Guns N' Roses News · @GunsNRosesNews
11th Mar 2011 from Twitlonger
In 2001 Axl Rose emerged from the oblivion to defy the wishes of the majority and sustain Guns N' Roses as a concept beside its “legendary” roots. Whilst opinions from open minded people like Kurt Loder commended Rose for vindicating the notion that his captivating ability remains, for the most part “Guns N' Roses” ala twenty first century was crucified as the dissenting Son of a God.
When the grand old incarnation of GN'R gradually reduced to nothingness (from 1996 onwards), Axl Rose was scapegoated. He went from the darling bud of hellish rock n' roll to just plain hellish.
Surely with such a rash demonization there is a requirement for a legitimate reasoning? Perhaps Slash found documents outlining Axl's exploitation of Afghan oil and decided to call it a day? Or maybe Duff secured Rose's medical record and established Axl had two pancreases and was being uncharitable?
The reality is that Axl bears the brunt of Guns N' Roses' disintegration simply because humanity cannot comprehend the removal of something they enjoy without determining a catalyst (even if their conclusions are entirely illegitimate).
Why should anybody compromise the vehemence of their feelings if they feel its in the best interests of something? Axl's “crime” was adamantly disagreeing. Rose represents those who do not give credence to the romanticized view of “democratic will”.
Axl Rose helps comprise a part of living history which continues to be condemned for refuting the notion that “democracy” is infallible.
I hope that one day, like the initial Iraq war opposition, when a willingness to revise materializes, Mr. Rose can be liberated of the connotations that have been unjustifiably attached for him so long.