So overall, was the theatre tour a success?

[axl666]

I think that there's two elements here:

1. I guess the purpose of the theatre tour was to build a buzz about the band,

esp. in areas where GNR have trouble selling tickets.

2. However playing small venues for a band of GNR's stature risks the band as appearing

on the way down, which destroys buzz.

My impression is that the theatre tour didn't really change anything for GNR in the states. It neither

diminished or increased their popularity (which overall is on a downward arc).

Theatre tours are fine if that's what Axl wants. New material, videos are what's needed though to

create real excitement. These tours don't seem to be useful for kickstarting wider interest in the band

[TheDemocracyRose]

YEAH!

[ppruks]

the purpose of the theater tour was for the band to have fun with their hard-core fans in a smaller setting...and on that level it was a huge success

[Ultrastar]

Huge Success. Here is to hoping the next time they hit the states its with some sort of new material.

[Young_Gun]

Not really considering the band playing was Guns N' Roses. I think they did not sell out at least one show either, which doesn't make it a success to me especially considering they were only 4,000 seaters. Just my opinion anyway, the US has been hard on Guns since 2000...

[oktayyaxl]

Fuck this negativity.I am Get tired of this.They made a 30 dates US-arena tour.And most of the shows are full or nearly full.You can watch it from youtube.also tell me How many rock bands can do a arena tour İn US today.After arena tour they made an theatre tour recently.And most of the shows are sold out.Both arena and theatre tours are major success.

[KiraMPD]

Not really considering the band playing was Guns N' Roses. I think they did not sell out at least one show either, which doesn't make it a success to me especially considering they were only 4,000 seaters. Just my opinion anyway, the US has been hard on Guns since 2000...

It seems like current GnR has become something for fans with "selective tastes" in the west? Like people either only go to see them if they genuinely dig the current lineup/ fans of Axl or casually go to try and re-live what once was... I know its kinda like that with people I know that have been to GnR shows in UK in the last few years. Thats kinda sad and disappointing to me as I have been a fan for most of my (admittedly short) life. I hate to use the term but I find that people generally perceive it to be a "nostalgia" show...

Perhaps new music will help this but for (any) new music to be well received by the general public it would have to have a strong and "relative" message but this brings me to the question; What else can GnR cover subject matter wise? Everything from drug abuse to wars to bad relationships has all been covered... what else is left? Every box had been ticked in a spectacular way imo, so what else is left?

In the end, I will always love everything GnR (past and present) but for the same reason I want them to succeed too (again)!

Edited March 14, 2012 by KiraMPD

[Young_Gun]

Not really considering the band playing was Guns N' Roses. I think they did not sell out at least one show either, which doesn't make it a success to me especially considering they were only 4,000 seaters. Just my opinion anyway, the US has been hard on Guns since 2000...

It seems like current GnR has become something for fans with "selective tastes" in the west? Like people either only go to see them if they genuinely dig the current lineup/ fans of Axl or casually go to try and re-live what once was... I know its kinda like that with people I know that have been to GnR shows in UK in the last few years. Thats kinda sad and disappointing to me as I have been a fan for most of my (admittedly short) life. I hate to use the term but I find that people generally perceive it to be a "nostalgia" show...

Perhaps new music will help this but for (any) new music to be well received by the general public it would have to have a strong and "relative" message but this brings me to the question; What else can GnR cover subject matter wise? Everything from drug abuse to wars to bad relationships has all been covered... what else is left? Every box had been ticked in a spectacular way imo, so what else is left?

In the end, I will always love everything GnR (past and present) but for the same reason I want them to succeed too (again)!

Guns are in a catch 22 position. They are currently viewed by many as a nostalgia act as they play a Appetite heavy setlist(although that is improving) and their last album's efforts are not that well received live by the casual concert goer(TIL, Sorry, Maddy, although Chidem and Better do well). Even if they put out a new album, unless they are very lucky and have a HUGE hit and promote is vigorously, it won't have a big impact. It's been too long between drinks. The fact that this band does not resemble the band that most people remember does not help either. When you go to a Metallica show, 3 out of 4 of the members have been there for 30 years. 50% of the current Guns line up have been there for only a decade or less(Ashba, Fortus, Ron and Frank). I too want them to succeed but the game is set against them, partly because of what transpired in the mid-90s, Axl's actions and inactions and numerous individuals being conspicuously absent.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Young_Gun

[KiraMPD]

Guns are in a catch 22 position. They are currently viewed by many as a nostalgia act as they play a Appetite heavy setlist(although that is improving) and their last album's efforts are not that well received live by the casual concert goer(TIL, Sorry, Maddy, although Chidem and Better do well). Even if they put out a new album, unless they are very lucky and have a HUGE hit and promote is vigorously, it won't have a big impact. It's been too long between drinks and people forget. The fact that this band does not resemble that band that most people remember does not help either. When you go to a Metallica show, 3 out of 4 of the members have been there for 30 years. 50% of the current Guns line up have been there for less than only a decade or less(Ashba, Fortus, Ron and Frank). I too want them to succeed but the game is set against them, partly because of what transpired in the mid-90s, Axl's actions and inactions and numerous individuals being conspicuously absent.

I get what you mean about the stigma from the past looming over them but like, I don't think even a "reunion" would launch them into being something "current" because if that happens then, although it will be hugely successful financially, it will definitely be a nostalgia thing and die that way (there will just be no room for progression cuz people just don't want to move on from what they know and love).

The only way I see them moving forward and making some sort of impact would be if they release a new song that is truly, undeniably fucking awesome. but there in lies the problem, no sign of new music.

I think one way they could ride the GnR wave this year (with HOF, good reviews, tours, etc) would be if Axl were to release a short solo album/EP to keep people interested while they get cracking as a band to write and record new music. Even if its just Axl on the piano doing a few covers and piano only version of some of the Guns songs (my ultimate dream personally ), it will be enough to keep some interest and reassure some people that something is going on...

^^ Of course that is just my opinion...

Edited March 14, 2012 by KiraMPD

[Young_Gun]

Guns are in a catch 22 position. They are currently viewed by many as a nostalgia act as they play a Appetite heavy setlist(although that is improving) and their last album's efforts are not that well received live by the casual concert goer(TIL, Sorry, Maddy, although Chidem and Better do well). Even if they put out a new album, unless they are very lucky and have a HUGE hit and promote is vigorously, it won't have a big impact. It's been too long between drinks and people forget. The fact that this band does not resemble that band that most people remember does not help either. When you go to a Metallica show, 3 out of 4 of the members have been there for 30 years. 50% of the current Guns line up have been there for less than only a decade or less(Ashba, Fortus, Ron and Frank). I too want them to succeed but the game is set against them, partly because of what transpired in the mid-90s, Axl's actions and inactions and numerous individuals being conspicuously absent.

I get what you mean about the stigma from the past looming over them but like, I don't think even a "reunion" would launch them into being something "current" because if that happens then, although it will be hugely successful financially, it will definitely be a nostalgia thing and die that way (there will just be no room for progression cuz people just don't want to move on from what they know and love).

The only way I see them moving forward and making some sort of impact would be if they release a new song that is truly, undeniably fucking awesome. but there in lies the problem, no sign of new music.

I think one way they could ride the GnR wave this year (with HOF, good reviews, tours, etc) would be if Axl were to release a short solo album/EP to keep people interested while they get cracking as a band to write and record new music. Even if its just Axl on the piano doing a few covers and piano only version of some of the Guns songs (my ultimate dream personally ), it will be enough to keep some interest and reassure some people that something is going on...

^^ Of course that is just my opinion...

People thought that was going to happen with Better, I was amongst those people, I thought "man the world has to hear this" and when it happened, not many people cared. The masses do not want dense, multi-layered, multi-genre music that is complex in scale and message. They want simple shit like fucken Jennifer Lopez, Lady Gaga, fucken Bruno Mars, Taylor Swift etc singing about good times and one subject. It is messed but that's how it is. It's like how a big dumb Hollywood blockbuster like Transformers 3 trumps Tree of Life at the box office.

[KiraMPD]

People thought that was going to happen with Better, I was amongst those people, I thought "man the world has to hear this" and when it happened, not many people cared. The masses do not want dense, multi-layered, multi-genre music that is complex in scale and message. They want simple shit like fucken Jennifer Lopez, Lady Gaga, fucken Bruno Mars, Taylor Swift etc singing about good times and one subject. It is messed but that's how it is. It's like how a big dumb Hollywood blockbuster like Transformers 3 trumps Tree of Life at the box office.

LoL, I thought that would happen with TWAT, TIL or SOD! Usually its the songs that tug on the heartstrings that make any real lasting impact on the general public.

Edited March 14, 2012 by KiraMPD

[CoolRanchDressing]

I think it's part of an overall strategy to "play possum" if you will. Remember the theory that Axl decided to release some of his weaker meaterial on the first CD volume, because he knew that it would be met with such backlash and bias that it was inevitable the album wouldn't live up to the hype the industry created for it? I think something similar is now part of Axl's plan... tour smaller and smaller theaters, doing less promotion and selling less and less tickets until people are tired of slagging Axl and beating that dead horse. Then, the tastes in pop culture are bound to swing the other directsion, because that's what always happens. By the time this and other smaller club tours draws to a close, expectation and ravings of the general public can ebb to the point where Axl can unleash new music and a new arena tour to a general public who's had it's palette cleansed by the cyclical nature of popularity.

[rabia]

I think it's part of an overall strategy to "play possum" if you will. Remember the theory that Axl decided to release some of his weaker meaterial on the first CD volume, because he knew that it would be met with such backlash and bias that it was inevitable the album wouldn't live up to the hype the industry created for it? I think something similar is now part of Axl's plan... tour smaller and smaller theaters, doing less promotion and selling less and less tickets until people are tired of slagging Axl and beating that dead horse. Then, the tastes in pop culture are bound to swing the other directsion, because that's what always happens. By the time this and other smaller club tours draws to a close, expectation and ravings of the general public can ebb to the point where Axl can unleash new music and a new arena tour to a general public who's had it's palette cleansed by the cyclical nature of popularity.

What? That makes no sense at all.

There's no indication that they released the "weaker material" first, infact Axl has said that those who dont like CD probably wont like the next one either.

Edited March 14, 2012 by rabia

[SoulMonster]

Yes, it was a huge success. Lots of positive reviews and interviews in the US -- which is almost unheard of for GN'R -- and hopefully some nice revenue. But perhaps even more important: A band gelling and having fun together, something that could turn out to be crucial for the future of GN'R.

[Eddie Money]

I think it was a success because the shows were solid and well-received by the fans. But I also feel that it was a success because unlike the arena tour, critics didn't have time to slam the shows before the even occurred. This is important.

For the arena tour in the States, as well as in other parts of the world, many lazy so-called 'critics' made the effort to try to use the same tired rhetoric about the band and it made for bad press.

This time around, the tickets went on sale anywhere from 6 days - 2 weeks before the start date and nobody had time to write a shitty preview. The shows also got over so late that the reviews were often unwritten until the second day or the evening after the show. By the time the writers had the chance to write about it, fan reports were everywhere via social media, which gave the writers less of an opportunity to bash the show without losing credibility.

[SoulMonster]

Yes, it was a huge success. Lots of positive reviews and interviews in the US -- which is almost unheard of for GN'R -- and hopefully some nice revenue. But perhaps even more important: A band gelling and having fun together, something that could turn out to be crucial for the future of GN'R.

Do not get used to this ... European media is a lot more harsh

I assume you are talking about North Europe...and no, in my experience the US media has been a lot worse.

[bionic56]

Yes i think overall the theatre tour was great, better than the arena tour which if you are honest was a failure in terms of attendance. Maybe this is the way forward fro Guns in the USA.

[batman007]

considering the amount of media attention i would say yes

Yuuuup!

[BetterRocks]

I would say so. Shows the band is active, and more people got to see how much they dedicate to their live shows, with the 3 hours setlists, etc.

[Gods Favourite]

I think it's part of an overall strategy to "play possum" if you will. Remember the theory that Axl decided to release some of his weaker meaterial on the first CD volume, because he knew that it would be met with such backlash and bias that it was inevitable the album wouldn't live up to the hype the industry created for it? I think something similar is now part of Axl's plan... tour smaller and smaller theaters, doing less promotion and selling less and less tickets until people are tired of slagging Axl and beating that dead horse. Then, the tastes in pop culture are bound to swing the other directsion, because that's what always happens. By the time this and other smaller club tours draws to a close, expectation and ravings of the general public can ebb to the point where Axl can unleash new music and a new arena tour to a general public who's had it's palette cleansed by the cyclical nature of popularity.

Are you serious?

[Powerage5]

Not really considering the band playing was Guns N' Roses. I think they did not sell out at least one show either, which doesn't make it a success to me especially considering they were only 4,000 seaters. Just my opinion anyway, the US has been hard on Guns since 2000...

Weren't paying attention to the earlier shows I presume? I believe everything through AC was sold out. At the very least all of NYC was sold out, that I'm positive of.

Fuck this negativity.I am Get tired of this.They made a 30 dates US-arena tour.And most of the shows are full or nearly full.You can watch it from youtube.also tell me How many rock bands can do a arena tour İn US today.After arena tour they made an theatre tour recently.And most of the shows are sold out.Both arena and theatre tours are major success.

The only sense in which I consider the arena tour a success is it's the first US tour that actually concluded as planned since '93. Most of the shows were not full or nearly full, and they weren't playing particularly big arenas to begin with. I'd say the average attendance would be somewhere around 60-70%.

On the topic of the Up Close And Personal tour, I absolutely consider it a success. All shows sold pretty well, especially given the short notice of them (Some shows were announced less than a week before the date of the gig). Every show got rave reviews other than that review in the Washington Post - which in all fairness shouldn't even be counted since the guy clearly didn't have any of his facts straight and obviously went in with a bias. They may have been small shows, but it's certainly the most attention GN'R has had in the States in a long time.

[dalsh327]

Were some people coming from other countries to see GNR do the UCAP shows?

I just think after the last go round in the US, where Axl basically did that one for free, this was just a good way to scale it down and not worry about being fined for playing late, or have them worried they're stepping too close to pyros. I would've thought the setlist would've been a lot looser though instead of slight changes.

[Powerage5]

Were some people coming from other countries to see GNR do the UCAP shows?

I just think after the last go round in the US, where Axl basically did that one for free, this was just a good way to scale it down and not worry about being fined for playing late, or have them worried they're stepping too close to pyros. I would've thought the setlist would've been a lot looser though instead of slight changes.

Yea, I met people from Scandinavia, Canada, and the UK at Terminal 5/The Ritz.

[Desperado]

Yes, it was a huge success. Lots of positive reviews and interviews in the US -- which is almost unheard of for GN'R -- and hopefully some nice revenue. But perhaps even more important: A band gelling and having fun together, something that could turn out to be crucial for the future of GN'R.

Do not get used to this ... European media is a lot more harsh

I assume you are talking about North Europe...and no, in my experience the US media has been a lot worse.

When I saw them in 2006 in sweden I thought it was great but the next day all the reviews where like "blabla shit shit, no Slash, blabla this is shit"

[Axl`s BFF]

I think the UCAP tour was meant to be fun and thats exactly what it was