For the people wondering about the quality of the songs on CD

[dave-gnfnr2k]

This may give us an idea of what CD could be like. It has taken the? band about 5 or 6 years to make this album.? That is how long the oringal band was together 87-93. Lets just say that Gnr worked on their first album for 6 years, like this new gnr they would have had close to 60 songs to choose from.? So lets take AFD, Lies and the UYIs and make a 14 track cd.

1. WTTJ
2. Night Train
3. Mr Brownstone
4. SCOM
5. PC
6. Patience
7. don?t cry
8. nov rain
9. coma
10. civil war
11. breakdown
12.? locomotive
13.? estranged
14.? ycbm

If the old gnr took as long as the new band to release an album this could have been the track listing. So this could give us a window how great CD is going to be. If the? band really did make close to 40 songs min and max 60 songs they will pick the best 12-15. Just think how amazing it should be. Also like CD this set list only has 4 rockers and the rest are epics and a few ballads.

[Saul]

 

that was utterly brilliant logic dave. 

you forgot to mention one small detail .. these are two very seperate bands!!

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Saul if? you are not going to add anything dont spam the thread. Of coarse your failed attempted at witty logic, you totally missed the point of the thread.? ?So next time you dont have anything to add just dont post at all, this is not the gnr b ar. Dont try to turn this into a new gnr vs old gnr thread. Now get? back on topic. The point you totally missed about this simple thread is that if  you really look at it, CD is going to be the greatest hits of the new gnr since they are going to pick the best 12-15 songs they have worked on over the past 6 years. They suppostely scrapped a lot of the songs that could have made up 3 albums.  So CD is going to be the best of the best of this new  band.

[Buddha_Master]

Yea I feel you dude. I have no problem at all with the whole 4 rocker and the rest more challenging shit. I have secretly wished for Axl to expand his horizons because he has the voice of a god. I always envisioned Axl doing trippier and deeper music like Zepplin with a little Pink Floyd added to the mix. Part of the genius of the mans voice is that it sounds different depending on your mood. I remember being real stoned when the UYI's were released and I heard the Garden, and whoa... this whole new world for Axl just appeared. His voice cuts and penetrates your skull and pulls your soul through your minds eye. Serious his voice has been so utterly misused over the past couple decades its made me mental. There is so much untapped shit that he could (and should) go with that voice and his godgiven songwriting ability.

I have a real feeling he wanted to go into this netherworld music direction, and because of all the fucking idiots who keep trying to pigeon hole him (like the stupid fuckin fans, and the old members) that he feels he can't stray to far off from the GNR sound. Its like he was attempting baby steps.

Man, I don't know if you people even know what Im talking about so I'll stop here.

[GNRisSLASH]

that was utterly brilliant logic dave. 

you forgot to mention one small detail .. these are two very seperate bands!!

Excellent point, Saul.  Mr. DaveGnr2k66 is comparing apples and oranges.  If you, me, and 3 nobodies off the street recorded 60 songs and took the best 15, they would still be lame.  Just because you're selecting the best songs in your vaults doesn't make them any good.  I'd rather have 15 songs from a great band then the best 15 out of 60 from a mediocre band.  The original GnR had one of rock's best guitarists, a top bass player, and a fantastic rhythm guitarist that wrote many of the songs.   The lead singer was raw, young, vibrant, and had a whiny, shrill, powerful voice.  The band was young and hungry and a product of the streets.  The nu GnR has gone through plenty of musicians, lacks a top lead guitarist, lacks any other song writers, and has an aging lead singer whose best vocal days are behind him.The band is not youong, is clearly not hungry, and is the product of a multi-millionaire recluse.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

that was utterly brilliant logic dave. 

you forgot to mention one small detail .. these are two very seperate bands!!

Excellent point, Saul.  Mr. DaveGnr2k66 is comparing apples and oranges.  If you, me, and 3 nobodies off the street recorded 60 songs and took the best 15, they would still be lame.  Just because you're selecting the best songs in your vaults doesn't make them any good.  I'd rather have 15 songs from a great band then the best 15 out of 60 from a mediocre band.  The original GnR had one of rock's best guitarists, a top bass player, and a fantastic rhythm guitarist that wrote many of the songs.   The lead singer was raw, young, vibrant, and had a whiny, shrill, powerful voice.  The band was young and hungry and a product of the streets.  The nu GnR has gone through plenty of musicians, lacks a top lead guitarist, lacks any other song writers, and has an aging lead singer whose best vocal days are behind him.The band is not youong, is clearly not hungry, and is the product of a multi-millionaire recluse.

wow, there goes my happy day ...

[dave-gnfnr2k]

that was utterly brilliant logic dave.?

you forgot to mention one small detail .. these are two very seperate bands!!

Excellent point, Saul.? Mr. DaveGnr2k66 is comparing apples and oranges.? If you, me, and 3 nobodies off the street recorded 60 songs and took the best 15, they would still be lame.? Just because you're selecting the best songs in your vaults doesn't make them any good.? I'd rather have 15 songs from a great band then the best 15 out of 60 from a mediocre band.? The original GnR had one of rock's best guitarists, a top bass player, and a fantastic rhythm guitarist that wrote many of the songs.? ?The lead singer was raw, young, vibrant, and had a whiny, shrill, powerful voice.? The band was young and hungry and a product of the streets.? The nu GnR has gone through plenty of musicians, lacks a top lead guitarist, lacks any other song writers, and has an aging lead singer whose best vocal days are behind him.The band is not youong, is clearly not hungry, and is the product of a multi-millionaire recluse.

AGAIN since you dont know how to read. This is not a new gnr vs old gnr thread. Why do people like you and saul always? try and turn postive new gnr threads into new vs old? Just get a life and stop spamming these threads. It gets very tiredsome. So get back on topic.? We already have a thread for gnr vs vr members so go post in that if you dont wnat to talk about CD in this therad. You and saul should? really stop being so immature and trying to be witty and instead just talk about the topic at hand.

[Shoco]

thats a load of rubbish

lets just say the old band took 6 years toi make an album, be real dude, thats just pure speculation

[Saul]

Saul if  you are not going to add anything dont spam the thread. Of coarse your failed attempted at witty logic, you totally missed the point of the thread.   So next time you dont have anything to add just dont post at all, this is not the gnr b ar. Dont try to turn this into a new gnr vs old gnr thread. Now get  back on topic. The point you totally missed about this simple thread is that if  you really look at it, CD is going to be the greatest hits of the new gnr since they are going to pick the best 12-15 songs they have worked on over the past 6 years. They suppostely scrapped a lot of the songs that could have made up 3 albums.  So CD is going to be the best of the best of this new  band.

It still doesnt tell us ANYTHING about the "quality" of democracy dave. Your logic is very very flawed. This isnt about old gnr VS new GNR ... all I'm saying is that the new band could take another couple decades recording music but that doesnt guarantee that the music will be good. Why would it?! It's dumb to think that way.

I honestly laughed when I read the original post cause I half thought it was a joke , then I realized you were serious and all I can do is roll my eyes to be honest.

Tom Sholz released "boston" 's debut ... it soared up the charts .. he took two years for the followup then almost 7 for the third album. Did he ever write another "more then a feeling" again ... gee , why not? he had YEARS to do it though right?

Fact is , it will be the talent that the "new" band possses that will cement how good or bad the album will be , not how many "years" they've sat around writing and recording it.

Fact is , a TON of the best songs ever recorded were written in minutes. Written and recorded the very same day. Time isnt a huge factor in how good a song is , never was and never will be.

p.s. , old band vs new band and mentioning the gnr bar here? Pretty damn lame man. Drop it allready.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Saul you just keep proving your ignorance when you cannot understand the underlying and simple point of my post. But it?s ok since we have come to expect that from you over the years.? My point is a very valid once, you can claim what ever you want but the point is CD is pretty much a greatest hits of this new band if they were to have released an album in 2000, 2002 and 2004.? I am sorry if you can?t comprehend that. Also the songs on the album how do  you know how long they worked on each track? That just proves you totally missed the point of the thread. I am sorry you cant undestand this simple concept.

[St.heathen]

hmm ....i can kind of see what you're trying to say. But for a band to make an album with that standard of songs......the worry is that they seem (to wider opinion) like hired members and it all depends, if the reality is different from perception, ?of that it's all Axl's work and what he says goes. ?Or if those guys feel like it's their album or if they are frustrated ect... it's a strange one. ?The ability is obviously there, but it takes more than that to make a great band and songs of that kind of calibre which you used as an example.


From what we have heard over the years, it sounds like Axl has been gathering bits and pieces over the years. ?From different musicians and producers, there must be loads to work from and it seems like he is collecting and cutting things together. ?Get's bored, changes the track some more, changes his mind again. ?It sounds very chaotic. ? Of course let's not forget that the original band were chaotic, but they were young and they had a more organic bond.

 And i imagine he has tried many styles during that time. ?I guess that when the old guys left he was very much into Industrial Tech stuff. ?But kind of missed the timing boat for that and i'm guessing he has gone full circle to a more (in Axl's way)basic sound. ?

The Time factor (and money) has added so much un-needed pressure- ?to just release a GOOD album. ?I hope he has the balls to ?release the more daring stuff though. ?SO far, his position and power has been at his advantage, so he could take his time. But if the album for whatever reason failed to match it's expectation (for the wider world, not so much fans) ?then that could change things very much so. ?And in 5 years he's going to be knocking on 50 and ?no matter how good his work is from now, people will just think why did he waste all that time and talent? ?

But hey he is one magnetic genius, I look forward to hearing some music instead of rumours and lawsuits. Let's hope he delivers soon ?and starts blowing our minds with fantastic music.

[Saul]

Saul you just keep proving your ignorance when you cannot understand the underlying and simple point of my post. But it?s ok since we have come to expect that from you over the years.  My point is a very valid once, you can claim what ever you want but the point is CD is pretty much a greatest hits of this new band if they were to have released an album in 2000, 2002 and 2004.  I am sorry if you can?t comprehend that. Also the songs on the album how do  you know how long they worked on each track? That just proves you totally missed the point of the thread. I am sorry you cant undestand this simple concept.

So what if it is the greatest hits of the new band david? They havent had one yet. By your logic I could sit around for 10 years and record 100 songs , then pick the best 10 and release them and they would be as good as the old gnr?!

You my friend are the guy who made the comparison to the old band in your original post. It's just an absurd way of looking at the situation if you ask me.

[Rain]

that was utterly brilliant logic dave.?

you forgot to mention one small detail .. these are two very seperate bands!!

Excellent point, Saul.? Mr. DaveGnr2k66 is comparing apples and oranges.? If you, me, and 3 nobodies off the street recorded 60 songs and took the best 15, they would still be lame.?

Of course it'll be lame, one of you happens to be Axl Rose or a great musicians ?

[jarmo]

I don't think you can say it's gonna be amazing based on the fact that they've spent a certain amount of time on perfecting the best songs they've written.

I think it'll be amazing based on the fact that the band has some talented people in it.




/jarmo

[Drew]

I think it'll be amazing based on the fact that the band has some talented people in it.




/jarmo

Usually, I would tend to agree with you Jarmo, but Contraband was far from amazing in my opinion. Even having such talent as Slash and Duff.

[Will]

Good point Drew, I totally agree with you. I think it will be amazing, because it can't be otherwise...

[Saul]

I dont think that the years of recording or the talent of the players will make democracy a "sure thing" ... I've always been a believer in band chemistry and no matter if you took the top 20 musicians in the world and shoved them in a room , if they cant learn to gel and if they dont have the right chemistry it wont work.

But with that said , it seems the new band might have chemistry .. they seemed to show it onstage in 2002 , however that translating over into writing and recording new material is a whole different thing. I'm steadfast in my belief that time alone wont make democracy a sure thing when in fact taking all this time to sit on songs , change them and maybe even scrap some stuff could even be worse for the final product.

Whatever it is , I just wanna hear it. I'm confident it will be a very strong album.

[Shoco]

Saul you just keep proving your ignorance when you cannot understand the underlying and simple point of my post. But it?s ok since we have come to expect that from you over the years.  My point is a very valid once, you can claim what ever you want but the point is CD is pretty much a greatest hits of this new band if they were to have released an album in 2000, 2002 and 2004.  I am sorry if you can?t comprehend that. Also the songs on the album how do  you know how long they worked on each track? That just proves you totally missed the point of the thread. I am sorry you cant undestand this simple concept.

dude your not making a point, your saying what if the old band took 6 years to make a record, but they didnt take 6 years so i dont get our point

[Genesis]

dude your not making a point, your saying what if the old band took 6 years to make a record, but they didnt take 6 years so i dont get our point

Dave is so focussed on the new band, he thinks it's standard procedure for everybody to take 6-10 years to make an album. 

[Christos AG]

I think it will be amazing, because it can't be otherwise...

Yep, that is a very valid reason... ?