To be fair to Axl, did he have an almost impossible task when he set out to create a new band?

[EvH]

Well if he really wanted to create a new band from scratch, he should have used a new name. Fresh start.

[GnR Chris]

So ... why not create a new band? Or go solo? The Axl Rose Project?

He brought it upon himself by creating a situation that drove others out.

[jimb0]

If Axl spent more years working on releasing music and less years seemingly tinkering with 40 layers of special effects while the band laid silent, maybe he could have been more successful.

[shotgunblues1978]

There was certainly a faction of people who weren't going to give him a chance no matter what he did

Just my opinion but I think people would've been a lot more accepting of thing if he'd released 2 or 3 albums and done some widely circulated interviews explaining why he felt it was right to keep the name alive with a new group of musicians (back in 1997 or 1998).

People may not have liked all of his new music or thought it was right that he continued on, but I think that people would've been more likely to get over it if he'd been quicker to release new work. Also, so many of the criticisms wouldn't even exist (the "glorified cover band" comments and the "$14 million and 10 years to make one album" pot shots).

[wasted]

But the label were 4 mil in the hole and releasing the record for PR reasons wasnt what they are interested. I think Axl would released it 2002 if they let him. But your looking at 300k sales? which is just 3mil for them. Whereas even after in investing 10 mik more they made 30 mil.

Axl would have released a trilogy in 2002. He would make much off it anyway.

Not to mention Slash and Duff suing for the name so that could be a problem

Edited June 19, 2013 by wasted

[shotgunblues1978]

CD sold 3+ million worldwide in 2008. Record sales (in terms of units sold) in 2008 were 47% of what they were in 2002. So relatively speaking, in terms of the state of the music industry, CD's sales in 2008 were the equivalent selling 6+ million records worldwide in 2002.

[WhazUp]

So ... why not create a new band? Or go solo? The Axl Rose Project?

He brought it upon himself by creating a situation that drove others out.

Exactly

[wasted]

But do think it would have? with the band image and controversy. Maybe in the rest of the world. But in the US it would sell 3 mil?

Maybe thats why they gave Axl 10 mil more in 2002. they think its going to generate 6 mil/60 mil. So its in the bag but they waited too long.

[maynard]

CD sold 3+ million worldwide in 2008. Record sales (in terms of units sold) in 2008 were 47% of what they were in 2002. So relatively speaking, in terms of the state of the music industry, CD's sales in 2008 were the equivalent selling 6+ million records worldwide in 2002.

i'm sure you're gonna find a way to say CD sold 10 million copies somehow. LOL.

[OJones90]

Yeah, definitely impossible. That's why I give a lot of credit to him for not selling out, staying strong and building a really good band.

No matter WHAT he did, no matter who he brought in, people would hate him and criticise him because they aren't the original members. He and everybody else knew that. Tbh I disliked the band in early 2000s with Buckethead, Finck, etc. And even Axl himself. But I think the current lineup is a solid band and without a doubt 2nd best to the original lineup. They are my favourite band today, and the gigs I've attended were the best i've experienced.

While he was pretty awesome in 06, Axl was reborn again in 09/10, and i've loved watching how well the band has improved over the last couple of years. So with that being said, on top of that, the tour since 09 has without doubt produced so many of my favourite/most memorable GNR moments in history so I have to praise Axl and the band.

Sure, i'd love to see a reunion, but that doesn't mean what we have isn't good. And personally, i don't really care if they were called 'Guns n Roses' or not. It's just a name. I don't get people who seem as though they'd like the band if they were called something else lol.

Edited June 19, 2013 by OJones90

[wasted]

Really CD sould 250k out of the blocks. 500K in 2002 is still bombsville for GNR. But rest of world 3mil would be great. Having only invested 4 mil that seems good return for label. Whether its more like a 1 mil wrld wide at that point based on backlash. Maybe 1-3 projected sales world wide. But would they need videos back then.

And if it was really a trilogy at that point they would have been doing aight.

The BB deal really helps them in 2008.

[shotgunblues1978]

Impossible to say exactly how much it sells in 2002, but it's a pretty safe bet it would've sold 6-7 million worldwide with a standard wide release in the US, just based on the relative state of the industry and decline in record sales from 2002 to 2008. People on here like to mock CD's sales and call it a massive flop, but it was the #14 selling record worldwide in 2008 and it was only out for 5 weeks.

Don't get me wrong, the Best Buy deal was a great thing for the fans and for the label, since it made CD a viable commercial release in a declining industry. That deal guaranteed that the label would turn a profit rolling out the album. But there's also no question that it reduced the gross sales in the US simply by limiting the physical availability of the record.

[wasted]

They still made 15 mil from rest of world? and if they sell 3 mil of CD II..

I dont see what the problem was in 2002. there was some sort of element of doubt.

[Coma16]

Impossible to say exactly how much it sells in 2002, but it's a pretty safe bet it would've sold 6-7 million worldwide with a standard wide release in the US, just based on the relative state of the industry and decline in record sales from 2002 to 2008. People on here like to mock CD's sales and call it a massive flop, but it was the #14 selling record worldwide in 2008 and it was only out for 5 weeks.

Don't get me wrong, the Best Buy deal was a great thing for the fans and for the label, since it made CD a viable commercial release in a declining industry. That deal guaranteed that the label would turn a profit rolling out the album. But there's also no question that it reduced the gross sales in the US simply by limiting the physical availability of the record.

It was #3 for vinyl sales in 2008 as well.

[jimb0]

Its no secret that a lot of that 14 million went to wasted time. The band jammed endlessly while Axl sat at home. Then as people left, new people re-recorded those parts. Axl's got no one but himself to blame for fourty sub par songs he gave no direction on and now can't even use for CD2 cuz they suck.

[shotgunblues1978]

They still made 15 mil from rest of world? and if they sell 3 mil of CD II..

I dont see what the problem was in 2002. there was some sort of element of doubt.

Tom Zutaut said "It’s a great GN’R record, but is there a hit single? Because without the hit, you can’t sell 20 million.”

I think that was the label's main issue. Also, it's not certain whether or not Better existed in a completed form in 2002. It seems like that was one of the later songs written and was the most commercially viable song. I'm guessing the label thought they'd rather wait for the band to write a song they thought was a "hit" which they probably thought would only delay the release a matter of months rather than years.

[Naupis]

So ... why not create a new band? Or go solo? The Axl Rose Project?

Money, Axl has essentially said that himself. No record company was going to give him a blank check to record his dream album the way he could with the GNR recording contract, not to mention the financial benefit of touring with the band name over a new brand that was unknown other than being Axl's new solo band.

Being able to tour as GNR is one hell of a retirement plan.

Besides, he can barely do anything more than the bare minimum to keep GNR going, he would never have had the drive or desire to create his own thing. It is alot of work, and he has an aversion to hard work.

[wasted]

They still made 15 mil from rest of world? and if they sell 3 mil of CD II..

I dont see what the problem was in 2002. there was some sort of element of doubt.

Tom Zutaut said "It’s a great GN’R record, but is there a hit single? Because without the hit, you can’t sell 20 million.”

I think that was the label's main issue. Also, it's not certain whether or not Better existed in a completed form in 2002. It seems like that was one of the later songs written and was the most commercially viable song. I'm guessing the label thought they'd rather wait for the band to write a song they thought was a "hit" which they probably thought would only delay the release a matter of months rather than years.

and if they thought 6-7 mil sales in 2002 why not wait for a hit, it's GNR, it could sell 10 mil. Litttle did they know they'd be scraping for 500k by 2006.

Can't really tell if it was lack of faith or greed or Axl not feeling it was finished. But that delay and boom Bucket was gone. totally fucked.

Better has 2000-2004 dates. maybe it wasn't all that in 2000. For me the only song on CD possibly crossing over is ITW, Better really nails the knac.com market. or even TIL. but there's enough to work with if you put our videos and cd singles with b-sides to get all us mugs to buy the single.

[Val22]

Definitely because GNR back in the 80's and early 90's were one of the best rock and roll bands out there. Their AFD cd was one of a kind and they changed the face of music. That's a huge task to take.

Axl said it on MTV in 2002, saying something like how do you take something that was so big and try to replace it and do it again? Impossible!

I think the new GNR band now is one Axl should be proud of and look how long it took for him to get these musicians together?

The names Slash, Axl, Duff, Steven, and Izzy will go down in history as the original GNR and as themselves because they have all moved on to other bands and music.

It's like most of the bands who were great: Led Zeppelin, the Who, black Sabbath. You lose members and some of them can't be replaced. I'm glad Axl kept going after the breakup because he's that talented a performer and I think he's now succeeded in putting together a band that can bear the GNR name for the 21st century.

Would it have been better if Axl retired never to perform again? All the other members went on, why not Axl? He should be proud of what he's doing. It's what he is and what he knows to do.

[rockerman]

Could have and should have CD done more in the market? How could it have given that word on the street was the mighty GNR was dead and it had been 13 years in passing. Im betting if it had dropped in 2000 that it would have worked at a much grander and larger scale..perhaps changing the whole music scene for the 2000's . I think that by waiting to release ANYTHING officially did absolutely nothing for the band/Axl and the resonating fall out is this sketchy messy period of time still has its resounding effects.

The statement Axl made or was it Merk..CD could "just show up one day on the shelves" seems like a cavalier attitude given that this was in their mind an authentic GNR album with a rabid fanbase still engaged long enough still to give a shit about GNR.

Im betting given the gullible malliable minds of the general public that had there been a massive promotion and excitement with overt PR surrounding the release that the attention alone would have made this the most played and listened to album in 2008/2009. People love a great story and they like a face with a name and a story to attach to it...outside of this forum very few knew of or cared even less for any of the band. They knew even less for the backstory of the rebirth nor what to expect from THE AXL ROSE...who as we all know, is not some hack singer with a dysfunctional band from the 80's or 90's.

Maybe im the only one..but the whole fiasco seems to me, so halfhearted- and this was further ingrained when CD was released and Axl was no where to be found to discuss it. I had heard most of CD in one form or the other since 2001 and there was little to get all blathering idiot about on the rest of CD. Music stations in Northern Colorado openly mocked the album when it did get in rotation and then quickly dropped it.

That it went platinum was of no doubt though..there are 3 million die hard fans out there willing to buy the album mainly because it had Guns and Roses attached to it.

[dalsh327]

Does anyone here remember the hype surrounding the Star Wars prequels back in 1997? Even if you could argue that George Lucas could have done a much better job when writing the script and directing the actors, I think he had an almost impossible task in his hands. Namely, creating a movie that would both live up to the hype it created and satisfy the old fans and the critics, while at the same time getting a new generation excited for Star Wars, creating the same level of excitement that swept through the world in the late 70's when Episode IV was first released. I know the Star Wars prequels didn't exactly flop, but they did fail to live up to the hype they created.

Now, to be fair to Axl, was he facing a similar nearly impossible task when he set out to create a new band from scratch, with none of the original musicians whose contributions created some of the most iconic songs in rock history?

Let's forget about the reasons why Axl decided to keep the name of the band, let's forget about who quit and who was fired and who should've done what to keep the UYI lineup or the AFD lineup alive.

I sometimes think it would have taken nothing short of a small miracle for Axl to create an album what would excite everyone, to create an album that would create the same levels of excitement and wonder we saw when the UYI albums came out.

Living up to the hype surrounding the name of GnR is almost impossible, I think. So, to be fair to Axl, the way I see it, even if he had surrounded himself with the best musicians he could find and even if he had listened to everyone involved in the process and even if he had accepted their input while creating Chinese Democracy, chances are, it woud've still been received with criticism and doubt and skepticism from a lot of fans and critics, simply because it was not the old band.

Do you guys think Axl had an almost impossible task in his hands? You know, creating a new band and making an album that would live up to the hype of being a Guns n' Roses album?

Considering the success of AFD, Lies and UYI worldwide, I think those were some big shoes to fill.

GNR was one of the last bands you could name all the members in the band. When you're at a household name level of famous, changing that lineup is very risky.

For the most part, it's paid off for Axl in keeping the name if you're going by tours leading up to the release of ChiDem. It's only over the past few years they've been playing to dwindling crowds, but I blame that more on them constantly touring. If they did tours once every 5 years, they'd sell out arenas. And no one's really sure how much longer he's going to do it - I give him around 60 when he calls it a day, but they'll prob. do shorter sets. I'd be surprised if you see marathon sets in the future, but I wouldn't write it off just yet.

I don't see them being an arena touring band in the US anymore. Axl would make more money sitting at home, but getting a call to do a festival and tacking on dates in theaters, sure, because they'll get the fans to come to both. I was kind of surprised they didn't do summer sheds like Verizon in Irvine or Jones Beach on Long Island,

[fabrph5]

impossible to create a new band? NO!

Impossible to have all new guys and sound and still think most people will accept as GNR? YES