Here Today... Gone To Hell!

If they contemplated planning something big across America...do you think they would be playing to 1/2 empty football stadiums or come close to packing places of that magnitude now

I'd be inclined to think they could come close to being able to do it..but would need a new album and heavy promotion to pull it off..

Depends on many factors.

The market, the date, the ticket prices, the draw of the other acts on the bill etc.





/jarmo

No chance in hell.  Not without a reunion.  Even then, I'm not sure.  Takes a special kind of attraction to draw that sort of crowd.

Keep in mind, it has to be stadiums everywhere.  So while you can fill up that stadium in New York, Chicago, or L.A....you also have to be able to fill the stadium in Kansas City, Denver, or Jacksonville.  If you build a stadium stage, you need to be able to use it everywhere.

I'd have some serious reservations about a full scale arena tour, to be honest.  I'm talking the arenas where basketball and hockey teams play, roughly 20,000.  I see the same problems.  No worries in truly big cities, but questionable demand elsewhere.

Quick example.  I saw Sting & Paul Simon here in Philly back in March.  It was a great show.  It was also a true sellout, in the building where the Sixers and Flyers play.  A week earlier, they were in Minneapolis where the Timberwolves and Wild play.  Same size venue.  They drew 7,000 people.

Sting & Paul Simon have an over 30 year back catalog and legions of fans.  And by combining forces, selling out arenas should be a snap.  It wasn't.

So considering that the overwhelming majority of people in this country consider this Guns N' Roses in name only.....are they a consistent 20,000 in every city? 

Probably not.

It's a fair point. I think the timing and season would obviously play a huge role as well. By that, I mean that if they were to announce a handful of football stadiums - huge venues for a summer run...In my heart of heart, I think that they could still pull it off...Between the fans that've stuck with them...the ones who have finally accepted that this is the Gnr of the future and the rock fans who want to experience a large summer concert - the name alone would be enough to get some butts in the seats.

A full blown treck of that magnitude around the country would be a tough sell

Van Halen got back with David Lee Roth, and even that was only arenas.

As for people finally accepting this is Guns N' Roses...I don't see it.  Go anywhere online and read any comment section for a GNR or Axl story. 

The top 4 comments are :

- this is not Guns N' Roses
- Axl is the best ever and I love him
- when are you coming back to <insert town here>
- this is not Guns N' Roses

I agree.  Even with the 5 original members, I strongly doubt they could consistently pack stadiums at this point in time.  Very few bands can attract that many people on their own.  There are a few festivals that do (like Rocklahoma) but then it's the strength of the entire bill, not one act.


Yep, I don't ever see the overall mainstream accepting this as Guns N Roses.  The people that do are confined to message boards like this one.  As long as Axl is the only original member of the band, they will forever be stigmatized as exactly that: 1/5 of the original band.  Look at all the other bands suffering the same thing: Kiss, Journey, etc.  No matter how good their live shows are, no matter how good the replacement musicians are -- at the end of the day, what do people say most about those bands?  With Kiss, it's "but it's not Peter and Ace".  With Journey, it's "it's not Steve Perry on vocals".  That's inevitable in that situation, regardless of what the band name is.

And stadiums in the U.S. are very, very hard to do.  This isn't some diss.

You can probably count them on one hand : U2, Springsteen, Taylor Swift, Stones (if they feel like it)

Jay-Z is huge, and he only does stadiums flanked by either Justin Timberlake or Beyonce.

There is always a country thing that comes through Philly each summer.  But its a few pretty big time acts, not just one artist.

40-50,000 people in each city willing to pay triple digits to see you is a tall order, really.

Yeah, I think Guns N Roses MIGHT have been able to do more stadiums IF the original lineup had stayed together, OR if the original 5 members had reunited in the 90s or early 2000s.  But now, I doubt the strength of the original 5 could do it -- too much time has passed, that generation of fans has grown up and gone on with their lives, and the new generation isn't as familiar with that era of music.

I think Guns could pull off a stadium tour if it was a reunion tour. But I think it would only take and Axl/Slash/Duff reunion tour to pull it off, as long as the tour was promoted as such. Not saying a bunch of people wouldn't be excited about Izzy and Steven reuniting with the band, but Axl, Slash and Duff are the first three names mentioned, usually in that order, when someone is talking about Guns N' Roses.



 :peace:

Even Metallica truggles with doing a arena tour in the states and yet they are playing huge gigs in europe with around 20,000 - 50,000 people at each show. So propably not now, but a new hit album and for sure they can do it.

I think Axl, Slash, and Duff as Guns N Roses might capture arena markets.  But I would wager that it would take Steven and Izzy -- thus creating the allure of a true, full, original lineup reunion -- to even come close to filling stadiums a few times, let alone consistently.

Get it...but it is really more of an Axl / Slash thing that will put the butts in the seats
If Axl replaced Fortus, Stinson and Franky F with Izzy, Duff and Adler...I don't think it would make much of a difference regarding selling tickets for a larger venue...bring in the Top Hat and lose the other guys - I believe you would see a difference

The Axl / Slash dynamic is what fascinates people

Right or wrong - just how I see it  :peace:

No, I agree.

The general public will never accept a Guns N' Roses that doesn't contain both Axl and Slash.  To most folks, they are the band.

I never disagreed with this, but that in particular wasn't my original point.  The topic was about filling stadiums.... or not.

I stand by my point that Axl and Slash (and Duff) alone wouldn't do that.  They could pull off an arena tour with Slash/Axl/Duff, but not stadiums.  They may have done that 22 years ago, but not today.  In order to really pull off stadiums, the allure of the words "FULL REUNION" or "ORIGINAL LINEUP" would have to be present and stamped on the tickets.  Even then (as I said before) the original 5 members would still have a difficult time consistently filling stadiums in this day and age.

Since you guys have addressed this though, allow me to point out that Slash has said numerous times over the years that he wouldn't do a GNR reunion without Steven and Izzy.  So it's moot anyway whether Axl and Slash could carry GNR alone.

All as hypothetical as it gets here, as Axl would rather remove his own pancreas with a  chainsaw then do a reunion, but let's assume for the sake or argument that he would.

Is Steven really that much of a dealbreaker?  Let's say Axl and Slash buried the hatchet, and even Izzy agreed to do one domestic tour.  But Axl says he'd feel more comfortable with Matt on a prolonged tour, as Matt won't take his first paycheck from it and go on a bender.

Is Slash really saying "no deal"?

No,

only chance to sell out stadiums is a reunion tour

Yes.

I remember several interviews where Slash was asked about reunions, and he stated he would only do it if it were the original members, and he made it a point to explicitly mention Steven's name.

Also, in his book, Slash repeatedly credits Steven as being a driving force behind the band, and by the book's end, he said that losing Steven and Izzy were the first nails in the GNR coffin.  Slash referred to them (Steven and Izzy) in the book as having so much to do with the "personality" of the band.

Here's a Slash quote I found....

"[Guns N Roses] already went wrong when original drummer Steven Adler was kicked out of the band. Because Steven was gone, Izzy also [eventually] left. But we had a whole tour planned so we kept the whole thing going. When it was time to record a new album, though, we missed those guys a lot. Look, nothing was right about our little band, but we were very successful. Without Steven and Izzy, though, it really turned into Axl's trip."

--Slash, Aloha magazine, June 8, 2004