Reading And Leeds Festivals boss: 'I wouldn't book the current Guns N' Roses again', but would definitely book the original line-up

[crashoride]

The place was packed for Axl and Co. right?

So he is a fucking moron not to book them.

Give it to Axl and the current lineup for not taking this guys shit.

Edited March 21, 2012 by crashoride

[sailaway]

That Melvin Benn guy is a cunt bubble, no matter how you slice it.

HA! Yeah,my middle finger has a hard-on for him

That sit-in, megaphone incident still makes me smile.

[Apollo]

The place was packed for Axl and Co. right?

So he is a fucking moron not to book them.

Give it to Axl and the current lineup for not taking this guys shit.

So in your mind, the negative press, having the electricity cut during your show, not being invited back, and finishing the show with a megaphone is a "win" in your book?

And how exactly is Axl now not taking the guy's sh*t? They basically just got fired from doing that show every again.

Incidents like that hurt the current band and its reputation. Incidents like that are why music journalists still make fun of the band, and why labels and other promoters aren't chomping at the bit to be associated with GnR. This show was a lowlight in Axl's keeping the GnR name alive.

Think of the best things about that show. Number them.

Where did "band performance" land on your list???? People should be talking about the music and not all the other crap. But I guess that is what today's society likes. They would rather go to an average show that had an Axl rant or tantrum, rather than a kick-ass show that went off without a hitch or controversy.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Groghan

[gnrfan2007]

A re-united old-GnR band would sell out concerts and get the crowd going just as well as ... VELVET REVOLVER (with Scott Weiland).

Velvet Revolver is like 1/5th of what GnR is today.

Just substitute Axl for Scott and then you can see just how well the old band can do in this day and age. HINT: not too well

I suggest you go to youtube and see how fucking huge GNR were back in the day. Comparing it to Velvet Revolver is a disgrace.

It is not 1991 anymore! old-GnR was in the right place at the right time. They existed at time when the only rock music around was hair bands and Bon Jovi. Had old-GnR come out any later after 1990, they would have never made it. old-GnR would never have made it in the Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder era.

As well, your comment is really contradictory.

Velvet Revolver is basically old-GnR with a newer, younger, and hipper frontman in Scott Weiland.

If Axl was the person from old-GnR that people hated and made fun of the most, then surely with a Scott Weiland - a top 3 frontman from the alternative rock era - Velvet Revolver should have been the biggest band in the world from their inception to this very day.

But clearly, Velvet Revolver was a joke. And you can't blame Axl for that.

So if old-Gnr with Scott Weiland (ie. velvet revolver) sucked balls, what makes you think Axl joining Slash's Snakepit is going to make any difference?

In this modern era of pop culture and music, Axl joining Slash's Snakepit is like Scott Weiland joining Slash's Snakepit: it would be a major epic fail.

So its very ironic that you would get upset with comparing old-GnR to Velvet Revolver when Velvet Revolver is basically suppose to be the newer and more modern version of old-GnR! LOL

Edited March 21, 2012 by gnrfan2007

[WhazUp]

A re-united old-GnR band would sell out concerts and get the crowd going just as well as ... VELVET REVOLVER (with Scott Weiland).

Velvet Revolver is like 1/5th of what GnR is today.

Just substitute Axl for Scott and then you can see just how well the old band can do in this day and age. HINT: not too well

Uh......

[realpoti]

A re-united old-GnR band would sell out concerts and get the crowd going just as well as ... VELVET REVOLVER (with Scott Weiland).

Velvet Revolver is like 1/5th of what GnR is today.

Just substitute Axl for Scott and then you can see just how well the old band can do in this day and age. HINT: not too well

I suggest you go to youtube and see how fucking huge GNR were back in the day. Comparing it to Velvet Revolver is a disgrace.

It is not 1991 anymore! old-GnR was in the right place at the right time. They existed at time when the only rock music around was hair bands and Bon Jovi. Had old-GnR come out any later after 1990, they would have never made it. old-GnR would never have made it in the Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder era.

As well, your comment is really contradictory.

Velvet Revolver is basically old-GnR with a newer, younger, and hipper frontman in Scott Weiland.

If Axl was the person from old-GnR that people hated and made fun of the most, then surely with a Scott Weiland - a top 3 frontman from the alternative rock era - Velvet Revolver should have been the biggest band in the world from their inception to this very day.

But clearly, Velvet Revolver was a joke. And you can't blame Axl for that.

So if old-Gnr with Scott Weiland (ie. velvet revolver) sucked balls, what makes you think Axl joining Slash's Snakepit is going to make any difference?

In this modern era of pop culture and music, Axl joining Slash's Snakepit is like Scott Weiland joining Slash's Snakepit: it would be a major epic fail.

So its very ironic that you would get upset with comparing old-GnR to Velvet Revolver when Velvet Revolver is basically suppose to be the newer and more modern version of old-GnR! LOL

Jesus Christ, you're such an idiot

They already offered 100 million dollars for Gn'R to reunite, don't you think they know better than you?