so what? what's your point?

the parameters of the review, the scope of the review, any review, discussing the song selection & playing is as valid a criteria for judging the show as as the late starts.

& that review is for Classic Rock Magazine readers. it's not like it's appearing in one of the daily newspapers.
my point there is, i think a lot of the Classic Rock readers would be willing to read about the politics (for want of a better word) of the show. & maybe more importantly, a lot of them will have experienced the show at some stage & wondering if there's anything new for them - 2 of my mates didn't go the 2 most recent times they've played Ireland partially due to familiarity of their previous live experiences (fwiw, the other main reason they didnt go was the gigs took place on a weeknight). & they'd read Classic Rock. & i read it & i'd want these things discussed in the review.
& i gotta wonder about the motives why the review didn't go into detail on it. i'm p sure they're still beholden to the seriously misguided belief if they don't criticise Him too much He'll maybe deign them worth of a World Exclusive Interview someday, cause really they've always been that way & always will be. (& what's really crazy it's cause that's the way He wants it!)

Ever heard of Oasis?
What about The Beatles? They were these four guys from Liverpool...

I kid of course. The Stone Roses were very much a UK phenomenon. They captured a moment, the rock band for the acid house-era. They incorporated that rave-style sound into transcendent trippy pop-rock anthems. & they did it majestically.

Seriously I can't recommend highly enough. Smoke a big bifter & fire on their debut. It's great music.

Remember how awesome it was driving over Shady Creek & up into San Fierro w/ Axl & Skynyrd Freebird for company?

Ah.. We spent a great summer together that summer..

Until the shitty stealth missions like in the casino & the shitty aeroplane flying threatened to ruin it..

But it was great while it lasted. Unforgettable!

I was [half] joking about him (& Slash, but I guess you missed that ) wrecking the band, in this thread. But you knew that...

'let the insanity begin'???

Again, I only mentioned the name to speculate on his motivation & it's something I think is still relevant.
I don't care whether he dropped or kept or stole the name & how to measure its success. I care about it as a means of judging his ambition/desire in relation to new material, which is the topic of this thread. I think the reasons for his taking the name are still evident today & in what he's doing. It echoes in his behaviour all down the line, that hes more interested in bizness one-up-manship & power than creating & connecting. Ive explained this often but you seem intent in bringing the argument round to 'well its his band he can do what he wants' which really isn't my point.

& btw the idea of it being 'his band' is surely an oxymoron or something. You cant own a collective, you're part of it, you share a band. But that's nitpicking. Hmm... Maybe the Stalin thing does bear some comparison after all...

Calm down a bit. I'm "butt-hurt"? Ok if u say so but I dunno what about..

If you understand why he kept the name then explain it to me. That's the point I'm getting at.
From what I can tell from ur posts/attitude u seem to buy into the retroactive BS lies about it being his name originally. My point is its p clear he took the name due to the financial benefits & brand power.
I don't see why we can't discuss this respectfully. & to me the cowardice exhibited in taking the name is still apparent & manifest in todays stasis. In fact you're the one acting butthurt cause people have different ideas on the validity of axls behaviour.