Jump to content

The "New Album" Thread - Susan McKagan says album is coming


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, HollyWoodRose84 said:

They won’t release new material if they won’t be touring behind it. 

You're probably right, but I truly believe there is nothing to gain by holding back any new release.

They could release one or two songs, just to test the waters and see what reaction they get. This isn't rocket science. It's art. Just share it with your fans already, Axl!

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Grandma's hamster has never been in safer hands.

Axl is close to 60 Reunion is now over 4 years old The last unheard new song was played in 2006 The last studio album was in 2008 The last new song before that in 1999 Every s

Might as well bust this out again:

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Dean said:

The tour to support Chinese following its release came 13 months after the fact, I wouldn’t be against them doing likewise again, especially given the potential delay on any return to live venues.

You could argue it gives the album 'two pushes' too. One when it comes out, another when you tour it. 

All this assumes the album even exists of course! 

  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

There’s only gonna be a handful of shows next year at this point, tho (if any). Does waiting really still make a difference, at this point?

Yes it does in the grand scheme of things. Unless they really don’t care about the money which we know at this point is false. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EricA said:

No, cause there was the AfD "anniversary release" :lol:

True. 

14 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

You’re out of the loop if you think the band is going to pass up this anniversary to cash in lol.

Lies was in the AFD boxset because they were a year late with it 

Maybe, maybe. Depends on how much Axl steps in or whether he'll just leave everything up to F'nando The Manager of the Decade. However, I still maintain that even if they released some UYI boxset, that wouldn't necessarily have to mean a new album release being postponed by any number of years. Could be out within the same year, why not. People will compare it with everything they've done so far anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jackparker123 said:

This 100%.

I think in 2022 when they have finished with the inevitable UYI reissue tour/anniversary they will asses where they are regarding new material. If Axl is happy with what they have we may get an album in 2022/2023 if we're extremely lucky.

Let's pretend that Covid19 will be a thing of the past next year (hopefully). 

UYI Anniversary Box set 2021

UYI Anniversary Tour 2021-23

Festival Tour 2024-25

New album 2026-30

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom-Ass said:

They could and should but they are a joke.. They couldn't even release one song to help promote the NITL tour.. They have been "back together" 4 1/2 years and haven't produced jack shit... Not that I have high expectations or excitement for new music at this point.  I would have had more 4 years ago though..

I disagree with this statement. By “they”, you must omit the traveling circus as well as Duff and Slash. There’s nothing holding back the release of new music, this entirely falls on one Axl Rose. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jamillos said:

True. 

Maybe, maybe. Depends on how much Axl steps in or whether he'll just leave everything up to F'nando The Manager of the Decade. However, I still maintain that even if they released some UYI boxset, that wouldn't necessarily have to mean a new album release being postponed by any number of years. Could be out within the same year, why not. People will compare it with everything they've done so far anyway. 

I thought UMG is completely managing the whole anniversary?. Thats what i got from Troccolis post ....sounds like UMG isnt getting TB involved in this whatsoever. Which im sure will be for the best.

Edited by Sydney Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought UMG is completely managing the whole anniversary?. Thats what i got from Troccolis post ....sounds like UMG isnt getting TB involved in this whatsoever. Which im sure will be for the best.

They are, you are correct. Same as the AFD Locked N Loaded box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought UMG is completely managing the whole anniversary?. Thats what i got from Troccolis post ....sounds like UMG isnt getting TB involved in this whatsoever. Which im sure will be for the best.

 

1 hour ago, MaskingApathy said:

They are, you are correct. Same as the AFD Locked N Loaded box.

Albeit there must be some band involvement as with the AFD sets Axls personal photos were included?

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DTJ80 said:

 

Albeit there must be some band involvement as with the AFD sets Axls personal photos were included?

There was also the story about Slash and Duff coming to look at things like the stage banner too, so there must be some interaction. 

It's most likely a case of "this is happening whether you like it or not and you're welcome to be involved....but if you're not it's getting released whatever." I believe that's the case with a lot of reissues. Most bands choose to become involved to some degree simply to make sure nothing too bad gets released. 

Obviously (as with GH) the label will just go ahead without band involvement if they choose to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought UMG is completely managing the whole anniversary?. Thats what i got from Troccolis post ....sounds like UMG isnt getting TB involved in this whatsoever. Which im sure will be for the best.

 

3 hours ago, MaskingApathy said:

They are, you are correct. Same as the AFD Locked N Loaded box.

So Universal releases this stuff without even having to ask the band for permission? That sucks, man. 

Edit: Then again, maybe we otherwise wouldn't have gotten anything at all in the last 4 years...

Edited by jamillos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, allwaystired said:

There was also the story about Slash and Duff coming to look at things like the stage banner too, so there must be some interaction. 

It's most likely a case of "this is happening whether you like it or not and you're welcome to be involved....but if you're not it's getting released whatever." I believe that's the case with a lot of reissues. Most bands choose to become involved to some degree simply to make sure nothing too bad gets released. 

Obviously (as with GH) the label will just go ahead without band involvement if they choose to. 

This is it exactly. 

I'm assuming that there is a limit to how many records the label could put out though, and if they were putting out very poor material  (Without GNRs involvement) I'm sure GNR could mount a case to prevent releases OR try to be released from their contract. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

This is it exactly. 

I'm assuming that there is a limit to how many records the label could put out though, and if they were putting out very poor material  (Without GNRs involvement) I'm sure GNR could mount a case to prevent releases OR try to be released from their contract. 

Yeah, definitely. They tried to prevent GH coming out of course but ultimately failed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Yeah, definitely. They tried to prevent GH coming out of course but ultimately failed. 

I guess that they hadn't released anything since 1994, and that it was stipulated in their contract didn't help! It probably didn't help that they 'probably' were made aware of the GH project months in advance and blew it off, only to get interested after the final track-listing was set along with release dates etc. Also, they probably couldn't prove that the GH release would harm the image of the band or anything like that, all they could say was that some of the song choices weren't as representative of what the band ultimately was. 

If the label decided to dig up c grade rough cuts etc. they might have managed to stop them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

I guess that they hadn't released anything since 1994, and that it was stipulated in their contract didn't help! It probably didn't help that they 'probably' were made aware of the GH project months in advance and blew it off, only to get interested after the final track-listing was set along with release dates etc. Also, they probably couldn't prove that the GH release would harm the image of the band or anything like that, all they could say was that some of the song choices weren't as representative of what the band ultimately was. 

If the label decided to dig up c grade rough cuts etc. they might have managed to stop them.

Wasn't that Axl's reason for fighting it - that it would harm the image of the band? Any idea why Slash and Duff were against it? 

I always thought it was an abysmal release - dreadful cover, no time or effort gone into it and edits of the tracks I believe. I say 'believe' because I've never owned a copy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Wasn't that Axl's reason for fighting it - that it would harm the image of the band? Any idea why Slash and Duff were against it? 

I always thought it was an abysmal release - dreadful cover, no time or effort gone into it and edits of the tracks I believe. I say 'believe' because I've never owned a copy. 

I think that was his reason, but image vs money? it's a easy decision for a bunch of lawyers. track-listing and image are the reasons for Slash / Duff too.

Yeah the GH was a piece of junk, but you can't argue with its success! and it did include all the hits... if it said best of that would be a different story. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamillos said:

 

So Universal releases this stuff without even having to ask the band for permission? That sucks, man. 

Edit: Then again, maybe we otherwise wouldn't have gotten anything at all in the last 4 years...

I thought the reason for the slash and duff lawsuit was because they didnt like yhe GH being released as it was. They wanted a say in the art work and tracklisting. Like live era.

Edited by Sydney Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought the reason for the slash and duff lawsuit was because they didnt like yhe GH being released as it was. They wanted a say in the art work and tracklisting. Like live era.

Correct. The label put together and released the album without any discussion or input from the “band” at that time. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sydney Fan said:

I thought the reason for the slash and duff lawsuit was because they didnt like yhe GH being released as it was. They wanted a say in the art work and tracklisting. Like live era.

I meant Locked n Loaded. Guys say UMG completely runs that too. I didn't know that - thought it was the band's/TB's initiative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, allwaystired said:

There was also the story about Slash and Duff coming to look at things like the stage banner too, so there must be some interaction. 

It's most likely a case of "this is happening whether you like it or not and you're welcome to be involved....but if you're not it's getting released whatever." I believe that's the case with a lot of reissues. Most bands choose to become involved to some degree simply to make sure nothing too bad gets released. 

Obviously (as with GH) the label will just go ahead without band involvement if they choose to. 

Yup - agreed. As long as it ain’t about £1000 (it won’t....lessons will have been learned) I’m sure it will cool. As you say - If it’s being released then might as well get involved anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DTJ80 said:

Yup - agreed. As long as it ain’t about £1000 (it won’t....lessons will have been learned) I’m sure it will cool. As you say - If it’s being released then might as well get involved anyway.

Price is so critical regarding how a UYI reissue would be received. Really, the AFD super deluxe (4 disc+ blu ray) should never have been more than $50 from the start - i.e. the price it is now being sold for on the official site. That is was more than triple that on release helped the general idea that it wasn't worth bothering with. The Locked and Loaded was always going to be a tough sell at that insane price, so as you say, hopefully pricing will be a big consideration in the future. I fear it won't be though......but many people will know now not to get their fingers burned by buying straight away if not and wait until it falls to a quarter (or less) of it's starting price in a very short space of time.  

 

Edited by allwaystired
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...