Unorthodox Metal Opinions?

corplhicks wrote:

To me, Van Halen is the epitome of Hard Rock. Roth-era, that is. Maybe F*ck with Hagar too. But not. Fifty. One. f*cking. Fifty.

As for Poison, I never considered them Metal at all. They have a weird, dull mix that isn't very metallic, especially on Open Up and Say Ahhhh, Brett has a mediocre voice and C.C. is a boring guitarist. It was always weird music to me that was more fitting for Pop Rock radio.

I actually think balance is the heaviest album of the Hagar era. Definitely the hardest-edged sound.

While I'm on the subject, I'll give another unorthodox opinion related to van Halen:

Fair warning is only half of a quality album. Almost half of it is filler. Push comes to shove has to be one of the worst songs they ever did. That being said, mean street and unchained are two of my all-time favorite songs from any band. But the first three are most consistent albums.

We all referred to Poison as "Pop Metal" back in the day.... Back when there weren't as many sub-genre names....

Back when I was a teen bands such as Poison, Europe, White Lion, Slaughter, Motley Crue and Ratt were classified as pop metal (later dubbed hair metal by some prick), so that is how I still think about these bands.

manny wrote:

Back when I was a teen bands such as Poison, Europe, White Lion, Slaughter, Motley Crue and Ratt were classified as pop metal (later dubbed hair metal by some prick), so that is how I still think about these bands.

Me too - I HATE the hair band term, like you said it was created by some prick to make fun of the bands and all their fans

manny wrote:

Back when I was a teen bands such as Poison, Europe, White Lion, Slaughter, Motley Crue and Ratt were classified as pop metal (later dubbed hair metal by some prick), so that is how I still think about these bands.

Not to mention that "pop metal" describes the actual music, while hair metal simply describes (makes fun of) the bands' fashion.

Pop metal was actually my introduction into metal in the first place, along with Van Halen (however you want to classify them).

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

While I'm on the subject, I'll give another unorthodox opinion related to van Halen:

Fair warning is only half of a quality album. Almost half of it is filler. Push comes to shove has to be one of the worst songs they ever did. That being said, mean street and unchained are two of my all-time favorite songs from any band. But the first three are most consistent albums.

The problem with Fair Warning is that the fun wasn't there. The songs were pretty dark and heavy and weren't as recklessly sporadic as the first three albums. Gone was the party spirit and strip club anthems. That's why most of the album sounds like filler. Still not the outright bore that 1984 was, but you're right, Fair Warning would've worked better as an EP.

I will say that Diver Down is an underrated album, though.

corplhicks wrote:

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

While I'm on the subject, I'll give another unorthodox opinion related to van Halen:

Fair warning is only half of a quality album. Almost half of it is filler. Push comes to shove has to be one of the worst songs they ever did. That being said, mean street and unchained are two of my all-time favorite songs from any band. But the first three are most consistent albums.

The problem with Fair Warning is that the fun wasn't there. The songs were pretty dark and heavy and weren't as recklessly sporadic as the first three albums. Gone was the party spirit and strip club anthems. That's why most of the album sounds like filler. Still not the outright bore that 1984 was, but you're right, Fair Warning would've worked better as an EP.

I will say that Diver Down is an underrated album, though.

I wouldn't put Diver Down on the level of the first three, but it did bring back the fun. Not to mention that the originals on it are all quite good.

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

While I'm on the subject, I'll give another unorthodox opinion related to van Halen:

Fair warning is only half of a quality album. Almost half of it is filler. Push comes to shove has to be one of the worst songs they ever did. That being said, mean street and unchained are two of my all-time favorite songs from any band. But the first three are most consistent albums.

The problem with Fair Warning is that the fun wasn't there. The songs were pretty dark and heavy and weren't as recklessly sporadic as the first three albums. Gone was the party spirit and strip club anthems. That's why most of the album sounds like filler. Still not the outright bore that 1984 was, but you're right, Fair Warning would've worked better as an EP.

I will say that Diver Down is an underrated album, though.

I wouldn't put Diver Down on the level of the first three, but it did bring back the fun. Not to mention that the originals on it are all quite good.

Exactly.

Lol, all those reasons you listed about why you dont like fair warning as much as the other is why I like it more. To me it's like the band is recounting what the "other side" of the party life is like. When the shiney gloss of the booze has worn off to the grungy hungover stage, smelling like old cigarettes and sweating booze in a seedy theater playin nasty skin flicks. To me there sayin' it's not all glamour and guitar solos, if ya wanna be like us you've had fair warning. That's wha makes it endearing to me. It's an honest look on the other side, as well as being pretty rockin.

