You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#11111 Re: Guns N' Roses » Chinese Democracy Chart Positions Thread » 910 weeks ago
D, that is such bullshit. CD does not sound like a bunch of guys trying to sound like another bunch of guys. If anything you can see it as the exact opposite, but in reality they're playing as themselves. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass now.
And nice to see you're back to your Slash Vs Buckethead thing again. I don't know why you have to add the "I love Buckethead" when its obvious, going by your old posts from HTGTH when you brought this up all the time there, that you don't. And trying to say Robin was trying to copy Slash is absolutely laughable. 
#11112 Re: Guns N' Roses » Revisiting the Billboard Interview » 910 weeks ago
According to everyone here 3 million ain't shit 
That's a lot of wishful thinking, D.
Your answer is in your post: Greatest Hits. It's not the same as a new album. And it would be a Slash press tour. And new music that might, or might not ever get finished... Or even recorded... Or even agreed upon in practice.
Another big problem is, even if Axl was interested, I don't think he'd give up (among other things) his own taste in music for the old way just to sell a record. And I don't think Slash would drop his way to adjust to Axl's.
#11113 Re: Guns N' Roses » Revisiting the Billboard Interview » 910 weeks ago
Which is why I said Very Rare. It didn't hurt they had a good manager, too.
Also, the Eagles have a huge fanbase, GNR doesn't. They don't have the demographics of that fanbase, either. And the Eagles have been doing several "reunion" tours years before the album... The fact they switched to adult contemporary didn't hurt either. They are a very different animal than GNR.
#11114 Re: Guns N' Roses » Revisiting the Billboard Interview » 910 weeks ago
Axlin, I'm still not buying the idea that the label is interested in a NEW old line up album. Labels make more money off the old albums and greatest hits than a reunion album. Very rare when those reunion albums actually sell anything, even with bands much bigger than GNR. A reunion would be more lucrative for the band with touring, not with a label trying to sell a new "old" album. Not to mention big labels don't really like pushing rock acts that are in their 40's. Which might be a problem Axl is facing right now 
Anyway, I'm still pretty convinced there will be another album released. Don't know under what circumstance, but at the end of the day it would be to both parties advantage to release it. I just don't see any "big" promotion from uni in that albums release, either.
I remember reading the quote about Geffen being upset Axl didn't promote it, but you can't blame him with the way they released it. I think Axl did have a big plan for its release and it got shit on by the label. Which is why he's not pimping it.
#11115 Re: Guns N' Roses » Revisiting the Billboard Interview » 910 weeks ago
If a delux version of CD doesn't pop up in the next few months or so, I see a lawsuit on GNR's part to get out of their contract with uni.
If I was a betting man I'd put wagers on the latter.
The only thing that makes me think otherwise is the power Azoff has in this industry. He got CD released, which is an example of his pull in itself.
#11116 Re: Guns N' Roses » Revisiting the Billboard Interview » 910 weeks ago
I "think" the album was released the way it was because they were giving back to Axl what he gave to them over the years. Azoff gave them a great deal to release it and they took it. Bad thing is they chose BB to do it, who relied too much on Uni (domestic) to help them out, which they didn't.
I think it all comes down to bad blood between Axl and Universal domestic. Which explains the great relationship Axl has with the international branch of Universal. I just don't buy Axl being the victim in this.
#11117 Re: Guns N' Roses » Chinese Democracy Chart Positions Thread » 910 weeks ago
monkeychow wrote:Axlin08 wrote:The band was great, but it wasn't the old band, and wasn't even the 2002 band. And I think that was the fault. Had that 2006 band come out, and made 2002 look foolish, it would've been different.
The 02 band wrote the songs and i'll give credit to that....but generally the live peformances are preferable to 2002.
Both Axl and Robin's peformances were noticibly stronger in 2006 than in 2002.
Agree and disagree. Axl vocally was stronger in 2006, I agree. But "the band", Robin included, were much stronger and tighter in 2002 imo. Even the little things. Robin sounded better, Bucket is the most talented guitarist they've ever had, Richard, Tommy & Brain seemed more enthused imo.
2006 in hind sight seemed like a paycheck.
Acquiesce wrote:misterID wrote:
An Axl solo album = The same guys, bitching about the same shit, constantly giving conspiracy theories as to why everything leads to a reunion. The GNR name would just be one less bitching point for you guys. Other than that....
Nah, most people wouldn't give 2 shits about an Axl solo let alone be interested enough to follow through 15 years of this debacle.
Agreed. The only people that would actively follow an Axl solo album, would be the hardest of hardcore Axlites, the people that follow Jarmo like he's a Bishop of GN'R, etc. They'd be very small, and very non-vocal.
I can't believe misterID just so callously throws the idea of a solo career to the wayside. Axl would lose ALOT of the baggage in his musical career going that route. Getting away from that GN'R thing would lift alot of burden off him.
The ball would then be put in his court. But he's not going to want to do that. It won't be easy for him. He'd actually have to actively work for his career, tour in small venues, open for other acts, do interviews all over the place, and try to NOT live off the GN'R name. I don't think he's willing to do that. He's too weak.
I was talking about you guys
I thought the Band sounded tight as fuck in 2002. Axl was the weak link. 2002 is when we got the best performances of Madagascar and The Blues. Not to mention Nightrain.
The only thing that got better in '06 was Axl.
And D, no one is giving them a pass. The truth is it was a good decision to go with BB to pay off the debt, but a bad decision in pushing the product. If it were Wal-Mart they would have taken a much more aggressive position with the album and not only would the Better video probably be out but a delux addition of CD as well. That's not to bash BB, they just don't have the means to do what WM can, nor do they have the push or marketing ability.
#11118 Re: Guns N' Roses » Revisiting the Billboard Interview » 910 weeks ago
Yes. It did.
#11119 Re: Guns N' Roses » Revisiting the Billboard Interview » 910 weeks ago
I'm sorry, man, but 3 million world wide is still big. Especially with slumping music sales. CD was still a high seller for Geffen and had the biggest debut for them that year. That's why Axl has a good relationship with Universal international, who actually did promotion for him. The bad blood is in the domestic branch.
Again, this is just six months sales figures.
I don't know what the contract status is, but they don't own the publishing on it. It's under Black Frog. If they drop him Axl still owns it. If rumors are to be believed, than they got paid their investment back from the BB deal.
As long as Axl has Azoff he's still good.
#11120 Re: Guns N' Roses » Chinese Democracy Chart Positions Thread » 910 weeks ago
What media has said that?
I hate to say it, because it would be pretty lame, but CD would have sold much better if it was a Wal-Mart exclusive. They can push the shit out of a product. Wal-Mart's are in every city. The foot traffic is huge. Along with their music and DVD sales. I'm convinced sales would be closer to 750,000 right now.
