Many people counted Axl Rose out long ago. The "Appetite for Destruction"-era lineup of Guns 'n' Roses imploded, Nirvana changed the musical landscape and Rose took his sweet time premiering "Chinese Democracy", the first official release from the revamped Guns lineup. Over the last decade and a half, Rose's reputation as a reclusive, egotistical control freak has eclipsed his musical talents and accomplishments.
Even many of those who reserved judgement until the release of "Democracy" merely shrugged and moved on once the album finally saw the light of day.
In the past, I've argued for Rose's continuing contributions to the rock scene and praised "Chinese Democracy" as an underrated, sporadically brilliant album (though it's scattershot stylistic approach could certainly confuse and alienate a lot of listeners). That aside, however, how does the Axl Rose of today compare to the Axl Rose of yesteryear? Like other iconic rock frontmen from Iggy to Ozzy to Elvis, Axl has a pretty big set of shoes to fill every time he steps on stage, just trying to live up to his own legend. Has he succeeded?
The biggest thing I see missing from the new G'n'R compared to the earlier line-up is the sense of raw urgency (I hesitate to say "danger", though maybe that applies). The same can sort of be said for Rose himself. I think his voice still carries that edge, and his lyrics seem as pointedly honest and personal as on older recordings. Of course, the subject matter is different; certainly, Rose is no "urchin livin' under the street" these days. His problems nowadays are the problems that go along with wealth and fame, not the desperation of a starving artist immersed in the drug culture. He's not mixing it up with pimps, cops and street hustlers or even with other self-styled bad boy rockers like Motley Crue's Vince Neil; his fisticuffs in the new millennium are reserved for the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, it seems; hardly the kind of heavyweight bout people might clamor for. This is not an entirely recent change, either. By the time of '91's "Use Your Illusion" albums, the crazed paranoia of "Out Ta Get Me" from "Appetite" had given way to the more mundane griping of "Get in the Ring". The former paints a picture of substance-induced mania, of a half-crazed lunatic hiding in a dingy apartment or practice studio from the eyes of the police, the F.B.I., or somebody that got stiffed in a deal. The latter shows that same person hiding in a luxury palace from the intrusions of the paparazzi or the hurtful slings of the press. The first portrait could be Charlie Manson, the second one could be Paris Hilton.
This is all just perception, of course. There's no saying how well those lyrics (or my interpretation of them) represent Rose's reality in either case. Perception is what we're really talking about, though. For our purposes, it doesn't matter who or what Axl Rose really is (or was), but what he appears to be. Lyrically, and in the picture presented by the media, we are now seeing a much less dangerous person than the image presented to us in 1988.
This change is natural, of course. Most people mellow with age, and almost all people act out less when they have material wealth and abundance as opposed to struggling just to survive. It's only normal that Axl will seem less "dangerous" now; while it may be slightly less compelling, I'm glad he is honest enough to present himself this way in song rather than trying to fake the rebel yell of his earlier years. A manufactured facsimile of his younger, angrier self would be much less interesting than an honest look at where he is now.
I think another problem with trying to compare Rose with his younger self is the distinction between what he was always trying to accomplish (or seemed to be) and what fans responded to and wanted him to be.
I don't know how aware he was of the appeal of his anger or Guns' rawness, though I doubt he was oblivious to it. While I'm pretty sure he embraced that part of their style, his ambitions were always loftier. He seemed to be shooting for a timeless sort of rock with a great deal of diversity, modeled on the likes of Queen and Elton John. One doesn't need to maintain a sort of bogus street cred to create truly classic rock.
So, what then, is the answer to my question? I'd say that the answer is that, no, Rose isn't as intriguing a figure as he was in the late '80's, but that's a pretty unfair comparison. In terms of actual talent, for singing, songwriting or performing, he's probably actually grown since then. He certainly seems a more mature writer. The x-factor that drew a lot of people in, that reckless sense of desperation may not be what it was, but if he continues to express himself in an honest fashion rather than trying to turn back the clock, he can keep giving the music world the best he's got. And that beats an insincere copy of the guy he used to (seem to) be.
To hear one of my favorite bands of today, someone reminiscent of "Appetite"-era Guns, go HERE to download a free song from the Hard Ponys.
No comments:
Post a Comment