Realistically, How are you expecting Axl to sound?

[Tom2112]

18 hours ago, Lies They Tell said:

He was out of breath and gasping for air in the 06/07 run too. Here's You Could Be Mine from 2007: 

Here's You Could Be Mine from 2010:

It's not really even a contest which one's better. Sometimes it feels like people remember the 06-07 tour in a better light than it was. Maybe because of nostalgia or because there's not as much bootleg videos of that time, as there's from 2010. He had rasp, but occasionally he lost it completely and sounded like a whiny Mickey.  Anyway my point is that he was pretty phenomenal in both 06-07 and 09-10. Sometimes he was a little out of breath too. But overall he was great and we're lucky if Axl's anywhere near as great this year as he was back then.

Actually think he was stronger in terms if pitch in the 07 video. The thing that probably puts the 2010 video over is the fact that he's full rasp throughout the entire song. 

I'm sure if we combed the 2096/07 run we could find better versions BTW. 

2010 and 2006 aren't worlds apart, I'd just consider 2006 a stronger year. Sweet child definitely sounded better then, as did jungle, better etc.

[CheapJon]

9 hours ago, SlashElvisTCB said:

 While that sounds awesome Duff singing Dust & Bones, I can tell that you're not a guitar player and that you relate more to vocals. Slash playing Sweet Child O Mine & Paradise City last year with Myles Kennedy was a religious experience and brought me closer to God & Jesus. Was an amazing time and those GNR songs played by the master himself is what Donald Trump would call "Yuuuuuge!"

[Tom-Ass]

I have seen Motley Crue put on great shows with Vince.. If the music and lineup is right, then Axl only needs to sound good enough for these shows to kick ass... If he has moments of greatness then even better.. I just never liked the "Mickey" voice..

[Lies They Tell]

25 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Actually think he was stronger in terms if pitch in the 07 video. The thing that probably puts the 2010 video over is the fact that he's full rasp throughout the entire song. 

I'm sure if we combed the 2096/07 run we could find better versions BTW. 

2010 and 2006 aren't worlds apart, I'd just consider 2006 a stronger year. Sweet child definitely sounded better then, as did jungle, better etc.

That's all good. Some songs fit better for his 06/07 voice and some songs fit better for his 09/10 voice. Some even seem to fit best for his 2014 voice (At least Prostitute). In the end it's a matter of taste what one prefers. For example I prefer the 2010 voice the most if you don't count the old days. Sometimes Axl was absolutely incredible in 2006, but sometimes he was pure Mickey also. So overall his voice was more consistent in 2010, if you ask me. But it's a matter of taste.

[fanfzero]

12 hours ago, SlashElvisTCB said:

 While that sounds awesome Duff singing Dust & Bones, I can tell that you're not a guitar player and that you relate more to vocals. Slash playing Sweet Child O Mine & Paradise City last year with Myles Kennedy was a religious experience and brought me closer to God & Jesus. Was an amazing time and those GNR songs played by the master himself is what Donald Trump would call "Yuuuuuge!"

Saw them last year, but due to a mosh pit I ended up in front of Frank Sidoris' amp (at least 2nd row, I was able to touch Myles' hand during Wicked Stone), so I could barely hear Slash and Myles , anyway, when you are at a concert you don't care too much about If the singer sounds good or bad, you just sing along and enjoy the show

[emybdc]

15 minutes ago, fanfzero said:

Saw them last year, but due to a mosh pit I ended up in front of Frank Sidoris' amp (at least 2nd row, I was able to touch Myles' hand during Wicked Stone), so I could barely hear Slash and Myles , anyway, when you are at a concert you don't care too much about If the singer sounds good or bad, you just sing along and enjoy the show

I agree with this.

Saw GnR in 2006 and 2014. Even tough it was NuGnR and Axl didn't sound as good as I hoped (especially in 2014) I enjoyed both shows a lot. There's so much history that makes hearing GnR songs live incredible, can only imagine what it will be like with Duff and Slash.

[vloors]

I think he will be fine and will probably have duff or izzys backing vocals to help out.

 

[jafeijo]

As a professional singer myself, I would NEVER give the "terrible" word to rate Axl, even on his worst nights. (not counting "The Axl Rose Disasters" lol). 

His notes are damn hard to hit, even using falsetto, so putting out a full-time rasp like he did at his prime, requires LOTS of physical prepare and properly warmed up vocal chords.

(Don't wanna mention the common sense that all those years of vocal abusing has affected his tone for good - forcing him to sing differently) 

What really pisses me off, (and that was said before) is that eventually he brings the "automatic mode", "mickey mouse" etc, which requires NO big effort at all, BUT it's painless, allows the tour to la$t longer and gives him more $tage time.

(but then again, that does not makes him a bad singer, he was just saving himself for a main reason = laziness or reunion in the works)

When he's willing to impress the audience and is motivated for some reason, he's totally capable of bring his A-game (vide last vegas show/some songs) so, I really expect him to sound like 2010, for me it's only a matter of motivation. 

[Tom2112]

The amount of people who say "I don't really mind if Axl sounds bad, Slash and Duff will make up for it, and take the pressure off Axl"... This idea is ridiculous, if the singer sucks! the band sucks! End of!

If Axl sounds like crap, yeh seeing Slash, Duff plus whoever will be a novelty, but am I going to enjoy the show? Is it going to reviewed well, is it going to sound good on a live release or pro shot? No.

If Axl doesn't good there's no point in doing it.

Like it or not, he is still the deciding factor. Obviously peoples attention will now be divided three ways, but the majority don't care if a guitarist or bassist flub a note, they can't hear it; a singer on the other hand is open to a whole lot more scrutiny.

I hope that Axl sounds great when the shows start in April, but I'm not getting my hopes up too high. 

[Babooshka]

It's because people have low expectations for Axl that's why. No one wants to get their hopes up, and in case he's terrible they still want to get enjoyment out of the shows. Of course it'll be hard to ignore if he gives a Bridge School performance, or his voice is mickey mouse, but what can you do at this point? At least enjoy Duff and Slash being up there. It'll be interesting to see how they play the songs, and hopefully we get some rarities as well as unreleased stuff, like Sentimental Movie.

[JaxTeller]

21 hours ago, MrSoftie said:

Yeah that's my biggest worry. Even at his best over the past 15 years those are 2 songs he can still be pretty weak on. YCBM especially has been a struggle since 06/07.

I really don't know why he uses that much falsetto in scom.I think he could deal with it in a lower-normal voice.You could be mine needs full of rasp,energy and good breathing.I will be pleased if he sound just OK to this one. That's why I'd prefer ycbm to be played after a ballad or a Slash's /Duff's solo to "save" his voice for a little.Anyway, less than 2 months to see how it goes

Edited February 18, 2016 by JaxTeller

[Tom-Ass]

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Actually think he was stronger in terms if pitch in the 07 video. The thing that probably puts the 2010 video over is the fact that he's full rasp throughout the entire song. 

I'm sure if we combed the 2096/07 run we could find better versions BTW. 

2010 and 2006 aren't worlds apart, I'd just consider 2006 a stronger year. Sweet child definitely sounded better then, as did jungle, better etc.

I couldn't even get past the intros.. They are absolutely horrid.. Another song Frank sucks at... Never mind the guitars..

[emybdc]

By now we all know what to expect. We've seen the worse and we've seen the better. Even at his best, he doesn't sound like he did in the 80's and he never will. I'm down for it, even if it's the worst of his perfomance over the last few years, because seeing those 3 together is what I've been hoping for for so fucking long.

Like I've said, I've seen 2 shows and he didn't sound great, but honestly, there's something magical about seing this guy doing his thing on the stage, in spite of everything.

[Gordon Comstock]

3 hours ago, jafeijo said:

for me it's only a matter of motivation. 

^this. I think Slash being on stage is gonna be the motivation he needs to get back up to par - 2006/2010 vocals.

 

13 hours ago, tbaugerud said:

(And please, the Illusion era KOHD)

Please don't! bring back the short version (80's/2002 version). If they must play the long version, at least leave out the reggae.

[Babooshka]

Given that Axl struggles with his performance nowadays, and people have suggested that he not move around so much. Maybe he should use the piano more often, which would give him the chance to sit down. It would also be more reason get rid of Pittman.

I wouldn't even mind hearing a piano driven version of some songs, if Axl were playing. At the very least he could do a piano intro or outro.

[Tom-Ass]

29 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

 

Please don't! bring back the short version (80's/2002 version). If they must play the long version, at least leave out the reggae.

Raw 80's version all the way... There was so much from the Illusions tour that seemed cool at the time but is just so mehhh now.. An extended Slash solo would be cool but no Reggae and Piano parts.. And Axl doesn't need to change his outfit for it haha.. He doesn't still change his outfit ten times a show does he?

[Apollo]

• There is no way that Axl doesn't come to this thing prepared and ready to kick ass. I'm pretty confident Axl is gonna tear it up and return GnR to the top of the hard rock food chain. Dude still has the potential to be the best rock singer out there.

 

[tsinindy]

31 minutes ago, Apollo said:

• There is no way that Axl doesn't come to this thing prepared and ready to kick ass. I'm pretty confident Axl is gonna tear it up and return GnR to the top of the hard rock food chain. Dude still has the potential to be the best rock singer out there.

 

 

Man...I hope you are right about this.  History proves otherwise, but this is the chance for Axl specifically and GnR generally to solidify their legacy.  I'm not sure GnR ever truely sat at the top of the food chain, but they were definitely not bottom feeders in the late 80s/early 90s.  By default there is no reason they cannot sit atop that mountain virtually alone right now given that there really are not many other viable acts like there were in their prime.

Edited February 18, 2016 by tsinindy

[Tom-Ass]

1 hour ago, tsinindy said:

 

 I'm not sure GnR ever truely sat at the top of the food chain

Really? I considered them the biggest band in the world from 87  to like 91. Even from 92-93 they were still pretty fucking huge.. I do agree that if they do this the right way it could help with their legacy.. They just weren't around long enough.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Tom-Ass

[tsinindy]

1 minute ago, Tom-Ass said:

Really? I considered them the biggest band in the world from 87  to like 91.

I dunno, I'm not saying they weren't.  I just don't think it's clear cut and at that point they only had one record out.  Obvious a lot of this opinion in a way.  But, Metallica was becoming huge at the same time, Motley Crüe, Bon Jovi obviously, U2, REM was pretty huge at that point...I mean I could go on, but you see what I'm saying.

[Tom-Ass]

5 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

I dunno, I'm not saying they weren't.  I just don't think it's clear cut and at that point they only had one record out.  Obvious a lot of this opinion in a way.  But, Metallica was becoming huge at the same time, Motley Crüe, Bon Jovi obviously, U2, REM was pretty huge at that point...I mean I could go on, but you see what I'm saying.

Gotcha. Well to ME they were hahahahah.

[Babooshka]

There can be a delay in seeing a band's true growth.

I get why there are questions about GNR's place, but I think they truly reached the top. People actually sell them short imo, I've seen posters say Nirvana were bigger. I think the UYI era moved them onto another level that they didn't get to fully demonstrate because they didn't put out another album. If they had, that next era would have been one of the biggest events ever.

[Tom-Ass]

34 minutes ago, Babooshka said:

There can be a delay in seeing a band's true growth.

I get why there are questions about GNR's place, but I think they truly reached the top. People actually sell them short imo, I've seen posters say Nirvana were bigger. I think the UYI era moved them onto another level that they didn't get to fully demonstrate because they didn't put out another album. If they had, that next era would have been one of the biggest events ever.

Appetite and LIES made the UYI era what it was.  November Rain was gigantic but other than that you could see Guns going on a down turn.. They were still selling out shows across the world but Singles like Yesterdays, The Garden and Garden of Eden weren't hits.. People were growing tired of Axl's antics.. The Illusions records did awesome, I loved them but there were a good amount of people that were disappointed in them and there are still endless discussions of what kept them from being great. TSI flopped. Grunge was taking over and Guns N' Roses were becoming uncool fast. They probably broke up at the perfect time. They were kind of becoming a mockery of everything they once stood against.. I think it was Mike McCready of Pearl Jam who had a pretty quote about that. How they Guns N' Roses were like the Antithesis of everything that was wrong with Rock music when they were coming up and then they kind of became everything that they seemed to stand against. 

They probably did disband at the right time.. It is just too bad that they didn't reunite sooner.

[Babooshka]

I get what you're saying, though personally I think that backlash wasn't as big as it's made out, though it's impact was meaningful. It's like the debate in the Grammy thread, what is popular to the masses, isn't necessarily what is popular among other circles. Yes, the Alt scene was making noise, but at that point GNR had the masses. Of course there is the assumption that the next record would have been good, but if they had delivered I think they could have rode that period out. And remember, we're not just talking about the US here, and whatever was happening domestically. GNR were big around the world, something many of these US alt bands never achieved. The sneering coming from them was not necessarily in play elsewhere.

[GNRfan2008]

2 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

Really? I considered them the biggest band in the world from 87  to like 91. Even from 92-93 they were still pretty fucking huge.. I do agree that if they do this the right way it could help with their legacy.. They just weren't around long enough.

 

88-92 I would say. Appetite didn't blow up until Sweet Child was released as a single in August 1988. Then PC/Jungle/Patience all became huge right after. Not too many bands can take a 9 minute song to Top 3 on the Billboard 100, but that is exactly what happened in 1992 with November Rain.