Chicago Sun-Times review

[Booker Floyd]

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".  

[younggunner]

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

Booker.. shut the fuck up  ...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.

[badgirl]

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".  

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.  

[duga]

(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.

Classic  

[jarmo]

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.

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

[madagas]

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!

[dave-gnfnr2k]

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

[dave-gnfnr2k]

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!

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

[SLCPUNK]

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?  

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

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

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

It was harsh though. Man was it harsh.