New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[Ali]

Most fans need the band to produce a hit single or AFD style successful album to consider them GNR. I mean Van Halen had hits with two different league singers, so I guess that makes it alright for them

Ask yourself one question. 

If this is true :

Few people besides lifers feel strongly one way or the other.  To everyone else, if the ticket or album cover says Guns N' Roses, then it's Guns N' Roses.

...why are they playing to 65-75% capacity places in other countries, and 3-4,000 seat venues here in the States if "its Guns N' Roses".

Does that make sense?

Yes, *we* like it.  The diehards.  We're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the big picture.

One thing I see not being considered here is that there seems to be an assumption that whatever decline there is in ticket sales (which I think you're exaggerating in the case of venues outside the U.S.) is strictly due to the change in lineup.  A lot of bands have an ebb and flow to their careers as popular tastes in music change.  I think it would be a mistake to rule that out as a contributing factor. 

So, while it's impossible to know exactly what the old lineup would draw if it hadn't slowly changed into what the lineup is, it may not be what they drew in 1992 or 1993.  It might be less.  So, I don't know how you can evaluate how relatively this lineup is drawing compared to what the old lineup would draw.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

So, while it's impossible to know exactly what the old lineup would draw if it hadn't slowly changed into what the lineup is, it may not be what they drew in 1992 or 1993.  It might be less.  So, I don't know how you can evaluate how relatively this lineup is drawing compared to what the old lineup would draw.

They would fill 20,000 seat arenas, your basic basketball/hockey buildings, all across the United States without a worry.  You seriously dispute that?

And along the same lines, if you are not willing to go that far for whatever reason, would all they be able to swing is a residency every 2 years in the same city?  I mean, does that seem probable to you?

Forget the "we can't say" or "no way to know".  What's your gut tell you?

[Ginger King]

Most fans need the band to produce a hit single or AFD style successful album to consider them GNR. I mean Van Halen had hits with two different league singers, so I guess that makes it alright for them

Ask yourself one question. 

If this is true :

Few people besides lifers feel strongly one way or the other.  To everyone else, if the ticket or album cover says Guns N' Roses, then it's Guns N' Roses.

...why are they playing to 65-75% capacity places in other countries, and 3-4,000 seat venues here in the States if "its Guns N' Roses".

Does that make sense?

Yes, *we* like it.  The diehards.  We're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the big picture.

One thing I see not being considered here is that there seems to be an assumption that whatever decline there is in ticket sales (which I think you're exaggerating in the case of venues outside the U.S.) is strictly due to the change in lineup.  A lot of bands have an ebb and flow to their careers as popular tastes in music change.  I think it would be a mistake to rule that out as a contributing factor. 

So, while it's impossible to know exactly what the old lineup would draw if it hadn't slowly changed into what the lineup is, it may not be what they drew in 1992 or 1993.  It might be less.  So, I don't know how you can evaluate how relatively this lineup is drawing compared to what the old lineup would draw.

Ali

The Stones tour (with classic lineup) they sell out.  Springsteen tours (with classic lineup) they sell out.  Of course Guns n Roses (with classic lineup) would sell out.  It's just silly to think otherwise. 

[D-GenerationX]

Pearl Jam hasn't had a hit since...what, 'Last Kiss'?  That was 1999.

They still play 20,000 seat arenas, multiple nights in some cities.

GNR would be different...why?

[draguns]

Ali, your logic cracks me up at times. Do you really think that the original lineup would not sell arenas? C'mon man  stop drinking the Kool-Aid. 

[mortismurphy]

They would sell out arenas. Easily. Velvet Revolver were selling out arenas in Europe around 2005 and that is merely, Velvet Revolver and not Guns (1987 vintage)!!

[w.david rose]

About not knowing the names of the band members - you are forget one small thing.
Back at the 90's there was a notebook, exercise book, Binder with pictures of the Band members and their names, all the Media(MTV and other channels) broadcast GNR videos 24/7 .
Most of the time when I turned on the TV, there was a GNR video so I guess that people in my age (between 30-40) knew the names. even Matt , Dizzy(maybe not Teddy Zig Zag lol).
Somewhere in 1994-1996 everything started to change.

[JAEBALL]

About not knowing the names of the band members - you are forget one small thing.
Back at the 90's there was a notebook, exercise book, Binder with pictures of the Band members and their names, all the Media(MTV and other channels) broadcast GNR videos 24/7 .
Most of the time when I turned on the TV, there was a GNR video so I guess that people in my age (between 30-40) knew the names. even Matt , Dizzy(maybe not Teddy Zig Zag lol).
Somewhere in 1994-1996 everything started to change.

IN 94-96 SOMETHING STARTED TO CHANGE?

lol....yeah its called they broke up

[GeorgeSteele]

Yeah, that whole post would pretty much be case in point.

WTF, rough day yesterday?  Uncalled for burn, brother.

Look, perhaps we're both exaggerating our respective points.  The band currently may not be selling out tours like it did in the past, but it's not exactly slumming it either.  That's a lot of people we're talking about, only a fraction of who are diehards that even get into the debate of what is or isn't Guns N' Roses.  You're not being honest if you don't acknowledge that at the recent shows you've been too, a good portion of the crowd gets up only for SCOM, PC and the like.  These are not people who have an opinion on what a 'core member' is or whether the band that is on stage is really Guns N' Roses.  These are people like my brother-in-law, who said to me after watching the RNRHOF show in 2012, "did you know Guns N' Roses have a new singer?" 

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah, that whole post would pretty much be case in point.

WTF, rough day yesterday?  Uncalled for burn, brother.

Look, perhaps we're both exaggerating our respective points.  The band currently may not be selling out tours like it did in the past, but it's not exactly slumming it either.  That's a lot of people we're talking about, only a fraction of who are diehards that even get into the debate of what is or isn't Guns N' Roses.  You're not being honest if you don't acknowledge that at the recent shows you've been too, a good portion of the crowd gets up only for SCOM, PC and the like.  These are not people who have an opinion on what a 'core member' is or whether the band that is on stage is really Guns N' Roses.  These are people like my brother-in-law, who said to me after watching the RNRHOF show in 2012, "did you know Guns N' Roses have a new singer?" 

Well, I'm not sure they aren't slumming it.

Honest question.  Why has there not been a legit domestic tour lately?  Why has it only been a residency in a super small venue in a vacation city?  Are you arguing they could pull off a serious domestic tour all over the country, but just choose not to?  Does that make a lick of business sense?  No one chooses to play smaller venues, regardless of the "up close and personal" spin they might try and put out there.

I would argue the reality is that they know they would have real trouble moving tickets.  I would also argue that if people thought "this is Guns N' Roses", that's not even a concern.

[GeorgeSteele]

Yeah, that whole post would pretty much be case in point.

WTF, rough day yesterday?  Uncalled for burn, brother.

Look, perhaps we're both exaggerating our respective points.  The band currently may not be selling out tours like it did in the past, but it's not exactly slumming it either.  That's a lot of people we're talking about, only a fraction of who are diehards that even get into the debate of what is or isn't Guns N' Roses.  You're not being honest if you don't acknowledge that at the recent shows you've been too, a good portion of the crowd gets up only for SCOM, PC and the like.  These are not people who have an opinion on what a 'core member' is or whether the band that is on stage is really Guns N' Roses.  These are people like my brother-in-law, who said to me after watching the RNRHOF show in 2012, "did you know Guns N' Roses have a new singer?" 

Well, I'm not sure they aren't slumming it.

Honest question.  Why has there not been a legit domestic tour lately?  Why has it only been a residency in a super small venue in a vacation city?  Are you arguing they could pull off a serious domestic tour all over the country, but just choose not to?  Does that make a lick of business sense?  No one chooses to play smaller venues, regardless of the "up close and personal" spin they might try and put out there.

I would argue the reality is that they know they would have real trouble moving tickets.  I would also argue that if people thought "this is Guns N' Roses", that's not even a concern.

Didn't they already do 2 U.S. tours since CD was released?  To expect them to do so again so soon in the U.S. without a new album, that's a high standard for 'not slumming'.  I think once the new album is released, they'll manage a to pull off a domestic tour. 

[D-GenerationX]

Didn't they already do 2 U.S. tours since CD was released?  To expect them to do so again so soon in the U.S. without a new album, that's a high standard for 'not slumming'.  I think once the new album is released, they'll manage a to pull off a domestic tour. 

I agree that's the next real barometer of where they are as a viable operation.

Not that I think the new album will be some big seller.  Or even that the majority of people buying tickets are there to hear the new songs.

But even if with a new album, you are playing 3,000 seat spots, and not even all across the country, I think it might be time to face facts that might be all they are anymore.  And that, in itself, is not the end of the world.  But it should finally put to bed some of the furious political spin doctoring some fans engage in.

I just question the exercise.  Who are we really fooling with some of that stuff? 

Which was my earlier point about living in an alternate dimension with this band.  One where its not that they can't sell tickets, its that they choose smaller venues for the fans.  One where not being able to write anything as a band for 8 years is not weird, its just a scheduling conflict.  One where only being able to get 1 album released in the past 19 years is not at all odd, its shows integrity and a realization that its not 1991 anymore.

These are arguments that I find silly.  And anyone outside this board would too.

[icpillusions]

These are arguments that I find silly.  And anyone outside this board would too.

I asked a guy walking in front of my house. He said "dude, it's Rock n Fn Roll." So I guess that explains why plans don't follow a script.

[D-GenerationX]

These are arguments that I find silly.  And anyone outside this board would too.

I asked a guy walking in front of my house. He said "dude, it's Rock n Fn Roll." So I guess that explains why plans don't follow a script.

Hahahaha.

Nice.

[Ali]

So, while it's impossible to know exactly what the old lineup would draw if it hadn't slowly changed into what the lineup is, it may not be what they drew in 1992 or 1993.  It might be less.  So, I don't know how you can evaluate how relatively this lineup is drawing compared to what the old lineup would draw.

They would fill 20,000 seat arenas, your basic basketball/hockey buildings, all across the United States without a worry.  You seriously dispute that?

And along the same lines, if you are not willing to go that far for whatever reason, would all they be able to swing is a residency every 2 years in the same city?  I mean, does that seem probable to you?

Forget the "we can't say" or "no way to know".  What's your gut tell you?

My gut tells me that the popularity of the old band and in turn their likelihood to fill the same venues they played in 1992 had a very good chance of declining had they stayed with that lineup given the natural ebb and flows of most careers and the relative decrease in mainstream popularity of hard rock/heavy metal over time.

Ali

[Ali]

Most fans need the band to produce a hit single or AFD style successful album to consider them GNR. I mean Van Halen had hits with two different league singers, so I guess that makes it alright for them

Ask yourself one question. 

If this is true :

Few people besides lifers feel strongly one way or the other.  To everyone else, if the ticket or album cover says Guns N' Roses, then it's Guns N' Roses.

...why are they playing to 65-75% capacity places in other countries, and 3-4,000 seat venues here in the States if "its Guns N' Roses".

Does that make sense?

Yes, *we* like it.  The diehards.  We're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the big picture.

One thing I see not being considered here is that there seems to be an assumption that whatever decline there is in ticket sales (which I think you're exaggerating in the case of venues outside the U.S.) is strictly due to the change in lineup.  A lot of bands have an ebb and flow to their careers as popular tastes in music change.  I think it would be a mistake to rule that out as a contributing factor. 

So, while it's impossible to know exactly what the old lineup would draw if it hadn't slowly changed into what the lineup is, it may not be what they drew in 1992 or 1993.  It might be less.  So, I don't know how you can evaluate how relatively this lineup is drawing compared to what the old lineup would draw.

Ali

The Stones tour (with classic lineup) they sell out.  Springsteen tours (with classic lineup) they sell out.  Of course Guns n Roses (with classic lineup) would sell out.  It's just silly to think otherwise. 

The problem with your reasoning is you are assuming that the classic GN'R would have been the exceptions to the rule like those other artists, as opposed to the rule.  We really don't know if they would have.  Given that I was a fan at the time, I know there were expressions of disappointment in the sales of The Spaghetti Incident and Live Era.  Who knows, they may have indicative of an overall decline in popularity for GN'R.  We'll never know for sure.

Ali

[Ali]

Ali, your logic cracks me up at times. Do you really think that the original lineup would not sell arenas? C'mon man  stop drinking the Kool-Aid. 

There's a difference between not being able to sell out arenas now in the event of a gimmick like a reunion tour, and would they be able to maintain the level of popularity if they had continued on with some variation of the classic lineup.

Not assuming an unwavering level of popularity is not drinking the kool-aid.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

Why has Aerosmith been able to continue to tour?  AC/DC?  Metallica?

My god, Motley Crue has still played these sorts for venues throughout, and if you want to talk clich?d and stuck in the past, not too many better examples.

Its totally implausible to say GNR could not have equaled any of those bands.

[Ali]

Why has Aerosmith been able to continue to tour?  AC/DC?  Metallica?

My god, Motley Crue has still played these sorts for venues throughout, and if you want to talk clich?d and stuck in the past, not too many better examples.

Its totally implausible to say GNR could not have equaled any of those bands.

Motley Crue has also done two residencies at the same venue like the current GN'R has.

Also, I never said that GN'R could not have equaled those bands.  I'm saying it's also possible that they would have declined in popularity.

Ali

[LongGoneDay]

I think AFD/UYI era GN?Rs greatest enemy were easily themselves. They were the only real obstacle in the way of attaining/maintaining Rolling Stones caliber status.
Not grunge, not numetal, hop hop etc. They were kings during the last great era of music, and would probably continue to be so today. No one carried the torch. Popular music today is watered down pop bullshit with no heart. Not everyone is fooled so easily. There would always be room for a band like GN?R. Foo Fighters and Green Day were in a lower tier than GN?R, Metallica, Nirvana etc but have maintained their massive popularity, in my opinion, thanks in part to the simple fact they managed to stay together.

Who?s to say they?d even be breathing today had they tried, but if they were, they?d still be huge.
The reason they aren't is because Axl is a once in a lifetime frontman, who lost his once in a lifetime band and chemistry.
The name is a band aid on a bullet wound.