Red Mosquito

We need McParadigm's input here: are people on that GnR fan forum also seeing Axl Rose's current singing abilities as him pushing himself?

digster wrote:

stip wrote:It is way thinner than I'd prefer, but I still like it, even thin, and I really like (and always have, since S/T) the way it sounds when he reaches for something intense. Shaky maybe, but weary, defiant, stubborn--like someone whose just got 12 rounds and is half amazed he is still standing.

I guess this is a testament to how people hear things differently; I think this is everything his voice is missing. There's no grit or weariness that sounds like the years it's earned, particularly live. At it's best, it sounds okay, but more often than not, it's shrill and breathy.

I agree it tends to suffer live

Heathen wrote:We need McParadigm's input here: are people on that GnR fan forum also seeing Axl Rose's current singing abilities as him pushing himself?

According to the one full work day I spent perusing, they're about 80% embarassed by him now and 20% defensive to the point of madness. So we're on track here.

I don't listen to all his or PJ's live performances or seek them out because I've never been that big on live shows. I do seek out live versions which have earned a reputation as being essential. On a good night, Ed is still compelling. He's definitely more skilful now than he was earlier. His voice itself is obviously not as pristine and smooth as it was but when it's well rested and warmed up, he can actually do more with it than he could or chose to do back in the day. His calling card was resonance, which is just a voice quality, not a skill. It sounds good to a layperson but there's no skill involved in it. You're either resonant or you're not. He is still resonant, just more raspy. He has maintained tremendous power and there's nothing more vocally impressive he's pulled off than LROM, which had him completely out of his comfort zone. The main issue with him these days is control and hence consistency. He's never going to sound great throughout a tour. He'll be really good some nights and downright poor on others. That's down to him not giving a shit about his vocal chords back in the day (live versions of Blood for example involved very little singing, just uncontrolled screaming which is very harsh on the chords) and his refusal to give up smoking, plus of course aging.

stip wrote:You weren't a fan of into the wild?

Nope. Did nothing for me. PJ has some wonderful acoustic-based songs, but Ed with an acoustic guitar leaves me cold. (Slow Lukin was great!) Maybe he needs to dynamic of having a band behind him or something. I've heard the solo shows are good, though, and I'd like to check one out at some point. But watching a show like that with a bunch of drunken mooks screaming PJ song requests and "We love yooooo, Eddie" sounds like the ninth circle of hell.

Heathen wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:Trying to be more catchy/accessible/dumbed down is pretty much the opposite of taking chances.

Eh. Kinda depends on who you are and who your audience is, doesn't it?

Not really. I mean, yes, if you focus only on the fanbase that's right, but not if you look at this on a larger scale. If you're the editor of a magazine known for serious and thorough articles and you decide to replace them with WAGs because that sells better, I don't think that counts as taking chances just because that might piss off your original readers.

I know what you're getting at in a general sense, I always just tend to think of risk in terms of the likelihood of any given action (i.e. moving towards a more accessible sound) achieving its intended goal vs. the likelihood of that same action doing damage to an existing situation. Pick any metal band you like and envision that they all of a sudden decide they want to write something that has Top 40 appeal, then compare the likelihood that they will actually write something that cracks the Top 40 (probably slim) vs. the likelihood that the attempt will alienate their existing fanbase to a degree (almost certain). The probability of success vs. the probability of failure--isn't that pretty much what the very concept of risk entails?

stip wrote:Sure, especially compared to a song like getaway

Man, for two people who tend to like the same PJ albums, we sure have contrasting opinions on the individual songs. I love Ed on Getaway. I much prefer this type of singing from him than most of what he's done on some of the harder rocking songs since Vitalogy. I've kind of soured on the quick 2-3 minute rockers with Ed screaming and speeding his way through the songs. STBC was a great song but it doesn't have to be the template of every PJ rocker. Getaway gets it just right, imo. It's probably my favourite rocker from them since forever.

Infallible is the other one where I really like his vocal approach. Those big, almost operatic highs in the chorus are some of the highlights of the album. That said, I love Pendulum too. No reason why all these vocal approaches can't be incorporated successfully into the same album.

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:Trying to be more catchy/accessible/dumbed down is pretty much the opposite of taking chances.

Eh. Kinda depends on who you are and who your audience is, doesn't it?

Not really. I mean, yes, if you focus only on the fanbase that's right, but not if you look at this on a larger scale. If you're the editor of a magazine known for serious and thorough articles and you decide to replace them with WAGs because that sells better, I don't think that counts as taking chances just because that might piss off your original readers.

I know what you're getting at in a general sense, I always just tend to think of risk in terms of the likelihood of any given action (i.e. moving towards a more accessible sound) achieving its intended goal vs. the likelihood of that same action doing damage to an existing situation. Pick any metal band you like and envision that they all of a sudden decide they want to write something that has Top 40 appeal, then compare the likelihood that they will actually write something that cracks the Top 40 (probably slim) vs. the likelihood that the attempt will alienate their existing fanbase to a degree (almost certain). The probability of success vs. the probability of failure--isn't that pretty much what the very concept of risk entails?

In this sense, this band has always been taking risks. They alienated a lot of Ten fans with the more aggressive sound on Vs. Then, they left everyone flabbergasted with the sort of non-songs they included on Vitalogy. By No Code, they'd whittled down their fanbase considerably. With Yield, they went back to the basic arena-rock sound that brought them initial success and this was right after their most 'experimental' album. I don't really know what they were trying with Binaural but it was the polar opposite of Yield. Riot Act too was a very downbeat album. S/T was the most energetic record they'd put out in a long time. BS was definitely them doing something unexpected. The world's most self-conscious and serious band having fun and making a pop-punk record. Who'd have thought? LB took some of the pop aspirations of BS further but discarded most of the frivolity, with more fleshed out songs and stronger melodies resulting in more of the band's strengths coming to the fore, in my opinion. Every album has gone somewhere different. I don't agree with their direction from No Code to Riot Act. It was the most frustrating part of my fandom. But I give them props for not giving a shit about expectations or pandering to the fanbase.

Release_Me wrote:

stip wrote:Sure, especially compared to a song like getaway

Man, for two people who tend to like the same PJ albums, we sure have contrasting opinions on the individual songs. I love Ed on Getaway. I much prefer this type of singing from him than most of what he's done on some of the harder rocking songs since Vitalogy. I've kind of soured on the quick 2-3 minute rockers with Ed screaming and speeding his way through the songs. STBC was a great song but it doesn't have to be the template of every PJ rocker. Getaway gets it just right, imo. It's probably my favourite rocker from them since forever.

Infallible is the other one where I really like his vocal approach. Those big, almost operatic highs in the chorus are some of the highlights of the album. That said, I love Pendulum too. No reason why all these vocal approaches can't be incorporated successfully into the same album.

Well, we can still have infallible

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:Trying to be more catchy/accessible/dumbed down is pretty much the opposite of taking chances.

Eh. Kinda depends on who you are and who your audience is, doesn't it?

Not really. I mean, yes, if you focus only on the fanbase that's right, but not if you look at this on a larger scale. If you're the editor of a magazine known for serious and thorough articles and you decide to replace them with WAGs because that sells better, I don't think that counts as taking chances just because that might piss off your original readers.

I know what you're getting at in a general sense, I always just tend to think of risk in terms of the likelihood of any given action (i.e. moving towards a more accessible sound) achieving its intended goal vs. the likelihood of that same action doing damage to an existing situation. Pick any metal band you like and envision that they all of a sudden decide they want to write something that has Top 40 appeal, then compare the likelihood that they will actually write something that cracks the Top 40 (probably slim) vs. the likelihood that the attempt will alienate their existing fanbase to a degree (almost certain). The probability of success vs. the probability of failure--isn't that pretty much what the very concept of risk entails?

Right. Maybe. I guess I see chance as in "which road do you pick? the clean, safe one, or the dirty, dangerous one?". Whether either road takes you to where you want to go is another story.

But in the context of art clean and dirty, safe and dangerous, are defined at least in part by expectations, perceptions, etc.

stip wrote:But in the context of art clean and dirty, safe and dangerous, are defined at least in part by expectations, perceptions, etc.

How about they're defined by "well this kind of music sells more than this other kind of music"?

What about it? That it's a boring, conversational dead end assumption that ignores the fact that many of the most highly regarded albums of all time also sold very very well?

stip wrote:What about it? That it's a boring, conversational dead end assumption that ignores the fact that many of the most highly regarded albums of all time also sold very very well?

Not sure what you're trying to say to be honest. I'm arguing that if you make a Transformers type of movie you're not taking chances. You're just doing what most people want to watch and what has proven to be the most likely to be a success. When you decide to make upbeat/catchy music you're taking the option that is the less likely to fail on a large scale.

well I'd say a few things in response to that (and I apologize if I misunderstood your point)

1. It would be interesting to see certain directors try and make a transformers type movie, and in general the best of those types of movies tend to come from directors who are able to mix more interesting artistic sensibilities into the genre than a guy who just does the obvious things with it, which is why Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan have made more interesting movies than Michael Bay. So the fact that you're aiming for something to have broader appeal

2. The phrase you used was sell well, not accessible. Those mean very different things and have different connotations, despite the overlap. The idea of it selling well plays into the money grab idea, and my level of dismissive contempt for that overall position is well documented--that the only motivation is to produce something that will make a lot of money.

If that was the case, given how little even albums that sell well sell these days, if that was the end goal--farting out albums for people to buy so they could become richer then I suspect they would be a lot more prolific in the studio. They all release lots of music individually they could easily just do it under the pearl jam name and increase sales by like 50-100 fold.

The idea of wanting to make music that will have a broader appeal, that more people will want to listen to, is something different. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that this emphasis may mean making less overtly challenging music. But that's not what you said. Perhaps it is what you meant.

3. And again, plenty of music that sells well also happens to be really really good. And music can be safe and still be really really good. There is a reason that Thriller sold 100 million copies, and it is not because it is a difficult, challenging record. But it's not because it was a safe, easy record either. It's because the quality of it is absurdly impressive.

All of this may be beyond the scope of the point you were trying to make, which seemed to be (if I understood it) that artistic risk is defined by the likelihood of commercial success, rather than the expectations of the audience. And I don't agree with that.

Yes you're arguing about many things that have nothing to do with my point. Couple things though:

The phrase you used was sell well, not accessible

I DID say accessible. Just read the post KD quoted. Either way, I'm not talking about whether accessible means good or bad. Just that 'accessible', since it has greater chance of success, is the opposite of 'taking chances'. KD made a good point about risk/failure in either case though but again it's a matter of which scale you're looking at this from. Which leads me to:

All of this may be beyond the scope of the point you were trying to make, which seemed to be (if I understood it) that artistic risk is defined by the likelihood of commercial success, rather than the expectations of the audience. And I don't agree with that.

I don't disagree about risk being defined by the expectations of the audience. Hell that's pretty much my point. The difference is that I don't limit the audience to the fanbase. So by getting closer to what the audience (here, the general public) wants (catchy/upbeat music) you are taking less chances (probability of success is higher on a larger scale). Cue KD's point.

Heathen wrote:I'm arguing that if you make a Transformers type of movie you're not taking chances. You're just doing what most people want to watch and what has proven to be the most likely to be a success.

You're also sacrificing longevity of appeal. What you trade in for that immediacy is the potential for a passionate and faithful fanbase. People who make Transformers: Dark of Darkness do well at the box office, but they don't have near the kind of sycophantic following that someone like Nolan does. They don't sell Blu-Rays at the same level and their movies aren't talked about or rewatched fifteen years later. Millions more people watch Big Bang Theory than watched Arrested Development, too, because it's much more easy and immediate to enjoy...but it won't be populating internet discussion jokes and dominating DVD sales charts five years after its over. It's the old McDonalds hamburger thing again. Easy, quick, pleasant, and then forgotten.

It's the same with music. You were probably going to sell a lot of immediate copies in the 60's with Mrs Brown You've Got a Real Fuckable Daughter Over There. The Monkees were going to outsell the Beatles in the immediate, as well, because they WERE the immediate. Looking forward a bit, the top selling album of 1992...the peak of Seattle hype...was Billy Ray Cyrus. The next year, it was the Bodyguard soundtrack. But Billy Ray is not selling back-catalog or getting retroactively treated as mystical musical event the way those bands are, because that's the price he paid.

Kevin Davis wrote: But I was one of maybe 6 people to like the uke record, so who knows.

Maybe if i wasn't at work i could listen to it, but I wouln't have bothered to look at a vedder solo song thread if i wasn't stuck at work.

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:I'm arguing that if you make a Transformers type of movie you're not taking chances. You're just doing what most people want to watch and what has proven to be the most likely to be a success.

You're also sacrificing longevity of appeal. What you trade in for that immediacy is the potential for a passionate and faithful fanbase. People who make Transformers: Dark of Darkness do well at the box office, but they don't have near the kind of sycophantic following that someone like Nolan does. They don't sell Blu-Rays at the same level and their movies aren't talked about or rewatched fifteen years later. Millions more people watch Big Bang Theory than watched Arrested Development, too, because it's much more easy and immediate to enjoy...but it won't be populating internet discussion jokes and dominating DVD sales charts five years after its over. It's the old McDonalds hamburger thing again. Easy, quick, pleasant, and then forgotten.

It's the same with music. You were probably going to sell a lot of immediate copies in the 60's with Mrs Brown You've Got a Real Fuckable Daughter Over There. The Monkees were going to outsell the Beatles in the immediate, as well, because they WERE the immediate. Looking forward a bit, the top selling album of 1992...the peak of Seattle hype...was Billy Ray Cyrus. The next year, it was the Bodyguard soundtrack. But Billy Ray is not selling back-catalog or getting retroactively treated as mystical musical event the way those bands are, because that's the price he paid.

That's true, but Nolan's batman movies were still aimed for a mass audience, just in an intelligent way. In between Transformers and Memento there is space for Dark Knight.