Here Today... Gone To Hell!

how about GNR and The Stones again.....they only did those 4 shows in 1989 and would be great for these 2 heavyweights to tour again...How about GNR and U2....I remember AXL saying in a 1987 interview he wanted to play with U2.............how about GNR and the Chili Peppers....Kiedis has always been  a GNR fan.....and these 2 bands have been around since the mid 80's and are still goin strong...they did play once supposedly GNR opened for them at UCLA on Halloween 1985 or 1986.................much better than sebastian i wish it was 1987 bach or papa i wish it was 1999 nu metal roach

playing with the stones don't get them out to a  18-29 yr old demographic

RHCP would be a disaster

There's too much of that right now and it appears that the bands doing it are washed up...

Journey/Def Lep
Crue/Aerosmith
Cinderella/Poison
McGraw/Faith Hill


-- I've seen these 4 bands and the sets are shorter than what you'd like to hear... especiall the Aerosmith set (12 songs for $125!!)..

I'd rather pay 80 for a GNR exclusive. ?:peace:

I've said it for years: A GNR/U2 tour would be HUGE. :smoking: This tour could sell out stadiums. :beer:

And just think of the duet possiblities.... I'd probably saw off my arm to get into one of these shows

who's gonna open?

Then how'd you pick yourself off the floor after fainting? :hihi:

They could always switch it up every night.  Didn't GNR and Metallica do that?

but U2 already sell out every stadium, and thats U2 fans alone, they would need venues atleast twice the size or make it a s ummer outdoor thing

I'll have to ask James to carry me home.

I'd cut off more than an arm to see U2/GNR.........  :drool: :drool:

I've seen U2. Great show. I love em, but U2 fans generally are not GNR fans. Don't think that'd work.

U2 and Gn'R would not work. Two cmpletely different vibes. A Gn'R show is an in your face dirty rock show where after it's over you feel like kicking some ass. U2 is more on a spiritual level and is a much more uplifting feeling where after it's over you feel like making a difference in the world :hihi: They just would not go together. Plus U2 sell out stadiums in minutes by themselves. Also Gn'R would  have to be the opening band without a doubt. Would Axl go for that? Be honest here, nobody can seriously think U2 at this point in the game is an opening act for anybody. Not even The Stones. They'd simply blow them off stage. I've seen both U2 and Gn'R within the last year and it would honestly have to be this way. The good thing is it would force Axl to hit the stage on time :hihi:   Personally it'd be the greatest thing that could happen in my lifetime :hihi: but I honestly don't see how it could work.

U2 would be an opening act for Macca, but that's about it.

Well, at least we can dream about Axl and Bono sharing a stage again :)

 :nervous: When they did Knockin On heaven's door that was awful :hihi: Axl sang it his way, Bono sang it his way and The Edge wasn't even playng the right song I don't think :hihi: One of the worst on stage collaberations ever.

Sure. But who's gonna carry me while I carry you? :rofl: Maybe Mikegiuliana can carry us both. :hihi:



Bono, it would be a "co-headlining' tour. No one would open for anyone.

This would certainly be my dream tour as GNR and U2 are my two favorite bands, respectively.

I know there isn't a chance in hell of this ever happening but a gal can dream...

I only got to see U2 once, coincidentally at MSG and they were just amazing.  I was in the pit and Bono was right there in front of me, ahhhh, the memories....

:rofl: James, one band has to play first. It would have to be Guns N' Roses. ?Imagine U2 going onstage and opening the show and then once they were done the fans have to wait around for a few hours before Guns takes the stage. I'm almost positive the majority(cause 85% of the venue would be filled with U2 fans :hihi:) of the fans would leave. ?The U2 fans would not bother with that BS unless they are ?a diehards of both bands like me. It could be called a Co-headlining tour but Gn'R would have to play first. This isn't a U2 ego thing by any means(they opened Live 8) it's just the way it would have to be for it to be anyway successfull.

Hey Bandita I was wondering when it was you saw U2 at MSG? I saw them at MSG also last October 8th. It was an amazing show for sure. They even played Fast Cars :headbanger:?

Sorry guys that was a bit off topic. :beer:

I am not a major U2 fan, but they dwarf GNR in popularity, and would never bother doing a tour with any other major band because they sell-out stadiums all on their own. Bono has trascended himself into a global icon for all of his work with the U.N and underprivilaged people. All while still managing to make great music. Neither now, nor in the future would there ever be a need for that band to have GNR around.

Naupis said it not me!!! :hihi:

Another reason why I think Guns touring with a  big band wouldn't be a good thing is because it might come across as though Axl's "New Guns N' Roses" were riding the coattails of the other big band. By not touring with other huge bands it shows Guns are willing to build this thing up on thier own and work for it rather than have it given to them. But as I said earlier that idea runs a tiny bit hollow when they still have the Gn'R named attatched. that's an entirely different topic though. :peace:

GNR cant share his spotlight now.. he resurrection cant be split in a half with a co-headline tour

As a matter a fact it was!? My birthday is Oct 4 and the tix were a present! :hihi:

Sorry for going off topic!

What makes you think GNR has to open? Axl likes going on late, while U2 likes showing up on time. U2 can go on first without bruising their egos. Give both bands a 2 and a half hour set. Whats the problem with that? As far as the stage is concerned, if both bands could agree on a stage that would end that possible problem.

that's freaking weird because the girl I went with, her birthday is also October 4th! ?We flew in from Calgary on the 4th and celebrated her birthday on the plane. ;D

You must be smoking something. A band like U2 would never go on the road and open for any band on any tour, short of a one of gig with some sort of Rock legends like the Stones who may invite them or something. Every band has an ego, and you think someone the stature of Bono would be OK with opening for what is for all intents and purposes a new band? Pass me some of whatever your smoking.

ugh i hope to god GNR never tours with a shitty band like U2.   They dont fit together at all, not even a little bit.  I wouldn't sit thru a U2 concert for anything.

I think Papa Roach opening is good enough.  They are pretty popular amongst the younger fans of rock music.   ITs GNR they don't need any other band's help getting tickets sold.

Ha, too funny.

Jim Bob, how can you even attempt to diss a group with history like U2.? Say you don't like them, yes, everyone has an opinion but there is no way in hell you can call the band shitty.? You certainly cannot diss a man like Bono and everything he has done against poverty including the creation of The One Campaign.

You need to broaden your music taste a little bit.?

But this being said, if anything like this was ever to happen they would need to tour at some pretty huge stadiums, especially here in the NY area because it would sell out in a milisecond.? They would have to do some Bruce Springsteen type thing and play like 8 shows in a row to satisfy the fans!

PS-Jim Bob-

Axl and Co. played November Rain with Elton John, you remember this, yes?  Now tell me he is the same genre and he sucks too..... ::)

I suppose you're right. U2's set is long enough that the lay over time between bands could be minimal. But then with U2 opening you're in a ?situation where the opening band would be putting on a ?better show ;). ?As far as the stage set up goes Axl would have to be barred from using the U2 catwalk. There's no way we need a 40+ year old Axl running around that thing while trying to sing. ;D Hnetsly though stage setup in an arena would eb a problem. u2's last two tours ahve been open stage setup. 360 around ?with fans sitting behind the stage with an unobstructed view. it'd be hard to amek that work with Gn'R's setup. :-\

By the time I see Gn'R in December I will have a few unbiased opinions to share with you guys. Two friends of mine who hated U2 but I convinced them to come see them with me. After the show they both told me nothing even comes close to them live. They was literally blown away. they're both coming with me in December to see Guns N' Roses. One loves the old band and Axl ?and the other simply likes Gn'R ?better than U2 so it'll be interesting(at least for me) to see how they compare the two shows.

Did you even read my post? They wouldnt be an opening act. They would have equal billing with GNR. Each band's show the same length. Going on first doesnt make them an "opener". Hell, they can throw Papa Roach in there to please people like you that think a headliner is an opener.


Bono, I agree about the stage setup. Some sort of compromise would have to be made by both bands.

if i dont like a band, in my mind they are a shitty band.  i think their music is shitty.   thats just me.  i realize theres people that love it, but its not my thing and I would hope Axl would never subject his fans to a show with a band like that.  I dont give a shit what Bono does or if he saves the world from aids and poverty and all that shit.   That doesn't mean he makes good music or is a good singer.   I just dont like it.  Its not about broadening my musical tastes, I'd say they are rather broad.   There is no band out there that everybody likes and its impossible to not like.  just a matter of taste.   And i dont see most GNR fans eager to see a U2 show or even vice versa.  most u2 fans are probably not into stuff as heavy as GNR.   They just dont fit, thats the point I'm making. 

edit: Axl and the boys playin with Elton John for a one off performance isn't nearly the same as touring together.  I'd be just as much agasint an Elton John/GnR tour.    It just wouldn't make sense.

 I Agree that they dont fit. I find it hard to imagine them playng a show together simply becasue of the two hugely different attitudes and vibes the bands give off. As much as I'd love it I just can't see how, even if it were possible, how it would work.

What if Axl had an extra ticket for a U2 show for you to go along with him and Robin. You'd do it than :hihi:. The unfortunate part for you would be that you'd have to stop all the "U2 is shitty" remarks afterwards. Once you see U2 live your whole perspective of the band and their music would change. I'd also be willing to bet if you saw them live you'd have no choice but to admit it was one of the greatest shows if not the greatest show you've ever seen. Unfortunately though you've passed judgement on somthing I don't believe you know a whole lot about.


Sorry guys. I'll pull back on the U2 talk here. :beer:

Yeah, and GNR and Metallica were "Co-Headliners" in 92, yet the band that goes on last is always interpretted as the headliner, regardless of how you bill it. You going to tell me GNR wasn't really the headlining act of that tour? I doubt it. Just slapping Co-headliner on the newspaper add does nothing to affect people's perception. And the band going on first is always thought of as an opener, regardless of stature.

And yet your're fine with Papa Roach(teen angst MTV dribble) and BFMV?? Dude, Axl has said in the past that he really likes U2 and has much respect for them. He's performed with them on stage. ?I believe if Axl liked a band and wanted them to tour with him he'd do it(if he could) and not think that he's "subjecting" fans to certain torchers. ::) He had Mix Master Mike open on the 2002 tour probably because he thought ?it would be cool and that people might enjoy it. ?Was he "subjecting" his fasn to that? believe me Jim Bob if Axl had the chance to do a tour with U2 someday he'd likely take it and I think it's safe to say that most Gn'R fans would think it's pretty cool even if U2 wasn't necessarily their cup of tea..Maybe I'm worng who knows.

GN'R/NIN  : ok:

I'm not fine with Papa Roach, I will be down the street in the bar drinking my face off and waiting for GNR rather than subject myself to that. ?I thankfully missed BFMV by showing up late as well.

I saw MixMaster Mike simply because I was early for that show due to the weather and ya know when it comes down to it, he wasn't THAT bad. ?I would rather be subjected to that than the MTV crap there is out there now or some annoying EMO band.

Axl has sung and played with some greats: U2, Elton John, Tom Petty, etc.....all extremely talented musicians...

It would be a great privledge to see him with any of these guys. ?I think that with the last minute announcement of the tour that is was probably hard for them to score a decent opener as most probably had previous commitments...hopefully next year they can hook up with someone better-

O.k. now that would be really fucking cool and I could see that one working. Wow! :headbanger: this actually makes some sense. Imagine a few years down the road with the new Guns gaining their own identity, ? I honestly could see somthing like this happening as a summer mega tour. Do Trent and Axl get along?

I've got a band that blows them away live. You're biased as hell towards U2, but I personally think Pink Floyd's performance at Live 8 blows away pretty much every live performance I've ever seen. And I only saw that one on DVD. I can't imagine how awesome it would have been to have seen it live. U2, meanwhile, didn't impress me much at Live 8 to be honest. They were really good, no doubt, but Pink Floyd fuckin' blew them straight out of the water (and that was with a band that hadn't played together in 20 frickin' years!!!!). Pink Floyd owns all when it comes to live shows. Led Zeppelin is the only thing that even comes close. U2 is probably the best of all the bands out there right now, but Pink Floyd in just 4 songs blew away anything live I've ever heard/seen. David Gilmour's guitar-playing and vocals were simply OFF THE HOOK (sounded just as good, if not BETTER than the freakin' recordings from 30 years ago). Absolutely an incredible performance.

I am with you 600% on that. I was never a Pink Floyd fan really before that, but wanted to watch it that day because it was one of those things you knew was historical. Just watching it live on TV you could feel the energy there, even if it was only 4 songs. To a man most Pink Floyd fans would tell you that seeing Roger on the stage with them again surpassed the excitement and energy of anything else the guys had done for the previous 25 years since they had broken up. I only hope after they get their solo stuff out of their system this year that maybe they take up one of those promoters on the 200 million dollar offer to do a tour.

Fair enough. I agree with you on the Live 8 thing. But keep in mind U2 Opened the show in broad daylight where as Pink Floyd played at night with full lights and everything. ?Also U2 played the hit singleat the time(vertigo) One and Beautiful day. It was all very moment appropriate, nt so much ment to blow everyone away. You telling me the Pink Floyd performance wasn't ment to blow people away? Tell me this, had Pink Floyd played in U2's spot and vice versa what would you be saying? Probably not much :) You put U2 in the same time slot as pink Floy at Live 8 and have them crank out Where the Streets have no name with full light sow and you might change your mind. Maybe not though. U2 in concert on their own is an entirely different thing. I'm not taking anything away from Pink Floyd. It was amazing but ?there was also the hype surrounding their performance and the fact that it was at night that no doubt adds to the appeal. I think you could make an arguement for Pink Floyd over U2 as far as live shows go though. they are legendary when it comes to that, but they aren't around now so it's irrelevant at this point. Zeppelin though? I don't think so.

there are top many post to respon to here, so Ill jsut add a 2 cents thing. When I was growing up, in the 80s, I loved U2(still do), but it was GNRS, as I think Bono said in your face attitude thatI gravitated towards, moreso. Personally Id love to see Bono and Axl onstage together. BUt thruth is the bands are so far from each other, but now follow me, may not be so far off, once we get and finally digest CD. BUt asfar as being real and knowing all these things over the yrs, it is an absolute truth, that outside us here debating day in and day out GNR< for the vast public goin to shows, GNR is new to them or thier perception has been changed, I think GNR have done a huge leap and bound this yr, with converting fans, that thought they were a joke, and all the axl bashing, I rather think that Axl and BOno are probably if not friends, but at least cordial to each other with no beefs.

Both repected, and BONO moreso Id say for sheer yrs of always being there and outside porjects. Axl for sheer mystery, crazy brillance, and uncompromising desire do things the way he envisions. Both bands have a huge fan base no doubt. BUT to say this is a matchup that would go one way or the other I find skewd. lol

Cause at the end of the day, when it comes to tix for a hypathedical show bill like this, is what fans get to the presale first, and who gets tix.lol So myabe it could coexist!

Yeah, same here. I really wasn't much of a fan of theirs other than "Money" and "Another Brick In The Wall Pt. 2," but holy crap I was simply blown away in particular by "Wish You Were Here" and ESPECIALLY "Comfortably Numb." The entire band just freakin' OWNED "Comfortably Numb" during that performance, with the standout being how unbelievable Gilmour played the solo. It was simply amazing. The only reason I even saw the DVD was because my sister wanted it for a Christmas present. So I got it for her and we watched it one day, and I was simply blown away. Pink Floyd went from being not even in my top 25 bands of all-time to easily being top 5 just based on that one performance.

There's a reason that Pink Floyd was offered $200 million to do a tour, and it ain't just because they're a legendary band. It has more to do with the fact that at Live 8, they showed they are without doubt the best live band ever even today in their "old" age.

Dude, I couldn't care less about the atmosphere. I was NOT a Pink Floyd fan before watching the DVD. I only watched it because I bought it for my sister as a Christmas present and she wanted me to watch it. I didn't even know it was a big deal that they were getting back together. What blew me away was the TECHNICAL VIRTUOSITY of the band, especially David Gilmour. The guy is 60+ years old and played 30 year old songs fuckin' PERFECT, and his VOICE is still in great shape even at his age. Absolutely unbelievable in my opinion. Seriously, I recorded the songs from the DVD and listen to them all the time on my iPod or computer just for the sound quality and virtuosity of it. I've never heard a band play songs that well in a live setting.

See right there shows my point. they played their classic tunes in a setting which nobody could really compete with on that day. the first performance in over two decades of classic Pink Floyd tunes with a full light show at night and a crwod of what... 200 000. Now give U2 that chance and let them play their classics: Where the Streets Have No Name, Bad, Walk On and Love and Peace or Else(a new song but it'd rock the place). Your comparison would be more fairly matched and it'd be a lot closer than you might think. : ok:

Sorry but they would have to open for the stones.. As big as you think U2 is/they are. Theyre not as big as the stones.

this isnt a pink floyd thread, but I agree floyd has to be probably the most sonically sounding , and best shows I have ever seen, and I saw them 7 times, live. BUt its not the  same as GNR, its a differnt athmosphere, ...my dream festival and literally in no order, would be GNR, Floyd, U2, Aerosmith, and GENISIS.ys I loved them live they rocked.

No it wouldn't. From what I've heard, the Edge isn't anywhere near as good of a live guitarist as David Gilmour. Pink Floyd's greatness in live shows is based mainly on their virtuosity (aka playing the songs PERFECTLY), whereas U2 combines Bono's energy level with a fair amount of virtuosity (kind of like GN'R back in the day, but U2 being better in the virtuosity department...Axl in his heyday was more exciting than Bono though). Pink Floyd didn't even have a full light show going on, and guess what, the atmosphere has ZERO effect on how well the songs are played man. I couldn't care less about the atmosphere. U2 opened Live 8, did they not? Was the crowd not jacked to see the beginning of the concert series? It works both ways, and like I said, I care more about how well the songs were played than anything else. If it's played fucking awesome, it's played fucking awesome and nothing I've seen or heard of any band matches what Pink Floyd did at Live 8.

they are Brody. I've seen it. The Stones come here it's big but not as big as when U2 comes.? U2 albums sell more these days, their tickets are more in demand for shows(fact, according to Ticketmaster). the Stones are massive but U2 has surpased them ona? global scale I believe.

This is getting way off topic and I apologies. I'm done with the U2 stuff in this thread I promise. :beer: please don't try to goat me. :hihi:

I believe the last idea suggested for a Gn'R? touring partner was NIN  : ok:

I completely disagree with you on the part about lighting and atmosphere not playng a part in a live experience. If what you heard from Floyd on that day was in fact the best sounding thing you've ever heard that's cool :beer: but to say that lights and atmosphere don't play a part in the live experience is wrong. Also the crowd's enthusiasm has a lot to do with how the band performs. A dud crowd and the band can feel it. If the crowd is jacked the band can feel that also. Bands feed of crowds no?  I'm not claiming U2 to be the most technically sound live band ever but live "In  person" transcends everything. If lights and shit weren't important to the live experince than Pink Floyd would not use them. Nor would anyone else. Gn'r would not be usieng pyro. Tell me that doesn't add to the experience when you're there in person :yes:.Bands would be content with standing on stage and playing the songs if this wasn;'t the case. That's great if that's what you're into but it works alot better in a bar than it would for2 1/2 hours in a  stadium. All I'm saying is I wouldn't truely judge the live experience of either  based on a short 4 song set you saw on dvd. Yes I agree Floyd's performance was better on that day and admitedly the sound was also better but that doesn't mean the live show in itself would be better, giving both bands could play under the same circumstances. ;) Maybe it would be though. Floyd is a band I'm affraid I'll never have the opportunity to see.  :no:

Oh I agree that it's part of the experience. But if you're just watching a DVD, do you really notice the visual crap that much if the band is playing perfect? You shouldn't. It shouldn't matter if they're kicking ass. The only visual that was cool was watching Gilmour bringing the notes from deep down in his soul. Other than that, I really didn't care about the lights and other junk. Pink Floyd is known for putting on a hell of a light show back in the day, which contributed to the stereotype of them being a "stoner" band where their typical listeners would get high and zone out. From what I've read though, it sounds like the light shows would make even sober people zone out. The music is what does it for me though. That's what I enjoy most.

 :rofl: yeah if I'm "watching" it I do. I know exactly what you're getting at though. :peace: All the lights in the world won't help ya if you suck ass at playing the songs. Too bad so many bands seem to think just that. :hihi:

Ahhh, Pink Floyd, third on my list of loves after GNR and U2.  Saw them twice live at Yankee Stadium and the Giants Stadium, they are just amazing live.  The atmosphere, the lighting, and the extreme talent of David Gilmour.

Now add Aerosmith and here you have the all time Rock Dream Team!

BAndita I was at those floyd shows also!!!!!!!!

Bandita is a stalker. She followed me to U2 at MSG and now she followed you to Pink Floyd at Yankee Stadium and Giants Stadium. Creepy!!! :hihi:

lol, hm well was great shows, but like I posted earlier, my dream show would be GNR, FLoyd, U2, and Genisis,. As a ulimate festival show that stareed at sunset and went till 6am,!

That just gave me goose bumps. I picture Genisis starting it off with In the Air Tonight and then Floyd(closing their set with 3 mellow atmospheric tunes) then the crowd being rocked back alive with "Wake up!!! It's time to Diiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!!!!"  and then as the last notes of The Blues ring though the stadium an overly  extended intro to Where the Streets Have No Name rings out  as the sun is rising. :drool:

Hahaha, maybe we all just love the same great music eh?

I had awesome seats for those Floyd shows, I was 19 at the time and worked for a store that had a ticketmaster, hehe....2nd row floor at Giants and 10th row floor at Yankee :hihi:

Yes, I was stalking jazjme before I even had internet in the early 90s! ?Watch out for me, hahahaha

I think this topic just proves that GNR belong in the company of greatness. ?They aren't a "fad" band. ?Granted we have been missing them for a while but still their music has trancended time, which so many bands/artists can NOT do today.

Whomever they get billed with, maybe with the exception of say umm Barry Manilow, I shall be there supporting them!

actally that sounds amazing to me also!

I think a GNR/Velvet Revolver tour would be genuis. Seriously. Then people get Slash, Duff, Axl, and Izzy in the same show. If they could halfway get along, maybe they'd do a couple songs together. Or maybe I've lost my mind ....

Imagine the danger that would come along with a show like that, just wondering if the two bands will get along or kill each other.

I've never heard of an idea that made so much sense yet was insane at the same time.  I'd like to see it, but it would beg too many questions, like: "well, if they can get along enough to tour together, why don't they just get back together."  Kind of like if your parents divorced, separated, but then 10 years later decided to move into the same house with new mates. 

U2 - Rolling Stones - Chilli peppers - Oasis etc.... are all too big to Tour with GN'R.
Unfortunately, as soon as ChiDem isn't out, thenewGNR are nowhere near to be as big as any band above. Oasis or the Chilli peppers would outsell the new GN'R. I don't even speak of U2 or the stones, it would be ridiculous, they are far too big.

However, I think less popular and less bigger bands like Muse,The Strokes, The Killers, Jet, Casabian etc... would be OK.

I think that they can do it very well on their own... but I would really love to see them with Stones  ( :rant: I had tickets for Germany  :rant:) or with Aerosmith...

Another band that I would really love to see them touring together is Alice in Chains  :smoking:

U2 and gnr are two very different bands
Axl is the man and real music genious,bono is stupid mand who thinking that he knows everything

Gnr can not play with stones,rhcp because there will be more rhcp and stones fans than gnr fans

There are 2 main reasons GNR should not tour with another huge band,

1) It would cut their setlest, and that's bad, considering in the 2+ hours GNR play now, we only get some songs and a lot of solos. For instance, when I saw Motley Crue last year, they play 2 and a half hours. When I saw them this year with Aerosmith, they play one and a half hours, because when you are on a double bill, each band has the same amount of time, and they can't play as much as if they headlined and had a smaller opener.

2) Having a big name tour with GNR may push them into a corner. Take Poison and Cinderella...I went to this show this year too, and while I loved it, it SCREAMED 80's metal. If GNR toured with a band, who would it be? What if it was an 80's band, it would push them into a corner of living in their past. best to have a smaller opener and make GNR look big. Know what I mean?

that's my 2 cents

GN'R never were "80's metal", they are neither completely "80's"? and nor "metal". so this is a wrong problem. Plus, they were far bigger and more popular in the 90's. GN'R were only famous in America in the 80's, AFD didn't sell that much outside America, it sold much much less than Use Your Illusion I and II outside America, and everywhere in the world they are remembered as an early 90's Rock band for most part.

I think it's good to tour with some young modern bands. This is not about a ridiculous "has-been" spandex revival act, this is about living with your time. We are in 2006. The band took the right decision to go on tour with some fresh young bands (Hoosbaskank, Papa Roach).

Cut this U2 rubbish out.
U2 are shit. Bono's a cock. There fans are idiots.

Well spoken. It's refreshing to see members who actually put some intelligent thought into thier posts.  ::)

 :rofl: Indeed, some here will not be joining Mensa any time soon-

Hoobastank weren't actually that bad, what I caught of them at the Vegas show.  Not my cup of tea but I can see why GNR are picking some of these bands to open for them.  I am no longer part of the MTV generation but I guess it doesn't hurt to expand their fan base a bit.  You have to include that demographic (the 15-22) year old one.  They are the ones who buy tickets, CDs, merchandise, etc....

..because they don't have to. That's why.

screw that! cuase then you get half set for each band!!!  Just saw Aerosmith/Motley Crue and Aerosmith playe 1h15mn and the Crus 1h20mn. I'd rather see them each separately for 2+hrs

I think for now GNR shouldnt co headline with anyone, Bach and Papa Roach are just fine.

Oh and Pink Floyd blows the crap out of U2 live, ive seen U2 but never saw Pink Floyd (im going to R.Waters show next year)  :peace:

I bet alot of bands would be hesitant to tour with them since Axl has not always been the most reliable person. 

GN'R and RHCP at the same concert  :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

I'm dreaming.

Your out of your mind....U2 is the biggest rock band on the planet right now....and I think Bono is hilarious...especially when he talks about the French. Bono has been, and always will be a tremendous talent.....and that goes for the entire band as well.....GNR has a shot to climb back up to the top with them....well see what happens.... :peace:

well rstones and u2 are bigger than gnr,but on their shows only need elephant "jim" and monkey "toni",theirs shows are circus
I saw both bands,and theirs big shows you can not compare with gnr show (in budapest for example)
gnr are real rock band

I prefer GNR tours with a yet-to-be-big band
GNR+ another huge act = tix cost double. if you like the other band, it'd be great  but of not...

^I'd go see anybody...as long as i had something to look forward to later :hihi:

besides you can never be exposed to too many bands :beer: the double price kinda sucks though :-\

look at the past time with metallica, that answers alot.i dont think GNR need it, i mean if another big band were to tour with them, then consiquently the stage time for each act would shorten.

In fact, I can never be exposed to too many good band.
I'm fussy like hell, you know. but few bands win my favour.  8)

He is a stupid mand, your wright.

Like it or not GN'R were glamrock. Hoosbaskank, Papa Roach are not fresh new bands, they are 1 hit wonders that will be forgotten. GN'R deserve better than that. There are several great new "Classic Rock/Glam Rock" bands out there that would work though. Even bands like Jet and the Killers would be a good match. If you don't think GN'R are glam go look at any Illusion era video, the make-up on the back of the Live Like a Suicide album or any of the other volumes of obvious GN'R Glam Rock Shots.

EDIT: I am by no means insinuating that as a bad thing, I cherish GN'R more than any living band, but they were Glam none the less. I would not describe the current incarnation as Glam (yet, lets see the new video first).

Guns N' Roses / Pearl Jam

Although Eddie would never go for it unfortunately.  :no:

My girlfriends a big country music fan and she saw Tim McGraw and Faith Hill in July I think and she said the show was almost 4 hours long.  They're some of the biggest stars in the music business and aren't washed up at all. Don't get me wrong, I hate when she listens to that shit when I'm around, but to compare stars as huge as them to Cinderella, Poison or the Crue, is kind of ridiculous whether you like them or not.

One word:  Montreal.

You're one of the few that actually think GN'R were "Glam Rock", which they weren't.  Thank God for that.  You would think that if they were a "hair metal Glam band", that they would win all of those top 20 "hair metal bands" or the countdown for the "top Glam band" or the other similar shows on VH1 and various websites,  but they aren't even in those fucking countdowns.  But whatever, you can have your own opinion even if it's the wrong one.  BTW, even though I don't like Papa Roach or Hoobastank, they aren't one hit wonders at all. I hear different Papa Roach songs on the radio all the time and Hoobastank had a lot of famous songs before the one that pretty much ruined their image because it got so fucking huge. I just don't know where you come up with some of the things you say.  "Look at any Illusion era video, to see that GN'R was Glam?" There aren't any that I can think of off the top of my head. You need to go put on your Poison album and stop trying to put GN'R in the same category as them.

That would be quite a fucking show though, wouldn't it??  GN'R could never headline that show, at least here in America. I'm not sure how popular PJ is in other countries.  Pearl Jam here is fucking huge when it comes to concerts and the GN'R crowd and the PJ crowd just wouldn't be a good mix. But I love both bands, so I would enjoy myself very much.

yeah they were never glam :hihi: whatever ::)

(http://i10.tinypic.com/4h9iul5.jpg)
(http://i9.tinypic.com/2hwz4tf.jpg)

Agreed, and thats what kills me so much about PR opening.  They were never even that big with their ONE hit (which is a god awful song btw).  There are a lot of new bands that, while they might not even be that good, are still "new" and up and coming.  Say what you want about Avenged Sevenfold, but you can't deny they are one of the more popular "new" bands out there.

Roach just not the type of band that makes you go "WOW, GNR AND papa roach!!!".  Its not exciting, its not fresh or innovative or even daring - its just boring.

The reason why they wont is because its a horrible idea.  If you need GNR to tour with another band you like to have insentive to go to a show, then you probably arent that into Guns N' Roses.  You can say that itll make them more popular, but the people going to U2/NIN/ Any 80's Metal band show, are people who made up their musical tastes 20 years ago and probably are people who can afford to buy a computer and download any gnr song that comes out (unless they are U2 fans who probably feel guilty over such acts).

Also U2's humanitarian work doesnt make them a good band.  I hate U2, I saw them live in NY and they blew, thats my opinion.  I dont like them live, i hate their albums, and if you must know why i went to the show its because my girlfriends a liberal and i have to pretend to tolerate that nonsense.

Also GNR has an expensive set, most other big bands that have been mentioned have expensive sets.  Also Axl is known to cancel shows and be unruly on tour, most headlining bands arent gonna want to tolerate that. 

If you want to see 2 bands then go see them on different nights, itll probably cost the same, itll be less waiting around and you will get a longer set of music.  Its cool if you like U2, but why wouldnt you want a U2 tour and a different GNR tour.  You will see both bands longer and waste less time. 

I would be 100% fine if GNR had no opener.  I wanna go see GNR not some other band riding their coattail and playing 5 songs.  If a show has assigned seating i usually show up after the opening act unless im particularly interested in them (like when APC opened for NIN, however, i still would have gone and been happy if it was just NIN alone).  The band that opens for gnr matters very little compared to other external factors such as whether the album is released, whether a video is released, a single is released, how the concerts are promoted, if Axl shows up to every show, and how the shows are reviewed.  That will really determine how the tour affects GNR popularity, not who opens forthem.

I LOVE YOU!!! LOL!!!? : ok:

The Darkness, Glam in My Opinion, have gone on record saying they have modeled themselves after GN'R and thier videos. Seriously, Axl's attire for November Rain? The whole Dolphin thing is pretty funny too. I love it, but it is funny, and glam. By the way, Glam stands for GLAMOR.

(http://axl.lyricsasylum.com/gallery/albums/glam/normal_04.jpg)

(http://web.jet.es/nex/Glam07H.jpg)

Even I know that.  :hihi:

however, glam and metal aren't same.
people like David bowie, iggy pop were original Glam in their early days, yes?
and the bands like t rex, newyork dolls...

in that 1987 interview AXL actually said his dream is to OPEN for u2..i think he would put his ego aside to do that

That last part is such load. I never amde up my mind as far as musical taste goes 20 yeasr ago. To suggest that anyone who gos to see these bands live has done so is arrognant and condescending. My musical taste continues to evolve everyday.  I became a U2 fan in the late 90's and it wasn't untill the veryearly stages of this decade that i realies they ahd become my favorite abnd. Untill that point Gn'R was my favorite despit them being the only real hard rock band I was listening to. I love the old NIN(pretty hate machine) but haven't really enjoyed any of their albums nearly as much. Yet i choose to go see them when they came to Edmonton because I knew it would be a kick ass show. It's a pretty big generalization you've made of  fans of these bands. Also the coment about these fasn being able to afford a computer serves what purpose and is trying to prove what point? I love U2 and went to see them and like NIN and went to see them but I can't afford a computer. I use my brother's. I'd like to ask you what you use to come online?

Oh and on a side note Gn'R is an 80's metla/hard rock band. People going to see Axl perform and wanting to hear the old songs as well as new songs must have decided the fate of their musical taste 20 years ago as well right?  ::)


As for feeling guilty about downloading an album well that's not somthing only U2 fans feels, I knwo that for a fact. Personally though I think if you're gonna download and entire album and decide not to buy it than you might as well walk inot the store and steal it right off the shelf.

How about Guns and Motley Crue? ;D  :hihi:

Nah.  :hihi: I like Motley Crue and have seen them twice in the last year but it would feel like a step backwards for this Guns N' Roses. I like the idea of them touring with new bands  but I thik they are choosing the wrong ones. Rise Against would be a cool opening act but maybe a bit to "punk" for the crowd

U2 would be the worst band too see GNR tour with.. i cant stand U2!

If that ever happen, i will be so dissapointed! I guess Axl knows better then that.

I would like to see Guns N Roses tour with bands like; Nine Inch Nails, Tool, Queens Of The Stone Age, or Dillinger Escape plan even WASP would be fantastic!

I agree with them touring with new bands...this is a new band, and axl has evolved the sound...touring with motley crue would make no sense...the new music is nothing at all like the old stuff....

Axl has also said that he loves Lou Vega, wanted NWA to open for gnr and that he hopes GNR is as far away from Maiden as possible.  Axl is crazy and says crazy things, especially 19 years ago.  GNR in 1987 is much different than GNR in 1992 and even more different from GNR in 2006.  How about GNR plays a concert and Bono can go protest some tree getting cut down.  U2 fans are Dave Matthews fans, and they dont tend to mix well with GNR fans.