Robo Axl

Okay so I'm eventually going to try out for this hard rock band. It's for fun, we aren't going to go pro just for fun. Anyhow I do an Axl voice, where I use my throat to sing songs like "Perfect Crime", "Welcome To The Jungle", "Rocket Queen", etc. However I'm experimenting with my head voice a little but honestly the tips people give me about head voice makes no sense. Am I supposed to flex my brain? How can I sing higher notes without making it sound gay. Any help would be nice.

Impossible in your case... sorry.

Female "frontmen" make good eye candy. That's it.

You must be the most idiotic member of this forum, and that says alot. You do nothing but bash anything that isn't Axl related. Why do you even post in other sections aside from the main one? It's clear by you posting that you only love Axl and the new "band." Why don't you just grow up and shut the fuck up.

On topic: Blondie and Hole are awesome. Fleetwood Mac, but I'm not a huge fan of their music. The Pretenders, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts. The Runaways. No Doubt. All awesome rock bands fronted by females.

I'm sure I'm leaving some off, but that's all I've got off the top of my head.

Get a life.

Load of crap, like almost everything else U2 have done.

Female "frontmen" make good eye candy. That's it.

I was amazed upon hearing Dr. Feelgood that the piece of utter shite was considered by many to be one of the greatest glam metal albums of all time. Not a single good tune on it. Waste of money and time.

Chinese D.

Worst album: Day and Age

Shit band.

I really need to see Dylan soon. He's a fucking living legend, and I'd love to be able to say I saw Dylan.

Don't bother. He talks through the songs these days.

Overrated.

If I feel cold and empty, then there's been emotional effect.

The issue is with your misinterpretation of my post. When the listener feels cold and empty about the music it is never a good thing. When a proffessional describes an album as leaving the listener "cold" he is generally referncing the fact that it doesn't excite, entertain or have an emotional impact upon the listener. It doesn't mean he's been launched into a deep depression.

Feeling cold and empty are emotions.

In the context of my sentence, "cold and empty" refers to a piece of music which has little to no emotional effect.

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

For the sake of juvenile education, I present you the original quote prior to Stacks on Deck's edits where he removed the "90%", the key part of the message. Where lies the contradiction?

Most important part of the quote in bold there. YOU just because you feel cold and empty and it isnt good for you doesnt mean everyone will feel the same. For them it might provoke emotions in them and as a result is good as it doesnt leave them cold.

... But that isn't a contradiction. I never doubted that the bands listed as shit bands could potentially evoke emotions in people. I criticised their pseudo-intellectualism and pretentiousness.

I said music is 90% evoking emotions, not entirely. The rest is what irks me about the bands listed.

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

For the sake of juvenile education, I present you the original quote prior to Stacks on Deck's edits where he removed the "90%", the key part of the message. Where lies the contradiction?

trying to break down your contradictions as clearly as possible.

There were no contradictions in those quotes....

Huh? Having trouble with basic quoting/posting functions Stacks?

No actually i was asking a question of you if you look closer. And where on earth was that you saw me say artistic merit doesn't exist?

You accused me of pseudo-intellectualism for pushing forward the idea of artistic merit in the context of music.

That is hands down the most ridiculous statement i have ever heard. Why? Why on earth would you wanna do that, why would you want to even enter into this game of measuring up and stacking up against. See what you're engaging in here is something that, to me, is in stark contrast to someone who understands anything about artistic merit. Why cheapen music or art like that? Is that what its about, these high ideals you hold, is that the as good as they get? This celebrity squares bullshit?

See, this is the issue. As far as I'm concerned if you aim to achieve greatness musically and don't look towards the greats you're wasting your time. Those guys set the benchmark. Any clown can take a shit in a cardboard box and call it art but it takes someone with real talent and ambition to measure up to the greats.

See this is the problem, the core of the problem with your posts in this thread so far (being that i dont know you outside of this context). "Shit bands", betters and worses, number 1, number 2, number 3, its totally contrary to anything art has anything to do with. Art, by virtue of what it is, has NOTHING to do with competition, not for the people who really understand anything about it, this is why the commercial aspect of the arts are so often cited as what fucks the whole riddle up, cuz commerciality is based on competitiveness, this pecking order, top of the pops mentality. The minute you enter into all of that and yet still try and propagate some kind of intellectualism is the minute that you become a pseudo intellectual yourself because you either can't see or wilfully ignore or can't understand what it is that makes art so important to the human expierience.

Never said it was a competition. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and to want to achieve the same kind of artistic grandeur of the greats certainly doesn't cheapen art in any way whatsoever. That being said, competition is actually beneficial for the artist - it generally makes him up his game so to speak. Nobody in their right mind could think competition between artists is a bad thing. Don't you think The Beatles wanted to be the best? Beethoven? Are you arguing that their competiveness cheapened their art?

Right and i was explaining that maybe the problem is with your ears here because Nirvanas songs were intensely melodic, just because something is amped and distorted and possibly because of this to your ears it becomes "noise" don't make it so. Behind that ampedness and distortion, as showcased on Unplugged In New York, Nirvanas songs were extremely melodic.

For the standards of grunge they may have been melodic. Melodic compared to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXG83p2nkHw

Naw!

No i'm kinda having a giggle at someone who pokes at psuedo-intellectuals and then uses broad terms like "emotional impact" like its meant to have some kind of immediate relevance in the context of a debate.

And it does have immediate relevance in the context of this debate. Music is 90% concerned with evoking emotions - that's why we listen to it. If it leaves you feeling cold and empty it isn't good music.

The yardstick of artistic merit? Look at the giants of achievement in the history of music. Beethoven, Mozart, The Beatles... That's the benchmark. All artists should be measured in comparison to the greats.

So... Axl Rose is in that group?

Closer to it than anyone else currently active in rock music.

No my arguement is that it's inconsistent to rag on bands for what you deem as pseudo-intellectualism and then on the other hand subscribe to potentially high falutin notions like artistic merit. Tell me, what is it in the intellectualism of the bands you've cited that makes them pseudo as opposed to fully realised 360 degree intellectualism? And whats the yardstick of artist merit that you hold musicians up to, i'd like to know, it'd make your statements sound a little more than the rhetoric they sound like at the moment, talk to me

So you accuse me of being a pseudo-intellectual for judging songs by their artistic merit, and then go on to say that artistic merit doesn't exist? What's the point in writing/recording songs then? What's the point in pursuing arts of any kind? Music isn't purely for entertainment and if you believe it to be you are shallow and unintelligent. Is Missa Solemnis entertaining? No. But it's sure as hell an amazing piece of music that hits hard at the listener's emotions. If the intention is entertainment, great, if the intention is to do something avant-garde and intellectual etc etc and you end up with a run-of-themill album that is hyped as something other than that it becomes pseudo-intellectualism.

The yardstick of artistic merit? Look at the giants of achievement in the history of music. Beethoven, Mozart, The Beatles... That's the benchmark. All artists should be measured in comparison to the greats.

Depends whose using it really..

Elaborate.

And that'd be you right? Coming from the man who said:

When you brand this guy as overrated, his defenders swarm to his defense. "He had a great ear for pop melodies", they say. Funny then that Nirvana's music consisted of mindless grunge noise.

I guess your ear fails you when the amps are up. Oh well.

Huh? I was in fact arguing that Kurt Cobain didn't have an ear for pop melodies, so the quote doesn't serve your purpose in this context. Try again.

Emotional impact huh? Well excuuuuuuussee mee

Are you arguing that emotional release has no bearing on the quality of music?

failure to find pleasure in music isn't a reflection of the artist but of the listener.

No.

Stay out of the fucking thread if you don't like him, douchebag.

Does "Rock N' Roll" stay out of Guns N' Roses threads?

Yeah, unless Robo Axl makes makes a comment so idiotic that I feel the need to budge in.

I'm a Guns N' Roses fan - mostly older GN'R than new. I say a lot of stuff just to piss off the **I am a stupid cupcake;Just Ignore my post** here, but that doesn't mean I don't like the band. I just think that some people take Axl Rose a little too seriously.

So you're admitting to stalking me?

How is pissing you off on purpose stalking?

Dude stop following me into every thread. It's getting creepy.

1. U2

2. Radiohead

3. Blur

4. Rush

All pathetic bands who churn out absolute garbage with 0 artistic merit or entertainment value year after year while acting as if they actually mean something. Uninteresting music and lyrics, pseudo-intellectualism, pretentiousness. Ugh. Who else?

OK, artistic merit?!?! behave, its music, its there to entertain you, if it doesn't entertain you, move on, simple. Artistic merit You crack me up...then you got the gall to poke at them for "pseudo-intellectualism" and "pretenciousness". Heres a tip for ya Sparky, more often than not its the motherfuckers that go off on that "artistic merit" shit that are pretencious. On the one hand you rag on em for being pseudo intellectual then you drop a phrase right out of the pseudo-intellectual's 101 Handbook on em.

Tell me, what exactly is artistic merit, in your estimation?

So your argument is that music cannot have artistic merit? Lay off the crack son. Songs don't need to be artistic achievements to be entertaining but they do to be enduring.

"Artistic merit" may sound like a "big word" to you but it has nothing to do with pseudo-intellectualism. It doesn't take a great intellect to recognise good music - just someone with an ear for melody and lyrics.

Artistic merit can't be defined in simple terms. It's part entertainment, partly the emotional impact of the music etc.

Pretentious doesn't have a "C" by the way.

Wow, I've seen the light. I'll stop listening to those artists immediately and download Limp Bizkit's entire discography instead.

Go ahead if you're that way inclined. Personally I think Limp Bizkit are pretty naff but they're popular with kids like you and your buddies.

1. U2

2. Radiohead

3. Blur

4. Rush

All pathetic bands who churn out absolute garbage with 0 artistic merit or entertainment value year after year while acting as if they actually mean something. Uninteresting music and lyrics, pseudo-intellectualism, pretentiousness. Ugh. Who else?

Stay out of the fucking thread if you don't like him, douchebag.

Does "Rock N' Roll" stay out of Guns N' Roses threads?

Yeah, unless Robo Axl makes makes a comment so idiotic that I feel the need to budge in.

I'm a Guns N' Roses fan - mostly older GN'R than new. I say a lot of stuff just to piss off the **I am a stupid cupcake;Just Ignore my post** here, but that doesn't mean I don't like the band. I just think that some people take Axl Rose a little too seriously.

So you're admitting to stalking me?

Radiohead are a terrible band.

Oh boy...

Truth hurts? Even OK Computer is a piece of shite. Dull as fuck.

First of all, you mention lyrical content in that message. There is no denying that there are talented lyricists in the rap genre, perhaps more talented than in rock.

But I'm afraid that beats and rhymes just can't compete with a great melody. People will still be singing Hey Jude, Stairway to Heaven, Sweet Child O' Mine etc in god knows how many years from now. Nobody will remember Stan or Gangsta's Paradise, among the most famous rap tunes today.