Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I don't understand why some board members praise the new songs as 'very artistic' and 'complex'. To tell the truth they're quite simple songs, mostly based on 1 or 2 ideas (except Better which is the closest to the term 'complex'). So why are you kepp saying that these songs are complex and artistic? Just because Axl said this in interviews? GN'R had complex songs like NR, Coma, Locomotive, Estranged, hell even PC or Civil War is much more complex than this new Axl material.

BTW these old songs are not complex if a musician talks about them. Dream Theater is (used to be?) complex, some Led Zeppelin (or Buckethead) material was complex etc., but GN'R isn't complex and never was.


The other thing that disturbs me is the 'Axl's music evolved'. If it means that he changed it to fit the new trends, then I tend to agree. But if you think he invented something new, then it's high time to buy some CDs. Just because he is into industrial music and uses effects, loops etc it ain't make it 'experimental'. Maybe learning how the computer works was experimetnal for Axl, but not for the music.? :no: TWAT is NIN meets GN'R, same for IRS which has some Led Zep vibe, too. CITR is a bad mixture of Dy'er Mak'er (sp?), Yesterdays, Since I don't have You, Just Another Sunday, Maroon 5 and the softer side of Bon Jovi. This song is cheesy as a song can be (not the lyrics, the song itself.). The Blues could have been an Elton John song. CD is something from an unknown an uneducated punk/grunge band. Riyadh and Better are Tool meets Nu-metal songs. And Madagascar sounds like Axl wrote something using the movie soundtrack cliches.

Don't get me wrong, some of the new songs are good (Better, IRS, TWAT, Madagascar, some parts of The Blues), but this isn't anything new, not complex, not artistic, not experimental. It's not earth-shattering or ground-breaking. Take it as it is: a collection of Axl's old and new influences, which will make a good album (hopefully), but these songs won't change the music.? :no:

agree  : ok:

I think the phrase here is... "who gives a shit...".?  : ok:

Post of the month, ?Well said : ok:  :beer:


And now you will have some ass licking people jump on you for questioning Axl. Ah there we go it's happened already  :hihi:

yeah cool................but where`s the point?  i don`t care if the music is complex/ earth shattering/ whatever......    but it`s exactely what i wanted to hear, so i`m really happy with it...

and i don?t think locomotive is a complex song either.....it`s just 6 minutes the same riff and then the weird outro....

What the fuck do you people want?? What exactly do you expect, for Axl to re-invent music, maybe invent some instruments along the way??? ?The new songs follow the path of all the GNR songs since the beginning: they have obvious influences, but at the same time they have a very distinct sound.

Alight.. granted. BUT

I think the reason we are all here is because axl with his voice, lyrics, melody, and general take on the world capture something none of us have ever heard before.

I don't think axl is ground shakin in terms of new musical ideals. BUT what he incorporates, digests, and creates as his own is compelely original. His voice, melody, and lyrics are like nothing i've ever heard.

When all is said and done there is a reason why i'm at the HTDGTH website and not at elton john's, pink floyd's, or led zepplin's forums is because what i find in axl is a part of myself. a tortured and poetic soul who has experienced life's emotions, survived and shared his take on them.

I'm here because axl.. as werid as he has... captured me as a young child when i heard' welcome to the jungle'... and i've been with him ever since.... and I can't wait to hear what's in store.

it's just demos.

take a break and come back when CD will come out.

Yeah, I think some people are expecting Axl to invent two new musical notes too...

 :hihi:

that's the dumbest excuse.
 we heard the concept, and the concept isn't anything much, especially if you know that they worked 10 years on it.

I always tought the album will be a UYI killer, but now, I'd be happy if the songs come close to pretty tied up.

I agree and I'm glad you posted that as I believe it had to be said and is long overdue.
I have been driven mad by the amount of posters who have used the word "complex" when discussing these songs.
The context in which it has been used by the majority of posters is laughable.
I'll bet my snakeskin boots that we would never, ever have been subjected to the overuse of this word if Axl had not used it.
For the record, I don't believe he meant any particular song was complex - he was referring to the different variation of song styles, the only thing remotely complex that I have heard is that no 2 songs sound the same, there is quite different styles between them.
And there really aint nothing that is going to set the world on fire in terms of invention, it has all been done before and been done better.
I love the new material, but I also love a huge spectrum of music covering 60 years of progression and invention and classical music which dates back 100's of years, if you want to hear complex music delve into the arts and you will hear truly stunning acomplishments.

All these songs are is half decent modern rock music.

I don't want to hear 'complex' music.
I don't want to hear 'innovative' music.
I don't want to hear tunes that will 'change music'.

I want to hear Axl Rose sing on tunes that make my head rock ~ which is what I got.  :peace:

it's not an excuse. we don't even know the date of recording of these demos.

if you can judge an album BEFORE listening to it, congratulations, personally, i can't.

oh, i almost forgot : can you please give me the numbers for the next loto, i want to be rich.

thx in advance.

I don't think they are going "to change music" BUT they might change the FACE of music today.  Music today has no soul, no emotion...no defining sound.
If you think AFD was 100% original you'd be totally wrong too - its got a Stones, Aerosmith influence that is undeniable, yet for the time it rocked the music world b/c nobody else sounded like that at the time.

Yeah, so far the songs we've heard have a classic rock, modern rock, industrial sound to them, yet I wouldn't define any of the demos as just ONE of those styles I just listed.

Yeah, hes not going to invent anything new, but when CD drops nothing else on the radio is going to sound like it.

But I think the overall message of your post was good - some fans on this board are way over reacting to these songs.  Anytime I hear how Better is the best GNR song ever, you just kind of have to laugh.  Its a decent tune, but lets not get carried away.

is in my ass...that's where slash is....fuckhead go home- Axl Rose Leeds 2002

well i showed "better" and "irs" to a lot of people, most of them don`t even like gnr, and they were blown away.

so stop with your: "the new songs are mediocre rock music" shit!!!

just because you expected afd 2 in matter of style and whatever and you`re disappointed now, is no reason to start the complaining again.....

there will be something for everyone....... 

seriously, what did you expect after listening to madagascar and the blues??

i`m happy with what i heard and it exceeded my expectations and that`s what matters to me...

Axl didn't say the songs are but the album is very complex. we're yet to hear either of them.
We just heard a few rough demos.
However there's the noticeable development of Axl's vocals, like it or not. His voice on IRS is fresh and amazing.

As I see it GN'Rs music has evolved from that of the last decade.
I don't think it just Axls influences that are displayed in the better and irs demos or the live songs (esp Riyadh), which are band works. As Axl himself told of it in 1999.
What about your axl obsession? :confused:

Better is pretty innovative. I don't think you can argue with that.

this is not a game of fortune.
I have good reason to believe that it won't be all that great.
If Axl rewrote the demos 100 % since the recordings we got, OK, then I fucked up.
but I seriously doubt that's what he did, and I'm sure that what we have heared so far is at least 70% of what the songs would sound like.
November rain, or estranged at 50% sounded better than these songs sound now.

I think that you can tell a diamond even when it's uncut. it still has a certain glow!!!
and I don't see much glow in these songs, only small sparkles.

anyone who wants to deny that after we heard 10 new songs`?

at least you mentioned that it?s your opinion, unlike many other posters....

Simplicity is the key to everything that is great.

'Complex' music is for geeks with bad values and too much time on their hands.

I don't know AFD sounds pretty damn original to me, sure they have influences, like every band. But I've never heard guitar playing like that before. Izzy and Slash's dual guitars on that album and the way they play is just brilliant. I don't even really have to mention that noone has ever sounded like Axl Rose.

i suppose a lot of "old fans" will think the same, and a lot more will be disappointed with CD successor.

i'm happy with the new musical direction i can see a bit in Better, so i'm really confident about the quality of the album.

i'm pretty sure it will be musically complex and rich, with orchestrations, electro elements, etc.

most(not all) people still rolling around these boards are die hard axl fans only, they side with the whole axl was the only one who wanted to do some evolving in his music... Evolving and more complex or groundbreaking are just terms used to deffend axl still using the gnr name and why the guys had to leave... because sound effects keyboards layering of the voice are all signs of evolving..  it's more or less axl is our favorite singer so we tend to invent words to describe why he is so important today or relevant without the gnr that had huge success....  No doubt the songs rock, no doubt they all have potential (well most) but there is nothing groundbreaking or evolving.. Axl has played the pianos, did songs like coma before, did NR & estranged... There is no huge complexity either, people act like only axl is capable of this stuff..

Robert Plant + a bit of janis Joplin  is pretty close to the AFD voice.


I guess CD is not for you.  : ok:

Not to be an asshole. But Mikeguiliana. You?re not too positive about the new gnr, right?   :smoking:

The thread isn?t about the songs sucking because they?re not complex or ground-breaking, so there?s no need to be an apologist for simplicity in music. The point is that many are drooling over the revolution in terms of song structure and whatnot CD is going to unleash, and Axl going Zaireeka on us (as in the ultra-experimental Flaming Lip?s album Zaireeka :peace:), when the songs really show nothing of that sort.

He stated pretty clearly in his original post that he LIKED the songs... :peace:

PS: Of course, CD may end up being all that and more, it?s just that what we?ve heard doesn?t point in that direction. However, it DOES point to a possible great, if not orgasmic, album . : ok:

That's a weak excuse also... Saying they worked on it for 10 years so it must be the best he or anyone has ever made. How long he's worked on it has nothing to do with anything.

Really? Because I thought November Rain and Estranged sucked. Not that I'm saying they're bad songs, I just don't like them at all. That just goes to show that people have different tastes and if you don't like it, that doesn't mean lots of other people won't be blown away.

Compared to CB most of the songs on CD are different and "evolving" from what the old band collectively did

The only type song I could see old gnr doing is The Blues, Irs, and TWAT

I like them a lot. I am personally into the new gnr ,more for axl being he is the only one I knew for the band and one from the gnr I knew..

I only said those things because this is the ongoing battle, the other guys didn't want to evolve it's always the same story, they didn't want to do new types of music or whatever.. I simply said my feelings are the music is good there's no question it's just not so different hat only axl could have created the vibe or sound.. The only thing unique is the voice which makes axl who he is.. : ok:

Yes yg, I agree about say citr-better plus the songs R good.. Say songs like riyad or oh my god, or silkworms, I rather they not even be around, different yes, good not really

i think what we're hearing is exactly what we should expect. it's Axl Rose. he said there would be some rockers, some songs as beautiful as NR, a lot of the arrangements were like Queen, and its a complex record. all that seems obvious.

the music isn't groundbreaking and structurally complicated or anything - but i really didn't think many people said it would be. even here when people talk about it changing the music scene like appetite did, thats saying something else. the reason GNR had such an impact the first time around wasn't because they were something so unique - they were unique for the time and more importantly they were wildly succesful.

i also don't understand the criticisms about expecting better after 10 years. it's not like they spent 10 years working on the songs you've heard. when the song is written it's written. it might be re-recorded, but i don't think they've spent 10 years writing a song. it's also very possible that these 10 years have been spent working on 3 albums worth of material and maybe a lot of material being discarded - so yeah, 10 years and 13 million dollars - but that wasn't all spent on the handful of songs we have.

Bingo!

well we all know they didn't spend "ten" years.. I don't know how many seperate recording occurred in regards to redoing parts.. We know they have loads of music, just about time to see it already

I don't think like you. I think you're wrong.
And for Gods sake these songs are goddamn demos, GOD-DAMN-DEMOS. ?Have you heard use your illusion demos? ?Have you heard then the final album? You cant compare 4 demos against 2 full albums.

crap, crap and more crap. I think you're only tring to entertain readers. this is complete crap man, these songs are Guns N' Roses. Do you imagine a cheap music critic saying ''Let It Be'' is ''blabla meets blabla, could have been a blablabla song''?

damn, english is not my mother language and I'm not able to express myself better. but all I want you to know is that I completly disagree with your point of view.

Why? I would like to know what's inside your cd player when you say that TWAT is a ''simple song based on 1 or 2 ideas''


This is your opinion, it's not a motherfucking fact. Poor guy: ''not artistic''.... ?:rant:

Don't confuse complexity with artistic. Something doesn't need to be complex or new to be high-quality or artistic. And something doesn?t have to be ground breaking to be good. I think expectations for CD have exceeded whatever will be on the album because we have been waiting so long, and ppl have gone insane over this new stuff. It's nice, but it's not the best thing since sliced bread, it just feels like it at the moment because anything new is better than nothing at all.
So it's easy to get carried away with all the hype, when in reality a few leaks and festivals doesn?t necessarily mean shit.
I digress



I completely, 100% agree.

To 'change the face of music' one doesn't necessarily have to be new. With the right production and promotion GnR could be back on top again and rival the rap phenomenon that?s currently big. 

I think the thing that stands out most for me is the lyrical content. In all honesty I put Axl up there with the likes of Dylan. Yeah, yeah, it's completely different music and Axl isn't nearly as political or a 'spokesman' but in terms of poetics and use of words Axl has something going on, something fucking brilliant. That's what makes him special.

Axl doesn't have to reinvent music   everything has pretty much been done in music .  All he has to do is bring back the melodic side of rock and  personality  that has been missing for yrs.  There aren't many rock gods  releasing albums  besides U2 . I am tired of having rock stars as neighbors. Rock stars should not be like you or me  they need to have a mythical  unapproachable aspect to them.   This is one of the reasons why rock is so boring .   Axl's new album will not be anything revolutionary  but it might make artist change the way they make music in the sense of bringing back the origins of rock .  If Axl can do that   he has done his job.   AFD was nothing original  but it was totally honest  and different than anyone was doing at the time  and that is what CD needs to be ,  different.

Thanks, you saved me some time by summing up my thoughts  exactly  : ok:

Well, i'd say Robert Plant sounded similar to Axl on Zeppelins first 5 albums

and the playing on any Dream Theater or Liquid Tension Experiment album is 10 times better than anything I've heard off of the leaks from Chi Dem.

I myself am just happy to have Axl back doing his Thing, His Music, His Way, No Matter how much it cost, How long it took. The fact that he's coming back with the intent to stay and share his music in his own style the way he feels is my style also, so to the ones that pick him apart just to get in a post here and there, it just makes my eyes water.   

Yeah, I'd rather hear songs like "It's Tough Bein' a Pimp" or "My Humps." That's classy, complex music right there for you. And don't forget My Chemical Romance and Linkin Park. They're killer, man!  : ok:

Hey, no problem.  Thats what HannaHat is here for ;) haha

And to the dude who said simplicity is the key to everything great??  Wow...you must be a HUGE Puddle of Mudd/Nickelback fan.  rock on dude. hahaha  -- theres nothing wrong with a 3 chord rocking tune, but a whole disc of them??  ZZzzzzz  Three or four CDs of them from the same band (ie. Fuel) ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  Gets old.  I like to see my fave bands take SOME chances.  And when it really works (ie RadioHead - ok computer) it totally kicks ass.  And sometimes it bombs (everything by radiohead post ok computer ;) haha). 

maybe he meant simplicity like afd, or the short times it took do do the beatles albums.. Look at how simple nirvana was, basically 3 guys playing...

Simplicty can simply mean a regular stage instead of something like the 92 part of the illusions.. So sometimes less is more/.

Back to the original post.  I could careless about the percieved complexity or lack of complexity of the songs.  But when I listen to songs like Better I have a very strong emotional and musical response and connection with the song.  So whatever.  Plus, I am in the minority in the feeling that UYI 1+2 were better than AFD for me personally.  And to me I refuse to get into the Nirvana vs. GNR war because I don't see a competition there.  Otherwise I would spend my time on some Nirvana board somewhere. 

Axl is a musical genius. The new material is far more three dimensional and creative than VR.

Exactly. If something is simple it doesnt mean it's stupid or not brilliant.  And in terms of music the simple=boring argument really doesn't stand up because then you'd wouldn't get alot of folk music, or unplugged acoustic stuff etc because one man and a guitar and a harmonica is pretty 'simple'.

As for Axl, I think the new stuff further supports what we already knew - that he was a massive creative force in GnR, and though the other musicians were brilliant, alot of the time-if not all- it was Axl pushing the band to be different, better.
And once again, his lyrics are far better than anything else I have heard from a rock band in a long long time, as with his music.

I'm not so sure about the 3 guitarist thing, but as someone said elsewhere songs like Madagascar wouldn't be as intense with only 2 guitars. Anyways, I know nothing about the technical side of music, so, like, yeah...

It's not the VR section. I didn't even mention them in my first post. This topic is about Axl-diehards keep saying how complex, evolved, experimental, artistic his new music is. And it's not. It's not against the music quality - simple songs can be great and complex songs can be crap and vice versa. But STOP CHANTING THAT AXL MAKES SOMETHING NEW AND EXTREMELY CREATIVE MUSIC. He made good songs, IMO one great (Better), some mediocre and some crappy ones.

When some of you say that 'these are only demos', that's why the sound empty, then please don't praise the same songs as creative and experimental in other posts.


BTW the music of th VR's songs are far superior comparing them to Axl's 'new' songs. But Axl owns CB when it comes to lyrics and vocal melodies.

It?s important to bring VR into the subject to put everything in perspective. Slash/Duff/Matt are great musicians and have a great band going, but it?s just not on the same level as Axl?s new music. Quite simply, the old guys were left behind while Axl has gone into warp speed, creatively speaking.? ?Contraband,? while an excellent, solid album, is basically just meat-and-potatoes hard-rock. What Axl is doing is inventive, epic, and challenging.

And I think one can argue that the new demos are brilliant while at the same time acknowledge that they aren?t as good as they will eventually become. The seeds are there. You can look at an oak seed and say ?this will one day be a mighty tree, this is where a giant will stand,? and at the same time realize that it?s just a seed.

And I will go on record now as saying CITR and ?Better? are as good as anything GN?R has ever released.


And I don't think there is a mediocre song in the bunch. "Chinese Democracy" wont have an "Illegal i Song."

I think that CD is very mediocre and CITR is very-very weak and uninspired. Tastes are different.

And I still can't see why Axl's new music'd be  'inventive, epic, and challenging'. Inventive? I can't see inventing anything new here. Epic? Madagascar is epic, but being epic doesn't necesserly mean quality (IMO Madagascar has a special atmosphere and a good song but not great). Challenging? I can't see it. The only challenging thing in Nu-GN'R is that Axl kept the name.

I repeat it again: my biggest problem with Nu-GN'R is that the music is average. Axl shines in most of the songs, he's brilliant when it comes to vocal melodies. But he can't write quality music alone and his new guys lack inspiration, spontanity and creativity of the old. You can recognize it's GN'R when you hear a little piece of music of old GN'R - when Nu-GN'R play it's just like anything else, doesn't have its own characteristics.

It's pretty clear for me that Axl wasn't the only reason behind GN'R's success. Axl made them mainstream without a doubt, he is pop but rock at the same time. Slash made them rock and made the music unique, while Izzy and Duff were the glue that made GN'R strong and kept the thing together (musically and on a personal level). So I think that Nu-GN'R is only Axl's side of Guns N' Roses: it shows his strengths and weaknesses, just like the other solo works showed their artist's. Some can't see the weaknesses of Nu-GN'R since they're quite of an average music listeners, who don't take attention to the music, just the lyrics and vocal melodies. Which, to tell the truth, are qute great in overall. But the music is beneath GN'R standards.

The only thing lacking from this band is a final production of these songs. The inspiration and creativity is all there. The Madagascar storytelling quotes arent original and inspiring? Or how about Better?

Your pretty much ragging on old gnr material as well because IRS,The Blues and TWAT could have all come off the Illusions.

Im pretty sure no1 with a brain here would say that Axl was the sole reason for GNRs success...so with that being said here is what is clear...

That without Axl the old ban dwould have never created such songs as NR,Estranged,Loco,Breakdown,etc

Did the old band help make those songs what they are? Absolutely. But without the voice and leadership of Axl they would have never been able to shine....

and that is what separates Axl from not only th emembers of the old band but out of every1....hes great in his own right but he also elevates the people around him...and he has done that with this new band. The songs I mentioned above all could have come right off the Illusions.

Then we have songs like Better,CITR,Maddy, and CD...songs that are the new version of GNR. Mondern songs with a gnr twist....

The only weakness I see is a band called Vr doing boring stuff. Is it good? SOme of it is. But its not what i personally expected from Slash. He set his own bar and he himself didnt live up to that on CB. Minus 2 songs....

  WHen I hear this new material I get excited. I dont know what to expect from song to song. I hear freshness, I hear motivation I hear Guns N Roses. The spirit of GNr is all in these songs. Would these songs sound better if Slash was on them? Maybe...its sopmething we'll never know. Mainly because songs like Better,OMG,Maddy, and some others were not good enough for Slash to be a part of....But what I know is that the members that have worked on these songs and albums have done an AMAZING job with the sound of the band. Its not NIN2 or Radiohead...Its guns N fukin Roses 2006.

The music is up to GNr standards. And it just shows that Axl and the band hes with ant anytime can make amazing music that challenges the old material. He doesnt need the old members to make a great album. As long as the production of CD doesnt get fucked up, this album will be a GREAT album. And that ssomehting the oldl members cant say they have accomplished. CB is a good album.  Its a good lets round up the boys and make an album in a few weeks....thats all it is...but its not what I would expect from GNR.

Then there is a clear difference of opinion here.

Averege, mediocore to me is Slash's Snakepit, Linkin Park.

I would call the new leaks far better than average. I won?t go into my detailed take on the leaks here (because there are other threads for that) but I will say they show a depth, maturity, and creativity that was hinted at, but not achieved with the Illusion albums.

I think ?Catcher in the Rye? in particular is a great song that encompasses the very best styles of GN?R, Queen, and the Beatles, something that Slash and the old-band could never dream of achieving. Old-school GN?R (a band that I will always love) seems sophomoric and totally one dimensional in comparison.

How are the new songs epic, inventive, and challenging?

Epic- The sound and scope of the new songs are intricate, with layers of sounds and styles that both tantalize and entice the senses.

Inventive- Axl is making a ?Dark Side of the Moon,? ?White Album? and ?Queen II? all rolled into one. It has the breath and ambition of the first, the diverse mosaic style of the second, and the artiness of the third. Kids these days don?t have their own ?Dark Side,? and Axl is set to deliver.

Challenging- Just listen to ?Better.? It starts out as pure ear-candy, Axl?s pop-sensibility at its best, and then goes off on a tangent, down the garden path, a total curve-ball, before heading back to reality.

In conclusion, these new songs are purely delicious. The new songs are passionate, ambitious, with a sound and scope unmatched in their artistic integrity and vision.

I will go on record now by saying Axl Rose will prove himself to be the new John Lennon/Roger Waters with this new album. I truly believe this will be the album of the 00s, if not the century.?

As for CITR being "weak and uninspired," I feel sorry that you feel that way, because you are really missing out. It is perhaps Axl's greatest triumph.

Slash who?

Has axl evolved? maybe / maybe not.

Until we hear the final product & not leaks we cannot say.

Mr Richard Nixon.....you sure are confident that cd is gonna be in all the styles that you mentioned.

Either you just have a vivid imagination /have heard the finished article or you are the messiah himself.

Talk about putting pressure on someone. :rofl: