Post-2000 GN'R Deserve A Better Legacy Than This

[Nosaj Thing]

The General will feature a copy/paste solo from Jimmy Page, John 5, Buckethead and Bumblefoot. It will be the ultimate Gn'R solo and people all over the world will praise genius musician Axl Rose. Yep, I'm 100% sure that's gonna happen.

[maynard]

I just don't think you need to put out songs to evolve. 50 samey songs isn't evolution or artistic. I'm not saying it's worse either really. But it seems like Axl wants to do something a bit different each time. He doesn't want to repeat the same record again. And that causes problems. Guitarists just want to play and see where it goes. Axl is trying to make some kind of personal statement or express certain things? That's just what I think. He might not be, but each song means something. Even back in AFD or Lies every song is a big deal, about something or someone. And they only seem to release the ones that are significant in some way for the most part. I follow a band that puts out filler left and right and some of those songs get some nod but mostly they arent that important. But with GNR even filler tracks have some special meaning the media fans know about. It's either a live favorite or a classic epic or a song about bitch slappin vince neil. That's why today they have a shit ton of material that could be played live from a handfull of cds. There's 9 or 10 timeless classics on AFD. That has a bigger impact than a band with two cool soI think if you take Chinese as a whole, there are many Gn'R-esque moments on it. The Blues, There Was A Time, and Robin's solo on Better. This I Love could have been an old Guns song.

Catcher would have sounded right as a "true" Guns song with Slash on it.

Izzy would have felt right at home playing Chinese Democracy (the song)

It's just that some of Axl's musical influences are alien to old Guns, and Slash was a huge part of the sound, Izzy's tunes, and the rest of the classic line up. You're not going to get that with those specific people gone.

Still, It has enough Guns elements for me to enjoy, and while it doesn't have some, you have Bucket and Robin to bring their own styles to it and their work on Chinese is great imo.ngs on their debut album. That bought GNR a bit of time to release the next big record. And again with UYI they delivered a motherload that I didn't really get bored with until the early 2000s. And then CD again is stacked with 10 songs at least. That kind of album makes a bigger splash than 3 cds with a bunch of filler tracks. But you get the momentum and constant contact like with Megadeth. Didnt like the ladt record about a post apocalyptic future here's another one and another one. I like them all, but all the songs aren't that special. Maybe it's a psychological thing where Axl wants the records to be a big deal to maintain the profile or ego or whatever. But you cant argue that UYI or CD just has a lot more on it than most rock cds that come out. Of course it's subjective but at some point whether its your cup of tea becomes less relevant. CD just has more going on than 13 or Super Collider. for better or worse CD will be remember and reassessed, those two or three Megadeth records will just be filed under: Not Rust in Peace. I'm not really sure why Axl does it like that, it's like he's trying out epic the last record. That's what Slash said wverything just gets bigger. In the end both bands probably end up with 10 great songs to play live, it's just GNR has this strong battleship album to sail on. Dave has a squadron of tie fighters. It's all good, i don't see a negative really. Other than the pain it causes us waiting for the cds. Jimmy Page on drums in 20 years will be appreciated.

[Apollo]

THE REAL QUESTION is this:

Would you rather have Axl released four albums since 2000. Or are you glad he has only released one album in that time frame. No caveats, no explanations about Axl's art or his vision. And no debate on the quality of his songs.

What would you rather have today? CD and that's it. Or CD and four other albums?

I just want to get as much unreleased material from him as possible.

Music is a language, so what's the point in saying the same thing over and over again with your albums?

e.

What if that unreleased music is just another version of CD? All the songs were recorded at the same time. I'm confused. You don't want the band to repeat itself. But you want CD2, which was written at the same time as CD. Two songs were even pulled off CD to be saved for CD2. There was no growth or change for Axl between the two albums. But you still want to hear them. Yes?

As for your question. The obvious answer is to give your fans music to enjoy. All the classic bands have a classic sound and style. AC/DC puts out the same album every time and their fans eat it up. The Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Metallica - when these bands were at their peaks they were just sharing music with their fans. Each album didn't have to be a 180 degree turnaround from the prior release.

I would Ben argue that when bands do constantly change their style they and up alienating their original die hard fan base.

For a time Bon Jovi was the biggest rock band in the world. Then they morphed into adult contemplate and a country sound. And went from selling 15 to 25 million copies of each album down do selling of a couple million. They lost 80% of the fanbase that loved and supported them for a decade.

Metallica was one of the most successful and respected rock bands in the world. Then thu started experimenting and changing things up. How'd that turn out for them?

Are you seriously saying that GnR and Axl wouldn't have been as successful or their millions of fans wouldn't be happy if GnR had released another album in 1989 that had songs like Jungle, scom and PC. And the. An album in 1993 that had songs like nov rain and you could be mine?

Do we want a great painters to change their painting style?

Maybe it's all just personal preference. I love the songs on Appetite and Lies and Illusions. And would love to have had the band released another versions of them. And I hope CD2 is basically a carbon copy of CD. With another Better, Street, catcher and Twat.

[Rovim]

THE REAL QUESTION is this:

Would you rather have Axl released four albums since 2000. Or are you glad he has only released one album in that time frame. No caveats, no explanations about Axl's art or his vision. And no debate on the quality of his songs.

What would you rather have today? CD and that's it. Or CD and four other albums?

I just want to get as much unreleased material from him as possible.

Music is a language, so what's the point in saying the same thing over and over again with your albums?

e.

What if that unreleased music is just another version of CD? All the songs were recorded at the same time. I'm confused. You don't want the band to repeat itself. But you want CD2, which was written at the same time as CD. Two songs were even pulled off CD to be saved for CD2. There was no growth or change for Axl between the two albums. But you still want to hear them. Yes?

Yeah, I still. I want CD ll and nothing else will do. Don't you? UYI l is similar to UYI ll. If you only had UYI l, you wouldn't really have the whole thing. As long as we have only Chinese l, it's like only seeing half a movie. Plus Axl said it's meaner, darker, so maybe it will be different enough but still feel like a part of Chinese. Or perhaps like a Godfather and Godfather ll situation. If CD ll is comparable in quality to CD l, and it's a double album, then all we have is basically half an album. Many great albums contain songs from different time periods, good music is good music. (hopefully it's good)

Besides, for me, the quality was never an issue. Axl has never released an album of original material I didn't like.

And Axl was changing his style as well, to a degree. He just didn't include us. There was an album in 1999. There was Oh My God which was the exception and didn't go down so well, and a well regarded producer worked in a more adventurous approach with Axl on it. Axl became a producer himself, capable of copy/pasting Brian May's off the cuff improvised takes with a buddy and form a solo out of it.

It's not like there was no progression as a musician, but maybe it wasn't healthy and definitely not efficient, but he said it was tough for him with computers, so I imagine it took him a while, but writing and recording an album doesn't take the courage it might take for a person like Axl to release his music. A lot of how it transpired has something to do with his insecurities and he seems to care a lot about what others think of him.

My guess is a musician like Axl is worried about releasing a shit product or something that doesn't reflect something that's relevant to him and has a lot of weight as he sees it. He said the goal was to make a true Guns album. He also seem to not be satisfied with repeating himself musically.

With no one in the band to have any real say on the matter, it's no surprise things got out of control he probably sees it as "conditions didn't allow, maybe next year, it's not ready, fuck off".

The Bob Ezrin effect. Axl reads on the internet people are not into May's Catcher solo so he removes it.

Reads online that fans think the I know you know I know you know better was dumb, so he changed it.

Rock In Rio meltdown cause he cares about delivering a great show.

Not blaming it on anyone, it's just the way I think he operates: he takes opinions into consideration, but he still won't release something he doesn't believe in. Timeless or gtfo. No pressure.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Rovim

[trqster]

IMO the only way CD would have had a chance of being taken seriously would have been a double album just like the UYI's with at least a couple more quality songs on it.

[wasted]

I wonder if the Best Buy deal nixed the release of CD II. Also can BB sue Axl for not giving them the second half of CD?

[Snowmass]

With the GN'R-discussion section of the forum having scented blood on the reunion issue and with that now being the dominant topic of discussion regardless of whether it's a realistic prospect or not, it seems that the dominant attitude at the moment to the current (most recent, whatever) line-up of the band is that it should be forgotten about in the wake of a tour by the Appetite/Illusions line-ups or some sort of amalgamation thereof.

Personally, I really don't want to see CD-era Guns N' Roses (fuck calling them "NuGNR" or any of that other nonsense) regarded as one big continuous failure/mistake which has somehow been 'put right' by a reunion. While I'd have been on the reunion bandwagon quite happily when I joined the forum, I had such a fantastic time following the band from 2006-2010 (and even enjoyed parts of 2012) that seeing it come to such an inglorious end is really disappointing to me.

That doesn't mean I delusionally think everything is fine, sufficient new music has been released, TB have been a superb management team, #ashbaswag isn't utterly cringeworthy, Axl's voice post-2011 sounded good, the setlists were varied and ambitious etc. In fact, even if a reunion doesn't happen then all of the things I listed (and more) mean that the whole thing will end in a train-wreck anyway and rock history will not be kind...

But I loved this band, they were a collection of supremely talented misfits flying in the face of popular opinion, their very existence was a big 'fuck you' to the rock n' roll establishment; to all those bands who had their little fallouts and then reunited when things got lucrative enough, to the label execs laying hundreds of millions on the table to try and force a reunion, to every manager who took the reins with the sole glory-hunting intention of being the one who finally got Guns N' Roses to reunite and all the magazines who wrote them off before they'd even heard them play. The controversies that surrounded them, the enigmatic status of the album, some of the weird events that happened live totally lived up to GN'R's legacy of dynamic dysfunctionality and it made them absolutely fascinating to follow.

Not least was the fact that when I got to see them play, they put on the best rock n' roll shows I've ever seen. I'm sure there must be others here, other perfectly reasonable people who feel the same way, who went along to a GN'R show in the 2000s and had the time of their lives.

Reunionism for me became synonymous with the people who hung around here when the later line-ups were active, complaining about everything and belittling those who enjoyed the shows and the record as being in some way musically retarded. These are now the same people who would quite happily discard the last 20 years as a joke with no validity whatsoever, in favour of a reunion.

No idea if there's anyone left to agree with me, but I felt that Guns N' Roses as I knew them deserved better than being replaced and erased or just falling into obscurity.

Is this a joke? Nu GnR were brutal. It was Axl Rose solo with a bunch of hacks that no one had ever heard of that will disappear back into obscurity.

[Free Bird]

Why should they deserve better when they don't deliver?

[Nosaj Thing]

Why should they deserve better when they don't deliver?

No one can say that the members hired to play other people's material for money didn't try. Buckethead, Freese, Brain, Finck, Bumblefoot they all wanted to move forward. Bitter boring unprofessional Axl Rose didn't.

[wasted]

People had actually heard of Finck, Stinson, Dizzy. Even Brain and Bucket. Bucket was on Ozzy's radar. Definitely Dj was known. But none of them are legends other than maybe Stinson.

It does seem like Axl was very cautious and conscious to live up to the GNR name. For the most part I think the touring line ups put on solid rock shows. Nothing compared to the legendary shows of the classic line ups but great shows. Especially the last line up, people tend to pick on a Dj solo or whatever but overall the shows were professional.

It all really depends on what CD was to Axl. He seemed to have specific reason as to why CD should exist. Other than just airing his grievances, which seems in keeping with GNR anyway.

To me it seems like Axl never wanted to go too far with it, just like the other guys never really worked as a four together. The reunion is always near.

Loss aversion seems to be in play. Axl is a legend, so why take a chance on releasing Silkworms and having it haunt you. Of course sympathic CD fans want it but Axl is judge by a more trad rock media and fans. The legacy brigade. So yes new music, go wild, but then get ready for a beating because nobody wants this. So I see the dilemma. We've all seen it.

In another dimension we'd probably have a triple album from CD and another album from Ron and Dj but all fans want is a reunion, all the industry wants is a reunion.

CD is like a symbol o that. We are aware of all that. So now they can do a reunion in the next era?

Edited October 23, 2015 by wasted

[Snowmass]

Why should they deserve better when they don't deliver?

No one can say that the members hired to play other people's material for money didn't try. Buckethead, Freese, Brain, Finck, Bumblefoot they all wanted to move forward. Bitter boring unprofessional Axl Rose didn't.

Because Axl knew none of these hacks could fill the shoes of Slash and Izzy and Duff (and Matt and Gilby....or even Teddy.....fuck even Tracy and Roberta more talented than Tommy and Bubble toe and DJ).

[Free Bird]

Why should they deserve better when they don't deliver?

No one can say that the members hired to play other people's material for money didn't try. Buckethead, Freese, Brain, Finck, Bumblefoot they all wanted to move forward. Bitter boring unprofessional Axl Rose didn't.

Because Axl knew none of these hacks could fill the shoes of Slash and Izzy and Duff (and Matt and Gilby....or even Teddy.....fuck even Tracy and Roberta more talented than Tommy and Bubble toe and DJ).

Most of the musicians in GNR post 2000 were talented but regardless of the reasons... a better legacy? Based on what?

They deserved the legacy they have. 1 record in 16 years, multiple lineup changes, Vegas, the Ashba- and Axl Rose Desasters and people like Fink, who had some great moments on CD but raped Slash's guitarparts on the classics.

[Ides Of March]

It would be easier to agree if they (or Axl, really) had managed to do anything other than touring. And the biggest complaint about the touring is that they played the same setlist every night with only minor variations over the years.

I was super excited about the band from 1999-2002, and again in 2006 when Axl resurfaced.

But the constant delays, lack of material, revolving door of personnel, and overall repetition of the live shows killed interest and made it impossible for me to see them as a "rea" band and anything other than a group of live session players.

. I agree and the fact that it's been now 14 years of the new lineup with one album is ridiculous. Life is short and I don't care how much more material has been recorded (and subsequently released when Axl passes away as some compilation or other) it's about the music. And will Slash record with Axl again? Probably not. But there's a shot. And if they don't atleast it's something new. Sorry folks but new GnR just ain't that new anymore, it's old. I personally would take new Axl material over anything be it with a reunion or current lineup (what's left of it) but bottom line: a reunion is something, unlike the past few years which has been nothing.

[Strange Broue]

Honey don't stop tryin' an' you'll get what you deserve

Too bad Axl stopped tryin' in 2011 (some might say he stopped tryin' in 2002)

Edited October 23, 2015 by Strange Broue

[CardinalGunner]

In the end, all that matters is your own opinion.

I for one, greatly enjoyed Chinese Democracy, and got to see some amazing shows back in 2006. Haven't been paying as close of attention the last 5 or 6 years, but nothing can take away the great memories I have of GnR, old era and new.

[Mr. Dude]

People had actually heard of Finck, Stinson, Dizzy. Even Brain and Bucket. Bucket was on Ozzy's radar. Definitely Dj was known. But none of them are legends other than maybe Stinson.

It does seem like Axl was very cautious and conscious to live up to the GNR name. For the most part I think the touring line ups put on solid rock shows. Nothing compared to the legendary shows of the classic line ups but great shows. Especially the last line up, people tend to pick on a Dj solo or whatever but overall the shows were professional.

It all really depends on what CD was to Axl. He seemed to have specific reason as to why CD should exist. Other than just airing his grievances, which seems in keeping with GNR anyway.

To me it seems like Axl never wanted to go too far with it, just like the other guys never really worked as a four together. The reunion is always near.

Loss aversion seems to be in play. Axl is a legend, so why take a chance on releasing Silkworms and having it haunt you. Of course sympathic CD fans want it but Axl is judge by a more trad rock media and fans. The legacy brigade. So yes new music, go wild, but then get ready for a beating because nobody wants this. So I see the dilemma. We've all seen it.

In another dimension we'd probably have a triple album from CD and another album from Ron and Dj but all fans want is a reunion, all the industry wants is a reunion.

CD is like a symbol o that. We are aware of all that. So now they can do a reunion in the next era?

If a reunion must happen I hope Axl remains committed to finishing the CD era. It would be a very GNR move to reunite the old lineup and feature songs primarily from the CD era lineups. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I might be the only one.

[wasted]

People had actually heard of Finck, Stinson, Dizzy. Even Brain and Bucket. Bucket was on Ozzy's radar. Definitely Dj was known. But none of them are legends other than maybe Stinson.

It does seem like Axl was very cautious and conscious to live up to the GNR name. For the most part I think the touring line ups put on solid rock shows. Nothing compared to the legendary shows of the classic line ups but great shows. Especially the last line up, people tend to pick on a Dj solo or whatever but overall the shows were professional.

It all really depends on what CD was to Axl. He seemed to have specific reason as to why CD should exist. Other than just airing his grievances, which seems in keeping with GNR anyway.

To me it seems like Axl never wanted to go too far with it, just like the other guys never really worked as a four together. The reunion is always near.

Loss aversion seems to be in play. Axl is a legend, so why take a chance on releasing Silkworms and having it haunt you. Of course sympathic CD fans want it but Axl is judge by a more trad rock media and fans. The legacy brigade. So yes new music, go wild, but then get ready for a beating because nobody wants this. So I see the dilemma. We've all seen it.

In another dimension we'd probably have a triple album from CD and another album from Ron and Dj but all fans want is a reunion, all the industry wants is a reunion.

CD is like a symbol o that. We are aware of all that. So now they can do a reunion in the next era?

If a reunion must happen I hope Axl remains committed to finishing the CD era. It would be a very GNR move to reunite the old lineup and feature songs primarily from the CD era lineups. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I might be the only one.

Atlas Shrugged seems like the This I Love of the next era. Or like YCBM was from AFD era. They also normally keep at least one member too. My money is Pitman being the only one to survive.

[tomfriend]

Always love people talking about songs they've never heard as if they know what they're talking about.

[wasted]

I remember the lines from YCBM being on the AFD cover and This I Love being a rumored track. Atlas has been called a glam rock Nov Rain by Zutaut and confirmed by Axl and Ron has a solo on it. That's my guess on what song could feature on the next GNR. I don't know nothing.

[DieselDaisy]

People had actually heard of Finck, Stinson, Dizzy. Even Brain and Bucket. Bucket was on Ozzy's radar. Definitely Dj was known. But none of them are legends other than maybe Stinson.

It does seem like Axl was very cautious and conscious to live up to the GNR name. For the most part I think the touring line ups put on solid rock shows. Nothing compared to the legendary shows of the classic line ups but great shows. Especially the last line up, people tend to pick on a Dj solo or whatever but overall the shows were professional.

It all really depends on what CD was to Axl. He seemed to have specific reason as to why CD should exist. Other than just airing his grievances, which seems in keeping with GNR anyway.

To me it seems like Axl never wanted to go too far with it, just like the other guys never really worked as a four together. The reunion is always near.

Loss aversion seems to be in play. Axl is a legend, so why take a chance on releasing Silkworms and having it haunt you. Of course sympathic CD fans want it but Axl is judge by a more trad rock media and fans. The legacy brigade. So yes new music, go wild, but then get ready for a beating because nobody wants this. So I see the dilemma. We've all seen it.

In another dimension we'd probably have a triple album from CD and another album from Ron and Dj but all fans want is a reunion, all the industry wants is a reunion.

CD is like a symbol o that. We are aware of all that. So now they can do a reunion in the next era?

If a reunion must happen I hope Axl remains committed to finishing the CD era. It would be a very GNR move to reunite the old lineup and feature songs primarily from the CD era lineups. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I might be the only one.

Atlas Shrugged seems like the This I Love of the next era. Or like YCBM was from AFD era. They also normally keep at least one member too. My money is Pitman being the only one to survive.

Vintage Wasted.

[niceguy]

I honestly don't understand how some people can claim greatness to songs which have never even been heard.

Atlas Shrugged is the greatest song ever? Ok.

[DieselDaisy]

Maybe Wasted has heard something we haven't. Maybe he is a hoarder.

[TeeJay410]

Isn't Axl the first to say that life doesn't owe you anything, not even your own happy ending? Wouldn't that extend to post-2000 gnr?

[Nosaj Thing]

Atlas Shrugged seems like the This I Love of the next era. Or like YCBM was from AFD era. They also normally keep at least one member too. My money is Pitman being the only one to survive.

I absolutely disagree. For me Atlas Shrugged is the next ngdhfo ivpjrgte509tugrobzd0f jp jckocvbpoSDFjv`cjbdfpjobdpoj pvo povjb`pdsvi`svjzpijbdipb jpovpko vok c.cckzdfobdfbjdlvxlvkxlvkxc CD.

[wasted]

Maybe, maybe not...