To me the way to appease the label would be to purposely write a quick rock-anthem single. Then the actual album could be full of deep cuts, and epic ballads or entirely like Chinese Democracy or even diverse sounding. But the label could lock onto that single and use it in all promo stuff and on radio and generally as the flag ship "they're back" type sound.

A song like "Rock or Bust" from Ac/Dc - where there doesn't have to be a lot to it - make sure it has a few raspy screams from Axl in the chorus - such as he does on Rock or Bust or even something like the LALD stuff....mix in a slash shreedy blues solo....

I mean I know songwriting is a complex artistic process for Axl with emptional levels and all that...but in terms of the tools of the trade...they could smash something out in an hour that would shut us all the hell up for a tour cycle or more.

I think they're playing them faster mostly to fit more songs in the set, and/or, because there's probably a degree of boredom in playing sweet child for the 1750 th time.

Other changes to me stem from the fact that frank doesn't have the UYI chemistry with the band, melissa is playing an unplugged etcha-sketch, fortus plays parts with a lot more technical flaire than gilby or izzy, and slash's style has evolved to be more shreddy than it was back in the day.   So it winds up sounding a little different.

As for re-records:

1. On one hand it would be utter sacrilege as it's a classic album. On the other hand - as I've got older you notice all the things we're used to in the live set just don't exist in recorded form. If there was never another live show - you can't hear the "do you know where you are" or the "with her ass in the air" or the "home fuck" type stuff again. Sometimes I wish the studio cuts did have those features. But let's face it - re-recording them would open the flood gates to whatever odd changes they came up with. Layers of synth. different guitars. Think about that "big daddy" sweet child of mine - it should be illegal to alter an all time iconic guitar part like that. Vocals could be even scarier. Maybe axl fills them full of incredbile rasp and screams - or maybe he makes it mickey. Scary stuff.

2. To play devils advocate - if they were to do this it would make sense to form a label - and run these new versions in opposition to the original versions. Especially as there's never been a remaster of decent anniversary edition or anything. Would be better from a business perspective.

3. In reality I think if they re-boot anything it would be the chinese songs. As we alreafy know they did a remix album once - and they also had the DJ/Bumble type alternate versions comming out years on from the original. The sickness with these songs is never over lol. But yeah - a slash/duff version of CD is actually more logical - as it would make it fit back into the cannon nicer than it does as Axl and friends. Additionally most people find the slash versions of the CD tracks live more compelling and the original album underpeformed,  So there's a solid creative basis for tampering with it.

Although at this stage the next logical step would be CD2 - Axl has most of it done after all - and then add in Slash.

As for Sorry - although Axl says there is no such construct as "The Fans" I always got the impression that some of it was aimed at the sort of trolls that fill places like mygnr and don't give him a fair shot. (While there's annoying things GNR has done, we all know there's some folks who just hate anything for the sake of it).

As with most GNR songs I think it probably comes down to line by line experiences though - it's probably an amalgamation of anger towards various groups that have criticised him from the negative fans, to managers, to advisers, to the label, lovers,  to family and bandmates during a dispute etc. It seems simplistic to say it's directed at Slash alone. Particularly since in I think Axl rebuffed that idea from the stage somewhere around 2009.

Newsagent I worked at used to sell Barely Legal - it's collage type women 18, 19 and early 20s.

They do pick girls who look fresh faced so to speak but it's absolutely not a representation of child porn or getting the girls to mimic being underage.

They pride themselves on finding girls who have just turned 18 and that type of stuff but I always figured it's more for older guys to remember their glory days when they were 20 and dated girls like this than it is anything illegal.

It's more for dirty old men than it is for child porn. Ethically questionable in it's own way but a massive massive stretch to bring it up under any type of investigation into anything child porn related.