Bands that aren't prog, but are also great

Textbook wrote: I don't think anyone calls U2 alternative. I've never heard that at least.

True. They may have been technically alternative up to a point, but then they became larger and larger - from any point of view. I can only describe them as "rock" now.

harmonium.ro wrote: Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'.

Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything.

Minutemen
Midlake
Husker Du
Fiona Apple
The Band
Joni Mitchell
Bright Eyes
Sugarcubes
Joe Jackson
10,000 Maniacs
Rollins Band
Cat Stevens
Wilco

eh...just a few....too many to list

WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'. Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything. The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite. Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless.

It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate.

WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'. Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything. The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite. Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless. It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate. When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people."

By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL


Edited by harmonium.ro - August 16 2010 at 21:51

harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'. Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything. The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite. Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless. It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate. When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people." By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL

Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.

WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Textbook wrote: And yeah, Walter, alternative doesn't mean 'selling poorly'. Alternative doesn't mean anything. Its quite possibly the stupidest term ever concocted to describe music. It has to be an alternative to something, particularly something that is dominant and thus requires an antithetical form to stand in opposition to it. It hardly describes music, and if its the biggest seller its not exactly in any position to be called an alternative to anything. The fact that you don't want to operate with it doesn't make it stupid, it only makes you. It's an ambiguous term indeed, but music is not exact science. I like it especially because of its vague meaning. Actually it doesn't have "a meaning", but a semantic sphere. Anyway, anyone who doesn't admit knowing very well what an "alternative" rock band is supposed to sound is an hypocrite. Its a term that illustrates nothing save for a power relationship. When you apply it to a dominant exponent of popular music, its worthless. It isn't worthless because it is used, and it is used because it works; people know very well what it's supposed to designate. When U2 and grunge are placed in the same bubble, its a worthless term to to describe the music. If you really hate specificity so much, you might as well just say "rock" or "sounds made by people." By that logic, we should quit "rock" because it puts Santana and Radiohead in the same "bubble"... Or we should quit "popular music" because it puts Robert Johnson, Guns'n'Roses and ABBA in the same category... Or even better, we should quit "music" because it puts mediaeval, classical and popular in the same category! LOL Medieval, classical, popular, rock... at least those indicate something about the sound. Alternative denotes nothing about the period, intensity or instrumentation of the music. It has to operate in conjunction with something dominant in order to have meaning. If alternative is mainstream, it negates its own fleeting meaning.

Alternative indicates a lot about the actual music, you just have to ask yourself what makes Radiohead, Joy Division, The Verve, Franz Ferdinand (fill in with any major alternative bands that you know) etc. special in sound and music. Of course it's possible to have a scenario when someone doesn't know any alternative rock music so then he can't relate and therefore the word "alternative" doesn't say anything by itself, but that's exactly the way all descriptors work: they don't say anything as a word. Just the same, classical, popular of mediaeval can't tell you anything about the music if you've never heard any classical, popular or mediaeval music, ever.

Re: the alternative controversy let's forget about U2 and perhaps look at Green Day. Now Green Day actually are a band who really once were alternative, yet are now one of the most prominent pillars of mainstream rock. Are they still alternative? What is the precise point that it stopped?

Random selection of non-prog I've been listening to recently, sub-divided into broad categories for easy reference:

Indie/Electronic/Noise
Max Tundra
Everything Everything
Simon Bookish
Deerhoof
Melt-Banana
Silvery
Animal Collective
The Chap

Jazz/Funk
Eric Dolphy
Funkadelic
Herbie Hancock
Sun Ra


Folk
Linda Perhacs
Arch Garrison
Bridget St John
Pentangle

Post-Punk
Magazine
The Pop Group
Throbbing Gristle
Diagram Brothers
Half Man Half Biscuit
Public Image Ltd

There was a time on this forum where it seemed almost controversial to suggest there might actually be more good non-prog artists out there than prog ones. I'm glad those days are over.

The Kinks
Swans
Cream
Derek & the Dominos
The Allman Brothers Band
16 Horsepower
Dire Straits
In Gowan Ring
Judas Priest
Katatonia
Rome
The Clash
CSN&Y
Buffalo Springfield
Fleetwood Mac
REM
And many more...


Edited by Zebedee - August 17 2010 at 05:29