wasted Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Did Maiden sell 26 mil of their debut album though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parisrocks Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 The answer is in the title to your thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardNixon Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 No active band, except for maybe U2 is as popular now as they were 20 years ago. Almost every band/artist has an inevitable decline in popularity. There are the hardcore fans, and the fickle ones who just move on after a few years. Unless it's a band like The Doors or Nirvana, where the tragic death of a key member keeps the band frozen in amber. Of the ten million people who bought Pearl Jam's Ten, how many of them listened to Lighting Bolt? Even if Slash/Duff/Izzy had never left and GN'R had released new music in the 90s/00s, GN'R still wouldn't be as big in 2014 as they were in the late 80s/early 90s. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nambis Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Because frankly the new music is very mediocre. I can't believe people have a hard time understanding that. Edited January 18, 2014 by nambis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Very few people past 40 can make it big unless the have consistently been releasing material. Even then it's usually good looking woman.Basically to be popular, you need to have teenage girls that want to fuck the band. Simple as that. It's always been that way, regardless of the quality of music. For instance, is one direction's "best song ever" on par with "November Rain" or "Sweet Child o Mine"??? None of these even got a number 1 in UK. So, if you want to be popular, you need to be fuckable to the masses. Simple. Paul McCartney, part of the biggest band ever could release a single tomorrow and it wouldn't be number 1. That's why for these artists there is far more money in touring. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Guns N' Roses are primarily a band popular among young (10 - 16 year olds) and middle aged/old people. Their success was largely based on gimmick - wrestler names, riots, rants, internal drama, and so on...The reality for most intelligent music fans who are able to look at this band objectively, is that they're, well...kind of lame.I know that's not the type of response you were looking for, since this thread is just another one of your repetitive "Nu band sucks" shticks. But the truth is, no one cares about the current lineup of Guns N' Roses and frankly, no one cares about the old lineup either.Don't take this as an attack because it is not .... honestly when I read the stuff you post about GNR (old and current) I really wonder what on earth you get out of posting here never mind the fact that you are a news reporter for a band that you consider lame and which yu think nobody cares about. I know you are a Finck fan but he's long gone and his contribution to GNR is minimal so forgive me for thinking your posting here and news reporter status is a little baffling.Because he's good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Because the people behind it today dragging it through swamp lands are, well, dragging it through swamp lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 In the minds of most outside of the die hards, GNR went into hibernation mode. Then returned without anyone recognizable to release a mediocre record. Axl's age and weight seems to be a factor somewhere. In the old days, you could make fun of Axl but still respect his performance. Today, it seems people want to make fun of both. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 In the minds of most outside of the die hards, GNR went into hibernation mode. Then returned without anyone recognizable to release a mediocre record. Axl's age and weight seems to be a factor somewhere. In the old days, you could make fun of Axl but still respect his performance. Today, it seems people want to make fun of both.I don't think they want, but it's really easy to point out Axl's incredibly bad voice. Outside the forums, most people laugh at Axl.I would think that the person who made the Axl Disaster videos was not even a diehard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_Fetish Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 If the original line up had kept their shit together and did the things that you need to do to successfully run a business, then they would have been as prolific as The Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin... but then they wouldn't have been Guns N Roses, now would they? And we wouldn't be here re hashing all of this shit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 One album in 20 years will do that to a band.Axl has been starting shows on time, his voice is decent, the shows are fun.But people still blame him for breaking up the old band, he isn't fan friendly, the entire Team Brazil debacle, the missed releases of everything they attempt to put out, and most non-GnR fans didn't like their last album.Now they tour bowling alleys, play weddings, join bands like Crue and Def Leppard to Vegas, do shows in Canada that draw less than 2,500 people and are forced to play small venues or join festivals that have tens of other bands, or play in locations that they haven't played before or that go crazy for any "known" band to show up.Axl could very easily change all that though and move GnR back up the ranks to a top 30-40 ranked bands in terms of relevancy, simply by releasing two more quality albums that are just two years apart. An album in 2014 and follow up in 2016. If you release albums every 2-3 years and they all sell 3-4 million copies, then your popularity will rise. Release an album that sells 3 million copies every 20 years...your popularity will decline. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Name is Trinity Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Axl could very easily change all thatthe only way to change all that is reunion.more nugnr albums won't change anything because they would have less impact than the spaghetti incident (even less impact than cd). Edited January 18, 2014 by My Name is Trinity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patience 4 Axl Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Axl could very easily change all thatthe only way to change all that is reunion, not more nugnr albums.As much as I agree, I don't think it's entirely impossible to at least come closer to what it once was. The old line up is iconic, nothing Axl and whoever can do will replace what was accomplished originally. Right now this act is looked at as a nostalgia band, playing tribute to the classic band. That's not how you grow or become better than what came before. This line up hasn't been given the opportunity to create a new identity for themselves and progress. And the CD lineup put out a record that was more of a stain on the name than a benefit to it. I think any of the nu line ups had / have the potential to make some good music. Maybe they will someday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 If the original line up had kept their shit together and did the things that you need to do to successfully run a business, then they would have been as prolific as The Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin... but then they wouldn't have been Guns N Roses, now would they? And we wouldn't be here re hashing all of this shit. God damn, it's sad to think about. They really were something so incredibly special together. For what "it" is now is one of the most tragic falls in rock music ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I'd totally buttsex this guy. Is that gay? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bonham Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I would think that the person who made the Axl Disaster videos was not even a diehard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Because nobody is ever at the same heights 20 years later.Iron Maiden? Note the word 'heights' I'd totally buttsex this guy. Is that gay?Oh now thats preposterous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Axl could very easily change all thatthe only way to change all that is reunion, not more nugnr albums. Right now this act is looked at as a nostalgia band, playing tribute to the classic band. That's not how you grow or become better than what came before. This line up hasn't been given the opportunity to create a new identity for themselves and progress. I think any of the nu line ups had / have the potential to make some good music. Maybe they will someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Axl could very easily change all thatthe only way to change all that is reunion, not more nugnr albums.As much as I agree, I don't think it's entirely impossible to at least come closer to what it once was. The old line up is iconic, nothing Axl and whoever can do will replace what was accomplished originally. Right now this act is looked at as a nostalgia band, playing tribute to the classic band. That's not how you grow or become better than what came before. This line up hasn't been given the opportunity to create a new identity for themselves and progress. And the CD lineup put out a record that was more of a stain on the name than a benefit to it. I think any of the nu line ups had / have the potential to make some good music. Maybe they will someday.That ship sailed when Appetite For Democracy hit Vegas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicguns4life Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Slash. The list begins and ends there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TombRaider Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Did Maiden sell 26 mil of their debut album though?I don't know, but they were/are still huge, even after all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Maybe niceguy didn't get the memo, but Axl is never, ever going to put the band back together. So sorry. Please drive thru. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flayer Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 It's old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't know about you guys but I love GNR just as much as I did back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicguns4life Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't know about you guys but I love GNR just as much as I did back in the day.Well yeah, but you're delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts