Jump to content
NachoLZ

NEW INTERVIEW: Axl and Duff Interviewed by Brazilian TV: "Where's Izzy" / "How did the reunion come about" / "New album" all discussed

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, thunderram said:

Easy enough to say. Even if true, you'd represent a minority. The majority would be out to make the most $$ they can. Because we're fans, we like to naively believe the people/businesses we support are in it for the fans. I don't see mainstream actors and directors accepting less $$ so that moviegoers can afford ticket prices. They get paid upwards of 20-30M per film. I don't see pro athletes and coaches taking less $$ to make attending games more affordable for the fans. The elite are signing deals worth 30M+ per season. I don't see artists selling their art on the cheap so fans can purchase and enjoy (we all know how overpriced art can be). I could go on and on. Why should anyone expect musicians to be any different?

Furthermore, if they are going to sell out most their gigs anyway. Why wouldn't you want to sell at the highest price you can get? It's not like they are hiking prices to levels nobody can afford and playing to half empty venues that would be full otherwise. That's not happening.

You are assuming that every artist employs the same fiercely capitalistic practice when setting prices. Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam are known to keep prices lower than their market value as an altruistic 'fan-friendly' measure. Your analogies collapse for the simple fact that actors and directors negotiate with studios for a lump sum delivered before the film enters production; they do not set a price for each individual cinema goer who buys a ticket!! Sportsmen are salaried by the ownership. Virat Kohli does not set an individual price for people to see him bat. And there is a concurrent debate about the price of sporting events, and amount of money running around in sport (diluting the enjoyment); there are even sportsmen and ex-sportsmen who argue that the price of tickets is excessive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are assuming that every artist employs the same fiercely capitalistic practice when setting prices. Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam are known to keep prices lower than their market value as an altruistic 'fan-friendly' measure. Your analogies collapse for the simple fact that actors and directors negotiate with studios for a lump sum delivered before the film enters production; they do not set a price for each individual cinema goer who buys a ticket!! Sportsmen are salaried by the ownership. Virat Kohli does not set an individual price for people to see him bat. And there is a concurrent debate about the price of sporting events, and amount of money running around in sport (diluting the enjoyment); there are even sportsmen and ex-sportsmen who argue that the price of tickets is excessive.

Petty, Boss, and Pearl Jam have virtually toured nonstop for the past 20+ years (Petty and the Boss since the 70s). NITL was basically just what it's name implies- nobody thought it could happen. Demand is through the roof. Let's see what prices are for a future US leg, if it ever happens, for a more accurate comparison.

I saw the Eagles a few years ago, in an arena, and tickets were a ridiculous amount. I think that's a more accurate comparison, but even they had already tapped the reunion well years before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what live music is all about now, ''tapping the...well'', ''making the most $$ they can'', ''maximizing the amount of $$''? The fact that your (Filthy and Thunder) defense relies on language like this betrays what the so-called reunion is: a senseless corporate cashgrab.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Is this what live music is all about now, ''tapping the...well'', ''making the most $$ they can'', ''maximizing the amount of $$''? The fact that your (Filthy and Thunder) defense relies on language like this betrays what the so-called reunion is: a senseless corporate cashgrab.

 

Well, you'll always have Izzy, kicking back in the shadows, not carin about the loot right? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are assuming that every artist employs the same fiercely capitalistic practice when setting prices. Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam are known to keep prices lower than their market value as an altruistic 'fan-friendly' measure.

 

I'm not assuming anything. That's the reality. Do some research. The examples you provided, while factual, are exceptions to the rule and in the vast minority.

While agreed that my analogies were far from textbook examples, the point remains. Artists and entertainers in all fields are rarely known for accepting less money for the benefit of their fans. It rarely happens. For the most part, we live in a capitalistic world. That's the crux of the point. Considering everything, I don't understand the expectations some seem to have regarding ticket prices.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you really have overblown  egos thinking they should resign from part of their income so that we can pay less. First of all we can obviously afford paying that much because the stadiums are full, second we are a bunch of overcritical assholes undermining their every decision and critisizing every move they make and every sound they produce, calling them the nastiest of names. What makes you think we are the most deserving case for their charity? I guess they can find plenty of people who both need and deserve their charity more and they find them. I'd do the same if I were them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thunderram said:

 

I'm not assuming anything. That's the reality. Do some research. The examples you provided, while factual, are exceptions to the rule and in the vast minority.

While agreed that my analogies were far from textbook examples, the point remains. Artists and entertainers in all fields are rarely known for accepting less money for the benefit of their fans. It rarely happens. For the most part, we live in a capitalistic world. That's the crux of the point. Considering everything, I don't understand the expectations some seem to have regarding ticket prices.

You are I suspect correct, however we are providing relative examples here in order to attest that GN'R's prices were indeed scandalous. When their prices arrived for the tour of the United States, there were many claims here (and no doubt elsewhere) that they were absurd, which predisposes the fact that they appeared absurd whence compared with other live acts. GN'R's prices do not exist in a vacuum. A ticket buyer will most likely have attended concerts by other acts, or will do so in future. In order to arrive at a judgement that the ticket is overpriced, he or she must be comparing it to other acts of roughly equal stature who have provided tickets at a more reasonable rate.

That the prices were ridiculous was a prevalent opinion - I'm certainly not in the minority here.

29 minutes ago, Asia said:

Some of you really have overblown  egos thinking they should resign from part of their income so that we can pay less. First of all we can obviously afford paying that much because the stadiums are full, second we are a bunch of overcritical assholes undermining their every decision and critisizing every move they make and every sound they produce, calling them the nastiest of names. What makes you think we are the most deserving case for their charity? I guess they can find plenty of people who both need and deserve their charity more and they find them. I'd do the same if I were them.

Hyperbole. I just won't bother going haha. No skin off my back. I do not like Vegas old fart revival acts anyway. If I wanted to listen to Brownstone I'd put on Appetite. At least it has Izzy on it. I like bands who release music.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are I suspect correct, however we are providing relative examples here in order to attest that GN'R's prices were indeed scandalous. When their prices arrived for the tour of the United States, there were many claims here (and no doubt elsewhere) that they were absurd, which predisposes the fact that they appeared absurd whence compared with other live acts. GN'R's prices do not exist in a vacuum. A ticket buyer will most likely have attended concerts by other acts, or will do so in future. In order to arrive at a judgement that the ticket is overpriced, he or she must be comparing it to other acts of roughly equal stature who have provided tickets at a more reasonable rate.

That the prices were ridiculous was a prevalent opinion - I'm certainly not in the minority here.

Hyperbole. I just won't bother going haha. No skin off my back. I do not like Vegas old fart revival acts anyway. If I wanted to listen to Brownstone I'd put on Appetite. At least it has Izzy on it. I like bands who release music.

Again, do some research. The prices are not so far fetched. And the fact that it's their first tour in 23 years would easily explain any differences. You just have unreasonable expectations.

As for your last sentence directed to someone else, you sure do spend a lot of time reading and responding to threads about a revival act. If your statement had any truth to it at all, you wouldn't be here chiming in all the time. You're just a cynic whose M.O. is to take the unpopular POV on nearly every single topic and dig a hole to fortify yourself in. Put the shovel down already. The act is tired. Go listen to your Appetite CD w/ Izzy on it and leave the revival act discussion here to the adults that actually care about it. Nobody's stopping you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/10/2016 at 9:14 PM, maxpax said:

Money heals wounds. 

I don't know why azoff didn't achieve a reunion (probably because of Axls bitterness), but Axl admits that it was the coachella guy who was the main reason for this reunion...someone who had nothing to do with gnr...so stop talking about Axl finally getting cool. Money was his driving force. Coachella guy=a lot of money for 2 shows. And because Axl agreed to play this show more promoters contacted him...it wasn't even planned to go on tour in first place. But the offers were financially so good that Axl couldn't deny. 

The fans were patient for 25 years...No new real gnr material since 1991. And there won't be new stuff in the near future.

 

 

Must be awesome to have all the answers to everything GNR.

 

Stop passing your OPINIONS off as fact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure of the point of charging less than market value in any case. If they charged less than market value then the scalpers would be the ones making bank and the tickets would still be selling for whatever the market value is. The band might as well profit off of their work instead of gifting the money to entrepreneurs leeching of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was Duff who said he tried to explain Slashs pov to Axl. 

To me Not in this Lifetime is like that Eagles title When Hell Freezes  Over. 

But it could also be like the reunion is never happening. Use your illusion. 

Not in this Lifetime is the title of the reunion record which is CD II in disguise. 

Edited by wasted
Life's time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason Cockroach soup wasn't a real title. 

Slash replacing Brian May's solo on Atlas will be interesting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 21, 2016 at 4:38 PM, DieselDaisy said:

I'm willing to bet my house that there is no album in the works!

If I was in their shoes, I'd want to set the prices at a fair price in order to not exploit the fans.

Well I'm certainly not defending The Rolling Stones!

Yeah, there really is no defending the stones in any capacity. I will say this though; Richard fortus used to remind me of Ronnie Wood, but as I think about it now he may bear a stronger resemblance to nils lofgren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mr. Dude said:

Yeah, there really is no defending the stones in any capacity. I will say this though; Richard fortus used to remind me of Ronnie Wood, but as I think about it now he may bear a stronger resemblance to nils lofgren.

...minus the talent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

...minus the talent.

I disagree with you there. Even though he can't match up with Fortus in terms of skill or stage prowess, I certainly wouldn't go as far as you did in saying that Nils Lofgren is Fortus minus the talent. That's a bit hyperbole don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Dude said:

I disagree with you there. Even though he can't match up with Fortus in terms of skill or stage prowess, I certainly wouldn't go as far as you did in saying that Nils Lofgren is Fortus minus the talent. That's a bit hyperbole don't you think?

We have a joker in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

We have a joker in the house.

We'll.."..as long as you were just joking its cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2016 at 7:58 AM, wasted said:

For some reason Cockroach soup wasn't a real title. 

Slash replacing Brian May's solo on Atlas will be interesting. 

Agreed. Something tells me it'll be like catcher in the rye where the original solo by may should have just stayed. But atlas hasn't leaked yet so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×