+1. That's getting to the quick, innit?
I was wondering about this thread driving home last night trying to put my finger on what it is that I find so grating about the genre (as a whole, but with scads of exceptions). I like loud distorted guitars, screaming vocals, pounding drums, a good technical challenge, etc. For every metal attribute I can think of, I can't point to a single one that makes me think, "no, I don't like that ..."
Then it came to me: It's the uniforms. It's the conformity among the non-conformists.
In terms of hair metal, I absolutely agree.
In the late 80's, sometimes I'd get ahold of the musician wanted ads from LA, and they were hilarious. Instead of say "drummer wanted, must be into this band and that band" it was say "drummer wanted, must have this color hair, of this length, don't apply if you have this type of hair.." Absolutely ridiculous.
Outside of that, I disagree. I liked how in the 80's if you flipped through a magazine, the band photos told you something about the band. The new wave bands had their funny hair cuts. The classic rock bands had their look. The poofy metal bands had the big hair. Then someone like Metallica would come along with their jean jackets and plain t-shirts; it told you there was something different. When Guns and Roses came out, one look at a band photo and you knew they were different from the rest of the sunset strip bands.
These days, if you flip through a magazine, all the bands look the same. You can't tell a pop band from a punk band from an extreme metal band, they have the same basic looks.
It's what I absolutely LOVED about Helmet - that they looked like regular guys with short hair and normal clothes while absolutely blasting the paint off the walls. But they didn't care to look the part; they didn't want to be these method actors trying to look convincing all the time. Or never, really. They didn't have to.
But to me, that quickly became just as pretentious.
As I've said, I always thought the great irony in grunge was it was supposed to be about rebelling against the "uniform" of spandex and hair spray but instead, it was just replaced by a new uniform of moppy hair cut and flannel shirts. 100 guys trying to look like David Lee Roth vs 100 guys trying to look like Kurt Cobain; it's still 100 guys following a trend.
I remember talking to bands looking for a drummer in the 90's, and conversations would be like "cut your hair, get some appropriate flannel shirts, and don't tell anyone you own an 80's album". Not much different that being told to have your hair a certain color.
Then it became "lets try to not look like anyone". And it seemed some bands almost went out of their way to try to not look like a band. And I just think
"well, what's the matter, are you afraid your mom might find out you play in band?
Rock has always been about being dangerous and visual.
Think Elvis. He looked (as far as his time period was) dangerous.
Johnny Cash all in black. The rebel.
The Beatles all looked nice and all in their nice suits, but those mop top hair cuts were considered dangerous. The look was part of the band.
The flower power bands with the long hair and tye dye shirts; Dangerous to society.
Hard rock and metal with the leather, really dangerous.
Now, where the danger? Where is the expression? Every band now looks like the guy at the coffee shop.
As 8mile said, Metal WANTS to carry a stigma, it's the appeal. But there is no stigma when you it look like your mom dressed you for band practice.