Poll: What do we as fans and consumers want?

[OmarBradley]

50 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Would you do the same for other bands who have changed their style too much? Like Fleetwood Mac. And how about all artists who have shifted from country to pop, or pop to rock, or doom to death metal. What about Beastie Boys going from punk to rap. I assume you accept only their punk albums as proper Beastie Boys albums (or was it the rap album?). Ween released a country album. But I guess you reject it as a Ween album? Radiohead was a typical guitar based, grungy outfit but turned very experimental in later releases. Blur can hardly be put into any category. And so on, and so on. Would you change all these band's discography pages on Wikipedia and what criteria would you use, simply what you subjectively feel is "true" to that band?

I agree there needs to be more definition and metrics on what is "straying too far." In the case of GNR, it's a few things. The style of music is the major one, but it is further exacerbated by the frequent lineup changes and the erratic conducting of band affairs. 

Fleetwood Mac I am familiar enough with to make a determination. The lineup that released the band's defining content stayed mostly together and mostly in the same style for the band's duration (of course like almost everything else that transitioned from 70s to 80s, the characteristics changed to match the era, but the content remained fairly stable).

I am not familiar enough with the other groups you mentioned to say either way. I would say 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 (overgeneralization, I don't want to debate why GNR dissolved, multiple parties are at fault and the view that Axl was doing what was best is something I understand, though I don't fully agree with).

I agree it's a precarious line, but GNR has violated it blatantly. Which is why it's so easy for me to continuously defend my position (in my mind at least ).

I agree too, it seems subjective when it's one person (although I know a lot of you out there agree!) driving this point. I propose we establish a committee to determine the validity of a band in regards to its name. We can set up scientific metrics, or as scientific as possible given the sometimes unscientific nature of music, but I do believe a fair set of standard metrics could be established. Now, do I care enough to take the time to diligently construct this? Not really.

Edited February 15, 2019 by OmarBradley

[OmarBradley]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You know of the Voltaire quote sir?

I am a student of political philosophy. Legere Voltaire. My Latin is rusty though. I may have just said, "you read Voltaire."

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I am not familiar enough with the other groups you mentioned to say either way. I would say 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 

This interests me. So you are okay with changing the sound of a band, but only when the whole band is behind that decision. Sounds to me your gripe is not with the fact that CD is different, but with how the UIY lineup fell apart, and like you almost punish Axl for it by refusing to accept CD as part of the band's discography. 

And then one could make a strong case for the argument that the UYI lineup didn't disintegrate mainly over disagreements over musical direction, and that the lineup that did release CD was unison in their agreement over that record's sound.

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I am a student of political philosophy. Legere Voltaire. My Latin is rusty though. I may have just said, "you read Voltaire."

I think it's in French that quote as with most of Voltaire's writings - Ce corps qui s'appelait et qui s'appelle encore le saint empire romain n'était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire.

[OmarBradley]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

This interests me. So you are okay with changing the sound of a band, but only when the whole band is behind that decision. Sounds to me your gripe is not with the fact that CD is different, but with how the UIY lineup fell apart, and like you almost punish Axl for it by refusing to accept CD as part of the band's discography. 

And then one could make a strong case for the argument that the UYI lineup didn't disintegrate mainly over disagreements over musical direction, and that the lineup that did release CD was unison in their agreement over that record's sound.

No, my gripe is that CD says "Guns N' Roses" on it, and Guns N' Roses is a hard rock band built on blues and punk. 

I am okay with a band experimenting, but CD and how GNR has conducted itself over the last 20 years are quite a bit further than "experimentation." Axl wasn't experimenting with new stylistic options, he was changing the stylistic pillars of what made GNR, GNR.

And the thought experiment of if Slash/Duff/etc. had stayed in GNR and done Axl's vision the way he wanted, doesn't work for two reasons. #1. Slash (and possibly Duff?) were clear they did not want to investigate this new stylistic territory, so had they remained they would have either been resentful or turned into lackeys - neither are ideal scenarios. #2 If Axl allowed Slash/Duff to creatively contribute to CD, it would sound very different from the album we got and it probably would feel more like GNR. So there would likely be no issue with the album being labeled by GNR.

 

[Gordon Comstock]

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.

[Tom-Ass]

CD sounded nothing like Guns N' Roses aside from some of Axl's vocals...

[RussTCB]

12 minutes 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.

Absolutely. I've referred to it as Use Your Illusion III many times since it was released. 

[OmarBradley]

22 minutes 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.

I'm genuinely interested in addressing this and taking another listen to the songs. I agree, some songs have some qualities of overlap. But my position is when considering the album as a whole, it is too far from the previous content. I should have some time later to listen and see if I either confirm my assertion, or revisit it. 

I do not at all see Better or IRS as "traditional rockers." They are both rockers, but neither are something Slash or Izzy would have written. Slash's versatility has expanded over the years, so maybe today he would explore this musical avenue, but I'm sure Izzy wouldn't. 

Sound engineering is part of this too. CD, due to litany of different musicians/instruments/tunings/sounds/layers on it, is mixed and mastered quite differently from previous GNR releases. I opened up IRS quickly now and right away you can hear it's such a different sound compared to AFD or UY (not just style, but how the music is presented sonically).

Edited February 15, 2019 by OmarBradley

[EvanG]

9 minutes 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.

^ this.

When I listened to CD for the first time I was surprised by how familiar it sounded because I expected Axl to pull a Radiohead or something like that, but it wasn't like that at all. I think the reason it doesn't necessarily sound like a GnR record is simply because Slash isn't there and he was such a crucial part of the GnR sound up until that point. Other than that, like you say, most songs sound like natural progressions from UYI.

[janrichmond]

10 minutes ago, EvanG said:

^ this.

When I listened to CD for the first time I was surprised by how familiar it sounded because I expected Axl to pull a Radiohead or something like that, but it wasn't like that at all. I think the reason it doesn't necessarily sound like a GnR record is simply because Slash isn't there and he was such a crucial part of the GnR sound up until that point. Other than that, like you say, most songs sound like natural progressions from UYI.

I was very late in listening to CD, It's not because Slash isn't on it that i dislike it. Axl sounds odd to me, i don't like the way he sounds. There's too much going on soundwise. I have tried to like it but it's not for me. 

[EvanG]

4 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

I was very late in listening to CD, It's not because Slash isn't on it that i dislike it. Axl sounds odd to me, i don't like the way he sounds. There's too much going on soundwise. I have tried to like it but it's not for me. 

I'm not crazy of the sound either. Personally I'm not a fan of overproduced records, and this one is, well, very overproduced. But underneath all those layers, there are still some great songs. Not all of them, there's too much filler for such an anticipated record, but some of them are really good in my opinion.

[Tom-Ass]

52 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I'm genuinely interested in addressing this and taking another listen to the songs. I agree, some songs have some qualities of overlap. But my position is when considering the album as a whole, it is too far from the previous content. I should have some time later to listen and see if I either confirm my assertion, or revisit it. 

I do not at all see Better or IRS as "traditional rockers." They are both rockers, but neither are something Slash or Izzy would have written. Slash's versatility has expanded over the years, so maybe today he would explore this musical avenue, but I'm sure Izzy wouldn't. 

Sound engineering is part of this too. CD, due to litany of different musicians/instruments/tunings/sounds/layers on it, is mixed and mastered quite differently from previous GNR releases. I opened up IRS quickly now and right away you can hear it's such a different sound compared to AFD or UY (not just style, but how the music is presented sonically).

I agree with all of this.. Aside from the title track I wouldn't consider any of the songs traditional rockers.. Better is the farthest thing from it or anything that Guns n' Roses ever did... Especially that awkward part near the beginning when he sings in that awful voice.. So cringeworthy... That part alone kills the song for me..

[Gordon Comstock]

1 hour ago, OmarBradley said:

I'm genuinely interested in addressing this and taking another listen to the songs. I agree, some songs have some qualities of overlap. But my position is when considering the album as a whole, it is too far from the previous content. I should have some time later to listen and see if I either confirm my assertion, or revisit it. 

