ARTICLE: My thoughts on the future of Guns N' Roses

[LongGoneDay]

First, it?s hard to make the argument that Guns N? Roses is relevant today.

They are. Axl's in the band.

There's nobody else like him. For some fans, this is a negative thing. They seem to have forgotten that they became fans of the band that Axl was also in.

But anyway, that doesn't change the fact that he still is relevant. Originals are always relevant.


Regarding the erasing what he has achieved. I get that point. The negativity can be the focus for some. So when you think like that, or read shit like it, it's easy to forget what has been achieved.



/jarmo

Well you said it yourself.
Axl Rose, not Guns N? Roses.

If Guns N? Roses is relevant today, it?s due to the legacy Axl helped create with Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven long ago.

It?s not because of Frank, Fortus, Tommy etc.
I?d be absolutely shocked if I was able to walk outside my office and find anyone within a 5 mile radius that could name another member of today?s GN?R.

Chinese Democracy was one of the most anticipated albums ever, yet I haven?t heard a track from it on the radio since it dropped in 2008.
Guns N? Roses could be relevant today. But out of sight, or in this case ear shot, out of mind.

Unfortunately there hasn?t been a whole lot to be positive about when speaking of Axl?s career post UYI.
Unless we are willing to grasp at straws like the author of this thread?s article.

Axl?s achievements are well documented. His legacy was cemented long ago.
He will always be mentioned among rock?s great frontmen. Rightfully so.

The negativity stems from what many fans deem to be years upon years of wasted potential.

[D-GenerationX]

Also, why did you ignore the point about bands who play less shows in the USA? What's your take on AC/DC for example? You just chose to ignore it for some reason... Weird.

You cling to that example like grim death. 

Speaking on strict numbers, you have your one example you repeat over and over again.  I have a list of examples that refute your theory.

Give me the list over the one convenient example we focus on and drown out the countless others that hurt the argument.

[D-GenerationX]

In addition, your "Gun to my head, I would have to say that any next GNR tour will not be an arena tour." prediction is kinda lame. You make a general statement like that so you don't have to take a big risk. One fucking club date on that tour and you'll be there with your "I told you so!".

Oh, stop it already.

25 arenas and 1 club does not make it a club tour.  No more so than 20 "up close and personal" venues and 1 arena makes that an arena tour.

Tours tend to book similar places all across the country.  It won't take a fucking diagram and a slide rule to deduce the overall scope of the tour.

[D-GenerationX]

First, it?s hard to make the argument that Guns N? Roses is relevant today.
Worth talking about? Of course. But when people talk about Guns N? Roses, it?s typically about the long dead incarnation from 20+ years ago.
I don?t think there are many discussions outside of HTGTH regarding today?s lineup, whatever that happens to be.

It?s tough to paint Axl as a GN?R surviver, when his actions and inactions played large roles in other?s decisions to leave in the first place.
He owns the name, and the name prints money, so keeping it active, even if active to some resembles life support, is hardly some noble gesture.

How is it amazing that Axl can fill voids and vacancies? It?s a job, and a job that probably pays pretty well. It would be more amazing if someone didn?t apply for that gig, but whereas people apply to clean toilets, adding this to Axl's list of accomplishments seems a bit of a stretch.

What is Axl fighting, exactly? What is he continuing? Where?s this new music the writer speaks of? That singular album from 2008? The album(s) in the ?Vault??
Touring is how bands make money these days, and its the only thing Guns N? Roses does on a semi consistent basis.
It?s a tough sell to file tours built on the backs of decade old albums, recorded by long since dissolved lineups under the accomplishment column.

The difference between Velvet Revolver playing a Guns N? Roses song and Axl playing a Guns N? Roses song, is that Velvet Revolver isn?t charging GN?R ticket prices to see a bunch of people no one has ever heard of cover Guns N? Roses songs.

Yes, it?s true that "nothing can erase what Axl Rose has accomplished and achieved" but then again, no one is trying to.
People would like to see him accomplish, and achieve more. That?s what makes them fans. The fact that he hasn?t leads to some fans frustration.
That doesn?t make one a ?keyboard warrior?, or mean they think they can sing and hold high notes like Axl Rose.

Great post.

And the way the rest of the world sees the situation.  We like to pretend otherwise around here, but I'm not sure who we think we are fooling.

[D-GenerationX]

Axl?s achievements are well documented. His legacy was cemented long ago.
He will always be mentioned among rock?s great frontmen. Rightfully so.

Correct.

Which was the whole argument we had here about the hall of fame.  No one thing he has done post 1994 had anything to do with GNR getting into the hall of fame.

Even if we were STILL waiting for 'Chinese Democracy', what bearing did that have?  Would the HOF have said "well, we think they are in...but I need to hear this new album first, the one with all the people no one has ever heard of."

Be serious.  Axl could have been abducted by aliens on 12/31/94 and still gotten in.  Nothing he has done since matters one iota to the GNR legacy in the eyes of the many.

[jarmo]

Stadiums are very hard here.  These days, its either a country bill with 2 or 3 acts on it, or Taylor Swift.  Roll call is short for stadium acts in the U.S.

I know its far more common for bands that were only ever arena acts here to play stadiums abroad.  I think at least part of that reason is that in some of these countries, they might only be playing one city.  Maybe a handful.  Here, we have 50 states.  You don't really need to travel to catch them.  So you take a band like Aeroomith that was never a stadium act here, even in the late 80s/early 90s when they were huge.  But they played stadiums elsewhere.

Yes, sometimes a band might play one stadium show per country. But then again, AC/DC is doing six in the USA and eight in Canada.

Honestly?  No.

There are not the same on just about any level, but I highly doubt you want to pick that scab unless you want to seriously bum yourself out.

But they are a huge rock act, one of the biggest names in the genre.  In that sense, theoretically, they are like Guns N' Roses.

They seem to be doing OK.

U2 has been going since the early 1980s with the same line up. The only negative press regarding them is when they gave away an album for free to Apple users or when Bono talks too much. 

They are major rock acts that tour arenas without a problem.  Yes, yes, despite your well researched theory why that can't possibly be done.

And those are just the ones off the top of my head that have come through lately.  Its not a complete list by any means.

Like I said, Marilyn Manson plays clubs on his own. Obviously he has a problem touring arenas without a second act on the bill...

There goes your whole theory. You slap two acts on a bill and they can "play arenas without a problem". What of GN'R did the same?

You cling to that example like grim death. 

Speaking on strict numbers, you have your one example you repeat over and over again.  I have a list of examples that refute your theory.

Give me the list over the one convenient example we focus on and drown out the countless others that hurt the argument.

Haha. How does all those acts refute my theory? Because U2 plays arenas, it means Metallica can too but they choose not to tour, only do one offs and tour overseas?

I posted about it before and you ignored it all along. You're still ignoring it. Instead of answering why, you post a list of other bands who are popular.

Dunno.  We didn't get a show in 1992 either though.  December 17, 1991 is the last show they played here.

There was that other one since then, but...well, you know.

They played in PA with Metallica in 1992. So yeah, there apparently was no demand for GN'R round there in 1993.

Well you said it yourself.
Axl Rose, not Guns N’ Roses.

If Guns N’ Roses is relevant today, it’s due to the legacy Axl helped create with Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven long ago.

And there you go trying to erase what he's done since.... 

If the band had ended in 1996, would you be here today? Talking about that clip from that show from 1987 on Youtube maybe? Or whether or not UYI should've been one album...
I kinda doubt it.

Axl Rose and Guns N' Roses are closely connected to each other. Can't have one without the other.

So GN'R are relevant because he's in the band. Common sense really.

People who claim to hate him and GN'R still spend a lot of time talking about him and GN'R.

The negativity stems from what many fans deem to be years upon years of wasted potential.

Because you can't always get what you want.

And the way the rest of the world sees the situation.  We like to pretend otherwise around here, but I'm not sure who we think we are fooling.

It's a GUNS N' ROSES fan site for .... sake!

People come here because they don't care what you the rest of the world thinks.


/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

Let's say CD2 happens and a new tour in support. Whatever the make up of the tour there will be complicated webs of explanation to make it look positive. Axl could be playing seedy pubs next year but multiple reasons will be provided explaining why this is not an example of downsizing. Whatever happens, there will be spin doctoring that would embarrass a politician.

[D-GenerationX]

They played in PA with Metallica in 1992. So yeah, there apparently was no demand for GN'R round there in 1993.

Oh, now we are talking about Pittsburgh?

A city I neither live in, nor are within 6-7 hours of?

[jarmo]

Let's say CD2 happens and a new tour in support. Whatever the make up of the tour there will be complicated webs of explanation to make it look positive. Axl could be playing seedy pubs next year but multiple reasons will be provided explaining why this is not an example of downsizing. Whatever happens, there will be spin doctoring that would embarrass a politician.

He could. So what?

Is this better? No "pointless touring" so far in 2015. Aren't you excited?

They played in PA with Metallica in 1992. So yeah, there apparently was no demand for GN'R round there in 1993.

Oh, now we are talking about Pittsburgh?

A city I neither live in, nor are within 6-7 hours of?

So there was no demand for a Metallica/GN'R co headlining tour in Philadelphia... Even worse!

By the way, my post said PA. The state. Maybe it's confusing because you assume it's all about Philadelphia....




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Let's say CD2 happens and a new tour in support. Whatever the make up of the tour there will be complicated webs of explanation to make it look positive. Axl could be playing seedy pubs next year but multiple reasons will be provided explaining why this is not an example of downsizing. Whatever happens, there will be spin doctoring that would embarrass a politician.

It's "up close and personal", bub.

GNR's people must have been realtors in another life.  Its not small, its "cozy".  Its not in disrepair, its "a handyman special".  Its not right under an airport's flight path, its "transportation adjacent".

[mortismurphy]

Let's say CD2 happens and a new tour in support. Whatever the make up of the tour there will be complicated webs of explanation to make it look positive. Axl could be playing seedy pubs next year but multiple reasons will be provided explaining why this is not an example of downsizing. Whatever happens, there will be spin doctoring that would embarrass a politician.

He could. So what?

Is this better? No "pointless touring" so far in 2015. Aren't you excited?

Well I'm no longer cringing at the flying piano and gnr themed casino chips. That is a positive to come from all this.

[jarmo]

Well I'm no longer cringing at the flying piano and gnr themed casino chips. That is a positive to come from all this.

I'm happy for you.

I'm also sure you're one of the few to see it that way. Judging by some of the posts and comments around the Internet....





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

So there was no demand for a Metallica/GN'R co headlining tour in Philadelphia... Even worse!

Here's the difference.

If there was a GNR/Metallica show in 1992, it would have sold just fine.  If there was a 1992 show at the Spectrum, it would have sold out.

If there was a Guns N' Roses show in 2015 at the Wells Fargo Center (the modern day Spectrum), the place is unlikely to be even half full.  It seats about 20,000 for sporting events.  This would be the case just about everywhere except *maybe* NYC or LA.

So if you want to have a serious discussion about demand for GNR, 1992 vs. 2015...you must just be some sort of glutton for punishment.

But hey, man.  AC/DC...so, yeah.

[jarmo]

So you're saying they booked shows in other markets in the USA in 1993 because the demand was so strong in places they didn't play that year?
They played cities like Portland, ME and Fargo, ND. Skipped cities like L.A., Philadelphia (again) and New York City.

On one hand you're quick to point out that the UCAP tour was booked due to lack of demand, on the other hand you claim shows could've been booked and weren't in 1993.

You make no sense.


Simple question: Why didn't the band play in Philadelphia in 1992 or 1993 if the demand was so huge? Why tour mostly in secondary markets? I'm sure you know.

Personally I don't care. A GN'R show is a GN'R show. And I know sometimes promoters want to book gigs in other cities. Might have to do with a suitable venue, or the city wanting to host a show etc etc.
But I'm not the one throwing around the demand phrase to the left and right here.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

So you're saying they booked shows in other markets in the USA in 1993 because the demand was so strong in places they didn't play that year?
They played cities like Portland, ME and Fargo, ND. Skipped cities like L.A., Philadelphia (again) and New York City.

On one hand you're quick to pint out that the UCAP tour was booked due to lack of demand, on the other hand you claim shows could've been booked and weren't in 1993.

You make no sense.

Well, yes.  Putting things in nonsensical terms like that, I would agree it makes little sense.

It does appear that the 1993 U.S. tour was in more off the beaten path type spots.  Likely due to the fact they had already been through a lot of towns multiple times.

Guess what?  Still booked arenas.  Still sold them out.  No "up close and personal" shows, know what I mean?

The UCAP tour was booked because they could not fill bigger places.  Correct.  It was not done out of the goodness of their hearts.  That's foolishness.

[jarmo]

Guess what?  Still booked arenas.  Still sold them out.  No "up close and personal" shows, know what I mean?

The UCAP tour was booked because they could not fill bigger places.  Correct.  It was not done out of the goodness of their hearts.  That's foolishness.

Some of the same arenas GN'R played in 2011! Imagine that.

And no, they didn't book clubs a few weeks after. Instead they went abroad and played stadiums.....

Does it sound familiar?



Please answer me this: Why would you book club shows a few weeks after an arena tour instead of playing multiple nights in those cities during the real tour?
In your own words, explain why the UCAP tour was booked. I'm really curious.
If there's too many questions in this post, just focus on this part. The UCAP tour and your theories/reasons for it happening at that time instead of maybe in 2013, 2014 or whatever.

Are you aware that there's a difference between an arena tour and playing smaller venues?

Thanks!



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Simple question: Why didn't the band play in Philadelphia in 1992 or 1993 if the demand was so huge? Why tour mostly in secondary markets? I'm sure you know.

Looks like this was added after the fact.

Why didn't they?  Don't know.  Pretty decent rock town, as a rule.  Sold out the Spectrum in June 1991, then twice in December 1991.

Couldn't tell you why we got passed over in 1992 or 1993, but it certainly wasn't lack of demand.  I think that's a flawed premise.

If there were shows here in 1992 or 1993, they would have been in commensurate venues to the rest of the legs of those tours.

[jarmo]

Couldn't tell you why we got passed over in 1992 or 1993, but it certainly wasn't lack of demand.  I think that's a flawed premise.

If there were shows here in 1992 or 1993, they would have been in commensurate venues to the rest of the legs of those tours.

Could be many reasons. I'm only using your favorite term since I can do what you do. Play the game and assume. Without knowing shit!
Yes, it's that simple.


Regarding your other favorite topic, UCAP. More questions while I await for theory on that tour.... Sorry!

Is it possible there was time between the North American arena tour and the European summer tour, and instead of doing nothing they booked a club tour? Is it possible it's easier to organize something like that since the shows are smaller and also several were in the same cities? And since the shows are smaller, you can announce them closer to the actual show dates?

Is any of this possible in your expert opinion?

I have no idea, just thinking freely. Because if I was booking a tour, I wouldn't book a tour in the same cities after a tour of the same cities just finished! I mean, unless it was just something that came up and it's better than not playing any shows... But that can't be the case. They just decided to book shows in cities with no demand. Because it makes sense, right?




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Please answer me this: Why would you book club shows a few weeks after an arena tour instead of playing multiple nights in those cities during the real tour?
In your own words, explain why the UCAP tour was booked. I'm really curious.
If there's too many questions in this post, just focus on this part. The UCAP tour and your theories/reasons for it happening at that time instead of maybe in 2013, 2014 or whatever.

The UCAP tour was booked in the venues they were booked in because the band could not fill larger venues in those same cities.

Multiple nights?  Are you high?  They weren't filling the places up in 2011 for one night.  Multiple nights?

I actually think its more of a concern there wasn't even a UCAP type deal in 2013 or 2014, to be honest.  One city residency is all they felt they could swing.

In summation, UCAP is the future.  The days of filling arenas are over for this band, absent Axl making that phone call he's been avoiding for 20 years.

[D-GenerationX]

I have no idea, just thinking freely. Because if I was booking a tour, I wouldn't book a tour in the same cities after a tour of the same cities just finished! I mean, unless it was just something that came up and it's better than not playing any shows... But that can't be the case. They just decided to book shows in cities with no demand. Because it makes sense, right?

Dude, you gotta stop going back and adding shit.  Get your thoughts organized before you post the first time.

Here's what makes sense.  By 2014, you haven't been around in a while.  Sticking to a safe one city residency in a vacation town speaks to what you feel you are capable of.

I see absolutely zero argument there was a bigger more nationwide tour there for the taking in 2013 or 2014, and it wasn't booked...um, I don't know.....just because.

Silly.