How thick is your skin?

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, soon said:

I meant the change from naive redneck seeking attention in assess chaps to high art videos and designer wardrobe, not so much the growth in fanbase and popularity. 

I guess that is kinda singular, even in the case of Iggy.  He might’ve been redneck in terms of his background but he was always high art-ish in the thought processes behind what he did.  Not sure I’d qualify any GnR vids as high art though.

[soon]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

I guess that is kinda singular, even in the case of Iggy.  He might’ve been redneck in terms of his background but he was always high art-ish in the thought processes behind what he did.  Not sure I’d qualify any GnR vids as high art though.

Agreed, nor would I but I believe Axl thought he was making high art videos.  At least the artsy sequences of course.

[EvanG]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

No one gives a fuck, least of people like Axl Rose.  People that give that much of a shit about that kinda thing would never make it to a life on the stage, you think a bloke who wore make up and arseless leather chaps gives a flying fuck what you think about him?  This bloke used to walk the streets dressed up all glam and get rousted by coppers over it, I don't think peoples opinions bother him about his appearance, least of all now when he's living in his fuckin' mansion raking in millions of fuckin' pounds and the bloke criticising is doing it from a two bed flat after a shift at the Carphone Warehouse.

If you wanna do it then do it, if you give a fuck what people think then you're lacking one of the basic qualifications to begin with.

He might not care too much about what others say about his appearance but people criticizing his art might be a different story and I can imagine him being very sensitive about that, like a lot of artists.

[Blackstar]

4 hours ago, soon said:

Axl cares a lot.  He controlled press access and photographers had a nightmare trying to get shots taken and then cleared during UYI.  He even cared enough about how Izzy presented on stage to dock izzys pay!  He basically wears a cod piece these days, suggesting he's not about flaunting his junk as he did so freely doing UYI.  I think every detail is carefully considered when it comes to Axl.

Also right before NITL Axl sought to have the fat Axl photo removed from the internet.  

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/axl-rose-issues-takedown-notice-over-fat-axl-photo-20160606

In my opinion Axl's control issues (as far as the media goes, but also overall) are more complicated.

Usually the people who care about how they are perceived tend to adjust to the norm and to what is expected from them by the media and the public. Axl has never done that, I'd say he has done rather the opposite. Axl has been fully aware that many of his attire choices (the assless chaps, much of his UYI era attire and of course his later ones) haven't been exactly compatible to what a band like GnR supposedly represented and have gone against the macho rocker stereotype. And he has been criticised for these choices by both sides of the fence: by a portion of the hard rock purists and also by the "politically correct" types who thought it was too much for guy who had come across as homophobic and as being offended when someone questioned his "manhood" to look like that. He knows about the comments the media and the fans/public have made about his appearance, but he has consciously stuck with his choices.

The Izzy thing was rather Axl's opinion on what good stage presence is, not the public perception; I've read show reviews of that time (1991) and Izzy's presence was generally praised, whereas sometimes Axl was slammed for his performance (in some cases Slash too), attitude and appearance. I suspect that it wasn't even about Axl not liking Izzy's stage presence per se, but about the fact that Izzy didn't share Axl's "vision" of what GnR should be which was perceived by Axl as abandonment and the stage presence thing was just a pretext.

I think Axl's issues with the media and the public opinion have been that 1) he can't stand the misconceptions about him and his intentions, be it about his music or about him as a person; at first he tried to address them by speaking in public, then he gave up on that and tried to control what was written and said about him, 2) he feels that when people/media write about him, paraphrase his words or take them out of context, use pictures of him etc., they have power over him and try to control him, so he had made attempts to control what is written/printed/published about him, 3) he probably feels that criticism of his choices interferes with his right of free will (I know that this is extreme, irrational and contradictory, but it is what it is).

Edited April 7, 2018 by Blackstar

[soon]

11 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

In my opinion Axl's control issues (as far as the media goes, but also overall) are more complicated.

Usually the people who care about how they are perceived tend to adjust to the norm and to what is expected from them by the media and the public. Axl has never done that, I'd say he has done rather the opposite. Axl has been fully aware that many of his attire choices (the assless chaps, much of his UYI era attire and of course his later ones) haven't been exactly compatible to what a band like GnR supposedly represented and have gone against the macho rocker stereotype. And he has been criticised for these choices by both sides of the fence: by a portion of the hard rock purists and also by the "politically correct" types who thought it was too much for guy who had come across as homophobic and as being offended when someone questioned his "manhood" to look like that. He knows about the comments the media and the fans/public have made about his appearance, but he has consciously stuck with his choices.

The Izzy thing was rather Axl's opinion on what good stage presence is, not the public perception; I've read show reviews of that time (1991) and Izzy's presence was generally praised, whereas sometimes Axl was slammed for his performance (in some cases Slash too), attitude and appearance. I suspect that it wasn't even about Axl not liking Izzy's stage presence per se, but about the fact that Izzy didn't share Axl's "vision" of what GnR should be which was perceived by Axl as abandonment and the stage presence thing was just a pretext.

I think Axl's issues with the media and the public opinion have been that 1) he can't stand the misconceptions about him and his intentions, be it about his music or about him as a person; at first he tried to address them by speaking in public, then he gave up on that and tried to control what was written and said about him, 2) he feels that when people/media write about him, paraphrase his words or take them out of context, use pictures of him etc., they have power over him and try to control him, so he had made attempts to control what is written/printed/published about him, 3) he probably feels that criticism of his choices interferes with his right of free will (I know that this is extreme, irrational and contradictory, but it is what it is).

I can get behind all this. I certainly didnt unpack my thoughts much in my post. I didn't know about Izzy's stage presence being praise with Axl and Slash's not - I find that kinda funny given how things went down.  But as you point out the stage presence thing was probably not the real issue. 

I would count point 1 that he "cant stand misconceptions about him and his intentions" as sensitivity or being thin-skinned, no?  

[Blackstar]

19 minutes ago, soon said:

I would count point 1 that he "cant stand misconceptions about him and his intentions" as sensitivity or being thin-skinned, no? 

Yes, I agree that it can be considered as "sensitivity". It's a contradiction, I think: Axl persists in doing what he wants despite of what is said about it, but he wants it to be perceived as what it is in his mind.

23 minutes ago, soon said:

I didn't know about Izzy's stage presence being praise with Axl and Slash's not - I find that kinda funny given how things went down.

An example I remember:

 

[...]

There were a few moments in group's two-and-a-quarter-hour set bristled with energy and intensity. Vocalist and all-around big mouth Axl Rose strutted and posed and shrieked his way through old songs and new with a feeling that was equaled by the drive and purpose of his mates.

On "Civil War," "Paradise City," and some other songs, the band members performed like true rock heroes -- which they are -- creating a grandiose sound that stirred the soul. And when they covered others' songs, they were just as accomplished. Their versions of Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" and Bob Dylan's "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" were remarkable: They handily outdistanced the live versions of those songs by their creators (Dylan could take a cue from these guys on how to perform this masterpiece).

All of which was fine, as far as it went. But that wasn't good enough for Guns N' Roses. They had to go too far, which they did as often as possible at this idiotic, sophomoric, stupid, moronic show.

Rose was the chief culprit. Not content to perform the songs, he destroyed most of them with hysterical, screaming vocals that defaced melodies and shredded harmonies. On a perfectly decent ballad like "Fourteen Years" he pushed his way into guitarist Izzy Stradlin's performance and ruined it. And on his own GN'R warhorses like "Welcome To The Jungle," his vocals were a constant annoyance, his tuneless rantings making a mockery of the songs.

And when he wasn't singing, he was baiting the ravenous capacity crowd with antics that were hilariously dumb. He seemed to confuse expressing himself with throwing his mike stand, which he must have done a hundred times. Was that supposed to be exciting, Axl?

But Rose had his accomplices. Lead guitarist Slash proved at several points that he could, indeed, play his instrument (especially his bluesy, delicate reduction of Jimi Hendrix's "Voodoo Chile" that served as the intro to "Civil War"). But most of the time, like Rose, he preferred to make a splash, dispensing dithering flurries of notes that had little to do with the songs in any musical sense. At one point, he stood on a ramp at the back of the immense stage and spewed notes out by the thousand -- hasn't anyone told him that he could go blind doing, ah, that sort of thing?

New drummer Matt Sorum (formerly of the Cult) was just as flashy on his solo. While his rolls were often impressive, he subverted them to the lighting scheme that went with them and at the end he was joined by bassist Duff McKagan, who slammed out extra beats on a drum while Sorum did his stuff. It was simplistic; it was silly. And the crowd loved it.

[...]

 

[Blackstar]

Also (and about Axl's attire):

As the gig progresses, two suspicions make themselves manifest. The first is that perhaps this group isn't fully ready to make their act work night after night on this large stage. The second is that certain members appear to be too physically worn down from partying to perform a two-and-a-half hour rock gig. Slash, for one, looks dissipated and sounds disappointing. The best musician in the band (before Sorum's arrival anyway) and one of the few genuinely exciting lead guitar players to have come along in the last 15 years (Iggy Pop said last year that Slash was the best guitarist he'd worked with, bar only the Stooges' James Williamson), tonight his solos are either too tentative, too sloppy or too hit-and-miss. And his cohort, the pallid McKagan though he manages to keep his bass-lines erect, has to spend several numbers lying flat-out, his eyes closed, smoking a cigarette.

Even when it's not working musically, it's never boring, because Axl Rose is incredible to behold, working the stage like a young Jerry Lee Lewis performing gnarly thrash-metal anthems - real Devil's music. Tonight he bursts upon the stage clad in a pair of construction workers' boots, white socks, a black cardigan draped around the shoulders of his naked torso, a two-day growth of beard and a large tartan kilt that descends past his knees. Later he'll change and amble back out in an ensemble consisting of just a pair of bicycle shorts, a see-through net top and a huge white plantation owner's hat. For a guy who spends a good portion of his life battling with the theory that the rest of the world is looking at him funny, Axl Rose has a most singular way of dressing for the occasion.
 

[soon]

13 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Yes, I agree that it can be considered as "sensitivity". It's a contradiction, I think: Axl persists in doing what he wants despite of what is said about it, but he wants it to be perceived as what it is in his mind.

 

Ah, I see what you're saying.  Interesting to observe.  Yeah, sounds like our guy.  Must make for a painful existence.

13 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

An example I remember:

...]

There were a few moments in group's two-and-a-quarter-hour set bristled with energy and intensity. Vocalist and all-around big mouth Axl Rose strutted and posed and shrieked his way through old songs and new with a feeling that was equaled by the drive and purpose of his mates.

On "Civil War," "Paradise City," and some other songs, the band members performed like true rock heroes -- which they are -- creating a grandiose sound that stirred the soul. And when they covered others' songs, they were just as accomplished. Their versions of Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" and Bob Dylan's "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" were remarkable: They handily outdistanced the live versions of those songs by their creators (Dylan could take a cue from these guys on how to perform this masterpiece).

All of which was fine, as far as it went. But that wasn't good enough for Guns N' Roses. They had to go too far, which they did as often as possible at this idiotic, sophomoric, stupid, moronic show.

Rose was the chief culprit. Not content to perform the songs, he destroyed most of them with hysterical, screaming vocals that defaced melodies and shredded harmonies. On a perfectly decent ballad like "Fourteen Years" he pushed his way into guitarist Izzy Stradlin's performance and ruined it. And on his own GN'R warhorses like "Welcome To The Jungle," his vocals were a constant annoyance, his tuneless rantings making a mockery of the songs.

And when he wasn't singing, he was baiting the ravenous capacity crowd with antics that were hilariously dumb. He seemed to confuse expressing himself with throwing his mike stand, which he must have done a hundred times. Was that supposed to be exciting, Axl?

But Rose had his accomplices. Lead guitarist Slash proved at several points that he could, indeed, play his instrument (especially his bluesy, delicate reduction of Jimi Hendrix's "Voodoo Chile" that served as the intro to "Civil War"). But most of the time, like Rose, he preferred to make a splash, dispensing dithering flurries of notes that had little to do with the songs in any musical sense. At one point, he stood on a ramp at the back of the immense stage and spewed notes out by the thousand -- hasn't anyone told him that he could go blind doing, ah, that sort of thing?

New drummer Matt Sorum (formerly of the Cult) was just as flashy on his solo. While his rolls were often impressive, he subverted them to the lighting scheme that went with them and at the end he was joined by bassist Duff McKagan, who slammed out extra beats on a drum while Sorum did his stuff. It was simplistic; it was silly. And the crowd loved it.

[...]

 

Yikes, cringy because it rings true, even though I love it all.  I guess my love for the band is almost an echo of the Axl contradiction.  

Edited April 7, 2018 by soon

[rocknroll41]

I was thinking about this topic the other day in relation to Rian Johnson, the guy who wrote and directed the latest Star Wars film. He's been getting torn apart on the Internet ever since the movie came out. Hopefully it doesn't bother him TOO much. I can't imagine how I would feel if it were me getting that amount of ridicule.