Gunners

Guns n’ Roses seem to be one of the definitive rock bands that appeared and eventuated out of the late 80s and 90s. If this is so, one has to wonder why someone like Axl Rose, a man who used to yell out on the Santa Monica Boulevard to homosexuals, “Why don’t you guys like pussy?” is fronting a band that engenders such respect within rock history. Sure, Rose may be able to sing, but to be immortalised as he is, categorised as a ‘legend’ of rock, is something worth asking.

To me, music should be viewed as a vehicle of access to a bohemian way of life, a vastly different option to the traditional and conservative corridors of power that underpin our communities. Axl Rose, however, perpetuates all of the social injustices that exist in our society, such as racism and homophobic beliefs. He claims that, “…I’m confused, I don’t understand it” about the concept of homosexuals. His fans think that he is ‘controversial’ and, therefore, acceptable within the fringes of our society, acceptable because he is in a rock band. I can acknowledge that most rock bands are rock bands for the very reason that they are controversial; The Doors for instance, Jim Morrison, by most accounts, was an alcoholic and a womaniser, however, he also demonstrates a philosophical purview and social commentary that contributes to an insightful reading of human behaviour, reflected in his music. I have yet to find insightful readings from Axl Rose. One of the definitive reasons rock bands are controversial, and thus credible, is because of their anti-authority views; rock music gives listeners an alternative mode of politics than that of Capitalist governments and institutions. Axl Rose may claim that he is providing another option in his controversy, but he is, in fact, just perpetuating the conservative heterosexual, white supremist ideology that western governments strive for. Rose’s popularity is far more terrifying that than Bush or Howard’s subversive political racism. His overt politics are articulated in a brazen and brash manner such as the lyrics of ‘One in a Million’, singing of ‘faggots’ who ‘spread some fucking disease.’

What troubles me even more is that so many music magazines, continue to produce large numbers of ‘re-hash’ articles on Axl Rose, and his time in Guns n’ Roses. This shows me the public fascination for Rose and his band, and, by default, the ideas perpetuated by their music. It worries me – what are music enthusiasts listening to? Does our music community want to uphold a man like Axl Rose in the forefront of the music media, supposedly ‘defining’ rock music and its associated value system?

Why do all the mediums of music, magazines, articles, music shows and countdowns, perpetuate great suspense in waiting for Rose’s solo album, Chinese Democracy? Sydney Morning Herald’s S magazine even did a review on Chinese Democracy when it was released, likening Rose to Michelangelo. The reviewer was attempting to justify why Rose took so long to finally record and release his new album, along the lines of, ‘no-one would have pressured Michelangelo to finish the Sistine Chapel, art takes time.’ Why did Guns n’ Roses fans pay to see a concert that had Rose singing with a band ‘Guns n’ Roses’, a band that has not retained one original member but Rose from the original line up? These questions baffle me, and thus keep me interested – probably, I suspect, part of Rose’s popularity, a fascination with stupidity and ongoing conservatism in the face of our rapidly changing culture.