Axl Rose interview released tomorrow (Edit: full interview)

[RussTCB]

29 minutes ago, jamillos said:

So according to Blabbermouth, this is what he actually said: 

"Right now our focus is on touring and the shows, but everyone seems to be getting along, so you never know."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/axl-rose-on-possibility-of-new-music-from-reunited-guns-n-roses-you-never-know/

Thanks! I haven't read very much of the thread, but I figured this was about the long and the short of it. 

[Lies They Tell]

On 25.7.2018 at 5:06 PM, killuridols said:

That's not the problem, I think. 

The problem is that he cant replicate the phenomena of Björk, NIN, Nirvana, etc... He never had it in him and he tried to force it with CD but it came out awful and too late.

Björk is great but her time has passed too. I dont know what music Axl is currently  into, but if it's stuff from the 90s that he is just catching up with now, he is wasting his time with that.

You mean he's wasting his time just like he wasted his time taking influences from 60s bands when he was making AFD in the eighties?

[killuridols]

44 minutes ago, Lies They Tell said:

You mean he's wasting his time just like he wasted his time taking influences from 60s bands when he was making AFD in the eighties?

I mean that at his age, no one makes the revolution of anything, aside from him being lazy and taking years to record/release something, by the time the work is out, a whole new generation of listeners and artists will have surpass him. That's exactly what happened with ChinDem.

[Lies They Tell]

6 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I mean that at his age, no one makes the revolution of anything, aside from him being lazy and taking years to record/release something, by the time the work is out, a whole new generation of listeners and artists will have surpass him. That's exactly what happened with ChinDem.

Yeah, well I don't understand that kind of thinking. That's like saying Axl was too late when he took influences from 60s artists in the eighties cause a whole new generation of artists had already reinvented music with synthesizers etc... No it was definitely not too late to be inspired by 60s artists in the eighties and it's definitely not too late to be inspired by nineties artists now.

And many artists have made their best songs when they were old. Axl has plenty of time to still revolutionize music. I'm obviously not expecting him to do so. I'm just saying that in theory he could.

[lukigol]

Hope I will get more stories about haloween tree

[killuridols]

Just now, Lies They Tell said:

Yeah, well I don't understand that kind of thinking. That's like saying Axl was too late when he took influences from 60s artists in the eighties cause a whole new generation of artists had already reinvented music with synthesizers etc... No it was definitely not too late to be inspired by 60s artists in the eighties and it's definitely not too late to be inspired by nineties artists now.

And many artists have made their best songs when they were old. Axl has plenty of time to still revolutionize music. I'm obviously not expecting him to do so. I'm just saying that in theory he could.

There was still  a rock scene in the 80s and he was not late to that, actually, they were different from all the hair and heavy metal bands. They made a difference with AFD. But it didn't last long.. by the early 90s, grunge was taking over and Guns was in a transitional time where they really looked outdated to the teenagers who followed Nirvana, Pearl Jam, STP, AiC, etc...

Axl making music that sounds like Björk would be ridiculous, in my opinion, but if he likes to, then so be it.... I think he already tried that formula, wanted to be Reznor, wanted to be NIN and he failed. Not only that, when he released that music, the world had already changed, even the industry. Internet had taken over and Axl didn't know. Hell, in 2001 he was protesting against the Internet!

I didn't say he could not make good songs now. What I am not sure about is that he can change GN'R music once again and succeed. Most older artists who have done this, actually didn't change much, just improved what they were doing.

 

[Lies They Tell]

1 hour ago, killuridols said:

There was still  a rock scene in the 80s and he was not late to that, actually, they were different from all the hair and heavy metal bands. They made a difference with AFD. But it didn't last long.. by the early 90s, grunge was taking over and Guns was in a transitional time where they really looked outdated to the teenagers who followed Nirvana, Pearl Jam, STP, AiC, etc...

Axl making music that sounds like Björk would be ridiculous, in my opinion, but if he likes to, then so be it.... I think he already tried that formula, wanted to be Reznor, wanted to be NIN and he failed. Not only that, when he released that music, the world had already changed, even the industry. Internet had taken over and Axl didn't know. Hell, in 2001 he was protesting against the Internet!

I didn't say he could not make good songs now. What I am not sure about is that he can change GN'R music once again and succeed. Most older artists who have done this, actually didn't change much, just improved what they were doing.

 

I very much doubt Axl has ever had any interest in making music that sounds totally like Björk.   It's a whole different thing to be inspired by something than to make music that sounds exactly like something. I don't think Björk influences would be a bad thing at all in GNR music. A song can be hard rock and still have influences from different things like for example Björk.

And obviously Axl never wanted to be Reznor, but I suppose you mean he was inspired by NIN when he made CD. And he failed in what way? There's millions of people who love Chinese Democracy and the NIN influenced songs, so I'm not sure if you can call that a failure.

I'm not sure if I understand what you want GNR to be. On one had you're saying that they shouldn't change much musically. I assume you mean that they should try to stick as close to their early sound as possible. But on the other hand you're constantly afraid that they'd sound dated. Don't you think they would sound dated if they'd make music that sounds exactly like AFD now? Heck you even admit that they already sounded dated in the 90s. So what do you want? Dated sounding GNR music or something else? Surely you're not implying that they should try to take influences only from the current music scene only so they would sound contemporary.

I say, let them make music the way they always did. Let them be inspired and influenced by all the music that they enjoy. In my opinion creative freedom leads to best end results usually.

[lame ass security]

It has to be really difficult for successful musicians to navigate this process, if not almost impossible.  Times change as do musical tastes and things that were fresh and exciting suddenly become stale and outdated. Change is healthy but it comes at the expense of those not willing or are unable to change. But the almost impossible part is changing but still being true to yourself as a musician.  Fans are smart, they can tell when something is forced or phony.  Maybe the Beatles had the right idea when they quit while they were on top.  But most mortal bands can't or won't do this, and I don't blame them. Look at Elvis' career trajectory, he came on like a hurricane because he was different, no one had seen anything like him before.  He couldn't top that, so after he returned from the army he immediately started his film career.  He changed.  Then he came back to performing later as an icon.  He toured incessantly those last 7 years.  Very few people are able to keep reinventing themselves and remain successful, David Bowie and Neil Young come to mind.  It's a hard gig, no doubt.

[killuridols]

5 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

And obviously Axl never wanted to be Reznor, but I suppose you mean he was inspired by NIN when he made CD. And he failed in what way? There's millions of people who love Chinese Democracy and the NIN influenced songs, so I'm not sure if you can call that a failure.

I think it Is because the anticipation created around it didn't match the final results. When CD came out lots of people had moved on. It wasn't even the same band that made the record! 

More than a decade working on something that didn't do anything for the music scene. Many people may like CD but it cannot be considered the best GNR album or revolutionary in any shape or form. CD didn't contribute anything significant for a new generation or for a new genre. All it did was create a legend about it, so basically CD in the mind of people, it is that colossal album that Axl Rose was making inside a dark cave but no one can remember not one single song from it.

It's a failure because it didn't live up to the expectations and it represents the worst phase of Axl, both professionally and personally.

5 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

I'm not sure if I understand what you want GNR to be. On one had you're saying that they shouldn't change much musically. I assume you mean that they should try to stick as close to their early sound as possible. But on the other hand you're constantly afraid that they'd sound dated. Don't you think they would sound dated if they'd make music that sounds exactly like AFD now? Heck you even admit that they already sounded dated in the 90s. So what do you want? Dated sounding GNR music or something else? Surely you're not implying that they should try to take influences only from the current music scene only so they would sound contemporary.

There is no contradiction in what I say because I never said that they should try to make a new AFD. 

I've been a fan since the early 90s, so I know what I'm talking about. AFD cannot be replicated, it's a snapshot of the band in a particular moment of their lives that will never return. Youth is gone and I am aware of it.

IMO their music should represent who they are now, at this time and age, what they believe, their ideas and thoughts and dreams of men hitting their 60s. Any attempt to appeal the young masses will be ridiculous. Young people do not identify with old people, that has never happened, so trying to make the revolution at this age is useless.

As for the sound, it should be an evolution from UYI, the last real GN'R album and yeah, they should stay within the rock genre. Björk and NIN should be left alone because what they do (or did) is their thing, not Guns.

Guns are good with hard rock, epic songs, ballads.... Of course, they could add some spice, some little things that reflect a refreshed sound, something created in the 21st century, but a complete makeover, I don't think it would work.

[Lies They Tell]

5 hours ago, killuridols said:

I think it Is because the anticipation created around it didn't match the final results. When CD came out lots of people had moved on. It wasn't even the same band that made the record! 

More than a decade working on something that didn't do anything for the music scene. Many people may like CD but it cannot be considered the best GNR album or revolutionary in any shape or form. CD didn't contribute anything significant for a new generation or for a new genre. All it did was create a legend about it, so basically CD in the mind of people, it is that colossal album that Axl Rose was making inside a dark cave but no one can remember not one single song from it.

It's a failure because it didn't live up to the expectations and it represents the worst phase of Axl, both professionally and personally.

There is no contradiction in what I say because I never said that they should try to make a new AFD. 

I've been a fan since the early 90s, so I know what I'm talking about. AFD cannot be replicated, it's a snapshot of the band in a particular moment of their lives that will never return. Youth is gone and I am aware of it.

IMO their music should represent who they are now, at this time and age, what they believe, their ideas and thoughts and dreams of men hitting their 60s. Any attempt to appeal the young masses will be ridiculous. Young people do not identify with old people, that has never happened, so trying to make the revolution at this age is useless.

As for the sound, it should be an evolution from UYI, the last real GN'R album and yeah, they should stay within the rock genre. Björk and NIN should be left alone because what they do (or did) is their thing, not Guns.

Guns are good with hard rock, epic songs, ballads.... Of course, they could add some spice, some little things that reflect a refreshed sound, something created in the 21st century, but a complete makeover, I don't think it would work.

Please don't do the "I've been a fan since the early 90s" thing. I bet most of us have been fans since the early 90s. It doesn't impress anyone here.

When it comes to Chinese Democracy, nothing would have lived up to the expectations. All in all I think it's pretty impressive that even after a decade people are still talking about the album and finding new things that they enjoy about it. How many albums are still heavily discussed a decade after they've been released. Chinese Democracy is an album that you often see on lists about underrated albums. CD might not have revolutionized music, but it was never supposed to. Since when are albums supposed to revolutionize music in order to not be failures. 99,9% of records don't revolutionize music. Does that mean that they're all failures?

You said yourself that young people do not identify with old people and therefore trying to make some kind of a revolution is useless. But you consider CD a failure cause it didn't revolutionize anything. In other words it's a failure cause it didn't do something that you admit is impossible. It was never meant to revolutionize anything. You're the only one that seems to expect that it should have even though you admit that it would have been impossible.

So CD was a failure cause it didn't revolutionize anything. Does that mean that the next GNR album will also be a failure if it doesn't revolutionize anything? In your opinion it would be impossible to revolutionize anything anyway, so does that mean that you want GNR to release an album that you will consider a failure?

In my opinion Chinese Democracy was a great album that not everybody obviously liked, but on the other hand some people loved it with passion. People are still hungry for new GNR music, which proves that it wasn't a terrible album. Otherwise people wouldn't care cause nobody would trust Axl's songwriting skills anymore. 

I think it's interesting that you want the next GNR album to be an evolution of the UYI sound and still stay in the rock genre... isn't that exactly what Chinese Democracy was. An evolution of the UYI sound that still stayed in the rock genre. But the most interesting part of your post was this: "IMO their music should represent who they are now, at this time and age, what they believe, their ideas and dreams of men hitting their 60s." Isn't that exactly what Axl did with Chinese Democracy? He wasn't singing about sex, drugs and rock n roll, but he was singing about breakups and stuff that he cold relate to at that point in life. He made the kind of music that he believed in. Took influences from all the music that he loved, just like he always did.

Why do you consider it wrong to be inspired by Björk or NIN, but you don't consider it wrong to be inspired by Elvis, Elton John and Lynyrd Skynyrd? Axl has openly admitted being influenced by Lynyrd Skynyrd when he wrote SCOM. Why aren't you saying that Axl should have left Lynyrd Skynyrd alone because that was their thing not Guns thing. Why was it okay to be inspired by all the music that they loved, when they wrote AFD, but now it's suddenly wrong in your opinion to be inspired by everything? When you read Axl's interviews, it's easy to see that Axl's approach in making GNR music has always been the same. He has always  been influenced by all the music around him. All the music that he loves and he has described GNR as a melting pot of all the music that inspires him. So if you want them to make music that represent the values that they believe in, shouldn't it be okay that they continue being inspired by all the artists that they enjoy?

It's like you consider being influenced by everything post 80s to be an attempt to appeal to young masses. I don't think being inspired by NIN was ever an attempt by Axl to appeal to young masses. He just made the kind of music that he believed in. The kind of music that inspired him.

 

 

[Nikki_Sixx]

On 24-7-2018 at 11:19 PM, ironmt said:

Absolute nonsense In regards to your assumption regarding the reunion. The band was touring successfully long before reconciliation was considered. They were  touring Chinese Democracy 8 years before the album was even released with one original member. In other words the bands touring success was based on albums that were released 17-21 years prior, so how exactly did releasing a new album(Chinese Democracy) elevate the band or benefit them In anyway?  Even If Axl didn't want to release an album at this point, so what. That Is his choice and he Is doing quite well financially on this "endless tour" just as he was for the 20+ years before Slash and Duffs return.

 

 

Oh really ?  Touring for 8 years before CD was released ?  I can only remember him 'touring' in '02, and then again in '06 and some of '07.  That's about it ...

Also, 20+ years ?  Axl first solo show was '01, and his last solo show was mid '14, hardly 20+ years ...

[killuridols]

6 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

Please don't do the "I've been a fan since the early 90s" thing. I bet most of us have been fans since the early 90s. It doesn't impress anyone here.

When it comes to Chinese Democracy, nothing would have lived up to the expectations. All in all I think it's pretty impressive that even after a decade people are still talking about the album and finding new things that they enjoy about it. How many albums are still heavily discussed a decade after they've been released. Chinese Democracy is an album that you often see on lists about underrated albums. CD might not have revolutionized music, but it was never supposed to. Since when are albums supposed to revolutionize music in order to not be failures. 99,9% of records don't revolutionize music. Does that mean that they're all failures?

I don't want to impress anyone, just making sure that you don't assume stuff about me because you assume a lot and you are trying to tergiverse my message with your flawed logic.

About ChinDem, the only people talking about it are the ones in this forum (and other GN'R forums), which is obvious and predictable because we are fans. But if you get out of this comfort zone, no one talks about ChinDem at all.

ChinDem was supposed to be this colossal album, 13 years in the making, that would determine the future of Axl Rose as the solely member of Guns N' Roses back in the early 2000's. He was supposed to rise up with this album and demostrate everybody that he could be Guns N' Roses, without Slash, Duff, Izzy and Adler.

Great albums, successful ones, usually leave a stamp in music history. Guns N' Roses and all the big rock bands have at least one album that has placed a mark in music history.

6 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

You said yourself that young people do not identify with old people and therefore trying to make some kind of a revolution is useless. But you consider CD a failure cause it didn't revolutionize anything. In other words it's a failure cause it didn't do something that you admit is impossible. It was never meant to revolutionize anything. You're the only one that seems to expect that it should have even though you admit that it would have been impossible.

Holy Jesus! Do you have any sense of TIME?

When CD was in the making, Axl was 20 years younger than he is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CD was supposed to come out somewhere around year 2000, not in 2008! The music in Chinese Democracy does not represent 2008, it represents the mid-late 90's, but it came out a decade later and that's part of its failure, a dated sound for a period of time where things had changed once again.

I never talked about "impossible" things. Your interpretation of what I say is completely wrong, because you can't seem to place yourself in time and space. Had CD come out in 2001 or 2002, its fate would have been different. Axl and everybody else were still young and all of us fans from the 80's and 90's were in our early-mid 20s. There's a huge difference between that and what I was saying before, because in my previous comment I was talking in present time, not in CD time.

6 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

People are still hungry for new GNR music, which proves that it wasn't a terrible album. Otherwise people wouldn't care cause nobody would trust Axl's songwriting skills anymore. 

It doesn't prove any of that.... People are expecting new music with the input of Slash, Duff and if it was possible, Izzy as well. Very few people want to listen to the songs in the vault that Axl made with freaks like Buckethead and Finck, but now that Slash and Duff are back, the hope is placed in music co-written by them. It's only natural, they are Guns N' Roses as much as Axl.

6 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

I think it's interesting that you want the next GNR album to be an evolution of the UYI sound and still stay in the rock genre... isn't that exactly what Chinese Democracy was. An evolution of the UYI sound that still stayed in the rock genre. But the most interesting part of your post was this: "IMO their music should represent who they are now, at this time and age, what they believe, their ideas and dreams of men hitting their 60s." Isn't that exactly what Axl did with Chinese Democracy? He wasn't singing about sex, drugs and rock n roll, but he was singing about breakups and stuff that he cold relate to at that point in life. He made the kind of music that he believed in. Took influences from all the music that he loved, just like he always did.

No, that's not what CD was...... CD is.... well... a freak.... written by freaks and Axl, but that ain't Guns N' Roses, so yes, it's not a contradiction. It's just asking for Guns N' Roses to write a Guns N' Roses album with as many original members as possible.

Axl is not Guns and CD is technically not Guns, though commercially it is. But I don't care about commerce or whatever, that's why I'd like a new album by the guys who started this band. Something that is in tone with who they are now, old men basically, but professional musicians who have all grown and have a lot of experience by now. Translating that into music would be great. And it shouldnt be just about Axl's feelings, influences or whatever... it should be about all of them, not just one person, this band is not just one person. The real Guns N' Roses was about the five of them.

6 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

Why do you consider it wrong to be inspired by Björk or NIN, but you don't consider it wrong to be inspired by Elvis, Elton John and Lynyrd Skynyrd? Axl has openly admitted being influenced by Lynyrd Skynyrd when he wrote SCOM. Why aren't you saying that Axl should have left Lynyrd Skynyrd alone because that was their thing not Guns thing. Why was it okay to be inspired by all the music that they loved, when they wrote AFD, but now it's suddenly wrong in your opinion to be inspired by everything? When you read Axl's interviews, it's easy to see that Axl's approach in making GNR music has always been the same. He has always  been influenced by all the music around him. All the music that he loves and he has described GNR as a melting pot of all the music that inspires him. So if you want them to make music that represent the values that they believe in, shouldn't it be okay that they continue being inspired by all the artists that they enjoy?

I don't consider anything wrong, that's your flawed interpretation of my words. But let's see.... when you are young and starting a band, it's natural that you look up to other people, other established artists (or not) and use them as inspiration for your style that you are developing, because well... you are young.... you are defining yourself.... you are trying stuff.

Guns are not those youngsters anymore, they might have used bands of the moment or their idols for inspiration, but it came a moment when they defined themselves and started sounding like themselves. There are many songs that sound like Guns, not like Elvis, not like Lynyrd Skynyrd..... Actually, Guns established themselves so good that they surpassed other bands older than them. If you think about it, Lynyrd Skynyrd are nowhere near the status of GN'R in the music industry.

IMO, Guns do not need to keep looking for their own style because they have it and that's what they should keep working with. Like I said before, they could evolve within their own style, add some spice from here and there, but Björk and NIN are really far from the essence of GN'R, so I don't know how that would fit there.

Guns N' Roses is a band and their music should reflect a combination of what all of them can offer to the music, not what one dictator singer likes and prefers. You can like lots of shit but if you work in a team, the team effort is what is needed, not individuals impossing their ideas.

You make a lot of emphasis on Axl's likes and inspiration and you hardly ever mention Slash or Duff.... That says a lot about who you seem to be as a fan.

 

[ShadowOfTheWave]

13 hours ago, killuridols said:

I think it Is because the anticipation created around it didn't match the final results. When CD came out lots of people had moved on. It wasn't even the same band that made the record! 

More than a decade working on something that didn't do anything for the music scene. Many people may like CD but it cannot be considered the best GNR album or revolutionary in any shape or form. CD didn't contribute anything significant for a new generation or for a new genre. All it did was create a legend about it, so basically CD in the mind of people, it is that colossal album that Axl Rose was making inside a dark cave but no one can remember not one single song from it.

It's a failure because it didn't live up to the expectations and it represents the worst phase of Axl, both professionally and personally.

There is no contradiction in what I say because I never said that they should try to make a new AFD. 

I've been a fan since the early 90s, so I know what I'm talking about. AFD cannot be replicated, it's a snapshot of the band in a particular moment of their lives that will never return. Youth is gone and I am aware of it.

IMO their music should represent who they are now, at this time and age, what they believe, their ideas and thoughts and dreams of men hitting their 60s. Any attempt to appeal the young masses will be ridiculous. Young people do not identify with old people, that has never happened, so trying to make the revolution at this age is useless.

As for the sound, it should be an evolution from UYI, the last real GN'R album and yeah, they should stay within the rock genre. Björk and NIN should be left alone because what they do (or did) is their thing, not Guns.

Guns are good with hard rock, epic songs, ballads.... Of course, they could add some spice, some little things that reflect a refreshed sound, something created in the 21st century, but a complete makeover, I don't think it would work.

CD can be considered the best GNR album...if someone simply considers it the best GNR album. There are no other requirements. It is subjective. 

[killuridols]

2 minutes ago, ShadowOfTheWave said:

CD can be considered the best GNR album...if someone simply considers it the best GNR album. There are no other requirements. It is subjective. 

Technically, it is not a Guns N' Roses album. There's only Axl on it. But I am aware there are some fans who have this "diverse" view of what is Guns N' Roses and in that view, Chinese Democracy would be the only legitimate and only Guns N' Roses album.

This is like the problem with genders, there are people who think there are only two genders and others who think there are as many genders as people there are in the world.

Complicated.

[zombux]

15 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Technically, it is not a Guns N' Roses album. There's only Axl on it. But I am aware there are some fans who have this "diverse" view of what is Guns N' Roses and in that view, Chinese Democracy would be the only legitimate and only Guns N' Roses album.

This is like the problem with genders, there are people who think there are only two genders and others who think there are as many genders as people there are in the world.

Complicated.

it just IS a GNR album, no matter how one thinks about it. similarly as for example The Division Bell just IS Pink Floyd, etc. 

[sl4yer]

You can tell it should be Axl's solo album but it's not and deal with it

[ironmt]

4 hours ago, Nikki_Sixx said:

Oh really ?  Touring for 8 years before CD was released ?  I can only remember him 'touring' in '02, and then again in '06 and some of '07.  That's about it ...

Also, 20+ years ?  Axl first solo show was '01, and his last solo show was mid '14, hardly 20+ years ...

So by your own admission Axl toured for 13 years. Regardless of whether it was 10 , 20 or 30 years, how does that change the facts presented In the post? Were the tours before the Chinese Democracy album successful? How about after the album but before the reunion?

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, zombux said:

it just IS a GNR album, no matter how one thinks about it. similarly as for example The Division Bell just IS Pink Floyd, etc. 

That's what I said before.... commercially, it is a Guns N' Roses album, released under the brand and commercialized as such.

[zombux]

Just now, killuridols said:

That's what I said before.... commercially, it is a Guns N' Roses album, released under the brand and commercialized as such.

I can't disagree on this  

[Lies They Tell]

7 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I don't want to impress anyone, just making sure that you don't assume stuff about me because you assume a lot and you are trying to tergiverse my message with your flawed logic.

About ChinDem, the only people talking about it are the ones in this forum (and other GN'R forums), which is obvious and predictable because we are fans. But if you get out of this comfort zone, no one talks about ChinDem at all.

ChinDem was supposed to be this colossal album, 13 years in the making, that would determine the future of Axl Rose as the solely member of Guns N' Roses back in the early 2000's. He was supposed to rise up with this album and demostrate everybody that he could be Guns N' Roses, without Slash, Duff, Izzy and Adler.

Great albums, successful ones, usually leave a stamp in music history. Guns N' Roses and all the big rock bands have at least one album that has placed a mark in music history.

Holy Jesus! Do you have any sense of TIME?

When CD was in the making, Axl was 20 years younger than he is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CD was supposed to come out somewhere around year 2000, not in 2008! The music in Chinese Democracy does not represent 2008, it represents the mid-late 90's, but it came out a decade later and that's part of its failure, a dated sound for a period of time where things had changed once again.

I never talked about "impossible" things. Your interpretation of what I say is completely wrong, because you can't seem to place yourself in time and space. Had CD come out in 2001 or 2002, its fate would have been different. Axl and everybody else were still young and all of us fans from the 80's and 90's were in our early-mid 20s. There's a huge difference between that and what I was saying before, because in my previous comment I was talking in present time, not in CD time.

It doesn't prove any of that.... People are expecting new music with the input of Slash, Duff and if it was possible, Izzy as well. Very few people want to listen to the songs in the vault that Axl made with freaks like Buckethead and Finck, but now that Slash and Duff are back, the hope is placed in music co-written by them. It's only natural, they are Guns N' Roses as much as Axl.

No, that's not what CD was...... CD is.... well... a freak.... written by freaks and Axl, but that ain't Guns N' Roses, so yes, it's not a contradiction. It's just asking for Guns N' Roses to write a Guns N' Roses album with as many original members as possible.

Axl is not Guns and CD is technically not Guns, though commercially it is. But I don't care about commerce or whatever, that's why I'd like a new album by the guys who started this band. Something that is in tone with who they are now, old men basically, but professional musicians who have all grown and have a lot of experience by now. Translating that into music would be great. And it shouldnt be just about Axl's feelings, influences or whatever... it should be about all of them, not just one person, this band is not just one person. The real Guns N' Roses was about the five of them.

I don't consider anything wrong, that's your flawed interpretation of my words. But let's see.... when you are young and starting a band, it's natural that you look up to other people, other established artists (or not) and use them as inspiration for your style that you are developing, because well... you are young.... you are defining yourself.... you are trying stuff.

Guns are not those youngsters anymore, they might have used bands of the moment or their idols for inspiration, but it came a moment when they defined themselves and started sounding like themselves. There are many songs that sound like Guns, not like Elvis, not like Lynyrd Skynyrd..... Actually, Guns established themselves so good that they surpassed other bands older than them. If you think about it, Lynyrd Skynyrd are nowhere near the status of GN'R in the music industry.

IMO, Guns do not need to keep looking for their own style because they have it and that's what they should keep working with. Like I said before, they could evolve within their own style, add some spice from here and there, but Björk and NIN are really far from the essence of GN'R, so I don't know how that would fit there.

Guns N' Roses is a band and their music should reflect a combination of what all of them can offer to the music, not what one dictator singer likes and prefers. You can like lots of shit but if you work in a team, the team effort is what is needed, not individuals impossing their ideas.

You make a lot of emphasis on Axl's likes and inspiration and you hardly ever mention Slash or Duff.... That says a lot about who you seem to be as a fan.

 

Finally we agree on something. I agree that on the next album, their music should reflect a combination of what all of them can offer to the music. That we agree on, but... that's about it then.

Maybe I make assumptions of what you're trying to say. But I'm just trying to understand your logic. So if I understood you correctly, you're still trying to say that Chinese Democracy was a failure cause it didn't  revolutionize anything? Am I correct? And you're saying that part of the problem was that Axl released it too late and if he had released it in 2001 or 2002 it's fate would have been different cause he and his fans were still young? So you actually believe that Chinese Democracy could have revolutionized music if it had been released in 2001? Is that what you're saying? Sorry, I don't want to make weird assumptions, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. So did you actually at some point believe that Axl could have revolutionized music and is that why you consider CD a failure cause it didn't revolutionize anything?

Personally I never expected CD to revolutionize anything and I don't think Axl expected that either. Axl never said that Chinese Democracy is going to be a colossal album that will revolutionize music and prove once and for all that he alone is Guns N' Roses without Slash, Duff and co... Those were all your expectations, or... I don't know whose expectations those were, but you said that CD was supposed to do all that and I honestly don't know were you got those ideas from. Before CD was released Axl's own words about the album were: "In the end, it's just an album". That's it! He was fully aware that it's just an album. Nothing more, nothing less. So I don't know where you got these "it was supposed to be a colossal thing" ideas from. 

You didn't answer my question concerning the next GNR album. Do you think it will be a failure if it doesn't revolutionize music?

The problem with people like you is that it's hard to talk with you about CD from a musical point of view. When you talk about CD you always point out that it's not GNR, it's just a freak show. That's all you usually say about it. But from a musical point of view CD is an evolution of the UYI sound. And lyrically it deals with subjects that older people can relate to better than AFD for example. So in many ways it is exactly what you said that you want from the next GNR album, except you obviously want to hear Slash's and Duff's contributions too and you want less industrial influences. But other than that CD doesn't seem to be all that far from what you're hoping that the next GNR album will sound like.

I disagree completely with your point about how young artists are supposed to look up to other artists and be inspired by them but when they get older, they should stop looking up to other artists and stop being inspired by them. I mean I agree that when you're young it's good to look up to other artists and it's good to be influenced by them, but that applies to when you're older too, otherwise you run out of creativity. One of my favorite things about Axl is the fact that he hasn't lost his admiration towards other artists. That's healthy compared to some other artists, who start to think that they have nothing left to learn. In my opinion the worst thing that can happen to an artist is the moment when he defines who he is and what his style is. That's the moment when he imprisons his creativity and I'm glad that never happened to GNR. Imagine if Slash and Duff would have convinced Axl that November Rain should not be made cause it's too different compared to the GNR sound that they established with AFD. Luckily that didn't happen. And I hope that GNR keeps on pushing the boundaries of what a GNR song is supposed to sound like. I hope that they keep on being creative.

I've spoken a lot about Axl's point of view, cause he's always been the main songwriter of GNR next to Izzy. And especially now that Izzy isn't there, his point of view is pretty important. It just sounded strange to me when you said that you want the next GNR album to be about something that the band believes in and at the same time you're saying that Axl should forget about his musical influences and forget everything that he believes in musically speaking. That just sounded pretty damn contradictory to me. You genuinely seemed to think that Axl only wanted to appeal to the youth masses when he made NIN inspired songs, when in fact he just wants to draw inspiration from all the music that he enjoys. Just like he did in the AFD days. But yeah, at least we agree on one thing. I also hope that the next album will be a band effort. Though I wouldn't mind if they included some CD2 songs like the General in there.

[killuridols]

53 minutes ago, Lies They Tell said:

Maybe I make assumptions of what you're trying to say. But I'm just trying to understand your logic. So if I understood you correctly, you're still trying to say that Chinese Democracy was a failure cause it didn't  revolutionize anything? Am I correct? And you're saying that part of the problem was that Axl released it too late and if he had released it in 2001 or 2002 it's fate would have been different cause he and his fans were still young? So you actually believe that Chinese Democracy could have revolutionized music if it had been released in 2001? Is that what you're saying? Sorry, I don't want to make weird assumptions, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. So did you actually at some point believe that Axl could have revolutionized music and is that why you consider CD a failure cause it didn't revolutionize anything?

IMO, the main reason for CD failing is because it featured a whole different band and most fans didn't give a fuck about it by the time it was released. Even with the whole line-up changed, there were people in 1998, 1999 and early 2000's that were betting on ChinDem, that believed in it, that had hopes of it being a fantastic album, even knowing there was no Slash on it. I think if it had been released a decade earlier, the impact would have been different, because there was a scene for that type of music and there were lots of fans still supporting Axl.

As the time went by and we all saw that Axl was becoming frail, fatter, that he couldn't even keep the initial nuGNR lineup, the disenchanment was bigger, so that contributed a lot of negative vibes.

I don't know if CD was meant to revolutionize music, that is hard to predict, but I know it was the album that was meant to represent a new side of Axl, his master vision, part of the reason for why he continued with a different band under the same name instead of going solo. So, in some way, you can say that CD was a promising album, for both the fans and Axl.

1 hour ago, Lies They Tell said:

Personally I never expected CD to revolutionize anything and I don't think Axl expected that either. Axl never said that Chinese Democracy is going to be a colossal album that will revolutionize music and prove once and for all that he alone is Guns N' Roses without Slash, Duff and co... Those were all your expectations, or... I don't know whose expectations those were, but you said that CD was supposed to do all that and I honestly don't know were you got those ideas from. Before CD was released Axl's own words about the album were: "In the end, it's just an album". That's it! He was fully aware that it's just an album. Nothing more, nothing less. So I don't know where you got these "it was supposed to be a colossal thing" ideas from. 

LOL, yeah right, just an album!

If that's how he thought of it, then why did he spend millions of dollars on it and more of a decade to finally release it? Whatever he said makes no sense, as usual, you know he is the guy who also said "Not in this lifetime", so I really don't pay attention to his words anymore. You gotta go with the facts and the actions.

There's a reason why there's a halo of mistery surrounding those 13 years in the making of CD. There's a reason why there's so much secrecy, songs in the vault and what not. CD is a legend in the collective mind of fans. It is not something tht I made up. It is real and all of us who were there during the dark times, know what CD means in the life and history of Guns N' Roses

1 hour ago, Lies They Tell said:

You didn't answer my question concerning the next GNR album. Do you think it will be a failure if it doesn't revolutionize music?

Nah, because no one is expecting anything anymore. There's not even a rumour of an album in the making. That's the difference with CD.

In the late 90s and early 2000's, we all knew of the existance of CD. Axl talked about it, he hired musicians to work on it, it had different working titles, he presented some songs during RIR..... I mean, the situation was vastly different from now.

1 hour ago, Lies They Tell said:

The problem with people like you is that it's hard to talk with you about CD from a musical point of view. When you talk about CD you always point out that it's not GNR, it's just a freak show. That's all you usually say about it. But from a musical point of view CD is an evolution of the UYI sound. And lyrically it deals with subjects that older people can relate to better than AFD for example. So in many ways it is exactly what you said that you want from the next GNR album, except you obviously want to hear Slash's and Duff's contributions too and you want less industrial influences. But other than that CD doesn't seem to be all that far from what you're hoping that the next GNR album will sound like.

The problem is that people like you see Guns N' Roses as a continuum because for you the only valid variable is Axl Rose. While the rest of us see Guns N' Roses as a collaborative effort of 5 guys who created the band back in 1985.

Axl Rose and his freaks are not Guns N' Roses. That's my stance. I am aware other people do not see it that way, but when I talk about Guns N' Roses I talk from that view of point, so there is your reference to understand me.

CD is not an evolution of UYI because UYI has Slash, Duff and Izzy on it, while CD lacks all those people. Therefore, it can't be an evolution when you have essential elements missing. CD is just a different thing, it has its Axl input but it lacks Slash solos, Duff's bass, Izzy's simple guitar....... It's an Axl album with other guys who are not GN'R.

1 hour ago, Lies They Tell said:

It just sounded strange to me when you said that you want the next GNR album to be about something that the band believes in and at the same time you're saying that Axl should forget about his musical influences and forget everything that he believes in musically speaking. That just sounded pretty damn contradictory to me. You genuinely seemed to think that Axl only wanted to appeal to the youth masses when he made NIN inspired songs, when in fact he just wants to draw inspiration from all the music that he enjoys. Just like he did in the AFD days. But yeah, at least we agree on one thing. I also hope that the next album will be a band effort. Though I wouldn't mind if they included some CD2 songs like the General in there.

If you are going to work with a team, your personal input is important but not everything that you like and not every idea that you have are meant to be used for a collaboration. If you flood the project with your ideas, inspiration and whatever, there's little room for the other people to add theirs.

Just dosify and limit your urge to capitalize a project and be kind enough to get some perspective and lend some space for other people to develop their creativity.

That's my opinion of how a team should work but it is just my opinion.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 6:08 PM, Tadsy said:

I must be in the minority of fans now who don’t even give a shit whether they release new music??

 

its obvious it’s not on Axl’s priority list, so why should it be on mine? 

Slash and duff are still motivated to release music, the other 3 don’t really matter in my eyes, that leaves Axl as the one who’s holding it up. Let’s just say this... if Axl woke up today and said, gee, “i feel like releasing new music, I’ll ring the boys up” it’s fair to say, new music would be worked on. 

So let’s not kid ourselves, it’s axl who doesn’t give a shit, and if he doesn’t give a shit why should we?

theres a very good chance this is done and there will never be a new album, the sooner people accept this, the less angry they will be when interviews like this happen and they don’t get what they want. 

This is the TB show now! If you want a release... maybe try watching for the next t shirt release, or belt buckle or bandanner... or $1000 box set!!! 

It is what it is! 

Honestly, I don't either. My mom was talking to my brother about it and saying how could GNR top the amazing songs they've already released? I mean every damn song they have written and recorded was from their hearts.

Maybe since Axl is content with his life he feels there's nothing left to say. I mean back in the day, GNR lived those songs so writing them came easily for them. Maybe Axl has said all he needs to say.

 

[Lies They Tell]

2 hours ago, killuridols said:

IMO, the main reason for CD failing is because it featured a whole different band and most fans didn't give a fuck about it by the time it was released. Even with the whole line-up changed, there were people in 1998, 1999 and early 2000's that were betting on ChinDem, that believed in it, that had hopes of it being a fantastic album, even knowing there was no Slash on it. I think if it had been released a decade earlier, the impact would have been different, because there was a scene for that type of music and there were lots of fans still supporting Axl.

As the time went by and we all saw that Axl was becoming frail, fatter, that he couldn't even keep the initial nuGNR lineup, the disenchanment was bigger, so that contributed a lot of negative vibes.

I don't know if CD was meant to revolutionize music, that is hard to predict, but I know it was the album that was meant to represent a new side of Axl, his master vision, part of the reason for why he continued with a different band under the same name instead of going solo. So, in some way, you can say that CD was a promising album, for both the fans and Axl.

LOL, yeah right, just an album!

If that's how he thought of it, then why did he spend millions of dollars on it and more of a decade to finally release it? Whatever he said makes no sense, as usual, you know he is the guy who also said "Not in this lifetime", so I really don't pay attention to his words anymore. You gotta go with the facts and the actions.

There's a reason why there's a halo of mistery surrounding those 13 years in the making of CD. There's a reason why there's so much secrecy, songs in the vault and what not. CD is a legend in the collective mind of fans. It is not something tht I made up. It is real and all of us who were there during the dark times, know what CD means in the life and history of Guns N' Roses

Nah, because no one is expecting anything anymore. There's not even a rumour of an album in the making. That's the difference with CD.

In the late 90s and early 2000's, we all knew of the existance of CD. Axl talked about it, he hired musicians to work on it, it had different working titles, he presented some songs during RIR..... I mean, the situation was vastly different from now.

The problem is that people like you see Guns N' Roses as a continuum because for you the only valid variable is Axl Rose. While the rest of us see Guns N' Roses as a collaborative effort of 5 guys who created the band back in 1985.

Axl Rose and his freaks are not Guns N' Roses. That's my stance. I am aware other people do not see it that way, but when I talk about Guns N' Roses I talk from that view of point, so there is your reference to understand me.

CD is not an evolution of UYI because UYI has Slash, Duff and Izzy on it, while CD lacks all those people. Therefore, it can't be an evolution when you have essential elements missing. CD is just a different thing, it has its Axl input but it lacks Slash solos, Duff's bass, Izzy's simple guitar....... It's an Axl album with other guys who are not GN'R.

If you are going to work with a team, your personal input is important but not everything that you like and not every idea that you have are meant to be used for a collaboration. If you flood the project with your ideas, inspiration and whatever, there's little room for the other people to add theirs.

Just dosify and limit your urge to capitalize a project and be kind enough to get some perspective and lend some space for other people to develop their creativity.

That's my opinion of how a team should work but it is just my opinion.

I guess I was one of the people who had high hopes for Chinese Democracy and it didn't disappoint. Was it exactly what I had imagined in my head? Of course not! But it was a great album. What else could you ask for? Well, apparently you could ask for some kind of a musical revolution, but that will only lead to disappointment.

Why did Axl spend millions of dollars on one album? Because he wanted to make an album that's in his and his bands opinion and in the record companies opinion worthy of the GNR name. He wasn't trying to make a musical revolution. He was trying to keep GNR alive. Now you can obviously disagree on all those things. You can say that the album wasn't worthy of the GNR name. You can say that he didn't keep GNR alive. You can even blame him for killing GNR in the first place. I'm just trying to explain his point of view here. All these things that I say are based on things that Axl's said in different interviews. In his point of view Slash and Duff left GNR and he wanted to keep the band alive for the fans. He was totally aware of how difficult it would be to recreate the magic of the old band with a new lineup. He couldn't find a blues based guitarist who could have properly replaced Slash, so he chose a different kind of guitarist instead. But he had an idea in his head about what the essence of GNR is. Axl has never described in detail, what GNR consists of in his opinion, but clearly he saw GNR as a guitar driven hard rock band, and a melting pot of different kinds of music styles that inspires the band members. But to get a more precise idea of what GNR is in his opinion, you'd have to ask him. Even though he was the only original member left, he never saw GNR as a solo project. According to him, a solo project of his would sound very different and it would be much more instrumental. Personally I bet it would sound a lot like a movie score. But in Axl's point of view GNR is something else and that's why the making of CD took such a long time and so much money, cause he was trying to create something that he thought was worthy of the GNR name. Well obviously that's not the only reason. There was all kinds of obstacles behind the scenes. Legal issues, problems with the label, band members quitting etc... But there's really no evidence at all suggesting that Axl would have tried to revolutionize music in some way. I have no doubt that Axl was sincere when he said "it's just an album". He did his best to create something that would have lived up to the GNR name, but he was fully aware that in the end it's still nothing more than just an album.

I understand very well, that some people don't consider Chinese Democracy a GNR album cause there's no Slash, Duff or Izzy. You don't think everybody understands that point of view? That's why it's so boring when people keep repeating that, cause we already know why you don't consider it a GNR album. It's just weird that it seems so difficult for people like you to talk about that album from a strictly musical point of view. Personally I'm always more interested about the art itself than the creators of the art. 

I know what it was like over here, during the so called dark times. There was a lot of mystery surrounding Chinese Democracy and there's no way it could have ever lived up to the expectations that some people had. But it's still a great album if you ask me. I don't personally rate albums based on how well they live up to some kind of hype. In my opinion that's unfair towards super hyped albums like CD cause there's no way they could lived up to the expectations. I'm sure that once GNR announce a new album, the hype train will start to roll again like crazy. So I guess the next album will be a failure too according to you.

But yeah, I agree with you on how teamwork should work.

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Lies They Tell

[Jw224]

I don't think anyone can disagree that had Chidem released earlier things would have been quite different. It is still one of my favourite albums though. Really blew me away when I first listened to it. People can disagree of course and I know the majority here do, haha. I also doubt axl enjoyed all the time working on it, he wanted to release it a few times and it was rejected, must've been frustrating. 

[killuridols]

5 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

All these things that I say are based on things that Axl's said in different interviews. In his point of view Slash and Duff left GNR and he wanted to keep the band alive for the fans. He was totally aware of how difficult it would be to recreate the magic of the old band with a new lineup. He couldn't find a blues based guitarist who could have properly replaced Slash, so he chose a different kind of guitarist instead. But he had an idea in his head about what the essence of GNR is. Axl has never described in detail, what GNR consists of in his opinion, but clearly he saw GNR as a guitar driven hard rock band, and a melting pot of different kinds of music styles that inspires the band members.

I know... but I think what he was missing there was the understanding that Guns N' Roses were made of special people, and you can go get the best guitarist on earth, but they will not be Slash. What Axl didn't understand was that the essence of the band was in the individual human beings and not so much in a "formula" that you can replicate by placing one similar guy in the spot of someone else. Neither Slash, Duff, Izzy or Steven were or are perfect musicians. The coolness of them was their imperfections, even their clueless state at times. Back in the day, GN'R was a lifestyle, an attitude, that's what the fans liked about them.

5 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

But in Axl's point of view GNR is something else and that's why the making of CD took such a long time and so much money, cause he was trying to create something that he thought was worthy of the GNR name. Well obviously that's not the only reason. There was all kinds of obstacles behind the scenes. Legal issues, problems with the label, band members quitting etc... But there's really no evidence at all suggesting that Axl would have tried to revolutionize music in some way. I have no doubt that Axl was sincere when he said "it's just an album". He did his best to create something that would have lived up to the GNR name, but he was fully aware that in the end it's still nothing more than just an album.

Well, clearly millions of dollars do not get you the replica of Slash et al

Again, you keep saying things that I did not say so I don't know how to explain this to you again.... I never said that Axl was trying to revolutionize music. There was a bubbling feeling that if he had gone lengths to replace the whole band and keep working on that project for so many years, then the project had to be some sort of masterpiece. No one puts on so much effort, money and time just to throw it all away, but maybe in Axl's world, wasting millions of money on replicating a band he had before, it is a normal thing

The man could have used all that effort and time trying to fix the relationship with those guys and have a reunion 10 years ago. But obviously, he had serious issues to overcome before this happened. I think the whole CD saga is the tale of a madman.

5 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

I understand very well, that some people don't consider Chinese Democracy a GNR album cause there's no Slash, Duff or Izzy. You don't think everybody understands that point of view? That's why it's so boring when people keep repeating that, cause we already know why you don't consider it a GNR album. It's just weird that it seems so difficult for people like you to talk about that album from a strictly musical point of view. Personally I'm always more interested about the art itself than the creators of the art. 

I don't know what other people understand... I know there are many different fans with many different opinions on CD... which is not the same as saying they like it or not. Liking an album or not is more a subjective thing and here we are talking about the process of making that album.

It's not difficult for me to talk about the music in CD but that's not what we were talking about in first place This thread is not a CD discussion thread, it just derives from you telling me that I think the new album is going to fail because of some weird interpretation you've made of my words.

If you want to talk about CD from a musical point of view then tell me what we should talk about and I will try to respond. But maybe that should be a different thread.

5 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

I don't personally rate albums based on how well they live up to some kind of hype. In my opinion that's unfair towards super hyped albums like CD cause there's no way they could lived up to the expectations. I'm sure that once GNR announce a new album, the hype train will start to roll again like crazy. So I guess the next album will be a failure too according to you.

OMG

You did not read ANYTHING of what I said before so I don't know how to explain anymore

If there ever is a new GN'R album, I hope Axl learned his lessons and he shuts the fuck up this time and only announces it when they are certain it is coming out.

Part of what ruined CD back in the day was that he talked a lot about it, he went on touring the shit several years prior to its release! and not to mention, the LEAKS.... I think thats what completely ruined it for me once the album came out.

Because Im gonna be honest here... I got all the leaks when they came out.... and I listened to them and wore them out... so much that when CD came out I was like MEH. Plus, I didn't like some of the new versions, they were different from what was in the leaks and they sounded not so good in my ears.

I have the hope that a new GN'R album with at least Slash and Duff on it will not become the monster CD was and will not suffer from all the delays and obstacles and hopefully, no leaks! Because here I agree with all artists that are against them..... leaks ruin the work of the artist and the surprise factor for the fans.... Its just so awful.