Jump to content

Was Axl a Poser during UYI Era?


Recommended Posts

Another quote by Slash:

Axl is a dramatic kind of individual. Everything he says or does has a meaning, a theatrical place in his mind,

in a blown-out-of-proportion kind of way. Little things become greatly exaggerated, so that interactions with people can become magnified into major issues.

The bottom line is, he has his own way of looking at things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he was a poser. So was everyone else in GNR. So was Marilyn Manson, James Hetfield, Kurt Cobain and pretty much everyone who's ever lived on this planet. Everyone has a public image that they've created perhaps subconsciously and as much as we try to be real, everyone's sometimes pretending to be something they're not.

On the other hand you might also argue that nobody is a poser, because it's not even possible to be something you're not. What you do is what you are. If you're pretending to be a though guy, then your true self is a guy who's pretending to be though guy. You're not posing, but you are who you genuinely are.

Oh well. I love Marilyn Manson, but I don't agree with his statements about Axl. Axl released songs like One In A Million and Look At Your Game Girl, and in my opinion he did back himself up. I don't know what it is that Manson calls crying to the press like a pussy. What did he say that sounded like crying? I really don't know. Just because he didn't say things that Marilyn Manson thinks he should have said to back himself up, doesn't mean that he didn't back himself up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RONIN said:

Was there any truth to James Hetfield's nickname for the redhead : Axl "Pose"?

I don't want this thread to derail so let me be more specific -- for anyone that was around during the UYI era, was Axl perceived as trying to be something he was not? I.e. Lacking authenticity/integrity?

 

I saw GN'R in 91, 92 & 93 so I think I'm qualified to give my $0.02 here.

I'll say this: I never felt that way at the time, but sometimes I look back at things like Tokyo and cringe a little. Do I think he was one pissed off dude and showing it through his performance and rants? Yes. Do I think he was a person who wanted us expand out musical horizons? No. I'm not doubting that he was a fan of many different types of music, but the NWA & Nirvana gear comes off a little disingenuous to me when I look back at times. 

As far as the music/lyrics go, I don't think he was a poser. I've said this many times about Axl and I still believe it to this day; I think Axl believes everything he's saying when he says it. So when he write lyrics about getting over things, moving on and moving forward, I think he believes it. Then when he goes out on tour singing those songs all while not being able to do any of it himself, doesn't bother me overall. I don't think it makes him a poser that he couldn't follow his on advice. I just think it makes him a dude who believed those things when he wrote them but couldn't follow through on it himself.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I saw GN'R in 91, 92 & 93 so I think I'm qualified to give my $0.02 here.

I'll say this: I never felt that way at the time, but sometimes I look back at things like Tokyo and cringe a little. Do I think he was one pissed off dude and showing it through his performance and rants? Yes. Do I think he was a person who wanted us expand out musical horizons? No. I'm not doubting that he was a fan of many different types of music, but the NWA & Nirvana gear comes off a little disingenuous to me when I look back at times. 

As far as the music/lyrics go, I don't think he was a poser. I've said this many times about Axl and I still believe it to this day; I think Axl believes everything he's saying when he says it. So when he write lyrics about getting over things, moving on and moving forward, I think he believes it. Then when he goes out on tour singing those songs all while not being able to do any of it himself, doesn't bother me overall. I don't think it makes him a poser that he couldn't follow his on advice. I just think it makes him a dude who believed those things when he wrote them but couldn't follow through on it himself.

or it's just make him human. Axl is one of the few i see not acting like a poser.

OT: What shows did you attend in 91-93? must have been great :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, estranged_85 said:

or it's just make him human. Axl is one of the few i see not acting like a poser.

OT: What shows did you attend in 91-93? must have been great :D

That's more or less what I was trying to say; that I don't think he was being a poser with his beliefs but a little bit with his clothing, etc.

OT Answer: 91 at the Toledo Speedway, 92 at the Pontiac Silverdome, 93 at The Palace of Auburn Hills

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

That's more or less what I was trying to say; that I don't think he was being a poser with his beliefs but a little bit with his clothing, etc.

OT Answer: 91 at the Toledo Speedway, 92 at the Pontiac Silverdome, 93 at The Palace of Auburn Hills

I didn't disagree with you =)

okey! jealous not at all :headbang:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

I'll say this: I never felt that way at the time, but sometimes I look back at things like Tokyo and cringe a little. Do I think he was one pissed off dude and showing it through his performance and rants? Yes. Do I think he was a person who wanted us expand out musical horizons? No. I'm not doubting that he was a fan of many different types of music, but the NWA & Nirvana gear comes off a little disingenuous to me when I look back at times. 
 

I am curious why you think it is disingenuous. Could you expand on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he was pretending to be someone he was not. He was true to himself in that sense.

I do think he was a diva and his ego got out of control and that definitely hurt his street cred in the early 90s.

Especially with the change in the music industry and a lot of alternative and garage bands that got exposure looked like how the kids looked, there wasn't a lot of difference between the guys on stage and the kids in the crowd. It became very anti-rockstar after the Nirvana's and Pearl Jam's got big, and especially Axl looked and acted like a rockstar. Although he got in on the flannel and early 90's fashion, he still acted like a diva. Kurt Cobain was vomiting blood and OD'ing half hour before the show and still made it on time for the show, while Axl already cancelled if his throat hurt. That's not good for your street cred.

Edited by EvanG
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for bands changing their sound and one of the reasons I really liked GNR was because the UYI albums sound very different from AFD. But there's evolution and there's appelaing to the masses and selling out.

U2 have always changed their sound and they were always a pop band. None of their reinventions sound forced. They were natural. The band members agreed on follow a certain directions.

Axl wanted to force Slash, Duff, Gilby, etc. to do something they never wanted. He saw GNR as his solo project. He destroyed the band by doing that.

That's why CD is not the lol natural evolution to the UYI/GNR sound. It's a messy Axl solo project, never a GNR record. It's Axl impressed by new music and thinking 'I can do that too'. How wrong he is/was.

Axl wanted to look cool to the 90s kids. By doing that, he destroyed a great hard rock band.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, maynard said:

 

That's why CD is not the lol natural evolution to the UYI/GNR sound. It's a messy Axl solo project, never a GNR record. It's Axl impressed by new music and thinking 'I can do that too'. How wrong he is/was.

 

I commend him for trying something new, at least he's not the Foo Fighters or Aerosmith, both great bands, but they've never changed their sound and keep making the same albums. But I agree that he shouldn't have used the GnR name, that was really his biggest mistake. Whether CD is any good or not is purely subjective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what @RussTCB says for the most part.  However, I feel as if there was a huge change in Axl during this whole timeframe (91-93).   Having seen the band in early 91 (twice) and then again in mid-92, I recall Axl being different in mid-92.

Personally in 91 I felt as if Axl had "attitude", but by mid-92 that had changed to hate.  I hope that makes sense, bc it's hard to explain.  Another way to put it is in 1991 it felt "controlled", but it 1992 it had boiled over and advanced to a point of out of control.   

 

5 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I commend him for trying something new, at least he's not the Foo Fighters or Aerosmith, both great bands, but they've never changed their sound and keep making the same albums. But I agree that he shouldn't have used the GnR name, that was really his biggest mistake. Whether CD is any good or not is purely subjective.

 

This too is exactly how I feel...exactly.

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

Why this didn't just happen we'll never know.  This is exactly what they shoulda done- Axl gotten this garbage out of his system, Duff sober up, Slash & Matt clean up/clear heads, Gilby coulda toured and worked as studio musician for others and/or even Axl and then regrouped in '96 (or even later) - all a bit older and wiser yet with great years ahead.

"And I was like, 'Cool! Do your thing. That way you'll get it out of your system, and when you get back we'll just be Guns N' Roses.'" (Slash, Metal Hammer, 11/95)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I commend him for trying something new, at least he's not the Foo Fighters or Aerosmith, both great bands, but they've never changed their sound and keep making the same albums. But I agree that he shouldn't have used the GnR name, that was really his biggest mistake. Whether CD is any good or not is purely subjective.

 

I'd commed him if it was a case of him truly getting to understand how noise, experimental, EDM, industrial, alternative rock or even nu metal work. CD is the sound of a fish out of water, IMO. It's too pretentious for me to respect it. Axl is a singer and piano player, not Trent Reznor.

Aerosmith changed their sound in the 90s and became a good pop rock band IMO. They moved to a new direction as a band. (They sold out a bit but fuck, 'Pink' and 'Miss a Thing' are damn good songs). Axl wanted to force GNR to become something else by himself. I can't commend that either.

Agreed on using the GNR name being a mistake.

I'll always think about an angry Axl solo record with 12 Oh My Gods. Produced by Sean Beaven. Axl singing like a demon (and not assuming production duties). Guitars by Robin and BH.

 

A man can dream.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, maynard said:

I'd commed him if it was a case of him truly getting to understand how noise, experimental, EDM, industrial, alternative rock or even nu metal work. CD is the sound of a fish out of water, IMO. It's too pretentious for me to respect it. Axl is a singer and piano player, not Trent Reznor.

Aerosmith changed their sound in the 90s and became a good pop rock band IMO. They moved to a new direction as a band. (They sold out a bit but fuck, 'Pink' and 'Miss a Thing' are damn good songs). Axl wanted to force GNR to become something else by himself. I can't commend that either.

Agreed on using the GNR name being a mistake.

I'll always think about an angry Axl solo record with 12 Oh My Gods. Produced by Sean Beaven. Axl singing like a demon (and not assuming production duties). Guitars by Robin and BH.

 

 

 

 

Maybe CD was exactly what he wanted, I understand you not liking it, that's cool, you can't argue taste, but for him this album might not be a failure at all. Personally I only like half of it, but if this album represents what he wanted to make then I can only respect that, even if I'm not on board. 

I really like Aerosmith, but they didn't really change a lot in the last 45 years. Yes, they went more pop and mainstream since the 70's, but compared to a lot of other bands they haven't changed much at all. I mean, when I think about artists or bands really evolving musically I think about David Bowie and Radiohead. Whether you like their transformation or not, at least they're keeping it interesting for themselves and aren't doing the same thing every time.

Edited by EvanG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

Maybe CD was exactly what he wanted, I understand you not liking it, that's cool, you can't argue taste, but for him this album might not be a failure at all. Personally I only like half of it, but if this album represents what he wanted to make then I can only respect that.

I really like Aerosmith, but they didn't really change a lot in the last 45 years. Yes, they went more pop and mainstream since the 70's, but compared to a lot of other bands they haven't changed much at all. I mean, when I think about artists or bands really evolving musically I think about David Bowie and Radiohead. Whether you like their transformation or not, at least they're keeping it interesting for themselves and aren't doing the same thing every time.

Sure. But Aerosmith is more of a fair comparsion. Axl is many leagues below Bowie and Radiohead. Although his pretentiousness is much higher than theirs.

I don't think CD is really what he wanted. He kept adding stuff as new musicians were hired. I think the closest we will hear from Axl's original vision (I hate this word, in this context) are the Rio 3 versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Original said:

Why this didn't just happen we'll never know.  This is exactly what they shoulda done- Axl gotten this garbage out of his system, Duff sober up, Slash & Matt clean up/clear heads, Gilby coulda toured and worked as studio musician for others and/or even Axl and then regrouped in '96 (or even later) - all a bit older and wiser yet with great years ahead.

"And I was like, 'Cool! Do your thing. That way you'll get it out of your system, and when you get back we'll just be Guns N' Roses.'" (Slash, Metal Hammer, 11/95)

If only... :( 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, double talkin jive mfkr said:

of course not, this is what made axl one of a kind, his willingness to fully branch out 

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Honestly, he could've done like one or two experimental songs in '94/'95 and just let Slash/Duff/Matt handle the rest of the album. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DIST said:

Axl Rose was the king of rock n roll in the illusions era. 

He set the bar so high, nothing like that had ever been seen before and 30 years later no one has come even close. 

How's that?   what exactly did he do that had never been seen before?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DIST said:

Ferocity in vocal and physical performance, greatest performer of all time.

LOL greatest Performer who can't even sing right many times. Right. On a good day he's certainly one of the best. But those good days don't happen every day. And to be the best, every performance should be a good day and not be hit and miss.

  • Like 2
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...