Most of us can agree that in the giant realm of things glam is a pretty sonically diverse genre some bands are bluesier, more classically influenced, have keyboards, are fast, slow, groove based. But in your mind what are the sonic limits of glam. At what point say if a band concentrated on ballads be I guess arena rock (i.e.Trixter), or if a band had alot of faster songs be speed or thrash, or if they were bluesier just rock. If any band that in general is hard rock metal that dresses like a glam band, is a glam band. If you can give specific bands as examples that would be cool.
GlamRock.com Forum » GLAM Music Forum
Sonic Limits of Glam Metal
(11 posts)-
Glamrockerfs
offlineMemberPostCount: 103
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sparkii Silver
offlineMemberPostCount: 274
as long as the look the part and sound rocky enough to be called a rock band i count it as glam
dudes, check out my band at
Myspace- http://www.myspace.com/badshuckPosted 2 years ago # -
KarKing Jack
offlineMemberPostCount: 672
As long as their either frivilious, or sing serious songs about Trash life and drugs and stuff, by rule, and look the part, then yeah. Glam.
To me, from one extreme to the other...
Velvet Underground, to WASP.
'Cause they both do a share of frivlious and serious songs, but... 'Underground had more simple tunes, more conceptual slower stuff, more art-rocky, very little to do with stage or arena. WASP, massive stage shows of gore and sexual connotation, loud, abraisive, obscene songs, with complicated solos and riff, and very heavy for Glam.
Posted 2 years ago # -
RockLibertyWarrior
offlineMemberPostCount: 715
Thats actually a pretty good question. There is one thing in my mind that unites most glam acts. Aside from the look, alot of them have melody or keep a rockin' rhythm. I'd have to say when the songs speed up really fast, there is lots of guitar solos, and the songs are political/social in nature then it deviates from a glam categorization (Megadeth,Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer etc.). However some glam bands do fit this definition, but it is more thrash bands who do this kind of stuff. Just like if you have soaring operatic vocals, sing about dragons and swords, and play classical scales on your guitar then your power metal (Manowar, Fates Warning, Nightwish etc.). The genres I just mentioned I love also. You can kill me now if you want to try.
Posted 2 years ago # -
ClockworkDemon
offlineMemberPostCount: 161
Well it has to be within the realm of "accessible" sounding, which doesn't mean stupid, I think that a lot of bands capitalize too much on being amelodic or atonal, or even focus too much on showcasing impressive technical skill without having a point to get across. Good art often requires technical skill so that the artist can make their point, but technical proficiency as an end in itself I think is flawed.
Please excuse my digression, in any case I think that as long as they're rocking, catchy, look the part and have the attitude down they're glam. Of course the other thing about glam is it's prefix, glam rock and glam metal are certainly separate genres, as is glam punk to a degree, so I think that glam can be added as a prefix to whatever genre a band technically is provided they have the look and attitude.
Beautiful Boys Are Madeira's ToysPosted 2 years ago # -
KarKing Jack
offlineMemberPostCount: 672
Like when the Mighty Boosh did 'Glam Folk', haha.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Glamrockerfs
offlineMemberPostCount: 103
I'm not sure if any bands of this combo exist but a friend and i joked about a glam grindcore or "Glamcore" band and I think though it probably wouldn't sound good it would be funny
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ms.CleoTyler
offlineMemberPostCount: 192
ahah
Posted 2 years ago # -
KarKing Jack
offlineMemberPostCount: 672
I tried to write what I deemed a 'DeathGlam' song once. Death Metal mixed with Glam Metal. It didnt turn out well, LOL.
You could mix Glam Rock with Thrash though,
Call it Trash.Also, me and a friend were talking - if you've got Speed Metal, we should make Crack Metal. The solos are even more tiwddly and arrogant, but kind of suspicious, and instead of a singer, just strap a mouth-mic to some guy who's going through Psychosis, and just have him run around shouting wild and cracking out, hahaha.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Stokes
offlineMemberPostCount: 240
"As long as their either frivilious, or sing serious songs about Trash life and drugs and stuff, by rule, and look the part, then yeah. Glam.
To me, from one extreme to the other...
Velvet Underground, to WASP.
'Cause they both do a share of frivlious and serious songs, but... 'Underground had more simple tunes, more conceptual slower stuff, more art-rocky, very little to do with stage or arena. WASP, massive stage shows of gore and sexual connotation, loud, abraisive, obscene songs, with complicated solos and riff, and very heavy for Glam.
"
- KarKing Jackyou'd be suprised how simple WASP's music is although some of the drum parts are complex for the most part it was all simple even chris holmes' solos are simple
Posted 2 years ago # -
KarKing Jack
offlineMemberPostCount: 672
Yeah, your right. I've checked out some WASP songs and they're pretty easy to play - and on the reverse, a lot of the Velvet Undergrounds' are hard as fuck.
But, it sounds complicated, dunnit?
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.