Fan/turbine failures are not unique to RR. ALL engine manufacturers have had to compromise to reduce failures. There is a thread here somewhere arguing the for/against of RR & GE/PW etc.
There are advantages/disadvantages for 3 spool vs. 2 spool - for example 3 spool tend to have better operability characteristics - I'm not trying to say brand X is better than brand Y. A good friend who recently retired used to say "the worst engine company in the world is the one you're dealing with today"
. The specific point I was addressing was weight - while a 3 spool has a theoretical weight advantage, it practice it has not panned out that way. One reason for that is the particular difficulties of bearing design inherent in a 3 spool design, the resultant nasty failure modes, and the extra systems Rolls has had to implement to address those failure modes - systems that the 2 spool engines don't need.
In the RB211/L1011 incident I noted, a bearing failure sheared the fan shaft, resulting in a semi-intact fan assembly departing the engine while still rotating at several hundred rpm. This made a very effective rotating saw that tried to cut the plane in half. Fan shaft failures on 2 spool engines have never liberated the fan (the fan shaft failure of a GEnx on a new 787 test flight last year was pretty much benign). As a result, Rolls had to implement a 'fan catcher' - a heavy structure that would retain the fan if the fan shaft failed. This is just one example.
BTW, I'd rather GE didn't have such a dominant market share - it makes them a real pain to deal with
