On GnR changing music direction

[The Glow Inc.]

Here is an interview of Devin Townsend ( plausibly one of the best voices and musician in the metal genre ) that I found very intersting.

It deals with his whole career and how after a while he got tired of the anger and wanted to record something else but got stuck because of everybody's expectations :

Now let's apply these questions to Guns n' Roses and discuss.

[Orsys]

I think there is a direct correlation to what happened to GnR within the band. Axl wanted to branch out in his musical direction, Slash wanted to maintain the RnR flavour of AFD. GnR couldn't continue with the difference in tastes becoming so distant. That lineup broke up.

Slash may have an easier time continuing in his career, because he has not swayed much from his original vision and people know what to expect when they go to a Slash show.

Axl, on the other hand, has chosen a path where he will have to continue to prove himself. Many will expect the old AFD, UYI music when they see him and will be disappointed when they don't get it, even if what he does produce (e.g. CD) is very good musically.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Orsys

[bitstorm]

I think people forget (or maybe were even too young, if not even born yet) how different the UYI albums really were compared to Appetite. Even Lies' acoustic tracks were a bit unexpected in direction when they came out. In that sense, Chinese Democracy kept that tradition.

As for the music staying blues-based, I think the Snakepit albums are a pretty good indicator of where Slash wanted GNR to go, I'm actually glad it didn't happen that way.

[Naupis]

What should have happened was GNR stay blues based, and everyone go off and do solo projects to get the creative bug out of their system.

That is what normal bands do, and it is how many bands stay together.

Slash said that himself about his solo record in terms of the fact that much of it would not have been appropriate for a VR record.

CD would have been a perfect Axl solo record, and I am not sure why he couldn't just do what Duff/Slash did and record and release it as a solo album during the bands down time in the 90's.

There is a difference between advancing a band's sound and totally overhauling it to strip away core elements that gained you your fan base. Abandoning the blues based sound is part of the reason CD got a rather tepid reception from the general public, and why you heard the "it doesn't sound like GNR talk."

Blowing up the band that could have been the next Rollingstones seems somewhat irrational when you consider they very easily could have all done solo albums and then reconvened to make a GNR record that really sounded like a GNR record. That's the way the rest of the music world seems to do it anyway.

[Lose Your Illusions]

GNR has always been changing its musical direction. alot of the songs or most would seem very much out of place of AFD. same goes for Lies on AFD, or UYI on Lies. And obv. CD has a total different sound with the exception of SOD and few parts of other songs. Axl wasnt the only one open to newer things, Duff said they could make a NIN sounding record, but of course Slash is just straight Rock N Roll.

[FuddMckagan]

What should have happened was GNR stay blues based, and everyone go off and do solo projects to get the creative bug out of their system.

That is what normal bands do, and it is how many bands stay together.

Slash said that himself about his solo record in terms of the fact that much of it would not have been appropriate for a VR record.

CD would have been a perfect Axl solo record, and I am not sure why he couldn't just do what Duff/Slash did and record and release it as a solo album during the bands down time in the 90's.

There is a difference between advancing a band's sound and totally overhauling it to strip away core elements that gained you your fan base. Abandoning the blues based sound is part of the reason CD got a rather tepid reception from the general public, and why you heard the "it doesn't sound like GNR talk."

Blowing up the band that could have been the next Rollingstones seems somewhat irrational when you consider they very easily could have all done solo albums and then reconvened to make a GNR record that really sounded like a GNR record. That's the way the rest of the music world seems to do it anyway.

Boom. Right there.

I think it would've been a great idea for Axl to do a solo record. In fact I'm still of the opinion that Axl should do a solo album. There's nothing but positives by doing one: No pressure to tour, no pressure on sales, complete creative freedom, freedom of picking and choosing specific musicians for the record and maybe having the odd guest or two, and of course no obligation to the name Guns N Roses.

I'd honestly be more pumped for an Axl solo album than another 'GnR' album.

[bacardimayne]

What should have happened was GNR stay blues based, and everyone go off and do solo projects to get the creative bug out of their system.

That is what normal bands do, and it is how many bands stay together.

Slash said that himself about his solo record in terms of the fact that much of it would not have been appropriate for a VR record.

CD would have been a perfect Axl solo record, and I am not sure why he couldn't just do what Duff/Slash did and record and release it as a solo album during the bands down time in the 90's.

There is a difference between advancing a band's sound and totally overhauling it to strip away core elements that gained you your fan base. Abandoning the blues based sound is part of the reason CD got a rather tepid reception from the general public, and why you heard the "it doesn't sound like GNR talk."

Blowing up the band that could have been the next Rollingstones seems somewhat irrational when you consider they very easily could have all done solo albums and then reconvened to make a GNR record that really sounded like a GNR record. That's the way the rest of the music world seems to do it anyway.

Boom. Right there.

I think it would've been a great idea for Axl to do a solo record. In fact I'm still of the opinion that Axl should do a solo album. There's nothing but positives by doing one: No pressure to tour, no pressure on sales, complete creative freedom, freedom of picking and choosing specific musicians for the record and maybe having the odd guest or two, and of course no obligation to the name Guns N Roses.

I'd honestly be more pumped for an Axl solo album than another 'GnR' album.

Nothing but positives eh?

So how about the negative of only selling 10,000 copies?

[Naupis]

So how about the negative of only selling 10,000 copies?

A solo album doesn't cost all that much to make, doesn't take all that long to record, and guys do it for the creative outlet not to sell a billion records. The main band is the money maker, and the side projects allow for the creative freedom that is hard to achieve when you have x other number of bandmates to consider.

[FuddMckagan]

Nothing but positives eh?

So how about the negative of only selling 10,000 copies?

It would sell more than that. Axl's name actually carries a lot of weight in the music industry and having an album with his name on it would sell pretty well considering.

Would it sell more compared to an album with 'Guns N Roses' on it? Of course not. But solo albums never do better than the band's albums anyway.

[bacardimayne]

Nothing but positives eh?

So how about the negative of only selling 10,000 copies?

It would sell more than that. Axl's name actually carries a lot of weight in the music industry and having an album with his name on it would sell pretty well considering.

Would it sell more compared to an album with 'Guns N Roses' on it? Of course not. But solo albums never do better than the band's albums anyway.

So Axl has two choices.

Sell under the Guns N' Roses name and make money or sell under the Axl Rose name and make less money.

[FuddMckagan]

Nothing but positives eh?

So how about the negative of only selling 10,000 copies?

It would sell more than that. Axl's name actually carries a lot of weight in the music industry and having an album with his name on it would sell pretty well considering.

Would it sell more compared to an album with 'Guns N Roses' on it? Of course not. But solo albums never do better than the band's albums anyway.

So Axl has two choices.

Sell under the Guns N' Roses name and make money or sell under the Axl Rose name and make less money.

So you would be against an Axl solo record?

Think of the possibilities.

[bacardimayne]

Nothing but positives eh?

So how about the negative of only selling 10,000 copies?

It would sell more than that. Axl's name actually carries a lot of weight in the music industry and having an album with his name on it would sell pretty well considering.

Would it sell more compared to an album with 'Guns N Roses' on it? Of course not. But solo albums never do better than the band's albums anyway.

So Axl has two choices.

Sell under the Guns N' Roses name and make money or sell under the Axl Rose name and make less money.

So you would be against an Axl solo record?

Think of the possibilities.

An Axl solo record would be interesting, but it simply isn't in the cards. I'd rather hear what's left in his vault, and he'd only ever release that under the GNR name. A solo record would mean returning to the studio. That will never happen.

[Rovim]

What should have happened was GNR stay blues based, and everyone go off and do solo projects to get the creative bug out of their system.

That is what normal bands do, and it is how many bands stay together.

Slash said that himself about his solo record in terms of the fact that much of it would not have been appropriate for a VR record.

CD would have been a perfect Axl solo record, and I am not sure why he couldn't just do what Duff/Slash did and record and release it as a solo album during the bands down time in the 90's.

There is a difference between advancing a band's sound and totally overhauling it to strip away core elements that gained you your fan base. Abandoning the blues based sound is part of the reason CD got a rather tepid reception from the general public, and why you heard the "it doesn't sound like GNR talk."

Blowing up the band that could have been the next Rollingstones seems somewhat irrational when you consider they very easily could have all done solo albums and then reconvened to make a GNR record that really sounded like a GNR record. That's the way the rest of the music world seems to do it anyway.

I disagree. Making music like that is boring, not to mention with no balls. What was great about the old Guns (and other great bands) is that with every new album, the band found and went with one new unified vision. When Axl had November rain stuck in his head for years, Slash understood what guitar solos that song needed. When Slash wrote Coma, Axl came up with the lyrics and melodies that song needed, to be a Guns song. You don't need to go 'get it out of your system' when your in Guns N' fuckin' Roses.

