Discussion: The current state of alternative.

[oscillations.]

What can I say?

I think 2006 has been a horrible year for Alt. radio. Many great, unique acts have been passed over in favor of "safety" acts such as Stone Sour, Hinder, et al. Ratings are down. Future? Grim surely.

I just wanted to see the forums' thoughts on the following:

-  The role of payola (how it may or may not have helped new artists before), the result of it's investigation, and how this has changed stations to very staid playlists once more.

- Why the re-emergence of hard rock/nu-metal/"active rock"?

- The ratings problems. The monopolistic swallowing of tiny stations. The continual decline in widespread significance.

- Solutions? What can be done to "Save Alternative"?

I feel like I'm handing out a worksheet to a class or something, but I figured we might as well discuss an actual issue as opposed to simply posting Hinder's position this week, ha [yes, I'm aware it's a chart forum]. We're all music lovers/alt. fans.

Let's do some mature thinking now. 

SAVE MUSIC.

Goodnight.

[halo19]

It kind of seems like a similar discussion has been going on for a long time. However, it's ridiculous (and hypocrisy) to say that Depeche Mode doesn't fit today's modern rock format and then play Hinder, who the format wouldn't have touched 15 years ago (Hinder isn't even nu-metal or post-grunge!). Stone Sour are kind of mainstream rock, but I think they're a bit different than Slipknot so I tend not to consider it nu-metal.

However, a few years ago, some of the artists doing well now wouldn't have done anything then. Also, Papa Roach aren't doing that well for a lead single, the other ones got right to the top ten; this one's struggling to do that, and may lose its bullet soon. And in spite a few mainstream rock entries, I really don't feel like they're doing to terribly. Even though Thrice, one of my favorite bands, never had a big Alternative hit.

In the end I think it has more to do with the record labels than anything else. Sometimes the great stuff isn't promoted as major label and thus, has little room for airplay. Besides, I won't get sick of listening to VNV Nation and the like anytime soon since the radio hasn't picked up on those artists.

[pen]

cherrycrush said:

Why the re-emergence of hard rock/nu-metal/"active rock"?

Because it's good music that deserves airplay? But as to why it's on alternative, it probably has mostly to do with making money and the fact that radio will more often than not play whatever bands are earning the most attention and capable of generating the most income. Disturbed, System Of A Down, Mudvayne, Slipknot, Godsmack, Korn, Stone Sour, and Rob Zombie are all platinum-selling acts that have large fan followings. Radio would be foolish to neglect them. Although I'd say a "re-emergence" is kind of a misnomer, since they never left to begin with.

As for payola, if that's what's getting great bands like Blue October, Flyleaf, and Red Jumpsuit Apparatus on the charts, then hell, I say keep it coming.

But you know, "grim" is only your outlook, maybe because radio isn't playing enough of what you like. I don't know about ratings being down; if that's true, then that is a troubling sign, but the part about "great, unique acts" being passed over I'd say is your problem, not radio's. Personally, I'm willing to bet good money that I'd loathe an alternative station run by you.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I think the ratings going down could be due in part to people relying more on the internet to hear their music.
I always said that if anyone should sue Napster, it should have been radio. I pretty much stopped listening to the radio completely in 2002 when I started to download songs more... but my Cd purchased have been increasing every year since.
I don't have numbers though... someday I'll count the numbers.

[oscillations.]

penance said:

cherrycrush said:

Why the re-emergence of hard rock/nu-metal/"active rock"?

Because it's good music that deserves airplay? But as to why it's on alternative, it probably has mostly to do with making money and the fact that radio will more often than not play whatever bands are earning the most attention and capable of generating the most income. Disturbed, System Of A Down, Mudvayne, Slipknot, Godsmack, Korn, Stone Sour, and Rob Zombie are all platinum-selling acts that have large fan followings. Radio would be foolish to neglect them. Although I'd say a "re-emergence" is kind of a misnomer, since they never left to begin with.

As for payola, if that's what's getting great bands like Blue October, Flyleaf, and Red Jumpsuit Apparatus on the charts, then hell, I say keep it coming.

But you know, "grim" is only your outlook, maybe because radio isn't playing enough of what you like. I don't know about ratings being down; if that's true, then that is a troubling sign, but the part about "great, unique acts" being passed over I'd say is your problem, not radio's. Personally, I'm willing to bet good money that I'd loathe an alternative station run by you.

Well, naturally. And I obviously would hate yours because I consider all the bands you listed pure trash (and by the way, "active rock" did fall by the wayside for awhile as the neo-new wave bands started to gain attention). But that isn't the point.  The fact is that the integrity of the format as a whole has been corrupted for a long time, but by now, it's irrelevant in light of the current status of rock radio in general. Regardless of whether we are talking about Franz Ferdinand, Flyleaf, The Killers, RHCP, or whoever, ratings are WAY DOWN all over the country, and pretty much every music periodical has discussed the troubled state of Alternative explicitly for a long time now. It's no secret that the format is in danger of becoming obsolete.

I posted this  because, in spite of listening differences, we all would probably hate to see the format die out completely.

[oscillations.]

themaxonline said:

I think the ratings going down could be due in part to people relying more on the internet to hear their music.
I always said that if anyone should sue Napster, it should have been radio. I pretty much stopped listening to the radio completely in 2002 when I started to download songs more... but my Cd purchased have been increasing every year since.
I don't have numbers though... someday I'll count the numbers.

I rarely listen to radio either. But, like you, I'm buying more CDs than ever. I use blogs, independent research, and my station's indie program to get into new acts. Stations like KEXP are excellent and are fulfilling a very specific purpose quite nicely.

[oscillations.]

halo20 said:

It kind of seems like a similar discussion has been going on for a long time. However, it's ridiculous (and hypocrisy) to say that Depeche Mode doesn't fit today's modern rock format and then play Hinder, who the format wouldn't have touched 15 years ago (Hinder isn't even nu-metal or post-grunge!). Stone Sour are kind of mainstream rock, but I think they're a bit different than Slipknot so I tend not to consider it nu-metal.

However, a few years ago, some of the artists doing well now wouldn't have done anything then. Also, Papa Roach aren't doing that well for a lead single, the other ones got right to the top ten; this one's struggling to do that, and may lose its bullet soon. And in spite a few mainstream rock entries, I really don't feel like they're doing to terribly. Even though Thrice, one of my favorite bands, never had a big Alternative hit.

In the end I think it has more to do with the record labels than anything else. Sometimes the great stuff isn't promoted as major label and thus, has little room for airplay. Besides, I won't get sick of listening to VNV Nation and the like anytime soon since the radio hasn't picked up on those artists.

It seems about 18 months ago, alternative turned around for the "better" (in my opinion) and played more unique acts for abit (YYYs, Franz, The Strokes, Interpol, etc). Indie music magazines even noticed that "rock radio was sucking less".Yes, it was buying into a trend. But sadly that seemed to come to an end in 2006, with a few exceptions. It's pretty depressing that if you want to listen to something other than hard rock, you're forced to find your own means of discovery.

I might add that, despite the fact that I don't rely on radio at all to discover music (if you look at my last.fm, you'll see the majority is nothing radio would go near), I find it troubling for potential left-field "alternative" fans to not have the opportunity to hear the bands because their station is too scared to take a risk.

[fatalthirteen]

I happen to really like a lot of what's played on rock radio nowadays. Other formats....well that's another story.

[pen]

Well I'm not going to agree with you about the music angle because I don't think the bands you're talking about should be dominating alternative either, even though I do like some of them. I think alternative should be a mishmash of everything, which as far as I can see, it is.

But as for the numbers, I don't listen to the radio, so I guess I am a prime example of what I'm sure is happening all over. iMax I think hit the nail on the head. I think people used to rely on the radio to find out what was new in music, but now that file-sharing (illegal and legal) has become commonplace, people need radio less and less. I personally do not listen to radio because I lack control over what they play and when they play it. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same. It's a lot better to just put in a burned mix or let an iPod run.

[jdmasta289]

Dude, if you don't like what's being played on the radio, or want to shout about how "crappy" alternative/modern rock radio is and how it doesn't correspond exactly with what you listen to or want to consider "alternative", then don't come to a radio-related music board with radio junkies like myself and expect to get any props from us.

To me, 2006 has been no different than 2005 in terms of accepting what you would consider traditional alternative groups.  There are exceptions, such as Three Days Grace, Breaking Benjamin, and Stone Sour, which has dominated the format.  But take a gander at this.

People like you b**ch about how alternative radio was so much more "pure" in 1994.  But at that time non-traditional alternative artists like Sheryl Crow, Alanis Morissette, Sarah McLachlan, the Gin Blossoms, Toad The Wet Sprocket, the Goo Goo Dolls, and Seal generating quite an impact on alternative radio.  Matchbox 20, Semisonic, and the Barenaked Ladies did so later. Then it was Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, Creed, and Godsmack. Now it's Hinder and Stone Sour (which, by the way, I believe is very much alternative). Hell, alternative radio has always been largely ruled by artists we shun nowadays as "not alternative".  In the late '80s, for example, Genesis, Sting, the B-52's, the Police, and even Peter Freakin' Gabriel were shelling out hits.  And I'm sure you would have hated alternative radio then for continuing to play them in the early '90s - like they did with "Fields Of Gold", "The Good Stuff", "Digging In The Dirt", "Prayer For The Dying", etc. etc.

Personally, I love the diversity that alternative has shown this year.  In 2005, it was slanted toward '90s musicians.  Beck, Garbage, and Oasis scored top 20 hits when songs from previous CD's failed to go top 40.  Green Day and Nine Inch Nails came back and ruled like they had never ruled before.  In 2006, new, and in many cases, out-of-left-field artists (I don't need to identify them) have gained notoriety while '90s and '00s musicians have continued to do well.  It's been, for the most part, quite balanced and fair.

It's a reality that payola has existed probably since radio began.  It's probably a lot less prominent among alternative stations, but it is my personal belief that Hinder, She Wants Revenge, and Blue October achieved success in this manner.  Then again, so did artists like Limp Bizkit, who were notorious for this.

Ratings among radio stations have indeed been on a slow, consistent drop since alternative radio's heydey in the early and mid-'90s.  HOWEVER, the market for alternative music as far as record and concert sales is ENORMOUS.  Alternative music has actually been on the increase since Kurt Cobain (basically) made it cool to listen to.  Nowadays, there is more of a percentage of people listening to alternative/modern rock music than ever.

Penance will gladly point out that hard rock/nu-metal/and surely "active rock" have never died on alternative radio, at least since its debut in the late '90s and especially 2000.

What can be done to save alternative?  I suggested in another forum that stations need to keep up with what's new and play more of what's new to appeal to younger audiences.  The younger audiences' appeal, as well as holding '90s weekends, '90s at noon, Resurrection Sundays repeatedly will help maintain the thirty-something audience (and older).  Other than that?  Nothing.  Continue to play who's big in alternative and modern rock today.  And play a variety.  On that note, the only time I believe modern rock radio truly lacked variety was around 1998, when pop-rock and post-grunge ruled at an unprecedented rate.  Alternative radio, in my opinion, has never been better, in terms of quality.  Now if only my station could stop repeating Jack Johnson.....

[friday]

I actually like the aspect of not having control over what I hear on the radio, mainly because I like it when a station pulls out something I haven't heard in a while. It's especially good with satellite radio, because I'm sure everyone would have at least 5 or 6 stations they like, so at least one of them is bound to be playing something good. And they seem to be much better at breaking new music than the terrestial stations do.

I'm kinda lucky that KNDD seems to be one of the better alt stations in the country. They started to slip back into that active rock stupor from before 2004, but they seemed to correct themselves over the summer, and now I think they're the best they've been since I've been out here. They finally realized that bands formed after 1996 that happen to be popular on active rock can be considered alternative as well.

Really, the thing about the relationship between active rock and alternative is once grunge music broke out in the early '90s, the two formats became a lot closer in terms of content. Thus, stations started playing these so-called "post-grunge" acts were influenced by grunge, but still somehow didn't fit the "alternative" label. Of course, most stations probably officially refer to themselves as "modern rock" since that's what Billboard calls, and, to me, that feels like a lot bigger umbrella to group music in than "alternative". Or I think so, anyway.

[Crushcrushchris]

I consider Alternative to be the top 40 of rock if that makes any sense. Active is for the harder stuff, mainstream for the older crowd.

I think it's fine just the way it is. Satellite has the right idea splitting the formats up a lot more accurately so that you really get what you want to hear at any particular time.

Having said that, I don't think that's going to translate to terrestrial radio because they're too wrapped up in numbers and ratings to do so.

I don't listen to much New York radio too much because there's not a whole lot of choices for the alternative fan.

That's why I'll search online for out of market stations or listen to Internet radio.

Alternative radio is FAR from dead. There are some really good artists out there, but you have to be willing to look for them rather than having to be fed them.

[American Idiot]

I think for Alternative as a format, when you talk about variety, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. This year, I've never seen so many different types of bands from Three Days Grace to Taking Back Sunday to My Chemical Romance to the Chili Peppers to Mudvayne. There's just about something on there for everyone, and I hate seperating everything into little genres. I think it all depends on what particular station you're listening to since certain ones pertain to certain sides of the format. While I'd like some of the bands that are doing very well on Active Rock to be played more prevalent on Alternative, I think the state of the Alt. format is better than it ever has been previously.

Most of the time I'd rather listen to the radio instead of albums or mixes because of the unpredictable song that could be coming on next. However, I don't listen to the radio anywhere as much as I used to mostly because I don't really like the two Orlando stations that I hear away at college very much. WOCL plays mostly the lighter side of the format and the same recurrents over and over (hell, I hear Harvey Danger's "Flagpole Sitta" almost daily) and WJRR might as well be an Active Rock station since they mostly play current nu-metal and 80s/early 90s metal. Both stations don't really give much of a variety of music. When I go home to South Florida though, WPBZ I believe is one of the best stations on the format and they play basically anything that goes for adds as well as a song that I may have not heard on the radio in 5-10 years out of the blue every so often.

[Pipa]

The Top 10 may be a little stale, but from there down I'd say it's pretty good. Lots of variety.

I just wish they'd play more European music like Kasabian, The Feeling, The Knife, etc. I've found myself getting more and more into it lately.

[Slinky]

One thing that may be influencing Alt. stations to play more Active is the lack of competition in rock radio in many markets. Whereas a few years ago, lots of markets had an Active Rock station or a somewhat current mainstream Rock station, these stations have been dropping off like flies. Of the Mainstream Rock and even Active Rock stations that remain, most are becoming more classic-based.

That leaves the Alt. station as the only outlet for current Rock in many markets, so it makes sense for them to play stuff that doesn't quite fit to appeal to the largest audience possible.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I've come to realize very recently that radio is evolving, and this means all of the formats, and it's evolving into something that often we don't like.
When we first get into music, what is current at the time is what we take to represent the music scene and the music formats. Back in 1994 was when I got into music so I often always compared the music charts of today to that of the mid-90s. Alternative played a lot softer stuff (like the ones mentioned above), pop played less rhythmic and dance music was apparant there as well. As the formats evolve away from what I considered to be how they should always stay, I became less interested in the music they played more of. So now I don't consider myself a fan of what CHR/Pop radio is today (I never became familiar with other formats as they were or are known really so I can't compare them the way I can with Pop).
I can now relate to when older people have said the music that was around when they were younger was better. ...to an extent. I think the music I find is better than ever but that's because I don't rely on the charts anymore. However, I think the pop chart now isn't as good as it was 10 years ago. And in 10 years, people that are just getting into music now will think the exact same thing. Most people don't like change as it occurs. Whatever alternative radio is playing now is probably what is considered to be "alternative music" in the radio sense of the term, not what was played 10 years ago.

[banet2001]

I will say that alternative radio has gotten really bad in 2006. It is almost as bad as pop radio, and that is saying something.

It seems like all alternative radio wants to play nowadays is mediocre loud male rock bands. Any band that has any real creativity and creates interesting and challenging work is systematically ignored, just as in pop radio. All you get is a homeneic mix of mediocre rock bands, none of which offers much different than the last band that was played on the radio.

Too bad there is not more of a market for interesting indie bands on radio. If they got a little bit more exposure on radio, I feel that indie radio stations that promote interesting and creative artists (really the best music out there today quality wise) could do well and potentially challenge the mainstream rock stations for viewers. I know I would listen, since I have pretty much given up on mainstream and alternative rock radio.

[jdmasta289]

I've never understood how people consider grunge alternative, yet the music that derives from grunge somehow doesn't fit their narrow 'alternative' criteria. To me, alternative began in the late '70s and '80s as punk, which became new-wave. Then, grunge artists took alternative and essentially synonymized it with *most* modern rock.

For instance, bands that derive from grunge, such as Candlebox, Puddle of Mudd, Default, and even Stone Sour and Hinder to an extent - are DEFINITELY alternative. They should be getting airplay.

That said, I also wish indie and this garage post-punk sound had a better chance here (bands like Soundtrack of Our Lives and Sparta come to mind). However, indie has never really dominated because it's just not accessible and not commercial. Many alternative fans may like it, but it will never truly dominate on alternative radio. That is why, like American Idiot said, the alternative listener needs to venture beyond what is being played and discover and listen to his or her own groups.

Alternative radio has always included artists who may not fit the criteria. Hell, I don't see how Coldplay are any more alternative than Three Days Grace. Would Peter Gabriel or INXS be considered alternative today? People keep talking about how radio should "revert back to the good ole' days", which could have included either '80s POP, Lilith, mainstream pop-rock/post-grunge, and straight up nu-metal. Kurt Cobain and the other grunge "Gods" changed the definition of alternative forever.

I will say that alternative radio has gotten really bad in 2006. It is almost as bad as pop radio, and that is saying something.

It seems like all alternative radio wants to play nowadays is mediocre loud male rock bands. Any band that has any real creativity and creates interesting and challenging work is systematically ignored, just as in pop radio. All you get is a homeneic mix of mediocre rock bands, none of which offers much different than the last band that was played on the radio.

Which mediocre loud male rock bands are you referring to? If it's AFI, Three Days Grace, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Breaking Benjamin, Stone Sour, Raconteurs, System, Weezer, Tool, Fall Out Boy, Avenged, Nine Inch Nails, Gnarls Barkley, Angels & Airwaves, then I don't know what to tell ya. These bands are each incredible diverse and to me, most of them really have their own distinguishable sound, and if you're going to lump all of these successful artists into one category, like I said I don't really know what to tell ya. Find a new format, I guess. A better question yet - which bands (or songs) would you want to be in the 2006 year-end top 30?

10 Years, Three Days Grace, Stone Sour, and Shinedown are ALL alternative because of their sound and their influences. Accept it. If they aren't, then neither are Bush, the Foo Fighters, and STP. If you don't like them, that doesn't mean they aren't alternative.

Now, if you'd ask me about artists like Disturbed and Avenged Sevenfold, whose influences are almost primarily '70s & '80s metal artists like Motley Crue & Guns N Roses, then that's a different story altogether. And Wolfmother, whose influences include Sabbath and Zeppelin, will be a different story. But then, look at the influences for the Strokes and Coldplay. Or even RHCP.

I'm happy with virtually every artist who has achieved success this year, and I can only hope that alternative radio continues to play as diverse music as they have, and continues to venture forward to playing more *new* music in the years to come.

Alternative radio is FAR from dead.

Thank you, Wind-Up Ho!!! Couldn't have said it better, myself.

[fatalthirteen]

banet2001 said:

I will say that alternative radio has gotten really bad in 2006. It is almost as bad as pop radio, and that is saying something. 

It seems like all alternative radio wants to play nowadays is mediocre loud male rock bands. Any band that has any real creativity and creates interesting and challenging work is systematically ignored, just as in pop radio. All you get is a homeneic mix of mediocre rock bands, none of which offers much different than the last band that was played on the radio.

Too bad there is not more of a market for interesting indie bands on radio. If they got a little bit more exposure on radio, I feel that indie radio stations that promote interesting and creative artists (really the best music out there today quality wise) could do well and potentially challenge the mainstream rock stations for viewers. I know I would listen, since I have pretty much given up on mainstream and alternative rock radio.

So what you're saying is that indie music = creative and quality music? That's one false and, might I add, incredibly stupid generalization. The qualities that differ indie rock from hard rock are volume, guitar instrumentation, and vocal style--NOT creativity and quality. There are creative bands that fit are part of the hard rock genre which make quality music as well as creative bands that are part of the indie rock scene.

To say one is better than the other shows that you don't know how to separate YOUR personal taste and objective judgement of an artist's music. Just because you seem to prefer indie rock by no means makes it inherently more creative or of higher quality.

Furthermore, creativity and quality don't necessarily have to go hand in hand. You can be a 'creative' artist making songs that sound different from anything else but are unasthetically pleasing to the ears of a majority of people (making it of lower quality when judged objectively and fairly).

The opposite is true as well, you can be an artist who is not incredibly original in that you are using vocal techniques or instrumentation that has been used in the past but still make music that is very appealing to many people. Who are you to say that their music is of low quality?

You should really think before you make such subjective claims based on your musical preferences. A little insight and perspective would do you good.

[tortuga]

I'If you take a look at a band like Three Days Grace, aside from their fans, radio is the only place that worships them. MTV won't play their videos anymore or you don't really hear magazines raving about them. At least they have some place that likes them. Meanwhile, Spin Magazine or MTV look for the next indie rock or emo band to make known.

[jdmasta289]

tortuga said:

I'If you take a look at a band like Three Days Grace, aside from their fans, radio is the only place that worships them. MTV won't play their videos anymore or you don't really hear magazines raving about them.  At least they have some place that likes them.  Meanwhile, Spin Magazine or MTV look for the next indie rock or emo band to make known.

That's true to an extent. I see their videos being played on Fuse (in fact, they played several videos consecutively from them in one segment). And they've been on the cover of a couple magazines (their names escape me - I think AP was one of them).

Now, Shinedown is a great example of a band that gets radio love but not much else (aside from the fans). Or 311.

[oscillations.]

jdmasta289 said:

People like you b**ch about how alternative radio was so much more "pure" in 1994.

No, I don't, haha.
Although, I have to admit I'm curious to why you think I would.
Oh yeah, 1994 -- the heart of post-grunge-- was such an inspiring time for mainstream rock.

[oscillations.]

picpak said:

The Top 10 may be a little stale, but from there down I'd say it's pretty good. Lots of variety.

I just wish they'd play more European music like Kasabian, The Feeling, The Knife, etc. I've found myself getting more and more into it lately.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A little less Breaking Benjamin, a little more Kasabian & Mew, please.

[Love Plastic Love]

I dont know what to say because I actually think alternative radio has been doing well for itself lately. I see diversity in it. I see smaller, unique acts getting a chance. Maybe thats just opposed to pop, but yeah.
Are there some acts that I wish would do better? Sure. Some acts I wish wouldnt do as well? Sure. That does not mean the entire format sucks just because I do not agree with every song placement.

[pen]

cherrycrush said:

picpak said:

The Top 10 may be a little stale, but from there down I'd say it's pretty good. Lots of variety.

I just wish they'd play more European music like Kasabian, The Feeling, The Knife, etc. I've found myself getting more and more into it lately.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A little less Breaking Benjamin, a little more Kasabian & Mew, please. 

A little more of what you want, a little less of what other people want, huh? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Make a playlist and set it to randomize, you'll get faster results.

[Rumors]

I just briefly read through this interesting thread. I don't have an alternative or rock station in my market so I really can't comment on the state of the format. However, I did want to comment on the statements by a few that the format is in ratings trouble and that they don't listen to radio anymore...listen to satelite or internet instead. Anyway, I read an article awhile back and it was talking about how difficult it is for new bands to tour these days because there are fewer and fewer radio outlets to promote their shows on when they come to town. This makes a lot of sense to me and maybe is something people don't really think about when they say that don't care how radio is doing. As we all know, an artist's primary source of income is from touring and merchandise sales.

[jdmasta289]

cherrycrush said:

jdmasta289 said:

People like you b**ch about how alternative radio was so much more "pure" in 1994.

No, I don't, haha.
Although, I have to admit I'm curious to why you think I would.
Oh yeah, 1994 -- the heart of post-grunge-- was such an inspiring time for mainstream rock. 

Plenty of people like you who constantly whine about how 80% of stations include these artists on their playlists often long for the "glory days" of alternative. It's true. They are looking through rosy-colored glasses to bands they once adored, back when these metal-inspired acts weren't being played on alt. stations.

My point is that alternative radio airplay around the U.S. has never fit the definition these elitists seem to want it to. Like it or not, most of the bands who seem to be in question are, in fact, alternative, once they look beyond the fact that they don't like them.

[oscillations.]

jdmasta289 said:

cherrycrush said:

No, I don't, haha.
Although, I have to admit I'm curious to why you think I would.
Oh yeah, 1994 -- the heart of post-grunge-- was such an inspiring time for mainstream rock. 

Plenty of people like you who constantly whine about how 80% of stations include these artists on their playlists often long for the "glory days" of alternative.  It's true.  They are looking through rosy-colored glasses to bands they once adored, back when these metal-inspired acts weren't being played on alt. stations.

My point is that alternative radio airplay around the U.S. has never fit the definition these elitists seem to want it to.  Like it or not, most of the bands who seem to be in question are, in fact, alternative, once they look beyond the fact that they don't like them.

I'm complaining, but not because I wish it was like 1994. Alternative radio is turning it's back on it's original purpose...to continue to the tradition of college radio in the 80s (i.e. playing lesser known bands, more experimental styles...proving an ALTERNATIVE to other outlets!). We can argue about how Nirvana changed the concept of "alternative" all we wish (and by the way, that's all it is...a concept not a sound), but the point is, it's meant to be a buffer between Top 40 and "hard rock" stations. It's the place you go to find music you CANNOT find on the other formats. I'm not claiming it needs to be KEXP (although that would be amazing), but it needs to be open to various genres (not necessarily "rock" based). If there was ever a "glory day" for the format, it would probably be 1995-1997, only because of the variety. A) You had females on the radio (Hole, Garbage, Fiona Apple, No Doubt, The Cardigans, even Bjork!) B.) The emergence of European influence (i.e. not third-rate Nirvana-bees [although these were still prevalent to a degree]) C.) Electronic invasion...from trip-hop (a la Sneaker Pimps) to rave and jungle (The Prodigy), non-guitar dance music got significant alt. airplay.

The point is, in that brief period, there were a lot of diverse things going on within one format. In the late 90's that died out again, with the emergence of bands like Limp Bizkit. In the very early 00's, it was all about second-wave post-grunge a la Nickelback and the lesser nu-metal bands. In late 2001/early 2002, things looked promising: the garage rock revival began (The Strokes, White Stripes, Hives, Vines etc). Some variety returned (as none of these bands are remotely similar, ironically). Some chances were taken. 2003 - 2005 : neo-new wave/post-punk revival a la Franz, Interpol, Killers, etc etc etc. There also is a mini-90's revival (Beck, Garbage, NIN etc), as you yourself pointed out. Again, the format seemed like it actually was embracing a variety of music again, and not necessarily American-informed rock, either. THEN...
Late 2005/early 2006? Well, the YYYs bombed despite an amazing lead single and rave reviews. Raconteurs do well but don't make overall significant impact. A lot of nu-metal/active rock acts release new material...it does well. With few exceptions, it has dominated the format this year. The other prominent presence is emo/semi-screamo bands, of course.

Overall, however, there is a general resumption of the hard rock values embraced by the format circa early 2001. And, sorry, I think it's a shame.

So, no, I'm not mourning the glory days of Candlebox. I'm disappointed in a format where if you aren't a frustrated white male with a fake GNR riff, you are largely ignored. I'm sorry, but I don't see why "cock rock" needs to dominate all three of the rock formats.

And you know what? It's not like I'm the only one who feels this way. Sure, maybe I underestimated the number of rabid supporters for the status quo on this board, but if you got into this discussion with a group of music analysts or even just longtime alternative fans (pre-90's), they would probably not agree that everything is just dandy with the current format. I mean, it's getting negative press for a reason. It's not like the critics are just snobs who are out of touch with reality because they don't listen to Hinder. They make legitimate points in their questioning of the integral purpose and relevance of the format.

[pen]

I'm not denying that you make a legitimate point, I'm just saying that point is based upon what you want to hear, which doesn't necessarily fit what everyone else wants to hear.

What you're missing in all of this, and maybe this is the problem, is that alternative radio has become the dominant gene in rock radio. Active doesn't reach nearly as many listeners and markets and regular rock stations are a joke. Alternative can no longer be a buffer between the formats because it has become the format. Maybe what you really need is a new alternative. Someone mentioned satellite radio and I think that's an excellent suggestion.

[oscillations.]

penance said:

cherrycrush said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A little less Breaking Benjamin, a little more Kasabian & Mew, please. 

A little more of what you want, a little less of what other people want, huh? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Make a playlist and set it to randomize, you'll get faster results.

It's not about what I want, actually. It's about providing more options.
It would be nice to further expand the horizons of the format, no? Surely you'd have no problem with the format including a significant number more bands that have no place on active rock? Indeed, for bands who don't really belong any particular place at all...alternative SHOULD be their home on radio.