Worcester Centrum review

[tomass74]

The centrum has always been known for shitty sound. The place needs to be leveled. I was on the floor in the middle though and it was pretty good there. Scott was still a bit muffled. I just talked to a couple other people that went who said the sound was "Great". They were also on the floor, it depends where you were I guess.

The Centrum holds 15,000 and it was about 70% full. Like I said I was on the Floor so I can't speak for the the rest of the place but the crowd on the floor was nuts. People were crowd surfing all over the place, and a couple little pits broke out. People were puffing and enjoying themselves. The crowd went really nuts during the Gn'R and STP tunes the most along with Slither.

The band was tight although the sound wasn't the best. They all sat down and jammed awhile before Used To Love Her and that was really cool. There were actually a few extended jams like in Set Me Free that were cool and at one point Dave went off for awhile! It was pretty damn sweet...One of my two favorite moments were Slash's It's So Easy solo that was intense and the second by far was Illegal I. It may not be peoples favorite but they just fucking jammed out in the middle for like 5 minutes. It was awesome I actually forgot they were playing the song for awhile until they got back into it. This also happend in No More No More when they rocked the fuck out.

Scott- The sound was shitty but he did his job. I have seen them before and STP twice so that was no surprise. The guy can really keep your attention at times I would forget Slash was there.

Slash-He was completely on his game, Slash at his best. Nuff said.

Dave-Also on his game.

Duff- He was Duff.


One thing I was surprised about was there was no stage show. Usually when you play an arena you have some special lights or something. All they had was what they had at? the club shows which is nothing. There wasn't even a Screen behind them. I don't think I have ever seen a show at an arena without a screen. You really need that type of shit to keep the fans who are seated further back. They had more of a stage show at that free show they did...

Good show over all, I would give it a 7/10. I think Friday in Manchester will be better!!

Edit: I feel 15 songs for? a headlining band is not enough, especially when you have 3 Kick ass tunes like Dirty Little Thing, Loving The Alien and You Got No Right just being ignored........Superhuman was graet by the way!!

[Eazy E]

Seems like they're doing the same thing as the club tour except they threw in Superhuman and No More No More.... that kind of sucks.

Was the arena set up in an end-stage way?  or concert bowl?  Like were there actually 15,000 seats available, or only half?

[tomass74]

The stage was at the end like most concerts. They weren't selling the seats behind the stage if that is what you mean. There was probably 10,000 there. 

[C0ma]

I was there towards the back of the floor, I think the estimate of 10,000 is a bit too high...... there were almost no people in the upper sections, and the rear of the floor was totally empty. I'd say 5-6K is a better guess of the crowd size.

Also, the sound is generally terrible at the Centrum, but their sound crew was much more to blame for that...... Their highs and lows were peaked the whole show, they made no attempts to alter the sound in any way (of course there were 5 or 6 strippers in the sound "booth", I know I wouldn't have been to worried about the sound myself)

[tomass74]

I was there towards the back of the floor, I think the estimate of 10,000 is a bit too high...... there were almost no people in the upper sections, and the rear of the floor was totally empty. I'd say 5-6K is a better guess of the crowd size.

Also, the sound is generally terrible at the Centrum, but their sound crew was much more to blame for that...... Their highs and lows were peaked the whole show, they made no attempts to alter the sound in any way (of course there were 5 or 6 strippers in the sound "booth", I know I wouldn't have been to worried about the sound myself)

  I'm gonna stick with 10,000 or pretty close. The floor was sold out still, they only sell enough to fill up the first 3/4. The Floor and the first tier take up 2/3rds of the tickets sold at the Centrum and they were sold out. The second tier was basically empty and the 3rd tier was too but the tiers get smaller as they go up with the 3rd tier only have 14 small sections with like 5 rows. Either way they arent going to sell anywhere out. I am going to Manchester tommorrow which holds only 10,000 for shows and that is far from selling out. You should have told that sound guy to wake the fuck up lol....

[jarmo]

Velvet Revolver right on target in Worcester show

Velvet Revolver offered nothing but hype

That group debuted locally Tuesday night at Worcester Centrum Centre delivering a short and wholly unsatisfying 70-minute set in front of a half-full arena.


If he's right, 10000 seems a bit optimistic don't you think?


/jarmo

[mikegiuliana]

It's possible, the guy who went from here tomass desribed the place to us.. Remember when gnr played some said half empty arenas but it wasn't 100 percent accurate..

if a place holds 15 and there are only ten it will look like it's half empty ,especially if most fans are crowded up front.

[AxlGunner]

Velvet Revolver right on target in Worcester show

Velvet Revolver offered nothing but hype

That group debuted locally Tuesday night at Worcester Centrum Centre delivering a short and wholly unsatisfying 70-minute set in front of a half-full arena.


If he's right, 10000 seems a bit optimistic don't you think?


/jarmo

If tomass is right, half-full seems a bit pessimistic don't you think?

[tomass74]

Velvet Revolver right on target in Worcester show

Velvet Revolver offered nothing but hype

That group debuted locally Tuesday night at Worcester Centrum Centre delivering a short and wholly unsatisfying 70-minute set in front of a half-full arena.


If he's right, 10000 seems a bit optimistic don't you think?


/jarmo

Well jarmo,
1.)That guy also said "70-minute" in the same sentence. They played 90 minutes..

2.)Then he said "The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused."-- They only played 9 of their songs and "Dorty Little Thing wasn't one of them

He exagerated everything in the review....

[jarmo]

If tomass is right, half-full seems a bit pessimistic don't you think?

Another concert goer, C0ma says 5-6000.

Isn't that about half full?

He exagerated everything in the review....

Maybe. But sometimes the reporters actually get ticket sale info. Who knows.




/jarmo

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Velvet Revolver offered nothing but hype
Friday, November 12, 2004
By DONNIE MOORHOUSE
Music writer

WORCESTER - We waited for this?


While former Stone Temple Pilots front man Scott Weiland rehabbed and relapsed and rehabbed again, rock'n' roll fans drooled over rumors of his pending super group which would feature Slash, Duff McKagan, and Matt Sorum, once of Guns'N Roses.


That group debuted locally Tuesday night at Worcester Centrum Centre delivering a short and wholly unsatisfying 70-minute set in front of a half-full arena.


In the empty room, the concert had the feel of a small-time show, a fledgling rock tour that had rolled into town. That was before the show started. The band did nothing to dispel that notion.


Velvet Revolver has a single album, "Contraband," and enough hype to warrant the arena tour. They brought little else to the table.


Following a recorded announcement to "stop your grinnin' and drop your linen," the band took the stage and opened with "Sucker Train Blues" while a blistering bank of strobe lights flooded the venue.

Weiland strutted around the stage, overplaying the front man routine like some odd fusion of Bono's The Fly and the motorcycle cop from the Village People. His main accoutrement for the night was a megaphone, a hackneyed rock tool that was overused long before Weiland's abuse of the mechanism.


In fact, if it weren't for the flickering strobe and the megaphone - one of which was used on every song, both were used on most - the band had an empty bag of tricks. It became quite apparent early on, particularly when fans took up a random chant of "Yankees Suck!" during the show, that there was little on stage worth watching.


The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused.


Weiland announced that "Fall to Pieces" was the song that originally brought the band together, and the power-chord rock ballad stood out in the set, but was hardly inspirational enough to warrant forming a band and ruining everyone's Tuesday night.


Through "Big Machine" (again sung through the megaphone) and "Set Me Free," the band kept pushing a big rock up a very big hill, getting nowhere fast. When they left the stage after 55 minutes, the crowd seemed stunned.


Was that it? Were they coming back? Should we applaud?


While the audience mingled in a state of confusion the band was backstage in a quandary. They were supposed to return for an encore, but they weren't being called back with any measurable level of enthusiasm.


They came back anyway, and worked up their best song of the night, Aerosmith's "No More, No More." They closed the show with two Guns'N Roses songs, "Used to Love Her" and "Mr. Brownstone," followed by the VR original "Slither."

[Booker Floyd]

(Sigh)

So what high school paper did you get this from, Dave?

[younggunner]

not that i care...but how come every negative review comes from a high school paper?

[Booker Floyd]

Maybe. But sometimes the reporters actually get ticket sale info. Who knows.

I cant believe that "reporter"s writing was actually featured in a legitimate newspaper...It seems that every "reporter" that trashes VR cant really write...Just a coincidence, Im sure.

[Booker Floyd]

Apparently, this comes from The Republican...no idea how prestigious that paper is.  It just seems that every time a negative review is posted (usually by Dave), its so poorly written that I automatically assume its an amateur effort.

For what its worth, The Boton Herald, you know, a real newspaper, saw things a little differently.

Velvet Revolver right on target in Worcester show
By Christopher Blagg
Thursday, November 11, 2004

While new wave-inspired acts such as the Killers and Interpol have brought the Reagan era back into the mainstream, glam-grunge supergroup Velvet Revolver has arrived to bridge the gap between late '80s and early '90s nostalgia.
 
     Oft-rehabbed singer Scott Weiland and Guns 'N Roses alums Slash, Duff McKagan and Matt Sorum brought their high-octane arena rock excesses to the Worcester Centrum on Tuesday night to the delight of long-deprived hair metal and alt-rock fans from throughout Massachusetts.
 
     Axl Rose may have been nowhere in sight, but Weiland's over-the-top stage exploits provided an equally excessive frontman substitute. The former Stone Temple Pilots vocalist bounded onto the stage sporting an outfit that could only be described as military chic, complete with Iron Cross insignias, prompting Weiland to add a Weimar Republic march to his slinky stage calisthenics.
 
     His main ax-man, Slash, looked much the same, minus the iconic black top hat, but still rocking his signature unkempt black mane. The opening tune of their debut record, ``Sucker Train Blues,'' also opened their set, its barreling rock rumble stating their rock-or-die manifesto in no uncertain terms.
 
     Early in the show, the band dipped into the past with the Stone Temple Pilots nugget ``Crackerman,'' complete with Weiland's patented bullhorn vocal technique, the original grungey alt-rock feel of the tune getting a glam-rock sheen courtesy of his ex-GnR bandmates.
 
     Velvet Revolver somehow managed to reconcile the excesses of glam rock with the dour bite of grunge. The audience responded by combining arena-rock gestures such as the obligatory lighter salute and the breast-baring-girls-on-their-boyfriends'-shoulders routine with '90s-style crowd-surfing and moshing.
 
     Some moments remained firmly entrenched in one camp or the other, exemplified by the impressive flashback power ballad ``Fall to Pieces,'' but most of the tunes borrowed heavily from both the Sunset Strip and the Seattle traditions.
 
     Weiland's voice proved to be every bit as powerful and engaging as that of Rose. But the chameleon tag that dogged him in the early '90s did seem to hold true at times, especially on covers of such GnR classics as ``Mr. Brownstone,'' on which his voice sounded suspiciously similar to Rose's nasal howl.
 
     Slash, on the other hand, sounded exactly as he did back in the early ``Paradise City'' days, his signature cascading guitar riffs making their way into every tune.
 
     For an encore, the boys went acoustic, sitting down on the front of the stage to earnestly pluck the misogynist GnR anthem ``I Used To Love Her,'' followed by an electrified cover of Aerosmith's ``No More No More.'' The show ended on a fist-pumping note with the group's hit single ``Slither,'' a tune so catchy and explosive that it drowned out the sound of clashing genres.

[younggunner]

its so poorly written that I automatically assume its an amateur effort.

Whetrehr it comes from a bigtime newspaper or not, what difference does it make? As long as the reporter isnt biased and doesnt have an agenda towards the band then why arent they allowed to see things differently than someone else?

Actually there were more Axl mentions in the "real" newspaper than in the amateur one

[C0ma]

I was there, the first review wasn't far off......
But it was mainly due to horrible sound (due to the sub par sound crew)

He is right on with Scott over using the Bull horn, I wanted to get up on stage and hit him in the mouth with it when he brought it out durring Mr. Brownstone.

[C0ma]

I stand very firm.....there were closer to 5000 people at that show.
But in Tom-ass' defense, if he were right up front the energy of the stage may have made everything seem a little "bigger"

[Jizzo]

that review must be from a VR hater

[Ignatius]

that review must be from a VR hater

 

Will some of you ever admit the evidence that even VR may have a bad day?

You are constantly bashing Dave for surfing around the internet in his quest to find negative reviews about the band, but some of you have a tendency to get annoyed when a bad review actually surfaces.

What difference does it make whether the review comes from " The republican" or " the Boston Herald"? they are both different reviews anyway. Had " The Republican" review? been good, we wouldn't be talking about a biased review written by an amateur who doesn't even have writing skills.

What about the Boston Herald review? maybe it was written by a VR lover? Who the fuck knows! truth is, good and bad reviews come in every tour. Some of you just can't take it. The fact that is always Dave the one who posts the bad reviews, it's another reason for you not to give these reviews the credit they deserve.

On the other hand, some of the facts detailed in " The republican" review can be confirmed. Was the show half empty? ( or half full being optimisitc? ?) If this show wasn't a part of any festival, Why such a short set? Isn't this supposed to be an Arena tour?

[Naupis]

The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused.

I would at least feel a little better about that review if they had the setlist right. I mean they have never played DLT live, which gives me the impression the journalist either wasn't paying attention at the show or didn't do his homework on the setlist. Notice that in a reputable paper like the Boston Herald there are no such problems.

Bad reviews are ok, I would just like to see the reviewer at least have his facts straight(which is probably a main reason he is writing for a paper like "The Republican" or whatever it is instead of the Herald.)

[Booker Floyd]

Will some of you ever admit the evidence that even VR may have a bad day?

Well if another paper praises the show, perhaps it wasnt such a bad day after all...

You are constantly bashing Dave for surfing around the internet in his quest to find negative reviews about the band, but some of you have a tendency to get annoyed when a bad review actually surfaces.

I get annoyed with poor journalism more than anything...and yes, I get annoyed when that poor journalism is passed off as legitimate.

What difference does it make whether the review comes from " The republican" or " the Boston Herald"?

Credibility, for one.  Its like comparing a CD review in your local free magazine to Rolling Stone.  But really, its not as much about that as it is about hack journalism.  When I see a review with poor grammar, typos, and factual errors, I tend to take it less seriously than one without these things.

  Had " The Republican" review? been good, we wouldn't be talking about a biased review written by an amateur who doesn't even have writing skills.

Probably not, but those facts would remain.  Obviously a review that is so overtly negative opens up more analysis than a positive one.

What about the Boston Herald review? maybe it was written by a VR lover? Who the fuck knows! truth is, good and bad reviews come in every tour.

Right...it just so happens that the bad ones come from no-name papers/websites.  Like I said, Im sure its a coincidence.

Some of you just can't take it.

Youre right.  In fact, I killed myself after reading it. 

The fact that is always Dave the one who posts the bad reviews, it's another reason for you not to give these reviews the credit they deserve.

Not really...of course theyre a part of Daves predictable schtick, but theyre discredited more for their own content.

On the other hand, some of the facts detailed in " The republican" review can be confirmed. Was the show half empty? ( or half full being optimisitc? ?) If this show wasn't a part of any festival, Why such a short set? Isn't this supposed to be an Arena tour?

And just as many can be questioned or invalidated.

"His main accoutrement for the night was a megaphone, a hackneyed rock tool that was overused long before Weiland's abuse of the mechanism."

Really?  Can anybody inform me at what point in the 70s or 80s the megaphone was all the rage?  Or what frontmen were "overusing" it?
 
"The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused."

Yeah, especially unfocused on "Dirty Little Thing"!

"While the audience mingled in a state of confusion the band was backstage in a quandary."

In a quandry?  Well since they go backstage every night before the encore, I wonder if its written as "quandry" on the itinerary. 

I question the statements about the concerts length and "recorded" intro.  More importantly, the review is more negative comments than actual criticism.  The only real criticism he has beside not enjoying the megaphone is that the band sounded "rush and unfocused."  Pretty big claim, right?  Surely he supports that criticism in such a negative article, right?  Wait...no, no he doesnt. 

[tomass74]

I think the whole point with that Republican review is the guy is full of shit. It's ok to give a bad review, not everyone has to like a show and the sound was crap. But the guy disorted alot of facts that flat out lied about shit so am not taking it too seriously. They didn't play Dirt Little Thing they set was atleast 20 minutes longer than he said, and it wasn't as empty as he said period. The worst thing was the sound and that is huge.

[tomass74]

Here are a bunch of other reviews........They are all great with a couple emntions of the shit sound..

http://www.belowempty.com/vr/concerts/2004/041109_WorcesterMA.php

[Ignatius]

Will some of you ever admit the evidence that even VR may have a bad day?

Well if another paper praises the show, perhaps it wasnt such a bad day after all...

You are constantly bashing Dave for surfing around the internet in his quest to find negative reviews about the band, but some of you have a tendency to get annoyed when a bad review actually surfaces.

I get annoyed with poor journalism more than anything...and yes, I get annoyed when that poor journalism is passed off as legitimate.

What difference does it make whether the review comes from " The republican" or " the Boston Herald"?

Credibility, for one.? Its like comparing a CD review in your local free magazine to Rolling Stone.? But really, its not as much about that as it is about hack journalism.? When I see a review with poor grammar, typos, and factual errors, I tend to take it less seriously than one without these things.

? Had " The Republican" review? been good, we wouldn't be talking about a biased review written by an amateur who doesn't even have writing skills.

Probably not, but those facts would remain.? Obviously a review that is so overtly negative opens up more analysis than a positive one.

What about the Boston Herald review? maybe it was written by a VR lover? Who the fuck knows! truth is, good and bad reviews come in every tour.

Right...it just so happens that the bad ones come from no-name papers/websites.? Like I said, Im sure its a coincidence.

Some of you just can't take it.

Youre right.? In fact, I killed myself after reading it.?

The fact that is always Dave the one who posts the bad reviews, it's another reason for you not to give these reviews the credit they deserve.

Not really...of course theyre a part of Daves predictable schtick, but theyre discredited more for their own content.

On the other hand, some of the facts detailed in " The republican" review can be confirmed. Was the show half empty? ( or half full being optimisitc? ?) If this show wasn't a part of any festival, Why such a short set? Isn't this supposed to be an Arena tour?

And just as many can be questioned or invalidated.

"His main accoutrement for the night was a megaphone, a hackneyed rock tool that was overused long before Weiland's abuse of the mechanism."

Really?? Can anybody inform me at what point in the 70s or 80s the megaphone was all the rage?? Or what frontmen were "overusing" it?
 
"The band worked down the list of their 13 songs from "Do It For The Kids" to "Dirty Little Thing," all the while sounding rushed and unfocused."

Yeah, especially unfocused on "Dirty Little Thing"!

"While the audience mingled in a state of confusion the band was backstage in a quandary."

In a quandry?? Well since they go backstage every night before the encore, I wonder if its written as "quandry" on the itinerary.?

I question the statements about the concerts length and "recorded" intro.? More importantly, the review is more negative comments than actual criticism.? The only real criticism he has beside not enjoying the megaphone is that the band sounded "rush and unfocused."? Pretty big claim, right?? Surely he supports that criticism in such a negative article, right?? Wait...no, no he doesnt.?

I'll keep it short for you Book.

To me, both reviews have exactly the same credibility. I can't comment cause I wasn't there, but I do believe some people liked the show and show people didn't. Another poster,Coma, didn't believe the first review was too far off. He might not be a qualify journalist from the Boston Herald, but as a concert goer, I'll give him exactly the same credibility or even more, than I will give the Boston Herald, simply because he is a fan.

You are just as biased as Dave is with GNR. VR has had its run of fuck ups lately but some of you just can't see it.

[Booker Floyd]

To me, both reviews have exactly the same credibility. I can't comment cause I wasn't there, but I do believe some people liked the show and show people didn't. Another poster,Coma, didn't believe the first review was too far off. He might not be a qualify journalist from the Boston Herald, but as a concert goer, I'll give him exactly the same credibility or even more, than I will give the Boston Herald, simply because he is a fan.

Im not arguing whether or not that reviewer liked the show...but hes passing himself off as a writer, and his writing simply isnt good for the reason I listed.? If its "regular guy" opinions youre looking for, you might want to check out Velvet-Revolver.coms concert review section.? After all, theyre actually fans.

Also, when taking into account this guys opinion, do you think hes in the majority or minority??

You are just as biased as Dave is with GNR.

 

VR has had its run of fuck ups lately but some of you just can't see it.

Explain?

Id also like to note that COma, a fan, said "I have to say when they came out for the encore and began Mr. Brownstone (with the little YCBM Drum intro) I felt like it was 1987-1993 all over again..... due to the fact that you couldn't make out Scott's vocals most of the night that was probaly the closest I'll ever get to seeing my vision of Guns N' Roses live ever again" and "overall the band was very good."? I wouldnt say he shared the same sentiments as that author.?

[Ignatius]

Id also like to note that COma, a fan, said "I have to say when they came out for the encore and began Mr. Brownstone (with the little YCBM Drum intro) I felt like it was 1987-1993 all over again..... due to the fact that you couldn't make out Scott's vocals most of the night that was probaly the closest I'll ever get to seeing my vision of Guns N' Roses live ever again" and "overall the band was very good."? I wouldnt say he shared the same sentiments as that

This is what Coma ( the same guy who post the above) had to say about the same concert...

"I was there towards the back of the floor, I think the estimate of 10,000 is a bit too high...... there were almost no people in the upper sections, and the rear of the floor was totally empty. I'd say 5-6K is a better guess of the crowd size.

Also, the sound is generally terrible at the Centrum, but their sound crew was much more to blame for that...... Their highs and lows were peaked the whole show, they made no attempts to alter the sound in any way (of course there were 5 or 6 strippers in the sound "booth", I know I wouldn't have been to worried about the sound myself)"

See where he guesses there was a crowd of 5-6k and they made no attempts to alter the sound....

Explain?

My pleasure.

VR's list of fuck ups

Where should I begin....

Ok, let's start with the cancelled shows. How many shows that were scheduled have been cancelled in the past two months? and more importantly, Why were they cancelled? Was it poor sales? Was it due to Scotts delicate throat? Was it due to poor planning? Thousands of fans have been left out from VR's generous 70 minute set.

Number Two. Why has Slash chosen a manager other than the rest of the band? From the beginning this band was all about cohesion, unity...The image we've been sold from the start was the "we are so dangerous, we are unpredictable" followed by " we are all like family. Our wives get along" " we bbq every Saturday...". These have been VR's image foundations from day one. If, their foundation number 1 ( rambling about how dangerous they are) made me laugh, now foundation number two makes me laugh even more!!! Why? Because that sign of cohesion many be just a sign, but the truth is, these guys may not really get along or have different views on where this band should be heading to.

Number Three. Duff " Axl didn't write GNR's music" Now, that's a fuck up. Even Duff believes is a fuck because he apologized for making such a bold statement. Yes, he apologized, but still made that sarcastic remark about "My World", but what was the point? Why? Aren't they involved already in a lawsuit regarding royalties? Unreal.

Number Four. Our main topic of discussion in other threads. Why are you playing such a short set? VR's got 13 songs off Contraband. Choose 11 out of those 13, play two GNR, two STP, Cheap Trick, Aerosmith and Pistols. You've got yourself an 18 song-set. An average of 4 songs a minute and breaks between songs and unchores, you've got yourself your 90 minute set. Perfect. Everybody is happy. The reason why they keep playing the same 14 songs every night is to save Scott to get into any throat problems, so basically, they are pulling off 70% every night instead of 100% liked they should.

There.

On the other hand, there's one thing they've done which I thought it was pure Rock & Roll. Dressing up as Axl and Buckethead I thought it was pretty histerical. The reason why I enjoyed that scene was because nobody expected it. It caught me ( and I guess everyone here) off guard. They just fucking did but nothing was mentioned about it. That is true Rock & Roll spirit.

[Booker Floyd]

See where he guesses there was a crowd of 5-6k and they made no attempts to alter the sound....

 

So like I said, he doesnt share the writers overall sentiments.  One guy thinks the band was very good, the other thinks they were rushed, unfocused, and hackneyed.  Pretty big divergence in opinion, Id say.  But if you think that their guesses on attendance and issues with the sound crew are more important, than power to you.

Ok, let's start with the cancelled shows. How many shows that were scheduled have been cancelled in the past two months? and more importantly, Why were they cancelled? Was it poor sales? Was it due to Scotts delicate throat? Was it due to poor planning? Thousands of fans have been left out from VR's generous 70 minute set.

Okay, but in fairness, the dates were cancelled very soon after they were announced.  So a fuck-up, yeah...but a minor one, and nothing that wasnt complained about already.

umber Two. Why has Slash chosen a manager other than the rest of the band? From the beginning this band was all about cohesion, unity...The image we've been sold from the start was the "we are so dangerous, we are unpredictable" followed by " we are all like family. Our wives get along" " we bbq every Saturday...". These have been VR's image foundations from day one. If, their foundation number 1 ( rambling about how dangerous they are) made me laugh, now foundation number two makes me laugh even more!!! Why? Because that sign of cohesion many be just a sign, but the truth is, these guys may not really get along or have different views on where this band should be heading to.

 

Come on, this is just stupid. 

Please name one way this fact has adversely affected the band.  Beyond speculation, what do you know for sure about the effects of their management diffrences?  But to go along with your logic...do families not have problems?  And you acknowledge that its possible to have some problems with somebody, but still generally be close and friendly.  So, if the band tours non-stop together, writes music together, perhaps even hangs out together...theyre really not that tight if they have different guys handling their personal finances. 

Number Three. Duff " Axl didn't write GNR's music" Now, that's a fuck up. Even Duff believes is a fuck because he apologized for making such a bold statement. Yes, he apologized, but still made that sarcastic remark about "My World", but what was the point? Why? Aren't they involved already in a lawsuit regarding royalties? Unreal.

Duff apologized for being misquoted.  If you think hes lying, great, but the only fuck-up Duff acknowledged was the writers.  And youre assuming Duff was being sarcastic...You understand that theres a possibility he does like the song, right?

Number Four. Our main topic of discussion in other threads. Why are you playing such a short set? VR's got 13 songs off Contraband. Choose 11 out of those 13, play two GNR, two STP, Cheap Trick, Aerosmith and Pistols. You've got yourself an 18 song-set. An average of 4 songs a minute and breaks between songs and unchores, you've got yourself your 90 minute set. Perfect. Everybody is happy. The reason why they keep playing the same 14 songs every night is to save Scott to get into any throat problems, so basically, they are pulling off 70% every night instead of 100% liked they should.

Thats a legitimate complaint...but not a "fuck-up" on VRs part.  A lot of people are actually satisfied with a 15-song set.

[jarmo]

If its "regular guy" opinions youre looking for, you might want to check out Velvet-Revolver.coms concert review section.? After all, theyre actually fans.

But are they non-biased regular guy reviews? 


I remember how some were angry about certain reviews two years ago. Now the same thing happens but other people discredit the negative reviews.

Who cares if he didn't like it?




/jarmo