You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#5131 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:The ONLY reason I can think of other than his voice is off more than it is on is if he couldn't find 25 songs where everybody in the band was on, and since he couldn't re-record Slash's parts (well, not with Slash at least), then his only option was finding decent band performances and redoing the vocals.
I remember reading an interview with slash where he said he co-operated with live-era and that he and axl never spoke directly but that others in the process facilitated any commincation needed. He went in to overdub some parts to fix them up - like bits that were not auidable on the recordings but he then said something like when he played it back he was pretty happy with what existed and decided not to overdub much.
Interesting. I know there were some nights that Slash wasn't at his best either, but didn't know anything about this. I still can't believe they couldn't find 25 songs where everything was good enough the way it was. Axl had to have enough good material (including his vocals) to release a live album without altering it. Not that anything with Axl makes sense, but I wonder why he just didn't do that.
#5132 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:So you agree? You can't come up with another reason for it, nor can I.
So what are you saying was the reason for it Buz? That he always sucks live?
Just wondering what your take on it is.
I'm saying if you're going to do a live album, do a live album. He decided to re-record the vocals for a reason. It really doesn't make any sense unless he wasn't happy with any of the performances he had on tape. The ONLY reason I can think of other than his voice is off more than it is on is if he couldn't find 25 songs where everybody in the band was on, and since he couldn't re-record Slash's parts (well, not with Slash at least), then his only option was finding decent band performances and redoing the vocals. But as others have said, there are better band performances out there too.
I find the whole situtation strange given there are other recordings many consider superior to Live Era, so I doubt that it was simply that he was unable to find any recording of suffiecent quality. I'm wondering if perhaps there are other reasons - perhaps as Axl's voice appears higher than it used to he was hoping to allow these versions to get the public used to his new sound? Or perhpas he has always wanted to make minor changes to the vocal peformance on the songs? (ala the appetite re-record). Maybe the bad memories associated with the illusion period made him not want to put out anything he did back then as a commerical product now...could be loads of other reasons.
For the record I think Axl (like most singers) is superior in the studio to live. But that's because he pushes himself so hard and achieves what most can't do. And while he's a human being and so I guess varies from day to day, I still think he deliveres a kickass show.
Everybody is superior in the studio. Axl does things in the studio that others can't (or don't) do. Rather than simplify things for the live show, he tries to mimic the studio version, and more times than not, he can't pull it off live. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. It doesn't keep him from putting on a great show, but if you're going to a GnR concert to hear Axl nail every note, you probably shouldn't go because it isn't going to happen.
Everybody's choosing to look at the negative side of that rather than the positive side of it. The guy is amazing in the studio. Even the songs I can't stand on CD have better than average vocal performances (for the most part).
#5133 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:AtariLegend wrote:Are you for real? Seriously there is no way you actually believe that.
Well, he didn't do it. Instead, he chose to re-record the vocals or parts of the vocals. You tell me why.
I don't know why. Especially given multiple examples of the band performing those songs better could be found.
So you agree? You can't come up with another reason for it, nor can I.
#5134 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
russtcb wrote:AtariLegend wrote:Unfortunately "Slasholic" prefers talking out of his ass.
I honestly believe buzz made a good point last time around.
You agree with this?
buzzsaw wrote:He couldn't find 25 songs that had good vocals all the way through over a 10 year period?
A valid question I believe.
#5135 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
Paxcow wrote:listen to his voice here.....
Unfortunately "Slasholic" prefers talking out of his ass.
No, I prefer dealing with reality. If you think Axl is as good live as his studio recordings, you are full of shit. That is a fact, not an opinion.
#5136 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
listen to his voice here.....
AtariLegend wrote:Thanks to the wonders of high speed broadband:
Dude, anybody can pick out spots where something happened (good or bad). If you want to keep wasting time doing that, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that Axl's live preformances (with a few exceptions) are far, far below the standards set by his studio work. I'm not sure why you find that so offensive...some people would see it as a compliment.
#5137 Re: The Sunset Strip » Actress Bea Arthur dead at 86 » 890 weeks ago
RIP.
Bette White always said that one of them would die before she would work with Bea for a Golden Girls reunion...
#5138 Re: GNRevolution Madness » GnREvolution Music Madness - Round 2, Battle 4 » 890 weeks ago
neither
#5139 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
Thanks to the wonders of high speed broadband:
Dude, anybody can pick out spots where something happened (good or bad). If you want to keep wasting time doing that, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that Axl's live preformances (with a few exceptions) are far, far below the standards set by his studio work. I'm not sure why you find that so offensive...some people would see it as a compliment.
#5140 Re: Guns N' Roses » Scraped Introduction Poll » 890 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:Axl's pretty bad live. The boots tell the story pretty accurately.
I suggest you get some, here's one of the 2007 shows.
http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=6439
Minus "Nightrain" at this show, Axls voice is pretty awesome.
Minus Nightrain? So every song was top notch except for one for the classics? I don't think so.
That's cool that you love Axl no matter what. If you really think he's ANYWHERE near as good live as he is on the CDs, you're nuts. That's not an insult, it's a fact. He cannot reproduce his studio work live because of the complexity of his studio vocals. How can you not understand that? It's not even questionable by ANYBODY being even REMOTELY obljective.
