Image of the new G'n'R

[badgirl]

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

[Imfuckincrazy]

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

I totally agree. It's pathetic.

[younggunner]

we have to recognize that the image, the look, of the "new" Guns n' Roses is absolutely HORRIBLE. terrible, disgusting, a real nightmare.
Musically they are very good but their look makes them be definitely one of the most terrible band of Rock n' Roll history. They are absolutely not attractive.
- hoppefullly, Buckethead is gone, alright, one monster is out.
- Now Finck with his stupid gothic look looks like a monster.
- Axl doesn't look like a monster BUT when you are a Rockstar, you should take care of your look. He looked great at the VMA 2002 but terrible during the American tour with his MEGA-LAAAAAAAAARRRGE XXXXXXXL clothes that made him look like a big "badaboum man". He'd better wear normal clothes.
- Pitman looks like a village people: "YMCA", that could be the 1st single of the new Guns n' Roses!
Welcome to the gayland!
- Now The rest of the band looks ok. Fortus is probably the only "Rock n' Roll" guy in that band. Unfortunately,One "Rock n' Roll" person in a Rock n' Roll band is not enought...

the look of the "new" Guns n' Roses is probably the most shocking thing in that band. a mix between slipknot, marylin manson, craddle of filth and Ministry. Guns n' Roses has NEVER been like that. This is fucking Rock n' Roll, not gothic. What the fuck is that circus?? This is totally disgusting to watch. Just horrible. I hope they will all think about that in the futur.

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...

[Imfuckincrazy]

Note to Axl: keep it simple go back to your bike shorts and get a band that can represent "rock n roll"

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?

[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.

Actually, I was speaking of the PRESENCE - not the past.  

Oh, well... that is somewhat different because music today is ASS!   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.

[tHeElEcTrIcSiNtAr]

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.

[Voodoochild]

"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

But you said...

(...)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?

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...

[badgirl]

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.

Um, no.
Avril Levigne and Linkin Park are not ROCK STARS!!!   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.

[Fuckin' Gunner]

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

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

[bill213]

the look = The image you give of yourself to other people
Obviously if you have a good look, people are going to "come" to you, and maybe to buy your record. But if you have a bad one (new GN'R) they will" leave" you because the FIRST IMPRESSION that you give to them (the look) is bad, very bad.
When you take old GN'R videoclips thy are all GREAT and COHESIVE look because they represent what they are: a Rock n' Roll band. Have you seen the November Rain videoclip? They all looked like Rock n' Roll icons, especially Slash and Axl.
is the look the most important thing? no, it's your music
does the look help to get attention and to sell records? yes.

a good look is not always a 100% success, but a bad look is not a good thing when you make music. The Talent is the most important thing, but the look is essential and it's difficult to say the contrary...I matters

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?

[Fuckin' Gunner]

the look = The image you give of yourself to other people
Obviously if you have a good look, people are going to "come" to you, and maybe to buy your record. But if you have a bad one (new GN'R) they will" leave" you because the FIRST IMPRESSION that you give to them (the look) is bad, very bad.
When you take old GN'R videoclips thy are all GREAT and COHESIVE look because they represent what they are: a Rock n' Roll band. Have you seen the November Rain videoclip? They all looked like Rock n' Roll icons, especially Slash and Axl.
is the look the most important thing? no, it's your music
does the look help to get attention and to sell records? yes.

a good look is not always a 100% success, but a bad look is not a good thing when you make music. The Talent is the most important thing, but the look is essential and it's difficult to say the contrary...it matters

Yeah, I think you're right

[Voodoochild]

Um, no.
Avril Levigne and Linkin Park are not ROCK STARS!!!   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.

But you talked about Goo Goo Dolls... didn't know they are real rock stars like RS, LZ...  
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.  

[badgirl]

the look = The image you give of yourself to other people
Obviously if you have a good look, people are going to "come" to you, and maybe to buy your record. But if you have a bad one (new GN'R) they will" leave" you because the FIRST IMPRESSION that you give to them (the look) is bad, very bad.
When you take old GN'R videoclips thy are all GREAT and COHESIVE look because they represent what they are: a Rock n' Roll band. Have you seen the November Rain videoclip? They all looked like Rock n' Roll icons, especially Slash and Axl.
is the look the most important thing? no, it's your music
does the look help to get attention and to sell records? yes.

a good look is not always a 100% success, but a bad look is not a good thing when you make music. The Talent is the most important thing, but the look is essential and it's difficult to say the contrary...I matters

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?

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. 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.

[badgirl]

@ badgirl

Sting and U2 have been around since the late 70's and early 80's, so that doesn't count as current for me. You are right about the current bands you mentioned, and I don't want to get into a discussion of who finds what sexual attractive or so either.

But you said it yourself - most of their music sucks. Except for when Sheryl Crow has a good day, there is absolutetly no soul in anyone of them. The Strokes were BORN with a record contract, just like Kelly Osbourne, and their music isn't any better than hers. The White Stipes are the perfect example for an overdesigned band that doesn't know shit about music, but a lot about marketing. The same goes for Linkin Park or Limp Bizkit and all these stupid "black music" fucks, who are good at promoting themselves, but not at making music. And by "black music" I don't mean to be racist or something, it's just that P.Diddy or 50 and the bloddy rest of them are a disgrace to what "black music" is about.

In the end, the problem is the same. Some of the current look good (read: fit into MTV) - but still Led Zep, The Doors or GN'R could wipe the floor with all of them. The worst Hendrix song is still a hundred times better than the best song from Jack White. And you know why? Because that fucking hippie cared about the music! All Britney and her friends care about is money. They dress and act like whores and clowns and that's all they are - whores and clowns.

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.

[younggunner]

Formula kids. Formula.

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

[Voodoochild]

Formula kids. Formula.

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!  

[killingvector]

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.

[tHeElEcTrIcSiNtAr]

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.

[SlashFan]

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?

[matt88]

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?

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.