New type of topic...Before...After

Not quite an exact description, but close enough.

I'm sure most on here have heard of the band Japan, a sort of post-glammy funky hard rock/metal band in their early days, pre Quiet Life. After the first two LPs, a more critic-friendly "New Romantic"-type of band.

As for me, I LOVE AS, Like OA, and never bothered with anything later, too NME oriented for me, the evil "rockist!" [img]wink.gif[/img]

Adolescent Sex, classic. The way music ought to have been, but punk and disco was pushed instead.

I think any new "glam" bands could do much worse than by using that as a template.

Who cares what Blatt says? Sellout to NME!!!!

Clarification:

The topic is to divid careers of different bands into different eras and comment on whethr you like both eras and why or why not.

Example: David Bowie. Before "Diamond Dogs," yes. Afterwards, a few songs here and there, but nothing much.

GNR AfD vs UYI 1 and 2, noteable difference.

Sure there was a once glammy type later thrash band, was it Celtic Frost/Metal Church/Helloween?

Pantera were "Glammy" (in a butch kinda way) and went thrash...

Poison went very downhill post "Flesh & Blood" IMHO

We've Got A Fuzzbox (and We're Gonna Use It) - indie punk to pop.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairglamfan:
GNR AfD vs UYI 1 and 2, noteable difference.

Sure there was a once glammy type later thrash band, was it Celtic Frost/Metal Church/Helloween?

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">CF had a what was considered "metal" image. Of course at that time, "glam" and "metal" were pretty much piggybacking each other. That's how you had metal bands such as Wild Horses dying their hair and wearing satin suits. They pretty much got the audience that didn't like punk.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JayForSure:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="4" face="Arial">Originally posted by Hairglamfan:
GNR AfD vs UYI 1 and 2, noteable difference.

Sure there was a once glammy type later thrash band, was it Celtic Frost/Metal Church/Helloween?

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">CF had a what was considered "metal" image. Of course at that time, "glam" and "metal" were pretty much piggybacking each other. That's how you had metal bands such as Wild Horses dying their hair and wearing satin suits. They pretty much got the audience that didn't like punk.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="4" face="Arial">At the time Celtic went Glam though was at the time Death Metal was on the rise. It was a huge shock when they went the route they went. They just decided to jump on what was BIG in that style. It made as much sense as if Venom had gone Glam.

Regarding Venom, when they started recording, they WERE considered "glam." They were considered NWOBHM, which had a huge glam streak no matter what the thrashers say.

Honestly.

Something funny, when I used to go to the beach a lot as a child, there was a place called "Thrasher's" that sold fries(chips to non-USAers) . People put vinegar on them, except for me, I just left them plain or with extra sodium [img]wink.gif[/img] !

<font color="#FF0099" size="1">[ May 05, 2006 02:08 PM: Message edited by: JayForSure ]</font>

Malt vinegar on fries (chips) is killer! That's the British way, correct? Most people look at you like your high when you do that in the States. But vinegar and salt, yum. But I prefer them with just the salt also.