I agree....another issue is to define what we want even from a comercial success. For example...Avenged Sevenfold have sold 1,000,000 copies of their newest album worldwide.I don't see people saying that band "is done. it's over". I bet you buckcherry's newest album is way lower. Yet these bands carry on making music.

The difference is the other bands are on top of the business side.

THe issues for other bands arn't as bad...but they still exist:

1. Ac/Dc - every album the same (tho i always love them),  very old now, 61 for fuck's sake, 8 year absence, not the original line up (sorry I don't buy that they wern't famous when bon died).

2. Metallica - 50% of fan bass pissed at the loss of jason, seen as soft by their original fans after the entire load/re-load style change, trying to bounce back from st anger - almsot universally considered the worst album they'd ever made, considered sold-out for the whole "some kind of monster" talk fest..and out of touch for the whole copyright issue.

GNR was Axl+Slash and not having slash is a huge problem, but my point is other bands with names that were once huge like GNR are able to take those problems and work out business shit that sorts it out. GNR still has Axl which is 50% of that equation anyway....if the right business moves were made, while GNR may never rule the earth again, they could easily manintain a certain level of success.

The album sales we have a pretty good when you consider that there was almost no promotion done to back them up.

Anyway, i agree with what's been said earlier in the thread...I have no need for GNR to be massive or for other's to valiadate my choices...i'm happy for them to be an underground band. Although obviously a certain level of sucess is necessary for it to be viable for axl to make new music, as no one works for free forever. I was just saying a lot of people want to blame the music as the reason why this album is not massive, and I honestly think that the business and other issues that have followed the band are the cause of that, it's got nothing to do with the music.

Yeaj i think maybe it was different in the usa too. I'm just saying AC/DC were huge here in oz...because they kept being on TV...not on MTV but on our national broadcaster's rock shows of the time...live apperances and stuff....

Anyway...i'm just saying - Ac/Dc is a band with a front man who is 61 years old, that's had an 8 year absence, and without it's original line up, that's managed to maintain respect in community.

And in my opinion a lot of it is marketing and branding, the new band is based around Angus and Brian (those are like the only two who move on stage lol), they give interviews, are in pics together, promote the shit out of their products etc etc.

Old GNR was kinda the Axl and Slash show, and I feel that part of the critizm now becomes that it's Axl and his friends kinda thing, because a new band image has not been kinda maketed correctly to the masses.

Obvious GNR and Ac/Dc have some differences too, but I feel with the correct marketing, and the right promotional tools, and if a few other thigns were done, then a new GNR could be packaged in a way that it would be accepted by the public. But these things have not always been done. Which get back to my original point which is kinda that I read a lot from us fans about problems in the creative process and issues with the album, but In my opinion the music is fantasic...it's the business and managment side of the GNR machine that has been catastrophic. Just my opinion.

Hmmm...I think at the moment you are correct in that while the new era stuff has its own fan base, the public at large, in general probably considers it not the real GNR. However I disagree that this is an unchangable situation. A large proportion of the public are slaves to the media and basicly sheep to fashion...there is an extent to which people will swallow what they are sold...the problem with new-guns is that it's not being effectively sold to them. I mean the old records and image was massive...nothing was done to effectively change that impression - other than a few apperances and now an album not properly marketed and promoted.

IMO...if the band functioned more like a 'normal' band for a period of time, that is, had a secure line up, did a few tours, released a couple of albums, made media apperances, had group photos, generally acted in a way that any other commerical band does, then people could become interested in this band, and become real fans of it. Sure, it might never be the 1991 level of stardom again...but it could be given some legitimacy to the public.

Take Ac/Dc....i've lost count of the number of kids I see in Black Ice tops around here...Brian Johnson is 61 years old. Is he saving rock? No. Is he considered legit even to today's kids. Seems so. Does being 61 stop his record kicking ass? No.  Is bon scott the 'real' singer of Ac/Dc? Maybe so...but is Brian an accepted part of Ac? Yep. He's paid his dues.

It could be the same in GNR. The 'real' GNR will always be the AFD gang. And that won't change. But if Axl, Bumble and the boys release enough music, market it to the masses the right way, and generally play the game...eventually people will come to the party, and accept them in the way Brian Johnson is. Maybe he's not the same...but he works. Ac/Dc also had an 8 year absence recently I note. The only real differences are the way GNR approach things it seems. They're not selling it right IMO. So the only people that really get sold are those like some of us who've discovered it on their own and loved the songs. But the general public needs to be better handled if they're worried about sales and so on.