Rustycage Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Excuses...excuses...excuses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I think it has a competent audience, but that's a smaller pool of people. I think it took longer for it to find its audience too. the critics agree it's kind of a 7 out of 10. I guess the whole idea of CD is it's meant to be going against the grain of what a lot of people want. So it makes sense people don't like it. Generally the whole album is telling the listener to fuck themselves which is quite novel. I think if people hate it, mission accomplished. If only it had bombed harder and then they could have toured it even longer. CD is like the older sister of In Utero who has to go in for an abortion every few years.I don't know exactly what you're getting at, but I like it...and it sounds good...so i'm thinking you're probably rightIn UteroI think Cobain was disappointed that In Utero was as popular as it wasMaybe some of it was ego too- he made a record specifically to buck the mainstream, but they bought in anyway- and it validated his talentor maybe it just pissed him off more that his efforts either way were futile in the grand scheme of the machinethe momentum may have made him feel powerless as an artist to control the perception of his worken vogue to be out of vogue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellobeatle Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Good album but it ain't no GnR and that's that. What I really find annoying as hell is the people that actually say it's a masterpiece or something like cause Axl took their lifetime to finish it. It's an ok album which I think most people would agree if they actually heard it.Perfectly sums it up. It's not a bad album. It's not really good either. I think 7/10 is fair. Some great production, unique sound, Axl's voice is excellent - but it lacks strong melody, sounds congested and is unorganized.To each his own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) I think kids get it right more often than we old people like to admit. They get it right at least as often as we did.Thing is, CD got a chance cuz it had the GNR name. That's the first couple million right there. If it had been high quality, it would have sold more. Not 20 million more, but more.I disagree. I haven't seen an instance of getting it right in today's pop culture. There is no Guns, or Zeppelin or Stones or anything other than pussy rock for this generation, and they chose for it to be that way. I'm not saying that in the context that I think CD should have done better, because I don't, but this generation sucks.ThisEven by the late 90's they were getting it wrong. It was generic, bland, mor, aor, imitators getting the accolades and its devolved further. I think CD was hands down the album of the 2000's and as much as I love it, that's a testament to the devolution of the industry as much as anything else. The public has the music they deserve. Cheap, phony, hollow, generic, disposable, etc. That's always existed, even in the 90's a lot those kinds of acts thrived, but at least you had a choice. You could have the real thing if you knew the difference. Now you can't (not on that scale) because not enough people know the difference. Rock n roll might not be dead, but its lying in the ditch barely clinging to life. Edited December 30, 2013 by Mr. Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I think there are good bands on independent labels jag jaguar is one Black Mountain are on. But the labels aren't really taking any of those bands and giving them a huge budget to promo themselves. Bands like The Strokes seemed to side step being a trainwreck. There isn't a band of dudes. Maybe dude just aren't being made anymore. Nerd is the new dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) Does Queens Of The Stone Age counts as a proper rock band? The new album was pretty cool. Edited December 30, 2013 by Rovim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Does Queen Of The Stone Age counts as a proper rock band? The new album was pretty cool.I think so, maybe they peaked with Songs for the Deaf. The Foo Fighters sort of took on that job of grunge AC/DC. Eminem or hip hop replaced rock. People seem quite happy with pop, Rhianna is more of a rock star than Tim Flowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Maybe Robin Finck will finally release a solo album, but he and Axl are similar in that aspect. They don't release much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Maybe Robin Finck will finally release a solo album, but he and Axl are similar in that aspect. They don't release much.There's still a lot of bands like NIN, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains etc. still around and touring. Not to mention the Stones, Van Halen, ACDC, Metallica, Foo Fighters, U2 and GNR. There's hardly much space for new bands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Maybe Robin Finck will finally release a solo album, but he and Axl are similar in that aspect. They don't release much.There's still a lot of bands like NIN, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains etc. still around and touring. Not to mention the Stones, Van Halen, ACDC, Metallica, Foo Fighters, U2 and GNR. There's hardly much space for new bands. Most of those bands built their fanbase a long time ago and have plenty of back catalog. NIN had done 5 years of nonstop recording and touring, and that was more about Trent wanting to get out of touring in his 40s to have a kid, and have an open ended career. He's already said each leg of the tour could wind up having a different band lineup and we know Robin was a last minute replacement. There's no guarantee he's going to be with NIN for the long haul. To me that's the Neil Young approach - each tour with a different band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Maybe Robin Finck will finally release a solo album, but he and Axl are similar in that aspect. They don't release much.There's still a lot of bands like NIN, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains etc. still around and touring. Not to mention the Stones, Van Halen, ACDC, Metallica, Foo Fighters, U2 and GNR. There's hardly much space for new bands. Most of those bands built their fanbase a long time ago and have plenty of back catalog. NIN had done 5 years of nonstop recording and touring, and that was more about Trent wanting to get out of touring in his 40s to have a kid, and have an open ended career. He's already said each leg of the tour could wind up having a different band lineup and we know Robin was a last minute replacement. There's no guarantee he's going to be with NIN for the long haul. To me that's the Neil Young approach - each tour with a different band. Already established in a broken machine. Its like where Pitman talks about new bands not having a chance. There's no new rock stars being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussTCB Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Maybe Robin Finck will finally release a solo album, but he and Axl are similar in that aspect. They don't release much.Wait, what? Has Robin ever said he's working on a solo project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 CD didn't have a competent audience.Define "competent audience". You gave a vague meaning but it doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 CD didn't have a competent audience.Define "competent audience". You gave a vague meaning but it doesn't work.Translated it means anyone who does not like ChiDem is incompetent to understand its brilliance.............. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) CD didn't have a competent audience. Define "competent audience". You gave a vague meaning but it doesn't work. Translated it means anyone who does not like ChiDem is incompetent to understand its brilliance.............. It means axl should have marketed the album towards fans of other genres, not gnr fans, as the album hardly resembles gnr. That's all. I used the word competent to rustle some feathers and judging by the amount of pages this thread has I'd say it worked. Edited December 30, 2013 by bacardimayne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 CD didn't have a competent audience.Define "competent audience". You gave a vague meaning but it doesn't work.Translated it means anyone who does not like ChiDem is incompetent to understand its brilliance.............. I think that's accurate. Indeed, if you do not understand its brilliance you probably won't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumble's Bridge Pickup Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Gotta agree somewhat. The thing is though, it would have been easier to define CD as it's own thing if it was not released as GN'R. So Axl is at least partly "guilty" for creating incorrect expectations towards itIt is a great fucking original record. Not the best thing ever but very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Gotta agree somewhat. The thing is though, it would have been easier to define CD as it's own thing if it was not released as GN'R. So Axl is at least partly "guilty" for creating incorrect expectations towards itIt is a great fucking original record. Not the best thing ever but very goodCd couldn't have been Cd as merely an Axl record though. I can see what he was saying about the name pushing the music.Not too mention, that he'd never get $14 mil to work on an Axl Rose solo record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Gotta agree somewhat. The thing is though, it would have been easier to define CD as it's own thing if it was not released as GN'R. So Axl is at least partly "guilty" for creating incorrect expectations towards itIt is a great fucking original record. Not the best thing ever but very goodCd couldn't have been Cd as merely an Axl record though. I can see what he was saying about the name pushing the music.Not too mention, that he'd never get $14 mil to work on an Axl Rose solo record. I agree with he would never have gotten he $$$ for a solo album as the GnR brand name sells albums but come on it really is a solo album in everything but name only.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 It's not a solo record because Bucket and Finck and Brain had real creative input into the sound of the songs. Axl himself said a solo record would sound different. Just because it doesn't sound like your mother's GnR, doesn't mean it's a "solo record." Axl may run the show, but this ain't like, oh let's say David Lee Roth's Eat Em & Smile band. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnold layne Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 You know what?Maybe after a few pulls I will give CD another listen to night. Haven't listened to it in years. Maybe my opinion has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 It's a great album - but the hype killed what it could've been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnold layne Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 it's not bad really but it has too much unnecessary shit. Enough with the bells and whistles, just deliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Meh, they don't detract from it. I don't get lost in those bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Maybe Robin Finck will finally release a solo album, but he and Axl are similar in that aspect. They don't release much.Wait, what? Has Robin ever said he's working on a solo project?Nah, just rumors that I don't really believe are true which is a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts