Poll: What do we as fans and consumers want?

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The two post-Morrison Doors albums also. Some people are not even aware of their existence. 

Even I've forgotten their names   Voices?  Inner Circle?  Some vague hippie sounding shit like that anyway.

[EvanG]

CD reminds me of Soul Asylum's last record. They released their first record in 1984 and their last in 2016 and that one was also the first to have the last original remaining member. In the last thirty years the other members got fired, died, or quit the band. I can guarantee you that almost everyone in the fan community considers the last one as a ''real Soul Asylum record''. The  difference with CD is that the original member in Soul Asylum is the singer/guitarist/main songwriter, so even if the other original members had still been part of it, the record probably would have sounded the same for the most part. With CD there's a lot missing in sound and songwriting that people know from the previous records and therefore it doesn't sound like how they expect GnR to sound like, but it is what it is. It's all subjective. (fun trivia fact of the day: Tommy Stinson played in both bands at the same time)

[Tom-Ass]

14 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

This is sort of how you have to look at CD, though. Obviously the band was different, there is no "It's So Easy" or "You Could Be Mine" on CD, and that kind of sound isn't really what I compare it to. I look at it like this: Garden of Eden, Dead Horse, Breakdown, Coma, they're all great rock songs, filled with "Axl-isms". Axl was taking the basic hard rock sound of the band, and adding effects to it, for better or worse. In general, that's what he did with CD, IRS, Scraped, etc. And the 'epics/ballads' are a fairly clear progression IMO. But there is some retention of the classic styles, even though they're not exactly what Slash would've done. There's lots of bluesy soloing on the record, plenty of songs that Slash could've easily adapted to IMO. It's not as far removed from UYI as some people make it out to be.

I disagree with you on a lot of things Gn'R but I always like "debating" with you. You're always remain respectful of differing opinions, not afraid to admit when you agree  and have well thought out answers. Even when they are wrong

[Gordon Comstock]

2 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

I disagree with you on a lot of things Gn'R but I always like "debating" with you. You're always remain respectful of differing opinions, not afraid to admit when you agree  and have well thought out answers. Even when they are wrong

Thanks There's plenty to debate and disagree with about this band, but we're all fans for one reason or another, I enjoy discussing and reading other opinions about them.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 11:38 AM, cqleonardo said:

line up wise: kick Frank and bring Matt back (couldn't give two fucks about Izzy or Gilby)

setlist wise: just mix the order, play the same show 1000 times but mix the order of the songs like you did on the Illusions tour, start one show with Easy, the other with Jungle... always thought how would be to start a show with Paradise City....

releases wise: new album, new dvd/bluray of the last tour, Illusions and CD box sets, a vault of live concerts like Springsteen does.

Well, since Axl had major issues with Matt, I doubt he'd be asked to come back.

I wish Steven was healthy enough to tour with GNR. I know he would be thrilled and it would be so cool to see him back on stage with Axl, Slash and Duff. I think Richard is an excellent guitar player and can hold his own with Slash and since Izzy is not reliable I don't see him coming back to the band full time.

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:15 AM, MaskingApathy said:

I bought one of those. It looks great.

Wow that sounds cool. How long ago did you buy this?

[viruzzz]

New album, of course, I need to hear new music from these guys.

But I think I'd be happier with a Chinese box set with all of those songs we've heard about MANY MANY times.

[OmarBradley]

 

15 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Okay, because when you wrote this, "it's fine for bands to explore other styles with their releases, but that's a decision that must be made by the band together, not the guy who wrangled the rights to the name and then drove everyone away with his new stylistic pursuit", it really sounded like it was more how it was done that was the problem with GN'R, not that it was done. But from what you wrote now it sounds like you accept experimenting but not any permanent changes to the stylistic pillars (at least when it comes to GN'R), which of course would be a huge problem to many bands and artists who have had their sound evolve far more than what GN'R has. David Bowie springs to mind. Would you say that fans from the early years of David Bowie, who - if they were are editors of Wikipedia - would be in the right to remove Bowie's later albums from his discography because there is a permanence to his change in musical style? Or maybe it is just bands that change style that you seem to object to, and not individual artists. If so we could talk about Beatles. The musical style of Please Please Me with songs like 'Love Me Do' is quite different from the experimental nature of The White Album (with songs like 'Helter Skelter' and "Revolution 9'). How do you handle that cognitive dissonance? You just say it is okay because everybody in Beatles was behind that change in style from be-bop rock to reverse tapes and psychedelics? What I am trying to figure out, which I know you know, is if you are consistent in your objections or if this really only is about GN'R. And what about Artic Monkeys? They started out with a post-punk revival album and with AM it was a mishmash of contemporary rock with hiphop, heavy metal, and desert rock influences. If you had given AM to kids dancing to "I Bet You Look Good on the Dance Floor" I bet they'd refuse to accept it was the same band.

