Jump to content

To those who say age is the reason for Axl's current voice


Recommended Posts

Age by itself imo has little to do with it... I mean Axl in '01 & '02 was still fairly young and his voice was a pale shadow of its former self....with no rasp in sight. Then much older in '10 he was back at his best.

Hard to figure what's really going on with Axl's voice....

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

How can you compare three hours of constantly moving to a singer performing in a fixed position?

Axl basically does a cardio routine while singing.

3 hours? Axl is on stage for about 1 hour, the 2 extra hours are jams and solos.

Constantly moving? Maybe until 2006. His moves are slow and he barely runs on stage now. Not that I have a problem with that. My problem is with lies and make believe.

Cardio routine while singing? Maybe until 2010 when he put an extra effort to sing with power, and that must be tiresome as hell.

Stop making stuff up, MSL junior.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody actually say age is the reason???? There is no way.

Steven Tyler is one more example in his 60s who can still turn on consistent raspy/screaming vocals and is very active on stage also.

Well, yeah there are several comments on this forum who lists age as the main reason for his downfall in voice.

Steven Tyler is another good example yeah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you compare three hours of constantly moving to a singer performing in a fixed position?

Axl basically does a cardio routine while singing.

WAT? If you omitted the solo times etc. he's barely on stage for 2 hours maximum

cardio rutine? then fucking hire a personal trainer

Laughable excuse

if you constantly went out of breath (even the mickey voice) then retire for your own health sake

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

Guest Len B'stard

Yeah but you are effected by things like envoirnment, diet, if you drink or smoke, how well you look after your shit, the kinda climate you live in, how strong you are there to begin with, just because you sing the same way as someone doesn't mean you do the same thing to reach that sound, or breathe the same way (in terms of how you distribute that shit when belting it out) or exert the same pressure and like, as NGOG says, the poor cunts doing the fuckin' 100 metres while he sings half the time although i'm not sure if he does that anymore, ain't seen Guns perform since that Rock Am Ring thing in...fuck knows, years ago, weren't it? Also...like...say someone sings a certain style with ease, as in like reaches a certain pitch effortlessly...person no. 2 might have to push his fuckin' lungs out to achieve the same or similar thing vocally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's no forget that in 2010 he was really out of breath, he sounded pretty good but he wasn't as vocally confident as 2006. The problem is that you have to do pre-production for a tour, when the band are rehearsing he needs to be rehearsing the full set (making sure he can handle each song, or if a song needs to be brought down a key etc.) and getting fit (Jogging to get his breath up, and regularly warming his voice up), yes it's about warm ups and downs but getting into shape for the start of the tour is the most important step. You just can't expect to be at your best when you don't put the hours in. Look at Chris cornell, when they got Soundgarden back together he got voice lessons to regain his super high register, he spent 2 months working on it, that's what you have to do when you're the lead singer and the main focal point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think it has more to do with lack of practice/ regular care for his voice that caused his downfall cuz he was doing good in 2010.

Yep.

Mick Jagger is over 20 years older and he blows Axl off the stage, both in terms of movement and vocals. Mick also physically works out like a fiend before a tour. And then rehearses with the band for a time before they go back on the road.

Axl shows up in layered clothes to hide his not being in shape, and has clearly done no vocal warm-ups. The first few shows of every tour show Axl in poor form, pyscially and vocally.

Just look at Axl in 2006. In tremendous physical shape and sounded good. That's not coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce Springsteen is 64, does 3 hour shows and is all over the stage.

And he still sounds great.

Age has nothing to do with it.

It's all about dedication and preparation

Bruce is good, but he's not singing like Axl. Axl has more in common with Brian Johnson of AC/DC who's doing a pretty decent job at 60+

I still think it has more to do with lack of practice/ regular care for his voice that caused his downfall cuz he was doing good in 2010.

Yep.

Mick Jagger is over 20 years older and he blows Axl off the stage, both in terms of movement and vocals. Mick also physically works out like a fiend before a tour. And then rehearses with the band for a time before they go back on the road.

Axl shows up in layered clothes to hide his not being in shape, and has clearly done no vocal warm-ups. The first few shows of every tour show Axl in poor form, pyscially and vocally.

Just look at Axl in 2006. In tremendous physical shape and sounded good. That's not coincidence.

Mick is not a great singer studio or live, yes he moves (great entertainer) but he's no singer and again... he ain't doing what Axls doing, not even close! But I do agree that he has the right work ethic to get the job done

Edited by Tom2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick is awful live, yes he moves (great entertainer) but he's no singer and again... he ain't doing what Axls doing, not even close!

What was the last Stones concert you actually saw?

Because I just saw them last year. If you told Axl to go out and do Mick's show just as Mick does it, he'd fucking collapse. He ain't working the full stadium stage like that in his current form. Mick's performance also doesn't include random uninteresting solos and/or song intros every few tunes so he can go back and get oxygen. Nor is Mick ever out of puff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce Springsteen is 64, does 3 hour shows and is all over the stage.

And he still sounds great.

Age has nothing to do with it.

It's all about dedication and preparation

This.

There's no excuse for Axl to sound incredibly bad since Rio 2011, other than lack of commitment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce Springsteen is 64, does 3 hour shows and is all over the stage.

And he still sounds great.

Age has nothing to do with it.

It's all about dedication and preparation

I love Springsteen, and he is unbelievable shape for his age, but he doesn't have to hit the same notes as Axl does, and struggles with the higher parts on his own songs. He is still a legend, but he doesn't have to do what Axl does.

Mick is awful live, yes he moves (great entertainer) but he's no singer and again... he ain't doing what Axls doing, not even close!

What was the last Stones concert you actually saw?

Because I just saw them last year. If you told Axl to go out and do Mick's show just as Mick does it, he'd fucking collapse. He ain't working the full stadium stage like that in his current form. Mick's performance also doesn't include random uninteresting solos and/or song intros every few tunes so he can go back and get oxygen. Nor is Mick ever out of puff.

I saw the Stones at Hyde Park last year, and while I was very impressed by Mick, the show was 90 mins, and he took a break for a couple of songs while Keef played some of his tunes. Again, extremely impressive for his age, but he doesn't have to do what Axl does.

All that said, I do think Axl could be in a lot better shape than he was for most of '11-'13. I think the best comparison is Steven Tyler. This pic says a lot:

Steven-Tyler-Axl-Rose-Mark-Birnbaum.jpg

2010 Axl was a bit on the pudgy side, but nowhere near as fat as people made him out to be, or as big as he got by 2013, and he could still sing like a motherfucker. The Dublin 2010 show is a great example of how flawless he would sound without the running around, literally standing still. Not that I'd want that at a show, I'd take a slightly breathy Axl over a motionless one. 2006, he was in unbelievable shape, and I don't think he could get back to that again (at least not without 'roids or HGH), but I think if he was determined enough he could get back to 2010 form. Here's hoping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours? Axl is on stage for about 1 hour, the 2 extra hours are jams and solos.

It's very obvious that you are a cupcake. But are you actually going to stand by the claim that Axl appears onstage for 1 hour?

Axl spends his entire time moving during a show. He is never in a fixed position for more than thirty seconds. That's just something you can't dispute. At his age, that is naturally going to have an effect on the quality of his vocals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't take a fuckin' genius. He's lazy as shit and doesn't take care of himself. As he ages, those things take a greater and greater toll.

No, his voice is not shit due to slowly moving from stage left to stage right and backstage to front stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, his voice is not shit due to slowly moving from stage left to stage right and backstage to front stage.

I'm sure the lifestyle he leads doesn't help, but if Axl stood in a fixed position and sang, it would be way better on his vocal performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, his voice is not shit due to slowly moving from stage left to stage right and backstage to front stage.

I'm sure the lifestyle he leads doesn't help, but if Axl stood in a fixed position and sang, it would be way better on his vocal performance.

If he actually made an attempt to sing well, perhaps. But I haven't seen that, other than on You're Crazy for whatever reason, for quite some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours? Axl is on stage for about 1 hour, the 2 extra hours are jams and solos.

It's very obvious that you are a cupcake. But are you actually going to stand by the claim that Axl appears onstage for 1 hour?

Axl spends his entire time moving during a show. He is never in a fixed position for more than thirty seconds. That's just something you can't dispute. At his age, that is naturally going to have an effect on the quality of his vocals.

It's very obvious you're a cupcake as well. "3 hours of moving around", that's gotta be trolling, it's impossible you believe in your own post. and that, for me, is trolling.

Edited by Smoking Baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl basically does a cardio routine while singing.

All he needs now is to get his tubby arse into a cardio routine off the stage once in a while. Also, if you can't run around AND sing then sit your fucking fat arse down and at least do the songs justice.

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...