You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Article and review of CD in the Guardian
The first part by Miranda Sawyer was decent enough. I get why Bon Jovi was mentioned. She seemed to be trying to make a point that Axl's not a recluse which is what Bon Jovi was saying. Kinda messed up though how at the end it's about Eminem and Gun N' Roses as if they're linked somehow. That was stupid. Eminem had no relevence to that whatsoever.
the review by Dan Silver was moronic. Nothing tangible about it. He gave no explanations or even ..... fuck that wasn't even a review. It was an "I hate Axl, this album sucks, so moving on to the next review" Those are the thinsg that make people look like jackasses.
Re: Article and review of CD in the Guardian
First off. I refuse to believe Jon Bon Jovi would say that. "I've been a fan and have read everything about the man for 20plus years and I have never heard jon use the word "Motherfucker" So I think that was added in.
On top of that, This review was fucking garbage. They didn't mention any fuckin thing from the album. Just a bunch of dumb shit that has no relevance to the CD.
- daviebuckethead
- Rep: 1
Re: Article and review of CD in the Guardian
I'm not one for harassing journalists over negative reviews. But Dan Silver got to me, because he was so biased, and his 2 stars were based on the fact he hated axl rose. Here's what i wrote to the editor...
Dear Sir,
One had always imagined that facts, song titles, styles and reasons for opinions were almost a pre-requisite when constructing a review of any style of music. It seems that these key journalistic values have been unashamedly abandoned when Dan Silver "reviewed" the Guns N' Roses album "Chinese Democracy".
Mr Silver chose to abandon any sort of impartial reporting, instead, he focussed on the melee of what became the making of said album, choosing to mock Axl Rose. The article did not articulate the style of the album, name any band members, contain a track listing, or even give a reason for his negative opinions.
After reading the review one could possibly question if the reviewer has actually heard the album, echoing the scandal of Maxim magazine who made disparaging comments about an album by the Black Crowes when in fact promotional copies were not available. That journalist was said to have made "an educated guess preview".
Does the guardian have some sort of (not so hidden) agenda against Axl Rose, and the band he calls Guns N' Roses? I refer back to the review of the Chinese Democracy single by Elizabeth Day where she referred to Axl rose as someone who has,
" been cryogenically frozen in the early Nineties, with his fingerless gloves and his Stars and Stripes bandana."
Other quotes about the track include
"I am struck by its uncanny resemblance to the Crocodile Dundee soundtrack" - simply untrue.
Obviously everyone has their own opinions, i respect that. Conclusions should, however, be drawn with respect to the writers reasoning behind such opinions. none of which i have read in the Guardian.
Obviously Guns N' Roses are not to everyone's tastes, their album should, however, be reviewed fairly. i would be interested to hear what exactly made these reviewers feel so strongly against the music presented to them?
The Guardian is a well respected newspaper, and I'm shocked to see this brand of lazy, petulant journalism has a place in the newspaper.
Regards
Dr. David McKay
hopefully I'll hear back. btw. the rolling stone review was bit over the top. OMG is not better than "everything" on TSI?
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Article and review of CD in the Guardian
I can handle bad reviews. However, I would like to see them go into detail on why they don't like the album instead of mentioning Bon Jovi and Buckethead's 'fashion sense'.
Can't agree with this more. If they don't like the album they should say why - like what they don't like about the songs. I'd be cool to hear that. But instead we hear how Slash should talk like cookie monster, a whole lot of comparisons to Eminem and a lot of ramble...
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Article and review of CD in the Guardian
That "review" is one of the worst I've ever read. I don't even think the dude listened to the album. Hell, I doubt he even had access to it this early. A review should be longer than just 2 sentences of personal bashing that has nothing to do with the music itself. That's not a review, it's a character attack. He's probably listened to the leaks, or possibly hasn't listened to anything at all outside of the officially released single.
Re: Article and review of CD in the Guardian
that "review" is everything i hate to read...
it's supposed to be a review of the music the "journalist" is hearing...
not a commentary on the artist, the people that are no longer working with said artist, and another artist that has NEVER had anything to do with said artist...
Who gives a flying bag of frosted fucknuts how the singer dresses? How long it took... who was fired.... who quit... what color hair the people who quit had...
seriously?
shut the fuck up and listen to the music that was presented to you...
Re: Article and review of CD in the Guardian
Like I said in the other thread, bad reviews are fine. Expect them. Lots of them. But this isn't really a review, now, is it? Review the music, period. I don't really see much "reviewing" here.
The part not labeled a review, that's fine. Supposed to be comical. It's OK. Doesn't bother me.
