Madridista Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Do you think Axl should have released Chinese Democracy as a solo album? I don't know, but I can't help but think that if he had, then most fans out there wouldn't compare it to his previous efforts, you know, to AFD and UYI. CD may not be my favorite album ever, but I do like a couple of songs here and there. I think by releasing it as a GnR album, since he owns the legal rights to the name, he set the bar way too high and the fact that it took him 15 years to release it certainly didn't help. The hype was just too much to live up to. Think about it, it was like Chinese Democracy: NEW GUNS N ROSES ALBUM ! After such a LONG TIME. So of course, upon hearing the actual songs, most fans were like Huh? What happened here? Had it been released as a solo album, then maybe, just maybe, people would see it in a different light. Just asking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yes. Not as a solo album maybe but a different band. It'd give him less problems, more media support, a better relationship with former members, public acceptance and the music would still be fuckin' awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nambis Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 yes, since CD is an Axl Rose solo album. Axl has tried to rewrite history and make it appear as though he alone was GNR, but that's just not how it was, and that's clear when you compare AFD/Lies/UYI to CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Diet Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yesbut this thread fits in the Dust n' Bones section... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yes. Not as a solo album maybe but a different band. It'd give him less problems, more media support, a better relationship with former members, public acceptance and the music would still be fuckin' awesome.This is a great idea...should have done a VR type thing and called it a different name.......would have sold fewer albums but at least he would have been going it on his own instead of using the GnR name as a crutch to sell albums and concert tickets............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiraMPD Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) Difficult question... If you mean CD exactly how it is with the songs that are on it then, no. I mean, I'm guessing the songs were written and developed with GnR in mind right? I imagine that an Axl Rose solo album would sound significantly different to CD.Now if the question was whether or not he should have released another album as a solo effort instead of pursuing CD? Then I would have to say yes. Edited June 9, 2012 by KiraMPD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finck6 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Do you think Axl should have released Chinese Democracy as a solo album? I don't know, but I can't help but think that if he had, then most fans out there wouldn't compare it to his previous efforts, you know, to AFD and UYI. CD may not be my favorite album ever, but I do like a couple of songs here and there. I think by releasing it as a GnR album, since he owns the legal rights to the name, he set the bar way too high and the fact that it took him 15 years to release it certainly didn't help. The hype was just too much to live up to. Think about it, it was like Chinese Democracy: NEW GUNS N ROSES ALBUM ! After such a LONG TIME. So of course, upon hearing the actual songs, most fans were like Huh? What happened here? Had it been released as a solo album, then maybe, just maybe, people would see it in a different light. Just asking...the answer is NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXL_N_DIZZY Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) No. It was hardly an ideal situation to be sure- but the fact is the band never broke-up but rather changed personnel. The real "start" of CD IMHO was Duff and Matt working with Axl, Dizzy, Paul and Robin on the "next Guns N' Roses" album in 1997 (some might even go further back to the Slash sessions in 95/96- though I regard that as more a "feel out"/jam period). As a previous poster said above- from its inception therefore the project was thought of in terms of "Guns N' Roses"- and the material created and worked on was in that context. I think a true "Axl Rose" solo album would probably be an entirely different animal than CD (which I would LOVE to see happen someday too). Personally, I hope we get an "Axl Rose, Buckethead & Friends Christmas Album" someday!! Edited June 9, 2012 by AXL_N_DIZZY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 No, I like the fact that he stubbornly continued with Guns N' Roses despite all the problems and past members quitting, and managed to release a album clearly in the vein of GN'R. I want Gun N' Roses to be alive, not dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scumcat Esq. Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 The record company should've made it possible for him to release it 8 years earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaida Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) Name or no Name, it is in effect an Axl solo record. He should have come up with a new band name. Edited June 9, 2012 by vaida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Name or no Name, it is in effect an Axl solo record.It's not a solo record when the songs are written by a band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Honestly... No. But I'd support Axl if that was his decision. There are so many retarded and moronic GNR fans that if most of them could go away it'd be a nice thing. On the other hand, it's his band, the band he created almost 30 years ago, so he wants to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 No, I like the fact that he stubbornly continued with Guns N' Roses despite all the problems and past members quitting, and managed to release a album clearly in the vein of GN'R. I want Gun N' Roses to be alive, not dead.exactly great post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patience 4 Axl Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I'm guessing the songs were written and developed with GnR in mind right? I imagine that an Axl Rose solo album would sound significantly different to CD.That's an interesting thought. I have always felt that this was a solo effort anyway, with hired writers and musicians to assist in the process. It's always been described as Axl's vision. The way Brain described his role in recording for example, it certainly wasn't his vision, nor have I ever heard that it was somehow Bucket's vision or Finck's vision, etc. Guys came in and recorded, other guys came in and re-recorded, and this was all under Axl's direction, not theirs as a collective band. So my opinion was that the album would have sounded exactly the same no matter what name it was marketed under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 this was all under Axl's direction, not theirs as a collective bandNo, it wasn't. Ron said that he had total freedom to create anything he wanted to, and so did Finck, Brain, Bucket, Paul, Tommy, Pitman, Frank and Dizzy. Ron said that multiple times but whatever, you will believe in what you want to believe, not in the actual truth. You all may want to twist as much as you want, but every musician had their own input that they created, THEIR VISION, not Axl's. Brain wrote his own songs and his own drum parts as well, only the first songs had Freese's drums so he re-recorded them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madridista Posted June 9, 2012 Author Share Posted June 9, 2012 But doesn't' the fact that there have been so many lineup changes, to the point where GnR is more like a revolving door than a band, mean that all the musicians playing in GnR now and before CD was released are nothing but hired guns, with no level or artistic input in the band? Or maybe that their input was so minimal that it didn't really make a difference in the sound? I find it hard to believe that CD was anything but an Axl solo album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) There are so many retarded and moronic GNR fans that if most of them could go away it'd be a nice thing. What a mature, intelligent, classy post.Your comment says more about you though, than it does about other posters. Edited June 9, 2012 by Groghan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) It was certainly his final word, but others also had a lot of input. Like when he said he didn't want to release This I Love (what a dick, every music fan should be aware of Robin's brilliance...!) and others wanted to, so he did. Anyway...Is Axl easy to work with? Did you have creative input while working with GNR, or was all the creative juice reserved for the Abnormal disc?Axl's a friend, always havin' a great time on and off the road. People have so many assumptions, people always want to think the worst. They don't want truth, they want entertainment. I can talk 'til I'm blue in the face about how I was brought into GNR to be myself, and that's what I do, I do my thing, I speak my own words, no puppeteer with a hand in my back, yet anything I say and do there are those who respond with "oh, he *has* to say that", haha. Ya can't win, haha. I've been completely creative in GNR. In my solo band, where I write everything, play everything, sing everything, sure I have more to add, but that's because it's a solo effort, not a band. GNR is a band, where everybody does what they do, together. I gotta say, it's been a fuckking blast.Man, there's this interview I'm reading again right now... one of the funniest interviews I've ever read! http://www.bumblefoot.com/press/20090825_-_GNRevolution/20090825_-_GNRevolution.htmThe last line is priceless! Edited June 9, 2012 by Bruno Poeys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patience 4 Axl Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) this was all under Axl's direction, not theirs as a collective bandNo, it wasn't. Ron said that he had total freedom to create anything he wanted to, and so did Finck, Brain, Bucket, Paul, Tommy, Pitman, Frank and Dizzy. Ron said that multiple times but whatever, you will believe in what you want to believe, not in the actual truth. You all may want to twist as much as you want, but every musician had their own input that they created, THEIR VISION, not Axl's. Brain wrote his own songs and his own drum parts as well, only the first songs had Freese's drums so he re-recorded them.CD songs were already recorded when Ron joined. He re-recorded already existing parts, added some licks here and there, and obviously his contributions on the album weren't even enough to give him credits. You keep quoting Ron as if he is the only guy in the band, when in actuality he was nothing more than a last minute replacement for a tour. They wouldn't even GIVE him a copy of CD when he joined. Just stuck him in a room with a laptop and a pair of headphones and said, here ya go, learn em. And Brain was pretty clear about the painstaking process of having to re-record 30 songs Josh had played on, note for note, going thru 3 producers in the process. Sounds like quite the artistic vision. Throwing out names like Bucket and Finck and Paul and Pitman and how they had "total freedom" to create what they wanted means nothing unless they actually said it. Quote them instead of Bumblefoot next time to back it up, since those are the guys who actually had something to do with the album. Edited June 9, 2012 by Patience 4 Axl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) No matter what you say or think, he wrote his own parts, he joined the band as a member, he knows what he's talking about - YOU don't. If he's saying that it was a band thing, so it really was. You don't know shit, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion with your biased opinion, HE has. Oh, and the old managers were dickheads to him. Never heard of that, thank you for that info. Doesn't change the fact that he was in a studio, recorded his own thing, just like Frank did at the time.Oh, and read what he said once again. He never re-recorded anything, he wrote his own guitar parts. See? You'll believe in what YOU want to believe, not in the truth. You have your own little world with your own little truth. But the fact is - he wrote his own parts, had his own vision and did all by himself. That's a band - and the leader decides what's best and what's not the best. A band member said that GNR is a real band and a forum member (Who knows shit about how the band works) says that it isn't. Who should I believe in? Tough choice... Edited June 9, 2012 by Bruno Poeys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yes. People would have been less critical. It's a solo project anyways. It's Axl's band and Axl's vision of the music. When you demand to sit on the throne over the band, it's not a band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patience 4 Axl Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Bumble's said a lot of things man. All you're doing is picking and choosing his quotes to suit your version. That's some funny shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I just think everyone would be better off if Axl hadn't used the GnR name for CD: Even and especially Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I'm glad you aksed, Fatty McFatback. A band has equal input and compromise. Otherwise, it would be called "Axl and Guns N Roses."Dictating what direction YOU want the band to go in takes it from being a band to being a guy with trained monkeys on a leash.History is littered with bands that had one or two making decisions that later dissolved and/or split after the dictating tension became too much. But the funny thing is most of those bands still kept their initial direction as a rock band and didn't try to become Guns N Reznors. Much easier for your partners to stick around when you aren't a runaway train with 18 wheelers carting your ego around.I just think everyone would be better off if Axl hadn't used the GnR name for CD: Even and especially Axl. Guns N' Roses is one of the most successful bands in the world right now and Axl has 100% ownership of the band. Please explain how Axl would be better off had he gone solo. Thanks.A little something called integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts