Negative Creep wrote:
You have a point. Yet AC/DC's impact/acclaim is largely limited to a few albums they released around the end of the 1970s/beginning of the 1980s, whereas Nirvana's whole catalogue has a very good reputation.
Their acclaim is not limited to a few albums. They're acclaimed for their energy in live performances. They're acclaimed for the raspy vocal style. They're acclaimed for their infectious riffs. They're acclaimed for being overly simple but still managing to have massively wide appeal.
Nirvana's "whole catalogue" consists of a mere five albums, so I don't see your point.
The quickest way to become a legend in rock & roll is to die. AC/DC has sustained a nearly 40 year career. We don't know if Nirvana or Cobain would still be stars today.
But Dee Snider is not a pretty boy. I think Aerosmith is significant in that they are a band that doesn't belong to the glam rock genre, but that nevertheless dressed up in a kind of transvestite way. That certainly was an influence on the visual style of Van Halen and all the bands that followed in their wake.
I've never seen Aerosmith dressed up in a "transvestite way". They wore flashy clothes but they weren't overly effeminate while doing so. If Roth was imitating anyone it was probably Robert Plant.
IMO the idea that their wardrobes were influenced by transvestism is a hang over from the original glam rock era. Aerosmith, Halen and the rest of glam/hair metal crowd aren't trannies, they're dandies.
Negative Creep wrote:
Well, to be honest I'm not too familiar with Aerosmith's work. I just somehow connected them to the hair metal scene because of their flamboyant visual style. Where do you see the musical roots of hair metal then? Kiss?
Actually it's not like boogie and blues rock influences were abandoned in the hair metal scene. Bands like the Great White, Poison or the Quireboys still had a very obvious connection to that genre.
True, but those bands used blues and boogie rock as mere occasional flirtations, whereas Aerosmith's whole STYLE is mostly based on it.
IMO the musical roots of hair metal come from the mid-to-late 70s heavy metal & hard rock.
Without going into a huge discourse on the history of hard & heavy rock, during the mid-60s it seemed as if most bands were riding the same wave of inspiration and experimentation. Some time around 68 or so, there was a split were certain bands rejected many of the pretenses and excesses of psychedelia and replaced them with the traditional rock dynamics of blues, folk and country. That to me is the fundamental difference between late 60s heavy metal (Blue Cheer, for example) and late 60s acid rock (Iron Butterfly). Others replaced them with the dynamics of classical and jazz resulting in the emergence of progressive rock.
By the mid-to-late 70s, there was a major cross-pollination taking place between the hard & heavy styles of the early 70s. Some bands were combining progressive rock and heavy metal (Rainbow, Judas Priest, Rush), some mixed elements of glam rock and heavy metal (KISS, Aerosmith, Halen), one combined all three (Queen). Others worked on a border where hard rock & heavy metal were virtually indistinguishable in their sound (AC/DC, Nugent, Scorpions, UFO).
But the last and IMO most important part of the hair metal sound equation was the corporate arena bands like Boston, Journey, Foreigner, Styx and REO Speedwagon. They also combined many of those same elements into their music and then over-produced it the point of castration.
"Amigo, the only thing in this world that gives orders is balls. You got that? Balls."
That line from Scarface encapsulates the clear difference between glam metal (has them) and hair metal (doesn't).