930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: eltee on May 27, 2004, 11:43:00 am
-
Anyone?
-
Nope. I woulda if tickets lasted more than five minutes. No biggie though.
-
Count me in. It looks like theyâ??re playing 3 GNR covers on this tour, Mr. Brownstone, Used to Love Her & Itâ??s so Easy.
-
Setlist from 05/15/04 (Minneapolis, MN @ Quest):
01> Sucker Train Blues
02> Do It for the Kids
03> Head Space
04> Crackerman
05> Illegal I
06> It's So Easy *
07> Fall To Pieces
08> Big Machine
09> Set Me Free
10> Used To Love Her *
11> Slither
12> Sex Type Thing **
13> Mr.Brownstone *
14> Negative Creep **
--
* : GNR song
** : STP song
*** : Nirvana song
-
They were on Letterman a couple of nights ago and I must say for a band that is made up of half GnR and half STP, they sound exactly like a band made up of half GnR and half STP. It was uncanny.
And when did Scott Weiland become the next Mick Jagger?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
They were on Letterman a couple of nights ago and I must say for a band that is made up of half GnR and half STP, they sound exactly like a band made up of half GnR and half STP. It was uncanny.
That's exactly how I felt about Audioslave.
-
I'll be at home watching this bad documentry that they're in.
On 'Frontline,' Playing the Same Old Song
By Teresa Wiltz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2004; Page C01
If you listen to the radio, own a remote control and a satellite dish, or have read a business page, the new Frontline documentary, "The Way the Music Died," won't be news to you. But if you stopped paying attention to pop music, oh, let's say, back in '77, have we got a primer for you.
Sure, "The Way the Music Died" -- playing off a line from the Don McLean classic "American Pie" -- does a credible job illustrating the demise of the industry, from the heyday of Woodstock to the Y2K apocalypse of mass firings and bankruptcy filings. As producer-director Michael Kirk sees it, there's plenty of blame to go around: Mega-record companies such as Universal and BMG gobbling up the little guys; Internet theft from digital downloads; controlling radio behemoths like Clear Channel playing the same five songs; and let us not forget MTV, which turned music into eye candy for the pimpled masses.
To bolster his case in the documentary (it airs at 9 tonight on Channel 22 and 10 p.m. on Channel 26), Kirk's got talking heads reciting scary numbers: Of the 30,000 records made in a year, only 100 or so are hits. Roughly 85 percent of all records fail. Sales in the industry have fallen from $40 billion to $28 billion in the last three years. And to keep the viewer from completely falling asleep, he's sprinkled in some actual music, with footage of artists past and present performing both in the studio and on the stage.
Yet, for sexiness of the subject matter, and for all the hand-wringing and cries of "The sky is falling" by industry insiders and journalists, "The Way" never advances the argument.
It's not such a stretch to say that corporations and creativity often make for an uneasy mix. But this documentary hits one note and doesn't veer from it in what is a much more complex, multi-note story.
Music is struggling, the industry is in the tank, sure.
But the film doesn't, for example, look at the phenomenon of the underground: Many musicians, who either can't get or don't want the attention of corporate radio/labels, are going the true indie route. They're carving out a credible living thanks to the word-of-mouth world of the Internet, peddling their CDs and selling out concert venues around the country.
Perhaps more egregious is the virtual blindness toward any musicians of color. Instead, in an attempt to create some narrative tension, Kirk chose to follow the careers of Crosby, Stills & Nash; Mark Hudson of "The Hudson Brothers" and '70s TV fame; Sarah Hudson -- daughter of Mark, cousin of Kate and niece of Goldie Hawn -- who has a new album and wants to be a real artist but also wants to sell records; and the "new" rock supergroup Velvet Revolver, composed of veterans of Guns N' Roses (Slash, Duff McKagan, Matt Sorum) and Stone Temple Pilots (Scott Weiland).
And so, watching this, you'd think that the only people making music today were preternaturally pale rockers with a penchant for bad dye jobs, the better to hide a receding hairline.
Hip-hop gets a cursory nod, but it's cast more in a historical context, as in, "Wow! That rap music sure was something, wasn't it?" Where's the mention of the considerable influence of country music, or Latin, or gospel? After all, as of this writing, Usher, a hip-hop-influenced R&B crooner, and Gretchen Wilson, a new country singer, top their Billboard album charts.
But that makes for a much more nuanced story, perhaps one that cannot be contained in a 60-minute format.
What we get instead are members of the choir: The rare A&R rep who really, really cares and wants to make sure that the "cool chicks" get a chance, and not just the "perfect and beautiful" Britneys and Jessicas and Jennifers. The lone disc jockey fighting a corporate tide of indifference, ferreting out fresh talent. Sensitive music attorneys fighting for their artists' integrity.
You can't help but wish that, for balance, or for mere entertainment, for cripes sake, the filmmakers had thrown in some comments from some of those evil bean counters that everyone spends so much time excoriating. A little footage of some self-important suit banging on a desk and declaring, as David Crosby imagines, "Get me a lead singer. He's got to be sort of androgynous, blond hair, very pretty. . . . Get me a pound of bass player, pound of drummer." Now that would make for some interesting television.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
[QB] They were on Letterman a couple of nights ago and I must say for a band that is made up of half GnR and half STP, they sound exactly like a band made up of half GnR and half STP. It was uncanny.
This is exactly what I thought. But I was bored by them anyway. Whoopee.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
And when did Scott Weiland become the next Mick Jagger?
He's always been a prancing ponce.
-
How'd I know nobody on this board would like them. :roll:
-
Last night's Velvet Revolver show was one of the best rock concerts I've ever seen. Total fun, great sound, high energy from the band and the crowd. It was an excellent rock experience.
-
Last night's Velvet Revolver show was one of the best rock concerts I've ever seen. Total fun, great sound, high energy from the band and the crowd. It was an excellent rock experience.
-
If there's anything NOT to like about them, it's Scott Weiland. What a wanker.
Still, I wish I had gone to the show. GNR opening for Areosmith was one of my first concerts, at Merriweather, back in the day. Appetite is one of the best debut albums of all time.
Originally posted by Rob_Gee_a.k.a _Guiny:
How'd I know nobody on this board would like them. :roll:
-
I liked Guns n' Roses when I was 12, I also liked Poison and Cinderella when I was 12. I don't get why everyone thinks so highly of them.
-
One of my friends was a Sex Pistols fans when he was 12 (circa 1979). But I think that he too moved on to better stuff.
Originally posted by pollard:
I liked Guns n' Roses when I was 12, I also liked Poison and Cinderella when I was 12. I don't get why everyone thinks so highly of them.
-
There are actually very few bands that I've ever stopped liking. I generally tend to add bands to my listening reptoire rather than take them off. GNR just has a huge nostalgic appeal to me. I wouldn't ever buy Chinese Democracy if it came out, but throw in Appetite for Destruction, and I'm a happy guy. Haven't listened to it in a while, but I still think it's a pretty great album.
Originally posted by pollard:
I liked Guns n' Roses when I was 12, I also liked Poison and Cinderella when I was 12. I don't get why everyone thinks so highly of them.
-
They don't play many songs, do they?
Originally posted by Sugartastic Tee Silk:
Setlist from 05/15/04 (Minneapolis, MN @ Quest):
01> Sucker Train Blues
02> Do It for the Kids
03> Head Space
04> Crackerman
05> Illegal I
06> It's So Easy *
07> Fall To Pieces
08> Big Machine
09> Set Me Free
10> Used To Love Her *
11> Slither
12> Sex Type Thing **
13> Mr.Brownstone *
14> Negative Creep **
--
* : GNR song
** : STP song
*** : Nirvana song
-
Typical baiting by Rhett....
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
They don't play many songs, do they?
Originally posted by Sugartastic Tee Silk:
Setlist from 05/15/04 (Minneapolis, MN @ Quest):
01> Sucker Train Blues
02> Do It for the Kids
03> Head Space
04> Crackerman
05> Illegal I
06> It's So Easy *
07> Fall To Pieces
08> Big Machine
09> Set Me Free
10> Used To Love Her *
11> Slither
12> Sex Type Thing **
13> Mr.Brownstone *
14> Negative Creep **
--
* : GNR song
** : STP song
*** : Nirvana song
[/b]
-
I guess I should have phrased it as a question:
Does this band play long songs, or are they shortchanging their fans on their hard earned $35 by giving them a short set?
I saw one of my favorites, BR549, do a two hour set of perhaps 25-30 songs last night, for $12. That's about what I'd expect in a good show.
Originally posted by chaz:
Typical baiting by Rhett....
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
They don't play many songs, do they?
Originally posted by Sugartastic Tee Silk:
Setlist from 05/15/04 (Minneapolis, MN @ Quest):
01> Sucker Train Blues
02> Do It for the Kids
03> Head Space
04> Crackerman
05> Illegal I
06> It's So Easy *
07> Fall To Pieces
08> Big Machine
09> Set Me Free
10> Used To Love Her *
11> Slither
12> Sex Type Thing **
13> Mr.Brownstone *
14> Negative Creep **
--
* : GNR song
** : STP song
*** : Nirvana song
[/b]
[/b]
-
No they didn't play many songs. The setlist from the other show is pretty much what they stuck to last night. Yeah, if Axl could get his sh*t together, I'd prefer to have him as the frontman. GnR is nostalgic for me as well. I'm not big on Scott Weiland. When they play GnR, they sound like a mix of STP and GnR (given, I know). When they play STP, it's the voice of STP w/ a band. Again, obvious. Their songs soon to be released aren't bad. A couple are a little long, but really, the band can play some serious guitar and drums. They were all over with energy on the stage. Slash can talk. Their fans will like the album. I'd rather see them w/ a different lead singer. On stage prancing doesn't bother me. He's not the first lead singer to do this.
I liked the Nirvana cover the best. They brought it up from the original a few notches. The GnR songs were better than the STP songs.
Aside from the band, the sound at the club [last night] is one of the better shows I've heard.
Whoever was the DJ - good job.
-
No Rhett...I wasn't there but i'm sure it's as you so passive-agressively suggest - everyone got ripped off. Your entertainment dollars were spent much more wisely.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I guess I should have phrased it as a question:
Does this band play long songs, or are they shortchanging their fans on their hard earned $35 by giving them a short set?
I saw one of my favorites, BR549, do a two hour set of perhaps 25-30 songs last night, for $12. That's about what I'd expect in a good show.
Originally posted by chaz:
Typical baiting by Rhett....
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
They don't play many songs, do they?
Originally posted by Sugartastic Tee Silk:
Setlist from 05/15/04 (Minneapolis, MN @ Quest):
01> Sucker Train Blues
02> Do It for the Kids
03> Head Space
04> Crackerman
05> Illegal I
06> It's So Easy *
07> Fall To Pieces
08> Big Machine
09> Set Me Free
10> Used To Love Her *
11> Slither
12> Sex Type Thing **
13> Mr.Brownstone *
14> Negative Creep **
--
* : GNR song
** : STP song
*** : Nirvana song
[/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-
I dunno I don't really look at shows and tickets like in this. I do understand what you are asking and why you feel that way. I suppose if I'm really short-changed, and I mean on real lack of songs, or someone left the stage, yes, I would feel ripped off. But last night, no, I didn't. Yes, actually, a few of their songs were long (the new ones). I supposed they pack a lot into a short set by quality and energy. The price might be a little higher - it's two bands that have high recognition (whether you like them or not). Gotta pay for that sometimes.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I guess I should have phrased it as a question:
Does this band play long songs, or are they shortchanging their fans on their hard earned $35 by giving them a short set?
I saw one of my favorites, BR549, do a two hour set of perhaps 25-30 songs last night, for $12. That's about what I'd expect in a good show.
Originally posted by chaz:
Typical baiting by Rhett....
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
They don't play many songs, do they?
Originally posted by Sugartastic Tee Silk:
Setlist from 05/15/04 (Minneapolis, MN @ Quest):
01> Sucker Train Blues
02> Do It for the Kids
03> Head Space
04> Crackerman
05> Illegal I
06> It's So Easy *
07> Fall To Pieces
08> Big Machine
09> Set Me Free
10> Used To Love Her *
11> Slither
12> Sex Type Thing **
13> Mr.Brownstone *
14> Negative Creep **
--
* : GNR song
** : STP song
*** : Nirvana song
[/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-
Not to mention you're seeing them in a venue much smaller than what they could have played. That's gonna cost a little extra. $35 sounds like a bargain for this one.
At least they showed up, which is more than you could guarantee if Axl was in the band.
-
Went. Saw. Mildly enjoyed. Super glad I went, but I just can't get behind the band idea. I'd sit and listen/watch Slash play all nigh long. Post "Core" I never cared much for STP (I think they turned their backs on a great album with each follow up). I'll probably pick up the album with the hope that I'm missing something from the first few listens. I hope this works out for all of them. I'm not sure they get another run at their former glory if this one doesn't go.
Good show.
-
I guess if I pay for a full show, I want at least 90 minutes of action.
If I pay for a movie, I want a 90+ minute movie, not a 60 minute movie.
If I pay for a four course meal, I want more than the entree.
If I pay for a baseball game, I want 9 innings, not 6.
If I paid for an NBA game, I'd want 4 quarters, not 3.
If I paid for a hockey game (which I never would), I'd want three periods, not two.
-
Originally posted by nycmaddog:
Went. Saw. Mildly enjoyed. Super glad I went, but I just can't get behind the band idea. I'd sit and listen/watch Slash play all nigh long.
Me too. I don't really like Scott Weiland's voice.
And yes, seeing them in a smaller venue was great.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I saw one of my favorites, BR549, do a two hour set of perhaps 25-30 songs last night, for $12. That's about what I'd expect in a good show.
$12 and I bet they didnt sell out in ten minutes.
-
No, that was Wilco. And I bet they will play more than 14 songs, even if they do throw in a couple more than 10 minutes in length. Got tickets for that one too. Thanks, Pollard.
Originally posted by Rob_Gee_a.k.a _Guiny:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I saw one of my favorites, BR549, do a two hour set of perhaps 25-30 songs last night, for $12. That's about what I'd expect in a good show.
$12 and I bet they didnt sell out in ten minutes. [/b]
-
Originally posted by nkotbie:
If there's anything NOT to like about them...
other than their sound?
-
These are all fine analogies but the issue I'm driving at is your need to always define for everyone what quality entertainment is or should be.
And as far as set length goes...I've been to just as many shows where I wished the band played a shorter set as shows where I wished it was longer, maybe even more. So for me, set length just isn't one of major defining criteria for how much I enjoy a show. Everything I've heard about Velvet Revolver is that the shows are about hour and 15 or 20 min. Seems just fine for a rock show to me.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I guess if I pay for a full show, I want at least 90 minutes of action.
If I pay for a movie, I want a 90+ minute movie, not a 60 minute movie.
If I pay for a four course meal, I want more than the entree.
If I pay for a baseball game, I want 9 innings, not 6.
If I paid for an NBA game, I'd want 4 quarters, not 3.
If I paid for a hockey game (which I never would), I'd want three periods, not two.
-
You can't compare a concert to a sports event. A concert does not have quarters, periods, innings -- a specific framework that takes the show to completion with a clear win or loss (or tie, regardless -- a measurable 'end').
V.R. has one album out -- they're basically a new band, but they have a huge fan base dying to see them already (hence the price, which isn't outlandish, really, when you look at market demand) and they in fact did a favor by playing a smaller venue.
A lot of shows I see run about 60 minutes because they're newer bands with just one album out. Sometimes they're phenomenal, sometimes not so much. I don't understand this long list of requirements some folks have for shows. Sure, if a band played 20 mintues I'd feel cheated, but that would be a pretty rare occurence. But I'd also feel cheated by a band that played two hours or more and was lousy and disinterested.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I guess if I pay for a full show, I want at least 90 minutes of action.
If I pay for a movie, I want a 90+ minute movie, not a 60 minute movie.
If I pay for a four course meal, I want more than the entree.
If I pay for a baseball game, I want 9 innings, not 6.
If I paid for an NBA game, I'd want 4 quarters, not 3.
If I paid for a hockey game (which I never would), I'd want three periods, not two.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I guess if I pay for a full show, I want at least 90 minutes of action.
If I pay for a movie, I want a 90+ minute movie, not a 60 minute movie.
If I pay for a four course meal, I want more than the entree.
If I pay for a baseball game, I want 9 innings, not 6.
If I paid for an NBA game, I'd want 4 quarters, not 3.
If I paid for a hockey game (which I never would), I'd want three periods, not two.
Mind you, in basketball, you get...what? 8 hours, but only 48 minutes of play....48 minutes!!! What's up with that, those lanky bastards can't even last an hour?
-
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] I want at least 90 minutes of action.
[/b]
good thing your wife doesnt feel the same way
-
For what it's worth, I thought they performed for just long enough. I would have enjoyed more, but as has been mentioned, they have one album (that they are promoting) and there's no point in distracting too much from it with covers of your old band's songs.
As the line in Amadeus goes "And which notes would his majesty believe should be removed?" They are the band, we are the willing audience. I felt properly entertained for my $30.
-
I totally have to disagree with the criticism of Weiland I am seeing in this thread. He is the consumate frontman, and has a kick ass voice. I don't know if you are familiar with the other vocalists begging to join this project...but would rather hear Sebastian Bach bellowing?
-
Originally posted by DAV10250:
would rather hear Sebastian Bach bellowing?
selfishly yes -- how hysterical would that be?!?!?
-
Sebastian Bach is the last thing I ever want to hear. Weiland's a decent singer. STP and GnR had their moments, sure, and both are highly regarded by many, but they're just not my thing.
Don't worry if people are slagging weiland..he's just an obvious target around here.
However...What's up with that Weiland guy? Must be the worst drug addict ever. Guy can't even smoke a joint without getting raided by the cops! He should pick a hobby he's a little better at! ;)
-
Originally posted by DAV10250:
I totally have to disagree with the criticism of Weiland I am seeing in this thread. He is the consumate frontman, and has a kick ass voice. I don't know if you are familiar with the other vocalists begging to join this project...but would rather hear Sebastian Bach bellowing?
I agree. He's a showman for sure. You have to believe the rest of the band understands that as well...Otherwise we might still be hearing about Slash's Snakepit. No offense, but Slash is no frontman, and far better being one hell of a guitar player.
-
Why should she, since she's usually had her orgasm long before 90 minutes?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] I want at least 90 minutes of action.
[/b]
good thing your wife doesnt feel the same way [/b]
-
Although Sebestian Bach's voice is 1000% times better than the majority of singers out there, he just wouldn't fit in with the rest of Velvet Revolver.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Originally posted by vansmack:
And when did Scott Weiland become the next Mick Jagger?
He's always been a prancing ponce. [/b]
Agreed, but when I saw STP, Blind Melon and Neil Young back in the early/mid 90s, he was much less of an exact Mick Jagger rip-off. He was always all over the stage, but from what I saw on Letterman, he was a dead ringer for Jagger circa 83.
-
So there you go...as long as you 'get the goods,' measuring by time makes no sense.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why should she, since she's usually had her orgasm long before 90 minutes?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] I want at least 90 minutes of action.
[/b]
good thing your wife doesnt feel the same way [/b]
[/b]
-
Sorry, for me, a 60 minute show is not "getting the goods" It takes longer than that for me to travel round trip to a club.
Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
So there you go...as long as you 'get the goods,' measuring by time makes no sense.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why should she, since she's usually had her orgasm long before 90 minutes?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] I want at least 90 minutes of action.
[/b]
good thing your wife doesnt feel the same way [/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-
imo, he's a decent singer, and last night I didn't mind it at all. Reflecting on the show, based upon what I listen to now, his voice is not my cup o' tea at this juncture. I didn't mean to compartamentalize his voice by saying I didn't like it, really what I meant. He's fun on-stage, but I get that it bothers some.
Originally posted by chaz:
Weiland's a decent singer.
-
You know what you like and what you don't like, that is good. But seriously, sometimes these money/rationality issues are a bit much. I was running late last night and thought it was silly to head downtown for an hour. But, lucky for me, the shows I see are generally good, most never are "just" one hour, and I end up seeing my friends (and stay to chat after0. I receive value out of all. "Quality not quantity" I say.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Sorry, for me, a 60 minute show is not "getting the goods" It takes longer than that for me to travel round trip to a club.
Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
So there you go...as long as you 'get the goods,' measuring by time makes no sense.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why should she, since she's usually had her orgasm long before 90 minutes?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] I want at least 90 minutes of action.
[/b]
good thing your wife doesnt feel the same way [/b]
[/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-
Sorry, I guess I'm just a number cruncher at heart.
Originally posted by Sugartastic Tee Silk:
You know what you like and what you don't like, that is good. But seriously, sometimes these money/rationality issues are a bit much. I was running late last night and thought it was silly to head downtown for an hour. But, lucky for me, the shows I see are generally good, most never are "just" one hour, and I end up seeing my friends (and stay to chat after0. I receive value out of all. "Quality not quantity" I say. Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Sorry, for me, a 60 minute show is not "getting the goods" It takes longer than that for me to travel round trip to a club.
Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
So there you go...as long as you 'get the goods,' measuring by time makes no sense.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why should she, since she's usually had her orgasm long before 90 minutes?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[qb] I want at least 90 minutes of action.
[/b]
good thing your wife doesnt feel the same way [/b]
[/b]
[/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-
it was $25 by the way
but, you know, what we ought to do is find out how long a band plays and then base the ticket price on thatâ?¦or maybe get a credit card imprint from everyone on the way in and charge per minute, kind of like a parking garage
and then have different rates based on whether they sucked or not
that way, a really good band that plays a long time might cost you $50 but, then again, you might only pay $5 for a shitty band that has a fight and ends early
-
I like your thinkin', seth.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] Why should she, since she's usually had her orgasm long before 90 minutes?
You can only give her one orgasm per session then huh?
My wife would never settle for that.
-
Originally posted by Seth Hurwitz:
it was $25 by the way
but, you know, what we ought to do is find out how long a band plays and then base the ticket price on thatâ?¦or maybe get a credit card imprint from everyone on the way in and charge per minute, kind of like a parking garage
and then have different rates based on whether they sucked or not
that way, a really good band that plays a long time might cost you $50 but, then again, you might only pay $5 for a shitty band that has a fight and ends early
Just think if they did something similar with sports....Orioles, Redskins and Capitals would all be bankrupt after last seasons debacle.
-
Exactly. Pay-Per-View would be bankrupt after some boxing matches.
Originally posted by Bollocks:
Originally posted by Seth Hurwitz:
it was $25 by the way
but, you know, what we ought to do is find out how long a band plays and then base the ticket price on thatâ?¦or maybe get a credit card imprint from everyone on the way in and charge per minute, kind of like a parking garage
and then have different rates based on whether they sucked or not
that way, a really good band that plays a long time might cost you $50 but, then again, you might only pay $5 for a shitty band that has a fight and ends early
Just think if they did something similar with sports....Orioles, Redskins and Capitals would all be bankrupt after last seasons debacle. [/b]
-
She would if she experienced the amazing orgasms i give.
Originally posted by Bollocks:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] Why should she, since she's usually had her orgasm long before 90 minutes?
You can only give her one orgasm per session then huh?
My wife would never settle for that. [/b]
-
Money aside and very generally speaking, it's the 45 minute and under headliner sets that bug me. It's usually not even worth the bother or setting up the equipement for a shorty like that. On the other hand, I think I'd have to kill myself if someone made me sit through an entire GBV set. (Sorry Pollard. Nothing personal. ;) )
-
June 2, 2004
POP REVIEW | VELVET REVOLVER
A Supergroup With the Roots Showing
By JON PARELES
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/arts/music/02VELV.html)
Velvet Revolver had all the moves when it played Roseland last week. There was the five-shirtless-guys move, discarding black T-shirts one by one. There was the singer's bell-bottom prance and hip-thrusting shake. There was the leaning-on-the-nonchalant-guitarist move and the drummer-slamming-the-gong move.
The members of Velvet Revolver have had plenty of time to perfect their rock-star struts because they arrive with experience. The lead singer, Scott Weiland, led the 1990's grunge band Stone Temple Pilots until his drug problems capsized what had been a million-selling act. The drummer, Matt Sorum; the bassist, Duff McKagan; and the guitarist Slash were in Guns N' Roses. That band recharged hard rock in the 1980's but has been foundering as its leader, Axl Rose, hires and fires musicians and makes and remakes a long-delayed album. A second guitarist, Dave Kushner, came from lesser-known bands.
So Velvet Revolver arrived at Roseland last Wednesday as an old-fashioned supergroup: a merger of Guns N' Roses' punked-up glam-rock and Stone Temple Pilots' grunge. And as in the corporate mergers that clogged the media business in the 1990's, there's a clash of precedents. Mr. Weiland's toughest job is deciding whether to be a stand-in for Mr. Rose or to continue the darker, more cryptic side he showed in Stone Temple Pilots.
Apparently the band has majority rule; Velvet Revolver sounds far closer to Guns N' Roses, playing bluesy hard rock rather than sodden grunge.
And Mr. Weiland accepts the job, from appearing in a military/chauffeur's hat to shimmying his hips just like Mr. Rose. The songs are about the gripes of the rich and famous â?? "All that first-class jet set brings me down," Mr. Weiland sang â?? and from the Stone Temple Pilots side, about lingering obsessions with God, sin and redemption.
"Slither," the band's first single, is an atypical chunk of moody grunge, a misleading introduction to a band that's far more about straightforward rock.
Slash stepped forward repeatedly for solos that started with bent bluesy notes and headed for fast squiggles; the rhythm section had Guns N' Roses swing. Velvet Revolver's inevitable ballad, "Fall to Pieces," was an obvious attempt to remake Guns N' Roses' "November Rain." But Mr. Weiland doesn't have a voice as unmistakable as Mr. Rose's bitter yowl; he's more of a whiner.
It was proudly old-fashioned rock, Hollywood style, switching between narcissism and surliness, and it had a slightly preserved quality despite the band's proficiency.
Eventually another hat told the story: Slash put on his tall hat with the silver band, and Velvet Revolver turned into a Guns N' Roses tribute.
The band overreached to end with Nirvana's "Negative Creep," pounding away like professionals while completely gutting the song of its lunging, sneering, outcast attitude. Velvet Revolver is a band of insiders hoping for brand recognition, posturing as hard as it can.