Axingn'r Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Axl probably never read Roland Barthes' books, nevertheless what Axl has been doing for ten years confirms Barthes' theories about myths and counter-myths... And it also confirms that Axl is a very intelligent guy.The best weapon against a myth, it is to mythicize it in return, it is to produce an artificial myth... The power of the second myth is based on the fact that the first one looks naive comparatively...The founding myth in this case is obviously the AFD line-up. Then, the only way for Axl to continue using the GNR name was to create a counter-myth : Chinese Democracy.I think this helps to understand a couple of things that are going on nowadays : when Chinese Democracy gets released it could be the end of the second myth. It may explain the continual hesitations about the release of CD. Edited December 12, 2006 by Axingn'r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Axl probably never read Roland Barthes' books, nevertheless what Axl has been doing for ten years confirms Barthes' theories about myths and counter-myths... And it also confirms that Axl is a very intelligent guy.The best weapon against a myth, it is to mythicize it in return, it is to produce an artificial myth... The power of the second myth is based on the fact that the first one looks naive...The founding myth in this case is obviously the AFD line-up. Then, the only way for Axl to continue using the GNR name was to create a counter-myth : Chinese Democracy.I think this helps to understand a couple of things that are going on nowadays : when Chinese Democracy gets released it could be the end of the second myth. It may explain the continual hesitations about the release of CD.*forwarding to Mythbusters* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameslofton29 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The AFD lineup wasn't a myth........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ions Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Axl probably never read Roland Barthes' books, nevertheless what Axl has been doing for ten years confirms Barthes' theories about myths and counter-myths... And it also confirms that Axl is a very intelligent guy.The best weapon against a myth, it is to mythicize it in return, it is to produce an artificial myth... The power of the second myth is based on the fact that the first one looks naive comparatively...The founding myth in this case is obviously the AFD line-up. Then, the only way for Axl to continue using the GNR name was to create a counter-myth : Chinese Democracy.I think this helps to understand a couple of things that are going on nowadays : when Chinese Democracy gets released it could be the end of the second myth. It may explain the continual hesitations about the release of CD.Axl himself is the myth. I've said it before and I'll say it again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces Edited December 12, 2006 by Ions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axingn'r Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 The AFD lineup wasn't a myth........That's debatable.Imo, the AFD line-up and the 1985-88 era have become a myth as years went by. GNR evolved so quickly that already it wasn't the same in the early '90s.Axl himself is the myth. I've said it before and I'll say it again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces If Axl was the myth, he wouldn't need the GNR name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Defintion of a myth:A popular belief in a society that is false or unsupported by facts.What the fuck are you guys talking about? AFD is not a myth, I have two copies in my house??Not to be too literal, but jesus, even in the loosest definition it is a religious explanation. We must really be reaching here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameslofton29 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The AFD lineup wasn't a myth........That's debatable.Imo, the AFD line-up and the 1985-88 era have become a myth as years went by. GNR evolved so quickly that already it wasn't the same in the early '90s. It wasn't a myth. Period. The band released a monstrosity that the world will never forget, and the people old enough to have experienced it will know nothing like that had ever occured before(well, Beatlemania probably topped it). To this very day, Axl continues to live off of what that lineup accomplished.The last thing that lineup was is a myth. You're grasping at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Flower Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Not even Wasted could come up with a pearler of a theory like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ions Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The AFD lineup wasn't a myth........That's debatable.Imo, the AFD line-up and the 1985-88 era have become a myth as years went by. GNR evolved so quickly that already it wasn't the same in the early '90s.Axl himself is the myth. I've said it before and I'll say it again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces If Axl was the myth, he wouldn't need the GNR name.That's not at all what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I got a myth for you, that GNR wothout promotion and a cd was over and the new band can't hold a candle to the old one...90 shows over a million fans. Great reviews!Myth Busted. rock1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axingn'r Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Defintion of a myth:A popular belief in a society that is false or unsupported by facts.What the fuck are you guys talking about? AFD is not a myth, I have two copies in my house??Not to be too literal, but jesus, even in the loosest definition it is a religious explanation. We must really be reaching here. Sorry but myths studies are not exclusively religion related, from wikipedia (Barthes) :Semiology and mythBarthes' many monthly contributions that made up Mythologies (1957) would often interrogate pieces of cultural material to expose how bourgeois society used them to assert its values upon others. For instance, portrayal of wine in French society as a robust and healthy habit would be a bourgeois ideal perception contradicted by certain realities (i.e. that wine can be unhealthy and inebriating). He found semiology, the study of signs, useful in these interrogations. Barthes explained that these bourgeois cultural myths were second-order signs, or significations. A picture of a full, dark bottle is a signifier relating to a signified: a fermented, alcoholic beverage - wine. However, the bourgeois take this signified and apply their own emphasis to it, making ‘wine’ a new signifier, this time relating to a new signified: the idea of healthy, robust, relaxing wine. Motivations for such manipulations vary from a desire to sell products to a simple desire to maintain the status quo. These insights brought Barthes very much in line with similar Marxist theory.In The Fashion System Barthes showed how this adulteration of signs could easily be translated into words. In this work he explained how in the fashion world any word could be loaded with idealistic bourgeois emphasis. Thus, if popular fashion says that a ‘blouse’ is ideal for a certain situation or ensemble, this idea is immediately naturalized and accepted as truth, even though the actual sign could just as easily be interchangeable with ‘skirt’, ‘vest’ or any number of combinations. In the end Barthes Mythologies became absorbed itself into bourgeois culture, as he found many third parties asking him to comment on a certain cultural phenomenon, being interested in his control over his readership. This turn of events caused him to question the overall utility of demystifying culture for the masses, thinking it might be a fruitless attempt, and drove him deeper in his search for individualistic meaning in art. Edited December 12, 2006 by Axingn'r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 If you read some of the books like Low Life in the Fast Lane that were out at the time of AFD, you could see that the band were so myth worthy. They walked it and talked it. At the time UYI was a miracle of sorts. November Rain taking them to even more people. I really do think that they had come to the end. Steven was kicked out, Izzy left, Duff and Slash were close to death - that was the end of that band. That leaves Axl and he had some problems of his own as we know. Whether CD is another way to continue this myth or just a collection of factors that could be deemed as clever it's hard to know. It was definitely a smart move not to release a back to basics GNR record with Slash and Duff back in 1997. That would have taken GNR back to low level clubs with half a band? I see CD as like The Sex Pistols philosophy of "the less we do the more they want us." At the same time Axl can work on material. Whether he thinks that material will make him a hit record or not either he or the label have to decide. But with so much invested in it you'd have to say there has to be some kind of product. Maybe the touring is just to keep selling this myth, keep selling AFD and UYI records? It's pretty much true that once it comes out it's over, there will be a crescendo like a hit single but nothing like November Rain or Sweet Child or even You Could Be Mine. Combine these factors with MP3 downloading and rock really not selling a ton of records, general apathy in general to classic rock it really does seem wise to keep people hoping, keep building the myth, if they get enough press over a number of years and there must be a breaking point at some point...whether in the end a reunion will just be best for everyone and so many people would be happy with it, just getting the band back together would be some kind of victory and Axl wouldn't have to carry this cross on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Sorry but myths studies are not exclusively religion related, from wikipedia (Barthes) :I said even by the loosest defintion, which would be religeon. I am sorry my friend, you arguement is too specious. There is NOTHING MYTHICAL about a rock band in the 20th cenbtury, we have too many forms of media to suspend belief. This is dumb, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axingn'r Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) There is NOTHING MYTHICAL about a rock band in the 20th cenbtury, we have too many forms of media to suspend belief. This is dumb, sorry.You may disagree with my theory, but I don't think it's "dumb".Chinese Democracy is often described as "mythical"... I still think it's a counter-myth in order to continue using the GNR name. It wouldn't be possible without this counter-myth. Chinese Democracy is the only thing giving some credibility to Axl's project.Great post from Wasted ! Edited December 12, 2006 by Axingn'r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) There is NOTHING MYTHICAL about a rock band in the 20th cenbtury, we have too many forms of media to suspend belief. This is dumb, sorry.You may disagree with my theory, but I don't think it's "dumb".Chinese Democracy is often described as "mythical"... I still think it's a counter-myth in order to continue using the GNR name. It wouldn't be possible without this counter-myth. Chinese Democracy is the only thing giving some credibility to Axl's project.Great post from Wasted !Please look again at the defintion, I dont know, it is possible for Chinese Democracy to be mythical. But there is NOTHING mythical about an album, or a band that have numerous forms of media to prove.Are you serious? Examples:Mythical things i.e Atlantis, Life on Mars: Keanu Reeves Academy Awards etc. Get it?? Things that are believed to be true, yet havent been seen.Non Mythical Things i.e. A chevy Corvette, Axl Rose, Dead Flower smarts ass post dissing without ever seeing the band live. Those are facts. There is nothing Mythical about an album from a band that you can go buy in a record store. Jesus dude. I think the idea is possible about two myths, but you need another one besides Chinese Democracy.If there were no pictures of Axl rose or no cd's left because they were lost in a modern day holocaust, and people just "talked about Axl" and believed in him even though there was no record (no pun intended) then he would become a myth. But you can't swing a dead Suicide Girl without hitting proof that GNR was a band. Okay. not dumb, how about "wrong"Chinese Democracy is the only thing giving some credibility to Axl's project.That and a 2006 tour with 90 dates (2 1/2 hour shows average) and over a million tickets sold,what about that? That doent count? I have a friggin head ache Edited December 12, 2006 by Gunzen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axingn'r Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Please look again at the defintion, I dont know, it is possible for Chinese Democracy to be mythical. But there is NOTHING mythical about an album, or a band that have numerous forms of media to prove.The problem is that your definition of a myth is short-sighted. It is Barthes' definition of a myth that you should take into consideration... Edited December 12, 2006 by Axingn'r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Please look again at the defintion, I dont know, it is possible for Chinese Democracy to be mythical. But there is NOTHING mythical about an album, or a band that have numerous forms of media to prove.The problem is that your definition of a myth is short-sighted. It is Barthes' definition of a myth that you should take into consideration...the problem is you are taking a definition that has been ambiguously defined from THE INTERNETYou know You and I can post on Wikipedia, that sight is not policed or corrected. .I suggest a dictionary Edited December 12, 2006 by Gunzen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ions Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) The problem is that your definition of a myth is short-sighted.I agree. Mythologies play a huge part in our lives all the time. It's obviously not a conscious phenomenon for the most part. Arguing that there is nothing mythical about a car or an album is completely missing the point. You could argue that an artist or other enigmatic figure's rise, fall, and subsequent return is a perfect example of the hero myth. I believe people are unconsciously attracted to these types of situations (either to root for or against the figure in question) due mostly in part to the mythology behind them. There's a lot more to myth than it's definition in the dictionary. Edited December 12, 2006 by Ions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axingn'r Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) the problem is you are taking a definition that has been ambiguously defined from THE INTERNETYou know You and I can post on Wikipedia, that sight is not policed or corrected. .I suggest a dictionary What they say on wikipedia about Roland Barthes is pretty accurate.I have a dictionary in front of me. There are at least 5 definitions of "myth". And guess what ? A quote from Barthes ! In this context, this is the best definition of a "myth" : Representation of facts or often real persons deformed or amplified by the collective imagination.Maybe the word "legend" would clarify what I'm saying. Creating legends is very usual in artistic circles. It's the best way for artists (writers, painters, musicians, etc.) to promote themselves : the aura...PS: Good points Ions. Edited December 12, 2006 by Axingn'r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 We're talking about Myth in loose terms, not the story of creation or greek mythology. Rock has it's own myths and legends. It's possible that most of the members of GNR and most kids buy into these myths generally about excess and the high life, sex drugs and rock n roll etc. I think the map for a GNR band was layed out for them. Be a band like Aerosmith, be a band like Queen. They lived those myths, obviously to them it's disappointing to find that it isn't all that, has its downside etc. Great thing about Illusions is that lyrically these things are addressed on certain tracks. So you can see they are conscious of these things. You don't name check Catcher in the Rye cos you don't want people to make the connection to Lennon. Myths build up around certain projects in all of art. Like Rothko's Seagrum paintings have a story which brings the work to life - how they got made. Apocaplypse Now has a myth or story which is just as entertaining as the movie itself. These things happen when an artist tries to go against the grain, tries to make what's in his mind rather than what the studio want. Where there's conflict, where an artist takes a stand is where the best stories happen. An artist who just says alright whatever just send me the money by Tuesday I'll have it finished is not really gonna be making something worth looking into. Whether in this case it is a way of manipulating a situation or whether it's for real reasons is hard to say. You tend to find out what it was all about after it has been made. In many ways Chinese Democracy is the first time Axl is making real art as opposed to something where he is living inside of other peoples myths of rock history etc. Chinese Democracy is his own myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The problem when you become a story or myth like GNR is that you become a parody of yourself. Whether by luck or judgement Axl has avoid this by the band breaking down. When you become a myth in rock it becomes more difficult to be relevant than before. Could they still go on writing songs about living on the edge in the city or whatever and not just look like a joke. Probably not and on top of that they are the myth they emulated. So where are we now? It's a paradox...it's almost like a Chinese Democracy wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssiscool Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The AFD lineup wasn't a myth........i'd aggree. AFD lineup was what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Manson Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The AFD lineup wasn't a myth........It was legend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axingn'r Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 The AFD lineup wasn't a myth........It was legend! Exactly. And that legend is being replaced by a new one : Axl's genius and his masterpiece Chinese Democracy.If you read Merck's comments about Axl (according to Merck, Axl isn't interested in money, fame, etc., only in music) or Del James' article, it's like the line-up that created AFD wasn't important. The only important thing is Axl's genius...In comparison with the complexity of Chinese Democracy, the AFD line-up looks naive. That's how legends/myths get replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auri~rubigo Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 ....what do myths have to do with GNR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts