My lyrical analysis/interpretation of Catcher In The Rye

[wasted]

But right sort of, some people like Axl singing Izzy songs more.

Axl does all the serious stuff like Jungle, OTGM, PC, SCOM, RQ, OIAM, RNDTH, NR, DH, Coma, Breakdown, Estranged.

What's the funniest song Axl wrote lyrics for? Used to Love Her? Not even sure wrote that sounds like Izzy too.

Yeah, Izzy wrote Used To Love Her. In the spirit of The Stones. I think the funniest Axl wrote is My World. Shotgun Blues deserves an honorable mention.

Tommy seemed to like doing UTLH live. Izzy wrote it about his dog dying? Axl may have appropriated it in some way.

Axl puts his humor into the songs in other ways. Like the nut cracker in Dead Horse.

Catcher is kind of the next instalment of One in a Million. I could see an acoustic version being on Lies.

[Rovim]

It's the same with ginger bollocks, i think he's a dick and his being a dick tends to colour my perception of a lot of what he does and produces. Really and truly speaking, if you go over his discography, apart from flashes of brilliance, he's on the most uninspired people in terms of subject matter I've ever come across. One in a Million i like, thats interesting, Appetite is full of fantastic songs about reasonably puerile things and i like that about it, he does that well...but every time he tries to get deep he just shows himself up as a bit witless to my mind. He's either whinging about birds that gave him the ol' heave-ho or just trying to be complex and obscure, he writes songs like a not very intelligent man that over-thinks things.

Don't mean to say i despise him or anything, Appetite is fantastic, Lies, particularly the second side (showing my age ) is fucking fantastic, like really really brilliant. After that he just appears to be trying to be more clever than he is.

That's a good post actually. Enjoyable posts, even when you're wrong. We all have our blind spots Mag said. Music reflects a lot of the person. If the musician writes lyrics as well, that's even better.

Cause it's snapshots of what this person was feeling aka thinking. You know? and Axl has never tried to be witty beyond his capabilities. He is a drama queen and very sensitive and insecure I believe. The music sounds like how he imagines it in his head. Cause he is also obsessive in nature.

So what you get is a reflection of his personality really. Cause he's talented enough to transcribe his thoughts in a musical way. My point is Axl seemed to create the music he enjoyed making and always wanted to move forward, at least in some way, you know, not to repeat himself at the very least.

So yeah, while I don't know the guy and I didn't know John, there are still things you can kinda see about them as a fan. To not admit that is cowardly and just not accurate is it?

And both of them are wife beaters. Used to be. Can learn a lot from that.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

That poofter was a founding member of a band that went on to have a fan that created a forum that you decided to join.

And a poofter wrote Picture of Dorian Gray and he's a hero of mine, whats your point?

Catcher in the Rye is Dylan/Lennon level. Its better than anything Jagger or Townsend ever wrote.

Only place you'll ever hear a comment like that is on a Guns n Roses forum. And the disparity between general consensus and fan opinion on this matter is HUGE...immense.

Cause it's snapshots of what this person was feeling aka thinking. You know?

So? In and of itself that doesn't really make a thing good or valuable or worthy.

and Axl has never tried to be witty beyond his capabilities

What qualifies you to make such a comment?

So yeah, while I don't know the guy and I didn't know John, there are still things you can kinda see about them as a fan. To not admit that is cowardly and just not accurate is it?

I'm not sure what you mean here, what, parrallels between him and John Lennon? Uh...yes, of course, they both made music, they both have willies, they both have/had a bit of an attitude problem. Very general parralllels though, i could draw those sorts of parrallels between me and you too, don't mean to say we're in the least bit comparable as human beings.

I mean get this straight here, i don't want their to be any mistakes about this, John Lennon is beyond just a rock singer, here in 2015 John Lennon is a historical figure, this isn't me being in the least bit hyperbolic, if you were to make a historical documentary about the 20th Century it would be difficult to really cover the popular culture aspect without mentioning endeavours that he was a major part of. Even if it were just for a moment, a single sentence of narration in said documentary. Axl Rose would figure....ummm...nowhere. Do you understand the disparity, the gulf between the two things we are discussing here? And the reason for this immense gulf is the immense gulf between their talent and abilities, as performer, barring any general similarities as two people that worked in a similar field might have, there is NO COMPARISON between John Lennon and Axl Rose, blind spots has nothing to do with this, this is just a sober assessment by a person who has a pair of eyes and is not mentally deranged. There is no comparison between Axl and lesser men than John Lennon. No comparison whatsoever, no substantial parrallel, absolutely nothing that puts them on a vaguely comparable level. I'm sorry, this isn't just my fandom of John Lennon speaking, there are artists of his level, your Dylans etc, there are people for whom there is a decent basis for comparison.

But Axl Rose? Fuck no. And, as i say, the only place you'll find such comparison is on a GnR forum.

And both of them are wife beaters. Used to be. Can learn a lot from that.

Ones a man from the 60s that weren't above giving a woman a slap, from the part of the world he's from and time he's from, as crazy as that seems now, weren't such a big deal. A man from the 80s that was part of an concerted long term campaign of abuse such as the one Axl was accused of, there is a WORLD of difference. Making them eat out of dog food bowls, wasn't that something Axl was accused of? I'm sure there's someone better disposed to outline the types of abuse Axl was accused of, compare them to what John was accused of and I'm sorry but there was no comparison. No comparison whatsoever.

John Lennon made a substantial mark on his times, he was cultural icon, the culture in which John Lennon was born and the culture he left when he died were substantially altered and he had a large contribution to it as far as the effect of a singing minstrel can possibly have on a culture. The very fact that Axl wrote Catcher in the Rye and the things he is inferring about Lennon in said song should tell you something, you are comparing Muhammad Ali with Audley Harrison here.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Rovim]

^^^

Jesus christ I need more weed. Please hold, cause I smell some horseshit.

[Len Cnut]

The fact that you have to get mash up to defend Axl Rose here is very telling

[Rovim]

The fact that you have to get mash up to defend Axl Rose here is very telling

What qualifies me is just being a fan. I listened to his music, I know what his thoughts about strippers are. I think he's some things you, yourself think about artists, musicians, and fighters you enjoy. About people in your silly football team. (I don't know what the fuck it's called)

What I percieve Axl to be as a musician, his music, things I've heard and read him say... it all paints a certain picture of the man as well.

The fact he was a wife beater shows me he is violent. A violent person. He's capable. The lax incident as well. The biting of the security guard. That shows some negative shit. It's an example of things fans could learn, with time, about the person as well.

You think people that write plays and books, biographies about people that are dead for a hundred years or two really actually KNOW who that person was? fuck no!

So your view is narrow in this case imo. We're all humans. There are some things that we can detect from far away imo. Like the general qualities of the person, and his music and lyrics serve as the only exact thoughts, but also interviews. In Slash's and Duff's case, books as well. They share about themselves cause they want to get paid if we're being somewhat cynical, but you still read biographies about Keith.

So yeah... it's not so black as white as you perceive it to be imo.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Rovim

[dalsh327]

The song's social commentary, not completely about Lennon and Chapman, we all want to know what would motivate someone to walk on a stage and kill Dimebag or someone who had a copy of a book and kill Lennon, or any of the death threats Axl may have gotten. I mean there's a motivation to kidnap someone because of money, but to just gun someone down like that?

I think Bernie Taupin did a good job with this one.

[Len Cnut]

Anyway, what qualifies me is just being a fan. I listened to his music, I know what his thoughts about strippers are. I think he's some things you, yourself think about artist, musicians, and fighters you enjoy. About people in your silly football team. (I don't know what the fuck it's called)

How can you know the extent of his capabilities though? I mean my comment was based upon what he had presented us lyrically, what you are talking about is something unquantifiable, it indicates an intricacy and depth of knowledge of the person that you can't possibly justify.

What I percieve Axl to be as a musician, his music, things I've heard and read him say... it all paints a certain picture of the man as well.

The fact he was a wife beater shows me he is violent. A violent person. He's capable. The lax incident as well. Biting of the security guard. That shows some negative shit if you will. It's an example of things fan could learn, with time, about the person as well.

Which is exactly my point, these things are too limited to make a judgemental call about the length and breadth of someones wit. I said he 'appears' to be trying to be more cleverer than he is, you made a definitive statement i.e. 'Axl has never tried to be witty beyond his capabilities', there is no way you can make such a call, thats not you saying a persons art or whatever has led you to believe a certain thing, you're making a definitive statement there, which is why i questioned it.

You think people that write plays and books, biographies about people that are dead for a hundred years or two really actually KNOW who that person was? fuck no!

No i don't and were a biographer to make such a statement i would take a similarly dim view to it.

So your view is narrow in this case imo. We're all humans. There are some things that we can detect from far away imo. Like the general qualities of the person, and his music and lyrics serve as the only exact thoughts, but also interviews. In Slash's and Duff's case, books as well. They share about themselves cause they want to get paid if we're being somewhat cynical, but you still read biographies about Keith.

Yes my view is narrow and it is not qualified to be anything other than narrow, particularly in regards to this because I am not suggesting for one moment that i know how someone i don't knows brain works or how they think of the extent of their wit, my perspective is narrow because, in the context of this argument I am being careful to not make statements that i can't substantially justify.

[Rovim]

I imagine Axl is lazy. I imagine Axl is violent. I imagine Axl is an asshole. I imagine Axl is not a stable human being.

That's in general. Are those the only things we can say about him as a person? give me a break. This is not about how limited our knowledge is. Not really.

As fans, we have access to various sources of information. We can gather from what the person says, like a therapist does for example, which is you know, just trying to see what the tendencies of the person are, and as fans of course we're limited, most are not even therapists, but we can still see what kind of person, in a superficial way somewhat, but still what that person is probably like.

This is why Axl could write a song about Lennon, or wanted to, cause we as fans, he as well, we perceive them to be something, but some of that is true cause some things they said or did over and over again, the music, the interviews and the books or people that have met Axl and talked to him... it does give you knowledge about the person. I don't see why it's so hard to admit we do have some understanding of the person behind the music.

[Len Cnut]

I imagine Axl is lazy. I imagine Axl is violent. I imagine Axl is an asshole. I imagine Axl is not a stable human being.

That's in general. Are those the only things we can say about him as a person? give me a break. This is not about how limited our knowledge is. Not really.

We can say what we like, it's just when we start making definitive statements about the extent of a persons wit then we're getting into silly boys talk. We can guess and back things up by pointing to certain instances all day long.

As fans, we have access to various sources of information. We can gather from what the person says, like a therapist does for example, which is you know, just trying to see what the tendencies of the person are, and as fans of course we're limited, most are not even therapists, but we can still see what kind of person, in a superficial way somewhat, but still what that person is probably like.

This is exactly my point, see a therapist is someone with significant insight into the machinations of someones brain, a therapist is trained and paid to dig into these sorts of things, by way of concentrated one on one sessions where a person wilfully opens up to offer said therapist this kind of insight, and even they don't make definitive statements, therein lies the difference.

This is why Axl could write a song about Lennon, or wanted to, cause we as fans, he as well, we perceive them to be something, but some of that is true cause some things they said or did over and over again, the music, the interviews and the books or people that have met Axl and talked to him... it does give you knowledge about the person. I don't see why it's so hard to admit we do have some understanding of the person behind the music.

But i never said Axl can't write a song about John Lennon, i just said it was crap and gave reasons for why i thought so and none of those reasons were to do with whether Axl did or didn't know John Lennon.

We have an understanding of what a person has deliberately presented us with, songs are not released by accident, they are contrived pieces of work with an audience in mind, they are not basis enough to make definitive statements regarding unquantifiable things like 'Axl has a lot of compassion' or 'Axl has never tried to be more witty than he is' or 'Axl cares deeply about the human race', you can't possibly know these things and if you think songs are really this sort of involuntary outpouring of a persons inner self well then I'm afraid we disagree on that.

Just because John Lennon wrote songs like Give Peace a Chance is not enough for me to make statements like 'John Lennon had a great deal of empathy', he CHOSE to write that song, knowing that listening to it would give audiences a certain impression of him, he CHOSE to release it, he CHOSE to present it to us, in the same way interviews are a person choosing what he or she does or does not want to reveal of themselves, now you can make statements about what those things suggests but you cannot make definitive statements regarding such things. Well you can but people like me will point out what I am pointing out here.

For all we know John Lennon could've been a 100% heartless bastard who didn't give a flying fuck for the human race and was just interesting in making a lot of money and being a very rich person by presenting himself as the 20th Century spokesman for world peace. Not saying thats true, I'm saying we don't know one way or another and however in love with an artist we are and whatever we think we know about them based on bios and documentaries doesn't mean shit and we would do well to comment about things we know about for sure and if we are to make judgement calls to restrict said judgements as being reflections of our opinion and not definitive facts regarding them. Most especially not about things like how much wit a person might possibly have or the range of someones intellect, it's ridiculous.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Rovim]

This is exactly my point, see a therapist is someone with significant insight into the machinations of someones brain, a therapist is trained and paid to dig into these sorts of things, by way of concentrated one on one sessions where a person wilfully opens up to offer said therapist this kind of insight, and even they don't make definitive statements, therein lies the difference.

You think when Paul talks about John or when Ringo talks about George, or when a person like a wife of the musician, someone that knew that person for however many years, is not a credible source for example? to know some facts about that person? and in connection to the music, can't you see the obvious character flaws for example, or the general way they lived and draw from that, what they said...

A therapist is someone that has the tools, I agree. But their only window into the patient's mind is what he/she says.

How long do you think it takes a good therapist to know something about that person? and if we collect all the things Yoko said about John, all the lyrics he wrote, interviews he gave, books that were written about him, is that not enough knowledge to be so bold in your opinion by saying you can actually know something about someone you directly don't know, but many people that did or that are qualified to draw conclusions from that person did know and have shared what they know about that person?

And actually, yes, you can say Axl cares about the human race cause he wrote a letter about those drug dealers that were executed. If he didn't give a fuck, why would he do it? I guess it's just more contrived horseshit.

Or when Tommy Stinson says he wished Axl will not care about what other people think of him so much. I conclude he's insecure for example, from various things Axl has said and did.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

You think when Paul talks about John or when Ringo talks about George, or when a person like a wife of the musician, someone that knew that person for however many years, is not a credible source for example? to know some facts about that person? and in connection to the music, can't you see the obvious character flaws for example, or the general way they lived and draw from that, what they said...

Credible? To a point yes. Also potentially prey to extreme prejudice, especially when talking about such polarising figures.

A therapist is someone that has the tools, I agree. But their only window into the patient's mind is what he/she says.

How long do you think it takes a good therapist to know something about that person? and if we collect all the things Yoko said about John, all the lyrics he wrote, interviews he gave, books that were written about him, is that not enough knowledge to be so bold in your opinion by saying you can actually know something about someone you directly don't know, but many people that did or that are qualified to draw conclusions from that person did know and have shared what they know about that person?

You can make estimations from there, yes but the minute you make a definitive statement about an unquantifiable aspect it is not unreasonable to expect someone to tap you on your shoulder and point out the folly in such action.

And actually, yes, you can say Axl cares about the human race cause he wrote a letter about those drug dealers that were executed. If he didn't give a fuck, why would he do it? I guess it's just more contrived horseshit.

He also wrote One in a Million. Yes, it could very easily be contrived horseshit.

Or when Tommy Stinson says he wished Axl will not care about what other people think of him so much. I conclude he's insecure for example, from various things Axl has said and did.

And you're entitled to do so

Edited December 14, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Rovim]

It's not exact anyway. You said so yourself: most people don't even know who they are. That doesn't stop us from trying to estimate. And if all we have is our belief Axl is an asshole, or when he admits he's lazy in a song or saying he's crazy on more than one song, and we add that to what we know about his behavior in the past, yeah... we do know that he is not a very stable human being.

So I agree it's to a point, but all I was trying to communicate is that we do KNOW some things about people we do not know directly.

[Len Cnut]

It's not exact anyway. You said so yourself: most people don't even know who they are. That doesn't stop us from trying to estimate. And if all we have is our belief Axl is an asshole, or when he admits he's lazy in a song or saying he's crazy on more than one song, and we add that to what we know about his behavior in the past, yeah... we do know that he is not a very stable human being.

So I agree it's to a point, but all I was trying to communicate is that we do KNOW some things about people we do not know directly.

And i was in agreement with that from the get-go, i was never saying 'we know nothing about artists and are completely unqualified to make any kind of assessment of them ever'.

[Rovim]

I think Axl understood John as a person and as a musician on some level. Based on the fact CITR feels genuine to me as a song, John is one of the subjects and it paints a picture of the person on a general level that I perceive John to have been like.

You can understand a person on some level from his work, what he said and/or wrote, and just everything people that have known him have shared.

I think it's just not exactly the person and you know very little, but I do think that I know Axl is insecure. People have said that, his behavior indicates that and many other things.

Not trying to be annoying, I get your point. I just think you shrug off some shit. Like our ability to know some shit as fans. Sometimes even personal shit.

Be brutally honest: when Yoko talks about private shit about John, you believe some of it. Or when you see that doc about Kurt in the house you do get a sense of that person.

You even said it was uncomfortable and not right. It felt too personal. Perhaps that's a good example of what I'm trying to say. You got more than to a point. Or the point wasn't where it was supposed to be. But you didn't know the guy. It was indirect, but still, now you know.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

I do not agree with you. Part of why the personal nature of it was that much more uncomfortable was precisely the fact that it could be entirely false, in terms of the broader judgements.

Honestly? I dont really look at such things (in regards to the Yoko comments) in terms of their believability as much as what they say about the person making those statements, this is a woman that once said Paul wrote june and spoon junk.

I think we as fans have indicators and signs and information, what we do with that information and the conclusions we reach say a lot more about us generally speaking than they do about the artist.

You can get an idea of what a person wants you to think of them and then perhaps guage things in regards to consistency but even then its all very shallow waters.

To me, overall, its the work that makes people notable and the rest is fun and everything and it'd be nice to think that we do get some degree of honesty and truth but generally speaking i think these things are to be taken with a big fistful of salt.

[Rovim]

I do not agree with you. Part of why the personal nature of it was that much more uncomfortable was precisely the fact that it could be entirely false, in terms of the broader judgements.

Honestly? I dont really look at such things (in regards to the Yoko comments) in terms of their believability as much as what they say about the person making those statements, this is a woman that once said Paul wrote june and spoon junk.

I think we as fans have indicators and signs and information, what we do with that information and the conclusions we reach say a lot more about us generally speaking than they do about the artist.

You can get an idea of what a person wants you to think of them and then perhaps guage things in regards to consistency but even then its all very shallow waters.

To me, overall, its the work that makes people notable and the rest is fun and everything and it'd be nice to think that we do get some degree of honesty and truth but generally speaking i think these things are to be taken with a big fistful of salt.

I love salt.

[wasted]

The song's social commentary, not completely about Lennon and Chapman, we all want to know what would motivate someone to walk on a stage and kill Dimebag or someone who had a copy of a book and kill Lennon, or any of the death threats Axl may have gotten. I mean there's a motivation to kidnap someone because of money, but to just gun someone down like that?

I think Bernie Taupin did a good job with this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AABK5eY1DGc

Axl has a lot of social commentary songs. Jungle, PC, OIAM, Civil War, Garden of Eden, Chi Dem, Shacklers, Catcher, Madagascar.

Then he has songs about chicks and then the OTGM suite. Fight songs.

What I was thinking about Catcher is that it's very vague. Unless you are told you wouldn't know what it is about. You might guess it from the title but you would probably get it wrong. So there's no hard ball point. Same with Civil War really.

Edited December 14, 2015 by wasted

[wasted]

I think all Axl was saying with Catcher is that Lennon was symbol of hope or important to people and Salinger got him killed.

Axl wasn't saying he knew or understood Lennon, he was just a fan.

[Rovim]

I think all Axl was saying with Catcher is that Lennon was symbol of hope or important to people and Salinger got him killed.

Axl wasn't saying he knew or understood Lennon, he was just a fan.

Yeah, but I didn't say he said that with the song. Just what I think, personally. If you even gonna sell me Lennon as a symbol of hope in your song, there has to be some understanding of at least the humanity of the man imo. And what is that if not some of the qualities that defined him as a person, that made him be the symbol of hope for many?

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

I think, broadly speaking, people are best understood in the context of their origins, it tends to uncomplicate things. In that regard, to me personally, John Lennon is best understood as a boy from Liverpool in the 50s and a knowledge of Liverpool/English culture best informs someone on how John was. And it's the same with Axl Rose, which is why i think i could understand John more than Axl because Axl is kind of remote from my experience whereas John, if you look at him and what we are shown of his personality and behaviour, it very much fits a type, all of The Beatleses does really.

The humour is unmistakeably scouse, the acerbic-ness etc, again the same, the socialist thread that runs through his world view and his sort of 'standing up for the oppressed', the lower rung of society, again fits very neatly into the idea of the North of England and how they are really quite socialist up that way.

Of course I'm not saying that they are completely defined by it, people grow, evolve etc but the fundamentals are sort of established right there. Axl Rose, for as much as I am an American-o-phile, it's all secondhand information, a middle American with an understanding of the social history and contemporary social specifics of Indiana and what it all means would be better disposed to comment on what Axl Rose was like. For as much as i think i know about America and that part of America it would be foolhardy of me to think i really know it, like properly know it, despite being so far removed from it.

I think we like to think our favorite rockstars are most complex than they actually are.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Len B'stard

[wasted]

I think all Axl was saying with Catcher is that Lennon was symbol of hope or important to people and Salinger got him killed.

Axl wasn't saying he knew or understood Lennon, he was just a fan.

Yeah, but I didn't say he said that with the song. Just what I think, personally. If you even gonna sell me Lennon as a symbol of hope in your song, there has to be some understanding of at least the humanity of the man imo. And what is that if not some of the qualities that defined him as a person, that made him be the symbol of hope for many?

Not like you and unlike me.

I get what you are saying. it's an assumed or general virtue. Like assumimg Lennon is awesome and everyone agrees. The lyrics are personal we have to read a lot into them. But we have to make these leaps. I think a lot of people were alive when Lennon died and might relate to it. If you sit there and say well I don't know he was awesome or hate the idea of Axl addressing it then the song won't work in that way.

[Słash]

All I see is Wasted, Rovim and Len. Fuck Im outta here.

[wasted]

I think, broadly speaking, people are best understood in the context of their origins, it tends to uncomplicate things. In that regard, to me personally, John Lennon is best understood as a boy from Liverpool in the 50s and a knowledge of Liverpool/English culture best informs someone on how John was. And it's the same with Axl Rose, which is why i think i could understand John more than Axl because Axl is kind of remote from my experience whereas John, if you look at him and what we are shown of his personality and behaviour, it very much fits a type, all of The Beatleses does really.

The humour is unmistakeably scouse, the acerbic-ness etc, again the same, the socialist thread that runs through his world view and his sort of 'standing up for the oppressed', the lower rung of society, again fits very neatly into the idea of the North of England and how they are really quite socialist up that way.

Of course I'm not saying that they are completely defined by it, people grow, evolve etc but the fundamentals are sort of established right there. Axl Rose, for as much as I am an American-o-phile, it's all secondhand information, a middle American with an understanding of the social history and contemporary social specifics of Indiana and what it all means would be better disposed to comment on what Axl Rose was like. For as much as i think i know about America and that part of America it would be foolhardy of me to think i really know it, like properly know it, despite being so far removed from it.

I think we like to think our favorite rockstars are most complex than they actually are.

Not like you and unlike me. I think Axl just worshipped or liked Lennon a lot or saw him as this figure that people hold on to when they have nothing. And Axl is saying Salinger killed that. He killed this ideal or notion that we could hold on to. Something like that. So I'm not sure it's really about knowing Lennon's background. It's a very sentimental take on it. It's going for universal.

[Len Cnut]

Yknow, i got a lot of heat on this forum once for stating that I wouldn't read Catcher in the Rye because of the association with Lennon assasination, i was in fact roundly ridiculed for the percieved inference that Salinger was somehow responsile for Lennons death, if Axl reads this forum and wrote the song based on that i expect royalties

I think, broadly speaking, people are best understood in the context of their origins, it tends to uncomplicate things. In that regard, to me personally, John Lennon is best understood as a boy from Liverpool in the 50s and a knowledge of Liverpool/English culture best informs someone on how John was. And it's the same with Axl Rose, which is why i think i could understand John more than Axl because Axl is kind of remote from my experience whereas John, if you look at him and what we are shown of his personality and behaviour, it very much fits a type, all of The Beatleses does really.

The humour is unmistakeably scouse, the acerbic-ness etc, again the same, the socialist thread that runs through his world view and his sort of 'standing up for the oppressed', the lower rung of society, again fits very neatly into the idea of the North of England and how they are really quite socialist up that way.

Of course I'm not saying that they are completely defined by it, people grow, evolve etc but the fundamentals are sort of established right there. Axl Rose, for as much as I am an American-o-phile, it's all secondhand information, a middle American with an understanding of the social history and contemporary social specifics of Indiana and what it all means would be better disposed to comment on what Axl Rose was like. For as much as i think i know about America and that part of America it would be foolhardy of me to think i really know it, like properly know it, despite being so far removed from it.

I think we like to think our favorite rockstars are most complex than they actually are.

Not like you and unlike me. I think Axl just worshipped or liked Lennon a lot or saw him as this figure that people hold on to when they have nothing. And Axl is saying Salinger killed that. He killed this ideal or notion that we could hold on to. Something like that. So I'm not sure it's really about knowing Lennon's background. It's a very sentimental take on it. It's going for universal.

I was just following on from the Rovim discussion where we were mulling over whether an audience member can really know an artist, sorry i should've been more clear.