Could Guns do this? (4 hour concert)

[DieselDaisy]

16 minutes ago, DeadSlash said:

This question is the same as asking if Usain Bolt could do a marathon.  Could he?  I don't know, maybe.  The better question is "Who wants to see Usain Bolt jog?"   The crazy part is GnR has come close at 3:45.  If Bruce tried to do their set he would collapse about 2 hours in.

 

That is a bit extreme but Bolt has competed at 400m at junior level, and there was talk of him moving up to 400m at Olympic level in answer to the question, ''what else does a guy do who has won everything going?''. Mo Farah has recently discussed moving up from 5,000/10,000m to Marathon, having defended his golds at Rio 2016. Athletes then do move up a notch. Another good analogy would be boxers switching between weight divisions.

[DeadSlash]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is a bit extreme but Bolt has competed at 400m at junior level, and there was talk of him moving up to 400m at Olympic level in answer to the question, ''what else does a guy do who has won everything going?''. Mo Farah has recently discussed moving up from 5,000/10,000m to Marathon, having defended his golds at Rio 2016. Athletes then do move up a notch. Another good analogy would be boxers switching between weight divisions.

Well I did exaggerate for effect.  An additional 15 minutes is hardly moving from 100m to a marathon, but my point was GnR is a different bird than Bruce.  They run at 2 different speeds, 2 different energy levels.  Four hours of Bruce is not the same as four hours of Guns.  There is a "dog years analogy" in here somewhere if I had time to flesh it out.

I do like the weight division analogy though, heavyweights and lightweights do not throw punches at the same frequency.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, DeadSlash said:

Well I did exaggerate for effect.  An additional 15 minutes is hardly moving from 100m to a marathon, but my point was GnR is a different bird than Bruce.  They run at 2 different speeds, 2 different energy levels.  Four hours of Bruce is not the same as four hours of Guns.  There is a "dog years analogy" in here somewhere if I had time to flesh it out.

I do like the weight division analogy though, heavyweights and lightweights do not throw punches at the same frequency.

If anything Bruce's role is all the more admirable. He is one man. There are seven members of Guns N' Roses - well, three that matter.

[DeadSlash]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

If anything Bruce's role is all the more admirable. He is one man. There are seven members of Guns N' Roses - well, three that matter.

I don't know that it's more or less admirable, it's just different.  It really depends on preference.  For me, I am obviously partial to GnR's approach.  It's a show, and it's higher energy.  That's just my preference.  Not to say Bruce is not great, he's just not my preference.  My favorite concert of all time was Ramones/Pantera/Zombie.  Bruce is more of an icon than any of those bands, but I'd still prefer to watch them over Bruce.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, DeadSlash said:

I don't know that it's more or less admirable, it's just different.  It really depends on preference.  For me, I am obviously partial to GnR's approach.  It's a show, and it's higher energy.  That's just my preference.  Not to say Bruce is not great, he's just not my preference.  My favorite concert of all time was Ramones/Pantera/Zombie.  Bruce is more of an icon than any of those bands, but I'd still prefer to watch them over Bruce.

Well I like The Ramones but Pantera and (White?) Zombie are not my cup of tea

[DeadSlash]

Yeah, it was White Zombie.  The Ramones stole the show.  Zombie is a lot better live than in studio imo, like a lot of bands I guess, if you never saw them live, they play everything up-tempo, one of my favorite live bands ever.  

[Gackt]

Another band who does really long concerts is The Cure; not always 4 hours long, but their shows are serious business 

http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/the-cure/2013/foro-sol-mexico-city-mexico-13d83549.html

[Tom2112]

On 8/27/2016 at 11:54 AM, DieselDaisy said:

Is this really the reason though?

Certainly they don't have the discography Bruce does but they do have enough material to implement greater diversity than what they currently deliver. Currently Guns N' Roses play ten songs, eight songs regularly and two occasionally/rarely (''Don't Cry'' and ''Yesterdays'') leaving twenty songs from a thirty song double album completely un-played - I am of course referring to Use Your Illusion. Additionally there are three songs from Appetite and six from Lies that have not been played, leaving a grand total of twenty-nine unequivocally 'old-band' songs un-played, including such highlights as ''Think About You'', ''Pretty Tied Up'', ''Bad Obsession'' and ''Locomotive''.

(And that is without mentioning, setting aside various subjective arguments about legitimacy and quality, The Spaghetti Incident? [ten songs un-played], Chinese [eight], various rarities like ''Shadow of Your Love'' and ''Crash Diet'' not to mention the Velvet Revolver/solo stuff.)

PS

I'm not criticising their static setlists per se by the way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. These criticisms will only become valid when the band play subsequent legs in my opinion. Currently they have runs in the bank.

I know there's a ton of old band songs that they could play. But When these guys are structuring their set, they are thinking "what are the best songs to get the crowd going"... if they were playing a small gig for fan club only, they'd be pulling out the rarities The Garden, Perfect Crime, Yesterdays, Dust N Bones, Locomotive etc. 

When they play to a crowd of 50-80000 they are looking at a crowd of 20000? that know the entire back catalogue, another 20000 that are pretty familiar with AFD, and some of the bigger songs from UYI and then the rest either know the hits or just know Sweet Child and Jungle if anything at all. When you look at it that way, it's not hard to understand some hesitancy in rocking the boat. 

Even if you like Coma as a song you have to agree that the crowd looks fairly sedate 4mins into the song, most people couldn't care less about it. I love the song Breakdown, but I'd bet if they introduced it into the set, it would flop with most crowds. 

They certainly could shake things up, because they do have a lot of unplayed material... but my point is that a set that's heavy on the rarities would not work as well in stadiums, arena's maybe! They could introduce one or two more rarities into the set each night and the show wouldn't go to hell. 

[maynard]

It would be perfectly fine for me if they did a 1h30 set. Remove all the screens, pyro.... rehearse all their stuff, pick songs randomly every night and mix with some fan favorites that must be played and have fun. Also, NO FUCKING COVERS YOU HAVE GREAT SONGS OF YOUR OWN YOU IDIOTS. They are rich enough to do this. Too bad it's not going to happen. Ever.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

I know there's a ton of old band songs that they could play. But When these guys are structuring their set, they are thinking "what are the best songs to get the crowd going"... if they were playing a small gig for fan club only, they'd be pulling out the rarities The Garden, Perfect Crime, Yesterdays, Dust N Bones, Locomotive etc. 

When they play to a crowd of 50-80000 they are looking at a crowd of 20000? that know the entire back catalogue, another 20000 that are pretty familiar with AFD, and some of the bigger songs from UYI and then the rest either know the hits or just know Sweet Child and Jungle if anything at all. When you look at it that way, it's not hard to understand some hesitancy in rocking the boat. 

Even if you like Coma as a song you have to agree that the crowd looks fairly sedate 4mins into the song, most people couldn't care less about it. I love the song Breakdown, but I'd bet if they introduced it into the set, it would flop with most crowds. 

They certainly could shake things up, because they do have a lot of unplayed material... but my point is that a set that's heavy on the rarities would not work as well in stadiums, arena's maybe! They could introduce one or two more rarities into the set each night and the show wouldn't go to hell. 

Do you think every attendee at a Bruce show is there to hear some obscurity, some b-side? The real artists just don't bother thinking about that, don't bother with what the crowd want. Floyd used to play their entire new album before the thing was released. ''There is Dark Side of The Moon for you - the album we haven't released yet''. The Who did similar. Neil Young could come out and play a bunch of unreleased rarities and new songs. This is what the real artists do. Their fanbases tend to change with the artist consequentially - change for the better; they move on with the artist, and ultimately begin to expect obscure b-sides.

Unfortunately Axl - I'm not saying GNR as we know Slash and Duff like to release material - has accepted his legacy status.

Thus what does he become? A legacy act.

I'm still convinced that the only reason Knockin' On Heaven's Door' can not be dropped is, not because people eagerly await this tedious clunker, but that Axl insists on playing it. It is now something that cannot be dropped. You become what you are. 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Do you think every attendee at a Bruce show is there to hear some obscurity, some b-side? The real artists just don't bother thinking about that, don't bother with what the crowd want. Floyd used to play their entire new album before the thing was released. ''There is Dark Side of The Moon for you - the album we haven't released yet''. The Who did similar. Neil Young could come out and play a bunch of unreleased rarities and new songs. This is what the real artists do. Their fanbases tend to change with the artist consequentially - change for the better; they move on with the artist, and ultimately begin to expect obscure b-sides.

Unfortunately Axl - I'm not saying GNR as we know Slash and Duff like to release material - has accepted his legacy status.

Thus what does he become? A legacy act.

I'm still convinced that the only reason Knockin' On Heaven's Door' can not be dropped is, not because people eagerly await this tedious clunker, but that Axl insists on playing it. It is now something that cannot be dropped. You become what you are. 

Knocking on Heavens Door was quite big at the time if i recall correctly.  Sounds better comin' out of Dylan if you ask me.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Len Cnut

[bigpoop]

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

I know there's a ton of old band songs that they could play. But When these guys are structuring their set, they are thinking "what are the best songs to get the crowd going"... if they were playing a small gig for fan club only, they'd be pulling out the rarities The Garden, Perfect Crime, Yesterdays, Dust N Bones, Locomotive etc. 

When they play to a crowd of 50-80000 they are looking at a crowd of 20000? that know the entire back catalogue, another 20000 that are pretty familiar with AFD, and some of the bigger songs from UYI and then the rest either know the hits or just know Sweet Child and Jungle if anything at all. When you look at it that way, it's not hard to understand some hesitancy in rocking the boat. 

Even if you like Coma as a song you have to agree that the crowd looks fairly sedate 4mins into the song, most people couldn't care less about it. I love the song Breakdown, but I'd bet if they introduced it into the set, it would flop with most crowds. 

They certainly could shake things up, because they do have a lot of unplayed material... but my point is that a set that's heavy on the rarities would not work as well in stadiums, arena's maybe! They could introduce one or two more rarities into the set each night and the show wouldn't go to hell. 

Nobody wants to hear those four stinkers from Chinese Democracy but they still play them.

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Knocking on Heavens Door was quite big at the time if i recall correctly.  Sounds better comin' out of Dylan if you ask me.

Is it Knockin' On Heaven's Dawawawa, or Knockin' On Heaven's Door? Tell me you chose that opportune moment to go to the pisser? Is there anything more hideous than when a rock band suddenly expect you to sing along with them a la U2. What a thoroughly un-English moment in one's life than when a yankee rock singer goes, ''come on, sing along with me, clap your hands?''.

And you simply know the thing will go on for fifteen minutes. You know it. You know it. You Know it. You know that in 14 minutes time you will be still expected to be doing Axl Rose's job, the job you have paid the cunt to do, in singing, ''knock knock knockin' on heaven's dawawa''.

''Come on, sing along?''.

Wankers.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

[Silverburst80]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Is it Knockin' On Heaven's Dawawawa, or Knockin' On Heaven's Door? Tell me you chose that opportune moment to go to the pisser? Is there anything more hideous than when a rock band suddenly expect you to sing along with them a la U2. What a thoroughly un-English moment in one's life than when a yankee rock singer goes, ''come on, sing along with me, clap your hands?''.

And you simply know the thing will go on for fifteen minutes. You know it. You know it. You Know it. You know that in 14 minutes time you will be still expected to be doing Axl Rose's job, the job you have paid the cunt to do, in singing, ''knock knock knockin' on heaven's dawawa''.

''Come on, sing along?''.

Wankers.

 

Does Axl still aggressively ask for reggae at some point?.

[Gavin82]

The Boss & The ESB did just shy of 4 hours 25.6.16 in Gothenburg 

[Tom2112]

10 hours ago, bigpoop said:

Nobody wants to hear those four stinkers from Chinese Democracy but they still play them.

I'm happy to hear most of those songs, and I know I'm not the only one, but the general public probably don't care too much for it. 

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Do you think every attendee at a Bruce show is there to hear some obscurity, some b-side? The real artists just don't bother thinking about that, don't bother with what the crowd want. Floyd used to play their entire new album before the thing was released. ''There is Dark Side of The Moon for you - the album we haven't released yet''. The Who did similar. Neil Young could come out and play a bunch of unreleased rarities and new songs. This is what the real artists do. Their fanbases tend to change with the artist consequentially - change for the better; they move on with the artist, and ultimately begin to expect obscure b-sides.

Unfortunately Axl - I'm not saying GNR as we know Slash and Duff like to release material - has accepted his legacy status.

Thus what does he become? A legacy act.

I'm still convinced that the only reason Knockin' On Heaven's Door' can not be dropped is, not because people eagerly await this tedious clunker, but that Axl insists on playing it. It is now something that cannot be dropped. You become what you are. 

I'm not saying they should cater to their crowd. What I am saying is they have constructed a set that they think pleases everyone. A few rarities Double talkin, Coma and sometimes Yesterdays, all the biggest hits, and even a few Chinese songs so people don't whinge that "Axls turned his back on CD, and now just a legacy act" 

That Gnr are playing 4 Chinese songs is a good sign, that's a band taking 4 prime setlist slots and putting 4 relatively unknown songs in, instead of 4 other relatively unknown classic gnr songs that people might have heard.

As far as Knocking on heavens door goes, it's a huge song for GnR going back to the late 80s the band love it and when they play it the crowd lap it up. Is it too long in it's current state!? YES! 

The Bruce comparison doesn't work, GnR do not have the same amount of hits. Every time Gnr play a gig, they play all their hits and sprinkle lesser known songs around them to fill in the gaps. When Bruce plays he plays a selection of his hits, he makes the decision of "Will I leave Glory days off the set for this tour" he has that option, because he's also got another 20 hit songs that are just as well known to fill the space, GnR do not have that luxury. They may have extra hit songs.

Also, Pink Floyd? GnR did something similar with UYI and Chinese playing a lot of songs before they were released. 

What everyone's missing here (including myself sometimes) is that, this is a stadium tour for the masses, not a tour to please the few. If I was n charge of their set, I'd put in all the rarities... I could almost guarantee that by show number 4, half of them would be off the main set in favour of the songs that are commonly played... because they work. Every band has a list of songs that they can't not play, GnR is no different. 

Real artists...? real businessmen! There's no artistry in large scale touring, It's business pure and simple. Marketing "what's the average fan, what age group, what songs are most popular on youtube / spotify"  they answer all those questions, put a few in for themselves and cash the cheque.

[DieselDaisy]

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

As far as Knocking on heavens door goes, it's a huge song for GnR going back to the late 80s the band love it and when they play it the crowd lap it up. Is it too long in it's current state!? YES! 

I honestly think if you polled everybody attending a GN'R concert whether or not they would prefer to hear this, the answer would be a resounding 'no'.

It was a big single in the United Kingdom though so, more fool us!

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

The Bruce comparison doesn't work, GnR do not have the same amount of hits. Every time Gnr play a gig, they play all their hits and sprinkle lesser known songs around them to fill in the gaps. When Bruce plays he plays a selection of his hits, he makes the decision of "Will I leave Glory days off the set for this tour" he has that option, because he's also got another 20 hit songs that are just as well known to fill the space, GnR do not have that luxury. They may have extra hit songs.

The difference is not as great as it appears. Bruce Springsteen has twelve US #1s to Guns N' Roses's six. Factoring in Bruce's twelve year head start and the fact that Guns did barely anything creatively 1995 - 2016 (and counting), this figure is closer than one might think. Bruce has never had a US #1, his closest chart topper, ''Dancing in the Dark'' ascending to #2. Guns of course possess a #1 in ''Welcome to the Jungle'' (and a #3 and a #4). United Kingdom, Bruce has only four UK Top Tens, highest position ''Streets of Philadelphia'' #2. Guns N' Roses have thirteen (although, no #1s!).

 

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

What everyone's missing here (including myself sometimes) is that, this is a stadium tour for the masses, not a tour to please the few. If I was n charge of their set, I'd put in all the rarities... I could almost guarantee that by show number 4, half of them would be off the main set in favour of the songs that are commonly played... because they work. Every band has a list of songs that they can't not play, GnR is no different. 

As pointed out, weren't Floyd in stadia, Wish You Were Here Tour, Animals and Wall Tours? They played entire new albums in gigantic stadia!

Is there not a sense that, you become what you are? Because Guns cater for 'John Doe' (using the American expression) they inherently attract a lot of' John Does'. Look at some of those crowds. They are fairly sedate, and do possess the smell of extreme casualness about them. By the way you mentioned 'every band'. In arguably the world's first tour of stadia, a mammoth North American undertaking ending in Wembley, England, there is an example of a band who played tons of new (unreleased) songs: Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

7 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Real artists...? real businessmen! There's no artistry in large scale touring, It's business pure and simple. Marketing "what's the average fan, what age group, what songs are most popular on youtube / spotify"  they answer all those questions, put a few in for themselves and cash the cheque.

True, you are generally correct but enough artists add a splash of creativity - hence this debate about Springsteen. Heck, McCartney usually has a new album out and plays a few songs from that, and they do not get bigger than McCartney. The Stones played ''Doom and Gloom'' and a load of deep cuts a few years ago; true they have reigned it in since, but they have a new album coming out (therefore, expect three-four songs from it in future setlists). Neil Young only plays arenas, but see my above post about what he does with his sets, and his tours generate a lot of cash. AC/DC even play two songs from Rock or Bust, and since Axl's arrival, having been digging deep into their catalogue performing such songs as ''Live Wire, ''Touch Too Much'', et al.

There are countless examples.

As I said before, you become what you become. If you cater for the casuals, eventually your crowds will resemble casualness.

[Tom2112]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I honestly think if you polled everybody attending a GN'R concert whether or not they would prefer to hear this, the answer would be a resounding 'no'.

It was a big single in the United Kingdom though so, more fool us!

The difference is not as great as it appears. Bruce Springsteen has twelve US #1s to Guns N' Roses's six. Factoring in Bruce's twelve year head start and the fact that Guns did barely anything creatively 1995 - 2016 (and counting), this figure is closer than one might think. Bruce has never had a US #1, his closest chart topper, ''Dancing in the Dark'' ascending to #2. Guns of course possess a #1 in ''Welcome to the Jungle'' (and a #3 and a #4). United Kingdom, Bruce has only four UK Top Tens, highest position ''Streets of Philadelphia'' #2. Guns N' Roses have thirteen (although, no #1s!).

 

As pointed out, weren't Floyd in stadia, Wish You Were Here Tour, Animals and Wall Tours? They played entire new albums in gigantic stadia!

Is there not a sense that, you become what you are? Because Guns cater for 'John Doe' (using the American expression) they inherently attract a lot of' John Does'. Look at some of those crowds. They are fairly sedate, and do possess the smell of extreme casualness about them. By the way you mentioned 'every band'. In arguably the world's first tour of stadia, a mammoth North American undertaking ending in Wembley, England, there is an example of a band who played tons of new (unreleased) songs: Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

True, you are generally correct but enough artists add a splash of creativity - hence this debate about Springsteen. Heck, McCartney usually has a new album out and plays a few songs from that, and they do not get bigger than McCartney. The Stones played ''Doom and Gloom'' and a load of deep cuts a few years ago; true they have reigned it in since, but they have a new album coming out (therefore, expect three-four songs from it in future setlists). Neil Young only plays arenas, but see my above post about what he does with his sets, and his tours generate a lot of cash. AC/DC even play two songs from Rock or Bust, and since Axl's arrival, having been digging deep into their catalogue performing such songs as ''Live Wire, ''Touch Too Much'', et al.

There are countless examples.

As I said before, you become what you become. If you cater for the casuals, eventually your crowds will resemble casualness.

I agree, they are catering to the casual and boxing themselves in. They've been doing it for years though, so that's why I don't see it changing.

When I said 'All bands' that was a bit too much of a generalisation: some huge acts go out on huge tours and play entire new albums, Pink Floyd, Maiden etc. But a lot of the time fans whinge and moan when that much set time is taken with new material, especially when the new material is coming from a band 20/30yrs in. 

They will never please us, because it's our role to love the rarities and cry murder when they continually overlook them. Every one in a while bands throw the die-hards a bone, like when Metallica played Frayed ends of sanity. Gnr don't seem to care as much about pleasing their die-hard fan base, as much as Metallica etc. to me that's the most baffling part, because when the dust settles and they want to peddle a new album the casuals will not be buying the record, it'll be us. And maybe that's the answer in itself, they don't need to please us because regardless of what they do we'll come back for more.

[sonofnazareth]

Why not a 24 hour concert? They can play Scraped over and over for 23 hours and 50 minutes, then close with Don't Damn Me, Right Next Door To Hell and Perfect Crime.