Now that I have a minute, I want to elaborate my feelings a bit more on this.

Every generation of music is taken over, if you will, by another, at some point. What grunge did to hair metal is no different than what rock did to doo-wap, what heavy metal did to hippie music, what rap did to heavy metal, what boy bands did to grunge, etc etc. It doesn't make one genre better than another. To me, all it does, is point out who the truly successfull are. In my favorite genre of music, rock, Bon Jovi is successfull. Warrant, is not. Aerosmith is successfull. Dokken, is not.

To talk about Motley or Def Leppard is tough. They've both had periods of great success after their "hey-day", and they've both shit the clubs they were playing in. Right now, Motley is successfull. Def Leppard is not. It's very arguable to call either's success nostalgia. That's what pisses me off so much when people say Bon Jovi are nostalgia. Those people need to find the definition of the word.

Opinions are like assholes - Everybody has one. But facts are facts, and are undeniable. This thread, about Def Leppard and Motley Crue has brought up the question of their relevance. This is different from overall success. Any fanof rock music who would deny either of these bands' relevance truly is in denial, or doesn't know what they're talking about.