uzi your illusion Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'm sure a lot of you guys read the review of Chinese Democracy in many publications upon it's release, I know i did and the one i went for first was Rolling Stone. Now does the magazine suck because of the current state of what it has to report on? Yes it does, but it's not as bad as Spin which tries so hard to be "in the know" that it tells you how cool bands are but only until they get big, then they suck. Whatever you think of the magazine now I think it's fair to say that their review section still carries some major weight within the industry. Now if you don't remember what they said about the album, the article started on the first page of their review section (obviously considering the anticipation). The first words printed were " The most anticipated album ever made. And Axl made it worth the wait", it goes on to give the album 4 out of 5 stars. Some of the phrases in the article are so complimentary of Axl that I have to wonder if they gave such a glowing review to try and coax the man into giving them an exclusive interview. They write stuff such as "If this is the sound that Axl had in his head the whole time, it's quite clear why 2 guitars , a bass, and drums wouldn't be enough" . Talks about how his voice still sounds great, and gives him major props on his lyrics and arrangements. Regardless of what you personally think of the album the review is really one of the best I have ever read. It ends saying "you may wonder if any rock and roll record is worth this type of extreme self-indulgence, but the most rock and roll thing about this record...is he doesn't care if you do." Awesome!! David Fricke wrote it and obviously enjoyed it quite a bit, but since the album the magazine has bashed Axl and the record numerous times. If the editors of the magazine hated the record so much why would they let Fricke put out that review ? Maybe to try and secure the interview with Axl, and once he decided to not play ball they changed gears and trashed him every chance they could. Just a theory that I wanted to run by you guys. Either way if you agree or not go re-read the review it truly is one of the best ever. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/chinese-democracy-20081127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakey Styley Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Rose veers from an almost conversational tenor, over a ticking-bomb shuffle, to five-guitar barrage, orchestral lightning and righteous howl: "Ask yourself/Why I would choose/To prostitute myself/To live with fortune and shame." To him, the long march to Chinese Democracy was not about paranoia and control. It was about saying "I won't" when everyone else insisted, "You must." You may debate whether any rock record is worth that extreme self-indulgence. Actually, the most rock & roll thing about Chinese Democracy is he doesn't care if you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Rose veers from an almost conversational tenor, over a ticking-bomb shuffle, to five-guitar barrage, orchestral lightning and righteous howl:It's shit like that which makes me just HATE reading album reviews of any kind. Who the fuck's teaching these journalists to write this way? Ticking-bomb shuffle? I mean, come on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Actually, the most rock & roll thing about Chinese Democracy is he doesn't care if you do.Amen. Edited February 23, 2011 by bacardimayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STARABOSTES Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Actually, the most rock & roll thing about Chinese Democracy is he doesn't care if you do.Amen. yeap that should sum up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axl_on_drums Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Actually, the most rock & roll thing about Chinese Democracy is he doesn't care if you do.Amen.That was my sig for quite a while, Still should be.Fantastic quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy_Stradlin_XX Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Rolling Stone should be called "Pop"Stone. There's nothing "rollin''" there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'm sure a lot of you guys read the review of Chinese Democracy in many publications upon it's release, I know i did and the one i went for first was Rolling Stone.First mistake. Don't ever consult that over-hyped rag about anything re: music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Rose veers from an almost conversational tenor, over a ticking-bomb shuffle, to five-guitar barrage, orchestral lightning and righteous howl:It's shit like that which makes me just HATE reading album reviews of any kind. Who the fuck's teaching these journalists to write this way? Ticking-bomb shuffle? I mean, come on.... I gotta agree. It sounds like when you don't have much to say, you start pulling words out of your ass.couldn't they just have said, that he had fast songs, and slow songs? hard songs and soft songs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Rose veers from an almost conversational tenor, over a ticking-bomb shuffle, to five-guitar barrage, orchestral lightning and righteous howl:It's shit like that which makes me just HATE reading album reviews of any kind. Who the fuck's teaching these journalists to write this way? Ticking-bomb shuffle? I mean, come on.... I gotta agree. It sounds like when you don't have much to say, you start pulling words out of your ass.couldn't they just have said, that he had fast songs, and slow songs? hard songs and soft songs? Sounds good, actually. Reviewing music is such a waste of time anyway.I truly hate that poetic way of writing about things that last half a millisecond and people that write 5 paragraphs about it. Stupid waste of time.The only reviews I will read are usually fan reviews and I like them to read sort of like this...1.)Chinese Democracy--This song starts off with what sounds like Chinese people talking etc.2.)Shaklers Revenge--Starts off with a massive synth loop which sounds sort of like an electronic elephant before going into a Rob Zombie like verse..etc.If it's written like that, I'll read it. Otherwise, like you said, fuck it. I can't stand "professional" reviews which were written like they were composed by some prose poet on LSD. Edited February 23, 2011 by Nintari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzi your illusion Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'm sure a lot of you guys read the review of Chinese Democracy in many publications upon it's release, I know i did and the one i went for first was Rolling Stone.First mistake. Don't ever consult that over-hyped rag about anything re: music.I did say that the magazine sucked i just wanted to see the review to see how much they bashed the album. I was wrong and glad to see they gave it a fair try, because i also found the album to be well worth the wait. Back to my original question though, do you think they gave such a great review to try and coax Axl into an exclusive interview? A few months after this came out and several times since (and I only glance through it rarely) I have seen them bash the album and Axl. Do you think the sudden change of heart was because they realized that Billboard got the interview and they saw their window closing. I find it hard to believe that the editor would let Fricke publish such a glowing review when the majority of the staff felt differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheldonR311 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 There was an amazing picture printed with that review in the magazine, unfortunately I can't find the issue anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzi your illusion Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) This is crazy, i'm looking over the Rolling Stone website now and if you go to http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/guns-n-roses and scroll down about half way they give a "selected discography" . Click on the picture for the Chinese Democracy album and they now have it listed as 3/5 stars rather then the 4/5 it was originally given, and thats not all. The write up they give as what is supposed to be a sample of the review isn't even from David Fricke's review. The sample reads -" The legend of Chinese Democracy, the most delayed album of all time, far eclipsed any of the music on it. The album came with the baggage of countless false starts and lineup adjustments, leaving the music an emotionless blob, with any redeeming moments hidden behind the monolithic churn. ". Then it gives the link to the real review from Fricke right next to the quote leading you to believe that its from his article. This is bullshit and I believe totally supports what I was saying earlier how the magazine just pandered to Axl for an interview, then changed gears when he wouldn't play by their rules. Edited February 24, 2011 by uzi your illusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzi your illusion Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 Seriously nobody else thinks this is fucking outrageous??? They totally changed directions in regards to the album, took a star away from the original rating, and give you a sample portion that rips the album to shreds right next to the official review that sang its praises!! This is total bullshit and makes it easy to see why Axl doesn't give these fuckers the time of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Seriously nobody else thinks this is fucking outrageous??? They totally changed directions in regards to the album, took a star away from the original rating, and give you a sample portion that rips the album to shreds right next to the official review that sang its praises!! This is total bullshit and makes it easy to see why Axl doesn't give these fuckers the time of day.he sure had plenty of time for them back in the heyday, though considering it was Rolling Stone, I hardly understand why. I don't think any rocker in his right mind should give that magazine any time of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzi your illusion Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 So use back then as an example. If when Use Your Illusion came out they gave it 4 stars and gave it a great review, then a year later said it was only 3 stars and shit all over it you don't think that would of been a big deal? I understand that the band isn't half as big as it was back then, but an injustice is still and injustice no matter how big the fan base. I'm just confused that more people aren't up in arms about this. I have to believe that most just aren't aware of the games that Rolling Stone has played. Classic Rock magazine is one of the few i read regularly and they gave the album 8/10. They've never tried to low ball that number. Although once Slash gave them an exclusive they did talk shit about Axl and the album a bit , not anything close to this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lines&Noses Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 So use back then as an example. If when Use Your Illusion came out they gave it 4 stars and gave it a great review, then a year later said it was only 3 stars and shit all over it you don't think that would of been a big deal? I understand that the band isn't half as big as it was back then, but an injustice is still and injustice no matter how big the fan base. I'm just confused that more people aren't up in arms about this. I have to believe that most just aren't aware of the games that Rolling Stone has played. Classic Rock magazine is one of the few i read regularly and they gave the album 8/10. They've never tried to low ball that number. Although once Slash gave them an exclusive they did talk shit about Axl and the album a bit , not anything close to this though.Honestly why do you care why RS thinks? If you like the album it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks?The only thing I will say in RS defense is that your opinion of a piece of music can change. There are albums I listened to even a few years ago that I never bother with now.Have they done this with other alboms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzi your illusion Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 So use back then as an example. If when Use Your Illusion came out they gave it 4 stars and gave it a great review, then a year later said it was only 3 stars and shit all over it you don't think that would of been a big deal? I understand that the band isn't half as big as it was back then, but an injustice is still and injustice no matter how big the fan base. I'm just confused that more people aren't up in arms about this. I have to believe that most just aren't aware of the games that Rolling Stone has played. Classic Rock magazine is one of the few i read regularly and they gave the album 8/10. They've never tried to low ball that number. Although once Slash gave them an exclusive they did talk shit about Axl and the album a bit , not anything close to this though.Honestly why do you care why RS thinks? If you like the album it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks?The only thing I will say in RS defense is that your opinion of a piece of music can change. There are albums I listened to even a few years ago that I never bother with now.Have they done this with other alboms?I wrote earlier that I checked Rolling Stone because i was pretty sure that they were gonna unfairly bash the album based on the delays and the money spent in production. I was stunned and elated to find out that not only did they judge the album on its musical merits but they even gave it a great rating. I love the album so 1 star or 4 it meant nothing to me personally but it was nice to know that Axl and Guns were getting their proper praises. Then I saw this and it just took me as something totally unprofessional and I have never seen them do this before. Its gotta cross some lines of journalistic integrity. They pretty blatantly tried to pass off that uncomplimentary quote as something that came from the original 4 star review and I'm sure David Fricke wouldn't dig that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts