WOULD GLAM HAVE BEEN BIG WITHOUT THE GLAM? | GlamRock.com Forum

GlamRock.com Forum » GLAM Music Forum

WOULD GLAM HAVE BEEN BIG WITHOUT THE GLAM?

(20 posts)

Started 2 years ago by SixxShooter
Latest reply from rhinostones

SixxShooter
offline
Member

PostCount: 78

Had a talk with somebody at work today about rock. After hearing how "fucking awesome Metallica, Slipknot and System of a Down" are, the inevitable question was asked: What's YOUR favorite band? "Motley Crue" I proudly declared.

The response? A roll of the eyes and a "Oh, glam shit? Dude, that shit is so fuckin' over. You need to GROW UP, bro."

My response? A lift of the middle finger and a "Go fuck yourself with a slipknot, bro."

No, this wasn't a real fight, just a friendly debate. My position is always this:

With the exception of bands like Kiss and Twisted Sister, the Glam bands don't LOOK glam any longer. Their songs are standing the tests of time and are reminding us of kick ass days gone by(unfortunately).

Nobody seems to remember that it's ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC!! The glam look was just the icing on the cake... or was it?

So I ask the question, if bands like Kiss, Crue, Poison, etc., didn't have "The Look" back in the day, and they dressed like Metallica(you know, black T-shirt & jeans...yawn...), would they have been as big?

BE HONEST!!

If Poison were as ugly as Metallica, took the stage and belted out "Talk Dirty To Me", would you have been as drawn to them? Kiss? Twisted Sister? Crue?

For the record, I vote: OF COURSE! BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC!!

Posted 2 years ago #
Retroman
offline
Moderator

PostCount: 778

Rant #500

First of all dude your wasting your time discussing glam bands with the likes of Nu Metal Slipknot and System Of A Down fans. You'll rarely get any respect from those guys. You will get more sence from a bunch of intoxicated 16 year olds whose parents listened to the real stuff back in the day.

Anyway Skid Row, Slaughter, Warlock and several other of my favourite bands didn't dress full on glam like Poison, Tigertailz or Kiss but I love 'em. I always prefered the rough 'n' ready really long hair leather/denim look and based my personal image on it as it was nicely in the middle somewhere between Metallica (Thrash) and Motley Crue (Glam). Not plain but not over the top if you know what I mean... Many 'B' list bands dressed like that.

With the bands it has to be the whole package that we see looking back into the past: Big production, guitar solos, over the top drum fills, "Oh yeah" screaming vocals, sexy lyrics, big hair, leather, lace & denim with cowboy boots and those sparkling instruments at the show and in those MTV videos...

We'll never know what could have been by taking away the fashion so let's not worry about it and just be thankful that it actually happened

Just remember: If you wanna have a good time and get laid then choose glam otherwise go and bang your head to Metal or buy an anorak and dig some indie!!!

Posted 2 years ago #
Salem
offline
Member

PostCount: 52

Guns n Roses weren't exactly pretty boys and they didn't dress up all glam when they went huge.
With or without the make-up & hair, the music still would have stood out miles above anything else that was current.
Dont waste your time trying to explain it to any fan of nu-metal. They could never get it.

http://www.myspace.com/trashbrat Hated By Millions...Loved By All.

Posted 2 years ago #
Stokes
offline
Member

PostCount: 240

it was all about the music thats why most of the people that played in the glam bands were very very good musicians, and look at it this way if posion looked like metallica it wouldnt matter they still wrote hit songs that people still listen too today, look at the scorpions they were not the best looking rock band and managed to be one of the best 80s bands thats a perfect example there music could have been considered hair metal but they didnt have the glam look

Posted 2 years ago #
ClockworkDemon
offline
Member

PostCount: 161

No, but that doesn't mean it's not about the music, rock is an inherently performative genre, glam took rock's inherent flamboyant nature ran with it and blended music with visual art, creating what in fine art terms "Belle composto" meaning a beautiful merging of different art forms. "All about the music" is a phrase I honestly sort of object to, as implies that mixed media somehow lacks purity or some asinine foolishness like that.

Art is an expression of something, and using every tool available to you is in my mind a valid choice to make.

The music without the look is meaningful on its own, but in combination they form something stronger than music alone ever could.

To me, the 'nothing' look of a lot of bands is in my mind somewhat disrespectful to the music itself. A rock concert is a special experience, one that has connotations of ceremony, dressing like you just rolled out of bed suggests a lack of respect for the music and the nature of the event.

Beautiful Boys Are Madeira's Toys

Posted 2 years ago #
Stokes
offline
Member

PostCount: 240

"No, but that doesn't mean it's not about the music, rock is an inherently performative genre, glam took rock's inherent flamboyant nature ran with it and blended music with visual art, creating what in fine art terms "Belle composto" meaning a beautiful merging of different art forms. "All about the music" is a phrase I honestly sort of object to, as implies that mixed media somehow lacks purity or some asinine foolishness like that.
Art is an expression of something, and using every tool available to you is in my mind a valid choice to make.
The music without the look is meaningful on its own, but in combination they form something stronger than music alone ever could.
To me, the 'nothing' look of a lot of bands is in my mind somewhat disrespectful to the music itself. A rock concert is a special experience, one that has connotations of ceremony, dressing like you just rolled out of bed suggests a lack of respect for the music and the nature of the event."
- ClockworkDemon

never thought if it like that you got a really good point

Posted 2 years ago #
ClockworkDemon
offline
Member

PostCount: 161

As an atheist (secular humanist) art, particularly music is the closest thing I ever feel to what others would describe as religion. The joy, the beauty, the wonder of the universe is all celebrated in art. Rock n' roll is a bacchanalian celebratory genre of music, glam rock is to me the most pure celebration of the diyonesian nature of rock n' roll, it's music that you feel in your gut and your groin, and yet somehow it reminds us that the animal part of us is good and joyful and meaningful... or at least that's what it does for me, and so to me the look is part of the pageantry, part of the celebration.

Dressing like nothing special is going on to a church is inappropriate and people who insist that putting on a show ruins the purity of the music are basically trying to turn music from an experience that is special, an experience we are allowed to celebrate as special and important, into something dreary and mundane.

Good art reminds us of the good in the world, of the good in ourselves, of the meaning and beauty of existence, and reminds us of the magic and wonder of life itself. To take away the ceremony, to take away the celebratory nature of music is to take one of life's greatest joys and tramples it.

Beautiful Boys Are Madeira's Toys

Posted 2 years ago #
KarKing Jack
offline
Member

PostCount: 672

" You will get more sence from a bunch of intoxicated 16 year olds whose parents listened to the real stuff back in the day."
- Retroman

Anyway, I reckon it would have in britain, but not America. 'Cause British 'Evvy Metal was all about being ugly! When America took Heavy Metal, they made it into something more commericalised and refined, looks wise. Haha, me and my guitar tutor argue wether that was good or not all the time!! I think it was, but anyway... You look at Glam- in America, you had KISS, the New York Dolls... In Britain, you had Slade. 'Nuff said?

Ok, Slade looked glam. But they didnt have much in the way of hair or makeup, or even the kind of sex appeal that made people go, 'I wanna look like that!'. So, without the Glamming-up, I think it would have worked in Britain, but I doubt it would have sold so much in america.

'Course, I couldn't live without the glamming up, hahaha.

Posted 2 years ago #
Sparkii Silver
offline
Member

PostCount: 274

mott were pretty glammy, and T.Rex were the glammiest thing around at the time. for the 80s Tigertailz looks just as glammy as the American hair bands

dudes, check out my band at
Myspace- http://www.myspace.com/badshuck

Posted 2 years ago #
KarKing Jack
offline
Member

PostCount: 672

Yeah, my point isnt that British glamsters werent as glamourous, Im just saying they wouldn't have had to have been. You know?

Posted 2 years ago #
Sparkii Silver
offline
Member

PostCount: 274

well i think that some of the british glam wouldnt be as easily identified if not for 10 inch glitter platforms. but i get what your saying

dudes, check out my band at
Myspace- http://www.myspace.com/badshuck

Posted 2 years ago #
KarKing Jack
offline
Member

PostCount: 672

Yeah, hahaha.

Posted 2 years ago #
Ms.CleoTyler
offline
Member

PostCount: 192

Jim Florentine of That Metal Show said he only baught the first Poison album because he thought it was hot chicks on the cover. Then he listened to it and it was really good.
So i think bands don't have to look glammy to be glammy.

Posted 2 years ago #
RockLibertyWarrior
offline
Member

PostCount: 715

To me its all about the music. I could give two shits about what you wear or look like just as long as the music kicks ass. When I listen to a band I don't go "Geeze wonder what he/she looks like", thats pussy shit that pop and hip hop fans would want to know. Me I don't care. I mean shit, a band could play good songs and dress like a wiggers and I wouldn't give two shits.

Posted 2 years ago #
Glamrockerfs
offline
Member

PostCount: 103

I Think the look enhansed the music. In rock a major asset has always been the live performance, the glam look brought carisma to their performance. Combine that with MTV it sort of brought some of the live performance/carisma strength to your tv. Like Retroman said, we'll never know if Poison really wanted to just wear jeans or not or what would have happened if they did, all we know is that is engrained on the minds of the millions of detractors, and is embrased by the millions of us fans. I dig the music on its own, though i also dig the look, and seeing Poison just wearing jeans dosn't make their music any worse. (live)

Posted 2 years ago #
Ms.CleoTyler
offline
Member

PostCount: 192

i 100% agree with what you just said.

Posted 1 year ago #
Dash
offline
Member

PostCount: 606

This was a genius thread.a lot of good points made.I agree with the lot.the music still stands tall today as none of them really glam it up anymore,as already stated

Dan Dash

Posted 1 year ago #
hairmetalbmac
offline
Member

PostCount: 10

yeah agreed, this was a genius thread haha
i think i'd still listen to the music, but i dont think i'd be as obsessed with it as i am. i just am drawn to the way the people on stage appear so different from the crowd, it almost makes them seem kind of divine
maybe i'm just crazy haha anyone agree?

Posted 1 year ago #
Sparkii Silver
offline
Member

PostCount: 274

a glam band needs to look the part, any band should look the part, some bands "part" is looking like dog rectums, were lucky that we've got a good "part" to look like

dudes, check out my band at
Myspace- http://www.myspace.com/badshuck

Posted 1 year ago #
rhinostones
offline
Member

PostCount: 70

Haha I love the refernce to Poison dressing like Metallica
But no, I don't think it would've been as big, the look was fun and party-sih, which is was glam is, I reckon, and the look of Metallica and stuff is a bit scary actually...

"Rock never really dies, it just goes underground." - Bret Michaels

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

web stats