Posted by cav on September 11, 2004 at 00:33:31:
In Reply to: ok, now that my wife has thrown me solidly under the bus... posted by the dave on September 10, 2004 at 20:36:33:
You know that whole mental masturbation thing Chip used to say... I don't think i can describe this thread and keep it PG rated. As fun as it was to read it :\ I think in reality the whole process of categorizing these musical styles in such detail is flawed at the root. It's the same problem biologists have taxonimizing organisms...the organisms don't care what category their in. It's not like mathematics where the practicioners are trying to unravel some universal code that is a backbone for the universe, we simply trying to create a system after the fact with enough boxes to hold each group in some sort of logical order that lets us talk about them in some orderly fashion. To make matters worse, we're talking about Rock & Roll for God's sake... the whole industry is designed around taking influences (because we all grew up with something) and making it into something as different and noticable as possible, in some cases out of artisitc ambition, but more often than not, so it will sell records. Hence, Bowie and others decided to wear women's clothes... it got sales, and shock-rock, and hair bands, and bad-boy rock... and even Twisted Sister (hey, no one said the gimick actually had to work).
Anyway my point is, we'll never be able to lock the music scene into such detailed boxes, because the devils won't sit in the box long enough...as soon as they realize their getting holed, they do something to break out...it's the nature.
Now if we were going to debate rock history and development, that would be possible, because it could graph out as a tree with inumerable branches. Honestly, I've always wanted to see a complete tree of the development of rock, but I haven't been able to locate one. There's lots of single line histories, but nothing that starts back with swing and the likes of Chuck Berry and moves out to the Cure, Dave Matthews, and Avril Lavigne...no wait, we can't count a rocker who isn't even potty trained yet.
: There are several categories that make up (pardon the pun) a hair band.
: 1) musical - this is the main component. Hair bands are defined by screaming guitar solos and vocals. I don't think I have to spend any time justifying how gnr would fit into this aspect. Another classic sign of a hair band is the power balad - i.e. sweet child o mine and november rain. There is also the element of very large drum sets and a heavy emphasis on the lead guitar rather than on the rythym section in the album mix
: 2) lifestyle - what band possibly could exceed gnr in the lifestyle of excessive sex, drugs, and rock n roll? Also, the large stadium tours with elaborate stage shows and huge theatrical videos (compare any nirvana video with any gnr video, axle swims with dolphins for pete's sake!)
: 3) time period - obviously, late 80's, early 90's
: 4) location - musical genres are often defined by the area in which they developed. this would be equivalent to the rap genres of east coast, west coast and dirty south, the artists are defined by there hometown so to speak. much like grunge and seattle, r.e.m. type alternative and atlanta, and latin pop and miami, hair band and los angeles go together. gnr originated in the clubs of l.a.
: 5) appearance - this is important, but not required. the lead singer of scorpions was bald on top as was rex carrol of white cross (the ultimate Christian hair band - i say this because i consider Stryper a glam band, not a hair band although the argument could be made either way. if they are a hair band, they are 1 and white cross is 2, but i digress)
: While a band does not have to fit all 5 of these, they would have to fit the majority. GNR definitely fits in with most, if not all, of these categories (especially if you agree with PS's Eden-fruit argument, which i do) Examples - 1) Staind does nothing but power balads, but they have a healthy emphasis on the rythym section and they are not from the late 80's early 90's 2) the darkness - i think the argument could be made that they are either a hair/glam band out of their time or a beautiful attempt at retro
: Was GNR a great band? if you consider the album sales, ticket and merchandise sales, and radio hits that they have had, then yes they were a great band. if you go by talent and artistic quality, the argument could easily be made that they had a lot of talent and made big artistic statements (disturbing art, not pretty art)
: Regardless of how much one likes or dislikes GNR, one must admit that they are a hair band. Otherwise, they would either be a grunge band or in a class all by themselves. either of these would be rock n roll heresy, and all the congregation howled.