Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Hello, I'm new to this this forum and I'd like to apologize for my poor english in advance...
OK to the point: I really think that the look of the new g'n'r sucks! Sorry mates but I always thought that, what g'n'r stood for is, jeans, leather jackets, Les Paul guitars and angry/pissed off/dangerous r'n'r music & lyrics! I don't really like the look of the new band. What's with the electropunk look, the buckets on the heads (I know, he's gone already), and the gay outfit (one of the two keyboardists-I hope he's not Dizzy)? This isn't the g'n'r I used to like as a kid! I really appreciate the image/attitude of VR more than G'n'R! Anyone else who feels the same way as I do?

we're in 2004.

Wow really? Not the same you say? That must suc..

Oh wait, yeah, I forgot.

Get over it.

have you seen scott from vr recently?

--have you seen scott from vr recently?

Yes, he is quite different than Axl, but yet again VR is a different band than GNR, even though their image and attitude ressembles to the old GNR more than that of the new GNR

--we're in 2004.

So what you're saying is, musicians should adapt their style to the current trends, so that they are acceptable and not considered as outcasts right? I mean that's sooo "rock'n'roll" !!! ::)
(I'd be really pissed off if Iron Maiden did something like that!)

I think he means people grow and things change, how many people do you know that are still wearing the same thing they wore 10 years ago? ::)

Go away rocktar81.

Rock on!!  Class point!! Well done!!

no onessaying that but what you have to remember is that gnr today is a different band. you cant expect these guys to dress like slash and duff that be even less rock n roll. besides im sure buckethead was wearing a mask and bucket a long time before he joined gnr. why not wait for the album like the rest of us (as hard as iy may be) then hopefully they can let the music do the talking. by the way personaly i dont think gnr have lost any of there attitude judging by the few new songs weve been able to hear...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

WAKE UP ITS TIMTO DIE!!!!!!! :rant:

well we are talking about the looks no? i dont like the look of the new band very much (i really dont care much for the looks anyway ) . Axl looked pretty cool in rock in rio 3 , i dont like the jersey (sp?) thing , theres one guy that was like from village people , i dont know who he is , then Robin Finck (sp?) looks like he wants to be weird and get attention from that . but im just talking from the visual point , im not saying they are not real or something

What your saying is its fine that Scott dresses in gay outfits because hes in a band with your Slash?

So what you're saying is, musicians should adapt their style to the 'old' trends, so that they are acceptable and not considered as outcasts right? I mean that's sooo "rock'n'roll" !!! ::)
(I'd be really pissed off if GNR did something like that!)

Dont let your 'love' for Slash cloud your judgement!!!

So you prefer Iron Maiden to GNR.  :hihi:

I?d be more than pissed if GNR (or VR) did anything like that.

GNR is GNR. Not I M, nor you either.

Care to explain what you think is wrong with Tommy, Dizzy and Brain?  :P

So you'd prefer if Axl ran around in spandex shorts and a t-shirt saying "Nobody Knows I'm a Lesbian"?  :hihi:




/jarmo

1) Tommy, Dizzy and Brain are ok.
2) you know what? yeah I prefer.

riiiiiiiiiiight becuase we all know that the clothes that an artist wears makes him a horrible or talented artist......so what you're saying is....if randy rhodes ran around in a mumu and head turban he would have sucked at guitar?

no, what I want to explain is that Guns n' Roses is a band that have a past. with a specific image. you can't change things like that when you want.
nevermind, their look truly sucks! and that's the truth.

Obviously, you can...

This bands wardrobe is the least of my concerns.

Riiiiiight because artists since Elvis, the Beatles, The Stones, Aerosmith, etc have all changed their styles and images many times and no one would ever remember who they are.

Wow, Booker and I agree on something.

* Goes to check the temperature in hell * ;)


You can change members, image, producers, video directors, record companies.... Learn to live with it.  :yes:




/jarmo

first of all, let's all keep it a bit down, I didn't post to start a flamewar or something like that...

--So you prefer Iron Maiden to GNR.  
--I?d be more than pissed if GNR (or VR) did anything like that.
--GNR is GNR. Not I M, nor you either.

I'm so terribly sorry to like other bands apart from GNR..... ::)

@nesquick: thank you for sticking with me through this. You said what I had in mind but my vocabulary was limiting.

--What your saying is its fine that Scott dresses in gay outfits because hes in a --band with your Slash?
--Dont let your 'love' for Slash cloud your judgement!!!

First of all how did you come to assume that I have some special love for Slash?!? As a matter of fact I rediscovered GNR a month ago (and I really loved them ever since!) after I downloaded the new VR video. I think, that on it's own, doesn't constitute me a dedicated fan, OK! I was just fishing for information and downloaded some videos from rock in rio and came to realise that even though the band sounded OK, their look is terrible! Of course the look of a band isn't a significant factor to their overall qualities but having a proper apperance does indeed help to emotionaly stick with them.

as a matter of fact there are countless stories of band that adapted to current trends to appeal to younger crowds, but what they came to realise was that the "new generation" of music listeners  doesn't give a crap about "old farts", and their old fans felt betrayed enough to not buy their new cd's and not go their shows. Metallica lost half their fans when they adapted to the look of the 90's (short hair, no tight jeans, no leather jackets, no heavy music) and didn't gain as many new ones as it seeems they've hoped for.
I can't describe the feeling I got when I listened to Queensryche playing alternative ("Hear in the now frontier" album) after having written history in the Prog metal music. I hope something similar doesn't happen to GNR.

Ever wondered why Iron Maiden have even nowadays, such a HUGE following? I mean, the brits have been around since '78....
It's called honesty and loyalty to your fans!
A 15 year old probably knows of GNR as the great, old-school hard rock band that was huge in the 80's and early 90's. I'm sure he/she would be less than thrilled to see them dressed-up like Marilyn Manson....

the dream GNR line-up of todays (while keeping VR up and going):
vox: AXL
lead guitar: Zakk Wylde
Rythm guitar: Izzy or Gilby (Izzy preffered)
bass: ????
Drums: Steven Adler
Keyboards: Dizzy Reed

Don't forget Bowie, it's all his fault ;)


And um.. not many 15 year olds really know gnr unless you mention Sweet Child O' Mine, so there goes your theory on the "great, old-school hard rock band that was huge in the 80's and early 90's"

haha ADZ no bullshit i made this post right, then i was like how the hell could i forget bowie for.....he's the innovator of changing styles and image.

I TOTALLY agree.

I dont think the image matters if the band is popular people follow it they dont really care.

Axl had already done away with the leathers by 1991.

 :hihi: Well, I still wear a t-shirt I had when I was 9, so that's 9 years. I'm giving it away in summer though. It was too big for me when I got it, so it's not too small for me now...well, it is too small, but it could be worse.

I'm gonna say this only once. The new GN'R don't have an image!!!!!!! There is no album, no promo, no photo shoots no nothing!!!!!!! Once they decide to release an album only then will marketers and stylists tell em they look like shit so then can take decent promo shots.

Can you please explain me why he looks like a village people? Because he only used that cop hat in RIR3... all the other shows he used a cuff beanie (well, I don't know how this shit is called) in his head...
You all bash this guy just because of this hat, but Weiland used the same thing in VR shows and he rocked, huh?!  ???
Anyways, you should watch the videos or something before bash this guy...
Oh, and I don't give a shit about the image. I don't buy this guys clothes, I wanna listen to good music (and, as far as I know, they did good music).  I agree with conny, I didn't like the look of the both old and new bands, but I'm into their music. It's enough for me.

the new image rules n' i fuckin' love it!!! :yes:

if they kept the old look everyone would have fucked em' up. Even Robin, i love his look, really he's the only one you've got to complain about, calling him a freak n' shit.
HE'S THE MAN : ok: : ok:

So you'd rather Axl n' Duff wearing fag hats n' all just like back in the day, then was cool, now is better ;)

The image of new gnr is awesome.

This post is total bullshit

no wait a minute, this post has at least pointed out who some of the dumb morons are on this board.

i am going to pipe into this discussion because, no offense, but a lot of you are saying some dumb shit..

1. obviously the music is the priority. i think we can all agree on that. no one would want to listen to a cool looking band that sounded like poo. However, since the birth of MTV, music has become a very visual industry. how else do you explain the proliferation of lead singers being attractive? It matters. Not as much as the music, but the two must go together. One of the things that made Guns N Roses peak so quickly, i think, is that they had a "look" that supported their image and the sound of their music: dangerous. The ripped jeans, the leather pants (a staple for frontmen in rock and roll) the jack and marlboros, the funky hats that Izzy used to wear that were very hip and "downtown". You see what i am saying? Image supports the music. Take Britney Spears for example. Her songs have a very definite sexual undertone. You think that would sell if she didn't look and dress the way she does? Ridiculous. You really can't argue that looks do matter. With that said....

2. Axl today vs. Axl white biker shorts: i too prefer the biker shorts, and here's why. Part of what is so cool about rock stars is that they are the only people who can get away with some seriously ridiculous shit. Most of what Axl wore was obscene, but it works! It's decadent and in your face and it doesn't make sense and it is above us and it is all rock and roll. those bike shorts, and the fur jackets and the kilt and the combat boots were all outrageous and we loved that he could do it and we couldn't. That being said...

3. I don't think anyone really believes that a band needs to be forever stuck in the decade they emerged from. That is unrealistic and stupid. Bands looks change as time progresses. The problem with Guns N Roses? First of all, they don't have a look! It's a hodge-podge of different looks and NO BAND gets away with this. You need to present yourself as a coherent unit, a gang. Second of all, the jerseys and athletic pants aren't "current" or "now", they are the clothes that a fucking suburban dad mows the yard in, and that is as far from rock and roll as you can get. That is ordinary and if he looks ordinary, put him in the audience, not on the stage. Again, rock stars are our demi-gods and they should be anything but ordinary.

So all of you stop saying that their image doesn't matter. Maybe in YOUR opinion it doesn't, but for the consumers (read: not the die-hards who would buy their album even if they wore dresses on stage) and for MTV (which most bands need) and the industry, it does matter. Example. When the Goo-Goo Dolls emerged in the 90's, they looked like shit. They were wearing grunge leftovers, had bad hair and otherwise had no identity. Snap to a year later and they are totally styled, Johnny the lead singer transformed into a "hot frontman" with cool hair and leather pants. They already had a successful album before this style makeover ever took place, so why would they change? Because they needed to. Because it DOES matter. You can personally decide to not care, but these bands need to appeal to a public that has been brought up looking at great and cool looking people singing hot songs.

No it has'nt...

Mattgnr hasnt insulted any of us yet, or posted for that matter :hihi:



the wait begins

are you joking?? let's look some of the greatest and biggest bands. rolling stones, beatles, led zepplin, doors, aerosmith, to name a very few. All had great looking lead men (and usually guitarist as well), all had a very rock and roll look.
You show me one ugly singer in the last 30 years who has had big success and i will show you 50 good looking ones.

ETA: again, just because YOU don't agree with something does not make it any less true.

Hey, someone mentioned Village People!? Here's a pic of them... Check it out!
(http://boystyle.cside.com/photo/velvet_revolver.jpg)
 :peace:

Who the fuck said that??? And I don't think that Scott dresses in gay outfits, the reason I like him so much is because of his image, and I'm not saying that because he's in a band with Slash - and no one else is either, so don't accuse people of such, and don't talk shit about Scott Weiland, just to cover up that Guns N' Roses are nothing but a bunch of clowns.

I think that captain_harlock and nesquick are right. I don't see how anyone can take GNR seriously, especially with that fucking idiot clown of a bastard, Buckethead, in the band. I'm glad he is outta there. They have totally butchered the Guns N' Roses name, and image. Guns N' Roses is not what it used to be.
   

Nobody ever said anything about the music being bad just because their image sucks. But image is important, just as badgirl said, and as I said before, no one is going to take Guns N' Roses seriously when they look like that.

   
What does this have to do with him??? Nothing. >:( No one here has expressed their undying love for Slash. In that case your love for Axl is clouding your judgement. I definitely like VR's image more than a bunch of whacked out clowns'.
   
I do believe a band can change their image, but do people have to like it? Captain_Harlock said that he doesn't like the new GNR image, and asked who agrees. No one called the Axl suckers to come here and call Scott gay looking. If Scott's look is "gay," then what does wearing a mask and bucket on your head tell you about someone's sexuality?

Its all about THE DARKNESS  : ok:

At this point I don't think Axl gives a fly fuck about anything....

Are you trynig to be funny?  If so, I dont see where the humor comes from, since theres nothing "Village People" about that picture.  You shouldve used Scott wearing the pilots hat and sunglasses - it still wouldnt have been funny, but at least there wouldve been one similarity.

you boys really need to stop calling people "gay" or "fags". it's quite provencial and makes you look stupid.
 :yes:

I totally agree. It's pathetic.

Posts and threads like this make me wonder how dumb some people really are. Nevermind why bother...

Note to Axl: keep it simple go back to your bike shorts and get a band that can represent "rock n roll"...Ill ask some of these clown on the internet for that rock n roll rule book/guide{yea, i didnt know one existed either} and ill gladly send it over...

Or just get get a band, and if you can keep the band together long enough, maybe you can even release an album!!! How's that for an idea?

Oh, well... that is somewhat different because music today is ASS!  :hihi: So, offhand, music that has come out in the last 10 years that isn't total shit but has good looking members/singer and a good look (obviously rap and hip hop can't apply because the look is the same across the board). Hmmm....
Linkin Park: while i don't think they were like, dreamy looking, they had a cohesive look.
Sting: has a very cool look and is still producing pretty decent music.
Strokes: though i fucking hate this band with every inch of my being, they are popular and cute and look pretty good.
White Stripes: clearly they have a look and Jack White is considered attractive.
Limp Bizkit: again, i don't like these clowns but you asked for current. Obviously they were popular and Fred was deemed "fuckable" by much of the female public.
Destiny's Child: very sucessful group, very hot girls, very cohesive look. they practically dressed the fucking same.
Sheryl Crow: hot and cool looking (with the simple jeans and tank tops)

Let's please not get into a discussion on the "hotness" of the people mentioned above. It's not about that. It's about the fact that
1. no one wants to watch an ugly ass guy lead a band
2. nearly all groups dress similarly and in a way that encourages their similarities rather than their differences. that has always been true.

Forgot to add U2 in there.

Alright, let's look at this!!!


Richard Fortus: Has a normal look. Looks the coolest out of the new members. Checkered pants, tshirts, suit jackets, etc.

Tommy Stinson: Has basically the same look as Fortus, completely normal. Checkered pants, checkered jackets, tshirts,etc.

Brian 'Brain' Mantia: Defiantley has a normal look. Tshirts, flannel shirts, shorts, hats, etc.

Chris Pittman: Normal look too. Defiantley not Village People. Beanies, tshirts, regular pants, etc. Wow he wore that "cop" hat once, Scott Weiland is wearing a similar hat on VR's tour right now.

So far all the new members are perfectly normal.


Dizzy Reed: We all know that he dresses normal, so I dont have to go into him.

Buckethead: the biggest "freak" in the band is gone.

Robin Finck: Yes, he dresses gothic. But he is the only one. So there's really no argument. Plus, by the pictures he posted of him on his site, he looks like he dropped that look. His whole head has hair, and there was no makeup. Even a beard.

And now finally,

Axl Rose: So what he dresses in jerseys and athletic pants. It's perfectly normal. Plus, most of the time he only wears the jerseys on stage.

And for the person who said that rock stars shouldnt dress in way that normal people can dress is ridiculous. Robert Plant defiantly dressed in a way where poeple of normal status can dress. All the bands of today that I have seen, they dress in a way that people of a normal status can dress. Examples: Linkin Park, Avril Lavigne.

So now, we can see that only Robin looks like a "freak". And it looks to me that he has dropped that look, so who knows whats in store for us.

But you said...
You're expressing your love for Slash. You bashed Bucket, "that fucking idiot clown of a bastard". You replied younggunner with this forver-in-the-making-of-album bash, when the topic is about how is their look. It's a really mature argument, huh?  ::)
For badgirl, I really don't think the image is an issue. Radiohead don't give a shit about this. I don't think anyone in this band is "atractive" or something. But they still makes good music. You can get some other bands like that. You're thinking like a pop band, who needs to be good looking because their music is forgettable. This is not the new GNR case.
As for Bucket, when they played in VMA's, a lot of people liked Buckethead... He was one of the reasons to bring young people to listen to GNR songs (in RIR3 was the same thing). So, I guess it's not a problem for the regular people. The problem is with the old-band lovers who are hurt because Slash isn't in the band anymore or just because blame Axl for every problem in the band.
You know, it's time to move on. Slash has a great band now and Bucket isn't in the GNR, so why get angry for everything? Just chill out...

Um, no.
Avril Levigne and Linkin Park are not ROCK STARS!!!  :rant: They are fucking pop stars and even if their sound in slightly harder, no fucking way does anything today compare with the greatest frontmen ever (jagger, plant, morrison, bowie, axl, whatshisface from Jane's Addiction to name a few). We are not talking about popular music personalities that dress like better versions of us. We are talking about the best of the best. Granted, they don't have to wear full on chaos every show, but they shouldn't look like "Al" who rakes the fucking leaves.

Furthermore, you are also not addressing the main point i made. Show me ONE band that didn't resemble each other, that had different looks going. Even if they all wore jerseys (which is totally acceptable and "cool" in the RAP world) that would be okay, but it's the inconsistency that is troubling. Axl and Buckethead (when he was there) and Fink look nothing like the rest of the guys in the band and it matters. Maybe not to you, but to the general public who don't follow the every movements of this band.
You don't believe me? Ask someone who works in the industry. You would think they know more than you do. Ask someone who works in the industry if image is important to a band's success.

ETA:
Radiohead don't give a shit about this

And you know this how??!!

I also forgot to mention fucking Nirvana had a cohesive look and a good looking lead singer. Formula kids. Formula.
And again, you can think what you want, but it doesn't stop facts from being facts. I can think that the sky is green- that doesn't make it so.
Talk to people in the industry and you will see. A friend of mine's father owns fucking JIVE records. I've had some talks with him (he works in music too). It matters.

A rock band don't need to have a good image...

The only thing that MUST have good image is my television...

Riiiiiiiiight because singers who don't have a good look don't make it.....poor Greg Allman, Elton John, Seal, Meatloaf, Wilson Phillips, John Popper, etc.  it's a shame none of them could ever make it because they weren't the prettiest thing to look at.  Geesh I guess the millions upon millions of albums they sold were just bought out of pity maybe?

Yeah, I think you're right

But you talked about Goo Goo Dolls... didn't know they are real rock stars like RS, LZ...  :hihi:
I know about Radiohead because I can read interviews and I can see in their videos (live or not). You can pay some attention to the Creep lyrics and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Don't pretend to be the one who knows the true and everybody is wrong. It's not a fact if so many can put arguments and disagree.  :no:

wrong. Elton John was good looking when he was younger (and by the time he got fat and old it really didn't matter. he was already a legend). Seal??! Seal is considered a big babe. He is dating a fucking supermodel right now. :hihi: Wilson Phillips was largely made up of hot women. Carni was a fat pig, but the other two, especially Chyna were beautiful. The only ones you have there are Popper (no argument there), Allman and Meatloaf (again, no argument). But like i said, show me one ugly duckling and i will show you 50 swans.

totally agree. BUT... Zepplin, Doors, GnR, and the other BIG bands have all had hot front men, badass lead guitarist, and a cohesive look (actually, it's all pretty much the standard rock and roll uniform: shirtless with low-riding jeans, cords, or black leather pants). So we should probably disregard the discussion about the current groups being good-looking because i think that everyone can agree that music has been shit for a long time and focus instead on the common chacteristics of the best bands to grace the earth. If Axl wants this again, i maintain that he's going to have to lose the fucking jerseys, buckethead is already gone so that's a step, and get Fink to a fucking stylist.

And that my friend is why rock and music sux nowadays. Its all about a formula...ill tell you what its all about...

Its about making good fukin music. In case you forgot people made fun of old gnr image and how they looked. You know what made them cool and accepted and the new style? Their fukin MUSIC. Their music did the talkin. People liked it so they thought gnr was cool.

Rock n Roll doesnt not have a look. We arent in the 80's anymore. We arent in the 90's anymore. No1 cares about how you dress/ how you look. Thats for the pop genre. Gnr is not pop. So if you want them to follow a certain formula or follow past rnr bands image then you are a fan of the wrong band. Gnr has and always will dress, talk, and play music how they want to. Gnr has and always will be a circus and soap opera.

Get over it. You people have all of these idea of what a band should look like and what would be accepted by the public. Its all garbage. It all comes down to the fact that you want gnr to be the way you know it. And i hate to tell ya but its nto gonna be like that for awhile atleast. What slash does and looks was and is cool. But thats his thing. Only he can pull that off. Thats who he is thats why its cool. New gnr has their own image. We have yet given the chance to embrace and learn thew personalities of the new band. But when they finally get the ball rolling you will read about them, you will see them and you will hear them. That is when you make opinions on people.

It all comes down to the music they make. You all think a guy with a bucket on his head will keep away kids. Your nuts. You all think that robin is goth no1 will liek him ur nuts. Axl has been wearing jerseys even in the old gnr days. But it was ok back then you know why? because his music kicked you right in the balls. and you liked it.

If gnr put out an amzing rocking record no1 will care about all the bullshit you people worry about. They will be rocking to a masterpiece album. They arent gonna say "gee golly that guy looks weird i cant liek this" fuk that. Rock n roll is not defined. Theres no fukin rule book. if there is 1 rule to rock it is about making good fukin music. thats it.....so stop fukin whining and complaining about images and this bullshit

100% agreed! Cool post dude!  : ok:

This thread blows.  if you don't like them or how they look, then stay away. Their image isn't so horrendous that it warrants such a negative reaction. A bad look? Backstreet, new kids, nelson....if you want rockers then go worship some dinosaur 80s back working their way thru the Rhode Island clubs but I actually think that the new GnR is quite interesting looking.

To badgirl:

Thanks for proving my point. Like I was saying, Axl, Robin, and Buckethead are the only ones who look different from the rest of the band. Now, with Buckethead out of the band, that leaves only Axl and Robin. Also like I was saying, Robin looks like he has changed his look, so that leaves only Axl. And you know what, besides the 80's, Axl has always looked different from everybody else in Guns N' Roses. Nobody else wore spandex, kilts, chest protectors, etc. He looked different from everybody then, and now he looks different from everyboy in his new band. The only thing that is different is that it is 2004, no one wears that kind of stuff anymore, the style has changed. If he wore that stuff today, he would get made fun of, and people would think that his look is even worse. So stop trying to live in the past decades and realize that this is 2004, things are different now. If you dont like the New GN'R, then just go listen to fuckin Justin Timberlake b/c the way you are sounding is like Axl Rose is a fuckin popstar and that people who like rock music are really gonna give a shit whether Axl wears jerseys or fuckin baby doll tshirts, if the music is good, then people will like the image.

God are all of you people so stupid that you really want to say all of this stuff?It's all about the music.Who cares that VR dress cool and GN'R doesn't?

I agree with you 100%

But that GN'R is gone forever and you just gotta get over it and give support to the new GN'R.

 Well, about the clothes....I think that they had an anormous influence. Yeah, of course the music was more important and they talked with the music not with clothes but the clothes were also very important. Imagine what it would be if a rebolous band like them were going in concerts with the same suits and same tights as Backstreet Boys or Blue. Or to see Axl with sleepers, or Slash and Duff with trainings and sandals. No way. So what, that we are 2004? I go everywhere with punk and rock shirts, mostly of GN'R, boots and leather jacket when it's cold.  :smoking:
 Other than that, I won't write about today's GN'R image because I still believe that this is not GN'R. GN'R can't be GN'R without Slash, Duff and let's say Matt. Today there is Velvet Revolver and Axl's band according to me.

axl looks cool yeah? thats all that matters :smoking:

Whatever Axl`s wearing (or not!) is always cool to me. ;)

And Scott is trying to look like Axl but he really can`t!!! :drool:

Yes, because Axl always used to go around wearing silver pants with his hair cropped short...

Anyway, this next bit doesn't pertain to you specifically, it's more of a generalised rant about image-obsessed fans.

Seriously, all this going on about image is just bollocks. I remember the reviews of the 2002 tour - half of them were detailed lists of what the band was wearing. Anyone who's that concerned about image is completely shallow and should be listening to Beyonce or Britney, frankly. I always find it deeply ironic that the fans of rock music, who disparage pop acts because they're image-conscious, are so utterly obsessed with image themselves. If a band deviates in any way from the fans' percieved image of what 'rock' is (by, say, wearing a bucket on one's head, or playing with - God forbid - Michael Jackson or Justin Timberlake), they're deemed to have 'sold out.' It's especially ironic since rock fans also pride themselves on being focused more on the music than the artist's image - after all, obsessing about an artist's image is for pop fans...

So, try closing your eyes and listening to the music for once. Phew, I'm glad I got that off my chest.

SG

Um, are you retarded? Can you read? Read my posts and see that i stated exlicitely that the music is the number one factor and SHOULD be the number one factor. However, i think that image can add or detract, especially if a band wants to be the biggest band in the world.

And Chinese-- obviously you can't read either. I am a BIG supporter of the new GnR. I absolutely adore the new songs. I am also a huge fan of Axl. However, i am not so blinded by my love that i can't criticize or disagree with certain elements.
There might be some posters here who are black and white thinkers, but don't quote me and thow that shit out, kay?

Hey, Greg Allman was hot, and a major babe hound.  

I'm going to throw in my two cents. Why the hell not.

Bands nowadays come from a cookie-cutter type atmosphere. They look/sound/dress/act the same. Not ALL of them mind you, but alot of them are. The stupid pop crap is all fixed to sell records. Sure some of these bands sound good, and look good as well. And looks do help sell albums. Because there are some acts out there that sound like shit, and look wonderful because they have people telling them how to dress, and do their hair, etc. Being good looking does help you sell, wheter you're good or bad. But eventually being a crappy singer or band catches up with you sooner or later, and you're popularity dies out.

Re-inventing your image is not necessarily a bad thing. Whether it's to keep up with  the times, or just your own personal taste. Look at Madonna. She's re-invented her look so many times she's probably running out of ideas. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

As far as Axl and everybody else goes, I'll tackle that one at a time. I got into GNR by hearing their songs, and I liked them a little. Honestly at that time I had no idea what metal or rock or anything else was. I was about 8 or 9, and listened to whatever my mom had on the radio, which was usually classic or soft rock. One day a few years later I remember flipping through channels, and saw an image of a cross, and heard piano playing. I flipped the channel off, and then being curious I turned it back on again. It happened to be November Rain. I will say I fell in love with the music right away, and when I saw the first image of Axl I was hooked. So I guess you could say it was a little of both for me, but techinically I heard the music years earlier without knowing what any of them looked like.

As far as the new look goes, I was so happy that I would finaly get to see Guns N' Roses play live, even though it was completely different as far as the lineup went, I really didn't care what ANYBODY looked like. When I saw Axl on the VMA'S I cried because I was just grateful to see him. I'll admit seeing Buckethead and Robin threw me for a loop, but I got over it and enjoyed the music.

So, as far as image goes, my feeling is it's different for everyone. What one person sees as beautiful or handsome, someone else could totally be disgusted by it. Same goes for music. Everyone has different tastes as to what they like. Do the two go hand in hand? I think to a point, they might. But I don't believe one affects the other in such a way as to be horribly detremental to the band or the popularity of said band. There are people concerned about what they look like. And there are those that don't care. I personally am a bit of both, and I will admit that. But I'm more about what the PERSON looks like, not what said person is wearing. I could care less about the clothing.

How is that expressing my love for Slash? So you assume that anyone who says any wrong against the new band or Buckethead must have some sort of 'love' for Slash. That's nonsense. And the "forever-in-the-making-of-album" thing also had nothing to do with Slash. So leave him out of it.


Again, you assume that people who don't like the new band because people are "hurt because Slash isn't in the band." So no one can have a fair opinion of the new band unless they are Axl supporters?


Who said otherwise? I'm glad that Slash isn't in the band anymore. Well, it's not really that, but I'm glad that he left because he didn't need any of Axl's bullshit, no one did. I liked the old GNR, but I'm glad to see Slash, Duff, and Matt in VR. It's a great band, they're doing great so far. As for the new GNR, I'm glad that Buckethead is gone, and if Axl ever releases that album, I just might buy it.    

The only thing that I am angry about is the fact that someone said, "I don't like the new GNR image" and people shit all over them, tell them their love for Slash is clouding their judgement, that Scott Weiland looks gay, and get their panties in a twist and say "the music is more important." So the music is more important, no one said that isn't so, but can't image be discussed without people throwing fits? I guess not, but only because it was against poor little Axl. Honestly, do you think he would care? Images are meant to shock people - look at David Bowie and Madonna and such. Images are meant to stir shit... If not we would have a bunch of fat blob people singing to us. It would all be boring - maybe not the music, but I think people would be less likely to buy someone's album if they weren't "good looking" because more often than not, the image is the first impression. Even the image adds to rock n roll. So don't get all bitchy if someone happens to mention anything about image.

Oh, and it's kinda funny that one person claims that Scott Weiland looks gay, and the other said he is trying to be Axl. ::) :rofl:  

You have a pic of Slash as your avatar and the personal text "Slash is God" but you really don't like him?  ???




/jarmo

I never said that I didn't like him!!!!! Where did I say that!? ???

My avatar and personal text, yes, I suppose you can say that expresses love for Slash, but I'm saying that what I said in this thread doesn't. My point was that just because I hate Buckethead, and don't exactly worship Axl, doesn't mean that someone can automatically assume that it's because of Slash.

Also, Captain_Harlock made no comments about Slash, and certainly didn't claim any love for Slash at all, and it's stupid to just assume that because he doesn't like the new GNR image, that he must love him. Some people don't think anyone can not like GNR and have a good, unbiased reason, such as not liking their image, or the music, or whatever the fuck it may be.

It's pretty safe to say that among GN'R fans, out of the ones who hate BH and dislike Axl, many of them are Slash fans.



/jarmo

Well, so? It's the same way with the Slash bashing people, most of them are the ones who worship Axl and hate everyone else. And even the most diehard Slash fans are mostly fans of Axl too, but the Axl followers bash Slash at every opportunity, always have to believe that what he says is wrong, or against Axl in some way, etc.

I don't like Axl, but I'm a fan of his music, sorry that I fail to see him as a god, or Buckethead for that matter, and yes I do hate him, so what? Everytime someone says something "against" Axl, such as the first post in this thread, they automatically jump to Axl's defence, saying, "Well, your love of Slash is clouding your judgement, and Scott Weiland is/looks gay" - things that have nothing to do with it. It's stupid to start shit with people over it, or even assume things. Captain Harlock said nothing about Slash, yet people think he must love Slash just because he stated an honest opinion about the new GNR image, which just so happened to be a negative one.  

That point is pretty meaningless. If you hate axl, don't like slash, why are you a fan of GNR? Dizzy's keyboarding skills got you hooked as a child?

Also, why are you encouraging this confrontation? Here's how the gnr-fan breakdown probably goes (if you don't believe me, why don't you make a poll on the homepage?):

10%- love axl, dislike rest of band
10%- love slash, dislike rest of band
80%- love axl, love slash, want everyone to do well

BUT, as is the nature with most discussions, it is usually just the fringe, extremist groups/people who say confrontational and argumentative things that rile people up and get them angry. The other 80% of the people here probably don't hate axl or slash, but they can look *somewhat* objectively (even though nothing in music is really objective) and try to criticize something about one member of the band or another.

For instance, I love Axl and can't wait for him to put out a CD, but by God I can also understand how it's been so many years and it may easily be several more before we hear anything new, and Axl is a large part of the holdup.

Anyway, that's all I have to say for now about this. I'll retreat now and watch from a distance as the wolves continue to tear at each other some more.

For the time being though, rock on GNR and VR!

I don't care if it's meaningless. That's how I experience it.

Oh, and I said "many" not "all", there is a difference.


I'm one of the fans who can make up my own mind instead of hating Nirvana just because Axl said something about Kurt in 1992. But, for example, because I also find some comments made by Duff funny, I get labeled an "Axl fan".

It's quite funny having people telling you how you feel about stuff, people who never met you or even talked to you. They read the posts and label.....  :hihi:



Well, so I answered your question.


I don't understand the hating thing at all. It's a musician you're talking about, not a terrorist or an evil dictator who killed a bunch of people.

It's one thing to dislike his playing and/or music, but you say you hate him.... So I guess you hate him as a person? How many times have you met him?



/jarmo

It's not looks that,aside from talent, makes or breaks a rock star.It's charisma!!!
  Steven Tyler and Mick Jagger are two of the ugliest people I have ever seen,but they have that special something that,combined with great musical ability,makes you a legend.
 

My point is that I would actually contend that just about ALL GNR fans who hate axl probably like Slash.

That is because the reverse logically doesn't make any sense.

Slash and Axl were the two main aspects of GNR, so how could you like gnr if you don't like either axl or slash, or both? Perhaps Izzy or Adler or Duff, but these were mostly role players who did a great job backing up Axl and Slash- who were the main forces associated with GNR.

thus, those that don't like axl must, at the least, have some sort of positive opinion about slash, otherwise they probably wouldnt be a GNR fan at all.

similarly, those who hate slash probably like axl, for the same reasons.

This means a couple things:

You cannot assume that JUST because someone likes slash, they hate axl. And also, that JUST because someone likes axl, they hate slash.

Similarly, JUST because someone has a problem with axl, it is not neccessarily BECAUSE they are a slash fan. And just because someone has a problem with Slash, it is not necessarily BECAUSE they are an axl fan.

These are all innappropriate causal relationships to make. They might be obvious, but I see so many people day in and day out on this board jump to these conclusions and base arguments off them, often times resorting to insulting people.

As I said, that's how experience things. I've seen ex-Gunner fans who didn't exactly seem thrilled that Axl was on tour in 2002.

Go check out some ex-Gunner forums and see for yourself. I bet you'll find some fans who wish Axl would fail at anything he does.  :o

You don't need logic in this case.  :hihi:

Their guy left the band, so they hate the guy who, according to them, made him leave.


/jarmo

:o What a horrible thing to say about someone... calling them a ... I can't even say it... an "Axl fan"! Maybe a reason why you are labeled such a thing is because you side with Dave on a lot of his biased, Axl worshipping, Slash/VR bashing rampages.


Oh really? It's okay for people to tell me how I feel because "It's pretty safe to say that among GN'R fans, out of the ones who hate BH and dislike Axl, many of them are Slash fans," but you have your own opinions? But I'm not allowed to, huh? I didn't know that only applied to me.

I'm saying I agree with you on this.

However, it is unfair to place ALL the fans of VR into this category. MOST of us like VR and Axl, but when we try to say how good one is, we get labeled as hating the other side- which in most cases is completely false!!

SOOO.... please stop making it seem as if everyone who posts in the Ex-gunners section or the Velvet Revolver section are all bitter at Axl. I, and many others, are not bitter and just want both to do well. Don't lump us in with the few who ARE bitter just because they are often the ones that get the most attention for their controversial opinions.

Side with him? I don't hate VR. Go read my posts.  : ok:

You guys are breaking the rules at an impressive rate when he posts.





OK, so you hate BH, you have a Slash avatar and a personal text which says "Slash is God", I'm sorry if I assumed you were a Slash fan. I guess you fooled me there.

Maybe you're a Robin Finck fan then?  : ok:


Please point out the facts that you have that proves there are no fans who hate Axl that are big fans of Slash. Because I've seen the opposite. I'm sorry if it offends you, but that's what I've seen online.

If you feel like I singled you out by saying "many" fans, that's your problem. Maybe you need to change your avatar and personal text?   ;)




It would be nice if you read what I said. I said "many", meaning a bunch. "Many" does not equal everybody or all.


/jarmo

My point is that by your phrasing, you are encouraging people to make erroneous conclusions.

Your logic went: if you dissapprove of, or don't like, axl, then you probably (but not necesarily) are a slash fan.

This argument can easily (and is often on this board) misinterpretted by people as its reverse: if you are a slash fan, you are one of those people who don't like axl.

Like I said, this is a pretty dumb way to interpret things, but there are many arguments on this board in which people use such incorrect logic.

It is this misconception that results in the angry, and often mean spirited, debates such as the one in this thread in which if anyone dares speak up against either axl or slash, they are immediately attacked by the other side's supporters, who ignorantly refuse to argue the merits of the argument rather than the biases of those who make the argument.

My other problem with your statement that "It's pretty safe to say that among GN'R fans, out of the ones who hate BH and dislike Axl, many of them are Slash fans," is that you are implying that since there is a correlation between axl-haters and slash-fans, then that means that the reason they dislike axl is BECAUSE they are slash fans. This is obviously not true- Axl provides many reasons on his own why you can dislike him other than being bitter that he forced your "hero" out of a band that he was better off not being in anyway because its leader was going off the deep end. It is like saying, "Of the people who are from India, many of them have black hair. Therefore, the reason they are from India is because they have black hair."

This logic often manifests itself on this board when people start arguing "You just don't like the way axl looks because you love slash". This obviously is very debilitating to the discussion, and ruins entire sections of this board, and something should be done to discourage it and not try to instigate even more conflicts.

Must we bring George Bush and Dick Cheney into every topic?


joking ;)

I'm not encouraging anything. I just explained how I experience the whole "GN'R fan community". There's a divider because some fans automatically hate the other "side".

You don't agree with me, fine. I'm not gonna argue, it's my opinion and you have yours.

But I think the majority (or at least I hope so) are in the middle and don't give a fuck about chosing sides.



/jarmo

I AM a Slash fan!!!! I never denied it, and wouldn't!!!!! It's the same thing that you said about being labeled an Axl fan. People automatically assume that if someone says anything against Axl, in any way, they are labeled a Slash fan - and when I say "Slash fan" I mean they are accused of "their love for Slash clouding their judgements."

Of course, people can see that I'm a Slash fan, like you said by my avatar and personal text, but they assume that it's because I am a Slash fan that I say anything negative about Axl or Buckethead, as if my opinions do not matter, and that they are biased, just because I am a Slash fan. It's the same thing that you said about people labeling you an Axl fan just because you said you thought Duff said some ridiculous things.

And by the way, hating BH has nothing to do with me being a Slash fan. There are many - notice, I didn't say all - Slash fans who also say that Buckethead is a good guitarist, even if they do prefer Slash over him.


I never said that there weren't. I said the majority of Slash fans also like Axl. So, "It would be nice if you read what I said. I said 'most,' meaning a bunch. 'Most' does not equal everybody or all." And when I say "like Axl," I mean that even if they don't agree with everything he says and does, or worship him and think everything he does is perfect, they are still looking forward to Chinese Democracy when it comes out.


No, I do not feel that you singled me out, and no I won't change my avatar and personal text. I was only saying that I'm sick of people saying that because someone says something negative about the new GNR, that they must be Slash fans. I didn't even mean me as much when I said that - I was talking about people shitting on the original poster (welcome to the site by the way! ::)) just because he said he didn't like the new GNR image and NOTHING about SLASH! I'm just sick of people assuming things about other people and putting labels on them.

And you're trying to justify it, by saying, "It's pretty safe to say that among GN'R fans, out of the ones who hate BH and dislike Axl, many of them are Slash fans." It's also pretty safe to say that the ones who hate VR, bash Scott Weiland and Slash, and defend Axl's every word, are Axl fans. But then again, it's okay for them to do that, right? Because they're Axl fans, and Axl is perfect. >:(

I'd like to get back onto topic about images. What about Lyle Lovitts? :hihi:
He did marry Julia Roberts and he is a country star!

Yeah, some Axl fans hate VR and Scott while others just prefer people like Sebastian Back to Scott.

If I critize Scott, it's because I've never been a fan (I prefer the other singers from that era). Nothing to do with Slash.  : ok:


Regarding the original topic. Maybe their image is to not have an image. :D



/jarmo

Um, the original topic being discussed was Guns N' Roses and their current image. Not anything about Lyle Lovitts or hairy Julia Roberts.