|
Post by Doc Indie Party Rock on Jun 9, 2014 1:06:20 GMT -5
Maynard james Green That's a pretty bold statement. "Pop" doesn't only mean popular. Many Alt/Rock bands chart in the pop charts genre, but it doesn't stop them from being catagorized as Alt/Rock as well. Examples are the Neon Trees, Paramore, Coldplay ect... and now new artists like Bastille and Lorde are doing it as well..besides Lorde's "Royals was picked up by At/Rock stations a few weeks before Top 40 radio stations. Instead of shunning the new "Indie" "Hipster", "Poppy" sound; whatever you wanna call it, we should embrace it. If more alt/Rock bands start breaking into the actual Top 40 charts, then maybe they will change for the better.
If you think I made enimies cause of my statement about Alt/Rock sounding better now that it reveives the 80's influence of synth pop, then so be it. All I'm saying is that I prefer the new sound of most of these bands from the alt/rock genre to thier older sound. Arcade Fire, Cage The Elephant, Muse, Black Keys,Phantogram. Not speaking for anyone else, but to me, they all sound better.
|
|
hc
New Member
Joined: June 2005
Posts: 253
|
Post by hc on Jun 9, 2014 9:44:56 GMT -5
This conversation is destined to come up in every single Lorde thread. Luckily, we have to be nearing the end of new Lorde threads for a while. Right? Maybe? I think this was her second song that was released over here and I still think it's her best. I'd like to see this do well. Instead of shunning the new "Indie" "Hipster", "Poppy" sound; whatever you wanna call it, we should embrace it. If more alt/Rock bands start breaking into the actual Top 40 charts, then maybe they will change for the better. ^^^ This was actually what happened in the '90-92 era before the Grunge takeover of Pop. There became a huge number of Modern Rock-Top 40 crossover hits (sometimes in both directions). It was all the big names (REM, Depeche Mode, etc.) and a TON of smaller ones Jesus Jones, B-52's, Big Audio Dynamite II, Seal, Michael Penn, Stereo MC's, Soup Dragons, Annie Lennox ("Walking on Broken Glass' was a Top 10 Alternative hit and Top 10 Adult Contemporary hit) and probably 50 others. Mainstream Rock and Modern Rock were quite different back in the day (similar to now) but once the grunge scene took over they became more similar. We've become accustomed to them being similar since then. Not arguing better or worse, just is.
|
|
Lordef†ones
6x Platinum Member
Let's drown underneath the stars
Joined: April 2013
Posts: 6,271
|
Post by Lordef†ones on Jun 12, 2014 19:05:20 GMT -5
This is what Alternative should be right now. This is what Alternative should've always been, an alternative. Not the same as Active. You want to listen to hard-hitting rock bands, listen to Active.
|
|
bluestar4
New Member
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 427
|
Post by bluestar4 on Jun 12, 2014 21:02:11 GMT -5
This is what Alternative should be right now. This is what Alternative should've always been, an alternative. Not the same as Active. You want to listen to hard-hitting rock bands, listen to Active. Yes, an alternative, but just because it's different from Active doesn't mean it has to be the same as pop. If I want to listen to listen to generic hip-hop beats with teenage girls wanting to "talk it up like yeah" I'll go to pop. Alternative is already ignoring the actual alternative artists (Beck, 311, etc.) to try to be as mainstream as possible, which is what the format has been against since the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Best In The World on Jun 12, 2014 22:14:07 GMT -5
^You could actually argue that Linkin Park has always done better on active, if you look at the chart histories.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jun 12, 2014 22:19:26 GMT -5
^You could actually argue that Linkin Park has always done better on active, if you look at the chart histories. Nope Only the last two albums did better
|
|
|
Post by Best In The World on Jun 12, 2014 22:20:57 GMT -5
^You could actually argue that Linkin Park has always done better on active, if you look at the chart histories. Nope Only the last two albums did better And the first one, and also Minutes To Midnight if you consider two #1s doing better.
