Do you think Axl will release a new GNR album?

[jacdaniel]

I think Axl gave up a bit after the 2002 band fell apart. Since then I think he just tours for the money. 

Some ex band members admitted they never even worked on songs. Slash admitted the same. 

The real motivation for the reunion was likely money for retirement.

What we might see is some songs released like Absurd, Hardskool 

[GNRmello77]

Either this lineup will release an album at some point or GN'R management will when Axl passes

[Lies They Tell]

17 minutes ago, jacdaniel said:

Some ex band members admitted they never even worked on songs. Slash admitted the same. 

Yet somehow miraculously Slash plays on both Absurd and Hard Skool.

Working on songs and writing new songs from scratch are two different things. 

This is what Slash has said about new music: “There’s new Guns N’ Roses material coming out as we speak, and we’ll probably keep putting it out until the entire record’s worth of stuff is done and then put it out solid. It’s cool. I’m enjoying WORKING on the stuff and having a good time doing it.”

[Zeppelin]

Not in this lifetime.

But seriously, no. They're not going to release an album. If they somehow manage to release 10-12 singles in the next five years to make up the sum of an album's worth of frankenstein material, then I'll be amazed. However, even then, it's hardly an actual album if it drip feeds over five years with reworked songs.

[AxlRoseCDII]

1 minute ago, Zeppelin said:

Not in this lifetime.

But seriously, no. They're not going to release an album. If they somehow manage to release 10-12 singles in the next five years to make up the sum of an album's worth of frankenstein material, then I'll be amazed. However, even then, it's hardly an actual album if it drip feeds over five years with reworked songs.

Technically, that’s an album.

[Zeppelin]

Just now, AxlRoseCDII said:

Technically, that’s an album.

Yeah, it would be. But it loses all the essence of being an actual album if we've already heard every song leading up to it. And that's if they ever actually put the entire package together. Knowing the band, they'll issue a statement telling us to put it together ourselves, like some kind of ridiculously overblown puzzle.

[jacdaniel]

3 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

Yet somehow miraculously Slash plays on both Absurd and Hard Skool.

Working on songs and writing new songs from scratch are two different things. 

This is what Slash has said about new music: “There’s new Guns N’ Roses material coming out as we speak, and we’ll probably keep putting it out until the entire record’s worth of stuff is done and then put it out solid. It’s cool. I’m enjoying WORKING on the stuff and having a good time doing it.”

Let me rephrase, I very much doubt that Axl,.Slash,.Duff and other members will ever get in a room together and write an album as an actual band.

We might get more of Slash and Duff adding parts to 25 year old songs.

But they'll likely release their own new music through other projects and let Axl decide if he ever wants to release anything.

[Sweersa]

22 minutes ago, Zeppelin said:

Yeah, it would be. But it loses all the essence of being an actual album if we've already heard every song leading up to it. And that's if they ever actually put the entire package together. Knowing the band, they'll issue a statement telling us to put it together ourselves, like some kind of ridiculously overblown puzzle.

I agree. I like picking up a new album with mostly unheard material, which we didn't really even get with the 2008 album due to the leaks. 

Even if CD2 drops tomorrow, we will have heard around half or so of it in some form, maybe more if you count instrumentals. Not to mention probably knowing the names to most of the songs already.

It would be more of a singles compilation than a new album, but I get it. 

[alfierose]

Poll needs a maybe option. You never quite know with Axl.

[Spoon87]

I'd even take an odd "play it safe" cover album right, just to hear something "new".

[Sweersa]

12 minutes ago, Spoon87 said:

I'd even take an odd "play it safe" cover album right, just to hear something "new".

2023 - Guns N' Roses: The Pickle Personification

[Lies They Tell]

Times change. These days it's pretty common for artists to release most of their music as singles and then compile it into an album: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/why-your-favorite-artist-is-releasing-more-singles-than-ever-629130/

I understand why many people prefer the old skool approach. It makes the album feel more like an event. But these days putting out 12-15 songs at once is increasingly risky because people's attention spans are shorter. The culture has changed in many ways. People don't listen to albums as much as they used to. People listen to singles and if they like the song, they add it to their playlist. Many people feel like they don't have time to go through entire albums and see what songs they like. But everyone has time to listen to one song and see if they like that one. So in many ways it makes more sense to release most of your music as singles these days.

[SoulMonster]

44 minutes ago, jacdaniel said:

Let me rephrase, I very much doubt that Axl,.Slash,.Duff and other members will ever get in a room together and write an album as an actual band.

That hasn't happened since the 80s so yeah, probably won't happen. But it is not impossible that Axl could record vocals to a song brought in by Slash and/or Duff, similar to how they worked for the Illusions. But for that to happen I think Axl will have to consider himself finished with the CD material and be motivated. 

[BangoSkank]

I suspect yeah - the two singles are evidence, plus we know (I think) that they've recorded more. 

[itsprettytiedup]

Who cares about the charts? If they release an album is for touring, not for being n1 in the charts...

[Jw224]

1 hour ago, Lies They Tell said:

Times change. These days it's pretty common for artists to release most of their music as singles and then compile it into an album: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/why-your-favorite-artist-is-releasing-more-singles-than-ever-629130/

I understand why many people prefer the old skool approach. It makes the album feel more like an event. But these days putting out 12-15 songs at once is increasingly risky because people's attention spans are shorter. The culture has changed in many ways. People don't listen to albums as much as they used to. People listen to singles and if they like the song, they add it to their playlist. Many people feel like they don't have time to go through entire albums and see what songs they like. But everyone has time to listen to one song and see if they like that one. So in many ways it makes more sense to release most of your music as singles these days.

I agree with you and have said before that it's not unusual nowadays. I think it's just the fact gnr seems to be doing it that annoys people, and that's totally understandable at this point imo. Nothing can be done to change it though so best not to care too much, lol. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Jw224

[Millions]

I think the plan to release a song at a time is a good one. It stops the whole process being overwhelming - like a a huge, impossible task that is going to be so massive that you just don't know where to start. I think it was Bumblefoot who initially suggested this approach - so I'm glad someone listened. 

Has his voice deteriorated? Maybe. But we still have the old vocal takes he recorded during the chinese democracy sessions. And he could use his lower registers on any new music - which I have always wanted more of. 

I think the fact that he released Absurd and Hardskool shows that he doesn't want the band just to become some cheesy old 90s tribute act. 

[Zeppelin]

3 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

Times change. These days it's pretty common for artists to release most of their music as singles and then compile it into an album: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/why-your-favorite-artist-is-releasing-more-singles-than-ever-629130/

I understand why many people prefer the old skool approach. It makes the album feel more like an event. But these days putting out 12-15 songs at once is increasingly risky because people's attention spans are shorter. The culture has changed in many ways. People don't listen to albums as much as they used to. People listen to singles and if they like the song, they add it to their playlist. Many people feel like they don't have time to go through entire albums and see what songs they like. But everyone has time to listen to one song and see if they like that one. So in many ways it makes more sense to release most of your music as singles these days.

While true, this is just an excuse for the band to use at this point. They can still go in, record an album, put it out, and then people will choose songs to put on their playlists. I'm sure there are thousands of people out there who just have Jungle and SCOM on their playlists, with the rest of Appetite thrown into the heap. Most here would call that blasphemy, but that's just how it goes. So, there's nothing stopping them from making an actual album and releasing it all at once in a playlist age.

Personally, I'd rather have the option to choose from a whole album's worth of tracks. Especially if we're getting songs like Absurd, which is up there with the worst recorded GNR tracks (IMO, of course). Now, I have to wait an indefinite amount of time before getting any singles released again. I'm hoping at least a year from now, we'll have two quality single releases. But that's being optimistic.

What would actually be fun is if GNR released a single every month and then compiled it into an album at the end of the year. If they wanted to do an approach like that, I think that would be fun. Unfortunately, that's not how it works either. We get two songs in one little period of time, with no knowledge of when (or if) we'll hear any other songs again. Even artists who release lots of single songs still have an album announced by that point.

[SoulMonster]

23 minutes ago, Millions said:

I think the plan to release a song at a time is a good one. It stops the whole process being overwhelming - like a a huge, impossible task that is going to be so massive that you just don't know where to start. I think it was Bumblefoot who initially suggested this approach - so I'm glad someone listened. 

Yes, Bumblefoot had been forced to take this approach himself in 2011 because of GN'R's erratic operations and in 2012/2013 he was a strong advocate for GN'R doing it, too, arguing that trying to make an entire album was too daunting. 

[Rovim]

2 minutes ago, Zeppelin said:

What would actually be fun is if GNR released a single every month and then compiled it into an album at the end of the year. If they wanted to do an approach like that, I think that would be fun. Unfortunately, that's not how it works either. We get two songs in one little period of time, with no knowledge of when (or if) we'll hear any other songs again. Even artists who release lots of single songs still have an album announced by that point.

Axl works in mysterious ways

[Tom2112]

It's not either answer really. 

I think Axl suffers from Jimmy Page syndrome where has lots of plans but is terrible at putting them into action. 

[Ratam]

I voted yes, but in it poll the skepticism is winner now.

[mystery]

16 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

It's not either answer really. 

I think Axl suffers from Jimmy Page syndrome where has lots of plans but is terrible at putting them into action. 

I think the whole saga of Chinese Democracy from 1998-2008 totally jaded Axl from the process of recording and releasing music. After it released he might've thought the music he'd done to that point was enough.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if any new releases are brand new songs and not stuff recorded during the Chinese Democracy sessions. The only real surprises would be songs with vocals that have never been heard.

[Nintari]

On 4/12/2022 at 2:23 PM, ©GnrPersia said:

Wrong assumption.

Metallica, Iron Maiden, Tool, Korn, Foo Fighters, Rammstein and many more are still active, releasing FULL albums and relevant.

I would say that maybe the Foos are somewhat relevant... but that's it. All the others you listed there are "who?" types of bands to gen Z. But that doesn't negate your point about putting albums out. The Scorpions, AC/DC... lots of acts that are way past the point of being "hip" or "relevant" are still doing it; most of them because it's something they actually like doing (creating art).

Kinda telling, isn't it? I think GNR (sadly), is just in it for the money now. What was once a fierce force of creative and artistic merit has been reduced to little more than a brand. Ugh.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Nintari

[Stay.Of.Execution]

52 minutes ago, Nintari said:

I would say that maybe the Foos are somewhat relevant... but that's it. All the others you listed there are "who?" types of bands to gen Z.

What? Rammstein is one of the biggest bands in the world, selling out stadiums within minutes.