uzi your illusion

Seriously whoever stepped up and pitched in, the GNR community owes you a big time. Now just contact MSL and collect your prize lol . Honestly though, thanks whoever you are, it would of been a really tough habit to break to not type mygnr.com in on my address bar every time i log on.

I really dislike this feeling, its the same one I had when I heard Bucket left. The same as when the 1st and 2nd riot and the eventual end of the 2002 tour 1 day before my show was supposed to happen. The same feeling every time a "release date" came and went. You'd think with this band I'd of gotten used to this feeling but I haven't. I'm sure I'll stick around for at least a few more times where i get it again. Take it easy MYGNR, it's weird to say but this really was a part of my life that I will miss, probably not until the first time i type the address in and it doesn't come up but still miss it all the same.

How many copies do you need to sell to get into the top 200?

Not being cynical, just curious

It would depend on how many copies of other albums were sold that week. The top 200 albums sold each week are ranked and numbered accordingly. There is no set number of copies that have to be sold to be in the top 200, just have to of sold more copies then what ever the 201st best selling album of the week was.

I had a thread i posted a while back documenting this exact thing, I would like to believe that if Axl had that much trouble with lyrics then he could rely on some of the other band members who are itching to contribute. He's a proud man but if that was what was holding back future material then i'm sure he could bring in the other guys to help with lyrics. Duff and Izzy wrote lyrics that Axl sang, this is as much a band as that one was so I don't think Axl would have a problem with that.

For anyone paying attention, Guns smoked Living Colour as expected. Interesting second round match against the Red Hot Chili Peppers, vote here http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/story?page=bracket/rockbands&match=108560 . Guns are up right now 58%-43% but voting just started this afternoon.

It's things like these that really elevate Axl's music for me. I can imagine that to secure the rights to these quotes was probably quite a headache and that a good number of record execs. probably told Axl that this part weakened the song and the casual fan wouldn't appreciate it. It's the fans who dig into the lyrics a bit more and get the meaning of the song that the title and the lyrics reference, that really appreciate the extra step Axl took to add this to the song. I think its clear that Madagascar is a metaphor for himself breaking away from a much bigger entity (the original band) as the island of Madagascar was once part of the African continent and drifted to become it's own land mass. When he sings of not being brought down in the storm, I think its clear he's talking about the breakup and everything surrounding it as well as rumors of his musical demise being greatly exaggerated. The quotes I believe lay out the old band and there trials fairly clearly.

"How can a person grow up with all this around them" , could be talking about how hard it would be move forward while all the rumors and fights between band members

"failure to communicate" , this is the most clear example taking a direct quote that the band used in "Civil War" , this seems like it was done to show you for sure who he's talking about

"Everybody's acting like we can do anything and it don't matter what we do. Maybe we gotta be extra careful because maybe it matters more than we even know." , This is the most interesting quote added, I think it is talking of how after the Illusion albums with the changing musical landscape Geffen was pressuring the band to get busy on a follow up. A real one not just a thrown together covers album, telling the band that no matter what they put out it would sell. Axl always had an ear for new music before it caught on and knew that the classic GNR sound wouldn't of gone over as well as it had previously. That is why he wanted to push the sound a little bit forward and Duff agreed with him, whereas Slash wanted to do an album just like Appetite, which if it came out in 1995 or 1996 may of went unappreciated.

"All men betray. All lose heart. I don't want to lose heart!...I want to believe" , This speaks to Axl's 25 year vision as Ron put it, where everyone else one at a time walked away and lost faith, for better or worse this is Axl saying that hes still here and still going strong.

You can take what you want out of the quotes, you can hate that they go over the solo, but for the fan that really digs into it and gets the story and why its there... it's really awe inspiring.

Cowherd revealed the names and match ups on yesterdays show, Guns N' Roses is taking on Living Colour, a rather easy first round. Since GNR got a #3 seed this is how it works, other 3 seeds in the tournament were AC/DC, The Who, and The Doors. Not bad company to be in. Guns are leading like 90% - 10 % right now, their second round match will be between the winner of Red Hot Chili Peppers and Black Sabbath.

I can imagine how infuriating it would be to be part of a band that tours and plays new music that you weren't a huge part of creatively but that looks like what the gig may be for the rest of Ron's career in GNR. I mean Axl did say that the material he was working on during the Chinese sessions was going to be heard and he envisioned the album as a double, he is obviously in favor of releasing these songs. Say he puts out these 2 albums and tours behind each of them with a few years between as is typical Guns style , by that point Axl is in his mid 50's. Do we really think he's going to be creating new rock songs and preforming live for that much longer? The level of intensity needed to preform and create GNR style songs seems like it demands more then guys like Springstin or Dylan, or The Stones generate. I love the band and hope that Axl has alot left in his tank, but i'm not sure how realistic it is.

I forget what were the lyrics that were wrong in the original booklet. Something in Madagascar I think but I'm not sure what else.

So use back then as an example. If when Use Your Illusion came out they gave it 4 stars and gave it a great review, then a year later said it was only 3 stars and shit all over it you don't think that would of been a big deal? I understand that the band isn't half as big as it was back then, but an injustice is still and injustice no matter how big the fan base. I'm just confused that more people aren't up in arms about this. I have to believe that most just aren't aware of the games that Rolling Stone has played. Classic Rock magazine is one of the few i read regularly and they gave the album 8/10. They've never tried to low ball that number. Although once Slash gave them an exclusive they did talk shit about Axl and the album a bit , not anything close to this though.

Honestly why do you care why RS thinks? If you like the album it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks?

The only thing I will say in RS defense is that your opinion of a piece of music can change. There are albums I listened to even a few years ago that I never bother with now.

Have they done this with other alboms?

I wrote earlier that I checked Rolling Stone because i was pretty sure that they were gonna unfairly bash the album based on the delays and the money spent in production. I was stunned and elated to find out that not only did they judge the album on its musical merits but they even gave it a great rating. I love the album so 1 star or 4 it meant nothing to me personally but it was nice to know that Axl and Guns were getting their proper praises. Then I saw this and it just took me as something totally unprofessional and I have never seen them do this before. Its gotta cross some lines of journalistic integrity. They pretty blatantly tried to pass off that uncomplimentary quote as something that came from the original 4 star review and I'm sure David Fricke wouldn't dig that.

Axl would be proud of this discussion, were never going to all agree on something this big that effects so many different things but were having a really smart discussion about it. Anything is better then talking about how a mans face changed over the years or how his hair looks this week. As he said at the end of his essay its just a thought, one of many but his own none the less. And if it inspires discussion like this then it can't be a bad thing.

"Riad is the name my one time momentary brother in law and the former brother in law of Erin Everly, went by when i knew him. Of part Lebanese descent and a former student of Pepperdine University, he claims to be an international arms dealer, billionaire with ambitions of being "king of the world". He claims to fund several medical organizations and underground Nazi organizations around the world who says his heroes are Napolean and Adolph Hitler. He claims his most prized asset is his anonymity. He also claims to be an expert in military strategy, and was the inspiration for the guns song Civil War, which was written per his request for a song how "people were stupid and he could sell them anything because men love to kill each other". He also claims to be an expert in global finance and money laundering. Living tax free in Belair last I was aware, and claiming to launder monies for wealthy individuals in several countries predominantly Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. With ties to the Bush / Regan administrations and wherever theres a war in the world at any given moment " wow that was not easy

So use back then as an example. If when Use Your Illusion came out they gave it 4 stars and gave it a great review, then a year later said it was only 3 stars and shit all over it you don't think that would of been a big deal? I understand that the band isn't half as big as it was back then, but an injustice is still and injustice no matter how big the fan base. I'm just confused that more people aren't up in arms about this. I have to believe that most just aren't aware of the games that Rolling Stone has played. Classic Rock magazine is one of the few i read regularly and they gave the album 8/10. They've never tried to low ball that number. Although once Slash gave them an exclusive they did talk shit about Axl and the album a bit , not anything close to this though.

Seriously nobody else thinks this is fucking outrageous??? They totally changed directions in regards to the album, took a star away from the original rating, and give you a sample portion that rips the album to shreds right next to the official review that sang its praises!! This is total bullshit and makes it easy to see why Axl doesn't give these fuckers the time of day.

This is crazy, i'm looking over the Rolling Stone website now and if you go to http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/guns-n-roses and scroll down about half way they give a "selected discography" . Click on the picture for the Chinese Democracy album and they now have it listed as 3/5 stars rather then the 4/5 it was originally given, and thats not all. The write up they give as what is supposed to be a sample of the review isn't even from David Fricke's review. The sample reads -" The legend of Chinese Democracy, the most delayed album of all time, far eclipsed any of the music on it. The album came with the baggage of countless false starts and lineup adjustments, leaving the music an emotionless blob, with any redeeming moments hidden behind the monolithic churn. ". Then it gives the link to the real review from Fricke right next to the quote leading you to believe that its from his article. This is bullshit and I believe totally supports what I was saying earlier how the magazine just pandered to Axl for an interview, then changed gears when he wouldn't play by their rules.

I'm sure a lot of you guys read the review of Chinese Democracy in many publications upon it's release, I know i did and the one i went for first was Rolling Stone.

First mistake. Don't ever consult that over-hyped rag about anything re: music.

I did say that the magazine sucked i just wanted to see the review to see how much they bashed the album. I was wrong and glad to see they gave it a fair try, because i also found the album to be well worth the wait. Back to my original question though, do you think they gave such a great review to try and coax Axl into an exclusive interview? A few months after this came out and several times since (and I only glance through it rarely) I have seen them bash the album and Axl. Do you think the sudden change of heart was because they realized that Billboard got the interview and they saw their window closing. I find it hard to believe that the editor would let Fricke publish such a glowing review when the majority of the staff felt differently.

I'm sure a lot of you guys read the review of Chinese Democracy in many publications upon it's release, I know i did and the one i went for first was Rolling Stone. Now does the magazine suck because of the current state of what it has to report on? Yes it does, but it's not as bad as Spin which tries so hard to be "in the know" that it tells you how cool bands are but only until they get big, then they suck. Whatever you think of the magazine now I think it's fair to say that their review section still carries some major weight within the industry. Now if you don't remember what they said about the album, the article started on the first page of their review section (obviously considering the anticipation). The first words printed were " The most anticipated album ever made. And Axl made it worth the wait", it goes on to give the album 4 out of 5 stars. Some of the phrases in the article are so complimentary of Axl that I have to wonder if they gave such a glowing review to try and coax the man into giving them an exclusive interview. They write stuff such as "If this is the sound that Axl had in his head the whole time, it's quite clear why 2 guitars , a bass, and drums wouldn't be enough" . Talks about how his voice still sounds great, and gives him major props on his lyrics and arrangements. Regardless of what you personally think of the album the review is really one of the best I have ever read. It ends saying "you may wonder if any rock and roll record is worth this type of extreme self-indulgence, but the most rock and roll thing about this record...is he doesn't care if you do." Awesome!! David Fricke wrote it and obviously enjoyed it quite a bit, but since the album the magazine has bashed Axl and the record numerous times. If the editors of the magazine hated the record so much why would they let Fricke put out that review ? Maybe to try and secure the interview with Axl, and once he decided to not play ball they changed gears and trashed him every chance they could. Just a theory that I wanted to run by you guys. Either way if you agree or not go re-read the review it truly is one of the best ever.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/chinese-democracy-20081127

Wow didn't expect this to get bumped back up. I wouldn't go as far as to guess who was responsible for what percentage of the breakup seeing that we weren't there. I think the fact that towards the end of the band Duff sided with Axl speaks volumes for how out of sorts Slash was at the time. So for the majority of fans who look at GNR as the big 3 of Slash , Duff, and Axl, you actually had the majority siding with Axl. l think what I wrote earlier as for how tough it would be to deal with someone in the depths of severe addiction and how understated that part of the story gets is really important to the whole situation. From some accounts Axl is very hard to deal with and thats on him, but to combine that with a straight up addict whos thinking would clearly be warped and probably paranoid ( I'm a recovering addict so i'm not speaking out of turn), were lucky it lasted as long as it did. Axl did take some blame for everything though saying " the reality of my fault would be in not finding a way to manage Slash complete with his addictions" . So we have a Slash book, Duff is writing one, Axl has at least a rough draft, Adler has one , sort through all that and MAYBE we could find where to put the blame. By the way i should probably change the title of this thread , as this conversation has gotten much more play.

Thank you so much for taking the time to put this thing together. I really hope this sees the light of day because the Shackler's video was really done well. I'm in New York and I went all the way to Sweden Rock Festival to see them this year and they totally fucking rocked the place. Keep up the great work !

Has anyone ever seen a copy of this press contract? I know it existed i just think it would be cool to read.

I didn't know that the press sanctions were still in effect, i figured he just didn't grant interviews period lol. He doesn't like to give them out cause there is usually a negative slant, even if not in the line of questioning the editor would probably put a stupid comment before or after the article just to be cute. I get why the media wouldn't like the contract but to my understanding it was just to stop people from printing interviews that were complete works of fiction. Anyways not exactly sure how we ended up here but here is the link to send your comments about the original post http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/news/story?page=herdmail

I didn't want the thread to turn into this, but it did so here it goes. The general consensus is that Axl destroyed the band, that pretty much is a fact in the public's eye. That is not so easily disputable, however I believe that he's taken 100 percent of the blame over the years and that is bullshit. The casual fan just hears the one side of the story that Axl is a perfectionist or he wanted to drastically change the sound or he wanted to have complete control over everything. Axl's silence on the issue is the biggest thing that spreads the myths and anytime he even gives a slight answer on the subject every media outlet chooses to believe the other side without hearing him out. I think this has a lot to do with the contract that GnR had the media sign before approval to interviews during the UYI era. A bunch of those press outlets seem to still have a grudge and choose to forget that the contract was approved by all members of the band and not just Axl. For whatever reason that Axl didn't feel the need to give his side for so long it is what it is, but in that time the people associated with the break up had complete control over the story. No one ever chooses to wonder how difficult it would be to work with people in the lowest darkest part of their addictions, and trying to reason with someone who's going through that. The causal fan thinks Axl was just as fucked up as the rest of the band, and that is a very common misconception. The blame lays somewhere in the middle but it seems like everyone believes its always fully on one side or the other. "If they knew half the real truth, what would they say "

Surprising that Pink Floyd wouldn't get that spot.

Yeah they usually get alot of love in these type of things, but Cowherd actully said on the show friday that he doesn't get into Pink Floyd. So maybe that swayed any fan hardcore enough to write in for them away from his tournament.

Espn has a radio and television simulcast of "The Herd" with Colin Cowherd weekdays from 10:00 - 1:00 est. Every year around final four time where everyone fills out there 64 team brackets he does a bracket as well for something other then college basketball. Two years ago it was "greatest superhero" , last year "greatest cereal" , this year he's doing "greatest rock band" . It's got to be a band so solo artists don't count, he had fans write in last week and tell him who should be ranked as the number 1 seeds as the tournement is split into 4 divisions. He announced today that the leading write ins were pretty obvious choices of the Beatles, Led Zepplin , The Rolling Stones. But he said suprisingly at the end of last week a huge amount of people wrote in for GNR and there in the running to be at the top. Not bad company to be in, if you go to espn.com and find his show you can write in that GNR deserve the spot. Might be cool to see them get the credit we know they deserve.

Great response BIGcountry, thanks for the insight. I hope you've gotten a handle on your situation the best you can. I remember reading once that Axl was the most honest person you could ever meet. Maybe his perception is different then others but when he tells you something he 100 percent believes it. So you could be right that if Axl had a disorder he probably wouldn't want to come out and announce it to the world. Although if anything maybe people would be more understanding of some of his more erratic behavior if he said that he was struggling with something like that.