Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees
posted at 9/27/2011 2:15 PM EDT
In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees : with all due respect, sir GnR is a hard rock band, no doubt about that...but unfortunately, they are often lumped into the hair metal category by a lot of people, not only because of the time frame but because of similarities in music style and...their hair, haha. However, I don't think they were the end of the hair era, perhaps the percursor to the end... nirvana is a punk-influenced band, from the punk scene...i don't think GnR led towards/influenced nirvana in any way, at all. GnR was really good, and very different from many hair metal bands, but just not different enough to really start that trend and rock the industry. nirvana didn't care what they looked like, their music has simple guitar/melodies, just raw emotion. not nearly as polished or ambitious as GnR, and the youth really identified with that. I'd say the Sex Pistols and a few others started the movement that ultimately led to the demise of hair metal with Nevermind, even though they started before it was at its peak. Just because Nirvana might have gotten more hype than their talent "deserved," what they put out changed the landscape of the industry. Sex Pistols were big here, HUGE in Europe, and spawned countless punk bands. GnR, i say holds about the same weight as cheap trick as far as influence. IMO, not nearly as much. and i think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks GnR deserves the HoF as much as Metallica
Posted by phsmith8[/QUOTE]
First - I don't know anyone who has ever lumped GnR into the Hair Metal scene. And I was part of the scene, although admittedly on the older side. Their music was far edgier, except for Sweet Child of Mine. At the time of their prime, (Use your Illusions and the Black Album), when they had the mini tour together, Guns was the top bill. Metallica has basically done nothing since the Black album. The only thing they have done is stay together where Guns did not. And really, when Jason left, Metallica should have parted company there and then.
Not comparing them to Nirvana at all. What I said is "Nirvana is the band that was given credit for the end of the Hair Metal scene. This in fact is a complete falsehood brought up by the lame critics. The Hair scene was already petering out and Guns gave it a big push out the door. If you look at the bands that followed Guns, you will see that the Aqua-Net and mascarra were gone (Skid Row, Trixter, etc.). Not his fault that Sebastian Bach was blessed with a great head of hair.
The Grunge scene itself was no different than the Hair scene - it was a fad. Thankfully, one that really didn't last that long. As for Nirvana - they hit it big with some well crafted songs, a monster video and Butch Vig. Kurt did not want that album released as clean as it was. If they had gone the route that Cobain wanted, it is highly unlikely they would have soared like they did. And remember, Cobain was trying very hard to record music that sounded like the Pixies.
Nirvana is about as Punk as Adam and the Ants. In fact, I would say that Nirvana was more Hard Rock/Metal, than punk.
And the dig at Cheap trick is way unfair since I contend that CT had more influence on the 80's than Guns or Metallica had on the 90's.