Why is there no more 80's Styled hard rock being produced?

if you look around can find few bands that ar like that but im not sharing bobberts7

Metal or gtfo.

Take Metal out of the 80s and you have a very mediocre decade for music.

Shadow2k6

Not at all. The 80's had an incredible indie/alternative rock scene, not to mention some great pop stars like Prince and MJ

Metal or gtfo.

Take Metal out of the 80s and you have a very mediocre decade for music.

Shadow2k6

Kudos for disregarding all other genres out there..

oh and Glam = Utter garbage.

To everyone say 80s Hard rock sucked...

Tyketto - Forever Young (1991)Whitesnake - Here I Go Again (1987)Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me (1987)Guns N Roses - Welcome To The Jungle (1987)Guns N Roses - Sweet Child O' Mine (1987)Guns N Roses - You Could Be Mine (1991)Survivor - I Can't Hold Back (1984) No, it doesn't suck. It's a hell lot better than the trash we get today. th3warr1or

Agreed. Though metal also was at its best. Like Scorpions, AC/DC, Iron maiden, Motorhead, Ozzy osbourne, Black Sabbath and Van halen (Rock)

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]To everyone say 80s Hard rock sucked...

Tyketto - Forever Young (1991)Whitesnake - Here I Go Again (1987)Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me (1987)Guns N Roses - Welcome To The Jungle (1987)Guns N Roses - Sweet Child O' Mine (1987)Guns N Roses - You Could Be Mine (1991)Survivor - I Can't Hold Back (1984) No, it doesn't suck. It's a hell lot better than the trash we get today. deathtarget04

Agreed. Though metal also was at its best. Like Scorpions, AC/DC, Iron maiden, Motorhead, Ozzy osbourne, Black Sabbath and Van halen (Rock)

I love all those bands.

To everyone say 80s Hard rock sucked...
Tyketto - Forever Young (1991)Whitesnake - Here I Go Again (1987)Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me (1987)Guns N Roses - Welcome To The Jungle (1987)Guns N Roses - Sweet Child O' Mine (1987)Guns N Roses - You Could Be Mine (1991)Survivor - I Can't Hold Back (1984) No, it doesn't suck. It's a hell lot better than the trash we get today. th3warr1or

I freakin' love Whitesnake.

Well what you have to remember is that the UYI albums were mostly a collection of songs they had written years and years before- November Rain was already written around the time AFD was put out. He didn't decide to become Elton John, he always had it in him.

auron_16

I was refering more to their live shows, what with the costume changes between songs and such (I even heard that Axl wanted to come out on stage with a pair of sun glasses that said Axl on them kinda like elton's), than the music. I'm aware that a good portion of those albums were written long before they were actually released (there's a line from You Could Be Mine on Appetite for Destruction's linear notes). Although the music got a little glammy too with the overblown power ballads and such.

I thought the 80s were all disco? :?

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]To everyone say 80s Hard rock sucked...

No, it doesn't suck. It's a hell lot better than the trash we get today. Darth-Caedus

I thought the 80s were all disco? :?

T_REX305

I feel like slapping you right now. :|

All of those are mediocre at best... give me some modern Porcupine Tree, Nevermore, Angra, Iced Earth, and countless other bands to release music in the 2000s any day of the year.Darth-Caedus

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]All of those are mediocre at best... give me some modern Porcupine Tree, Nevermore, Angra, Iced Earth, and countless other bands to release music in the 2000s any day of the year.th3warr1or

They already did:|..regardless of popularity, they're still exceptional.

[QUOTE="applesxc47"]

There have been a few Old-Metal styled bands starting out over the last couple of years.

Look up: Cauldron (Canada), White Wizzard (America) and Enforcer (Sweden)

All awesome.

IWKYB

Yeah, you a fan of Mercyful Fate?

[QUOTE="Shadow2k6"]

Metal or gtfo.

Take Metal out of the 80s and you have a very mediocre decade for music.

zepman71

Not at all. The 80's had an incredible indie/alternative rock scene, not to mention some great pop stars like Prince and MJ

80's influenced just about every new age band now, it was a great decade indeed.

Listen to "The Sword".

8)

Mr_Manikin52

Hell yeah.

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]All of those are mediocre at best... give me some modern Porcupine Tree, Nevermore, Angra, Iced Earth, and countless other bands to release music in the 2000s any day of the year.th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]All of those are mediocre at best... give me some modern Porcupine Tree, Nevermore, Angra, Iced Earth, and countless other bands to release music in the 2000s any day of the year.Lockedge

Its just the way it is – music evolves. Rock/metal became cursed by manufactured dirge being churned out left right and centre and people grew tired of it. The emergence of a dirtier sound, e.g. grunge in the late 80's was like a breath of fresh air at the time...

Because people love talentless hacks who sing about that one girl over and over A.K.A Justin Bieber A.K.A Justine Beaver. They also love to hear talentless hacks who can't sing for **** so they use auto-tune A.K.A Kesha A.K.A there is parking in the rear, I'm open 24 hours a day.

Because people love talentless hacks who sing about that one girl over and over A.K.A Justin Bieber A.K.A Justine Beaver. They also love to hear talentless hacks who can't sing for **** so they use auto-tune A.K.A Kesha A.K.A there is parking in the rear, I'm open 24 hours a day.

Iceozo

:lol:That was glourious.

The new slash album brings me back to the guns n roses era. That and the new velvet revolver songs

Justin Beiberfunsohng

I just don't listen to the radio anymore, I search the internet for different music now.. TV, Radio, all play the same crap.

There are more musicians/artists in the world than ever before, And TV, Radio focuses on what 30-40 of them.

I love metal music, even the heavy heavy stuff, I do think however the vocalists can be extremely annoying in it, (as well as many other styles of music) Some times the vocalist just needs to shut up.You can hear alot of the 80's style of guitar playing in a lot of modern metal.

It is very much alive and kicking courtesy of the greatest band of all time.... Steel Panther.

Because the 80s, and it's music, were mostly a mistake that should never be repeated :P

I love 80s! I love glam metal! My car is even from that era!

I don't know why, but I love it all from the heavy riffs to the ballads.

Oh, and I looked up Steel Panther on youtube and they rock, haha. I don't want to post the link though; I'll prob get suspended again.

Death to all but metal, hehe.

I love 80s! I love glam metal! My car is even from that era!

I don't know why, but I love it all from the heavy riffs to the ballads.

Oh, and I looked up Steel Panther on youtube and they rock, haha. I don't want to post the link though; I'll prob get suspended again.

Death to all but metal, hehe.

Domobomb

[QUOTE="auron_16"]

Well what you have to remember is that the UYI albums were mostly a collection of songs they had written years and years before- November Rain was already written around the time AFD was put out. He didn't decide to become Elton John, he always had it in him.

TyrantDragon55

I was refering more to their live shows, what with the costume changes between songs and such (I even heard that Axl wanted to come out on stage with a pair of sun glasses that said Axl on them kinda like elton's), than the music. I'm aware that a good portion of those albums were written long before they were actually released (there's a line from You Could Be Mine on Appetite for Destruction's linear notes). Although the music got a little glammy too with the overblown power ballads and such.

[QUOTE="Domobomb"]

I love 80s! I love glam metal! My car is even from that era!

I don't know why, but I love it all from the heavy riffs to the ballads.

Oh, and I looked up Steel Panther on youtube and they rock, haha. I don't want to post the link though; I'll prob get suspended again.

Death to all but metal, hehe.

Alter_Echo

listen to asian h***** and the shocker!

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]To everyone say 80s Hard rock sucked...
Tyketto - Forever Young (1991)Whitesnake - Here I Go Again (1987)Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me (1987)Guns N Roses - Welcome To The Jungle (1987)Guns N Roses - Sweet Child O' Mine (1987)Guns N Roses - You Could Be Mine (1991)Survivor - I Can't Hold Back (1984) No, it doesn't suck. It's a hell lot better than the trash we get today. RAMRODtheMASTER

I freakin' love Whitesnake.

sweet child of mine OT this is rock i do not care about some weird icelandic metal band

I was never a fan of 80s hard-rock.

Now 80s Post-Punk, that I love. There is a Post-Punk revival so I can't complain.

I think people got tired of men dressing like women and dancing around a bunch of explosions while another feminine man plays an exploding guitar. hillelslovak

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]"Legend status" requires a massive following, which requires full major label support. This is impossible. Are you actually arguing that unless those bands become insanely popular, that they don't count? Not to mention you bringing up 5 bands, of which 4 aren't close to Legendary status, and one is on the brink of such status due to a large niche following. Caedus could have worded it nicely (but didn't, reasonably so because you called today's music trash) but fact is, his point is valid. One can raise dozens, hundreds of good bands/artists from the 00s, and if you ask of these to be "Legendary"(by your definition of course) ....then there are no words for your predicament. auron_16

TC went on about there not being any music akin to "80s hard rock", trashed modern music and wrote it off with blanket statements, then when Caedus trashed 80s hard rock and brought up some bands he thought were good from recent years, TC pretty much retorted that because they're not "Legendary status" that they don't count.

My point is since when does being considered "Legendary" mean anything in terms of being good music? All it means, from the 80s on, is that the labels decided to heavily market you. Without the heavy marketing of the label, you don't get anywhere close to this fabled "Legendary status". I pointed out(earlier on in the thread) that 80s music/bands/artists changed how labels ran their system and it's stupid to compare band popularity from the 80s to now when so much has transpired since. Anyone who thinks it's fair to compare simply cannot comprehend the music industry and shouldn't be making any statements of the sort, period.

Guns N Roses could be considered "Legendary" by popularity status. Def Leppard could not. Popular? Yes, but not THAT much. They probably have a lot of people who listen to soft/classic rock radio channels and enjoy when "Pour Some Sugar On me" and "Hysteria" come on, but beyond that, no more than most other bands that made it big and sell out concerts(read: a hell of a lot).

Then when I brought up that "Legendary status" means absolutely nothing anyway, TC trashed me for having a double standard, even though I highlighted both of their arguments, how both trashed either side and raised up certain examples. That by requiring these modern bands to meet his definition of "Legendary", on his mental playing field which he's already shown to make blanket statements writing off and trashing modern music, would be vastly unfair and rigged anyway, which is why I said there would be no words for such an absurd, one-sided argument. It would be like me saying Miley Cyrus is Legendary and is better than all 80s music, trashing all 80s music and writing it off, and retorting to examples of good 80s music with something stupid like "They're not Legendary" because they didn't have their own long running TV show AND movie. I mean, that would be a strange argument, no?

Of course popularity plays a factor, but it isn't a necessity. Look at The Velvet Underground. They're Legends, and weren't incredibly popular. On the flip side, look at Green Day, who will probably go down as "Legendary" due to their vast popularity alone.

Being "Legendary" means nothing in terms of the quality of the music, it's just usually used as some kind of bragging tool to raise up the catacombs of the older eras and hammer away at the newer music. I get it, a lot of those older so-called "Legendary" bands are popular and known for being excellent and progressive musically...whereas the most recent "Legendary" band in the more modern era was Nirvana who has a polarized reputation, and the bands soon to follow it up have some dubious reputations. The difference being back then, the people told the radio what they wanted to hear. These days, the radio tells people what they want to hear. That's as big of a difference as you can get.

[QUOTE="Mr_Manikin52"]

Listen to "The Sword".

8)

applesxc47

Hell yeah.

Love it? :)

[QUOTE="hillelslovak"]I think people got tired of men dressing like women and dancing around a bunch of explosions while another feminine man plays an exploding guitar. xaos

[QUOTE="auron_16"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]"Legend status" requires a massive following, which requires full major label support. This is impossible. Are you actually arguing that unless those bands become insanely popular, that they don't count? Not to mention you bringing up 5 bands, of which 4 aren't close to Legendary status, and one is on the brink of such status due to a large niche following. Caedus could have worded it nicely (but didn't, reasonably so because you called today's music trash) but fact is, his point is valid. One can raise dozens, hundreds of good bands/artists from the 00s, and if you ask of these to be "Legendary"(by your definition of course) ....then there are no words for your predicament. Lockedge

TC went on about there not being any music akin to "80s hard rock", trashed modern music and wrote it off with blanket statements, then when Caedus trashed 80s hard rock and brought up some bands he thought were good from recent years, TC pretty much retorted that because they're not "Legendary status" that they don't count.

My point is since when does being considered "Legendary" mean anything in terms of being good music? All it means, from the 80s on, is that the labels decided to heavily market you. Without the heavy marketing of the label, you don't get anywhere close to this fabled "Legendary status". I pointed out(earlier on in the thread) that 80s music/bands/artists changed how labels ran their system and it's stupid to compare band popularity from the 80s to now when so much has transpired since. Anyone who thinks it's fair to compare simply cannot comprehend the music industry and shouldn't be making any statements of the sort, period.

Guns N Roses could be considered "Legendary" by popularity status. Def Leppard could not. Popular? Yes, but not THAT much. They probably have a lot of people who listen to soft/classic rock radio channels and enjoy when "Pour Some Sugar On me" and "Hysteria" come on, but beyond that, no more than most other bands that made it big and sell out concerts(read: a hell of a lot).

Then when I brought up that "Legendary status" means absolutely nothing anyway, TC trashed me for having a double standard, even though I highlighted both of their arguments, how both trashed either side and raised up certain examples. That by requiring these modern bands to meet his definition of "Legendary", on his mental playing field which he's already shown to make blanket statements writing off and trashing modern music, would be vastly unfair and rigged anyway, which is why I said there would be no words for such an absurd, one-sided argument. It would be like me saying Miley Cyrus is Legendary and is better than all 80s music, trashing all 80s music and writing it off, and retorting to examples of good 80s music with something stupid like "They're not Legendary" because they didn't have their own long running TV show AND movie. I mean, that would be a strange argument, no?

Of course popularity plays a factor, but it isn't a necessity. Look at The Velvet Underground. They're Legends, and weren't incredibly popular. On the flip side, look at Green Day, who will probably go down as "Legendary" due to their vast popularity alone.

Being "Legendary" means nothing in terms of the quality of the music, it's just usually used as some kind of bragging tool to raise up the catacombs of the older eras and hammer away at the newer music. I get it, a lot of those older so-called "Legendary" bands are popular and known for being excellent and progressive musically...whereas the most recent "Legendary" band in the more modern era was Nirvana who has a polarized reputation, and the bands soon to follow it up have some dubious reputations. The difference being back then, the people told the radio what they wanted to hear. These days, the radio tells people what they want to hear. That's as big of a difference as you can get.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="auron_16"] I'm not agreeing with the "today's music is trash statement", but I think that of the bands he listed, several are of legendary status. Guns N Roses' Appetite for Destruction is the highest selling debut album of all time, certified 17x Platinum by the RIAA. Welcome to the Jungle is widely considered the BEST hard rock single of all time. Def Leppard is also quite up there on the legendary scale. Say what you will, popularity DOES play a factor. People just think it's cool to like music that isn't popular.

auron_16

TC went on about there not being any music akin to "80s hard rock", trashed modern music and wrote it off with blanket statements, then when Caedus trashed 80s hard rock and brought up some bands he thought were good from recent years, TC pretty much retorted that because they're not "Legendary status" that they don't count.

My point is since when does being considered "Legendary" mean anything in terms of being good music? All it means, from the 80s on, is that the labels decided to heavily market you. Without the heavy marketing of the label, you don't get anywhere close to this fabled "Legendary status". I pointed out(earlier on in the thread) that 80s music/bands/artists changed how labels ran their system and it's stupid to compare band popularity from the 80s to now when so much has transpired since. Anyone who thinks it's fair to compare simply cannot comprehend the music industry and shouldn't be making any statements of the sort, period.

Guns N Roses could be considered "Legendary" by popularity status. Def Leppard could not. Popular? Yes, but not THAT much. They probably have a lot of people who listen to soft/classic rock radio channels and enjoy when "Pour Some Sugar On me" and "Hysteria" come on, but beyond that, no more than most other bands that made it big and sell out concerts(read: a hell of a lot).

Then when I brought up that "Legendary status" means absolutely nothing anyway, TC trashed me for having a double standard, even though I highlighted both of their arguments, how both trashed either side and raised up certain examples. That by requiring these modern bands to meet his definition of "Legendary", on his mental playing field which he's already shown to make blanket statements writing off and trashing modern music, would be vastly unfair and rigged anyway, which is why I said there would be no words for such an absurd, one-sided argument. It would be like me saying Miley Cyrus is Legendary and is better than all 80s music, trashing all 80s music and writing it off, and retorting to examples of good 80s music with something stupid like "They're not Legendary" because they didn't have their own long running TV show AND movie. I mean, that would be a strange argument, no?

Of course popularity plays a factor, but it isn't a necessity. Look at The Velvet Underground. They're Legends, and weren't incredibly popular. On the flip side, look at Green Day, who will probably go down as "Legendary" due to their vast popularity alone.

Being "Legendary" means nothing in terms of the quality of the music, it's just usually used as some kind of bragging tool to raise up the catacombs of the older eras and hammer away at the newer music. I get it, a lot of those older so-called "Legendary" bands are popular and known for being excellent and progressive musically...whereas the most recent "Legendary" band in the more modern era was Nirvana who has a polarized reputation, and the bands soon to follow it up have some dubious reputations. The difference being back then, the people told the radio what they wanted to hear. These days, the radio tells people what they want to hear. That's as big of a difference as you can get.

I guess I can agree GnR can be considered "Legendary". :P I more or less just hate when people use that term because more or less they assign it to these old bands that were awesome and whenever anyone brings up any more modern band/artist for nomination, suddenly the argument becomes "They're not popular enough" rather than the quality of the music, which is just a cheap way of brushing off people's opinions without listening to the actual music and giving it a fair shot. That's all, really :P. GnR made enjoyable music and plenty of people love them and they were pretty cool.

Nice examples with Rush and The Eagles. Honestly, The Eagles are absoutely competent musicians, but I can't usually name moe than 5 songs of their off the top of my head, and one of those songs is a Tom Waits cover.

'Pour your sugar on me (in the name of love)'

I'm glad that modern lyricists aim for something a little deeper these days.

[QUOTE="auron_16"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

TC went on about there not being any music akin to "80s hard rock", trashed modern music and wrote it off with blanket statements, then when Caedus trashed 80s hard rock and brought up some bands he thought were good from recent years, TC pretty much retorted that because they're not "Legendary status" that they don't count.

My point is since when does being considered "Legendary" mean anything in terms of being good music? All it means, from the 80s on, is that the labels decided to heavily market you. Without the heavy marketing of the label, you don't get anywhere close to this fabled "Legendary status". I pointed out(earlier on in the thread) that 80s music/bands/artists changed how labels ran their system and it's stupid to compare band popularity from the 80s to now when so much has transpired since. Anyone who thinks it's fair to compare simply cannot comprehend the music industry and shouldn't be making any statements of the sort, period.

Guns N Roses could be considered "Legendary" by popularity status. Def Leppard could not. Popular? Yes, but not THAT much. They probably have a lot of people who listen to soft/classic rock radio channels and enjoy when "Pour Some Sugar On me" and "Hysteria" come on, but beyond that, no more than most other bands that made it big and sell out concerts(read: a hell of a lot).

Then when I brought up that "Legendary status" means absolutely nothing anyway, TC trashed me for having a double standard, even though I highlighted both of their arguments, how both trashed either side and raised up certain examples. That by requiring these modern bands to meet his definition of "Legendary", on his mental playing field which he's already shown to make blanket statements writing off and trashing modern music, would be vastly unfair and rigged anyway, which is why I said there would be no words for such an absurd, one-sided argument. It would be like me saying Miley Cyrus is Legendary and is better than all 80s music, trashing all 80s music and writing it off, and retorting to examples of good 80s music with something stupid like "They're not Legendary" because they didn't have their own long running TV show AND movie. I mean, that would be a strange argument, no?

Of course popularity plays a factor, but it isn't a necessity. Look at The Velvet Underground. They're Legends, and weren't incredibly popular. On the flip side, look at Green Day, who will probably go down as "Legendary" due to their vast popularity alone.

Being "Legendary" means nothing in terms of the quality of the music, it's just usually used as some kind of bragging tool to raise up the catacombs of the older eras and hammer away at the newer music. I get it, a lot of those older so-called "Legendary" bands are popular and known for being excellent and progressive musically...whereas the most recent "Legendary" band in the more modern era was Nirvana who has a polarized reputation, and the bands soon to follow it up have some dubious reputations. The difference being back then, the people told the radio what they wanted to hear. These days, the radio tells people what they want to hear. That's as big of a difference as you can get.

Lockedge

I guess I can agree GnR can be considered "Legendary". :P I more or less just hate when people use that term because more or less they assign it to these old bands that were awesome and whenever anyone brings up any more modern band/artist for nomination, suddenly the argument becomes "They're not popular enough" rather than the quality of the music, which is just a cheap way of brushing off people's opinions without listening to the actual music and giving it a fair shot. That's all, really :P. GnR made enjoyable music and plenty of people love them and they were pretty cool.

Nice examples with Rush and The Eagles. Honestly, The Eagles are absoutely competent musicians, but I can't usually name moe than 5 songs of their off the top of my head, and one of those songs is a Tom Waits cover.