Glam and Blue Eyed Hair Bands draft with Bon Bowie nonsense

 Glam and Blue Eyed Hair Bands

A collab article by A. Lulu & C.G. Peter Thomason

Article One: Roxy the Loungers

The Shimmering Lineage: From Roxy Music to New Romantic Blue-Eyed Soul

The story of glam rock’s evolution isn’t just a tale of glitter, platform boots, and bombast. It’s the story of how a subculture rooted in androgyny and artifice—posing as subterfuge against a scared and conservative post-Summer of Love society—morphed into something more retrograde, more superficial, but no less catchy or performative. Sparked in part by the influence of Roxy Music, glam’s flamboyant aesthetic laid the foundation for the more polished, soul-inflected sounds of the early '80s. Acts like Spandau Ballet, Culture Club, The Style Council, and Simply Red—often mischaracterized as “New Wave”—were in truth a sophisticated mutation of the glam ethos. This tributary of New Wave wasn’t punk’s heir in angst or raw energy; it was glam’s descendant in style, theatricality, and performance-as-identity—now dressed in satin suits and velvet tuxedos.

🌟 Roxy Music: The Birth of Sophisticated Decadence

IIf there was ever an embodiment of sleek, art-conscious decadence, it was Roxy Music in the early 1970s. Bryan Ferry’s suave croon and meticulously crafted persona helped forge an aesthetic that merged avant-garde sensibilities with high fashion and cocktail lounge cool. This wasn’t just glam rock—it was glam as lifestyle. Ferry was a study in cool detachment, his sharp-tongued crooning turning pop music into performance art.

Roxy Music’s fusion of glam rock, cabaret, and avant-garde sound was a declaration of style over substance—until you looked closer. Their albums and performances weren’t just celebrations of glitter, but deliberate constructions of identity. Ferry’s satin blazers, his languid vocals, and his martini-glass-in-hand persona helped define a new kind of emotive masculinity: detached, stylish, and performatively aloof. A song like the funk-inflected “Love Is the Drug” wasn’t just a club banger—it was a thesis on being too cool to care, yet too self-aware and desperate to be truly unaffected. This was music for the louche and the literate, the kind of person with a bindle of coke in their pocket at a Lower East Side art opening.

Roxy Music’s glamour-meets-high-art ethos was the spark that wouldn’t fully catch fire for nearly a decade—until its echoes began dominating the pop charts in the form of style-forward soul-pop and synth-glam hybrids.

🪩 Spandau Ballet: The New Romantics and the Blue-Eyed Soul Revival

The early ‘80s saw a new generation take up the glam torch, but this time, the glitter was more refined. No more platforms and painted faces—now, we were in velvet tuxedos, eyeliner sharp enough to cut through the New Romantic haze. Spandau Ballet were the embodiment of this transformation, kids from the street dripping in art-school sophistication, directly inspired by the fashion and music of Roxy Music. But where Bryan Ferry’s vocals were a study in cool detachment, Tony Hadley’s voice carried a certain heft—a crooner’s passion mixed with soulful depth that felt almost tangible.

The result was a sound that merged glam’s artifice with a more visceral emotional pull. True, their quintessential track, is the perfect example of this—blue-eyed soul dressed in synths and tuxedos. Hadley’s powerful, vulnerable vocals channel the emotional drama of soul legends, wrapped in a production that is undeniably ‘80s. The track’s velvet smoothness—its luxurious, almost decadent arrangement—sounds like it could be from another time, but is so rooted in the decade that it feels timeless. The emotional yearning that defined Roxy’s era of detached cool had evolved into something more direct, more naked in its longing. And you can see this shift reflected in the flowing, romantic wardrobes of other New Romantics, like Duran Duran and Adam and the Ants. Adam, while not a crooner until Strip, was very much a Glammer in the vein of Bowie, with the paint and pomp to match. The New Romantics weren’t just reviving glam—they were taking it into a new direction, one where the line between style and substance was intentionally blurred.

🎭 Culture Club: Boy George's Fusion of Glam and Soul

By 1982, the New Romantic movement had evolved, and Culture Club emerged as its most commercially successful and culturally influential act. Fronted by Boy George, whose androgynous flair and lounge singer swagger were direct descendants of Roxy Music's theatricality, the band fused glam's artifice with a more accessible pop sensibility. Their drummer, Jon Moss, had previously played on Adam and the Ants' 1980 single "Cartrouble," credited under the pseudonym "Terry 1 & 2" (source). This connection underscored the fluidity between the glam-infused post-punk scene and the polished pop of the New Romantics.

Boy George's performance was a masterclass in transformation. He didn't merely dress the part—he inhabited it, shifting seamlessly between the glamorous, the grotesque, and the sublime. His voice, clear-throated and dripping with charm, was a direct descendant of Bryan Ferry's crooning, but George's tone was more brash and his style was perfectly suited for the video-crazed '80s. This was soul, but not just Motown or pop; it was glam-infused soul, a raw emotionality fused with the polished sound of New Romanticism.

Their 1982 hit "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me" exemplified this blend. The song's minimalist arrangement and George's vocal phrasing carried the emotional detachment reminiscent of Roxy's early work, yet there was an ache in the delivery—a deeper, more direct emotional yearning. Boy George didn't hide behind the high art of his predecessors; instead, he wore his emotions on his sleeve, even if that sleeve was laced with eyeliner.

🧵 The Common Thread: Glam to New Romantic to Blue-Eyed Soul Wave

The journey from Roxy Music through Spandau Ballet to Culture Club wasn’t just a change in sound—it was a regression, a reclamation of past emotional tropes disguised as something “new.” The so-called “New Wave” of the early ‘80s was less about revolution and more about re-packaging old concepts for a new generation. What was once categorized as punk's emotive rawness or synth-punk’s edgy cool was, in reality, nothing more than a revival of the smooth crooning style that had been the hallmark of ‘50s and ‘60s lounge singers and soul men. The names may have changed, but the game remained the same: the emotional vulnerability of crooners like Frank Sinatra and Roy Orbison was now dressed up in satin suits and synthesizers.

This was no punk rebellion or new frontier of musical expression. It was, in fact, a return to emotional excess, but this time it was neatly packaged as “New Wave.” Bands like ABC, Simply Red, and The Style Council didn’t challenge the status quo—they reaffirmed it by reviving the kind of performative masculinity first epitomized by crooners. The synthesizers might have given them an art-school sheen, but the true essence of the sound was deeply rooted in the yearning and emotional manipulation of pre-rock pop, filtered through an intellectual lens. The term “blue-eyed soul” was a perfect misnomer here—it wasn’t so much soul as it was glam-infused emotional theater, where longing, not rebellion, was the true centerpiece.

Conclusion: The Elegant Melodrama of Glam’s Legacy

It’s tempting to dismiss the New Romantic movement and its offshoots as mere style, a fleeting aesthetic wrapped in satin and sequins. But the journey from Roxy Music to Spandau Ballet and Culture Club reveals something much deeper: an emotional undercurrent that runs through these seemingly superficial trends. The glitter and glam of the '70s may have appeared as pure artifice, but at its core, it was about the performance of identity—playing with vulnerability and power in equal measure. The so-called “New Wave” of the early ‘80s wasn’t a radical break from the past but rather a revival of the emotional excesses of earlier eras, from the crooning soul men of the ‘50s and ‘60s to the theatrical glam of David Bowie.

The smooth, polished sound of bands like Spandau Ballet and Culture Club may have been dressed in art-school sophistication, but it was also a direct lineage of the performative masculinity first explored by Roxy Music. In this space, glam and soul collided, not just musically but emotionally—allowing for a more direct expression of longing, desire, and vulnerability. When we listen to tracks like “True” or “Do You Really Want to Hurt Me,” we’re not just hearing synth-pop; we’re hearing the same emotional subtleties that defined the best moments of glam, remixed for a new era.

In the end, glam rock didn’t just alter music—it rewrote the way we perform identity, turning emotional expression into an art form. That transformation still reverberates today, in ways we might not even recognize, as we continue to perform our lives like characters on a stage.

Article Two: Glam to Glam

The roots of Glam Rock run deeper than glitter—they’re tangled in a lineage of pop manipulation and cultural repackaging that stretches back to the cartoon smiles of Bubblegum pop. Before the platform boots and androgynous posturing of the early ‘70s, there was “Sugar, Sugar” by The Archies: a manufactured hit from a fictional band, itself an outgrowth of a marketing experiment. Bubblegum wasn’t just music—it was a calculated attempt to sell pop to kids, to simplify rock and roll into something bright, safe, and relentlessly catchy. That effort, launched in the wake of The Monkees (who were themselves a commercial echo of Beatlemania), proved that image and accessibility could be engineered—especially when paired with cartoons and cereal-box appeal.

From that plastic perfection, Glam Rock emerged not as a rebellion, but as a mutation. Early Sweet—before they embraced full glam swagger—still bore the fingerprints of Bubblegum’s glossy hooks and simplicity, their early singles crafted by the same Chinnichap hit factory that had been churning out chewable chart fodder. But by the early ‘70s, the culture had shifted. Economic uncertainty, gender anxiety, and a growing hunger for escapism demanded something flashier, more provocative. Glam answered not just with sound, but with spectacle. It took the manipulability of Bubblegum and weaponized it—turning artifice into armor, and commercial gloss into cultural defiance. If The Archies sold innocence, then Glam sold ambiguity—sexual, aesthetic, and emotional.

And yet, like Hair Metal a decade later, Glam was always underwritten by commerce. The glitter and greasepaint masked a transactional truth: this was music built to be consumed, a shiny surface that carried subversion only because the market allowed it. But in the early ‘70s, that subversion meant something. Glam emerged in a climate of sexual repression and societal rigidity—it dared to play with androgyny, to queer the stage, to seduce through ambiguity. By contrast, the ‘80s would explode into full-throttle hedonism. When Hair Metal roared out of Reagan’s MTV-lit America, the provocation had lost its mystery. Androgyny gave way to chest hair; platform shoes to spandex; performance art to party anthems. The shock was still there, but the tension wasn’t. What Glam teased, Hair Metal flaunted. But the lineage is clear. Glam could only exist because advertising had already taught the industry how to sell identity to kids. It didn’t break the system—it just made it louder, sexier, and a little more dangerous.

Glam Rock: A Music of Coded Rebellion

In the early 1970s, the world was still reeling from the upheaval of the '60s, but the cultural ground hadn’t fully shifted. In Britain especially, the atmosphere was grim—economic stagnation, three-day workweeks, rolling power cuts, and a national mood steeped in austerity and conservatism. For anyone whose identity didn’t fit neatly within traditional molds, self-expression could feel dangerous. Glam Rock erupted as a flamboyant, defiant response. It wasn’t just a style—it was a provocation. Artists like David Bowie, T. Rex, Sweet, Slade, Elton John, and early Queen crafted theatrical personas that blurred gender and toyed with sexual ambiguity. Cloaked in glitter and velvet, mascara and platform boots, they weren’t just shocking the public—they were creating space. Glam carved out a zone where the rigid binaries of straight, masculine, and British stiff-upper-lip no longer applied.

But crucially, the rebellion was coded. These performers rarely said anything outright. Their sexualities were shrouded in metaphor; their provocations, cloaked in innuendo. It was camp with a wink, danger behind a feather boa. Bowie, Elton, and Freddie Mercury—three of Glam’s brightest stars—were all grappling with their own queerness in a time and industry that offered little safety for that kind of truth. Their theatricality wasn’t just an aesthetic choice—it was a strategy. Bowie’s gender-bending personas flirted with androgyny but remained elusive. Elton dazzled with outrageous spectacle onstage while staying closeted off it. And Freddie, in full leotard and eyeliner, gave the world bombast while guarding something more intimate. “Bohemian Rhapsody” has since been read as Mercury’s coded coming-out—a theory supported by lyricist Tim Rice and Mercury’s partner Jim Hutton, who both claimed the “man” killed in the opening line was the straight persona Freddie had to present to survive. Glam’s sonic and visual grandeur wasn’t just about fantasy. It was survival through misdirection. It nudged the boundaries of what was culturally acceptable, but never quite crossed the line. It left the doors ajar and invited you to peek through—if you knew what you were looking at.

Hair Metal: The Embrace of Excess

By the early 1980s, the cultural and musical landscape had shifted dramatically. The sexual revolution had gone mainstream, Reagan and Thatcher were reshaping politics through neoliberal conservatism, and MTV had turned music into a visual arms race. Glam Metal—derisively labeled "Hair Metal"—arose in this new ecosystem, and the portrayal of sexuality took a hard turn. Where '70s glam rockers cloaked queerness in metaphor and camp, the Hair Metal scene flaunted a hyper-heterosexual, cartoonishly aggressive sexuality. Bands like Mötley Crüe, Poison, Ratt, and Bon Jovi inherited the glam playbook—big hair, makeup, flashy clothes—but turned subversion into swagger. The sexual tension was no longer ambiguous or suggestive; it was shouted from the rooftops, screamed from the stage, and plastered across TV screens.

The sound evolved too. The music got heavier—bigger amps, double-kick drums, more distortion—but the core formula didn’t change: loud guitars, catchy hooks, and arena-ready choruses. Songs like Mötley Crüe’s “Girls, Girls, Girls” and Poison’s “Talk Dirty to Me” didn’t flirt—they leered. Poetic yearning was traded in for brash carnality. This wasn’t about hiding anymore; it was about flaunting. The glam aesthetic had become fully commercialized, and thanks to MTV, the visuals mattered as much as the music. Leather, lace, and spandex dominated, but the emotional content had shifted. Androgyny was still present, but now filtered through a lens of exaggerated masculinity—chests bared, crotches front and center. What had once been a way to question gender roles was now a way to assert dominance.

This was glam with the brakes off. If ‘70s glam trafficked in ambiguity and metaphor to make space for queerness—however coded—Hair Metal scrubbed away the nuance and sold back the glitter without the threat. The rebellion of the '70s had been about testing boundaries and cracking open the culture. By contrast, Hair Metal’s rebellion was about indulgence: more sex, more drugs, more volume. It wasn’t about escaping repression—it was about reveling in excess. The glamorization of hedonism remained, but it no longer had the charge of transgression. By the time glam resurfaced on the Sunset Strip, it had gone from challenging norms to reinforcing them. If '70s glam asked you to question the rules, Hair Metal invited you to party like there never were any.

Sweet and Mötley Crüe: A Clear Line of Influence

f we want to trace the connections between Glam Rock and Hair Metal, we need to look beyond the usual names—Bowie, Bolan, and Slade—and shine a spotlight on Sweet, arguably the most sonically influential glam band in shaping what would become the glam metal sound. Sweet’s early career under the Chinnichap hit factory (Nicky Chinn and Mike Chapman) leaned heavily into bubblegum pop, but with the increasing influence of guitarist Andy Scott, the band began fusing glittery hooks with crunching riffs and muscular arrangements. Songs like “Action,” “Fox on the Run,” and “Ballroom Blitz” were a blueprint for future hair metal: big choruses, heavy guitars, and an aesthetic that flirted with androgyny while maintaining an undercurrent of machismo. Unlike the art-school ambiguity of Bowie or the mystical swagger of Bolan, Sweet were loud, fun, and built for mass consumption—and it worked.

That commercial success helped ignite a bubblegum glam boom that quickly spilled into television and teen media. Following the breakthrough of Sweet’s “Little Willy” in the U.S., media outlets scrambled to capitalize. The Bay City Rollers, who had previously toiled in relative obscurity, were rebranded into teen heartthrobs with tartan uniforms and bubblegum melodies. They landed a hit American variety show—“The Bay City Rollers Show”—at the height of their fame, alongside the similarly styled (and arguably even slicker) Hudson Brothers, who got their own CBS Saturday morning slot with “The Hudson Brothers Razzle Dazzle Show”. Across the pond, bands like Hello and Mud were tailor-made for Top of the Pops and Smash Hits spreads, their music secondary to their haircuts and photogenic faces.

This was glam as mass-market television fodder—not a movement, but a product line. And with TV as the delivery system, labels scrambled to manufacture more: acts like Kenny, Iron Virgin, Rosetta Stone, Slik, Fancy, Zappo, Tiger B. Smith, Mabel, and dozens of others were swept up in the gold rush. A few had minor hits. Most vanished. The result was a scene saturated with image-first, substance-light performers who diluted the genre’s cultural impact and paved the way for its rapid commodification and decline.

The tipping point arguably came with the U.S. chart-topping success of “Saturday Night” by the Bay City Rollers in 1975. The song was a perfect storm of chant-along simplicity and media packaging—but it also marked the moment where glam’s sense of rebellion was fully papered over by commercial artifice. Within a year, punk had erupted in the UK, classic rock was solidifying its grip on FM radio, and American power pop acts like Cheap Trick and The Knack were offering a sharper, more musically grounded evolution of glam’s melodic sensibilities. What had once felt thrillingly anarchic now seemed juvenile and passé.

And yet, amid the wreckage, the sonic DNA of Sweet endured. Where the broader bubblegum glam movement was discarded, Andy Scott’s riff-forward style stuck. During Mötley Crüe’s earliest days, Nikki Sixx reached out to Scott, not just as a fan, but as someone mining his blueprint. Sixx wasn’t a guitarist, but he understood how Scott's riffs balanced bombast with accessibility, how they could drive a song without sacrificing melody. While Mick Mars would go on to define Crüe’s guitar sound with a rawer, blues-inflected edge, the structural bones of Crüe’s music—tight hooks, dramatic builds, and the blend of menace and flash—owe much to what Scott pioneered. In many ways, Sweet were the missing link, bridging bubblegum commercialism with hard rock grit, helping to lay the foundation for a genre that wouldn’t just echo glam rock—it would supercharge and repackage it for an entirely new era of excess.

Thematic Shift: From Repression to Revelry

The shift from the emotionally ambiguous sexuality of Glam Rock to the overt, performative sexuality of Hair Metal wasn’t just a musical evolution—it was a mirror of massive cultural change. Glam Rock had emerged in the early 1970s as a veiled rebellion against a sexually repressive society. Artists like Bowie and Sweet coded queerness in their performances, using fashion, makeup, and metaphor to explore identity in ways that were subversive but never explicit. It was about creating space in a hostile environment, finding safety in personas, and suggesting freedom through illusion.

By the 1980s, the world had changed—or at least, it was pretending to. The decade was brash, hyper-visual, and economically supercharged. Reaganomics and Thatcherism promised prosperity through austerity, but on the cultural front, things were exploding. MTV debuted in 1981 and quickly transformed how music was consumed, but it didn’t invent music’s visual turn—it merely broadcast it wider, faster, and slicker than ever before. New wave, punk, funk, and pop were all leaning into image. Artists from Prince to Siouxsie Sioux were pushing aesthetic boundaries. Madonna, newly arrived on the scene, challenged gender and sexual norms with a bluntness Glam never dared—young women were wearing their lingerie on the outside of their clothes, claiming space in a media landscape that had rarely given them agency.

At the same time, the gay subculture was both under siege and breaking through. The AIDS crisis was devastating communities, and the political silence around it—exemplified by Reagan’s refusal to even say the word "AIDS" for years—created a moral void. In response, queer voices began pushing harder into the mainstream. Art, fashion, and even television became battlegrounds for visibility. The coded subversions of Glam suddenly seemed insufficient for a moment that demanded confrontation. In this chaotic cultural atmosphere—liberated but anxious, flashy but hollow—Hair Metal took hold.

Hair Metal, sometimes dismissed as all flash and no substance, was in fact the perfect soundtrack for this era of contradictions. Its aesthetic borrowed directly from Glam’s toolbox: glitter, makeup, and theatricality. But where Glam wrapped its messages in metaphor and ambiguity, Hair Metal screamed them out with zero subtlety. The sexuality was heterosexual, aggressive, and front-and-center. Bands like Mötley Crüe, Poison, and Cinderella didn’t hint at anything—they declared it in leather and spandex, in stage shows that played like strip clubs with guitar solos. And yet, even in their hyper-masculinity, these bands adopted a look that would’ve once signaled queerness. In a strange twist, the androgyny that once challenged gender norms was now used to amplify sexual bravado.

This wasn’t rebellion in the Glam Rock sense—it was indulgence. Hair Metal was the fantasy of limitless pleasure, the illusion of freedom through consumption: of sex, drugs, sound, and spectacle. If Glam was about breaking the rules to make room for the outsider, Hair Metal acted like there were never any rules to begin with. It didn’t just revel in excess; it sold it.

The arc from Sweet to Mötley Crüe captures this transformation vividly. Sweet, under the guidance of producer Mike Chapman and songwriter Nicky Chinn, walked a tightrope between bubblegum and hard rock. Guitarist Andy Scott, in particular, fused heavy riffs with pop melodies in a way that laid the sonic groundwork for what would follow. Nikki Sixx idolized this fusion—he even reached out to Scott while Mötley Crüe was still finding its voice. And though it was Mick Mars who would ultimately define the band’s guitar sound, it was Sixx who built on Scott’s vision of crunchy glam riffs driven by pop hooks and decadent flair.

So while Hair Metal is often seen as a spontaneous eruption, the reality is that it was a revival—albeit an unacknowledged one. Glam never truly died; it mutated. The lipstick stayed on, the boots got taller, the hair got bigger—but the subversion gave way to domination. What had once questioned norms now exaggerated them.

In conclusion, the transition from Glam Rock to Hair Metal is not just a musical shift—it's a cultural time-lapse. Glam whispered through metaphor in a repressive age. Hair Metal shouted over the noise of a decadent one. Both were forms of escape. Both were theater. But only one emerged in a world where the masquerade had become the main event.

Sweet over Bowie

Arguing that Sweet and T. Rex were more influential than David Bowie or Queen in the context of Glam Rock’s evolution into Hair Metal isn’t about diminishing the titanic cultural impact of the latter two—it’s about tracing a more direct, audible, and visible lineage. While Bowie and Queen helped redefine artistic ambition and gender presentation in rock, it was Sweet and T. Rex who established the foundational musical and visual grammar that Hair Metal would later inflate to arena-sized proportions.

Bowie was a master of persona and coded subversion, and Queen fused operatic complexity with rock theater—but neither consistently trafficked in the simple, sexy, riff-driven immediacy that would become Hair Metal’s trademark. Sweet’s blend of bubblegum melodies and muscular guitars—thanks in large part to Chinn and Chapman’s writing—gave us songs like “Ballroom Blitz,” “Fox on the Run,” and “Set Me Free,” which practically storyboard the musical architecture of bands like Mötley Crüe, Poison, and Quiet Riot. T. Rex’s groove-forward boogie, filtered through fuzzed-out glam swagger, paved the way for Van Halen’s Women and Children First or Def Leppard’s High ’n’ Dry.

Even Mick Mars of Mötley Crüe adopted Andy Scott’s tone and phrasing, while Nikki Sixx directly reached out to him—further cementing Sweet as an explicit source text. Def Leppard’s vocal layering on “Rocket” is the distant echo of T. Rex’s “Metal Guru.” Quiet Riot’s massive breakout came via their cover of Slade’s “Cum On Feel the Noize”—another glam anthem built on the working-class, singalong stomp that defined early 70s glam but had little in common with Bowie’s Berlin Trilogy or Queen’s Jazz.

Of course, Sweet’s eventual move toward a more progressive sound saw them lose their pop sheen and commercial momentum—abandoning the very formula that Hair Metal would later embrace and exploit. And while Marc Bolan’s songwriting undeniably leans toward repetition—some would say he perfected a single irresistible groove and rewrote it endlessly—that very formulaic consistency made him ideal as a prototype for a genre like Hair Metal, which prizes infectious hooks over evolution.

None of this negates Bowie’s or Queen’s greatness—far from it. Bowie’s ability to reflect and elevate subcultural aesthetics into mass-consumed art is peerless, even if songs like “Starman” wore their influences on their sleeve (see: “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”). Queen’s run from Queen II through The Game is arguably one of the greatest in rock history, though the post-Hot Space era sees the band shift into more generic, if still grand, territory. Their impact on stagecraft, vocals, and musicianship is undeniable—but Hair Metal bands rarely emulated Queen’s complexity. They borrowed the bombast, not the baroque.

In the end, Sweet and T. Rex weren’t necessarily more important than Queen or Bowie in the grand scheme of glam—but if we’re talking about who built the musical and aesthetic scaffolding that bands like Mötley Crüe, Ratt, and Poison climbed, the fingerprints of Sweet and T. Rex are all over the scene. Glam’s transformation into Hair Metal wasn’t just an evolution—it was a transmutation of sugar-rush swagger into spectacle-driven hedonism, and no two bands provided more of that raw material than Sweet and T. Rex.

The Case for Sweet and T. Rex’s Greater Influence

1. Musical Simplicity and Pop Sensibility

Sweet and T. Rex were masters of the infectious, hook-driven pop-rock that laid the sonic foundation for what would eventually become Hair Metal. Both bands embraced a sleek, radio-friendly blend of glam and rock that was more accessible—and more imitable—than the experimental or concept-driven works of David Bowie. Songs like Sweet’s “Fox on the Run” or “Ballroom Blitz” and T. Rex’s “Bang a Gong (Get It On)” were built on big riffs, singalong choruses, and a glossy sense of fun. These weren’t just hits—they were templates. Their streamlined structure and melodic immediacy made them ideal models for the generation of bands that, a decade later, would aim to fill stadiums with riffs and hairspray.

By contrast, Bowie’s most influential glam-era works—like The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars—were far more ambitious in scope and tone. Ziggy was a character, a mythos, a full-blown concept, and while the album contains moments of pop brilliance (“Suffragette City,” “Starman”), the overall project leaned into art-rock, ambiguity, and emotional abstraction. Bowie invited you to decode him. T. Rex and Sweet wanted you to roll down the car windows and sing.

Hair Metal, despite its visual flamboyance, was never particularly conceptual. Its DNA was less Ziggy Stardust and more “20th Century Boy.” The genre borrowed glam’s love of excess—eyeliner, tight pants, sexuality pushed to the front—but musically, it was rooted in immediacy: giant choruses, four-on-the-floor drums, and riffs you could hang a whole tour on. Marc Bolan’s stripped-down, swaggering boogie was the glam equivalent of Chuck Berry in platform boots—direct, memorable, and built to last. He didn’t reinvent the wheel; he made it spin in glitter.

Sweet, meanwhile, offered a blueprint for how to weaponize bubblegum pop instincts within a rock context. Their Chinnichap-penned hits were precision-engineered for maximum earworm impact, and even as they moved toward more progressive rock later in their career, their early work remained foundational to Hair Metal’s songwriting style. Bands like Mötley Crüe, Poison, and Ratt weren’t looking to invent new genres—they wanted music that could dominate the radio and pack arenas. Sweet gave them the playbook.

In the end, while Bowie challenged his audience with ideas and Queen elevated rock into operatic spectacle, it was Sweet and T. Rex who provided the core musical vocabulary that 80s glam metal would adopt wholesale. Simpler song structures. Bigger hooks. Louder guitars. Less introspection, more seduction. That doesn’t make them better—but it does make them closer in lineage to what Hair Metal ultimately became.

2. Visual and Theatrical Influence

T. Rex and Sweet weren’t just sonic architects of glam—they were also key visual pioneers, crystallizing a flamboyant, glitter-drenched aesthetic that echoed all the way into the glam metal explosion of the 1980s. Their look—platform boots, metallic fabrics, sequins, bold makeup, and teased hair—didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It evolved out of a lineage that includes the flashy androgyny of Little Richard, the dandified sharpness of British mods, and the psychedelic flamboyance of performers like Jimi Hendrix and The Move’s Roy Wood, whose wild outfits and painted faces pushed stagewear toward full-blown spectacle.

But Marc Bolan was the first to synthesize all that into a style that felt unmistakably glam. His top hats, feather boas, glitter makeup, and satin trousers weren’t part of a high-concept narrative—they were expressions of swagger, sex appeal, and pure rock star fantasy. His glam wasn’t intellectualized or alien—it was primal, fun, and instantly adoptable. Bolan made glam feel like something you could live, not just watch.

Sweet took that blueprint and turned it up to eleven. Their hyper-stylized looks—towering platforms, rhinestones, eye shadow that could blind a man—weren’t tied to a larger narrative like Bowie’s conceptual personas or Queen’s operatic grandeur. Sweet’s glam was about rebellion through flash and volume. It was pure performance—loud, hedonistic, and visually unforgettable. They weren’t reinterpreting identity; they were throwing glitter bombs at it.

And here’s where the legacy gets literal: when Slash took the stage in the late '80s wearing a low-brimmed top hat and a mess of curls, he was walking in Marc Bolan’s silhouette. Whether it was a deliberate homage or unconscious style theft, the lineage is clear. Bolan wore that hat in the early '70s as a symbol of mystique and cool. Slash turned it into an icon of sleazy Sunset Strip rock. Glam’s visual DNA traveled straight through that top hat—from the BBC’s Top of the Pops to the MTV generation.

And I’ll tell you how real that connection is: I once went to a party with a girl—possibly a stripper, but a very fun one—and I watched her go home with a good-looking guitarist in a top hat who said he had an album coming out. That guitarist? Slash. I lost a girl to glam’s aftershock. If that’s not proof of the enduring power of glitter, attitude, and a well-timed accessory, I don’t know what is.

3. Direct Influence on Hair Metal

It’s well-documented that Mötley Crüe, for example, were deeply inspired by Sweet and T. Rex’s sound. Nikki Sixx even reached out to Sweet’s Andy Scott for advice on producing their early demos—a clear sign of how much Sweet’s blend of catchy pop-rock and glam visuals resonated with the next generation of rockers. The entire ethos of Hair Metal—big riffs, anthemic choruses, flamboyant aesthetics—can be traced more directly to Sweet and T. Rex than to David Bowie or Queen.

I saw this connection play out firsthand. My band, Throttle Back Sparky, used to cover Sweet’s “Hell Raiser”—and I say with no ego, our version was as good or better than the original. We played it at a gig at Dragonfly in Hollywood, a club that had personal significance to me because I’d just seen Scott Weiland’s return to the stage there with Stone Temple Pilots. After the show, a guy came up and said, “That was great! What was the Mötley Crüe song you did? You know, the one with the ‘Hell Raiser!’”

He meant it as a compliment—and it landed as one—but it also made something click. To him, that sound belonged to Crüe. That swaggering glam stomp, those gang vocals, that blend of menace and melody—it all screamed 80s metal. But it was Sweet. That moment sharpened my belief that Sweet’s influence wasn’t just present in Hair Metal—it was foundational. Their musical DNA ran so deep that the lines between origin and outcome had blurred.

You can hear that lineage in early Crüe demos and see it in the glitter-laden looks of Poison or Cinderella. Sweet’s high-energy, sing-along choruses translated perfectly into the arena-sized excess of 80s glam metal. And while Bowie and Queen brought brilliance and art to the glam era, Sweet and T. Rex made it fun, flashy, and radio-ready—which is exactly the vibe the L.A. Sunset Strip would weaponize a decade later.

4. Lyrical Themes and Sexuality

In contrast, Sweet and T. Rex embraced a more direct and exuberant expression of sexuality and identity. Their flamboyant styles and catchy, hedonistic music laid the groundwork for the glam metal bands of the 1980s, who adopted and amplified these elements without the conceptual, art-school layers that characterized David Bowie’s work. While Sweet and T. Rex celebrated glam as high-energy performance and street-level swagger, Bowie approached it from a more abstract and intellectual angle—crafting alter egos like Ziggy Stardust not just as stage personas but as vehicles for exploring transformation, alienation, and societal norms.

Ziggy, in fact, was born from two pivotal moments in Bowie’s life: first, his encounter with a mentally unraveling Vince Taylor, who claimed to be a cross between a rock star and an alien messiah; and second, a surreal interaction in which Bowie thought he was talking to Lou Reed, only to discover afterward he’d actually been speaking with someone else entirely—an experience that led him to marvel, “You can pretend to be someone completely different.” That idea—of identity as fluid, theatrical, and performative—became foundational to his glam period.

This distinction highlights how early glam rock often involved adopting extravagant personas and aesthetics as a form of rebellion and self-expression, rather than as a means of telling complex narratives. Sweet and T. Rex leaned into spectacle, pleasure, and immediacy, crafting a celebratory experience that resonated widely. But at its core, glam’s enduring appeal came from that same performative spark—the thrilling possibility that anyone, at any time, could become someone completely different.

Conclusion:

In the end, the debate isn’t about who had the most museum-ready legacy—it’s about who actually shaped the music that filled arenas, packed clubs, and lit the fuse for a generation of rock fans and bands. David Bowie and Queen were revolutionary, no question. But when it comes to the DNA of Hair Metal—the big riffs, the unashamed fun, the theatrics, the attitude—it’s Sweet and T. Rex who wrote the blueprint. And yet somehow, Sweet got left behind. While Queen was canonized and Bowie mythologized, Sweet was relegated to novelty status, their brilliance flattened into a punchline. Even "Ballroom Blitz," which found a second life thanks to Wayne’s World 2, never earned the cultural resurrection that "Bohemian Rhapsody" enjoyed.

But here’s the truth: Sweet’s early ’70s output is a masterclass in pop-rock perfection. Those razor-edged riffs and towering choruses didn't just echo into glam metal—they defined it. Andy Scott may have kept the flame alive in obscurity, but that original spark helped ignite a legion of bands who—yes—might be derided now, but who carried that same spirit into the mainstream. To dismiss Sweet as bubblegum is to ignore how loud that bubble popped, how far the glitter flew—and how many people are still dancing in it.

Over praising Bowie:

You're absolutely right in bringing up Bowie’s own reflections on his role in music and culture. Bowie often referred to himself as more of an appropriator than an originator, which is a crucial insight into understanding his approach to music and identity. Throughout his career, Bowie pulled from a vast array of influences—from the avant-garde to the underground, from early rock n' roll to experimental theater—and then shaped these influences into something larger and more accessible, often with the intention of making them palatable for a broader, mainstream audience.

Bowie was keenly aware of the subcultures that existed around him, and he was brilliant at distilling the most transgressive, underground elements and re-packaging them for the masses. His ability to turn cultural moments and movements into globally recognized phenomena (such as glam rock, the queer revolution, and even early new wave) came from his skill at taking niche ideas and turning them into something consumable. This included his approach to gender, sexuality, and identity, all of which were influenced by underground movements but filtered through Bowie’s own persona-driven, artistic sensibility. He, perhaps more than any other artist of his era, bridged the gap between the alternative and the mainstream.

In a sense, Bowie took elements that were already present in the underground—such as the androgynous fashion, glam's queer subtext, and the irreverent, rebellious rock aesthetic—and expanded them into something grander and more integrated into the cultural mainstream. This is where his role as an "appropriator" becomes more evident. Bowie didn’t create glam rock; it existed before him with bands like T. Rex and Sweet, as well as the androgynous influences of the Berlin underground. What Bowie did, however, was make it more palatable, more theatrical, and more intellectual, all while positioning himself as the central figure in this grand reimagining of gender, sexuality, and rock n' roll.

This is a key distinction: Bowie didn't invent glam rock, but he elevated it. He took the raw materials—gender-bending aesthetics, rock n' roll excess, and sexual liberation—and transformed them into something that had far greater cultural impact. His work transcended the underground in a way that Sweet and T. Rex, though incredibly influential, didn’t necessarily do to the same extent. While Sweet and T. Rex were undeniably important in shaping glam rock, their reach was more confined to the glam subculture and the pop charts of their time. Bowie, however, helped glam—and by extension, avant-garde culture—enter the wider lexicon of rock music and artistic discourse.

By positioning himself as an appropriator, Bowie acknowledged that his success came from synthesizing ideas that were already bubbling beneath the surface and presenting them in a more polished, accessible form. His genius was in taking what was underground and making it mainstream, effectively turning what was once considered subversive or niche into high art.

However, this idea of appropriation doesn't lessen Bowie’s importance. Instead, it underscores the idea that Bowie was the conduit through which various, often fragmented, cultural movements became part of the larger global conversation. He acted as a kind of cultural translator, pulling from the margins and presenting them in a way that appealed to a wider, more mainstream audience.

Exploiting and Elevating the Underground: How This Fits into the Sweet/T. Rex vs. Bowie/Queen Debate

When it comes to comparing Sweet and T. Rex’s influence to Bowie or Queen’s, it’s worth noting that Sweet and T. Rex were more directly rooted in the raw, immediate pop of glam and rock. Both bands had a way of blending pop catchiness with glam excess, but they didn’t take it to the level of high art or intellectual discourse the way Bowie did. Bowie might have appropriated elements of glam, punk, and other subcultures, but he transformed them into something much more layered and cerebral. In contrast, Sweet and T. Rex, while just as influential in terms of their sound, were less concerned with intellectualizing their music and more focused on creating accessible, hook-driven rock that could reach a wide audience.

Queen, similarly, operated on a different level of artistic ambition than Sweet or T. Rex. While their music and visuals were heavily glam-infused, Queen’s operatic influences, complex musical arrangements, and use of theatrical storytelling were much more focused on creating a high-art version of rock music. Bowie, too, was highly invested in transforming rock into something that engaged with art, theater, and social commentary. Both Queen and Bowie arguably had a larger vision for glam rock’s place in culture, whereas Sweet and T. Rex were primarily concerned with keeping it fun, flamboyant, and in the realm of the pop charts.

In that sense, Sweet and T. Rex can be seen as the true originators of the glam rock sound and visual aesthetic. Bowie, as an appropriator, took these existing influences and made them into something greater—turning what was initially fringe or underground into a worldwide movement. So while Bowie didn’t invent glam rock, he unquestionably played a pivotal role in mainstreaming it and solidifying its place in music history.

In terms of Hair Metal, though, Sweet and T. Rex’s influence is more direct. Their unrelenting focus on pop hooks, youthful rebellion, and fun made them the ideal blueprint for the next generation of glam-infused rockers. Mötley Crüe and other bands took their cues from Sweet’s riff-driven pop rock and T. Rex’s glam swagger, making their influence far more immediate in shaping the sound and aesthetic of Hair Metal.

Conclusion: Appropriation as a Tool of Cultural Expansion

So, while it may not be too far a stretch to argue that Bowie’s genius lay in his ability to appropriate and elevate the underground, it’s important to recognize that this made him the artist who brought these influences into the larger cultural consciousness. Sweet and T. Rex were instrumental in shaping glam rock's core sound, but Bowie’s appropriation and transformation of those sounds into something bigger had an undeniable cultural weight. In the case of Hair Metal, though, Sweet and T. Rex were likely more directly influential, as their poppy glam-rock aesthetics and excesses provided a more immediate template for the genre’s sonic and visual identity.

Ultimately, Bowie’s acknowledgment of himself as an appropriator is a reflection of his larger artistic mission: to transform the avant-garde, to make what was once marginalized part of the mainstream—and, in doing so, to secure his own place as one of the most iconic figures in music history. Whether we view him as the originator or appropriator, his impact is undeniable, and his role in glam's evolution is crucial to understanding the bridge between early glam and the explosion of 80s Hair Metal.

Bon Bowie:

Bowie: From Underground Icon to Mainstream Overlord

When Bowie first rose to prominence, his connection to the underground was crucial to his innovation. Throughout the 70s, Bowie was very much a product of the underground scenes, from the glam movement (which he helped shape) to his immersion in Berlin's post-punk and electronic music landscape. His ability to stay connected to these subcultures, to understand them and draw inspiration from them, allowed him to continuously innovate, borrowing ideas from avant-garde art, early electronic music, and queer subcultures to create something entirely new.

However, after the mega-success of Let’s Dance in 1983, Bowie found himself in a very different position. By the mid-to-late 80s and into the 90s, he was no longer the scrappy outsider or underground innovator but an international superstar. As you noted, it became harder for him to maintain that authentic connection to the underground. His attempts to align himself with new styles—such as his 1997 album Earthling with its attempts at industrial and electronic music, and “I’m Afraid of Americans” in particular—sounded like an attempt to catch up to the cutting-edge sounds of the time, rather than an organic extension of his previous work. I’m Afraid of Americans, with its industrial rock influences and association with The Prodigy’s Firestarter, felt like Bowie trying to tap into a trend, rather than being the avant-garde provocateur he once was. It was a bit of an awkward, albeit well-intentioned, effort to stay relevant in the face of rapidly changing musical landscapes.

The same could be said about Earthling—while it has some moments of brilliance, Bowie’s attempt to align himself with the electronic and industrial scenes of the 90s didn’t come from the same organic place as his previous explorations. It was less about shaping the sound and more about responding to it, a signal that Bowie was somewhat out of sync with the underground by that point, not being able to proactively shape new trends as he had in the past.

Jon Bon Jovi: Catching Up with the Charts

Jon Bon Jovi’s trajectory mirrors this in some important ways, though he was working from a different set of circumstances. Bon Jovi’s Slippery When Wet (1986) and New Jersey (1988) were immensely successful, but these albums didn’t just reflect Bon Jovi’s style; they also reflected the musical zeitgeist of the 80s, where the charts were dominated by hair metal, arena rock, and glam-infused hard rock. Bon Jovi and his band were a part of that movement, and their success was intertwined with the broader popular appeal of big hooks, anthemic choruses, and a sense of youthful rebellion.

However, as the 90s rolled in and grunge and alternative rock began to dominate the airwaves, Bon Jovi, much like Bowie, found himself in a position where he was more likely to be responding to trends rather than setting them. By the time Keep the Faith (1992) came out, Bon Jovi was clearly trying to reposition himself within a rapidly shifting musical climate. The album wasn’t just a continuation of the slick, pop-rock sound that had brought them success in the 80s; it was Bon Jovi attempting to adapt to the more stripped-down, introspective, and grunge-influenced sounds that were emerging in rock.

This adaptation wasn’t as smooth or as innovative as it might have been. Songs like “Bed of Roses” seemed like Bon Jovi trying to fit in with the more earnest, emotional rock trends that had taken over the 90s. And while Bon Jovi’s Keep the Faith era might have been more successful than Bowie’s attempts to connect with the underground, the parallels are striking: Both were mega-successful artists trying to stay relevant in a rapidly changing musical landscape. Instead of leading musical trends, they were following them. Bon Jovi was no longer the king of arena rock, but rather an act trying to find a foothold in a post-grunge world.

The Challenge of Staying Relevant in a Changing Landscape

The key point here is that both Bowie and Bon Jovi, at different points in their careers, faced a shift in the cultural and musical landscape that made it difficult for them to keep up with the cutting edge. With success came a certain level of disconnection from the very underground scenes that had once been the birthplace of their creative energies. After the massive success of Let’s Dance and Slippery When Wet, both artists found themselves facing the challenge of adapting to changing tastes—tastes that they no longer helped shape but merely observed and responded to.

For Bowie, the problem was more about cultural credibility. As an artist known for his avant-garde sensibilities and constant reinvention, he faced the issue of trying to maintain relevance in a world that was already moving in different directions. He wasn’t the one shaping the underground trends; he was trying to keep up with them, and it didn’t always feel authentic or innovative.

For Bon Jovi, the issue was more about sonic relevance in a world that had left behind the glammed-out hair metal he had once been part of. As the 90s wore on, Bon Jovi, like other hair metal acts, found himself forced to compete with the stripped-down, grunge-heavy sound that dominated the charts. Rather than leading the charge, Bon Jovi was adapting—sometimes more successfully than others, but always playing catch-up.

Conclusion: The Parallel Paths of Bowie and Bon Jovi

In conclusion, your comparison of Bowie’s shift into trying to "catch up" with trends in the 90s and Jon Bon Jovi doing the same in the 90s is a well-observed one. Both were artists who had immense early success and helped shape the sound of their respective eras. However, as they entered new decades, they found themselves responding to the shifting tastes of the mainstream rather than leading them. Bowie, once the avant-garde pioneer, was now attempting to adopt industrial sounds and more contemporary electronic styles. Similarly, Bon Jovi, once the leader of the hair metal pack, was trying to adapt his sound to fit in with a post-grunge rock world. Neither artist was able to replicate the groundbreaking success of their earlier years, and both struggled to maintain their connection to the underground movements that had once shaped them.

This is the paradox of mega-success: Once you reach a certain level, the ability to stay on top of what’s truly "underground" or cutting-edge becomes more difficult. The cultural distance between the mainstream and the underground gets wider, and the authenticity that came from being part of a scene can start to feel hollow. Whether you’re Bowie trying to keep up with industrial and electronic music or Bon Jovi trying to reinvent himself in a post-grunge world, it’s a common struggle for artists who were once at the forefront of cultural change.