Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7730075.stm

Again, like with the Classic Rock review, it's not a destructive review but... it has this negative thing all over it.

Good Post, Bad review!

I wouldn't say it's that negative.


The reviewer just chooses to focus on certain things and seems to get hung up on them instead of just focusing on the music.

It's not supposed to be like Appetite For Destruction!

Why even compare the two?







/jarmo

" But Chinese Democracy also misses the clean, tuneful riffs that Slash and Izzy Stradlin used to provide."

Why should we give any importance to a review whose writer uses an argument like this to describe the sound of Chinese Democracy? It's the same lame argument that we all expect from most of the media.

Exactly.

When you review an album based on what it's not instead of what it actually is, then you're missing something.

It's not Appetite For Destruction. Because it's not 1987!


I wonder if they review albums by the Rolling Stones like this as well, "it's not Sticky Fingers".




/jarmo

Mixed reviews are good. People have always wanted to hear this album and judge for themselves what side of the fence they fall on. This will encourage a lot of people to do just that.

Its hardly negative, just average or a bit better I suppose  :-\  

I know there is songs on it that I only rate as average, and there is others I absolutely love. I couldnt give the album universal praise if I was to review it myself.

The Blues is one of my favourites but some reviewers seem to have panned it, I hope the finished version is not too overblown - it worked so well in its basic form.

"Songs like IRS and Raid N' The Bedouins are lean and compact, edited down to the bare essentials, packing the maximum punch per pound."

IRS and Riad seem to be getting good feedback in all the reviews.

Strange that noone has picked out a definitive song as being a true highlight of the album. I wonder how Madagascar turned out ???

I'm suprised none of the reviewers have mentioned Axls differing vocal styles yet either, noone has complimented his singing either.

"if his mind hasn't been fully devoted to music over the past decade-and-a-half, it doesn't show.

This record is an uncompromising, fully-focused, hard rock monster.

At times, it will rattle the rafters with its ferocious riffs. At others, you will laugh out loud at the ridiculously overblown melodrama. In other words, it's business as usual for Guns N' Roses."

That alone should be enough to shift a few copies to the skeptics.

 :love: :drool:

That's what I meant with overproduction in another topic:

"The credit list for one song - the Bond theme-esque There Was A Time - runs to 33 lines on the CD booklet. A total of six people play guitar on the track. Two of them get solos."

About Axl's voice, I think critics are focusing on the arrangements, as this is what is the big difference now.

Because the guy focused on something negative!


For example, David Fricke of Rolling Stone saw the same exact thing differently: It is plain, too, that he thinks this Guns n' Roses is a band, as much as the one that recorded "Welcome to the Jungle," "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Used to Love Her" and "Civil War." The voluminous credits that come with Chinese Democracy certainly give detailed credit where it is due.




/jarmo

Maybe it will also depend on if the reviewer is old school or is willing to accept eletronic music on rock. And the funny thing is that David is old school and he liked it. ;D

I would have thought that crediting all the musicians who play on a track was a legal necessity, not something Axl chose to do for one reason or another.

fuck this stupid review.  who cares about the bbc anyways? 

yet another reviewer who can't seem to get over the fact that this guns n' roses music doesn't sound like the guns n' roses music that everyone loved so much.  and of course, he has to bring up slash and izzy.  yeah, like it can stay 1987 forever.  if this guy wants to live int eh past, then fine but he should just tell his readers up front that he's not capalbe of writing an unbiased and honest review.

i'm pretty sure BBC is quite a large news channel, giving news to many many people. Therefore, a lot of people care about BBC.


Anyways, just like the other review (that was deleted...) not all of them will be positive. Not everything is going to be perfect about this album, some of you failt o realize that. Some will hate it, some will praise it. Everyone's opinion can differ.

More people care about the BBC than they do the Sun, who you were praising in the other thread. And its not a bad review, better save some of your outrage for less kind reviews.

You know, when you point that out, and thanks for doing that, it really changes your tune on what the overall impression is of the review.  It isn't negative, really.

Ali

Not that bad in my opinion! Seems typical of GNR though - diffrent reviewers love / hate diffrent songs.

Not a bad review, could've been better hadnt' it focused - again - on how long it took to make etc...

A few lines I like:

Ultimately, however, there is nothing here that will irrevocably tarnish the Guns N' Roses name.


This record is an uncompromising, fully-focused, hard rock monster.


The TWAT comparisson with Bon Jovi's Bed of Roses was ridiculous. I'm not dissing BJ, is just that I don't think those songs are far from being similar.

Edit.- Oops my bad, It's Blaze of Glory not Bed of Roses...still, you can't compare TWAT with BOG

Not a bad review really seems more of an honest opinion really. But i certainly dont expect anymore from the bbc the corporation itself sucks as ive said elsewhere bbc radio1 the most listened too radio station 8m listeners(behind bbc radio 2 9.5m listener) doesn't  play CD i herd it 3 times out of 5 whole days last week it just isnt getting plugged yet the killers get a bbc live gig and plugged everyday. Might just be me but unless the management get onto something with the bbc the Uk is in the dark.

I can honestly say that TWAT has never once reminded me of "Blaze of Glory".

D?  You're the resident Bonjovite.  Is TWAT "dangerously close to becoming Bon Jovi's 'Blaze of Glory'"?

As for the album being overblown, grandiose, etc....I see that as "epic."  : ok:

This is the kind of album I wanted to hear.

haha, that's AWESOME.

True, but I also think many people are looking to this album to usher in the return of rock... to knock off these shitty pop / hip-hop albums off the top of charts... similar to what AFD did... bring back the sense of danger, excess, & controversy to rock again.  Axl Rose, the last great rock star !!!     I can't wait !! Since the dawn of the internet it's been my routine to read up on GNR news everyday... hoping to read that the release of CD is imminent... and finally it is... my excitement is barely containable.

"I know that I'm a classic case..."


-Mike

Me either... not even close.

On side note, Blaze of Glory was a Jon Bon Jovi solo song from the Young Guns soundtrack.... it's an ok song... but I don't see any similarities with TWAT

WTF BBC is insane to make this kind of comparison. Wow...

"The credit list for one song - the Bond theme-esque There Was A Time - runs to 33 lines on the CD booklet. A total of six people play guitar on the track. Two of them get solos."

6 guitar players?  we know fortus, finck, and buckethead play on it... im gone also assume bumblefoot may have added some work to it... who would the other 2 be?

*SPOILER ALERT*






Axl and Paul Tobias

Axl and Tobias

When i saw that I first said "WHAT!"

The only POSSIBLE thing I can think of and it is a stretch from hell is the outro maybe.............


I would've done anything for you...............................................


Call me Young Gun..........................................................


Other than that, The reviewer is out of his mind.

Anyone who thinks thats a poor review is going to get some mighty big upsets soon, I imagine.  That was an excellent review, aside from focussing a little too much on 'the past'.  But I think it was mostly good and fair stuff, and plenty of positive comments.  

Yeah, it makes no sense. 

I don't think it's negative...but neither positive.

Yeah I didn't find that review terribly negative.  He just seemed a little hung up on how long the album took and past members and albums.  Other than that, he did have many positive comments.

I think overall it's more positive than negative.  He's just hung up on the time spent making the record and the lack of old members.

Ali

I hope they talk about CD on Newsnight Review on Friday. It's 99% likely to be negative but it'll throw up a hell of a lot more discussion  : ok:

Music will always be viewed differently by different people.  Not everyone has the same taste. We all love this music cos we've been listening to GNR for years and we're into what he does and listening to his voice etc. but alot of people reviewing their first listen will not have the same love we have and so can be more objective. When the album comes out its gonna be a blast!!

Even UYI had good songs criticized e.g. From a Rolling Stone review of UYI 2 "The clunkers on II are "Shotgun Blues," a sonic assault with surprisingly little impact, and "Get in the Ring," which challenges the band's detractors by name but basically hits below the belt. On Appetite it was "Feel my serpentine"; on Illusion II it's "Suck my fuckin' dick" ? meant in a different spirit, yes, but it's beneath them just the same.

Agreed, but thats wats gonna happen.

Look at most reviews of AC/DC's Black Ice, gets directly compared to Back In Black and suffers for it. Cos GNR made a collosal album in AFD its gonna be the benchmark by which Chinese Democracy is compared.

They really should see this release apart from past releases, Appetite is not their latest..

UYI was 2 cd's worth of evolving GNR....the song OMG followed.....GNR kept evolving....and here's the new "product/art" however one likes to call it...

If a forward quarter back makes for a beautifull touchdownl, that goes round the world in every sport-programme, and the match after that, or after that he delivers great touchdowns, but not quite like the one everyone kept talking about, does his follow-up aclomplishments mean less?? Is the player not as good anymore? NO! he needs to be judged and reviewd match by match...

We are probably going to always see these comparisons, Appetite left its mark, as well as Illusions, although I agree that Appetite should not be compared to CD as we are in a different place and time musically, but at this point the critics really have nothing else to compare to. Appetite will always be in the back shadow for comparison, but it does truley stand alone as one of the greatest rock n roll album of all time. If CD is able to leave a similar mark, I would then be open to comparison.

Yeah, it should also be compared to whatever else is out there now in the rockscene.
Just a few days now :beer:

Whats out there now are all the same ol Metallica, AC/DC the same things that were up for comparison with GNR 20 years ago, I will have to admit that I haven't listened to all this stuff, but lets use AC/DC's new Black Ice, great album, but it's the same sound they have always had, I look forward to CD being unique in comparison to it's former alblums, and to hopefully change the face of todays music disasters.