rolling stone on Cornell

Alex_Coe

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.

I give this post 5 stars.

pearljamharmoy: (star)(star)(star)(star)(star)

hendrix78

It's still a pathetic excuse for a professional review. I can't believe the magazine would publish something so useless. I have no problem with them giving the album a bad review, but at least actually review it instead of essentially saying "this sucks, I wish Chris was still in Soundgarden."

Indifference

While I disagree with the review angle - I don;t think the album is any good. I saw him a few weeks ago and the show was amazing - I downloaded the new album and have already deleted it. Not that good.

originalfire

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.

ETHER!

otis mcfluster

That review was spot on. Especially the Audioslave comment.

Why are people still holding on? It is OK to admit that Cornell sucks now.

pjoasisrule

You can tell from the very beginning of the review that they have something against him. Here are the problems with Rolling Stone..........ANYTHING that is political automatically gets a great review, they give bad reviews to just about any band that doesnt have their own original sound, even if they dont like a band they cant ever even talk about the good points and why somebody else might like the music, they love corporate music and anything that is really trendy, and worst of all they change their mind on bands they once hated when that band is seen as incredibly important and classic (example: Led Zeppelin)

Ledbetterman10

pearljamharmony wrote:

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

oh...my...god. all you were trying to do here is show that you know the correct order of the Beatles' album releases right? you COULDN'T actually be comparing Chris Cornell's output (while quite strong) to that of the Beatles. I mean come on.

Dick Jones

What do you guys want? An article that is truth, or one that just says "oh yeah, he is a god,...great album, 5 stars...." He's washed up. Audioslave was bland, so is the new album.

People read those reviews and judge wether they should buy an album or not, so I'd say they were right on with this one, and Era Vulgaris.

PJamGrunge10

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 is that supposed to mean? You can only make slow songs if you aren't in your 20's? I don't see why age has to matter in the type of music someone creates or listens to.

DaytimeDilemma

Wow, I feel like some of you took that review as a personal insult. Calm down, I'm sure Chris will be fine.

intodeep

Since he is a model for John Varvatos clothing perhaps it is fair to judge him by his hair and clothing style



just kidding. I still can't believe he did that bullshit.

DOSW

Here's another review from IGN, who gave it a 7.2:

http://music.ign.com/articles/794/794167p1.html

The reviewer messes up some song titles, so he must have been reviewing an advanced press copy. It's a much better written article than the awful RS review, although I think 7.2 is a little generous.

Matty Boy

That reveiew was spot on. Cornell is becoming a joke like Robert Plant in the 80's. Use your voice for screaming and rocking out while you've still got it Chris.

pearljamharmony

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

oh...my...god. all you were trying to do here is show that you know the correct order of the Beatles' album releases right? you COULDN'T actually be comparing Chris Cornell's output (while quite strong) to that of the Beatles. I mean come on.

no actually if u quoted the whole thing u could see the line saying "not really". The beatles are the most important band of all time, you don't really think I'm trying to pawn that much talent and responsibility off on cornell?

hendrix78

Dick Jones wrote:

What do you guys want? An article that is truth, or one that just says "oh yeah, he is a god,...great album, 5 stars...." He's washed up. Audioslave was bland, so is the new album.

People read those reviews and judge wether they should buy an album or not, so I'd say they were right on with this one, and Era Vulgaris.

But that's my problem with the review, it does not give enough information for someone to decide wether or not to buy it. The reviewer doesn't discuss the music at all, he basically just states his personal disdain for Chris Cornell's current image. Anyone who decides whether or not to buy the album based on that review is a moron.

If the guy thinks the album is a piece of shit, that's fine, but tell us WHY it is a piece of shit. Don't just tell us that you like Chris better when he was shirtless with long hair. I'm trying to decide whether to buy his album, not whether I want to date him or not.

deadnothingbetter

i hate chris cornell... i hate his music. i loved the review.

failedpersephone

hendrix78 wrote:

But that's my problem with the review, it does not give enough information for someone to decide wether or not to buy it. The reviewer doesn't discuss the music at all, he basically just states his personal disdain for Chris Cornell's current image. Anyone who decides whether or not to buy the album based on that review is a moron.

If the guy thinks the album is a piece of shit, that's fine, but tell us WHY it is a piece of shit. Don't just tell us that you like Chris better when he was shirtless with long hair. I'm trying to decide whether to buy his album, not whether I want to date him or not.

buy the album. listen a few times...make up your own mind. maybe it wasn't worth the 12 bucks...or maybe you can keep rediscovering it. (Much like Euphoria Morning) I totally agree that the review was crap. "mindless wailing" gives Chris Cornell NO credit for his lyrics and vocal range (then or now) I suppose the reviewer decided that back in the early nineties he hadn't mistakenly lumped ALL Seattle bands enough for his lifetime.

muppet

I think that IGN review was spot on.

dunkman

pearljamharmony wrote:

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

thats truly laughable.... but if you ever compare Cornell to the might of The Beatles again i'll hunt you down and make you do algebra

beatles = critical acclaim and over 50million sales

cornell = lambasted in the press/forums and 17 cd's sold

DOSW

dunkman wrote:

thats truly laughable.... but if you ever compare Cornell to the might of The Beatles again i'll hunt you down and make you do algebra

beatles = critical acclaim and over 50million sales

cornell = lambasted in the press/forums and 17 cd's sold

Cornell may not be up there with the Beatles, but he can piss all over the White Stripes any day.