Favorite Hair Metal Band

• charliehustle14

  darbypitcher22 wrote: You all say that Hair Metal was shit but none of you can explain why Grunge died and none of those bands are still out there performing and releasing new material. Def Leppard has had new material over the last few years, RATT is set to drop an album in 2010

  See Tinker's post. Grunge is still alive and kicking.
• charliehustle14

  Tinkertrain wrote:

  darbypitcher22 wrote: You all say that Hair Metal was shit but none of you can explain why Grunge died and none of those bands are still out there performing and releasing new material. Def Leppard has had new material over the last few years, RATT is set to drop an album in 2010

  When you open your mouth about music does stupid just poor out naturally or do you have to work at it? After reading that post it's no wonder you listen to the most brain dead form of music ever to be created.
  
  Alice in Chains- New Album + Tour
  Pearl Jam- New Album + Tour
  Stone Temple Pilots- Recording + Tour Planned
  Nirvana- Well Kurt's dead
  Smashing Pumpkins- Recording + Recently Toured
  Mudhoney- Recording and touring regularly
  Hole- I'm not quite sure what Cortney Love is doing now? I'd imagine it's some kind of drug though.
  The Melvins- Grunge originator's...... still touring

  Great post. I know Chris Cornell has reached 'what the hell'? status with his stupid solo shit, but in your opinion, do you think it's realistic we see a Soundgarden reunion?
• Speedofsand

  

  nc52 wrote:
  the godz
  
  

  Thanks nc52 for the blast from the past. I used to know Mark Chatfield. My older brother was good friends with those guys.
• nc52

  

  that was some good shit
• Speedofsand

  

  I just found a bunch of Godz and even Rosie on youtube. 714, Under the Table, Gotta Keep a Runnin' . I haven't heard this in over 20 years. I just cracked open a beer.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  darbypitcher22 wrote: You all say that Hair Metal was shit but none of you can explain why Grunge died and none of those bands are still out there performing and releasing new material. Def Leppard has had new material over the last few years, RATT is set to drop an album in 2010

  Just because they are still active doesn't mean they are relevant...Most big grunge bands died b/c that's what their members did. One of the biggest grunge acts, Pearl Jam, is still active. EDIT: I see someone has been keeping up on the grunge scene ^^^...That's what I suspected, though. When a genre of music is successful but dies out amongst the main stream, it doesn't mean it's DONE. Like the hair metal crap, grunge still has a core following....
  
  Any commercial, popular crap is going to die out b/c they are trendy...something new comes along. Grunge opened the door for new punk and alternative acts to blow up in the mid-90's and that's all you saw on MTV etc. Then it was boy bands in the late 90's early 00's....One trend to the next every couple of years, in the mainstream.
  
  RATT is set to drop an album in '10 (LOL), but how many people will ever listen to it???
• darbypitcher22

  

  I'll probably buy it. I really could give a shit less whether or not grunge bands are touring. That's not what I listen to. Part of the appeal for me to hair metal is it actually sounds like music, with a melody, and words that can be understood, and not like industrial crap, like the shit I found flipping around the radio today.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  I also contend that Nirvana had substance...Cobain was an artist in many senses of the word (whether you liked his art or not) and although his lyrics were abstract they certainly weren't commercialized...they weren't about cars, girls, parties, and other "we're so cool, so tough" crap that appeals to the mainstream. If anything Nirvana shouldn't have appealed to the masses. But I guess it was a reaction, by music fans, to that party music they'd grown tired of....
  
  Cobain was influenced by some really good, substantial bands: Black Sabbath, Black Flag, Beatles.
• osudarby08

  

  If you want to play the "new record" game, check this out:
  
  -The new Megadeth album is thrash metal in every way. Kickass for thrash fans, and almost as good as their old stuff.
  
  -this is a new slayer song, and again completely thrash metal
  -Although the new metallica album is not like their stuff from the 80's, its the closest thing to thrash they've had since the ...And justice for all album. And it kicks ass.
  
  
  -I went to rock on the range this past year, and I admit I was excited to see motley crue hoping they would put on a good show. Well, the were absolutely AWFUL and Vince Neil sounded like shit. Could not sing worth a damn. Their newer songs they played were also terrible and not very "catchy"(or whatever it is that motley crue songs usually have) The highlight of the entire show was tommy lee making a complete ass of himself (sorry the sound sucks its the best video I could find)
  
  
  I think its the same argument in every genre of music: the catchy popular songs that arent very good musically vs. the more underground, traditional songs that are better musically.
  In rap its like listening to Gucci Mane vs. the new Jay-Z cd (which kicks ass)
  In country its like listening to Taylor Swift vs. George Strait.
  In the new rock thats out now its like listening to Nickelback (oh god...) vs. something relatively unknown like All That Remains or Shadows Fall.
  
  The point is, if you like music for how it sounds musically, you wont like "Glam" because it is shit.
• tcarrier32

  

  BYAH!
• darbypitcher22

  

  Obviously people didn't see Glam as shit; there's a reason many of those bands went multi-platinum, and it wasn't because of all the pussy they could get
• osudarby08

  

  Im pretty sure its because, like anything else, they got radio time and all the dumbass Americans (like today) thought thats what was out there when it came to metal and so they bought it.
  
  And you can look this up "Death Magnetic debuted at number one in several countries to make it top the Australian, Canadian, Mexican and European album chart. Selling 490,000 units in the United States to debut at number one, Metallica became the first band to have five consecutive studio albums debut at number one in the history of the Billboard 200." Even though 3 of those albums were pretty shitty for metallica, that still looks like they manage to sell records...
• tcarrier32

  

  people didnt see glam as shit when it was at the height of its popularity. but when it comes down to it, glam was pop music, and for the most part pop music is looked at as shit. Glam was the 80's/early 90's equivalent of the other bullshit cookie cutter music.
  
  wanna know some other bands that sold a shit ton of records and got a lot of pussy?
  the backstreet boys, and nsync. but i dont see alot of people trying to contend that it was all about the music for them.
• tcarrier32

  

  add new kids on the block and ricky martin to that list.
• darbypitcher22

  

  ok so basically what I'm getting from this, is that because eventhough glam rock was looked at as popular music, that because its popular music, its shit?
• ZeroCool

  i love motley crue. shout at the devil was my first album. i have been to alot of crue concerts over the last 5 years. vince neil doesnt have it "live" anymore. it is sad to say. on the flip side aerosmith puts out decent music but their stage show sucks unless you're into steven tyler dry humping the mic stand for 2 hours straight.
  
  most entertaining concert i've been to in the last three years was poison/kiss. great songs and fantastic show.
  
  food for thought. where would everybody put kiss and aerosmith in this debate.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  ^^^Pretty much LOL.
  
  Look Darby, it's simple. Harcore music fans, in this case metal/ rock fans, want their music to have substance (musicianship, good lyrics, integrity)...so when music comes along that's a pretty watered down and radio-friendly version of, in this case metal/rock or whatever, the harcore metal/rock music fans are gonna dislike it.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  I'd put KISS and AS in the same book, pop music. But I'm a fan of punk/hardcore which is in and of itself an underground scene that hates anything commercial. So my opinion on KISS and AS may be biased in that sense...
  
  On the other hand, I'm a fan of plenty of non-punk/hardcore music, but neither of those two bands ever appealed to me...
• nc52

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: I also contend that Nirvana had substance...Cobain was an artist in many senses of the word (whether you liked his art or not) and although his lyrics were abstract they certainly weren't commercialized...they weren't about cars, girls, parties, and other "we're so cool, so tough" crap that appeals to the mainstream. If anything Nirvana shouldn't have appealed to the masses. But I guess it was a reaction, by music fans, to that party music they'd grown tired of....
  
  Cobain was influenced by some really good, substantial bands: Black Sabbath, Black Flag, Beatles.

  mumbling is not an art form. i don't care if he was influenced by mother theresa, he sucked ass
• Upper90

  Cobain was solid, but also had his flaws....overall, he was a pop musician too, though. He was easily the pop ear for the band, much like Mick Jones was to the Clash. I think he was a really good songwriter, but an average lyricist. But, his ear for melody, and arrangement was impeccable. I mean, really.
  
  When I say average lyricist, I mean, he was clever enough to not take himself as seriously as everyone else (opening the album "In Utero" with the line, "Teenage angst has paid off well" is just brilliant...), but not clever enough to write anything substantial that his audience could really relate to, if they were being honest with themselves. He did touch on heavy topics that I appreciated, "Polly" paints a really intense picture.
  
  It comes down to a lot of people hate Nirvana because they are/were grossly overrated, which I dig, man, I get it. But, look at who's doing the rating. The generation that just missed the Beatles invasion, had to suffer through disco, and liked hair metal at first but then got sick of it are the ones that put, and keep Nirvana on a pedestal. The Rob Sheffields, on some level, Greil Marcus, who lived through the Beatles, but seems to have forgotten, etc. Some band was bound to be hoisted on the throne at the rate things were going, and it's not like Nirvana was totally undeserving, I'd say.
• darbypitcher22

  

  I don't get how you can say that this genre had no musicianship.... there were certainly many great players that came out of this period.... C.C. DeVille, Warren DeMartini, Bobby Blotzer from RATT on drums, Kip Winger is one of the best bassists I've ever heard, some great vocalists as well, Tom Keifer from Cinderella and others...
• ZeroCool

  ^^^^^^as much as i listened to "seventeen" and "headed for a heartbreak", i would never mention winger. just kidding. im laughing out loud thinking of the kid on beavis and butthead wearing his winger shirt. what was his name?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I don't know. Some of you guys act like music is an extention of your manhood.
  Really, it's just variations.
  
  At first, I was somewhat bewildered. Now I just think it's funny. It's like a parody of something important.
• Upper90

  I say there was no musicianship because there were guys that could barely play their instruments.
  
  Vocalists were actually fine, there were many good ones, but that's pretty much all you needed, shallow lyrics, a pretty solid vocalist that was easy on the eyes, and the rest didn't matter. The Motley guys might have been the worst....yeah, Sixx is cool and all, great crazy story....but he had no business even picking up the Bass, it was like Sid Vicious all over again, addiction included.
  
  I will agree, however, that Ratt was a refreshing exception to that.
• Upper90

  Not to mention, until GnR came along, one could argue that the entire scene wasn't even ever about actual music, which, I suppose scenes rarely are, but this one wasn't even close to being close.