This is Point of Discussion, a thread for people to discuss issues and topics related to music in a thoughtful and productive way. The goal of this is to make you think, to make you take a look at what you believe, why you believe it, and what others believe. Good discussion is the key to any society, and this is a place where, hopefully, that can be fostered. If you would like a certain topic to be discussed or question to be posed, PM me or post here and I'll toss it in when I can.
All of that being said, there are a few guidelines.
The Guidelines:
1. Don't be a dick - it's fairly simple, just be civil. Say what you want, believe what you want to believe, that's fine, just don't be a dick about it.
2. All opinions are welcome - no matter how unpopular you may think your opinion is (or how unpopular it eventually proves to be), post it. It's welcome. Just be prepared to defend that opinion if it's challenged.
3. There are no wrong opinions - like, it's literally impossible. These are opinions, so no matter how strongly you feel about it, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just an opinion, so keep that in mind.
4. The conversation can go anywhere - even if the discussion goes off of the original topic, that's fine. All kinds of tangents are possible, just try to keep it semi-relevant.
The Topic:
Courtesy of satie, a reassessment of a major shift in the history of music.
To paraphrase satie, did grunge really kill hair metal (i.e. was it "in response" to hair metal), or was it essentially a shift in which bands that label executives thought would be cheap to get and profitable to sell to teenagers? _________________ Progressive Rock
To paraphrase satie, did grunge really kill hair metal (i.e. was it "in response" to hair metal), or was it essentially a shift in which bands that label executives thought would be cheap to get and profitable to sell to teenagers?
I believe it's sort of a combination. The popularity of hair metal was waning, although the borderline hair metal of Guns & Roses was extremely popular at the time. MTV was still growing in influence, and they began giving air time to grunge. The response was extremely positive, so labels began trying to gobble up every band in the scene. of course, Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam weren't simply self-releasing at the time. They were getting a significant boost from major labels. I don't think record execs had quite the insight that Satie suggests, but they had seen grunge do well in the college rock scene, and took the chances that it'd be worthwhile to explore. They certainly had reasons to push it to succeed, so they did what they could, and it worked, but we've seen similar attempts die very quickly (remember Cherry Poppin Daddies?). Grunge struck a chord in American youth and blew up. _________________ http://jonnyleather.com
I believe it's sort of a combination. The popularity of hair metal was waning, although the borderline hair metal of Guns & Roses was extremely popular at the time. MTV was still growing in influence, and they began giving air time to grunge. The response was extremely positive, so labels began trying to gobble up every band in the scene. of course, Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam weren't simply self-releasing at the time. They were getting a significant boost from major labels. I don't think record execs had quite the insight that Satie suggests, but they had seen grunge do well in the college rock scene, and took the chances that it'd be worthwhile to explore. They certainly had reasons to push it to succeed, so they did what they could, and it worked, but we've seen similar attempts die very quickly (remember Cherry Poppin Daddies?). Grunge struck a chord in American youth and blew up.
I would most likely agree. I think hair metal had run its course. As someone who loves the genre, even I can admit that it's entirely formulaic and generic, and once you have about ten years of that, people get sick of it.
I think hair metal kept getting more and more ridiculous, more "HAIR METAL" and it hit critical mass and bombed. For example, compare this early Motley Crue song from 1981
It's like hair metal cranked it up to 11 and I think everyone kind of went "oh ok, this is getting a little out of hand" and started looking elsewhere _________________ Progressive Rock
I think that grunge, at first, was definitely a response to hair metal. When glam began to overtake metal in the late 1970s, punk quickly rose in popularity among teenagers who would otherwise love metal if it were still pure. By the mid 1980s, the roots of grunge took hold when punk converged with Sabbath-esque, doomy metal by groups like Melvins. These bands were also inspired by thrash metal, despite a discontent with its commercial tendencies, and basically worshipped hardcore acts like Black Flag. Kurt Cobain became a sort of Melvins protege while working as their roadie. Early Nirvana and Soungarden did, in fact, both have a sound that was heavily influenced by proto-metal and early metal. However, by the time they hit the mainstream, leaving the independent Sub-Pop label, big record companies took grunge as synonymous with hard rock in general. Once bands like Stone Temple Pilots, Smashing Pumpkins, or, God forbid, Bush, grunge was pretty much down the tubes.
While Nirvana's Nevermind is considered the album that killed glam metal, the album did get knocked off the #1 spot (Billboard) by Def Leppard's Adrenalize.
While Nirvana's Nevermind is considered the album that killed glam metal, the album did get knocked off the #1 spot (Billboard) by Def Leppard's Adrenalize.
So, maybe Hair Metal didn't actually die. It's alive and well at every Casino across America, where white middle-aged Trump supporters rally for one last cry of "She's only Seventeen" _________________ http://jonnyleather.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
