...and I like them

to be underwhelmed, to be honest with you.

Besides - Isn't it now an Axl Rose solo project? Even Buckethead went back to KFC

In the same way that Steely Dan was a Becker & Fagen (er...) solo project?

A thought... There should be a way of distinguishing a 'proper' solo effort (Prince, Winwood, Rundgren) from an album branded with a single artist's name in spite of there being a studio full of shit-hot session musos doing all the creative work.

was it Dr Peppers?

in a way. That guy that Slash wished would rot in jail for leaking the tracks recently. If thats the finished version its completely bloody awful. and not really a GNR record, let's be honest.

I'll put it next to my new Oasis album.

like they beat Mr. E and his Sisters project, 18 years now isn't it?

Shabby.

Dunno anything about the content of your post, but I do think your username is fairly splendid.

...but time has moved on. OK, so they did a couple of good songs (Sweet Child O' Mine has THE killer riff), but that's about it.

The problem is that Axl Rose is so an arrogant swine that I think it really, really puts people off, and Guns'N'Roses are nowhere near as important as they were for a short time.

And can a band basically consisting of Axl and an ever-changing list of sidemen really be G'n'R? Isn't this just a solo album by a whingeing, petulant former star?

If you're someone pretty unique like Kate Bush, for instance, your audience will wait 13 or 14 years for a new album - after all, KB fans have been waiting 30 years for a new tour. But if you're in a metal/rock band, you need to get cracking on new material before you're overtaken by the competition, of which there is an endless supply.

G'n'R: good once, but it's over.

sing! Whine he excels at but never singing.

Velvet Revolver (I am no fan of them or any of the above) were/are more G n'R than this G n'R™ are.