DieselDaisy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Keith Moon died of a drug overdose from prescription medicine that was supposed to be treating his alcoholism. You have to remember that these guys drank far more booze than Guns N' Roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Keith Moon died of a drug overdose from prescription medicine that was supposed to be treating his alcoholism. You have to remember that these guys drank far more booze than Guns N' Roses. Moonie drank so much he went to the fuckin' doctor and told him how much he drank and the doctor was like look, don't quit cuz you're so addicted if you do you'll probably die from the shock. The doctor told him that he'd live longer if he switched his whiskey for brandy so thats what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Bird Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 This is a silly discussion since we don't no what and how much they really drank. But however, is drinking or doing drugs being dangerous? Obviously not. Is dancing like Elvis dangerous? Hell no.Noone of them was dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknroll41 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The "most dangerous band in the world" thing came from that time two fans died during a crowd surge at their monsters of Rock festival gig in 1988.And btw, saying that they shouldn't play the AFD songs anymore cause they stopped doing drugs is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. That's like saying Axl shoulda stopped singing SCOM when he and Erin divorced in 1990.U write a song about an experience, but that doesn't mean u have to keep living that experience to play the song. U capture some lightning in a bottle and then continue to enjoy it as sorta a memento while going forward with your life and changing with new experiences 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 This is a silly discussion since we don't no what and how much they really drank.But however, is drinking or doing drugs being dangerous? Obviously not.Is dancing like Elvis dangerous? Hell no.Noone of them was dangerous.Elvis was certainly considered 'dangerous' in his milieu of 1950's America; he was perceived as sexualising adolescents through pelvic gyrations. It was not just the hip swinging either but also the lyrical content, incorporating as it did the sexual mores of - what was termed by white America - 'race' music. The whole package was highly provocative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 This is a silly discussion since we don't no what and how much they really drank.But however, is drinking or doing drugs being dangerous? Obviously not.Is dancing like Elvis dangerous? Hell no.Noone of them was dangerous.Elvis was certainly considered 'dangerous' in his milieu of 1950's America; he was perceived as sexualising adolescents through pelvic gyrations. It was not just the hip swinging either but also the lyrical content, incorporating as it did the sexual mores of - what was termed by white America - 'race' music. The whole package was highly provocative. This is a silly discussion since we don't no what and how much they really drank.But however, is drinking or doing drugs being dangerous? Obviously not.Is dancing like Elvis dangerous? Hell no.Noone of them was dangerous.Elvis was certainly considered 'dangerous' in his milieu of 1950's America; he was perceived as sexualising adolescents through pelvic gyrations. It was not just the hip swinging either but also the lyrical content, incorporating as it did the sexual mores of - what was termed by white America - 'race' music. The whole package was highly provocative. I always thought the Stones should make an album and call it Nonsensical Gyrations, because that's what Mick does onstage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) What did GN'R do that was that 'dangerous'?- Had a nutter singer who refused to turn up and shit his nappy every time someone threw something on stage- Peed their pants because they could not handle their liquor- Took some drugsYeh dude, 'dangerous'. Nowhere near as dangerous as Lennon in the '70's, Stones, Pistols or even Elvis and those hips corrupting the youth of America. They were dubbed the most dangerous band after two people died during their set at Monsters of Rock in 1988. They cemented that reputation with the riots during the UYI Tour. The fact that you willfully overlook these events is strange. Edited October 3, 2015 by GNRfan2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) What did GN'R do that was that 'dangerous'?- Had a nutter singer who refused to turn up and shit his nappy every time someone threw something on stage- Peed their pants because they could not handle their liquor- Took some drugsYeh dude, 'dangerous'. Nowhere near as dangerous as Lennon in the '70's, Stones, Pistols or even Elvis and those hips corrupting the youth of America. They were dubbed the most dangerous band after two people died during their set at Monsters of Rock in 1988. They cemented that reputation with the riots during the UYI Tour. The fact that you willfully overlook these events is strange.The term most 'most dangerous band in the world' was being used before they played Donington Park. Also, their deaths had nothing to do with Guns N' Roses and a whole lot to do with over crowding and poor crowd control on the part of the festival organisers. They could have just as easily died during Maiden or Megadeth's set. PS"The most dangerous band in the world."- Kerrang!, October 1987Donington Monsters of Rock, 20 August 1988. Edited October 3, 2015 by DieselDaisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 What did GN'R do that was that 'dangerous'?- Had a nutter singer who refused to turn up and shit his nappy every time someone threw something on stage- Peed their pants because they could not handle their liquor- Took some drugsYeh dude, 'dangerous'. Nowhere near as dangerous as Lennon in the '70's, Stones, Pistols or even Elvis and those hips corrupting the youth of America. They were dubbed the most dangerous band after two people died during their set at Monsters of Rock in 1988. They cemented that reputation with the riots during the UYI Tour. The fact that you willfully overlook these events is strange.The term most 'most dangerous band in the world' was being used before they played Donington Park. Also, their deaths had nothing to do with Guns N' Roses and a whole lot to do with over crowding and poor crowd control on the part of the festival organisers. They could have just as easily died during Maiden or Megadeth's set. You can say that all you want, but the crowd was reacting to GN'R itself. They were very, very popular at the time. Those other bands did not cause the same reaction. Crowd went fucking nuts for GN'R specifically. Axl and the other band members begged the crowd to back up because he felt it was dangerous and of course the moshers didn't listen. Can you provide evidence that they were labeled the most dangerous band before that incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 What did GN'R do that was that 'dangerous'?- Had a nutter singer who refused to turn up and shit his nappy every time someone threw something on stage- Peed their pants because they could not handle their liquor- Took some drugsYeh dude, 'dangerous'. Nowhere near as dangerous as Lennon in the '70's, Stones, Pistols or even Elvis and those hips corrupting the youth of America. They were dubbed the most dangerous band after two people died during their set at Monsters of Rock in 1988. They cemented that reputation with the riots during the UYI Tour. The fact that you willfully overlook these events is strange.The term most 'most dangerous band in the world' was being used before they played Donington Park. Also, their deaths had nothing to do with Guns N' Roses and a whole lot to do with over crowding and poor crowd control on the part of the festival organisers. They could have just as easily died during Maiden or Megadeth's set. You can say that all you want, but the crowd was reacting to GN'R itself. They were very, very popular at the time. Those other bands did not cause the same reaction. Crowd went fucking nuts for GN'R specifically. Axl and the other band members begged the crowd to back up because he felt it was dangerous and of course the moshers didn't listen. Can you provide evidence that they were labeled the most dangerous band before that incident?Already have. I amended my post - see above. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 What was Kerrang's basis for saying that in 87? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluzcu Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 an ex smoker is the worst about another smoking it is what it is. however, just like you and i would know if our friend was clean so would they. no one knows anthers addiction better than the one who lived it and they ones who saw it they all partied enough with each other to know the signs of the others use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Bird Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 This is a silly discussion since we don't no what and how much they really drank.But however, is drinking or doing drugs being dangerous? Obviously not.Is dancing like Elvis dangerous? Hell no.Noone of them was dangerous. Elvis was certainly considered 'dangerous' in his milieu of 1950's America; he was perceived as sexualising adolescents through pelvic gyrations. It was not just the hip swinging either but also the lyrical content, incorporating as it did the sexual mores of - what was termed by white America - 'race' music. The whole package was highly provocative. Yes he was considered, but than again, Guns was also considered the most dangerous band. We hardcore fans know they wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 You can drink like nemo on coke though innit. I drank three bottles of vodka once and felt great for three days. Mow i drink a ribena and feel like shit for three days. Rosalie!This is a silly discussion since we don't no what and how much they really drank.But however, is drinking or doing drugs being dangerous? Obviously not.Is dancing like Elvis dangerous? Hell no.Noone of them was dangerous. Elvis was certainly considered 'dangerous' in his milieu of 1950's America; he was perceived as sexualising adolescents through pelvic gyrations. It was not just the hip swinging either but also the lyrical content, incorporating as it did the sexual mores of - what was termed by white America - 'race' music. The whole package was highly provocative. Yes he was considered, but than again, Guns was also considered the most dangerous band. We hardcore fans know they wasn't.It was the title of Mick Wall's book?I think I remember Slash ducking out of a Motely session. They were tying chicks up in the hotel. Adler was hanging with Nikki Sixx always a mistake! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 What did GN'R do that was that 'dangerous'?- Had a nutter singer who refused to turn up and shit his nappy every time someone threw something on stage- Peed their pants because they could not handle their liquor- Took some drugsYeh dude, 'dangerous'. Nowhere near as dangerous as Lennon in the '70's, Stones, Pistols or even Elvis and those hips corrupting the youth of America. They were dubbed the most dangerous band after two people died during their set at Monsters of Rock in 1988. They cemented that reputation with the riots during the UYI Tour. The fact that you willfully overlook these events is strange.Street Scene was probably the most dangerous GNR gig because you had punks and metalheads in the audience and the cops were being assholes (Daryl Gates was in charge by the way), and GNR didn't really have much in the way of protection. I guarantee there's been more sports-related deaths involving fans than people who have died at rock concerts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIST Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Sounds great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 GN'R were about as dangerous as my pants after a kebab. Keith Richards could drink them under the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Adler is as relevant for a Gn'R reunion as any of the nuGn'R guitar players were/are... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluzcu Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Adler is as relevant for a Gn'R reunion as any of the nuGn'R guitar players were/are... could not agree more. if there is to be a reunion i simply see him have ZERO chance of being part of it other than being a ticket holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-Ass Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Steven seems to be doing great.. It think it would be a damn shame not to give him a chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts