Why is Chinese Democracy so hated?

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

It has pretty much all been said already.  It didn't look or sound anything like Guns N' Roses. The songs were weak.. Axl sounded weird... I think Axl may have gotten a bit too much credit as a song writer prior to CD being released. I know I was guilty of it. I didn't think he could really write a bad song until CD came out. It was so all over the place and forced. Trying to chase the latest trends that had already come and gone by the time it was released. Axl was one of the best "rock" front men\singers of all time. I think most fans would have been more happy with him releasing a rock album under the GnR name.  If he really needed to explore other kinds of music I think he would have gained a lot more respect doing it as a solo project.   Guns were a band that thrived off each other.  The original band all brought something to the table. It may have been to different degrees but they all brought something. When CD was finally released  it was so bad that a lot of people resented Axl for tarnishing the GnR catalog with those songs. 

 

I at least expected an ''Estranged'' or ''Locomotive'' type song. I remember thinking before the album was leaked that, 'there will be at least an ''Estranged'' or two on there.' ''This I Love'' was actually heavily hyped as a sort of sequel so I - and I do not believe I'm the only one - expected that to be this intricately written epic ballad rather than the cheesy song we got instead. 

[DeadSlash]

I think a lot of people vested a lot of time and emotion in "The album will be garbage without Slash"  

For those people, the album was doomed to be "terrible" before it released.  There was no force on earth, no sound known to man that would change their opinion.  I would say probably about 30% of the people on this forum that talk about how terrible CD is, listen to it on the regular.  We see these people say things like "If it was named something beside GnR, it would have been good.  With the name Guns n' Roses on it, it's terrible."  How can you argue with that?    How do you argue with someone, who in their mind, a song is good or bad based on the band name being  "Axl's New Rose" vs. GnR?  

 

It's especially vexing knowing that if nothing had ever leaked, and we had no idea the songs had been done for decades, and the album released now with the current lineup, these same people calling it terrible would be hailing it as the greatest album of the 2000's.

 

Step back from this whole thing and ask yourself how much it would suck to live a life where you heard a new song on the radio, and you were really digging it, but had to suppress those feelings until you heard the band name, because if it was incorrect, you would have to hate the song. 

That's no way to live.

 

The short answer to your question is they hated it because the decided it was going to be terrible long before they heard it, and they are sticking to their story.

[double talkin jive mfkr]

4 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

It has pretty much all been said already.  It didn't look or sound anything like Guns N' Roses. The songs were weak.. Axl sounded weird... I think Axl may have gotten a bit too much credit as a song writer prior to CD being released. I know I was guilty of it. I didn't think he could really write a bad song until CD came out. It was so all over the place and forced. Trying to chase the latest trends that had already come and gone by the time it was released. Axl was one of the best "rock" front men\singers of all time. I think most fans would have been more happy with him releasing a rock album under the GnR name.  If he really needed to explore other kinds of music I think he would have gained a lot more respect doing it as a solo project.   Guns were a band that thrived off each other.  The original band all brought something to the table. It may have been to different degrees but they all brought something. When CD was finally released  it was so bad that a lot of people resented Axl for tarnishing the GnR catalog with those songs. 

 

yes - none of it sounded GNR maybe only the first wannabee spanish slashy chords of if the world - other than that everyting pretty much sucked at all the same level and yes Axl's songwriting prowess became severely damaged as a result - bottom line is GNR = Axl and Izzy + the Rest 

[Order of Nine]

2 hours ago, Draguns said:

If that's what you think so be it. Fact is a lot of people didn't know Finck, Buckethead, Bumblefoot, and DJ Ashba prior to GNR. I have friends that are  more into music than I am and are musicians. They never heard of any of those people before GNR. 

And now they do!!! Thats my whole point. You just admitted it.

[Tom2112]

17 hours ago, Draguns said:

You still didn't answer my question. Why did they agree on Guns N' Roses if they didn't want money and fame? Please don't give me the excuse that they saw success in living off playing their music. They could have turned the offer down easily and continued on with their lives. This is like Nirvana fans stating Kurt Cobain wasn't in it for the money and fame.

In regards to NIN, I like a few songs of theirs but not enough to buy an album or really research them. 

