why was dokken not one of the biggest selling bands of the 80's?

mdmatt4ever

Member
Sep 27, 2006
2,752
26
48
i was listening to all of dokken's albums gearing up for the new one and i was wondering how come these guys were never huge. yes they were popular and all of their 80's stuff is gold or platinum but what stopped them from selling 3 or 4 million copies of an album? i have a few ideas but i'll see what others post.



also i don't want a "dokken sucks" answer
 
It's all marketing & luck. Compared to most bands, Dokken's done pretty damn good with over 10 million records sold overall
 
That's a really good question. One thing I can think of - and it's similar to Ratt - is that they never really had that "smash" single, like Crue's Home Sweet Home, or Bon Jovi's Wanted.... and because of that, they (and Ratt) never really got that shot at headlining arenas. Sure, they had hit videos and got plenty of airplay, but they were still playing arenas as opening acts as late as Back for the Attack when they toured with Aerosmith. Crue and Bon Jovi were already headlining arenas in '85.

I also think that they were overshadowed by some of their labelmates. Crue and Metallica were obviously selling tons of records, and even though BFTA had potential "smash hits", I'm sure it didn't receive quite the push that the others did.

My other argument, and it's kind of shallow, is that musically, they were probably the most talented of any of the L.A. bands, and that doesn't always translate well to the mainstream fan, unfortunately....
 
platinum maze you about hit my thought exactly. hey were probably the most talented "hair metal" band and i think a lot of people just didn't "get it". they were too technical and closer to actual metal for the general pop metal crowd and not metal enough for the headbangers. also if you read the lyrics a lot of them are depressing which is why i thought dokken made the best transition into the 90's than any other 80's hair band.

RATT still had 2 multi platinum albums while i don't think any dokken album has been certified multi platinum yet
 
My girl cousins, their friends, and my sister somewhat liked them. But, I remember most of them talking about how "nobody in the band is cute." Laugh all you want, I did then. It's a shame, but the 80's were definitely about image, and it was glam metal. I looked at Dokken like you guys did, good songwriting, and strong musicianship. No, they weren't "huge" if compared to Ratt, Crue, Poison..etc., but they did very well. And girls then were more than half the reason glam did so well. They're the ones that bought the albums, and posters.
 
I consider them too the most talented band from L.A. but I think they´re not a "hair band" at all, in spite of their image. They played and play melodic metal (more metal in the beginning of their career).

Dokken most radio friendly album is "Back for the attack" (2 or 3 songs on "Under lock and key" too) but they failed in their first single. In my opinion "Burning like a flame" wasn´t the best election. Besides, at that time, the band members fought every day (specially Don and George) and it meant the end.

"Under lock and key", "Tooth and nail" and (I guess) "Back for the attack" made platinum in the US. Not 5 millions like Mötley Crue but it´s OK for a band like them. Fortunately for us (the fans) they weren´t Poison or Warrant.
 
They had thier share of success but never found thier niche and became huge.

I think it was due to not having that "smash hit" single or two, as previously mentioned. I also think the persona of the band sucked, its as if they were too serious. They were very talented but not the "good time" rock party band, at the same time they weren't the mean heavy metal band , though I would not hold that against them-the critics probably did.

Lynch is/was an amazing player and could hold his own against any guitarist, just think (like many) he was never going to get out of the shadows of the great Eddie Van Halen.
 
For some reason Im thinking they were very popular early on but new bnads got more attention later in the 80's. I had one tape I did not like at all, cant remember the title though. Everyone sang along to his acoustic set opening for Queesnryche, I was beginning to think they were there to see Don Dokken.
 
They should have been way more popular. They were starting to get great video rotation from "It's Not Love" but, as mentioned before, they gor overshadowed for one reason or another. I was never too much into glam but I loved Dokken and Ratt.
 
I saw Dokken in 1988 on the "Monsters of Rock" Tour. If my memory is right it was. Some onehitwonder, Dokken, Scorpions, Metallica, and Van Halen.

You know, Don Dokken and George Lynch never saw eye 2 eye. When a band is fightin', I'm sure the work suffers. Maybe they could have been greater. George Lynch was named by Guitar Mag. as having the best solo of the year for a song they did. What song? Ah now I'm losing my memory.

Later Kids.
 
Yep Kingdomcome, they actually had a few good songs, but took a beating for supposedly stealing Zep songs, which was not entirely true and only a couple that were close, no different than Still of the Night they were tributes to the LZ sound some of us loved and missed. In reality the rest of the pop metal scene could have been accused of ripping each other off........
 
They had thier share of success but never found thier niche and became huge.

I think it was due to not having that "smash hit" single or two, as previously mentioned. I also think the persona of the band sucked, its as if they were too serious. They were very talented but not the "good time" rock party band, at the same time they weren't the mean heavy metal band , though I would not hold that against them-the critics probably did.

Lynch is/was an amazing player and could hold his own against any guitarist, just think (like many) he was never going to get out of the shadows of the great Eddie Van Halen.

I think you hit on the answer here.
Between the popularity of the "hair" bands and the rise of thrash
Dokken kind of got lost "In the Middle"
I remember seeing an interview with Don a few years ago talking about how they tried to be a "glam" band but just couldn't get it together.
 
Why were they not as popular as they should have been? They were always "almost there" and always saying that their latest album was their "make it or break it album". To tell the truth this was a band that always followed the trends and were always one step behind. George Lynch has talked about this, it wasn't the record company that made them be something other than they were, it was themselves. I mean, just look at the cover of Under Lock and Key. Desperately trying to be glam. They were way too soft for the real metal crowd and because they were lumped together with the "hair metal" bands, pop rock fans didn't listen to them.
 
Why were they not as popular as they should have been? They were always "almost there" and always saying that their latest album was their "make it or break it album". To tell the truth this was a band that always followed the trends and were always one step behind. George Lynch has talked about this, it wasn't the record company that made them be something other than they were, it was themselves. I mean, just look at the cover of Under Lock and Key. Desperately trying to be glam. They were way too soft for the real metal crowd and because they were lumped together with the "hair metal" bands, pop rock fans didn't listen to them.

huh:erk: all their 80's stuff sounds the same so what trends were the behind on?