Worcester Centrum review

[Naupis]

The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused.

I would at least feel a little better about that review if they had the setlist right. I mean they have never played DLT live, which gives me the impression the journalist either wasn't paying attention at the show or didn't do his homework on the setlist. Notice that in a reputable paper like the Boston Herald there are no such problems.

Bad reviews are ok, I would just like to see the reviewer at least have his facts straight(which is probably a main reason he is writing for a paper like "The Republican" or whatever it is instead of the Herald.)

[Booker Floyd]

Will some of you ever admit the evidence that even VR may have a bad day?

Well if another paper praises the show, perhaps it wasnt such a bad day after all...

You are constantly bashing Dave for surfing around the internet in his quest to find negative reviews about the band, but some of you have a tendency to get annoyed when a bad review actually surfaces.

I get annoyed with poor journalism more than anything...and yes, I get annoyed when that poor journalism is passed off as legitimate.

What difference does it make whether the review comes from " The republican" or " the Boston Herald"?

Credibility, for one.  Its like comparing a CD review in your local free magazine to Rolling Stone.  But really, its not as much about that as it is about hack journalism.  When I see a review with poor grammar, typos, and factual errors, I tend to take it less seriously than one without these things.

  Had " The Republican" review? been good, we wouldn't be talking about a biased review written by an amateur who doesn't even have writing skills.

Probably not, but those facts would remain.  Obviously a review that is so overtly negative opens up more analysis than a positive one.

What about the Boston Herald review? maybe it was written by a VR lover? Who the fuck knows! truth is, good and bad reviews come in every tour.

Right...it just so happens that the bad ones come from no-name papers/websites.  Like I said, Im sure its a coincidence.

Some of you just can't take it.

Youre right.  In fact, I killed myself after reading it. 

The fact that is always Dave the one who posts the bad reviews, it's another reason for you not to give these reviews the credit they deserve.

Not really...of course theyre a part of Daves predictable schtick, but theyre discredited more for their own content.

On the other hand, some of the facts detailed in " The republican" review can be confirmed. Was the show half empty? ( or half full being optimisitc? ?) If this show wasn't a part of any festival, Why such a short set? Isn't this supposed to be an Arena tour?

And just as many can be questioned or invalidated.

"His main accoutrement for the night was a megaphone, a hackneyed rock tool that was overused long before Weiland's abuse of the mechanism."

Really?  Can anybody inform me at what point in the 70s or 80s the megaphone was all the rage?  Or what frontmen were "overusing" it?
 
"The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused."

Yeah, especially unfocused on "Dirty Little Thing"!

"While the audience mingled in a state of confusion the band was backstage in a quandary."

In a quandry?  Well since they go backstage every night before the encore, I wonder if its written as "quandry" on the itinerary. 

I question the statements about the concerts length and "recorded" intro.  More importantly, the review is more negative comments than actual criticism.  The only real criticism he has beside not enjoying the megaphone is that the band sounded "rush and unfocused."  Pretty big claim, right?  Surely he supports that criticism in such a negative article, right?  Wait...no, no he doesnt. 

[tomass74]

I think the whole point with that Republican review is the guy is full of shit. It's ok to give a bad review, not everyone has to like a show and the sound was crap. But the guy disorted alot of facts that flat out lied about shit so am not taking it too seriously. They didn't play Dirt Little Thing they set was atleast 20 minutes longer than he said, and it wasn't as empty as he said period. The worst thing was the sound and that is huge.

[tomass74]

Here are a bunch of other reviews........They are all great with a couple emntions of the shit sound..

http://www.belowempty.com/vr/concerts/2004/041109_WorcesterMA.php

[Ignatius]

Will some of you ever admit the evidence that even VR may have a bad day?

Well if another paper praises the show, perhaps it wasnt such a bad day after all...

You are constantly bashing Dave for surfing around the internet in his quest to find negative reviews about the band, but some of you have a tendency to get annoyed when a bad review actually surfaces.

I get annoyed with poor journalism more than anything...and yes, I get annoyed when that poor journalism is passed off as legitimate.

What difference does it make whether the review comes from " The republican" or " the Boston Herald"?

Credibility, for one.? Its like comparing a CD review in your local free magazine to Rolling Stone.? But really, its not as much about that as it is about hack journalism.? When I see a review with poor grammar, typos, and factual errors, I tend to take it less seriously than one without these things.

? Had " The Republican" review? been good, we wouldn't be talking about a biased review written by an amateur who doesn't even have writing skills.

Probably not, but those facts would remain.? Obviously a review that is so overtly negative opens up more analysis than a positive one.

What about the Boston Herald review? maybe it was written by a VR lover? Who the fuck knows! truth is, good and bad reviews come in every tour.

Right...it just so happens that the bad ones come from no-name papers/websites.? Like I said, Im sure its a coincidence.

Some of you just can't take it.

Youre right.? In fact, I killed myself after reading it.?

The fact that is always Dave the one who posts the bad reviews, it's another reason for you not to give these reviews the credit they deserve.

Not really...of course theyre a part of Daves predictable schtick, but theyre discredited more for their own content.

On the other hand, some of the facts detailed in " The republican" review can be confirmed. Was the show half empty? ( or half full being optimisitc? ?) If this show wasn't a part of any festival, Why such a short set? Isn't this supposed to be an Arena tour?

And just as many can be questioned or invalidated.

"His main accoutrement for the night was a megaphone, a hackneyed rock tool that was overused long before Weiland's abuse of the mechanism."

Really?? Can anybody inform me at what point in the 70s or 80s the megaphone was all the rage?? Or what frontmen were "overusing" it?
 
"The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused."

Yeah, especially unfocused on "Dirty Little Thing"!

"While the audience mingled in a state of confusion the band was backstage in a quandary."

In a quandry?? Well since they go backstage every night before the encore, I wonder if its written as "quandry" on the itinerary.?

I question the statements about the concerts length and "recorded" intro.? More importantly, the review is more negative comments than actual criticism.? The only real criticism he has beside not enjoying the megaphone is that the band sounded "rush and unfocused."? Pretty big claim, right?? Surely he supports that criticism in such a negative article, right?? Wait...no, no he doesnt.?

I'll keep it short for you Book.

To me, both reviews have exactly the same credibility. I can't comment cause I wasn't there, but I do believe some people liked the show and show people didn't. Another poster,Coma, didn't believe the first review was too far off. He might not be a qualify journalist from the Boston Herald, but as a concert goer, I'll give him exactly the same credibility or even more, than I will give the Boston Herald, simply because he is a fan.

You are just as biased as Dave is with GNR. VR has had its run of fuck ups lately but some of you just can't see it.

[Booker Floyd]

To me, both reviews have exactly the same credibility. I can't comment cause I wasn't there, but I do believe some people liked the show and show people didn't. Another poster,Coma, didn't believe the first review was too far off. He might not be a qualify journalist from the Boston Herald, but as a concert goer, I'll give him exactly the same credibility or even more, than I will give the Boston Herald, simply because he is a fan.

Im not arguing whether or not that reviewer liked the show...but hes passing himself off as a writer, and his writing simply isnt good for the reason I listed.? If its "regular guy" opinions youre looking for, you might want to check out Velvet-Revolver.coms concert review section.? After all, theyre actually fans.

Also, when taking into account this guys opinion, do you think hes in the majority or minority??

You are just as biased as Dave is with GNR.

 

VR has had its run of fuck ups lately but some of you just can't see it.

Explain?

Id also like to note that COma, a fan, said "I have to say when they came out for the encore and began Mr. Brownstone (with the little YCBM Drum intro) I felt like it was 1987-1993 all over again..... due to the fact that you couldn't make out Scott's vocals most of the night that was probaly the closest I'll ever get to seeing my vision of Guns N' Roses live ever again" and "overall the band was very good."? I wouldnt say he shared the same sentiments as that author.?

[Ignatius]

Id also like to note that COma, a fan, said "I have to say when they came out for the encore and began Mr. Brownstone (with the little YCBM Drum intro) I felt like it was 1987-1993 all over again..... due to the fact that you couldn't make out Scott's vocals most of the night that was probaly the closest I'll ever get to seeing my vision of Guns N' Roses live ever again" and "overall the band was very good."? I wouldnt say he shared the same sentiments as that

This is what Coma ( the same guy who post the above) had to say about the same concert...

"I was there towards the back of the floor, I think the estimate of 10,000 is a bit too high...... there were almost no people in the upper sections, and the rear of the floor was totally empty. I'd say 5-6K is a better guess of the crowd size.

Also, the sound is generally terrible at the Centrum, but their sound crew was much more to blame for that...... Their highs and lows were peaked the whole show, they made no attempts to alter the sound in any way (of course there were 5 or 6 strippers in the sound "booth", I know I wouldn't have been to worried about the sound myself)"

See where he guesses there was a crowd of 5-6k and they made no attempts to alter the sound....

Explain?

My pleasure.

VR's list of fuck ups

Where should I begin....

Ok, let's start with the cancelled shows. How many shows that were scheduled have been cancelled in the past two months? and more importantly, Why were they cancelled? Was it poor sales? Was it due to Scotts delicate throat? Was it due to poor planning? Thousands of fans have been left out from VR's generous 70 minute set.

Number Two. Why has Slash chosen a manager other than the rest of the band? From the beginning this band was all about cohesion, unity...The image we've been sold from the start was the "we are so dangerous, we are unpredictable" followed by " we are all like family. Our wives get along" " we bbq every Saturday...". These have been VR's image foundations from day one. If, their foundation number 1 ( rambling about how dangerous they are) made me laugh, now foundation number two makes me laugh even more!!! Why? Because that sign of cohesion many be just a sign, but the truth is, these guys may not really get along or have different views on where this band should be heading to.

Number Three. Duff " Axl didn't write GNR's music" Now, that's a fuck up. Even Duff believes is a fuck because he apologized for making such a bold statement. Yes, he apologized, but still made that sarcastic remark about "My World", but what was the point? Why? Aren't they involved already in a lawsuit regarding royalties? Unreal.

Number Four. Our main topic of discussion in other threads. Why are you playing such a short set? VR's got 13 songs off Contraband. Choose 11 out of those 13, play two GNR, two STP, Cheap Trick, Aerosmith and Pistols. You've got yourself an 18 song-set. An average of 4 songs a minute and breaks between songs and unchores, you've got yourself your 90 minute set. Perfect. Everybody is happy. The reason why they keep playing the same 14 songs every night is to save Scott to get into any throat problems, so basically, they are pulling off 70% every night instead of 100% liked they should.

There.

On the other hand, there's one thing they've done which I thought it was pure Rock & Roll. Dressing up as Axl and Buckethead I thought it was pretty histerical. The reason why I enjoyed that scene was because nobody expected it. It caught me ( and I guess everyone here) off guard. They just fucking did but nothing was mentioned about it. That is true Rock & Roll spirit.

[Booker Floyd]

See where he guesses there was a crowd of 5-6k and they made no attempts to alter the sound....

 

So like I said, he doesnt share the writers overall sentiments.  One guy thinks the band was very good, the other thinks they were rushed, unfocused, and hackneyed.  Pretty big divergence in opinion, Id say.  But if you think that their guesses on attendance and issues with the sound crew are more important, than power to you.

Ok, let's start with the cancelled shows. How many shows that were scheduled have been cancelled in the past two months? and more importantly, Why were they cancelled? Was it poor sales? Was it due to Scotts delicate throat? Was it due to poor planning? Thousands of fans have been left out from VR's generous 70 minute set.

Okay, but in fairness, the dates were cancelled very soon after they were announced.  So a fuck-up, yeah...but a minor one, and nothing that wasnt complained about already.

umber Two. Why has Slash chosen a manager other than the rest of the band? From the beginning this band was all about cohesion, unity...The image we've been sold from the start was the "we are so dangerous, we are unpredictable" followed by " we are all like family. Our wives get along" " we bbq every Saturday...". These have been VR's image foundations from day one. If, their foundation number 1 ( rambling about how dangerous they are) made me laugh, now foundation number two makes me laugh even more!!! Why? Because that sign of cohesion many be just a sign, but the truth is, these guys may not really get along or have different views on where this band should be heading to.

 

Come on, this is just stupid. 

Please name one way this fact has adversely affected the band.  Beyond speculation, what do you know for sure about the effects of their management diffrences?  But to go along with your logic...do families not have problems?  And you acknowledge that its possible to have some problems with somebody, but still generally be close and friendly.  So, if the band tours non-stop together, writes music together, perhaps even hangs out together...theyre really not that tight if they have different guys handling their personal finances. 

Number Three. Duff " Axl didn't write GNR's music" Now, that's a fuck up. Even Duff believes is a fuck because he apologized for making such a bold statement. Yes, he apologized, but still made that sarcastic remark about "My World", but what was the point? Why? Aren't they involved already in a lawsuit regarding royalties? Unreal.

Duff apologized for being misquoted.  If you think hes lying, great, but the only fuck-up Duff acknowledged was the writers.  And youre assuming Duff was being sarcastic...You understand that theres a possibility he does like the song, right?

Number Four. Our main topic of discussion in other threads. Why are you playing such a short set? VR's got 13 songs off Contraband. Choose 11 out of those 13, play two GNR, two STP, Cheap Trick, Aerosmith and Pistols. You've got yourself an 18 song-set. An average of 4 songs a minute and breaks between songs and unchores, you've got yourself your 90 minute set. Perfect. Everybody is happy. The reason why they keep playing the same 14 songs every night is to save Scott to get into any throat problems, so basically, they are pulling off 70% every night instead of 100% liked they should.

Thats a legitimate complaint...but not a "fuck-up" on VRs part.  A lot of people are actually satisfied with a 15-song set.

[jarmo]

If its "regular guy" opinions youre looking for, you might want to check out Velvet-Revolver.coms concert review section.? After all, theyre actually fans.

But are they non-biased regular guy reviews? 


I remember how some were angry about certain reviews two years ago. Now the same thing happens but other people discredit the negative reviews.

Who cares if he didn't like it?




/jarmo