Jump to content

Three cheers for GNR!


Redhead74

Recommended Posts

I saw Lana Del Rey on Monday night and she was on stage for a grand total of 50 minutes. Not kidding.

Someone yelled out at the end "Lana you bitch! I paid 109 bucks on ebay for 50 fuckin' minutes".

Whilst she was lovely and all I hope next time she's hanging out at Chateau Marmont with Axl he can give her some tips about putting on a show. May this be a reminder to anyone who feels the need to complain about the length of time they waited for GNR to make their appearance because I waited 2 hours and 15 min for 50 minutes of entertainment.

Three cheers for GNR who never fail to give their audience their money's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

half of the show is just for jams and instrumentals. one jam or solo is ok, more than that is just tiresome and boring, imo.

What's the current asking price for a GNR ticket? Divide that by 180 (minutes) and I'm guaranteed that the cost per minute is FAR greater value than what I got. I paid A$70, so Lana's cost per minute was A$1.40. Glad I didn't buy my ticket on eBay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long did a GNR show run back in 1986-1988?

Yeah, valid point. But when they were the headlining act I'm sure they played longer than 50 minutes. The support act played the same amount of time as her, which is downright strange IMO. I still like her music, just feel a bit ripped off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember right, Lanas not really much of a live performer and has said so in interviews, she's really just a studio musician and not that comfortable with live shows.

That Axl Rose Husband thing she did was godawful but she actually has a couple of nice songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? She has released one f#cking cd, what the hell were you expecting?

Just because a band/entertainer isn't playing 3 hours, doesn't mean you're not getting something magical! Oh, and the solo's by the band members in GNR were stupid.

I saw Lana Del Rey at a festival recently, she didn't wow me in the slightest. I really do miss Amy Winehouse, she was as real as they got.

Edited by The Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? She has released one f#cking cd, what the hell were you expecting?

Just because a band/entertainer isn't playing 3 hours, doesn't mean you're not getting something magical! Oh, and the solo's by the band members in GNR were stupid.

I saw Lana Del Rey at a festival recently, she didn't wow me in the slightest. I really do miss Amy Winehouse, she was as real as they got.

I was expecting her to play at least all the songs on the CD and maybe a couple of new ones. Didn't even get a whole CD's worth, however what she did play was actually really nice. I didn't have anything against her performance and I don't expect everyone to play for 3 hours just because GNR d, but come on, 50 minutes? Please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Lana Del Rey on Monday night and she was on stage for a grand total of 50 minutes. Not kidding.

Someone yelled out at the end "Lana you bitch! I paid 109 bucks on ebay for 50 fuckin' minutes".

Whilst she was lovely and all I hope next time she's hanging out at Chateau Marmont with Axl he can give her some tips about putting on a show. May this be a reminder to anyone who feels the need to complain about the length of time they waited for GNR to make their appearance because I waited 2 hours and 15 min for 50 minutes of entertainment.

Three cheers for GNR who never fail to give their audience their money's worth.

Surprising to me that Axl's girlfriend doesn't play longer, but then again she has a short set list already so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP is right GNR's 3 hour shows are EPIC.

Even Metallica only do 2 hour sets.

All the more reason then for 3 MORE cheers for GNR! :thumbsup:

I'm not saying 3 hours should be the standard, but with all the whingeing and criticism that goes on we need to acknowledge when they go over and above the usual obligation. I think it illustrates how hard it is to do what they do, yet all we hear is bitching and moaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

half of the show is just for jams and instrumentals. one jam or solo is ok, more than that is just tiresome and boring, imo.

I saw Stone Temple Pilots play a 90 minute show two years ago and they had at least three jams, one of which Weiland kind of babbled along to.

I don't mind the solo spots/jams, especially since Tommy does a full out song, and Ashba's solos have been sweet (he really needs to get Axl to look at these as potential full out songs). Ron's and Richard's are just fun... and like the piano moving jam shit, so what, if they don't play a little jam then you just wait for the piano to get set up.

There are breaks and lulls in every band's set.

I've seen:

Tool

Ozzy

Rammstein

Soundgarden

Foo Fighters

Pearl Jam

Iron Maiden

Megadeth

Manson

Nine Inch Nails

Stone Temple Pilots

Rob Zombie

Opeth

Alice in Chains

and a lot of other acts live, but that's good for now. Out of that list plus GN'R, you know who else played a 3 hour set?

Pearl Jam. And that's it. Ozzy came close, and credit to him that at his age, he really put on a show (was just two years ago).

STP did 90 minutes. Tool did about 90 minutes (I love them, and they do the cool visuals, but their setlist is extremely static and the run time quite short for a band of their status). Zombie did about the same. The rest were probably 2 hours give or take a few minutes. I've seen Maiden twice, they're great players, great show, but they aren't doing close to what GN'R does. Pearl Jam does it by nature of having been together 20 solid years and having a huge catalogue and making their name as a touring band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about quality, not quantity. I'd rather go to a 1 1/2 hr to 2 hr show where the lead singer stays more on stage than off it, interacts with the audience, sings in top form, and where I don't have to be subjected to multiple jams and neverending solos just to pass the time away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about quality, not quantity. I'd rather go to a 1 1/2 hr to 2 hr show where the lead singer stays more on stage than off it, interacts with the audience, sings in top form, and where I don't have to be subjected to multiple jams and neverending solos just to pass the time away.

Aha! Yes I agree, but I notice that you prefer a 1 1/2 hr to 2hr show - not a fucking 50 minute one!!!! The 50 minutes we got were lovely, just another 10 would have been great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about quality, not quantity. I'd rather go to a 1 1/2 hr to 2 hr show where the lead singer stays more on stage than off it, interacts with the audience, sings in top form, and where I don't have to be subjected to multiple jams and neverending solos just to pass the time away.

Aha! Yes I agree, but I notice that you prefer a 1 1/2 hr to 2hr show - not a fucking 50 minute one!!!! The 50 minutes we got were lovely, just another 10 would have been great.

Sorry, but I don't know who the chick you went to see perform even is. I'm surprised she was able to fill that much time with anything at all. If it's a band on par with Guns, then I'd say you have a point, but you went to see a nobody, and sounds like she delivered what anyone going to her show should have expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP is right GNR's 3 hour shows are EPIC.

Even Metallica only do 2 hour sets.

All the more reason then for 3 MORE cheers for GNR! :thumbsup:

I'm not saying 3 hours should be the standard, but with all the whingeing and criticism that goes on we need to acknowledge when they go over and above the usual obligation. I think it illustrates how hard it is to do what they do, yet all we hear is bitching and moaning.

So you don't think people should be able to share their opinions? This isn't a band run site. It is an open forum for people to talk about GnR. If you only want positive comments, there is a place that you might enjoy called htgth.

And......it is interesting in a topic where you are complaining about another band......you are also complaining about people being negative towards GnR. So in your world, it is OK for you to complain about bands.......but not OK for others to do the exact same thing? Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about quality, not quantity. I'd rather go to a 1 1/2 hr to 2 hr show where the lead singer stays more on stage than off it, interacts with the audience, sings in top form, and where I don't have to be subjected to multiple jams and neverending solos just to pass the time away.

"Subjected to" ?

Really?

You're griping and nitpicking. Find me a band who plays 3 hours shows, period, with no jams. Bands that are tight musically love to do jams. Pearl Jam does jams as well. Foo Fighters broke out into a jam mid-song at one of their gigs I was at.

I've provided real examples in my last post; I've seen over 80 bands live and I can count on one hand the number who put on the effort GN'R do.

Also, Axl is on stage a lot, so he's off now and then for breaks to get Oxygen etc. I would prefer that to the Rob Zombie or Vince Neil style of skipping words in every other song.

Motorhead had a drum solo as did Zombie's drummer when I saw him. In fact in a 90 minute show Zombie had a drum solo and a guitar solo. ROB Zombie, not White Zombie, so honestly, in a 90 minute set with a guy being billed as a solo artist, that's even worse. At least GN'R present themselevs as a band (even if the naysays here will cry that it's just Axl solo).

Quality for $$, I give you:

Rammstein

Guns N' Roses

Iron Maiden

Pearl Jam

Ozzy Osbourne (I'm even shocked I'm including him but he did a good, long show and was having a ton of fun when I saw him)

with honourable mention to Alice Cooper, Foo Fighters, Nine Inch Nails, and Soundgarden.

Keep in mind that's out of the acts I tend to like, but again, I've seen over 80 bands live, so I've got a pretty good basis for comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP is right GNR's 3 hour shows are EPIC.

Even Metallica only do 2 hour sets.

All the more reason then for 3 MORE cheers for GNR! :thumbsup:

I'm not saying 3 hours should be the standard, but with all the whingeing and criticism that goes on we need to acknowledge when they go over and above the usual obligation. I think it illustrates how hard it is to do what they do, yet all we hear is bitching and moaning.

So you don't think people should be able to share their opinions? This isn't a band run site. It is an open forum for people to talk about GnR. If you only want positive comments, there is a place that you might enjoy called htgth.

And......it is interesting in a topic where you are complaining about another band......you are also complaining about people being negative towards GnR. So in your world, it is OK for you to complain about bands.......but not OK for others to do the exact same thing? Why is that?

Hey, chill out! Don't get your knickers in a twist. I wasn't suggesting that no-one can have a negative opinion, I'm just TRYING to be positive about what GNR offer. The irony wasn't lost on you that my original post had a negative slant on it! Geeez it's hard around here to say anything without someone twisting the meaning around. I suppose that's what they call interpretation and differing opinions. :)

Maybe you can enlighten me, since you brought up HTGTH. I registered there a week ago and I got an email saying that my registration was awaiting 'approval'. I have heard nothing since. What is there to approve? Are they doing an FBI invetsigation on me before I'm allowed to post how much I love GNR? I'm confused. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP is right GNR's 3 hour shows are EPIC.

Even Metallica only do 2 hour sets.

All the more reason then for 3 MORE cheers for GNR! :thumbsup:

I'm not saying 3 hours should be the standard, but with all the whingeing and criticism that goes on we need to acknowledge when they go over and above the usual obligation. I think it illustrates how hard it is to do what they do, yet all we hear is bitching and moaning.

So you don't think people should be able to share their opinions?

This is a groghanism (= a reply that has nothing to do with what was actually said, usually construed to make the poster fit into Groghan's distorted black-and-white view of reality where a large faction of posters are "nutters" meaning that they can't tolerate any criticism of GN'R and want this forum to become like HTGTH). There was nothing in what Redhead74 wrote that even suggests she wants to prevent people from sharing their opinions. In fact the whole thing is absurd since Redhead74 herself did nothing but sharing her opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...