Does anyone else wish CD had been more experimental?

[jarmo]

Ok.... No i dont wish CD was more experimental. It was too far removed from what most people would call a proper Guns n Roses record as it is.

Happy?

So you're saying that it's already too far, how much of a difference would it make if it's a bit too far, or further than that? 
I mean, for some people either it is, or it isn't. If it isn't, does it matter how much it isn't?




/jarmo

[OscarAxl22]

Ok.... No i dont wish CD was more experimental. It was too far removed from what most people would call a proper Guns n Roses record as it is.

Happy?

So you're saying that it's already too far, how much of a difference would it make if it's a bit too far, or further than that? 
I mean, for some people either it is, or it isn't. If it isn't, does it matter how much it isn't?




/jarmo

If you want Axl to turn out the next album singing songs that sound like 5 seconds of summer or one direction.. then that's cool for you i guess...

It's all a matter of opinion, i'm not going to shout you down for it like you do to me. 

[jarmo]

Why not just answer the counter argument made instead of trying to ridicule it?

For people who don't consider the album GN'R, does it matter how much it doesn't sound like the old albums? Some of their minds were made up before they heard a single note.
Is there a secret number we don't know about? A scale?

0 means it sounds exactly like the previous material
100 means it sounds nothing like the previous material

What's the number which you can't exceed or these mythical people won't like it?

I happen to think it doesn't matter. If it's different, it doesn't matter how much different. Some won't like it. Hence the people who thought the Illusions weren't as good as Appetite because it didn't sound exactly the same.

Obviously you can make a case about how even AC/DC albums are different if you want. But I'm not talking about just using a different guitar amp or subtle differences. I mean new instruments, different kinds of songs, productions, sounds etc.

So on this topic. Would it have mattered to them if there were more songs like for example Shackler's Revenge on the album? I don't think so. They didn't like it. Would it matter if they liked it less?



/jarmo

[OscarAxl22]

Why not just answer the counter argument made instead of trying to ridicule it?

For people who don't consider the album GN'R, does it matter how much it doesn't sound like the old albums? Some of their minds were made up before they heard a single note.
Is there a secret number we don't know about? A scale?

0 means it sounds exactly like the previous material
100 means it sounds nothing like the previous material

What's the number which you can't exceed or these mythical people won't like it?

I happen to think it doesn't matter. If it's different, it doesn't matter how much different. Some won't like it. Hence the people who thought the Illusions weren't as good as Appetite because it didn't sound exactly the same.

Obviously you can make a case about how even AC/DC albums are different if you want. But I'm not talking about just using a different guitar amp or subtle differences. I mean new instruments, different kinds of songs, productions, sounds etc.

So on this topic. Would it have mattered to them if there were more songs like for example Shackler's Revenge on the album? I don't think so. They didn't like it. Would it matter if they liked it less?



/jarmo

I take your point on the bolded bit. But again, its just opinions mate. As you rightly point out.. some people say that UYI was over-produced... i can see where they are coming from, but i dont agree with their overall opinion. Some parts on those albums aren't needed.. but i overlook it and i love both records.

Yes, some people's minds were already made up on CD before they heard it. I think that's a natural response to a band that was so huge and when 4 out of 5 members walk away, a large part of guns n roses walked with them. The players changed and so did the sound for the most part. And yes... this has influenced a lot of peoples opinions on whether they were going to give CD a decent go or not.

But alternatively... why cant it just be as simple as having an opinion such as.. "i just dont think its that great a record". That opinion doesnt have to offend people... but it does on here.

Ill put it to you like this... it's possible for the opposite to happen.. and it most certainly does in a lot of music that gets released today.. here's an example..

Im not a huge Bruno Mars fan by any stretch... I achnowledge hes good but for the most part, i dont really go much on him. Then.. Uptown Funk was released, heard it on the radio with the Mrs and it had a catchy upbeat tune and i thought.. "well, by radio music standards today, i actually can listen to this" .... 


I mean.. i dont love the song, but i like it as far as light hearted radio music goes... so yes.. not a fan of the guy himself or his overall work, but i happen to not mind that song.

The opposite can be said of Axl post 93... I love the man himself... but not CD cause its simply not an album that does much for me....

see... all things are possible.

[draguns]

I'm not interested in hearing industrial/electronic music from GNR. That's not why GNR became my favorite all-time band. GNR is blues based hard rock. If I want to hear  industrial music, I'll listen to Rob Zombie and Nine inch Nails.

That's been a real dichotomy, I think.

Do you want music that sounds like the Guns N' Roses music that made you a fan in the first place...

...or will you literally accept any old thing they put out, in whatever form?  And so long as it says "Guns N' Roses", than no worries?

I'm sort of in the middle.  I like a lot of the newer stuff, but don't think much of any of it sounds much like what made me a GNR fan 25 years ago.

And some is so far removed (Rhiad) I don't ever listen to it and don't appreciate it on any level.  I don't give a damn what name on the CD cover says.  Its just not good. 

On the other hand, 'Oh My God' doesn't sound a thing like GNR, but I have always dug it.

"Oh My God" grew on my me. I don't love it, but I do like it. I would have been curious as to what would have been  a finished product. I can't stand Rhiad. Something like "Better" where the industrial sound is subtle, I like it. Shackler's Revenge would have been a better NIN song than GNR.

You have to expand, but you also have to stick with your bread and butter. You have to know your strengths and weakness.  Strong brands do that.  Jarmo brought up the Rolling Stones. They expanded, but kept a formula that worked. The opposite of this is the WWE. WWE had a strong product in the 90s and early 00s. They started to falter  with  the XFL.  Instead of developing wrestlers, they decided to develop football, movies, politics, and a TV network. As a result, they are  struggling now with having wrestlers that can connect to the audience. They are losing ratings.     

[CherryGarcia]

Well, all bands (except AC/DC) evolve somewhat.  But there is still a base level of what to expect.

Pearl Jam will never put out a speed metal album.  I'm not going to pick up a Foo Fighters album and find free form jazz.

Yet I get the feeling that there are a lot of fans of this band that would roll with such things.  All depends on the name on the front, seems like.

I've just never been able to decide if that adaptability is more out of necessity than anything else.

You've never listened to the Rolling Stones, have you?

[ice cream sand pig]

Well, all bands (except AC/DC) evolve somewhat.  But there is still a base level of what to expect.

Pearl Jam will never put out a speed metal album.  I'm not going to pick up a Foo Fighters album and find free form jazz.

Yet I get the feeling that there are a lot of fans of this band that would roll with such things.  All depends on the name on the front, seems like.

I've just never been able to decide if that adaptability is more out of necessity than anything else.

You've never listened to the Rolling Stones, have you?

radiohead is a band that really evolved a lot over the years. they started to incorporate more of a jazz style into their music and it turned out really awesome. they were able to invent their own style instead of being stuck in the whole grunge thing that they themselves had sort of grown out of.

coldplay tried evolving too after x and y got slammed by critics for being more of the same. the result, viva la vida, was a great album, although they admittedly lost me after that with all the techno hip hop rihanna stuff. i can understand why cd isnt for everyone, but also understand jarmos point about how spammed opinions get boring to read.

i think oscars in an interesting situation. before all this reunion talk, it wouldnt have made much sense for him to stick around. what will you do if the reunion falls through, cd2 is released, and gnr tours with a new lineup? will you stick around and keep hoping for a reunion? im just curious, this is not meant as any kind of attack or anything.

[OscarAxl22]

Well, all bands (except AC/DC) evolve somewhat.  But there is still a base level of what to expect.

Pearl Jam will never put out a speed metal album.  I'm not going to pick up a Foo Fighters album and find free form jazz.

Yet I get the feeling that there are a lot of fans of this band that would roll with such things.  All depends on the name on the front, seems like.

I've just never been able to decide if that adaptability is more out of necessity than anything else.

You've never listened to the Rolling Stones, have you?

radiohead is a band that really evolved a lot over the years. they started to incorporate more of a jazz style into their music and it turned out really awesome. they were able to invent their own style instead of being stuck in the whole grunge thing that they themselves had sort of grown out of.

coldplay tried evolving too after x and y got slammed by critics for being more of the same. the result, viva la vida, was a great album, although they admittedly lost me after that with all the techno hip hop rihanna stuff. i can understand why cd isnt for everyone, but also understand jarmos point about how spammed opinions get boring to read.

i think oscars in an interesting situation. before all this reunion talk, it wouldnt have made much sense for him to stick around. what will you do if the reunion falls through, cd2 is released, and gnr tours with a new lineup? will you stick around and keep hoping for a reunion? im just curious, this is not meant as any kind of attack or anything.

I will still be a member of this forum and show an interest in what Axl does. If he releases an album with a new lineup i will give it a listen. If Axl comes back to a city near me, ill buy a ticket for sure.

Life will go on.

Obviously i have a preference for what i hope happens. Of course that doesn't rub too well with some people around here, who happen to get wound up by people like me who share a certain opinion or question anything that shouldnt be questioned.  I don't think what i want to happen should mean i cant contribute to the discussion in the future if things don't pan out in the way i want. ??

[norway]

Do you want music that sounds like the Guns N' Roses music that made you a fan in the first place...

some (re)got into the band in the late 90's early 20's

what does ''thar'' mean? or what did you mean to say ?

there, was just showing u an article. so 'itsovahforu'?

[kaasupoltin]

Of course it would have been interesting to hear what it might have been, but then again, I wouldn't want to tell a band how their album should sound. But as I said, it would be interesting to hear how far they would have been able to go with some of the stuff.

I do like Silkworms, for example And some of the "rough" mixes/demos/leaks.

[AXLRIVERS]

I dont think it was necessarily the experimental side of things that didnt quite work. I like pretty much every song on the album. I think my issue is it didnt quite work in terms of the mixture or flow of the album as a bunch of songs. You could tell some songs were 15 years old and others relatively newer. Something didnt quite work as an album. Yet all the songs are mostly great. Not a criticism just a view i and i know others have about the album as a whole.

[jarmo]

see... all things are possible.

Ok. So in essence, are you saying that you don't wish it was more experimental because it was too far off from the old GN'R's sound already, but if it was more experimental, people who think that, might still like it?
I think you got everything covered in that case.

Kinda like "It might rain, or not". 

Also, I suspect that if people didn't know who the performer is, there might be less resistance.... A great song is a great song, no matter who performs it.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I dont think it was necessarily the experimental side of things that didnt quite work. I like pretty much every song on the album. I think my issue is it didnt quite work in terms of the mixture or flow of the album as a bunch of songs. You could tell some songs were 15 years old and others relatively newer. Something didnt quite work as an album. Yet all the songs are mostly great. Not a criticism just a view i and i know others have about the album as a whole.

The album is not the least bit organic.  You can tell that within most of the songs themselves, and its really driven home when you listen to it straight through.

But that is one of those quibbles you can freely acknowledge, not try to pretend is not there, but also not have it be something that kills the album for you.

The songs do still sound good, for the most part.

[JAEBALL]

When people say it wasn't Guns N Roses... it's not just the complete change in lineup.

It's also a record that the previous musicians would have never made, couldn't have made and never would have wanted to make.

Slash Duff and Izzy were not gunna come up with Rhiad or Shackler's revenge...

Personally... I like the songs that did resemble previous GNR records. Shackler's, Rhiad and some of the other tracks that pushed the envelope a little bit...not my cup of tea.

However... since Axl no longer had to contend with the old band's tastes... he really should have pushed it as far as he wanted... why not right?

[sky dog]

To put it in gambling terms, Axl tried to hit a "middle"...he bet on both sides.

[D-GenerationX]

When people say it wasn't Guns N Roses... it's not just the complete change in lineup.

It's also a record that the previous musicians would have never made, couldn't have made and never would have wanted to make.

Totally agree.

And this is the sort of reasoning I use when I say I don't see how they would have much interest playing these songs live.  They aren't theirs.  And playing them is not like playing an old AC/DC tune they all grew up on.

Hey, let's play some of those songs done by the guys I tried to replace you all with.

Sure thing, buddy.  Been hoping I might get that chance.

I don't see it.

[jarmo]

You mean unlike Reckless Life or Anything Goes?
Songs that existed and were written before the band even existed....

They didn't have a problem playing songs written by other people then....

So in that hypothetical scenario, I don't think everything is always all or nothing. A song like This I Love sure would seem more likely than say Riad N' The Bedouins.
We (some of us) already saw how Duff played several of those songs live already.



/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

To put it in gambling terms, Axl tried to hit a "middle"...he bet on both sides.

Ha I agree.

[JAEBALL]

When people say it wasn't Guns N Roses... it's not just the complete change in lineup.

It's also a record that the previous musicians would have never made, couldn't have made and never would have wanted to make.

Totally agree.

And this is the sort of reasoning I use when I say I don't see how they would have much interest playing these songs live.  They aren't theirs.  And playing them is not like playing an old AC/DC tune they all grew up on.

Hey, let's play some of those songs done by the guys I tried to replace you all with.

Sure thing, buddy.  Been hoping I might get that chance.

I don't see it.

I could see one or two CD songs in the set... but certainly not Shackler's... or Sorry !

Hopefully it happens and we get to find out for sure.

[D-GenerationX]

You mean unlike Reckless Life or Anything Goes?
Songs that existed and were written before the band even existed....

No.  That is not what I mean.

That analogy hasn't landed yet, no not entirely clear why you keep trying to run it up the flagpole as many times as you have.

You have such a love affair with false equivalency.

Having them play songs done by the people he tried to replace them with and perform under their name?  A name that established them all as worldwide superstars?  Well, its really no different then when they recorded those other songs written by other incarnations of the band before they were signed and anyone knew who the hell any of they were.

Yeah...not so much.

If you want to tell me Slash and Duff might be down to throw a CD song in a setlist, hey...maybe.  Who knows?

But, if they do, it won't have a thing to do with what happened with 'Reckless Life' in 1986.