General GNR chat

[NaturalLight]

I get so sick of the whole "most dangerous band in the world" tag. That was thought up by the Geffen marketing team. It's laughable to say they were the most dangerous band in the world. Public Enemy would have no problem shooting someone and not evening thinking about it. That's dangerous! If GNR was "dangerous" it's because they were dangerous to themselves. You seriously think a 120 pound 5'9 Axl Rose is dangerous? (I like the guy, don't get me wrong, but I would have whipped his ass in under a minute back in those days.) Or a drugged out Slash is dangerous? OK, maybe if he got behind the wheel of a car.

And then there's the complainers who complain for no reason other than to feel important on a message board.

Jarmo is right. People complain about the 90s version vs today and how they want that mystery or whatever back. I agree with him. I for one am glad they take the stage on time. Hell, they didn't take it on time when Axl was playing with the "misfits" (not my words) from 2000 to 2012.

People complain about the setlist. It's not like they have 10 albums worth of songs to play. The selection is limited and there are at least 5-8 songs they are gonna play every night. I'm sure Mick Jagger hates "Satisfaction" but he's also smart enough to know that people go to see the Stones and they go, in part, to hear that song live. It's getting played. Just like WTTJ, SCOM, PC, KOHD, LALL, NR, etc. Get over it.

OK, rant over.

[jarmo]

I miss the fact that it could be a possibility, indeed. obviously not in a systematic way, since that would amount to the same thing.
I completely understand that they, both as a group and individually, have gained peace of mind and mental well-being from everything
running smoothly, but as an audience member, the loss of what made seeing the group on stage so exciting is real.

my point is, rock 'n' roll needs to be fueled by tension and rage—it's not jazz or even blues, and it's not just a music meant for just entertainment.

You might remember that in 2001 there was a cancelled tour, in 2002 there were two riots and a cancelled tour. This is unpredictable. But also means you're probably pissing off promoters and ticket buyers.

Your fond memories of the past, and the unpredictability still lives on. Things that happened in the 1990s are still being repeated as they're still happening. You see, thanks to social media, where everyone can be an expert, some still keep posting "The show will start late" or "they won't show up" whenever a new tour is announced.

I get so sick of the whole "most dangerous band in the world" tag. That was thought up by the Geffen marketing team. It's laughable to say they were the most dangerous band in the world. Public Enemy would have no problem shooting someone and not evening thinking about it. That's dangerous! If GNR was "dangerous" it's because they were dangerous to themselves. You seriously think a 120 pound 5'9 Axl Rose is dangerous? (I like the guy, don't get me wrong, but I would have whipped his ass in under a minute back in those days.) Or a drugged out Slash is dangerous? OK, maybe if he got behind the wheel of a car.

And then there's the complainers who complain for no reason other than to feel important on a message board.

Jarmo is right. People complain about the 90s version vs today and how they want that mystery or whatever back. I agree with him. I for one am glad they take the stage on time. Hell, they didn't take it on time when Axl was playing with the "misfits" (not my words) from 2000 to 2012.

People complain about the setlist. It's not like they have 10 albums worth of songs to play. The selection is limited and there are at least 5-8 songs they are gonna play every night. I'm sure Mick Jagger hates "Satisfaction" but he's also smart enough to know that people go to see the Stones and they go, in part, to hear that song live. It's getting played. Just like WTTJ, SCOM, PC, KOHD, LALL, NR, etc. Get over it.

OK, rant over.

There was an element of danger, if you wanna call it that. Not danger of being shot by the band. But you didn't know what might happen. There were riots, arrests, rants, controversy and so on. Compared to what was going on at the time in hard rock, that was different.

But that's thankfully in the past. Different times.




/jarmo

[ITARocker]

I think you miss the point. They are musicians, the dangerous "thing" is their music (lyrics and music itself). The unpredictability is (was) axl ranting on stage saying something that gonna piss someone.  To me they lost it when they get rid of one in a million (why one in a million and not it's so easy then?).

I know they became old and everything that comes with it (lost the anger, balls turned into olives, they need to do their pr things etc), but denying your own art is something else. That's my opinion ofc.

[jarmo]

So you're saying that you're exactly the same as you were when you were 25 years old? I'm hoping you've learned something. Unless you're not 25 yet. Then, I hope you learn something in the future!

We all change.

The one thing that has never changed with GN'R is that they do what they feel like, on their terms. In this age of entitlement, some don't like it.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

you seriously think GNR was a bunch of losers in, let's say, 2006?

2006 were the strongest Axl vocals since 1993 and not seen since.  Not sure what the hell got into him.  He was ripped as shit physically and sounded amazing that year.  It was wild.

But was that line-up Guns N' Roses?  Not to the masses.  It was Axl and a bunch of random dudes.  GNR diehards and/or apologists twisted themselves into pretzels to convince themselves it was still GNR.  But let's get real.  Those arguments were considered laughable away from internet message boards.

I watched my all time favorite band become less and less relevant.  To the point they were reduced to "up close and personal" <wink> type venues.  Some they had trouble filling.  It was depressing to watch them go out like that, and that looked like their fate.

Then, in 2015, sanity prevailed.  And from 2016 onwards they play stadiums.  And no one says "that's not Guns N' Roses".

[D-GenerationX]

Which part of that are you missing? The shows starting whenever, shows being stopped?

Spot on.  Who's missing any of that?

Plus, you ever seen Axl happier on that stage these past 9 years?  Axl in his prime onstage...not a happy man.  Great to see him in his present state.

[DeN]

ok first sorry I won't quote you individually I'm too lazy. 




the "most dangerous band in the world" was marketing bullshit and it's not my point.

I don't need to feel important to anyone I do what I like to do when I want to do and don't even understand why some feel the urge to make things personal.

being unpredictable is not necessarily being dysfunctional and I don't confuse the two.
music and attitude are two different things.

they get rid of One in A Million because some of the lyrics were problematic, to say the least (I'm being politically correct here).

indeed Axl was on fire in 2006, the band was very strong and energetic, and it was Guns N' Roses at the time. would it have been *really more* Guns N' Roses with Slash & Duff? probably, that's why I was mentioning this hypothesis.and even without that, it would have been "GNR for the masses" if there had been a hit single.

wasn't a fan of the Vegas thing myself.

[ITARocker]

So you're saying that you're exactly the same as you were when you were 25 years old? I'm hoping you've learned something. Unless you're not 25 yet. Then, I hope you learn something in the future!

We all change.

The one thing that has never changed with GN'R is that they do what they feel like, on their terms. In this age of entitlement, some don't like it.





/jarmo

That's what I said. They are old and they changed. Somebody change for the worse, somebody for the better and it's just a matter of opinion, and mine one is very clear.

I don't agre on the "they do what they feel like on their terms", i think you shouldn't use gnr like it's a pluralia tantum when we all know it's just one person who does whatever he wants (and for "whatever" i mean nothing  ). But maybe the others agree on that and they're waiting for the word of god (don't think so but u never know).

[Spirit]

Fantasy time.

Let's say the name of the tour is a clue, and this is the celebration of 40 years of GN'R.

A brand new stage setup, lots of technology, lose Creative Works (at least if they continue on the cheesy path they've been on for the past years). A brand new setlist, albeit a lot of the same songs of course. Break the show into acts representing different times in the band's history, and use the technology on stage to create an atmosphere representing each "era". The show can feel like a travel through the history of the band.

ACT I - Appetite/Lies
Reckless Life
Sweet Child O' Mine
Nightrain
Move To The City
My Michelle
Mr. Brownstone
Patience

ACT II - Illusions
You Could be Mine
Don't Cry
Civil War
Breakdown
Dead Horse
Yesterdays
Pretty Tied Up
Knockin' On Heaven's Door

ACT III - Chinese
I.R.S
Chinese Democracy
There Was A Time
Madagascar
Perhaps

Two big-hitters to close the main show
Welcome To The Jungle
November Rain

Encore
It's So Easy
Ain't It Fun
Estranged
Paradise City

[jarmo]

I don't need to feel important to anyone I do what I like to do when I want to do and don't even understand why some feel the urge to make things personal.

Sorry, as I was responding to your opinion and post, it was aimed at you. I can't respond to your post and pretend I'm talking to someone else who thinks the same as you do.

That's what I said. They are old and they changed. Somebody change for the worse, somebody for the better and it's just a matter of opinion, and mine one is very clear.

I don't agre on the "they do what they feel like on their terms", i think you shouldn't use gnr like it's a pluralia tantum when we all know it's just one person who does whatever he wants (and for "whatever" i mean nothing  ). But maybe the others agree on that and they're waiting for the word of god (don't think so but u never know).

Even if that was true, and only one in three is that way, it still makes the band that way. Sorry.

Fantasy time.

Reality: "It's the same setlist"





/jarmo

[Spirit]

Reality: "It's the same setlist"

Cannot escape that, I've been guilty of saying that myself. 

Unless they release a new album or a bunch of songs on an EP which they put into the live show, I have a good understanding of them playing the songs they have been playing. Heck, with the 3-4 hour shows in the past tours, that's something for everyone.

[DeN]

I don't need to feel important to anyone I do what I like to do when I want to do and don't even understand why some feel the urge to make things personal.

Sorry, as I was responding to your opinion and post, it was aimed at you. I can't respond to your post and pretend I'm talking to someone else who thinks the same as you do.

/jarmo

don't be sorry, that part wasn't aim at you but at "NaturalLight"

[jarmo]

Reality: "It's the same setlist"

Cannot escape that, I've been guilty of saying that myself. 

Unless they release a new album or a bunch of songs on an EP which they put into the live show, I have a good understanding of them playing the songs they have been playing. Heck, with the 3-4 hour shows in the past tours, that's something for everyone.

They released those four singles and added them to the set. That's pretty much how bands who release albums do it. They also added deep cuts. But somehow if you saw GN'R in 2016/17 and in 2023, "it's the same setlist".

don't be sorry, that part wasn't aim at you but at "NaturalLight"

Ahh, ok. 




/jarmo

[Spirit]

They released those four singles and added them to the set. That's pretty much how bands who release albums do it. They also added deep cuts. But somehow if you saw GN'R in 2016/17 and in 2023, "it's the same setlist".

Yes, my point was to the selection of "old songs" they've been playing, I have no complaints to their selections. They've done a great job pleasing the vast majority of fans, but there will always be the "it's the same setlist" complaint when some people aren't satisfied unless nearly all the songs in the set are replaced.

I agree with you, if that didn't come across properly.

[jarmo]

And when they add covers, it's too many covers! 

Can't please everyone.

But I wonder if it's better/worse to play a long show with all the songs people know, plus some other stuff, or a shorter show and skip a bunch songs that you then rotate.






/jarmo

[NaturalLight]

I miss the fact that it could be a possibility, indeed. obviously not in a systematic way, since that would amount to the same thing.
I completely understand that they, both as a group and individually, have gained peace of mind and mental well-being from everything
running smoothly, but as an audience member, the loss of what made seeing the group on stage so exciting is real.

my point is, rock 'n' roll needs to be fueled by tension and rage—it's not jazz or even blues, and it's not just a music meant for just entertainment.

You might remember that in 2001 there was a cancelled tour, in 2002 there were two riots and a cancelled tour. This is unpredictable. But also means you're probably pissing off promoters and ticket buyers.

Your fond memories of the past, and the unpredictability still lives on. Things that happened in the 1990s are still being repeated as they're still happening. You see, thanks to social media, where everyone can be an expert, some still keep posting "The show will start late" or "they won't show up" whenever a new tour is announced.

I get so sick of the whole "most dangerous band in the world" tag. That was thought up by the Geffen marketing team. It's laughable to say they were the most dangerous band in the world. Public Enemy would have no problem shooting someone and not evening thinking about it. That's dangerous! If GNR was "dangerous" it's because they were dangerous to themselves. You seriously think a 120 pound 5'9 Axl Rose is dangerous? (I like the guy, don't get me wrong, but I would have whipped his ass in under a minute back in those days.) Or a drugged out Slash is dangerous? OK, maybe if he got behind the wheel of a car.

And then there's the complainers who complain for no reason other than to feel important on a message board.

Jarmo is right. People complain about the 90s version vs today and how they want that mystery or whatever back. I agree with him. I for one am glad they take the stage on time. Hell, they didn't take it on time when Axl was playing with the "misfits" (not my words) from 2000 to 2012.

People complain about the setlist. It's not like they have 10 albums worth of songs to play. The selection is limited and there are at least 5-8 songs they are gonna play every night. I'm sure Mick Jagger hates "Satisfaction" but he's also smart enough to know that people go to see the Stones and they go, in part, to hear that song live. It's getting played. Just like WTTJ, SCOM, PC, KOHD, LALL, NR, etc. Get over it.

OK, rant over.

There was an element of danger, if you wanna call it that. Not danger of being shot by the band. But you didn't know what might happen. There were riots, arrests, rants, controversy and so on. Compared to what was going on at the time in hard rock, that was different.

But that's thankfully in the past. Different times.




/jarmo

Correct but to say "most" dangerous is a tad far fetched. Rants and controversies aren't really dangerous unless the rant leads to a riot, and sadly, there was the incident where people were crushed - unrelated to a rant - but that wasn't GNR's fault. I think it was more self danger. But agreed. I'm glad it's in the past and certainly happy that all of them - even the ones not in the current incarnation - are still alive.

I'd argue that they were probably the most unpredictable band!  

[NaturalLight]

I don't need to feel important to anyone I do what I like to do when I want to do and don't even understand why some feel the urge to make things personal.

I didn't make it personal. I have no clue who you are and I'm not one to argue constantly with unanimous folks on the internet. I was referring to the whole mindset in general. But if you think it's about you, hey, ok, be flattered.

I've seen almost every incarnation of the band live and enjoyed every show.

[jarmo]

Correct but to say "most" dangerous is a tad far fetched. Rants and controversies aren't really dangerous unless the rant leads to a riot, and sadly, there was the incident where people were crushed - unrelated to a rant - but that wasn't GNR's fault. I think it was more self danger. But agreed. I'm glad it's in the past and certainly happy that all of them - even the ones not in the current incarnation - are still alive.

I'd argue that they were probably the most unpredictable band!  

Depends what you compare to. Compared to the Sex Pistols in the 70s, probably not. Compared to Bon Jovi, Poison, Motley Crue in the late 80s, maybe.





/jarmo

[cineater]

Guns N’ Roses Scores A Pair Of Top 40 Bestsellers At The Same Time
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2025/02/04/guns-n-roses-scores-a-pair-of-top-40-bestsellers-at-the-same-time/

[NaturalLight]

Correct but to say "most" dangerous is a tad far fetched. Rants and controversies aren't really dangerous unless the rant leads to a riot, and sadly, there was the incident where people were crushed - unrelated to a rant - but that wasn't GNR's fault. I think it was more self danger. But agreed. I'm glad it's in the past and certainly happy that all of them - even the ones not in the current incarnation - are still alive.

I'd argue that they were probably the most unpredictable band!  

Depends what you compare to. Compared to the Sex Pistols in the 70s, probably not. Compared to Bon Jovi, Poison, Motley Crue in the late 80s, maybe.





/jarmo

Haha, OK, fair point. It's all about timing.