|
|
|
Post by Shadows in the Dark on Jun 13, 2014 1:02:22 GMT -5
This is what Alternative should be right now. This is what Alternative should've always been, an alternative. Not the same as Active. You want to listen to hard-hitting rock bands, listen to Active. So you're saying that Alternative shouldn't be Active-leaning, but pop-leaning. That's even worse than Alternative leaning towards Active, because I believe that Alternative has always, at its core, been a rock format, and for them to be this pop-leaning is concerning because it shows that they are completely willing to screw over the actual Alternative sounding artists in order to "fit in". It's OK if every now and then a song that actually sounds like an alternative rock song does well on both pop and Alternative at the same time. However, nowadays, we're forced to listen to artists such as Lorde, Bastille, Capital Cities, every indie pop act seeing success on Alternative AND pop, which is just overkill to me and will overexpose everyone to these songs. Like people have said above, the acts that actually sound Alternative, like Beck and 311, would score high on Alternative while never doing extremely well on pop, which was fine to me because I wouldn't hear their songs everywhere. Now Alternative is trying so hard to be a second pop format, that they are ditching the artists that actually meant to be Alternative for some cheap pop throwaway acts. And come on, if you're seeing someone like Tove Lo in the Top 20 while Seether struggles at the bottom of the Top 50, you know there's something wrong. And I agree that bands doing well on name recognition was a good thing, because it shows, in the cases of Jimmy Eat World and AFI, that there would be a home format for bands like these. To basically screw over the radio careers of these bands is just blasphemy. Also, it irritates me when people say rock music belongs strictly on Active. Active is not the only rock format. Like I've said, Alternative, and even AAA are also rock formats, and the playlists should reflect that as such. This is one of the main problems I have with the Alternative format currently.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Indie Party Rock on Jun 15, 2014 3:01:26 GMT -5
has everyone completely forgotten about sub genre Adult Alternative rock. Also born in the late 90's when Matchbox Twenty, Third Eye Blind, Everclear and even Foo Fighters could add a little pop sound to thier songs. Therefore getting thier first mainstream top 40 hits. Actually its the industry who can change the defination of Rock to Pop in the blink of an eye. I remeber Cold, Three Days Grace, and Trapt all getting top 20 hits on the pop charts during the 2000s. I had no problem with it as it gave them even more recognition. As to Alt turning into pop; I wouldn'y mind, Indie/Alt/Rock/Pop being all ovet the top 40 charts. At least it would leave less space for that rap crap and country songs about drinking. ;)
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jun 15, 2014 8:40:02 GMT -5
has everyone completely forgotten about sub genre Adult Alternative rock. Also born in the late 90's when Matchbox Twenty, Third Eye Blind, Everclear and even Foo Fighters could add a little pop sound to thier songs. Therefore getting thier first mainstream top 40 hits. Actually its the industry who can change the defination of Rock to Pop in the blink of an eye. I remeber Cold, Three Days Grace, and Trapt all getting top 20 hits on the pop charts during the 2000s. I had no problem with it as it gave them even more recognition. As to Alt turning into pop; I wouldn'y mind, Indie/Alt/Rock/Pop being all ovet the top 40 charts. At least it would leave less space for that rap crap and country songs about drinking. ;) We have an AAA CHART...
|
|
Devin
Diamond Member
Best Rock Poster 2011―2014
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 13,953
My Charts
Pronouns: He/Him
|
Post by Devin on Jul 5, 2014 19:12:40 GMT -5
Top 20 on AAA:
20 20 LORDE Tennis Court 244 245 -1 0.631
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jul 5, 2014 19:35:24 GMT -5
I don't buy the argument that certain artists should be guaranteed radio hits because of their chart history.
|
|
|
Post by Shadows in the Dark on Jul 5, 2014 19:54:02 GMT -5
I don't buy the argument that certain artists should be guaranteed radio hits because of their chart history. So you're saying that a format should start ignoring established artists at a certain point? I think some established artists are entitled to at least some success on a format where they've done well at, especially if they've had a huge impact on there. If an artist gradually sees some decline each era, that's understandable and acceptable. But sharp declines, like the ones that most of the artists are experiencing these days, I find unacceptable and irritating.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jul 5, 2014 20:05:26 GMT -5
I don't buy the argument that certain artists should be guaranteed radio hits because of their chart history. If an artist gradually sees some decline each era, that's understandable and acceptable. But sharp declines, like the ones that most of the artists are experiencing these days, I find unacceptable and irritating. I was going to say this, but I never got the chance to in the Rock Discussion thread.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jul 5, 2014 20:15:46 GMT -5
I don't buy the argument that certain artists should be guaranteed radio hits because of their chart history. So you're saying that a format should start ignoring established artists at a certain point? I think some established artists are entitled to at least some success on a format where they've done well at, especially if they've had a huge impact on there. If an artist gradually sees some decline each era, that's understandable and acceptable. But sharp declines, like the ones that most of the artists are experiencing these days, I find unacceptable and irritating. Thank you; I see the distinction now. I just see the opposite see happening on other formats especially country, and that irritates me too: a select group of artists dominating the format based on name rather than quality of material. I hate to admit it, but I could buy an argument that alternative radio should be a safe haven from Pop hits, but I don't think Lorde is as out-of-place at Alt and AAA as she's being made out to be. Had "Royals" never broken out as a crossover, "Tennis Court" (while still having detractors) might feel like a breath of fresh air here, rather than a nuisance.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jul 5, 2014 20:43:46 GMT -5
So you're saying that a format should start ignoring established artists at a certain point? I think some established artists are entitled to at least some success on a format where they've done well at, especially if they've had a huge impact on there. If an artist gradually sees some decline each era, that's understandable and acceptable. But sharp declines, like the ones that most of the artists are experiencing these days, I find unacceptable and irritating. Thank you; I see the distinction now. I just see the opposite see happening on other formats especially country, and that irritates me too: a select group of artists dominating the format based on name rather than quality of material. I hate to admit it, but I could buy an argument that alternative radio should be a safe haven from Pop hits, but I don't think Lorde is as out-of-place at Alt and AAA as she's being made out to be. Had "Royals" never broken out as a crossover, "Tennis Court" (while still having detractors) might feel like a breath of fresh air here, rather than a nuisance. Well, just look at Linkin Park. Lead single peak last album: #1. Lead single peak this album. #21. If it went like #5, then fine, it'd be less of a blow. But it's a 20-spot difference. Damn. Lorde feels so out of place because of the fact that she's a solo female, lacks instruments and uses hip-hop beats all at once. All things that have been in the minority on Alternative radio.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jul 5, 2014 21:21:07 GMT -5
Thank you; I see the distinction now. I just see the opposite see happening on other formats especially country, and that irritates me too: a select group of artists dominating the format based on name rather than quality of material. I hate to admit it, but I could buy an argument that alternative radio should be a safe haven from Pop hits, but I don't think Lorde is as out-of-place at Alt and AAA as she's being made out to be. Had "Royals" never broken out as a crossover, "Tennis Court" (while still having detractors) might feel like a breath of fresh air here, rather than a nuisance. Well, just look at Linkin Park. Lead single peak last album: #1. Lead single peak this album. #21. If it went like #5, then fine, it'd be less of a blow. But it's a 20-spot difference. Damn. Lorde feels so out of place because of the fact that she's a solo female, lacks instruments and uses hip-hop beats all at once. All things that have been in the minority on Alternative radio. Yes, that's a huge difference, so you make a good point with that example. The song's still climbing (#20 today), so we'll see where it ends up. I'm not accusing you of sexism here (just trying to get an idea of what's considered 'the norm' here), but who, if anyone, would be a recent example of a solo female who "fits in" on Alternative?
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Jul 5, 2014 21:25:38 GMT -5
There's definitely an argument to be made about the poppification of alternative.
That argument does not include a demand for the format to play more Linkin Park. When did people forget that Linkin Park is the epitome of a corporate sellout act? It's literally #2 on that list behind Nickelback and one of the first things people point to when they complain about the joke genre that is rap-metal. It's like the bizarro world when I read any Linkin Park related thread on Pulse (not to mention Mike Shinoda ripping bands with actual talent every chance he gets).
Lorde is far more "alternative" than Linkin Park.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 21:26:32 GMT -5
Well, just look at Linkin Park. Lead single peak last album: #1. Lead single peak this album. #21. If it went like #5, then fine, it'd be less of a blow. But it's a 20-spot difference. Damn. Lorde feels so out of place because of the fact that she's a solo female, lacks instruments and uses hip-hop beats all at once. All things that have been in the minority on Alternative radio. Yes, that's a huge difference, so you make a good point with that example. The song's still climbing (#20 today), so we'll see where it ends up. I'm not accusing you of sexism here (just trying to get an idea of what's considered 'the norm' here), but who, if anyone, would be a recent example of a solo female who "fits in" on Alternative? their second single is at 20. Green baron is talking about "guilty all the same" which fell a few weeks ago
|
|
|
Post by Shadows in the Dark on Jul 5, 2014 21:37:00 GMT -5
There's definitely an argument to be made about the poppification of alternative. That argument does not include a demand for the format to play more Linkin Park. When did people forget that Linkin Park is the epitome of a corporate sellout act? It's literally #2 on that list behind Nickelback and one of the first things people point to when they complain about the joke genre that is rap-metal. It's like the bizarro world when I read any Linkin Park related thread on Pulse (not to mention Mike Shinoda ripping bands with actual talent every chance he gets). Lorde is far more "alternative" than Linkin Park. Lol, you obviously did not read the statements I made in the "Habits" thread. Yes, Linkin Park have had pop hits. However, they still had a huge impact with nearly every one of their singles reaching the Top 10. That should be an important factor in determining how much airplay they receive. They're one of the few bands to survive the rap metal era and become a true Alternative staple, especially with Meteora. And it's not like their newer material is any less good. (Maybe not as good as the old, but still very strong.) So yes, they are a good definition of what Alternative is. And for the record, I think Linkin Park have far more talent than many of these indie pop bands.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jul 5, 2014 21:37:39 GMT -5
Well, just look at Linkin Park. Lead single peak last album: #1. Lead single peak this album. #21. If it went like #5, then fine, it'd be less of a blow. But it's a 20-spot difference. Damn. Lorde feels so out of place because of the fact that she's a solo female, lacks instruments and uses hip-hop beats all at once. All things that have been in the minority on Alternative radio. Yes, that's a huge difference, so you make a good point with that example. The song's still climbing (#20 today), so we'll see where it ends up. I'm not accusing you of sexism here (just trying to get an idea of what's considered 'the norm' here), but who, if anyone, would be a recent example of a solo female who "fits in" on Alternative? The last solo female that really fit in with alternative was probably Tracy Bonham's "Mother Mother", which went to #1 back in 1996. No solo females have charted at all between 2010-2013, but Lana Del Rey is charting right now, and I don't think that fits in. From 1997-2009, I'm not sure if any solo females charted that weren't associated with bands - Courtney Love scraped the bottom I think. There's definitely an argument to be made about the poppification of alternative. That argument does not include a demand for the format to play more Linkin Park. When did people forget that Linkin Park is the epitome of a corporate sellout act? It's literally #2 on that list behind Nickelback and one of the first things people point to when they complain about the joke genre that is rap-metal. It's like the bizarro world when I read any Linkin Park related thread on Pulse (not to mention Mike Shinoda ripping bands with actual talent every chance he gets). Lorde is far more "alternative" than Linkin Park. I'm pretty sure Limp Bizkit get the bait ten times more often than Linkin Park do, and Korn also get lots of hate as well. Even if they went soft on Minutes to Midnight and dabbled with electronic rock on A Thousand Suns and Living Things, they did that to distance themselves from the nu metal stigma after the fad has passed. With their new album, they re-explored their heavy roots and made the best album in eleven years - and don't dare call it nu metal, because the turntable scratching and rap-rock combos are long gone except for All for Nothing, which rocks anyways. It's an alternative metal album, like Deftones, System of a Down and Tool make. It's also heavy and brutal as hell. So don't call that a sellout album, because they paid the price for it by selling only 100K copies in its first week. They knew that the album would not fare well on alternative radio, but they made it anyway. How the hell is that selling out? As for him ripping those bands, he's not ripping them for their quality, he's ripping them for being un-alternative. He said he's fans of them, he just hates hearing them on Alternative radio.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Jul 5, 2014 22:06:13 GMT -5
Yes, that's a huge difference, so you make a good point with that example. The song's still climbing (#20 today), so we'll see where it ends up. I'm not accusing you of sexism here (just trying to get an idea of what's considered 'the norm' here), but who, if anyone, would be a recent example of a solo female who "fits in" on Alternative? The last solo female that really fit in with alternative was probably Tracy Bonham's "Mother Mother", which went to #1 back in 1996. No solo females have charted at all between 2010-2013, but Lana Del Rey is charting right now, and I don't think that fits in. From 1997-2009, I'm not sure if any solo females charted that weren't associated with bands - Courtney Love scraped the bottom I think. There's definitely an argument to be made about the poppification of alternative. That argument does not include a demand for the format to play more Linkin Park. When did people forget that Linkin Park is the epitome of a corporate sellout act? It's literally #2 on that list behind Nickelback and one of the first things people point to when they complain about the joke genre that is rap-metal. It's like the bizarro world when I read any Linkin Park related thread on Pulse (not to mention Mike Shinoda ripping bands with actual talent every chance he gets). Lorde is far more "alternative" than Linkin Park. I'm pretty sure Limp Bizkit get the bait ten times more often than Linkin Park do, and Korn also get lots of hate as well. Even if they went soft on Minutes to Midnight and dabbled with electronic rock on A Thousand Suns and Living Things, they did that to distance themselves from the nu metal stigma after the fad has passed. With their new album, they re-explored their heavy roots and made the best album in eleven years - and don't dare call it nu metal, because the turntable scratching and rap-rock combos are long gone except for All for Nothing, which rocks anyways. It's an alternative metal album, like Deftones, System of a Down and Tool make. It's also heavy and brutal as hell. So don't call that a sellout album, because they paid the price for it by selling only 100K copies in its first week. They knew that the album would not fare well on alternative radio, but they made it anyway. How the hell is that selling out? As for him ripping those bands, he's not ripping them for their quality, he's ripping them for being un-alternative. He said he's fans of them, he just hates hearing them on Alternative radio. www.vice.com/read/watch-kimbo-slice-in-this-hilarious-rap-metal-music-videoThat happens to be a terrible article (I'm not even sure the timing is right since In the End didn't smash until the 2000s), but it still references Linkin Park AND Limp Bizkit as the perpetrators of the genre. So it's a viewpoint that's out there. On top of that, while I do give Linkin Park credit for somewhat abandoning the overt pop stuff and going back to the drawing board, I still feel like there's this simultaneous desire to give them credit for being veterans yet completely ignore what they spent a large portion of their career doing. Someone like Lorde technically got her START on alternative, and the single that is currently charting was released before she came a legitimate pop superstar. And she *WAS* weird, different and daring -- aka alternative -- when she started. Team was also released before Royals reached the apex of its pop run, so even that song - which I'll grant you is pretty damn poppy - has a case for being alternative. If you want to say Linkin Park's current stuff is more musically "alternative" than Lorde's - fair. But if you want to make the case about who is more "alternative" based on their career, I think you have to go with Lorde - who has thus far only released music as an alternative staple. And let's not forget that 20 years ago, Alanis and Collective Soul were charting on alternative (with their mainstream hits). There has always been room for "pop, but weirder."
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jul 5, 2014 22:25:44 GMT -5
The last solo female that really fit in with alternative was probably Tracy Bonham's "Mother Mother", which went to #1 back in 1996. No solo females have charted at all between 2010-2013, but Lana Del Rey is charting right now, and I don't think that fits in. From 1997-2009, I'm not sure if any solo females charted that weren't associated with bands - Courtney Love scraped the bottom I think. I'm pretty sure Limp Bizkit get the bait ten times more often than Linkin Park do, and Korn also get lots of hate as well. Even if they went soft on Minutes to Midnight and dabbled with electronic rock on A Thousand Suns and Living Things, they did that to distance themselves from the nu metal stigma after the fad has passed. With their new album, they re-explored their heavy roots and made the best album in eleven years - and don't dare call it nu metal, because the turntable scratching and rap-rock combos are long gone except for All for Nothing, which rocks anyways. It's an alternative metal album, like Deftones, System of a Down and Tool make. It's also heavy and brutal as hell. So don't call that a sellout album, because they paid the price for it by selling only 100K copies in its first week. They knew that the album would not fare well on alternative radio, but they made it anyway. How the