You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: About the marketing
well i dont think we can deny that this is basically the Axl Rose show ..... anyone that is in the band when the album is released will be the "New Guns N Roses"...i donest matter to joe blow who is on the album...thats for the hard cores
look at Ozzy's No More Tears....Mike Inez is given a credit as a bass player and i dont think he ever played a live show with Ozzy
Re: About the marketing
well i dont think we can deny that this is basically the Axl Rose show ..... anyone that is in the band when the album is released will be the "New Guns N Roses"...i donest matter to joe blow who is on the album...thats for the hard cores
look at Ozzy's No More Tears....Mike Inez is given a credit as a bass player and i dont think he ever played a live show with Ozzy
Yeah, but Ozzy wasn't touring as Black Sabbath, he was touring as Ozzy. Axl has created a mess by trying to be Guns N Roses when it obviously isn't Guns N Roses anymore. he could have gotten away with it in 2002, but once a record comes out with all these "guest" performances, everyone will quickly figure out this solo project isn't, nor was it ever, Guns N Roses. My biggest reason for disliking the new band in the past was ruining the legacy of the real band, but Axl has been kind enough to ensure that something like that isn't even possible now. This band will never be Guns N Roses - it will always be Axl's new Guns N Roses...I can live with that.
Now if he could just get the songs to the point that they are listenable, I could actually support this solo project.
Re: About the marketing
It will be marketable. No matter what the line up looks like. The general public has no idea who is on this record. They should do a release like the Eagles did and sell only through wallmart. Wallmart paid for all the promotions and bought 3 million copies up front from the band. The Eagles also landed number one on the charts so it didn't hurt them it reality it was the best way to release an album.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: About the marketing
If GN'R sold Chinese Democracy exclusively through Wal-Mart, I wouldn't buy it. I hate when bands do that.
Re: About the marketing
Neemo wrote:well i dont think we can deny that this is basically the Axl Rose show ..... anyone that is in the band when the album is released will be the "New Guns N Roses"...i donest matter to joe blow who is on the album...thats for the hard cores
look at Ozzy's No More Tears....Mike Inez is given a credit as a bass player and i dont think he ever played a live show with Ozzy
Yeah, but Ozzy wasn't touring as Black Sabbath, he was touring as Ozzy. Axl has created a mess by trying to be Guns N Roses when it obviously isn't Guns N Roses anymore. he could have gotten away with it in 2002, but once a record comes out with all these "guest" performances, everyone will quickly figure out this solo project isn't, nor was it ever, Guns N Roses. My biggest reason for disliking the new band in the past was ruining the legacy of the real band, but Axl has been kind enough to ensure that something like that isn't even possible now. This band will never be Guns N Roses - it will always be Axl's new Guns N Roses...I can live with that.
Now if he could just get the songs to the point that they are listenable, I could actually support this solo project.
Ozzy had been solo, away from Black Sabbath, for some time when No More Tears came out. For some people, Guns N' Roses will and always will be Axl Rose. So while you think it's not, many will disagree. As long as the "voice" of the band is there. I know there are plenty who think the way you do, but there's two sides to every story. Bands evolve, move on. The old lineup played themselves out. While they were still great, they couldn't co-exist. It was time to move on. Axl took the name for better or worse. For people who fail to recognize them as Guns N' Roses, that's too bad, because that's what they are.
Re: About the marketing
buzzsaw wrote:Neemo wrote:well i dont think we can deny that this is basically the Axl Rose show ..... anyone that is in the band when the album is released will be the "New Guns N Roses"...i donest matter to joe blow who is on the album...thats for the hard cores
look at Ozzy's No More Tears....Mike Inez is given a credit as a bass player and i dont think he ever played a live show with Ozzy
Yeah, but Ozzy wasn't touring as Black Sabbath, he was touring as Ozzy. Axl has created a mess by trying to be Guns N Roses when it obviously isn't Guns N Roses anymore. he could have gotten away with it in 2002, but once a record comes out with all these "guest" performances, everyone will quickly figure out this solo project isn't, nor was it ever, Guns N Roses. My biggest reason for disliking the new band in the past was ruining the legacy of the real band, but Axl has been kind enough to ensure that something like that isn't even possible now. This band will never be Guns N Roses - it will always be Axl's new Guns N Roses...I can live with that.
Now if he could just get the songs to the point that they are listenable, I could actually support this solo project.
Ozzy had been solo, away from Black Sabbath, for some time when No More Tears came out. For some people, Guns N' Roses will and always will be Axl Rose. So while you think it's not, many will disagree. As long as the "voice" of the band is there. I know there are plenty who think the way you do, but there's two sides to every story. Bands evolve, move on. The old lineup played themselves out. While they were still great, they couldn't co-exist. It was time to move on. Axl took the name for better or worse. For people who fail to recognize them as Guns N' Roses, that's too bad, because that's what they are.
To a few fans who never understood what the band was all about, Axl = GnR. To anybody that's been around for the entire 20+ year run, it's obvious that Axl is not, nor was he ever GnR. If he was, there would have been an album released YEARS ago. He is incapable of writing quality material on his own. The leaks prove it and the lack of an album proves it. If it weren't for BH, a large percentage of the few people that really like all the leaks wouldn't like them either. The leaks have layers upon layers of fluff added to make the songs appear complex because they lack quality. Neither is the sign of great material no matter how often a few people here want to say so.
Re: About the marketing
faldor wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Yeah, but Ozzy wasn't touring as Black Sabbath, he was touring as Ozzy. Axl has created a mess by trying to be Guns N Roses when it obviously isn't Guns N Roses anymore. he could have gotten away with it in 2002, but once a record comes out with all these "guest" performances, everyone will quickly figure out this solo project isn't, nor was it ever, Guns N Roses. My biggest reason for disliking the new band in the past was ruining the legacy of the real band, but Axl has been kind enough to ensure that something like that isn't even possible now. This band will never be Guns N Roses - it will always be Axl's new Guns N Roses...I can live with that.
Now if he could just get the songs to the point that they are listenable, I could actually support this solo project.
Ozzy had been solo, away from Black Sabbath, for some time when No More Tears came out. For some people, Guns N' Roses will and always will be Axl Rose. So while you think it's not, many will disagree. As long as the "voice" of the band is there. I know there are plenty who think the way you do, but there's two sides to every story. Bands evolve, move on. The old lineup played themselves out. While they were still great, they couldn't co-exist. It was time to move on. Axl took the name for better or worse. For people who fail to recognize them as Guns N' Roses, that's too bad, because that's what they are.
To a few fans who never understood what the band was all about, Axl = GnR. To anybody that's been around for the entire 20+ year run, it's obvious that Axl is not, nor was he ever GnR. If he was, there would have been an album released YEARS ago. He is incapable of writing quality material on his own. The leaks prove it and the lack of an album proves it. If it weren't for BH, a large percentage of the few people that really like all the leaks wouldn't like them either. The leaks have layers upon layers of fluff added to make the songs appear complex because they lack quality. Neither is the sign of great material no matter how often a few people here want to say so.
That is completely subjective and while you're entitled to your opinion NOTHING you stated holds any water as far as being fact except that Axl has not released any albums without Slash and co. You think the leaks are crap, but whether you like to admit it or not YOU are in the minority on that front. I love the leaks, AND the classics. I've actually been surprised at how well received the leaks have been. I thought they'd be given no chance whatsoever. Sort of like what you're doing.
