The setlist from last night is no up to 28 Songs. 4 More than Berlin but still less than last year. Judging from the first videos they sounded better than Berlin. I hope Berlin was the exception. I' m going to see them in Chorzow later this summer.

[www.youtube.com]

'Shadow of Your Love' performed for the first time in over 30 years...the band sounds tight but Axl is definitely sounding rough.

Another explanation for Axl's shot voice. He spent the last few weeks laying new vocal tracks on the bunch of 85-86 unreleased outtakes that'll be on the AFD deluxe box.
Sacrilege!

Quote
keefriff99
[www.youtube.com]

'Shadow of Your Love' performed for the first time in over 30 years...the band sounds tight but Axl is definitely sounding rough.

This is just how his voice was sounding watching from the front of stage in Berlin on Sunday.

Nate

They sound SO far away from what proper GNR sounded like in 87/88.

It's like how different the Stones sound now compared to the early 70's

Knock it on the head lads

Quote
andy js
They sound SO far away from what proper GNR sounded like in 87/88.

It's like how different the Stones sound now compared to the early 70's

Knock it on the head lads

Well they're 50 year old millionaires now. They're no longer playing for their lives. They have other things to do, this is simply a job that makes them money. They'll never sound the way they used to, even if Izzy and Adler were there. Can you ever sound the way you "used to" in a stadium? I don't blame them for that, thats unrealistic. There are still minor tweaks to this tour they could do to make it better though and I've been saying that all along. They aren't do the bare minimum but I also wouldn't say they're giving fans exactly what they want.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
andy js
They sound SO far away from what proper GNR sounded like in 87/88.

It's like how different the Stones sound now compared to the early 70's

Knock it on the head lads

Well they're 50 year old millionaires now. They're no longer playing for their lives. They have other things to do, this is simply a job that makes them money. They'll never sound the way they used to, even if Izzy and Adler were there. Can you ever sound the way you "used to" in a stadium? I don't blame them for that, thats unrealistic. There are still minor tweaks to this tour they could do to make it better though and I've been saying that all along. They aren't do the bare minimum but I also wouldn't say they're giving fans exactly what they want.

Based on the fan forums, when they first started the tour the fans were excited to see Axl,Duff and Slash finally playing together even without Izzy and Adler. But the bloom is coming off the rose, so to speak, now that that have toured for a few years and the hardcore fans want new music not the same tired setlists. Is Axl really going to make a new album with Angus and AC/DC before he does with Guns? If he does then GnR is a joke.

Quote
andy js
They sound SO far away from what proper GNR sounded like in 87/88.

It's like how different the Stones sound now compared to the early 70's

Knock it on the head lads

Yes, I saw them in '88, and they were explosive.
In '89 saw them again opening for the Stones, and while still somewhat powerful, the writing was on the wall as they were already fizzling out.
Can't see what the draw is in seeing them today...I guess for people who missed them when they were still relevant.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
Can't see what the draw is in seeing them today...I guess for people who missed them when they were still relevant.

Many say the same about the Stones or anyone else whose career was more than a flash in the pan.

Indonesian Elvis …..how do ya think they feel ?????????????



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
Hairball
Can't see what the draw is in seeing them today...I guess for people who missed them when they were still relevant.

Many say the same about the Stones or anyone else whose career was more than a flash in the pan.

True.

But there's quite an obvious difference between the Stones vs. Guns'N'Roses. For one, the Stones' relevancy studio-wise lasted quite a bit longer than Guns'N'Roses, and for some the Stones have always been relevant even up to the recent blues covers album. And then there's the fact that the Stones never disbanded and/or carried on with just the singer remaining. They've consistently toured throughout their career except for the WWIII years in the mid '80's, but at least they were still making records during that dry spell. Ultimately, I don't think there's too many fans from the early days of Guns 'N'Roses flocking to see them today in whatever diluted form they currently exist, whereas with the Stones, seems most fans from all eras still enjoy seeing them live. Not all, but most.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-06-11 08:43 by Hairball.

Guns n' Roses 2017: walked out because it was soooo bad.

Rolling Stones 2017: saw them 3 times and loved every minute of it.

…… okay ThinAir ….. step up to #6 in the Good-Stones line up …. no pushing



ROCKMAN

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
Hairball
Can't see what the draw is in seeing them today...I guess for people who missed them when they were still relevant.

Many say the same about the Stones or anyone else whose career was more than a flash in the pan.

True.

But there's quite an obvious difference between the Stones vs. Guns'N'Roses. For one, the Stones' relevancy studio-wise lasted quite a bit longer than Guns'N'Roses, and for some the Stones have always been relevant even up to the recent blues covers album. And then there's the fact that the Stones never disbanded and/or carried on with just the singer remaining. They've consistently toured throughout their career except for the WWIII years in the mid '80's, but at least they were still making records during that dry spell. Ultimately, I don't think there's too many fans from the early days of Guns 'N'Roses flocking to see them today in whatever diluted form they currently exist, whereas with the Stones, seems most fans from all eras still enjoy seeing them live. Not all, but most.

Well, the difference between Stones and Guns is obviously huge. The Stones together with some other bands and musicians shaped the whole "popular" music some 50-60 years ago, while Guns was a popular band that just played that kind of music. Sure, they were original and Slash is and excellent guitar player, but Guns are nowhere near the league that The Stones are playing.

Speaking from my own experience - in 2003 I went to see The Stones for the very first time (also my very first big concert), since I felt I should see them once and I was hooked instantly. I fell in love. With The Stones and also with live gigs.

The last year I went to see the Guns since again I thought I should see them once, this time having some 130 "big" concerts behind me. And though my motivation was similar, it was a completely different experience than The Stones' concert 14 years earlier. It was entertaining, Slash and Duff were great, but that's it, once was enough. The sound was absolutely horrible and Axel sung in falseto most of the time, which didn't sound right, to put it very mildly, which I found surprizing, since I saw him with AC/DC the year before and he sounded great.

Anyway, I think this first-time-experience of mine pretty much describes the difference between those two bands and their gigs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-06-11 10:09 by Happy24.

Quote
Happy24

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
Hairball
Can't see what the draw is in seeing them today...I guess for people who missed them when they were still relevant.

Many say the same about the Stones or anyone else whose career was more than a flash in the pan.

True.

But there's quite an obvious difference between the Stones vs. Guns'N'Roses. For one, the Stones' relevancy studio-wise lasted quite a bit longer than Guns'N'Roses, and for some the Stones have always been relevant even up to the recent blues covers album. And then there's the fact that the Stones never disbanded and/or carried on with just the singer remaining. They've consistently toured throughout their career except for the WWIII years in the mid '80's, but at least they were still making records during that dry spell. Ultimately, I don't think there's too many fans from the early days of Guns 'N'Roses flocking to see them today in whatever diluted form they currently exist, whereas with the Stones, seems most fans from all eras still enjoy seeing them live. Not all, but most.

Well, the difference between Stones and Guns is obviously huge. The Stones together with some other bands and musicians shaped the whole "popular" music some 50-60 years ago, while Guns was a popular band that just played that kind of music. Sure, they were original and Slash is and excellent guitar player, but Guns are nowhere near the league that The Stones are playing.

Speaking from my own experience - in 2003 I went to see The Stones for the very first time (also my very first big concert), since I felt I should see them once and I was hooked instantly. I fell in love. With The Stones and also with live gigs.

The last year I went to see the Guns since again I thought I should see them once, this time having some 130 "big" concerts behind me. And though my motivation was similar, it was a completely different experience than The Stones' concert 14 years earlier. It was entertaining, Slash and Duff were great, but that's it, once was enough. The sound was absolutely horrible and Axel sung in falseto most of the time, which didn't sound right, to put it very mildly, which I found surprizing, since I saw him with AC/DC the year before and he sounded great.

Anyway, I think this first-time-experience of mine pretty much describes the difference between those two bands and their gigs.

Yes Happy24, the Stones are far superior and always will be.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Going to Hong Kong in November so will catch the GnR show there. It would be great if the Stones played there too. Highly unlikely I know

I saw Guns n' Roses last October just to cross them off my list.

I was impressed with the performances. They all sounded great, but it was very professional and controlled, with no hint of danger or spontaneity.

Furthermore, the show was bloated with unnecessary covers and long-winded versions of many of their songs. Someone above said that at least they're not doing just the bare minimum...in a way, I think it's the opposite: they're doing TOO much.

There's value for money, and then there's just going overboard and being indulgent, which has long been a problem with Axl.

Hell, standing through four hours of Springsteen in 2016 tested the limits of my fandom...no one needs over three hours of G n'R. Just come out and melt our faces off with 2, 2 1/2 hours of the big hits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-06-11 15:39 by keefriff99.

Sometimes, I fear I've wandered into a schoolyard where someone shoved another kid because they said their band is better.

I'm not much of a GNR fan and never was. That said, I get why some of their old fans are thrilled to have as much of the original band back and why some old fans don't think they're good enough any more. Regardless, tickets are selling. There is still a considerable audience for them. It isn't 1987 for them just like the Stones aren't as strong as they were in 2002, let alone 1972 or 1964. Everyone ages whether you're a living legend, a wannabe, or an anorak.

Quote
Happy24

Well, the difference between Stones and Guns is obviously huge. The Stones together with some other bands and musicians shaped the whole "popular" music some 50-60 years ago, while Guns was a popular band that just played that kind of music. Sure, they were original and Slash is and excellent guitar player, but Guns are nowhere near the league that The Stones are playing.

I don't know how old you are, but from 1988 until about 1992 Guns were far bigger than the Stones. They got much more press, played hundreds of shows to huge crowds, made much more money, sold many, many more albums. By 1989 the Stones had become a nostalgia band, by 1990 Guns were like the Stones in 1972, only 10 times bigger.

And to contrary believe, Guns never opened for the Stones in LA 1989, they were on the same bill.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Happy24

Well, the difference between Stones and Guns is obviously huge. The Stones together with some other bands and musicians shaped the whole "popular" music some 50-60 years ago, while Guns was a popular band that just played that kind of music. Sure, they were original and Slash is and excellent guitar player, but Guns are nowhere near the league that The Stones are playing.

I don't know how old you are, but from 1988 until about 1992 Guns were far bigger than the Stones. They got much more press, played hundreds of shows to huge crowds, made much more money, sold many, many more albums. By 1989 the Stones had become a nostalgia band, by 1990 Guns were like the Stones in 1972, only 10 times bigger.

And to contrary believe, Guns never opened for the Stones in LA 1989, they were on the same bill.

Mathijs

That's (partly) true. Because the shows were Stones-shows, with GNR as co-headliners, not the other way around. There is a slight difference..

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Happy24

Well, the difference between Stones and Guns is obviously huge. The Stones together with some other bands and musicians shaped the whole "popular" music some 50-60 years ago, while Guns was a popular band that just played that kind of music. Sure, they were original and Slash is and excellent guitar player, but Guns are nowhere near the league that The Stones are playing.

I don't know how old you are, but from 1988 until about 1992 Guns were far bigger than the Stones. They got much more press, played hundreds of shows to huge crowds, made much more money, sold many, many more albums. By 1989 the Stones had become a nostalgia band, by 1990 Guns were like the Stones in 1972, only 10 times bigger.

And to contrary believe, Guns never opened for the Stones in LA 1989, they were on the same bill.

Mathijs

You can say that in less than 5 years GNR passed from the Edith Grove Stones (Suicide) to the 1972 Stones (Appetite tour) up to the Urban Jungle Stones (Use Your Illusion Tour). Less than 5 years!!! Amazing.

Missed the Appetite tour, saw them twice during the UYI tour. Great memories.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Happy24

Well, the difference between Stones and Guns is obviously huge. The Stones together with some other bands and musicians shaped the whole "popular" music some 50-60 years ago, while Guns was a popular band that just played that kind of music. Sure, they were original and Slash is and excellent guitar player, but Guns are nowhere near the league that The Stones are playing.

I don't know how old you are, but from 1988 until about 1992 Guns were far bigger than the Stones. They got much more press, played hundreds of shows to huge crowds, made much more money, sold many, many more albums. By 1989 the Stones had become a nostalgia band, by 1990 Guns were like the Stones in 1972, only 10 times bigger.

And to contrary believe, Guns never opened for the Stones in LA 1989, they were on the same bill.

Mathijs

You can say that in less than 5 years GNR passed from the Edith Grove Stones (Suicide) to the 1972 Stones (Appetite tour) up to the Urban Jungle Stones (Use Your Illusion Tour). Less than 5 years!!! Amazing.

Missed the Appetite tour, saw them twice during the UYI tour. Great memories.

C

They self destructed in record time...just makes the Stones' longevity all the more remarkable.

GNR would have been better off with staying in arenas. They never had the format required to do the huge stadium show, and everything that comes along with that.

That's more a praise than criticism, though. I really wish I had caught their show in 1988 instead of in 1993. The show I went to was dead, totally burned out energy-wise.

However, money talks...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
However, money talks...

And bands list is very long...

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

I saw them as a 13-year-old boy for the first time at their peak during their UYI-tour. I haven't any really memories about that night, but I saw them twice during their "reunion"-tour. And both concerts were great. I can agree, that for some solos was no need, but to hear also all time rock classics almost 25 years later a dream come true. They have done the same style they did 25-30 years ago. Slash played always the Godfather-Theme or if you have a research on their oldest setlists, they played always covers from the Stones, from AC/DC, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin... and from Elvis.

They sounded well. In the Olympic Stadium Munich and in MSG New York. I had no problem that the gig took 3 or more hours.

The only song to forget was the cover from Soundgarden's Black Hole Sun. This sounded really horrible.

But all other Songs.... no complaints. And I'm not a fanboy.

Quote
Mathijs
And to contrary believe, Guns never opened for the Stones in LA 1989, they were on the same bill.

Mathijs

Nonsense...... They were Stones shows and GNR played first. Therefore they were the support act.

I think that GNR left it way to late in the day to come back. I think that even their biggest fan will agree that their return was not greeted with the fanfare they expected. Tickets were not hard to come by, and the response in the press has been muted at best. It's all been a bit Meh. A bit of a damp squib. There's no denying that....

As this is a Stones forum, lets compare it to when they made their touring comeback in 89. It was huge...... Five nights in London, four in L.A, six in New York, nine in Tokyo. It was all over the press, it was massive.

Quote
strat72
I think that GNR left it way to late in the day to come back. I think that even their biggest fan will agree that their return was not greeted with the fanfare they expected. Tickets were not hard to come by, and the response in the press has been muted at best. It's all been a bit Meh. A bit of a damp squib. There's no denying that....

As this is a Stones forum, lets compare it to when they made their touring comeback in 89. It was huge...... Five nights in London, four in L.A, six in New York, nine in Tokyo. It was all over the press, it was massive.

GNR have made $480,900,000 since 2016...that's all they care about.

4,377,126 in attendance, the 8th highest of all time. Hardly "meh".

Quote
strat72

Quote
Mathijs
And to contrary believe, Guns never opened for the Stones in LA 1989, they were on the same bill.

Mathijs

Nonsense...... They were Stones shows and GNR played first. Therefore they were the support act.

Living Colour opened, then GNR, then the Stones.

[www.pinterest.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-06-12 17:35 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
Mathijs

from 1988 until about 1992 Guns were far bigger than the Stones.

Mathijs

Are you sure the 91-92 UYI tour sold more tickets than the SW/UJ tour? Are you sure G&R played bigger places and booked more shows than the Stones? I'm not too sure of this.
Take L.A. : the Stones sold out the Coliseum four times in 1989. G&R sold out the much smaller Forum four times too. 80000 x4 vs 17000 x 4.
Who's the winner?

Sure G&R got more press than the Stones but it wasn't exactly for musical reasons. It was more like "G&r axeman pisses in the aisle of a commercial flight" or "G&r singer punches David Bowie".