Chinese Democracy is $1.99 at Best Buy

[LongGoneDay]

I hear ya. I would think that once the person knows it's out there, it's up to the music to make people want to buy it. Then again, not everyone is buying music these days.
Unfortunately rock isn't exactly burning up the radio stations either these days, so it's not going to get the airplay it would have back in the 90's.
All things considered, CD did/is doing pretty well.

It's not always that simple. Sure, sometimes people buy an album because they liked one song that they heard on the radio.

Sometimes they might buy an album based on a review they read. It all depends.

Imagine how difficult it is when the thought in the back of the buyer's mind is "this album sucks" and he/she hasn't heard a single note. How do you convince those people?


It did well in the day and age we currently live in.




/jarmo

True. It's hard for me to imagine people dismissing a talent like Axl at any time, but especially based on hearsay, and during a time that, in my opinion, great songwriters/musicians are few and far between. Their loss.

[Halo69]

I hear ya. I would think that once the person knows it's out there, it's up to the music to make people want to buy it. Then again, not everyone is buying music these days.
Unfortunately rock isn't exactly burning up the radio stations either these days, so it's not going to get the airplay it would have back in the 90's.
All things considered, CD did/is doing pretty well.

It's not always that simple. Sure, sometimes people buy an album because they liked one song that they heard on the radio.

Sometimes they might buy an album based on a review they read. It all depends.

Imagine how difficult it is when the thought in the back of the buyer's mind is "this album sucks" and he/she hasn't heard a single note. How do you convince those people?


It did well in the day and age we currently live in.




/jarmo

True. It's hard for me to imagine people dismissing a talent like Axl at any time, but especially based on hearsay, and during a time that, in my opinion, great songwriters/musicians are few and far between. Their loss.

I think that is the product of the whole waiting process and consequently people didn't take this band seriously because of that, therefore the dismissal! And also that bad media that has came with it over the years.

[LongGoneDay]

I hear ya. I would think that once the person knows it's out there, it's up to the music to make people want to buy it. Then again, not everyone is buying music these days.
Unfortunately rock isn't exactly burning up the radio stations either these days, so it's not going to get the airplay it would have back in the 90's.
All things considered, CD did/is doing pretty well.

It's not always that simple. Sure, sometimes people buy an album because they liked one song that they heard on the radio.

Sometimes they might buy an album based on a review they read. It all depends.

Imagine how difficult it is when the thought in the back of the buyer's mind is "this album sucks" and he/she hasn't heard a single note. How do you convince those people?


It did well in the day and age we currently live in.




/jarmo

True. It's hard for me to imagine people dismissing a talent like Axl at any time, but especially based on hearsay, and during a time that, in my opinion, great songwriters/musicians are few and far between. Their loss.

I think that is the product of the whole waiting process and consequently people didn't take this band seriously because of that, therefore the dismissal! And also that bad media that has came with it over the years.

Sure, and I can understand that. It's being realistic.
As bad as I wanted it too, I can't say I honestly expected the record to sound like Izzy, Slash, Duff were playing on it.
I basically threw the name out, and was just curious to hear what one of the greatest frontmen of all time had up his sleeves, and see what he had to offer when working with other musicians.
I think you almost have to kind of dismiss the name in these cases. People get real attached to the name, which I understand, but not enough to write it off completely.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with the fact that this is not the Guns N' Roses we grew up with, but it's still worth checking out. I'd rather hear for myself, than read someone's "expert" opinion.

It also plays into the unrealistic expectations, and the perception that the album somehow came up short.
People were disappointed that it doesn't sound like the band they grew up with, but knowing the circumstances, how could it?
There are obviously benefits of carrying on with the name, but the one major drawback I guess would be that fans are going to hold you to the impossible expectations of staying true, and continuing the sound that you alone weren't responsible for creating in the first place. Even though it's an entirely new band, they will always be compared to the original, and more often than not, unfavorably.

[jarmo]

GN'R has always kept evolving and experimenting.

Nothing new.


But that has very little to do with the topic.....

Hopefully the sale has encouraged more people to check out the music and judge for themselves instead of listening to the "experts".



/jarmo

[Eclipsed107]

As bad as I wanted it too, I can't say I honestly expected the record to sound like Izzy, Slash, Duff were playing on it.
I basically threw the name out, and was just curious to hear what one of the greatest frontmen of all time had up his sleeves, and see what he had to offer when working with other musicians.

I almost kind of wonder if Axl just went with the name Axl Rose instead of Guns n' Roses if it would have sold more.  I think a lot of people are turned off by Axl using the Gn'R name without Slash, Duff, and Izzy and would have accepted it more if it was just an Axl solo album.  All you ever hear about CD is "it's not guns n' roses without Slash".  Well if you didn't call it Gn'R you wouldn't have to deal with those comments, I think the general population would be a little more accepting of the album.

It's a 2 sided sword.

[jarmo]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!





/jarmo

[One.In.A.Million]

As bad as I wanted it too, I can't say I honestly expected the record to sound like Izzy, Slash, Duff were playing on it.
I basically threw the name out, and was just curious to hear what one of the greatest frontmen of all time had up his sleeves, and see what he had to offer when working with other musicians.

I almost kind of wonder if Axl just went with the name Axl Rose instead of Guns n' Roses if it would have sold more.  I think a lot of people are turned off by Axl using the Gn'R name without Slash, Duff, and Izzy and would have accepted it more if it was just an Axl solo album.  All you ever hear about CD is "it's not guns n' roses without Slash".  Well if you didn't call it Gn'R you wouldn't have to deal with those comments, I think the general population would be a little more accepting of the album.

It's a 2 sided sword.

I always have to smile when people say that it should be called just Axl, or it should be another name entirely. I need to ask why?, because Axl was the only member to keep fighting for GN'R, and to work day in day out in GN'R's best interest. So because other members chose to abandon GN'R, Axl should change the name in which he created?. Get real, Axl is GN'R because he is the only member who's been there from the start and has gave his soul for Guns N' Roses.

 

Regarding the issue of sales, I still stand by my point of it's got alot to do with the state of the music industry in general. Nothing to do with the quality of CD, because quite frankly, it is the best GN'R album by far. I think Best Buy could have done alot more to market the CD, and with that, the record company could have done much more as well. 

But, I also think that alot of people forget just how good it did do. It debuted at number 1 in many countries, and for a record that never got the promotion it deserved, it did brilliantly. And in this age of the internet, I was proud to see how much attention the album got from newspapers, tv and radio. 

So, unlike many "so called" fans on here. I'm not going to worry about why CD didn't do this or that, while trying to pinpoint if it was all down to Axl still calling the greatest band on earth "Guns N' Roses". 

I'm happy and content that Chinese Democracy finally came for me, and all of the other millions and millions of GN'R fans around the world.

And all that matters is, to all of us true GN'R fans, Chinese Democracy came and made all of our wishes come true. 

[wight gunner]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!





/jarmo

I agree with this, and that's my point about the Azoff thread comments written yesterday, that Axl, should he win, will be a game changer and IMO he should do an interview where he gets this point across. What Axl could be doing, should he win his case will change the industry practices and this is the time to bury a few myths and be allowed to march forward with the band making great music.

[Eclipsed107]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!



/jarmo

whether the band was called Guns n' Roses or not the album would have sounded the same, so I don't see how it's "thank god".  The product wouldn't have been any different, neither would the show.

all I said was I wonder if it would affect the sales of the album because it'd give potential buyers a different perspective.  Axl could have called his band meat and potatoes and it wouldn't make a difference.  Guns n' Roses is just a name at this point.  Axl has proven that by replacing the replacements replacements.

[One.In.A.Million]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!



/jarmo

whether the band was called Guns n' Roses or not the album would have sounded the same, so I don't see how it's "thank god".  The product wouldn't have been any different, neither would the show.

all I said was I wonder if it would affect the sales of the album because it'd give potential buyers a different perspective.  Axl could have called his band meat and potatoes and it wouldn't make a difference.  Guns n' Roses is just a name at this point.  Axl has proven that by replacing the replacements replacements.

I don't think you realise just how much Guns N' Roses means to people all over the world. That's why I thank Axl for saving GN'R and carrying on when everyone else abanded GN'R. For some people Guns N' Roses are their life, and it's more than just a name. 

Think about the millions of people who have GN'R tattoos, travel all around the world to see GN'R and who have loved Guns N' Roses from the start to this present day.

Guns N' Roses is a way of life, and even Axl said in his online chats, that he felt like he had a responsibility to the fans to keep GN'R alive.

And I also thank Axl, because GN'R are my life. 

[Street of the Blues]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!





/jarmo

Thank God?

Why?

Would the music have been so bad if it were released under a different name?

I think keeping the name has really hurt Axl as an artist.

I think it's safe to say that we'd have a few more albums of Axl Rose music by now had he not chosen to keep the name.

Just my 2 cents.

[willow]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!



/jarmo

whether the band was called Guns n' Roses or not the album would have sounded the same, so I don't see how it's "thank god".  The product wouldn't have been any different, neither would the show.

all I said was I wonder if it would affect the sales of the album because it'd give potential buyers a different perspective.  Axl could have called his band meat and potatoes and it wouldn't make a difference.  Guns n' Roses is just a name at this point.  Axl has proven that by replacing the replacements replacements.

Lots of bands go threw lots of changes. Axl said himself something about trying to get the band where he wanted it personally and talent wise. It seems the changes that have happened, have happened to get to that point. I believe where the band is now, is where he was trying to get. You don't change the name of the band everytime someone quits or gets fired. lol the fact is that ths band still sounds like GNR. So why not continue with that name? Least thats the way I see it.

[jarmo]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!





/jarmo

Thank God?

Why?

Would the music have been so bad if it were released under a different name?

I think keeping the name has really hurt Axl as an artist.

I think it's safe to say that we'd have a few more albums of Axl Rose music by now had he not chosen to keep the name.

Just my 2 cents.

Well because it sounds like GN'R. Bands evolve all the time.

Because others tried to kill GN'R all along the way, hoping it would end.

And of course it annoys some that Axl didn't let GN'R die. Many of these people are on the forums posing as GN'R fans.


I see the good in the situation, you see the bad. It's obvious why you do. No need to pretend.





/jarmo

[wight gunner]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!





/jarmo

Thank God?

Why?

Would the music have been so bad if it were released under a different name?

I think keeping the name has really hurt Axl as an artist.

I think it's safe to say that we'd have a few more albums of Axl Rose music by now had he not chosen to keep the name.

Just my 2 cents.

This post is a parody of itself.

Would the music have been so bad if it were released under a different name?

As it wasn't, is it so bad?

I think keeping the name has really hurt Axl as an artist.

The band has always evolved, people go and get replaced, just like any other job, team or band....

I think it's safe to say that we'd have a few more albums of Axl Rose music by now had he not chosen to keep the name.

How? The releases done under Axl's say so (so no to GH) have been done when he's felt them to be fit to release, keeping the name, hasn't prevented any release, only the quality of what has been available. Since many of the doubters see this band as "The Axl and others show" isn't what you are claiming already "Axl Rose music"? 

[richwoman]

I think if Axl hadn't kept and used the name ex members would have, what it needed was some huge exposure and it would`ve shifted alot more look at Adele she made an appearance on the Brits and her album took off like a rocket, sometimes you have to appear on things you might not like but sometimes you have to give abit to get something back

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I think if Axl hadn't kept and used the name ex members would have, what it needed was some huge exposure and it would`ve shifted alot more look at Adele she made an appearance on the Brits and her album took off like a rocket, sometimes you have to appear on things you might not like but sometimes you have to give abit to get something back

Yes, I think Velvet Revolver would have been Guns N Roses if Axl did not have the rights to the GNR name.

I don't get why Axl was not be willing to go on SNL or Leno or Fallon to get the word out that there is a new band and there is new music. Even if he was pissed off at the label it's still his music that he wrote.

[Street of the Blues]

Oh, the name discussion again.

Somebody chose to walk away and quit. Axl didn't let that end GN'R. Thank God!





/jarmo

Thank God?

Why?

Would the music have been so bad if it were released under a different name?

I think keeping the name has really hurt Axl as an artist.

I think it's safe to say that we'd have a few more albums of Axl Rose music by now had he not chosen to keep the name.

Just my 2 cents.

Well because it sounds like GN'R. Bands evolve all the time.

Because others tried to kill GN'R all along the way, hoping it would end.

And of course it annoys some that Axl didn't let GN'R die. Many of these people are on the forums posing as GN'R fans.


I see the good in the situation, you see the bad. It's obvious why you do. No need to pretend.





/jarmo

To that I say:  Jarmo -- You are an Axl Rose fan posing as a GN'R fan.

[jarmo]

Wrong! I'm a GN'R fan. I stuck with GN'R through everything. 

I assume you didn't? What does that make you? A fan of the past? I fan desperately clinging onto some dream of the glorious past?

My GN'R shirts don't say "Axl Rose" on them. Even the ones I got last year (2010) They say Guns N' Roses.

It's a band! Yes, with Axl in it! But there's also others in the band. Something which some can't seem to comprehend.


I don't have conditions on when they need to do things or who should be in the band etc.

I trust that the one guy who has been in the band since day one knows way better than some anonymous Internet keyboard warriors who are desperately trying to be popular.


If I didn't like the band, I would find something else I liked. Instead of spending time on fan forums, using multiple usernames, spewing my hatred against something I have very little control over.

Seems like some of you have spent more years hating the band then you spent as actual fans. Ironic.

But that's just me! I know we're all different.

 



/jarmo

[audjon]

TW:184

LW:181

WOC: 203

Greatest Hits

Guns N' Roses

[One.In.A.Million]

Ha, don't worry jarmo, 'Street Of The Blues' is a right little keyboard warrior. He's the hero, who sent me a PM recently stating I'm a retard, instead of posting it in the thread where everyone could see. 

At the end of the day, Guns N' Roses started in 1985 and are still going strong in 2011, and that's all down to Axl. People like to point out member changes like it happens every month, the band has key members who have been there for 10+years. Just because those members aren't your 'favourite' doesn't mean it's not Guns N' Roses, because it is. 

I don't know why people post here if they obviously are not a fan of Guns N' Roses in 2011, why waste your energy debating something you've already made your mind up about.