Excited About GNR future

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I detest U2 yet even I know they had a few later hits. Were Metallica fans going to see songs like Cyanide or The Day That Never Comes? Yes, why not. Both were good metal songs and fairly well received at the time. If you go to a concert of a band who has just released - officially leaked free if memory serves - songs people like, it is a reasonable assumption that the crowds would like to hear those song. Metallica have done quite well with their last two albums really, dodgy production aside.

I'm gonna nick your Curtis Mayfield albums, you're not worthy of em you stinky metaller

[downzy]

7 hours ago, RONIN said:

I get your point. Diesel Daisy has addressed this before many times. Lies and UYI have a mixed reception outside of the hardcore fanbase despite being legendary albums. UYI are my favorite GnR albums but those albums are qualitatively all over the map. Perhaps if GnR had followed up Appetite with a release as well received then your theory would have merit regarding quality over quantity. But they didn't. Illusions may have sold a lot initially but it was outsold by Metallica, Nirvana and Pearl Jam. The latter offerings were far more relevant and critically well received than UYI. Outside of hardcore fans, UYI is not seen as a great body of work. Rather a muddled release with many outstanding songs. It's a 3.5 star album with some 5 star songs. 

GnR started selling out stadiums now. They were struggling to fill arenas just a few years prior. They are now an arena band once the Texas shows wrap up. 

To suggest that the Illusions albums were 3.5 out of 5 is just wrong.  Most reviews I've come across give them at least 4, with many giving them 4.5 to 5 albums (I've only encountered one review by a notable music critic that gives UY2  less than 4 stars).  They were seminal albums that cemented GNR as one of the great rock artists of all time.  Most bands would love to have one monster hit, let alone one great album.  As the old saying goes, you have your whole life to write your first album, but only a couple of years to write the follow up.  

As for GNR being an arena band, that might be true in some markets, but certainly not the larger markets in North America and not in the rest of the world.  They could fill stadiums in South America, Europe, and Japan if they wanted to play them every other summer.  

Maybe, maybe not. I think you might be underrating those artists' post prime work to make your point but here's what new albums from U2 and Metallica did do though: keep them in the public eye. Death Magnetic was well received critically and commercially. If that isn't an indicator for relevancy, I don't know what is. They were still mega bands in the public eye even if those new releases were not setting the world on fire like their prior work. Because at the end of the day, their oeuvres will be looked at as a cohesive body of work rather than simply one or two standout selections. Their music will be judged as a whole rather than the sum of its parts.

The question is simple: are people showing up to hear bands new material or to hear the hits from previous albums?  While I don't doubt that some are wanting to hear Moth to the Flame or Hardwired, I'm having a hard time believing that Metallica would be selling out arenas on the basis of anything they've done since '96.  In forty to fifty years from now, will anyone still be playing Hardwired or anything from Death Magnetic?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening.  

The reverse is true with GnR since they are viewed by most as a one album band with a relatively strong albeit mixed followup with the Illusions. Unfortunately, that's just not good enough to put them in the league of U2 and Metallica in the eyes of fans or critics and that's essentially what I was stating in my initial post

Again, i take issue with your assessment of the Illusion albums.  But regardless, you're missing my point.  I'm not arguing that U2 or Metallica have larger catalogues or that their iconic discography isn't larger, but that almost all of the material released since the mid 90s have done much to further cement their legacy.  Their stature was confirmed with their albums from the 80s and early 90s.  Very little of what they've produced since then has moved the needle all that much.  

Ultimately, if new material really moved the needle and GNR are just bit players to U2 and Metallica, then you'll have to explain why GNR has outgrossed both bands.  As of July, GNR has grossed $151 million in concert tickets versus $118 for U2 and $88 million for Metallica.  Shouldn't a band with Axl, Duff, and Slash - that has produced zero new albums in 26 years - be making far less money than bands that have produced work consistently over the same period?  If GNR is just a one album band as you say, how do you explain the insane amount of money their making on the road? 

[downzy]

7 hours ago, RONIN said:

 

Answered this above. The evidence can be seen in touring ticket sales. U2 and Metallica crushed GnR from 2002-2014.

Are you really going to suggest that comparing a band with one original/classic member to bands like U2 or Metallica is a fair comparison?

If your assessment is true, then how is GNR crushing both U2 and Metallica this year?  Are you really going to argue that there's that much demand for a band that, according to you, produced just one great album?

[downzy]

7 hours ago, RONIN said:

Your definition is the same as mine but a band releasing new music will generally always be more relevant than a band releasing no music. I don't know how relevant Hardwired is or isn't, but Death Magnetic was a relevant album - certainly far more relevant than Chinese Democracy ended up being. Maybe U2 is or isn't relevant - I don't know. Their fans seem a lot happier than our fans. Is that a fair statement to make? They don't even need to do anything but coast at this point but at least those guys are acting like musicians and putting stuff out there.

I saw Metallica this past July.  Great show.  Take a guess at how many songs they played off of Death Magnetic.  Zero.  Don't you think that an album as relevant as you claim it to be still yield material to be played on later tours?  I'm not saying it wasn't a good album, but I didn't hear a lot of complaints from people walking out of the concert that they didn't hear anything from Death Magnetic.  What would draw complaints?  Probably not playing anything off Master of Puppets, Justice for All, Kill 'Em All or the Black album.  

My favorite film director is Michael Mann and though his current work comes nowhere close to "Heat" and "Collateral", I still make a point of checking it out. I appreciate that he continues to stay active even if the quality has slid. In this case, something is better than nothing  as long as it isn't a complete embarrassment and travesty. More of a good thing is always good even if it doesn't taste as good as it used to.

Again, I'm not arguing that nothing is better than something.  I'd love it if GNR had produced two or three more albums over the 90s and 2000s.  But the reality is, if they ended up being forgettable and not that great, while I personally would have enjoyed it, most people wouldn't.  Legendary bands don't become legendary by producing substandard music.  In fact, I think the fact that GNR has fewer albums is likely a benefit to the casual fan, who can anticipate seeing/hearing most of the songs they love and not worry about being subjected to deep cuts that few, outside of the hardcore faithful, give a shit about.  

[downzy]

6 hours ago, Bono said:

You're completely wrong. U2 looked to be at a crossroads after Pop. The album wasn't received well at the time, the tour struggled at times, Bono had serious throat issues, but they reinvigorated their career with All That You Can't Leave Behind. They released songs like Beautiful Day, Elevation and Walk On. Elevation and Beautiful Day get some of the best reactions in their live shows. Vertigo introduced them to a whole new generation and it also gets one of the best reactions live. Stop with this nonsense that U2 hasn't done anything musically to elevate their status since 1991. This whole notion that they've released nothing but subpar, lackluster material since 1991 also makes you sound delusional. You can think that but if everything they've released was as you say they'd be completely washed up. U2 release albums, do promotion, hell they're even performing on Jimmy Fallon tonight. Yet you sit there and act like the 6 studio albums they've released since 1991 and the forthcoming album have done and will do NOTHING to contribute to building them into what they are now? Of course what they did in the past is the major reason they became icons but so fucking what? Why does that matter to you? At least they don't tour off the back of nostalgia and at least they feature new material heavily each time they tour in support of an album.  
Again who gives a shit why people are turning up to their shows. Fact is being a U2 fan is way more fun and fulfilling than being a GnR fan. I know, I'm both.  

And newsflash, U2 has released a much higher quantity of music than GnR has since 1991 and also much higher quality.  Unless of course you're actually gonna sit there and try to argue that in the grand scheme of things CD trumps everything U2 has done since 1991 in terms of artistic integrity, building reverence, admiration and credibility among casuals and hardcores, and adding to the legacy. Argue that GnR with one fucking album since 1991 has done that better than U2(or Metallica) and I'll roll my eyes and move along. 

Honest question, would U2 sellout stadiums if they announced they're only going to play material from All That You Can't Leave Behind and onward?  Would as many people care about U2 if their career started with All That You Can't Leave Behind?  I agree that it was a decent album, but in my opinion it's still a far cry from their previous work.  

If U2 releases an album that has songs that match or exceed anything from Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby then I'll stand corrected.  

I don't discount that being a hardcore U2 fan is more fun than a hardcore GNR fan on the basis of getting new material (though, I'll still always prefer a GNR show to a U2 show performance wise).  But again, that's not what we're talking about.  

My issue is with the argument that the lack of material by GNR over the last couple of decades has reduced their status as one of the world's best hard rock acts. Or to put another way, that the albums produced by U2 or Metallica over the same stretch has elevated theirs.   Pointing to bands like U2 and Metallica as examples of bands that produce new material are not great examples of bands that live or die off their latest releases.  All three bands make bank because of their iconic albums and hit songs.  Time will tell, but in my opinion neither Metallica or U2 has produced anything iconic since the early 90s.  These bands will be remembered for their greatest outputs, not good to middling albums that describe the last couple of decades.  People only have time and only remember greatness.  

[downzy]

6 hours ago, Bono said:

Unreal.  Trust me when I say this, most people at the U2 shows know the material new and old. You're arguing a losing argument here dude. U2's new albums are much more well known by the average U2 concert goer than CD is to the average GnR concert goer. Hate all you want. GnR's career since 1991 has been a fucking joke. The fact you're even remotely suggesting 2 and Metallica haven't gone about business better is insane.

Well, I'll have to take your word for it because I didn't go to the last U2 concert when they were in town.  I knew a lot of people who did and all of them were excited about hearing Joshua Tree.  Not once in talking with any of them did they mention being excited to hear anything from U2's last three or four albums.  

[allwaystired]

29 minutes ago, downzy said:

Are you really going to suggest that comparing a band with one original/classic member to bands like U2 or Metallica is a fair comparison?

If your assessment is true, then how is GNR crushing both U2 and Metallica this year?  Are you really going to argue that there's that much demand for a band that, according to you, produced just one great album?

The reason is that the NITL tour is an event, and demand for it has been building for a long time. With U2 and Metallica touring regularly for all these years, it's inevitable that GNR could sell more tickets for one tour. A U2 or Metallica tour isn't such an event. But that will change- the NITL lineup touring won't be an event again. So it's unfair to compare them, on a sales basis, at this time. 

[DieselDaisy]

Metallica never really had 'hits' until the Black Album though. When drunken thrash purists go ''Master'' and ''Lightening maan'' they are discussing albums with lengthy vaguely progressive work-outs. The Black Album is probably more unpopular than Death Magnetic/Hardwired for a great many of them.

I could see Cyanide lasting the distance.

[EvanG]

10 hours ago, downzy said:

Really?  You think most people are heading to a U2 concert to hear Get On Your Boots?  Do you think 90 percent of those who attend a U2 concert could name a song released after Achtung Baby

Uhm, yeah? I mean, I'm not even a casual U2 fan, and I can name several. They've had lots of hits here in my neck of the woods in the early and mid 2000s. I can even name Staring At The Sun from the commercially disappointed album Pop, which is an amazing song.

Edited September 7, 2017 by EvanG

[Sunset Gardner]

36 minutes ago, downzy said:

Well, I'll have to take your word for it because I didn't go to the last U2 concert when they were in town.  I knew a lot of people who did and all of them were excited about hearing Joshua Tree.  Not once in talking with any of them did they mention being excited to hear anything from U2's last three or four albums.  

Downzy, 

i don't agree with everything you say but your posts are smart and well thought out and I found the back and forth in this thread to be very interesting.  

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, Sunset Gardner said:

Downzy, 

i don't agree with everything you say but your posts are smart and well thought out and I found the back and forth in this thread to be very interesting.  

Thanks. 

Determining popularity or reasons for the legendary status of an act isn't an exact science.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this issue (or most for that matter).  

[downzy]

8 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Uhm, yeah? I mean, I'm not even a casual U2 fan, and I can name several. They've had lots of hits here in my neck of the woods in the early and mid 2000s. I can even name Staring At The Sun from the commercially disappointed album Pop, which is an amazing song.

Yeah, I might have been overstating it a bit there.  

I agree that it's not been all middling from U2 since the early 90s.  Staring at the Sun is a great song.  One of my favourite U2 tracks is In A Little While.  I just don't agree that U2 is a stadium act because of that material.  It's kind of my beef with Radiohead who refuses to acknowledge the importance of their earlier work to their current popularity.  

[downzy]

50 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

The reason is that the NITL tour is an event, and demand for it has been building for a long time. With U2 and Metallica touring regularly for all these years, it's inevitable that GNR could sell more tickets for one tour. A U2 or Metallica tour isn't such an event. But that will change- the NITL lineup touring won't be an event again. So it's unfair to compare them, on a sales basis, at this time. 

While I agree that there's bent up demand driving tickets sales for this tour, I don't necessarily agree that GNR couldn't sell out a stadium in NYC, LA, Chicago, Toronto, Dallas every four or five years.  

It's not as though U2 or Metallica play the same markets all that often.  

The last time Metallica and U2 both played Toronto (not counting Metallica's small 2016 club show) was in 2009, eight years ago.  It's an event any time these bands play a show with almost a decade or more separating shows.  

Again, I'm not arguing that GNR is a bigger band than U2 or Metallica.  But I think explaining GNR doing almost double the business of Metallica by virtue of the reunion isn't a satisfying rationale for me.  The music the band created between 1987 and 1991 was so strong and iconic that it still sells out stadiums decades later.  It's a testament to the strength of that material produced by those involved in its creation.  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Metallica never really had 'hits' until the Black Album though. When drunken thrash purists go ''Master'' and ''Lightening maan'' they are discussing albums with lengthy vaguely progressive work-outs. The Black Album is probably more unpopular than Death Magnetic/Hardwired for a great many of them.

I could see Cyanide lasting the distance.

Yeah, I would agree that Metallica was never a band that played the hit game until the Black album.  It didn't really pay off for them until Damaged Justice tour where they were finally headlining arenas (as opposed to playing in support for larger acts either at arenas or festivals).   It wasn't until the hit-heavy Black album that allowed them to move to stadiums.  Thrash purists now probably make up 20-30 percent of any given audience for a Metallica show.  If it were not for the Black album they'd probably be a theatre band in minor markets and maybe an arena band in major markets.

Cyanide is pretty good.  I often wonder if certain songs, had they been released during the band's prime, would be considered part of a band's canon.  I think the general fan base and general zeitgeist gives a band or act a limited amount of attention.  Anything released after people start caring more about previously released hits gets largely ignored.  I've often thought Rock N' Roll Train would be considered one of AC/DC's classic hits had it been released in the mid 80s.  But because it was released in the 2000s when most consider AC/DC a nostalgia act it doesn't get the same level of recognition.   Fair or not, it seems to be a reality.  

I think GNR would be in the same boat.  It could release a stellar album with some solid potential hits but it still wouldn't get the same recognition from the general public as anything off AFD or the Illusion albums.  I think for something to cut through it has to exceed what came before.  Once a band stops progressing and starts regressing or stagnating in their new material people stop caring and come out for the hits.    

[Ratam]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

To suggest that the Illusions albums were 3.5 out of 5 is just wrong.  Most reviews I've come across give them at least 4, with many giving them 4.5 to 5 albums (I've only encountered one review by a notable music critic that gives UY2  less than 4 stars).  They were seminal albums that cemented GNR as one of the great rock artists of all time.  Most bands would love to have one monster hit, let alone one great album.  As the old saying goes, you have your whole life to write your first album, but only a couple of years to write the follow up.  

As for GNR being an arena band, that might be true in some markets, but certainly not the larger markets in North America and not in the rest of the world.  They could fill stadiums in South America, Europe, and Japan if they wanted to play them every other summer.  

 

 

The question is simple: are people showing up to hear bands new material or to hear the hits from previous albums?  While I don't doubt that some are wanting to hear Moth to the Flame or Hardwired, I'm having a hard time believing that Metallica would be selling out arenas on the basis of anything they've done since '96.  In forty to fifty years from now, will anyone still be playing Hardwired or anything from Death Magnetic?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening.  

 

 

Again, i take issue with your assessment of the Illusion albums.  But regardless, you're missing my point.  I'm not arguing that U2 or Metallica have larger catalogues or that their iconic discography isn't larger, but that almost all of the material released since the mid 90s have done much to further cement their legacy.  Their stature was confirmed with their albums from the 80s and early 90s.  Very little of what they've produced since then has moved the needle all that much.  

Ultimately, if new material really moved the needle and GNR are just bit players to U2 and Metallica, then you'll have to explain why GNR has outgrossed both bands.  As of July, GNR has grossed $151 million in concert tickets versus $118 for U2 and $88 million for Metallica.  Shouldn't a band with Axl, Duff, and Slash - that has produced zero new albums in 26 years - be making far less money than bands that have produced work consistently over the same period?  If GNR is just a one album band as you say, how do you explain the insane amount of money their making on the road? 

Spot on

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

Comparing GNR with U2 and Metallica isn't a level playing field in any case.  Because unlike those bands Guns N' Roses broke up.  The key members didn't speak to each other for 20 years.  They've literally just got back together.  This accounts for the massive ticket sales.  Hey, remember Guns N' Roses?  Remember Axl Rose?  Sweet Child O' Mine?  Wow, yeah, I used to love that song.  I gotta see them, might be my last chance.  I strongly suspect that sums up the vast majority of the crowds.

Guns N' Roses couldn't have been relevant over all these years because they didn't exist.  Not in the minds of the public at large.  Not technically either.  We all know NuGuns wasn't Guns N' Roses.   A band that doesn't exist can't be prolific or relevant.  Yes, Axl had a fantastic opportunity to put NuGuns on the map but he botched it.  He could have re-written the GNR history but he didn't.  If nothing else, he could have put himself on the map as a solo artist, but he didn't.  That's all in the past. 

What we have now is GNR rebooted.  We know it's not the original band.  Public at large doesn't know that because Axl and Slash = Guns N' Roses.  This is mostly likely the LAST opportunity for GNR to stand for something other than a trip down memory lane.  To the general public, Guns N' Roses exist again, they're bordering on relevant.  They don't need to be prolific, it's probably too late for that anyway.  What they need to do is put out one or two (is three unreasonable?) excellent albums of ORIGINAL music to truly cement their legacy and be considered one of the all time greats instead of that 80s band with that one great album.  If they released an album tomorrow, I'd stake money on them being the first rock band in decades to shift a gazillion copies and break records.  They are no strangers to achieving the unexpected.  

Which brings me to the thread title: Yes, there is a future for Guns N' Roses IF they choose it.  Or if Axl chooses it, I don't know how the new situation works with those guys now.  They are more than capable of achieving this without Izzy (no-one and nothing will change my mind on this: Axl, Slash and Duff between the three of them, can write excellent music) and with the current line-up.  Hired hands?  Don't care, they'll do for now.  They can't afford to fuck around trying to get Izzy and Adler back on board, which would take who knows how long, and further delay things.

Just finish the tour, get new music out ASAP.  End of.

Worry about getting Izzy and Adler back after they've made their mark and reclaimed some musical territory.

Now if they can manage not to repeat old mistakes, or fuck around with utterly unimportant side projects, then the future is genuinely exciting.  

It can happen.  Will it?  I'm taking a leap of faith.  

 

[Ratam]

3 hours ago, allwaystired said:

The reason is that the NITL tour is an event, and demand for it has been building for a long time. With U2 and Metallica touring regularly for all these years, it's inevitable that GNR could sell more tickets for one tour. A U2 or Metallica tour isn't such an event. But that will change- the NITL lineup touring won't be an event again. So it's unfair to compare them, on a sales basis, at this time. 

Dowzny not was who compared ,he just respond what others said

[Ratam]

3 hours ago, Sunset Gardner said:

Downzy, 

i don't agree with everything you say but your posts are smart and well thought out and I found the back and forth in this thread to be very interesting.  

👌👍

[killuridols]

34 minutes ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Comparing GNR with U2 and Metallica isn't a level playing field in any case.  Because unlike those bands Guns N' Roses broke up.  The key members didn't speak to each other for 20 years.  They've literally just got back together.  This accounts for the massive ticket sales.  Hey, remember Guns N' Roses?  Remember Axl Rose?  Sweet Child O' Mine?  Wow, yeah, I used to love that song.  I gotta see them, might be my last chance.  I strongly suspect that sums up the vast majority of the crowds.

Guns N' Roses couldn't have been relevant over all these years because they didn't exist.  Not in the minds of the public at large.  Not technically either.  We all know NuGuns wasn't Guns N' Roses.   A band that doesn't exist can't be prolific or relevant.  Yes, Axl had a fantastic opportunity to put NuGuns on the map but he botched it.  He could have re-written the GNR history but he didn't.  If nothing else, he could have put himself on the map as a solo artist, but he didn't.  That's all in the past. 

What we have now is GNR rebooted.  We know it's not the original band.  Public at large doesn't know that because Axl and Slash = Guns N' Roses.  This is mostly likely the LAST opportunity for GNR to stand for something other than a trip down memory lane.  To the general public, Guns N' Roses exist again, they're bordering on relevant.  They don't need to be prolific, it's probably too late for that anyway.  What they need to do is put out one or two (is three unreasonable?) excellent albums of ORIGINAL music to truly cement their legacy and be considered one of the all time greats instead of that 80s band with that one great album.  If they released an album tomorrow, I'd stake money on them being the first rock band in decades to shift a gazillion copies and break records.  They are no strangers to achieving the unexpected.  

Which brings me to the thread title: Yes, there is a future for Guns N' Roses IF they choose it.  Or if Axl chooses it, I don't know how the new situation works with those guys now.  They are more than capable of achieving this without Izzy (no-one and nothing will change my mind on this: Axl, Slash and Duff between the three of them, can write excellent music) and with the current line-up.  Hired hands?  Don't care, they'll do for now.  They can't afford to fuck around trying to get Izzy and Adler back on board, which would take who knows how long, and further delay things.

Just finish the tour, get new music out ASAP.  End of.

Worry about getting Izzy and Adler back after they've made their mark and reclaimed some musical territory.

Now if they can manage not to repeat old mistakes, or fuck around with utterly unimportant side projects, then the future is genuinely exciting.  

It can happen.  Will it?  I'm taking a leap of faith. 

THIS ^^

[Bono]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

The question is simple: are people showing up to hear bands new material or to hear the hits from previous albums?  While I don't doubt that some are wanting to hear Moth to the Flame or Hardwired, I'm having a hard time believing that Metallica would be selling out arenas on the basis of anything they've done since '96.  In forty to fifty years from now, will anyone still be playing Hardwired or anything from Death Magnetic?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening.  

 

 

Ultimately, if new material really moved the needle and GNR are just bit players to U2 and Metallica, then you'll have to explain why GNR has outgrossed both bands.  As of July, GNR has grossed $151 million in concert tickets versus $118 for U2 and $88 million for Metallica.  Shouldn't a band with Axl, Duff, and Slash - that has produced zero new albums in 26 years - be making far less money than bands that have produced work consistently over the same period?  If GNR is just a one album band as you say, how do you explain the insane amount of money their making on the road? 

Again it's unbelievable that you don't think fans of U2 or Metallica are going to hear new music. That's the very essence and purpose of their tours for fuck sakes. 

Also are you seriously asking why GnR is raking in the dow on this tour? Are you so oblivious to the fact this is the reunion of Slash and Axl after  20 years apart and is something most people thought was never going to happen. You do realize that the reason they are selling out stadiums right now is because all the people who didn't give a flying fuck about a Slashless GnR are now showing up to catch the band one more time or for the first time ever. You do understand these circumstances right? Orare you that insane that you actually believe had Slash stayed with GnR and they released fuck all over the last 20 years but just kept touring the same setlist that they'd be doing the numbers they are now? It's fucking obvious why GnR is making the kinda money they are right now. It's called the reunion factor. Say it with me!  RE-UN-ION FAC-TOR! aka Slash. It's not rocket science man. If U2 broke up after 1993 and Metallica stopped after Load and then these bands reunited for the first time in 20+ years don't ya think they'd be doing what GnR is right now as well? Seriously man give your head a shake. 

[Bono]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

Are you really going to suggest that comparing a band with one original/classic member to bands like U2 or Metallica is a fair comparison?

If your assessment is true, then how is GNR crushing both U2 and Metallica this year?  Are you really going to argue that there's that much demand for a band that, according to you, produced just one great album?

You might wanna wait till the end of the year before you toot your GnR horn too loudly. U2 is grossing more per show and have a higher attendance per show than GnR. The only way GnR tops them this year is because they added arena dates at the end of the year to make the difference. Otherwise U2 would have out grossed them with less shows played when all was said and done. 

[DieselDaisy]

I do not see anyone crushing anyone to be honest. U2, Metallica and Guns (w/ Slash) are all massive tours. Yes Guns have a bit more excitement about them because of the novelty of Slash and Duff returning, but this will surely wear off, as it did with Kiss in 1996.

[Tom2112]

On 9/5/2017 at 4:35 AM, AxlRoseCDII said:

I don't see any life for this band after the NITL tour finishes up. I see Guns concluding at the end of 2017, but without officially confirming it kind of like how no one knew what was happening after the UYI tour finished up.

If you think this is the last hurrah for GNR, I don't know what to say. I can't sit here and say they'll definitely do a record but I can fairly confidently say that the intention is to go on for as long as they can with this, and that's based on everything that the core members have said, and everything that the rest of the band has said. Nobody has said anything remotely close to "This might be the end". 

I think GNR have cried wold one too many times, and now no matter how things look nobody believes anything and fans like us just fill in the gaps with or without evidence to back up theories. I just can't see Slash coming back to GNR just to make a bunch of money, it doesn't really fit with how he has conducted himself throughout his career (aware of his divorce clear-out). AND If GNR were planning on hanging up their boots, this tour would be advertised as a farewell, livenation would not miss a chance to exploit that AND the ticket prices would have been even more expensive with the tour probably being called 'Not In This Lifetime (Once in a life)'.

IF a new album happens, great, if not thats a shame but there's nothing we can do about it - beyond boycotting shows... which everybody on here was all talk about... until the next tour got announced. 

[Tom2112]

8 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I detest U2 yet even I know they had a few later hits. Were Metallica fans going to see songs like Cyanide or The Day That Never Comes? Yes, why not. Both were good metal songs and fairly well received at the time. If you go to a concert of a band who has just released - officially leaked free if memory serves - songs people like, it is a reasonable assumption that the crowds would like to hear those song. Metallica have done quite well with their last two albums really, dodgy production aside.

Nothing dodgy about Hardwireds production, but I agree with the rest of your point. If Guns released a good album, people would be happy to hear some of that music live, even if it means one or two less places for old songs.

[downzy]

36 minutes ago, Bono said:

Again it's unbelievable that you don't think fans of U2 or Metallica are going to hear new music. That's the very essence and purpose of their tours for fuck sakes. 

Also are you seriously asking why GnR is raking in the dow on this tour? Are you so oblivious to the fact this is the reunion of Slash and Axl after  20 years apart and is something most people thought was never going to happen. You do realize that the reason they are selling out stadiums right now is because all the people who didn't give a flying fuck about a Slashless GnR are now showing up to catch the band one more time or for the first time ever. You do understand these circumstances right? Orare you that insane that you actually believe had Slash stayed with GnR and they released fuck all over the last 20 years but just kept touring the same setlist that they'd be doing the numbers they are now? It's fucking obvious why GnR is making the kinda money they are right now. It's called the reunion factor. Say it with me!  RE-UN-ION FAC-TOR! aka Slash. It's not rocket science man. If U2 broke up after 1993 and Metallica stopped after Load and then these bands reunited for the first time in 20+ years don't ya think they'd be doing what GnR is right now as well? Seriously man give your head a shake. 

I'm going to ask you to please lower the tone of your posts here.  I don't mind having a discussion/debate, but there's no need to call me oblivious, insane, or asking to give my head a shake just because I hold a different view point.

I think some U2 and Metallica fans are going to hear new music.  But again, that's not my point.  The music they've made over the last twenty years isn't something that would have made them the successes that are today.  I do agree that All That You Can't Leave Behind is a good album, but it's no Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby.  Again, it's good, but not great and only great material is what bestows legendary or iconic status that allows bands to draw 40-50k+ per show.  U2's popularity, just like Metallica and GNR, still largely rests on the laurels of past work.  If U2 were a band starting out in the early 2000s and All That You Can't Leave Behind was their debut album, it would have brought them some recognition and success, but nothing compared to what their previous albums brought them.

I do agree that the reunion is driving the popularity, but it only goes to show how popular the UYI era lineup (Axl, Duff, Slash) was and how much they, and their music, mean to people thirty years later.  Again, this is exactly the point I'm making.  They never needed more albums post UYI to sell out stadiums in Europe, South America, Asia, and the major NA markets.  That has always been there for them so long as they didn't oversaturate themselves like what Def Leppard does every year.  U2 and Metallica never needed to release another album after Achtung Baby or the Black album.  But they did.  Some of the material is good, but most of it is mediocre and pails in comparison to their earlier work through 80s and 90s.  You might feel differently, but you're a hardcore U2 fan who generally believes U2's latest album is one of their best.  Most fans see otherwise and hence would be pretty disappointed if they showed up to a U2 concert and they kept setlist limited to material from Pop onwards.