Ali wrote:

Axlin08 wrote:

Nah that wasn't it... Axl just was weak. Simple as that.

Can't remember what I texted Russ during Orlando, but I told him live in real time that LALD was sounding like 2002, and YCBM sounded terrible, Axl of course. Then you'd have a situation where the band fucked up NR, but Axl was on. Moments like that happened.

For the most part Axl's rasp was ACTUALLY there, and he sounded awesome. The YouTube videos proved that. But there were other songs he sounded weaker on, and the TMS pro-shot shit proves that.

Has nothing to do with "great mix". 'Cause I could hear Axl 2002'ing it at times, with the mix live.

Bottom line:

Axl can't sing LALD anymore
Axl CERTAINTLY cannot sing YCBM anymore (I haven't heard a good version of this YET on the 2011 tour)
Axl sings SCOM with a clean, crisp, no rasp ala 2002

Sometimes during the outro Axl will slip into 2006-isms on SCOM, and some raspy moments will return, but for the most part Axl sings SCOM like a 2002 CD song. Some people like that. I don't, but Axl wasn't pitchy on it either.

Either way, I don't think it's about the mix. More like "bad" or "biased" ears. Some songs Axl just doesn't have it anymore. I LOVE You Could Be Mine. LOVE IT. The song was MY FIRST Guns N' Roses song. It broke me into the band. I will always love it for that. Always.

But Axl needs to drop it if he can't do it right anymore. Seems to take alot out of him. Obviously it's one of Axl's favorites, and big with the audience, plus it's one of the few UYI trx in the set. It ain't going anywhere.

Shackler's, Miami 2011 was another one where Axl was full blown 2002, struggling. I wonder if that "Tell Frank, no one asked" comment came from. Axl did Shackler's by request of the band, but he didn't feel like he was vocally prepared for it. It showed.

I think the Miami version of "Shackler's Revenge" was the best I've ever heard.

I think Axl intentionally pulled back on his volume during the verses of LALD, and I think it's a smart move to pace himself during a marathon show. His vocal tone was great, and I loved the vibrato he used. I'll never understand how people think singing with a raspy tone is actually good, especially live. I think the cleaner tone both sounds better and is better for his voice, especially if he's concentrating keeping his throat open to do that.

Ali

Two reasons as to why they will fight you for rasp over clean...

1) The songs were originally recorded and presented to the audience sung with rasp, and that tone. Recreating these songs live is why an audience goes to a show. Imagine if Slash performed Jungle with Eddie Van Halen's guitar tone. People would be pissed at him.

2) Alot of times Axl's "clean" voice is also a great revealer of him also winded and pitchy. Rasp hides that. So when he goes 2002-mode, he reveals his weaknesses live vocally more.

jmho

And btw, I relistened to Shackler's Miami 2011, and it was awesome. Very much live-album quality. I must have a different Shackler's in mind that I heard recently and got the two confused.

And it's a shame that you felt that way Dadud, but I can totally understand why you did.

It's fucking bullshit the attitude that was carried around 'round here that anybody who dared to say they liked DJ or Ron, would have their throats ripped out. How dare you like a guy in a band this entire fucking board is dedicated to! lolz

I get people having preferences of certain things in the history of GN'R, and that's fine, but the continual slamming of DJ for being a "Slash copycat", which he obviously IS NOT, was beyond embarassing.

DJ & Ron have been pure class in their time with Guns, giving great interviews, trying to stay positive, although in DJ's case a couple times he did stretch the truth and/or flat out lie (in my personal opinion) about upcoming studio work from GN'R and him recording with Axl, and I full bore gave him hell for it.

But it doesn't mean I don't like the guy and don't like what he brings to the table.

But DJ, like Ron, no matter how many times they are totally class putting over Slash & Buckethead and respecting what came before, are never gonna start fully gaining fans until they record something original with GN'R and people hear what they bring to the table.

And that's all on Axl. I know these guys have wanted to lay some Guns trx down for awhile. Hopefully we'll hear some soon.

Bono, you keep going on about how people don't do research... As I've said to you many times, if they have a computer with internet access or read a music magazine, then they probably have a slight idea about what's going on with GN'R in the last 10-15 years. GN'R has been a trending topic and on the front page of yahoo several times over the years. If anyone, at any point, was a big enough fan of GN'R to blindly buy a ticket to a show or purchase an album, you would think, at the very least, that at some point in the last 15 years they would have read SOMETHING about GN'R that would have updated them, just a little, about what's happened after 1996 with the band.

You can stop using the reasearch line already an acting like it's some big ordeal to click a link, or type Guns N' Roses or even Axl in a search engine, or read an article in a magazine or on a website that mentions them. There have been MANY articles on MANY websites and in MANY magazines and TV shows that have talked about the current line up of GN'R, Axl and has mentioned Chinese Democracy.

Cramer wrote:

tejastech08 wrote:

I don't think so. He was considered a cultural icon back in the day, cool enough and charismatic enough to get away with being an asshole. But when you look at what has happened over the last 15 years, he is a laughing stock for a vast majority of the public. Even if he still can sing his ass off, they don't care. He has no else to blame for digging himself into such a big PR hole.

You may forget how many people though he was an asshole back in his prime as well. People loathed him back then.

I'm not forgetting. It wasn't anywhere near what it is today.

buzzsaw wrote:

DCK wrote:

I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing

I would say the guy at home naturally has a less emotional response and clearly is more objective than they guy that just got out of a concert, but I'll assume you guys didn't study psychology or don't really understand how people operate. 

I can't believe anybody would argue differently to be honest. 

you're a funny guy
but how can anyone pass assessment on the gig without hearing a note of the show or experiencing the energy in the room?
you're only guessing - boring setlist, same tricks as always yada yada yada
but that's guessing or assuming. how can anyone be more objective over something they didn't even experience?

i know where you're coming from, & your RiR example is correct in that regard. but that was different as we all could experience it & judge for ourselves. how can you judge it honestly & objectively unless you've got some primary evidence?

& you can't assume "the guy at home has a less emotional response & is clearly more objective" cause the guy @ home could be a lunatic.