What is it people fail to understand about Chinese Democracy?

[Jim Bob]

idol worship?

guys, most of us are grown adults.    Sure I idolized them back when I was a teenager, but today they are simply my favorite band.  no more, no less.

I wouldn't hate to see the guys in chinese era GNR being idolized tho.

i'd like to see the CD era guys get their due respect, even if just on the fansites.   but idol worship is a bit much for me.

[Gargh!]

I think a lot of GNR fans forget that GNR are a huge "Mainstream" band.

They aren't Muse or Velvet Underground or bands who are still kind of underground etc.

When u are a BRAND like GNR,Metallica,AC/DC,Bon Jovi, U2 etc  success is measured by the general public  by albums sold, tour gross etc.

Agree partially dude, but Muse are sure as hell not underground.  Did they not sell out Wembley a couple pf years back?

PS - can't stand 'em myself.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

Is there really a substantial amount of people who listen to what they think is 'cool'?? I mean, personally, I don't know anyone who listens to what's considered 'cool'. With things like punk, were people listening to it because it was 'cool' or because thay actually - *gasp* - liked the music because it was new and interesting?? I'm sure there were some who listened to it and got mohawks to fit in, but how many of those kinds of people were there?

I think all of the 'classic rock' bands still around today like GNR or AC/DC or Metallica or The Rolling Stones, while still popular, will never be as big as they were "back in the day". And perhaps as much as we'd love for GNR to be the 'biggest band in the world' or whatever, it's not going to happen, because there are new, younger bands doing new things. Fair enough, those 'new things' don't really sound that interesting to me, but others seem to like it....

A band like Nickelback isn't really considered 'cool' in most circles but they seem pretty popular..... I don't mind them, I have to say.

I don't even know who would be considered the 'big' band of today. Someone help me out.




PS. Regarding the AC/DC criticism, they found a style of music that works for them and that people like and they've stuck with it. They're not trying to do anything groundbreaking, they just write really good rock songs. Some bands today have a pretty uninteresting style, but stick with it. This is bad. AC/DC is good.

[peter7411226]

Respectfully, I dont ever think The Beatles or Zeppelin were ever considered uncool.

Led Zeppelin wasn't the coolest band in the world at the end of their career. When punk was the cool thing to listen to.


The same thing happens to most bands.

When you first make it, you're cool. Then if you can follow up that hit album, you can still be cool. Otherwise the media will find some new band to take their place.

If the band keeps going, a few years later the media will swing around and start hyping the band again. Then it's labeled "classic" or "legends all of a sudden. That can make a band cool.

But in some cases, that makes you uncool! Because it means you're old.....

There seems to be no logic to that. Other than personal preferences.


On top of that, one band can be cool even though they do things that other bands would get ridiculed for. Like playing the same exact choreographed set night after night. In AC/DC's case,, it's cool. Some other bands would not get away with it without being labeled lazy/boring.

The Rolling Stones are old. AC/DC is old and cool. Makes very little sense.




So how does this relate to GN'R?

Well, they can get attacked for not sounding like their old albums. But if they did, they could get attacked for trying to re-create the past.....

The thing people fail to understand is that musicians are humans too. Just because some of them manage to write the same songs over and over again, doesn't mean all of them are that same angry 20 year old they were 20 years ago.



/jarmo

I agree with your post for the most part. But the true legendary bands tend to stand the test of time. They defy fads. Look at bands like Creed or Limp Bizkit. While they were hugely popular at one point I dont think there music will last the test of time. GNR like Zepellin, AC/DC and Metallica will always stay relevant. Great music always stands the test of time.
Metallica was a band that always got villified for not sounding like there old sound. I heard them say that they were afraid of sounding like Metallica. Meaning that they felt like they had to reinvent themselves all the time. On there new album there producer ( Rick Rubin) told them that it was Ok to sound like Metallica and they turned around and made one of the best Metallica albums in years.

[peter7411226]

Is there really a substantial amount of people who listen to what they think is 'cool'?? I mean, personally, I don't know anyone who listens to what's considered 'cool'. With things like punk, were people listening to it because it was 'cool' or because thay actually - *gasp* - liked the music because it was new and interesting?? I'm sure there were some who listened to it and got mohawks to fit in, but how many of those kinds of people were there?

I think all of the 'classic rock' bands still around today like GNR or AC/DC or Metallica or The Rolling Stones, while still popular, will never be as big as they were "back in the day". And perhaps as much as we'd love for GNR to be the 'biggest band in the world' or whatever, it's not going to happen, because there are new, younger bands doing new things. Fair enough, those 'new things' don't really sound that interesting to me, but others seem to like it....

A band like Nickelback isn't really considered 'cool' in most circles but they seem pretty popular..... I don't mind them, I have to say.

I don't even know who would be considered the 'big' band of today. Someone help me out.




PS. Regarding the AC/DC criticism, they found a style of music that works for them and that people like and they've stuck with it. They're not trying to do anything groundbreaking, they just write really good rock songs. Some bands today have a pretty uninteresting style, but stick with it. This is bad. AC/DC is good.

Metallica is still the biggest rock band in the world. Sales wise and tour wise they are still the top draw among rock bands. I think there as big as theyve ever been.

[jarmo]

All those big acts have had dips in popularity.

U2, the Rolling Stones, Metallica, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC.


The majority of them have tried to re-invent themselves at some point. Except AC/DC.

And even though they always stayed true to their sound, they weren't always as popular as they are today.

So it's not a guarantee.



/jarmo

[peter7411226]

All those big acts have had dips in popularity.

U2, the Rolling Stones, Metallica, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC.


The majority of them have tried to re-invent themselves at some point. Except AC/DC.

And even though they always stayed true to their sound, they weren't always as popular as they are today.

So it's not a guarantee.



/jarmo

Agreed in part. The aforementioned bands have never really lost there fanbase. They can all pretty much sell out arenas and stadiums around the world. Even with the napster debacle Metallica was still selling out arenas and stadiums. I think the great bands stand the test of time. They defy fads. I can't remember a time when going to a GNR or Metallica show was considered uncool. At the end of the day good music always speaks for itself. While there are great bands out there today, the way the music industry is setup today makes it harder to become superstars like in previous day. You would figure with so much technology and so many ways to release music that it would be easier but it isnt.

[jarmo]

The aforementioned bands have never really lost there fanbase.

I'm not so sure.

Sure, some have stuck with the bands since day one.

But many come and go. You lose some fans (due to whatever reasons, change of style, people "grow up" etc etc.) and win some.

And even though some fans haven't liked an album you've released in the last 20 years, they're probably still considered to be part of the so called fan base.... 




/jarmo

[The Glow Inc.]

Word 
9 years ago, AC/DC was my favourite band...
Then I realised...

[ppbebe]

I think a lot of GNR fans forget that GNR are a huge "Mainstream" band.

They aren't Muse or Velvet Underground or bands who are still kind of underground etc.

When u are a BRAND like GNR,Metallica,AC/DC,Bon Jovi, U2 etc  success is measured by the general public  by albums sold, tour gross etc.

Agree partially dude,

No one forgets that. No indie band would sell 2 million copies only in a month outside of their home. will be the day! An indie band wouldn?t have critical fans.

We were talking about the exposure of the members.
Ex guys were idols, right? To replace an idol it takes another idol.
That may silence the bias against the lineup.
And it may help the sales hugely.
But those don't mean people really understand about the album and the band. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a fallacy for a fallacy. That was my point.

i am not saying everything about the media is evil. I wouldn't hate to see
The whole band on the cover of rolling stone or on quality papers, for instance...
 More people will discover the band and love their music.

Is there really a substantial amount of people who listen to what they think is 'cool'?? I mean, personally, I don't know anyone who listens to what's considered 'cool'. With things like punk, were people listening to it because it was 'cool' or because thay actually - *gasp* - liked the music because it was new and interesting?? I'm sure there were some who listened to it and got mohawks to fit in, but how many of those kinds of people were there?

yea. We naturally like both new things and old things. Plus, old music can be fresh for a new listener. We can't just sing the same song, old or new, again and again.

but 'uncool' or 'dated, out of fashion/ not trendy' has been a handy concept for companies to sell their new products. For idol makers to make a room for their new idols.  there's always a band wagon and the jumpers.

[peter7411226]

The aforementioned bands have never really lost there fanbase.

I'm not so sure.

Sure, some have stuck with the bands since day one.

But many come and go. You lose some fans (due to whatever reasons, change of style, people "grow up" etc etc.) and win some.

And even though some fans haven't liked an album you've released in the last 20 years, they're probably still considered to be part of the so called fan base.... 




/jarmo

Case in point...I didnt like Load , Reload , or St.Anger and I still consider myself a Metallica fan. But are you saying that to be part of a fan base you have to like everything put out by that band?

[ppbebe]

Still you dig death magnet that wasn't released 20 yrs ago, yes? Or you might be calling yourself a fan of old time metallica.
And not every fan is like you. some old fans just moved on while new fans moved in at some points. like the Bedouins.

the point is that they weren't always as popular as they are today.

[jarmo]

Case in point...I didnt like Load , Reload , or St.Anger and I still consider myself a Metallica fan. But are you saying that to be part of a fan base you have to like everything put out by that band?

That's the thing.

It seems like even though you only really like one album an artist has put out in decades, you're still part of the fan base.

So, essentially you're grouped with all those others who like every album the artist has put out.... The hardcore fans so to speak.


The bands that have been going on for decades also have a bunch of fans who go to the shows because they're "events". They might not have a clue about the latest albums, but they remember loving that band when they were teenagers.

Also, there are bands that sell out stadiums but their record sales are minimal. So they have huge fan bases, but the fan base doesn't buy their new albums?




This isn't about who's a fan and who's not.

It's more to do with the fact that some claim big bands never lose their fan base.

The truth is, a bunch of those people are probably more casual listeners than hardcore fans. The hardcore fans "grow up" and younger fans take their place.





/jarmo

[freddiebrph]

   
The truth is, a bunch of those people are probably more casual listeners than hardcore fans. The hardcore fans "grow up" and younger fans take their place.





/jarmo


[/quote]

That is sort of true. I think the fans that have "grown up" just feel that gnr broke up when the core of the band left.  I consider myself a die hard. Always have, always will be. I would  go see Axl no matter who is backing him. My wife is as fanatic to alice cooper as we are toi gnr, she drags me to see him every year.  Alice has fans that are 10 and fans that are 70.  Trust me, they ALL come out to see him. No matter how many times we debate it, it all comes down to old and new.  Sure alot of bands go through line up changes. Some lose a drumer, guitar player, etc. But no band has ever lost everyone accept the lead singer and kept the name alive. 

[Limulus]

^^add that it took Axl ages for releasing CD! remember the last guns studio albums with original material came out in september 1991.

someone recently said it best that it was very weird watching the rio3 show realizing none of the (back then "new") 3 guitarists is in the recent line-up anymore. then again they still are on the album and possible future releases (f.e. Axl talked about a cool Robin solo of an unreleased song). hell, we dont even have ONE official group pic!! during the heyday when gnr was the biggest rock band worldwide in 1992 the band members were all over the place on tv, magazines, radio etc. etc. so with all those line-up-changes it comes down to it that people cant identify much with the band members. and it appears that this is wanted by the gnr camp....which final decisions last all on Axl Rose's shoulders. but well, it was his decision to trick out the gnr name from the others and go on without them.

i can understand a rhich man at his age not wanting to do all the promotion when he doesnt want and have to. but i hope he understands that there are fans caring about and would want "something more", be it more frequent updates, singles, videos etc. and again its EASY to do these days with technology, he doesnt have to leave his house for answering newer questions or posting an update.

edit:
and add that in 2006 he seemed to be all up for it?!?

[Bitch Slap Rappin]

As far as we know (the fans) Axl may never tour or do any more shows. Perhaps he is content on only recording cds and releasing them like the way the Beatles did starting with Sgt. Pepper lp. The Beatles reached a point were they did not want to tour anymore or do shows. So they were quite content on only recording songs and releasing LPs. So they ended up with Sgt.; Magical Mystery Tour; The White Album; Let it be; and finally Abby Road.
So if Axl is choosing to go this route there's nothing wrong with that.
He released a fine cd that has more to offer than most cds today.
I'm sure he'll be releasing some more cds in the future.
So in comparison with the Beatles:
Sgt Pepper - Chinese Democracy
Magical Mystery tour -
The White Album -
Let it be -
Abby Road -

I'm sure Axl could release four more works of art. He's only 46 years old.
Has plenty of time to do it.
No pressures.
And he could easily find numerous labels that would jump on any release he places on the table under the name of G&R.
In the reality of it all: Axl comes out smelling like a Rose because I do recall when Chinese Democracy was released most of all G&R fans on all the fan-web-sites were quite thrilled and excited. In fact most of us were praising the cd.
It's just the disappointment of not seeing the new cd live for us to go and buy tickets and enjoy a good rock concert by Axl.
We all must consider that the economy is not that great right now. I'm sure Axl don't want to throw any more money away or surrender to a 'cheesy' touring deal that leaves him and the band hanging out to dry. We must remember that Axl is not going to settle for promoters trying to bully him into a sour deal so that they can make millions of dollars off of his fans.
I would love to see Axl and G&R, but I'm not going to pay $350.00 to some ticket agency that bought all the tickets at $75.00 a pop. (And you know what I'm talking about here). 

[peter7411226]

As far as we know (the fans) Axl may never tour or do any more shows. Perhaps he is content on only recording cds and releasing them like the way the Beatles did starting with Sgt. Pepper lp. The Beatles reached a point were they did not want to tour anymore or do shows. So they were quite content on only recording songs and releasing LPs. So they ended up with Sgt.; Magical Mystery Tour; The White Album; Let it be; and finally Abby Road.
So if Axl is choosing to go this route there's nothing wrong with that.
He released a fine cd that has more to offer than most cds today.
I'm sure he'll be releasing some more cds in the future.
So in comparison with the Beatles:
Sgt Pepper - Chinese Democracy
Magical Mystery tour -
The White Album -
Let it be -
Abby Road -

I'm sure Axl could release four more works of art. He's only 46 years old.
Has plenty of time to do it.
No pressures.
And he could easily find numerous labels that would jump on any release he places on the table under the name of G&R.
In the reality of it all: Axl comes out smelling like a Rose because I do recall when Chinese Democracy was released most of all G&R fans on all the fan-web-sites were quite thrilled and excited. In fact most of us were praising the cd.
It's just the disappointment of not seeing the new cd live for us to go and buy tickets and enjoy a good rock concert by Axl.
We all must consider that the economy is not that great right now. I'm sure Axl don't want to throw any more money away or surrender to a 'cheesy' touring deal that leaves him and the band hanging out to dry. We must remember that Axl is not going to settle for promoters trying to bully him into a sour deal so that they can make millions of dollars off of his fans.
I would love to see Axl and G&R, but I'm not going to pay $350.00 to some ticket agency that bought all the tickets at $75.00 a pop. (And you know what I'm talking about here). 

Im not so sure I agree with you. At the time the Beatles were releasing albums every year. Sometimes twice a year. Axl took 15 years and spent 15 million of the labels money to put out an album that they havent even promoted. I dont think labels will be knocking down there door to release future GNR releases.

[Albert S Miller]

Axl's 47 this year, but close enough. I will pay and have paid any amount to see my favorite band, GNR obviously don't tour often these days, so when they are touring, I would much rather pay any price to go see them, then sit behind the computer trying to establish, why things didn't go the way I think they should .

[The Catcher]

Case in point...I didnt like Load , Reload , or St.Anger and I still consider myself a Metallica fan. But are you saying that to be part of a fan base you have to like everything put out by that band?

That's the thing.

It seems like even though you only really like one album an artist has put out in decades, you're still part of the fan base.

So, essentially you're grouped with all those others who like every album the artist has put out.... The hardcore fans so to speak.


The bands that have been going on for decades also have a bunch of fans who go to the shows because they're "events". They might not have a clue about the latest albums, but they remember loving that band when they were teenagers.

Also, there are bands that sell out stadiums but their record sales are minimal. So they have huge fan bases, but the fan base doesn't buy their new albums?




This isn't about who's a fan and who's not.

It's more to do with the fact that some claim big bands never lose their fan base.

The truth is, a bunch of those people are probably more casual listeners than hardcore fans. The hardcore fans "grow up" and younger fans take their place.





/jarmo

I was thinking about this yesterday. I'm a big fan of Bob Dylan, and I like all of his albums that I have, even the ones that are less popular with a lot of other people. I asked myself why do I love these albums and these songs? They're not the best songs in the world, but I love them. Why? I think it has to do with the fact that I'm a fan of Bob Dylan the person and not just his songs. It's a combination. It's the same thing with Axl. I admire their attitude, persona etc as well as the voice. The voice and how it's all performed is a very important factor. To test myself I tried to picture some of the Bob Dylan songs sung with another artist's voice, and I felt I wouldn't have liked them the same. I don't think it's biased, I think it's about being a fan of the artist. The music, the person, the whole package.

[Bitch Slap Rappin]

That is very true. You have to like what the artist is about and what he/they stand for.
The artists that I seem to be fond of are the artists that sing about the real truth. Many people can't stomach the truth and those are the ones who probably would hate artists like G&R; Bob Dylan; Neil Young...etc.
Many people dismiss Axl because they can't face the truth about themselves.
You know I can understand why many people will dismiss Chinese Democracy because it is indeed a rebellious-truthful cd that may be over their heads!!!! 
Well that's o.k. There are many artists on the charts right now for those minds who are into non-mind-thinking / non-prolific thinking.
Chinese Democracy still rules!!! It is the mature-A.T. for destruction cd for this era.