Do you think the Chinese Democracy Tour will finally end in India or will it continue on?

[volcano62]

My 01-01-01 Vegas concert shirt says "Chinese Democracy Starts Now" and my memorabilia from the 2002 tour says "Chinese Democracy World Tour" so, despite your attempt at revisionism, it has always been the Chinese Democracy Tour.

This.

The Chinese Democracy Tour began, 2001. We are now in its 11th year!

Stop making up shit. The current residency is called Appetite for Demcoracy..the one before Up Close and personal..shall I keep naming tours not called Chinese Demcoracy?

[DieselDaisy]

'Appetite for Democracy' - clue is in the title. Don't they still use Chinese themed imagery on the stage?

[Apollo]

Don't compare Metallica to nuGNR.

And you, please, don't compare Guns N' Roses to NUMetallica. The REAL Metallica died in the early 80's, when Mustaine was kiked. Now, this is only a bunch of "hired Metallicats", "crap", "James n' Lars band", etc ... cof cof bullshit...

Axl’s failed

Yeah ... Zap him again ... Zap the son of a bitch again ...

+1

Real Metallica: James, Dave, Lars and Cliff

NuMetallica sucks

If you are trying to be funny.......best post in the thread.

If you are serious........no. You cannot be serious.

Thanks for the chuckle. It is nice to see that you do have a sense of humor and can poke fun at yourself.

My 01-01-01 Vegas concert shirt says "Chinese Democracy Starts Now" and my memorabilia from the 2002 tour says "Chinese Democracy World Tour" so, despite your attempt at revisionism, it has always been the Chinese Democracy Tour.

Interesting.....eager to see how some people respond to those facts.

[izzydoezit]

Just because a tour is named "Chinese Democracy tour" does not mean it's the tour for the Chinese Democracy album.

[DieselDaisy]

Just because a tour is named "Chinese Democracy tour" does not mean it's the tour for the Chinese Democracy album.

No point in pointing out the lack of logic here.

Edited November 23, 2012 by DieselDaisy

[The Glow Inc.]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

[SoulMonster]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

Looking at the whole period, from 2001 to today, I would say the band has definitely been moving forward. Back in 2001 just a few songs off CD was released, and was a big signal of what would come. More songs were debuted for the touring in 2006. Then the record came in 2008 and almost all the remaining songs off the record was touring in the next years. It's now been, what, 2 years of touring since its release, and no new songs have been played. So I guess that if we look on the period 2008 to today isolated, one might say there is no signs of progress in the regards of a coming record and the band might appear to have stagnated. But on the other hand, why would we expect the band to start playing new songs a mere 4 years after the release of the previous record? This is Guns N' Roses we're talking about, not Rihanna. The band could have long term plans of releasing the next record in 2016, which is not absurd at all looking at past history, and hence we might not hear new music until 2015. I

think a lot of the bitterness stems from the fact that the band suggested we would experience a period with rapid releases in succession, e.g. 3 records released in 6 years or so. But, by now it should be completely obvious this won't happen. You might be disappointed by this (I am), you might be bitter about this, but most of all, you have to adjust your expectations.

[username]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

Looking at the whole period, from 2001 to today, I would say the band has definitely been moving forward. Back in 2001 just a few songs off CD was released, and was a big signal of what would come. More songs were debuted for the touring in 2006. Then the record came in 2008 and almost all the remaining songs off the record was touring in the next years. It's now been, what, 2 years of touring since its release, and no new songs have been played. So I guess that if we look on the period 2008 to today isolated, one might say there is no signs of progress in the regards of a coming record and the band might appear to have stagnated. But on the other hand, why would we expect the band to start playing new songs a mere 4 years after the release of the previous record? This is Guns N' Roses we're talking about, not Rihanna. The band could have long term plans of releasing the next record in 2016, which is not absurd at all looking at past history, and hence we might not hear new music until 2015. I

think a lot of the bitterness stems from the fact that the band suggested we would experience a period with rapid releases in succession, e.g. 3 records released in 6 years or so. But, by now it should be completely obvious this won't happen. You might be disappointed by this (I am), you might be bitter about this, but most of all, you have to adjust your expectations.

Fine, so they have moved forward, but so slowly that they were overtaken by a glacier.

I've given up all hope for getting through the incredible thickness of MSL (pun intended), but even a hardcore gnr fan like you has to admit that this is very far removed from how a normal band functions.

Edited November 23, 2012 by username

[dalsh327]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

Looking at the whole period, from 2001 to today, I would say the band has definitely been moving forward. Back in 2001 just a few songs off CD was released, and was a big signal of what would come. More songs were debuted for the touring in 2006. Then the record came in 2008 and almost all the remaining songs off the record was touring in the next years. It's now been, what, 2 years of touring since its release, and no new songs have been played. So I guess that if we look on the period 2008 to today isolated, one might say there is no signs of progress in the regards of a coming record and the band might appear to have stagnated. But on the other hand, why would we expect the band to start playing new songs a mere 4 years after the release of the previous record? This is Guns N' Roses we're talking about, not Rihanna. The band could have long term plans of releasing the next record in 2016, which is not absurd at all looking at past history, and hence we might not hear new music until 2015. I

think a lot of the bitterness stems from the fact that the band suggested we would experience a period with rapid releases in succession, e.g. 3 records released in 6 years or so. But, by now it should be completely obvious this won't happen. You might be disappointed by this (I am), you might be bitter about this, but most of all, you have to adjust your expectations.

It took a long time to kick off the world tour, but we don't know if Axl already has a follow up done without band input. I think if he had, he'd be debuting a new song right now.

There was no new music promised for 2012, and I think that ties in with the years of Axl saying "it's coming soon". I doubt he has a good relationship with his record company, and a few have prob. approached him to record with them, but doubt there's been much discussion.

Most people don't have any expectation with GNR anymore. It's cool that they're still around doing songs and have a devoted fanbase, but we're not talking about a band who has anything to prove to anyone, which is pretty consistent since the beginning. They just went out and did it. It's the second guessing on Axl's part, Slash and the record company throwing roadblocks in his way, his own personal demons and reclusiveness that worked against Chinese Democracy, so after dealing with that, going back to doing new music is not exactly something he sounds ecstatic about at a time very few are buying full albums.

So for the next one, will Axl cater to the country market to get radio play? More ballads to come, or an even angrier, balls to the wall G.D. uptempo record?

I think in 2013, we'll start getting word about new music, but it'll depend if Axl doesn't keep doing a "never ending tour". I think right now, touring is good for them, the residency is good for them, they seem in good spirits, and not ready to tell the crew to put in for unemployment checks yet. Ron bitched a couple of times, that's about it.

I'm sure the crew knows when the extended break is coming for them, but as long as GNR's tacking on dates, they're not complaining. But can you imagine how it felt for them from 2002 to 2006? 1995-1999 I doubt even Axl knew what the fate of GNR was going to be, except he wasn't giving it up for anyone. Now - who knows. He's reconnected with Izzy & Duff, which I think is a good thing for the future.

If he and Slash make up, no one's expecting them to reunite, but as far as any old school projects, they'd be able to work on some of that, or guest on each others' projects. I highly doubt it, but when they talk again, who knows what that outcome will be. Eventually, there's going to be some reason why they're going to be at the same place, and when it comes to anything to do with AFD or UYI, Duff, Izzy and Slash will always be a part of that. Axl fought to keep the name, Duff & Slash fought to keep themselves a part of the decision making in the back catalog. Axl and Slash came together on one thing: The Wrestler, but I'm sure there were issues about Axl and Slash at the premiere of the movie - you can bet they were both on the VIP list though.

Maybe Axl's done with GNR after this tour. I think the "calling it a day" tour won't be for another decade.

[SoulMonster]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

Looking at the whole period, from 2001 to today, I would say the band has definitely been moving forward. Back in 2001 just a few songs off CD was released, and was a big signal of what would come. More songs were debuted for the touring in 2006. Then the record came in 2008 and almost all the remaining songs off the record was touring in the next years. It's now been, what, 2 years of touring since its release, and no new songs have been played. So I guess that if we look on the period 2008 to today isolated, one might say there is no signs of progress in the regards of a coming record and the band might appear to have stagnated. But on the other hand, why would we expect the band to start playing new songs a mere 4 years after the release of the previous record? This is Guns N' Roses we're talking about, not Rihanna. The band could have long term plans of releasing the next record in 2016, which is not absurd at all looking at past history, and hence we might not hear new music until 2015. I

think a lot of the bitterness stems from the fact that the band suggested we would experience a period with rapid releases in succession, e.g. 3 records released in 6 years or so. But, by now it should be completely obvious this won't happen. You might be disappointed by this (I am), you might be bitter about this, but most of all, you have to adjust your expectations.

Fine, so they have moved forward, but so slowly that they were overtaken by a glacier.

I've given up all hope for getting through the incredible thickness of MSL (pun intended), but even a hardcore gnr fan like you has to admit that this is very far removed from how a normal band functions.

Of course! But if we compare Guns N' Roses to other bands that were started back in the mid 80s, and not just any other band, then GN'R's recent productivity is not out of the normal. Most bands tend to enter a legacy status when they get this old where the release frequency is MUCH lower than for when they were a young, hungry band. Many stop releasing altogether and becomes a pure nostalgia act. Others manage to keep a decent productivity for a long time. But most slow down their productivity a lot, and if you look back in another thread where I picked RANDOM bands as old as GN'R and calculated their respective release rates in their first half of existence and in their second half, you would see that all of them had a significant drop in productivity and most of them ended up like GN'R or worse. Hell, most bands that old isn't active at all, much less creating anything new.

[Rovim]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

Looking at the whole period, from 2001 to today, I would say the band has definitely been moving forward. Back in 2001 just a few songs off CD was released, and was a big signal of what would come. More songs were debuted for the touring in 2006. Then the record came in 2008 and almost all the remaining songs off the record was touring in the next years. It's now been, what, 2 years of touring since its release, and no new songs have been played. So I guess that if we look on the period 2008 to today isolated, one might say there is no signs of progress in the regards of a coming record and the band might appear to have stagnated. But on the other hand, why would we expect the band to start playing new songs a mere 4 years after the release of the previous record? This is Guns N' Roses we're talking about, not Rihanna. The band could have long term plans of releasing the next record in 2016, which is not absurd at all looking at past history, and hence we might not hear new music until 2015. I

think a lot of the bitterness stems from the fact that the band suggested we would experience a period with rapid releases in succession, e.g. 3 records released in 6 years or so. But, by now it should be completely obvious this won't happen. You might be disappointed by this (I am), you might be bitter about this, but most of all, you have to adjust your expectations.

Fine, so they have moved forward, but so slowly that they were overtaken by a glacier.

I've given up all hope for getting through the incredible thickness of MSL (pun intended), but even a hardcore gnr fan like you has to admit that this is very far removed from how a normal band functions.

Of course! But if we compare Guns N' Roses to other bands that were started back in the mid 80s, and not just any other band, then GN'R's recent productivity is not out of the normal. Most bands tend to enter a legacy status when they get this old where the release frequency is MUCH lower than for when they were a young, hungry band. Many stop releasing altogether and becomes a pure nostalgia act. Others manage to keep a decent productivity for a long time. But most slow down their productivity a lot, and if you look back in another thread where I picked RANDOM bands as old as GN'R and calculated their respective release rates in their first half of existence and in their second half, you would see that all of them had a significant drop in productivity and most of them ended up like GN'R or worse. Hell, most bands that old isn't active at all, much less creating anything new.

I get what you're saying, but then I think about a band like U2, nevermind what you think about the music, it shows it's possible to be an old band and keep being productive and profitable.

It's not really a good example, but I wish Guns were half as sustainable as an entity on that level.

[SoulMonster]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

Looking at the whole period, from 2001 to today, I would say the band has definitely been moving forward. Back in 2001 just a few songs off CD was released, and was a big signal of what would come. More songs were debuted for the touring in 2006. Then the record came in 2008 and almost all the remaining songs off the record was touring in the next years. It's now been, what, 2 years of touring since its release, and no new songs have been played. So I guess that if we look on the period 2008 to today isolated, one might say there is no signs of progress in the regards of a coming record and the band might appear to have stagnated. But on the other hand, why would we expect the band to start playing new songs a mere 4 years after the release of the previous record? This is Guns N' Roses we're talking about, not Rihanna. The band could have long term plans of releasing the next record in 2016, which is not absurd at all looking at past history, and hence we might not hear new music until 2015. I

think a lot of the bitterness stems from the fact that the band suggested we would experience a period with rapid releases in succession, e.g. 3 records released in 6 years or so. But, by now it should be completely obvious this won't happen. You might be disappointed by this (I am), you might be bitter about this, but most of all, you have to adjust your expectations.

Fine, so they have moved forward, but so slowly that they were overtaken by a glacier.

I've given up all hope for getting through the incredible thickness of MSL (pun intended), but even a hardcore gnr fan like you has to admit that this is very far removed from how a normal band functions.

Of course! But if we compare Guns N' Roses to other bands that were started back in the mid 80s, and not just any other band, then GN'R's recent productivity is not out of the normal. Most bands tend to enter a legacy status when they get this old where the release frequency is MUCH lower than for when they were a young, hungry band. Many stop releasing altogether and becomes a pure nostalgia act. Others manage to keep a decent productivity for a long time. But most slow down their productivity a lot, and if you look back in another thread where I picked RANDOM bands as old as GN'R and calculated their respective release rates in their first half of existence and in their second half, you would see that all of them had a significant drop in productivity and most of them ended up like GN'R or worse. Hell, most bands that old isn't active at all, much less creating anything new.

I get what you're saying, but then I think about a band like U2, nevermind what you think about the music, it shows it's possible to be an old band and keep being productive and profitable.

It's not really a good example, but I wish Guns were half as sustainable as an entity on that level.

Absolutely, there are some bands who manage to have a decent productivity for a looong time and I think we could all name 10 such bands quite easily. But what we often fail to remember is that for each of these there are MANY who failed to achieve that lasting productivity, failed to become anything but a nostalgia act, or even failed to survive long-term. The rare exceptions are simply put exceedingly rare. Again, I tested this by picking completely random bands who were active back in the mid 80s, and very, very few are productive today, and of those the typical time between releases would by 6+ years. It's been 4 years for GN'R now.

[Rovim]

Those are the facts.

There is one fact that is missing from your list : the fact that most songs that were added to setlists for the last eleven years are either old songs, covers or Chinese Democracy songs.

What does it say about the tours ? Does it look like the band is moving forward or stagnating ?

Looking at the whole period, from 2001 to today, I would say the band has definitely been moving forward. Back in 2001 just a few songs off CD was released, and was a big signal of what would come. More songs were debuted for the touring in 2006. Then the record came in 2008 and almost all the remaining songs off the record was touring in the next years. It's now been, what, 2 years of touring since its release, and no new songs have been played. So I guess that if we look on the period 2008 to today isolated, one might say there is no signs of progress in the regards of a coming record and the band might appear to have stagnated. But on the other hand, why would we expect the band to start playing new songs a mere 4 years after the release of the previous record? This is Guns N' Roses we're talking about, not Rihanna. The band could have long term plans of releasing the next record in 2016, which is not absurd at all looking at past history, and hence we might not hear new music until 2015. I

think a lot of the bitterness stems from the fact that the band suggested we would experience a period with rapid releases in succession, e.g. 3 records released in 6 years or so. But, by now it should be completely obvious this won't happen. You might be disappointed by this (I am), you might be bitter about this, but most of all, you have to adjust your expectations.

Fine, so they have moved forward, but so slowly that they were overtaken by a glacier.

I've given up all hope for getting through the incredible thickness of MSL (pun intended), but even a hardcore gnr fan like you has to admit that this is very far removed from how a normal band functions.

Of course! But if we compare Guns N' Roses to other bands that were started back in the mid 80s, and not just any other band, then GN'R's recent productivity is not out of the normal. Most bands tend to enter a legacy status when they get this old where the release frequency is MUCH lower than for when they were a young, hungry band. Many stop releasing altogether and becomes a pure nostalgia act. Others manage to keep a decent productivity for a long time. But most slow down their productivity a lot, and if you look back in another thread where I picked RANDOM bands as old as GN'R and calculated their respective release rates in their first half of existence and in their second half, you would see that all of them had a significant drop in productivity and most of them ended up like GN'R or worse. Hell, most bands that old isn't active at all, much less creating anything new.

I get what you're saying, but then I think about a band like U2, nevermind what you think about the music, it shows it's possible to be an old band and keep being productive and profitable.

It's not really a good example, but I wish Guns were half as sustainable as an entity on that level.

Absolutely, there are some bands who manage to have a decent productivity for a looong time and I think we could all name 10 such bands quite easily. But what we often fail to remember is that for each of these there are MANY who failed to achieve that lasting productivity, failed to become anything but a nostalgia act, or even failed to survive long-term. The rare exceptions are simply put exceedingly rare. Again, I tested this by picking completely random bands who were active back in the mid 80s, and very, very few are productive today, and of those the typical time between releases would by 6+ years. It's been 4 years for GN'R now.

Agreed. I guess it would have been much less painful, this whole one album every 20 years thing, if in their prime, Guns were like The Beatles or even Led Zeppelin productivity wise, creating 6-7 or more classic albums for us to enjoy, to go back too.

As it stands, I think what's also rare is how this band operates, but I still believe in it for the simple reason the one album that did get released is great imo, and the live shows are a ton of fun. I just hope we'll hear something more, without having to wait for 10 more years.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

Call me old-fashoned but if somebody says at a concert that ''Album X starts Now'', and uses imagery associated with ''album x'', I assume that that concert is part of the ''album x'' tour. Things like the, 'up close and personal', and, 'Appetite for Democracy'', are merely legs (like the Get in the Ring and Skin N' Bones legs).

[HisRoyalSweetness]

why are axl fans so defensive about him touring chinese democracy for so long? doesn't that prove there's a huge demand for chinese democracy that's not reflected in sales charts? and isn't it thrilling to think that axl's setting records for the longest tour in history? only fitting for the album that took the longest to record.

i think you guys should be proud as fuck that in 2013, axl's still persisting with chinese democracy. i say keep the tour rolling right through the release of cd II, III and IV.

[izzydoezit]

To be realistic, I think Axl would NEVER tour if he didn't need the money or he wasn't in some ways obliged to.

[maynard]

yeah, it's like he's not tryingto promote CD. obviously he is. obviously he thinks CD can do better or he would have already released a new album. this is the CD tour and it will go on for a little while.

[Rovim]

To be realistic, I think Axl would NEVER tour if he didn't need the money or he wasn't in some ways obliged to.

Axl seems to enjoy himself on stage in the last few years. I don't believe he's forced to do anything. At least not nowdays.

[Apollo]

Why the round one comment?

And everybody makes great points about Axl. But what about the rest of the band? Are Ashba and BBf happy just being a touring nostalgic act, or do they have creative music juices?

[The Black]

14 years to release the album

14 years to tour it

[SoulMonster]

To be realistic, I think Axl would NEVER tour if he didn't need the money or he wasn't in some ways obliged to.

With a net worth of $ 150 mill I doubt he needs the money. You know what, I actually think he perceives playing his music an important part of his art. He might not always enjoy it, but I think it is important for him to do it. I think he feels he is obliged by the art, and nothing else, to see it realized at stage in front of a live audience.

[GUNNER PT]

To be realistic, I think Axl would NEVER tour if he didn't need the money or he wasn't in some ways obliged to.

This man got a point in here.

Axl should do it only for charity.

[izzydoezit]

To be realistic, I think Axl would NEVER tour if he didn't need the money or he wasn't in some ways obliged to.

With a net worth of $ 150 mill I doubt he needs the money. You know what, I actually think he perceives playing his music an important part of his art. He might not always enjoy it, but I think it is important for him to do it. I think he feels he is obliged by the art, and nothing else, to see it realized at stage in front of a live audience.

To be realistic, I think Axl would NEVER tour if he didn't need the money or he wasn't in some ways obliged to.

With a net worth of $ 150 mill I doubt he needs the money.

Someone brought up the matter in Canter Banter, and Marc said those lists are bullshit.

[vaida]

I thought the chinese democracy was dropped from the tour, and it has simply been 'the tour' since then, and Vegas etc..

[SoulMonster]

Someone brought up the matter in Canter Banter, and Marc said those lists are bullshit.

Heh, what would a restaurant owner know about the accuracy of celebrity net worth lists?