U2 vs "reunion" Guns n Roses

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Martinski

War Child
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
519
:hmm: I watched the GnR Not in this lifetime show here in Gothenburg and it made me think. How come they can do a 3 ½ hour show with all that previous turmoil in that band? Axl also runs around on stage with high energy most of the show as well, sure he goes behind the stage now and then totake a breather while Slash do a long guitar solo, but still. Sure his voice doesnt sound as good as in the 90's but he is like 55...

So they are about the same age as U2 but they actually do a WORLD tour with this tour, as they also go to places like India, Thailand, Japan, Australia and so on. Not just Europe and US + Canada. While doing a show that is Springsteen show in length. So how come a band like fucking Guns n Roses who people thought were completely dead a few years ago can do all this?

I was acutally impressed when seeing GnR this saturday doing what they do on stage after all turmoil, the split up and fighting between Slash and Axl Rose. Sure the show is a bit too long at 3 ½ hours with many covers. :hmm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_This_Lifetime..._Tour
 
And your point is? I mean, you've named this thread 'U2 vs "reunion" Guns n Roses', so where does the 'U2 vs' part come in?
:hmm:
 
I guess i wondered if this version of GnR can tour this show why can't U2 do something similar when it comes to show length and tour more locations. U2 being old isnt really an explenation when they are about the same age, just a few years younger.

There is obviously demand seeing how fast the tickets for Leg 2 of this tour sold out and how they havent had one in Australia since 360 tour. And a longer setlist could fit in more songs people want to hear such as Red Flag Day.
 
I guess i wondered if this version of GnR can tour this show why can't U2 do something similar. . . . .

Just because they are the "same age" as GnR hardly means they are in the same shape. Especially Bono. I'm not saying they aren't, just saying that their age in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean they are capable of the same physical activity.

They could still be touring the JT30 show now if they wanted after all.

These guys have lives, as well as a career, so hard to guess the end game here. We have to take their tours at face value and just assume that's all they want to do. Nothing wrong with that (unless you live in Australia).

As for the Asian market, I'm guessing there isn't a demand. And GnR getting back together and doing a tour isn't the same as U2 let's face it. U2 has been steadily plugging along for a long time now. Aerosmith, Eagles, GnR . . .they break up, take a long hiatus, whatever . . . and then it's a big -once-in-a-lifetime event to see them when they decide to go for that cash grab. Much much different for U2.
 
Just because they are the "same age" as GnR hardly means they are in the same shape. Especially Bono. I'm not saying they aren't, just saying that their age in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean they are capable of the same physical activity.

They could still be touring the JT30 show now if they wanted after all.

These guys have lives, as well as a career, so hard to guess the end game here. We have to take their tours at face value and just assume that's all they want to do. Nothing wrong with that (unless you live in Australia).

As for the Asian market, I'm guessing there isn't a demand. And GnR getting back together and doing a tour isn't the same as U2 let's face it. U2 has been steadily plugging along for a long time now. Aerosmith, Eagles, GnR . . .they break up, take a long hiatus, whatever . . . and then it's a big -once-in-a-lifetime event to see them when they decide to go for that cash grab. Much much different for U2.

Right on. I’ve seen this comparison discussed elsewhere too. And it mostly seems like they’re two different beasts.
 
U2 sadly has never done long shows. For not the first time, you get the impression from recent shows (JT 30, E&I) that they are making a conscious decision to play for the shortest time possible.
 
I guess i also made the comparisons since the Not in this lifetime tour is about as big as the JT30 tour when it comes to box office numbers and relies also heavily on nostalgia...

A better comparison would probably be Not in this lifetime tour vs JT30 tour. Instead of comparing it to E+I or I+E tours / legs.
 
Just because they are the "same age" as GnR hardly means they are in the same shape. Especially Bono. I'm not saying they aren't, just saying that their age in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean they are capable of the same physical activity.

(snip)

The key thing with most rock bands and the length of their shows is the physical condition (and issues) of the band, especially the drummer who has the most demanding role. It's widely known Larry's had serious back issues in the past and I think overall, these guys just don't and maybe never had the kind of physical stamina to pull off Springsteenesque epic-ally long shows. I remember the Unforgettable Fire tour and even many of the Lovetown shows being only about 16-19 songs long.

Also, it's important to note that Guns n' Roses isn't playing with their original drummer (who's a bit of a wreck) and has plenty of onstage "help" with a second guitarist, keyboards etc all of whom are younger players than the original band members. I will say Axl has proven to be a real surprise being able to pull off not just the long GnR shows but fronting AC/DC a couple years ago as well, both gigs which are very demanding for the kind of "skinned cat" singing required, lol.

It's also worth noting the GnR pads out their set with a *lot* of breaks especially for Axl, which include instrumentals, covers and solo spots. I do think the last few tours, U2 has leaned harder and harder in putting in the same kind of breaks or intermissions and the kind of music they've been playing (except the JT30 tour) is more and more reliant on offstage "help" and the visuals.

Getting into your late 50's and beyond is a bitch unless you're a freak of rock n' roll nature like Springsteen or Jagger.
 
Last edited:
I saw GNR in 2016 and 2017. While both shows were great, 1 was enough. GNR was filling a void for fans that haven't seen them live for nearly 24 years. And even then their career was only 5 years. They had big hits/albums that didn't reach most of their audience.

U2...well they've been touring heavily as band ( and still making new music) since GNR called it quits. I would rather take that than 3 hr shows based on all nostalgia.

While the show was great I was burnt out the time I saw them in 2017. The show revolves around Slash able to play long extended solos. It was the Slash show and while it was great to see, don't think it was a non stop rock show. And there were quite a few points in the show where it dragged on a bit. I left the 2017 early to beat the traffic.

U2 doing 3 different tours in 4 years is pretty epic in itself. I'm not sure GNR could get away with that this late in their career.

Also....Bono sounds lot better than Axl these days :wink:
 
I saw GNR in 2016 and 2017. While both shows were great, 1 was enough. GNR was filling a void for fans that haven't seen them live for nearly 24 years. And even then their career was only 5 years. They had big hits/albums that didn't reach most of their audience.

U2...well they've been touring heavily as band ( and still making new music) since GNR called it quits. I would rather take that than 3 hr shows based on all nostalgia.

While the show was great I was burnt out the time I saw them in 2017. The show revolves around Slash able to play long extended solos. It was the Slash show and while it was great to see, don't think it was a non stop rock show. And there were quite a few points in the show where it dragged on a bit. I left the 2017 early to beat the traffic.

U2 doing 3 different tours in 4 years is pretty epic in itself. I'm not sure GNR could get away with that this late in their career.

Also....Bono sounds lot better than Axl these days :wink:

Yeah i agree seeing them one time is probably enough. They have just added like 2 or maybe 3 songs since last year. Shadow of your Love being a new one for example. And i also agree that the show kinda dragged some in some of the solos and covers. But hearing You Could be Mine, Sweet Child o Mine, November Rain... was great.

I dont know how fair the comparison or the VS i made is but it just made me think while i was watching GnR that these are similarly aged guys putting on basically a nostalgia tour for pretty much the same age group of fans while playing the same size venues. The main difference that the NITL tour reaches places like Iceland, South Africa, Abu Dhabi, Philippnes, Indonesia and so on as well.

While they did i thought what if "our boys" could put a similar length show. No one can say that Axl Rose has really been in better shape physically or mentally than Bono has through the years, Main reason might be the drummer?
 
I saw GNR in 2016 and 2017. While both shows were great, 1 was enough. GNR was filling a void for fans that haven't seen them live for nearly 24 years. And even then their career was only 5 years. They had big hits/albums that didn't reach most of their audience.

U2...well they've been touring heavily as band ( and still making new music) since GNR called it quits. I would rather take that than 3 hr shows based on all nostalgia.

(Snip)

U2 doing 3 different tours in 4 years is pretty epic in itself. I'm not sure GNR could get away with that this late in their career.
:

Guns n' Roses current tour is going well into next year which will likely make the 3 year mark if it continues past Spring 2019.

I'll add that while many people have ignored what's been going on with Guns n' Rose the past couple decades, the fact is, Axl and his band (of scrubs) have been touring pretty regularly since 2000 especially around the release of the Chinese Democracy album playing arenas and festivals. The set they have been playing the last 15 years is close to what they are playing on this "reunion." I personally find it remarkable that the simple replacement/addition of Slash and Duff has carried this reunion as far as it's gone-they've made over half a billion dollars on this tour.

I've seen GnR 7 times between 1986 when they played a Long Beach club opening for the great punk/goth band Lords Of The New Church to opening slots for The Cult and Aerosmith to their own headlining shows at Perkins Palace to one of the near disasterous opening shows for The Rolling Stones to two Illusion tour shows, one with Izzy still in the band and one co-headlining with Metallics where the bloat was in full evidence.

The 8th time I saw them was on a whim during a 4 show stand at the Universal Amphitheater over the 2006 Christmas holidays and surprisingly, that was one of the best shows I ever saw the band pull off, certainly one of the longest. Plus Izzy guested on about 8 songs.
 
Guns n' Roses current tour is going well into next year which will likely make the 3 year mark if it continues past Spring 2019.

I'll add that while many people have ignored what's been going on with Guns n' Rose the past couple decades, the fact is, Axl and his band (of scrubs) have been touring pretty regularly since 2000 especially around the release of the Chinese Democracy album playing arenas and festivals. The set they have been playing the last 15 years is close to what they are playing on this "reunion." I personally find it remarkable that the simple replacement/addition of Slash and Duff has carried this reunion as far as it's gone-they've made over half a billion dollars on this tour.

I've seen GnR 7 times between 1986 when they played a Long Beach club opening for the great punk/goth band Lords Of The New Church to opening slots for The Cult and Aerosmith to their own headlining shows at Perkins Palace to one of the near disasterous opening shows for The Rolling Stones to two Illusion tour shows, one with Izzy still in the band and one co-headlining with Metallics where the bloat was in full evidence.

The 8th time I saw them was on a whim during a 4 show stand at the Universal Amphitheater over the 2006 Christmas holidays and surprisingly, that was one of the best shows I ever saw the band pull off, certainly one of the longest. Plus Izzy guested on about 8 songs.

That’s awesome you’ve seen all those shows.

What happened to them opening for the Stones?
 
Not really a big GnR fan. I can appreciate AFD as one of the great, most influential and significant records of it's time. One thing I will say that they are doing right, that U2 should do, is they are able to modify their stage to any sort of venue type. GnR can play stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, festivals, and even flat fields and disused military airfields, like the ones U2 played during Popmart. This allows them to play as many places as possible. Coldplay did this on their last tour as well. Whereas, U2 seem unwilling to do this. Arena tour MEANS arena tour, and stadium tour MEANS stadium tour! Elevation had a couple exceptions, and they should've pursued that a little more.
 
Because then they might get a headline like this:

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/review-of-smashing-pumpkins-at-american-airlines-arena-july-24-10558888

I thought the 3 hours flew by and loved it all.

It appears not everyone cares for a 3 hour show.

Yep. And even for bands I like, I find myself getting a bit antsy if we start hitting the three-hour mark, particularly if you're in GA and standing the whole time. Overall, it's probably kind of hard to maintain the same sort of enthusiasm or attention for 180+ minutes.
 
That’s awesome you’ve seen all those shows.

What happened to them opening for the Stones?

This was a 3 or 4 show stand at the LA Coliseum in late '89 where Guns n' Roses supported The Stones just for those shows. GnR had recently released the "Lies" EP that included the single "Patience" which was getting a tremendous amount of radio play but they weren't touring and they hadn't played a complete gig for almost a year (aside from a pair of small club warm-up shows earlier that week) so this added more pressure to these few shows. What was not widely known at the time was that drummer Steven Adler had become a heroin addict and could barely carry a show while other members of the band had slipped into drug addiction to various degrees.

The first night which got the most press was when Axl went on a rant first before they played their first song about the controversy about the song "One In A Million" and later, in-between songs about "certain members dancing with Mr Brownstone" and that if they couldn't clean up, these shows were going to be the band's last ones. By the end of their set, it seemed pretty likely the band was disintegrating right there on stage. The second night's show was a bit better but Axl continued ranting at points through the set about the same subjects.

The third night which is the show I caught, during the late afternoon during opening band Living Colour's set, Slash was drunkenly wandering around on the floor/field seats in a near-stupor before being escorted away after nearly getting mobbed by fans. The set a few hours later, you could feel the tension in the band and again, Axl spent a lot of time in-between songs bitching about drug use in the band and feeling persecuted by the press for their various controversies. I honestly thought that was going to be the last time I saw them and it kind of felt anti-climactic seeing The Rolling Stones afterwords.

These shows turned out to be the last full shows with Adler in the band. He played on a short 2 song set at Farm Aid in Spring 1990 which was his last public appearance as a member of the band. Adler was basically kicked out late the following year while the band was recording the Use Your Illusion albums.
 
This was a 3 or 4 show stand at the LA Coliseum in late '89 where Guns n' Roses supported The Stones just for those shows. GnR had recently released the "Lies" EP that included the single "Patience" which was getting a tremendous amount of radio play but they weren't touring and they hadn't played a complete gig for almost a year (aside from a pair of small club warm-up shows earlier that week) so this added more pressure to these few shows. What was not widely known at the time was that drummer Steven Adler had become a heroin addict and could barely carry a show while other members of the band had slipped into drug addiction to various degrees.

