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

[PermissionToLand]

Shooter was heavily influenced by Outlaw country and Guns N Roses. He understands the blues/country side of GNR better than anyone (except Izzy maybe?) and would be the perfect producer for a Guns album.

I would love to see what Shooter could do with Slash's weeping guitar solos. Shooter could help highlight and bring to the surface GNR's raw, bluesy, honky tonk Stones side.
Anyway, he would be the perfect producer for a future album.

Or, another great producer would be Dave Cobb. Slash worked with him in the famous RCA Studio A in Nashville. Slash said, "There's something really inspiring about that, because old school country music to me, it's very similar to rock 'n' roll and blues. It's very much a people's music. It's down to earth and it's got a lot of soul."  So it is clear that Slash and Cobb also understand raw, stripped down blues and country music. Cobb has produced many Americana/singer songwriter acts.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/2022/03/15/slash-nashville-interview-guns-n-roses-grand-ole-opry-house/6984545001/

It just makes sense that sooner or later GNR will work with a producer like Shooter or Cobb. I think their link to the "spirit" and "soul" of American music in Nashville could make an amazing album. I would love to see them produce "Sailing" as a cover for GNR.

As long as they don't convince Slash to keep his tone as clean as it's been, or even worse, go cleaner...

[jarmo]

Did anyone hear Duff on Trunk Nation? Allegedly he talked about new GN'R music.





/jarmo

[Spirit]

Did anyone hear Duff on Trunk Nation? Allegedly he talked about new GN'R music.

Are these quotes from the interview maybe?

https://hotmetalmag.com/stones-may-have-shown-gnr-how-to-do-a-new-album-says-duff-mckagan/


The GN’R bassist seemed hesitant about going into detail when asked on Sirius XM about the chances of the superstar rockers putting out entirely new material any time soon, as opposed to reworked version of older unreleased songs which they’ve done over the past two years.

Asked on the Faction Talk station if he supported the release of ‘newly written’ songs, he said: "Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely."

"You’re wanting me to add more to that, aren’t you?"

"There’s new material. I don’t know how we’re going to put it out. I think that’s a question, too. Do you put out a record? Do you just keep putting out singles. I don’t know if the right answer is there in this day and age."

"But I do know there’s a new Pearl Jam record, I know Pearl Jam put out Dark Matter and I think that record was the perfect record for them right now because they’ve got a whole new energy."

"The same with the Stones – new record, putting out a whole new record."

The Stones’ Hackney Diamonds was described by McKagan as their best in more than 40 years.

"The band seems to have a whole new energy," he continued. "I think doing that record with (producer) Andrew Watt was key for their new energy because Andrew Watt’s got a lot of energy."

"So, you know, hopefully we can do something like that."

[jarmo]

I don't know that site, so I was wondering if anyone heard the original interview to confirm all those quotes.




/jarmo

[cineater]

Yes we would like you to talk about the music not get caught up in how you're going to put it out.  Oh god, it was so much better when they were just musicians and were more focused on making music instead of selling music or doing it like somebody else.

[jarmo]

You mean it was so much better when everyone used to watch MTV and buy music?



https://blabbermouth.net/news/duff-mckagan-says-there-is-new-guns-n-roses-material-in-the-works






/jarmo

[DeN]

 
"I don't know what the right answer is there in this day and age."

well, other bands have clearly the answer.
Metallica? ACDC? RHCP? Pearl Jam? Jack White? Ozzy? Green Day? Liam Gallagher? Judas Priest? The Black Crowes?
I think it's a 2010's question.


that said, that's great news there's new songs from this band coming

[pilferk]

"I don't know what the right answer is there in this day and age."

well, other bands have clearly the answer.
Metallica? ACDC? RHCP? Pearl Jam? Jack White? Ozzy? Green Day? Liam Gallagher? Judas Priest? The Black Crowes?
I think it's a 2010's question.


that said, that's great news there's new songs from this band coming

Have they, though? Found the answer?  And this isn't meant as a knock on what you're saying. Truly.  They certainly have released "traditional" albums that have gotten some notice.

But:

Ask them if they are seeing the album sales, longevity, notoriety, and INCOME from those new albums vs what they saw in, say, the early 90s?

I think they would all widely and loudly, say no.  And I think, based on what GnR has done....the press they got with new singles and how those single releases influence sales/streams and other revenue generators (including tickets and past material streams), that that model might work just as well if we're talking about track to track revenue and success vs the more traditional method.

The one thing we know is that, unless your name is Taylor Swift, Beyonce, or Billie Eilish....album sales have not been a primary driver of your success (and revenue) for a LONG time.  And per stream revenue is basically shit. 

TTPD might go multi-platinum on 5 variants of physical media and get a billion streams in a weekend, but 72 seasons has sold about 350k copies (through May) and has about 15 million streams over it's opening weekend.  "Success" is very relative when compare that to The Black Album, which sold more copies than that in the first week (500k).

So I can see where Duff is coming from.  You're looking for the music to make an impact, both in terms of audience notoriety and revenue.  For a lot of artists, that means being able to tour on it....which I think is how the bands you mention have actually made the new music work for them.  That's their answer.   It was GnRs answer too, but they did it via singles.  That worked out pretty well for them.

I think his overarching point is actually that they're trying to find the best answer FOR THEM.  And that makes sense.  Because what worked for Metallica might not work for GnR.  The music industry isn't a one size fits all anymore (as much as the labels wish it was).  And I think artists (and I don't just mean GnR, I do mean everyone) trying to find what works best for THEM is the healthiest thing for the industry at this point. 

[DeN]

you can't compare 2024 situation to the nineties if you want to have a serious discussion about this, obviously.
let's focus on money: we don't need to state if Guns N'Roses is a renowned band, everyone knows it is.

K-pop crap is selling well, while rock music isn't as successful.
How much money did the bands I mentioned make from their albums?

For example, AC/DC sold 1.37 million copies of 'Power Up.'
Assuming $10 per record, that's between 13 and 14 million dollars.
Not too bad, right?

[jarmo]

I still buy albums, but the reality is that there's less music fans who do.

When people say they want a new album, is it because they want X songs at once instead of X singles spread over time?



Here's a non-scientific tidbit. Guess which tracks on the latest albums by Pearl Jam, the Rolling Stones, the Foo Fighters and Queens Of The Stone Age have the least streams on Spotify. The last track.




/jarmo

[Mysteron]

I think I'd prefer an album. I know less people buy albums but relevant artists still sell albums, and there is the collectors market to tap into.

I know the band might think about legacy and how people will look back on album sales in the future, but it'd be nice for fans to have something to hold. Abba did ok with physical sales for Universal.

[pilferk]

you can't compare 2024 situation to the nineties if you want to have a serious discussion about this, obviously.
let's focus on money: we don't need to state if Guns N'Roses is a renowned band, everyone knows it is.

K-pop crap is selling well, while rock music isn't as successful.
How much money did the bands I mentioned make from their albums?

For example, AC/DC sold 1.37 million copies of 'Power Up.'
Assuming $10 per record, that's between 13 and 14 million dollars.
Not too bad, right?

Pretty much the majority of the bands you mention were at their most relevant in the 90s and early 2000s. So its relevant to use those metrics when talking about those bands.  And to think they might want an "answer" that at least gets them close to that level of success again.  

If you think artists are making $10 an album.....you're off base by about 70%.  They make about $3 to $4.  And that's BEFORE the label takes anything to recoup marketing, distribution, or recouping an advance.  Really, the artists net between 10% and 20% of a sale...and 10% is pretty normal.  Of physical albums.

So, they maybe made 2 million dollars.  Sounds good.

Except their last album was 6 years prior.  And it's been 4 years to get to 1.3 million copies.

So that 2 million is 6 to 10 years of income for that album.    200k a year or so.

Divided among the entire membership of the band.  What's that....40k or 50k a year?

Not exactly super profitable for the band members, right?

Again, it worked for them.  But you say they found THE answer.  I don't know that 50k a year is "THE answer" when they are rock royalty. It's AN answer. YMMV.

As I said, this is irrespective of GnR talk.  This is a thing amongst the whole music industry, less a very narrow segment at the top of it.   Everyone is trying to figure out how this works if you aren't T. Swift or BTS.

[pilferk]

I think I'd prefer an album. I know less people buy albums but relevant artists still sell albums, and there is the collectors market to tap into.

I know the band might think about legacy and how people will look back on album sales in the future, but it'd be nice for fans to have something to hold. Abba did ok with physical sales for Universal.

I prefer an album.

I still buy full albums.

I don't think the majority do.  I think most people consume music via streaming now....and I think the single method works better for that.  Release single.....let it peak and valley...and then release another single.  If you can do that in a regular cycle, you peak interest over and over, instead of one peak where all the material is competing against itself.

And then maybe release a physical collection of the singles later for those that want media or someting to add to their collections.  But that minority can't be, IMHO, the priority any more.  There just aren't enough of them.

As jarmo said...the last track gets the least streams, and I would bed the curve peaks at 1 and slopes down to the last track....with maybe a "single spike" in there for the stuff released as singles.

It's a new world.  Artists have to figure out how best to survive in it and I suspect the days of the album might be coming to an end.  At least for most artists.  We'll see.....

[DeN]

you can't compare 2024 situation to the nineties if you want to have a serious discussion about this, obviously.
let's focus on money: we don't need to state if Guns N'Roses is a renowned band, everyone knows it is.

K-pop crap is selling well, while rock music isn't as successful.
How much money did the bands I mentioned make from their albums?

For example, AC/DC sold 1.37 million copies of 'Power Up.'
Assuming $10 per record, that's between 13 and 14 million dollars.
Not too bad, right?

Pretty much the majority of the bands you mention were at their most relevant in the 90s and early 2000s. So its relevant to use those metrics when talking about those bands.  And to think they might want an "answer" that at least gets them close to that level of success again.  

If you think artists are making $10 an album.....you're off base by about 70%.  They make about $3 to $4.  And that's BEFORE the label takes anything to recoup marketing, distribution, or recouping an advance.  Really, the artists net between 10% and 20% of a sale...and 10% is pretty normal.  Of physical albums.

So, they maybe made 2 million dollars.  Sounds good.

Except their last album was 6 years prior.  And it's been 4 years to get to 1.3 million copies.

So that 2 million is 6 to 10 years of income for that album.    200k a year or so.

Divided among the entire membership of the band.  What's that....40k or 50k a year?

Not exactly super profitable for the band members, right?

Again, it worked for them.  But you say they found THE answer.  I don't know that 50k a year is "THE answer" when they are rock royalty. It's AN answer. YMMV.

As I said, this is irrespective of GnR talk.  This is a thing amongst the whole music industry, less a very narrow segment at the top of it.   Everyone is trying to figure out how this works if you aren't T. Swift or BTS.

sure, if your demonstration is, "money is not in studio music anymore", everyone will agree on that.
still, you can make decent money of an album if you know how to cut costs of promotion/distribution.
most of all, it's a great boost for a tour > new music to play live. and then you make real money.

perhaps you can combat piracy and maximize revenues by implementing a pre-order system, for example.

[DeN]

I still buy albums, but the reality is that there's less music fans who do.

When people say they want a new album, is it because they want X songs at once instead of X singles spread over time?

Here's a non-scientific tidbit. Guess which tracks on the latest albums by Pearl Jam, the Rolling Stones, the Foo Fighters and Queens Of The Stone Age have the least streams on Spotify. The last track.


/jarmo

I think the trend has been reversing a bit in recent years. After a long period of digitization, people seem to be attached to physical objects once again.
Vinyl sales, for example, have increased significantly.

I think that people, including myself, who want an album, want two things: a cohesive whole to listen to in one go, and also the physical object with the artworks to look at and explore. and the pleasure of discovering a collection of songs all at once indeed.

regarding the least listened-to track, I'm not sure what you mean.
are you suggesting that people don't have the patience to listen all the way through?
or are you implying that the final tracks are not very interesting in general? 

[pilferk]

sure, if your demonstration is, "money is not in studio music anymore", everyone will agree on that.
still, you can make decent money of an album if you know how to cut costs of promotion/distribution.
most of all, it's a great boost for a tour > new music to play live. and then you make real money.

perhaps you can combat piracy and maximize revenues by implementing a pre-order system, for example.

Well, I mean...thats what we're talking about here: studio music. That's what Duff was talking about.  That's what you said those bands had found "the answer" for.

I'm simply saying: I don't think they have found THE answer.  They found AN answer that maybe worked for them in that specific circumstance, at that specific time.  And...also...lets not forget that some of these bands have contracts so they HAVE to release albums...because that's what the contract says they have to do.  So their "answer" could very well be a contractually obligated one.  Not for sure....but it's possible.

I don't think we can assume that answer works for every artist, in every situation.  As you point out: Studio music isn't the money maker it used to be.

So...if thats the case...then why choose to release an album?  You can just as easily (and maybe more easily) tour on singles...released spaced apart leading up to, and during, a long tour. It's lesse   Maybe thats an answer for some artists.

Maybe for other artists, they find other ways to get the music out to fans.  Maybe something more direct (soundcloud and patreon?).  Who knows.  But the current state of the industry seems unsustainably top heavy, with artists struggling in an ecosystem that makes the entire prospect of creating music unattractive.  At some point, something has to change or there won't really be an industry any more.

My point in this whole discussion is that...I don't think there's any one size fits all answer for any artists.  I think they all recognize that the industry is, again, in a state of flux and they are going to have to try new things if they're going to maximize their artistic output, in terms of both revenue generation AND fan exposure (so they can sell tickets, so they can fund more artistic output, and keep the cycle going).  There's a lot more figuring out than there are clear cut answers.

Whatever GnR ultimately decide to do, it's nice to hear they have new music in the pipeline.  I would expect we won't hear it, though, until they are back to touring (or preparing to tour).  But we'll see.

[pilferk]

I still buy albums, but the reality is that there's less music fans who do.

When people say they want a new album, is it because they want X songs at once instead of X singles spread over time?

Here's a non-scientific tidbit. Guess which tracks on the latest albums by Pearl Jam, the Rolling Stones, the Foo Fighters and Queens Of The Stone Age have the least streams on Spotify. The last track.


/jarmo

I think the trend has been reversing a bit in recent years. After a long period of digitization, people seem to be attached to physical objects once again.
Vinyl sales, for example, have increased significantly.

Just FYI:

Physical Album Sales in Millions:

2018: 52.7
2019: 47.5
2020: 31.6
2021: 46.7
2022: 37.7
2023: 37.7

And....Taylor swift accounts for close to 10% (ex: 3.4 million albums in 2023) of those sales pretty much every year.  And while, yes, vinyl album sales are up (roughly 40% of all physical albums sold are vinyl), roughly 10% of THOSE sales are also T. Swift.  Again, its top heavy toward a narrow slice of artists who are keeping physical sales alive.

But here's the issue: Vinyl still accounts for only 8% of all music revenue when you lump in streaming and digital copies.  And physical media, in sum total, is about 17% of music revenue (and that's been true for awhile now...it hasn't changed more than 1% or 2% in years).

Physical media, in 10 years, has lost 85% of it's volume.  In 2010, there were 250 million physical albums sold.  The trend line has pretty much fallen off a cliff.  It has flatened out the past 3 or 4 years, but.....I think that's more an indication that we've hit a built in bottom....and those of us still buying physical media are dinosaurs who love physical media. The floor might be a little wavy, but it's not sloping up or making stairs.  I don't think there are any real signs that number is going up appreciably going forward.  

Heck, there's a statistic I read that said that close to 50% of vinyl buyers don't even own a record player.  Thats commitment to a bit, right there....but I'm not sure it's indicative of a healthy sales trend?  It's people who want something to frame...or someting that's signed...so they can look at it.

[cineater]

You mean it was so much better when everyone used to watch MTV and buy music?



https://blabbermouth.net/news/duff-mckagan-says-there-is-new-guns-n-roses-material-in-the-works






/jarmo

People were buying music long before MTV found a niche in the market that they could make money off of.  Music comes from the solo of the musician, not from sales.  MTV polluted the minds of the music industry that they had to make big bucks all the time.  The price of concert tickets are not based on what it really costs but what they think the highest amount is they can charge. 

Duff (or Slash) doesn't talk about the complications of marketing his latest album, he talks about the music he's created.  Yet with GNR it is always around the complications of how to market it. Haven't even created it yet.   It's on their mind so much maybe they should write a song about it.     Can't have new energy if your spending it on complications that have nothing to do with where you want it to come from.

[jarmo]

I think the trend has been reversing a bit in recent years. After a long period of digitization, people seem to be attached to physical objects once again.
Vinyl sales, for example, have increased significantly.

When you hit the bottom, there's only one way to go.... 

I think that people, including myself, who want an album, want two things: a cohesive whole to listen to in one go, and also the physical object with the artworks to look at and explore. and the pleasure of discovering a collection of songs all at once indeed.

regarding the least listened-to track, I'm not sure what you mean.
are you suggesting that people don't have the patience to listen all the way through?
or are you implying that the final tracks are not very interesting in general? 

Just that people don't seem to listen to albums start to finish as much anymore.


Maybe the key is to release for example nine singles, and then the album with those nine tracks plus three new ones at the end!   

People were buying music long before MTV found a niche in the market that they could make money off of.  Music comes from the solo of the musician, not from sales.  MTV polluted the minds of the music industry that they had to make big bucks all the time.  The price of concert tickets are not based on what it really costs but what they think the highest amount is they can charge. 

I'm aware.

Sorry but GN'R only existed once MTV was a force in the music business. So whatever existed before is not really an issue. GN'R didn't exist in the period before MTV was a thing. They've existed during and after.

Duff (or Slash) doesn't talk about the complications of marketing his latest album, he talks about the music he's created.  Yet with GNR it is always around the complications of how to market it. Haven't even created it yet.   It's on their mind so much maybe they should write a song about it.   hihi  Can't have new energy if your spending it on complications that have nothing to do with where you want it to come from.

Basically explaining the reality that they aren't necessarily locked in one specific model of releasing music. Like many artists still are.





/jarmo

[cineater]

That got too complicated to respond to quotes.   

Maybe GNR should call those other bands and ask how they managed to put out albums and what they are expecting in return.  If they talk to Keith, I suspect he's going to ask what is all this business shit they are bogged down in.  The band got together, had a great time creating some music, handed it over to the marketers and are going out on tour.  Keith would probably say he doesn't care if it sells or how it's selling, he's got another song in mind.