Does anybody else think that the only thing that's holding New GNR back from gaining Old GNR like popularity is their lack of albums released?

[prettytiedup88]

GNR will never amount to anywhere near the level of popularity the old band had unless they approach a new record in the same way the old line up did. Chinese Democracy was an incredibly irrelevant album. It was outdated when it was released, was very niche in sound and went completely against the sound that made GNR a household name in the first place. Its a concept album that lost its way by trying to be too many things with too many influences and came out years too late to take advantage of any industrial trend that there was when Axl first started recording it.

At this point the best they can hope to emulate would be AC/DC's Black Ice. Great reviews, topping album charts, huge tour, lots of great press and a huge promotional campaign. It was a great album of traditional, sticking to what they do best rock n roll. Releasing 'Chinese Leftovers' will not do jack all for them in the popularity stakes. Bring back balls to the wall rock and roll and hope the reviews spark a resurgence.

[wasted]

I think CD was made in the same retro way AFD and UYI were made but the infuences were 90s as well as the 70s.

The difference was that in the 90s everyone wanted to smoke whisky and drink heroin. But in 2008 nobody wanted party like it was the mid 90s.people just want to conform and consume technology.

[merces]

I think CD was made in the same retro way AFD and UYI were made but the infuences were 90s as well as the 70s.

The difference was that in the 90s everyone wanted to smoke whisky and drink heroin. But in 2008 nobody wanted party like it was the mid 90s.people just want to conform and consume technology.

I agree, the only way GNR will be populair again is make songs that are soft rock (ala Foo Fighters, Green Day or Nickelback)

We live in a different time, the charts are overflooded with dance/rap music/soft rock, there is no Metallica/GNR/Alice in Chains/Pearl Jam kinda bands in the charts

PS. I'm not hating on the Foo's, Green day or Nickelback, I even enjoy some of their songs but I don't want GNR to turn into a band they're not

Edited February 11, 2013 by merces

[phaeryen]

for popularity, success and the like, artistic and economic or what have you, EVERYTHING has to be kind of perfect.

it can't be that anymore for this band, too much baggage, too much time wasted time, fucking around and shit.

The saddest part is Axl went through hell to get together a band that had great players in it, a futuristic vision infront, but just couldn't follow through with the chase of his own dreams. He failed and crumbled under the stress and his own personal demons.

[wasted]

I think CD was made in the same retro way AFD and UYI were made but the infuences were 90s as well as the 70s.

The difference was that in the 90s everyone wanted to smoke whisky and drink heroin. But in 2008 nobody wanted party like it was the mid 90s.people just want to conform and consume technology.

I agree, the only way GNR will be populair again is make songs that are soft rock (ala Foo Fighters, Green Day or Nickelback)

We live in a different time, the charts are overflooded with dance/rap music/soft rock, there is no Metallica/GNR/Alice in Chains/Pearl Jam kinda bands in the charts

PS. I'm not hating on the Foo's, Green day or Nickelback, I even enjoy some of their songs but I don't want GNR to turn into a band they're not

I think they could do a really great straight ahead rock record.

I just watched Madagascar at The Joint and its basically everyrhing CD was meant to be. They did it, they made a great record.

Now they could drop down and do a Sticky Fingers.

[dalsh327]

I think CD was made in the same retro way AFD and UYI were made but the infuences were 90s as well as the 70s.

The difference was that in the 90s everyone wanted to smoke whisky and drink heroin. But in 2008 nobody wanted party like it was the mid 90s.people just want to conform and consume technology.

I agree, the only way GNR will be populair again is make songs that are soft rock (ala Foo Fighters, Green Day or Nickelback)

We live in a different time, the charts are overflooded with dance/rap music/soft rock, there is no Metallica/GNR/Alice in Chains/Pearl Jam kinda bands in the charts

PS. I'm not hating on the Foo's, Green day or Nickelback, I even enjoy some of their songs but I don't want GNR to turn into a band they're not

I think they could do a really great straight ahead rock record.

I just watched Madagascar at The Joint and its basically everyrhing CD was meant to be. They did it, they made a great record.

Now they could drop down and do a Sticky Fingers.

I think some of the buzz on the next album will involve Izzy and/or Duff participating.

[WilliamBruceRoseJr]

Aerosmith's last #1 hit was in 1998 when Steven Tyler was 50.

Aerosmith's last Top 10 hit was in 2000 when Steven Tyler was 52.

Axl Rose is now 51 years old.

His window is closing if he ever wants to be relevant again.

For sure his window is closing on him. When Tyler was 50 he was at top form, very active. The band was in a great shape, releasing music, videos and hits. Last Axl Rose hit was at his 30s.

[wasted]

I think CD was made in the same retro way AFD and UYI were made but the infuences were 90s as well as the 70s.

The difference was that in the 90s everyone wanted to smoke whisky and drink heroin. But in 2008 nobody wanted party like it was the mid 90s.people just want to conform and consume technology.

I agree, the only way GNR will be populair again is make songs that are soft rock (ala Foo Fighters, Green Day or Nickelback)

We live in a different time, the charts are overflooded with dance/rap music/soft rock, there is no Metallica/GNR/Alice in Chains/Pearl Jam kinda bands in the charts

PS. I'm not hating on the Foo's, Green day or Nickelback, I even enjoy some of their songs but I don't want GNR to turn into a band they're not

I think they could do a really great straight ahead rock record.

I just watched Madagascar at The Joint and its basically everyrhing CD was meant to be. They did it, they made a great record.

Now they could drop down and do a Sticky Fingers.

I think some of the buzz on the next album will involve Izzy and/or Duff participating.

That could get some older fans to take a look. I justvwondervif theyll go for more CD type stuff or a new hard rock record.

[jimb0]

Let's not forget, Steven was in as good of shape, if not better - being sober, as ever. He has what the fans wanted... He's sidekick, his other half... Joe Perry.

Axl has none of those things.

If the next album is anything like CD.... over produced, no stand out riffs, inconsistent vocals, tons of filler...... No chance in hell. Maybe its just me, but I think this nostalgia tour is actually a good angle for Axl to play... Not for us die hards, but for everyone else. The only thing he could do to sell more tickets would be reunion.

[dalsh327]

Aerosmith's last #1 hit was in 1998 when Steven Tyler was 50.

Aerosmith's last Top 10 hit was in 2000 when Steven Tyler was 52.

Axl Rose is now 51 years old.

His window is closing if he ever wants to be relevant again.

For sure his window is closing on him. When Tyler was 50 he was at top form, very active. The band was in a great shape, releasing music, videos and hits. Last Axl Rose hit was at his 30s.

But when Tyler was in his early 30s, that's when the drugs took over Aerosmith and the split happened. They were able to regroup, where Axl and Slash got into their grudge match.

[Apollo]

That is exactly it.

If Axl had released 4-5 albums now post-old band, then he would have shut up a large portion of the critics.

A lot of people were not only mad that he kept the GnR name going without the actual members who made it famous.....but also because he hasn't done hardly anything to keep the name alive, other than living off the work of past members. Proving that he didn't keep the name GnR because of how much it meant to him, but only kept it for the name value in terms of booking shows (IE: to make money).

But if Axl had released several albums and was adding to the GnR legacy with the current band, then a lot of the griping and complaining would dissapear.

[jimb0]

What's Holding New GNR back from gaining Old GNR like popularity

Simple This: They Are NOT Old GNR. Or at the very least have Slash... End of Story.

Edited February 11, 2013 by jimb0

[Ragnar]

That is exactly it.

If Axl had released 4-5 albums now post-old band, then he would have shut up a large portion of the critics.

A lot of people were not only mad that he kept the GnR name going without the actual members who made it famous.....but also because he hasn't done hardly anything to keep the name alive, other than living off the work of past members. Proving that he didn't keep the name GnR because of how much it meant to him, but only kept it for the name value in terms of booking shows (IE: to make money).

But if Axl had released several albums and was adding to the GnR legacy with the current band, then a lot of the griping and complaining would dissapear.

+1

[trqster]

That is exactly it.

If Axl had released 4-5 albums now post-old band, then he would have shut up a large portion of the critics.

A lot of people were not only mad that he kept the GnR name going without the actual members who made it famous.....but also because he hasn't done hardly anything to keep the name alive, other than living off the work of past members. Proving that he didn't keep the name GnR because of how much it meant to him, but only kept it for the name value in terms of booking shows (IE: to make money).

But if Axl had released several albums and was adding to the GnR legacy with the current band, then a lot of the griping and complaining would dissapear.

+1

I don't agree at all...

If Axl had done several albums like the sort of CD they'd be little relevant for the fans out there... To be fair It's almost impossible for Axl to replicate Gn'R previous music quality, alone with his changing hired hands lineups. Since the 'members' change often and are no real band members at all, it'd do little to improve respect from the media or old fans. No Slash, no Izzy, no Duff? No way....

Edited February 11, 2013 by trqster

[Ragnar]

That is exactly it.

If Axl had released 4-5 albums now post-old band, then he would have shut up a large portion of the critics.

A lot of people were not only mad that he kept the GnR name going without the actual members who made it famous.....but also because he hasn't done hardly anything to keep the name alive, other than living off the work of past members. Proving that he didn't keep the name GnR because of how much it meant to him, but only kept it for the name value in terms of booking shows (IE: to make money).

But if Axl had released several albums and was adding to the GnR legacy with the current band, then a lot of the griping and complaining would dissapear.

+1

I don't agree at all...

If Axl had done several albums like the sort of CD they'd be little relevant for the fans out there... To be fair It's almost impossible for Axl to replicate Gn'R previous music quality, alone with his changing hired hands lineups. Since the 'members' change often and are no real band members at all, it'd do little to improve respect from the media or old fans. No Slash, no Izzy, no Duff? No way....

Overproduction and endless tinkering hurt Chinese Democracy more than anything had it been released in 99 or 02 then. things would be much different still want to hear 02 cut of CD I`m sure it would shit all over final version of the album

Edited February 11, 2013 by Dark Knight

[username]

Does anybody else think that the only thing that's holding New GNR back from gaining Old GNR like popularity is their lack of albums released?

Does anybody else think that the only thing that's holding New GNR back from gaining Old GNR like popularity is their lack of albums released? I think people miss the era when GNR released new music consistently more than they miss Slash.

Absolute bull. With Guns n' Roses it all came together. The people, the music, the scene, the place, the time, the music culture... everything. It's like expecting lightning to strike in the exact same spot twice. It's one of those things that happen once in your career if you're very very lucky.

[Apollo]

That is exactly it.

If Axl had released 4-5 albums now post-old band, then he would have shut up a large portion of the critics.

A lot of people were not only mad that he kept the GnR name going without the actual members who made it famous.....but also because he hasn't done hardly anything to keep the name alive, other than living off the work of past members. Proving that he didn't keep the name GnR because of how much it meant to him, but only kept it for the name value in terms of booking shows (IE: to make money).

But if Axl had released several albums and was adding to the GnR legacy with the current band, then a lot of the griping and complaining would dissapear.

+1

I don't agree at all...

If Axl had done several albums like the sort of CD they'd be little relevant for the fans out there... To be fair It's almost impossible for Axl to replicate Gn'R previous music quality, alone with his changing hired hands lineups. Since the 'members' change often and are no real band members at all, it'd do little to improve respect from the media or old fans. No Slash, no Izzy, no Duff? No way....

So nothing Axl does, other than a reunion, would help his career earn respect now?

So if Axl had put out 5 albums post Slash/Duff, and they had sold a combined 100 million copies with 8 number one songs.....the media and fans would not change their tune regarding his decision to keep the name alive?

It is just music, people. Chris Brown can visciously beat up his girlfriend and a year later be back on the charts. People put up with Axl's act in the late 80s and early 90s because the band was selling tens of millions of albums. If they release a double album this year (the remaining two of the supposed CD trilogy) and they sell and produce hits like Illusions.........and then another album in 2014 by the current band, and that sells 8 million copies and has 3 number one songs.............I promise you that the majority of the critics will stop complaining. Not all - but most.

But one album every 20 years............people are going to complain about why Axl kept the name and why he is letting a completely different band make a living off of it, instead of off their own work.

[jimb0]

That is exactly it.

If Axl had released 4-5 albums now post-old band, then he would have shut up a large portion of the critics.

A lot of people were not only mad that he kept the GnR name going without the actual members who made it famous.....but also because he hasn't done hardly anything to keep the name alive, other than living off the work of past members. Proving that he didn't keep the name GnR because of how much it meant to him, but only kept it for the name value in terms of booking shows (IE: to make money).

But if Axl had released several albums and was adding to the GnR legacy with the current band, then a lot of the griping and complaining would dissapear.

+1

I don't agree at all...

If Axl had done several albums like the sort of CD they'd be little relevant for the fans out there... To be fair It's almost impossible for Axl to replicate Gn'R previous music quality, alone with his changing hired hands lineups. Since the 'members' change often and are no real band members at all, it'd do little to improve respect from the media or old fans. No Slash, no Izzy, no Duff? No way....

So nothing Axl does, other than a reunion, would help his career earn respect now?

So if Axl had put out 5 albums post Slash/Duff, and they had sold a combined 100 million copies with 8 number one songs.....the media and fans would not change their tune regarding his decision to keep the name alive?

It is just music, people. Chris Brown can visciously beat up his girlfriend and a year later be back on the charts. People put up with Axl's act in the late 80s and early 90s because the band was selling tens of millions of albums. If they release a double album this year (the remaining two of the supposed CD trilogy) and they sell and produce hits like Illusions.........and then another album in 2014 by the current band, and that sells 8 million copies and has 3 number one songs.............I promise you that the majority of the critics will stop complaining. Not all - but most.

But one album every 20 years............people are going to complain about why Axl kept the name and why he is letting a completely different band make a living off of it, instead of off their own work.

The last partof your post seems about 97 percent guaranteed.

[Powerage5]

Aerosmith's last #1 hit was in 1998 when Steven Tyler was 50.

Aerosmith's last Top 10 hit was in 2000 when Steven Tyler was 52.

Axl Rose is now 51 years old.

His window is closing if he ever wants to be relevant again.

But it's 2013 now. People don't give a shit about rnr, they just want some gay faces with stupid songs and lameass music videos.

Aerosmith's last hits were pop ballads.

Axl will have to do a collaboration with a younger artist if he wants to get mainstream airplay. "The General" will never be a hit.

Adele would be a good fi tfor Axl. She's (also) huge but she's huge in 2 ways.

That would actually make for a wicked collaboration I bet.

[wasted]

CD II and CD III is the only way.

But not for a line up or Axl but GNR.

[amacfantasy]

First of all musical prime knows no age, you can be creating the best songs of your life at 60 years old, but popularity is another thing.

Definitely releasing material is a major element of them gaining much much more current popularity actually it is probably their most important factor to gaining fame. In the current music climate staying in front of people constantly is half the battle, because the second you disappear people forget about you, this was always a problem to an extent but it is a major problem in today's superficial music environment. But GNR actually releasing material is only part of what they need to do, Axl also needs to act like a relevant music act by acting accordingly, what I mean by this is he needs to be seen on tv/internet/radio/whatever. He actually has to do interviews, commercials, music videos, the whole 9 yards. I'm not saying he needs to sell out and be fake because Axl has always been consistent with his beliefs and following through with them bending for no one, that is obviously part of Axl's endearing qualities, but he needs to maybe make some compromises to be popular in todays world.

I'm just finally glad that some people are finally starting to understand touring more and more the same will not push New GNR forward as a band ultimately.

Edited February 12, 2013 by amacfantasy

[wasted]

Partly there seems to be nowhere to go. Another record wont change much. GNR will still have sold 100 mil and Axl will still be a legend.

I think with CD they added songs to the set. So I think they did their job. But does it change? anything? Its given GNR a new leash of life without it would truly be nostalgia.

[Bobbo]

No. It's a lack of material that connects to the masses like real GNR did.

[wasted]

They need to make a beer drinking album for truck drivers and hookers. Something that helps the bud wash down the speed.

They could parody it like Some Girls.

[T.wa.T]

I think all the past members should be mixed on each song of the new album. So you might wind up with a combo such as: Izzy, Pittman, Freese, Tommy, Robin, DJ, Axl, Dizzy than on the next song mix it up to say: Fortus, Slash ,Duff, Sorum,Dizzy Bucket, Axl.

Maybe they pick numbers out of Betas ass?Oh and they could have all of the different producers do a few songs each.

I dont see why not??