From tonysounds@yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 07:31:19 2008
Subject:Re: OT- Oh No ! ARRIVAL is back-OT

I think the theory is bunk. Look at the biggest progenitors of the "hair band" iconography:

POISON (hardly macho, they couldn't play, so needed something to "hook" their audience)

BON JOVI (uh...they're from New Jersey, which is no explanation at all, other than Jon should have known better; his hero Bruce wouldn't have been caught dead in a photo like that, even on Halloween)

Ratt (nondescript, just long hairs with eyeliner)

Motley Crue (arguably macho…more likely, dangerous/felonius, not quite glam looking, though they looked more like transvestites)

Def Leppard (strategically ripped designer jeans/shirts optional, foofy hair, hardly macho with songs like “Pour Some Sugar On Me”)

I think these bands just dressed/wore make-up cuz they knew it would work. None of these bands come off as macho, much less imposing sexually, not even to teenaged girls…except for Tommy Lee, and they’d had no idea until his Pam Anderson tape came out just how “imposing” Tommy was!

Nah, I think they just knew it would sell….or they liked wearing makeup.
They just tried to look tough with their grim faces because they WERE wearing make-up and didn’t want to be perceived as … to use their vernacular, p_ssies.

goffmac747@aol.com wrote:

Interesting theory. I can see where that would make sense.. The other side of the coin is the Troglodyte effect of bands like Metallica and Motorhead. Perhaps some nubiles needed to feel like they were going to be clobbered over the head and dragged off to a cave somewhere...