Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - pontifications on guns n' roses

high_jinx · 11-24-2008, 12:13 AM

so i've had one complete run through the 14 year juggernaut and here's my take...

pro's

- i'm a particular fan of vocals, and i'm throughly impressed with how axl rose has grown as a vocalist. he still uses his signature gravelly soprano, but he's clearly taken pages from guys like danny elfman, maynard, and mike patton and chris cornell and dellivered in the alchemy, range, and expressive departments, which to me define vox. he's still a fully effective charismatic and enigmatic frontman even with this daunting hiatus of time.

-in spite of how produced it is, the album still achieves moments of the late 80's pure rock n' roll attitude that brought you back to gnr after all this time. i predict there'll be arguments about whether it's a sip or a satisfying glass of it. personally, i'm pleased with the degree of experimentation that didn't forget where it came from.

-considering the fact that it's 14 songs, it delivers as a complete album and goes beyond a few singles and an assload of filler. it's a great candidate for putting on for something like a road trip or an afternoon of cleaning your pad. That statement alone distinguishes it from the vast majority of what mass media spoon-feeds us nowadays.but...

The Cons

-first and foremost, it's just a shame that this took so long. once you get to where g n'r did, you gotta focus on quantity, not quality. the first obstacle of enjoying this album is forgetting that and not asking whether it was worth it, because that's impossible.

-no matter how produced and shiny you made it, you can't hide the fact that this music is completely stripped of any channeling the music as a band or spontinaeity. In that way, it's no different than a nine inch nails or timbaland collaboration record. It's all extremely "in the box" and you can hear strategy in every note. In a perfect world it'd be an "Axl rose" record, not a g n' r one. That doesn't make it inherently bad... i think chris cornell's solo records are better than audioslaves... but it's philosophically similar to calling it a new soundgarden record. and it's another pitfall to pre-judge it.

Overall, i think that if you can single it out and personally get past the daunting task of expecting too much from the past or backstory of it, it stands alone as a solid and legititimate album that can be chalked up to the good guys for the evolution of music.

what about you?

11-24-2008, 12:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
high_jinx Psycho Location: venice beach, ca	pontifications on guns n' roses - chinese democracy so i've had one complete run through the 14 year juggernaut and here's my take... pro's - i'm a particular fan of vocals, and i'm throughly impressed with how axl rose has grown as a vocalist. he still uses his signature gravelly soprano, but he's clearly taken pages from guys like danny elfman, maynard, and mike patton and chris cornell and dellivered in the alchemy, range, and expressive departments, which to me define vox. he's still a fully effective charismatic and enigmatic frontman even with this daunting hiatus of time. -in spite of how produced it is, the album still achieves moments of the late 80's pure rock n' roll attitude that brought you back to gnr after all this time. i predict there'll be arguments about whether it's a sip or a satisfying glass of it. personally, i'm pleased with the degree of experimentation that didn't forget where it came from. -considering the fact that it's 14 songs, it delivers as a complete album and goes beyond a few singles and an assload of filler. it's a great candidate for putting on for something like a road trip or an afternoon of cleaning your pad. That statement alone distinguishes it from the vast majority of what mass media spoon-feeds us nowadays.but... The Cons -first and foremost, it's just a shame that this took so long. once you get to where g n'r did, you gotta focus on quantity, not quality. the first obstacle of enjoying this album is forgetting that and not asking whether it was worth it, because that's impossible. -no matter how produced and shiny you made it, you can't hide the fact that this music is completely stripped of any channeling the music as a band or spontinaeity. In that way, it's no different than a nine inch nails or timbaland collaboration record. It's all extremely "in the box" and you can hear strategy in every note. In a perfect world it'd be an "Axl rose" record, not a g n' r one. That doesn't make it inherently bad... i think chris cornell's solo records are better than audioslaves... but it's philosophically similar to calling it a new soundgarden record. and it's another pitfall to pre-judge it. Overall, i think that if you can single it out and personally get past the daunting task of expecting too much from the past or backstory of it, it stands alone as a solid and legititimate album that can be chalked up to the good guys for the evolution of music. what about you? __________________ -my phobia drowned while i was gettin down.