Rather oddly, I couldn't find a thread on the first 10 pages, so I'm starting one.
Listened to this today, thought the first few songs had decent intro riffs, some of the later ones were trying to be too November Rain-ish, and don't recall any hooks particularly.
I will not be buying it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
is it already out, or did you listen at the common demo-versions ?
er...neither.
I've read three reviews, and the three of them were negative.
I'll still give it a try, though.
I'll still give it a try, though.
[QUOTE]
[b]Raf wrote: [/b]
I've read three reviews, and the three of them were negative.
I'll still give it a try, though.
[/QUOTE]
You're brave. That's a bit like saying 'being shot has bad reviews, but I'll give it a try'.
Hehe
[b]Raf wrote: [/b]
I've read three reviews, and the three of them were negative.
I'll still give it a try, though.
[/QUOTE]
You're brave. That's a bit like saying 'being shot has bad reviews, but I'll give it a try'.
Hehe
DUH! Of course I'm buying it.
Music critics are just like politicians.
The great majority of them are supposed to have extensive knowledge of their profession, but they have less of a clue as the average individual.
This Friday a local radio station will be playing the entire album without interruption.
Then I'll make my choice if Axl deserves my 12 bucks.
The great majority of them are supposed to have extensive knowledge of their profession, but they have less of a clue as the average individual.
This Friday a local radio station will be playing the entire album without interruption.
Then I'll make my choice if Axl deserves my 12 bucks.
Ok let's be fair now. If critics say TCR is awful, they are wrong and are (insert insult here). If they say that the new GNR is bad, they become "intelligent people" (for the lack of a better adjective)?
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
Ok let's be fair now. If critics say TCR is awful, they are wrong and are (insert insult here). If they say that the new GNR is bad, they become "intelligent people" (for the lack of a better adjective)?
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say they "became" intelligent people. I personally never had my hopes up about Chinese Democracy. I can't see how Axl could put a good album together, to be honest. He was the frontman, but he wasn't the most creative force in the band at all. The creative core from the band has been recording and touring as Velvet Revolver. If Freddie's solo career was pretty much embarrassing and completely unlike Queen's typical sound (and he WAS one of the most creative songwriters in the group!), I can't see how Axl could have any further success in making good music. Let's not forget he had 14 years to work on this album, he spent millions of bucks on it, he redid every song from the album several times... He has no excuse: He took his time, he had lots of money and a large array of musicians available, and he named himself and his new band Guns n' Roses, the name of one of the biggest bands in the History of rock, maybe the biggest rock group from the early 90s. Some people will be expecting a masterpiece. I personally would expect something decent, something worth listening. One of the reviews I read said the new album is a failed mix of genres that have nothing to do with GnR (such as industrial, techno...), and the other review said it's something you simply can't stand listening, both because of the poor, uninteresting songs and because of Axl's voice itself - and let's face it, although I haven't heard his voice in any recent recording, I'm pretty sure at this age he must sound much worse than he did back when Use Your Illusion I&II were released.
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
Ok let's be fair now. If critics say TCR is awful, they are wrong and are (insert insult here). If they say that the new GNR is bad, they become "intelligent people" (for the lack of a better adjective)?
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say they "became" intelligent people. I personally never had my hopes up about Chinese Democracy. I can't see how Axl could put a good album together, to be honest. He was the frontman, but he wasn't the most creative force in the band at all. The creative core from the band has been recording and touring as Velvet Revolver. If Freddie's solo career was pretty much embarrassing and completely unlike Queen's typical sound (and he WAS one of the most creative songwriters in the group!), I can't see how Axl could have any further success in making good music. Let's not forget he had 14 years to work on this album, he spent millions of bucks on it, he redid every song from the album several times... He has no excuse: He took his time, he had lots of money and a large array of musicians available, and he named himself and his new band Guns n' Roses, the name of one of the biggest bands in the History of rock, maybe the biggest rock group from the early 90s. Some people will be expecting a masterpiece. I personally would expect something decent, something worth listening. One of the reviews I read said the new album is a failed mix of genres that have nothing to do with GnR (such as industrial, techno...), and the other review said it's something you simply can't stand listening, both because of the poor, uninteresting songs and because of Axl's voice itself - and let's face it, although I haven't heard his voice in any recent recording, I'm pretty sure at this age he must sound much worse than he did back when Use Your Illusion I&II were released.
I don`t expect anything from the album. Hasn`t Axl been in a drinking bout all these years?
Assuming they go ahead with the release, it looks like will be a free Dr Pepper for everyone in America:
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/10/dr-pepper-to-ma.html
Raf: I hope this includes Brazil! They don't specify WHICH America in the wired blog ;)
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/10/dr-pepper-to-ma.html
Raf: I hope this includes Brazil! They don't specify WHICH America in the wired blog ;)
[QUOTE]
One of the reviews I read said the new album is a failed mix of genres that
have nothing to do with GnR (such as industrial, techno...)[/QUOTE]
I read this a lot of times too and I must say I was expecting something "modern" (in its worst meaning), but they aren't pretending to be NIN or Manson. Occasionally there are some odd sounds here and there (and too many wah sounds), but it's nothing unusual to make one think that they changed genres. I just thought that some intros are extremely long and unnecessary, but overall it really surprised me, I was expecting far worse, dance beats and stuff. I felt like I had heard some of these songs before (I heard the demos once and that was it), which kind of means that they are still sounding the same as usual, I guess.
I was afraid of the voice too. But considering that studio can make wonders... but what happened is that the vocals probably were recorded when he was still in a better shape and not a week ago. I doubt he can do that live, though.
One of the reviews I read said the new album is a failed mix of genres that
have nothing to do with GnR (such as industrial, techno...)[/QUOTE]
I read this a lot of times too and I must say I was expecting something "modern" (in its worst meaning), but they aren't pretending to be NIN or Manson. Occasionally there are some odd sounds here and there (and too many wah sounds), but it's nothing unusual to make one think that they changed genres. I just thought that some intros are extremely long and unnecessary, but overall it really surprised me, I was expecting far worse, dance beats and stuff. I felt like I had heard some of these songs before (I heard the demos once and that was it), which kind of means that they are still sounding the same as usual, I guess.
I was afraid of the voice too. But considering that studio can make wonders... but what happened is that the vocals probably were recorded when he was still in a better shape and not a week ago. I doubt he can do that live, though.
[b]I already have the demo's.
I'm buying this album, yes.
[/b]
I'm buying this album, yes.
[/b]
OK, I just listened to it...
Here's a message for the Axl bashers who constantly remind us that there's no G'n'R withouth Slash and expected this to be a complete utter failure...[b] IT'S NOT THAT BAD.[/b] In fact, the album itself is pretty damn well produced, and while itdoesn't particularly have the rocking edge of Appetite For Destruction, it has the cross-over appeal of Use Your Illusion I & II.
...and another message for the Axl butt-lickers... IT'S NOT WORTH THE WAIT. Yes, it's a good album, but 12 FUCKIN' YEARS IS WAY TOO DAMN LONG TO WAIT FOR ANY ALBUM.
Here's a message for the Axl bashers who constantly remind us that there's no G'n'R withouth Slash and expected this to be a complete utter failure...[b] IT'S NOT THAT BAD.[/b] In fact, the album itself is pretty damn well produced, and while itdoesn't particularly have the rocking edge of Appetite For Destruction, it has the cross-over appeal of Use Your Illusion I & II.
...and another message for the Axl butt-lickers... IT'S NOT WORTH THE WAIT. Yes, it's a good album, but 12 FUCKIN' YEARS IS WAY TOO DAMN LONG TO WAIT FOR ANY ALBUM.
On my first listen I thought it was ok.... The songs were good and all, but nothign cought me and I put it down and didnt listne to it that with great reaction.
How ever, upon playing it fucking loud in my car, the songs are starting to sink in. Its actually a pretty cool album.
Do we really need to know the back ground of an album rather than to just actually listen to it? If you forget the X amount of years it took and the title of the band, and just listen to, make that connection with, its a pretty cool album.
Time will tell how it goes. If it ages well, ect ect.
How ever, upon playing it fucking loud in my car, the songs are starting to sink in. Its actually a pretty cool album.
Do we really need to know the back ground of an album rather than to just actually listen to it? If you forget the X amount of years it took and the title of the band, and just listen to, make that connection with, its a pretty cool album.
Time will tell how it goes. If it ages well, ect ect.