Media war for the final GNR reunion narrative?

[SkeletorSerpent]

Is it just me, or is there a "media war" for who (which side of the Gnr debate) will get to tell the final historical GNR narrative? And how that narrative gets written? On one hand, GNR comes out as comeback hero, vindicated rock icons who are back to dominate rock and reclaim their throne as one of rock's all time greats. On the contrary, there seems to be some voices in media who want to extinguish the fire. They want to paint the narrative of a washed up, disgraced eighties has been band whose chances at a successful reunion are now at least ten years too late, and even if the reunion happened ten years ago, GNR were never really that great any way. This negative side seems terrified by all the positive press from Vegas and Coachella, and are trying to write a narrative that GNR are a "one great album" band, with just a few hits. It's as if all the haters from the 80s and 90s are crawling out of the woodwork to construct their image of the band before the facts can speak for themselves.

There seems to be "two tales" emerging regarding this reunion and the "negative" side is definitely in the minority. The same old GNR media enemies seem to have held a grudge and still have an axe to grind with the band. In other words, they desperately want GNR to fail. Yet, the facts are showing that they on fire and are doing anything but failing. Many current bands and celebrities are showing their support. Mainstream radio is finally on board. They are on the cups of cementing their legacy. It's as if they have proven they are the "great, classic, bad ass rock band" that we have all said they are, and the negative media doesn't like that we are being proven right. They are beloved by millions. They are on par with Zep, Stones, and AC/DC. Axl is an amazing vocalist. And they don't like seeing GNR vindicated as an amazing rock band. The negative side will say and do anything to stop Axl. They want to focus on Axl's body, or their ages, or the fact that it isn't 1992, or the fact that GNR used to not show up on time, or the fact that they are now too professional and clean and not "dangerous" enough, or  . . . . . and the list goes on. Anything to stop Axl. It bothers them that "we" (the masses of GNR adorers and legions of fans) are right about our assessment of GNR's legacy, and they were wrong. Some are desperately trying to remind the rock world that GNR were racist, misogynistic, drug addicts who were the antithesis of Nirvana and real, raw rock. Some have tried to convince us that GNR are the main reason why we needed Nirvana.
Yet, the facts remain. GNR are close to selling 100 million records world wide and are in a very elite class of rockers. GNR can still sell out stadiums. GNR have some of the most recognizable and beloved rock anthems of all time.


There seems to be a big discrepancy between media outlets and varying rock critics. MOST media sources and critics have been very favorable and supportive of the GNR reunion thus far-- yet, some seem to want to halt the momentum, thwart their positive energy, and sabotage the reunion. They can't stand Axl and can't stand to see him in the lime light and be revered by rock fans and critics and mainstream media is clearly on the side of history that paints GNR as a rock icon and the verge of an epic comeback! They don't want to see him vindicated as a rock legend.

[Axlfreek]

the 20 years i've been a fan it seems the media has never liked gn'r nor have they supported axl rose the past 15 years. based on the lyrics of the song "get in the ring", i don't think gn'r and the media have ever gotten along.

[Whigged]

Dude...we're four shows in. There's no "media war." How do you even begin to speculate on a so called "final narrative" when the narrative itself is shifting almost daily? It's impossible. As a media member, I  can say for certain that makes zero sense.

[SkeletorSerpent]

I agree. Historically, they have never been darlings of the critics and media. Their anti-hero status was part of what made them luring, refreshing, and cool. However, many said they had talent, but wasted it on arrogance, excess, egos, drugs, bloated productions, commercialized videos, and a lifestyle of Spinal Tap proportions. etc.

But, now that some time has passed and the dust is settling, I think most media and rock critics are acknowledging the GNR legacy for what it is.

However, there seems to be a diehard core of anti- Axl, anti-GNR critics out there who are determined to derail GNR. They are doing everything in their power to prevent GNR from being mythologized by rock history. They DO NOT want this reunion tour to "cement GNR's reputation and legacy" as one of the all time greatest hard rock n roll bands. They hate the fact that "GNR has turned out to be everything their fans always thought them to be"  . . . that is, a legendary rock band in the same pantheon as Zep, Stones, AC/DC, etc. They hate that we (the fans) are turning out to be on the "right side of rock history." If evaluated and observed neutrally and objectively, the facts are very clear- GNR has a huge fan base, GNR appeals to teenagers and middle agers, GNR can still fill stadiums, GNR is a staple of rock radio, GNR have some of the biggest and most played rock anthems of all time, GNR are a globally recognized band, GNR members are known around the world on a "first name basis" like Elvis, Madonna, etc, GNR revolutionized MTV videos for rock bands, GNR dominated an entire era of rock, GNR were far more than a "one album wonder," etc. The nay sayers keep trying to re-write the narrative, though.
The nay sayers are desperately screaming at rock fans to "buy their GNR narrative" as the "final word" on the band's place in rock history. According to their narrative, the band is just a glorified hair band, GNR is washed up, GNR were the reason for Nirvana, GNR has only "one great album," and all the old cliches we've all heard a million times, yet know aren't true. Yet, the facts clearly prove their narrative to be false. On the contrary, GNR have sold almost 100 million records, GNR are instantly recognized around the world. GNR can create a mass Internet buzz off of reputation alone-- no other band from the eighties can do that.

[SkeletorSerpent]

Dude...we're four shows in. There's no "media war." How do you even begin to speculate on a so called "final narrative" when the narrative itself is shifting almost daily? It's impossible. As a media member, I  can say for certain that makes zero sense.

I disagree. I think the hatred of Axl is so vehement that there is some movement to "bring down this band." Some mainstream rock stations are ignoring the GNR reunion. There is a cultural movement to "move beyond" the "80s retro thing" that has actually been going on for awhile now and push "Kurt Cobain," "grunge," and Nirvana back on the public. Go to a high school, teens are starting to wear Nirvana T shirts and flannels now more than wearing Motley Crue, AC/DC, and GNR T shirts. They are still there, but the tide is definitely shifting towards grunge as the next cool "retro trend."
The powers that be who come of age in the grunge movement are coming of age and have powers of influence and they will try to resurrect the GNR vs Nirvana war (commercial rock vs. alternative/indie/underground rock). These people "grew up hating" GNR and Axl. They really do NOT want to see him glorified and vindicated. I'm telling you-- the hatred is real. And it runs DEEP.
Just saying . . . .

[D-GenerationX]

I see nothing but love, honestly.  All the shows so far have gotten great reviews.

The only thing that would mess that up is if Axl pulls any of his old bullshit.  And so far, so good, on that front.

[gnr1967]

I'm not sure if it's a "movement" to bring down GNR.  I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories.  Although it's just pure speculation on my part, I think for many writers in the media, GNR is simply an easy band to target.  It's simply easier for them to write something negative than something positive.

And yes, there are already negative articles out there about Cochella.  But I don't attribute it to an organized movement to bring down the band. That doesn't make sense to me.

[SkeletorSerpent]

D-GenerationX,
I agree, for the most part. There has been a lot of love. Look at the many, many positive reviews that members have been posting under the Coachella thread! But that is my point. Even USAToday had a very positive review. Rolling Stone, Spin, and many other outlets who were hard on GNR under the old line-up are coming out with very positive reviews. This is an "epic" comeback according to the vast majority of reviews.
That's why when the Daily Beast or the Guardian come out with negative reviews it just seems so out of place. Only a deep rooted hatred for GNR can justify such fallacious views. It is clear that these reviewers didn't even watch or listen to the show. They were just waiting to spew negativity and spin their narrative of GNR's comeback.
But to any objective observer, it is false.

[SkeletorSerpent]

I'm not sure if it's a "movement" to bring down GNR.  I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories.  Although it's just pure speculation on my part, I think for many writers in the media, GNR is simply an easy band to target.  It's simply easier for them to write something negative than something positive.

And yes, there are already negative articles out there about Cochella.  But I don't attribute it to an organized movement to bring down the band. That doesn't make sense to me.

"Organized movement" is too strong. I don't mean a clandestine, surreptitiously coordinated plot to destroy the band. I'm talking about all the alternative/underground/punk rock fans of the early 90s who "grew up hating" GNR and Axl are now in positions of power and influence and they are the ones writing the few negative reviews. Back int he day, "alternative" rock kids hated GNR and they disliked fans of GNR. They truly thought the grunge movement was a rock n roll enema to flush GNR into the toilet of rock history. They loathed and despised Axl and everything he stood for -  private jets, strippers, extended guitar solos, stadium shows, drinking/party songs, etc.
All I'm saying is that these people think GNR are an "overrated" band who left a big stain on rock history. They hate almost everything about the eighties except Metallica and Megadeth and Slayer and underground punk bands. The last thing in the world they want to see is GNR mythologized in rock history as one of the greatest acts of all time. They loath all the positive reviews and powerful "comeback" energy.
That's what I mean about a war. These Axl haters will say and write anything to discredit Axl. That is why we are starting to get "two tales" on the reunion. But to the objective observer, it is clear that the negative reviews are very bias and rooted in a personal dislike of the band.

[Virolec]

Guns N' Roses is not really music for Guardian readers... I wouldn't be surprised if they got a bad review there.

[Tyson]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

[johnreed3344]

I don't even bother with reviews anymore most of the negative ones just seem like no matter what happens they will give GNR a bad one. so fuck them and keep this magical GNR time rolling!

[Factory Girl]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

I saw that earlier today. Did not get it.
Rolling Stone, Spin they've said nice things. I'm sure I saw a few more positive...it was not my perception at all.

[Tyson]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

I saw that earlier today. Did not get it.
Rolling Stone, Spin they've said nice things. I'm sure I saw a few more positive...it was not my perception at all.

Were you there?  And yes, I did read lots of very good reviews as well. 

[Factory Girl]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

I saw that earlier today. Did not get it.
Rolling Stone, Spin they've said nice things. I'm sure I saw a few more positive...it was not my perception at all.

Were you there?  And yes, I did read lots of very good reviews as well. 

No, I wasn't. I mean it was not my perception that they had no many bad reviews.

[SkeletorSerpent]

No, there isn't a widespread consensus that the Coachella show sucked. Unfortunately, these sparse negative reviews are an anomaly that reflect a GNR narrative "media war" that I posted about in Dead Horse. I'm telling you all, go read my comment about a "media war" that I posted in Dead Horse, I think I'm on to something. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. It's the only theory that can explain such a vast discrepancy in the reviews. It is irrational to think that rock critics at Rolling Stone, Spin, Kerrang, Billboard, and Classic Rock magazine don't know what the fuck they are talking about, but some left wing geek at Daily Beast, Telegraph, or Esquire does. That's fucking crazy. The left wing hippy alternative geeks have always had an agenda to "tear down Axl." In their minds, he personifies everything that is wrong with rock music-- misogynistic, racists, macho, loud, masculine, testosterone driven, strippers, private jets, stadiums, Budweiser sponsorships, towering, monolithic walls of Marshall amps, pyrotechnics, and all the Spinal Tap pomp and circumstance that come with kick ass rock n roll.

Spirit has been doing an excellent job tracking the many positive reviews. See below. The only negative reviews I can find come from Esquire, Guardian, Telegraph, San Diego Tribune, and the Daily Beast. These are modern liberal publications run by former alternative music fans. The journalists writing these reviews are the same critics who have been blasting Axl for the last 15 years. Esquire, Daily Beast, and Guardian were always trashing GNR. As youth, these "journalists" were the kids who "hated Axl Rose" when we were growing up. While the rest of the world was listening to GNR, they were sipping expressos in coffee shops and listening to Weezer and whining about how much "corporate rock sucks." Whiny little bitches . . . . thinking they were too sophisticated for GNR. These are the same arrogant mother fuckers who only listen to Radiohead, U2, and Coldplay and think Nirvana are the "saviors of rock." Fuck em all. They don't know shit about rock n roll. Positive reviews are all over the Internet. Spin, Rolling Stone, Billboard . . .  these are music publications. Daily Beast and Esquire are Leftist publications with a political agenda. Leftists and liberals and underground alternative geeks have always had an axe to grind with GNR. Radiohead listening, coffee sipping, hippies who hate "jock rock." But rock journalists looking at this objectively and neutrally are saying very positive things.

Positive Reviews:
http://www.spin.com/2016/04/guns-n-roses-coachella-live-review/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/04/17/guns-n-roses-coachella-performance-angus-young-weekend-one-video-watch/

http://music.mxdwn.com/2016/04/17/reviews/coachella-2016-day-2-review-excellence-vs-energy-with-guns-n-roses-run-the-jewels-and-chvrches/

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/music-festivals/7334123/coachella-2016-guns-n-roses-acdc-angus-young

http://www.fuse.tv/2016/04/guns-n-roses-coachella-axl-rose

http://www.laweekly.com/music/its-so-sleazy-guns-n-roses-gave-coachella-its-most-epic-rock-set-ever-6837392

http://www.pe.com/articles/gnr-800219-band-axl.html

http://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/music/2016/apr/17/coachella-day-2-guns-n-roses-/

http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/17/guns-n-roses-coachella-performance-video/

http://theinterrobang.com/guns-n-roses-kills-coachella/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/day-712432-run-stage.html

http://www.etonline.com/news/186910_guns_n_roses_rock_day_two_of_coachella_with_surprise_appearance_by_acdc_guitarist_angus_young/

[Tyson]

You're def onto something.  Good response. 

[jc_seven]

I blame Cobain.  His obsession and hatred of Guns/Axl possessed the minds of people who believed if they just followed him, they too would have some kind of knowledgable inside track on life.  To say that GnR is a band "that says and is about nothing" paintbrushes all of the people who like/love the music and find meaning in it.  I found it ridiculous that Rolling Stone released an article the day of the first Vegas show outlining the GnR-Nirvana feud.  Not that it was anything too bad but just a reminder.  If you like/love Kurt and Nirvana, GnR are the bad guys. 

[ice cream sand pig]

I get the vibe alot, mostly from pseudo intellectuals, social justice warriros, and intelligentsia, that it's not cool to like gnr. It sucks, but mostly just for them and anyone gullible enough to trail behind them or stubborn enough to play along. It was even worse during the pre reuinion period. People parrotted the anti gnr stuff like it was the thing to do. You could rarely mention the band to someone without them spiting out some uninformed one sided gobbledy gook that made you want to backhand them. It at least seems to be getting better now that Slash is back.

[SkeletorSerpent]

I get the vibe alot, mostly from pseudo intellectuals, social justice warriros, and intelligentsia, that it's not cool to like gnr. It sucks, but mostly just for them and anyone gullible enough to trail behind them or stubborn enough to play along. It was even worse during the pre reuinion period. People parrotted the anti gnr stuff like it was the thing to do. You could rarely mention the band to someone without them spiting out some uninformed one sided gobbledy gook that made you want to backhand them. It at least seems to be getting better now that Slash is back.

rj seitz,
Spot on! You get it. I agree 100% the "intelligentsia" have always hated GNR.