Here Today... Gone To Hell!

* { VELVET REVOLVER, "CONTRABAND" (RCA)


The best thing that can be said about the debut effort from the bloated rock supergroup Velvet Revolver is that it's probably better than the long-promised "Chinese Democracy" from the floundering, Axl Rose-led Guns N' Roses. But given that we're unlikely to ever actually hear that mythical album, this isn't saying much.

It's hard to believe that veteran Guns N' Roses guitarist Slash, bassist Duff McKagan and latter-day drummer Matt Sorum could actually find a more egotistical and messed-up singer than Rose, but with former Stone Temple Pilots frontman Scott Weiland, they got their (shell of a) man. The problem with this overproduced, thoroughly generic, but otherwise unremarkable piece of hard-rock product is that the secret weapons of the famous combos that give this project its pedigree are missing in action.

If former Guns N' Roses guitarist and Indiana homeboy Izzy Stradlin or the powerhouse sibling team of Stone Temple Pilots' DeLeo brothers had a hand in the songwriting, Velvet Revolver might have been worth hearing. Instead, we get hollow, instantly forgettable ditties such as "Sucker Train Blues" and "Dirty Little Thing," sad reminders of former glories that are now a distant echo of the past.

Jim DeRogatis

http://www.suntimes.com/output/rock/sho-sunday-spins06.html



/jarmo

Its like De ja vue with Dave or something, I knew before I opened this it was a negative review. I am beginning to think Jarmo wants this band to fail as bad as Dave as I have seen him post nothing but the bad reviews. There are some good ones out there too. ;)

That's a terible review, something tells me this guys dislikes both Axl and Slash's bands!

Oh well it will be his loss in the long run

The first paragrapg is disgusting.  Everyone knows that CD HAS to come out eventually, no matter what.  And there is no way in hell that he could say Contraband "will probably be better than CD" if he has heard ANY new GNR song.  

I agree with the rest of the review though.

Seems like out of the reviews I got e-mailed to me, the Billboard one has already been posted and this one hadn't.

Any idea why?



/jarmo

What a surprise, 'agreeing' with the rest of the review  ::)

CD doesn't HAVE to come out.....Axl will payback the recording company before he allows them to release something without his permission. He is anal like that and I am sure has the money to do so. You need to get real, short of some new pyschological drug to bring him back to reality, we are not seeing that album.

Controversial - perhaps like most GNR boards, etc, the negative reviews are sometimes overlooked, relative to the better ones  ::)

DeRogatis is probably my least favorite music reviewer.  Hes the stereotypical nerdy, relentlessly negative critic - a highly annoying combination of a Pitchfork reviewer without the pompous vocabulary and Jay Sherman minus the comic charm.

Funny, I had the same hunch...

Then I opened it up to see Jim DeRogatis' name and knew exactly what to expect.

If your serious...shut the fuck up

Its the same hunch I get when I see you post a review or a post for that matter

So tell me Booker. Should I stop posting what I'm being sent just because it might not be positive?

Should we have rules stating negative reviews aren't allowed?


You two obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Check the main site for once. In 2002 I posted links to GN'R reviews that weren't exactly positive. Were you complaining about those as well?

I don't think that it's my "job" to kiss the past or present band members asses like you seem to think.

I get sent links to reviews by e-mail, maybe I should add a "Make Booker happy" filter so nothing negative is ever posted.  ::)


I can't believe how childish some people are.  : ok:





/jarmo

No Jarmo you got it all wrong...you should do background checks on the author of the articles and then run i tby Booker to see if they meet his standards

Little sensitive today?

Post whatever youd like, be it negative reviews, latently negative 'observations', positive reviews, etc.  I really dont care.  I didnt say anything other than I knew what this review would be like.  Coincidentally, I was right.  

Predicting the kind of review youre going to post is childish?  :confused:  You lost me on that one.


...

Yes, Im serious.  Its an opinion Ive had for the past 5 years since I first paid attention to a DeRogatis review.  Now why would youtell me to "shut the fuck up" (an insult Im sure Jarmo will warn you about... :hihi:)?

Ever thought that maybe I get to post the negative shit because you and some others decide not to?


Maybe you don't want me to post negative reviews, because then you can keep saying only Axl fans and Maxin (or Blender or whatever it was) dislike the album?   :P

 :hihi:


Comparing me to Dave is childish.

Just like a stupid insults.


/jarmo

Right...

I never said I didnt want to see negative reviews.  I dont care what you post.  Id like to see anything pertaining to the band, negative or positive, posted.  It just so happens that I know which ones you will post.  I apologize if my intuition is unsettling to you.

Care to enlighten me which ones those are?

I don't wanna make the mistake of posting something you don't expect since it might surprise you.

