Jump to content
Birdawg23

Excited About GNR future

Recommended Posts

Tom2112    786
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom2112    786
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downzy    4,703
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downzy    4,703
50 minutes ago, Bono said:

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. 

I've always thought of U2 as the more popular band, even back in the early 90s.  

Some of the difference, I think, relates to the kind of music they play.  GNR plays much harder rock and hence their playing to a smaller market.  

It also helps that U2 has a larger discography from its prime years.  But again, I don't see much of what U2 has put out in the last 20 years as the reason for explaining any kind of achievement gap relative to ticket sales or gross revenues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom2112    786
3 hours ago, downzy said:

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.    

I always have a problem when people call AC/DC a nostalgia act (you didn't) A nostalgia act is a act that doesn't release new music and tours off the back of their old hits, AC/DC continually released music to back up every time they decided to go out on the road. Not even a huge AC/DC fan, but it's not a fair accusation. 

Also, Metallica didn't have radio hit before the black album, but they were still selling out big venues all around the world and making millions in the process (without radio or TV). 

Guns are doing better than Metallica in certain markets because GNR are more digestible to your average listener, yes, Metallica have big hits like Enter Sandman and Nothing else matters but when you compare GNRs most abrasive moments to Metallica it's easy enough to work out why more fare-weather fans flock to guns gigs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downzy    4,703
30 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

I always have a problem when people call AC/DC a nostalgia act (you didn't) A nostalgia act is a act that doesn't release new music and tours off the back of their old hits, AC/DC continually released music to back up every time they decided to go out on the road. Not even a huge AC/DC fan, but it's not a fair accusation. 

Also, Metallica didn't have radio hit before the black album, but they were still selling out big venues all around the world and making millions in the process (without radio or TV). 

Guns are doing better than Metallica in certain markets because GNR are more digestible to your average listener, yes, Metallica have big hits like Enter Sandman and Nothing else matters but when you compare GNRs most abrasive moments to Metallica it's easy enough to work out why more fare-weather fans flock to guns gigs. 

See, I'm on the opposite side of the fence with respect to what defines a nostalgia act.  If most people are coming to hear you play the hits, you're a nostalgia act regardless of whether you put out an album.  I don't begrudge bands or artists from trying, but as Elton John made light of at the last concert I saw him at, almost nobody wants to hear new material, they just want the hits at a certain point.  

There are certain acts that don't play the hit game and do quite well at it.  But few enter the same sphere as the major acts without them.  Metallica was doing very well for itself prior to the Black album, but jumped to an entirely different level when the Black album came out.  IMO, niche acts can do quite well if the niche is big enough, but to achieve mainstream success it takes hits.  

It's funny how different the audiences are between Metallica and GNR concerts.  It felt like 80 percent of Metallica fans were white men, with the bulk being between the ages of 20 - 45.  GNR it's almost an even split between male and female with a more diversity in ages (though still largely a white audience).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janrichmond    3,089
23 minutes ago, downzy said:

 GNR it's almost an even split between male and female with a more diversity in ages (though still largely a white audience).

I really noticed the diversity in ages at the London concerts, it was a real mix of young and old. My first Guns concert in London 1991 the audience was generally fairly young with a small amount of 'old' bikers, this year I was so pleased that a lot of older fans were there and had returned to Guns to see the semi-reunion. I spoke with lots of people that had seen them back when I first did and came this time as parents with their kids (as i did)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
penelope    40

I don´t think it is fair to be comparing gnr with metallica and u2, (they have never split that I know of..  and they have produce lots of albums)

 gnr is a band that just got reunited after so many years, though I would say that not many bands reuniting after so many years get the same attention as this one, so they should take advantage of it and make new music, stay together because lets be honest, not even Slash by his own sells like this, together is better:heart:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieselDaisy    9,244
4 hours ago, downzy said:

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.    

'Play Ball' was semi-big and seems to go down well. With most wrinkly acts, if you are getting one song per album that goes down almost as well as your old stuff, you're doing well seemingly. The Stones have 'You Got Me Rocking' and 'Saint of Me' which are either modern classics or honourary classics depending on your point of view - well, they are certainly live staples which go down well live and during which there is no visible lowing of interest from the paying customers.  I suppose you have to set the barometer a bit lower. But audiences have changed - it is not always the band. Crowds are a lot less musical and ''jazz fan''; modern crowds are basically saying ''give me a good night of museum like hits to accompany my expensive beer and merchandising''. I have a Hendrix boot (one of the Band of Gypsy sets) where he plays a set of mostly unreleased material, and the crowd are in raptures. Neil Young banned beer from auditorium and proceeded to play an unreleased concept album to the crowd (Greendale). The experience tanked with crowds. If bands do not release as much good material, e.g. if Hardwired is inferior to Puppets, crowds are inferior also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratam    834
1 hour ago, penelope said:

I don´t think it is fair to be comparing gnr with metallica and u2, (they have never split that I know of..  and they have produce lots of albums)

 gnr is a band that just got reunited after so many years, though I would say that not many bands reuniting after so many years get the same attention as this one, so they should take advantage of it and make new music, stay together because lets be honest, not even Slash by his own sells like this, together is better:heart:

Agred absolutely 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draguns    135

Just some perspective on Metallica, U2, and GNR from the past two years. I went to the Metallica concert at MetLife Stadium.  They played great!  However, there were plenty of empty seats as well. They struggled to sell tickets in the #1 market for the U.S. Lars said that they haven't been in the NYC area in 14 years and that this was their first concert since that time. He stated that they will be back.

For Metallica not to sell out MetLife Stadium after being away from the area for 14 years speaks volumes. Maybe it was because it was on a Sunday night and Mother's Day is one reason. However, I don't think it's the only reason. I don't  think they are as "relevant" as some people in this forum think they. 

Regarding U2, they sold out their shows this year. However, there were a plethora of complaints that I read regarding the show. Most notably it was either due to the sound system or that this is a watered down version of U2 that just didn't perform well as in the past. My friend and his wife left in the middle  of the show and said that Bono's voice wasn't good.

Guns N' Roses two best nights last year were at MetLife. I was at the show.  Completely sold out. There weren't any complaints about  the concerts.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom2112    786
2 hours ago, downzy said:

See, I'm on the opposite side of the fence with respect to what defines a nostalgia act.  If most people are coming to hear you play the hits, you're a nostalgia act regardless of whether you put out an album.  I don't begrudge bands or artists from trying, but as Elton John made light of at the last concert I saw him at, almost nobody wants to hear new material, they just want the hits at a certain point.  

There are certain acts that don't play the hit game and do quite well at it.  But few enter the same sphere as the major acts without them.  Metallica was doing very well for itself prior to the Black album, but jumped to an entirely different level when the Black album came out.  IMO, niche acts can do quite well if the niche is big enough, but to achieve mainstream success it takes hits.  

It's funny how different the audiences are between Metallica and GNR concerts.  It felt like 80 percent of Metallica fans were white men, with the bulk being between the ages of 20 - 45.  GNR it's almost an even split between male and female with a more diversity in ages (though still largely a white audience).

I see your point and Eltons, but while a band is fighting against the perception, with a constant flow of music I'm willing to give them a pass; like Metallica or AC/DC. I know I'm in the minority when I'm at a Metallica gig or AC/DC and I'm looking forward to hearing track three from the new album as much as that classic hit, but that's just how I am towards certain bands and certain music. If I go to see a band I'm unfamiliar with I'm more interested in hearing a greatest hits / nostalgia trip rather than a lesson in X bands deep cuts. 

Metallica definitely went global after the hits, while before the black album they were very successful and could tour and earn a healthy wage, after black album they went from 3 bed apartments to mansions on their own estate. 

The gigs I went to were actually fairly even between men and women, ethnicity wise it was predominantly (pasty) white in Ireland (We lack sunshine) and In Madrid it was obviously full of Spanish people but fairly even as well... well from the part of the stands I was in at least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratam    834
13 minutes ago, Draguns said:

Just some perspective on Metallica, U2, and GNR from the past two years. I went to the Metallica concert at MetLife Stadium.  They played great!  However, there were plenty of empty seats as well. They struggled to sell tickets in the #1 market for the U.S. Lars said that they haven't been in the NYC area in 14 years and that this was their first concert since that time. He stated that they will be back.

For Metallica not to sell out MetLife Stadium after being away from the area for 14 years speaks volumes. Maybe it was because it was on a Sunday night and Mother's Day is one reason. However, I don't think it's the only reason. I don't  think they are as "relevant" as some people in this forum think they. 

Regarding U2, they sold out their shows this year. However, there were a plethora of complaints that I read regarding the show. Most notably it was either due to the sound system or that this is a watered down version of U2 that just didn't perform well as in the past. My friend and his wife left in the middle  of the show and said that Bono's voice wasn't good.

Guns N' Roses two best nights last year were at MetLife. I was at the show.  Completely sold out. There weren't any complaints about  the concerts.    

Thanks for you post ☺

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
killuridols    4,589
25 minutes ago, Draguns said:

Just some perspective on Metallica, U2, and GNR from the past two years. I went to the Metallica concert at MetLife Stadium.  They played great!  However, there were plenty of empty seats as well. They struggled to sell tickets in the #1 market for the U.S. Lars said that they haven't been in the NYC area in 14 years and that this was their first concert since that time. He stated that they will be back.

For Metallica not to sell out MetLife Stadium after being away from the area for 14 years speaks volumes. Maybe it was because it was on a Sunday night and Mother's Day is one reason. However, I don't think it's the only reason. I don't  think they are as "relevant" as some people in this forum think they. 

Regarding U2, they sold out their shows this year. However, there were a plethora of complaints that I read regarding the show. Most notably it was either due to the sound system or that this is a watered down version of U2 that just didn't perform well as in the past. My friend and his wife left in the middle  of the show and said that Bono's voice wasn't good.

Guns N' Roses two best nights last year were at MetLife. I was at the show.  Completely sold out. There weren't any complaints about  the concerts.    

Flawed logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draguns    135
1 minute ago, killuridols said:

Flawed logic.



Flawed logic is what's been going on here by saying that Metallica and U2 are "relevant", but GNR isn't. It's just mind boggling to me. 

These are facts that Metallica struggled selling tickets at their ONLY NYC appearance in 14 years. In addition, there were issues with U2's performances. 

GNR will always be my all-time favorite. However, I do like all three. To say that two bands are more "relevant" than one band while all three are touring is just inconceivable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
killuridols    4,589
5 minutes ago, Draguns said:

Flawed logic is what's been going on here by saying that Metallica and U2 are "relevant", but GNR isn't. It's just mind boggling to me. 

These are facts that Metallica struggled selling tickets at their ONLY NYC appearance in 14 years. In addition, there were issues with U2's performances. 

GNR will always be my all-time favorite. However, I do like all three. To say that two bands are more "relevant" than one band while all three are touring is just inconceivable.  

Flawed logic because you mix up concepts and compare three isolated events thinking you can give more weight to GN'R and you're doing it wrong.

1) Relevance: it means "something that matters". To whom? Usually to a wide group of people. I think it is safe to say that Metallica and U2 are more relevant in the music industry than GN'R, as Metallica and U2 are bands that have been working for a long time with consistency, something that cannot be said about GN'R.

The fact that the three of them are touring right now doesn't speak of their relevance. There are thousands of other bands also touring at the moment and that doesnt make them relevant :shrugs:

2) Metallica struggled selling tickets? What do you call struggle: selling only 20% of the stadium? selling the 50%? or selling the 80% of it? Give numbers.

And FYI, Guns N' Roses are sort of struggling to sell their shows in Chile and Argentina this year. So much that they had to lower the price of tickets to HALF of the price they initially released. People are FURIOUS. I really don't know if they will be able to fill the stadiums over there this time. Let's see..... (not to mention they are playing with The Who, but it looks like its not making them any favors).

But when you are going to compare ticket sales, you can't be so loose. Comparing one single show to another single show doesn't mean anything. Do it right, with numbers and with all the shows from the tours.

3) The sound problems for U2 are not a thing to use in favor of GN'R. They have also sounded like shit at some venues. Not all venues are the same everywhere in the world and sometimes I heard people complaining about the sound at the back of the stadium or to the sides and being completely awesome at the front and middle.

As for the "watered performance" of U2... well, just go to the D&N section and read the tons of complains about GN'R performances: mainly focused on Axl's Mickey Mouse voice, stale movements, stale setlist and the three people who are not GN'R. Also the endless complains about Frank Ferrer and the role of Melissa in the band.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
killuridols    4,589

Even though @downzy's main point in this argument is correct and it looks like most of us agree on it, I think the points made by @RONIN, @Bono and @DieselDaisy are important as well.

While Downzy's point is centered in the present of GN'R, the truth is this tour is going to end soon and I can't see a future GN'R touring the world again without new music in their bags.

Of course they will never be able to stop playing the hits, but there's got to be some new attractions at the shows. Unless they take a rest for, like 10 years, and that would give people plenty of time to forget about being fed up with the stale setlist and the same old songs.

There's a marketing theory called "The Long Tail" (http://dl.motamem.org/long_tail_chris_anderson_motamem_org.pdf ), which in a nutshell, goes by the idea of few products becoming ''hits" and most products being misses, but if a business starts selling niche products, as well as the hits, they can earn almost equal or even more amount of profit by selling long tail or niche products, compared to what they earn by selling hits.

I'm not trying to apply this theory to the sales aspect of GN'R but I think it can be extrapolated to the RELEVANCE situation some of you were talking about. If GN'R had more albums in their catalogue but they were not at the same level of sales and popularity as AFD or the Illusions, they could still collectively contribute to the relevance factor that bands like Metallica and U2 have now.

While the albums that made them big in their prime would always be there, a larger catalogue would free them of the prison those albums are when it comes to setlist. And they would also keep them active, which is the main reason why Metallica and U2 are bigger than GN'R. They are active bands, they are always around, they are always doing new things.... I will never forget when Metallica played at the Antártida (south pole where I live) and the show was streamed online. It was so fantastic!!! Tell me what fan and even casual fan doesn't like novelties like that??

So I don't know what's gonna happen with GN'R but the clock is ticking away and there's not much time left to keep procrastinating. I can't really see the Rolling Stones DNA in this band.... Axl performing at 70 years old will be something hard to watch and listen to. Not sure he wants to do that, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bono    2,050
5 hours ago, downzy said:

I've always thought of U2 as the more popular band, even back in the early 90s.  

Some of the difference, I think, relates to the kind of music they play.  GNR plays much harder rock and hence their playing to a smaller market.  

It also helps that U2 has a larger discography from its prime years.  But again, I don't see much of what U2 has put out in the last 20 years as the reason for explaining any kind of achievement gap relative to ticket sales or gross revenues.  

:lol::facepalm:

What's U2's prime years? The only stuff they really play pre Joshua Tree ever is 

I Will Follow
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Years Day
Pride

That's kinda it. Sure they toss in Electric Co, Out of Control and Bad here and there but do you actually believe those songs are a mass contributers to their "prime years" and are the reason people are heading to the shows?  It would be funny if you think that but don't think Beautiful Day, Elevation or Vertigo contribute in anyway. How do you wanna twist it to make U2's prime years so much more vast than GnR's? I mean most people would say U2's prime years were 1985-1991 with 4 albums. GnR's would be 1987-1991 with 4 albums. But if you wanna include U2's first three albums go ahead. 

Since 2000
- ATYCLB has sold over 12 million copies. The first 4 songs on the album were all hit singles to varying degrees. 
- HTDAAB has sold over 9 million copies. Vertigo was a massive hit single for them.
- NLOTH admittedly didn't produce a hit and the album itself only sold just over 5 million copies so far but the subsequent tour was the biggest of all time. I remember people saying after seeing them perform Breathe(A NEW SONG) on David Letterman that "U2 was cool again". 
- Songs of Innocence was given to over 500 million people for free and it resulted in over 80 million actual downloads and had fans singing along to the new songs en mass during the i&e tour. 

Since 2000 they've won grammys, sold millions of albums, had hit singles, toured new material consistently, been a constant presence in media and pop culture in regards to working with apple, they promote their new material via live performances on talk shows, morning and late night, they've played the super bowl, their music is used regularly by the NFL  etc etc etc. 

I hate to break the obvious to you Downzy but EVERYTHING U2 has done post 1991 has contributed to their ability to sell out stadiums world wide. They are consistently the biggest touring draw in the world.  Saying they've done nothing since 1991 or even 1997  to contribute to their touring success isn't even a valid opinion. It's just pure nonsense boarding on rolling. 




 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downzy    4,703
1 hour ago, Bono said:

:lol::facepalm:

What's U2's prime years? The only stuff they really play pre Joshua Tree ever is 

I Will Follow
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Years Day
Pride

That's kinda it. Sure they toss in Electric Co, Out of Control and Bad here and there but do you actually believe those songs are a mass contributers to their "prime years" and are the reason people are heading to the shows?  It would be funny if you think that but don't think Beautiful Day, Elevation or Vertigo contribute in anyway. How do you wanna twist it to make U2's prime years so much more vast than GnR's? I mean most people would say U2's prime years were 1985-1991 with 4 albums. GnR's would be 1987-1991 with 4 albums. But if you wanna include U2's first three albums go ahead. 

Since 2000
- ATYCLB has sold over 12 million copies. The first 4 songs on the album were all hit singles to varying degrees. 
- HTDAAB has sold over 9 million copies. Vertigo was a massive hit single for them.
- NLOTH admittedly didn't produce a hit and the album itself only sold just over 5 million copies so far but the subsequent tour was the biggest of all time. I remember people saying after seeing them perform Breathe(A NEW SONG) on David Letterman that "U2 was cool again". 
- Songs of Innocence was given to over 500 million people for free and it resulted in over 80 million actual downloads and had fans singing along to the new songs en mass during the i&e tour. 

Since 2000 they've won grammys, sold millions of albums, had hit singles, toured new material consistently, been a constant presence in media and pop culture in regards to working with apple, they promote their new material via live performances on talk shows, morning and late night, they've played the super bowl, their music is used regularly by the NFL  etc etc etc. 

I hate to break the obvious to you Downzy but EVERYTHING U2 has done post 1991 has contributed to their ability to sell out stadiums world wide. They are consistently the biggest touring draw in the world.  Saying they've done nothing since 1991 or even 1997  to contribute to their touring success isn't even a valid opinion. It's just pure nonsense boarding on rolling. 
 

I think those pre-198 songs and albums, along with the material from Joshua Tree and Achung Baby, are what made U2 a generational band in the same way that Appetite and the Illusions albums made GNR the iconic artists they are today.  Anything since then, in my opinion, has resided in the shadows of their previous work.  I include U2's previous work since it showed them growing as artists while still remaining relevant and relatively commercial viable.  Moreover, let's not discount what War did for them.  It's their third highest selling album, selling more than ATYCLB.  

Look, U2 is a once in a generation kind of band and as such their previous success will draft subsequent successes there after.  They're more than just a band but have become a brand, and people will pay attention.  GNR, thanks to its iconic work, would also likely benefit should Axl, Duff, and Slash put out another album together (though, in this post album era where everything is streamed, I'm not sure it's relevant to compare album sales).  

U2 has been successful since 2000, but again, that's not what I'm arguing.  ATYCLB was a solid album, but it still can't compete with Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and in my opinion, Unforgettable Fire (Pride and Bad are beasts IMO and supercedes anything released post Achtung Baby).  Again, I'm not saying that they had success or everything since Achtung has been shit.  There's moments of brilliance like the release of The Sweetest Thing and Window in the Skies, along with a pretty solid album in ATYCLB.  If you want to include ATYCLB as an example of U2's brilliance and relevance then fine, there's an argument to be made there (though, one that I don't agree with).  But little of post early 90s will be regarded as their best work.  

Here's the difference: even the people who hate U2 and can't stand Bono for whom some see as sanctimonious and full of it will always concede that Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are two of the best albums ever released by a pop/rock band.  Those same people wouldn't say the same about ATYCLB or anything released since the early 90s.  The same can be said for Appetite with respect to Guns.  I know many people who loath Axl and GNR but can't deny that Appetite as a whole is one of the best hard rock albums of all times.  

BTW, do you really want to count U2's Apple distribution deal as a sign of success?  It was a move that received so much backlash that it required Bono to issue an apology for forcing it on people (and Apple to provide specific instructions on how to remove the album from iTunes accounts).  Interestingly, the reason given by Bono for the move was that he thought the album would have been ignored.

Anyway, we have both co-opted the thread and we should return the discussion to topic at hand.  In the end, I don't think either of us are going to convince the other of their opinion so let's just move on and return the discussion to strictly GNR and its future.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bono    2,050

 It's clear how incredibly out of touch you are in your thinking that they haven't done anything to gain new fans since 1991 or even 1997. You act as if young people who heard Beautiful Day or Vertigo or the people who heard them for the first time ever when the Songs of Innocence album suddenly showed up on their phones has had no impact. It's nonsense and you're wrong. Period. The free album resulted in 80 million downloads. That's 80 million people who chose to download. It was distributed to over 500 million people. It was a smart and innovative thing to do. Were there some hiccups? Sure. Were some people irrationally angry? Of course. Those people though are the vocal minority by far. Most people aren't so miserable to lose their shit over being given a free album. Also don't sit there and act like you'd criticise such a move had GnR done it because you wouldn't. You'd claim it was brilliant. Related story;  just last night I was chatting with a girl who is 27 who had never really listened to U2 in her life until that free album showed up on her phone. She told me one of her favourite songs is Raised by Wolves. How do ya figure that happened? It happened by releasing a new album and trying a  new and different way to release music. 

As for Bono's apology it was hardly sincere. More lip service than anything and since he did that MANY people have said he should never have apologized. He shouldn't have. Only bitter miserable fucks got mad about that. Countless times U2 have said and rightfully so that they were looking for new ways to distribute music. They wanted as many people as possible to hear the album so they tried something new. If you honestly think the album would've been ignored by their fans then I don't know what to say to ya. They knew the fans would eat it up but they wanted to do something about those who don't know of them or never really listened before. If you don't think they gained new fans because of that, then again I have no idea what to say to you. The reaction to the new songs shows people were at their shows on that tour for news songs along with the classics. 

Carry on though man. Praise the nothingness that is GnR all you want and carry on criticising bands, not only U2 who have gone on to have successful and prodcutive careers post 1991 and who continue to produce albums and do cool things for their fans. Only in GnR La La Land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bono    2,050
5 hours ago, Draguns said:



Flawed logic is what's been going on here by saying that Metallica and U2 are "relevant", but GNR isn't. It's just mind boggling to me. 

These are facts that Metallica struggled selling tickets at their ONLY NYC appearance in 14 years. In addition, there were issues with U2's performances. 

GNR will always be my all-time favorite. However, I do like all three. To say that two bands are more "relevant" than one band while all three are touring is just inconceivable.  

Only on a GnR board would you hear such junk. Yes GnR are the relevant ones meanwhile U2 just performed on Fallon playing a new song and discussing their up coming new album and Metallica is on tour supporting their new album. It's crazy how much of a bubble some of you live in and how out of touch so many of you truly are. Do tell the issues U2 is having? You knwo the band that is averaging a higher attendance per show and a higher gross per show than GnR. yeah seems they're having some serious issues selling tickets. :rolleyes: Oh and while we're at it Metallica played back to back nights in NY this year. One at Metlife Stadium and the other indoors at Nassau Colliseum. they are NOT having problems selling tickets :lol:

The level of flat out ignorance on this board is truly shocking at times. 

Edited by Bono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bono    2,050

The funny thing is I haven't even mentioned how I became a U2 fan. Basically became a big fan after hearing Beautiful Day. So there ya have it.  I'm 39 now and at the time I was 22. I really only started paying attention to the band in 2000. I'm probably the only one though. Nobody else started liking them after 1991 :lol:

SoulMonstor sometimes you need to be forceful when people spew absolute bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoulMonster    2,652
19 minutes ago, Bono said:

The funny thing is I haven't even mentioned how I became a U2 fan. Basically became a big fan after hearing Beautiful Day. So there ya have it.  I'm 39 now and at the time I was 22. I really only started paying attention to the band in 2000. I'm probably the only one though. Nobody else started liking them after 1991 :lol:

SoulMonstor sometimes you need to be forceful when people spew absolute bullshit. 

You are actually a U2 fan? I thought your avatar was just being ironic. Wow. Most people doesn't start liking U2 after 1991, right, most people start disliking the band well before 1991 :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×