Rolling Stone and MTV are the reviews that are going to matter in my IMHO. If Kurt Loder handles the MTV side of things... Axl's in great shape there... which leaves Rolling Stone which has been highly unpredictable when it comes to Axl and GN'R... but I have a feeling they want/need him back now... there's been nothing interesting or legendary to write about for years... one of the greats of music history re-emerges from his 13 year slumber and RS is going to tear him a new one so he can fall on his face... and they can get back to covering the oh so controversial Chris Martin? I don't think so. I think Axl already has enough quality tracks (The Blues, Madagascar, CITR, Better, etc.) that RS will get on the band wagon in the hopes that if nothing else an Axl Rose return will sell some magazines over the next 2-3 years.
As far as this review in particular goes... no great problem with it. A lot of stuff we're going to see many times over: "10 years for this?" and "line-up picked by lottery?" etc..... but you know.... even that is a minor victory for Axl in my eyes... anyone remember the late 90s? Then the criticism was along the lines of: "Axl Rose is no different from Jani Lane, Vince Neil and Brett Michaels and will never record a single shred of listenable music again in his life now that Kurt Cobain came and purified music." Interesting that no one says that any more... kind of interesting that the new criticims center on the duration of recording and varied line-up... I deduce from that the critics acknowledge at a minimum that the music is "decent".
You raised some good points here. My fav mag is RS bc they cover GNR (esp in thier heyday)--I can only hope that they stand behind him. But either way...as long as the mags are writing about GNR I'm happy (for my scrapbook collection...hehe)....
there's no such thing as bad publicity...
Author