BBC review

[Anywaythewindblows]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7730075.stm

Again, like with the Classic Rock review, it's not a destructive review but... it has this negative thing all over it.

[axljungle]

Good Post, Bad review!

[jarmo]

I wouldn't say it's that negative.


The reviewer just chooses to focus on certain things and seems to get hung up on them instead of just focusing on the music.

It's not supposed to be like Appetite For Destruction!

Why even compare the two?







/jarmo

[Anywaythewindblows]

" But Chinese Democracy also misses the clean, tuneful riffs that Slash and Izzy Stradlin used to provide."

Why should we give any importance to a review whose writer uses an argument like this to describe the sound of Chinese Democracy? It's the same lame argument that we all expect from most of the media.

[jarmo]

" But Chinese Democracy also misses the clean, tuneful riffs that Slash and Izzy Stradlin used to provide."

Exactly.

When you review an album based on what it's not instead of what it actually is, then you're missing something.

It's not Appetite For Destruction. Because it's not 1987!


I wonder if they review albums by the Rolling Stones like this as well, "it's not Sticky Fingers".




/jarmo

[TomFriend]

Mixed reviews are good. People have always wanted to hear this album and judge for themselves what side of the fence they fall on. This will encourage a lot of people to do just that.

[Olorin]

Its hardly negative, just average or a bit better I suppose    

I know there is songs on it that I only rate as average, and there is others I absolutely love. I couldnt give the album universal praise if I was to review it myself.

The Blues is one of my favourites but some reviewers seem to have panned it, I hope the finished version is not too overblown - it worked so well in its basic form.

"Songs like IRS and Raid N' The Bedouins are lean and compact, edited down to the bare essentials, packing the maximum punch per pound."

IRS and Riad seem to be getting good feedback in all the reviews.

Strange that noone has picked out a definitive song as being a true highlight of the album. I wonder how Madagascar turned out

I'm suprised none of the reviewers have mentioned Axls differing vocal styles yet either, noone has complimented his singing either.

[TomFriend]

"if his mind hasn't been fully devoted to music over the past decade-and-a-half, it doesn't show.

This record is an uncompromising, fully-focused, hard rock monster.

At times, it will rattle the rafters with its ferocious riffs. At others, you will laugh out loud at the ridiculously overblown melodrama. In other words, it's business as usual for Guns N' Roses."

That alone should be enough to shift a few copies to the skeptics.

[duga]

"This record is an uncompromising, fully-focused, hard rock monster.

At times, it will rattle the rafters with its ferocious riffs. At others, you will laugh out loud at the ridiculously overblown melodrama. In other words, it's business as usual for Guns N' Roses."

 

[overmatik]

That's what I meant with overproduction in another topic:

"The credit list for one song - the Bond theme-esque There Was A Time - runs to 33 lines on the CD booklet. A total of six people play guitar on the track. Two of them get solos."

About Axl's voice, I think critics are focusing on the arrangements, as this is what is the big difference now.

[jarmo]

That's what I meant with overproduction in another topic:

"The credit list for one song - the Bond theme-esque There Was A Time - runs to 33 lines on the CD booklet. A total of six people play guitar on the track. Two of them get solos."

Because the guy focused on something negative!


For example, David Fricke of Rolling Stone saw the same exact thing differently: It is plain, too, that he thinks this Guns n' Roses is a band, as much as the one that recorded "Welcome to the Jungle," "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Used to Love Her" and "Civil War." The voluminous credits that come with Chinese Democracy certainly give detailed credit where it is due.




/jarmo

[overmatik]

Maybe it will also depend on if the reviewer is old school or is willing to accept eletronic music on rock. And the funny thing is that David is old school and he liked it.

[TomFriend]

I would have thought that crediting all the musicians who play on a track was a legal necessity, not something Axl chose to do for one reason or another.

[falungong69]

fuck this stupid review.  who cares about the bbc anyways? 

yet another reviewer who can't seem to get over the fact that this guns n' roses music doesn't sound like the guns n' roses music that everyone loved so much.  and of course, he has to bring up slash and izzy.  yeah, like it can stay 1987 forever.  if this guy wants to live int eh past, then fine but he should just tell his readers up front that he's not capalbe of writing an unbiased and honest review.

[cotis]

fuck this stupid review.  who cares about the bbc anyways? 

yet another reviewer who can't seem to get over the fact that this guns n' roses music doesn't sound like the guns n' roses music that everyone loved so much.  and of course, he has to bring up slash and izzy.  yeah, like it can stay 1987 forever.  if this guy wants to live int eh past, then fine but he should just tell his readers up front that he's not capalbe of writing an unbiased and honest review.

i'm pretty sure BBC is quite a large news channel, giving news to many many people. Therefore, a lot of people care about BBC.


Anyways, just like the other review (that was deleted...) not all of them will be positive. Not everything is going to be perfect about this album, some of you failt o realize that. Some will hate it, some will praise it. Everyone's opinion can differ.

[Olorin]

fuck this stupid review.  who cares about the bbc anyways? 

yet another reviewer who can't seem to get over the fact that this guns n' roses music doesn't sound like the guns n' roses music that everyone loved so much.  and of course, he has to bring up slash and izzy.  yeah, like it can stay 1987 forever.  if this guy wants to live int eh past, then fine but he should just tell his readers up front that he's not capalbe of writing an unbiased and honest review.

More people care about the BBC than they do the Sun, who you were praising in the other thread. And its not a bad review, better save some of your outrage for less kind reviews.

[Ali]

"if his mind hasn't been fully devoted to music over the past decade-and-a-half, it doesn't show.

This record is an uncompromising, fully-focused, hard rock monster.

At times, it will rattle the rafters with its ferocious riffs. At others, you will laugh out loud at the ridiculously overblown melodrama. In other words, it's business as usual for Guns N' Roses."

That alone should be enough to shift a few copies to the skeptics.

You know, when you point that out, and thanks for doing that, it really changes your tune on what the overall impression is of the review.  It isn't negative, really.

Ali

[Scabbie]

Not that bad in my opinion! Seems typical of GNR though - diffrent reviewers love / hate diffrent songs.

[Ignatius]

Not a bad review, could've been better hadnt' it focused - again - on how long it took to make etc...

A few lines I like:

Ultimately, however, there is nothing here that will irrevocably tarnish the Guns N' Roses name.


This record is an uncompromising, fully-focused, hard rock monster.


The TWAT comparisson with Bon Jovi's Bed of Roses was ridiculous. I'm not dissing BJ, is just that I don't think those songs are far from being similar.

Edit.- Oops my bad, It's Blaze of Glory not Bed of Roses...still, you can't compare TWAT with BOG

[demanding_GNR_rock]

Not a bad review really seems more of an honest opinion really. But i certainly dont expect anymore from the bbc the corporation itself sucks as ive said elsewhere bbc radio1 the most listened too radio station 8m listeners(behind bbc radio 2 9.5m listener) doesn't  play CD i herd it 3 times out of 5 whole days last week it just isnt getting plugged yet the killers get a bbc live gig and plugged everyday. Might just be me but unless the management get onto something with the bbc the Uk is in the dark.