Guns N' Roses Aren't Getting Back Together, But...

RVD420

(IMO) Any sort of reunion would be bad for new GNR - Axl has rebuilt the band several times, but currently it looks and sounds at its most solid since 97. If they reunited for a one-off at the Superbowl, it would be a massive two fingers to the current members of new GNR, Axl needs to focus on promoting the new band, creating a new legacy, not living in the past....releasing a new album would help

If NewGNR was scrapped in favour of a tour with the originals, I'd give it 6 months max before someone throws the toys out of the pram and it all goes t!ts up. And with all due respect to Slash and Izzy, there's a lot of stuff on Chinese Democracy that they wouldn't have a hope of playing. So....Axl is gonna can the CD songs....sure then why did he bother releasing it if it was just gonna be canned - another huge negative point, and I couldn't see Axl going for this.

If/when the reunion tour goes pear shaped Axl would be finished. He would be a laughing stock in the music business and no one in their right mind would want to work with him after the reunion circus / how the newgnr guys were treated due to the reunion.

To summarise, I love GNR in all its forms, but Original GNR is a ship that has sailed. The future is New GNR.

MickClince12118

Malice wrote: »

One of the most recognisable voices in music and you dismiss him as "not a great singer".His current singing voice may have deteriorated but you can't possibly believe he wasn't a great singer on his day. How many rock vocalists have a three octave range? How many vocalists could belt out songs without missing a note the way he does while running around the stage?

He was never a great singer, just listen to his voice when he's singing live in that first lower octave, such as during don't cry. That's what his "real" singing voice sounds like, it's utterly weak. Then check out a song like sweet child o mine which is more of a singing song on the album but in a higher octave, live he does his usual screechy thing. That is simply not the way the song is supposed to be. Check the Tokyo DVD for his typical terrible performance of the song. I used to think he was great when I first looked into rock music, simply because I loved GNR. Then I began to research and learn more about singing when I started singing myself. Simply put when a singer requires that much strain in his high notes, it isn't good "singing" it's not even debatable. It's like Brian Johnson of ac/dc, another great frontman, but his voice is now f*ck@d, not due to age, but through singing in the same fashion as rose dose and has done throughout his career.

No doubt, the kind of singing he does can suit bands more, as it used to in the case of GNR but thats all it does. Dan McCafferty of Nazareth, is the singer Rose based his screechy tone on. He also, like Johnson, has no longer got the ability to do what he once did. Put simply when the way you sing does that to your voice, it's not good for you and it's not good singing. It's also why Rose' performance ALWAYS deteriorates during a show.

I will however always love an Axl Rose performance, simply for the 2 hours where you see one mans pure no holds barred love for rock n' roll, in his effort he gives up on stage. The adrenaline that it takes to keep his voice belting while running is absolutely amazing. As you can see I too am a lover of Axl in a small way and in small amounts and would never tell you not to like his performance. I was simply saying he is nowhere near a technically good singer and with his mic effects he now uses, he is one showing he's most definitely past his best.

Note: This IS from a one time Die-Hard fan.

Malice

Good post MickClince12118. I can't argue with a lot of it as you seem to know what you're talking about. I'm still going to hold his singing in higher regard though .

Motley Crue

MickClince12118 wrote: »

No doubt, the kind of singing he does can suit bands more, as it used to in the case of GNR but thats all it does. Dan McCafferty of Nazareth, is the singer Rose based his screechy tone on. He also, like Johnson, has no longer got the ability to do what he once did. Put simply when the way you sing does that to your voice, it's not good for you and it's not good singing. It's also why Rose' performance ALWAYS deteriorates during a show.

The only argument I have with that is that he stopped, between 1993 and 2001, and didn't sing a single public performance - he then stopped again between 2003 and mid 2006 - again, not a single public performance. And again in 2008 to the later part of 2009

Surely those years resting his voice must have helped?

MickClince12118

Motley Crue wrote: »

The only argument I have with that is that he stopped, between 1993 and 2001, and didn't sing a single public performance - he then stopped again between 2003 and mid 2006 - again, not a single public performance. And again in 2008 to the later part of 2009

Surely those years resting his voice must have helped?

In actual fact, consistently singing actually helps the voice. Of course toward the end of a tour their will be a show or two where you're voice is worn out, but the voice is, like the rest of your body, powered by muscles and if you're not exercising them regularly they will get weaker like your other muscles would. Of course Axl will also have been singing anyway, just because he wasn't doing so live wouldn't really make too much of a difference. As I already said, it's the way he forces his muscles when singing, that leads to an almost immediate decrease in the quality of his voice, even to the point where the second half of his shows are always worse.

Star Bingo

MickClince12118 wrote: »

In actual fact, consistently singing actually helps the voice.

thats terrifying, paints a picture of sisters and soundproofed rooms. are you part mike clink/malice/mick? i digress! never did consider anthrax/death angel/metallica thrash as they featured actual singers n that did not sit well with me

kev1.3s

+1 Anybody who thinks that axl rose has no talent needs there head examined as a front man he ranks in my personal top 5, I didn't see the show last year but I seen the show a couple of years before and even without slash I taught it to be a fantastic show. Rock has become much to slick today for my liking were all accustomed to well organised shows where we hear all our Favorite songs almost exactly as they appeared on the album then we buy the t on the way back to the pub and consign it to the back of our minds, I know that axl has messed us fans around for far too long but his presence on the stage is surely enough to make it worth while! I was at Rob Zombie last week in Manchester and while I was watching the show that I had waited so long to see I began to think that this was a stage production even a little cheesy if you want, the show in Manchester was the same as the show in London and will be the same in Dublin with axl you can't and won't get that what happens tonight at his show is anybody's guess, all you people who were at that show were at a gig you'll never forget unlike most of the gig's I've been at!

Malice

Star Bingo wrote: »

are you part mike clink/malice/mick?

What did I do to deserve a mention?

kev1.3s wrote: »

the show in Manchester was the same as the show in London and will be the same in Dublin with axl you can't and won't get that what happens tonight at his show is anybody's guess, all you people who were at that show were at a gig you'll never forget unlike most of the gig's I've been at!

I'm sure those who were at the Guns N' Roses gig last year in Dublin won't forget it either but that's not a good thing.

kev1.3s

Malice wrote: »

What did I do to deserve a mention?

I'm sure those who were at the Guns N' Roses gig last year in Dublin won't forget it either but that's not a good thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't a small minority of the "fans" hurl missiles at the stage and didn't he come back on to play the full set after words?

Motley Crue

kev1.3s wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't a small minority of the "fans" hurl missiles at the stage and didn't he come back on to play the full set after words?

The "set" he was forced to return and perform was lifeless, uninspiring and actually a disgrace. The performance was purposely abridged to avoid interacting with the crowd, he didn't address the audience once (funny enough Tommy Stintson, on bass did say something insulting) and he pretty much just stood under the drumkit for the entire night with his head pointed towards the floor - and at times he had his back to the audience for a good minute or so having conversations with Frank on drums.

For example....watch him, not a movement....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyZ9swcVE_A

kev1.3s

Ok I agree that that's a bit off but if You went to work in the morning and you got a whole load of abuse wouldn't you want to leave I know I would! I think that Axl rose is an ass hole and he has messed all of us around but everyone loves to jump on his back and discount his obvious talent because he kicked Slash primarily out, everyone seems to forget that he was the frontman for the biggest rock band of the 90's and I personally would rather see the mayhem that still surrounds him than say the image presented by James Hetfield in the some kind of monster vid!

MickClince12118

kev1.3s wrote: »

+1 Anybody who thinks that axl rose has no talent needs there head examined as a front man he ranks in my personal top 5, I didn't see the show last year but I seen the show a couple of years before and even without slash I taught it to be a fantastic show. Rock has become much to slick today for my liking were all accustomed to well organised shows where we hear all our Favorite songs almost exactly as they appeared on the album then we buy the t on the way back to the pub and consign it to the back of our minds, I know that axl has messed us fans around for far too long but his presence on the stage is surely enough to make it worth while! I was at Rob Zombie last week in Manchester and while I was watching the show that I had waited so long to see I began to think that this was a stage production even a little cheesy if you want, the show in Manchester was the same as the show in London and will be the same in Dublin with axl you can't and won't get that what happens tonight at his show is anybody's guess, all you people who were at that show were at a gig you'll never forget unlike most of the gig's I've been at!

I have already said, I enjoy axl as a frontman. However when you have to do the whole re-enforced falsetto thing(The way he has to put so much pressure on his throat) to get to your high notes, it means you don't actually have the natural(or developed) talent to hit those notes in the "right way". I am talking purely about how he hits his note, I'm not saying it doesn't sound good when he controls it well. I'm just saying that it damages his voice and makes the last few songs of all his sets sound terrible. Guns N' Roses are my favourite band of all time so I've heard melodic songs such as Sweet Child O Mine ruined time and time again by Axl forcing his way through them. As said before, for entertaining, there has probably never been a better frontman, maybe Freddy Mercury.