I do not at all see Better or IRS as "traditional rockers." They are both rockers, but neither are something Slash or Izzy would have written. Slash's versatility has expanded over the years, so maybe today he would explore this musical avenue, but I'm sure Izzy wouldn't. 

Sound engineering is part of this too. CD, due to litany of different musicians/instruments/tunings/sounds/layers on it, is mixed and mastered quite differently from previous GNR releases. I opened up IRS quickly now and right away you can hear it's such a different sound compared to AFD or UY (not just style, but how the music is presented sonically).

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.

[Sydney Fan]

3 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Well, I would love Axl to write his autobiography because I so want to know his life before, during and after GNR. I'm pretty sure it would be so damn interesting.

I thought from previous interviews he has done one and wrote it, between 2010 and 15 he has written one but shelved the idea at the 11th hour?.

[Sydney Fan]

2 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

No, my gripe is that CD says "Guns N' Roses" on it, and Guns N' Roses is a hard rock band built on blues and punk. 

I am okay with a band experimenting, but CD and how GNR has conducted itself over the last 20 years are quite a bit further than "experimentation." Axl wasn't experimenting with new stylistic options, he was changing the stylistic pillars of what made GNR, GNR.

And the thought experiment of if Slash/Duff/etc. had stayed in GNR and done Axl's vision the way he wanted, doesn't work for two reasons. #1. Slash (and possibly Duff?) were clear they did not want to investigate this new stylistic territory, so had they remained they would have either been resentful or turned into lackeys - neither are ideal scenarios. #2 If Axl allowed Slash/Duff to creatively contribute to CD, it would sound very different from the album we got and it probably would feel more like GNR. So there would likely be no issue with the album being labeled by GNR.

 

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.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Sydney Fan

[Tom-Ass]

20 minutes 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.

Key phrase here "but the artist behind them (Axl) is recognizable".   To most fans Guns N' Roses was more than just Axl..  Sure Axl's influence was recognizable (and his voice obviously) but that hardly made it sound like Guns n' Roses.. It just sounded like what an Axl Rose solo album would sound like..  Axl's voice is probably the the thing that is most unique to Guns N' Roses sound but there was so much else that contributed to making the music great.   CD just didn't sound like Guns N' Roses.. It was missing the Izzy and Duffs backing vocals, the attitude, the Slash/Izzy signature guitars, the organic cohesiveness the classic lineups had as a band, the classic rock on steroids sound that the world fell in love with.

If you were into Guns mostly almost solely for Axl I can see why one might relate to CD and think it was a natural progression.. It may have been Axl's natural progression but the band was so much more than one man and his "vision". 

[Azifwekare]

2 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

No, my gripe is that CD says "Guns N' Roses" on it, and Guns N' Roses is a hard rock band built on blues and punk. 

I am okay with a band experimenting, but CD and how GNR has conducted itself over the last 20 years are quite a bit further than "experimentation." Axl wasn't experimenting with new stylistic options, he was changing the stylistic pillars of what made GNR, GNR.

And the thought experiment of if Slash/Duff/etc. had stayed in GNR and done Axl's vision the way he wanted, doesn't work for two reasons. #1. Slash (and possibly Duff?) were clear they did not want to investigate this new stylistic territory, so had they remained they would have either been resentful or turned into lackeys - neither are ideal scenarios. #2 If Axl allowed Slash/Duff to creatively contribute to CD, it would sound very different from the album we got and it probably would feel more like GNR. So there would likely be no issue with the album being labeled by GNR.

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.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Azifwekare

[Gordon Comstock]

5 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said:

If you were into Guns mostly almost solely for Axl I can see why one might relate to CD and think it was a natural progression.. It may have been Axl's natural progression but the band was so much more than one man and his "vision". 

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.

[Azifwekare]

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?

[WhazUp]

2 hours ago, janrichmond said:

I was very late in listening to CD, It's not because Slash isn't on it that i dislike it. Axl sounds odd to me, i don't like the way he sounds. There's too much going on soundwise. I have tried to like it but it's not for me. 

For me, the big fault with the album is the layering and re-re-re-re-recording of instrumental parts to songs.  Listening to the demo of Catcher In The Rye, there is so much more space the song has where it breathes organically - whereas the studio album version sounds cramped at times and especially wearing headphones can distract from the most import thing that should be elevated - the main melody

I am sure songs like Scraped would have rocked WAY harder and had a much better impact if it was recorded with the drums/bass/guitars live.  Tracks that are recorded live like that tend to groove way harder in my experience because of the fact that you have musicians playing off each other, as opposed to playing to pre-recorded tracks already done

I like Chinese, and I listen to it every now and then.  But I just wish some aspects of it were different because I feel like it would have benefitted the core songwriting Axl had done

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

No, my gripe is that CD says "Guns N' Roses" on it, and Guns N' Roses is a hard rock band built on blues and punk. 

I am okay with a band experimenting, but CD and how GNR has conducted itself over the last 20 years are quite a bit further than "experimentation." Axl wasn't experimenting with new stylistic options, he was changing the stylistic pillars of what made GNR, GNR.

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.

[DieselDaisy]

For me a ''band'' comprises the personnel. I see the personnel as dictating the band, not legalities/technical ownership, nor musical direction. The band nomenclature, here ''Guns N' Roses'', describes the sound that is produced when those dramatis personæ are so assembled. Look on it like chemistry: water would not be water without one water molecule and two hydrogen atoms. Equally, bread wouldn't rise without yeast. So by removing Slash from Guns N' Roses you are removing a sizable chunk of what constitutes ''Guns N' Roses''. You are removing a core base ingredient. Now if you continue removing guys and are only left with one chap, as what happened with Rose's newgnr venture, then there isn't really much left of Guns N' Roses, is there? Equally if you started lopping off Beatles personnel - commencing with Ringo, proceeding to Harrison before cutting-off one of the ''big two'' - the Beatles would've ceased to be The Beatles.

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

For me a ''band'' comprises the personnel. I see the personnel as dictating the band, not legalities/technical ownership, nor musical direction. The band nomenclature, here ''Guns N' Roses'', describes the sound that is produced when those dramatis personæ are so assembled. Look on it like chemistry: water would not be water without one water molecule and two hydrogen atoms. Equally, bread wouldn't rise without yeast. So by removing Slash from Guns N' Roses you are removing a sizable chunk of what constitutes ''Guns N' Roses''. You are removing a core base ingredient. Now if you continue removing guys and are only left with one chap, as what happened with Rose's newgnr venture, then there isn't really much left of Guns N' Roses, is there? Equally if you started lopping off Beatles personnel - commencing with Ringo, proceeding to Harrison before cutting-off one of the ''big two'' - the Beatles would've ceased to be The Beatles.

So the band currently playing as "Fleetwood Mac" is really only "2/5 Fleetwood Mac" and "Megadeth" is really only, what, "1/5 Megadeth"?  Those are the kind of absurdities we get into if we want to apply that logic consistently. Most bands change their lineup. That is just what it is.

And water consists of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So the band currently playing as "Fleetwood Mac" is really only "2/5 Fleetwood Mac" and "Megadeth" is really only, what, "1/5 Megadeth"?  Those are the kind of absurdities we get into if we want to apply that logic consistently. Most bands change their lineup. That is just what it is.

And water consists of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.

The Mac are a band who shaped two consecutive identities though, and had their biggest success during the second of those. I would say their situation is somewhat unique, although Purple did something similar. Megadeth were conceived as a one man/revolving door type operation, like a Newgnr but from the onset. Guns were conceived as an amalgam of constituent parts. Slash's guitar is more identifiable as ''Guns N' Roses'' than Chris Poland is for Megadeth. You remove Slash and you do not have Guns N' Roses's quintessential (non-vocal) sound. 

I told you I'm not tolerably interested in science, didn't I? But the point still stands.