You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
Thats a bit of a stretch. The Beatles barely toured, and when they did it was with that poppy crap early in their career. I dont think a 30 minute show in a stadium consisting of songs such as "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" can compete with a two and a half hour GNR concert.
That's a misconception. They put on phenomenal shows early in their careers. They made a name for themselves with high energy live shows doing almost 100% cover songs. As they started performing their own music, the shows got shorter and eventually stopped when touring got to be too much of a hassle with all the crowds and not being able to even hear themselves play. Had The Beatles (in their prime) toured in the late 80s with technology where it was, it would have been the highest grossing tour ever.
The only rival they had at the time from a showmanship standpoint was Elvis (arguably the best performer ever). Enough said.
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
buzzsaw wrote:russtcb wrote:Amount of musical output has nothing whatsoever with your performance on stage.
You're honestly telling me that McCartney and Lennon put on a better show then Axl in your opinion??
Yes, and it isn't even close.
...in your opinion.
That is what you asked.
- A Private Eye
- Rep: 77
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
Jameslofton wrote:Thats a bit of a stretch. The Beatles barely toured, and when they did it was with that poppy crap early in their career. I dont think a 30 minute show in a stadium consisting of songs such as "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" can compete with a two and a half hour GNR concert.
That's a misconception. They put on phenomenal shows early in their careers. They made a name for themselves with high energy live shows doing almost 100% cover songs. As they started performing their own music, the shows got shorter and eventually stopped when touring got to be too much of a hassle with all the crowds and not being able to even hear themselves play. Had The Beatles (in their prime) toured in the late 80s with technology where it was, it would have been the highest grossing tour ever.
The only rival they had at the time from a showmanship standpoint was Elvis (arguably the best performer ever). Enough said.
Still only in your opinion, forget resumes and everything else as a frontman Axl is definately one of the greats. In my opinion he is up there with the very best of all time in terms of his abilities as a frontman. Only one man clearly eclipses him imo and that's Freddie Mercury, all other great frontmen fight for position under Mercury (no jokes please) and Axl's definately one of them. Lennon and Mcartney may have been great songwriters and musicians but I don't think they come close in the frontman stakes.
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
This is a frustrating discussion to have at a gnr fansite. All the members of the band are so overrated (which is to be expected). Original gnr was and still is my favorite band. That said, I can still look at it objectively enough to not rate Axl as the best frontman or Slash as the best guitarist. The truth is, they weren't and they still aren't.
How can you "forget resumes and everything else" when comparing people? That IS the basis for making a comparison. You cannot say "forget that he hasn't done anything productive in 10 years, Axl is still a great songwriter" or "Libertad is a good album but not great. Slash isn't as good as he was with gnr, but he's still the best." Maybe Axl WAS a great songwirter (debateable) or maybe Slash WAS an all time great (again, debateable). The sad truth is that neither of them have accomplished enough to be considered an all time great and neither of them has accomplished as much without the other as they did together. But as huge fans of the band, we make them out to be something they aren't.
It isn't my opinion that The Beatles put on high energy live shows and that's how they made a name for themselves. That's a fact. Lennon and McCartney were great songwriters, but many of their early hits were cover songs that they took to a new level with their style (not unlike Original gnr). Had Axl been able to sustain his early level of production, could he have been an all time great? Yes. Is he one of the best frontmen ever? Yes. But he isn't top 5, he isn't top 10. That isn't something to be ashamed of, it's something to be proud of. To have accomplished as little as Axl has and to even be in the conversation is a huge compliment to the guy.
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
This is a frustrating discussion to have at a gnr fansite. All the members of the band are so overrated (which is to be expected). Original gnr was and still is my favorite band. That said, I can still look at it objectively enough to not rate Axl as the best frontman or Slash as the best guitarist. The truth is, they weren't and they still aren't.
How can you "forget resumes and everything else" when comparing people? That IS the basis for making a comparison. You cannot say "forget that he hasn't done anything productive in 10 years, Axl is still a great songwriter" or "Libertad is a good album but not great. Slash isn't as good as he was with gnr, but he's still the best." Maybe Axl WAS a great songwirter (debateable) or maybe Slash WAS an all time great (again, debateable). The sad truth is that neither of them have accomplished enough to be considered an all time great and neither of them has accomplished as much without the other as they did together. But as huge fans of the band, we make them out to be something they aren't.
It isn't my opinion that The Beatles put on high energy live shows and that's how they made a name for themselves. That's a fact. Lennon and McCartney were great songwriters, but many of their early hits were cover songs that they took to a new level with their style (not unlike Original gnr). Had Axl been able to sustain his early level of production, could he have been an all time great? Yes. Is he one of the best frontmen ever? Yes. But he isn't top 5, he isn't top 10. That isn't something to be ashamed of, it's something to be proud of. To have accomplished as little as Axl has and to even be in the conversation is a huge compliment to the guy.
If length of productivity is the basis of comparison...then Axl isn't on the top 100. If you want to talk about quality, not quantity...then Axl is at the top 5.
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
What is so special about Reznor? I'm not that impressed.
I think Reznor is looked at pretty similarly to the way people look at Cobain. Both were instrumental in bringing a style of music to the mainstream. I'm not sure either deserves as much credit as they get, but at the same time, I'm not sure they deserve to get slagged either. Anytime someone revolutionalizes something as important to society as music, they are going to be viewed as some sort of cult hero. In some ways, this ties into my earlier post about Axl and gnr, because in some ways, they changed rock music in the late 80s. We tend to over-inflate the status of people that we admire.
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
If length of productivity is the basis of comparison...then Axl isn't on the top 100. If you want to talk about quality, not quantity...then Axl is at the top 5.
It's not THE basis for comparison, but it is A basis for comparison - it has to be part of the equation. Otherwise, we'd have to look at all the one hit wonders and see who put on a great show but flamed out early for whatever reason. I agree with you in principal, but don't see any objective way that Axl makes a top 5 frontmen of all time list (other than a personal favorite one, which is what it is).
I can see him being in YOUR top 5, but not THE top 5.
Re: Comparing Axl Rose to the greats
Neemo, NIN was a breath of fresh air when they hit the scene. People had just had MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, and a ton of hair bands shoved down their throats for a long time. A change was welcomed by a lot of people.
I was never a big NIN fan, but I could relate to why people started to like them. It was different than what people were used to hearing.
