Steve: Simon, I noticed that in your accusation of me being some sort of publicist for Axl that you left out three of the songs I mentioned from Appetite For Destruction. I'll take that to mean that you already admit that you were wrong about the general public not knowing more than two songs by Guns N' Roses. It's a small step, but at least you're getting closer to accepting that you're wrong in this debate.

In fact, a look at two of our local stations in Phoenix (KDKB and KUPD) shows that Guns N' Roses still gets quite a bit of airplay, and not just off of the "well-known" songs that you mention. During one 24-hour stretch, KDKB played 6 different GN'R songs a total of 8 different times ("Civil War," "Chinese Democracy" 3 times, "November Rain," "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Patience," and "Paradise City") and KUPD played GN'R 3 times ("You Could Be Mine," "Welcome To The Jungle," and "Sweet Child O' Mine"). In comparison, KDKB played Pearl Jam twice ("Even Flow" and "Daughter") and KUPD played them 3 times ("Alive," "Corduroy," and "Even Flow").

Considering that a large number of GN'R songs continue to get airplay, I think I've proven once and for all that your "nobody can name 3 songs" point is incorrect. In fact, your statement that GN'R songs sound dated is laughable as well. We're not talking about "Ice Ice Baby" or "Baby Got Back" here; we're talking about some songs that stand the test of time. "Civil War" could be a song that would be just as valid today as it was 17 years ago, and it still wouldn't sound dated. Listen to the song "Coma" and tell me what sounds dated in it. At the same time, anytime you hear Pearl Jam or Nirvana on the radio, the first things you think of are the early 90's and Seattle. I have nothing against grunge, I like it and, coincidentally, even Axl was a fan of Nirvana. But Pearl Jam's sound is very distinct to a specific time, and that is the very definition of the word "dated."

I also notice that you're beginning to grasp at straws by dragging Axl through the mud, instead of focusing on the topic at hand (that being that Guns N' Roses is a far superior band). You conveniently left out another quote by Axl that stated that new pressings of the Lies album would not include the song "One In A Million." You also didn't mention that he's also performed with Elton John since that album was released and has always been a big fan of Freddie Mercury, so he obviously doesn't have "homophobia" as you try to imply. Not to mention the fact that a key speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. will be heavily featured in GN'R's new song "Madagascar" on the album Chinese Democracy. A speech, by the way, that the King family had to personally allow Guns N' Roses to use. I think it's fair to say that we've all made mistakes in our past, and what matters is if we've learned from them; it's clear, in this regard, that a few lines from an old GN'R song are not the true feelings of Axl Rose. If you took the time to look into Axl's early childhood trauma, instead of settling for the Wikipedia version, you may understand why some of his statements early on were a bit naïve, and why even back as far as 1992 he said that "One In A Million" was "not a song I would write now."

Also, since you're beginning to sound like a PR person yourself for Eddie Vedder's singing abilities, guess who made Rolling Stone's list of the 100 greatest singers. If you guessed Mr. Vedder you would be wrong, but a certain Axl Rose did make the cut. And just so you don't get too upset over this snub, Hit Parader did list Eddie Vedder as the 23rd best singer in their "Heavy Metal's All-Time 100 Vocalists" list. Of course, they also listed Axl Rose in the 11th spot, so it seems that quite a few other people share my high opinion of Mr. Rose's singing abilities.

Finally, let me briefly touch on your accusation of Guns N' Roses' songs not having substance. While some of their songs are about "rawking out" as you say, you have to be kidding if you think that none of their songs have substance. Forgetting for a moment that most of Appetite For Destruction was written about the true life experiences of the band members ("Mr. Brownstone," "Rocket Queen," "Welcome To The Jungle," "My Michelle," etc.), there are plenty of other songs that can fill your Vedder shaped hole. I've already mentioned "Civil War" a couple times, but it's worth mentioning again; also, let me throw "November Rain," "Estranged," "Don't Damn Me," and "Locomotive" out there for you to chew upon. GN'R may not be into story telling like Pearl Jam is, but there's no denying that GN'R have some songs with truly outstanding lyrics; and, besides, I didn't think you still needed bedtime stories to go to sleep.

So how about it Simon, ready to cede the argument?

