• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Restructuring Alternative

R

RadioNation

While over the past months, and especially weeks there has been an increasing amount of stations dropping "Alternative," I think many people, especially fans of the true format like me, need to re-evaluate what exactly is Alternative radio in 2006. Is it basically a rock based CHR and playing 200 some old testing favs from Nirvana, DMB, and STP? Alternative radio listeners in 2006 won't settle for this. I think the format needs restructuring, so while big media giants get rid of the format, it begins to flourish (and the right way) on smaller, local stations who don't need to follow a rock based hit list. Now granted there are exceptions,i.e. (KROQ, Indie, 91x, WFNX)

Let the music and format take its course...eventually it will come around the correct way.
 
> While over the past months, and especially weeks there has
> been an increasing amount of stations dropping
> "Alternative," I think many people, especially fans of the
> true format like me, need to re-evaluate what exactly is
> Alternative radio in 2006. Is it basically a rock based CHR
> and playing 200 some old testing favs from Nirvana, DMB, and
> STP? Alternative radio listeners in 2006 won't settle for
> this. I think the format needs restructuring, so while big
> media giants get rid of the format, it begins to flourish
> (and the right way) on smaller, local stations who don't
> need to follow a rock based hit list. Now granted there are
> exceptions,i.e. (KROQ, Indie, 91x, WFNX)
>
> Let the music and format take its course...eventually it
> will come around the correct way.
>

I couldnt agree more. I've been saying this for a while. But too many people want to defend the status quo. Glad to see the motivation for change.
 
> > While over the past months, and especially weeks there has
>
> > been an increasing amount of stations dropping
> > "Alternative," I think many people, especially fans of the
>
> > true format like me, need to re-evaluate what exactly is
> > Alternative radio in 2006. Is it basically a rock based
> CHR
> > and playing 200 some old testing favs from Nirvana, DMB,
> and
> > STP? Alternative radio listeners in 2006 won't settle for
> > this. I think the format needs restructuring, so while big
>
> > media giants get rid of the format, it begins to flourish
> > (and the right way) on smaller, local stations who don't
> > need to follow a rock based hit list. Now granted there
> are
> > exceptions,i.e. (KROQ, Indie, 91x, WFNX)
> >
> > Let the music and format take its course...eventually it
> > will come around the correct way.
> >
>
> I couldnt agree more. I've been saying this for a while. But
> too many people want to defend the status quo. Glad to see
> the motivation for change.
>

I would not describe Indie 103 or WFNX as "flourishing" radio stations - neither station has delivered ratings that live up to the hype. KROQ has always been the gold standard of the format and altho it has added more left-of-center bands in reaction to Indie (in my opinion, an over-reaction to Indie), it has always been very mainstream.

A great alternative station can and does break new bands. I am not defending conservative chart-watchers like DC101 that never take risks. However, a great alternative station also plays mass-appeal rock artists. Sometimes small bands are small because they have not been discovered by the masses yet; and sometimes small bands are small because they aren't very good. All too often, "hipster" radio stations confuse the two and wind up playing bad music because it's "alternative" and their ratings suffer as a result. The massive amount of airplay Green Day gets does not make them any less alternative; it simply means that they put out one of the best albums of recent years. And if radio stations across the country shunned Green Day to play lesser known bands in the interest of being truly "alternative," it would not revive the format; it would hasten its demise.

The answer is not all Linkin Park and it isn't all Interpol; it's somewhere in between. You have to be interesting but you also have to be relevant. Weatherly knows this - it's why he is still the reigning champ.
 
> A great alternative station can and does break new bands. I
> am not defending conservative chart-watchers like DC101 that
> never take risks. However, a great alternative station also
> plays mass-appeal rock artists.

You've slipped up there. A great alternative station should not forget the bands it broke that went on to make it big on the mainstream charts - as long as their music stays within some gut-defined level of relevance. But it should feel free to ignore an artist it didn't break and never would have, and conversely, should not feel the need to add something just because everyone else did. By that rule: Green Day *good*, Nickelback *bad*.

(For instance, for all my rhetoric, I program Green Day. They put out a great record, and they deserve it. REM, not so much - but I'll still play records they released with Bill Berry.)

In general, what's missing is that by and large, alternative programmers are programming what lands on their desk. They're not hunters anymore, they're spoon-fed, they've lost the audience that was along for the hunt, and that's why the format's drying up.

> The answer is not all Linkin Park and it isn't all Interpol;
> it's somewhere in between. You have to be interesting but
> you also have to be relevant.

The answer certainly includes "NO Linkin Park" from my POV.

-Sean
Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
 
> You've slipped up there. A great alternative station should
> not forget the bands it broke that went on to make it big on
> the mainstream charts - as long as their music stays within
> some gut-defined level of relevance. But it should feel
> free to ignore an artist it didn't break and never would
> have, and conversely, should not feel the need to add
> something just because everyone else did. By that rule:
> Green Day *good*, Nickelback *bad*.

I'll agree with that rule. This format broke the Goo Goo Dolls, Alanis Morrissette and Matchbox 20, but has rightfully let them all go. While I personally can't stand Nickelback, I think they should be evaluated on a market-by-market basis. The West Coast alternative stations have no business playing this band. In the Midwest and the South, however, this band has not yet suffered the backlash that Creed or Limp Bizkit has. I do think geography plays a key role in programming and that a great alternative station knows their market. (eg, Dave Matthews is very important in the Northeast, while Bad Religion matters in Southern California.)




> The answer certainly includes "NO Linkin Park" from my POV.

I disagree with your conclusion here. Bottom line: people like Linkin Park. Lots of people. They are the most viable artist this format has produced in the last decade. They sell millions of albums and when we do research, it is the only band since 1995 to have multiple titles rise to the top a la Red Hot Chili Peppers and Pearl Jam. To give that up is, from my POV, downright silly. If we had a ton of recent multiple-hit artists, perhaps we could afford to give them up. But unlike the early 90's when you had U2, R.E.M., the Cure and all the emerging grunge bands, we don't have any other recent artists that have produced a slew of hits. (Fortunately, we had a lot of older artists give us hits in 2005.) So I don't see how ignoring them could possibly help the format. You have to give the masses what they want and all the evidence suggests that they want Linkin Park.

I think one of the reasons this format has suffered is because it has a bad habit of giving away its biggest artists. When Evanescence came out, they were very much an alternative to what was being played - everybody said a female-fronted rock band could never work at the format. The Killers, with their new wave sound, was very fresh when they jumped on the scene in 2004. And the Gorillaz, with the hip-hop infused "Feel Good Inc.", was widely resisted by programmers even though it eventually went on to become one of the biggest songs of the year. But how many alternative programmers are going to dismiss these bands as "too pop" when their next records come out? Why would you invest all that effort into developing a fanbase for a band and then not reap the rewards when the band becomes big?

"Know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em. Know when to walk away. Know when to run." Half the panel is so conservative that it never steps out on any new bands. This is bad for the format. But the other half of the panel, in reaction, steps out on too many new bands and gives up big bands too early. This is also bad for the format. There's a middle ground that too few (among them KROQ, WNNX, KPNT and WPBZ) are navigating. These are the stations that will survive.
 
> > The answer certainly includes "NO Linkin Park" from my
> POV.
>
> I disagree with your conclusion here. Bottom line: people
> like Linkin Park. Lots of people. They are the most viable
> artist this format has produced in the last decade. They
> sell millions of albums and when we do research, it is the
> only band since 1995 to have multiple titles rise to the top
> a la Red Hot Chili Peppers and Pearl Jam. To give that up
> is, from my POV, downright silly. If we had a ton of recent
> multiple-hit artists, perhaps we could afford to give them
> up. But unlike the early 90's when you had U2, R.E.M., the
> Cure and all the emerging grunge bands, we don't have any
> other recent artists that have produced a slew of hits.

Catch 22, then. You won't give up a band whose sound is very much past its sell-by date, and you don't have any new bands with enough hits.

Maybe it's because you're playing too many bands who've passed their sell-by dates, and not paying enough attention to hit-making.

The fact that you're willing to lump together "all the emerging grunge bands" should tell that the grunge sound and its funk-metal kin in the Alternative space are past their prime, and the "ceiling" imposed on new bands pretty much shows a lack of commitment.

> (Fortunately, we had a lot of older artists give us hits in
> 2005.) So I don't see how ignoring them could possibly help
> the format. You have to give the masses what they want and
> all the evidence suggests that they want Linkin Park.

You mean like a shinking nationwide footprint for 'Alternative' Rock radio? The listeners are bored. They've turned to their iPods and to the Internet. But please - keep on pumping out the Linkin Park.

> I think one of the reasons this format has suffered is
> because it has a bad habit of giving away its biggest
> artists.

This format has suffered because its biggest ratings driver has nothing to do with music, and has just left the building. An Alternative format that actually satisfies listeners will not have nearly as big an audience, but it will have a loyal one - which current 'Alternative' clearly doesn't have.

-Sean
Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
Playing When Posted: Wildhearts, The, "Vanilla Radio"
 
Personally, when I'm tuning into Sirius 26 or WFNX, I don't mind the fact of them occasionally throwing in a "mainstream" band. They pick the band that works and not Nickleback or Simple Plan, that no one cares about. They can play The Magic Numbers or The Go! Team then reward the listener and spin Jesus of Suburbia. It's about attracting someone when they are rotating their dial. Imagine yourself in your car and you're looking for tunes. Is the real alternative listener going to pick some cheese or something new and fresh, even if they don't know it. I'd go with a track that sounds good. And hey, if I really dig them, I might just go to iTunes and purchase it.
 
> Personally, when I'm tuning into Sirius 26 or WFNX, I don't
> mind the fact of them occasionally throwing in a
> "mainstream" band. They pick the band that works and not
> Nickleback or Simple Plan, that no one cares about. They can
> play The Magic Numbers or The Go! Team then reward the
> listener and spin Jesus of Suburbia. It's about attracting
> someone when they are rotating their dial. Imagine yourself
> in your car and you're looking for tunes. Is the real
> alternative listener going to pick some cheese or something
> new and fresh, even if they don't know it. I'd go with a
> track that sounds good. And hey, if I really dig them, I
> might just go to iTunes and purchase it.
>

Nicely put, and I reiterate: Green Day pulled their weight on their latest album, and then some. When was the last time Linkin Park did the same? (And don't get me started on Nickelback.)

Don't play music because everyone else is - put it on because it's good.

-Sean
Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
Playing When Posted: The Faint, "Southern Belles In London Sing"
 
> > Personally, when I'm tuning into Sirius 26 or WFNX, I
> don't
> > mind the fact of them occasionally throwing in a
> > "mainstream" band. They pick the band that works and not
> > Nickleback or Simple Plan, that no one cares about. They
> can
> > play The Magic Numbers or The Go! Team then reward the
> > listener and spin Jesus of Suburbia. It's about attracting
>
> > someone when they are rotating their dial. Imagine
> yourself
> > in your car and you're looking for tunes. Is the real
> > alternative listener going to pick some cheese or
> something
> > new and fresh, even if they don't know it. I'd go with a
> > track that sounds good. And hey, if I really dig them, I
> > might just go to iTunes and purchase it.
> >
>
> Nicely put, and I reiterate: Green Day pulled their weight
> on their latest album, and then some. When was the last
> time Linkin Park did the same? (And don't get me started on
> Nickelback.)
>
> Don't play music because everyone else is - put it on
> because it's good.
>
> -Sean
> Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
> Playing When Posted: The Faint, "Southern Belles In London
> Sing"
>
Good point. No one can deny that, whether you are a fan or not (I can take or leave them), Green Day put a lot of effort into American Idiot. No doubt about it, they have come a long way since Dookie. Nickelback, on the other hand, is content to stick with the exact same successful formula album after album. What shocks me is that the American public are so naive that they continue to buy these albums, and that Nickelback's All The Right Reasons is still in the upper echelon of the charts. Well, there's no accounting for taste in these people - simple minds enjoy simple things.
 
> "Good" is subjective.
>

Considering how well "objective" measures are working for the format, perhaps a bit of well-informed subjectivity is what the doctor ordered.

-Sean
Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
Playing When Posted: Telex, "System"
 
> Nicely put, and I reiterate: Green Day pulled their weight
> on their latest album, and then some. When was the last
> time Linkin Park did the same? (And don't get me started on
> Nickelback.)
>
> Don't play music because everyone else is - put it on
> because it's good.
>
> -Sean
> Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
> Playing When Posted: The Faint, "Southern Belles In London
> Sing"
>

Great response. I totally agree. And when you pick what you think works and your audience is loving it, you look like an amazing guy in their eyes.
 
> Nicely put, and I reiterate: Green Day pulled their weight
> on their latest album, and then some. When was the last
> time Linkin Park did the same? (And don't get me started on
> Nickelback.)

I agree on Nickelback, but I think Linkin Park's creative output has been impressive. In addition to their two albums:

- Mr. Hahn directed several of the videos
- they put out a remix album collaborating with, among others, the X-ecutioners, the Crystal Method, and Kelli Ali of the Sneaker Pimps
- they did a ground-breaking mash-up EP with Jay-Z
- they did a ground-breaking mash-up concert performance with Jay-Z at Live 8
- Mike Shinoda put out a (surprisingly strong) hip hop record under the name Fort Minor
- Chester Bennington has a solo track on the Underworld: Evolution soundtrack
- Mike Shinoda remixed "Enjoy the Silence" for Depeche Mode

Not only has the band done a lot, but they've branched out into many different artistic arenas and they've been successful in many of them. Whether you like their music or not, I don't think these guys are a flash in the pan - they're real artists and a core band for the format.
 
Re: Restructuring Alternative / Linkin Park

> > Nicely put, and I reiterate: Green Day pulled their weight
>
> > on their latest album, and then some. When was the last
> > time Linkin Park did the same? (And don't get me started
> on
> > Nickelback.)
>
> I agree on Nickelback, but I think Linkin Park's creative
> output has been impressive. In addition to their two
> albums:
>
> - Mr. Hahn directed several of the videos
> - they put out a remix album collaborating with, among
> others, the X-ecutioners, the Crystal Method, and Kelli Ali
> of the Sneaker Pimps
> - they did a ground-breaking mash-up EP with Jay-Z
> - they did a ground-breaking mash-up concert performance
> with Jay-Z at Live 8
> - Mike Shinoda put out a (surprisingly strong) hip hop
> record under the name Fort Minor
> - Chester Bennington has a solo track on the Underworld:
> Evolution soundtrack
> - Mike Shinoda remixed "Enjoy the Silence" for Depeche Mode
>
> Not only has the band done a lot, but they've branched out
> into many different artistic arenas and they've been
> successful in many of them. Whether you like their music or
> not, I don't think these guys are a flash in the pan -
> they're real artists and a core band for the format.
>


Meh. There's no denying their strong work ethics, but most of the reasons why they did all these things is because of the huge sales of their albums. It's called striking while the iron is hot. Linkin Park are lightweights from an artistic standpoint. All of their songs follow a very similar formula, last no longer than 4 minutes, have lyrics that are way too simple and direct, and they are real tightwads with their albums - they're both about 35 minutes long. They're just another mindless corporate rock factory that, along with the likes of Nickelback, 3 Doors Down and Hoobastank, will soon fall off the face of the earth.</P>
 
> > Nicely put, and I reiterate: Green Day pulled their weight
>
> > on their latest album, and then some. When was the last
> > time Linkin Park did the same? (And don't get me started
> on
> > Nickelback.)
>
> I agree on Nickelback, but I think Linkin Park's creative
> output has been impressive. In addition to their two
> albums:
>
> - Mr. Hahn directed several of the videos
> - they put out a remix album collaborating with, among
> others, the X-ecutioners, the Crystal Method, and Kelli Ali
> of the Sneaker Pimps
> - they did a ground-breaking mash-up EP with Jay-Z
> - they did a ground-breaking mash-up concert performance
> with Jay-Z at Live 8
> - Mike Shinoda put out a (surprisingly strong) hip hop
> record under the name Fort Minor
> - Chester Bennington has a solo track on the Underworld:
> Evolution soundtrack
> - Mike Shinoda remixed "Enjoy the Silence" for Depeche Mode
>
> Not only has the band done a lot, but they've branched out
> into many different artistic arenas and they've been
> successful in many of them. Whether you like their music or
> not, I don't think these guys are a flash in the pan -
> they're real artists and a core band for the format.

So to support your claim that they belong on alternative radio, you cite what they've done in every format but alternative. (Not counting Depeche Mode, but I wouldn't suggest that directing a video had anything to do with Depeche Mode's sound. If the format had played the hell out of the Crystal Method and Sneaker Pimps remixes, you'd have something there, too.)

They're not a flash in the pan, this much is true. But they're not alternative, either. They're a lad band, and the lads love 'em. And they can have 'em, too, long as they can look up from their FHM mags long enough to pay attention.

-Sean
Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
Playing When Posted: Smiths, The, "Barbarism Begins at Home"
 
Re: Restructuring Alternative / Linkin Park

Are we comparing the probable career longevity of Linkin Park against the Kaiser Chiefs? I'll take that bet...
 
Re: Restructuring Alternative / Comparing U.S. Act to UK Act

> Are we comparing the probable career longevity of Linkin
> Park against the Kaiser Chiefs? I'll take that bet...



Well, no challenge there. But let's face it - though the U.S. doesn't exactly have any content laws in place like the ones in Canada, it's a known fact that radio programmers here tend to discriminate against bands/artists from outside the country by giving them far less airplay than acts that are from the U.S. My guess is that this programming concept took shape in the '70s - one wonders if the Beatles and the Stones would be held in such high regard by Americans if they came out 15-20 years later. This explains why, instead of hearing Sex Pistols, Depeche Mode, The Cure, and more contemporary acts like Kasabian and The Music on Modern Rock outlets, we are instead hearing the bland likes of Linkin Park, Fuel, Puddle Of Mudd, and 3 Doors Down, along with whitewashed, safe, generic appropriations of punk rock (only referring to them as that because everyone else does - truth is, they're about as punk as Paris Hilton) like Blink 182 and Fall Out Boy.</P>

What I'm saying is, there's so many people abandoning ship on the Alternative format, and it probably has to do with the fact that these stations are playing acts of little substance. Maybe if they expanded their playlists a bit and abandoned the trucker rock bands out there than have far more in common with Foreigner or Journey than anything Alternative, maybe that would revitalize the format.</P>
 
> While over the past months, and especially weeks there has
> been an increasing amount of stations dropping
> "Alternative," I think many people, especially fans of the
> true format like me, need to re-evaluate what exactly is
> Alternative radio in 2006. Is it basically a rock based CHR
> and playing 200 some old testing favs from Nirvana, DMB, and
> STP? Alternative radio listeners in 2006 won't settle for
> this. I think the format needs restructuring, so while big
> media giants get rid of the format, it begins to flourish
> (and the right way) on smaller, local stations who don't
> need to follow a rock based hit list. Now granted there are
> exceptions,i.e. (KROQ, Indie, 91x, WFNX)
>
> Let the music and format take its course...eventually it
> will come around the correct way

So you want to return to the too hip for the room Alternative "halcyon" days of 1988? You remember then? There were less than 20 Alt stations in the country above 91.9 on the dial. Most of them had crap ratings.

Been there. Done that. No thanks.

But the music was cool.
 
> So to support your claim that they belong on alternative
> radio, you cite what they've done in every format but
> alternative. (Not counting Depeche Mode, but I wouldn't
> suggest that directing a video had anything to do with
> Depeche Mode's sound. If the format had played the hell out
> of the Crystal Method and Sneaker Pimps remixes, you'd have
> something there, too.)
>
> They're not a flash in the pan, this much is true. But
> they're not alternative, either. They're a lad band, and
> the lads love 'em. And they can have 'em, too, long as they
> can look up from their FHM mags long enough to pay
> attention.
>
> -Sean
> Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
> Playing When Posted: Smiths, The, "Barbarism Begins at
> Home"
>

And who are you to define what is or isn't "alternative?" My brother and sister think that Nickelback and Hoobastank are alternative. They've never heard of the Arctic Monkeys.
 
Lots of feel good distortion of the truth here.

> Catch 22, then. You won't give up a band whose sound is
> very much past its sell-by date, and you don't have any new
> bands with enough hits.
>
> Maybe it's because you're playing too many bands who've
> passed their sell-by dates, and not paying enough attention
> to hit-making.
>
> The fact that you're willing to lump together "all the
> emerging grunge bands" should tell that the grunge sound and
> its funk-metal kin in the Alternative space are past their
> prime, and the "ceiling" imposed on new bands pretty much
> shows a lack of commitment.

[snip]

> You mean like a shinking nationwide footprint for
> 'Alternative' Rock radio? The listeners are bored.

Have you seen any recent research of college age kids? Have you done a focus group recently? Hell, do you talk to your neighbors (the normal ones that don't subscribe to NME)? Grunge is very strong with 18-24 year olds. Playing grunge makes sense because they LIKE IT. Avoiding playing music that your audience likes doesn't sound like you are respecting your audience very much.

> They've
> turned to their iPods and to the Internet. But please -
> keep on pumping out the Linkin Park.

More people are listening to terrestrial radio this year than last year or the year before. TSL decreases have slowed down. The average iPod owner purchases less than three digital albums worth of music the entire time he owns his or her iPod. The Clear Channel cluster in New York has more listeners than every streaming Internet station in the world combined.

It sure sounds like you need to re-think your argument that listeners have turned away from radio.

>
> > I think one of the reasons this format has suffered is
> > because it has a bad habit of giving away its biggest
> > artists.
>
> This format has suffered because its biggest ratings driver
> has nothing to do with music, and has just left the
> building. An Alternative format that actually satisfies
> listeners will not have nearly as big an audience, but it
> will have a loyal one - which current 'Alternative' clearly
> doesn't have.

This is utterly untrue and can only come from someone who has a revisionist history of the format. Altenative radio exploded in the nineties. I guess you are going to say that was due to Howard Stern? Those bands in the northwest had nothing to do with it, since its biggest ratings driver "has nothing to do with music."

This format has suffered because the format has lost its center. It listened to too much short-sighted research saying that going all hard rock would work, and now it's listening to too many people like Sean and is playing too much indie crap that no one cares about.




> -Sean
> Altrok Radio at http://www.altrokradio.com
> Playing When Posted: Wildhearts, The, "Vanilla Radio"
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom