Richard talked about Asia tour ??!!

[ycagwyw]

Hi Anderson,
I appologize for the lengthy delay in responding to your email. To
answer your question, we are planning a tour of Asia around March. The
details are being worked out, but that is what we are hoping for. Thanks
for your interest.
richard

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Guns N' Roses in Asia?
> From: "Anderson Fiorenzano"
> Date: Sat, June 24, 2006 6:43 pm
> To: 4tus@richardfortusonline.com
>
>
> Hello Richard,
>
>
> I would like to know if the Guns intend to play still this year in Asia already that some festivals roll that way in end of the year.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Anderson Fiorenzano

guys, I find it from mygnr, was it posted before?  

[sakuL]

this could write anyone

[leemo]

cool, hope its true

[cafcnickdugay]

Jesus they must have a plan of some sort to release a record.

I mean they can't seriously keep touring without some sort of support in the form of a CD surely!

[blanc15]

since australia and south amerika were mentioned also earlier, with that being true, and the summer european dates (that hopefully end up as another huge tour), they CAN'T do all this while sitting on their finished record all alone.

[Nesquick]

Richard Rocks
I hope they will be back with 2 guitar players.  I hope that everytime they start a new leg of the Tour.

[misterbrownstone]

shut up, they're not gonna lose Ron.  THIS is the band, like it or leave it.

[Nesquick]

I've been a fan since 1991, I'm not gonna leave GN'R, my favourite band of all time, because of a useless 3rd guitar player, or because of anyone. I survived Buckethead "the nightmare", I will survive Bumblefoot "the useless 3rd guy". Don't worry for me. The rest of the guys rock and I like them very much, that's why I'm still around. For me it's all about the Finck/Fortus duet on guitar, they are the best combo on guitar that I have ever seen since a long time

BBF was booed in Paris, be sure next time he will be sent tomatoes and potatoes.

If you accept 3 guitar players in Guns N' Roses, then you are not a true fan. Remember this wasn't a full band's decision, but an Axl's one. No, all the bandmembers were not happy with that. And for me, anyone's opinion in the band (Richard, Tommy etc...) is as important as Axl's opinion. That's the conception of beeing "a band" for me. This decision was not a full band's decision, so I won't accept it. End of story. Axl or not Axl, I don't give a shit. He isn't more important than the band as a whole.
I'm not here for just Axl like all this brainwashed people over HTGH, I'm here for THE BAND.

Like me or hate me, at least I'm honest, fair and I have integrity.
I support 7 guys out of 8 in this line-up, that's ain't that bad don't you think?
There aren't that much 87-93 erea old fans around, that's a miracle i'm still around, considering the "real" band died when Slash left the band.
This new band will be "real" when they are back with a guitar combo.
It's a matter of credibility. End of story.

"3 guitar players are too much" (Brian May)

[JYDGNR06]

I've been a fan since 1991, I'm not gonna leave GN'R, my favourite band of all time, because of a useless 3rd guitar player, or because of anyone. I survived Buckethead "the nightmare", I will survive Bumblefoot "the useless 3rd guy". Don't worry for me. The rest of the guys rock and I like them very much, that's why I'm still around. For me it's all about the Finck/Fortus duet on guitar, they are the best combo on guitar that I have ever seen since a long time


"3 guitar players are too much" (Brian May)

haha, for some1 whos been a fan since 1991, u sure are poorly informed.  Many of the original band's songs contained 3 guitar parts, and so the songs never sounded as good live as they ended up sufficing with whichever 2 parts they felt were more important at any given point in time.  Having a 3rd guitar allows them to play the old songs better, allows for infinitely more new songwriting possibilities, such as awesome harmonies

[Nesquick]

First, I'm a musician myself

Do whatever you want in studio, I heard Oasis used 4 guitars to record "What's the story morning Glory", Noel and Bonehead doubled their parts, but onstage, 3 guitar players really hurt the performance. You have to go with 2, it's much, much better for the Live chemistry. Plus, nowadays, you can play guitar parts with keyboards, Chris Pittman could do it, wich give even less credibility to have a 3rd guy onstage. Here is your 3rd guitar player if you really want it, it's Pittman.

Plus, it's not 1992 anymore, with all the progress in technology, you can  create a "wall of sound" with 4 or 5 guys, not 8, and of course, 2 guitar players in 2006, especially when you have 2 keyboards. That's really not a problem.

There is no valid point to get 3 guitar players onstage when you have 2 keyboards. It's superficial, it adds nothing. The Live Sound is so loud that when you have 120db in an arena, you don't give a shit of a 3rd guitar player because you can't hear him. THe sound is saturated, it's too loud. It just hurt the performance. The more people you have onstage, the less you pay attention to each of them.
Overall it's a lost-lost game.

U2 is the biggest band in the world and they just have 1 guitar player. and they sound fucking Loud. Think about that...

There is absolutely ZERO valid point for 3 guitar players Live in 2006 (considering the technology).
In fact it's a question of keeping the power for Axl: With 3 players, none of them get enough attention and get enough exposure. As a result, no one can become a real Star, a real famous guy like Slash. It's a question of keeping the Leadership for Axl, he wants to control his musicians, he doesn't want a new Slash because he is too scared of someone getting too popular in the new band like Slash in the old band. Axl doesn't want to share the leadership. That's why there are 3 players. There is no Star with 3 players. They are all in the shadow.

[Cocaine Tongue]

First, I'm a musician myself

Do whatever you want in studio, I heard Oasis used 4 guitars to record "What's the story morning Glory", Noel and Bonehead doubled their parts, but onstage, 3 guitar players really hurt the performance. You have to go with 2, it's much, much better for the Live chemistry. Plus, nowadays, you can play guitar parts with keyboards, Chris Pittman could do it, wich give even less credibility to have a 3rd guy onstage. Here is your 3rd guitar player if you really want it, it's Pittman.

Plus, it's not 1992 anymore, with all the progress in technology, you can  create a "wall of sound" with 4 or 5 guys, not 8, and of course, 2 guitar players in 2006, especially when you have 2 keyboards. That's really not a problem.

There is no valid point to get 3 guitar players onstage when you have 2 keyboards. It's superficial, it adds nothing. The Live Sound is so loud that when you have 120db in an arena, you don't give a shit of a 3rd guitar player because you can't hear him. THe sound is saturated, it's too loud. It just hurt the performance. The more people you have onstage, the less you pay attention to each of them.
Overall it's a lost-lost game.

U2 is the biggest band in the world and they just have 1 guitar player. and they sound fucking Loud. Think about that...

There is absolutely ZERO valid point for 3 guitar players Live in 2006 (considering the technology).
In fact it's a question of keeping the power for Axl: With 3 players, none of them get enough attention and get enough exposure. As a result, no one can become a real Star, a real famous guy like Slash. It's a question of keeping the Leadership for Axl, he wants to control his musicians, he doesn't want a new Slash because he is too scared of someone getting too popular in the new band like Slash in the old band. Axl doesn't want to share the leadership. That's why there are 3 players. There is no Star with 3 players. They are all in the shadow.

very insightful post  

[Robbie]

At first i though 3 guitarist was because he didnt want to be rivalled by a guitarist for the most important member slot like he was with Slash

[Nesquick]

At first i though 3 guitarist was because he didnt want to be rivalled by a guitarist for the most important member slot like he was with Slash

Well, your 1st intuition is what i think too and I feel it may be the truth. Axl is afraid of a new Slash in the band to contest his Leadership to he shut everybody egos down with 3 players. It's as big as a house, really.
Axl has never given one single fucking explanation about having 3 guitar players, even Richard said on one of his e-mail that it was an "Axl's idea", he said something like "Axl wants 3 players because that's what on the record". Read well, he didn't say me, or the band but just Axl.
in 2004/2005, Tommy gave an interview where he said the band din't need to replace BH because they had already enough guitar players inn the band (Finck and Fortus) and they didn't need a 3rd guy.

All the signs point against the 3 guitar players whole idea in the band, exept for Axl.
I don't know one single guitar player who would like to play in a 3 guitars configuration, especially Rockers.

Axl's silence on that point says it all.

[The Spaghetti Incident?]

First, I'm a musician myself

Do whatever you want in studio, I heard Oasis used 4 guitars to record "What's the story morning Glory", Noel and Bonehead doubled their parts, but onstage, 3 guitar players really hurt the performance. You have to go with 2, it's much, much better for the Live chemistry. Plus, nowadays, you can play guitar parts with keyboards, Chris Pittman could do it, wich give even less credibility to have a 3rd guy onstage. Here is your 3rd guitar player if you really want it, it's Pittman.

Plus, it's not 1992 anymore, with all the progress in technology, you can  create a "wall of sound" with 4 or 5 guys, not 8, and of course, 2 guitar players in 2006, especially when you have 2 keyboards. That's really not a problem.

There is no valid point to get 3 guitar players onstage when you have 2 keyboards. It's superficial, it adds nothing. The Live Sound is so loud that when you have 120db in an arena, you don't give a shit of a 3rd guitar player because you can't hear him. THe sound is saturated, it's too loud. It just hurt the performance. The more people you have onstage, the less you pay attention to each of them.
Overall it's a lost-lost game.

U2 is the biggest band in the world and they just have 1 guitar player. and they sound fucking Loud. Think about that...

There is absolutely ZERO valid point for 3 guitar players Live in 2006 (considering the technology).
In fact it's a question of keeping the power for Axl: With 3 players, none of them get enough attention and get enough exposure. As a result, no one can become a real Star, a real famous guy like Slash. It's a question of keeping the Leadership for Axl, he wants to control his musicians, he doesn't want a new Slash because he is too scared of someone getting too popular in the new band like Slash in the old band. Axl doesn't want to share the leadership. That's why there are 3 players. There is no Star with 3 players. They are all in the shadow.

Brian May also went on to say if it (3 guitarists) works for Axl, it must be good. You queer bastard...

[ripper1]

^

[RyanRose]

shut up, they're not gonna lose Ron.  THIS is the band, like it or leave it.

It appears you are right. Now that he is recording parts on the album and is not just a touring member