what kind of rock music you like better and why?
I much prefer the 80s hair bands cause the music was a lot more fun, carefree, has more of an upbeat, high energy feel to it, the musicians and the vocal harmonies were also a lot better
I despise 80's hair metal. 90's rock was more about actual music and had more depth than 80's.
http://jtrfranklin.wordpress.com/
Randy said it best in The Wrestler:
"Then that Cobain pussy had to come around and ruin it all"
That's because Randy the Ram was a cheeseball loser with bad taste.
Name one 80s hair band "star" who is anywhere remotely close to Cobain in terms of musical and cultural impact.
If you like your music with a healthy dose of spandex and cheese, 80s hair bands are for you.
dude u are talking out of your a@@....david lee roth ..sammy hagar ..axel rose and Joe Elliott are 100 times better than your boy cobain..one thing they all have is they can f~king sing ....cobain can't even sing a damn note
shareOh, I see Kamen...so, David Lee Roth, Sammy Hagar, Axl Rose and Joe Elliot are acclaimed songwriters? They were the focal point of a generational paradigm shift in music?
Laughable.
I'll say it again...
"Name one 80s hair band "star" who is anywhere remotely close to Cobain in terms of musical and cultural impact."
Which one of the four that you mentioned is even close to Cobain in terms of songwriting talent and cultural impact?
None of them.
Sammy Hagar? David Lee Roth? Joe Elliot of Def Leppard? Axl?
You are a perfect hair band cheeseball.
The term "hair" is EXTREMELY incorrect.
There is NO such thing as "hair metal".
What people call "hair metal" is hard rock/heavy metal.
FACT.
And, by the way, Kurt Cobain was, IN FACT, a HORRIBLE musician. He owes ALL of his cultural impact - whatever it is because, as I said, he has NO impact on the music that I listen to - to his suicide. The only really good musician in Nirvana was their drummer - and he is a serious 80-s rock/metal fan.
And hard rock/heavy metal musicians like Jimmy Page, Ritchie Blackmore, Tony Iommy, etc. have a LOT more impact on music and society than Cobain ever had. Also a fact.
Also, the cultural "impact" doesn't matter at all. What matters is the ability to play/sing. Cobain had neither.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
-Tiger 86
Cobain was a "horrible musician"? LOL That is funny. Why, because he didn't do 15 minute solos and wear a cod piece?
He has one of the most distinct voices in the history of music. He was a brilliant songwriter.
Horrible musician? That is funny...I'll take these folks' words about him before yours:
"He had a touch most guitarists would kill for." - Chuck Berry
"The only person I have any respect for as a songwriter over the last 10 years is Kurt Cobain. He was the perfect cross between Lennon and McCartney. He belted it out like Lennon, but his melodies were so Paul McCartney. They were dead bouncy up and down - jolly melodies - but he was a miserable *beep* at the same time." - NOel Gallagher
"He's the most talented person I ever worked with because he was talented in so many different ways. He's a guitar player and a lead singer and he wrote all the songs. He did everything for Nirvana that it took Jimmy Page and Robert Plant to do for Led Zeppelin. Kurt also designed the album covers and wrote treatments for the videos. He even designed the t-shirts. He was really a comprehensive genius when it came to the art of rock and roll." - Danny Goldberg (a huge Zeppelin fan and part of LZ's management group)
"He really, really inspired me. He was so great. Wonderful. One of the best, but more than that. Kurt was one of the absolute best of all time for me." - Neil Young
He owes ALL of his cultural impact - whatever it is because, as I said, he has NO impact on the music that I listen to - to his suicide.
The only really good musician in Nirvana was their drummer - and he is a serious 80-s rock/metal fan.
And hard rock/heavy metal musicians like Jimmy Page, Ritchie Blackmore, Tony Iommy, etc. have a LOT more impact on music and society than Cobain ever had. Also a fact.
Also, the cultural "impact" doesn't matter at all. What matters is the ability to play/sing. Cobain had neither.
Why, because he didn't do 15 minute solos and wear a cod piece?
He has one of the most distinct voices in the history of music.
[deleted]
If Kurt Cobain hadn't killed himself he would have faded into obscurity or wound up on some reality tv show, completely washed up. The fact is that he never got bad, he never got old, he will always be an enduring icon of that period in music.
sharestill talking out of your butt....all those i have mention wrote along with their bands some of the greatest rock albums around
kurt cobain likewise didn't write all the songs either he had Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic..so stop talking like he wrote "nevermind" all himself
Kamen -
"still talking out of your butt....all those i have mention wrote along with their bands some of the greatest rock albums around"
kurt cobain likewise didn't write all the songs either he had Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic..so stop talking like he wrote "nevermind" all himself
moron.....van halen ..def leppard....guns and roses all have not one but 2 greatest rock albums ever made and the good news all those front men are still alive and rocking today and guess what if smell like teen spirit wasn't a big hit nirvana wouldn't had made it ..yea the one song that wasn't written by cobain himself became their biggest hit so nice try too u dummy
shareGrunge is flaccid, weak and sad - kinda like Danielle LaRusso. Who gives a baker's fvck about what Cobain said or did in his time or his cultural impact... He offed himself like the rest of the grunge crew that couldn't handle fame. I'm more of a Dream Theater nut myself but comparing grunge to 80s hair metal isn't even fair. There's a reason that the 80s has been riding this wave of popularity for, oh... 10 years now and do we have a grunge revival? No. Why? Because most of the "stars" killed themselves.
Too bad. So sad.
"Loser! Idiot! Wimp! Degnerate! SSSSSSSSSLUT!!!!"
at Club-shred - DREAM THEATER - now there's a great band !!
"Good for the Tuna" Jerry Seinfeld
Cobain has NO impact on the music that I like.
And I like my music with good guitar playing and good singing - and guitar-playing wise Cobain is on the level of Justin Bieber and singing-wise he is actually worse. And no, I don't like Bieber at all.
Had Cobain not shot himself at the top of his fame he wouldn't be even 1/10 as famous as he is now.
By the way I don't like the term "hair metal" at all. It is hard rock/heavy metal.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Bieber actually has more talent than Kobain did.
Grunge sucked major poophole.
All they had to say was whine, whine, whine - if you don't like your life then kill yourself.
Boo-hoo-f_ckin'-hoo!
Maybe if grungers learned how to play their instruments instead of being posers, they'd have made better music.
It's funny how defensive all the spandex kings are in this thread.
Go dust off your aquanet and refashion your mullets...squeeze into your assless chaps and pretend that cheesy hair metal was quality music.
Because nothing says quality music like Twisted Sister, Quiet Riot, Ratt & Poison.
Bieber has more talent than Cobain did? That's funny.
There's a few threads on The Wrestler's board that are also comparing between 80s and 90s music. I'm team 90s. (or at least early 90s that is)
Hi. I'm an 18-year-old female, so don't call me an idiot.
I used to be a big fan of the 80's stuff for reasons you described, but then I turned 16 and realized I needed to expand from the cheesiness of the hair and glam rock of those days. Nirvana was a very prominent landmark for me musically, and lead me on to discovering newer rock genres such as punk rock. Right now, I would rarely ever listen to those 80's bands, because the 90's music is more complex and interesting to listen to.
Listen to them... children of the night! What music they make..
Complex? More like self-indulgent with no musicality. Three chord whiners who didn't learn to actually play, so they use alternate tunings because they are too damn lazy to practice. The 80s had proficiency, which went out of the window in the 90s.
shareOh, I love the argument that 80s fans are "lazy" and only care about partying and blah, blah, blah... go cry me a flannel river fetch me my Starbucks. My roots go back the 80s and I run my own company and because of the fact that I have people that work for me, I get to sit on IMDb and argue the finer points of hair metal vs. grunge. Again, hair metal, pop metal, heavy metal - whatever - has enjoyed a long resurgence in popularity and grunge hasn't and it probably won't because most of those losers killed themselves.
Will metal ever be the mainstream? No! It wasn't even back then. There were pop bands disguised as metal bands that died off... who cares? You wanna REALLY bring up the hairspray argument here? The average Ratt fan may indeed have doused themselves in hairspray but I'll bet green money that the average flaccid and weak grunge pansy also dug The Cure as well. Yeah... Robert Smith NEVER used hairspray.
ROFL - oh my God! You grunge folk are soooooooooo deep!
Without me really getting out my grunge-bashing hammer - I will admit that grunge had its place and (to a degree) its cultural impact, but it obviously had no staying power. The 90s were a time of many different styles of music becoming popular. Jesus Christ, freakin' Disco came back with a vengeance. That's embarrassing in itself.
I think by the time the 2000's had started, people were tired of whining.
"Loser! Idiot! Wimp! Degnerate! SSSSSSSSSLUT!!!!"
[deleted]
Nobody is making movies about grunge music. That crap sucked.
The only claim to fame the 90s had was complaining about the 80s, so what does that tell us? People like fun music more than wallowing in self-pity and even those wallowing in self-pity secretly admire fun music.
First, it is better to worship Jon Bon Jovi - a man with an actual great singing and playing talent - than to worship a drug addict with no recognizable music talents who killed himself after he accidentally got famous.
Second, your music tastes do not define your intelligence. There is NO correlation, actually.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
First, it is better to worship Jon Bon Jovi - a man with an actual great singing and playing talent - than to worship a drug addict with no recognizable music talents who killed himself after he accidentally got famous.
Second, your music tastes do not define your intelligence. There is NO correlation, actually.
[deleted]
An actual "great singing talent? Laughable. Cobain's voice is far more distinctive than Bon Jovi's.
A person with a vast knowledge and appreciation of Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and other classical music does represent a correlation with intelligence especially when compared with people who listen to Lil Wayne.
tiger -
lol....thanks for the good laugh with that Bon Jovi clip.
So let me say this again, since you missed it the first time:
"Cobain's voice is far more distinctive than Bon Jovi's."
that was what I said. *DISTINCTIVE*.
Are you saying Bon Jovi, in his sleeveless leather vest playing rhythm guitar and singing is better than Kurt playing guitar and singing? Funny.
Obviously, you have never really watched or listened to Nirvana other than maybe about 5 songs.
Kurt has had plenty of nice solos...the difference is, solos are not the centerpiece of Nirvana's music and as such, they are not particularly complex. To suggest that one absurd little solo that Bon Cheesy played is better than "EVERYTHING Cobain has ever played in his life" is funny in the extreme.
Kurt's riffs, melodies and hooks were better than anything JBJ could come up with, since JBJ needed Richie Sambora to do all the guitar parts anyway.
In fact, the short solos on these Nirvana songs are quite impressive....far more so than any little solo Jon Bon has ever done.
Sappy
Heart Shaped Box
Look them up.
When I see Jon Bon Jovi play like this in concert and come up with any songs, as heavy as some of Nirvana's, I'll come on over to your side of the equation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXYymL5V7A
Bon Cheesy is all about big hair, flashy lights, bad clothing, lame image, making money and generic cock-rock.
Kurt was the antithesis to all that, which explains why Bon Jovi fans (and MOtley Crue fans and Posion fans) hate Kurt so much...since Kurt represents everything Jon Bon Jovi (and the other hair farmers) never were even remotely close to.
Bon Jovi could never come up with a single song as raw, gritty, dark and heavy as any of these songs:
Heart Shaped Box
Radio Friendly Unit Shifter
You Know You're Right
Frances Farmer
Aneurysm
Pennyroyal Tea
Nothing as soft and mournful as these songs:
Polly
Dumb
All Apologies
Something in the Way
and nothing as catchy as the big ones you know.
and that doesn't even count all their other amazing tunes...go and educate yourself.
Kurt & Nirvana were raw, unpolished and honest.
JBJ & BJ was calculated, packaged velveeta who had to make sure they never took the stage without their headbands, spandex & cutoff jean vests.
JBJ was an act
Kurt was an artist.
Big difference.
u still smokin crack ?..cobain in one million years couldn't match the skills of eddie van halen or slash..the 80's had some of the greatest guitar players ever...cobain was average at best
sharehey kamen...none of us said Cobain could match the guitar playing skills of Van Halen or Slash. Few can. Cobain may indeed have been an "average" technical guitarist...but he was an exceptional songwriter
Neither Eddie Van Halen or Slash could match Cobain as a songwriter in one million years...and I actually liked some of the early Van Halen stuff, when I was about 10, in 1981
As an Eddie Van Halen fan yourself, surely Cobain's greatness is testified to by the pathetic way in which Eddie van Halen drunkenly groveled on his knees to Cobain to let EVH come on stage and play with Nirvana, back in 1993? You probably never heard that story. Look it up.
If you thought Eddie Van Halen is great and he thought Nirvana and Cobain were great and begged to play with them, what does that say about what you know about skills? (oh and of course EVH was a racist a-hole who then insulted Pat Smear's race/ethnicity that same night)
Jesus Christ, I feel like a Justin Bieber fan is trying to argue with me.
Dude, "distinctive" does NOT equal "good". It never did. "Distinctive" is a matter of opinion.
Kurt's riffs, melodies and hooks were better than anything JBJ could come up with,
since JBJ needed Richie Sambora to do all the guitar parts anyway.
When I see Jon Bon Jovi play like this in concert and come up with any songs, as heavy as some of Nirvana's, I'll come on over to your side of the equation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXYymL5V7A
Tiger I am sure you would like to be arguing with a Bieber fan, since they are young, stupid and did not actually live through the 70s, 80s and 90s.
That way you could easily outwit them, since they know nothing of quality music and pre-fabricated hair cheese.
I never said distinctive equalled good. It changes nothing. Neil Young did not have a good voice, neither did Dylan. They are legends. So is Cobain.
and Kurt's melodies, riffs and hooks were in *FACT* better than anything JBJ came up with, since JBJ could not actually come up with any, without help from Richie Sambora.
You claim that JBJ is so much more talented than Cobain, just because JBJ plays a bit of rythym guitar and stands around in a sleeveless vest.
You were talking about "singing and playing technique".
Well aren't you clever. Nowhere did I say Cobain's technique was so great. Plenty of famous musicians are not highly technical guitar players. Hello Paul McCartney, Neil Young, etc.
"Cobain is just NOT a technically good guitar player - he doesn't play clean, he makes mistakes very often and his solos and riffs are in general very easy to play."
Oh, so he does not play clean and makes mistakes very often? So? Jimmy Page is my favorite guitarist of all time. A virtuoso, with amazing capabilities...I have dozens of Zep bootlegs, and Page is a mess in most of them. Drunk, High, Sloppy, making mistakes, missing notes. Do you deny that?
Does that make him less of a guitarist? Nope.
If I want technical nous instead of soul, you are right, I could listen to any lame 80s guitarist who can rip off 10 minute solos and convey zero emotion, feeling or raw energy in their music.
Besides, I'll say it again...Chuck Berry is a legend and his word means more than yours. He said "again" - Cobain had a touch most guitarists would kill for.
Chuck Berry 1 - You 0
"in this song Cobain does NOT demonstrate good singing technique - no vibrato, no clean singing, just yelling at the microphone... "
LOL...technique! technique! If i want technique in singing, I'll listen to Celine Dion.
No vibrato!?!?!?! Oh my god! What will we do with no vibrato in a song! Nirvana will just have to figure out how to make music without a singer who is not demonstrating is command of vibrato!
Hang Dylan, Young, Jagger and all the rest of those vibrato less legends and elevate Bon Jovi to king of vibrato...because *EVERYONE* knows that if a rock star is not singing vibrato, then he really is no good!
and no, comparing genres is not pointless at all.
Are you telling me it takes more talent to be a lame pop star like Justin Timberlake and churn out the occasional electronic dance pop nonsense, or does it take more talent to be Ritchie Blackmore and absolutely create and define a sound?
You are telling me that comparing say, J.Lo & Katy Perry's music to say, Eric Clapton is "pointless"? There is talent and there is fluff and they exist in certain genres more than in others.
"By the way I am not even a Bon Jovi fan - they are too "pop" for my taste. But they are very good musicians and very good performers. If you don't like them - fine. But denying that is just plain stupid."
well as you are fond of saying that is opinion, not fact, no? Your opinion counts as fact, but mine does not? That is funny.
and I never said they were not good musicians. I simply said that JBon Jovi is nowhere near Cobain as an artist, songwriter and in terms of cultural impact. Which is a fact, regardless of JBJ's "vibrato". They are still total cheese and that is a fact.
"I also happen to like many technically bad singers - like Ozzy Osbourne or Alice Cooper - but that doesn't stop me from seeing they are not Luciano Pavarotti."
Kindly point out where I ever said Kurt Cobain was comparable as a singer to Pavarotti or anyone else known to have a truly amazing voice. Neil Young, Dylan, Clapton, Hendrix were not good singers...Doesn't stop me liking them, or seeing that they are not Pavarotti.
You just can't handle my original point, which is that Cobain is a more talented songwriter, far bigger cultural impact maker and far more honest, far less cheesy, far rawer artist than Jon Bon Jovi.
Fact.
You claim that JBJ is so much more talented than Cobain, just because JBJ plays a bit of rythym guitar and stands around in a sleeveless vest.
There are a lot of close-minded people in this thread quoting their subjective ideals across as fact.
As a pro musician performing for over 22 years, let me chime in with a few things Ive learned over the years, both on and off stage...
If you want an accurate comparison of what was better for music - the 90's or the 80's, its a stupid and subjective question - but you should start by asking only those who lived through both periods as a teenager or young adult, ie people born around 1971-1976, etc
To not live the vibe of the 80's immediately lessens its impact and would certainly make it more difficult to appreciate out of context. Don't forget that both glam rock and grunge were eclipsed by even bigger styles of music in their time. They both, too had the benefit of large followings which originally started underground until the corporate music elite decided to make it mainstream.
...If you think 80's music was made with no skill or meaning to the songs, you're a fool. Similarly, if you believe Nirvana avoided anything corporate, you're a bigger fool.
Don't try to judge either style against another. Every decade has birthed great music, and throwaway trash, songs that span the eras, and some that are gone in a blink. The individual is the only one who can decide which songs from which era belong in which pile.
Peace
If you think 80's music was made with no skill or meaning to the songs, you're a fool.
Reading this post is kinda funny because most people I know were happy to see all the lite-metal hair bands disappear in the early 1990's. Nobody minded that Motley Crue, Poison, Def Leppard, Sammy's Van Halen, solo David Lee Roth, Bon Jovi, etc. were not culturally important in the nineties. While some of the songs were great singles, everybody knew they weren't going to last. Grunge was great for about 5 years although we knew they would burn out in most cases. I always figure gangsta rap have the longest term impact although most of the artist would come and go.
Yes some of the hair bands are still around and having successful tours but it is really just an 'oldies' fan base anymore. (Wow! David is back with Van Halen.
[deleted]
Oh. My. God. pankoeken is so clever! You so nailed me. I guess I'll just hang my head in shame.
For the hours I put in behind a desk, having a lawn care business would be refreshing.
"Loser! Idiot! Wimp! Degnerate! SSSSSSSSSLUT!!!!"
A few of things I noticed about this whole thread.
The biggest problem with the 80's fans is that many of them equate POPULARITY with GOOD MUSIC. They are NOT the same thing. There were a LOT of great metal acts in the 1980's -- JUDAS PRIEST, IRON MAIDEN, METALLICA, MEGADETH, MOTORHEAD, etc. I wouldn't dare call any of these bands "hair bands." But there was also a lot of CRAP -- BON JOVI, POISON, MOTLEY CRUE, RATT, FIREHOUSE, SLAUGHTER, CINDERELLA, WARRANT, etc. MOTLEY CRUE walked that "fine line" but I wouldn't put them on the same level as a MOTORHEAD or MAIDEN. And yes, their aging fans can argue that a lot of these bands are still popular. But think about it, none of these acts have released a GREAT album in decades, and they're just touring playing the same old tired songs over and over again. It's almost like the modern version of an oldies show -- againg fans that fear new music so they listen to what's familiar.
I myself grew up in the 80's (born in '71). I NEVER got the appeal of the hair bands. I spent the early part of the decade listening to new wave and the latter part of the decade listening to the likes of the CURE, the SMITHS, DEPECHE MODE, VIOLENT FEMMES, etc. This was music that was never popular (in this country anyway), but it wasn't meant to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" like corporate metal was. I'm still a rabid new music fan. I just left the mainstream decades ago.
Move onto the 90's and there were a lot of great "grunge" bands -- NIRVANA, SOUNDGARDEN, MUDHONEY, PEARL JAM (I guess), etc. But there were also a lot of crappy bands that rode the grunge wave -- SPONGE, LIVE, BUSH, STONE TEMPLE PILOTS, etc. I would say the GOOD 90's stuff has definitely aged better, and is far superior music. Granted, it's NOT as much fun and is NOT as popular but it was never meant to be. Again POPULAR doesn't necessarily mean BETTER. Bands like the BEATLES and NIRVANA were flukes -- groups that experienced perfect timing that allowed a great band to receive the accolades they truly deserved.
But looking at just the 80's, do you mean to tell me POISON are better than the REPLACEMENTS because they sold more records? Not on your life! CINDERELLA are superior to THE PIXIES because the former had a Top Ten hit? No way!
Again -- substance will always rule over image. Whether that's the "popular" opinion or not.
@ FLASHWOK
Nirvana----> Yes they had a big impact mainly because of angry teens that wanted to say something they believed was right. They were somekind of protesters.That alone doesn't make them good musically and NO Cobain couldn't sing! Just admitt it.
Another band, Sex Pistols also had a great impact mainly beacause of another rebel who had an appeal to teens, yes that is Sid Vicious.
Another band, The Doors also had great impact, guess what another rebel was there and he died young too.
To summarize find the similarities, all rebels, all died, all of their fans respectively believe that they were the biggest bands, and you know what, they where because you, me, your father your friend that guy from china, the other one from England and that other guy in GReece made them the biggest bands.
This is undoubtely true. What you can't seem to realize is that NO Cobain couldn't sing, NO he couldn't play, YES he had an impact BUT because he was a rebel and a drug addict which is always cool when you are a teen and it is always cool when you are a teen to look sad and different from the others.
Cobain was the emo of the 90's.
He was a pussy FACT!
Put "gaylord" looking Dee Snider in a ring he with him he would beat the *beep* out of him.Cobain was an emo pussy and YES I LIKED HIM WHEN I WAS 16 AND IM PROUD I LIKED HIM. BUT HE WAS TALENTLESS in every way! Nirvana wrote 2 or 3 catchy tunes simple to the ear with angry false note guitars that was rebelious we loved it!
The Doors were rebels but they wrote some great songs which CObain never could as a teen i didnt like The DOors you know why because they werent on my era if they were i would be No1 fan. But as i got older and my anger issues slipped i realized they actually wrote some music.They were the era's emo's too.
Pistols wrote mostly crap also but happy crap that's why they are more popular in our days they were happy rebels at least in their songs and they were emo too but happy emos.
80's glam bands on the other hand unlike Nirvana could actually sing and play FACT, you have to be an idiot if you say that Bon jovi is a worse singer than Cobain , he simply is NOT.
Do i like 80's glam bands? YES I DO and i didactually like them but i was so agry and a rebel that i would look to pussy to even admitt it to myself.
They actually wrote music and they could sing.They talked mostly about love, you dont like love? Then go to your first date and play to your girl territorial pissings yes she would love that over the Runaway.
Or are you so deep thinking that you dont want a girlfriend bcause its gay.
Glambands wrote nice melodies melodies that are nice to the ear.If you are deaf go to the doctor
You know a grunge band that wrote good music? Pearl Jam even though they are boring as hell in my opinion ,guess what they actually could play and sing. Another one Alice in Chains, can;t even compare them.
Grunge was mainly a movement NOT a music style that is why those 3 big grunge bands sound so different even though they are all grunge.
So stfu listen to all music becase everything is good depnding the moment or be the sad agry person that likes nothing and everyone is stupider than him and nobdy likes him except other 20-30-40-teen sad people.
[deleted]
"Popularity does not equal quality or talent."
You just shot yourself in the foot - Nirvana are the POSTERBOYS of that statement - Curt Kobain had LESS talent than most of those 'hair metal' musicians. It's fittig that you say that Popularity does not equate into quality or talent as Nirvana were more popular than several of the 'hair metal' bands yet were actually WORSE when you compare the quality of their music - especially when you compare Nirvana to TRULY innovative music performed by bands like Therapy?, Helmet and Monster Magnet (ANOTHER thing I hated about Grunge - the REALLY talented bands - with the exception of Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam never got their dues) - composed of people who had MAJOR real-life problems when compared to Kobain. There's plenty I dislike about Grunge - many of the people involved were bigger posers than the hair metal guys but get a pass as they used less hairspray (check out that moron Chris Cornell who cut a sh!te POP album with Timbaland! of all people) but what sticks in my craw is that one of the charges that Grunge fans like to throw at the hair bands is that they had more credibility as musicians - which is hogwash as most of the 80s guys were career musicians who paid their dues for years before making it big in the 80s - unlike johnny-come-lately like Bush.
Kobain and his band were nothing but a watered-down version of all those 'dangerous' punk bands like Killing Joke (Nirvana even copied a Killing Joke bass riff for 'Come As You Are') that the corporates needed to get rid of hair metal as the genre wasn't a cash cow anymore and many of the principals like Bon Jovi were slowly realizing that they didn't need big label backing to sell records - plus a lot of the hair metals guys were going sober (which meant less profit for all the label bosses who got back their advances through drug trafficking and by turning their artists into addicts) which meant that they FINALLY started going through their accounts wondering why they were still broke and realizing that the labels were screwing them over (something MOST hip-hoppers/rappers STILL haven't cottoned on to) - and asking questions like hey, who exactly owns the master tapes of all my recordings?! So they had to go. Just because Nirvana ushered in a new era doesn't necessarily mean that the new era had better music. The just created a new formula to make music which rendered the old one obsolete. Grunge made rock so unsexy that it paved the way for worse musical genres like Dance, hip-hop and boy bands to become big in the 90s - are you going to say that 'boy bands' were better musically than Grunge?!!!
80s hair bands!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's a no brainer for me. The music was just far far better.
this face, the infection which poisons our love
You like harder, angstier, more depressing, noisier sounding stuff. Great. But it doesn't mean it is better or deeper or more artistic. It mostly just doesn't mean too much anything at all. (Also, some of it is even, objectively, simpler, although some is not.)
so the smiths,depeche mode,the cure were never populer[in this country anway] hope ur not from the uk as they had alot of hit singles+albums in that era
shareOne good thing that came out of grunge was that you no longer had to dress and keep your hair like a tranny to get signed.
shareSmiths, Depeche Mode, Cure WERE popular in America in the eighties. we called that music "New Wave" and/or "Goth" back then, coming off the Punk scene of the late seventies.
It comes off of an Elvis Costello / Knack etc vibe, with the Stray Cats in there somewhere...
"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"
This post by mevans-19 (Tue Jun 12 2012 12:47:53) is the one I agree with by the way. :)
...
I myself grew up in the 80's (born in '71). I NEVER got the appeal of the hair bands. I spent the early part of the decade listening to new wave and the latter part of the decade listening to the likes of the CURE, the SMITHS, DEPECHE MODE, VIOLENT FEMMES, etc. This was music that was never popular (in this country anyway), but it wasn't meant to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" like corporate metal was.
....
"Haha!" - Nelson Muntz ... pointing at you! :P
Three chord whiners who didn't learn to actually play
80s hair by far!
share80s brought us thrash metal, new wave of british heavy metal, first wave of black metal, speed/power metal and, yes, glam metal. 90s brought us grunge, industrial and rap/nu metal (god help us) oh and then emo, which somehow manages to squeeze its way into metal sections in music shops (god only knows why)
share[deleted]
Math PhD - don't like grunge, don't think grunge is complex
I like 80s bands. In addition, I have a M.Ed. and I'm currently working on my Ph.D unlike many of my friends from the early 90s barely making a life for themselves. Your theory is terrible, at best.
I must warn you. I'm very susceptible to flattery.
80's hair metal is supreme over 90's grunge, just for the fun factor! But 80's hair metal was just a slice of the decade's vast metal/hardrock/progressive genre, all of which I love!
As a teen, I despised the early 90's grunge scene. If music is dark and depressing, it should at least be sensual; so I listened to Depeche Mode and the like, a lot. After Cobain's suicide and Pearl Jam refused to go commercial with their Vitalogy album, the popularity of grunge died down and left behind a very mature landscape for rock. For example, the mid 90's Brit-Pop explosion of Blur, Oasis, London Suede, Elastica, Sleeper, etc., was so much more enjoyable and memorable to me than grunge.
Regarding Pearl Jam refusing to go commercial, I would honestly, much rather have grunge be what it is and not be popular, then have Pearl Jam do something they don't like and end up doing what Kurt, unfortunately, wound up doing. I really wish Kurt had stayed around and made more awesome music, I really wonder what he could have made had he not died. Would it have been as popular now as it was in those days? No, but Pearl Jam isn't as popular now in those days, and the true fans stick by and still go to shows, which Nirvana/Kurt fans still would have done, if he hadn't hated it so much (not just the selling-out part, but he just hated everything in general: his stomach problems, his psychological problems, his drug problems, doubts as a father, bad childhood, etc. he just wanted his life to end, sadly).
Hi. I'm an 18-year-old female, so don't call me an idiot.
I much prefer 90s grunge. In my opinion the 90s bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains, even if they are not around anymore, still made around the same amount of impact from 1991-94(maybe even past that for the bands that aren't Nirvana, RIP Kurt) that most of the hair bands made in their time. Pearl Jam is still (no pun intended) alive, and they still make albums, and they still tour, and they're still amazing. The 80s bands, like KISS, Motley Crue, Poison, they might still be together, but their music is not the same at all. Even Guns N Roses (or Rose n Roses nowadays) have clearly not had the lasting effects due to their 'creative differences' or whatever.
I don't like grunge because "it's cool" or "it's emo", I just really like the way it sounds and such. Emo is stupid guys acting all depressed to be cool. Kurt was depressed in real life, and it translated into, what ending up becoming, 'cool' music. Was Cobain the greatest guitarist? No. Could he sing? I actually really like his voice. He may not have had the greatest range, but if you listen to him on Unplugged, it's obvious that he can sing 100000000000000000x better than everyone from today. Most of the so called "rock" singers of today just scream. In some songs like Scentless Apprentice, sure, it was mainly screaming, but in most of the hits (Come as You Are, Lithium, Rape Me), I think his voice sounds really nice in those songs. His voice wasn't shrieky either, like Axl Rose or Steven Tyler (although I actually like him, but in some songs he was definitely a shrieker).
Hi. I'm an 18-year-old female, so don't call me an idiot.
Hey guys, this is going to sound really crazy but......*gulp*...........*drumroll*..........
.....I ACTUALLY LIKE THEM BOTH!!!! CRAZY, HUH???!!
No but seriously, they're apples and oranges. Hair metal is shallow party music and grunge is more melancholic and a lot more thought provoking. I really like both genres.
BEST ONLINE FILM CRITIC =http://www.youtube.com/user/JeremyJahns?feature=watch
I really see no problem with that at all. People can have diverse likes of music. They're both good in their own ways. When I exercise, I tend to listen to more upbeat music (mostly 80s, but not just metal, I also like the new wave stuff, as well as Madonna and MJ) and when I'm just listening to music just for the sake of listening to music, I like grunge.
Hi. I'm an 18-year-old female, so don't call me an idiot.
[deleted]