Quote:
Originally Posted by spark10036
I'm just going to disagree with everyone now. I listened to it about four times since last night and I think it's a very good album.
Yeah, it's different from the previous albums, and nowhere near the blues/rock style that the band had up to 1993. But I'm not going to comment if it should be a Gn'R album or an Axl Rose album. I knew from the beginning I wouldn't get something with a sound similar to AFD or UYI, so I wasn't dissapointed at all. And I even found a few of the songs very good and easy-listening, especially "Shackler's Revenge", "Street Of Dreams", "Madagascar","This I Love" and "Prostitute". I think the vocals are very good, even though I expected more from the lyrics really since it's been in the making for so long. I also liked the musicians.
If I had to give it a rating out of 10,I'd say: 7.
Now if I think they should had released it under a different band name: absolutely yes!
but again I think it's a good album
|
I totally agree, he should have called it "The Axl Rose Band". David Lee Roth did it with AMAZING results. Also didn't hurt that he had Stevie Vai on it, but still, I think Axl could have pulled it off. He just used the name, because it's a HUGE name in music and should help it sell. Metallica did it with their latest album, it sucked, but I digress...