Are the critics scared to pick Axl's side?

[The Archer]

Around the time that Chinese Democracy was released, there were a lot of reviews of both the album and live performances, that trashed Axl and the new line up as well as focused on facts that were irrelevant to the quality of the album or the new lineup. Others however, stuck their necks out and gave the album and the band their vote of confidence.

Lately, i've seen that a lot of critics seem to be playing a double game - they seem hesitant to admit that the present line up put on a great show and try hard to focus on the negatives. It's plainly obvious that 1) Axl's voice is now in fine form, 2) the current lineup gels well and has great chemistry and 3) the new band is great at playing both old and new material.

However, while all this certainly can't escape the notice of critics, a lot of them seem hesitant to write positive reviews of the band. They want seem to want to blend any positive appreciation with excessive negative criticism about things like late starts and Axl's appearance.

Sample this one -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-18/guns-n-roses-revived-with-axl-rose-s-alley-cat-shrieks-tantrums-review.html

The writer says things like -

As he wheels his bandwagon around the world, the Guns N’ Roses front man will never cut a sympathetic figure: he’s a peculiarly unpleasant force.

Rose, 48, is a pudgy, shrieking, manipulative toddler, petulantly throwing his microphone stand around the stage. His voice often edges toward that of a strangled alley cat.

and in the same review also writes -

The good news is that, as lord and master of the show, he is mesmerizing. He adds ego to “Welcome to the Jungle,” punch to “Shackler’s Revenge” and confidence to “Sweet Child o’ Mine.” Dressed in various hats, bandanas and flamboyant jackets, he silences (and deafens) his many critics.

When the rage subsides, Rose’s singing has a vulnerability that lends ballads like “November Rain” a surprising pathos. All jokes aside, he’s still a force to be reckoned with.

Why can't they just come out and admit that Axl and the new line up put on a great show?

Edited October 21, 2010 by The Archer

[Longpig]

The new band just isn't "cool".

The vintage GN'R is cool, so they can be very good but the press will see Axl as the one who broke up the band and replaced them simply as he has the name etc..

CD is not as good as the older albums and that is also something that helps glorify the old and condem the new band.

At this stage it's not really about the music or the quality of the musicians. They have lost some credibility due to the revolving members.

If Axl didn't use the name, I honestly think the reviews would be more positive. But it's much more of a "story" to slag him off, and because Axl perceived as a bit of an arse who spits the dummy out and thinks he's a god, it's easy for people to read that, and agree.

A lot of reviewers pander to the tastes of the readers and write what they think will please them most. Unfortunatley most people outside this forum think Axl is a twat.

So yes I agree people don't want to admit they're good, they would rather read he's fat and CD is shit and the band a "circus" than the truth because it's less interesting to read that CD is a decent album and the band put on a great show.

LP

[iftheworld]

Reviews are like assholes. Everyone's got one. It's just that they let shitty jealous people paste their shitty reviews of GNR all over the place and don't take into consideration the twenty thousand plus that pay to support GNR on a nightly bases. I say fuck articles and news columns. Make up your own mind about GNR.

Edited October 21, 2010 by iftheworld

[MB.]

The new band just isn't "cool".

The vintage GN'R is cool, so they can be very good but the press will see Axl as the one who broke up the band and replaced them simply as he has the name etc..

But just remember even than, in those great days, they didn't get any good reviews. Always talking about the drugs, Axl's personality, being late at shows, 'one in a million' and whatever bad there was to say. Never really about the music.

It was untill the old band broke up, the press started to talk about those good old days and it was suddenly 'allowed' to like them. Slash and Duff were suddenly great and nice, before they only talked about the drugs problems.

Except for Axl, he stayed that difficult, not likeable person in the press eyes. Maybe because he doesn't like the press, (obviously ), they kept on talking like that. And yes, I do believe that the press is kind of scared to talk in a positive way about Axl. Maybe because they are afraid, they aren't taking serious anymore, if they do say nice things. I don't know.... But fact is, that he is doing great shows, maybe not as great as the old gnr, but very very good. At the show, almost everybody was positive and talked about how great his voice was, how nice the show, etc. etc. Than you read in the reviews that it sucked.....and I was wondering, did they went to the same show??????

So I am wondering about this too.

Edited October 21, 2010 by MBRose

[Longpig]

Reviews are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

Doesn't quite work....

The good thing about reviews these days are that ANYONE can write one if they've been to a gig and the fact that the internet makes it very easy to post them there are literally 1000's and 1000's out there. So they lose their impact somewhat.

The key reviews are in the BIG publications as they reach the wider audience (with some credibility) and this in turn can affect (future) ticket sales.

Reviews largely aren't for the hardcore fans anymore (unless positive or from the gig you've been to) as the internet shows you the gig on youtube and fans tell you what's going on while it's happening. Reviews are for the casual fan who might be semi-interested to see how they're doing.

If it's positive the fans will agree

If negative it will be dismissed or the reviewer slagged off, whether they have a point or not.

So reviews in the right places are important, it's just a shame the history of the name of this band is preventing people acknowledging the talent.

The new band just isn't "cool".

The vintage GN'R is cool, so they can be very good but the press will see Axl as the one who broke up the band and replaced them simply as he has the name etc..

But just remember even than, in those great days, they didn't get any good reviews. Always talking about the drugs, Axl's personality, being late at shows, 'one in a million' and whatever bad there was to say. Never really about the music.

It was untill the old band broke up, the press started to talk about those good old days and it was suddenly 'allowed' to like them. Slash and Duff were suddenly great and nice, before they only talked about the drugs problems.

Except for Axl, he stayed that difficult, not likeable person in the press eyes. Maybe because he doesn't like the press, (obviously ), they kept on talking like that. And yes, I do believe that the press is kind of scared to talk in a positive way about Axl. Maybe because they are afraid, they aren't taking serious anymore, if they do say nice things. I don't know.... But fact is, that he is doing great shows, maybe not as great as the old gnr, but very very good. So I am wondering about this too.

Sure I'm not saying they were ever loved in their day, it's just because of that notoriety they've become cool today. Maybe in a future (if this band settles and releases an album or 2) they will be more accepted. It's just the new band aren't cool but the original is.

Just like Slash's average album got a lot of positive press at first. It's because Slash comes across as a nice guy, and plays the media game. Axl doesn't so the coverage of the 2 is very different even though the output from Axl is better, which is what it should be about.

LP

[iftheworld]

Reviews are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

Doesn't quite work....

The good thing about reviews these days are that ANYONE can write one if they've been to a gig and the fact that the internet makes it very easy to post them there are literally 1000's and 1000's out there. So they lose their impact somewhat.

The key reviews are in the BIG publications as they reach the wider audience (with some credibility) and this in turn can affect (future) ticket sales.

Reviews largely aren't for the hardcore fans anymore (unless positive or from the gig you've been to) as the internet shows you the gig on youtube and fans tell you what's going on while it's happening. Reviews are for the casual fan who might be semi-interested to see how they're doing.

If it's positive the fans will agree

If negative it will be dismissed or the reviewer slagged off, whether they have a point or not.

So reviews in the right places are important, it's just a shame the history of the name of this band is preventing people acknowledging the talent.

The new band just isn't "cool".

The vintage GN'R is cool, so they can be very good but the press will see Axl as the one who broke up the band and replaced them simply as he has the name etc..

But just remember even than, in those great days, they didn't get any good reviews. Always talking about the drugs, Axl's personality, being late at shows, 'one in a million' and whatever bad there was to say. Never really about the music.

It was untill the old band broke up, the press started to talk about those good old days and it was suddenly 'allowed' to like them. Slash and Duff were suddenly great and nice, before they only talked about the drugs problems.

Except for Axl, he stayed that difficult, not likeable person in the press eyes. Maybe because he doesn't like the press, (obviously ), they kept on talking like that. And yes, I do believe that the press is kind of scared to talk in a positive way about Axl. Maybe because they are afraid, they aren't taking serious anymore, if they do say nice things. I don't know.... But fact is, that he is doing great shows, maybe not as great as the old gnr, but very very good. So I am wondering about this too.

Sure I'm not saying they were ever loved in their day, it's just because of that notoriety they've become cool today. Maybe in a future (if this band settles and releases an album or 2) they will be more accepted. It's just the new band aren't cool but the original is.

Just like Slash's average album got a lot of positive press at first. It's because Slash comes across as a nice guy, and plays the media game. Axl doesn't so the coverage of the 2 is very different even though the output from Axl is better, which is what it should be about.

LP

You're trying to piss me off today aren't you fuckhead?

[Longpig]

Reviews are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

Doesn't quite work....

The good thing about reviews these days are that ANYONE can write one if they've been to a gig and the fact that the internet makes it very easy to post them there are literally 1000's and 1000's out there. So they lose their impact somewhat.

The key reviews are in the BIG publications as they reach the wider audience (with some credibility) and this in turn can affect (future) ticket sales.

Reviews largely aren't for the hardcore fans anymore (unless positive or from the gig you've been to) as the internet shows you the gig on youtube and fans tell you what's going on while it's happening. Reviews are for the casual fan who might be semi-interested to see how they're doing.

If it's positive the fans will agree

If negative it will be dismissed or the reviewer slagged off, whether they have a point or not.

So reviews in the right places are important, it's just a shame the history of the name of this band is preventing people acknowledging the talent.

The new band just isn't "cool".

The vintage GN'R is cool, so they can be very good but the press will see Axl as the one who broke up the band and replaced them simply as he has the name etc..

But just remember even than, in those great days, they didn't get any good reviews. Always talking about the drugs, Axl's personality, being late at shows, 'one in a million' and whatever bad there was to say. Never really about the music.

It was untill the old band broke up, the press started to talk about those good old days and it was suddenly 'allowed' to like them. Slash and Duff were suddenly great and nice, before they only talked about the drugs problems.

Except for Axl, he stayed that difficult, not likeable person in the press eyes. Maybe because he doesn't like the press, (obviously ), they kept on talking like that. And yes, I do believe that the press is kind of scared to talk in a positive way about Axl. Maybe because they are afraid, they aren't taking serious anymore, if they do say nice things. I don't know.... But fact is, that he is doing great shows, maybe not as great as the old gnr, but very very good. So I am wondering about this too.

Sure I'm not saying they were ever loved in their day, it's just because of that notoriety they've become cool today. Maybe in a future (if this band settles and releases an album or 2) they will be more accepted. It's just the new band aren't cool but the original is.

Just like Slash's average album got a lot of positive press at first. It's because Slash comes across as a nice guy, and plays the media game. Axl doesn't so the coverage of the 2 is very different even though the output from Axl is better, which is what it should be about.

LP

You're trying to piss me off today aren't you fuckhead?

No what have you got against what I said.

[kyrie]

In all honesty there are a lot of critics who are bandwagon jumpers and trendwhores. If they endorse something that's not currently popular they risk losing a part of their readership. So yes, in a way there could be some truth to the idea. But like you pointed out - reviews are becoming pointless since you can see clips on Youtube, and that's done this band wonders.

[Chris 55]

Reviews are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

Doesn't quite work....

The good thing about reviews these days are that ANYONE can write one if they've been to a gig and the fact that the internet makes it very easy to post them there are literally 1000's and 1000's out there. So they lose their impact somewhat.

The key reviews are in the BIG publications as they reach the wider audience (with some credibility) and this in turn can affect (future) ticket sales.

Reviews largely aren't for the hardcore fans anymore (unless positive or from the gig you've been to) as the internet shows you the gig on youtube and fans tell you what's going on while it's happening. Reviews are for the casual fan who might be semi-interested to see how they're doing.

If it's positive the fans will agree

If negative it will be dismissed or the reviewer slagged off, whether they have a point or not.

So reviews in the right places are important, it's just a shame the history of the name of this band is preventing people acknowledging the talent.

The new band just isn't "cool".

The vintage GN'R is cool, so they can be very good but the press will see Axl as the one who broke up the band and replaced them simply as he has the name etc..

But just remember even than, in those great days, they didn't get any good reviews. Always talking about the drugs, Axl's personality, being late at shows, 'one in a million' and whatever bad there was to say. Never really about the music.

It was untill the old band broke up, the press started to talk about those good old days and it was suddenly 'allowed' to like them. Slash and Duff were suddenly great and nice, before they only talked about the drugs problems.

Except for Axl, he stayed that difficult, not likeable person in the press eyes. Maybe because he doesn't like the press, (obviously ), they kept on talking like that. And yes, I do believe that the press is kind of scared to talk in a positive way about Axl. Maybe because they are afraid, they aren't taking serious anymore, if they do say nice things. I don't know.... But fact is, that he is doing great shows, maybe not as great as the old gnr, but very very good. So I am wondering about this too.

Sure I'm not saying they were ever loved in their day, it's just because of that notoriety they've become cool today. Maybe in a future (if this band settles and releases an album or 2) they will be more accepted. It's just the new band aren't cool but the original is.

Just like Slash's average album got a lot of positive press at first. It's because Slash comes across as a nice guy, and plays the media game. Axl doesn't so the coverage of the 2 is very different even though the output from Axl is better, which is what it should be about.

LP

You're trying to piss me off today aren't you fuckhead?

Wow. Simpleton.

[TrixAreForKids]

Nah, I think it's better business for the critics to trash Axl and the band.

[ppruks]

Well, the particular review that you added wasn't too bad, it seems like the writer enjoyed the show, the biggest problem that I have with the reviews is that: you can think it was bullshit, prefer the old band, I don't give a fuck, but don't go the extra mile to say things like: people were booing during the whole show when they were only booing during the 30min+ it takes the band to get up there, everyone was bored when that was not the case etc., I feel like a lot of writers are out there to ruin the the fun for everyone else, if THEY don't like, then 'obviously' no one else can, it's just pathetic

The thing with the negative comments about either Axl or the band is that they want to, stress on the expression 'want to', sound objective...in the sense that if they like the show and have generally positive comments then they wanna find something negative too, so the review wouldn't be too one-sided, but there are better ways of doing that, constructive criticism is good, even though I love the band to an unhealthy degree, as do a lot of people on this board, I sometimes have critical things to say...

but generally what the reviewers do is that they try to turn things that are absolutely irrelevant into negative aspects, such as: Axl is a pudgy, manipulative toddler throwing around his mic stand, his voice sounding like a strangled alley cat... now why would you write a sentence like that....why would you mention the artist's weight in a MUSIC review...if he sounds like a strangled alley cat then why would people pay to go listen to it, a strangled alley cat doesn't sound too pleasant to me, another thing, don't try to be funny if you don't know how to be funny, a lot of times the reviewers use adjectives and expressions that sound like they've been forced into the sentences just to make them sound funny and witty (truculence? there are better words that that, don't let the thesaurus do your work for you)...it's really obvious and ultimately does the reviewer a disfavor, because people can smell that bullshit from miles away, also, trying to turn the throwing of his micstand into something negative is also very unimaginative...it's just how the man dances and expresses himself, isn't that what we pay money to see, the raw expression of emotions

the little bit about 'Rose being an unpleasant force', I don't agree with that, it seems to me that anything that doesn't include conforming to some sort of retarded 'industry standard' will be considered as arrogant and unpleasant, media still tries to show Axl as some sort of stupid high school bully who would punch you in the face just to punch you in the face, I don't believe there's truth to that, I think there are more layers and complexity to this man

