Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Axl Rose: 2002 vs. 2006

1. Axl looks much better in ?06. Just looked at those pics from Hungary and he looks cool as fuck. In ?02, although I was thrilled to have him back (albeit briefly) I was too wrapped up in excitement to be at all critical. In highlight the bling/wigger look was kind of goofy, as though he was trying to look hip for the kids. Now, however, Axl just looks cool. He looks like an older, wiser version of the Axl of old.

2. More confidence- More interviews, more outgoing, a NYC socialite. It appears as though he really does intend to come back this time around. It?s as though in ?02 he was a little tepid, but now he wants to make his mark and prove that he is still relevant. 

*tumbleweed*

Actually, at the risk of beening slaughted, I think Axl looked better in 2002. He may not have been sporting the rock look, but his 2002 VMA look was bangin. He seemed to have more energy, look younger, ect. Now he looks older, but sports a traditional rock look. Your pick.

Either way its fine.

Don't we all look older than we did 4 years ago?  :P

Yeah but 4 years isnt THAT much. He just looks aged. That goatee... the slight double chin thing coming in.. didn't have it in 02.

Axl rose ?sounded like shit in 2002 ?I think the best stage presence Axl has had since his return was in Rock in Rio 3, he didn't sound that good ?but his presence was great. ?He had no braids , no jerseys ?and had alot of energy. ?2006 Axl is not very mobile.

Not mobile? This is based on what exactly? Unless you went to the Hammer shows, the only visibile evidence you have is Rio 5 in which Axl suffered from muscle spasms. Not exactly the best sample from which to base your conclusions.

btw I was at Hammer and he moved beautifully.

JACK...off you go to the slaughterhouse! :hihi:

Especially when his jersey would flap around like a flag...how cool. :no:

06 is closer to the Axl we all know and love. So I would have to say 06...we don't need a rapper, we need Axl.

The 1987-93 Axl is gone. Forever.
The 2002 Axl was a ghost of being.
The 2006 is better than 2002, but not close  to the peak years.
Personally, I would prefer the 2006 to the 2002 Axl. I think this time he has the staying power to make it throug a tour. Something was not right  with 2002, but we probably will never find out what it was.

I think 06 is a vast improvement if only in look/style. His singing and movement are similar to 02 so no real changes there although perhaps his vocals are little rawer sounding now which is good because in 02 his vocals sounded horrible

I think he's giving it a better go this time and if he intends oin releasing an album and touring, then 06 is shaping up much better than 02 (which was diabolical in every way)

For some reason, Im fascinated with 2002, I dont know why, maybe because I always liked things that were popular but away from common, kind of like when Jordan cameback with #45, I dont own any #23 jerseys, but when #45 came out I bought it in white and red.  GNR in 2002 was kind of like Jordan in #45, great to have him back but it didnt look right.  However 2006 is more like #23, so hopefully GNR will release CD this year.

He looks better: lost a little weight, hair is better, goatee looks good.
And he sounds wayyy better too.

2005 :nervous::
(http://www.therock1067.com/modules/htmlarea/upload7/uncledave_140.jpg)

2006? :yes::
(http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/5787/7042297brunodoamaral1142006921.jpg)

The first picture is from 2001, sweetheart. :-*

Meh, close enough.

That 2001 pic is a joke. Totally horrible shot.

Heres Axl later that year.

(http://heretodaygonetohell.com/pics/axl011229.jpg)

(http://gnrontour.com/sets2002/20020829photo014.jpg)

(http://gnrontour.com/sets2002/20020824photo017.jpg)

2001/2002 Axl looked physically better than 2006. I stand by it.

Hey dumbo face

January 1st 2001 1:00 am Las Vegas, NV @ The House Of Blues
January 15th 2001 1:40 am Rio de Janeiro, Brazil @ Rock In Rio III
December 29th 2001 Las Vegas, NV @ The Joint
December 31st 2001 Las Vegas, NV @ The Joint

After Rio loser Mcgooser!

Axl wasnt fat fat in 2001/2002 but he was definately bulkier than we have ever seen him. Which isnt that big a deal because he was skinny as back in the day and hes trim now.

But he looked about 100x fatter because of what he wore. Now it looks like he is taking his fashion advice from someone other than Chris Pittman and we are the better for it.

IMO Axl looks and sounds better then he did back in 02', and the band seems to have better chemistry all around.. but I don't really think it matters i'm just glad to have GNR back! : ok:

Well.. hopefully have em back, unless the CD doesn't come out for another 10 years :P

I will agree at the vma he looked hot as hell. but he looks good now too.

That's funny stuff.  When I saw them at the Hammerstein, I loved the fact that they "looked" the part of a bad-ass rock band once again (*so* glad Robin dropped the Goth / shaved head /etc. look), but Pitman looked a bit...dated and silly.

A question for those who saw the '02 tour...how do they compare to now in terms of performance, stamina, chemistry, etc.?  I loved what I saw in NYC, but have no real point of reference, as the last GnR show I saw prior to that was in '92...

I quite liked Robin's image in RiR3 - I thought he looked really cool. Except other times on the 2002 tour he looked like shit. Especially in Boston when he wore that white jumpsuit thing with that ascot tie!

The band were just everywhere with their image then though. At least there is a shared theme going on with all their dress now.