Why the record industry couldn't let new GN'R succeed

[Ana_1991]

The album was completed in 2000, and work on it started in 1998. People ignore this.

Axl burns bridge after bridge, takes 14 years to "complete" and album that he promised to have out in, what, 1999,

Maybe recordings started in 1998, but pre-production started a long time before that.

[wasted]

I kind of see how it got from 2000 to 2004. They put out Live Era. Bucket left so 2006 seemed like the year.

[username]

Axl burns bridge after bridge, takes 14 years to "complete" and album that he promised to have out in, what, 1999,

The album was completed in 2000, and work on it started in 1998. People ignore this.

Define "complete". There were loads of songs and all. But they were worked, re-worked, re-re-worked and so on for 8 more years. And when CD did come out, Axl STILL wasn't happy with it and wanted a re-release that would be "right". Yes, there was something finished in roughly 2000/2001. And I WISH they'd had put it out back then. I think the whole GnR situation would be incredibly different. But Axl kept tweaking and recording and re-recording and adding to it so it became some monstrosity during an insane quest aiming for some level of impossible perfection.

Essentially you're right - something was completed in 2000. But not in the eyes of Axl Rose (so it seems). So I suppose you could argue that CD took 3 years or so to make, and 8 more to grow into some kind of bloated monster (much like Axl himself - sorry, I couldn't resist).

Edited October 8, 2013 by username

[wasted]

Actually Axl was ready to mix in 2000 but Bob Ezrin told him it wasnt ready. After that Axl never thought that again.

[GivenToFly]

Axl burns bridge after bridge, takes 14 years to "complete" and album that he promised to have out in, what, 1999,

The album was completed in 2000, and work on it started in 1998. People ignore this.

Define "complete". There were loads of songs and all. But they were worked, re-worked, re-re-worked and so on for 8 more years. And when CD did come out, Axl STILL wasn't happy with it and wanted a re-release that would be "right". Yes, there was something finished in roughly 2000/2001. And I WISH they'd had put it out back then. I think the whole GnR situation would be incredibly different. But Axl kept tweaking and recording and re-recording and adding to it so it became some monstrosity during an insane quest aiming for some level of impossible perfection.

Essentially you're right - something was completed in 2000. But not in the eyes of Axl Rose (so it seems). So I suppose you could argue that CD took 3 years or so to make, and 8 more to grow into some kind of bloated monster (much like Axl himself - sorry, I couldn't resist).

It was submitted to the label. Mixing was all that was left and it would have taken a few more months, so it would have been out by RIR3. The band was all done with it; it was the label that rejected it.

[username]

Axl burns bridge after bridge, takes 14 years to "complete" and album that he promised to have out in, what, 1999,

The album was completed in 2000, and work on it started in 1998. People ignore this.

Define "complete". There were loads of songs and all. But they were worked, re-worked, re-re-worked and so on for 8 more years. And when CD did come out, Axl STILL wasn't happy with it and wanted a re-release that would be "right". Yes, there was something finished in roughly 2000/2001. And I WISH they'd had put it out back then. I think the whole GnR situation would be incredibly different. But Axl kept tweaking and recording and re-recording and adding to it so it became some monstrosity during an insane quest aiming for some level of impossible perfection.

Essentially you're right - something was completed in 2000. But not in the eyes of Axl Rose (so it seems). So I suppose you could argue that CD took 3 years or so to make, and 8 more to grow into some kind of bloated monster (much like Axl himself - sorry, I couldn't resist).

It was submitted to the label. Mixing was all that was left and it would have taken a few more months, so it would have been out by RIR3. The band was all done with it; it was the label that rejected it.

Didn't know that! Do you know on what grounds?

Also, That's one event. To me still quite excessive to take 8 years after that, so I feel my argument still holds some ground.

[Crash Diet]

New GNR was a joke from the start.

Even befofe it started... you didn't even know if Slash was still in or was already out. A statement came out 1 year later from Axl stating Slash was out. (it takes a year to write a statement? really?? i wonder why Chinese took so long to make)

Then once that was cleared out... Axl couldn't find the right players...He made a song 3 years later (Oh My God) on a big movie soundtrack (whether the movie was good or not, it had a lot of press, and it had Arnold Shwarzenegger, which is huge), and he fucking presents the movie with slimy unfinished demo...(Yes he actually confirmed it was a demo 9 years later).

Obviously the demo didn't do justice to Axl's new project and considering some of the players on that song were not in the band anymore (i think that's pretty ridiculous, no matter of how it happened). So the first impression was already ruined with all of that!

Then comes Las Vegas and Rock In Rio gig out of the blue and 2 years later?! (sure they were recording their 15 years album).

Then as good as he is, how can you take a guitar player with a kfc bucket on his head and a fucking delusional and twisted mind seriously?...Especially in GNR...

Nobody took it seriously in 2002... let alone now after so many years of silence and failed promises and failed projects, and failed cds...

then you still licking MSL's ass for new leaks from that band, lol

[axlskAmpf]

What the hell are you about? ( O.P.) This article has nothing to do with GnR, nothing to do with the record industry not letting anyone succeed, nothing to do with anything that even pertains to music. It's about the death of album art. How one can name a topic like this in delusional that others might agree, or think this points to a good reason for Old GnR to reunite, is really quite astonishing!

Thanks for the "wow" though, very entertaining.

Dave said of Ray Davies "I just can’t stand to be with him. About an hour with Ray’s my limit, so it would be a very short reunion."When Dave had a stroke and was incapacitated he was sure Ray took pleasure in seeing him that way. They are brothers, related, also won't be touring together any time soon. I hope this ads some clear perspective.

[Apollo]

You posters that blindly worship Axl's every move fail to include one fairly important fact with all your label hate.

What if the album that Axl turned in back in 2000 sucked? The label didn't listen to it and go "WOW, this album is killer. It really kicks a lot of ass. Because of that, we're not gonna release it until you take off 5-6 of the best songs and replace them with songs that suck."

If Axl turned in an album that the label thought was good, they would have released it. Simple as that.

Imagine investing 10 million dollars and a decade into Axl Rose and having him hand you an album that featured Scraped, Rhiad, Blood On The Water, Silkworms and Sorry. Quite a bit different than him handing you an album with Catcher, Better, TWAT, and SOD on it.

[wasted]

Sean Beavan is quoted as saying he thought they had a record in 1999. Tommy felt the RTB wasnt needed.

I think Shacklers, Scraped, Sorry, TIL were all added/worked up later.

Its a pretty subjective. Some people say they prefer the demos.

But if you go along with the idea that Axl just didntthink it was ready. Whats wrong with that?

[niceguy]

New GNR's lack of success is due to one factor and one factor only: New GNR.

[J Dog]

I think it's like this. The label is expecting SCOM, PC, NR, KOHD, and Axl gives them OMG. And the label was like omg. I still say if you go back and look at what was really popular at the time, CD and newGNR could have done failry good and would have been accepted better than a lot of people think.

[dalsh327]

Axl burns bridge after bridge, takes 14 years to "complete" and album that he promised to have out in, what, 1999,

The album was completed in 2000, and work on it started in 1998. People ignore this.

Define "complete". There were loads of songs and all. But they were worked, re-worked, re-re-worked and so on for 8 more years. And when CD did come out, Axl STILL wasn't happy with it and wanted a re-release that would be "right". Yes, there was something finished in roughly 2000/2001. And I WISH they'd had put it out back then. I think the whole GnR situation would be incredibly different. But Axl kept tweaking and recording and re-recording and adding to it so it became some monstrosity during an insane quest aiming for some level of impossible perfection.

Essentially you're right - something was completed in 2000. But not in the eyes of Axl Rose (so it seems). So I suppose you could argue that CD took 3 years or so to make, and 8 more to grow into some kind of bloated monster (much like Axl himself - sorry, I couldn't resist).

My top 5 reasons why the album was delayed:

1. Greatest hits lawsuit, Interscope reps for Iovine constantly kicking back what Axl submitted.

2. Buckethead leaving

3. Robin's revolving door with GNR

4. Axl Kubrick trying to "get it right" and spending way too many hours with Pro Tools. Technology can slow things down.

5. Looking for the musicians that were committed to GNR.

[Bobbo]

I think it's like this. The label is expecting SCOM, PC, NR, KOHD, and Axl gives them OMG. And the label was like omg. I still say if you go back and look at what was really popular at the time, CD and newGNR could have done failry good and would have been accepted better than a lot of people think.

Or you can just as easily say people looking at Axl Rose venturing into industrial and nu metal was like mixing oil and water. And that it would have looked like an old geezer trying to stay relevant. It'd be like Bob Dylan coming back after an extended hiatus with a techno record.

The main reason CD in retrospect is looked at as a failed comeback record is because the masses didn't connect to it, and the people who loved it are in the minority. That's what it boils down to. Could have just as easily been the case in '99 or '02. I'd personally bet all my chips on that.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Bobbo

[Coma16]

You posters that blindly worship Axl's every move fail to include one fairly important fact with all your label hate.

What if the album that Axl turned in back in 2000 sucked? The label didn't listen to it and go "WOW, this album is killer. It really kicks a lot of ass. Because of that, we're not gonna release it until you take off 5-6 of the best songs and replace them with songs that suck."

If Axl turned in an album that the label thought was good, they would have released it. Simple as that.

Imagine investing 10 million dollars and a decade into Axl Rose and having him hand you an album that featured Scraped, Rhiad, Blood On The Water, Silkworms and Sorry. Quite a bit different than him handing you an album with Catcher, Better, TWAT, and SOD on it.

With the amount of shit that was released around that time I find it very hard to believe that the album would have sucked. Especially since The Blues and Maddy kicked ass! Edited October 10, 2013 by Coma16

[wasted]

I could see Axl as the Bowie of hard rock. He reinvents himself for each record. I dont exect a wild change, it will still be GNR but it could have evolved further. The 00s could be in the mix.