DevZor wrote:

Lol, all those reasons you listed about why you dont like fair warning as much as the other is why I like it more. To me it's like the band is recounting what the "other side" of the party life is like. When the shiney gloss of the booze has worn off to the grungy hungover stage, smelling like old cigarettes and sweating booze in a seedy theater playin nasty skin flicks. To me there sayin' it's not all glamour and guitar solos, if ya wanna be like us you've had fair warning. That's wha makes it endearing to me. It's an honest look on the other side, as well as being pretty rockin.

The main reason why I don't like Fair Warning as much is inconsistent songwriting (it gave us Unchained, but it also gave us Push Comes to Shove). That being said, a lot of my friends hold it as their favorite Van Halen album.

DevZor wrote:

Lol, all those reasons you listed about why you dont like fair warning as much as the other is why I like it more. To me it's like the band is recounting what the "other side" of the party life is like. When the shiney gloss of the booze has worn off to the grungy hungover stage, smelling like old cigarettes and sweating booze in a seedy theater playin nasty skin flicks. To me there sayin' it's not all glamour and guitar solos, if ya wanna be like us you've had fair warning. That's wha makes it endearing to me. It's an honest look on the other side, as well as being pretty rockin.

I can see this, you're spot on about the thematic qualities of the album, whether the band made it intentional or not.

And I don't think Push Comes to Shove is the bad song there; it's certainly So This is Love. Worst VH song ever written before 5150 came out.

corplhicks wrote:

DevZor wrote:

Lol, all those reasons you listed about why you dont like fair warning as much as the other is why I like it more. To me it's like the band is recounting what the "other side" of the party life is like. When the shiney gloss of the booze has worn off to the grungy hungover stage, smelling like old cigarettes and sweating booze in a seedy theater playin nasty skin flicks. To me there sayin' it's not all glamour and guitar solos, if ya wanna be like us you've had fair warning. That's wha makes it endearing to me. It's an honest look on the other side, as well as being pretty rockin.

I can see this, you're spot on about the thematic qualities of the album, whether the band made it intentional or not.

And I don't think Push Comes to Shove is the bad song there; it's certainly So This is Love. Worst VH song ever written before 5150 came out.

I don't like that song either. Basically, after Unchained, I lose interest in the album.

We always called bands like Poison "party metal". Don't like the hair metal tag but over time I've just accepted it.

manny wrote:

Back when I was a teen bands such as Poison, Europe, White Lion, Slaughter, Motley Crue and Ratt were classified as pop metal (later dubbed hair metal by some prick), so that is how I still think about these bands.

I still think that Pop Metal is an oxymoron.

What's so oxymoronic about it. You take a little metal, take a little pop, throw it into a blender thats dressed like a transvestite and viola!!! Pop metal. It's simple math really.

I think we all spend too much time trying fit bands into neat little categorical descriptions. If a band comes out with an interesting sound then immediately someone has to come up with a new subgenre to shoehorn them into. For some reason the internet seems to have turned everyone into musical librarians with an almost rabid fixation on categorizing everything to death.

jstate wrote:

We always called bands like Poison "party metal". Don't like the hair metal tag but over time I've just accepted it.

Where I grew up, we called it "Pop Metal" or "glam Metal".....though I too have accepted the stupid term "Hair Metal" or "Hair Bands".

S.D. wrote:

I think we all spend too much time trying fit bands into neat little categorical descriptions. If a band comes out with an interesting sound then immediately someone has to come up with a new subgenre to shoehorn them into. For some reason the internet seems to have turned everyone into musical librarians with an almost rabid fixation on categorizing everything to death.

That quote sounds like intellectual jazz-infused neo-urban-heavy-core to me.

DevZor wrote:

What's so oxymoronic about it. You take a little metal, take a little pop, throw it into a blender thats dressed like a transvestite and viola!!! Pop metal. It's simple math really.

I guess I still equate metal with heavy metal, and to have heavy metal you need some kind of heaviness to the music and I don't hear any heaviness in that music. Maybe it is 'metal' but I don't really know what that is.

Pop metal as I see it is DTP's Addicted and Dev would make a superb transvestite

ultmetal wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I think we all spend too much time trying fit bands into neat little categorical descriptions. If a band comes out with an interesting sound then immediately someone has to come up with a new subgenre to shoehorn them into. For some reason the internet seems to have turned everyone into musical librarians with an almost rabid fixation on categorizing everything to death.

That quote sounds like intellectual jazz-infused neo-urban-heavy-core to me.

ultmetal wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I think we all spend too much time trying fit bands into neat little categorical descriptions. If a band comes out with an interesting sound then immediately someone has to come up with a new subgenre to shoehorn them into. For some reason the internet seems to have turned everyone into musical librarians with an almost rabid fixation on categorizing everything to death.

That quote sounds like intellectual jazz-infused neo-urban-heavy-core to me.

Naw dude I don't see any urban in that wtf is wrong wif you!

In all seriousness, genre discussions are pretty futile and I've even seen friendships all but destroyed by such discussions. I'm sure that wouldn't happen here, but I agree with S.D. that lovers of music can fall into this dangerous trap of making genre/subgenre labeling a top priority.

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

While I'm on the subject, I'll give another unorthodox opinion related to van Halen:

Fair warning is only half of a quality album. Almost half of it is filler. Push comes to shove has to be one of the worst songs they ever did. That being said, mean street and unchained are two of my all-time favorite songs from any band. But the first three are most consistent albums.

The problem with Fair Warning is that the fun wasn't there. The songs were pretty dark and heavy and weren't as recklessly sporadic as the first three albums. Gone was the party spirit and strip club anthems. That's why most of the album sounds like filler. Still not the outright bore that 1984 was, but you're right, Fair Warning would've worked better as an EP.

I will say that Diver Down is an underrated album, though.

I wouldn't put Diver Down on the level of the first three, but it did bring back the fun. Not to mention that the originals on it are all quite good.

5150 Is my favorite Van Halen album.

corplhicks wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I think we all spend too much time trying fit bands into neat little categorical descriptions. If a band comes out with an interesting sound then immediately someone has to come up with a new subgenre to shoehorn them into. For some reason the internet seems to have turned everyone into musical librarians with an almost rabid fixation on categorizing everything to death.

That quote sounds like intellectual jazz-infused neo-urban-heavy-core to me.

:lol!: :lmao: Naw dude I don't see any urban in that wtf is wrong wif you! :lmao:

In all seriousness, genre discussions are pretty futile and I've even seen friendships all but destroyed by such discussions. I'm sure that wouldn't happen here, but I agree with S.D. that lovers of music can fall into this dangerous trap of making genre/subgenre labeling a top priority.

Actually this is a very good point. I noticed that earlier on when talking about metal-archives and glam metal I was descending a little into genre debating. I'm not really that concerned about the genre a band belongs to or allegedly belongs to. The only practical use I see for genres is categorising my own music collection in itunes. Even then I genres very loosely - we have discussed this previously about what is and is not glam etc. however in my itunes I have bands like Telsa, RATT, Poison and White Lion all categorised under glam metal. Simply because (subjectively) to me there is a common pattern in their style. Others may not consider it so, but I am using these categories for my own purposes.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I think we all spend too much time trying fit bands into neat little categorical descriptions. If a band comes out with an interesting sound then immediately someone has to come up with a new subgenre to shoehorn them into. For some reason the internet seems to have turned everyone into musical librarians with an almost rabid fixation on categorizing everything to death.

That quote sounds like intellectual jazz-infused neo-urban-heavy-core to me.

Naw dude I don't see any urban in that wtf is wrong wif you!

In all seriousness, genre discussions are pretty futile and I've even seen friendships all but destroyed by such discussions. I'm sure that wouldn't happen here, but I agree with S.D. that lovers of music can fall into this dangerous trap of making genre/subgenre labeling a top priority.

Actually this is a very good point. I noticed that earlier on when talking about metal-archives and glam metal I was descending a little into genre debating. I'm not really that concerned about the genre a band belongs to or allegedly belongs to. The only practical use I see for genres is categorising my own music collection in itunes. Even then I genres very loosely - we have discussed this previously about what is and is not glam etc. however in my itunes I have bands like Telsa, RATT, Poison and White Lion all categorised under glam metal. Simply because (subjectively) to me there is a common pattern in their style. Others may not consider it so, but I am using these categories for my own purposes.

And you bring up an equally good point, that genre sorting is in fact subjective. I just mentioned in another thread that I consider Metal Church thrash w/ heavy power metal leanings--add this to the 'unorthodox' list--and I'm sure there are only a few who feel the same way. When it gets more complicated with the nu/post genres, well--this becomes damn difficult because there are so may influences to draw off of now, making music a tad more complex and layered than it used to be. Genre labeling really does end with the listener and should never be a universal system.