Rumored Concert Date Thread

[ZoSoRose]

Where was the April date rumored for the main tour? There's no way

It'll be in like July and August and it'll probably announced in March or April 

[Estranged Reality]

The Grammys are on Monday. Has the band confirmed/denied the rumor that they were approached to play?

[rockphantom]

Just now, Estranged Reality said:

The Grammys are on Monday. Has the band confirmed/denied the rumor that they were approached to play?

Duff and Matt will be performing with the Hollywood Vampires at the Grammys.

[Estranged Reality]

6 minutes ago, rockphantom said:

Duff and Matt will be performing with the Hollywood Vampires at the Grammys.

Have we already discussed the possibility that Guns could show up? Especially if Duff is already there?

An article about the reunion (I think on NME?) said that they were going to play...

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I really hate stadium seating. I was hoping for smaller places. Oh well, I guess it'll be easier to get tickets for bigger venues, unless those ticket brokers get there first.  Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show will be in LA for a week. I was hoping that Axl, Duff and Slash would appear on his show and announce the reunion tour.

Edited February 14, 2016 by dontdamnmeuyi2015

[tsinindy]

32 minutes ago, Estranged Reality said:

Have we already discussed the possibility that Guns could show up? Especially if Duff is already there?

An article about the reunion (I think on NME?) said that they were going to play...

It would serve no purpose...none, zero for GnR to show up at the Grammys.  And, there is a whole separate thread on this already.

[Estranged Reality]

35 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

It would serve no purpose...none, zero for GnR to show up at the Grammys.  And, there is a whole separate thread on this already.

How would it serve zero purpose? Huge exposure. Marketing opportunity.

I looked for another thread on the front page but didn't see it, I'll have to check again.

[tsinindy]

2 hours ago, Estranged Reality said:

How would it serve zero purpose? Huge exposure. Marketing opportunity.

I looked for another thread on the front page but didn't see it, I'll have to check again.

It's all good...they are selling out as it is...that's my point.  

[sanity_lost]

I know there has been some complaints about the lack of Official GNR presence in the media, but it isn't like there hasn't been any promotion for GNR at all.

The local Metallica obsessed radio station is having a Guns N' Roses Valentine weekend. They play two back to back GNR songs an hour along with some drawing to win a GNR prize pack at the end of the weekend (I think that was the gist of it.  I only listen to the station when I am in the car and I am a neurotic radio station surfer). For the combined total of 50 or so minutes I have spent in the car driving from place to place yesterday and today I've heard 6 GNR songs along with the whole GNR Valentines weekend blah, blah, blah. (If you are curious it was Brownstone/Patience, You Could Be Mine/Better, and Sweet Child/Don't Cry)

It isn't as widespread as doing interviews and getting the headlines, but it is a little more targeted and subtle.

[Spirit]

I think the interviews will come as soon as the tour has been announced.

I'm sure there will be radio stations promoting their local shows, giving away tickets. Sometimes they bring on the artist or do a phone interview or something.

[gunsfanoldie]

10 hours ago, Estranged Reality said:

How would it serve zero purpose? Huge exposure. Marketing opportunity.

I looked for another thread on the front page but didn't see it, I'll have to check again.

I hear where you're coming from, but in the end it really does seem futile. When its announced, people will know, Grammys or not. The Grammys and the VMAs are not what they once were. Its the same reason Guns wouldn't play the Super Bowl. As big as a reunion would be, they aren't relevant. Announcing on the Grammys won't be what I think people think it would be in their minds. For some reason, its different than when The Police announced they were back at the Grammys. It just doesn't serve that purpose anymore, even though that was only 10 years ago. Its meant to show the big artists with new music, and also tributes. But otherwise, there's really no reason to think they'd show up. It really would serve zero purpose as there will be demand when its actually announced.

If they had new music they were gonna release, that would be a different story. Then they could do an AC/DC type thing where they open the show and play a new song as well as a classic. But the Grammys doesn't really serve as a place to announce a reunion anymore. Its changed so much that more people watch the highlights the next day than watch it live, hencing announcing the reunion in an official press release would get as much traction as if they played.

And I think its a given that once we're really in the thick of it, Slash and Duff will be promoting it. I know its quiet now, but I think once we get a real actual tour as opposed to scattered dates like this, in the interviews will come rolling in. Its obviously not something they HAVE to promote, but if they play stadiums they'll still have to do a little selling.

[maxpax]

17 minutes ago, gunsfanoldie said:

I hear where you're coming from, but in the end it really does seem futile. When its announced, people will know, Grammys or not. The Grammys and the VMAs are not what they once were. Its the same reason Guns wouldn't play the Super Bowl. As big as a reunion would be, they aren't relevant. Announcing on the Grammys won't be what I think people think it would be in their minds. For some reason, its different than when The Police announced they were back at the Grammys. It just doesn't serve that purpose anymore, even though that was only 10 years ago. Its meant to show the big artists with new music, and also tributes. But otherwise, there's really no reason to think they'd show up. It really would serve zero purpose as there will be demand when its actually announced.

If they had new music they were gonna release, that would be a different story. Then they could do an AC/DC type thing where they open the show and play a new song as well as a classic. But the Grammys doesn't really serve as a place to announce a reunion anymore. Its changed so much that more people watch the highlights the next day than watch it live, hencing announcing the reunion in an official press release would get as much traction as if they played.

And I think its a given that once we're really in the thick of it, Slash and Duff will be promoting it. I know its quiet now, but I think once we get a real actual tour as opposed to scattered dates like this, in the interviews will come rolling in. Its obviously not something they HAVE to promote, but if they play stadiums they'll still have to do a little selling.

prince or tom petty weren't more relevant and got their super bowl performances a few years ago...so, i don't agree with you. gnr is probably the most possible band for the next super bowl as far the tour will be successful. we are still in axl's band where everything can happen. 

with regard to the grammys...we don't know what is going on in gnr right now. it's possible that they are working on studio material and don't want too much publicity. and let us be honest....axls after 2000s performances on live tv were simply horrible. i think even axl knows that....but he will grab the cash on super bowl 2017.

Edited February 14, 2016 by maxpax

[gunsfanoldie]

Just now, maxpax said:

prince or tom petty weren't more relevant and got their super bowl performances a few years ago...so, i don't agree with you. gnr is probably the most possible band for the next super bowl as far the tour will be successful. we are still in axl's band where everything can happen. 

 

No no no, its so different now! I agree with you, but Petty and Prince were part of a movement. For a number of years we had a classic rock Super Bowl. You didn't have to be relevant. You could just be McCartney or Petty or Prince and just play to play. Or you could be the Stones or Bruce or U2 and play to promote something. But for a time, any classic rock group could play if they were asked and wanted to. Petty, very smartly, jumped on that bandwagon. That halftime show would NEVER happen nowadays. Back then, it was exactly what the Super Bowl wanted. Something everyone knew that was innocent and safe. This year's halftime show was proof that it is back to being a spectacle. I don't think for anytime in the near future will you see ONE band play the halftime show. It will clearly be one anchor, with other guests, new and old, to please all genres. Coldplay had that with Beyonce and Bruno. Katy Perry had that with Kravitz and Missy Elliot, Black Eyed Peas had that by having SLASH! To be a small guest to reach that demographic.

Of course I could be wrong, but I really think it is now about relevance and spectacle. Classic Rock had its moment with the super bowl and that has now passed. I truly think for that reason Guns would never be asked to do the Super Bowl like Prince and Petty were. AC/DC has never played the Super Bowl! They probably could have during the 7 years or so they had rock acts, but even though Hells Bells is played every two seconds at football games, I think their time to do the halftime show is over. The ONLY rock act I could see playing the Super Bowl these days is Foo Fighters, and I'm sure they will for their next album. And I would be willing to bet now that it will NOT just be them, and there will be guests to reach all of the other demographics. The Grammys are very much the same these days. Its not about reunions, its about current singles and making a spectacle. The only way a band like AC/DC gets to play is if they have a new single.

[Tom-Ass]

Who cares about interviews.. That is everything that is wrong with Rock N' Roll these days. Everyone is too damn accessible and in your face all the time.. It takes a lot of the mystique out of everything. Let them keep us on our toes, guessing and hungry for more.

 

EDIT: unless of course you are gonna tell us Izzy and Adler are in and Fortus, Pittman and Frank are out

Edited February 14, 2016 by Tom-Ass

[gunsfanoldie]

33 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said:

Who cares about interviews.. That is everything that is wrong with Rock N' Roll these days. Everyone is too damn accessible and in your face all the time.. It takes a lot of the mystique out of everything. Let them keep us on our toes, guessing and hungry for more.

 

EDIT: unless of course you are gonna tell us Izzy and Adler are in and Fortus, Pittman and Frank are out

I agree that most of my excitment for these shows stems from the fact that they haven't said anything. I needed them to confirm Slash. After that, they only serve to say more bad than good. Say nothing, my expectations can only keep going up, and then it makes being at the actual show a mindblowing experience. I'm paying a premium for this show specifically because I have no idea what the fuck to expect. I do like to hear interviews, but in this instance I agree you're right Tom, the less they say the better.

[Eddie Money]

Nothing new to report here.  I go home from paradise on Tuesday and I'll work to get some more info for all of you. 

It is my humble opinion that a super bowl performance could have been a huge liability for the band.  There would have been a greater chance of mistakes than a triumphant ass-kicking presentation of what this band will be on tour this Spring/Summer.  They've been rehearsing, but without Axl again and we don't know what he's going to sound like.  He skipped band rehearsals two weeks ago  

There's just too much money on the line.  If The band were to play live at the super bowl (and I don't think anyone really does)  and has an off night, the tour's in trouble.  If he lipsyncs, people blast him, the tour is in trouble.  No Izzy Stradlin or Adler on stage....the tour is not a real reunion...

The less exposure, the better in my opinion until they are ready to move a lot of tickets.  

Enjoy your Domingo fans.  I hope to meet you all in the DF or in Vegas. 

[tk1]

i agree with the low profile approach.  However, considering the money and all the attention these shows will receive, I would hope Axl participates in some of the rehearsals even though that hasn't always been something he is heavily involved in.  Any belief that Axl has atleast been in the same room with the rest of the band in attempts to build chemistry?? 

[Sprite]

3 hours ago, gunsfanoldie said:

No no no, its so different now! I agree with you, but Petty and Prince were part of a movement. For a number of years we had a classic rock Super Bowl. You didn't have to be relevant. You could just be McCartney or Petty or Prince and just play to play. Or you could be the Stones or Bruce or U2 and play to promote something. But for a time, any classic rock group could play if they were asked and wanted to. Petty, very smartly, jumped on that bandwagon. That halftime show would NEVER happen nowadays. Back then, it was exactly what the Super Bowl wanted. Something everyone knew that was innocent and safe. This year's halftime show was proof that it is back to being a spectacle. I don't think for anytime in the near future will you see ONE band play the halftime show. It will clearly be one anchor, with other guests, new and old, to please all genres. Coldplay had that with Beyonce and Bruno. Katy Perry had that with Kravitz and Missy Elliot, Black Eyed Peas had that by having SLASH! To be a small guest to reach that demographic.

Of course I could be wrong, but I really think it is now about relevance and spectacle. Classic Rock had its moment with the super bowl and that has now passed. I truly think for that reason Guns would never be asked to do the Super Bowl like Prince and Petty were. AC/DC has never played the Super Bowl! They probably could have during the 7 years or so they had rock acts, but even though Hells Bells is played every two seconds at football games, I think their time to do the halftime show is over. The ONLY rock act I could see playing the Super Bowl these days is Foo Fighters, and I'm sure they will for their next album. And I would be willing to bet now that it will NOT just be them, and there will be guests to reach all of the other demographics. The Grammys are very much the same these days. Its not about reunions, its about current singles and making a spectacle. The only way a band like AC/DC gets to play is if they have a new single.

I think your putting too much emphasis on relevance relating to chart positions and album sales. Not everyone is in to the pop acts you mentioned. Just like not everyone was into Madonna in the 80s. It's like I was able to find more people complaining about people complaining about Starbucks Christmas cups then actual people complaining. Pop music is just that- it's popular. It resonates with masses because it's not complex and  it's short and repetitive. Just like how I have better odds finding someone to discuss the weekly happenings of the real housewives then I do finding someone to talk about the origins of consciousness. I wouldn't say the origin of consciousness is less relevant to everyone than the real housewives, would you? I think there are plenty or fans of classic rock and all sorts of "non relevant, non pop" acts out there. I'd say you can even make an argument there are more. If as many people know a Bruno Mars or missy Elliot song in 2055, as they do an acdc song now, I'd be very surprised.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Sprite

[Padme]

38 minutes ago, Eddie Money said:

Nothing new to report here.  I go home from paradise on Tuesday and I'll work to get some more info for all of you. 

It is my humble opinion that a super bowl performance could have been a huge liability for the band.  There would have been a greater chance of mistakes than a triumphant ass-kicking presentation of what this band will be on tour this Spring/Summer.  They've been rehearsing, but without Axl again and we don't know what he's going to sound like.  He skipped band rehearsals two weeks ago  

There's just too much money on the line.  If The band were to play live at the super bowl (and I don't think anyone really does)  and has an off night, the tour's in trouble.  If he lipsyncs, people blast him, the tour is in trouble.  No Izzy Stradlin or Adler on stage....the tour is not a real reunion...

The less exposure, the better in my opinion until they are ready to move a lot of tickets.  

Enjoy your Domingo fans.  I hope to meet you all in the DF or in Vegas. 

Thanks a lot Eddie, much appreciated! 

The Super Bowl is the least of my concern. I´m worried about Axl´s voice and his overall performance if he keeps missing rehearsals 

[gunsfanoldie]

11 minutes ago, Sprite said:

I think your putting too much emphasis on relevance relating to chart positions and album sales. Not everyone is in to the pop acts you mentioned. Just like not everyone was into Madonna in the 80s. Pop music is just that- it's popular. It resonates with masses because it's not complex and  it's short and repetitive. Just like how I have better odds finding someone to discuss the weekly happenings of the real housewives then I do finding someone to talk about the origins of consciousness. I wouldn't say the origin of consciousness is less relevant than the real housewives, would you? I think there are plenty or fans of classic rock and all sorts of "non relevant, non pop" acts out there. I'd say you can even make an argument there are more. If as many people know a Bruno Mars or missy Elliot song in 2055, as they do an acdc song now, I'd be very surprised. 

I agree with that sentiment as a whole, but I'm saying for the halftime I think they're going for a different thing. It used to BE a different thing. 25 years ago you had Michael Jackson perform the whole halftime. In 2000, the halftime was NSYNC and Aerosmith. They switched off, with Britney Spears and Mary J Blidge and maybe even a rapper also taking part. Same thing the next year, with Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Kid Rock, and a few other acts. THEN you had the nip slip, and the NFL played it safe by having classic rock acts do the full halftime, similar to how Michael did it or U2 did it. It was all about them, and it was more a mini concert than anything else. Since Springsteen in 2009, they have made a conscious shift back to what it was. You have one person anchoring the halftime (Coldplay, Madonna, Bruno Mars, Black Eyed Peas, Katy Perry) then you have scattered other guests that appeal to different demographics (RHCP during Bruno Mars, Slash during Black Eyed Peas, Lenny Kravitz during Katy).

Its not always evenly split, but clearly they've wanted it to become a more variety type spectacle performance. Guns N Roses would have fit if they were using the same format as 2004-2009, when it was one band. Nowadays, I think they try to just put on a show where there's something for everyone. Its no longer "You liked Tom Petty or you didn't", its "I didn't like Coldplay, but loved Beyonce" or "Beyonce was terrible but Bruno Mars was great". There's something for everyone to get on board with now. Thats at least what I noticed this year that its clearly a shift towards that, and someone modern. I don't think we get a "legend" anymore doing the Super Bowl. As much as I think AC/DC would be a perfect Super Bowl, I think that time has passed, and I think those bands didn't notice the opportunity wouldn't be there until its gone now.

Thats at least why I thought there was not even a question GNR wouldn't be at the Super Bowl. Its not that type of show anymore. I guess there are exceptions, but with the way its currently set up I doubt Guns N Roses, alone, gets 12 minutes to shine at the Super Bowl, and I don't think they'd say yes unless that was the case. I think the Grammys are very much the same way. There was an emphasis on more classic rock and older music 10 years ago (when Tom Petty played the Super Bowl, when The Police reunited at the Grammys) than their is now. GNR could present an award at the Grammys, and announce the reunion that way similar to how KISS did in the 90s. But I don't think you get a performance out of them.

But I'm already bored by this conversation lol. I could simply just say I don't think there's any shot GNR plays the Super Bowl or Grammys and I don't think they ever will, especially not without new music.

Edited February 14, 2016 by gunsfanoldie

[gunsfanoldie]

46 minutes ago, Eddie Money said:

It is my humble opinion that a super bowl performance could have been a huge liability for the band.  There would have been a greater chance of mistakes than a triumphant ass-kicking presentation of what this band will be on tour this Spring/Summer.  They've been rehearsing, but without Axl again and we don't know what he's going to sound like.  He skipped band rehearsals two weeks ago  

I guess I'm not surprised by this but its odd to hear. It must have been known he wouldn't be there, cause I can't imagine Slash and Duff sign onto this and it turns out "whoops, Axl's up to the same old shit." They must know, and more importantly be OK, with him not attending rehearsals. There's no way they put their reputations on the line unless they actually know Axl can pull it off. So it seems like "skipped" may be a bad word, unless that really is the case and Slash is just blindly going along with all this. But that seems unlike him and he must have to hear Axl sing before walking onstage with him.

[Sprite]

3 minutes ago, gunsfanoldie said:

I agree with that sentiment as a whole, but I'm saying for the halftime I think they're going for a different thing. It used to BE a different thing. 25 years ago you had Michael Jackson perform the whole halftime. In 2000, the halftime was NSYNC and Aerosmith. They switched off, with Britney Spears and Mary J Blidge and maybe even a rapper also taking part. Same thing the next year, with Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Kid Rock, and a few other acts. THEN you had the nip slip, and the NFL played it safe by having classic rock acts do the full halftime, similar to how Michael did it or U2 did it. It was all about them, and it was more a mini concert than anything else. Since Springsteen in 2009, they have made a conscious shift back to what it was. You have one person anchoring the halftime (Coldplay, Madonna, Bruno Mars, Black Eyed Peas, Katy Perry) then you have scattered other guests that appeal to different demographics (RHCP during Bruno Mars, Slash during Black Eyed Peas, Lenny Kravitz during Katy).

Its not always evenly split, but clearly they've wanted it to become a more variety type spectacle performance. Guns N Roses would have fit if they were using the same format as 2004-2009, when it was one band. Nowadays, I think they try to just put on a show where there's something for everyone. Its no longer "You liked Tom Petty or you didn't", its "I didn't like Coldplay, but loved Beyonce" or "Beyonce was terrible but Bruno Mars was great". There's something for everyone to get on board with now. Thats at least what I noticed this year that its clearly a shift towards that, and someone modern. I don't think we get a "legend" anymore doing the Super Bowl. As much as I think AC/DC would be a perfect Super Bowl, I think that time has passed, and I think those bands didn't notice the opportunity wouldn't be there until its gone now.

Thats at least why I thought there was not even a question GNR wouldn't be at the Super Bowl. Its not that type of show anymore. I guess there are exceptions, but with the way its currently set up I doubt Guns N Roses, alone, gets 12 minutes to shine at the Super Bowl, and I don't think they'd say yes unless that was the case. I think the Grammys are very much the same way. There was an emphasis on more classic rock and older music 10 years ago (when Tom Petty played the Super Bowl, when The Police reunited at the Grammys) than their is now. GNR could present an award at the Grammys, and announce the reunion that way similar to how KISS did in the 90s. But I don't think you get a performance out of them.

But I'm already bored by this conversation lol. I could simply just say I don't think there's any shot GNR plays the Super Bowl or Grammys and I don't think they ever will, especially not without new music.

Ah I see your point. In that way it seems genius of the nfl to have multiples. I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing this. I was thinking last Sunday how they used to have single artists but that changed. Probably coincides with our collective attention span getting shorter as the world turns.

[gunsfanoldie]

Just now, Sprite said:

Ah I see your point. In that way it seems genius of the nfl to have multiples. I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing this. I was thinking last Sunday how they used to have single artists but that changed. Probably coincides with our collective attention span getting shorter as the world turns.

Absolutely. This Super Bowl was the first time I noticed "oh, that trend from a few years ago is DEFINITELY gone." There probably won't be anymore halftime shows I care about. Which sucks, but it just made me appreciate there was this decade or so period where the Halftime show was almost specifically catered to me. Now, as it probably should be lol, its catered to the whole world, but this was definitely the first year I was conscious that clearly this is probably what the halftime show will be like until further notice. I fully expect Taylor Swift with special guests next year. Or Lady Gaga with special guests.

[yesfan18]

The tour announcement has to be coming soon.  Think about it, all big artist announce their stadium tour around this time of the year.  Taylor Swift announced hers late 2014 and didn't start playing till May of 2015. AC/DC announced their stadium tour February of last year and didn't kick it off till August.  If the show at the end of April is true they would be crazy not to announce it soon. Also, what if Axl or the group sounds band, they want to put it on sale before the Vegas shows.  So far all the announcements have come on a Tuesday .  I'm really excited for the reunion but I feel like it 10 years too late. There has been no attention to this almost at all. Not many people seem to know but the fans. The only reason why my friends and family know of this is because of me. I'm sure there will be promotion. I personally think they are doing this whole thing wrong. The reunion thing for bands has kind of died. Now everyone is on their retirement tour. All and all i'm really excited for the reunion and hope the announcement comes soon

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, Eddie Money said:

Nothing new to report here.  I go home from paradise on Tuesday and I'll work to get some more info for all of you. 

It is my humble opinion that a super bowl performance could have been a huge liability for the band.  There would have been a greater chance of mistakes than a triumphant ass-kicking presentation of what this band will be on tour this Spring/Summer.  They've been rehearsing, but without Axl again and we don't know what he's going to sound like.  He skipped band rehearsals two weeks ago  

There's just too much money on the line.  If The band were to play live at the super bowl (and I don't think anyone really does)  and has an off night, the tour's in trouble.  If he lipsyncs, people blast him, the tour is in trouble.  No Izzy Stradlin or Adler on stage....the tour is not a real reunion...

The less exposure, the better in my opinion until they are ready to move a lot of tickets.  

Enjoy your Domingo fans.  I hope to meet you all in the DF or in Vegas. 

From what you know, are Slash and Duff ok with Axl not attending rehearsals, or is it point of contention? I know these types of things used to be a problem back in the day. But singing IS different than being an instrumentalist, so maybe they understand better now? Any further info you could give us in reguards to this topic would be great, thanks.