You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#2221 Re: Guns N' Roses » Let the reunion rumors roll... » 889 weeks ago
war wrote:speak for yourself when using opinions.
Wow. The hypocrisy of that is hilarious
war wrote:so he turns the volume up - good for him. Axl is a much more diverse vocalist with a much wider vocal range than the others mentioned = fact. in other words he sets the bar higher and no one sings to perfection every night.
Ummm.... actually David Usher is absolutely perfect live. He's better than on the albums. This coming from a guy who's seen him 7 times. being perfect however is not the point. Try and comprehend that. being heard is the point. Here's something to keep in mind. When you know the words you tend to think you're hearing the words. That's a fact.
war wrote:here's a trick to hammer home my point. how often does axl have trouble singing mr brownstone? rare to never. because that is his natural singing voice. robert and dave sing in there natural singing voice all or the majority of their songs. again, good for them. nobody is protecting anybody. in fact, i think some are bashing their hero as if to sound objective and intelligent.
Fuck please. What a joke. Axl my hero? hahaha. And secondly my opinion in the end isn't based on actual expeirences at live Gn'R events at all
. I know nothing.
war wrote:the fact remains that axl at his age can do more with his voice than anyone i know can do at 26. anyone who says axl is hiding his voice or cannot sing live doesn't know what they are talking about.
the fact remains that this is your opinion which you are expressing as fact. Hilarious. Here's a fact for you. I've been to nearly 100 shows in my life and the only singer who seems to consistently have mic/ vocal issues is Axl. I guess it's just bad luck on my part
. Nobody can be perfect all the time right but unfortunately 75% of the Gn'R shows I've been to the vocals were sketchy. He was awesome in 1993. Trust me WAR I know what I'm talking about. I don't make shit up to make shit up.
i don't think you are making things up i just think you are having a hard time getting to the truth
i also don't think you realize i am not just talking to you
everything i have said is backed by fact or music theory - i noticed you didn't even coment on the mr brownstone point. an honest person would have said, "good point"
everything you've said is backed by how many shows you've gone to which doesn't mean anything to anyone else
axl doesn't have mic problems every show nor is he bad live. he's just not as good as he is in the studio. the thing is, again, he does so many amzing things in the studio that not even he can repeat that same level live nor could any of your heroes which don't have the range or the drastic variety of both rasp and clean vocal colors. that doesn't make him bad live - that makes him human
"comprehend being heard" - kinda insulting but whatever. to the point (mic volume) - i do beleive it is the result of his lack of confidence in his voice but it represents a very small part of his professional career.
i haven't been to every gnr show but i have been to several and there wasn't mic or vocal problems at any of them. and since he is not your hero i am guessing that you haven't been to all of his shows either and wouldn't be able to objectively speak for the majority.
#2222 Re: Guns N' Roses » Let the reunion rumors roll... » 889 weeks ago
war wrote:are you guys kidding?
based on boots and live viewings i saw his voice gradually and steadily return to top form as the '06 tour went on.
axl experimented with not using rasp in '02 and i would guess it was to avoid permanent damage down the road or he was trying to establish a new identity as an artist. he proved he has a nice singing voice but when your songs stretch your vocal range as much as his do you have to use all the tricks not in the book to decorate and present the vocals and in his case that means using the rasp with the falsetto. the "helium" sound was the result of him singing without rasp.
in '02 axl's mic level was too high at the show i went to and you could barely hear the music and he certainly had more reason to hide his voice back then and yet he didn't. i could also hear him well in '06 in sync with the band. i am sure it depends on the venue and where you are sitting or standing at
Sorry man but this just sounds like a fan trying to protect their hero. I saw him in three different venues in 2006
Hammerstien Ballroom in NY - 2nd row in the balcony. great show, Vocals were hard to hear.
Calgary Saddledome - Centre ice front row 1st balcony - shitty show, Vocals were extremely hard to hear. I also made way way to the floor. same problem. Vocals were almost non existant.
Rexall Place in Edmonton - About 10 rows up just off to the side/ front of the stage - good show, Vocals were hard to hear and sometimes the mic was obviously turned off. In fact they did the entire Paradise City with no vocals. That's complete and utter bullshit.
So three different venues of different sizes and acoustics all with the same problem. Like it or not Axl's live vocals or vocal mix suck compared to other artists. I just saw the Foo Fighters in Rexall Place and Dave Grohls vocals powerd over the music no problem. I just saw the Cure at Red Rocks in Colorado and Robert's vocals were crisp and clear. I'm going to see David Usher next week and his vocals as always will be prominant. Justify it all you want but I've seen Axl too many times and have seen way too many other shows to think he's on par. That or his sound guys suck major fucking ass. One way or the other it blows in comparison. Of everyone(9 people) I saw Gn'R with in 2006 the biggest complaint(and there were alot) was Axl's vocals. Not that it sounded bad but that it didn't sound at all. Why is that?
Sorry. It's a highjacking.
speak for yourself when using opinions. so he turns the volume up - good for him. axl is a much more diverse vocalist with a much wider vocal range than the others mentioned = fact. in other words he sets the bar higher and no one sings to perfection every night. here's a trick to hammer home my point. how often does axl have trouble singing mr brownstone? rare to never. because that is his natural singing voice. robert and dave sing in there natural singing voice all or the majority of their songs. again, good for them. nobody is protecting anybody. in fact, i think some are bashing their hero as if to sound objective and intelligent. in the end, the fact remains that axl at his age can do more with his voice than anyone i know can do at 26. anyone who says axl is hiding his voice or cannot sing live doesn't know what they are talking about.
#2223 Re: Guns N' Roses » Let the reunion rumors roll... » 889 weeks ago
The only reason Irving signed gnr was to promote the original line up, period. Plus, just look at who left and who remains in the band now. Robin is out, frank and ron are temperary and expendable, tommy wants out, fortus os doing plenty of other things, i wont even talk about chris or dizzy and now VR is dead. The reunion is happening whether you like it or not...
ok boss
here i thought irving was hired to do what i like
damnit!!!
#2224 Re: Guns N' Roses » Let the reunion rumors roll... » 889 weeks ago
nugdafied wrote:The only time I want to see GNR is when the Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff & Steven get inducted to the HOF. Maybe they could pull off a tasteful set of something like SCOM, KOHD & PC. But, sadly, I don't think Axl & Steven are capable of rocking arenas anymore & would drag the Slash, Duff & Izzy show down.
I agree to a point. If Axl had the vocals to do it fine but he doesn't . I dont' know what it is but his mic levels are so embarasisngly low compared to all other artitsts I've seen live. Is it to hide something? That in itself allows other artits to blow him off stage. It's ridiculous. I know more than few people who will never pay to see Axl dance ever again after the 06 tour. You can't hear his voice consistently throughout the show and that's unprofessional.
are you guys kidding?
based on boots and live viewings i saw his voice gradually and steadily return to top form as the '06 tour went on.
axl experimented with not using rasp in '02 and i would guess it was to avoid permanent damage down the road or he was trying to establish a new identity as an artist. he proved he has a nice singing voice but when your songs stretch your vocal range as much as his do you have to use all the tricks not in the book to decorate and present the vocals and in his case that means using the rasp with the falsetto. the "helium" sound was the result of him singing without rasp.
in '02 axl's mic level was too high at the show i went to and you could barely hear the music and he certainly had more reason to hide his voice back then and yet he didn't. i could also hear him well in '06 in sync with the band. i am sure it depends on the venue and where you are sitting or standing at.
#2225 Re: Guns N' Roses » Let the reunion rumors roll... » 889 weeks ago
Am I the only one who doesn't want a reunion?
No, I'm with you
I really dig the direction Axl has gone with CD.
Me too
I'd only ever be ineterested in a reunion if they were going to make new music
with you again
How many people are pissed at Axl for his money grab in '06?
a lot and i'd say the majority of these same people want a reunion (which would be most likely done for money and nothing else.)
I'm a fan of Gn'R and will support the band in whatever form they exist.
agreed. i certainly welcome a reunion if it brings more of the great music it brought in the nineties but so much time has already been wasted on nostalgia and without new music i fear a reunion would permanently make gnr another "has-been" nostalgia act, touring only to the die hards and then dissappearing for good. without new music gnr, in any form, will never be mainstream again.
#2226 Re: Guns N' Roses » New Baz interview - mentions Axl, Slash and CD » 890 weeks ago
that's your opinion and that's fine but when he wakes up is for him to decide
i am just explaining why he bitches and mia doesn't
#2227 Re: Guns N' Roses » New Baz interview - mentions Axl, Slash and CD » 890 weeks ago
there is a difference though.
mia is coming up in a time where record sales are less significant. she doesn't know any different.
sebastian bach, on the other hand, could have "shit a track" as a single in the early nineties and it would have grossed more than all of angel down. he's used to better sales.
#2228 Re: Guns N' Roses » Would the old band play the new songs? » 891 weeks ago
i understand this is hypothetical but we really can't know the answer to this question until we know the circumstances of the reunion.
there are so many but here are a few possible scenarios that i relate to the question.
if geffen/management decide the album is great but they cannot market it without the orginial guns and a deal was struck axl would certainly see to it before the deal was made that they would play cd material. the question then becomes would they re-record with original lineup. maybe a few parts i would assume.
if they release the cd with the current band and it does very well there may never be a reunion, other than a one or two show stint down the road, in which case they would not play cd material.
if they release the cd and it flops then they probably wouldn't play cd material after a reunion cause there would be no pressure to do so, assuming axl doesn't go back into hiding.
and finally, what i hope happens, new gnr releases cd and it does well. they tour for a year or so. axl gets the monkey off his back and then comes to the realization that the music is great the band is good but he wants to take the world by storm again but it's not happening with the hired guns so he gives slash a call. the original band rerecords the second and third album with some new stuff added in. the rest is history.
#2229 Re: Guns N' Roses » Baz talks about the general and the "trilogy" » 891 weeks ago
i disagree
the majority of non cd material is not throwaways. whether or not it is good is subjective but three albums worth of what he thinks is good material has been in the works for some time. axl has always had a vision toward doing something special since the original band broke up, more so than one decent album and 2 more albums of throwaways. this album has been delayed for more than twice as many reasons as any other album in the history of music but if the only goal was to put out one solid album it would have been out by now.
as an artist i can relate to axl. not everyone writes and records 13 songs and makes that into an album and then repeats. everyone has a different process and axl's seems to be focused on both quality and quantity, rather than time. if i were planning to put out three albums in a respectively short period of time, upon completion, and i wanted them to all be great there would be songs all over the place, some finished and some half or less finished. i admit it wouldn't take me this long but everyone is different and i do not know all of his obstacles. when you write you do what you are inspired to do at the time if you want it to turn out well.
i don't think they have been sitting on cd while they finish the other two so the "release chinese democracy and then concentrate on your trilogy" comment i keep reading really doesn't apply. at some point, the writing of the third album may have been more complete than cd for all we know.
#2230 Re: Guns N' Roses » Richard talks GnR in Japanese Magazines » 892 weeks ago
Big Gun wrote:what im wondering is that why on his other interview on gnr daily, a few weeks later, he chose not to answer any gnr related questions?
He probably figures talking to a foreign mag is alot different then talking to a forum, they know the forums are quite tough on them and how Axl probably told them to not talk on them and also he probably figures a magazine is more professional then a forum. It really doesn't matter where he talks because it always comes back to the forums.
it is a lot different - the magazine has more people listening/reading. so the question is would he hype the record to all these people if he thinks we're gonna be made to wait a lot longer? cause just days prior he had nothing to say to the forum. something did change. this interview mentioned good news from the day before which was a day after gnr.com announced hiring new management. richard was openly positive about that part. kinda makes you wonder if he heard about this the same as you and i. my guess is he considers the new management to be a sign that axl's finally ready to give up the album as do i.
madagas - you are right. these people in the gnr camp aren't lying constantly about multiple things and they obviously know more than us, although the band members are clearly out of the loop when it comes down to the business part of it. i think all the times they have said the album would be out they beleived it when they said it. and now we are getting more specific statements like descriptions of the album and how it is in negotiations. we are getting the truth.