Serious Question. What is it about this place and Van Halen?

derekd

Supporting Member
Messages
41,760
So you are defining genres by hair style? In that case, Morbid Angel were "hair metal", so were Kajagoogoo. The Jackson 5 all had big hair and used lots of product: Were they hair metal?

The problem is people are so lazy they apply generic tags to things that ultimately lose all meaning.

VH, at times, had big hair: it doesn't make them "hair metal". Nor were Queensryche. Nor were Iron Maiden. Nor were Guns N Roses, LA Guns etc etc.

All this is why "hair metal" is such a stupid and pointless term.
Uh, okay. Whatever you say. Good luck trying to put that genie back in the bottle.

Btw, I never used the term, hair metal.

Mostly, I was messing with @renoman_89502 and @Javiceres but I know 70s & 80s era rock music is serious business.
 

Gibson Dog

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,412
With regard to Rush and U2, I just can't agree. No one I knew, no magazine article I read, ever lumped them in with Ratt or Motley Crue. Metallica was certainly not hair metal either.

A case might be made for some eras of Maiden or Ryche, I suppose.
I started playing the clubs around here in 1980 - I never heard the term hair metal. If you want to google it I'm sure there are plenty of pics of Rush, Metallica & U2 with the hair & questionable attire, maybe a little makeup. It sounds like this is mostly an aesthetic thing to you guys - if you heard them without seeing them these are all just Rock n' Roll bands that's it.
 

mattmccloskey

Supporting Member
Messages
5,688
All this debate over the minutiae: genre, image, labels, etc. is irrelevant.

Eddie Van Halen is a popular topic for conversation because he is simply a wonderful guitar player, and had a massive influence on electric guitar playing.

It doesn’t matter if you think Van Halen sucks as a band, or that you think the lyrics are silly, or that Eddie is a jerk in the press, or whatever criticism you may have.

The bottom line is that Eddie was a massive influence on the instrument, and he is easily one of the very greatest rock guitar players of all time.
 

TFR

Supporting Member
Messages
485
In that way he's kinda like Townshend with the Who -- rhythm section swinging away while he's doing rhythmic counterpoint by holding the groove tight. There's an interesting tug-and-pull going on there that I like.
Yeah, it’s kind of loose and tight at the same time. I liken it to the difference between driving 100 mph on I-90 or I-40 and driving the same speed on a half-mile race track and having to turn left. Same speed but totally different experience. Sometimes it sounded to me like they were right on the edge of losing it and I found that more exciting than absolute precision.
 
Messages
1,540
It might just have been that the UK had so many big mainstream bands in the early 80's when I was hitting my early teens during the NWOBHM era so in my generation EVH got overlooked.

We had Queen, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, ACDC, Def Leppard, Whitesnake and older bands like Deep Purple. Oddly Led Zeppelin didn't have all that big a following by then. EVH didn't really get much of a look in. Maybe because I was too young to be into music when he hit his prime. My Dad was a big 'The Who' fan with a sprinkling of Rolling Stones, otherwise our house was full of Tom Jones, The Shadows, Shirley Bassey and Abba through the late 70's lol. Friends parents were into Dire Straits and things like Mike Oldfield. So maybe Van Halen fit somewhere in between the generations I grew up with.
Also the UK music press rather took against Van Halen after the Lewisham Odeon incident when they were supporting Sabbath, after the first VH album was released. (IIRC DLR hurled a couple of full magnums of champagne into the audience and injured someone; the rock press ate VH for breakfast the next week.)
 

alex mansman

Member
Messages
460
well judging the proverbial book by its cover...I don't like 80s metal (any mire), even though I made my living for a decade from it...in well the 80s)...and my upper body and arms are covered in tattoos and I have dreads that are 4 ft. Long... So appearance and musical taste are not synonymous...
Agreed. I actually have 0 tattoos and love 80s metal lol. Look at Paul Gilbert for example as well - a total clean living kinda guy
 

Jollyb

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,101
But I still don’t get why that one band/player are so heavily discussed.
Because Van Halen basically disappeared. Lots of drama , lots of unknowns . Eddie is considered one of the best living guitarists and he has produced almost nothing in 25 yrs. If you make music , do shows, and interviews it would answer most questions.

But Eddie doesnt so people discuss it. If you dont answer the questions people assume. That's fame......and you can have it.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,007
Yeah, it’s kind of loose and tight at the same time. I liken it to the difference between driving 100 mph on I-90 or I-40 and driving the same speed on a half-mile race track and having to turn left. Same speed but totally different experience. Sometimes it sounded to me like they were right on the edge of losing it and I found that more exciting than absolute precision.
Danger was definitely part of the sound on VHI.

Eddie's rhythm helped keep it on track, to my ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TFR

Javiceres

Member
Messages
429
IMO this makes little to no sense...styles of music change over time....it really is that simple.
Yes, they change overtime, like anything. And like anything there are always motivations and a history that is not just random or merely by chance. Some things are born in reaction to previous existing things. It makes certain sense to say the least.
Again, just my opinion and how I see it (also based in enterviews of the mentioned artists).
 

sah5150

Member
Messages
630
I started playing the clubs around here in 1980 - I never heard the term hair metal. If you want to google it I'm sure there are plenty of pics of Rush, Metallica & U2 with the hair & questionable attire, maybe a little makeup. It sounds like this is mostly an aesthetic thing to you guys - if you heard them without seeing them these are all just Rock n' Roll bands that's it.
There are pictures in his autobiography of Steven Tyler onstage in what looks like a gold lame pantsuit, wearing eye makeup and teased up hair in 1974. I guess that's hair metal as well. :rolleyes:

Truth is hair metal is a derogatory term that was come up with when 80s melodic hard rock/metal and the prevailing aesthetic of the time (which were both popular with women, BTW) were falling out of favor as a means to denigrate it. There is no hair metal music - The '80s melodic hard rock/metal stuff was just an evolution of earlier hard rock stuff with a lot of virtuoso musicianship (which no one should be knocking).

I dunno about you guys, but when I was playing original hard rock back in the '80s, it sure was fun playing complex rhythm guitar parts and lots of solos, while looking out and seeing nothing but women lined up in front of the stage. If that's hair metal, count me in I guess...

Steve
 
Messages
4,357
The '80s melodic hard rock/metal stuff was just an evolution of earlier hard rock stuff with a lot of virtuoso musicianship (which no one should be knocking).
Yep! And Beavis and Butthead nearly single-handedly were responsible for Winger's undeserved reputation as posers. Seriously.

Go listen to Winger and then attempt to play that stuff. It ain't easy. That decade of music was and is technically challenging. Serious props to those axe pioneers that were on the bleeding edge of guitar back before there were YouTube videos showing everyone how it's done. You listened to the albums and your jaw dropped, solo after solo. It was the age of excess, the decade of decadence. Hard rock guitar took giant steps forward. Then the 90's hit and you couldn't find a guitar solo no matter how hard you tried. Technicality and pure sex driven rock was out the window.
 
Messages
9,007
I started playing the clubs around here in 1980 - I never heard the term hair metal. If you want to google it I'm sure there are plenty of pics of Rush, Metallica & U2 with the hair & questionable attire, maybe a little makeup. It sounds like this is mostly an aesthetic thing to you guys - if you heard them without seeing them these are all just Rock n' Roll bands that's it.
"Hair Metal", as a term, was about ten years after your club debut. However, if you think Rush or U2 played to the antics of that genre, that's your own biz, don't know what to say that might help you.

I was gigging in SoCal in the mid-80s ... ground-zero for hair metal. We didn't consider either band in our particular loop.

Musically, both Rush and Metallica were far beyond hair-metal. The former had by 1982 introduced mainstream reggae and whitified funk into their sound, while the latter were hard-nosed face-punchers who put the pedal to the metal. Both those bands explored odd time-sigs, too.

The idea that either two, or U2, are "hair metal" is laughable. Neither sonically nor in terms of image did any of those three bands fit in with Motley Crue, Scorps, Dokken, etc.

Here's your "hair metal":



 
Last edited:

sah5150

Member
Messages
630
Yes, they change overtime, like anything. And like anything there are always motivations and a history that is not just random or merely by chance. Some things are born in reaction to previous existing things. It makes certain sense to say the least.
Again, just my opinion and how I see it (also based in enterviews of the mentioned artists).
Yes, it's a good thing the '90s bands came along and crushed the scourge of hair metal.

Here is early Pantera:



Here is early Alice in Chains:



Here is the precursor to Alice in Chains:



Here is the precursor to Peal Jam:



I guess these guys were rebelling against themselves? :D

Steve
 




Top