CD deserved a competent audience

[bacardimayne]

CD didn't have a competent audience. The people who would normally be interested in what Axl wanted to put out weren't because he stuck with the GNR name, and instead he had to try and please a bunch of mulletfucks who think Eddie Van Halen is the best technical guitarist in history.

It's like if someone wrote a really good book but the only people who read it were comic book fans who wanted it to be like Spiderman.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think CD is an amazing 10/10 album or anything, but I do think the reception it got is horribly unfair and it deserves an audience that isn't looking for an 80s nostalgia album like the vast majority of people who listened to it were expecting/demanding. It's a solid 7-8 out of 10 and the best tracks are really fucking good.

Axl was definitely right about one thing: there's something on CD for everyone. Almost everyone I've talked to about the album, even those who hate it, admit that there are one or two tracks on it that they like, and it's not always the same ones. Better and TWAT get the most love but I know people who think Riad is the shit and hate everything else.

Just wanted to get that out.

[ThinkAboutYou]

rhiad is the shit

[EvH]

a bunch of mulletfucks who think Eddie Van Halen is the best technical guitarist in history.

Why the rage? He is. His guitar work is not even comparable with the masturbartion bullshit that are the so called guitars on CD.

[bacardimayne]

If you have ever enjoyed a song by Van Halen, Motley Crue, Skid Row, White Snake or Poison in your adulthood I kindly ask that you refrain from posting in this thread.

Edited October 14, 2013 by bacardimayne

[EvH]

If you have ever enjoyed a song by Van Halen, Motley Crue, Skid Row, White Snake or Poison in your adulthood I kindly ask that you refrain from posting in this thread.

Putting Van Halen in the same league as 80s sleaze rock bands shows how badly trolling you are. At least, I hope for you.

[wasted]

the critics agree it's kind of a 7 out of 10. I guess the whole idea of CD is it's meant to be going against the grain of what a lot of people want. So it makes sense people don't like it. Generally the whole album is telling the listener to fuck themselves which is quite novel. I think if people hate it, mission accomplished. If only it had bombed harder and then they could have toured it even longer. CD is like the older sister of In Utero who has to go in for an abortion every few years.

[Facekicker]

[Guest Len B'stard]

Yeaaah, cuz it's soooo intelligent and it's SOOOO difficult to see what Axls trying to do with it, it's such a puzzle. Oh my God, a trip-hop intro, call the intellectuals!

[magisme]

Sorry, bacardi. I'm hardly an 80s hair metal apologist. I enjoy many of the bands that supposedly influenced CD. I can't stand any of the bands you ridicule from the 80s. CD is a 5/10 at best.

[bacardimayne]

Yeaaah, cuz it's soooo intelligent and it's SOOOO difficult to see what Axls trying to do with it, it's such a puzzle. Oh my God, a trip-hop intro, call the intellectuals!

Fuck off, that's not what I was saying at all. Like I said, at best it's a solid to good album, but it gets such a horribly shit rep because the only people who've bothered to listen to it are 80s rock fans who wanted a Poison record. A large amount of the people who relentlessly bash CD actually think Slash's 2010 album was good.

I don't consider it "intellectual" or anything of the sort, just a decent modern rock record with about 4-5 enjoyable songs and probably more if I hadn't played the absolute shit out of it from 2008-10.

Edited October 14, 2013 by bacardimayne

[magisme]

And I honestly do not think there is one track on the album that is really good from start to finish.

[username]

Just stop making excuses for a long-overdue overproduced running-gag messy mediocre-at-best record.

[bacardimayne]

And I honestly do not think there is one track on the album that is really good from start to finish.

Which is fair enough. I just wish there was a bigger sample size of people who don't give a shit about GNR but gave CD a listen.

Edited October 14, 2013 by bacardimayne

[Bobbo]

Naw. It just didn't connect to an audience because it just wasn't that good. It's really not much more complex than that. There was a mass awareness to it, and it had a fairer chance than most people give credit for. It was just all over the place by every definition of the word.

Sure, there's a few solid songs scattered around (not extraordinary, but solid) surrounded by a sea of absolute duds. Can't blame people for not swimming in a cesspool for a $50 bill.

[magisme]

And I honestly do not think there is one track on the album that is really good from start to finish.

Which is fair enough. I just wish there was a bigger sample size of people who don't give a shit about GNR but gave CD a listen.

I agree with that, actually. I don't think people would have liked it much more, but who knows. It would have been nice to talk with folks about the music instead of all the peripheral Axl is a nutcase, 14 years in the works, WTF this isn't really GNR baggage that became the main topics of conversation whenever CD came up. At the same time, I think that if the music merited the attention, it would have received the attention. The circus surrounding the album created more discussion cuz it was more interesting than the music itself.

[HubbaBubba]

And I honestly do not think there is one track on the album that is really good from start to finish.

Great observation.

For me, the flaw is weak riffs. I'm all for elemental - Frusciante came back humble and the chilis conquered the world again - but riffs like the one in cd are just, well, basic. It sounds like a song my garage band wrote.

Of course, the hairs lift when Axl kicks in with his pure snarling attitude, but he's carrying the whole show. Once you've added in a sterile shredding solo it's all over bar the nintendo sounds.

[Randy Lahey]

Axl needed a You Could Be Mine type rocker to pull it off under the GNR name. And they blew it when they released that generic piece of shit Chinese Democracy song as the first single. I still enjoy the album though. Van Halen is awesome too.

[username]

Axl needed a You Could Be Mine type rocker to pull it off under the GNR name. And they blew it when they released that generic piece of shit Chinese Democracy song as the first single. I still enjoy the album though. Van Halen is awesome too.

Rubbish. First of all one track can't save an otherwise poor record. GnR dropped the ball on EVERY possible front imo.

1. CD was a horribly messy record in terms of production. Layer upon layer upon layer. It's all over the place with a huge wall of sound coming at you. WAY too much going on, which really kills the quality of some songs

2. CD was too long and incoherent as an album. I mean really, sitting through it start to finish is an ordeal. Make a 45-60 minute album with songs that actually blend together more

3. CD was promoted poorly. There was little exposure, commercials and actual promotion in the form of interviews on tv, on the radio and in magazines

4. CD was managed poorly because there were no decent single releases (that were actually promoted. They didn't strive to get the exposure

I'm sure there's more things that I can't remember right now. But a single song would never save this. But my main points are still 1 and 2. Fix that, and points 3 and 4 will work. But when your record simply isn't good, 3 and 4 are also useless.

And blaming the audience is even worse. The music-elitism of saying people don't "get" what they're doing here just bugs me. With any band. The majority doesn't like it, so it's not successful. Deal with it.

Edited October 14, 2013 by username

[Randy Lahey]

Axl needed a You Could Be Mine type rocker to pull it off under the GNR name. And they blew it when they released that generic piece of shit Chinese Democracy song as the first single. I still enjoy the album though. Van Halen is awesome too.

Rubbish. First of all one track can't save an otherwise poor record. GnR dropped the ball on EVERY possible front imo.

You're wrong. Axl needed one monster rock song to set the table for the rest of the album. Especially after 17 years. If CD had a rocker that was the equivalent of You Could Be Mine it would have opened things up for the rest of the album. Chinese Democracy (the song) got a tonne of airplay at first but failed to find an audience.

[netcat]

his problem is not that he stuck with GNR name, it is that he stuck in time and in his irrational mind.

but yes, i think if CD was released in early 00, it would automatically get a wider audience, hard rock, industrial, even experimental music fans, Praxis' for example. i'm not saying they would all love it, but at least more people'd give it a try.

in 2008 even most of Axl's classic era fans got so emotionally distanced from him that they didn't even bother listening

[HubbaBubba]

Who are these legendary rock illuminati? Do they have a handshake like the Freemasons? What intelligent rock do they listen to?

Wasted? Randy? Is that you?

[username]

Axl needed a You Could Be Mine type rocker to pull it off under the GNR name. And they blew it when they released that generic piece of shit Chinese Democracy song as the first single. I still enjoy the album though. Van Halen is awesome too.

Rubbish. First of all one track can't save an otherwise poor record. GnR dropped the ball on EVERY possible front imo.

You're wrong. Axl needed one monster rock song to set the table for the rest of the album. Especially after 17 years. If CD had a rocker that was the equivalent of You Could Be Mine it would have opened things up for the rest of the album. Chinese Democracy (the song) got a tonne of airplay at first but failed to find an audience.

A successful single might get you some more "blind" buys based on the single. Granted that you'd actually promote and market that single (and the album). But it's not realistic to have one kickass YCBM style rocker on an otherwise overproduced mess. It'd be quite weird. People who would buy the album based on that single will find the single they loved the odd one out and that'd be bad publicity for the album. Their reviews would be terrible. Same with the critics by the way. It might win you some success, but it won't save your album in the long run. Having a hit single to promote your album only works if it's a good representation of the album. If it's the one descent track in a big mess, forget about it.

[HubbaBubba]

his problem is not that he stuck with GNR name, it is that he stuck in time and in his irrational mind.

but yes, i think if CD was released in early 00, it would automatically get a wider audience, hard rock, industrial, even experimental music fans, Praxis' for example. i'm not saying they would all love it, but at least more people'd give it a try.

in 2008 even most of Axl's classic era fans got so emotionally distanced from him that they didn't even bother listening

CD's only experimental in the fact that it experiments with extremes of overindulgence. Too much!

[wasted]

Nothing wrong with the record or songs. It's not really the era of rock hits.

[username]

his problem is not that he stuck with GNR name, it is that he stuck in time and in his irrational mind.

but yes, i think if CD was released in early 00, it would automatically get a wider audience, hard rock, industrial, even experimental music fans, Praxis' for example. i'm not saying they would all love it, but at least more people'd give it a try.

in 2008 even most of Axl's classic era fans got so emotionally distanced from him that they didn't even bother listening

I also think sticking with the GnR name hurt CD more than it did it any good. Again, the main issue is that the album was such a mess. But if it wasn't it'd make more sense as an Axl Rose album than a GnR album. The latter creates some expectancies that were very difficult to live up to.

And I also agree that the whole of CD would have done better in 2000. First of all the production and sound was SO much better. But it wouldn't have become such a running joke in the music industry either. It'd just make more sense. And it might even be more accepted. Now it was a revolving-door band to the media and a million people working on it. Back in 2000 it would at least be one new band instead of a band half of who's members have been replaced AGAIN in the 10 years the record took.