rolling stone on Cornell

sasoj

fuck rolling stone...

why?

read this "review":

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/14898791/review/14952831/carry_on

they are dissing him for having short hair and because his is wearing shirts????????????????????????????????????????????

what the hell?
i guess hair is important in making an album

TheGossman

I read half of it and threw the fuckin magazine in the garbage, how could they give him 2 stars, and not even talk about his album in the review and only about his short hair and him "wishing he was still grunge", and "why does he wear a shit and sing nowadays", the little bit I read they didn't even mention the album itself, and then I turned the page and R. Kelly's new album got 3 stars, fuck RS again!

chris05

yeh Rolling Stone is fuckin brutal. Nothing but a bunch of assholes who know nothing writing reviews.

dunkman

i love Rolling Stone magazine

pirlo21

Wow! That's a pretty lazy review. No backing up of any comments.
Just seems to slate Cornell for his hair and clothes.
Has this guy been paid for the review? Should be ashamed.
Whether you like the album or not, at least back up what your saying.

I've never really taken much notice of Rolling Stone, didn't have an opinion one way or the other. Maybe from now on I'll steer clear!

pearljamharmony

sasoj wrote:

fuck rolling stone...

why?

read this "review":

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/14898791/review/14952831/carry_on

they are dissing him for having short hair and because his is wearing shirts????????????????????????????????????????????

what the hell?
i guess hair is important in making an album

See they were making a statement saying that when he had longer hair and no shirt ala soundgarden he was making his best material. Chirs cornell's best material was in soundgarden and thats a fact, he's trying too hard to step out of the shadow of soundgarden and thats the problem. Rollingstone was SPOT ON on this review. Could you Cornell fanboys just give it up? He made a medicore record. It got two stars because its complete garbage (PS I listened to it endlessly for a week, and wished so hard for grittier 90s cornell and got poppy meaningless garbage). If you guys haven't bought the record yet and need to get your hands on it, wait two months and it will be in your local bargain bin.

PS did you see Era Vulgaris got four stars because it kicks ass.

PSS Why are you guys mocking R. Kelly and his review? Its a genre of music which you people have absolutely no knowledge in, and don't listen to! STOP MAKING BIASISED opinions because your precious Chris Cornell is past his prime and is getting blasted for that steaming pile of shit carry on.

harmless_little_f***

Maybe they're only talking about Soundgarden, CC's shirt and CC's hair because they've got to fill up some space and the new album lacks enough substance to constitute even a few lines of comment. Thought of that?

redrock

I like it when he fiddles with the buttons on his shirt...

Re his last album... I think just like when EM came out, a lot of people have difficulties/problems with his change of direction... After the demise of Rage, I guess a lot of people were hoping he would be going back to his soundgarden days...

Nevertheless, he kicks ass live and the songs from the album sound much better live (for those he played).

nuffingman

Just bought the Cornell album ........ so average. I'd avoid the bargain bin.

sasoj

pearljamharmony wrote:

See they were making a statement saying that when he had longer hair and no shirt ala soundgarden he was making his best material. Chirs cornell's best material was in soundgarden and thats a fact, he's trying too hard to step out of the shadow of soundgarden and thats the problem. Rollingstone was SPOT ON on this review. Could you Cornell fanboys just give it up? He made a medicore record. It got two stars because its complete garbage (PS I listened to it endlessly for a week, and wished so hard for grittier 90s cornell and got poppy meaningless garbage). If you guys haven't bought the record yet and need to get your hands on it, wait two months and it will be in your local bargain bin.

PS did you see Era Vulgaris got four stars because it kicks ass.

PSS Why are you guys mocking R. Kelly and his review? Its a genre of music which you people have absolutely no knowledge in, and don't listen to! STOP MAKING BIASISED opinions because your precious Chris Cornell is past his prime and is getting blasted for that steaming pile of shit carry on.

well with soundgarden chris was young, now he is 42 and is making mature music proper to his age ...
if a 42 old guy would be jumping around with long hair and no shirt then that would be crazy ...
he has an amazing voice ...
the hair doesnt matter

MCG

That review was uncalled for. If it was me I honestly would have given the album 3 stars. Was it great? Nope. Was it an enjoyable listen? Absolutely. Not quite up to par with Euphoria Morning and not even close to the best album released this year but that Rolling Stone review was more some guy trying to be funny than an actual observational comment on the ablum material.

TheGossman

pearljamharmony wrote:

See they were making a statement saying that when he had longer hair and no shirt ala soundgarden he was making his best material. Chirs cornell's best material was in soundgarden and thats a fact, he's trying too hard to step out of the shadow of soundgarden and thats the problem. Rollingstone was SPOT ON on this review. Could you Cornell fanboys just give it up? He made a medicore record. It got two stars because its complete garbage (PS I listened to it endlessly for a week, and wished so hard for grittier 90s cornell and got poppy meaningless garbage). If you guys haven't bought the record yet and need to get your hands on it, wait two months and it will be in your local bargain bin.

PS did you see Era Vulgaris got four stars because it kicks ass.

PSS Why are you guys mocking R. Kelly and his review? Its a genre of music which you people have absolutely no knowledge in, and don't listen to! STOP MAKING BIASISED opinions because your precious Chris Cornell is past his prime and is getting blasted for that steaming pile of shit carry on.

Chris Cornell is a musician, R. Kelly is a sicko that pisses on 15 years olds, the fact that people still buy his records sickens me, I haven't heard Cornell's record but I disagree with you, they need to quit comparing him to the Chris that was with Soundgarden, alot has changed since then, he's married, has a kid, he's in love, doesn't have as much rage. Its like when people compare PJ's latest work to Ten, LET IT DIE!

MCG

TheGossman wrote:

Chris Cornell is a musician, R. Kelly is a sicko that pisses on 15 years olds, the fact that people still buy his records sickens me, I haven't heard Cornell's record but I disagree with you, they need to quit comparing him to the Chris that was with Soundgarden, alot has changed since then, he's married, has a kid, he's in love, doesn't have as much rage. Its like when people compare PJ's latest work to Ten, LET IT DIE!

R. Kelly may have urinated on somebody but that doesn't make him any less a musician than Cornell. He writes songs and sings on records, no different from Cornell, just a different genre.

pearljamharmony

sasoj wrote:

well with soundgarden Chris was young, now he is 42 and is making mature music proper to his age ...
if a 42 old guy would be jumping around with long hair and no shirt then that would be crazy ...
he has an amazing voice ...
the hair doesnt matter

What about the first 2 slave albums those were relatively not that long ago? True his music is maturing but not for the better. Don't get me wrong I'm not anti Cornell solo because Euphoria morning was great. Other than Revelations look at the string of albums starting with Bad Motorfinger

Bad Motorfinger ---> Superunknown ---> Down on The Upside ---> Euphoria Morning ---> Audioslave ---> Out of Exile ---> 1/3rd of Revelations

Dare I compare that string of albums to?

Rubber Soul ---> Revolver--->Sgt Peppers ---> Magical Mystery Tour ---> The White Album ---> Abbey Road ---> Let it Be

Well maybe not, but still a great string of records none the less. Continuing with the Beatles comparisons, hearing Carry On is the equivalent of a Beatles fan hearing Paul McCartney singing Ebony and Ivory (you tube the video for douche chills). Like there was a mood Chris Cornell had going (starting from SG to his solo and even to slave) it was a dark grungy tone and it was excellent, this poppy garbage is not what was expected when we were so stoked a year ago when this solo album was announced. DARE I SAY JUMPING THE SHARK.

pearljamharmony

accidental double post

hendrix78

I haven't heard the album, apart from the song he did on Leno and the Bond tune. I like the bond tune because I think it is a good combination of modern rock and the more classic bond music sound. I thought the tune he did on Leno was ok, but nothing special.

Regardless of whether it's a good album or not, that was a piss poor review. There was no description of the music. The reviewer threw out a couple of song titles, but said nothing about the actual songs. If I was on the fence about getting the album, that review would not be helpful at all becuase it told me nothing about WHY the reviewer didn't like the music. Just like on message boards, when someone just says "that sucks," and doesn't attempt to explain why they think it sucks, I find their opinion meaningless.

DOSW

I think a common mistake on here is the notion that anyone who doesn't like Carry On thinks that it's bad because it's not Soundgarden. That's just completely untrue... I don't like it because it's genuinely lame. Chris has done many things over his career that wasn't hard rock- things like TotD and Euphoria Morning, and those were REALLY good. Carry On isn't terrible, but it seems to me like he's trying to get into the mainstream again more than focusing on making great songs. There's no substance to anything on the album except for maybe two or three songs, and even those don't live up to the standards he's set for himself before. Two stars is about right, although the written review was completely stupid.

What I'm saying is, it's not the type of music that Carry On haters can't deal with... it's the quality.

MCG

DOSW wrote:

What I'm saying is, it's not the type of music that Carry On haters can't deal with... it's the quality.

While this may be true for the majority, it is certainly not true for the population of "Carry On haters". There are a lot of senseless comments comming from individuals on both sides of the "Is Chris Cornell still any good?" debate.

TheGossman

MCG wrote:

R. Kelly may have urinated on somebody but that doesn't make him any less a musician than Cornell. He writes songs and sings on records, no different from Cornell, just a different genre.

you call R. Kelly a musician, I'll call him one extremely lucky guy!

DieasGrey

I love Soundgarden and Cornell..but hes washed up. His voice is really really bad. Anything you hear live is brutal. His melodies are muddied up and run into each other more often than not.

Cornell 87-97 10 out of 10

Cornell 1998+ 3 out of 10

sasoj

TheGossman wrote:

you call R. Kelly a musician, I'll call him one extremely lucky guy!

i believe i can fly?