Can you think of any drawbacks there might be (for the band) from releasing a double or triple album?

[machinegunner]

Let's face it, these days bands mostly just appeal to their long-established core fans. WHATEVER they release, will be gladly lapped up by those fans...most of ANY new album will never be exposed to the wider masses so who cares if they release a tonne of material, it's not going to be scrutinized that much for their approval...

It's not like they're going to play most of it live anyway.... but it sure would please fans to have a lot of new material. The 'keep the fans hanging for more' thing has well and truly gotten old in the last five years. At this stage, and considering the circumstances of them already having earlier stuff recorded, I think only 12-14 songs of which they might only add say 6 songs and eventually wittle it down to maybe 3 or 4 to a same old well-worn AFD-heavy setlist, isn't really going to do it for a lot of people. They need to have a reason to add a lot of varied new material to the setlist.... like HAVING a lot of material they'd like to try live in the first place....

They did it with the UYIs, they can do it again. They apparently have (enough of) the material, and the band that can play it...

On the angle of how journalists might deal with or process it and review it.... usually they're too lazy to do proper thorough reviews anyway.... so, whatever typical slaggings they might come up with would be the same anyway, I think. If anything, having a large amount of material out is like saying "chew on this, if you're game, fuckers!" . Having only say 12 songs on an album after such intense waiting lays them far more open to bullshit criticisms.... it's harder to convincingly dismiss a bigger piece of work, especially if it's generally quite good (as all GN'R albums are)....

In terms of sales and how much it is illegally downloaded.... I'm not sure there would be any or many important differences. I don't know.

Just the fact that it would be an unusual approach, and likely to blow away any other band, would ensure that it makes a big mark, which is what this band needs at this point....

Thanks for indulging me with my wishful thinking...

So, I just want to nut this line of thinking out to see where it goes...got any thoughts? Can you think of any downsides or reasons that it could backfire?

Edited May 10, 2013 by machinegunner

[wasted]

Waste of Ammo is the only downside. That there's only that many songs people can digest in a month that they listen to it. If all the songs are great you can only draw attention to 4 or 5 songs in terms of live or singles. So a bulk of the songs wont get exposure.

But big fans may appreciate it. UYI got criticized bcos some said there was a lot of filler. But people liked these songs.

GNR caters to a wide audience so it could be a great idea. To cover all the bases.

If it's the last GNR album, maybe a leaving a trilogy for people explore for the next 20 years would be awesome.

[AndreCC]

Artistically the desire isn't that for that

[wasted]

There's also a disconnect on double albums. either of the UYI or even CD are double albums compared to Exile or Physical.

But they seem to be possibly in the position of putting 2 cds out. CD II and a newer group of songs. Axl probably has 4 albums of material.

[pepsicoca]

there's no demand for nu(fake)gnr music.

[Lies They Tell]

It takes long enough for GNR to release one record at a time. What would be the point in releasing all the stuff at once? If they did that, then it would only take a longer time to release the next record. It's a better idea to keep releasing new albums on a steady pace, than to release one double/triple album and then keep fans waiting for a decade for the next album.

[rosesforcure]

Youve waiting 10 years for one album, whats so bad having now a double? Just enjoy it!

Axl is facing 50-60's. Gnr is not like Stones. Sooner than later he will retire

For me I will make peace with myself if i get the best from CD era.

[wasted]

but it could be decade between single albums. but I agree if we got 2 records in 2008 we'd still want another one and even after the next one. We have an unquenchable thirst for the liquid refreshment of GNR.

[Coma16]

How did the media and fans react to Green Day releasing 3 albums at the same time?

I personally think it is excessive. Better off spacing them out by 6 months or a year. That wouldn't work in GNR world though.

[wasted]

albums almost get treated like singles now. They come out for a week people care. the Green Day albums hit all the different types of fans they have I think.

[Facekicker]

I can think of one glaring drawback. A lack of material.

[alfierose]

I downloaded the green day albums. It was an interesting idea but a bit overkill. I liked UNO best, the other two seemed to have weaker material in my opinion. Like many other multiple releases they could have condensed and had one really good album.

Edited May 10, 2013 by alfierose

[Apollo]

This is really only an issue because Axl has released one album of new material in the last 20 years.

It's been five years since that release, with NO word on a future release. Nothing from Axl and nothing from the band's management team.

If Axl and Beta think that GnR only needs to release an album every decade - then HELL YES they should release a double or triple album.

A double album seems the most logical.

One album of the left over CD material. One album written by the new band. Then go vacation and tour for the next five years. Release a live album in the middle of that five years and then another real album at the end of the five years.

BETA........it really is that simple. Throw the fans a bone. You know who the fans are, right? The people who have been supporting Axl's music career for the past 25 years!!!!!!

[stumbleine]

Axl hasnt even started writing for "the new album"and

there is no CD2.there are just a couple of loose ideas in the vault.

why do some fans believe Axl has anything stored away?

we would have heard something,anything,by now if that was the case.

it's hard to be positive in this situation.

[wasted]

Then the band should really stop saying the album is coming out this year or next?

[Guest charlie555]

Yes, probably the main drawback is that aside from GnR hardcore fans nobody would buy it.

[wasted]

The same as CD maybe. But it will give them a boost to tour out the decade.

[Towelie]

Depends on the quality of the material I suppose. I find double/triple albums intriguing and I admire the ambition behind it, but truth be told, most of them would be stronger if they cut the filler out and released it as a single disc. It's the old quality vs. quantity cliche. UYI doesn't count, as they are two seperate albums and there was no way you could've had all those epic 6-8 minute tracks on the same disc.

RHCP did Stadium Arcadium which was fun, but is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There's some great material on there, but at 28 tracks in length, the quality dips pretty low at times.

In terms of whether or not this would be a good/bad move for NuGuns is debatable. As a fan, I'm tempted to say the more new music the better. Having said that, even ChiDem (which I consider one of my all time favourite albums) has moments of unnecessary filler. To me, there's two kinds of filler; fun yet throwaway tracks (Scraped for example) and just plain bad songs (If The World is dreadful).

Still, I say go for it. 25 new tracks, sure, some will be stronger than others and I'm sure a handful will probably suck complete monkey balls, but at least it would make NuGuns catalogue look a bit more healthy.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Towelie