Talk:Alternative rock/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Over usage

Just about every band that i would classify as rock is classed as altern. Maybe it is over used? Smudger94 (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Below on this page, there is a reasonable attempt at defining alternative rock as "anything that is not classic rock." This already indicates one problem: that "Alternative rock" is an umbrella term for everything excluded from a single genre, rather than a genre per se; yet people keep referring to it is as such. It gets worse: being outside the classic rock tradition may have meant something in the 1980's, when Foreigner was still releasing albums, but it means nothing now. If anything, the contemporary heirs to the classic-rock bands of the '70s and '80s are the "alternative," while bands habitually referred to as "alt-rock" such as Wilco and the White Stripes have had albums this decade that have gone either to the top of the charts or near it. I guess in a more rational world, we could just merge this entire article with the one on rock music, but since we can't ignore terms in the common usage simply for being anachronistic, then the least we should do is address this historic irony in the article. Hell, there are probably plenty of kids out there who don't even know what "classic rock" is (was), and may wonder exactly to what "alternative rock" is an alternative.Treeemont (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole "21st century and revival" section's premise is unsourced and utterly hilarious to me. Who has ever called those bands "alternative"? Additionally, comments in Talk lead me to believe that this whole article is a bit questionable, nor have they said anything that has changed my mind on the matter.

Soooo, I'm going to delete it. My main caveat is that my point of view is definitely fairly US-centric. If I am wrong on this matter, please say so, revert as necessary, or do whatever else you have to do to make things right. Thx. Damienivan (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a reliable sourced section that seems entirely in line with usage in major authorities, so you probably want to get consensus here before deleting it. I am restoring it until such a consensus is achieved.--SabreBD (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sabrebd. It is well sourced and considering that alternative rock and indie rock are interchangeable terms, those bands seem to be relevant to the article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Who uses "alternative" and "indie" interchangeably, besides maybe the Grammys? I feel like those are the same people who call all electronic music "techno." Again, I don't know anyone who uses it to describe anything after the 90s. Is this a Euro thing? Canada? Australia? Some part of the US that I don't live in? I remember being in elementary school around 93, 94 or so, when anything "Alternative" (Capital "A") wasn't actually "alternative" (lower-case "a") any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damienivan (talk • contribs) 07:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

The term "indie"/"indy" is well past being a simple shorthand for "independent." It definitely has a certain sound associated with it. No one (that I know of) calls metal bands "indie" bands. Maaaaaybe someone might say an "indie metal" band to specify that they're independent, but there are plenty of bands that have had major commercial success that people would still call "indie." The White Stripes and the Strokes come to mind. More recently, maybe OK Go, Fun? I dunno, I don't follow this genre that that much.Damienivan (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty remarkable that the section headed "Alternative rock in the United Kingdom" does not mention PJ Harvey, easily the most critically acclaimed rock act of the 1990s on either side of the Atlantic. Ordinarily, leaving out individual examples isn't something worth trifling over, but this is an extremely glaring omission.Treeemont (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Basically, an indie band can be alternative, however not all alternative bands are indie. Indie means it is released under an independent label. Alternative means it is different from what is considered mainstream at the time. In the UK, indie bands are regarded as indie IF they are independent. Not if they are alternative. Sorry to bring it up late but i hope that makes things clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.79.223 (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But there are a number of Indie acts now that don't fit that definition. They have the "sound", but they also have major label backing. Like Alternative Rock, the definition changes or disappears and all that is left is the sound of the genre. 75.141.15.56 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Untitled

"Indie" is merely an imposition used to undermine statistically credited "rock, alternative, Pop, ect../ music and arts”, and still is an unfortunately successful attempt at a claim that "indie” has some sort of clout in the music/arts industry”. Such claims as; “Indie” derived from “independent” artists/music when in fact independent artist and music do not have the luxury of a derivative, a “to be” claim, Indie imposed rock, pop, alternative or any other broad claim too, derived of, by diversity to defy that of within itself. You are either independent or “Indie”. Indie is alternatively a classic example of the early stages of computer viruses around 1980 that evolve into trojan and ultimately destroy the vehicle from which it was derived of at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.219.196 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

New Wave preceeded alt-rock and is not a subgenre. However, alternative rock didn't emerge in the relatively clear fashion that, say heavy metal and punk did, and certain areas of the genre's early history do overlap with New Wave. But it's definitely not a subgenre. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

New Wave music is actually the parent of alternative music. FemmyV (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

U2 and the Cure

Why don't they mention U2 and R.E.M. more. --88.88.53.242 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC).

The Cure role in the development of Alternative Rock is described and there is a concert picture.

As for U2 they are considered to be an iconic rock band more then an alternative rock band. The U2 Wikipedia article mentions several times how U2 were influenced by Alternative rock but do not describe them as such. If you disagree make the effort to find reliable sources that describe U2 as an Alternative Rock band an edit the article Edkollin (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

U2 is to alternative music what the Rolling Stones are to Rock & Roll. FemmyV (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

U2 is a headline act now, they're still a rock band, but they've gained enough weight that people will follow them independent of what happens to the genre. (If rock died tomorrow, people would still pay to hear U2 if they still wanted to play.) Same goes for The Rolling Stones, Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Weezer (mentioned elsewhere in this talk page.) But just because Rolling Stones is filling stadiums to this day does not mean their style of rock music is on it's way back. 75.141.15.56 (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't quite make sense to me

This article doesn't quite make sense to me. It says alternative rock is called indie in the uk; and indie rock is a sub-genre of indie/alternative rock. But it's not clear that's right: that a sub-genre of a genre of rock music is termed by adding 'rock'. dyswim? all indie is rock, yet a subgenre of indie is called indie rock. why? because of that strangeness it's not obvious that the article is using 'indie' and 'indie rock' consistently. what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.75.253 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Indie music" is anything released independently, regardless of genre. "Indie rock" is a genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indie has lost any meaning behind it, with fans of it arbitrarily picking what is and what isn't. The same thing happened to Alternative Rock after 1991, then in the later 1990's to avoid trying to classify rock acts, they just pigeonholed all rock acts as Alternative Rock avoiding any genuine attempt at classification. (This should sound very familiar to Indie Rock listeners, as it's happening already.) 75.141.15.56 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

U2 and Depeche Mode

This article is in good shape and is pretty interesting, but I definitely think U2 and Depeche Mode warrant some discussion. I was surprised to find neither band mentioned, since they are two of the most successful alt-rock bands around. U2 may now be considered mainstream (or even approaching classic rock now) but was definitely alt-rock in its early years. Tool might also be well worth a note or two. I think the term "alternative rock" is pretty contrived and has little meaning anymore, but it in the 80's the "alternative rock" radio stations made their names with bands like The Cure, U2, Depeche Mode, New Order, etc. Bands generally reject labels, so they won't claim themselves to be 'alt-rock,' but it doesn't mean they don't belong in the article.--Elred (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Both U2 and Depeche Mode are rather iffy, and neither of them are of pivotal importance to the genre. U2 is only occasionally labeled alt-rock by a few sources, and really had not much to do with the development of the genre (they had already become a mainstream success by the time alt-rock was emerging out of post-punk and hardcore). Some sources label U2 as alt-rock without explaining why, while others do not classify them in the genre at all. Depeche Mode is something else entirely. They were perceived very differently depending on where you came from. They were only labeled alternative in the US since they were very popular on college radio, while back in the UK they were pop stars from the get-go and were basically seen as a synthpop boy band trying to add "maturity" to their music (reading the differing critical reactions is fun). Rather popular among the Anglophilic alternative fans in the States (particularly the West Coast), but their musical background has more in common with Duran Duran and the Human League than R.E.M. or the Smiths. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Depeche Mode are an interesting case. Alternative Rock is described as a return to guitar driven music and Depeche Mode are certainly not that. Speaking from stateside they were pretty big on Long Island also. And they drew 40000 to Giants Stadium in 1990. How they are considered has changed over time. In the early ro mid-1980's they were considered New Wave/Synthpop. A Google News search shows article after article from the late 1980's through the early part of this decade where they are described as alternative. The band has just announced a worldwide tour. In articles about this tour they are mostly described as synthpop with some new wave descriptions (especially in Israel) with alternative references rare yet they are a staple of classic alternative radio formating Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shambling & Obscure

Regarding edits by User:Petchboo. "Shambolic" means something entirely different from "Shambling" and has a definite negative POV. You also cannot state that the "the originators of the genre languished in obscurity" when you haven't said who these originators are. If we don't define the originators, how do we know that they are not the same bands who were successful?

"languished in obscurity" is also POV. Who has decided that they languished in obscurity and did not relish their obscurity? And who defined what counts as "obscurity"? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

shambling - To walk in an awkward, lazy, or unsteady manner, shuffling the feet. shambolic - Disorderly or chaotic.

have you heard the music in question?

and we know they were not the same bands who were successful by the fact that they were not - Comment added by Petchboo

My opinion, and your opinion, of the music having heard it is not relevant. The words mean different things. Please return the article to the previous state.

Please cite "the fact" that the originators were not the ones who were successful. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rock artist list

I was really bored last night so I went through about half of the list of alternative rock artists page and removed a whole bunch of non-notable and/or non-'alternative' artists based on the lede. I'm sure there will be some blowback so feel free to discuss here. www.facebook.com/candycyanide Arleach (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Difference between Alternative Rock and Indie

indie is bands like incubus and pendulum. alternative rock is bands like nickelback and staind.

totally different... in the UK (which is where im from) indie and alternative rock are wholly different genres; both being subgenres of the alternative music category, but different within themselves. Can someone please change this? 81.156.221.47 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In America, the term we have for bands like Nickelback and Staind is hard rock, or in radio terms, "mainstream rock" or "active rock". Bands like Incubus and Pendulum are considered "alternative" and bands like The Decemberists and Arctic Monkeys - regardless of label affiliation - are considered "indie" bands. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The same old crap, really, 90s drivel... -Honkytonks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honkytonks (talk • contribs) 11:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If Incubus is indie, then so is Hoobastank and Audiovent (two "buddy" groups of theirs). Indie bands are acts that in the 1990's didn't follow the A&R/Contract/Period of Adjustment/Breakout Hit pathway to fame preferring small labels or artistic independence from big-label influences, such as R.E.M. and Tori Amos. The definition changed in the 2000's to a style of music that was less "produced" and more "natural", such as The Shins, early Death Cab for Cutie, and The Strokes (plus any post-punk acts). My point? Neither pathway (small label or less production) describes the development of Incubus or their associated acts. 75.141.15.56 (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Early 1980s?

I don't see why it is listed as originating in the early 1980s; there was alternative rock in the late 70s, like U2 and The Cure, and there was gothic rock in the late 70s, which is supposedly a derivative form of alternative rock. Therefore I think the "early 1980s" in the infobox should be changed to "early late 1970s". ^Tezkag₇₂ 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gothic rock isn't really the same thing, it did come out of punk, but I don't feel it should be thought of as alternative rock. Although it has been labeled that retrospectively. If it is changed, early 70s is certainly far too early. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "early 1970s" was a typo. (Changed now.) I meant "late 1970s." ^Tezkag₇₂ 04:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The first honest-to-God goth single (Bauhaus' "Bela Lugosi's Dead") came out in October 1979. Even then, they were really the only ones around at that time; no other goth bands had formed and The Cure and the Banshees weren't goth yet. But still, the alternative rock genre didn't fully develop into something independent of post-punk and hardcore until the early 1980s, when R.E.M. and the Smiths came around, the SST bands started breaking the boundaries of hardcore, goth developed into a defined style with its own subculture, and so forth. In case you're wondering about gothic rock as a form of alt-rock, goth bands were among the first labeled "alternative rock"; members of The Cure and Love and Rockets have recalled it being applied to them starting when they toured the US around 1985. In the US the stereotype for alt-rock fans in the 80s was that you either looked like a thrift-store trawling college student, or you looked like Robert Smith or Siouxsie Sioux. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This confusion could be cleared up once and for all if we just admit that U2, whatever the merits of their music (almost universally recognised as wonderful), is not "alternative" and has not been in 25 years. A band that fills football stadiums, and has had a wide-release feature film about their American tour, is not an "alternative" to anything; they are the norm, in place of which other "alternatives" are offered. I think that if people stopped labelling rock acts "alternative" when what they really mean to say is "interesting" or "genuine," then the discussion would become much clearer.Treeemont (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Treeemont

The reason is simple, but can't yet be incorporated into the article as I can't really find enough sources to corroborate it. Basically, in the late 70's after punk you had New Wave, Postpunk and all kinds of related acts. All those artists made singles, got into the charts and everything was played indiscriminately on the radio in Britain and the rest of Europe. But acts like The Cure got more difficult to listen to, albums like Faith and Pornography were no longer deemed suitable for the casual listener, so around 1982 BBC One made a division. Acts like Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, U2, Spandau Ballet, Madonna, Culture Club were played during the day, while the more difficult acts were only played in the evening hours. This opened the door for more music that could be classified as non-pop or noncommercial, together with indie music which has always been difficult to listen to. Controversially the BBC decided that The Smiths were alternative and only received evening airplay. To me that's where alternative music was really created as a genre, and also why acts like Depeche Mode and U2 weren't considered alternative. To me it's simple, if the evening DJ's of the BBC played it, it was alternative, if they boycotted it for being too commercial, it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.72.40 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Europe, lofi, math rock, post rock, post punk revival, new weird america? post 2000 music?

This article is very biased form an American POV and lacks all in depth information about alternative rock that did not achieve mainstream top 40 succes or in depth information about alternative music after 2000. Europe is completly neclected (except UK bands).

Missing bands:

• Blonde Redhead?
• Yo La Tengo
• Daniel Johnston
• Grandaddy, Vic Chesnut, Elliot Smith, Sparklehorse, Shellac, Unwound, Les Savy Fav
• Animal Collective, Liars, Raptue, LCD Soundsystem
• YYYs
• DEUS
• Motorpsycho
• etc.

And the genres lofi, math rock, post rock, post punk revival, new weird america are largely neclected or hardly mentioned.83.87.170.234 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of those are already mentioned in the indie rock article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-2000 music (Post-1995 music, post-Web music) cannot be labelled alternative since all styles co-exist and are equally accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.207.197 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It literally has not been "Alternative" since 1991. But as a genre description it has been labeled by reliable sources plenty of times since then and in the 2000's also, especially the first half of it. And reliable sources is all we should care about in Wikipedia. Outside in the real world another story. Edkollin (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say all styles co-exist, as hip-hop and R&B haven't had a downtrend in popularity since the 1990's but have increased dramatically in influence, if not gradually over the same period of time that alternative rock was in decline. Internet promotion and on-demand media has changed genre exposure, but it is still very much not an alternative rock world right now. Subgenres will always exist, and pointing out alternative rock as influencing them is just as unnecessary as saying that Blues has had an effect in popular music made now. The subgenres however have no bearing on Alternative Rock's direction or weight in the public mindshare; if one of them gain interest (Dubstep, for example), they keep it all for themselves. 75.141.15.56 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

White Stripes and arguably not alternative

Who cares bout fidelity, White Stripes fits in with blues, rock, not "alternative", thats really stretching it, "garage" isn't even a genre. Red Hot chilli Peppers clearly fit with Funk Soul R'n'b, and that was a bit of a stretch...

Stretching it is the whole point. Alternative Rock has become a catch all term for any non "classic rock". New Wave/Synthpop groups are regularly played on "Classic Alternative" stations. The White Stripes have been often described as Alternative but you might have an argument there.

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers are regarded by most nearly every reliable source as not only Alternative Rock but one of the most important groups of the genre. They were described as Alternative back in the 1980's. The Chilli Peppers mixed Funk Soul R'n'b with rock/punk. Doing this just a few years after the anti disco rebellion was a bold move. They fit with even the most conservative defination of Alternative Rock. Edkollin (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some sort of Vandalism has been applied to the page about alternitive rock. Can someone please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.95.125 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is repeated over a period of time or the amount of vandalism increases substantially we can apply to have the article semi protected for a few days. If the vandalism continues further steps can be taken. . Unfortunately that would exclude you as semi protection means non users can not edit articles. Edkollin (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Classic Alternative

The article article states that "Thus the original use of the term was often broader than it has come to be understood, encompassing punk rock, New Wave, post-punk, and even pop music, along with the occasional "college"/"indie" rock, all music found on the American "commercial alternative" radio stations of the time such as Los Angeles' KROQ-FM."

The above statement was based on a 1995 citation. I think the "come to be understood" language is now dated with the rapid rise of the "Classic Alternative" format. "Classic Alternative" defines Alternative it the way they did in back in the late 1980's. The digital cable network Music Choice plays Classic Alternative channel launched recently plays 50% 1980's New Wave/Synthpop and 50% 1990s Alternative. Edkollin (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An issue with this article

I've noticed that this article makes it seem like alternative rock is a very narrowly-defined and obscure genre only present in a specific period of time. What I know to be the case, and what other articles such as those on bands and albums represent, is that it is actually a rather loosely-defined genre that has been one of the most popular forms of music since the early 1990s. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel the article clearly establishes that alt-rock is "is actually a rather loosely-defined genre that has been one of the most popular forms of music since the early 1990s", particularly in the "overview" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all right there, except for the fact that it equates alternative music with underground music. Many alternative bands are not underground; alternative rock is defined more as rock music that significantly differs in style from mainstream rock. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's how it's typically described by all sources. Alt-rock originated from and is still primarily based in underground circles; note how indie labels and college radio are still dominated by bands from its various subgenres. The underground ideology (positioning itself against whatever mainstream there might be, following DIY and "indie cred" practices, etc.) is still highly important. Yeah, there are bands that sell a lot and have lots of fans, but the genre still holds on to its underground-ness (even though in some cases it has no reason to). Note how Nirvana and Pearl Jam acted when they became famous, or how the Britpop bands felt their success was a validation of the ethics and subculture they had long been a part of. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The "catch all" nature of the definition and its mainstream success is discussed several times in the article including the summary. Edkollin (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't even friggin determine what it is. Most of this article just says "is a genre that...." blah blah blah; something that doesn't tell me what alternative rock actually IS. Can someone tell me what alternative rock is? I dont friggin wanna know about its history or even its stylistic origins. I want to know its characteristics. What it can and can't be. Can't there be a section about what alternative rock actually IS? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the biggest issue of this article, and it's unlikely it will ever go away. It seems that in the 1980s it meant punk-influenced music from underground bands, in the early '90s it meant any music from bands that hated success or pretended to, and since then it has just meant any rock music that has any somewhat-noticeable difference from classic rock. Defining "alternative" is akin to defining "art". Tezkag72 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this article is not credible. The direct infobox. Sard112 —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Alternative rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • All on-line references are live, although refs #11, #25, #33, #34, #37, are redirected to different URLs and should be checked and replaced as necessary.  Done A number of statements are unreferenced. I have placed citation needed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All seem OK, refs #17 & #18 should be formatted using Template:cite news for consistency. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • No edit warring, active reversions of vandalism and additions of inappropriate material. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Just a number of un-supported statements. On hold for these to be fixed, notifying major contributors and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, this has been comprehensively re-written and is much improved for it. I am happy to confirmthe GA status of this artcile now. Thanks for all of your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarified some citations. Removed some unsourced items. Left some unsourced item I'm reasonably sure I can source. Will get to those within the next few days. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's likely I'm missing something, but only one of the citations you listed as being redirect appears to have been one (I have fixed it). If you can clarify or even fix it, I would appreciate that. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I used CheckLinks, if you look at the url when you get to the article you will see that it has changed from the original url, newspapers do this all the time. Look at The Guardian for instance. Its not neccessarily a big deal, but it does help preserve the url for a longer period of time. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All links fixed now. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But we still have a lack of references in the other countries section. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(serendipitous edit conflict) This weekend looks busy for me, but I'll try and get everything else done soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I'll look in next week. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently doing a revamp of a large portion of the article in my userspace (something I had planned on doing anyway, but never got around to). This will take a few days. All unsourced material will be weeded out by then. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries - Jezhotwells (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• "known primarily in the UK as indie" - err what? No it isn't! Post-punk revival is considered to be a genre of indie rock and not of alternative rock but apart from that I think the terms are the same? rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the Simon Reynolds cite explaining this, have you ever talked to more longer-in-the-tooth music fans from the UK? The phrase "alternative rock" baffles most of them, but if you say "indie" then they get what you're saying, because that was the phrase used all the time in the eighties. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• It has now been three weeks. I am inclined to de-list this article at present as it is obviously taking some time address concerns. This is not the end of the world for the article and not a slight on the contributing editors, and will enable more time for concerns to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost done with my rewrite. Give me one more day. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look back on Thursday or Friday. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Underwritten on the 90s

Am I the only one who feels the topic of 90s alternative rock is a little underwritten? In its current state, the article primarily discusses 90s alt-rock in the context of sub-genres grunge and Britpop (which I'd always thought of as genres in their own right anyway), then lumps everything else into miscellaneous other forms, while failing to discuss the topic in terms of bands that are categorized solely as, and arguably epitomize, alternative—i.e., not grunge, not Britpop, not industrial; just alternative. The Smashing Pumpkins are a perfect example, and not that I'm trying to sound biased here, but any article/section on alt-rock that fails to mention even them, is an article that hasn't properly discussed the genre's peak in the mid-90s. That all said, I see the article has been GA-assessed, so rather than rewrite anything, I'll just voice my opinion and maybe a knowledgeable contributor to the article whose writing is more polished than mine can add more to the section(s) in question.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is missing the point, one that is noted in the article, that "alternative rock in the 1980s was primarily relegated[by whom?] ". alt/indie had a parallel existance, separate from the commercial world.

(The "by whom" was mainstream radio and one does need to find some pay-o-la references. )

Certainly in Australia the cultural cringe combined with a dominant meme of cover bands playing beer barns meant that the important post-punk and indi/alt bands got neither airplay; column inches nor support gigs in the commercial world.

The reason that the '90s are not so relevant is that, by then, the commercial world embraced alt/indi and, in a sense, took away the raison d'être for the scene.

--Thoglette (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Info box/ "Punk Rock" or "Punk Movement"

My attempts to add to material from the Allmusic article and other sources used by this article that alternative rock that Alternative Rock came out of the "punk movement" instead of punk rock as well as my additions that Alternative Rock was influenced by Heavy Metal and 1960's rock and pop music have been repeatedly deleted with explanations given that my link was in error and that my additions are questionable. Without any further explanations I could only conclude correctly or not that editors disagree with the conclusions these sources have made. The Allmusic article on American Alternative Rock says Alternative rock came out of the "punk movement", it did not say just "punk rock". Editors disagreeing with the distinction Allmusic and other sources made is not an legitimate reason to delete material based on these cites. If an editor has a problem with the reliability of Allmusic which is used by Billboard and many Wikipedia articles he should state it. By the way the distinction these sources made is an absolutely correct one backed up by many reliable sources and by material in the article. "Punk Rock" was an important influence. But Alternative musicians were influenced by many elements of the "punk movement" such as the DIY ethos and lyrics of social concern. That is not my opinion, it is what is stated in the article. The same principles apply to the other deletions made. Those additions are backed up by other reliable sourcing. Grunge a main sub genre has been reliably described as influenced by Heavy Metal. Brit Pop, Jangle Pop and other major sub genres have reliably described as being influenced by 1960's rock and pop music. Edkollin (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of the origins field is to list direct progenators (where the genres directly evolved from). This keeps the infobox field from becoming unnecessarily large, and from becoming too cluttered the items listed lose importance. There are tons of genres that are inspirations such as the ones you listed, but they are not the direct roots of the genre. For example, "1960s and 70s rock music" did not directly lead to alt-rock. In fact, the Allmusic cite says "Alternative pop/rock has its basic roots in punk, new wave and hardcore; it does recall other genres, particularly '60s pop and heavy metal, but the entire subculture first emerged from the punk movement". Also, the context is about punk rock as a music genre, as indicated by first clause of that sentence (listing three genres together); the writer is using "punk rock"/"punk movement" as interchangeabke terms. This is backed up by additional sources, which indicate that punk rock as a form of music was a launching pad. I understand it might not be clear at first, but the meaning becomes apparent when you parse the sentence (I don't know how much you care about English as a subject, but it's one of those things that was drilled into my head). Third, the footer is not necessary for the parent article as the infobox at the top serves that navigational purpose. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I still feel the same way about "Punk Rock"/"Punk Movement" for the reasons I listed above. As for the other so called non primary influences I do feel that they are important and should be noted at the top of the article in one of the summary sections. It does not necessarily have to be in the info box. The 1980's acts listed in the article were truly alternative because they acknowledged the then heretical idea that you are not compromising punk ethos by adding pre punk rock and pop elements. While allmusic thinks this is of secondary importance Simon Reynolds seems to think otherwise.Edkollin (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1980's Alternative and New Wave are becoming synonomous

Here in the US this might be a done deal. [4]Matt Pinfield this morning introduced Ultrovox's "Reap the Wind" as "Alternative/New Wave". If I would hazard a quess as noted above the "Classic Alternative" formatting which plays anything from 1977 Punk to late 1990's ska with a heavy dose of 1980's synthpop has something to do with it. Those 1980's nostalgia nights that cater to people to young to understand the distinctions that mattered 20 years ago are another probable factor [5][6]. Yes you did see that that right, that reporter for The Yale Daily News did label Sonic Youth and The Pixies New Wave!!!!.

This fundamental change in definitions is going to require some rewriting here and maybe a new 1980's Alternative New Wave article. Any ideas? Edkollin (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose a change in this paragraph to deal with this issue

By 1990 the genre was called "alternative rock". The term "alternative" had originated sometime around the mid-1980s; it was an extension of the phrases "new music" and "post modern", both for the freshness of the music and its tendency to recontextualize the sounds of the past, which were commonly used by music industry of the time to denote cutting edge music. Individuals who worked as DJs and promoters during the 1980s claim the term originates from American FM radio of the 1970s, which served as a progressive alternative to top 40 rock radio formats by featuring longer songs and giving the DJs more freedom in their song selections. One former DJ and promoter has said, "Somehow this term 'alternative' got rediscovered and heisted by college radio people during the 80s who applied it to new post-punk, indie, or underground-whatever music . . ." Thus the original use of the term was often broader than it has come to be understood, encompassing punk rock, New Wave, post-punk, and even pop music, along with the occasional "college"/"indie" rock, all music found on the American "commercial alternative" radio stations of the time such as Los Angeles' KROQ-FM. The use of the term "alternative" gained further exposure due to the success of Lollapalooza, where festival founder and Jane's Addiction frontman Perry Farrell coined the term "Alternative Nation".

By 1990 the genre was called "alternative rock". The term "alternative" had originated sometime around the mid-1980s; it was an extension of the phrases "new music" and "post modern", both for the freshness of the music and its tendency to recontextualize the sounds of the past, which were commonly used by music industry of the time to denote cutting edge music. Individuals who worked as DJs and promoters during the 1980s claim the term originates from American FM radio of the 1970s, which served as a progressive alternative to top 40 rock radio formats by featuring longer songs and giving the DJs more freedom in their song selections. One former DJ and promoter has said, "Somehow this term 'alternative' got rediscovered and heisted by college radio people during the 80s who applied it to new post-punk, indie, or underground-whatever music . . ." Thus original 1980's usage of the term "Alternative Rock" encompassed punk rock, New Wave, post-punk, pop music, along with the occasional "college"/"indie" rock, all music found on the American "commercial alternative" radio stations of the time such as Los Angeles' KROQ-FM. By the middle of the 1990's its usage had become more narrow . The use of the term "alternative" gained further exposure due to the success of Lollapalooza, where festival founder and Jane's Addiction frontman Perry Farrell coined the term "Alternative Nation". Currently in the United States the terms New Wave and Alternative are used interchangeably to describe punk influenced late 1970's and 1980's music.

If there are no objections to this change in the next week or so I will implement this change Edkollin (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Made the change. I see no need for another article at this point. The literal term "Alternative New Wave" would have to come into widespread use for a separate article to be needed. What might be considered is adding post punk as a term that is used interchangeably with the other two. Edkollin (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Found a 1997 NYT Article distinguishing 1980's definition from then current definition. Rewrote section a bit in response to that and just to have it make a little more sense. Probably could use a little more cleanup Edkollin (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement that Alternative rock and new wave are used interchangeably was deleted after entry because of synthesis and sourcing issues. Section was also cleaned up further. Hopefully these issues could be dealt with here before article entry but sometimes people are busy. Edkollin (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"All music descended from punk rock"

Does this claim have any backing? Or a citation? It needs some explanation, because I'm doubtful that most of my music came from punk-rock. Thanks, Saebjorn 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken as a whole the sentence is not all that off base in that it describing how the term has become catch all. Maybe better wording would be "All music influenced or inspired by punk rock" Edkollin (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

alternative rock in the 21 century

that part of the article says that alt rock is now less mainstream but their are still may bands that still see huge success like pearl jam, Red hot chili peppers, ect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.152.183 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The declining popularity material is "Mainstream decline" section is discussing the late 1990's and turn of the decade period. It is noted that while popularity had declined it had far from disappeared Edkollin (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So, all of the radio stations changing from Alternative Rock to other genres isn't part of this? Genres change over the years, sure, but I don't think most rock coming out these days are part of Alternative Rock. (Nevermind the fact Foo Fighters, Alice in Chains, etc. still tour, they would have a following if the genre disappeared tomorrow, same as U2, Talking Heads, and The Rolling Stones.) Either mainstream music is wrong, or there's a lot of fanboys guarding this page too much. 75.141.15.56 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears this page is defended by fanbois in denial. Alternative Rock is in a worse decline in the 2010's than it ever was in the 1990's but the article's ending is indicating that all is well for the genre. Probably why it is so long and tedious in other areas too. 38.75.33.216 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Muse

An legitimate argument can be made that Muse belongs in the article because because "Resistance" was number 1 on Mediabase’s Alternative Rock chart which measures Alt rock radio airplay for at least 18 weeks, a record for that chart.[7] This would seem to fit in with the articles mention of the choices for consumers. On the other hand most critics put them in the progressive rock category. Since the main focus of the article is about the genre I do not favor putting them in the article. Edkollin (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And since Alternative Rock no longer charts on Billboard, this doesn't matter anymore (Alt. Rock is lumped in with Alternative and Modern Rock now.) 38.75.33.216 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dave Thomson Book

[8]

It seems to say what the editor who added the material said it did. I don't know if we need a whole section on it since we already say it is born out of punk rock. I would add a sentence about the Thompson claim as detail following the sentence it came out of punk rock. Also in taking a glance at the book we need to consider his claim that new musik at first and then post modern in the late 1980's was used to describe alternative rock. Edkollin (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give page numbers (or a link if it is in a online form) as I cannot find the comments as presented in the original edit in what I have available. I have the early sections about The Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols. Assuming they are made, I think we should point to the view and the name of the author in each of the appropriate place in the existing text (obviously with a full citation), rather than in one separate section. Its a valid point of view, even if a rather unusual one and should be pointed to. Some of the generally consensual (among writers) material in the existing article here will also have to be adjusted to sound less definite. (eg Alternative started in the 1980s)--SabreBD (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the blurb, is that what this is based on?--SabreBD (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Google Book link above. Click on the Introduction vii section. But it is not the Velvet Underground as the edit said. The 1975 events mentioned are the release of Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, Patti Smith Horses and the formation of the Sex Pistols Edkollin (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I cant see any pages here. It is possible that this is because of different permissions for different countries. So its on page vii in the introduction?--SabreBD (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It probably won't work but try another browser and update your browsers to the latest version. I am using Firefox. I don't think Google Books allows you to copy the previews for obvious reasons. Edkollin (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I run the latest version of Firefox, but if you have read the relevant bits of the article you could just put it in appropriately.--SabreBD (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote without a source

Reference: ref name=indierock" Indie rock" is still sometimes used to describe the alternative rock of the 1980s, but as a genre term it generally refers to alternative music that stayed underground after the mainstream breakthrough of the genre in the early 1990s" /ref".

This is reference #4 as of this writing

Sentence based on reference:"Indie rock" was also largely synonymous with the genre in the United States up until the genre's commercial breakthrough in the early 1990s, due to the majority of the bands belonging to independent labels"

The above is one of two sentences based on the site. The sentence is talking about 1980's usage while the quote is about current usage. Also "largely" and "sometimes" are very different. Edkollin (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Put a dead link warning for lack of better template (If you know a better template please change) and reworded, Edkollin (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the material 2 weeks has gone by Edkollin (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Using About.com as a source?

Material about Post-Grunge and "Indie" has been deleted due to questions about using About.com as a source. The cite is owned by the New York Times. A look at the reliable notice boards does not glean a clean answer but a common theme is it varies by author. I believe the two authors used by me and the other editors passes muster.

Tim Grierson: Post Grunge article: Wasting too many of his waking hours listening to and thinking about music, Tim writes album and concert reviews for publications such as Blender, Revolver, L.A. Weekly and Detroit's Metro Times. He is a regular contributor to VH1.com and is an editor of The Simon, a daily website of pop culture, politics and humor. He does better with a real guitar than he does with Guitar Hero, which isn't saying much because he's terrible at both

Anthony Carew: Alternative vs Indie article: For well beyond a decade, Mr. Carew's wordy work has graced an impressive array of publications, both on-line and in-print. From Rolling Stone and The Age, to neumu.net. In that time, he's spoken to thousands upon thousands of alternative, independent, idiosyncratic, and odd musicians, from the incredibly famous to the instantly obscure. Anthony has also presented the radioshow The International Pop Underground, on Melbourne's iconic RRR FM, since 2000. He spends all day every day listening to music, from embracing old favorites to endlessly searching out the new Edkollin (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My main concern it that he doesn't cite sources, and is mainly editorializing. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we use him as an opinion as we did with Thompson?. There are other sources for the beginning of the British Indie chart I will use them. Edkollin (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Linkin Park

Allmusic is describes them as "rooted in alternative metal". Metal is a genre of rock music so there is a very good argument for them to be allowed. The other issue is that have they strayed so far from their roots that you can't call them that? Edkollin (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The band are clearly alt-rock. It appears a few editors don't like them therefore do not want them to be categorized under their pet genre. I call the big one bitey 04:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There are certain editors that do not think this group in particular and Alt metal is Alternative Rock and others editors that that take the opposite view and this has been going back and forth on and off sometimes getting personal for the 7 years I have edited this and the Alt Rock list article. As stated below I lean towered Alt Metal as Alt rock. One reason consensus has been impossible to achieve is that blanket statements of opinion ie what seems obvious. This line of argument becomes personal, egos get bruised etc. A place to start is if you can find reliable sourcing that specifically describes Linkin Park as Alternative Rock. With that the discussion hopefully goes away from the personal to whether entering Linkin Park satisfies Wikipedia guidelines.Edkollin (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well there are multiple sources out their calling them alternative rock, infact it's probably the most sourced genre next to nu metal and just plain rock. Type in the quote "alternative rock band linkin park" and you'll get over 800,000 hits, while if you type in "alternative metal band linkin park" you'll get 300,000 hits, and if you type in "nu metal band linkin park" you'll get roughly around the same hits as alternative rock. Also alternative metal is part of alt-rock, just look at the list of alternative metal artists, bands like Faith No More, Chevelle, Breaking Benjamin, Helmet, Alice in Chains, Tool, RATM, Primus and Soundgarden are all part of alt rock. I call the big one bitey 07:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You need specific sources that are reliable like this [9] Edkollin (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think that the charts would be reliable sources for genre classifications, though. Another reliable source which addresses directly to the genres would be better. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I consider Billboard to be a reliable source but a direct statement that Linkin Park is Alternative Rock would be better and multiple sources directly stating that Linkin Park is Alt Rock would be better than that. Instead all we get have gotten is years of arguments about why they think it is obvious that Linkin Park is Alternative Rock and threats about what would happen if the act is not added. Stating there are multiple sources is one thing producing them even if it is just a link to these sources is what is needed. And the best sources are academic or music journalists from reliable publications. Edkollin (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Coldplay?

Wouldn't it be smart to mention Coldplay? They are worldwide known as one of the best Alternative Rockbands ever... I'm honestly amazed about the lack of information about this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.22.145 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of complaining why don't you find a reliable source(s) that describes Coldplay as Alternative Rock and add them? Edkollin (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Alt Rock Radio vs Alt Rock

In what I consider the glory days of alt rock radio, there were way more bands getting played than fit nicely into the alt rock category. At least on my local airwaves.

Bands as diverse as Depeche Mode, REM, New Order, The Cure, Replacements, Smiths, Smithereens, Talking Heads, They Might Be Giants, etc.

Too bad such diversity is gone on most airwaves. Modern Rock is yelling and loud guitars and not much else. Very few original bands seem to get any airplay (maybe some bands like Toxic Airborn Event actually diverge from yet another Tool clone.)

Anyway, I personally think of alt rock as not whatever's not the current mainstream. So anyone who was NOT a hair metal band, was going to fit into that category at one point in time. And therefore would get airplay on alt rock radio. Thankfully there's still alternative rock stations such as San Francisco's KFog on the waves (I think they are refered to as adult album alternative, but no matter what you call it, they are playing an alternative to classic rock and the souless crap they call Modern Rock (sorry, personal bias there.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.200.117 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC) .

Pretty much every band you have mentioned are mainstays of the "Classic Alternative" format. A lot of internet radio organizations and cable/satellite TV packages have stations with that format. The format usually starts with the original late 1970s punk and goes to 1999 or 2000. Enjoy Edkollin (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Foo Fighters?

Although I am not an established member of the Wikipedia community, I have to take up argument with the scope of content in this article. I see that others have noted that the article lacks discussion of other prominent alternative artists (U2, The White Stripes, etc.) and because of this, the 21st century section should be expanded to include the current state of alternative rock. The fact that there is no content on the Foo Fighters, RHCP, or Weezer (just to name a few) is a serious lack of coverage for this article. I myself am no expert, but I suggest that something about this side of alternative rock should be added onto the 21st century header or perhaps someone should create another header for this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.71.84 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is here to explain the genre not just list Alt Acts. If we listed every commercial and critically successfully Alt Act the article would be unreadable. We call it "list creep" and it ruins a lot of genre articles. We have a list article for Alternative Rock that serves that purpose. There is no "perfect way" to include or exclude acts especially this which is very wide ranging a mega genre if you will, where there is disagreement as to what it is. We try an include acts that are influential or iconic or prominent in a subgenre of alternative rock. I will agree with you about Red Hot Chilli Peppers influential, Rock and Roll Hall of Famers and hugely commercials successful. I did try and put Foo Fighters in after they were prominent in the Grammys this year but my entry were revered. Weezer is a monster commercial success but influential or iconic?. As always "reliable sources a should guide us. Edkollin (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that list creeping in this sense will most likely include acts which are far past their prime (not to say that the ones mentioned above are not continually influential) or have contributed little or no change to the genre in terms of popularity or uniqueness. Yet, from what I see, the article essentially stops circa 2004 after mentioning the post-punk revival. While the obvious argument would be that adding any further acts would result in list creeping, this article is seriously outdated without any newer, trend-breaking bands. In this case, the Foo Fighters would be a marvelous example of a band that has helped keep this subgenre out of the shadow from whence it came. This doesn't mean I recommend putting them in particular as a symbol of today's alt rock. Hell, by all means please put any similarly contemporary alt bands like fun., Green Day, or even Maroon 5, but just as long as the list doesn't end a decade ago. Otherwise this gives the impression that alt rock no longer had any impact or innovation past this point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.196.144 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Because Foo Fighters, much like U2, Madonna, Celine Dion, and The Rolling Stones are still touring and performing as arena acts that outlasted their respective genres. Madonna and Celine Dion both perform in pop music but peaked at different times, and U2 and The Rolling Stones both play rock, but both acts have a massive generational difference in the sound. For much the same reason Foo Fighters still play Alternative Rock, and may one day be considered a rock act like the rest when people blur the lines between them and U2 like they have with The Who and Led Zepplin in today's music (Despite both acts owing a lot to Blues influences, I think that Mods would be very against being labelled as essentially the same as a band that was a foundation of heavy metal, but I digress.) The fact that Foo Fighters are still around cannot be called evidence that the Alternative Rock scene is back. For instance, Bush is still performing. But in magnitudes of scale, Foo Fighters still carries more weight and influence than anything that Bush does now. The problem is that too few acts near Foo Fighters' current influence are active to state that Alternative Rock is in any sort of a comeback to mainstream appeal. Listing any other alternative rock artist that "bucked the trend" like RHCP, Weezer, or others still headlining arenas to the same extent lends to the same observation: these acts are exemplary, but the events that brought them to fame and the scene that made them popular is long gone and not likely to come back anytime soon.

This is also coupled with the "pigeonholing" effect a lot of acts experienced with the Alternative Rock scene which both strengthened it's hold for over two decades, but also weakened it in the end as divergence happened with acts that loosely fit that mold (Beck, Ben Folds, Nine Inch Nails, etc.) and either went the same route as Foo Fighters (i.e.: We are alternative rock, and we're mostly all on our own now, and that's okay...), or embraced a smaller genre more completely (Nine Inch Nails probably identifies more as Industrial Rock now, and Beck as always doesn't care.) 75.141.15.56 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because Alt rock is not a high priority now and RHCP is still popular playing alt rock is not a reason not to list them. It should be based on the acts importance to the genre itself irrelevant to the genres popularity at particular times. If a genre is not popular ATM while acknowledging the genres decline in popularity we should still be writing about important developments happening within it.

Stylistic Origin

Created this discussion because User:Myxomatosis57 thinks The origin of Alternative rock can be traced back to Hardcore punk. Though it influenced it's later sub-genres Grunge and Post-Hardcore it had little influence on the Genre as a whole. I think by what the user has said he has Alternative rock confused with grunge or another sub-genre.--Greaymarshess (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The article established major American strands of the genre were derived from hardcore. See the paragraph that talks about Husker Du and the Replacements. Sure, R.E.M. and the Smiths (two of the most influential early alt-rock groups) had nothing stylistically to do with hardcore, but a huge swath of '80s alt-rock sounds (grunge, the SST bands, noise rock, the Pixies) derived from hardcore musical sources and the hardcore scene. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That was the point I tried to make. There was actually a whole section on hardcore punk article, explaining its influences on alt-rock. I can't understand why we ended up dismissing hardcore. (Maybe I just gave up, I don't know) Myxomatosis75 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User:Myxomatosis57 Talk Page

Hardcore punk did not influence Alternative rock, you must have Alternative rock confused with it's sub genre Grunge. Alternative rock literally started around the same time in 1977/78 with the The Go-Betweens so i don't see how it can be influenced by Hardcore. Go listen to early Alt band like R.E.M does that sound like Hardcore punk to you? One more thing neither of Allmusic pages on Hardcore Punk and Alternative says nothing about them being related besides being part of Post-Hardcore.--Greaymarshess (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this chat on one page shall we? The genre page is going by it's cultural roots which is Post-punk New wave and Punk. Bands like Husker Du ,Minutemen(which are post-punk)and Green river came years later. If you are gonna add Hardcore punk you might as well add No wave too since Sonic Youth is considered part of Alternative rock. Unless Allmusic specifically states that Alternative rock is rooted in Hardcore punk it's not getting added.--Greaymarshess (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quit commenting on my page. we are going by the Stylistic origins that is not Cherry Picking. make sure you understand what a word mean before accusing someone of it.Your other sources are also unreliable, It's basically just random googled articles that have no legitimacy to Alternative rock as a genre.--Greaymarshess (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we try to reach a consensus on the talk page of alternative rock with the help of other users, instead of assuming bad faith on each other? (Also how come those articles or even books can be unreliable, "random" googled articles? They're better than citing Allmusic. Also please do me a favor, add jangle pop to the stylistic origins of alternative rock. Both REM and The Go Betweens were also jangle pop bands, you know. And your logic asserts that a genre just appeared with a few bands, "instantly". Alternative rock didn't just suddenly appear, it gradually developed with taking diverse influences. Otherwise, why don't we have an exact year in the cultural origins section? Also as I mentioned, there's a whole section on the hardcore punk article (all properly sourced) about the genre's influences on alternative music.) Myxomatosis75 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative rock evolved of course and is honestly almost as diverse as punk itself, but punk was not it's only influence. Remember so called "classic rock", new wave, post-punk, and metal were all influences as well. Are you guys forgetting about The Cure or even bands like Joy Division? Both bands are considered alternative rock and date back to the 70s. What about major influences on alternative rock such as Captain Beefheart? (which this is mentioned in the The Captain's article.) The fact that The Captain isn't even mentioned as a major influence on the alternative rock article is beyond me... You can't honestly tell me you guys think alternative rock started in the 80s. Also all alternative rock sub-genres are under the umbrella of alternative rock, so their influences are alternative rock's, unless of course you consider grunge a fusion genre (which some do consider it a punk/psychedelic/metal fusion) I don't though... Honestly you could argue that all rock sub-genres that predate alternative rock influenced alternative rock, and you'd be correct! Any genre that has The Cure, R.E.M., My Bloody Valentine, Alice in Chains (grunge IS a type of alternative rock), Queens of the Stoneage, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead and The Replacements all listed to together must be a diverse as hell genre. The bands I just listed sound nothing alike and have completely different stylistic origins yet are all definitely Alternative Rock. Bands like R.E.M. made alternative rock popular, but of course they don't define the genre. That'd be as silly as basing grunge off of Nirvana or Pearl Jam. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

With all of that said hardcore punk is just one of Alternative Rock's many influences and I mean MANY. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the change in question, but everything should be attributed to the most reliable sources on the topic (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). If they explicitly say that hardcore punk is a stylistic progenitor to alternative rock, then there is no need for consensus. Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you just concentrate on the sound influences you miss the most important reasons why Hardcore influenced Alternative. It was the for lack of a better word the "indie" lifestyle and attitude that influenced Alternative. Also important Hardcore scenes developed in college towns, small to medium size cities. Even in Southern California Orange County had the largest scene. When Alt exploded in the 90's it was largely outside of the NY/LA axis. Members of the most popular Alt bands were in Hardcore bands [2]. Getting back to sound The Replacements and Husker Du are two acts where Alternative broke out on its own from the larger catchall New Wave. The section for American Alternative in the 1980s in the main article details this with with reliable sources especially how the underground gorilla marketing and distribution set up by hardcore helped Alternative acts. Hardcore is one of the most important of many influences on alt. Edkollin (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But listing Hardcore punk as a stylistic origin is saying all Alternative rock was influenced by Hardcore punk. What you don't seem to understand is that Hardcore punk influenced Alt rocks sub genres but not the genre from the get go. We are talking about the origin not about what influenced it years later.If we are gonna add Hardcore punk we might as well add Folk rock for bands like R.E.M and the Dbs who were influenced by the "Jangle" sound of The Byrds or Noise rock for bands like Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr.--Greaymarshess (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not object to folk-rock as a origin because REM was one of the most important alt rock acts or Metal because grunge is one of its most important subgenres. But those origins are limited to sounds. Hardcore's influence as mentioned goes beyond that that. Edkollin (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier. You could argue that all rock sub-genres that predate alternative rock influenced alternative rock, and you'd be correct. The genre is so diverse that you could find a handful of bands who loved any specific rock sub-genre. Do you honestly think that definite alternative rock bands like R.E.M., Alice in Chains, Radiohead, and Jane's Addiction have similar influences and genre origins? My biggest complaint is that Captain Beefheart (which on his article it says he was a huge influence on alternative rock) isn't mentioned on the Alternative Rock article at all. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are cites for Captain Beefheat's influence.http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=captain_beefheart_and_the_magic_band, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/captain-beefheart-mn0000988638, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/captain-beefheart/biography. Just can't think of way to neatly put him fit him in to the articles structure ATM.

Have no problem with a vast amount of origins for a genre that has a vast amount of origins. Edkollin (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I do. It makes Alternative rock look like an umbrella genre, though technically it is I don't see the point in adding 20+ genres as having influences on the genre. I think it would be better if it was 'Stylistic Origins:Folk Rock, Experimental rock, Punk(Including various sub-genres.)'--Greaymarshess (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Look when it comes to rock's main sub-genres (Rock n' Roll, Classic Rock, Metal, Punk, Alternative Rock, and Indie Rock) They ARE the complete umbrella genres drawing from everything since they're so broad. Since alternative rock is on that list yeah.... --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

See that's the problem you're not listening to what I'm writing to you. I said it was an umbrella genre but it would make the article unorganized if we added Hardcore punk, Folk rock and several other genres.--Greaymarshess (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could list only umbrella genres like this: [Stylistic origins - Punk, Folk, Metal. New Wave] Because those 4 broad sub-genre encompass everything that is Alternative rock without making it look messy. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok now we're getting somewhere, that was my main concern to begin with. But I would suggest adding Psychedelic or Experimental too 'cause like you said Captain Beefheart had a huge impact on Alternative rock, so did Frank Zappa.--Greaymarshess (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)\

On further thought I am getting on board with this. Since Hardcore Punk is a subgenre of Punk Rock Punk Rock covers it, same with Post Punk covering No Wave. So that is a a way of making it less messy. But articles about subjective umbrella topics are going to be messy Edkollin (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

God do I like Zappa sorry to get off topic, but I'm a member of a proposed Zappa project on wikipedia, and we need as many editors as possible would you care to join? Back on topic yes psychedelic and experimental would be good additions. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure why not, Wikipedia is becoming a dull site so it would be nice to be part of a project, Especially if it's on a musician and innovator like Zappa. Yeah,I think we can all agree on this proposed change to the genre's origin.--Greaymarshess (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool, just go here to join. Um yeah make the change to Alternative rock article if you'd like I have no object as long as punk, metal, and new wave are included. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I can say that I've found your recent genre proposals agreeable and satisfying. Nevertheless, my only objection is for the removal of post-punk as post-punk is much more experimental, complex and unconventional to be listed only as punk rock. As long as New Wave, punk rock and post-punk are listed, it looks fine to me. (You got my 100% support on the Wİkiproject Frank Zappa, by the way) Myxomatosis75 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Coming into this late due to offline concerns, but I posted a comment at the top of this section that explains why hardcore should be listed. Just as not all early alt-rock bands were influenced by New Wave and not all were influenced by post-punk, not all were influenced by hardcore (most notably, R.E.M. and the British bands). It was a confluence of all three punk-derived forms that birthed alt-rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of "College Rock" in the 1980s

This article has a non-sourced statement that "college rock" was a term used in the 1980s before "alternative rock" became the common term for the same music. I have found several Rolling Stone Articles and a Guardian article stating this did in fact occur. These articles were from this century. I have yet to find any sources from the 1980s using that term. It could be because this is an urban legend that has become commonly accepted or I have just not found 1980s sources for it yet. Edkollin (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

R.E.M. sound sample

I think because the article brings up R.E.M. more than any other artist (other than Nirvana) that a sound sample of theirs should be added to the article. I think fair rationale for the already existant sample of "Losing My Religion" would easily work since it's shows the mellow side of Alternative Rock that the already approved sample of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" does not. The two samples would also contrast each other well by showing Alternative rock's loud side verses it's mellow side further categorizing the genre. This would give the reader of the article a better understanding of what Alternative rock is, especially since the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" sample fails to show how new wave is a main stylistic origin for Alternative Rock although its punk and post punk roots are represented. "Losing My Religion" would show a good example of how Alternative was inspired by new wave. I find it to also be a good choice since it was R.E.M.'s most successfully charting and most popular song. So what I'd like to ask is do you guys think It'd be a good idea to find fair rationale for the sample of "Losing My Religion" to be in this article? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, for a sample to be used under fair use the piece of music must be described in the prose. Though I'm a fan of including relevant sound clips when appropriate, there is not sufficient enough rationale to include a clip of "Losing My Religion" here, and we must minimize the use of non-free media in articles as much as possible. This article used to have ten sound clips (R.E.M.'s "Radio Free Europe" was one of them); now SLTS is pretty much the only one we can make a solid case for inclusion to satisfy the fair use guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I feel like that's too minimal and for such a broad genre "Smells Like Teen Spirit" does NOT satisfy as a good sole sound sample of Alternative rock. This is especially true since it is also considered grunge and does not show any other form on alt. rock. I suggested "Losing My Religion" because it showed a side of alt rock that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" doesn't even come close to showing. Personally 3 sound clips would make the most sense (One to shows the loud/soft dynamics [which Smells Like Teen Spirit satisfies], one to show a more mellow acoustic side [which I felt Losing My Religion Satisfied], and honestly one to show the more experimental side. No I do not think that 1 sample is enough for such a broad genre and although I do think 8 is way too many. 2 to 4 would be most appropriate since it's a long article about a very diverse genre.

What actually bothers me is that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is the only song that's mentioned in the entire article. Sure a lot of bands are mentioned, but only this 1 song. Maybe I could add a little information about a huge hits [such as "Losing My Religion" by R.E.M., "Wonderwall" by Oasis, "Scar Tissue" by Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Learn To Fly" by Foo Fighters, "Ironic" by Alanis Morrisette, and "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden] because somehow the article seems a little biased towards Nirvana and this isn't an article about Nirvana, but instead about Alternative Rock in general. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was not the only HUGE hit that came out of alternative rock, which because of the lack of mention of other huge hits the article seems to imply it was the only huge hit. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge Sections "The term Alternative Rock" and "History"

Hey guys, I was just wondering about the section "The term Alternative Rock". This section talks about the history of the usage of the term. The whole section is about the history of the term, and in other articles this is part of the history section. Should it not be part of the "History" section under a subtitle such as "Usage of the term Alternative Rock"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittingal (talk • contribs) 10:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is much more overlap between characteristics and the term sections then the term section and history. Edkollin (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is more overlap between the term and characteristics section. This could be a little clearer, but I would still argue for keeping all three separate, otherwise it is hard for the causal reader to follow the structure of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

characteristics

alternative rock has been largely defined by its rejection of the commercialism of mainstream culture.... to say this idea could be contested is an understatement.did any alternative band not sell out as soon as they got the chance?174.91.111.201 (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The DBs never sold out, Cocteau Twins never sold out, Minutemen never sold out, The soft boys never sold out, They might be giants never sold out, Dinosaur jr never sold out... I could keep going there are a lot that never had a top 20 album or sold over a x amount of copies.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC) (Edited for clarity by 38.75.33.216 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC))

I think the definition applies to Alternative Rock as a rejection of pop culture at the time of onset in the late 1980's/early 1990's. Once a genre enters the mainstream culture as in the mid-1990's post-Grunge cycle, all bets are off. I'm not going to indulge the latter comment, as calling out who has/has not sold out is entirely relative to the listener, a waste of time to expand upon, and mostly an excuse/cover to saying "I just don't like them anymore" without having to explain why one feels that way (there's nothing wrong with not liking an act you use to follow... tastes change, it happens.) 38.75.33.216 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this article is quite wrong in places

Speaking as a fan who has listened to a large portion of popular alternative rock, from its early-'80s college rock beginnings to the 21st century, I think this article takes a far too vague view on this genre, treating it as a catch-all for any "alternative" music and ignoring, as I see it, that alternative rock is really a distinct sub-genre of rock music characterised by typically pop rock song structure-based guitar music with an underground, non-commercial (as in pop), "alternative" sound and aesthetic, typified by bands such as R.E.M., The Replacements, Pixies and The Smashing Pumpkins.

I understand that we can only really go on what some critic writes about in his book, and whether it's the accepted view of people who really know alternative rock is irrelevant if some guy calling himself an expert has the money to publish some book about it, it's just sad, is all. Keyboard a typical instrument of alt rock? Gothic rock and industrial rock are types of alt rock? Honestly? Well, after all, I have a really hard time telling The Sisters of Mercy and Marilyn Manson apart from the Violent Femmes. Sad. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Article reflects the catch all way the term has been used in all of its confusion and inconsistency. This is not happens only with alt rock but with most every genre be it heavy metal, hiphop , new wave (especially new wave which is what a lot of people called and sometimes still call the early college rock acts you mentioned). I have no trouble telling the difference between Iron Butterfly and James Taylor but it is all somehow "Classic Rock". We just don't use anybody's book. Example the book "Our band could be your life" we use is widely quoted. That all said if you can come up with a reliable source saying what is in here is crap, you can add it or we will add it for you. Edkollin (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Britpop?

I wouldn't consider Britpop alternative rock. Many of the bands started playing alternative rock after Britpop does, but I don't think that Britpop is alternative rock. Britpop has its roots mainly in glam, classic punk rock (70s) and 60s beat and pop rock music like The Beatles. Alternative rock has it's roots in 80s punk and new wave. You'll see that the influences are totally different. The only place where the influences of these genres meet is punk, but a different type of punk, as Britpop is influenced by 70s British punk and alternative by 80s punk which was mainly from America. I'm not saying that Britpop shouldn't be considered part of alternative music, I just think it's strange claiming that Oasis, Blur and Suede in their prime time did fit into the same genre as Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Nickelback, as these were totally different bands. It's wrong to call all rock music made after 1990 "alternative rock". It should be judged by musical style, NOT by their era. I am an Oasis fan and would never have considered Oasis an alternative rock band. At their first album, they may be considered punk, at the second and third Britpop and at the albums after they were probably alternative rock, but considering any of their first three albums "alternative rock" would be wrong. Britpop is not typical of "alternative rock". As I mentioned, considering Oasis, Blur and Suede in their Britpop era the same genre as Nirvana and Pearl Jam in their grunge era would not be anything I consider correct. I know they are both considered "rock", but the relationship between those musical styles are no more specific than that they are all rock bands. Also, most of the Britpop bands had a very anti-grunge attitude, talking negatively about grunge, and making songs with both happy lyrics and a light mood, contrasting to grunge's depressed and suicidal lyrics and dark, sad mood in the music. Grunge and Britpop are opposites, so I think saying they are the same genre is not correct. I suggest a discussion whether Britpop should be considered alternative rock. Te og kaker (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline in prominence in lede

I added a paragraph to the lede that described the decline in prominence and the revival. It was reverted due to MOS issues. Here is the old version.

By the end of the decade, alternative rock's mainstream prominence declined due to a number of events that caused Grunge and Britpop to fade and led to the hiatus of the Lollapalooza festival. Nevertheless, post-grunge remained commercially viable into the start of the 21st century, with the success of Creed and Matchbox Twenty and Radiohead's critical acclaim, and the success of some post-Britpop groups like Coldplay. Emo attracted attention in the larger alternative rock world, and the term was applied to a variety of artists, including multi-platinum acts. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, several alternative rock bands emerged, including The Strokes, Franz Ferdinand, and Interpol, that drew from post-punk and new wave. Post-punk revival artists such as Modest Mouse and The Killers had commercial success in the early and mid 2000s. By 2010, in the United States the term alternative rock fell out of common usage and the term indie rock was used.

Here is the new, improved version:

By the end of the decade, alternative rock's mainstream prominence declined. Post-grunge remained commercially viable into the start of the 21st century, with the success of Creed, Matchbox Twenty, Radiohead and post-Britpop groups like Coldplay. Emo attracted attention in the alternative rock world, and the term was applied to a variety of artists, including multi-platinum acts. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, several alternative rock bands emerged that drew from post-punk and new wave, including The Strokes, Franz Ferdinand, and Interpol. Post-punk revival artists such as Modest Mouse and The Killers had commercial success in the early and mid 2000s. By 2010, in the United States the term alternative rock fell out of common usage and the term indie rock was used.

References

British trends of the 80s - Madchester

The article presently says "Madchester bands such as Happy Mondays and The Stone Roses mixed acid house dance rhythms with melodic guitar pop". But isn't the Madchester beat based on "big beat" instead of acid house? I'm no expert on the difference so I'm putting it here for discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Indie Rock

The last line of the intro says that by 2010, the term alternative rock fell out of common usage in the U.S. being replaced by indie rock. I know what I'm saying is based on original research and would probably need sources to back it up, but I'm pretty sure that the terms alternative and alternative rock are still used all the time in the U.S.. Also, where is the source that states what the last line says? It seems to be unsourced anyway. Jacob102699 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That particular statement appears in part to constitute original research. One of the sources used for indie rock in the article (and in the sentence following that one), [10], mentions in the last paragraph:

"The sea change for indie in the US was the wave of turn-of-the-century bands that used British indie music as their inspiration, and the international democratisation of music discourse due to the internet ... Indie, in popular use in the UK from the late-80s, became the label of choice for Americans – and an even greater worldwide audience – to talk about modern rock and pop music. It appealed to a youthful demographic governed by sensibilities and ethical concerns similar to those that informed the British indie scene. Alternative as a genre was swept under the carpet ...

The intent of the sentence is mostly captured in the quoted paragraph, but a specific issue is the "By 2010", which is not stated or implied, and technically incorrect. The term Alternative/alternative rock is still used today, particularly since the resurgence of 90s and early-2000s bands in the 2010s, but also with 90s/early 2000s bands still releasing music, e.g, major ones like the Smashing Pumpkins and Garbage. That is easily verifiable. However that information is not included in the article.--Lapadite (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bands unmentioned

There are notable bands that are not mentioned in the article, like Hole and Garbage, both of which are important in the realm of 90s alternative and beyond. --Lapadite (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Could someone please rewrite this article? It doesn't read correctly. When reading it, it looks like little kids arguing over what Alternative Rock is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Six months later, it still has the same problem. (NB: I didn't make the comment above.) 38.75.33.216 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

to what, from what

"Alternative rock"

Alternative to what?

"Alternative rock is a broad umbrella term consisting of music that differs greatly in terms of its sound, its social context, and its regional roots."

Differs greatly from what? ---Dagme (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but trying to start an argument on the talk page can get you blocked. The talk page is used to talk about how to improve the article not to talk about rather or not you think this page should be on wikipedia.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Argument, Consensus, aren't those one and the same? Someone mentions a major change they want to do and people argue on whether it is necessary or not? Or are you forgetting Wikipedia was created by a lawyer? 38.75.33.216 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"Typical instruments"

The instruments parameter in the infobox should contain the instruments that are verifiably part of the genre. Wikipedia requires all information in the encyclopedia to be verifiable, which means there should be sources discussing how an instrument is part of the genre. If there are no sources, then the parameter should remain blank.

Furthermore, the instruments parameter has no guideline at Template:Infobox music genre, which is unfortunate. Such a guideline would tell us whether to put an exhaustive list of every instrument that can be used in alt rock, or only the instruments that appear in 100% of alt rock, or somewhere in between those two extremes, for instance, an instrument that appears in a majority of the songs in the genre.

Still, the basic problem is one of finding sources that actually discuss instruments in the genre, not sources that mention instruments in passing—not ones that mention instruments used on a particular song or album. Instead, the sources should be talking about the genre and about typical instruments used in the genre.

If we cannot source the instruments in the infobox then I will be removing them. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)