“Why does glam metal have a place in metal-rules.com while mallcore never will?”
By JP

This question has been circulating around the Metal-Rules message board for ages. Why do some bands seem to fit the definition of “metal” and others don't? For those of you who do not participate in our excellent discussion forums, this month's topic will give you an idea of some of the opinions of the staff.

It would be simple to degenerate this editorial into mallcore sucks vs. glam rocks. That would be a disservice to both. I have decided to write about some of the inherent differences between the two and why I feel the melodic hard rock and glam metal is a closer akin to true metal than mallcore.

This is a tough question. One of the most common arguments is based on “heaviness.” Taking a time-worn but classic example, some argue that Slipknot for example is heavier then Poison because of their guitar tone and therefore qualify as metal, moreso than Poison. To me that is an oversimplification of a complex issue. Let's look at several factors that ultimately in my mind help define “metal” why hard rock and glam meets these requirements and/or possess these desirable characteristics.

Before I really begin it is important to note that I spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and took time to try to articulate my thoughts rather than just do a knee-jerk reaction based on some perceived, teary eyed nostalgia for the “good old days” or the “golden age of metal” an inaccurate term that gets thrown about and one that I strongly disagree with. I feel it is important to be able to logically explain, why, without getting accused of being “old-school”, “narrow minded” “out of date”, “old fashioned”, “livin' in the past” etc…well you get the picture…

“History is written by the winners”

Historical revisionism is a scary thing. People often like to re-write history and or frame discussion in a modern context so as too prove a point that maybe far removed from fact. History is written by the winners, it is said. Well, in this case, there is no technical winner and so it would be unfair for a mallcore fan to say, “glam isn't metal” without any accurate historical context just the same as it is not fair or accurate for older fans to claim “mallcore isn't metal” just because they don't like it, which unfortunately is common in some hard-headed circles. However, people who arrive late into a genre do not have the right to automatically redefine that genre just because they don't like it or lack appreciation of the origins of the genre.

Back in the day journalists, fans and critics alike adopted a fairly wide-ranging term called HEAVY METAL to describe a certain type of music, one based on distorted guitar, rebellion, defiance and many other factors. As the genre expanded, matured and crystallized, so did the definition. Punk for example, while based on electric guitars and defiance was not metal. Melodic hard rock including glam was embraced by the media (mainstream magazines like Hit Parader, Circus and others) as METAL. Rolling Stone magazine did their first METAL cover story with Motley Crue on the front. Just because certain media has identified or labeled a musical form does NOT automatically make that the defining factor. Eg. Hit Parader in 1985 said “Dokken is metal” so it must be true. No, However, at that time of crystallization and definition of a fairly new genre, almost all media, world-wide had adopted the definition of metal, one that includes hard rocking bands and glam.

Fast forward to today. There are still mainstream commercial publications and media groups that identify mallcore and alt-metal, nu-metal etc… as METAL. Their reasons are obvious, financial gain, cashing in on the good name of metal to sell derivative product. If for example the global media (mainstream and underground) accepted and defined mallcore as METAL, I would be inclined to agree. However most metal publications, web-sites are adamant and defiant that the new music of today is NOT metal.

What does all this mean in short terms? The vast majority of people (Media, critics, labels) who originally identified and defined METAL have rejected the mallcore as metal.

History is written by the winners and in this case the very people who defined METAL as to include glam have rejected mallcore. The new mainstream media driven by commercial purposes are vainly trying to define mallcore as METAL and reject glam as not a part of the definition. (Eg. Rewrite history)

One of the foundations of metal is well played distorted electric guitar.

Many mallcore bands do not have that key element of well-played guitar. The riffs are simplistic, chord progressions uninspired and in many cases a total lack of soloing! How a genre that tries to identify themselves as metal but reject the basis of metal is beyond me! Many melodic hard rock bands and glam bands have guitarists (and drummers) that were extremely talented and would showcase that talent in solos, both on record and live. (Eg. Frankie Banali of Quiet Riot or Steve Vai of David Lee Roth and Whitesnake.) These artists can play circles around 99% of the mallcore (ahem ,cough) “musicians” today. METAL has often (but not always) been about progression, virtuosity, and experimentation and so many of the mallcore bands do not meet those concepts. Dull songwriting, simple beats and just a general lack of songwriting skill and technical ability are major strike against mallcore, as being defined as metal.

Conversely, melodic hard rock and glam had these attributes often in large quantities. Glam and melodic hard rock, when well executed, is written and played with passion and strength. Mallcore bands have not fully embraced the fact that true heaviness is derived from the riff and song structure, not from yelling, swearing, jumping up and down, silly masks, drop tuning and multi-layered drumming. I have heard some power ballads that have more balls than the montone, songs of many mallcore bands. Mallcore does not even hold a candle to most metal genres (Thrash, Black and Death) when it comes to aggression and power! If glam bands can blow away most mallcore bands and glam are the lightweights of the METAL genre, it is not a glowing endorsement of mallcore as a heavy music form.

True defiance for artistic gratification or manufactured rebellion for commerce?

Another key element of metal is defiance and rebellion (call it what you will) Back in the fairly conservative days of the late 70's and early 80's METAL defined rebellion in terms of dress, attitude, lyrics, image and so on. There was a naïve, sincerity about young people who railed against social convention by wearing ripped jeans, long unkempt hair and so on. Today's rebellious youth of the mallcore circles lack that sincerely defiant attitude. When a young person/artist of mallcore persuasion talks of anger, hate, frustration (all common themes in music throughout the ages) it seems very insincere and contrived when they have a very specific set common images in terms of what brand name to wear and what colour to spike your hair. To me it is as simple as, the 80's glam fan/artists said, “The establishment prefers short hair so I'll grow mine long.” compared to the modern mallcore fan who says “”The establishment prefers short hair so I'll dye it a certain colour, spike it with gel, by a brand name toque and grow a little beard in a certain way.“ Manufactured rebellion. They (mallcore) think ”Rebels look like this, so this is how I'm going to look, so people think I'm a rebel.“ That is the crux. The mallcore group use pre-packaged defiance to identify themselves as a certain group, (to make friends) where as METAL uses rebellion for pure, undiluted reasons, to NOT belong to a certain group. (to make enemies or assert individuality).

Overall there seems to be a lack of true passion and integrity in the mallcore bands. The adherence to formula and commercialism derives them of the sincerity of purpose, which is a key element in metal. For some reasons many mallcore artists don't see the inherent hypocrisy and conflict of interest in speaking about rebellion, defiance and hate while fully embracing commercialism. A few of the more astute mallcore bands try to act defiant and rebellious adopting outrageous images but they are derivative of METAL bands that did it 10, 20 even 30 years ago. In the realm of mallcore, it is cool to say you like metal and cite it as an influence but not to play it. Lip service to gain credibility fails when the deeds do not follow the words.

To summarize and answer the question why glam has a place in the hallowed halls of metal (and Metal-Rules) and mallcore never will? Mallcore, unlike glam, lack the basic tenants of metal, namely talent, virtuosity, power, sincerity, passion, integrity. The question in retrospect is very simple to answer. Mallcore is not metal. Glam is.

Glam fully embraces all the metal attributes and conventions and mallcore does not.



Why is glam metal accepted when mallcore is not?
By Michael De Los Muertos

Glam metal, ”hair metal,“ MTV metal…we're all familiar with it. Its day has passed, perhaps fortunately or unfortunately, but it remains with us even 10 years after the last Winger or Trixter video disappeared from MTV. Every family has a member who's out of sorts–the guy they keep locked up in the west wing of the mansion and hope nobody remembers he's there–and glam metal is the metal family's ”black sheep.“ So why is it in the family, instead of outside of it, as metalheads fervently insist mallcore music is?

I think there are a few main reasons for it. First of all, glam came from within the heavy metal subculture. It was born, bred and raised from within our own house–Kiss and Mötley Crüe are its fathers, arguably–and the descent of glam metal from the ”family tree“ of metal in general is undeniable. Mallcore's lineage is much murkier. People blame a lot of influences within metal for the rise of mallcore–Anthrax's collaboration with Public Enemy, or Sepultura's ”Chaos A.D.“ album are two examples of the blame for mallcore being placed squarely on us–but mallcore actually arose outside of our culture. Korn is the father of mallcore, and people argue whether Korn ever was a metal band. Yet no one argues that Mötley Crüe was not a metal band.

Mallcore is alienated from metal, musically, because it is based on alien musical influences, namely rap. Glam metal may have been ”watered down“ for commercial consumption, but it never pretended to fuse metal with anything. To change a Poison song into something that would be universally regarded as traditional heavy metal you need only speed it up, thicken the guitars, change the vocals and tweak the rhythms and such. To change a Korn song into traditional heavy metal you have to completely deconstruct it, and remove something fundamental to it–namely, the rap elements. There is thus a great musical difference between glam metal and mallcore.

Finally, although it's not the most important factor, I believe it's fair to say that many metalheads still accept and like glam metal. I realize this opens up the argument of ”well, if more metalheads liked Korn then you would say it's true metal“–that rejoinder is nonsensical because it ignores the first two points of my argument, but I offer this third point because I think it's illustrative. I would bet even the ”tr00est" metalheads have at least a few glam CDs, and they may even listen to them once in a while. I confess openly that in 1995 I saw Slaughter live-and I'm talking not about the Canadian thrash band, but the Southern California glam band-and it was one of the most fun shows I've ever been to. There's room at least in my CD case for some of the old glam classics side-by-side with Blind Guardian, Dismember and Rhapsody. But you will never find Korn, Slipknot or Linkin Park there-ever!