Vegas Setlist(s) General Discussion Thread

[bigpat]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

[volcano62]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

+1

[James Bond]

I'm really happy for anyone having a good time at the show, but I also sort of feel like some of them have a right to feel jaded.

You promise something that will be special, unique, spontaneous, etc... Well, to be blunt, I can understand fans being a bit burnt-out when they receive 90% of the setlist from 2006.

I agree. For a full scale tour playing the same set list isn't all that big a deal. It means the guy in England gets to see just as awesome as a show as the guy in Brazil. That kind of thing. However, after all the promises for the Vegas shows and being that it's so many shows in the same place, I can't blame anybody who bought tickets for multiple shows for being a little disappointed they all turned out to be more or less the same.

[RussTCB]

They should never play Don't Let It Bring You Down. Ever again.

I haven't heard the ones they've done in Vegas but I agree. I'm not a Neil Young fan. Never have been, never will be.

Not even After The Goldrush? Old Man? Ambulance Blues? Come on...

Nope. I've heard a great amount of his material and just never liked any of it.

how about a little Riad N the Bedouins?

I saw them do Riad here in Detroit in 02, that was pretty neat.

[DaneisKing1389]

This board has some of the funniest posters I've come across. Bad funny. Like moronic funny.

They're changing the sets, swapping/adding songs. That's all I asked for. I can't wait to see what happens down the line and what songs get played.

[stumbleine]

why do you satisfied fanboys care so much about

what other people think?whats up with these angry posts?

if you're so fucking happy,why bother yelling at those

of us who doesnt settle for less?

[Jeez]

why do you satisfied fanboys care so much about

what other people think?whats up with these angry posts?

if you're so fucking happy,why bother yelling at those

of us who doesnt settle for less?

+1

I didn't expect new songs for these Vegas shows. They're playing their greatest hits, what fans want to hear (except the "harcore" forum fans who has seen this show a gazillion times). For the record, adding an old song from Appetite or something isn't new to me. But it's still a pretty bad ass show and setlist.

[SONOFABITCH]

While I do think Axl should be more versatile, I can't say I am at all surprised by the setlist. Towards the tail end of the residency there may be a minor surprise or two, but c',mon. If you don't know Axl by now, you will never ever know him.

[Patience 4 Axl]

I'm really happy for anyone having a good time at the show, but I also sort of feel like some of them have a right to feel jaded.

You promise something that will be special, unique, spontaneous, etc... Well, to be blunt, I can understand fans being a bit burnt-out when they receive 90% of the setlist from 2006.

I agree. For a full scale tour playing the same set list isn't all that big a deal. It means the guy in England gets to see just as awesome as a show as the guy in Brazil. That kind of thing. However, after all the promises for the Vegas shows and being that it's so many shows in the same place, I can't blame anybody who bought tickets for multiple shows for being a little disappointed they all turned out to be more or less the same.

I'm thinking that anyone who bought tickets for multiple shows are real diehards and know the drill. I doubt the expectations were any higher than seeing Axl in person and getting a lot of solos, if they have actually followed this band for any period of time.

[Bumble's Bridge Pickup]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

Don't rage pal, everything's gonna be alright.

[username]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

Well, the things is... My problem isn't really with the setlist itself. They're adding new songs that haven't been played for years (sometimes since the nineties), introducing covers, switching it up a bit. That's great! That's everything an active touring band should do with their setlist. The shows are long which is great too! I can think of Springsteen and Leonard Cohen when it comes to 3+ hour shows, but not many more. That's everything you'd want when a band is on tour!

But then the actual problem. You want a band to do all that WHILE they're moving forward! And GnR has been pretty much stationary for years. You want them to do all this while introducing new songs here and there from their forthcoming album which has a release date set. You want to feel like they'e moving into the future. That there's new exciting things to come. They've been doing this for years on end now. And yes, I know more bands do that. Aerosmith comes to mind (despite finally having a new album now). But they're seasoned veterans who have left their tracks. GnR is too young, too fresh and too exciting to settle for just touring! You want them to move forward!

And that's my problem with these setlists. They're really great, but they don't show that the band is moving forward. There's nothing really new. No concrete things in the future of GnR. And that, for me and I think for a lot of people, is a bit of a let-down.

[Guns n' Swedes]

I just don't get it. It must be so boring for Axl and the band to do so much of the same. It's not like they're playing newly released fresh material either...

[trqster]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

Well, the things is... My problem isn't really with the setlist itself. They're adding new songs that haven't been played for years (sometimes since the nineties), introducing covers, switching it up a bit. That's great! That's everything an active touring band should do with their setlist. The shows are long which is great too! I can think of Springsteen and Leonard Cohen when it comes to 3+ hour shows, but not many more. That's everything you'd want when a band is on tour!

But then the actual problem. You want a band to do all that WHILE they're moving forward! And GnR has been pretty much stationary for years. You want them to do all this while introducing new songs here and there from their forthcoming album which has a release date set. You want to feel like they'e moving into the future. That there's new exciting things to come. They've been doing this for years on end now. And yes, I know more bands do that. Aerosmith comes to mind (despite finally having a new album now). But they're seasoned veterans who have left their tracks. GnR is too young, too fresh and too exciting to settle for just touring! You want them to move forward!

And that's my problem with these setlists. They're really great, but they don't show that the band is moving forward. There's nothing really new. No concrete things in the future of GnR. And that, for me and I think for a lot of people, is a bit of a let-down.

This. Good post.

[username]

A shameless cross-post from what I said in another thread:

The things is... My problem isn't really with the setlist itself. They're adding new songs that haven't been played for years (sometimes since the nineties), introducing covers, switching it up a bit. That's great! That's everything an active touring band should do with their setlist. The shows are long which is great too! I can think of Springsteen and Leonard Cohen when it comes to 3+ hour shows, but not many more. That's everything you'd want when a band is on tour!

But then the actual problem. You want a band to do all that WHILE they're moving forward! And GnR has been pretty much stationary for years. You want them to do all this while introducing new songs here and there from their forthcoming album which has a release date set. You want to feel like they'e moving into the future. That there's new exciting things to come. They've been doing this for years on end now. And yes, I know more bands do that. Aerosmith comes to mind (despite finally having a new album now). But they're seasoned veterans who have left their tracks. GnR is too young, too fresh and too exciting to settle for just touring! You want them to move forward!

And that's my problem with these setlists. They're really great, but they don't show that the band is moving forward. There's nothing really new. No concrete things in the future of GnR. And that, for me and I think for a lot of people, is a bit of a let-down.

[Bruno P.]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

Well, the things is... My problem isn't really with the setlist itself. They're adding new songs that haven't been played for years (sometimes since the nineties), introducing covers, switching it up a bit. That's great! That's everything an active touring band should do with their setlist. The shows are long which is great too! I can think of Springsteen and Leonard Cohen when it comes to 3+ hour shows, but not many more. That's everything you'd want when a band is on tour!

But then the actual problem. You want a band to do all that WHILE they're moving forward! And GnR has been pretty much stationary for years. You want them to do all this while introducing new songs here and there from their forthcoming album which has a release date set. You want to feel like they'e moving into the future. That there's new exciting things to come. They've been doing this for years on end now. And yes, I know more bands do that. Aerosmith comes to mind (despite finally having a new album now). But they're seasoned veterans who have left their tracks. GnR is too young, too fresh and too exciting to settle for just touring! You want them to move forward!

And that's my problem with these setlists. They're really great, but they don't show that the band is moving forward. There's nothing really new. No concrete things in the future of GnR. And that, for me and I think for a lot of people, is a bit of a let-down.

The sad thing is that it is all Axl's fault. Dude cant leave his comfort zone and band members apparently cant do a thing - if it was up to them we would be listening to some new tracks and older known songs like Coma and Locomotive. Having that said Axl doesnt seem to care much either way.

[SoulMonster]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

Well, the things is... My problem isn't really with the setlist itself. They're adding new songs that haven't been played for years (sometimes since the nineties), introducing covers, switching it up a bit. That's great! That's everything an active touring band should do with their setlist. The shows are long which is great too! I can think of Springsteen and Leonard Cohen when it comes to 3+ hour shows, but not many more. That's everything you'd want when a band is on tour!

But then the actual problem. You want a band to do all that WHILE they're moving forward! And GnR has been pretty much stationary for years. You want them to do all this while introducing new songs here and there from their forthcoming album which has a release date set. You want to feel like they'e moving into the future. That there's new exciting things to come. They've been doing this for years on end now. And yes, I know more bands do that. Aerosmith comes to mind (despite finally having a new album now). But they're seasoned veterans who have left their tracks. GnR is too young, too fresh and too exciting to settle for just touring! You want them to move forward!

And that's my problem with these setlists. They're really great, but they don't show that the band is moving forward. There's nothing really new. No concrete things in the future of GnR. And that, for me and I think for a lot of people, is a bit of a let-down.

They will start playing new songs when the next album is shaping up to be released. Until then they will play old songs. Like most bands.

Saying the band isn't moving forward doesn't reflect the truth if the band is actually working on the next record, which they claim to have been doing.

[username]

They will start playing new songs when the next album is shaping up to be released. Until then they will play old songs. Like most bands.

That's just stating the obvious. They're just taking a lot longer than most bands and leaving their fans in the dark more than most bands.

And don't tell me that DJ said this or Bumble said that. I've been a GnR fan long enough to know that things that don't come from Axl simply have no meaning. No matter how good the intentions behind them are.

Saying the band isn't moving forward doesn't reflect the truth if the band is actually working on the next record, which they claim to have been doing.

Truth? Rumors from people on the internet and the occasional "yeah we're working on songs" coming from bandmembers that aren't Axl and who's statements have no real value. As long as there's nothing concrete, there's nothing. Assuming that, when it comes to GnR, perception is reality - there's nothing. No songs that have been played and no statements that have meaning.

To me, as a fan, that's frustrating. Well-intended statements from DJ or Bumble feel more like taunts to the fans. That's annoying (and by no means their fault).

[SoulMonster]

That's just stating the obvious. They're just taking a lot longer than most bands

Sure, but not when you compare with other old bands because old bands tend to release very infrequent. If you want to compare GN'R with young bands then sure, you will be disappointed -- but why decide on such an unfair comparison unless you enjoy being disappointed?

and leaving their fans in the dark more than most bands.

That might be the case before but not right now because almost every band member, including Axl, has told us about the ongoing process of making a new record. So we are informed enough to not expect a new record anytime soon and not to expect new music played at shows.

Truth? Rumors from people on the internet and the occasional "yeah we're working on songs" coming from bandmembers that aren't Axl and who's statements have no real value.

I don't really give two shits whether you have decided that statements from Richard, Dizzy, Tommy, Bumblefoot and Dj have "no real value" -- I find that decision both lacking in logic and fairness and intelligence. Besides, Axl has also told us about work on the next record.

As long as there's nothing concrete, there's nothing.

This translates to "as long as I don't hear new music then there is nothing", which of course is silly. There could very well be VERY concrete things happening, like concrete songs being worked on, concrete lyrics being written, concrete decisions on which songs to include, concrete deals with labels, etc. Believing that nothing concrete takes place just because you aren't informed is incredibly self-centric to say the least. I guess to you not on'y do they not make any sound, the trees don't even fall down in the forest unless you are there to witness it.

Assuming that, when it comes to GnR, perception is reality - there's nothing.

Why on earth would you just such an inane assumption?

No songs that have been played and no statements that have meaning.

It is really funny that you find no meaning in this statement from Axl: "All the guys are writing, and we recorded a lot of songs over the years. We'll figure out what we feel best about." I find lots of meaning in that, it tells us the band is actively working on the next record and that they are in the process of deciding what songs to include on the next record. It also tells me that we still have to wait some time before the next record is released, and possible also before the band decides to start promoting that record by playing new songs at shows.

[username]

Sure, but not when you compare with other old bands because old bands tend to release very infrequent. If you want to compare GN'R with young bands then sure, you will be disappointed -- but why decide on such an unfair comparison unless you enjoy being disappointed?

I am NOT ready to accept GnR as an "old band" aka a nostalgia act just yet. I wish they were even half as productive as most "young" bands though.

That might be the case before but not right now because almost every band member, including Axl, has told us about the ongoing process of making a new record. So we are informed enough to not expect a new record anytime soon and not to expect new music played at shows.

Yeah, and from any other band I might take their word for that. But GnR isn't any other band. So unless it's concrete it doesn't tell me anything. I mean, most normal bands write their songs and record for a week. If you have to believe GnR there's at least 3 more albums written and most of it recorded too. So what else is there? I'm sure that if they'd put some effort in they could have an album done in a month. And if they're writing so much new material, why not play some of that?

Like I pointed out before, so far all the "statements" have been nothing more than dangling a carrot in front of the horse from a fishing rod.

I don't really give two shits whether you have decided that statements from Richard, Dizzy, Tommy, Bumblefoot and Dj have "no real value" -- I find that decision both lacking in logic and fairness and intelligence. Besides, Axl has also told us about work on the next record.

Actually that decision is founded in logic. If any of their statements would carry any weight we'd have 3 more albums by now. What good is it to me as a fan that the GnR vault o' songs is even fuller when I don't get to hear it?

This translates to "as long as I don't hear new music then there is nothing", which of course is silly. There could very well be VERY concrete things happening, like concrete songs being worked on, concrete lyrics being written, concrete decisions on which songs to include, concrete deals with labels, etc. Believing that nothing concrete takes place just because you aren't informed is incredibly self-centric to say the least. I guess to you not on'y do they not make any sound, the trees don't even fall down in the forest unless you are there to witness it.

It might be there, but as long as it's not being made available it's no good to a fan anyway. And yes, I AM self-centric. I got that way through the process of getting the last GnR album out there. I'd love for Axl to prove me wrong, but so far it's same shit different day for me.

Assuming that, when it comes to GnR, perception is reality - there's nothing.

Why on earth would you just such an inane assumption?

It is really funny that you find no meaning in this statement from Axl: "All the guys are writing, and we recorded a lot of songs over the years. We'll figure out what we feel best about." I find lots of meaning in that, it tells us the band is actively working on the next record and that they are in the process of deciding what songs to include on the next record. It also tells me that we still have to wait some time before the next record is released, and possible also before the band decides to start promoting that record by playing new songs at shows.

Already covered this...

[Apollo]

Soul arent some of your comments taken out of context?

The music that has been recorded is from the CD sessions. That is music that is now literally in some cases 10 years old. Music created by a band with three different members.

And, didn't dizzy say in his last interview that this band has not actually sat down in a studio together? So they just have guys coming up with ideas and emailing them to beta and Axl?

CD came out four years ago, but this band hasn't spent one day together in the studio?

So there is a vault full of 10 year old music, created by a different band, and the current band hasn't written or recorded together......I admire your ability to spin that into a positive, but to most people it just seems insane.

A lot of us fans hoped that Axl carrying on the GnR name, which he loves so much, meant adding to the legacy of the classic line-up. Making his mark. Letting the new guys add their mark. BUT instead, carrying on the GnR name has meant one album in 16 years and watching new musicians cover the classics.

It just is frustrating to a lot of fans. The majority of artists in the world love to create. Axl doesnt appear to be interested I'm sharing his music with his MILLIONS of fans. And that sucks.

[jimb0]

It's been said before the release of CD that there were up to 50 or 60 songs in the vault that were being worked on. DJ sent Axl 12 songs.

I'm willing to bet that after the blunder of CD that Axl is no longer into talking about recording publicly or allowing his band members specific to do so publicly.

Unless we get a reality show about GNR, hey if Axl's willing to do Vegas why not?, where we see what goes on durring rehearsals and at Axls studio, truth is we can't say anything for certain.

Durring the breaks Axl could have very well been writing lyrics, recording vocals, tinkering witht he CD leftovers or been jamming with some members on some ideas that he asked them to not talk about.

Truth is.. we donno, and just because they took the oppurtunity to do this residency and haven't played a new song doesn't mean shit.

He might not want to play any new songs until they've been finished. We all know that Estranged and Civil War and Don't Cry came out of no where, so there is still a chance we might get a rare live gem durring this residency. I think after three shows it's a little silly to jump to conclusions. Maybe Axl is in his hotel room right now practicing Perfect Crime, who the fuck knows, maybe Richards with him and they're working on riffs, we just don't know.

Edited November 4, 2012 by jimb0

[Flayer]

you idiots that want to hear a different set list should just go turn on your ipod and quit your whining not every body wants to pay $100.00 to hear whatever you want them to play you have to understand this is a business ! He is going to play to the 95% percent of the people that haven't seen them 25 times in the last three years. Get a life people you should be grateful that he is still playing for 3 hours The only other band that I can think of that play 3 hours is Bruce springsteen. SO WHY DONT YOU JUST @#%# #$$ AND QUIT ACTING LIKE LITTLE WHINERS!!!

Quoted for truth.

[SoulMonster]

No concrete things in the future of GnR.

The setlists will probably not show anything concrete until a new record is planned for release. Being disappointed about the current setlists not having new songs when we know we still have some time until the next record, is just a bit absurd to me. Complain as much as you want about the band not being able to release music more frequently, but understand that the setlists will just reflect the situation. Using the rpesence or absence of new songs as some kind of indicator of whether the band is progressing or not, is flawed, since the band might be progressing quickly towards a new release (hardly ) without this affecting the setlists. What we can do, on the other hand, is to take the absence of new songs as a signal that a new release is probably a bit off in the distance. But taking this absence as some kind of evidence for the band not progresing -- when all band members, even Axl, recently have stated they do -- is a wee bit silly to me. It's almost like some fans are closing their eyes to evidence supporting future music while embracing anything that can be twister into an argument for the idea that no new music will surface. Masochistic much?

Since I don't attend the concerts myself I can only value the setlists according to how successful they are at giving the audience a great time, and by reading every review I can find, my conclusion MUST BE that the setlists these last years have been great. The only consistent complaint I have read is the amount of solos. Except for the solos nothing seem to be a consistent problem when taking a meta-view on the available newspaper reviews, really, and that includes the choice of songs, the mix of old and new, the order of songs. So again, the setlists are great.

Edited November 4, 2012 by SoulMonster

[NachoLZ]

Where the surprises the flying piano with the new stage? wheres the new music?

DJ: We never follow a setlist cuz theres people going to multiple shows.

They have the same setlist but with "Dont let it bring you down"...

[Crash Diet]

I love the Don't let it bring you down, if Axl sings with his deeper voice. His Mickey Mouse voice is quite shit for this song...

one of the best moments of a gnr gig is hearing sorry

This is weirder opinion than lolcano's/broski's babblings