Which lineup has more credibility: Slash/Duff/Gilby et al. or Axl/Dizzy/Duff or Izzy et al.

[Apollo]

We've had the opportunity to see it from both angles, really. The RnR HoF performance and Velvet Revolver have shown us, more or less, what GnR is like without Axl. NuGuns have shown us what GnR is like without Slash and Duff. None of those configurations really have the magic that the classic AfD and UYI lineups did, but out of the two, I still think that nuGuns is closer.

In just about any group the singer is the public face of the band. There are a few exceptions there, like Van Halen with EVH, but it's usually how it goes. Queen, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Aerosmith, The Cure, Nirvana, et al - could you imagine any of those bands with a different lead singer? It can work from a technical level, but the identity and energy of the band is totally different. Even when one thinks that the lead singer isn't the most important cog in the machine there can be surprises - Motley Crue with John Corabi for instance. Nikki and Tommy are considered perhaps the key members of that band, and Vince's singing has long been criticized, but when Vince was out, their sales tanked. Point being, I think that many people weigh the lead singer's influence and presence more than that the other members.

This.

Specially with Axl, who is much more than just a singer. He's an icon, a rock legend now.

IMO, the closest we could have to old GNR would be Axl, Slash & Duff... from that base you can add anyone you want and you will always have GN'R. That's basically how it was after Izzy left. It was Axl, Slash and Duff. Gilby, Matt and Dizzy were just part of the set.

And yeah, no band that lost their singer lasted too long after it happened. Remember INXS? They tried to replace Mike Hutchence and it just simply failed bad.

There was no Beatles after Lennon. No Queen after Freddie. No Nirvana after Kurt.

I'm sorry

Pretty much. The lead singer might not write a note of the lyrics or music, and he might be a figurehead - but he's the one people see, the one who most directly interacts with the audience and the one who is generally the iconic symbol of the band. It seems as though it's far easier for a known band to survive when they replace a drummer, guitarist or bassist than it is for them to survive when they lose a singer.

And I agree, Axl Slash and Duff are the trio that define classic Guns N' Roses for me. If you kept those three and changed the rest, you'd still have the GnR sound and energy, I think.

Those are actually two solid posts by Stella.

(See Tiny Robot - I call em like I see em! Good or bad. Not picking on or bullying anybody!!! I can ignore all the nasty things she says about me and still compliment a good post!)

We've had the opportunity to see it from both angles, really. The RnR HoF performance and Velvet Revolver have shown us, more or less, what GnR is like without Axl. NuGuns have shown us what GnR is like without Slash and Duff. None of those configurations really have the magic that the classic AfD and UYI lineups did, but out of the two, I still think that nuGuns is closer.

In just about any group the singer is the public face of the band. There are a few exceptions there, like Van Halen with EVH, but it's usually how it goes. Queen, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Aerosmith, The Cure, Nirvana, et al - could you imagine any of those bands with a different lead singer? It can work from a technical level, but the identity and energy of the band is totally different. Even when one thinks that the lead singer isn't the most important cog in the machine there can be surprises - Motley Crue with John Corabi for instance. Nikki and Tommy are considered perhaps the key members of that band, and Vince's singing has long been criticized, but when Vince was out, their sales tanked. Point being, I think that many people weigh the lead singer's influence and presence more than that the other members.

This.

Specially with Axl, who is much more than just a singer. He's an icon, a rock legend now.

IMO, the closest we could have to old GNR would be Axl, Slash & Duff... from that base you can add anyone you want and you will always have GN'R. That's basically how it was after Izzy left. It was Axl, Slash and Duff. Gilby, Matt and Dizzy were just part of the set.

And yeah, no band that lost their singer lasted too long after it happened. Remember INXS? They tried to replace Mike Hutchence and it just simply failed bad.

There was no Beatles after Lennon. No Queen after Freddie. No Nirvana after Kurt.

I'm sorry

Pretty much. The lead singer might not write a note of the lyrics or music, and he might be a figurehead - but he's the one people see, the one who most directly interacts with the audience and the one who is generally the iconic symbol of the band. It seems as though it's far easier for a known band to survive when they replace a drummer, guitarist or bassist than it is for them to survive when they lose a singer.

And I agree, Axl Slash and Duff are the trio that define classic Guns N' Roses for me. If you kept those three and changed the rest, you'd still have the GnR sound and energy, I think.

Those are actually two solid posts by Stella.

(See Tiny Robot - I call em like I see em! Good or bad. Not picking on or bullying anybody!!! I can ignore all the nasty things she says about me and still compliment a good post!)

[tinyrobot]

Those are actually two solid posts by Stella.

(See Tiny Robot - I call em like I see em! Good or bad. Not picking on or bullying anybody!!! I can ignore all the nasty things she says about me and still compliment a good post!)

Good! Congratulations to you and I hope you can stay in this respectful state of not following her around the forum with that holier-than-thou finger of yours

[DieselDaisy]

See I don't agree with it because when I was younger, it was always the guitarists I followed.

[Apollo]

Those are actually two solid posts by Stella.

(See Tiny Robot - I call em like I see em! Good or bad. Not picking on or bullying anybody!!! I can ignore all the nasty things she says about me and still compliment a good post!)

Good! Congratulations to you and I hope you can stay in this respectful state of not following her around the forum with that holier-than-thou finger of yours

Lol. Follow her around? So if your BFF posts in an active topic then I'm not allowed to post in it??? Does that mean you are following me around because you responded to one of my posts???? I post because a topic is interesting, not because Stella or somebody else posted in it (unless it was dexter). I'm here to chat about GnR - not to follow some random poster around.

I will keep it positive and not even respond to the finger thing.

Stella made two great posts in this topic.

Axl is the voice of GnR. And for better or worse, that name will always be attached to him.

I sure wish he would release 3-4 more albums as great as CD was and shut up all the talk about who sounds more like GnR and topics like this.

[stella]

We've had the opportunity to see it from both angles, really. The RnR HoF performance and Velvet Revolver have shown us, more or less, what GnR is like without Axl. NuGuns have shown us what GnR is like without Slash and Duff. None of those configurations really have the magic that the classic AfD and UYI lineups did, but out of the two, I still think that nuGuns is closer.

In just about any group the singer is the public face of the band. There are a few exceptions there, like Van Halen with EVH, but it's usually how it goes. Queen, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Aerosmith, The Cure, Nirvana, et al - could you imagine any of those bands with a different lead singer? It can work from a technical level, but the identity and energy of the band is totally different. Even when one thinks that the lead singer isn't the most important cog in the machine there can be surprises - Motley Crue with John Corabi for instance. Nikki and Tommy are considered perhaps the key members of that band, and Vince's singing has long been criticized, but when Vince was out, their sales tanked. Point being, I think that many people weigh the lead singer's influence and presence more than that the other members.

This.

Specially with Axl, who is much more than just a singer. He's an icon, a rock legend now.

IMO, the closest we could have to old GNR would be Axl, Slash & Duff... from that base you can add anyone you want and you will always have GN'R. That's basically how it was after Izzy left. It was Axl, Slash and Duff. Gilby, Matt and Dizzy were just part of the set.

And yeah, no band that lost their singer lasted too long after it happened. Remember INXS? They tried to replace Mike Hutchence and it just simply failed bad.

There was no Beatles after Lennon. No Queen after Freddie. No Nirvana after Kurt.

I'm sorry

ACDC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple

True, but which members of Sabbath would have most name recognition with the general public and casual music fans? I'm guessing it would be Ozzy Osbourne and Ronnie James Dio...right, the singers. Even someone who knows absolutely nothing about Black Sabbath would probably be able to recognize at least one of those names, and they might not do as well with someone like Tony Iommi. Van Halen's another example, but were fans more peeved about DLR/Sammy Hagar's departures or that of Michael Anthony? There are bands like this who have survived with lead singer changes even after becoming known, but I can name a lot more bands where the guitarists/etc. changed with very little fanfare and they did just as well. I'm thinking of groups like The Cure where Robert Smith is the only one who has been there since the start and every other member of the band has changed two or three times, or Kiss, where Gene and Paul are basically the entire show; or the Stones -which replaced Brian Jones, who was the *founder* of the whole thing - and didn't seem to blink.

Edited March 13, 2015 by stella

[DieselDaisy]

I never gave a fuck about the singers when I was younger. It was all about Slash, Richards, Perry, Ace, May. I always found lead singers to be poncey, effeminate. The guitarists were the macho guys in their respective bands, the cool dudes.

[Free Bird]

We've had the opportunity to see it from both angles, really. The RnR HoF performance and Velvet Revolver have shown us, more or less, what GnR is like without Axl. NuGuns have shown us what GnR is like without Slash and Duff. None of those configurations really have the magic that the classic AfD and UYI lineups did, but out of the two, I still think that nuGuns is closer.

In just about any group the singer is the public face of the band. There are a few exceptions there, like Van Halen with EVH, but it's usually how it goes. Queen, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Aerosmith, The Cure, Nirvana, et al - could you imagine any of those bands with a different lead singer? It can work from a technical level, but the identity and energy of the band is totally different. Even when one thinks that the lead singer isn't the most important cog in the machine there can be surprises - Motley Crue with John Corabi for instance. Nikki and Tommy are considered perhaps the key members of that band, and Vince's singing has long been criticized, but when Vince was out, their sales tanked. Point being, I think that many people weigh the lead singer's influence and presence more than that the other members.

This.

Specially with Axl, who is much more than just a singer. He's an icon, a rock legend now.

IMO, the closest we could have to old GNR would be Axl, Slash & Duff... from that base you can add anyone you want and you will always have GN'R. That's basically how it was after Izzy left. It was Axl, Slash and Duff. Gilby, Matt and Dizzy were just part of the set.

And yeah, no band that lost their singer lasted too long after it happened. Remember INXS? They tried to replace Mike Hutchence and it just simply failed bad.

There was no Beatles after Lennon. No Queen after Freddie. No Nirvana after Kurt.

I'm sorry

ACDC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple

True, but which members of Sabbath would have most name recognition with the general public and casual music fans? I'm guessing it would be Ozzy Osbourne and Ronnie James Dio...right, the singers. Even someone who knows absolutely nothing about Black Sabbath would probably be able to recognize at least one of those names, and they might not do as well with someone like Tony Iommi. Van Halen's another example, but were fans more peeved about DLR/Sammy Hagar's departures or that of Michael Anthony? There are bands like this who have survived with lead singer changes even after becoming known, but I can name a lot more bands where the guitarists/etc. changed with very little fanfare and they did just as well. I'm thinking of groups like The Cure where Robert Smith is the only one who has been there since the start and every other member of the band has changed two or three times, or Kiss, where Gene and Paul are basically the entire show; or the Stones -which replaced Brian Jones, who was the *founder* of the whole thing - and didn't seem to blink.

I agree, probably for most people (not for all) the singer is the most important person in a band. I just wanted to show you that there are exceptions. Many people didn't even know that ACDC had two famous lead singers. They hear Highway To Hell and are thinking it's the same guy singing as on Hells Bells or Thunderstruck.

Now for my part, I am with DieselDaisy here. For me it was always about Blackmore, Kossoff, Slash, Richards. Of course you have to like the singer to enjoy a band and fortunately I love many of them and Axl for most, but the lead guitarists were always my personal hero's.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Free Bird

[stella]

We've had the opportunity to see it from both angles, really. The RnR HoF performance and Velvet Revolver have shown us, more or less, what GnR is like without Axl. NuGuns have shown us what GnR is like without Slash and Duff. None of those configurations really have the magic that the classic AfD and UYI lineups did, but out of the two, I still think that nuGuns is closer.

In just about any group the singer is the public face of the band. There are a few exceptions there, like Van Halen with EVH, but it's usually how it goes. Queen, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Aerosmith, The Cure, Nirvana, et al - could you imagine any of those bands with a different lead singer? It can work from a technical level, but the identity and energy of the band is totally different. Even when one thinks that the lead singer isn't the most important cog in the machine there can be surprises - Motley Crue with John Corabi for instance. Nikki and Tommy are considered perhaps the key members of that band, and Vince's singing has long been criticized, but when Vince was out, their sales tanked. Point being, I think that many people weigh the lead singer's influence and presence more than that the other members.

This.

Specially with Axl, who is much more than just a singer. He's an icon, a rock legend now.

IMO, the closest we could have to old GNR would be Axl, Slash & Duff... from that base you can add anyone you want and you will always have GN'R. That's basically how it was after Izzy left. It was Axl, Slash and Duff. Gilby, Matt and Dizzy were just part of the set.

And yeah, no band that lost their singer lasted too long after it happened. Remember INXS? They tried to replace Mike Hutchence and it just simply failed bad.

There was no Beatles after Lennon. No Queen after Freddie. No Nirvana after Kurt.

I'm sorry

ACDC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple

True, but which members of Sabbath would have most name recognition with the general public and casual music fans? I'm guessing it would be Ozzy Osbourne and Ronnie James Dio...right, the singers. Even someone who knows absolutely nothing about Black Sabbath would probably be able to recognize at least one of those names, and they might not do as well with someone like Tony Iommi. Van Halen's another example, but were fans more peeved about DLR/Sammy Hagar's departures or that of Michael Anthony? There are bands like this who have survived with lead singer changes even after becoming known, but I can name a lot more bands where the guitarists/etc. changed with very little fanfare and they did just as well. I'm thinking of groups like The Cure where Robert Smith is the only one who has been there since the start and every other member of the band has changed two or three times, or Kiss, where Gene and Paul are basically the entire show; or the Stones -which replaced Brian Jones, who was the *founder* of the whole thing - and didn't seem to blink.

I agree, probably for most people (not for all) the singer is the most important person in a band. I just wanted to show you that there are exceptions. Many people didn't even know that ACDC had two famous lead singers. They hear Highway To Hell and are thinking it's the same guy singing as on Hells Bells or Thunderstruck.

Now for my part, I am with DieselDaisy here. For me it was always about Blackmore, Kossoff, Slash, Richards. Of course you have to like the singer to enjoy a band and fortunately I love many of them and Axl for most, but the lead guitarists were always my personal hero's.

Oh yeah, definitely, points well taken. If you don't like the singer or at least find yourself able to tolerate his.her voice, it does become very hard to listen to the band's music. That's the reason I really didn't get into Velvet Revolver, actually - I liked everyone but Scott Weiland and there was just no way to avoid him. For me, it depends very much on the specific band as to which member I prefer. With some bands I like the singers best; with other it's the bassist or guitarist.

[Free Bird]

We've had the opportunity to see it from both angles, really. The RnR HoF performance and Velvet Revolver have shown us, more or less, what GnR is like without Axl. NuGuns have shown us what GnR is like without Slash and Duff. None of those configurations really have the magic that the classic AfD and UYI lineups did, but out of the two, I still think that nuGuns is closer.

In just about any group the singer is the public face of the band. There are a few exceptions there, like Van Halen with EVH, but it's usually how it goes. Queen, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Aerosmith, The Cure, Nirvana, et al - could you imagine any of those bands with a different lead singer? It can work from a technical level, but the identity and energy of the band is totally different. Even when one thinks that the lead singer isn't the most important cog in the machine there can be surprises - Motley Crue with John Corabi for instance. Nikki and Tommy are considered perhaps the key members of that band, and Vince's singing has long been criticized, but when Vince was out, their sales tanked. Point being, I think that many people weigh the lead singer's influence and presence more than that the other members.

This.

Specially with Axl, who is much more than just a singer. He's an icon, a rock legend now.

IMO, the closest we could have to old GNR would be Axl, Slash & Duff... from that base you can add anyone you want and you will always have GN'R. That's basically how it was after Izzy left. It was Axl, Slash and Duff. Gilby, Matt and Dizzy were just part of the set.

And yeah, no band that lost their singer lasted too long after it happened. Remember INXS? They tried to replace Mike Hutchence and it just simply failed bad.

There was no Beatles after Lennon. No Queen after Freddie. No Nirvana after Kurt.

I'm sorry

ACDC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple

True, but which members of Sabbath would have most name recognition with the general public and casual music fans? I'm guessing it would be Ozzy Osbourne and Ronnie James Dio...right, the singers. Even someone who knows absolutely nothing about Black Sabbath would probably be able to recognize at least one of those names, and they might not do as well with someone like Tony Iommi. Van Halen's another example, but were fans more peeved about DLR/Sammy Hagar's departures or that of Michael Anthony? There are bands like this who have survived with lead singer changes even after becoming known, but I can name a lot more bands where the guitarists/etc. changed with very little fanfare and they did just as well. I'm thinking of groups like The Cure where Robert Smith is the only one who has been there since the start and every other member of the band has changed two or three times, or Kiss, where Gene and Paul are basically the entire show; or the Stones -which replaced Brian Jones, who was the *founder* of the whole thing - and didn't seem to blink.

I agree, probably for most people (not for all) the singer is the most important person in a band. I just wanted to show you that there are exceptions. Many people didn't even know that ACDC had two famous lead singers. They hear Highway To Hell and are thinking it's the same guy singing as on Hells Bells or Thunderstruck.

Now for my part, I am with DieselDaisy here. For me it was always about Blackmore, Kossoff, Slash, Richards. Of course you have to like the singer to enjoy a band and fortunately I love many of them and Axl for most, but the lead guitarists were always my personal hero's.

Oh yeah, definitely, points well taken. If you don't like the singer or at least find yourself able to tolerate his.her voice, it does become very hard to listen to the band's music. That's the reason I really didn't get into Velvet Revolver, actually - I liked everyone but Scott Weiland and there was just no way to avoid him. For me, it depends very much on the specific band as to which member I prefer. With some bands I like the singers best; with other it's the bassist or guitarist.

Totally agree with that

[magisme]

Bad vocals ruin everything for me, unfortunately. That's why I can't listen to Slash's solo work, and that's why I have a hard time appreciating the solid instrumental work on CD.

[Nosaj Thing]

People please stop using TWAT/Yesterdays/Prostitute of the few last Vegas residencies. That wont change the fact that he did sound like shit last year, specially the SA tour. He always sounds great on the last gigs, but that does not justify one year of utter shit vocals and constant out of breathing

Great post. At this point is laughable that people continue to use the same videos to claim that Axl sounds good. He doesn't, he sounds like utter shit. Luckily last year had very few exceptions, but still utter shit for the most part.

[Rovim]

Bad vocals ruin everything for me, unfortunately. That's why I can't listen to Slash's solo work, and that's why I have a hard time appreciating the solid instrumental work on CD.

The vocals on Chinese are excellent. They're just different and employ different tones and styles. Much like the instrumental work on CD.

But it's a matter of taste of course. It doesn't stick to Axl's vintage vocals so it might be a turn off to many. The clean vocals seem to especially be a problem for old Guns fans.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Rovim

[GNRfanMILO]

Bad vocals ruin everything for me, unfortunately. That's why I can't listen to Slash's solo work, and that's why I have a hard time appreciating the solid instrumental work on CD.

The vocals on Chinese are excellent. They're just different and employ different tones and styles. Much like the instrumental work on CD.

But it's a matter of taste of course. It doesn't stick to Axl's vintage vocals so it might be a turn of to many. The clean vocals seem to especially be a problem for old Guns fans.

I agree, clean vocals on CD are awesome. But also i think they sound great because they fit well on this specific album. I dont know if Axl's clean vocals would sound as good as they do in Chinese, on a more raw and basic album.

[ChineseIRS]

Bad vocals ruin everything for me, unfortunately. That's why I can't listen to Slash's solo work, and that's why I have a hard time appreciating the solid instrumental work on CD.

The vocals on Chinese are excellent. They're just different and employ different tones and styles. Much like the instrumental work on CD.

But it's a matter of taste of course. It doesn't stick to Axl's vintage vocals so it might be a turn of to many. The clean vocals seem to especially be a problem for old Guns fans.

I agree, clean vocals on CD are awesome. But also i think they sound great because they fit well on this specific album. I dont know if Axl's clean vocals would sound as good as they do in Chinese, on a more raw and basic album.

They wouldnt, thats why You Could Be Mine, Paradise City, etc. have sounded like shit the last 5 years cuz thats how he tries to sing them and it just doesnt work. Sounds terrible.

[Pedrolg]

People please stop using TWAT/Yesterdays/Prostitute of the few last Vegas residencies. That wont change the fact that he did sound like shit last year, specially the SA tour. He always sounds great on the last gigs, but that does not justify one year of utter shit vocals and constant out of breathing

Great post. At this point is laughable that people continue to use the same videos to claim that Axl sounds good. He doesn't, he sounds like utter shit. Luckily last year had very few exceptions, but still utter shit for the most part.

That's harsh, Nosaj. I don't think anybody with functional hearing would claim Axl sounded good in 2014. The last Vegas shows are just a glimmer of hope that he still can (as in, is physically able to, really) sound good.

I won't get into the speculation about why he sounds bad (already done a thousand times). When I started posting here, I actually thought you were a very negative guy, and I felt sorry for Axl, thought he must feel like shit for losing his voice and being panned for it.

Nowadays I think you are right. If he just couldn't do it, it would be sad, but it would be what it is. The fact that he can do it (on the last Vegas show he did it on Jungle, Prostitute, TWAT, Better, Yesterdays, Nightrain and even Paradise City). This really reinforces the thesis about a lack of effort. In fact, just by looking at his body language it's possible to kind of see which songs he puts a full effort in and the ones he clearly does not. That and GNR's communication "strategy" with the fans makes it hard to arrive at a conclusion other than Axl just doesn't give that much of a shit about us.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Pedrolg