2002 Appearance and Band Reception

[DaneisKing1389]

This comparison will have to ignore the band's playing and Axl's singing for the most part. Base it on the appearance/people...

Do you think 2002 Guns N' Roses would've received significantly less criticism had Axl debuted with the 2006 or 2010 lineups? Do you think they would've been seen as less of a 'joke' or 'hired hand' that I always felt they were viewed as? Would they have been taken more seriously if they looked more like a traditional rock image? Would that change some of the views of Chinese Democracy?

I've been watching my 2002 DVDs and, while I absolutely love that incarnation of the band, the wide array of characters and costumes and styles provide a more "hired hand" feel to the band to me. Guns N' Roses looks and feels like more of the actual band they are nowadays. This idea came to me while I was watching Buckethead's solo, consisting of his usual dance break and toy giveaway. They're staples of his solo shows, which I've seen, but the overly long break definitely seemed out of place in the middle of a rock show.

I'd love to pretend it's all about the music and appearance means nothing, but I imagine going to a Guns show and seeing a player with a KFC bucket and guitar (Buckethead), someone with a shaved skullet type thing (Finck), an emo-looking rocker with a mesh t-shirt (Fortus), someone wearing a flannel suit (Tommy), etc. being jarring to a casual fan. More of a "wtf?" moment.

Anybody else feel that way? I could be talking out my ass, I don't know. It's all hypothetical.

And this is by no means a bash thread whatsoever. The 2002 band is the band that helped to write the majority of Chinese Democracy and I'm eager to hear what else they've done. I'd say I love Buckethead more than most Guns fans... I own around 10 of his 30+ albums, but I had all of them online at one point. I'd say he's one of the biggest influences on my guitar playing, as I can feel myself randomly burst into some Buckethead licks while playing (albeit a tad slower, ha). And I'm an outspoken fan of Finck. I like DJ, but I greatly miss Finck's playing style, which seemed to both flow and feel more to me.

Edited January 7, 2012 by DaneisKing1389

[ohmygod]

The Fortus Finck guitar duo was amazing. Seriously those two on stage at onnce was always rad given their stage presence. Also it seemed like their guitar styles played off of each other really well.

[Coma16]

2002 band looked like a freakshow to the average non-fanatical fanboy. They put a great album together and I can't wait to hear more but I'm glad that we have the band that we currently do.

[DaneisKing1389]

2002 band looked like a freakshow to the average non-fanatical fanboy. They put a great album together and I can't wait to hear more but I'm glad that we have the band that we currently do.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. They were obviously incredible based on the music they wrote and we've heard. But I remember reading a bunch of things criticizing the appearance of the band. If they played the same and sounded the same but had the appearance/personnel of 2006 or 2010, would the reviews have been different? Would the "That's not Slash!" been as blatant if the band looked more 'normal'?

Edited January 7, 2012 by DaneisKing1389

[Georgy Zhukov]

I love the freak show

[DaneisKing1389]

I love the freak show

Me too. That's not what I'm asking. I'm talking general public, casual fans, critic response, etc.

And it's sad that we really only got to see Buckethead and Finck play a load of covers with Axl, of which none sound better than the original Guns or the newer version of the band. I would've loved to hear Finck play This I Love, Buckethead on Sorry, If the World, and Scraped, etc.

Edited January 7, 2012 by DaneisKing1389

[Georgy Zhukov]

I love the freak show

Me too. That's not what I'm asking. I'm talking general public, casual fans, critic response, etc.

And it's sad that we really only got to see Buckethead and Finck play a load of covers with Axl, of which none sound better than the original Guns or the newer version of the band. I would've loved to hear Finck play This I Love, Buckethead on Sorry, If the World, and Scraped, etc.

Scraped would sound a lot different with Buckethead since we have only heard Ron's solo. Same with Shacklers which Buckethead wrote.

[axlsalinger]

I'm not sure what the point is here, you're basically asking a question for which you've supplied the only answer you'll accept in advance. Of course many hardcore fans were fine with the look in 2002, although there were many who bitched about it all the time. As for the general public, what do you expect? Pick a band you don't follow obsessively, let's say Pearl Jam. Now imagine what you'd think if you heard that most of the band members left, and when you went to a show the new guitarist was wearing a mask and a Kentucky Fried Chicken bucket on his head (before you became aware of Buckethead obviously, or we'd be talking about Bucket joining Pearl Jam).

I think what happened was that Bucket's look was so over the top, the other guys decided they may as well do something equally extreme. Since the new GNR had everyone bewildered already, it probably made sense at the time. I quickly learned to not give a fuck, and just enjoy the fact that Bucket was such a great fucking guitar player.

At this point, I love the band as it currently is and wouldn't swap out anybody for a past member, as much as I loved and supported Brain and the Bucket back then.

[ITW 2012]

The 2002 lineup looked like an actual band. It was Axl's unrecognizable voice that let them all down. They actually had a shot at being accepted if they had manged to release an album. In all honesty, Buckethead is the only guitar player Axl's had that could have really replaced Slash in a meaningful way. And Robin had his own unique style and playing too, but he wasn't quite technical enough to fill Slash's role.

Edited January 7, 2012 by ITW 2012

[axlsalinger]

This is true. They never had a chance to succeed, as they never released a single song. 'Oh My God' came out before Bucket joined, and CD came out 3 or 4 years after he left.

[ITW 2012]

If the 2002 lineup had released Better as the first single in 2002 or 2003 it would have been on.

[DaneisKing1389]

I'm not sure what the point is here, you're basically asking a question for which you've supplied the only answer you'll accept in advance. Of course many hardcore fans were fine with the look in 2002, although there were many who bitched about it all the time. As for the general public, what do you expect? Pick a band you don't follow obsessively, let's say Pearl Jam. Now imagine what you'd think if you heard that most of the band members left, and when you went to a show the new guitarist was wearing a mask and a Kentucky Fried Chicken bucket on his head (before you became aware of Buckethead obviously, or we'd be talking about Bucket joining Pearl Jam).

I didn't deny anybody's answer. They just didn't answer what I was asking. It's hard to put it into words, I guess. I read and understand it fine, but I wrote it.

Would the reviews still have been terrible and been focused on the "these players look weird" and "these players are NOT Guns N' Roses" had the 2002 lineup looked like the current one? Would it have been so obvious? Would it have been such a big deal or would it have always taken time to get over it? Does that make sense? I hope it does.

The 2002 lineup looked like an actual band. It was Axl's unrecognizable voice that let them all down. They actually had a shot at being accepted if they had manged to release an album. In all honesty, Buckethead is the only guitar player Axl's had that could have really replaced Slash in a meaningful way. And Robin had his own unique style and playing too, but he wasn't quite technical enough to fill Slash's role.

That's a good answer. He responded to what the questions were. I just don't know about the voice part. Currently, he sounds like he did in 2002 about 75% of the time, yet they're getting positive tour reviews. If this band premiered in 2002, would the reviews still have been good or would the shock that it's not the original 5 outweigh the performances?

Edited January 7, 2012 by DaneisKing1389

[ITW 2012]

The 2002 lineup looked like an actual band. It was Axl's unrecognizable voice that let them all down. They actually had a shot at being accepted if they had manged to release an album. In all honesty, Buckethead is the only guitar player Axl's had that could have really replaced Slash in a meaningful way. And Robin had his own unique style and playing too, but he wasn't quite technical enough to fill Slash's role.

That's a good answer. He responded to what the questions were. I just don't know about the voice part. Currently, he sounds like he did in 2002 about 75% of the time, yet they're getting positive tour reviews. If this band premiered in 2002, would the reviews still have been good or would the shock that it's not the original 5 outweigh the performances?

The 2002 lineup debuted live with songs like The Blues and Madagascar that made me believe in them. Right now we haven't heard anything written and recorded by the current lineup, so I don't necessarily feel a connection with them. The 2002 lineup was the real deal though.

Edited January 7, 2012 by ITW 2012

[DaneisKing1389]

The 2002 lineup looked like an actual band. It was Axl's unrecognizable voice that let them all down. They actually had a shot at being accepted if they had manged to release an album. In all honesty, Buckethead is the only guitar player Axl's had that could have really replaced Slash in a meaningful way. And Robin had his own unique style and playing too, but he wasn't quite technical enough to fill Slash's role.

That's a good answer. He responded to what the questions were. I just don't know about the voice part. Currently, he sounds like he did in 2002 about 75% of the time, yet they're getting positive tour reviews. If this band premiered in 2002, would the reviews still have been good or would the shock that it's not the original 5 outweigh the performances?

The 2002 lineup debuted live with songs like The Blues and Madagascar that made me believe in them. Right now we haven't heard anything written and recorded by the current lineup, so I don't necessarily feel a connection with them at all.

True.

I just wonder if the appearance of the band in 2002, like Buckethead and Finck then, weighed in on how people received the newer stuff then. When people went and said "wow, that's a freakshow" because the band looked so different, did they say "I don't like the new songs" in correlation? And if the 2006/2010 band debuted then (but with the same 2002 sound), would the more normal/casual rock appearance and show had a different correlation to the new songs? If the image was more of a rock image then instead of the industrial Finck and whatnot, would the shows have been seen differently? I've worded it like four different ways, but I'm asking the same thing. It's just a "what if?" scenario to talk about instead of stuff that has been rehashed a lot. I hope it's understandable.

And the new songs were well received by many Guns fans, but a lot of the reviews I remember reading talked about getting drinks during the new ones and how the show slowed down when they were played.

Edited January 7, 2012 by DaneisKing1389

[ITW 2012]

The 2002 riots sort of killed the new band off before they were given a fair shake and bake by the public.

Edited January 7, 2012 by ITW 2012

[axlsalinger]

I didn't deny anybody's answer. They just didn't answer what I was asking. It's hard to put it into words, I guess. I read and understand it fine, but I wrote it.

Would the reviews still have been terrible and been focused on the "these players look weird" and "these players are NOT Guns N' Roses" had the 2002 lineup looked like the current one? Would it have been so obvious? Would it have been such a big deal or would it have always taken time to get over it? Does that make sense? I hope it does.

It's a hypothetical question, hard to answer really. I think that a lot of people still would have been focused on the "these guys are not GNR" argument, because that was the perception they brought with them in advance. I think they were far less concerned with what Robin Finck looked like than that he was not Slash. Bucket was weird because I think perhaps he did turn off some people off initially with his look, but those that gave him a chance were won over by his talent. I think the same thing could have happened with Ron.

As for the voice, I think this argument about 2002 is overblown. He wasn't as bad as some people will have you believe. I saw the band in Toronto, and had a DVD of the Columbus show, and he sounded pretty good. People don't understand how hard it is to sound great all the time, when singing live for 2 or 3 hours a night. These people need to listen to some tape during the middle of the UYI tour grind. Axl certainly did not have perfect rasp and pitch on every song in 1992 either.

[DaneisKing1389]

The 2002 riots sort of killed the new band off before they were given a fair shake and bake by the public.

Yeah, I don't remember much about them. I think I read about one at the time, but I don't remember much about any of them. You're saying the surrounding shit had more of an affect on the fact that the tour/band was pretty ill-received instead of the appearance, which is what I always thought.

A girl I'm sort of seeing said she didn't like a song on the 2002 DVD when I showed her a few days ago (she also commented that they looked weird, but noticed Buckethead as I'm a fan), but said she liked it from a 2006 DVD. She said she "liked it better than the one I played the other day." I mean it was The Blues/Street of Dreams, which sounds different in the intros, but that's it. I didn't know if the appearance change affected it or if she was that much more familiar on a second listen that it became okay to her. She knows and likes the popular songs from the original Guns, so I consider her a casual fan.

That weighed into the question as well.

Edited January 7, 2012 by DaneisKing1389

[Guns n' Swedes]

I'm sure that the 2010 version would have got a better response than the 2002 version. I'm a big Axl fan, and I really didn't like the freakshow thing. Not even he could make up for it.

I love the direction in things are heading now.

[DaneisKing1389]

It's a hypothetical question, hard to answer really. I think that a lot of people still would have been focused on the "these guys are not GNR" argument, because that was the perception they brought with them in advance. I think they were far less concerned with what Robin Finck looked like than that he was not Slash. Bucket was weird because I think perhaps he did turn off some people off initially with his look, but those that gave him a chance were won over by his talent. I think the same thing could have happened with Ron.

That part is what I was getting at, yeah. Would the initial shock response that it "wasn't GN'R" have been the same with the more rock image of 2006/2010 or was any band that stepped in as Guns N' Roses going to get that shit in 2002?

As for the voice, I think this argument about 2002 is overblown. He wasn't as bad as some people will have you believe. I saw the band in Toronto, and had a DVD of the Columbus show, and he sounded pretty good. People don't understand how hard it is to sound great all the time, when singing live for 2 or 3 hours a night. These people need to listen to some tape during the middle of the UYI tour grind. Axl certainly did not have perfect rasp and pitch on every song in 1992 either.

I agree. I was actually watching the Columbus 2002 show when I thought of it. I don't think he sounds bad at all. I think he sings a lot of the stuff better then than he does now.

And yeah, it's a hypothetical question, but I found it interesting. There's no definitive answer, so nobody can turn an opinion away.

Edited January 7, 2012 by DaneisKing1389

[Rovim]

I just think it comes down to the simple fact Slash was so loved by so many, that some people were not going to accept Guns without him.

Change that single thing, put Slash in the band in 2002, and I don't think the general public would have cared so much about the image or the sound or whatever.

Granted, the image was a factor (not to me) but it was more focused about 'look what that asshole Axl did, he kept the name, Slash is not in the band anymore, he can't sing anymore' etc.

It's people not giving it a chance cause they didn't think Axl really desereved it imo.

It's people having a really hard time accepting something that changed so much when they have a very clear picture in their head

of what Guns N' Roses is 'supposed' to look like and sound like.

It's Axl continuing Guns, daring to keep it going with the name after Slash walked out.

Many blamed Axl for taking away the band they were huge fans of. He just made it easier to hate because how they looked.

Personally, I loved the 2002 line up. I thought they had amazing talent and after hearing The Blues, Madagascar, and Chinese Democracy live, I was very excited about the creative possibilities, and I think they delivered in the end.

He put together an incredible band that never had the chance to really gel or be accepted live but to me, they nailed it in the studio, and I still love the live shows from back then and that whole era. It was mythical in a way.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Rovim

[Guest Len B'stard]

i couldn't disagree with you more. I think the 2002 incarnation looked fantastic. the biggest collection of misfits and weirdoes i've ever come across and it just leant itself to the notion that Axl had been tucked away in the hollywood hills building this fucking Frankensteins monster, fuck the people who thought it was a joke, quite frankly, lots of people thought original Guns was a fucking joke too, when you have a certain kind of iconography that lends a band to being sort of, identifiable, you'll get that sort of thing. I loved the way they looked, it was fantastic, it was like, what the FUCK?!?!

If anything, don't you think if people have a uniform sort of image THAT looks more like hired hands than a bunch of people who all look different? The 02 band didn't look like hired hands or like, y'know, you couldn't fuckin invent that if you tried, robin looking like a fucking ghoul and buckethead looking like...well, buckethead and Tommy Stinson looking like some kind of mid western American take on Johnny Rotten and Axl looking like a fucking cyborg in a football jersey, it was fantastic, it was like a band from the future just beamed down or something.

[Rovim]

i couldn't disagree with you more. I think the 2002 incarnation looked fantastic. the biggest collection of misfits and weirdoes i've ever come across and it just leant itself to the notion that Axl had been tucked away in the hollywood hills building this fucking Frankensteins monster, fuck the people who thought it was a joke, quite frankly, lots of people thought original Guns was a fucking joke too, when you have a certain kind of iconography that lends a band to being sort of, identifiable, you'll get that sort of thing. I loved the way they looked, it was fantastic, it was like, what the FUCK?!?!

If anything, don't you think if people have a uniform sort of image THAT looks more like hired hands than a bunch of people who all look different? The 02 band didn't look like hired hands or like, y'know, you couldn't fuckin invent that if you tried, robin looking like a fucking ghoul and buckethead looking like...well, buckethead and Tommy Stinson looking like some kind of mid western American take on Johnny Rotten and Axl looking like a fucking cyborg in a football jersey, it was fantastic, it was like a band from the future just beamed down or something.

lol 100% agreed. It was glorious. In a way, it defined the Gn'R spirit of doing what you believe in, doing it your way, not giving a fuck what anyone thinks about it, and never giving up on it. Rock n' roll.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Rovim

[Use Your Delusion 1]

what I don't understand is in 2002 they got good, on the whole, reviews as they are doing now yet Axl sounds average today and terrible back then. I remember reading a review about the Reading Festival and the guy (reviewer) said he prefered the 2002 Leeds performance when that was terrible and axl sounded like he was on some serious oxygen. It seems they prefer axl's voice when its at its worst and not when its good (ie 06/10). It makes no sense.

[RandallFlagg]

After being introduced to Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park recently and then that crew that seemed to have spilled out from a visiting spacecraft to play a few shows, everyone probably fell into a comatose state until Axl and the braids made a kickass comeback.

[Stro]

I think if the current band was what he came out with in 2002, Axl would have gotten way more shit for a punk bass player, guy in a top hat playing a Les Paul while smoking, and some guy who looks like a jacked up Izzy.

I feel like having the group of guys he had, with the various looks they had, was intentional and necessary to show that this band was its own entity. The whole image was as opposite of the 1987-1993 group as you could possibly get. I think Axl probably took a little bit too far, but I really think it was a concerted effort to change everything as much as possible.

Regarding the 2002 voice that makes its way to shows now (and in 2006), I think we all forget that the shows had rave reviews back then, specifically how great and powerful Axl's voice was. It sounds different live. It just does. You can listen to Youtube clips or soundboards, but it isn't the same as hearing it in the arena. People were fucking jacked at the VMAs and I think that era would have been more successful if Axl had put on a better performance there.

He had to come out with something different. He would (and did/does) have had even more shit thrown at him if he came back with guys that looked just like the old guys.