Tell Me :
Talk
One has to make a living of course.
True...and they made it in living colour!
Show me one Stones ticket with the opening act underneath.
Mathijs
There's many festivals with several headliners. There's also several bands that go or went on tour together and both headline. To headline basically means the band is there to promote sales, and play a full set. An opener is there to warm up the crowd for the headliners and to achieve a better know name and bigger crowd. Something that GnR certainly didn't need. GnR was there to sell tickets, more than the Stones could sell alone in LA in 1989.
Mathijs
t9Vr-2BPGgi4N4Wg~~60_35.JPG)
...for what it´s worth...
Now you sounds exactly as parents of the Stonesfans did in the sixties...
I love the music from both bands. The big difference today is that GN`R died after everybody left in 95. GN`R are different from all the "hairbands", they could really write and play music. Apetitte for destruction is in my opinion the greatest debutalbum ever. The album used 1 year to reach number 1 with no commercials. There is possible to like both bands and i think that Stones could see theirself in Guns in some way.
The sad thing with Axl he got clinical manic depression and behave worse than... maybe all and there is no way to cooperate with him. Anyway he has written real good music and was a real good entertainer
Peace!
Oh crap...here's another ticket stub where the Stones share as headliners...this time, with all people, the cast of FRIENDS?!
Steel Wheels was indeed a low point for the Vegas Stones.
hmmmm...maybe i'm reading it wrong, but looks like the stones were opening for the donald...
one of those "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" sorta deals, i suppose...
Here ya go:
[www.bing.com]
Although now I guess you'll argue that Santana was co-headlining at this particular concert?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: January 13, 2013 00:24
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
VT22
When it comes to musical craftsmanship and spontaneity, to me Living Colour - Vernon Reid in particular - should have been the headliner.
on the other hand, he did record 'Glamour Boys'
One has to make a living of course.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 13, 2013 05:22
Quote
VT22Quote
treaclefingersQuote
VT22
When it comes to musical craftsmanship and spontaneity, to me Living Colour - Vernon Reid in particular - should have been the headliner.
on the other hand, he did record 'Glamour Boys'
One has to make a living of course.
True...and they made it in living colour!
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: January 13, 2013 06:14
i believe the song "glamour boy" was making fun of the hair metal bands of the 80's
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: January 13, 2013 08:32
Guns & Roses just plain suck. I remember having a debate at school when I was 14.. Popular kid in class loved Guns n Roses. Was determined to tell me how much better they were than the Stones. I thought they sucked then and I believe that with even more confidence now. One day that kid came to me in the hallway and suddenly had started listening to the Stones. Told me they were 'alright'. Apparently someone in the band had given an interview in which they told a reporter about how much they liked the Stones.
Guns N Roses suck.
Guns N Roses suck.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: January 13, 2013 08:44
De gustibus non est disputandum, but Axl Rose singing sounds like a mosquito buzzing in my ear. My favorite Guns N Roses moment is Slash's guitar on Coma. The guitar, not the singer.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: January 13, 2013 10:34
Back in the late 80's while my buds were worshipping Guns & Roses, I was already lost in my cassettes of Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, Goats Head Soup, Exlie, etc. I did enjoy Appetite for Destruction and Lies considerably. but when the 'Illusions' came out, my excitement about the band faded since those 2 albums were so bloated. Then Izzy quit (who wrote more than I think a lot of people realize). Izzy, after all guys, was worth the attention of Ronnie 
I mean, in a few short years they went from having me on board with their great-energy brand of sizzling summer-rock... to be nearly barfing at their covers of Live and Let Die AND Knockin' on Heaven's Door. I have an affection for GnR... to a point, and it's pretty much for the good memories of the late 80's. Sorry, without at least Slash, Izzy and Duff, it's not Guns and Roses.
I still like to pretend that their cover of Sympathy never happened.
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-13 10:36 by jamesfdouglas.
I mean, in a few short years they went from having me on board with their great-energy brand of sizzling summer-rock... to be nearly barfing at their covers of Live and Let Die AND Knockin' on Heaven's Door. I have an affection for GnR... to a point, and it's pretty much for the good memories of the late 80's. Sorry, without at least Slash, Izzy and Duff, it's not Guns and Roses.
I still like to pretend that their cover of Sympathy never happened.
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-13 10:36 by jamesfdouglas.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 13, 2013 11:34
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Glam Descendant
>The tickets prove that the Bill was GnR and The Stones, because on a ticket you normaly only put the headliners, not the suppert act.
That's utter nonsense, I have many ticket stubs that have the name of the opening act.
Yeah. Over the years the tickets have had the opening act underneath the headliner.
Show me one Stones ticket with the opening act underneath.
Mathijs
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 13, 2013 11:39
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
MathijsQuote
howled
[articles.latimes.com]
"On the Stones side, Jagger, 46, explained in an interview last August why the band had invited Living Colour--on the entire tour--and Guns N' Roses--in Los Angeles--to open for them."
"We added (those bands) because they're proven people's groups. They've come up not because of music industry flogging, but on their own, because they hit a populist nerve."
Again: many people, including the reporter, made and make the mistake that GnR opened for the Stones. They did not, they headlined with the Stones.
'Added warning: Guns N' Roses also has to be wary of being upstaged itself. Living Colour, the opening act on the show'.
As far as I know, these LA shows where one of the only Stones shows ever with two headliners printed on the tickets.
Mathijs
>>
There's no way--short of an exit poll--to know precisely what role Guns N' Roses played in convincing more than 275,000 fans to pay from $35 (the Ticketmaster charge) to $500 (the broker charge for choice seats) to see Wednesday's Coliseum match-up, which will be repeated Thursday, Saturday and next Sunday. Industry observers, however, believe the L.A.-based quintet may have been responsible for as much as 20 to 40% of the sales.
"The Who's failure to sell out even a single show in August at the Coliseum demonstrated the value of having some insurance, which a hot new band like Guns N' Roses provides," said a concert producer who is not involved with the local Stones dates and asked that his name not be used.
"I believe the Stones are much a stronger draw in Southern California than the Who and that they would have been able to sell out at least two Coliseum shows, maybe even a third on their own, but Guns N' Roses \o7 guaranteed \f7 a third date and enabled the promoters to add a fourth."
>>>
Living Colour, first opening act. GnR, second opening act. The last act on stage, the act that closes a show, the headliner. Or, take the example of a music festival, say, Glastonbury, or the 12/12 concert in New York. The headliner is the closing act. There can be only one headliner on any bill, unless different artists literally share the same stage at the same time.
There's many festivals with several headliners. There's also several bands that go or went on tour together and both headline. To headline basically means the band is there to promote sales, and play a full set. An opener is there to warm up the crowd for the headliners and to achieve a better know name and bigger crowd. Something that GnR certainly didn't need. GnR was there to sell tickets, more than the Stones could sell alone in LA in 1989.
Mathijs
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 13, 2013 11:47
Regardless of that stupid article trying to make a pissing match out between the Stones and GnR [articles.latimes.com], it does have some good quotes, one of which is below by Mick.
Mick seems to be saying that the Stones added Living Colour for the whole tour and also that the Stones added GnR just for L.A.
If it's the Stones/management adding GnR then GnR would be added as a support act, I would think.
"On the Stones side, Jagger, 46, explained in an interview last August why the band had invited Living Colour--on the entire tour--and Guns N' Roses--in Los Angeles--to open for them."
"We added (those bands) because they're proven people's groups. They've come up not because of music industry flogging, but on their own, because they hit a populist nerve."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-13 11:48 by howled.
Mick seems to be saying that the Stones added Living Colour for the whole tour and also that the Stones added GnR just for L.A.
If it's the Stones/management adding GnR then GnR would be added as a support act, I would think.
"On the Stones side, Jagger, 46, explained in an interview last August why the band had invited Living Colour--on the entire tour--and Guns N' Roses--in Los Angeles--to open for them."
"We added (those bands) because they're proven people's groups. They've come up not because of music industry flogging, but on their own, because they hit a populist nerve."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-13 11:48 by howled.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: January 13, 2013 11:57
...for what it´s worth...
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 13, 2013 11:59
GnR and Living Colour seem to have been billed as "Special Guests" which is another way of saying supporting acts.
[www.defunkd.com]
[www.defunkd.com]
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
tussler
()
Date: January 13, 2013 12:14
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
what is Guns N Roses?
Sounds like a right wing breakfast cereal.... Guns and Raisins
Now you sounds exactly as parents of the Stonesfans did in the sixties...
I love the music from both bands. The big difference today is that GN`R died after everybody left in 95. GN`R are different from all the "hairbands", they could really write and play music. Apetitte for destruction is in my opinion the greatest debutalbum ever. The album used 1 year to reach number 1 with no commercials. There is possible to like both bands and i think that Stones could see theirself in Guns in some way.
The sad thing with Axl he got clinical manic depression and behave worse than... maybe all and there is no way to cooperate with him. Anyway he has written real good music and was a real good entertainer
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: January 13, 2013 12:20
ticket stub from atlantic city,dec 17th ´89
...and friends...
...and friends...
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
talkcheap
()
Date: January 13, 2013 12:33
Quote
rattler2004Quote
dead.flowers
So why should they fight each other and what for?
Excellent!
Peace!
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: January 13, 2013 13:54
What is the point of this thread again? Was there a question, or something?
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
MrMonte
()
Date: January 13, 2013 15:52
I went and voted, and for the Stones. I like G&R, but let's be real
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 13, 2013 17:38
Quote
shortfatfanny
ticket stub from atlantic city,dec 17th ´89
...and friends...
Oh crap...here's another ticket stub where the Stones share as headliners...this time, with all people, the cast of FRIENDS?!
Steel Wheels was indeed a low point for the Vegas Stones.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: January 13, 2013 17:51
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
shortfatfanny
ticket stub from atlantic city,dec 17th ´89
...and friends...
Oh crap...here's another ticket stub where the Stones share as headliners...this time, with all people, the cast of FRIENDS?!
Steel Wheels was indeed a low point for the Vegas Stones.
hmmmm...maybe i'm reading it wrong, but looks like the stones were opening for the donald...
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
minorbyrd
()
Date: January 13, 2013 18:01
If we go to the original question of the post, the stones win over gnr in terms of influence, covering varying musical styles & sticking together. If the Stones did co-headline with them, so be it, it may have attracted people who became stones fans. Time has shown that gnr's catalogue is no comparison to the stones. So let's forget about it, we're unlikely to hear from the original band again, except for biographies'' & on 'celebrity rehab with Dr drew' for one.
If there was a co-headline, fine, but in the long term it means little. And I agree with Tod, I'd rather there was no contest issue at all. But then my comments have already made me a hypocrite in terms of what he said..
If there was a co-headline, fine, but in the long term it means little. And I agree with Tod, I'd rather there was no contest issue at all. But then my comments have already made me a hypocrite in terms of what he said..
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: January 13, 2013 18:02
Quote
minorbyrd
And I agree with Tod, I'd rather there was no contest issue at all. But then my comments have already made me a hypocrite in terms of what he said..
one of those "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" sorta deals, i suppose...
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
minorbyrd
()
Date: January 13, 2013 18:09
I suppose I just answered the original post question, then realised it was a non-issue in the first place! But each to their own I guess.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: January 13, 2013 19:03
In defense of G&R they were a bloody good live band during those years. In 1989 they played only 4 shows but they had toured extensively in 88 with brilliant results.
And they grew as a live band : the late 88 shows were quite different from the ones played earlier that year.
And they grew as a live band : the late 88 shows were quite different from the ones played earlier that year.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
buttons67
()
Date: January 13, 2013 19:48
so which lame brains voted guns and roses ahead of the stones.
thought guns and roses were ok at the time, but they are nothing special and comparing them to the stones is crazy, stones are the kings, anyone else who thinks otherwise should go and get thier heads examined.
thought guns and roses were ok at the time, but they are nothing special and comparing them to the stones is crazy, stones are the kings, anyone else who thinks otherwise should go and get thier heads examined.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 13, 2013 20:22
Looking at Google Images of Stones tickets not any of 'em, regardless of what headlining tour, has the opening act! Must be something they have because others do have the opening act listed on the ticket.
Here's a example:
Here's a example:
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 13, 2013 23:07
Show me one Stones ticket with the opening act underneath.
Don't think you'll find one unless there was a band called Rain Or Shine
ROCKMAN
Don't think you'll find one unless there was a band called Rain Or Shine
ROCKMAN
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 14, 2013 00:52
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-14 00:57 by treaclefingers.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-14 00:57 by treaclefingers.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: January 14, 2013 01:21
I AGREE!Quote
treaclefingers
.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: January 14, 2013 01:39
Quote
MathijsQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Glam Descendant
>The tickets prove that the Bill was GnR and The Stones, because on a ticket you normaly only put the headliners, not the suppert act.
That's utter nonsense, I have many ticket stubs that have the name of the opening act.
Yeah. Over the years the tickets have had the opening act underneath the headliner.
Show me one Stones ticket with the opening act underneath.
Mathijs
Here ya go:
[www.bing.com]
Although now I guess you'll argue that Santana was co-headlining at this particular concert?
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
doubledoor
()
Date: January 14, 2013 07:28
Never seen anyone proven so wrong so definitely as Mathijs on this thread.
Re: Guns N Roses vs The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: January 14, 2013 08:09
Stones GnR tickets and posters are at [garyrocks.wordpress.com]
In each case, the Stones are the top billing, followed by GnR.
In each case, the Stones are the top billing, followed by GnR.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1244
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10