Jump to content

Is Axl Rose the greatest singer of all time?


Recommended Posts

Those discussions are a bit pointless. Prime Axl was a force of nature, an unstoppable one. I remember my dad (massive rock fan but into older stuff and filled with prejudice) watching the Freddie Mercury tribute and being absolutely blown away, in a "oh my god listen to this motherfucker" way. Axl was surely mind blowing, he could floor a stadium in any given single moment. In terms of comparing the best moments, I'd say Axl is a world class frontmanm for sure.

Sadly, Axl is very inconsistent. Dips in form and lack of material really hinder his standing among rock gods. He's been vocally amazing in three distinct periods: 1988-1993, 2006-2007 and 2009-2010. His voice in 2001-2002 and 2011-2017 immediately removes him from any best ever discussion. It is a shame that his creative output is also questionable. Axl's fantastic years after the  90'uuts were kind of wasted with a single album of new material.

2017 Axl is not in any "best ever" discussion. He gets a lot of shit, but he is a very competent singer with unbelievable range. Still, he doesn't sound like his old self, except when singing for AC/DC. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Holographic Universe said:

I know you love CD. Can you think of another frontman who created a work of art like that without his band? Ever heard jaggers solo stuff?

Some of it. There's normally a track that might be on a Stones record. God gave me Everything? But I don't think Jagger ever went all in either. He just got Lenny Kravitz in or some shit.  Axl didn't really lower his ambitions, he just went all in for his vision of GNR,  because Slash wasn't there and some of the Guns stuff was heavily Axl like Nov Rain. Axl being meticulous and doing songs with all these instruments and parts, that's Axl. Axl was definitely making sure it was on the same level as a GNR album. If it was Axl solo he might just do ACDC covers with Baz and do some Elton songs. But the GNR came with expectations. That plus the risk of mixing 90s rock into it, and living up the name. Axl's got to be crazy at least a little bit to even try.   You could relate it to those 90s collective bands like NIN where Trent is in control or JohnHomme in QOTSA. Axl at least had the time on the project. It wasnt a solo album in and out situation. And they had money for studio time, big producers. The Beatles had freedom too, but I'm not sure there's many artists that even get to that point to be able to try anything too different. Stones were probably just surviving until the 90s tour money. Axl could do whatever he wanted really. 

Jagger did some experimentation in the Stones didn't he? they reflected New wave and punk a little. Mid era is less "serious", they found the pop rock niche. In a weird way the Stones got away with a lot mailing some of mid era albums in with reggae covers, after those big albums they did, but they had the line up and the name. Itvwasca different time and situation I guess. I love Undercover and Black n Blue though. But are they artistic masterpieces? There's nothing tying me in knots anyway. But there's no distinction or clarity of statement. CD is an explosion you have to put back together. 

My thought was Axl took Dj Ashba and Bumblefoot to Rock in Rio. But I guess some might say that's not Axl that's the songs and name. 

Edited by wasted
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wasted said:

Some of it. There's normally a track that might be on a Stones record. God gave me Everything? But I don't think Jagger ever went all in either. He just got Lenny Kravitz in or some shit.  Axl didn't really lower his ambitions, he just went all in for his vision of GNR,  because Slash wasn't there and some of the Guns stuff was heavily Axl like Nov Rain. Axl being meticulous and doing songs with all these instruments and parts, that's Axl. Axl was definitely making sure it was on the same level as a GNR album. If it was Axl solo he might just do ACDC covers with Baz and do some Elton songs. But the GNR came with expectations. That plus the risk of mixing 90s rock into it, and living up the name. Axl's got to be crazy at least a little bit to even try.   You could relate it to those 90s collective bands like NIN where Trent is in control or JohnHomme in QOTSA. Axl at least had the time on the project. It wasnt a solo album in and out situation. And they had money for studio time, big producers. The Beatles had freedom too, but I'm not sure there's many artists that even get to that point to be able to try anything too different. Stones were probably just surviving until the 90s tour money. Axl could do whatever he wanted really. 

Jagger did some experimentation in the Stones didn't he? they reflected New wave and punk a little. Mid era is less "serious", they found the pop rock niche. In a weird way the Stones got away with a lot mailing some of mid era albums in with reggae covers, after those big albums they did, but they had the line up and the name. Itvwasca different time and situation I guess. 

My thought was Axl took Dj Ashba and Bumblefoot to Rock in Rio. But I guess some might say that's not Axl that's the songs and name. 

That gave something to think about. Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's entirely subjective. Axl is the best singer for Guns N Roses and nobody sings those songs like Axl does. But Axl would sound shit singing a Prince song. Axl said he wanted to do a tribute after Prince died, but he knew he couldn't do it justice.

IMO, greatest of all time means that you have DIVERSITY. Prince can sing rock (he's covered Foo Fighters, The Stones, The Beatles and Radiohead and sounded great). But he also sings jazz, funk, pop, soul, R&B... and doesn't only pull them off, he sounds incredible. Try and find a bad Prince live vocal. You won't, because it doesn't exist. The man was never flat or out of key. MJ has that same diversity. This is why I would consider these type of singers to be superior to someone who just sticks to one genre only.

