Bret Michaels owning Joe Elliott..

HellRaiser wrote:

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

Probably shouldn't of used the artistic merit line but the music was kinda lacking, it really seemed and sounded like a product of it's time, a commercial pop trend that wasn't real or creative and had nothing really to say.

I agree originality is definately not everything. I love the Black Crowes, were they musically original? No....but their was hardly anything like them at the time. Same goes for Guns N' Roses who were the antithesis of everything at the time, even though they were hardly original. Nothing is original in rock n' roll, it's all been done before.....but when you couple that with deliberately chasing trends and commercial sucess then that's not too great in my book.

It really comes down to what you like, Hair/Glam/LA Metal doesn't really grab me. But if you like it then that's fine.

This is a cool discussion by the way.

Joe Elliott is a jerk that turned his back on metal when it wasn't cool anymore. If metal was selling like it did in the 80's they would call themselves metal but since most people nowdays are tasteless and don't "get" metal they go for top 40 appeal.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Nice outfits, Joe.

I love this photo, it's so goofy and funny, but so cool at the same time. I had a Def Leppard fanatic write to me and demand I take this photo down from my web site because it made them look "gay". LOL! OK, so what?! They took the photo. It's a well known picture and I like it. Should have included that letter in the Hall of Shame.

If Poison were a product of the times, so were Def Leppard. Just sayin'. Can anyone argue that "Hysteria" wasn't a "product of the times"? I'm not saying it's good or bad. In fact, I much prefer Def Leppard to Poison, but I'm not sure how anyone can say Poison were a product of the times and not include Def Leppard in that description.

Personally, I liked a lot of glam metal from the 80's. Saying it had no substance musically is a valid opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. I think a band like the Vinnie Vincent Invasion had a ton of substance. The first Cinderella was about as glam as it gets, but the music was fantastic IMO.

Joe Elliot is an egotistical twat...but he was never Metal.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Joe Elliot is an egotistical twat...but he was never Metal.

Well, you got it half right.

Shawn and I have gone round and round about this for what, 8 years now.

I don't really care about rockstar attitudes or labels all that much. Many artists I like have worse attitudes that Joe Elliot. Frankly, I just like what I like.

I can hear the Sweet, Slade, Thin Lizzy, T.Rex, UFO, etc. influences in early Def Leppard. I'm sure it was those influences that made me enjoy those first couple albums so much. Call it metal, call it rock 'n roll, call it glam...it doesn't really matter. Back in the early 1980's we certainly called it metal. They were part of a movement (NWOBHM). The band never denied being part of that movement until it was not longer cool to be labled "metal".

Quote :

If metal was selling like it did in the 80's they would call themselves metal...

They didn't call themselves Metal in the 80s...other people did...they just went along with whatever...

Quote :

They were part of a movement (NWOBHM). The band never denied being part of that movement until it was not longer cool to be labled "metal".

Again, the band has never denied that they were included in that movement...they only deny that it was thier intent...much like AC/DC...they had thier own set of influences and wanted to do thier own thing...it was all coincidence...

When AC/DC first arrived in the UK from Australia, they were labelled Punk...doesn't mean they were.

Quote :

Look no further then Winger, musical chops to burn but they wrote the most pathetic dumb rock songs ever.

If you stop at the first disc, for sure. But, especially by Pull, the band had matured as songwriters and musicians and put out one of the most overlooked/underrated discs of the time.

Again, in my opinion...

Arttie

arttieTHE1manparty wrote:

Quote :

Look no further then Winger, musical chops to burn but they wrote the most pathetic dumb rock songs ever.

If you stop at the first disc, for sure. But, especially by Pull, the band had matured as songwriters and musicians and put out one of the most overlooked/underrated discs of the time.

Again, in my opinion...

Arttie

Even the first disc had "Surrender" and "Hungry"...and even "Emergency"...much better IMO than "Seventeen"...

Winger had the trade off...for every "Can't Get Enough", they wrote "Rainbow In The Rose" and "In The Day We'll Never See"...then, like Arttie said, they abandoned the cheese altogether by Pull...

arttieTHE1manparty wrote:

Quote :

Look no further then Winger, musical chops to burn but they wrote the most pathetic dumb rock songs ever.

