Chris Vrenna (Nine Inch Nails) talks about Axl and working on Chinese Democracy

[thunderram]

14 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

Yeah, because AC/DC are so unique and interesting. You never know what you're gonna get with those guys. Not everyone is satisfied with listening to the same generic riffs for 40+ years. 

The Beatles work with George Martin was revolutionary in the 60s, but music and production has progressed so far since then that the same sound and production values would just be weak and, to be brutally honest, laughable 50 years later. Aerosmith have experimented with modern production over the years - critics pissed all over the Just Push Play album but fuck those guys, big kudos to the 'Smith for doing whatever they wanted. Even the Stones, or Mick Jagger at least, have mixed it up every now and then.

If GN'R don't go balls out on CD2, I at least hope the next album will be somewhere between UYI and CD. If we just get a Slash album with Axl vocals or an AFD rehash, it would just be sad.

 

You're missing the point. It's not about whether ALL fans are satisfied. The point was that the Stones, AC/DC, Aerosmith and many others still have millions of fans and remained relevant for decades w/o having to bow to the pressure of following trends. So it's been proven that a band doesn't have to drastically change or follow trends to remain relevant. That's all I was challenging. Modern production has nothing to do with any of that. I don't even know why you brought that up. It's about drastically changing musical direction.

None of the bands mentioned created a 'grunge' sounding album, did they? And they all seem to be better for it.

Like it or not, when the name GN'R is on the package, there's an expectation that the music is going to sound like ---- well, GN'R. While all things evolve and change over time, the key elements should remain the same. GN'R is a rock and roll band. Always has been. They aren't some experimental band. While there are notable differences between AFD, Lies and the UYI albums -- they still contained key elements that made them rock and roll albums. The only thing on UYI that didn't fit that description (My World) was widely panned and disliked. Because it wasn't Guns N'f'n Roses.

If AXL wants to be an experimental band, he needs to do it with mates that aren't part of GN'R and title it appropriately. Cause IZZY, DUFF, SLASH and STEVEN or MATT don't want to go down that road. They never did. It's not what they are, were, or what they want to be. Slapping the GN'R name on something like that is false advertisement, pure and simple.

While we all want new music, the vast majority want something that is still recognizable as GN'R. You say "If we just get a Slash album with Axl vocals or an AFD rehash, it would just be sad." ..... but that's you. Besides, if they do it right and collaborate, any new music would contain a bit of all parties involved. Which should give it the uniqueness you're looking for. They don't need to drastically change musical direction or sound in order to accomplish that,

Edited November 6, 2018 by thunderram

[amacfantasy]

21 hours ago, ©GnrPersia said:

So Axl wanted to modernize the sound and he was like "Alright we're going to run Appetite, top to bottom. Ready? Go!"

 

Why do I get a sense that he was just "talking" about modernizing it but he was lazy as fuck to bring in new ideas and solutions?

 

You just confusing what he said with something different. There area a lot of mythical stories about Axl in the CD era days and playing through AFD as a type of training or initiation better yet.

On 11/4/2018 at 12:06 PM, rocknroll41 said:

So Axl enlisted Billy Corgan to help him find Chris? Im a little confused about this part. If I recall correctly Zig Zag said recently that Axl didn't like Corgan.

I was always under the impression that Billy liked Axl from things I heard can't say about that specific time in history. But definitely now Billy likes Axl on a respect level.

[Rovim]

Axl seemed to want to somehow stay musically relevant. now that's not an issue he can still do what he wants. I think he knows everyone in the band will support anything new he'd like to work on. I wonder if they'll work on a new album what the approach will be. Duff confirmed Axl got a zillion tunes so I'm guessing the band can work without Axl at first, jam together, and also work on chinese era tunes Axl thinks Slash can improve or some shit.

if Axl got new ideas and lyrics Slash can work on that and also come up with riffs he can send to Axl. seems like putting together the puzzle will take a few years and I don't believe they really had time to begin serious work in the studio. hopefully Axl will have the drive to do it sooner rather than never.

[wasted]

maybe via Axl’s Trump tweets the fans will finally understand CD.

If you don’t get CD then you can’t understand GNR’s next record. It’s like not watching Rocky III and expecting to get Rocky IV when you hope it’s II. Ah maybe that makes no sense. Trump, CD and Rocky IV you get the idea. 

[killuridols]

58 minutes ago, wasted said:

maybe via Axl’s Trump tweets the fans will finally understand CD.

Explain that... 

CD is Axl mostly whining about Steph, Erin and GN'R. 

[AXL_N_DIZZY]

On 11/5/2018 at 6:31 AM, ©GnrPersia said:

So Axl wanted to modernize the sound and he was like "Alright we're going to run Appetite, top to bottom. Ready? Go!"

 

Why do I get a sense that he was just "talking" about modernizing it but he was lazy as fuck to bring in new ideas and solutions?

 

I think as Chris says- Axl wanted to keep the brand- and therefore playing Appetite, and a few very select cuts from the Illusions was non-negotiable. 

That said there actually were a number of famous songs (“DC”, “CW”, “Estranged”, etc.) that weren’t played until well into the Chinese-era- so I do think it was Axl’s hope (at one point anyway) to leave as much of 87-93 in the dust that he could reasonably get away with...

[wasted]

12 hours ago, killuridols said:

Explain that... 

CD is Axl mostly whining about Steph, Erin and GN'R. 

In reality not really. 

The album is really about fighting back against petty dictators. There much less directly about Slash. I think there’s a Seymour suite. 

The struggle to make CD was similar to the fight to not let Trump oppress everyone. 

Like i said it’s a geopolitical break up album. It does have the romantic songs too. But they’ve often been meshed with political issues like If the World. Sometimes it’s the other way round where Axl is giving someone an emotional audit on IRS. Look at the cover of CD, GNR spray painted on a wall in a dictatorship. It looks like a RATM album cover. 

Even Catcher is about manipulation. You could say Trump inflamatory laguage incites violence. 

Shackler’s is kind of gun control in a way. The media trying to blame artists for school shootings. Politicians have always done this. Trump will blame Jay Z for violence. 

Riad is diss track on a arms dealer.  

Scraped/Sorry media. They are about how to deal with bullies, you don’t give in. 

Madagascar is to inspire people brought down by oppression. It has this Civil Rights element, I can see liberals dems using it as theme tune. 

I would say Better, SOD, TWAT, IRS, TIL, Prostitute are about Seymour/Slash. It’s much harder to find Slash refs. 

Most Americans have never really been truly oppressed in such an overt way until Trump. So they found it harder to relate to CD. 

It’s not even the issues but the whole fascist style. I could see songs like Chi dem, If the World and Madagascar resonating with fans more now than in the early 2000s.

Even the Tacoma Dome is political in 2018.

Edited November 7, 2018 by wasted

[WhazUp]

Quote

 

After he left I even had a talk with Axl one time like, "You know, you're changing the sound of the band and it's really just you and we're all new dudes and we all come from cool places. But have you ever thought of just saying, f--- Guns N Roses. That name is dead. The band is over. We are now called 'blank.'"

And he goes, "Yeah you're not the first person who's told me I should probably do that. But Guns N' Roses is an international brand name, and to start over when I can just use the brand name that everybody knows, I can't sacrifice the branding that's already been established."

 

I found this to be very interesting.  Because Axl throughout the years has always argued for why he kept the name, stuff like "I was the only one interested in keeping the sinking ship afloat" and all that

It makes sense that the biggest factor would be money/funding/brand recognition.  I just wish still though that he would have gone and done it under a different band name, or his own.  His work would have been much better received and it isn't like there would have been no publicity - there would have been tons of publicity and talk about anything Axl Rose would have done at that point in time.  

Under the guise of a solo project it would have been easier for him to do all the crazy musical shit he wanted to do without backlash and lawsuits

Some bands evolve and do different things, sure.  But most bands don't replace every single member in order to achieve it lol.  Axl could have saved himself a lot of hardship

Edited November 7, 2018 by WhazUp

[Sydney Fan]

35 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

I found this to be very interesting.  Because Axl throughout the years has always argued for why he kept the name, stuff like "I was the only one interested in keeping the sinking ship afloat" and all that

It makes sense that the biggest factor would be money/funding/brand recognition.  I just wish still though that he would have gone and done it under a different band name, or his own.  His work would have been much better received and it isn't like there would have been no publicity - there would have been tons of publicity and talk about anything Axl Rose would have done at that point in time.  

Under the guise of a solo project it would have been easier for him to do all the crazy musical shit he wanted to do without backlash and lawsuits

Some bands evolve and do different things, sure.  But most bands don't replace every single member in order to achieve it lol.  Axl could have saved himself a lot of hardship

He could have kept the name if axl thought cd woukd have been the natural progression of the band post illusions, but i dont think that would have been correct. Based on that, he should done it under WAR name. People knew who axl was and marketed correctly may have gone better success and be seen as done right by old school fans.

[CAFC Nick]

Unfortunately, anyone that thinks Axl Rose on a banner would sell anywhere near as many tickets as Guns N' Roses is extremely naive.

Compare:
Steve Harris' British Lions vs. Iron Maiden.
Steven Tyler vs. Aerosmith.
Eddie Vedder vs. Pearl Jam.

I think the in Rock n' Roll world the only exception to the rule is Ozzy Osbourne and the height of his popularity as a solo artist was in the 80's - a much different musical landscape to 2000-present.

As much as I don't agree with Axl using the GN'R name for what is essentially his solo project, I can totally understand it from a financial and brand awareness perspective.

[Azifwekare]

CD is a natural progression from UYI. All it's missing Slash's bluesy riffage. But people heard a hip hop loop here and there and a few keyboards and lost their shit. 

[Azifwekare]

On 06/11/2018 at 7:19 AM, thunderram said:

 

You're missing the point. It's not about whether ALL fans are satisfied. The point was that the Stones, AC/DC, Aerosmith and many others still have millions of fans and remained relevant for decades w/o having to bow to the pressure of following trends. So it's been proven that a band doesn't have to drastically change or follow trends to remain relevant. That's all I was challenging. Modern production has nothing to do with any of that. I don't even know why you brought that up. It's about drastically changing musical direction.

None of the bands mentioned created a 'grunge' sounding album, did they? And they all seem to be better for it.

Like it or not, when the name GN'R is on the package, there's an expectation that the music is going to sound like ---- well, GN'R. While all things evolve and change over time, the key elements should remain the same. GN'R is a rock and roll band. Always has been. They aren't some experimental band. While there are notable differences between AFD, Lies and the UYI albums -- they still contained key elements that made them rock and roll albums. The only thing on UYI that didn't fit that description (My World) was widely panned and disliked. Because it wasn't Guns N'f'n Roses.

If AXL wants to be an experimental band, he needs to do it with mates that aren't part of GN'R and title it appropriately. Cause IZZY, DUFF, SLASH and STEVEN or MATT don't want to go down that road. They never did. It's not what they are, were, or what they want to be. Slapping the GN'R name on something like that is false advertisement, pure and simple.

While we all want new music, the vast majority want something that is still recognizable as GN'R. You say "If we just get a Slash album with Axl vocals or an AFD rehash, it would just be sad." ..... but that's you. Besides, if they do it right and collaborate, any new music would contain a bit of all parties involved. Which should give it the uniqueness you're looking for. They don't need to drastically change musical direction or sound in order to accomplish that,

No, you seem to be missing my point. (Most of) the bands you mention have made a natural progression, whether it be through their general sound, the production, or the odd stylistic diversion. It's got nothing to do with following trends or making an album to go along with each new genre or 'scene' that pops up. There's nothing wrong with experimentation. 

In regards to AC/DC, there's nothing wrong with finding a formula that seems to work, either. Some fans like having a 'safe' sound they can rely on, and the more power to them, just the same as others don't find the sound of stagnation very interesting, which seems to be the biggest criticism people make towards AC/DC and even Slash's solo work.

Artists can do whatever they want. If a fan doesn't like the directional change that is made, then I guess they picked the wrong band to follow. There have been plenty of artists I've enjoyed for the first or first few albums before they head towards a sound I'm not interested in. No big deal, plenty of others out there, I can always pick it back up when I start to enjoy the sound again. 

Tl;dr: Just because particular fans don't like different directions, doesn't mean it's wrong. There's something there for everyone. 

[Sydney Fan]

1 hour ago, Azifwekare said:

CD is a natural progression from UYI. All it's missing Slash's bluesy riffage. But people heard a hip hop loop here and there and a few keyboards and lost their shit. 

All cd is an axl sook fest. Im sure if slash was involved we would have had a different approach on lyrics and music/riffs some more rockers on the album could have been a possibilty.

[Intercourse]

Experimenting doesn't mean not being the same band anymore, it means just what it says.. experimenting.

Nobody wants Slash to play like anybody else; but lo and behold in 2004 he was able to reclaim his place with his work on Contraband, it was still RNR most definitely not grunge yet there wasn't a cowboy hat or saloon bar piano rock lick in sight. It was modern rock. 

I would give full props to Axl if what he really wanted was Slash to update and spread out his scope of sounds on guitar but it seems to me that the period after UYI saw a lead singer paralyzed with his own sense of importance as a composer and the perception of GNR in modern culture at the time.   

You see it all the time; U2 had it after Rattle and Hum, Conor McGregor has it now, you go from incredible success story from humble beginnings to a bloated, ridiculous thousand pound gorilla in the room. Now you've all the money, resources, expectations and derision on your head pushing you to come back even bigger again and it stifles the unaffected creativity that made you what you have become.

U2 had a hell of a time getting Acthung Baby done and the change in sound was hurting some members until "One" was written and the laggards  in the band "got it" and harmony returned. 

If GNR had managed to write one song which galvanized them they could have survived if Axl's vision had somehow been captured. I don't think he had a vision, just a mish mash of soundscapes he was interested in creating but with no coherence to them. Personally I don't believe any normal band could survive the methods Axl adopted to find their new sound and the levels of attrition in subsequent lineups more than confirms that. Once Duff left I knew he had blown it as the last  man who did't work for him was gone, along with a lot of objectivity. 

 

 

 

 

[thunderram]

Quote

After he left I even had a talk with Axl one time like, "You know, you're changing the sound of the band and it's really just you and we're all new dudes and we all come from cool places. But have you ever thought of just saying, f--- Guns N Roses. That name is dead. The band is over. We are now called 'blank.'"

And he goes, "Yeah you're not the first person who's told me I should probably do that. But Guns N' Roses is an international brand name, and to start over when I can just use the brand name that everybody knows, I can't sacrifice the branding that's already been established."

19 hours ago, WhazUp said:

I found this to be very interesting.  Because Axl throughout the years has always argued for why he kept the name, stuff like "I was the only one interested in keeping the sinking ship afloat" and all that

It makes sense that the biggest factor would be money/funding/brand recognition.  I just wish still though that he would have gone and done it under a different band name, or his own.  His work would have been much better received and it isn't like there would have been no publicity - there would have been tons of publicity and talk about anything Axl Rose would have done at that point in time.  

Under the guise of a solo project it would have been easier for him to do all the crazy musical shit he wanted to do without backlash and lawsuits

Some bands evolve and do different things, sure.  But most bands don't replace every single member in order to achieve it lol.  Axl could have saved himself a lot of hardship

 

And thus the false advertisement. In no way, shape, or form was CD ever GN'R musically. Only in name because, as that quote shows, AXL wanted to give it what he believed was its the best chance to sell.

Musically, CD was no more GN'R than anything Snakepit, Loaded, JuJu Hounds or Velvet Revolver ever released. Like all those releases, CD was just one man's vision lacking collaboration from the others.

I happen to be a big fan of CD. I've grown to like all but about 2 tracks over the past decade. I also like vast majority of SLASH's work too. But I can easily recognize that neither is GN'R on it's own. Why that is so hard for others to grasp is beyond me.

 

 

 

[wasted]

On 06/11/2018 at 12:57 AM, Rovim said:

both approaches can work to form great catalogs of music. sometimes thanks to bands like AC/DC we have bands that took that sound and expanded on it so it doesn't have to be the responsibility of one band to bring evolution upon us. I prefer diverse artists that don't stagnate at least. 

We have been lead to believe that what Guns do is this grand melting pot thing but I could see them doing a run of more Slash led ACDC type album. The only flaw is that how or what does Axl do lyrically? If you have to come up with lyrics to fast rock n roll songs all the time does Axl have to get less deep and go for a more twitter style of lyric writing, more topical or current events, instead of these bigger widescreen visions. Maybe Duff can help with lyrics. Izzy always balanced out the vibe pretty well. 

Is Guns the best place for Axl to be serious and creative or could it be more of a vehicle to have fun with? 

[Rovim]

Just now, wasted said:

We have been lead to believe that what Guns do is this grand melting pot thing but I could see them doing a run of more Slash led ACDC type album. The only flaw is that how or what does Axl do lyrically? If you have to come up with lyrics to fast rock n roll songs all the time does Axl have to get less deep and go for a more twitter style of lyric writing, more topical or current events, instead of these bigger widescreen visions. Maybe Duff can help with lyrics. Izzy always balanced out the vibe pretty well. 

Is Guns the best place for Axl to be serious and creative or could it be more of a vehicle to have fun with? 

a serious vehicle to have fun with. a melting pot of lyrics. I think the in your face delivery like the title track from Chinese or Shackler's can still work. Izzy did bring balance to the force. lyrics and music wise.

when duff tried to write lyrics when he did that song with Izzy it ended up being in part about Kim K's ass. I feel like Axl has a unique writing style and he doesn't need to change the core of it, just not make it sound too stupid or insincere. choose the right themes and not make it too much about just one thing kinda way of writing. 

 

[RONIN]

"The perception I have of what Axl's doing at the moment is that he's basically making a solo album but retaining the GN'R name so that he can get at the major contractual advance that's waiting at Geffen for a new Guns N' Roses-titled record. I can't give you the exact figure but I will tell you it's in the multi-million-dollar range. This renegotiation was effected just before I was fired." (Alan Niven, Icon Magazine, 10/97)

"GN'R began work on a new album of original material, drawing from a Geffen advance thought to be around $10 million - Madonna kind of money." (Rolling Stone, 05/11/00)

The minute Axl decided not to do a separate solo album, the band was doomed. I've always suspected that one of the main fissures between Axl and Slash was Slash's role in the forthcoming album. The 1996 album was allegedly slated to feature a lot of different guest artists (whoever was Axl's muse at that moment) and a potpourri of different sounds (whoever Axl was obsessed with in the mid-90's) - I think Slash's role was probably going to be minimized in a major way compared to UYI where he's everywhere. 

Chinese Democracy isn't really a guitar driven album in the same way that AFD and UYI are. No way is mid-90's Slash going to be cool with playing a song like "Prostitute". You can see seeds of this shift even in UYI songs like Estranged where there are guitar-less spots that Slash (as he put it) "had to stand around for".  Axl had moved beyond riff-rock and was approaching his music as a composer would.

In retrospect, I think his head was in the right place that they couldn't repeat themselves but Axl seemed way too preoccupied with chasing trends (though he denies it). Seems like the guy was playing catch-up with whatever was the new flavor of the day. Somewhere in the vault are a bunch of "Moby-esque"/Prodigy sounding demos that were slated for CD2 - along with a few Manson/NIN influenced industrial rockers like "Oh My God".

[RONIN]

13 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

CD is a natural progression from UYI. All it's missing Slash's bluesy riffage. But people heard a hip hop loop here and there and a few keyboards and lost their shit. 

Agreed aside from the Korn/nu-metal substrata in a few of the songs which is regrettable.

[wasted]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

a serious vehicle to have fun with. a melting pot of lyrics. I think the in your face delivery like the title track from Chinese or Shackler's can still work. Izzy did bring balance to the force. lyrics and music wise.

when duff tried to write lyrics when he did that song with Izzy it ended up being in part about Kim K's ass. I feel like Axl has a unique writing style and he doesn't need to change the core of it, just not make it sound too stupid or insincere. choose the right themes and not make it too much about just one thing kinda way of writing. 

 

You mean How to Be a Man? I only listened to it once, was it as cringe as I thought? 

Obviously they would takes on Chi dem and Shacklers but what I mean is can Axl get amped up every other year about things lyrically. There’s a sort of laid back to DC to fill out the album. But is Axl lyrically going to do Chi dem, Shacklers, Scraped, Riad, IRS, TWAT x 2 with Slash/Duff every 2 years?

[Sydney Fan]

13 hours ago, Intercourse said:

Experimenting doesn't mean not being the same band anymore, it means just what it says.. experimenting.

Nobody wants Slash to play like anybody else; but lo and behold in 2004 he was able to reclaim his place with his work on Contraband, it was still RNR most definitely not grunge yet there wasn't a cowboy hat or saloon bar piano rock lick in sight. It was modern rock. 

I would give full props to Axl if what he really wanted was Slash to update and spread out his scope of sounds on guitar but it seems to me that the period after UYI saw a lead singer paralyzed with his own sense of importance as a composer and the perception of GNR in modern culture at the time.   

You see it all the time; U2 had it after Rattle and Hum, Conor McGregor has it now, you go from incredible success story from humble beginnings to a bloated, ridiculous thousand pound gorilla in the room. Now you've all the money, resources, expectations and derision on your head pushing you to come back even bigger again and it stifles the unaffected creativity that made you what you have become.

U2 had a hell of a time getting Acthung Baby done and the change in sound was hurting some members until "One" was written and the laggards  in the band "got it" and harmony returned. 

If GNR had managed to write one song which galvanized them they could have survived if Axl's vision had somehow been captured. I don't think he had a vision, just a mish mash of soundscapes he was interested in creating but with no coherence to them. Personally I don't believe any normal band could survive the methods Axl adopted to find their new sound and the levels of attrition in subsequent lineups more than confirms that. Once Duff left I knew he had blown it as the last  man who did't work for him was gone, along with a lot of objectivity. 

 

 

 

 

My guess is axl didnt know what sort of album he wanted to make in 96. There was no chemistry in the studio, the band wernt always there together. As slash said in his book it was disjointed, the band would jam for hours with no sense of direction and there was no communication from axl of yes or, i like that or no to that piece of music. There was complete inertia.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Sydney Fan

[Rovim]

6 hours ago, wasted said:

You mean How to Be a Man? I only listened to it once, was it as cringe as I thought? 

Obviously they would takes on Chi dem and Shacklers but what I mean is can Axl get amped up every other year about things lyrically. There’s a sort of laid back to DC to fill out the album. But is Axl lyrically going to do Chi dem, Shacklers, Scraped, Riad, IRS, TWAT x 2 with Slash/Duff every 2 years?

I think Axl may have said something about having to live a little in order to get inspired to write lyrics or something? and that he's not on the nightrain anymore.

if some unreleased Chinese era tunes will be on the next album I think it's already maybe becomes something else, not Slash led DC album. I don't know what type of album Axl wants to make, but I can't imagine him not wanting to get across a serious vibe. I think he can't do exactly the same themes every few years which is why when it does come out it needs to have a certain weight to it lyrically. it's still a Guns album with Slash and Duff so there must be more hard rocking stuff. not sure how Axl will handle that and not sure I even know what you mean or if I misunderstood some or all of it.

[wasted]

On 07/11/2018 at 10:45 AM, WhazUp said:

I found this to be very interesting.  Because Axl throughout the years has always argued for why he kept the name, stuff like "I was the only one interested in keeping the sinking ship afloat" and all that

It makes sense that the biggest factor would be money/funding/brand recognition.  I just wish still though that he would have gone and done it under a different band name, or his own.  His work would have been much better received and it isn't like there would have been no publicity - there would have been tons of publicity and talk about anything Axl Rose would have done at that point in time.  

Under the guise of a solo project it would have been easier for him to do all the crazy musical shit he wanted to do without backlash and lawsuits

Some bands evolve and do different things, sure.  But most bands don't replace every single member in order to achieve it lol.  Axl could have saved himself a lot of hardship

He did say in the chats he would go bankrupt without the name. And sort of said he had worked for his position, it didn’t seem right to throw it all away etc. 

what always surprised me is that Iovine invested 10 mil in a Slashless GNR. According to Zutaut the record company still wanted to sell 20 mil records with just Axl in 2000. 

 

 

[wasted]

33 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I think Axl may have said something about having to live a little in order to get inspired to write lyrics or something? and that he's not on the nightrain anymore.

if some unreleased Chinese era tunes will be on the next album I think it's already maybe becomes something else, not Slash led DC album. I don't know what type of album Axl wants to make, but I can't imagine him not wanting to get across a serious vibe. I think he can't do exactly the same themes every few years which is why when it does come out it needs to have a certain weight to it lyrically. it's still a Guns album with Slash and Duff so there must be more hard rocking stuff. not sure how Axl will handle that and not sure I even know what you mean or if I misunderstood some or all of it.

I see Axl wanting to do CD era material with Slash. It might have been what he always wanted. To modernize with Slash. It would be cool and complete the circle somehow. 

But with Axl playing with DC, Slash doing VR/playing CD songs, Guns doing Slither - there’s some middle ground there where Slash will play Axl’s stuff, Axl will sing on Slash’s material but it could become much more of Slash led and be like an AFD type album in the end than actually a CD like album with Slash. 

It’s just to put out more albums they would have to go for a more VR format than a CD sized album. You can’t put out a CD level album every other year. 

Considering what they play live, it’s all the big songs like Coma, Estranged, Civil War. So why do an album of fast rock n roll songs which aren’t as good as AFD which don’t get played live? Better to put out a 7 track album of GNR classic epics. Unless Izzy comes back they aren’t going do anything too rock n roll. 

If they have material like SOD, ITW, TWAT, Catcher, Madagascar, TIL, Prostitute they should put that out with Slash on guitar. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by wasted

[Rovim]

Just now, wasted said:

I see Axl wanting to do CD era material with Slash. It might have been what he always wanted. To modernize with Slash. It would be cool and complete the circle somehow. 

But with Axl playing with DC, Slash doing VR/playing CD songs, Guns doing Slither - there’s some middle ground there where Slash will play Axl’s stuff, Axl will sing on Slash’s material but it could become much more of Slash led and be like an AFD type album in the end than actually a CD like album with Slash. 

It’s just to put out more albums they would have to go for a more VR format than a CD sized album. You can’t put out a CD level album every other year. 

Considering what they play live, it’s all the big songs like Coma, Estranged, Civil War. So why do an album of fast rock n roll songs which aren’t as good as AFD which don’t get played live? Better to put out a 7 track album of GNR classic epics. Unless Izzy comes back they aren’t going do anything too rock n roll. 

If they have material like SOD, ITW, TWAT, Catcher, Madagascar, TIL, Prostitute they should put that out with Slash on guitar. 

I think Axl always wanted to be the one to drive the vision and for Slash to complete the picture with his tunes and riffs. I don't think Axl is even capable of releasing an album on a consistent time line since what dictates a Guns release is too unpredictable. So worst best case scenario, they release a final record in 3 to 5 years.

I also believe lyrically it cannot be dated. It has to reflect maybe what Axl is at now. Also why would Axl want to make a more AFD Slash led album if he still enjoys singing the Chinese tunes the most live? and we know Slash and Duff are into the unreleased Chinese material.

I'm pretty confident in guessing that even if there are a zillion tunes like SOD, ITW, TWAT, Catcher, Maddy, etc, it's still won't be good enough for Axl to release less than a full album that represents what he has to say artistically. 

if Axl starts a tune from lyrics and Slash comes up with a brilliant part or Slash comes up with a riff that sparks something in Axl that would be cool and could change the direction of the album, but it seems it's also about how all the old and new ideas and tunes will go together.

I wonder how different the process of making an album now with Slash and Duff will be to when Axl was making UYI or CD.