Is it possible.....

[LunsJail]

The whole new band thing is really what hurt ticket sales in the US. Despite whether or not you want to admit it, it's true. I don't know the perception most people have about the band outside the US, but the American media doesn't hide the fact that there is still major interest in a reformation of the classic lineup.

Oh please.

There's interest in anything Axl does in the media.

Dr Pepper had nothing to do with that and yet the story appeared in all kinds of places.



The whole reunion things is made up by people who haven't done their homework.

It's the easiest story a journalist can write. The band members went their separate ways, so it's really easy to start talking about a reunion. Especially in an age where other bands are reuniting.







/jarmo

I have to agree with Snafu on this one. 

I asked some friends if they'd be interested in going to a show in 2006 and "That's not the real Guns n' Roses" was the response I got.  So it's not just the media.  I think CD needs to be released to really establish this current lineup.

[jarmo]

I asked some friends if they'd be interested in going to a show in 2006 and "That's not the real Guns n' Roses" was the response I got.  So it's not just the media. 

Nobody's denying that those people exist.

The word reunion automatically generates interest from people, even those who weren't even fans in the first place.


I hope your friends enjoyed watching their GN'R DVDs instead.

I think CD needs to be released to really establish this current lineup.

And now you're back at the original question...... 




/jarmo

[Jim Bob]

I asked some friends if they'd be interested in going to a show in 2006 and "That's not the real Guns n' Roses" was the response I got.  So it's not just the media. 

with all due your respect, your friends must be closed-minded idiots.     anyone who thinks they can say who is or isn't the real guns n roses, thats not up to them to decide.

i get your point, a lot of people are skeptical.  it just takes an open mind.  my friend said something simliar before i convinced him to see the band with me in 2006 in Vegas.  After the show, he told me it was one of the best concerts he's ever attended and admitted he was wrong.

I guess my point is, anyone who hasn't given the band a fair shot, doesn't deserve to have their opinion taken seriously.

[Bill 213]

^ Exactly........and even those people that pull the "waah, this isn't the real Guns N Roses" shit....as soon as they go to the concerts, they're instantly like "whoa Axl sounds fucking kickass.....he's still got it and wow these guys are pretty good" etc.  Same as when I played Better for a friend who isn't a real big fan, but liked the old GNR.....he heard it and was like, damn that's pretty good.

Those people are stubborn and will continue to bitch about any little change to every single thing.

[D]

I think it has been proven over the last decade that Rock N Roll is an old man's game.

Look at the vets who sell out everything. Young bands dont last, its the old vets still selling records and tours.

So gnr will be more than ok once CD drops. I dont think they can tour successfully without an album, but once the album comes out, all will be fine.

[markreed]

My personal opinion is that GNR could be absolutely enormous again and headlining stadiums (and not arenas), but it does rely on more than their previous activities over the past 8 years. GNR could have an very very high profile by co-operating with current media channels, and by this I mean more than playing live shows. In order to do this, the band will have to do at least a handful of high profile in depth interviews, and inevitably this will involve Axl presenting his side of the original lineup split. Rona nd Richard and Frank (and so forth) would also do interviews - presumably leading with musician magazines such as Guitarist, or "Rock Drummer", or something. The Rolling Stones of this world know that Axl breaking cover after a 15 year interview embargo would shift a LOT of copy. And a LOT of CD's of CD.

The other part of it would be to produce TV / Website programming to catch the more casual music buyer who picks up a CD at the Supermarket alongside the groceries.

And of course the best promotion for the album itself would be the album. And subsequent live shows (though repeated late starts for shows could put off some people), and videos. I think there is plenty of goodwill and interest for when the band return.

[fuckin crazy]

I think it has been proven over the last decade that Rock N Roll is an old man's game.

Look at the vets who sell out everything. Young bands dont last, its the old vets still selling records and tours.

So gnr will be more than ok once CD drops. I dont think they can tour successfully without an album, but once the album comes out, all will be fine.

Ya know D, I tend to agree. Whenever I play some of the newer stuff to some "old" gunners, they tend to agree that it is ripe.

Now the question remains, will they abandon their wife, and kids, for a night of nostalgia ... I think that tickets sales answers that question ... if they have any balls(that was a dig at 40+ers that don't have any).

[misterID]

I don't know... Maybe because a lot of other artists remix and re-record their singles? I never once heard them say they hated, or disliked that album. POP was what it was. It was a concept album that no one understood the concept of

I didn't say they hated it. It was just rushed out!

So they "fixed" the singles later....

It kind of came across in your posts that they didn't like the album. But hey, I understand what you're saying here.

That made no sense. How did I rewrite history? I pointed out that album was a success. They sold over a million records, but you're trying to say it was still a failure because they were U2 and their other records sold more?

I'm saying, it wasn't the big selling album that kept them at the top of the mountain and Grammy nominated like you seem to imply.

You're the one saying all their albums were successful. Not me.

I'm saying, even a band like U2 who have been a huge band for over 20 years now, had a small dip in popularity.

But they got back on track and have proved that you don't have to be an angry 20 year old in order to be popular. Which some people seem to think.

All of their albums WERE successful. That's what you're not understanding. If you're trying to determine how popular or successful they are/were by comparing them saleswise on which album sold better, you can't really do that, because each album WAS successful. They never released a flop. Which is why I brought up the UYI albums analogy; you cannot measure success by comparing albums to previous albums. Selling over a million albums is a HUGE accomplishment. And U2 went on to have even better sales after that album.

What has kept them on the mountaintop is that they continue to release albums. Like it or not, releasing albums has helped them maintain their fanbase, and given them room to experiment. Not only that, being active and releasing albums has attracted new listeners each time (new record) out. They're not playing catch up and they're not leaping over blocks of new listeners here. They're staying consistent and by releasing albums, remained relevant and it was much easier for them to evolve. GNR does not have that luxury. After all this time, Axl still has the burdon of trying to introduce this band as, and have this line up accepted as, GNR. It's kind of hard when they don't have anything to identify themselves as a band with. Right now they are a band from the past, with the majority of people still identifying them as that band from Welcome To The Jungle, just because the younger demographic really have no idea who this band is. Everyone knows who U2 is and know their place as Rock Gods, the same cannot be said for GNR.

U2 haven't spent the last 10-15 years trying to make one album. They maintained their success by being active, not just for a fanbase, but in music, period.

In that case, the UYI and TSI? were failures because they didn't sell as well as AFD? Even though they each sold over a million copies?

Nice analogy. Unfortunately totally wrong.

With Use Your Illusion I and II, GN'R went from being big to huge.

Without those two albums, they weren't a stadium act.

Weren't we talking about album sells? Didn't the UYI albums sell considerably less than AFD, and they still went on to be a stadium act and their popularity swelled in spite of that fact? That kind of goes with my point that you don't have to keep selling 20 million albums each album to keep your place at the mountain top. You just have to stay active. Thanks for proving my point.

They had to play smaller venues from the last tour because of how horrible attendance was. And they sold out in larger markets, which is good, but to carry on an arena tour across the country when you're playing a vast majority of small markets is something else.

What?

Look at how many shows they played in the New York area alone.

New York is a big market. The majority of those shows were also played in small venues, and that strategy was very smart.

But they cannot do that in every market across the US. They cannot sell out an arena in a small market. They just can't. If they could it would be great. But even if CD is huge Axl has hurt himself by the bad publicity: Being late, cancellations, no shows, riots. Die hards will put up with his shit, new fans (and their parents) will not. And you can carry on about your no rules, traditional rock show, this isn't Burger King bullshit, all you want. He tries that shit again and he'll be playing to half empty theaters the rest of his life.

Okay, those other bands on the bill had nothing to with the level of success they had on those festivals.

Now you're getting confused again.

I'm not saying GN'R sold all those festival tickets.

But, the festival organizers don't pick any band to headline their festivals.

GN'R headlined without an album out. That says something.





/jarmo

GNR is a nostalgia act. Plain and simple. They're riding on the old bands cred to get them where they're at. They have nothing to stand alone on, until then, we can't even debate whether present GNR is a big act.

[greendog]

until then, we can't even debate whether present GNR is a big act.

because the HUGE festivals and concerts they have been playing totally indicate their status as a small act. 

[misterID]

If you listen close you can hear the point of my post go right over your head.

They are invited to those HUGE festivals because of the old band, not because of the new band. And there are several very popular bands on those HUGE festival bills. And those HUGE crowds are not their just to see GNR. They have not conducted a full scale European tour on their own, like they did in the US, so we can't even guage how successful a European tour would be.

To be fair, I do remember a few shows in England that sold out on that European tour that never happened.

[russtcb]

until then, we can't even debate whether present GNR is a big act.

because the HUGE festivals and concerts they have been playing totally indicate their status as a small act. 

Did you read this part of that post? It contains the point:

GNR is a nostalgia act. Plain and simple. They're riding on the old bands cred to get them where they're at. They have nothing to stand alone on, until then, we can't even debate whether present GNR is a big act.

[whiny]

gnr are a nostalgic act until cd and a great single are released. then things and the public opinion might change pretty quickly.

[Atillla]

This thread turned into an anti GnR gathering of the whiners club.....why there is a Dead Horse section, no one seems to know 

[gunns1]

I guess gnr are dammed if they do, dammed if they dont,

if they tour , then they get called a nastalgia act, all because they are just trying to bond more as a band, and just get comfortable with the whole situation, but instead you have people that want something from the past that doesnt exist...

How a band can be a nastalgia act, where they play a good range of new songs every time they play a concert is beyond me but hey?
I dont have a mullet do I?

[whiny]

How a band can be a nastalgia act, where they play a good range of new songs every time they play a concert is beyond me but hey?
I dont have a mullet do I?

because most people don't go to the shows because of those new songs. they go because of the old ones. which is ok. but i hope that will change. i truely believe it will. gnr could succeed like springsteen did with the rising tour. people responded to all songs, new or old, almost equally. but for that, you need the record. it's not so hard to understand. and the masterplan is to bring out the record. so what's the problem? yeah, cd could flop, but i don't think it will.

[Fingers]

I would imagine GNR would aim to become, like them or not, Bon Jovi-there are people who will go to hear things from the stuff they put out in the 80's, but they have done a nice job of rolling out hits the last few years which I think draws people to their shows-I think they have won over new fans since "It's My Life" exploded in 2000-GNR could have a huge hit, and actually win over new fans with new material as well as old

[Neemo]

3-5 songs out of 18-20 is a good range (17-20%)? anyway like whiny said...most people went to the shows in recent years to see the old material...and to see Axl, it makes it a nostalgia act...actually it'll be hard to get the new songs fitted in there, unless the album sells really well that is  

[jarmo]

Weren't we talking about album sells? Didn't the UYI albums sell considerably less than AFD, and they still went on to be a stadium act and their popularity swelled in spite of that fact? That kind of goes with my point that you don't have to keep selling 20 million albums each album to keep your place at the mountain top. You just have to stay active. Thanks for proving my point.

Oh wow. Now you're changing the story.

Pop was successful when it sold about one million in the US. Use Your Illusions were the fastest selling albums of all times when they were released but they were failures.

If your "you need to active" theory is correct, every band who ever played arenas and released album would still be doing it.



I think you're partly right, but it's not only about just releasing albums. If U2 had kept going in the Pop direction, their popularity possibly wouldn't have had the upswing it had later.

New York is a big market. The majority of those shows were also played in small venues, and that strategy was very smart.

Still managed to sell out Madison Square Garden even with another show across the river and having played four shows there earlier that year.

GNR is a nostalgia act. Plain and simple. They're riding on the old bands cred to get them where they're at. They have nothing to stand alone on, until then, we can't even debate whether present GNR is a big act.

There is no old and new. People don't really pay that much attention. People go see them because they wanna hear GN'R songs performed live and sung by the voice of GN'R.


The whole nostalgia thing is true for the Rolling Stones, U2, Pearl Jam and even Poison! So nothing GN'R specific no matter how hard you try. All big bands sell tickets based on their past hits.



Why do you have the need to try to discredit and put down the band? It's funny, it's almost like you want GN'R to prove something to you in order to have your support. I guess that's why you come across as a whiner.

You come to a GN'R board to tell us how much they suck while defending U2! I have nothing against U2, in fact I like them. But it's funny how you're prepared to defend them but with GN'R you are reluctant to give any credit whatsoever.
 

You list all kinds of reasons why people should avoid going to see GN'R, yet they managed to sell out venues and tour arenas without any radio play. People still turned up because they want to hear GN'R songs performed live.

I'm happy that people still go see GN'R and have a great time. I'm not seeing it as the disaster you are.

How a band can be a nastalgia act, where they play a good range of new songs every time they play a concert is beyond me but hey?
I dont have a mullet do I?

As I said, it's true for most big bands. Nothing GN'R specific at all.

There's bands who play less new songs from their new album at their shows than what GN'R did!




/jarmo

[doooodickiebr]

it's amazing how you start a thread and it goes in a completely opposite direction....oh well, nature of the beast

[jarmo]

it's amazing how you start a thread and it goes in a completely opposite direction....oh well, nature of the beast

It only takes one or two people to turn a "could they?" thing into "no they can't".





/jarmo