This is a band i loved in my youth that i have listened to less and less as i grow up. But i pulled out there first 3 records and remembered what a great rock band these guy's where

I think Sebastian Bach is a HUGE douche and is one of the reasons i was turned off Skid Row's music for a bit but these guy's where just a great rock band!, they came in the heyday of glam metal of course but there songs where louder and not as glamesque.

And Slave To The Grind of course the first metal record to go number 1 was past the prime of hair metal and it was a huge record so that show's they weren't just another hair metal band.

Anyone else a fan?

[Edited 5/7/11 11:36am]

xlr8r said:

Great single! from there best album

Love me some Skid Row. The first 2 albums were the bomb!

Despite Sebastian being a douche and all...lol

The first album was good but maybe just a little too slick and polished. Slave To the Grind is a great album. I also quite enjoyed B-Side Ourselves. They lost me with Subhuman Race. Slave To the Grind was heavy but the songs were still catchy, Subhuman Race just seemed heavy for the sake of being heavy without bothering to write any great songs. I haven't listened to it in years, I'll have to give it another spin.

Skid Row was one band, Extreme being another, that was unfairly done in by the whole "alternative" explosion. I liked a lot of those bands but it stinks that Skid Row were cut down in their prime or maybe even before they had a chance to reach their prime.

rialb said:

The first album was good but maybe just a little too slick and polished. Slave To the Grind is a great album. I also quite enjoyed B-Side Ourselves. They lost me with Subhuman Race. Slave To the Grind was heavy but the songs were still catchy, Subhuman Race just seemed heavy for the sake of being heavy without bothering to write any great songs. I haven't listened to it in years, I'll have to give it another spin.

Skid Row was one band, Extreme being another, that was unfairly done in by the whole "alternative" explosion. I liked a lot of those bands but it stinks that Skid Row were cut down in their prime or maybe even before they had a chance to reach their prime.

Your right on just about everything you said there

B-Side ourselves was another gem as well!

Subhuman had some ok track's but i mean songs like beat yourself blind where just being hardcore & heavy, the writing was not there anymore or the vocal power.

Skid could have gone beyond there 3 albums from that era and done more and btw Extreme is way underrated. Man... that is one band that get's hated on TO MUCH! ok i get it people More Then Words. But there's so much more to them then that song.

A friend and I were singing Skid Row today in my car. My throat was bleeding in an attempt to sing like Sebastian. He might be kind of an a-hole but the fucker sure can sing.

This is my favorite Skid Row song.

for me, their first album killed 'em.

mainstream audiences embraced them as the "next" great glam band so songs like Youth Gone Wild (cheesy lyrics) and 18 N' Life (even cheesier, lol) were HUGE hymns in 1989...

of course that meant that they were considered "not cool" by the early 90's, IRONICALLY, when they released their best album, which is a heavy metal album, not a glam one, despite a couple of power-ballads: Slave to the Grind. While not as heavy as Priest, Megadeth or Pantera at that time, Slave is closer to the sound (and attitude) of those metal bands than glam/rock bands like Mr.Big, Tesla, Extreme, Motley, GNR, etc...Sebastian Bach sings like an angry mutherfucker here...not like a pretty/rich boy...The album was a Nº1 smash, which meant that there WAS life for those late-80's glam bands, they just had to embrace a heavier/less polished sound...

Subhuman Race (which had a perfect sound for the 1994-95 era) arrived two years late anyway. There were, probably, a lot of internal problems during that era: not only Bach's out-of-control ego, but also arguments related to the sound of the album: the 2003 failed "comeback" sounds like a mix of Blink 182 and Buckcherry , maisntream pop-punk/hard-rock, not metal...

It sucks because I've always thought that GNR, Aerosmith, Extreme, Skid Row and Bon Jovi were the rock bands that truly had a chance of a successful career in the 90's but only Aerosmith (and Bon Jovi, who anyway disappeared during four years, 1996-2000) made it...

[Edited 5/8/11 3:41am]

Gunsnhalen said:

This is a band i loved in my youth that i have listened to less and less as i grow up. But i pulled out there first 3 records and remembered what a great rock band these guy's where

I think Sebastian Bach is a HUGE douche and is one of the reasons i was turned off Skid Row's music for a bit but these guy's where just a great rock band!, they came in the heyday of glam metal of course but there songs where louder and not as glamesque.

And Slave To The Grind of course the first metal record to go number 1 was past the prime of hair metal and it was a huge record so that show's they weren't just another hair metal band.

Anyone else a fan?

I absolutely love "Wasted Time"... possibly the best power ballad of the 80s.

However, after Bach wore the "AIDS--Kills fags dead." t-shirt and then did that half-assed apology, I could never get in to them.

As far as hair bands go, I don't think you could beat Cinderella and Metallica (I know they're darker and no particularly glam, but they were skanky enough and had long enough hair, so I consider them a hair band.)

SagsWay2low said:

Gunsnhalen said:

This is a band i loved in my youth that i have listened to less and less as i grow up. But i pulled out there first 3 records and remembered what a great rock band these guy's where

I think Sebastian Bach is a HUGE douche and is one of the reasons i was turned off Skid Row's music for a bit but these guy's where just a great rock band!, they came in the heyday of glam metal of course but there songs where louder and not as glamesque.

And Slave To The Grind of course the first metal record to go number 1 was past the prime of hair metal and it was a huge record so that show's they weren't just another hair metal band.

Anyone else a fan?

I absolutely love "Wasted Time"... possibly the best power ballad of the 80s.

However, after Bach wore the "AIDS--Kills fags dead." t-shirt and then did that half-assed apology, I could never get in to them.

As far as hair bands go, I don't think you could beat Cinderella and Metallica (I know they're darker and no particularly glam, but they were skanky enough and had long enough hair, so I consider them a hair band.)

Yes, Cinderella were a pretty great band. I give them a ton of credit for the Still Climbing album. They were one of a very few "'80s bands" that stuck with their sound (Tesla with the Bust a Nut album being another) during the height of the "alternative" movement. Even Extreme, who I absolutely love, gave themselves a bit of a makeover with Waiting For the Punchline. I never understood the logic of changing your sound to fit in with a fad. The peple that liked those "alternative" bands were not going to start buying Skid Row, Motley Crue and Warrant albums because they got heavier and the fans that those bands already had were not going to be happy with a radical change in direction. Maybe they would have tanked anyway but I think the bands that were lumped into the "hair metal" genre would have been much better off if they had stuck with their original sound. It was pretty depressing that there were virtually no American bands playing basic, feel good rock and roll music for most of the '90s and into the early '00s. I liked a lot of the new "alternative" bands quite a bit but you can only listen to Alice in Chains for so long before you want to kill yourself.

[Edited 5/8/11 5:03am]

rialb said:

SagsWay2low said:

I absolutely love "Wasted Time"... possibly the best power ballad of the 80s.

However, after Bach wore the "AIDS--Kills fags dead." t-shirt and then did that half-assed apology, I could never get in to them.

As far as hair bands go, I don't think you could beat Cinderella and Metallica (I know they're darker and no particularly glam, but they were skanky enough and had long enough hair, so I consider them a hair band.)

Yes, Cinderella were a pretty great band. I give them a ton of credit for the Still Climbing album. They were one of a very few "'80s bands" that stuck with their sound (Tesla with the Bust a Nut album being another) during the height of the "alternative" movement. Even Extreme, who I absolutely love, gave themselves a bit of a makeover with Waiting For the Punchline. I never understood the logic of changing your sound to fit in with a fad. The peple that liked those "alternative" bands were not going to start buying Skid Row, Motley Crue and Warrant albums because they got heavier and the fans that those bands already had were not going to be happy with a radical change in direction. Maybe they would have tanked anyway but I think the bands that were lumped into the "hair metal" genre would have been much better off if they had stuck with their original sound. It was pretty depressing that there were virtually no American bands playing basic, feel good rock and roll music for most of the '90s and into the early '00s. I liked a lot of the new "alternative" bands quite a bit but you can only listen to Alice in Chains for so long before you want to kill yourself.

[Edited 5/8/11 5:03am]

LMAO. Alice in Chains is just a reformed hairband anyways. They were just lucky that they blew up after they had transitioned their overall look, etc.

I think a lot of bands morph with the times. Even Kizz has a disco album .

But what makes the alternative movement so different is that it wasn't just about new sounds and aesthetic changes--kids were rejecting the 'establishment'. They were getting tired of what they viewed as happy-go-lucky frat rock, and no matter what the established bands were doing to try and fit in, the kids just weren't buying it.

I think it's one of the reasons why Stone Temple Pilots lost a bit of it's supposed "Edge" was that it was already dubbed "Stone Temple Pearl Jam" by fans of the Seattle sound, and after Scott whats-hist-face ditched the Eddie Vedder "errr" sound, the band is largely viewed as a poesuer band.

I grew weary of that 'sound' after the introduction of annoying ass bands like Seven Mary 3 and Creed---dreadful stuff.

Cinderella went more country, but they were doing that even at their peak, and in my opinion, they're stuff is still great.

I think to the credit of bands like Pearl Jam though, is that I don't think they're just going to hop on the latest craze or bandwagon. It's a shame so many of the hair bands didn't stick true to their roots---minus the dreadful hair though...I'm glad they ditched that.

SagsWay2low said:

rialb said:

Yes, Cinderella were a pretty great band. I give them a ton of credit for the Still Climbing album. They were one of a very few "'80s bands" that stuck with their sound (Tesla with the Bust a Nut album being another) during the height of the "alternative" movement. Even Extreme, who I absolutely love, gave themselves a bit of a makeover with Waiting For the Punchline. I never understood the logic of changing your sound to fit in with a fad. The peple that liked those "alternative" bands were not going to start buying Skid Row, Motley Crue and Warrant albums because they got heavier and the fans that those bands already had were not going to be happy with a radical change in direction. Maybe they would have tanked anyway but I think the bands that were lumped into the "hair metal" genre would have been much better off if they had stuck with their original sound. It was pretty depressing that there were virtually no American bands playing basic, feel good rock and roll music for most of the '90s and into the early '00s. I liked a lot of the new "alternative" bands quite a bit but you can only listen to Alice in Chains for so long before you want to kill yourself.

[Edited 5/8/11 5:03am]

LMAO. Alice in Chains is just a reformed hairband anyways. They were just lucky that they blew up after they had transitioned their overall look, etc.

I think a lot of bands morph with the times. Even Kizz has a disco album .

But what makes the alternative movement so different is that it wasn't just about new sounds and aesthetic changes--kids were rejecting the 'establishment'. They were getting tired of what they viewed as happy-go-lucky frat rock, and no matter what the established bands were doing to try and fit in, the kids just weren't buying it.

I think it's one of the reasons why Stone Temple Pilots lost a bit of it's supposed "Edge" was that it was already dubbed "Stone Temple Pearl Jam" by fans of the Seattle sound, and after Scott whats-hist-face ditched the Eddie Vedder "errr" sound, the band is largely viewed as a poesuer band.

I grew weary of that 'sound' after the introduction of annoying ass bands like Seven Mary 3 and Creed---dreadful stuff.

Cinderella went more country, but they were doing that even at their peak, and in my opinion, they're stuff is still great.

I think to the credit of bands like Pearl Jam though, is that I don't think they're just going to hop on the latest craze or bandwagon. It's a shame so many of the hair bands didn't stick true to their roots---minus the dreadful hair though...I'm glad they ditched that.

the problem is that many of those bands didn't have "roots" to begin with. 90% were just dumbed-down/ultra-commercial versions of 70's Arena Rock. By 1988, there weren't roots at all, just a couple of power-ballads and a "feel good" anthem that sounded dated the very same day it was released lol. The whole movement sounded like Bob Seger/Peter Frampton with an slighty heavier sound... There are DOZENS of late-70's bands that sounded insanely heavier than many late-80's "rock" bands...

It's not surprising that the early-90's alternative bands were fans of 70's Aerosmith, The Stooges, 73-75 Kiss, early-70's Rolling Stones, The Faces, Black Sabbath, 69-71 Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Ramones, etc. It was like "Hey, it's time to get american rock back to the 70's, enough of that 80's corporate sellout crap". Something that sounded like a good idea in the early-90's. And it also felt natural that the "best" 80's hair-bands embraced an old-fashioned (but, ironically, fresher) 70's sound, specially GNR and Bon Jovi, who started copying The Rolling Stones and Springsteen, respectively, already in 1988 (Use To Love Her, Patience, Blood On Blood, Living In Sin, etc.)

On the other hand (UK ) there were some brit bands that were pushing rock to the future: U2, the Stone Roses, Primal Scream, or even Depeche Mode,...while in the USA it was "cool" to revive the sound of 70's rock, which was only a "small" success: it helped to destroy the flat late-80's hair-metal, yes, but it wasn't truly revolutionary. Nevermind sounds dated, Achtung Baby doesn't ... For me, the first "modern" american rock bands didn't appear until the very late-90's...

JoeTyler said:

SagsWay2low said:

LMAO. Alice in Chains is just a reformed hairband anyways. They were just lucky that they blew up after they had transitioned their overall look, etc.

I think a lot of bands morph with the times. Even Kizz has a disco album .

But what makes the alternative movement so different is that it wasn't just about new sounds and aesthetic changes--kids were rejecting the 'establishment'. They were getting tired of what they viewed as happy-go-lucky frat rock, and no matter what the established bands were doing to try and fit in, the kids just weren't buying it.

I think it's one of the reasons why Stone Temple Pilots lost a bit of it's supposed "Edge" was that it was already dubbed "Stone Temple Pearl Jam" by fans of the Seattle sound, and after Scott whats-hist-face ditched the Eddie Vedder "errr" sound, the band is largely viewed as a poesuer band.

I grew weary of that 'sound' after the introduction of annoying ass bands like Seven Mary 3 and Creed---dreadful stuff.

Cinderella went more country, but they were doing that even at their peak, and in my opinion, they're stuff is still great.

I think to the credit of bands like Pearl Jam though, is that I don't think they're just going to hop on the latest craze or bandwagon. It's a shame so many of the hair bands didn't stick true to their roots---minus the dreadful hair though...I'm glad they ditched that.

the problem is that many of those bands didn't have "roots" to begin with. 90% were just dumbed-down/ultra-commercial versions of 70's Arena Rock. By 1988, there weren't roots at all, just a couple of power-ballads and a "feel good" anthem that sounded dated the very same day it was released lol. The whole movement sounded like Bob Seger/Peter Frampton with an slighty heavier sound... There are DOZENS of late-70's bands that sounded insanely heavier than many late-80's "rock" bands...

It's not surprising that the early-90's alternative bands were fans of 70's Aerosmith, The Stooges, 73-75 Kiss, early-70's Rolling Stones, The Faces, Black Sabbath, 69-71 Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Ramones, etc. It was like "Hey, it's time to get american rock back to the 70's, enough of that 80's corporate sellout crap". Something that sounded like a good idea in the early-90's. And it also felt natural that the "best" 80's hair-bands embraced an old-fashioned (but, ironically, fresher) 70's sound, specially GNR and Bon Jovi, who started copying The Rolling Stones and Springsteen, respectively, already in 1988 (Use To Love Her, Patience, Blood On Blood, Living In Sin, etc.)

On the other hand (UK ) there were some brit bands that were pushing rock to the future: U2, the Stone Roses, Primal Scream, or even Depeche Mode,...while in the USA it was "cool" to revive the sound of 70's rock, which was only a "small" success: it helped to destroy the flat late-80's hair-metal, yes, but it wasn't truly revolutionary. Nevermind sounds dated, Achtung Baby doesn't ... For me, the first "modern" american rock bands didn't appear until the very late-90's...

Who would you say were those "modern" American rock bands?

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

the problem is that many of those bands didn't have "roots" to begin with. 90% were just dumbed-down/ultra-commercial versions of 70's Arena Rock. By 1988, there weren't roots at all, just a couple of power-ballads and a "feel good" anthem that sounded dated the very same day it was released lol. The whole movement sounded like Bob Seger/Peter Frampton with an slighty heavier sound... There are DOZENS of late-70's bands that sounded insanely heavier than many late-80's "rock" bands...

It's not surprising that the early-90's alternative bands were fans of 70's Aerosmith, The Stooges, 73-75 Kiss, early-70's Rolling Stones, The Faces, Black Sabbath, 69-71 Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Ramones, etc. It was like "Hey, it's time to get american rock back to the 70's, enough of that 80's corporate sellout crap". Something that sounded like a good idea in the early-90's. And it also felt natural that the "best" 80's hair-bands embraced an old-fashioned (but, ironically, fresher) 70's sound, specially GNR and Bon Jovi, who started copying The Rolling Stones and Springsteen, respectively, already in 1988 (Use To Love Her, Patience, Blood On Blood, Living In Sin, etc.)

On the other hand (UK ) there were some brit bands that were pushing rock to the future: U2, the Stone Roses, Primal Scream, or even Depeche Mode,...while in the USA it was "cool" to revive the sound of 70's rock, which was only a "small" success: it helped to destroy the flat late-80's hair-metal, yes, but it wasn't truly revolutionary. Nevermind sounds dated, Achtung Baby doesn't ... For me, the first "modern" american rock bands didn't appear until the very late-90's...

Who would you say were those "modern" American rock bands?

Nine Inch Nails

Korn

The Strokes

I love Skid Row

Slave To The Grind rocks so hard, what a kick ass album. I have all their CDs including the B-sides disk.

Great trashy motherfuckers. I like alot of glam metal, for most of my teens (2003-2010) it was my favourite genre. Interesting to the genre were bands like Extreme and Electric Boys who started mixing the genre with funk.

I like alot of the newer bands they have inspired too, like CRASHDIET

www.crashdiet.org

BlackRain kick ass too

and of course, HARDCORE SUPERSTAR.

Great modern bands, much better than all the lame pop punk and indie bands.

I dig glams supposed enemy bands too, MASSIVE Smashing Pumpkins fan and enjoy Nirvana.

There is just too much good music, people say the 80s sucked. But i think its one of the best decades ever.

Princes fine music. Glam metal. Thrash metal. Alternative rock. New Romantic. New Wave. I could go on all day.

[Edited 5/8/11 9:18am]

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

the problem is that many of those bands didn't have "roots" to begin with. 90% were just dumbed-down/ultra-commercial versions of 70's Arena Rock. By 1988, there weren't roots at all, just a couple of power-ballads and a "feel good" anthem that sounded dated the very same day it was released lol. The whole movement sounded like Bob Seger/Peter Frampton with an slighty heavier sound... There are DOZENS of late-70's bands that sounded insanely heavier than many late-80's "rock" bands...

It's not surprising that the early-90's alternative bands were fans of 70's Aerosmith, The Stooges, 73-75 Kiss, early-70's Rolling Stones, The Faces, Black Sabbath, 69-71 Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Ramones, etc. It was like "Hey, it's time to get american rock back to the 70's, enough of that 80's corporate sellout crap". Something that sounded like a good idea in the early-90's. And it also felt natural that the "best" 80's hair-bands embraced an old-fashioned (but, ironically, fresher) 70's sound, specially GNR and Bon Jovi, who started copying The Rolling Stones and Springsteen, respectively, already in 1988 (Use To Love Her, Patience, Blood On Blood, Living In Sin, etc.)

On the other hand (UK ) there were some brit bands that were pushing rock to the future: U2, the Stone Roses, Primal Scream, or even Depeche Mode,...while in the USA it was "cool" to revive the sound of 70's rock, which was only a "small" success: it helped to destroy the flat late-80's hair-metal, yes, but it wasn't truly revolutionary. Nevermind sounds dated, Achtung Baby doesn't ... For me, the first "modern" american rock bands didn't appear until the very late-90's...

Who would you say were those "modern" American rock bands?

Thing is, while i enjoy Primal Scream and The Stone Roses as much as i do "hair metal" to say they were original is not true in my opinion. Alot of Primal Screams songs sounded exactly like the Rolling Stones, mainly Beggars Banquet Era...the only difference was Scream had a 90s production which made the drums sound more dancey. The Stone Roses again, ripped off many 60s bands and sounds, aswell as Zeppelin on Second Coming.

U2... meh, most of their 80s sound ripped off every other 80s post punk band. It wasnt until Brian Eno had his way they became relevant at all. Achtung Baby is a top album though...but we can thank Brian Eno and Flood for that...

JoeTyler said:

for me, their first album killed 'em.

mainstream audiences embraced them as the "next" great glam band so songs like Youth Gone Wild (cheesy lyrics) and 18 N' Life (even cheesier, lol) were HUGE hymns in 1989...

of course that meant that they were considered "not cool" by the early 90's, IRONICALLY, when they released their best album, which is a heavy metal album, not a glam one, despite a couple of power-ballads: Slave to the Grind. While not as heavy as Priest, Megadeth or Pantera at that time, Slave is closer to the sound (and attitude) of those metal bands than glam/rock bands like Mr.Big, Tesla, Extreme, Motley, GNR, etc...Sebastian Bach sings like an angry mutherfucker here...not like a pretty/rich boy...The album was a Nº1 smash, which meant that there WAS life for those late-80's glam bands, they just had to embrace a heavier/less polished sound...

Subhuman Race (which had a perfect sound for the 1994-95 era) arrived two years late anyway. There were, probably, a lot of internal problems during that era: not only Bach's out-of-control ego, but also arguments related to the sound of the album: the 2003 failed "comeback" sounds like a mix of Blink 182 and Buckcherry , maisntream pop-punk/hard-rock, not metal...

It sucks because I've always thought that GNR, Aerosmith, Extreme, Skid Row and Bon Jovi were the rock bands that truly had a chance of a successful career in the 90's but only Aerosmith (and Bon Jovi, who anyway disappeared during four years, 1996-2000) made it...

[Edited 5/8/11 3:41am]

Well GNR would have made it if it wasn't for the break up. And Axl's out of control ego! it still saddens me=[ Aerosmith was HUGE in the 90's though and Bon Jovi was to

Extreme fucked up by making Pornograffitti, one of the best Funk Metal cross over albums ever... and then following it up with really crappy albums....

rialb said:

SagsWay2low said:

I absolutely love "Wasted Time"... possibly the best power ballad of the 80s.

However, after Bach wore the "AIDS--Kills fags dead." t-shirt and then did that half-assed apology, I could never get in to them.

As far as hair bands go, I don't think you could beat Cinderella and Metallica (I know they're darker and no particularly glam, but they were skanky enough and had long enough hair, so I consider them a hair band.)

Yes, Cinderella were a pretty great band. I give them a ton of credit for the Still Climbing album. They were one of a very few "'80s bands" that stuck with their sound (Tesla with the Bust a Nut album being another) during the height of the "alternative" movement. Even Extreme, who I absolutely love, gave themselves a bit of a makeover with Waiting For the Punchline. I never understood the logic of changing your sound to fit in with a fad. The peple that liked those "alternative" bands were not going to start buying Skid Row, Motley Crue and Warrant albums because they got heavier and the fans that those bands already had were not going to be happy with a radical change in direction. Maybe they would have tanked anyway but I think the bands that were lumped into the "hair metal" genre would have been much better off if they had stuck with their original sound. It was pretty depressing that there were virtually no American bands playing basic, feel good rock and roll music for most of the '90s and into the early '00s. I liked a lot of the new "alternative" bands quite a bit but you can only listen to Alice in Chains for so long before you want to kill yourself.

[Edited 5/8/11 5:03am]

Hey! i am really glad someone else respects Cinderella, they get that hair band logo a lot and people think this whiney cheesy 80's band. Those guy's are bluesy rock.... idk why but 50 percent of the time when people say hair band's Poison & Cinderella are usually the first 2 people say or think of which i find odd personally. Cinderella didn't actually have that many top 40 hits in fact there biggest single Don't Know What You Got only reached number 12. While Poision was getting tons of top 40 hits including that number 1 single Every Rose and doing that same glam sound. While Cinderella was metal going down the bluesy route... Coming Home is a solid album to!

MrLee192 said:

Extreme fucked up by making Pornograffitti, one of the best Funk Metal cross over albums ever... and then following it up with really crappy albums....

III Sides to Every Story is my favourite Extreme album. However, I can completely understand why it wasn't as successful as their previous albums. In 1992 there wasn't a huge demand for long, complex songs in the vein of '70s Queen*. I also quite like Waiting for the Punchline even if sounds a little dirtier/sloppier than their previous albums. Heck, I even enjoyed Nuno's first solo album which was very "alternative" sounding. It wasn't until the Mourning Widows/Population 1/DramaGods that he kind of lost me.

* after I reread that I realised that "Bohemian Rhapsody" was a huge hit in 1991/1992 so I guess there was some demand for long, complex songs in the vein of '70s Queen.

Gunsnhalen said:

rialb said:

Yes, Cinderella were a pretty great band. I give them a ton of credit for the Still Climbing album. They were one of a very few "'80s bands" that stuck with their sound (Tesla with the Bust a Nut album being another) during the height of the "alternative" movement. Even Extreme, who I absolutely love, gave themselves a bit of a makeover with Waiting For the Punchline. I never understood the logic of changing your sound to fit in with a fad. The peple that liked those "alternative" bands were not going to start buying Skid Row, Motley Crue and Warrant albums because they got heavier and the fans that those bands already had were not going to be happy with a radical change in direction. Maybe they would have tanked anyway but I think the bands that were lumped into the "hair metal" genre would have been much better off if they had stuck with their original sound. It was pretty depressing that there were virtually no American bands playing basic, feel good rock and roll music for most of the '90s and into the early '00s. I liked a lot of the new "alternative" bands quite a bit but you can only listen to Alice in Chains for so long before you want to kill yourself.

[Edited 5/8/11 5:03am]

Hey! i am really glad someone else respects Cinderella, they get that hair band logo a lot and people think this whiney cheesy 80's band. Those guy's are bluesy rock.... idk why but 50 percent of the time when people say hair band's Poison & Cinderella are usually the first 2 people say or think of which i find odd personally. Cinderella didn't actually have that many top 40 hits in fact there biggest single Don't Know What You Got only reached number 12. While Poision was getting tons of top 40 hits including that number 1 single Every Rose and doing that same glam sound. While Cinderella was metal going down the bluesy route... Coming Home is a solid album to!

I quite like Cinderella but when you consider their name and album covers like this I can understand why they are lumped in with the Poison's and Warrant's of the music world even if they had a different sound than those two groups.

[img:$uid]http://www.mainlineriders.com/steinhaus/cinderella-nightsongs.jpg[/img:$uid]

rialb said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Hey! i am really glad someone else respects Cinderella, they get that hair band logo a lot and people think this whiney cheesy 80's band. Those guy's are bluesy rock.... idk why but 50 percent of the time when people say hair band's Poison & Cinderella are usually the first 2 people say or think of which i find odd personally. Cinderella didn't actually have that many top 40 hits in fact there biggest single Don't Know What You Got only reached number 12. While Poision was getting tons of top 40 hits including that number 1 single Every Rose and doing that same glam sound. While Cinderella was metal going down the bluesy route... Coming Home is a solid album to!

I quite like Cinderella but when you consider their name and album covers like this I can understand why they are lumped in with the Poison's and Warrant's of the music world even if they had a different sound than those two groups.

[img:$uid]http://www.mainlineriders.com/steinhaus/cinderella-nightsongs.jpg[/img:$uid]

I was attracted to the lead singer of this group (the one on the second in the left I think) for the longest time. Same with the front man of Mr. Big.

JoeTyler said:

rialb said:

Who would you say were those "modern" American rock bands?

Nine Inch Nails

Korn

The Strokes

But none of those bands appeared in the very late '90s.

Nine Inch Nails debuted way back in 1989.

Korn debuted in 1994.

The Strokes didn't debut until 2001.

I would also argue that the Strokes didn't exactly have a "modern" sound.

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

Nine Inch Nails

Korn

The Strokes

But none of those bands appeared in the very late '90s.

Nine Inch Nails debuted way back in 1989.

Korn debuted in 1994.

The Strokes didn't debut until 2001.

I would also argue that the Strokes didn't exactly have a "modern" sound.

I used to like Korn...dnw...

But Nine Inch Nails rocks and the Strokes has some good songs.

Timmy84 said:

rialb said:

But none of those bands appeared in the very late '90s.

Nine Inch Nails debuted way back in 1989.

Korn debuted in 1994.

The Strokes didn't debut until 2001.

I would also argue that the Strokes didn't exactly have a "modern" sound.

I used to like Korn...dnw...

But Nine Inch Nails rocks and the Strokes has some good songs.

I remember a buddy of mine loved Korn but I just didn't get it. He thought that the bagpipes were the coolest thing ever. If I want to mix bagpipes and guitars I'll take AC/DC's "It's a Long Way to the Top (If You Wanna Rock 'n' Roll)" over Korn, thank you very much.

I like the Strokes, the first two albums anyway, but I don't think there is anything particularly "modern" about their sound, quite the opposite, they are very "retro."

rialb said:

JoeTyler said:

Nine Inch Nails

Korn

The Strokes

But none of those bands appeared in the very late '90s.

Nine Inch Nails debuted way back in 1989.

Korn debuted in 1994.

The Strokes didn't debut until 2001.

I would also argue that the Strokes didn't exactly have a "modern" sound.

The Strokes had a radical new sound, specially for an american band. Many people still think they are brits, lol

JoeTyler said:

rialb said:

But none of those bands appeared in the very late '90s.

Nine Inch Nails debuted way back in 1989.

Korn debuted in 1994.

The Strokes didn't debut until 2001.

I would also argue that the Strokes didn't exactly have a "modern" sound.

The Strokes had a radical new sound, specially for an american band. Many people still think they are brits, lol

They probably deserve credit for kicking off the "garage rock" revival that was big in the early '00s but you will never convince me that they "had a radical new sound."