You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#31 Re: Guns N' Roses » Secret show: April 1, L.A.? » 483 weeks ago
mygnr is broken. Today is going to be crazy whether something happens or not.
#32 Re: Guns N' Roses » Secret show: April 1, L.A.? » 483 weeks ago
It'd seem its happening. Then again, it'd be very GN'R of them to let it out that a show would happen on april fools day, then build it up as they have to bring us around to the point of "oh, I mean at this point it couldn't be an april fools joke" and then have it be nothing more than a joke the whole time.
All I know is they'd best nail it if they do perform, they could sink the buzz real quick by sucking a la RIR 2011 or Neil Young show.
#33 Re: Guns N' Roses » Secret show: April 1, L.A.? » 483 weeks ago
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … =3&theater
So... I realize its April 1st, but.. This pic was posted on facebook claiming a show at the Troubador as well as a special press conference.
#34 Re: Guns N' Roses » Secret show: April 1, L.A.? » 483 weeks ago
Obviously he has a point and its valid. Vegas was marketed as THE reunion show. GNR fans willing and/or able to go get Vegas while the hipsters get Coachella.
Any secret show likely wont have any footage especially if its basically invite only. 400 celebs, models, and some journalists would be in attendance. Might see Kim Kardashian tweet about it or a journalist hype it which would create more anticipation for Vegas.
Now what would be a massive cluster fuck is if this secret show was an AFD 5 thing and the hybrid shows up in Vegas. Izzy and Adler have been as talkative as Helen Keller lately.
If the secret show is AFD 5, we should all chip in to pay SG's funeral expenses.
#35 Re: Guns N' Roses » Secret show: April 1, L.A.? » 483 weeks ago
IT IS UNETHICAL BECAUSE VEGAS WAS PROMOTED AS THE FIRST SHOW. I GOT FUCKED AT COACHELLA, but adjusted and also got tix for Vegas and sold Coachella... But for fucks sake, if they play a secret show it is borderline illegal and definitely unethical. I am paying a premium to say "I was at the first show". "I was at the 2nd show" doesn't sound very cool. Put it this way. I am spending $3,000+ for this Vegas trip. The Atlanta or Nashville show for 2 tix and hotel will cost me $300. Now you want to compare $300 to $3,000 and say "why should you care you are having fun" I may punch you in the face for stupidity. You have limited supply and high demand, that created Vegas. To open the flood gates and announce all the shows would have increased supply but demand for Vegas would have dropped drastically because you could wait until they came close. However, Vegas still could get a premium for being the first show. But by playing one prior, it is a HUGE fuck you to people like me. If I new I could get into the gig in LA, I would fucking go to that one. I want to see GNR, but I also wanted to see history. History is night #1. And I may not be there. And by the time show #2 happens all the surprises about Adler or Izzy may have already been ruined and we know the songs and have a good idea of guests already completely killing the mystery, hype, suspense etc.
So the next time one of you tell me I should be cool with it I will calmly tell you "FUCK YOU, I will feel how the fuck I want and they pulled a bait and switch" etc. me still having fun in Vegas is beside the point. Of course it will be fun. Just not historic.
You should be cool with it. lol
#36 Re: Guns N' Roses » Secret show: April 1, L.A.? » 483 weeks ago
If it was about art with Axl we would not only have 1 album in the last 23 years . We would have got CD 2001 and atleast 1 or 2 more release since then 90 songs were written and recorded just not mastered . Axl is for the money and ego not the art is my opinion.
The fact that we only have 1 album (and would likely have 0 albums if the record company hadn't demanded something to put out) shows that it is about the art. I don't frame every piece I paint, there's a number that I like that I don't sell or display. I just like them, some even unfinished, and I have them in my studio, put away. There are other pieces that people say are great that I don't necessarily have confidence in, so I don't put them out there. If Axl was about the money he'd put out whatever he recorded and make a buck.
#37 Re: Guns N' Roses » Secret show: April 1, L.A.? » 483 weeks ago
As a fellow artist (painter for a living, not musical artist, but still) I'm gonna side with Axl and the boys in this "respect for the fans" debate. Its not about you. Its about them. They're putting their artwork out there and its not about pleasing fans, its about putting their artwork out there. If you like it, good. If you don't, others will.
#38 Re: Guns N' Roses » Looks like rehearsals have started! » 483 weeks ago
No, stupid. It obviously means Lars is in. Its a strategic move, Hetfield is coming with Lars as a replacement for Axl, who is going full time with ACDC. Everyone's music should sound just the right amount of shitty. Keep up.
#39 GN'R Downloads » Drunk Fux 1/14/88 YouTube » 483 weeks ago
- AndyShores
- Replies: 0
Maybe yall have heard this, I never had
#40 Re: Guns N' Roses » Tools for Fools (RAR '06) » 483 weeks ago
That acoustic version is disgustingly good