One In A Million being erased from history

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, RONIN said:

The last thing I'd add is that the lyrics for OIAM paint an incredibly unflattering portrait of Axl compared to the genius auteur that he/fans envisioned him as during the Chinese Democracy years. The "sophisticated artist" image Axl was chasing for the last 20 years is immediately undone by that song because of the stunning ignorance of OIAM's lyrics. I'd wager Axl is deeply embarrassed by this song (and the Charlie Manson track). 

Do you think it would be better to have it removed?

I equate this to the "right to be forgotten", that came up with Google and other search engines, which make it possible for people to dig up your past and condemn you forever for something you did or something that happened to you. In some ways, keeping OIAM out there is allowing idiots, racists and other haters to use the song for their own agenda. Even knowing that the song it is a very personal experience of Axl, people still use it to justify their own crap (regardless of the song having crap lyrics)......

Looking at the reaction that its non-inclusion got recently, it seems to me Axl would be better off without that song perpetually portraying him in a very unflattering way, like you said.

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

Duff came up with the explanation of the "third party comment" many years later. When OIAM was released he had said different things:

I think each individual has to interpret it as they like. As for me? I think it's kinda funny! It's real life, and this band has never minced words when it comes to real life. The song is basically Axl's view of coming to downtown L.A. for the first time. He was from Indiana, he was real green--and L.A. blew his mind. [...] You have to remember--we've lived all this stuff. When you saw these dirty white-trash (expletive) guys on Hollywood Boulevard--hey, that was us! [...] I'm sure it'll bother some people--and I can understand that. But the song is a way of describing what happened to us, not making any value judgments. [...] If you're just exposing aspects of life that are already out there, what's the problem with that? When I was 14, I thought Sid Vicious was cool, but I knew that didn't mean I had to OD on heroin. This is just our song--and we're not asking for everyone to like it. I don't think we have to be responsible for everybody else's opinion [Duff, Guns N' Roses Living Up to Notoriety, Los Angeles Times, December 1988]

That whole thing’s such a bunch of crap, man. Slash is half black. I come from a family that’s a quarter black. And if you [assumes a bullhorn voice] READERS OUT THERE, if you listen to all the lyrics, you might learn something. Axl was a fuckin’ wet behind the ears white boy in LA for the first time and he was scared to death! That’s what the song is about. People are just gonna have to take it whichever way they think is right. I mean, I don’t even like talking about it anymore. All it is, is a tale about a certain part of town. Yes, the story is told by a white kid, but that’s his story. And Axl’s got such a reputation now, he’s so well know, that of course they’re gonna jump all over his fucking ass. He said that dirty word. I mean, tell me about it. I’ve been an uncle since I was two. It was my older sister’s first child and it was a black kid. When I was growing up I was surrounded by nieces and nephews and cousins that were black, plus my own immediate family, who were white of course. Until I started school, I didn’t know there was a difference in black and white. That was the first time I heard anybody call somebody a hooray for tolerance!. I didn’t even know what the word meant. I still don’t. So I feel strongly about this. The bottom line is, Axl is not prejudiced. There is no prejudice in this band. It’s just a tale of what happened to a kid from Indiana, okay? And just being scared off his fucking ass by what he finds in the big city. [...] That song was that song. I can’t see us ever doing a song like that again. Not because we’re chicken shit to do it, just because that was then. There’s nothing left in our lives like that [Duff, Kerrang, March 1990]

I find Duff even more stupid and dumber than Axl

First quote is completely ignorant and the second one is the typical "I have a gay friend / I have a jew friend" kind of justification..... Being scared doesn't equal being a mean piece of poopoo. And by 1988, when Lies came out, was Axl still a green boy from Indiana? Bullshit, he was almost 27 years old, and the rest of them weren't kids either.

He/they could have refrained from releasing it but either he still felt like that by 1989 or he wanted to cause trouble just for the sake of it. I don't know how could he/they think releasing that song would bring anything else but controversy

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by killuridols

[Original]

Too bad  “Guns n Roses” circa 1994-2015ish can’t be erased.  Way more offensive than OIAM in my opinion.  

[rocknroll41]

Why are the Lies tracks even being included on this reissue anyway? 

Do you guys think the band knew the press would talk so much about OIAM being removed? ...Is that maybe what they WANT all the press to be talking about?

all press is good press (or so they say).

[Hollywood Gunner]

anyone whos offended by this song should get over their sensitive ass self

[AksiMaximus]

It was probably removed because of the numerous stereotypical and "offensive" words. I understand that the majority of those words have a cruel / dark history behind them, but what I DON'T understand is that everyone tends to fuck out about the most little thing that back in the old days, would not have offended a fucking mosquito. Back In 1988 - 91 (I think?) no one cared at all, that Axl used the N-word, or the Fag-word. Look up the live version of One In A Million. You'll see what I mean.

Edited May 10, 2018 by AksiMaximus
Edited 'cuz some people may confuse the old part of my reply as the word fuck, instead of the fag one.

[RONIN]

13 hours ago, killuridols said:

Do you think it would be better to have it removed?

I equate this to the "right to be forgotten", that came up with Google and other search engines, which make it possible for people to dig up your past and condemn you forever for something you did or something that happened to you. In some ways, keeping OIAM out there is allowing idiots, racists and other haters to use the song for their own agenda. Even knowing that the song it is a very personal experience of Axl, people still use it to justify their own crap (regardless of the song having crap lyrics)......

Looking at the reaction that its non-inclusion got recently, it seems to me Axl would be better off without that song perpetually portraying him in a very unflattering way, like you said.

I mean look, at the end of the day, it's the artist's call. If Axl feels the song is vital to his artistry and the band's legacy - then keep it as an artistic statement. I don't really think censorship is a good enough deterrent to prevent morons from rallying behind a dog whistle. Whether it's from Axl or someone else - people will find what they're looking for. They can choose something (perceived as) divisive for their anthem (OIAM) or inclusive (Madagascar) - the artist is merely a conduit here. Interpretation is the choice of the audience.

If Axl is embarrassed by the song and/or feels like it doesn't reflect where he's at as an artist right now - then yeah, it's his right to dump the song into oblivion. Censorship sucks but if the artist decides to delete a track from their discography of their own volition without being pressured into it - what's the big deal here? Anyone with a phone or computer can pull up the song on Spotify or download it. It isn't being deleted from history. This isn't a PC move where Axl is bowing down to pressure (since when has Axl listened to anyone or given them what they want) - this is entirely his call. An artist can do whatever they want to their art. 

As far as the publicity -  right now, it's reminding certain people why they dislike GnR (because in their mind GnR is a band for racists and homophobes) and it's a bummer to the anti-censorship/anti-PC crowd who feel like Axl is bowing down to the pressure. All of this is temporary and will dissipate with time imho because not including OIAM in this boxset is just a symbolic PR move - nothing more. They aren't publicly denouncing the song in a press release for the boxset are they? That speaks volumes about the intentions here. I think in the grand scheme of things, it will be seen by many as a step in the right direction for the band - them shedding some of that dated "redneck" persona and going more mainstream like Metallica. You have to change with the times right?

My personal opinion, as much as I like OIAM, it's sort of like GITR or Back off Bitch. These songs, because of their lyrical content, are divisive. At best, most would say they're guilty pleasures and probably avoid listening to them with other people around. At the time, these songs were very "punk" and a middle finger to the critics/establishment - but in hindsight they just seem kinda embarrassing and ignorant now. I think the band made the right call to do this quietly and move on.

Edited May 10, 2018 by RONIN

[RONIN]

15 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Some of Axl's efforts to explain it were more articulated imo (like the one from Interview Magazine I posted on the second page of the thread as well as the one with Del in 1992) and actually made some sense (without fixing it, of course), butwhat stack was his first reaction, where he focused on rationalising (unsuccessfully) the use of the offensive words as that was where the backlash was focused too.

Duff came up with the explanation of the "third party comment" many years later. When OIAM was released he had said different things:

I think each individual has to interpret it as they like. As for me? I think it's kinda funny! It's real life, and this band has never minced words when it comes to real life. The song is basically Axl's view of coming to downtown L.A. for the first time. He was from Indiana, he was real green--and L.A. blew his mind. [...] You have to remember--we've lived all this stuff. When you saw these dirty white-trash (expletive) guys on Hollywood Boulevard--hey, that was us! [...] I'm sure it'll bother some people--and I can understand that. But the song is a way of describing what happened to us, not making any value judgments. [...] If you're just exposing aspects of life that are already out there, what's the problem with that? When I was 14, I thought Sid Vicious was cool, but I knew that didn't mean I had to OD on heroin. This is just our song--and we're not asking for everyone to like it. I don't think we have to be responsible for everybody else's opinion [Duff, Guns N' Roses Living Up to Notoriety, Los Angeles Times, December 1988]

That whole thing’s such a bunch of crap, man. Slash is half black. I come from a family that’s a quarter black. And if you [assumes a bullhorn voice] READERS OUT THERE, if you listen to all the lyrics, you might learn something. Axl was a fuckin’ wet behind the ears white boy in LA for the first time and he was scared to death! That’s what the song is about. People are just gonna have to take it whichever way they think is right. I mean, I don’t even like talking about it anymore. All it is, is a tale about a certain part of town. Yes, the story is told by a white kid, but that’s his story. And Axl’s got such a reputation now, he’s so well know, that of course they’re gonna jump all over his fucking ass. He said that dirty word. I mean, tell me about it. I’ve been an uncle since I was two. It was my older sister’s first child and it was a black kid. When I was growing up I was surrounded by nieces and nephews and cousins that were black, plus my own immediate family, who were white of course. Until I started school, I didn’t know there was a difference in black and white. That was the first time I heard anybody call somebody a hooray for tolerance!. I didn’t even know what the word meant. I still don’t. So I feel strongly about this. The bottom line is, Axl is not prejudiced. There is no prejudice in this band. It’s just a tale of what happened to a kid from Indiana, okay? And just being scared off his fucking ass by what he finds in the big city. [...] That song was that song. I can’t see us ever doing a song like that again. Not because we’re chicken shit to do it, just because that was then. There’s nothing left in our lives like that [Duff, Kerrang, March 1990]

http://www.a-4-d.com/t99-one-in-a-million

The first Duff quote, which is from the time of release, confirms what Axl said about OIAM being initially something like white trash comedy about his real life tale and at a same time a means to express his anger and other feelings about it (also explains the comedy atmosphere at the CBGB show).