The first night which got the most press was when Axl went on a rant first before they played their first song about the controversy about the song "One In A Million" and later, in-between songs about "certain members dancing with Mr Brownstone" and that if they couldn't clean up, these shows were going to be the band's last ones. By the end of their set, it seemed pretty likely the band was disintegrating right there on stage. The second night's show was a bit better but Axl continued ranting at points through the set about the same subjects.

The third night which is the show I caught, during the late afternoon during opening band Living Colour's set, Slash was drunkenly wandering around on the floor/field seats in a near-stupor before being escorted away after nearly getting mobbed by fans. The set a few hours later, you could feel the tension in the band and again, Axl spent a lot of time in-between songs bitching about drug use in the band and feeling persecuted by the press for their various controversies. I honestly thought that was going to be the last time I saw them and it kind of felt anti-climactic seeing The Rolling Stones afterwords.

These shows turned out to be the last full shows with Adler in the band. He played on a short 2 song set at Farm Aid in Spring 1990 which was his last public appearance as a member of the band. Adler was basically kicked out late the following year while the band was recording the Use Your Illusion albums.

That is awesome. And crazy to think Axl was the one trying to hold the band together. Wonder what Keith thought of this going on. haha


I did enjoy the GNR shows & was big fan when I was younger but I just don't get the emotional connections with most of their songs (except Estranged) like I do U2. Especially that I'm older now.

U2 shows for me are big moments in my life. Kind of like a, 'I'm still going and striving after all these years & this band is doing the same thing'. With all the change that goes on over time you still have a U2 show to fall back on every 2-4 years. Taking my 6 year old last year to JT was crazy. Hearing my 2 year old sing the Best Thing is mind blowing to me. And being in a arena/stadium when U2 takes the stage is the best feeling as a music fan.
 
Yep. And even for bands I like, I find myself getting a bit antsy if we start hitting the three-hour mark, particularly if you're in GA and standing the whole time. Overall, it's probably kind of hard to maintain the same sort of enthusiasm or attention for 180+ minutes.



It may seem sac religious to say, but I’ve seen Springsteen a bunch of times, and the 3hr shows are better than the 4hr shows. After 10 minutes of “twist and shout,” you can get a little bored, especially in a stadium.

I strongly believe U2 should play longer sets, and they should toss in a freebie before or after the encore — 2.5hrs is just about right. But length for the sake of length, meh.
 
It may seem sac religious to say, but I’ve seen Springsteen a bunch of times, and the 3hr shows are better than the 4hr shows. After 10 minutes of “twist and shout,” you can get a little bored, especially in a stadium.

I strongly believe U2 should play longer sets, and they should toss in a freebie before or after the encore — 2.5hrs is just about right. But length for the sake of length, meh.
frenchman.gif
 
I am amazed at all the same shows Partyslammer and I have seen. (I first noticed it at SHF.tv)

Was at the GnR shows with them opening for Aerosmith (at Pacific Amp) and I believe the final Stones gig as well. (Either night 2 or 3)
 
If the core members of GNR had continued to tour together throughout the entire time that U2 has toured, most of them would be dead. This reunion tour is GNR's last chance to make big money while they can still go out there and perform. So they're gonna milk that proverbial cow until it runs dry.


I was fortunate to have seen GNR on the UYI tour in late '91 and then with Metallica in Summer of '92. Both shows were solid, but Metallica blew them away when they co-headlined that Summer.
 
Pacific Amp? There's one on that side, too?

Yeah, the Pacific Amphitheater is in Costa Mesa, CA as part of the OC Fairgrounds. It's an outdoor shed with seating and a GA lawn that held maybe 15,000 people. In the 80's and 90's, the place had a pretty regular schedule of shows with (at the time) pretty big, current acts.

I liked this place a lot better than the nearby Irvine Meadows (which admittedly always booked much better acts) because it was a bit smaller, had better acoustics, much easier to get in and out of and even closer to where I live. During 1990-92, a friend lived right across the street from it so we could literally walk from her house with a pair of folding lawn chairs, a small cooler, hang out in the parking lot near the front gate and party and hear shows I'd otherwise never pay to see for free.

In the mid/late 90's neighbors petitioned and more or less got the place barred from hosting concerts due to noise complaints and traffic issues and it was more or less dormant until about 10 years ago when they were allowed to host a limited number of concerts with a greatly reduced seating capacity centered around the OC Fair season (which is now) which are mostly old b-list burnout classic rock acts.
 
Back
Top Bottom