hell is that selling out? As for him ripping those bands, he's not ripping them for their quality, he's ripping them for being un-alternative. He said he's fans of them, he just hates hearing them on Alternative radio. www.vice.com/read/watch-kimbo-slice-in-this-hilarious-rap-metal-music-videoThat happens to be a terrible article (I'm not even sure the timing is right since In the End didn't smash until the 2000s), but it still references Linkin Park AND Limp Bizkit as the perpetrators of the genre. So it's a viewpoint that's out there. On top of that, while I do give Linkin Park credit for somewhat abandoning the overt pop stuff and going back to the drawing board, I still feel like there's this simultaneous desire to give them credit for being veterans yet completely ignore what they spent a large portion of their career doing. Someone like Lorde technically got her START on alternative, and the single that is currently charting was released before she came a legitimate pop superstar. And she *WAS* weird, different and daring -- aka alternative -- when she started. Team was also released before Royals reached the apex of its pop run, so even that song - which I'll grant you is pretty damn poppy - has a case for being alternative. If you want to say Linkin Park's current stuff is more musically "alternative" than Lorde's - fair. But if you want to make the case about who is more "alternative" based on their career, I think you have to go with Lorde - who has thus far only released music as an alternative staple. And let's not forget that 20 years ago, Alanis and Collective Soul were charting on alternative (with their mainstream hits). There has always been room for "pop, but weirder." They spent a large portion of their career doing nu-metal? False. They spent three years doing nu-metal from 2000-2003 and then they experimented with soft rock and electronic rock before becoming alternative metal (not nu-metal) in 2014. And even if they did spend their career playing nu-metal, so fucking what? You act like playing nu-metal automatically means you make low quality music, which is a completely ignorant statement given all the GOOD nu-metal that has come out. Early Deftones, early Incubus, hell even 90s Korn wasn't too horrible. It's people like you who view nu-metal as a stigma, which is complete bullshit because like every genre, some good came out it and some bad. And of course Lorde only released music as an alternative staple, she has one album out for chrissakes. Guess what? In 2000, Linkin Park had one album and only released them with alternative radio in mind. Besides, it's not like her label sent songs out knowing they'd smash on Alternative radio, they just managed to get played and I bet you they would have pushed it to pop no matter its alternative success. The label thinks she should be played on alternative radio, that's the only reason why they sent it to Alt and AAA first, it's the label's fault that people view her as Alternative. And even Alanis used guitars and had an angsty feel to her. Collective Soul was never "pop but weirder". They were always post-grunge. So I can't buy that argument.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Jul 5, 2014 22:39:39 GMT -5
"December" and "Shine" were Collective Soul's biggest alternative hits. They're pop songs (that did well on the Hot 100). No debate whatsoever.
My point was that they did not spend a large portion of their career making "alternative" music. You just agreed with me.
I don't know what your other rant is about - I actually like a lot of music from the genre, and I think Linkin Park's "Minutes to Midnight" is a great album. That doesn't make them alternative, and it doesn't change that they're corporate and mainstream.
|
|
Pipa
Diamond Member
Sinner
1 week at #1: Of Monsters and Men - Alligator
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 10,448
My Charts
|
Post by Pipa on Jul 5, 2014 22:41:37 GMT -5
Collective Soul was never "pop but weirder". They were always post-grunge. So I can't buy that argument. They always struck me as a straight-up rock band more than anything. And their second single "Breathe" was quite poppy.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jul 5, 2014 22:45:31 GMT -5
"December" and "Shine" were Collective Soul's biggest alternative hits. They're pop songs (that did well on the Hot 100). No debate whatsoever. My point was that they did not spend a large portion of their career making "alternative" music. You just agreed with me. I don't know what your other rant is about - I actually like a lot of music from the genre, and I think Linkin Park's "Minutes to Midnight" is a great album. That doesn't make them alternative, and it doesn't change that they're corporate and mainstream. Are you out of your mind? For their singles, they strayed far away from the experimental stuff - Waiting For the End, What I've Done, Bleed It Out and Given Up are undeniably alternative rock songs. Even the softer stuff is still alternative to an extent, it's not like they blew up the pop charts. And in 2014, Linkin Park are not a mainstream act. And corporate? What the hell do you mean by corporate? That they make safe music for the popular masses? If so, they never would have went soft, never would have experimented and never would have went heavy again!
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Jul 5, 2014 22:46:42 GMT -5
Collective Soul was never "pop but weirder". They were always post-grunge. So I can't buy that argument. They always struck me as a straight-up rock band more than anything. And their second single "Breathe" was quite poppy. Never heard that one. Only "Shine", "December", "The World I Know" and "Gel", and none of those were poppy. They are rock, but they were post-grunge, like Bush and Candlebox.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Jul 5, 2014 22:59:15 GMT -5
"December" and "Shine" were Collective Soul's biggest alternative hits. They're pop songs (that did well on the Hot 100). No debate whatsoever. My point was that they did not spend a large portion of their career making "alternative" music. You just agreed with me. I don't know what your other rant is about - I actually like a lot of music from the genre, and I think Linkin Park's "Minutes to Midnight" is a great album. That doesn't make them alternative, and it doesn't change that they're corporate and mainstream. Are you out of your mind? For their singles, they strayed far away from the experimental stuff - Waiting For the End, What I've Done, Bleed It Out and Given Up are undeniably alternative rock songs. Even the softer stuff is still alternative to an extent, it's not like they blew up the pop charts. And in 2014, Linkin Park are not a mainstream act. And corporate? What the hell do you mean by corporate? That they make safe music for the popular masses? If so, they never would have went soft, never would have experimented and never would have went heavy again! We're not going to agree here. And I'm not as passionate about thinking Linkin Park is--or at least was--one of the most notoriously mainstream, safe bands as you are that they weren't, so fine. But I would ask you to consider whether you really think they went "soft" to move AWAY from commercial trends or to chase them. Or whether the pop-rock song written for the Transformers soundtrack is undeniably alternative rock. I also think you want to consider attitude as well. That's the big thing here. Fall Out Boy has done really innovative, "experimental" stuff on all of its albums, and all four band members are exceptional at their respective crafts. But when you release "Sugar, We're Going Down," "Dance Dance" and "A Little Less Sixteen Candles," you build yourself a reputation as a mainstream, corporate band - and it's hard to dig yourself out of that one. Whenever an outlet (justly) gives Fall Out Boy good reviews, people tear it to shreds in the comments. Just as they do for Linkin Park. (And no - I'm not saying they make the SAME music - so don't even think about it) And I'm not saying a band like that couldn't have a big alternative hit, just like I don't think Linkin Park should be barred from alternative radio. I'm just willing to accept that there is a reason they're not given automatic radio play.
|
|
|
Post by Shadows in the Dark on Jul 5, 2014 22:59:18 GMT -5
"December" and "Shine" were Collective Soul's biggest alternative hits. They're pop songs (that did well on the Hot 100). No debate whatsoever. My point was that they did not spend a large portion of their career making "alternative" music. You just agreed with me. I don't know what your other rant is about - I actually like a lot of music from the genre, and I think Linkin Park's "Minutes to Midnight" is a great album. That doesn't make them alternative, and it doesn't change that they're corporate and mainstream. Are you out of your mind? For their singles, they strayed far away from the experimental stuff - Waiting For the End, What I've Done, Bleed It Out and Given Up are undeniably alternative rock songs. Even the softer stuff is still alternative to an extent, it's not like they blew up the pop charts. And in 2014, Linkin Park are not a mainstream act. And corporate? What the hell do you mean by corporate? That they make safe music for the popular masses? If so, they never would have went soft, never would have experimented and never would have went heavy again! Haha, I love this guy's attempts to try and prove Linkin Park isn't an Alternative act when there is overwhelming evidence that they clearly are. I'd say both Lorde and Linkin Park started out as Alternative artists (although I wish I didn't have to call Lorde an Alternative artist), with the singles from both artists' debut albums getting considerable play on the format. Too bad I don't see Lorde sticking around nearly as long as Linkin Park did.
|
|
Pipa
Diamond Member
Sinner
1 week at #1: Of Monsters and Men - Alligator
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 10,448
My Charts
|
Post by Pipa on Jul 5, 2014 23:00:12 GMT -5
They always struck me as a straight-up rock band more than anything. And their second single "Breathe" was quite poppy. Never heard that one. Only "Shine", "December", "The World I Know" and "Gel", and none of those were poppy. They are rock, but they were post-grunge, like Bush and Candlebox. They slowly shed away from that style though, especially by the late 90s.
|
|