You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Axlin16
 Rep: 768 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

Axlin16 wrote:

All i've got is past experience, and absolute factual history.

If you choose to have a revisionist history and write it the way you WANT it to be... that's your choice.


Axlin: "Hey Faldor, that wife of your's. I used to be married to her. She cheated on me 8 times. She will cheat on you."

Faldor: "She cheated on me twice, but said she'll never do it again"

Axlin: "She will man. Trust me. That's why I divorced her"

Faldor: "I choose to remain positive she won't do it a third time. It's DIFFERENT this time"

Axlin: "Okay man..." roll

bigbri
 Rep: 333 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

bigbri wrote:

I don't understand why GNR fans can't be happy GNR is touring without being belittled and mocked on a GNR board.

Get the fuck over it.

Brett
 Rep: 20 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

Brett wrote:

This thread is fucking insane even by GNR fan standards. lol

I'm not sure I get all the negative comments either. It's not that they're unwarranted and certainly not because they're wrong. But to get defensive and state everything that's wrong with GNR to any member of this forum is pretty much a moot issue. Nothing anyone can say to the next guy will be anything he would even dispute. I don't mind negativity towards the band for what they don't do, Lord knows the operation is non-conventional, but I don't see how anyone can talk shit about them touring now. If the argument was all about how they should have been on tour a year ago, I could see it. But for how the ball bounced, we never expected a tour at all. So, when we finally get one, I just don't see how people wouldn't want to try to be positive about what we will see on this tour. If you put the band in a lose-lose situation, you won't ever see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Most of the negative comments stem from late shows, a repeat act of last year, potential cancellations, riots and Axl freaking out because coins hit him... well, no one here is ever going to dispute any of those things. So why bother bringing them up? Shows selling like shit? So did the last tour! This is all to be expected. No one would ever think about arguing it, so what are you trying to say besides taking out your own personal aggressions towards the band out on everyone else?

All I know is I was, am and always will be an Axl Rose fan. And when he makes his cold January stop in Regina Saskatchewan, the last thing I'm going to do is complain that he played 7 songs from arguably the greatest hard rock album of all time. I would be disappointed if I never got to hear Welcome to the Jungle, Paradise City, Sweet Child, Mr. Brownstone, Nightrain and It's So Easy and I'm sure most people in attendance would agree. And hell, if I didn't want to hear those tunes, what the fuck am I doing at a GNR gig? I think to be fair to the material that Rocket Queen or something of the like probably could be traded for an Estranged and My Michelle probably could be swapped for Civil War, but at the end of the day, Rocket Queen and My Michelle are pretty fucking good songs. I mean, I can pick any band I like and could alter their set list to my own personal taste. Doesn't mean what's played isn't quality through and through.

James
 Rep: 627 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

James wrote:
faldor wrote:

First off, record sales are WAY DOWN overall.  I know the popular theory was that U2 would prove that to not be the case.  Well, they didn't.  They haven't sold nearly as well as they have in the past.  Was there a better choice for a lead single?  I haven't listened to the album, so I wouldn't know.  If there is, would it really have made a difference of 4 million albums, almost doubling the overall sales?  I think not.

Considering that grannies were dancing in the street to Vertigo, you bet your ass there would have been an increase in sales with a better lead off single. U2 always has a monster single that grabs pop culture by the balls. This one didn't, hence the lower album sales. Even U2 fans weren't very fond of Get On Your Boots. I think its the album of the year but its probably the 2nd worst song on the album.


I find it interesting that everyone says CD would have sold more with a better choice of first single, but apparently this doesn't apply to bands that sell more albums.



Brett certainly brings up some valid points.

Bono
 Rep: 386 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

Bono wrote:
faldor wrote:

First off, record sales are WAY DOWN overall.  I know the popular theory was that U2 would prove that to not be the case.  Well, they didn't.  They haven't sold nearly as well as they have in the past.  Was there a better choice for a lead single?  I haven't listened to the album, so I wouldn't know.  If there is, would it really have made a difference of 4 million albums, almost doubling the overall sales?  I think not.

the question was asked so....

Absolutely there was a better choice.

Magnificent -  which sounds like classic U2, would've boosted sales
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_CXOOgidA

Breathe -  sounds like U2 but sounds fresh as well. here it is live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIDGE7NJEkM

I'll Go Crazy if I don't Go Crazy Tonight - even this would've been better as it gets stuck in your head. It's not my favorite but I haven't been able to get it out of my head ever since the album came out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-K0Aha … re=channel


I really like Get On Your Boots(and it's fantastic live when your'e there in person) but making it the lead single is one of U2's biggest mistakes ever.  It was just too different as far as U2 songs go.  Any of the three I just posted would've spiked album sales big time.

BrokenGlassNCigs
 Rep: 25 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

I'm not a U2 fan, however, I am a fan of healthy discussion. Now what does U2 have to do with GN'R sales?

I think the Canadian shows are selling adequately. Not amazing, or terrible. Average.

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

Sky Dog wrote:

nobody actually knows, on this board, how the shows are selling....in any case, the Canadian tour is being promoted by Live Nation and they seem to have an idea about what they are doing. I'll leave it to them and Irving. If they aren't selling, they will be cancelled. Most companies don't like to lose money...

Neemo
 Rep: 481 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

Neemo wrote:

i emailed live nation but they wouldn't tell me how the tour sales were doing 16

faldor
 Rep: 280 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

faldor wrote:
James Lofton wrote:
faldor wrote:

First off, record sales are WAY DOWN overall.  I know the popular theory was that U2 would prove that to not be the case.  Well, they didn't.  They haven't sold nearly as well as they have in the past.  Was there a better choice for a lead single?  I haven't listened to the album, so I wouldn't know.  If there is, would it really have made a difference of 4 million albums, almost doubling the overall sales?  I think not.

Considering that grannies were dancing in the street to Vertigo, you bet your ass there would have been an increase in sales with a better lead off single. U2 always has a monster single that grabs pop culture by the balls. This one didn't, hence the lower album sales. Even U2 fans weren't very fond of Get On Your Boots. I think its the album of the year but its probably the 2nd worst song on the album.


I find it interesting that everyone says CD would have sold more with a better choice of first single, but apparently this doesn't apply to bands that sell more albums.



Brett certainly brings up some valid points.

I don't think "better" singles had anything to do with CD not selling as well as it could have.  It could've sold better if the singles they DID release had any push whatsoever.  You know, the usual video, interviews, touring, etc.

U2 did all those things and more as far as I can remember.  And while I don't disagree that a different lead single would've led to more sales for U2, I find it hard to believe that it would've nearly doubled the overall sales.

faldor
 Rep: 280 

Re: how are the shows selling this time around?

faldor wrote:
Axlin08 wrote:

All i've got is past experience, and absolute factual history.

If you choose to have a revisionist history and write it the way you WANT it to be... that's your choice.


Axlin: "Hey Faldor, that wife of your's. I used to be married to her. She cheated on me 8 times. She will cheat on you."

Faldor: "She cheated on me twice, but said she'll never do it again"

Axlin: "She will man. Trust me. That's why I divorced her"

Faldor: "I choose to remain positive she won't do it a third time. It's DIFFERENT this time"

Axlin: "Okay man..." roll

These analogies are just crazy Axlin.

However, I must say I have made the reference that sometimes I feel like a battered girlfriend being a fan of this band.

BUT, these things MAY have more of an impact if they personally affected me.  I've gotten to see Guns twice over the last 7 years, and both shows were fantastic!  I got an album, that is fantastic, regardless of how long it took.  The only time any cancellation affected me was in 2002.  I had planned to see Guns in Vegas that year since I was going to be out there the same time they were playing.  But the tour got pulled before I bought tickets.  So it didn't cost me anything, except for money lost gambling instead of the money I would've spent on/at a GNR show.

Axlin, I'm sorry I can't be as negative as you.  I just can't do it.  You have plenty of company on the negative spin train though so don't you worry.  And I suggest you stop trying to recruit me, because I won't be coming aboard anytime soon.

Have a good one!

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB