Should Axl Rose retire?

[Nosaj Thing]

Of course not, what the fuck are you talkin' about?

[Chris 55]

I just wish he'd get in the studio. That voice ain't gonna last forever

[SoulMonster]

Of course not, what the fuck are you talkin' about?

You have to understand that he is speaking from the point of a guy who is not a fan of the current band and just comes here to cupcake and enjoy the shits and giggles he gets from the noise he creates. Then it all makes sense why a thread on a fan forum should promote that the band the forum is all about disbands.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

No. He cannot sing extremely well any more.

Some degree of truth to that. The magic to his voice is still intact to some extent, enough where he can still provide entertainment for the time being. But it seems to be on a downward slope, and time is not on Axl's side anymore sadly...

True, I suppose. at times, his voice can still be really great. I think it's more a matter of how hard he tries. Obviously he's not in the same fit condition he was some years ago. Add to it that he's 6 years older as well. So he goes out of breath constantly. I think the whole Mickey Mouse voice is due to that he doesn't give a fuck any more, more than anything, to be honest. He still have some rasp in his voice at occasions and I think he could have it all the time if he made more of an effort. I think he just finds it strenuous to sing with the rasp voice and therefore avoid using it these days. He could if he wanted, but he's not arsed, since it would require more for him.

[SoulMonster]

No. He cannot sing extremely well any more.

Some degree of truth to that. The magic to his voice is still intact to some extent, enough where he can still provide entertainment for the time being. But it seems to be on a downward slope, and time is not on Axl's side anymore sadly...

True, I suppose. at times, his voice can still be really great. I think it's more a matter of how hard he tries. Obviously he's not in the same fit condition he was some years ago. Add to it that he's 6 years older as well. So he goes out of breath constantly. I think the whole Mickey Mouse voice is due to that he doesn't give a fuck any more, more than anything, to be honest. He still have some rasp in his voice at occasions and I think he could have it all the time if he made more of an effort. I think he just finds it strenuous to sing with the rasp voice and therefore avoid using it these days. He could if he wanted, but he's not arsed, since it would require more for him.

Err, if you actually rallied your whole brain and really gave it a thorough consideration, wouldn't it dawn upon even you that the rasp voice could be harmful to the voice box long-term and that by not using it as extensively he might escape having to cancel shows because of having voice problems or prevent sounding like a rock grater on overdrive? I mean, isn't that a more plausible explanation than just claiming he decides to not do it because "he's not arsed", especially considering the fact that he obviously make a huge effort to give the audience a great, great show?

[The_Universal_Sigh]

Ideally Guns N Roses should do a reunion tour and then put it to bed.

Instead, we'll get these nobodies playing mostly the same songs the old band would be playing for a year or so tops.

[OJones90]

He can still sing extremely well

No. He cannot sing extremely well any more.

Ah right, he must have just had 3 lucky nights then when i saw him. And endless amount of videos i've seen of other gigs. My bad

Edited June 27, 2012 by OJones90

[SoulMonster]

He can still sing extremely well

No. He cannot sing extremely well any more.

Ah right, he must have just had 3 lucky nights then when i saw him. And endless amount of videos i've seen of other gigs. My bad

Yes, if you had only taken the time to carefully compare minute differences in how he sings now and back in 1988 and then blown these marginal differences up to gigantic proportions, rather than go to the concerts and hence clearly be biased, then you would know better.

[Cosmo]

We get a thread like every once in a while and the same members always give the same answers.

[OJones90]

He can still sing extremely well

No. He cannot sing extremely well any more.

Ah right, he must have just had 3 lucky nights then when i saw him. And endless amount of videos i've seen of other gigs. My bad

Yes, if you had only taken the time to carefully compare minute differences in how he sings now and back in 1988 and then blown these marginal differences up to gigantic proportions, rather than go to the concerts and hence clearly be biased, then you would know better.

I wouldn't go to a gig if i didn't think he was good enough anymore.

And just because he doesn't sing like he did in 88 doesn't mean he isn't awesome lmao O_o

[dalsh327]

There's a lot of singers who should prob. retire. There's singers who can pull off songs from 40 years ago, but they weren't "great" singers in the first place.

Some singers who can't hit the high notes, usually have another singer do it. Or have the sound guy punch in pre-recorded vocals and trick the audience.

Steve Perry is a case where at 50, he put music on hold, but when "Don't Stop Believing" was a hit again, he just did some radio shows and called in. Never sang. Interesting to avoid something like that... I just think he can't sing the notes anymore, but his career arc was '78-98, and had 2 solo albums. It's been about as long hearing something from him as it is "Chinese Democracy". And it's a given he would easily sell arenas, because Journey does well live, they found someone who's able to do Steve Perry better than Perry. But I had heard his last live tour and he was tuning down then.

I think there's another decade before he hits the point of deciding whether or not to carry on. He still has gas in the tank. In the studio, he can take way more time to rest his voice or rasp it up as needed for the song. I think around 60, is when he'll prob. decide whether or not to keep going with GNR as a live act. That seems to be a benchmark age now for rock musicians, in some cases, it's 70.

Curmudgeons are usually uncompromising and have a lot of fight in them, so if he becomes a cranky old bastard, it'll still fit him as much as being a bad boy of rock in his 20s.

[The Archer]

I think you should retire.

All the complainers should retire.

[rockerman]

He can still sing extremely well

No. He cannot sing extremely well any more.

as a singer myself...to me Axl is dialing in the hits...its as if hes not singing from the heart or with belief at times.

[vaida]

One thing is for sure, Axl should quit dancing on tables. The last thing he needs at his age is a broken pelvic bone.

[RocketQueenGNR]

I think you should retire.

All the complainers should retire.

YES!!!!! Just GTFO!!!!

[finck6]

Honestly, yes. He sucks live these days, I doubt he'll ever release music again, his latest album sucked and his new band is a standing laughing stock. Now when we definitely for sure know that there wont ever be a chance for a reunion, after HOF, I don't want him to embarrass himself and tarnish the little legacy he has left even more.

I expect him to go on a few more cash and grab tours until he's 55 and then retire however.

well. axl's on another cash grab tour right now. and 2012 guns n roses is considered a laughing stock cause dj ashba and ron thal don't play their own new guns n roses material. they play slash classics and new robin and bucket chinese democracy songs. doesn't look like anything change anytime soon

[Guest GHS]

He can still sing extremely well

No. He cannot sing extremely well any more.

Ah right, he must have just had 3 lucky nights then when i saw him. And endless amount of videos i've seen of other gigs. My bad

Yes, if you had only taken the time to carefully compare minute differences in how he sings now and back in 1988 and then blown these marginal differences up to gigantic proportions, rather than go to the concerts and hence clearly be biased, then you would know better.

Are you really saying that Axl is singing alright nowadays? I know that badly recorded YouTube videos aren't the best evidence of how his voice is doing right now, but people are not stupid or deaf. Watching a video, for example, even a trained chimp could see that Axl was singing very well in 2010, and way better than 11-12. One more thing: in concert, most people don't even mind or think about Axl's voice, they just enjoy the whole concert. They don't take a break to analyze the quality of the voice in the show. I'd rather rely on well recorded concerts to do that. Furthermore, in concert people usually are more emotional than rational, don't you think?

EDIT: Oh, I don't think Axl should retire, of course. There's always the chance that he returns singing as in 2010. I voted "yes" just for fun.

Edited June 27, 2012 by GHS

[TeeJay410]

Sure whatever. Would anyone outside of these forums even notice?

[SoulMonster]

Are you really saying that Axl is singing alright nowadays? I know that badly recorded YouTube videos aren't the best evidence of how his voice is doing right now, but people are not stupid or deaf.

No, you are right, they aren't stupid or deaf, so when they leave the concerts happy and tell me Axl sang great, then I believe them.

One more thing: in concert, most people don't even mind or think about Axl's voice, they just enjoy the whole concert. They don't take a break to analyze the quality of the voice in the show.

I am not saying his voice is as good as it was, but when it is good enough to please reviewers and concert goers and make them explicitly comment on his great voice, then he sings great.

[Guest GHS]

Are you really saying that Axl is singing alright nowadays? I know that badly recorded YouTube videos aren't the best evidence of how his voice is doing right now, but people are not stupid or deaf.

No, you are right, they aren't stupid or deaf, so when they leave the concerts happy and tell me Axl sang great, then I believe them.

One more thing: in concert, most people don't even mind or think about Axl's voice, they just enjoy the whole concert. They don't take a break to analyze the quality of the voice in the show.

I am not saying his voice is as good as it was, but when it is good enough to please reviewers and concert goers and make them explicitly comment on his great voice, then he sings great.

Well, I can only conclude that you rely the definition of good singing and bad singing on a subjective or relativistic criterium--like people appreciating or not appreciating the show. It just doesn't work that way. Think with me. If you put a '86 Axl to sing to an audience who only appreciates, let's say it, samba, or bossa nova, and they start throwing tomatoes on Axl, kicking him out of the stage, would you say "oh, I think Axl was great, but since the totality of people hated him, then Axl is not singing well"? And if the entire world, except Axl and an only-Chopin listener, turns into deaf, he would automatically and eternally be a bad singer? I know I used radical examples, but still, I think, the argument fit and must be taken in consideration. What I mean is: there must be some objective criteria to analyze the competence of a musician, and I know you know that. And level of satisfaction has nothing to do with it. People could be just musical idiots, without a trained ear or without a trained aesthetical sensibility.

[vaida]

Sure whatever. Would anyone outside of these forums even notice?

If Axl faded away, few would even notice. To the masses, even now, Axl isn't all that relevant.

It would be good to know how relevant Axl thinks he is, given the people he surrounds himself by. He genuinely might be clue-less.

[SoulMonster]

Well, I can only conclude that you rely the definition of good singing and bad singing on a subjective or relativistic criterium--like people appreciating or not appreciating the show.

Yes, I kinda feel that is the whole purpose of being a vocalist, hahah

It just doesn't work that way. Think with me. If you put a '86 Axl to sing to an audience who only appreciates, let's say it, samba, or bossa nova, and they start throwing tomatoes on Axl, kicking him out of the stage, would you say "oh, I think Axl was great, but since the totality of people hated him, then Axl is not singing well"? And if the entire world, except Axl and an only-Chopin listener, turns into deaf, he would automatically and eternally be a bad singer? I know I used radical examples, but still, I think, the argument fit and must be taken in consideration. What I mean is: there must be some objective criteria to analyze the competence of a musician, and I know you know that. And level of satisfaction has nothing to do with it.

But that is EXACTLY the criteria I am using. The purpose of a singer is to sing and entertain. And if he succeeds at entertaining through his voice, then he is succeeding. It is that simple to me. It is all about making people happy and enjoy themselves, and nothing about objectively trying to quantify the quality of a the song. I think that is a dead end given that the purpose of the singer is only to make people enjoy the song.

People could be just musical idiots, without a trained ear or without a trained aesthetical sensibility.

You don't need a trained ear to be able to enjoy music. You like what you like, and those that are gifted with the ability to give you what you like through song, are good singers.

[OJones90]

Just out of curiosity, those saying axl can't sign anymore....have you attended a gig?

[kanudo19]

congratulations ! the first fan forum in the world who creates a poll asking if the band they worship should retire amazing !

[Guest GHS]

Well, I can only conclude that you rely the definition of good singing and bad singing on a subjective or relativistic criterium--like people appreciating or not appreciating the show.

Yes, I kinda feel that is the whole purpose of being a vocalist, hahah

It just doesn't work that way. Think with me. If you put a '86 Axl to sing to an audience who only appreciates, let's say it, samba, or bossa nova, and they start throwing tomatoes on Axl, kicking him out of the stage, would you say "oh, I think Axl was great, but since the totality of people hated him, then Axl is not singing well"? And if the entire world, except Axl and an only-Chopin listener, turns into deaf, he would automatically and eternally be a bad singer? I know I used radical examples, but still, I think, the argument fit and must be taken in consideration. What I mean is: there must be some objective criteria to analyze the competence of a musician, and I know you know that. And level of satisfaction has nothing to do with it.

But that is EXACTLY the criteria I am using. The purpose of a singer is to sing and entertain. And if he succeeds at entertaining through his voice, then he is succeeding. It is that simple to me. It is all about making people happy and enjoy themselves, and nothing about objectively trying to quantify the quality of a the song. I think that is a dead end given that the purpose of the singer is only to make people enjoy the song.

People could be just musical idiots, without a trained ear or without a trained aesthetical sensibility.

You don't need a trained ear to be able to enjoy music. You like what you like, and those that are gifted with the ability to give you what you like through song, are good singers.

Well, I can only respectfully disagree with you. I really think that music has this personal level thing, of course -- after all, music is an art that appeals mostly to our senses, and, as you said (and I partially agree with you), we don't need to have trained ears to enjoy music. But what I'm doing here is trying to separate the moment of enjoying the music of the moment of criticizing the music. And to critically analyze art in general we need objective criteria, that's what I'm saying. People don't feel happy all the time. Imagine an hypothetical situation in which 90% of the audience is in a bad mood. Let's say the band, in spite of having done everything just fine -- Axl sung alright, tried all the time to interact with the public, and all the band played everything with no errors and tried too to interact with the audience. But despite all this efforts, people don't enjoy the show, and go home in the same bad mood they came in. Imagine now you're a music reviewer, and that you went to the concert, and that you enjoyed the show, and that you noticed that the band has done everything fine, but the public was inexplicably apathetic. What would you write? "Axl didn't sung very well last night, and the band wasn't good" or "Axl sung very well last night, and the band played everything fine, but the audience simply was apathetic to all the efforts of the band in doing a great show"? The level of satisfaction of the audience is something to malleable for a reviewer to rate the competence of a musician.

Summarizing, one thing is to rate a concert as an spectacle, an entertainment, which is alright. To do that, a reviewer will certainly use the audience's level of satisfaction as an element. But another different thing is to analyze a thing like Axl's voice. Then you'll put aside all these subjective elements, and bring on elements like Axl's breathless voice, Axl's mickey-mouseness, Axl's out-of-key-singing (just hypothetically saying this) etc. The same could be applied to the instrumental section. Those objective elements I use to criticize the current competence on playing of any band.