Del James Says Media Portrays Axl Incorrectly

[D-GenerationX]

If the question is, "does the media focus too much on the negatives of Axl Rose" I would answer yes.  And that gets us into the realm of negativity (and controversy) sells in the press.  No shit.  To that end, Axl is no different than any other celebrity. 

Yep.  This is the business they've chosen.

What's unfair to Axl, IMO, is that a lot of the behavior the media refers to is stuff that happened 15, 20+ years ago.  But, he was intentionally out of the spotlight for so long that when he came back, that was their frame of reference.  It sounds like you're saying Axl hasn't done anything wrong (ever), and that the way he is portrayed by the media is unfounded.  I disagree with that.  For sure, the media focuses too much on the negatives, but I don't they're entirely making it all up.  Remember, Axl has admitted to making mistakes before.

Yeah, agreed on this, for the most part.

When he first came back after 7 years in solitary confinement, people's last frame of reference was the guy from the early 90s.  So those things being talked about made sense.

Since he has come back, he's not nearly the same fired up guy.  But, there have also been several instances where "the old Axl" seems to rear his head.  So while he may be in the background now, he is still in there.  I happen to think he's mellowed out a great deal, but will still call a guy "a cancer best removed" at the drop of a hat too.

Also, how would it be possible for the media (or the public) to focus on private, good things he's done?  How could we ever commend him for being nice to Del until Del told the story? 

Agreed.

And I was trying to get into this earlier.  How is it the fault of "the media", or any of us, to not laud him for things we know nothing about?

This is why I said by failing to show the public this side of himself, he doesn't reap any of those benefits.  If stuff like this was public knowledge, or course it would have an effect.

But, when you come out of hiding after years long stretches, and the bulk of your extremely limited press is spent griping about past members, labels, promotoers, and everyone else under the sun that you feel has done you wrong, its pretty naive to think a lot of folks won't just dismiss it as "yep, same old angry Axl."

So I'm not really saying lose your edge.  But if that edge is just about all you give people, that's how they see you.

[jarmo]

One of my truisms in life is that next to nothing is 100% absolute, but nor is anything really actually, literally, 50/50.  Most times, things lean a certain way, one or the other.

That is how I would describe your question as well.  On balance, I think they have it more right than wrong.  Its just a question of how you assign the percentage.

And if all you have to attempt to refute any claim (pro or con) is that there are all sorts of super secret stuff I don't know about, that means fuck all to me.  Any anecdotal tales (again, pro or con) that can't be proven or disproven carry no weight in any legitimate conversation.

Speaks volumes that you don't think the portrayal is incorrect.

This is from a fan of the band that released songs such as Get In The Ring more than two decades ago or songs with lyrics like Bullshit and contemplation, Gossip's their trade, If they knew half the real truth, What would they say....
Wonder what the inspiration was? All the fair reporting by the press? It's been going on for decades. This sensationalistic garbage. Look at your GN'R Lies cover. It's all about that.



I think this all explains why you have such a hard time understanding anything about Axl's point of view to be honest.

What's unfair to Axl, IMO, is that a lot of the behavior the media refers to is stuff that happened 15, 20+ years ago.  But, he was intentionally out of the spotlight for so long that when he came back, that was their frame of reference.  It sounds like you're saying Axl hasn't done anything wrong (ever), and that the way he is portrayed by the media is unfounded.  I disagree with that.  For sure, the media focuses too much on the negatives, but I don't they're entirely making it all up.  Remember, Axl has admitted to making mistakes before.

Nobody's perfect. The thing that sets people who are famous apart from the rest of us is that if you get angry or I get angry, nobody gives a damn.
If Axl gets angry, it creates headlines. All the times he's not angry, nobody cares.



The part about how you know nothing about the nice things Axl has done. Really? You know absolutely nothing? Can't think of anything nice Axl has done?
I already mentioned this, but I was assuming GN'R fans would know better but here we have to of you saying you know nothing.

Dude, my exact post was "it's a good interview.  Del is obviously close and loyal to Axl and vice versa."  How is that, in any way, shape or form, negative, critical, refuting Del's claims or otherwise blaming Axl?

That was wasn't aimed at you.






/jarmo

[Ginger King]

The part about how you know nothing about the nice things Axl has done. Really? You know absolutely nothing? Can't think of anything nice Axl has done?  I already mentioned this, but I was assuming GN'R fans would know better but here we have to of you saying you know nothing.

/jarmo

I didn't say I knew "absolutely nothing".  I did say that I was not aware of him helping out Del until Del told his story.

Sure, we know about the Halloween Tree and the anecdotal stories of joking with band members on stage.  And I'm sure he's been very generous to Beta and her family throughout the years (I have no information on this but I would assume it to be true).  But that doesn't mean we forget (or discount) the angry outburst or other behavior issues in the past. 

It's what makes him unique.  A lot of his volatility was many moons ago, yet that mystique still carries with him.  Even the Revolver interview called him "Rock's Man of Mystery".  Are you saying that's not true?  Why would they say that?  He has a reputation that precedes him, and, even if he goes on to cure cancer or CDII becomes the greatest selling album of all time, he'll still be known (rightly or wrongly) as the guy who goes on stage late and caused multiple riots in North America.

[jarmo]

I didn't say I knew "absolutely nothing".  I did say that I was not aware of him helping out Del until Del told his story.

Ok. Sorry.

Sure, we know about the Halloween Tree and the anecdotal stories of joking with band members on stage.  And I'm sure he's been very generous to Beta and her family throughout the years (I have no information on this but I would assume it to be true).  But that doesn't mean we forget (or discount) the angry outburst or other behavior issues in the past. 

That's the only things you know? You don't remember the money from the Knockin' On Heaven's Door single being donated to the Mercury Phoenix Trust? I know that's a long time ago, but this was back when Axl was the "bad guy" as well.

Something more recent? Bridge School benefit? Remember when Axl wrote about that giraffe? File that under animal rights if you want.

Not to mention the fact that when people throw shit at him, he tells them to stop so they don't hit the fans in front. 


Oh, and he signed a platinum award for me. Which he obviously didn't have to. But he did.

All these and more are public knowledge.





/jarmo

[dolphins]

I didn't say I knew "absolutely nothing".  I did say that I was not aware of him helping out Del until Del told his story.

Ok. Sorry.

Sure, we know about the Halloween Tree and the anecdotal stories of joking with band members on stage.  And I'm sure he's been very generous to Beta and her family throughout the years (I have no information on this but I would assume it to be true).  But that doesn't mean we forget (or discount) the angry outburst or other behavior issues in the past. 

That's the only things you know? You don't remember the money from the Knockin' On Heaven's Door single being donated to the Mercury Phoenix Trust? I know that's a long time ago, but this was back when Axl was the "bad guy" as well.

Something more recent? Bridge School benefit? Remember when Axl wrote about that giraffe? File that under animal rights if you want.

Not to mention the fact that when people throw shit at him, he tells them to stop so they don't hit the fans in front. 


Oh, and he signed a platinum award for me. Which he obviously didn't have to. But he did.

All these and more are public knowledge.





/jarmo

Don't forget the tweet about Jasper the Tasmanian Devil bashed to death, plus there's a photo when he had the cornrows where he visited teens with cancer in a hospital. Don't know how much he had to do with the fan who had the microphone taken from him by security at a concert and kicked up a fuss and ended up with a signed microphone sent to him in replacement.

[D-GenerationX]

Jarmo, while I see your point, let's also toss in just a wee bit of context.

The KOHD single was released in the summer of 1992, if I am not mistaken.  What else happened in the summer of 1992?  Arrested for St. Louis the year before, the Montreal riot, the thing with Cobain at the MTV VMAs.

So given that list :

- proceeds from KOHD single go to charity
- arrested for inciting a riot where people were injured and the place destroyed
- inciting another riot not 3 weeks later where shit was once again torn up and people hurt
- the current rock star of the moment having some verbal sparring with the hot new star of the moment

...what comes in 4th on the interest scale?

Furthermore, as you see it, should any story on the last 3 things on that list also contain a line "Lest it be forgotten, the band did donate a portion of the proceeds of their latest single to an AIDS charity."  What does that add to the story?

Does the press, as you see it, have an obligation to always have some sort "but keep in mind, gang, he's not all bad" qualifier in any story?

[Gunsguy]

I won't get sucked into all this other bullshit in the thread, what I can say is that Del has a good friend in Axl and that goes far beyond anything we could know.  I also know that Axl is misunderstood, THAT is a fact even if you don't like it or agree with it

[D-GenerationX]

I won't get sucked into all this other bullshit in the thread, what I can say is that Del has a good friend in Axl and that goes far beyond anything we could know.  I also know that Axl is misunderstood, THAT is a fact even if you don't like it or agree with it

A fact I think we'd all agree with.  Seems inevitable to someone living such a private life.

[jarmo]

Does the press, as you see it, have an obligation to always have some sort "but keep in mind, gang, he's not all bad" qualifier in any story?

The funny thing is that they sure like to remind us all of all those bad things. Just like you.  

I think it's somewhat ironic that here we are on a GN'R fan site trying to show other GN'R fans that there's more to Axl Rose than the negative headlines. And yet we have to post examples because they don't seem to know anything. You'd assume the GN'R fans here would know these things about Axl. But no...

Their idea of Axl Rose is pretty similar to Joe Average who likes to crank Welcome To The Jungle in his truck on his way to Walmart.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Does the press, as you see it, have an obligation to always have some sort "but keep in mind, gang, he's not all bad" qualifier in any story?

The funny thing is that they sure like to remind us all of all those bad things. Just like you.  

Because you have to measure the impact of each thing on the man's career.  The most important, relevant things are what is remembered over time.

You really can't argue that proceeds from a single to charity is going to carry the same weight or hold the same interest as something like St. Louis.  That's just how it is.

But that does not invalidate the gesture towards charity.  It was a nice move for a guy thought of as a raging homophobe at the time.

[jarmo]

Because you have to measure the impact of each thing on the man's career.  The most important, relevant things are what is remembered over time.

The most important?

Canceling a show affects how many people? And how about educating people about a charity and donating money?
In the big picture, which one is more important?


The thing that you and others do is that you take one incident, and that fits the idea that you have of Axl. You have a puzzle of what you think he is. And every time you read one article that says something negative, that piece amazingly fits your puzzle. And if there's something positive, it needs to be questioned. Because you're objective, or whoever you label it.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Canceling a show affects how many people? And how about educating people about a charity and donating money?
In the big picture, which one is more important?

Who cares?  In terms of talking about his career, its not even a contest.  Riots and his terrible temper will be mentioned before charity work.

If you want charity work to have a starring role in your obit or any retrospective, you better have gone all out.  Like an Elton John or a Bono.  All celebs do some sort of charity work or cut someone a check.  But only the ones that really dedicate serious time, effort, and money get it mentioned along with their other career achievements.

Now, if this is just you wanting to get on some "this is what's wrong with society" soapbox, fine.  Have at it.  But its not really what we're talking about.

[jarmo]

You said "The most important, relevant things are what is remembered over time.".

How is that important? And why is that important? Could it be as simple as it sells more to focus on those things than to focus on something else?
Do you think it's fair to focus on the things that didn't go as planned instead of the things that did go as planned?




/jarmo

[IKnowWhereIAM]

You mean to tell me that the media are not telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?? They've got it wrong on Axl...I wonder what else they might be wrong aboot? 

[D-GenerationX]

You said "The most important, relevant things are what is remembered over time.".

Yes.  Big events.  Milestones.  Happenings.  And yes, controversies.

Will always be the focus of career retrospectives and shaping public perception about a public figure.

How is that important? And why is that important? Could it be as simple as it sells more to focus on those things than to focus on something else?
Do you think it's fair to focus on the things that didn't go as planned instead of the things that did go as planned?

Way of the world, I'm afraid.

You are talking about a seismic societal shift having to happen.  Which isn't going to come about by two dudes talking about Axl Rose on the internet, even if they feel they have a point.

[jarmo]

You said "The most important, relevant things are what is remembered over time.".

Yes.  Big events.  Milestones.  Happenings.  And yes, controversies.

Will always be the focus of career retrospectives and shaping public perception about a public figure.

There's the keyword right there. Doesn't mean it's important.

Way of the world, I'm afraid.

You are talking about a seismic societal shift having to happen.  Which isn't going to come about by two dudes talking about Axl Rose on the internet, even if they feel they have a point.

So you agree that the way of the world is to focus on controversies, gossip, sensationalism and plain bullshit in order to have something "interesting" to write about.
Yet, knowing that, you still think Axl is treated fairly in the media.





/jarmo

[cineater]

Nobody including Axl is treated fairly in the media.  You can watch the news and shake your head or maybe you could write a song about it and see if it has any influence on the way things are.

[D-GenerationX]

You said "The most important, relevant things are what is remembered over time.".

Yes.  Big events.  Milestones.  Happenings.  And yes, controversies.

Will always be the focus of career retrospectives and shaping public perception about a public figure.

There's the keyword right there. Doesn't mean it's important.

Its a newsworthy item.

Just because you seem to think we should forget prior bad acts doesn't mean that's the way the world works.  People will talk about riots, his temper, and the band breaking up from now until god calls you both.

You don't like it, and I get that, but its how it is.

So you agree that the way of the world is to focus on controversies, gossip, sensationalism and plain bullshit in order to have something "interesting" to write about.
Yet, knowing that, you still think Axl is treated fairly in the media.

Kind of a two pronged answer here.  Yes, things like gossip and controversies will always sell.  Always have, always will.

But the other part of that is that you as a public figure ultimately have a lot of say in how you are perceived.  If you primarily only give them bad stuff to write about, that is what gets written.  If you don't care, great.  But Axl does seem to care.  And his fans CERTAINLY seem to care.  So maybe some soul searching is needed on this one, on both accounts.

I don't care if this pisses you off, because its a relevant example of this in action : Slash's "lies".  Part of the reason these "lies" have become ingrained to so many people is that Axl didn't lift a finger to refute any of them.  That was his call.  The fallout is that most people believe he forced them all out of the band, and may or may not have forced them to sign some document under duress before a show.  He let that go unchallenged for YEARS.  That is on him that people still think that's how it went down.

At some point, some personal responsibility becomes part of all this.  We all have tongues and phones that dial out.

[jarmo]

Its a newsworthy item.

Just because you seem to think we should forget prior bad acts doesn't mean that's the way the world works.

You seem to think you know what I think.

People will talk about riots, his temper, and the band breaking up from now until god calls you both.

You don't like it, and I get that, but its how it is.

I know how it is. I've been pointing it out all the time. The thread title itself gives it away! We know how it is. You on the other hand think it's not true.

But the other part of that is that you as a public figure ultimately have a lot of say in how you are perceived.

Yes, we all know this.
It's still kinda amazing that certain GN'R fans like yourself, who has the ability to dig a little deeper than the average Joe, still has the exact same mindset as the average Joe....

If you primarily only give them bad stuff to write about, that is what gets written. 

In Axl's case, he gives them nothing and even that's turned into something negative. He doesn't wanna play their game, and what's their comeback? More shit.
You think this is fair. I think it speaks volumes about these people.

At some point, some personal responsibility becomes part of all this.  We all have tongues and phones that dial out.

In your world, the same people who write shit should be rewarded by Axl calling them and doing interviews.
Do you read what he's said? If you paid attention, you would've noticed that there was an answer to your "he should call magazine X and they would put him on the cover" ideas in Billboard in 2009.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much he talks. You still think the media is treating him fairly.
Just a little hint, he's not like everybody else. So don't get all upset if he doesn't kiss the media's ass like many other artists. I know you don't like that.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Its a newsworthy item.

Just because you seem to think we should forget prior bad acts doesn't mean that's the way the world works.

You seem to think you know what I think.

I base that comment on repeated instances of you thinking once some indeterminate amount of time passes, such things should not be mentioned any longer.

You've gone down that road with any number of topics.  But, the common denominator is that they are all negative.  Really can't say I've seen you take something positive from however far back and say it should stopped being mentioned.

Hell, just yesterday.  You still want to talk about the KOHD single's proceeds, but not about Montreal.  We are talking about things that happened, quite literally, weeks apart.  One you will gladly discuss, one needs to be dismissed.  The motivation seems obvious.

No?