You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
faldor wrote:Good points, Ali and monkey. I too, don't get how people could love the UYI's and hate CD, when I think they're quite similar. And I'm sure there are plenty of "amazing" albums by established AND unestablished acts out there that the majority of people have no clue about. Just because "Chinese Democracy" didn't change the world, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a shitty album. There's plenty of crap that sells well these days because it's marketed, pushed, promoted, etc., etc. None of which happened with CD. So to say that it should've been able to stand on its own greatness is a little far-fetched to me. Name me ONE album that had zero promo and was "successful". Maybe there are some out there, but not that I'm aware of.
I love UYI and can't stand at least 1/2 of CD and only like 1 song on the album as it was released. It's quite easy to do. CD is the biggest mess of an album I've ever heard in my life to the point that the songs themselves are unlistenable due to all of the shit going on in them.
Name me ONE album that was released by an established b(r)and, sold as much as it did the first two weeks, was released on rock band, then completely stopped selling until the price dropped to less than $2? We can play this game forever if you want. It's not going to change how you feel, nor how I feel.
Buzz, I completely agree with yoin that aspect, and that was sort of my point. This situation is unlike any other in the history of rock music. Never has an album taken this long to release, had such immense anticipation, then have it drop and have NO promo or anything to help it along. So of course it was destined to "fail".
That's why I find it hard to believe that the album should have been able to stand on its own without any help. I've never seen it happen before, just as NO album has ever been created, released, and mishandled as badly as this one was. That, we can agree on.
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
Certainly I agree with that. I would think anybody but the biggest Axl fanboy (DJ) would agree.
My point was it sold big the first 2 weeks. It was streamed on myspace. People heard it. If it WAS an amazing album and sold that much the first 2 weeks, it would have sold on word of mouth even without Axl lifting a finger after those 2 weeks. Enough people bought it right away and the GnR name alone would have gotten people intrigued by what their friends were saying about it to buy it if it was an amazing album. It just isn't THAT good.
Now I will say that it's probably not as bad as I think it is if it's selling again at $1.99, but it's not as good as some seem to think it is if it took until it was $1.99 to sell again.
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
Ali wrote:buzzsaw wrote:This isn't about the old catalog. You said several songs on CD were "amazing" to which I replied that if they were, the album would have sold itself. If you want to say some of them are as good as the crappiest old songs, fine, I'll go with that.
Sorry, but that is non-sense. Quality and commercial viability/success are not one and the same. Just because material isn't commercially viable doesn't mean it isn't good, great or amazing.
Ali
No, what is nonsense is saying that an album has "amazing" songs on it, sold a ton initially, then died a quick death.
No.
Complete and utter crap is trying to establish any kind of direct relationship between commercial viability and quality.
Songs can be well-written, yet not constructed in a typical pop, verse-chorus-verse, format or be of the 3-5 min length. Obviously, the latter two qualities are very common in commercially successful songs. Look at a song like "Coma". It's length and structure prohibit it from being a commercial success because it's not easily or quickly digestible.
CD has many songs that simply do not adhere to the typical pop song structure or have overt hooks that immediately grab you. It's an album that requires several listens to fully absorb and I'm sure many people weren't willing to be that patient. It reminds me of a Dream Theater record in many respects. And they have exactly one gold record to their name.
Commercial success is also a large product of promoting and marketing. Obviously that didn't happen for this record, so that has to be considered as a significant factor for the record not selling as much as it could have.
And think of the converse of what you're implying. If an album is amazing, then it should sell well. The converse is that if an album sells well, it is amazing. Really? Do I need to mention the litany of pop acts who've sold many records, but many consider to not be great music.
How about a more specific example. Metallica's Master of Puppets has sold 6X platinum. The Black Album has sold 15X platinum. Does that mean that Master of Puppets is not as good a record as the Black Album? I know many people who would say, "no". I think it means that the Black Album is more commercially viable and accessible than Master of Puppets.
Ali
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
buzzsaw wrote:Ali wrote:Sorry, but that is non-sense. Quality and commercial viability/success are not one and the same. Just because material isn't commercially viable doesn't mean it isn't good, great or amazing.
Ali
No, what is nonsense is saying that an album has "amazing" songs on it, sold a ton initially, then died a quick death.
No.
Complete and utter crap is trying to establish any kind of direct relationship between commercial viability and quality.
Songs can be well-written, yet not constructed in a typical pop, verse-chorus-verse, format or be of the 3-5 min length. Obviously, the latter two qualities are very common in commercially successful songs. Look at a song like "Coma". It's length and structure prohibit it from being a commercial success because it's not easily or quickly digestible.
CD has many songs that simply do not adhere to the typical pop song structure or have overt hooks that immediately grab you. It's an album that requires several listens to fully absorb and I'm sure many people weren't willing to be that patient. It reminds me of a Dream Theater record in many respects. And they have exactly one gold record to their name.
Commercial success is also a large product of promoting and marketing. Obviously that didn't happen for this record, so that has to be considered as a significant factor for the record not selling as much as it could have.
And think of the converse of what you're implying. If an album is amazing, then it should sell well. The converse is that if an album sells well, it is amazing. Really? Do I need to mention the litany of pop acts who've sold many records, but many consider to not be great music.
How about a more specific example. Metallica's Master of Puppets has sold 6X platinum. The Black Album has sold 15X platinum. Does that mean that Master of Puppets is not as good a record as the Black Album? I know many people who would say, "no". I think it means that the Black Album is more commercially viable and accessible than Master of Puppets.
Ali
Apples and oranges. You're talking about a completely different issue than I am. Read this, then get back to me:
My point was it sold big the first 2 weeks. It was streamed on myspace. People heard it. If it WAS an amazing album and sold that much the first 2 weeks, it would have sold on word of mouth even without Axl lifting a finger after those 2 weeks. Enough people bought it right away and the GnR name alone would have gotten people intrigued by what their friends were saying about it to buy it if it was an amazing album. It just isn't THAT good.
Did either album sell a ton in 2 weeks and disappear? Were either streamed for free on myspace (obviously not). I've never said commercial success = quality. That isn't my point at all...I don't mind discussing/debating with you, but at least try to stay on the subject being discussed/debated.
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
Ali wrote:buzzsaw wrote:No, what is nonsense is saying that an album has "amazing" songs on it, sold a ton initially, then died a quick death.
No.
Complete and utter crap is trying to establish any kind of direct relationship between commercial viability and quality.
Songs can be well-written, yet not constructed in a typical pop, verse-chorus-verse, format or be of the 3-5 min length. Obviously, the latter two qualities are very common in commercially successful songs. Look at a song like "Coma". It's length and structure prohibit it from being a commercial success because it's not easily or quickly digestible.
CD has many songs that simply do not adhere to the typical pop song structure or have overt hooks that immediately grab you. It's an album that requires several listens to fully absorb and I'm sure many people weren't willing to be that patient. It reminds me of a Dream Theater record in many respects. And they have exactly one gold record to their name.
Commercial success is also a large product of promoting and marketing. Obviously that didn't happen for this record, so that has to be considered as a significant factor for the record not selling as much as it could have.
And think of the converse of what you're implying. If an album is amazing, then it should sell well. The converse is that if an album sells well, it is amazing. Really? Do I need to mention the litany of pop acts who've sold many records, but many consider to not be great music.
How about a more specific example. Metallica's Master of Puppets has sold 6X platinum. The Black Album has sold 15X platinum. Does that mean that Master of Puppets is not as good a record as the Black Album? I know many people who would say, "no". I think it means that the Black Album is more commercially viable and accessible than Master of Puppets.
Ali
Apples and oranges. You're talking about a completely different issue than I am. Read this, then get back to me:
My point was it sold big the first 2 weeks. It was streamed on myspace. People heard it. If it WAS an amazing album and sold that much the first 2 weeks, it would have sold on word of mouth even without Axl lifting a finger after those 2 weeks. Enough people bought it right away and the GnR name alone would have gotten people intrigued by what their friends were saying about it to buy it if it was an amazing album. It just isn't THAT good.
Did either album sell a ton in 2 weeks and disappear? Were either streamed for free on myspace (obviously not). I've never said commercial success = quality. That isn't my point at all...I don't mind discussing/debating with you, but at least try to stay on the subject being discussed/debated.
Excuse me, you said if the songs were amazing the album would have sold itself. How is that not equating commercial success with quality? 
I don't mind debating with you, either. But, at least own up to what you said.
And, don't discount the significance of a marketing push in helping an album to continually sell, which I already mentioned.
I'll say another thing, anyone who says there wasn't some fraction of people who automatically dismissed the album because it didn't have Slash/the old band on it and/or it didn't sound like old school Guns, is delusional.
If people dismiss an album simply because of its sound or difference in lineup, there goes word of mouth.
Ali
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
For Christ's sake, read what I said. I know what I said, you apparently do not.
For the third time:
My point was it sold big the first 2 weeks. It was streamed on myspace. People heard it. If it WAS an amazing album and sold that much the first 2 weeks, it would have sold on word of mouth even without Axl lifting a finger after those 2 weeks. Enough people bought it right away and the GnR name alone would have gotten people intrigued by what their friends were saying about it to buy it if it was an amazing album. It just isn't THAT good.
Sold big first 2 weeks. Check.
Streamed for free on myspace. Check.
As a result of those 2 points, it is safe to assume people heard the album. Check.
So if the album was amazing, all of those people that heard it would have been talking about how amazing it was, right? Right?
If you don't follow it to this point, there's no point in continuing.
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
For Christ's sake, read what I said. I know what I said, you apparently do not.
For the third time:
My point was it sold big the first 2 weeks. It was streamed on myspace. People heard it. If it WAS an amazing album and sold that much the first 2 weeks, it would have sold on word of mouth even without Axl lifting a finger after those 2 weeks. Enough people bought it right away and the GnR name alone would have gotten people intrigued by what their friends were saying about it to buy it if it was an amazing album. It just isn't THAT good.
Sold big first 2 weeks. Check.
Streamed for free on myspace. Check.
As a result of those 2 points, it is safe to assume people heard the album. Check.
So if the album was amazing, all of those people that heard it would have been talking about how amazing it was, right? Right?
If you don't follow it to this point, there's no point in continuing.
Already responded in the previous post, with respect to continual marketing efforts and the dismissing of the album simply based off different sound and/or band membership (see Megadeth-Risk, Metallica-Load/Reload, U2-Pop, Zooropa, No Line On The Horizon, etc.).
If you're going to discount all that, then you're right, there is no point in continuing. Your view is IMO very myopic and not considering all the factors at play.
Ali
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
When you get down to brass tacks, the album did not have enough single worthy songs to sustain long term success. Even if the title track or Better had caught on like Just Dance or Poker Face, where does it go from there? NOWHERE.
Like I said when it was initially released, the only shot it had singles wise was marketing This I Love, If the World,etc. to easy listening stations. Even doing that would have been a risk.
The album didn't have a monster single and there's no getting around that no matter how we approach the issue. GNR needed a Cochise or Vertigo and in ten years couldn't come up with one. Case closed.
Maybe next time....
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
I said this going all the way back to the demos coming out: the songs might be great, it's impossible to tell with all of the crap going on.
Its interesting you think that. There's probably a few who agree...i think a few people around here have expressed that they enjoyed the "Catcher in the Rye" demo more than the final release as it had less layers.
Personally I generally liked the finished versions more than the demos, although I do think one of the charms of the catcher demo was that the panio used to be really loud and driving that opening, and now that it's down in the mix the tone is a little different.
But I dunno...from a songwriting perspective I can usually decide if I like the basis of a song even when there may be individual things I don't like.
For example, I don't like pop music all that much, prefer "real" instruments, not the biggest fan of female singers, but I thought lady gaga's paparazzi had a decent melody. It doens't mean I really liked the final track all that much and blast it - but the underlying song I would probably like on an acoustic guitar with chris cornel singing it hahahah....
OR in metal...Master of Puppets is a pretty cool song - but I listen to the classic version and the bass is too quiet, some of the recording tones suck..there's production issues. It doesn't mean the song itself isn't a masterpiece in terms of cool guitar riffs.
So yeah, there's elements of the way CD was produced that I can accept people don't appriciate....maybe they don't like 3 guitarists...maybe they think someone else would have played a better solo....completely understand....but the songs themselves are very good...I say again...how is Catcher in the Rye all that different from a song like Breakdown?
Re: Chinese Democracy now $1.99
buzzsaw wrote:For Christ's sake, read what I said. I know what I said, you apparently do not.
For the third time:
My point was it sold big the first 2 weeks. It was streamed on myspace. People heard it. If it WAS an amazing album and sold that much the first 2 weeks, it would have sold on word of mouth even without Axl lifting a finger after those 2 weeks. Enough people bought it right away and the GnR name alone would have gotten people intrigued by what their friends were saying about it to buy it if it was an amazing album. It just isn't THAT good.
Sold big first 2 weeks. Check.
Streamed for free on myspace. Check.
As a result of those 2 points, it is safe to assume people heard the album. Check.
So if the album was amazing, all of those people that heard it would have been talking about how amazing it was, right? Right?
If you don't follow it to this point, there's no point in continuing.
Already responded in the previous post, with respect to continual marketing efforts and the dismissing of the album simply based off different sound and/or band membership (see Megadeth-Risk, Metallica-Load/Reload, U2-Pop, Zooropa, No Line On The Horizon, etc.).
If you're going to discount all that, then you're right, there is no point in continuing. Your view is IMO very myopic and not considering all the factors at play.
Ali
You said you addressed it. So did I miss where you admitted people would be talking about how amazing it is? I must have, because all I see is you making excuses as to why the album didn't sell intead of answering a simple question. We're not talking about marketing or whether the songs sound the same as the band used to sound, we're talking about people buying and/or listening to the album. Keep up here...
Did people buy and/or listen to the album when it first came out? Yes or no?
