Axl's periods of hiatuses

[jarmo]

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.

Yes, I've said it before, if an artists wants to walk away, I won't condemn them for it. Their lives.
People who feel entitled have issues with it though.

What's it called when somebody condemns other people's life choices based on the fact that they didn't get what they wanted?
We're not talking about a builder building your house and going on holidays for a year. You're not the paying customer here.

self?ish
ˈselfiSH/
adjective
adjective: selfish

    (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.


Could it be? Nah.... 

Don't get upset. Just busting your cyber balls here yo.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

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.

Add to your list:

Paul Simon, Paul Mcartney, Neil Diamond, Aerosmith, The Eagles, Madonna, Streisand, Bette Midler,..theres more....a lot more.  Enough more to say that its not a rarity to find either continued success later into your career, or to "refind" sucess later.

Yes, you will find a segment of artists who only find success in their 20s and early 30s. But to say there is a definitive "prime" seems misleading.  There are just too many exceptions.

[Bridge]

This is very, very true.  With Social Media..... 

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

Agree completely.  I'd say 80% of today's celebrities are more famous for tweeting, facebook, public behavior, and press coverage than they are for any songs, movies, etc, that they'd done.

[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!

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.

But Bucket had gone, a key member of the band.

[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.

Add to your list:

Paul Simon, Paul Mcartney, Neil Diamond, Aerosmith, The Eagles, Madonna, Streisand, Bette Midler,..theres more....a lot more.  Enough more to say that its not a rarity to find either continued success later into your career, or to "refind" sucess later.

Yes, you will find a segment of artists who only find success in their 20s and early 30s. But to say there is a definitive "prime" seems misleading.  There are just too many exceptions.

I think you have to approach this on an artist-by-artist basis. Sinatra, Deep Purple - you could even say Dylan if you believe Blood on the Tracks is his greatest album - actually peaked after their initial period of success, but then a lot of bands who had later successes still do not match the brilliance of their former years. I do not think many people would argue that Paul has been as consistently brilliant as he was with the Beatles, in the 1960s. But it is true, you can have great triumphs later on (perhaps for less sustained periods). What you tend to find is you cannot write off the 'greats'. They tend to have a few duds but then astonish you with a brilliant album like Some Girls, Ray of Light, Flaming Pie, Freedom, Time out of Mind.

Axl has never really given himself a chance here as he just files material away.

All careers are different though. Some bands are slow burners. It took the Stones until 1968 to really hit a period of sustained brilliance whereas, for Guns, it was instant, with Appetite. My own opinion (and I am not alone here) is, Guns (and I include the ex-members solo careers) never achieved anything as brilliant as on that first album. Some careers though are much slower. It took their third album, Toys in the Attic, for Aerosmith to really find their voice.

[pilferk]

I think thats largely my point in rejecting the notion of there being a specific, generic, "prime" applicable to every act...aka...their 20s and 30s. Every artist is different..thus my objection to that specfic notion.

You can argue about gnr, and I will leave you to it,but its such a huge matter of opinion its an excersize in tail chasing. You have people here who prefer afd, some who prefer the uyi era stuff, some who actually prefer cd. Im sure there is someone out there who adamantly believes their Sympathy for the Devil cover is some sort of pinnacle. It takes all kinds...

And, since we dont know what the future holds, you have to end with words like "so far" and "yet". Or at least you should...

[LIGuns]

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.

Very few attained anything near Axl's celebrity status back in the late 80's and early 90's..Him "disappearing " for so long only added to his celebrity status...

[dolphins]

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. 

I know he deserves time off but we don't know that he's sunning himself by the pool or watching 24hr tv or just maybe he's working from home on a new song/album?

All I know is I hate the quietness for ages, would love an interview on tv and a couple of photos over the 7 months since we last saw him. Something while he's relaxed & not under the pressure of touring & travelling constantly. 

[LordRazZ]

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.

Yes, I've said it before, if an artists wants to walk away, I won't condemn them for it. Their lives.
People who feel entitled have issues with it though.

What's it called when somebody condemns other people's life choices based on the fact that they didn't get what they wanted?
We're not talking about a builder building your house and going on holidays for a year. You're not the paying customer here.

self?ish
ˈselfiSH/
adjective
adjective: selfish

    (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.


Could it be? Nah.... 

Don't get upset. Just busting your cyber balls here yo.




/jarmo

J-man....did you just say yo? lol

[Bodhi]

There are always exceptions, but I do think that most bands at least in the hard rock genre have a "creative prime."  That doesn't mean they can't be a relevant band or live act 30 years into their career, but if you look at the history of the genre most bands put out their best stuff in a 6-10 year window.  That is not a knock on any of those bands, but just goes to show how hard it is to put out good music consistently.  I know a band like AC/DC had a big record a few years back with "Black Ice", but can anyone actually name any of those songs on that record?  "Death Magnetic" was a huge record for Metallica in 2008, but does it even scratch the surface of what they did from 83-91?   Ozzy Osbourne still packs an arena and he hasn't put out a good record since 1991.  Motley Crue just packed arenas on their farewell tour, and it was a setlist full of songs recorded between 1981-1989.  The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Kiss, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest are all still big arena acts, when was the last time they put out an album with songs that the crowd actually pays money to hear?  At the end of the day, if you get to the level of any of those bands I mentioned its really hard to match the output of what got you that big in the first place, because to get that big you really have  had to have put out something special. 

Guns N Roses are an exception.  If you factor in the frequency in which most bands put out records, with only 4 full length albums of original material that started in 1987,  it is only 1995 in GNR time right now. So we still have some great records to come!

[mortismurphy]

There are always exceptions, but I do think that most bands at least in the hard rock genre have a "creative prime."  That doesn't mean they can't be a relevant band or live act 30 years into their career, but if you look at the history of the genre most bands put out their best stuff in a 6-10 year window.  That is not a knock on any of those bands, but just goes to show how hard it is to put out good music consistently.  I know a band like AC/DC had a big record a few years back with "Black Ice", but can anyone actually name any of those songs on that record?  "Death Magnetic" was a huge record for Metallica in 2008, but does it even scratch the surface of what they did from 83-91?   Ozzy Osbourne still packs an arena and he hasn't put out a good record since 1991.  Motley Crue just packed arenas on their farewell tour, and it was a setlist full of songs recorded between 1981-1989.  The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Kiss, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest are all still big arena acts, when was the last time they put out an album with songs that the crowd actually pays money to hear?  At the end of the day, if you get to the level of any of those bands I mentioned its really hard to match the output of what got you that big in the first place, because to get that big you really have  had to have put out something special. 

Guns N Roses are an exception.  If you factor in the frequency in which most bands put out records, with only 4 full length albums of original material that started in 1987,  it is only 1995 in GNR time right now. So we still have some great records to come!

Yes, I agree. In the rock n' roll genre you tend to have a prime in your 20s and 30s. On a slightly related note, Rock N' Roll always inherently has that connotation of being a, 'young man's game' (hence all the jokes about The Strolling Bones). It is different from other genre. If you look at blues, people like John Lee Hooker and Howlin Wolf were seen as peaking in their old age! But rock has not adapted itself so well (probably because it was deliberately designed as 'teenager' music back in the 1950s).

The best artists for aging are Neil Young, Dylan and Springsteen. Some of their very greatest records have came, only just, the last twenty years! Their setlists are full of new album tracks and deep cuts. (Someone like Slash follows a similar work method, however, obviously his records are never going to reach the lofty heights of Time Out of Mind or The Rising)). Unfortunately the Stones, Axl (and Metallica now, so it appears) are more atypical, whereby they just shut up shop on the album/creative front and play greatest hits setlists forevermore. Even bands who still put out albums on a semi-regular basis such as Kiss follow this pattern, with usually only one-two new songs making the, then current setlist - as a token gesture. But Young, Bob and Bruce do it all right. Pearl Jam seem the obvious heirs on this front.

[EmilyGNR]

Time well spent is not lost-

Did not grow up with the internet so the transparency on social media is not something that interests me remotely, I can totally understand the need for some down time.

[sky dog]

I am with ya Emily.....all this pontificating by closet music industry experts gets quite boring after a while. 

[JAEBALL]

Time well spent is not lost-

Did not grow up with the internet so the transparency on social media is not something that interests me remotely, I can totally understand the need for some down time.

That's great... we would all like some extra time to lay around the house... but then again... i'm not a rockstar... I work 9-5 like im sure a lot of you do.

but in Axl's case.... Do you think he wanted to be out of sight for all those years? Don't you think he would have wanted the transition to his new band would have been an easier and quicker process?

[D-GenerationX]

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.

But Bucket had gone, a key member of the band.

True.  And that was a bummer.

But you still had Robin who was a huge part of the creation of the new album.  You also still had Brain, the drummer on said material.  The band sounded tighter live.

Axl just seemed so much more into it.  Great shape, great voice.  Compared to sitting around for a year after his album did come out and then come back not looking or sounding as good.  It gives the impression, at least to me, that he lost some of his fire and might have missed his window.

We also might have had another album by now, but I may be getting carried away there, I'll admit.

[D-GenerationX]

Time well spent is not lost-

Did not grow up with the internet so the transparency on social media is not something that interests me remotely, I can totally understand the need for some down time.

I can too.  I imagine we all do.

I think the disconnect is mailing in several consecutive years at a time.

I said after this past tour it was completely unrealistic to expect them go get right back to work on the album.  No, you need downtime.  You have other things to do.  That's all perfectly understandable.

But to come off the road in June 2014, go the rest of the 2014 and then maybe all of 2015?  At that point, that's not downtime or recharging.  Its just flat out inactivity.

Does the have the right to do it?  Of course he does.  Does everyone have to consider that normal, or to some, even noble?  Of course not.  Not that anything said here will get him moving, but there is nothing wrong with an eyeroll at the situation.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

One of the things I've always found about "creative primes" is that its not necessarily a function of the artists ability, but more a product of consumer's appetite.  I think many of us as consumers of music have a finite appreciation for the output of any musician.  It is difficult to enjoy the 10th album released by your favorite band as their first 5.  And that may be because of your youth at the time of the first 5 releases vs. now where years ago you had more time and enjoying of music in general.  We know its difficult for any artist to sustainabily attract new fans and tastes change.  So once you stuck a fan base, its inevitable that the fan base dwindles because of their priorities and their devaluation of music, not necessarily because of the music being of lesser quality. 

[D-GenerationX]

One of the things I've always found about "creative primes" is that its not necessarily a function of the artists ability, but more a product of consumer's appetite.  I think many of us as consumers of music have a finite appreciation for the output of any musician.  It is difficult to enjoy the 10th album released by your favorite band as their first 5.  And that may be because of your youth at the time of the first 5 releases vs. now where years ago you had more time and enjoying of music in general.  We know its difficult for any artist to sustainabily attract new fans and tastes change.  So once you stuck a fan base, its inevitable that the fan base dwindles because of their priorities and their devaluation of music, not necessarily because of the music being of lesser quality. 

BIG TIME

My favorite band other than GNR is Pearl Jam.  And there is absolutely a drop off in both my interest and appreciation after the first 5 albums.

Of course, those 5 albums also coincided with being in high school and college.  That's no accident.

[pilferk]

One of the things I've always found about "creative primes" is that its not necessarily a function of the artists ability, but more a product of consumer's appetite.  I think many of us as consumers of music have a finite appreciation for the output of any musician.  It is difficult to enjoy the 10th album released by your favorite band as their first 5.  And that may be because of your youth at the time of the first 5 releases vs. now where years ago you had more time and enjoying of music in general.  We know its difficult for any artist to sustainabily attract new fans and tastes change.  So once you stuck a fan base, its inevitable that the fan base dwindles because of their priorities and their devaluation of music, not necessarily because of the music being of lesser quality. 

Yeah, that was largely my point when I mentioned remaining relevant with the commercial audience.

[dont_damn_me]

One of the things I've always found about "creative primes" is that its not necessarily a function of the artists ability, but more a product of consumer's appetite.  I think many of us as consumers of music have a finite appreciation for the output of any musician.  It is difficult to enjoy the 10th album released by your favorite band as their first 5.  And that may be because of your youth at the time of the first 5 releases vs. now where years ago you had more time and enjoying of music in general.  We know its difficult for any artist to sustainabily attract new fans and tastes change.  So once you stuck a fan base, its inevitable that the fan base dwindles because of their priorities and their devaluation of music, not necessarily because of the music being of lesser quality. 

Yeah, that was largely my point when I mentioned remaining relevant with the commercial audience.

Thats why I love bands like Green Day, Social Distortion, Rancid, they don't let me down, even if it does take years in between albums to recharge, they do get another one out and I usually dig it more than any of their previous albums just because its my fave band and the songs are FRESH.  Its a shame how long GNR fans have to wait to get new music. Maybe one day after this drought, it'l pour with new music, we can only hope.