This has always bothered me. I guess I'm from the Billy Joel school of thought - "It's still rock 'n roll to me." I don't understand why the "alternative" label gets attached to bands. To me, R.E.M. has always been a rock band. Radiohead - rock. Muse - rock. Beck - rock. The Hold Steady, My Morning Jacket, Wilco - rock, rock, and rock. But, iTunes, the Grammys, etc. tell me that these are "alternative" acts.

I've always thought of the tag as being derogatory. You're not a real rock band - you're "alternative."

It annoys me to have to change the tags on my albums so that they are considered "rock" and not "alternative."

Is it only me, or is anyone else annoyed by this?

Rock-- to me atleast-- is too broad to even be a genre. Alternative is just used to describe (recently) bands that are mainstream... rock, I guess.

Alternative rock (also called alternative music[1] or simply alternative) is a genre of rock music that emerged in the 1980s and became widely popular in the 1990s. The name "alternative" was coined in the 1980s to describe punk rock-inspired bands on independent record labels that didn't fit into the mainstream genres of the time. -Wikipedia

Alternative basically means that it does not sound like "classic" rock, i.e., it's more influenced by metal/electronica/rap than, say, blues.

It's the difference between The Smashing Pumpkins and Led Zeppelin; listen to an album by each artist, and you'll find a pronounced difference. Recent "alternative" acts have widened this gap further. Compare Radiohead and The Rolling Stones and they're leagues apart.

I know that these are definitions given for alternative, but I think they are somewhat artificial. I'm not sure you could classify R.E.M.'s music as being punk influenced - at least not from Green to Reveal. I think R.E.M.'s music has more in common with classic rock than with punk.

And, it is also true that the Rolling Stones sound different then Smashing Pumpkins or Radiohead. But, Pink Floyd also sounds vastly different than the Beach Boys. Does that mean that one is not rock.

Pearl Jam is called grunge or alternative, but their style has always been closer to classic rock.

I think that creating this artifical subgenre limits rock and almost sounds its death knell. If you define anything that is experimental or innovative as alternative, then you are admitting that rock is dead and cannot progress. The Beatles changed rock music forever by experimenting. But, nobody found the need to call the Beatles' music a new genre.

But, maybe I'm the only one that this bothers.

quote:

Originally posted by Troy:
And, it is also true that the Rolling Stones sound different then Smashing Pumpkins or Radiohead. But, Pink Floyd also sounds vastly different than the Beach Boys. Does that mean that one is not rock.

The Beach Boys, if I really wanted to get picky, are more towards the "pop" side of that scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Troy:
I think that creating this artifical subgenre limits rock and almost sounds its death knell. If you define anything that is experimental or innovative as alternative, then you are admitting that rock is dead and cannot progress. The Beatles changed rock music forever by experimenting. But, nobody found the need to call the Beatles' music a new genre.

"Psychedelic rock" was what it was called, I beleive. Amongst other things.

This very subject already has a discussion devoted to it. Read it here.

I think my first taste of alternative music was Cold Play's a Rush of Blood to the Head, and that began my departure from mainstream pop. I looked for similar music, and found Sigur Ros, Mogwai, Godspeed etc, but a lot of this is considered post-rock. I think basically alternative/post-rock has more understated, rambling, and prettier melodies than pop or rock which is probably the more predictable, verse/chorus pattern. A further distinction is that I think post-rock tends to be more instrumental and the really good stuff has a more "epic" guality than alternative, although I'm fairly new to both genres.

Maybe I shouldn't comment on this after the mistakes I made on Indie definitions but what the hell...

I always take language literally. So in a musical context, alternative means just that - an alternative to conventional music.

Why we are discussing REM and Pearl Jam has always confused me. Surely Mr Bungle, John Zorn and Melt Banana would be more appropriate for such a word?

Still, I can always take solice in the fact that metal will always mean metal. With each passing day, I find myself strangely drawn to that thread...

But it's not really an "alternative." Alternative has become just another genre of a sort of off-rock, just like indie is now a genre of music independent of status of label.

quote:

Originally posted by PRG:
This very subject already has a discussion devoted to it. Read it here.

Always nice when you point this out to people and they completely disregard you. Post on, I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by P-Bo:
Always nice when you point this out to people and they completely disregard you. Post on, I guess.

I haven't been around as much lately so it's good to see you, P.

Their loss. I think the other discussion is better.

That one is a dead thread, though. This one is alive. Sometimes you need to make a new discussion just to resurrect the topic.

To me "alternative" is more a label used by major and mini-major to describe the artists on their roster who are not superstars but have loyal followings.

It is not a genre as such.

The "alternative" label really doesn't mean anything anymore. As has already been said, alternative was meant to be an "alternative" outside the main stream but it has become in the main stream form of rock in the past 12 or so years.

The same thing is happening to "indie" music.