One In A Million being erased from history

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Things like punk dont get judged in the same way because its small scale stuff by definition, its kinda made for a crude minority.  There’s ways of courting controversy though, The Stones satanic shit isnt really offensive, its just...cheeky.  Nor is it at any groups expense.  Brown Sugar is a better example of The Stones in that kinda mode.  They say the word n!gger in Sweet Black Angel too, though the nature of what that song is kinda cancels out the offensive possibilities.

Hip Hop as a general says umpteen things that could be construed as extremely racist.

Yeh, agreed, Guns probably didn't expect to get as big as they did; with Sweet Child bringing them and songs like Million to 'mainstream' attention, with justifiably concerned parents wondering who this band corrupting their kids was; and didn't survive as such a band for long!

[Blackstar]

48 minutes ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

It was a song from the street, and as Axl and Guns were not trying to portray themselves as nice people, they probably thought they could criticise other demographics.

Some members of those other demographics seem to think it's okay to criticise white people or straight people a lot, but don't think their demographics can be criticised.

Probably that explains the difference in the reactions to OIAM (and GnR in general) between rappers and other rock bands (and the press).

In the case of the rappers I think there was that mutual kind of street level understanding (which, interestingly enough, didn't change even during Axl's "rockstar diva" period).

But in the case of people from the "grunge" bands, for example, although they may have had troubled childhoods etc., they came from a different background, and that's why most of them also never related to hip hop (as it was sexist etc.). Same goes for the demographics they appealed to; a while ago I had posted the readers' polls from that era in Spin, a magazine with "alternative" profile, and hip hop (with the exception of Public Enemy, probably because they were hyped) wasn't popular among that demographic (which was mostly white middle class, I reckon).

Edited May 18, 2018 by Blackstar

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

19 hours ago, killuridols said:

I think it could be a mix of him thinking there was nothing wrong with it because some rap artists said the word too (and he didn't understand why he couldn't use it) and him just thinking he should be brutally honest with the world, regarding emotions and things he was feeling back then, or his experiences. His lyrics mostly consists of personal experiences and feelings he has for people.

 

Yeh, agree. A positive way of looking at it is that it's a street person's song standing up to all those who threaten them.

If he could have been a more politically correct it could have been a street people's underdog survival anthem; a voice for those who face being beaten and raped every night, and often have to sell themselves to survive. 

Axl and Guns should have been the 'heroic victims' but they allowed 'mainstream' to turn them into the wrongdoers, and put them on the defensive, denying street people a voice, and letting extreme capitalism off the hook: although in their (Axl, Izzy and Duff) cases it was their choice to move to LA and live that way.

 

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

5 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Probably that explains the difference in the reactions to OIAM (and GnR in general) between rappers and other rock bands (and the press).

In the case of the rappers I think there was that mutual kind of street level understanding (which, interestingly enough, didn't change even during Axl's "rockstar diva" period).

But in the case of people from the "grunge" bands, for example, although they may have had troubled childhoods etc., they came from a different background, and that's why most of them also never related to hip hop (as it was sexist etc.). Same goes for the demographics they appealed to; a while ago I had posted the readers' polls from that era in Spin, a magazine with "alternative" profile, and hip hop (with the exception of Public Enemy, probably because they were hyped) wasn't popular among that demographic (which was mostly white middle class, I reckon).

Yeh, Metallica and Kanye West headlining Glastonbury had similarly negative reactions too! 

[killuridols]

5 minutes ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

Yeh, agree. A positive way of looking at it is that it's a street person's song standing up to all those who threaten them.

If he could have been a more politically correct it could have been a street people's underdog survival anthem; a voice for those who face being beaten and raped every night, and often have to sell themselves to survive. 

Axl and Guns should have been the 'heroic victims' but they allowed 'mainstream' to turn them into the wrongdoers, and put them on the defensive, denying street people a voice, and letting extreme capitalism off the hook: although in their (Axl, Izzy and Duff) cases it was their choice to move to LA and live that way.

I can't find anything positive with this song.... yes, it could have been the underdog survival anthem, the problem is the person writing the song felt superior to the other guys, even if, at the time, he was in the same boat than the others.

 

[Fashionista]

People like the above poster scare me, I hope they never get into political power, or they would put an unseen level of creative repression on American society.

[killuridols]

4 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

People like the above poster scare me, I hope they never get into political power, or they would put an unseen level of creative repression on American society.

You just gave me a great idea: I will start working on my Presidential campaign now