Plenty of bands have lost popularity with the original lineups even. The Knack were on top of the world in 1979, and by 1980 it was all over. It happens. Don't blame the lineup. I personally think the problem is that Guns N Roses took too long to put the album out, to where it became a joke. People cared a lot for many years each time a release date was set/mentioned/announced. By the time it (finally, after 19 years) came out, people were sick and tired of the games and simply stopped caring. That's it..
Just curious, for those people not thinking this is a Guns N Roses album--Would you like the album any more if it was credited to Axl Rose? Personally, I don't care too much about the name of the band. The music is what matters.
Management? Hey, it's not really GNR since Doug Goldstein stopped handling them. Or maybe even Katharine Turman.
I'd like to think that I judge the music on its own merit. Personally, I wouldn't like it no matter what it was called. I just wouldn't have the same level of disdain for the whole thing if he was more straightforward about it and called it a solo album. I don't like Slash's solo albums either but I don't really have any disdain for them because he isn't calling them Guns n Roses albums.
That may or may not be. Truth is if the music were better it would have been more successful. And of course you do realize the main reason for the ridiculous lead-up to the album, right? Axl and his bloody ego, of course. There's nobody but himself to blame for the way it all panned out. You're right, there are plenty of bands whose popularity waned even with the original lineups. This may have happened either way. But I'm pretty confident that if tomorrow GnR announced a reunion of their classic lineup they would have a huge, huge spike in popularity.
I think there is some truth to Baba Oh Really's position. You had a band that was very inactive for an extended period of time, and during that period of time, every single core member left or was fired leaving only Axl Rose and secondary musician Dizzy Reed. Clearly that alienated a faction of the fan base. That coupled with the ongoing saga of the Chinese Democracy recording sessions added to the enormous amount of time it was taking to release new product. Axl returned to performing with a new line-up, but he had already alienated a faction of the fan base and other casual GNR fans had already moved on. Subsequently, the entire music business changed. By the time Axl was forced to release Chinese Democracy, the previous retail infrastructure was gone; all that was left was a dwindling CD-buying consumer-base, one retail option (Best Buy), and a shrinking GNR audience. The album was DOA (even though it did move over a million physical units). So, I don't think the argument that if the music was better it would have been more successful applies here; the music could have been sensational across the board and there would have been limitations as to who bought it based on the factors listed above -- outside factors buried Chinese Democracy. As a modern hard rock album, it was loaded with mostly good songs, melody, and high-quality performances by skilled musicians. It came too late and was destined to fail under the circumstances. And you are correct, if the Appetite or Illusion line-up announced a reunion, there would be huge demand -- but that isn't because any new music would be automatically better than Chinese Democracy, it would be more about ticket sales and due to sentimental music fans wanting to relive the music one more time. And I am not convinced the "original" band could produce anything close to Chinese Democracy at this point. Duff's Loaded and Velvet Revolver and Slash's solo projects have not been anything to celebrate musically; it has mostly been sterile, cliched music. The only guy who still writes and performs compelling music is Izzy.
Either way...the opinion that Chinese Democracy is Guns n Roses in name only is a perfectly legitimate one. I'm not really that emotionally attached to the classic GnR lineup - I was never a HUGE fan. But to me Chinese Democracy is more Axl solo than it is GnR - so the many conspiring reasons that have resulted in him dragging the GnR label into the ground are squarely on him. He has been captaining that ship for almost two decades now.
I liked it: IRS, Street of Dreams, and Riad N' the Bedouins especially. But I wasn't concerned about the band name on the label or how long it took to finish. Just based on its own merits, it was good.
Chinese Democracy is not a bad album, it's got some good songs on it. Classics?, Street of Dreams and Better for me. Asides for that, the rest is pretty OK. I'd say that the current guys play better as a band than the former members, Axl's voice on the other hand.
GNR or not GNR, I really like ChD, but its really hard to swallow the use of the band name by a single member, Chinese Democracy is a good rock album, and probably well recorded too..
It is valid to assert that Chinese Democracy is an Axl Rose solo project; it certainly makes sense. The flip-side to that argument is that bands often evolve over time; it is the fans that assert that certain line-ups are not genuine or authentic. Members quit, members get fired, members die, certain members become dominant, certain members become submissive, certain members take over creative direction, new guys get hired, etc. GNR is no different. Axl became a dominant force, guys got fired, guys quit, new musicians came aboard, Axl wanted to continue working under the name, he changed the musical direction and retained full control -- that was the evolution of the band. If it isn't "real;" well, that is in the eyes of some of the fan-base, not necessarily a stamp on reality. Just because GNR is not the band some people want it to be does not mean it is not still a functioning band. GNR did not disband in 1994. The Who did not disband in 1978 (and there are factions of fans that assert the Kenney Jones era and Endless Wire are not The Who). Journey kept working after 1997. Fleetwood Mac continued after Peter Green left (as huge as they became, there are some fans that will not acknowledge the post-Green eras). Genesis continued after Gabriel left. The Eagles continued after firing Don Felder. The Beach Boys have had a wide-range of line-ups with different guys controlling it at different times. Few bands go out on top with the ideal line-up.
Fair enough but the GnR case is different than all the bands you mention. ONLY ONE member still exists and has been surrounded by a succession of other musicians. Under that arrangement they've managed to release one album in two decades with no real sign of anything else on the horizon and they appear to be sinking to relative obscurity. There is no comparable situation that I'm aware of.
The closest I can think of right off would be Smashing Pumpkins or Helmet. But, even those two bands kick out albums/EPs pretty regularly. And I look at Gn'R the same way as those two bands, cuz I enjoy all three. Hell, my favorite Helmet album comes from their reformed lineup where Page Hamilton is the sole original member! As for Smashing Pumpkins, I enjoy their most recent album quite a bit & look forward to their upcoming release. If Gn'R ever gets around to releasing new music, I'd check it out first day. Because I enjoyed all of their other albums. Whether it would be quality, or not, remains to be seen.
The Brian Jonestown Massacre come to mind. Here is a list of members: http://www.bjmarchives.com/members/MEMBERS.HTML
IMO the better way to frame it is - you can accept the new lineup or not, but whether you accept it or not, it IS Guns N' Roses. It's not your call, it's not your band (not you specifically).
I don't know if taking 14 years and around $15 million to record an album is a sign of a band that's "done fine". Maybe Vinylphile should manage them.
Depends on your definition of "done fine" I suppose, and that's likely to be something that might have a different meaning for each person you ask.
Gimme a break. It is completely - completely - on topic to opine in a thread discussing Chinese Democracy that said album looks and sounds more like an Axl Rose solo album than a GnR album. It is an opinion. It's not my fault that you're so sensitive that you can't understand and accept opinions different from your own.
It's called a "rhetorical device", Sugar Pie. I mean, it's self-evident that Axl and GnR are a train wreck on the management front. Here's something I don't know for sure, though: Are you angling for a job as Axl's publicist?
Good example with the Pumpkins. The difference in my view is that Pumpkins version 1 was a band already very dominated by Corgan. He was the singer, rhythm guitarist, lead guitarist and main songwriter. So not as much difference having him with a completely different backing band. It was always almost a case of the Pumpkins being Corgan's act. Not so GnR. In their original version they were not a band dominated by Axl and he was just the singer. Songwriting was a duty shared amongst several strong personalities. That's probably a big reason why they didn't last in that set-up - it seems like Axl needs to be the guy. The other examples (sisters of mercy etc) may also be good - I just am not familiar with them.
