Chinese Democracy Reviewing Rules

[mrlee]

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.

[The Dog]

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.

... 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.

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)

[neon2002]

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.

Exactly!

[ARC]

...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"...? ?

[mrlee]

...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"...? 

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?

[neon2002]

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.

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...

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.

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

[The Dog]

...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"...? 

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?

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??? 

[ARC]

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.

[neon2002]

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!

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?

[ARC]

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...

[mrlee]

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.

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.

[neon2002]

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.

... 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.

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)

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...

[neon2002]

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...

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

[mrlee]

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...

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.

[The Dog]

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.

... 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.

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)

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...

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.      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.

[ARC]

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

... is the correct answer.

[mrlee]

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

... is the correct answer.

lol dont twist it.

[Hoggsg2]

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

[neon2002]

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.

... 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.

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)

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...

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.? ?? ?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.

Hey don't forget about that guy from Extreme? 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

[The Dog]

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.