Yes, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, etc. are more individual artists than they are bands. And I'd argue they care more about lyrical content and songwriting than they do about music. For me, music is priority #1 in a song (including vocal melody, but not including lyrical content). Despite the fact many people remember bands by song titles/lyrics, it is often (but not always) the music which makes the lasting impression on you, causing you to remember those words. In the case of GNR, I think it's pretty safe to say most of us are attracted to the music primarily and we possibly identify with lyrical content on a secondary level, depending on the song. 

No issue with The Beatles for the following reasons: The Beatles took their stylistic trip together. It's also worth noting the sonic transition you mentioned was partially due to time, the early 60s was the time of 12 bar blues rock (and the 50s of course), the late 60s is when many bands started to experiment. The Beatles were perhaps slightly ahead of the curve in this regard and they almost certainly contributed to future experimentation in the genre, but you can still find blues rocky songs on the later albums. They are a bit more evolved from some of the stuff on the early records, but they're still there alongside the experimental stuff. Although the later Beatles albums are unquestionably different from the early ones, the circumstances and the significance of experimentation are not enough to warrant a name change.

I'm not too familiar with The Arctic Monkeys, I would ask what is their defining content? What other circumstances affected the band that led to stylistic change?

Shinedown is a good example. They were a modernish rock band when they first started ~10+ years ago. Over the course of their existence, every member has left except the singer and a lot of their songs have drifted into the pop rock territory. I would say the current band should not be called Shinedown, due to the extreme personnel change and the music having drifted a bit from the earlier material. This drift is not as drastic as CD, but the personnel component is important, as @DieselDaisy is describing.

21 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

To anyone who thinks that CD is 'too modern' or 'too experimental' or etc etc, genuine question:

Have you actually listened to literally anything released in the last 20 years that wasn't by some bog-standard Led Zep (or, god forbid, Nirvana) wannabes?

I don't think it is too modern or too experimental. I think it is too experimental to be called Guns N' Roses. I have listened to many things released in the last 20 years and very little of it is Zep or Nirvana rip offs. I'm struggling to think of any band I listen to that is derivative of either of those artists (or any major 70s/80s acts in general). I was going to say The Answer for Zepp, but they're really isn't much overlap. I don't listen to Greta or Airborne.

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The two post-Morrison Doors albums also. Some people are not even aware of their existence. 

I did not know of their existence until this post.

23 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

CD isn't that much of a departure from UYI, though. It could be argued that Street Of Dreams, Prostitute, Catcher, and This I Love are fairly natural progressions from the piano-based UYI songs (like November Rain or Estranged), or that Sorry, Madagascar and maybe There Was A Time are progressions of the 'experimental' songs (like The Garden, Coma or My World). CD, Better and IRS are relatively traditional rockers... the only songs that really stick out as 'non-GNR sounding' are Shackler's, If The World, Scraped and Riad.

Yes, it makes sense that those four songs feel more UYI because they revolve around Axl singing over a piano. But the rest of the album, that isn't based on piano melodies, doesn't sound like UYI. I was going to systemically go through each one, but this forum is just taking up too much of my time and I have two brand new games I need to play.
Things like Scraped, Riad, Better, IRS, Shackler's, Sorry, and TWAT are not things any musician from the UYI lineup (aside Axl) would have explored on their own. The guitars use scales Slash/Izzy have probably never heard of, and syncopation and abstract dynamics are utilized. Slash is very much about straight up Eb 4/4 guitar riff-based rock music, the "rockers" on CD are not really riff based and the tunings seem to vary depending on song.

22 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

I can see why people think it's too far removed - it's a different band and a different sound. The production is very different from the other albums. But the themes/ideas/styles are at least somewhat comparable, the sounds are different but the artist behind them (Axl) is recognizable.

Aside from the intro/outro of Better, it's basically the kind of song I would expect to hear from Axl Rose in the mid-2000's. It's a rocker with modern elements, that retains some classic characteristics (the vocals, the guitar solo, etc). Same with IRS, at it's core it's a bluesy hard rock song with modern elements (though the final version suffers a lot from over-production). If Slash and Duff can keep the 'Axl-isms' to a minimum then I can imagine an album of similar rockers. Is the song Chinese Democracy, aside from the intro, really that far removed from say, Garden of Eden? Slash doing 'heavier' (I don't want to say 'metal') stuff like Nothing To Say, or some stuff from Contraband, makes me think he'd fit songs similar to Better or CD quite well in the studio.

So the first half of your post seems to confirm what I'm saying? Some of CD sounds like Axl because Axl is the only holdover from the UYI days? Simply containing a guitar solo is not a significant overlapping quality between the music, IMO. I agree that CD is probably the closest rocker on CD to AFD/UYI. It's a short, simple riff-based song that doesn't really take any stylistic liberties. 

21 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

Slash did mention in interviews and his book that he was prepared try some industrial stuff into guns as long as there was an overall approval within the rest of the band of moving to what sort of music axl wanted guns to represent. What killed this was the inertia of axl not knowing where guns needed to go and the communication between axl and slash was now becoming non existant.

I did read Slash's book, and while I don't remember that part, I believe you. Appreciate you bringing it up. I do recall though it's said that It's 5 O'clock is what Slash would have brought to the table for the next Guns record. It's pretty standard Slash hard rock. Meshing that with Axl's new interests would have still yielded a fairly GNRish sound.

21 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

Except it's not though, is it? What CD was rumoured to be and what we eventually heard are two completely different things. To anyone who didn't bother listening, it would be easy to assume it would be some kind of industrial/hip hop/electronica/whatever the fuck thing, but what we actually got was basically UYI III.

The only genuine difference in sound is that Robin's choppier riffs and Bucket's shredding are in place of Slash's sleazier style. Everything else is just down to a more modern production, which classic Guns would no doubt have also used had they stayed together and released albums in the 2000's. They would have followed through with the 95/96 'lost album' so Slash could get all the bluesy stuff out of his system, then experimented with industrial à la Oh My God, then released a CD-style album.

I disagree. Modern production is not the only difference, nor is it really the issue. Modern production shouldn't = overproduction. Plenty of bare-bones modern rock acts have crisp and fresh sounding records.

The songwriting (especially on the rockers) and production style, is what makes this album so different from past GNR releases.

Edited February 16, 2019 by OmarBradley

[Tom-Ass]

2 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Well, since Axl had major issues with Matt, I doubt he'd be asked to come back.

Didn't they hang out a few years ago?

[MaskingApathy]

2 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Wow that sounds cool. How long ago did you buy this?

Sometime last fall I think, from HT.

[History2010]

40 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I do recall though it's said that It's 5 O'clock is what Slash would have brought to the table for the next Guns record.

One of the things that's interesting about that record is that both Axl and Duff rejected it. People like to think it was an Axl decision but there was a clear consensus between Duff and Axl that it shouldn't be the kind of sound that GNR would evolve into.

Edited February 16, 2019 by History2010

[OmarBradley]

1 minute ago, History2010 said:

One of the things that's interesting about that record is that both Axl and Duff rejected it. People like to think  it was an Axl decision there was a clear consensus between Duff and Axl that it shouldn't be the kind of sound that GNR would evolve into.

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

[Gordon Comstock]

19 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

Yes, it makes sense that those four songs feel more UYI because they revolve around Axl singing over a piano. But the rest of the album, that isn't based on piano melodies, doesn't sound like UYI. I was going to systemically go through each one, but this forum is just taking up too much of my time and I have two brand new games I need to play.

Things like Scraped, Riad, Better, IRS, Shackler's, Sorry, and TWAT are not things any musician from the UYI lineup (aside Axl) would have explored on their own. The guitars use scales Slash/Izzy have probably never heard of, and syncopation and abstract dynamics are utilized. Slash is very much about straight up Eb 4/4 guitar riff-based rock music, the "rockers" on CD are not really riff based and the tunings seem to vary depending on song.

So the first half of your post seems to confirm what I'm saying? Some of CD sounds like Axl because Axl is the only holdover from the UYI days? Simply containing a guitar solo is not a significant overlapping quality between the music, IMO. I agree that CD is probably the closest rocker on CD to AFD/UYI. It's a short, simple riff-based song that doesn't really take any stylistic liberties.

I wasn't trying to say that they sound exactly like UYI songs, but Axl's influence on the material is recognizable enough that CD isn't totally alien to the rest of the catalogue, especially considering that each of the classic albums progressed and explored new styles. Given what we've heard about Axl's musical tastes in the early-mid 90's it's not hard to imagine he would've explored songs like TWAT and Madagascar regardless of who was in the band. Sorry is like a progression of the experimental UYI stuff, like the outro to Locomotive or The Garden, just by a 40-something Axl instead of a 20-something Axl.

We agree that it's a different style from the previous albums, but there are some similarities, mainly to the 'Axl songs' where he had to pull Slash out of his comfort zone. Buckethead's solo on There Was A Time, for example, isn't something that's really 'true to the spirit' of classic GNR. (It's still the best solo on the album tho). But Robin's solo on This I Love, for example, is good enough to hold up to the classic material and isn't a complete stylistic departure from 'GNR'. It's definitely still Robin's style of playing, and I'm not saying it's necessarily better or worse than any classic solo, but it's 'Robin doing a GNR-esque solo', which is all you could really expect on an album like CD. I think CD is a good enough album to hold up to the back catalog, and I view it as Axl progressing the GNR sound (and not doing something totally unexpected, like an album full of Silkworms-type songs), but I can see the other side of the argument too.

[History2010]

27 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

Duff's book if I recall correctly. He said something to the effect of that he was at the meeting where Axl called it "too southern rock for GNR" and that he agreed with Axl.

Edited February 16, 2019 by History2010

[Blackstar]

18 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

Gilby, in 1994:

"Well, it's an Axl thing. He just wasn't into what we were doing, so he's kind of rethinking what he wants to do. He just kind of threw a wrench into everything that me, Slash and Matt had worked to. And then Duff came in.
"Duff and Axl have an idea what the album should be, and the rest of us have another idea. So right now, we're not gonna do anything.

http://www.a-4-d.com/t607-1994-05-24-interview-with-gilby

And Duff, in his autobiography:

What made dealing with Axl maddening was the fact that he and I were also in agreement on a lot of things. One of the points of contention between Slash and Axl was a batch of songs Slash brought to the table. Axl thought it was Southern rock—not Guns N’ Roses material. I backed Axl.

[Slash had said in interviews of the time that Axl had used the words "redneck" (for one of the songs) and "retro", not southern rock]

Duff seemingly wasn't particularly fond of the epic ballads, but he was more open to experimenting with different stuff, e.g. rap. And he genuinely likes My World , he has said so in a couple of interviews.

 

[History2010]

1 minute ago, Blackstar said:

Gilby, in 1994:

"Well, it's an Axl thing. He just wasn't into what we were doing, so he's kind of rethinking what he wants to do. He just kind of threw a wrench into everything that me, Slash and Matt had worked to. And then Duff came in.
"Duff and Axl have an idea what the album should be, and the rest of us have another idea. So right now, we're not gonna do anything.

http://www.a-4-d.com/t607-1994-05-24-interview-with-gilby

And Duff, in his autobiography:

What made dealing with Axl maddening was the fact that he and I were also in agreement on a lot of things. One of the points of contention between Slash and Axl was a batch of songs Slash brought to the table. Axl thought it was Southern rock—not Guns N’ Roses material. I backed Axl.

[Slash had said in interviews of the time that Axl had used the words "redneck" (for one of the songs) and "retro", not southern rock]

Duff seemingly wasn't particularly fond of the epic ballads, but he was more open to experimenting with different stuff, e.g. rap. And he genuinely likes My World , he has said so in a couple of interviews.

 

Thank you so much for digging those up! Those quotes are very useful. 

[Sydney Fan]

3 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

Its in duffs autobiography 

[DieselDaisy]

Must have been drunk, which thinking about it is highly probably, when he listened to Snakepit and heard ''southern rock''. 

[Caught_in_a_Coma]

I want a bluesy-rock album predominantly written by Axl, Slash, Duff and Fortus with some involvement from Izzy (I'd like more involvement from Izzy, but I'm thinking best case scenario, he'd only be involved with a song or a few songs).  I'd like Steven to handle the drums on one of the songs and maybe even Sorum too (maybe even Gilby playing on a song since he never got a chance to contribute on new material when he was in the band outside of covers from TSI and possibly the cover of Sympathy For The Devil?)

[Tom-Ass]

28 minutes ago, Caught_in_a_Coma said:

I want a bluesy-rock album predominantly written by Axl, Slash, Duff and Fortus with some involvement from Izzy (I'd like more involvement from Izzy, but I'm thinking best case scenario, he'd only be involved with a song or a few songs).  I'd like Steven to handle the drums on one of the songs and maybe even Sorum too (maybe even Gilby playing on a song since he never got a chance to contribute on new material when he was in the band outside of covers from TSI and possibly the cover of Sympathy For The Devil?)

I would even accept Fortus with open arms if we could have the rest of that scenario..

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Must have been drunk, which thinking about it is highly probably, when he listened to Snakepit and heard ''southern rock''. 

Aside from the Beggar's and Hangers riff  I agree...

[soon]

13 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said:

Aside from the Beggar's and Hangers riff  I agree...

I hear it a bit in the riff of Jizz Da Pit too. And the verse riff of Hate Everybody But You. Nowhere else though.

A lot of Slashs riffing during the verses on the album is really Boogie Woogie in style. And I guess Southern Rock also sometimes takes inspiration from Boogie Woogie. Even though Boogie is an early rock form that influenced all forms of rock n roll, I sometimes wonder if that connection is why the Southern Rock comparison has lives on? Well, that and the banjo.

[DTJ80]

Do we know exactly how many songs were presented for the next GNR album? It may well be that what was put forward are the ones that had tinges of the Southern Rock as above?

I like some stuff of the first Snakepit album - Beggars and Soma in particular - but if the majority had been on the next GNR album I think it would have been a big step down from UYI. There wasn’t enough top grade material IMO - and clearly Duff agreed with Axl.

[zigzagbigbag]

I still don’t get why some of you still ask for an official release of shows we already got in proper quality (for ages), like Ritz 88 or Saskatoon?!

Give me some awesome shows from AFD or UYI era which have never been available as sbd/pro shot bootlegs to date. 

[DTJ80]

32 minutes ago, zigzagbigbag said:

I still don’t get why some of you still ask for an official release of shows we already got in proper quality (for ages), like Ritz 88 or Saskatoon?!

Give me some awesome shows from AFD or UYI era which have never been available as sbd/pro shot bootlegs to date. 

But it’s not proper quality though - official packaging/properly mastered/5.1 mix etc. Saskatoon must have been considered for official release at somepoint hence the pro-shot. I noted those two as they are probably the most famous bootlegged videos and it’s been left to the fans to get them to a point where they have been fixed/menus added etc.

I would take any gig TBH - the Tokyo DVDs aren’t exactly the best representation of the band.

[zigzagbigbag]

14 minutes ago, DTJ80 said:

But it’s not proper quality though - official packaging/properly mastered/5.1 mix etc. Saskatoon must have been considered for official release at somepoint hence the pro-shot. I noted those two as they are probably the most famous bootlegged videos and it’s been left to the fans to get them to a point where they have been fixed/menus added etc.

I would take any gig TBH - the Tokyo DVDs aren’t exactly the best representation of the band.

Well, at the end of the day its a nobrainer for me that I always prefer an unreleased show from the golden era over a show we already got as pro shot, even if the latter would be an upgrade in quality compared to the booteg version. 

[DTJ80]

26 minutes ago, zigzagbigbag said:

Well, at the end of the day its a nobrainer for me that I always prefer an unreleased show from the golden era over a show we already got as pro shot, even if the latter would be an upgrade in quality compared to the booteg version. 

I suppose when you are also a fan of bands like MetallicA and RUSH, you get a bit spoilt I suppose - their live DVDs etc are superb! Just a bit annoying that they have this stuff and yet we have to ‘fend for ourselves’. But I respect your opinion. 👍