I was listening to Bucharest 2010 tonight...

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, highvoltage said:

I don't know about that. I'm not in love with 2002 Axl, far from it. When I talk about "clean", I'm also referring to his voice pre-88.

In my view, the Adelaide performance is as close to OG Axl as you can get. For me, it's leagues ahead of the Bucharest DC. This is the Axl I'm talking about:

 

I hear what you're saying, but to my ears, I still hear a difference between his 86 vocals (less raspy) and the Adelaide performance you're highlighting.  He's still using his head voice in the 86 videos, where he's using more his falsetto voice for the Australian show.  There's still a tonal and timber difference between the two.  At least, that's how I hear it.  He's still using the same singing techniques in these old videos as he was using post 1988.  It's just after 1988, all that stress he's putting on his vocal folds is beginning to take its toll, resulting in him sound liking a squawking parrot by 1991-1992.  I'd argue he's using different techniques in the Adelaide clip you posted.  But like I said, to each their own.  

[highvoltage]

30 minutes ago, downzy said:

I hear what you're saying, but to my ears, I still hear a difference between his 86 vocals (less raspy) and the Adelaide performance you're highlighting.  He's still using his head voice in the 86 videos, where he's using more his falsetto voice for the Australian show.  There's still a tonal and timber difference between the two.  At least, that's how I hear it.  He's still using the same singing techniques in these old videos as he was using post 1988.  It's just after 1988, all that stress he's putting on his vocal folds is beginning to take its toll, resulting in him sound liking a squawking parrot by 1991-1992.  I'd argue he's using different techniques in the Adelaide clip you posted.  But like I said, to each their own.  

Yeah, there's no question it's an entirely different vocal technique. I'm just saying that if you listen to the two back to back, it sounds very close to the real deal. Closer than Bucharest (to my ears) anyway.  

[GNRfan2008]

All I know is Don't Cry Acoustic at The Central in 1986 is pretty much one of the best YouTube videos ever. Legendary band playing a song that would (5 years later) be a Top 10 hit on the American pop charts to a crowd that thinks so little of the bums on stage that they talk right over them the whole time. The band plays their asses off and Axl gives one of the most bone-chilling vocal performances you will ever hear. 

I feel that video is priceless. God bless Marc Canter for capturing it. 

[downzy]

11 minutes ago, highvoltage said:

Yeah, there's no question it's an entirely different vocal technique. I'm just saying that if you listen to the two back to back, it sounds very close to the real deal. Closer than Bucharest (to my ears) anyway.  

Yeah, I agree with that.  

Again, for me personally, I'll take the '91-'93 sound and 2010 return to form over the cleaner sound, save for some of the Chinese Democracy stuff.  I've only known Madagascar sung with the post 2002 era vocal techniques/style, so it sounds "right" when performed that way.  

[rudolf1978]

Now we are far from his top form in 2010 ..........but as critic as i am with Axl when singing with that awfull Mickey mouse voice,checking last night videos there is a little hope someday he will perform like 2010.There are bits of rasp where there was non,like CW....

[HollyWoodRose84]

Compare Axl with any singer from his generation and there's no comparison. The fact that he's still ABLE to sing is a miracle. We also don't know about his vocal struggles because he's never openly discussed them. Did he have cancer? Or a thyroid problem? Surgery to repair vocal nodules? The only comparable singer is Tom Keifer from Cinderella (IMO the most underrated singer,songwriter from the 80s), he completely lost his voice because of a virus that caused paralysis of his vocal chords, was told he would never sing again and has come back sounding better than ever. Think about all the smoking and drinking Axl did. Again, the fact that he can still sing is a miracle. Vince Neil? Joe Elliot? Bon Jovi? David Coverdale? Don Dokken? They all sound TERRIBLE now if you compare them to Axl. Just my two cents. I think the guy deserves a break. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by HollyWoodRose84

[GNRfan2008]

4 minutes ago, HollyWoodRose84 said:

Compare Axl with any singer from his generation and there's no comparison. The fact that he's still ABLE to sing is a miracle. We also don't know about his vocal struggles because he's never openly discussed them. Did he have cancer? Or a thyroid problem? Surgery to repair vocal nodules? The only comparable singer is Tom Keifer from Cinderella (IMO the most underrated singer,songwriter from the 80s), he completely lost his voice because of a virus that caused paralysis of his vocal chords, was told he would never sing again and has come back sounding better than ever. Think about all the smoking and drinking Axl did. Again, the fact that he can still sing is a miracle. Vince Neil? Joe Elliot? Bon Jovi? David Coverdale? Don Dokken? They all sound TERRIBLE now if you compare them to Axl. Just my two cents. I think the guy deserves a break. 

Keifer doesn't sound better than ever. It's a miracle he can sing these days given what he went through, but he doesn't go for the high notes like he used to. Sings "Don't Know What You Got" in a much lower voice and has his wife on stage to help sing it. Definitely agree that he was very underrated. When I think of the hair metal era, a lot of those singers sounded way too similar (Bret Michaels, Vince Neil, on and on). Keifer and Axl stood out compared to everyone else because of the rasp in their voices. You could easily see those guys fitting in with a 70's hard rock band whereas the other singers sounded way too polished.

[john lennon]

Axl really shouldn't wear blue jeans.

 

[HollyWoodRose84]

2 hours ago, GNRfan2008 said:

Keifer doesn't sound better than ever. It's a miracle he can sing these days given what he went through, but he doesn't go for the high notes like he used to. Sings "Don't Know What You Got" in a much lower voice and has his wife on stage to help sing it. Definitely agree that he was very underrated. When I think of the hair metal era, a lot of those singers sounded way too similar (Bret Michaels, Vince Neil, on and on). Keifer and Axl stood out compared to everyone else because of the rasp in their voices. You could easily see those guys fitting in with a 70's hard rock band whereas the other singers sounded way too polished.

I've seen Keifer perform at least 20 times since 2004 Actually seeing him next weekend. He sounds better than ever live especially that he is singing with one vocal chord that is paralyzed. Savannah only sings with him during the beginning when they do an acoustic version of the song which then morphs into the electric version. Talking with Tom, he said it's mainly all about breath control which is something many of the 80s singers didn't really worry about until they got older. Everyone just sang. Tom had zero vocal training and never went to a coach until the late 90s. I agree with all of your other points though. 

[Heisenberg]

I was at firs show after Bucharest, what a special year for GnR.
4:03 one of the highlights of the whole tour for me, band sounded amazing, they had good chemistry. Even Frank drumming fitted.

He sang This I Love with ease.
 

Axl was so into it, look at those moves, interaction with Ashba and Bumble, he was at his best!
 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Heisenberg

[The Glow Inc.]

Yeah, 2010 was a great year. One of the best concerts I've ever seen and I can't even say Slash would have made it better. It was THAT good.

[tkarmy]

On 2016-04-21 at 9:23 PM, downzy said:

I hear what you're saying, but to my ears, I still hear a difference between his 86 vocals (less raspy) and the Adelaide performance you're highlighting.  He's still using his head voice in the 86 videos, where he's using more his falsetto voice for the Australian show.  There's still a tonal and timber difference between the two.  At least, that's how I hear it.  He's still using the same singing techniques in these old videos as he was using post 1988.  It's just after 1988, all that stress he's putting on his vocal folds is beginning to take its toll, resulting in him sound liking a squawking parrot by 1991-1992.  I'd argue he's using different techniques in the Adelaide clip you posted.  But like I said, to each their own.  

yea you nailed it. I've taken about 10 years of lessons. And Axl 86-93 is primarily chest voice pushed through the throat. 2001-2007 was when the head, chest voice hybrid came in, although he seemed to be able to do the mid range high E-A still with some chest voice but struggled. Now that same range is done all with head voice. He can really get the rasp on the really high stuff and around the c-e range with chest but like in the verses in sweet child where the notes are all mid range E-A its all head voice and thin.

2010 he seemed to go back to 91-13 era chest voice

[downzy]

4 minutes ago, tkarmy said:

yea you nailed it. I've taken about 10 years of lessons. And Axl 86-93 is primarily chest voice pushed through the throat. 2001-2007 was when the head, chest voice hybrid came in, although he seemed to be able to do the mid range high E-A still with some chest voice but struggled. Now that same range is done all with head voice. He can really get the rasp on the really high stuff and around the c-e range with chest but like in the verses in sweet child where the notes are all mid range E-A its all head voice and thin.

2010 he seemed to go back to 91-13 era chest voice

Thanks for breaking down the note range.  Out of sheer laziness I didn't go to my piano/keyborad to sound out the ranges.  

Part of me thinks a lot of it has to do with the frequency he actually sings.  Between 1985 and 1993 he was singing a lot, perhaps never taking more than a month off before either touring or recording.  Then there was this nearly decade long break between the Illusion tours and the first few shows in the 2000s.  We do know that generally and to a degree the longer the band tour the better he sounds (and when I say better, I mean more power and rasp).  Perhaps he was doing a fair amount of singing prior to the 2010 tour that got his vocals in shape? Or maybe it's not something he can sustain in the long run, which is fair considering the considerable amount of strain he's putting on his vocal folds.  

[GivenToFly]

On 21 April 2016 at 2:42 AM, Strange Broue said:

I wwas there, probably the best gig i've ever saw in my life 

Crowd was pretty crap though, but yeah the performance was pretty amazing.

For me, I'd rate it second, because I caught the O2 night 2 show the following month that had an approximately equally good performance but better setlist, better venue, MUCH better crowd and a historical quality (Duff).

[downzy]

Please refrain from insulting those who you may not agree with.  Whether general or targeted at one particular individual, posts that include abusive or insulting language will not be tolerated on this forum.