Talk:Back for the Attack/Archive 1

Anyone think this is a glam metal album?

 * No. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How the hell not? You don't need to look like Poison to be glam, and some bands are more or less "glam" than others. Read any source. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you could argue it either way. A song like "Mister Scary" doesn't qualify as glam to me--it's way heavy and hard while a song like "Burning Like a Flame" might be somewhat "glamy" to some though it's not as blues-based as a Poison song or a Faster Pussycat song.  So for myself, if I need a binary answer, I'd probably say no as well but like with most subjective art-related things, there's room for grey here. [REL] 29 October 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.236.69 (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I feel this is more a hard rock album than a glam metal one. This is the album where Dokken finally departed from the glossy look and dressed more casually (like Def Leppard by the time "Hysteria" came out).

Metal songs:
 * 1) Kiss of Death
 * 2) Standing in the Shadows
 * 3) Mr. Scary
 * 4) Lost Behind the Wall
 * 5) Dream Warriors

Hard rock songs:
 * 1) Prisoner
 * 2) Night by Night
 * 3) Heaven Sent
 * 4) So Many Tears
 * 5) Stop Fighting Love
 * 6) Cry of the Gypsy
 * 7) Sleepless Nights

And there you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.95.17 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dokken adopted the hair metal look for Under Lock And Key and did feature a more polished sound and pop-metal approach than Tooth And Nail which was more classic metal, but Back For The Attack is pretty much 50/50 between those 2 approaches, but despite toning it down from Under Lock And Key, they still had the hair metal look for this one. RandyRhoadsRonnieDio (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)