Simon: Cede? No. Shut my trap? Well, it always a good time for that (plus the Lakers game is tonight and I have to hop on the freeway pronto. I'm gonna' flip on KNX 1070 for some traffic scoop). But in closing, my first declaration about Vedder's voice and presence is all anyone really needs to know. To me, a band is nothing more than the lead singer and nearly all other criteria is superfluous drivel. Change out Eddie for Axl on any GN'R song and I'd instantly like it better. It's simply a matter of choice (and mine reigns supreme over all others).

I should also note that during several informal polls, my theory was correct as the overwhelming majority of people could not name even two GN'R songs. Comments that made me guffaw were "Isn't that the band Bret Michaels is in?" and "I like their one song "Smokin' in the Boys Room." I'm sure to such a fervent fan like you, it must seem like everyone is delirious about this band, but the stark reality reveals that this is exceedingly far from the truth. Guns and Roses is a phenomenal group lead by a musical genius, but this is 2008, not 1988.

Axl liked Pearl Jam, eh? Well I guess I can forgive him for those horrible dreadlocks he's been sporting for years. Speaking of Mr. Rose, yes, I didn't dig much deeper than his Wikipedia page and yes, I flung more mud than a pig on a cocaine binge (and for that I'm 42.8% sorry), but in my defense, I couldn't bear to study up too much on GN'R due to a severe case of ihavealife-itis (it's my personal cross to bear).

I could finish with Pearl Jam's noble stance against Ticketmaster (has any recent band been so selfless and fan friendly? And no Guns and Roses giving out a free Dr. Pepper with the release of Chinese Democracy isn't even close) or toast them for their incredibly ridiculous first name "Mookie Blaylock," (man, remember him when he played for the Hawks? The dude was a three point shootin' gunslinger who would pick your pockets clean) but alas, to what end would that do?

I can see in this debate I brought a hand grenade to a full-scale nuclear melee and you've really earned my respect (just not my opinion).

Steve: Well Simon, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic. I will end by stating that I think you're wrong yet again about a band being nothing more than the lead singer. Are you telling me that Slash's solo in "Sweet Child O' Mine," or Axl's piano playing in "November Rain" were nothing special? A band is a sum of all its members, and the lineup of Guns N' Roses is nothing short of greatness (whether you consider the makeup of their original lineup, or their 21st century makeup, which even Izzy Stradlin has stated performs better than the originals). Plus, there's no way you could replace Axl with Eddie. It's not just about the voice (which we'll have to disagree upon, even though I provided some very valid examples in support of my argument), but also about the genius behind the lyrics and musical arrangement that Axl provides. In that regard I'll say that you're close to being right in the case of Guns N' Roses, Axl has always been the catalyst of the band and is what propels them to greatness.

As far as your "informal" polls, I'm not really surprised with what you heard as a response. First of all, the majority of those people asked probably don't listen to rock or alternative music that frequently (if it doesn't hip-hop or pop nowadays, it's not worthy of the scrupulous ears of the iPod generation). Without trying to offend anyone, I usually tend to believe that 40% of the population at any given time knows nothing, and it's the majority that actually knows of what they're speaking. It's not always the same 40% mind you (since people have their own strengths of knowledge), but you can't deny this fact. To help my cause I could point out the Jay Leno "Jaywalking" segments, or the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" audience polls, but I'm sure you'd argue those as well. Instead, think of this: in a recent poll, 36% of those asked thought that the Republicans were currently in control of Congress (they haven't been for over 2 years). Those were people that were voting in the 2008 election mind you, not children in a class room.

And finally, if you asked those same people "Who painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?" and they couldn't give a correct answer, would that take away the greatness of Michelangelo? No, I believe Michelangelo's greatness would stay intact, which is what our debate was about here - the greatness of two bands. On the sum of its parts, Guns N' Roses emerges as a better band. You even admitted at the very beginning of this debate that "the great majority" would say Guns N' Roses is a better band. Guns N' Roses at the end of the day is much better in terms of showmanship, musical ability, and rock n' roll attitude. You can say that Pearl Jam is better, and while I respect your opinion, the great majority would disagree. Just as you could convince a few people to eat horse dung because you say it's tasty, the rest of the public isn't going to buy into, or eat that horseshit.