News:

The staff at DTF wish to remind you all that a firm grasp of the rules of Yahtzee can save your life and the lives of your loved ones.  Be safe out there.

Main Menu

Rate the Guns N' Roses version of "Knocking on Heaven's Door"

Started by WildRanger, May 17, 2020, 10:38:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Rate the Guns N' Roses version of "Knocking on Heaven's Door"

★☆☆☆☆
7 (17.1%)
★★☆☆☆
5 (12.2%)
★★★☆☆
9 (22%)
★★★★☆
11 (26.8%)
★★★★★
9 (22%)

Total Members Voted: 41

Dream Team


The Walrus

Quote from: WildRanger on May 19, 2020, 03:37:22 AM
It seems Axl is one of the most polarizing rock vocalists.
His voice is a main reason why so many people dislike GnR.

Are you just finding this out or something? Wtf  :lol

MirrorMask


Fritzinger


Stadler

Quote from: Kattelox on May 18, 2020, 02:03:32 PM
Quote from: Elite on May 18, 2020, 01:54:49 PM
That's right, but you said you found it funny that people complain about the way he sings :)

Well no, some are people saying '1/0 stars because Axl Rose' which is funny, but also that 'whoa-ohs' bug people more than I was aware of  :lol

The funny thing is, I love that guy.   Seriously.  I just lucked out and got the Appetite Deluxe Version, with all the demos (two CDs worth) and man, do I have a new appreciation for him.   Some of those demos are rawer than the ones that came out on LP/CD, and they have so much energy (think "Too Fast For Love", by Crue, or "Under The Blade" by Twisted Sister).    Plus, I saw him in a 1,200 seat club in Philly sing for three fucking straight hours (he left the stage only for Dizzy's piano spot) and he nailed the entire set.   Really impressive vocal performance (one of the best I've ever seen, actually).   I get it, he has a tone that you sort of have to like, but he is the real deal.

For some reason, though, the affectations on "Knockin'..." seem to overwhelm the rest of the song.  It's only fair to point out that the original is one of the few Dylan songs I like; it's got such a bleak vibe to it, it's almost outlaw country in it's delivery. 

EDIT: And I didn't even mention Slash's guitar; I think he's a real talent, one of the greats.

The Walrus

What, you didn't shell out a grand for the ultra turbo locked'n'loaded set in a safe?  :biggrin:

Stadler

Quote from: Kattelox on May 19, 2020, 06:18:34 AM
What, you didn't shell out a grand for the ultra turbo locked'n'loaded set in a safe?  :biggrin:

No friggin' way.   Just about the music for me, not the trinkets.  Though there's a cassette tape of early demos on the big one that I'd like to hear; need to look on YouTube for that. 

WildRanger

I don't get how so many people can't stand Axl Rose's singing but they don't mind Brian Johnson's vocals at all. Masses of people bought "Back in Black" and masses of people think it's an enjoyable record. Johnson's voice is a definition of "fingernails on a chalkboard" and people don't mind him, but they always want to bash Axl's voice. DOUBLE STANDARDS!


MirrorMask

Well, I totally don't care for Brian Johnson's vocals either. Him, Ozzy and Axl legit ruins my enjoyment of their songs. With Axl surprisingly being the one that I can put up better with.

The Walrus

I like Brian Johnson but Bon Scott aggravates me every now and then. Ozzy sucks and I can't stand him.

But I don't think that's double standards, that's just tastes. There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing, you like what you like and don't like what you don't like.

Elite

Quote from: Kattelox on May 20, 2020, 04:41:42 AM
There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing

Oh no don't start this discussion again :lol
Quote from: Lolzeez on November 18, 2013, 01:23:32 PMHey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Quote from: home on May 09, 2017, 04:05:10 PMSqu
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

WildRanger

Quote from: Kattelox on May 20, 2020, 04:41:42 AM

There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing, you like what you like and don't like what you don't like.

Freddie Mercury is objectively a great vocalist. Bob Dylan is objectively a bad vocalist. Who can argue with that?


Adami

Quote from: WildRanger on May 20, 2020, 06:34:12 AM
Quote from: Kattelox on May 20, 2020, 04:41:42 AM

There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing, you like what you like and don't like what you don't like.

Freddie Mercury is objectively a great vocalist. Bob Dylan is objectively a bad vocalist. Who can argue with that?

Stop that!
www. fanticide.bandcamp . com

WildRanger

Quote from: Adami on May 20, 2020, 06:35:14 AM
Quote from: WildRanger on May 20, 2020, 06:34:12 AM
Quote from: Kattelox on May 20, 2020, 04:41:42 AM

There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing, you like what you like and don't like what you don't like.

Freddie Mercury is objectively a great vocalist. Bob Dylan is objectively a bad vocalist. Who can argue with that?

Stop that!

Why?

The Walrus

Well, no, actually, Bob Dylan is not an objectively bad vocalist, in my opinion. Hear me out, and I'm sorry if this looks like splitting hairs or being pedantic, but...

Maybe an objectively bad singer, depending on the situation. He's not in an academic setting trying to pay attention to the dynamics, pitch, articulations etc. of some composer in a classical setting, he's not being graded or listening to a coach. But he's out there singing his own songs, stuff he made himself, and loads of people like his voice. You can't call him objectively bad, because that is his art and he's performing it his way. That's the beauty of art. Dylan ain't under the illusion that he's some great singer, but he's not trying to be, that's not his goal. He's not doing opera. I don't like Dylan at all but I don't agree with calling him an objectively bad vocalist (I think there is a difference in that term compared with 'singer' as anal as it might seem). Same with Tom Waits after his first album.

Elite

Noooooo, we've unleashed objective quality hell again
Quote from: Lolzeez on November 18, 2013, 01:23:32 PMHey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Quote from: home on May 09, 2017, 04:05:10 PMSqu
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

The Walrus

Quote from: Elite on May 20, 2020, 07:04:34 AM
Noooooo, we've unleashed objective quality hell again

Well, don't peek in the thread if you don't want to see it, then. I think it's an interesting discussion and something I think about all the time.

I'd rather talk about that than listen to people come in and rate a song 0 stars just because they don't like the singer and offer nothing else about the song itself. ;) ;) (I'm being a wiseass, but I think that's fair discussion, too, I'm just being cheeky.)

Adami

My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.

Also WildRanger either ignores posts or never takes any of them in because he hasn't changed any of his arguments in the slightest bit in years, so I dunno what the goal is.

But, it's his thread. So have at it. I'd rather it stay here than somewhere else.
www. fanticide.bandcamp . com

The Walrus

Well that's also part of it, WR threads always go off the rails, so why not have the conversation? We could say a lot of discussions around these parts have already been had, too. But if people still want to talk about how great Number of the Beast is, or what a phenomenal frontman Freddie Mercury is, they still do. I dunno who 'decided' the conversation, 'cause there are still people who don't agree with the (apparent) consensus here that no art is objectively good or bad. I just wanna talk music with people, Dr. A :getoffmylawn:  :lol

Adami

Quote from: Kattelox on May 20, 2020, 07:15:38 AM
Well that's also part of it, WR threads always go off the rails, so why not have the conversation? We could say a lot of discussions around these parts have already been had, too. But if people still want to talk about how great Number of the Beast is, or what a phenomenal frontman Freddie Mercury is, they still do. I dunno who 'decided' the conversation, 'cause there are still people who don't agree with the (apparent) consensus here that no art is objectively good or bad. I just wanna talk music with people, Dr. A :getoffmylawn:  :lol

:heart
www. fanticide.bandcamp . com

Elite

Quote from: Kattelox on May 20, 2020, 07:05:13 AM
Quote from: Elite on May 20, 2020, 07:04:34 AM
Noooooo, we've unleashed objective quality hell again

Well, don't peek in the thread if you don't want to see it, then. I think it's an interesting discussion and something I think about all the time.

Oh, but I do want to see it, because I think it's kind of hilarious, or 'funny' if you will :)

And Adami kind of hit the nail on the head. Every single WildRanger thread is a question along the lines of 'which of these options is better' or 'rate this thing' or 'why do people think X is good/bad' without every addressing the topic other than randomly dumping the question. But apparently it works, because it sparks conversation. About what we should talk about instead.
Quote from: Lolzeez on November 18, 2013, 01:23:32 PMHey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Quote from: home on May 09, 2017, 04:05:10 PMSqu
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

WildRanger

Quote from: Adami on May 20, 2020, 07:13:15 AM
My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.


Man, how can you say that Miles Davis is not objectively better than Justin Bieber, when there are so many objective arguments for that???
I could accept that music is mostly subjective, but not 100% subjective. If music is 100% subjective then that gives some idiots the right to claim that Bieber is better than Miles Davis.

Adami

Quote from: WildRanger on May 20, 2020, 07:26:23 AM
Quote from: Adami on May 20, 2020, 07:13:15 AM
My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.


Man, how can you say that Miles Davis is not objectively better than Justin Bieber, when there are so many objective arguments for that???
I could accept that music is mostly subjective, but not 100% subjective. If music is 100% subjective then that gives some idiots the right to claim that Bieber is better than Miles Davis.

It can be argued with Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis. I don't agree with it, but that's not the point.

Ugh! I'm not doing this.

Kittyloops, this is yours.
www. fanticide.bandcamp . com

Elite

Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Quote from: Lolzeez on November 18, 2013, 01:23:32 PMHey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Quote from: home on May 09, 2017, 04:05:10 PMSqu
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

The Walrus

@Elite: Who cares if he does or doesn't reply, if there's a conversation (edit: constructive conversation...) that gets sparked? That's the entire point of message boards. I get the underlying point, I do, believe me, but I like the thought exercises whether they've been done before or not. If I don't want to participate in a conversation or read it then I won't.

What are we talking about when we say "Miles Davis is better than Justin Bieber"? These two musicians are not remotely similar. What are we comparing? Their worth? Their legacy? Who plays the trumpet better? Who sings better? Just tossing out "Miles Davis is objectively better than Justin Bieber" is nonsensical. What does better mean? Now we are getting into silly unconstructive debate territory, with no parameters or control this is useless, so hilariously, I might be done now myself   :rollin

WildRanger

Quote from: Elite on May 20, 2020, 07:28:13 AM
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.

Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.

Indiscipline

Quote from: WildRanger on May 20, 2020, 07:32:45 AM
Quote from: Elite on May 20, 2020, 07:28:13 AM
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.

Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.

Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.

WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?

Podaar


WildRanger

Quote from: Kattelox on May 20, 2020, 07:31:56 AM

What are we talking about when we say "Miles Davis is better than Justin Bieber"? These two musicians are not remotely similar. What are we comparing? Their worth? Their legacy? Who plays the trumpet better? Who sings better? Just tossing out "Miles Davis is objectively better than Justin Bieber" is nonsensical. What does better mean? Now we are getting into silly unconstructive debate territory, with no parameters or control this is useless, so hilariously, I might be done now myself   :rollin

We can compare their worth, legacy, quality of music, impact, talent, etc.

OK. Then, is David Bowie objectively better than Ed Sheeran? David Bowie is generally held in very high regard as a music artist, while Ed Sheeran is not. Why? There are the reasons for that.

WildRanger

Quote from: Indiscipline on May 20, 2020, 07:35:17 AM
Quote from: WildRanger on May 20, 2020, 07:32:45 AM
Quote from: Elite on May 20, 2020, 07:28:13 AM
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.

Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.

Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.

WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?

Development of personal taste in music.

Adami

You know, I take back what I said.

This is pretty entertaining.


Actual music fans are people who like objectively good music. BOOM!
www. fanticide.bandcamp . com

Indiscipline

Quote from: WildRanger on May 20, 2020, 07:51:59 AM
Quote from: Indiscipline on May 20, 2020, 07:35:17 AM
Quote from: WildRanger on May 20, 2020, 07:32:45 AM
Quote from: Elite on May 20, 2020, 07:28:13 AM
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.

Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.

Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.

WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?

Development of personal taste in music.


Got it. What do you mean by development though?

I can see both the music fan and the "actual" music fan listening to music and having personal taste. How does the development - the deal breaker, as it were - part work?

WildRanger

Quote from: Adami on May 20, 2020, 07:54:03 AM
You know, I take back what I said.

This is pretty entertaining.


Actual music fans are people who like objectively good music. BOOM!

Actual music fan is e.g. someone who listens "Bitches Brew" or "Hunky Dory" instead of current Justin Bieber or Ed Sheeran hits in his room.



The Walrus

And where do I fall, as a pianist who listens to Mozart, Ed Sheeran, Britney Spears, GnR, Enya, Howard Shore, Gustav Holst, and Eminem, with a degree in classical piano education, who buys CDs, vinyl, and pays for Spotify?

I hope your brain melts. :)

emtee

The only way you could objectively measure a musicians capability would be to devise tests--like typing tests--at various speeds and see who makes fewer mistakes. Unfortunately that would still have zero correlation between the musicians ability to create music that people connect with.


As far as the thread, I don't own a single GnR album and it's because I would prefer to hear a Skil saw cut through corrugated metal while a  cat is getting declawed.