dalsh327 Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 6 hours ago, kjejuju said: michael jacksosn invincible was not failure because it was a bad album ti was a failure because sony refused to promote it , they sabotaged michael jackson because of micahel big stake in the ATV catalogue. Michael held protests against sony around that time, and his album did become number 1 all around the world except for America. The album went platinum and #1 but it was a "money failure" meaning a lot of money was put into making it, an expensive video made, but dropped off the charts fast because of the lack of promotion, Jackson felt he was being sabotaged because of Sony/ATV publishing, but he wound up borrowing against it, which only gave Sony more power. Sony was also dealing with someone who was seen in a very negative light after spending half the decade in scandals and courtrooms, his live performing being questioned. HIStory II should have been a standalone album and a Greatest Hits should have happened at the end of his run with Sony. I think that's where Sony started washing their hands of him as a recording artist. I take into account history and how much Axl or Michael made the record labels, and how they were painted as "crazy" and "self indulgent" when they wanted to do a big money album. If Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates wanted to spend 100 million dollars on a personal project that might not make money, no one's going to say they're "CRAZY", they should have earned the right to pursue it, no one's going to say Gates or Zuck were crazy and self-indulgent (Steve Jobs was another story). But making product vs making art is a tricky comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donny Posted April 16, 2016 Author Share Posted April 16, 2016 another article from yesterday. guns n roses are a one album band. http://www.metalsucks.net/2016/04/15/editorial-guns-n-roses-is-one-album-band/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, donny said: another article from yesterday. guns n roses are a one album band. http://www.metalsucks.net/2016/04/15/editorial-guns-n-roses-is-one-album-band/ Semi-correct really. It would have been different if they had compiled the best of from the two Illusions onto one album. I'm afraid you lot are going to see a lot more of this, particularly from English journalism (e.g. at NME, the newspapers) where Guns are seen as a faintly embarrassing hair metal band, and where there is a general snobbery against nostalgia/reunion tours - even against beloved bands such as the Stones who are dismissed as 'The Strolling Bones''. There is going to be a lot more of this and you will have to put up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnRFL Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 I'm sure this has been debated ad nauseum, but funny that GNR are called a hair metal band when they really were a reaction to it and helped put the 1st nail in the coffin of hair metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 12 minutes ago, GnRFL said: I'm sure this has been debated ad nauseum, but funny that GNR are called a hair metal band when they really were a reaction to it and helped put the 1st nail in the coffin of hair metal. An element of truth in that they eschewed the shred and studio slickness of the '80s hair bands, however they were still singing misogynist lyrics and they all promptly bought mansions and acquired model girlfriends. 'Estranged', the music video, sees Axl leave his mansion, surrounded by legions of sycophants, and enter into limousine. Such a display of spoils is going to put them on a collision course with grunge and to be honest the English media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts