Talk:Alternative rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Alternative rock has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 24, 2006 Good article nominee Listed

	Music Portal Alternative rock is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view this week's collaboration, or view other past collaborations.

Archives

— October 2007

Contents 1 Submission for FAC 2 US-centric 3 alternative a media creation 4 Alternative/Indie 5 First sentence/Indie? 6 Merger with alternative metal 7 New Wave music

[edit] Submission for FAC

This article is in very good shape, and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to submit it to FAC. There are many ALM project collaborators (including myself) that would surely help fix any criticism the nomination receives. At the very least, a failed nomination would give us a much clearer picture of what needs to be done in order to get this article to FA status. Grim 04:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I defintely want to hold off on that. I have a clear idea of what needs to be done with the article before FAC, and most of my own concerns are regarding sources. For one, I want to read Gina Arnold's Route 666: On the Road to Nirvana (1993) sometime soon (which, I only recently discovered, is not a Nirvana bio like I had figured, but a book about the American underground leading up to Nirvana's breakthrough). I've been able to flip through it at my library and I hope to read it from cover to cover sometime this week. I want to get my hands on Mick Mercer's The Goth Bible (1990) because I'm only vaguely familiar with goth post 1983. I also have no idea where to begin looking for sources about alt-rock outside of English-speaking countries. If someone could help on that end, that would cover a lot of the needed ground before we take this to FAC. There's also some reogranization I want to do, but I've been busy this week; hope to get through some more of it Monday or Tuesday. WesleyDodds 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I was just trying to spearhead some enthusiasm but apparently the enthusiasm is already there. I don't really have access to enough sources to really contribute in that way; and since the article doesn't really need anything besides additional info and sources, I probably can't help much. Grim 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US-centric

This is a good article, but suffers from a US-centric bias which I'm sure is not intentional, but can be fixed. To explain my recent edits;

• known primarily in the UK as indie - this belongs in the UK section, including it here only confuses things.

Explained below WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• British alternative rock is distinguished from that of the United States by a more pop-orientened focus - maybe true, but why is the comparison relevant?

This is how the source discusses the music, and I don't want to change what the source says. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• and a lyrical emphasis on specifically British concerns. - how is this different from a US band's lyrical emphasis on specifically American concerns? Or don't they do that?

It's a huge thematic topic that really started with the Smiths. It's definitely more apparent in lyrics than in US alt-rock; R.E.M.'s music was described as "Southern Gothic" int he early days, but no one sure as hell could understand what Michael Stipe was saying (not that they didn't try). It was the whole point of the Britpop movement, which Damon Albarn of Blur once summarized by saying his music was basically saying "Fuck America, fuck all your music." WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• As a result, few British alternative bands have achieved commercial success in the US - relevant how? This article isn't an examination of British band sales to US consumers.

Per the source. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The most popular and influential band to emerge from this lineage - clearly a Point of View. Certainly popular and influential, but who decided they were the most?

Yeah, I need to fix that. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• the band also gained a sizable cult following in the United States. relevant how? See above.

Discussed below, although I have been meaning to rephrase it. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• In contrast, only a few British alternative bands, most notably Radiohead and Bush, were able to make any sort of impression back in the States. How can music produced by a British band go 'back' to the States, unless the writer is making assumptions about the reader's nationality? But again, how is this relevant?

With the notable exception of R.E.M., most of the pre-grunge alternative bands that made it big were British (it is noted in elsewhere in the article that sometimes American bands, such as the Pixies, did better in the UK). Grunge changed all that. It's also a counterpoint to the chart domination of American alternative bands in Britain at the time, which lead to the rise of Britpop as an oppositional force. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise that the urge to categorise music is particularly American (Robert Smith's quote on this is a good one), but if this article is to attempt to define "Alternative rock" on an international basis it needs to first get past defining everything in terms of how it differs from American music and how it sold in America. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problem I've had to deal with is that most references only deal with American alt-rock, so the ones that do deal with it outside of the US often discuss it in terms of differences. Additionally, the British music press has often been concerned with success in the US, which is often used as a barometer of true success (there's far more people in the US then the UK, so there's the opportunity for a bigger impact). WesleyDodds (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair points. But just because source material (from both sides of the Atlantic) includes the "how's is it doing in US" concern is no reason for this article to do so. Simply omit it. Why is The Smiths', or Radiohead's, level of success in the US relevant? Both are/were very successful on a UK national scale, and could be called 'Alternative rock'. Why isn't that enough for their mention in the UK section? The point I'm trying to make here isn't one of simplistic national pride, US success certainly is welcomed by UK bands, but it also doesn't define them and this article (and section) is not about UK bands' standing in the US.

I'm trying to point out where you've fallen into the trap of assuming that the reader is American and needs everything put to them in reference to America. The last edit I quote above in particular assumes that the writer and reader share a US location to come back to. If anything, the article has placed both writer and reader in the UK to witness Britpop. Or are we still on American soil, looking across at everything from America's viewpoint? If the sentence is to remain it should be "across in the States".

The concern I have about 'indie' is, as the archives here indicate, the relationship between the two genres are not nearly that straight-forward. Dropping it into the first sentence without out any further explanation is either misleading, or gives the impression that the article is paying lip-service to the issue, but is otherwise happily oblivious. Far better it is covered properly in the UK section.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the way the article is currently structured (ie. by country) is to try and cut down on US-centrism. I for one started working on this article for, among other reasons, the fact that British alt-rock was under-acknowledged. However, I do like to stay as close to the sources material as possible (academic honesty and all that) and in the instances you listed they do deal with details in those terms. For instance, the Harris book on Britpop, written by a British author for a British audience, makes a big deal about Oasis success in the US. As he explained it, "Since the days of punk rock, with the exception of the odd freak hit, the groups who were so frenziedly championed by the UK's music press had always had one Achilles heel: though they and their journalistic sponsors might talk excitedly about imminent world domination, just about all of them seemed incapable of re-enacting one of British rock's founding myths - the arrival at JFK in a storm of flashbulbs, the sell-out shows at Madison Square Garden, the coast-to-coast tour, leaving chaos and carnage in its wake. The best that could be hoped for was cult success on the East and West Coast; any musician who dared to think any bigger could usually be dismissed as a deluded fantasist. In appearing to break from all this, for a while at least, Oasis were considered almost superhuman." (Harris, p. 262). I feel it's unavoidable that certain aspects of the article are that way, because the material available does deal in those perspectives. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the "indie" thing at the top, it is necessary because while the genre is primarily called "Alternative rock" in the US, Canada, Australia, and other English-speaking countries, the preferred term in the UK since the mid-1980s has been "indie". Not that they never use "alternative rock", but in British uses "indie" is used far more often. It has to be at the top of the page, and not in just in the UK section, for the mere fact that it's there so British readers can go "Oh, so that's what they're talking about!" when they click a link to this page. it's just a sensible way to start the article, and is required per lead section guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This smells like original research to me. Indie doesnt exclusively refer to any partioular genre so it is incredibly misleading to have it there. Independent music states that indie is short for independent music, 'a term used to describe independence from major commercial record labels and their autonomous, do-it-yourself approach to recording and publishing' This article contradicts that and is confusing. --neonwhite user page talk 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] alternative a media creation

the part in the beginning about alternative being in use in the 80s is flat wrong. nobody called it that; it was underground or indie. 'alternative' was coined in the late '80s/early '90s to describe acts like mazzy star or sonic youth that had just signed major label deals. MSNBC is not a reliable guide to underground rock music.

The archives of The New York Times, for one, demonstrate otherwise. The earliest use of "alternative rock" I've found is from a 1985 Rolling Stone article that uses it to describe the bands on SST. By 1987 The New York Times was using it quite often when talking about your standard 80s alt-rock bands (R.E.M., The Cure, etc.) For example: [1], [2], [3] WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

the ny times and rolling stone aren't a reliable guide either. no one called it alternative pre-1990. ie. it's a media creation.

--Alt and Indie-- They are 2 completely different thinks. They dnt even sound the same. I have changed the article accordingly --82.10.89.243 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At the heart it's a translation & industry issue. A lot of bands that were on major labels in the US and called alternative were on Beggars Banquet & 4AD in the UK - hence, "indie" over there.FemmyV (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

that's the thing - they were on 4ad and beggar's banquet here too, but those labels had US distribution deals with capitol and rca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and it was the fact they were on major US labels that denoted them as "alternative" and not "indie" (within the US). For example, Throwing Muses records had Sire as their main artwork, while 4AD had a tiny stamp. The only indie US bands that had wide recognition in the US (we're talking 1980s) were more likely on Twin Tone or SST, and most likely to be hard-core or punk derived. FemmyV (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative/Indie

Hi everyone. I'm mainly a french Wikipedia contributor, and the fact is that after debating, we decided to merge "rock alternatif" into "rock indépendant" because they actually talked about the same thing. Now, some contributors would prefer to rename the article in "rock alternatif". My question is: what's the fucking difference? I don't understand... It seems that "alternative rock" can be used for almost any kind of rock or pop music, I think the word "indy" is better because it's clearer. What's your opinion about that? Why do you think (or not...) it's useful to have two different articles? And shall we create again "rock alternatif"? Many thanks and regards. Xic667 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed what happened in the French Wiki because I like to glance at the versions of pages in other languages. It's important to keep in mind that in the 1980s, "indie" and "alternative" were largely synonyms; however, now they mean two different things. It would be useful to have two separate articles named "rock alternatif" and "rock indépendant" because as is generally used "indie rock" is a subgenre of "alternative rock". This article here is primarily about a genre of rock music, and is Indie rock; Independent music is the article to go to about the practice of releasing music independently. It also depends on what it more prevalent in France or Francophone countries. Is "rock alternatif" used more than "rock indépendant" in Francophone countries? When I was in Paris a year ago I believe I saw both "alternative" and "indie" sections in a record store. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: that timeline of bands in the French Wiki article should be removed. It was created by an English editor for the noise rock page and was based purely on his own POV. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The timeline has been removed :) . Well in fact "rock alternatif" is much more used than "rock indépendant", but til apoint it has almost no meaning anymore, to my opinion. Just like the spanish article says, "alternative rock" was used during nineties almost like a synonym of "rock". That all depends. AMong almost everyone I know fan of indy, almost nobody talks about "rock alternatif", it's just like... dirty! We merged both articles because it did talk about the same thing, both were very poor articles and ther was no use in maintaining two articles separately, if they did'nt say anything. I'm developping the article in the meaning of "real" indie rock. So, if we created an article, what should we put in it? What bothers me is for example the fact that bands like RHCP or Muse (!) are classified in alternative rock, but where's the alternative in their music??? Of course, it has no link with indie rock... Thanks. Xic667 (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, read this article. It should hopefully explain everything to you. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish Wiki article seems to be a straight translation of this page, so reading the original English version might clarify some items. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've told your advices on the french page. Thanks! Xic667 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence/Indie?

The very first sentence claims that alternative rock is primarily known as indie in the UK. Personally I think this is incorrect. Indie is a sub-genre of alt-rock, but is not a synonym for it. I have never heard American alt-rocks bands such as REM, The Smashing Pumpkins or RHCP being refered to as "indie" bands here in the UK. Therefore I believe that this generalisation should be removed from the very start of the article to aviod confusion to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDowns (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is misleading, 'indie' more commonly refers to Independent music or even Indie culture. It isn't a synonym at all. --neonwhite user page talk 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite common actually, although generally applied to British alternative rock bands in the UK itself. It was added to the lead in regards to past comments by British editors. The Simon Reynolds book cited does indicate explicitly that when the genre began to emerge it was known largely as "indie" in the UK and "college rock" in the US. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that has never been true and should be red flagged. The term 'alternative rock' is used just as often in the UK and there is no evidence to back up the claims made. I the subject is veing confused with Indie rock which is related but not the same. --neonwhite user page talk 14:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read plenty of British articles on alt-rock bands, and I've honestly only seen the genre called "alternative" less than ten times. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats not really a good enough reason and pretty much amounts to OR. I think it would be ok to say that 'indie rock' is sometimes used to describe similar bands in the uk somewhere in the article but saying it is an alternative term is not really been substantiated and gives it undie weight. --neonwhite user page talk 13:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MTV in the UK - http://www.mtv.com/music/indie/ NME/XFM - "the greatest indie anthem ever (nirvana being no.2)" http://www.nme.com/news/nme/28097 - BBC section "rock and indie" http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/rockindie/index.shtml If you accept that there is a genre that runs all the way through REM, Nirvana, The Smiths, The Strokes, Stone Roses, Franz Ferdinand etc which this article and WesleyDodds clearly does then, in the UK, its mostly called indie not alternative. some call it indie rock, some call it indie pop, some call it alt-rock, some call it alternative. but *most* sources in the UK call it indie. not OR but verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemstone66 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's simple not sourced and has been questioned by several users. I fail to see the relevence of any of those links, none of them cite the unsourced statement made in this article. We know indie rock and alternative rock are closely related terms and have overlap but they are not interchangable as is claimed here. Indie refers to indie rock only. --neonwhite user page talk 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"what REM have done (in a mere nine days) is return to their indie roots" BBC review of REM's new album. 2008. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/6z54/ Jem (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with alternative metal

I've proposed merging alternative metal into this article. Since there doesn't seem much point in replicating the discussion across two pages, please see the alternative metal talk page. Prophaniti (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They're completely different styles of music. Me as a reader, opposed to a contributer would be very dissapointed if you did. 121.223.140.110 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Without having compared the contents of the two pages, I would still oppose the merger because even if the two pages might have similar content, the two genres are different. It would be like merging two articles about different kinds of fish because the discussion of the habitat was so similar. (Lcohalan (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

Also agree witht the two above statements. Whilst no one would bat an eyelid about calling most of the "alternative metal" bands with the "alternative rock" label. I think it doesn't work the other way around. Imagine how long "alternative metal" would exist on the R.E.M. page for example. Also alternate rock is often very distinct from the sound of bands such as Rage Against the Machine and NIN etc and it should be noted as such. OK to remove merger notice? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Wave music

Does anyone think New Wave music is a sub genre of Alternative rock? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably in more ways no then yes. 1. Can something that came before be a sub genre? 2. New wave is more a sub genre of pop then rock. 3. See New wave discussion pages debating widely varying definitions. On the other hand there are some bands like Depeche Mode, The Cure,Siouxsie have been described as alternative rock pioneers and New Wave. This topic is defiantly headache inducing Edkollin (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)