Here Today... Gone To Hell!

the new site says: "Most Dangerous Band in the World is Back"

does it bother anybody that they call themselves "dangerous"?

personally, i like it. and i agree with that statement.

but i know Jarmo and others criticized VR for referring to themsleves as dangerous. i didn't really understand why. so i'm curious to see if anyone kinda cringed when they saw that on there.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=12194.msg213690#msg213690

i woudnt say dangerous, not like the go around hurting people or anything  :-\ except the tommy throwing his bass incident  :hihi:

I'm sure people in St. Louis, Montreal, Vancouver, and Philadelphia would agree they were dangerous. Never mind the old GNR Donnington show that unfortunately saw fans crushed to death. The arrests throughout the years, Axl in Sweden this summer, etc. I saw two shows in 2002 and one of them was the wildest concert I've seen with drunkeness, fights, people running in the streets screaming after, etc.

So yes the dangerous label applied (and still does, if not to the same extent).

i have to quote mah boi buddha on this one

Not so much. I could kick their ass. I won't though.... but I could. Well all of them at the same time might be a problem :hihi:

Serioulsy though I think Axl is dangerous in the sense that even in 2006 nobody's quite sure what to expect form him. the badn are professionals i believ and to eb honets there's no danger associated with them and I don't mean thata s a abd thing. Axl though is just a loose canon sometimess and that makes the entire band unpredictable. ?Will he show up, will he walk off, will he bite someone, will he fight a fan, will he kick out security... ya never know with Axl. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's pretty alme. But I guess that's what makes him "dangerous"

Dangerous? No, I wouldn't use that word.


Unpredictable and not doing stuff the way everybody else does them? Definitely.

I think that makes them more unpredictable than VR. That's why I thought it was amusing how they tried to use that angle when marketing the band.




/jarmo

i see where you're coming from. MORE unpredictable than VR? definitely. BUT, scott wieland isn't exactly "predictable" IMO.

as for gnr, i also think the passion among the fanbase adds to the dangerousness(?) of the band.

VR isnt dangerous..they are just trying to capitalize on the GNR  rep....although weiland is dangerous if u put a rig and some smack near him.......GNR USED to be dangerous around 1986-1988......after 1989 they kinda became a corporate rock band..you cant be dangerous when u have private jets and limos........

so you have to be poor to be dangerous? NEWS TO ME!

It'd be too easy to make this a gnr vs. vr thread, so I wont go there...

But I agree with unpredictable over dangerous... although, the unpredictable nature has brought many dangerous nights on the coattail.

Only dangrouus to human legs.

I wonder what Hilter was driving around in... yeah, thats right, he was poor ?: ok:

That part I put in bold is pretty funny considering I could name another band who might just be doing the exact same thing. :hihi:

I can't say that I agree with the rest of your post either. I think Gn'R were pretty "dangerous" on the Illusion tours. ?They weren't really a ?so called "coperate rock band" they were huge but to call them that is kind of a stretch I think.

Maybe GNR is not dangerous.

Only Tommy. Fear the flying bass......

I'd say the fans are the most dangerous bunch. :nervous:

 :rofl:

i dont really care if they are dangerous or not..
if they can rock out and play the songs great is OK... thats what im looking for, i really dont like the whole "dangerous-macho" thing.. is very subjective.. very phony sometimes.. and also i dont like riots and i dont like fucked up people  fighting, i just want a great rock show

BEST POST EVER!!!!  Well best post today at least :hihi: : ok:

NO, 40 some odd year old rock stars who fly around on corporate jets, stay at the Ritz, where designer threads and are VIP's at A-list night clubs are not dangerous rock n' roll stars. This applies to Axl, Slash, Duff and anyone else in GNR who used to where the label proudly.

When you're in your 20's and raising hell it is expected and cool. When you're in your 40's acting the same way, it is immaturity. We all love to throw around the "stop living in the past mantra" around here. Well, trying to act the way at 45 you did at 25 shows you haven't grown much at all. Axl has mellowed far too much to be considered dangerous. He may be tempramental at times, but far from dangerous.

Axl fighting with security guards is a mellow Axl is it?

Axl is the last dangerous rock star left. Who else is there? They're all dead, talentless, or jokes like Fred Durst. So what if you're on a guest list? That's not what the "dangerous" part is about. It's more about being unpredictable, uncompromising, and speaking your mind.

Nor is Axl the only one in the band capable of that - Tommy seems to have that same quality in him, which is why I'm damn glad he's in this band.

No. It just lame that's all.

Yes. That will go down in history for me.  :hihi:

Allow me to introduce you to Michael Jackson. ;)

Lame is what the rest of the music scene is. Fred Durst leaving angry messages on answering machines. (F)eminem fighting with hand puppets. Lars spending more time talking about his painting collection than music (at least the little troll got pissed on). A bunch of so-called rock stars hiring a singer on live TV. A million cookie-cutter clones following the script for "success" by doing exactly what they're told. Tom Morello (who I do respect) pre-arranging his arrest this week to ensure he wouldn't be detained too long.

A drunken scuffle in a hotel room I can live with.

This is a dangerous band..... ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e-s86wXOY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-RJuIRAaw&mode=related&search=
watch that second one first! The anthem of the 80's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1gdRQ_N3PU&NR? ? ?
It's too late to take pills here we go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBVLrc62X-U&mode=related&search=? ? ?
the best of the bunch-Tommy at 15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hksTHvTk3Pg&mode=related&search=

Axl has always been volatile and reactionary.  He does and says what he wants, when he wants, despite the possible repercussions, which can lead others to believe Axl and Guns N' Roses as "dangerous". 

Whatever. Axl biting a  guy on the leg isn't gonna change the mainstrem music scene and as bad as anyone thinks the mainstreme music scene is, Axl biting a  guy is lame. there's no way around it. It's lame.

Thats just a tag line... Kerrang (UK) called them the most dangerous band in the world in 86 or 87 and they've pretty much used it ever since.

Dangerous??? the biggest incidents the band itself has had was attacking the security gaurd, and Tommy Hillfinger punching him in the arm.

No, i wouldn't mind seeing any of them in a dark alley.  Even drunk or on drugs.  Axl has been living the high life and gone soft. 

Not my point. It's far less lame than the rest of the industry, and unlike those I mentioned (with the exception of Morello), Axl has talent as a songwriter.

Beware the next BITE!!!!!!!!!!!!  :rofl: :rofl:

I agree with you about the mainstreme music scene for the most part but in my opinion there's not too many things in life more lame than biteing someone. personally of all the things Axl has ever done that one kinda made me roll my eyes and think "My God" more than any of them.? Anyways "The Bite" is old news, I'm getting off topic.? :peace:

Lame or not, the bite was fucking funny to hear about.

"Hey Axl got into a fight with a security guard"
"Did Axl fuck him up?"
"Naw, he bit him on the leg though"
"That'll learn him"

Amusing stuff.

I'm surprised you would mention VR.

GNR - Most Dangerous Band In The World . . . .







. . . .  if you're a UMG stockholder.  :hihi:

i think Pantera was a far more dangerous band...

Maybe they would have been, if they'd ever acheived a remotely similar level of success  across the globe. Or been able to complete a sentence between them.  ;)

Uhhh.. Pantera carried the heavy metal tourch through the 90's.. Metal woukd not have survuved wuth out them. Pantera is showed the same if not more respect in their field of music, metal.. as gnR is if not more.

Maybe true in the U.S. but I know that in Europe/UK Pantera never really took off. At least not enough that I'd notice. I don't have any idea if they were big anywhere else, and I wouldn't want to throw the question to the rest of the board and derail the thread. But, in parting, I have to say that metal would have probably made it through the 90's just fine without Pantera. I'm not saying they're a terrible band or anything, I just think that their fanbase is a lot more marginal than a GNR, or a Metallica for that matter.

no. not dangerous. child-like yes.

Guns N' Roses are dangerous in the way any band would be featuring a frontman in his mid-'40s who drives a five-hundred-thousand-dollar car and lives in an isolated mansion in Malibu.

Which is to say, the whole "Dangerous" edge is getting stale, since GN'R stopped being dangerous when Axl stopped trying to be in the early '90s.

And I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Who wants to see a guy old enough to be your father trying to be bad?

I can't wait for CD to drop just so Axl can stop trying to keep the old fans happy by doing the whole "bad boy" image he's got going right now... the songs are good for nostalgia's sake, but I am ready to hear Axl sing about heartbreak and maturity rather than dancing with heroin and scoring hot chicks in sleazy apartments.  : ok:

I agree 100%.  :yes:

No matter how heartbroken and mature you are, there's always room for songs about scoring hot chicks in sleazy apartments.   ;D

of course , there always is that, when you want to be simple minded, , there are plenty of band out there, who are young and sing about that, and stuff,(.hm though Id say ACDC were probably the best) and emo heartbreaks, and some just well I, dunno, I havent, really paid much attention? should I .to the rock out now? lol

What I hear from GNR is the evolution of what the band is, and the substance and depth, of the tunes , as far as what we have heard, are more rock n roll and real at least to me, than what others seem to try to emulate.

The amazing thing for me is that GN'R - "new" GN'R, that is - really is unique. It may be a glorified cover band right now with Axl headlining, and I can accept that criticism; but when people accuse them of just soaking up the old band's success, that I disagree with. It may seem like that right now, but it will all change. If you can try to ignore the name of the band, the sound is revolutionary. This is fabulous.

Listen to The Blues from Tacoma '02. Pitman's background synth underlining Bucket's sweeping guitar scales and Fortus' choppy power chords with Finck's unique, creative bends. Sadly, a lot of this has been lost in '06.

The band's image and Axl's voice may have sucked in '02 but I think they were touching upon something very fresh and original and some of that is being lost now...Axl took the criticism of '02 to heart and unfortunately took out some of the stuff that made the band stand out - The Blues now isn't the same, it's just lacking that extra "umph" IMO, and a large part of it is the little stuff: the synth, the Bucket scales, etc.

But I'm hoping the album stays the same style as it was in 2002, because I think Axl is just reverting to this "bad boy" image and older musical style to satisfy the old Guns fans until the album drops. Then people will be familiar with the new sound and he can have room to experiment.

And of course a lot of people are going to hate it - people already loathe Rhiad and Silkworms - but people have a habit of ignoring great music, and then years later people come back to it and say, "Hey, you know, that stuff was really, really ahead of its time." Look at the Velvet Underground.

I think Axl and his band are touching on strokes of genius and I also think Buckethead is a large part of that. When you listen to the demos it's very clear that Axl and Bucket needed each other through that period - Axl is the type of guy who needs to write to music and he needs a great guitarist to help him with that; Buckethead is the type of artist who needs a singer to help balance him. I mean, the man has done some cool solo work, but none of it - not even Electric Tears or For Mom - compares to the solo in TWAT. Nothing.

Bucket's absence has made me feel a bit sad, but I'm hoping the album still includes his work and regardless I think his touch will still be there. I'm very much looking forward to Chinese Democracy more so than ever before - regardless of whether it's "Guns N' Roses" or not, it has the potential to be one of the greatest albums of all time or one of the largest mistakes in history. I'm leaning towards the former, but there's always such a fine line between brilliance and bullshit.

I already know the sound from 2002 was awesome - I'm hoping the extra four years gave Axl time to sharpen up songs like Better, TWAT, Rhiad, etc. (Although Rhiad might not be on CD anyway.) It's the little stuff that is going to elevate these songs.

I have a feeling that the band is probably reverting to the idea outlined in the RS interview years ago, of bringing the band's sound up to date (or forging towards Axl's idea of how they should sound) in small increments. After 2002, and the ill-feeling caused by the aborted tour, they've pretty much reverted to banging out the tunes in typical rock style (though they've found a pretty tight groove of their own on the old tracks, imo) but I can see that changing when the band is unleashed on their own material.   

Ted Nugent dangerous? Yes.
Mike Tyson dangerous? Yes.
O.J. Simpson dangerous? Yes.


Axl Rose dangerous? Nope.

I totally are , I especialy agree, with the band just churning out the music in old rock star , which imo is wise, cause I remember reading not so lng ago , and or hearing axlsaying, "oh people are not gonna think this is axl singing," and .blah blah blah. So what better way to say FU, and prove them wrong, its obvious that axl can still sing, and very obvious that axl rocks hardcore, and most of the reviews, say so, I agree.

BUT yes , that omp isnt there, yet. Didnt axl also say that some older fan will probably fall away, as he tried to bring this band into itsown. ?

Well thus far I think he has now, and giving all the old time fans, a show they cant deny. Yet also by utlilzing and featuring the new guys via solos. And seems more and more people are warming up. How the hell else are people gonna know the players, this isnt a fashion show, not a boy band, not a smile look pretty for the camera, this is fuckng GNR,: the fans like myself, look more into the artistic side, and musician ship, not the damn clothes they wear.


though I do llike cool lookin clothes.But that is in the eye of the beholder, Im more aural in this, to me its about the sound, and the music, and lyrics . 

Funny how the Axlites attacked Velvet Revolver when they used the world 'dangerous'. When these guys (or more likely Axl and the management) say they are the most dangerous band on the world it's acceptable. Wake up. Both band used this to sell more albums. How could soemone be dangerous who' singing about past loves all the time and buys a Flying Neon Pegasus ?? :hihi:? Unpredictable? Guess it's not about the setlist but the time they manage to hit the stage.

to that I think you really dont listen to lyrics, or are far more suferficial!

What's so dangerous about Nu-GN'R's lyrics? Please gimme examples.

I didnt say they were dangerous, did I?

I was commenting on you saying singing about past loves, , so to that I ask what past loves do you mean,?

Do you think Better is about a girl? (and music is subjective).

Do you think IRS is about a girl? (and agin music is subjective).

what past love do you talk about?

and words can be dangerous!

lol
BUT its more about the spirit and yes the FUCK you attitude! :peace:

I guess Better can be about a girl (partly at least). As for IRS and Madagascar it's unlikely.


BTW I don't feel the Fuck You-attitude. The 2006 line-up is really tight, they play with emotions unlike in 2002 when there was no spirit, but it's more of a 'we're enjoying what we're doing and having a great time' than anything rebellious.

who the fuck cares if GNR are dangerous or not? if you want a dangerous show, visit some black metal or grindcore show, that can be dangerous sometimes, not mainstream rock band

Thats my point!

The fuck you attitiude is aboutt really doin it cause they are enjoying it, it started that way, it changed, it evolved, but ultimately the spirit is there, and still the same!

"Was" Dangerous yes.
"Is" Dangerous no.

They arn't living by the edge and scraping to get by or are living a dangerous lifestyle, and to me as far as a rock n roll band is concerned that's dangerous. They play "dangerous" songs by an old band and that's about it, imo.

Pantera were just as big in Australia as GN'R and Metallica were. And yeah, Pantera in their prime took the place of "music to piss your parents off" that GN'R and Metallica both held, but then started to change as they went softer.
Pantera definitely made an impact and helped save metal at a time when it was becoming passe with new musical genres like grunge taking over. And unfortunately with the death of Dime, a lot of people are only beginning to reaslise how great they were.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't agree with the GN'R "dangerous" label, but Axl sure is one of the last, if not THE last truly engaging frontman in rock. Like others have said, you just don't know what you'll get at a GN'R show, and that's part of the huge draw to him.

I'm so glad that Axl and GN'R in whatever form, dangerous or not dangerous, are still around : ok:

Maybe not dangerous, but still 'edgy'. The strange feeling is thats what I love about Axl - you never quite know whats gonna happen. Download was great!

When Buckethead joined the band along with his nunchucks, that possibly made Gn'R more dangerous than before. But since his departure and the fact that Axl appears to be a happier individual these days, i see Gn'R as really quite safe.

I wouldn?t say dangerous, I would say ADDICTIVE :love:

:hihi:

In case you don't get the difference. GN'R are using the old "The Most Dangerous Band" title they were given by the press. It's away to tell people they're back.

VR members were calling themselves dangerous in interviews.



Unpredictability doesn't have to do anything about setlists. Pearl Jam plays different songs every night, but would you call them unpredictable?


I agree with Scabbie. You might know what songs they're gonna play, but you really don't know what'll happen at the shows (or between shows if you're in Sweden ;) ).


/jarmo

Has anyone read the book?  It was very interesting!

GN'R dangerouse or unpredictable? Hhaha. Please.
2006 tour was/is more like boring (setlist, no new cd) and frustrating (wait for him, wait for him...). Just like VR's last tour, expect without the frustration part.
Both band will surely deliver a more exciting experience If/when they release their new albums.

gn'r were called dangerous back in the late 80's and now they use that word again to show they're still alive. it's just a marketing tric