Jump to content

One In A Million being erased from history


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Kwick1 said:

I find it interesting that so many on this forum are so critical of OIAM. Many of you were toddlers when it was released and don't reside in the US. It was different when the song was written and remember that Lies was released with a warning on the LP. GnR was the most dangerous band in the world and OIAM fit perfectly into that time period for GnR. Much of the Axl image was media created and OIMA went far in creating the Axl character.  It's part of GnR history whether or not they today are proud of that. 

 

I was 21 at the time and I was in the US. I thought the song sucked at that time. Not just now. Then.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Yes. So why do we have to be chasing all the other artists who are plausible of having committed the same mistakes as Axl?

There are thousands of them. This thread is gonna be 100 pages if we follow that path and this is still a GN'R forum.

 

Well, you posted a quote from Vernon Reid about Axl and I remembered that article I had on my GnR related bookmarks, which I posted with no further comments. You chose to make a debate out of it. 

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gnrcane said:

If he would have made the one line "Police and hustlers" instead of using the n-word, the song would have been fine and maybe even gotten a single release.

The "immigrants and f****s, they make no sense to me" line isn't really anything that would have been that controversial in 1988.  Sure it was a "gay slur" but it wasn't looked at anything like the n-word back then.  Like I said earlier, Dire Straits used the word more times in a song that was a hit single.  In that verse he was describing his feelings that they "make no sense to him" upon observation when he arrived from a small town into a big city filled with both immigrants and gays.

Had Axl changed one word in the whole song, history would be different and it would probably be included in the box set.

The 'f' word wan't okay back then but it wan't just the word. It was the thing about 'spread some fucking disease.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the USA the only place in the world that receives immigration, has black population and people with alternative sexual orientation? :question:

I swear I saw a black guy from Senegal selling watches two blocks away from my home in South America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Well, you posted a quote from Vernon Reid about Axl and I remembered that article I had on my GnR related bookmarks, which I posted with no further comments. You chose to make a debate out of it. 

:lol:

Funny innocent butterfly Blackstar :hug:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bigpoop said:

That's whataboutisim. Vernon Reid being a hypocrite or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether he was right about Axl. He was.

He was, although, like I said earlier in the thread, the problem with OIAM wasn't the use of the epithets imo, but the context in which Axl used them. The focus of the criticism in the press (and by Reid and other people) in America, as far as I can tell, was the words though (so if Axl used the word "blacks" Reid wouldn't have a problem, I guess). And, probably as a consequence, at first Axl focused his defense on the words as well.

And it is relevant because it matters who says what. What if Axl criticised someone else for using an epithet in their song? Would that be irrelevant?

Edited by Blackstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bigpoop said:

I was 21 at the time and I was in the US. I thought the song sucked at that time. Not just now. Then.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of the song. It's a dangerous lyric song but fits GnR. Not that GnR was racist or prejudiced. I think nothing is further than the truth.  The song is a sign of those times. The song belongs on Lies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Gnrcane said:

 Like I said earlier, Dire Straits used the word more times in a song that was a hit single. 

Even if I wouldn't know the backstory of Money for nothing, IMO it's pretty obvious that Mark Knopfler is not bashing gays, but he is directing those words to someone else who actually does that and  Mark is reflecting that person's thoughts in the song. As far as I know, Mark took some heat because he used that word and he changed it in his later performances.

 

In general level my thoughts on this song: 

 I think there is three ways this song can be interpreted:

1. not understand the context on the song 

2. understand the context and be ok with it (I've read a comment by a gay guy, who said he understood the context just fine and was actually insulted when he heard a censored, PC- version of the song - go figure.)

3.  understand the context of the song and still be insulted by it.  This is the part I think many straight people (myself included) might not take into account. If you are called derogatory terms because of your sexual orientation etc., hearing those words can still hurt even if they are not meant to insult you... (like in this case in Money for nothing)  

Just my two cents.  

 

Edited by Fourteenbeers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bigpoop said:

The 'f' word wan't okay back then but it wan't just the word. It was the thing about 'spread some fucking disease.'

It was 100x more OK back then than it is now.  There was a hit song that used the word twice as much with a video that was played a ton on MTV.

The "spread some fucking disease" line is understandable in the context of 1988.  AIDS was only discovered a few years earlier and it was still seen as a disease spread by gay men.  The original, official name for AIDS was GRID.  It stood for Gay Related Immunodeficiency.  Even though IV drug users were known to be at risk, the "atmosphere" back then was that the straight junkies got it from sharing needles with gay junkies.  Blood transfusion cases were also assumed to have originated with gay donors.  It wasn't until Magic Johnson announced he was HIV+ in 1991 that people started to see it as a heterosexual issue as well.  Even in 2014 (from CDC data), 70% of HIV infections were gay and bisexual men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Fourteenbeers said:

3.  understand the context of the song and still be insulted by it.  This is the part I think many straight people (myself included) might not take into account. If you are called derogatory terms because of your sexual orientation etc., hearing those words can still hurt even if they are not meant to insult you... (like in this case in Money for nothing)  

I agree. In my case, I dont belong to any of the groups he roasted in the song, but I do know at least one individual that belongs to each group and I feel for them, because my personal experience with each group is, in general, pretty good.

So while I'm not personally insulted by the song, I can still see the prejudice behind and shake my head at it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, estrangedtwat said:

If you don't like the song, don't fucking listen to it.  Don't tell people that do like that they can't.  Everyone's happy.

Have there been people who have actually said that here though?  I am too lazy to read all 9 pages lol

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rayno said:

If maturity = trying to avoid controversy, then yes. But I do not believe that's the case and especially not when it comes to rock'n'roll.

@Raynoabsolute freedom not exist, this is a fantasy ,you can't say too wathever thing in the forum because have rules that you need accept ,Axl Don't want back with OIAM all controversy this song caused, not have sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see why they removed it and I'm not really bothered that they did. It's not really a song I go to listen to at all. When it comes down to it if they did include it then if you didn't want to listen to it you wouldn't have to. But as I said I can see why they did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

To me, although the song is undeniably offensive, condemning minority groups isn't really the point of the song; the point is to reveal the state of mind of the speaker aka Axl who condemns himself.  

In the first verse he talks of 'needing peace of mind'...especially of the kind that 'will stay', which is why he has to 'get away' in the first place.  

But in the second verse, upon arriving in LA, he's already lashing out at police and N***** with the attitude of someone who feels harassed (he doesn't need gold chains, just needs his ticket - a whiff of desperation here), so that by the time we get to the final line of that verse, he's asking them to 'cut him some slack'.  

By the third verse, Axl, already feeling victimised, is lashing out at immigrants etc...and saying that they 'don't make any sense to him'...they talk too many ways...it's all Greek to him and all the rest of it.  But the most revealing verse for me, is the fourth, where he pretty much admits that he's 'crazy' and that's what everyone else thinks of him too, and that 'it's been such a long time since he knew right from wrong'.  Couple this with his lyric about being a 'small town white boy...trying to make ends meet' and the song is really about Axl in survival mode and his struggle to adapt, more than it is about his hatred/fear of minority groups (although that sentiment is undoubtably present in the song).

To me, these are the lyrics of a tormented man trying to escape his own miserable life by fleeing to LA, but instead of finding peace of mind, he encounters unfamiliar people and situations that confuse and bewilder him, and put him on edge, basically making him feel worse.  He seems to be aware of it though.  He seems to know he lacks the emotional intelligence to process what he's seeing/experiencing hence the lyric about being a 'small town white boy' who is probably 'crazy' and 'doesn't know right from wrong'.  So he's not taking himself off the hook here.  He knows he's being a prick.  His rejection of religion in the fifth verse suggests he might be trying to leave the small town boy behind.  He's in a process of transformation and other people are bearing the brunt of his struggle with that.

So, while the song is offensive, and I can understand people taking offence, I wouldn't want it removed from future pressings because to me, it shows Axl's starting point.  And that's an important part Axl's and the band's history.  

This is a pretty good analysis of it. I still think it was released to cause controversy and Axl never had the intelligence to explain it the way you are doing it now. That's strange.

I really dont care what happens to this song in the future. Hopefully it doesnt come back to bite his ass once again. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

To me, although the song is undeniably offensive, condemning minority groups isn't really the point of the song; the point is to reveal the state of mind of the speaker aka Axl who condemns himself.  

In the first verse he talks of 'needing peace of mind'...especially of the kind that 'will stay', which is why he has to 'get away' in the first place.  

But in the second verse, upon arriving in LA, he's already lashing out at police and N***** with the attitude of someone who feels harassed (he doesn't need gold chains, just needs his ticket - a whiff of desperation here), so that by the time we get to the final line of that verse, he's asking them to 'cut him some slack'.  

By the third verse, Axl, already feeling victimised, is lashing out at immigrants etc...and saying that they 'don't make any sense to him'...they talk too many ways...it's all Greek to him and all the rest of it.  But the most revealing verse for me, is the fourth, where he pretty much admits that he's 'crazy' and that's what everyone else thinks of him too, and that 'it's been such a long time since he knew right from wrong'.  Couple this with his lyric about being a 'small town white boy...trying to make ends meet' and the song is really about Axl in survival mode and his struggle to adapt, more than it is about his hatred/fear of minority groups (although that sentiment is undoubtably present in the song).

To me, these are the lyrics of a tormented man trying to escape his own miserable life by fleeing to LA, but instead of finding peace of mind, he encounters unfamiliar people and situations that confuse and bewilder him, and put him on edge, basically making him feel worse.  He seems to be aware of it though.  He seems to know he lacks the emotional intelligence to process what he's seeing/experiencing hence the lyric about being a 'small town white boy' who is probably 'crazy' and 'doesn't know right from wrong'.  So he's not taking himself off the hook here.  He knows he's being a prick.  His rejection of religion in the fifth verse suggests he might be trying to leave the small town boy behind.  He's in a process of transformation and other people are bearing the brunt of his struggle with that.

So, while the song is offensive, and I can understand people taking offence, I wouldn't want it removed from future pressings because to me, it shows Axl's starting point.  And that's an important part Axl's and the band's history.  

Very insightful interpretation and I pretty much agree.

There are two different things though. 

One is the story behind the song, Axl's story, or, as you very well put it, the song as part of Axl's and the band's history.

The other is the history of the song itself, i.e. of the way it's been perceived as part of Axl's and the band's history by the public, irrespective of the story behind it, Axl's intentions and what he expressed with it. And OIAM has been engraved in the collective consciousness as just a highly offensive song. Even the people who like it and, as someone said earlier, "celebrate" it, they like it as such, as a "ballsilly offensive" song. That wouldn't change even if Axl explained it as you did -and he had explained parts of it along the these lines- as after it was communicated to the public it became its own thing and Axl couldn't control it.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

I've just never thought OIAM was a great song I don't hate it or love it, it's just there for me. 

2 minutes ago, killuridols said:

This is a pretty good analysis of it. I still think it was released to cause controversy and Axl never had the intelligence to explain it the way you are doing it now. That's strange.

I really dont care what happens to this song in the future. Hopefully it doesnt come back to bite his ass once again. 

Yeah, the song itself has no great effect on me, I don't like or dislike it.  It's the principle of censorship that matters to me.  I'm just not a fan of bands tampering with their history, I prefer everything - good and bad - to be preserved as is.  But that's just me.  I'm sure it was released to cause controversy, too. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Yeah, the song itself has no great effect on me, I don't like or dislike it.  It's the principle of censorship that matters to me.  I'm just not a fan of bands tampering with their history, I prefer everything - good and bad - to be preserved as is.  But that's just me.  I'm sure it was released to cause controversy, too. 

 

I think in this case though I don't consider it not preserved as it, or tampering with history because it isn't being pulled from any copy of GNR Lies and is still available on its original preserved spot on that album - it just isn't included on a deluxe box set for an album that it was not even originally on in the first place

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WhazUp said:

I think in this case though I don't consider it not preserved as it, or tampering with history because it isn't being pulled from any copy of GNR Lies and is still available on its original preserved spot on that album - it just isn't included on a deluxe box set for an album that it was not even originally on in the first place

Oh, I thought it was being removed from future pressings?  Guess I read something wrong somewhere. :lol:  I don't have any problem with it being excluded from the box set - like you say, it's supposed to be AFD centric anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Oh, I thought it was being removed from future pressings?  Guess I read something wrong somewhere. :lol:  I don't have any problem with it being excluded from the box set - like you say, it's supposed to be AFD centric anyway.

Yeah it hasn't been removed from the original album (and I wouldn't agree with that) and I don't think there's intention for it to be removed. It just isn't included in the box (which I agree with - there would be no reason for that).

In a 2000 article Axl, or most likely someone on his behalf, said that it was going to be removed from future pressings, but apparently he changed his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blackstar said:

In a 2000 article Axl, or most likely someone on his behalf, said that it was going to be removed from future pressings, but apparently he changed his mind.

I think he said something similar along the lines for Look At Your Game, Girl too, right?  I could be wrong on that, however I am glad neither have been yanked off of their original albums!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

I think he said something similar along the lines for Look At Your Game, Girl too, right?  I could be wrong on that, however I am glad neither have been yanked off of their original albums!

Yes, you right Manson song .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

I think he said something similar along the lines for Look At Your Game, Girl too, right?  I could be wrong on that, however I am glad neither have been yanked off of their original albums!

I think not but I could be mistaken. What he said is that royalties (?) of the song would be given to the families of Manson's victims, but I don't know if that ever materialized.

The good thing about that silly song is that it is a hidden track so if you don't know much about GNR you'll probably never know about it.

Edited by killuridols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...