We’re all familiar with “alt rock” radio stations - the corporate radio stations that appeared in the early 1990’s to play and capitalize on the popularity of modern “alternative” rock.
After about 1996, though, this music quickly fell out of fashion, and the major labels that supplied these stations’ playlists either cut those artists form their rosters and/or moved on to releasing more M.O.R. pop music.
But instead of keeping up with what was going on in modern “alternative”/indie/college rock, the stations all became a sort of “90’s classic rock” format, playing the same Bush, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden songs that they played for years. Even now, one could tune into any given “alternative rock” station and think it was 1994.
But why didn’t these stations stay current, playing the sort of indie rock that became mainstream alternative in the first place? Labels like Sub Pop, Matador, Merge, etc. have, as always, been releasing some of the most accessible, catchy, nonthreatening alternative rock music in recent years. Bands like the Shins, New Pornographers, Dismemberment Plan, etc. are even more marketable and appealing to the average listener than what those stations are currently/have been playing - why wouldn’t they exploit that opportunity?
I’ve wondered that too. It’s not like they were ever THAT alternative: basically what they were playing was a bit more commercial than what you’d hear today on a decent college radio station (although college radio has become more mainstream-oriented than it was in the early 90s.)
And it’s all the more puzzling when I do tune into a station playing modern indie music, such as the bands you mention, I need to keep a notepad with me since i WILL need to look for at least half the bands they play.
Recalling the time when I first started listening to modern rock radio in the 90s, I don’t think I would have imagined they’d be playing garbage like Linkin Park or Drowning Pool in five years.
I miss those days. The quality of music was much better then.
The term “alternative music” is almost as stupid as “War on Terror.”
Yes, pretty much all music is alternative to all other kinds of music. I don’t see why “alt”-rock gets specially labeled as “alternative”… at the time, it may have been alternative to the '80s scene, but now it is pretty much absorbed into the more general classification of “rock.” Thus, the “alternative” stations become “top 40” stations for a different crowd. The terminology is stupid in modern context, but terms like that have a strange way of sticking sometimes.
Most stations around here prefer the term “modern rock” and seem to be phasing out the “alternative rock” terminology… but flipping through my iTunes, I see a lot of music under “alternative”… most of which are completely dissimilar to each other.
No it wasn’t. People say that about every generation of music that they grew up listening to. In general, most of it is crap, but some of it is crap you associate with or, more rarely, is actually good. I mean, looking back on the grunge/punk scene in the 80s-93ish, there is a whole shitload of crap. (Shitload of crap… um… OK, nevermind) There is a lot of technically really bad music that I enjoy listening to - this happens frequently with punk, which isn’t supposed to be “good” and often changes each time the band plays it.
It is the same with movies. We look back with fondness on “classics” that, if made today, would be laughed at and spit upon (well, that largely has to do with the editing style, which is much more quickly paced these days. We consider a single cut longer than 30 seconds to be an amazing and risky feat of great acting and directing). Not that I’m complaining, much of the acting in classics, even by the super-stars of the era, is stiff and stilted today. The outdated dialog doesn’t help. I can’t help but wonder how movies now will look in 20 years. It is something that fascinates me. We always think movies are great, then something new gets added to the mix. Remember when Jurassic Park came out, and that was heralded as a great feat of speacial effects and directing? Yea, it looks like shit now.
Speaking of, that saddens me… we see more CGI and special effects in a 15 second commercial spot than anyone dreamed of 10 years ago. I’ve seen enough 3-d Pop-Tarts and waves morphing into shapely women. I want more Kool-Aid man bursting through cheap styrofoam walls. Ah, the lost art of simplicity…
Well, there’s fire-breathing radicals driving Volvo’s And no one’s here to stop you at the door Thought we’d bore from within, now we’re just within …and the Underground ain’t undergroud no more
It’s quite ironic that “alternative” (supposedly non-commercial, edgier) music was subverted by success. As soon as this sort of music hit it big, the media conglomerates flooded the market with pop dreck in alternative clothing, making alternative mainstream.
It helped that the younger generations didn’t mind this one bit. Bands with their own line of clothes? Corporate sponsorships? Who cares? Back in the 60s/70s, cool people in the know would drop a band like that like a hot brick and they’d be the laughingstock of the industry.
An undiscerning audience results in a music scene chock full of trite shite.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to paint with quite so broad a brush. There is still plenty of good music out there, though it’s kind of hard to find, as the music scene is way more diffused than in the past.
::back to sitting in my creaky rocking chair, cursing under my breath::
I didn’t grow up during the 70s, but I think the overall quality of popular music peaked sometime in that decade. As far as I’m concerned, it’s been on a decline since then, with occasional inclines that never reach the peak (though the early 90s comes closest, I think).
I think you have something there, Othersider. Someone (I forget who) suggested a sort of “Big Bang” theory for rock music. A big explosion in the late 50s/early 60’s that was quite strong and fast up though the 70s, then began to dissipate in the 80s. While I think maybe there’s something to it (rock can’t last forever), I also think it’s a bit of a boomer-centric concept.
I think that, technical quality speaking, you are right. But “rock” has gone through so many phases during its short run so far that it is hard to say that for sure. There have been a few flash in the pans recently, but Linkin Park and shudder Blink 182 being the leading groups of the era is just sad. There are several bands around right now that I “like” but I don’t think are really great. Mainstream music is just… well, I dunno anymore.
Well, I’m partial to Chan Marshall, but that’s off most people’s radar by a few orders of magnitude.
It’s not so much that the audience has become less discerning but that marketing in music has become SO MUCH better to the point now where they can turn virtually anyone into a pop star by throwing enough quarters into the Fame-O-Matic of the current marketing juggernaught.
If a similar system had been in place during the 1960’s, we would have had the Mop Top Spice Boys.
I really have to question that. The radio stations exist to make money, and they’ll play whatever their market analysis suggests will bring them the most listeners. If the bands you listed really were more marketable and appealing than what’s out there, they’d be getting exposure.
Your circle of friends and the good folks here at the SDMB are interested in that kind of stuff, but they aren’t representative of the mainstream taste.
Um, have you looked at a singles chart for the 70s? It’s just as bad then as it was now. The only saving grace is that all the crap has been forgotten over time.
I swear, sometimes it seems like I’m the only person in these discussions who realizes that “music” isn’t a synonym for “pop and its derivatives”. There’s brilliant music being made today, but it doesn’t get mainstream exposure.
I have to agree with ultrafilter’s last statement about there being plenty of good music being made, I run into it sometimes.
My question is: How can I get exposed to more of it? It’s not gonna get played on today’s radio unless it has a squeaky clean image, and can be used as the background of an ad campaign. So what website is a clearinghouse of musical taste?
ultrafilter is right: Any rock or pop or whatever that is an actual alternative to Top 40 doesn’t rake in the money. So there isn’t an incentive for radio to play such music. You might personally think that the Shins, New Pornographers, Dismemberment Plan, etc. are more marketable but it doesn’t matter unless the corporate bigwigs think so or enough payola comes in to convince them to maybe try a song out.
The use of the “alt” moniker for Top 40 radio was convenient as soon as it discovered that there was a bunch of different styles of rock music that was also viable for making money and getting listeners. As I recall this also coincided with the advent of “retro” programing, which meant 80s music that was popular both on radio stations at the time, and that which was popular but not on the radio at the time.
After the so-called “grunge” movement died, Top 40 radio bigwigs were confused about where to “find” more alt.rock. So many of these stations became trapped in the early 90s alt.rock gutter, keeping their alt.rock monikers while adding new sound-alike rock but that was more marketable and obviously watered-down. Soon alt.rock stations just became any station that didn’t play classic rock.
I think at this point if you want to find any real alt.rock you’re going to have to find college stations. Or Internet stations. Or go to satellite.
Well, please list the hidden geniuses producing astounding music.
And oh, I agree about the '70s pop charts being just as crappy as ours. I believe my point was related to musical skill, not popularity.
Regarding the “marketting” line, yep, I misread it, sorry. You’re right, music marketting and especially music distribution is light years ahead now, compared to the '70s.
Oh, I didn’t mean that to sound as snarky as it came out. Sorry. Let me rephrase. I would be most interested in the quality music of this era, since I am thus far unable to find much that is noteworthy.