Axl's periods of hiatuses

[AFGnR]

I just love that Axl takes some well deserved time off and remains completely silent. A period of hiatus adds more mysticism I think.
 
Please discuss. 

[D-GenerationX]

Lost time is not found again.

[jarmo]

It seems like it's getting more and more rare to have people who are in the entertainment industry to just take time off. You have to keep everybody updated at all times to remain visible...





/jarmo

[pilferk]

It seems like it's getting more and more rare to have people who are in the entertainment industry to just take time off. You have to keep everybody updated at all times to remain visible...





/jarmo

This is very, very true.  With Social Media....fans expect to have instant, and near constant, access to the subject of their fandom.  And that's not just specific to music, either. 

And many "famous folks" provide it...in fact, some are almost famous simply BECAUSE of it.

I'm not saying it's the right or wrong way to conduct yourself....but it certainly seems to be the way things are moving.  Especially with the younger generation of celebs. 

An offshoot of that conversation is the ever shrinking attention span of today's consumer.  With the vast amount of content available, near instantaneously.....there's a reason why people are struggling to constantly remain visible, and in the public conciousness.

[JAEBALL]

Axl's case is.... unique....

He was the biggest rock star on the planet... and then literally disappeared for 8 years at the height of it... and has done some unique things since re surfacing

so when there is again quiet with him... people get nervous

[D-GenerationX]

The crazy thing is that when he does poke his head out, its almost always news. 

And well received.  Its not like people hate the man.

[JAEBALL]

The crazy thing is that when he does poke his head out, its almost always news. 

And well received.  Its not like people hate the man.

Agreed.

[rebelhipi]

Yes, I kinda enjoy the fact that that he stays 100% out of the public eye when he is not touring.

Now days we get a few tweets, and stories he shares via music journals.

Still amazes me how theres only a coulple photos of Axl 1994-2000 era that surfaced and a couple from 2003-2005 and zero from 2008!

[jarmo]

He was the biggest rock star on the planet... and then literally disappeared for 8 years at the height of it...

Look at other people who were popular back then and what happened.
Some fans are quick to point out the "lost time" and whatnot. They don't consider how many artists haven't stepped away for a while and ended up.... Not so great.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Look at other people who were popular back then and what happened.
Some fans are quick to point out the "lost time" and whatnot. They don't consider how many artists haven't stepped away for a while and ended up.... Not so great.

That's a pretty defeatist attitude, no?

Artists have a very finite prime.  Not as extreme as athletes, but a similar principle.  Wasting large chunks of decades with no output is a strange use of one's time in the sun.

Now if "some fans" are going to grade everything a homerun, they will never see it that way.  But, I'm not sure how credible it is to heap the same amount of praise on a guy that has an album out every 2-3 years, or if he spends 8-10 years hiding under an afghan in his panic room.  If "some fans" take the position that every move was the right move, hard to find fault with anything.  Its all gold.

[pilferk]

That's a pretty defeatist attitude, no?

Artists have a very finite prime.  Not as extreme as athletes, but a similar principle.  Wasting large chunks of decades with no output is a strange use of one's time in the sun.

Now if "some fans" are going to grade everything a homerun, they will never see it that way.  But, I'm not sure how credible it is to heap the same amount of praise on a guy that has an album out every 2-3 years, or if he spends 8-10 years hiding under an afghan in his panic room.  If "some fans" take the position that every move was the right move, hard to find fault with anything.  Its all gold.

Actually, I disagree that artists have a "prime".  There are plenty of examples of older artists having a second and even third or 4th "wind" in their careers. Or becoming successful later in life, even.

I think it becomes more challenging, as you get older, to remain RELEVANT to the larger demographic of music consumers...because that demo tends to be relatively young. But I don't think its unique, or even rare, for artists to find ways to do it. 

Look at the whole thing going on with Kanye and Paul McCartney.......

[jarmo]

That's a pretty defeatist attitude, no?

Defeatist?
Some bands and artists I used to listen to about 20 years ago don't exist on this planet anymore. I wish some of them could have walked away and be here today.
Maybe I have a different point of view from you, but if an artist want to take a break instead of doing what you think they should, I let them.

