Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that.
I checked TM for pit tickets $1746 face, from venue.
That's ridiculous. I don't understand why anyone would pay that at this point. They must be people who haven't seen his more recent performances/trainwrecks on youtube.
I pulled GA Pit tickets in Seattle today using the citi presale. $250.00 plus fees. The $1746.00 is a VIP package that comes with a hoodie and some other crapola. Still crazy expensive, but it is possible to get pit seats without forking $1700+ over.
Whoa!!! That's good to know Did you do best available? I never got a whiff of GA during the NightTrain presale. I totally dismissed the Citi presale but maybe I'll give the public sale a try.
If you've only seen bits and pieces (such as footage from Friday's show that was a $10 warm up at a small club), I would highly recommend checking out footage/setlist from Vancouver 2011, and some of the last setlists from Vegas in 2014. Axl sounds great, the band was playing 3 hour+ shows, and they were revitalized.
While it's easy to slag on them now, I would be more interested in seeing their Vegas setlists/footage from this coming weekend (the first real shows) as an indicator of what to expect for this tour.
$1700 great???
Haha, no way! But what is? To me, that's a flight from Vancouver to Australia with some spending money. But for $200 or so, I think it will be well worth it.
Also, with the amount of activity this thread has recieved maybe I should edit the title to "please play I've got a feelin' somewhere between Lexington and Toronto!"
1992-07-21 Vancouver
1993-9-4 Vancouver
1996-9-16 Seattle
1998-7-19 Vancouver, 7-21 Seattle, Memorial Stadium
2000-11-6 Seattle
2001-10-22 Seattle
2002 -12-09 Seattle
2009-8-17 Manchester, 9-25 Vancouver
2011-6-16 Seattle (EV), 9-3/4 PJ20, 9-25 Vancouver
2012-6-27 Amsterdam (#2!)
2013-11-29 Portland, 12-4 Vancouver, 12-6 Seattle
2014-AUS - 1-26 Sydney, 1-31 Adelaide, 2-11/12 EV Sydney State Theatre, 2-13 EV Opera House
2014 - USA - Memphis, Detroit, MOLINE, St. Paul, MILWAUKEE, Denver, 25/26 Bridge School
2016 - Lexington, Philly x 2, MSG x 2, Quebec City, Ottawa, Toronto x 2, Pemberton, Fenway x 2, Wrigley x 2 2018 - Seattle x 2, Missoula, Fenway x 2
I checked TM for pit tickets $1746 face, from venue.
That's ridiculous. I don't understand why anyone would pay that at this point. They must be people who haven't seen his more recent performances/trainwrecks on youtube.
I pulled GA Pit tickets in Seattle today using the citi presale. $250.00 plus fees. The $1746.00 is a VIP package that comes with a hoodie and some other crapola. Still crazy expensive, but it is possible to get pit seats without forking $1700+ over.
I didn't get it, because the Riser at the back of the floor makes little sense, but does 2nd line of what package include change folks (that drink) minds? What about the collectors among us and the VIP Book? What about being able to secure the ticket and not have to stress about an open sale/Club lottery?
I think some of this stuff that bands do would be very well received around these parts if folks thought about how much they are spending on merch, drinks, ticket stress, etc. The higher ones also come with paid parking which at some of these stadiums can be $50. Just sayin'. (Though $1,700 just to step on stage when it clearly says no band members does seem a bit loony, but who am I to judge? I'm sure there's folks around here that would do that in hopes of Ed poking his head out if it were offered.)
CIVIL WAR VIP RISER PACKAGE Package includes: One general admission standing ticket in the VIP Riser near the mixing board! Private access to your own open bar with beer and wine!* Official Guns N Roses VIP Riser laminate Limited edition Guns N Roses VIP book in custom packaging! VIP commemorative concert ticket Private VIP check in location with red carpet entrance VIP Concierge team on site *Subject to local liquor laws. Bar times will vary by venue.
This package was $625+ or thereabouts. GA pit in front of stage was "Welcome to the Jungle" for that $1,700 price tag. I would have considered pit in front of the stage for $625, but not the riser in the back. Nah-uh. I also don't drink at shows, so open bar is lost on me. And do people seriously get off on the Private VIP check in location with red carpet entrance and VIP Concierge team on site? I'm a total sucker for commemorative limited edition stuff though
I checked TM for pit tickets $1746 face, from venue.
That's ridiculous. I don't understand why anyone would pay that at this point. They must be people who haven't seen his more recent performances/trainwrecks on youtube.
I pulled GA Pit tickets in Seattle today using the citi presale. $250.00 plus fees. The $1746.00 is a VIP package that comes with a hoodie and some other crapola. Still crazy expensive, but it is possible to get pit seats without forking $1700+ over.
Whoa!!! That's good to know Did you do best available? I never got a whiff of GA during the NightTrain presale. I totally dismissed the Citi presale but maybe I'll give the public sale a try.
Yeah, pulling best available. Actually pulled a 4 pack somehow at 10:10
Guns N' Roses: Not In This Lifetime... CenturyLink Field, Seattle, WA Fri, Aug. 12, 2016 07:30 PM Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 33 Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 34 Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 35 Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 36 TELL YOUR FRIENDS Total Charges: $1,137.50
The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.
I checked TM for pit tickets $1746 face, from venue.
That's ridiculous. I don't understand why anyone would pay that at this point. They must be people who haven't seen his more recent performances/trainwrecks on youtube.
I pulled GA Pit tickets in Seattle today using the citi presale. $250.00 plus fees. The $1746.00 is a VIP package that comes with a hoodie and some other crapola. Still crazy expensive, but it is possible to get pit seats without forking $1700+ over.
Whoa!!! That's good to know Did you do best available? I never got a whiff of GA during the NightTrain presale. I totally dismissed the Citi presale but maybe I'll give the public sale a try.
Yeah, pulling best available. Actually pulled a 4 pack somehow at 10:10
Guns N' Roses: Not In This Lifetime... CenturyLink Field, Seattle, WA Fri, Aug. 12, 2016 07:30 PM Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 33 Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 34 Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 35 Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 36 TELL YOUR FRIENDS Total Charges: $1,137.50
Guns n Roses is one of the great all time bands. They helped usher out the shitty 80's music. I am not so excited to see this GNR band but would have paid a ton to see them early 90's.
They have so many great songs. Can go from Welcome to the Jungle to Patience.
No, no, no, that's ridiculous. Radiohead, Nirvana, PJ, REM,
Sounds like a just punishment for going to see one of the lamest bands ever. Is Bret Michaels opening for them??
Without knowing the age of people replying I really think someones love/like of GN'R comes down to how old you were when Appetite For Destruction came out. I was 15 and it's hard to overstate how hard this album knocked everyone on their ass when it came out. in 1987 Madonna, Whitney Houston, George Michael, Michael Jackson....those kinds of artists ruled the charts and radio. A lot of really good rock albums came out as well (U2, REM, The Pixies, Midnight Oil) but no album or band seemed as dangerous as Guns N' Roses. They made the glam "metal" bands like Poison/Motley Crue look ridiculous. Yup, Axl's megalomania got out of control (hence bands like Nirvana making fun of them), but in '87 and '88 Guns ruled. It's a total nostalgia trip but I'm excited to see them again. I'll be in the nosebleeds but that's alright.
I was 2 when Appetite for Destruction came out. I don't have rose colored lenses through which to see them, and I don't see much difference between them and the bands they supposedly supplanted. What is the substantive difference? Glammy outfits, falsetto rock ballads with soaring (badass) guitar licks and superficial lyrics...sounds pretty hair bandish to me. Nirvana, AIC, Blind Melon, RHCP, Radiohead, REM, Took, PJ, etc, those are the bands that brought a new sound and style to kill the hair bands.
I'm not saying GNR sucks, just that they are vastly overrated musically and culturally.
Guns n Roses is one of the great all time bands. They helped usher out the shitty 80's music. I am not so excited to see this GNR band but would have paid a ton to see them early 90's.
They have so many great songs. Can go from Welcome to the Jungle to Patience.
No, no, no, that's ridiculous. Radiohead, Nirvana, PJ, REM,
Sounds like a just punishment for going to see one of the lamest bands ever. Is Bret Michaels opening for them??
Without knowing the age of people replying I really think someones love/like of GN'R comes down to how old you were when Appetite For Destruction came out. I was 15 and it's hard to overstate how hard this album knocked everyone on their ass when it came out. in 1987 Madonna, Whitney Houston, George Michael, Michael Jackson....those kinds of artists ruled the charts and radio. A lot of really good rock albums came out as well (U2, REM, The Pixies, Midnight Oil) but no album or band seemed as dangerous as Guns N' Roses. They made the glam "metal" bands like Poison/Motley Crue look ridiculous. Yup, Axl's megalomania got out of control (hence bands like Nirvana making fun of them), but in '87 and '88 Guns ruled. It's a total nostalgia trip but I'm excited to see them again. I'll be in the nosebleeds but that's alright.
