Members tlbonehead Posted December 20, 2011 Members Share Posted December 20, 2011 I still say IEMs killed the wanky guitar solo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yeah, I'm guessing the hairheads gigging wear was not their daily knockaround/work attire! Few rock bands' gigging wear is. And actually, you'd probably be surprised how often the hairheads DID walk around in something at-least-very-similar to their gigging wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 Even at the time, it kind of felt like something really cool had died around 96-97. Maybe. So much of those views depends on the age of the music fan. While some people think the stuff that came out when they were teens/early 20s was "the best period for music ever", and while some others prefer stuff that was around before they were that age, I'm not sure I've ever met a person who thinks the best music is the stuff that came out after they turned 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Steadfastly Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 The only time I think "hair" and "metal" should be spoken of is if you have a metal comb. I felt the same way about disco, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 I felt the same way about disco, too.Yeah, but then you're not speaking about a comb as much as one of these: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SpaceNorman Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 I still say IEMs killed the wanky guitar solo. Which is of course just one more reason to love IEMs !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted December 21, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 21, 2011 Maybe. So much of those views depends on the age of the music fan. While some people think the stuff that came out when they were teens/early 20s was "the best period for music ever", and while some others prefer stuff that was around before they were that age, I'm not sure I've ever met a person who thinks the best music is the stuff that came out after they turned 35. Well, that's a fair point. But... as evidence that the late 90's truly did suck, I'll submit that I actually started feeling better about what was going on musically in the early 2000's. In fact, I'm 34 now and I feel like as far as rock goes we're doing vastly better than the late 90's. It was truly a cesspool of suck- stale second/third generation market-tested grunge, rock bands trying to jump the "electronica" bandwagon by throwing in a few samples and hoping we wouldn't notice they didn't actually write a song, the likes of Korn... no, I maintain that it was truly a low point. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sharkbait Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 I agree with AS. This about sums the late 90s for me: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted December 21, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 We'll have to diagree then: IMO, the 80's hair bands like we are talking about most certainly did NOT aspire to build on the look of their predecessors: they made a total about-face on the scruffy blue-collar workboots, jeans and t-shirt look common to many of the bands you're talking about from the 70's. They looked at what came before and rather than be inspired by, or at the very least deciding to mimic it, they chose to go the opposite direction .I'm not sure what Cobain dyeing his hair has to do with anything, but it certainly doesn't counter the fact that the generally 'dressed-down' aesthetic that eventually got called the 'grunge look' in the early 90's was a direct result of the people in those bands seeing their immediate predecessors (and inspirations) say "Screw the theatrics and costumes: that's not important at all" and following suit because they agreed and wanted to focus on the music as opposed to 'the show'. Again, to YOUR original point about how one 'look' is no different from the other, one started purely out of a desire to elevate the performer from the public, the other was the natural byproduct of wanting to stay at the same 'level' as the audience.If you want to think otherwise, go right ahead. Having been immersed in the broad swath of music called 'punk' or 'college rock' or 'alternative' or whatever very heavily, for years before Nirvana ever came to be, during their initial success (i.e., well before Nevermind was even a thought) AND after they broke big, I can only confirm what I experienced firsthand, which is that it wasn't until the broad/general public became aware of and exposed to bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc. that the 'look' became a calculated something to be marketed.IIRC, it was around that time that the clothes I'd basically been wearing for the previous 10 years went up in price, too. I think the issue is that you see two apples, and decided one started as a seedling, and grew into an apple; and the other just materialized as a full apple, out of thin air. The metal look of the 80's didn't just happen. It started as much as a decade before, if not two. But in the end, it did all start with blue jeans and a t-shirt, just like grunge. Queensryche and Poison are really no different than Seether and Queens of the stone age, If you look back to pearl jam and nirvana as the trend starters... you can say the same for 80's metal with the trend starters being bands like Deep Purple and Black Sabbath. In fact, a LOT of the grunge era took from the early to mid 70's fashions, and it was well documented that many bands focused on thrift shops for stage clothes, focusing on the "vintage" looks. Having almost he same roots, the reason the end products were so different is simply that 80's metal came to embrace fashion where in comparison grunge embraced 'anti-fashion', thus a totally different look. Still, both apples came from the same tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted December 21, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 21, 2011 I don't think GnR was exactly the "bridge" between hair metal and grunge, although they did occupy that space-in-time. What GnR was is what the next obivous evolution of pop/metal/rock: more bluesy and "rootsy", more "authentic" with the trappings of "glam" stripped away. But it is interesting... Appetite for Destruction's producer Mike Clink gets forgotten. And his influence on the band way unappreciated. Clink saw potential for a classic rock band. But they weren't that yet. Slash was playing a pointy head guitar and had a buzzy tone and pulling a lot of 80 histrionics out his ass. But he had that classic side too. Clink saw it. He... ...immediatly suggested Slash start using a Les Paul and plug into classic Marshalls. He didn't want too much drum pyrotechnics and was more about classic hard rock grooves. Ever hear the live bass tone vs. the album bass tone? Once again, Clink was all about tapping into the classic hard rock tradition and less about hair metal. But make no mistake, GnR came from the hair world. Clink saw something else and wanted to bring it out. The band was smart and listened to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 I think the issue is that you see two apples, and decided one started as a seedling, and grew into an apple; and the other just materialized as a full apple, out of thin air. No, I think the issues are: 1) That despite the fact that I've already basically said "You may see it your way from the outside looking in, but having been there and experiencing it from very much the inside, I say it was different, but still, THAT'S FINE and you're welcome to your opinion on it"...you're still trying to convince me otherwise. and 2) Per your latest post, you're still equating the start of things related to the generic 'grunge look' with Pearl Jam and Nirvana (You called them trend setters). Which means that any/everything I've been posting in regards to this has gone in one of your ears and out the other. That's fine too; you don't care to pay attention, or want to ignore my posts, I have no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 But it is interesting... Appetite for Destruction's producer Mike Clink gets forgotten. And his influence on the band way unappreciated. Clink saw potential for a classic rock band. But they weren't that yet. Slash was playing a pointy head guitar and had a buzzy tone and pulling a lot of 80 histrionics out his ass. But he had that classic side too. Clink saw it. He......immediatly suggested Slash start using a Les Paul and plug into classic Marshalls. He didn't want too much drum pyrotechnics and was more about classic hard rock grooves. Ever hear the live bass tone vs. the album bass tone? Once again, Clink was all about tapping into the classic hard rock tradition and less about hair metal. But make no mistake, GnR came from the hair world. Clink saw something else and wanted to bring it out.The band was smart and listened to him. This, this, and oh wait....this^^^^^^+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 In my opinion, what Cobain did was nothing more than following in the footsteps of his predecessors, playing music as a means of expressing himself, not as a way to try and trump the next guy's gratuitous excesses. Since the 50s, rock has seemed to follow the same pattern of starting with unskilled kids, becoming increasingly sophisticated and technical, and then leading to a new move of being put back in the hands of kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 But it is interesting... Appetite for Destruction's producer Mike Clink gets forgotten. And his influence on the band way unappreciated. Clink saw potential for a classic rock band. But they weren't that yet. Slash was playing a pointy head guitar and had a buzzy tone and pulling a lot of 80 histrionics out his ass. But he had that classic side too. Clink saw it. He......immediatly suggested Slash start using a Les Paul and plug into classic Marshalls. He didn't want too much drum pyrotechnics and was more about classic hard rock grooves. Ever hear the live bass tone vs. the album bass tone? Once again, Clink was all about tapping into the classic hard rock tradition and less about hair metal. But make no mistake, GnR came from the hair world. Clink saw something else and wanted to bring it out.The band was smart and listened to him. All true. Had they stayed "hair metal" they, like so many other bands coming out of so many other genres, would have been 12-24 months behind the curve. They no doubt came from hair metal, I just don't see any real "bridge" they provided towards grunge other than the space-in-time the occupied. I think what happens sometimes is when looking back there is a tendency to want to see it all in a linear fashion. This leads to that which leads to this and so on. But the truth is all these different "trends" overlap each other and borrow from each other greatly. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Or in a straight line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted December 21, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 No, I think the issues are:1) That despite the fact that I've already basically said "You may see it your way from the outside looking in, but having been there and experiencing it from very much the inside, I say it was different, but still, THAT'S FINE and you're welcome to your opinion on it"...you're still trying to convince me otherwise.and2) Per your latest post, you're still equating the start of things related to the generic 'grunge look' with Pearl Jam and Nirvana (You called them trend setters). Which means that any/everything I've been posting in regards to this has gone in one of your ears and out the other.That's fine too; you don't care to pay attention, or want to ignore my posts, I have no problem with that. er... wtf? You grew up primarily in one generation and I grew up in another.. I was alive and musically active during both. Although yes I was an 80's rocker, I also moved on with the scene and went to every damn lollapalooza and lived the grunge scene too (and it was a goddam blast). How is it that you see everything from both sides of the fence and somehow you think I only see one? You are making assumptions and yes I read your posts, and as usual, when you disagree with someone, you get defensive and start with the insulting bull{censored} when someone tries to enlighten you, right or wrong. So yeah.. I thought this was a fun and healthy discussion and you had to act like a dick. Now I'm done debating you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rob_Rocks Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 er... wtf? You grew up primarily in one generation and I grew up in another.. I was alive and musically active during both. Although yes I was an 80's rocker, I also moved on with the scene and went to every damn lollapalooza and lived the grunge scene too (and it was a goddam blast). How is it that you see everything from both sides of the fence and somehow you think I only see one? You are making assumptions and yes I read your posts, and as usual, when you disagree with someone, you get defensive and start with the insulting bull{censored} when someone tries to enlighten you, right or wrong. So yeah.. I thought this was a fun and healthy discussion and you had to act like a dick. Now I'm done debating you. I agree with Kramerguy. I was in my first band in the late 70's. We all bought/created stage clothes ala Queen, Styx etc. I did the "hair metal" (we didn't call it that) thing in the '80s, then had to throw all the spandex to the back of the closet and -begrudgingly - buy flannel shirts and Doc Martins in the '90s. (The spandex is now in the "Halloween Box". The kids love it). It was all costumes befitting the music and the times. I still do not allow my band to "dress like the audience". Although the hair spray is no longer present - nor is it needed we try to dress like we are 'in the band' and not just there to party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted December 21, 2011 Members Share Posted December 21, 2011 er... wtf?You grew up primarily in one generation and I grew up in another.. I was alive and musically active during both. Although yes I was an 80's rocker, I also moved on with the scene and went to every damn lollapalooza and lived the grunge scene too (and it was a goddam blast). How is it that you see everything from both sides of the fence and somehow you think I only see one? You are making assumptions and yes I read your posts, and as usual, when you disagree with someone, you get defensive and start with the insulting bull{censored} when someone tries to enlighten you, right or wrong.So yeah.. I thought this was a fun and healthy discussion and you had to act like a dick. Now I'm done debating you. Well that's awesome, because this isn't a debate. It's you commenting on something that you didn't experience, calling it one way, and me, who lived through it, calling it another. That's awesome you went to every Lollapalooza. What was your awareness of/experience or involvement with what led to Lollapalooza happening?In other words, what was your exposure to any music that relates to what we're talking about (i.e., PRIOR to 1991)? I have no interest in making this any more of a pissing match than you, but I do find it funny that my responses have been about pointing out that what was called and came to be known as the look of grunge existed pretty much exactly as it was before a label was slapped on it (i.e., in the mid-to-late 80's), yet every single rebuttal you have come back with post after post has been about either what happened in alternative AFTER that occurred, or that the metal music bands that preceded the spandex and hairspray bands of the 80's looked like...the college rock bands of the 80's and 90's... WTF indeed. I also find it funny that someone who was likely playing a pointy guitar during that time feels they know more about that particular era of alternative music than I, but that's another story altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chadd Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 But it is interesting... Appetite for Destruction's producer Mike Clink gets forgotten. And his influence on the band way unappreciated. Clink saw potential for a classic rock band. But they weren't that yet. Slash was playing a pointy head guitar and had a buzzy tone and pulling a lot of 80 histrionics out his ass. But he had that classic side too. Clink saw it. He......immediatly suggested Slash start using a Les Paul and plug into classic Marshalls. He didn't want too much drum pyrotechnics and was more about classic hard rock grooves. Ever hear the live bass tone vs. the album bass tone? Once again, Clink was all about tapping into the classic hard rock tradition and less about hair metal. But make no mistake, GnR came from the hair world. Clink saw something else and wanted to bring it out.The band was smart and listened to him. much of that is at odds with the various band autobiographies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twostone Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 Forbidden music probably wouldn't be a good idea to play polka music I doubt it draw much of crowd the rest is subjective. [video=youtube;VvLA-J6eLtY] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 this isn't a debate. It's you commenting on something that you didn't experience, calling it one way, and me, who lived through it, calling it another. Well then we do agree on something because I feel exactly the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 Which is of course just one more reason to love IEMs !!!!!!truth! Its impossible to do an "in-your-face" solo if there isn't a monitor to put one boot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TrickyBoy Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 Tis' simple:The Cycle of Popularity paradigm:Take what ever is popular. Do the opposite. Stay in context. You are the next big thing (or at the very least, an outlier with cred influencing those who are the next big thing cuz they imaged better than you).So for all this blubber about guitar solos, and the 80's being silly, and cred/poser wars, it doesn't mean {censored}. The progression is easy to see and every A&R guy (are there any left) had this Cycle drilled into their skulls.70's arena rock -> late 70's early 80's punk -> early 80's euro synth pop -> late 80's metal -> early 90's grunge-> etc.....Punk is the opposite of 70's arena rock.....robotic sounding dance music (euro synth) is the opposite of punk....80's sunset strip metal is the opposite of euro synth....and grunge is the opposite of 80's metal..... This is true, but incomplete. Nirvana would have never worked in 1988. Bleach was released in 89 and didn't make it. Nevermind in 91 was huge... why?? Because before the "opposite" can break through, the current trend needs to have evolved to the point of being a caricature of itself.. I mean 80's hair metal got to the point that they were dragging out the Warrant, Ugly Kid Joe, and Nelson Brothers of the world. At that point, I was SICK of it and had moved onto stuff like the Peppers, etc. I was DYING for someone to do something different so when Smashing Pumpkins and Nirvana hit, I along with so many others who were just sick of the caricature, we like "All Aboard the Grunge train"... Then that movement starts off cool then does the same thing.... I guess my point is that you need to time the "opposite" thing to hit it right at just the right time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 I just don't see any real "bridge" they provided towards grunge other than the space-in-time the occupied. I think what happens sometimes is when looking back there is a tendency to want to see it all in a linear fashion. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Or in a straight line. While nothing happens in a vaccum, time is linear.But I see your point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted December 22, 2011 Members Share Posted December 22, 2011 I guess my point is that you need to time the "opposite" thing to hit it right at just the right time. Correct, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted December 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 22, 2011 much of that is at odds with the various band autobiographies. That... I don't doubt. That is Clink's side of the story however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.