Gnrcane

3 hours ago, delilahrose said:

We'll just agree to disagree on this subject.  I have had several people close to me suffer (and subsequently die) from cancer. IMO, there's more money in chemo and treatments than a cure, sadly.

We can agree to disagree.  I do agree that overall there is more money in chemo and treatments than a cure.  However, for the one company that developed a cure there would be incredible profit beyond anything any single company has ever generated.  Pfizer doesn't care if 10,000,000 people make good money, they care if they can make a boatload for themselves.

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 7:25 PM, delilahrose said:

While it's fun to speculate and talk about, especially considering that there's no current news at the moment, it's kinda a silly question. Are any of us the same as we were in 1988? I know that they're public figures and we all like to still think of them as those 20-somethings who didn't give a damn about anything other than making great music. But so much as changed. They've grown up. They have children. They've gotten sober. The industry has changed. The world has changed.  I mean, imagine telling someone in 1988 that in 2017, people are going to be walking around with their cellphones glued to their hands, taking selfies of every mundane activity throughout their day and avoiding real human contact on a daily basis. And even though we CAN cure cancer and make cars that can run on something other than gasoline, we're not doing it because certain politicians and billionaires would lose money. 

I'd say, considering how close they all were to death, I think they'd be surprised that they're all still alive. 

This tour is clearly a cash grab, but wouldn't any of us do the same in our respective fields if we could? As long as the stadiums are full, the tickets are selling, and the crowd in attendance is having a good time, then that's all that really matters. 

First, I'd say that their motivation in their 20's was more than just to make great music.  They wanted to "make it" as a band.  The goal of a band "making it" is to get a record deal and make money.  I don't think Axl would have balked at having 2 keyboardists, as it is clear from UYI that he always wanted keyboards to be part of the sound.  He just didn't have the power in the AFD/Lies era to get them in (although he did get the synth intro to PC on the album).

As far as other examples in your post about the world changing.  People do make cars that run on things other than gasoline (ever hear of Tesla?)and nobody has assassinated Elon Musk.  However, please don't believe the "we can cure cancer" conspiracy thing.  There are enough good people in cancer research and treatment that if this supposed cure existed, it would be exposed even if there were evil corporations trying to hide it.  People that witness the horror of the disease and the sadness it causes would never stand by and let it keep happening if it didn't have to.  Plus, whatever company came up with the cure would make unimaginable sums of money while the patent was in force for 17 years.  They'd make far more on a cure than they do from whatever treatments they sell now.

Don't mean to dredge up this old thread but I just happened upon it.

What is with all the comments on the lyrics being difficult to remember?  They've had teleprompters on stage at least since the UYI tour so remembering lyrics shouldn't be an issue on any song.

6 hours ago, gnrkoncerti said:

Blablabla...And for every show on this tour I read "there are tons tickets left",and we have almost every show soldout...Something wrong with you guys

I was simply comparing U2 sales to GNR sales in the same market and stating facts.  The U2 show is sold out.  The GNR show does have tons of tickets left (go look at the seat map on ticketmaster).  Maybe the GNR show will end up sold out but it may require price drops and ticket deals.  The U2 show (with more available seats) seems to have sold out at the initial pricing.  Therefore, U2 will very likely gross more in this market in this example.

My comment was related to GNR overtaking U2 in tour revenue and ticket sales, not a dire "nobody is buying tickets because they are assholes and won't let Steven play a few songs and greedily won't bring Izzy back" post. 

6 hours ago, scooby845 said:

Okay.. so the final numbers aren't in yet but so far we get the idea... 

http://www.tonedeaf.com.au/498425/guns-n-roses-sold-350000-tickets-australia-nz.htm

Guns are slaying every market, and with this momentum they are gonna kick U2 from No.1!!

Anyways still Japan and Singapore and Dubai and Bangkok remain to be updated...

--

I don't know about kicking U2 from #1.  I've never really understood the amazing live draw of U2 (I've never been a huge fan of them) but, using the Miami market as an example, U2 looks like they have sold out a show at Hard Rock Stadium on 6/11/17 but there are TONS of tickets left for the GNR show at Marlins Park on 8/8/17.  I know GNR is almost 2 months further out but Hard Rock Stadium probably has around 10k more seats in concert configuration.

1 hour ago, bigpoop said:

Nope. This was marketed as a Guns n' Roses reunion. It  just was.

You have the Troubadour show, the GNR museum, the old logos, the commercials blaring "first time in 23 YEARS!! and on and on.

They sold it as GNR reunion, not a Slash and Axl are cuddle buddies reunion. And healing process? Please. This is about cash. Truckloads of it.

23 years before 2016 was 1993.  At that point, Izzy had already been gone for 2 years and Steven for 3.  The commercials were accurate.  If Gilby and Matt were important to you, then you have a valid beef with the marketing.

Not in this lifetime..........

hmmmm.........

5 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

Adele has said after her vocal chord surgery her voice was too clean and pure..and she had to work to get it back to a kind of rawness. And she took a lot of time off right? So perhaps Axl didn't take enough time and practice to be able to work through his new voice..and/or he didn't have the best surgeon.

Either way, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Everyone who goes to a live show..whether it be AC/DC or Guns, leaves happy.

No, he doesn't. Sorry, it's just not true. a few parts of a few songs here and there, he has trouble. At a live concert, this is no big deal and doesn't take away from the whole experience. Go to a show.

Agree.  When you watch a recording you analyze and nitpick as if it were a produced studio album.  When you are there live, you enjoy the show and the spectacle and don't think "OMG, there's the mickey voice" in the middle of a song.  Hell, at the Orlando show that I was at, you could barely even hear Axl singing NR over the crowd singing along.  Axl's voice is much better than thousands of (mostly drunk) fans singing!

I saw the UYI tour and even though Axl sounded different back then, the band as a whole didn't sound like you were listening to the CD.  Plus, Axl was running around so much that half the time he was out of breath.  "Don't you cry...ay..*pant*..ay...*pant*..." didn't sound better just because of the rasp.

As for aging and voice changing, a decent amount probably has to do with physical conditioning.  I saw Aerosmith when Steven Tyler was in the 50-55 range and he sounded like Steven Tyler.  He probably couldn't hit every note he did in the 80's but he had his trademark tone.

I saw Billy Joel in his late 40s and he sounded very different than he did in his prime.  Common between Axl and Billy Joel is that neither seems to spend a lot of time in the gym or with a nutritionist.  Steven Tyler turned from a junkie to a health nut.  Both he and Joe Perry had 6 pack abs in their 50s.

I'd rather hear Axl sing naturally live and hear "mickey" then have them run his voice through autotune or some other manipulation so I can pretend it is 1991 and fantasize that I'm still in high school and not middle aged. 

28 minutes ago, Carburetta said:

Wait, the plane is different now?

Not surprising.  The planes are just chartered/leased.  Looks like the new one is a 767 and the old was a 757.  For the Asia/Australia tour, the 757 might not have the range to perform the flights.  Also, with longer flights, a bigger plane with more room is probably desirable.

When did the lateness (not talking a few minutes) start?  Prior to NITL, I only saw GNR once live. 12/31/91 in Miami on the UYI tour.  I don't remember the exact time they took the stage but it must have been sort of on time.  I remember that they managed to have the countdown to 1992 happen during Paradise City.  A song (I think YCBM) was broadcast during the MTV NYE show.  Was that show pretty much on time because it had to be or did the notorious lateness not start happening yet at that point?

At the Orlando show this year, they seemed to be a little more delayed than most of the NITL shows but I think it might have been due to that interview that Axl and Duff were doing.

For those that have been in the pits, once you have your spot, what happens when you need to go to the bathroom or want to get something to eat or drink?  Do people respect your show companion holding your spot for you?

14 hours ago, BigD62 said:

I just got a pit ticket for Ottawa 2 minutes ago. Sweet. That is my Christmas present to myself. Now just have to find a cheap flight or train ticket from Windsor. There are still pit tix for Miami available also right now. However, Miami in the middle of the summer will be nasty.

The Miami show is at Marlins Park that has a retractable dome and air conditioning.  The roof will certainly be closed for this concert.

I think it is probably performance credit vs writing credit. For November Rain they would all get royalties on their performance by only Axl would get a royalty as the writer.

13 hours ago, rio118 said:

Anyone been to a concert setup here? Do you know if the seats highlighted are flat on the ground or elevated like the regular stands? Anyone reckon there will there be an issue to see the stage ? The stand section right behind are same price, but I'm thinking will be better viewing? Any help will be appreciated.

  

 

 
         
     

 

thanks

The highlighted area is flat ground.  As far as the view, it will depend how tall you are and how tall the people right in front of you for a row or 2 are.  If you are on the aisle, especially with the aisle toward the center of the stage side of you, it gives you a clear view.  I'm saying this from sitting on the floor at other venues, not this particular one but it should be similar.

Marlins Park in Miami is 36,742 for baseball.  I can't imagine it is more than 27k in concert configuration. It is a pretty intimate stadium although the farthest seats will be pretty far from the stage (especially upper deck "behind home plate").

2 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Going to the August 8 Miami show.  Just got 2 GA 1 Slash side pit tickets.  

Got the same this morning.  Pleasantly surprised they were available through the presale.  Also pleasantly surprised that the show is at Marlins Park.  Bigger than an arena but cool temperature and no risk of getting soaked!

10 hours ago, RooSaa said:

Duff comes before Slash in the list? How come?  (Just curious)

Alphabetical Order?

(D)uff comes before (S)lash.  Even (M)cKagan comes before (S)lash.  (B)ass comes before (G)uitar or (L)ead Guitar also.

4 hours ago, gnr5 said:

Haha I have the same question, where do you live? I'm in Weston. I used to be an intern at the BBT Center many years ago, some of the acts back then used to stay at the Hard Rock but that was all managed by the production company.

Shenandoah area, a little bit east of you.  Hard Rock is a bit of a trek to the BB&T center.

If GNR do an arena tour, I hope BB&T center is a stop.  I'd prefer to go there than all the way down to American Airlines Arena in Miami.

Anybody have a guess for what hotel Axl is staying at for this show?

I'm not a huge AC/DC fan but might decide to check the show out at the last minute.  I'm only 15 minutes from the arena.  If I go I can avoid TM fees and just see what they have at the box office.

Sure, just extend the RQ jam and KOHD a little and you are pretty much there!

Seriously, I think that maybe slightly longer (2 or 3 more songs) than they have been doing on NITL would be perfect.  Too long and there will be exhausting/boring parts of the show.  Ideally, they would play arenas with 2 nights in each city (that can support it) and do 2.5 hour shows but change out 10 or so songs for the second night.

8 hours ago, ludurigan said:

Axl's heyday in 1992?

What?

 

In short, comes 1992 and it was Axl, Slash, Duff and a circus (much like now) playing for sold out stadiums. That can be considered heyday in terms of how many people were attending the shows and how much money the (remains of the) band was making, but thats just about it. What you had on stange in 1992 was a sad, bad, incomplete version of the best rock n roll band ever. Axl basically didnt want to be there, he changed himself from a loose-animalesque singer that seemed to enjoye himself onstage into this professional and controlled performer who clearly would rather be somewhere else. Oh, and Slash and Duff were basically walking dead zombies. To call 1992 Guns n Roses heyday is just... wrong.

Now just remove 1992 from the picture... and we can talk GNR and Axl heyday 1986-1991. And then I have to ask you something serious. Do you really think that Axl was "pretty inconsistent live in his heyday?" What? What the fuck are you talking about? No one could touch Axl Rose and Guns n Roses from 1986-1991. That bad was gold NIGHT AFTER NIGHT AFTER NIGHT. I havent to this day listened to ONE SINGLE BAD PERFORMANCE from Axl and Guns n Roses from that period.

The one downside I remember from the very end of the 1991 heyday (12/31/91 in Miami) was that Axl would sprint across the stage while singing.  This would lead to very out of breath moments that would sound like when I am on the treadmill and try to talk to somebody on the phone.  In these recent shows I think it sounds better that he doesn't do that anymore.  Sure he moves and will dance or run between verses sometimes but he isn't struggling to get the words out.

1 hour ago, -W.A.R- said:

Slash has made way more than 32m 

How much he made and how much he is worth are two completely different things.  First of all, especially if they live in California, around half of their income goes to taxes.  Next, everything you buy takes away from your net worth with the exception of real estate (usually), some rare cars and jewelry (if gold and silver prices are going up).

As for Dizzy and Matt.  I don't know how much they get in royalties for performing the songs on UYI but the only pre-Chinese Democracy song either of them have writing credits on is "So Fine" as far as I can tell.

29 minutes ago, Frey said:

I think Duff's should be higher. He's made some wise business decisions over the years (investing into Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon etc for example before they got big), he has his own wealth management company, no recent divorces...

So I really don't see why Duff should be ranked lower than Izzy.

I also don't see why Axl's net worth should be that much higher than the others. Higher, sure, but if you consider the amount of money it must cost him to support his gigantic entourage and all the staff he has hired for his house, plus his love for expensive jewelry, designer crap, etc and the insane financial decisions he has made in the past... 

Slash on the other hand has been ridiculously prolific over all these years and has marketed the shit out of himself and doesn't spend much. But then again Perla did just take him to the cleaners...

 

As far as Axl goes, expensive jewelry, at least is counted as part of net worth.  It is an asset that he could sell.  It does seem strange that he would have so much more wealth than Duff and Slash.  If they were equal partners back in the day, they were all there through GNR's biggest success.  The three of them (plus Izzy) seem to have writing credit on pretty much everything through UYI I & II.

I can't imagine Axl earned THAT much on CD and touring with NuGuns.  It could be as simple as making one lucky stock pick like if he invested millions of dollars in Apple before it took off.

3 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

I would think they would be less. The prices this tour were way over market value and I think the promoters realized it.  They got their big payday and I don't think as many people will be willing to pay the big bucks the second time around. I am guessing they won't be cheap but I do expect to see some time of adjustment.

I hope you are right but the band would have to be willing to take a lot less for that to be true.  Even at the same avg price that they have gotten for this tour, the band would have to be willing to "only" take $1 million per show.  Assuming the $3 million per show rumors are true for the stadium leg, if the arenas only hold 1/3 of the people, that would be $1 million per show at these avg prices.

I think the promoters know if the tickets were 1/2 price they would have sold out every date.  But, since even the "bad attendance" shows were around half full, they would have lost revenue for the tour by doing that.

Hopefully the band is enjoying touring and will be willing to do an arena leg for significantly less per night.  Then they can sell out arenas and sell out 2 or 3 nights in the bigger markets.