Should Bon Jovi be in the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Can you name a band that got together because of Bon Jovi?

Can you tell me how Bon Jovi perpetuates Rock N Roll?

Can you tell me what Bon Jovi brought to Rock N Roll that no one else has?

These are some of the questions that need to answered before inducting a band into the hall of fame and frankly Bon Jovi doesn't have any of this.

Yes they are a long lasting, good band that has many fans but it takes more that this.

Why does that even matter? Has every band that ever got inducted been scrutinized by that list? What have a lot of inductees brought that 'no one else has', a lot of them can't be judged by that.

They perpetuate rock by continuing to sell records and sell out arenas.

Bands that got together? Who knows. Maybe some have and haven't mentioned them, maybe a lot did but never made it big. I don't think it should be required for membership that you can prove somebody heard someone's record and said, yeah, I wanna be just like him! I'm sure everybody has had that happen at some point whether or not we know it.

And I am SO tired of the elitist attitude of some of the people here that only THEIR bands 'matter' and bands they don't like all 'suck.' :tsk:

There are bands in the Hall that I like and that I don't care for. But SOMEBODY cared for them, and it's not all about me. So good for them and their fans.
 
I was thinking this as well, about the criteria. Nothing against you BVS as you I am sure didn't make the criteria, nor take criticism of it personally. But really the whole thing is a bit of bs if you ask me, which no one did...:D

At first I was going to disagree with the bits about the attitude in here, but really I dont think any of us can. We all do it I think in some way whether its arguing about a poll or a genre or a particular group, we all seem to sometimes forget that we aren't right or wrong and pretty much all of it comes back to opinion in some way.
 
Yes, I agree about it all being opinion. That's why I said there are bands in the Hall that I don't personally like, but let them be there for them and their fans we all like different stuff. Who cares.

But what I mean by elitist attitude is the old thing that here on this particular forum there is a list of bands that are bragged on and protected by some and you aren't allowed to bash them, but these same people will bash other people's bands and disregard them as 'junk' and 'shitty' and 'suck' because they don't like them, but Heaven forbid you call their band junk. (Like the Everclear incident) Okay old story, old wounds, but that's what I meant by elitist attitude and I still think it exists here. I don't think there is anything any more subjective and open to personal opinion than music. If we all liked the same things some bands would be out of business. So don't deny a band's right to the Hall of Fame because you don't personally like them or they don't meet your list of criteria. I'm sure the Hall guys have some way of doing that and it will be up to them and not us anyway.
 
Pinball Wizard said:
I've heard that too! They can't touch Shawn Kemp though.

I cannot let this thread go by without a four thumb salute to one of the greatest yet least understood comments this board has ever seen. :up::up::up::up: Congrats on your continued wisdom of all things witty. The folks from Best Week Ever will be calling in no time, of this i am sure.


As for Mr. Bon Jovi... obviously his work on Ally McBeal makes him immediately deserving of a place in the RRHOF...

... or not.

Do I like their music? Nothing beats Living on a Prayer on a nice drunken night... all their other songs? Blah... I know this... they're # 3 on the Dirty Jerz list of all time greatest musicians, right behind The Chairman and The Boss. And on that note... someone said that anyone who plays their own instruments and writes their own music should be taken more seriously than someone who doesn't... so does that mean we should take Bon Jovi more seriously than Frank Sinatra? Hmmm... :hmm:

I shall conclude my ramblings now with this... if Aerosmith and Jackson Browne are in, then what the hell. Bring the hair.
 
U2Kitten said:


Why does that even matter? Has every band that ever got inducted been scrutinized by that list? What have a lot of inductees brought that 'no one else has', a lot of them can't be judged by that.

They perpetuate rock by continuing to sell records and sell out arenas.

Bands that got together? Who knows. Maybe some have and haven't mentioned them, maybe a lot did but never made it big. I don't think it should be required for membership that you can prove somebody heard someone's record and said, yeah, I wanna be just like him! I'm sure everybody has had that happen at some point whether or not we know it.

And I am SO tired of the elitist attitude of some of the people here that only THEIR bands 'matter' and bands they don't like all 'suck.' :tsk:

There are bands in the Hall that I like and that I don't care for. But SOMEBODY cared for them, and it's not all about me. So good for them and their fans.

Look I didn't say that if a band doesn't make it into the hall of fame they suck. A lot of my fave bands will not make it into the hall of fame and I'm fine with that.

Those questions are very similar to the questions asked by the hall of fame.

To me it takes more than selling albums and tours to perpetuate Rock and Roll.

I'm just stating my opinion if I were to be on the board.

I like some of their songs, in fact I owned Slippery when Wet on Vinyl, but I still think they are saccarine and that rock music would still be in the same place if they never existed.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Look I didn't say that if a band doesn't make it into the hall of fame they suck. A lot of my fave bands will not make it into the hall of fame and I'm fine with that.

Those questions are very similar to the questions asked by the hall of fame.

To me it takes more than selling albums and tours to perpetuate Rock and Roll.

I'm just stating my opinion if I were to be on the board.

I like some of their songs, in fact I owned Slippery when Wet on Vinyl, but I still think they are saccarine and that rock music would still be in the same place if they never existed.

But how do you "pepetuate" rock n roll, pray tell?

I'm serious.... I've given examples through popularity and the maintenace of specific rock n roll aspects in their music (i.e the use guitar riffs, blues aspects, and Sambora's supposed contribution to guitar as attributed to guitar mags). What else can be done? Or do you mean perpetuate "YOUR" style of rock n' roll?

Again, I love Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and they were the first band I really got into but they are in the hall and I don't see how they perpetuated rock n'roll anymore then Bon Jovi.

Two side notes...

The Darkness are probably closely more aligned to Queen but there can't be any doubt that Bon Jovi wasn't something of an influence in terms of style and even a little sound (considering Bon Jovi is also "blues based")..

Also IMO Jon Bon Jovi is one of the greatest of rock star actors around... He was able to succeed in a genre where many rock stars have failed i.e. Bowie, Bono, Jagger, etc... So that has to count for something even if it was Ally McBeal
 
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu said:


But how do you "pepetuate" rock n roll, pray tell?

I'm serious.... I've given examples through popularity and the maintenace of specific rock n roll aspects in their music (i.e the use guitar riffs, blues aspects, and Sambora's supposed contribution to guitar as attributed to guitar mags). What else can be done? Or do you mean perpetuate "YOUR" style of rock n' roll?

Again, I love Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and they were the first band I really got into but they are in the hall and I don't see how they perpetuated rock n'roll anymore then Bon Jovi.



You are right Bon Jovi were popular, they had good guitar riffs, they were blues based they had all that. And so did Rock n Roll before them. If we were to use that criteria for perpetuating Rock n Roll then rock would become stagnant and eventually exitinct. Tom Petty can still be heard on radio stations across the US, and not just one or two songs. They embraced and made some of the most ground breaking videos of their time. Lyrically they were one of the best story tellers. After Tom Petty people had to raise the bar, people are still trying to tell stories like that. They didn't ride any genre's or any ones coat tails.

Bon Jovi continue rock and roll but they don't cause it to continue and that I believe is the difference.

I can't believe I got sucked so deep into this debate...:huh:
 
I don't mean for this to be a debate about Petty vs. Bon Jovi because I love Tom Petty and respect him, his music, his videos and his career. He totally belongs in the HOF. But I do agree that he really hasn't done anything to 'advance' rock. But a lot of bands haven't and I don't see why that is such a big thing. If you are a good act with good songs and people like you and remember you, you have advanced rock.

I now must address the comment about riding a genre's coattails. In fairness to Bon Jovi (don't know about anyone else but I can't type Bon without the o, it happens every time!) he did come in before the 'hair metal' craze hit full blast. His hit in, I think 83, with Runaway. They were rock, but just because you play hard rock and have long hair and tight pants and have girls in your videos it doesn't make you a cheap hair metal band. That is quintessential rock and roll and there's nothing wrong with that. True he hit it big with Slippery When Wet, right band, right time, right place. The actual hair metal craze didn't break until late 86-early 87 with acts like Poison and Ratt but was not full blown until 88 and lasted until about 91. This from a person who lived it, watching MTV in the 80's first hand.
 
U2Kitten said:
I don't mean for this to be a debate about Petty vs. Bon Jovi because I love Tom Petty and respect him, his music, his videos and his career. He totally belongs in the HOF. But I do agree that he really hasn't done anything to 'advance' rock. But a lot of bands haven't and I don't see why that is such a big thing. If you are a good act with good songs and people like you and remember you, you have advanced rock.

I now must address the comment about riding a genre's coattails. In fairness to Bon Jovi (don't know about anyone else but I can't type Bon without the o, it happens every time!) he did come in before the 'hair metal' craze hit full blast. His hit in, I think 83, with Runaway. They were rock, but just because you play hard rock and have long hair and tight pants and have girls in your videos it doesn't make you a cheap hair metal band. That is quintessential rock and roll and there's nothing wrong with that. True he hit it big with Slippery When Wet, right band, right time, right place. The actual hair metal craze didn't break until late 86-early 87 with acts like Poison and Ratt but was not full blown until 88 and lasted until about 91. This from a person who lived it, watching MTV in the 80's first hand.

Cant believe I got sucked back into this again. But you are incorrect about a few things as far as your dates and timing. As someone else who lived the same era I can say that the metal craze actually began with Quiet Riot, Motley Crue, Van Halen, and even Ratt (even though you incorrectly stated they started after BJ) around 1982 to 1983. BJ's first album came out in 1984 and it was no breakthrough or big hit. The artists I mentioned already had hit big with the same type of material. In fact all of these acts I mention started before Bon Jovi were even a band. So I dont think your statement is accurate. BJ did ride the wave of a movement that was started by the artists I mention. You could argue they may have been better at it (I would disagree), or maybe even enhanced it or made it more poppy. But there is no way they started it. Their breakthrough album SWW hit 3 to 4 years after this type of music became enormously popular and it was already very popular before BJ even released their first album. I think they may have been a little more successful at it because of their packaging. Girls were really into Jon then and at the beginning that was their primary fan base. The initial attention they received was because of their frontmans looks, not the musical content.

We could go back and forth, but I knew your dates werent right and I was the one that brought up that they road the wave. I still stand by that, because it is just flat out true. Again, nothing wrong with that. But BJ havent done anything that is very original. I just dont think they are that great. Some of you think they are, and thats fine. But there are people that hate U2 also and I disagree with them obviously and you probebly would also. Its all so subjective, but I have to respond when people are quoting facts to prove their point that are just inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Blue Room said:


Cant believe I got sucked back into this again. But you are incorrect about a few things as far as your dates and timing. As someone else who lived the same era I can say that the metal craze actually began with Quiet Riot, Motley Crue, Van Halen, and even Ratt (even though you incorrectly stated they started after BJ) around 1982 to 1983. BJ's first album came out in 1984 and it was no breakthrough or big hit. The artists I mentioned already had hit big with the same type of material. In fact all of these acts I mention started before Bon Jovi were even a band. So I dont think your statement is accurate. BJ did ride the wave of a movement that was started by the artists I mention. You could argue they may have been better at it (I would disagree), or maybe even enhanced it or made it more poppy. But there is no way they started it. Their breakthrough album SWW hit 3 to 4 years after this type of music became enormously popular and it was already very popular before BJ even released their first album. I think they may have been a little more successful at it because of their packaging. Girls were really into Jon then and at the beginning that was their primary fan base. The initial attention they received was because of their frontmans looks, not the musical content.

We could go back and forth, but I knew your dates werent right and I was the one that brought up that they road the wave. I still stand by that, because it is just flat out true. Again, nothing wrong with that. But BJ havent done anything that is very original. I just dont think they are that great. Some of you think they are, and thats fine. But there are people that hate U2 also and I disagree with them obviously and you probebly would also. Its all so subjective, but I have to respond when people are quoting facts to prove their point that are just inaccurate.

You're right!

Bon Jovi:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDSUB020404081505572380&sql=B2gjuear04xg7

Hair Metal:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDSUB020404081505572380&sql=C2693
 
No, Blue Room, I still say "hair metal" was brought in in the later 80's by Poison type bands. At least the hair metal that is maligned today. The earlier 80's band were metal, and they had hair, but they were not hair metal as the cliche' goes today. They were only trying to bring back what real rock and roll was about after a new wave and synth type bands movement like Human League and Flock of Seagulls. Rock and roll has always been there in its classic form. That's why I said in my post, can't you be rock and roll and have long hair and tight pants without being called hair metal? Motley Crue was around earlier but at the time they were just weird and psuedo-demonic (in a funny not a sinister or serious way) Even today, there are bands with long hair and tight pants who play hard rock or metal but that doesn't make them hair metal.That label has become too broad and inaccurate.

Quiet Riot were loud rock but NOT hair metal in the stereotypical sense, and Van Halen was NEVER hair metal :mad: they started in the 70's and were always what they were, pure rock and roll.

As an 80's MTV fanatic here are the bands I consider hair metal:

Poison
Warrant
Ratt
Cinderella
Britney Fox
Motley Crue (later)
Bon Jovi (for a time)
Nelson
White Lion
Great White
Whitesnake
Europe
Faster Pussycat
Kingdom Come

Even Slaughter and Tesla not really hair metal and resents the label. Skid Row is boarderline to me, they are more badass where the hair metal bands were more theatrics. I also think that is something that is missing today, the songs went so much better with the videos. They aren't as good alone. When I listen to them I can still remember the videos and see them in my head.

Def Leppard = NOT hair metal. They were also just regular rock and roll, struggling to keep true to the rock tradition as teens in England getting beaten up by punks who hated them for it. But they survived and thrived. Yes, so they had long hair and jeans and girls in their videos but that was more copying the older metal bands of the 60's-70's than the hair metal thing. They were HUGE in '83 with Pyromania. Then they dropped from view for awhile due to Rick Allen's wreck and the loss of his arm. They stuck with their friend and wouldn't get a new drummer until he came back with his special machine. By THEN, hair metal had taken over, and their videos may have seemed to fit in with that era, but Def Leppard are an original and one of my favorite 80's bands.
 
Last edited:
One more thing about Def Leppard, I think the demise of their career was more due to the fact that they shunned not only 'hair metal' but their roots and what they did best and ran from it when they saw it was going out and tried to become something they weren't. They tried Grunge with Slang, then whatever their later 90's record was supposed to be. They returned to their true selves and sound with their last album but it was too late to capture what was lost. Now, they can never dig themselves out because too many people blind and deafen themselves to them by labeling them as hair metal. :( Well, Joe, Rick, Rick, Phil and whoever they're using to try to replace the late Steve Clark :( I still like you and remember you fondly:)
 
I heard Living On A Prayer this morning on the radio and thought of this thread.
:slant:
I also need to confess that I have fallen asleep at a concert once before, and that concert was Bon Jovi.
:|

/non useful contribution
 
To further prove your point about Def Leppard not being one of the hair bands, U2Kitten, the lead singer himself said in one of those 80s things that while it's true he and his bandmates had big hair, they didn't like being lumped in with the hair metal groups because that's not really what they were.

I also agree with you about them doing music that they weren't meant to do. Some bands can pull off the whole experimental thing, some can't (and personally, I wasn't too fond of what I heard off Def Leppard's last album...but that's just me. *Shrugs*).

Angela
 
OK, but wait, isnt "hair metal" a style and/or image??? Its certainly not any type of major different music as the music by the bands you describe isnt much if any different than the artists I listed. Also, have you seen pictures of Ratt and Motley Crue from 1983 and 1985??? Lets talk about big hair! Thats pre BJ being on the scene in any kind of major fashion for sure. But really I'am looking purely at things from a musical perspective, not style perspective. So I still dont agree. Lets say for arguments sake you are right. Being responsible or on the forefront of HAIR metal. Is that a good thing??? Debatable, but I dont think its anything that makes a band deserving of getting into the HOF. If style and image and being original with that are the criteria. Kiss should have been in already. They were pioneers on that level. Certainly more than BJ ever were. So I still dont think your argument holds any water. Sorry :)
 
Last edited:
Reading some of U2Kitten's posts, I feel like I learned something.

:)

There were two periods of metal that I remember reading about. I sort of experienced the mid-late eighties period of "metal" but U2Kitten is right about there being a period from the late 70s to early 80s alah Ozzy Osbourne/ Randy Rhodes, Motorhead, Quiet Riot, etc... which were distinct from each other and had carryover bands as well (alah Motley Crue).

The funny thing about Skid Row to me was that they had a pretty good rep in terms of critical acclaim but when they went mainstream, their singles were crap if I remember.... I could see how they would toe the line between "hair metal" and metal.

Blue Room said:
OK, but wait, isnt "hair metal" a style and/or image??? Its certainly not any type of major different music as the music by the bands you describe isnt much if any different than the artists I listed. Also, have you seen pictures of Ratt and Motley Crue from 1983 and 1985??? Lets talk about big hair! Thats pre BJ being on the scene in any kind of major fashion for sure. But really I'am looking purely at things from a musical perspective, not style perspective. So I still dont agree. Lets say for arguments sake you are right. Being responsible or on the forefront of HAIR metal. Is that a good thing??? Debatable, but I dont think its anything that makes a band deserving of getting into the HOF. If style and image and being original with that are the criteria. Kiss should have been in already. They were pioneers on that level. Certainly more than BJ ever were. So I still dont think your argument holds any water. Sorry :)

I believe KISS will be in the RnR HOF if they aren't already... KISS is influential and definte innovators.

As for the whole "style and image and being original with that are the criteria...", IMO it does count for something and I'm sure it influences people who vote considering part of rock n roll is image as well as music. Just mentioning KISS, the Beatles, Bowie, Elvis, etc... one is bombarded with images and image is an influence.

Also just b/c KISS "MAY" have been better pioneers of image, doesn't mean a group can't still be decent pioneers. What, I mean is maybe Hendrix wrote the book on guitar playing for his time but that doesn't mean a lesser player/ peer such as Townsend didn't contribute something to the guitar movement...


The funny thing about Living on a Prayer, the accoustic version Sambora and Jon did for that song softened my opinions on Bon Jovi... it really is a fine song....
 
Last edited:
U2Kitten said:
One more thing about Def Leppard, I think the demise of their career was more due to the fact that they shunned not only 'hair metal' but their roots and what they did best and ran from it when they saw it was going out and tried to become something they weren't. They tried Grunge with Slang, then whatever their later 90's record was supposed to be. They returned to their true selves and sound with their last album but it was too late to capture what was lost. Now, they can never dig themselves out because too many people blind and deafen themselves to them by labeling them as hair metal. :( Well, Joe, Rick, Rick, Phil and whoever they're using to try to replace the late Steve Clark :( I still like you and remember you fondly:)

I have to say that even though Def Leppard's last few attempts at albums have not been that great they still kick some mighty ass live. Even some of the newer songs that I didn't like on the albums are great live. I saw them last year in a packed arena. Not sold out, but definitely packed. They still have a huge following and when I went to the arena to buy tickets the day they went on sale I was sort of surprised in a way to see there was a gigantic line of people from all ages, including teenagers. I've seen them live at least 6 times (I lost count...) since the Hysteria tour and they are so amazing live. I'd go see them anytime.

By the way...Vivian Campbell is who replaced Steve Clark.
 
See, image is a PART of it. But it certainly shouldnt be the main criteria. The music is what is at the heart of getting in IMO. The artists you listed (especially the Beatles) are known for their music first, image second. This is where I think BJ is just kind of vanilla and havent really added much to rock. You disagree, and thats fine. But I just dont think they have really done a whole lot that is all that original musically. You based alot of your argument on starting hair metal, even if that is true (which I dont think it is), I dont think that should get them into the HOF. Anyway I hope you are not including BJ in with the likes of The Beatles or Elvis. That is just delusional. I have trouble sometimes even putting U2 at that level at this stage. I think U2 may be on their way to that level, but BJ isnt even close.

Regarding Kiss, they havent made it. They havent even been nominated. So what does that tell you about what the HOF thinks of being an innovator image wise means? The music is and should be the main criteria, not image.

Regarding Def Leppard, I also saw them last year and I have to say I was actually pretty impressed. Great show, they definately have a chemistry live that holds your attention. Both times I saw BJ it was just kind of bland to me. Just shows how subjective this is, what strikes one person, doesnt the other. Here is my bottom line. There is obviously something to BJ, they have a strong and loyal fanbase, so they are obviously doing something right. I just personally dont get why or like them all that much. Like I said before I certainly dont hate them and a few songs they do are OK. But based on my personal experience I just dont think they deserve to be in. I'am not on the committee obviously so dont worry about my opinion on them BJ fans!! LOL ;)

Its been an interesting discussion anyway. It caused me to think back to the early 80's era, brings back alot of memories. My first concert was Van Halen in 1982, followed by Quiet Riot in early 83. My how times and my personal tastes have changed.
 
I have no problem with other people's tastes, LOL, my lil cousins love them the mainstream hip hop and stuff. I should only say that KISS should be in the RnR HOF no doubt, especially if Aerosmith and Petty are.

Musically... Bon Jovi has done fairly enough to be in the RnR HOF IMO. I'm not associating them with the Beatles, Zeppelin, etc... heck I don't think they are above KISS, but that doesn't mean they should not be in the hall.
 
Again, I believe they were one of THE bands of their genre... even if you don't think much of a genre, it doesn't mean it isn't legitimate or doesn't even exist.

I know several people who think of punk music as not even good/ real/ legitimate form of music b/c of its simplicity and lack of complexity but hey its a genre/ style.

LOL also... on www.allmusic.com they even list pop metal as a genre/style...

genre: Rock

The least metallic variation of heavy metal, pop-metal became the most popular form of hard rock during the '80s. Some pop-metal bands emphasized metal's most important building block ? the guitar riff ? more than others, but pop-metal's main attraction were the huge, catchy hooks that owed a great deal to the fist-pumping choruses of arena rock. Most of the Los Angeles-based bands (where the scene was heavily concentrated) also drew on the elaborate visual stylings of British glam rock, which resulted in the much-maligned "hair metal" boom of the late '80s. While pop-metal sounded loud and aggressive on the surface, it nearly always had a slick studio sheen that kept it radio-friendly. '70s artists like Aerosmith and Alice Cooper had an undeniable influence on pop-metal, but the band that sparked the true genesis of the style was Kiss. Kiss' music was catchy and utterly simple, and their wildly theatrical visuals were an essential part of their appeal. Next came Van Halen, whose wild party-rock and virtuoso lead guitarist set the style for much of the pop-metal that followed. The first wave of pop-metal ? bands like Motley Crue (who would later become superstars), Quiet Riot, Dokken, Ratt, and Twisted Sister ? wasn't quite as poppy as it would later become, save for Def Leppard's 1983 landmark Pyromania, perhaps the most melodic metal album up to that point. Bon Jovi's 1986 smash Slippery When Wet ushered in the age of hair metal, where photogenic looks (and, yes, teased-up hair) became just as important in selling a band as the music itself. The following year, Def Leppard's Hysteria set new standards for smoothed-out production as well as blockbuster sales. Not all subsequent pop-metal fell into the slick, image-conscious hair-metal camp; Guns N' Roses, Tesla, and Skid Row often had a grittier edge, and Extreme was unpredictably eclectic, while veteran rockers Kiss, Aerosmith, and Alice Cooper all staged pop-friendly comebacks. But by and large, the hair bands reigned supreme, playing lots of sleazy Aerosmith boogie and big AOR-style power ballads with bits of Van Halen flash; Poison embodied the glammed-up, party-hearty excess of hair metal perhaps better than any. Pop-metal and hair metal (and the excess and formula that had come to be associated with both) were effectively wiped off the musical map by grunge in 1991; some pop-metal bands continued to record for smaller labels and cult audiences, but the music's reputation had suffered too much to restore its former glamour.
 
Last edited:
I classify the Crue as a KISS influenced band, not a hair metal band. Motley Crue are the perfect age to have been into KISS as teenagers. It is very possible that a lot of the hair metal guys such as Brett Michaels were no doubt influenced by David Lee Roth in their teenage years and that is how they manifested it on stage. But Van Halen is not hair metal.
 
Last edited:
Vampira said:
I classify the Crue as a KISS influenced band, not a hair metal band. Motley Crue are the perfect age to have been into KISS as teenagers. It is very possible that a lot of the hair metal guys such as Brett Michaels were no doubt influenced by David Lee Roth in their teenage years and that is how they manifested it on stage. But Van Halen is not hair metal.

All acts are influenced by someone at some point. Sure MC were influenced by Kiss, they toured with them in 1982 as well. But why does that automatically mean they were not at the forefront or start of this term of "hair metal" being thrown around? Lets look at the facts. Theatre Of Pain, released in 1985, first power ballad released that is a hit (something that is part of the hair metal forumula). Also, lets examine what MC looked like in 1982/83. Their hair was huge!! Also their first album was pop/metal, another criteria. Shout At the Devil was a bit harder sounding but not alot. So I dont really get your point. Its possible BJ could have been influenced by MC under this criteria? So then would MC be responsible for starting the hair metal trend? Are you saying that you DO think BJ started the hair metal trend then? I dont know how you can and that is my point. BJ didnt start anything. They became popular after it started and managed to survive where alot of others did not. Thats it.

Regarding Van Halen. I dont think they are hair metal but I do think they helped to start it. Look DLR in 1984, spandex and big hair (even though it was partially a hair piece!! LOL). What are two mainstays with bands consider hair metal bands??!! VH was innovative simply because of the man that was playing guitar for them. But then again, VH is not metal music, nor are they pop music. I would consider them more of Pop hard rock, which is really close to what alot of you are throwing around as the criteria for the "hair metal" sound.
 
I've been w/o a computer for days and this thing drops this far, maybe I should let it die.

A few comments- thanks Flying Fu, Angela and Arw!

Blue Room, I didn't 'incorrectly' state Ratt started after BJ, I'm sure they were playing before but nobody really heard of them before. I watched all this happen, I didn't get my info from a VH1 documentary.

For further proof that Motley Crue were in with the 'bring back rock' after new wave thing, I remember a quote by Mick Mars once. He said, 'we saw everybody cutting their hair and wearing skinny ties and we said, fuck that, we're gonna grow our hair down to our ass and play the loudest, rudest rock ever!'

Think about what rock was, real rock, classic rock in the late 60's and 70's. Long hair tight pants hard playing hard living. That is what some of these bands were shooting for and it's unfair to lump them with the hair metal guys. Most hair metal bands were influenced by the glam rock of the mid 70's, and even U2 admits to that, T Rex and Bowie specifically. But I stand by my statement and I'm glad to see some can see this- hair metal did not really become what it was until the very late 80's and into the early 90's and not all long haired 80's rock bands or songs by them should be labeled that way.
 
Oh, and the Talking Heads are already in the Hall of Fame. They got inducted in 2002. David Byrne had snow white hair and scared me he looked so old.
 
U2Kitten said:
I've been w/o a computer for days and this thing drops this far, maybe I should let it die.

A few comments- thanks Flying Fu, Angela and Arw!

Blue Room, I didn't 'incorrectly' state Ratt started after BJ, I'm sure they were playing before but nobody really heard of them before. I watched all this happen, I didn't get my info from a VH1 documentary.

For further proof that Motley Crue were in with the 'bring back rock' after new wave thing, I remember a quote by Mick Mars once. He said, 'we saw everybody cutting their hair and wearing skinny ties and we said, fuck that, we're gonna grow our hair down to our ass and play the loudest, rudest rock ever!'

Think about what rock was, real rock, classic rock in the late 60's and 70's. Long hair tight pants hard playing hard living. That is what some of these bands were shooting for and it's unfair to lump them with the hair metal guys. Most hair metal bands were influenced by the glam rock of the mid 70's, and even U2 admits to that, T Rex and Bowie specifically. But I stand by my statement and I'm glad to see some can see this- hair metal did not really become what it was until the very late 80's and into the early 90's and not all long haired 80's rock bands or songs by them should be labeled that way.

Actually I really agree with you on everything except about Ratt. Your still flat out wrong. Ratt broke big with Out Of The Cellar. Round and Round was having heavy rotation on MTV at the time. What year did this happen? 1984 So they were big WAY before Bon Jovi. Also, go back to my statement about Motley Crue. Then listen to Theatre of Pain. To me, its rather poppy and Home Sweet Home is about as hair metal as you get. So I guess what you are saying is that T Rexx and the glam movement started hair metal? Thats fine, I can see that, but then that means BJ certainly didnt.

Here is the thing, honestly, I dont really care. What if Bon Jovi did start hair metal? Like I said before, is that a good thing? VERY debatable. Even if they did, it doesnt make them worthy of getting into the HOF IMO. But I still say, they didnt start anything. They rode a wave that had already begun and became one of the bigger bands in that genre at the time. They were just one of the few bands that were in that genre that survived the grunge movement. So I guess that does say something about them. But R n R HOF? I just dont think so. They will make it at some point most likely though. I just dont think they really deserve it. I'am sure alot of people dont think U2 does either. But we all KNOW here that they do!! LOL

Also, did I miss something? When did Talking Heads come into this? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom