heavy doesn't mean good

Ah good ol' Motley Crue...they know how to stir up drama and controversy, right? They released a new song and people are divided but mostly saying "nay" to it. Of course, one thing I hear is "It's HEAVY!"

But that doesn't mean it's good.

As Roger Glover of Deep Purple once said, "Heavy isn't about volume, it's about attitude." You can have a ballad be heavy because of its sentiment (as long as it's not tripe like Poison). Lots of distortion and playing E-F all day doesn't mean it's a good song. 

We definitely live in a dangerously nostalgic age when ANYTHING sounds great because it resurrects past feelings and awkward teenage years. New bands can't catch a break (most aren't very good) and old bands can't put out new music because even if something is good, people inevitably go back to the old stuff. 

Can't win for losing.

So what makes a song good? That's definitely debatable and up for endless discussions. I guess if something moves you, it must be good...right? It's purely subject, plain and simple. Even with the new Taylor Swift album, a lot of my female students who were ga-ga over here are all "Wow the new album is not good at all." It happens. 

Back to the Crue song: I've heard it and yes it's heavy but forgettable. Weak overall save for the guitar playing of John 5, and he even sounded shoe-horned into it. 

Mick Mars wins this round.