Hair Metal our own Woodstock?

I was having trouble falling asleep last night and this thought popped into my head. Both were important and seminal times in the life of the music we know and love and many of us here in the 30-40 range recall and remember fondly those halcyon days of big hair and denim jackets with back patches proudly displaying our allegiance. This is the period, imho, where Heavy Metal as we know it came to be through the NWOBHM and the LA Strip explosion; much like San Fransisco and Woodstock in the 60's played a major role in the birth and rise of popular Rock and Roll and the creation of the big 70's arena concert and a move away from the doo wop and Elvis tunes of the previous decades. What do my esteemed Metal comrades think?

Instead of one festival fueled by alcohol, drugs and sex we have tons of concerts after concerts!!!!!

Plus, the Gen X doesn't trust the boomers!

True and true.

Comparing hair metal and Woodstock...I just got chills up my spine.

Anyway, here's the main difference. Woodstock was a concert that featured MANY different styles of music...a hard rock band like The Who, then a folk singer like Joan Baez...Santana and then Sha Na Na...Richie Havens & Jimi Hendrix, etc. People's minds were open about music and the mixing of styles was the name of the game. It was okay to be a fan of MUSIC...not just a specific genre.

In the 80's, it was all about fitting into a stylistic bag. Slayer better not record any ballads...Def Leppard shouldn't play anything TOO heavy or they might irritate their teeny bopper fans, Celtic Frost was hip UNTIL they borrowed the glam image. Etc. Closed minds for close minded times.

I think with labels taking more control the marketing pigeonholed styles. I think metal is more divergent then you give it credit for though, and really, woodstock was more then about music. Drop enough acid and you really think the Grateful Dead are good.

Of course Woodstock was more than just the music, and the drugs played their parts...but I have NEVER agreed with people who think the music was ONLY about the drugs. The majority of musical styles we listen to today were developed in about a 3 year period between 1967 & 1971.

Even the roots of rap were already in place in the early 70's, brought on by Harlem beat poets like Gil Scott-Heron.

There was a TON of innovation during that era, there has never been anything like it since.

detuned wrote:

Comparing hair metal and Woodstock...I just got chills up my spine.

Anyway, here's the main difference. Woodstock was a concert that featured MANY different styles of music...a hard rock band like The Who, then a folk singer like Joan Baez...Santana and then Sha Na Na...Richie Havens & Jimi Hendrix, etc. People's minds were open about music and the mixing of styles was the name of the game. It was okay to be a fan of MUSIC...not just a specific genre.

In the 80's, it was all about fitting into a stylistic bag. Slayer better not record any ballads...Def Leppard shouldn't play anything TOO heavy or they might irritate their teeny bopper fans, Celtic Frost was hip UNTIL they borrowed the glam image. Etc. Closed minds for close minded times.

I would agree with you on your analysis of music, and the acceptance that people showed for various forms/genres, BUT where that generation failed MISERABLY, was their utter disregard for the American soldier who were fighting for these people's freedoms. I actually LOATHE that generation to a great extent. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should've even been in Vietnam, but it was downright disgusting how the American soldier was viewed/treated. Unfortunately for me the music and the socio-political environment were inexorably intertwined. I find it hard to separate the music from the worldly affairs of that time.

I respect your views on the subject. However, please don't stereotype an entire generation, especially since it's the one my parents came from.

Speaking of my parents. My Father enlisted in the army the day he turned 18. He did two tours in Vietnam and got a purple heart. When he came home he JOINED the hippie movement, grew his hair long, etc. He was proud of his army career, he was also proud to be a member of the "Woodstock generation".

detuned wrote:

I respect your views on the subject. However, please don't stereotype an entire generation, especially since it's the one my parents came from.

Speaking of my parents. My Father enlisted in the army the day he turned 18. He did two tours in Vietnam and got a purple heart. When he came home he JOINED the hippie movement, grew his hair long, etc. He was proud of his army career, he was also proud to be a member of the "Woodstock generation".

It's my parents generation as well (62 & 63 high school grads). My Father didn't fight in Vietnam, because he was a teacher after college, and they didn't seem to touch educators/students or the privileged. He had many friends that went over, and some that unfortunately didn't come back. I just find it hard to embrace the "Woodstock" generation/experience. The fact that your father was able to balance both, I give him credit. Unfortunately many in the hippie movement didn't mince words regarding their opinions as it pertained to the war & our servicemen. I thank God that this generation can take a stance against our involvement in war, without throwing our soldiers under the bus at the same time.