Jump to content

Is Axl simply not an innately creative person?


Recommended Posts

when Robin left the first time, he said at that point in 99ish, most of the stuff was just song ideas and not a lot of vocals were done. The vocals were not finished until after he left then came back again in like 2000 and 2001.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I got this one guys......all the way back to 2010.   Started by yours truly:    

AC/DC up until Back in Black is absolutely on that level of legend. You just don't like them because they don't make songs about raping children with Mellotrons.

Except he didn't.  Every demo we've ever heard, all have the same vocal track. He spent less than a year on CD, all told.

13 minutes ago, dave-gnfnr2k said:

when Robin left the first time, he said at that point in 99ish, most of the stuff was just song ideas and not a lot of vocals were done. The vocals were not finished until after he left then came back again in like 2000 and 2001.

Yeah Robin left in August 99, then shortly after Robin left. from August to November 99 is when Axl put down most of his vocals for CD.

Edited by Meta Matic
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, meatpuppet said:

I think the verbiage is off for what the OP is looking for. "Creative" I think implies something dynamic and novel, not just imitating or making something simplistic and repetitive. Making his thesis based off the wrong word takes away from his argument. There are a lot more negation words he could use like unmotivated or unproductive. The only song I think that is uncreative is "This I Love" which is avtistically minimalist. I think the adjective has a different meaning applied to artists as opposed to a farmer.

I explicitly acknowledge this difference in my post, and I provide my opinion with respect to that difference.

 

In order to be creative in the artistic sense, one must create art. You say this yourself by talking about actual songs in defense of Axls' creativity. I'm not arguing with OP. OP is shit. I'm arguing with your statement that creative does not equal productive. My point is that it does, not entirely, but logically, and to a non-negligible extent, in that one is not creative unless one creates.

 

tl;dr - Alex used to be creative (arguably), but now he is not (factually).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dave-gnfnr2k said:

He didnt write the lyrics in a week, he was working on those for longer, but he was only into the studio for a short period of time to lay the majority of the tracks.

It also explains why his voice sounds the exact same on every 99 track.

Edited by Meta Matic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dave-gnfnr2k said:

He didnt write the lyrics in a week, he was working on those for longer, but he was only into the studio for a short period of time to lay the majority of the tracks.

It's probably better for everyone to say he wrote the lyrics in a week too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meatpuppet said:

creative =/= productive

anybody who shares this sentiment should have been erased from the gene pool  or the very least should be banished to mygina

 

Either you are productive with your creativity or you are a waste of space and your creativity means jackshit

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, magisme said:

I explicitly acknowledge this difference in my post, and I provide my opinion with respect to that difference.

 

In order to be creative in the artistic sense, one must create art. You say this yourself by talking about actual songs in defense of Axls' creativity. I'm not arguing with OP. OP is shit. I'm arguing with your statement that creative does not equal productive. My point is that it does, not entirely, but logically, and to a non-negligible extent, in that one is not creative unless one creates.

 

tl;dr - Alex used to be creative (arguably), but now he is not (factually).

I guess I wasn't really arguing with your as much as I was trying to clarify mine so we aren't really in disagreement.

 

I think it's a simple syllogism that yeah, if someone is not creative then they also aren't productive either. I'm not going to press on the nuanced nomenclature in philology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

AC/DC up until Back in Black is absolutely on that level of legend. You just don't like them because they don't make songs about raping children with Mellotrons.


I didn't say I disliked them. But like, Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Stones are on one level....They're rock bands but also extremely versatile. AC/DC is much more one dimensional and that's cool for what it is but there's so much more variety between the different Queen and Stones' records than there is with AC/DC. AC/DC have cool tunes. But as someone who is a massive fan of The Beach Boys even you have to admit the rocks n' thunda shit is a bit boring after a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Knuckles said:

I didn't say I disliked them. But like, Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Stones are on one level....They're rock bands but also extremely versatile. AC/DC is much more one dimensional and that's cool for what it is but there's so much more variety between the different Queen and Stones' records than there is with AC/DC. AC/DC have cool tunes. But as someone who is a massive fan of The Beach Boys even you have to admit the rocks n' thunda shit is a bit boring after a while.

We're talking about Led Zeppelin here. Four pedophiles with basic rock instruments who played basic ass rock songs. Just because once in a while they shit out some garbage song about elves or some experimental crap that no one likes doesn't make them any better than AC/DC, a band that had its sound down to a fucking science.

 

Also I don't recall AC/DC's biggest hit being a case of straight up plagiarism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I can admit that once Brian Johnson settled in, they got incredibly stale, but from their debut until Back in Black, they were right up there with the rest of the titans of rock, and that's pretty much indisputable as far as I'm concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

We're talking about Led Zeppelin here. Four pedophiles with basic rock instruments who played basic ass rock songs. Just because once in a while they shit out some garbage song about elves or some experimental crap that no one likes doesn't make them any better than AC/DC, a band that had its sound down to a fucking science.

 

Also I don't recall AC/DC's biggest hit being a case of straight up plagiarism.


Most rock stars are pedophiles...and most musicians and most in the entertainment industry. Basic ass rock songs? Have you ever listened to anything other than the first record or whatever? You have a song like Ten Years Gone where it's literally 14 guitar tracks layered in together by one man overdub by overdub and yet it doesn't sound crowded. A band where the sole guitarist manages to do the work of two or three while also producing every single album. "Some experimental crap that no one likes"...It's kinda funny hearing YOU of all people - YOU who practically sucked Brian Wilson's cock - say "experimental crap no one likes." That's a riot. That's fucking irony at its finest. Is it that they have their sound "down to a science" or is it that they're only good at one thing and that's it?

And I like how you overlooked The Stones and Queen and went straight for Zeppelin.  Or The Who. Or even a band like The Doors in terms of musical variety. Or even fuckin' Aerosmith in their prime was simply just more FUN to listen to. AC/DC are good for one thing and that's it. They're like junk food: Cheap, mass produced, enjoyable but that's about it. They're the kinda band that if you've listened to their greatest hits you know all you need to about them. There's no discovering awesome deep cuts or exploring different parts of their musical history. It's all just...plodding rocks n' thunda on every single fucking album. Even Black Sabbath had more variety, even when Ozzy was in the band.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Knuckles said:


Most rock stars are pedophiles...and most musicians and most in the entertainment industry. Basic ass rock songs? Have you ever listened to anything other than the first record or whatever? You have a song like Ten Years Gone where it's literally 14 guitar tracks layered in together by one man overdub by overdub and yet it doesn't sound crowded. A band where the sole guitarist manages to do the work of two or three while also producing every single album. "Some experimental crap that no one likes"...It's kinda funny hearing YOU of all people - YOU who practically sucked Brian Wilson's cock - say "experimental crap no one likes." That's a riot. That's fucking irony at its finest. Is it that they have their sound "down to a science" or is it that they're only good at one thing and that's it?

And I like how you overlooked The Stones and Queen and went straight for Zeppelin.  Or The Who. Or even a band like The Doors in terms of musical variety. Or even fuckin' Aerosmith in their prime was simply just more FUN to listen to. AC/DC are good for one thing and that's it. They're like junk food: Cheap, mass produced, enjoyable but that's about it. They're the kinda band that if you've listened to their greatest hits you know all you need to about them. There's no discovering awesome deep cuts or exploring different parts of their musical history. It's all just...plodding rocks n' thunda on every single fucking album. Even Black Sabbath had more variety, even when Ozzy was in the band.

Since when is variety automatically equivalent to quality? Most of Led Zeppelin's attempts to stray out of their hard rock comfort zone sounded like ass. Do I need to bring up D'yer Maker? Or all of those god awful John Paul Jones sounds all over the later albums? Variety may be the spice of life but sometimes too much spice can spoil a simple dish.

 

As for the Stones/Queen, yeah, they're fine. Legendary bands in their own right. I'm not saying AC/DC is better than any of them, just that they're a part of that "upper echelon" of rock royalty, regardless of how formulaic their work is. It's beloved worldwide, their shows pull huge numbers to this day, and their hits are universally recognizable. So what if they never tried making a fucking disco album?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Since when is variety automatically equivalent to quality? Most of Led Zeppelin's attempts to stray out of their hard rock comfort zone sounded like ass. Do I need to bring up D'yer Maker? Or all of those god awful John Paul Jones sounds all over the later albums? Variety may be the spice of life but sometimes too much spice can spoil a simple dish.

 

As for the Stones/Queen, yeah, they're fine. Legendary bands in their own right. I'm not saying AC/DC is better than any of them, just that they're a part of that "upper echelon" of rock royalty, regardless of how formulaic their work is. It's beloved worldwide, their shows pull huge numbers to this day, and their hits are universally recognizable. So what if they never tried making a fucking disco album?


Dyer Maker is considered to be a great song, a cool mix of reggae, rock and doo wop. It hits nice for the latter two. The only shitty song IMO outside of the rock genre was The Crunge which everyone hates. Also, see, that shows how little you know cause John Paul Jones dominates just the final record....Presence doesn't even have piano on it and only has one barely audible acoustic on one song....Without variety shit gets old mad quick. 

They're only in the upper echelon cause for whatever reason Back in Black did massive numbers, otherwise what makes AC/DC any different from Thin Lizzy or Rose Tattoo other than record sales?

Outside of the hits, their songs don't have dynamics. Even if you do a hard rock song, you need dynamics to the sound to sound a little more than plodding. Like, take a song like Brown Sugar. Rock, but you have three or four guitar parts all working in there, an acoustic shadowing it, the saxophone etc. Or Last Child by Aerosmith, the cool "Hommmee Sweeet Hooome" bridge and the accompanying guitar riff which is really cool. It's not just chugging power chords. Even within the window of rock you gotta have some groove. AC/DC rock but they don't roll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Knuckles said:

They're only in the upper echelon cause for whatever reason Back in Black did massive numbers, otherwise what makes AC/DC any different from Thin Lizzy or Rose Tattoo other than record sales?

yeah nevermind Highway to Hell and Powerage, two of the best and most popular rock albums of the 70s

 

nevermind Bon Scott's unique raspy drawl that gave the band a sense of genuine badassery that other rock bands sorely lacked at the time

 

nevermind the guitar riff god second only to Tony Iommi

 

fuck sakes

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

yeah nevermind Highway to Hell and Powerage, two of the best and most popular rock albums of the 70s

 

nevermind Bon Scott's unique raspy drawl that gave the band a sense of genuine badassery that other rock bands sorely lacked at the time

 

nevermind the guitar riff god second only to Tony Iommi

 

fuck sakes


There's only one guitar riff God who comes before all others and his name is Keith Richards.

Unique raspy drawl? Nazareth. I'm not really into raspy singing outside of Axl when he was good. I can name literally only four great AC/DC songs and they're the same 4 everyone knows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...