Here Today... Gone To Hell!

ok here is something i was thinking about today. there are a few parallells between guns n' roses and michael jackson, apart from them being on the top of the world at approxomately the same time. michael jackson released "thriller" in 1982, the most sold record ever and considered a "perfect pop record" by alot of people. by 1987 he had released "bad", another good and slightly different record. following alot of touring, michal jackson then set himself a new goal. instead of releasing a greatest hits package, he went in the studio with the intention of making a record that could, if not out-do, then match "thriller", also in terms of album sales. the result was "dangerous", which dropped in late 1991, about the same time GNR dropped UYI. "dangerous" was a very diverse and complex record, and did gain michael jackson alot of new fans, but at the same time the complexity of the album alienated some fans, who preferred the old michael, no matter how good of a record "dangerous" was. still one of the best pop records ever made, it did not match "thriller" in terms of sales and popularity, far from it.

in 1987, guns n' roeses released "appetite from destruction", an explosive and original rock and roll record, the best selling rock debut album of all time, and by alot of people still considered to be the "perfect rock album". well we all know gnr's history i guess, so i'm going to make this one short. all in all, the pressure to follow up "appetite" was no easy task, just like following up "thriller" seemed damn near impossible, but in 1991, guns dropped "use your illusion", two album that were different from their predecessor but still good. following alot of touring, gnr went in seperate directions and eventually broke up, leaving the sole original member, axl rose, free to go into the studio with a new goal, to make the best damn record possible, a proper follow-up that could match appetite, seeing as the "illusions", in axl's own words "suffered alot as a consequence" of his giving into pressure to get them out. obviously axl has taken a decade longer than michael to do it, and the result will most likely be even better, but will "chinese democracy" suffer the fate of "dangerous?" confirmed by axl to be "a very complex record", axl is sure not to please everyone, he will without a doubt gain a lot of new fans and at the same time alienate some old ones. so the question is, is there any truth to what the new york times article once claimed, that axl wants to make "the best record ever made?" if so, it can very well be the best record ever made, but it will not match "appetite for destruction" in terms of sales and popularity, at least not in the close future. the world just isn't the same. so will axl's potential goal fail, like michael's once did, no matter how good the record is? personally i think axl just wants to put the best possible record out there, and let whatever happens in terms of sales and polularity, happen. only time will tell.

no matter how good CD is, the anti gnr press will never say its as good as appetite.  However most reasonable gnr fans shouldnt expect an appetite rather expect something new and unique that is great in its own right.

Appetite is in its own category.  I don't think Axl would ever again try to put out AFD pat II.  It doesn't seem possible to do so.

CD will be as close to a "perfect album" the rock industry has seen. (just my opinion)  UYIs were masterpieces and they were rushed.  10 Years = perfection!

It won't be comparable to AFD and anyone that tries to compare them doesn't know anything about music.  Maybe 1 or 2 songs but the album as a whole won't be comparable.  Just my opinion.  :-X

I doubt the fans will be disappointed. Then again, it is hyped up so much...

A GN'R album without Slash could disappoint more people than you would think...


I would compare "Dangerous" with the UYI albums not with CD.

'Dangerous' isn't a very good example. It had several hits, sold millions of records, and was a top seller of 1991-92. Axl will be lucky if CD "suffers" a similar fate. Although I do see the point you're trying to make. Maybe you should have used Jackson's album 'Invincible' as the example. He spent shitloads of money and alot of time on the making of 'Invincible', and it was a huge flop, and his career has never recovered from it, and the album practically shattered his over 20 year dream of "burying" Thriller.


GNR-Now, there is no "anti-GNR" press. How many times does that have to be proven?

they'll never be another afd.  The only fate I think it will receive is the it's not guns or it wasn't worth the wait..  There was one easy way to fix all this, and that was with the name.... When someone does a solo project you would focus more on the material alone then comparing it to the old..  I always pictured axl with a clean slate new band new music with a different name which would help his cause..

and as gnr fans why not compare this stuff to the old material.. ANytime a band comes out with something that's supposed to be mind blowing or took forver you have to use old material to set the bar..

I think the only reason the illusions had an afd following was because the songs had a lot of softness to them.. More radio friendly music, something your mom dad n grandmother could like (at least one song) AFD was more of the rock your parents didn't like which the kids loved.. I love the illusions, my only thing stated above was there was music the entire family could like..

Axl could have always said well this is a new band it's not gnr anymore so any sound I'm doing now is what I want to personally do, not along the gnr guidlines..

If people are expecting another Appetite I think they'll be disappointed. I think people need to listen to the new music with an open mind, and then make decisions.

Personally, Dangerous is my favourite Michael Jackson album, and one of my favourites of all time. Great record.

Yeah, it was a pretty good album. 'Remember the Time' is my favorite MJ song.


Mike, you hit the nail on the head about the 'was it worth the wait' reaction. That is a huge hurdle that this album has to jump over, and is the critical test of whether the album suceeds or fails. If the "water cooler" talk is about "we waited 13 years for this?", then CD is a failure, regardless of how many online people say its the greatest thing since sliced bread. If that line of talk isn't used, whether by media or fans, then Axl has everyone eating out of the palm of his hands and he's back on top. But he took way too much time on this, and he'll always run the chance of that decision slapping him in the face.

If AFD had not been so successful, UYI would have sounded different, rawer... And my aunt wouldn't have fallen in love with "November Rain". :-\

I believe Chinese Democracy will not have a good response from the old gnr fans. At least not at the day it drops. It happened before with the new songs we know, a lot of people didn't like them at first, because it was too much different. Once they realised the songs were good in its our way, a lot of people liked.

I guess the first impact will be more like "hey, it's not Guns N' Roses classic sound". But when people start to listen without a biased conception, they will be able to like.

Me, I'm pretty sure I'm gonna like it. I'm always open to new stuff... Maybe that's why I like Rhiad so much.

Thats a bold statement.  So you're saying people who dont like Riyadh are closed minded? My musical tastes range from Slayer, Death Angel, Veruca Salt to Barry Manilow, The Cure, and Peter Tosh. I'm very open minded, and so are others here and it still doesn't make Riyadh any less irritating to our ears.


Back to MJ: I wonder if Axl's reasoning to not release any EPs before CD's release is because of a lesson learned from watching Micheal Jackson's 'Blood on the Dance Floor' travesty? He released the EP like 2 or 3 years before Invincible, it flopped pretty bad, and it was the first nail in his coffin.

It aint too much for Axl to jam, Because hes bad, and quiet a thriller,It dont matter if hes black or white, cos hes startin with the man in the mirror, He just wants to rock with you, and maybe later hell let you beat it, as long as you keep it in the closet and promise not to scream. SORRY GUYS.

I know I might get slammed for this, but I predict CD stateside sales to probably be around 2 million.? However, worldwide sales could possibly be through the roof.? Invincibles stateside sales we're pretty meager considering the money that was involved.? I feel CD will suffer a similar fate.


The US music scene is really strange.? 20 years ago, rock was king.? Now, you got the young kids buying all that Pop Emo music, older people getting into Country, and the urban kids grabbing the R&B, rap stuff.? I really don't think the US is ready for a rock record to go through the roof stateside.? That and the fact that this isn't the original band, which means alot.? I think CD sale will be comparable the VR sales in the US.? If GNR is lucky.

I agree with Thorazine. Great worldwide sales but Us will probably only do a few million. 2-3 million is my prediction after a year and a half or so. They will sell a few more than VR and Audioslave but be much bigger worlwide. They will make a lot of money, just not as much as they did in the US before. : ok:

Internet and pirated editions of CD in Asia and South America will be perceptible on sales.

Great post, Thorazine. How much CD can sell here in the U.S. is literally the trillion dollar question. It could get a lukewarm response as you've suggested, or it could literally destroy every sales record. There's ONE thing this album has going for it that no other album does: Curiousity. In the week or two leading up to its release, it will mentioned through all media worldwide. Even starving babies in Africa will know of its imminent release. Call me crazy, but Axl could even raise the curiousity level by NOT releasing any singles prior to CD's release. Axl proved with his VMA appearance that people ranging from junior high kids, gangbangers, jocks, stoners, to even senior citizens are very curious when he walks out of his cave and starts singing.
 ?You're right: Global sales should be through the roof. Axl has always had a big following overseas, and they probably wont let him down. ?If every person in the U.S. who was a GNR fan buys CD, then it should exceed your sales estimates, and thats not even counting in the curiousity factor. Another big question is how much of Axl's fanbase has he alienated. We will find out on CD release day.

People in the US were not that curious about Axl and his new songs during the 2002 tour...

?Another big question is how much of Axl's fanbase has he alienated.


Now thats the trillion dollar question. ?Whenever I'm talking to people and mention NuGNR I always get the reaction "It isn't GNR without Slash". ?I agree that probably the first 2 weeks that CD would sell very well in the US. ?But even big bands like NIN and Coldplay drop significantly after the first 3 weeks of release. ?And they are at the top of the mole hill. ?

Other then the GNR community, the one thing that Axl has right now is curiosity. ?And its a damn good thing to have. ?My brother is 17, and I just cannot imagine him or his friends rocking out to CD. ?then you have the fans in their 30's who might refuse the NuGNR because it's not the same band. ?Not to mention if NuGNR goes back on tour and Axl becomes unhinged again. ?People aren't going to put up with that stuff. And considering the bulk of the money Axl will get will be from touring, he needs to act his age if he wants NuGNR to suceed.

Yeah, I bet those people knew Axl had new songs.  ::)


I guess people don't seem interested in hearing "Appetite For Destruction" either. Adler's Appetite isn't playing stadiums you know.  ;)


You seem to think that if the AFD- or UYI-era GN'R were still together, they'd still be huge and selling out stadiums even without releasing a new album. I don't agree. It worked in 1991, but that was a different time.




/jarmo

Yeah, there's a big difference between unleashing a new album on the world and touring on almost 20 year old material with no promotion. People cant really use the 2002 tour as an example when speculating on CD release sales. Its like comparing oranges to rotten bananas. :hihi:

CD is gonna be like a good wine, once you open it ( play it ) it gets better and better. CD should not be judged right away, its gonna take along time to get some momentum. Once that happens all hells gonna break lose. : ok:

Comparing Adler's Appetite with Axl's new band, that's what I would call comparing oranges to rotten bananas. :hihi:

People interested in Guns N'Roses knew in 2002 that the band was playing new songs. People saw them playing Madagascar at the MTV VMA.

And RIR in January 2001 also had some impact out of Brazil...

Are you saying people in London, UK and New York were more interested in hearing the new songs because GN'R sold out those shows?





/jarmo

I was in London that Monday and I can tell you that the arena in which they played was smaller than the Wembley Stadium. It was a small basket-ball arena. Being sold out there shouldn't be considered as encouraging.
Leeds was a festival. It's always sold out.
NY is a huge city... GN'R in the late '80s would have done 3 or 4 nights in the Madison Square Garden.

What about Los Angeles ? They had scheduled 2 concerts there if I remember well. At the Forum, isn't it ? One was cancelled because tickets were not selling well. And finally the other date was cancelled too, with the rest of the tour.

Last I checked, nothing anyone has released has come close to matching "Thriller" in terms of sales. ?It sold over 50,000,000 copies and was still far ahead of everything last time I saw the figures.

But at any rate, I see the point you're trying to make. ?And I agree with the common consensus that "Chinese Democracy", no matter how great, will fall way short of everything Appetite achieved. ?The critics will hate on it every chance they get.

But who cares? ?The way I see it, CD is our album. ?It's the pay-off for all the loyal fans who have stuck around like a cult and waited a decade for some new material. ?If it sells poorly that'll suck for Axl but at this point, we the fans deserve this album. ?That's all that really matters to me at this juncture.

I think CD's success is going to depend largely on the media and reviews.  Unfortunately, CD will NEVER live up to the hype that over ten years in the making has generated.  It will no doubt get comparisons to old GNR material which as any legit Guns fans knows is simply retarded.  There will be tons of "where is slash" comments as well (although I think the new songs we've heard have some pretty good guitar work).  Then theres also the "new direction" Axl is going in.
All that being said, if CD is simply amazing and you really can't NOT like it or give it a bad review and the media embraces Axl, I think it could be pretty huge. 
Right now, Rock is dead....I think its safe to say for years people have been waiting for someone, anyone to come along and ressurect rock to its greatness.  There is definitely a market out there.
Only time will tell I suppose.

You said people weren't interested in hearing the new songs and therefore didn't buy tickets:


So basically according to you, the people who saw the band in 1991 went because they wanted to hear the new songs from the UYI albums? I know I went because it was GN'R and the fact that they played new songs was a nice bonus.


I don't think the poor ticket sales in 2002 had anything to do with nobody wanting to hear the new songs. You can't go back on tour without a new album or at least a single getting airplay. Some bands tour when they release a Greatest Hits to promote it and GN'R didn't have that either.

I think you whole point of view is wrong. It seems like you're just intrested in bashing the "new" band until you get your reunion.



/jarmo

While I'm not sure why the 2002 sales were below expectations,  I don't think your point about needing a new CD/promotion to have a successful tour is totally true.  I think the stones, DMB, KISS, U2 etc... will ALWAYS have sold out shows simply b/c they have HUGE followings.  I don't think people go to Stones shows to hear their latest album, but simply b/c its the rolling stones.  yeah, they usually are promoting some kind of album, but I bet album sales for the last few records for most of the bands I mentioned are much lower then previous ones (U2 maybe the exception) - yet they still sell out and have VERY successful tours.

I would guess it was b/c of the reputation Axl has showing up late, the riots etc....the 2002 US tour didn't get off to a great start either.  THANK GOD there were no probs at the MSG show...last concert by GNR to date baby! :)  so glad I was there.  UNREAL show!

From what I've heard of the new songs, I don't think it will suffer the fate of Dangerous.

But the longer Axl leaves it the more likely even the more loyal fans will lose interest.

Some of those bands have been around longer than GN'R and some have been building large fan bases by releasing material and touring for years.


GN'R disappeared from the scene in 1993. Then in 2002 they're back and tour without any major promotion (album, compilation album etc).

U2 and The Stones have been releasing album and touring for a while.

Then you have bands like Pearl Jam who tour and release albums without the commercial success, but they still sell tickets because they have a very loyal fan base.

GN'R doesn't have a (big) loyal fan base because they haven't released anything in years. Most of the fans "grew up" and forgot about GN'R.

It's easier to forget a band that doesn't release albums or tours, than one that actually does.....



/jarmo

I don't think people forgot about GNR, how many times do you see them on a "best of" list or "greatest of all time" list...how many times do you hear jungle when you go to a sporting event?  How many times since 92 have we seen GNR parodied or Axl/Slash in a caricature in some way?  They are part of pop culture and always will be. Axl and Slash are larger then life in appearance and their stories are legendary, not to mention their songs.  I agree about them not being around as long as some of the other bands I mentioned, but I doubt KISS and the stones, even pearl jam are getting NEW fans and interest from their material over the last decade....its all from the older stuff.  After the VMAs there was a HUGE buzz about the band.  I think Axl/GNR's rep is just really tarnished and its going to take a lot to fix it.  I do agree that if CD is released and a tour happens it will do MUCH better then 2002 b/c of a new album to support it, but I don't think thats what really hurt 2002.

Very good point. Kids and teenagers are the biggest music purchasing demographic these days, and their into so many different types of weird ass music these days, it really is gunna be hard for Gn'R to come along and drop a rock album, no matter how stellar the material on it may be, and have it go through the roof, and rise lightyears abover their competition. Rock n' Roll is still a very active genre is the US, but you are absolutely right, it is becoming washed away by the tide of country, emo, etc..

I cerrtainly hope CD rises far beyond VR's sales when it is released, or that would just be one of the hugest kicks in the nuts Axl could get :-\

I think opening week, 500,000 copies minumum, 750,000 tops in the states which is a pretty strong debut in the US, and 900,000 copies in it's first week overseas..But I think it will single-handedly come down to Axl's determination and faith in the album, because that is largely what will fuel the promotion of the album, and hopefully seal the deal on a World Tour : ok:


Oasis has sold around the same amount of albums in the UK...


Or so Ive read in the Oasis thread... :hihi:


Nah, I prefer to think it will rise above my expections and that the critics will at least give it a unbiased listen, that way when they do, I wont be dissapointed ;)


That's what it all comes down to for me at least in the end...

I know even if Chinese Democracy is an album full of filler, I will still find many things to cherish annd appreciate on the record, even if I am the only one in the world with a copy. In my opinion, this is "my" album, "our" album, not the media or publics. They haven't waited years and years for Axl to return, they've only been commentating and hyping for the sake of something to write about...so you better believe us fans deserve this more than some NME hack. If it sells worth shit, ultimately I think Axl wont really care in all honesty, he'll finally have this chapter in his life complete, and he'll know he loves the album and his fans sure as hell do too..I mean it's gunna be damn near impossible to outsell any of Gn'R's previous albums except say Live Era, and TSI? :-\

A band like Pearl Jam can keep their old fans and get new ones because they keep touring and releasing albums. GN'R fans "only" have the old albums to listen to. As I mentioned, I think it's harder to keep your old fans interested when you don't really release anything for years.

I know some fans went to the 2002 shows because they remember GN'R from the past, but I don't think it was in the same way people go see Kiss or Rolling Stones.... That's my opinion...




/jarmo

You see, this is why Axl has put himself in a very difficult situation. Axl seems bent on changing GNR around a lot, and trying to create something contemporary. It seems he wants to distance himself from the past, which in turn will withought a doubt alienate fans of the old who remember why they liked GNR in the first place- the music they put out.

Then what do you think the majority of fans went for, since you feel only "some" went because they remember GNR from the past? ( and saw them play 92% of the old material, by the way)

 ??? ???

errr.. yeah, I'd be willing to bet the house on that as a matter of fact - Original GNR back playing stadiums? (even without a new album) - it would be huuuuge!

and Adlers Appetite is not a good comparison
he was never as well known,talented or recongnisable to GNR as Axl or Slash - c'mon  ::)

Gent, I don't think Jarmo meant if the old reunited, but if they remained  together all this time.

And if they had, I'd like to beleive that they could sell out stadiums in that scenario.

What I meant was, there weren't the same number of ?fans who went for the nostalgia as you might see at a Kiss concert. Whatever the reason is for that, I don't know for sure. I think it's partly because people have moved on as I've stated in earlier posts.





If they had stuck together and not released any albums but toured in 2002 with the AFD set, you think that would've happened? I'm not talking about a reunion tour.

I'm not sure. I think the chances would've been much bigger if that had happened after a succesfull Greatest Hits release.

Look at Motley Crue... They didn't just go on tour. They had a Greatest Hits with new songs plus a succesfull book.....



/jarmo

hmm, i totally disagree, i think it was all about the nostalgia.  without a new album what else would there be to go for?!!!?!??  Most people don't even know about the new songs, but still love their AFD and UYI's.  I think people got pumped about the chance to see Axl again, to hear their favorite songs live again.

I don't think you understood what I said.

I said some people went for the nostalgia, but the number of people who did that was in no way even close to the number of people who went to see Kiss or Motley Crue for the same nostalgia reason.

I think it's mainly because:

Those bands had lots of promotion for their tours (albums, book, Kiss Unplugged).


Pepe said nobody went to the shows because nobody wanted to hear the new songs. I disagree.


I think it's all about promotion and having a product out. GN'R had some promotion, but no product(s) out. Imagine if that tour had happened in 2004 after the Greatest Hits was released....



/jarmo

Jarmo,
Telling that isn't fair. I sincerely hope that Axl will succeed with his new band (yes it's a new band, not GN'R anymore, like it or not). If they tour again I will pay myself a ticket and will go to see them (I already did it twice, had to travel by plane to do so).

I will buy Chinese Democracy the first day it is released. No doubt about it.

The problem (perhaps it's only my problem) is that I don't see too many reasons to be optimistic. The gap between the original Guns N'Roses (even without Steven and Izzy) and Axl's new band is so huge that I understand why people didn't attend massively the 2002 shows. I really feel uneasy with this band being called "Guns N'Roses". There's something wrong.
I think people felt that too in 2002. Including Axl.
The old fans who would have been tempted to attend one of these shows because of nostalgia were dissuaded by the new line-up. And most of them didn't care about the new songs.



Concerning a reunion, it is unlikely, but... who knows ? I'm ready to bet that it would be very successful. :peace:



PS: I couldn't answer before 'cause I had to work a little bit.

the 2002 tour was just a really bad decision of axl. it was mistake over mistake imo. they played mainly old songs so it was a nostalgia tour. but it was a totally different band without SLASH. the reason why the stones get more people attending is because they are around for 40 years and never stopped releasing albums or touring. and the time they were REALLY succesful was much longer than gnr`s. gnr were only 6 years around and it`s hard to become legendary in such a short timeframe.     

@ jarmo: you said that most of the "old" fans forgot about gnr. and that`s right. here in germany i often meet people who were really into gnr after the illusions, but than nothing happened and they went on. most people are wondering if axl`s still alive.....

but back to the 2002 tour: there was no slash, no promotion, no album and axl didn`t show up for the first concert.....   and the media wasn`t really into praising axl and the new band....

Jarmo made some really good points about a huge piece of the GNR fanbase "moving on" after the UYI era ended. The band quickly unraveled, and the majority of the GNR fanbase were at the age where they either got real jobs, went to college, got married, had kids,etc. It then became easy to "forget" about GNR. Only the extremely hardcore still cared.
 The question is will these people embrace Axl with open arms when he makes a "real comeback" by releasing CD? I believe the answer is yes. Sure, there have been many no shows, a couple riots, a few controversial songs, but Axl or old GNR never did anything so terrible that would permanently scar their relationship with their fanbase. The success of VR proves this point.
  A good example of a star destroying the relationship with most of his fans permanently is (and going back on topic) Michael Jackson. When most people found out he was a child molester in the mid 1990's, it ruined their image of him, and his career has never recovered. His albums always have mediocre sales, and his tours got so bad he even stopped doing that. His career is literally dead, and he has zero hope of recovering it. That is not the case with Axl/GNR. As long as Axl is still with us and the GNR spirit is still alive, there is always a chance for a big comeback.

WARose, the 2002 was a disaster for many reasons:
- NO SLASH (the most important reason, by far)

then,

- a very poor promotion and a weak Management (zero promotion)
- The Physicall aspect of the band (Axl's physicall degradation, Buckethead and Robin extremely weird styles).
- The goth/robotic/futurist aspect of the band. People hated that.
- The loss of the "Rock n' Roll" aspect of one of the greatest ROCK band in the world, the loss of the Rock n' Roll identity of the band.
- riots
- No new album, nothing to promote.

Beleive it or not, this drew many to GNR when they were the "most dangerous band in the world" back in the day. But it didn't fly in '02.

I went for nostalgia myself... I had no ideas what to expect but knew the old songs were being played and I wanted to see axl live again..

so what did you think overall? sorry, i don't remember reading reviews from you at the time..
what was your impression of the new lineup and the new songs?

i thought the show was really good, they played very well live.. I couldn't have told you who was onstage back then.. It also was very hard to hear the opening riff to jungle and not see slash....  mSG was definetly a great show music wise but not seeing anyone from the gnr I knew growing up was tough.. The entire afd lineup that sparked the interest in millions was gone.. Honestly it was weird.. I went to see axl and hear him sing some gnr tunes that I hadn't heard live in a decade..

It felt like a tribute band at times because we were all singing the songs word for word from back in the day.. Like a bunch of drunks at a bar..Listening to covers is sometimes easy because you don't have to see the missing members sinc ethe singer is the same, but it's much different live hearing the bass or the lead and not being able to put the mental image together

So to sum it up a excellent show, axl was high energy, but it wasn't guns to me..

Jacko dyed his skin, built up a fantasy world, accused of molesting many children and his crownies all along were just sucking up and telling him his kind of music is revelant when it wasn't and that is what hurt his fan base.

Axl, even in the live bootlegs heard, has adapted to change so there is no way it could fall into the same catergory. 

I think some people just haven't moved on and are still hoping the old guns will get back together or just can't let go of the fact that slash and co. aren't in the band anymore.  I think Axl reallly needs to make it clear that thi is a NEW band, it just seems to me like a lot of people in 02 and even now to some degree are still asking "where is slash". 

This will always be unavoidable.

As long he keeps the name.

Not an issue that Michael Jackson is facing. To be a solo artist has its good sides. :hihi:

Even if he loses the name, Pepe.

MJ is a poor example. He was really a solo artist from the beginning, without contributing band members to speak of.

I don't think it would have been to wise for him to use "The Jackson 5"... it would've made no sense.

True. I don't get why people keep bringing up MJ. ??? Was Axl a child star?


I bet the majority of those who bought AFD or attended the concerts in the last century don't think about GNR like everyday.  ;) Out of sight out of mind, man.
Not all the then GNR fans were diehard. GNR songs appealed to the general public. Otherwise they wouldn't have made such a huge success.

When the album in which everybody will find at least a few favs comes out, they will win the hearts of music enthusiasts. Massive New fans will come in and some of the old casual fans will come back.

The 2002 tour might have been unfortunate. But it wasn't all that bad. Thanks to the shows I heard the new songs and became a fan.

well as long as you bill it as gnr some might wonder or even expect someone from the band they knew.. Took me some time to know there was a return of gnr of any kind and who was in the band..

Dangerous was actually a fairly huge album. Invincible is probably the best barometer around if you want to compare

i know dangerous was huge, chinese democracy will be huge too, it's bound to.
i thought about using invincible as an example but it didn't fit what i was trying to say.
sure CD will have hits and headline a tour, but will it live up to axl's expectations, like dangerous (one of my fav. albums also) failed to do for michael personally?

Sure it did, but I guess you didn't see it that way. With the recent rumours about GH2 and the rampant speculation that CD is nearly done, you think he would be bold enough and release a 'HiStory' type album and have CD be 1 disc and an Axl's greatest hits be the 2nd disc? I wonder if  using such a tactic would alienate the 'new' bandmembers?
 The plan would make some sense. It would be a safe way to release CD. You would have all the people buying it just for CD, and a bunch of people buying it for the hits. But the negative side of such a move would be CD not standing on its own, and having to use the back catalogue as a crutch.

No. I said MAYBE people open minded - like me, I guess - could like the song more than closed minded ones.

I may be wrong, but I bet once people hear a better version of Rhiad (soundboard or studio) it will change a lot of people's opinion about it.

Rhiad is not so bad... Silkworm is worst!!

I agree with that. Its a very unconventional song, and I would definitely like to hear the studio version before making a final judgement. I wonder if he regrets playing the song live without people hearing an album version? Its obviously the kind of song that doesn't go over well live, or at least on bootlegs. :hihi: Maybe it sounded better if you were actually there at the show. I dont know. He sounds terrible, and in my opinion, its his worst live moment. I can imagine the fans being disinterested, and I can imagine him being frustrated at the crowd reaction and how he sounds singing it. You want another GNR riot? Have Axl sing Riyadh a few times in a row. :hihi:

You should pay some attention to the instrumental of the song. It's their best work IMHO (though I've been listening to IRS more carefully and can def hear great rhythm guitars and bass).

ive lost any faith i had in axl. www.wikipedia.com, search axl rose, when you read about what he plans to do with chinese democracy and its "follow ups" and then you listen to I.R.S, its like....rock with hip-hop ghetto beats and then a bit of industrial thrown into the mix. id rather him take out the crappy hip-hop element and make a good album.

Axl Rose spoke with MTV News' Kurt Loder by phone from Los Angeles on Monday, November 8, and he had quite a bit of light to shed on all things Guns N' Roses...



Loder: What have you been doing for the last six and a half years, since the last tour ended?

Rose: Trying to figure out how to make a record.

Loder: Ah, you already knew how to do that, right?

Rose: I originally wanted to make a traditional record or try to get back to an "Appetite [For Destruction]" thing or something, because that would have been a lot easier for me to do. I was involved in a lot of lawsuits for Guns N' Roses and in my own personal life, so I didn't have a lot of time to try and develop a new style or re-invent myself, so I was hoping to write a traditional thing, but I was not really allowed to do that.

Loder: What prevented you from doing, like, a traditional rock record?

Rose: Slash.

Slash wanted to do a NIN record probably. :hihi:

Or didn't want to record the songs Axl wanted to record.....  :P



/jarmo

I meant as far as one specific album, head-to-head, no one has matched "Thriller's" album sales.? There's probably alot of bands that have surpassed that number with multiple releases combined.

By Michaels standards Vince didn?t do wonderfully, but it wasn?t necessarily a huge flop. It?s record sales were still better than most other artists out there. And it wasn?t ignored. Fact is, it just wasn?t a very good album.

But Blood on the Dancefloor is actually Michael?s best work. Obviously not the remixes (yuck) but the five original songs -and this is something that most MJ fans seem to agree on. I guess the only problem there is that many casual or non fans don?t know about the hidden treasure that is Morphine or Is It Scary, and so will never see that side of Michael.

Does an artist have to sacrifice a level of talent so the pop consumers can swallow their music easily, or just hope that their music is that good that it will be accepted? How much commercial credibility will the songs from CD actually have, especially if people keep using words like Epic to describe them?



jameslofton29,  I have to nit pick? ?Found out??? You say that as if it?s fact. It?s not.

Oh,cmon! There's a dead thread in The Jungle where blind people discuss that topic. Maybe you should resurrect it. Any man who sleeps with children and takes Webster out on a date instead of Brooke Shields has serious issues and needs help. Thats all I'll say on that subject.

none of that is illegal. it doesnt make him a paedophile. nore does it deal with the fact that though thesedays he may not be breaking records, he's still doing better than basically every artist out there in sales.

Soooo your saying you'd let your kids sleep with him...? :hihi:

well if that's your conclusion, it's sad. michael jackson is the best and most caring person you can imagine, so says anyone who has ever known him. his own lack of childhood makes him want to reach out to children today, and in addition to that, he thinks too highly of people so he expresses himself a little naive sometimes to the media, which money hungry losers of course take advantage of. his kindness makes him an easy victim, and it's sad. now go gobble up the rest of what the media has to say. oh, by the way, did you hear that axl's ex-girlffriend accused him of raping her? must be true then, after all, it was in the media. :nervous:

There's a big difference in being accused of rape then there is in admitting you sleep with children. He likes kids? So what. I like kids too. I have some really cool cousins who come over ocassionally to play my video games. Sometimes they even stay the night. But I dont sleep with them, and cant imagine a psycho that would want to. Well, there's one psycho that would, and he's the topic of this discussion.

And here I was thinking this was the Guns N Roses forum...

It is. You're the one that turned the topic from comparisons to MJ albums to questioning whether MJ sleeps with kids.

Jarmo, what happened to Jeff Boerio?  I know he was friends with Robert John, did he lose his insight after John and Axl had a falling out?

He still runs the mailinglist. Regarding his connections to GN'R, I have no idea.



/jarmo