Rock music has always been reactionary. Either the music is a reaction to culture when society is killing creativity and individuality, or it is a reaction to the current lifeless form top 40 rock embodies. For example, punk was a reaction against both a culture that was moving towards a "conformity or else" mentality and against disco and other dull, lifeless forms of rock. Rock music will always be in a state of evolution. By its very nature it must evolve because it is always a musical response to this experience we call "life." This is what makes it culturally relevant and always interesting. When I hear the adjective "alternative" employed to define rock it makes me think there is a form of rock that has cozily nestled into culture, whereas alternative rock refuses to do so. Whether this mindset on my part is true or not is one of the reasons I ask the question concerning the definition of alternative. Once a group has been labled as "alternative rockers" they can almost forget a lot of air time on local stations. Such labels are confusing, often destructive, and reveal a lack of understanding concerning rock's evolutionary dynamic. For me,as I understand the very nature of rock and roll, there should be no category entitled "alternative." It is nothing more than rock's latest adaptation within this culture and in response to today's top 40. I am interested in what "alternative rock" means to you, and if it is different from "normal" rock and roll. Also, if there is an alternative rock, then what is the "normal" form of rock and the "abnormality" that labels a band or sound "alternative?"

I am going to keep this initial post short, and offer no deifinition because I'm afraid this is going to spiral into another what is pop, what is indie, etc. sort of discussion...which are neverending! I think that in most cases, in the beginning, what we now call "indie", we called alternative. I think of the early days of Sonic Youth, REM, The Smiths, The Cure, and even early Red Hot Chili Peppers to name some. Well maybe I should amend the "indie" comment. Most(not all) of these bands were on major labels, but didn't quite fit into the mainstream music scene at the time. The time being early to mid 80's to about '90 or so, when the grunge groups hit and alternative started to become the mainstream. I don't think "college radio" was considered alternative. I always remember it being known simply as college radio, and people seemed to know what you were talking about. Now, what we would have called alternative has become fairly widespread, and has become replaced with "indie", which some argue is more a reflection of the music, and some the size of the label(check out the Indie threads). I think that indie has also taken over the college radio tag. That said, I would have to disagree that those bands labeled alternative don't see much radio play. On the contrary, "alternative" bands along with pop acts account for the majority of mainstream radio today. Well I guess it was relatively short?

I don't really know what alternative means anymore, which is why I typically hate throwing a label at anything. When I first started getting into music (in the late 80's), I used to go to Camelot Records in the mall. The "Alternative" category at that time basically consisted of anything you wouldn't hear on the radio and wasn't metal or rap. So it was a pretty wide range of stuff -- Violent Femmes, The Smiths, The Cure, Skinny Puppy, Stone Roses, Pixies, etc. Then when the Seattle bands hit big in the early 90s, you had a slew of formerly "Alternative" bands successful in the mainstream - Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Green Day. So bands that were sort of born out of that sound (Blink-182, Foo Fighters, etc.) now get the "Alternative" label slapped on them, even though they're totally mainstream rock bands. Now anything outside the mainstream tends to get the "Indie" label, almost regardless of whether they're on an independantly owned label or not. Lord knows there's been a few debates in this forum regarding those semantics.

Personally, I could care less. Good music is good music. As the legendary musician and drunk-driver William Martin Joel once sang, "Next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways, It's still rock and roll to me."

Hey Rev, nice topic. The main thing I took from your post is that when the teenagers at my school ask me what type of music I listen to, I always tell them "rock 'n' roll, but not anything you've heard". So, I totally relate to what you're saying. I mean rock and roll used to be popular. In the 60s, good music and popularity were much more synonymous than they are now. Anyhow, before I start rambling, I just want to say that most music which I enjoy that's coming out today, I like it because I was fortunate enough to grow up and be exposed at an early age to the Beatles, Dylan, Stones, Motown, Elvis, Chuck, Buddy, Little Richard, Kinks, Who, etc. on AM Radio!!!

P.S. About 5-10% of my students do recognize my current faves and the old-timers too, so that's fun. Plus remember, I'm "corrupting" my daughter on a daily basis with music and movies.

quote:

Originally posted by PRG:
I am going to keep this initial post short, and offer no deifinition because I'm afraid this is going to spiral into another what is pop, what is indie, etc. sort of discussion...which are neverending! I think that in most cases, in the beginning, what we now call "indie", we called alternative. I think of the early days of Sonic Youth, REM, The Smiths, The Cure, and even early Red Hot Chili Peppers to name some. Well maybe I should amend the "indie" comment. Most(not all) of these bands were on major labels, but didn't quite fit into the mainstream music scene at the time. The time being early to mid 80's to about '90 or so, when the grunge groups hit and alternative started to become the mainstream. I don't think "college radio" was considered alternative. I always remember it being known simply as college radio, and people seemed to know what you were talking about. Now, what we would have called alternative has become fairly widespread, and has become replaced with "indie", which some argue is more a reflection of the music, and some the size of the label(check out the Indie threads). I think that indie has also taken over the college radio tag. That said, I would have to disagree that those bands labeled alternative don't see much radio play. On the contrary, "alternative" bands along with pop acts account for the majority of mainstream radio today. Well I guess it was relatively short?

I don't need to respond as PRG sums up everything I have to say.

Myself....I don't use the term alternative anymore, because it was a catch name for non-top 40 acts from mid 80's to mid 90's. Some of those 'alternative ' acts like Pearl Jam or The Cure are now just classic rock or Goth or proper terms other than alternative.

**Actually, I think The Cure were termed New Wave/Goth and not alternative. But, most grunge was labelled alternative along with acts like The Catherine Wheel and Ride....

Radio stations, I think needed to add some freshness to their formula and added some flare with "Alternative" to guide new and young listeners to their station.

I could go on for hours, but I won't. I always get headache when I realise that there's not a concrete answer.


However; I do not use the term 'alternative', since what it really is, is a label for a certain type of music (rock in this case). This label might refer to what 'alternative' (that is, not mainstream) bands used to sound, and then the term got stuck as an 'offical' label/genre name, for that kind of music.

When I refer to something that is not mainstream, I usually use 'underground' or 'indie' (as in individual, not the music genre - again, we have a small dilemma here).

Apart from that, I must say that I try to refrain from using labels, but in a society like this (where EVERYTHING is labled) I often have to.

For me, 'alternative' means exactly what it says. Therefore, when there is a 'scene' with lots of bands sounding the same, this label refers to music providing an 'alternative' for the more discerning music nut. The bored guy.

It is music which celebrates individualism and stands apart from the crowd.

I realise that the term has been hijacked by fashion-conscious music journalists, but I choose to ignore that.

This is what unfortunately happens anytime a genre is assigned a name that has more to do with its place in music than its sound. Sort of like how I don't get it when people call Franz Ferdinand 'art-rock.' Likewise, post-punk is alive and well, while punk in its original form hasn't existed in like twenty years. And 'post-rock' is meaningless, though I will excuse people for concluding that there was no more rock in 1998, by which time alternative and mainstream had united to give us Limp Bizkit. I think 'alternative' should mean major-label stuff that's sub-MTV: Radiohead, Wilco, F-Lips, and of course the Decemberists. But the term will continue to mean Foo Fighters and Green Day.

Labels are useless, most of the time. But like names for people, cities and companies - it'd be difficult without them. I choose to ignore all the idiotic labels nowadays. And I don't even listen to "alternative", so I don't really care.

one should consider that there are various levels of alternativeness...the bases of these levels are market and trend, the peaks art and science

I tend to think of alternative as meaning "Mainstream rock that's less mainstream than that other mainstream rock".

Nickelback is what has become of alternative. Nickelback is alternative. Thanks to P4K and the White Stripes, indie is becoming the new alternative.

Dude, that's harsh... Nickelback? Alternative? In the same field as Radiohead, Nirvana and other alt-greats?!?!? Sacrelige! But I think you're right, we have to take the lesser of two evils in this case, and the White Stripes are exactly that. I'm still shivering from your mention of that dreadful band....ughh....Nickelback....

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
I tend to think of alternative as meaning "Mainstream rock that's less mainstream than that other mainstream rock".

That's exactly what it is. If you look at the Alternative section on iTunes, you'll notice that 9/10 of the top songs/albums are angsty, generic emo being downloaded by suburban teenage girls who find out about new music under featured artists on myspace and act like they're not listening to anything mainstream.

What MTV claims as Alternative is Indie and Alternative music genericified to appeal to a general audience. It's Mainstream Alternative.

That's pretty much the correct definiton. At least of the "alternative" we seem to be discussing.

Yep, I agree with Bobthespirit's definition too. I think "alternative" music originated as a reaction to the mainstream rock acts of the late 80s early 90s. Alternative bands set themselves apart from mainstream rock.

So alt. is mainstream rock that's not as mainstream as "mainstream" rock. And indie rock is mainstream rock that's less mainstream than alternative.

Oh, and I'd just like to add that I don't think Nickleback is alternative, I think it's mainstream, 100% pure mainstream rock. In fact, they're as mainstream as rock gets. They appeal to all those looking for music with a little edge. That's all mainstream rock is, music with a little edge.

I’d have to say that the Duncan Black's response gets it pretty close.

First off, I want to say that labels aren’t necessarily bad as long as they carry some kind of relevant and useful meaning. There is nothing wrong with providing friends and strangers with a quick and dirty description of the particular form of music you like listening to. Nothing irritates me more than when I ask someone, “what kind of music do you listen to?” and they reply saying “I listen to all kinds”. Then I ask them to name a few bands, only to find out that they listen to music that could almost exclusively be defined by one or two generic categories. Problems arise with categories and labels when their meaning gets misused by what ends up being the media and the marketing/promo departments of mainstream record companies.

Anyway, I remember first hearing and using the term “alternative” to refer to various kinds of music in 1984. It was the same year the word “new wave” was abandoned because, by then it was no longer new and there wasn’t a wave of unique bands no one had ever seen before all suddenly appearing at the same time. Prior to 1984, you had “punk” (which included, hardcore and deathrock) and you had “new wave” (which also included certain deathrock bands and everything else that was either too commercial for punk, or music that people no longer considered punk).

Believe it or not, from 1984 – 1991 the term “alternative” actually referred to something tangible and its definition was pretty clear. The best way to describe what “alternative” was is to first describe what it was not:

Pre-grunge alternative bands/musicians didn’t have a particular sound. Punk, deathrock, techno, and early industrial acts could all be considered “alternative”.

With the exception of The Red Hot Chili Peppers and certain first wave late 70’s punk bands and a few New Wave hold outs, mostly from the UK, (The Cure, Depeche Mode, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Clash…etc..), “alternative” bands were either signed to independent labels or, at least started out signed to independent labels during the first phase of their careers. For example, Sonic Youth, from 1981 – 1989, bopped around from one independent label to another, before getting signed to major label DGC in 1990. R.E.M, the most successful “alternative” band during the 80’s and early 90’s (other than Nirvana and Pearl Jam), recorded five albums from 1983 – 1987 on IRS records, before signing with Warner Bros. in 1988 to record “Green”. Nirvana recorded their first LP and several EP’s on Sub-Pop before recording their major label debut. Pearl Jam may have recorded their first LP on Epic, but most of the members came out of Mother Love Bone, who, with the help of Polydor, put out their first EP on their own independent label, Stardog (not a subsidiary of Polydor). Even punkpopsters/Pre-EMO pioneers, Green Day released their first EP and first two albums on Lookout Records before releasing Dookie on Reprise. I want to emphasize an important point here; it wasn’t that fans were put off by bands signed to major labels. It just so happened that from approximately 1980 – 1991, very few major labels wanted to risk signing or promoting an unproven, unorthodox sounding band or artist. Those few bands that were lucky enough to get major label deals right away, were usually either shelved, or like in the case of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, given less marketing attention, less promotion, more limited distribution and less of an advance. Therefore, major label “alternative” artists, had to resort to independent college radio airplay and smaller club venues for live shows, much in the same way that non-commercial, independent artists did.

Heavy metal bands, regardless of record company affiliation, could never be “alternative”. Certain “alternative” bands could exhibit a “heavy metal” influence (a case most notable with 80’s hardcore bands), but heavy metal, speed metal, glam metal…etc….were genres separate and distinct from alternative.

The most important characteristic of the alternative blanket genre was that all bands and artists labeled as such, regardless of sound or image, seemed to have one common influence: Punk. Many alternative bands, like Sonic Youth and Sound Garden, started out as just unusual sounding punk bands and, with time, evolved into more mainstream pop or hard rock bands; some bands, like the Red Hot Chili Peppers contained members who had previously played in other punk outfits. Ironically, even bands like the Smiths and The Cure, whose sounds bare no resemblance to punk, have claimed to have been influenced or inspired by the genre at one time.

Many of you might consider viewing a genre of music in this way ridiculous, but prior to grunge, it seemed perfectly natural and made perfect sense because 99% of what was played on popular radio at the time did not in any way resemble music that could be defined by the requirements I have just described above.

What happened to Alternative music? Well, two things; first, after the popularity of grunge, alternative music became the established mainstream and no longer represented an “alternative” to anything other than, say…country music.

Secondly, during the 90’s, many of the smaller independent labels responsible for recording and supporting the most memorable and talented alternative acts of the 80’s and 90’s were quickly bought up by the majors in an effort to cash in on the grunge and alternative pop punk crazes. Eventually, after grunge died and sales for 90’s Neo Punk (Greenday, Rancid, Offspring..etc…) started to decline, the majors began to merge with one another, concentrating the market for music in the hands of a very few big conglomerates and their controlled, and, therefore, dependent subsidiaries (basically, it’s a description of a cartel or oligopoly market condition). After the mergers, countless acts, not considered profitable enough, were dropped and company’s started to direct their focus on much more commercial acts with mass appeal (Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, P - Diddy, boy bands, adult rock…etc….).

Here’s a 1998 New York Times article that describes one of the mergers:

http://www.aimeemanninprint.com/1998/ny122198.htm

The term “alternative” is no longer relevant due to changes in the musical landscape, and the term “indie” (independent music), created by the corporate mainstream music industry, is a complete contradiction, as few “indie” bands are actually signed to any independent record labels at all. In fact, due to the numerous mergers and consolidations that have taken place over the last ten or twelve years, very few independent record companies still exist. If a band can’t get a deal with a major, they have little choice but to sell their CD on their own by mail order or online. I’m not a current listener of EMO or “indie”, but I’m guessing that most bands under that label are marketed and distributed under either a major label or a disguised subsidiary. This might be why so many of the more frequently listened to EMO/indie bands kind of look the same and sound very poppy and similar.

I just want to add, I don’t necessarily mean to pass judgment on what someone likes listening to. If you like indie bands and are comfortable with the label, that’s certainly fine with me.

Reading that takes me back to this.

I think there is an actual Alternative rock genre. when someone mentions Alternative Rock certain bands immediately come to mind and we pretty much know who the groups are. We came to this forum to talk about certain groups that fall in alternative bands-so we know there is such a thing as alternative rock.
I always think in terms of musical style more than attitude about big labels. The alternative rock sound has a certain quality to the guitar playing. To me is the most defining characteristic of Alternative. It is a jangly style of guitar. Much like groups such as the Byrds used. Some beatles songs such as "and your bird can sing," "Dr. Robert" or even "Rain" has a sound about their guitar playing. I dont play an instrument so I dont know what type of chords they are but they emmit a jangly style. If you listen to groups like The cure, REM, Simthereans, 10,000 maniacs, Gin blossoms, and they cranberries their guitar work is similar. Also, the instruments and the way the albums were produced were alike. Alternative had a sonic qualtiy to it.
Eventually, a lot of new bands got thrown into alternative rock phrase just because they were new to the scene and had no place else to go. I dont think of Nirvana, STP or Pearl Jam as really alternative music, even though came out about the same time or a bit later.

Strange how 'prog' isn't considered alternative. If it isn't alternative then it must be mainstream or somewhere in between and it fits alt more than any other form of rock music. If you look up 'alternative' in a dictionary then you can't really deny that prog, in the literal sense, is 'alternative'.