What Axl Could Learn From Angus

[sweetcell]

What Axl Could Learn From Angus

(AKA what a neurotic douche could learn from an over-the-hill rocker, as written by a total windbag)

discuss.

[vansmack]

I don't always agree with Malitz, but he's spot on in this instance.

ANGUS!!!!  owahowawaha  ANGUS!! owahohwahahaha  ANGUS!!

[sweetcell]

in terms of pop marketing, the article is indeed spot-on.  axl reached for something he wasn't and his fans didn't want, assuming that his former stardom was enough to pull it off.  wrong.

and uh oh... i somehow got my wires crossed, i thought it was J Freedom who wrote it hence the windbag comment - duly retracted.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

The article is spot-on, although the bits about marketing are kind of irrelevant.  There is no way effective marketing could've saved Chinese Democracy.

Sweetcell, have you changed your initial conclusion that the new G&R was solid?

[sweetcell]

nope, i still like the album for the reason i've previously stated - and GnR fans don't like it for that same reason: chinese democracy is what a modern hard rock album should sound like.  the album's problem is that people didn't want a modern album with digital studio wizardry - they want an old-school, analog trip down nostalgia lane or at a minimum something that was recognizable as GnR's sound.  chinese democracy isn't that album.

[vansmack]

I like it only because it's a venemous attack and part of a Western plot to control the world using democracy as a pawn.  Otherwise, I'm not particulary fond of it.  If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.
 

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

Sweetcell, you seem to be saying that the album's problem isn't the album, it's the people who don't like it.  I can't think of anyone who would agree with that odd perspective, including many people (such as myself) who are capable of appreciating a band's evolution but don't see any point to this album's existence other than Axl's ego.

[Relaxer]

I've kind of enjoyed spinning it a couple times, but ultimately, Chinese Democracy is okay but not great. I like some of the songs on there, and the whole thing kind of reminds me of a movie like 'I Am Legend' in that it's big-budget, all the behind-the-scenes pieces are solid, it's presented well, and it hits the notes, all the while not really having much 'there' there. In contrast, I couldn't get through more than a couple songs off of Black Ice. Awful, boring album that sounds exactly like what it is: a bunch of old guys playing weak rock.

Also, I agree wtih Sweetcell's opinions above except for one thing: Axl, on his own, really is into pompous, epic-sounding rock. SC is right that it's not what people want -- people don't pine for the band that made the Illusions albums, they pine for the Appetite era -- but I think Axl does believe he's some sort of musical prophet and thought that this would be the record to revive the era of the 10-million-selling title.

Of the three major rock comebacks in the last month, Metallica wins by a fucking mile, Guns still takes second because some of the songs on CD are good and at least he's trying to reach ambitiously, and then AC-DC who made an album that sounds like they spent all of half an hour writing it.

[hutch]

I've kind of enjoyed spinning it a couple times, but ultimately, Chinese Democracy is okay but not great. I like some of the songs on there, and the whole thing kind of reminds me of a movie like 'I Am Legend' in that it's big-budget, all the behind-the-scenes pieces are solid, it's presented well, and it hits the notes, all the while not really having much 'there' there. In contrast, I couldn't get through more than a couple songs off of Black Ice. Awful, boring album that sounds exactly like what it is: a bunch of old guys playing weak rock.

Also, I agree wtih Sweetcell's opinions above except for one thing: Axl, on his own, really is into pompous, epic-sounding rock. SC is right that it's not what people want -- people don't pine for the band that made the Illusions albums, they pine for the Appetite era -- but I think Axl does believe he's some sort of musical prophet and thought that this would be the record to revive the era of the 10-million-selling title.

Of the three major rock comebacks in the last month, Metallica wins by a fucking mile, Guns still takes second because some of the songs on CD are good and at least he's trying to reach ambitiously, and then AC-DC who made an album that sounds like they spent all of half an hour writing it.

hogwash.. AC DC's album kicks ass.. and their comeback is THE comeback of the year no ifs ands or buts...

I like Black Ice..its AC DC doing what AC DC does..its not as good as Back in Black or the Bon Scott albums but its good..very listenable and the songs don't sound out of place live (they played 5 at the live show and there was no running for bathrooms or anything like that).. and there is no one else doing their sound..if its so easy and people like it so much how much come no one else even gets close?

To say they spent half an hour writing it just shows you didn't listen to the album...the lyrics are as silly and sophomoric as ever..what else is new? but the guitar riffs are solid, phil rudds sound is as good as ever and evans is better on the bass than he's probably ever been..add a solid vocal performance from brian johnson who sings more than he screams and you have a good album.. not great....but its not the piece of crap you make it out to be.. a B album... and a B ac dc album is pretty darn good....its missing better and raunchier lyrics and more guitar solos from angus..

Opened at number 1 in 29 countries by the way...

oh and get over your age fixation..you'll be old sooner than you think.. hopefully you won't be too embarassed to rock out..

[sweetcell]

Sweetcell, you seem to be saying that the album's problem isn't the album, it's the people who don't like it. 

woa.. the issue under discussion here is that the album isn't selling as much as some hoped/thought it would.  in that perspective, people not liking it is indeed a problem (AKA people tend to buy what they like ).  the article discussed why the ac/dc album is enjoying more commercial success than the GnR album.  like the article, i'm not talking about the album's artistic merit (discussion would have been much shorter )  for the record, i think it's a solid album... no great, just solid.  that's in the same neighborhood as "decent".

I can't think of anyone who would agree with that odd perspective

i take it you don't know Relaxer, then... 

including many people (such as myself) who are capable of appreciating a band's evolution but don't see any point to this album's existence other than Axl's ego.

you may well be the type of person who can appreciate a band's evolution, but my contention - and that of the article that started this thread - is that the average GnR fan isn't such a person.  they wanted stability & predictability and the album didn't deliver. 

certain bands have a fan base that will entertain stylistic flights of fancy, GnR isn't such a band.  springsteen, radiohead, aphex twin, etc can release just about anything and their fans won't immediately balk at something different.  axl just doesn't have that kind of cred or undying support.

[Mobius]

i don't think chinese democracy is intended to be a commercial effort . . .and frankly i don't think its even really a rock album (leading to a lot of confusion).  meanwhile black ice is a calculatedly commercial effort.  axl was going for art (theater) . . .ac/dc was going for commodity.  the proverbial apples and oranges.

[nkotb]

That's a pretty asinine statement.  I know it's easy to think that we're all above the neanderthal's that would listen to such base rock, but how is the average GNR fan different from, say, a Wilco fan (hating the switch from alt-country to noisey rock on YHF) or even a Hella fan (hating the switch from instrumental duo to five piece with vocals).  It's just absurd to think that only a pathetic GNR fan wouldn't want change.

The problem isn't the songs, or the album, or Axl's ego (ok, maybe a little)...the problem is, this album took 17 FUCKING YEARS to come out.  There's no album on earth that could have remotely lived up to that history and hype.  When a band kills it with such an amazing debut, they releases a double-disc, epic follow up, then a goddamn covers album and vanishes, they're done.  Axl could've put out Appetitie part 2 and it still would've fallen on mostly deaf ears at this point. 

you may well be the type of person who can appreciate a band's evolution, but my contention - and that of the article that started this thread - is that the average GnR fan isn't such a person.  they wanted stability & predictability and the album didn't deliver. 

[hutch]

That's a pretty asinine statement.  I know it's easy to think that we're all above the neanderthal's that would listen to such base rock, but how is the average GNR fan different from, say, a Wilco fan (hating the switch from alt-country to noisey rock on YHF) or even a Hella fan (hating the switch from instrumental duo to five piece with vocals).  It's just absurd to think that only a pathetic GNR fan wouldn't want change.

The problem isn't the songs, or the album, or Axl's ego (ok, maybe a little)...the problem is, this album took 17 FUCKING YEARS to come out.  There's no album on earth that could have remotely lived up to that history and hype.  When a band kills it with such an amazing debut, they releases a double-disc, epic follow up, then a goddamn covers album and vanishes, they're done.  Axl could've put out Appetitie part 2 and it still would've fallen on mostly deaf ears at this point. 

you may well be the type of person who can appreciate a band's evolution, but my contention - and that of the article that started this thread - is that the average GnR fan isn't such a person.  they wanted stability & predictability and the album didn't deliver. 

so in essence are you saying that people can't objectively listen to the music because of all its baggage?...

if this is what you're saying  i would have to question it because its like saying that if a lost beatles album came out now and it was better than revolver containing untold classics people wouldn't be able to appreciate it...

or if the stones delivered an album as good as the ones they did between 68 and 72 (five straight perfect five star albums..one a year..) that people wouldn't dig it cause of the context etc..i disagree with that...a bigger bang was a crap album..if they would manage to write something good and classic people would love it and not sell their album on amazon for 49 cents... a great song is a great song....

if axl had delivered appetite 2 the album would have changed the history of rock and roll..it would have confirmed the reascendancy of classic hard rock and roll (we know there is something going on by looking at ac dc or the top grossing tours by the way), brought back the guitar solo, brought back expressiveness in rock and roll etc.. i mean it would have been huge.. it would have consigned nirvana and wilco to the scrapheap which is where they ought to be by the way...

[nkotb]

Maybe.  People shat their pants over some of Dylan's latest, but do you really think they're be considered "classics" like his earlier work?

But that's nto really my point.  My point is, after waiting 17 years for something (and considering that 17 years is about 6 lifetimes in pop culture), there was no way this could've been anything more than a disappointment. 

My bigger issue, though, is assume that GNR fans are base enough to not want change in their favorite bands.  If that's the case, the Use your Illusions albums would've tanked, since they barely contain any of the rage and spark of the first album.

For the record, I love the band, and even had a chance to see them open for Aerosmith back in the day.  I'm not weighing in on something I don't give a shit about.  Appetite is one of my favorite albums ever.  And I'm  not even ashamed to admit to making out to a high school girlfriend to November Rain.

if a lost beatles album came out now and it was better than revolver containing untold classics people wouldn't be able to appreciate it...

or if the stones delivered an album as good as the ones they did between 68 and 72 (five straight perfect five star albums..one a year..) that people wouldn't dig it cause of the context etc..i disagree with that...a bigger bang was a crap album..if they would manage to write something good and classic people would love it and not sell their album on amazon for 49 cents... a great song is a great song....

[azaghal1981]

or even a Hella fan (hating the switch from instrumental duo to five piece with vocals). 

::gets angry all over again::


Seriously, what the fuck were they thinking?!!!!!!!!!!!!