04-01-2018, 04:04 PM
|
#101 (permalink)
|
Music Addict
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Colorado
Posts: 513
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick1976
Personally, i don't consider GNR hair metal. Even though they came out of that scene and might have looked like a hair metal band at first, musically, they took more inspiration from blues and punk as opposed to pop and glam that many hair metal bands featured in their music. lyrically, i think they were more sophisticated than any hair metal group, and Axl is a much better singer than any hair metal group. So because of these reasons, i think that GNR is hard rock, not hair metal in which they are commonly categorized as. what do you think? The narrative, largely created and driven hard by rock critics, that grunge killed hair metal is a complete myth. Many of those bands were already on their death bed, and bands like Guns N' Roses, Def Leppard and Bon Jovi still did well after grunge exploded.
And what's great is that hair metal has aged well as a fun part of rock history, while grunge, by and large, died a quick death, and ended up having no more than a handful of bands that are still looked fondly upon. Iron Maiden to me, is one of THOSE bands that fills multiple musical needs for me. Metal, melody, and prog are all filled out in one convenient British package. I have enormous respect for that band. They have held up remarkably well through the years, never becoming caricatures of themselves. Their material may have aged better than Priest.
|
I understand your point I think - grunge is bad, 80s 90s rock is good and have musicians worth a damn - I agree but if you can find value in them you can most likely find some value in grunge. If you like GnR, Alice In Chains isn't that far off since their singer and lead guitarist were huge fans of Axl and Slash respectively, and it shows in their songwriting.
|
|
|