i was thinking this yesterday after reading that the new guns and roses albums is still not finished after wait for it 10 YEARS i no axl and co are hard living rockers but 10 years its got to be taking the michael:(

Guns 'n' Roses were never very quick at getting their albums out though were they?! I'm presuming "Guns 'n' Roses" no longer includes Slash, Duff, Matt, Izzy or Gilby etc? And that it only really includes Axl? Didn't Axl buy the naming rights for GNR?

Anyway I think 10 years is excessive but I think it depends on the quality of the album and whether it was worth waiting for. Didn't Def Leppard's Hysteria album take a couple of years to make? Although I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether you think that album is any good or not!

Also depends whether taking ages over an album is going to make the band disappear off the radar or if they're an established, long existing band (like say, I dunno, someone like Pink Floyd?) then I don't think that a delay before the next album matters that much. Or whether any fans of a teeny bopper band will have grown up and moved on so that they no longer care about a new album!

So depends on the band and how decent the new album is when it eventually comes out. But 10 years is a bit crazy.

i think axl is the only original left of gnr im sure one album what took a long time was the new prodigy one which i didnt like that much, i think the band boston took 9 years to do their 3rd album
:o

It depends on the quality I think, Kate Bush has a new album out soon, it's been years since her last one.

Lou mentioned Pink Floyd. It is eleven years [I think] since their last studio album, 'The Division Bell'. They, according to an interview with Dave Gilmour, have no plans to work together in the immediate future. They don't play live together either. I wonder if we should stop thinking of them as , 'an established, long existing band'. In truth, the band no longer really exists as a creative force!

The Beatles recorded their first studio album Please Please Me in one day - roughly 12 to 14 hours! Obviously it was all a bit different back in 1963, recording in mono (although there were stereo mixes) on two tracks, and more or less recording 'in session' with just a few overdubs - in this case, George Martin's piano - added later.

Of the 14 tracks (on the album which lasts no longer than 35 minutes!), 4 were already in the can: Love Me Do, PS I Love You, Please Please Me and Ask Me Why. They then knocked-off the other ten in one long session, ending with Twist & Shout. Lennon's voice had gone by then - audible on the track, so that was it.

I reckon if an album can't be recorded in a couple of months, it probably shouldn't be recorded at all. These days, groups take nine months just to get a ride cymbal sounding right. Takes the spirit out of the whole thing if you ask me.

Axl is too busy having plastic surgery. Google for some pictures of his tight red face. He's going to be rock's answer to Joan Rivers!

At least Slash has grown old gracefully. :D

I kinda agree with Ousetunes but with me it's remastering. They take months remasteriing some old rock'n'roll song so when I hear it, it is nothing like my juke box ear remembers it. Like Phil Spector said, Back To Mono

axl is the only remaining orignal member...dizzy is still there thou. the album has been stop-starting for some time and every year i hear it is `in the can, ready for release' im a huge fan but its even testing my patience (luk at that for a pun!)

i have heard some new songs and i do like them...but its not the classic gnr sound so will prob get slated when/if it is released.

its had about 6 producers, 8 guitarists....and it is officially the most expensive album never released.

i saw them live twice on the last tour and it was fantastic.


i think its too much tinkering with music that slows it down, hysteria only tuk a while because of rik allen losing his arm and having to re-learn the drums 1 handed.

whitesnake used to release a album a year for about 7 years.

i expect 3 years between most peoples albums....anything more and i get annoyed

Originally posted by timo
Lou mentioned Pink Floyd. It is eleven years [I think] since their last studio album, 'The Division Bell'. They, according to an interview with Dave Gilmour, have no plans to work together in the immediate future. They don't play live together either. I wonder if we should stop thinking of them as , 'an established, long existing band'. In truth, the band no longer really exists as a creative force!
OK, that's me corrected! I was just trying to give an example. But I didn't realise they weren't planning on working together anymore. But my point was that whilst at some stages of their career they were releasing albums each year but then they had breaks of 5 years or so between other albums.

So maybe I'd say someone like U2 or REM (or someone else). They've been around for ages. Or Kate Bush (!), who nick2 mentioned. There'd still be plenty of people who'd buy her music. (Not me personally though!).

But then I'd agree with Ousetunes that The Beatles could knock out albums in no time and their music is great.

I still say it depends on the band/artist and how good the music is when they release it. Yes a band/artist could release a great album in no time but if a decent, well established band (OK, not Pink Floyd! :) ) take longer over releasing a decent album it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by feargal
Axl is too busy having plastic surgery. Google for some pictures of his tight red face. He's going to be rock's answer to Joan Rivers!

Woah, just Googled this. See here (www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/000252.html). That is a bit scary!

that is scary he kinda reminds me of someone but for the life of me i cant remember who:loopy:

Yep, Axl's plastic surgery has not been kind, although he does have a while to go before he gets this (http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/000351.html) bad.

I don't think a new Guns recording will ever be released - and anyway seeing as it's only Axl now (sorry, refuse to count Dizzy - really what did he ever do??) it's no longer the blend of personalities that came together to do Appetite, Lies and the Use Your Illusion CD's, just an over inflated sense of self importance on Axl's part:( :(

well dizzy played keyboards and piano on use your illusions and toured the world with them....thats what he did. :)

and matt sorum had no personality but did a great job replacing steven adler on drums.

buckethead has gone....but if he hasent got personality then no one has!! the guy is a genius and barking mad .... great stuff!


i saw them live and axl didnt really luk THAT bad....ok a bit shiny on the face and bulked up from martial arts training....the really bad thing is the hair! jeez man..ur not whoppie goldberg.

anyways...i dont care how he luks...its the music that counts...and if he ever releases new stuff im sure i will luv it. :cool: