This is the worst thing I've ever heard

[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.

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.

Wow, what a convenient way to dismiss any favorable opinion that may come from a live experience.

Ali

[bacardimayne]

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.

The moment his voice goes high in Shackler's it becomes total shit. How do people just not notice this?

[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.

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.

Ali

Essentially, what you're suggesting, is that the hardcore fanbase should not be viewed as a proper representation because they're overtly critical. But why are they critical? Why is an informed voter more critical over candidates than uninformed ones? It's because they've taken the time to investigate, educate, and elevate their opinions that are more fully informed.

Let's compare the people who post here versus the people who posted reviews on ticketmaster. Is it likely that people on ticketmaster also attended previous shows in 2006 and 2010? Sure. But who, of the two different posters, is more likely to investigate previous performances outside of a live setting? Who is more likely to watch youtube clips from past years to get a feel for Axl's voice in a comparative context? My bet it's the mygnrforum poster who'll take the time to compare an Axl performance on youtube than those who wrote reviews on ticketmaster. I don't deny that there are some who prefer Axl's clean vocals, but based on the opinions of those posting here, who have spent far more time learning the qualitative differences between 2010 and 2011, it seems like that opinion is in the majority.

You seem to accept that most posters on mygnrforum would prefer Axl's performance in 2010 to 2011, but you believe that this in no way indicates the opinions of the common fan or the person who's attended a couple of shows from multiple years. But there's a qualitative difference between the fans who invest the time and effort to find comparisons between the performances. Those are the opinions I value more, just as I would give greater credence to the person who's spent more time learning a candidate's position to someone who's only read the headlines.

I'm not basing my assessment solely on my view. Like I acknowledged to GNRFan53, there are some around here who prefer Axl's clean vocals. And just as likely, there are some, like your girlfriend, who prefers them in a live setting as well. Fine. But again, I'm interested in the majority of the whole. I can use the majority opinion here as evidence that people prefer Axl's 2010 vocal performances to his more recent ones. What evidence do you have to prove the opposite? Again, you might point to the ticketmaster reviews. But again, who are more likely to be educated as to the various performances styles of Axl?

And despite what you might think, live sound is a horrible way to truly assess a musical performance. Anyone who's played in front of any decent sized audience with a quality PA and sound mixer can attest that live audiences are, for the most part, dumb. It's far easier to paper over mistakes and bad performances in a live setting than a what recording will allow. It's why in my band we always bought the soundboard mix so we could hear our mistakes. Even sharing a stage, it's tough to pick up mistakes or botched performances over the wall of sound. If you want to truly evaluate vocal performances, or guitar abilities, or the band unit as a whole, you really need to strip all the atmosphere, multi-watt sound system, and light show away from the performance. Don't believe me? Ever heard of auto-tune? Sound is very easy to manipulate in a live setting, but getting it right on tape/hard drive is completely different matter. Nobody with any live performance experience would argue otherwise.

Wow, what a convenient way to dismiss any favorable opinion that may come from a live experience.

Ali

As my previous post points out, it's not simply convenient, but also true. Running a weak voice through a million watt sound system will make it sound far less weak. Recording a weak voice, unless digitally altered, will always sound weak. It's not a debatable point.

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.

Ali

Essentially, what you're suggesting, is that the hardcore fanbase should not be viewed as a proper representation because they're overtly critical. But why are they critical? Why is an informed voter more critical over candidates than uninformed ones? It's because they've taken the time to investigate, educate, and elevate their opinions that are more fully informed.

Let's compare the people who post here versus the people who posted reviews on ticketmaster. Is it likely that people on ticketmaster also attended previous shows in 2006 and 2010? Sure. But who, of the two different posters, is more likely to investigate previous performances outside of a live setting? Who is more likely to watch youtube clips from past years to get a feel for Axl's voice in a comparative context? My bet it's the mygnrforum poster who'll take the time to compare an Axl performance on youtube than those who wrote reviews on ticketmaster. I don't deny that there are some who prefer Axl's clean vocals, but based on the opinions of those posting here, who have spent far more time learning the qualitative differences between 2010 and 2011, it seems like that opinion is in the majority.

You seem to accept that most posters on mygnrforum would prefer Axl's performance in 2010 to 2011, but you believe that this in no way indicates the opinions of the common fan or the person who's attended a couple of shows from multiple years. But there's a qualitative difference between the fans who invest the time and effort to find comparisons between the performances. Those are the opinions I value more, just as I would give greater credence to the person who's spent more time learning a candidate's position to someone who's only read the headlines.

I'm not basing my assessment solely on my view. Like I acknowledged to GNRFan53, there are some around here who prefer Axl's clean vocals. And just as likely, there are some, like your girlfriend, who prefers them in a live setting as well. Fine. But again, I'm interested in the majority of the whole. I can use the majority opinion here as evidence that people prefer Axl's 2010 vocal performances to his more recent ones. What evidence do you have to prove the opposite? Again, you might point to the ticketmaster reviews. But again, who are more likely to be educated as to the various performances styles of Axl?

And despite what you might think, live sound is a horrible way to truly assess a musical performance. Anyone who's played in front of any decent sized audience with a quality PA and sound mixer can attest that live audiences are, for the most part, dumb. It's far easier to paper over mistakes and bad performances in a live setting than a what recording will allow. It's why in my band we always bought the soundboard mix so we could hear our mistakes. Even sharing a stage, it's tough to pick up mistakes or botched performances over the wall of sound. If you want to truly evaluate vocal performances, or guitar abilities, or the band unit as a whole, you really need to strip all the atmosphere, multi-watt sound system, and light show away from the performance. Don't believe me? Ever heard of auto-tune? Sound is very easy to manipulate in a live setting, but getting it right on tape/hard drive is completely different matter. Nobody with any live performance experience would argue otherwise.

>>>Wow, what a convenient way to dismiss any favorable opinion that may come from a live experience.

Ali

As my previous post points out, it's not simply convenient, but also true. Running a weak voice through a million watt sound system will make it sound far less weak. Recording a weak voice, unless digitally altered, will always sound weak. It's not a debatable point.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I think a lot of the hardcore fans have an attachment to a particular sound or tone because its representative of the sound they came to know. And I think that sometimes, anything different from that, can be rejected, just like a change in a band's sound can be rejected or a change in band membership can be rejected - it is different from what someone has come to know and love. That's understandable. I think that's another potential explanation for heightened criticism from the more hardcore element of the fanbase.

I don't see how being familiar with th evolution of Axl's vocal tone would make one's opinion on vocal tone more valuable. Although, seeing what your argument is, I can see how you would say that. It supports your assertion that you can extrapolate the opinion of those on this forum to represent what the majority of the concert-going audience for GN'R, hardcore and casual, would think.

The political analogy is a poor one. You don't need to do in depth research to have a valid opinion on how someone sounds at a show (or on a recording).

I'm sure you value the opinions of those who are more "informed". I'm sure it's also just a coincidence that the opinions of the "informed" posters here also align with your own

When did I ever say that the majority would prefer Axl's clean vocal tone, i.e. the opposite? I didn't. I just cautioned you against assuming this is necessarily representative of the majority of those in attendance at the shows, not just those here. It may be true, it may not be. You seem convinced it is.

We've taken roll calls of the number of people here attending a show, and for the last two Vegas shows it was roughly 12 or so out of a total of 3000 attendees. That's roughly half a percent. Not exactly a large sample size. Sure, there may be some variation in that percentage depending on the city/market size, but is a few percent at best, on average, really a large enough percentage to say "I can use the majority opinion here as evidence that people prefer Axl's 2010 vocal performances to his more recent ones"? I'm not so sure.

As far as your not so subtle attempt at dismissing the opinions of those who attend shows in person, a megawatt sound system cannot give a singer vibrato when they don't have it, nor can it provide breath support for a voice that doesn't have it. So, I'm not really sure what your definition of a weak voice is, and how a sound system can mask the things I mentioned. Vocal volume is not an indicator of vocal conditioning anyway. You can pull back on your volume even with a well-conditioned voice. That doesn't mean your voice is weak, it just means you're pulling back on your volume. It's not like pushing his voice did Axl any favors during the UYI tour. It resulted postponing several dates on the Metallica tour.

Ali

Edited February 27, 2013 by Ali

[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.

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.

Ali

Essentially, what you're suggesting, is that the hardcore fanbase should not be viewed as a proper representation because they're overtly critical. But why are they critical? Why is an informed voter more critical over candidates than uninformed ones? It's because they've taken the time to investigate, educate, and elevate their opinions that are more fully informed.

Let's compare the people who post here versus the people who posted reviews on ticketmaster. Is it likely that people on ticketmaster also attended previous shows in 2006 and 2010? Sure. But who, of the two different posters, is more likely to investigate previous performances outside of a live setting? Who is more likely to watch youtube clips from past years to get a feel for Axl's voice in a comparative context? My bet it's the mygnrforum poster who'll take the time to compare an Axl performance on youtube than those who wrote reviews on ticketmaster. I don't deny that there are some who prefer Axl's clean vocals, but based on the opinions of those posting here, who have spent far more time learning the qualitative differences between 2010 and 2011, it seems like that opinion is in the majority.

You seem to accept that most posters on mygnrforum would prefer Axl's performance in 2010 to 2011, but you believe that this in no way indicates the opinions of the common fan or the person who's attended a couple of shows from multiple years. But there's a qualitative difference between the fans who invest the time and effort to find comparisons between the performances. Those are the opinions I value more, just as I would give greater credence to the person who's spent more time learning a candidate's position to someone who's only read the headlines.

I'm not basing my assessment solely on my view. Like I acknowledged to GNRFan53, there are some around here who prefer Axl's clean vocals. And just as likely, there are some, like your girlfriend, who prefers them in a live setting as well. Fine. But again, I'm interested in the majority of the whole. I can use the majority opinion here as evidence that people prefer Axl's 2010 vocal performances to his more recent ones. What evidence do you have to prove the opposite? Again, you might point to the ticketmaster reviews. But again, who are more likely to be educated as to the various performances styles of Axl?

And despite what you might think, live sound is a horrible way to truly assess a musical performance. Anyone who's played in front of any decent sized audience with a quality PA and sound mixer can attest that live audiences are, for the most part, dumb. It's far easier to paper over mistakes and bad performances in a live setting than a what recording will allow. It's why in my band we always bought the soundboard mix so we could hear our mistakes. Even sharing a stage, it's tough to pick up mistakes or botched performances over the wall of sound. If you want to truly evaluate vocal performances, or guitar abilities, or the band unit as a whole, you really need to strip all the atmosphere, multi-watt sound system, and light show away from the performance. Don't believe me? Ever heard of auto-tune? Sound is very easy to manipulate in a live setting, but getting it right on tape/hard drive is completely different matter. Nobody with any live performance experience would argue otherwise.

>>>Wow, what a convenient way to dismiss any favorable opinion that may come from a live experience.

Ali

As my previous post points out, it's not simply convenient, but also true. Running a weak voice through a million watt sound system will make it sound far less weak. Recording a weak voice, unless digitally altered, will always sound weak. It's not a debatable point.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I think a lot of the hardcore fans have an attachment to a particular sound or tone because its representative of the sound they came to know. And I think that sometimes, anything different from that, can be rejected, just like a change in a band's sound can be rejected or a change in band membership can be rejected - it is different from what someone has come to know and love. That's understandable. I think that's another potential explanation for heightened criticism from the more hardcore element of the fanbase.

Fair enough. Perhaps you're right. Axl's voice isn't for everyone. Maybe the general public would opt for a more Mickey Mouse sounding voice than the one they're use to hearing in the recordings. Perhaps they'd maybe even prefer it if Axl sounded more like Cindy Lauper? Sure, anything is possible. But let's discuss what's more likely. I acknowledge that I might be wrong, but I'd be more than willing to bet that people would rather have Axl sound like he did back in the late 80s early 90s than what we've been hearing the past year or so.

I don't see how being familiar with th evolution of Axl's vocal tone would make one's opinion on vocal tone more valuable. Although, seeing what your argument is, I can see how you would say that. It supports your assertion that you can extrapolate the opinion of those on this forum to represent what the majority of the concert-going audience for GN'R, hardcore and casual, would think.

The political analogy is a poor one. You don't need to do in depth research to have a valid opinion on how someone sounds at a show (or on a recording).

Again, you're falling into a normative discourse. An opinion that is well versed in both sides will always be more valid than an opinion that's only been exposed to a single perspective. Sure, one could get lucky, but generally an opinion is as valid as the knowledge behind it. Otherwise, why even have experts on anything?

I'm sure you value the opinions of those who are more "informed". I'm sure it's also just a coincidence that the opinions of the "informed" posters here also align with your own

So my opinion is shared by a majority here, but it's not determined by the majority. Most people around here like the song Street of Dreams. Personally, I can't stand it. But I'm not here trying to argue that it's one of GNR's least popular songs because such a position wouldn't be supported by the facts.

When did I ever say that the majority would prefer Axl's clean vocal tone, i.e. the opposite? I didn't. I just cautioned you against assuming this is necessarily representative of the majority of those in attendance at the shows, not just those here. It may be true, it may not be. You seem convinced it is.

We've taken roll calls of the number of people here attending a show, and for the last two Vegas shows it was roughly 12 or so out of a total of 3000 attendees. That's roughly half a percent. Not exactly a large sample size. Sure, there may be some variation in that percentage depending on the city/market size, but is a few percent at best, on average, really a large enough percentage to say "I can use the majority opinion here as evidence that people prefer Axl's 2010 vocal performances to his more recent ones"? I'm not so sure.

Not sure if you followed the recent Presidential election in the U.S., but most pollsters only sampled a very small percentage of the population. Many polls were comprised of a few thousand people or so. Yet some polls were fairly accurate despite the fact that the country has almost 350 million people in it. You don't need a large sample size to determine the general sentiment.

As far as your not so subtle attempt at dismissing the opinions of those who attend shows in person, a megawatt sound system cannot give a singer vibrato when they don't have it, nor can it provide breath support for a voice that doesn't have it. So, I'm not really sure what your definition of a weak voice is, and how a sound system can mask the things I mentioned. Vocal volume is not an indicator of vocal conditioning anyway. You can pull back on your volume even with a well-conditioned voice. That doesn't mean your voice is weak, it just means you're pulling back on your volume. It's not like pushing his voice did Axl any favors during the UYI tour. It resulted postponing several dates on the Metallica tour.

Ali

I figured it was fairly obvious what was meant by weak, but obviously that's not the case. In the context that myself, and I presume most, speak about relative to Axl, having a weak voice has nothing to do with vibrato, breath support or even pitch control (Axl's always been a little flat here and there since GNR began). I'm talking about the the vocal vibrations that cause a screeching (or rasp) sound that's a result for more force being put on his vocal chords. It's not a matter of volume but an issue of tone. Varying amount of force results in a tonal difference. It's something he has control over, since he seems pretty capable of producing the stronger, more classic-like Axl tone in songs like Welcome to the Jungle and It's So Easy. But he lets off with most other songs in the set, and when people start using expressions like Mickey Mouse, it's what I refer to as weak.

And you're right, maybe this is a good thing relative Axl's ability to perform on a nightly basis. I'm not here to argue that he shouldn't monitor his ability to sing. But that's besides the point. What's being discussed is whether the tone that Axl was able to produce for most of 2010 (and throughout entire sets) is more desirable by fans (hardcore and casual alike) than what Axl's been producing the past year or so. And like we've covered several times tonight, since the hardcore seems to prefer Axl's classic sound to the one he's produced lately, I'm more inclined to believe the general public would too if given a choice. Hence, a 2010 video might be better received considering the performance's qualitative differences over the 2012.

Edited February 27, 2013 by downzy

[Ali]

I don't agree at all then that a particular tone, especially a raspy one, constitutes a "strong" voice, or the absence of that tone creates a "weak" voice. One way to create a raspy vocal tone is to use as little air as possible, which induces friction between the vocal cords, which in turn creates a raspy sound. I think that's why Axl's voice can get raspier at the end of a phrase. I don't think that's a measure of strength or proper conditioning at all, it's a matter of technique and at times could be the inadvertent result of insufficient breath support to sustain a complete phrase.

I certainly wouldn't argue that the preponderance of opinions here favor a raspier vocal tone. I just don't think that necessarily represents the majority of the concert-going audience for the band when you're talking a relatively minor fraction of the overall audience being here on these boards. It may be true. But, i don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

Ali

[downzy]

Fair enough, and you're right in the sense that Axl's banshee screams and raspy tones are not indicative of proper singing conditioning. And there are likely vocal coaches that would strongly disagree with my assessment of weak/strong vocal characteristics. But the terms are meant to insinuate meanings to vocal qualities that most would understand.

And like I said, i don't necessarily fault a 51 year old man for holding back considering the demands placed on him by a busy tour. But it's the sound he's most identified with and what most people want to hear when they listen to him sing. It's his signature sound for many (and again, I argue most). If he sounded more like that in 2010 than he does now, I don't see why it's hard to accept that more people would want the recording where he sounds like his old self.

Btw, I do wonder if a 2012 release was chosen less out of artistic/performance considerations but having more to do with business issues. Perhaps there are contractual obligations surrounding a 2010 show that would require GNR/Axl to pay parties attached to the band then that are no longer connected now. Perhaps certain legal settlements with former managers entitle them to a percentage of revenues from that time period. Releasing a gig from the 2012 would mean such party would not be entitled to such a payment.