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.

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.

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.

Agreed, ALOT OF THIS comes across as DJ just being a newbie to the whole thing.

He seems to be ignorant to the process, and making the same rookie mistakes that Richard, Tommy, Dizzy & Brain made over the years. "Yeah we're working on like 14 songs", "99% complete", "finishing touches", "yeah it should be out by Thanksgiving 2003"... then they went dark. Because they realized it was going nowhere.

I'm not saying GN'R couldn't be working on stuff, i'm just saying that DJ is used to Nikki & Motley's way of getting stuff done. You write it, cut it, spit-shine it, release it, all done within a year or so.

He has NO CLUE what he's in for with Axl. Even now.

They could write a full song, record a completely finished version, then watch Axl shove it in a vault for years.

The only thing that I HOPE might be the exception in this case, is Axl has a band full of functioning members (except for himself), and they're hungry, fresh, and Axl seems to like being around them.

That MIGHT expedite a new Guns album, but wishing for that... well... you might as well think a reunion is around the corner. They're the same shooting star you're trying to catch with a lasso.