Here Today... Gone To Hell!

              With the Super Bowl halftime show a year away again and the reunited Guns N Roses playing select shows this year and dates , should the band get to play the BIG ONE they haven't played before ? Almost every act has played the Halftime show from Paul McCartney to Bruce Springsteen , to Rolling Stones. It seems only right that Axl Rose get a shot at rocking the main stage with Slash at the Super Bowl 51 next year.

             Who all agrees they deserve this ?

(http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u645/greypilgrim76/giphy-facebook_s.jpg_zpsuhb0vfpk.gif)

But, if they're still together in ten months, I'd love to see it.

Absolutely...and they can play a fan friendly sing-a-long list of tunes that most enjoy.
If so, I'd love to see them do  it without the help of 1-2 bullshit side show acts

If they can go out this year and show they are back and viable again, I think its a natural fit.

Big time, flat out stars, huge fanbase.  Biggest songs are so big, even non-fans know them.

Probably the right demographic too.

This was actually brought up in one of the other forums. I didn't even realize it until the person said this. If you notice the Super Bowl no longer has one main act. There  are usually the main performer and then guests.  The reason being is that the NFL wants to appeal to everyone.

I would love to see GNR be the only band performing. I just don't think the NFL wants one main performer nowadays.

Depends on the act, I imagine.

Can't really see them telling Taylor Swift or Rihanna they need someone else.

IF the NFL went for it and only IF they were allowed to perform LIVE with no bullshit NFL sanctioned lip syncing

If anything, this year would be the time for it.

I dont care. If anything, people would overanalyse Axls weight or say how old are they or shit like that.

It's in the beginning of February right? They'll be in Australia in that case.

Due to the production of the Super Bowl it's difficult to play live. Example the Chili Peppers playing unplugged which Axl commented on. Having said that I think Axl would pass on playing the SuperBowl. Just my opinion. It would be cool to see though.

Personally, NO........shit show...too many variables...no upside. They have already proved they have the ability to sell tons of tickets with very little promo.

Whatever they are doing now is just fine for the next year.

Why should Guns ever do what's obvious ?
They should've played the rock n roll hall of fame ceremony was on everyone's lips back in 2012.I'm glad they didn't.
If they play superbowl,it would be interesting but no.

Axl is a sports fan so I think he'd be game.  They would headline and play with some guests, I'm sure.  Angus joining them for an AC/DC song would work.  But Axl would have to call most of the shots. 

My setlist:

WTTJ (one of the greatest sporting event songs), SCOM, LALD, NR, Civil War, YCBM, Thunderstruck (very popular at sporting events), PC

It didn't happen last year, it didn't happen in 1991, it didn't happen ever and it isn't going to. But this thread will pop up year in, year out.

They only have 15 minutes to do the show.

It would be probably short versions of WTTJ, SCOM, LALD and PC.

When Paul McCartney Was doing it a couple of years ago I was hoping with every ounce of my being that during Live and Let Die Axl and Slash ascended to the stage and that would be the beginning of the reunion!

There's no denying that playing the Super Bowl these days is a BFD for anyone (McCartney, Stones, Who, says it all), but having grown up watching Super Bowls back when the half-time shows were like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Mz_TkBvLA, I can't get past the very negative association I have with it. 

The Superbowl is on February 5th, even with openings 2/5 and 2/6 on the tour, I don't think it can happen.

They're definitely a natural fit for the Super Bowl. A high octane, popular rock act. If you bring the band out there and throw Angus Young out there with them and do a few Guns songs and AC/DC songs, it'd be tailor made for that kind of show.

I would love to see this, but I doubt it'll happen.

They dont seem to book rock acts for the super bowl anymore. Not sure Id call Coldplay a rock group.

That's because all the big rock acts have already played it, except for GNR

Nowadays there isn't a real rock n' roll band, so they keep calling up these acts (Beyonc?, Bruno Mars, Coldplay, etc)

They're more of an act that you'd  sooner throw rocks at    :rofl:

It would be kind of overboard 'theatrics'... But I think it would be pretty interesting if you had a stage setup with a distinct right and left side... Allowing for 'Axl' to perform on one stage with both AC/DC and Guns N'Roses. It would be pretty funny to see him perform live 2 of the most popular NFL Stadium songs in Thunderstruck and Welcome to the Jungle. The show could either start or end with both bands playing a song together.

Logistics would never allow it to happen this coming year, and the retirement of another long time member of AC/DC post tour hurts the chances, but it would be interesting.

Except for the fact that they will be in New Zealand those days...  :hihi:   no way this will happen...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome AC/DC with special guest Axl Rose!"

who cares

These 'should' threads are, I'm sorry, a worthless waste of time. 'Should GNR do this? Should they do that?' 'Should they release a new album?' 'Should they play at this or that festival?' 'Should they do the VMAs?' 'Should they do the Grammys?' 'Should they do the Super Bowl?'

There's lots of things we might think they should do. But so what?

Nope.  Too trendy and lowball.  They've been playing to huge crowds who actually care to see them.  Guns N Roses is worth more than a 15 minute halftime show.

What would there be in it for guns?

Sold out huge tours?

An increase to back record sales? 

Positive public reaction?

They have received all the above, on there own.....

Now if Guns had a new album to promote or something like that.  Now this would be a perfect venue to launch the promotion of that with

I have said this before and I'll say it again.  I don't understand why people think the NFL and Pepsi (who sponsors the halftime show) would want a bunch of 50+ year old rockers to play the show.  They are looking to attract younger viewers and consumers.  GNR do not draw younger viewers.  They just plain don't.  I don't care if your sister's brother in law's 16-year old stepdaughter played November Rain at her Bat Mitzvah.  They do not attract the masses of younger viewers like other artists do.  I refuse to believe they will ever be asked to play the Super Bowl or the VMAs ever again. 

In very recent years the Super Bowl invited the following artists: The Who, The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, U2, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, and Prince. So keep saying it... you are wrong... but keep saying it.

What if the do a duet with Bruno Mars?  hahaha  

Lol The Rolling Stones are "very recent"?  Since when is a decade ago "very recent".  Here are the "very recent" artists you referenced with the halftime sponsor:

Rolling Stones - 2006 (Sprint Nextel)
Prince - 2007 (Pepsi)
The Who - 2010 (Bridgestone)
Tom Petty - 2008 (Bridgestone)
Paul McCartney - 2005 (Ameriquest)
U2 - 2002 (E-Trade)


Why don't you tell me who the majority of artists are who've played from 2011 onward and who the sponsor has been.  The only outlier for Pepsi is Prince in 2007, but even that is a stretch considering he is arguably one of the most influential African American artists EVER. 

Pretty sure the demo watching the SuperBowl skews a little older. Younger viewers are great for advertising dollars but you're talking about a global broadcast. It needs the biggest bands, period. Based on GN'R's recent tour numbers, they qualify.

That said, I keep wondering about this "should they play the Superbowl" question. Should they? I don't really know at this point. I think it makes more sense if they have a new track/something to promote. Otherwise, they're already doing well financially just touring, playing sold out stadiums. Keep in mind that the Superbowl/NFL does not pay artists for playing the halftime show. They simply cover production. Does GN'R need the exposure? They're already huge. If they want a feather in their cap, sure, fine. As it stands I don't think it matters much.

2012 - Madonna (Bridgestone) - She was 54 years old at the time.

in 2013 Pepsi took over for a multi year engagement... Since that point they have had a few repeats (Beyonce and Bruno Mars) they did feature appearances by older 'rockers' Lenny Kravitz (with Katy Perry) and The Red Hot Chilli Peppers (with Bruno Mars). Not only is this years sponsor Pepsi but the director of the halftime show is the same since Pepsi signed on for 2013... so that part could be telling. However he has a history of directing concert videos for rock acts like The Rolling Stones, U2, and The Who (including the 2010 Super Bowl Performance.)

Last Year it was reported that ColdPlay 'Payed to Play' to promote their album. So outside of the Guns conversation, you could be looking at Metallica looking to promote a new album.

That well known rocker, Madonna.

Speaking more to the age... how is old rocker and haggard pop star different?

WAR41, you just got owned.  I love how you try to deflect by saying those shows he mentioned weren't "very recent". A couple of those shows were within the last 8 years.  That's not that long ago at all.  Those artists were "older" at that time just as much as GNR are older now

So Cold Play payed to play last years bowl....

Katy Perry gave up a percentage of her future year touring revenue, to perform...

Again why would Guns even want to do this???   

So the shows could be even more sold out?  So they could increase ticket prices??

Again

If they have nothing "odd ball" to promote why do this?  And new music this day and age would be "odd ball"

This year makes no sense for a number of reasons. They have nothing to promote, unless they postpone a few dates for travel etc... they will be on the other side of the world, BUT the following year they will have a catalog of shows that they can release a live album and or concert video from... They could be putting together a 30th anniversary AFD package that they could be promoting, also 2018 could be the end of the Pepsi contract (2017 will be the 5th in a row, following a stretch of exactly 5 SB's sponsored by Bridgestone). Bridgestone had a more Rock Centric vibe to their shows, and by all account wasn't pay to play (yet Pepsi may have opened the flood gates there).

I guess your definition of "very recent" is also much different than mine  : ok:

lol ao we are talking about superbowl in 2018 then? haha   Ok.....

Because Axl isn't walking around with his minge and tits hanging out.