Why does Axl sound different live than on youtube?

[trqster]

It's really laughable some of this comments here...if anything a youtube recording will improve how the vocals sounded at a concert - and I've been to a few already...

In '06 I thought Axl sounded kinda of weak sometimes at the RIR Lisbon show and later on ALL recordings confirmed that fact. In '10 I was blown away at how strong and raspy Axl sounded, and ALL youtube videos confirmed it.

No fucking mistery here, just plain facts!

[NachoLZ]

have you ever watch O2 london video 720p-1080p using an earphone?

after you do that, you'll notice the difference

Yes I have. Are you guys saying that with good quality you can hear Axl using rasp where as with shitty quality you can't? I think that's what I'm disagreeing with... I'm not sure anymore. Because you can tell whether he's using rasp no matter what quality.

Yes jimbo, i know he is weaker than 2010. But i'm here to say that in better sound quality, he definetly sound better. there are some kind of soft rasp and power. Search some bad quality footage, and you'll hear mickey mouse. But in o2 london hd footage, he sounds mighty mouse, am i right?

Ps: keep the earphone connected

youre right, i heared london 2012 with earphones, it improved, now im hearing reading 2010 this i love with headphones, im blown away.

[drtydane]

you can't judge axl's voice frm a youtube video, unless it's the 09-10 tour where he sounded great, then it's ok to post your opinion.

#teamaxl

Perfect post.

[Flayer]

Recordings are are the issue some of the time. Certainly not always. There are nights like Rock in Rio IV or the Bridge School Benefit concert where he just sang badly and there's no argument over it.

But there are other times where an average performance can sound bad on one person's recording and better on someone else's, or where using better speakers or headphones can markedly improve the sound.

There are recordings of the 2010 shows like the London O2 where his vocals sound far more Mickeyish than the ones we know and love.

[F*ck Fear]

YouTube does not change the sound of his vocal.

[dalsh327]

I'm sure if we had access to the master tapes from various sessions and past concerts, there's plenty of cringeworthy but hilarious moments with Axl's singing. For all we know, he probably has a mix of those moments, kind of like a blooper reel.

[aArief178]

have you ever watch O2 london video 720p-1080p using an earphone?

after you do that, you'll notice the difference

Yes I have. Are you guys saying that with good quality you can hear Axl using rasp where as with shitty quality you can't? I think that's what I'm disagreeing with... I'm not sure anymore. Because you can tell whether he's using rasp no matter what quality.

Yes jimbo, i know he is weaker than 2010. But i'm here to say that in better sound quality, he definetly sound better. there are some kind of soft rasp and power. Search some bad quality footage, and you'll hear mickey mouse. But in o2 london hd footage, he sounds mighty mouse, am i right?

Ps: keep the earphone connected

youre right, i heared london 2012 with earphones, it improved, now im hearing reading 2010 this i love with headphones, im blown away.

Thats what i'm talking about

[Guest NGOG]

This is a common phenonmenon amongst the community, some people that were at a particular show will swear up and down Axl's just delivered the performance of his career, then that won't transpire in the subsequent videos.

It clearly has something to do with the mix. The prominence of the guitars probably distort a clear perception of Axl's vocals and clearly there are special effects in operation too.

[Obsession Of Vanity]

This is a common phenonmenon amongst the community, some people that were at a particular show will swear up and down Axl's just delivered the performance of his career, then that won't transpire in the subsequent videos.

It clearly has something to do with the mix. The prominence of the guitars probably distort a clear perception of Axl's vocals and clearly there are special effects in operation too.

Special effects that are suddenly removed by the usage of a camera?

[Apollo]

It is hilarious that people say it's unfair to judge Axl's voice on youtube videos ............but then the same people will post a youtube video where Axl sounds good and use that as evidence that Axl still sounds great live!!!!! And odd that other singers sound great in their cellphone recorded youtube videos.

[originalgnrnewgnr]

he uses "soft rasp", that's a new one.

[jimb0]

This is a common phenonmenon amongst the community, some people that were at a particular show will swear up and down Axl's just delivered the performance of his career, then that won't transpire in the subsequent videos.

It clearly has something to do with the mix. The prominence of the guitars probably distort a clear perception of Axl's vocals and clearly there are special effects in operation too.

In Hartford 2002 I though Axl was amazing. Then I heard the boot and he cracked on Jungle in the worst possible way, it was really funny. Since then I've learned to gauge Axl without being caught up in the moment.

he uses "soft rasp", that's a new one.

But you can't hear it on cell phones... only on pro shot dvds. haha

[originalgnrnewgnr]

This is a common phenonmenon amongst the community, some people that were at a particular show will swear up and down Axl's just delivered the performance of his career, then that won't transpire in the subsequent videos.

It clearly has something to do with the mix. The prominence of the guitars probably distort a clear perception of Axl's vocals and clearly there are special effects in operation too.

In Hartford 2002 I though Axl was amazing. Then I heard the boot and he cracked on Jungle in the worst possible way, it was really funny. Since then I've learned to gauge Axl without being caught up in the moment.

he uses "soft rasp", that's a new one.

But you can't hear it on cell phones... only on pro shot dvds. haha

seriously, the apologists are coming up with some stupid excuses lately. they also post videos with 30 seconds of rasp when the whole fucking show should be axl singing with his trademark voice.

[VictorPeres]

Guys, the audio was remastered from the O2 london. Anyone who understands leftover mix knows that. Put an FX to give a soft voice and increasing power in some parts.

The example that the videos are not "lying" is the Soundbord shows the post in 2011.

[Gordon Comstock]

he uses "soft rasp", that's a new one.

I've not seen that term used before, but it kind of fits his 2001 voice.... It doesn't fit his current voice, though.

[OJones90]

You're all rather moronic, to be honest.

I'm in no way defending Axl, he isn't as good as he was in 2010. But the fact still remains that he (and any other singer ever) will always sound better actually live, than on a video. (More so with Axl, because of the rasp everyone so desperately wants to hear)

Pro footage doesn't mean shit, I actually think it's worse than a regular fan camera, especially GNR's recent pro shot gigs anyway with the mixing. (Reading, London for example) With Reading it sounds better with fan recordings than it does pro footage.

I was at London, and while he didn't sound as great as he did in 2010 (when i saw him twice), he sure as hell sounded much better than any footage i've seen. It's a completely different experience when you're actually there, with the atmosphere, rather than the band being recorded and edited. I suppose it helps when his voice is echoing and bouncing from wall to wall at the o2 arena, sounding more 'live' and more powerful than the edited pro footage. I never once thought he was off form at all.

Same goes for 2010 btw. He still sounds amazing in any footage but it was still even better live.

Edited July 15, 2013 by OJones90

[WhazUp]

doesn't mean shit, I actually think it's worse than a regular fan camera, especially GNR's recent pro shot gigs anyway with the mixing. (Reading, London for example) With Reading it sounds better with fan recordings than it does pro footage.

But wouldn't you think that the people mixing it would be able to mix his vocals in a way that makes him sound great? If I had to guess for those shows, the issue would be the source material (i.e. the vocals themselves)

Anyway I have gone to many, many shows and have seen footage both audience and proshot (most recently the Soundgarden show aired on PBS's The Artist Den) and I have never, ever encountered a show, GNR included, that sounds very different from the live experience.

If Axl sounds off key on tape, it was because he was off key live. If he sounds horrible, sure maybe proshots that aren't mixed properly don't help the situation, but they won't make a good vocal performance suddenly horrible you know?

Edited July 15, 2013 by WhazUp

[trqster]

Seen Gn´R live 3 times: in 92 (real Gn'R), 06 & 10 (nuGn'R) and everytime Axl sounded as good if not even a little bit better on (good) recordings than on the show itself. That being said the live show is a blow your mind experience by its own, a real worthily rock show.

[originalgnrnewgnr]

You're all rather moronic, to be honest.

I'm in no way defending Axl, he isn't as good as he was in 2010. But the fact still remains that he (and any other singer ever) will always sound better actually live, than on a video. (More so with Axl, because of the rasp everyone so desperately wants to hear)

Pro footage doesn't mean shit, I actually think it's worse than a regular fan camera, especially GNR's recent pro shot gigs anyway with the mixing. (Reading, London for example) With Reading it sounds better with fan recordings than it does pro footage.

I was at London, and while he didn't sound as great as he did in 2010 (when i saw him twice), he sure as hell sounded much better than any footage i've seen. It's a completely different experience when you're actually there, with the atmosphere, rather than the band being recorded and edited. I suppose it helps when his voice is echoing and bouncing from wall to wall at the o2 arena, sounding more 'live' and more powerful than the edited pro footage. I never once thought he was off form at all.

Same goes for 2010 btw. He still sounds amazing in any footage but it was still even better live.

a new level of delusional.

[Guns n' Swedes]

If you have head phones and high volume even the semi-Mickey sounds cool I think. That's also similar to being there live when it's better quality sound and much louder.

[GNR123GNR456]

He doesn't. When he's good live, he's good on youtube. When he sucks live, he sucks on youtube.

[aArief178]

This is a common phenonmenon amongst the community, some people that were at a particular show will swear up and down Axl's just delivered the performance of his career, then that won't transpire in the subsequent videos.

It clearly has something to do with the mix. The prominence of the guitars probably distort a clear perception of Axl's vocals and clearly there are special effects in operation too.

In Hartford 2002 I though Axl was amazing. Then I heard the boot and he cracked on Jungle in the worst possible way, it was really funny. Since then I've learned to gauge Axl without being caught up in the moment.

he uses "soft rasp", that's a new one.

But you can't hear it on cell phones... only on pro shot dvds. haha

No kidding here people! I can give examples..

[Axl_morris]

Have we explored the theory of camera's in 2010 have different audio receivers to those build into camera's in 2012?

Perhaps Axl is using a higher range frequency on his mic than in 2010

Due to 4G/LTE phones being brought into venue's from 2012 they interfere with the acoustics which eliminates rasp through the speakers, similarly when you switch your phone on during a flight and the plane crashes onto the runway!

Edited July 15, 2013 by Axl_morris

[jimb0]

This is a common phenonmenon amongst the community, some people that were at a particular show will swear up and down Axl's just delivered the performance of his career, then that won't transpire in the subsequent videos.

It clearly has something to do with the mix. The prominence of the guitars probably distort a clear perception of Axl's vocals and clearly there are special effects in operation too.

In Hartford 2002 I though Axl was amazing. Then I heard the boot and he cracked on Jungle in the worst possible way, it was really funny. Since then I've learned to gauge Axl without being caught up in the moment.

he uses "soft rasp", that's a new one.

But you can't hear it on cell phones... only on pro shot dvds. haha

No kidding here people! I can give examples..

I would love to hear these examples. Can you post pro shots vs cell phones where the pro shots pick up this 'soft rasp' and the cell phones don't please?

You're all rather moronic, to be honest.

I'm in no way defending Axl, he isn't as good as he was in 2010. But the fact still remains that he (and any other singer ever) will always sound better actually live, than on a video. (More so with Axl, because of the rasp everyone so desperately wants to hear)

Pro footage doesn't mean shit, I actually think it's worse than a regular fan camera, especially GNR's recent pro shot gigs anyway with the mixing. (Reading, London for example) With Reading it sounds better with fan recordings than it does pro footage.

I was at London, and while he didn't sound as great as he did in 2010 (when i saw him twice), he sure as hell sounded much better than any footage i've seen. It's a completely different experience when you're actually there, with the atmosphere, rather than the band being recorded and edited. I suppose it helps when his voice is echoing and bouncing from wall to wall at the o2 arena, sounding more 'live' and more powerful than the edited pro footage. I never once thought he was off form at all.

Same goes for 2010 btw. He still sounds amazing in any footage but it was still even better live.

a new level of delusional.

I believe what he is saying is that Live... you don't get an accurate perception of his vocals because of the live reverb, so since you can't hear him as good you 'Think' he sounds better than he does. Then when you listen to the mic source, you get the accurate representation... so Axl isn't good live, but the terrible acoustics and on the fly mixing make it seem like he might be good. I'll be damned because Ritz 88, Rock Am Ring 06 and Inland sound amazing to me. Then you throw on London 02 and the VMAs and you're like, wtf?

Edited July 16, 2013 by jimb0

[aArief178]

This is a common phenonmenon amongst the community, some people that were at a particular show will swear up and down Axl's just delivered the performance of his career, then that won't transpire in the subsequent videos.

It clearly has something to do with the mix. The prominence of the guitars probably distort a clear perception of Axl's vocals and clearly there are special effects in operation too.

In Hartford 2002 I though Axl was amazing. Then I heard the boot and he cracked on Jungle in the worst possible way, it was really funny. Since then I've learned to gauge Axl without being caught up in the moment.

he uses "soft rasp", that's a new one.

But you can't hear it on cell phones... only on pro shot dvds. haha

No kidding here people! I can give examples..

I would love to hear these examples. Can you post pro shots vs cell phones where the pro shots pick up this 'soft rasp' and the cell phones don't please?

You're all rather moronic, to be honest.

I'm in no way defending Axl, he isn't as good as he was in 2010. But the fact still remains that he (and any other singer ever) will always sound better actually live, than on a video. (More so with Axl, because of the rasp everyone so desperately wants to hear)

Pro footage doesn't mean shit, I actually think it's worse than a regular fan camera, especially GNR's recent pro shot gigs anyway with the mixing. (Reading, London for example) With Reading it sounds better with fan recordings than it does pro footage.

I was at London, and while he didn't sound as great as he did in 2010 (when i saw him twice), he sure as hell sounded much better than any footage i've seen. It's a completely different experience when you're actually there, with the atmosphere, rather than the band being recorded and edited. I suppose it helps when his voice is echoing and bouncing from wall to wall at the o2 arena, sounding more 'live' and more powerful than the edited pro footage. I never once thought he was off form at all.

Same goes for 2010 btw. He still sounds amazing in any footage but it was still even better live.

a new level of delusional.

I believe what he is saying is that Live... you don't get an accurate perception of his vocals because of the live reverb, so since you can't hear him as good you 'Think' he sounds better than he does. Then when you listen to the mic source, you get the accurate representation... so Axl isn't good live, but the terrible acoustics and on the fly mixing make it seem like he might be good. I'll be damned because Ritz 88, Rock Am Ring 06 and Inland sound amazing to me. Then you throw on London 02 and the VMAs and you're like, wtf?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTbpMrUcrCs

on the HD one, you can hear little rasp even on his mickey voice, as i said, he is not as great as 2010, but you eventually hear rasp sharper when you're on high definition sound.

keep the earphone connected

Edit: i'm not here to create bad relationship among us all, so, peace

Edited July 16, 2013 by aArief178