Some thoughts on Alternative Rock

I've said many times before that I don't like Alternative Rock. You know how alternative rock is supposed to express the 'alienation' and 'discontent' felt by the young Americans who started making it in the '80s? Well, that's exactly how I feel when I try to listen to it: alienated and discontented.

But I can see very well where they were coming from. I know that alternative rock started out as a revolt against the bland, unimaginative, cheesy Glam Metal of the day, much like punk started out as a revolt against the bombastic excesses of Progressive Rock and Hard Rock ten years before.

And the point is, I get that. While I enjoy a little Van Halen from time to time, I fully understand that having to listen to KISS, Mötley Crüe and Poison all the time drives you mad, and that you start looking for other kinds of music, or even Start Your Own Genre.

So how come that a revolt against a genre which I don't like, created a genre which I hate even more? Why can I sympathise with where alternative rock came from, but not with where it went?

Recently, I rewatched parts of the alternative rock episode (Left of the Dial) of the excellent BBC series Seven Ages of Rock - and I think I've come a little closer to answering that question.

The pioneers of alternative rock, it seems to me, got a few things fundamentally wrong. Firstly, when the narrator and several interviewees talk about Nirvana and their great inspirators, the Pixies (30-minute mark), much is made of the way these bands mixed 'hard guitars and harmonies', 'tunefulness and aggression'. In the words of Michael Azerrad, 'Kurt [Cobain] had always talked about what would happen if you started a band that melted Black Sabbath and the Beatles [...] and that was the Pixies' - implying that the Pixies came up with this innovative mix. Note that we're talking late '80s here.

It makes me wonder, had these people ever heard of Led Zeppelin? Deep Purple? Queen? Judas Priest? Iron Maiden? Had they ever seriously listened to Black Sabbath itself, for that matter? Bands which mixed Hard Rock and/or Heavy Metal with intricate melodies had been around, and well-known, for almost 20 years by then. Talking about this blend as if it was a revolutionary new idea in the '80s displays a shocking ignorance, and perhaps also disrespect, towards the music that came before.

But what's more important is that alternative rock, in denouncing glam metal, was Right for the Wrong Reasons. This is illustrated by the interview (32-minute mark) with Pixies bassist Kim Deal, who, according to the narrator, wanted to 'avoid the usual rock clichés'. She denounces the Big Rock Ending, and then goes on to mock her colleagues who 'want to help push every little moment' rather than 'just pedal through something' like she does with her minimalist bass lines.

These comments go to the heart of alternative rock's beef with glam metal: Ego. Showing off. Theatrics. These are things which the founding fathers of alternative rock considered wrong, not done, uncool. All the Crowning Moments Of Awesome of rock and roll - the Big Rock Ending, the Metal Scream, the spontaneous cry of 'Yeah!' and of course the elaborate solo - were suddenly Discredited Tropes.

Unjustly discredited, I'd say. For there is nothing wrong with large egos in music. Take a look at some of the people who really moved popular music forward - for example, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Buddy Guy, Jimi Hendrix and James Brown. They all had giant egos! They were not shy guys full of Wangst, but confident men, not afraid to sing about their masculinity and sexual prowess, to show off their talents in long solos, or to flaunt their egos on stage.

The problem with glam metal, as I see it, is not the musicians' inflated sense of self-worth, but rather the fact that they didn't derive this sense of self-worth from their music like my examples above all did. Rather, they seemed to derive it from their wealth, fame, and extravagant lifestyle. The music was thus of secondary importance, resulting in hundreds of dull, soulless, unimaginative songs which nobody had really put an effort into.

And if your analysis of the problem is off, your solution probably won't be very good, either. Just a few fragments of Nirvana, the Pixies, REM or what have you send me screaming for some AC/DC live recordings filled to the brim with 'the usual rock clichés'. Alternative rock's answer to the generic rubbish of KISS and Bon Jovi was to suck all the energy and enthusiasm out of rock and roll, and 'just pedal through' instead - until there was nothing left but alienation and discontent.

Thoughts?

edited 9th Apr '14 11:58:11 AM by MidnightRambler

Soome very good points. I don't like most Alt Rock because it's boring drivel, but good points.

I don't listen to much rock or Metal.

I used to listen to Alt Rock a lot, but then I moved on because it all sounded the same.

And I agree with a lot of your points.

As a textbook example of someone who worships the kind of alt-rock bands you're putting on the stand (Pixies, Dinosaur Jr., R.E.M., etc.) and hates classic-rock FM bands (like AC/DC or Bon Jovi), I can't really refute any of your points or anything. I just think those alt-rock bands are better: less repetitive, better songwriting, better lyrics, just more joyous and infectious. That's just what I hear in opposition to glam rock, which to me is awfully shallow and ugly.

As someone who likes both (Nirvana and Bon Jovi are two of my favorite bands) but prefers '60s classic rock above all, my opinion doesn't really matter here But I will say this, I just considered alt-rock to be any form of rock music that wasn't mainstream or even actively was against the mainstream. And there's a lot of music like this. For example, wouldn't one consider They Might Be Giants an alternative rock band? That being said, look how extraordinarily eclectic their discography is. Alt-rock is only really boring when it's not aspiring to be something.

edited 25th Mar '12 8:15:35 PM by 0dd1

Alt-rock became the mainstream in the 90s.

I realize that. Perhaps I should rephrase, rock music that began as something far removed from the mainstream or (as mentioned) was even deliberately anti-mainstream.

It depends on the personality of the person. I'm a low-key person, and pompous attitude and flare tick me off. Reading your troper page, Midnight, I can't help but think that you're pretty much the opposite.

So rage against alternative rock all you want - if politicians around the world were to form bands, they'd make the exact kind of music that you like.

<preaching_mode_engaged>

Honestly, '90s alternative rock was far from the first big movement to throw out aggressive virtuosity, strong individual ego, and Dionysian bombast; and in the end, it only avoided a few of overblown stadium rock's worst tendencies, whilst indulging heavily in others—the whole "loose," "dirty" image, for example.

If you want some good solid reasons for why a broad swath of musicians might want to abandon rock's flashier trappings, go read Simon Reynolds' Rip It Up And Start Again: Post-Punk 1978-1984. While only covering an admittedly narrow frame of musical time, it's still infinitely more informative and accurate than The Seven Ages Of Rock, which not only misrepresents its subjects often wildly but ignores this time in rock's history entirely, which is an unbelievable fucking sin. To whit, the writing is awesome; even if you hate the music, you can feel Reynolds' passion in every word.

(In addition, please note that the documentary does not tell you what The Pixies were drawing inspiration from. There is a reason for this.)

In other words, read it now. Learn. You will not regret it.

<preaching_mode_disengaged>

edited 26th Mar '12 1:35:46 PM by JHM

Primo, I was talking about '80s alternative rock, not '90s, and secundo, I mentioned in the OP that

I have read up on musical history, you know.

I've read Popmuziek in een notendop (Popular Music in a Nutshell), which covers this period rather extensively, due to Author Appeal. As for the 'flashy trappings', they're kind of the whole point of rock and roll for me. But that's a matter of taste, I guess.

Anyway:

That's SO going in my sig.
EDIT: Or at least it would be going in my sig if the damn forum accepted signature lines longer than 140 characters...

edited 26th Mar '12 2:49:46 PM by MidnightRambler

I've always hated music that sounds unenthusiastic, which is what a certain amount of alt-rock prides itself on being, so I have quite mixed, case-by-case feelings towards the stuff. Alternative rock that has genuine passion to it I can definitely enjoy a lot (which I think the classic grunge bands, to their credit, did achieve a lot of the time); detached Nose Yodeling over bland chord progressions, not so much.

But that whole point on 'ego' is interesting. I've never bought the idea that flashy guitar solos and over-the-top showmanship and songwriting are things to be done away with either; I think it's just as egotistical to consider yourself some kind of 'true artist' for rejecting these things.

Wait, pardon, but the bands you referred to only reached any semblance of popularity rather late into the 1980s and early into the '90s; when one says "'80s," one generally speaks of the period between 1982 and 1988 rather than the cusps of the decade. But semantics aside... you still may well find the book interesting. A rejection of classic rock's pomp and pretence does not mean a total rejection of showmanship or wild theatrics (see Tuxedomoon, Gary Numan, Factrix), nor does a rejection of blatant or self-advertised chops mean a rejection of skill (Gang Of Four, This Heat), or of the explosive improvisational elements that emerge from such skill (Pi L, The Pop Group).

Depends upon how you use them, really. Putting too much emphasis on one player rather than the group as a unit does smack of a kind of egotism, and is annoying to whit, but showing off a given player's or (more importantly) set of players' set of abilities is not something to be shied away from, methinks. (Hell, that's part of what I love about This Heat: Their skill was impeccable, even where it wasn't technical.)

edited 26th Mar '12 4:42:36 PM by JHM

Well given that almost every group will have one member who is either more talented than the rest or simply has the most charisma, personallity and face time that they become the most well known member, it really inevidable unless all members are both extremly talented and have unique personallity's.

Did you call?

One can hardly expect most bands to be Queen though.

Even in the case of Queen, as great as all their members are, It's pretty hard to deny that Mercury is the Face Of The Band.

The Beatles may be a better example.

That's a pretty weak argument for a number of reasons, to be honest, not the least of which being the assumption that the person being given the limelight is by default the most talented or charismatic individual in the band.

Really, I think that starting with an egalitarian mindset in a band, sonically, is the ideal place to start, even if it doesn't end up that way. If you're writing a song and you think that a given player might do well soloing in a given part, that's great, but assuming that, say, the guitar player must solo in X number of songs at Y point is an inherently detrimental restraint rather than any kind of effective showcase for talent, especially if that talent is a collective one. Take Can for example: Improvisation was their focus, but being as tight as they were, the emphasis was on group improvisation rather than a solo spotlight, though each member would get their chance to demonstrate their chops in their own way.

See, people might get the impression here that I'm anti-classic rock or totally against guitar solos. Not at all: I love most of the bands that Midnight Rambler has mentioned, or at least respect them deeply. I just believe that thinking that you have to play like that—or worse, play like people think that they played—even if you're playing in that style—is a ridiculous straightjacket that I'd rather avoid as a musician and a listener.

I would've mentioned The Beatles, but I thought we were still talking about Alternative Rock. Plus, Ringo.*

edited 11th Apr '12 7:20:14 PM by 0dd1

This seems to me as just being a statement of taste: I don't like this kind of rock because I think rock should be like this instead.

Admittedly I don't listen to alt rock at all almost. The only bands I like are R.E.M. and possibly Radiohead (I sometimes hear them classified under this genre) But I don't find an inherit mistake in their attitude, it is simply generally more boring to me than my favorite types of music.

There are going to be a lot of people in music history with whom you disagree completely purely on aesthetic and artistic grounds. As creating art is (especially in the case of so-called popular music) a very intuitive process I find it difficult to claim to anyone that the core reasons for their stylistic choices are based on "wrong" reasons.

It actually might be that the stylistic choices come first and the rationalization for them afterwards.

As Geertz put it - Styles in art at a certain age is not a intellectual process, but rather a statement or an expression of the general worldview and sense of the world that surrounds the creators.

EDIT: Admittedly the OP was very interesting to read. I think I'd enjoy a discussion about music with you.

edited 12th Apr '12 3:41:23 AM by Yachar

Even if bands don't have an offical front man one member will most likely stand out for the reasons mentioned in my first post.

edited 12th Apr '12 4:27:55 AM by KingNerd

Hehe, thanks. Anyway, the point of this thread was not to make a 'statement of taste', but mainly to answer the question:

See, the first band I really got into were Muse, and they were often classified as alternative rock, probably due to their passing resemblance to Radiohead with their early material. So a stripped-down aesthetic and a subdued nature weren't really things I initally associated with the term.

Can't say I know the history of alternative rock a whole lot but I can agree with this for the most part. In particular how the genre supposedly was defying the "bombastically sugary explosive pretentiousness" of the glam metal of the time but instead replacing it with the sort of "overly-emphasized look-how-down-to-earth-I-am" sort of pretentiousness people go to when they want to seem "deep" or "profound". Personally I see the genre as sort of the rallying call for the disaffected and apathetic 90's generation kids and one of the cornerstones that helped birth a lot of the dumb trends that they would help to spawn: nu-metal, emo, post-rock, post-grunge etc.

Mmmnope.

I can't stand that genre, some of the most pretentious and empty material I've ever heard that essentially dresses up standard indie/alt/pop/etc. rock in more bells and whistles and throws CRESCENDO/DECRESCENDO!!!!!!!!!!! all over it and then the pitchfork morons and thick-rimmed glasses crowd come in and try to tell us how "unique" and "deep" it is. It just ends up being the same-old-same-old but now made more unnecessarily long-winded and sophomoric.

edited 15th Apr '12 1:54:57 PM by StillbirthMachine