It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guns n Roses: Cancel Show Due to No Liquor

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I'm a huge fan of GnR's music. I feel they are one of the greatest bands of all time. But after reading this article, I have lost a lot of respect for them.



GN'R: No drinking on stage? No show!

LEWISTON, Maine (AP) -- Guns N' Roses canceled a performance in Portland, Maine, this week after being told by state officials that the band could not drink on stage.

Inspectors from the state fire marshal's office gave the band the no-drinking order when they came to look over the pyrotechnics planned for Monday's scheduled concert at the Cumberland County Civic Center, said Stephen McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Public Safety Department.

McCausland said the band had wanted to drink beer, wine and Jagermeister while performing. A couple of hours after being told that would violate state law, Guns N' Roses canceled its concert, he said.

After the cancellation, a band spokesperson blamed fire marshals for "making it impossible for the band to perform their show to the usual high standards that their fans deserve." The press release, however, did not give a specific reason for the pullout.

Band leader Axl Rose issued a statement through the Guns N' Roses Web site apologizing to fans in Maine.

"It was important for us to play there and it is a shame that what should have been a great night for all of us was not possible due to the actions of two people," said Rose, referring to the fire marshals.

Link


They cancel a show because they are prohibited from consuming alcohol on stage. How ridiculous is that? Thousands of fans dropped good money on tickets, with hopes of seeing these guys perform live. Pulling out and leaving them in the cold over a ruling on alcohol is absurd. I could of had tickets for their concert in Halifax next week, but I declined as I wouldn't be in town for it. If I did have them, I would honestly give them away after this.

They have put their need to drink booze over their urge to please thousands of fans. No beer, no music. To hell with the effort people put in to create this show, our need to drink is more important. That's just ridiculous.

What do you think? Agree, Disagree?




posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I with you man


This is pretty childish of G&R. I can understand having a little booz to get a little 'loose' on stage....but canceling a show over this, imo, goes down as one of the lamest monents in rock.

If you can't drink on stage, then do your drinking off stage between sets. Hell, they're friggin G&R....they can go off stage between every song if they want and noone would care, as long as they play good music.





[edit on 11/11/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Exactly.

I had a mixed cd going today and Welcome to the Jungle came on, I actually had to change the song. I can just imagine how it must feel to be a ticket holder for that concert, knowing the bs reason they canceled.

I see this tour as nothing more than a money grab in the first place. Their willingness to drop shows only reinforces this assumption.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
ahh, to a Rockstar. . .



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
As a gigging musician, I'm gonna side with GNR on this one.
To play the type of RnR that Axel and his mates play, booze might
just be an integral part of their sound, attitude and overall vibe of their show.
I personally would not want to see a band artistically restricted in anyway.
I need a few on stage to keep me loose and in the moment. I suffer from
terrible stage fright and tend to "choke" if not in the right frame of mind. Still I use
discretion and temperance because I owe it to the audience not to loose it.

I still can see why the folks that bought tickets would be POed.

I could be wrong, but to me it's trying to control the way an artist goes about conducting his business.

Rock on my brothers and sisters!



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
But how disrespectful is this?

Like Sporty said, the fan's don't care about what they do. If they needed to walk off stage to fire one back and then come out again to play a few more songs, this would of been much better then fully canceling the show. Their arrogance to feel they can treat people like this, disturbs me.

I understand that alcohol works as a social ice breaker. But GNR is a huge international band. I don't think they need alcohol to perform. I think they prefer to have alcohol. The fact is, they could of easily performed, but since they are so arrogant, they feel its their way or the highway.

If they were a young band trying to make it on the scene, they would be condemned. They would never see the inside of another recording studio. GNR's fame should not give them any special treatment. You are who you are, because of the fans. When you treat the fans like this, you deserve nothing.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I'm shocked. Shocked that Axl didn't require the ability to tie off a vein and shoot up some scag while he's on stage. You know, for the artistic enhancement.

It's all about the fans, man!
:shk:



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
I'm shocked. Shocked that Axl didn't require the ability to tie off a vein and shoot up some scag while he's on stage. You know, for the artistic enhancement.

It's all about the fans, man!
:shk:


When you are a fan, I suppose "it's all about the fans, man" and I see where the arrogance factor would rankle the fans.

I personally would never do anything to displease our fans as they are precious and hard to come by in a very competitive business. But ultimately for us it's not about the money, the fans, the free beer and nachos......

It's all about the MUSIC, man!

The music will still be there long after the "fans" have found another group of pretty boys to attach themselves to.



[edit on 13-11-2006 by whaaa]

[edit on 13-11-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
My salutations to Guns 'n' Roses for their continuing adherence to and celebration of the true spirit of rock 'n' roll (even though they haven't put out a decent record since Use Your Illusion II).

This is a band whose original bass player's pancreas exploded from habitual vodka abuse. Clearly the price of their convictions is high, yet they pay it like men and soldier on. This is what we pay them for and this is what we have a right to expect.

It's good to see a band go that extra yard or two for the sake of rock 'n' roll.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
To be honest, as a person who grew up during the hairband heyday, I would absolutely HAVE to be drinking to sit through a concert of GnR. I liked them OK when they put out their albums and all - I saw them with Motley Crue before they "blew up".....they were OK.

But now - almost 20 years later? Oh yes, a beer would be required.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
It's all about the MUSIC, man!

The music will still be there long after the "fans" have found another group of pretty boys to attach themselves to.


I'll certainly defer to your perspective as a musician, especially since I'm not. I see your point. I just think it's unfortunate that these guys don't think they can play without getting liquored up on stage.

I understand the whole badass, hotel wreckin' hard drinkin' image some R&Rers need to portray. I just think (and I'm always prepared to be wrong) that if it was really all about the music for them and the liquor is an integral part of their sound, then they could knock back a few off stage.

Is it really that inhibiting to not be able to drink on stage during the performance? Or is it more about being able to parade around on stage with a bottle of Jack Daniel's as a prop?

As all real badasses know, if you're acting like a badass, odds are you're not one.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
Is it really that inhibiting to not be able to drink on stage during the performance?

Yes indeed, if the musician in question habitually drinks while playing. And as for nipping offstage for a quick one, that's called interrupting the performance and there's no better way of ruining the experience for audience and performers alike.

Now that's out of the way, here's something else to consider. Music and booze are old inseparables. As long as people have listened to music, they've been doing so drink in hand. And musicians, too, have been used to drinking while making music. It's traditional and if feels great. It is the state of Maine that is out of step with ordinary human experience here, not Guns 'n' Roses.

As for 'caring about their fans', why should any band do that? As whaaa says, it's about the music, not about the fans, though of course one must do one's best to keep the latter loyal so that they will go on buying albums and concert tickets. But let's not kid ourselves: there is no moral obligation. Musicians owe the public nothing beyond the basic transaction of money for music, or at most for music plus performance. The rest is just sentimental sales-boosting hogwash spewed out by the entertainment industry and sadly swallowed by impressionable adolescents.

Presumably those who bought tickets for the cancelled shows got their money back. Even if they didn't, that is none of Guns 'n' Roses' affair; ticketing is an arrangement between the concert promoters and the ticket holders; the band don't get their cut until later, and if they cancel, they won't get it at all.

By refusing to appear in protest against this prohibition, Guns 'n' Roses have shown both a proper understanding of the situation and what it entails and a firm grasp of their own image, which this act will bolster rather than undermine, at least as far as their core constituency goes.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I'm sure G&R saw it as an encroachment of thier rights and in that sence I agree with them. How long have they did that, twenty years or more? To me it seems like more red tape that we see more of every day. What will it be next? On the other hand what is the underlying motive of stopping alcahol consumption on stage? If they are trying to sqeeze down the number of drunk drivers leaving the show, I see the laws point. How many times have everyone of us been told ,"Ah you can't do that" when it worked for twenty or thirty years?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join