Fashionista

5 hours ago, EvH said:

Appetite was mastered for CD only twice. The original master,which is still featured on the in-print CD, was done by Barry Diament, arguably the best mastering engineer on the market. Crankable, well defined, dynamic: it sounds perfect.

Even the remastered Gold VD by MFSL wasn't as good as this one. We don't need another remastering. 

Yeah but that's a master from 1987. The album really does sound, well, low, and compressed at times, especially compared to other, more recently remastered records from the same era.

35 minutes ago, Its Tino said:

Nah I get it, I typically enjoy remasters. But wasn't that the whole point of AFD tho? Basic. Raw. 

A remaster doesn't make an album sound less raw. A remaster is different from a remix. Even Nevernind has had a remaster. It goes back to the tapes and spruces them up. The current old 1987 master of AFD sounds old.

1 hour ago, Its Tino said:

I'm against a remaster of AFD. If it ain't broke, don't don't fix it!!!

Only other versions of the old material I would really be interested in is that "raw" version of UYI that Slash talked about in his book. 

Youd be surprised how good and fresh a remaster can make an old album sound. When The Doors remastered their albums there were things that were so compressed and buried due to the technological limitations that were clear as day. Their albums sounded brand new all over again. Same with the Stones and Led Zep remastered.

He's in the top 20. 

gnr is my favorite band ever, and axl is my favorite singer. It really pains me to see that he hasn't put out a studio track in almost ten years. He might be an older man now but I believe he still has a lot left to offer. I'm so starved that I would happily accept a country cover album by GNR with songs like Witcita Lineman and Melissa even if it meant getting no new material. I just wanna hear that crisp Axl voice over Slash's guitars one more time. I would even accept Bucket, Bumble or Finck coming back if it meant we would get more productivity.

anyone else feel starved?

On July 7, 2017 at 9:06 PM, IncitingChaos said:

I agree he has bad moments in the states but comparatively the NA leg is still superior to the current leg in terms of vocals but Europe wins setlist forever

Has anyone ever noticed that Axl's vocals started out with a very falsetto rasp? It's like he's gone full circle

hi,

logging in from my phone. When I try to access the forum from my Wifi (whether phone or Internet) I get the following error:

"ERROR

the request could not be satisfied.

Request blocked.

Generated by cloudfront (Cloudfront)

with a long request ID after that.

Help please?

4 minutes ago, username said:

If there is one, 

Realistically though, what would even be in the vaults from this era? I'm sure there's live stuff, though very little was pro-shot video at that time. Sure, there's probably tons of demo's and a few unreleased songs, but I don't think it'd be much more than what's currently on the bootleg circuit. 

Don't get me wrong, an edition with a remastered album, a demo disc and a live show disc seems like a very decent anniversary release. But I don't expect there'd be much we haven't heard yet on it. Add a bit of a booklet and you're done. 

All of this, of course, is pointless because they'll never release it. 

Every single UYI show was pro-shot, plus several AFD era shows like Ritz 87 and 88 were pro-shot. Plus there's definitely unreleased tracks

34 minutes ago, RONIN said:

I sort of caught the tail end of that year. I became a fan right near the end - was just starting my 2nd year in college when that tour was ending in late 2002. There was definitely a resurgence of interest in GnR from what I recall which had started as far back as '99 with VH1 specials on GNR. I remember thinking they had sort of an outlaw cool vibe and a ton of mystery/mystique. By that point, Guns n' Roses had transitioned to legendary status in the media - a lot of the people of my age in our late teens thought of them that way. I remember November Rain being considered a much celebrated and legendary song as well. Nu Guns to me almost felt like an underground act. There wasn't a lot of info about them available so there was plenty of mystery. I recall some nu-metal fan backlash also - the korn/bizkit/linkin park fanboys who considered GnR uncool but were fans of Nirvana and Metallica. I think Linkin Park had played a few notes of SCOM at some show around that time to loud jeers/booing.

As I recall, the VMAs and 2002 tour tainted GnR just a bit and much of the mainstream interest began to slowly transfer to Slash and Velvet Revolver between 2003-2004. It felt like Nu Guns had their moment in 2002 and they kinda blew it and the interest from there was on a downward trend. 

2002 presented the perfect time for GN'R to come back. 2001 had been dominated by Nu Metal, but Nu Metal was quickly falling out of fashion. There were bands like Queens of the Stone Age and Audioslave, but while popular, neither had the rock star aura that, I remember feeling, people wanted. Kids my age then liked Eminem and 50 Cent because they were dangerous, controversial, and "badass." If Axl had come back with a band that looked more like rockers, and if he himself dressed in say, a 2002 version of his 1988 era clothes, slim, hungry and angry, he would've retaken the Rock throne with ease. 2002 was THE year. The now or never moment.

22 minutes ago, Walapino said:

It was exciting but it crashed and burned too soo, wish Axl released CD in 2002 and toured it properly and then release a couple more CDs and get back with Slash before 2010 before he lost so power in the voice

That would've been the ideal situation. An angry industrial-esque CD (songs like Shackler's, CD, Riad, Scraped) in 2002 with less bloated production, maybe a more dramatic followup full of songs like Prostitute and TWAT in 2003 or 2004, and then maybe a third album with more of a rock sort of sound, followed by a reunion with Slash around 08-09.

2 minutes ago, AxlRoseCDII said:

The 2002 lineup disappoints me because it had so much damn potential. I seriously would accept 10 albums from that lineup. Everyone in the band at that time were so full of musical talent and Axl was hungry, albeit that hunger was temporary. All downhill from the MTV ballad in my opinion...

The VMAs were their one shot at being accepted by the public at large and Axl dropped the ball :/ 

can you believe 2002 is 15 years ago now? It seems like yesterday. I had just gotten into gnr and I was in jr high at the time and it was pretty rough being a gnr fan. everyone, literally everyone, was into Eminem or 50 Cent in 2002. GN'R had no place among my peers. I remember trying to convince them how cool and dangerous GNR was lol. It seemed like GN'R stood a chance of taking back over the world and then the 2002 VMAs happened and then the riot on the very first day of the NA tour. I remember reading reviews and people were mocking Axl's weight (like NME) and it was fucked up cause he was actually skinny at the time. It was such a weird time musically. You had these shitty garage groups trying to be cool. Nu Metal was still kinda cool but was becoming passe really quick but wasn't quite there yet. Boy Bands were still sorta popular but dying out too, same with stuff like Manson. Eminem seemed like the center of the universe. Audioslave was trying to do things but they didn't really resonate with the young people. And into this all came Axl with braids, a guitarist with a KFC bucket and mask, and Robin Finck....Thoughts? Memories?

25 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

- A note on TSI: Imo its relative failure (as someone said, it didn't do so badly for a covers album) didn't have to do with the album itself, but with the perception of the band at the time. It might not say anything to people that were 13-14, had gotten to GnR with the Illusions , the big tour, the videos etc. and had never listened to punk, or to the traditional hard rock/metal GnR fanbase, but it wasn't the same for a little older people like me who knew most of the bands GnR covered. And it wasn't irrelevant neither to GnR themselves (since they had punk influences) nor to the era, with Kurt Cobain honouring and promoting his punk/post-punk influences, Pearl Jam covering a Dead Boys song etc.

 

Yeah, the perception was pretty crappy at the time. Also a lot of people thought GN'R were doing a punk album for cynical reasons, not for artistic reasons. Also, when your lead single is a Doo Wop song, and your video for it is a really weird video featuring Gary Oldman as a weird clown demon...Teens were probably like "wut?" I mean..I love SIDHY but does a Doo Wop love ballad really fit in, in any way shape or form with the musical climate of 1994?

21 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Not all the rock press had that stance towards them. I'd say that the press was polarized about them from the beginning. Rolling Stone was very positive, but other than that, apart from magazines like Hit Parader, some magazines addressed to musicians and some metal orientated ones, the "serious" general rock press was so-so, critical or even negative. Also quite a few reviews of live shows weren't very favourable; and I'm not talking only about the "circus era", but even 1991, when Izzy was still in the band and before the UYI's were released:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080222191149/http://www.w-axl-rose.com:80/Reviews/ReviewsIndex.html

(It's a bit funny if you think how good the reviews for the NITL tour have been; if someone completely clueless about GnR (ie. never heard or seen them) attempted to form an opinion based only on reviews, they'd think that the 2016-17 band is much better than the 1991 one )

About the mid 90s:

- Regarding the press: As others already said, they had almost disappeared. To my recollection, they were nowhere in the few local rock outlets (magazines, newspapers, radio) - only just briefly when SFTD was released. And internationally, judging from the articles/interviews of that era, the majority of the press had almost "forgotten" about them and only Kerrang had articles on them more than a couple of times. A big part of it had to do with the change in the musical landscape, but I think it was also because they actually weren't making news; not only due to the lack of a release (apart from TSI and SFTD), but also because Axl (the main newsmaker, for good or bad) didn't talk to the media, Duff and Matt started talking in '96 when they did The Neurotic Outsiders, so, apart from Slash (who was the only one talking to the press in '94-'95) there weren't any other sources. I don't remember well what was going on with MTV (Europe) in regards to GnR at the time; I think that some videos (mainly SCOM, PC and NR) were popping up from time to time under the label "classic".

- My limited personal experience as someone living in a peripheral European country was was at her twenties at the time: I didn't have any friends at my age who were big GnR fans. Some of them were casuals at most, so they didn't care much. I had passed GnR tapes to some people in my circle (relatives, acquaintances etc.), 5-6 years younger than me, who had gotten into rock either through the Metallica black album or through Nirvana and "grunge", and they didn't connect; there was a general vibe that GnR were a "has been"/not very cool band. Bands like AC/DC and Metallica continued being very popular among an older metal-ish audience (although part of the hardcore metal Metallica fans considered them sellouts in the 90s), GnR not so much, but it was probably because GnR didn't gain as much popularity here among that audience as in other countries in the first place (same goes for the pre-grunge indie/alternative audience, which was relatively strong here). I think though that people who were already fans, like me (even though I was disappointed by some aspects of the UYI albums and era, mainly the NR video), didn't stop liking them; it was just that there was much other stuff going on in music currently and GnR didn't release anything, so (and depending on each one's musical taste) people moved on.

On a side note, in retrospect, to me personally GnR has aged much better (I even like the Illusions now more than I had at the time) than much of 90s popular rock. I'm talking mainly about the bulk of 90s "alternative", Green Day, post-grunge bands like Bush etc., some of Britpop, Marilyn Manson...  I wasn't a fan at the time (just casually listened to the aforementioned stuff), now I think they were just meh or utter shit. I never got into nu-metal; I was old for that crap, but I think I wouldn't have liked it regardless.

- I can't say how a GnR album in 1996 would have done commercially. I guess it would have found its audience, but how big that audience would've been and the relevance of the album in that era would've depended a lot on the musical direction. I think a good straight hard rock album or an Izzy-based one (in the direction Izzy had gone to in the 90s, ie. more stonesy/roots rock) could have sold and been received decently, but in order to make an impact they would need a bolder album with some progressive/contemporary touch without reinventing their sound completely - that's my personal opinion anyway. They would have been more than capable musically of doing it, hadn't it been for all the shit that went on.

- A note on TSI: Imo its relative failure (as someone said, it didn't do so badly for a covers album) didn't have to do with the album itself, but with the perception of the band at the time. It might not say anything to people that were 13-14, had gotten to GnR with the Illusions , the big tour, the videos etc. and had never listened to punk, or to the traditional hard rock/metal GnR fanbase, but it wasn't the same for a little older people like me who knew most of the bands GnR covered. And it wasn't irrelevant neither to GnR themselves (since they had punk influences) nor to the era, with Kurt Cobain honouring and promoting his punk/post-punk influences, Pearl Jam covering a Dead Boys song etc.

I haven't read the book (only an article/Axl interview Sugerman had done for Spin magazine), but I'm curious about the comparison, considering that Sugerman knew Jim Morrison in person.

And I believe it's Apollonian vs Dionysian?

-------------

There was another related discussion a while ago in a thread about the trilogy videos. I said then that Axl's role model were the larger-than-life rockstars of the 70s. Although he was always eclectic and liked/was influenced by different musical genres, the "bloated" 70s music and image was what mostly shaped him as he got into music through that as a kid. To him, his behaviour and appearance in the 90s was a reflection of a natural evolution of someone who from an "urchin under the street" became a rockstar. And in this sense, there is authenticity behind what has been perceived as pretentiousness.

Maybe there was an authenticity to it, but it was just the "wrong place, wrong time" for Axl to do what he was doing, dress how he was dressing etc. Axl would've been a much happier guy if he was born/if GN'R took off 20 years earlier.

NuGNR could have worked. The problem was:

-A lack of a steady stream of new material to reinforce that THIS is Guns N' Roses now. If NuGNR released albums in say, 1999, 2001, 2003, etc...The public would have eventually accepted it.

-No cohesive image or identity. The AFD/TSI lineups had a generally cohesive "Rock" image and identity. You had a band fronted by a guy wearing dreads and jerseys like a rapper singing 80s rock songs. You had a guitarist who looked like Michael Myers with a KFC bucket on his head. A Goth secondary guitarist. A Punk bassist. A non-descript drummer. There was no cohesiveness, no identity. 

-No hit singles.

-Axl's voice. If he had been singing at 2006 levels in 2001 and 2002 it would've helped.

21 minutes ago, Draguns said:

You are talking about  bands that were not  in the classic hard rock tradition. People wanted something different at the time. Classic hard rock, which is blues based was on the decline. The only new band that had that sound was Buckcherry at the time. They could have carried it on, but failed. 

You brought up Evanscene. Evanscene was a different type of rock band that incorporated rap with a female singer. It was something unique and no one heard of it. 

In 1993, Aerosmith, blues based rock, released Get A Grip, sold 17 million copies worldwide. Same year Metallica released Live Shit: Binge & Purge, a boxset, which sold 15 million copies in the US alone. 1994, The Rolling Stones, blues based rock released Voodoo Lounge, which sold 2 million copies in the US alone, had videos all over MTV, and saw the band be invited to the MTV Music Awards in '95. Van Halen, another blues based band, released Balance in 1995, which went 2x Platinum in the US. AC/DC released Ballbreaker in 1995 which went 2x Platinum. Bon Jovi's These Days, released in 1995, sold around 8 mil worldwide.

Ozzy's Osmosis album went 3x Platinum in 95. Metallica's Load (1996) sold 5 million copies in the US; its sequel, Reload, sold 4 million.

I could easily see a 1996 GN'R hard rock album doing 3-4 million copies in the US, maybe more if it was good material. They were "uncool" to the teens but they did still have a large fanbase that were loyal. It wouldn't have been UYI numbers but it would've done at least more than Platinum.

Also, I think Kurt Loder was one of the best friends Axl/GN'R ever had in the press. I wish he was still doing business today. I'd love to see an Axl/Slash interview with Kurt now.

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And what do they all have in common, Rose included? They all had, or had acquired during their perceived 'persecution', beards. It isn't just Morrison and Charlie Manson he was obsessed with either,

Yeah, I do believe Axl was becoming self-obsessed and seeing himself in all these figures. But it was in some warped, narcissistic sort of way. "These guys were persecuted JUST LIKE ME!" Axl's head got deeper and deeper up his own ass.

21 minutes ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of what you've said, particularly about Axl's pretentiousness being at odds with the cultural shift of the time (he'd love to have been an 18th aristocrat! lol).  My point was the status of rock was declining in terms of it no longer being a dominant genre in the music industry once you start getting past 96/97 - it just wasn't anymore and hasn't been ever since. 

Sure, later on you had your nu-metal and your emo (anyone remember My Chemical Romance?) and Fall Out Boy and what not, but they weren't dominating the industry and rock was becoming increasingly niche.  So Guns were up against that as well as the problems they created for themselves - as per usual with GNR, it's never just one factor, it's a combination of factors.

I disagree with you only slightly, in a nuanced sense. If you take into consideration the late 70s and early 80s, Rock was declining for a while. The late 70s had Rock being displaced by Disco until Disco burned itself out. The early-mid 80s were all about Synthesizers, Pop Music, New Wave and such. Michael Jackson and Prince were bigger in 1984 than any rock star on Earth. Artists like Paula Abdul were huge. Madonna. Cyndi Laupder. Any band that wanted to survive and still sell well changed their sound a lot. Look at Queen, who became a Pop band. Look at Genesis, who also became a Pop band. Look at Rush and Yes who went from being prog rock in the 70s to synth pop in the 80s. The late 80s-early 90s saw a revitalization of guitar driven Rock as the dominant genre but this was short lived. The 1986-1993 or so era of Rock dominance to me is like, a cancer patient going into remission, only for the cancer to come back. Horrible analogy but I hope my point gets across. I think Rock had been in a bad state since Disco came around. It just basically enjoyed a brief renaissance at being number one again before stuff like Rap and Boy Bands and such became another option for kids. Even now, Rock isn't dead. It's just one of a handful of genres people like. 

The Nu Metal was huge, I remember it. It was very cool. When I was in school, you were either, really, a Rocker (Tool, Manson, Korn) or a Hip Hop person. Rock was still relevant enough in the early 00s for songs like Rollin' by Limp Bizkit and such to dominate the airwaves. It's just like...If Rock was the majority shareholder (say 70%) of teen attention in 1992, it was more around 45-50% in 1997. You know what I mean? 

Also, bear in mind, it's easier to be a hip hop fan than it is to be a rocker.

9 minutes ago, appetite4illusions said:

Look at how casual and almost flattering he is dressed in those '90s pics. 

It's such a polar opposite of the hip Versace style or the trailblazing rock fashion he proudly immersed himself in at the height of the band's heyeday. 

I don't even think this is an attempt at "fashion," at all. Forget how being dressed down and grungy was the norm in those times. It's so casual it's almost like he's resigned himself to sweat-pants. You can see a quite a bit of depression in that. He's not putting on airs at all. He's almost resigned himself to his role as the comfortable hermit. 

 

A couple of others from the same period of time:

If he had adopted this kind of image in say 1992 or so, I think GN'R would've fared better with the kids. It was more realistic than the Versacci suits and biker shorts and fur coats and things. And I don't think he was trying to ape grunge, as you say, he was probably resigned to this sort of hermit role. He probably felt a deep sense of resignation and grief. We'll never know the inside portrait but I have to believe that the mid 90s were probably the worst time of Axl's life emotionally. Now, I feel his tragedies were of his own making in most cases, but even still, he was probably deeply depressed and stopped giving a crap about dressing snappy.

You can kind of see a sadness or emptiness in his eyes in all these pictures. A thousand yard sort of stare. He's looking into the camera but he just isn't there. 

I know when Moby met him in 1997 he said Axl had a long beard he didn't bother grooming and that Axl came off "timid", like a beaten dog, broken. I know that his publicist said that when Kurt Cobain killed himself, she had to speak with Axl on the phone for several hours to calm him down and she was afraid he would do something to hurt himself. That's the only two pictures we have of Axl's mindset in the mid 90s...And they aren't pretty.

2 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

@DieselDaisy nailed it when he said Axl watched The Doors film and became obsessed with persecuted bearded men. 

I don't think that's true though. Axl became obsessed with his OWN persecution or what he perceived of it and wanted to create this martyr image for himself. He was already on this trip in 1989, it's just he began speaking about it more and more and more. He grew a beard even before The Doors film was in production (look up the RIP Magazine Ads from 1989). I think as soon as he got famous, all of his paranoiac tendencies just became exaggerated. He felt like he was a victim of everyone else when really he was just a victim of himself. He also had a lot of people gaslighting him and blowing smoke up his ass that he WAS like Jim Morrison, that he WAS this important, tragic, tortured figure. He began to believe his own press. Axl may have identified with Jim Morrison and Charles Manson but I think in this case, the chicken came before the egg. Axl already felt persecuted and alienated (see Out Ta Get Me). These other guys were just people he clung to and identified with in some weird, narcissistic way because he saw them as reflections of himself.

3 hours ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Yeah, I remember GNR being over by 93 even.  And you're right - after that, there was a real mix of not only bands, but genres.  I agree with you, I don't think it would have made a difference had GNR released an album in 96.  Music was already evolving to a stage where there wasn't going to be a dominant rock force anymore.

I'm not even going to attempt to explain why GNR fell out of favour because I honestly don't have a clue.  All I remember is that after the mid 90s rock itself began its steady decline as music began to diversify in a way it hadn't before.  

You look back at the charts over those years and you get a mixed bag of genres with an emphasis on rap, pop and dance/electronic music (think Ministry of Sound).  

But here's something that struck me while I was quickly looking over old charts: Back in 96, when GNR were getting nowhere with the now infamous jam sessions and Axl was about to lose Slash, you know what future smash hit song was being recorded?  Hanson's Mmmbop.  Eight months after Slash walked, Hanson were the biggest band on the planet - that song went to no.1 in 27 countries.  The millennials here will not have clue who that band is, but actually, now that I think about it, those boys were the last band after GNR, to attract a genuine frenzy of global recognition and dominance, yet their rock sound couldn't have been further removed from the GNR sound.  And then they too, quickly dropped off the radar (worth noting though, in the 15 years it took Axl to produce CD, Hanson released 5 albums, 3 on their own label).

Music diversified and music tastes changed.  GNR were probably never meant to go on in their original form; they were one of a kind. 

Here's the thing though. If rock had begun its steady decline after the mid 90s, explain why Load did as well as the UYI albums in the States even though the fans hated it. Explain why bands like Korn, Tool, Papa Roach, Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down, Green Day, Marilyn Manson Limp Bizkit, etc did so well and captured a big chunk of the teenage/young adult audience in the States in the late 90s/early 00s. Even as late as 2004 you had albums like American Idiot doing MASSIVE sales. American Idiot sold 14 million copies worldwide, and went 6x Platinum here in the States alone. Look at how big Evanescence was in 2003-2005.

I don't think it has much to do with rock music declining more than Axl turning people off because he appeared not only more and more egocentric, but also more and more bizarre. This is a guy who was acting like a snob, using cigarette holders, wearing $500 sneakers,  wearing fur coats and hanging out with supermodels and going to fashion shows in a time where the musicians who captured the public's imagination were wearing ripped jeans, cheap t-shirts and flannel shirts. Axl was out of touch. He was living and embracing this jetset, superstar lifestyle in a time when rockers were downsizing and trying to look humble.

What disaffected teenager is going to relate to some guy wearing fur and hobnobbing with the elite? People like Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain had simply become more REAL than Axl...And they also came with a lot less baggage. You didn't risk getting hurt in a riot going to a Nirvana or AIC show. You didn't risk waiting three hours for Eddie Vedder to show up. 

When Axl came on the scene, his scrappy screwed up personality  was refreshing. He spoke to a forgotten generation of kids and to disaffected teens everywhere. But, by 1993, those teens had become young adults. They had grown up and matured. Axl didn't mature  with his audience, and his nonsense got old quick. There's no excuse in the world to make your fans wait hours for you. There's no excuse to stop shows for 10-20 minutes a time to rant about stuff no one in the audience really cares about. He was still acting the part of this disaffected punk...While wearing Versacci suits and making the most expensive videos of all time. He was going on and on about HIS past life regression stuff in a time where Kurt Cobain was talking about real shit, like politics, feminism and such. Axl started off as a really cool down to Earth guy, but became increasingly more "me, me, me."

I mean, go look at the 1992 VMAs. You have Nirvana and Pearl Jam playing raw, ragged, stripped down angry sets and are dressed like how the kids on the street were dressing...Axl is performing with Elton John and a professional orchestra and is dressed like some kind of 18th century aristocrat. The pomposity and grandiosity and pretentiousness of his aspirations turned off a lot of people, too, besides all the drama.

His act just got old. The people who were teens in 1988 were tired of it, and the new teenagers in 1993 wanted something with less drama.

I don't think the music was an issue, it was Axl's antics on the UYI tour, combined with the whole "anti-rockstar" movement that made GN'R seem like this dated thing. 

Rock bands in general who respected their fans - like The Rolling Stones, Van Halen, Metallica, or Aerosmith - were still massive even at the height of the Grunge period. The difference is those bands weren't riddled with drama, riots, and late shows. Axl's antics turned off everyone. He became the poster child for the worst excess of rockstardom. The Stones, Van Halen, Metallica, and Aerosmith all issued multi-platinum selling albums between 1994 and 1997. So, if the

GN'R's failure to change their image even slightly, as well, I believe also cost them. Look at the inner booklet of TSI and look how over the top GN'R's image was compared to the alternative bands of the era or even the older rock bands like Van Halen and Metallica. GN'R still pretty much looked like they did in 1990 when the scene had radically changed in just two years.
 

28 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I thought that was because he was hiding in his Hollywood mansion and only came out at night?

No, he came out during the day, he has said he just avoided places where he knew the papparazzi would be.

On 10/30/2017 at 6:25 PM, DieselDaisy said:

A few of them change their appearance quite drastically so be warned. Pitman and Finck started out as goths. 

Pitman wasn't a Goth?

3 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I'm not sure if I would have recognised him in 2006 if I walked past him on the street.

Axl doesn't really have distinctive features. That's how he was able to avoid being photographed for the most part for almost a decade. He doesn't stand out in a crowd.