Hair metal, mostly mid-eighties to early nineties. Motley Crue, Trixter, Winger, etc. I think it's better to skip the likes of Alice Cooper and Guns 'N Roses, who clearly did music at times that was not hair metal. This is not a call to attack the genre, which I'm fond of. The visual style, I don't know, but that's not part of musical merit. Evaluate on talent, melody, originality, etc.
I'm a long-time fan anyway, so biased I guess, but I think there is a lot of merit. The aesthetic is just fun, to begin with. But just in the three bands you named, between Kip Winger, Reb Beach and Mick Mars there is a boatload of chops, whether some people want to admit it or not. That is, not to say it requires talent to play "hair metal"-- I don't know about that. But a lot of them had a lot of talent.
It has it's own sound. That's merit enough I guess. Not that I'm a fan. Maybe a few tracks I like here and there.
If you were to line it up against volume of hair spray used, doubt it would fair well. However, musical merit isn't going to give you all the memories you want. Hair metal was never my thing, but at least it seemed like a bit of fun and sort of ridiculous. Need more of that.
Not much. Thank Jah I discovered SST/ Dischord / TwinTone Records, Mission Of Burma, Gang Of Four, X, Pere Ubu, etc etc right about that time.
I personally never liked hair metal, but to me the question about its merit really comes back to how much edge it had/how much it rocked, as well as how well-constructed the songs were. Some hair metal bands, like IMO Poison, Warrant, and Bon Jovi, had/have little merit because they didn't have that great of songs and didn't really rock that hard. Other hair metal bands, like IMO Def Leppard, were also more pop-oriented but actually had a few songs that were solid, well-constructed songs that could have been hits even if they weren't played as hair metal songs. And still other hair metal bands, like IMO Mötley Crüe (especially in their early days) and Guns N' Roses, DID have at least some songs that genuinely had an edge and were real hard rock. Stated more simply, hair metal, like most other genres of rock music or music in general, has merit when you focus on the better bands/songs within the genre but less merit when you focus on the genre as a whole.
Like any genre of it brings you enjoyment then it has merit. It had a sense of fun that rock music has been sorely missing for decades.
Hair metal? I Remember You. It was a Dr. Feelgood genre. Give It to Me Good. Something to Believe In. Not only would it keep you Up All Night, where you could Feel the Shake and it would take you High Enough, but you could Fly to the Angels with it.
It was interesting when one day the local Los Angeles music rag BAM reported that the LA Club scene was finished with so-called hair metal bands. The switch was thrown off overnight. It was weird, the Roxy, Whiskey A-Go-Go, Troubadour, and all the smaller clubs as well decided that the fad had passed, and just stopped booking any band connected to that movement. The alt. rock and Seattle sound had arrived officially.
I think it's easy to find musical positives in Winger and Motley Crue. I included Trixter because that was a lower-tier band. Even so and despite a lack of originality and good songs in my opinion, its guitarist was good, its singer probably had a better voice than most of his peers, and the backing vocals were done well. I struggle with something like Britny Fox, but even there I can praise something, the "Dream On" song (not an Aerosmith cover), featuring high-grade harmonies. I'm not going to get into unsuccessful bands that few people have ever heard of and that I probably never came across. Most of them didn't make because they just didn't have musical chops.
Many of the bands that were labeled as "hair metal" are much better than they get credit for. Motley Crue had some pretty solid albums, as well as a few that weren't that good. Skid Row was good. Poison gets ragged on a lot, but they were pretty good, especially their first three albums. Some people just can't get past the style, they tend to go along with what everyone tells them is "good" or "cool", instead of finding or developing their own tastes. After 70s rock or "classic rock", the 80s "hair metal" is my favorite music.
First, there is no such thing as hair metal...it's called HEAVY METAL. It's like calling The Rolling Stones 'dirty hippy music'. Second, heavy metal of the 80's has some of the greatest musicians in the history of music. Period.
Fact of the matter is many of these bands wrote some and recorded some very catchy songs that were played with strong musicianship.
I think there’s a resentment from the Classic Rock fanboy group that their pet favorites weren’t making the better albums in the 80s. The “hair metal” groups were showing them up and making the Classic Rock musicians look washed up and has beens.
Was Def Leppard hair metal? Ratt? Girlschool? If so then yes, great stuff! Yes they looked funny, never will get the bandana around the knee for example, but these cats had the hooks.
I think it was very difficult for a band to make it in that genre without a singer with power, a good guitarist, and at least a solid drummer. Bass didn't seem to matter much in the production process and probably some bassists from the era only had jobs because they looked good. Some "resentment" from peers and the public probably stemmed from how many of the hair metal guys were pretty boys, with the talented Kip Winger the literal poster boy for that.
Originality was practically zero when it comes down to it. In fact, it's sometimes easier to ponder how rock became so homogenized. But as for talent and songwriting - for what it is, it was as good as any other era, imo. I mean there were catching melodies, after all. Talent, generally, is over-rated. For example, Bob Dylan isn't what I'd call a talented guitarist, but he's a great song writer.
Some good bits in this interview: Rolling Stone Music Now: The Secret History of Hair Metal (But Don't Call It That) on Apple Podcasts especially about how competitive a spot in a promising band was once things took off commercially. It’s silly to think these guys couldn’t play. That said, it’s not music I cared for then and I don’t think it’s aged any better than the dance pop it was completing with on the charts. All in all a terrible time for music, in my humble sad opinion.
Racer X .... I believe these guys were under the "hair" metal umbrella.... You can say you don't like it. You can say it isn't to your taste, but you can't with a straight face say they weren't talented. If you like neo-classical ideas and melodies put forward on the stage of the hair metal platform, these guys were awesome. Scarified
Yes, originality was lacking. Winger and Mr. Big had a few creative moments, and maybe Motley Crue gets a little credit for "originating" the genre. Writing in the genre I'd call weak, but comparing to other types of rock and pop, who knows. Poison did know how to write ballads.
Sorry, can't help myself here. No 'at times' about it. Guns N' Roses was never hair metal. Their sound was very different to what was going on at the time which was what set them apart. Their sound was blues infused rock and punk. They were very bass driven thanks to Duff. And absolutely nobody sounded like Axl Rose. They briefly dressed up in the new wave style when they first formed but quickly ditched this in favour of their sleazy, unwashed, uncombed trademark look which was another thing that set them apart - because it wasn't a 'look' it was just what they wore every day.
If being in LA, having big hair, and playing some form of metal makes a band Hair metal, what about these guys Cacophony - Desert Island Plenty of chops, plenty of good writing