March 20th, 2014 - Rio De Janeiro, Brazil

[Apollo]

Powerage - you are a young guy and you go to a lot of concerts, so I respect your opinion on this matter. Is this a new trend or a trend that you see at all the shows you go to?

When I was younger and lived in a city that had frequent concerts, my friends and I LOVED it when bands played new songs. Are you saying that now people are against it?

That just blows my mind. If somebody is enough of a fan to drop $100 and go see a band live, I'm just amazed that they wouldn't be thrilled to hear a new song or two. In the old days, new songs were almost the highlight of concerts.

The experience of hearing a new song for the first time on a CD and the first time hearing a song live for the first time......magical.

You might be 100% right. I'm definitely out of touch now as I live in a place that gets zero concerts a year. But it's just mind blowing that in a 2-3 hour show, featuring 17-25 songs, fans of a band would be pissed off if the band slips in 1-2 new songs. Just makes no sense to me.

[Estranged Reality]

Billy Joel and Axl have something in common: they've both only put out one album of new material since 1993. The difference is that Joel said that he was done writing music and would only play his back catalogue from then on.

New article at Rolling Stone on how he likes to mix his sets up:

Billy Joel Rocks 'You Shook Me All Night Long' With Brian Johnson

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/billy-joel-rocks-you-shook-me-all-night-long-with-brian-johnson-20140322

"We mix it up," he said. "I don't ever want to do the same show twice. We're bringing in some of the more obscure songs, but we do enough of the hits and songs that people know and stuff that we like to do. We're making it up all the time."

Worth pointing out of course that Billy Joel is also a solo artist.

[Zint]

Don't cry was really good.I wouldn't play anything new until there's a new album or a single on the radio at least.New songs that no one knows kills the energy.Tumbleweeds start blowing around.

This is very true. This happened at the shows in 2006, the was complete flat, less those who knew the leaks which were no one around me.

It wouldn't make sense and Im guessing universal wouldn't want them to play new music either.

At what point did people become conditioned to believe new music is a bad thing if you haven't heard it on a radio or youtube at least a dozen times? Is it symptomatic of the Internet generation? I'm sure this wasn't an issue fifteen plus years ago. I sometimes see bands I've never heard of in local bars, the fact I don't know the material doesn't make it a bad experience if the band is good. I think the essence of gigs has been spoilt somewhat by the changing music industry. The desire to control seems to have killed spontaneity and lulled younger generations into accepting a fixed, narrow view of what touring bands can be.

It all goes back to most people at gigs just wanting to hear the hits. I'm not just talking about GN'R here; in general any concert crowd is going to be made up of casual fans, not diehards. You get people who have never seen the band before, and only want to see them do the hits. I mentioned it in another thread a couple days ago about the Metallica By Request tour - someone said that the setlist for the opening night was boring, pretty much what you'd expect at any other Metallica gig. No shit...you let the fans pick the setlist and you're going to get loads of people who have never seen them before saying "OMG, please play For Whom The Bell Tolls", or whatever concert staple you want to insert there. In 1999 Maiden let the fans pick the setlist for the tour - people still voted in Run To The Hills, Number Of The Beast, Wrathchild, etc...there were only a couple even moderately rare songs, and the rarest one ended up getting dropped because they couldn't do it with 2 guitarists when Adrian had to miss a few gigs.

Frankly, people are going to complain when bands play stuff they don't know. Most people want to go to a gig, hear a band play all of their hits, and don't want to discover anything more than they already know. People like to be comfortable, knowing when they shell out money for a concert they're not wasting a penny of it when the band decides to play something they don't know. The only band where I don't see people ever complain about a lack of hits in the setlist is Rush - the more unusual stuff they play the more people collectively seem.

The other night I saw Reel Big Fish, and in the middle of their set one of them said "We're gonna say the 4 worst words any musician can say on stage - here's a new song". I think that's very true, as sad as it may be.

So what's the point of Axl continuing with a new version of GnR then?

[Axl_Coffa]

GNR=anti-climatic

[Guest NGOG]

You might be 100% right.

He's definitely right Groghan. If you're a historically mainstream band, most people just don't give a fuck what you have to offer musically. They may passingly download your latest effort, but it's quickly canned in favor of what many would deem "the hits".

I'm guilty of it too. I've been dragged along to bands like Snow Patrol and I've thought to myself "This new direction you have is excruciating, just play what you sold big on".

Edited March 22, 2014 by NGOG

[Powerage5]

Powerage - you are a young guy and you go to a lot of concerts, so I respect your opinion on this matter. Is this a new trend or a trend that you see at all the shows you go to?

When I was younger and lived in a city that had frequent concerts, my friends and I LOVED it when bands played new songs. Are you saying that now people are against it?

That just blows my mind. If somebody is enough of a fan to drop $100 and go see a band live, I'm just amazed that they wouldn't be thrilled to hear a new song or two. In the old days, new songs were almost the highlight of concerts.

The experience of hearing a new song for the first time on a CD and the first time hearing a song live for the first time......magical.

You might be 100% right. I'm definitely out of touch now as I live in a place that gets zero concerts a year. But it's just mind blowing that in a 2-3 hour show, featuring 17-25 songs, fans of a band would be pissed off if the band slips in 1-2 new songs. Just makes no sense to me.

I see it all the time. I'm absolutely on the same page as you; I love discovering new music in whatever form it takes. I'll go see artists I'm not a massive fan of too, odds are I'll walk away from the show having heard some new (to me) songs that I dug, and I love that. But my friends for example...I can't drag anyone to a show of any artist, not because they don't want to drop the money on a gig, they just don't want to go see someone who's music they don't know inside and out. The last show I actually convinced a friend to go to was a Mighty Mighty Bosstones gig almost a year ago. This guy was in my ska band and we considered the Bosstones one of our biggest collective influences for our band. He walked away from the show disappointed that he only knew about 2/3 of the songs. I just don't get that mentality, I love discovering new music.

[Estranged Reality]

Don't cry was really good.I wouldn't play anything new until there's a new album or a single on the radio at least.New songs that no one knows kills the energy.Tumbleweeds start blowing around.

This is very true. This happened at the shows in 2006, the was complete flat, less those who knew the leaks which were no one around me.

It wouldn't make sense and Im guessing universal wouldn't want them to play new music either.

At what point did people become conditioned to believe new music is a bad thing if you haven't heard it on a radio or youtube at least a dozen times? Is it symptomatic of the Internet generation? I'm sure this wasn't an issue fifteen plus years ago. I sometimes see bands I've never heard of in local bars, the fact I don't know the material doesn't make it a bad experience if the band is good. I think the essence of gigs has been spoilt somewhat by the changing music industry. The desire to control seems to have killed spontaneity and lulled younger generations into accepting a fixed, narrow view of what touring bands can be.

It all goes back to most people at gigs just wanting to hear the hits. I'm not just talking about GN'R here; in general any concert crowd is going to be made up of casual fans, not diehards. You get people who have never seen the band before, and only want to see them do the hits. I mentioned it in another thread a couple days ago about the Metallica By Request tour - someone said that the setlist for the opening night was boring, pretty much what you'd expect at any other Metallica gig. No shit...you let the fans pick the setlist and you're going to get loads of people who have never seen them before saying "OMG, please play For Whom The Bell Tolls", or whatever concert staple you want to insert there. In 1999 Maiden let the fans pick the setlist for the tour - people still voted in Run To The Hills, Number Of The Beast, Wrathchild, etc...there were only a couple even moderately rare songs, and the rarest one ended up getting dropped because they couldn't do it with 2 guitarists when Adrian had to miss a few gigs.

Frankly, people are going to complain when bands play stuff they don't know. Most people want to go to a gig, hear a band play all of their hits, and don't want to discover anything more than they already know. People like to be comfortable, knowing when they shell out money for a concert they're not wasting a penny of it when the band decides to play something they don't know. The only band where I don't see people ever complain about a lack of hits in the setlist is Rush - the more unusual stuff they play the more people collectively seem.

The other night I saw Reel Big Fish, and in the middle of their set one of them said "We're gonna say the 4 worst words any musician can say on stage - here's a new song". I think that's very true, as sad as it may be.

So what's the point of Axl continuing with a new version of GnR then?

here's my point of view and i'll try to keep it really brief because i have a tendency to ramble. if axl is giving the 'average fan' what they want (which is what he seems to be doing in terms of playing the hits and no new material), then fair enough. if he has settled into his latter years as a so-called legacy act and is content to tour the same setlist every few years because the casual listener only wants to hear Jungle and SCOM etc.? again: fair enough. maybe he hasn't always been the most prolific or reliable artist but he's certainly earned a right to play popular songs he helped write.

but then if he's interested in truly fulfilling the wishes of the average fan, he'd reunite with the old lineup, because that's clearly what the average listener wants. it's the reason his tickets aren't selling out, the reason he's gotten so much scorn over the years and so on and so forth. the more time passes, the more the casual fan gets spoon-fed the simplified version of events that 'axl was a control freak who fired the band' blah blah blah. we all know, as die hard fans, that it's more complicated than this. but i can't tell you how many average fans i've met who think this is the narrative and believe it to be so. you can find nary an article about axl and/or GN'R written in the last decade that doesn't make reference of his supposed ego and this supposed series of events regarding the original lineup.

so, if axl is REALLY trying to give the average fan what they want, he would ditch the new bandmembers - who he's under-utilizing - and just bring back the guys who helped write the songs he's playing. because why else would you waste the talents of such an aspiring group of musicians? if you're just covering the old hits and trying to please the average listener then make a compromise, bring back the old lineup and sell out stadiums as a reunion act.

what sucks for us die-hard fans is that we followed axl rose into the new millennium with this new band because we were told, by the man himself, that he had something to prove with these guys and that he didn't perceive them as replacements so much as a new entity with something to establish for themselves. okay, we got one album in the last decade, and some touring, mostly and increasingly relying on the old material. round one. but that's it? half the guys in the band now didn't even write those songs, even the 'new' songs. so what's the deal?

if he's gonna do the vegas act thing and play all the hits then IMO he has to account for what he's done over the years and how it has conflicted with so many of the promises he made in regards to moving forward with new members. i do think axl was out to prove something in 2002 and 2006 and i do think he wanted to move GN'R forward. now it seems he's complacent to let them kind of stagnate and fall back on the old hits, do the same thing every few years, and again, fair enough if he wants to just play the songs most people want to hear. i respect and realize that MOST people out there don't care about new music from axl rose and his hired hands, and don't perceive this to be 'the' GN'R.' but in that case most people (i.e. people outside these forums) clearly want slash and co. back so it seems more than ever that he's really just fucking himself over more than anything -- he's increasingly alienating his remaining die-hard fanbase (who respect his new band as an actual band and desire them to present new material in some form or another) and increasingly securing his reputation amongst the general public as a guy who took over GN'R. that's why if things don't change somewhere along the way i think his ticket sales are going to continue to decline and he'll be struggling to sell out clubs in enough time.

i'm not saying i want slash back, blah blah. i'm not saying he OWES us anything, per se. but hopefully you guys get what i mean with this post and it won't be misconstrued because i'm just waiting for that to happen...

[Amir]

I saw the Stones in Hyde Park last summer. They played a song they released just a few months before. A lot of people were dancing and singing along, granted not as many as Jumpin' Jack Flash, but still.

When I saw Metallica in 2013, as a casual fan I was a bit lost by songs like Orion at the time, but I liked them enough to check them out later, and they played all the hits that even people in attendance like my dad who only knew 2 or 3 songs at most were very pleased with the show.

[Naupis]

So what's the point of Axl continuing with a new version of GnR then?

Axl has a large appetite and Brazilian family he needs to feed.

If he's going to waste his time going through the motions of playing a show, he might as well do it under the GNR banner where he can put more butts in the seats.

That has been his plan all along. He is just far more transparent about it now.

[Amir]

So what's the point of Axl continuing with a new version of GnR then?

Axl has a large appetite and Brazilian family he needs to feed.

If he's going to waste his time going through the motions of playing a show, he might as well do it under the GNR banner where he can put more butts in the seats.

That has been his plan all along. He is just far more transparent about it now.

Dude, Axl of 2014 may be a joke, but give pre-2011 Axl his due.

This is a man who wants to play new music and give it his fucking all why doing so:

This guy... not so much...:

It's telling that this is one of the few songs he at least puts some passion into:

[Jordan Rose]

Groghan: I think it's probably less to do with it being a modern trend or how often bands go through towns and far more to do with artists getting the audience they deserve.

Springsteen, Dylan, Tom Waits, Prince, Bowie and many others have spent decades nurturing an audience who have grown with them and who expect to be challenged.

Whereas if you treat the bulk of your audience like dumb rock fans with a very limited and undiscerning musical palette; short attention span; inability to listen to songs they don't know or like without talking through them or heading to the bar; no real interest in the artist beyond a casual knowledge of the best-known songs; an assumption that the best stuff is the stuff they remember from their youth; an expectation that 90% of the set should be stuff they recognise and have heard 500 times......then that is exactly the audience you'll end up with and what Axl now has.

I've been to literally hundreds of shows over the past 15 years including all the above artists and many more and in comparing all the conversations with people when waiting for hours in queues etc and throwing in the caliber of discussion on forums, the sad fact is that the Guns fanbase just isn't the the smartest either musically or in general when compared to other artists who treat their audience like a smart and musically/generally educated bunch of people.

Maiden shouldn't be compared to anyone and the fact that in 1999 the fans voted for the best-known tunes and hits means little because after 7 years without Bruce and the band slumming it in halls playing weak new material with a weak singer, of course the fans were clamoring to hear Bruce sing Hallowed and Beast. Seven years later they went out and played the whole of Matter of Life and Death in its entirety for a tour. And inbetween promoting new albums they play nostalgic history tours.

[Estranged Reality]

Axl was proud of his band in 2006, had a purpose and drive that he's simply lost in recent years.

And as per my post above, fair enough if he wants to rest on his laurels. He's, what, 51? 52? He's earned that right, you could argue. But then there's a whole lot of other factors that go into that, and people's expectations of GN'R, that maybe he needs to account for. Especially since a lot of those expectations hinge on comments he made over the years relating to moving GN'R forward.

[Amir]

Axl was proud of his band in 2006, had a purpose and drive that he's simply lost in recent years.

And as per my post above, fair enough if he wants to rest on his laurels. He's, what, 51? 52? He's earned that right, you could argue. But then there's a whole lot of other factors that go into that, and people's expectations of GN'R, that maybe he needs to account for. Especially since a lot of those expectations hinge on comments he made over the years relating to moving GN'R forward.

He already started contradicting his past self by 2006, though.

16:18:

vs.

[Powerage5]

Groghan: I think it's probably less to do with it being a modern trend or how often bands go through towns and far more to do with artists getting the audience they deserve.

Springsteen, Dylan, Tom Waits, Prince, Bowie and many others have spent decades nurturing an audience who have grown with them and who expect to be challenged.

Whereas if you treat the bulk of your audience like dumb rock fans with a very limited and undiscerning musical palette; short attention span; inability to listen to songs they don't know or like without talking through them or heading to the bar; no real interest in the artist beyond a casual knowledge of the best-known songs; an assumption that the best stuff is the stuff they remember from their youth; an expectation that 90% of the set should be stuff they recognise and have heard 500 times......then that is exactly the audience you'll end up with and what Axl now has.

I've been to literally hundreds of shows over the past 15 years including all the above artists and many more and in comparing all the conversations with people when waiting for hours in queues etc and throwing in the caliber of discussion on forums, the sad fact is that the Guns fanbase just isn't the the smartest either musically or in general when compared to other artists who treat their audience like a smart and musically/generally educated bunch of people.

Maiden shouldn't be compared to anyone and the fact that in 1999 the fans voted for the best-known tunes and hits means little because after 7 years without Bruce and the band slumming it in halls playing weak new material with a weak singer, of course the fans were clamoring to hear Bruce sing Hallowed and Beast. Seven years later they went out and played the whole of Matter of Life and Death in its entirety for a tour. And inbetween promoting new albums they play nostalgic history tours.

And what did the general population do when Maiden played AMOLAD in it's entirety? Complain that they didn't get to hear Run To The Hills, Number Of The Beast, and The Trooper. So 2008/2009 they bust out all the hits for Somewhere Back In Time, people are happy. 2010 they again do a set heavily reliant on post 2000 material, people again complain that they didn't play Run To The Hills or The Trooper, but hey - at least Maiden threw us a bone when they replaced Brighter Than A Thousand Suns with fucking Wrathchild on the second gig of the tour (Sarcasm).

Yes, they do the history tours between tours promoting a new album, but people still complain when they don't do the hits. We're now going into the third year of the Maiden England tour, and the diehards are complaining the tour has been too dragged out, and the casual fans are still eating that shit up.

[Apollo]

Jordan, ER, Powerage, NGO, Amir........some great posts in this thread. I'm enjoying reading it.

Love seeing people just chatting about the shows and the music, without all the usual fighting and crap that goes on here.

Thanks fellas.

[Jordan Rose]

Amir, I think you're absolutely spot-on.

Twat at Hammerstein was stunning because, as you can see in the video, it was the only time when he was completely comfortable with the vocal and could perform it 100% by which I mean he wasn't thinking about struggling with singing it but was 100% into it, feeling the emotion, performing it, making eye contact and expressing himself. He has the same look in his eyes and the same swagger and confidence that 90s Axl had. It's that guy.

You're also right about This I Love still being still being a song he engages with and it's obvious why. When he sings Sweet Child, he probably isn't anymore thinking back about Erin and feeling deeply emotional. The same goes for NR and Estranged.

But it's quite possible, if not likely, that he still hasn't found anyone to replace Stephanie. We know that even in the early 2000s he was still shutting down every year around her birthday. When he sings 'There's no one else could ever make me feel i'm so alive.....I'll never say goodbye' I think he probably is still connecting with the emotions he had when he wrote it. He still loves her and he still misses her and still feels like she was the perfect woman for him and he'll never find anyone quite the same. So as a result, even on a night like the other night, when he's absolute bored shitless singing Appetite, he still brings something else for This I Love.

[Amir]

Amir, I think you're absolutely spot-on.

Twat at Hammerstein was stunning because, as you can see in the video, it was the only time when he was completely comfortable with the vocal and could perform it 100% by which I mean he wasn't thinking about struggling with singing it but was 100% into it, feeling the emotion, performing it, making eye contact and expressing himself. He has the same look in his eyes and the same swagger and confidence that 90s Axl had. It's that guy.

You're also right about This I Love still being still being a song he engages with and it's obvious why. When he sings Sweet Child, he probably isn't anymore thinking back about Erin and feeling deeply emotional. The same goes for NR and Estranged.

But it's quite possible, if not likely, that he still hasn't found anyone to replace Stephanie. We know that even in the early 2000s he was still shutting down every year around her birthday. When he sings 'There's no one else could ever make me feel i'm so alive.....I'll never say goodbye' I think he probably is still connecting with the emotions he had when he wrote it. He still loves her and he still misses her and still feels like she was the perfect woman for him and he'll never find anyone quite the same. So as a result, even on a night like the other night, when he's absolute bored shitless singing Appetite, he still brings something else for This I Love.

I wonder if he is too content to put any energy into TWAT these days? The Dublin and Vegas attempts at it lacked the blinding intensity of the '06/'09-10 performances of the song, maybe he just doesn't feel that hung up about Stephanie any more? He seems to be on-off/in an open relationship with Sasha, and just generally happier than he was a few years ago, I don't think he can or wants to go to the dark places of his mind that bore such lyrics as "I WOULD DO ANNYYYTTTTHHHHIIIIIIIIIIING FOR YOOOOUUUU". And I can't blame him if he doesn't want to, probably healthier not to. But I'd like to see SOMETHING go into the performances.

[Powerage5]

He's one of the few performers I can think of that's at his best when he's not in a very happy place. And it's tough...you want to see these killer perofrmances but at the same time, you've gotta be at least a little glad that he's seemingly happier nowadays

[CAFC Nick]

So what's the point of Axl continuing with a new version of GnR then?

Axl has a large appetite and Brazilian family he needs to feed.

If he's going to waste his time going through the motions of playing a show, he might as well do it under the GNR banner where he can put more butts in the seats.

That has been his plan all along. He is just far more transparent about it now.

Dude, Axl of 2014 may be a joke, but give pre-2011 Axl his due.

This is a man who wants to play new music and give it his fucking all why doing so:

That's actually quite tough to watch... Such an amazing performance. Seems like an absolute lifetime ago and a completely different person

[Jordan Rose]

On a slightly different note but in the spirit of what we're on about, I need to explain that I relate to Axl on a personal level more than anyone else on the planet who i've met or haven't.

I completely relate to the way he built his world around Steph and after writing This I Love in 1993 he was still hanging on 10 years later and possibly even 20 years later, to those same feelings and the slightest hope that she might come back to him.

I've been holding on in the same way to a girl for the past 6 months and I relate to This I Love completely and utterly and I can't even slightly relate to other people who I see going through a break-up, being desolate and miserable for a week or two and then bouncing back and suddenly seeing someone else and then doing it again and again.

I feel the exact same way 6 months on as I did the day I knew i'd lost this girl. I can't 'let go' or 'let what happens happen' etc. I know I should for my own health and happiness and depending on what one believes about how the universe works it might even help bring her back to me if i'm prepared to let go instead of hanging on.

But I can't make myself make that choice as long as I believe there's a chance.

And the point i'm getting to (if anyone is still reading) is that holding onto those sorts of emotions as expressed in This I Love is completely crippling. You can't be a whole, happy, productive person whilst you're constantly weighed down by emotional pain, regret, sadness, anger etc. You can't really live. Six months on my feelings towards this girl are with me almost all the time, and even if I switch off whilst watching a movie it will only be 30 minutes before i'm conscious of them again and missing her.

I can only imagine how Axl hanging on to Steph, nevermind his hatred towards Slash, has made it impossible for him to get shit done so many times over the last 20 years. Because I can see myself being the exact same way for a long, long time.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Jordan Rose

[Amir]

He's one of the few performers I can think of that's at his best when he's not in a very happy place. And it's tough...you want to see these killer perofrmances but at the same time, you've gotta be at least a little glad that he's seemingly happier nowadays

Yeah, I think it's a real case of realising the love you have is for him as a performer, not as a person.

'That's not all that's changed. In GNR's early years, Rose worked out the "angst, frustration and rebellion" of his painful upbringing on stage and off.

"I was expressing my emotions and took that as far as you can and still be alive," he says. "I could beat my mike stand into the stage but I was still in pain. Maybe fans liked it, but sometimes people forget you're a person and they're more into the entertainment value. It's taken a long time to turn that around and give a strong show without it being a kamikaze show.

"There was a much more self-destructive nature in Appetite. It was a going-for-it-at-all-cost thing that worked then. I don't know if that's the smartest thing for me now."'

[Guest NGOG]

This guy... not so much...:

I love how Bumblefoot always struts over after DJ's part and is like "Pay attention kids, here's the REAL solo".

[Amir]

On a slightly different note but in the spirit of what we're on about, I need to explain that I relate to Axl on a personal level more than anyone else on the planet who i've met or haven't.

I completely relate to the way he built his world around Steph and after writing This I Love in 1993 he was still hanging on 10 years later and possibly even 20 years later, to those same feelings and the slightest hope that she might come back to him.

I've been holding on in the same way to a girl for the past 6 months and I relate to This I Love completely and utterly and I can't even slightly relate to other people who I say going through a break-up, being desolate and miserable for a week or two and then bouncing back and suddenly seeing someone else and then doing it again and again.

I feel the exact same way 6 months on as I did the day I knew i'd lost this girl. I can't 'let go' or 'let what happens happen' etc. I know I should for my own health and happiness and it depending on what one believes about how the universe works it might even help bring her back to me if i'm prepared to let go instead of hanging on.

But I can't make myself make that choice as long as I believe there's a chance.

And the point i'm getting to (if anyone is still reading) is that holding onto those sorts of emotions as expressed in This I Love is completely crippling. You can't be a whole, happy, productive person whilst you're constantly weighed down by emotional pain, regret, sadness, anger etc. You can't really live. Six months on my feelings towards this girl are with me almost all the time, and even if I switch off whilst watching a movie it will only be 30 minutes before i'm conscious of them again and missing her.

I can only imagine how Axl hanging on to Steph, nevermind his hatred towards Slash, has made it impossible for him to get shit done so many times over the last 20 years. Because I can see myself being the exact same way for a long, long time.

When I first listened to ChiDem, I could get lost in the music completely. I was generally a more emotional person back then. Events in my life in the following years meant songs like TIL and TWAT could send me soaring to heights and plummeting to lows. Past couple of years... I don't have those intense emotions any more. I don't get lost in music as much as I used to in general, let alone with ChiDem. So I can see why Axl can struggle to perform like he used to if he's happy.

[jekylhyde]

Holy hell, watching that TWAT video from 2006 and comparing it to recent videos is like seeing two different persons. I wonder, what the happened?

[Zint]

Axl was proud of his band in 2006, had a purpose and drive that he's simply lost in recent years.

And as per my post above, fair enough if he wants to rest on his laurels. He's, what, 51? 52? He's earned that right, you could argue. But then there's a whole lot of other factors that go into that, and people's expectations of GN'R, that maybe he needs to account for. Especially since a lot of those expectations hinge on comments he made over the years relating to moving GN'R forward.

Well that's just it really, isn't it?

I went along for the ride you know? Axl had grande visions and was really going to take the music into the stratosphere, even if he has to alienate the original guys to do so.

One took in to consideration the best of what the guy had put on the table to date, and you thought "woah, ok, bring it".

I went to a few of the 2002 shows..Axl's back! Axl fucking Rose is back!...followed right through and even travelled to New York City for a Hammerstein show. I enjoyed every minute of it.

By the 2011 Toronto show I was looking around at the people in the section I was in, mostly a bunch of zombies with "what bullshit" looks on their faces.

A good friend of mine who followed GnR since seeing them open for the Cult bailed after that show, just flat out bailed...but he'll go to every Slash show he can.

The rock bottom for me though was the half full bar in Toronto last July, a market that used to sell out in nanoseconds for anything everything GnR related.

It was so cookie cutter and empty, it meant nothing to me...Bumblefoot and his goofy faces yeah whatever. Two plus hours of songs perfected by guys who are now biding their time in side projects while these fill in guys walk through the back catalogue of the "hits everyone wants to hear". It just really bummed me out that nothing had moved forward. I paid $150 to be reminded how cool things were 20+ years ago.

If this line up were really worth their nuts, they'd be playing 80% new material with two encores of the hits to appease. It's really how it should have been by now.

It's not all about the casual fan either. My neighbour went to a 2002 show, he was excited as hell...pretty much an original material setlist right? He left half way through and when I saw him the next day he said "who's the fuckin guy with a chicken bucket on his head?"..in a completely contemptuous tone. He was out right there and then, never went to another show.

And that's kind of the catch 22 right there, if you are going to take Guns that far in to left field, you should really have a reason for doing so. To play the hits?...no.

They should be in a fuckin studio not playing South American tour number 20.

If Chi-Dem was the only card up the sleeve, then concede that the expanded vision of GnR wasn't the next big Elton John-electronica-Queen-whatever epic extravaganza that was going to tip the music world on its collective ass. It fell...uh...somewhat short.

If the point of a GnR show, now, is to remind people of the cool tunes they used to write and the huge hits that ensued...do it with the lads that people want to see you do them with. Truth be fuckin told, what's left of the rock world would blow a collective load if the original guys (Matt or Steven) did a hits/ deep cuts tour and perhaps if there was nowhere to go from there, bowed out gracefully.