Bret Michaels owning Joe Elliott..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6mFJqhKIVY

I've heard Joe Elliot say some of the most stupid things in interviews. He contradicts himself. He puts down his band's past. In the 90's he constantly put down heavy metal and claimed that they were never a metal band to begin with. I know some people disagree with me, but I still think that's a load of crap. On Through the Night was every bit as heavy metal as early Saxon, Tygers of Pan Tang, Blitzkrieg, Diamond Head, Riot, The Rods, etc.

There's nothing wrong with going in a pop direction if that's what floats your boat. Obviously it worked to sell millions of albums for Def Leppard, but why put down your past, deny your roots, or put down other bands? Pompous rock star bullcrap!

I still think Joe was right about the whole glam metal scene of the 80's, style over substance as opposed to the glam rock scene of the 70's.....and about Hanoi Rocks of course.

And before anyone goes on about that Def Leppard lip synching episode on Dancing with the stars. So what! They watched all their heroes in the 70's like Thin Lizzy, The Faces, David Bowie, T. Rex etc lip synch to their songs on TV. Even their contemporaries Judas Priest and Iron Maiden lip synched on Top Of The Pops.

Quote :

I still think Joe was right about the whole glam metal scene of the 80's,

You would.

And to generalize the "whole" glam metal scene shows further ignorance.

ultmetal wrote:

I've heard Joe Elliot say some of the most stupid things in interviews. He contradicts himself. He puts down his band's past. In the 90's he constantly put down heavy metal and claimed that they were never a metal band to begin with. I know some people disagree with me, but I still think that's a load of crap. On Through the Night was every bit as heavy metal as early Saxon, Tygers of Pan Tang, Blitzkrieg, Diamond Head, Riot, The Rods, etc.

There's nothing wrong with going in a pop direction if that's what floats your boat. Obviously it worked to sell millions of albums for Def Leppard, but why put down your past, deny your roots, or put down other bands? Pompous rock star bullcrap!

Thank you for restating your opinion on this matter ULT, I couldn't agree with you more on this subject. I'm a new poster, but have been visiting your website "Nolifetilmetal" for a good 1-2 years now. I've always loved metal, and your site has been extremely helpful in assisting me with what metal albums I may have missed on, or ones that I never knew about. Keep up the good work, you provide a great service.

Now back to the topic...I recently posted 20 reasons why I thought Def Leppard was a metal band on the "Songs From the Sparkle Lounge" thread. Some of the 20 I thought might be taken to task, but one poster somehow was able to discount all 20. I'm not sure who was the more condescending individual, the poster or Joe Elliott, who for some reason likes to embark on his annual anti-heavy metal platform.

Anyways...great site, I've been visiting often.

Nice outfits, Joe.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Quote :

I still think Joe was right about the whole glam metal scene of the 80's,

You would.

And to generalize the "whole" glam metal scene shows further ignorance.

I think for the most part it was terrible, puerile and vapid music.

The only Glam Metal bands i find worth anything is Vain & Tigertailz.

I'm not ignorant of the scene, i'm unfortunately knowledgeable about alot of the bands and their music because i've had to dig and work my way through them for the real stuff.

Bret's awesome. Classy response.

rattpoison wrote:

I think for the most part it was terrible, puerile and vapid music.

With a comment like this, I realize I've been misinterpreting your user name.

rattpoison, we get it. You don't like metal.

Metal Misfit wrote:

Bret's awesome. Classy response.

rattpoison wrote:

I think for the most part it was terrible, puerile and vapid music.

With a comment like this, I realize I've been misinterpreting your user name.

The name is a pisstake so to speak.

If it wasn't about the image, why is Poison no longer dressing up like chicks? Because it's not cool to do so anymore (i.e. it was about the image). Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate.

As for the comment about lip syncing on Dancing with the Stars; it was a stupid choice for the band to do it. But they're promoting a new album and lip syncing is, sadly, a TV format. Brett Michael's does the exact same thing on his scripted "reality" show.

Quote :

Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate

maybe Joe could still wear flag dolphin shorts then.

Oh wait, it's not cool anymore.

Not really a fan of Poison but, he got him good.

Eyesore wrote:

If it wasn't about the image, why is Poison no longer dressing up like chicks? Because it's not cool to do so anymore (i.e. it was about the image). Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate.

Exactly, Poison and the other bands at the time did it because it was the trend at the time. And was almost essential to do if you wanted success.

Whereas Hanoi Rocks did it earlier on in the decade when it wasn't a trend and copped alot of flak for doing so. But they believed in the whole spirit and image of 70's glam rock. And they still dress the exact same way now whether you think it's silly or not, trendy or untrendy.

Poison and their ilk were a product of the times. And rightfully deserve any flak that comes their way.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Quote :

Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate

maybe Joe could still wear flag dolphin shorts then.

Oh wait, it's not cool anymore.

There comes a point in one's life when you should hang up the short shorts.

Thankfully a nearly 50 year old Joe Elliot has done so.

Quote :

think for the most part it was terrible, puerile and vapid music.

Opinions vary. I think the vast majority of NWOBHM music is pretty weak, if you want to know the truth. But, again, its my opinion and not really something worth arguing.

As to the 80's hair/glam scene, there was some MONSTER talent there. Its just that it became a formula for the labels, pigeonholing bands into cookie-cutter sound scenarios. If you get the chance to hear some of those bands on their demos or were fortunate enough to see them live, you know that a lot of them had a pretty distinct sound until the record labels changed them.

The Bret/Joe thing...you really do have to see where Bret is coming from, I think. Poison, even if they don't dress the same, have been essentially the same band and have never denied who or what they were, since the beginning. True, Look What The Cat Dragged In was about as glam as it got, but by their third album, and with pretty much every release since then, Poison has played the same style with the same approach. Def Leppard, on the other hand, seems to change their sound with every release post-Pyromania.

As to the band's look...how many of US dress exactly the same as we did 20 years ago? Sure, I still wear jeans and a t-shirt, but I don't have a mohawk any longer, and my nose isn't pierced and connected to my earring with a chain.


LOL!

Arttie

You're still a wanker.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Quote :

Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate

maybe Joe could still wear flag dolphin shorts then.

Oh wait, it's not cool anymore.

I don't recall that being a staple in their attire.

Eyesore wrote:

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Quote :

Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate

maybe Joe could still wear flag dolphin shorts then.

Oh wait, it's not cool anymore.

I don't recall that being a staple in their attire.

Those are dolphin shorts with flags on them. They look like a British boyband.

arttieTHE1manparty wrote:

As to the 80's hair/glam scene, there was some MONSTER talent there. Its just that it became a formula for the labels, pigeonholing bands into cookie-cutter sound scenarios. If you get the chance to hear some of those bands on their demos or were fortunate enough to see them live, you know that a lot of them had a pretty distinct sound until the record labels changed them.

Yeah no denying the musical talent was there, but they just didn't get it imo. I guess you can blame it on the music machine and such. But it really comes down to the bands saying no and turning their backs on success or going with the flow and what the trend is at the time.

Look no further then Winger, musical chops to burn but they wrote the most pathetic dumb rock songs ever. Those musicians wrote that way because that was the ticket to success, the music really did come last.

It was really no different then all the bandwagon jumping johnny come lately Grunge, Nu-Metal and Emo bands that have followed since that many fans of the genre like to rag on themselves.

rattpoison wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

If it wasn't about the image, why is Poison no longer dressing up like chicks? Because it's not cool to do so anymore (i.e. it was about the image). Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate.

Exactly, Poison and the other bands at the time did it because it was the trend at the time. And was almost essential to do if you wanted success.

Here's the thing though, while the above is absolutely correct, the glam era that Joe is championing had bands doing the exact same thing. Once glam had peaked by the mid-70s, you had these bands ditching the makeup just as quickly as they put it on. Sweet couldn't wait to shed the glam image, Bowie moved on to other things, BeBop Deluxe had a dark glam image on their first album which went by the wayside, Ian Hunter didn't stay with glam for long into his solo career - this is, of course, to say nothing of all the forgotten bands/artists that dolled themselves up for 'Top Of The Pops' circa 71-74 and had nothing to do with it afterwards.

Now I don't want that to come off as a put-down of 70s glam rock, because I love a ton of bands/artists from that genre, but the point is that a trend is a trend, and many will follow; whether it's 1970s Britain or 1980s LA.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Quote :

Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate

maybe Joe could still wear flag dolphin shorts then.

Oh wait, it's not cool anymore.

I don't recall that being a staple in their attire.

Those are dolphin shorts with flags on them. They look like a British boyband.

I don't recall that being a staple in their attire.

HellRaiser wrote:

rattpoison wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

If it wasn't about the image, why is Poison no longer dressing up like chicks? Because it's not cool to do so anymore (i.e. it was about the image). Joe Elliot generalizing every band from that era was, of course, stupid, but he was still pretty accurate.

Exactly, Poison and the other bands at the time did it because it was the trend at the time. And was almost essential to do if you wanted success.

Here's the thing though, while the above is absolutely correct, the glam era that Joe is championing had bands doing the exact same thing. Once glam had peaked by the mid-70s, you had these bands ditching the makeup just as quickly as they put it on. Sweet couldn't wait to shed the glam image, Bowie moved on to other things, BeBop Deluxe had a dark glam image on their first album which went by the wayside, Ian Hunter didn't stay with glam for long into his solo career - this is, of course, to say nothing of all the forgotten bands/artists that dolled themselves up for 'Top Of The Pops' circa 71-74 and had nothing to do with it afterwards.

Now I don't want that to come off as a put-down of 70s glam rock, because I love a ton of bands/artists from that genre, but the point is that a trend is a trend, and many will follow; whether it's 1970s Britain or 1980s LA.

Very convincing point and true to an extent......As even Joe said that the 70's brit glamsters did it for attention on top of the pops and in the music press....But the music came first in all instances. Whether it was Roxy Music, T. Rex or Slade. All were different musically and had their own thing going on and were only linked because of the glam image.

But the 80's glam metal scene was formulaic and void of any artistic merit....their was no individuality musically or image wise unlike the 70's glam rock scene.

That's the point Joe was getting across, and imo he is 100% right.

Joe Elliot is doing nothing more than defending his era of music while being close-minded about the other eras. You'd be shocked to know that we all do the same exact thing.

rattpoison wrote:

Very convincing point and true to an extent......As even Joe said that the 70's brit glamsters did it for attention on top of the pops and in the music press....But the music came first in all instances. Whether it was Roxy Music, T. Rex or Slade. All were different musically and had their own thing going on and were only linked because of the glam image.

Completely agree here. Sound-wise in the 70s glam scene, the major players had their own thing going.

Quote :

But the 80's glam metal scene was formulaic and void of any artistic merit....their was no individuality musically or image wise unlike the 70's glam rock scene.

That's the point Joe was getting across, and imo he is 100% right.

The 'void of any artistic merit' kinda bugs me, just because it's so subjective - I mean to a jazz connoisseur, everything discussed on this board would be 'void of any artistic merit.'

However, sound-wise was it more formulaic? Definitely (I'm sure we could go off here on how that was at least partially due to the changing nature of record companies and the music industry from the 70s to the 80s). Is that necessarily a bad thing? Depends I guess. Personally, I guess I don't mind 'formula' so much, as long as I'm liking what I hear. I love Slade, and I love LA Guns (one largely doing their own thing; one largely following a trend).

I can't remember the album review this was from, but the critic's opening line was (and I'm most definitely paraphrasing here) 'Originality can be a beautiful thing, but anyone who insists on originality from everything is cutting themselves off from a lot of great music.'

Cool thread