Jump to content

In Support of the Setlist


kyrie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Was Axl an arsehole when he played approx. 15 songs from the, then unreleased, Use Your Illusion (May-August 1991)?

Is he ever not an asshole? ;)

But no, because the new songs debuted in 1991 mostly came as additions to the sets (in 1991 they played on average 14.7 songs per show, in 1989 they only played 8.6). The core hits which the audiences came to hear, remained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there is a second rule in your philosophy reserved solely for Mr Rose! How do you think Dylan, Young and Floyd made the jump from one hour sets to two hours? On cover songs? Absurd.

Fact remains, Axl Rose saudience had to endure the following unreleased/unfamiliar songs (this is from the Deer Creek boot):

Right Next Door To Hell

Bad Obsession

Dust N' Bones

Double Talkin' Jive

Civil War (unless they had the Romanian album)

14 Years

Live and Let Die

November Rain

Knockin’ On Heavens Door (unless they had the Days of Thunder soundtrack)

Perfect Crime

Estranged

What an arsehole, Axl is, for putting his crowd through this. That, and he did not even play Nightrain!!

Axl even had the audacity to play five new songs at his first gig in seven years (Rio 3). What a dick.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there is a second rule in your philosophy reserved solely for Mr Rose! How do you think Dylan, Young and Floyd made the jump from one hour sets to two hours? On cover songs? Absurd.

You seem to misunderstand. I have not said Dylan is an asshole for playing new songs, but for not playing the hits that people come to see because according to yourself, he "rarely delivers". Because of this exact same reason Pink Floyd were assholes when they subjected the (presumably) unaware audience to a set comprised of almost exclusively new songs with VERY few hits (your words: "and then maybe 2-3 old songs as an encore"). Hence, GN'R wasn't assholes when they expanded upon their set by adding new songs while keeping the hit songs intact. Do you understand this? There are no different rules here.

Let me just repeat myself so hopefully you will get it: I haven't called anyone assholes for playing new songs, but for not playing the songs the audience came to hear. That is selfish asshole behaviour. Guns N' Roses never did that, they played lots of new music, yes, but ON TOP OF the hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's actually the point of changing the setlist from Detroit on Thursday and Chicago on Satuday night. Will the same people be there? What matters is that the last time they came through both towns on the last tour is different to this time.

Completely agree with this. Analysis from night to night is a bit much.

I've seen shows in 3 different years, pretty much standardised setlists for each tour, and seen quite a few different songs. I've seen 8 out of 14 CD tracks for example.

In 2010 there were a bunch more CD tracks than 2006. in 2012 there was occasionally CITR and TWAT, and usually Estranged and Civil War (not by coincidence I imagine, the two most requested CD tracks and two most requested old tracks around the boards).

I think if CITR and/or TWAT became a staple or were rotated with other lesser played songs then the setlists would look totally different. It's when they drop the newer additions and don't put anything else new in their place that it can start to look a bit stale.

To be honest I think they've got a pretty much perfect balance to the sets down. I would definitely like them to have say five or so tracks (CD and UYI perhaps, assuming unheard new tracks is out of the question right now) that come in and out of the set at random simply because there are songs I would love to hear, but I don't feel cheated when there isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there is a second rule in your philosophy reserved solely for Mr Rose! How do you think Dylan, Young and Floyd made the jump from one hour sets to two hours? On cover songs? Absurd.

You seem to misunderstand. I have not said Dylan is an asshole for playing new songs, but for not playing the hits that people come to see because according to yourself, he "rarely delivers". Because of this exact same reason Pink Floyd were assholes when they subjected the (presumably) unaware audience to a set comprised of almost exclusively new songs with VERY few hits (your words: "and then maybe 2-3 old songs as an encore"). Hence, GN'R wasn't assholes when they expanded upon their set by adding new songs while keeping the hit songs intact. Do you understand this? There are no different rules here.

Let me just repeat myself so hopefully you will get it: I haven't called anyone assholes for playing new songs, but for not playing the songs the audience came to hear. That is selfish asshole behaviour. Guns N' Roses never did that, they played lots of new music, yes, but ON TOP OF the hits.

I do not see it like that. When I witnessed Dylan live, and he mostly played his new album and deep cuts, I merely enjoyed listening to his new music for the first time (the album was out but I had not bought it yet) and contemplated on the fact that I was witnessing an artist at work. I have never went to a concert just to hear the hits. I usually want to see, where the artist is at that current point. But hits are always welcome. I think there is a happy medium.

We are using the term 'hits' but what are Guns N' Roses's hits? Granted, it was a hit in Europe but I sometimes feel the only reason GN'R's (old and new) very tedious version of Knockin on Heaven's Door is considered, unmoveable, is because Axl refuses to move it. Hands up, all who actually look forward to that tremendously boring cover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see it like that. When I witnessed Dylan live, and he mostly played his new album and deep cuts, I merely enjoyed listening to his new music for the first time (the album was out but I had not bought it yet) and contemplated on the fact that I was witnessing an artist at work. I have never went to a concert just to hear the hits. I usually want to see, where the artist is at that current point. But hits are always welcome. I think there is a happy medium.

We are using the term 'hits' but what are Guns N' Roses's hits? Granted, it was a hit in Europe but I sometimes feel the only reason GN'R's (old and new) very tedious version of Knockin on Heaven's Door is considered, unmoveable, is because Axl refuses to move it. Hands up, all who actually look forward to that tremendously boring cover?

Well, if the audience, like yourself, is happy listening to new or rare tracks, then all is fine! But if they, and this is the impression I got from you, came to hear something but was let down by an artist more intent on being eclectic, then that artist is an asshole, or, more seriously, he is more intent on realizing his own selfish needs than the needs of those that pay to hear him. The purpose of a set list is to fullfill the purpose of the show, which is to make the audience happy, not necessarily the artist.

I am not particularly happy about the band bringing out KOHD in 1987 and playing it on virtually every show ever since. I mean, it was a cut off UYI but I agree it really becomes very tedious especially in today's überlong version. I would have preferred it to be played only once in a while. But the audiences love and expect it now. But fact is also that the band liked it, and, as you suggest, that Axl really wanted, and probably still do, that singer-crowd interaction:

Axl: And there are times when everybody comes together, like in singing 'Knockin' on Heaven's Door.' That's one reason we do the song: it's for people [interview Magazine - May, 1992].

Duff: At soundcheck before the first show on June 19, 1987, we ran through a cover song. We played it just once, but somehow our feelings found a vessel in this Bob Dylan song and our emotions just came pouring out [Duff's autobiography, "It's So Easy", 2011, p. 123-124].

Slash: Those Marquee shows were loud and hell-bent; what I remember I remember fondly. (...) One of those nights was also the first time that we ever played 'Knockin' On Heaven's Door,' which we put together at sound check on a whim. I'd always loved that song and loved that live version - it was much more raw than what we ended up on Use Your Illusion [bozza, Anthony, & Slash (2007). Slash. Harper Entertainment: New York, pp, 184-185].

Izzy: 'Knockin' on Heaven's Door' was brilliant. We took that old song from Bob Dylan and turned it into that kind of hymn. That was special [loveloveleon, July 2010].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the residency was their opportunity to stretch out and do rarely played songs, or try new songs out, and they didn't do it.

Springsteen, Neil Young and Elton have one thing in common - they constantly tour, they put music out pretty frequently (over the years), and have a lot of music to work with at shows, but they've all said bringing out some of the obscure stuff, they'll notice people getting up during those songs. Keith Richard's joked about it at the Stones shows when he came up to do one of his songs. In contrast, Billy Joel has a limited batch of songs that a lot of his shows became like GNR's. He's talked about being in the middle of a song and going on autopilot, thinking about what he's going to eat after the show.

Dylan had a career resurgence in the 90s with critically acclaimed albums and started touring campuses and playing to a younger audience, so you have a lot of fans who are big "Time Out of Mind" fans and see the 62-66 stuff as from another era. Dylan had a history of disappointing audiences who grew up along with him, but at the same time, people have an appreciation for a living legend who wrote a lot of songs that matter, so the curiosity to see him play once is there. Unfortunately, he had a tendency to have uneven shows.

I think Iron Maiden has the right idea of giving the fans a new album tour, then do the next as a hits tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that Don't Cry keeps getting left off the "must play" / hits list people are mentioning.

I'm sorta with Wasted on this in the end.

To me, at least 7 or 8 the following must be played on any given night:

Welcome to the Jungle

Sweet Child O' Mine

Paradise City

Don't Cry

You Could Be Mine

November Rain

Live and Let Die

Knockin' On Heaven's Door

Patience

Estranged

Those songs were all big hits for them.

Then there's the "you should probably play these" group:

Mr. Brownstone (still played on radio around here a LOT)

It's So Easy

Nighttrain

Rocket Queen

You need a few CD era songs as well. My fave is Madagascar which has been dropped lately; good luck even pleasing all the diehard fans right?

Better/CD/TIL/SOD

Catcher, TWAT, Maddy, Sorry, ITW, IRS, Scraped, Shacklers

At least 3 on any given night, maybe a few more.

That doesn't exactly leave a lot of room for stuff like:

Down on the Farm, Use to Love Her, You're Crazy, My Michelle, Think About You, 14 Years, etc.

And we know this band likes to do cover songs which, despite the complaints on forums, is an old rock tradition (I started this thread with a Primus reference, and I own Miscellanious Debris which is one of a few cover EPs they've done).

Not a lot of wiggle room really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the setlist too. Don't get me wrong, i'd love to hear new music and I want to hear a new album. But I wish people would stop moaning like little bitches about the setlist. It's fucking awesome tbh. And i'll be gutted when songs get dropped in future. What can they get rid of? I love it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soul, most of the people who go to see Dylan want to see the hits also. But Dylan rarely delivers, merely a set consisting of Rolling Stone, Blowin in the Wind, Times, Watchtower etc. Dylan usually delivers an ecletic set filled with new album tracks and deep cuts. Why? Dylan is an artist.

What an asshole, denying most of the people who go to see him the great show they come for.
from what I read in chronicles he basically gets bored of touring and struggles to want to do it. The label actually found him a band and he just had to turn up. He doesnt even want to be known as the folk hero hitmaker. So he almost does it on purpose. In the 90s he discovered this new jazz scale or something and decided to redo all his songs in this new format. So he did all the hits but reimagined and unrecognizable. People thought he was on heroin as he mistimes everything and all the lyrics twisted to this jazz scale. Hes an artist, artists are very selfish. But recently i saw him and he has a huge backing band and he pretty much does rock versions of the hits and Highway 61 style stuff. But he still managed to fuck up Desolation Row. Half way through suddenly realised what he was playing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there is a second rule in your philosophy reserved solely for Mr Rose! How do you think Dylan, Young and Floyd made the jump from one hour sets to two hours? On cover songs? Absurd.

You seem to misunderstand. I have not said Dylan is an asshole for playing new songs, but for not playing the hits that people come to see because according to yourself, he "rarely delivers". Because of this exact same reason Pink Floyd were assholes when they subjected the (presumably) unaware audience to a set comprised of almost exclusively new songs with VERY few hits (your words: "and then maybe 2-3 old songs as an encore"). Hence, GN'R wasn't assholes when they expanded upon their set by adding new songs while keeping the hit songs intact. Do you understand this? There are no different rules here.

Let me just repeat myself so hopefully you will get it: I haven't called anyone assholes for playing new songs, but for not playing the songs the audience came to hear. That is selfish asshole behaviour. Guns N' Roses never did that, they played lots of new music, yes, but ON TOP OF the hits.

What is confusing about your point here is that it seems to be the exact opposite of what you guys usually praise Axl for. Whenever people on here criticize Axl for the nostalgic tour or for his unwillingness to release music for the fans, the common mantra is that Axl is an artist and we should respect that. He doesn't do his "art" for the fans - nor as fans, should we expect that. If we do, we are self-absorbed people full of entitlement issues. Axl'[s art is his art - and we choose to be part of it or not. And what makes him stick out ABOVE people like Slash and Bon Jovi........is that Axl creates art for himself, while Slash and BJ are sell-outs, because they cater to their fans. I know you will ask for quotes, which I am not going to find for you, but maybe you remember a thread awhile back discussing all the music/videos that BJ puts out and somebody (maybe Volcano) said something like BJ is a sellout because they create music for their fans, Axl is a TRUE artist because he creates music for himself.

But here in this topic, now Dylan and Floyd are doing asshole moves because of the set-lists they choose to play (even tho audiences know before hand what the deal is and they still decide to come).......and Axl is the hero because he is CATERING to the casual fan.

Axl is a hero for catering his music for the casual. Axl is a true artists, unlike most others, because he creates music only for himself and not because fans want him to.

Really seems like you guys change your defense of Axl depending on what the situation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there is a second rule in your philosophy reserved solely for Mr Rose! How do you think Dylan, Young and Floyd made the jump from one hour sets to two hours? On cover songs? Absurd.

You seem to misunderstand. I have not said Dylan is an asshole for playing new songs, but for not playing the hits that people come to see because according to yourself, he "rarely delivers". Because of this exact same reason Pink Floyd were assholes when they subjected the (presumably) unaware audience to a set comprised of almost exclusively new songs with VERY few hits (your words: "and then maybe 2-3 old songs as an encore"). Hence, GN'R wasn't assholes when they expanded upon their set by adding new songs while keeping the hit songs intact. Do you understand this? There are no different rules here.

Let me just repeat myself so hopefully you will get it: I haven't called anyone assholes for playing new songs, but for not playing the songs the audience came to hear. That is selfish asshole behaviour. Guns N' Roses never did that, they played lots of new music, yes, but ON TOP OF the hits.

What is confusing about your point here is that it seems to be the exact opposite of what you guys usually praise Axl for.

Yeah, I can imagine it must be awfully confusing for you when people you have put in groups fail to demonstrate the distinguishing characteristics of that group. But don't worry, I am sure after some post-rationalization you will find a way out of this conundrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you ever just talk about a topic without making personal remarks against people you carry grudges against? This is a music forum, where people come to share ideas. I realize you come here to ridicule/educate/win against those who have a different opinion than you do. Whenever somebody points out where you are wrong, your normal reaction is to just insult the person. Weird.

I guess I will just do what people keep PMing me to do and just ignore your posts. I try and engage you in GnR conversation/debate - and your standard reply is to completely ignore the topic and just insult me.

Oh well. I tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone think "Rocket Queen" should be played? It isn't a great song. I know that is blasphemy here but the song is juvenile until the changeup at the end.

It definitely doesn't need to be played. Should've been dropped after 2010, if not well before that.

I agree. It is juvenlile and sexist. It belongs in 80s not 21st century.

- Valentina

C'mon.... Rocket Queen's one of the best Guns N' Roses songs ever. It shouldn't be dropped. It's lazyass Axl that needs to sing it properly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest complaint is the abundance of cover songs and jams. Why can't there be a 10 minute jam that showcases everyone in the band (Like "Move To The City" for example) and replace all the covers with GNR tunes written by GNR? KOHD was a bore in '92 and it is worse now since Axl introduced the low energy - 'sing along if you feel like' it version back in '01 and LALD's only purpose is to show off the pyro just like at a McCartney show.

This! If they cut out the band jams and solo spots, they could play all afd, cd, and some illusion material for good measure - b/c nobody cares about them except the beer vendors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest complaint is the abundance of cover songs and jams. Why can't there be a 10 minute jam that showcases everyone in the band (Like "Move To The City" for example) and replace all the covers with GNR tunes written by GNR? KOHD was a bore in '92 and it is worse now since Axl introduced the low energy - 'sing along if you feel like' it version back in '01 and LALD's only purpose is to show off the pyro just like at a McCartney show.

This! If they cut out the band jams and solo spots, they could play all afd, cd, and some illusion material for good measure - b/c nobody cares about them except the beer vendors!

Great idea.

Heavens Door was cool..........20 years ago. But now it's just boring and a huge time suck. People keep saying that the casual fan loves it - but not at the shows I've been too. It seems to suck the energy right out of the crowd.

Replace the covers, the jams and rotate the solos and GnR could add a few CD songs, some deeper cuts from the old albums or a new song or two!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that Axl would like to play new songs but that he doesn't think people wanna hear it instead of an old hit song?!

But if they take away a cover (let's say The Seeker) and condense the solo spots to a one-song solo spot where every person in the band can take a solo that is enough for new tunes and/or more older tunes as well, best of both worlds :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that Axl would like to play new songs but that he doesn't think people wanna hear it instead of an old hit song?!

I'm pretty sure that if Axl wanted to play new songs, they would be playing new songs.

I'm pretty sure that 99% of the crowd would go crazy if Axl played a new song during the next concert. How many people do you think would get mad and say "Damn Axl, he played two new songs during the three-hour concert last night."

I'm pretty sure that 99% of the crowd would be OK if Axl debuted two new songs at the next concert and didn't play It's So Easy and Motivation.

You don't have to defend Axl's every move bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...