Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Chinese Democracy Reviewing Rules:

1) Don't judge on the time taken to make the songs.

This is going to be the biggest point critics' are going to make..."this is what we get after ten years!". It's totally stupid. No one knows how much time was actually spent on the individual songs or the album as a whole. I've heard timespans of five years, ten years and even fifteen years! "There Was A Time" could have been written in two years or it could have been written in a week - no one but the band knows. Also, just because Axl has not released anything major in ten years does not mean he has spent every single second working on this record.

2) Don't judge the album expecting/wanting to hear 'classic' GN'R

This is a completely different band to 'classic GNR', as we have heard. Even though it's called Guns N' Roses, judge it as if it wasn't...

3) Don't compare the new tunes to the classic ones.

Different band = different music

4) Admit to liking the songs!

If you like the songs, say so. Don't grumble about them being "...umm...okay...not too bad...", or hide your love for them because you're an old-school fan and you don't believe the new band is Guns N Roses.

5) Don't jump on the bandwagon

I gaurantee you, when the album is released a lot of critics are going to poison your mind with their blinkered view of Axl Rose. Don't fall for it...! Even the ones who shoot down Axl the most are probably secretly rocking out to "TWAT" with their "Chinese Democracy" t-shirts on...! Don't be like these critics - who have to censor what they say to please the taste of their emo-loving editors - instead, be like Axl Rose and have some balls!

Sir, yes Sir!!

first, we'll need a release date

!

if i like it, ill say i like it. if its a pile of crap ill say its a pile of crap. ill give my reasons for either. But i disagree with not being able to compare to original albums, as the name is still guns n roses, this isnt a debut, this a follow up...just a over due one lol.

I really think that not putting on any bias because of the 8 year wait is BS....

It has taken a long time, so I expect great songs... period.

So that is that. Trying to judge CD and the songs we have like Axl released an album 2 years ago is stupid. There hasn't been any official Gn'R stuff since the End of Days soundtrack.

Time is a big issue. If the songs aren't special then neither was our wait of "years"

Yes it is a debut, for most of the band anyways. ?It's a totally different band that plays totally different music.

Apples to oranges dude...

I suppose you thought of publishing these rules so people can follow a concrete example of how to properly review the songs the band produces...

A follow up...? It's different people making the music - how can you compare...?

Do you compare Bon Jovi's last album to... say...Aerosmiths' first album..? No. Why? Because it's different people making the music.

The name is just a name. It didn't make the music. It can't. It's just words. Words don't play guitar.

Lets not get off the area here.

Axl Rose is the lead singer/writer, and Dizzy Reed joined in 1990. Also, we do not know what songs/ideas that were from 92-98 before everyone left that will be in CD.

You can compare.... you can.

Same name, 2 people from the band... and probably a lot of ideas that "slash" didn't want to do.

ARC-

People would follow the rules to a T if the album was not being released under the Guns N' Roses brand name.

Axl wants the media exposure and brand recognition the Guns name brings with it, so he also has to deal with the comparissons/expectations associated with releasing an album under that brand name.

1) Don't judge on the time taken to make the songs.
It's going to happen.... He did it to himself. And it's not a stupid point.
In most peoples eyes, even the 'haters', Axl is a musical genius. Therefore based on the time frame and the ammount of times songs have been re-worked (allegedly) we should be getting "The Greatest Album Ever Recorded"
So yes the gact that it took him 10 years to create and release it is relevent. It's not like he has a day job and is doing the "music thing" on the side.

2) Don't judge the album expecting/wanting to hear 'classic' GN'R

If Mick Jager reformed the Stones with Studio musicians and an Indie Bass player and called it the Stones, guess what, he is going to be flamed and they are going to be compaired to the Stones.

If Paul decided to call himself and 3 random musicians 'The Beatles', guess what,...... do I really need to continue on with this.

3) Don't compare the new tunes to the classic ones.

That is the only measuring stick on which we have to measure Axl's progress.... didn't 90% of the people here compare Contraband to old GnR material (I guess Axl should be given a different set of rules than the rest of the original band)
All of this could have been avoided by Releasing Chinese Democracy as W. Axl Rose and not Guns N' Roses.

