Fine, Cobain doesn't get the credit in this instance. But Alice in Chains was a Seattle band, and the grunge movement emerged there. Therefore it's safe to assume they abandoned their hair metal roots to go grunge. Their first demo tape was made for a guy who had produced Soundgarden, so obviously they were moving towards grunge. So I'm not sure what your point is.



I think your misinterpreting my argument. I think it's safe to say here that the only reason the flannel shirts and ripped jeans fashion took off was because of Kurt Cobain, and obviously it was a social trend. But in terms of what it did to transition music away from pretentiousness and drag, it was pivotal. I don't think Kurt expected himself to blow up the way he did (holy shit, pun not intended, though I did catch it as soon as I wrote it), people were just copying him. For Kurt, it wasn't about the way he dressed, it was about the music he made, and that's the most important thing. If your trying to argue that hair metal bands were also concerned with the quality of their music as opposed to their image, your going to have a hard time convincing me. As for Lynch, he hardly qualifies as hair metal. And DeMartini has mad chops, but I've never been a fan of Ratt.

I agree with you that hair metal sucks. But you can't judge music based on how difficult their music may be to replicate. The Beatles music is quite simple.

If you read some of my other points, I touch base on that. I'm not making the claim that simple music isn't good. On the contrary, simplicity can be profound. The problem with hair metal isn't just that it isn't difficult to play, it's also the fact that there's nothing put into the music. It's soulless; a simple regurgitation of a popular trend. At least in my opinion, since Vexer made the argument that the music is "fun."

They couldn't hack it in a style that was on its way out, so they switched to a style that was on its way in. Exhibit A: hair metal and grunge are ad hoc labels, not discrete genres. Exhibit B: grunge has no more intrinsic authenticity than any other musical genre.

Kurt Cobain was pretty pretentious. I am not saying he was a bad musician or that Nirvana was a bad band. But Cobain was hardly the tortured artist, thrust into the spotlight against his will. He was as image-conscious as any other high-profile musician. Just by way of a f'rinstance, the first concert that Cobain ever attended was a Sammy Hagar performance. Cobain later claimed that his first concert was Black Flag. There is a chance that he was simply mistaken, but there is a much better chance that Cobain was selectively portraying his musical history in order to maintain his punk cred. And then there's the matter of the thrift store clothes, which, one can fairly assume, he originally bought because he didn't have the money. Keeping that in mind, he continued to dress in ripped jeans and flannel shirts after Nevermind became a smash hit--not to mention after the retail price of ripped jeans and flannel shirts skyrocketed. Maybe he was just really stuck on that look, but--just maybe--it could be that buying clothes without holes in them might damage his cred. Image-conscious? You bet.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Once again, I am not alleging that he was a bad musician or trying to call Nirvana's status as a good band into question. I am, however, suggesting that Cobain and his contemporaries were just as concerned about their visual presentation and their fickle fans as any other group from any other time period. Rock is a mixture of music and fashion. There has never been a movement in rock that wasn't accompanied by its own lingo, its own style of clothing, its own political concerns, etc. This is perfectly okay. Bands can bother themselves with these extra-musical concerns and still make good music.

Trouble is, if you give that allowance to grunge, you also have to give that allowance to hair metal. A lot of those poodle-haired, lipstick-wearing men of the '80s were pretty damn good musicians with a lot of passion for music. You don't get as good as Paul Gilbert or Billy Sheehan without sincerely loving what you do. If their music was susceptible to the stylistic concerns of the time, that puts them in good company with just about every rock musician ever.

And those who dismiss an entire sub-genre based on the superficial characteristics that necessarily define it are as trend-conscious as the bands they profess to decry.

Well this song sorta describes what i'm talking about. and FYI, not ALL hair bands sing about having sex and what not, believe it or not some of them DO actually have thought provoking lyrics(Extreme being one example)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzv00zvN1M1

All I know is that I'd rather be listening to Slayer.

Paul Gilbert and Billy Sheehan don't count as glam metal, even if they wore lipstick in the 80's. They eclipse so many genres. And don't confuse my statements, I'm not placing all the blame for glam metals suckyness on the fact that they dressed in drag. Moreover, you've continually failed to acknowledge the fact that grunge was pivotal in the transition away from the glam era. It set the stage for the industrial and alternative movements. Glam didn't usher in new eras of music the way grunge did.

Grunge took a satirical and critical look at popular rock and flipped it on it's ass. (see the song "Big Dumb Sex" by Soundgarden). Glam metal did the opposite, it took something good and put it in knee high boots and mascara.

Trends, by definition, peter out. In that sense, they are responsible for what comes after. But only in that sense.

Chicken Huntin' by ICP.

Got to see them for the first time last year. It was slightly disappointing as it seemed they were just going through the motions. Tom Araya also fucked Angel of Death up. You'd think after playing it several thousand times he could at least get it right.

I was lucky enough to play at gig with supporting Testament a few years ago and Paul Bostaph from Slayer was playing drums for them. I was like a kid in a candy shop. Happy days.

I haven't seen Slayer, but I've seen Metallica a couple times, as well as Megadeth and Exodus. Of the three, Exodus was by far the best live. From this very limited information, we might be able to hypothesize that the less good fortune an '80s thrash band has seen, the more they'll put into their live shows. Staying hungry versus getting fat.