Blackstar Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Didn't Rose rip the bandana off from The Cult and the snake dance from some hair band singer (whose name I cannot recall)? Ian Astbury of The Cult has claimed that during their joint tour in 1987 his girlfriend did Axl's hair and put one of his bandanas on it, and then Axl adopted that look. There are, however, pictures of Axl with a bandana from 1986 (in Marc Canter's book). It has been said that it was Erin Everly's idea. 56 minutes ago, tremolo said: I understand that this comes from personal preferences, which is all good.But Axl's fashion, style and attitude has been borrowed from day 1. So, if we can talk about cultural impact, it would be more accurate to say that he was influenced by others in his style, fashion and attitude. It had all been seen before. He did make those things part of his iconic image though, but portraying him as an innovator in that regard is giving him too much credit. Let's just say he rocked the trends that others set for him. Could you be more specific about his fashion and style? Mainly the UYI era one (kilts, biker shorts, floral leggings etc.); where he took that from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killuridols Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Diesel: Freddie is a better singer than Axl in every which way Me: Axl has a wider vocal range than Freddie had, so in that way Axl is a better singer How having more range makes you a better singer? It doesn't. A good singer is someone who can master their voice and actually sound good when singing, technique, no matter what range they have. Axl has a wide range but in 2017 he is singing like the worst during some songs. So I don't know if he's a great singer currently. In general he is, and was really good in his prime, but when singing with GN'R in this tour, sometimes he sounds worse than the most amateur of the singers. Freddy was always impeccable not only with his voice, but entonation, expression, etc. Not saying Axl doesn't have any of that because he does (or did), just in a different way, a complete different style. To me, Freddie and Axl cannot be compared. They are even totally opposite, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 minute ago, killuridols said: How having more range makes you a better singer? It doesn't, but Diesel said Freddie was better at singing in _every which way_ which would necesarrily include having a broader vocal range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killuridols Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: It doesn't, but Diesel said Freddie was better at singing in _every which way_ which would necesarrily include having a broader vocal range. Ah. Ok. Then I don't agree with Diesel, lol... But I understand if he's trying to make a point that Freddie's voice and style is much more appealing to the mainstream audience than Axl's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbj_jam Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Since they can't be compared why does it bother you so much someone like one over the other.. How would Mercury be doing with his voice had he still been alive? Axl sang like it was his last every time, he started holding back just before he'd damage his voice permanently and it's never been as powerful since then. Mercury impressive? Sure, but I'd take someone like Axl every time over one with a god given talent and Axl was pretty talented in his own right. There won't be someone like them ever again though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 28 minutes ago, killuridols said: Ah. Ok. Then I don't agree with Diesel, lol... But I understand if he's trying to make a point that Freddie's voice and style is much more appealing to the mainstream audience than Axl's. Which is exactly what I have been saying: 8 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Subjectivelly speaking, most people would say they preferred the tonal qualities of Freddie's voice. He had purer notes. Axl has a scraggy rock voice. Freddie was more classically trained. His voice didn't jar with people, generally speaking. Axl's squeaking is hated by many. But that is entirely subjective. But Diesel isn't claiming that Freddie's voice was more appealing to most people, he is claiming that Freddie's voice, objectivelly, was superior to Axl's in "every which way": 20 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: Objectively Freddie is a superior singer in every which way to Rose. Which is just factually wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsOfSpiders Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 A bit off the topic, but I thought they were joking when I heard they were making a film about Queen, apparently it is real. Good luck with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 47 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Which is exactly what I have been saying: But Diesel isn't claiming that Freddie's voice was more appealing to most people, he is claiming that Freddie's voice, objectivelly, was superior to Axl's in "every which way": Which is just factually wrong. Actually it is factually correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Actually it is factually correct. 4 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Diesel: Freddie is a better singer than Axl in every which way Me: Axl has a wider vocal range than Freddie had, so in that way Axl is a better singer Diesel under the influence of the backfire effect: You have never proven we wrong not once on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pishy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, SoulMonster said: I replied using the wrong person's quote, nothing to say to the racist mf here Edited August 23, 2017 by Pishy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pishy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, pbj_jam said: Since they can't be compared why does it bother you so much someone like one over the other.. How would Mercury be doing with his voice had he still been alive? Axl sang like it was his last every time, he started holding back just before he'd damage his voice permanently and it's never been as powerful since then. Mercury impressive? Sure, but I'd take someone like Axl every time over one with a god given talent and Axl was pretty talented in his own right. There won't be someone like them ever again though. Both Freddie and Axl were untrained and worked with their god given talent, as you say. They are very different, it was sort of absurd to compare the two. When I listen to Zeppelin I think they're the greatest thing ever, when I listen to GnR I think they are the greatest thing ever. I've never liked ranking my favorites because it's near impossible, I like my favs equally. yeah, to me, Freddie is the granddaddy as someone said, I don't think Axl himself would dispute that. Everyone on this board loves GnR and Axl's voice, so we are starting from the same place and no one is saying Axl is not great. When I was a kid I knew some Queen songs but I was obsessed with GnR, I didn't have exposure to the majority of older Queen so I was fixated on what I liked. Overtime we learn new things. I've had plenty of people mock me over my love for GnR, a lot, there is a sizeable contingent that thinks we are dumb , tasteless psychos because they won't even bother to try to hear GnR. Well, same thing with some people going off on Queen or getting downright racist and lying. Some people hate Axl because he came from a poor, uneducated background and they think they're better somehow, and others hate Freddie because they're homophobic and racist bags of trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pishy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 37 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Actually it is factually correct. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Quote I was disputing how that phrase is thrown around to mock when no one even seems to know the origin of that. The reason it's thrown around is because of good old Sidney Vicious, doing the Lords work even from the grave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 26 minutes ago, Pishy said: I wasn't talking about bringing ballet to the masses. Freddie wasn't a ballerina. I was disputing how that phrase is thrown around to mock when no one even seems to know the origin of that. I think I was rather clear that Queen's work was comprised of a lot of different music styles and genres. Sounds and styles that might make a person explore something they otherwise would not have. A lot of people stick to a preference , rock or rap or pop. Maybe someone hears a Queen song and it makes them curious about opera or classical or rock when they were otherwise adverse to it or just never heard it. There is a guy in my building, a hip hop artist, young and starting out. He is completely into rap. When I came out of the apt one day, he asked me who I was listening to and if I could write down some songs. He never heard of Queen but he said he hung out for half an hour listening. To me, that's cool. Maybe it helps him in life. What were the chances other young kids he knew were playing Queen? And that opens up the world of rock to him, maybe he ends up loving GnR! I think you might have been replying to the wrong person here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pishy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 7 hours ago, Len Cnut said: Sorry, what are we arguing now, that Queen successfully bought ballet to the masses? The point is that its insubstantial and puerile and they take things like rock music and make them remote from the general public and end up the preserve of chin-scratching middle class student types. There's nothing wrong with 'other art forms', great, brilliant, go seek em out if you're interested, why does this never happen in substantial ballet or substantial theatre? Why did Harold Pinter never make 'a rock n roll play', wa-hey, lets bring rock n roll to the upper classes? Its cuz rock n roll ain't considered an art form or respected by people that try to use it as an instrument to bring civilisation to the barbarians. There is an implicit disrespect there. That whole prog/stadium rock era would have fuckin' killed rock n roll if it hadn't had a full stop forcibly put to it. Oh yeah, what eastern influences would those be, go on What the fucks an athaan anyway?!? I wasn't talking about bringing ballet to the masses. Freddie wasn't a ballerina. I was disputing how that phrase is thrown around to mock when no one even seems to know the origin of that. I think I was rather clear that Queen's work was comprised of a lot of different music styles and genres. Sounds and styles that might make a person explore something they otherwise would not have. A lot of people stick to a preference , rock or rap or pop. Maybe someone hears a Queen song and it makes them curious about opera or classical or rock when they were otherwise adverse to it or just never heard it. There is a guy in my building, a hip hop artist, young and starting out. He is completely into rap. When I came out of the apt one day, he asked me who I was listening to and if I could write down some songs. He never heard of Queen but he said he hung out for half an hour listening. To me, that's cool. Maybe it helps him in life. What were the chances other young kids he knew were playing Queen? And that opens up the world of rock to him, maybe he ends up loving GnR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Pishy said: Yes It is not factually correct that Freddie was a superior singer to Axl in every way, when one way to look at this is to compare vocal ranges and Axl simply had a wider vocal range. How is this so remarkably hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pishy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: The reason it's thrown around is because of good old Sidney Vicious, doing the Lords work even from the grave Well, I it wasn't for Queen, Sid and the boys wouldn't have got their great start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Pishy said: Well, I it wasn't for Queen, Sid and the boys wouldn't have got their great start. Like they backed out of The Today Show as a favour to The Pistols Pistols were being written about in NME and Melody Maker before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pishy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Just now, Len Cnut said: Like they backed out of The Today Show as a favour to The Pistols Pistols were being written about in NME and Melody Maker before that. It was inadvertent, not a conscious gift, but the effect was the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pishy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) I just googled Axl Rose and Freddie Mercury. Shove this up some of your asses http://societyofrock.com/if-given-the-chance-axl-rose-would-thank-freddie-mercury-for-teaching-him-this/ Edit: This google search is brining up a lot, here is an excerpt from Rolling Stone "I've always looked at things in a versatile sense because of Queen, ELO, Elton John, especially early Elton John, and groups like that. With Queen, I have my favorite: Queen II. Whenever their newest record would come out and have all these other kinds of music on it, at first I'd only like this song or that song. But after a period of time listening to it, it would open my mind up to so many different styles. I really appreciate them for that. That's something I've always wanted to be able to achieve. It's important to show people all forms of music, basically try to give people a broader point of view." - Axl We have been saying some of these exact things. And apparently only your god's opinion matters so here it is. So yes, Queen allowed many people to learn about various styles. And it is true, you start with an album, take the example he gave of Queen II, "Loser in the End" is rock and you get that but then you attempt "The March of the Black Queen" and it is very different. You have to put effort into understanding because these songs took the effort, time, and expertise of exceptional artists, you are not going to understand someone's work immediately like you are damn Mozart or some musical master. I really like the way Axl expressed it here, very accurate and honest, kind of impressed. Edited August 23, 2017 by Pishy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucknroll Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) The main reason people like queen is so they can say it to others. Like "Hey I'm a hard rock guy but that gay Freddie is the best ever. Like it makes you deep or something putting a gay man at the top of the list. It doesn't. I'd also say most of y'all like him because axl does. He probably was a better singer technically but who cares. They were soft. It'd be like Adam Lambert fronting velvet revolver. Edited August 23, 2017 by Tucknroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killuridols Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Tucknroll said: The main reason people like queen is so they can say it to others. Like "Hey I'm a hard rock guy but that gay Freddie is the best ever. Like it makes you deep or something putting a gay man at the top of the list. It doesn't. I'd also say most of y'all like him because axl does. He probably was a better singer technically but who cares. They were soft. It'd be like Adam Lambert fronting velvet revolver. This is not true. My mother likes Freddie Mercury and Im not sure she even knew he was gay..... Lots of people like music and artists and are not nerds who know everything about their lives. Queen is liked by so many because it was a great band with a great singer whose voice and songs appealed to the masses. It's not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Not to mention Mercury did not 'come out' until their golden 1970s era had ended; in fact he had a long term relationship with a girlfriend, Mary Austin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 25 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Not to mention Mercury did not 'come out' until their golden 1970s era had ended; in fact he had a long term relationship with a girlfriend, Mary Austin. I thought he never came out officially? People just kinda knew, I wonder why? Here's a picture of him from 1970: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucknroll Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm talking about these days. Also, everyone knew he was gay. I mean seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts