Talk:List of alternative rock artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.

Contents 1 Alternative or not? 2 U2 3 Yet another useless list 4 Garage rock is not alternative 5 Punk and New Wave 6 More misinformation from useless editors & the destruction of this article 7 M.I.A. 8 Wut the Hell? 9 Alternative or not alternative? 10 What's going on here? 11 And one more thing... 12 why does the list

[edit] Alternative or not?

Many bands have been added to this list that are questionable. While many would almost undisputably be alternative, there are some that I have my doubts on fitting the criteria. I think it would be helpful to look over this list and try to decide if the more questionable additions should be removed or not. -- LGagnon 15:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Unless one considers trip-hop a subgenre of alternative rock, it's very weird to see Massive Attack here. _R_ 14:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point, though there are more in the list that are questionable. Some are from different types of rock music, and others have been mislabeled as being alternative. Those are the ones that I'm really concerned about. -- LGagnon 21:28, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Generally I think you are doing a pretty good job of editing what is & isn't alternative rock, everyone would agree Joy Division are alternative but a lot of people would not consider Tori Amos to be the same. So I guess it would have to come down to mass consensus/broad interpretation on what is & isn't.

I seriously don't think, after much consideration, that Joy Division belongs on this list. The band was firmly punk/post-punk and broke up in 1980. Therefore, they really have no direct connection to what would become alternative rock, unlike post-punk contemporaries The Cure, the Banshee, Echo & the Bunnymen, and so on, who we able to develop throughout the 80's. However, I added New Order to this list a while back, and they certainly belong here. WesleyDodds 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear on the main page that the word 'alternative' should not imply 'underground', so there's no need to worry about a very successful alternative rock band being listed. As long as it isn't standard ROCK, but comes under some other subgenre of 'rock' (therefore making it an alternative to the basic, standard, 'rock', i.e. successful punk-rock bands are no less 'alternative' than underground punk-rock bands. It is the fact that they are important to their own subgenre of rock that should qualify their listing. Bethgranter 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U2

I'm not so sure U2 belongs on this list. Can anyone varify that they do? -- LGagnon 21:14, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

The fact you are even debating if U2 should be on this list worries me.

Oasis & Offspring do NOT belong on this list either, these two bands are top 40 mainstream rock, they are the virtual personifaction of the top 40 genre If they are going to remain on this list we might as well add Phil Collins, Spin Doctors, Creed, Live etc.

And please explain why Devo & New Order were removed & these two bands(above) were returned to the list. -- 203.13.126.19

You know, there really hasn't been any attempt to give a strict definition of what bands belong on this list and which don't. Some people do consider Oasis & Offspring alternative, even though they don't belong on the list. And people keep on adding bands that, IMO, don't belong and don't fit a strict definition of alternative. Maybe we should decide on such a definition? -- LGagnon 04:01, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't any band which has its own wiki on wikipedia and either lists alternative rock in its genre section OR lists genres which are in turn listed as subgenres of alternative rock on the alternative rock wiki, be listed? Couldn't this provide a clear cut decision? (Since only notable bands are allowed wikis anyway, and whatever genre they belong to is discussed on their particular band wiki pages).Bethgranter 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another useless list

Without defining criteria for "alternative", this list is beyond useless. I sympathise with LGagnon above, struggling to decide whether U2 are or are not "alternative". U2 definitely arose out of the indie scene in the UK, and their music is not wholly conventional rock, but how much more mainstream than U2 can you get. I flicked through it and I thought, a/ this list is a bit on the short side!, b/ where are Joy Division, Black Flag, Big Black, the Gurge, the Go-Betweens, Mogwai, Godspeed YBE, etc etc etc, c/ Toad the Wet Sprocket? Hootie and the Blowfish? What are they the alternative to exactly? Rug trophies?! Hello? And who is going to look up a list of alt bands to track down articles? I could understand if it were tacked on to a history of... article but as it stands, just another absolutely useless list.Dr Zen 07:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This list isn't useless. True, it needs improvement, but it does help find articles on artists in the genre, as well as suppliment the article on the genre. Maybe you don't need it, but others might. And yes, we do have a "history of..."-like article, but that is too big to add this to it. As for what's missing, you can go ahead and add them. -- LGagnon 08:22, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

You're joking. a/ There are far too many and b/ I'm not interested in fighting over who is or is not alternative (I note that you cut Adam and the Ants -- unquestionably alternative, have you ever listened to Dirk Wears White Sox? and exactly how many bands do you know of that dress up in pirate costumes and claim to be highwaymen? And how are massive attack out and Bjork in?) and c/ I'd rather work on the content than the metanonsense like this that attaches itself to it. Dr Zen 08:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The whole genre of "Alternative" is about as useless as "World Music": a collection of artists that don't fit in any other category. What do artists like Bjork, Nirvana, Soul Couging, They Might Be Giants & Sigur Ros have in common? Why should they all be lumped together in the same genre? Mike3k 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative rock is essentially any rock music form that finds its origin in punk rock. Thus, this can be a useful list with a defined genre. Of course, some artists that don't fit that definition have been considered alt, but that was due to foolish marketing rather than actual merit. Keep in mind, the mainstream music industry marketed anything out of the oridinary as alt rock during the 1990s. Thus, some people who don't belong here will be here even when they are not alternative. -- LGagnon 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

All American Rejects are as mainstream as it gets. Someone needs to clean this shit up. Gatesofawesome! 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because a band is mainstream doesn't mean they aren't alternative rock. Ignore the connotations of the word "alternative": above all else this is a music genre classification. I mean, R.E.M., The Cure, and Nirvana all had Top Ten hits after spending years in the underground. WesleyDodds 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garage rock is not alternative

People keep on adding garage rock revival bands to this article when they do not belong here. Let's take this into account before we add The Hives, The White Stripes, The Strokes, or any other garage rock revival acts in here again. -- LGagnon 19:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, although these bands maybe alternative as well as Garage, Garage is a more appropriate category for these bands & describes their style better than just alternative. Khanada July 15, 2005

It depends. Garage rock revival bands may be simply that: garage rock revival bands. But bands that establish their careers in the indie underground scene and have definite roots in alternative rock styles and artists (such as the Strokes and White Stripes) do belong here, or at least in a list of indie rock artists. WesleyDodds 01:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone ever think that Garage could just be like sub genre of Alternative? Or is it just a sub of rock?

It's a subgenre of rock in general. It's been around since the 1960s. WesleyDodds 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk and New Wave

User:69.170.186.201 just added a bunch of punk and new wave bands to the list. Should we keep these, or do they belong in their own list? Many of these don't seem to fit what would normally be called "alternative". -- LGagnon 01:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you, do you think some groups can be on two lists? I don't see why not. User talk:Khanada 02:00 August 04, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think they should be listed here, so good, even though they are not listed as subgenres of alternative rock on the main 'alternative rock' wiki page (but I think that's wrong too!)Bethgranter 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a case-by-case basis. A band like the The Cure can be classified as numerous genres, and many punk bands in America evolved into an alternative rock sound. But punk and New Wave don't belong as subgenres of alternative; it's a classification sometimes used when discussing the topic of alternative by itself, but such a classification ignores the differences and relations between the genres, and sources that consider the entire history of rock music don't group them together. Because, really, New Wave by and large has nothing to do with alternative rock; they developed along different paths. Not to mention there's just as many people who if they're going to group it all together are more prone to call everything "punk" instead of "alternative". WesleyDodds 04:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More misinformation from useless editors & the destruction of this article

This article is being destroyed. It's now one of those articles that proves Larry Sanger right when he said that Wikipedia sucks because expertise is not respected. So many bands that never deserved the title of alternative or ever came close to being alternative are constantly added to this list. When I started this list, real alternative bands were added with consideration for whether or not they do count taken when adding them. Now, people who don't know anything about music are ruining this article. It's becoming a lost cause because of the rampant lack of education and expertise (and in some cases, common sense) amongst the editors of Wikipedia on the subject matter. As it stands, the article doesn't provide what it is supposed to. It has become the embodiment of Wikipedia's lack of knowledgable editors, and unwillingness to respect them. -- LGagnon 03:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify with examples WesleyDodds 06:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're talking about now. But that's more an issue of people screwing around rather than a deliberation on whether or not certain artists listed belong in the Alternative genre. I did re-add the disputed accuracy tag when I did a revert in order to clean up some of the vandalism you missed, but I really don't think it's necessary to tag this page as such. The issue is people acting like jerks. If people keep vandalising the page, I'll just fix it right back, no problem. WesleyDodds 06:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M.I.A.

Alternative rock? Or not?

I'd say yes, but only tentatively. WesleyDodds 10:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wut the Hell?

Why are the All American Rejects on this page?

Well, they're not a punk band, so they belong here. WesleyDodds 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

just b/c the 'rejects have more hits than most alternative bands doesn't mean they're not alternative, too.

[edit] Alternative or not alternative?

Would System of a Down, Good Charlotte, Avril Lavigne, or Avenged Sevenfold count as alternative rockers? And if any of them, which ones?--Mr. Brain 04:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SoaD is nu-metal. Avril is pop. Can't remember what the other 2 sound like, but as far as I remember I wouldn't count them either. -- LGagnon 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on here?

Why didn't anyone put Type O Negative or Porcupine Tree on the list? If Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Tool, R.E.M. and Smashing Pumpkins can make the list, then I can add Porcupine Tree & Type O Negative.--Mr. Brain 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't knwo who Porcupine Tree are. Type O Negative seem to fit pretty well under heavy metal. WesleyDodds 21:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Porcupine Tree is an alternative/progressive hard rock band from England. If you haven't already, buy their latest album [[Deadwing]]. It's a great album.--Mr. Brain 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And one more thing...

And one more thing. Type O Negative may be metal, but they're also alternative metal. If they're gothic or alternative, they can't be deleted. And Phish is alternative rock, too. Thank you--Mr. Brain 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this "alternative metal" is actually an alt rock genre. From what I've seen of bands that get this odd label, they are always much more metal than alt. I'm removing them again until you can give a better justification. -- LGagnon 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this. The Cure & Siouxsie & the Banshees are considered gothic rock. Robert Smith & Siouxsie to my understanding have gothic-like vocals. Gothic is a subordinate of alternative rock. Now Type O Negative is said to be a gothic rock band. Peter Steele employs gothic/vampire vocals. That means they're also an alternative band. Therefore, they belong in this category. Is this a better explanation?--Mr. Brain 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vocals aside (which are not the only reason The Cure & Siouxsie get the gothic label), the rest of the music is metal. Maybe they have "gothic" looks, but so does Slayer by some accounts. -- LGagnon 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, I don't have a problem with Type O Negative not being on the list. But why do you have Lacuna Coil on it? I mean, think about it. They're more metal than alternative. So they shouldn't be on the list.--Mr. Brain 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why does the list

include almost all conceivable mainstream rock performer of today? are blink 182 and tori amos "alternative rock"? by definition, almost a majority of the performers on here are the antitheis of "alternative"- the commercial, mainstream artists. if the term carries so little weight, how about we just delete the damn thing or only inlcude bands that exemplify old school alternative rock. 67.172.61.222 23:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

When using "alternative" as a genre term ever since the 1990s, the mainstream presence of an artist has largely been irrelevant. Otherwise we'd be taking half the bands off this list, and seminal ones to the genre, too. And keep in mind bands that a lot of these bands broke through from the underground into the mainstream and managed to stick around (one notable example being R.E.M.) WesleyDodds 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)