General "Not In This Lifetime... Tour" thread *1st POST UPDATE NOV 30*

[The Wight Gunner]

Eddie Trunk says theres bad blood between Axl and Matt...

that's something I still don't really understand, since they'd hang out together some
years ago and patch things up, I believed. I'd love to see Matt playing YCBM and
November Rain, I mean, he deserves it, on a strictly musical level.

If they worked things out with Steven, I can't see why they don't with Matt.

To be honest, who knows what happens next? That is the charm for me about Gn'fR its an organic band that is constantly changing.  There is a danger of it becoming a circus if the line-up is gonna get the whole of the big seven involved (the big 4 + Steven thus far) in playing at any one show. At a push I'd imagine Steven, Izzy and Matt would for one off's be making appearances for maybe expenses + a nominal fee. Changing the line-up might prove to be financially more problematic if they were to be changing things half way through. All I do know its a hang on tight kinda deal enjoy the ride...

[pilferk]

Pd.. Shows NOT SOLDOUT Is By BUSSINES/Industry Musical Is Bad Actually.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean (language barrier, I think).

But if you're trying to say that the fact all the shows, or even some of the shows, aren't sold out is considered BAD in the industry (or might be bad for the industry) and is bad for business..you're wrong. Or that it's somehow bad for the band.

If they were playing to 10k in stadiums...yes.

But when your average crowd is betweek 35k and 40k, and given the numbers I think that's a pretty fair guess at this point...everyone is making money, and a pretty hefty amount of it.  The stadiums, the act, the promoters, everyone.  And that's good business.

And the fact a ROCK band is doing those numbers is remarkable.  They are going to be one of the top 5, if not top 3, tours this year.  That's good for the industry.  It shows the labels that (real) ROCK can sell tickets, and a lot of them.

If the tour has already grossed 100 million bucks, as reported by LiveNation...that would already have put them at #6 on the list in 2015.  I'm guessing they'll end up in the 125 million range. That would put them squarely at #5 last year, and, given what's toured so far and is projected through the end of the year, I think it might get them up a notch or two this year.

That's strataspheric levels for a band NOT touring on a new album.  Last year it was Taylor Swift (217 million), One Direction (208 million), U2 (133 milllion), The Stones (131 million) and Kenny Chesney (114 million).

And the kicker? GnR is doing it on a relatively limited number of dates.

So, no...the shows not being sold out is NOT bad for the industry or bad for business.  They are doing VERY well, actually, in both departments.

In terms of "for the band"..again, no.  This is probably the best thing, commercially, that could have happened.  They're selling a good number of tickets, the promoters are making money, AND they're putting on well reviewed shows, showing up on time, and doing exactly what they need to do to prove to future ticket buyers that they're worth the price of a ticket.  I don't think they could possibly do any more (other than release a new single) than they are right now to convince people to come see them.

All in all, there's zero way you can look at this tour, so far, and NOT think it's successful.  At least not realistically.  I know we've got some media types out there looking for the negative angle (Yes, wall street journal, I'm looking at you) to try to find something, ANYTHING, to take issue with.  They just look foolish, at this point.

[ckgent]

Also, so far this is just the US markets.. Wait until they hit Europe and the Uk, it will be massive numbers.. I just hope they start to announce them soon.

[Voodoochild]

I wouldn't take HBK too seriously. ?\_(ツ)_/? 

I don't think they could possibly do any more (other than release a new single) than they are right now to convince people to come see them.

Maybe they are not interested in releasing anything new now because they don't need to. And when they do, they'll have another good "excuse" to keep touring.

[sky dog]

I don't think HBK was saying that Guns ticket sales are bad...maybe saying the music landscape is bad and rock and roll isn't as big as it used to be? 

[JAEBALL]

I don't even think there is another band to even compare to GNR in terms of US sales.

U2 and the Stones are more pop acts imo.

Aerosmith obviously doesn't play stadiums here. Maybe Metallica can put up similar numbers?

Springstein does but he is also more of a pop act. Then you have the real pop stars who can do it like Taylor Swift.

It would be great if those second nights had some more sales but this has been epic and nothing short of a financial victory for all involved like Pilferk detailed.

Not to mention the performances are nothing short of magical.

[JAEBALL]

I'm actually really looking forward to seeing the crowds in sa and other places for GNR.

The band is going to need epic security in some of these places with the way they stalk them the second they get off the plane in some parts of the world.

[sandman]

has there been confirmation of what GnR is getting per show? I know I saw $2.75M guaranteed in one of the articles, but wasn't sure if that was verified.

And if it is $2.75M, is Live Nation really making much money on this tour? Not that I give a shit, and it is clearly a MAJOR success, just curious if there is enough money to go around for all major parties to be making a killing on this tour. I do not believe many acts get anything near that much guaranteed (except for the Stones who actually get more).

also, is merchandise included in the reported gross figures? if not, that's a significant chuck of money that maybe is not going to the band, since they may be getting a guaranteed amount.

either way, it's gonna be sweet to see "our" band in that listing of top 2016 tours with all of those other pop stars and legends.   

[C0ma]

has there been confirmation of what GnR is getting per show? I know I saw $2.75M guaranteed in one of the articles, but wasn't sure if that was verified.

And if it is $2.75M, is Live Nation really making much money on this tour? Not that I give a shit, and it is clearly a MAJOR success, just curious if there is enough money to go around for all major parties to be making a killing on this tour. I do not believe many acts get anything near that much guaranteed (except for the Stones who actually get more).

also, is merchandise included in the reported gross figures? if not, that's a significant chuck of money that maybe is not going to the band, since they may be getting a guaranteed amount.

either way, it's gonna be sweet to see "our" band in that listing of top 2016 tours with all of those other pop stars and legends.   

Depending on what you read and or believe it has been said to be between 2.75 and 3 million... The numbers as they stand are grossing somewhere in the range of 4 million per show (with the ability to sell more tickets before it all wraps up). 1 million to 1.25 per show is nothing to shake a stick at.

My very uneducated understanding is that is based solely on ticket sales. Merch would be a separate arrangement and split and I believe is handled outside of Live Nation (unless they own Bravado, which I don't think they do, I think that is Universal)

[pilferk]

I wouldn't take HBK too seriously. ?\_(ツ)_/? 

I don't think they could possibly do any more (other than release a new single) than they are right now to convince people to come see them.

Maybe they are not interested in releasing anything new now because they don't need to. And when they do, they'll have another good "excuse" to keep touring.

Totally agree.  I'm not saying they should have. I'm saying, of all the things they could possibly do to "promote" a tour, thats the ONLY one they really havent done.

[HBK]

Pd.. Shows NOT SOLDOUT Is By BUSSINES/Industry Musical Is Bad Actually.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean (language barrier, I think).

But if you're trying to say that the fact all the shows, or even some of the shows, aren't sold out is considered BAD in the industry (or might be bad for the industry) and is bad for business..you're wrong. Or that it's somehow bad for the band.

If they were playing to 10k in stadiums...yes.

But when your average crowd is betweek 35k and 40k, and given the numbers I think that's a pretty fair guess at this point...everyone is making money, and a pretty hefty amount of it.  The stadiums, the act, the promoters, everyone.  And that's good business.

And the fact a ROCK band is doing those numbers is remarkable.  They are going to be one of the top 5, if not top 3, tours this year.  That's good for the industry.  It shows the labels that (real) ROCK can sell tickets, and a lot of them.

If the tour has already grossed 100 million bucks, as reported by LiveNation...that would already have put them at #6 on the list in 2015.  I'm guessing they'll end up in the 125 million range. That would put them squarely at #5 last year, and, given what's toured so far and is projected through the end of the year, I think it might get them up a notch or two this year.

That's strataspheric levels for a band NOT touring on a new album.  Last year it was Taylor Swift (217 million), One Direction (208 million), U2 (133 milllion), The Stones (131 million) and Kenny Chesney (114 million).

And the kicker? GnR is doing it on a relatively limited number of dates.

So, no...the shows not being sold out is NOT bad for the industry or bad for business.  They are doing VERY well, actually, in both departments.

In terms of "for the band"..again, no.  This is probably the best thing, commercially, that could have happened.  They're selling a good number of tickets, the promoters are making money, AND they're putting on well reviewed shows, showing up on time, and doing exactly what they need to do to prove to future ticket buyers that they're worth the price of a ticket.  I don't think they could possibly do any more (other than release a new single) than they are right now to convince people to come see them.

All in all, there's zero way you can look at this tour, so far, and NOT think it's successful.  At least not realistically.  I know we've got some media types out there looking for the negative angle (Yes, wall street journal, I'm looking at you) to try to find something, ANYTHING, to take issue with.  They just look foolish, at this point.

For GNR Is Very Good, But Bad For LIVENATION Promotors... Says Article.

[sky dog]

no....everybody is making a lot of money. Promise. 

[HBK]

no....everybody is making a lot of money. Promise. 

I Also Believe

 

[pilferk]

For GNR Is Very Good, But Bad For LIVENATION Promotors... Says Article.

The Wall Street Journal article? It's full of shit. I promise.

[HBK]

For GNR Is Very Good, But Bad For LIVENATION Promotors... Says Article.

The Wall Street Journal article? It's full of shit. I promise.

It's True

 

[Bazfreak]

Was Steven seen in Pitsburgh with the band?

[Sosso]

Was Steven seen in Pitsburgh with the band?

No, not yet.

[Eduardo]

I don't even think there is another band to even compare to GNR in terms of US sales.

U2 and the Stones are more pop acts imo.

Springstein does but he is also more of a pop act. Then you have the real pop stars who can do it like Taylor Swift.

Man..... The day has come when the Rolling Stones are called a "more pop act". Springsteen too.

I don't mean to offend, but unless you meant something else and I didn't get it, the fact that you called those acts "pop" show, at the very least, how little you know of rock n' roll.

[JAEBALL]

I don't even think there is another band to even compare to GNR in terms of US sales.

U2 and the Stones are more pop acts imo.

Springstein does but he is also more of a pop act. Then you have the real pop stars who can do it like Taylor Swift.

Man..... The day has come when the Rolling Stones are called a "more pop act". Springsteen too.

I don't mean to offend, but unless you meant something else and I didn't get it, the fact that you called those acts "pop" show, at the very least, how little you know of rock n' roll.

Nope you don't get it 😀

Look at the crowd at either one of their shows compared to a GNR or ACDC crowd. Then get back to me.

They play rock music but they appeal to the masses and all demographics... Making them a commercial/pop act .

[Eduardo]

I don't even think there is another band to even compare to GNR in terms of US sales.

U2 and the Stones are more pop acts imo.

Springstein does but he is also more of a pop act. Then you have the real pop stars who can do it like Taylor Swift.

Man..... The day has come when the Rolling Stones are called a "more pop act". Springsteen too.

I don't mean to offend, but unless you meant something else and I didn't get it, the fact that you called those acts "pop" show, at the very least, how little you know of rock n' roll.

Nope you don't get it 😀

Look at the crowd at either one of their shows compared to a GNR or ACDC crowd. Then get back to me.

They play rock music but they appeal to the masses and all demographics... Making them a commercial/pop act .

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. I get what you mean now. Those acts do appeal more to the casual music fan.