You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#571 Re: Guns N' Roses » So.... What's Next? » 702 weeks ago
More shit talkin....
When asked how soon fans can expect to hear a new GUNS N' ROSES album, Ashba replied, "I can't give anybody a definite date, because I'm not gonna give anybody false hope. But what I can say is [making a new album] absolutely is our main priority. And I cannot wait to get [working on it]. I mean, Axl [Rose, GN'R lead singer] has tons and tons of stuff recorded as it is. I mean, he sits there in his hotel room and he'll play me hours of stuff. And I've written over ten songs — I think 12 songs now — for him that he really likes. And I think now that we're off tour, we're gonna kind of start talking about, 'Hey, let's start piecing together what we feel would be the next best GUNS N' ROSES record.' It's absolutely everybody's goal to get out an album within a reasonable amount of time. That is everybody's focus."
I don't understand. How in your estimation is that talking shit? He's stating that there is a lot of existing material and he's written some songs.
That's cool to me
Ali
#572 Re: Guns N' Roses » I wonder if Axl is more critical than us. » 702 weeks ago
Since when did Axl cancel the 2006 tour because his voice was fucked?
Last I heard low ticket sales caused it, even though Axl claimed they were "going back into the studio to finish CD and deliver it within a couple months".
Anybody care to enlighten me?
I think he is referring to the last UK show in the Summer of 2006. But, then again, I think the official explanation was that Axl was ill.
Ali
#573 Re: Guns N' Roses » I wonder if Axl is more critical than us. » 702 weeks ago
and axl couldnt finish the tour either in 2006 cuz he blew his voice out
He also had so many voice problems in 1992, too. The truth is that the way Axl sang on AFD through the UYIs was not healthy for his voice and seems to have took a huge toll on him vocally. I was worried in 2001 that he wouldn't be able to sing at all. Man, I was wrong.
Ali
#574 Re: Guns N' Roses » I wonder if Axl is more critical than us. » 702 weeks ago
I kept telling my friends who were at the Orlando show that and were absolutely blown away.
They thought Axl was killer, and he was (probably the best few shows of the entire tour were those Southeast U.S. shows, at least Axl-wise); great spirits, the voice was on... I still swear This I Love in Orlando was the best the song has ever been performed in the band's history. I think quite a few here at Evo were stunned at how fucking amazing Axl sounded on it.
But I kept telling them how Axl was so good in 2006 also. Although 2011 Axl was in better spirits, talking to the audience, having fun, smiling, fucking with Frank, just loving being alive... and vocally he was fucking on in Orlando, but there were still off-moments. LALD, YCBM, Blues, a couple others were 2002 Axl.
But 2006 was a different Axl. He was colder, but he was just a sight to see in 2006. A lean, mean, fighting machine. Seemed to be his last "cool ass rock star" moment. It's not so much that he can't get rasp now, nor that he didn't hit it in Orlando. Orlando 2011 Jungle > Tampa 2006 Jungle.
But like I said in another thread, Axl seems to lack POWER these days. The strength of the voice is hollow, and tired, almost like he could lose it at a moment's notice.
2006 Axl was POWERFUL. Although not as consistently raspy as in 2010, the power was more consistent. Axl's voice never wavered in 2006, and the added bonus in 2006 was that Axl was running around on stage, busting his ass old school Axl-style, yet still just hitting those notes with no problem. 2011 Axl couldn't dream of that. Granted he's 5 years older too, so I don't want to come across as mean on the guy.
I just think looking back that 2006 was Axl's last "young, lean mean rock star" moment. He won't get it back.
It's all the more tragic, just like Axl's wasted youth/prime in the mid-to-late 90's, that a 2006-07 rollout of CD worldwide with THAT Axl, would've been something incredibly special to see.
I think there is a lot of revisionist history concerning 2006. I think he can still hit the high end notes, but he doesn't sing the same way he did in 2006. Could he deliver the same power behind his voice that he did in the past? Yes, I think he could. But, there is a danger in that as well as in forcing your chest or mix voice to hit notes it shouldn't be hitting, as well as in singing with a closed throat to get that raspy tone.
I think he chooses to sing differently so as to preserve his voice and not do damage. While some may like the sound of that raspy tone, it is NOT good for your voice to intentionally try and induce it. Neither is pushing your voice too hard to get volume/power behind it.
Ali
#575 Re: Guns N' Roses » Live At The Joint - Las Vegas, NV (Dec. 30th, 2011) » 703 weeks ago
tejastech08 wrote:After watching some of these videos, I gotta say it. Axl sounds fucking terrible.
Gagarin wrote:I think the timbre (or lack thereof) is covered up by the warmness of the venue and huge ass amplification employed therein.
The thing is, I really don't think he sounds terrible.
The guy is nearly 50, and has very difficult songs to sing. Yes he seems to be a bit more Barry Gibb in places, and definitely not as strong as 2010, but he was better at this first Joint show, than he was at the LA Forum, and he was FAR better at the Joint than at Rio IV.
Alot of the performances remind me of his 2006 voice. Helium mixed with rasp, although some performances were weak. The Joint was a strange show. Songs that were normally strong like Whole Lotta Rosie, were weak, and songs like YCBM which are consistently weak, were surprisingly strong.
The biggest and most obvious missing element in Axl's voice at the Joint is POWER. It seems to be very lacking. He seems to locate enough rasp mixed with Bee Gees to turn in a good show, but you can hear how hollow his voice is, and how winded he is at times. I'm shocked the Joint wasn't worse than the Forum.
Is it Orlando or Miami and some of the early shows on the tour? No. Axl was far stronger there, and that mid-point of the 2011 tour seemed to be where Axl was at his strongest this year.
But I think the Joint was still a solid show, and very much THE pro-shot to watch of the 2011 pro-shots. We GN'R fans haven't had multiple pro-shots in a year since 2006.
The lack of "power" you speak of is a result of using more of his head (some mixed head-chest voice too) voice to reach the upper notes as opposed to straining his chest voice or his mix voice (as Brett Manning calls it). The head voice will always be lighter and more airy than any chest voice for anyone. It's how he keeps himself from damaging his voice with these songs and such long shows over months of touring.
As far as his breath support, it takes more air to support your voice properly when you sing in your upper register than in your lower register. When you combine that with all the on stage movement, yeah, it's gonna be hard to have great breath support all the time. But, if he wasn't getting enough air, he wouldn't be able to hold notes like the last one in the last chorus of "This I Love" at the Forum.
Ali
#576 Re: Guns N' Roses » So.... What's Next? » 703 weeks ago
The way I see it, everyone did what they had to do to stay afloat.
Slash was a junkie and needed to be on tour to save himself from himself.
Axl was going through a dark time and struggling to cope with his emotional load and the demands of the tour.
Management was trying to push a collection of druggies and a moody wildcard into a unit that can continue to make them more money.
So everyone has an interest.
My issue is - if it related to succession law only - then papers could have been drawn up that only gave Axl full control once Slash and Duff passed away. But that's not what the deal said.
Meanwhile - considering Axl is the member of the group most likely to tell the record label to go fuck themselves, or to start some kind of incident at a show - I'm not sure I'm buying that management independently thought it would be a great idea to give him sole control.
I'm not saying Axl directly threatened anything. But it's obvious to me that he's a smart guy, who has powerful emotions that he puts into his music, but that sometimes those same thoughts fuck him up to a point where trouble happens (lateness, riots, anger). This makes him at risk. If the band had fired Axl what would he have done. He needed to put himself in a safe place. So I think it was his idea that management draw up papers that gives him control of the brand.
I don't believe he directly threatened not to tour if it didn't happen to Slash or Duff. But I also don't think he needed to. His reputation alone would have covered that. They've been on the road with him for years - they know he's wild. Think in Slash's book when he says to Matt not to fight Axl even though he knows matt can handle himself - he says something like "you don't want to push Axl when he's back against a wall". Axl didn't need to say it explicitly.
Interesting speculation. So, you're saying that Axl knew he didn't he have to make an explicit threat, that his reputation alone would been enough to create that threat in the minds of Slash and Duff? And that Axl relied on that in order to get his way?
If so, that's a wild conspiracy theory. To know any of that for any degree of certainty, you'd have to had talked to him about the subject or read his mind at the time.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If for nothing else than the fact that Slash himself stated in his book that Axl brought up the issue of litigating the ownership of the band name after Steven was fired. So, it wasn't like he just ambushed Slash and Duff with this desire to want the rights to the band name if their partnership dissolved.
No matter what, the absence of a direct, explicit threat negates any sort of blackmail argument.
Ali
#577 Re: Guns N' Roses » So.... What's Next? » 703 weeks ago
Ali wrote:Mikkamakka wrote:Well, when someone doesn't go on stage until he gets his beef, it's not far-fetched to think he'd cause a riot without getting the name.
BTW what would have happened if Slash or Duff had died? The wives, Renee and Linda would have become Guns N' Roses? Please.
I know that Duff, for whatever reasons, became an Axl-apologist (long way from the law suits he wanted to start and the 'Axl didn't write anything..ooops, I really like My World' comment), but first of all, nobody would sign away those rights without a penny, second, if they were so drugged-up that didn't know what they sign (what some forum members suggest sometimes), then it wasn't a friendly move by the Axl camp, not to mention that it would not have been lawful.
Anyway, Axl showed who he is, when he left Guns N' Roses and started a new band with the same name, inviting his ex-partners to be his employees. This was the dirtiest move in the history of GN'R, and possibly in the entire history of rock music.
If Duff is lucid enough to recount the events of that day, then clearly he was not drugged-up enough to not know what he was doing.
The issue is not whether or not Duff and Slash were justified in thinking that Axl wouldn't go on stage. The issue is whether or not Axl made the threat that he wouldn't if he didn't get the contract signed. Even Duff is not saying that happened.
Ali
I don't think that Axl told them that personally, cause they didn't even meet, except the shows. Axl lived in his own eccentric world, and communicated with the others through his Douggie puppet. Doug's word was Axl's word, he was the Axl spokeperson. Axl can play the saint as long as he wants to, but anyone with at least half a brain can tell that his story stinks. Maybe, let's say maybe, he only asked Doug to 'secure the name', and it was Doug's idea, not shared with Axl, to blackmail the other 2 guys. Maybe, maybe. But Axl, who is quite intelligent, should have been fuckin' suspicious when Douggie came back with the name to him. Without paying a cent to the losers. But Axl wanted the name and din't care how he got that.
On the other hand, with starting the alternate band he clearly showed his true intentions. He wanted nothing, but to rule the band. For any price. Even more, if it's for the others' expense. He cannot toleralate other people's opinion, if that is conflicting with his. He did a hissy fit when the employees were sick of waiting for him for nights and nights, when they didn't want his childhood bedroom guitarist friend in the world's biggest rock band, when producers or the label didn't like enough his stuff, when promoters didn't accept him being 4 hour late, when managers tried to make him do something other than GTA.
It's my way or the highway in Axl land. Obviously, Izzy, Slash, Duff, Steven, Bucket, Robin, Brain etc. had enough and left. Everyone, with an ounce of self-respect will do it, sooner or later, and only puppets and hangers-on remain. Like it always happens with this kind of people.
Whatever. The bottom line is this: Not even Duff is saying that Axl blackmailed him and Slash into signing over the name.
Ali
#578 Re: Guns N' Roses » Live At The Joint in Las Vegas, NV - New Year's (Dec. 31st, 2011) » 703 weeks ago
Yeah I was saying in another thread that this is THE BEST SETLIST of the entire new era of Guns N' Roses.
It really is.
Think about it, you get a little bit of everything and a little bit of the best of the band.
Appetite
Welcome To The Jungle
It's So Easy
Nightrain
Mr. Brownstone
Paradise City
Sweet Child O' Mine
Rocket QueenLies
Patience
Illusion I
Live and Let Die
November RainIllusion II
Civil War
Knockin' On Heaven's Door
Estranged
You Could Be MineChinese
Chinese Democracy
Shackler's Revenge
Better
Street of Dreams
Sorry
Madagascar
This I Loveand "Whole Lotta Rosie" and Tommy's "Motivation" to boot.
I mean think about that. You are getting 7 tracks from Appetite, 6 tracks from Illusion, and 7 tracks from Chinese.
That pretty much covers the Guns N' Roses legacy.
So for as much as I think they should've shaken up the setlist for the final show (like I do for all bands who perform back-to-back shows at the same venue), like I said before this is THE BEST setlist of the new era, by far imo.
Maybe that's why they don't shake it up too much?
I think the setlist they do currently is the versitile equivalent of the 1991 & 1993 shows.
"Don't Cry" as well (the original version).
Ali
#579 Re: Guns N' Roses » So.... What's Next? » 703 weeks ago
"BTW what would have happened if Slash or Duff had died? The wives, Renee and Linda would have become Guns N' Roses? Please."
What the fuck? You must understand little about business. The wives each would have owned 1/3 of the business and all decisions would have to run through them. Axl would have to directly deal with them on everything because the three way recording agreement was made in 1992.
Axl did not want to deal with the family members. Just like Grohl now has to deal with Courtney Love on everything related to Nirvana. You see what a mess that can become?
That would have been a mess for EVERYONE that made money off GN'R - promoters, managers, etc. No one would have benefited from that.
Ali
#580 Re: Guns N' Roses » So.... What's Next? » 703 weeks ago
Well, when someone doesn't go on stage until he gets his beef, it's not far-fetched to think he'd cause a riot without getting the name.
BTW what would have happened if Slash or Duff had died? The wives, Renee and Linda would have become Guns N' Roses? Please.
I know that Duff, for whatever reasons, became an Axl-apologist (long way from the law suits he wanted to start and the 'Axl didn't write anything..ooops, I really like My World' comment), but first of all, nobody would sign away those rights without a penny, second, if they were so drugged-up that didn't know what they sign (what some forum members suggest sometimes), then it wasn't a friendly move by the Axl camp, not to mention that it would not have been lawful.
Anyway, Axl showed who he is, when he left Guns N' Roses and started a new band with the same name, inviting his ex-partners to be his employees. This was the dirtiest move in the history of GN'R, and possibly in the entire history of rock music.
If Duff is lucid enough to recount the events of that day, then clearly he was not drugged-up enough to not know what he was doing.
The issue is not whether or not Duff and Slash were justified in thinking that Axl wouldn't go on stage. The issue is whether or not Axl made the threat that he wouldn't if he didn't get the contract signed. Even Duff is not saying that happened.
Ali