This does not condone his recent behaviour, just my Teen Years.

i think the term 'glam' or 'glitter' rock stemmed from bolan and bowie to begin with and had that arty hippie boho sense of louche camp attached to it that roxy and alice cooper played on opening up the genre to plumbers in slap like sweet, mud, glitter band et al - kiss also did something similar in the US - it amazed me reading recently that the bay city rollers were regarded with critical respect in certain sections of the US rock press no doubt to their anti-prog pure pop leanings (harking back to doo wop see also the rubettes, shawaddywaddy) - this was the 'pop' music i grew up on and it really did seem appalling at the time but in retrospect there was much to recommend the best of it - slade certainly are one of the most under-rated bands of the 70s. you could argue that glam begat punk and punk begat new romanticism and the circle was complete as former roxy/bowie heads returned to their (dyed) roots. the whole 'performance' aspect of glam was taken up by everyone from lou reed to alex harvey and ferry especially took on aspects of bowie's shtick yet in doing so transformed what was essentially a dippy hippie stylistic gesture into high art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=TWfXqae1NzA&feature=related

I was 14 in 74 and we all thought it was a laugh, Bolan, Glitter, the Sweet et al. The tunes weren't stupid, they were fun. But the clothes were silly then and now. DB tried to strike a more "meaningful" pose which put me off the whole business as taking it seriously wasn't part of the deal. As soon as someone did it just looked daft. Spaceman my arse. It wasn't in any way high art nor did it try to be. The best band coming out of that genre was Mott the Hoople anyway, a proper rock band with decent songs who put the shiny trousers on to get on TOTP.

I was 13 in 1974 and I loved it. It brightened up Top of the Pops that's for sure. When I think back to those times it's the glam bands that come to mind first.
By the way - What genre is this then?

The Sweet were my favourites, closely followed by Bowie and Mott. I wasn't aware that Bowie was taking it seriously at the time - he just sang about people loving chimney stacks and making underwear out of dead hair - he was like Edward Lear in bacofoil to the 12 year old me.

by people wearing silly clothes.

A huge amount of what's classified as "Glam" is just Powerpop in disguise - if The Sweet had worn jeans & T-shirts and come from Boston rather than Ruislip, they'd be cult heroes now, and all of the Chinnichap acts released classic singles (seemingly every week) at a time when The Album was the common currency.

Glam was the 3-minute manic pop thrill in extremis - even the more reviled end of the spectrum (Racey, Rubettes, Chicory Tip, Gary Glitter) released brilliant singles (even the rubbish Arrows had "I Love Rock & Roll"), while nobody can argue with the quality of the top end (Bowie, Bolan, Mott, Slade, Roxy, Lou Reed, Sparks, Roy Wood/Wizzard) who flew under the Glam flag of convenience.

And with a long car journey in prospect tomorrow, this has inspired me to set up a glam playlist on the iPod tonight in anticipation, can't wait!

Quite, quite brilliant.

Oasis were the last flag bearer of the Glam ashes.

Time for a NWOGR* anyone ?

Can I just say that I own all IP rights to that acronym should anyone from Q or the NME be reading this.

I love it. It's so upbeat.

Separating the rhyme from the crime, here's my favourite:

Slade and Sweet don't get the respect they deserve because they were around at that time. Two very fine underrated bands.

Just another movement or trend, that ends up being called a genre, out of which a few acts escape it's limitations and transcend it, so they are bigger than it in a sense - in this case Bowie, Roxy Music maybe, while others are so-so also-rans, or just unfairly neglected creators of forgotten gems. Glam's no different to any other style really.