Jump to content

Setlists......Again


redrum

Recommended Posts

I still have yet to see one review where it mentions issues with Axl's voice and no offence gnr-dave, since you are the only one arguing this cause, I take the view of the professional critic over that of someone on an internet forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 341
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here, examples of his voice from the tours:

2009:

(from 0:30 -> end is simply amazing, best part of that whole tour)

2010:

(From the show I was at, which was amazing)

From another show:

SA 2010:

It's pretty hard to argue that, Dave.

Do you have a hard time with comprehension? Hell on BETTER you even tell Axl is letting the backing track do all the work.

Anyone will sound decent when singing with a backing track.

You can still hear that his voice is shot even with the backing track assisting him. Its easy to hide your voice when its not all Axl.

That is why the monitor mix is the best to judge since his vocals are not filtered and the backing track is not high in the mix.

Is higher in the mix than his vocal track is on this.

Axl knows his voice is gone, if it wasnt he would not need a backing track now would he?

And like I have said before, Axl still sings the AFD songs decently but the new songs are too harsh on his voice.

The only part in Better that uses a backing track is the "no one ever told me when..." part, which is probably the easiest part to sing. It hardly proves his voice is "shot". Maybe that he's 48 and needs a break once in a while.

He uses the backing track on the whole song, you can clearly hear it on the destroyer bookleg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gunns5

Here, examples of his voice from the tours:

2009:

(from 0:30 -> end is simply amazing, best part of that whole tour)

2010:

(From the show I was at, which was amazing)

From another show:

SA 2010:

It's pretty hard to argue that, Dave.

Do you have a hard time with comprehension? Hell on BETTER you even tell Axl is letting the backing track do all the work.

Anyone will sound decent when singing with a backing track.

You can still hear that his voice is shot even with the backing track assisting him. Its easy to hide your voice when its not all Axl.

That is why the monitor mix is the best to judge since his vocals are not filtered and the backing track is not high in the mix.

Is higher in the mix than his vocal track is on this.

Axl knows his voice is gone, if it wasnt he would not need a backing track now would he?

And like I have said before, Axl still sings the AFD songs decently but the new songs are too harsh on his voice.

Wow, back peddle much gnr cupcake?

You went from saying ' OMG GUIZZZ AXLS VOICE IS SHOTZZZ!'

to " He still sings the AFD songs decently but the new songs are too harsh on his voice'

pick a fucking side of the fence and stick to it, the only thing worse that a cupcake being on a forum they obviously despise so much, is one that cant even remember what side of the fence he is on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have yet to see one review where it mentions issues with Axl's voice and no offence gnr-dave, since you are the only one arguing this cause, I take the view of the professional critic over that of someone on an internet forum.

yeah except for the ones that critize Axl then those pro's dont count right? LOL LIke the ones that bashed CD, oh we cannot listen to those reviews they have an agenda, we need to listen more to the fans. Cant have it both ways.

Edited by gnr-dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have yet to see one review where it mentions issues with Axl's voice and no offence gnr-dave, since you are the only one arguing this cause, I take the view of the professional critic over that of someone on an internet forum.

yeah except for the ones that critize Axl then those pro's dont count right? LOL

Feel free to show me the articles that criticise his voice. I'm not a, for lack of a better word, Axlite, I enjoy the freedom to make my own decision based on what I see and hear. So please, show me the articles where the professionals criticise his voice and claim is "gone" as you seem so determined to prove.

You talk constantly about facts yet I have yet to see you offer any, all I see is your personal opinion.

Edited by plonker88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, examples of his voice from the tours:

2009:

(from 0:30 -> end is simply amazing, best part of that whole tour)

2010:

(From the show I was at, which was amazing)

From another show:

SA 2010:

It's pretty hard to argue that, Dave.

Do you have a hard time with comprehension? Hell on BETTER you even tell Axl is letting the backing track do all the work.

Anyone will sound decent when singing with a backing track.

You can still hear that his voice is shot even with the backing track assisting him. Its easy to hide your voice when its not all Axl.

That is why the monitor mix is the best to judge since his vocals are not filtered and the backing track is not high in the mix.

Is higher in the mix than his vocal track is on this.

Axl knows his voice is gone, if it wasnt he would not need a backing track now would he?

And like I have said before, Axl still sings the AFD songs decently but the new songs are too harsh on his voice.

Wow, back peddle much gnr cupcake?

You went from saying ' OMG GUIZZZ AXLS VOICE IS SHOTZZZ!'

to " He still sings the AFD songs decently but the new songs are too harsh on his voice'

pick a fucking side of the fence and stick to it, the only thing worse that a cupcake being on a forum they obviously despise so much, is one that cant even remember what side of the fence he is on.

There is no side of the fence junior. I call it like I see it. That is the problem with feeble minded people like you.

You think you have to be either 100% For or 100% Against something, that is not how it words junior.

Please get a clue, and saying Axl can still sound decent on the old songs does not mean his voice his not shot.

He just sounds ok on them because he uses his raspy voice on most of those songs and the newer songs are much more difficult for Axl to sing thus why he sounds like shit on them.

You are just more used to them because when axl blew out his throat back in late 91/92 you are used to hearing those songs like that.

Where as the new songs they have only really be heard one way. ANd now Axl has to cheat to make them sound better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have yet to see one review where it mentions issues with Axl's voice and no offence gnr-dave, since you are the only one arguing this cause, I take the view of the professional critic over that of someone on an internet forum.

yeah except for the ones that critize Axl then those pro's dont count right? LOL

Feel free to show me the articles that criticise his voice. I'm not a, for lack of a better word, Axlite, I enjoy the freedom to make my own decision based on what I see and hear. So please, show me the articles where the professionals criticise his voice and claim is "gone" as you seem so determined to prove.

Anyone can see listening to the japan ear monitor mix Axls voice is done.

Its fine if you dont want to accept reality, but anyone that claims Axl voice is just as good as it was back in the day is deaf and only fooling themselves.

You cant honstly listen to that scraped youtube and with a straight face think Axl sounds amazing

Here. From the monitor mix.....

He sounds fucking amazing, thats HIS voice..... I dont hear the backing track you keep talking about

that actually sounds like it could be from the 80s or 90s.

(Edit: The 'background vocals' are tommy)

If you really think axl sounds like he did back in the 80s or 90s there is no point to debate because you are being a fool.

You need to get your ears checked if you think he sounds like he did in his prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have yet to see one review where it mentions issues with Axl's voice and no offence gnr-dave, since you are the only one arguing this cause, I take the view of the professional critic over that of someone on an internet forum.

yeah except for the ones that critize Axl then those pro's dont count right? LOL

Feel free to show me the articles that criticise his voice. I'm not a, for lack of a better word, Axlite, I enjoy the freedom to make my own decision based on what I see and hear. So please, show me the articles where the professionals criticise his voice and claim is "gone" as you seem so determined to prove.

1) Anyone can see listening to the japan ear monitor mix Axls voice is done.

2) Its fine if you dont want to accept reality, but anyone that claims Axl voice is just as good as it was back in the day is deaf and only fooling themselves.

3) You cant honstly listen to that scraped youtube and with a straight face think Axl sounds amazing

1) Clearly not otherwise you wouldn't be the only person going on about it. Not even the, again for lack of a better word, Slashites are going out of there way to support you on this.

2) I personally never said it was as good as it was back in the 90's but I do not agree with your viewpoint that his voice is gone, far from it.

3) No he doesn't sound amazing, most likely because that was about the 3rd time he had ever sung that song in a live environment, but he does not sound like someone who has lost their voice, just very ragged around the edges.

Edited by plonker88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have yet to see one review where it mentions issues with Axl's voice and no offence gnr-dave, since you are the only one arguing this cause, I take the view of the professional critic over that of someone on an internet forum.

yeah except for the ones that critize Axl then those pro's dont count right? LOL

Feel free to show me the articles that criticise his voice. I'm not a, for lack of a better word, Axlite, I enjoy the freedom to make my own decision based on what I see and hear. So please, show me the articles where the professionals criticise his voice and claim is "gone" as you seem so determined to prove.

Anyone can see listening to the japan ear monitor mix Axls voice is done.

Its fine if you dont want to accept reality, but anyone that claims Axl voice is just as good as it was back in the day is deaf and only fooling themselves.

You cant honstly listen to that scraped youtube and with a straight face think Axl sounds amazing

Here. From the monitor mix.....

He sounds fucking amazing, thats HIS voice..... I dont hear the backing track you keep talking about

that actually sounds like it could be from the 80s or 90s.

(Edit: The 'background vocals' are tommy)

If you really think axl sounds like he did back in the 80s or 90s there is no point to debate because you are being a fool.

You need to get your ears checked if you think he sounds like he did in his prime.

So where is the backing track you claimed he used throughout the songs?

Edited by shotgunblues1978
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please stop using the word shot GNR Dave, its not at all, jeez!!

I can see where you are coming from in a funny sort of way saying that now I've read more of what you've said, I suppose you could argue that Axl's deeper chest voice has somewhat reduced, esp when you compare it to say 02 and even further back, its quite clear to hear on some songs such as ISE, etc...

However Axl's current way of singing is what really got him the attention, in the end you take the rasp away from him and most people would think Axl's lost it, just like they did in 2002 in fact. Therefore to most people the simple fact that Axl has got both rasp AND power in his high register is what is making people say he is so good.

My conclusion would have to be he has lost some range in his chest voice, no doubt simple ageing is probably to blame, but his higher register sounds wicked and powerful, esp when he has rested it. His control at some points in the Asia tour was a little out as well ,but overall I still think its fair to say he sounds superb on most songs. Of course he will struggle on some songs, but then again ther eis always going to times when singers struggle with thier material live, esp when it is as demanding as some of the stuff on CD, going from the clear voice to that raspy voice and back and forth, etc.

Plonker88 actually puts it very well IMO, some vocal shows from Japan were just a little ragged.

Also GNR Dave, that Freddie clip was probably one of the better songs, there are others from that show that sound far worse, you can't seriously argue Freddie sounded better then Axl there?

(ps, I'm a huge queen fan, I've got just about every single gig from 77-86 that is currently out there, so I *know* what I'm talking about when it comes to Freddie, far more then any other singer I'd say!)

Edited by koldie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if he doesn't change the set list? He doesn't have to, he doesn't work for anyone but himself.

Considering the back catalogue Guns have, having about 4-6 new songs, which they are to most people since the album is now available, is okay in my book.

I think we have to take a step back and look at this from the perspective of those who don't visit the forums or look to get the bootlegs which is about 80-90% of the crowd. To them the Chinese songs are fresh and are new because the first time they have most likely heard them on a constant basis was when the album came out, assuming they even bought it. The band, and therefore the set list with cater to the biggest majority of the crowd and not the few individuals who go to the show and then come here to talk about it. The majority of people are far more likely to be annoyed if the band played more new songs than classics.

That's my viewpoint anyway.

They are not playing 4-6 new songs when 3 of them (CD, SOD, Madagascar) are been in the set list for ten years.

Those are not considered new songs even though they were on the album. Anyone that has seen this band live since 2002 will have heard those three songs.

Its one thing if they were playing 4-6 new songs not including those three, but they have been playing the same set list for ten years.

Those songs being the set list 10 years ago is irrelevant to the vast majority of those actually at the show. That is what matters here, the show and the crowds reaction to the show, the set list is just a part of that. The band plays the songs that get the best reaction and come off the best live, is those songs are ones that have been played before then that's tough shit I'm afraid. We know the reaction to most CD songs is warm at best, so playing the songs that are catchy and have the best chance of commercial success such as, Better, SOD, Madagascar, CD makes perfect sense as it draws people in whereas songs that last into the 6 minute mark and don't really have a hook, such as Catcher, Prostitute and TWAT just don't come off that well live and the crowd will become disinterested.

And yet again, they are likely to be considered new songs by the majority of the crowd because they haven't followed the band like we have. Yes they may have heard them before in 2002, 6 years before the album came out and in 2006, two years before the album came out. Now unless they sought out these songs, which probably not that many people did, then hearing them again will be a fresh experience. We, the forum dwellers, are the minority, we get what, about 5-6 people giving us reviews of each show, that's bugger all compared to some other bands. To cater to us would run the risk shunning about 85% of the crowd.

And now that CD is out you would think Axl would want to showcase CD but he is not.

He is, 5/18 is close to the ratio you would expect with bands that have some many classic songs as Guns do. And as I said earlier, they are playing the songs that will draw the most people in.

You really dont find that odd? And bullshit most people think those songs new, no one does, they have been played live for ten years, Axl played Madagascar at the VMAs, and any gnr fan has at least one bootleg from the 2002-2006 tours that would have heard these songs.

You're right, no one on this forum considers them new. The general public who make up the ticket sales are likely to think differently.

When I was not posting on boards back in the orginal gnr days I had tons of bootlegs, so just because people dont post on forums does not mean they dont get bootlegs.

You really have to be joking right? I have a lot of friends that never visit these forums yet still heard CD songs way before the album ever came out.

A good number of them even went the the shows.

You mean back when original gnr were the biggest band on the planet? Of course more people were bound to have bootlegs back then, this gnr is not even close to the popularity of the old guys so I find it very hard believe that a lot of people, besides those on the forums, have bootlegs.

Did your, I assume 8-10 friends, that's not an insult by the way, listen to those songs constantly up the the album release and show like we did? I find that rather hard to believe.

Come on now be serious

I'm never anything but.

I very much feel like we're on the verge of going round in circles here so unless you give me a new viewpoint to discuss, I'm done here.

Edited by plonker88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if he doesn't change the set list? He doesn't have to, he doesn't work for anyone but himself.

Considering the back catalogue Guns have, having about 4-6 new songs, which they are to most people since the album is now available, is okay in my book.

I think we have to take a step back and look at this from the perspective of those who don't visit the forums or look to get the bootlegs which is about 80-90% of the crowd. To them the Chinese songs are fresh and are new because the first time they have most likely heard them on a constant basis was when the album came out, assuming they even bought it. The band, and therefore the set list with cater to the biggest majority of the crowd and not the few individuals who go to the show and then come here to talk about it. The majority of people are far more likely to be annoyed if the band played more new songs than classics.

That's my viewpoint anyway.

They are not playing 4-6 new songs when 3 of them (CD, SOD, Madagascar) are been in the set list for ten years.

Those are not considered new songs even though they were on the album. Anyone that has seen this band live since 2002 will have heard those three songs.

Its one thing if they were playing 4-6 new songs not including those three, but they have been playing the same set list for ten years.

Those songs being the set list 10 years ago is irrelevant to the vast majority of those actually at the show. That is what matters here, the show and the crowds reaction to the show, the set list is just a part of that. The band plays the songs that get the best reaction and come off the best live, is those songs are ones that have been played before then that's tough shit I'm afraid. We know the reaction to most CD songs is warm at best, so playing the songs that are catchy and have the best chance of commercial success such as, Better, SOD, Madagascar, CD makes perfect sense as it draws people in whereas songs that last into the 6 minute mark and don't really have a hook, such as Catcher, Prostitute and TWAT just don't come off that well live and the crowd will become disinterested.

And yet again, they are likely to be considered new songs by the majority of the crowd because they haven't followed the band like we have. Yes they may have heard them before in 2002, 6 years before the album came out and in 2006, two years before the album came out. Now unless they sought out these songs, which probably not that many people did, then hearing them again will be a fresh experience. We, the forum dwellers, are the minority, we get what, about 5-6 people giving us reviews of each show, that's bugger all compared to some other bands. To cater to us would run the risk shunning about 85% of the crowd.

And now that CD is out you would think Axl would want to showcase CD but he is not.

He is, 5/18 is close to the ratio you would expect with bands that have some many classic songs as Guns do. And as I said earlier, they are playing the songs that will draw the most people in.

You really dont find that odd? And bullshit most people think those songs new, no one does, they have been played live for ten years, Axl played Madagascar at the VMAs, and any gnr fan has at least one bootleg from the 2002-2006 tours that would have heard these songs.

T

You're right, no one on this forum considers them new. The general public who make up the ticket sales are likely to think differently.

When I was not posting on boards back in the orginal gnr days I had tons of bootlegs, so just because people dont post on forums does not mean they dont get bootlegs.

You really have to be joking right? I have a lot of friends that never visit these forums yet still heard CD songs way before the album ever came out.

A good number of them even went the the shows.

You mean back when original gnr were the biggest band on the planet? Of course more people were bound to have bootlegs back then, this gnr is not even close to the popularity of the old guys so I find it very hard believe that a lot of people, besides those on the forums, have bootlegs.

Did your, I assume 8-10 friends, that's not an insult by the way, listen to those songs constantly up the the album release and show like we did? I find that rather hard to believe.

Come on now be serious

I'm never anything but.

I very much feel like we're on the verge of going round in circles here so unless you give me a new viewpoint to discuss, I'm done here.

This is just asinine now... Dave is going to say whatever he can come up with to say Axl sucks.

Yet he's a 'fan.'

Dude can't even get through an entire page of posts without contradicting himself, it's pointless.

Axl Rose sounds great on most live songs. Struggles sometimes, sure, but overall sings rather well. Better than in 06 and 02 for sure - he is far from 'shot.'

And no, having that opinion doesn't make me deaf or a fool.

As far as the setlists go - I am still perfectly ok with the amounts of CD songs being played on this tour. It's about 1/3 songs. Works for me.I don't ave any issue with the solos or jams, either. I think they make a good chance for the guitarists to showcase teir abilities.

Think about it this way - the first time Axl played the piano solo with his foot up on the piano, everyone read it and though "oh man, I wish he'd do that in MY town" ... well, now he will . Nobody is missing anything. There's nothing wrong with keeping a bit of consistency.

Edited by Used To Love Me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they need to rethink the setlist. I'd like to see them drop a few AFD songs (Out Ta Get Me and maybe It's So Easy) and Patience in favor of Civil War/Estranged/TWAT/Riad. It's nothing different than what others said, but I felt I needed to voice my opinion.

I'd be fine with all that... I don't think they will drop Patience, though. OTGM isn't played all the time, either... I think they just enjoy it sometimes.

Civil War/Estranged will more than likely never be anything more than a special appearance, if that. Riad isn't really all that great anyhow... Again, it's all just a matter of personal preference. No matter what songs get played or dropped SOMEone is going to be disappointed.

The shows look like a blast though - I don't think anyone is coming out of one pissed that something didn't get played.

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...