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

[Ow-So7411501]

Seriously, when all is said and done I would love to see a pic of DX and Jarmo enjoying a beer together. 

[D-GenerationX]

Seriously, when all is said and done I would love to see a pic of DX and Jarmo enjoying a beer together. 

We're the original odd couple!

[Ow-So7411501]

Seriously, when all is said and done I would love to see a pic of DX and Jarmo enjoying a beer together. 

We're the original odd couple!

Next time he's in PA you got to make it happen. The internet would explode.

[D-GenerationX]

Seriously, when all is said and done I would love to see a pic of DX and Jarmo enjoying a beer together. 

We're the original odd couple!

Next time he's in PA you got to make it happen. The internet would explode.

I've seen a pic of him with MSL, and all that guy did was extort the god damn band.

I can't be worse than him.  (right?)

[jarmo]

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

Do you have a source for this info?

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

This begs the question: Why would a band go back so soon to cities where there allegedly wasn't demand the first time? Like I said, and you didn't understand, if you want to play Philly and Camden, why do it the way GN'R did? Why not book the shows to happen the same week?

I only said that to prove a point you didn't get.

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.

Maybe in Philly.

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.

That particular post, I didn't add anything....



Still waiting for a real explanation on why the tour was booked that way.
Could you explain the logic in booking a second round of shows in cities with no demand so close to the first shows? Please explain!

I mean, the old "they booked it because there was no demand" isn't what I'm after! If there's no demand, wouldn't you just wait until later?

To be honest, this game is fun and all. But I just don't think you're capable of thinking freely here. They probably wanted a fun easy tour while they had some downtime. You don't need a huge production to play those smaller places. It's more a last minute pack your suitcase and go kinda trip, instead of a planned family getaway.

But you couldn't admit this possibility because it goes against what you want to be true.

I've seen a pic of him with MSL

That was a bit awkward. He jumped out of the blue and asked for a pic... 




/jarmo

[jarmo]

I forgot to add that the UCAP shows were announced weeks before the shows happened.
For example, the Philadelphia show was announced a week before it happened.

Do you think this would have any effect on ticket sales when people can't make plans far in advance? Maybe you didn't even go?


All this kinda shows how this tour was more a spur of the moment thing than a real serious arena tour... But that's just how I see it.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

All this kinda shows how this tour was more a spur of the moment thing than a real serious arena tour... But that's just how I see it.

Yeah, I'd agree with this.

[sky dog]

The show in Atlanta had about 10,000 at Phillips or around there, then they do the UCAP at The Tabernacle soon thereafter. Both great shows. The Tabernacle is right next to Phillips and it just so happened that Radiohead was playing in Phillips that night. I could have done both shows in one night. Radiohead fans were spilling out around 11pm....walking right past the venue. Multiple conversations as I am a fan of both. One guy says, "Axl Rose is about to come on?" I said, "Yeah...in a little while!" 

He scalped a ticket and went in....saw him inside right after Jungle and he was like "holy shit!"....one of my favorite rock stories.

[rizzo160]

It's a shame that guns has lost Ron, I was never a big fan of DJ.  I hope Axl puts out the second half of CD by the end of 2016. It's going to be hard to get the chemistry back that the new guns had the last 6 years. Hopefully Axl will release a statement soon...

[D-GenerationX]

The show in Atlanta had about 10,000 at Phillips or around there, then they do the UCAP at The Tabernacle soon thereafter. Both great shows. The Tabernacle is right next to Phillips and it just so happened that Radiohead was playing in Phillips that night. I could have done both shows in one night. Radiohead fans were spilling out around 11pm....walking right past the venue. Multiple conversations as I am a fan of both. One guy says, "Axl Rose is about to come on?" I said, "Yeah...in a little while!" 

He scalped a ticket and went in....saw him inside right after Jungle and he was like "holy shit!"....one of my favorite rock stories.

That is cool.

Right place, right time.

[draguns]

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.

Tickets at the IZOD in the Meadowlands for the 2011 show were not sold out. The area that I was sitting in had a quite a lot of empty seats, which were also cheap. Back in the day, that would have easily sold out.

[D-GenerationX]

The Camden show, obviously, they closed up the back as no one was going to sit on the lawn in November.

I honestly don't know how many it seats when they do that.  But it was full.  We were packed in tight.

Drawing from all of South Jersey and Philly, I would certainly hope so.

[damnthehaters]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

DX, are you basically saying that GNR doesn't sell as well as they used to?  Ummm, no kidding.    
But, are you also saying that's why they booked UCPT?   I don't agree with that.  Bands play bigger and smaller venues all the time.  They also play big and small markets as well.  Even when bands are extremely popular, they can play smaller venues and smaller markets. Sometimes, it's about reaching as many people as you can.  If you continuesly play the same markets, millions of people won't be able to see you.  Not everyone can drive long distances to go to a show.   

[D-GenerationX]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

Basically, I tend to think tours like UCAP and the one town residencies are done more out of necessity than some romantic notion they just want to give fans a different experience.

Jarmo does not agree with me.

Frankly, even though we were at odds on this one, I thought today was one of our better conversations.  I thought good points were made by both sides.

But what I keep coming back to, and this annoys Jarmo for some reason, I don't think we can really say one way or another until we see that next tour and where they are playing on the regular.  I tend to think, if there ever even is another nationwide tour here in the U.S., it will be in smaller places.  I think the arena days are probably over.

[Ginger King]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

I think we all agree that the demand for GnR is less than what it was back in the heyday because?well, because that?s incredibly obvious.  Where people disagree (I think) is the reason for the decrease in interest. 

The reason for the decrease is either (a) consistent with the decrease in demand for other rock bands, (b) the result of Axl being the only original member and only releasing one album in 20+ years, or (c) something else. 

Sounds like Jarmo believes the smaller venues and attendance are because of choice (a), while D-X and others (including me) think it?s both (a) and, to a larger extent, (b).  Guns n Roses is now really only seen as Axl Rose?s band?and while that?s enough to keep some people going, the drop off in interest is, IMO, because it?s only him?and he hasn?t done that much in terms of releasing new music.  When people see Guns now, they see Axl, guitarists they don?t bother learning who they are because, once you do, they?re probably no longer in the band, and a small amount of new material.  People see wasted opportunity?particularly because they know how special Axl is as a performer/writer, and can?t understand how someone with that much talent has only managed to release one album in 20+ years.  After getting sole control of Guns, he hasn?t done much to move the meter, and that?s why the interest is lacking.  Or rock is dead.  That sounds better, especially to the Axl faithful. 

[D-GenerationX]

I just don't know how you can really argue that people are forming any sort of connection with these guys.

Its not universal or anything, but look how many people shrug their shoulder at losing 2 of 3 guitarists in under a year. 

It's a pretty healthy number.

[TheBaconman]

The show in Atlanta had about 10,000 at Phillips or around there, then they do the UCAP at The Tabernacle soon thereafter. Both great shows. The Tabernacle is right next to Phillips and it just so happened that Radiohead was playing in Phillips that night. I could have done both shows in one night. Radiohead fans were spilling out around 11pm....walking right past the venue. Multiple conversations as I am a fan of both. One guy says, "Axl Rose is about to come on?" I said, "Yeah...in a little while!" 

He scalped a ticket and went in....saw him inside right after Jungle and he was like "holy shit!"....one of my favorite rock stories.

That's a great live music story!

[damnthehaters]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

I think we all agree that the demand for GnR is less than what it was back in the heyday because?well, because that?s incredibly obvious.  Where people disagree (I think) is the reason for the decrease in interest. 

The reason for the decrease is either (a) consistent with the decrease in demand for other rock bands, (b) the result of Axl being the only original member and only releasing one album in 20+ years, or (c) something else. 

Sounds like Jarmo believes the smaller venues and attendance are because of choice (a), while D-X and others (including me) think it?s both (a) and, to a larger extent, (b).  Guns n Roses is now really only seen as Axl Rose?s band?and while that?s enough to keep some people going, the drop off in interest is, IMO, because it?s only him?and he hasn?t done that much in terms of releasing new music.  When people see Guns now, they see Axl, guitarists they don?t bother learning who they are because, once you do, they?re probably no longer in the band, and a small amount of new material.  People see wasted opportunity?particularly because they know how special Axl is as a performer/writer, and can?t understand how someone with that much talent has only managed to release one album in 20+ years.  After getting sole control of Guns, he hasn?t done much to move the meter, and that?s why the interest is lacking.  Or rock is dead.  That sounds better, especially to the Axl faithful. 

I believe it's a result of both things you mentioned..(a and b), but more so the lack of material to stay relevant and not as much about Axl being the only original member.  Members come and go with SO many bands and I think the music is what's more important.  I think a lot of your comments are views from the die hard fan....or a true rock n roll fan and are a little far fetched.  Seeing only Axl, wasted opportunity, how special Axl was, etc.....I don't believe most see it that way.  And when I say MOST, I'm referring to what I would call an average music listener.  When you look at the grand scheme of things, there are very few people who know what's going on with GNR, and even fewer who care! And it's not just GNR.  The average music listener probably couldn't tell you much about any band for that matter.  I can point to any of my friends and tell you that they don't view GNR like that.  Some of them might know certain people aren't in the band, but they don't care.  I would say that when most people attend a GNR show, they aren't going into it thinking it's only "Axl's band".  I would argue that most people are going in and coming out saying they saw Guns N Roses.  In 20 years from now, if someone says they saw GNR in 2006, the majority of the response will be "cool".  The majority won't be, "but it was only Axl Rose who wasted so much talent and only put out 1 album after 1993."  Those are comments from people on fan sites. 

Think about it.  I went to a Culture Club concert the other night.  Few years back I went to a Little River Band concert.  I have no idea if the original band members are still in the Culture Club besides Boy George.  And I DO know that Little River Band has had more lineup changes than Guns N Roses, and they don't have their lead singer.  But for the most part, neither concert had people talking about anything other than "the songs". 

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Just like the story shared by skydog above.  The guy (probably the average music listener), had no idea Guns N Roses was playing. He bought a ticket, went in, and (I think) enjoyed it.  I doubt he was saying "but this is just Axls band".

[jarmo]

The original posters claims the 2012 UCAP shows were booked in those venues because that's what the demand was.

I pointed out why I disagree and why I think they booked those shows, multiple times.

GN'R has  history of playing smaller club gigs, and it's not because they can't play in a bigger venue.
Nowhere did I claim GN'R today, or rock music in general, is as popular as in say 1991.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Totally agree.

You would always have people that cashed out after the others were replaced.  But I also think Axl would be a little better off if had released a few albums with the new line-up by now.

Not putzing around for 15 years on 15 songs.