FYI, I post what I find and hasn't been posted before.  :o



/jarmo

who cares... jeez, this review means shit... it's one persons view on something.   Plus... lol... it's the Chicago-Sun... who gives a fuck?  Do you enjoy the album?  Well then... enjoy it.

VR wont be affected by this review.

Its unfair to discredit the Chicago-Sun Times...after all, theyre Roger Eberts flagship paper and hes of the best critics to ever live.  

Is this reviewer known to be a GNR or STP fan?  Has he made positive reviews of either band in the past?  It doesnt sound like it, and yet he throws this last bit in...why?  Most likely to get people wishing for something else - it's always easier to bitch when comparing to something that doesnt exist!  

Booker, you likened him to Pitchfork.  I recall their review of GH from the GH reviews thread... *shudder*.  There's few instances where the Internet has made me homicidal, but that's one of them.    >:(

Hes much like the Pitchfork crew - perpetually dissastisfied and always taking cheap-shots.  The guy seemingly hates everything but obscure Norwegian black metal...Thats exaggerating...but his taste generally sucks, in my opinion, and its most apparent in his negative reviews, which are always arrogant and full of cheap-shots and off-base criticisms.

He doesnt appear to be an STP fan, describing them as "second-generation grunge merchants," although in one review I just read, he begrudgingly praises their performance on the Family Values tour - mostly because he hated the other acts so much.

As for Guns, the new GNR ranked fifth on his top 5 worst concerts of 2002...

"5. Guns N' Roses at the Allstate Arena, Nov. 18: It was a travesty for Axl Rose to call this cover band Guns N' Roses, but it wasn't the new members' fault that the show was a flop--it was Axl's. The set sank under the weight of the singer's pretensions (no grand piano power ballads, please!) and his fast-paced but rote performance (it was hard to believe he needed monitors feeding him the lyrics to the band's classic tunes). Two weeks later, he paused onstage at Madison Square Garden to denounce this reviewer for such observations. Two nights after that, the tour fell apart amid a flurry of canceled gigs, and the reunited band may or may not have broken up again, depending on which reports you choose to believe."

I expect Youngunner to now tell me to "shut the fuck up".  : ok:

Booker.. shut the fuck up  : ok:...hows that
 I dont remember you ever going on a pussy rant about a rock critic when its a negative gnr review. Point me to a post of yours where you go out of your way like you do with vr and defend a negative gnr review. If you were consistent I wouldnt have a problem. But your not.
Thats where i have a problem with you. I could care less what you liek or what not but its like you have to be a lil pussy about it. You never go out of your way to defend new gnr..when some1 defends them they are an axl loyalist who cant take a negative review. Its funny when theres a negative vr review we get a journalism class and a whole background check of the writer.

You get on Jarmo for only posting negative stuff...Guess what we all can expect what to read when you post an article. I have yet to see to defend a gnr review, give a journalism 101 class for a gnr review, yet when it concerns  vr its a different story.

My problem with reviews like this (and it seems that all the negative reviews have been similar in this way) is that it's completely obvious the writer HATES the band before he even talks about the music, thus making his quite unbiased. If he would say something to the effect of "you know, it is a nice attempt by some talented people but it falls short for x,y, and z" than i would be much more responsive and i think others would as well. But these writers who hate the genre are doing themselves a disservice. That review was unncecessarily catty.  :no:

Classic  : ok: :hihi:

Yeah.

And it goes both ways. Some of them love the album they review even before they've heard one single note.


Like the Swedish journalist who reviewed "Contraband" for the Expressen newspaper. He's the same guy who wrote that excellent VR article in Close Up magazine a while back. By reading that, and seeing he was the one reviewing the album, one could only expect a positive review. It also got 4/5 in Expressen.

Then there's journalists who seem to compete in who's got the "coolest" taste in music.....


/jarmo

Guys, I have to side with Booker on this one. He wasn't starting shit-this writer is a complete jackass-pure and simple. He has had an "AX" to grind with Gnr for awhile-I don't remember the circumstances but there is something there-something personal. Once you bring that in to a review-it is going to suck. No description of the songs or why they are shit-nothing but generic personal attacks. Pitchfork is an alternative music site-some good fair reviews, some crap. Their problem with the greatest shits was the tracks selected-and they were right. Anyhow, just my two cents.ps I also don't think Jarmo posted this with a bias-he posts everything, I seriously doubt he was reading the Chicago Sun Times today!

Jarmo you have to understand, its only ok to post negative reviews about Axl and CD not VR.  : ok:

reviews do this with axl all the time and certain people have a big laugh over it but now that the shoe is on the other foot its wrong.  ::)
talk about double standards

haha. Yea right. Looks like he's been reviewing local buffets more than anything lately. :hihi:

Who cares about this review. I will judge for myself.

It was harsh though. Man was it harsh. :hihi: