shotgunblues1978 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 It's almost comical to imagine Axl reverting to the old lineup for anything more than a one off (like what Roger Waters did with Pink Floyd at Live Aid to raise money for charity). It would be so clearly motivated by money that it would be hard to respect him. The new lineup is quite arguably the best live band out there right now; certainly in the upper echelon. They have an incredible catalogue that they take advantage of; they frequently play songs better than the "original" bands did (I don't care if it's old Guns or other bands; they play Nightrain and Civil War better than old Guns; they play Whole Lotta Rosie better than AC/DC; they play Sailing better than Rod Stewart; etc.); their new songs kick ass live (Street of Dreams, Sorry, Shackler's, Better are all great live for example). Basically, Zakk Wylde is right. Axl is the best frontman since Freddie Mercury and is the last truly great frontman to emerge on the rock scene. He's a rare entity. I've now taken 6 people to "nu" GNR shows who are not huge GNR fans. They're fans of a wide variety of music. Their favorite bands have been Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Rage, etc. They have all seen their proclaimed favorite bands live. Yet literally all of them, down to a person, have basically said the same thing: GNR may not be my favorite band, but that's the best concert I've ever been to. I have to believe that anyone who is still on these forums bitching about a reunion either hasn't seen the new band live or is simply so bitter and delusional that they can't accept it; they HAVE to have their reunion or their live is not complete. Otherwise, they'd either enjoy the current lineup or they'd go away. That's the only explanation I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 It's almost comical to imagine Axl reverting to the old lineup for anything more than a one off (like what Roger Waters did with Pink Floyd at Live Aid to raise money for charity). It would be so clearly motivated by money that it would be hard to respect him. The new lineup is quite arguably the best live band out there right now; certainly in the upper echelon. They have an incredible catalogue that they take advantage of; they frequently play songs better than the "original" bands did (I don't care if it's old Guns or other bands; they play Nightrain and Civil War better than old Guns; they play Whole Lotta Rosie better than AC/DC; they play Sailing better than Rod Stewart; etc.); their new songs kick ass live (Street of Dreams, Sorry, Shackler's, Better are all great live for example). Basically, Zakk Wylde is right. Axl is the best frontman since Freddie Mercury and is the last truly great frontman to emerge on the rock scene. He's a rare entity. I've now taken 6 people to "nu" GNR shows who are not huge GNR fans. They're fans of a wide variety of music. Their favorite bands have been Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Rage, etc. They have all seen their proclaimed favorite bands live. Yet literally all of them, down to a person, have basically said the same thing: GNR may not be my favorite band, but that's the best concert I've ever been to. I have to believe that anyone who is still on these forums bitching about a reunion either hasn't seen the new band live or is simply so bitter and delusional that they can't accept it; they HAVE to have their reunion or their live is not complete. Otherwise, they'd either enjoy the current lineup or they'd go away. That's the only explanation I can think of.You said it all man. And thank you for spelling Freddie Mercury properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 The old band was classic, amazing and legendary. One of best bands in history.But they were often sloppy onstage. Axl going on hours late. The rest of the band high and drunk.The new band is a machine on stage. They are high.....but on the music, not on drugs. No offense to the old band, but this current version puts on the best live show I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnrkoncerti Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 The old band was classic, amazing and legendary. One of best bands in history.But they were often sloppy onstage. Axl going on hours late. The rest of the band high and drunk.The new band is a machine on stage. They are high.....but on the music, not on drugs. No offense to the old band, but this current version puts on the best live show I've ever seen.+1...this is just i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 The old band was classic, amazing and legendary. One of best bands in history.But they were often sloppy onstage. Axl going on hours late. The rest of the band high and drunk.The new band is a machine on stage. They are high.....but on the music, not on drugs. No offense to the old band, but this current version puts on the best live show I've ever seen.+2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CivilWar07 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Great post agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzyslash Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 No offense to the old band, but this current version puts on the best live show I've ever seen.I read from that that you haven't seen many live shows then. They do alright, they play very well, but they are plain boring to watch. The only interesting member is Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 All incarnations of GNR kick major ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudolf1978 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 No offense to the old band, but this current version puts on the best live show I've ever seen.I read from that that you haven't seen many live shows then. They do alright, they play very well, but they are plain boring to watch. The only interesting member is Axl.They play very well,they are NOT PLAIN BORING TO WATCH,ive been in 2 shows at madrid ( 2006,2010) and the 2cnd was one of the best shows iv ever been.BUT,i cant compare this lineup with the original band,or illusions lineup.They are in other place,it was pure magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laparka Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 No offense to the old band, but this current version puts on the best live show I've ever seen.I read from that that you haven't seen many live shows then. They do alright, they play very well, but they are plain boring to watch. The only interesting member is Axl.Yeah, this is so entertaining to see a guitar player and a bassist so drunk/high that they can only stand right on stage and play sloppy as Hell...Thx old Guns for the amazing albums, but I take nu GnR any time above you for the live shows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I have always considered the notion of "sloppy" to be way overstated in regards to the old lineup. Regardless, both lineups are great and both unique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudolf1978 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 No offense to the old band, but this current version puts on the best live show I've ever seen.I read from that that you haven't seen many live shows then. They do alright, they play very well, but they are plain boring to watch. The only interesting member is Axl.Yeah, this is so entertaining to see a guitar player and a bassist so drunk/high that they can only stand right on stage and play sloppy as Hell...Thx old Guns for the amazing albums, but I take nu GnR any time above you for the live shows...Yes many times theyve been drunk and high and they fucked so many songs live,but when they were ok,they were at the top of the world.The new lineup(place a name),is an awesome band,they put killer concerts,BUT i cant compare.I like both im very happy to see GNR,but if old line up wants to reunite,that would be a dream come true.its my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesPaul_Player_91 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) It's almost comical to imagine Axl reverting to the old lineup for anything more than a one off (like what Roger Waters did with Pink Floyd at Live Aid to raise money for charity). It would be so clearly motivated by money that it would be hard to respect him. The new lineup is quite arguably the best live band out there right now; certainly in the upper echelon. They have an incredible catalogue that they take advantage of; they frequently play songs better than the "original" bands did (I don't care if it's old Guns or other bands; they play Nightrain and Civil War better than old Guns; they play Whole Lotta Rosie better than AC/DC; they play Sailing better than Rod Stewart; etc.); their new songs kick ass live (Street of Dreams, Sorry, Shackler's, Better are all great live for example). Basically, Zakk Wylde is right. Axl is the best frontman since Freddie Mercury and is the last truly great frontman to emerge on the rock scene. He's a rare entity. I've now taken 6 people to "nu" GNR shows who are not huge GNR fans. They're fans of a wide variety of music. Their favorite bands have been Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Rage, etc. They have all seen their proclaimed favorite bands live. Yet literally all of them, down to a person, have basically said the same thing: GNR may not be my favorite band, but that's the best concert I've ever been to. I have to believe that anyone who is still on these forums bitching about a reunion either hasn't seen the new band live or is simply so bitter and delusional that they can't accept it; they HAVE to have their reunion or their live is not complete. Otherwise, they'd either enjoy the current lineup or they'd go away. That's the only explanation I can think of.Amen! Birmingham last year was phenomenal, in terms of a pure rock n'roll show I'll doubt I'll see a better show by another band (possibly Led Zeppelin if Hell freezes over and they reform again). In terms of the old band live I can't really comment - the only GN'R that's been around when I was getting into music was the new one. That being said I think people need to go in with an open mind who naysay about nuGuns. I was HIGHLY skeptical around the time of the '06 tour - obviously I got into GN'R by the music of the old band and when I was 12/13 Velvet Revolver were the biggest thing around as far as me and my friends were concerned and I didn't even know Axl/Guns was still going. Then the '06 tour happened - I listened to a bootleg of a show before I listened I thought "how can they pull this off with just Axl and Dizzy being the pre split members?" Then my mind was frickin' blown - it was the best stuff I'd heard and I loved the CD stuff and instantly warmed to the new band. I'm sure half the people that moan have actually never been to a show. I mean tons of people say Slash's shows are better which is a joke IMO sure Myles can hit the notes but he has zero stage presence he's definitely no Axl (or Scott for that matter). Edited December 22, 2011 by LesPaul_Player_91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweersa Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Great post OP. I saw them in Chicago with my father, and we both agree 120% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmt Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 It's almost comical to imagine Axl reverting to the old lineup for anything more than a one off (like what Roger Waters did with Pink Floyd at Live Aid to raise money for charity). It would be so clearly motivated by money that it would be hard to respect him. The new lineup is quite arguably the best live band out there right now; certainly in the upper echelon. They have an incredible catalogue that they take advantage of; they frequently play songs better than the "original" bands did (I don't care if it's old Guns or other bands; they play Nightrain and Civil War better than old Guns; they play Whole Lotta Rosie better than AC/DC; they play Sailing better than Rod Stewart; etc.); their new songs kick ass live (Street of Dreams, Sorry, Shackler's, Better are all great live for example). Basically, Zakk Wylde is right. Axl is the best frontman since Freddie Mercury and is the last truly great frontman to emerge on the rock scene. He's a rare entity. I've now taken 6 people to "nu" GNR shows who are not huge GNR fans. They're fans of a wide variety of music. Their favorite bands have been Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Rage, etc. They have all seen their proclaimed favorite bands live. Yet literally all of them, down to a person, have basically said the same thing: GNR may not be my favorite band, but that's the best concert I've ever been to. I have to believe that anyone who is still on these forums bitching about a reunion either hasn't seen the new band live or is simply so bitter and delusional that they can't accept it; they HAVE to have their reunion or their live is not complete. Otherwise, they'd either enjoy the current lineup or they'd go away. That's the only explanation I can think of.I agree with most everything you have said here, have you ever seen the original band live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 All incarnations of GNR kick major ass+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I only watched the videos but I can say I felt the 2001 to 2002 band, 2006 and 2009-to 2011 played the best. Anything before that was hit or miss. Sometimes they were awesome, sometimes they were blah. I think Axl's late starts clashed with the band being the peak of their drug and alcohol abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janis Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Doncha guys think that Axl is underrated as a frontman? I knew he was very good but watchin the vids of this U.S tour shows that Ax is really a one of a kind talent on the level of Hendrix, Morrison and J. Joplin. I know he's often praised for his abilities as a performer but he really is more than that and one of the greatest performers of all time. He's defintely the best frontman alive but no one besides the fans seems to credit it for this. Janis could tear it up with songs like Ball and Chain and then sing so tender on songs like Little girl blue. Similar qualities that Axl has in how he can rip it up on Jungle and then he can put so much emotion into ballads and emotes on Patience and Don't cry. He's got so many different sides and always interesting. He's got that kind of electric presence and charisma that the legends have. Finishing my soppy spiel now ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts