You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
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.
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
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.
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
I listened to one song from Live Era for the first time in like two years the other day and I couldn't believe how bad it was. It was SCOM that I listened to, and it didn't do justice to the live versions of it. There's a Paris version of it that I have that is just amazing, way better vocally than Live Era.
The redone vocals are AWFUL on that song and they also fix up a timing screw up on Duff's part. I'm just curious why Duff and Slash agreed to do this. Isn't there a pretty abrupt ending on Paradise City on disc two as well?
While I think it's difficult to replicate some of the great vocal work on the album, there is no way that some of the vocals on that live album should be that bad. I think they really should have been more selective in picking out which live tracks to include. I wish they had used the 1993 Argentina version of NR than the one that made the cut.
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
Paxcow wrote:listen to his voice here.....
Not to derail the thread...but that's so kickass. I'd kill for a studio verison of that (to get rid of the crowd noise and the dude in the audience singing). I was kinda hoping it would be like Chinese Democracy's cover tune ala "Live and Let Die".
i love it too! i want them to record it.
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
I'm surprised "Omaha '93" doesn't get discussed more; the final performance of "Coma" that is on the "Live Era" special edition, surprisingly when no bootlegs exist. Especially given that it obviously had more studio work done on it, than anything else.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
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 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.
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
I like live vocals not to be spot on CD in some cases. Axl is probably one of the worst live singers though. We aren't talking performance just if u broke it down by the notes although he does sing a very brutal style so u have to take that into account
He and Bach both miss a lot of notes live. Axl since the UYI days though, seems to always be very pitchy.
I don't mind it though, he is still amazing and awesome.
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
For the record I'd say Axl has much more good nights than he does bad nights. Plus the fact that standing at a booth in the studio, recording different takes, is a little more difficult that running around and singing umpteen songs one after the other with one take.
Anyway, whatever happened to rock n'fuckin roll?
A very valid question. It's never perfect live, and that's the beauty of it I think.
I would love it if they recorded Sailing and released it on a future album. That live version of it is amazing.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
He and Bach both miss a lot of notes live. Axl since the UYI days though, seems to always be very pitchy.
Really? I never noticed bach being pitchy and i've seen him 4 times live...but maybe I was lost in the moment. In fact...i probably was cos it was kickass lol. To be fair to them tho - it's some pretty hard shit to sing those songs...I think it's understandable to miss some notes...especially if working the stage like those guys.
Re: Scraped Introduction Poll
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).
