5 Years of Chinese Democracy

[liers]

I feel like CITR, SR, and TWAT should've been on there.

My opinion

Prostitute

Better

CITR

TWAT

Shackler's Revenge

[Zanedog]

Pretty positive actually, just has an unflattering title. Not a bad choice of songs for it, I'd definitely drop Sorry for TWAT though, or for Catcher, or for Shackler's, or Madagascar. TWAT first though.

The thing I find funny about Chinese Democracy is how there really isn't a consensus as to what the best songs (or the good songs) from it really are. I know Better and TWAT are the two most widely praised ones on here, but I've also seen plenty of reviewers and other listeners trash them.

Madagascar, Catcher, Street of Dreams, Prostitute, IRS, Shackler's, This I Love, If The World; I've seen them all get praised as the real highlight of the album and also all get trashed as well.

Only real consensus seems to be that Riad's the one nobody likes, and Scraped isn't popular either.

I think that the best and worst thing the album has going for it is how varied it is. There are so many different types of songs, and some people hate that. Personally, I love seeing Axl's take on certain styles and genres. If we aren't going to get anymore albums out of him, at least we got previews of the different directions he could have gone.

On a side note, I love Riad, reminds be of YCBM, just a fast rocking song with cool lyrics.

[AppetiteForGnR]

It's just another example of how this line-up has never been focused on the future.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Man....half a decade.

Come on, axl. 5 years is forever and you haven't grown up yet

I'll see myself out

And don't come back until you get some fresh material.

I remember being surprised by how much all the critics seemed to like the music on it even though none of my friends (except one, who became a huge fan because of it) would listen to it because there was no Slash, Duff, or Izzy on it (mainly Slash).

I agree with these sentiments exactly. I never read a review that gave it 5/5, but I did read multiple that gave it 4/5 or 3.5/5. But I think people were expecting 5/5 so anything less than perfect was a let down. I tried to turn people on to it, but the "slash" thing was all anyone talked about. I remember seeing peoples faces telling them guns n roses has a new album out. They were excited until I said no slash, then they immediatly seemed to lose interest. To the general public, that fact lost them before they ever gave the music a chance. Like I have said before, the album needed a YCBM type rocker to win people over. It might have allowed the general public to "forgive" the slash thing. But those two factors are the main reasons why the album faded, not promotion or anything else. 1. No slash 2. No classic rocker

[RussTCB]

The only problems I had with the press on the album was the flip flopping. As others have mentioned, both RS and CR had great things to say about it when it dropped then quickly moved to making fun of it.

[Rovim]

The only problems I had with the press on the album was the flip flopping. As others have mentioned, both RS and CR had great things to say about it when it dropped then quickly moved to making fun of it.

That's because Rolling Stone and Classic Rock have zero credibility and their only motivation is money. It's not really about forming a sincere opinion and writing an unbiased review, judging the music based on the actual quality of it.

They will write whatever they think their readers want them to write and will be easily swayed by what's considered cool, like how Chinese sucks, even though their first review of it was very positive. Fuck off.

[Roush]

I think the disorganised, schizophrenic nature of the record has to do with the equally varied expectations behind this album.

On one hand, you can tell Axl tires of the rock 'n' roll framework in songs like the title track and Shackler's Revenge. They reek of cliché, and sound very forced. Especially the title track's one minute intro, scream, and ungodly layer-upon-layer of guitar parts at the end.

On the other hand, I cannot help but think a larger budget constrained Axl, more so than liberated him. He's one of those rare types that excels more within structure than without it. If he had been given say a $2 mil budget, and 2 years to finish -- I feel it would've benefitted from a more streamlined, routine production instead of a ponderous, maddeningly long period with seemingly unlimited pockets supported by the label.

There was one little review that said something to the effect of "Chinese Democracy is what happens when you don't tell Axl Rose 'no' for 10 years". That's it in a nutshell. Personally, I dig maybe 4 songs on the record (Riad, Better, Sorry, Shackler). It could have been eons better, and there's no excuse, considering the line-up of incredible musicians (Ron Thal, and Paul Tobias excluded.)

[Broskirose]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b_E52KJDbU

[wasted]

Pretty positive actually, just has an unflattering title. Not a bad choice of songs for it, I'd definitely drop Sorry for TWAT though, or for Catcher, or for Shackler's, or Madagascar. TWAT first though.

The thing I find funny about Chinese Democracy is how there really isn't a consensus as to what the best songs (or the good songs) from it really are. I know Better and TWAT are the two most widely praised ones on here, but I've also seen plenty of reviewers and other listeners trash them.

Madagascar, Catcher, Street of Dreams, Prostitute, IRS, Shackler's, This I Love, If The World; I've seen them all get praised as the real highlight of the album and also all get trashed as well.

Only real consensus seems to be that Riad's the one nobody likes, and Scraped isn't popular either.

Thats weird bcos the reviews always picked Riad as the best harking back to the old GNR. Ive never heard a good word for Scraped other than on forums where some think its most AFD like song. These songs are definitely the two which arent vital. But theres 12 songs that are hard to dismiss.

[wasted]

I think the disorganised, schizophrenic nature of the record has to do with the equally varied expectations behind this album.

On one hand, you can tell Axl tires of the rock 'n' roll framework in songs like the title track and Shackler's Revenge. They reek of cliché, and sound very forced. Especially the title track's one minute intro, scream, and ungodly layer-upon-layer of guitar parts at the end.

On the other hand, I cannot help but think a larger budget constrained Axl, more so than liberated him. He's one of those rare types that excels more within structure than without it. If he had been given say a $2 mil budget, and 2 years to finish -- I feel it would've benefitted from a more streamlined, routine production instead of a ponderous, maddeningly long period with seemingly unlimited pockets supported by the label.

There was one little review that said something to the effect of "Chinese Democracy is what happens when you don't tell Axl Rose 'no' for 10 years". That's it in a nutshell. Personally, I dig maybe 4 songs on the record (Riad, Better, Sorry, Shackler). It could have been eons better, and there's no excuse, considering the line-up of incredible musicians (Ron Thal, and Paul Tobias excluded.)

i can see why we think that. But Axl was done in 2000. They did a bit more in 2004. then he was cut off. These rumors are more the labels indignation at non delivery in 2004.

i think budget was initially 4 mil. Beavan record was that. Then they spent 10 mil on RTB rerecording it. The label wanted to do this in 2000.

you might guess that Axl had 32 of these songs and 26 nearly finished. So from 2004, he used his own money to polish up as many as they could to get the record. The label had maybe given up, take the 14 mik loss and hold out for a reunion. But Azzoff the magician turned up like Woland with the Best Buy deal. So now theres 12 unreleased maybe unfinished songs laying around. Problem is without BB deal they arent that profitable. Maybe if they time it right and get the band on the road they could sell another 3 mil world wide with another titanic tour. But its a lot of work for the band without that kick of a new title or new songs.

[HubbaBubba]

I think they'd really struggle to do another 3 mil - in fact i reckon this is exactly why there's no movement.

Any momentum from cd is long gone, and there would need to be an obviously huge hit in the vaults for the record company to get behind it. And i think if that was the case we'd have seen cd 2 already.

[Roush]

Presumably, the financing of the next record would be considered on how well Chinese sold. In the same way Chinese was financed very well, due to the sales performance of the Illusions. Is it any surprise there's no activity? Chinese flopped. Hence zero budget for the next one.

[wasted]

I think CD did well in current climate. Even the first couple weeks perceived flop in the US was decent sales for most bands. From the labels perspective, money in the bank, they were fine. But it's hard to judge off the release of CD. So it sold 250k in 2 weeks, with no promo, and only being sold out of Best Buy? Just take it at face value, they will sell 250k in the US.

But they possibly have 12 songs that they could put out without having to pay to make them. No more studio costs, minimal costs. 200k sales translates to 2 mil for the label. Then they wouldn't want to do much promo for it, they have to pay manufacture and put it out though. To me it doesn't look like a big deal, the label can't be THAT interested. Would they rather put out GH 2 or a Best Of?

If they had followed up CD with CD II around 2010 they may have got things going a bit more with both. But the tide seemed to have been going the other way, with maybe a few more people seeing the merits of CD but really it was the great live shows they did which is just giving people the best of GNR.

I still believe the trilogy would work best overall, CD II then CD III makes the whole thing more interesting, with fans getting all of them, then maybe a snowball effect. CD is like an understated release. But it's taken time to work Chi dem, Better, SOD, TIL into the set list so maybe that's how it goes. People expect certain things from GNR you can't replace the whole set list that easily, so there's no point, there's no rush. Atlas Shrugged and The General need to be awesome to break into the setlist.

So you're back to the beginning.

[F*ck Fear]

It's a great addition to their discography no doubt. I still listen to it just as frequent as the other albums.

[Roush]

I think CD did well in current climate. Even the first couple weeks perceived flop in the US was decent sales for most bands. From the labels perspective, money in the bank, they were fine. But it's hard to judge off the release of CD. So it sold 250k in 2 weeks, with no promo, and only being sold out of Best Buy? Just take it at face value, they will sell 250k in the US.

But they possibly have 12 songs that they could put out without having to pay to make them. No more studio costs, minimal costs. 200k sales translates to 2 mil for the label. Then they wouldn't want to do much promo for it, they have to pay manufacture and put it out though. To me it doesn't look like a big deal, the label can't be THAT interested. Would they rather put out GH 2 or a Best Of?

If they had followed up CD with CD II around 2010 they may have got things going a bit more with both. But the tide seemed to have been going the other way, with maybe a few more people seeing the merits of CD but really it was the great live shows they did which is just giving people the best of GNR.

I still believe the trilogy would work best overall, CD II then CD III makes the whole thing more interesting, with fans getting all of them, then maybe a snowball effect. CD is like an understated release. But it's taken time to work Chi dem, Better, SOD, TIL into the set list so maybe that's how it goes. People expect certain things from GNR you can't replace the whole set list that easily, so there's no point, there's no rush. Atlas Shrugged and The General need to be awesome to break into the setlist.

So you're back to the beginning.

From an artistic standpoint, it could work. From a business one -- I am not so sure.

It may behoove them to release quarterly singles as a means to gauge interest. So say they're touring Europe in September -- release a single in late August. If they're touring in May -- release a single in April. All in all, they could release 4 new songs a year, and if fan interest increases -- they could pitch the label with newfound leverage into doing a full album release if desired.

Beneficially, it would simplify the process of getting new music to fans. Instead of going through the usual strictures of record label politics, and bureaucracy -- you would take the song's finished master, get it approved by the label, and voila: you wake up one morning to find "The General" at $1.29. No artwork, no liner notes, no tedious advertising. All it takes is one good song to get them going again.

[HubbaBubba]

Claiming that anything on cd is no more unusual for guns than My World doesn't fly at all.

Axl told us in the chats that he was disingenuously encouraged by Slash to include My World on the final cut of UYI2 in order to publicly humiliate him.

So, I doubt if Axl would draw any parallels between his new angles on cd and that song.

[smoke]

Though I really just want anything at this point, I hate the thought of anything less than a full album. The album as a concept might be dead or dying, but I still prefer music in the context of one. I think Axl is better suited for it, too.

[Mr. Dude]

I think to make a really great (in an artistic sense) rock n roll record in today's music climate you're going to take a loss. I don't think Axl's willing to do it on the cheap just to get it out there and I doubt the label is willing to invest in something they know is going to lose money. I guess that is probably the crux of the problem for both parties at this stage. Touring used to be promotion for records, but now it seems reversed almost as if records are used to promote tours- except that audiences (especially US fans) are staunchly unreceptive to new material. They just want easily digestible nostalgia on a platter. So I doubt that the record company is willing to fund the album in a way that Axl sees fit and thinks the material deserves.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Mr. Dude

[Mao5]

great review, he's fair :

[ITG]

Are we going to be talking about this album 5 years from now? Cause that would be sad. And insane.

[Guest cbgnr666]

The whole record is awesome to me ,cept IF the world.But there aren't any other albums I have with that Like/Dislike ratio so that's fine with me.I don't get but respect people's opinions about the lyrics not being up to standard.Seem like a natural evolution to me,and definetly the same emotionally charged lyrics that are common to Axl.

Edited December 21, 2013 by cbgnr666

[smokingarthur]

People like Guns N Roses because of Appetite For Destruction. People don't like Guns N Roses because of Chinese Democracy.

[Guest cbgnr666]

People like Guns N Roses because of Appetite For Destruction. People don't like Guns N Roses because of Chinese Democracy.

I don't know any people who don't like gnr because of CD.

[username]

20 years since the last real GnR album.

And to think I stood in line (or rather *was* the line) before the recordstore opened that day... Disappointing when it came out and GnR has only gotten more disappointing since.

Sorry to be 'ol Buzz Killington here. But this is just depressing.

[TeeJay410]

People like Guns N Roses because of Appetite For Destruction. People don't like Guns N Roses because of Chinese Democracy.

I don't know any people who don't like gnr because of CD.

I think he's saying that for fans, Chinese democracy is not the reason they like the band te way that appetite has made people fans of the band. He's not saying people stopped like guns n roses because of Chinese democracy.