Billboard Year-End

[pen]

Aw, that's cute. You guys have a thing going. While you're having this contest to see who create the best retort to what I think is a perfectly valid set of points (but of course I would since I wrote them), I'd just like to say that I love complex and oddball music as much as the next person but it doesn't do a whole hell of a lot for me without a really good melody to go with it. I'm not into strangeness just for the sake of strangeness. But I don't think there's anything wrong with straightforward rock either. This has to be obvious if I'm replying in Arcade Fire and Chevelle topics both. I just want to be clear about where I'm coming from on this.

As for moving stuff over to active rock and keeping alternative for something else, that's a nice dream, and believe me or not, I sympathize and agree that it probably should be the case. I know you're not stupid, and since you're not stupid, you probably realize that either more active rock stations are going to need to be built or some alternative stations are going to have to turn into active rock stations in order to strike a balance between the two. If this ends up happening, I'd be all for it, because I have no problem flipping between two stations if I have to do so to hear MCR follow Disturbed. But for all of our talk about it, because this does get brought up seemingly once every month, does anyone know how to get this ball rolling?

On the subject of your workplace, I personally have not heard "Le Disko" or any music from the Shiny Toy Guns. I do note it is currently #31 on the alternative charts. Good for them. I'm glad that they're doing well. And it's #1 at your radio station, that's superb. I'm not being sarcastic either, but I do think that the same "strategy" isn't going to work all over the country. There are some areas where certain kinds of music do better, and I'm sure that in some areas, they wouldn't be nearly as well received.

It is true what you say, that repeated exposure to something can lead to tolerance and beyond, cause lord knows some songs take a while to grow on a person and sometimes you have expose yourself to something repeatedly before you can get it, but I don't think this is set in stone. I am pretty sure that if someone really doesn't like Muse and they're repeatedly exposed to them in increasing amounts, they're just as likely to change the station (or complain) as they are to learn to like it. It's a 50/50 chance, and if it's working out in some areas, hey, great. I don't believe it's a foolproof plan.

Can I ask you something though? If you were repeatedly forced to listen to Godsmack and Breaking Benjamin again and again, would you eventually learn to like them? The answer is obviously not, otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not saying your position is wrong, because it does make a lot of sense, but you have to understand that your viewpoint is somewhat inherently hypocritical.

It's like I said above, I'm sure there are some people with opposing viewpoints who want all these bands that you love to go away and be replaced by more Papa Roach and Lostprophets songs. I don't know who or where, but at least one person has to exist. Maybe you can find them and you two can have a duel to the death to determine the winner. Or maybe just rock out on Guitar Hero, I don't know.

[oscillations.]

well, penance, I am subject to it, too - I've found myself *gulps* enjoying or at least tolerating songs that I used to hate because they were driven into my skull at work. But I also know that the theory applies more to the average person who isn't necessarily adamantly opposed to or critical of certain music (or biased TOWARDS a certain type of music). So, of course it's not 100% - nothing in scholarly theories is (that's why they get modified over time). GENERALLY SPEAKING, though, it does seem to be the case.

And actually this type of thinking relates back to one of the most common communication theories (you've probably studied it at some point). I had this nifty little chart from old lecture notes that sums it up concisely, but since I don't have time to scan it, this can suffice:

uncertainty reduction theory - it DOES exist!

And yeah, I'll have a Guitar Hero battle with ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANY TIME. Bring it.

I'm going to the store (for real) now.

[jaxxalude]

Erm... actually, I'd really like Colleen to be able to reply to that part, basically because it must actually be the only one where I see eye to eye with penance. I'm serious this time!

[pen]

cherrycrush said:

uncertainty reduction theory - it DOES exist!

So that's what I've been doing wrong all my life.

[oscillations.]

penance said:

cherrycrush said:

Right, but that's just the type of thinking that serves the interest of maintaining the status quo.

I'm not sure what you mean, but just as you seem concerned about the world leaning too much in the direction of the mainstream, I think there's a significant danger in leaning too heavily toward the progressive. Some of the most enduring and endearing songs of our time weren't built on being arty or culturally significant: they were simple, but they were enjoyable and memorable.

Well, I guess I'll respond to complete the circle of life of this thread . haha. I didn't respond initially, because I don't necessarily disagree with you. Simplicity CAN BE and often is brilliant and memorable. I didn't say simplicity=generic/average or that complexity is necessarily a more admirable quality than something immediate and understated. It's true that a lot of songs that are considered the "greatest of all time" (which no one ever can agree on, but certain songs score favorably with an overwhelming majority, so let's work from there) are relatively simple pop songs. But therein lies part of their brilliance. Those songs that we all remember usually employ a melody or some other musical element in a way that few others did at that time. Their songwriting or musicianship stood out. These songs ARE progressive & innovative (not derivative or generic) yet accessible. I've already stated that I'm a huge fan of well-crafted pop music - music that features these very qualities.

At some point, people will divide over what constitutes a great pop song (can Hall & Oates and Celine Dion really be included? etc.) and that's where we meet an impasse. There isn't necessarily any real artistic quality to their music, yet a lot of people liked it enough to blow their money on it, and therefore people try to argue that this means it is somehow worthwhile. (But we spent a lot of money on Pogs in 1995, but does this make them memorable 11 years later? f**k no.) I can't help but feel we should hold music to a higher standard (is it wrong to have standards? I don't think so, as long as they are consistent yet applicable to many situations.)
I, myself, do not understand the appeal of either artist from either an objective, analytical standpoint nor a personal one (where "likability" not "quality" is the only factor considered). I can only conclude that there is "something" there in the structure or delivery of the song that people really latched onto, even if I am blind (or deaf) to it. The same problem presents itself with a majority of today's "hit" music. Time will reveal whether or not many contemporary hits will be remembered even 10, never mind 50 years from now. I still maintain that "no one remembers mediocrity." We naturally gravitate towards the novel, because it's the basis of human nature (we aspire to meet other humans who intrigue us with their singular nature - who actually HOPES to settle for just another face in the crowd? Hopefully, no one.)
But, as you said, too much progression can threaten people. "Safe" music is the antithesis of this, and is a reactionary movement to "too much innovation" (this kind of explains the MOR appeal of H&O and Celine, I suppose. Both supplied the musical equivalent of 'comfort food' to the masses discomfited by all the cultural upheaval preceding their commercial peaks). But should we REWARD the creators of comfort music as much as we do the mavericks? I think not. The same way "Runaway Bride" should not be an Oscar contender simply because a lot of women flocked to see Julia & Richard on the big screen, Hinder should not be rewarded for merely providing the soundtrack for those who like their rock "big & plain, just like their women".

[jaxxalude]

It was worth it, at least in the sense that, regarding Hall & Oates, we disagree a wee bit, since I find some of their songs - "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)" in particular - worthy of the "creative but accessible" tag.

[oscillations.]

Oh, face it. You just are entranced by the mustache.

Who could resist this?


I should give props to my little brother for letting me steal this image from his myspace. He developed a morbid fascination with John Oates' 'stache after viewing the "Private Eyes" video.

By the way, my brother = 1,000 x more cheeky & sardonic than I am (and it's all my fault).

www.myspace.com/youdidgooder

[jaxxalude]

Oh, I almost forgot.

















































































Will you, or will you not, marry me?

[jdmasta289]

This thread is killing me. Now I am operating on sensory overload, and now that the full day has gone by with about twenty responses since oscillations' original response to my post this morning, I have absolutely no idea where to start. I've been thinking about this off and on all day. I could come up with so many arguments why alternative works as it does now that it's incredible.

I could speak about it in person, but in writing? Ugh...I give up

I guess I'll try to operate this one piece at a time. I could go on many tangents, but even I am sick of doing that.

I've never bought into the theory that certain "sounds" or "genres" should dominate the format.

Yes, I most certainly agree. That's what I admire about the last three or four years - I believe we are seeing a multitude of different bands experience success on radio and video outlets. Even artists within the same general "subgenre" are quite different (MCR & Fall Out Boy, as penance mentioned - and many more).

I think the harder rock music can find a home on other specific ROCK formats - there IS a place for them elsewhere - a mainstream platform, but there is no home for THE KNIFE other than "Alternative", you know?

I believe that a band's influences and what the band sounds like determine whether that band is "alternative" or not. I strongly disagree with the assessment that a band like 10 Years or Three Days Grace cannot be alternative. Whether you like those bands or not is an entirely different story. Tool influences 10 Years, Alice influences Godsmack, Soundgarden influences Crossfade, etc. etc. etc. Now certain "Hair-metal" and "cock-rock" throwbacks are more debatable (Avenged Sevenfold...many more).

If you're going to blame any bands for making the corporate rock you mock (ha, that rhymes!) popular are the grunge groups themselves, and hard rock artists like Rage, NIN, and Tool. If they are alternative, so are the bands they influence. To me, it's really that simple.

That's not to say that post-punk, electro, indie, punk, new-wave throwback (etc.) can be popular. It can and it should....because it also fits the format. You certainly have an argument there...that Gnarls Barkley, the Gorillaz (etc.) should have had more success here (especially from about 1997 through 2004, and even today to a minor extent, IMO).

However, I don't live in a vacuum & I realize that Alternative now is taken in an entirely different context that it used to be, so the fact that I can't agree with what the word currently entails format-wise doesn't make my arguments any easier with people who have "come to accept" that "Alternative" indicates a range of styles suited for a certain "rock"-leaning audience (and believe Nirvana's success created "alternative" - this is the definition I despise most).

I don't think anybody on this message board honestly believes your last comment. We're far beyond that. I agree that radio centers too frequently on grunge, although from 1991 on, grunge holds far more influence on successful groups of today - perhaps that's radio's fault.

So, that little bit of background info brings us to my relationship with the format in 2006 - I still believe it should be used as a vehicle to promote countless styles of music (and with a handful of exceptions, Alternative has been dominated by post-grunge, active rock/metal, and emo pop-punk this year - I'm sorry that's not a lot of variety. For every "Crazy" there were 20 "Hate Me" 's. To find the "variety" on the format, check #s 35 and lower - that's where you'll see the diversity start, thanks to a few brave stations that play whatever the f**k they want).

Here's my assessment of the top 35 songs of 2006, right now. All of these artists are what I consider "post-1994" artists. I decided to divide these into general categories that define one particular style of music (I realize it's quite general, but we can agree these bands are inspired by similar groups, at least.)

Emo/Punk/Screamo/Post-Hardcore -
Yellowcard
My Chemical Romance
Taking Back Sunday
Panic! At The Disco
Angels & Airwaves
Weezer
Fall Out Boy
AFI

Post-Punk/Indie/Garage/Electro -
Gnarls Barkley
She Wants Revenge
Gorillaz
Killers
Raconteurs

Pop-Rock/Post-Grunge
Foo Fighters
Blue October
30 Seconds To Mars (I placed them here for a reason below.)

Alt-Metal/Post-Grunge
Shinedown
Evanescence
Korn
Avenged Sevenfold
Shinedown (again)
System Of A Down
Stone Sour
Breaking Benjamin
10 Years
Three Days Grace

Make your own conclusions from the above list.

Yes, I'm an idealist in this sense, but it doesn't really matter because I've given up on radio ever being able to fulfill this purpose again. Thusly, I've moved on, but somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I want to see the format succeed & get excited when originality prevails. This is why you see me ejaculate over Muse, Arcade Fire, Gnarls Barkley, etc. I love it when truly creative and even "weird" music wins over the masses enough to shift the cultural barometer just a little bit to the left. Is it a transgressive streak? Perhaps. But, as you said, you love watching "your" acts succeed, and I love "mine" to do the same - on their own terms. (And Muse "belongs" to both of us, so we aren't completely polar opposites, eh? )

I don't understand why you differentiate "my" acts from "your" acts so much.

Muse and the Arcade Fire are two of my favorite groups.

I like 10 Years, Breaking Benjamin, and Stone Sour but would never listen to Godsmack, Hinder, Nickelback, or Shinedown.

I like the Strokes, the White Stripes, the Raconteurs, Bright Eyes, Band of Horses, Cursive, Rock Kills Kid, and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs but I wouldn't listen to the Subways, Gnarls Barkley, the Gorillaz, or She Wants Revenge.

It's basically a straight-up mix (I'll admit I am quite biased toward what many would consider "emo" music - except maybe a couple bands - I just can't get into bands like the Plain White T's, Gym Class Heroes, Cartel, or material from bands like Underoath.

I respect and admire Radiohead and their incredible musical ability and originality. I like them, but I wouldn't consider myself a fan (at least not like many people, such as yourself.)

I could probably add so much more, but let's not push people into these categories. I consider my musical taste incredibly diverse (even if it is more commercial than yours).

[oscillations.]

jaxxalude said:

Oh, I almost forgot.





Will you, or will you not, marry me?

I would love to accept the offer, but I'm not sure if I can "commit" to just one forum relationship. Anyway, you're going to have seek Britnasty's approval first. But no one says there aren't such things as affairs & divorces.

[jdmasta289]

And on a side note...I love listening to and appreciating music just as much as the next guy. I took choir for two years, took music theory, music comp, so many other musical classes in high school and in college.

Oscillations (Oh, hell, I'll just call you Colleen, since your name was already given - I hope you don't mind - I used to know a Colleen back in elementary school), you're obviously enthralled with an incredible variety of groups. This may sound bizarre...but I don't understand how anyone's musical enjoyment of particular bands could lead them to such strong hatred and disdain for bands they don't like or can't enjoy. As penance noted, bands from different genres tour together (such as 311 and Papa Roach) and are good friends. Why can't their fans feel the same, or at least remain neutral on bands they don't listen to. I thought music was supposed to be a positive and uplifting experience. That's what it is for me.

I don't understand what has made you assume that I slam any band that doesn't fit the genre. That has never been the case. I feel certain artists are critically overrated and others are underrated, some overexposed and some overlooked, but that doesn't mean the overexposed/overrated don't make great, original music. And most certainly any artist can fit on the alternative format.

I feel that whether or not you like them doesn't necessarily dictate their legitimacy for format success. Why don't you name several bands you dislike but still believe fit on the format?

As I stated before, I believe that commerciality (is that even a word?) essentially doesn't matter when determining format success. Some "commercial" groups fail (the Panic Channel and the ones penance mentioned....and the Panic Channel...boy they really failed ) and others achieve. Influence determines chart success.

Since when did music have to revolutionize the world to gain notoriety or be respected? Cliche and unoriginal to me, are two very different concepts, and, yes, I do like my bands to have some sort of musical innovation. But it's not a requirement for success. It can be made up with great lyrics, a great image, etc.

If you don't like a certain artist, say you don't like them and move on. Don't slam them and the people who happen to support them. I thought music was supposed to be positive? Support the bands you like, attend their concerts, buy their albums, rave about them, fantasize about their lead singer (etc.). I don't understand (I'm not lumping oscillations in here) people who bash certain artists over and over and over for this and that. Where's the love? And especially if metal bands and emo bands can relate...Why can't the fans just get along? Some people just take music too seriously.

[pen]

JD seems to have picked up the torch I left behind, so I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that I hate Hinder and I wouldn't reward them for shit.

I do however confess to liking Shinedown, Nickelback, Godsmack, and the Gorillaz, but I do not care much for Bright Eyes.

[jdmasta289]

I'm not trying to make a point here, but since when has the alternative format ever not embraced 100% traditional alternative artists anyway? Unfortunately, this "utopia" has never happened. (Or maybe the "utopia" has happened. Never mind, I'm confusing myself. Take from that what you will.)

[oscillations.]

Dude. I already addressed everything. I'm not repeating myself. Frankly, I'm tired of discussing this (and you are, too).
And I don't "hate" any band, I pointed out (beyond "I don't 'like' this" - that's hardly the issue), that upon analysis, there isn't anything particularly enlightening or innovative going on on most of the chart right now. I'm sorry if that's "taking music too seriously". I'm not one of those people who can just settle for an explanation of "I like it. It's catchy" for "why" a song is "good" or "worthwhile", especially when debates like this emerge. I think we can do a little better than that, but if that's not agreeable for both parties, then there's no real point of discussing music together since we judge things on a different basis. And you HAVE obviously accepted Alternative as primarily a post-Nirvana format, using only the birth of the almighty chart in the early 90's as proof of it's "start". The establishment of tracked airplay may indeed be the official commencement of commercial alternative radio, but the fact is, the roots (and original purpose) of the format have much more in common with 80's college radio (aka "anything goes") than post-grunge or any particular style of music. In that case, my "utopian" theories would not seem so extreme or unwarranted at all, as it completely complies with the ideological origins of the format.
As you say, so-called grunge-inspired acts have always been played on the format (because it was still a 'new' sound that bands like the Pumpkins' made dynamic very early on), but they never were intended to dominate it. Unfortunately, the success of Bush and, later, Creed, proved too irresistable for the format to let go of. And so here we are with the same exact formula 12 years later. So, I guess if you consider "alternative" a "sound" that can be defined by a textbook description, then I suppose any band inspired by grunge or post-grunge is "alternative", in your eyes. But realize that you are just buying into the definition of alternative that the media retroactively created for convenience, not what it was originally supposed to signify. Listen to Sonic Youth or Pere Ubu if you want to hear "true" alternative music (which simply is music that cannot be classified - it is NOT a certain style or set of styles). Radio created that illusion.

What it comes down to is this:
You are a fan of the post-Nirvana Alternative format.
I am a fan of what it was originally supposed to be (ideas that sometimes were honored at various points in history, but were proven to be lost on the programmers over time once they established a certain concept of what sounds should be associated with the format - that obviously took a few years.)

[jdmasta289]

I've always been under the impression that the format began in 1988. I've never stated the format began with or after Nirvana. That's not true at all. And grunge never even dominated until '94. I just like the fact that more artists can be accepted now.

Shove me into a category if you wish, but I'm afraid you are simply wrong by stating that I'm some corporate whore. I believe in a variety, and a variety would include everything from Bright Eyes to Godsmack.

[oscillations.]

There was never an official start. It was a gradual process.

[jdmasta289]

Well, actually charts started to be compiled in '88. You can visit DuckHead's site for more info (popradiotop20.com)

[pen]

I had to listen to a Pere Ubu song for a punk history class I took a while back. To tell the truth, I thought it was kind of boring.

[oscillations.]

Well, if that's all you can say about a song, why bother?

and jdmasta, you are right about the charts. I forgot & didn't bother to look up the year the charts started, but if that's what you're going by, then 1988 would be the "official start". Since I don't subscribe to that theory, I would say it was a gradual thing that took off throughout the 80's (in terms of radio play). But "alternative" bands have been around since the beginning of rock & roll. The term first began to be used in the 70's, though.

[joker]

FWIW, the first official Billboard rap chart came out in 1989.

Rap was around long before that.

[jdmasta289]

Good points.

I'm done with this argument. I'm literally worn out.

[oscillations.]

Truce then.

I don't want to fight with you. You're a pretty cool guy.
Debate is healthy, but I'm glad this is over.
:)

[jdmasta289]

cherrycrush said:

Truce then.

I don't want to fight with you. You're a pretty cool guy.
Debate is healthy, but I'm glad this is over.
:)

Me, too. And thank you. You're a pretty cool girl, yourself. (I feel like we're stuck in an episode of Full House Long live Uncle Jesse!)

[Crushcrushchris]

jdmasta289 said:

Me, too. And thank you. You're a pretty cool girl, yourself. (I feel like we're stuck in an episode of Full House Long live Uncle Jesse!)

Awwwwwww...*plays Forever again*