It's more, I think, about people knowing what they're getting, rather than necessarily just giving them what they want. 

Ed: typos

[TheBaconman]

All the reasons why Guns N' Roses releases have been.... let's say "sparse", over the last two decades are entirely valid - there is more money in touring, record labels can be a bitch, albums don't sell like they used to.  All true.  Still, other bands seem to manage it.  It all boils down to what Axl does or does not want to do.  If he made releasing the last who-knows-how-many years' worth of material his priority, he'd have done it and we'd have it, no question about it.  That's entirely his choice, and he doesn't owe us anything.  He's already given us what he's given us.  If he wants to prioritise touring, or his privacy, or collecting stamps or whatever, that's up to him.  He's made enough money to air-condition hell, and doesn't need to give us any more of what he may have done in the past, or might do in the future.  It's about what he wants.  Has been for a long time.  If what he wants is to tour, then tours we shall have.

Re: nostalgia, there are ways to manage it, and still produce new, high-quality work.  For instance, Iron Maiden have done "history" (i.e. nostalgia) tours in the past, where they only play material from their first four albums, or the '84 - '88 period.  And these are tied in with the set design, with a documentary about that period etc.  It also allows them to break out some fairly deep cuts, and songs that haven't been played in ages as well.  You go to that show, you know what you're getting: it's 1984 (or whatever) again, and you can either relive your youth (minus hair, plus beer-gut or whatever), or, if you're younger, experience what it might have been like for the first time.

But they still produce new music, and promote it well.  Last year they released a double album - hardly phoning it in or taking the lazy option.  New songs still make their way into setlists.  Most notably, they toured 2006's album, "A Matter of Life and Death" by playing a set that was the new album start-to-finish, and doing a handful of classics as encores.  Ballsy as hell, that.  Very ballsy.  From what I understand, it didn't go down so well in the States, but was well received in Europe.  I saw them on that tour in Glasgow, and it was a fucking amazing experience.  Best show I've seen, I think. 
Actually, I think the reception to that tour allowed everyone to indulge in their favourite reductive, essentialist stereotypes of entire cultures: sophisticated Euro-types stroking our chins and nodding appreciatively like a bunch of asshole posers, entitled Americans huffily demanding their favourite classics they've heard a hundred times already, Latin Americans just going fucking crazy with the ferocious, roaring intensity they bring to every gig, football match, or round of grocery shopping... All very misleading, but the kind of talk you heard a lot of around that tour.

Could Guns ever do a similar thing?  Would people go to see a show of unknown new material, with WTTJ, SCOM, PC and NV at the end?  How would the numbers compare to a strictly "historical" setlist?  (Of course, Iron Maiden have sixteen studio albums, five since the turn of the century.  Guns N' Roses have six.  Does that alter things?).  What about a tour - even just a run of festivals - playing the whole of AFD? 

It's more, I think, about people knowing what they're getting, rather than necessarily just giving them what they want. 

Ed: typos

You are right

We will see new material when Axl allows us.   I think it is that simple.  I think there are pretty low costs to just releasing a album over the internet.   With the potential of a hit being found and more content for the brand to possess

I can t see any artist selling out a football stadium for a gimmick concert.   A stadium probably.

[Voodoochild]

I don't think it's that black or white. Axl probably isn't just "feeling like not releasing it today". It's his work and he seems very passionate about it, either you agree or not about how many work he puts on that. Sometimes seems people here trully believe he is just hoarding it.

Yes, other people manage to do it more easily. But just remember about the expectation, the task of rebuild the band itself, and all the criticism he got after finally releasing it. I don't think a new Tool or Iron Maiden album would face the same expectation and criticism, both are totally different scenarios.

Actually, I think the reception to that tour allowed everyone to indulge in their favourite reductive, essentialist stereotypes of entire cultures: sophisticated Euro-types stroking our chins and nodding appreciatively like a bunch of asshole posers, entitled Americans huffily demanding their favourite classics they've heard a hundred times already, Latin Americans just going fucking crazy with the ferocious, roaring intensity they bring to every gig, football match, or round of grocery shopping... All very misleading, but the kind of talk you heard a lot of around that tour.

Now I agree with you 100%.

[TheBaconman]

I don't think it's that black or white. Axl probably isn't just "feeling like not releasing it today". It's his work and he seems very passionate about it, either you agree or not about how many work he puts on that. Sometimes seems people here trully believe he is just hoarding it.

Yes, other people manage to do it more easily. But just remember about the expectation, the task of rebuild the band itself, and all the criticism he got after finally releasing it. I don't think a new Tool or Iron Maiden album would face the same expectation and criticism, both are totally different scenarios.

Actually, I think the reception to that tour allowed everyone to indulge in their favourite reductive, essentialist stereotypes of entire cultures: sophisticated Euro-types stroking our chins and nodding appreciatively like a bunch of asshole posers, entitled Americans huffily demanding their favourite classics they've heard a hundred times already, Latin Americans just going fucking crazy with the ferocious, roaring intensity they bring to every gig, football match, or round of grocery shopping... All very misleading, but the kind of talk you heard a lot of around that tour.

Now I agree with you 100%.

This band has been rebuilt many times

I honestly do not think the general public really cares about the past 15 years.

They want to hear SCOM and see slash's top hat

If new music is released, if there are hits, lots of people will buy it, if there isn't, a few million people will buy it still....

[Voodoochild]

I agree with you. And it still doesn't mean Axl needs this excuse to release something he's not happy with yet.

[ice cream sand pig]

If you could only hear one guns song for the rest of your life, just once and then thats it, no more guns, would you pick a classic or one youve never heard before?

Id take the one ive never heard.

[zombux]

of course something I've never heard. I can play any released song just in my head

[D-GenerationX]

If you think they can charge $250 a ticket to hear a bunch of random stuff no one has ever heard, and then a few AFD hits at the end, you are totally out to lunch.

That will have some micro appeal, but from a macro perspective, good luck selling that.

People are buying concert tickets to hear Axl & Slash and the songs that made them fans way back when.  You can't expect anywhere near the same favorable reaction to a setlist dominated by a bunch of a Rose/Finck/Tobias tunes...but hey, with Slash!

No way.

[jarmo]

Depends if the tickets are sold with a promise of what songs are performed.

If the tickets only say Guns N' Roses. That's what you're getting.
If the tickets say Guns N' Roses performing all of Appetite For Destruction in order, then that's another story.


A majority of people attending stadium shows, for any band, are there for the familiar material. Do you think people who went to see the Popmart tour in 1997 were there to hear Discotheque or Where The Street Have No Name? 




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Depends if the tickets are sold with a promise of what songs are performed.

If the tickets only say Guns N' Roses. That's what you're getting.
If the tickets say Guns N' Roses performing all of Appetite For Destruction in order, then that's another story.

A majority of people attending stadium shows, for any band, are there for the familiar material. Do you think people who went to see the Popmart tour in 1997 were there to hear Discotheque or Where The Street Have No Name? 

Hey, I went to that tour.  Trust me, it was 'Where The Streets Have No Name'.  I love that 'Pop' album, personally.  But I was in the minority.

GNR is in that spot legacy bands find themselves in.  It's a weird dichotomy where the new album shows you aren't just a nostalgia act, but that doesn't mean most folks want to hear a glut of that at the shows.  It's more that they'd just like to know new songs are still there, to show the band is still viable.

As for "the ticket says Guns N' Roses"...I think we've beaten that to death.  The ticket "said Guns N' Roses" in 2012, and the ticket "said Guns N' Roses" in 2016.  In each case, the public knew what they were buying and the results reflect that difference.

[jarmo]

It's true for any band who has some kind of backlog of material the general public recognizes.

You put out an album so you can go out on tour. But chances are, the set won't be 90% new songs....



/jarmo

[ice cream sand pig]

of course something I've never heard. I can play any released song just in my head

That would be so weird, to never be able to hear a song again but to still remember it.

Nice answer! I would trade any album but cd for a new album. Here i am, bargaining... must be in denial about how far away the next album may very well be.

A surprise release would be so unreal.