How about a poll asking if the albums "TOO FAST FOR LOVE' and 'SHOUT AT THE DEVIL' were examples of 'hair metal' albums.
Now Ratt is not hair metal? It seems like your response to this topic is to say nothing you think is good is hair metal, when your response probably should be that some hair metal has a lot of artistic merit...
Motley Crue was not a band designed for cheesy MTV videos. Too much of their early catalog goes against that label. Their music was always a cut above what I would consider 'hair metal'.
How can you discuss Hair Metal and not focus on a band’s image. I mean, MC didn’t roll out of bed looking like Hair Metal Gods. They thought about their image. Which was: Hair Metal.
Cringe-worthy in a fun way in the 80s maybe. Cringe-worthy in an embarrassing and offensive way today.
"How can you discuss Hair Metal and not focus on a band’s image. I mean, MC didn’t roll out of bed looking like Hair Metal Gods. They thought about their image. Which was: Hair Metal" Because image alone was not what made these bands 'hair metal'. It was also their approach to songwriting. Judas Priest got pretty cheesy looking around the Turbo era but nobody thought of calling them 'hair metal' for it. They already had a long established history which didn't fit the label.[/QUOTE]
Dude can definitely play. Skilled instrumentalist to be sure. In fact, there were a number of highly skilled instrumentalists in hair metal bands. Look at drummer Rod Morganstern in Winter. But Nuno in Extreme is where I'll actually agree with all the Dylan and Harrison loving fans who are constantly raving about how technical skill alone doth not a great musician make. And even being a great musician doth not always great music make.
[/QUOTE] Judas Priest also didn’t release any music that sounded like hair metal. That is not a true statement if made about any of the bands you are refusing to recognize as hair metal. Not that it really matters. It’s music. You like it or you don’t. But this thread is the very first time I have seen anybody, including people who like the music, say Motley Crue, Def Leppard, or Ratt are not hair metal...
Hair Metal, like Glam Rock, is not a musical genre but a visual one, conceptually. So my answer is: it depends on how musically talented the band/artist is, which has nothing to do with the length of a musician's hair.
I’ll admit I was considering musicianship in the question of musical merit. Otherwise, I agree, there is plenty of highly-skilled music that doesn’t interest me at all.
I think so too, Extreme wrote music too complex to be classified as 'hair metal'. No "Cherry Pie's" with THAT band, lol
Yeah. The debut album was fairly typical hair metal, other than Tom Keifer playing almost lead guitar while singing. With Long Cold Winter the band's influences came out and after that album I don't think Cinderella was hair metal at all. It irks me to see the band lumped in with Poison and Warrant just because those were probably the 3 big-but-not-huge MTV-promoted rock bands circa 1988-1989.
"Yeah. The debut album was fairly typical hair metal," That's probably why I wrote them off at that point and looked no further, after seeing their videos and seeing them live open for Judas Priest.
Must be the 'More Than Words' video that gave people that perception. I thought Extreme was a band that had some depth to them. As far as Skid Row goes I didn't really give much attention to them when the first album came out but then came SLAVE TO THE GRIND, and I realized if I did consider them a hair metal band early on I was all wet for believing so.
Ratt was one of the most influential bands on the genre and of the genre. Definitely hair metal, they made their name I. The clubs alongside bands like Dokken and others from the early scene. To suggest they’re not part of it is bad historical revisionism at best.
We disagree then. It's rather pointless to keep going back and forth saying who is 'definitively' hair metal and who is not, we all have our opinions. Don't think there are right or wrong answers here, only opinions. Ratt was not following any MTV trends, hell they and Motley Crue were trendsetters, some of the finest bands to come out of the early 80's LA metal invasion and IMHO pre-date what we refer to as 'hair metal'. They just weren't 'cheesy' enough to be put in that category. To me to be a hair metal band you had to DRIP with cheese, and have almost nothing of any depth and substance to offer.
If I had to make a list of hair metal bands here are some that to me make the cut: BLACK 'N BLUE, DIRTY LOOKS, BRITNY FOX, TRIXTER, DANGER DANGER, DANGEROUS TOYS, AUTOGRAPH, ENUFF Z'NUFF, WINGER, SLAUGHTER, POISON, FASTER PUSSYCAT, WARRANT, KIX, BULLETBOYS, JETBOY, CINDERELLA, FIREHOUSE, BANG TANGO, BABYLON AD, FIREHOUSE, LOVE/HATE. There's gotta be lots more but I probably blocked them out of my mind.
Besides all the regular mainstream acts, I have albums by Roxx Gang, Spread Eagle, Hurricane, Pretty Boy Floyd, Tigertailz, Vain and a ton more...so yeah, it has merit to me. It’s one thing to not like this stuff, but there’s no question there were some top notch musicians associated with the style. To deny that is just being a dong.
Ratt was my favotite in this genre. Not just the guitars as you mention but their harmonies were tight and so good.
I agree. Ratt and Motley Crue were before what I would consider the "hair metal" period. Kix were also pre-hair metal. First album came out in 1981
There’s lots of merit and the genre was awesome, but no one was hairier than Madame X (the band, not the horrible Madonna album).
