Rolling Stone Rips GNR For Boring & Never-Ending Tour

[Mysteron]

My prediction is that this South American run is more of the same (NITL), while the European and NA tour in the summer will be something different.

Why?
- The advertisement for the Euro and NA tour is different than the SA one. "Whole new show" and "Next chapter" hasn't been mentioned for the SA tour, while the Euro/NA dates have identical advertisement.
- They scheduled dates at the SA tour in places where they haven't visited before, I think it's fair that they get to see the "Greatest Hits" show as well.

So... maybe a single during, or shortly after the SA tour, with an album before/during the summer tour.

Sounds sensible.

[Mrbreeze]

Rolling Stone has had ZERO credibility ever since it gave Zeppelin negative reviews

[cineater]

Speaking of the stairway to heaven   https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-albums-the-stairway-to-heaven-goes-via-ticket-sales-11565343003

Look who they are quoting, hi Merck.  I have to say, I liked getting the Jack White cd with my concert ticket.  I was able to enjoy those songs when they were played lived and was looking forward to hearing them.

[pilferk]

I slightly disagree, and I have worked with, been with, or, talked to, this band, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, most 80s band, The Strokes, Slipknot, Weezer, NIN etc.. film directors, all the main festivals, and Livenation, AEG and Metropolis, and Universal Music themselves for a couple of years and I am still part of their internal database.

Yeah, I'm with you on that (in terms of the label still having a LOT of influence on when/how music gets released).


My 2 cents is: The label system sucks, and they are still in complete control of music.  It's dying, but it's dying slowly.  Artists are wresting control (more and more) but Guns has a legacy contract.  I can see why there might be some wrangling going on.

Every instance cited here.....the label signed off on. It was not the artist thumbing their nose at their label and it's control of their music.  And there was label opportunity and money to be made in every case. Apple paid Universal a SHIT TON of money, and agreed to a 100 million dollar marketing campaign, to get that U2 album. Radioheads "pay what you want' was considered a label experiment to combat falling album sales (and generated an average price of about $8 in the US).

You can't just poo poo and ignore the influence the label has on an artist and their ability to release music.  I have no earthly clue if that is effecting GnR's overall release strategy or not.  But it is most certainly "a thing". 

I can certainly see that, after a very successful and lucrative tour, the label now wants their payday.  And they want to maximize the money it can make on a release....so they want to release it in a different way, or during a timeframe they think will result in more exposure, or more sales (less competition).

And I can certainly see an interpretation of Slash's comments....who is pretty reliable...to be that they have the material ready.  They're just waiting on the label to put together the marketing and release plans.

Maybe not.  But you can't dismiss the theory without completely ignoring how the label system actually works.

[sky dog]

Good post….but then there is that X factor....A-X-L. 

[PermissionToLand]

Twist and spin and you come out looking like the good guy.

Way to prove you didn't even read it; they took accountability. You know, like a credible outlet does.

Ok boomer. I have grown up.  I'm grown up enough to know that any jagoff can have an opinion or write.  Doesn't make it right or the story correct. It was poor investigative journalism, etc.  There is alot of that these days.  Journalism used to mean something.  In the end Rolling Stone fucked up.  Apologizing doesn't make it all better.  

PS Nobody remembers Dan Rather  for being a responsible or good journalist.  They remember the one lie filled story without fact checking.  

Oh look, another reply from somebody that didn't even read the link.

LOL, "ok boomer"? I'm a Millennial, smartass. What does this have to do with boomers anyway?

Nobody said the story was correct or that simply being a reporter makes them correct. Why are you arguing with a strawman?

And if you'd actually read the link, you'd know it's far more than just an apology...

"As we asked ourselves how we could have gotten the story wrong, we decided the only responsible and credible thing to do was to ask someone from outside the magazine to investigate any lapses in reporting, editing and fact-checking behind the story. We reached out to Steve Coll, dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter himself, who accepted our offer. We agreed that we would cooperate fully, that he and his team could take as much time as they needed and write whatever they wanted. They would receive no payment, and we promised to publish their report in full."

Why don't you tell us what you consider quality journalism being done today?

P.S. Are you trying to make a point? Is it that public perception equates to a legitimate appraisal of journalistic integrity? Because bringing up Rather actually proves the opposite; that the public will sour based on one mistake despite a career of integrity. People are human, they make mistakes. Writing off somebody or an entire outlet for one mistake as if you don't make countless mistakes in your own life is hilariously narcissistic.

[PermissionToLand]

Rolling Stone has had ZERO credibility ever since it gave Zeppelin negative reviews

LOL, not liking a band that you like has what exactly to do with credibility? Are you aware of what that word means?

[NaturalLight]

Rolling Stone has had ZERO credibility ever since it gave Zeppelin negative reviews

LOL, not liking a band that you like has what exactly to do with credibility? Are you aware of what that word means?

As someone who was in the news business for almost twenty years (no longer in the business) and worked at metropolitan papers made one TV station, I can say without a doubt you’re last two posts are well-informed and correct. RS is a top notch journalistic magazine. Do they cover some silly shit? Yeah sure they do but they’ve always had great political and investigative reporters/writers.

All news agencies make mistakes and the good ones (most not associated with Fox News and general dipshit bloggers) acknowledge their mistakes and run corrections.

No real reporter sets out to intentionally write an erroneous story. That said, some people can discern the difference between the editorial/opinion side and the news side.

[Yesterday]

Permission to land,

  I could go on and on but who cares.  You have an opinion and I have an opinion life goes on. Bygones....Unlike most people today I would find a common ground and break bread with anyone to find a middle ground.

Ps ok boomer, was a joke. Watch undercover boss Kylo ren revisited on you tube.

[damnthehaters]

Permission to land,

  I could go on and on but who cares.  You have an opinion and I have an opinion life goes on. Bygones....Unlike most people today I would find a common ground and break bread with anyone to find a middle ground.

Ps ok boomer, was a joke. Watch undercover boss Kylo ren revisited on you tube.

No point in arguing with him.  He attacks anyone who has a different opinion.  Kinda reminds me of someone he actually despises...

He’s a cyber bully.  

Watch, he’ll come after me now. 

[jarmo]

The credibility of Rolling Stone is kinda irrelevant.


It doesn't change the content of the article. Which I think is just filler. Nothing of substance....





/jarmo

[slashsbaconpit]

They're not wrong. I mean, I love GNR, but the touring has been going for a couple of years now. It wouldn't hurt to have something new, besides a cover, or Think About You. Hell, at this point, they're all in their 50s, albums don't even sell anymore, just half ass something in the studio over a weekend and release it. At least then you could have a few new songs to play on tour. It has to feel really repetitive at this point for the guys in the band — playing the same songs over and over and over. Hell, it's not like you can just continue listening to the same stuff over and over without getting tired of it. I couldn't imagine having to play it again and again, for years at a time.

[Gavgnr]

Objectively speaking, the RS article does kinda have a point.

[D-GenerationX]

Objectively speaking, the RS article does kinda have a point.

Of course it does.  But easier attacking the messenger than actually confronting the message.

[jarmo]

Objectively speaking, the RS article does kinda have a point.

The point being that the band is staying active? Sure.


Guns N’ Roses rolled out yet another leg of their reunion tour earlier this week that will bring them to stadiums across North America throughout the summer.

The first sentence says a lot.

For an article that later states: Guns N’ Roses haven’t announced any fun surprises for this next leg of the tour it sure assumes at first and then sticks to facts later.


First they assume it's the same tour ("yet another leg") and then stick to what they know, which in this case is close to nothing.....




/jarmo

[rizzo160]

It's time for new music, can't keep playing same 30 songs over the last 4 years.

[D-GenerationX]

It's time for new music, can't keep playing same 30 songs over the last 4 years.

Oh, I think you can.  Face it.  These tickets are being sold based off the old catalog.

[sofine11]

It's time for new music, can't keep playing same 30 songs over the last 4 years.

Oh, I think you can.  Face it.  These tickets are being sold based off the old catalog.

Hard to say, I do wonder how tickets are selling.  At this rate, with no creative album endeavors infusing things, we could be on our way to the 2022 Vegas Residency "Appetite For Chinese Illusions....Live!!".

[D-GenerationX]

Hard to say, I do wonder how tickets are selling.  At this rate, with no creative album endeavors infusing things, we could be on our way to the 2022 Vegas Residency "Appetite For Chinese Illusions....Live!!".

They are not flying blind here.  They have data that supports placement in these size venues.

[damnthehaters]

I’m confident something new will be released.  They know stadiums can’t happen again without it. 

If nothing new, I say basically shows sell half as well.  Even with something new, it would be hard to sell stadiums as well as last go around...unless they put out something really good, promote the shit out of it.....and have a huge supporting act.

For many people, seeing them for the first time in years is good enough.  Especially at this stage in their careers.  I say if they expect to sell out a good portion of stadiums again, they are gonna have to do something big. 

My realistic guess.  They do put out new material....it’s good.  However, they still don’t sell these stadiums out.