Destruction is coming - Appetite For Destruction deluxe editions out June 29th

[FreddieJames]

Still, Guns N? Roses hasn?t moved beyond all of its most controversial music.  That new $1,000 box set will include ?Used to Love Her,? which first appeared on ?GN?R Lies,? the same EP as ?One In A Million.?  On Genius, the annotated lyrics website, a contributor calls the song ?a humorous murder ballad.?  It?s anything but as Rose sings, ?I used to love her, but I had to kill her.?

Like ?One In A Million,? it should be dumped in the nearest bin.  Hopefully it won?t be another 30 years before Rose and his bandmates recognize that a scurrilous song about violence against women is just as vile as one glorifying racism and homophobia.

Wow, that woman must be a lot of fun to hang with. The social justice warriors and their overly political correct thinking patterns are turning out to be no different than all the religious zealots that tried to force their rules onto everyone. 'Used To Love Her' is tongue in cheek. If this boring ass woman doesn't get that, maybe should focus her energy on rap "music"? GnR's song is a joke, rap music is misogynous as fuck. But I guess she's too afraid to be labeled a racist, so she goes the safe route and targets the white rock bands.

[pilferk]

Great question.  I would think the box set counts toward their album commitment.  Thing is, I never understood why album commitments were something that should hold Guns back in any way. Can?t Axl just release several albums of farts and burps to get out of the record company contract and then release his real material independently?

No.

Labels have first right of refusal, but they do not have to release anything an artist makes/submits for release.  And if the label refuses to release it...it doesn't count toward the contract.

Witness Fiona Apple and Greenday's "lost" albums (though Fiona eventually released hers and Greendays' survived, in pieces).

There have been other examples with other artists, too.

[allwaystired]

Great question.  I would think the box set counts toward their album commitment.  Thing is, I never understood why album commitments were something that should hold Guns back in any way. Can?t Axl just release several albums of farts and burps to get out of the record company contract and then release his real material independently?

No.

Labels have first right of refusal, but they do not have to release anything an artist makes/submits for release.  And if the label refuses to release it...it doesn't count toward the contract.

Witness Fiona Apple and Greenday's "lost" albums (though Fiona eventually released hers and Greendays' survived, in pieces).

There have been other examples with other artists, too.

Duff's second solo album is a good example. Not only did the label refuse to release it, claiming it wasn't good enough, they kept all the recordings making it impossible for anyone else to release....

[pilferk]

It's just her POV. Happens to be one I agree with. Can't seem to find anything funny about this.

Isn't it actually about his dog?  

I understand the connotation...and it's intentional.  And I understand that it might make people uncomfortable.  I do think it's important, though, to know that Axl wasn't ACTUALLY encouraging violence against women.  It was a joke (and one that, years later, might be in poor taste.....like MANY jokes/humor from days past).

BUT (and I feel the same way about "One in a Million") it was a very different time.  And it is artistic creation that has a significant social commentary (ie: the fact it makes us uncomfortable in 2018....and it was a hit that made everyone laugh in 1989, shows cultural movement).

I'm not one for censoring art because I disagree with the message in light of current cultural sensibilities.  If we did that with literature, we'd be burning books.  

If that song were written today, I would understand the outcry (though, I mean...Blurred Lines???!!!).

The song was written 30+ years ago.

There is plenty of 70 and 80's pop/rock that glorifies stalking, heavy drug use, suicide, and even rape that you hear on radio airwaves CONSTANTLY.  And they do it with a catchy beat and a jovial tone (listen to Brown Sugar by The Stones!).

Art is not always unicorns and rainbows.  Not when it's written, and not when it's considered years later with different cultural sensibilities.  And I think that's OK.

[allwaystired]

It's just her POV. Happens to be one I agree with. Can't seem to find anything funny about this.

Isn't it actually about his dog?  

I understand the connotation...and it's intentional.  And I understand that it might make people uncomfortable.  I do think it's important, though, to know that Axl wasn't ACTUALLY encouraging violence against women.  It was a joke (and one that, years later, might be in poor taste.....like MANY jokes/humor from days past).

BUT (and I feel the same way about "One in a Million") it was a very different time.  And it is artistic creation that has a significant social commentary (ie: the fact it makes us uncomfortable in 2018....and it was a hit that made everyone laugh in 1989, shows cultural movement).

I'm not one for censoring art because I disagree with the message in light of current cultural sensibilities.  If we did that with literature, we'd be burning books.  

If that song were written today, I would understand the outcry (though, I mean...Blurred Lines???!!!).

The song was written 30+ years ago.

There is plenty of 70 and 80's pop/rock that glorifies stalking, heavy drug use, suicide, and even rape that you hear on radio airwaves CONSTANTLY.  And they do it with a catchy beat and a jovial tone (listen to Brown Sugar by The Stones!).

Art is not always unicorns and rainbows.  Not when it's written, and not when it's considered years later with different cultural sensibilities.  And I think that's OK.

Great conversation with my girlfriend this weekend on a similar topic:

Me:  "I fucking hate that Blurred Lines song"

Her: "I quite like it, its fun"

Me: "It's absolute shit. And it's lyrics are dodgy"

Her: "Yeah, I know, its dodgy and obviously I don't approve really,  but I like the tune and it's quite clearly a laugh"

....and there lies the whole debate! I sort of wish more people were like that sometimes- less over analysis, more just going with whatever, recognizing problems but not getting so crazy uptight about them.

[Bridge]

Duff's second solo album is a good example. Not only did the label refuse to release it, claiming it wasn't good enough, they kept all the recordings making it impossible for anyone else to release....

Actually, according to Duff himself, it wasn't released due to a company merger.  They actually did offer it to Duff for sale to go release on his own, but they demanded 3-4 times what the recording costs were, so Duff didn't buy it.

[allwaystired]

Duff's second solo album is a good example. Not only did the label refuse to release it, claiming it wasn't good enough, they kept all the recordings making it impossible for anyone else to release....

Actually, according to Duff himself, it wasn't released due to a company merger.  They actually did offer it to Duff for sale to go release on his own, but they demanded 3-4 times what the recording costs were, so Duff didn't buy it.

When the merger happened didn't the boss just decide to can it because his kids didn't like it? I'm sure i remember something like that in his book. Didn't remember the bit about them offering it back though.

[Wooody]

Duff's second solo album is a good example. Not only did the label refuse to release it, claiming it wasn't good enough, they kept all the recordings making it impossible for anyone else to release....

Actually, according to Duff himself, it wasn't released due to a company merger.  They actually did offer it to Duff for sale to go release on his own, but they demanded 3-4 times what the recording costs were, so Duff didn't buy it.

They offered Duff his own album ? That's really sad.

[ITARocker]

Usually people with 0 culture get offended by this kind of things.

People should study Aristofane or Boccaccio before talking.

[Voodoochild]

Labels have first right of refusal, but they do not have to release anything an artist makes/submits for release.  And if the label refuses to release it...it doesn't count toward the contract.

Witness Fiona Apple and Greenday's "lost" albums (though Fiona eventually released hers and Greendays' survived, in pieces).

Fiona Apple's Extraordinary Machine album wasnt shelved by Sony. That's what she always said, at least. She didnt like the arrangements made by Jon Brion and asked to rework the songs. But I believe the fans petition helped the label in figuring out there was a demand.

It's just her POV. Happens to be one I agree with. Can't seem to find anything funny about this.

Isn't it actually about his dog?

What, UTLH? I don't know. I wasn't talking about this one in particular, tho. 
Still, it's pretty obvious the song wasn't meant to sound like it was just about a dog, even though I dont think this song should be censored.

I understand the connotation...and it's intentional.  And I understand that it might make people uncomfortable.  I do think it's important, though, to know that Axl wasn't ACTUALLY encouraging violence against women.  It was a joke (and one that, years later, might be in poor taste.....like MANY jokes/humor from days past).

BUT (and I feel the same way about "One in a Million") it was a very different time.  And it is artistic creation that has a significant social commentary (ie: the fact it makes us uncomfortable in 2018....and it was a hit that made everyone laugh in 1989, shows cultural movement).

I'm not one for censoring art because I disagree with the message in light of current cultural sensibilities.  If we did that with literature, we'd be burning books.  

If that song were written today, I would understand the outcry (though, I mean...Blurred Lines???!!!).

The song was written 30+ years ago.

There is plenty of 70 and 80's pop/rock that glorifies stalking, heavy drug use, suicide, and even rape that you hear on radio airwaves CONSTANTLY.  And they do it with a catchy beat and a jovial tone (listen to Brown Sugar by The Stones!).

Art is not always unicorns and rainbows.  Not when it's written, and not when it's considered years later with different cultural sensibilities.  And I think that's OK.

I know and I mostly agree. IMO it should be a case by case. The 1915 movie "The Birth of a Nation" is wrong in so many levels that you just can't rationalize it as pure art and freedom of speak.

UTLH may be fine enough (but I respect the author's point). One in a Million is in another level. I'm sure Axl himself is not comfortable re-releasing a song calling out immigrants while his new "family" is Brazilian. Considering this and the racism, the song is not tongue-in-cheek. Yes, it's from other times, but it doesn't mean Axl or the band should just ignore the context now. I understand and respect the decision to not re-release it, but I'm not asking them to do it.

Usually people with 0 culture get offended by this kind of things.

People should study Aristofane or Boccaccio before talking.

It's just the way it is. Things change and we should be able to re-analyse stuff with another point of view.

[D-GenerationX]

UTLH is just dark humor.

Tough to say the same about OIAM.

[Bridge]

When the merger happened didn't the boss just decide to can it because his kids didn't like it? I'm sure i remember something like that in his book. Didn't remember the bit about them offering it back though.

Yeah, page 296-297 in Duff's book.  Some executive did say he'd be listening to the record with his kids to determine whether or not it had a future with Geffen, and then Duff never heard back from the guy.  On the release date, Duff found out that the record wouldn't be released.   It was then that Duff himself offered to pay the recording costs which were about $80,000 and take control of the record himself.  The record label responded by saying no, they'd only sell it at a profit, and demanded $250,000 for it.  Duff said fuck that.

[izzyjim]

When the merger happened didn't the boss just decide to can it because his kids didn't like it? I'm sure i remember something like that in his book. Didn't remember the bit about them offering it back though.

Yeah, page 296-297 in Duff's book.  Some executive did say he'd be listening to the record with his kids to determine whether or not it had a future with Geffen, and then Duff never heard back from the guy.  On the release date, Duff found out that the record wouldn't be released.   It was then that Duff himself offered to pay the recording costs which were about $80,000 and take control of the record himself.  The record label responded by saying no, they'd only sell it at a profit, and demanded $250,000 for it.  Duff said fuck that.

I wonder if we fans can get together and come up with a plan, a kickstarter project perhaps, to raise money and release the lost album.
I bet that if we sit together and do our homework we can manage to do something.
ahh... wishful thinking..

[Lord Stan]

When the merger happened didn't the boss just decide to can it because his kids didn't like it? I'm sure i remember something like that in his book. Didn't remember the bit about them offering it back though.

Yeah, page 296-297 in Duff's book.  Some executive did say he'd be listening to the record with his kids to determine whether or not it had a future with Geffen, and then Duff never heard back from the guy.  On the release date, Duff found out that the record wouldn't be released.   It was then that Duff himself offered to pay the recording costs which were about $80,000 and take control of the record himself.  The record label responded by saying no, they'd only sell it at a profit, and demanded $250,000 for it.  Duff said fuck that.

I wonder if we fans can get together and come up with a plan, a kickstarter project perhaps, to raise money and release the lost album.
I bet that if we sit together and do our homework we can manage to do something.
ahh... wishful thinking..

What would happen is that we'd get tons of promises that of course I'll chip in, me as well. Then when the project was actually set not many people would pay.

It is just how the world works

[pilferk]

UTLH is just dark humor.

Tough to say the same about OIAM.

OIAM is a little different, I agree.  That being said, if Axl wanted it out there, and provided a bunch of context to it in order to spur some larger discussions, I'd be OK with that.  There have been artists who have dome similar things with early work that has "changed" due to cultural sensitivities in the past.

Axl has said it: He knows it's offensive, but people sort of miss the point a little bit (and this isn't an excuse): He was writing from the perspective of a hayseed from Indiana who was suddenly thrust into the diversity of LA.  His claim/point was that those were valid (and pretty common) generalities, stereotypes, and prejudices in his neck of the woods back then.

He also talked pretty candidly about overcoming those prejudices and realizing how misplaced those feelings were.

TBH, it's a fair point even today (and I'm not going to get overly political here....it's not the place).  And if he decided to release the song to further that kind of conversation, WITH ADDED CONTEXT, so be it.  I don't think he has the will/desire to do that, though.

On the pulling back of OIAM, I'm much more OK with it...because it's the artists decision.  AXL is uncomfortable with it being out there, now, so it's the ARTISTS ART, and thus my feeling is they get to make that call. 

But IF Axl had never decided to pull it back, and it was in this collection, I would feel the same way I did about UTLH.  It's about framing the art in the context and time it was created.

[pilferk]

Labels have first right of refusal, but they do not have to release anything an artist makes/submits for release.  And if the label refuses to release it...it doesn't count toward the contract.

Witness Fiona Apple and Greenday's "lost" albums (though Fiona eventually released hers and Greendays' survived, in pieces).

Fiona Apple's Extraordinary Machine album wasnt shelved by Sony. That's what she always said, at least. She didnt like the arrangements made by Jon Brion and asked to rework the songs. But I believe the fans petition helped the label in figuring out there was a demand.

That story CHANGED, later, after the release and petition.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2005/04/the_fiona_apple_fiasco.html

Epic refused to release it, initially, because it didn't sound "commercial enough".

That story "morphed" (and I suspect that morphing was a commercial ploy and "prod" from the label so they didn't appear the bad guy) later into Fiona not being satisfied with the mixes and needed to let them "stew" creatively before releasing them.

But the Epic story was sourced and verified at the time.  I know someone who was working in the industry at the time and she helped source it, actually.

[allwaystired]

UTLH is just dark humor.

Tough to say the same about OIAM.

OIAM is a little different, I agree.  That being said, if Axl wanted it out there, and provided a bunch of context to it in order to spur some larger discussions, I'd be OK with that.  There have been artists who have dome similar things with early work that has "changed" due to cultural sensitivities in the past.

Axl has said it: He knows it's offensive, but people sort of miss the point a little bit (and this isn't an excuse): He was writing from the perspective of a hayseed from Indiana who was suddenly thrust into the diversity of LA.  His claim/point was that those were valid (and pretty common) generalities, stereotypes, and prejudices in his neck of the woods back then.

He also talked pretty candidly about overcoming those prejudices and realizing how misplaced those feelings were.

TBH, it's a fair point even today (and I'm not going to get overly political here....it's not the place).  And if he decided to release the song to further that kind of conversation, WITH ADDED CONTEXT, so be it.  I don't think he has the will/desire to do that, though.

On the pulling back of OIAM, I'm much more OK with it...because it's the artists decision.  AXL is uncomfortable with it being out there, now, so it's the ARTISTS ART, and thus my feeling is they get to make that call. 

But IF Axl had never decided to pull it back, and it was in this collection, I would feel the same way I did about UTLH.  It's about framing the art in the context and time it was created.

Ultimately we don't know whose decision this was - it could well be the record company that called time on the song.

I think though in a lot of ways it opens up floodgates. There's a LOT of their material that in the current climate of people looking for things to be offended by that could at anytime be deemed as unacceptable. It's So Easy, You Could Be Mine, Pretty Tied Up, Back Off Bitch to name just a few. All of those songs could at any point attract the attention of those looking to revise the past and tell us what we should and shouldn't be offended by.

[pilferk]

Ultimately we don't know whose decision this was - it could well be the record company that called time on the song.

I thought WE had Axl's comments on this?  That he asked it be removed from future pressings, etc?

Maybe I am misremembering....

[allwaystired]

Ultimately we don't know whose decision this was - it could well be the record company that called time on the song.

I thought WE had Axl's comments on this?  That he asked it be removed from future pressings, etc?

Maybe I am misremembering....

I think there was sonething to that effect but that was a ling time ago, and since then there have of course been loads of pressings. I'm still not aure how much input the band had into the content of this box really. We know there was some, but could be a case of 'we're doing this and you guys can be involved or not'.

[ITARocker]

Things change and we should be able to re-analyse stuff with another point of view.

No ,there's no another point of view. People who over analyze and judge are just utterly stupid. Words are words, facts are facts. Rappers say the word nigga all day long are they racists? Guns sang about killing, they ever killed someone?

Racism, misogeny, violence are just words. Plus art is art, i can paint a rape scene, but it doesn't mean i'm a raper. Or  i can even say i hate God while I go to church every sunday.

Hitler in the mein kampf wrote about jews  and actually he killed them...So he's a true criminal because he did something against them, not because he wrote something about them.