Axl just does hard rock. And he does it amazingly (on a good day), but that's it.

Edited by Towelie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rock frontman? Definitely one of the best. 

Best singer - that's a joke. Not even in the discussion. 

Best rock singer - not even top ten. His vocals have always been up and down. Even back in his prime his vocals were often not that great. 

Best frontman? You can safely throw him in the top 50 discussion. 

Best ROCK frontman - that's the only legit conversation.  Axl had the talent and potential to end his career as #1. And for a 4-5 year period he was in the goat debate. But lack of material and inconsistent vocal performances have really dampened his career in terms of individual rankings. 

But is he YOUR favorite singer or frontman of all time? That's all that should really matter to you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of ALL time?  I dunno if I'm knowledge of human history is that broad but in terms of contemporary popular music?  Fuck no.  Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye, Otis Redding, all better singers than Axl.  Best frontman?  Again, no.  James Brown, Mick Jagger, easily better.  Jim Morrison, easily better, Iggy Pop, easily better...and thats me being objective, if I were to let personal feelings and taste and inclination get in the mix I'd put Johnny Rotten in there too, easily better, Joe Strummer, easily better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least for rock n roll ,  Of course he is.

Only mercury cant fight him on this, but axl haves so many levels that its pretty much imposible to touch him.  Even this days the guy can be the meanest soab and rule while singin "back in black or wttj", being a cool strong f...er on songs like "cd or seeker",  .., being a delicate soft inlover on "nr, patience"  bein a rocknroller b..ass on stuff like nightrain or s.to.thrill,   .  diferent soft/hard/nice/kick..ss on stuff like til or lald..

 

And if u want discuss perhaps 93 axl..  NO CONTEST.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SEPTEM said:

At least for rock n roll ,  Of course he is.

Only mercury cant fight him on this, but axl haves so many levels that its pretty much imposible to touch him.  Even this days the guy can be the meanest soab and rule while singin "back in black or wttj", being a cool strong f...er on songs like "cd or seeker",  .., being a delicate soft inlover on "nr, patience"  bein a rocknroller b..ass on stuff like nightrain or s.to.thrill,   .  diferent soft/hard/nice/kick..ss on stuff like til or lald..

 

And if u want discuss perhaps 93 axl..  NO CONTEST.

 

 

So you discount all the horrible "vocal" performances from Axl during his career - even from back in his prime days?

Axl's vocals have always been inconsistent live. Go back and listen to 91-93 performances on YouTube. Some of them are cringeworthy. 

Was the effort, energy and spirit there? Yes. At level 10.  But did he often also sound like a dying cat or like a guy with bronchitis? Unfortunately yes. 

In terms of just pure vocals, even a guy like Sebastian Bach blows Axl out of the water. 

Lots of singers can sing a multitude of different styles. Even that Aaron Lewis guy did a tour awhile back where he played nothing but covers - ranging from metal to rock to pure pop. And he sounded great doing everything from GnR to Four Non-Blonds. 

Axl Rose is my favorite rock singer of all time. Hands down. But best singer or frontman of all time? That's just a silly claim for anybody to make. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, jamillos said:

There are many, many aspects in this, but all in all – and with the exception of Freddie – I think... YES.

If you're saying with the exception of Freddie, then your answer is simply no.

Edited by tsinindy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was the best singer of all time. Seriously, Axl had a ridiculous vocal range for a male. Speaking from a technical standpoint, his performances 1986-2010 (barring 01/02) were simply brilliant save for some blatant exceptions. Even in 2006, he demonstrated his insane range on his cover of Sailing. What happened after 2010 will live on as a mystery for the rest of all time...but unfortunately, his performances 2011+ take away his greatest singer status. He can't pull off the middle range anymore and has no energy. He used to be brilliant and a legend, but the voice that made Axl who he was has fled. 

 

Edited by AxlRoseCDII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was a beast as a frontman. A great frontman. The best one ever? I don't think so but it's up to you.

The best singer ever? He had/has a very large range and maybe he is your favorite singer, but there are plenty of singers and rock singers out there who are much more technical skilled. So, of a technically point of view, no, he isn't the best. But does that matter if you like him the most? It's a personal thing, a matter of taste. 

There are people out there who consider Kurt Cobain to be a better frontman than Axl and a better guitarist than Slash, so... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what era we're talking about and if we're talking technique or just raw power. He's definitely in the discussion if we're talking 87-93. Personally, I think he's one of the greatest when it comes to vocal power but as for sound and technique it's hard to tell as there were so many singers before him who were also extremely talented. 

I will say, however, that he is definitely in the discussion for best front man. He had so much energy in his prime and really knew how to work a crowd and communicate with them. He can still be a mesmerizing performer when he wants to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...