Without going into too much detail about the dire warm-up performance from California Breed (although mostly Glenn Hughes) as you can read my condensed rant on Twitter, Slash played with his band for damn nearly two hours last night. For most bands, that would've been a real slog to sit through and, if I'm honest, it's probably my only small complaint. However, Slash and crew kept the majority of the audience* enthralled from start to finish, playing a variety of hits from past solo albums with a few select fan favourites from his days in Guns N' Roses.
The band were easily capable of recreating tunes from solo albums to a near pitch-perfect quality and even the GNR covers sounded close to identical to the originals from 1987. In fact, I would say that seeing Slash play live now is as close to the perfect Guns N' Roses gig we'll ever get. Myles was more than capable of covering Axl Rose, hitting all the correct notes without all the unnecessary, irritating shit Axl does. It's no surprise Slash chose Myles to become his permanent vocalist, since he's basically what Axl would sound like if he wasn't the aural equivalent of scraping a knuckle on a cheese grater.
Of course the rest of the band nailed their respective parts too but it was easily a combination of powerful vocals and furious fretting that made the night spectacular. That and the fantastic decade-spanning setlist. So with that in mind, what did I think of their latest album?
Before you read this review, I need to make one thing even clearer than I've already made it.
I don't like Axl Rose.
Not in the slightest.
I think he's fucking terrible.
He may be technically skilled but that means sod-all if the finished product sounds like a rooster. That's like commending someone for being a technically proficient arsonist or BNP spokesperson.
No, this isn't because of the whole Activision lawsuit thing. I actually agreed with him on that one. I don't like him because he's the single driving force behind my ambivalence towards Guns N' Roses. I know for a fact that I would enjoy them a lot more if he had no influence or purpose in the band, although sadly I can't prove it. All I can do is base my theories on the last five years of Slash's musical career.
I had a theory a while ago that Axl Rose ruined Hard Rock but I've since adapted that into a hypothesis that Axl Rose only tainted Hard Rock, merely ruining Guns N' Roses and his reputation. Some of their songs have awesome riffs but hearing Axl rasp "motherfucker" pisses them down. Thankfully, Slash's solo work is slowly trying to make up for it, almost like a spoilt child's dad apologising to the other parents at a birthday party for spawning such a little cunt.
I came close to forgiving and forgetting after hearing Apocalyptic Love for the first time last year. It's full of Hard Rock, pure and simple. The slower songs still pack a punch and manage to sound softer without going into handbag sporting Aerosmith territory. So with that in mind, I was looking forward to Slash's follow up to see if he would continue with more of the same or develop his sound into something new.
Interestingly enough, he's managed to do both.
World On Fire starts off with an aptly named explosive bang, doing what every great album opener does by setting the bar high. Fortunately, the band manage to maintain that high (unlike Judas Priest did with their latest offering) with a strong collection of face melters and headbangers. If there's one thing you can learn from Slash's music (and let's face it, you're unlikely to learn more than one or two things), it's that he's the Ronseal of Hard Rock. He does exactly what it says on the tin...uhh, album.
The songs don't contain metaphors concealed within another metaphor mirroring art under the pretence of bollocks and if that's what you strive for in music then go cream yourself over David fucking Bowie like all the other tossers out there who say things like "Bravo" without sarcasm. Slash's music is straight forward, down to Earth and fucking awesome. It doesn't need to be analysed, it just needs to be heard and that's something that remains constant throughout all three of his solo albums.
Whilst the debut had a series of guest musicians, making it easily comparable to previous album which introduced Myles Kennedy & The Conspirators as 'the band', the main difference between this and Apocalyptic Love is the number of songs that feel slightly less guitar-oriented. Whilst it's clear Slash's signature is scrawled across the record, it certainly feels like the band have had more input with the creation of this material. You've got your slower, more ensemble based songs like "Battleground", "The Unholy" and "Dirty Girl" along with ones crying to be played on a six-string such as "Bent To Fly", "Avalon" and "Withered Delilah".
It's a healthy mix of weight distribution among the band and a winning formula that's kept Slash in fresh leather pants and drug abuse for over 20 years. Personally, I preferred Apocalyptic Love and would recommend that album to anyone who likes Riff-Based Rock. It's an hour of Guitar Hero music and there will always be room in my iTunes library for that. However, World On Fire is a must-listen to anyone who likes Hard Rock as there's something for most preferences, whether you favour vocally driven belters or heavy drumming tracks. The biggest downside is that there isn't as much repeat value but that may be down to personal taste.
I rate it 8/10 for having many enjoyable tracks that don't disappoint or feel like carbon copies at first listen. I'm mostly just relieved that Slash didn't feel the need to include shite covers and 8 minute piano ballads, as I'm almost certain Axl pricking Rose pushed for during the GNR days. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Axl was responsible for all of GNR's cruddiest tracks but I'm too apathetic about the band to want to research my claims so I'll just remain in blissfully ignorant hate until someone puts me straight.
Are you gonna be that someone? Have anything else to add to the Axl debate? Feel free to voice opinions in the comments...unless you're a fanboy. If you are an Axl Rose fanboy and/or GNR purist, feel free to run far away-ay-ay-ay-ay.
* Except for a boy in front of me who was using his mum's shoulder as a pillow throughout the second half, poor little bunny.
Of course the rest of the band nailed their respective parts too but it was easily a combination of powerful vocals and furious fretting that made the night spectacular. That and the fantastic decade-spanning setlist. So with that in mind, what did I think of their latest album?
Before you read this review, I need to make one thing even clearer than I've already made it.
I don't like Axl Rose.
Not in the slightest.
I think he's fucking terrible.
He may be technically skilled but that means sod-all if the finished product sounds like a rooster. That's like commending someone for being a technically proficient arsonist or BNP spokesperson.
No, this isn't because of the whole Activision lawsuit thing. I actually agreed with him on that one. I don't like him because he's the single driving force behind my ambivalence towards Guns N' Roses. I know for a fact that I would enjoy them a lot more if he had no influence or purpose in the band, although sadly I can't prove it. All I can do is base my theories on the last five years of Slash's musical career.
I had a theory a while ago that Axl Rose ruined Hard Rock but I've since adapted that into a hypothesis that Axl Rose only tainted Hard Rock, merely ruining Guns N' Roses and his reputation. Some of their songs have awesome riffs but hearing Axl rasp "motherfucker" pisses them down. Thankfully, Slash's solo work is slowly trying to make up for it, almost like a spoilt child's dad apologising to the other parents at a birthday party for spawning such a little cunt.
I came close to forgiving and forgetting after hearing Apocalyptic Love for the first time last year. It's full of Hard Rock, pure and simple. The slower songs still pack a punch and manage to sound softer without going into handbag sporting Aerosmith territory. So with that in mind, I was looking forward to Slash's follow up to see if he would continue with more of the same or develop his sound into something new.
Interestingly enough, he's managed to do both.
World On Fire starts off with an aptly named explosive bang, doing what every great album opener does by setting the bar high. Fortunately, the band manage to maintain that high (unlike Judas Priest did with their latest offering) with a strong collection of face melters and headbangers. If there's one thing you can learn from Slash's music (and let's face it, you're unlikely to learn more than one or two things), it's that he's the Ronseal of Hard Rock. He does exactly what it says on the tin...uhh, album.
The songs don't contain metaphors concealed within another metaphor mirroring art under the pretence of bollocks and if that's what you strive for in music then go cream yourself over David fucking Bowie like all the other tossers out there who say things like "Bravo" without sarcasm. Slash's music is straight forward, down to Earth and fucking awesome. It doesn't need to be analysed, it just needs to be heard and that's something that remains constant throughout all three of his solo albums.
Whilst the debut had a series of guest musicians, making it easily comparable to previous album which introduced Myles Kennedy & The Conspirators as 'the band', the main difference between this and Apocalyptic Love is the number of songs that feel slightly less guitar-oriented. Whilst it's clear Slash's signature is scrawled across the record, it certainly feels like the band have had more input with the creation of this material. You've got your slower, more ensemble based songs like "Battleground", "The Unholy" and "Dirty Girl" along with ones crying to be played on a six-string such as "Bent To Fly", "Avalon" and "Withered Delilah".
It's a healthy mix of weight distribution among the band and a winning formula that's kept Slash in fresh leather pants and drug abuse for over 20 years. Personally, I preferred Apocalyptic Love and would recommend that album to anyone who likes Riff-Based Rock. It's an hour of Guitar Hero music and there will always be room in my iTunes library for that. However, World On Fire is a must-listen to anyone who likes Hard Rock as there's something for most preferences, whether you favour vocally driven belters or heavy drumming tracks. The biggest downside is that there isn't as much repeat value but that may be down to personal taste.
I rate it 8/10 for having many enjoyable tracks that don't disappoint or feel like carbon copies at first listen. I'm mostly just relieved that Slash didn't feel the need to include shite covers and 8 minute piano ballads, as I'm almost certain Axl pricking Rose pushed for during the GNR days. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Axl was responsible for all of GNR's cruddiest tracks but I'm too apathetic about the band to want to research my claims so I'll just remain in blissfully ignorant hate until someone puts me straight.
Are you gonna be that someone? Have anything else to add to the Axl debate? Feel free to voice opinions in the comments...unless you're a fanboy. If you are an Axl Rose fanboy and/or GNR purist, feel free to run far away-ay-ay-ay-ay.
* Except for a boy in front of me who was using his mum's shoulder as a pillow throughout the second half, poor little bunny.
