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

[Bridge]

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

Maybe I am misremembering....

Nope, your memory is fine.  Axl said this in late 1999, appearing in a January 2000 Rolling Stone article.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/axl-speaks-20000203

Along these lines, [Rose] recently decided to remove the two most controversial G n' R tracks, "One in a Million," from 1988's GN'R Lies ? with its lyrics disparaging "faggots," "immigrants" and "niggers" ? and the cover of Charles Manson's "Look at Your Game Girl," which ends 1993's The Spaghetti Incident?.  While he's always been reluctant to explain or justify his art, Rose has come to believe that "they're too easily misinterpreted."  Starting in February (2000), the tracks will be deleted from future pressings.

[allwaystired]

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

Maybe I am misremembering....

Nope, your memory is fine.  Axl said this in late 1999, appearing in a January 2000 Rolling Stone article.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/axl-speaks-20000203

Along these lines, [Rose] recently decided to remove the two most controversial G n' R tracks, "One in a Million," from 1988's GN'R Lies ? with its lyrics disparaging "faggots," "immigrants" and "niggers" ? and the cover of Charles Manson's "Look at Your Game Girl," which ends 1993's The Spaghetti Incident?.  While he's always been reluctant to explain or justify his art, Rose has come to believe that "they're too easily misinterpreted."  Starting in February (2000), the tracks will be deleted from future pressings.

That hasn't happened though has it? Surely they're still pressing these albums with those tracks on? (I don't know as I obviously bought them at the time!)

[Lord Stan]

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

Maybe I am misremembering....

Nope, your memory is fine.  Axl said this in late 1999, appearing in a January 2000 Rolling Stone article.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/axl-speaks-20000203

Along these lines, [Rose] recently decided to remove the two most controversial G n' R tracks, "One in a Million," from 1988's GN'R Lies ? with its lyrics disparaging "faggots," "immigrants" and "niggers" ? and the cover of Charles Manson's "Look at Your Game Girl," which ends 1993's The Spaghetti Incident?.  While he's always been reluctant to explain or justify his art, Rose has come to believe that "they're too easily misinterpreted."  Starting in February (2000), the tracks will be deleted from future pressings.

That hasn't happened though has it? Surely they're still pressing these albums with those tracks on? (I don't know as I obviously bought them at the time!)

I just bought a copy few months ago. Surely it wasn't pressed 18 years ago.

So, that has not happened.

[Voodoochild]

Both tracks (OIAM and Look At Your Game Girl) are still available on Spotify. Though when I click on the Lies album, OIAM didnt show up in the tracklist.

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.

Sorry, that's not how prejudice and hate speech works.

[Wooody]

Both tracks (OIAM and Look At Your Game Girl) are still available on Spotify. Though when I click on the Lies album, OIAM didnt show up in the tracklist.

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.

Sorry, that's not how prejudice and hate speech works.

How does it work then ?

[pilferk]

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

Maybe I am misremembering....

Nope, your memory is fine.  Axl said this in late 1999, appearing in a January 2000 Rolling Stone article.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/axl-speaks-20000203

Along these lines, [Rose] recently decided to remove the two most controversial G n' R tracks, "One in a Million," from 1988's GN'R Lies ? with its lyrics disparaging "faggots," "immigrants" and "niggers" ? and the cover of Charles Manson's "Look at Your Game Girl," which ends 1993's The Spaghetti Incident?.  While he's always been reluctant to explain or justify his art, Rose has come to believe that "they're too easily misinterpreted."  Starting in February (2000), the tracks will be deleted from future pressings.

That hasn't happened though has it? Surely they're still pressing these albums with those tracks on? (I don't know as I obviously bought them at the time!)

I just bought a copy few months ago. Surely it wasn't pressed 18 years ago.

So, that has not happened.

No, it hasn't.

BUT, the point is (was?) more to illustrate Axl's mind set.

And those comments certainly do that.

[pilferk]

Sorry, that's not how prejudice and hate speech works.

So, then, you advocate book burning, right? Of expunging the works of Twain, and Plato, and Shakespeare, and Dante and countless others who have produced literature that, when viewed with today's sensibilities, would be considered offensive?

Of course, I don't believe you actually feel that way.

Prejudice and hate speech, in the course of...well...discourse...sure.  I'm with you.

But when it comes to past artistic expression? In fact, that's the way it does (or at least should) work.

I understand the band still exists, but you're talking about artistic output that was created over 30 years ago.  At what point is that verbage considered (like it is with Twain) anachronistic? 

IMHO, we're well past that point with those songs.  We certainly are when it comes to "Brown Sugar" by The Stones. So is 45 years OK, but 30 isn't?  What's your suggested standard?

It's OK for art to make you uncomfortable...and for it still to "exist" and be commercially available.  Especially if it was widely accepted at the time of it's release.

[sky dog]

Agree with Pilferk 100%

[Fernando]

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.

It was a band decision, collectively.

[pilferk]

It was a band decision, collectively.

Thanks, Fernando!

[PermissionToLand]

Whoooooa boy.  I supposed we should've seen this coming.  The press -- in this case, a faaaar left female journalist -- has gotten wind that "One in a Million" was omitted from the new boxset.  In response, she takes aim and drags every facet of politics into this, calling the song "a Trump supporters' anthem" and states it's a "small ray of hope for our fractured country" that the song is being excluded.  She concludes a long, exceedingly pious, exceptionally whiny article by targeting "Used to Love Her", saying that should've also been dumped.

You guys are gonna love the part where she sanctimoniously exclaims that she liked the band "against her better judgment", but was then "done" with Axl Rose when his "rebelliousness bled into intolerance"!   

LOL, do you hear yourself? You are clearly the more partisan one. You dragged out every tired, cliched right wing buzzword there is "pious, whiny, sanctimonious liberal"... can you even think for yourself? And why does it matter that shes a female journalist?

What about it does not sound exactly like the modern Trump supporter? Hating immigrants, throwing around slurs under the pathetic cover of "not being PC"

In all your hysterics, it seems you failed to actually read the article, which is perfectly reasonable. Maybe you should calm down and control your emotions.

Do you not know the difference between rebelliousness and intolerance? 

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.

It's a lot easier to "not get so crazy uptight" when it doesn't affect you. I feel bad for your GF if you just dismiss her opinions like that...

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.

Oh FFS, nobody is revising the past. The song is still available on pressings of Lies, never mind that nobody is burning old copies. This is no different than the confederate statues being taken down. Statues are not history books. Statues glorify people, and nobody is taking confederates out of history books. Likewise, deleting OIAM is not the same as trying to wipe all traces, including any articles written about the song.

I am so sick of this faux-victim card being pulled any time somebody gets called out for being a bigot. There are ZERO proposals to criminalize bigotry anyway, so quit crying "free speech".

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.

LOL, yeah like those scientists and their over analyzing, what idiots! Smart people don't analyze anything, they just react without thinking!

White rappers do not use that word because they have respect for their fellow men. *SOME* black people use it as an attempt to reclaim it, but opinions are divided on that. Of course, you probably already know this, you just chose to be ignorant. Singing about violence is entirely different, that's a red herring fallacy.

Yes, words are words. nobody has been arrested for this, you realize? Just social consequences. This XKCD strip applies:



Hitler is a perfect example of how words can incite and lead to action. He literally used propaganda to brainwash his people and you think that supports your argument that words are harmless? *facepalm*

So, then, you advocate book burning, right? Of expunging the works of Twain, and Plato, and Shakespeare, and Dante and countless others who have produced literature that, when viewed with today's sensibilities, would be considered offensive?

Of course, I don't believe you actually feel that way.

Prejudice and hate speech, in the course of...well...discourse...sure.  I'm with you.

But when it comes to past artistic expression? In fact, that's the way it does (or at least should) work.

I understand the band still exists, but you're talking about artistic output that was created over 30 years ago.  At what point is that verbage considered (like it is with Twain) anachronistic? 

IMHO, we're well past that point with those songs.  We certainly are when it comes to "Brown Sugar" by The Stones. So is 45 years OK, but 30 isn't?  What's your suggested standard?

It's OK for art to make you uncomfortable...and for it still to "exist" and be commercially available.  Especially if it was widely accepted at the time of it's release.

Refer to my comments above why this is absolutely nothing like book burning.

[allwaystired]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed! You know me and my girlfriend disagree amd agree on many things. It's called having opinions and being adults. Nothing to do with dismissing each others views and everything to do with being comfortable enough to say what we think and not taking offence. It would be weird if we both thought and liked the same stuff. No need to feel sorry for her, trust me!

[Voodoochild]

Well, PermissionToLand just said about everything I would say. I'm just gonna add one thing:

Sorry, that's not how prejudice and hate speech works.

So, then, you advocate book burning, right? Of expunging the works of Twain, and Plato, and Shakespeare, and Dante and countless others who have produced literature that, when viewed with today's sensibilities, would be considered offensive?

Where that came from? I even mentioned before how there's a big difference between OIAM and UTLH.

And I was replying to what ITARocker said, mostly because he said "there's no another point of view. People who over analyze and judge are just utterly stupid. Words are words, facts are facts". It's kinda like saying "no, you are not entlited to revisit anything, art is always cristalyzed in the past". I don't feel this is right. And I don't really like to call people stupid just because they have a different take on something.

[FreddieJames]

Hitler is a perfect example of how words can incite and lead to action. He literally used propaganda to brainwash his people and you think that supports your argument that words are harmless? *facepalm*

Yeah, not to divert too much but: every single religion ever on this earth. Exactly that.

I find it funny though that people can be bent out of shape over a song by a rock artist, but not by the endless awfulness that is religion. Every single scripture by any of the religions are million times worse than what's in those simple GnR songs. Maybe people should fight that instead of songs by young rock artists? How much did GnR's two songs contribute to the killing of people or misogany on women and how much did religion contribute? But I guess it's easier to fight the smallest battle: more chance of victory and no chance of getting slayed.

EDIT: if your analogy is true, how come one of the most popular songs EVER -Imagine by John Lennon- hasn't brought world peace? If the influence of music is so big that songs have to be taken off of records because their influence can be so huge, how come Imagine hasn't brought world peace?

[PermissionToLand]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed! You know me and my girlfriend disagree amd agree on many things. It's called having opinions and being adults. Nothing to do with dismissing each others views and everything to do with being comfortable enough to say what we think and not taking offence. It would be weird if we both thought and liked the same stuff. No need to feel sorry for her, trust me!

Huh, for such strong objectors to "PC police", conservatives sure love tone policing...

The disagreement wasn't the issue, it was that you dismissed her opinion as "crazy uptight". Maybe you should think about why women generally have stronger reactions to objectifying lyrics, instead of dismissing them as uptight or emotional.

Hitler is a perfect example of how words can incite and lead to action. He literally used propaganda to brainwash his people and you think that supports your argument that words are harmless? *facepalm*

Yeah, not to divert too much but: every single religion ever on this earth. Exactly that.

I find it funny though that people can be bent out of shape over a song by a rock artist, but not by the endless awfulness that is religion. Every single scripture by any of the religions are million times worse than what's in those simple GnR songs. Maybe people should fight that instead of songs by young rock artists? How much did GnR's two songs contribute to the killing of people or misogany on women and how much did religion contribute? But I guess it's easier to fight the smallest battle: more chance of victory and no chance of getting slayed.

EDIT: if your analogy is true, how come one of the most popular songs EVER -Imagine by John Lennon- hasn't brought world peace? If the influence of music is so big that songs have to be taken off of records because their influence can be so huge, how come Imagine hasn't brought world peace?

Well, what realistically has more sway over the mind of a kid today, his favorite band or the Pope? I think you make a good point that it's important to have perspective about how big any issue is relative to others, but you can be upset about more than one thing at at time.

As to your last point, I never said words are all powerful. I can tell you to buy me a Ferrari until I'm blue in the face and you can just ignore me. But there's a different dynamic with celebrities and authorities. And just in general, the more people simply hear a narrative or worldview (especially if it's gone unchallenged), the more likely they are to believe it. We allow free speech even for bigots, but without the people calling them out for it, children would hear that and assume it must be acceptable because nobody challenged it. That is the utterly critical function of those who are now slandered as the "PC police".

I would say Imagine has surely inspired many people to volunteer and work toward peace in their lives and may very well have made a significant impact on the world. But of course it can't be a panacea. I never said one hateful song could bring about world anarchy, so that's not really an analogy anyway. I just said that it can lead people to action, for good or bad.

[izzyjim]

[allwaystired]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed! You know me and my girlfriend disagree amd agree on many things. It's called having opinions and being adults. Nothing to do with dismissing each others views and everything to do with being comfortable enough to say what we think and not taking offence. It would be weird if we both thought and liked the same stuff. No need to feel sorry for her, trust me!

Huh, for such strong objectors to "PC police", conservatives sure love tone policing...

The disagreement wasn't the issue, it was that you dismissed her opinion as "crazy uptight". Maybe you should think about why women generally have stronger reactions to objectifying lyrics, instead of dismissing them as uptight or emotional.

Hitler is a perfect example of how words can incite and lead to action. He literally used propaganda to brainwash his people and you think that supports your argument that words are harmless? *facepalm*

Yeah, not to divert too much but: every single religion ever on this earth. Exactly that.

I find it funny though that people can be bent out of shape over a song by a rock artist, but not by the endless awfulness that is religion. Every single scripture by any of the religions are million times worse than what's in those simple GnR songs. Maybe people should fight that instead of songs by young rock artists? How much did GnR's two songs contribute to the killing of people or misogany on women and how much did religion contribute? But I guess it's easier to fight the smallest battle: more chance of victory and no chance of getting slayed.

EDIT: if your analogy is true, how come one of the most popular songs EVER -Imagine by John Lennon- hasn't brought world peace? If the influence of music is so big that songs have to be taken off of records because their influence can be so huge, how come Imagine hasn't brought world peace?

Well, what realistically has more sway over the mind of a kid today, his favorite band or the Pope? I think you make a good point that it's important to have perspective about how big any issue is relative to others, but you can be upset about more than one thing at at time.

As to your last point, I never said words are all powerful. I can tell you to buy me a Ferrari until I'm blue in the face and you can just ignore me. But there's a different dynamic with celebrities and authorities. And just in general, the more people simply hear a narrative or worldview (especially if it's gone unchallenged), the more likely they are to believe it. We allow free speech even for bigots, but without the people calling them out for it, children would hear that and assume it must be acceptable because nobody challenged it. That is the utterly critical function of those who are now slandered as the "PC police".

I would say Imagine has surely inspired many people to volunteer and work toward peace in their lives and may very well have made a significant impact on the world. But of course it can't be a panacea. I never said one hateful song could bring about world anarchy, so that's not really an analogy anyway. I just said that it can lead people to action, for good or bad.

Pretty sexist to read anything into the fact the person who wrote that article is a woman to be honest. It's not something I'd even considered let alone focused on. Why does it make any difference?
Don't you think it's a little patronising and judgmental to say women 'generally have atronger reactions' to lyrics? Like they are more easily offended? I find tjat pretty sexist to be honest.

[rebelhipi]

Pretty off topic here.

Ive always cringed to Its So Easy's ''see me hit you, you fall down'' part.

I still love the song.
Its a great song about sexual power gone over the top. thats my take on it.

[jarmo]

GunsNRoses:
The #ItsSoEasy video is coming....
Watch it tomorrow, only on @AppleMusic here: http://apple.co/GNR


https://twitter.com/gunsnroses/status/998366384118677505



/jarmo

[troccoli]

The video is out right now, go and check it out!