Washington Post Contraband Review

[Falcon]

Velvet Revolver: Son of a Gun

By Michael Deeds
Special to The Washington Post
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page C05


Maybe Axl Rose has the right idea.

If you're an early-'90s rock star, perhaps it's best to tell the world that you're working on a staggeringly anticipated comeback album and then lock yourself in a broom closet until everybody forgets you exist.

On the other hand, if you're guitarist Slash, bassist Duff McKagan and drummer Matt Sorum -- three other castaways from Guns N' Roses -- maybe you keep rocking in obscurity for the next decade or so, wishing that someone cared. (Remember Slash's Snake Emporium or whatever it was called? Didn't think so.) Eventually, this trio of glam-rock relics was bound to let ego take over:

How about reforming as a supergroup deviously called Velvet Revolver? The similar, leather-and-lace moniker should subliminally attract Guns N' Roses fans.

And why not attract paparazzi by hiring a washed-up vocalist with even more problems than Rose? Hey, what about heroin enthusiast Scott Weiland of Stone Temple Pilots infamy? Is he out of jail yet?

Apparently so. And with a r?sum? like this, Velvet Revolver's debut CD, "Contraband," begs to be mocked: Seriously, like, welcome to the bungle, dudes.

Dismissing out of hand this motley crew of headbanger has-beens, though, is so much easier without a listen to the songs. Because the music on "Contraband" -- sigh -- flat-out rocks.

Among '90s refugees, Velvet Revolver's debut is better than Courtney Love's recent underappreciated solo effort. And it blows away the snoozefest from the mysteriously successful supergroup Audioslave.

Delusional as ever, the members of Velvet Revolver sound tipsy, oblivious and ready to lead a rock-star revolution. Maybe it's second guitarist Dave Kushner, the guy nobody mentions, but whatever the case, "Contraband" twitches and jerks with the hopeful energy of a rock-and-roll newborn.

The brooding, ominous intro to the album opener "Sucker Train Blues" is the offspring of GNR's "It's So Easy," launching this steam engine urgently.

Slash and McKagan have retained GNR's raunchy, party-hearty "Appetite for Destruction" attitude. Slash's stabbing blues-rock guitar is like a junkyard dog nipping at the heels of every track.

Yet somehow, inexplicably, Velvet Revolver feels timely, like a fresh canvas for the masters. Weiland's thick alt-rock howl keeps these songs from sounding quite like Guns N' Roses, but several remind you of that legendary band. And with the exception of "Headspace" -- which sounds like a Stone Temple Pilots gem culled from the vault -- these aren't STP songs, either.

The power ballad "Fall to Pieces" is a perfect fusion of both bands: Slash's familiar jungle-shred soars beautifully, while Weiland discovers the same dark beauty he mustered during "Purple"-era STP. Throughout the album, Weiland's bottomless-pit vocal harmonies are as potent and alluring as ever, even when Slash experiments with irreverent guitar tones on "Superhuman."

Velvet Revolver's biggest challenge will be getting anyone to take "Contraband" seriously. The group isn't helping by spewing cheesy quotes like, "It's fast. It's ferocious. It's like drinking lightning in a bottle." (Thanks, Weiland.) Still, give it a ride in the stereo, and "Contraband" will do exactly what few thought it could: It rocks your face off.

It's probably too early to predict the summer soundtrack of 2004, but Velvet Revolver has come out gunning.

[Booker Floyd]

Talk about back-handed...

Reading the last half of the review was like a twist ending or something.  I was expecting the worst based on the first few paragraphs.

[starchild_666]

great review!

[coondogg]

Talk about back-handed...

Reading the last half of the review was like a twist ending or something.  I was expecting the worst based on the first few paragraphs.

That was strange. At first he was just trashing them to no end. Then all of the sudden he had some positive things to say. If you didn't know any better, it sounded like two different reviews merged into one.

[Mr Cowbell ?]

Maybe he wanted to hate the VR album but once he heard good old slash he had no choice but to give in.

Slash could make William Hung sound good

[badgirl]

Talk about back-handed...

Reading the last half of the review was like a twist ending or something.  I was expecting the worst based on the first few paragraphs.

That was strange. At first he was just trashing them to no end. Then all of the sudden he had some positive things to say. If you didn't know any better, it sounded like two different reviews merged into one.

the point is, despite his preconceived notions about the album and the band, he loved it. it's actually the most positive review, by admitting that you didn't want to like the album and STILL did...

[Doc Emmett Brown]

the point is, despite his preconceived notions about the album and the band, he loved it. it's actually the most positive review, by admitting that you didn't want to like the album and STILL did...

yes - I got the feeling from: "Because the music on "Contraband" -- sigh -- flat-out rocks."

He's conceding that VR delivered upto the hype in spite of all the skepticism.

And I say this while listening to Do it for the kids.  

[WagMyDog]

the point is, despite his preconceived notions about the album and the band, he loved it. it's actually the most positive review, by admitting that you didn't want to like the album and STILL did...

Exactly ... almost.

I guess what he was trying to do was provide an article you would enjoy reading. And that's what he did.

Apart from that, I think his statements were directed at the general atmosphere surrounding the album and its release. About how the band members were treating them, and how they went overboard on the cheesy comments.

It's always easy to tune someone THAT cheesy out. And Weiland's oddball antics towards reporters only worsened the situation. Today's "musiclovers" want dark and brooding, not egomaniacal fuckers who talk more shit than they can handle.

This is all Kurt Cobain's work actually. Think about it... before grunge's popularity, what were rockstars like?

So there you have it. Apart from people like us ... on the Board, you have normal (or abnormal .. matter of perspective) people who don't think the same. They're the ones to dismiss this CD with the flick of an earlobe.

It would be wrong of them to do so, but not from a layman's point of view.

And that's what he wants to say.

[badgirl]

the point is, despite his preconceived notions about the album and the band, he loved it. it's actually the most positive review, by admitting that you didn't want to like the album and STILL did...

Exactly ... almost.

I guess what he was trying to do was provide an article you would enjoy reading. And that's what he did.

Apart from that, I think his statements were directed at the general atmosphere surrounding the album and its release. About how the band members were treating them, and how they went overboard on the cheesy comments.

It's always easy to tune someone THAT cheesy out. And Weiland's oddball antics towards reporters only worsened the situation. Today's "musiclovers" want dark and brooding, not egomaniacal fuckers who talk more shit than they can handle.

This is all Kurt Cobain's work actually. Think about it... before grunge's popularity, what were rockstars like?

So there you have it. Apart from people like us ... on the Board, you have normal (or abnormal .. matter of perspective) people who don't think the same. They're the ones to dismiss this CD with the flick of an earlobe.

It would be wrong of them to do so, but not from a layman's point of view.

And that's what he wants to say.

Given that i can't quite decipher the point you are trying to make  , i think you are inferring a great deal from this article. You may have opinons on Scott's antics and whether or not the guys should shut the fuck up and let the music determine their "dangerousness", but i don't think the writer was commenting on it.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

This is all Kurt Cobain's work actually. Think about it... before grunge's popularity, what were rockstars like?

Well... since grunge, there havent been any real rockstars, so it's hard to say.  

I dont count people like Fred Durst.  And Trent Reznor, Thom Yorke, etc are respected but they dont qualify for the 'rockstar' label in the true sense of the word.

So there you have it. Apart from people like us ... on the Board, you have normal (or abnormal .. matter of perspective) people who don't think the same. They're the ones to dismiss this CD with the flick of an earlobe.

It would be wrong of them to do so, but not from a layman's point of view.

Then let's hope these non-board people bothered to read the entire review instead of stopping at:  Welcome to the bungle, dudes.....   Everyone, including laymen, tend to read what they want to read.

"Velvet Revolver's biggest challenge will be getting anyone to take "Contraband" seriously"

^ This is because of the media's penchant to think of VR as something calculated - a ploy by the record label.  Heck, they were even slapped with the phrase "genetically engineered band" on tv.  

Having said that, they have a lot of cred and gaining more as we speak.  KROQ in LA loves 'em (so far), so I expect acceptance of this band to grow.

[Dizzy]

Talk about back-handed...

Reading the last half of the review was like a twist ending or something.  I was expecting the worst based on the first few paragraphs.

No kidding.  The idiot says the band isn't helping with cheesy quotes, well assholes like him aren't helping either.  Anyone who stopped reading after the first few paragraphs will think the album sucks.

[Booker Floyd]

Well... since grunge, there havent been any real rockstars, so it's hard to say.  

[Doc Emmett Brown]

^ I think the second picture is whatshisface from Oasis...Liam, I believe.  

But I'm glad you posted their pictures.  Let's assume they are rockstars (I'll come back to later), and now consider the original statement:

Today's "musiclovers" want dark and brooding, not egomaniacal fuckers who talk more shit than they can handle. This is all Kurt Cobain's work actually. Think about it... before grunge's popularity, what were rockstars like?

I interpreted his post to mean that Kurt effectively killed the attitude of "talking shit".  Well, both Marilyn Manson and Liam are notorious for their loud mouth attitudes... so Kurt did not kill that - do you agree?  

Secondly, and this may just boil down to semantics and personal taste, but Marilyn is more of an Ozzy than a Mick Jagger type of star.  I consider the latter to be more representative of 'rockstar' than the former.  As for Liam, he does (did?) have the requisite sex appeal in addition to creating controversy, so he's fits the bill more...
But I dont consider him legendary, which is another requisite for the rockstar label.

That's a great pic of MM by the way.  

Posted by: Dizzy  Posted on: June 10, 2004, 11:01:40 pm  
Anyone who stopped reading after the first few paragraphs will think the album sucks.  

That was my fear as well.  We (as in everyone, not just VR fans or VR haters) read what we want to read.

[Falcon]

Here's another rockstar....

http://kittyradio.com/cl/photos/full_images/rs.jpg

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Here's another rockstar....

http://kittyradio.com/cl/photos/full_images/rs.jpg

She's more of a rock tar to me - you know, annoying and silly.  

If you and Booker want to argue this with me, that's fine.  As I said, it's a matter of personal taste.  One man's rockstar is another man's hackneyed skinny junkie.

Female rockstars are always in danger of being marginalized.  My favorite is Patti Smith (you might know her from Horses and Radio Ethiopia).  I wish Love would let her music speak for itself (I thought she was decent in Hole), but like Axl, she always seems to be mired in embarassments.

She talks shit and she is egotistical.  Kurt may have subdued this attitude for a few brief years, but it did not die.  Rockstars and rock tars alike are defined by their ego.

[Booker Floyd]

so Kurt did not kill that - do you agree?

Certainly.  Anything he "killed" was resurrected a few short years later, at most.
 

If you and Booker want to argue this with me, that's fine.  As I said, it's a matter of personal taste.  One man's rockstar is another man's hackneyed skinny junkie.

Yeah...my rock star criteria isnt that strict, I guess.  If theyre interesting, charismatic, and sing rock and roll music - theyre a rock star.  But to each his own.

Id call Courtney a rock star...but she needs to stop with the surgery    Those lips are frightening    

[Falcon]

With Booker on this one, my criteria's not as stringent..I guess.

Courtney's flat out nuts, but the chick can flat out rock.  

And yes, the lips are, well...creepy.  

[SLCPUNK]

Well... since grunge, there havent been any real rockstars, so it's hard to say.  

Like he said...there hasn't been any rock stars for a while.....