John Kalodner thinks that GNR wont release a great album

[Apollo]

25 minutes ago, Rovim said:

But they were both cunts. They've disrupted the natural process of recording Chinese. Ezrin probably damaged Axl's confidence, RTB wasted time with no good reason, and the label said it wasn't good enough multiple times.

I don't think that helped at all. The situation was already complicated and Axl is insecure enough as it is. So it's not relevant what Ezrin and RTB did outside of fuckin' with Chinese.

Can't tell if serious or joking. 

All bands deal with producers who try and push them to do better work. In your view Axl can't handle it...even tho every other singer in the world can?

We all know that you defend Axl at the highest level. Which is cool. But you have to factor in that a lot of this was Axl's fault. Otherwise a relevant discussion can't really be had. The main reason CD took over a decade and ten million dollars is because of Axl Rose. That's #1. Your other things happened, but fall lower on the list  

If a producer says "you've only got three good songs" and that is enough to crush Axl's spirit, then how good could those 10 other songs have been? 

The most likely and logical scenario is that Axl didn't turn in songs on the SCOM and Nov Rain level. Because he would have fought to keep them alive. But instead turned in several songs in the Shacklers and Scraped mode and the producer just gave him an honest answer. 

On a side note - when we're the "multiple" times the label rejected the album?

[Towelie]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Difference is Bowie and Neil Young have a stellar back catalogue that stands as proof that they are capable of putting out consistent top level product, Axl and Co do not enter into that category.  Guns have, what, one bona fide classic album on their discography?  Now count Bowies.  Don't worry, I'll wait

Well, it's apples and oranges really.

For every Scary Monsters or Aladdin Sane, there's a Tonight or a Black Tie White Noise. Same with Neil Young. They've done some absolute horseshit mixed in with works of genius.

Guns, for better or worse, have never put out an album of absolute horseshit. Some fans may say Chinese isn't a great record (I strongly disagree), but it's nowhere near the levels of bad that many veteran artists reach at the nadir of their career. Sure, GNR may have a puny back catalogue for a band that's been around for 30 years, but I'd argue that every album is a worthy addition.

And as for bona fide classics, meh. Couldn't give two tosses what Mojo or Rolling Stone have to say about whether the music I like is a "classic." I can think of countless examples of artists/bands who have a "classic" album which is actually inferior in many respects compared to their lesser known works.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Towelie

[KiraMPD]

I'd rather they release anything, then the consumer/fans will decide whether it's "great" or not. One would think having "yes-men" around, feeding the ego, would have encouraged Axl to release a lot more music than he has. The only explanation that makes sense as to why Axl hasn't release more music is the obvious pressure to create a "great" album. I mean, Izzy has released a lot of music and I wouldn't necessarily call most of his post-GnR catalog "great", but that's besides the point! Making music shouldn't be about how to sell the most and top the charts, it should be about the art. And when you are in the position that GnR are (famous, secure fan base and financially well to do) it should no longer be about selling records to make money. Say what you want to say through your art and let everything else fall into place.

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, Towelie said:

Well, it's apples and oranges really.

For every Scary Monsters or Aladdin Sane, there's a Tonight or a Black Tie White Noise. Same with Neil Young. They've done some absolute horseshit mixed in with works of genius.

Guns, for better or worse, have never put out an album of absolute horseshit. Some fans may say Chinese isn't a great record (I strongly disagree), but it's nowhere near the levels of bad that many veteran artists reach at the nadir of their career. Sure, GNR may have a puny back catalogue for a band that's been around for 30 years, but I'd argue that every album is a worthy addition.

And as for bona fide classics, meh. Couldn't give two tosses what Mojo or Rolling Stone have to say about whether the music I like is a "classic." I can think of countless examples of artists/bands who have a "classic" album which is actually inferior in many respects compared to their lesser known works.

Yes they have some below par product but are you REALLY trying to argue some sort of equivalency between the class of Bowies output compared to Guns cuz if you so then you're blagging yourself.  And as far as consistency in Guns output, they've released fuck all, Apetite which is a banger and other than that, jackshit, Illusions is good, very good even but you're insane if you think its top quality.  Other than that, what, The Spaghetti Incident?  Do me a favour.  And Chi Dem, quite frankly the only people who like that are a bunch of old Guns fans so desperate to hear Axl again that they would've called a George Formby tribute album a work of genius so long as ginger bollocks was caterwauling over it, face it, it was a bag of shite.

If Bowie has some blips on his resume its to do with him having the fuckin' nuts to actually put albums out and function as a creative entity instead of sitting around on his ginger bollocks scratching his arse and sniffing his fingers for over a decade.

As for the whole Rolling Stone/Mojo thing, you've lost me completely there

Edited November 28, 2016 by Len Cnut

[moreblack]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

And Chi Dem, quite frankly the only people who like that are a bunch of old Guns fans so desperate to hear Axl again that they would've called a George Formby tribute album a work of genius so long as ginger bollocks was caterwauling over it, face it, it was a bag of shite.

We rarely agree. Today we do.

[Towelie]

47 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yes they have some below par product but are you REALLY trying to argue some sort of equivalency between the class of Bowies output compared to Guns cuz if you so then you're blagging yourself.  And as far as consistency in Guns output, they've released fuck all, Apetite which is a banger and other than that, jackshit, Illusions is good, very good even but you're insane if you think its top quality.  Other than that, what, The Spaghetti Incident?  Do me a favour.  And Chi Dem, quite frankly the only people who like that are a bunch of old Guns fans so desperate to hear Axl again that they would've called a George Formby tribute album a work of genius so long as ginger bollocks was caterwauling over it, face it, it was a bag of shite.

If Bowie has some blips on his resume its to do with him having the fuckin' nuts to actually put albums out and function as a creative entity instead of sitting around on his ginger bollocks scratching his arse and sniffing his fingers for over a decade.

As for the whole Rolling Stone/Mojo thing, you've lost me completely there

Suck it Len you miserable wanker.

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Towelie

[Len Cnut]

Just now, Towelie said:

Suck it Len you miserable wanker.

 

You know I'm your hero

[Billsfan]

11 hours ago, downzy said:

To reiterate, I view musicians with respect to their songwriting capabilities to be much like athletes.  They have their prime years of performance, with their talents waning as they get older.  It's why Paul McCartney, Elton John, Billy Joel, or Mick Jagger haven't written an iconic or timeless hit in decades.  The muse or creative spark isn't a constant presence, it eventually leaves all great artists, particularly songwriters.  

There's nothing wrong with wanting Axl and company to be productive when it comes to material.  I just think it's unrealistic to expect these guys who have been doing it for over three decades now to suddenly produce relevant music.  You just don't see that from any other artist so why should we expect it from GNR?

Maybe not but those other artists you've mentioned have released material consistently. Every 2-3 years with new cds songs and singles, music videos tours etc. We haven't had that with the appetite 5, so how do we know? Especially when every time Izzy releases something people are ready to cream their pants. 

"Relevant". If the definition of that is a number 1 hit then I don't need that to do it for that reason. Calvin Harris and Zedd can get number 1 hits. So can Bruno Mars.  Yeah the music scene changed, but I don't care if gnr do it to try to get teenage girls to listen to their music but, they do have a lot of die hard fans that would love new material. And they owe us that

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Billsfan said:

Maybe not but those other artists you've mentioned have released material consistently. Every 2-3 years with new cds songs and singles, music videos tours etc. We haven't had that with the appetite 5, so how do we know? Especially when every time Izzy releases something people are ready to cream their pants. 

"Relevant". If the definition of that is a number 1 hit then I don't need that to do it for that reason. Calvin Harris and Zedd can get number 1 hits. So can Bruno Mars.  Yeah the music scene changed, but I don't care if gnr do it to try to get teenage girls to listen to their music but, they do have a lot of die hard fans that would love new material. And they owe us that

And how many of those songs released by those artists have made any impact on the casual listening fanbase?  As Elton John said at the last concert I saw him, "I was going to play a new song but I know none of you want to hear it."  Most fans get to the point where they just want to hear the hits; they've heard enough material from their favourite artists.  An artist's discography is the soundtrack to people's youth (as GNR is mine).  While I'm sure most casual GNR fans would be interested in hearing something new, most would rather hear a hit at a show than take a chance on some new song that likely wouldn't measure up in their own minds.

As for relevant, I've always considered the term to mean an artist is able to attract new fans and keep their old ones through releasing new music.  GNR did that between 1987 and and 1993.  I suppose an argument could be made that Chinese Democracy attracted a younger generation of fans who weren't around when the classic lineup was kicking ass, but the depth and scope of said relevancy is minimal all things considered.  

To think of it another way, think about AC/DC's song Rock N' Roll Train.  A great song that would be considered a classic cut and played on rotation just as often as Back N' Black and You Shook Me All Night Long had it been released 25 years ago.  But it's impact amongst casual and non-AC/DC fans was rather minimal.  No matter how great the song, because of the age of the act, it was never going to be considered one of AC/DC's best.  One of my favourite Elton John songs is This Train Don't Stop Here Anymore (yes, a lot of train references), but good luck finding it being played on rock or adult contemporary radio stations.  

Again, this isn't me saying that I don't want a new album nor do I think I would enjoy it.  But someone who was around and was a fan of the band when they were releasing music that would cause people to lineup in stores at midnight, i just wouldn't expect the same hype or standards as we saw way back when.  The times are different, the fans are different, the band is different, even the individual members are different.  Expecting them to recreate the magic they once mastered nearly thirty years ago will only leave you disappointed.  

[janrichmond]

3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

 And Chi Dem, quite frankly the only people who like that are a bunch of old Guns fans so desperate to hear Axl again that they would've called a George Formby tribute album a work of genius so long as ginger bollocks was caterwauling over it, face it, it was a bag of shite.

Oi!! Listen here young Len, I am an 'old' fan and the last thing i want to hear is anything remotely akin to Chinese....Bad Len

[Len Cnut]

Just now, janrichmond said:

Oi!! Listen here young Len, I am an 'old' fan and the last thing i want to hear is anything remotely akin to Chinese....Bad Len

I said old fans that are desperate, you dont fit the description..now gimme a hug

[janrichmond]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I said old fans that are desperate, you dont fit the description..now gimme a hug

love you

[Len Cnut]

Dawwwwwwww!

[DieselDaisy]

Acts need to release new music or they become walking museum pieces and whores, and in fact, rather inherit the fanbase they deserve. If your fans are lazy casuals slipping money in your underpants to ''play Jungle dude'', it is because you yourself are a lazy act who panders to the largest denominator. The true greats do not operate as such - Neil, Bob, Prince, Bowie - and their fanbases have far more curiosity in the novelty of invention.

[sanity_lost]

14 hours ago, Billsfan said:

You would love for Izzy to be involved but you think it'll be easier because he'll be sitting at home?! Because that's what Izzy wants for some made up reason.  Really???  

Ever since Izzy left the band we have gotten no new music between Axl Slash and Duff under the gnr name. Chinese Democracy was amazing and all he guys have done awesome stuff but, they clearly are walking a fine line about any potential new music and that's just not ok

 

I was simply commenting that I didn't see how Izzy's being involved would magically make writing the process easier. I made a snarky comment. I am sorry I shouldn't have added the snarky comment as it confused you. The problem with written text.

 

I would love Izzy's to be involved in writing new music but I don't see how his presence would magically make things better. 

[Tom2112]

10 hours ago, Rovim said:

Lunacy. Music is a language. You can just say it like you speak your mind with confidence. What feels good is the best indication, more than any opinion. It helps to play it to others, but it's not something an artist should let get in the way of what he's trying to say.

Bob Ezrin was poison. The label was poison. Outside opinions delayed it even more. Fuck Roy Thomas Baker for rerecording the album again.

I find nothing within what I said to be lunacy. It's been said by countless classic artists how important certain producers were to their careers. I did not say that there was one rule for all, but I do stand by the position that producers can and quite often focus the record, move it away fro stodgy bloated sections and make it leaner or in other cases take something that's too bare bones and make it something completely off the wall but still fantastic, George Martin for example took The Beatles and helped them create he sound that has defined the last 50 plus years, without him those songs would have been quite different (Arrangement ideas, recording ideas etc.). You also mention Roy Thomas Baker obviously in reference to Chinese; well I love Chinese Democracy, I'm not saying I wish the record was different and that Bob had won over Axl... but I am saying that Bob Ezrin was sort of right! I like CD but look at the rest of the forum! the majority are divided on it and if polled there are probably 3 to 4 songs that everyone agrees on. Ezrin was probably suggesting that if Axl was after a hit record then he needed to rethink the record... The record sold well for 2008 but it was not a hit record and left most people on the fence as opposed to putting GnR back on the map. 

And Like Diesel said both Roy Thomas Baker and Bob Ezrin have incredible careers, with hands in some of the most popular records in rock... so, I'm afraid while you can have that opinion I strongly disagree.

I agree that music is language and what feels good usually is good! but here's a case study for you Metallica: working with hard line producers Black Album, Death Magnetic. Working without a producer and just going with what feels good Lulu... if a producer stopped by those sessions I'd like to say they'd have tried to craft the songs a better and say "Lou! No! Bad Lou!" and the same thing to Metallica.

[wasted]

AC/DC don't put out Highway to Hell or Back in Black every time. But they have a loyal fanbase that supports them in what they do. 

Axl with new GNR wasn't guaranteed even moderate success with a GNR release without Slash, there was open hostility to the line up. 

I guess the recompany thought they could sell a lot of records but didn't think it was the right record, but by 2004 they just wanted to get what they could out of it and move on, maybe a bomb would get Axl to call Slash. Axl was offering Slash 3 songs on the record in 2001 so it must have always been a possibiity. Imagine CD with Slither and Fall to Pieces in 2004. The recompany would be creaming themselves. 

 

[Tom2112]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Acts need to release new music or they become walking museum pieces and whores, and in fact, rather inherit the fanbase they deserve. If your fans are lazy casuals slipping money in your underpants to ''play Jungle dude'', it is because you yourself are a lazy act who panders to the largest denominator. The true greats do not operate as such - Neil, Bob, Prince, Bowie - and their fanbases have far more curiosity in the novelty of invention.

This is true! but some acts refuse to be walking museums while their fan base try desperately to make them just that. Bands that evolve get put into the box of "play the old stuff" all the time. Opeth is a great example of a band who have continued consistency with releasing music and the quality of the music, yet there are fans who have decided to draw the line in the sand and try and make Opeth play Death Metal again by loudly complaining in every forum available.

Guns are a lazy act. Nobody in their right mind would suggest they have a great history for releasing music. But they are not quite a nostalgia act in the sense that they continue to play widely unaccepted material from CD, continuing to push the album while other bands would look at the responses and pull the songs and revert back to the hits only. I respect that! I don't respect that they don't make more music or seem to be heading in that direction. 

There's more to why "play jungle dude" is a thing, mainly it's to do with the drop off after '93 and the fact that there was no new music to become potential hits and when it did come out it was poorly marketed. 

[Tom2112]

8 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Yes they have some below par product but are you REALLY trying to argue some sort of equivalency between the class of Bowies output compared to Guns cuz if you so then you're blagging yourself.  And as far as consistency in Guns output, they've released fuck all, Apetite which is a banger and other than that, jackshit, Illusions is good, very good even but you're insane if you think its top quality.  Other than that, what, The Spaghetti Incident?  Do me a favour.  And Chi Dem, quite frankly the only people who like that are a bunch of old Guns fans so desperate to hear Axl again that they would've called a George Formby tribute album a work of genius so long as ginger bollocks was caterwauling over it, face it, it was a bag of shite.

If Bowie has some blips on his resume its to do with him having the fuckin' nuts to actually put albums out and function as a creative entity instead of sitting around on his ginger bollocks scratching his arse and sniffing his fingers for over a decade.

As for the whole Rolling Stone/Mojo thing, you've lost me completely there

I believe that a band can have one album and call it a day and still be considered great and still be talked about in the same sentence as the greats. 

If a band says it all in one album then what's wrong with that? I look at guns like this One killer album, One very good album and one good album. Despite that I still consider them one of the all time greats. Output is only one factor in making a classic band. Yes, to many GnR only have one great record! but they have a dozen or more classic songs that make stadiums the world over go mental, A lot of the people with larger discographies have not had the impact GnR had with one album. 

I am definitely an old Guns fans, but I don't fall in line with your assessment that I only like CD because I was desperate to hear Axl. Many of my favourite bands have released songs or albums that I both love and hate, I don't decide whether somethings good based on if I like the rest of the artists back catalogue. That assumption is actually quite closed minded for someone who seems to have a wide taste in music and a taste for artists that have challenged their audiences with mixed results. I'm sure you can name a Bowie alum that got mixed reviews that you love, but others hate, does that mean you only love it because you just like hearing Bowies voice? No! you like the songs, they resonate with you, likely, if you wrote songs yourself they'd be the type of songs you would write etc.

I still think GnR need a lot music in their catalogue, I don't think they should be out on the road for ten years at a time and not releasing new music, I think that's sad for any working band outside of Foreigner (who are up front about what they are).

 

[PsychoKiss344]

22 minutes ago, Wagszilla said:

2002 Roy Thomas Baker produced album.

I would die to have this.

[PsychoKiss344]

Just now, Wagszilla said:

More Buckethead, a better mix, and no Frank or Bumble is indeed an alluring prospect.

That said, I think the Beavan album would be the greatest approximation to classic GNR. 

I'll take both. 

More Buckethead, the better!!

I wonder is this will ever fully leak or get released in some type of box set release. (Kiss did this and released a bunch of demos and first mixes/alt versions of songs)

[Billsfan]

7 hours ago, downzy said:

And how many of those songs released by those artists have made any impact on the casual listening fanbase?  As Elton John said at the last concert I saw him, "I was going to play a new song but I know none of you want to hear it."  Most fans get to the point where they just want to hear the hits; they've heard enough material from their favourite artists.  An artist's discography is the soundtrack to people's youth (as GNR is mine).  While I'm sure most casual GNR fans would be interested in hearing something new, most would rather hear a hit at a show than take a chance on some new song that likely wouldn't measure up in their own minds.

As for relevant, I've always considered the term to mean an artist is able to attract new fans and keep their old ones through releasing new music.  GNR did that between 1987 and and 1993.  I suppose an argument could be made that Chinese Democracy attracted a younger generation of fans who weren't around when the classic lineup was kicking ass, but the depth and scope of said relevancy is minimal all things considered.  

To think of it another way, think about AC/DC's song Rock N' Roll Train.  A great song that would be considered a classic cut and played on rotation just as often as Back N' Black and You Shook Me All Night Long had it been released 25 years ago.  But it's impact amongst casual and non-AC/DC fans was rather minimal.  No matter how great the song, because of the age of the act, it was never going to be considered one of AC/DC's best.  One of my favourite Elton John songs is This Train Don't Stop Here Anymore (yes, a lot of train references), but good luck finding it being played on rock or adult contemporary radio stations.  

Again, this isn't me saying that I don't want a new album nor do I think I would enjoy it.  But someone who was around and was a fan of the band when they were releasing music that would cause people to lineup in stores at midnight, i just wouldn't expect the same hype or standards as we saw way back when.  The times are different, the fans are different, the band is different, even the individual members are different.  Expecting them to recreate the magic they once mastered nearly thirty years ago will only leave you disappointed.  

Well a couple of posts back I already said that I didn't expect them to recreate appetite 2.0. They'll never top appetite ever, they won't recreate it. Never said that and I've already made the point you're talking about.  What I said, which was my point and it seems to stand taller, is that regardless of what point of their careers these guys are at, when they still release music separately, it's still good. Slash has put out good music consistently, as most recently as 2014. Duff put out good music last year.  Izzy just put out something sounding really good. AXL well...  yeah but as far as gnr goes they don't have the music catalogue that AC/DC or Elton John have. Those artists know they can only put out so much material that grabs people in a game changing way.

If AC/DC releases 20 albums, chances are a majority of people will think the first couple are probably their peak. That's what defined them and that's what people want. Once they get to album 19 or 20 with them sounding close to the same of each other, of course a majority of people aren't going to look at the later material as some of their best. I mean, the Elton John point you had was a good one but I had already posted that the music scene changed so... point is there's only so many lyrics someone can write and so much material you can really create. New Elton John or Rolling Stones may not have outlets to play their material, which I think is crazy, but I did hear rock or bust on modern rock radio when that came out. One case but new material from an iconic lineup that haven't put out anything in his long IS attention grabbing...

My point originally is that I and a majority of fans would probably still take fresh material from a reunited appetite lineup. They've only got one original album of material (lies too I guess) between the 5 of them, not decades of new material. They're all still playing well, and they're all still creating good music being released minus Axl but with Izzy slash and duff there, who knows what he could do. Just because he's in his 50s doesn't mean he couldn't still put out something good.

No they wouldn't produce another appetite.. no it wouldn't sell 30 million copies. But who cares?! It's not like new material from that lineup would ruin them either. There is a zero percent chance of the appetite lineup releasing a new album that would flop and disgrace the gnr name, if Chinese can sell a couple million and still put some butts in the seats they'd be fine. All rock would need is a kick in the pants anyways. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Billsfan

[Rovim]

4 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I find nothing within what I said to be lunacy. It's been said by countless classic artists how important certain producers were to their careers. I did not say that there was one rule for all, but I do stand by the position that producers can and quite often focus the record, move it away fro stodgy bloated sections and make it leaner or in other cases take something that's too bare bones and make it something completely off the wall but still fantastic, George Martin for example took The Beatles and helped them create he sound that has defined the last 50 plus years, without him those songs would have been quite different (Arrangement ideas, recording ideas etc.). You also mention Roy Thomas Baker obviously in reference to Chinese; well I love Chinese Democracy, I'm not saying I wish the record was different and that Bob had won over Axl... but I am saying that Bob Ezrin was sort of right! I like CD but look at the rest of the forum! the majority are divided on it and if polled there are probably 3 to 4 songs that everyone agrees on. Ezrin was probably suggesting that if Axl was after a hit record then he needed to rethink the record... The record sold well for 2008 but it was not a hit record and left most people on the fence as opposed to putting GnR back on the map. 

And Like Diesel said both Roy Thomas Baker and Bob Ezrin have incredible careers, with hands in some of the most popular records in rock... so, I'm afraid while you can have that opinion I strongly disagree.

I agree that music is language and what feels good usually is good! but here's a case study for you Metallica: working with hard line producers Black Album, Death Magnetic. Working without a producer and just going with what feels good Lulu... if a producer stopped by those sessions I'd like to say they'd have tried to craft the songs a better and say "Lou! No! Bad Lou!" and the same thing to Metallica.

That's what band members are for and close friends. To give you the feedback you need without fuckin' with it.

But it can basically be anyone you trust. Lars Ulrich's dad for example. Alan Niven suggested not repeating the WTTJ breakdown. Even outside writers like West and Paul can help make it happen.

But it's risky when you care too much about negative opinion or just factor that in. It's like reading reviews and why many musicians and actors don't do it cause it fucks with their head.

For Axl, bringing in Bob Erin was a terrible idea. To say only 3 tunes are good and that it's not ready? I guess that was his real opinion, but sometimes the truth doesn't help shit at all, especially if it's not even the truth, it's an opinion of one man that is control driven as it is and gets in the way in the studio many times with a lot of bands he produced.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Rovim

[Apollo]

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Acts need to release new music or they become walking museum pieces and whores, and in fact, rather inherit the fanbase they deserve. If your fans are lazy casuals slipping money in your underpants to ''play Jungle dude'', it is because you yourself are a lazy act who panders to the largest denominator. The true greats do not operate as such - Neil, Bob, Prince, Bowie - and their fanbases have far more curiosity in the novelty of invention.

So glad I grew up in an era when bands released a new album EVERY year. It was a glorious time to be a music fan. 

Funny enough the sentence "I wish my favorite band would stop releasing music. They need to worry about their legacy" was never spoken. Not one time in 20 years. 

4 hours ago, Wagszilla said:

More Buckethead, a better mix, and no Frank or Bumble is indeed an alluring prospect.

That said, I think the Beavan album would be the greatest approximation to classic GNR. 

I'll take both. 

It makes me sad to think what could have been. 

[Apollo]

Do you remember when you lost your virginity?

Do you remember the best sex you ever had?

Do you remember the 107th time you had sex? No? So because the 107th time wasn't as amazing and memorable as the first time you got some trim...and it wasn't as fantastic and perfect as the "best" time...does that mean you aren't ever going to have sex again?

Every album doesn't have to be the best album of your career. It's just rock and roll. Create music and let your fans enjoy it. That's it