Jump to content

Has your opinion of Slash and Duff changed since the NITL tour started?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lame ass security said:

If I remember correctly a member of Mayhem killed another member, then another member found the body and made a necklace from a bit of his skull.  Then their singer, whose name was Dead, ended up committing suicide. You can't make that stuff up.

You got it a bit mixed up, Dead killed himself and Euronymous found the body, then did made the necklace with the shattered bones. Mayhem himself was then eventually killed by Varg. 

Edited by Joshy96
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GN'R didn't refer to themselves as "the most dangerous band in the world". That was a media (or Geffen?) construct and both Slash and Duff hated it.

As far as Mayhem goes. They certainly embraced that lame nihilistic, "I hate everything" attitude. I wouldn't say they were really dangerous though, unless you happened to be a stave church or got a pigs head thrown on you during one of their shows. As always it was just show business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/02/2020 at 8:33 PM, Flayer said:

Mine hasn’t changed much. Being too young to have lived through the original era, I never really had either of them high up on a pedestal or any grandiose expectations of them changing the entire direction of the band again if they came back. My disillusionment and disappointment with Axl on the other hand between the Chinese Democracy era and now has grown immeasurably.

Looking back on classic GNR, the stories, the videos, everything about them, it was Axl and Axl alone who was responsible for making them “the most dangerous band in the world.” Sure, the rest of them were a bunch of semi- or fully dysfunctional drug addicts - but that’s neither unique nor particularly dangerous to anyone but themselves. Drugged out rockstars are a dime a dozen.

It was Axl that was unique both within the band and among rockstars of the era, because he was basically at war with everyone and everything. The critics, the media, the fans, the bandmates, the management, other bands, the women in his life - anyone he crossed paths with, he might explode in spectacular fashion against them, seemingly out of nowhere, without regard for the consequences, at times even to the point of unleashing physical violence.

That was what was dangerous about GNR. Axl was hardly the first guy to wage a one-man war against the world, but this was the first time you had a highly talented, world famous rock band tethered to such a personality.

And well into the Chinese Democracy era, even past the release of the album for a time, Axl remained a compelling figure because this hadn’t changed. Axl was still at war with everything, no longer as a Napoleonic conqueror but instead as Colonel Kurtz in the jungle.

You may still love Axl as a musician (indeed I do), but that mystique he once had is dead now, and it’s dead because Axl is now at peace with the world. He let go of his old grudges. He stopped exploring new musical directions. He shows up on time and turns in predictable performances. He doesn’t pick fights anymore. He gives friendly interviews to the media. He holds conventional liberal political opinions. He never says anything that would offend mainstream sensibilities. He doesn’t even sue anybody these days, the lazy rich man’s way of war.

Axl is a 100% tamed monster these days, and while that’s probably great for his own emotional well-being (indeed he’s probably never been happier or more comfortable than he is now), from a dramatic standpoint there’s no thrill or adventure to him anymore. All that’s left is his performance as a musician, and with his diminishing vocal abilities and refusal to take any new creative risks, it all adds up to a very boring and familiar figure, the aged out, washed up musical has-been.

A long way to fall in just a few years for such a legendary artist, and an especially grave disappointment for those of us who were invested in Axl’s creative vision from the era of Chinese Democracy.

A superbly articulated post that, in my mind, is a 100% spot on.  Thankyou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

GN'R didn't refer to themselves as "the most dangerous band in the world". That was a media (or Geffen?) construct and both Slash and Duff hated it.

As far as Mayhem goes. They certainly embraced that lame nihilistic, "I hate everything" attitude. I wouldn't say they were really dangerous though, unless you happened to be a stave church or got a pigs head thrown on you during one of their shows. As always it was just show business. 

Isn't was  Niven idea refer GNR like "the most dangerous band of the world"❓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ratam said:

Isn't was  Niven idea refer GNR like "the most dangerous band of the world"❓

As far as I can tell, it was a term coined by Malcolm Dome at Kerrang! in their "Rumble from the Jungle" article published on October 10, 1987:

Quote

RUMBLE FROM THE JUNGLE

THE MOST DANGEROUS BAND IN THE WORLD - GUNS N' ROSES - ARE CURRENTLY LAYING WASTE TO OUR CONCERT HALLS. MALCOLM DOME DISCOVERS THEIR 'UNCRONTROLLABLE EDGE', THEIR 'DEPRAVED GENIUS'... AND THE FACT THAT THEY 'DON'T GIVE A TOSS'!

"REMINDS ME of my expedition to the wilds of Afghanistan. We lost the corkscrew and were forced to live on food and water for several days." - WC Fields.

The most dangerous band in the world are back in Britain. No, this isn't an excuse for some yellow rag 'take your partners for the jaundice tango' journalism. Rather, it's a statement of fact, pure, simple and smouldering.

Over the past few months it seems that everyone has had Guns n' Roses on their lips, playlists and turntables. Since they arrived in England during late June for a two-week, three Marquee show stint, the Gunners have become hobo heroes, road surfers calmly rising above the initial controversy caused by an apparently disappointing debut gig at the famous Marquee sweatwashed hogs inn to establish themselves during the subsequent brace of dates as a real gem.

They are, indeed, dangerous in the manner that all truly awesome rock 'n' roll bands have been, always will be. Led by the remarkable W. Axl Rose, the Los Angeles five-piece are very much the harbingers of the third generation of sleazy spirit. The Rolling Stones began things in the Sixties, Aerosmith took up the cudgels a decade later . and now Guns n' Roses have come along to sweep the genre into a new, exciting era.

No, the Gunners are not the Stones. Nor are they Aerosmith. They have elements of both coursing through their speckled veins, but there's a degree (somewhere out beyond the usual limits of the Centigrade scale) of contemporary acumen that puts 'em into the same league as Jagger, Tyler et al, without recourse to imitation. In short, this band could prove to be as important to the next decade as their predecessors were to years gone by.

So, what is this danger? It's an uncontrollable edge, a sense of unpredictability that is a constant companion, straining at the leash of convention and always likely to break loose and push Axl and his troops (Izzy and Slash on guitar, Duff on bass and Steven Adler on drums) right over the precipice. It happened in San Francisco, when Gn'R recently opened up for the Cult. Right at the climax of a spectacularly frightening performance, Duff ripped off his bass and threw himself, Mosh-style, into the audience. It was an impulse act, folly coupled to adrenalin, and certainly not a pre-rehearsed contrivance. It had the effect of bringing home to me just what is the essence of this brilliant rock 'n' roll band: they don't give a toss!

"Duff hasn't done a stage dive like that since the last night at the Marquee," said Slash backstage after the show. "And that really is the point, you don't know what you're gonna get from this band, but whatever it is you can be sure it's worth the
wait!"

THIS PARTICULAR night in San Fran really brought home to me that at the moment there is no other group around who can hope to compete with Guns n' Roses onstage. It really was a set dripping with the rabid control exercised only by the insane.

Whilst they're on the boards, you really do get spine-tingling dribbling shivers caused by the spearing squeeze of depraved genius. It's as if all five members suddenly lose perspective, douse civilised norms in petard emotion and set it alight. They are a supernova that is unhinged by a charismatic impertinence. Indeed, it says much for the Cult that they allowed Guns n' Roses as much opportunity as possible to give of their best, with no hint of the usual headline act paranoia.

"The Cult are the first band we've met who really have treated us right," explained AXL shortly before this momentous show.

"And do you know how we got this tour? Because Ian Astbury, the Cult's lead vocalist, came to our first show at the Marquee, the one we got such a slagging for, and liked it so much he offered us the tour. So f**k those journalists who wrote those bad things, Ian Astbury liked what he saw, right?

"We've been having a great time with the Cult, and Ian seems to spend more time in our dressing room than his own."

Just how close these two bands now are became clear when Astbury himself dashed out to get Duff a ripped black T-shirt to use as a headband. Now that's what I call co-operation. Whether Motley Crue will treat their LA compatriots so well when the lattere replace Whitesnake as special guests on the Nikki Sixx trail very soon remains to be seen. But hey, Guns n' Roses (with a rapidly rising Hot 100 album on the US charts) won't bother worrying about this tour (which should definitely be dubbed 'The Survival Of The Sickest Trek') until they return from their current five-date headlining trek around the UK, in conjunction with Faster Pussycat.

"We are looking forward to this so much," gleams Axl. "It's a chance to get out around the country ad visit some of the places that fans travelled from to see us at the Marquee. We had a blast in London earlier this year and I'm sure this tour will go extremely well."

That's probably an understatement. As I write, just prior to the tour getting underway, all the signs are that we'll have a total sell-out situation to report. But more than that, I suspect this will be a real turning point for the group, with Aerosmith among the sufferers.

Originally, of course, Gn'R were supposed to come back here as the 'Smith's support act. However, due to confusing circumstances (finances apparently playing a part) that Euro-trek was cancelled by the Aeros. But the Gunners were determined to come anyway and will, I think, completely erase memories of Aerosmith, who've not been here in a decade and are showing no signs of genuinely wanting to return. If we're starved of the great Bostonians, let's hear it for their natural successors. In fact to many, with their 'Appetite For Destruction' album, Guns n' Roses have already usurped Aerosmith's crown and will `merely' use the UK tour to polish up those rivets n' jewels.

So, what can we expect from the Gn'Rs? Certainly no lack of potent, scarring activity. A set brimful of raw salt, germicidal edge and suicidal bloodlust. They will burst, bludgeon and blaze, never hiding behind SFX but proving that their music, attitude and excessive habits are all they need. In San Francisco, the Gunners had a dark, foreboding insolence. They seethed with a magnetic malevolence, at once invoking an uneasy, tempestuous spirit whilst kicking sharply with the sheer fortitude of their street-forged greed and hunger for gouging out a niche.

There is no arrogance about Guns, nor an air of superiority. They simply lash straight and burn with an incandescent fragility.

Izzy and Slash (the former operating with amps that threatened to pack up at any time) literally tore neon-glitz viscera out of their strings, rather like a pit bull terrier ripping apart a panicking victim at the shoulder blade, feeding the torn torso avariciously into the rhythmic rotary stare and the sawblade cutting thrust that is Duff and Adler. And holding the entire cannibal atmosphere in the palm of his hand is Axl, the knave at the court of crimson death, Rasputin defrocked for the jean jeanie jeneration. Possessed of a rapturous vocal range, possessed of a mesmeric presence, Axl is ... possessed. He commands and demands, shadowboxing, lunging, triggering, never more than a hair's breadth away from bedlam as he lasciviously twirls his lyrics, twisting 'em into a frenzy of erotic homicide.

THE SONGS speak of drugs, sex, violence. They are the poetry of the alleys, this band are the laureates of the gutter - God knows, I love 'em for it. 'Welcome To The Jungle', 'It's So Easy', 'Mr. Brownstone', 'Paradise City', 'Knockin' On Heaven's Door' ... this was another definitive performance from perhaps the latest band to deserve that irrelevant accolade of 'The Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band In The World'. The Gunners don't need this title. I suspect they want it, and for what it's worth, they've now earnt it.

They've also earnt the revulsion and mistrust of the music establishment in America. Geffen Records tried to stop them using the supposedly controversial `robotic rape' painting by Robert Williams on the cover of the LP; clearly the label were running scared that the Moral Majority, the PMRC or yet another body of over-ripe Bible assassins freebasing on fanaticism would take offence and try to have the record banned. Guns n' Roses refused to change the artwork . and won their case (NB. As a compromise, an alternative cover has also been released depicting a 'cross tattoo').

The band have also hit trouble over the video for `Welcome To The jungle'. MTV insisted that a scene which shows Adler kissing a girl on the shoulder whilst in bed had to be edited out.

"It's f**kin' stupid," roars Axl with some justification. "This scene is harmless. There's no nudity or obscene behaviour. And yet MTV object to it. What sickens me is that the George Michael video for 'I Want Your Sex', which is far more suggestive than ours, is allowed to go out uncensored. Explain that one if you can. We're just being picked on."

YET DESPITE these minor setbacks, the people that matter, the kids, are taking the band close to heart. They have recognised that the Gunners are disenfranchised leaders.

They aren't rebelling, but making a statement, which is as follows: Just leave us alone to do our own thing. It's a simple message, but one that is more convincing than any conniving PMRC bogeyman bleatings deliberately coaxed into the open by the manipulative Bluey Clueless or the Ronald McDonald antics of Dee Snider.

Guns n' Roses represent themselves alone. But in doing so they've captured the mood of a generation. They have a scumball reputation and it's all true, but more than that this lot are real, which is why they are the most dangerous band in the world and why they cannot be stopped.

Source with scans: https://www.a-4-d.com/t3193-1987-10-10-kerrang-rumble-from-the-jungle

As I said before, the band didn't really approve of this reputation. They recognized the marketing value, but didn't think it fitted them very well.

 

 

Edited by SoulMonster
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

As far as I can tell, it was a term coined by Malcolm Dome at Kerrang! in their "Rumble from the Jungle" article published on October 10, 1987:

Source with scans: https://www.a-4-d.com/t3193-1987-10-10-kerrang-rumble-from-the-jungle

As I said before, the band didn't really approve of this reputation. They recognized the marketing value, but didn't think it fitted them very well.

 

 

Interesting and very long article, i dont't know about the MTV edited the WTTJ video, about Steve in the bed with one girl. It MTV puritanism look ridiculous to today standars :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that article

Quote

They are, indeed, dangerous in the manner that all truly awesome rock 'n' roll bands have been, always will be. Led by the remarkable W. Axl Rose, the Los Angeles five-piece are very much the harbingers of the third generation of sleazy spirit. The Rolling Stones began things in the Sixties, Aerosmith took up the cudgels a decade later . and now Guns n' Roses have come along to sweep the genre into a new, exciting era.

No, the Gunners are not the Stones. Nor are they Aerosmith. They have elements of both coursing through their speckled veins, but there's a degree (somewhere out beyond the usual limits of the Centigrade scale) of contemporary acumen that puts 'em into the same league as Jagger, Tyler et al, without recourse to imitation. In short, this band could prove to be as important to the next decade as their predecessors were to years gone by.

So, what is this danger? It's an uncontrollable edge, a sense of unpredictability that is a constant companion, straining at the leash of convention and always likely to break loose and push Axl and his troops (Izzy and Slash on guitar, Duff on bass and Steven Adler on drums) right over the precipice. It happened in San Francisco, when Gn'R recently opened up for the Cult. Right at the climax of a spectacularly frightening performance, Duff ripped off his bass and threw himself, Mosh-style, into the audience. It was an impulse act, folly coupled to adrenalin, and certainly not a pre-rehearsed contrivance. It had the effect of bringing home to me just what is the essence of this brilliant rock 'n' roll band: they don't give a toss!

"Duff hasn't done a stage dive like that since the last night at the Marquee," said Slash backstage after the show. "And that really is the point, you don't know what you're gonna get from this band, but whatever it is you can be sure it's worth the
wait!"

And just whom was this danger said to be poised at anyways? What danger? Im missing something. They are dangerous because 'rock is dangerous?' Or because Duff might stage dive? :lol:

A danger to themselves via hard drugs? Axl as a danger to his spouses? Their fans via riots and DJ Ashba ('beating up a fan')? They're certainly a danger to their own livelihoods, historically.

I guess the idea is that they were a danger to the establishment? Except last I checked the establishment loves when untold millions of dollars of market growth and spending power is produced. So that just leaves the aforementioned puritanical branch of the establishment? But dying of heroin isnt exactly a point against the puritans "just say "no."'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

All they did really was a bunch of drugs and alcohol and they didn't even do that well. Slash used to piss himself all the time after a barcardi breezer. Compared to people like Moon, Hendrix and the Stones they were lightweights.

I wouldn't say being in rehab 26 times with countless ODs that led to a heart attack and stroke that left half his face paralysed; bringing heart starters on tour because of frequent ODs and eventually needing a pacemaker; or drinking so much over so long that your pancreas shuts down, lightweights. It is simply luck they are all still alive. Just a little bit of luck that separates them from being "lightweight" to the ones you mention. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I wouldn't say being in rehab 26 times with countless ODs that led to a heart attack and stroke that left half his face paralysed; bringing heart starters on tour because of frequent ODs and eventually needing a pacemaker; or drinking so much over so long that your pancreas shuts down, lightweights. It is simply luck they are all still alive. Just a little bit of luck that separates them from being "lightweight" to the ones you mention. 

That just proves my point. Because he couldn't handle it. Couldn't handle his ale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Slash handled it very well, considering what he did and for how long. 20 years of continuous drinking big amounts of booze, cocaine and on-off heroin and speedballs. He was also a "functional" addict, he could play and had, relatively, control of what he said and did. Steven and Izzy couldn't handle it, but Izzy had the strength to cut off and Steven survived it.

It all depends on a lot of things. What kind of substances one uses, what amounts, for how long, also predisposition, mental state... For example, there have been cases of "functional" chronic alcoholics, but rarely one can get away with heroin - not for long, at least. Or when someone has a mental illness or is predisposed to it, usually is fucked up by drugs. Syd Barrett, Brian Wilson couldn't handle it, whereas others could. Brian Jones couldn't handle it, Keith Richards could. An so on.

I don't think there is anything heroic in "handling" it. Nor it has really much to do with creativity (with the exception of psychedelic drugs, maybe).

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ratam said:

Interesting and very long article, i dont't know about the MTV edited the WTTJ video, about Steve in the bed with one girl. It MTV puritanism look ridiculous to today standars :D

What would have been a better slogan for the original lineup? What would be a good slogan for them now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MurielWeathers said:

What would have been a better slogan for the original lineup? What would be a good slogan for them now?

I think that slogans isn't necessary, any band talk for themself, it slogans are just for publicity reasons. Nonsense. Apparently GNR not was also comfortable with it "title".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by his own words, it was actually Duff who originally described GNR as "the most dangerous band in the world":

Quote

But all that barely mattered to the hordes of closeted teenagers who snapped up 'Contraband' the first day it went on sale. The fact is, they'd never heard anything quite as insurrectionist as Velvet Revolver before; to them, the quintets painstakingly cultivated brand of fuck-you debauchery was a brand new thing. For, as McKagan insists: "This is the first dangerous band that's come around in a while."

WHICH BRINGS ME NEATLY BACK AROUND TO GUNS N' ROSES, WHO WERE once described-as I mentioned earlier-as the most dangerous band in the world. McKagan grimaces: "Well I think it was me who actually originally said that, and I've been fucking kicking myself ever since."

So what sums up a 'dangerous' band?

"Kind of just a band that wears its heart on its sleeve," McKagan replies blandly. "We feed off the audience, and every night is going to be a different thing. Look, I've got a little story for you. Me and my wife, we have two small girls, and we employed an au pair who came from Guatemala. For some reason the au pair wanted to go see Nickelback, so I took her to one of their shows in Los Angeles... and I swear I couldn't last. I had to give her the cab fare home. I had to leave... "

Why was that?

"Because it was such fucking crap," McKagan groans. "I don't mean to dis the guys in Nickelback personally. After all, they found this little formula that enabled them to enjoy themselves, and to go on and play around the world. But to me it was really watered down and [sighs] boring. There was the band and the audience, but there was nothing connecting the two.

"So, a good rock’n’roll band, and a good rock ’n’ roll show, should involve a good amount of bruises and blood, and an outpouring of emotion. It should be something you leave behind with the attitude of: “Fuck, that’s something I’m never going to forget”. With us, there’s an element of: what’s going to happen next? Like it used to be with Guns N’ Roses"

Classic Rock, Issue 72 November 2004

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ratam said:

I think that slogans isn't necessary, any band talk for themself, it slogans are just for publicity reasons. Nonsense. Apparently GNR not was also comfortable with it "title".

I know I just thought it would be interesting to see what everyone thought. Slogans aren't needed but they are fun to come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Going by his own words, it was actually Duff who originally described GNR as "the most dangerous band in the world":

Classic Rock, Issue 72 November 2004

Well, that was a good explanation by Duff and the Nickelback thing was hilarious.   But does intensity, volatility, and unpredictability equal "dangerous"? In the realm of music it might. 

Edited by lame ass security
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lame ass security said:

Well, that was a good explanation by Duff and the Nickelback thing was hilarious.   But does intensity, volatility, and unpredictability equal "dangerous"? In the realm of music it might. 

A happy band is a dangerous band.  That's what the Dead had to say on the subject.  They were referring to all those things you cited above that made them happy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...