Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Here are some setlists from the European tour and some recent shows.

I was hoping they'd mix up the setlist for this new leg and play longer sets, but as you can see that has yet to happen.

Seems like Spectacle appears sometimes instead of Mr. Brownstone.


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

August 12, 2004 ? ? ? Stockholm, Sweden ? ?	September 2, 2004 ? ? ? London, England ? ?	November 1, 2004 ? ? ? Austin, TX ? ?	November 6, 2004 ? ? ? Southaven, MS ? ?
Sucker Train Blues ? ? ? Do It For The Kids ? ? ? Headspace ? ? ? Crackerman ? ? ? Illegal i Song ? ? ? It's So Easy ? ? ? Fall To Pieces ? ? ? Big Machine ? ? ? Set Me Free ? ? ? Used To Love Her ? ? ? Slither ? ? ? Sex Type Thing ? ? ? Mr. Brownstone ? ? ? Bodies ? ?	Sucker Train Blues ? ? ? Do It For The Kids ? ? ? Headspace ? ? ? Spectacle ? ? ? Crackerman ? ? ? Illegal i Song ? ? ? Fall To Pieces ? ? ? Big Machine ? ? ? Set Me Free ? ? ? Used To Love Her ? ? ? Slither ? ? ? Sex Type Thing ? ? ? It's So Easy ? ? ? Negative Creep ? ?	Sucker Train Blues ? ? ? Do It For The Kids ? ? ? Headspace ? ? ? Superhuman ? ? ? Illegal i Song ? ? ? Spectacle ? ? ? Fall To Pieces ? ? ? Big Machine ? ? ? It's So Easy ? ? ? Sex Type Thing ? ? ? Set Me Free ? ? ? Used To Love Her ? ? ? No More No More ? ? ? Slither ? ?	Sucker Train Blues ? ? ? Do It For The Kids ? ? ? Headspace ? ? ? Superhuman ? ? ? Crackerman ? ? ? Illegal i Song ? ? ? Fall To Pieces ? ? ? Big Machine ? ? ? It's So Easy ? ? ? Sex Type Thing ? ? ? Set Me Free ? ? ? Used To Love Her ? ? ? No More No More ? ? ? Mr. Brownstone ? ? ? Slither ? ?

/jarmo

I agree it's very similar with teh exception of some covers and swtiching the few gnr tunes.. It might be out of this album this is the only music they will play, it will have to change eventually to support whatever new stuff they coming out..

On a side note I am kind of glad ithey play without big band solos like in shows like tokyo for gnr.. I know they esxtend SLither, but that's cool, I just don't need each individual member getting a solo each outside of the songs..  I don't know each show they've done so I'm sorry if they have..

I think adding solos would be cool

I don't know why they don't play longer sets.

They're saving Weiland's voice, they don't want to or what.

But if they're saving his voice, they could let Duff do a cover.



/jarmo

maybe a little something, but nothing like then illusions, mnatt's druming killed me..

Just wondering, but how much longer would you like them to be?

For me, I prefer a fast moving show that keeps the momentum building, no extended solos or excessive acoustic/ballad type stuff.? When I saw VR early on? "Used To Love Her" absolutely killed the flow of the set, though they finished strong it was still more or less a novelty that could have been better served missing.? At the festival show I saw VR at a few weeks ago, the show was fast paced and built to an absolute crescendo with "Slither" as a closer to a blistering 11 song set.? No need for longer just for the sake of longer, always leave them wanting more.

As for letting Duff do a cover, lets not get carried away.? Scott's the front man for a reason you know..

I like how their setlist are now. A little short?...maybe. But the 90 or so minutes that they do perform are full of energy and make for an incredible show. I'd rather them keep the setlist the way it is now, instead of adding in guitar/drum solos to make the concert longer.
 
I'm not saying everyone, but some fans tend to get bored during solos.

I dunno, when I saw them the moshpit was crazy so the setlist was just long enough.. we were knackered afterwards.

I'd like to see a little more jamming or something.. something impromptu.

Just adding two songs would be nice. Make it a little more different than the last leg.

Stuff like playing Spectacle and Mr. Brownstone instead of playing just one of them.



I'm not expecting two hour shows, but I did think they'd add at least one song from their own album to this second leg.



/jarmo

That would be a thought for sure, luckily Superhuman and Spectacle were a part of the festival set I saw it Tulsa last month.

I've been split on the GNR covers that could/should be involved in the set, It's So Easy is a no brainer obviously and Weiland has a way with Brownstone.  Along those lines, I thought at the beginning Jungle should never be considered but I'm beginning to think it might be a kick for the fans and the band alike.  Not staples of the set mind you, but an occassional surprise would be cool.
Maybe not the whole tune, but blasting the riff every now and again would definately take the energy to another level.

It seems like the last few shows have been at least slightly longer, playing all 3 Gn'r songs plus one of their new covers.  Overall, I would prefer a few more songs, but when I see them in Chicago, I'm gonna be so happy just to see them live for the first time that I really won't care that much.

I still think the set list is waaaaaaaaay too short. They're now playing at bigger venues, which should translate in a longer concert, a 2 hours one like mostly any band plays, even the 60 year old stones. They have enough songs to do it, you just have to add YGNR, Interstate love song or any gnr tune that weiland can hit in a good day  :hihi:

 
I keep reading so many people belly aching about the time (70-90 minutes) vr is playing say compared to gnr.. I just don't get it, when I watched shows growing up of gnr at places like the ritz they had electric shows but nothing in time like when the illusions started..

I think vr is a band that is fast paced and keeps the the music rolling.. Rememebr gnr days during the illusions where there would be those long ass drunm solos, n all the other band mates doing tons of stuff that was boring..
I know they haven't played like 3 songs, but they play covers which is more then their entire album.. Their album is 56 minutes long,...

They're playing like 13 songs per show when alone.. I know the setlist can be old, but the band isn't that old, contraband came out in june, it's november..

What can you expect when they have one album under their belt and this tour supports that album?? Plus they're giving you stp/gnr covers ,some aero, cheap trick, queen.. I know it rotates but you can't expect real long shows when they don't have tons of material..

New gnr played 2 hour shows and they included new songs plus old so now that's not a long show either considering their selection ability..

Throw a rant in their, some meet the band and some boring solos and you can have a longer show, but who needs that?? I rather have a bnand play their asses off and keep the energy high all the way through..

Just know when they get more music to promote they will play other songs and the shows may be longer.. I think we're spoiled frm gnr days and expect them to start on top, just be patient it's still new so to speak..
 
feel free to share your views..

I find it funny how some band members keep pointing out in interview that they're unpredictable.

How?

They've basically had the same set list since May.

I know they can't play 2 hours, but I think they could do something "extra" for this leg of the tour. It's an arena tour and the second North American tour. Many people have already seen them play the clubs and now they get almost the same set again....

They put on a great show, we know that already. I just wish they'd take more chances..... Mix it up a little.



/jarmo

The dangerous stuff is just them hyping them , the  cd/album,  and things like that.. It's just normal things to grab attention..

I agree too, they could mix it up, they could throw in other songs.. I don't know why they don't try lta, ygnr, or what ever..

I'd like to hear Slash do the Godfather solo or Only Women Bleed solo.  They are great.

Did he play an extension of slither with his solos at philly??

Matt played way too much and I don't understand why anyone enjoys a 10 minute drum solo? Seriously OK we know they can keep a beat but do I want to give up 1-2 songs for it? F' NO!. Guitar solos, like the godfather, are alright, not my favorite. I do however enjoy the shorter solos that start into a song

I don't think their set-list is too short, but  :-\ isn't it a bit stupid to play the same set every night? Maybe they should start to do like Audioslave... having the same rant every night...  :-\

Nothing at the moment is unpredictable in a velvet revolver show, speaking of the set list of course. As jarmo has stated, it hasn't evolved, it's basically the same set list as the one from the previous N. American tour.  And by the way, this is an arena tour. Nobody plays arenas with a one hour and a half shows, that's just way too short :rant:

Size of venue should have nothing to do with length of set, that's just goofy.

Basically you pay more for the ticket and get the same club show.....

They're gonna play three nights in London in January. I wonder if they'll change more than the covers and whether or not Spectacle is played.




/jarmo

Let me ask you did you trhink wehn new gnr played 2 hour shows in America that it was a bit short? I mean msg had two bands beside gnr, hours of waiting for them to see two shitty bands..

Now take a little rant away, axl backstage, the bands little boring solo away and the venue is very short.. I enjoyed the msg show, I never thought about the time, but that is a band with huge options to play 3 hours worth of songs..

In a first year of a tour I don't mind if the setlist isn't changing much, it's not a big deal to me as long as the band plays and rocks the songs the rest doesn't matter.. Could they switch a song for another? I say sure, but I personally don't mind one song will not change anything for me.. They have switched the covers at times, their album is 56 minutes long so anything longer is fine with me,, It's not a king's ransom to see a show, it's fast paced and energetic and that's all I want to see..

I don't have a problem with the length of the show.

Obviously as a concert goer I'd prefer three hour shows with different sets each night (we have Pearl Jam for that  ;) ).

But when bands that don't rely on big productions (like VR) play the same set every night, it's kinda sad. I remember Duff's quote from 1991 when he explained why GN'R didn't use setlists. It was something about like "going to a 9 to 5 job" if they had a set list and say the same thing between songs.

I understand when Depeche Mode (who also played 2 hrs during their last tour) does the same set night after night. They rely on certain things in their shows (like backing tracks). Kinda hard to start jamming in the middle of the song....




/jarmo

Fair enough, I'm sure it will change eventually and I don't know the reason behind it..

Looks like a job for you jarmo, give vr an interview and ask why they don't change the setlist, or simply why dirty little thing (which rocks) isn't played?

I'm dead serious, anyone going to a signing or meeting the band or whateevr should ask about the setlist and why lta and dlt aren't played..

Of course it does. Arenas shows are always in the 90-120 minute frame. Always.

I've scene a bazillion arena shows and many have fallen under the 90-120 minute range.
Alice in Chains, Nirvana, The Cult, Manson, Janes Addicton, Foo Fighters.. just to name a few.

I don't do arena shows much anymore anyway, the last one I had tix for was GNR in Dallas a few years back...

I'm not going to argue since what you are saying may be true and I have no evidence to prove you wrong. Allow me to say however that I've seen another bazillion arena shows and all of them fell into the 90-120 range. Nirvana ( this was in 92 when they only had a few albums out), Radiohead, Oasis, U2, The Cure, Black Crowes, Green Day....

Let me ask you something, what's the point in doing an arena show if you are gonna play a set shorter than 90 minutes? VR's first tour was a club tour. The album had not been released yet and the tour helped to rise hype and momentum for the album. That tour was flawless. But, now VR has a solid fanbase, solid album ( backed up with sales and critics) and solid reputation, why not be a little more ambitious? They have been to some extreme by playing arenas now, they should live up to the expectations and give people their money's worth.

Question to the ones who have attended or will attend? to both legs.? Are the tickets more expensive now than they were on the first leg?

It's obvious and bigger venue is more expensive, if you see vr at joe's bar then at msg the cost is more for the band


Think for a second, I agree they could switch up the setlist, but they have 13 songs on their album and they have been playing up to 15 songs total, so what more can one band do that only has one album under their belt? They are a fast paced band with no long epic type songs, unless you go with the extended slither.. They could throw in fillers, but who needs them?? I want to see vr rock, the time of the show doesn't lessen the quality of the performance.. The band has been out with an album since june, it's november, that's not a long time, most bands couldn't go from clubs to bigger venues in such a short period..More fans are getting to see the show and that's what counts..

I don't know if I'm 100% correct, but even GnR in 87 played only short sets like VR does now, as they only had AFD out, and they threw in 3 to 5 covers as well (whole lotta rosie, heartbreak hotel ect) They've only been touring for some months, and the majority of the audience are seeing them for the first time, so it's still new and fresh for most people. They are adding some covers, and it's difficult for a band to rehearse in new songs when they are on tour, isen't it? Now, if they still have almost the same set list next year, then we can start to complain.. until then.. Enjoy the fact that we have a GnR related band out there, and maybe soon we can have two if Axl releases the CD soon !!

I don't think it's goofy at all. The tickets are more expensive. They have been touring for quite some time now and mostly everyone should expect to see something diferent, that's all. Do you imagine U2, for example, playing one hour and a half in Staples Center (first arena that came to my mind, i know velvet revolver haven't played it!!). it would feel quite weird. Bands such as velvet revolver play longer shows, it's a reality.

Ok by your u-2 comparison to vr then new gnr should have played longer then 2 hours.. Lots of fillers to make that show more than an hour and a half.. How one could compare one of the bigget rock bands to a band with one album is crazy..

Maybe vr seems bigger then they are to you because you know them already, but not everyone sees this then more then a new band with one album under their belts.

Maybe we can throw in a matt sorum boring drum solo and a boring rant to make the show eclipse two hours?? I don't need that crap, I rather just have a fast paced action filed show. IT'S QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY. If you can't go and see a show with up to 15 songs then I don't know what you are looking for.. No one is suppose to play anymore then what their matierial is, contraband is 13 songs, they give you that or 15 so what more do they owe you.. People make it sound like they've been toruing for years and have multiple albums..

They have one album, I'm sure they made bigger venues so people could see them, 1000 seaters won't cut it twice..

Tickets are more expensive because the band is paying for ten thousand seats rather then say 1000 with standing room.. It's like rent, if a store is in an bad neighborhood you buy a soda for a dollar, in time square it would be 2 dollars, but you still get the same soda, it's just the place they are selling it at is more expensive.. It may cost 5 grand to rent our some small venue, but 50 thousand to rent out msg, the cost is more for more people to see it..

Once the band gets more material then you can complain if things don't change, this is still more or less a first real concert for a new band..

To allow more people to see them.


I saw them a month ago at a festival, they palyed an hour or so.? My expectations were more than met and I got my moneys worth.


The bottom line is this, they've got one record out with 13 songs on it.? They're generally playing 9/10 selections a night from their debut album and adding 5/6 cover songs to round out the set.

I suggest if you have issues with the length of shows, your expectations not being met or not getting your moneys worth, don't attend a show.

Huge options? What new gnr album have I missed? They played AFD, 2 covers, an illuison and 3 new songs. Thats not a huge stelist....

If they played illusions etc we woul dhave a great deal of people on this board complaining about how they only are playing old gnr sets. The same people who cried the day after Axl walked off stage in Detroit and the set ended a few sonsg earlier. The same people who were complaing how GNR ripped them off because they played a sSHORT set. but a different band does it around here, the more dangerous undpredictabe we dont give a fuk band does the same thing night after night after night..with the same "rants" at the same time in the show..like a godam creed show...its all good, its acceptable....interesting....

ill bet when CD is out they play all of cd and thow in a few old gnr classics...and as they begin to tour and get to that second and 3rd album we will have a totally unpredicatble set like th eold days....

He said "huge options"...meaning AFD, LIES, UYIs, and even The Spaghetti Incident?.  Not to mention one of many new songs.


Now youre changing the subject, unsurprisingly, to some asinine hypothetical. So because fans would complain about old material, they should stick with...AFD?  Instead of half AFD, half UYI?  That makes a lot of sense.


I dont know who complained that GNRs shows are too short...Well, I guess I did, but that more due to them playing zero minutes than anything else.  The only thing I can think of is that GNR tickets were more expensive.


Yeah man, nobody has expressed any discontent with VRs setlist.  Nobody!  You really called them on it.

The point that poster was making is that GNR has significantly more material than VR has at the moment.  GNRs recorded, what?  100-plus songs?  VR has about...20 at most.  Therefore, one has a bit of an advantage in the variety department. 


 Ill bet that youve been making that bet for years. 

Second and third albums...:hihi:

i know what he meant. But he and others would be the same people complainig that they are just stealing the old material. Its obivious last tour was a warmup of sorts and the band was sticking to a simple setlist that the fans can enjoy as they break in in a live setting. Axl has said this is a reunion of osrts,,,because of th eplaying of the old material basically for one last time as a complete set.

?
And with that you got a full production. Lights, fireworks,cakewheels,camera effects, confetti, etc. Not to menthion a full set night in and night out of 2 hrs plus. Yes they were expensive but it wasnt a cheap tour in terms of entertainemtn.

No they dont. GNR arent going to play the old catalogue. They would have that advantage if they decided they were going to tap into the old catalogue. Instead they kept it slim pickings soley because they felt playing afd and the few others was the way to go in terms of bridging the gap until they play th enew stuff.

lol yes i have. And I still stan dby it. When things EVENTUALLY get rolling Im pretty confident GNr will be playing all the new songs with a few classics thrown in. And then as the tours move on and the other albums see th elight of day we will have an unpredicatble setlist.

My proble with VR is that they are talking this big and dangerous game yet its so predicatble and machine like. If they just did what they are doing without yapping like hardasses then I wouldnt have a problem.

Oh, so you changed the subject anyway.  Okay.


I was at Philly, and their set-length wasnt exactly everybodys complaint...I dont recall anybody bitching about set-length in any city...which means it was probably few people, if any.


I wasnt talking about production...I was referring to the alleged set-length complaints.


They did.  If we can stay in reality for one thread and discuss the 2002 tour, that would be good.


See above.


Until they play the new stuff...meaning - they played the old stuff.  Now, with that squared away, like I said, "GNR has significantly more material than VR has at the moment."


Its still completely unfounded speculation.


Fair enough.  In fact, I agree. 

So Booker, you don't think my original "complaint" about them playing the same set night after night is a big deal?

Instead of trying to make this a GN'R ropic, I'd appreciate if you focused on VR.


They're gonna play five nights in London in January. I wonder how much they'll mix up the set list.....



/jarmo

No.  A fair complaint, yes.  My main complaint is that its too similar to the promo tour setlist...aside from that, unless youre following the band around the country and watching every show, it shouldnt be a big deal.


That topic was being discussed well before I came in.

?
Of course they woul dhave more of a catalogue if they wanted to use all th eold gnr material. BUt they didnt and stayed away from that. If they werent goin to release the album in 2002 what would you expect them to play? So they decided to just use AFD and a few selects to bridge the gap until they play their material.

no, its common sense. Do you really thing that GNR will be playing the same set when the album is out? Do you honestly think Tommy, Robin, Brain and the band would rather play the old material rathe rthan the new material they they have been working on all these years?
So they are going to release CD and instea dof touring on that they will be playing 2002 all over again.SUrrree.
Just listne to what Axl said at the VMsa regarding the how th eplayers are intense about playing th enew material...

cool

As a fan, which would you prefer? The current type of set lists or the kind where they mixed them up more?


They're gonna play five shows in London. Five shows! That's quite many and considering many of the fans in the crowd will see more than one show, I reallu hope they do something special there.

I mean more than adding Spectacle and replacing one cover each night.


The "worst" case scenario is that they'll do this:


Sucker Train Blues
Do It For The Kids
Headspace
Superhuman/Spectacle/Mr. Brownstone
Crackerman
Illegal i Song
Fall To Pieces
Big Machine
It's So Easy
Sex Type Thing
Set Me Free
Used To Love Her
No More No More/Tie Your Mother Down (it's London after all!)/Bodies/Negative Creep
Slither


/jarmo

What else (specific songs) would you like to see added? 

Considering Loving The Alien and You Got No Right were really popular on the "Contraband Survivor" on this board, one of those would be nice.

Regarding covers, they can pretty much do anything if they want. Matt's in Camp Freddy.... ;)




/jarmo

no, its common sense. Do you really thing that GNR will be playing the same set when the album is out? Do you honestly think Tommy, Robin, Brain and the band would rather play the old material rathe rthan the new material they they have been working on all these years?
So they are going to release CD and instea dof touring on that they will be playing 2002 all over again.SUrrree.
Just listne to what Axl said at the VMsa regarding the how th eplayers are intense about playing th enew material...

You keep saying do we think the new guys will want to playt eh old stuff?? NEWS FLASH, they JOINED GUNS n ROSES, new and old come with the job.
I hope they play more old material, the classics we love, I hate when groups pawn their new shittier music( not saying it will be bad) on the fans who want to hear the classics.. Maybe they give you a medley crumb like the vmas which sucks..

Give me 4-6 new songs and the rest from the old gnr.. There's to many fixtures in the gnr sert list to just drop them more for new songs.. The only way I could see them doing a few more new songs is because everyone has heard the same old songs for a million years now and is dying for something new..

I saw you mentioned before the pyros and shit.. You know something they didn't need that stuff, it would have been just cool enough playing the music.. The best touch is during PC when the shit droped from the ceiling.. I filled my pockets :hihi:

Either way though for me, the tickets of 75 bucks was cheap//

Stop talking about GN'R, this thread is about VR.  ::)



/jarmo

I understand some people do enjoy those two songs but it seems the VR guys are trying to keep the show moving fast while building momentum as the set goes on, I'm not sure if adding 2 slower tempo tunes might be defeating their purpose.

Just speculating of course... 

I rather have a 90 minute set with 2 to 3 slower tempo tunes, than have a 70 minute set with just rockers. You know, time to get your lighters out and get your breath back while you at it as well. Squeeze in a few ballads in there, get your lighter out, listen to the chick next to you screaming her lungs out to YGNR while you get yourself ready for the last round. This is Rcok And Roll live and it always has been.

It's all a matter of taste, but I too would like to hear some slow tempo tunes thrown in to the set every now and then.  It's only on those songs that I can make out what Scott is saying, anyhow.

As for YGNR, I have a vague memory of reading an article which said the band has been too busy touring to properly rehearse that song, but as soon as they had some time, they would be rehearsing it to add to the set.   remember?  remember?

So, it'd be great if they play it at the KROQ Almost Acoustic show. 

I first used it as an example because it's something we could compare and understand but some keep brining it up so it's natural to reply..

Fine I love the show right now, the band is new with one album and I think everyone is making a big deal about nothing.. Most people are seeing the band for the first time and it's new to them..

I know it's another cover, but "Interstate Love Song" would be a nice regular on the setlist.  :yes:

They dont have to play all the slow songs at the same show, they can rotate them.

My guess is that they should be currently working on new songs for the follow up to contraband, so....why not preview some of that stuff??. They could also play a lot of songs that didn't make it to the album, such as the stuff slash says he worked out with izzy ans that's suposed to be the best instrumental they've written together. If those songs have now lyrics, why not preview them live??.

Just do something special. The current set list is way too obvious, short and repetitive. It's my opinion, I might be right or I may be wrong, just "my 2 cents" ;D

CT, notice all the song that were written before scott entered have been shit canned?? Maybe they don't play the songs he mentioned because scott wants no part of them..? It's just a guess..

As for the new album I don't think they are really working on it alot, they are playing alot of shows I think they are possibly putting some riff n words together but need some down time tto get somewhere..

They had mentioned abourt having 50-60 songs in the past, but who knows how finished they were and if they will ever be used.,. I think they use the covers instead of material they aren't sure they are going to use..

Whenever a band writes material then gets a ssinger afterwards I think you run teh risk of losing it because the singer might not feel it.. SIngers tend to write their own lyrics, or at least alot of it because they have to believe in it and sing it with feeling..

Hopefully they switch it up within the year..

I know that, but Weiland hasn't written any of the music of velvet revolver, so I'd like that some of the unreleased stuff (to date), which will probably be released in the near future (next full album in a year and a half??), would be played live if the lyrics have already been written.

Music do you mean instruments or lyrics?? He seemed to have written fall to pieces and I could sware his name is next to the songs in the sleeve..

I always thought they put aside alot of what izzy wrote and  rewrote when scott joined..
Lyrics r by scott

http://vr.belowempty.com/lyrics.php

arent you the same guy who is concerned that gnr are not a band and dont care about the material because they arent in the same room at the same time recording material?

Bands have an albums.. Did you think izzy was going to write the material scott sang after he left?? Either way it makes sence that they redid stuff for the lead singer, he has to be one with what he does..

It's not like gnr where the material is in stone because it's already been released by the real musicians on an album/s, everything vr has done was for their first album so things could change, they had to get a lead singer, so he must like what he sings..

WHen a band forms you can't expect the lead singer to just sing whatever you hand him, this isn't van halen or judas priets(established bands) where the band has their music already and? things of that nature..

As long as the material is done by the band together it doesn't matter..

Man i wish VR would play a Duff solo song from Believe in Me, even the tilte track, that album kicks!!!!

my only point is you have all these "sceptical" gnr fans who never fail to mention the fact that are gnr really a band when they dont "redord" together yet they dont bring it up when it concerns the most tightest badass dangerous band in the world vr. the same band who basically handed the frontman pre existing tracks and told him to do the best ones. the same dangerous band whos frontman is crying about how sorum has naked chicks walking around.

