CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

SummerGirl · 11-30-2005, 09:13 AM

The article was long...here's the rest...

However, that should have meant that money flowed into Seattle once there was enough of a Grunge movement to encourage a substantial following, but no. The answer was because of the Grunge philosophy. In Grunge, success equalled failure, which obviously caused some problems. The general idea is that if you’re popular, then you’re an awful band and if you’re mainstream then you should be shot. This ridiculous thinking had come from the years and years previous when the bands in Seattle couldn’t get signed to record labels and therefore grew a strong hatred for them. When the Grunge movement finally did start, there was no revised plan and their original Seattle fans spit upon bands like Nirvana because they had ‘sold out’. If you are in a band then you have to face the fact that when the record label signs you, you will not have 100% creative control. You can write the best song in the world, but if the label doesn’t approve then it doesn’t go on the album unless you fund the project from your own pocket, which you cant do if you have just been signed. Therefore, while Grunge spouted all this anti corporate rubbish it was all a bunch of crap when you consider that the only way the bands would have gotten to be in the position of power they were in, in the first place was if they had signed a major label deal! When Alice in Chains split in 1996 for example it was claimed that it was because of their hatred of the music industry, when it fact it was because Layne Staley was addicted to heroin. Because of all this, Grunge was self-destructive to begin with. It was impossible for Grunge to over ground without destroying its original values.

These days, there are bands like Machine Head who attract a small constant following and flourish for years because of it and even though they are signed to a major label they haven’t sold out to their ideas, but Grunge was a little more difficult to remain both loyal to and gain success from. On the other hand, Hair Metal is, in the words of Joe Perry, ‘just American rock & roll taken to the extreme. It has no problem with capitalism, profiteering, decadence, excess, or money’. So it fits right in for hair metal bands to sell millions of records and make millions of pounds. In fact, that was the whole point!

Hair Metal was insane in some respects, because the recording budgets were huge and the albums were ‘polished’ (constantly mixed and edited for the right balance of all vocals and instruments) until the cows came home. So to be the complete opposite, Grunge chose to simply produce the albums for as little as possible (saving the money for heroin and such) and having raw production. In this respect, Grunge can be thanked for the increase in live recording albums, which almost tripled after the end of the Grunge revolution due to the fact that artists were shown the benefit of recording their concerts for release. So maybe we thank Grunge for making rock vocal again. Raw Production (as opposed to that horrible lo-fi production) can be quite amazing and can make it sound as if the artist has a voice for singing (remember that comment on Joe Elliot). On the other hand, the polished sounds of Def Leppard are a lot better then what sounds like 3 blokes in a bedroom performing, and the massive drum sounds of Motley Crue sound a lot better then what appears to be an angry man kicking some cardboard boxes around.

Finally, there is the fact that people listen to music they identify with. All the arguments against Hair Metal and against Grunge mean nothing at the end of the day. Hair Metal was over-produced; Grunge was just badly produced. Hair Metal bands looked ridiculous but so did Grungers. It's possible to bash either genre but Critics prefer Grunge and Critics think that there is such a thing as good taste and that coolness is dependent on having it. The fact that some segments of Grunge are still cool annoys me personally infinitely, as does the constant ridicule that Hair Metal gets and Grunge doesn't even though both genres are equally ridiculous for different reasons. But at the end of the day, I think people identified with Hair Metal, with the optimism, the happiness, the party spirit, the volume, the larger-than-life thing. People appreciated the overboard ness. It is entertainment for its own sake and doesn't pretend to have any deep meaning. Entertainment is very important, and people appreciated the fact that hair metal is nothing more than entertainment. It shouldn't be looked down upon for that. The point I am trying to make is that in music, everyone needs good upbeat songs all the time and this is why Hair Metal is still around and Grunge is not.

11-30-2005, 09:13 AM	#2
SummerGirl USER INFO » Status: Misconception Posts: 114 Joined: Nov 2005 Currently: Offline	The article was long...here's the rest... However, that should have meant that money flowed into Seattle once there was enough of a Grunge movement to encourage a substantial following, but no. The answer was because of the Grunge philosophy. In Grunge, success equalled failure, which obviously caused some problems. The general idea is that if you’re popular, then you’re an awful band and if you’re mainstream then you should be shot. This ridiculous thinking had come from the years and years previous when the bands in Seattle couldn’t get signed to record labels and therefore grew a strong hatred for them. When the Grunge movement finally did start, there was no revised plan and their original Seattle fans spit upon bands like Nirvana because they had ‘sold out’. If you are in a band then you have to face the fact that when the record label signs you, you will not have 100% creative control. You can write the best song in the world, but if the label doesn’t approve then it doesn’t go on the album unless you fund the project from your own pocket, which you cant do if you have just been signed. Therefore, while Grunge spouted all this anti corporate rubbish it was all a bunch of crap when you consider that the only way the bands would have gotten to be in the position of power they were in, in the first place was if they had signed a major label deal! When Alice in Chains split in 1996 for example it was claimed that it was because of their hatred of the music industry, when it fact it was because Layne Staley was addicted to heroin. Because of all this, Grunge was self-destructive to begin with. It was impossible for Grunge to over ground without destroying its original values. These days, there are bands like Machine Head who attract a small constant following and flourish for years because of it and even though they are signed to a major label they haven’t sold out to their ideas, but Grunge was a little more difficult to remain both loyal to and gain success from. On the other hand, Hair Metal is, in the words of Joe Perry, ‘just American rock & roll taken to the extreme. It has no problem with capitalism, profiteering, decadence, excess, or money’. So it fits right in for hair metal bands to sell millions of records and make millions of pounds. In fact, that was the whole point! Hair Metal was insane in some respects, because the recording budgets were huge and the albums were ‘polished’ (constantly mixed and edited for the right balance of all vocals and instruments) until the cows came home. So to be the complete opposite, Grunge chose to simply produce the albums for as little as possible (saving the money for heroin and such) and having raw production. In this respect, Grunge can be thanked for the increase in live recording albums, which almost tripled after the end of the Grunge revolution due to the fact that artists were shown the benefit of recording their concerts for release. So maybe we thank Grunge for making rock vocal again. Raw Production (as opposed to that horrible lo-fi production) can be quite amazing and can make it sound as if the artist has a voice for singing (remember that comment on Joe Elliot). On the other hand, the polished sounds of Def Leppard are a lot better then what sounds like 3 blokes in a bedroom performing, and the massive drum sounds of Motley Crue sound a lot better then what appears to be an angry man kicking some cardboard boxes around. Finally, there is the fact that people listen to music they identify with. All the arguments against Hair Metal and against Grunge mean nothing at the end of the day. Hair Metal was over-produced; Grunge was just badly produced. Hair Metal bands looked ridiculous but so did Grungers. It's possible to bash either genre but Critics prefer Grunge and Critics think that there is such a thing as good taste and that coolness is dependent on having it. The fact that some segments of Grunge are still cool annoys me personally infinitely, as does the constant ridicule that Hair Metal gets and Grunge doesn't even though both genres are equally ridiculous for different reasons. But at the end of the day, I think people identified with Hair Metal, with the optimism, the happiness, the party spirit, the volume, the larger-than-life thing. People appreciated the overboard ness. It is entertainment for its own sake and doesn't pretend to have any deep meaning. Entertainment is very important, and people appreciated the fact that hair metal is nothing more than entertainment. It shouldn't be looked down upon for that. The point I am trying to make is that in music, everyone needs good upbeat songs all the time and this is why Hair Metal is still around and Grunge is not.