Posted by PS on September 10, 2004 at 16:22:02:
In Reply to: Re: The big, hairy debate posted by kle2 on September 10, 2004 at 14:20:43:
: : : I do agree with the "big" hair stipulation. That said, one must also acknowledge that the big hair stigma is quickly and irrevocably aquired, kind of like sin in the garden, if you will. Thus, a single application of Unscented Aqua Net Extra Hold does in fact place one solidly in the category, just as the one bite of Eden-fruit precluded all going back. Sorry, Kim. ;-)
: : ...not to mention lots of spandex...
Spandex (and really tight leather) can be a clue. The ballet and circus contexts must of course be ruled out, as well as those rockers who are trying to be sex objects without the hair-band image.
: Then again most of the hair bands wore women's makeup, i.e. Poison...
Lots of musicians and actors wear stage makeup. Makeup as such is not gender-specific; powder is powder, base is base, eyeliner is eyeliner. The issue is less WHAT is worn, but rather HOW and WHY the makeup is worn.
The first question to ask is whether they are simply trying to look normal under the lights (to keep from being washed out, etc.) and/or trying to cover up imperfections (acne, etc.).
If the answer is no, then the question is whether they are using makeup to look deviant (demonic, shock-rock, transgender, freakish, circus, concept art, performance art, etc.), NOT to look glam, and WITHOUT an emphasis on unnaturally big hair. If so, then they are not hair bands.
For example, Alice Cooper, Boy George, REM, and Blue Man Group all wear makeup, but are clearly not hair bands for various reasons (like being 20 years too early or having no hair).
A tricky distinction is with a band like Kiss, having both big hair and tight leather, but with circus/performance art makeup instead of glam. I would further suggest that they are excluded because of the strong shock-rock nature of their appearance and performance--they are in another genre altogether (see #5 below).
Another tricky distinction is with someone like Robert Smith, who did the big hair thing (hair spray, teasing, etc.) and pseudo-female makeup (lipstick, base, etc.), yet The Cure is clearly not a hair band proper. Why are such teasers and hair spray users exempted?
. (1) Because the makeup does not conform to the common hair-band style, i.e. glam-rock. (In Smith's case, the makeup falls more in the concept art category; the lipstick is uneven and overdone, and the base is far too white. He is not trying to look attractive as much as disturbed.)
. (2) Because the hair does not conform to the common hair-band style. (Smith's hair looks more like a rat's nest than a lion's mane.)
. (3) Because the performance persona does not approximate the arrogant, sensual, exhibitionist big-hair attitude. (Imagine Robert singing "I'm just a gigolo. 'Nuff said.)
. (4) Because the music does not approximate the arena rock to heavy metal style of the hair bands. (This criterion is subjective and can get tricky. If all of the other 4 criteria point to "hair band," I certainly wouldn't disqualify on this criterion alone.)
. (5) Because the artist is solidly assigned to another genre/category of music that precludes identification with the hair band genre. (Here, The Cure is easily excepted, as is Kiss. Now Twisted Sister would be trickier. Is there an "angry glam for sixth-graders" genre?)