If you stop at the first disc, for sure. But, especially by Pull, the band had matured as songwriters and musicians and put out one of the most overlooked/underrated discs of the time.

Again, in my opinion...

Arttie

Yeah Pull was a definately a step up, but it was to late 1993 i think the record came out.

Which proves my point about these bands. Once the tide changed those songs Winger had wrote on the first two records were no longer what was successful, so they wrote what they wanted to write all along.

Ironically imo Grunge was the best thing for these bands (it woke them up), because they used their talent on music they wanted to play all along but due to commercial, record label and their own pressures did'nt play in the 80's/early 90's.

Just look at them even though i don't like the bands. BulletBoys, Warrant, Winger etc. made what was arguably their best albums post 1991 without resorting to jumping on the trend at the time (Grunge).

I think it's a great pic aswell, the first thing i thought was The Who. Like in all those primo vintage shots of them they were draped in the Union Jack.

Just Def Leppard went one better and actually wore the Union Jack.

Not merry but a bunch of proud Brits.........which may be merry.

Eyesore wrote:

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.

Well said.

I don't think ANYONE can deny the 80s hair/glam/sleaze scene was image-based. It's my favorite genre and even I can see that, but that's half the fun of it. Bands wanted to be noticed, nothing wrong with that. Sure, a lot of them were more concerned with looks than hooks but there was also a lot of them who put out great rock 'n' roll and had steak to go with the sizzle.

Rocklahoma, Motley Crue, Poison, and all these 80s metal amphiteatre/club tours wouldn't be happening every summer if there wasn't *something* behind the look because those looks are gone! The bands don't dress like it's 1986 anymore and they aren't in good enough shape to pull it off anyway. And Twisted Sister doesn't count because they're more along the lines of KISS wearing costumes.

To condemn a whole genre means you're just being a willfully ignorant dillweed. I love Def Leppard but everytime they do press for a new release, Joe Elliot sounds more and more like an ignorant dillweed (Jon Bon Jovi follows the same pattern as well). Personal taste is one thing, I don't care whether Joe and the rest of Def Leppard like "metal" or "80s glam" or not, but I don't see the point in them bringing up how much they hate it in every interview they do.

Hmm... Trying to distance yourself, Joe? I do think it's funny though that they knock 1980s acts but then go on tour with 1970s soft rockers like REO Speedwagon and Styx. Yep, way to stay current, Joe!

rattpoison's opinion on how bands look, obviously has a lot to do with if he likes their music or not.

I'm not a Poison or Def fan, but that picture is just as merry as Poison's 80s look. At least Posion didn't have matching outfits.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

rattpoison's opinion on how bands look, obviously has a lot to do with if he likes their music or not.

He's admitted this. I called him crazy. Haha.

Quote :

I'm not a Poison or Def fan, but that picture is just as merry as Poison's 80s look. At least Posion didn't have matching outfits.

I can't imagine how you could think this. First off, those were shorts in the 70s and 80s. Maybe metalheads lopped off the bottom ends of their dirty jeans to make "longer" shorts, but if not, your choice was basically underwear with a different name. I don't think you can point out that a band was wearing a piece of clothing that was largely the global fashion with a bunch of guys that deliberately dolled themselves up like chicks.

Plus, like I said, Poison always looked like chicks; Def Leppard weren't always wearing those shorts and matching shirts. Rick Allen actually did wear the shorts quite often during live shows, but again, those were shorts back then. They didn't have knee-length shorts.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

1986.



Dope.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm....... apples.

rattpoison wrote:

Nothing is original in rock n' roll, it's all been done before.....but when you couple that with deliberately chasing trends and commercial sucess then that's not too great in my book.

More than fair enough. It's funny, 'cause I'll certainly see the transparency in some of these bands myself, but, hey, if the songs are good...

You used Winger as a great example earlier - were they shameless bandwagon chasers? Absolutely; they basically just wanted to sound like Bon Jovi with better chops.

But at the end of the day, that Madalaine is a damn catchy song

Quote :

It really comes down to what you like, Hair/Glam/LA Metal doesn't really grab me. But if you like it then that's fine.

This is a cool discussion by the way.

And that's pretty much it - musical taste certainly is an odd thing. And yes, there are a good number of 'hair bands' that do nothing for me either.

Eyesore, imo, nothing is gayer than a band having the same clothes on. It just looks dumb.

Now if I had a choice to wear either, I would look like the Defs. But not all of the band wearing that.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Eyesore, imo, nothing is gayer than a band having the same clothes on. It just looks dumb.

Now if I had a choice to wear either, I would look like the Defs. But not all of the band wearing that.

Oh, it does look dumb. But it was just a photoshoot. I don't think the band actually ever wore that out on stage or whatever, at least I hope not.

Did he really need 3 belts?

You people sticking up for them is funny. I remember them being one of the cheesiest bands of the late 80s. Hysteria was so slick, poppy and polished. There up on stage with mullets and have you even seen Rick Savage's hair? And what about those pants? Do you think some lady was sitting backstage working on holes?

And I can't see the shorts here, but he is wearing the shirt:



And then they jump right on the hair metal bandwagon when it was all good, but now:

"Don't lump us in with that bunch". They weren't saying that 20 years ago. they were smiling right along with all the other hair metal dorks in Metal Edge. Now they're above it all. please.

And Tigertailz is seriously merry.

To my EARS everyone LOOKS The SAME.

When I'm driving around listening to "Flesh and Blood" or "High & Dry" it doesn't matter what the band looks like or if they lip sync, it's about what how the music makes me feel, that's the only thing that matters.

Another aspect to this whole debate is MTV. It was non-existantant in the 70's glam era and bands didn't have that pressure on them to sell themselves in that capacity. I saw first hand, all through the 80's, a band being one of the 5 or 6 playing each night at some tiny sunset strip dive. Bite'n and scratch'n their way to be a headliner so all the other bands had to pay for the tickets. Then........ BANG.... they have a record deal and a hit video on MTV. Bands before had to repay a recored company for recording time and touring costs. Enter MTV and you add on video production costs, ect. ect. So you have alot of bands, talented and other wise starting right out the gate in big time debt. They see somebody else doing something that works and sells and off to the races they go. It wasn't all the fault of the record company, the band, or the image. Blame it on what the consumer was buying. Just another perspective thats all.

SoldierUnderCommand wrote:

Did he really need 3 belts?

You people sticking up for them is funny. I remember them being one of the cheesiest bands of the late 80s. Hysteria was so slick, poppy and polished. There up on stage with mullets and have you even seen Rick Savage's hair? And what about those pants? Do you think some lady was sitting backstage working on holes?

And I can't see the shorts here, but he is wearing the shirt:



And then they jump right on the hair metal bandwagon when it was all good, but now:

"Don't lump us in with that bunch". They weren't saying that 20 years ago. they were smiling right along with all the other hair metal dorks in Metal Edge. Now they're above it all. please.

And Tigertailz is seriously merry.

I couldn't agree more with your summation regarding Joe Elliott. I don't know whether to place the onus strictly on Joe for his constant demonization of heavy metal/glam metal, or also with others inside the group? I've gotten to the point where I'm tired of deliberating whether they were a heavy metal group early on or not, though I've been pretty clear on where I stand on this issue.

I think it's funny how resolute Joe is regarding his convictions of the band and its history, but what is even funnier is his insistance that a greater portion of the metal community simply misinterpreted everything they were about.

I believe Joe to be one of those fly by the seat of his pants type of guy. Whatever the next best thing is, that's what Def Leppard is/ or will try to be, and when that scene is dead and gone, or simply in remission, he and Def Leppard will abandon it like a sinking ship. Joe will someday try and convince their small group of fans that the band's true passion was rap music, and that if you really pay attention to what they've written in the past, you might just be able to hear it.

Joe simply is a snake charmer w/out the snake. Notice how he got a few chuckles when talking about his fetish for the likes of Michael Monroe, yet when Brett Michaels slammed Joe, Brett got a much bigger applause. Pretty sad when you think about it, because who's ever taken Brett Michaels or Poison seriously?

ultmetal wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Joe Elliot is an egotistical twat...but he was never Metal.

Well, you got it half right.

Shawn and I have gone round and round about this for what, 8 years now.

Well at least you've been right for 8 years now Scott. Not sure how Shawn can really listen to a large part of their discography and really disagree with you???

arttieTHE1manparty wrote:

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

<----- I do. I still dress the exact same and there is the mohawk on my t-shirt. Haha.