Rolling Stone Rips GNR For Boring & Never-Ending Tour

[allwaystired]

But IF the new songs of a NEW, TRUE Gnr Album (chinese democracy wasn't perceived as a gnr album) are good or even great they can stay in a new fresh setlist. It depends on the quality of the songs and the reaction of the mainstream public.

I'm not sure the public reaction matters that much on which new songs they would play. I suspect it's more about the the band feels like playing.


This reminds me. November Rain was an unknown new song when I saw GN'R in 1991. I'm sure some in the audience would have preferred to hear something from AFD instead. 





/jarmo

Yeah - it's interesting to compare peoples attitudes to things back then with the general insatiable thirst for nostalgia that dominates, really, the whole music industry now.

In the past people seemed a lot more willing and open to hearing new things, or things that were outside their 'comfort zone'. It's very different now - people seem almost threatened or angered by the idea of seeing a band and them 'playing things we didn't know'. The pressure is definitely on acts to live in the past, as it's what sells.

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah - it's interesting to compare peoples attitudes to things back then with the general insatiable thirst for nostalgia that dominates, really, the whole music industry now.

In the past people seemed a lot more willing and open to hearing new things, or things that were outside their 'comfort zone'. It's very different now - people seem almost threatened or angered by the idea of seeing a band and them 'playing things we didn't know'. The pressure is definitely on acts to live in the past, as it's what sells.

Tickets weren't $300 either.

It's what has trapped the Stones.  You charge arm and a leg, it does restrict the chances you can take.

[sky dog]

Release a single and play the single. One song is a start. 

[allwaystired]

Yeah - it's interesting to compare peoples attitudes to things back then with the general insatiable thirst for nostalgia that dominates, really, the whole music industry now.

In the past people seemed a lot more willing and open to hearing new things, or things that were outside their 'comfort zone'. It's very different now - people seem almost threatened or angered by the idea of seeing a band and them 'playing things we didn't know'. The pressure is definitely on acts to live in the past, as it's what sells.

Tickets weren't $300 either.

It's what has trapped the Stones.  You charge arm and a leg, it does restrict the chances you can take.

It also changes your demographic considerably. You replace more forward-thinking younger or less rich people with the wealthy, corporate and older. Their demands and expectations are very different.....and very much more conservative. You make attending concerts a 'status symbol' for bragging rights, rather than an outlet for creativity. I think people sometimes miss that that change has been pretty seismic in how concerts are perceived by people.

[kunzerd]

Yeah - it's interesting to compare peoples attitudes to things back then with the general insatiable thirst for nostalgia that dominates, really, the whole music industry now.

In the past people seemed a lot more willing and open to hearing new things, or things that were outside their 'comfort zone'. It's very different now - people seem almost threatened or angered by the idea of seeing a band and them 'playing things we didn't know'. The pressure is definitely on acts to live in the past, as it's what sells.

Tickets weren't $300 either.

It's what has trapped the Stones.  You charge arm and a leg, it does restrict the chances you can take.

It also changes your demographic considerably. You replace more forward-thinking younger or less rich people with the wealthy, corporate and older. Their demands and expectations are very different.....and very much more conservative. You make attending concerts a 'status symbol' for bragging rights, rather than an outlet for creativity. I think people sometimes miss that that change has been pretty seismic in how concerts are perceived by people.

My second concert ever was in 1999, tom petty echo tour, every time he played songs of that album the arena empty for beer and bathroom breaks or people stopped singing along to talk to their neighbor. This sticks in my head because I had heard most of the album played earlier in the week during an interview with petty where he discussed the stories behind some of the songs, and had already become familiar with what I liked off that interview.

Nostalgia isn’t a huge thing now, it’s the way it’s always been. If you’re a huge act with a ton Of radio play, the concert goers expect to hear those radio hits. Most people would digest their music that way. And now with iTunes, you can even limit your purchase to just what you know. No need to be familiar with a whole album.

[sofine11]

Release a single and play the single. One song is a start.  

Apparently, repairing a NASA space station is less logistically difficult to accomplish in 2020 than GNR dropping a single. Fact.

[allwaystired]

Yeah - it's interesting to compare peoples attitudes to things back then with the general insatiable thirst for nostalgia that dominates, really, the whole music industry now.

In the past people seemed a lot more willing and open to hearing new things, or things that were outside their 'comfort zone'. It's very different now - people seem almost threatened or angered by the idea of seeing a band and them 'playing things we didn't know'. The pressure is definitely on acts to live in the past, as it's what sells.

Tickets weren't $300 either.

It's what has trapped the Stones.  You charge arm and a leg, it does restrict the chances you can take.

It also changes your demographic considerably. You replace more forward-thinking younger or less rich people with the wealthy, corporate and older. Their demands and expectations are very different.....and very much more conservative. You make attending concerts a 'status symbol' for bragging rights, rather than an outlet for creativity. I think people sometimes miss that that change has been pretty seismic in how concerts are perceived by people.

My second concert ever was in 1999, tom petty echo tour, every time he played songs of that album the arena empty for beer and bathroom breaks or people stopped singing along to talk to their neighbor. This sticks in my head because I had heard most of the album played earlier in the week during an interview with petty where he discussed the stories behind some of the songs, and had already become familiar with what I liked off that interview.

Nostalgia isn’t a huge thing now, it’s the way it’s always been. If you’re a huge act with a ton Of radio play, the concert goers expect to hear those radio hits. Most people would digest their music that way. And now with iTunes, you can even limit your purchase to just what you know. No need to be familiar with a whole album.

Fair point....it's always been there, but I think it's been ramped up considerably in the last, say 5-10 years within the music industry. People seem less and less open to anything new - which I think does come, as you say, from the way things are consumed now. Why spend the time getting to know and appreciate new material when you can just bang on the old hits?

It also drives me fucking mental when people trot out the "oh, there's no good new music anymore" line. The moment you utter that you know you're a fucking dinosaur!

[pilferk]

Apparently, repairing a NASA space station is less logistically difficult to accomplish in 2020 than GNR dropping a single. Fact.

Hyperbole.

But you can't simply ignore that there IS complexity to the process of dropping new music, simply because it's less complex than repairing a space station.

I'm going to assume you don't understand the complexity of repairing a NASA space station.  I know I don't.  But I would assume it's super complex.  And I wouldn't be willing to guess how long it would take someone to do it, or exactly "how complex" that super complex is.  Still, yes, people manage to do it.

I'm also going to assume you don't actually understand the complexity of releasing new music in the industry today, or how cantankerous dealing with the label is.  I have SOME insight into this, from relationships I have and have had from (long) past professional endeavors, but I don't understand ALL it's complexity. Just what I have heard about, anecdotally, from the artists,  marketing and A&R side.  And, again (with that tiny bit of knowledge), I wouldn't be willing to guess exactly how long it would take for someone to overcome that complexity, or guess exactly "how complex" it might be. I think it varies, wildly, by artist, and even by album. And still, yes, some people manage to do it.

You seem to think GnR should be able to overcome any complexity in a time frame you think is appropriate, based on what you THINK is other bands release time lines.  But the truth is...you likely have no idea how long the A&R/label pieces of those releases took.  Hell, Green Day was done recording in mid July, mixed it by August, had their first single released in September....and the album came out 4 days ago.

Lets be clear: The album has been done for about 6 months.  It was released when it was because...the label set that date. Set all the dates, really, for release (even the single).

I would say that GnR, because of the age of their contracts, the "dormancy" of Guns n Roses the partnership (vs the name), the lineup change for the last album (and the potential contract mods made to handle THAT) and a bunch of other factors introduce complexity that might not be present for bands that have been eternally active, with an ongoing cohesive line up.  Those things may have to be worked out to account for things like streaming revenue, digital sales by platform, and redefining some legacy terms in a more modern context.  If those things exist (and yes, I'm acknowledging "if")...they have to be addressed.

I would also say that, given their resurgence and "profitability" of NITL.....and the relatively disappointing amount of money Chinese brought in...the label is going to look especially hard for their pound of flesh....I mean....gold ducats.  The label is going to want to control the release date to maximize sales/profitability/exposure. They are going to want to control how new music is introduced to the public, commercially (they can't do much about the live shows). And the band is likely going to have little to say in that piece of the process.  So, Fernando saying "6 months" may have been with an understanding the album would turn around quickly upon completion (which may have been what the label indicated).  That could have changed.

Take Slash's comments as encouraging.  Their part sounds like it's done, or nearly so. His comments give a clear indication, to me, that he means they're working with the label to determine the specifics.  The music sounded like it was done (which is the part we always worry about, yeah?).  Yes, it sucks that we might have to wait on the label (if there's an actual delay, and if the label are the reason).  But we have 6 weeks before Fernando's comments "expiration date".  I'm willing to wait and see. YMMV.

[jak0lantern01]

I'm rather sure Rolling Stone is the same rag that had a "100 Top Guitarists" list that had Jack White higher on the list than Slash and Eddie Van Halen, among others. That was the day I cancelled my subscription. 

[slashsbaconpit]

Release a single and play the single. One song is a start.  

Apparently, repairing a NASA space station is less logistically difficult to accomplish in 2020 than GNR dropping a single. Fact.

The thing with Guns is they have always had a way of wringing out every last dime of their work. Maybe because they experienced extreme poverty? How many singles came off of the Illusion records? I mean it was years worth of singles and videos that came off of those. By the time The Garden was released, even most diehard GNR guys were ready for something new.

This Appetite anniversary thing ... there's all these different options that range from $25 to $200 or more for buying it. Sure you get lots of demos, but demos are just a curiosity, an interesting piece of band history, not new music. And the dirty secret is most of us have heard this stuff before anyway.

This reunion tour is the same thing. It's roughly the same setlist that band has been touring with since the Chinese Democracy days. Sure things are reordered here and there, and a new cover is dropped as someone in the music industry dies, and maybe a different song from the library is put in here or there, but for the most part, it's been the same show for years. I guess we got Shadow of Your Love, so that's something, I guess. A 30-year-old song with an official release is something.

It seems like they know they can wring out money from people by touring, but releasing new music from a financial standpoint is a losing situation. It'll never be fall of 1991 again. Most people don't buy music, they stream it on a service, download it, YouTube it, but very rarely pay for it.

That's one theory. They don't want to go to the effort to release new music if they can't make money off of it.

The other theory is that things are going good. They sound great, they look great, they're raking in the dough on this tour. So why screw it up by trying to put an album together? All of the sudden you're dealing with differing opinions, you're having to collaborate and communicate, you have to make sacrifices, you have to make concessions, egos start getting in the way. I don't want that guitar part there, I think that lyric isn't what we should be saying in 2020, why are we using a drum machine on this track? I want more ballads. I want more rockers. I want it to be more punk, or techno, or old fashioned rock, or how about we work in some bluegrass?

This is the one I favor. I wonder if they don't cut new music because the relationships are good, and having to actually creatively collaborate could ruin that and cause it all to tumble down again, and no one is young enough to wait another 20 years for the next reunion.

[jarmo]

Questions to those who doubt the band wants to release new music in 2020:

- Why did they announce tours using the term the next chapter as well deciding not to use the NITL name?

- Why is it assumed that the band has no idea about what will generate more interest in their upcoming shows, (like they don't know new music would create buzz) that they just announce shows and intend to keep the show the same?





/jarmo

[sofine11]

Questions to those who doubt the band wants to release new music in 2020:

- Why did they announce tours using the term the next chapter as well deciding not to use the NITL name?

- Why is it assumed that the band has no idea about what will generate more interest in their upcoming shows, (like they don't know new music would create buzz) that they just announce shows and intend to keep the show the same?


/jarmo

- "The next chapter" promises nothing.  It's just ambiguous enough where if nothing materializes they (or you) can say that nothing was ever promised, stop complaining.  And if by some miracle it does, they (or you) can say "See, we told you this was the next chapter!".  Mind you, I'd gladly accept someone wagging their finger at me saying "I told you so!" if it means new GNR music.

-For better or for worse, if GNR keeps the same tour structure, they'll slip neatly into the category of nostalgia/legacy act.  Their back catalog, at the very least, can keep them in arenas for the next decade or so without having to change the setlist much. I'm sure based on ticket sales over the last 4 years they understand this.  

[NaturalLight]

I'm rather sure Rolling Stone is the same rag that had a "100 Top Guitarists" list that had Jack White higher on the list than Slash and Eddie Van Halen, among others. That was the day I cancelled my subscription.  

Yeah I’m not seeing that.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/RollingStone100GreatestGuitaristsOfAllTime

[jarmo]

- "The next chapter" promises nothing.  It's just ambiguous enough where if nothing materializes they (or you) can say that nothing was ever promised, stop complaining.  And if by some miracle it does, they (or you) can say "See, we told you this was the next chapter!".  Mind you, I'd gladly accept someone wagging their finger at me saying "I told you so!" if it means new GNR music.

Nothing? Mr Positive!
Surely it must mean it's not the same tour as NITL? Or otherwise they could have used the familiar name...

-For better or for worse, if GNR keeps the same tour structure, they'll slip neatly into the category of nostalgia/legacy act.  Their back catalog, at the very least, can keep them in arenas for the next decade or so without having to change the setlist much. I'm sure based on ticket sales over the last 4 years they understand this.  

You also assume this is what the band wants.....

The fact that they played Dead Horse and Locomotive last year tells me otherwise. They don't mind to change the show, but since the tour was still NITL, it made sense to keep the core the same.





/jarmo

[sofine11]

- "The next chapter" promises nothing.  It's just ambiguous enough where if nothing materializes they (or you) can say that nothing was ever promised, stop complaining.  And if by some miracle it does, they (or you) can say "See, we told you this was the next chapter!".  Mind you, I'd gladly accept someone wagging their finger at me saying "I told you so!" if it means new GNR music.

Nothing? Mr Positive!
Surely it must mean it's not the same tour as NITL? Or otherwise they could have used the familiar name...


/jarmo

Well, based on the information we have as of today, which is nothing, I guess it will mean "something" if that elusive album just drops.  Then yeah, it will totally one hundred percent mean "something".  But until then we're talking in semantics. 

As far as being positive, this is a band that has put out 1 album in nearly 30 years. So I guess one man's "realist" is another mans "Mr. Positive". As always, time will tell.

[jarmo]

Maybe it means a different show, a different set list.... And new music!





/jarmo

[sofine11]

Maybe it means a different show, a different set list.... And new music!





/jarmo

We'll find out for sure in a month. Here's hoping!

[jarmo]

The European tour starts in May.....

South American tours in the past haven't really been an exact indication of how the rest of the tours will be.



/jarmo

[sofine11]

The European tour starts in May.....

South American tours in the past haven't really been an exact indication of how the rest of the tours will be.



/jarmo

I'm not sure what magic wand is going to wave in between tour legs this year to suddenly change things up, but I sure hope it does. I really want to be optimistic for new music, but once bitten and all that...

[kunzerd]

I'm rather sure Rolling Stone is the same rag that had a "100 Top Guitarists" list that had Jack White higher on the list than Slash and Eddie Van Halen, among others. That was the day I cancelled my subscription.  

Yeah I’m not seeing that.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/RollingStone100GreatestGuitaristsOfAllTime

Is this a ranking or just a list? Because putting Alex Lifeson in the 90s.... his solos on their first album that he wrote as a teenager already blows some of these guys out of the water.