Just like Eddie, I hate it. I think it describes a look NOT a sound, and also pigeon holed a lot of bands under oner large umbrella, where many did not belong. For example Tesla was considered a “hair band,” really??
Just like Eddie, I hate it. I think it describes a look NOT a sound, and also pigeon holed a lot of bands under oner large umbrella, where many did not belong. For example Tesla was considered a “hair band,” really??
12 Responses
Ron Keel recently did a segment on “hair metal”. This is the definition that his followers voted as “hair metal”: “Hair Metal is big hair teased out to the stratosphere, flamboyant clothing, spandex, eye liner, catchy heavy songs with big pop hooks, memorable choruses, attitude, party atmosphere, choreographed stage moves, and great musicianship.” Though, how we each define it is subject to our own thoughts.
Personally, I’m bothered by the term “hair metal”. I think its stupid, cuz it’s supposed to be about the music. What also bothers me is when rock bands like Tesla and Scorpions getting classified by it, and they’re not “hair metal”….they’re just great rock n roll bands. And then you have bands like KI$$, Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest who went through the so called “hair metal” phase in the mid 80’s, but they generally escape that term cuz of their other eras.
When I hear the term “hair metal”, I generally expect the band to be “no talent hacks”. Based on my definition, very few bands would be classified as “hair metal”. And at risk of offending anyone, I’ll keep my “no talent hack” list to myself.
I have no issue with it. This is like Donald Fagen having a meltdown over someone saying Steely Dan is now considered Yacht Rock. The distinguishing features of Hair Metal bands was their over-the-top teased and hair-sprayed hair (hence, Hair Metal), Spandex and leather clothes, gang vocal sing/song choruses, and overproduced albums with more reverb on the drums than the hairspray on their heads. Yes, some of them were technically brilliant at their instruments, but ultimately, most became part of a homogenous sound and marketing plan – release a rockin’ but catchy single/video, release a power ballad, release an album track.
Were they also Hard Rock and Heavy Metal? Yes. Hair Metal is a sub-genre of Hard Rock/Heavy Metal. That’s why Motley Crue and Metallic are both Hard Rock/Heavy Metal, but only one of them is also Hair Metal.
Ultimately, does it matter what the label is? It’s a way for people to categorize music. If you like the song, the album, and the band, what difference does it make? And some Hair Metal bands have outlived the trend – ex. Motley, Ratt, Poison, etc.
Finally, I don’t understand what all the embarrassment is for old-timers who deny the term. Have you noticed the crazy number of bands and individual musicians on Instagram who are actually reviving Hair Metal? Hair Metal must’ve gotten something right!
In my humble opinion, as I wrote in my comment, it makes a difference for several reasons:
1. It’s meant to be a disparaging term.
2. It describes a LOOK, not a SOUND. What chord is hair metal and who defines what that is?
3. Many bands who did not have a traditional hair metal appearance (Tesla, etc.) got lumped into that category, and may not have been take seriously, as musicians, because of the negative connotation.
Just my two cents…