You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Mikkamakka
- Rep: 217
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
that news about a self-titled rears it's head again.. while i think it'd be funny i'd prob prefer it 2 be called CDII..
not sure whether i believe there's a final mix & mastered record sitting there tho..
It'd be pathetic to call it "Guns N' Roses", when there is only one person who decides everything and the others are just as replacable as their instruments. Not to mention that the writers of the 'Guns N' Roses' album would be looooong gone, so the title will state that it's a fake band.
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
It'd be pathetic to call it "Guns N' Roses", when there is only one person who decides everything and the others are just as replacable as their instruments. Not to mention that the writers of the 'Guns N' Roses' album would be looooong gone, so the title will state that it's a fake band.
I agree. It would be so lame. I always remeber Robert Smith from the Cure talking about why he decided to self title their 2004 album The Cure. he said he was at a point in his career where he felt he was recording what would be The Cure's definitive album and how it summed up everything that was the Cure. That got me really excited for the album but in the end it's probably one of their/his weakest albums.
Self titling a Guns N' Roses album at this point would be the epitmoy of arrogance. It would be a big slap in the face to everything that's come before it. It's only an album title but I don't like it when any band self titles their albums unless it's a debut. It's just too all encompasing. I mean how do you digest a new era Gn'R album simply title Guns N' Roses. It seems so..... wrong. 
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
It's only an album title but I don't like it when any band self titles their albums unless it's a debut. It's just too all encompasing. I mean how do you digest a new era Gn'R album simply title Guns N' Roses. It seems so..... wrong.
Agreed with Bono on this one, though I'd accept a Greatest Hits album being self-titled too (dont need another GH from GNR though)
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
Damn! Your post was kinda fair and balanced, then you went all stupid-old-anti-Axl-jibberish on us
Too bad you went all stupid-old-HTGTH-brainwashed-nutjob-Axl nutswinger on us
I might've been tired in 2006, but Axlites were tired in 2004 
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
I personally hope they don't make it self titled simply because it would increase the controversy ten-fold.
Lets face it...90% of arguments come back to the fact that the current band is pretty different from the original band, both in musical-style and line up yet uses the same name.
While there's arguments for and against that - to me it's all a distraction from the real business - which to me should be that musically both the old and the new band are still great.
I really enjoy heaps of the songs on Slash's new album, and there's some just amazing stuff going on inside Chinese Democracy musically too I feel.
IF Axl releases a new album, it would further the sense of moving on, as releasing two albums post the old band, has a lot more momentum than just a single album. I'd like to see people think about his music for what it IS not what it ISNT. I'd like articles about Axl to focus on his amazing songwriting not about his entitlement (or not depending on your views) to the brand name.
Releasing a self-titled album of new material I think would be counter productive to all those aims. It would reignite the name debate tenfold both in the fanbase, and no doubt in the media reviews as well.
Also, more generally, I'm not a fan of self titles at all, I like to think of a band as represented by a body of work, all their releases, the minute you self title something, especially if it isn't the first release. it signifies that somehow this release is the most iconic to the band in some way.
So to make it about U2 before bono does, ( 
) who wants to see a new album from u2 called simply u2 - and if you had to pick an old one - which? Zooropa? Joshua Tree? I much prefer to let the body of work speak for itself.
I'd love to see a new guns and roses album, I just hope it's got a new name. Although given Axl's comments about why he kept the name of the band the same, i could imagine it's possible he might feel the same way about a new album.
In any event it would be cool to have a new album. I'm just scared of the drama that name would stir up!
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
from msl at mygnr
we already knew axl originally wanted the self-titled record out in november 2009. we also know he turned in a mixed and mastered album in the spring of 2010 and asked for a july release. seems reasonable that he's still trying to get UMG to release the album ASAP.
If that's true why wouldn't they? If the album was already finished and paid for, what would UMG loose from releasing it, other than making some money? I guess maybe they're deadlocked about the level of marketing or something....i dunno.
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
If Axl would find a lineup and STICK WITH IT... i'd FULLY support a self-titled GN'R album. It'd be a rebirth of sorts.
The thing is, what would be the point of a "Guns N' Roses - Guns N' Roses" in the catalog, if it's the 2009-10 band performing 2001-02 band vault songs?
That isn't the epitome of arrogance, it's the epitome of STUPIDITY.
If Axl's set with the 2009-10 lineup as GN'R, and wants to do an all-new all-original 2009-10 written album and call it "GN'R"... I totally support that.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
Yeah, I'd love to see new music whatever it's called really, I just think it would be a mistake cos it's a distraction.
Like when I try and play someone a Chinese Democracy song, instead of talking about the song, it turns into "it's been 15 years" or whatever.
This would be the same thing. It could be the best songs ever written - it could be soothsayer quality guitar with estranged quality lyrics - and the conversation would get stuck in the fucking name of it.
I can see the attraction as they might think it would help solidify a new era of GNR, but I think it would just add fuel to the fire about the name debates. Which at this point is really old news. I mean for right or wrong - it is what it is.
I'd like a new album I can smack people over the headwith, not a new reason to have to justify the modern band to someone.
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
Honestly monk, it's ALWAYS gonna be like that. It doesn't matter that almost 100% of people who put their fist in the air to CD or Better, but as soon as it says Guns N' Roses AND they know it's off of Chinese Democracy, they slam it unmercifully as "it's not really Guns N' Roses"... "but do you like it?"... "of course not, there's no Slash".
Eventually Axl has to just grab his balls and shove them down people's throats. Release a self-titled album and do concert shows playing half new album, and half classics, and fuck the haters. THAT is what he HAS to do. And it's been that way since 2001.
Instead he doesn't do that. Anytime he does an interview he bashes Slash OR he tours the world for a decade performing AFD with a tribute band.
The casual fans act that way because Axl allows them to. He's too much of a pussy to truely demand their attention and do it his way, because.... well... I don't know why he does it tbh. I don't know if it's laziness, fear of rejection, fear of failure, paranoia of Slash, or lack of faith in the new material... I dunno. He seems to not believe in HIMSELF. The world NEVER stopped believing in him. Everyone in the world, even in America still seem to love the guy. Just watch how the people on TMZ react to him. Like he's a God or something.
When did GN'R stop having balls? It can't be when the old band ceased to exist or Izzy left or Slash left. That's crap. Axl was always the bad ass in the band. Someday Axl stopped remembering that he's Axl fucking Rose, and starting becoming far to preoccupied with being everyone else to remember the world loved him and still does for exactly who he is.
Re: GunsNRosesNews RUMOUR. & THEREFORE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PINCH OF
^^ good post JR
Gnr has been a revolving door at its inception. Its only stability was afd lies lineup.
Even UYI was a different band and honestly my favorite live and records from them to date. Im not knocking afd or CD there both top notch in my book.
To self title would sit fine with me and my understanding of What GnR is "Axl and whoever he decides to put in front of us" It took me years to adjust to the 2002 mtv shock. when I came back I realized bucket was gone then Robin.
It is what it is. I choose to get to know about the new guys and try to enjoy the thing. The more history you look at the more things are the same with this band.
Same goes for slash. guy was my idol! iIgive everything he does as a chance. Even if i done like most of it i check out the next thing out of respect for who he is.
If nothing else these guys Axl & Slash have put out record(s) gave alot of shows to go to , alot of news. and opend the door for alot of lesser known guys to shine. All is good with the right prospective.
