Image of the new G'n'R

[jarmo]

you can't change things like that when you want.

Obviously, you can...

This bands wardrobe is the least of my concerns.

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.  




/jarmo

[captain_harlock]

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

[AdZ]

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.

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"

[bill213]

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.

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.

[nesquick]

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.

I TOTALLY agree.

[Dave_Rose]

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

[badapple81]

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?

Axl had already done away with the leathers by 1991.

[Tj]

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?

  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.

[volcano62]

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.

[Voodoochild]

- Pitman looks like a village people: "YMCA", that could be the 1st single of the new Guns n' Roses!
Welcome to the gayland!

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.

[ClintroN]

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

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

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

[MrBen]

The image of new gnr is awesome.

This post is total bullshit

[MrBen]

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

[badgirl]

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.

[ClintroN]

No it has'nt...

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



the wait begins

[badgirl]

...but these bands need to appeal to a public that has been brought up looking at great and cool looking people singing hot songs.

Where are they?

I mean the "great and cool looking people singing hot songs"?

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.

[Reinaldo]

Hey, someone mentioned Village People!? Here's a pic of them... Check it out!

 

[Imfuckincrazy]

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

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.
   

becuase we all know that the clothes that an artist wears makes him a horrible or talented artist

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.

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

   
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?

[Layne420]

Its all about THE DARKNESS  

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

[Booker Floyd]

Hey, someone mentioned Village People!? Here's a pic of them... Check it out!

 

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.