Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

Discussion regarding other bands, movies, etc.
Message
Author
User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#1 Post by chaos » Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:14 pm

Axl looks like he has lost some weight.

Image


http://dcist.com/2012/02/at_times_the_show_felt.php
By Martin Austermuhle in Arts & Entertainment on February 24, 2012 2:00 PM

In Long-Awaited Show, Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

If you didn't happen to catch Guns N' Roses when they played Baltimore in 2006, the last chance you would have had locally was the 1992 co-headlining tour with Metallica, when the band played RFK Stadium. That was two decades ago.
Axl Rose seemed to want to make up for lost time yesterday at The Fillmore in Silver Spring, working his way through some 35 songs over a three-hour set featuring the band's most recent lineup. Joined by three guitarists, former Replacements bassist Tommy Stinson, a drummer and two keyboardists (one of which, Dizzy Reed, is the longest-surviving member of the band), Rose showed that he's still got the moves and the windpipes that made Guns N' Roses one of the world's most popular bands in the 1980s and 90s.

But much like the rock stardom excess that felled many of its contemporaries, Guns N' Roses went for a little too much last night. At times, the show felt about as long as it took Rose to make Chinese Democracy. (That's 15 years.) And while anyone thirsting for Guns n' Roses would have been pleased with such a lengthy performance, it unfortunately flowed about as well as the Use Your Illusion double-album that stands as the last recording by the band's old lineup. (Not well.)

Opening with the quasi-industrial "Chinese Democracy," the band really hit its stride in the seven songs that followed. "You know where you are?" Rose famously shrieked as the band tore into "Welcome to the Jungle," which was quickly followed by "It's So Easy" and "Mr. Brownstone" off of 1987's groundbreaking Appetite for Destruction. A trudging version of "You're So Crazy" was next, followed by a beautiful rendition of "Estranged" and driving performance of "Rocket Queen."

And that's where Guns N' Roses shot itself in the foot. The next 20 songs included some classic renditions of "Live and Let Die," "You Could Be Mine," "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Used to Love Her," "November Rain," Knockin' on Heaven's Door," "Civil War," "Don't Cry," and "Nightrain," but any semblance of energy or flow was repeatedly sapped by meandering instrumentals and solos for each of the three guitarists, Stinson, Reed and even Rose. The band's new lineup features some extremely talented musicians, but over-the-top guitar theatrics by D.J. Ashba and Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal and Reed's solo piano cover of The Who's "Baba O'Reilly" made Guns N' Roses seem less like a band and more like eight guys who just happen to share a stage now and then.

That's too bad, because the renditions of classic Guns N' Roses songs were powerful, well-executed and as memorable as they were 20 years ago. Ashba must have known that he's got large shoes to fill, because he performed Slash's almost lyrical guitar solos with exacting, almost clinical precision. And though Rose may not be able to hit the highest notes he once could, he still remained a spotlight-deserving frontman throughout the show. (Multiple hat, jacket and t-shirt changes included.)

By 2:30 a.m., the band closed out its main set and quickly kicked into an encore. But of the seven songs, three were instrumentals and two were off of the simply mediocre Chinese Democracy. The remaining two, "Patience" and "Paradise City," were absolute classics that could well have stood on their own as a final farewell to the audience.

But as the houselights came up at 3 a.m., some members of the audience seemed relieved that the show was finally over. That's not because they want to wait another 20 years to see Guns N' Roses again, but rather that after 20 years of waiting, seeing a band struggle to find a rhythm over the course of a three-hour show was a letdown.
Based on the YouTube video (and the article), the crowd seemed enthused early in the show.


User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#2 Post by Pandemonium » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:22 pm

I give Axl credit for usually delivering a long set that mixed up a few songs here and there every show but the awkward pacing and tedious instrumental cover song interludes to give Rose and various members of the band piss breaks have been an issue with his band since the Illusion tour in '91.

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6638
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#3 Post by JOEinPHX » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:46 pm

They could easily phone it in with a 70 minute set. At least Axl gives people their money's worth. If they didn't go on so late, maybe it wouldn't seem so exhausting.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#4 Post by SR » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:23 am

That sounded great....I could do without the sizzle on the hi-hats every quarter though.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#5 Post by Pandemonium » Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:12 pm

They just announced a trio of shows in LA in small venues. I’m think going to try and hit one of these shows:

Hollywood Palladium 3/9
The Wiltern Theater 3/11
Hollywood House of Blues 3/12

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#6 Post by Matz » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:40 pm

fuck guns'n roses, you couldn't drag me to one of these things. Not even if the almighty Slash returned

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#7 Post by SR » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:18 pm

On sale tomorrow, even for Matz

http://www.houseofblues.com/tickets/

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#8 Post by Matz » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:18 pm

I'm just thinking, is it more acceptable around here to be a Guns'n roses fan than to be a Van Halen fan? I think kv said in the VH thread that he couldn't believe there was a thread about Vh on a Jane's board. I don't sense the same animosity towards Guns. But maybe I'm wrong.
If I'm right though, I think it should be the other way around. Early VH is way cooler and better and more historically important than anything Guns did.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#9 Post by Artemis » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:33 pm

Matz wrote:I'm just thinking, is it more acceptable around here to be a Guns'n roses fan than to be a Van Halen fan? I think kv said in the VH thread that he couldn't believe there was a thread about Vh on a Jane's board. I don't sense the same animosity towards Guns. But maybe I'm wrong.
If I'm right though, I think it should be the other way around. Early VH is way cooler and better and more historically important than anything Guns did.
:nod:

I get the impression that GNR is more acceptable here too.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#10 Post by SR » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:34 pm

Artemis wrote:
Matz wrote:I'm just thinking, is it more acceptable around here to be a Guns'n roses fan than to be a Van Halen fan? I think kv said in the VH thread that he couldn't believe there was a thread about Vh on a Jane's board. I don't sense the same animosity towards Guns. But maybe I'm wrong.
If I'm right though, I think it should be the other way around. Early VH is way cooler and better and more historically important than anything Guns did.
:nod:

I get the impression that GNR is more acceptable here too.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#11 Post by Artemis » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:38 pm

I've seen GNR 3 times- twice in their prime and the tour with Bucket Head.

I must say at their peak they did large arena shows very well.

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8743
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#12 Post by kv » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:38 pm

they both are utter crap in my book

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#13 Post by SR » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:42 pm

I prefer Gn'R, but I don't consider this present construction Gn'R.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#14 Post by Artemis » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:51 pm

SR wrote:I prefer Gn'R, but I don't consider this present construction Gn'R.
Exactement!

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#15 Post by Pandemonium » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:44 pm

Matz wrote:I'm just thinking, is it more acceptable around here to be a Guns'n roses fan than to be a Van Halen fan? I think kv said in the VH thread that he couldn't believe there was a thread about Vh on a Jane's board. I don't sense the same animosity towards Guns. But maybe I'm wrong.
If I'm right though, I think it should be the other way around. Early VH is way cooler and better and more historically important than anything Guns did.
The (now) 7 albums with Roth put them way above Guns n' Roses as far as overall historical influence and quality of music. Especially VH1 and Fair Warning, followed by VHII and Women and Children First. But the band went right down the pop music poop chute when Hagar joined although it can be argued the writing was on the wall back on the Diver Down album and especially the poppy "1984" album. Add to that Eddie basically trashed his and the band's legacy from '96 with the embarrassing aborted Roth/MTV reunion through the last few years makes it understandably hard to be sympathetic towards those guys at this point.

Guns n' Roses has one truly great album, Appetite for Destruction. But it's so burned out that most people are sick of hearing anything off it now. And GnR basically took the Rolling Stones/Faces/Hanoi Rocks model to it's logical extreme, there's really nothing pioneering about that album or the band if you know where GnR got their act from. While David Lee Roth stole his early shtick straight from Black Oak Arkansas' Jim Dandy, Eddie Van Halen was a legitimate innovator on guitar even if he blew his wad by the end of the 80's.

For a place like any of the 3 Hollywood area venues, I don't mind seeing even Axl's GnR cover band scrubs for a night out. However, I just took a look at ticket prices and I'm not too game on forking out $100 - $150 for a fuckin' GA ticket.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#16 Post by Pandemonium » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:43 pm

Now this is something new - I'm bored outta my mind this evening and considered hitting the Palladium show tonight which was priced at $97 for GA(!). I checked on Ticketmaster this afternoon and day of show price went up to $144! WTF is that all about? I've never heard of tickets going *up* in face value especially nearly $50 the day of the show. Usually tickets actually go *down* in price day of show to help sell it out. Probably no coincidence none of the LA shows didn't sell out. Pass on that shit.

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#17 Post by Matz » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:03 am

:lol: I've never heard of that either, could be a first

CaseyContrarian
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#18 Post by CaseyContrarian » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:03 pm

Pandemonium wrote:
Matz wrote:I'm just thinking, is it more acceptable around here to be a Guns'n roses fan than to be a Van Halen fan? I think kv said in the VH thread that he couldn't believe there was a thread about Vh on a Jane's board. I don't sense the same animosity towards Guns. But maybe I'm wrong.
If I'm right though, I think it should be the other way around. Early VH is way cooler and better and more historically important than anything Guns did.
The (now) 7 albums with Roth put them way above Guns n' Roses as far as overall historical influence and quality of music. Especially VH1 and Fair Warning, followed by VHII and Women and Children First. But the band went right down the pop music poop chute when Hagar joined although it can be argued the writing was on the wall back on the Diver Down album and especially the poppy "1984" album. Add to that Eddie basically trashed his and the band's legacy from '96 with the embarrassing aborted Roth/MTV reunion through the last few years makes it understandably hard to be sympathetic towards those guys at this point.

Guns n' Roses has one truly great album, Appetite for Destruction. But it's so burned out that most people are sick of hearing anything off it now. And GnR basically took the Rolling Stones/Faces/Hanoi Rocks model to it's logical extreme, there's really nothing pioneering about that album or the band if you know where GnR got their act from. While David Lee Roth stole his early shtick straight from Black Oak Arkansas' Jim Dandy, Eddie Van Halen was a legitimate innovator on guitar even if he blew his wad by the end of the 80's.

For a place like any of the 3 Hollywood area venues, I don't mind seeing even Axl's GnR cover band scrubs for a night out. However, I just took a look at ticket prices and I'm not too game on forking out $100 - $150 for a fuckin' GA ticket.
Points for making the Jim Dandy comparison.

And yes, GNR have one good album. But it fucking laid waste when it came out, and still holds up to (at moments exceeds) other rock from even the classic era.

Axl 'N the Scabs are good at covering Guns tunes, and for a fat redneck, Axl can still belt pretty well.

User avatar
Mescal
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:23 am

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#19 Post by Mescal » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:29 am

There are some excellent songs on UYI as well.

Come on: Estranged, Locomotive, You could be mine, right next door to hell, Coma, .....

Ok, it's not the easy hard rock route they chose on Appetite, but still really great

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#20 Post by Hokahey » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:08 am

Mescal wrote:There are some excellent songs on UYI as well.

Come on: Estranged, Locomotive, You could be mine, right next door to hell, Coma, .....

Ok, it's not the easy hard rock route they chose on Appetite, but still really great

Fo sho. And many others.

I dunno. To me VH were always either goofy party rock (DLR) or adult contemporary rock (SH).

Growing up I always thought GnR were kind of a joke, especially once I got in to bands like Pearl Jam.

But as an adult I found myself looking back on much of their music very nostalgically and now I listen to GnR pretty regularly.

At the very least, at one point in time GnR were a dangerous band. They could incite riots and make your parents mad. They had balls. And even after, they were still making some pretty epic, moving music. I don't think VH could ever claim either distinction.

GnR had their share of cheese, don't get me wrong, but they also had more balls and song writing ability than most other bands.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#21 Post by nausearockpig » Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:23 am

a band playing for too long?

Fuck. Off.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#22 Post by SR » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:13 pm

Is not playing too long for some here...?

Axl refuses HOF honor in legalspeak.

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/awards/axl ... 42456.html

clickie
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#23 Post by clickie » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:32 pm

theres been a couple shows where i booked because they went on too long...
metallica around 1992 was one...and then the chilis at lolla when they had that giant spinning spiral on stage
it was hard to avoid looking at that thing and it gave me a headache...

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#24 Post by Pandemonium » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:34 pm

SR wrote:Is not playing too long for some here...?

Axl refuses HOF honor in legalspeak.

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/awards/axl ... 42456.html
http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/awards/axl ... 42456.html

Good for him. Anyone that snubs the RnRHoF gets a pass from me.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Guns N' Roses Plays For Too Long

#25 Post by Artemis » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:57 pm

I am curious about the Lana Del Ray business. Is Axl really dating her?
It's an odd pairing.

Post Reply