Talk:Alternative rock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Alternative "music"?

recontextualize? WTF does that mean?

In my experience, this style of music is generally referred to as "Alternative rock". See What links here. I plan to move the page unless objections are raised.

Acegikmo1 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about anywhere else, but in Britain it's definitely "Alternative music". --Steinsky 13:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's interesting. Is any distinction made between "alternative rock" and "indie music" in Britain? The most common term in the United States is "alternative rock" (2,070,000 Google hits). I have heard "alternative music" (376,000 Google hits) used here, but it's definately less common. Acegikmo1 13:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my experience Alternative Music and Alternative Rock are different things. Not come across Alternative rock a lot but I always take it to mean Indie (I'mf rom UK) and Alternative Music to refer to a wide variety of genres (see my post lower down the page)

There are alternatives bands that don't play mainly in the rock genre IMO. --MacRusgail 14:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just call it "alternative".67.188.172.165 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Linkin Park?

Should Linkin Park really be mentioned in this article? I'd hardly consider them representative of alternative. Modern mainstream music does not really reflect the original styles or ethics of alternative rock. Much of what still gets mislabeled "alternative" seems to be mere shallow imitations of the true form, and I'd say Linkin Park is amongst these bands. Modern mainstream rock may have some influences from alternative, but it is definitely not alternative itself. -- LGagnon 17:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Changed Last para to reflect how Linkin Park is a descendent of grunge. MPS21:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Probably, the dumbass which classified Linkin Park as "alternative rock" dislikes hip hop and has forgotten that LP features a rapper - i.e. Mike Shinoda - in its line-up. Only hip hop detractors (or Shinoda detractors, perhaps?) call LP "alternative rock".

Well perhaps then you could help us decide what genre LP should be put in. If you actually listen to their new songs (MTM) you will see just how alternative (though mainstream) they really are

Pixies?

I think Pixies should be mentioned as a significant 80's alternative rock band, not least because they form a 'missing link' here, having been influenced by Husker Du, and being the main influence on Nirvana.

(And that's a statement of fact, not opinion. These influences were acknowledged by the bands themselves. Of course, in my opinion they hold their own very well against these other bands.)

-130.242.128.121

I agree. Do you want to make some changes to the article regarding the Pixies?

Acegikmo1 18:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I edited this entry to mention Pixies, and some idiot changed it back. Like them or not, Pixies had a huge influence on alternative rock and should not be overlooked.

The problem with your edit is that you failed to comprehend the sentence. the sentence says, "Notable alternative bands of the early and mid-1980s include R.E.M., Sonic Youth, The Replacements, and Hüsker Dü from the United States, and New Order, The Smiths, The Cure, and The Jesus and Mary Chain from the United Kingdom." The Pixies relased their first album in 1987. dditionally, if we change the sentence to say in the entire decade instead of early on and only listing integral bands to the development of alternative rock, then we have list a lot more bands. What makes the Pixies more important than Dinosaur Jr, Throwing Muses, the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, and a great many more bands that emerged in the late 80's? It's unnecessary for that sentence. if you want the Pixies mentioned (and I think they should, but the way), write about them in a separte sentence. WesleyDodds 01:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"What makes the Pixies more important than Dinosaur Jr, Throwing Muses, the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, and a great many more bands that emerged in the late 80's?" Well to start, there's their overwhelming influence: Nirvana, Radiohead, and Smashing Pumpkins were three of the biggest-selling alternative acts ever, and all were inspired by the Pixies. For more info about their "importance," check out http://aleceiffel.free.fr/misc_said.html

Alternative Rock stemming from Jazz vs. Regular Rock from Blues?

Regular Rock and Roll with the BASIC 4-4 time signature came from Blues music perfected in Chicago as well as country music. The reason Alternative Rock seems to be called Alternative is from its subtleness taken from Jazz time signature styles, primarily. Jazz was invented in New Orleans, Louisiana.

When you listen to bands like Phish verses The Grateful Dead the similarities are very similar but with one major difference. Phish seems like an alternative band compared to GD being a straight rock style. Phish’s emphasis seems geared more toward Jazzy “off-beat-type” riffs.

This makes Alternative Rock feel less “booming, solid or definitive” as compared to Regular 4-4 Rock. But Alternative music seems sexier and more descriptive because of less emphasis on time signature and more on substance and fluidity.

I'm not so sure Phish counts as alternative rock. Maybe if you gave a better example I might agree. -- LGagnon 22:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I also think your recent additions are questionable. You did not wait for discussion to be made first before adding jazz and funk to the influences. In my opinion, they should not be added there. I also do not think Art rock should be considered a derivative form, since it has been around longer. -- LGagnon 22:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

alternative rock stems from punk, man. any similarities between most alternative bands and jazz is more coincidental than you think, or it is intentional experimenatation within the genre. 67.172.61.222 21:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of early punk bands had definite jazz influences, including Crass, The Damned, John Lydon, The Clash, The Slits and others. A lot of jazz found its way into alternative rock that way. --Switch 10:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

US centred article

Perhaps understandably so, this article is incredibly US-centred. For instance, writing that alternative music was only played on this or that college station entirely ignores that while it might have been marginal in the US, it was not at all so in the UK and other places, such as Australia, or Germany, where neue Deutsche Welle ruled the charts in the early to mid 80s. I had to stop rewriting it when I got to the part that suggested that alternative bands did not have spectacular sales. This is complete nonsense. It might be true of the US, but it certainly isn't of other countries. The UK used to have "indie" charts that ran alongside the regular ones, and it wasn't uncommon for records to top both. Dr Zen 08:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, this is definitly a "The US slept during the 80's" article. It looks like someone who grew up with MTVs "Alternative Nation" wrote it. -- 212.80.224.243

The article doesn't seem entirely US-centric; there's some info on the UK and other countries. And, might I add, some of us editors are American and can't really tell you what happened on the other side of the pond that well. Thus, those who are from other countries should add in what needs to be added that they know. If you know what needs to be added, then by all means add it in. -- LGagnon 18:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you think this is bad, see the Generation X page. Indie was massive in the UK in the turn of the 90s, e.g. Happy Mondays, Stone Roses, and Britpop was really just a commercialised breakthrough for many (former?) alternative bands that had been going for years before on the Indie scene. Britpop itself sold millions of records, although it's unclear whether all the bands were really that alternative. --MacRusgail 14:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Major vandalism on this page.

Really, the entire page is vandalism of 1980s subculture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.88.245 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Favor vs favour

Apperantly someone didn't get the point of having the British spelling used for the part about British English and the American spelling in the part about American English. It's too bad; the sentence was one of the more interesting ones I've written on Wikipedia. -- LGagnon 22:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC) change it back, then. it's perfectly acceptable. 67.172.61.222 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Other bands

The article mostly focuses on Nirvana in the mid 90s...but that really isn't all that true. Back in the early 90s, Nirvana was considered "grunge" and while Nirvana DID help punk bands come into the mainstream, by the mid 90s the word "alternative" was no longer associated with solely Nirvana. In fact, from what I remember from 1994-1995 period, when someone mentioned alternative music, pop-punkish bands like Greenday and Offspring would come to mind. Flyerhell 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The article does acknowledge that. And there's only a paragraph or so about the 90's so it's not a disproportionate about of text given to Nirvana (who were very important in the history of alternative rock). WesleyDodds 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

List of alternative/indie music genres

I propose spliting off the current list of alternative rock genres into an article titled "List of alternative/indie music genres". The reason for this is I plan to add more genres to the list than space might allow for future additions to the body of the article, and to list indie genres (that is, genre called "indie" after alternative went mainstream), which currently do not have a definitive listing on Wikipedia. Alternative and indie are used interchangeably enough (especially in regards to genres like Shoegazing, noise pop, post-rock, and others) that I feel such an article title would be the most appropriate heading. I'm using AMG's genre Alternative/Indie rock database as an example of what this list would contain, although due to the nature of Wikipedia we could list far more in number and those in general obscurity.

The list would include genres like grunge, Britpop, shoegazing, indie rock, twee pop, psychobilly, industrial rock, C86, grebo, space rock, post-rock, post-punk revival, gothic rock, Paisley Underground, noise pop, noise rock, jangle pop, dream pop, geek rock, alternative metal, Madchester, Christian alternative music, lo-fi, sadcore, slowcore, math-rock, and more. We could leave a short sentence on this page listing at least a few of the more notable genres (such as grunge, Britpop, and gothic rock) along with the link to the list page.

Any thoughts either way about this? WesleyDodds 09:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure there's enough to warrant another article? We could just split it into columns the way the list at Cult television is split. I don't think that would take up too much space. -- LGagnon 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That might a good way to do it. But we should also account for future expansion of the main article itself. Right now a lot more can be added about the history of and opinions on alternative rock. Also, those were just the styles I could think of off the top of my head. There's certainly smaller scenes that could be listed, and a page solely devoted to genres might help highlight them. Lastly, there are people who would probably be searching for "Indie genres" instead of "Alternative genres" (especially in the UK) so an article title that references both might help out. WesleyDodds 11:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We can always fork the article when it needs to be forked, not when it doesn't. Until the article is big enough to need it, I think it's best to keep the info here. And as for indie genres, why not put that list on the indie rock article? -- LGagnon 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily talking about Indie rock, but Indie music. Many people use the the phrase "indie" when referring to alternative music. WesleyDodds 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Still, that does not mean we have to have both lists in the same place. -- LGagnon 02:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does, for reference purposes, since "indie" and "alternative" are sometimes used interchangebly as umbrella terms for the genre. Anyways, I think your proposal for the list would work for now. If I list as many genres as I can, can you arrange them into the column-style list format? WesleyDodds 06:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting of Article

I propose the splitting of this article into Alternative Rock and ALternative Music as in my experience these mean too different things although I have not enoucntered the term or style of Alternative ROck that often.

Alternative Rock Article: To describe a specific style in line with other such musical genres as Punk and Heavy metal

Alternative Music: Now im sure they'll be some disagreement about this BUT in my experience Alternative Music is used as an umbrella term to cover a variety of musical genres including Punk, Indie, Emo, Metal, Gothic Rock and youth scenes including Goth, Emo, Grunger, Punk, Metalhead etc. The followers of these scenes often have overlapping musical tastes, attitudes and friendship groups (i.e metalheads hang with Grungers without problems when many metalheads would not hang with a chav simply becuase they are a chav) The Article does not properly reflect this use of the term and is geared more towards Alternative Rock as a Musical Style and its history.

Metal is not alternative. You seem to be concerned with pushing a POV that you haven't given any proof for. Do you have any sources that prove your point? -- LGagnon 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a common misperception. "Alternative" is meant to refer not merely to an outsider mentality, although that's how it got it's name. Rather, it refers to post-punk music genres developed in the indie scenes of various regions that exised outside of the mainstream for the most part until the 90's (which is why bands like Oasis are called alternative, because they emerged from the Manchester indie scene). This excludes both metal and non-alternative forms of punk (emo and pop-punk are occasionally lumped in with alternative). Terms like Alternative metal, Alternative hip-hop, and Alternative country exist, but these are largely devised in relation to their overall genre, and do not necessarily have any connection to alternative rock (although Alternative metal at times is' alternative rock, as are a scant few alt. country bands like Wilco). "Alternative" does have a lot of connotations in popular culture, but here it refers to this particular phenomenon. WesleyDodds 04:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Pop rock

I redirected alternative Pop rock to this page since that isn't a common term. Here's the text from that page. Tuf-Kat 06:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That text is exactly the description for Alternative rock on AMG, copied and pasted. It's a good thing you noticed that and redirected the link. WesleyDodds 06:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping copyright violations off Wikipedia, I've deleted that info. -- LGagnon 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative on radio

There's a line in the Overview I've long wondered about:

In the late 1970s and early 1980s only CFNY, a commercial radio station in Toronto, Ontario, regularly broadcasted alternative rock in North America.

There's a number of things murky about this. First of all, alternative rock didn't really come into its own until the mid-80's or so. Certainly no one called bands later identified as alternative that in the late 70's. Additionally, many modern radio station that play alternative rock and call themselves alternative stations these days certainly didn't play alternative rock until the very end of the 80's at the earliest. KROQ, for one, primarily played punk, New Wave, and other modern rock pretty much until 1990; they certainly didn't play alt-rock as much as college radio did. There's a reason it was called college rock. Also, looking back at the history this line was added by an unregistered user who only made edits in the alternative and punk rock pages having to do with Canada. I mean, it's great that there's an effort to add a more global perspective to the subject, but this just doesn't seem accurate.

What is the connotation here for "alternative"? Is it just that CFNY played a lot of left-of-center music? That doesn't mean it played "alternative" in the genre sense. From the looks of it, it was simply a freeform station that ended up focusing on alt-rock later in its history, much like KROQ. Unless someone can confirm that CFNY was playing early alternative rock artists on a regular basis in the early 80's, I feel we should take this line out. WesleyDodds 10:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's unreferenced and extremely sketchy; feel free to remove it. If someone has any complaints, let them show some research to back it up before it gets added back in. -- LGagnon 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The majority of music played by WLIR on Long Island in the early to middle '80 consisted of New Wave, Novelty hits and Techno Pop. However REM ,New Order The Cure and later The Alarm and The Smiths were in very heavy rotation. Husker Du and The Replacements were in light rotation by the mid 80's. One thing I have never understood is why here and elsewhere The Cure and New Order are considered alternative rock. They are synthesizer based not guitar based. The Cure musically were and are New Wave lyrically and visually proto Goth. New Order were techno innovators. The only reason for these two bands to be included are if you consider any post Velvet Underground genre alternative. If you make that case then KROQ and the Toronto station must be included. 4:00, 9, March 2006 (EK)

The Cure is considered alternative rock because they are a gothic rock band, which is pretty straightforward criteria. They also have a fairly eclectic sound. They can be considered New Wave for only brief periods: their first album and the post-Pornography phase {"Let's Go to Be", "The Walk", "The Lovecats"). New Order are alternative because, even though they were a dance band, they approached dance music coming from a punk/post-punk/indie perspective, while still emphasizing their rock side on certain tracks. They were also probably the most high-profile and successful indie band in Britain in the 80s, being the flagship band for Factory Records. WesleyDodds 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is not to say that just because a radio station plays The Cure or New Order means they play "alternative rock". "Blue Monday" is the best-selling 12" single of all time, after all, and like you satid New Order is commonly considered a dance band by those who know litle about the band itself (which is common since they rarely gave interviews in the 80s). Both bands in the mid-to-late 80s fit comfortably on New Wave/modern rock radio playlists like KROQ while still receiving heavy rotation on college radio. If anything they were the more mainstream examples of early alternative rock at a time when it was almost exclusively uderground. WesleyDodds 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

I would say for the purposes of maybe putting WLIR into the article that it would be incorrect to say that WLIR during the time period we are discussing had an Alternative format but it would be correct to say the station played Alternative Music 3:00, 10 March 2006 (EK)

I found a book in my archives call "Rock Yearbook 1985" which provided an in depth review of 1984. There was an article called "The Declaration of the Independents" by David Fricke which analyzed the emerging underground American guitar rock scene. Here are some quotes relevant to this discussion "Consider the dee-jay on Los Angeles pionerring KROQ-FM last year took a break from the stations usuall diet of English synth-pop and cheap novelty records (howsabout a band called Killer Pussy?) to play taste of The Dream Synicate's Halloween from The Days of Wine and Roses. After only 30 seconds , he bruskly yanked the needle off the record and announced with misguided pride 'I like to give local bands a chance, but this is rediculous. You won't be hearing any more of that band on this station' ". "MTV relegates alternative rock videos like REM's dreamlike Radio Free Europe to the 4am graveyard shift". And from The Year in Music - Rock article by Adam Sweeting "the drab New Order" "These faceless artisons managed to lodge the impenatrably forgettable Blue Monday into the UK charts for months end" "New Order remain one of the great unsolved crimes". Notable from above. 1. You were correct about KROQ 2. The term "Alternative" was in use by 1984 3. The New Order quotes shows how much history really does change prespective 3:45, 10 March 2006 (EK)

Christian alternative rock

I merged Christan alternative rock here. There was very little "real" information in the parent article. Given the similar amount of content in many of the alternative rock articles, I suggest perhaps a list of alternative music genres with included stubs? --MikeJ9919 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the merge since placing that here emphasized one genre over all others, particularly one only tangentally involved with alternative rock as a whole, and it looked cumbersome. Plans are underway to expand this article, but I don't think genre stubs would be effective. Just look at List of heavy metal genres. WesleyDodds 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Dance

Anyone familar with this genre? New Order was the first Alternative Dance act. 72.130.198.232 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've only seen that term used on Allmusic as a broad label to describe bands like New Order and later Public Image Ltd. as well as covering more dance-oriented alt-rock genres like Madchester/baggy and grebo. WesleyDodds 10:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Audio samples

I'm not too familiar with how audio samples work or are uploaded on Wikipedia, but I think we should have some for this page. We should post samples of bands highly identified with alternative while still showing how diverse it is. There's a few already on certain band pages that would work fine as examples, but some others would need to be upload. Can someone take care of this?

I think for starters we should have one sample each from Nirvana, R.E.M., Sonic Youth, Husker Du, The Cure, The Smiths, and Smashing Pumpkins. Then from that point we can figure out what other artists should be represented. WesleyDodds 01:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If I had more free time, I'd make those samples myself. In the meantime, I suggest downloading Audacity and creating some yourself as per the guidelines (it's not hard to do even for a beginner). And I've got a few song recommendations in case you need some:

"Something I Learned Today" by Husker Du

"Teenage Riot" by Sonic Youth

"How Soon Is Now?" by The Smiths

"Today" by The Smashing Pumpkins

Those are all pretty obvious choices, but still they are pretty iconic songs of each band and serve as good examples. -- LGagnon 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much free time either (or tech-savvy) so hopefully when I start up the Alternative Wikiproject in the next day or so someone can sign up for it. Your choices are great, but I'd trade "How Soon Is Now?" for "What Difference Does it Make?" or "This Charming Man" (which is already on the Smiths article page) since even fans and critics agree that "How Soon is Now?" is in no way representative of the band's style. I also think a Husker Du song from New Day Rising and onwards might work better, since "Something I Learned Today" still is very much a hardcore track.

Other suggestions:

R.E.M. "So. Central Rain"

The Cure - "One Hundred Years", "Just like Heaven" or "In Between Days"

The Jesus & Mary Chain - "You Trip Me Up"

The Replacements - "Bastards of Young"

Jane's Addiction - "The Mountain Song"

The Stone Roses - "Elephant Stone"

Dinosaur Jr - "Freak Scene"

Pixies - "Debaser"

My Bloody Valentine - "Only Shallow"

Pearl Jam - "Not For You"

Soundgarden - "Black Hole Sun"

Oasis - "Supersonic"

Pavement - "Cut Your Hair"

Radiohead - "Karma Police"

Franz Ferdinand - "Take Me Out"

Obviously not all of these would be up, but they're just things to think about and discuss. WesleyDodds 04:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, "How Soon Is Now?" is representative of The Smiths style, but it is one of those alt songs that stands out as an icon of the genre. And I chose "Something I Learned Today" as it shows the movement from hardcore to alt (as the song is, IMO, halfway between the two genres).

I like your choices for The Replacements, Pixies, and Dinosaur Jr. All 3 bands should be included as they are amongst the most important 80s alt bands. The others seem like good choices too, though I'm not sure all of them need to be added. What we need mainly is samples of the most important bands and bands that represent a variety of different subgenres.

I think what you should work on for now is giving finding a justification for each band that you want to add. If they you can't find a reason for them to be considered important or representative of a subgenre, then you can throw them to the side for now. This at least seems like a good place to start with determining what we should and shouldn't include. -- LGagnon 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For Husker Du, I was thinking "Celebrated Summer" would be a way more effective song for the same point, because it alternates between fast intense verses and quiet acoustic breaks, making explicit the contrast and symbolically tearing down hardcore and helping give birth to alternative in the process. It's also quite acclaimed.

Searching through the fair use samples already on Wikipedia, I managed to find the Replacements' "Unsatisfied" and R.E.M.'s "Radio Free Europe". I already posted "Unsatisfied" on the Let It Be page, but "Radio Free Europe" has a fair use notice that is only written to apply for the Music from Athens, Georgia page where it is currently being used. So I'm wondering about that one.

I was thinking of picking a band each from major subgenres, but that won't necessarily work since a band might not have great influence or importance on alt-rock as a whole outside of its genre. I was thinking about that when trying to think of a Britpop song to list (which is why I settled on "Supersonic" because it has loud "indie" guitars). That's why it's better to choose The Cure over Bauhaus or The Sisters of Mercy. Luckily some bands have a huge influence on a number of subgenres, like the Smiths, Sonic Youth, the Jesus and Mary Chain, and R.E.M., or are hugely important to the development of alternative as a whole, such as Husker Du, the Replacements, and Nirvana, or are very visible and successful examples of alternative rock that cannot be associated with any one particular subgenre, like Smashing Pumpkins and Radiohead WesleyDodds 23:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative" that's not alternative

During the early 1990s, several black artists were labeled "alternative" just because they played music that most black people didn't play at that time. Living Colour was heavy metal & blues mixed, but got labelled alternative. Tracy Chapman played folk but was called alt. These are just two examples of the odd categorization that black musicians were put into if they didn't play pop, r&b, or rap. None of those mislabelled based their music in punk, which was the defining characteristic of alternative. Still, the mainstream music industry still gave them this label to cash in on alt's popularity.

Additionally, I'd like to mention that I'm removing Alternative hip-hop from the genre list. It's not punk-based, and thus is only connected to this music form by its name. I'll move it to the See also section, though, since the name at least gives a reason to footnote it. -- LGagnon 02:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The alternative hip-hop label occurs mainly because it was an "alternative" to mainstream hip-hop (read: gangster rap) at the time; I don't think it was necessarily meant to refer to alternative rock. Unlike alternative metal and alternative dance, which have "alternative" in the name because they meld alternative rock proper with other genres. It might be wise to put a short sentence in the alt hip-hop page about the context of the name. We probably don't need to link it here.

On a related note, I've long wondered if we should add alternative country to the list, since the "alt. country" movement has revolved around such undisputedly alternative/indie bands like Uncle Tupelo and its spinoff groups Wilco and Son Volt. On the other hand, the lists of artists on the page is so broad that it pretty much included any country artists off the beaten path like Merle Haggard WesleyDodds 08:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The re-write

The re-write that has been done twice now by Onurkaryagmaz is in fact a copyvio from bandbiographies. I've given him a waning about using copyvio text. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

While that rewrite is certainly bad, I have been thinking of reworking the article for a long time. Primarily, I mean creating a detailed history of alternative rock split along national lines, so there's a section on American alternative rock and British alternative, followed by the rest of the world. This is precipitated by my noticing that while the overview starts with an all-encompassing view it becomes US-centric by the time it talks about Nirvana's breakthrough. Plus it's couldn't hurt to try and gived a detailed history of alt-rock, which really doesn't exist anywhere. What do you all think? WesleyDodds 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. Just try not to turn the article into the confused mess that other rewrite made and it should work out. -- LGagnon 12:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've commenced with the revamp. Obviously I still have more work to do; this is just to get the bulk of it on the page at the moment. WesleyDodds 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about the revert you did to re-add the first reference and the prosaic bit about owing a debt of gratitude to punk rock... Both of them smell of original research, or failing that, should be cited. Xinit 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Alt-rock emerged from the indie scene set up by punk rock as well as its ideals. I've added a reference now, but this sentiment is echoed by a number of books and essays beyodn that citation. WesleyDodds 10:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Please don't just add references and expect the reader to know what they are references for. Add citations so we know what they are backing up. -- LGagnon 03:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that I would be working on this gradually. So citations will show up, but most likely not all at once. Most of the info can be found in those essays I linked as resources if you wish to verify what I've added. I'll pull in as many other sources as I can, but I'm rather busy at the moment. But rest assured I'm not making this all up, and hopefully the in next month or so the page should be drastically revamped and expanded. WesleyDodds 10:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you aren't making it up, but it would be best that you don't add a reference before you decide what to cite with it. Feel free to add anything else that helps back up your claims (or anyone else's), as you can never have too many references (unless you're being redundant, of course). On a related note, please give page numbers when you cite books (the Azerrad citations currently lack them). Thanks and keep up the good work. -- LGagnon 23:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary sources?

Do we have any sources from the 80s that veirfy that the term has been used back then? In my memory the term was only widely used after the Nirvana revolution increased interest in formerly independent acts enough so that lots of them signed up with major label and got listed on mail order clubs like BMG or Columbiahouse. Of course they couldn't use "indie" since it implied independent label, so the used alternative as a replacement. ~ trialsanderrors 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you scroll up on the Talk Page, you'll see a reference from 1984. "Alternative" is certainly in use by 1989 when New Order, PiL, and the Sugarcubes go out on the "Monsters of Alternative Rock" tour. By 90-91 it's pretty common (relatively speaking). For example, the Guitar World article on the first Lollapalooza from Summer 1991 uses the phrase "alternative rock".

Also, keep in mind a lot of the major alt-rock bands of the late-80s/early 90's were already signed to major labels when Nirvana broke through. WesleyDodds 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This should probably be included in the article to verify the 80's usage claim. ~ trialsanderrors 18:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alt Rock vs New Wave

What's the precise difference? It strikes me that a lot of bands who would nowadays be "alternative", e.g. Television were called punk at the time, and would have been known as New Wave in the late 70s, early 80s, and alternative in the late 80s to present. --MacRusgail 14:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all punk, really, but these are specific terms for certain versions of it. Still, we probably should make a distinction between new wave and alt. -- LGagnon 15:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How hard it is to define New Wave and how that definition has changed over the years is dealt with in the New Wave article and discussion page. As I mentioned in the New Wave discussion page I have a broad view of what is New Wave. That said from what I see A Flock of Seagulls would be considered the prototypical New Wave band from a 2006 perspective. Differences would be Alternative would more rock to New Wave’s pop. Alternative would be more guitar driven (how would Industrial fit into this?). New Wave fashion and hair styles would be more colorful. Again not that I really agree with this but this seems the most common view. 02:32, 12 June 2006 (EK)

In general "New Wave and "alternative" refer to two very different things. New Wave is post punk (in the broad sense) music that emerged right after punk rock (around '78 or so) that often was very successful. Alternative rock came a bit later, mainly out of post-punk (the genre) and hardcore, and was mainly underground. Some bands are considered both New Wave and alternative, but not a lot really. Off the top of my head I can think of The Cure, New Order, XTC, and maybe a few others. They really have no direct evolutional connection like alternative has with hardcore and post-punk, where the bands start off in those styles and then become alternative. I suppose the main difference between the genres is that in the 80s New Wave was played on commercial stations like KROQ but you could only find alternative on college radio. That, and alternative by and large revolves around the guitar. Simon Reynolds in his recent book on post-punk writes in the afterword about how post-punk and New Wave were relatively futurist (particularly in the use of synths) while the alternative/indie rock that began to emerge in the early 80's was more about rejecting the contemporary music mainstream usually by way of incorporating influence from the past. There's a paragraph where he defines R.E.M. and the Smiths as "the most important alt-rock bands of the day" by how they embraced the guitar and recalled the past through various ways. Once I get that book back from a friend I'm going to work in some references from it, even though the space he devotes directly to alternative rock in the book is less than ten pages.

By the way, Television isn't considered an alternative band. WesleyDodds 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How would The Velvet Underground be considered? 01:49,14 June 2006 (EK)

Most music critics and fans from what I've seen simply call them protopunk. WesleyDodds 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

MTV

The program 120 Minutes , http://www.altmusictv.com/120/index.html, http://www.altmusictv.com/120/archive.html which started airing as early as 1986 (with VJ J.J.Jackson would you believe). was instrumental in breaking most of the bands mentioned in the article. The program Alternative Nation aired on MTV during alternatives early to mid 1990’s heyday. Of note VJ Kennedy became iconic of what a “alterna chick” should look and sound like 69.114.117.103 02:30, 14 July 2006 (EK)

I agree completely with EK. MTV was instrumental in breaking bands such as Inxs, Duran Duran, and of course "Video Killed the Radio Star," Boy George, Thompson Twins, Devo, which can be considered new wave bands, and played them over and over all day long. I think it would be useful to list New Wave and the mainstreaming of New Wave as a major, if not THE precursor to the mainstreaming of Alternative. In this case, MTV plays a vital role.

I'm not so sure MTV played that big of a role that early on. MTV didn't really help alt rock until after Nirvana got big, as they were still backing hair metal as the big thing in rock until then. They may claim otherwise, but they are known to lie (for instance, they'd like you to forget the racist policies they implimented in the pre-"Thriller" days, and that they didn't get rid of them until Jackson's label complained). Please don't insert MTV's historic revisionism into the article. -- LGagnon 15:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not forget MTV racist past but it is irrelevant to the question of what role MTV had or did not have in “breaking” alternative rock. But like them or not MTV was responsible for video being a major force in breaking new acts in the 80’s (which video is not today also in part due to MTV). You can argue correctly that college radio had these acts “first” and that 120 minutes had a very limited audience due to it’s being relegated to the “cult” timeslot of Midnight to 2AM Sunday Night/Monday morning. But college radio also had a limited audience and 120 minutes played bands shortly after college radio discovered them. Some people listened to college radio and had 120 minutes reinforce their interest in certain bands. Others first saw these bands on 120 minutes. We can debate how big a role MTV had but I do it think it had enough of a role in the early days to a least get a mention in the article. As for after Nirvana VJ Kennedy was almost as big a cultural figure for a few years as Nirvana and Pearl Jam (who musical style I think is more 70’s hard rock then alternative or grunge). She probably does not belong here but in the alternative culture article. 14:44, 15 July 2006 (EK)

Certainly 120 Minutes is a notable component in the history of alternative rock, but I really don't think it had much to do with "breaking" alternative into the mainstream. Certainly it was one of the only venues you could catch a lot of this music outside of college radio. But then again, it waws pretty much a late-night ghetto, kind of like a low-key "Headbanger's Ball". Alternative artists were expected to be played on 120 Minutes. From what I recall, Come As You Are mentions that while the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video had a world premire on 120 Minutes, the real breakthrough was when the video started showing up in MTV's regular rotation. When alternative hit it big, then 120 Minutes was in the perfect position to capitalize on it. If it is added to the article, it warrants just a brief mention. WesleyDodds 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with the brief mention and will put it in the "Overview" section. I think we have had in this debate a miscommunication on what I meant by "breaking" alternative acts. I meant by that term being among the first to expose alternative acts. I did not mean “breakthrough” or the sudden explosion of alternative starting in the fall of 1991. Theories as to why the Nirvana phenomenon happened probably deserves a section of its own 01:45, 18 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

self contradiction

"However, in 2004 the sound of alternative rock returned to the mainstream with the popularity of indie rock and post-punk revival artists such as Modest Mouse and Franz Ferdinand, respectively. This revival has caused a big stir in the rock music community and has opened the door for the renewed interest in classic alternative bands."

hasn't "alternative rock" (yes, i know it's not remotely alternative anymore, but stylistically) been mainstream since about 1993? what makes the rock bands of circa 2002 any more or less "alternative" than modest mouse et. al.? even the intro mentions that much mainstream music of the past decade has been labelled "alternative". i take it this may be referring to the post-punk revival, but that in itself isn't much of a change in the direction of current music, either. 67.172.61.222 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good question...one that's been debated since 1993 at least. My personal opinion is that there are two alternative rock camps. One called "modern rock" and the other "indie". That doesn't solve anything unfortunately. And it gets more confusing now that people are calling stuff like The Killers and Elefant "indie". maxcap 22:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative rock certainly lost much of its commercial clout in the late 90s, with even major established acts like Pearl Jam, Hole, and Smashign Pumpkins having disappointing sales. It was supplanted by nu metal and pop punk in mainstream prominence at the time. There were a number of articles saying alternative was dead or rock was dead at the time; MTV and Guitar World even eliminated their categories for alternative rock in awards ceremonies around 1999. Still, that paragraph could probably use a rewrite. Someone added it a while ago and I pretty much left it alone since it covered a period that hadn't been addressed before. But certainly people have been talking about a revival of alternative rock in the last few years, from that SPIN magazine article I referenced to the emergence of "Classic alternative" radio formats. WesleyDodds 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Has returned to the mainstream". In the years 1997 thru 2002 alternative music did not go through a radical overhaul in style and continued to chart thus presenting an argument against that statement. But those years will be remembered as the Boyband, Britney Spears era and the last four years will be remembered for the post punk, new new wave revival or whatever you want to call it which is an argument for that statement. 15:28, 16 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

GA nomination

I am placing this article's GA nomination on hold for seven days, because while it has no problems that I consider showstoppers, it needs some fixing. Specifically:

• The article needs a thorough copyedit for proper grammar.
• The lead paragraph tells us that "alternative rock" is made up of bands, but later says it is a genre, made up of other genres. I don't think it adequately defines the term or introduces the concept of sub-genres within a large genre.
• Consider renaming "Overview" to "History".
• There are sections for alternative rock in the US and the UK. It didn't exist anywhere else? Even if there is nothing significant to cover, at least include a paragraph concerning alt rock's effects in other countires.

Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Conveniently I was planning to address a lot of those points anyway in the coming days. However, if someone can give the article a good copyediting (I can generally do that decently, except when it's something I have written myself) that would help immensely. WesleyDodds 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you have done a good job addressing my points, and I have passed the article. Keep up the great work! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound samples scattered

The way that the sound samples are scattered throughout the article seems to be a bad stylistic choice. It makes editing the article a bit more confusing for newcomers, and pushes around the text in ways that are asthetically unpleasing to the eye. It'd probably be best if we just put all of them in their own section. -- LGagnon 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did it in an attempt to group the samples to relevant sections. However, I must admit I did this on a widescreen laptop, so I was not aware of how it looked on a normal screen. WesleyDodds 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the concept is understandable, but I think it could have been better implemented. For one, the US song box should have been at the top of the section, and not touching the rest of the text. Also, I personally don't like having anything left-aligned in articles; it seems more natural for the text to be on the left side of a box (as English is read left to right). The UK box is a similar situation. It also wouldn't hurt to add the other 3 samples to those two boxes, as being separated looks odd and gives no explaination for why it is that way. -- LGagnon 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole touching the text part is another result of performing the edit while on this computer; I looked at the page on another computer today and saw your edit looked fine. So yeah, my bad. As for the separate sound clips, I tried to arrange the clips in each section in order to provide context, so for example the British alt-rock clips roughly correspond to each paragraph (goth, Smiths-inspired indie rock, shoegaze, Britpop, and 2000s indie rock). While I tried to give equal weight to each facet of alternative rock and its history, I think we can all pretty much agree most notable alt-rock came out in the late 80s and 1990s. So rather than shove clips by Sonic Youth and Smashing Pumpkins into the sections (bands that are quite notable in alternative rock as a whole but in a sense redundant if the clips were placed alongside the Pixies and Nirvana ones), I just placed them at the bottom as a sort of "additional listening". I was also thinking about replacing the Cure clip with Bauhaus' "Bela Lugosi's Dead" (the song no one argues isn't a goth song) and putting a later Cure song like "In Between Days" or "Just Like Heaven" in the section at the bottom, since that's when they became really popular (trivia: 120 Minutes voted the "Just Like Heaven" video the greatest alternative video ever). A New Order clip was another consideration; there were a few dancey strains of alternative in the 80s that should probably be represented and while New Order is a major band from that period (best-selling 12" single of all time, even if it is technically a techno song), they were largely separate from the major trends. It's kind of annoying how idiosyncratic some alternative bands can be, and how they sometimes don't fit into clean-cut categories like grunge or shoegaze or indie pop, which I guess is part of the purpose of the section at the bottom. WesleyDodds 06:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins, omissions?

Surely new wave is a foundational genre of alternative rock? Bands missing: The Jam, Television, Talking Heads, Lou Reed, the Buzzcocks

None of those are alternative bands. In the case of Lou Reed, the start of his career preceeds the genre by nearly 20 years. WesleyDodds 11:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

New wave is not alternative. New wave was a variant of punk, which had been considered punk itself up until that sector of punk went mainstream. It wouldn't work to call it alt, given that alt really formulated after the glory days of hardcore started to wane. -- LGagnon 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Post Punk might be a more of a correct foundational genre then New Wave 01:20, 24 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Page number missing

Our Band Could Be Your Life is missing the page number(s) for the citation. Please add this in, as that is standard for book citations. -- LGagnon 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What does this Page have against WLIR

Everything about MTV and KROQ mentioned applies to this station. By the 1982-1985 period New Order was in heavy rotation as was the Cure and The Smiths by the end of the period. REM got it's share of airplay. Long Island has three million people living there and the station was listened to in next door New York City because the commercial rock stations there at the time were album oriented rock 01:39, 24 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Nothing against the station. Just that in the process of reorganizing the section I felt that bit was unnecessary and made the paragraph too long. The paragraph says "Most commercial stations ignored the genre", which implies there was some sort of presence somewhere anyway. WesleyDodds 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

== The article has several inaccuracies and gives the short-shrift where commercial radio is concerned. KROQ, WLIR, and KQAK, alone, defined alternative music for millions of people prior to even 1985. When KITS came on in 1986, it was a ratings monster from the start. WFNX went full-time alternative in 1985. WOXY came into being in 1983; WHFS was playing the Jam as far back as 1979, and there are plenty more.--FemmyV 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

KROQ played mainly synthpop, New Wave, and post-punk through most of the 80s; you can check out their year-end countdowns here on Wikipedia as proof as this. The thing is a lot of things have been labeled alternative, but if you actually trace the roots of a lot of styles and bands a cleaer picture of what is and what isn't of the genre becomes clearer; some of what people might consider alternative rock during the 80s is often skewed towards what got commercial airplay during the day, when the roots of the alt-rock breakthrough in the 90s actually come from bands that were very underground. WesleyDodds 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Alternative Rock dying Out!!!

This maybe hard to ask, it is my favorite genre of music, but isn't Alternative Rock dying out of style. To me Alternative Rock seemed to be at its peak from 1991 to around 2001. It seems to me that Alternative Rock is starting to fade away as Nu Metal, Rap-Pop, and New Wave Music are taking over the Top-40 charts. Shouldn't there be a new genre to categorize the newer Alternative Rock bands, maybe a Post-Alternative Rock genre because the newer bands don't really fit the style of '90s alternative Rock. See Below...

Altenative Rock (1990s Alternative Rock) Examples

• Green Day (before American Idiot)
• Red Hot Chili Peppers
• Smash Mouth
• Barenaked Ladies
• Smashing Pumpkins
• Republica
• Counting Crows
• Third Eye Blind
• Better Than Ezra
• Chumbawamba
• Offspring

Post-Alternative Rock (2000s Alternative Rock) Examples

• All American Rejects
• Ryan Cabrera
• Bowling For Soup
• Evan and Jaron
• Fountains of Wayne
• Franz Ferdinand
• Jet
• Keane
• The Killers
• Pink
• Yellowcard

This post may seem POV to make a Post-Alternative Rock Page, but I as a fan of Alternative Rock of the '90s can tell a distinct difference in the music between Alt-Rock from the '90s and Alt-Rock of the 2000s. (Tigerghost 09:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

If you can find a notable reference to post-alt rock, create the article. Good luck. maxcap 18:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alt-rock may be declining in popularity, but it isn't dying out. There's that sizable subgenre known as indie rock, after all. WesleyDodds 22:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Those bands you listed for 2000's have among other names still been called "alternative". I have not myself read the seen term "post-alternative". But as said above if you find a notable reference go for it. 21:07, 6 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)

OK! I Googled it and a lot of bands claim to be Post-Alternative Rock. However I can't seem to find any solid evidence that it is a real term or if they've just made it up, most are in the indie scene. Some Alt-Rock from the '90s came up such as the band Cake, but I believe they are too early to be in that category. 2002 seems to be the year coined that Post-Alternative hit big with "Swing, Swing" by the All-American Rejects and "Curbside Prophet/The Remedy" by Jason Mraz. But again those two examples are just my opinion...Does anyone know of any major bands claiming to be Post-Alt Rock because that would be enough proof to star an article??? Welker, a band I believe fits the idea of Post-Alt. They even state their Post-Alt(Tigerghost 01:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

I'm not so sure about the term meriting a page. It would have to fit the notability guidelines in Wikipedia, such as appearing frequently in print, being listed on site like Allmusic.com, being described, etc. I myself have never heard the term, or any talk about "post-alternative" music. In addition, many critics are currently talking about a resurgence in alternative rock. If you're talking about popular music being affected by the breakthrough of alternative rock, then you should check out post-grunge. WesleyDodds 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I started a rough draft page for Post Alternative Rock. User:Tigerghost/Post-Alternative Rock. It is in need of sources before it actually becomes a page though. And also it would be nice if this does become an article because it could finally find a home for the punk pop and Rock pop articles. Many don't believe that Punk-pop and Rock-Pop fit the criteria for the Rock or Punk genres, so this might ease the conflict between them. And to the responses of WesleyDodds, I really like Alternative Rock and Post-Alternative Rock. I don't think that Post-Alternative has the same feel as Alt-Rock of the '90s. That is why I think Post-Alt should be a sub-category of Alt-Rock...not a death point for it. But I do agree, I must have solid evidence before creating a page. I have also added indie-rock as a sub-genre. (Tigerghost 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

While the effort you wish to put into this is certainly commendable, this would most likely fail to adhere to Wikipedia:No original research. This sort of idea would be more suited to an editorial or an article in a magazine or website rather than a page on Wikipedia. And that's even before some of the questionable points in your reasoning about "post-alternative rock" are addressed (Ryan Cabrera? Glam metal?????). WesleyDodds 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Post-Alternative Rock echoes Glam Metal. It isn't considered it. An echo is never the same as its source, similar, not the same. The point is that Alt-Rock from this decade is still considered Alt-Rock. Alt-Rock from the '90s sounds very different from Alt-Rock from the '00s. It is too broad is the point i'm getting at. They don't have to call it Post-Alt. All they need is to clarify better between '90s Alt Rock and '00s Alt Rock. 00's Alt Rock needs to a have a more universally excepted name like Grunge was. Rock pop is not the basic idea though because back in the late '90s, Alt-Rock was Rock Pop.(Tigerghost 12:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

The thing is alternative rock by its nature is broad. It's just pretty much with Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins and others during the 90s it got a reputation in the public eye for primarily being music with loud, distorted guitars, ironic lyrics, and tons of angst. Pretty much what defined alt-rock during the 80s (when it was also called College rock and indie) was that it was music that developed as a result of punk rock in the indie scene that was restricted to the underground. Sonic Youth, The Replacements, The Smiths, Kate Bush, Half-Japanese, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Cocteau Twins and hundereds more could sound and did sound completely different from one another and still were alternative rock. And a lot of popular alt-rock right now (Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand, etc.) still has noticable ties to alt-rock before it. WesleyDodds 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancestors ?

Maybe this article could include some more information on the precursors of underground and alternative music. While it did represent a clear break from everything else that was going on in the seventies, alternative music owes a lot to 60s underground music such as The Velvet Underground, the 13th Floor Elevators, Iggy Pop, Love (RIP Arthur Lee, aug. 2006) and Syd Barrett (RIP July 2006). ­74.56.146.147 11:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Bububu

Thought about it, but it would be kind of hard to write about them since they're not all influential over a huge swath of alt-rock (sure Sonic Youth and the Sisters of Mercy pray at the altar of Iggy, but it's certainly not universal) and many are a step removed from being direct influences on the genre (that extra step being punk rock). Unless they influnece particular periods or subgenres (like with the VU mention regarding the Paisley Underground) mentioning these artists can get a bit esoteric. WesleyDodds 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Be Split Back to Alternative Music With Its Own Page

Until Nirvana broke, alternative included everything from cowpunk to psychedelia to (some) dance music. What many are calling "British New Wave" of the mid-1980s - New Order, The Cure, XTC, were - at that time - initially called "New Music," or "Cutting Edge" (after the MTV show hosted by Peter Zaremba). "Alternative" came around 1986 or so, when radio trade publications finally settled on a name for the format. The harder bands that many seem to think define "alternative," were merely one spoke on a huge wheel.

Not all "New Music" (which was basically everything you could find on MTV early on) is what would now be classified as alternative. This article's about a genre, rather than a term. WesleyDodds 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The bands that were making New Music in the early 1980s and were still continuing their careers would be classified as alternative by anyone who was a part of the alternative scene from 1986-1993. --FemmyV 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Several musicians who were not alternative were mislabelled as such. I've addressed this problem in the article so that such mislabelling is pointing out as such to the reader. -- LGagnon 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great addition you made, although maybe it's just me, but I've never heard Hanson referred to as alternative. Maybe Hootie & the blowfish would be a better example . . .? WesleyDodds 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hootie was never accepted as alternative in the first place. Same for Hansen. Bands such as Living Colour (mentioned in the article), Tracy Chapman, Arrested Development, Digable Planets, etc, got lumped under the alternative umbrella because they were adopted by alternative music fans. --FemmyV 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And just for everyone's information, here's what Simon Reynolds' book on post-punk Rip it Up and Start Again says about "New Music":

"Punk and New Wave had fared badly in the United States in large part because of conservative radio programming, too. From the start, MTV focused on what the industry called New Music. Roughly equivalent to New Pop but slightly more expansive, the category also included New Wave artists such as Elvis Costello, the Psychedelic Furs, and the Pretenders."

So that pretty much has nothing to do with alternative rock. WesleyDodds 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in that quote that disproves the connection betwen Mew Music/New Wave and alternative music, of which alternative rock is but one segment.

From the Trouser Press Record Guides, considered the bibles of alternative music.

Second edition (1985) cover: An idiosyncratic review of the most exciting modern music - new wave to no wave, hardcore to hip-hop

From the Preface: By the time the book was first published in 1983, it was necessary to note that "new wave" had already lost most of its significance as a musical description. ... But what could replace it as an umbrella covering all those bands - from rockabilly to computer-driven - who had strolled through the door kicked down by the Clash, the Sex Pistols, Ramones and their contemporaries?

Robbins went on to conclude that no term was around that could apply.

"Fourth edition (1991) cover: The Ultimate Guide to Alternative Music

From the Preface: This book began as an almost successful attempt to review all of the significant albums with a direct connection to new wave music - records that either directly led to or resulted from the 1976-1977 upheaval spearheaded by the Clash, the Sex Pistols, Ramones, Television, Blondie, etc (Although it came to be - and remains - a derisive designation for watered-down bands who affected hip style but were bland enough for American pop radio, "new wave" was originally a general and non-judgemental description of bands upsetting the norm in the late '70s.)

... While dance music has, in the past, fallen outside of the stylistic framework of this book, there's no getting around it's current dominance* - so much more so now than during the disco era - of the pop life. In light of the Manchester rave scene, the rise of DJ/performers, industrial music and, of course, hip-hop, the '80s proved that rock 'n' roll and dance music can't escape each other.

• At the time the 1991 edition came out, there had also been a huge alternative dance scene, for some years, in clubs that would book bands like RHCP, Miracle Legion, Scruffy, etc. and have DJs on off-nights.

Finally, from the Fifth Edition (1997). Subtitled 90s Rock (very telling)

From the Preface: The publication of this book's fourth edition at the end of 1991 was precipitously if not propitiously timed. The exploding success of Nirvana's Nevermind made "alternative music" a household term and attracted an enormous audience to music once thought to be permanently outside the putative mainstream.

... Furthermore, the connection of this decade's developments to the music that first kicked down some of the corporate business barricades and opened the DIY doors for business led to the inevitable conclusion that the '90s were shaping up as a clear and distinct era, with Nevermind conveniently serving as the inaugural message of Lollapaloozalot.

Alternative Music had everything to do with creating an audience and a ready-made market for Alternative Rock. If alternative music fans hadn't accepted Jane's Addiction, there wouldn't have been a door for Nirvana to kick in. By eliminating an Alternative Music page in favor of an Alternative Rock page, you're saying that one movement that was part of a wide genre (most Alternative fans in the mid-80s through early '90s resisted the wide use of subcategories) became the genre, itself. --FemmyV 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a format commonly referred to as "alternative music" (better known as modern rock) with a specific genre. The genre known as alternative used to be called "college rock" in the US and "indie" in the UK during the 80s; alternative/modern rock radio was the most receptive radio format to the music as the 80s wore on. And as far as I've seen when talking about a genre, "alternative rock" and "alternative music" have been largely interchangeable. WesleyDodds 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: there's a few encyclopedias of alternative music out that while are very useful for individual biogrpahical information, really stretch the boundaries of the term in the genre sense, often including the Velvet Underground, David Bowie, Roxy Music, Big Star, punk, and any music considered "left of center". Past attempts to chronicle the history of alternative rock have tried to construct a history of the genre without noticing two things: one, the genre's immediate roots are a result of the enviroment created in the aftermath of punk, post-punk, and hardcore; and two, alternative rock often references music from the past, including the Velvet Underground. I mean, look at all the revival movements: jangle pop, Paisley Underground, the entire Creation Records roster (set up with the philosophy of mixing psychedelia with punk rock), the garage rock revival, Britpop, post-punk revival, etc. Reynold's afterword in his book is primarily devoted to pointing this out, in contrast to the "futurism" of post-punk and New Pop. As he says "'Alternative' defines itself as pop's other" so a lot of what goes on in the genre (such as R.E.M.'s murky folk-isms and grunge's deconstructed metal) are oppositions to what's going on, usually by recalling old sounds and recontextualizing them. WesleyDodds 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have brought up some interesting points, though. I think the distinction that must be made isn't between "alternative rock" and "alternative music" (especially considering a lot of people simply say "alternative") but between the word and what it is describing. One thing I've personally wondered for a while is where the term "alternative" in regards to music came from and when it was coined; the earliest references I've personally seen are no older than 1989. If you have the sources, we could add an etymology section to the article, like Punk rock and Heavy metal music have. WesleyDodds 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You might find this interview with the founder of Alternative Press (music magazine) interesting. Usenet can be a mine ...

The term "alternative rock"

I'm going to add a section about the use of the term "alternative" as well as the other names the genre has been known by (college rock, indie, etc.) and the reluctancy of artists to use the label. My question is where should I place it: before the Overview, after the Overview, or as a subsection of the Overview? WesleyDodds 02:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

An etymology section would be best before the overview. -- LGagnon 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I hope that section now settles questions about the use of the term and what exactly the genre applies to. WesleyDodds 09:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work on this section. A brief reread of the article as a whole shows that this section has created some redundancies in other sections. 69.114.117.103 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Yeah, I'm removing them bit by bit (everytime I edit I think I've got them all and it's "Oops, there's another"). WesleyDodds 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep it is difficult. Unlike punk which arrived overnight the transformation form post punk/new wave to alternative was so gradual that only by looking back from 2006 can you see it happening. By the way last night VH1 Classics "The Alternative" played Romeo Void's "Never Say Never" 69.114.117.103 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

They also play The Clash and The Jam. Love both bands, by the way. That's why it's good not to rely on programming (radio or TV) to determine the scope of a genre. After all, their goal is to play whatever certain people want, not to categorize and analyze the music. They help from a reference point of view, but mainly for context, not outright definition. Spending a few hours the other week looking at radio websites' histories and essays on the alternative/"modern rock"/"New rock" (there was a station site that actually argued that all music played on modern rock stations is called "new rock" now, and is all the same genre) they play found while searching for info through Google was kind of depressing from the viewpoint of this recently-graduated history minor.

The shift to alternative should probably be worked in to a broader scope in the Overview. Like you said, alt-rock came about gradually. Some early alternative bands like R.E.M., the Smiths, and Bauhaus emerged pretty fully-formed, but many others like Husker Du, the Replacements, The Cure, the Banshees, Meat Puppets, New Order, X, and so forth were punk, post-punk, hardcore, or New Wave before they changed their styles. A recurring theme I have found among all these bands in my reading is dissatisfaction with the limits of punk and trying to expand beyond them. But it's pretty hard to say at any point "alternative rock started here". It's still too amorphous a genre, compared to other types of rock like punk and heavy metal. WesleyDodds 00:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Alt becoming pop rock

Many alternative bands have become pop rock bands. This has disgraced the genre.

Some would argue that this has been happening since R.E.M. and the Smiths. WesleyDodds 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who would say that The Smiths aren't pop? ~Switch ^t 08:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely they're an indie pop band, but the important distinction is the "indie" part: the band's existence as an essential component of the 80s indie scene. And no matter how pop they were, Morrissey's lyrics were not typical pop fare, talking about veiled homosexuality, politics, child molestation, depression, Oscar Wilde, etc. The majority of British alternative bands drew influence from the Smiths, and that continued with Britpop. WesleyDodds 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But what about musically? An entiely new article could try to explain how alternative music isn't alternative anymore. It's Top 40. When half the songs in the Top 40 are by slacker vocalists in baggy pants with tats mumbling over grunge power chords, it ain't the alternative to the mainstream, it IS the mainstream. Which alt-rockers (according to this article) supposedly hate. This happened 10-15 years ago. It's not a new sound anymore. It's being cranked out like candy bars. Sharpvisuals 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And, as Wesley already pointed out, is this any different than the earliest of alternative rock bands - like, say, The Smiths - having successful singles or appearing on Top of the Pops? ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 07:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

limited popularity?

the infobox claims that the genre only experiences limited popularity, while almost all of todays' mainstream rock bands are or could be described as "alternative" (look into green, afi, blink 182, bands like that). thus, alternative rock is tremendously popular. how do we define the genre so that it is only marginally popular? 67.172.61.222 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of better ways to rephrase it, but even with alt-rock's popularity there have still been numerous bands working on an underground level. WesleyDodds 23:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

the term "alternative" is almost all-encompasing, though, almost no modern rock band could not be considered alternative. it is very popular and just because there are a lot of underground bands doesn't diminish that. even the article itself says that the term is used to describe mainstream rock in the new millenium. 67.172.61.222 03:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. For example, Linkin Park, The Darkness, and blink-182 aren't alternative rock bands, just to name three random examples that appear on modern rock radio. Right now it certainly has a mainstream presence, but it's not dominant like it was during the 90s. The article is saying that "alternative" has been used indiscriminately at times, not necessarily that everything belongs under the label. And for every band that breaks through there have been many more who remain underground, to the point where entire alt-rock subgenres have been underground or only gained exposure with a freak hit. WesleyDodds 07:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity of the term "alternative rock"

Does anybody else think we should include a section about the ambiguity of term today. I mean, you have bands as dissimilar as Coldplay and Nickelback being put under that umbrella. What are the stylistic characteristics of an "alternative" song? It's got to be one of the most confusing terms around.

It's always been ambiguous and amorphous. Back in the 80s bands as dissimilar as Sonic Youth and The Smiths were alternative. In the 90s bands as dissimilar as Blur, Nine Inch Nails, and Primus were. As the article currently says, there are no set guidelines to an alternative song. However, the subgenres are a little more defined (dspite what fans of particular bands might say, there are some common defineable traits that embody genres like grunge, goth, Britpop, shoegaze, etc.), so I've always found it easier to determine the boundaries of the genre by defining the subgenres. In the case of the two bands you mentioned, Nickelback is post-grunge and Coldplay grew out of the post-Britpop movement. WesleyDodds 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we should refer in the article to how slippery a genre it is to nail down and admit that. Also "alternative" in the UK was largely supplanted by "indie" as a term in the late 80s. And there are some journalists/commentators who have now admitted that "indie" (nee alternative) is now dead and not useful as a term. Agreed that the subgenres make sense. this is partly because they were, mostly, of a limited time period. Jem 08:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Alternative" stopped being useful as a genre classification about a decade ago, actually. No band that emerged at any time in the 2000s should be categorized or described as "alternative", because they just aren't. Neither Nickelback nor Coldplay are actually "alternative"; for one thing, what on earth is there for them to be an alternative to? The only reason "alternative" is still used by some as a genre label, in fact, is that there hasn't been a new genre that's come to dominate rock music the way alternative did — so people still think in terms of "alternative". But what's important to remember is that alternative is defined first and foremost by the parallel existence of another rock genre for alternative rock to be an alternative to — so any rock band, such as Nickelback or Coldplay, that exists within the rock establishment, rather than on the outside kicking down the doors, cannot be alternative. Not even if it's strongly influenced by bands that were alternative. Bearcat 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the popular use of the term count? Agreed that what is called alternative today is not alternative to anything but mainstream rock. A lot of it is watered down and insulting to the genre originators. But the fact remains that most anywhere you want to look be it radio and music stores online or not the music in question is often labeled as “alternative” for the reasons you listed. I think because you, me and many music experts dislike using this terminology for the music in question is no reason not to have Wikipedia describe the common or popular use of the term. What could be done to the article is what was done to the article on New Wave Music that is to state and describe how the use of the term has changed over time. Edkollin 07:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing with the section on the term. Problem is, there are few sources available addressing the term's origins and how use of the term has changed over the years besides an ill-informed "the music industry made it up after Nirvana" (I've got references as far back as 1985, and it came into widespread use around 1990-1991) or "It's meaningless" (that doesn't help us address a genre that's been described for over twenty years). For some reason a majority of music writers tend to wax philosophically on the connotations of the term instead of actually researching its use and origins. Basically what's on the page is what's available in terms of hard, informative sources on the issue, but I'm always looking. WesleyDodds 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Originally 'alternative' meant that it was different from the dominant rock of the day, which was the last gasp of the classic/stadium/hairband rock era. When the new style became mainstream, the name as a genre classification ceased to match the meaning of the word. So now we have a situation where the most mainstream middle-of-the-road music being produced - is labeled 'alternative'. Dlabtot 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The way Americans use it is far more ambiguous and means very different things. In the United Kingdom (where the earliest form came from) it generally refers to post-punk and modern day indie-rock. But some Americans pretend for example grunge, post-grunge (Nickleback) and pop punk (see The Offspring, Green Day, My Chemical Romance articles) are part of it, which is very far from a world view.

In the UK, if you told somebody who is part of the alternative rock movement, that they are the same as Nickleback and Green Day, they'd point at you and laugh in your face. - Daddy Kindsoul 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have found no evidence to support that general assertion. Grunge is definitely an alt-rock subgenre (especially given that Nirvana and Pearl Jam are among the most notable alternative bands). Pop-punk? That varies on the source. And I could find any random person around here in the States that would laugh in your face if you called Nickelback alternative; doesn't mean that they aren't. Oh, and "alternative rock" as a term has American origins; from what I understand "indie" is preferred in the UK (which is backed up by a number of sources). WesleyDodds 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm British, and I can believe that Nickelback and Green Day are alternative; the question is, am I part of the alternative rock movement? :) CloudNine 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I even mention that one of the citations in the article is from the BBC and talks about Nirvana and grunge dominating alternative rock prior to Britpop, or that two of the books cited numerous times are written by noted British music writers (Simon Reynolds and John Harris) and quite clearly count grunge as an important component of alternative/indie rock? And that's just what's in this article. I bet if I resurrected John Peel he'd have something to say about it. WesleyDodds 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alanis Morissette pop?

I must object to the following sentences:

During the 1990s, many artists who did not fit the "alternative" label were nonetheless given it by mainstream record labels in the hopes of capitalizing on its popularity. Some pop musicians, such as Alanis Morissette and Hootie & the Blowfish were given the label on the basis of nuanced differences from other pop artists.

I think there is a pretty strong consensus that Alanis's music from the mid- to late-'90s is alternative rock. The idea that it's just pop marketed as alternative is absurd. It may be more pop-oriented than, say, Nirvana, but the alt-rock roots are fairly unmistakable, especially in songs like "You Oughta Know." I can't remember anyone ever classing Hootie as alternative. I'm not sure what to do with the above paragraph, though. marbeh raglaim 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember Alanis being labeled as pop and Alternative at different times. Also her,Jewel,Tori Amos,P.J Harvey etc being unofficially labeled as "clit pop"(Not Joking)Edkollin 06:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus that Alanis was ever "alternative" in any meaningful way (and even if there had been one, it would be wrong). Certainly she has some alternative influences, but she wasn't fundamentally an "alternative music" artist. Bearcat 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me a credible source that claims that none of her songs (not even "You Oughtta Know") are alternative. The opinion of random fans doesn't count. The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of people confuse the alternative genre with the adjective it's derived from. The adjective originally suggested music outside the commercial mainstream. However, it ultimately came to refer to a specific genre with several identifiable musical characteristics. Eventually, mainstream commercial music emerged that imitated the musical style of the alternative genre, even though it was not "alternative" in the original sense that the adjective suggested. Alanis Morissette was one of the catalysts for this transition. So, in a sense, people are correct in suggesting that the term "alternative" has become meaningless. It is meaningless in the sense that the name of the genre has outlived its usefulness. But that's just the name. The style itself didn't change dramatically once it entered the commercial mainstream (though of course it evolved, as all music does). It requires a really strained argument to suggest that a song like "You Oughtta Know" belongs to a fundamentally different genre than alternative rock, simply because it achieved mainstream success. marbeh raglaim 09:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it "belongs to a fundamentally different genre than alternative rock simply because it achieved mainstream success"; I'm saying that while Alanis' work obviously bears some alternative influences, she isn't fundamentally an alternative rock artist, because the alternative influence isn't the core of what she's doing or even trying to do. She took elements of alternative and added them to some (not all) songs within a body of work that exists primarily within a pop idiom. Bearcat 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"However, it ultimately came to refer to a specific genre with several identifiable musical characteristics." really? what are those characteristics? they don't seem to be mentioned in the article, or maybe I missed it. Dlabtot 06:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that she isn't fundamentally an alternative rock artist, though that's clearly the main root of her music since her '95 album. When I think of "pop," what usually springs to mind is artists like Madonna or Britney Spears (or, for that matter, Alanis's work as a teenager). Of course the term can refer to any commercial sort of music, but all of Alanis's work since '95 is clearly guitar-driven rock music with alternative roots, and to say (as the article does) that she's simply a pop artist who's been "labeled" as alternative just isn't accurate. marbeh raglaim 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

REM first alternative act inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

This factoid was overshadowed by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five becoming the first Hip Hop act inducted into the hall. While the publicity for Grandmaster Flash was understandable and necessary REM got overlooked. A scan of the web did not reveal a direct statement of this fact but many lines noting that REM was inducted and that they were alternative rock pioneers. Edkollin 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What About Alice In Chains?

Alice In Chains were also major players in the earley 90's grunge scene.

• They are mentioned towered the bottom of the “Alternative rock in the United States” paragraph Edkollin 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

US Vs. UK, again

Violating WP:OWN, newsflash; you don't own Wikipedia.

• Cronologically, the United Kingdom's movement happened first.
• Alphabetically, the United Kingdom comes before United States.

What logical reason could you have to revert an edit (more than once) which put the article in the correct order? Favouritism towards the US bands, nobody cares if you want to whisper sweet nothing's in Bob Mould's ear; that isn't how we decide how the articles content runs. Its quite irritational to say the least.

UK came first, so it belongs first. US came later, so it belongs later. Its a very simple concept, its common sense, not rocket science. The Cure and Joy Division (both had albums #5 and above in national charts) are also more well known and notable than the likes of later US bands such as Hüsker Dü (who have never even broke the national #50). Stop POV pushing your American favouritist view based on which bands you "like best", that does not conform to worldwide reality, WP:N, WP:NPOV or even simple common sense. - Daddy Kindsoul 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, don't make baseless accusations about my intentions. Additionally, this section title can be construed as a personal attack. Comment on the content, not the contributor.

Secondly, my argument is that the arrangement works thematically better since more alternative bands have come from the US and more US alternative bands are better-known. There's a list of the best-selling artists in the world on Wikipedia; the top four alternative artists listed are Nirvana, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., and Red Hot Chili Peppers, all American groups. Mind you I like many British bands better, but many of the American ones are more notable. It's just a fact.

Thirdly, the narrative in each individual section are both chronological and consistent, so the order of the sections is largely for thematic purposes. As for what came first? Well, that's kind of murky. While goth started showing up in the late 70s, it really didn't become a solid movement until around 1981 and 1982. Even then, goth was still part of the post-punk movement (by the way, Joy Division is not an alternative band since they technically didn't survive the post-punk era). What's the first alternative band? That's a bit of an unanswerable question, but many cite R.E.M. I myself refrain from such hard and fast demarcations, but both R.E.M. in the US and the Smiths in the UK are good marking points because many critics do credit them with being turning points in underground music.

Fourthly, the way the section are written currently is dependent on the US section going before the UK section, given that Britpop emerged in reaction to grunge; the way it is written thus follows up the previous section. Simply rearranging the sections without editing the content is messy.

Fifthly, (and this is not a direct reply to the above post) I'd much appreciate other opinions on this topic, since this particular editor and I have had arguments before on other genre pages. I'd much appreciate the voices and opinions of others. WesleyDodds 08:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul, why would an editor with a "American favourtist view" be of the major contributors to The Cure's article, an article on a British band? Lay off the personal attacks - "nobody cares if you want to whisper sweet nothing's in Bob Mould's ear" is not appropriate.

Section names are rarely, if ever, alphabetical. The way I see it is that "The term 'alternative rock'" and "Overview" cover alternative rock's general origin, and the country-specific sections explore this in more detail. Anyway, the origins of alternative rock are murky (much like many genres), and you couldn't possibly say "x genre was first played in y by z." I wasn't aware the article was being presented as a chronology anyway. CloudNine 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its "correct" to put UK before US (does it matter ?) but as you read it the article isn't dependent on US being first even without any re-writing. There certainly is argument to say that as many (and best selling) have come from the UK/Ireland and that the UK is potentially more influential that it could go first.- U2, Oasis, JoyDiv/NewOrder, Depeche Mode, Smiths/Morrissey, The Cure vs REM, Pearl Jam , etc Jem 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"many of the American ones are more notable. It's just a fact."

That isn't "fact" at all. That is unfounded opinion. As shown in the above comment by Jem, the UK bands are more well known, more influential and more notable. As I had shown above in my original message, throughout the entire history of Alternative rock in the United Kingdom (from the original bands to modern day) it has had the ability to enter the top 10.

The United States version in general, hasn't always and even then their "success" was more marginal compared to UK bands. For example the Cure (and numerous other UK alt bands) achieved notability by getting inside the national top 10 first in the early 80s, long before the yank bands had any pull at all, the biggest mover in US alt rock, REM couldn't achieve that until the tail end of the decade, five albums into their career. That is fact... you can't erase or change history, that is what happened.

Even 90s pseudo-alternative acts like Pearl Jam, who are just a glorified 70s style hard rock band which the yank music industry slapped the "alternative" tag on as a marketing ploy, not based on musical characteristics are less notable than UK scenes of the time. Pearl Jam have only ever had two singles in the national top 10, never a hit. Oasis have had 20 singles reach the national top 10, and eight full on #1 hits.

Off Topic POV I thought I was the only one whose ears heard Pearl Jam as not grunge but a very energetic emotional Bad Company Edkollin 03:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people did, but with Vs. and Vitalogy Pearl Jam became ok to like. The press declared them "important" and honestly they had become that. At times it seems like the band overcompensated for the disses they received early on (no videos, battling Ticketmaster, making harsher records, etc.) WesleyDodds 06:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So if that was your reasoning "which is more notable", then you've just been proven wrong Doddsy, and thus I will put it back into the correct order. Gracias. - Daddy Kindsoul 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know The Cure charted high in the UK as early as 1982. So? You are ignoring the overall notability of bands for "those who came first". R.E.M. took awhile to break through, but when they did they outsold all other alternative bands, including the Cure. By the 1990s they were actually one of the biggest bands in the world. We have to avoid an 80s fixation (which is something I do have to struggle with, since it's easier for me to write about Madchester and college rock) because the sense of scale is different; seriously, most people did not give a shit about a lot of these bands until Nirvana. Additionally many American bands achieved chart success in the UK even if they were middling in their home country, ie. Pixies, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr. The Pixies charted at number 3 in the UK, for God's sake. And finally, there's size to consider. The UK is a small country, meaning there's less people to listen to and buy records. The best-selling album there, Queen's greatest hits, has sold five million copies; the highest charting alternative album, Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory? has sold a little over four million. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Stone Temple Pilots, and Live have all sold more than that in the US (Nirvana and Pearl Jam having multiple albums that have sold five million copies or more),and those aren't even the best-selling albums in the country. And this is even before we get into the rest of the world. In fact, if we are to order the sections alphabetically, "Alternative rock in other countries" would come first. I really don't have a bias for either the US or the UK (because, once again, there's other coutnries besides those two, even if that's where alt-rock primarily comes from); I like bands from both countries. I like Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, and Husker Du, but I also like The Cure, Ride, and the Stone Roses. The main point should be what's more important to the uninformed reader who will come upon this page. My gathering is that random reader looking to find out about alt-rock will have more familiarity with Nirvana and the Chili Peppers than the Smiths and the Cure. My problem here is that a lot of your points are POV and don't make a whole lot of logical sense, so it's hard for me to agree with them. Pearl Jam "psuedo-alternative"? This isn't 1992. WesleyDodds 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the UK being smaller have to do with anything? In general the same records are available to the UK that is in the USA. That is before we even mention that the UK is likely the most dominant in terms of large notable rock bands since the 50s, or do we pretend The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Elton John, Rod Stewart, Sex Pistols, The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Queen, Van Morrison, The Kinks etc "didn't happen"... and only The Monkees exist, to give all music articles a nice good ol' Uncle Sam slant.

I don't see why Wikipedia should be geered towards simpletons, devoid of the facts and especially bands which are only part alternative (mixing funk and hard rock like the RHCP's did has far less to do with alternative than The Cure or The Smiths). Just because you happened to grow up as part of the Cobain youth movement and that was your door to "alternative", doesn't mean that is a world view of the alternative rock movement. It was a dominant force long before that, as I proved before with the chart figures. The Cure and the Smiths are highly regarded and commerically successful bands, whether you or I like it... its a fact.

Giving it an awful late80s through 90s yank slant makes about as much sense as rewriting the punk rock article with "Sum 41, Blink 182 and Simple Plan" in place of "Ramones, Sex Pistols and The Clash", there is no Wikipedia policy that says articles must be centered towards idiocy instead of reality, people come here to find facts and that is what needs to be provided, hense why the more prominent and earlier UK movement belongs first. Marginalising the UK movement which happened first, just because you don't happen to think its as relevent even though you likely werent even an adult at a time and have been shown figures to disprove your theory, just isn't going to happen. - Daddy Kindsoul 08:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is geared towards the general, unfamiliar reader. And you completely ignored my point, being many of the American alternative bands have been more successful and notable. I'm not talking all of rock music; of course the Beatles have sold more records than God; I have a couple myself. But more relevant to the topic at hand, world sales estimates put The Cure's sales at 27 million, while Nirvana's are at 50 million. I'm just guessing more people will recognize Nirvana than The Cure, not to speak of the Smiths or the Stone Roses. Even in the UK the Smiths woud chart high yet drop down almost instantly. That's why they had a compilation called The World Won't Listen, because people actually weren't listening and that pissed them off.

Alternative rock was not a "world force" prior to the 1990s; both British and American sources acknowledge this. The occasional band like R.E.M. or The Cure would break through, but by and large the mainstream ignored the genre and the bands sold for shit. There's a reason there's dozens of sources going apeshit during the 1990s when grunge breaks through, the Lollapalooza festival begins, and Britpop conquers the charts and daytime UK radio.

Putting aside all the side-by-side UK vs. US comparisons (which is actually what I was trying to avoid when I structured the page this way; many books and articles on alternative rock ignore a lot of UK band prior to the 1990s), I think this is a rather silly thing to get worked up over. Ultimately, I don't care all that much; I just think it works better if the sections are structured this way. Ultimately it's a structural question and should be treated as one. I really don't want to get into a pissing match with you over something so minor. WesleyDodds 00:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"being many of the American alternative bands have been more successful and notable"

You've provided zero evidence for this at all, none. You have however been provided with evidence to show that the UK's bands are A) more commerically successful over a longer period of time B) the most influential C) the highest charting D) the earliest movement.

The only thing you have provided is that Nirvana, a band who released their first album around a decade after the genre started later achieved notability experimenting with elements of the genre. Which makes about as much sense as pretending Velvet Revolver invented rock and roll and thus belong in that article above the people who invented it and found commerical success with it first.

Speaking of 90s commerical success, do we pretend OK Computer was never recorded, and actually Radiohead haven't been one of the biggest musical acts of the past two decades, nor have their albums been critically aclaimed; oh no the superior Americans are the only ones to achieve notability in recent times with the genre too. Coldplay a band who have only released albums in the 2000s, haven't really sold over 30 million albums at all, it is just the imagination of the UK. [/sarcasm]

"The Cure would break through, but by and large the mainstream ignored the genre"

You're still talking from an American only perspective, please understand that California isn't the only place on earth. Articles are supposed to conform to a world view. Just because post-punk, alternative rock, gothic rock, etc, etc.. such and such styles were less prominent in the US doesn't mean that is the situation in the rest of the world. I proved to you that they were commerically successful and had multiple hits but you seem to be just "ignoring" the facts for some reason. It is not just the ocassional one or two bands, view chartings for The Sisters of Mercy, All About Eve (band), New Order, Cocteau Twins, Depeche Mode, The Mission (band), Siouxsie & the Banshees, My Bloody Valentine, etc, etc. Top end of the chart, black and white.. stop ignoring it; read it over a couple of times until it sinks it.

Regardless of the fact that the UK movement was actually commerically successful, before yanks even considered toying around with it, take a look at the Punk rock article. The New York movement had far less commerical success (not that its the case here) than the later UK punk movement, but it is still featured first. Why? umm duh, cause it happened first. - Daddy Kindsoul 15:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you create a "history" subheading and try to merge the two sections? maxcap 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it makes sense to follow the very different histories in the two countries seperately. Each editor has made his case—editor WesleyDodds's happens to reflect the well-established structure of the article. The opposing view, while it raises some interesting points, hasn't convinced me that structure should be changed. A more productive suggestion for the moment: unless and until he apologizes, simply ignore DaddyKindsoul, an abusive editor who has structured his entire argument around personal attacks on and sarcastic digs at WesleyDodds. This is the best way to deal with DaddyKindsoul's repeated, aggressive violations of Wikipedia:Civility, as evidenced throughout this debate, from the thread's title forward.—DCGeist 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: DCGeist a user with a wittle gwudge against me and any other user he has had disagreements with, hasn't actually added anything to the debate in regards to the content at all here and has only reared his head making baseless personal attacks, because his bestest friend in the whole world Doddsy asked him to show up[1], in return for reverts in any arguments Gesit gets in "Got anything you want me to help you with? Any reverts" is the exact quote.[2]

The fact you you cite the "civility" policy, while showing up here claiming I'm an "abusive editor" and sladering me claiming that my argument is "based around personal attacks", when 99% of what is mentioned above has to do with bands and the subject at hand (the article) is highly ironic. If you don't have any points to make in regards to the actual content of the article, or anything constructive to add (like maxcap did for example) then I suggest you find something else to do. - Daddy Kindsoul 20:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't see an apology in there. Guess I'll have to ignore your helpful suggestion and maintain my "gwudge." (Sounds awful cute. Do you wanna snuggle with me, DyK?)—DCGeist 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring record sales and PAs, I always though that US Alt rock was born out of a fusion of US harcore and UK indie/post punk; but that the indie influence was the stronger element. Strands of what are now Alternative rock were far more prevelant in the UK (and, ahem, Ireland) than in the US during the '80s. I'm never going to win that argument of course, so I'll go along with maxcap's suggestion of merging. Ceoil 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've retitled the section bty, per Wikipedia:Civility. Ceoil 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Plausible. I've felt that the best argument for putting the U.S. section first was semantic--as far as I understand, "alternative rock" emerged as an industrial/critical label first in the United States and that U.S. bands were the first to have the label applied to them. As the article specifically notes in reference to the Cure, the label was applied to older UK bands retrospectively (as it was, of course, to some U.S. bands as well). If we structured things more like heavy metal and punk rock with an "origin of the term" section, preceding the main history section, that might take care of that issue. If we're not going to divide by country (as we do early in punk rock), but rather do straight chronology (as in heavy metal), how do you suggest dividing the section for structure and readability? Is 1980s and 1990s sufficient?—DCGeist 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That would need to be thought out carefully in advance, as it might be difficult to back out of. My area is 1980s indie; I'm not so stong on '80s US alt, but there were many, many sub-genres in the UK through out those years. What ever about the origion of the term, and we dont use it a lot over here, its meaning is more important. My first word would be that punk "happened", while Alternative rock evolved and mutated over time, and that there was a lot of back and forth between US, UK, (and Ireland). This suggests to me that a division by country is not appropriate, and that a linear rather than geographic outline would be better. However, a leading "origin of the term" is of course called for. Ceoil 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're convincing me. Linear structure, where sensible, is generally better. So we'd begin the linear history incorporating some phrase along the lines of "The earliest bands that would later be labeled 'alternative rock' included..." The question then becomes exactly with whom to start--per the contents of the article now, it would be with Bauhaus, Siouxsie & the Banshees, and The Cure. Is that where you'd launch the linear history? What are your thoughts, Doddsy? (Sorry--had to do it once. Never again.)—DCGeist 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Geisty, my clear openion is that the first break aways from the ridgid punk formula happended at the same place, at the same time. They are very different of course, but: Joy Division, The Fall. Manchester, 1977. Ceoil 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll post a timeline of 80s subgenres tomorrow night, if you or Dodds does the same for US alt, we can agree on a merge and work from there. Ceoil 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The sections were originally divided by country because I realized that while alt-rock comes primarily both from the US and UK, they have developed along rather separate paths; the two Allmusic essays and other similiar splits in music books seemed to indicate this was the best approach. Of course, if people have better ways to work out the layout for the article, let's here 'em. Alternative rock is very different from other major rock genres heavy metal and punk rock in that it's defined less by general musical characteristics than by ideologies and approaches adopted by a gaggle of loosely-related subgenres, which means we can't use those pages as direct models (it also makes it frustrating trying to write for and expand this article).

As for the early applications of "alternative" as a genre: there's the Rolling Stone article cited on the punk rock page from 1985, the one cited in the "Alternative rock" section. It cites the LA times, who referred to SST Records being one of the premire alternative rock labels in the country. I've found a number of quotes by British bands somewhat baffled by the term when they came to America. For example, the full Robert Smith quote cited in this article goes like this:

SPIN: At that point [1985] the Cure weren't called "alternative rock" yet. You were "college rock".

Robert Smith: Yeah, every time we went to America we had a different tag. We were "raincoat," and then "goth"--I can't remember when we officially became "alt-rock"; it was somewhere just post-'85, I think.

In the Jane's Addiction oral autobiography, Daniel Ash mentions that while Bauhaus was called goth, Love and Rockets and Peter Murphy's solo career were promoted under "alternative" by their American record company. WesleyDodds 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On structure: Philosophically, I'd favor the linear approach--certainly, to the degree to which U.S. college radio is agreed on as being central to this history, the emergence of alternative rock as a "movement" involved DJs playing and audiences listening to both U.S. and UK bands in the same "alternative" context. (I gather, as well, that certain American proto-"alternative" and early alternative bands had commercial success in the UK--who and to what degree I'm not entirely clear.) The stylistic developments are quite different--the angle I originally responded to--but from the angles of marketing, airplay, and audience identification, developments on either side of the Atlantic are closely related. But I would like to see a clear structure for a linear history mooted and agreed on before making the move.

On history: if we're going to discuss Joy Division, then we have to discuss Television; if we're going to discuss The Fall (and we really must), then we have to discuss Pere Ubu (and we really must). The question is whether they should lead off the proposed primary linear history supersection, or whether they should be introduced in a preliminary 1970s Prehistory/development of post-punk section.—DCGeist 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Things get difficult when determining "when does alternative start"? American commercial radio works on the principle that anything that isn't "classic rock" is alternative. This means that punk, the Velvet Underground, and even David Bowie are alternative. Which makes that definition useless, especially since it's based more on what the radio stations play rather than any actual musical or historical study of rock music. Actual musical and historical study of rock music generally agrees on one thing: alternative emerges in the wake of punk, but it isn't punk itself. Where American alternative starts is relatively easy; you've got the jangle pop movement of the early eighties (R.E.M., LA's Paisley Underground, the Hobooken, NJ scene) followed by the hardcore bands getting sick of hardcore (Husker Du, Replacements, Meat Puppets, Minutemen). The Allmusic cite even goes as far as to say "To oversimplify things, the first alternative bands were R.E.M. and Husker Du". Britain is where things get muddy, since there was that whole post-punk thing. Is post-punk alternative? That's kind of unclear. Post-punk as a genre does not seem to be considered alt-rock, but many post-punk bands outlived the movement and became alt-rock. And then there's the fact that gothic rock is one of those subgenres that is universally agreed to be alt-rock, yet in its early years it was a style of post-punk. The sense I get from my research is that British alt-rock/indie definitely starts no later than the Smiths, but before? I'd like to hear more of Ceoil's insights from the British perspective. WesleyDodds 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it logically, a linear history should either begin with the first bands and/or scenes that we can show were labeled "alternative rock"--probably R.E.M., Husker Du, and/or their cohorts--or the earliest active band to ultimately and by consensus be labeled "alternative"--I'm betting Pere Ubu. I suppose the only other argument would be to begin with the earliest "movement" to ultimately be labeled "alternative"--British late 1970s post-punk, if that's the case.—DCGeist 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The article currently subscribes to the first layout in a sense; not the artists and movements first labeled "alternative rock", but the ones considered to be the first aspects of the genre to emerge (important distinction because "alternative rock" didn't come into common usage until the start of the 90s; there was college rock and indie, among other terms, used more frequently before that). I wanted to play it safe because of the sometimes indiscriminate use of "alternative", so both sections start with items no one disputes are alternative rock: R.E.M. and goth. There's a major problem if we undertake the second approach--starting with the earliest band who at some later point came into the sphere of the genre--in that many of these early were other things before they were alt-rock: punk, New Wave, post-punk, hardcore, or (in the case of Pere Ubu) even protopunk. For example: while the official start date given to the band is 1976, the earliest incarnation of The Cure dates back to 1972. The 1972 version of what would become The Cure hadn't even been through punk yet, much less alt-rock. They were playing little more than Hendrix and Bowie covers. It's certainly much easier when we get to the late 80s and beyond with bands that were always alt-rock and only alt-rock: R.E.M., Smiths, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr, Stone Roses, Primal Scream, Jane's Addiction, Nirvana, etc.

Right now, though, that whole debate is somewhat beside the point. What we should be thinking about is: if we merge the alt-rock-by-country sections into one long history, like the heavy metal and punk rock pages do, how do we do it? There's some points where it will work effectively (following grunge with Britpop, or covering the post-punk revival, which is going on in both countries) and some points where it may be difficult (is there an effective way to talk about the post-Britpop bands or notable bands from non-English countries like the Sugarcubes or the Japanese noise rock bands in a large historical overview?). It might be a good idea for someone to sandbox the proposed merged history, because I would know where to start (well, I do have an idea of where it would start, but I mean it's a daunting, difficult task and potentially confusing and . . . blah, you get my drift). WesleyDodds 09:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well an easier thing to do and probably a more logical thing for users is to split the 2 articles. An Alt-Rock/Grunge/post grunge US article and a Indie > leading up to the implosion of Creation/Oasis/post indie/arctic monkeys/franz ferdinand UK one.

I've never been convinced that it makes sense they are somehow joined. Its always a very artificial merger. In the UK the phrase "alternative rock" to describe The Smiths, Arctic Monkeys, Happy Mondays just seems ridiculous.but "indie" or "an indie band". Yes some music in the UK was called "alternative" and clubs used to have "alternative" nights but very rarely since late 80s. and yes..there is an argument to say that indie (as is alternative rock in the states) is now meaningless but thats fine...overarching music genres have a shelf life. I propose the articles are split. The entry for indie in Wikipedia also happens to be futile.

As it happens a new BBC2 "rock" documentary made by the same people who made the (emmy winning i think) Lost Heighway (about country) and a similar fine one about soul is broadcast in the UK at the end of the month and they too have 2 episodes that cover off stuff in this article. they are split into 2. One about college rock, grunge, Kurt Cobain basically and the UK one, which is called; "what the world is waiting for" is about, according to the press release; "indie...smiths > stone roses, blur oasis, franz ferdinand, artic monkeys...

Split them. One called alt-rock, One called indie. They are different.Connected and influenced but for an encylopaedia they warrant separate entries. Jem 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that would work in the eventual case that the article becomes too huge that we need subarticles (like say "Alternative rock in the United States" and "Alternative rock in the United Kingdom") but the entire article should not be split to illustrate to separate genres based on preferred national terminology, since there are plenty of sources that consider it all the same genre. For example, in John Harris' book on Britpop, he never uses the term "alternative rock" because he's British and is writing for a British audience. However, Nirvana and American alternative bands are referred to as "indie" or "indie-rock" in the book just like he does for their British counterparts. Then there's Simon Reynolds, British author of Rip It Up and Start Again who refers to the American R.E.M. and the British Smiths as "the two most important alt-rock bands of the day". Basically the example you provide is the first time I've heard of a genre distinction between American alt-rock and British "indie"; I've seen far more examples of sources just using what national terminology is widely accepted to cover both countries. Not to mention there's plenty of people around here who prefer to just call 80s college rock "indie rock" in an insanely broad sense of the term.

Additionally, we shouldn't ignore the rest of the English-speaking world. "Alternative" seems to be the preferred term in Canada and Australia as well as the US. It's mainly the UK that doesn't use the word (in an interesting aside, I visited England a few months ago. I was in an HMV in London and they had a compilations section labeled "Alternative/Indie".) Anyway, it's interesting to hear about that special; that sounds like something I'd really want to watch. Was there anything in it that we can add to the article? WesleyDodds 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Split only if the article threatens to become too huge. Terms are largely synonymous.

Also agreed: proposed shift to linear history needs to be sandboxed. I do think a linear history is preferable for reasons I stated above, but--as WD describes in his message of the 23rd--it's a daunting task. Ceoil, I nominate you to start us off. Unless you'd like DyK to take charge.

P.S. Who you calling "insane," WD?—DCGeist 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's something weird about seeing indie-centric magazines and websites call R.E.M. "indie rock" out of what appears to be a conscious attempt to avoid using the word "alternative" at all (ie. Pitchfork). But that's just me. WesleyDodds 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where I live, if somebody said they were into "Alternative rock" we would laugh and throw stones at them. Ceoil 11:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You should see people's reactions when I tell them that in the UK, Oasis are "indie". WesleyDodds 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And why nearly a month after this section of the talkpage was started, is the latter and less influential US movement still above the UK in the article, when in this discussion its notability and chart success stretching from when it began, to modern day (with the likes of Coldplay, etc) has been shown? I'm moving them around to the correct order until both are merged into one flowing history of the genre. - Daddy Kindsoul 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are more of a complainer than a doer; but the reason is that the structure has yet been been agreed; as you would have discovered if you read the agruments properly. Sorry for boring you. Look forward to your reply in a month, when you next check back on the page. Ceoil 01:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep moving the sections against consensus. Banging your head against a wall until someone backs down is *not* how things are achieved at Wikipedia. CloudNine 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Daddy Kindsoul's issue with this page and its section order illustrates a real problem with this article. Although incredibly well sourced and generally of a high standard there are flaws around how it treats UK vs US

meanings of the term. DK's solution to this (swapping the sections around) is a fairly trivial way of dealing with this i know we've knocked around a few more. There are other sections (eg: the section; "The term: alternative rock" barely touches on its usage in the UK . If indie/alternative are interchangeable as the article currently implies then that section should have more references to the derivation of indie as a term in the Uk, its early usage and mentions in UK media. If they aren't interchangeable and i don't think they are (they are connected, some people do use one term when they mean the other, both terms are used by people in both US and UK but that doesn't mean they are the same) then that could do with tidying up. My view is that "indie" in the UK and alternative rock should have separate articles as I've stated below. The current indie page is rubbish (why isn't it part of the alternative music project ?) Also my interpretation of this (rather petty argument) is that a couple (more than 3 ?) of editors don't like it and a couple of editors do. Jem 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"eg: the section; "The term: alternative rock" barely touches on its usage in the UK ."

There's a simple explanation to this: the origins and changing usage of these terms have been virtually ignored by sources dealing with the genre. I know; I've spent over a year researching the very topic. Usually the words are just used without any further explanation; the best source for the use of "indie" and its relation to alternative rock (ie. that that's just what it's called in the UK) is ironically in the US edition of Simon Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again in an afterword that explains the difference between post-punk and the alternative/indie rock that supplanted it (which I cited in the article long ago). I do fear that it'll be years before someone actually gets around to researching the topic in a scholarly manner. I mean, it took a few decades for decent books on heavy metal and punk to come out, after all. Honestly, what's in the article is pretty much all I've found on the topic, but not for lack of trying. WesleyDodds 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and since you brought up Indie (music): that page is about the "indie" concept in music, ie. putting out records on independent labels, participating in local underground music scenes, existing outside of the mainstream music industry, etc. It's a concept not restricted to any particular genre (notice the "Genres associated with indie" section on that page), although many alternative/indie rock bands abide by it. So that page is about a concept, not a genre. This page is about a genre, not an ideological concept, and while the genre's been known by a few terms, it's primarily known as "alternative" around the world, so that's what this page is called. Simple Wiki guidelines. Maybe Indie (music) could have a redirect at the top of the page that says "For the UK usage of 'indie' as a genre, see 'Alternative rock'". WesleyDodds 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep thats a good idea but then you'd expect to find the derivation of indie music in the UK on this page or at least linked to from this page.

But as for the dominance of "alternative" as a term then i don't think thats true.it just isn't known as alternative in the UK and has been known as *indie" since the mid 80s at least. Cited examples; A Channel 4 show (national TV show) had an "indie chart" in its programme as long ago as 1986. There has been an indie chart in the national music press in the UK since the 80s and since the first publication of an independent chart in the trade mag Record Business in 1980. Last year following the 20th anniversary of the NME tape C86, several commentators (in The Guardian, Uncut) called C86; "the birth of indie music" in the UK. and up to the present date... NME have recently run a front cover story called "the 50 indie anthems of all time" (Oasis No 1, Smells like teen spirit No 2 - blimey Joy Division are in there somewhere too). And what about references to XFM, the evening session on Radio 1, Andrew Collins arguing "Indie is dead" in last years Word magazine, and simon reynolds "new" book (well he does call the smiths alt-rock once in 575 pages but he talks about "indie noise pop bands referring to Jesus and Mary Chain.) and so on and so on.. Alternative Rock has a pretty clear lineage of rem, college rock, husker du, pixies, nirvana, grunge, and then a descent into well ambiguity as to what it actually means anymore. Indie in the UK is derived as a term earlier, follows a different path and usage. Yes they are connected, yes they are used in the US and UK. and yes i can cite some examples alluding to the fact, yes they should share material, but they are different....shall i start changing the article ?

Jem 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think by your examples it's pretty clear that it's a synonym. Even in the Simon Reyolds book, when he first mentions the term "indie" being used as a genre term, he follows by saying (paraphrased) "The music was called 'college rock' in the US", which is another term for alternative rock; that is already cited in the article. I mean, I know for a fact that Nirvana is routinely called "indie" in the UK (which is evident by that NME list), along with many other American bands that aren't necessarily "indie rock". Things like Britpop, shoegaze, and Madchester are "indie" subgenres in the UK, while in the US they're "alternative". Additionally I've seen a few British sources use "alternative rock" to refer to those considered of the "indie" genre"; there's that BBC link in the Britpop section of this article, for one. The terms (in the US/UK context) I feel do refer to the exact same thing. I don't think we should make a big deal out of it. WesleyDodds 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and important point I seem to have forgot about: "Indie/indie rock" was also used in the US in the 80s. The thing is the US had a number of competing terms for the (ill-defined) genre: College rock, post-modern, modern rock (to an extent), even post-punk for the lazy sods. It's just by 1990 for some reason or another "alternative" won out. Indie rock now generally refers to bands that remain on indie labels (thus we don't call Radiohead indie) and/or that have stayed underground. WesleyDodds 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a tag to show that we have yet to merge the two sections (as planned) into one to give a world view, some goof seems to keep vandalising it though. - The Daddy 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. CloudNine 08:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Husker Du, Replacements, Meat Puppets, Minutemen getting sick of hardcore?

In the discussion the article change this statement was made "by the hardcore bands getting sick of hardcore (Husker Du, Replacements, Meat Puppets, Minutemen). Did they get sick of it or just evolve?. I am not saying the statement is wrong I do not know the answer. By the way if you have not done so yet do see the DVD :American Hardcore 1980-1986 Edkollin 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of both; that was just my simplistic way of describing what happened around 84-85. Husker Du did get sick of hardcore and the members do not consider what they did after Zen Arcade as punk rock. Paul Westerberg of the Replacements became a better songwriter, while Double Nickles on the Dime was arguably a culmination of what the Minutemen were doing all along. Mark Arm of Green River/Mudhoney has said he got sick of hardcore and its rigidness; grunge was in many ways an embrace of things hardcore rejected, ie. long hair, slow songs, Led Zeppelin. WesleyDodds 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Edkollin 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

7 Ages of Rock - BBC documentary

More on this. The documentary being broadcast in the UK in May/June covers off rock in these 7 programmes, time slots and sections. It treats "alternative rock" as a separate US thing and argues that "indie rock" starts in 1980 as part of telling this story anyhow and they had to cut it up someway... (presumably there is a nod to Factory, Postcard, Rough Trade etc before getting on with the Smiths in 1982.) This is from the press release/press info...

1.Blues based rock 1963-1970 hendrix, cream etc

2.White Light, White Heat Art Rock 1966-1980 velvets, bowie, roxy etc

3.Blank Generation Punk Rock 1973-1980 New York Dolls, Richard Hell, Sex Pistols, Iggy blah blah 4.Never Say Die Heavy Metal 1970-1991 With Black Sabbath as the undisputed Godfathers, we follow their highs and lows, and, along the journey, meet Deep Purple, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and Metallica.

5.We Are The Champions Stadium Rock 1965-1993 some the biggest names in Rock, among them Queen, Bruce Springsteen, The Police and Dire Straits, U2

6.Left Of The Dial Alternative Rock 1980-1994

The rise of alternative rock in the USA. From its early underground days where bands like Black Flag drew inspiration from the DIY ethos of punk, The Last Rock Star traces the history of the network of fans, clubs and fanzines that sustained the scene and launched the careers of bands like REM, The Pixies and Husker Du. The film takes a fresh look at the explosion of the Seattle scene, culminating in the success of Nirvana's 'Nevermind' and the tragic loss of Kurt Cobain, an artist whose triumph and tragedy continues to cast an inescapable shadow.

7.What The World Is Waiting For Indie Rock 1980-2007

The story of British indie, beginning with The Smiths, the archetypal indie group. The film follows The Stone Roses as the heirs to the indie crown, Suede's dark sexuality and the media saturation of Brit-pop's Blur v Oasis. What The World Is Waiting For explores how indie ultimately lost its once cherished intimacy and integrity in front of 250,000 fans at Oasis's Knebworth spectacle in 1996 and how, by returning to its roots in clubs and bars (and even front rooms) with bands such as Franz Ferdinand, The Libertines and The Arctic Monkeys, indie became respectable again.

end of quote Jem 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the terminology (after all, we do say "indie" here, but it refers mainly to either a type of existence or to a particular type of alt-rock, ie. Pavement, Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand) it seems like it'll be an potentialy useful source. Do you know somehow if it'll show up on BBC America? WesleyDodds 09:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias from present day perspective

I believe that the discussion is biased by present day perspective. Alternative music is just a generic name for the music of some alternative culture, or just simply for some alternative point of view about music. Hence there is nothing which is absolutely alternative; alternative only refers to something which is perceived as alternative by some culture in a determined hystorical period. As soon as some gender becomes mainstream it ceases to be alternative. The Pink Floyd were originally considered alternative in their psychedelic period, but I guess that no one consider them alternative now. I believe that avantgarde progressive rock has still to be considered alternative. In my opinion there should be a general page for alternative music (as pointed out by many), in a spirit similar to alternative culture, and then specific pages in which the hystorical period is to be specified. A more precise title for the present page should be something like Alternative rock (years 1980-2000) (I am not sure about the exact years to be considered, however)--Popopp 11:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Alternative music" is just a generic name for the music of some alternative culture

No it isn't. It's been used as a genre term for a long time. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there's no need to focus on the meaning of the word "alternative".WesleyDodds 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alt rock, alternative rock have been used for a long time and sometimes the term "alternative" is used. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But i think popopp's point is that this article co-opts the term to cover off virtually *any* guitar music since 1980 in the UK and the US. Thus its not meaningful in other countries (UK) where the term is no longer used or certainly doesn't have the same connotations and doesn't adequately cover off or even allude to non mainstream music outside this period especially in the UK.. It starts to become less meaningful in this article after the mid 90s when as a genre alternative rock fragmented into other genres (it er, became mainstream and its main protagonist dies) and it means that avant garde stuff (see Wire magazine bascially) which is "alternative" but not "alternative rock" is pretty absent.

I would change in the summary section from "At times alternative rock has been used as a catch-all phrase for rock music from underground artists in the 1980s, all music descended from punk rock (including punk itself, New Wave, and post-punk), and, ironically, for rock music in general in the 1990s and 2000s." to something like "At times alternative rock has been used as a catch-all phrase for rock music from underground artists in the 1980s, all music descended from punk rock (including punk itself, New Wave, and post-punk), and in the United States for rock music in general in the 1990s and 2000s.". In the United Kingdom music that since the mid 1990's is called "alternative" in the United States is called "Indie" in the U.K". A reminder in the "Alternative Music in the U.K. section might restate "alternative" generally has not been used to describe new music since the mid-90's" Edkollin 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Rock as US movement (1980- 1995 ?)

UK Indie Music (obviously as there already are sub pages devoted to Britpop, Indie Pop, Baggy/Indie- Dance and the like)

and an over arching page called alternative music. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary but without pages like that it would be pretty empty. Jem 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The page underground music largely already serves the purpose of what you and Popopp are getting at, though. WesleyDodds 09:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Enought talking now some doing . If alternative and indie are synonyms . i'm not sure they are but if they are! then this page needs to give equal weight to for example the derivation of the term; indie and its history in the UK. so i'm going to add a paragraph outlining the term; That said as this page is a tad revert triggy happy to say the least. i'm posting an outline of it here first.

• there are citations for nearly all of these statements* (books, articles etc)*
• its an outline. so *not* finished.

The term indie (I don't mind which order they go in ;)

---

A derivation of the word independent, was first used to describe non major US film studios in the US and used to describe a music label in Billboard magazine in 1945. However it wasn't until the publication in 1980 of a Independent record label chart in the UK music weekly Sounds that the term; indie started to be used commonly in the UK but then merely to describe music released and distributed via independent labels. The celebrated NME cover mounted cassette; C86, featuring new bands was releasedhas been called; "the birth of indie" and "the most indie thing ever" that indie as a term now became a genre for primarily white, guitar bands whether they were on a independent label or not. ( i know there's a reference to this later on in the article. it needs moving to here) Ironically major labels seeking the cachet of "independence" started to launch indie labels of their own (Elevation, Hut, Food) in the late 80s/90s. The growth of the genre was confirmed when sub genres were coined in the late 80s such as indie-dance and indie pop (for those still in thrall to Postcard and early Creation singles). Indie charts were now common in the weekly music press and featured in the national music programme; The Chart Show. In the 90s indie charts full of dance records. by britpop indie went mainstream. no longer underground. does it still mean anything ? if arctic monkeys can sell 1m copies of a debut album. ?

Jem 09:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All good points, particularly if you have some citations ready. Some notes: The first part about "indie" being used to describe music is already noted with the citation of Rip it Up and Start Again in the first paragraph of the section. The bit about the "major labels seeking the cachet of 'independence' started to launch indie labels" can be included in the "overview" section; I also have citations ready for American labels doing the same thing once Nirvana broke through that can complement that. I find the bit about C86 being the start of "indie music" not too reliable since it's only seemed to come up in the last year or so (and one of the guys making a big deal about it is not a music critic or historian, but a member of St. Etienne). The "indie" concept existed since the Buzzcocks' Spiral Scratch EP at least (there were indie labels before then, of course), and the genre termed "indie" had already yielded the Smiths and the Mary Chain in the UK prior to the release of the tape. If you can expand on the importance of C86, certainly feel free to do so in the section that discusses it, but I rather get the impression that there's a nostalgic reappraisal of the genre/tape going on right now that is overplaying its importance. Wasn't the tape seen as kind of run of the mill and reactionary back in the late 80s?

The main point to remember is that this article is about the genre we call all these random and at times ill-fitting terms (alternative, indie, etc.; what's "alternative" about Oasis and what's "indie" about Pearl Jam?), thus we don't need to focus on the words themselves too much. Focusing on the labels can be maddening (I've read so many pointless ruminations on these terms without them actually bothering to address the noun they are affixed to). In the end, they're just words used to conveniently describe the true topic: the music genre. Something like the UK indie charts being filled with dance record during the nineties is irrelevant to this topic: they were records released and distributed by independent labels, but they weren't the same genre as Blur, Suede, and Stereolab. The most relevant points you list are the ones that have directly to do with the topic of the music genre, ie. the genre being stereotyped as being white boys with guitars (didn't John Peel complain about this once?) WesleyDodds 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Only Shallow.ogg

Image:Only Shallow.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What is Alternative Rock?

I know this may sound dumb, but I've read the article so many times, but something bugs me about it. What is Alternative Rock? I've edited the Post-grunge article a number of times and have no idea how it relates to an Alternative Rock artist such as Oasis. It is very broad and the early Alternative Rock sound sounds completely different from today's Alternative Rock. I believe it is an umbrella term that has no meaning anymore from what it used to be. We should have seperate articles, one for 1990s alternative rock and the other for 2000s alternative rock. (Tigerghost 07:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Not dumb at all but one of the major problems in writing any article about a mature genre in any field be it music,movies or art. Do you go strictly by the definitions given by musical journalists or do you use term as it is used by the public and/or marketers?. Winamp streams some XM radio stations one of whom is described as "New Alternative Rock". Many of the bands on that station have little in common with one another and the music has strayed far from the 1980's and early '90's definition of alternative rock. My opinion is you go by the umbrella term as you call it but of course good arguments can be made for the opposing POV Edkollin 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What Edkollin said. Alternative rock has always been somewhat ill-defined, which the article tries to address. Anyways, there were plenty of alt-rock bands even during the 1980s that had little to do with each other sonically. R.E.M. didn't much sound like The Cure, who didn't much sound like Husker Du, who didn't much sound like the Stone Roses or Jane's Addiction. And so on. Nevertheless these bands have all been grouped together and it would be pretty POV to make two wholly different articles (and personally I don't see too much difference between 90's alt-rock and the modern-day stuff, mainly because a lot of stuff that popular now first gained momentum in the 90s). WesleyDodds 01:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you just have to make it clear that it's a subjective term and encompass all definitions from the commercial radio definition to the more music enthusiast. --Neon white 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great question, because, like pornography, which I know when I see it, I know 'alternative' when I hear it. But I've never heard a good explanation of the characteristics that make a piece of music, 'alternative' - and this article could sure use one... Dlabtot 07:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Papa Roach?

Is this source syaing Papa Roach is alternative rock valid?[3]Hoponpop69 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. WesleyDodds 01:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not, I need a vaild reason to take it down?68.114.92.198 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source per Wiki guidelines. WesleyDodds 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BritPop

as i recall the 'britpop' was never referred to as 'alternative' and was never associated with alternative rock, in fact it was very commercially successful, had major chart success and was widely accepted into the mainstream --Neon white 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was classified as alt-rock, particularly in the UK. Despite its commercial success and conservative sound, it originally emerged via bands that were part of the British alt-rock scene, namely Suede and Blur. WesleyDodds 04:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

alterative rock was certainly never 'known primarily in the UK as indie'. that is a complete untruth. 'Indie' is a broad term used to describe independant music of many genres. It has never been used as a substitute was alternative rock in the Uk and remains uncited. --Neon white 01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The Simon Reynolds book cited in the "The term 'alternative rock' section" makes a point of this, and I've spent enough time studying British sources and talking to fellow editors from the UK and Ireland to know "alternative rock" isn't widely used over there. It's called "indie", and has been since the mid-1980s. There's talk page discussion about it further up if you want to peruse that. The defintion of "'Indie' is a broad term used to describe independant music of many genres" is primarily a US phenomenon. WesleyDodds 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

that simply isnt true, indie is very much used in the uk to describe indie pop, indie dance, indie hip-hop. Alternative rock was commonly used to describe post-punk to grunge bands and post grunge bands, alot of which were not independant so would not have ever been called indie. True, there might have been rock bands referred to as indie, but it certainly never used as a substitute. Anyone who thinks it is, has never lived in the UK --Neon white 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Simon Reynolds is known for writing on dance and hip-hop, i'm not sure how credible he is for alternative rock. A citation needed tag should not be removed unless there a citation is found. it isnt good wikipedia etiquette --Neon white 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

a good source is the Indie pop article which clearly demonstates that the term indie is not synonymous with alternative rock in the uk. Also see http://www.indiepopradio.co.uk/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/indiesingles.shtml, the indie singles chart which is not only alt rock. Indie dance events/ club nights are also extremely common in the uk http://www.myspace.com/indiedanceparty --Neon white 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point isn't that "indie" only refers to alt-rock in the UK; the point is in the UK alt-rock is typically refered to as "indie". "Alternative rock" is used occasionally (there's a few BBC.co.uk articles I've seen that use it, but sparingly) but bands like Nirvana, Pixies, Oasis, and so on are classified as "indie". WesleyDodds 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you accept that a over arching genre exists that covers off pulp to REM to red hot chilli peppers to nirvana to pearl jam to the smiths. (all varying styles...some more "rock" than others). Perhaps debatable but the article makes a pretty good stab at it...then in the UK the overarching term for the genre (and yep there are sub genres and scenes and media in the UK that you could cite that *do* refer to *some* of these bands, *some* times as alt rock or alternative.(Kerrang for example) However the equivalent catch all term in the UK is (as meaningless as it now is) is indie.

Its Zane Lowe basically. I live in the UK. Simon Reynolds wrote some very fine journalism about guitar bands for Melody Maker throughout the late 80s/early 90s before he started to concentrate on dance/electronica as his recent Bring the Noise book illustrates. If you want other sources for usage of "indie" as a term to describe yer Pixies, Nirvana..then where do you want to start. The pages of every issue of NME since about 1986 should just about do it. Jem 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And hey, we added the note at the top of the article mainly because of the concerns of editors like Jem here. We hashed this out a while back, Neon white, but we can assure you we put some thought into this and it reflects consensus. WesleyDodds 07:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the term being used but i think the phrase 'known primarily in the UK as indie' is very misleading as it suggests that alt rock is synonomous indie in the uk which is not necessarily so. Even if the term was apparent in the 80s and 90s. I dont think it is today and certainly not in many areas and by artists themselves. I believe it was a fashinable term in the 90s and is no longer widely used largely becasue of the confusion which emanated as alot of those bands signed for major non-independant labels. Indie Rock is much more commonly used these days to refer to the bands in question. NME is an extremely poor source for categorising bands. --Neon white 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's often used to refer to a genre. For example, John Harris' book on Britpop features a lot of quotes from people using "indie" as a genre term, and the author himself uses it as one, which includes referencing Nirvana as an indie band. And, from a complete OR point of view, I was in England a few months back and I noticed HMV (the big music chain store) had an "alternative/indie" section. WesleyDodds 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It was, i believe, a shortening of indie rock used during the britpop years but i don't believe it is still widely used today. I think HMVs indie section is for independant bands which are very often alternative because they dont have the media attention of major label bands. They may get lumped in together but it's misleading to suggest the terms are used to describe the same genre. Also HMV at genres than NME. go to their website and look in the metal section. It's a infamous source of amusement for many what they clasify as heavy metal. There are bands in that section and in the rock section that are classified as alternative rock by wikipedia. So alternative rock bands arent necessarily grouped as indie. I still believe i have demonstrated enough doubt to change 'primarily' to something like 'often' as i don't believe it is as common now as when the sources were written --Neon white 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also described in the indie culture article as 'a label given to guitar pop by mainstream publications such as the NME.' A more accurate description in my opinion. --Neon white 22:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the grunge section

There should be a picture with the grunge section of the article. Should probably be a picture of Nirvana or Pearl Jam to show the mainstream interpretation of grunge, or possible a picture of Mudhoney or another indie grunge band. Any ideas/suggestions/oppositions? Connör ^(talk) 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, for now I am going to add a picture of Nirvana. Connör ^(talk) 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind, I put a picture of Nirvana's album Nevermind along with a pretty generic caption in the section. Connör ^(talk) 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That actually used to be there. Oddly enough I didn't notice it had been taken out. WesleyDodds 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to figure out why it was taken out. There might have been a legitimate reson... or it could have been another "Wikipedian for decency and censorship"... Connör ^(talk) 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was apparantly removed by User:Moe Epsilon who claims it is violation of fair use. I don't sure this is a violation though. Connör ^(talk) 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative music isn't alternative rock but alternative rock is alternative music

Alternative music includes a lot of genres, and only one of those is alternative rock. --Libertad y Saber 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC) PD: You can get more information and references here.

Uh, Alternative rock is the core/parent genre in that category. Alternative music redirects to this page. WesleyDodds 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

it shouldnt really, there should probably be a list. --Neon white 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not synonymous really. About the redirect, it is not really a motive because Wikipedia is not an original research. --Libertad y Saber 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He's got a point. Agreed. Alternative music shouldn't redirect.Jem 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Alternative_music_.E2.86.92_Alternative_rock --Libertad y Saber 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)