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??
3 Responses
it’s a good catch-all, and ironically denotes a degree of mastery of music as opposed to “post pop punk” ….so I’ll take it at this point. You are a great musician, and not pretentious, in other words…(and I never was…just because some people aren’t bright enough to understand me)..
I do not like it at all. I think it takes away from just how good the music is! It’s almost as if the term is saying these bands were only popular because of their hair when in fact the hair was just a small part of the equation. I think the hard rock and metal music from the 80’s is the best that was ever made. It just took rock n roll to another level that has not been matched since. I prefer to reference it as 80’s hard rock or 80’s metal. The music is that good that it truly deserves to be separated from other eras. But the hair term gotta go.
I listen to Sirius XM’s Hair Nation when I’m in my truck along with Ozzy’s Boneyard. I believe bands like Queensryche & Night Ranger sounded different than most of the 80’s hard rock and metal bands. I feel like they should be played on Ozzy’s Boneyard instead of Hair Nation. Just my opinion. Thank you, Dana, for a great question.
I think it’s immature, irrelevant terminology! Most bands in the ’70s had long hair and were never referred to as “hair metal,” in the ’80s bands like Metallica and Megadeth were also referred to as “hair metal” because of the length of their hair, not their music, silly, idiotic, meaningless term!