Duff's first quote almost works aside from the "not making any value judgments" part because let's face it, OIAM is full of value judgments - that makes what he says sound a bit disingenuous. Omit that line out and essentially he's saying"hey take it or leave it, this is us - no fucks given, you decide how you interpret it but we brought this from a real place and imho, it's a pisstake of white trash colliding with the modern era - if you want to take it seriously, that's your call". 

That's perfectly fine. Someone could criticize OIAM for providing weak social commentary here but knowing it's intended to be a cliche "third person" take, you can't slam it for being racist or homophobic in a way that doesn't tread upon artistic censorship.

The second quote is problematic because he's way too defensive and trying to rationalize the lyrics with "well Axl was a white kid from a small town and he was scared and that was his perspective".  - the implication here is that because Axl was an ignorant kid in '82 it justifies/excuses the inflammatory slurs. 

Most people reading that quote are not going to think "Oh I see, so OIAM is sort of a snapshot of Axl in '82 and its inclusion in the album is to show the evolution of Axl as a human being/artist".

All they're going to get from this is "Oh so because Slash is half-black, and you have some black nephews, it's okay to slam black people as n-words. Is your best friend black too?  Where's the slur for the bad white people Axl met in LA?"

The current go-to answer from Duff about the song being a naive "third person" take on life in the big city is far more effective and avoids all the potential pitfalls of trying to explain away the lyrics. Why? Because he's implying that the song shouldn't be taken seriously - it's not intended to be serious. It's just a simplistic, semi-ironic song where Axl lampoons his upbringing and makes a social statement promoting inclusiveness through dialogue - all packaged in GnR's "edgy" branding.  

It's mind boggling that they successfully explained away Used to love her but couldn't tweak that explanation enough to fit OIAM. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by RONIN

[RONIN]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:21 AM, Blackstar said:

That was Axl's best effort to explain himself  - and, even though the interview is from 1992 and probably he has reviewed it and thought much more about it since then, it may also partly explain why the song won't be included in releases like this but won't be removed from the original release

http://www.a-4-d.com/t565-1992-05-dd-interview-with-axl

AXL: People have taken two parts that they wre offended by and combined them into one sentence and said that's what I said. l find that amazing. What l said, and the first thing said, is, "Police and hooray for tolerance!s, that's right, get outta my way." That's what I said.

INTERVIEW: You said what?

AXL: l said, "Police and hooray for tolerance!s, that's right, get outa my way." I'd had four or five black guys trying to rob me who were all junkies. And a couple of other guys trying to sell me gold chains. l had just gotten off the bus and people were grabbing my backpack. It was a very scary, heavy situation for me. l just got off the bus, into boom "You're in Hell, son."

INTERVIEW: just one thing --

AXL: And, a black man --

INTERVIEW: Can you just straighten something out for me a sec?

AXL: Walt, wait, one second. A black man is the one who got me out of that situation, and l call him an angel. l always have. The police were shoving me out of the way.

INTERVIEW: Is this line a lyric, though, or is it something you said on the stage?

AXL: No, that's a lyric. It's a lyric in a song called "One In a Million." It was originally written as comedy. It was written watching Sam Kinison during one of his first specials. I was sitting around with friends, drunk, with no money. One of my friends had just gotten robbed for seventy-eight cents on Christmas by two black men.

[...]

AXL: O.K. So anyway, homophobia? The song is very generic. it's very vague, it's very simple, it was meant to be that way, it was written that way. It was like, O.K., I'm writing this song as l want to -- l want this song to be like "Midnight Cowboy." That guy was very naive and involved in everything. The cowboy. My friend who got robbed, he was like Dustin Hoffman's character. l wanted the song to be written from that point of view. l wrote it to deal with my anger and my fear and my vulnerability in that situation, that l still felt uncomfortable with, that happened to me. That was the "police and hooray for tolerance!s" line. But now we move on to another line that says, "immigrants and hooray for tolerance!s, they make no sense to me/ they come to our country and spread some fucking disease." O.K., l wrote that, being a songwriter, and being an abstract songwriter and using my artistic license. The "immigrants" line, the part that says they come to our country -- wait, I just said my own verse wrong. I said what someone else said it was, that I'm really upset about. Sorry. It says, "Immigrants and hooray for tolerance!s, they make no sense to me/ they come to our country and think they'll do as they please / like start some mini-Iran, or spread some fucking disease / and they talk so many goddamned ways / it's all Greek to me." O.K.? I can understand not understanding what the hell I meant in that, because I jumbled two thought patterns together.

INTERVIEW: Among other things, that was interpreted as though you're saying stuff about AIDS.

AXL: It goes back and forth, it twists... Well, I am saying stuff about AIDS. The line about "hooray for tolerance!s" was written after I heard a story from a sheriff about a man they had just arrested after just releasing from jail, and he had AIDS, and he was back out on Santa Monica Boulevard hooking. We were like, "Oh, my God." And this just happened to get stuck in the song, since we had a radical line like "police and hooray for tolerance!s" -- we might as well go all the way now, we'll write something else just as obnoxious, because we were just writing off-color humor at the time. We were dealing with a situation that was really heavy, ugly, and scary, and so we were making light of it. l was being encouraged to write as l was writing.

INTERVIEW: Are you saying to me that you wrote what was going on in your mind?

AXL: And what was going on in the room I was in. And what was going on with a lot of people that I knew. There was a lot of confusion about a lot of issues, a lot of confusion about racism. We were being told this is "We Are the World." It wasn't fucking "We Are the World." It was "We Are the World" for a chosen few who did a nice little song or something, but down in the streets, it was war. That was being just glossed right over. People have said that I've devastated the consciousness of "We Are the World" and rah-rah-rah -- It's like, "No, your 'We Are the World' consciousness was a nice try, but all it did was gloss over the shit that's going on.'" And somehow, by some freak act of God, l exposed it all. You know? And people had to deal with the issues.

[...]

INTERVIEW: I think that self-exposure is a very important thing; it's how you find out who you are. Although the context is completely different, a lot of this conversation is reminding me of Robert Mapplethorpe and all the issues of self- censorship that came up with his work. People can like it, they can hate it, and, unfortunately, it can even fuel more awful prejudice, but the way we learn about human consciousness is when people show their truth like he did.

AXL: That's the issue that I dealt with on "One In a Million" all the time. it's very strange because l know -- I didn't realize it then -- but, I know there's people in, say, Louisiana, where giving them that song is like giving them a gun and telling them, "It's O.K., go shoot those you're prejudiced against." It's a rough one. I mean, Freddie Mercury and Elton John are, like, two of the biggest Influences in my whole life. And probably always will be. If someone asked me if I could have anything in the world, what would l want? If l could own anything, like owning a piece of art, l think it would be Elton John's publishing, on his first seven albums. I don't want the money. Being able to own those songs Is like owning a painting of someone you admire.

INTERVIEW: Axl, you live in L.A., right?

AXL: Yes. Wait, can l talk about another line In the song?

INTERVIEW: Sure.

AXL: The other line, the "immigrants" line. I've only performed the song "One In a Million" twice. l don't perform it, because l think it's too dangerous and l don't trust people with the song. I don't trust the audience with the song. I don't want to do "One in a Million" on stage and know that there's a lot of people out there in the crowd who are prejudiced and it's gonna help fuel their fire. It's enough to handle the fact that it's on a record and people use it for their own anthems for their own prejudiced-ness. I question myself every day. Should l pull it? Should I leave it? Do l leave it for the sake of artistic integrity? Do I pull it, do I censor myself? But wait, I'm against censorship. It's a really hard issue to constantly deal with. The only way to deal with it is to communicate about it. l don't like the damage that that song does, l don't like the prejudiced-ness, l don't like the way the song fuels people's prejudiced-ness, and that's a problem for me. l made an apology on the cover of the record. Looking at it now, it's not the best apology, but it was the best apology l could make back then. l knew people were going to be offended, and it says my apology is to those who take offense. Or to who may be offended, whatever it says. I was trying to explain the reasons why I was expressing myself in this way and apologizing if it did offend people. The apology is on the cover of every record. it's not a sticker; it's part of the cover. It's stuck in there with all kinds of other things on the cover -- it's done like a National Enquirer thing. l wrote it myself and put it on there, it was my Idea, and it's like it's been refused to be acknowledged. "One in a Million" has been used continually against Guns N' Roses and against myself, no matter what l had to say about it.

INTERVIEW: Why, do you think?

AXL: In order to deal with "One in a Million" properly, you had to accept the fact that certain things really exist. But for whatever reasons -- I don't know, whatever negative forces there are -- it was just decided to take one point of view and continually shove that dawn people's throats. It helped make money. It helped make a lot of people money. Because people could just get in there and needle and fuel up peopIe's anger and make money: "Wait, we've gotm( nothing to write about. Let's write about 'One in a Million,' let's talk about that now. Go!" We've got some attention because we've got controversy and we've got an ugly scandal, rah-rah-rah. But l think that "One In a Million" has done some good, too. People have thought about what racism means In their own life by being pissed off at Axl Rose, and made decisions and even acted on those decisions, and many were positive. There's a lot of negative ones too, but some were positive. It forced people to speak when they heard it.

INTERVIEW: It also --

AXL: They had to take a side on how they felt about these issues. That's a strange amount of power for a song to have.

INTERVIEW: It also empowers people to say, "That's not good enough. We don't want to hear lyrics like that."

AXL: It gives them theIr choice.

INTERVIEW: Would you say that the reaction to the lyrics helped you change?

AXL: Yes, to be able to rise above it, and deal with it, and not be crushed by certain negativity.

INTERVIEW: And be open about it.

AXL: Yes, it definitely helped me to be able to change. I went out and got all kinds of video tapes and read books on racism. Books by Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X. Reading them and studying, then after that l put on the tape and l realized, "Wow, I'm still proud of this song." That's strange. What does that mean? But l couldn't communicate as well as do now about it, so my frustration was just turned to anger. Then my anger would be used against me and my frustration would be used against me: "Look, he's throwing a tantrum."

INTERVIEW: You've got a big tour this summer, right?

AXL: Yes, a nIce, big, fun tour. What l didn't get back to was the line In "One in a Million" that wrote about immigrants. I wasn't really living anywhere and I'd been hassled a few times in convenience stores and gas stations, and told by the way l looked that I couldn't even go Into stores. At one store I'd been chased out with a butcher knife just because the guy went crazy. It was just my frustration with dealing with all that in L.A. I wasn't condemning people from other countries. People like to say that that's what my thoughts were. No. Just because the lines were real, simple, and angry, they're reading a lot more Into it than was really there. The last verse has always been Ignored.

INTERVIEW: What is it?

AXL: It has a line that says, "Radicals and racists, don't point your finger at me." Then it says, "I'm a small-town white boy." People have taken that like that's waving a flag that I'm pro-white or something. To say "small-town white boy" at the time that l put that In that song was something you didn't say. You didn't say that when you were trying to play the rock clubs, you'd just gotten to Hollywood, and people are going, "You look like you just got off the boat. Are you some fucking hick from Indiana, or what?" Or whatever. I was saying, "Look, yeah, I'm this naive, confused, small-town white boy, and l have a lot of problems, so racists, don't point your finger at me and go off and say I'm one of you, or whatever. And radicals, don't you be going off on me and saying I'm on your side or against your side or whatever."

 

This explanation is fine for what it is but it's further proof that Axl's lyrics for OIAM were not effective in bringing across the message he intended. As @killuridols said a few pages back, the song isn't particularly clever or insightful in what it's trying to convey - there isn't much wit or a sense of wryness (as say "Used to love her") - OIAM just comes off as an angry, tone-deaf rant without any levity to defuse the slurs as social commentary. Axl's penmanship is pretty piss poor here as well - he's no wordsmith with OIAM (which would have gone a long way in defusing the controversy).

As you said, most people judge Axl on his initial interviews for OIAM which were --- erm...less than nuanced. It would have been so much easier for him to justify that song if he had just said that he's playing a character in it and giving a simplistic tongue-in-cheek pisstake of a midwestern boy adjusting to life in the big city. That's all he had to say. Anybody could draw conclusions from there about the song being semi-autobiographical without him having to get too deep into the intentions behind the lyrics. Instead he waded into controversy with poorly thought out arguments that made him appear like an ignorant racist homophobe. Game over.

The intent of the song may have been genuine but the way he conveyed the meaning of the song to the press in '89 backfired on him spectacularly. OIAM is tainted with all of that baggage. It is what it is now unfortunately.

Edited May 10, 2018 by RONIN

[Stress Fracture]

4 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

Why are the Lies tracks even being included on this reissue anyway? 

Do you guys think the band knew the press would talk so much about OIAM being removed? ...Is that maybe what they WANT all the press to be talking about?

all press is good press (or so they say).

GN’R Lies is currently back in the iTunes top 100 in the U.K and the AFD LN’L box set has ultimately been advertised by every media outlet.

[bigpoop]

1 hour ago, RONIN said:

 It would have been so much easier for him to justify that song if he had just said that he's playing a character in it and giving a simplistic tongue-in-cheek pisstake of a midwestern boy adjusting to life in the big city. That's all he had to say. 

 Honestly that is the one thing I can appreciate in all this. That he didn't do that. Yes it would have been easier for him to say it was all a character but it would't have been true. It's not a character. It's him.

[DieselDaisy]

I do not believe racists have ever been attracted to Guns N' Roses. Their lead singer wore chaps onstage for crying out loud. Then you had those gushy ballads later. Nope, far too much of a woofter band for any self-respecting racist (granted many racists are closet woofters).

Edited May 10, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[RONIN]

1 hour ago, bigpoop said:

 Honestly that is the one thing I can appreciate in all this. That he didn't do that. Yes it would have been easier for him to say it was all a character but it would't have been true. It's not a character. It's him.

Exactly. Which means that you have only one option available, own the song completely. The problem is Axl tried to have it both ways - he wanted to keep his integrity by not claiming the song was a joke - but on the other hand he couldn't successfully defend his point of view. Hence, the backlash. The situation would repeat itself with the Charles Manson track.

Marilyn Manson kinda sums it up:

"It’s interesting to me that Axl Rose would write a song like that and then back down in the press and not be able to defend his statement," he says. "If you’re going to have the balls to make that kind of statement, then you should be able to back it up. So I figure I’ll say it and then show him how it’s done properly. These people really don’t know how to do anything right!" Manson huffs. "I have to take up all their slack for them. I’m not doing it because I agree with their statements, but because someone needs to do it properly." (1998)

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=66

Manson also adds his 2 cents on Look at your Game Girl:

"I went out to LA to talk to Trent about starting the record and we were backstage at a concert hanging out with Axl Rose. He was telling me about The Spaghetti Incident record and hadn't mentioned anything about Manson. I think it's a case of someone with no respect anymore trying to get some notoriety from the underground crowd. I think it was a shallow thing. It was even more shallow that he didn't back himself up on it. He cried to the press like a pussy. It was a publicity stunt that totally backfired. (1994)

http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:Seconds_Magazine_Interviews_Marilyn_Manson_%26_Madonna_Wayne_Gacy

Edited May 10, 2018 by RONIN

[Blackstar]

@RONIN, I think that UTLH was better defended simply because it was way more easily defensible. The two songs, UTLH and OIAM, are not comparable imo for many reasons.

For one, there were precedents of the type of tongue-in-cheek thing UTLH was, and its music and delivery helped in it not being misconstrued as anything more than that. And even if the lyrics were taken literally and seen as offensive, there has been a long "tradition" of that particular offense (sexism/misogyny) in rock, whether we like it or not, which has made it kinda of "acceptable" or at least overlook-able; so, even if there was a case to be made about UTLH in that regard, the same case could be made about numerous other songs, older and contemporary, which makes it just another song of that kind and not something to be singled out.

Racism from the POV of a white person, on the other hand, was absolutely not accepted even then in the world of rock/pop music (there was ground for homophobia though). And the music, as well as the delivery of it on the recording, didn't help in it not be taken seriously/literally, even though it did start -and was originally meant- as tongue-in-cheek comedy.

I agree with @bigpoop (I saw that you agreed too) that saying OIAM was about someone else wouldn't have been convincing and, on top of that, it would have been a lie. I don't blame Axl for trying to defend himself the way he did, i.e. to tell the truth about the story behind it and why he wrote it that way. I don't even blame him for not writing it in another way, more clever of whatever, either, if that was how he felt writing it at the time. Basically OIAM was WTTJ from another angle and that's how Axl wanted it.

In the end, the problem with OIAM is that it was released. Like I said earlier, songs, like any other work of art (I'm not getting into whether pop/rock music is "real art" or whatever), from the moment they are released get out of their creators' hands and become their own thing; moreso something like OIAM in the "to your face" way it was written. It wouldn't have made any difference if Axl or Duff or anyone else had explained/defended OIAM better. Maybe only to people who liked Axl and the band enough to be open to give him the benefit of the doubt and/or be convinced by what they had to say.

5 hours ago, RONIN said:

Exactly. Which means that you have only one option available, own the song completely. The problem is Axl tried to have it both ways - he wanted to keep his integrity by not claiming the song was a joke - but on the other hand he couldn't successfully defend his point of view. Hence, the backlash. The situation would repeat itself with the Charles Manson track.

Marilyn Manson kinda sums it up:

"It’s interesting to me that Axl Rose would write a song like that and then back down in the press and not be able to defend his statement," he says. "If you’re going to have the balls to make that kind of statement, then you should be able to back it up. So I figure I’ll say it and then show him how it’s done properly. These people really don’t know how to do anything right!" Manson huffs. "I have to take up all their slack for them. I’m not doing it because I agree with their statements, but because someone needs to do it properly." (1998)

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=66

Manson also adds his 2 cents on Look at your Game Girl:

"I went out to LA to talk to Trent about starting the record and we were backstage at a concert hanging out with Axl Rose. He was telling me about The Spaghetti Incident record and hadn't mentioned anything about Manson. I think it's a case of someone with no respect anymore trying to get some notoriety from the underground crowd. I think it was a shallow thing. It was even more shallow that he didn't back himself up on it. He cried to the press like a pussy. It was a publicity stunt that totally backfired. (1994)

http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:Seconds_Magazine_Interviews_Marilyn_Manson_%26_Madonna_Wayne_Gacy

I've seen this point being made many times, that it would've been better if Axl had at least stood by the song and been unrepentant about it with a "no fucks given" attitude, or that this is what he should have done. I don't agree. He had/has every right to regret it (I mean really regret it, not as in PR). Moreover, own it as what? A hate song written by a racist/homophobic person? How he could have done that, if he really didn't think of the song and of himself like that?

As for Marilyn Manson, whose mouth is much bigger than Axl's , he didn't cover OIAM in the end, did he? I wonder why. And the underlined part of the quote about Look At Your Game Girl just isn't true.

P.S. Axl did claim that OIAM was conceived as a joke.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Blackstar

[Nice Boy]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not believe racists have ever been attracted to Guns N' Roses. 

Well.. the British neo-Nazi band Skrewdriver covered and released OIAM

[killuridols]

6 hours ago, AksiMaximus said:

It was probably removed because of the numerous stereotypical and "offensive" words. I understand that the majority of those words have a cruel / dark history behind them, but what I DON'T understand is that everyone tends to fuck out about the most little thing that back in the old days, would not have offended a fucking mosquito. Back In 1988 - 91 (I think?) no one cared at all, that Axl used the N-word, or the Fag-word. Look up the live version of One In A Million. You'll see what I mean.

When Lies came out I was a kid and was not into GN'R yet, but 3 years later (1991) when I finally became a fan, I remember reading about OIAM being a controversial song, considered racist and homophobic, and how it wasn't cool to say those things to people from those groups (as a kid, I was learning)

So I don't think no one cared about it at all.... they did.... at least in the USA, it was already an issue, especially the racial problems. I guess it was in 1992 when that black guy got shot by a white cop and there were riots all over L.A.. And I think a few seconds of the speech the black guy gave in press conference are featured in the video for WTTJ from Live Era (that's in 1999).

People laughing and not giving a damn during OIAM live performance are an all white audience. GN'R wouldn't have had the balls to go playing that song in the middle of the Bronx during those years.

6 hours ago, RONIN said:

I don't really think censorship is a good enough deterrent to prevent morons from rallying behind a dog whistle. Whether it's from Axl or someone else - people will find what they're looking for. They can choose something (perceived as) divisive for their anthem (OIAM) or inclusive (Madagascar) - the artist is merely a conduit here. Interpretation is the choice of the audience.

Since it seems Axl and the band consider OIAM to be a "snapshot" of Axl's life back there's no point in keeping it available when you see that 30 years later it doesn't function like a snapshot anymore and it's become a constant reminder of who he was (but for some people he still is that).

I don't agree that interpretation is a choice here. OIAM is a blatant statement. Ignorant to the bone, no matter how anyone tries to justify it. There's a reason why some people use it for their divisive agenda, the same way people use "Imagine" as a song for unity, peace and love. They are both pretty direct and simple in their message, one for bad the other for good.

Madagascar is not about inclusion of minorities. I think once we analyzed the MLK speech used in that song and it was more like a cut-paste of phrases that Axl used to convey a message to the old lineup or something like that. Besides, I consider using MLK speeches like the most cliché you can do when you want to address racial issues. I really don't know why Axl had to do that, he's still very ignorant of everything black community and appropriating MLK words is the same as people wearing Che Guevara's t-shirts to make themselves look revolutionary or something. A total cringe.

5 hours ago, RONIN said:

It's mind boggling that they successfully explained away Used to love her but couldn't tweak that explanation enough to fit OIAM. 

I think that happens because 1) UTLH melody gives the song the vibe of something drunk guys would sing during a party, while OIAM musical tone is serious, dark and it accompanies the angry tone of the lyrics. 2) Women are still in the battle for their rights and patriarchy is rooted so deep that there's almost nothing in the culture that it is not crossed by it. UTLH sometimes comes out in the press as a mysoginist song, because some guys have used it as a soundtrack to commit murder of their girlfriends/wives  and not many people eat that story about it being about a female dog. Much less in this era of animal rights protection...... Axl was so ignorant that his songs can't get away with their messages no matter how many explanations he comes up with  

5 hours ago, RONIN said:

It would have been so much easier for him to justify that song if he had just said that he's playing a character in it and giving a simplistic tongue-in-cheek pisstake of a midwestern boy adjusting to life in the big city. That's all he had to say. Anybody could draw conclusions from there about the song being semi-autobiographical without him having to get too deep into the intentions behind the lyrics. Instead he waded into controversy with poorly thought out arguments that made him appear like an ignorant racist homophobe. Game over.

Because that's the Axl who believed he was the king of the world, the guy who knew it all, the fuck-you guy who can and will do whatever he pleases and everybody else has to fuck off or STFU.

That is his ignorance and arrogance playing a really bad move on him. He couldn't come up with a good argument because he thought he was right, that he was allowed to stigmatized anyone he wanted, that his logic was the logic of everybody else.... like, why can't people see those n---, those immigrants and those f--- are scum and they were bugging me, me the king of the world, who must not be bothered by anyone? 

And this is why the other cool guys from the cool bands didn't like him. They could see his arrogance and his inability to not think of himself as nothing else but the center of the universe.

[DieselDaisy]

Completely self-defeating really. Most people who buy this, even the cheaper option, will already own Lies, and will resort to playing that album over this incomplete disc on the boxset - some might even reincorporate ''One In A Million'' on their playlists. The few who haven't got Lies - newbies perhaps suckered in by the boxset/tour hype - will be intrigued enough by the story of the song's omission to buy a copy of Lies second hand for £1 from amazon marketplace - or download that song individually.

Pure Streisand Effect! You'd have thought Rose would have learnt his lesson when he tried to ban those fat pictures?

Edited May 10, 2018 by DieselDaisy
Added the ''or download...'' as I keep forgetting the awful times we live in.

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

I've seen this point being made many times, that it would've been better if Axl had at least stood by the song and been unrepentant about it with a "no fucks given" attitude, or that this is what he should have done. I don't agree. He had/has every right to regret it (I mean really regret it, not as in PR). Moreover, own it as what? A racist song written by a racist/homophobic person? How he could have done that, if he really didn't think of the song and of himself like that?

As for Marilyn Manson, whose mouth is much bigger than Axl's , he didn't cover OIAM in the end, did he? I wonder why. And the underlined part of the quote about Look At Your Game Girl just isn't true.

I agree with what you don't agree 

Standing by the song would be fucking suicide. And if he really doesn't feel like that anymore, he has every right to regret it or not promote it anymore.

LOL, Manson, I think he was being sarcastic about that.... Sort of like teasing/mocking Axl like most of the "cool guys" from that era did to him. It feels like those guys saw Axl as a fake, egocentric, pompous singer who was not as tough as he wanted to appear.... Reminds me of when Kurt mocked Axl for attacking him during the VMA's, while he was holding his baby in his arms, and that Axl left with his bodyguards.... There's this thing of making him look like a pussy and make fun of that.

[Blackstar]

9 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I agree with what you don't agree 

Standing by the song would be fucking suicide. And if he really doesn't feel like that anymore, he has every right to regret it or not promote it anymore.

LOL, Manson, I think he was being sarcastic about that.... Sort of like teasing/mocking Axl like most of the "cool guys" from that era did to him. It feels like those guys saw Axl as a fake, egocentric, pompous singer who was not as tough as he wanted to appear.... Reminds me of when Kurt mocked Axl for attacking him during the VMA's, while he was holding his baby in his arms, and that Axl left with his bodyguards.... There's this thing of making him look like a pussy and make fun of that.

I refrained from commenting on Manson's quotes on Axl more, because I have a very low opinion of the guy (I think he's highly overrated musically and a poser, if not a fraud) and it interferes with my objective judgement

Edited May 10, 2018 by Blackstar

[estrangedtwat]

Well don't forget in his book, Manson claimed that he was the one that first played Look at your Game girl from Axl and hot him into it.  Maybe true.  Maybe bullshit.  But the whole story from Manson's side is out there.   I've never thought the dates lined up, myself, but some people think it's possible or probable.

[soon]

10 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

Why are the Lies tracks even being included on this reissue anyway? 

Do you guys think the band knew the press would talk so much about OIAM being removed? ...Is that maybe what they WANT all the press to be talking about?

all press is good press (or so they say).

Interesting.  Sounds like a very Axl Rose the visionary type of concept.  To cause a stir once by releasing and then cause a stir 30 31 years latter for removing it.  It gives good character development for the myth that is Axl Rose.

[Tonto]

1 hour ago, killuridols said:

 2) Women are still in the battle for their rights and patriarchy is rooted so deep that there's almost nothing in the culture that it is not crossed by it.

 

Women have equal rights to men in the USA, so stop the nonsense, total horseshit.

[DieselDaisy]

Too much pc nonsense here. I feel I'm on an ''Eee' quality & Dye' ver-sity'' course.

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

I refrained from commenting on Manson's quotes on Axl more, because I have a very low opinion of the guy (I think he's highly overrated musically and a poser, if not a fraud) and it interferes with my objective judgement

Aww... I'd like to know why you dislike him

I have no problem with him, I like some of his songs, and I like that he's defyied some standards... at least, for the prude US society some things he did were really daring but he's bloated now and Im afraid he suffers the same problems than Axl.... Not sure who said this (was it @DieselDaisy maybe?) about this kind of artists whose main corpus of art focused in youth values or youth concerns, so when they age, they sound ridiculous with what they are singing about, as opposed to other artists whose art is timeless, like Eric Clapton, for example.

8 minutes ago, Tonto said:

Women have equal rights to men in the USA, so stop the nonsense, total horseshit.

You stop the ignorance because in this department, you will lose badly. And no, women don't have equal rights in the USA, more over so black and latin women have a lot to conquer still. Besides, the USA is not the whole world and I usually tend to speak of a global situation, so sew it

 

[killuridols]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Too much pc nonsense here. I feel I'm on an ''Eee' quality & Dye' ver-sity'' course.

What is the "too much PC nonsense"??? Nothing about OIAM is PC and if it is, please explain in more length what are your arguements about that.

You have a problem with black people, immigrants and gays? If you do, explain why.... it would be nice to be honest about those things, especially if you think there's too much "PC" in this thread

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

What is the "too much PC nonsense"??? Nothing about OIAM is PC and if it is, please explain in more length what are your arguements about that.

You have a problem with black people, immigrants and gays? If you do, explain why.... it would be nice to be honest about those things, especially if you think there's too much "PC" in this thread

Absolute drivel.