This is the worst thing I've ever heard

[Ali]

You'll defend them to the grave. What's the point of even arguing it with you?

One thing is certain. Ali will NEVER stop spinning everything in a GNR discussion.

When people leave a show early, it's not a good sign of public perception. When general people crack jokes, it's not good. When the album ends up in a dollar store, it's generally not good. When hundreds to possibly thousands of people on youtube crack jokes and/or leave negative reviews, it's not good.

But hey.....there's always ticketmaster.

What's the point of arguing if you're not going to argue on the points?

You stated one thing that is absolutely and provably false (Ticketmaster doesn't allow negative reviews). You stated something else without any evidence to support your theory (Ticketmaster is moderated). You made another ambiguous blanket generalization without any real evidence it's true ("Check majority of the youtube comments on nearly every nugnr video" - implying said comments are overwhelmingly negative).

But, hey, when all else fails - ad hominem.

Ali

[Rustycage]

I didn't say they didn't allow any negative reviews, Aladdin. I gave you the common sense approach of any business out there....."Do not sponsor self-deprecation."

Or maybe I should just post the obvious phrase to you. "CONSIDER THE SOURCE"

Go check the videos. Most of them ARE negative replies. Tons of jokes were/are cracked about the 02 VMA's and Rio '11. It's not imagination, guy. There really are a lot of people who are not clinging lovingly to every little sound of Axl's mouth unlike some around here. Honestly, majority of any positive "general public" comments you see are from die hard smoochers here.

So many people have moved on from GNR. That's undeniable. Many because of the break up, many because of a change in music preference and many also because Axl is embarrassing himself when he puts the microphone to his mouth. Most of the time anyway.

You should work for Team Brazil. You construct that delusional positive atmosphere very well. Don't do it for free.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Rustycage

[Ali]

I didn't say they didn't allow any negative reviews, Aladdin. I gave you the common sense approach of any business out there....."Do not sponsor self-deprecation."

Or maybe I should just post the obvious phrase to you. "CONSIDER THE SOURCE"

Go check the videos. Most of them ARE negative replies. Tons of jokes were/are cracked about the 02 VMA's and Rio '11. It's not imagination, guy. There really are a lot of people who are not clinging lovingly to every little sound of Axl's mouth unlike some around here. Honestly, majority of any positive "general public" comments you see are from die hard smoochers here.

So many people have moved on from GNR. That's undeniable. Many because of the break up, many because of a change in music preference and many also because Axl is embarrassing himself when he puts the microphone to his mouth. Most of the time anyway.

You should work for Team Brazil. You construct that delusional positive atmosphere very well. Don't do it for free.

I have watched many, many videos of performances in the last couple of years. You mention two examples. There are many, many more beyond that don't support your blanket generalization.

You claimed Ticketmaster's site is moderated because, as you said, "as if they would ever allow negative reviews to hinder ticket sales". There is no proof of that. If what you're claiming is true, then they wouldn't allow any negative reviews so as to try to maximize ticket sales through positive word of mouth.

But, o.k., keep attacking me and making blanket, sweeping generalizations that seem to be "true" only because you want them to be.

Oh, nice job with another blanket generalization saying the majority of positive comments are "from die hard smoochers here". Way to dismiss the validity of what would disprove your point without any proof whatsoever.

Ali

[bacardimayne]

lol thinks ticketmaster is censored

people at the shows enjoy themselves for some inane reason, i don't get it either, but ticketmaster is not censored

[Rustycage]

Always. I repeat...ALWAYS consider the source.

You've used one example where reviews are good to somehow dismiss the original point of there being proof of negative public perception. Now you want to dog on the fact that I gave you a few examples of how sites(WITHOUT A BIAS) have a large rate of negative reviews?

Dude, you're one of only a few, at this point, that chooses to blind about public perception of GNR. I can't help you. I tried man but it can't be done.

I was totally impressed with the current lineup of GNR. They were phenomenal. Axl is an awesome singer and performer and exuded a great time.

Bahahaha

[Rustycage]

One of my worst concerts ever. First it took more than two hours to begin. Axel Rose can't even sing. After hours of yelling, we desire to go without him even finishing. Lots of people were walking out.

Kinda becoming a normal thing these days.

[Facekicker]

Read the reviews for the Dublin show 2010 on ticketmaster. My favourite had the headline Runs N Goses lol

[Rustycage]

I can't stop laughing at the amount of fluff reviews. If we are to believe that 87% of GNR fans have the same opinion as these fluff reviews, why are GNR barely selling out 3 or 4k a show?

[zepsun]

If only they had recorded '10 02 London show 2 years back....

They did, just not with a shit-ton of cameras.

Kind of like how Queen had two nights at Wembley in 1986 - the Saturday show had like 15 camera angles and was released officially, while the Friday show was only like a 5-camera shoot and sat unreleased up until a few years ago when it got released on DVD:

Thanks for this!! Nothing can touch Freddie... fucking brilliant... The end of Bohemian Rhapsody, is probably my favourite rock moment, I only wish that part was longer! lol

[jimb0]

Freddie is God

[Bruno P.]

If only they had recorded '10 02 London show 2 years back....

They did, just not with a shit-ton of cameras.

Kind of like how Queen had two nights at Wembley in 1986 - the Saturday show had like 15 camera angles and was released officially, while the Friday show was only like a 5-camera shoot and sat unreleased up until a few years ago when it got released on DVD:

Thanks for this!! Nothing can touch Freddie... fucking brilliant... The end of Bohemian Rhapsody, is probably my favourite rock moment, I only wish that part was longer! lol

Man, that was brilliant. What a singer. What a band. What a concert.

[Ace Frehley]

http://playadelnacho...-posted-online/

So I finally mustered up the courage to listen to something from the O2 DVD. Even fucking Sorry is unlistenably bad. Axl should never play a live show again.

Is that a pre recorded vocal track on Shacklers? It sounds very prominant and Axl's vocals sound shit singing along with it.

[Nosaj Thing]

If only they had recorded '10 02 London show 2 years back....

They did, just not with a shit-ton of cameras.

Kind of like how Queen had two nights at Wembley in 1986 - the Saturday show had like 15 camera angles and was released officially, while the Friday show was only like a 5-camera shoot and sat unreleased up until a few years ago when it got released on DVD:

When a band is good, it doesn't matter how many cameras were recording -- that magic moment is captured. Goddamn, what a good show!

[wasted]

How do you see this show?

[downzy]

The guys 51 years old, he is never going to sound like he did in his 20s.

I don't think anyone expects him to sound like he did in his 20's, however 2010 was not that long ago and Axl sounded a whole lot better then

Although this performance isn't bad, and is nowhere near Axl's worst performance. I am just a little underwhelmed by the vocals

That's a matter of opinion, though. Not everyone would agree. I can understand why some would like the raspier tone on the rockers, but I personally am not a fan of the tone at all on the ballads.

Ali

Not everyone, but it would seem like most would agree with WhazUp's assessment.

Don't be so certain. This board is not necessarily representative of the general public.

Ali

Lol, yeah, I suppose so. But if Axl can't win over a majority of his most ardent fans, not sure what chance he has with people who are less interested.

Though there are some, it's not as though most people on here, like WhazUp and others, are stating a general contempt for Axl's vocal performance. Few people around here were complaining in 2010 about Axl's voice. Your argument would hold more weight if that were the case.

Sorry is a decent studio song and a HORRIBLE live song. It completely breaks the mood. That's when you realize you're physically tired, when you notice the guy next to you stinks, etc... Dropping Sorry out of the setlist has been the best thing Axl has done since including Civil War as a staple. Sorry is just not a live song. TIL should be dropped too but Sorry...

100% agree with this, it's just one big 'Meh' of a song really, it's not that good on CD and it's a total bore live. I'd be up for some Rhiad in its place!

Saw them perform Rhiad live in Detroit in 2002. Probably the worst response for any GNR song I've ever seen. While Sorry may be a snoozer live, Rhiad is certainly not the answer. Very few people in generally like that song (never does well in CD polls); it's one of those songs that fans have to know ahead of time. Catcher seemed to get a better response and would probably be a better choice than either Rhiad or Sorry.

That last point of yours made no sense whatsoever. So, because you think that if Axl can't win over his most ardent fans, then the opinions of those on this board must be representative of the general public?

If so, that argument would hold water if it were true that the most ardent fans were more lenient than the more casual fans. I don't necessarily believe that's the case. The most ardent fans can be the most critical or nitpicking as well.

All you have to do is look at the plethora of reviews of shows from Ticketmaster's website to know that your assessment that "most" would agree with WhazUp's/Your opinion is not as clear cut as you may think.

Ali

Most of the ticketmaster reviews are in a normative context, few deal comparatively with previous shows. You're trying to argue from a normative context, which isn't my point at all. When the 2012 02 performance is considered comparatively, it's not a stretch to suggest that it's inferior. Doesn't mean it's bad, but from a comparative perspective, it suffers.

The question posed is whether most people would prefer Axl's 2010 performances to the O2 performance in 2012. If the hardcore faithful favour 2010, why would you think that the general public would think otherwise? Perhaps outside of ignorance, but a true comparison would likely yield the same results. When I took my girlfriend to Hamilton in 2011, she thought Axl sounded great. When I played her some videos of 2010 videos, she agreed that 2010 was better. It's not as though she thought the show she saw in 2011 was bad, but she did see understand why I wasn't as thrilled with Axl's performance when compared to his 2010 performance.

Edited February 27, 2013 by downzy

[Ali]

Always. I repeat...ALWAYS consider the source.

You've used one example where reviews are good to somehow dismiss the original point of there being proof of negative public perception. Now you want to dog on the fact that I gave you a few examples of how sites(WITHOUT A BIAS) have a large rate of negative reviews?

Dude, you're one of only a few, at this point, that chooses to blind about public perception of GNR. I can't help you. I tried man but it can't be done.

I was totally impressed with the current lineup of GNR. They were phenomenal. Axl is an awesome singer and performer and exuded a great time.

Bahahaha

I'm not dogging on the fact you gave examples of a few sites that are without a bias (as you claim) that you claim have large rate of negative reviews.

I'm dogging on the fact that you're saying things are true without providing any proof and finding convenient ways to dismiss whatever may challenge your point.

You claim Ticketmaster is moderated, but you have no proof. You then dismiss the positive reviews that appear there with no basis for your claim. You make an arbitrary claim about " majority of the youtube comments on nearly every nugnr video" without any proof. As I said, I've watched/listened to many YouTube videos from recent GN'R shows, and your assertion (as it seems to me to be) that there is are abundance or preponderance of negative reactions to "nearly every" video is a stretch. That's being conservative, too.

What is true and false, fact and fiction, is not something you can just determine on a whim in order to support your argument.

Ali

[zepsun]

Didn't listen to Sorry, but Shackler's is definitely not bad... CD isn't so bad either. There is rasp for the majority of both songs.

[TeeJay410]

All things considered, I don't really think it was that bad. Granted I wasn't expecting much. Axl goes all mickey on us here and there, DJ is still missing bends and engaging in general acts of fuckery (the running around off stage and putting his guitar on people in the audience during paradise city is just weird), the usual. What got me is how often the band goes out of sync, like at the end of sorry and the end of better, and 14 years, while cool to see, they clearly struggled though, Izzy in particular oddly enough so I don't know how much of that is on them. They didn't seem like a band who has been playing these songs live since 2009.

[Todo Poderoso Timão]

http://playadelnacho...-posted-online/

So I finally mustered up the courage to listen to something from the O2 DVD. Even fucking Sorry is unlistenably bad. Axl should never play a live show again.

Goddamn it!

And Ashba fucks up Bucket's solo on Sorry.

[Ali]

The guys 51 years old, he is never going to sound like he did in his 20s.

I don't think anyone expects him to sound like he did in his 20's, however 2010 was not that long ago and Axl sounded a whole lot better then

Although this performance isn't bad, and is nowhere near Axl's worst performance. I am just a little underwhelmed by the vocals

That's a matter of opinion, though. Not everyone would agree. I can understand why some would like the raspier tone on the rockers, but I personally am not a fan of the tone at all on the ballads.

Ali

Not everyone, but it would seem like most would agree with WhazUp's assessment.

Don't be so certain. This board is not necessarily representative of the general public.

Ali

Lol, yeah, I suppose so. But if Axl can't win over a majority of his most ardent fans, not sure what chance he has with people who are less interested.

Though there are some, it's not as though most people on here, like WhazUp and others, are stating a general contempt for Axl's vocal performance. Few people around here were complaining in 2010 about Axl's voice. Your argument would hold more weight if that were the case.

Sorry is a decent studio song and a HORRIBLE live song. It completely breaks the mood. That's when you realize you're physically tired, when you notice the guy next to you stinks, etc... Dropping Sorry out of the setlist has been the best thing Axl has done since including Civil War as a staple. Sorry is just not a live song. TIL should be dropped too but Sorry...

100% agree with this, it's just one big 'Meh' of a song really, it's not that good on CD and it's a total bore live. I'd be up for some Rhiad in its place!

Saw them perform Rhiad live in Detroit in 2002. Probably the worst response for any GNR song I've ever seen. While Sorry may be a snoozer live, Rhiad is certainly not the answer. Very few people in generally like that song (never does well in CD polls); it's one of those songs that fans have to know ahead of time. Catcher seemed to get a better response and would probably be a better choice than either Rhiad or Sorry.

That last point of yours made no sense whatsoever. So, because you think that if Axl can't win over his most ardent fans, then the opinions of those on this board must be representative of the general public?

If so, that argument would hold water if it were true that the most ardent fans were more lenient than the more casual fans. I don't necessarily believe that's the case. The most ardent fans can be the most critical or nitpicking as well.

All you have to do is look at the plethora of reviews of shows from Ticketmaster's website to know that your assessment that "most" would agree with WhazUp's/Your opinion is not as clear cut as you may think.

Ali

Most of the ticketmaster reviews are in a normative context, few deal comparatively with previous shows. You're trying to argue from a normative context, which isn't my point at all. When the 2012 02 performance is considered comparatively, it's not a stretch to suggest that it's inferior. Doesn't mean it's bad, but from a comparative perspective, it suffers.

The question posed is whether most people would prefer Axl's 2010 performances to the O2 performance in 2012. If the hardcore faithful favour 2010, why would you think that the general public would think otherwise? Perhaps outside of ignorance, but a true comparison would likely yield the same results. When I took my girlfriend to Hamilton in 2011, she thought Axl sounded great. When I played her some videos of 2010 videos, she agreed that 2010 was better. It's not as though she thought the show she saw in 2011 was bad, but she did see understand why I wasn't as thrilled with Axl's performance when compared to his 2010 performance.

You're right. Most Ticketmaster reviews are not comparative in nature.

I wasn't clear on why I brought up the Ticketmaster reviews. I see that now, so I'll try to clarify that further. If you were to read the reviews of the shows from those on these boards when it comes to the years of 2011-2012, whether it's based on in-person experience or just watching a handful of YouTube videos, you may think that a show sucked, like the Vegas residency shows. But, in reading the reviews from a more general audience of concert-goers (if you go to a show, you are sent a follow-up e-mail from Ticketmaster asking you to post a review) from a resource like Ticketmaster, you may, and I think in many instances, WILL find, that the perspectives may be different overall.

So, to conclude that most would agree with the assessment of being underwhelmed by Axl's vocals from the O2 2012 show, may not be as clear cut as you think.

If your point was about the comparison, well, you weren't clear about what you were referring to when you said "most would agree" - the comparison to 2010 or the general feeling of being underwhelmed by this 2012 performance.

Regardless, I still don't see why you would think the general public would agree with the hardcore faithful here when so many here denounce the performances of 2011 and 2012 as being poor (and not necessarily on a comparative basis), when the general public may not be in as clear an agreement with that. Furthermore, I don't understand why you think the hardcore fanbase would be more forgiving. In my observations of fanbases of various bands, it seems to be the hardcore fans are the most critical.

Ali

[Un42nutzly]

All things considered, I don't really think it was that bad. Granted I wasn't expecting much. Axl goes all mickey on us here and there, DJ is still missing bends and engaging in general acts of fuckery (the running around off stage and putting his guitar on people in the audience during paradise city is just weird), the usual. What got me is how often the band goes out of sync, like at the end of sorry and the end of better, and 14 years, while cool to see, they clearly struggled though, Izzy in particular oddly enough so I don't know how much of that is on them. They didn't seem like a band who has been playing these songs live since 2009.

Cmon its Rock N Roll, bands going out of sync just shows that they are playing and it isn't just music playing from some system. LMAO

[downzy]

Regardless, I still don't see why you would think the general public would agree with the hardcore faithful here when so many here denounce the performances of 2011 and 2012 as being poor (and not necessarily on a comparative basis), when the general public may not be in as clear an agreement with that. Furthermore, I don't understand why you think the hardcore fanbase would be more forgiving. In my observations of fanbases of various bands, it seems to be the hardcore fans are the most critical.

Ali

Hardcore fans are more critical because, in my opinion, they know more than the casual fan. Most hardcore fans, in my opinion, have been critical of the 2011 and 2012 show because they've seen Axl do better in 2006 and 2010. How many casual fans or people who attend a GNR show for the first time in 2011 are aware of past performances? When Axl came out in 2006 and blew the roof of his performances, people around here were losing their minds. But does someone attending a show this year know what Axl sounded like in 2006? Probably not.

Let's use golf as analogy. Say in 2010 Tiger Woods was shooting on average five under par for every game he played. Pretty good. Then in 2011 his game suffers and he's only shooting two under par. Still not bad, but not as good as 2010. The casual fan, who isn't pay attention, will likely be impressed if they're tuning in during 2011 but wasn't paying attention in 2010. The hardcore Tiger Woods fan will know better because he's aware what he did in 2010. It's safe to assume that since most hardcore Tiger fans would prefer Tiger to play like he did in 2010, most casual fans would too if they knew Tiger was shooting five under the year previously.

When Axl came out in 2006 and in 2010 and kicked ass vocally, there were far few dissenters around here. Sure, there's always going to be assholes and haters that will shit on the band no matter what, but for most people who post here regularly and follow the band religiously, they're willing to give Axl credit when he delivers. People who are posting glowing reviews on ticketmaster are happy because they felt like the show they saw was great. And just like my girlfriend, for them it may well have been. But if they were aware of how Axl sang only a few years later, they might concluded that the show they saw wasn't as good as they initially thought.

As a thought experiment, suppose GNR released the 2010 and 2012 London performances and allowed people to sample them before buying. Are you suggesting that more people would opt for the 2012 version? Granted, some might really prefer the setlist of 2012 since it included Estranged, Civil War, 14 years and Izzy, but strictly from a performance criteria, I'm not sure anyone would choose the 2012 version of 2010. I believe most on here would take the 2010 show based on the majority of the comments made. The casual fan, having a chance to listen to both, would likely do the same.

This isn't rocket science. It shouldn't be hard to understand why people who pay more attention to something my have a better grasp on performance metrics than those who tune in occasionally. Since the hardcore base is generally more critical than the general public, it's a safe assumption that an uninformed public would make the same choice if given the proper information. It's easy to be accepting and uncritical when you don't know any better. Like I mentioned in my previous post, my girlfriend still enjoyed the performance she saw in 2011, but she definitely felt Axl sounded better in the videos I played for her that were recorded in 2010. To think that most people wouldn't share the same view is a tad strange.

Edited February 27, 2013 by downzy

[Un42nutzly]

Regardless, I still don't see why you would think the general public would agree with the hardcore faithful here when so many here denounce the performances of 2011 and 2012 as being poor (and not necessarily on a comparative basis), when the general public may not be in as clear an agreement with that. Furthermore, I don't understand why you think the hardcore fanbase would be more forgiving. In my observations of fanbases of various bands, it seems to be the hardcore fans are the most critical.

Ali

Hardcore fans are more critical because, in my opinion, they know more than the casual fan. Most hardcore fans, in my opinion, have been critical of the 2011 and 2012 show because they've seen Axl do better in 2006 and 2010. How many casual fans or people who attend a GNR show for the first time in 2011 are aware of past performances? When Axl came out in 2006 and blew the roof of his performances, people around here were losing their minds. But does someone attending a show this year know what Axl sounded like in 2006? Probably not.

Let's use golf as analogy. Say in 2010 Tiger Woods was shooting on average five under par for every game he played. Pretty good. Then in 2011 his game suffers and he's only shooting two under par. Still not bad, but not as good as 2010. The casual fan, who isn't pay attention, will likely be impressed if they're tuning in during 2011 but wasn't paying attention in 2010. The hardcore Tiger Woods fan will know better because he's aware what he did in 2010. It's safe to assume that since most hardcore Tiger fans would prefer Tiger to play like he did in 2010, most casual fans would too if they knew Tiger was shooting five under the year previously.

When Axl came out in 2006 and in 2010 and kicked ass vocally, there were far few dissenters around here. Sure, there's always going to be assholes and haters that will shit on the band no matter what, but for most people who post here regularly and follow the band religiously, they're willing to give Axl credit when he delivers. People who are posting glowing reviews on ticketmaster are happy because they felt like the show they saw was great. And just like my girlfriend, for them it may well have been. But if they were aware of how Axl sang only a few years later, they might concluded that the show they saw wasn't as good as they initially thought.

As a thought experiment, suppose GNR released the 2010 and 2012 London performances and allowed people to sample them before buying. Are you suggesting that more people would opt for the 2012 version? Granted, some might really prefer the setlist of 2012 since it included Estranged, Civil War, 14 years and Izzy, but strictly from a performance criteria, I'm not sure anyone would choose the 2012 version of 2010. I believe most on here would take the 2010 show based on the majority of the comments made. The casual fan, having a chance to listen to both, would likely do the same.

This isn't rocket science. It shouldn't be hard to understand why people who pay more attention to something my have a better grasp on performance metrics than those who tune in occasionally. Since the hardcore base is generally more critical than the general public, it's a safe assumption that an uninformed public would make the same choice if given the proper information. It's easy to be accepting and uncritical when you don't know any better. Like I mentioned in my previous post, my girlfriend still enjoyed the performance she saw in 2011, but she definitely felt Axl sounded better in the videos I played for her that were recorded in 2010. To think that most people wouldn't share the same view is a tad strange.

You have a valid point, but there are people who arent fond of the rasp and may prefer the clean voice. I know from the Vegas shows, hearing it live in the arena sounds awesom. And i love the rasp

[downzy]

Regardless, I still don't see why you would think the general public would agree with the hardcore faithful here when so many here denounce the performances of 2011 and 2012 as being poor (and not necessarily on a comparative basis), when the general public may not be in as clear an agreement with that. Furthermore, I don't understand why you think the hardcore fanbase would be more forgiving. In my observations of fanbases of various bands, it seems to be the hardcore fans are the most critical.

Ali

Hardcore fans are more critical because, in my opinion, they know more than the casual fan. Most hardcore fans, in my opinion, have been critical of the 2011 and 2012 show because they've seen Axl do better in 2006 and 2010. How many casual fans or people who attend a GNR show for the first time in 2011 are aware of past performances? When Axl came out in 2006 and blew the roof of his performances, people around here were losing their minds. But does someone attending a show this year know what Axl sounded like in 2006? Probably not.

Let's use golf as analogy. Say in 2010 Tiger Woods was shooting on average five under par for every game he played. Pretty good. Then in 2011 his game suffers and he's only shooting two under par. Still not bad, but not as good as 2010. The casual fan, who isn't pay attention, will likely be impressed if they're tuning in during 2011 but wasn't paying attention in 2010. The hardcore Tiger Woods fan will know better because he's aware what he did in 2010. It's safe to assume that since most hardcore Tiger fans would prefer Tiger to play like he did in 2010, most casual fans would too if they knew Tiger was shooting five under the year previously.

When Axl came out in 2006 and in 2010 and kicked ass vocally, there were far few dissenters around here. Sure, there's always going to be assholes and haters that will shit on the band no matter what, but for most people who post here regularly and follow the band religiously, they're willing to give Axl credit when he delivers. People who are posting glowing reviews on ticketmaster are happy because they felt like the show they saw was great. And just like my girlfriend, for them it may well have been. But if they were aware of how Axl sang only a few years later, they might concluded that the show they saw wasn't as good as they initially thought.

As a thought experiment, suppose GNR released the 2010 and 2012 London performances and allowed people to sample them before buying. Are you suggesting that more people would opt for the 2012 version? Granted, some might really prefer the setlist of 2012 since it included Estranged, Civil War, 14 years and Izzy, but strictly from a performance criteria, I'm not sure anyone would choose the 2012 version of 2010. I believe most on here would take the 2010 show based on the majority of the comments made. The casual fan, having a chance to listen to both, would likely do the same.

This isn't rocket science. It shouldn't be hard to understand why people who pay more attention to something my have a better grasp on performance metrics than those who tune in occasionally. Since the hardcore base is generally more critical than the general public, it's a safe assumption that an uninformed public would make the same choice if given the proper information. It's easy to be accepting and uncritical when you don't know any better. Like I mentioned in my previous post, my girlfriend still enjoyed the performance she saw in 2011, but she definitely felt Axl sounded better in the videos I played for her that were recorded in 2010. To think that most people wouldn't share the same view is a tad strange.

You have a valid point, but there are people who arent fond of the rasp and may prefer the clean voice. I know from the Vegas shows, hearing it live in the arena sounds awesom. And i love the rasp

I don't deny that fact, but I'm concerned about the opinion of the majority. Axl's "clean" vocals may appeal to some and in the appropriate songs, but I'm speaking to performances as a whole. If we got a properly recorded and mixed 2010 show and a 2012, which do you think most people would pick if they were able to sample both? My argument is that since most people who post here regularly (the diehards, which, just by using that name, seems to indicate that these people would know better than random ticketmaster posters who probably only saw that one show) would choose the 2010 show, it's not a leap of faith to assume that the general public would prefer the same.

And Axl's clean vocals sound better live because they're assisted by the magic of live sound. A weak voice can sound all powerful and potent when amplified to hell by a powerful sound system. Take the live variable away (i.e. the million watt sounds system) and base the assessment on objective recordings and what do you get? Axl's "clean" voice sounds less "clean" and more weak. Again, my opinion, but it seems to be one shared by most around here.

Edited February 27, 2013 by downzy

[Ali]

Regardless, I still don't see why you would think the general public would agree with the hardcore faithful here when so many here denounce the performances of 2011 and 2012 as being poor (and not necessarily on a comparative basis), when the general public may not be in as clear an agreement with that. Furthermore, I don't understand why you think the hardcore fanbase would be more forgiving. In my observations of fanbases of various bands, it seems to be the hardcore fans are the most critical.

Ali

Hardcore fans are more critical because, in my opinion, they know more than the casual fan. Most hardcore fans, in my opinion, have been critical of the 2011 and 2012 show because they've seen Axl do better in 2006 and 2010. How many casual fans or people who attend a GNR show for the first time in 2011 are aware of past performances? When Axl came out in 2006 and blew the roof of his performances, people around here were losing their minds. But does someone attending a show this year know what Axl sounded like in 2006? Probably not.

Let's use golf as analogy. Say in 2010 Tiger Woods was shooting on average five under par for every game he played. Pretty good. Then in 2011 his game suffers and he's only shooting two under par. Still not bad, but not as good as 2010. The casual fan, who isn't pay attention, will likely be impressed if they're tuning in during 2011 but wasn't paying attention in 2010. The hardcore Tiger Woods fan will know better because he's aware what he did in 2010. It's safe to assume that since most hardcore Tiger fans would prefer Tiger to play like he did in 2010, most casual fans would too if they knew Tiger was shooting five under the year previously.

When Axl came out in 2006 and in 2010 and kicked ass vocally, there were far few dissenters around here. Sure, there's always going to be assholes and haters that will shit on the band no matter what, but for most people who post here regularly and follow the band religiously, they're willing to give Axl credit when he delivers. People who are posting glowing reviews on ticketmaster are happy because they felt like the show they saw was great. And just like my girlfriend, for them it may well have been. But if they were aware of how Axl sang only a few years later, they might concluded that the show they saw wasn't as good as they initially thought.

As a thought experiment, suppose GNR released the 2010 and 2012 London performances and allowed people to sample them before buying. Are you suggesting that more people would opt for the 2012 version? Granted, some might really prefer the setlist of 2012 since it included Estranged, Civil War, 14 years and Izzy, but strictly from a performance criteria, I'm not sure anyone would choose the 2012 version of 2010. I believe most on here would take the 2010 show based on the majority of the comments made. The casual fan, having a chance to listen to both, would likely do the same.

This isn't rocket science. It shouldn't be hard to understand why people who pay more attention to something my have a better grasp on performance metrics than those who tune in occasionally. Since the hardcore base is generally more critical than the general public, it's a safe assumption that an uninformed public would make the same choice if given the proper information. It's easy to be accepting and uncritical when you don't know any better. Like I mentioned in my previous post, my girlfriend still enjoyed the performance she saw in 2011, but she definitely felt Axl sounded better in the videos I played for her that were recorded in 2010. To think that most people wouldn't share the same view is a tad strange.

Just out of curiosity how do you know if someone who attended a show in 2011 didn't attend a show in 2006 and is aware of how he sounded then? Just because they're not on a message board and posting doesn't mean that they haven't attended GN'R shows in different years, with different lineups.

How do you know the casual fan would pick a 2012 performance over 2010? Why do you assume it's likely they'd do the same as the people who post here? It's certainly possible, but it seems to me that you are insisting that's true primarily because of the comments here and a belief that the opinions of those here are representative of the general public.

And I fail to see how the opinion of your girlfriend proves anything. No offense, but that is one person. My girlfriend prefers his vocal tone now than at any time in the past because she finds it to be less abrasive to the ears. She's not a big fan of raspy vocals. So what? It's one data point.

I really don't see why you assume it would be strange to have a view differing from yours other than the fact that it is shared by so many on this board, and/or the fact you just believe so strongly you are "right". I can see how that would make it difficult to fathom someone having a legitimately different opinion than yours. Again, you may be right, but you may not be. I have known my fair share of people who didn't like GN'R BECAUSE they found Axl's raspy vocals abrasive. That may not be representative of a large percentage of people who've listened to GN'R...but then again, it may be more common than I thought.

Ali

Edited February 27, 2013 by Ali