They were there for (in no particular order) the financial side, boost their profile, play with a iconic frontman, possibly contribute to new music and in some cases because they also enjoyed laying the music. Why did they not turn down the gig, well that's easy to answer. EVERYONE has to pay their bills and when the opportunity of a lifetime comes along you grab it with both hands. Also, Ron turned it down the first time in 2004. 

It's not a bad thing to play in a band because it's good for your career, it's smart business, it's another altogether to just stay for years because you're making good money but you hate everything else about the job. I don't think any of the members of the band stayed just for the money or the fame, also, the money those guys made for touring was good but we're not talking about walking away from a 6 month tour with millions, it's more like thousands.

[BangoSkank]

I always wonder what the world's reaction would have been if he released under a different name. Some would still not be on board because it's very polarizing in terms of his artistic choices, but I bet others would have been inclined to give it more of a chance. Songs like "Shackler's Revenge" kick a ton of ass, but because people already have their apprehensions about Slash not being there and being replaced by a bunch of strange looking players, it wouldn't stand a chance with them.

Not saying everyone hates it for this reason, but there is a contingent that does.

 

[killuridols]

Of course releasing this album under the GNR name and not doing it has a lot of weight in the way fans received it.

Guns N' Roses was a established band, successful, with a definite sound, with a guitarist who is very recognizable with his style and playing and IMO, Duff's bass is also an important component of that recognizable sound. So when you wipe all of these musicians and release music with people who are totally different, it is expected that fans will not understand what's going on and criticize it.

Its like filling a bottle of Coca Cola with Fanta and selling it as Coca Cola. People will protest.

Now had CD been released as the Axl solo project or any other name, then people would have know what NOT to expect and probably have a more flexible attitude towards the album.

That doesn't mean it would have been a sales success or a revolutionary album because it is not and will never be, but fans would have not been so frustrated about it and all that it took to finally have it out.

[SoulMonster]

44 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Guns N' Roses was a established band, successful, with a definite sound, with a guitarist who is very recognizable with his style and playing and IMO, Duff's bass is also an important component of that recognizable sound. So when you wipe all of these musicians and release music with people who are totally different, it is expected that fans will not understand what's going on and criticize it.

You are of course correct. But you also point out something by saying "Guns N' Roses WAS an established band". By 2008 that band was long gone. It wasn't an established band anymore. It hadn't released music in ages. Fans hardly knew the members. If fans had adjusted to reality, realized it was an entirely new lineup, realized the lineup they loved was gone, realized the band was likely ro have moved on musically, they might have been able to judge CD for what is was worth.

The problem is that the band ended on a high, and that a long time took place before something happened again. The fans didn't get to take part in the changes in the band. To them, the band in 2008 should have been the band in 1994. But since the band had been underground for so long, and operated much more in the shadows, when it resurfaced in 2008 (or 2001 for those who followed the band back then) the changes were too abrupt and drastic compared to what most fans expected GNR to be. They hadn't been involved in all the changes, they hadn't heard the music evolve through new releases. in the period since 1994, they hadn't grown accustomed to this new version of the band. They expected something similar to the band as they knew it, and it just wasn't.

[killuridols]

39 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

By 2008 that band was long gone. It wasn't an established band anymore. It hadn't released music in ages. Fans hardly knew the members. If fans had adjusted to reality, realized it was an entirely new lineup, realized the lineup they loved was gone, realized the band was likely ro have moved on musically, they might have been able to judge CD for what is was worth

I think most fans knew the band was no longer the same or to put it clearly, it was just Axl with a bunch of hired hands. And the ones who didn't know, they woke up in 2001 with Rock In Rio, or maybe in 2008 as you say.

It is not fair to put the blame on the fans for not "adjusting to reality". Why do that? I repeat, I think most fans knew the classic lineup was gone, except for Axl, but the rejection is not due to resistance to change but due to resistance to idiocy....  Why desintegrate a formula that worked, that was successful and sold millions of records and downgrade it to this shit that was totally different from what everybody knew and not only that, they weren't even as good as the real GN'R!! (from not having new music to show, to taking a century to release an album and all the lineup changes within the new band too).

No sane mind can keep up with such a mess and much less tolerate being treated as fools when they were presented an album under the GN'R name.

CD suffered the consequences of a stubborn man with zero reality checks in his life. Actually, releasing it was his reality check.

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, killuridols said:

It is not fair to put the blame on the fans for not "adjusting to reality". Why do that?

It is absolutely the fans fault for expecting GN'R in 2008, with an almost entirely new lineup, 14 years after their last release of original material, to not be a different band playing different music.

Likewise, it is absolutely the band's fault for putting the fans in this position, by not putting out new music in these 14 years that would make the transition less abrupt, and by being so radio-silent, and by not inviting the fans in to be part of the evolution of the band.

So I am generous with my criticism. 

[killuridols]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is absolutely the fans fault for expecting GN'R in 2008, with an almost entirely new lineup, 14 years after their last release of original material, to not be a different band playing different music.

Likewise, it is absolutely the band's fault for putting the fans in this position, by not putting out new music in these 14 years that would make the transition less abrupt, and by being so radio-silent, and by not inviting the fans in to be part of the evolution of the band.

So I am generous with my criticism. 

No, if you call something Guns N' Roses and Guns N' Roses had an established sound and style then it is logical to expect that this new product under the GN'R name will, more or less, adjust to what it was known before.

I totally understand what you mean, though, that one should not expect that an apple tree will give oranges  but that's where the problem with the name arises. If you are gonna present a product that is totally different than what is was before then call it something new and do not try to fool the customers by using the previous names, because you are not selling Coca Cola anymore. Now you're selling Fanta, even if you wanna pass it as Coke.

Truth is that even when most fans knew the old lineup wasn't there, no one really knew what the sound was like (except for those who had heard the leaks, but how many people actually heard the leaks back then?) and as you say, this is because the band never integrated the fans in their process of change, everybody was left out while they were operating in the shadows.

CD also suffered from all that mistery built up around it for so long and when it finally came out it was more disappointing than it should have been.

[default_]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is absolutely the fans fault for expecting GN'R in 2008, with an almost entirely new lineup, 14 years after their last release of original material, to not be a different band playing different music.

Likewise, it is absolutely the band's fault for putting the fans in this position, by not putting out new music in these 14 years that would make the transition less abrupt, and by being so radio-silent, and by not inviting the fans in to be part of the evolution of the band.

So I am generous with my criticism. 

I agree, in the end of the day its all the bands fault for not rebuilding what they were at the time for the general public. I really believe had Axl released 2000 Intentions reality would be different and maybe NuGuns would have suceeded by their second record, whatever the genre.

[DieselDaisy]

The songwriting was sub par irrespective of the name on the cover or the personnel.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

No, if you call something Guns N' Roses and Guns N' Roses had an established sound and style then it is logical to expect that this new product under the GN'R name will, more or less, adjust to what it was known before.

Again, you cannot expect a band 14 years later, to maintain the same sound. That's naive. In reality, the sound of GN'R was established with Appetite. The UYIs went in all kinds of direction and doesn't represent a coherent sound. So we are really talking about 20 years later. In fact, fans should be really curious about what the record after UYIs would be, since they were such sprawling albums.

Which is exactly my point. Too much time passed. Fans expected the band to have remained the same, because they never heard anything suggesting otherwise. It was 14 years of silence. 14 years of pain. At the same time, in the shadows, the band changed and evolved and changed. 

[estrangedtwat]

Plenty of bands sound exactly the same 14 years after their debuts.  Loads of them.  Cause they choose to.

Axl made a conscious decision to NOT sound the same.

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, you cannot expect a band 14 years later, to maintain the same sound. That's naive. In reality, the sound of GN'R was established with Appetite. The UYIs went in all kinds of direction and doesn't represent a coherent sound. So we are really talking about 20 years later. In fact, fans should be really curious about what the record after UYIs would be, since they were such

Of course not, but when you have the same band members, even after 14 years there will be elements of their established sound that will still be there because it is the same people writing the music.

The Illusions are different than AFD but they are not 180° different. Slash guitar and Duff bass is still there, and you can hear it, more evolved? Yes, but completely different? Nah.

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Which is exactly my point. Too much time passed. Fans expected the band to have remained the same, because they never heard anything suggesting otherwise. It was 14 years of silence. 14 years of pain. At the same time, in the shadows, the band changed and evolved and changed. 

The band changed but did not evolve. It didn't because they weren't the same people. Had it been the old lineup then yes, we can talk about evolution.

These guys were just different guys, they never played together before and they were never under the GN'R name, so they were just new different guys creating a new sound that is not the continuation of the old band but something totally new.

I still do not think the fans are to blame for being fooled by the band leader.

[SoulMonster]

53 minutes ago, killuridols said:

The Illusions are different than AFD but they are not 180° different. Slash guitar and Duff bass is still there, and you can hear it, more evolved? Yes, but completely different? Nah.

The band changed but did not evolve. It didn't because they weren't the same people. Had it been the old lineup then yes, we can talk about evolution.

These guys were just different guys, they never played together before and they were never under the GN'R name, so they were just new different guys creating a new sound that is not the continuation of the old band but something totally new.

I still do not think the fans are to blame for being fooled by the band leader.

I would argue that the band changed more from AFD to the UYIs than from UYIs to CD, especially when you take into account the times involved (4 vs 17 years). Many fans are not aware of how different UYis were when they were released, probably because they became fans after their release. To me, hearing You Could Be Mine debut on MTV was shocking. I knew the song was written long ago, but it just sounded so very different - the production was more sleek, the drumming different. AFD was a VERY coherent record. All songs had the same raw, gritty sound. All songs were similar in instrumentation and musicality. They fitted together. They belonged together. UYIs are not like that. Those records were obviously released by a band not being together anymore, with various interests and wishes. It goes in all directions. Yes, Axl's vocals and Slash's lead guitar were still there (and Duff's bass lines, for those who cared about that). But the production was different, Steve's iconic style of drumming was replaced by a machine, the song genres were diverse from acoustic folk to almost prog to piano-driven epic ballads, and the instrumentation varied from song to song, the dynamic interplay between Slash and Izzy was gone, and the lyrical content varied from childish to mature, and you had  ore experimentation with keyboards and layers. It was shocking. If it weren't for Axl's characteristic vocals I never would have thought it was the same band.

What happened from UYIs to CD? The songs are more coherent, again, it feels more like a record than UYIs, and Axl's voice is still there. The main thing is that Slash's bluesy lead guitar is gone, and in comes a multitude of new guitar sounds. There is also programming and heavy orchestration. And layers upon layers.

So in my opinion, and sure this is subjective, the band changed more from AFD to UYIs than from UYIs to CD.

Edited January 31, 2018 by SoulMonster

[killuridols]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What happened from UYIs to CD? The songs are more coherent, again, it feels more like a record than UYIs, and Axl's voice is still there. The main thing is that Slash's bluesy lead guitar is gone, and in comes a multitude of new guitar sounds. There is also programming and heavy orchestration.  

So in my opinion, and sure this is subjective, the band changed more from AFD to UYIs than from UYIs to CD.

I agree with how you described the evolution from AFD to UYI's, even though we know that many Illusions songs were written before AFD, but I still think there are elements that keep the coherence between those albums, like the attitude (Get In the Ring, Shotgun Blues, My World  and many others are just as childish lyrically as some tunes on AFD). The references to drugs, life on the street and the mysogy in the lyrics are still a constant on UYI songs. There's that's typical angry young men attitude that was not lost yet.

Of course you have the epics that are more mature, both lyrically and musically but I don't feel that UYI are albums that are disconnected from what GN'R was at the time. They sounded different than AFD but they still represented the essence of the band (even if at the time they were falling apart).

With CD, I don't feel that connection but of course this is due to it being a different band. And I really feel the songs on it are all different styles in the same way you describe UYI, but to me they do not represent a band, they represent Axl only and his topics of interest, as well as his sounds of interest.

 

[Millions]

You can over-analyse it all you want, but at the end of the day most of that is just a lot of shit that doesn't really matter.

Bottom line? The songs just weren't there. 

If there were some rock classics on the album like Sweet Child, Nightrain, YCBM, etc, all the other issues (over-production, different style/sound, long delays, new lineup, etc) would have been forgotten.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, killuridols said:

I agree with how you described the evolution from AFD to UYI's, even though we know that many Illusions songs were written before AFD, but I still think there are elements that keep the coherence between those albums, like the attitude (Get In the Ring, Shotgun Blues, My World  and many others are just as childish lyrically as some tunes on AFD). The references to drugs, life on the street and the mysogy in the lyrics are still a constant on UYI songs. There's that's typical angry young men attitude that was not lost yet.

The UYIS are very diverse lyrically. Some are as immature and simple as what is found on AFD, other songs explore different topics and imply a maturation of the lyricist. Just as expected when you compare lyrics written by a person in his early 20s to a person in his later 20s. And what would you expect from a person in his 40s? Even more maturation. So I would again argue that if people expected Axl to still write the same lyrics as back in the late 80s and early 90s, they are oblivious to how people age and mature. Fans expecting CD to feature lyrics from "angry young men" have themselves to blame for the resulting disappointment.

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

The UYIS are very diverse lyrically. Some are as immature and simple as what is found on AFD, other songs explore different topics and imply a maturation of the lyricist. Just as expected when you compare lyrics written by a person in his early 20s to a person in his later 20s. And what would you expect from a person in his 40s? Even more maturation. So I would again argue that if people expected Axl to still write the same lyrics as back in the late 80s and early 90s, they are oblivious to how people age and mature. Fans expecting CD to feature lyrics from "angry young men" have themselves to blame for the resulting disappointment.

I can't talk for all people but I was not expecting anything like the AFD lyrics or the angry young men of the UYI's either

I was not a teenager anymore when CD came out so nope, don't include me in that list of people who expected that kind of lyrics. If I have to say something, I wanted to hear more stuff like "Estranged" and "Coma".

But then you have lyrics like "I'll kick your ass like I said that I would", "Sitting in a Chinese stew", "a lot more time than you have got for masturbation" and the whole "This I Love" cheesy stuff and I'm not sure if he's matured that much or overcome his anger, because in CD he's still an angry man, though not young anymore.

Edited January 31, 2018 by killuridols

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

2 hours ago, Millions said:

You can over-analyse it all you want, but at the end of the day most of that is just a lot of shit that doesn't really matter.

Bottom line? The songs just weren't there. 

If there were some rock classics on the album like Sweet Child, Nightrain, YCBM, etc, all the other issues (over-production, different style/sound, long delays, new lineup, etc) would have been forgotten.

This is it really.  As much as I love CD, had the songs leaned more towards blues infused hard rock, it would have gone over better with the established fanbase.   

There's also the argument that had Axl released the album back in 2000/01 when he first wanted to, before the label stopped him, CD might have been better received.  

As it is, CD doesn't have mass commercial appeal, but it's not progressive enough to be labelled experimental either.  It sits awkwardly in between.  CD is a peculiar album, a sort of misfit, or a square peg in a round hole, like its creator.  This is probably part of the reason why I like it.  I feel the same way about many of UYI's imperfections as well. 

I do feel that Axl would have been better off releasing CD under his own name, but you know, like you say, none of it matters anymore.  It's done, it's over now.  Distant past.  Hopefully, GNR can put out a new kickass album some time in the near future, not distant! and restore balance to the GNR discography. 

 

[Tom-Ass]

12 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Which is exactly my point. Too much time passed. Fans expected the band to have remained the same, because they never heard anything suggesting otherwise. It was 14 years of silence. 14 years of pain. At the same time, in the shadows, the band changed and evolved and changed. 

Maybe Axl evolved and changed but the band didn't..  The "band' died.. After Slash, Duff and Izzy left and Matt was fired there was no more band. There was no evolution of the band.. It was just gone..  For a long time. Then a new band with a totally different look and sound emerged.. Aside from people that were die hards of Axl more than anything, it just didn't work for the majority...

[warrocks]

Not all the people hate it! At least I don’t

 

https://youtu.be/4_7DCRvDVAA

[DieselDaisy]

I do not even find Chinese that bold, or ''a big evolution'' (or ''revolution'') to be honest. It just panders to industrial/nu-metal a bit on ''Better'' and ''Shackler's Revenge'' (et al.) and chucks on a load of beeps over everything. If you are discussing ''original electronic'' music, it pails in comparison to what Aphex Twin or Björk were doing at that time - or even The Prodigy or Chemical Brothers. Progressive rock? It is hardly Floyd. It just about resembles middle period Zeppelin in certain areas (e.g., Madagascar). The Elton ballads (''Streets of Dreams'', ''This I Love'') are still present as they were present in superior form during Illusion.