Jump to content

CD deserved a competent audience


bacardimayne

Recommended Posts

CD is really what albums would need to be in the future if they were to ever be important again. CD should be put on a drone and sent out into space with the words "Rock History" written on it.

It could be put into orbit and brought back down in 2075 like a time capsule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CD is really what albums would need to be in the future if they were to ever be important again. CD should be put on a drone and sent out into space with the words "Rock History" written on it.

It could be put into orbit and brought back down in 2075 like a time capsule.

The US would be a wasteland with drones patrolling the desert and If the World would be playing on loop from the wreckage of the satellite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CD is really what albums would need to be in the future if they were to ever be important again. CD should be put on a drone and sent out into space with the words "Rock History" written on it.

It could be put into orbit and brought back down in 2075 like a time capsule.

The US would be a wasteland with drones patrolling the desert and If the World would be playing on loop from the wreckage of the satellite.

The machines would dig Shackler's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CD is really what albums would need to be in the future if they were to ever be important again. CD should be put on a drone and sent out into space with the words "Rock History" written on it.

It could be put into orbit and brought back down in 2075 like a time capsule.

The US would be a wasteland with drones patrolling the desert and If the World would be playing on loop from the wreckage of the satellite.

The machines would dig Shackler's.

They will all look like Bucket with the glowing RIR eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the funny thing is that the mullet-head 80's people the OP apparently hates so much.........I bet those people accounted for probably 75-80% of the sales of CD.

Only 75-80? I'd say 85-90, which is kinda my point here.

Are you implying that age or hair style makes a difference in how intelligent somebody is concerning music?

So fans that were around when GnR hit, fans that actually experienced the band in its prime years, fans that have support Axl for 25 years........those - in your mind - those are the people you are insulting? I must be missing something, as surely that's not what you mean?

Manets - can you provide examples of these "stupid" fans?

Completely fucking missed the point.

I'm not insulting anybody. I'm just pointing out the fact that those people are not the kind of people who are going to give CD a fair listen.

No need to swear.

And I acknowledged that I wasn't understanding your point - which is why I asked you a few more questions about what you posted.

"CD didn't have a competent audience."

" and instead he had to try and please a bunch of mulletfucks"

That isn't insulting anybody?

Why do you think that only old 80s mulletheads were the only ones interested in CD and that your generation didn't embrace it?

I just don't understand why people always have to come up with excuses why the album didn't do that well, and then have to insult people who disagree with their musical tastes. Sometimes people just don't like the same music you do. Doesn't mean that they don't have taste or that they aren't intelligent enough to "get" an album. It just means they have different tastes than you do, regarding ONE album or one band.

I also enjoy old Metallica, Motley Crue, Skid Row and Van Halen. So I apologize for posting in your topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about intelligence at all, I never once said or implied that. If people want to listen to 80s rock into their 40s and 50s, all the power to them. It's not about "my generation" either. It's about the fact that, mostly due to the band name, which I acknowledge is Axl's fault for keeping (though I doubt it would have mattered if he had gone with "Axl Rose" or something along those lines), the vast majority of people who listen to the album and give it a chance are going to be people who simply aren't interested in the genres and styles they were utilizing on CD. Most of the complaints I hear about the album are along the lines of "it's not sleazy and raw enough", "it's not real rock n' roll", "not enough rasp" and shit like that. Basically translating to "I wanted a sleaze-rock album and I didn't get it, therefore this is shit.". I'd just like to hear the opinions of fans of similar music to what's on CD, not sleze-rock that's related by band name and back catalog only.

inb4 groghan completely ignores this post and accuses me of insulting peoples' intelligence again
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about intelligence at all, I never once said or implied that. If people want to listen to 80s rock into their 40s and 50s, all the power to them. It's not about "my generation" either. It's about the fact that, mostly due to the band name, which I acknowledge is Axl's fault for keeping (though I doubt it would have mattered if he had gone with "Axl Rose" or something along those lines), the vast majority of people who listen to the album and give it a chance are going to be people who simply aren't interested in the genres and styles they were utilizing on CD. Most of the complaints I hear about the album are along the lines of "it's not sleazy and raw enough", "it's not real rock n' roll", "not enough rasp" and shit like that. Basically translating to "I wanted a sleaze-rock album and I didn't get it, therefore this is shit.". I'd just like to hear the opinions of fans of similar music to what's on CD, not sleze-rock that's related by band name and back catalog only.

inb4 groghan completely ignores this post and accuses me of insulting peoples' intelligence again

I wanted a guns album. You change the band, you change the sound. No matter how hard you wave a bit of paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about intelligence at all, I never once said or implied that. If people want to listen to 80s rock into their 40s and 50s, all the power to them. It's not about "my generation" either. It's about the fact that, mostly due to the band name, which I acknowledge is Axl's fault for keeping (though I doubt it would have mattered if he had gone with "Axl Rose" or something along those lines), the vast majority of people who listen to the album and give it a chance are going to be people who simply aren't interested in the genres and styles they were utilizing on CD. Most of the complaints I hear about the album are along the lines of "it's not sleazy and raw enough", "it's not real rock n' roll", "not enough rasp" and shit like that. Basically translating to "I wanted a sleaze-rock album and I didn't get it, therefore this is shit.". I'd just like to hear the opinions of fans of similar music to what's on CD, not sleze-rock that's related by band name and back catalog only.

inb4 groghan completely ignores this post and accuses me of insulting peoples' intelligence again
I wanted a guns album. You change the band, you change the sound. No matter how hard you wave a bit of paper.

I get that, I'm not blaming the Guns fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted a guns album. You change the band, you change the sound. No matter how hard you wave a bit of paper.

You get what you get and like it. For me, I got used to the idea of Guns' changing sound when I heard Illusions. It was way different than Appetite in almost a jarring way. I got used to it, dug it, and accepted the evolution of the band. Chinese Democracy is no different.

And you know what? You're right, the piece of paper means little in comparison to the public's perception. Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steven, they all own a piece of the GnR sound in the hearts and minds. Nothing is going to take that away from them. Axl has the piece of paper. Get over it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted a guns album. You change the band, you change the sound. No matter how hard you wave a bit of paper.

You get what you get and like it. For me, I got used to the idea of Guns' changing sound when I heard Illusions. It was way different than Appetite in almost a jarring way. I got used to it, dug it, and accepted the evolution of the band. Chinese Democracy is no different.

And you know what? You're right, the piece of paper means little in comparison to the public's perception. Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steven, they all own a piece of the GnR sound in the hearts and minds. Nothing is going to take that away from them. Axl has the piece of paper. Get over it already.

But Chinese Democracy is different. It's not like the change from AFD to UYI cause Slash's guitar was a big part of the sound and Izzy's writing was a big part of the sound, and Duff was a major influence on the material.

Not the same at all. It was a more drastic change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted a guns album. You change the band, you change the sound. No matter how hard you wave a bit of paper.

You get what you get and like it. For me, I got used to the idea of Guns' changing sound when I heard Illusions. It was way different than Appetite in almost a jarring way. I got used to it, dug it, and accepted the evolution of the band. Chinese Democracy is no different.

And you know what? You're right, the piece of paper means little in comparison to the public's perception. Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steven, they all own a piece of the GnR sound in the hearts and minds. Nothing is going to take that away from them. Axl has the piece of paper. Get over it already.

But Chinese Democracy is different. It's not like the change from AFD to UYI cause Slash's guitar was a big part of the sound and Izzy's writing was a big part of the sound, and Duff was a major influence on the material.

Not the same at all. It was a more drastic change.

I'm all for my favourite group of songwriters evolving. Slash's bluesrock sensibilities would be the perfect foil for axl's progressive vision. Imagine where their collective efforts would be now!

The problem is that the group isn't evolving because the songwriters that wrote the tunes we enjoyed don't collaborate anymore. The change from illusions to cd is NOT an evolution. Stop waving that bit of paper.

And the person who really can't seem to get over Axl having the bit of paper is Axl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

But we're talking about the evolution of a collaboration. Izzy and slash could've kept Axl's grand designs grounded in blues rock. The end result would've been true rock n roll - but for the future. Instead we get nintendo guitar solos.

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

But we're talking about the evolution of a collaboration. Izzy and slash could've kept Axl's grand designs grounded in blues rock. The end result would've been true rock n roll - but for the future. Instead we get nintendo guitar solos.

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

I don't think they could, UYI was their limit. Izzy wasn't really on board for Estranged and Coma. Slash and Duff didn't really want to do Nov Rain even. I can't see them doing ITW and Prostitute. If you had them play those songs it just turns into UYI. But it seems like they couldn't or didn't want to evolve from that point, they wanted to go back to AFD. Snakepit is kind of grungey rock n roll. Even that would work with Axl on vocals. anything would work if you keep the band together. But that's not what happened.

What I expected from them was a sort of Exile on Main Street type record, to take it further back, as that's how they seemed to be going. AFD a bit 80s glossy, UYI a bit tougher, then really take liberties with an almost live under produced album.

But a lot of other stuff happened in the 90s, industrial, NIN, hip hop, Radiohead etc.

Then you have to look at the Queen aspect of AFD. It really is a lot of 70s styles put together. Is that what GNR does every time? Is that how Axl does it, even though we see AFD as this raw record. So jump to late 90s, and again CD is a melting pot. Is this what GNR became? or what it always was from AFD on?

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

But we're talking about the evolution of a collaboration. Izzy and slash could've kept Axl's grand designs grounded in blues rock. The end result would've been true rock n roll - but for the future. Instead we get nintendo guitar solos.

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

I don't think they could, UYI was their limit. Izzy wasn't really on board for Estranged and Coma. Slash and Duff didn't really want to do Nov Rain even. I can't see them doing ITW and Prostitute. If you had them play those songs it just turns into UYI. But it seems like they couldn't or didn't want to evolve from that point, they wanted to go back to AFD. Snakepit is kind of grungey rock n roll. Even that would work with Axl on vocals. anything would work if you keep the band together. But that's not what happened.

Indeed, reality sucks. But the things you're saying above are not accepted facts at all.

In fact, Slash specifically points out in his book he would've evolved with Axl even though traditionally he's old school. I agree that he would never have let go of those old school sensibilities, but can't you see that this would've been an ideal situation? He could've reigned in things like Shacklers, and Axl would've made beggars & hangers on into a totally different rock song on a new level.

Neither tune would've sounded or existed as we know them now, but I'd bet my bottom dollar both would be a hundred times better. It's fucking tragic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

Except they all hated eachother by the turn of the 90s. It never would have lasted.

I don't think they really had anything left in the tank. They had to do some amazing again. And they were chucking out Axl's input. Izzy was gone. So it was the Slash show next. If he wasn't going to help Axl with his ballads...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

Except they all hated eachother by the turn of the 90s. It never would have lasted.

We're both speculating I know, but 3 killer original albums says they had that potential. Easily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

Except they all hated eachother by the turn of the 90s. It never would have lasted.

I don't think they really had anything left in the tank. They had to do some amazing again. And they were chucking out Axl's input. Izzy was gone. So it was the Slash show next. If he wasn't going to help Axl with his ballads...

That wasn't an ending to me, it was a phase. Time and again, we've seen relationships in other great bands ebb and flow.

The only constant from history is that if they can find a way work things out and re-establish mutual respect, they very often do something great again. Think of the examples.

This was gnr's alternate future for quite some time, but I think it's all but slipped away now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

But we're talking about the evolution of a collaboration. Izzy and slash could've kept Axl's grand designs grounded in blues rock. The end result would've been true rock n roll - but for the future. Instead we get nintendo guitar solos.

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

I don't think they could, UYI was their limit. Izzy wasn't really on board for Estranged and Coma. Slash and Duff didn't really want to do Nov Rain even. I can't see them doing ITW and Prostitute. If you had them play those songs it just turns into UYI. But it seems like they couldn't or didn't want to evolve from that point, they wanted to go back to AFD. Snakepit is kind of grungey rock n roll. Even that would work with Axl on vocals. anything would work if you keep the band together. But that's not what happened.

Indeed, reality sucks. But the things you're saying above are not accepted facts at all.

In fact, Slash specifically points out in his book he would've evolved with Axl even though traditionally he's old school. I agree that he would never have let go of those old school sensibilities, but can't you see that this would've been an ideal situation? He could've reigned in things like Shacklers, and Axl would've made beggars & hangers on into a totally different rock song on a new level.

Neither tune would've sounded or existed as we know them now, but I'd bet my bottom dollar both would be a hundred times better. It's fucking tragic.

There is no accepted facts, as in Slash also said he didn't want to Axl's ballads. When Axl was talking about evolving they all got defensive. So I don't know about that. Slash is like a wild animal to me, he just wanted to rock out. He did his thing and maybe tried to push it through too hard. Maybe he was right. Without Izzy, maybe to do the Snakepit record as GNR was right. just for one record. Then try to get Izzy back. The evidence points to the fact they didn't have anywhere to go and didn't necessarily want to go anywhere. And that might have pleased a lot of people. Just drop down into an AC/DC type machine. But Axl seems cut from a different cloth. To me CD sounds more like AFD than the Snakepit record. Chi dem, Better, TWAT - GNR. Through a different prism but still GNR, doesn't sound like anybody else.

If you look at what they possibly had in the mid to late 90s, you've got

Neither Can I

Beggars and Hangers On

Hate Everybody But You

Somebody Knockin'

Time Gone By

Shuffle It All

This I Love

Catcher in the Rye

It's a side of GNR music right?

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

It depends, I went from GNR to grunge, hip hop, nu metal etc. All other bands seem like a footnote to CD, just as Stones and ACDC to me were side notes to AFD. I guess thats the difference, Slash and Izzy were leaning more towards going more retro. Whereas Axl saw the future.

But we're talking about the evolution of a collaboration. Izzy and slash could've kept Axl's grand designs grounded in blues rock. The end result would've been true rock n roll - but for the future. Instead we get nintendo guitar solos.

I honestly think that group could've carried the whole rock world into the next century without breaking a sweat. They were monstrous in their prime.

I don't think they could, UYI was their limit. Izzy wasn't really on board for Estranged and Coma. Slash and Duff didn't really want to do Nov Rain even. I can't see them doing ITW and Prostitute. If you had them play those songs it just turns into UYI. But it seems like they couldn't or didn't want to evolve from that point, they wanted to go back to AFD. Snakepit is kind of grungey rock n roll. Even that would work with Axl on vocals. anything would work if you keep the band together. But that's not what happened.

Indeed, reality sucks. But the things you're saying above are not accepted facts at all.

In fact, Slash specifically points out in his book he would've evolved with Axl even though traditionally he's old school. I agree that he would never have let go of those old school sensibilities, but can't you see that this would've been an ideal situation? He could've reigned in things like Shacklers, and Axl would've made beggars & hangers on into a totally different rock song on a new level.

Neither tune would've sounded or existed as we know them now, but I'd bet my bottom dollar both would be a hundred times better. It's fucking tragic.

There is no accepted facts, as in Slash also said he didn't want to Axl's ballads. When Axl was talking about evolving they all got defensive. So I don't know about that. Slash is like a wild animal to me, he just wanted to rock out. He did his thing and maybe tried to push it through too hard. Maybe he was right. Without Izzy, maybe to do the Snakepit record as GNR was right. just for one record. Then try to get Izzy back. The evidence points to the fact they didn't have anywhere to go and didn't necessarily want to go anywhere. And that might have pleased a lot of people. Just drop down into an AC/DC type machine. But Axl seems cut from a different cloth. To me CD sounds more like AFD than the Snakepit record. Chi dem, Better, TWAT - GNR. Through a different prism but still GNR, doesn't sound like anybody else.

I hear gnr in several of those songs too, but it comes and goes from the verse to he chorus. Better is a great example.

They were indeed in a rut around that time, but I don't think it had to be the end of the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the hell are some of you trying to kid? It was a pile of shit and most people recognized that. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know one person outside of the forums that liked the album, but I know many who listened to it.

Edited by BBA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...