“IMWAN for all seasons.”



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  ( Next )
Author Message
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:32 am 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105341
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
I've actually been getting into Hair Metal lately thanks to SiriusXM's Hair Nation channel. I used to think it was super fruity but now that I listen to the music without seeing the outfits and make-up, I can appreciate the music a lot more, especially the guitar parts (though I still hate 80s drum production).

Anyway, I was chatting with my dad and one of my best friends this past weekend and brought up that I think 80s Van Halen sounds just like Hair Metal to me and I'm not sure why people act like it's not. Of course, they thought I was way off base. So I sent them this evidence. I don't see what the difference between these kind of songs and 80s Van Halen is --










Now listen to this and tell me what's so different (and look what they're wearing in that second video!) --






I mean, really -- what's the difference between Warrant's Cherry Pie and Van Halen's Hot for Teacher (other than their drummer was awesome and guitarist was the elite of the genre)?


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 12485
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Hair metal is a very broad term. Sometimes I see the Scorpions listed as Hair Metal and sometimes Guns N Roses too. Usually Hair Metal for me means Kix, Winger, Slaughter, White Lion, etc. But Hair Nation paints a much broader stroke.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:43 am 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105341
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
Brandon wrote:
Hair metal is a very broad term. Sometimes I see the Scorpions listed as Hair Metal and sometimes Guns N Roses too. Usually Hair Metal for me means Kix, Winger, Slaughter, White Lion, etc. But Hair Nation paints a much broader stroke.

Not just Hair Nation -- Google "Hair Metal Bands".

While Van Halen won't be listed, or played on Hair Nation, Scorpions and GNR are listed.


Last edited by Hanzo the Razor on Mon May 15, 2017 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 12485
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
But to answer your question about Van Halen, I think some people think they are too good to be labeled as a Hair Metal band. But they certainly fit the qualifications for it.

And there is no genre I wish to make a comeback more than glam metal complete with Power ballads. It would make my day to see a resurgence.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:44 am 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105341
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
Quote:
Van Halen invent hair metal

That debut was nothing short of a paradigm shift in the sound of heavy music, as important as Jimi Hendrix's first record had been a decade before, and Nirvana's second would be in closing the era Van Halen began. It sounded like nothing before it, yet also like it could have been made at any time until Nevermind was released 13 years later: that's an awfully long time to sound undated. But the bands Van Halen spawned, sadly, were pallid imitators without Van Halen's invention and skill. Van Halen had transformed rock by unwittingly creating music's most profitable rubbish dump.

The difference between Van Halen and the hair metallers who followed was what always separates game-changers from imitators: their wide listening habits. In his first big interview, Eddie Van Halen explained: "Dave our singer doesn't even own a stereo. He listens to the radio, which is a good variety … Most of our songs you can sing along with, even though it does have the peculiar guitar and end-of-the-world drums."

Not that Roth cared about being refracted through hair metal. In fact, he boasted, that wasn't the real extent of Van Halen's influence. As he told the writer Lisa Robinson in 1984, at the peak of the band's powers: "I know for a fact that to a small degree, we've bred a small legion of imitators, copycats, mimics, people who are using Van Halen for their sole inspiration. But even more important than that are all the people who are just disgusted and revolted by our music and our presence and our appearance and the way I do interviews, and they've been forced to come up with some very substantial musical alternatives to Van Halen-type rock, and that's why we have new wave."

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/ ... hair-metal


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 

ICE Mod
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:58 am 
User avatar
The Last Hippie

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 28459
Location: Ohio
my guess:

van halen was a radio/hits oriented band, and most 'hair metal" bands really were not.

i know they had an occasional hit here and there, but van halen was on the charts with every album.

_________________
Incorrectly is the only word that when spelled correctly is still spelled incorrectly.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:08 am 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105341
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
Renny wrote:
van halen was a radio/hits oriented band, and most 'hair metal" bands really were not.

i know they had an occasional hit here and there, but van halen was on the charts with every album.

But isn't the difference there just success? The Jimi Hendrix Experience and Mountain were both blues-inspired classic rock bands but Jimi has way more hits -- that doens't mean it's a separate genre, does it?


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:16 am 
User avatar
...

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 59410
Van Halen pre-date the hair metal era, and were kind of the prototype for it. I think they fit in more with the "party bands" (as I think of them) who populated the late 70's and early 80's FM radio world; bands like Loverboy or Toto are in a similar genre to Van Halen in my opinion. Same as Sammy Hagar or Jay Ferguson, certain Joe Walsh stuff, Cheap Trick and so on.

Van Halen arrive at the very end of the glam-rock era, and apart from Dave's leather pants they pretty much dressed in street clothes when they first appeared - a complete rebellion against the glitter and greasepaint of people like KISS or Alice Cooper, etc. They're a bit of an anomaly.

Also, they're really a rock 'n roll band first and foremost - I can't imagine bands like Motley Crue covering Kinks songs, or doing odd stuff like Little Guitars or Big bad Bill (Is Sweet William Now), or even Could This Be Magic?, etc.

Van Halen are to Hair Metal what Alan Moore was to 'grim 'n gritty' comics - they sort of accidentally invented it while they were just being themselves. It was the people who came later (and were actively trying to emulate them) who exaggerated the hair and outfits to cartoonish levels.

_________________
"They'll bite your finger off given a chance" - Junkie Luv (regarding Zebras)


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:19 am 
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 2656
Lots of those 70's bands were either proto-hair metal or did a 100% morph into hair metal in the 80s. Van Halen aren't even the best example. Aerosmith definitely fits the bill and were 100% hair metal in the 80s. Kiss. The only reason why the Scorpions might be excluded is because Klaus didn't have enough hair. OK, that was a joke, clearly by Savage Amusement they were 100% hair metal.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:20 am 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105341
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
Simon wrote:
Van Halen pre-date the hair metal era, and were kind of the prototype for it. I think they fit in more with the "party bands" (as I think of them) who populated the late 70's and early 80's FM radio world; bands like Loverboy or Toto are in a similar genre to Van Halen in my opinion. Same as Sammy Hagar or Jay Ferguson, certain Joe Walsh stuff, Cheap Trick and so on.

Van Halen arrive at the very end of the glam-rock era, and apart from Dave's leather pants they pretty much dressed in street clothes when they first appeared - a complete rebellion against the glitter and greasepaint of people like KISS or Alice Cooper, etc. They're a bit of an anomaly.

Also, they're really a rock 'n roll band first and foremost - I can't imagine bands like Motley Crue covering Kinks songs, or doing odd stuff like Little Guitars or Big bad Bill (Is Sweet William Now), or even Could This Be Magic?, etc.

Van Halen are to Hair Metal what Alan Moore was to 'grim 'n gritty' comics - they sort of accidentally invented it while they were just being themselves. It was the people who came later (and were actively trying to emulate them) who exaggerated the hair and outfits to cartoonish levels.

Right, I tend to think of them as the prototype of the hair metal bands that followed -- but being the first still makes them part of the genre, no? Nirvana is still a grunge band, even if Nickelback sucks.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:31 am 
User avatar
...

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 59410
I see your point - but it may be one of those "you had to be there" things. Because they happened first in my memory, I don't think of them as being hair metal (or 'chicks with dicks' as these bands were also called back in the olden days). To me, they belong in the era that immediately precedes hair metal, but I do see what you mean.

I guess I can't equate Michael Anthony with Nikki Sixx or Alex Van Halen with Tommy Lee in my mind....it may be a generational thing. Everyone copied Eddie, of course, but even he sounds distinct (to me) from his many imitators.

_________________
"They'll bite your finger off given a chance" - Junkie Luv (regarding Zebras)


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 12:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 4636
Location: Toronto
I've seen Van Halen included in the list of Hair Metal bands, but not often, and almost never within the metal community. The big reason is that they started a few years before the rest of the LA Glam metal scene got established. And while they were influential on the bands of that period, they really moved to the commercial rock area early, and then with 1984 and after when Sammy joined, they were much more commercial rock oriented. So Van Halen is a hard rock band, not a metal band.

It's very similar to how Judas Priest is not considered part of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal. They fit all the criteria except one - they didn't start at the same time as Maiden, Saxon, Leppard, and the rest. Massively influential, but not part of the actual scene.

In the 80's, due to the MTV driven commercial success of Motley Crue, Quiet Riot, and Ratt, a lot of more traditional Metal bands were marketed as hair metal, but they weren't. Kiss did hair metal things; Ozzy did hair metal things, but that didn't make them hair metal. The Scorpions were never hair metal, although their love of the power ballad made it seem so.

Within the Metal scene, the term "hair metal" (a reclaimed derogatory term) is used insultingly to describe the Sunset Strip based 80's guitar rock that were inspired by bands like Aerosmith, T Rex, and the New York Dolls to make music. It started with the three I listed above, and they spawned a whole slew of imitators - first in North America, and then globally. And yes, some of the bands that saw the light of day never should have, but that's how the music business goes.

Simon wrote:
Also, they're really a rock 'n roll band first and foremost - I can't imagine bands like Motley Crue covering Kinks songs, or doing odd stuff like Little Guitars or Big bad Bill (Is Sweet William Now), or even Could This Be Magic?, etc.
For the record 1 - Quiet Riot covered Slade on their first album, Motley Crue covered the Beatles on their second, GnR covered Dylan and Wings; so Van Halen covering the Kinks isn't a big thing.

Hanzo the Razor wrote:
Right, I tend to think of them as the prototype of the hair metal bands that followed -- but being the first still makes them part of the genre, no? Nirvana is still a grunge band, even if Nickelback sucks
For the record 2 - Nirvana wasn't the first grunge band; that's usually given to Green River or the Melvins. Occasionally Mother Love Bone. And I don't think Nickelback was ever considered a grunge band, although I agree they suck :)

I guess to close I think of it this way - Van Halen was kind of the cool older brother of the glam metal scene; too old to hang out with all the time, too young to be a parent. Influential, but not allowed into the clubhouse.

_________________
Eau : canadaflag: = :drunk:


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 12:03 pm 
User avatar
I have no fear of this machine

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 8297
This thread is full of win.

:headbanger:


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 2:37 pm 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105341
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
Jason Gore wrote:
I've seen Van Halen included in the list of Hair Metal bands, but not often, and almost never within the metal community. The big reason is that they started a few years before the rest of the LA Glam metal scene got established. And while they were influential on the bands of that period, they really moved to the commercial rock area early, and then with 1984 and after when Sammy joined, they were much more commercial rock oriented. So Van Halen is a hard rock band, not a metal band.

I don't think they should be considered a hair rock band overall, hence my 80s reference in the thread title -- but the early era stuff with David Lee Roth sounds very hair metal to my ears.

And that's what I'm really basing this on -- the actual sound, not when it came out or what people's feelings were or how many hits they had or any of that. Sounds like Panama and Janie's Crying sound just like the material hair metal bands put out. If I were to build a hair metal playlist, there wouldn't be the tonal disruption you'd get with that material that you'd see with, say, Led Zeppelin or Pearl Jam. If you listen to these songs back to back to back, they all sound like the same kind of rock to my ears.







Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:29 pm 
User avatar
I love Music & hate brickwalled audio

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 37652
Location: The Pasture
Jason Gore wrote:
For the record 1 - Quiet Riot covered Slade on their first album, Motley Crue covered the Beatles on their second, GnR covered Dylan and Wings; so Van Halen covering the Kinks isn't a big thing.


Is their any hard rock band that didn't cover early Slade? :lol:

_________________
Putty Cats are God's gift to the universe.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 4636
Location: Toronto
Hanzo the Razor wrote:
Jason Gore wrote:
I've seen Van Halen included in the list of Hair Metal bands, but not often, and almost never within the metal community. The big reason is that they started a few years before the rest of the LA Glam metal scene got established. And while they were influential on the bands of that period, they really moved to the commercial rock area early, and then with 1984 and after when Sammy joined, they were much more commercial rock oriented. So Van Halen is a hard rock band, not a metal band.

I don't think they should be considered a hair rock band overall, hence my 80s reference in the thread title -- but the early era stuff with David Lee Roth sounds very hair metal to my ears.

And that's what I'm really basing this on -- the actual sound, not when it came out or what people's feelings were or how many hits they had or any of that. Sounds like Panama and Janie's Crying sound just like the material hair metal bands put out. If I were to build a hair metal playlist, there wouldn't be the tonal disruption you'd get with that material that you'd see with, say, Led Zeppelin or Pearl Jam. If you listen to these songs back to back to back, they all sound like the same kind of rock to my ears.
It's funny you picked those 3 songs. Whitesnake, like Aerosmith, is another band that got scooped up in the 80's that had been around for years before LA broke. They pandered with their self-titled 87 album, yep, but I'm not going to describe the guy who sang Mistreated and Stormbringer as hair metal; a cover version, maybe ( :) ) but not hair. And Cinderella, I give you, even though Keifer hated the term, and thought they were simply a blues rock band (again, like Aerosmith). I would have bought it, if it weren't for "don't know what you've got till it's gone" :shudder:.

But as a comparison to the LA scene, compare it to these 3 songs, which are almost stereotypical of the scene.







I see a difference. close, but it's there. I've always believed the 80's pop metal scene was actually 4 different scenes; the LA glam metal scene (Ratt, Crue, QR, Poison, Warrant), the early Sleaze bands (LA Guns, GnR, Faster Pussycat, Skid Row), the bar rockers with big hair (Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Dangerous Toys), and the bands getting marketed into it (Whitesnake with Whitesnake, Ozzy with Ultimate Sin, Alice with Trash, Priest with Turbo, Leppard with Hysteria). I bought all of them, and this split is in hindsight (I didn't divide the first two at the time), but even then, we could tell the two sides of the LA coin didn't fit together.

_________________
Eau : canadaflag: = :drunk:


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 4636
Location: Toronto
And specifically, since it hasn't been done yet:
Hanzo the Razor asked wrote:
Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
The first reason is that they started a few years earlier than the scene.
the second is that their musical inspirations as revealed in their music went back to the 60's - the Kinks and the Who, notably, and not 70's bands like the Dolls / Thunders, the Sweet, Kiss, and T.Rex that inspired most of LA. I'm not smart enough to describe the small musical differences, but if you listen to enough of the bands who started in the 80's, you can hear it.
the lyrical content of most of their songs were different than most of the glam bands (generalizing, exceptions both ways of course)
their background as musicians was a lot different than the gutter rats that made up the glam scene.

I look at it this way - in the 80's, everyone (but Halford) who played metal had hair, but not everyone was hair metal.

_________________
Eau : canadaflag: = :drunk:


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:57 pm 
User avatar
I love Music & hate brickwalled audio

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 37652
Location: The Pasture
Jason Gore wrote:
And specifically, since it hasn't been done yet:
Hanzo the Razor asked wrote:
Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
The first reason is that they started a few years earlier than the scene.
the second is that their musical inspirations as revealed in their music went back to the 60's - the Kinks and the Who, notably, and not 70's bands like the Dolls / Thunders, the Sweet, Kiss, and T.Rex that inspired most of LA. I'm not smart enough to describe the small musical differences, but if you listen to enough of the bands who started in the 80's, you can hear it.
the lyrical content of most of their songs were different than most of the glam bands (generalizing, exceptions both ways of course)
their background as musicians was a lot different than the gutter rats that made up the glam scene.

I look at it this way - in the 80's, everyone (but Halford) who played metal had hair, but not everyone was hair metal.


I'd leave Deep Purple out of the hair metal catagory!

_________________
Putty Cats are God's gift to the universe.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 12:03 am 
User avatar
Sonic Death Monkey

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 8543
Location: Jet City
Bannings: 6
You forgot Udo Dickschneider.

Oh, and Van Halen was an influence on a lot of the 80's bands (especially in LA). Ratt in particular were almost VH clones.

_________________
My home on the web:
http://www.alger-photography.com


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 12:14 am 
User avatar
I love Music & hate brickwalled audio

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 37652
Location: The Pasture
I see Ratt as an early Aerosmith almost clone.

_________________
Putty Cats are God's gift to the universe.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 12:26 am 
User avatar
What do you call a camel with three humps?

Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 58174
Location: Indiana
Interesting​ too that Def Leppard got lumped in to this scene too though they never did the glam thing.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 10:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 4636
Location: Toronto
Geff R. wrote:
Jason Gore wrote:
And specifically, since it hasn't been done yet:
Hanzo the Razor asked wrote:
Why Isn't 80s Van Halen Considered Hair Metal?
The first reason is that they started a few years earlier than the scene.
the second is that their musical inspirations as revealed in their music went back to the 60's - the Kinks and the Who, notably, and not 70's bands like the Dolls / Thunders, the Sweet, Kiss, and T.Rex that inspired most of LA. I'm not smart enough to describe the small musical differences, but if you listen to enough of the bands who started in the 80's, you can hear it.
the lyrical content of most of their songs were different than most of the glam bands (generalizing, exceptions both ways of course)
their background as musicians was a lot different than the gutter rats that made up the glam scene.

I look at it this way - in the 80's, everyone (but Halford) who played metal had hair, but not everyone was hair metal.
I'd leave Deep Purple out of the hair metal category!
I leave Deep Purple out of all Heavy Metal conversations, except as a major influencer. As Jon Lord described it in an interview "we're an uncle, but we deny the parentage". The early 70's hard rock bands (all but Sabbath) are generally recognized as not metal. Great bands, massively influential, but too musically diverse and blues based to really get that metal stamp.

_________________
Eau : canadaflag: = :drunk:


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1, 2, 3  ( Next )
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]   



Who is WANline

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powdered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited

IMWAN is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide
a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk.