Date: 12/20/2025

Mood: busy

Listening to: Dream On - Depeche Mode

My long lost sister

I would like to have this little blog of me reacting to my friend Ewa's Paul blog of her own. Is that too indulgent? I can't help it. I also inserted a bunch of Paul quotes to the post at the bottom to make this educational-fun. I've been looking at her posts for the past year sometimes when I've been bored. Yes, I go to tumblr to the Paul tag for gifs when it's 1am and I need something to look at before bed. We made friends with each other instantly. It was like mutual understanding. I had to message her so bad over a week ago when I saw this random opportunity to do it. She makes excellent gifs. Take one look at her blog title, "Paul's 😈 hopeless possessee"; I know this exact feeling. She has the gifs. I have the photos. Somehow this chemistry works 💕

The moment I knew she gets it.

Two tags on a reblog where I knew she knows exactly what's up.

This realization for me happened on the sacred location of the Burberry sweater shirt. Couldn't be better a photo choice. Really. (I'm obsessed with tartan and this shirt on him. See my site's backgrounds!)

By the time of September 2025, she won me over permanently. Forever. As if everything else wasn't already quality. (It was.)

She wondered the best translation. I can chime in with my variant based on a version of this phrase. "When you follow in another's footsteps, you leave no trace." Paul very very often talks about originality and doing something unique.

"As for me, it has to be original. The musical genre isn't important. It has to be different to what others are doing because there's no need to do it twice. It already exists. You can't always manage it, but that's the goal. That you really try to give the song legitimacy that you can say, "listen to this, you've never heard anything like it before." It's very rare. But when you get to have a moment like that, it's always good."

Absolutely he is well read in books! He has mentioned loving to read since a young age. I have heard him speak of non-fiction and fiction. Anything from books about mountains, biographies of inventors, the epic Lord of the Rings, to dramatic Anna Karenina. He also enjoys audio books.

What's so true about her commentary at the end is, I've written nearly the same exact thing recently in my private text files. Without even knowing we said the same thing a few weeks apart.

My own private writing of the same idea:

I find him to be very blunt and well thought out with his critical views I've seen in interviews. He says things in very direct mannerisms even if he's using metaphors. He often goes to a metaphor after explaining his idea in order to extrapolate it. As he seems to like giving more than one explanation version of the idea he's thinking. Whenever he stops using metaphors, he's very to the point and says whatever he wants really. He does have tact when needed to for selective ideas, but other times he says some shit. He's least likely to censor political ideas or taboos, but will be cautious with sensitive ideas socially.

One of his strongest manners of speech is using metaphors and similes. He is extremely prone to long form metaphors that are 4-5 sentences deep. Plus his elaborate story sentence jokes. This is why people think he talks too much. He's chatty, yeah but not for reasons of having too many ideas or being annoying. It's metaphors, stories, and excessive detail. This is the hallmark of someone with critical thinking skills and is always looking to communicate effectively to someone else.

Things we have in common:

When she was asked about his pearl necklace, she was able to commentate some of his jewelry, rings, and watches. She also has the same question about the silver skull ring that I do of its significance. That thing rarely comes off him to this very day and has outlasted everything else he wears.

If anyone knows me, they know I can catalogue his entire jewelry history and much of his accessories or clothes. Seeing another fan take interest in this subject really gets to me in the best way.

She has the best comments in the tags. Always.

My own private text about him:

Look, what I can tell you is a woman's eye for a man who is educated far beyond anyone would give him credit for. I can't stand him being perceived as dumb or incapable of more than this. Without depth or any wits for anything else given consideration.

We both know a special music video moment that lingered with us.

On top of that, all of her MV choices for Paul are excellent picks and overlap my own top choice moments too. She selected the same perfect frames of Adieu as me whenever I make screencaps. So much so, I had them sitting around in a folder already to post.

I then ask her the big question. This is the most important Paul Question of all time. Do you or do you not understand this photo?

We then go on to talk about this subject endlessly for a solid hour. Many gifs, photos, and "exactly!" exchanges later.

It's like I could have written this post if anyone has read my own rambles.

It’s unbelievable how expressive this man is with his theatrics and how you can almost guess a song just from watching his moves…

I play "guess the song" with photo poses all the time. Especially if there's lighting conditions in the background to use as guesses.

Oh god, it's me.

Tough to take the eyes off him once he’s in his element…

Same here. My whole post echoes her post.

I was utterly captivated by whatever the hell he’s doing.

This is around the time when I decided to pay attention to him in every single piece of media. Only to realize he really is like that in every video I had. It wasn’t this show or just temporarily. It’s everything he does pretty consistently. And I really really became stuck on it. No one else is doing it in the band. How do you avoid noticing him? How do people do it?? Five men on stage with minimal movement, and he is the embodiment of ‘man cannot stand still’ at all. I simply couldn’t stop noticing this and fixating on it. I can’t look away. How do people stop looking!? For real, how?? He’s just doing so much, all the time, always.

Why he do that? Why he like that? Why does no one but him do it? Why can’t I stop looking at him doing it?

We both bear the same field of vision

To always be looking at his hands and arms down at his guitar too.

If this is drugs, just let him do it. (Inside joke 😂)

She and I know the truth: when Paul turned 50, life wasn't ever the same again. 2016-17 eternal.

We both know and call it choreography when he's on stage.

We both know the answer is athletics.

Myself (public version).

Definitely showing the more he’s on stage, the easier it was to reduce the adrenaline effects to have more limber and free movement. It actually makes sense to me why his stage caliber is uniquely different looking when you combine this with personality traits and fitness behaviors for hobbies.

Myself via damning quote from my private stash of unpublished horny writing hahaha.

However I meant it when nothing is more attractive to me than: watching this physically active limber guy with great flexibility and self-control, move around rhythmically on stage with his body doing all god knows what for the women. Bless video format.

I am watching a Paul flexibly move around on stage and move his body in ways that suggest muscle dexterity, fitness levels, and he can bend all kinds of ways. He has excellent sense of rhythm, pacing, stamina, and balance. All from sports and such hobbies. And you're also telling me he's excellent at multi-tasking? Oh. Okay. He's much capable of anything at this point. If he can do that, I am the Spongebob meme over this. This is great. You're missing out on half of this appeal. And then he just drops his stage persona acting on top of all of this...

Ewa knows everything about how disgustingly attractive his mic kicking and pick up habit is...

I have never known a guitarist could make doing something with his leg attractive of all things he could be doing. Yet here we are.

The tags on this one...

#I dare anyone try NOT to be obsessed with him
#hot as hell
#actual devil

She knows about all of the most important videos of concerts there are. Oh she's on my level.

When I referenced 2011 MiG indirectly, she instantly knew the date, location, and same videos 😭

And lastly, I have to say I can understand parts of this sentiment quite well at times in some sense.

I know in my own head I've often thought about "My Paul" and the "Fandom's Paul" a lot. I accepted I am different about it eventually. I don't mind. What I would suggest is, as someone who has been around a while, there are an actual wide variety of views out there. I've had various discussions in time. While I've seen many overlaps to myself, I've seen the opposite too. I've seen pretty much everything on a spectrum by now.

My view is simple. He spends 90% of the footage doing his persona. 10% things you can call funny or some other thing.

You simply remember the jokes more because they're unique and visually recognizable to the moment. This creates a memory based bias to think of it first and as something very prominent. Whereas his persona standard, is common place and exists in so much vast footage that's hard to differentiate from each other. What you could collect together in a single show as funny, adds up to an approximate run-time of ~5 minutes out of a 2 hour show. You're talking about actual ~2-10 second behaviors. Not minutes of behaviors. His persona is still minutes and minutes of uninterrupted video.

If you wondered what this is, it's called an "availability heuristic". Specifically known as "vividness effects" of visual imagery.

The availability heuristic, also known as availability bias, is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person's mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method, or decision. This heuristic, operating on the notion that, if something can be quickly recalled, it must be important, or at least more important than alternative solutions not as readily recalled, is inherently biased toward recently acquired information.

Empirical research suggests that the availability heuristic arises because individuals rely on the ease with which examples come to mind when judging frequency or probability.

A show in Dresden and one in Klagenfurt taking place in Du hast or DRSG is almost impossible to tell apart from a single clip. Yet a quirky moment of him is memorable as distinct to the show. Name three different versions of DRSG footage moments or clips you like in your mind right now. You probably cannot or would struggle to not come up with a mixed up combination of several. Because they're the "same" so to speak. As he's a consistent performer. Name three different unique funny moments and it will come to your mind easily as distinct. This is an availability heuristic created memory due the unique vivid imagery and your strong reaction to him doing it.

Watch entire 2 hour footage cameras and never move your eyes from Paul as best you can. You will realize how standard his shows are. Even in modern era. I am the person who apparently creates availability heuristic biases based on other choreography he does. Such as his MT intro dance from the center. Or his Du hast full body thrashing. Or even his frequent way of strumming his hand outward in Sonne. These are my vivid frequencies, personally.

Her ideas,

Paul rarely shows his real self on stage, he just performs perfectly, he’s the most outstanding natural-born showman in the band, always entertaining himself and everyone around. He’s extremely confident, never afraid to be funny or even silly. That’s, perhaps, how he keeps random people from knowing him better. Which seems such a smart way to stay sane and protect yourself from all dangers the fame comes along with.

I wrote this private post akin to this core idea once a year ago.

fans don't seem to grasp his personality at all. in many ways, he made it that way. possibly on purpose by lack of revealing it all this time. he's only shown fractions in any direction. nobody is correct. that's why i love his persona and stage. that is the character he wanted you to see him as and chose for himself. he invented this archetype for himself. or he wouldn't do it. i don't want to throw that away. i won't ignore what he actually gave me to focus on something else.

My favorite is him explaining his stage behaviors in his own words instead of some unknown mystery.

Paul: Sometimes you see a guy or girl up front who really thinks what we're doing is great. Then you play as hard and as good as you can just for that one person.

Question: Does it cause problems for you to maintain that the image of Rammstein of hard, angry men who are always strong and can never cry?

Paul: Before Rammstein I played for ten years in a fun punk band, and that was much more demanding. Because as a fun punker, as Die Ärzte can attest to, you always have to be funny. The fans tip beer over your head and you have to come across nicely. With Rammstein I can be 99% whatever I want. Being stern is simple, it requires no disguise. Even in a bad mood, it's still awesome. Everything pissing me off 100% enhances the show. I can stand there the entire concert like a pawn in a game of Chess, without batting and eyelash, but the show is still great.

Question: How would you describe the philosophy of the group?

Paul: The philosophy has changed. The first philosophy we had was hard rock, dance and rhythm, with women as the audience. But that has been changing.

Question: Has the women part changed?

Paul: Yes, now in the concert and after.

In 2004, I found this one that extrapolates his 1997 idea more to be exact.

From experience, I'd say the hardest bands are often the kindest ones. However, a threatening, scary, or aggressive effect on stage can't totally be acted out. The roles we have on stage are hidden somewhere inside us. Though this side of us isn't turned on all day. If everything was faked, people would notice that and it wouldn't be well received. You have to find a middle ground somehow. There's no such "after show creepiness", you have to have something in you or the fans would feel it."

You can take his "feierabend-grusel" comment phrase too many ways to have used an untranslatable concept. I think he's using it slightly more literally for after show parties of the genuine meaning of the term's parts. Go look at my February 2005 write up of him and Flake being fun and interesting after the show. I think stuff like that is on his mind and he's saying when he's after the concert/work, you get another side and experience too akin to that one. You get a combination of both sides.

Paul: We liked to say we make music for women. Because we liked having mainly women in the audience.

Schneider: We thought we'd attract a few...

Paul: Well, it's not really a lie to us. I saw Lenny Kravitz and there were so many women. I thought, what are we doing wrong [in 1995]? [cut] The harder the music is, the more you attract sneakers [males].

Question: Would it be a dream you'd have to be recognized solely for your music and to be able to do without all the other stuff?

Paul: That is a difficult subject. How much of our success is due to the shows? I believe that we would be relatively successful even without the stage show since our music has its quality. But such a question doesn't get raised much anymore. On one hand, every effect distracts from the music and turns the whole thing into a type of circus. On the other hand, that's just how we are. We'll never go on stage in lumberjack shirts, playing hour long solos, mutually goading each other - that doesn't fit us. Because we play using sequencers, we are bound with musically rigid guidelines on the stage. We tried to break out of that and do improvised parts, but after three attempts we went back to playing the same thing again. This may be due our German roots. We love to do reiteration and repeat the same thing over and over with a blank expression on our faces.

Question: This monotony is also a large part of your style.

Paul: Yeah. There are some of us who get sick of certain songs. So sometimes we remove a song from a set. Most of the band loves doing the same thing over and over again. The dull repetition of the constant thing. Like in theater, maybe it's a tad harsh but I see us like we're music theater. When you play as Hamlet, you can only deviate from the role to a very limited degree. And that's how it is with us as well, we're not casual. No one imposed that on us. It's a voluntary corset. Perhaps a railing we coast on safely. That's beautifully said! I'm impressed. (laughs)

Paul: Sex always has been our problem. (pauses) I have the theory that sex is the motor for the whole world. In my opinion everything you see or do has a connection to sexuality. I tend to think that nobody would go to the discotheque if there would be no sex; or nobody would go into a club or to a restaurant – well, for eating, yes, but not after eleven in the evening - we won’t have any bars then. No bands would exist to make music. Why should I make music when there are no women in front of the stage? Three or four bands with only female musicians, nothing else.

This is a video interview in text format. If you'd want to hear him speak this wisdom.

And because it's funny as hell how frank he was, here he is in April 1997 talking about 1996 era.

Question: How good is it that success brings groupies, or is this cliche untrue nowadays?

Paul grinds broadly, "We have a lot of beautiful women in the audience, no idea why either. With groupies, sometimes it's how you'd figure. Sometimes it's the exact opposite for ten days. It's not like there's ten women lined up outside my bed each night."

Let's take this step by step:

• for the ladies
• he was 31-32 when this was created
• claims it's partly real in some sense to himself several times
• knows he's doing it with intent
• is not faking it entirely but may be slightly exaggerated
• he's convinced that people would know if it's fake
• is somehow suggesting men would even care about it being faked (lol)
• bands would not play if sexuality and women weren't involved
• calls this when asked to describe it as 'anger, pissed, stern, threatening, scary, or aggressive'

As I said earlier, this man wanted me to view him this way and made all this effort for me. He used this as his means of providing me with a character he deemed acceptable of his boundary of fame and was his own conscious choice making. I chose to respect and enjoy this limit. I chose to pay attention to the effort. He meant something by it for the ladies apparently. I'll go ahead and take it with gratitude. In some regards, I don't wish to think deeply about Paul as a person outside of this very far or try to find the "realest him" there is. Because if he wanted that, he'd have done it by now or been extremely talkative with the public like Flake. I want to keep the boundary between me and him having this wedge between us: the stage. I can't ignore the stage aspect being fully incorporated. Why? Because he said part of that is real and true. I have to factor it in.

And then Ewa says,

One of things about Paul that I find just wildly appealing, whether I actually like it or not, is his legendary snarkiness and ability to bring people to tears with a single mean remark.

And it’s not only about how sharp, witty and intelligent Paul is. He also seems perfectly capable of looking at you in an extremely intimidating way that will surely leave you helpless. And surely, he does not only realize that, but uses it very wisely as well.

When in fact, three out of five band members corroborate the impact of his words. Whether or not anyone is deeply upset, we don't know. However, Schneider's version does indicate being bothered for a time. However, if you're told extremely harsh criticism or ridiculed for your weaknesses... uhh I think most people would reasonably be upset or defensive. To be fair.

Till explaining what he does.

Till: Paul is the kind of guy who takes initiative. Who takes care of arrangements. He's a harsh critic for example, especially when it comes to lyrics. And I usually sing with Paul, for example.

Reesh said that too under the guise of things that are hard to hear.

Richard: "The thing is, right now we realize I am more talented in writing music, and he’s more talented in producing. Right now, his biggest talent is telling you when you’re shitty. When I bring a song to the band and he hears it, Paul will just say, “It’s not good. Try it again.” He is real good at finding your weakness. We’ve been together for years, so we all know each other’s strength and weakness."

"I worked with Paul, when I did my first band. He was the producer and engineer. I liked how he thought about the music. He was my other part."

His way of doing that is why Schneider originally decided he didn't like him.

Schneider: When I met Paul twenty years ago, I thought he was a very rude guy. He joked about everyone, regardless of whether he knew them or not. He immediately noticed the weaknesses of a person and ridiculed that. It was like being shot out of a cannon, and I didn't like it at all. Now I think he is a good guy. He is always ready to help.

Regarding Feeling B drummers 😉

Schneider: Paul had strict criteria. He enjoyed playing drums too. He would often help by criticizing me bluntly. He can really strip you of your self-confidence. He still bugs me about it sometimes even today.

Paul: About the dictatorship of the drummers: Kriening was the last one in Feeling B who had his say. Everyone after him was no longer allowed to have a say but could express opinions. This was listened to by the Feeling B government with mercy. Flake or myself would play single songs for our drummers, and they had to learn them. We kept them from speaking up too much, but sometimes they contributed ideas. We did agonize them. Sometimes it was wrong.

There's no way Flake hasn't mentioned this. Someone get me the 5,000 rambles of Flake. I'm sure we can find it! Do I have to go out of my way to see if I can dig up an Olli quote? I'm so tempted to see if I can find one from him, honestly. It'd be so funny if I can find all five.

Schneider suggests whatever was said was impactful enough to be akin to a cannon or direct hit. Paul himself said whatever was happening here was perhaps unfair and mean. This suggests upsetting other people. Knowingly. He is capable of making people dislike him with his words like any human can manage. There is no universally agreeable person. You must accept a level of flaws and then ask yourself, "can I personally tolerate that? can I forgive mistakes in that context?"

It's very unlikely he would ever utter such things around fans. So yeah, fans will never have stories like this. Obviously. There is no reason for any fan to be privy to it. And please remember, how he talks in interviews is self-aware about the public looking at it. Nobody is natural in interviews.

I swear, I'm not actually a Paul academic. I just play one as my own performance role. Part of it is real, though. I believe in Paul's sentiment: you have to have your own path. No footsteps in the shadows of another. I do my best to provide something else here in terms of resources or helping others.