VillageGorillaHead Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I always thought NME hated GNR?I'd expect a little 'tainting' of the results if that is the case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I'd expect a little 'tainting' of the results if that is the case...I would say given Guns N' Roses recently referred to NME magazine as a "rag" via Twitter that is fairly certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use Your Delusion 1 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 URGENT: Wako Jako has caught up to axl (7.30 each) WE NEED VOTESwako cannot beat axl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsunami1982 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) MJ is No2 now Edited June 4, 2011 by tsunami1982 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use Your Delusion 1 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 MJ is No2 now he wasn't even a singer, more a plastic pre-maddona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsunami1982 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 MJ is No2 now Axl's back. No2 again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Don't stop voting! Let's get that fuckin' redhead to the top! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Michael Jackson is probably the greatest entertainer ever but definitely Axl Rose is the stronger singer overall (much more difficult vocal style) - there wouldn't be any shame in third place but if there's a possibility of second we should go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Michael Jackson is probably the greatest entertainer ever but definitely Axl Rose is the stronger singer overall (much more difficult vocal style) - there wouldn't be any shame in third place but if there's a possibility of second we should go for it.I'm sorry, I love Axl's voice, but MJ is miles ahead the better vocalist out of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I'm sorry, I love Axl's voice, but MJ is miles ahead the better vocalist out of the two.I'd agree Michael Jackson maybe executes his style better... but Axl's style is significantly more challenging... which is why I would consider him to be the stronger singer - Michael Jackson's live performances, theatrics aside, were mostly very weak... so much so he relied heavily on lip synching to carry him through a "live" gig in latter years. I would say if you put Axl's strongest vocal hour against Jackson's you'd find it'd totally blow "MJ" out of the water (if you attempted the two yourself you'd probably be more inclined to find Axl more challenging). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB. Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Keep on voting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomazrui Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I'm a die hard GNR fan, but Freddie > Axl. Anyway, voted 10 for both. MJ in second is a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I'm sorry, I love Axl's voice, but MJ is miles ahead the better vocalist out of the two.I'd agree Michael Jackson maybe executes his style better... but Axl's style is significantly more challenging... which is why I would consider him to be the stronger singer - Michael Jackson's live performances, theatrics aside, were mostly very weak... so much so he relied heavily on lip synching to carry him through a "live" gig in latter years. I would say if you put Axl's strongest vocal hour against Jackson's you'd find it'd totally blow "MJ" out of the water (if you attempted the two yourself you'd probably be more inclined to find Axl more challenging).I don't agree that Axl's singing style is more challenging. I can't imagine Axl pulling off MJ's gospel cries at the end of Earth Song. Michael Jackson is a far more versatile singer and can do rock, soul, pop, gospel and even showtunes and he pulls all these styles off with ease. I also find it laughable that Axl in his finest hour could even compete with Michael in his prime. Watch footage from the Bad, Victory or Triumph tours and you'll see that MJ was a powerhouse live vocalist in his prime. Sure, he struggled in his latter years, but then have you heard Axl recently?I'm a die hard GNR fan, but Freddie > Axl. Anyway, voted 10 for both. MJ in second is a laugh.Maybe you're hard of hearing or something, but Michael Jackson was singing better at 8 years old than most of the people on this poll. You can't deny that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) I don't agree that Axl's singing style is more challenging. I can't imagine Axl pulling off MJ's gospel cries at the end of Earth Song. Michael Jackson is a far more versatile singer and can do rock, soul, pop, gospel and even showtunes and he pulls all these styles off with ease. I also find it laughable that Axl in his finest hour could even compete with Michael in his prime. Watch footage from the Bad, Victory or Triumph tours and you'll see that MJ was a powerhouse live vocalist in his prime. Sure, he struggled in his latter years, but then have you heard Axl recently?I can't imagine "MJ" delivering "Do you know where the fuck you are?" - that isn't a productive line of debate. Axl's got a specific style that he's superlatively capable within - Michael Jackson has a very generic, adaptable approach (his "versatility" is in the strong instrumentals). I happen to prefer Axl's gritty, raw wailing over Michael Jackson's whiny moralising. Michael Jackson is undoubtedly the greater entertainer and a very good singer - but Axl's vocals are stronger and this is highlighted by the reality Michael Jackson was forced to lip synch seventy percent of material on the "History" tour. Edited June 5, 2011 by NewGNRnOldGNR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) Michael Jackson was singing better at 8 years old than most of the people on this poll. You can't deny that.I don't think that's fair - comparing pre and post-puberty vocals? Furthermore... Michael Jackson never surpassed his "Jackson 5" vocal ability. Edited June 5, 2011 by NewGNRnOldGNR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Guys who fuckign cares about the others, this is a GNR forum and AXL ROSE is and always has been the lead singer! VOTE FOR HIM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use Your Delusion 1 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Guys who fuckign cares about the others, this is a GNR forum and AXL ROSE is and always has been the lead singer! VOTE FOR HIM!!! exactly! Freddie who? what a pile of crap, Axl is way better remember to vote for Uncle Axl as he is the bestbtw anyone notice how few modern singers are in the top 20, I thought NME readers were "up to date" in their music love? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 this is a GNR forum and AXL ROSE is and always has been the lead singer! VOTE FOR HIM!!! I agree; let's all operate like Jarmo's sheep and blindly vote for Axl without consideration for the world of other singers out there (PS I'd advocate "ten starring" Axl - but with legitimate reasoning other than merely being a member of a Guns N' Roses forum). The debate, open mindedness is productive and should be encouraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) I don't agree that Axl's singing style is more challenging. I can't imagine Axl pulling off MJ's gospel cries at the end of Earth Song. Michael Jackson is a far more versatile singer and can do rock, soul, pop, gospel and even showtunes and he pulls all these styles off with ease. I also find it laughable that Axl in his finest hour could even compete with Michael in his prime. Watch footage from the Bad, Victory or Triumph tours and you'll see that MJ was a powerhouse live vocalist in his prime. Sure, he struggled in his latter years, but then have you heard Axl recently?I can't imagine "MJ" delivering "Do you know where the fuck you are?" - that isn't a productive line of debate. Axl's got a specific style that he's superlatively capable within - Michael Jackson has a very generic, adaptable approach (his "versatility" is in the strong instrumentals). I happen to prefer Axl's gritty, raw wailing over Michael Jackson's whiny moralising. Michael Jackson is undoubtedly the greater entertainer and a very good singer - but Axl's vocals are stronger and this is highlighted by the reality Michael Jackson was forced to lip synch seventy percent of material on the "History" tour.You say Axl has a "specific style that he's superlatively capable within." Basically Axl has a fantastic voice for rock, but that's it. Could you imagine Axl Rose singing a soul or gospel track? It would be laughable. Michael Jackson sounds convincing in a range of different genres. Dismissing his vocal versatility due to strong instrumentals is a joke. Lets take those instrumentals and see how strong your average American Idol contestant would sound singing that range of material. Yes, he mimed a lot on the HIStory tour but he is as known for his dancing as he is his singing. He still had his chops, even before he died (watch the brilliant live vocals on This Is It for proof). Anyway, we're talking about singers in their prime, so why did you even bring up the HIStory tour? Axl has sounded largely terrible live for the last ten years. Out of breath, missing notes, whiney and sometimes completely out of tune. He's still one of the best rock singers of our generation and sounds great on record, but he's a middle-aged man now and simply can't cut two hour live shows like he could when he was 28. Just like Jackson couldn't the older he got.The only reason Axl is even third place in this poll is because he shamelessly asked fans to vote for him on GNR twitter. Edited June 5, 2011 by Towelie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) Could you imagine Axl Rose singing a soul or gospel track? It would be laughable. Michael Jackson sounds convincing in a range of different genres.Why are you implying versatility is a greater trait than mastering? Michael Jackson was "convincing" in various genres as you say - Axl was a new, unique sound... there is no other Axl Rose with respect to singing (there were and are hundreds of Michael Jackson's singing wise... they just didn't have his warmth... personality... looks... dancing ability... enthusiasm). Dismissing his vocal versatility due to strong instrumentals is a joke.The strong instrumentals camouflaged the reality that although the songs were "different"... they all entailed the same Michael Jackson vocal style deliverance. Yes, he mimed a lot on the HIStory tour but he is as known for his dancing as he is his singing. He still had his chops, even before he died (watch the brilliant live vocals on This Is It for proof).The point is Michael Jackson couldn't deliver thirty percent of a setlist at thirty six... Axl was running around stages like a demented man with shrieking vocals at thirty nine and forty - highlighting Axl has a stronger ability. The most important argument is you've got hundreds of guys successfully imitating Michael Jackson whereas there are very few capable of nailing Axl's style. Edited June 5, 2011 by NewGNRnOldGNR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) The point is Michael Jackson couldn't deliver thirty percent of a setlist at thirty six... Axl was running around stages like a demented man with shrieking vocals at thirty nine and forty - highlighting Axl has a stronger ability. The most important argument is you've got hundreds of guys successfully imitating Michael Jackson whereas there are very few capable of nailing Axl's style.Bullshit. Stronger ability my ass. Lazy more like. Michael Jackson was singing his ass off from the age of 8. He spent three whole decades singing and performing before slowing down. Axl's active period consists of 7 years from 1987-1993. He then scratched his ass for the next eight years until re-emerging doing the occasional show in the 00's, mostly sounding tired and out of breath and unrecognisable from the man who originally sang AFD. And who exactly is successfully imitating Michael Jackson? Usher? Chris Brown? Please, give me a break. Your arguement is getting weaker so I'd quit now if I were you. Edited June 5, 2011 by Towelie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) . And who exactly is successfully imitating Michael Jackson? Usher? Chris Brown? Please, give me a break. Your arguement is getting weaker so I'd quit now if I were you.There are few guys not successfully using that Jacksonesque falsetto style - NeYo would be a primary example. There've been few "singers" who nailed the Axl or even that style. Axl has a unique vocal style and his approach is a lot more challenging (try imitating both artists for a full respective song and you'll see). The farcical arguement has always been your own - you bullishly suggested Michael Jackson is an outright better singer whereas I've acknowledged both have their qualities and it's ultimately a subjective matter. Michael Jackson is more crisp and clean - I happen to prefer the gritty, raw and imperfect nature of Axl - is my position less legitimate than yours? Certainly not. "MJ" is good in small doses - try listening to the high pitched moralising against Axl - I've never gotten beyond four tracks with Michael Jackson but could listen to Axl all day. I favour Axl Rose... you favour Michael Jackson - I don't think any further debating is going to shift either position and no amount of slander is going to discredit either viewpoint. Edited June 5, 2011 by NewGNRnOldGNR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I'm surprized NME gets a mention around these parts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomazrui Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'm sorry, I love Axl's voice, but MJ is miles ahead the better vocalist out of the two.I'd agree Michael Jackson maybe executes his style better... but Axl's style is significantly more challenging... which is why I would consider him to be the stronger singer - Michael Jackson's live performances, theatrics aside, were mostly very weak... so much so he relied heavily on lip synching to carry him through a "live" gig in latter years. I would say if you put Axl's strongest vocal hour against Jackson's you'd find it'd totally blow "MJ" out of the water (if you attempted the two yourself you'd probably be more inclined to find Axl more challenging).I don't agree that Axl's singing style is more challenging. I can't imagine Axl pulling off MJ's gospel cries at the end of Earth Song. Michael Jackson is a far more versatile singer and can do rock, soul, pop, gospel and even showtunes and he pulls all these styles off with ease. I also find it laughable that Axl in his finest hour could even compete with Michael in his prime. Watch footage from the Bad, Victory or Triumph tours and you'll see that MJ was a powerhouse live vocalist in his prime. Sure, he struggled in his latter years, but then have you heard Axl recently?I'm a die hard GNR fan, but Freddie > Axl. Anyway, voted 10 for both. MJ in second is a laugh.Maybe you're hard of hearing or something, but Michael Jackson was singing better at 8 years old than most of the people on this poll. You can't deny that.lol k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damn_Smooth Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Just search for Micheal Jackson impersonator on youtube and you find a million people that look, sound and act exactly like him.He is the new Elvis. They both have no talent, a million impersonators, and they both stole their movements and sound from black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts