The Release of Chinese Democracy

[Patience 4 Axl]

I agree that many people Still do not know who is in the line up now. I know many who thought it was Slash wearing a bucket on his head at the VMA's...

But that was four years ago. At that time sure, I'm sure most people thought Axl and Slash were still together. But how can this still be the case, after the VMAs, tour, and especially VR? Behind the Music has been aired about a zillion times too, and details the fact the band broke up. These are all things that reach the mainstream music fan.

I'm sure most fans don't know who's actually in the band today, but the ones who think it's the same band as it was back in the day have got to be a small minority by now.

But Nothing New has happened in 4 years...

I think the confusion lies with Axl's insistence on keeping the name. Many people assume it's Guns N Roses, the original group that gave us all the great music that even the casual fan has heard.

And that is what will initially sell the album. That also explains why GH sold so well. From there it depends on how good the album is to maitain sales and to continue to grow a fan base with the new lineup.

[Turn_It_Up]

I agree that after the one shot VMA's and brief 2002 tour many still were not aware of Nu-GNR and the new lineup. But I do have to think that VR has changed much of this. Sure there's teen girls and so forth who probably still don't know, but they aren't going to buy a GNR record anyways. Of the predominantly male audience that would be expected to buy a GNR album, not all, but a good portion will be aware.

There will be enough Axl fans, starved rock fans and curiosity seekers to ensure at least decent sales. How far it catches on beyond that is a big mystery that will only be answered in time...

Edited February 4, 2006 by Turn_It_Up

[Turn_It_Up]

I also can't wait to see if they put a nice, big picture of the new band on the back of the cd. You know that everyone at the record stores will be picking that thing up out of curiosity and looking at the back for a picture of what GNR looks like now--even those thinking it's still the old lineup.

I don't think the record company has the guts and frankly, will be too intelligent to do the picture. Will be fun to see how they handle that. Probably just Axl featured, or no photo at all.

Imagine being one of these other guys and working for this many years on the record, and then after all the shit not even being shown on the cd...

Edited February 5, 2006 by Turn_It_Up

[Kickingthehabit]

The album will have moderate success due to the curiosity of some fans..

However, when the general public realizes that this band isn't the Guns N' Roses they remember,.. expect a backlash of sorts.

You need to realize that beyond these little Guns N' Roses communities, no one respects Rose's decision to continue using the name.

Hell,.. in 2002, Rolling Stone magazine named them the most "Freaky-Deaky Looking Band of the year"..

Does that sound like the same Guns N' Roses that was held in such high regard?

I know it's hard for some of you to understand this because you are young and idolize Rose, but, to the millions who experienced the real band.. he is no substitute for the original Guns N' Roses.

Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy were all catalysts to the success of the original band. Each played an important role in the songwriting and musical direction of Guns N' Roses.

This album will do more to hurt Axl's ego since he's labelled it a 'Gn'r' effort.. without actually having 'Gn'r'.

-Kickingthehabit

Honestly I think most people are over this, at least they should be by now. Good God, it's only been 7 years now since the last of the old band left. I'd rather have the old guys back just as much as you but fans have to accept the way things are, at least for now.

You'd be surprised..

If you look at the 2002 tour,.. it was a complete flop..

Clear Channel even commented on the issue.. stating that .."this Guns N' Roses will not be a stadium band."

The entire tour was marketed around the 'Triumphant Return of Guns N' Roses'... and many fans of the original band purchased tickets.

However, Clear Channel couldn't understand why fans were returning tickets.. and why arena's that could hold 18,000.. barely filled 7,000 seats.

Note that the original band toured across the world, and filled 30,000(+) seated stadiums..

The fact that Guns N' Roses- Greatest Hits were released, and sold over 2 million copies only proves that the popularity is in the original band,.. not in the failed reincarnation.

I can guarantee you fans won't simply 'accept it'.. because it doesn't work that way.

Don't you remember the backlash Steven Tyler received when he tried to carry on without Perry and Whitford?

Rose may release a good album,.. but it will always be overshadowed by the legacy of the real Guns N' Roses.. - the Guns N' Roses that the world remembers.

I may very well be nostalgic,.. but when it comes down to the heart and soul of what a band is.. not even the greatest studio musicians will ever replace or redefine the legacy that the original band built.

I hope that's something we can all agree on..

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to the reality of it..

Most 'fans' on this board would rather believe what is written on contract, than acknowledge what was written in history..

What a sad state we're in..

-Kickingthehabit

[FearofSlash]

CD will take a while before it starts to pick up sales. this is basically a brand new band to most people so it is basically their debute album. i think there will be little as far as advertising before the album comes out but if they go on tour that they will push it hardcore for the tour and use that as their promotional tool. i think if a tour happens as the tour goes on the word about axl being back and hopefully good will spread leading to bigger live crowds and higher CD sales.

[KBear]

The album will have moderate success due to the curiosity of some fans..

However, when the general public realizes that this band isn't the Guns N' Roses they remember,.. expect a backlash of sorts.

You need to realize that beyond these little Guns N' Roses communities, no one respects Rose's decision to continue using the name.

Hell,.. in 2002, Rolling Stone magazine named them the most "Freaky-Deaky Looking Band of the year"..

Does that sound like the same Guns N' Roses that was held in such high regard?

I know it's hard for some of you to understand this because you are young and idolize Rose, but, to the millions who experienced the real band.. he is no substitute for the original Guns N' Roses.

Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy were all catalysts to the success of the original band. Each played an important role in the songwriting and musical direction of Guns N' Roses.

This album will do more to hurt Axl's ego since he's labelled it a 'Gn'r' effort.. without actually having 'Gn'r'.

-Kickingthehabit

Honestly I think most people are over this, at least they should be by now. Good God, it's only been 7 years now since the last of the old band left. I'd rather have the old guys back just as much as you but fans have to accept the way things are, at least for now.

You'd be surprised..

If you look at the 2002 tour,.. it was a complete flop..

Clear Channel even commented on the issue.. stating that .."this Guns N' Roses will not be a stadium band."

The entire tour was marketed around the 'Triumphant Return of Guns N' Roses'... and many fans of the original band purchased tickets.

However, Clear Channel couldn't understand why fans were returning tickets.. and why arena's that could hold 18,000.. barely filled 7,000 seats.

Note that the original band toured across the world, and filled 30,000(+) seated stadiums..

The fact that Guns N' Roses- Greatest Hits were released, and sold over 2 million copies only proves that the popularity is in the original band,.. not in the failed reincarnation.

I can guarantee you fans won't simply 'accept it'.. because it doesn't work that way.

Don't you remember the backlash Steven Tyler received when he tried to carry on without Perry and Whitford?

Rose may release a good album,.. but it will always be overshadowed by the legacy of the real Guns N' Roses.. - the Guns N' Roses that the world remembers.

I may very well be nostalgic,.. but when it comes down to the heart and soul of what a band is.. not even the greatest studio musicians will ever replace or redefine the legacy that the original band built.

I hope that's something we can all agree on..

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to the reality of it..

Most 'fans' on this board would rather believe what is written on contract, than acknowledge what was written in history..

What a sad state we're in..

-Kickingthehabit

The 2002 tour featured a revamped lineup with no album or even a single to back it up. If CC actually thought the 2002 tour was going to be as successful as the Illusion tour, but on a smaller scale, they are truly delusional. If their conclusion after the fact was that this version of GN'R couldn't play stadiums they are truly idiots. A half assed effort produced half assed results, there is no more to it than that.

I don't disagree with your general feeling however. I want a reunion like crazy and I've always given Slash and Izzy so much credit for the old material. The old band was one of a kind and these last ten years, still their prime years, could've been really special if they could have just found a way to make it work. I don't really want to say they were wasted years, because both sides did what they thought they had to do, but these are years they will never get back.

I don't have any real disgust over Axl continuing to use the name, but I will always recognize the difference between the old band and the new one. They are not the same thing, far from it. So I think I'm acknowledging what is written in history. My point is that there is nothing we can do about it. It's not our decision to make. I accept it and look forward to what will surely be a treat to hear, and just hope that what Axl gives us will at least live up to the quality of the old material. As long as that happens it'll be fine. The damage has already been done.

[bin laden killed gnr]

The same situation as Motley.....all of their fans thought it would transform things, the media rode it a little bit and now what? Noone outside of the fanbase really gives a fuck. Yeah GNR were bigger than motley but the ketword is were.

If AXL doesnt rant, the media won't give a shit, if he doesn't get in trouble, he'll take the backseat to Blink 182. After all, the "bizz" is all about what the kiddies want, not what the down to earth people want. Kiddies don't want GNR, they want bubblegum punk bands and wanna be's showing them the new fashion fad.

GNR, do you know where you are? You in the underground baby, love it or die....

[The Sandman]

Good points kickingthehabit, problem was, it was billed as the Chi Dem tour, without Chi Dem. I guarantee, that with Chi Dem, it would have been so much more successful.

[Revolver]

I never got into GNR just for Axl, they were a band that had great songs, and 5 different personalities. I admire Axl and he is one of my favorite rock singers, but I think the esteem he is held in on this forum is fairly overblown. I am waiting for "Chinese Democracy" like the rest of you, and atleast until the album comes out, I'm not aligning myself with any faction. But if f "Chinese Democracy" comes out and is worth the wait, it will not change the world, it will not be a huge sensation, it will satisfy us (hopefully) and Axl will be redeemed. To think that CD will have videos on MTV 24/7 is just ridiculous, most see him as a drug-addled relic of the 80's (not me).

i agree, after all, how can 2 mediocre guitarists create a sensational, challenging album. unless axl has some trick up his sleeve (buckethead, thal, izzy, zakk), CD probably won't ever hit no.1. GNR fans demand awesome guitar, and this duo ain't enough

I don't know if you do agree, I think CD could be wonderful, and I also think the band is immensely talented. But it sure as hell isn't going to register with the public on the level many of us believe it will.

I think you'd be very surprised. It will be a huge album - not one that takes over the world - but definately a huge rock album.

well it have already been the album woth the longest wait and the most money so.... even if it wont be the greatest album it will sure take over alot of the world.

[KBear]

The same situation as Motley.....all of their fans thought it would transform things, the media rode it a little bit and now what? Noone outside of the fanbase really gives a fuck. Yeah GNR were bigger than motley but the ketword is were.

If AXL doesnt rant, the media won't give a shit, if he doesn't get in trouble, he'll take the backseat to Blink 182. After all, the "bizz" is all about what the kiddies want, not what the down to earth people want. Kiddies don't want GNR, they want bubblegum punk bands and wanna be's showing them the new fashion fad.

GNR, do you know where you are? You in the underground baby, love it or die....

You might be right, but GN'R and Motley Crue are two completely different animals. First of all, despite what their fans may have thought, MC is not a band that really has a chance to change anything...not if all they do is tour and release what, one or two mediocre at best songs? They need to create another album as good as Dr. Feelgood to have a chance at changing something. Quality isn't something you have to worry about with GN'R.

And second, MC didn't really go away like GN'R has. People talk of this being a big reunion, but the last new MC record was in 2000. Then they reunite in 2004? Whoopee. GN'R doesn't even have to reunite to be bigger than MC's return...the first new album from Axl Rose in fifteen years is much, much bigger than Red White & Crue. And if GN'R did reunite, well that would be only about a million times bigger than what MC did in 2004.

I am not suggesting Axl is going to change the course of music...all I'm saying is that comparing GN'R to MC is comparing apples to oranges. MC simply did not do enough to make that big an impact. Axl...well, we don't know yet, do we?

[gin_hotel]

AXL SOLD HIS BAND DOWN THE RIVER, outside of this forum nobody likes him. when people think of guns n roses they think of slash. axl thinks the world is waiting for chinese democracy because of the shit he reads by obsessive fans in this forum, when in reality hes seen as a hasbeen who cant make an album without slash

[Mr Estranged]

The album will have moderate success due to the curiosity of some fans..

However, when the general public realizes that this band isn't the Guns N' Roses they remember,.. expect a backlash of sorts.

You need to realize that beyond these little Guns N' Roses communities, no one respects Rose's decision to continue using the name.

Hell,.. in 2002, Rolling Stone magazine named them the most "Freaky-Deaky Looking Band of the year"..

Does that sound like the same Guns N' Roses that was held in such high regard?

I know it's hard for some of you to understand this because you are young and idolize Rose, but, to the millions who experienced the real band.. he is no substitute for the original Guns N' Roses.

Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy were all catalysts to the success of the original band. Each played an important role in the songwriting and musical direction of Guns N' Roses.

This album will do more to hurt Axl's ego since he's labelled it a 'Gn'r' effort.. without actually having 'Gn'r'.

-Kickingthehabit

Honestly I think most people are over this, at least they should be by now. Good God, it's only been 7 years now since the last of the old band left. I'd rather have the old guys back just as much as you but fans have to accept the way things are, at least for now.

You'd be surprised..

If you look at the 2002 tour,.. it was a complete flop..

Clear Channel even commented on the issue.. stating that .."this Guns N' Roses will not be a stadium band."

The entire tour was marketed around the 'Triumphant Return of Guns N' Roses'... and many fans of the original band purchased tickets.

However, Clear Channel couldn't understand why fans were returning tickets.. and why arena's that could hold 18,000.. barely filled 7,000 seats.

Note that the original band toured across the world, and filled 30,000(+) seated stadiums..

The fact that Guns N' Roses- Greatest Hits were released, and sold over 2 million copies only proves that the popularity is in the original band,.. not in the failed reincarnation.

I can guarantee you fans won't simply 'accept it'.. because it doesn't work that way.

Don't you remember the backlash Steven Tyler received when he tried to carry on without Perry and Whitford?

Rose may release a good album,.. but it will always be overshadowed by the legacy of the real Guns N' Roses.. - the Guns N' Roses that the world remembers.

I may very well be nostalgic,.. but when it comes down to the heart and soul of what a band is.. not even the greatest studio musicians will ever replace or redefine the legacy that the original band built.

I hope that's something we can all agree on..

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to the reality of it..

Most 'fans' on this board would rather believe what is written on contract, than acknowledge what was written in history..

What a sad state we're in..

-Kickingthehabit

I agree completely, however I couldnt find a clapping smiley so Im going to give you this little guy :krider:

also i feel this little fellow is really sharp so il throw him at you too,

right so im off

Edited February 5, 2006 by Mr Estranged

[Guest Sweet_Emotion]

but why is it unrealistic??

did anyone honestly think AFD would seell that great! nothing is impossible

It's unrealistic because many see Axl and the music that made him famous as a mockery. Also, at this point it's unlikely that CD will be in step with the times and register with masses of young consumers.

does it have to fit in with the masses to be popular! im sure there are more than a few million non-mass people.

and also if axl and afd and the uyi albums are seen as a mockery then why are gnr one of the most successful bands ever.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

but why is it unrealistic??

did anyone honestly think AFD would seell that great! nothing is impossible

It's unrealistic because many see Axl and the music that made him famous as a mockery. Also, at this point it's unlikely that CD will be in step with the times and register with masses of young consumers.

does it have to fit in with the masses to be popular! im sure there are more than a few million non-mass people.

and also if axl and afd and the uyi albums are seen as a mockery then why are gnr one of the most successful bands ever.

1. It has to fit in with the masses to be massively popular.

2. Many people don't understand or turn a deaf ear to the music of the 80's and previous times, Axl is also a controversial figure whom many will not appreciate or understand.

[Guest Sweet_Emotion]

because many people turn a deaf ear is why afd still sells upwards of 200,000 copies a year then??

many young people are getting into gnr right now. also youre frogetting the huge anticipation CD has! because axl was spotted they done a fairly big article on him in rolling stone!!!

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

because many people turn a deaf ear is why afd still sells upwards of 200,000 copies a year then??

many young people are getting into gnr right now. also youre frogetting the huge anticipation CD has! because axl was spotted they done a fairly big article on him in rolling stone!!!

You just don't know what mass popularity means, the album could sell very well and be successful, but it will not be massively popular. Mass popularity means videos on MTV constantly, #1 on the charts, posters in every teenie boppers' bedroom. This is not going to happen.

[jamesfunnell]

but why is it unrealistic??

did anyone honestly think AFD would seell that great! nothing is impossible

It's unrealistic because many see Axl and the music that made him famous as a mockery. Also, at this point it's unlikely that CD will be in step with the times and register with masses of young consumers.

does it have to fit in with the masses to be popular! im sure there are more than a few million non-mass people.

and also if axl and afd and the uyi albums are seen as a mockery then why are gnr one of the most successful bands ever.

1. It has to fit in with the masses to be massively popular.

2. Many people don't understand or turn a deaf ear to the music of the 80's and previous times, Axl is also a controversial figure whom many will not appreciate or understand.

I agree, I don't think a hard rock album could be massively popular. It will appeal to a certain section of people. The only positive thing is music with guitars is mainstream at the moment...

The album has taken to long to be released. A lot of people will have forgotten about GNR and others who buy it will expect more because it has been in the making for so long. I think we will get an album that isn't as good as AFD or UYI but just one of the best rock albums of the year.

[bin laden killed gnr]

You might be right, but GN'R and Motley Crue are two completely different animals. First of all, despite what their fans may have thought, MC is not a band that really has a chance to change anything...not if all they do is tour and release what, one or two mediocre at best songs? They need to create another album as good as Dr. Feelgood to have a chance at changing something. Quality isn't something you have to worry about with GN'R.

And second, MC didn't really go away like GN'R has. People talk of this being a big reunion, but the last new MC record was in 2000. Then they reunite in 2004? Whoopee. GN'R doesn't even have to reunite to be bigger than MC's return...the first new album from Axl Rose in fifteen years is much, much bigger than Red White & Crue. And if GN'R did reunite, well that would be only about a million times bigger than what MC did in 2004.

I am not suggesting Axl is going to change the course of music...all I'm saying is that comparing GN'R to MC is comparing apples to oranges. MC simply did not do enough to make that big an impact. Axl...well, we don't know yet, do we?

True, it may be comparing apples to oranges when speaking of the bands but when speaking of the non-fanbases opinion of the two, it's apples to apples. The only real difference will be which fanbase has the best reaction. Considering that GNR has many hurdles to overcome....One original member, a presumed change in musical style and a ridiculously hyped return with the mysterious "CD", it is a very similar comparison.

I am not saying they won't be a success because even with 5 million fans, that's all you need. BUT, "changing the face of music" or "taking back the throne" isn't a realistic expectation. But that is fine, the quality of the fanbase is more important than the quantity of fans in the long run.

Edited February 6, 2006 by bin laden killed gnr

[Just_me]

because many people turn a deaf ear is why afd still sells upwards of 200,000 copies a year then??

Just out of curiosity where are you getting that from?

Last reliable info I heard was in an article about Slash and Duff's abortive lawsuit against Axl over royalties and that said GNR were selling about 9,000 units a month, which comes to approximately 100,000 a year between all their albums. So I'm wondering where you read/heard 200,000 for AFD.

(And if you're wondering I'm not just out to prove you wrong. I'm honestly interested because I'm always on the look-out for reliable sales figures on GNR and its amazingly hard to get them.)

[Axl-rocks]

AXL SOLD HIS BAND DOWN THE RIVER, outside of this forum nobody likes him. when people think of guns n roses they think of slash. axl thinks the world is waiting for chinese democracy because of the shit he reads by obsessive fans in this forum, when in reality hes seen as a hasbeen who cant make an album without slash

I disagree, look a the impact he had just by showing up at a party, the world wants Axl.

[Matty Boy]

If Green Day with their shitty ass fucking recycled Iggy Pop tunes can become big again there is no telling how big Axl can be. Chinese Democracy will be fucking massive.

[Guest Sweet_Emotion]

because many people turn a deaf ear is why afd still sells upwards of 200,000 copies a year then??

many young people are getting into gnr right now. also youre frogetting the huge anticipation CD has! because axl was spotted they done a fairly big article on him in rolling stone!!!

You just don't know what mass popularity means, the album could sell very well and be successful, but it will not be massively popular. Mass popularity means videos on MTV constantly, #1 on the charts, posters in every teenie boppers' bedroom. This is not going to happen.

i do know what mass popularity means and gnr have had it before and they will have it again regardless of what the bandmembers are because they are gnr just plain and simple. the name gnr has a massive selling capacity. i think CD will be a success and you don't so it's fair enough!

because many people turn a deaf ear is why afd still sells upwards of 200,000 copies a year then??

Just out of curiosity where are you getting that from?

Last reliable info I heard was in an article about Slash and Duff's abortive lawsuit against Axl over royalties and that said GNR were selling about 9,000 units a month, which comes to approximately 100,000 a year between all their albums. So I'm wondering where you read/heard 200,000 for AFD.

(And if you're wondering I'm not just out to prove you wrong. I'm honestly interested because I'm always on the look-out for reliable sales figures on GNR and its amazingly hard to get them.)

lol. i know your not. em it's just what i've always read around the place and i just thought that was the official figures! sorry i cant give you a good official link to anything.

[Kobbeltvedt]

the album will sell....and who cares if there are pictures of Finke Foot or Axl in youg teenagers bedroom, idont care whats in my neighboors room.

The music is the most importent thing...