How much longer will Axl tour?

[liers]

I have no idea. I have a hard time picturing Axl touring with Guns N’ Roses beyond another 5 years. But there’s so much unrelease material, I have a hard time imagining Axl dying with so many songs being unreleased.

I could see him being a solo musician doing piano songs.

[Powderfinger]

On 8/25/2022 at 5:37 AM, allwaystired said:

I'm pretty much in the 'retire before it gets embarrassing' camp for any band or act. There's a reason Nirvana, The Doors, Hendrix etc are all so reverred after all, and it's not just the music.

 

The Doors may have been done irrespective of Jim’s death. LA Woman was the last album required by contract, it was also nearly full circle for the band who returned to the bluesy songs they started with before the first album. It also seems Morrison was done with the music thing by that point and was focusing on writing.

Nirvana also likely we’re done irrespective of Kurts death. He’d been pretty vocal about wanting something different in the last year before his death. I could see a Neil Young route been taken by Cobain. 
 

Hendrix too seemed to have been going in another direction, a more acoustic route. 

[allwaystired]

8 minutes ago, Powderfinger said:

 

The Doors may have been done irrespective of Jim’s death. LA Woman was the last album required by contract, it was also nearly full circle for the band who returned to the bluesy songs they started with before the first album. It also seems Morrison was done with the music thing by that point and was focusing on writing.

Nirvana also likely we’re done irrespective of Kurts death. He’d been pretty vocal about wanting something different in the last year before his death. I could see a Neil Young route been taken by Cobain. 
 

Hendrix too seemed to have been going in another direction, a more acoustic route. 

I know very little about The Doors really. 

It's so hard to know. It's like Lennon- he could have gone on to do amazing stuff. He equally could have decided to reform The Beatles and get older and fatter touring the same songs forever. Cobain could have done the same eventually......or as you say, gone down a different route.

What's that quote? 'Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse'? Something like that? Difficult to go wrong when you're not around anymore! 

 

[Nintari]

4 hours ago, allwaystired said:

I know very little about The Doors really. 

It's so hard to know. It's like Lennon- he could have gone on to do amazing stuff. He equally could have decided to reform The Beatles and get older and fatter touring the same songs forever. Cobain could have done the same eventually......or as you say, gone down a different route.

What's that quote? 'Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse'? Something like that? Difficult to go wrong when you're not around anymore! 

 

I'm of a similar belief, myself. Very few rock bands should continue past their 20's. Guns N Roses should have ended after the illusions tour. Either that, or completely reinvented themselves into a more mature, mellow act. But watching Axl in 2001, he was already a shadow of his former self. Now, it's just sad. If you go back and watch say, Paris 1992, it's like a completely different animal. They have fire. They have grit. They're alive.

So yeah, I say just pack it around 30. If that means only making a few great records well... that least it'll be your very best work. Do we really want anything less, anyway?

Edited August 27, 2022 by Nintari

[darkside259]

12 minutes ago, Nintari said:

I'm of a similar belief, myself. Very few rock bands should continue past their 20's. Guns N Roses should have ended after the illusions tour. Either that, or completely reinvented themselves into a more mature, mellow act. But watching Axl in 2001, he was already a shadow of his former self. Now, it's just sad. If you go back and watch say, Paris 1992, it's like a completely different animal. They have fire. They have grit. They're alive.

So yeah, I say just pack it around 30. If that means only making a few great records well... that least it'll be your very best work. Do we really want anything less, anyway?

nah i mean i gte it! but just wacth rir 06 or even the select from 

[SoulMonster]

4 hours ago, Nintari said:

I'm of a similar belief, myself. Very few rock bands should continue past their 20's. Guns N Roses should have ended after the illusions tour. Either that, or completely reinvented themselves into a more mature, mellow act. But watching Axl in 2001, he was already a shadow of his former self. Now, it's just sad. If you go back and watch say, Paris 1992, it's like a completely different animal. They have fire. They have grit. They're alive.

So yeah, I say just pack it around 30.

That's pretty selfish considering you can continue touring and entertaining people for many more years even if you can't muster the same passion you had when you were in your 20s. It's aging. It's okay. People still have a great time at the shows.

[Chris 55]

Unrelated but is anyone else getting a pop up ad page whenever they try and click on a forum link? 

[star]

It is sad that humans age. It is all the sad'er than Axl wasted so many years with Chinese Democracy all the while Slash banged out material after material, some of it rather good..

I sense Axl found comfort of sorts getting much of the old band together, with Slash etc. 

I am happy to have seen Axl in his prime during 1983 at Milton Keynes National Bowl, UK on Sunday when they performed one on the final Use Your Illusion concerts, and were on fire! 

I kick myself, for not seeing GNR at Wembley, UK during their tour prior to Use Your Illusion

Edited August 27, 2022 by star

[Kranich]

On 8/26/2022 at 9:22 AM, Chuzeville said:

I found this interesting; does he do it often?

 

He sounds great here. That's the way he should approach a lot of his old material. 

[allwaystired]

On 8/27/2022 at 3:04 AM, Nintari said:

I'm of a similar belief, myself. Very few rock bands should continue past their 20's. Guns N Roses should have ended after the illusions tour. Either that, or completely reinvented themselves into a more mature, mellow act. But watching Axl in 2001, he was already a shadow of his former self. Now, it's just sad. If you go back and watch say, Paris 1992, it's like a completely different animal. They have fire. They have grit. They're alive.

So yeah, I say just pack it around 30. If that means only making a few great records well... that least it'll be your very best work. Do we really want anything less, anyway?

I know what you mean- no band will top that golden period. 

A lot of bands do grow and develop though, so whilst they're not as they were when they were in their 20s, many do go on to still produce worthwhile stuff. 

The issue with GNR I think is that they've made so little progression. That means stark comparisons with the past are both inevitable and very easy to do. 

If you're not going to evolve, change, grow all that stuff, I'd go with your view. 

Of course that's stripping back the argument to purely an artistic and creative point of view, taking aside the commercial aspects and the fact people are happy to pay see it. There's two different debates there. 

[Nintari]

On 8/27/2022 at 1:12 AM, SoulMonster said:

That's pretty selfish considering you can continue touring and entertaining people for many more years even if you can't muster the same passion you had when you were in your 20s. It's aging. It's okay. People still have a great time at the shows.

I don't view it like that at all. I think when you hang around when you can't run around, or play or sing the same as you did in your 20's... I think that is sort of selfish, because you're kind of shitting on your legacy. You're tarnishing something that was once pristine, all because of what? Your own desires? Isn't that selfish?

Very, very few greats left on top. But the ones that did have the greatest legacies.

15 hours ago, allwaystired said:

I know what you mean- no band will top that golden period. 

A lot of bands do grow and develop though, so whilst they're not as they were when they were in their 20s, many do go on to still produce worthwhile stuff. 

The issue with GNR I think is that they've made so little progression. That means stark comparisons with the past are both inevitable and very easy to do. 

If you're not going to evolve, change, grow all that stuff, I'd go with your view. 

Of course that's stripping back the argument to purely an artistic and creative point of view, taking aside the commercial aspects and the fact people are happy to pay see it. There's two different debates there. 

Yes. If they had matured and become something more befitting their age, sure. I could handle that. But it's the whole still trying to be 27 thing that just doesn't work for me. It's just... no.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Nintari

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Nintari said:

I don't view it like that at all. I think when you hang around when you can't run around, or play or sing the same as you did in your 20's... I think that is sort of selfish, because you're kind of shitting on your legacy. You're tarnishing something that was once pristine, all because of what? Your own desires? Isn't that selfish?

Very, very few greats left on top. But the ones that did have the greatest legacies.

You have legacy on one hand and then you have literally millions of people on the other hand who want to see you play live and do your thing. I would argue it would be selfish to care more about your own precious legacy than going out and entertaining all the people who still want to see you. There is legacy in that, too, to let the shows go on as long as people enjoy them and not be a pompous ass who cares more about ending it at the top and bereaving fans of the great twilight years. It's a dedication to your craft, an honoring of fans, an entertainer's stamina that is to be admired. And most of all, it is about caring about others and not just being full of yourself.

 

[allwaystired]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You have legacy on one hand and then you have literally millions of people on the other hand who want to see you play live and do your thing. I would argue it would be selfish to care more about your own precious legacy than going out and entertaining all the people who still want to see you. There is legacy in that, too, to let the shows go on as long as people enjoy them and not be a pompous ass who cares more about ending it at the top and bereaving fans of the great twilight years. It's a dedication to your craft, an honoring of fans, an entertainer's stamina that is to be admired. And most of all, it is about caring about others and not just being full of yourself.

 

Do you honestly think bands continue on and on because they care about others? Really? 

It's about cash. That's fine- but there's two sides here. The 'will people pay to see it still, even if it's not good' side and the 'artistic, creative integrity' side. 

Often those things can go hand in hand, but I'd say more often they don't in music. 

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Do you honestly think bands continue on and on because they care about others? Really? 

Some do, some don't, some a combination. Doesn't really affect my point.

[allwaystired]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Some do, some don't, some a combination. Doesn't really affect my point.

Off the top of my head I can't think of one multi-millionaire band or act that are out there playing simply as an act of charity. If they were, they'd play at cost price.

Is your point that people will still pay to see old bands? No-one is saying otherwise, right? I'm a bit confused here.....

I think the point being discussed is the artistic and creative merit of doing so? It's pretty much established that the people of the world will pay to see or do anything if it's marketed right and gives them a nostalgia hit. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by allwaystired

[DurhamGirl]

I have just read a recent tweet Duff sent to his wife saying he is looking forward to spending more time with her.  I think this lends itself to the idea that Guns is going to stop soon.  I also think that Axl being so cheerful of late is due to the knowledge that they are soon to end.  When this happens I dont think we will hear from Axl anymore but then, for me anyway, Axl went a long time ago.

[PatrickS77]

1 hour ago, DurhamGirl said:

I have just read a recent tweet Duff sent to his wife saying he is looking forward to spending more time with her.  I think this lends itself to the idea that Guns is going to stop soon.  I also think that Axl being so cheerful of late is due to the knowledge that they are soon to end.  When this happens I dont think we will hear from Axl anymore but then, for me anyway, Axl went a long time ago.

Yeah. Or maybe not. at the shit people interpret into meaningless things when they really know nothing.

[DurhamGirl]

True, my thoughts are just that my thoughts but actually I know nothing at all.

[Draguns]

On 8/26/2022 at 10:04 PM, Nintari said:

I'm of a similar belief, myself. Very few rock bands should continue past their 20's. Guns N Roses should have ended after the illusions tour. Either that, or completely reinvented themselves into a more mature, mellow act. But watching Axl in 2001, he was already a shadow of his former self. Now, it's just sad. If you go back and watch say, Paris 1992, it's like a completely different animal. They have fire. They have grit. They're alive.

So yeah, I say just pack it around 30. If that means only making a few great records well... that least it'll be your very best work. Do we really want anything less, anyway?

By your logic, The Rolling Stones and Aerosmith should have ended a long time ago. No offense, but your logic is kinda nuts!!! I saw both The Rolling Stones and  Aerosmith when they were much older. These guys were and still are an institution.  If they had ended thing by age 30, there's no way I would have seen them.  Your logic is way off!

[Nintari]

5 hours ago, Draguns said:

By your logic, The Rolling Stones and Aerosmith should have ended a long time ago. No offense, but your logic is kinda nuts!!! I saw both The Rolling Stones and  Aerosmith when they were much older. These guys were and still are an institution.  If they had ended thing by age 30, there's no way I would have seen them.  Your logic is way off!

The Stones should have retired decades ago lol. Even the Simpsons were ripping on them for hanging around for too long... AND THAT WAS THE NINETEEN NINETIES! haha.

As for Aerosmith, they were creatively shot by the 80's. I mean, almost all of their hits after the 70's were a product of working with professional song writers like Desmond Child etc, so that's another example of a band hanging around for too long imo. If you can't write your own songs, it's time to go. 

There aren't many rock bands who have gone past their 20's and still had it (and by it, I mean remaining at, or eclipsing what they were in their prime without the help of outside writers). Pink Floyd is one, but I'll be damned if I can think any others. Feel free to name them!

Edited August 30, 2022 by Nintari

[opalho]

34 minutes ago, Nintari said:

There aren't many rock bands who have gone past their 20's and still had it (and by it, I mean remaining at, or eclipsing what they were in their prime without the help of outside writers). Pink Floyd is one, but I'll be damned if I can think any others. Feel free to name them!

Aerosmith and AC/DC (with Brian Johnson) come to mind. IMO, they're both pretty solid. Scorpions and Deep Purple sound good live as well.

[Powderfinger]

1 hour ago, Nintari said:

There aren't many rock bands who have gone past their 20's and still had it (and by it, I mean remaining at, or eclipsing what they were in their prime without the help of outside writers). Pink Floyd is one, but I'll be damned if I can think any others. Feel free to name them!

Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, RHCP, Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Megadeth, Testament, Pearl Jam, Mudhoney, The Rolling Stones, The Who, David Bowie, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, REM, Radiohead, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters, Fred McDowell, Blondie, The Ramones, The Jesus & Mary Chain, Primal Scream, The Kinks.

Look theres a 100 more who made and released great music in their 30s and well past it. 

[Powderfinger]

16 hours ago, Nintari said:

The Stones should have retired decades ago lol. Even the Simpsons were ripping on them for hanging around for too long... AND THAT WAS THE NINETEEN NINETIES! haha.

Steel Wheels, Bridges to Babylon, Voodoo Lounge, A Bigger Bang & Blue And Lonesome wouldn’t exist.... There’s great tracks on all those records... The tours have been great. 
 

Musicans play music, you can play music until your an old person. What’s the problem. I’m a nobody and I’ll still play guitar at 80. Hanging round too long is a daft thing to say. Bet you’d like to have had a few Pink Floyd albums and tours in the last few years? Rogers doing his thing, it’s not my thing, but I’m glad he’s out there doing it for the people who like it. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Powderfinger

[PatrickS77]

4 hours ago, Nintari said:

As for Aerosmith, they were creatively shot by the 80's. I mean, almost all of their hits after the 70's were a product of working with professional song writers like Desmond Child etc, so that's another example of a band hanging around for too long imo. If you can't write your own songs, it's time to go.

Why? Because you say so?? Many of those songs are great. And then it doesn't really matter who wrote the song.

[Chester 524]

if people are willing to pay to see you, you aren't hanging around too long regardless of age