The "New Album" Thread . The maybe, possibly, at some point, soon, whenever, wtf Axl thread🤞

[vloors]

14 minutes ago, Live Like a Suicide said:

She did say they were working on new music "fastidiously" though. So if they really are putting a lot of effort and detail into it, maybe that does explain the long wait.

 

Duff, slash and even Dizzy reed are on their 2nd or so albums released since this threeunion.

Yet Gnr/Axl havnt got their shit together enough to release one single in 5 years.

Its been 13 years now since CDs release.

[Rovim]

19 hours ago, jamillos said:

What do you wanna play? What do you wanna play? Huh? 

We kinda pick them as we go. 

Don't wanna stand up here playing Appetite round and round, that would feel like jerking off, you know. 

We got two... no, that's four records coming up soon. 
 

Etc. Hey, they've handled it before, they'll manage now, no?  

it's not like a double album is such a weird concept in today's musical landscape, especially for less prolific bands is it?

Metallica fans and critics seemed to have embraced Hardwired To Self Destruct. I wonder if people that like this album think it would've been a better record had they released only half of it and somehow made it cohesive.

if Axl got the tunes, I can't think of a better candidate for the double album approach than Gn'R.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Rovim

[jamillos]

4 minutes ago, Rovim said:

it's not like a double album is such a weird concept in today's musical landscape, especially for less prolific bands is it?

Metallica fans and critics seemed to have embraced Hardwired To Self Destruct. I wonder if people that like this album think it would've been a better record had they released only half of it and somehow made it cohesive.

if Axl got the tunes, I can't think of a better candidate for the double album approach than Gn'R.

I actually still haven't heard that record. I do believe that e.g. the last SOAD's record had a number of fillers and it would have been better way shortened. Anyway, I'm not afraid that would be GNR's case - I believe there's a lot of great material, old and new. 
Whether or not to release it all at once though, that's another question. I'd say one by one would be better, but this time it would need to actually come to fruition, and not like in the CD's case, when the "first part" was released and then we never saw the rest...

[PatrickS77]

3 minutes ago, jamillos said:

I actually still haven't heard that record. I do believe that e.g. the last SOAD's record had a number of fillers and it would have been better way shortened. Anyway, I'm not afraid that would be GNR's case - I believe there's a lot of great material, old and new. 
Whether or not to release it all at once though, that's another question. I'd say one by one would be better, but this time it would need to actually come to fruition, and not like in the CD's case, when the "first part" was released and then we never saw the rest...

But SOAD's Mezmerize/Hypnotize was released half a year apart. And it's not like Use your illusion 1 and 2 don't contain filler.

[19AT5]

19 minutes ago, Rovim said:

it's not like a double album is such a weird concept in today's musical landscape, especially for less prolific bands is it?

Metallica fans and critics seemed to have embraced Hardwired To Self Destruct. I wonder if people that like this album think it would've been a better record had they released only half of it and somehow made it cohesive.

if Axl got the tunes, I can't think of a better candidate for the double album approach than Gn'R.

I'll give you this... you're keen on the double album! In today's musical landscape, where streaming is king, it makes absolutely zero sense from a commercial perspective to release a double album. Regardless of how prolific one is. Just this week, Roger Daltery from The Who questioned whether it is worth releasing another single album, let alone double magnum opus. Why? Because it costs too much. Metallica's last album came out in 2016 when CD sales were slightly higher than they are today. I'm not sure that would happen now. But regardless, Metallica are an active creative outlet. GNR are absolutely not. 

[jamillos]

14 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

But SOAD's Mezmerize/Hypnotize was released half a year apart. And it's not like Use your illusion 1 and 2 don't contain filler.

Wow, it was long ago and I forgot. Still, a lot of fillers, and the guitarist needs to play the guitar and leave the singing up to the singer. As for UYI, I don't think it's comparable. And I don't really perceive any songs as fillers tbh. But to each their own. 

[Rovim]

23 minutes ago, 19AT5 said:

I'll give you this... you're keen on the double album! In today's musical landscape, where streaming is king, it makes absolutely zero sense from a commercial perspective to release a double album. Regardless of how prolific one is. Just this week, Roger Daltery from The Who questioned whether it is worth releasing another single album, let alone double magnum opus. Why? Because it costs too much. Metallica's last album came out in 2016 when CD sales were slightly higher than they are today. I'm not sure that would happen now. But regardless, Metallica are an active creative outlet. GNR are absolutely not. 

but it's not going to sell huge anyway even if it's just 1 record? AC/DC's Power Up, did it sell millions? what was the point in releasing it from a commercial standpoint? still, fans seems to be digging it. Roger is old and has made a ton of great records and the difference in sales between 2016 and 2021 is marginal enough to not be relevant imo when it comes to double albums.

The cost: Axl and the record company have already paid for at least the recording of CD ll. The band is rich as fuck.

music fans come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. Box sets are in it seems. Some people will always have a long enough of an attention span to listen to long records similar to how they like to read very long fantasy books for example, even if the pace of life in the modern world is faster.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Rovim

[Legendador]

15 minutes ago, Rovim said:

but it's not going to sell huge anyway even if it's just 1 record? AC/DC's Power Up, did it sell millions? what was the point in releasing it from a commercial standpoint? still, fans seems to be digging it. Roger is old and has made a ton of great records and the difference in sales between 2016 and 2021 is marginal enough to not be relevant imo when it comes to double albums.

The cost: Axl and the record company have already paid for at least the recording of CD ll. The band is rich as fuck.

music fans come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. Box sets are in it seems. Some people will always have a long enough of an attention span to listen to long records similar to how they like to read very long fantasy books for example, even if the pace of life in the modern world is faster.

100% right! And Rock albuns don't sell millions anymore, at least for the music industry - nowadays -  they don't need to.

But then again I understand why Axl doesn't want to release anything! Why bother, people are not gonna buy it, they are going to stream it through Spotify, in less than an hour after its release the entire album will be free for grabs on YouTube, including with Karaoke and cover versions.

Also, who would dare to release an album than wouldn't match their previous successes, given that CD was a worse flop than TSI and their GH sold more than both albums combined. They are still selling stadiums through AFD, they are still packing venues, they are still making tons of money from a 30 year old record, Why bother to dilute the legacy or to released a floppier and watered version of VR's "Libertad"?

Do I agree? No! Do I understand him? Completly!

Edited March 9, 2021 by Legendador

[19AT5]

3 minutes ago, Rovim said:

but it's not going to sell huge anyway even if it's just 1 record? AC/DC's Power Up, did it sell millions? what was the point in releasing it from a commercial standpoint? still, fans seems to be digging it. Roger is old and has made a ton of great records and the difference in sales between 2016 and 2021 is marginal enough to not be relevant imo when it comes to double albums.

The cost: Axl and the record company have already paid for at least the recording of CD ll. The band is rich as fuck.

music fans come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. Box sets are in it seems. Some people will always have enough attention span to listen to long records similar to how they like to read very long fantasy books for example, even if the pace of life in the modern world is faster.

AC/DC's last 2 albums... lasted less than 40 minutes. Foo Fighters last album... lasted less than 40 minutes. These are bands GNR would be hypothetically competing with. Sure, some artists will release slightly longer albums, and some people will listen. But there are few major artists putting out double albums just now due to the very fact... nobody buys the physical product. Also, one of the major criticisms of the CD-era, was that bands released albums that were waaaaaaaay too long. Metallica's Load and Re-Load albums being two example, clocking in at 70 minutes. Most RHCP albums also fell into the same trap. All you are getting in this instance is quantity over quality. The Illusion albums even have been criticised, with some degree of justification, for being too chunky. To summarise:

 

1. CD sales are low (and have actually halved in the US alone since 2015). 

2. Double albums are generally full of fat, and lean on quality. 

3. GNR have released 1 single album in almost 30 years.

 

All in, I don't see the appeal from a fan or band's perspective. 

[Rovim]

Just now, 19AT5 said:

AC/DC's last 2 albums... lasted less than 40 minutes. Foo Fighters last album... lasted less than 40 minutes. These are bands GNR would be hypothetically competing with. Sure, some artists will release slightly longer albums, and some people will listen. But there are few major artists putting out double albums just now due to the very fact... nobody buys the physical product. Also, one of the major criticisms of the CD-era, was that bands released albums that were waaaaaaaay too long. Metallica's Load and Re-Load albums being two example, clocking in at 70 minutes. Most RHCP albums also fell into the same trap. All you are getting in this instance is quantity over quality. The Illusion albums even have been criticised, with some degree of justification, for being too chunky. To summarise:

 

1. CD sales are low (and have actually halved in the US alone since 2015). 

2. Double albums are generally full of fat, and lean on quality. 

3. GNR have released 1 single album in almost 30 years.

 

All in, I don't see the appeal from a fan or band's perspective. 

what about Iron Maiden's last album though? how many minutes?

the way I look at double albums is if the band has enough of "new" cool musical ideas to share and it paints a picture, go ahead, go all out.

in Gn'R's case even more warranted imo with their experience of releasing the Illusions, Gn'R's challenging live vocals, and the supposed shitload of material Axl got in his hard drives.

[jamillos]

Not all of us are 20-year old, smartphone-dependent fools. I’m 39, and while I have a general idea as to what Spotify is, I’d never listen to music from my favourite band just through some streaming service. I like being offline too, and I dislike always having to rely on internet connection, wi-fi signal, phone data, and all this crap. That doesn’t make me an outlier, by the way. If I really like a band, I buy their CD. Not to stick it in the drive each time, but to grab the mp3 to put it in my PC, to have the original including the booklet, and above all, to support the band. 
As for the "how profitable is it" talks, the principle still stands: music bands release records. Other mainstream rock bands do it, so why the hell should GN’R be an exception? You may go see a gig, but I want something more lasting, permanent – and a shitty Youtube video doesn’t meet this need of mine. Bottom line: albums will always be released, one way or the other, no matter how (un)profitable it may be. 

[19AT5]

3 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Not all of us are 20-year old, smartphone-dependent fools. I’m 39, and while I have a general idea as to what Spotify is, I’d never listen to music from my favourite band just through some streaming service. I like being offline too, and I dislike always having to rely on internet connection, wi-fi signal, phone data, and all this crap. That doesn’t make me an outlier, by the way. If I really like a band, I buy their CD. Not to stick it in the drive each time, but to grab the mp3 to put it in my PC, to have the original including the booklet, and above all, to support the band. 
As for the "how profitable is it" talks, the principle still stands: music bands release records. Other mainstream rock bands do it, so why the hell should GN’R be an exception? You may go see a gig, but I want something more lasting, permanent – and a shitty Youtube video doesn’t meet this need of mine. Bottom line: albums will always be released, one way or the other, no matter how (un)profitable it may be. 

I'm 36, and I haven't bought a CD since 2014 (which was AC/DC's Rock Or Bust album). I have no intention of ever buying another CD but may look at vinyl again at some point. But I like most people, as the stats evidence, use streaming services to access music. 

To answer your question though... feck knows why GNR can't do it! But the reality is they don't and haven't done in a long, long, long time. It's a fair question though! 

 

9 minutes ago, Rovim said:

what about Iron Maiden's last album though? how many minutes?

the way I look at double albums is if the band has enough of "new" cool musical ideas to share and it paints a picture, go ahead, go all out.

in Gn'R's case even more warranted imo with their experience of releasing the Illusions, Gn'R's challenging live vocals, and the supposed shitload of material Axl got in his hard drives.

Okay, how many top to bottom classic double albums can you name? And on a side note, have you ever considered that perhaps all this alleged material hasn't been released, because it isn't finished or isn't good enough? Very few artists having treasure troves of unreleased quality material lying in the vaults. Just, like, because. 

[Rovim]

17 minutes ago, 19AT5 said:

Okay, how many top to bottom classic double albums can you name? And on a side note, have you ever considered that perhaps all this alleged material hasn't been released, because it isn't finished or isn't good enough? Very few artists having treasure troves of unreleased quality material lying in the vaults. Just, like, because. 

do you consider Chinese to be a classic album? are there fillers in The White album in your opinion? The Wall or Physical Graphitti? do you prefer short tunes or long tunes? I like it when the musical statement is maybe not perfect, but you gain a more adventurous approach. In fact, I like when bands get the chance to do both.

so doesn't mean it's gotta be a double album everytime to achieve the goal of making it like a journey, but I try to not pay attention too much to the mathematical variables of it as long as it feels like all the tunes actually play a part in the work. I don't question the quality with Axl cause I like everything he has released (all 4.5 albums)

and Slash and Duff have no problem working on it. I just think that for this potential next release, the advantages of a double release outweigh the disadvantages.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Rovim

[PatrickS77]

1 hour ago, jamillos said:

Wow, it was long ago and I forgot. Still, a lot of fillers, and the guitarist needs to play the guitar and leave the singing up to the singer. As for UYI, I don't think it's comparable. And I don't really perceive any songs as fillers tbh. But to each their own. 

I happen to like the guitarist's songs... "Lonely day" is one of my favourites. And why is it not comparable?? Because you like GNR more? When you call some of the SOAD songs "filler", then there certainly ones that compare as filler on UYI. But it's alright, all 4 albums are great as they are. Filler and all.

[PatrickS77]

57 minutes ago, Rovim said:

but it's not going to sell huge anyway even if it's just 1 record? AC/DC's Power Up, did it sell millions? what was the point in releasing it from a commercial standpoint? still, fans seems to be digging it. Roger is old and has made a ton of great records and the difference in sales between 2016 and 2021 is marginal enough to not be relevant imo when it comes to double albums.

The cost: Axl and the record company have already paid for at least the recording of CD ll. The band is rich as fuck.

music fans come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. Box sets are in it seems. Some people will always have a long enough of an attention span to listen to long records similar to how they like to read very long fantasy books for example, even if the pace of life in the modern world is faster.

You have 2 marketing points in terms of selling a tour. Also you can charge more for 2 seperate albums than 1 double album. People are more likely to pay the lower price for the single album, than for the double album.

[PatrickS77]

46 minutes ago, 19AT5 said:

nobody buys the physical product.

Disagree. The only way I ever buy music is physcial. Never ever will I buy a download. And I know plenty of people who feel the same. As for album length. I love me a long album. I don't advocate for an album to be short. I just don't see why anyone would release a double album at this time.

[19AT5]

1 minute ago, Rovim said:

do you consider Chinese a classic album? are there fillers in The White album in your opinion? The Wall or Physical Graphitti? do you prefer short tunes or long tunes? I like it when the musical statement is maybe not perfect, but you gain a more adventurous approach. In fact, I like when bands get the chance to do both.

 

All good questions! 

1. Chinese Democracy - I generally think the album is an utter mess with a few notable exceptions (Better, There Was a Time, Madagascar, and Sorry all being really good tracks in my ears). I also don't mind things Street of Dreams (title is terrible though), If The World (guilty pleasure), and Shackler's Revenge. The title track is cool too. But all the rest is pretty lame to my ears.

2. The White Album - I thought you might hit me with this! Hahaha! Yes, there is a lot of filler on it I think. But obviously some outrageously fantastic tracks as well. Likely would be a better single album, or 1.5 album!

3. The Wall - Actually, this one does flow pretty well and generally doesn't have too many shit points! So yep, I'd say this is a decent double album. 

4. Physical Graffiti - I'm a huge Zep fan and I've never gotten along with this album all that well for some reason. It obviously has some bloody fantastic songs on it, but most of them are just tooooooo long, in my view. 

I'd throw in Exile On Main Street as being the best double album, possibly. I think strictly speaking, both Illusion albums were doubles when they were released originally on vinyl. Had this been condensed into one double album, it would be the best one I'd say! But alas. 

I do take your last point, and get what you're saying. And sometimes it works. But mostly not, in my opinion.

Just now, PatrickS77 said:

Disagree. The only way I ever buy music is physcial. Never ever will I buy a download. And I know plenty of people who feel the same. As for album length. I love me a long album. I don't advocate for an album to be short. I just don't see why anyone would release a double album at this time.

Yes, fair point. I shouldn't have said 'nobody'. Instead 'few people'. But the way people consume music has now changed and it is digital more than anything else, with vinyl a very distant second place. 

[Rovim]

Just now, PatrickS77 said:

You have 2 marketing points in terms of selling a tour. Also you can charge more for 2 seperate albums than 1 double album. People are more likely to pay the lower price for the single album, than for the double album.

albums do not sell anymore and even if you do manage to sell via streaming websites, the artists don't see most of that money anyway. AC/DC released their album without the ability to support it with a tour, which is partly why I gave it as an example.

I highly doubt Axl's main reasons for wanting to release a new record is profit. If they were, he would have released more than 1 album in 30 years imo.

So instead of 1 record selling like shit, 2 records sell like shit and If they're going to do it I think it's going to be when they can profit from touring behind it again as well. It's not an either/or situation imo.

[Rovim]

3 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Disagree. The only way I ever buy music is physcial. Never ever will I buy a download. And I know plenty of people who feel the same. As for album length. I love me a long album. I don't advocate for an album to be short. I just don't see why anyone would release a double album at this time.

most people don't buy the physical product anymore. It's just a fact. So most of the money doesn't come from selling the physical copies.

[ToonGuns]

I'd rather have a double album with filler than a streamlined single album of c. 30 mins.

[19AT5]

Just now, ToonGuns said:

I'd rather have a double album with filler than a streamlined single album of c. 30 mins.

Well, Chinese Democracy should meet that requirement nicely then! :):):) 

[ToonGuns]

The last CD I bought was the special edition of Tool's new album. Prior to that maybe 4-5 years. I mostly buy vinyl now when I support an artist - you get better artwork, better sound quality, mp3 downloads, and they hold their value well meaning if I ever do run into financial issues (hopefully not) I can sell them for only a marginal loss.

[jamillos]

26 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

I happen to like the guitarist's songs... "Lonely day" is one of my favourites. And why is it not comparable?? Because you like GNR more? When you call some of the SOAD songs "filler", then there certainly ones that compare as filler on UYI. But it's alright, all 4 albums are great as they are. Filler and all.

Well I haven't really perceived any decrease in quality in any of the UYI songs, excluding My World (or DC with different lyrics). Even a song like Bad Apples is just different, but not worse. Idk, I guess it just functions better as a whole to me. Don't really remember the SOAD records too much any more, but distinctively remember thinking that the albums could have been made into one. Totally different from UYI. Nevermind. 

[PatrickS77]

2 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Well I haven't really perceived any decrease in quality in any of the UYI songs, excluding My World (or DC with different lyrics). Even a song like Bad Apples is just different, but not worse. Idk, I guess it just functions better as a whole to me. Don't really remember the SOAD records too much any more, but distinctively remember thinking that the albums could have been made into one. Totally different from UYI. Nevermind. 

If you can't remember the albums, you're not really in a position to judge them. And no, it's not totally different. Both albums feature stronger and not so strong songs. Songs that wouldn't have been released, if they didn't have 140 minutes of music to fill. Nevermind on the other hand...

[Rovim]

11 minutes ago, 19AT5 said:

All good questions! 

1. Chinese Democracy - I generally think the album is an utter mess with a few notable exceptions (Better, There Was a Time, Madagascar, and Sorry all being really good tracks in my ears). I also don't mind things Street of Dreams (title is terrible though), If The World (guilty pleasure), and Shackler's Revenge. The title track is cool too. But all the rest is pretty lame to my ears.

2. The White Album - I thought you might hit me with this! Hahaha! Yes, there is a lot of filler on it I think. But obviously some outrageously fantastic tracks as well. Likely would be a better single album, or 1.5 album!

3. The Wall - Actually, this one does flow pretty well and generally doesn't have too many shit points! So yep, I'd say this is a decent double album. 

4. Physical Graffiti - I'm a huge Zep fan and I've never gotten along with this album all that well for some reason. It obviously has some bloody fantastic songs on it, but most of them are just tooooooo long, in my view. 

I'd throw in Exile On Main Street as being the best double album, possibly. I think strictly speaking, both Illusion albums were doubles when they were released originally on vinyl. Had this been condensed into one double album, it would be the best one I'd say! But alas. 

I do take your last point, and get what you're saying. And sometimes it works. But mostly not, in my opinion.

Yes, fair point. I shouldn't have said 'nobody'. Instead 'few people'. But the way people consume music has now changed and it is digital more than anything else, with vinyl a very distant second place. 

interesting. I think The Wall is the best example (and I think this has been said for the last 40 years) of a great album with a lot of filler and tunes that would sound weak on their own mixed with a bunch of masterpieces and they serve the main theme of the album. It's a concept album so it's not really what Gn'R is all about, but it demonstrates really well imo how the sum can be greater than it's parts.

if there are more parts, it always changes the vibe of it. Quantity is important and changes the quality of the albums I think. Not always better or worse, just different.

sidenote: you like 8 Chinese tunes out of the 15 released. Exactly 39.26 minutes of Chinese you enjoy out of the full album which is 1:11:18.