Video of "Don't Let it Bring you Down" @ 1st night vegas

[SMG]

so you find it awful too?

No, as I have stated earlier I enjoyed the cover although he is pitchy at times (far less than the absurd claim of 80 % which Projected claims!) and wobbly here and there. I also find the tonal quality unusual, but still enjoyable on its own when I just forget that it is Axl and Guns N' Roses I am listening to.

I feel so sorry for you.

[SoulMonster]

so you find it awful too?

No, as I have stated earlier I enjoyed the cover although he is pitchy at times (far less than the absurd claim of 80 % which Projected claims!) and wobbly here and there. I also find the tonal quality unusual, but still enjoyable on its own when I just forget that it is Axl and Guns N' Roses I am listening to.

I feel so sorry for you.

Why?

[SMG]

so you find it awful too?

No, as I have stated earlier I enjoyed the cover although he is pitchy at times (far less than the absurd claim of 80 % which Projected claims!) and wobbly here and there. I also find the tonal quality unusual, but still enjoyable on its own when I just forget that it is Axl and Guns N' Roses I am listening to.

I feel so sorry for you.

Why?

You're completely blind to the good and bad, and let your stubborn love of the band and Axl get the better of you.

[SoulMonster]

so you find it awful too?

No, as I have stated earlier I enjoyed the cover although he is pitchy at times (far less than the absurd claim of 80 % which Projected claims!) and wobbly here and there. I also find the tonal quality unusual, but still enjoyable on its own when I just forget that it is Axl and Guns N' Roses I am listening to.

I feel so sorry for you.

Why?

You're completely blind to the good and bad, and let your stubborn love of the band and Axl get the better of you.

"Good" and "bad" are subjective opinions, being on key is not. My opinion that the Neil Young cover is good is completely subjective. I have no problem at all with people who disagree, just like I have no problem at all with any personal musical preferences that might be different from mine. Actually, I enjoy the fact that we like and dislike different things.

But when people claim that this cover is "80 % off key" then I object to that. It is just not open to opinions because pitch can be accurately determined and fact is that Axl is far from so much off key in that rendition.

As for your insinuation that I only like the cover because a have a "stubborn love for the band and Axl" it just makes me laugh. Why am I then so vehemently opposed to many songs from Chinese Democracy? Why then do I so vocally object to many facets of Axl's personality? Why then do I repeatedly express my opinion that today's band doesn't hold a candle to the classic era of the late 80s?

Trust me, if I say I like something then I have enough integrity to be honest about that. I have no problems sticking my head out and being contrary to others, I would have no problem in this regards either. I am not ashamed of my preferences because I believe I -- nor anyone else -- should be. I find the idea that I somehow lets my fandom overrule my critical sense nothing but silly.

[saber_]

"80% off key"?

*whispers* Someone knows jack shit about singing.

There's a difference between timbre and pitch, but for Axl's detractors, it's their raison d'être to make up grandiose lies.

[SoulMonster]

"80% off key"?

*whispers* Someone knows jack shit about singing.

There's a difference between timbre and pitch, but for Axl's detractors, it's their raison d'être to make up grandiose lies.

I am afraid they will "be sorry" for you, too, now, since you are obviously "completely blind to good and bad" caused by a "stubborn love for the band and Axl".

[saber_]

"80% off key"?

*whispers* Someone knows jack shit about singing.

There's a difference between timbre and pitch, but for Axl's detractors, it's their raison d'être to make up grandiose lies.

I am afraid they will "be sorry" for you, too, now, since you are obviously "completely blind to good and bad" caused by a "stubborn love for the band and Axl".

They can feel sorry all they want. I'm sure they're still completely discombobulated and feeling the sharp sting of the epic ownage Axl delivered in the USAtoday interview.

[trqster]

No new videos of this cover song? Maybe Axl has improved his performance on it...

[GN'R Lies]

I really liked it. It's been a while since I enjoyed a performance to that extent from GN'R. It was fresh, new, unique (for GN'R anyhow) and it worked.

Axl was known for his multiple voices; the clean high pitch, the raspy cat wail, the low register. It's how you USE those voices in the right setting/song. The problem has been Axl has used the 'mickey' voice on songs that need to rock out so it loses intensity and sounds weak and wrong. If he uses 'mickey' on the right songs it works and adds another dimension.

If Axl's voice can only do 3 'raspy' songs a night then he should only do 3. I don't know the state or circumstances of his voice but if there's issues I think he needs to cater for it properly rather than keep pushing on with the same songs when he can't pull them off.

[dalsh327]

so you find it awful too?

No, as I have stated earlier I enjoyed the cover although he is pitchy at times (far less than the absurd claim of 80 % which Projected claims!) and wobbly here and there. I also find the tonal quality unusual, but still enjoyable on its own when I just forget that it is Axl and Guns N' Roses I am listening to.

I feel so sorry for you.

Why?

You're completely blind to the good and bad, and let your stubborn love of the band and Axl get the better of you.

"Good" and "bad" are subjective opinions, being on key is not. My opinion that the Neil Young cover is good is completely subjective. I have no problem at all with people who disagree, just like I have no problem at all with any personal musical preferences that might be different from mine. Actually, I enjoy the fact that we like and dislike different things.

But when people claim that this cover is "80 % off key" then I object to that. It is just not open to opinions because pitch can be accurately determined and fact is that Axl is far from so much off key in that rendition.

As for your insinuation that I only like the cover because a have a "stubborn love for the band and Axl" it just makes me laugh. Why am I then so vehemently opposed to many songs from Chinese Democracy? Why then do I so vocally object to many facets of Axl's personality? Why then do I repeatedly express my opinion that today's band doesn't hold a candle to the classic era of the late 80s?

Trust me, if I say I like something then I have enough integrity to be honest about that. I have no problems sticking my head out and being contrary to others, I would have no problem in this regards either. I am not ashamed of my preferences because I believe I -- nor anyone else -- should be. I find the idea that I somehow lets my fandom overrule my critical sense nothing but silly.

I was just happy that GNR picked a song Neil rarely ever does. If you go to the show, just go out and get yourself a drink and take a leak.

[Projected]

"80% off key"?

*whispers* Someone knows jack shit about singing.

There's a difference between timbre and pitch, but for Axl's detractors, it's their raison d'être to make up grandiose lies.

There is a difference between timbre and pitch.

And Axl doesn't hit any of those with that cover.

[SoulMonster]

"80% off key"?

*whispers* Someone knows jack shit about singing.

There's a difference between timbre and pitch, but for Axl's detractors, it's their raison d'être to make up grandiose lies.

There is a difference between timbre and pitch.

And Axl doesn't hit any of those with that cover.

Timbre is not something you "hit". It is just another word for quality of the tone. There are numerous ways a tone may be undesirable ("shrill", "flat", "shaky", "pinched", "sharp'") but all of these are subjective. Basically, a singer must try to sing notes with a timber that reflects that song, and is consistent throughout the song. Sometimes the singer makes a bad choice, or aren't able to produce a timber that is pleasant or good with that particular song. But my main point is that timbre is subjective, there is no right answer here. Some might like the singer in Slash's band's timber (I honestly can't remember his name), others might not. Some might like Axl's timber in this cover, others might not.

What is not subjective, on the other hand, is pitch, meaning whether Axl is able to hit notes that are in the right key of the song. And fact is that he isn't very pitchy in this songs. His timbre is wobbly causing him to veer off pitch occasionally, and he might also miss a few high notes (although this could be caused by the audio source not reproducing those notes accurately) but all in all the amount of being off key in this song is less than 5 %. If he actually was off key for most of the song it would sound completely different and everyone (expect those 1-2 % who are tone deaf) would react negatively. The fact that you don't know these things means you are pretty ignorant of song theory (or tone deaf) and it is embarrassing and somewhat impressive that you despite these shortcomings have the audacity to make a fool of yourself on this topic.

[GN'R Lies]

I agree Soulmonster. He wasn't pitchy in the song. Not sure why some are saying so.

[Projected]

Because some of us have better musical understanding of keys and notes.

"pitch is subjective" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Apollo]

Perhaps this is the wrong thread, but at what point does this stop being a Guns N' Roses show? Here we are debating over whether Axl using his "clean" vocals while covering someone else's song with a band that had nothing to do with making this band famous is worth our time. Seriously, I'm starting to wonder what the point of all of this is.

You can suggest that it's my expectations that need to be modified, but I'm starting to question the defense of using the name Guns N" Roses if Axl isn't even going to try sounding like Axl Rose. If we're now about doing vocal impersonations while doing covers while playing old classics with guys who had nothing to do with them, what's really the point of calling this band Guns N' Roses?

I'm not asking this as a means to provoke since I have long defended Axl's lineup as GNR since this is the only group that is attempting to put on a GNR show with the lead vocalist who's signature style imprints the band's aura. But if we're now at the point where the only thing new this band has to offer is some weak cover sung in a style that sounds nothing like Axl's signature vocals, the rationale I just quoted seems to go out the window. I applaud Axl for wanting to take the band in a new direction, but really, after all this time the only thing new us fans are getting is a cover that sounds nothing like GNR? I'm not against covers if done well (see: Sailing), but Axl and the band should make them their own.

Best post of the month

[SoulMonster]

Because some of us have better musical understanding of keys and notes.

Apparently.

[Projected]

I'm not the one who said singing in key or off key is subjective

From now on there is nothing you can say to win your credibility back, after that shit.

I'm finished with this.

[Bruno P.]

"pitch is subjective" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What is not subjective, on the other hand, is pitch

Sometimes I wonder if we're talking to walls or doors...

From now on there is nothing you can say to win your credibility back, after that shit.

He's apparently talking to himself - and nobody's home.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Bruno Poeys

[volcano62]

Please excuse Projected he is a little on the slow side.

[downzy]

Pitch is not subjective, tone is.

[Projected]

Sorry, misread that, my bad.

Anyway, thinking that he is on pitch throughout this song is laughable, since anybody who knows anything about anything will tell you that he's off pitch most of the song. If you can't hear that, then you probably don't have musical hearing AT ALL, which is fine, too.

I'm done with this argument.

[downzy]

Sorry, misread that, my bad.

Anyway, thinking that he is on pitch throughout this song is laughable, since anybody who knows anything about anything will tell you that he's off pitch most of the song. If you can't hear that, then you probably don't have musical hearing AT ALL, which is fine, too.

I'm done with this argument.

I went to listen and I think you're right. Axl is often flat when he sings live, but it's part of his sound. Pitch isn't such a big concern when your sound is based on tone. I don't think he's radically off pitch throughout most of the song, but there are some definite rough spots. In the end, rock singers aren't generally known for their pitch controls. The irony of this conversation is that he is singing a Neil Young song, an artist not known for great pitch control.

[Apollo]

Can't we just all agree that at the end of the day, music comes down to personal preference. And that this is such a weird scenario (GnR's career) that there will be some people who praise and defend everything Axl does, and some who criticize everything he does. And we can never change the mind of those two groups. And arguing about tone and pitch and all that stuff is just silly.

Musical preference. Subjective. We all like and dislike different things.

I think Axl sounds horrible on this song.

I also agree with the earlier example of how crazy it is for Axl to keep the GnR name to advance the band........while covering a song, trying to sound like the singer of the song,. I'd love to hear the GnR version of the song, and not Axl trying to sound like Neil Young.

BUT.............I like Axl and GnR's version of Riff Raff better than AC/DC's version. I don't like all the covers and wish they would concentrate on new material. BUT, I fully admit that the last time I saw the band live and they broke into Riff Raff.....the energy level of the band and the crowd was off the charts. It was one of the highlights of the entire show. They took a song, covered it - but made it sound like their own.

The last show I went to was amazing. Hearing Civil War and Estranged live.......WOW. Shackler's live was ass-kicking. And them tearing up Riff Raff was almost like hearing a brand new song. It was pretty great.

Just musical taste, people. We all like different things.

I give Riff Raff a 10

But to my ears, Dont Let It Bring You Down is cringe worthy and the live version I heard won't ever even sniff making my Ipod. It just sounds awful.

[GN'R Lies]

Projected, I'm a muso with a very good ear. It wasn't always pitch perfect but he was on most of the time. There are A LOT of other performances I'd be calling out pitch problems. IMO some didn't like the singing style as it was wavery at times, ala Neil Young's style, but it was on pitch and IMO had feeling and suited both Axl and the band.

[Longpig]

I don't think arguing about pitch and tone and rasp matters. He does not sound good on this cover regardless of what he was and wasn't doing technically.

And GN'R Lies you do not have a good ear if you think this is good singing. I am a radiohead fan (among many) so vulnerable vocals clearly do not scare me off, I am comfortable enough to not think it's "gay" to like emotional vocal performances.

The issue I have with this performance is that the middle range of his voice is shot, so when he is coming in and out of falsetto notes or from below to above the "mid range" he sounds awful.

I like the song choice I love the non-rasp approach but Axl does not nail it or anywhere close. He sounds good in places, but overall it's clumsy and too many mistakes / vocal issues and the overall performance is poor at best.