MicShazam

Glam was embarassing and I'm glad it didn't stay in the mainstream. I'd take the pop music that's on the radio now over 80's cock metal any day of the week.

Nick1976

This band ruled during a period where you'd be at a concert standing next to a jock who was standing next to a preppie who was next to a head banger, etc., and no one gave a crap - we all enjoyed the fun, music and atmosphere and barely any crap ever happened. Funny how we live in a time of such political correctness but we've never been so biased, divided and prejudicial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXG0q0qesRw

Frownland

I get enough kumbaya **** in the movies. I'd rather have good music that doesn't concern itself with the audience it appeals to.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

MicShazam

I'm pretty sure people can go and have fun at concerts now as well? It's not like all music is divided along political lines or some ****. I don't see all music being "politcally correct" either. What I find frustrating about your comment is that it's this bundle of scattershot sentiments where it's unclear exactly what it is you think is worse now and needs fixing? People were having fun listening to glam? Oh yeah, but... Now people just listen to different stuff instead... so...? What's the issue?

Nick1976

In the broadest possible sense there are two "schools" of heavy metal pre-1980s (kind of like how there are two schools of jazz tenor playing, you're either a Hawkins disciple or a Lester Young disciple).

Theres the European school: Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Budgie, Rainbow, Judas Priest, etc.
There's the US school: Van Halen, Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, Kiss, Alice Cooper, etc.

In the 80s the stuff generally considered to be "heavy metal" was bands influenced by the European school and the slightly later NWOBHM offshoot. This extended into newer genres like thrash, doom, power metal (the 80s definition of the term, not the modern definition of the term), etc. Thrash then later begat further offshoots like death metal.

The "hair metal" stuff was generally bands influenced by the US school...and mostly Van Halen to be honest. The US school to me has always been right on that cusp of hard rock/heavy metal, generally being more focused on upbeat party rock and stuff that "chicks dig".

The influence of Led Zeppelin kind of falls somewhere in between the two schools as Plant's stage presence was a popular influential thing for hair metal vocalists to emulate...if you could mix Plant and Steven Tyler together you basically have every frontman for every commercial metal act during the entire decade.

This is of course an over-simplification, but I think it works from a cursory standpoint. If you read interviews with Motley Crue or Ratt during the 80s they always listed bands like Kiss and Aerosmith as primary influences. If you read interviews with bands like Metallica or Slayer they usually mentioned Sabbath, Deep Purple and all the NWOBHM bands. Anybody who thinks hair metal bands didn't care about the music is just ignorant. They cared no more or less than musicians in any other rock genre. Not saying it was all gold, but the implication that because of their appearance they didn't care about the songs is just asinine. Any thought that musicians in thrash or speed metal or just rock bands didn't care about the way they looked is also completely misguided. FWIW, as someone who grew up as a metal kid in the 80s/early 90s the genres weren't nearly as defined as they are now. We'd listen to Metallica or Iron Maiden or Megadeth and then something on the poppier end of the scale - Crue, Warrant, Slaughter, Cinderella, whatever. Yeah some people weren't into the extremes on either end (Firehouse or King Diamond, for example), but for the most part metal was metal and it was all rock.

Lilja

Actually, I always thought it was a fun type of music on the whole. It was actually quite progressive in terms of being more gender-bending and willing to make fun of itself (such as in the song "Dude looks like a lady").
I actually thought it was going to make a comeback with "I believe in a thing called love"..but that was just a short sputter.

Grunge was just that. Grunge. Completely unappolegetic and willing to bring up issues that glam did not (on the whole xcept for a few notable exceptions). Suicide, depression, teenage angst, parental nonchalance. If you look at it from a longterm persepctive, it had been going on in bits and pieces throughout the eighties but didn't really blast onto the scene until the 90s. And those suburbanite teens lapped it up. I think it actually might have continued longer if not for be being associated with suicide/school shootings (remember that there was a kid who shot some of his classmates and his lawyer blamed the video for "Jeremys spoken" for giveing him the idea). Suddenly it wasn't cool anymore to listen to it, major bands didn't seem comfortable that their music was in the spotlight (or at least claiming that), and it began to dissapear. But then came the alternative to grunge starring No Doubt, Smashing Pumpkins, Beck etc. Older bands began having more of a message in their music (more like "Right Now" by Van Halen kind of message not "Macarena"...I don't know what the heck that was but jees was it fun to dance to). And the world was happy again and all was good.

Do I have a point? I don't know. I was a 90s kid but I preferred Industrial Goth/swing music/Eurodance at that time. But every type of music adds to the collective time of a period so I can't fault any type of music. Although I do
pity the boy bands of the 90s. There was an interview that Howard Stern did with the lead singer of LFO that shows that the whole genre was a bit of a horror show back then. Probably still is. You can find it on youtube.

The Batlord

There was that time in the mid-00s when I swear Motley Crue was arbitrarily the biggest band in America again for no apparent reason. "Saints of Los Angeles" was somewhere high on the charts, as was that version of "Home Sweet Home" with Chester Bennington, half their singles were getting rediscovered on the radio along with glam in general, and they just started selling out arenas. And then Nikki Sixx had that solo album that people cared about for whatever reason.

__________________

Nick1976

See, metal is MUSIC, it is not a religion or ideology.. If the sound is metal, then that's what it is, metal.
It DOESN'T have to be about "death and pain", it can be about love, sex and MONEY.
And that "looking like girls" ****, that's what it all about dude! That's what rock has been telling the world from the rise of rock'n roll in the 50's too now, REVOLUTION! Now your REAL metal let no talent mindless gold tooth rappers take over the music industry and the white girls in america. Way to Go!! "Hair" metal was the best for two reasons. 1 it was incredibly fun, and people who would rather listening to screaming **** (which is not music) are obviously disturbed 2. all the music of that generation you could rock out to, you can't rock out to screaming. 3 (whoops there's more) those guys got more girls than anyone. I have seen Pic's of Metallica in the early 80's before they moved to S.F. when they lived in L.A. wearing Blue Spandex - No Lie! It was called metal at the time, not hair metal or anything like that. this means it is metal. It has the same power chords etc, riffs etc, it is metal! W.A.S.P. are the most raw sounding 'glam'(actually read metal as that is what those bands are) band ever. They have songs about taking drugs, love, sex, violence, **** everybody, everything really. Nirvana made everyone forget about talent and ended up creating a fake scene when they were starting off complaining about one. Their biggest hit is a pixies rip off. I say they suck, basically.

Creating catchy music requiers talent. Being an average, nu metal ish over-rated **** band doesn't. If there is barely a tune to a song then it is actually very ****, it's as simple as that. 80's metal bricked a foundation for the metal of today. Dude the 80's/early 90s WAS the era of metal! Metal has degraded to a bunch of fat coked up losers whining about how daddy hit him or how much he hates the world and has his little anger issues. Yes many 80's bands dressed like girls but hell that was SHOCKING at the time instead of "How can they draw that" it was "How can they wear that" the era got us out of the 70's disco faze which no one likes. Yeah your life sucks get ****ing used to it metal was all about **** the rules I'm gonna go high and do a hot chick FYI no one in the 80's would have done Courtney Love save for Kurt Cobain. If you look across the Hair-Metal line, you see the rise of Thrash and Death Metal in the early 80's, and the power grab of Black Metal going from the late 80's on. plus Progressive Metal came to be in the late 80's/early 90's too.

Point being, 80's was the rise of half the genres of Metal we know today, plus a few of those bands remain after the 90's. By saying hair metal isn't metal is false because it isn't like **** now days, your wrong because when compared to the stuff of its era it really was metal. Glam metal is the real ****..it is music from the streets and portrayals of real events...if drugs girls and cars are thrown in the mix so be it...its all about the experiences they faced in the end..
Compare it to ****ing power metal...all i gotta say is J.K rowling called and she wants her ****ing story back. not to mention the over used solos which leaving you looking at your watch after 20 minutes wondering how ****ing long its gonna take. You know what,bands like Poison, Bon Jovi, and Motley Crue,have made 10 times as much money as any Death metal band. People liked 80's metal because it was fun to play and fun to listen to. You cant have a good time listening to a bunch of pussies whine because they can't get over their problems so they just get pissed and write songs about death. It's true that glam metal is full of over-the-top makeup and a lot of songs are dealing either with sex, either with partying, either women, either love, or even all of that together.

But still, music-wise, Glam metal has always had in it ALL the things, that make a song METAL.
The riffing is metal. The chord voicings were metal. The soloing is metal. The drumming is metal.
Glam metal IS metal, because all it's instrumentation is METAL.

Shredding solos that use both modal and bluesy scales? Check. Driving,metallic riffs? Check. Double-bass drumming,cymbal chokes and metallic beats? Check.
Strong, booming bass, blasting out metal rhythms and occassional solos? CHECK.

Singers with vocal approaches(regardless of the vocal range) like: epic, soaring, operatic, raspy, rocking, controversial, shocking,etc? CHECK!!!!

Love it or hate it, but Glam metal IS metal. And A LOT of Glam metal bands had,and still have very good musicians. If one played in a Glam metal band andwanted to "make it", one had to be technically proficient with his/her instrument and work for it.

Well, i do admit that it wasn't ONLY about skill and dedication, it also had to do with attracting interest from women(and often having sex with them) and the media,but still, the dedication and skill were and still are the biggest parts of what was and still is required to be successful.

Frownland

Glam metal is only shocking if you're boring and unimaginative.

Have you heard of Shabazz Palaces? Basically a modern day Poison.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Trollheart

You're definitely after my Wall-of-Text crown, dude! Let's see here...

I think you're the only one here arguing that. Nobody else, so far as I can see, has said metal is either of those things, though in fairness (and with more than a little of the tongue in cheek) did you know that in the last census there was a large percentage of people who put as their religion, "Metal"?
Again, nobody said it did. I find myself wondering have you even listened to any extreme metal? You sound like I was, about four to five years ago. It's a lot deeper and more varied than you're trying to make out.
Someone's butt is hurt. I guess you hate hip-hop then? That's fine: I did too, for a long time. That's your right. But it's unfair and also wrong to call rappers talentless. Could you do what they do? Look up "freestyle rap" on youtube sometime, then tell me there's no talent there.
Biased and also wrong. Again, I used to be like you. I learned.
Now that's just insulting, misinformed and also wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I never liked Nirvana, but you're frankly an idiot if you call them talentless. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they weren't decent musicians.
Get over yourself.
Not these days it doesn't. But substitute "good" for "catchy" and you might be right. One does not necessarily equal the other.
Again, biased and again wrong.
Let me introduce you to Frownland, who will set you straight. And have you heard, by any chance, of John Cage's little-known opus, 4'33" I wonder?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you have listened to very few recent metal bands. You seem to know ****-all about them and are lumping them all together in a way that suits your world/musicview. Sad. Try listening to some. The lads will set you straight.
Except for the millions of disco fans, or don't they count as anyone?
Bolded: this is of course the most important thing and categorises a band as either good or bad, how much money they make. Taylor Swift must be ****ing awesome!
Why are you still on about this? I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary. Are you even reading the posts here, or did you just come here for a good old rant? Seems the latter to me.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018