Is GnR "DANGEROUS"?

[sandman]

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

[miss bomb]

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

[kyrie]

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).

[Steel_Angel]

i have to quote mah boi buddha on this one

No They ARE The Most Dangerous Band in the World. Why?

Because to this day, they are the only Major group where you really don't know what the fuck is going to happen at your show. Will it even happen? What will Axl's mood be. Will some shit go down and my ass is trapped in the middle of a riot. They are Dangerous. But not in the limited POV you are seeing it. Who else gets some fag clothese designer taking swin gs at him? Shit man, in Europe Axl bit a cop after a cop drew some blood from him. Who else does this shit happen too? Controversy still follows this guy. At any moment some shit can go down. Its crazy and exciting and controversial. And that shit man, is why they are the Most Dangerous Band In The World.

[Bono]

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

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"

[jarmo]

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

[sandman]

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.

[jaypayton]

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........

[Steel_Angel]

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!

[BluesGNR]

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.

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.

[BLS-Pride]

Only dangrouus to human legs.

[BluesGNR]

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........

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

[Bono]

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........

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

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.

[Mandy.]

Maybe GNR is not dangerous.

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

[ppbebe]

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'd say the fans are the most dangerous bunch.

[miss bomb]

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

 

[PJ]

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

[Bono]

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

[Naupis]

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.

[kyrie]

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.