.

[GNFNR]

.

[Mr Rage]

May 15, 2006

POP MUSIC REVIEW
Welcome to Axl's much tamer jungle
Guns N' Roses returns to the stage after a nearly four year absence.

By Richard Cromelin, Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK ? "What would Axl do?" read the T-shirt on one of the Guns N' Roses fans outside the Hammerstein Ballroom on Friday. They were lined up around the block waiting to get into the 3,300-capacity theater where Guns N' Roses was scheduled to play its first show since a 2002 concert a couple of blocks away at Madison Square Garden.

As it turned out, Axl Rose wouldn't do much, at least not in the way the T-shirt suggested ? nothing to add to the list of no-shows, walkouts and confrontations with audience members that has made the band's saga a trail of mayhem as well as music. The only musician to go into the audience Friday was guitarist Robin Finck, who did a little stage-diving and crowd-surfing near the end of the night.

ADVERTISEMENT
The last time the L.A. band opened a tour, in Vancouver, Canada, Rose was late, the show was canceled and the fans rioted. That 2002 tour came to a premature end later on when Rose did the same thing in Philadelphia.

That history ? as well as a newspaper report that Rose had missed a rehearsal ? might have been lingering in people's minds Friday as they came to witness the awakening of what they hoped was a slumbering giant. The four Hammerstein concerts (shows were also scheduled for Sunday, today and Wednesday) are a warm-up for a European tour, which will be followed, Rose recently announced, by the release of the band's first album of new material since 1991, the infamously, interminably in-progress "Chinese Democracy."

Showing good taste and high spirits, the crowd booed the opener, the Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine, off the stage, then waited for an hour until Guns N' Roses came on at 11 p.m., complete with its lead singer.

Rose, wearing jeans, a black leather shirt and sunglasses, his hair in cornrows and tied in a ponytail, got a hero's welcome as he led the band through its traditional opener, "Welcome to the Jungle." His frame looked a little heftier at age 44 than in his street-waif heyday 20 years ago, but he kicked and scampered around with spirited energy, and his raspy voice had its old barbed-wire edge.

That was the start of a solid, smooth-running 2 1/2-hour set that was dominated by vintage fan favorites, with no tirades, no impulsive departures from the book, unless you count a guest appearance by Skid Row's Sebastian Bach, singing with Rose on "My Michelle." There was also a lot less of the tension that fueled the band's performances in the late '80s and early '90s, largely because this is a different Guns N' Roses, with the original lineup ? most significantly, Rose's colorful, guitar-wielding foil Slash ? gone and new players in place since the late '90s.

One teaser for Friday's show was the unveiling of a new guitarist as replacement for the recently departed Buckethead. He turned out to be Ron Thal, from a New York outfit called, oddly enough, Bumblefoot, and who at one point played a guitar shaped and painted as a foot.

With its three guitarists, Guns N' Roses' 2006 edition is a hard-rock fan's dream, churning out the Stones-cum-Aerosmith-influenced songs with requisite power. On Friday, they re-created the structures of such old standbys as "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Patience," "Paradise City," "Mr. Brownstone," et al.

But at heart, it's very different from the band Rose once fronted ? one of the most popular, polarizing, powerful, controversial and fascinatingly self-sabotaging entities in rock. This is the curse of rock's bad boys (and girls). If you find enough stability to show up and do a good show, you've lost your edge. If you keep too much of your edge, you're going to find your audience dwindling to a morbid few waiting for your final mistake.

And two decades have created a distance from those early songs, which were immediate, close-to-the-bone expressions of rage and frustration from a troubled and eloquent kid. On Friday, they were all audience sing-alongs, enjoyable as celebrations of a community of fans and band but no longer scary, compelling pieces. The one that retained its essence best was the encore, "Paradise City," because its message of longing for refuge carries a more universal reach.

The trick for Rose is to summon those songs' original spirit while removing himself from the character who created them. The problem is that he hasn't given us a new Axl to put the old material in a new context or, more important, to sing something new.

If "Chinese Democracy" really is coming soon, this would have been a perfect time to showcase it, but the few new songs came and went without much impact amid the nostalgia. The energetic title song, with its more contemporary sound, was a promising indication.

While this return was long awaited by some, Rose and company have been long forgotten by many. You can't stay away forever if you want to keep your audience engaged plus attract new listeners. The intensity of Guns N' Roses' initial music and lifestyle might have earned Rose a temporary pass, but if he doesn't show up soon, he'll find he has the jungle all to himself.

http://www.calendarlive.com/music/cl-et-guns15may15,0,1064364.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels

You can't please everyone!

[ben9785]

Nice review, thanks for that

At least they didn't drag on alot about the lineup and a certain guitarist's presence (or lack of)..they tried to be fair and concentrate on the present rather than dwell on the past, despite the inevitable "Chinese Democracy" saga.

[Ines_rocks!]

Showing good taste and high spirits, the crowd booed the opener, the Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine, off the stage


lol was the band that bad to get booed off the stage?? Poor guys lol

[fif]

Showing good taste and high spirits, the crowd booed the opener, the Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine, off the stage


lol was the band that bad to get booed off the stage?? Poor guys lol

They weren't booed off the stage.  That's an overexageration.  Yes, there were boos, but not an audience wide chorus of boos.  They played there set then left the stage.

[Jimmy?]

Showing good taste and high spirits, the crowd booed the opener, the Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine, off the stage


lol was the band that bad to get booed off the stage?? Poor guys lol

They weren't booed off the stage.? That's an overexageration.? Yes, there were boos, but not an audience wide chorus of boos.? They played there set then left the stage.

They're payed to exaggerate!!

[ben9785]

Showing good taste and high spirits, the crowd booed the opener, the Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine, off the stage


lol was the band that bad to get booed off the stage?? Poor guys lol

They weren't booed off the stage.? That's an overexageration.? Yes, there were boos, but not an audience wide chorus of boos.? They played there set then left the stage.

They're payed to exaggerate!!

That is fucking true hey..bastards they are

Bullet for my valentine are another one of those new contemporary hardcore-metal crossover bands..

I didn't think they'd go down well for a crowd of Guns N Roses fans

They've got reasonable musicianship..But they're just another one of those new wave of american metal kind of bands....a scene that has already been beaten the fuck out of...and these are guns n roses fans so..yeah hehe

[bazgnr]

Valentine played their full set in spite of the boos.  They seemed decent about it, and everytime the boo-ing got too loud, they would thanks the fans, and get them excited for Guns to hit the stage.  It was essentially a survival tactic, but it served its purpose.

Personally, I was okay with the "danger" element missing that the writer mentioned in the review.  I'd much rather see a full, killer set by GnR where they - for the first time in a long time, look and sound like an amazing rock band.  Even better, an amazing rock band having the time of their lives together, celebrating the music, the fans, and the band re-entering the spotlight.  I'll take that over temper tantrums and walk-offs any day.

But that's just me.

[Naupis]

Problem with the situation is that there is a distinct dropoff in energy level from the classics to the new songs, as the new ones just don't kick you in the ass the way the old stuff does. I know alot of the board members claim that everyone was screaming for the new ones, but having been in that theater you could tell there was a major dropoff in the crowd's energy level.  Some see that as a progression, others see it as losing something from the way it used to be. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.

[Continental Drift]

Naupis you're right to an extent... but I think that was the case mostly because the new songs have yet to be released and played in our cd players 37 million times like the others... Madagascar, TWAT and Better (and CITR for that matter) ALL have stadium anthem potential... if people could hear a proper recording of them several times before going to the venue... and actually get excited about hearing them played live.

[ben9785]

Valentine played their full set in spite of the boos.? They seemed decent about it, and everytime the boo-ing got too loud, they would thanks the fans, and get them excited for Guns to hit the stage.? It was essentially a survival tactic, but it served its purpose.

Personally, I was okay with the "danger" element missing that the writer mentioned in the review.? I'd much rather see a full, killer set by GnR where they - for the first time in a long time, look and sound like an amazing rock band.? Even better, an amazing rock band having the time of their lives together, celebrating the music, the fans, and the band re-entering the spotlight.? I'll take that over temper tantrums and walk-offs any day.

But that's just me.

Oh no, your absolutely right. It's not necessarily about "danger" or anything like that; like I said elsewhere, there are too many bands out there right now trying to have that kind of image and it's all been watered down now and it's a joke...at least with GNR now, as far as we can see, it's a solid rock machine, some world class musicianship, guys having a great time rocking out together...that's all that matters

[ben9785]

Naupis you're right to an extent... but I think that was the case mostly because the new songs have yet to be released and played in our cd players 37 million times like the others... Madagascar, TWAT and Better (and CITR for that matter) ALL have stadium anthem potential... if people could hear a proper recording of them several times before going to the venue... and actually get excited about hearing them played live.

Definitely, that's it. They are leaks of demo recordings on the internet; when a single or the album ultimately comes out and people, on a much wider scale, listen and really start to take in and appreciate the songs in their final completed state, then for sure, like MaoAxl said, these songs have potential just like the classics do

[blues rocker]

Problem with the situation is that there is a distinct dropoff in energy level from the classics to the new songs, as the new ones just don't kick you in the ass the way the old stuff does. I know alot of the board members claim that everyone was screaming for the new ones, but having been in that theater you could tell there was a major dropoff in the crowd's energy level.? Some see that as a progression, others see it as losing something from the way it used to be. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.

i'm sick of people talking about how the audience doesn't seem as "exited" by the new songs....

NO SHIT, SHERLOCKS....

obviously, people are not going to be as exited about the new songs....they haven't even been heard before in their finished form....not on the radio as singles, and not on an album. 

how the fuck can you expect the audience to be as exited about a new song (that's never even been release on an album) as they are about a classic that people have been listening to for over a decade...

it's just retarded journalists and nay-sayers trying to tear the new stuff down before it even has a chance to make an impact...

after the album is released, and people develop the same connection with the new songs as they have with the old, it will be a different story...


stop trying to turn every little thing into another excuse to bash the new band and the new songs....it is really lame.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

I know alot of the board members claim that everyone was screaming for the new ones, but having been in that theater you could tell there was a major dropoff in the crowd's energy level.

Well, ya, but what do you expect to happen?  Remember Rock in Rio 2.  They played You Could Be Mine and the crowd was just standing there.  That is a kick ass song, yet people weren't excited.  Once a song like "Better" is released as a single, people will go crazy for it at a concert, because they will have had time to digest it.

There is going to be a dropoff for any band when they play never before heard material.

[Naupis]

stop trying to turn every little thing into another excuse to bash the new band and the new songs....it is really lame.

Not what I am doing at all, I enjoyed the show friday. However, alot of people on this board have gotten hot and bothered at the media comments about fans not being as into the new songs as if they are making it up. I was simply pointing out that as someone that was there, it is true that the new songs didn't seem to get all that much of a reaction.

I know they haven't been released, and that contributes to it. However, even after they are released they just don't have that "in your face" element the Appetite stuff did, and in a live setting the new songs will never reach that level of energy as they just aren't as heavy. The new songs are awesome, but they are much more mellow than alot of the older material. Releasing an album won't change how those songs sound live.

[bazgnr]

Valentine played their full set in spite of the boos.? They seemed decent about it, and everytime the boo-ing got too loud, they would thanks the fans, and get them excited for Guns to hit the stage.? It was essentially a survival tactic, but it served its purpose.

Personally, I was okay with the "danger" element missing that the writer mentioned in the review.? I'd much rather see a full, killer set by GnR where they - for the first time in a long time, look and sound like an amazing rock band.? Even better, an amazing rock band having the time of their lives together, celebrating the music, the fans, and the band re-entering the spotlight.? I'll take that over temper tantrums and walk-offs any day.

But that's just me.

Oh no, your absolutely right. It's not necessarily about "danger" or anything like that; like I said elsewhere, there are too many bands out there right now trying to have that kind of image and it's all been watered down now and it's a joke...at least with GNR now, as far as we can see, it's a solid rock machine, some world class musicianship, guys having a great time rocking out together...that's all that matters

Exactly.  The last thing GnR need to do at this point is prove that they're "dangerous."  That aspect has been proven and well documented over the years.  Time to make it about the music again, and wake the world up to the fact that GnR is back.  The 12th was eye-opening, and I'm so glad I was a part of it.

[ben9785]

stop trying to turn every little thing into another excuse to bash the new band and the new songs....it is really lame.

Not what I am doing at all, I enjoyed the show friday. However, alot of people on this board have gotten hot and bothered at the media comments about fans not being as into the new songs as if they are making it up. I was simply pointing out that as someone that was there, it is true that the new songs didn't seem to get all that much of a reaction.

I know they haven't been released, and that contributes to it. However, even after they are released they just don't have that "in your face" element the Appetite stuff did, and in a live setting the new songs will never reach that level of energy as they just aren't as heavy. The new songs are awesome, but they are much more mellow than alot of the older material. Releasing an album won't change how those songs sound live.

Personally I understand and appreciate what you were trying to say, and I know the songs probably aren't as edgy or in your face as the older material, but the crowd would at least be more appreciative and receptive to the songs before anything else if they knew the songs and had time to absorb the songs particularly in their final completed studio form, because they're not all like us to go jumping over 30 second demo clips or whatever hehe, so that's where its not necessarily a question of how the songs sound; before anything, it's got to do with whether or not they know the songs at all

[MichelleAK3]

age doesnt mean losing your edge, the rolling stones still rock, Axl Did a FANTASTIC JOB, hes looks 100 times better physically then in 2002, Hes HOT, ROCK N ROLLIN AND SEXY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[blues rocker]

stop trying to turn every little thing into another excuse to bash the new band and the new songs....it is really lame.

Not what I am doing at all, I enjoyed the show friday. However, alot of people on this board have gotten hot and bothered at the media comments about fans not being as into the new songs as if they are making it up. I was simply pointing out that as someone that was there, it is true that the new songs didn't seem to get all that much of a reaction.

I know they haven't been released, and that contributes to it. However, even after they are released they just don't have that "in your face" element the Appetite stuff did, and in a live setting the new songs will never reach that level of energy as they just aren't as heavy. The new songs are awesome, but they are much more mellow than alot of the older material. Releasing an album won't change how those songs sound live.

i'm not talking about you, i'm talking about critics who are trying to find any excuse they can to conclude that the new stuff is inferior.

first....whether the new stuff is not as good is a matter of opinion...besides, we have only heard a fraction of the new stuff...there could very well be a ton of fast, energetic songs that we haven't heard yet...we'll have to wait until the album is released to be able to judge how it really compares to the original band's songs...


second....this is axl's band, and the music is naturally going to have a more serious/epic feel to it, since that is his specialty...old school gnr fans who crave the "appetite" type rock might be dissappointed by the new stuff, but there may be people out there who didn't even like the old stuff that will become huge fans of the new band.


the point is...you can't please everyone...the new music is good, but it's a different sound than the original gnr...some people won't like it as much, some people will like it more...but in the end, i believe the new material will be seen as some of the best music ever made.

[Naupis]

the point is...you can't please everyone...the new music is good, but it's a different sound than the original gnr...some people won't like it as much, some people will like it more...but in the end, i believe the new material will be seen as some of the best music ever made.

That is fine, but the problem with that sentiment is that journalists are coming to see Guns N' Roses, and expect for them to sound like Guns N' Roses. Journalists wouldnt compare the new stuff to the old as much if the band weren't named Guns N' Roses. It is a tough sell to complain about the comparrissons when you choose to call yourself by that name.