But coming from people who can't seem to think of any reasons why somebody would like to walk away from the fame, it's not surprising.



/jarmo

[sky dog]

Lost time is not found again.

Please tell me you just didn't bust out Odds and Ends from The Basement Tapes? If so, nice.

Dylan is a perfect example of an artist who had multiple "primes" during his career.

[mortismurphy]

While I agree that there are artists who have a late career renaissance such as, Dylan on Time Out Of Mind, Johnny Cash under Rick Rubin and Neil Young with Freedom and Ragged Glory, there is still a discernible 'prime' - usually when they are in their twenties and early-mid 30s. As great as Time Out Of Mind was, it cannot quantifiably compete with that, 'roll', Dylan achieved in the 1960s when he was putting out masterpieces year-by-year. You could make an argument that Sinatra was at his peak during his 'second' era, at Capitol records. Other examples are, Elvis 1968-1969. AC/DC who repeated the trick twice, once on the Razor's Edge and secondly, with Black Ice. You could also argue, The Stones with Some Girls.

[D-GenerationX]

I think it becomes more challenging, as you get older, to remain RELEVANT to the larger demographic of music consumers...because that demo tends to be relatively young. But I don't think its unique, or even rare, for artists to find ways to do it. 

Big time.

I think your relevance and viability sort of maxes out around 40-50, somewhere in there.

Thus, spending years 32 to 37 and then the years 40 to 43 in the federal witness protection program, you can't get that time back.

[D-GenerationX]

Defeatist?
Some bands and artists I used to listen to about 20 years ago don't exist on this planet anymore. I wish some of them could have walked away and be here today.
Maybe I have a different point of view from you, but if an artist want to take a break instead of doing what you think they should, I let them.

But coming from people who can't seem to think of any reasons why somebody would like to walk away from the fame, it's not surprising.

I see excuse making for what it is.

You are trying to go all heavy handed invoking death, disease, or whatever the fuck else in hopes we can stop talking about the near decade of his career our favorite guy pissed away.

Maybe someone will buy that, but he's not typing this reply.

[D-GenerationX]

While I agree that there are artists who have a late career renaissance such as, Dylan on Time Out Of Mind, Johnny Cash under Rick Rubin and Neil Young with Freedom and Ragged Glory, there is still a discernible 'prime' - usually when they are in their twenties and early-mid 30s. As great as Time Out Of Mind was, it cannot quantifiably compete with that, 'roll', Dylan achieved in the 1960s when he was putting out masterpieces year-by-year. You could make an argument that Sinatra was at his peak during his 'second' era, at Capitol records. Other examples are, Elvis 1968-1969. AC/DC who repeated the trick twice, once on the Razor's Edge and secondly, with Black Ice. You could also argue, The Stones with Some Girls.

Well said.

[mortismurphy]

I think the problem with Axl is, when he did come back, between 1999-2002, he completely messed it up. You could make an argument that Axl had reasons for losing those years in the late 1990s because of the collapse of the old band. Also, he does seem to have been quite active. Most of CD - all the Tobias stuff anyhow - seems to have been written and recorded 1998-99. If Axl released his trilogy of all of this, it would have sort of justified the wait. What did we get instead? Another wait between 2003-2006 and 2008 for the first installment.

2nd and 3rd parts still pending!

[D-GenerationX]

I think the problem with Axl is, when he did come back, between 1999-2002, he completely messed it up. You could make an argument that Axl had reasons for losing those years in the late 1990s because of the collapse of the old band. Also, he does seem to have been quite active. Most of CD - all the Tobias stuff anyhow - seems to have been written and recorded 1998-99. If Axl released his trilogy of all of this, it would have sort of justified the wait. What did we get instead? Another wait between 2003-2006 and 2008 for the first installment.

2nd and 3rd parts still pending!

I don't think he was truly ready in 2002.

And look, you can't turn back time, but its hard to say 2006 wasn't the window.  Looking good, sounding good, band was tight, leaks were generating buzz.

[sofine11]

This just...has to be a troll thread.....