Like Mike said, the song was done by the band, together. 

And at least half of the album was written after Scotts arrrival.

try reading this, scott wrote the music to the songs, and vr did the instruments... SO no one was handed anything to do, things were offered, scott must have declined then they redid the songs as ONE when they had the band finalised

http://vr.belowempty.com/lyrics.php

So basically the entire badn worked on the album together.. It's not weird for the lead singer to write most of the lyrics because he is singing the music.. So for you to say he was handed music and that's the way it went was just BS.. Each song credits Scott for writing the lyrics to the songs, and the others for the instrumentals so your point is void...

As for scott he's doing the misery loves company crying, it's so typical when people quit their abusive lives, they want everyoine to become saints.. I've never been hooked on heroin, but I'm sure it suck to just quit and do a 180, he must be edgy and pissy alot and might be jealous that matt is having a great time, or maybe he's anti misogynistic as alot of grunge based bands were..

Music - music

Lyrics - lyrics


I think he was handed the music.

I just looked at the setlists from some of the UK shows.

They've done the same set at all shows. Seems like the first one (Jan 9th) had "No More No More" in it, but it was then dropped.....

Sucker Train Blues
Do It for the Kids
Headspace
Superhuman
Illegal I
Crackerman
Dirty Little Thing
Fall to Pieces
Big Machine
It's So Easy
Sex Type Thing
Set Me Free
Used to Love Her
You Got No Right
No More No More (Jan 9th only)
Mr. Brownstone
Slither


I really hope they do something next weekend. The same set three nights in a row sounds kinda boring.  :nervous:



/jarmo

What more/different/order are you hoping for in regards to a setlist? 

17 songs including 11 originals, 5 tunes from their previous bands catalog and a random cover make for a helluva rock show in my book.

Thoughts?

Agreed...

I assume Jarmos going three nights in a row, and though I understand slight disappointment over an unchanging set, I dont see how the show could be boring.

I also dont what changes one would expect...Maybe different covers ("NMNM," "Negative Creep," "Surrender"?)

It would be cool if they didn't play negative creep this time seeing as last time they played london it was that.

I'd like to see them bust out something British..

Slash said last night that "Helter Skelter" is his favorite British song...VR covering that would be :o.

"Bodies" and "Tie Your Mother Down" are possibilities I guess...

If I cold pick one song for VR to cover, itd probably be "London" by The Smiths, but itll never happen.  :'(

Yeah, I'd love to see them do Bodies, the crowd would go nuts.  Actually, any pistols would be great, wasn't that the first thing they jammed on when they started playing together again?

Yup.? First song VR ever played (for a live audience).

Id also love to see "Angie/Mary" come back into the setlist.

I was actually talking about this;)

Actually, any sort of difference in the setlist would be cool, I just wish they'd throw in the odd surprise or something.

With Matt's affinity for his days with The Cult and GNR's history with Ian and Billy, I'd love to hear the boys blasting "She Sells Sanctuary" or anything from Great Britains finest music enigma...

Disclaimer:
The above? is blatantly biased in regards to my favorite rock band..

The Cult rules!! I met Billy Duffy last year....

That'd be great! I would love to hear them doing an acoustic show  :drool:

Sweet.  Where?

I've met and spoke with Billy numerous times over the years, very interesting cat. 

Yeah, but do you wanna see the same songs in the same exact order on multiple nights?

It's not like they depend on pyrotechnics and effects on big video screens for their shows, so they have to have a certain set list.

Last year, when they played over here in Europe, they did shorter sets but mixed them up more than on the current UK tour.



/jarmo

I personally would love to hear'm do some more GN'R tunes but I don't know if Scotts voice could hack it! I don't know if matt still does this but when I saw them last summer He played the opening drums ta You Could Be Mine If they would have went through with that song I would of had A fuckin' heartattack :drool: My only complaint about anything was I couldn't hear Slashs guitar very well. I was like five feet from him and couldn't hear his fuckin' guitar! but yeah a cult song would kick ass She Sells Sanctuary or Fire Woman.

It was a year or two ago after a Camp Freddy show...