finally, be original, if every review starts with complaining about the time schedule then you're not being too original, music is a form of art, a performance is an expression of art, if he needs more time, he should get more time, because he delivers, in this case I believe that the ends justify the means, we all want to have a good time at the show and be excited, yes, it's true that it says a certain time on the ticket and if you buy a product you should be getting the product under the conditions that are on the product, but that's the problem, concerts are now products of the industry, they're not expressions of art any more, the good ol' rn'r vibe is gone, when people would just go to a concert to chill and leave their everyday troubles behind, and not care about the practical matters such as getting home or whatever...but that's my opinion, I guess it's not that rational, but art should not be rational, otherwise it would be a science, I think Axl's analogy with getting laid was perfect, because the same dudes that whine about the starting time would be happy troopers if they got some action that same night...work...getting home...doesn't matter...I got some pussy...

also, if anyone wants to read a good review or at least a review that I consider to be an example for other reviews then read Chuck Klosterman's review on Chinese Democracy, you can see and feel that the man can write...

[plonker88]

I study Creative Writing at Uni so I know people who plan to write reviews of a living, I have also played around with writing some and from my experience and what I have been told, it is 1,000,000 times easier to write a bad review than a good one. You can be far more creative in that mindset as there is no limit to where you can go with the piece, there are more levels to being negative than there are to being positive. The same applies to fiction, it is easier to write something dark than to write something light or comic as the possibilities are far more opened up for you.

I'm not saying that is the reason for all the bad press this band gets but I reckon it plays a big part because it allows for a more entertaining piece to the average reader and the writer also has more fun writing it. Plus the fuel is pretty much laid out for them before the show even begins such as it not being the old band, people's perception of Axl and this band, the long wait for the album, the late start to the show, the list goes on and on. Journalists could review this show without even attending it considering what they already have to fall back on in terms of material.

[Lose Your Illusions]

Its more of whats gonna be more intresting for the reader. Axl sings great but lost a little because he is in fact 48 years old, gets along great with his fellow band mates and crew OR Axl is pudgy, an asshole etc.

[SunnyDRE]

He made this bed..

[Encore]

they're too scared to admit that Axl is more fierce then they cud ever be.

[wasted]

All bands get bad reviews. When you're a fan it's annoying. I remember Black crows getting bad reviews for Southern Harmony.

[The Archer]

There is indeed a way to deal with shitty reviews - trash the author in the comments section!!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/music/review-23887789-abandon-all-hope-and-8201-and-8201guns-and-roses-resort-to-an-autocue.do

The author of this review "Abandon all hope ... Guns and Roses resort to an autocue" gave GNR two stars for their performance at the O2 on the 13th. He promptly got trashed by loads of readers who wondered if they were at the same show that he was at. The average audience review is 3.5.

[andy-robertson]

Well, I'm by no means an established critic or reviewer, but it's something I've been trying to get into (journalism/music journalism), and I have had my first piece published. And as luck would have it, it's a GNR concert review!

I've tried to be as objective as possible, and it is after all a critique of the event, not just a report saying that each song was great and the band sounded hot, because the lateness does have a detrimental effect on the evening if you have to rely on public transport. And whilst someone above mentioned that he's bored of hearing reviewers start off with the time issues, here's a thought - the paying concert-goers are bored of having to wait every time they want to see this band. And mentioning it does have it's place in a review. If you were leaving feedback about a restaurant for example, and the service was slower than reasonably acceptable, you'd put that in your review - "the food was delicious and well presented when it arrived, but it took an age for it to appear from the kitchen." If you were planning an evening out, a first date perhaps, and were looking for somewhere to take her, you'd be appreciative of that sort of information when looking at where to go for dinner.

Anyway... I've starting ranting again!! Back to my point - here's my review from Birmingham. It's a positive review because it was a brilliant concert. However it's also a critical evaluation of the evening and performance, which is why I had to mention the lateness, as it WILL be a factor for people to consider when thinking of going to see them.

Anyway, let me know what you think of the review in terms of linguistic craft and balance of arguement etc.

http://www.hitthefloor.co.uk/genres/rock/review-guns-n-roses-birmingham-lg-arena-171010/

Edited October 23, 2010 by andy-robertson

[Scaramouche]

I think the main problem is that it isn't "cool" to write positive reviews, articles etc. on Guns N' Roses anymore. It's like media have all agreed to put GN'R in a bad light. That's how I see it, after reading a lot of reviews. Is there any other band that gets so much negativety in media, even if they play amazing shows?? I can't think of any.. And it's shame, for the band is so good right now, and if media don't find anything bad about their show to write about, they'll just complain about that Axl change clothes all the time or something..

[ITW 2012]

There's no performer like Axl and that's the bottom line for me. Nobody dances and screams like him. The dude is a complete force of nature.

Edited October 23, 2010 by ITW 2012

[The Archer]

I think the main problem is that it isn't "cool" to write positive reviews, articles etc. on Guns N' Roses anymore. It's like media have all agreed to put GN'R in a bad light. That's how I see it, after reading a lot of reviews. Is there any other band that gets so much negativety in media, even if they play amazing shows?? I can't think of any.. And it's shame, for the band is so good right now, and if media don't find anything bad about their show to write about, they'll just complain about that Axl change clothes all the time or something..

There's no performer like Axl and that's the bottom line for me. Nobody dances and screams like him. The dude is a complete force of nature.

Exactly! The great thing about GNR touring this long is that the more Axl gets out and shows what kind of a force of a nature he is, the more people will appreciate how great it is to watch them live, the more people will watch the band on youtube, the more they will react against negativity, the more the will turn up again to watch Axl. Axl's been away for a long time and a lot of people have probably forgotten how good it is to watch a GNR show. Eventually, he will have enough momentum behind his back to turn the tide of negativity.

[ManetsBR]

It's very simple. If you like rock concerts and Guns N' Roses songs go to the concert. If you think it's GNR, if you think it's Axl Rose Solo (it's not though), if you think Axl's an idiot, if you think Dj copies Slash, if you think Ron talks too much. Whatever! If you like rock and GN'R music go the concert, because they put one of the best concerts I've ever seen.

[SLCPUNK]

Around the time that Chinese Democracy was released, there were a lot of reviews of both the album and live performances, that trashed Axl and the new line up as well as focused on facts that were irrelevant to the quality of the album or the new lineup. Others however, stuck their necks out and gave the album and the band their vote of confidence.

Lately, i've seen that a lot of critics seem to be playing a double game - they seem hesitant to admit that the present line up put on a great show and try hard to focus on the negatives. It's plainly obvious that 1) Axl's voice is now in fine form, 2) the current lineup gels well and has great chemistry and 3) the new band is great at playing both old and new material.

However, while all this certainly can't escape the notice of critics, a lot of them seem hesitant to write positive reviews of the band. They want seem to want to blend any positive appreciation with excessive negative criticism about things like late starts and Axl's appearance.

Sample this one -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-18/guns-n-roses-revived-with-axl-rose-s-alley-cat-shrieks-tantrums-review.html

The writer says things like -

As he wheels his bandwagon around the world, the Guns N’ Roses front man will never cut a sympathetic figure: he’s a peculiarly unpleasant force.

Rose, 48, is a pudgy, shrieking, manipulative toddler, petulantly throwing his microphone stand around the stage. His voice often edges toward that of a strangled alley cat.

and in the same review also writes -

The good news is that, as lord and master of the show, he is mesmerizing. He adds ego to “Welcome to the Jungle,” punch to “Shackler’s Revenge” and confidence to “Sweet Child o’ Mine.” Dressed in various hats, bandanas and flamboyant jackets, he silences (and deafens) his many critics.

When the rage subsides, Rose’s singing has a vulnerability that lends ballads like “November Rain” a surprising pathos. All jokes aside, he’s still a force to be reckoned with.

Why can't they just come out and admit that Axl and the new line up put on a great show?

I don't think duality is that outrageous of a concept. Many people simply don't like (what they perceive) as Axl the man, however they will freely admit he puts on one helluva show.