Axl Rose : The greatest front man of all time

[classicrawker]

Clearly someone has their knickers in a knot! So much so, that most of my post is taken out of context, it's doing my head in. Taking this to PM as it's already getting off-topic. I will say one thing though: Mick Jagger can't sing.

50 years of being the biggest Rock band in history and millions of records sold would say otherwise mate............... .

Edited February 12, 2014 by classicrawker

[Guest Len B'stard]

Whats ridiculous here is that The Stones ain't even my favourite band, not even close, i'm being as clinical as I can here, my favourite singer in the world ever is Johnny Rotten but i'd have to be a dickhead to sit here and, just cuz he's my favourite, assert him as the greatest frontman ever in as broad a context as I can, I mean i do love The Stones but they're probably just about in my top 20 of all time were I inclined to compile ridiculous mental lists of that sort.

You simply cannot deny facts though, you simply cannot sit here and tell me, treating the matter as objectively as one can when discussing things that are kinda rooted in personal identification, that Axl Rose is a better frontman than Mick Jagger, it is just absolutely ridiculous, it is laughable, it is hilarious. And whats sad is people actually believe that shit. Sorry, correction, people on GnR forums believe that shit Once again, i'm not talking about who you like better yourself otherwise, for me, people like The Sex Pistols, New York Dolls, Johnny Thunders etc would take precedent over all other bands. I mean look, i just named you punk folks, people who are meant to be the antithesis of The Stones thing…and look, they're all Mick and Keef imitators, Johnny Thunders was an obsessed Keith Richards fans, he collected his cigarette butts outside Maxes, David Johansen was a total take on Mick, Iggy was a total take on Mick, Jim Morrison was a take on Mick, this isn't just my opinion this is well known shit. Izzy Stradlin for the love of Christ, what is Izzy if not a Keef for the 80s?

It's all a giant lineage and The Stones, in a band sense, are central to what we know about rock n roll, our understanding of it and the construction of the archetype of what it is is to A frontman or A guitarist, they are just utterly invaluable in that regard and this notion that this band from the 80s that is highly derivative of bands thats were essentially a facsimile of The Stones in the first place, it's ridiculous.

And this isn't to denigrate GnR, it's to install The Stones at the pinnacle of rock n roll (which they are anyway, far be it from me to have any bearing on that particular happenstance), the highest compliment i EVER heard paid to GnR was 'they could've been The Stones', thats like…an accolade you can take to your grave with a smile, for someone to actually see the potential in your talent, so much so that they think you could have a similar or equal effect as a group that were just SOOOO important to the evolution of popular music and youth culture…popular culture in general in fact.

Edited February 12, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Zint]

Axl was absolutely captivating whenever I saw the band 91-93. Easily the best front man of that era.
I mean, come on, props where due. Anyone who saw the band live 86-93 knows that (did I just GnR educate?)

In the grand scheme of things though, consistency counts towards that title.

I've seen the Stones in 5 different decades and Mick guides that ship meticulously.

I saw the Stones twice in May 2013 and they were pretty solid gigs
At times, I had goosebumps, just like I did when I first saw them in the 70's, and at the helm..was Mick.

I saw nuGuns in a half full club in Toronto last summer, which should have been a night to remember you know?
I came away sooooo underwhelmed it wasn't even funny.
It was such a half baked mess without any soul or meaning, I honestly wished I hadn't gone.
Axl just didn't seem to care about any of it.

The reason I followed "GnR" into the 2000's was solely for Axl's highly anticipated return to the stage.
His legacy preceeded him, hopes were high. It was exciting. How could you not sniff it out to see what was up?

But now? There's no fire there imo, there's an overwhelming reliance on a stellar legacy from the original band's glory days...with a few ChiDem tunes sprinkled on for seasoning.
I mean, what's it all stand for now?

Original era?...oh yeah, the boy's a contender.
Now?...eh, not so much.

And just to weigh in, Iggy is majestic on stage.

[Bruno P.]

Clearly someone has their knickers in a knot! So much so, that most of my post is taken out of context, it's doing my head in. Taking this to PM as it's already getting off-topic. I will say one thing though: Mick Jagger can't sing.

50 years of being the biggest Rock band in history and millions of records sold would say otherwise mate............... .

Because The Beatles never existed

[Spuffy78]

Clearly someone has their knickers in a knot! So much so, that most of my post is taken out of context, it's doing my head in. Taking this to PM as it's already getting off-topic. I will say one thing though: Mick Jagger can't sing.

50 years of being the biggest Rock band in history and millions of records sold would say otherwise mate............... .

Because The Beatles never existed

Two are dead. One got shot one got stabbed. Clearly people aren't that keen on em.

[ZoSoRose]

There are just so many great frontman who are better at different things-

Steven Tyler, Freddie Mercury, Mick Jagger, Axl Rose, Robert Plant, Roger Daltry, Bono,there are loads

Edited February 13, 2014 by ZoSoRose

[Guest Len B'stard]

So, in essence, what you're saying is that rock 'n' roll seniority makes Mick Jagger the greatest frontman. Laughable.

Christ almighty, do i have to type it all over again? No, in essence what I'm saying is that, with the exception of vocal range, Mick Jagger trumps Axl Rose in just about any and every possible facet that I/we can think of so far as a frontman, seniority as a standalone thing wasn't even really mentioned so i don't know where you've got that from, unless you're talking about the aspect of my post that was how many people were a lead off from Mick, which wasn't expressed with a view to highlighting seniority, otherwise I could've been using Noddy Holder as a template, it was done to illustrate the breadth and scope of influence of The Stones, kind of an important factor when you're discussing 'the greatest of all time' no?

Because The Beatles never existed

The Beatles weren't really a rock band in that archetypical sense though, don't you think? I mean whose their frontman? Those things were established by The Stones. Personally i think they're better than The Stones, I think they're better than everybody.

There are just so many great frontman who are better at different things-

Steven Tyler, Freddie Mercury, Mick Jagger, Axl Rose, Robert Plant, Roger Daltry, Bono,there are loads

definitely, but the question is pushing you to quantify somewhat.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Axl was absolutely captivating whenever I saw the band 91-93. Easily the best front man of that era.

I mean, come on, props where due. Anyone who saw the band live 86-93 knows that (did I just GnR educate?)

In the grand scheme of things though, consistency counts towards that title.

I've seen the Stones in 5 different decades and Mick guides that ship meticulously.

I saw the Stones twice in May 2013 and they were pretty solid gigs

At times, I had goosebumps, just like I did when I first saw them in the 70's, and at the helm..was Mick.

I saw nuGuns in a half full club in Toronto last summer, which should have been a night to remember you know?

I came away sooooo underwhelmed it wasn't even funny.

It was such a half baked mess without any soul or meaning, I honestly wished I hadn't gone.

Axl just didn't seem to care about any of it.

The reason I followed "GnR" into the 2000's was solely for Axl's highly anticipated return to the stage.

His legacy preceeded him, hopes were high. It was exciting. How could you not sniff it out to see what was up?

But now? There's no fire there imo, there's an overwhelming reliance on a stellar legacy from the original band's glory days...with a few ChiDem tunes sprinkled on for seasoning.

I mean, what's it all stand for now?

Original era?...oh yeah, the boy's a contender.

Now?...eh, not so much.

And just to weigh in, Iggy is majestic on stage.

Were it down to my personal favorite, rather than attempting to answer the question of THE best of all time, I'd put Iggy ahead of Mick and Axl both...and by a fair margin.

[DieselDaisy]

Mick is a class apart. If you are going to restrict yourself to bandmembers, I would have Mick, Mercury, Morrison and Daltrey before Rose. I would also mention, although he is strapped behind a guitar, Paul Stanley. Stanley can work a crowd like nobody can.I will give Axl credit: he is the last great. You had the 60s and 70s titans and then Roth towards the end of that era, then Axl. Grunge and 90s rock is sort of, anti-frontman. So Axl is the last there is.

If you include solo performers, then the floodgates open: Elvis, Little Richard, Tina Turner, James Brown etc. - I am sorry but Axl cannot compete with those.

[classicrawker]

Interesting nobody mentioned David Bowie especially during his Ziggy Stardust phase.....................I have seen him live half a dozen times starting mid 70's and he is an amazingly charismatic front man.

[Sixes]

aside from Sir Mick, the correct answer to the question of
"who is the best frontman of all time?" is Bruce Springsteen....

or Wendy O. Williams

Edited February 13, 2014 by axl666axl666

[Chuzeville]

Axl in his prime could obviously be quite impressive, but I was never a fan of all the running around; I also thought leaving the stage during solos, including in the middle of a song, was ridiculous--strange way to front a band.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Chuzeville

[Bruno P.]

The Beatles weren't really a rock band in that archetypical sense though, don't you think? I mean whose their frontman? Those things were established by The Stones. Personally i think they're better than The Stones, I think they're better than everybody.

They were a rock band nonetheless.

[Apollo]

Whats ridiculous here is that The Stones ain't even my favourite band, not even close, i'm being as clinical as I can here, my favourite singer in the world ever is Johnny Rotten but i'd have to be a dickhead to sit here and, just cuz he's my favourite, assert him as the greatest frontman ever in as broad a context as I can, I mean i do love The Stones but they're probably just about in my top 20 of all time were I inclined to compile ridiculous mental lists of that sort.

You simply cannot deny facts though, you simply cannot sit here and tell me, treating the matter as objectively as one can when discussing things that are kinda rooted in personal identification, that Axl Rose is a better frontman than Mick Jagger, it is just absolutely ridiculous, it is laughable, it is hilarious. And whats sad is people actually believe that shit. Sorry, correction, people on GnR forums believe that shit Once again, i'm not talking about who you like better yourself otherwise, for me, people like The Sex Pistols, New York Dolls, Johnny Thunders etc would take precedent over all other bands. I mean look, i just named you punk folks, people who are meant to be the antithesis of The Stones thing…and look, they're all Mick and Keef imitators, Johnny Thunders was an obsessed Keith Richards fans, he collected his cigarette butts outside Maxes, David Johansen was a total take on Mick, Iggy was a total take on Mick, Jim Morrison was a take on Mick, this isn't just my opinion this is well known shit. Izzy Stradlin for the love of Christ, what is Izzy if not a Keef for the 80s?

It's all a giant lineage and The Stones, in a band sense, are central to what we know about rock n roll, our understanding of it and the construction of the archetype of what it is is to A frontman or A guitarist, they are just utterly invaluable in that regard and this notion that this band from the 80s that is highly derivative of bands thats were essentially a facsimile of The Stones in the first place, it's ridiculous.

And this isn't to denigrate GnR, it's to install The Stones at the pinnacle of rock n roll (which they are anyway, far be it from me to have any bearing on that particular happenstance), the highest compliment i EVER heard paid to GnR was 'they could've been The Stones', thats like…an accolade you can take to your grave with a smile, for someone to actually see the potential in your talent, so much so that they think you could have a similar or equal effect as a group that were just SOOOO important to the evolution of popular music and youth culture…popular culture in general in fact.

So, in essence, what you're saying is that rock 'n' roll seniority makes Mick Jagger the greatest frontman. Laughable.

Wow. What is laughable is you totally missed the point.

Like it or not, "seniority" or amount of time in the business DOES in fact matter. There are a lot of people who can "do it" for an album or two or three....but doing it for tens of albums, over multiple decades is certain more impressive. That's a given, not a matter of opinion.

Axl had a chance to pass up guys like Jagger and Lennon/McCartney and the others who have been mentioned here. His first 5-6 years of work rivaled anybody out there. Unfortunately, the past 20 years has to be factored into the equation.

[maynard]

Axl was great. He was like a hero to me, watching him as a kid, listening to his songs... Same for Slash. Now that Im old I stopped thinking about who is the best, who is the worst, who is the most skilled, who is the fastest.... I only care about a nice melody and songs that enter through my mind and make my day better. Its more about the music, not who is playing it and how it is being played... Axl will always be one of my heroes. His old songs will always bring me memories. For the current state of his band, voice and mental health.... All I can say is Im sorry for the guy, more than anything.

[Apollo]

Now that Im old I stopped thinking about who is the best, who is the worst, who is the most skilled, who is the fastest.... I only care about a nice melody and songs that enter through my mind and make my day better. Its more about the music, not who is playing it and how it is being played... Axl will always be one of my heroes. His old songs will always bring me memories. For the current state of his band, voice and mental health.... All I can say is Im sorry for the guy, more than anything.

GREAT post and you make some great posts.

We should all just enjoy our memories and enjoy who/what currently gives us pleasure.

It isn't a competition. It isn't a sports game that demands a winner and loser be awarded.

It's OK to love and hate whoever you want in the music world. And it's OK to love multiple singers bands.

We don't have to attach a ranking scale to somehow justify our own personal taste!

Axl is my favorite, but I enjoy almost all the guys listed in this topic.

[Janis]

Axl was great. He was like a hero to me, watching him as a kid, listening to his songs... Same for Slash. Now that Im old I stopped thinking about who is the best, who is the worst, who is the most skilled, who is the fastest.... I only care about a nice melody and songs that enter through my mind and make my day better. Its more about the music, not who is playing it and how it is being played... Axl will always be one of my heroes. His old songs will always bring me memories. For the current state of his band, voice and mental health.... All I can say is Im sorry for the guy, more than anything.

But his current state is what he's always been. He's never been in the pubic eye much when not performing. He never did the promo. if Axl had been head of Gnr in the 80s and 90s without Slash and Duff we never would have heard of them and they would've faded away. As another poster said before - Slash, Duff and Matt were the public face of the band and did all the promo. When Slash and Duff left Axl just carried on being his normal private reclusive self who doesn't go to events or do promo. That's why the band is not as succesful coz there's no interviews of them all together as a band, little promo, no photoshoots and more imprtantly no new record from all the lastest members to soldify them as a band. So they're just seen as a nostalgia act. There's not one clip online of him at an award show, red carpet etc.. Not saying there;s anything wrong wiht that I respect he's not into the fame and good for him for that also! But Go on youtube and there's countless interviews and award show appearances of Slash and Duff during their time in the band. Axl was always reclusive and gave only a few select interviews in 6 years and most of them were short clips you see online except for the 2 longer Kurt Loder interviews. Haha rant over but seriously that poster shed so much light on it by saying that how do you expect a media shy recluse to have a successful band. Either that or they hire someone to promote or accept they need to but Axl either doesn't want that kind of big success again and he's just happy with the nostalgia touring.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Janis

[axlrod]

Is Axl still alive?

He was the greatest front man of all time.

I'll keep coming here to check if he remains the greatest.

NYTimes says:

Pop Heroes Made and Remade

Mr. Rose and sidemen rather than the band of comrades from its 1987-91 heyday, is larger, slicker and even more cartoonish than it was in its early years. Mr. Rose and the band’s three guitarists struck rock-star poses, songs indulged themselves in long buildups and guitar interludes, and the stage spewed fireworks and confetti. It was an older school of rock-hero behavior, full of preening and bombast. Yet once Mr. Rose got his voice up to full, abrasive yowl and screech, Guns N’ Roses was the embodiment of nostalgia-enhanced memories, a relic reanimated like a woolly mammoth suddenly charging across the tundra.

Edited February 15, 2014 by axlrod