For me, blues based rock n' roll is not what defined Guns. I always felt this band is not subjected to musical boundries. When Bob Dylan turned electric, the reception wasn't there from his 'loyal' fans. Still, an artist is an artist and that means he should always be true to his vision.

'Elements that gained you your fan base'? fuck that! Imo, no rock n' roll band should care musically what their fans want.

The old line up failed at a human level, regardless of what each member's idea was of an ideal musical direction. Solo projects should be concieved for another experience outside of the band and not as a solution for a deeper problem.

AFD was a combination of influences that worked perfectly. UYI was an evolution of that sound. It was time to move on and they didn't know how to achieve that together. Chinese Democracy is not that different in that the progression from illusions doesn't go against what that idea stood for. If anything, it expands on it.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Rovim

[Naupis]

Chinese Democracy is not that different in that the progression from illusions doesn't go against what that idea stood for. If anything, it expands on it.

It was Axl's attempt at trend chasing (only it came out a decade later than anticipated), which frankly I think is kind of beneath him to worry about trying to sound relevant to what was going on at the time. That is not what I consider progression, more like following the herd.

[bacardimayne]

Chinese Democracy is not that different in that the progression from illusions doesn't go against what that idea stood for. If anything, it expands on it.

It was Axl's attempt at trend chasing (only it came out a decade later than anticipated), which frankly I think is kind of beneath him to worry about trying to sound relevant to what was going on at the time. That is not what I consider progression, more like following the herd.

lol

If you want to see following the herd go listen to Slash's album.

[Rovim]

Chinese Democracy is not that different in that the progression from illusions doesn't go against what that idea stood for. If anything, it expands on it.

It was Axl's attempt at trend chasing (only it came out a decade later than anticipated), which frankly I think is kind of beneath him to worry about trying to sound relevant to what was going on at the time. That is not what I consider progression, more like following the herd.

Says you. What do you consider progression? in your other post in this thread you said that straying from the blues based rock n' roll sound was not a good idea for Guns, but now you say Axl didn't progress enough with Chinese Democracy's sound?

I mean, how can Axl keep the Gn'R sound without sounding dated, or chase the current musical landscape and trends?

When I listen to what the other members of the old line up put out, I don't hear ANY progress at all. I do love some albums from Slash,Duff and Izzy, but I don't detect a new vision.

When I listen to Chinese Democracy, I can hear an updated Guns sound. I can detect new influences that Axl absorbed but not to the extent of trend chasing. Besides, isn't it natural for a musician to be influenced by new music and sounds and for those elements to be a part of the new music he's creating?

November Rain and Estranged are very different from anything on AFD. the orchestration and many of the sounds and stractures were new to Guns, but not in the least to what music was back then. Was it not progress? Was it not Guns N' Roses?

[dalsh327]

There is no such thing as a normal band. I just think the Illusion tour took a toll on GNR.

I agree that "blues based rock and roll" isn't what defined GNR. They had influences from all over the place, from The Germs to Elton John, and GNR were somewhere in the middle. Their "peers" weren't Motley Crue or Bon Jovi, they were the Chili Peppers and Janes Addiction. Axl is a keyboard guy. Somewhere around the time "Appetite" came out, he got to hear the potential of what a keyboard could do through bands like Ministry, Skinny Puppy and NIN. But he had much love for Billy and Elton and a lot of that is also on Illusion and CD.

A lot of bands do things to alienate their fanbase. Axl using the GNR name - he could say "Smashing Pumpkins is just Billy Corgan" or "The Cure is just Robert Smith", but there's more bands that won't go down that road, because they feel they want to protect the memories, or decide to use it to charge a lot of money before calling it a day and build their retirement nest egg.

In the case of Van Halen - Dave, believe it or not, decided that it sounded like a cool band name like "Santana", instead of the Tappish-sounding"Mammoth". Of course, it haunted him when Van Halen in 2007 were ALL Van Halens.

All of them would admit they weren't innocent in the demise of GNR in the mid 90s. It wasn't just Axl forcing them out, they had spent a decade together, and that's about how long The Beatles lasted. 8 years of being recording artists.

What should have happened was GNR stay blues based, and everyone go off and do solo projects to get the creative bug out of their system.

That is what normal bands do, and it is how many bands stay together.

Slash said that himself about his solo record in terms of the fact that much of it would not have been appropriate for a VR record.

CD would have been a perfect Axl solo record, and I am not sure why he couldn't just do what Duff/Slash did and record and release it as a solo album during the bands down time in the 90's.

There is a difference between advancing a band's sound and totally overhauling it to strip away core elements that gained you your fan base. Abandoning the blues based sound is part of the reason CD got a rather tepid reception from the general public, and why you heard the "it doesn't sound like GNR talk."

Blowing up the band that could have been the next Rollingstones seems somewhat irrational when you consider they very easily could have all done solo albums and then reconvened to make a GNR record that really sounded like a GNR record. That's the way the rest of the music world seems to do it anyway.

I disagree. Making music like that is boring, not to mention with no balls. What was great about the old Guns (and other great bands) is that with every new album, the band found and went with one new unified vision. When Axl had November rain stuck in his head for years, Slash understood what guitar solos that song needed. When Slash wrote Coma, Axl came up with the lyrics and melodies that song needed, to be a Guns song. You don't need to go 'get it out of your system' when your in Guns N' fuckin' Roses.

For me, blues based rock n' roll is not what defined Guns. I always felt this band is not subjected to musical boundries. When Bob Dylan turned electric, the reception wasn't there from his 'loyal' fans. Still, an artist is an artist and that means he should always be true to his vision.

'Elements that gained you your fan base'? fuck that! Imo, no rock n' roll band should care musically what their fans want.

The old line up failed at a human level, regardless of what each member's idea was of an ideal musical direction. Solo projects should be concieved for another experience outside of the band and not as a solution for a deeper problem.

AFD was a combination of influences that worked perfectly. UYI was an evolution of that sound. It was time to move on and they didn't know how to achieve that together. Chinese Democracy is not that different in that the progression from illusions doesn't go against what that idea stood for. If anything, it expands on it.

[bitstorm]

If you want to see following the herd go listen to Slash's album.

I agree. There's little on it that made much impression with me. More of the same.

[JesusisSavior]

Nothing but positives eh?

So how about the negative of only selling 10,000 copies?

It would sell more than that. Axl's name actually carries a lot of weight in the music industry and having an album with his name on it would sell pretty well considering.

Would it sell more compared to an album with 'Guns N Roses' on it? Of course not. But solo albums never do better than the band's albums anyway.

So Axl has two choices.

Sell under the Guns N' Roses name and make money or sell under the Axl Rose name and make less money.

More like sell under the GNR name and be decieving to the originating fans or sell under his name and be more truthful about the matter

..obviously he wouldn't have kept the name if it didn't mean loosing a ton of cash. we all know his main priority. it was with money that with his last effort tried to bribe Slash into staying, i remember reading from his book.

I agree that Guns should have stayed blues based. It was the origin of their success- all the way from WTTJ to November Rain. What's rock n roll without blues?

Edited May 25, 2010 by JesusisSavior

[Matt13]

GNR has always been changing its musical direction. alot of the songs or most would seem very much out of place of AFD. same goes for Lies on AFD, or UYI on Lies. And obv. CD has a total different sound with the exception of SOD and few parts of other songs. Axl wasnt the only one open to newer things, Duff said they could make a NIN sounding record, but of course Slash is just straight Rock N Roll.

According to Slash in his autobiography he was open to doing an NIN type album if that was what Axl wanted..............

Page 454

" My departure had nothing to do with artistic differences, as many people claim to know. It was not as simple as "Axl wanted synths and Slash was old school". It had nothing to do with Axl wanting to to go digital and Slash staying analog. To think that dissolving the kind of band and kind of musical chemistry we had over something so trivial is just asinine. It's true, I am old-school, and I do like keeping things simple but I have never been close minded. If anything I was more than flexible and willing to try any kind of recording technique or explore any new sound, so long as I was doing so on an equal playing field with musicians that worked together toward a common goal. I would have hung in there with Axl through an industrial record or whatever else he wanted to try if the creative vibe between us was postive. My flexibilty is the only thing that kept me in the band as long as it did....that's how a team works. Unfortunately, we stopped being a team somewhere along the way"

So the theory that Slash is only willing to do straight RnR is false..................

It's false because that's what Slash says 13 years or whatever after the fact? What about what everyone else has said about it? Axl's version: '5 O'Clock Somewhere' is pretty much what the next GNR record would have been in '96 because that's what, he claimed, Slash brought to him insisting Axl add vocals and get it out, refusing to have any input from Axl about it.

So who's telling the truth? It's probably somewhere in the middle. Maybe it's not. We'll never know, really.