 
4) Admit to liking the songs!

Fair enough, but this again goes back to the 10 year issue. Someone may like a song, but may have been expecting alot more after 10 years and all the talk of 'Big Guns'.
I like IRS for example, but 1. it doesn;t hold a candle to anything on AFD and after all of this time the guitar work is very bland. It's alright....... Explain to me how my opinion of the song is wrong.... and how i have to simplify it to yes I like it or no I don't???

5) Don't jump on the bandwagon

What band wagon the love Axl, or Hate Axl bandwagon?

The old fans will probably love the album, and the fact that we would rather have the old band doesn't take away from that. So when an obvious fan of the old band posts a postive review is that jumping on the bandwagon (the bandwagon that most of them have been on since the 80's (not 2002))

We got a winner. The smarter fans of music will pick up what he is trying to do.. Move in different directions and hopefully they will remember that while reviewing each song. Cause thats what needs to be done.. I have a feeling each song of CD will be a much different then the next.

If it's a different band, then use a different name. Even Jefferson Airplane changed their name to Jefferson Starship when they changed all members and decided to suck.

You make good points but, guess what, a lot of neautral fans and critics are going to be jumping on bandwagons, and they're probably going to be negative.

"Oh, it's not really Guns N Roses - lets slam it no matter how good it is..." etc. etc...

I guess I'm making the point that it should be judged on what it is, and not what it isn't - i.e. Guns N Roses

Thankyou for pointing out what 99% of the GNR community tends to forget when discussing the Guns situation.

People on this board think there is some conspiracy toward Axl that the media hates him. That is simply not the case, he just has continually gotten killed in the press the past few years because of the name issue.

Him calling his band GNR is no different than PM touring as the Beattles with a back-up band. McCartney doesn't face that fire storm because he doesn't call his solo stuff Beattles stuff. Axl wouldn't face a quarter of the scrutiny he does if he wasn't passing this off as GNR stuff.

I don't care he kept the name, but at least people should realize him doing so promotes/encourages the negativity that follows him.

yet people compare the more recent oasis albums to the older ones when, its only the 2 brothers left, original. New gnr, have 2 original members, axl rose and dizzy reed.

I dont care if its a different line up, there are loads of bands who have line up changes, they still have the name so people by the album in anticipation because they are fans of the band.

Its like saying we can only compare 70s ac/dc albums and not any of the later ones because the only original members left were angus and his bro until recent.

I agree completely.  I'd say in most cases the avg. person doesn't even notice a line up change when its a diff basist or drummer.  By your logic AxlRoseChild, if Marilyn Manson records album A with 1 group of musicians and then Album B with a different group of studio guys you can't compare the two.....doesn't work that way.  By keeping the name, its only fair that the new songs be compared to other Guns CDs/songs.

What I find interesting is, the name Axl Rose is pretty popular on its own.  I think its just as popular and recognizable as GNR.  I don't think he needed to keep it GNR to get all the benefits that come along with it.  Personally, I'm glad he did b/c GNR stands for something to me - which is why if this CD is COMPLETELY different from what we're used to, people are going to say, what is this, its not GNR!!!  and they'll have a right to. 

Thank god there are people here like you guys... sometimes I feel like I am talking to members of a cult on here.  "Oh look this bean is shaped like Axl.... I'll just put him on the shelf with the other Axl beans."  I am considered an "Axl hater" on here because of saying things like this when it is the absolute truth.  I really do like Axl's music, I still love old GNR, and I will listen to new GNR when it comes.

As far as the original post, I think it is ridiculous... as others have said VR was compared to old GNR, Oh My God, and all the new songs played live. 

I agree with your other points(well,most of it), but disagree with^^one. The media conspiracy does not exist. The only way the media will "go negative", is if this turns into another 'AFD Rehash starts now' tour. Then, they will go negative and be brutal.

... but there's a HUGE difference ...

The two brothers in Oasis are the two main members/frontmen of the band. The only real comparison in this context would be if Axl and Slash were left in Guns N Roses. They are not.

My points made and Hannahats have just made the majority of your points against what i think invalid. Hannahat hit the nail with the manson thing.


Also if i should add more i spose we could say whitesnake, dave lee roth solo.

Slash was a huge part of Guns for sure.  But if he broke his hand while on tour, someone could have came in and played his parts.  Axl blows out his vocal chords, you have a cancelled concert.  The lead singer, especialy in Axl's case, is the most important and recognizable part of a band:

When Kurt died, Nirvana didn't even think about replacing him
When Morrison died, the Doors tried to go on without him with Ray singing lead vocals - it was a miserable failure

If scott stapp wanted to fire all the guys in creed and keep the name, nobody would care if he did (well nobody cares about creed, but you get my point)

Exactly!

...so...

Axl could join my band, with three of my friends, call it Guns N Roses, bring out a record and you would compare it to "Appetite For Desruction"...? ?:confused:

Yes because youd be official members. If he called it gnr, since he owns the name, its exactly the same as any other person he has hired, who was gilby clarke before he was in gnr?

True they were Jefferson Airplane THEN Jefferson Starship AND THEN Starship. "We built this city on Rock N' Roll" Ugh.

and how come nobody said "CHANGE THE NAME" when izzy and adler were gone??  If slash left in 92, making 3 of the original 5 guys now not in the band, would he have to change the name then??? 

Good question... but it's irrelevant because we are talking about NOW. And now, there is only one original.

Does that mean that we can't compare "Appetite For Destruction" To the "Use Your Illusions" Albums since they had a different drummer? Plus after that Izzy left.

So when did they stop being Guns N' Roses?
After Steven Adler was gone?
After Izzy Stradlin was gone?
After Slash was gone?
After Duff was gone?
???

Just read your own words here and tell me the current band is Guns N' Roses...

Yes we are talking about now. New guns n roses album. if i didnt check out the line ups and i saw an advert saying "new guns n roses album" id listen to it and compare it to old.

Its guns n roses, axl decided to keep that name so hence he must be compared to the legacy he and other muscianists created, He could have quite easily called it axl rose solo.

What about Van Halen & AC/DC? They were pretty successful with new lead singers.

Don't get me wrong the lead singer is the hardest band member to replace but it can be done - nothing is absolute.
What if Slash had owned the rights to the Guns N' Roses name?

BTW: The Doors & Queen just reformed with new lead singers...

If that's the case then I guess it shouldn't be called Guns N' Roses then, Right?

lol bang on. I think this arguement is won.

totally hear you, its not impossible or illegal to replace a lead singer :)  VH and AC/DC were pretty lucky.  I can think of TONS of other bands that tried and failed miserably.  Look at how Motley was laughed at.  If Slash owned the GNR name and brought a snakepit guy or Scott W. on to lead GNR....wow.   :rofl:   I think that would have been the biggest flop in the history of rock....but yes, people would compare. 

People CONSTANTLY compare Sammy to Dave when it comes to Van Halen, but both are still van halen - thats why i think axl rose child is incorrect on this point.

... is the correct answer.

lol dont twist it.

i think everyone is makin valid points!

1 THE NAME
Axl is a grown man whos knows the business, he surly would of considered all the points already made, in his opinion he did what he wanted to/ felt right, maybe he wants to be compared to old gnr, who knows?? Axl Knows! Maybe management n rest of the band but we dont know the exact thought process he went though. i think all we can do is judge for ourselves in anyway we see fit and take into account line up changes, different visions, If we want to take them into account. and then we can judge if axl did the correct thing in our own opinions.

2 BANDWAGONS
I believe certainpeople have made up there minds already about this subject and whetever the albums gonna be anygood etc etc. I really hate this type of thing, and in my own opinion people like this tend to be narrow minded or easily influenced. but its up to them. i would rather save judgement till the album/gigs, all i can say is i like what iv heard so far. some poeple have already jumped on bandwagons tho, my best friend is a huge gnr fan but says the new album is a pile of shit! (i dont know how he knows this, but when it is realeased will prob stick to this opinion) but i on the other hand there are people who are gonna say they love it and wont hear otherwise (prob me in this catagory) and these people will probably love the album. I just feel its up to the individual and ur allowed to express our own opinion.


Mine is

I Fuckin love Guns and Roses, Axl, Slash etc and will probably be fans of all there musical directions and albums etc

ps sorry if im ramblin but just got bk from pub

Hey don't forget about that guy from Extreme? :hihi: Okay try to forget about him...

Have you heard about this?

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/van%20halen%20to%20be%20next%20reality%20rock%20stars_13_02_2006

Neon, i heard about that the first time it came around, but thought the band shot it down.  good for them, I think thats pretty cool.  I always though the VH brothers were kind of assholes too so i'm sure they'll rip on the contestants nicely.  One thing though, they really can't have any chicks do this show.  I mean, it'll be such a token appearance if they do.  INXS could have a chick, but not VH. 

That's what Axl got to use to if he uses GNR name.
I agree it must be compared, if this is GNR I will compare, it's natural.

This album could be cows farting for an hour and id STILL say it was the best cd id ever heard.

 

hahahaha...very funny.. but oh so true

cows farting are very intruiging

lol imagine that, we're waiting 10 years for the return of rock and all we get is cows farting..

lmao....id outfart any cow  :smoking:

prove it

You are really that closed minded? Damn. Mental note made to skip over your posts in the upcoming "Post your CD review" thread.

that fucking line made me laugh so hard, like he was barking out the strict rules of how to approach the reviewing of these tunes :rofl: :rofl: :hihi: :hihi:

OMG, HTGTH has become a stalinist propaganda site? Is this the Kominform?  :nervous:

exactly, this is ridiculous ;D

I think another point should be that people must be entitled to their own opinions. Too often, people are slammed just because they dislike a new song etc. Honesty is good and if we want to know what people think of Chinese Democracy we have to listen & consider their point of view. G&R fans can't all destroy others and make excuses for them not liking it i.e. He has it in for Axl.

So far I've heard 10 tracks from the new GnR, and on a scale of 1-10, i'd give the new stuff a

3/10

as in, i've liked thre of the 10 tracks I heard

how's that for adhering to the rules (which are ridiculous)

Bandwagon = the metaphorical thing people jump on when they don't share the same opinions as YOU.

Hell yes!!
:hihi: I woulda written all that (or something akin) if I hadn't been so dog tired from stayin' up all night again last night and then having to get up early to have a driving lesson... :hihi:

Driving lesson? Peg some poor pedestrian for me!

On topic, the key to reviewing CD is going to be to review the songs by themselves and block out all the BS surrounding the CD. But that's not going to happen in a lot of cases for mainstream critics, because they sell more papers/magazines/rags by taking potshots.

Putting oneself in the headline is the easiest way to gain attention, and a lot of shoddy journalists do it.

:rofl: I would have run over a couple of stupid chavs that ran across the road right in front of me, but my driving instructor slammed on the brakes, so I blasted the horn and yelled "YOU MOTHERFUCKIN' STUPID CHAV FUCKHEADS!!" out the window at them... :hihi:

Back on topic.... the critics better not bring out the whole predictable bullshit about "oooh this albums been in the making for 13 years!! WHY haven't we got 100 songs? WHY haven't we got this, that and his dog!? blah blah blah yaddayadda BULLSHIT!" or else I'm going to march down there with my New Rocks on and kick every critic's nuts in there! And if their female, get into a good old fashioned catfight! : ok:

Indeed. I look at the UYI/TSI lineup as a totally different band than the one that recorded AFD - And it was. The vibe and dynamic was very different and not as cohesive. I hate how just because Slash and Duff were still around, no one cares that two members of the band had been replaced.

For that very reason, I think that the "Chinese Democracy" version of the band deserves the GNR name just as much as the band that recorded UYI and TSI. But this time, for the better - As I think that the CD project is already a far more interesting and musically dynamic thing than the UYI's were.

Oddly enough cows farting is a bigger source of air pollution than you may think. Seriously.

Thats what killed the dinosaurs.

lol, your a cow investigator?  :o

Also I'd like to add this: If people are allowed to prasie the shit out of songs with BS like "Oh my God this is the greatest song of all time" and "Axl is the king becasue this album is the best album in history" than people should be allowed to say that the songs completely suck ass if that's how they feel. If I think a song fucking rules and rocks harder than most anything I've heard in a long time(Better) I should be allowed to say it but if I thik somthing sucks the big one and it's total trash(Oh My God) than I should be allowed to. It's called having an opinion. Not everyone hates or likes things "Just because" or just for the sake of it. :peace:

So true. Imagine Bono going off with 3 new musicians and calling it U2.  Even Bono, who is worshiped by his fans, would ripped  to shreads for that. Like others have mentioned; there is no conspiracey against Axl. He's done it to himself with the way he treats fans, the way he conducts himself, with how long this whole thing has taken and also the issue with the Gn'R name. I'm sure he knows that so why alot of the  fans can't seem to grasp that is beyond me.

What the fuck is up with your avatar?  It makes me laugh everytime I see it! :rofl:

Axl can pull off GNR with him being the lone original meber. His voice is very noteworthy for being Axl. You would never get anyone else confused with him. IMO Axl is the sound behind GNR. McCartney was not the sound of the Beatles. U2 have been around for so long it would not feel right if he got 3 new members, but over time it might be possible to accept. My 2 cents  :peace:

I think whether a band survives after a semi-break up is whether the most important person leaves or not. The doors had a rough time of it because Jim Morrisson was obviously the most important person.  But with AC/DC and Van Halen, the most important people in my opinion were the guitarists. And they stayed, and the remeained successful. Axl was the most important member of gnr, there fore...

mental note made to not give a shit

Do you really think media exposure is what Axl is after? You and I must be living in different worlds.

Axl is using the name Guns N' Roses because he wants to build this band to be Guns N' Roses. Whatever that name means to him.

Well, the "Axl Rose Band" doesn't headline Rock in Rio, it doesn't sell out MSG in 15 minutes, it doesn't close the VMA's and it certainly wouldn't open up at #1 on the album charts the way GNR will, so you tell me how he doesn't want the media and general public brand recognition associated with the GNR name.

He absolutely wants to make this band his own band, but he is using the GNR name because it sure gives him a better starting point from an exposure standpoint than calling it anything else.

That's my point, he wants the name because of the tremendous recognition it brings, but in the same sentence he will tell you it's not the same band and don't expect to hear GNR sounding stuff from GNR. You can't always have it both ways.

Axl has a unique voice, so does Bono. But 1 second is enough to realize that Slash's playin' the guitar. His playing is as much unique as Axl's voice, so calling a band Guns N' Roses without him is like calling it Guns N' Roses without Axl.

That's all your speculation of course, but there's no "Axl Rose Band". Axl built this band from ground up to be Guns N' Roses - he thinks he succeeded (''This wasn't Guns N' Roses, but I feel it is Guns N' Roses now.'') and a lot of people here are happy to agree with him.

As far as Steven Adler is concerned Guns N' Roses was a band he was part of - does that mean 1991 Guns wasn't Guns? And what about Izzy? The fact is, there was Guns N' Roses before Slash and there IS Guns N' Roses after Slash, no matter how great the guy was.

Back on topic, when it comes to reviewing you're expected to compare with the old material but you're also expected to realize this is a new band and new material. "This is not a good album because it's not the old band" is not a worthy review, but "I don't like this album because the music is weak" might be one, as long as it's honest.

I'll add this quote from Liam Gallagher, which is how I think the band as well as the fans should take the forthcoming reviews:

"Do you think I give a toss about what some failed musician says about my record? Some spotty little idiot writing for some stupid magazine didn?t like my record because he didn?t like my attitude? I don?t give a fuck."

http://live4ever.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=Band&action=display&thread=1140958300

For the recording of the Illusion albums, the only original member that had left at that point was Steven.....Izzy was still in the band....and they brought on Dizzy

GnR may have been around before Izzy and Slash was on the scene, just nobody outside of LosA ngeles had ever heard of them.  With him and Izzy in the band, they became the biggest band on the fucking planet.

So technically yeah that's true.  Reality wise, doesn't hold up.

lol funny. freedom of speech. sorry. ill say what i want about what i want. ban me if u dont like it.