Too old to rock? Should Guns N' Roses and other aging bands hang it up?

Emotions swirled as I reflected on the current state of Guns N' Roses in the wake of the legendary rock band's recent Pittsburgh concert.

One moment I felt an exhilarating afterglow of having watched the rock and roll gods of my high school and college glory days. Moments later, guilt pervaded my consciousness. Even sadness and melancholy over the decline of what was widely considered the most menacing and popular rock band in the world in the late '80s and early '90s.

Then, while listening to the classic G N' R tune "It's So Easy" and toiling in the yard under the late August sun, euphoria returned when I embarrassingly impersonated lead singer Axl Rose and his famous snake dance, hopefully out of the view of neighbors who were hosting a backyard pool party a couple of houses away.

To rock or not to rock, that is the question

Back and forth my mood swung, between high and low, from song to song, concert memories fresh in my thoughts. My turmoil and conflict boiling down to this: Should Guns N' Roses and other big bands past their prime keep rocking or retire?

Are they better off bidding farewell and preserving in our collective memories a picture frozen in time of a rock band at their zenith both physically and sonically? Or should G N' R continue performing for throngs of adoring fans while earning millions of dollars despite criticisms of their lead singer in particular being washed up?

From pop princess to Axl Rose What this parent learned at Taylor Swift concert on Eras Tour: Music can bring you closer

And should I be saddled with guilt over shelling out a few hundred dollars to watch a band decades removed from their former Billboard chart dominance? Do I owe an apology for having been more pumped up for the G N' R concert than when I took my 17-year-old daughter to see pop music sensation Taylor Swift in Pittsburgh earlier this summer?

Triggering these ponderings was a stinging TikTok comment posted in response to a video reel I had created of highlights from the Guns N' Roses concert on Aug. 18 at PNC Park. Written in all capital letters for bullhorn effect:

"WAY PAST TIME TO HANG IT UP ... SOUNDS LIKE (EXPLECTIVE) .. MONEY BACK." Tagged to the end of the barb was a series of clown emojis.

Ouch. What a gut punch. I recoiled. A touch of nausea gripped my stomach. Thought bubble: "Am I a loser for having enjoyed the Guns N' Roses concert so much?"

Then I rebounded.

Replying to another one of my TikTok posts, Guns N' Roses debuting a live performance of their just released song, "Perhaps," a fan signaled their delight with a string of six heart-shaped emojis.

A kinder, gentler Guns N' Roses

Casting aside the mixed online reviews, I thought back to just two days earlier, when I stood on the stadium field, less than 50 yards from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame band. Finally, I got to experience a reunited Guns N' Roses after having missed out on their 2016 tour. And it was a blast. G N' R was an all-time great concert for me personally. A few times I even felt tears dampening my eyes. I was that happy.

Admittedly, however, I feel compelled to put the 2023 version of Guns N' Roses into proper context. This wasn't close to the 1987 version when the band exploded onto the music scene with fury and attitude and songs that somehow managed to be both wickedly heavy and radio friendly. Or the 1991 tour, when G N' R became the first band ever to simultaneously hold Billboard's No. 1 and No. 2 album spots with "Use Your Illusion I and II." Not only in the United States but also in England, Australia and Japan.

Rose is 61. Guitarist Slash is 58. And bassist Duff McKagan is 59.

To quote the late President George H.W. Bush, who was in office when the band's seminal album "Appetite for Destruction" spent a full year in the Billboard top 10, this was a kinder, gentler version of Guns N' Roses.

Axl was jovial, appreciative, playfully humorous ... and yes, punctual! Musically, the band sounded terrific. Slash was a virtuoso on the guitar. Mesmerizing. Soulful, emotive, blues-rock inspired strumming. And piledriving, string-hammering metal.

Nostalgia, escapism, reliving our youth, losing ourselves to the music. Whatever it is, it's good, it's rock 'n' roll. At age 16 … 21 … 35 … and now 52.

Basking in the moment, I uncharacteristically cut loose and belted out salacious lyrics while singing along to the blistering rocker, "Anything Goes":

"I been thinking 'bout sex ... Always hungry for something that I haven't had yet ... Tied up, tied down, up against the wall. Be my rubber made baby, and we can do it all."

Yikes! Call it the power of Axl. Almost ventriloquist-like, as if I couldn't control the words leaving my lips, I was endorsing debaucherous sex.

So how good ... or bad ... was Axl's singing?

So what about Axl's vocals? Yeah, yeah, I was getting there. This is more nuanced. And subjective.

He wasn't awful. But he wasn't turn-back-the-clock spectacular. Vintage Axl is considered to be among the finest rock vocalists of all time. Staggering range with an ability to morph his voice like a chameleon, as if he's two singers in one. A signature gravelly screech with air raid-siren power.

Roses' 2023 vocals are often inconsistent, uneven and exploratory. At times he channeled his past greatness, howling as if he's half man, half werewolf. Awesome. Other times he sang in his trademark lower register, uniquely baritone. Very cool.

But there were moments when he clearly struggled, frequently relying on improvisation and falsetto, both of which are foreign to the studio versions of the songs.

Occasionally his voice appeared to drop out entirely, the words summoned but refusing to come out. Unfortunate. Even sad. Time has taken its toll. And likely the severe strain of his singing style has damaged his vocal cords. Diminished vocals also have afflicted other veteran high-profile frontmen. David Lee Roth of Van Halen and Vince Neil of Mötley Crüe come to mind, and there are many others.

None of this honest critique is meant to disparage Axl. I'm an unwavering fan. Vocal slippage is merely a reality. But his effort was remarkable. Admirable, too. Squeezing every octave from his larynx, he sang with passion and conviction.

What resulted was a phenomenal concert, affirmed by the showering of applause and adoration from thousands of fans.

'Maybe we'd be better off without you...'

The rest of the band also played with moxie and purpose for a whopping three hours. A total of 26 songs, including the opuses "Estranged" and "November Rain."

Another epic was the 10-minute rock opera, "Coma." Lyrics seemed to echo the current state of Axl and the band in the minds of social media snipers.

Telling a story about a man, presumably Axl, who falls into a coma, unsure if he wants to live or not, the song includes the line:

Maybe we'd be better off without you anyway.

Fortunately, the words are only thematic, not to be taken literally. Because given the choice of watching a reunited Guns N' Roses in concert or not at all, I would gladly buy a ticket again.

Reach Ed at 330-580-8315 and ebalint@gannett.com

On X (formerly Twitter) @ebalintREP

This article originally appeared on The Repository: Should Guns N' Roses and other aging bands keep rocking or retire?