Guns N' Roses - Irish Date Announced!

phil1nj

finhex wrote: »

I don't believe that there is any agreement which says how long artist should perform... And if you check ticketmaster terms and conditions they sure state that they are not responsible for anything regarding events. But good luck.

I'm sure there are timeframes and mimimum setlist durations specified in any concert agreement. If there wasn't what would stop an artist or band playing one or two songs and then hightailing it saying that the punters got what you paid for i.e. a live performanace? An extreme example to be sure but its ridiculous to suggest that a minimum performance time is not in the contract.

Ash.J.Williams

phil1nj wrote: »

I'm sure there are timeframes and mimimum setlist durations specified in any concert agreement. If there wasn't what would stop an artist or band playing one or two songs and then hightailing it saying that the punters got what you paid for i.e. a live performanace? An extreme example to be sure but its ridiculous to suggest that a minimum performance time is not in the contract.

standard gig is about 1.15hrs to 1.30hrs, Gnr play indoors usually 2-2.30 hrs. I think they played 2 hrs in dublin this year did they?

CorkRocker

finhex wrote: »

I don't believe that there is any agreement which says how long artist should perform... And if you check ticketmaster terms and conditions they sure state that they are not responsible for anything regarding events. But good luck.

About the length of time for a concert, you could be right but i think there would be some protection for the consumer on this.
As for the Ticket Master terms and conditions, I dont think it matters, they enter into a contract with the buyer and cannot pass up on this contract. If that was the case, all retailers and service providers could do what they wish, as long as they have T&C's.
Whats you view on the terms and conditions?

phil1nj

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

standard gig is about 1.15hrs to 1.30hrs, Gnr play indoors usually 2-2.30 hrs. I think they played 2 hrs in dublin this year did they?

Nope, they played for 22 minutes, about 5 songs worth and then left the stage saying the concert was over. I left at this point (seeing as I was told by the frontman that he was leaving and to have a good night).
But there's a rumour that a second gig started at 11.30pm which went on until almost 1 o'clock in the morning (removes tongue firmly from cheek at this point).:D

furiousox

MCD released this statement on Monday.

“While the artist has a long history of being late on stage, no artist should be subjected to substances being thrown at them. Once people stopped throwing items, Guns N’ Roses returned on stage and performed their full set list of songs, so the issue of refunds does not arise.”

rubadub

“While the artist has a long history of being late on stage, no artist should be subjected to substances being thrown at them. Once people stopped throwing items, and were told to leave and not allowed back in, Guns N’ Roses returned on stage and performed their full set list of songs, so the issue of refunds does not arise.”

phil1nj

furiousox wrote: »

MCD released this statement on Monday.

“While the artist has a long history of being late on stage, no artist should be subjected to substances being thrown at them. Once people stopped throwing items, Guns N’ Roses returned on stage and performed their full set list of songs, so the issue of refunds does not arise.”

Well that's that then. MCD have spoken so that's an end to it. Like f*ck!

No amount of sh*t press releases which put forward their version of events will excuse the shoddy way in which this event was handled. MCD must know that the projectiles hurled at the stage came from a moronic few in the crowd, issuing a blanket statement such as the one above does not excuse them from the way they (mis)handled things that night, IMHO.

finhex

phil1nj wrote: »

I'm sure there are timeframes and mimimum setlist durations specified in any concert agreement. If there wasn't what would stop an artist or band playing one or two songs and then hightailing it saying that the punters got what you paid for i.e. a live performanace? An extreme example to be sure but its ridiculous to suggest that a minimum performance time is not in the contract.

So you think that bands and artists are performing only because they have made contract to do so? I believe that they have chosen their career because they want to perform.

CorkRocker wrote: »

About the length of time for a concert, you could be right but i think there would be some protection for the consumer on this.
As for the Ticket Master terms and conditions, I dont think it matters, they enter into a contract with the buyer and cannot pass up on this contract. If that was the case, all retailers and service providers could do what they wish, as long as they have T&C's.
Whats you view on the terms and conditions?

Ticketmaster is a broker between customer and MCD. They just sell tickets to events but are not responsible how event is organized.

phil1nj

finhex wrote: »

So you think that bands and artists are performing only because they have made contract to do so? I believe that they have chosen their career because they want to perform.

.

I'm sorry but when any artist starts charging exorbitant prices for their live shows then they'd better damn well start acting like professionals. That’s when a line gets crossed between performing for the love of your art and it becoming your livelihood. As with most professional practices contracts are a part of that world. If the bands don't like this, let them put on as many free shows as they like free from the trappings of the corporate machine that feeds, clothes and pampers them.

finhex

phil1nj wrote: »

I'm sorry but when any artist starts charging exorbitant prices for their live shows then they'd better damn well start acting like professionals.

Sure, but that does not mean that audience can throw them with bottles, pints, etc and band just should continue playing because they get money for it.

Calina

@finhex

please do not forget that the crowd were fractions because the band showed up nearly 90 minutes late.

IMO you can take it that if they'd been professional and on time, we would not be having this discussion.

RobMcGov

G'N'R have come on stage at approx. 10.30pm on every night on their tour!

I lay the blame with MCD/the O2 for not informing the crowd that they'd be on till then. G'N'R weren't 'late', at least not later than they were meant to be.

I got a text off my friend who works in the O2 at 9.15 (while the support band were still on) saying that G'N'R wouldn't be on till 10.30. I believe that a simple PA announcement telling the crowd this would've dampened any hostility and the show would've gone off without a hitch.

mike65

What about the gap between support ending and "Guns and Roses" coming on?

finhex

Calina wrote: »

@finhex

please do not forget that the crowd were fractions because the band showed up nearly 90 minutes late.

IMO you can take it that if they'd been professional and on time, we would not be having this discussion.

I don't think they were late at all. I checked mcd.ie webpage before gig and they didn't told any starting times, so I don't understand whole point band being late.

phil1nj

finhex wrote: »

I don't think they were late at all. I checked mcd.ie webpage before gig and they didn't told any starting times, so I don't understand whole point band being late.

Then you are in a minority I'm sorry to say. Doors opened at 6.30pm, support came out at about 8pm played for well over an hour (highly unusual), finished up at about 9.15pm and the main act didn't make an appearence until 10.25pm. You don't think this was late?

I've been to dozens of concerts over the years and this is not just late, its taking the p*ss. As for the start time not being on MCDs website, that point is totally irrelavant. If a concert is being held in the O2 (or Point Depot depening on your preference) then I don't think its too much of a stretch to expect the gig schedule to follow that of every other concert or event held there over the past 10 years. (At this point I'm waiting for the obligatory "This is G'N'R's we're talking about here, they don't march to the beat of anyone else drum" retort.).
If it wasn't going to follow every other gigs timetable that's taken place there, then there should have been an announcement on MCDs page or at the venue - either way it adds to the case the MCD and/or the O2 heads f*ucked up badly.

BTW, do you work for MCD? All your posts seem to be taking their line from the blaming the crowd comment right to the "they weren't late" post. Just curious thats all.

Calina

RobMcGov wrote: »

I got a text off my friend who works in the O2 at 9.15 (while the support band were still on) saying that G'N'R wouldn't be on till 10.30. I believe that a simple PA announcement telling the crowd this would've dampened any hostility and the show would've gone off without a hitch.

Dude, the time I wanted to know this was not 9.15. It was "printed on the tickets". I was in the O2 at 7.15, sat through an execrable support act and waited for an hour and a half for the headliners to show up. I have many, many more things I can be doing with my time than sitting in the O2 waiting for a PA announcement.

Calina

finhex wrote: »

I don't think they were late at all. I checked mcd.ie webpage before gig and they didn't told any starting times, so I don't understand whole point band being late.

I don't care what you think. Concerts in the O2 typically see the headliner on around 9, 9.15. If something is out of the ordinary, ie, 10.30, then it should be advised.

Advising nothing suggests business as usual, not business as totally bloody insane.

Motley Crue

Calina wrote: »

Dude, the time I wanted to know this was not 9.15. It was "printed on the tickets". I was in the O2 at 7.15, sat through an execrable support act and waited for an hour and a half for the headliners to show up. I have many, many more things I can be doing with my time than sitting in the O2 waiting for a PA announcement.

That seems fair to me. I'm frankly amazed that MCD haven't tried to update that pitiful release of a press statement

phil1nj

RobMcGov wrote: »

G'N'R the Axl Rose Tribute Band weren't 'late', at least not later than they were meant wanted to be.

.

FYP.

Once again, I think you'll find most people would disagree with your comment. I'm sure MCD expected them to be onstage well before 10.25pm but seeing as this is "the most dangerous band in the world" they had to go along with the fantastical rules of Axl Roses' world and wait for him to show.

RobMcGov

Calina wrote: »

I don't care what you think. Concerts in the O2 typically see the headliner on around 9, 9.15. If something is out of the ordinary, ie, 10.30, then it should be advised.

Advising nothing suggests business as usual, not business as totally bloody insane.

I totally agree. People should have been told they were to be on at 10.30, thats the point.

The fact that every other date on their tour they started at this time suggests that it is a standard.

It's not enough to just say that other gigs at the O2 start at 9.00 so G'N'R should've started at 9.00. It's reasonable to presume that, but that's all it is, a presumption. It's MCD / the O2's fault for not keeping ticket holders up to speed.

I was actually told by staff at the O2 to leave about 5mins after the lights came on. Lucky I was stubborn and didn't but what about all the others that left? A guy beside me drove up from Kerry, took 2 days off work and had to pay for a hotel and he left when the lights came on! People like that definitely have cause for a refund.

The big portion of this debacle boils down to miscommunication.

finhex

phil1nj wrote: »

Then you are in a minority I'm sorry to say. Doors opened at 6.30pm, support came out at about 8pm played for well over an hour (highly unusual), finished up at about 9.15pm and the main act didn't make an appearence until 10.25pm. You don't think this was late?

I agree, it was late. But I still don't see any legal reason to people to require their money back.

BTW, do you work for MCD? All your posts seem to be taking their line from the blaming the crowd comment right to the "they weren't late" post. Just curious thats all.

No, I don't work them.

phil1nj

finhex wrote: »

I agree, it was late. But I still don't see any legal reason to people to require their money back.

So you weren't one of those people who were told by MCD staff that the concert was over, when it turns out it wasn't even though there were no announcements to let people know what was happening and the house lights were on?

Or those other people who were told by O2 staff to contact MCD about a refund after Mr. Rose walked off stage?

Or one of those people who were not allowed back in to the venue when they heard that Mr. Rose had gotten over his hissy fit and reaslised how much ****e he could be in if he didn't play some sort of gig?

Or one of those really foolish people who availed of public transport to get to the venue to see a band under the impression that it would finish at such a time that they might actually get home using the same mode of transport they arrived on?

The list goes on, and other reasons have been posted. All in all it adds up to people feeling that they have a legitimate claim for getting some sort of recompense for a concert that was in every way possible, a disaster!

RobMcGov

phil1nj wrote: »

So you weren't one of those people who were told by MCD staff that the concert was over, when it turns out it wasn't even though there were no announcements to let people know what was happening and the house lights were on?

Or those other people who were told by O2 staff to contact MCD about a refund after Mr. Rose walked off stage?

Or one of those people who were not allowed back in to the venue when they heard that Mr. Rose had gotten over his hissy fit and reaslised how much ****e he could be in if he didn't play some sort of gig?

Or one of those really foolish people who availed of public transport to get to the venue to see a band under the impression that it would finish at such a time that they might actually get home using the same mode of transport they arrived on?

The list goes on, and other reasons have been posted. All in all it adds up to people feeling that they have a legitimate claim for getting some sort of recompense for a concert that was in every way possible, a disaster!

Here, here

finhex

phil1nj wrote: »

So you weren't one of those people who were told by MCD staff that the concert was over, when it turns out it wasn't even though there were no announcements to let people know what was happening and the house lights were on?...

No, I was the one who listened MCD when they announced that that are trying to get band back to stage as soon as possible and everybody should wait....

phil1nj

finhex wrote: »

No, I was the one who listened MCD when they announced that that are trying to get band back to stage as soon as possible and everybody should wait....

Good for you. Unfortunately some of us didn't have the choice of hanging around until half eleven on the off chance that Mr. Rose would put his toys back in his pram and finish his set. But I'm glad it worked out for and by the looks of some of the videos on YouTube you got a great gig in return for your loyalty and patience (pun intended):rolleyes:.

Motley Crue

phil1nj wrote: »

Good for you. Unfortunately some of us didn't have the choice of hanging around until half eleven on the off chance that Mr. Rose would put his toys back in his pram and finish his set. But I'm glad it worked out for and by the looks of some of the videos on YouTube you got a great gig in return for your loyalty and patience (pun intended):rolleyes:.

Actually the video's I saw were of a really terrible gig with no interaction, pieces of the set removed so Axl didn't even have to acknowledge the audience and a general disaster

Did he even say one word past 'OK, let's try this again...'

WeleaseWoderick

Seems like Axl is in better form now anyway!

Acoustic show in L'Arc nightclub in Paris the other night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OqjEQzTz2g

phil1nj

Motley Crue wrote: »

Actually the video's I saw were of a really terrible gig with no interaction, pieces of the set removed so Axl didn't even have to acknowledge the audience and a general disaster

Did he even say one word past 'OK, let's try this again...'

Motley Crue,
Sorry that last post from me was dripping with sarcasm. It did indeed look like a horrible gig (no matter what those who hung around might say). Got the impression that it wouldn't take much for Axl to take his ball and head home again for good at any time during it as well..

finhex

phil1nj wrote: »

...But I'm glad it worked out for and by the looks of some of the videos on YouTube you got a great gig in return for your loyalty and patience (pun intended):rolleyes:.

Yeah, I am really happy that I stayed. After all bottle throwers and other Axl haters went home, real fans got good show without listening stupid booing and we-want-slash chanting :cool:.

Motley Crue

finhex wrote: »

After all bottle throwers and other Axl haters went home, real fans got good show without listening stupid booing and we-want-slash chanting :cool:.

So real fans don't have work in the morning, real fans aren't dependant on public transport, real fans didn't want a night out we simply want to pay over the odds for a gig and then realise we needed to get home because it was half 11 and we'd been here since half six and the band we paid to see, the only name on our ticket, had only played 5 songs....

Oh, and the real fans, were they the ones who were singing the words to 'Sorry' up the front...or the one's I saw up the front who kept looking at themselves and wondering what the hell this song was because they'd not bothered to buy the album....or listen to it?

No, I think we need to correct that, I think you should say that the lucky people...who just happened not to have to go home at a reasonable hour and could both afford and had the time to stay and watch someone stand perfectly still, cut audience participation out of the set (and even instruct his band not to perform any of the breakdown's in-between songs) and not speak a word to the fans screaming his songs back...

He did ask you to sing 'Knockin On Heaven's Door' back to him? No
Did he thank you for coming? No
Did he thank you for staying? No
Did he introduce the rest of the band? No
Did he comment on how pleased he was to be in Ireland? No
Did he laugh and joke and generally come across as happy? No
Did he even seem as if he WANTED to be there? No

So, tell me....what's to enjoy?

Dennis Desmond and MCD make me sick, they knew watching that performance...after most people had gone home, that this was not the GNR show those left had paid for...and yet they still ignore refund requests and stick to their legal bull****...EVEN WHEN HE ABRIDGED MOST OF THE ****ING SET!!!!

Oh, and for the record, here's Sacramento 93...when Duff get's hit with a bottle and Axl responds by saying they're going home....and guess what, the people of Sacramento got their money back that night and everything was done by the book. Have a look MCD, this is how it should have been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVyYPs_9ons