Chinese Democracy Tracklist

[The Dog]

Will be interesting to see when three MONSTERS of rock, AC/DC, Metallica and GNR, all release albums in the same year, assuming they are all successful when all is said and done, if we don't see a return of the rock in 2009.

[riotact_vancity]

from the point of view of the record company or Best Buy, i'm not sure i see the rationale behind releasing an album with at least 5 songs that can be listened to on Youtube the last few years and a few more that can be picked up by anyone with modest understanding of the internet. Every review is going to be "...with only 4 songs not previously heard...". To my mind, that kind of takes away the steam of promoting it as "FINALLY after 17 years..."

also, doesnt the first single, if they're releasing a traditional single, HAVE to be a song no one's heard before?

I listened to the leaks... but it was my choice.
If people/critics are downloading them or listening via you tube.. their choice.
It's not an obligation.

But please, listen/judge unfineshed tracks and still critize the album for having leaked songs.. well that's the normal level hipocrisy that we have in almost every journalist that write something about Axl, GNR and CD.

I'm a fan, I want to buy the album, listen to the finished tracks, no matter if I heard 1 or 14 of them before.

i'm saying more from a sales/ marketing point of view...it's not really a new album. Madagascar was on MTV 6 years ago. They dont have to sell it to the choir (us) they have to sell it to a million or two other people as the triumphant return etc etc, but with more than half the album available online for years, the return is more of a trickle-again, from a marketing perspective-than an explosion

OK, so still (kinda) outside of your perspective: Yes, they have to sell it to the general audience, not only to GNR fans. Anyway, the option of downloading the leaks or not is the same. Those who likes any kind of music (hard rock) and wanted to listen to them just did. It's their problem, they should've known it would be on the next GNR record. Just don't have the right to complain now.

Getting to your point, let?s consider what general music fans could've legally heard:
Regularly played since 2001/02: "CD", "Madagascar" and "The Blues"= 3 songs;
If we count "Rhiad", played only 3 times. = 4 songs
On 2006 they added "Better" and "IRS", so we have 6 "revealed" songs.
TWAT, on just 2 shows = 7 songs
Rock Band (not everyone has videogames): Shackler's = 8 songs
Body of Lies: If the World (1:30, not everyone saw/will see the movie) = 9 CD "revealed" songs

Ask those people this:
1) When was the last time GNR toured?
2) Have you been there?
3) Did you listen to some bootleg track/video? Like it?
4) Say 3 new GNR song titles?
5) Could you sing them/remember the melodies?
6) Who are the members these days?

The ordinary answers you would have:
1) Not sure or / Maybe 2006.
2) No or / I went to one concert and was great.
3) No or / I saw a bootleg couple times. I liked, but prefer the old songs/band.
4) Madagascar, Axl played on VMA's;.... Better and.... don't know.
5) No. Wait! Na na na na .. I know better, better.. na na na... that's all dude.
6) Axl, Bucket.. no, Bumblefoot, Robert Finck and.. well Slash is out.

Remember those guys looking scared at you when you sang along "the blues" at one of the concerts?
That was not because your voice sucked.. in fact, they didn't know the lyrics and didn't understand how you knew it.

So, do you really think that those "9" (5) songs are old to them?? I'd say 3 "vaguely known" songs at the most.
On the other hand, the reason GNR showed this songs on gigs/game/movie was to make the public familiar with at least 1 of those tracks, generanting curiosity and interest, and that's what marketing is all about. Sales are just consequences.

Could we have the same hype if the songs were totally new? Maybe for us downloading motherfuckers, but not for the rest of the world. Just promotion for 14 unknown tracks of a "15 years inactive" band, even with strong "brands" like GNR, Axl and Chinese Democracy, wouldn't be enough for this shitty music market nowadays.
The "making it familiar" strategy is a very smart way to mitigate that, a least a little.
 
My friends, those "free trials"(legal ones) along with apropriate mass promotion, which is on it's way, the band members charisma, AND THE FINISHED TRACKS, will make GNR rule the world again.

P.S.: Also, remember, if they didn't play any new songs on those ways: "Fuck! they play the same songs since 1994"; "I told the album doesn't exist"; "It's a cover band"; "No singles until now? 2009 here we go"; etc, etc, etc

missing the point...the reviewers will make sure everyone knows there's only 4 or 5 actually new songs on the album. Regardless of what people think of the music  when they review, there's the negativity built in "why do we get an album with 7 year old songs on it?". Also, we've all seen the songs reviewed when they were leaked; i'd say it's well beneath 50% that those reviews were generally good. So people will have pre-conceived notions pushed on them maybe even before the already listen to the album.

[The Dog]

To us huge GNR fans, of course we'll want to hear the finished versions of these songs and we'll be excited to do so.

to the average rock/gnr fan, they are going to seek out these songs (especially now that there is a track listing, making it 1,000,000 times easier to do so) and they will find them.  as many have said, whats out there right now are demo versions...  reminds me of when the first HULK movie came out and was panned by those who saw rough cuts of it.  by the time the real version came out on the big screen, early reviews had tainted the real reviews and made everyone think the actual movie was just as sucky as the "demo"/rough cut was.  ---- if the album versions are better than the demos, it won't matter, the demos are what most are going to hear first.  And lets be honest, how different can the album versions REALLY be?  I like these songs, but not sure the avg. music fan is going to be blown away by them.

everything today is about perception.  the fact this is dropping and some of the songs are 5-6 years old will be insane to some people.  CD has already been dragged through the mud by some just for the fact of how long it's taken to release it and how much money it's cost to create.

I hope there is a 2nd disc chock full of new songs that will be released in early 09. 

[jarmo]

the reviewers will make sure everyone knows there's only 4 or 5 actually new songs on the album. Regardless of what people think of the music  when they review, there's the negativity built in "why do we get an album with 7 year old songs on it?".

What if the reader hasn't heard any of the songs or only heard them at a concert two years ago?

Does it take away any of the quality if the songs are "old" because of certain individuals stealing from the band?


In your opinion none of the leaked tracks should've been released so you don't have to worry about the reviewers thinking the songs are old?

Would it be a good idea to let thieves decide what you do with your music?



This is nothing new. GN'R recorded songs that were around during the AFD days  for the UYI albums.

Did it stop Don't Cry, November Rain or You Could Be Mine from being hits?


You keep repeating this day after day. 




/jarmo

[DarkKnight]

Will be interesting to see when three MONSTERS of rock, AC/DC, Metallica and GNR, all release albums in the same year, assuming they are all successful when all is said and done, if we don't see a return of the rock in 2009.

No.  All these bands are very old.  I hate to say that, but in the entertainment business, age matters.  You're going to need a lot of youth to bring rock back. 

[axl2]

Those 2 albums aren't really forward moving. In order to get it back, has to be something new and fresh.

[The Dog]

the reviewers will make sure everyone knows there's only 4 or 5 actually new songs on the album. Regardless of what people think of the music  when they review, there's the negativity built in "why do we get an album with 7 year old songs on it?".

What if the reader hasn't heard any of the songs or only heard them at a concert two years ago?

Does it take away any of the quality if the songs are "old" because of certain individuals stealing from the band?

In your opinion none of the leaked tracks should've been released so you don't have to worry about the reviewers thinking the songs are old?

Would it be a good idea to let thieves decide what you do with your music?

This is nothing new. GN'R recorded songs that were around during the AFD days  for the UYI albums.

Did it stop Don't Cry, November Rain or You Could Be Mine from being hits?

/jarmo

I gotta say its hard to refute a lot of your points.  Though calling leak listeners "thieves" is a bit Lars Ulrich of you 

Not to argue with what you said, b/c for the most part I agree with you, but almost NOBODY heard DC, NR or YCBM until they came out on the illusions - there wasn't a napster/limewire/youtube back then.

If there was, and you heard all of those songs a a few months, a year after AFD was released - and then you found out UYI was full of "old" songs, I think you'd be a bit bummed.  the illusions were highly anticipated albums (and there was also two of them at once - even if all of those songs were "old" to most/some people, there would still have been enough new material to go around). 

[jarmo]

Though calling leak listeners "thieves" is a bit Lars Ulrich of you 

I didn't call listeners anything.

Not to argue with what you said, b/c for the most part I agree with you, but almost NOBODY heard DC, NR or YCBM until they came out on the illusions - there wasn't a napster/limewire/youtube back then.

I knew that point was gonna be made.

A lot of points that have been made is nothing new in the world of GN'R.

In the past, before Chinese Democracy, they did play new songs live before the album in question was released.

In the past, they used songs that we written years earlier on the albums.



The point wasn't really about hearing songs, the point was about the songs being old.


Only two of the songs have been officially released. One in a video game and the other is in a movie. That's a fact.


And there's a bunch of people out there that might not be big enough fans to look for illegal leaks, but when they hear a song they like on the radio, they'll want the album it's on.






/jarmo

[jazjme]

the reviewers will make sure everyone knows there's only 4 or 5 actually new songs on the album. Regardless of what people think of the music  when they review, there's the negativity built in "why do we get an album with 7 year old songs on it?".

What if the reader hasn't heard any of the songs or only heard them at a concert two years ago?

Does it take away any of the quality if the songs are "old" because of certain individuals stealing from the band?

In your opinion none of the leaked tracks should've been released so you don't have to worry about the reviewers thinking the songs are old?

Would it be a good idea to let thieves decide what you do with your music?

This is nothing new. GN'R recorded songs that were around during the AFD days  for the UYI albums.

Did it stop Don't Cry, November Rain or You Could Be Mine from being hits?

/jarmo

I gotta say its hard to refute a lot of your points.  Though calling leak listeners "thieves" is a bit Lars Ulrich of you 

Not to argue with what you said, b/c for the most part I agree with you, but almost NOBODY heard DC, NR or YCBM until they came out on the illusions - there wasn't a napster/limewire/youtube back then.

If there was, and you heard all of those songs a a few months, a year after AFD was released - and then you found out UYI was full of "old" songs, I think you'd be a bit bummed.  the illusions were highly anticipated albums (and there was also two of them at once - even if all of those songs were "old" to most/some people, there would still have been enough new material to go around). 

Thats not true I had NR, DC, Back of Bitch, in 87 on vinyl boots as demos, and I was ecstatic when they finally hit Illusions. And let me tell you I may have been used to and had a love and affinity for the way they sounded as demos. But to hear them finally finished was so awesome. And all my friends and I were so pumped at the concerts when they played them (and knowing the words)! But to be fair, I a,so heard DC, live in 87 as I was attending shows since then.

On topic I think the track list is great. I think this as a whole is gonna be an incredible musical journey and I believe , even though Ive heard the songs, Ive not hard anything till I hear the actual album, that excites the hell out of me!

[Jim Bob]

Axl should release this album the way HE wants to release it, and not let others actions dictate what songs he puts on it.   This has been his vision and his many tireless years of work.

[jarmo]

Axl should release this album the way HE wants to release it, and not let others actions dictate what songs he puts on it.   This has been his vision and his many tireless years of work.

Exactly.


It's quite astounding seeing people saying things like "this song shouldn't be on the album because I heard it already and I want something new".





/jarmo

[Montrealrocks]

Axl should release this album the way HE wants to release it, and not let others actions dictate what songs he puts on it.   This has been his vision and his many tireless years of work.

Exactly.


It's quite astounding seeing people saying things like "this song shouldn't be on the album because I heard it already and I want something new".





/jarmo

Did somebody said that? REALLY?
hahahahah

pathetic....

[Jim Bob]

I deleted every single leak off my computer.      No need for demos when the real deal is on its way.    Not hearing these songs for a month is going to make Nov 23rd all that much better.

[jarmo]

Axl should release this album the way HE wants to release it, and not let others actions dictate what songs he puts on it.   This has been his vision and his many tireless years of work.

Exactly.


It's quite astounding seeing people saying things like "this song shouldn't be on the album because I heard it already and I want something new".





/jarmo

Did somebody said that? REALLY?
hahahahah

pathetic....

That's the impression they give when they complain about the tracks on the album and hearing them already or there not being enough "new songs".....




/jarmo

[D]

Here is my take on it. Im glad these songs are gonna be released now and get them out of the way.

So now we know, for next album, to be patient and not DL anything. I for one will never DL anything else.

This is in no way GNR's fault.

its like a guy going into a whore house and cheating on his wife.

He can easily say......... "Well there were 5 naked women all over me........ Yeah but its still your fault for being in there.

Same with this. It's not GNR's responsibility to cater to people who illegally DL their songs.

when u make a CD or an album, its very special and personal to u.

Axl isn't a POP star chasing a hit. He is a guy who writes deep, introspective songs and if people relate, GREAT, if they don't thats ok also.

so this is his vision and how he wants it and the fact a couple thousand of us DL them before hand is in no way gonna influence him on what to put on the Cd.

[Lord Kayoss]

I'm really excited for "Catcher In The Rye" to be there.

thank god Catcher is on the album!!! i was so worried they would save it for future releases!

i am really happy now

Amen to that!

Bottoms up!
 

[lennonisgod]

I don't have a problem with this tracklist at all. Of course the leaks are on the album... that's not really a big surprise.

The worst part about listening to the tracks early when they leaked, is it's gonna be hard to actually sit down and listen to this album and think of it as "an album." Does that make any sense?? We've heard these songs so many times, over so many years, that it will just be weird to hear them all grouped together with a few new songs thrown in. Of course, we have only ourselves to blame for that.

This album is going to kick so much ass regardless... nothing else even has to be said.

[riotact_vancity]

the reviewers will make sure everyone knows there's only 4 or 5 actually new songs on the album. Regardless of what people think of the music  when they review, there's the negativity built in "why do we get an album with 7 year old songs on it?".

What if the reader hasn't heard any of the songs or only heard them at a concert two years ago?

Does it take away any of the quality if the songs are "old" because of certain individuals stealing from the band?


In your opinion none of the leaked tracks should've been released so you don't have to worry about the reviewers thinking the songs are old?

Would it be a good idea to let thieves decide what you do with your music?



This is nothing new. GN'R recorded songs that were around during the AFD days  for the UYI albums.

Did it stop Don't Cry, November Rain or You Could Be Mine from being hits?


You keep repeating this day after day. 




/jarmo

so is TWAT gonna change leak to master the way NR changed from 20 minute song to 9 minute all time great?

and i think we can agree that there are some songs that thieves legitimately stole and leaked and some songs that managed to slip out of the studio, nudge nudge, wink wink

i would also think that if they're doing a single in the normal manner, you cant possibly have the debut single be a song that's already been going around a couple years. Is that letting the leakers decide the course of action? maybe so, but it's the new age of music distirbution that no one's been able to figure out. If there's truly 3 albums of material and the label is getting all their money back in this best buy deal, if i was Axl i would have released the titles we've already heard from leaks on the website a la Radiohead or NIN, and publicize it as such (pay what you wish kinda thing) and then release the all new album via best buy, or maybe best buy first then web release of the "old" new stuff...yeah, he's been shackled-pardon the pun-by the leaks but that way he avoids negative press based solely on the fact we've heard the material already

[The Dog]

I love how on the best buy page posted on the original post in this thread, there are already 39 reviews of an album that isn't out yet  

[jarmo]

so is TWAT gonna change leak to master the way NR changed from 20 minute song to 9 minute all time great?

Does it matter?

If you wanted to be as technical about it as you seem to be, both songs were "old" when they were released.

he avoids negative press based solely on the fact we've heard the material already

But "we" haven't...


You still don't seem to get the idea that it's possible the record company thinks this is an amazing album. Do you think it would be possible that they, even though you're worried about the reviewers bashing the songs for being old, think the songs are so fucking awesome that they need to be released?


Just for the record.

I'm curious, this worry you have, is it legit? Or is it just another way for you to say that you wish they would've put other songs, that you haven't heard, on the album? Because you chose to ruin the surprise.....




/jarmo