Slightly O/T - Forbidden material

[Vito Corleone]

Im going to throw in some TESLA right now, bitches!

 

 

aha! Tesla gets overlooked in the discussion and doesn't get enough credit for being an early "anti-big-hair" rock band. They predated GnR with their "back to roots" sound and were big on trying hard to not be as pretentious as so many other bands of the era. I remember seeing them in concert (must of been 90 or 91) and they pissed everyone off by announcing before their final song that it was going to be THE final song. That they weren't going to do the typical "rock star" thing and leave the stage for a planned encore with their biggest hit. And that's what they did. After 10 minutes when people realized they WEREN'T coming back out, people left kinda pissed. Not a great move from a showmanship perspective but I personally appreciated the honesty behind it.

 

Great White is another band that had a more "back to basics" sound and look that predated GnR.

[kmart]

Nirvana would have never worked in 1988. Bleach was released in 89 and didn't make it.

 

 

I don't quite understand how a debut album released on a tiny indie label, which sells 40k copies and leads to the band signing a sizable deal with a major (that then puts out a blockbuster album) is an example of 'not working' or 'not making it'.

 

Quite the contrary, IMO: it's a perfect example of a band killing it in the situation they are in enough to get the attention of said indie label, and then use the success there to jump up to the big leagues in short order and continue knocking the ball out of the park.

 

You have to understand that in 1988, a band like Nirvana wasn't trying to appeal to the mainstream because that wasn't their target audience, nor was selling gold or platinum status in volume. I would guess that they hoped to sell 5-10k copies of the album AT BEST, because those are the kind of volumes bands like that sold in those days. If they were lucky.

 

To sell 40k copies of Bleach to the small number of people at that time who WERE into that kind of music, especially pre-internet, is an astonishing feat, and ample proof that Nirvana DID work in '88 & '89.

[Yer Blues]

I'm starting to see a trend that guys who were "adults" when AFD came out tend to lump GNR in as just another "hair band", while guys who were teens or younger when AFD came out see GNR as non-genre defying band on par with groups like U2 and AC/DC.

[TrickyBoy]

I was a teen of the 80's - Iron Maiden, Metallica, WASP.. you name it, if it was metal and not too freekin ghey, I LOVED it. Now, to my generation, DISCO was dead, an embarassement to the music community, far too sucky to even play as a joke. Of course in the mid-late 90's it finally became ok to start mashing up "one way or another" and "funky town" and stuff into medleys... So I finally just realized today that a lot of the "hair metal", not so much metallica, but Maiden, Savatage, Helloween, Whitesnake, WASP, TS, etc ..any "schtick" metal band to the teens of the 90's is like disco was to us. Even today, I can't get my other guitarist to even acknowledge some of the amazing solo work of the hair metal guitarists from my generation. It's sad because some of the best guitar work in history was done in the 80's IMO. But even today, it's like musical kryptonite ..

 

 

Back to the OP, but not for nothing, stuff like Maiden and WASP weren't even THAT popular in the 80's. Sure they had followings, but remembering back to all the Battle of the Bands I was in back in the mid to late 80's, the bands that played Poison, Skid Row, Motley Crue, etc. always blew away the bands that played Maiden, WASP, Accept and Priest.

 

Being fair, the average 30 something that's out at a bar drinking with his/her friends is generally going to much rather hear "Nothing But a Good Time" instead of "Flight of Icarus".

 

These days we still play a handful of "hair metal" tunes (Poison, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi) but we don't touch any of the heavier stuff.

[vanlatte]

 

It's also worth remembering that 70's rock/hard rock gave us the New York Dolls, T-Rex, Ziggy Stardust, The Sweet, and so on, to which both the dress and pop sensibility of 80's hair metal surely owes a pretty big debt.

 

 

Wow good call!

 

Sweet was a fantastic band, Desolation Boulevard is still one of my all time favorite albums from beginning to end.

[TrickyBoy]

 

I don't quite understand how a debut album released on a tiny indie label, which sells 40k copies and leads to the band signing a sizable deal with a major (that then puts out a blockbuster album) is an example of 'not working' or 'not making it'. Quite the contrary, IMO: it's a perfect example of a band killing it in the situation they are in enough to get the attention of said indie label, and then use the success there to jump up to the big leagues in short order and continue knocking the ball out of the park. You have to understand that in 1988, a band like Nirvana wasn't trying to appeal to the mainstream because that wasn't their target audience, nor was selling gold or platinum status in volume. I would guess that they hoped to sell 5-10k copies of the album AT BEST , because those are the kind of volumes bands like that sold in those days. If they were lucky. To sell 40k copies of Bleach to the small number of people at that time who WERE into that kind of music, especially pre-internet, is an astonishing feat, and ample proof that Nirvana DID work in '88 & '89.

 

 

Dude, c'mon. Sure 40,000 records is great for an indy band. I'm not arguing that at all. But, the general public as a whole wasn't ready for their music in 88-89 and they would have NEVER achieved the kind of commercial success that they did in 91-92 if Nevermind had been released 3 years earlier.

 

In 88-89, the tide was building for a need for a change, but it wasn't ready yet. I mean, I personally think Uplift Mofo Party Plan and Mothers Milk are the Chili Peppers two best albums, and their sales were modest compared to Blood Sugar Sex Magic. Why??? The public wasn't ready for that type of music yet. By the early 90's, they were.

[BATCAT]

 

I'm starting to see a trend that guys who were "adults" when AFD came out tend to lump GNR in as just another "hair band", while guys who were teens or younger when AFD came out see GNR as non-genre defying band on par with groups like U2 and AC/DC.

 

 

I was in my early teens when it came out and my recollection of it is pretty clear- they were seen, at least among my peers, as a (hard) rock band, not really a "hair band". The hair band stuff was already kind of seen as dated "old stuff" by teens at that point.

[Yer Blues]

Anybody know how many copies of Bleach sold pre and post Nevermind?

[wheresgrant3]

Im going to throw in some TESLA right now, bitches!

TESLA.... terrific band, again not part of the LA rock scene... they {censored}in pioneered MTV-unplugged (5 Man Acoustical Jam) Where would Nirvana be without that. .

[Yer Blues]

I was in my early teens when it came out and my recollection of it is pretty clear- they were seen, at least among my peers, as a (hard) rock band, not really a "hair band". The hair band stuff was already kind of seen as dated "old stuff" by teens at that point.

 

 

I was only 7 when it came out... but I can tell you songs of that album peaked my interest more than other things that were popular at the time. When I got a little older and could buy cds I checked out some of the other bands that were of the same genre and the similarities were minimal. By the time I was in middle school and high school grunge had taken over, but GNR were still very popular. Every kid I knew who was into music had copies of both AFD and Nevermind. I'm pretty sure I knew more kids when I was in elementry/middle school than guys on here who were adults in the early 90s... atleast I hope so.

[Kramerguy]

 

Back to the OP, but not for nothing, stuff like Maiden and WASP weren't even THAT popular in the 80's. Sure they had followings, but remembering back to all the Battle of the Bands I was in back in the mid to late 80's, the bands that played Poison, Skid Row, Motley Crue, etc. always blew away the bands that played Maiden, WASP, Accept and Priest. Being fair, the average 30 something that's out at a bar drinking with his/her friends is generally going to much rather hear "Nothing But a Good Time" instead of "Flight of Icarus". These days we still play a handful of "hair metal" tunes (Poison, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi) but we don't touch any of the heavier stuff.

 

 

I don't disagree. That's always going to be the case when you put pop-genre vs. non-pop-genre regardless of decade or style. I find it amusing and ironic that the pop metal (HAIR) is now the only acceptable metal to play, when in fact it was the root cause of the death of metal, and an embarrassment to most earlier generation metal fans.

 

I've gone OT again, but this thread seems to want to go all over the place anyways, and for good reason.

[Lee Knight]

 

Where are you getting this from? There are tons of clips of early GNR pre-Appetite and there's no dive bombing or finger tapping. I remember reading an article with Clink about AFD where he said everyone wants to know how he got the band to sound like that and he said something like it's just the way they sounded, I didn't do anything magical. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I would genuinely like to read it.

 

 

Sorry I missed this. It was an interview with Clink in either Mix or Sound On Sound or some other recording mag. I wish I could find the article. I think I read it 10 or so years ago. And I didn't mean Slash was dive bombing or tapping. Apparently though, he had a very 80's buzz tone and played a guitar setup for that style and less for what he is known for now.

[Lee Knight]

It's also worth remembering that 70's rock/hard rock gave us the New York Dolls, T-Rex, Ziggy Stardust, The Sweet, and so on, to which both the dress and pop sensibility of 80's hair metal surely owes a pretty big debt.

Well yeah, I think it's clear that Motley Crue and the other bands of that wave were inspired by Ziggy, Iggy, Bolan and the Dolls as far as look and attitude. But what they didn't seem to pickup was the substance lyrically or even musically. Nothing wrong with the fact that they didn't, but that is what made that wave of bands less appealing to me. With the Dolls or Iggy or Bowie, the circus had an almost poetic Bukowski edge to it. With hair metal, it was just pure circus. No deeper than that.

And there's nothing wrong about that, just not my taste.

[Yer Blues]

Sorry I missed this. It was an interview with Clink in either Mix or Sound On Sound or some other recording mag. I wish I could find the article. I think I read it 10 or so years ago. And I didn't mean Slash was dive bombing or tapping. Apparently though, he had a very 80's buzz tone and played a guitar setup for that style and less for what he is known for now.

So tone is not in the fingers?

The story I've heard regarding his sound on AFD was he was using a pointy guitar, but not happy with the sound on tap so his manager picked up a Les Paul (copy) and gave it to him. I've never read/heard anywhere that Clink is the one who suggested he use a Les Paul. There are clips on youtube of GNR in 85-85 prior to his Les Paul days and he still sounds like Slash to me. He said the amp he used was a modded Marshall that belonged to the studio. There's clips on youtube of him using more modern (at the time) Marshall's and he still sounds like Slash. Silver jubilees and JCM 800s... I think he used a 2210 for the 88 Ritz gig that was all over MTV back in the day.

Slash's guitar is only one of the guitars used on AFD. You've got Izzy Stadlin in the other channel. Together there playing on AFD is pretty loose and somewhat jammy. With Adler's drummer it gave the songs a real cool groove. It wasn't too slick (i.e. spot on) and it didn't have multiple tracks of the same guitar part.

[TrickyBoy]

 

I don't disagree. That's always going to be the case when you put pop-genre vs. non-pop-genre regardless of decade or style. I find it amusing and ironic that the pop metal (HAIR) is now the only acceptable metal to play, when in fact it was the root cause of the death of metal, and an embarrassment to most earlier generation metal fans. I've gone OT again, but this thread seems to want to go all over the place anyways, and for good reason.

 

 

It's not that it's the only acceptable metal to play, it's just that if your goal as a band is to appeal to the highest number of people, you're much better off playing Poison as opposed to Maiden...

[Lee Knight]

So tone is not in the fingers? The story I've heard regarding his sound on AFD was he was using a pointy guitar, but not happy with the sound on tap so his manager picked up a Les Paul (copy) and gave it to him. I've never read/heard anywhere that Clink is the one who suggested he use a Les Paul. There are clips on youtube of GNR in 85-85 prior to his Les Paul days and he still sounds like Slash to me. He said the amp he used was a modded Marshall that belonged to the studio. There's clips on youtube of him using more modern (at the time) Marshall's and he still sounds like Slash. Silver jubilees and JCM 800s... I think he used a 2210 for the 88 Ritz gig that was all over MTV back in the day. Slash's guitar is only one of the guitars used on AFD. You've got Izzy Stadlin in the other channel. Together there playing on AFD is pretty loose and somewhat jammy. With Adler's drummer it gave the songs a real cool groove. It wasn't too slick (i.e. spot on) and it didn't have multiple tracks of the same guitar part.

 

So tone is not in the fingers?

 

I think you're aware that tone comes from a lot of things. Attitude, heart, fingers, other technique, and lastly gear. But gear can be either a catalyst for a musical vision and sometimes even a magnet pulling a player in a specific direction.

 

As far as my facts go, I may be completely out to lunch here. But I've been clear as to how I got that info. I'm no G n R's aficionado. But I am very aware of rock and pop lineage. And yeah, I do think the guys had a bit of that Sunset/Hair influence that was downplayed by the time they hit the studio for AFD. And yes, according to Clink, that was the case.

 

It's no slam, btw. I was raised on silly pop. Any decent rock producer would be either toning down or channeling those influences in my sound. I'm suggesting this is like the Bellhop scene in Quadrofenia or anything. We all come from somewhere.

[Kramerguy]

 

I was in my early teens when it came out and my recollection of it is pretty clear- they were seen, at least among my peers, as a (hard) rock band, not really a "hair band". The hair band stuff was already kind of seen as dated "old stuff" by teens at that point.

 

 

My POV at that time:

 

I was 18, hair metal had taken over the scene - bands like Firehouse and Poison and Bov Jovi were king. Led Zep had been dead 10 years, and was sorely missed.

 

Out of nowhere, Welcome to the Jungle comes on MTV - it was gritty, they were dressed down for the level of spandax at that time, but still dressed for the times. The song though, was amazing, raw gritty and powerful, and the conviction in AR's voice .. just angry and powerful as well. I was floored. I ran out and bought the album, only to realize that it was even more raw and powerful, songs like Night Train, My Michelle, and Mr Brownstone .. hell, the whole damn album was a masterpiece!

 

We all kinda knew the landscape was changing, and it was most certainly a welcomed change- It was funny to watch many bands try to duplicate their success and fail, nobody could seem to figure out the right combination of imitation and innovation to make something work in the dying landscape.

 

The hair metal was out of control, and everyone knew it was going to die fast and hard, which it did. I think it took a few years for other bands to catch up- The market certainly stagnated until 90-91, when the heavy alternative morphed into grunge. I remember at that time bands like REM were also making a lot of progress on the lighter side.

 

When I first heard Hole, AIC and STP, Soundgarden, I knew that change finally arrived. I loved AIC's first two albums. HOLE especially floored me with their first album, moreso than ANY nirvana or other alt / grunge album, I'd never heard anything like it before, or really after. I still today listen to it and think it was possibly one of the most under-rated albums of all time. But that's just opinion...

 

Back to GnR, I agree they were a catalyst for change, but became entrenched in their own style and were too unique to be categorized as anything other than "hard rock". AFD is definitely one of those top 5 desert island albums, right up there with Dark Side of the Moon and a few select others

[wades_keys]

It's not that it's the only acceptable metal to play, it's just that if your goal as a band is to appeal to the highest number of people, you're much better off playing Poison as opposed to Maiden...

 

Are you kidding? Maiden had a huge following in the 80's. Especially after 86's "Live After Death". They didn't get the radio play, but Maiden shows were always packed. I saw em at Cinci Gardens and they drew as well as Ratt, Bon Jovi, Motley....All bands I have also seen in same sized venues during their heydays.

 

Don't discount Maiden because of their lack of radio play.

[Yer Blues]

.... Don't discount Maiden because of their lack of radio play.

 

 

He is only discounting them in the venues he plays. Look at the venues you play at or attend as a customer. Do you think Maiden or Poison would go over better for the majority of the crowd there?

[Vito Corleone]

Maiden covers didn't work well for cover bands back in the 80s either.

[wades_keys]

 

Maiden covers didn't work well for cover bands back in the 80s either.

 

True enough.

[kmart]

Dude, c'mon. Sure 40,000 records is great for an indy band. I'm not arguing that at all. But, the general public as a whole wasn't ready for their music in 88-89 and they would have NEVER achieved the kind of commercial success that they did in 91-92 if Nevermind had been released 3 years earlier. In 88-89, the tide was building for a need for a change, but it wasn't ready yet. I mean, I personally think Uplift Mofo Party Plan and Mothers Milk are the Chili Peppers two best albums, and their sales were modest compared to Blood Sugar Sex Magic. Why??? The public wasn't ready for that type of music yet. By the early 90's, they were.

 

Ok, so you define 'making it' and 'working out' as being readily accepted by the mainstream.

 

I don't, and I pretty much guarantee that at the time, Nirvana and Sub Pop didn't either.

Bleach was a total success compared to what came before in the world of alternative.

[kmart]

Anybody know how many copies of Bleach sold pre and post Nevermind?

 

40k before

Roughly 1.7m since (upon re-issue, with bonus tracks,after Nevermind came out)

Biggest selling album for Sub-Pop as I understand it.

[Vito Corleone]

 

40k before Roughly 1.7m since (upon re-issue, with bonus tracks,after Nevermind came out) Biggest selling album for Sub-Pop as I understand it.

 

 

I was working for Tower in those days. We certainly sold a lot of it. There wasn't any question that "Nevermind" was going to be a big deal when it came out although, of course, NO one could have predicted it would be THAT big. But "Bleach" was one of the biggest indie albums at the time and Geffen was certainly planning to work on breaking Nirvana.

 

Trying to remember any bigger indie albums at the time. "Pretty Hate Machine" on, of all things, TVT Records was maybe the biggest indie record I can remember from that late 80s/early 90s period. The first Jane's album on Triple X was pretty big (maybe bigger than Bleach), but that was a couple of years earlier.

[Thy God]

 

Being fair, the average 30 something that's out at a bar drinking with his/her friends is generally going to much rather hear "Nothing But a Good Time" instead of "Flight of Icarus".

 

 

That's NOT being fair. Flight of Icarus isn't a big "Everyone knows it" song of Maiden's. If you inverted it, they'd probably rather hear "Run to the Hills" instead of "Ride the Wind".