GN'R vs. NWA: Who was the REAL most dangerous group in the world?

[hyperionmax2003]

More dangerous to society or themselves? NWA was more dangerous to society as a whole, but GNR was a danger whereever they were at the time.

[jarmo]

once i again i will mention that his question about aids pertained to whether he may have gotten the virus through drug use. it was stated before that drug use/drug culture is "dangerous". its fun repeating myself.

You can keep repeating yourself all you want but you didn't answer my question.

I don't know if you remember, but GN'R had some drug problems themselves.


Maybe you want to know who's more dangerous to just the people around them, instead of which band were more dangerous in regards to the impact on the general public they made....



/jarmo

[killingvector]

I think sharing needles and/or sharing the bed with alot of women without protection is a very dangerous lifestyle; hence, the question behind the source of easy e's HIV infection.

[the dirt]

I think sharing needles and/or sharing the bed with alot of women without protection is a very dangerous lifestyle; hence, the question behind the source of easy e's HIV infection.

But didn't you just say
                                   

it is relatively difficult for a man to contract HIV from a woman unless of course he has sores in his mouth or on his manhood.

 

[jarmo]

I think sharing needles and/or sharing the bed with alot of women without protection is a very dangerous lifestyle; hence, the question behind the source of easy e's HIV infection.

Sure, but does that automatically make NWA more dangerous?

The question was, which band was more dangerous. Many of you seem to think that just because they band did drugs, they're automatically dangerous.

How does one band member's drug problems affect Regular John in Kentucky or Regular Juan in Argentina?

How would the biggest band in the world (who are constantly on tv, radio and the newspapers) affect the above mentioned people? My point is, GN'R were the more dangerous one of those bands. Simply because they influenced more people world wide.



/jarmo

[badintentions]

and i agree with you on that, worldwide influence will have the advantage everytime. i was merely saying that the comment about hiv/drug use was still relevant to the topic and you were acting like it wasn't, that's all.

[Saul]

NWA never had the influence on young people world wide that GN'R had.




/jarmo

maybe not as big an influence but they werent far off. You gotta remember that GNR were playing music that was easy to embrace , straight up rock n roll. NWA brought rap music to the forefront and even got the white kids into it along the way. I'd say NWA were more influential then GNR to be honest , considering rock is dead now and the hip hop music rules the airwaves.

[jarmo]

NWA brought rap music to the forefront and even got the white kids into it along the way. I'd say NWA were more influential then GNR to be honest , considering rock is dead now and the hip hop music rules the airwaves.

Vanilla Ice, Will Smith and MC Hammer got white kids into rap, that doesn't make them dangerous......




/jarmo

[badintentions]

he was referring to your comment about influence more so than the issue of being dangerous. jeez...you are having a lot of trouble keeping up with this conversation, you are usually sharp as a tack.

[jarmo]

Not really.

The way I see it: Having a lot of influence on lots of people -> you can be considered dangerous.


I think Duff commented on how, when GN'R played in South America, they probably could've started a revolution if they had said the "wrong" thing on stage there. That's quite dangerous if you ask me....



/jarmo

[badintentions]

I'm not arguing that. I am arguing your quote about "Vanilla Ice, Will Smith and MC Hammer got white kids into rap, that doesn't make them dangerous......". he never said that n.w.a. bringing rap to white kids was dangerous, he said that they were influential. and even though they didn't sell as many copies of albums as gnr did, they were very influential in the culture in america.

[Saul]

I'm not arguing that. I am arguing your quote about "Vanilla Ice, Will Smith and MC Hammer got white kids into rap, that doesn't make them dangerous......". he never said that n.w.a. bringing rap to white kids was dangerous, he said that they were influential. and even though they didn't sell as many copies of albums as gnr did, they were very influential in the culture in america.

exactly. and I sorta went off topic but only by following into jarmo's remark about GNR's influence. But you did hit the nail on the head by what I meant badintentions , thanks.

and as for duff saying they could have started a revolution if they said the "right thing" .. c'mon , get real. You dont think thats a bit of an overstatement jarmo? Sure , GNR were a huge rock band way back in time but thats all they were , a rock band. Their influence doesnt come close to a band like US for example. Duff speaks about things that happened all those years ago like he can honestly remember dick about it. Another example of duff talking out of a certain side of his mouth again.

I mean some of you have brought up the "riots" at GNR shows as a reason as to why they are/were dangerous ... I dont think that made the band dangerous at all. Just because your singer get's moody and leaves a stage or doesnt show up at all doesnt make the band dangerous. It was the fans who rioted and caused damage , not GNR. And you can twist it every which way you want but the fact is the band didnt cause a riot , the fans decided to smash shit.

[jarmo]

I'm not arguing that. I am arguing your quote about "Vanilla Ice, Will Smith and MC Hammer got white kids into rap, that doesn't make them dangerous......". he never said that n.w.a. bringing rap to white kids was dangerous, he said that they were influential. and even though they didn't sell as many copies of albums as gnr did, they were very influential in the culture in america.

And I was saying having influence can be dangerous.

and as for duff saying they could have started a revolution if they said the "right thing" .. c'mon , get real. You dont think thats a bit of an overstatement jarmo?

Sure, but they did have a lot of influence on the fans there and the fans were dedicated.


GN'R's set at Leeds 2002 wasn't cut short even though they were running late. They probably weren't afraid that Axl and Buckethead were gonna beat some promoter up, but they must've been nervous about the fans' reaction if they had cut the power.

Axl jumping into the crowd to grab a camera, cutting the show short and people rioting doesn't make GN'R dangerous?



What exactly makes a band "dangerous"? Not caring what the record company says? Writing songs with the word "fuck" in them? Doing drugs? Songs about killing cops?



/jarmo

[badintentions]

I'm not arguing that. I am arguing your quote about "Vanilla Ice, Will Smith and MC Hammer got white kids into rap, that doesn't make them dangerous......". he never said that n.w.a. bringing rap to white kids was dangerous, he said that they were influential. and even though they didn't sell as many copies of albums as gnr did, they were very influential in the culture in america.

And I was saying having influence can be dangerous.

Actually by this quote "Vanilla Ice, Will Smith and MC Hammer got white kids into rap, that doesn't make them dangerous......" you were implying quite the opposite. that is why i said something. that particular quote really totally missed the point in the conversation. you are contridicting yourself at this point and its embarrassing.

[Saul]

What exactly makes a band "dangerous"? Not caring what the record company says? Writing songs with the word "fuck" in them? Doing drugs? Songs about killing cops?



/jarmo

A band that you might meet after a show and try to get their autograph or tell them a certain song wasnt very good and they beat the shit outta you. 

And you dont think NWA had any influence over their fans during concerts? I bet their was more deaths caused by things eazy e said onstage about rival gang members then anything thing axl has ever said. Eazy E starts talking smack about a rival gang in compton and right after the show you have fans out on the street in a gun fight.

This isnt about writing songs with the word "fuck" , "killing cops" or whatever in them jarmo , and I think you realize this. To argue GNR were more dangerous then NWA back in the day seems silly to me.

[jarmo]

This isnt about writing songs with the word "fuck" , "killing cops" or whatever in them jarmo , and I think you realize this. To argue GNR were more dangerous then NWA back in the day seems silly to me.

Ok. Seems like we're talking about different things then.

While I've been talking about influencing people all around the world, having a certain unpredictability about the band etc., and being considered dangerous because of that, you're talking about how NWA were involved in gang wars.

Well in that case I guess most rappers that ever came from Compton are/were more dangerous than GN'R.

Actually by this quote "Vanilla Ice, Will Smith and MC Hammer got white kids into rap, that doesn't make them dangerous......" you were implying quite the opposite. that is why i said something. that particular quote really totally missed the point in the conversation. you are contridicting yourself at this point and its embarrassing.

How?

Those people influenced people, but does that make them dangerous? Not in my opinion.

Influence can be dangerous, but just because NWA made white kids into rap fans doesn't make NWA dangerous. That's my "embarrasing" opinion.

The fact their songs weren't about how parent's just don't understand, made them more dangerous than Will Smith. But that's a different issue.


Oh well, seems like the two of you are talking about something completely different than what I was trying to get across.....



/jarmo

[WAR41]

I am not going to read the whole thread so this may be repeating something, but I think NWA was the more dangerous group.  They pretty much brought the inner city gang mentality to rap music and even though they claimed they were trying to make people more 'aware' of what was going on they really just glorified it in the end.  It made it cool for some one to be a thug, to carry a gun, to drink 40's with Billy D.

I think what GNR did was produce a bunch of pissed off middle class kids that drank underage and maybe did coke a few times with their friends and thought they were Axl Rose after they decided to grow their hair out.  Of course I have absolutely no proof of that, but that is what I think.  While GNR was more dangerous to the entire world as a whole, I think that NWA had a VERY powerful impact on people in the United States.  So much so that it exceeds the effect that GNR had on the world. 

[Mattman]

I thought it was a very interesting and original thread topic! Fuck the haters! hats off to you.?

Thanks for the support. 

Anyway, I think Jarmo's right about how influence can be a very dangerous thing.  But both groups had influence, and I tend to think that NWA's was larger and thus more dangerous.  These days, Guns N' Roses have become a very mainstream band to listen to, even if the message and music is raw, because they're joined the classic rock pantheon.  People can mention Guns N' Roses in the same sentences as Led Zeppelin nowadays. 

The thing is, while GN'R are listened to more than NWA these days, I would argue that their social influence is less.  Kids who think of themselves as "bad boys" don't grow their hair out and wear bandanas or leather these days, listening to hard rock; they're more inclined to go for rap or maybe hardcore metal.  Mind you, that's completely conjectural on my part, but that's just the general impression I get.  It seems to me that NWA started the popularization of the gangsta image, and that's now the most widespread perception of what it is to be a "bad boy" or "dangerous".

I mean, how else to explain the similarities and differences between Eminem and Axl?  Both came from white trash families and had bad relationships with their parents, and they both eventually came to fame based on their "dangerous" music and bad boy images.  The difference is that Axl was an old-school rock star, while Eminem takes the more contemporary route of rap.  Hip-hop is now the most popular form of commercial music, and I think NWA had a lot to do with the popularization of it, moreso with the gangsta thing.  If you look at how widespread that image and mentality is now - as well as the ongoing problem of violence in rap - I think you've a far more dangerous influence than Guns N' Roses had.

[Twisted Nerve 85]

Well considering that N.W.A. sucked after Cube left in 89 I'd say this is no contest, the most dangerous band of the early 90's was the Pet Shop Boys

Bullshit, NWA's second album NIGGAZ4LIFE was TEN TIMES BETTER THAN STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON!!!! It was also the first rap record to debut at number one, and Im gonna have to say GnR to answer the thread question cause rock music was so faggy at that point they js poured piss and venegar all over rocks open wounds. They also sold more records so they touched more ppl. NWA revolutionized rap and GnR marked the last of the legendary rock bands. So In my mind they both were dangerous, cept GnR actually lived what they said on the records. 

[Axl_owns_dexter]

We are basically arguing about who is the more ignorant, backwards, dumb a$$ musical entity.  I don't want Axl anywhere near in that category to those NWA fools.  Ya, its real cool to glorify violence when so many young black males are in jail.  That isn't something to be proud.

By the Time I get to Arizona (a song that pretty openly talked about assassinating the then-governor of Arizona for not endorsing the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday)

I am sure Dr. King would be so proud.