Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Perils Of Rock N' Roll Decadence => Duff, Slash & Velvet Revolver => Topic started by: jarmo on June 08, 2004, 10:40:29 AM



Title: USA Today review
Post by: jarmo on June 08, 2004, 10:40:29 AM
Velvet Revolver, Contraband (* * * out of four)

Years after Axl Rose's long-promised and still-unreleased Chinese Democracy album was written off as an industry punch line, his former Guns N' Roses bandmates Slash, Matt Sorum and Duff McKagan reconvened with singer Scott Weiland of the defunct Stone Temple Pilots. Contraband resurrects the dirty-sweet sound of trashy transcendence that nu-metal, emo and neo-garage forgot to drag into the 21st century. A smog of late-'80s Sunset Strip hangs over some tracks, but most songs charge forward with dizzying urgency. This isn't the heroin chic of slick fashion ads. It's a bitter, tense, post-rehab struggle for liberation and healing ? not New Age, but old school: insistent rhythms, jackhammer riffs, searing guitar solos and snaking vocals. Velvet Revolver offers a Russian-roulette mix of cautionary tales and rock indulgence volatile enough to thrill STP and GNR junkies who need a fix now. ?Edna Gundersen




Funny, this is the same person who placed "Chinese Democracy" on the Top 10 Worst Albums of 2002" list...  :hihi:



/jarmo


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: Booker Floyd on June 08, 2004, 10:50:47 AM
Funny, this is the same person who placed "Chinese Democracy" on the Top 10 Worst Albums of 2002" list...  :hihi:


What an inane gesture that was...


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: jarmo on June 08, 2004, 10:58:18 AM
Funny, this is the same person who placed "Chinese Democracy" on the Top 10 Worst Albums of 2002" list...  :hihi:


What an inane gesture that was...

Oh really? You were the one whining about the Chicago Sun-Times reviewer weren't you? I just pointed out how this person listed an album as one of the worst of 2002 even though it's still unreleased.

So it's ok for you to post opinions on journalists, but as soon as I do it, it's "inane"?

Not gonna whine that I only post negative articles?  ???



Another review which mentions Axl. Seems like many reviewers have to mention Axl in order to make the album look better. How come? Is it a case of "well, Axl's album isn't here so let's enjoy this one"?



/jarmo


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: Mikkamakka on June 08, 2004, 11:13:55 AM


Another review which mentions Axl. Seems like many reviewers have to mention Axl in order to make the album look better. How come? Is it a case of "well, Axl's album isn't here so let's enjoy this one"?

/jarmo

Because Axl, Slash, Duff and Matt played in a band called Guns N' Roses for some years, and Axl haven't released anything since then, every journalist will mention his name. There is no conspiracy theory, and it doesn't say 'if you can't get Axl, buy this'.


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: Booker Floyd on June 08, 2004, 11:18:19 AM
Oh really? You were the one whining about the Chicago Sun-Times reviewer weren't you? I just pointed out how this person listed an album as one of the worst of 2002 even though it's still unreleased.

So it's ok for you to post opinions on journalists, but as soon as I do it, it's "inane"?

Not gonna whine that I only post negative articles?  ???



Another review which mentions Axl. Seems like many reviewers have to mention Axl in order to make the album look better. How come? Is it a case of "well, Axl's album isn't here so let's enjoy this one"?


Haha, sllooww down, Jarmo - I was agreeing with you.  I meant that the writer placing the GNR album on that list was an inane gesture...


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: jarmo on June 08, 2004, 11:19:14 AM
There is no conspiracy theory, and it doesn't say 'if you can't get Axl, buy this'.

Of course it doesn't say it.  ::)

But tell me, don't you think there are music buyers out there that will buy it just because it's out and there's nothing new GN'R related coming?

It also seems like some articles use the "make the other guy look bad in order to make these guys look better" thing.

Which is kinda stupid since the album seems to stand on its own.



/jarmo


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: Doc Emmett Brown on June 08, 2004, 11:28:12 AM
The jackhammer riffs, searing guitar solos belong to the smog of the Strip, if you ask me.

MORE SMOG PLEASE!  :D


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: sandman on June 08, 2004, 11:48:45 AM
Funny, this is the same person who placed "Chinese Democracy" on the Top 10 Worst Albums of 2002" list...  :hihi:


What an inane gesture that was...

Oh really? You were the one whining about the Chicago Sun-Times reviewer weren't you? I just pointed out how this person listed an album as one of the worst of 2002 even though it's still unreleased.

So it's ok for you to post opinions on journalists, but as soon as I do it, it's "inane"?

Not gonna whine that I only post negative articles?  ???



Another review which mentions Axl. Seems like many reviewers have to mention Axl in order to make the album look better. How come? Is it a case of "well, Axl's album isn't here so let's enjoy this one"?



/jarmo

due to the situation, i think it's completely natural to mention axl.

if you're not familiar with what's going on (as many are not), and you read a review of a band that includes slash and duff, alot of people will be wondering "what's up with axl?"


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: Mikkamakka on June 08, 2004, 12:52:49 PM
But tell me, don't you think there are music buyers out there that will buy it just because it's out and there's nothing new GN'R related coming?

It also seems like some articles use the "make the other guy look bad in order to make these guys look better" thing.

Which is kinda stupid since the album seems to stand on its own.

/jarmo

I think there are some music buyers who want GN'R recordings, so they buy the ex-members solo work and will buy Nu-GN'R, but they would be happier with only one band.  :) Others buy VR, because Axl is the one whom they want the most, but CD isn't released. Others will buy CD, 'cause they want to hear Slash, and they don't know he is out, or they'll buy it, because there would be nothing Slash-related to buy that time (or they can buy more than one album). But most of the consumers buy albums because they like the musician(s).

Everyone has his/her preferences and affiliations - maybe the writer prefer Slash to Axl. But it's not politics, where you can choose only one 'product'. Nobody will buy Contraband just because some reviews made joke of Axl.


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: killingvector on June 08, 2004, 08:03:32 PM
i dunno, this album is filler; time filler for the main feature.


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: dave-gnfnr2k on June 08, 2004, 08:11:32 PM
I wonder what will happen when Cd is released if the author put down slash and duff in CD reviews?


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: sandman on June 08, 2004, 09:51:50 PM
I wonder what will happen when Cd is released if the author put down slash and duff in CD reviews?

how did this author put down axl? he just stated a fact. if axl had released something by now, he would have said that.

you're too sensitive.


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: tomass74 on June 08, 2004, 10:17:13 PM
Funny, this is the same person who placed "Chinese Democracy" on the Top 10 Worst Albums of 2002" list...  :hihi:


What an inane gesture that was...

Oh really? You were the one whining about the Chicago Sun-Times reviewer weren't you? I just pointed out how this person listed an album as one of the worst of 2002 even though it's still unreleased.

So it's ok for you to post opinions on journalists, but as soon as I do it, it's "inane"?

Not gonna whine that I only post negative articles?  ???



Another review which mentions Axl. Seems like many reviewers have to mention Axl in order to make the album look better. How come? Is it a case of "well, Axl's album isn't here so let's enjoy this one"?



/jarmo

What is your deal??? He was agreeing with you. Some people..........


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: dave-gnfnr2k on June 08, 2004, 10:39:27 PM
I wonder what will happen when Cd is released if the author put down slash and duff in CD reviews?

how did this author put down axl? he just stated a fact. if axl had released something by now, he would have said that.

you're too sensitive.

I am not sensitive, I am just making a point, what will happen if in the CD review they mention slash and duff? Is that better wording?


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: Old Man In Chains on June 08, 2004, 10:58:52 PM
I am sure Slash and Duff would be mentioned in CD reviews, but we don't have to worry about that because CD ain't ever gonna be reviewed because it will never be released.


Title: Re:USA Today review
Post by: metallex78 on June 08, 2004, 10:59:03 PM
I wonder what will happen when Cd is released if the author put down slash and duff in CD reviews?

how did this author put down axl? he just stated a fact. if axl had released something by now, he would have said that.

you're too sensitive.

I am not sensitive, I am just making a point, what will happen if in the CD review they mention slash and duff? Is that better wording?

Yeah, I think a CD review would mention comparisons to original GN'R seeing as Axl is still using the band name.
And I guess VR get Axl mentions cause this is 3/5 UYI era GN'R, so there's bound to be references to it.

I too find it silly that reviewers have to resort to saying thngs like "VR beat Axl to the punch" because Contraband is strong enough to stand on it's without Axl bashing.