I was 2 when Appetite for Destruction came out. I don't have rose colored lenses through which to see them, and I don't see much difference between them and the bands they supposedly supplanted. What is the substantive difference? Glammy outfits, falsetto rock ballads with soaring (badass) guitar licks and superficial lyrics...sounds pretty hair bandish to me. Nirvana, AIC, Blind Melon, RHCP, Radiohead, REM, Took, PJ, etc, those are the bands that brought a new sound and style to kill the hair bands.
I'm not saying GNR sucks, just that they are vastly overrated musically and culturally.
You couldn't be more wrong
Would you care to illuminate me in what was different about their music? The bands I listed sound absolutely nothing like Def Leopard, Poison, Motley Cute, Bon Jovi etc. An honest listener can not seriously make the same distinction with GNR. Sure, they were more raw and explosive, but that is a minor difference, and something that could be done to Poison's music as well.
You cant make the bands I listed sound like hair bands, the songs are fundamentally different in structure and tone, and GNR songs are fundamentally similar.
"Glam metal bands continued their run of commercial success in 1987 with Mötley Crüe releasing Girls, Girls, Girls and Def Leppard releasing Hysteria producing a hard rock record of seven hit singles.[19] Another of the greatest successes of the era was Guns N' Roses, originally formed from a fusion of bands L.A. Guns and Hollywood Rose, who released the best-selling début of all time, Appetite for Destruction. With a "grittier" and "rawer" sound than most glam metal it produced three top 10 hits, including the number one "Sweet Child O' Mine".[36]" "One significant factor in the decline was the rise of grunge music from Seattle, with bands including Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. This was particularly obvious after the success of Nirvana's Nevermind (1991), which combined elements of hardcore punk and heavy metal into a dirty sound that made use of heavy guitar distortion, fuzz and feedback, along with darker lyrical themes, a stripped-down aesthetic and a complete rejection of the glam metal visual style and performance.[1][53]"
At least I have the immutably correct Wikipedia on my side lol
If November Rain isn't a classic power ballad, then there is no such thing!
Again, I am not saying GNR sucks, they can be very entertaining and some Slash licks are immortally good... But let's take the rose-tinted glasses off and be real about who and what they were, and how they fit into the musical landscape of their time.
Guns n Roses is one of the great all time bands. They helped usher out the shitty 80's music. I am not so excited to see this GNR band but would have paid a ton to see them early 90's.
They have so many great songs. Can go from Welcome to the Jungle to Patience.
No, no, no, that's ridiculous. Radiohead, Nirvana, PJ, REM,
Sounds like a just punishment for going to see one of the lamest bands ever. Is Bret Michaels opening for them??
Without knowing the age of people replying I really think someones love/like of GN'R comes down to how old you were when Appetite For Destruction came out. I was 15 and it's hard to overstate how hard this album knocked everyone on their ass when it came out. in 1987 Madonna, Whitney Houston, George Michael, Michael Jackson....those kinds of artists ruled the charts and radio. A lot of really good rock albums came out as well (U2, REM, The Pixies, Midnight Oil) but no album or band seemed as dangerous as Guns N' Roses. They made the glam "metal" bands like Poison/Motley Crue look ridiculous. Yup, Axl's megalomania got out of control (hence bands like Nirvana making fun of them), but in '87 and '88 Guns ruled. It's a total nostalgia trip but I'm excited to see them again. I'll be in the nosebleeds but that's alright.
I was 2 when Appetite for Destruction came out. I don't have rose colored lenses through which to see them, and I don't see much difference between them and the bands they supposedly supplanted. What is the substantive difference? Glammy outfits, falsetto rock ballads with soaring (badass) guitar licks and superficial lyrics...sounds pretty hair bandish to me. Nirvana, AIC, Blind Melon, RHCP, Radiohead, REM, Took, PJ, etc, those are the bands that brought a new sound and style to kill the hair bands.
I'm not saying GNR sucks, just that they are vastly overrated musically and culturally.
You couldn't be more wrong
Would you care to illuminate me in what was different about their music? The bands I listed sound absolutely nothing like Def Leopard, Poison, Motley Cute, Bon Jovi etc. An honest listener can not seriously make the same distinction with GNR. Sure, they were more raw and explosive, but that is a minor difference, and something that could be done to Poison's music as well.
You cant make the bands I listed sound like hair bands, the songs are fundamentally different in structure and tone, and GNR songs are fundamentally similar.
Radiohead didn't even release their first single until '92, so hair bands were already out by then.
The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.
The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.
Guns n Roses is one of the great all time bands. They helped usher out the shitty 80's music. I am not so excited to see this GNR band but would have paid a ton to see them early 90's.
They have so many great songs. Can go from Welcome to the Jungle to Patience.
No, no, no, that's ridiculous. Radiohead, Nirvana, PJ, REM,
Sounds like a just punishment for going to see one of the lamest bands ever. Is Bret Michaels opening for them??
Without knowing the age of people replying I really think someones love/like of GN'R comes down to how old you were when Appetite For Destruction came out. I was 15 and it's hard to overstate how hard this album knocked everyone on their ass when it came out. in 1987 Madonna, Whitney Houston, George Michael, Michael Jackson....those kinds of artists ruled the charts and radio. A lot of really good rock albums came out as well (U2, REM, The Pixies, Midnight Oil) but no album or band seemed as dangerous as Guns N' Roses. They made the glam "metal" bands like Poison/Motley Crue look ridiculous. Yup, Axl's megalomania got out of control (hence bands like Nirvana making fun of them), but in '87 and '88 Guns ruled. It's a total nostalgia trip but I'm excited to see them again. I'll be in the nosebleeds but that's alright.
I was 2 when Appetite for Destruction came out. I don't have rose colored lenses through which to see them, and I don't see much difference between them and the bands they supposedly supplanted. What is the substantive difference? Glammy outfits, falsetto rock ballads with soaring (badass) guitar licks and superficial lyrics...sounds pretty hair bandish to me. Nirvana, AIC, Blind Melon, RHCP, Radiohead, REM, Took, PJ, etc, those are the bands that brought a new sound and style to kill the hair bands.
I'm not saying GNR sucks, just that they are vastly overrated musically and culturally.
You couldn't be more wrong
Would you care to illuminate me in what was different about their music? The bands I listed sound absolutely nothing like Def Leopard, Poison, Motley Cute, Bon Jovi etc. An honest listener can not seriously make the same distinction with GNR. Sure, they were more raw and explosive, but that is a minor difference, and something that could be done to Poison's music as well.
You cant make the bands I listed sound like hair bands, the songs are fundamentally different in structure and tone, and GNR songs are fundamentally similar.
Radiohead didn't even release their first single until '92, so hair bands were already out by then.
Hahahahaha also on their list of "not hair bands" Queensryche, Def Leopard, Bon Jovi, Quiet Riot, etc. I think this article does more for my argument than yours!
The only actual musical difference that is listed there is "cruder and ruder" and "heavier guitar chords, and they played faster". Faster maybe on some, but heavier chords? That's sort of a real thing, but barely, and not applicable to GNR over their peers.
Lyrically GNR was rawer than glam metal (or hair metal as you like to say), I listened to all that stuff, warrant, Cinerella, Poison, etc. I had friends that would listen to the glam but refused to listen to GNR because of the harder riffs and because of the lyrics.
I get it, you don't want to listen to the non-radio friendly songs and just claim everything sounds the same. I will tell you that about radiohead.
The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.
Lyrically GNR was rawer than glam metal (or hair metal as you like to say), I listened to all that stuff, warrant, Cinerella, Poison, etc. I had friends that would listen to the glam but refused to listen to GNR because of the harder riffs and because of the lyrics.
I get it, you don't want to listen to the non-radio friendly songs and just claim everything sounds the same. I will tell you that about radiohead.
I did read the article, it was the same argument that everyone has, they were more raw. Ok, so they were the baddest, heaviest, most raw hair band, that is obvious, but a hair band still they were.
My big brother was a huge GNR guy, I used to love them too, I have heard Appetite and Use Your Illusion literally hundreds of times each, so it is not a lack of listening. I am just being objective.
I hated hair bands when I was growing up, I was into Metallica, Slayer, Testament, Anthrax. When I first heard GnR I was blown away, and in no way ever thought they were a hair band, looks can be deceiving.
Funny, people want to rag on GnR, when you could basically offer identical descriptions of them and PJ...polarizing lead singers? Check....great unique rhythm guitarist setting the foundation for their lead counterpart with a bluesy/shreddy background? Check
I can understand people slapping the hair band label if they've never really heard them, but they have much more in common with "grunge" than glam metal. If they were from Seattle instead of Sunset Strip, it wouldn't even be a debate.
Comments
"It puts the lotion on the skin!"
"You have no idea the pain I can bring you!"
"it puts the lotion in the basket"
Also, with the amount of activity this thread has recieved maybe I should edit the title to "please play I've got a feelin' somewhere between Lexington and Toronto!"
1993-9-4 Vancouver
1996-9-16 Seattle
1998-7-19 Vancouver, 7-21 Seattle, Memorial Stadium
2000-11-6 Seattle
2001-10-22 Seattle
2002 -12-09 Seattle
2009-8-17 Manchester, 9-25 Vancouver
2011-6-16 Seattle (EV), 9-3/4 PJ20, 9-25 Vancouver
2012-6-27 Amsterdam (#2!)
2013-11-29 Portland, 12-4 Vancouver, 12-6 Seattle
2014-AUS - 1-26 Sydney, 1-31 Adelaide, 2-11/12 EV Sydney State Theatre, 2-13 EV Opera House
2014 - USA - Memphis, Detroit, MOLINE, St. Paul, MILWAUKEE, Denver, 25/26 Bridge School
2016 - Lexington, Philly x 2, MSG x 2, Quebec City, Ottawa, Toronto x 2, Pemberton, Fenway x 2, Wrigley x 2
2018 - Seattle x 2, Missoula, Fenway x 2
Guns N' Roses: Not In This Lifetime...
CenturyLink Field, Seattle, WA
Fri, Aug. 12, 2016 07:30 PM
Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 33
Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 34
Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 35
Section GAPIT2, Row GA2, Seat 36
TELL YOUR FRIENDS
Total Charges:
$1,137.50
- Christopher McCandless
The bands I listed sound absolutely nothing like Def Leopard, Poison, Motley Cute, Bon Jovi etc.
An honest listener can not seriously make the same distinction with GNR.
Sure, they were more raw and explosive, but that is a minor difference, and something that could be done to Poison's music as well.
You cant make the bands I listed sound like hair bands, the songs are fundamentally different in structure and tone, and GNR songs are fundamentally similar.
"One significant factor in the decline was the rise of grunge music from Seattle, with bands including Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. This was particularly obvious after the success of Nirvana's Nevermind (1991), which combined elements of hardcore punk and heavy metal into a dirty sound that made use of heavy guitar distortion, fuzz and feedback, along with darker lyrical themes, a stripped-down aesthetic and a complete rejection of the glam metal visual style and performance.[1][53]"
At least I have the immutably correct Wikipedia on my side lol
Again, I am not saying GNR sucks, they can be very entertaining and some Slash licks are immortally good...
But let's take the rose-tinted glasses off and be real about who and what they were, and how they fit into the musical landscape of their time.
Oh look, an article to explain it all to you: http://www.metalsucks.net/2010/07/23/the-top-ten-bands-most-often-miscategorized-as-hair-metal-2-guns-n-roses/
- Christopher McCandless
- Christopher McCandless
I think this article does more for my argument than yours!
Faster maybe on some, but heavier chords? That's sort of a real thing, but barely, and not applicable to GNR over their peers.
Lyrically GNR was rawer than glam metal (or hair metal as you like to say), I listened to all that stuff, warrant, Cinerella, Poison, etc. I had friends that would listen to the glam but refused to listen to GNR because of the harder riffs and because of the lyrics.
I get it, you don't want to listen to the non-radio friendly songs and just claim everything sounds the same. I will tell you that about radiohead.
- Christopher McCandless
Ok, so they were the baddest, heaviest, most raw hair band, that is obvious, but a hair band still they were.
My big brother was a huge GNR guy, I used to love them too, I have heard Appetite and Use Your Illusion literally hundreds of times each, so it is not a lack of listening.
I am just being objective.
Funny, people want to rag on GnR, when you could basically offer identical descriptions of them and PJ...polarizing lead singers? Check....great unique rhythm guitarist setting the foundation for their lead counterpart with a bluesy/shreddy background? Check
I can understand people slapping the hair band label if they've never really heard them, but they have much more in common with "grunge" than glam metal. If they were from Seattle instead of Sunset Strip, it wouldn't even be a debate.