Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Baz says that one of the new songs is part of a trilogy, due for release in 2012. So let's assume that album one comes out in 2008, album two in 2010 and album three in 2012.

He will be 46 in 2008, 48 in 2010 and 50 in 2012, assuming all goes to plan which it probably wont.

Now, I couldn't really care whether or not he looks like a rock god anymore or an ageing star of yesteryear. What I do care about is his ability to sing as he gets older and I wonder if he ever stops to think about whether he's going to be able to pull off in live shows, vocals that emotely match studio recordings on the new albums that may have been recorded anything up to 10 or more years earlier.

The old Guns songs are hard enough to sing live but the new ones are insane. They push him vocally to the limit using every possibly texture of his voice and every part of his range, often within just one song. We can only guess what the 'killer screams' Baz refers to sound like but I wonder if he'll be able to pull any of them off in 2012 when he will hopefully sing the new songs from album 3 live for the first time.

For all we know, the vocal for 'Oklahoma' or 'Prostitute' that appears on the final product could be from 2002. Ten years makes a lot of difference.

Moreover, we've all either ben to shiws or heard countell live boots from the last 5 years. Yes, there are examples of some of the best live vocals Axl has ever done. But the truth is, Axl is extremely hit and miss and one night he can come close to matching the studio vocal of 'Better' and on literally the next night he can souns like absolute shit, especially on the difficult to sing new songs.

I'm in no way criticising him or looking to debate his 'new' voice for the millionth time. Axl was just as hit and miss in 86-93 as he is now, probably more so. What I am saying is that it seriously bothers me that is he has great difficulty singing the new material at times in 2006-2007 (and unless you're a sycophant you have to admit he does) then how is he going to cope another 3, 5, 7 years down the track?

Rock singer's voices are strange things. The relatively clean living, non-screaming Jon Bon Jovi's voice is utterly shot to pieces. In 2007 he has no depth, no range and has to sing all of his classics in very low keys. Soaring vocals like 'Something To Believe In' have to be reworked into quiet, acoustic affairs. Much older, harder living, screeching veterans like Bruce Dickinson and Steven Tyler have managed to keep virtually all of their epic range and depth in tact and can still sing 30 year old classic like 'Dream On' and 'Wratchchild' like it was literally 30 years ago.

Axl is a vocal freak and on a single night he can go from sounding like a demon from hell, as Baz puts it, to singer who seriously damaged his voice in his prime and who often struggles and strains to produce the depth and range he knows he can.

I'm just worried about how long he's got left before his voice really starts to erode given he's already lost over 10 years of his prime performing life.

if people don't know what the above person is talking about Baz said this:


what's to say about this topic? yes his voice might/will change as he ages, it'll still be the best damn voice the world's ever heard.. as long as he don't go into the 01-02 voice again i think not many will care about the voice live since, when it's live, it's live.. meaning seeing him and the band perform, go crazy, playing their asses off is an experience.. when i see a rock show i don't wanna hear the songs exactly the same as on the records.. if i did i could have just gotten into ashlee simpson and watch her perform her lipsync shit

Plenty of old songs were difficult to sing live 15 years ago....

That didn't stop Axl from putting them on the records.


I think most artists understand the difference in between a studio album and performing the songs in concert.

If you expect them to be identical, go see someone performing a playback show.




/jarmo

I don't need patronising. The content of my post should show that I'm not expecting a studio qulaity vocal to be performed every single night.

I'm asking the bloody sensible, logical question of whether or not he's going to be physically able to come anywhere remotely close to singing a song like I.R.S live in 5 years, given that he often struggles in 2007.

And the whole point of this thread is?



/jarmo

I guess we'll see in 5 years.

Maybe he's thought ahead and new songs won't demand as much of his voice. He probably doesn't expect to be able to sound 30 when he's 50. Axl doesn't need to scream to sing a good song.

Each singer is different, though. Robert Plant is 59 and though he's obviously not as great as he was in the 70s, he still sounds pretty good. Brian Johnson is 60 and his voice is nowhere near what it was when he joined AC/DC. Listen to Back In Black and then Stiff Upper Lip for proof. ;) (Although, he was 52 when SUL was recorded)

But Wrathchild was Paul Di Anno, no?

thats a good post littleredcorvette. I've often thought about that before and i know completely what you mean. I just hope that Axl will be like bruse or stephen where he can sing like he does now and then when ever the fuck he pleases.

Jarmo:
the point he's trying to state or ask the people of the board is if they think that Axl will be able to preform in the future the way he does now or did then and NOT be a total fuck up that should hang it up kinda like Bon Jovi.

:peace:

With all due respect to artists like Bon Jovi.  I just saw them in November, and I agree, Jon's voice isn't what it once was, BUT they still sell out arenas.  So why would they hang it up?  I know what you're saying, but if the demand from the public is there, march on!

According to this logic, GN'R should never have played live.

There's plenty of songs in the GN'R catalog that's virtually impossible to duplicate in a live setting.


At least they don't use backing tapes unlike many other artists....



/jarmo

Agreed. The logic that an artist should only be creating music that can be easily duplicated in a live setting is a pretty bullshit one. It's that whole, misguided punk rock ethos thing that pisses me off so much. It's like, if it sounds like it was recorded in Bob the bass player's bathtub, then it must be good! What if we never had a brilliant fucking masterpiece of a song like "Coma"? That one's not an easy one to play live, and it virtually hasn't been, but when it has it's a showstopper. You can't expect things to directly translate from a studio environment to a live environment. nine inch nails still hasn't gotten "Wish" quite right (although they came closer with Robin as opposed to Aaron "Fuckhead" North).

Uh.. Axl's voice now is better than in the last 7 years at least. I guess there's still a lot energy in there.

I agree but I think that if a band is going to play something live, it has to sound at least somewhat similar to the studio version. And all GNR's live stuff sounds like their studio counterparts. Hopefully, that will be the case with the new songs. :yes:

great thread! I believe Axl should seriously look at how he performs live. My suggestion would be to shorten the shows slightly (to about 1 1/2 hours) and to stagger the nights that he performs as much as is possible on tour. He should also limit his running around on stage so as to keep his breathing more regulated.

Hell yeah!

One of the great things about seeing a live show is the different tones and inflections that the vocalist uses. That is one of the reasons live albums get the most play at my house.

*poof* gone performance

What an incredibly blunt and shallow remark. Etraordinary........