Home Community Forums Behind Closed Doors Newsflash: Rock stars more likely to die prematurely

Dates

· UTC

Newsflash: Rock stars more likely to die prematurely

Archived

14 replies · 502 views

This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.

← Back to Behind Closed Doors

15 posts

4 Sep 2007, 10:06

Rock stars more likely to die prematurely

4 Sep 2007, 10:25

4 Sep 2007, 12:51

There is a saying here in Filipino that I will translate in English:

"Bad dudes don't die easily."

So rock stars are good guys.

Indeed*!*

4 Sep 2007, 16:41

Like they needed a fancy study to figure that out???

5 Sep 2007, 05:42

Probably just due to the issue with more people overdosing on drugs or committing suicide or getting assassinated than average people. That's not to say that all rock stars die extremely young. For every rock musician that dies young, there are several more who live quite long.

I hate these types of generalisations.

5 Sep 2007, 05:53

BonoShed wrote: Like they needed a fancy study to figure that out???

They could just ask Dr Obvious...maybe get a second opinion from Captain Cliche..'Only the good die young'at the Captain's table. Bollocks..drink too much turps,and sniff too much glue = Brown Bread...Does'nt take Carol Vorderman to do the maths,really....

5 Sep 2007, 06:44

No shit Sherlock!!

Why then hasnt that useless tosser Pete Doherty gone yet? Or Amy Whinehouse?

Both of them should be due their entry into the notorious rock and roll hall of flames who burned brightly and shightly all too mercifully briefly.

:shrug: :thumbdown:

5 Sep 2007, 09:33

Keith Richards surely beat the odds.

But Brian Jones didn't. A far more interesting study would've been one of which where if a member dies prematurely, what effect does that have on the rest of the members in the same band. They could interview the RHCP, Metallica, ACDC, New Order.. the list goes on.

5 Sep 2007, 09:42

nmc wrote: Keith Richards surely beat the odds.

But Brian Jones didn't. A far more interesting study would've been one of which where if a member dies prematurely, what effect does that have on the rest of the members in the same band. They could interview the RHCP, Metallica, ACDC, New Order.. the list goes on.

I am not so sure about Keith Richards. Hasn't he been dead since the late 1960's?

Matt

5 Sep 2007, 16:11

Matt (not him again) wrote:

I am not so sure about Keith Richards. Hasn't he been dead since the late 1960's?

Matt

haha. Maybe the drugs have helped keep him alive, in a preservative kind of way.

I just now recall him falling off a tree picking coconuts (last year?) and he even survived brain surgery from that.

Maybe it was his dad's ashes he snorted.

5 Sep 2007, 16:23

At the end of time after the apocalypse, all that will be be left is the roaches and Keith Richards.

5 Sep 2007, 16:42

BonoShed wrote: At the end of time after the apocalypse, all that will be be left is the roaches and Keith Richards.

you're absolutly right :rofl:

5 Sep 2007, 17:38

Andrès wrote:

BonoShed wrote: At the end of time after the apocalypse, all that will be be left is the roaches and Keith Richards.

you're absolutly right

agreed :rofl:

6 Sep 2007, 01:24

Boatraceface wrote:

BonoShed wrote: Like they needed a fancy study to figure that out???

They could just ask Dr Obvious...maybe get a second opinion from Captain Cliche..'Only the good die young'at the Captain's table. Bollocks..drink too much turps,and sniff too much glue = Brown Bread...Does'nt take Carol Vorderman to do the maths,really....

Actually, this study group was supposed to ask Albert Einstein, but then they just discovered that he died 52 years ago, so the group had no choice than to make a study/survey...

Duh! It is obvious, dumbasses!

Indeed*!*

6 Sep 2007, 11:30

BonoShed wrote: At the end of time after the apocalypse, all that will be be left is the roaches and Keith Richards.

Well, at least we know Keith won't be short of food then!