the new "war"?

[sailaway]

Ummm... Axl and Izzy were inducted too right? Even against Axl's will.

So what's the difference between this "war" and every single other "war" in these forums besides adding Izzy to the current lineup?

If it's a war between Myles, Slash, Gilby, Duff, Steven and Matt vs. Axl, Izzy and the new band; I'm definitely going with Axl and Izzy.

Myles and Gilby weren't inducted though, so you still can't really have a war with an incomplete band.

This

[PITBOSS]

nice, i feel ripped off even though we got duff for one song YCBM. which was pretty cool. but i would have rather had izzy for 6 songs.

anyhow, not really seeing a war here (besides on this forum lol)

i really wish he would grab izzy for some studio stuff.

[axl8302]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

so you admit that relevance and impact are subjective, but then go on to state it's indisputable fact?

are you sure you know what these words mean?

No, what's subjective is if people think these songs are creative enough, or good compare to what Axl did. But it is a fact the album was the most relevant post 96 gnr album and the one that had the most impact.

No, that's not a fact... it wasn't a GN'R album; so it can't possibly be "the most relevant post 96 gnr album". That's a non-fact, that's bullshit. Besides CD sold more in it's first week in the US (and worldwide) than Contraband did; so by your skewed logic, CD had a bigger impact when it "dropped".

It was also the most listened to album EVER on Myspace... quite an "impact".

Edited June 7, 2012 by axl8302

[Chris 55]

I personally do not see the merit in arguing who has had a better career. The FACT is, that they both had better careers when they were together in the same band. Slash doesn't have the Guns N' Roses name to sell out arenas and Axl was out of the public eye and took too long to capitalize on new-Guns and Chinese Democracy. Both their careers are a mere shell of what it used to be. The piss contest that frequently occurs here is saddening. Defending individuals that you do not know, for no gain at all.

Thank you

[vaida]

I personally do not see the merit in arguing who has had a better career. The FACT is, that they both had better careers when they were together in the same band. Slash doesn't have the Guns N' Roses name to sell out arenas and Axl was out of the public eye and took too long to capitalize on new-Guns and Chinese Democracy. Both their careers are a mere shell of what it used to be. The piss contest that frequently occurs here is saddening. Defending individuals that you do not know, for no gain at all.

Thank you

If Slash and Axl ever did record together again, I doubt we've be happy even then. Axl has choosen his path, Slash has choosen his. They both make very different music these days. Slashs music is good, but Axl added something to it during the GN'R days. Axl's music is lacking something without Slash. Agreed, the result, both careers suffered as a result.

[Kalervo]

I personally do not see the merit in arguing who has had a better career. The FACT is, that they both had better careers when they were together in the same band. Slash doesn't have the Guns N' Roses name to sell out arenas and Axl was out of the public eye and took too long to capitalize on new-Guns and Chinese Democracy. Both their careers are a mere shell of what it used to be. The piss contest that frequently occurs here is saddening. Defending individuals that you do not know, for no gain at all.

This sums it up nicely I guess... that being said. Not sure if I wanna see them together though, they can't get along so what's the point.

[moreblack]

who dat?

[volcano62]

hey all,a couple of threads lately got me thinking,are we turning Izzy's positive cameo with Axl in London into

something negative?who is more GNR,the HOF band or the Indiana duo?

let's not be stupid and "take sides"again on this issue.

HOFband was inducted as "Guns N Roses",it can be argued that Axl and Izzy are just as much Guns,

but who cares?

let's all co exist.

Well the bunch inducted at the HOF are not GNR...they were just labeled that by the useless made up imaginary ceremony "promotors". the original plan was to get Axl to sellout and them cashing in.

We all know Axl and Izzy were the heart and soul + founders and wrote all the shit. Anybody that denies this don't know anything about GNR or are just trolling.

Nuff said..

this

Somebody gets it!!!

[shades]

I disagree. I think GNR were inducted in spite of the tarnished legacy of the last decade. AFD is what got them in, the UYI followups helped seal the deal. Most of what came after that doesn't really factor in.

thats one opinion I suppose

its hard to imagine that GNR wouldnt be nominated regardless of whether or not everything stopped after the break up. Hard to imagine the HO 'Rock n Roll' F would not include their contribution to rock regardless.

Where I disagree is in your assertion that "what came after doesn't really matter".

Chinese Democracy was a bold move released in an era where there is no rock n roll.

It was almost like the cork in the bottle.

People that grew up listening to rock n roll almost to the man thought it was a great work.

If you missed that then in all probability you grew up thinking Bon Jovi, Bruce Springstein, U2 and the like were rock n roll.

Not you personally necessarily, just sayin. But if the shoe fits.

thats why I have said in a few different threads that if you get a chance to see Axl and his rock n roll band while he is out there you better grab the chance.

He may just stick the cork in it at any time, and knowing his track record it may be abruptly.

You have to look no further than the real examples in history to realize a band is defined by what it is defined by, not by what you want it to be because you like a certain member for some reason.

Led Zepplin didnt stop being Led Zepplin because John Bohnam died, but take Robert Plant out of it and what do you have?

When Noel Redding left the Jimi Hendrix Experience, in stepped Billy Cox and I believe the music never suffered.

Jimi took himself out in '70', and...

no more Experience

Same with Freddie Mercury

point is like it or not Axl Rose IS Guns N Roses, his "new" band is a collection of some pretty good musicians, and if you dont like the new music, trust me, you wouldnt like it with Slash on lead either.

jmo

Edited June 7, 2012 by shades

[moreblack]

Zeppelin DID stop being Zeppelin when Bonham died. It was over without hom and everybody, not least of all the band member themselves realized it.

[RandallFlagg]

Roger Waters practically wrote (with Ezrin) The Wall and told everyone else how it should go considering they didn't bring many ideas to the table and it's considered a Floyd masterpiece despite Waters doing a captain ahab and little input, Rick White was practically a marionette lol. Axl continued in the vein of what the band's always done, revolved around his energy and voice and got in great musicians when the rest jumped ship one after the other to achieve his vision in an evolved Guns N' Roses soundbut it was a clear collaborative effort (Axl can't play every instrument) you can hear each distinct style, it ain't a solo outing therefore CD is a GNR record and a damn good one all things considered. It'd be far easier to be a solo band but this is still Axl's baby and he doesn't do mediocre contrary to popular belief or he'd have a jolly reunion tour.

[moreblack]

Roger Waters practically wrote (with Ezrin) The Wall and told everyone else how it should go considering they didn't bring many ideas to the table and it's considered a Floyd masterpiece despite Waters doing a captain ahab and little input, Rick White was practically a marionette lol.

It's cool to let someone have their pet project, The Wall turned out really well, although the best songs on there owe most to Gilmour (Brick pt2 and Comf. Numb). However if that becomes the norm, it pretty much wrecks the band. It worked once with The Wall, it failed miserably with The Final Cut.

[sphere79]

It's cool to let someone have their pet project, The Wall turned out really well, although the best songs on there owe most to Gilmour (Brick pt2 and Comf. Numb). However if that becomes the norm, it pretty much wrecks the band. It worked once with The Wall, it failed miserably with The Final Cut.

The Final Cut is a masterpiece as well, a gem of a Floyd album. And yes, with Waters, Gilmour and Mason it IS a Floyd album, non-collaboration aside. Deep, honest, emotional and powerful. I didn't even bother listening to it for years because every book on Floyd and every review had trashed it. Upon realizing it's actually quite good I learned that music reviewers often have horrible tastes in music. It never ceases to amaze me that apparently because A Momentary Lapse of Reason (which actually has Gilmour as it's sole member) sold decently that means that Jon Carin, Tony Levin, Anthony Moore and whomever else Gilmour paid is apparently "Pink Floyd". I bring up Floyd when talking to people about GNR to point out how the importance of having original members applies differently to different bands. Gilmour has even said it himself, that he'd go out alone on tour as Pink Floyd (this was before Rick Wright passed) if he so wanted. But in America many want to see Slash or it's not GNR. I'm a Guns fan going way back, and I remember the countless sloppy-drunk Slash performances from those classic shows - if the new members played like that they'd be crucified. Not dogging the original legendary incarnation mind-you just pointing out the fuzzy memories folks have about the old band. If they'd have continued as-was half of them would probably be dead now.

[moreblack]

It's cool to let someone have their pet project, The Wall turned out really well, although the best songs on there owe most to Gilmour (Brick pt2 and Comf. Numb). However if that becomes the norm, it pretty much wrecks the band. It worked once with The Wall, it failed miserably with The Final Cut.

The Final Cut is a masterpiece as well, a gem of a Floyd album. And yes, with Waters, Gilmour and Mason it IS a Floyd album, non-collaboration aside. Deep, honest, emotional and powerful. I didn't even bother listening to it for years because every book on Floyd and every review had trashed it. Upon realizing it's actually quite good I learned that music reviewers often have horrible tastes in music. It never ceases to amaze me that apparently because A Momentary Lapse of Reason (which actually has Gilmour as it's sole member) sold decently that means that Jon Carin, Tony Levin, Anthony Moore and whomever else Gilmour paid is apparently "Pink Floyd". I bring up Floyd when talking to people about GNR to point out how the importance of having original members applies differently to different bands. Gilmour has even said it himself, that he'd go out alone on tour as Pink Floyd (this was before Rick Wright passed) if he so wanted. But in America many want to see Slash or it's not GNR. I'm a Guns fan going way back, and I remember the countless sloppy-drunk Slash performances from those classic shows - if the new members played like that they'd be crucified. Not dogging the original legendary incarnation mind-you just pointing out the fuzzy memories folks have about the old band. If they'd have continued as-was half of them would probably be dead now.

Final Cut suffers from being the sequel to the Wall, it sounds like the leftovers. You can see what he wanted to do, but Pros And Cons Of Hitchhiking did it so much better. And maybe it was partly due to not being attached to the Pink Floyd name, or maybe Clapton gave the thing some balls. Momentary Lapse had some decent ideas, but it definitely missed Waters. But that's the thing, a lot of bands depend on everybody putting their 2 cents in, once one guy starts dominating proceedings, it may work once, but it's very difficult to make it work consistently.

I don't think the current members could get away with playing wasted, but not because fans would bitch. After all, the old band played wasted at times, and people still loved the shows. But these guys were hired to reproduce the material, they are the touring band, and because it's 100% Axl's band now, he can switch people in and out of the lineup if someone's not delivering to his specs.

[volcano62]

I didn't even bother listening to it for years because every book on Floyd and every review had trashed it.

Sadly CD is suffereing the same fate.

[classicrawker]

I didn't even bother listening to it for years because every book on Floyd and every review had trashed it.

Sadly CD is suffereing the same fate.

Or maybe it is just mediocre..............

[Bobbo]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

2 things.

1: Slash needed Duff, Matt and the fanbase of Stone Temple Pilots to accomplish anything in America.

2: America does not equal the world.

And Axl had plenty of help during Chinese Democracy, including $13 million and the luxury of owning the GNR name. Oh and over a decade worth of buzz and mystique. Way more coverage and anticipation than Contraband. Now; I realize that most of the general population didn't follow the whole process of getting to the album, but anybody that gave a remote shit about Axl or followed GNR at all knew that this was the first GNR album without Slash and co, and it took a lot of time and money to produce. When release was officially announced and set it stone the media went abuzz. It was talked about by every respectable musical publication under the sun, and was reviewed by them as well. It was talked about on entertainment shows, it had commercials, Time Magazine and other articles, newspaper articles, and one of the most popular soft drink companies giving away a free can of their product to everybody in the country JUST because the album was finally release. It WAS promoted, and pretty well, by outside sources. Axl did promote, through online websites and interviews a few weeks after release. Sure, he could have done more on his part, but I HIGHLY doubt it would've been a big game changer in the grand scheme of things. People were gonna either treat it like Van Hagar or Van Halen III when it came out regardless. They were either gonna take to the music, or they weren't. That's why I think it's a little more fair to compare the two than you're bringing on.

Chinese had an impressive debut, and I wasn't shocked by that at all. I always thought it would regardless of how the music was. I think it could have done even better based on curiosity alone had they not streamed the entire finished album on Myspace beforehand. But even then, I think the end result would've been more or less the same. Stronger debut, and then fall off. And that's really what happened. A couple months after release, CD fell off the face of the Earth, both in the media and on the radio, and in the end all it really did was go over most casual fans' heads and split the hard cores into two. Axl could never play a song off CD again, and most people wouldn't bat an eye. The sad truth.

Meanwhile, I CONSTANTLY still hear Slither and FTP on rock fm radio on a regular basis, eight years later. And that's my point. Contraband had significance, impact, and positive fan feedback. It connected with an audience and got steady interest in return. Axl didn't get that feat with Chinese, and has never achieved any of the above since Slash left the band. Maybe Axl made more with the luxury of the name from the revenue aspect, I honestly don't know; but Contraband was the most relevant post '96 GNR album, and that's just a fact. And ask yourself, what's more respectable...making more money using (for the most part) music and a legacy built by an entirely different band? Or releasing a relevant and overall successful album that had a notable impact post heyday despite all odds? I think most people would go with the latter, but each to their own...

I didn't see the VH1 special on CD like I did the forming of VR. I didn't see an Axl or band member interviews every time I went online after the launch of CD. Most of the press that I saw for CD was negative because of the time, money and lack of Slash. Until you can provide a link disproving any one of those things, Contraband was way more positively hyped than CD.

I also don't understand this whole name thing people get hung up on all the time. The names Axl and Slash were just as famous as the name Guns N' Roses. It's a strawman argument at best.

I didn't see any popular soft drinks offering to give a free can to everybody in America just because slash and co were releasing an album. Call me crazy, but I think that had more people tuning in than a vh1 special.

During the years, yeah, CD got criticism, and arguably rightfully so with all the time and money put into it. But I think that was also a positive as well. It gained a lot of mystique and hype that way. When everything was set in stone, and the best buy deal was made public, that mystique really helped. What in the Fuck exactly took over a decade and over 13 million to accomplish? Surely it had to be magnificent, right? I also think the press also gave the album a fair shake during that time. And that's what was important. What happened during crunch time.

Axl DID go on the forums, and did an interview shortly after release that were heavily publicized in the press. I agree he could have done more on his part, but do you honestly believe it would have been a huge game changer in the grand scheme of things? As Axl himself has implied in the chats as to why he doesnt do too many interviews, it wouldn' really matter. It was either gonna sink or swim on its own merits. If the public had dug what they heard, it wouldn't have mattered if slash and co weren't there. It would've been van Hagar all over again.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Bobbo

[Damn_Smooth]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

2 things.

1: Slash needed Duff, Matt and the fanbase of Stone Temple Pilots to accomplish anything in America.

2: America does not equal the world.

And Axl had plenty of help during Chinese Democracy, including $13 million and the luxury of owning the GNR name. Oh and over a decade worth of buzz and mystique. Way more coverage and anticipation than Contraband. Now; I realize that most of the general population didn't follow the whole process of getting to the album, but anybody that gave a remote shit about Axl or followed GNR at all knew that this was the first GNR album without Slash and co, and it took a lot of time and money to produce. When release was officially announced and set it stone the media went abuzz. It was talked about by every respectable musical publication under the sun, and was reviewed by them as well. It was talked about on entertainment shows, it had commercials, Time Magazine and other articles, newspaper articles, and one of the most popular soft drink companies giving away a free can of their product to everybody in the country JUST because the album was finally release. It WAS promoted, and pretty well, by outside sources. Axl did promote, through online websites and interviews a few weeks after release. Sure, he could have done more on his part, but I HIGHLY doubt it would've been a big game changer in the grand scheme of things. People were gonna either treat it like Van Hagar or Van Halen III when it came out regardless. They were either gonna take to the music, or they weren't. That's why I think it's a little more fair to compare the two than you're bringing on.

Chinese had an impressive debut, and I wasn't shocked by that at all. I always thought it would regardless of how the music was. I think it could have done even better based on curiosity alone had they not streamed the entire finished album on Myspace beforehand. But even then, I think the end result would've been more or less the same. Stronger debut, and then fall off. And that's really what happened. A couple months after release, CD fell off the face of the Earth, both in the media and on the radio, and in the end all it really did was go over most casual fans' heads and split the hard cores into two. Axl could never play a song off CD again, and most people wouldn't bat an eye. The sad truth.

Meanwhile, I CONSTANTLY still hear Slither and FTP on rock fm radio on a regular basis, eight years later. And that's my point. Contraband had significance, impact, and positive fan feedback. It connected with an audience and got steady interest in return. Axl didn't get that feat with Chinese, and has never achieved any of the above since Slash left the band. Maybe Axl made more with the luxury of the name from the revenue aspect, I honestly don't know; but Contraband was the most relevant post '96 GNR album, and that's just a fact. And ask yourself, what's more respectable...making more money using (for the most part) music and a legacy built by an entirely different band? Or releasing a relevant and overall successful album that had a notable impact post heyday despite all odds? I think most people would go with the latter, but each to their own...

I didn't see the VH1 special on CD like I did the forming of VR. I didn't see an Axl or band member interviews every time I went online after the launch of CD. Most of the press that I saw for CD was negative because of the time, money and lack of Slash. Until you can provide a link disproving any one of those things, Contraband was way more positively hyped than CD.

I also don't understand this whole name thing people get hung up on all the time. The names Axl and Slash were just as famous as the name Guns N' Roses. It's a strawman argument at best.

I didn't see any popular soft drinks offering to give a free can to everybody in America just because slash and co were releasing an album. Call me crazy, but I think that had more people tuning in than a vh1 special.

During the years, yeah, CD got criticism, and arguably rightfully so with all the time and money put into it. But I think that was also a positive as well. It gained a lot of mystique and hype that way. When everything was set in stone, and the best buy deal was made public, that mystique really helped. What in the Fuck exactly took over a decade and over 13 million to accomplish? Surely it had to be magnificent, right? I also think the press also gave the album a fair shake during that time. And that's what was important. What happened during crunch time.

Axl DID go on the forums, and did an interview shortly after release that were heavily publicized in the press. I agree he could have done more on his part, but do you honestly believe it would have been a huge game changer in the grand scheme of things? As Axl himself has implied in the chats as to why he doesnt do too many interviews, it wouldn' really matter. It was either gonna sink or swim on its own merits. If the public had dug what they heard, it wouldn't have mattered if slash and co weren't there. It would've been van Hagar all over again.

The Dr Pepper deal was only made because they thought that there was no chance of the album being released. Much like every aspect of the album launch, it was botched too.

There could have been a video available and Axl could have toured at the time of release. The Best Buy deal was good because it paid for the album. Best Buy doesn't know how to promote an album though, and their limited amount of store locations didn't help matters. It could have sold a lot more if it would have been more widely available.

His forum visits were ridiculed to hell and back in the mainstream media and the same can be said about his interview. They were both negative and didn't do many favors for CD.

Everyone involved with CD could have done things better, but they didn't, and we have what we have. That's not to say that CD wasn't successful though, because it was. It did very well for a rock record in 2008.

[Modano09]

The GNR name is great for selling tickets, but keep in mind that there was a lot of "it's not really GNR it's just Axl" associated with the name for the past few years - Slash/Duff has public opinion on their side, a lot of people knew that GNR wasn't "really" GNR, and Chinese Democracy became sort of a running joke for years. I don't think the Chinese Democracy or GNR names were that valuable when it came time to release the record. Sure, some people who haven't followed music for years may have seen GNR and bought it thinking it was the same band, but for the most part anyone who followed music closely didn't consider it to be "real" GNR.

Meanwhile, Slash had the media/public on his side, so when you pair the Stone Temple Pilots singer with the "real" GNR, it forms a supergroup that's going to sell a lot of records. I think the public was more open to receiving VR than GNR.

[Original GNR]

The only beef in the old GnR is between Axl and Slash (and Axl and Steven I suppose). Izzy gets on with everyone. He performs a few gigs with Axl now and again, he played on Slash's first solo album, he got up onstage with Velvet Revolver a few times, Duff plays on some of his solo albums.

Izzy is Izzy. He likes to avoid drama. He isn't picking sides. He has said plenty of things about Axl since leaving the band in 1991 about how difficult he became to work with. But he is also Axl's childhood friend, so there will always be a bond there.

[classicrawker]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

2 things.

1: Slash needed Duff, Matt and the fanbase of Stone Temple Pilots to accomplish anything in America.

2: America does not equal the world.

And Axl had plenty of help during Chinese Democracy, including $13 million and the luxury of owning the GNR name. Oh and over a decade worth of buzz and mystique. Way more coverage and anticipation than Contraband. Now; I realize that most of the general population didn't follow the whole process of getting to the album, but anybody that gave a remote shit about Axl or followed GNR at all knew that this was the first GNR album without Slash and co, and it took a lot of time and money to produce. When release was officially announced and set it stone the media went abuzz. It was talked about by every respectable musical publication under the sun, and was reviewed by them as well. It was talked about on entertainment shows, it had commercials, Time Magazine and other articles, newspaper articles, and one of the most popular soft drink companies giving away a free can of their product to everybody in the country JUST because the album was finally release. It WAS promoted, and pretty well, by outside sources. Axl did promote, through online websites and interviews a few weeks after release. Sure, he could have done more on his part, but I HIGHLY doubt it would've been a big game changer in the grand scheme of things. People were gonna either treat it like Van Hagar or Van Halen III when it came out regardless. They were either gonna take to the music, or they weren't. That's why I think it's a little more fair to compare the two than you're bringing on.

Chinese had an impressive debut, and I wasn't shocked by that at all. I always thought it would regardless of how the music was. I think it could have done even better based on curiosity alone had they not streamed the entire finished album on Myspace beforehand. But even then, I think the end result would've been more or less the same. Stronger debut, and then fall off. And that's really what happened. A couple months after release, CD fell off the face of the Earth, both in the media and on the radio, and in the end all it really did was go over most casual fans' heads and split the hard cores into two. Axl could never play a song off CD again, and most people wouldn't bat an eye. The sad truth.

Meanwhile, I CONSTANTLY still hear Slither and FTP on rock fm radio on a regular basis, eight years later. And that's my point. Contraband had significance, impact, and positive fan feedback. It connected with an audience and got steady interest in return. Axl didn't get that feat with Chinese, and has never achieved any of the above since Slash left the band. Maybe Axl made more with the luxury of the name from the revenue aspect, I honestly don't know; but Contraband was the most relevant post '96 GNR album, and that's just a fact. And ask yourself, what's more respectable...making more money using (for the most part) music and a legacy built by an entirely different band? Or releasing a relevant and overall successful album that had a notable impact post heyday despite all odds? I think most people would go with the latter, but each to their own...

I didn't see the VH1 special on CD like I did the forming of VR. I didn't see an Axl or band member interviews every time I went online after the launch of CD. Most of the press that I saw for CD was negative because of the time, money and lack of Slash. Until you can provide a link disproving any one of those things, Contraband was way more positively hyped than CD.

I also don't understand this whole name thing people get hung up on all the time. The names Axl and Slash were just as famous as the name Guns N' Roses. It's a strawman argument at best.

I didn't see any popular soft drinks offering to give a free can to everybody in America just because slash and co were releasing an album. Call me crazy, but I think that had more people tuning in than a vh1 special.

During the years, yeah, CD got criticism, and arguably rightfully so with all the time and money put into it. But I think that was also a positive as well. It gained a lot of mystique and hype that way. When everything was set in stone, and the best buy deal was made public, that mystique really helped. What in the Fuck exactly took over a decade and over 13 million to accomplish? Surely it had to be magnificent, right? I also think the press also gave the album a fair shake during that time. And that's what was important. What happened during crunch time.

Axl DID go on the forums, and did an interview shortly after release that were heavily publicized in the press. I agree he could have done more on his part, but do you honestly believe it would have been a huge game changer in the grand scheme of things? As Axl himself has implied in the chats as to why he doesnt do too many interviews, it wouldn' really matter. It was either gonna sink or swim on its own merits. If the public had dug what they heard, it wouldn't have mattered if slash and co weren't there. It would've been van Hagar all over again.

The Dr Pepper deal was only made because they thought that there was no chance of the album being released. Much like every aspect of the album launch, it was botched too.

There could have been a video available and Axl could have toured at the time of release. The Best Buy deal was good because it paid for the album. Best Buy doesn't know how to promote an album though, and their limited amount of store locations didn't help matters. It could have sold a lot more if it would have been more widely available.

His forum visits were ridiculed to hell and back in the mainstream media and the same can be said about his interview. They were both negative and didn't do many favors for CD.

Everyone involved with CD could have done things better, but they didn't, and we have what we have. That's not to say that CD wasn't successful though, because it was. It did very well for a rock record in 2008.

There is no such thing as bad publicity........IMHO ChiDem under achieved here because it was mediocre not because of lack of promotion

[stumbleine]

the music community heard CD and decided it was no good.that's why it didn't sell.I think it got a fair amount of promotion.

just the fact that it came out was enough promotion in itself.(and I saw an ad on the back of the bus in San Francisco.)

I heard CD and thought "this is great.this will sell ".and I'm normally right about these things.it was a flop here and we will always debate as to why.

[Damn_Smooth]

There is no such thing as bad publicity........IMHO ChiDem under achieved here because it was mediocre not because of lack of promotion

We'll have to have a difference of opinion then. I think CD did great considering what was going against it.

[stumbleine]

for it to be considered a real success it would have to sell upwards of 3 million copies.

[Rustycage]

^ in other words: "If you agree with me, you're smart. If you disagree, you're ignorant."

No point in responding.