Silent Jay Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Damn, he is amazing.No, his voice is not shit due to slowly moving from stage left to stage right and backstage to front stage. but if Axl stood in a fixed position and sang, it would be way better on his vocal performance. Right, right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 "3 hours of moving around", How can you deem a fact trolling? GNR shows tend to last three hours, and Axl is forever moving from one side of the stage to the other. I would prefer if lost the 90s gimmick of trying to energize the crowd through constantly moving. Instead focusing on nailing the vocal performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Right, right... Going through the motions, thy name is Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 How can you deem a fact trolling? GNR shows tend to last three hours, and Axl is forever moving from one side of the stage to the other.You're wrong and that's not a fact. He's not forever moving. When he leaves the stage for oxygen breaks he's not moving -- unless he's snake dancing in his dressing room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Brian Johnson is another good example of a raspy singer in his sixties who can still deliver. He sounded better on the Black Ice tour than he had ten years prior. That was due in part to the band tuning a half-step down but nevertheless, he killed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Right, right... Going through the motions, thy name is Axl.That really is awful I can't see how Ali & co. can defend that shit. Axl is my favourite artist ever but I can't rationalise crap like that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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 preparationI 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: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.They both look their age Anyway, IMO nobody compares to Axl as a singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facekicker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yeah I can't think of any artist with such a legacy that is so fucking lazy about his performances. Spot on Volcano, spot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. Goddammit shut up! We need our excuses to make us feel better!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yeah I can't think of any artist with such a legacy that is so fucking lazy about his performances. Spot on Volcano, spot on!Yet Axl still owns you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvH Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Nobody says that age is the reason. What we're all saying is that Axl is the only reason why Axl sounds awful though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulldog Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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.What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuzeville Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I could do without all the running to be honest, and already felt that way back in the days.Speaking of singing without moving--when Liam Gallagher started to lose his voice in the early 00s, there were fans to say, well, he's not a young man anymore. He was 30 or so. Always cracked me up.A good example for me that a voice can last longer than that is Paul McCartney, and he's done his share of shouty singing. Only now is his voice starting to go. Edited January 28, 2014 by Chuzeville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yeah I can't think of any artist with such a legacy that is so fucking lazy about his performances. Spot on Volcano, spot on!Yet Axl still owns youHow so?Because a dedicated die-hard lifetime fan of Axl Rose isn't happy with the route Axl is going with his career, and because Facekicker doesn't worship Axl's every move like a little school girl or Justin Bieber fan..........that means that Axl "owns" him?Volcano, using your weird logic, does the United States "own" you? Because recently I saw you make a really negative comment about the US. So when you make negative comments about sports teams or political leaders or other bands - does that mean they "own" you?You CONSTANTLY bash SLash on this forum. Does that mean Slash "owns" you?I've never seen 30 year old adults use words like trolling, owns and butt hurt like people do on this forum.Bro, you don't have to carry the burden of Axl hating Slash. That's Axl's burden, bro. Not yours. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Paradise Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Axl's singing problem is not just because of aging, but i don't find very fair to do all these comparisons, the aging process is very different for each person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattElias Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I could do without all the running to be honest, and already felt that way back in the days.Speaking of singing without moving--when Liam Gallagher started to lose his voice in the early 00s, there were fans to say, well, he's not a young man anymore. He was 30 or so. Always cracked me up.A good example for me that a voice can last longer than that is Paul McCartney, and he's done his share of shouty singing. Only now is his voice starting to go.As an Oasis appreciator, i can certainly give an statement about Liam's voice.He started to lose because he never did any kind of vocal warming before concerts, which he is well-known for mocking about Chris Martin's vocal warming. Here is a link to the exactly interview in which he said that:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/liam-gallagher-doesnt-do-vocal-warm-ups-2229031.htmlThat's why he sounds shitty since Don't Believe the Truth album. Comparing Liam to Axl is more an insult than a reasonable attemptive to explain his vocal problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuzeville Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I could do without all the running to be honest, and already felt that way back in the days.Speaking of singing without moving--when Liam Gallagher started to lose his voice in the early 00s, there were fans to say, well, he's not a young man anymore. He was 30 or so. Always cracked me up.A good example for me that a voice can last longer than that is Paul McCartney, and he's done his share of shouty singing. Only now is his voice starting to go.As an Oasis appreciator, i can certainly give an statement about Liam's voice.He started to lose because he never did any kind of vocal warming before concerts, which he is well-known for mocking about Chris Martin's vocal warming. Here is a link to the exactly interview in which he said that:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/liam-gallagher-doesnt-do-vocal-warm-ups-2229031.htmlThat's why he sounds shitty since Don't Believe the Truth album. Comparing Liam to Axl is more an insult than a reasonable attemptive to explain his vocal problems.I was not comparing them--just pointing out how absurd the age excuse can be--and I don't really see where the insult lays...But now that you mention it... In Liam's case, it's obviously a matter of carelessness; simply not taking care of his voice (which was one of the greatest of his generation), not warming up, putting too much strain on his throat. And it seems that some carelessness is also to blame for Axl's recent shortcomings. Maybe not. Maybe he's actually doing his best--but that would be sad. Edited January 28, 2014 by Chuzeville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR DOOM Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Brian Johnson is another good example of a raspy singer in his sixties who can still deliver. He sounded better on the Black Ice tour than he had ten years prior. That was due in part to the band tuning a half-step down but nevertheless, he killed it.Whenever age or vocal style is used as a defence for Axl's lousy performances I always think of Brian Johnson.Pretty sure that he has played a lot more shows/done a lot more singing than Axl too, yet magically...If Axl took better care of himself/had a regime like Jagger or whoever I'm sure it would show results (06?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War2k14 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 In 2009 and 2010 I listened to every bootleg I could. I usually get lost in the moment live but I do notice the difference since 2011. Honestly I'd care less about his live vocals if he made and released more music to listen to. He knows the deal... I just don't think he has the passion anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Apples and oranges. I'm not trying to give Axl excuses, but people age differently. Look at Steven Tyler. The guy's like 70 and still has one of the best voices in the world. Now look at Chris Cornell. Not even 50 and his voice is going to shit. That said, if Axl could actually be productive and show that he gives a shit about sounding good (rehearse, etc.), I could forgive him for not sounding like he did in his prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockerman Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 on a very basic level I think that Axl acts bored with some of the songs.. like hes totally unispired and on auto pilot mode delivering songs that are 28+ years old. I have watched hundreds of shows.. the last set moreso gives me the idea that hes just going through the motions. What ever reason there is for not delivering new material is, it must be in some factor that he isnt inspired by anything in the "vault" to give him a challenge and rise to new occasions to deliver his talent to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I never bought the age argument mostly because 2010 really hasn't been that long ago and he consistently sang the shit out of the material that whole tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parisrocks Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 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.Tell him to fucking stand still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro40 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Wow, he sounds great in a rock way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNNER PT Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 About Axl's voice ...I think there's a lot of stuff that hasn't been told yet by the ones who could tell the truth about It. The truth remains hidden somewhere in his reclusive years.Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts