TERRIBLE CONCERT REVIEW FROM 1991===SPEAKING OF HOW THE MEDIA HATES GNR

[jaypayton]

i actually have the boot to this show and its great but heres some morons review


Shoreline Amphitheatre, Mountain View, CA
July 19th 1991
Review




ROCK HEROES GIVE A MORONIC SHOW
- Harry Sumrall, Mercury News Music, 7.22.91

FIRST, the good news: There was no riot at the Guns N' Roses show Friday at Shoreline Amphitheater.

Now for the bad news: There was a Guns N' Roses show Friday at Shoreline Amphitheatre.


Guns N' Roses' performance, Friday -- the first of a two- night stand in the Bay Area -- proved just how far rock 'n' roll has sunk as an expressive form. It's bad enough when crummy rockers inflict themselves and their music on us but there is something infinitely more depressing when good rockers do the same.


And Guns N' Roses are good.


There were a few moments in group's two-and-a-quarter-hour set bristled with energy and intensity. Vocalist and all-around big mouth Axl Rose strutted and posed and shrieked his way through old songs and new with a feeling that was equaled by the drive and purpose of his mates.


On "Civil War," "Paradise City," and some other songs, the band members performed like true rock heroes -- which they are -- creating a grandiose sound that stirred the soul. And when they covered others' songs, they were just as accomplished. Their versions of Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" and Bob Dylan's "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" were remarkable: They handily outdistanced the live versions of those songs by their creators (Dylan could take a cue from these guys on how to perform this masterpiece).


All of which was fine, as far as it went. But that wasn't good enough for Guns N' Roses. They had to go too far, which they did as often as possible at this idiotic, sophomoric, stupid, moronic show.


Rose was the chief culprit. Not content to perform the songs, he destroyed most of them with hysterical, screaming vocals that defaced melodies and shredded harmonies. On a perfectly decent ballad like "Fourteen Years" he pushed his way into guitarist Izzy Stradlin's performance and ruined it. And on his own GN'R warhorses like "Welcome To The Jungle," his vocals were a constant annoyance, his tuneless rantings making a mockery of the songs.


And when he wasn't singing, he was baiting the ravenous capacity crowd with antics that were hilariously dumb. He seemed to confuse expressing himself with throwing his mike stand, which he must have done a hundred times. Was that supposed to be exciting, Axl?


But Rose had his accomplices. Lead guitarist Slash proved at several points that he could, indeed, play his instrument (especially his bluesy, delicate reduction of Jimi Hendrix's "Voodoo Chile" that served as the intro to "Civil War"). But most of the time, like Rose, he preferred to make a splash, dispensing dithering flurries of notes that had little to do with the songs in any musical sense. At one point, he stood on a ramp at the back of the immense stage and spewed notes out by the thousand -- hasn't anyone told him that he could go blind doing, ah, that sort of thing?


New drummer Matt Sorum (formerly of the Cult) was just as flashy on his solo. While his rolls were often impressive, he subverted them to the lighting scheme that went with them and at the end he was joined by bassist Duff McKagan, who slammed out extra beats on a drum while Sorum did his stuff. It was simplistic; it was silly. And the crowd loved it.


That seemed to be the point of the whole exercise: Not to play music as well as they knew how; but to play to the crowd.


And did they know how!


But that isn't what rock 'n' roll is about, is it? Rock is -- or should be -- about rockers who have a feeling in their soul (and their solar plexus) that they have to express with music. And rock is about them doing that: making the rest of us feel that feeling through the music. It isn't -- or shouldn't be -- about mindless and cynical exploiters acting like a bunch of lunatics to placate the lowest common denominator in each of us.


Guns N' Roses could have made mighty rock 'n' roll, Friday. Instead, they spent most of their time making fools of themselves and all who saw them.

[D]

This guy sounds like some bitter wanna be musician who never made it.


There are those who can rock and write songs and there are those who criticize others or join cover bands.

Thats what I always say.

[lennonisgod]

Jealous are we??  That dude sounds like a total fucking cunt and talks like he's "super musician" and can play and perform better than anyone in the world.  But look what he's doing instead, writing a fucking review.  What a fucking douche bag and I wonder what he's doing in life right now???  He's probably 55 years old and almost has his first 4 song demo ready to play for people.  I'm surprised he actually complimented the band at all but that doesn't make him any better than his shitty self.

[29]

Why are you bringing up a 15 year old review? Who cares?

[Steel_Angel]

Why are you bringing up a 15 year old review? Who cares?

hes trying to prove a point. you dont get it. you fail.

[z16bitsega]

Hey look, a single bad review from fifteen years ago.  This definitely proves that the media hate this band!

[nesquick]

Who cares? The Use Your Illusion I and II sold 35 million copies worldwide, and the Use Your Illusion World Tour brang 7 million people all over the world to the GN'R shows. Here was the answer...

[MikeD]

This is a fairly objective review. The compliments the band in plenty of places and Axl probably was acting like a jerk. Why is it that every time some one doesn't give a positive review they're called a moron or stupid or whatever. What you think GNR is going to be fucking perfect every time they go out.

[Elrothiel]

Well that guy sounds pretty damn jealous... I think at heart he actually really really liked Gn'R, but felt obliged to pretend to dislike them and gave them a bad review because of the bitter jealousy he was harboring. He said he thought Axl was acting like a jerk, when in fact, he probably wished he was in Axl's position and could run around throwing his mike stand whenever he wanted...

Its a classic case of bitter envy...

[Tomorrows]

I think he was right to slam to a show from the UYI tour. And he was one of the ones to do it earlier on before it became super fashionable to do so.

[warrocks]

I'm not surprised 'cause I have tons of magazine where bad reviews appears from that tour. hoho.

[Mustapha]

On a perfectly decent ballad like "Fourteen Years"

This is just one example of the complete ignorance that drove this review. When I finished reading the review, even having in mind that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I realised that this guy doesn't have a clue of the meaning and the message of Guns N'Roses (at least of the old band) and.. why not, rock n' roll in general.

[Tomorrows]

Im suprised he didnt mention Axl was 95% naked on stage. Maybe he wasnt wearing the Kylie Minogue hotpants yet, but if I were reviewing it thatd be one things Id definately beef about.

[ppbebe]

Some of the comments sorta sound familiar.

The critic liked the songs but he thought the solos and Axl's stage act ruined that.
I wasn't at the show in '91 and I haven't even seen the boot that I refrain from commenting about the review.

I just hope this guy now is not criticising GNR for not being the same band as then to make a fool of himself and all who read what he says.

[holtzmn73]

This is a fairly objective review.

Saying "this idiotic, sophomoric, stupid, moronic show" is very unprofessional. There are tons of negative reviews that don't resort to insults and namecalling.  There were and are plenty of reasons to complain about a GNR show but this guy sounds like no matter what they did he was gonna write this type of review.

[Tomorrows]

I dont get it - people here will readily slam the UYI tour and the Tokyo DVDs but as soon as a reviewer has the same complaints its a crime 

[jaypayton]

15 years ago in GNR land is more like 2 years ago considering the band was on hiatues from 1994-2005...2002 doesnt count

[Lucky]

hey.
that's a good review.
they said almost what we all knew.

they did a great show, the crowd liked it. but they were just trying to be better than the other.
Slash's solos were borring, and axl did know to get in the way of guitars.


the fact is that none of us was there, so we have no idea of the bad part is true.

you people already made up your mind, and you think that EVERY GNR gig is perfect, so why the fuck do you read reviews at all?!

[Tomorrows]

hey.
that's a good review.
they said almost what we all knew.

they did a great show, the crowd liked it. but they were just trying to be better than the other.
Slash's solos were borring, and axl did know to get in the way of guitars.


the fact is that none of us was there, so we have no idea of the bad part is true.

you people already made up your mind, and you think that EVERY GNR gig is perfect, so why the fuck do you read reviews at all?!

Exactly. The review is actually quite praising of GNR and their songs. All its bagging on is the theatrics of the concert.

Its the same stuff that gets said here, only that review says it more articulately.

[russtcb]

He seemed to confuse expressing himself with throwing his mike stand

What exactly is a "Mike Stand"? Way to go professional journalist. Extremely well written.