Once again, this is a music problem, not a radio problem. Radio is simply reacting to where the core audience is for the music. Active rock has very few current consensus bands. By that I mean there are very few artists they can play that everyone loves. A lot of those current acts are making music that is very derivative from older rock. They're not advancing the music much further from where it was 25 years ago. If you're a kid hearing classic music like Led Zeppelin or The Who for the first time, it's not stale to you. Especially if current acts are basically doing the same thing.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
the Alternative genre seems to forget its heritage
- Thread starter gamefreak
- Start date
Once again, this is a music problem, not a radio problem. Radio is simply reacting to where the core audience is for the music. Active rock has very few current consensus bands. By that I mean there are very few artists they can play that everyone loves. A lot of those current acts are making music that is very derivative from older rock. They're not advancing the music much further from where it was 25 years ago. If you're a kid hearing classic music like Led Zeppelin or The Who for the first time, it's not stale to you. Especially if current acts are basically doing the same thing.
I guess I could see the staleness factor in active rock. For instance, someone I know was just complaining about the Active Rock station were I live playing Classic-Rock crap. Two examples were Queen and Pearl Jam. On the other hand, he claims seven years ago they were on the cutting edge with the new Disturbed, Five Finger Death Punch and even new Metallica.
I guess I could see the staleness factor in active rock. For instance, someone I know was just complaining about the Active Rock station were I live playing Classic-Rock crap. Two examples were Queen and Pearl Jam. On the other hand, he claims seven years ago they were on the cutting edge with the new Disturbed, Five Finger Death Punch and even new Metallica.
And a lot of what should be 'classic rock' -- grunge and nu-metal era music -- is missing from active rock playlists for some reason.
They'd rather play Led Zeppelin or Queen instead of stuff that was played on Active Rock even 15 years ago. I'm not saying they never play it. It's just that a station that claims to be Active Rock shouldn't be playing 50% rock oldies -- large percentages of stuff that is 30 to 40 years old.
Well, maybe they should. Maybe that is the new paradigm.
Well, maybe they should. Maybe that is the new paradigm.
As I've said, they're not musicologists, they're just playing whatever gets the audience that works.
And a lot of what should be 'classic rock' -- grunge and nu-metal era music -- is missing from active rock playlists for some reason.
They'd rather play Led Zeppelin or Queen instead of stuff that was played on Active Rock even 15 years ago. I'm not saying they never play it. It's just that a station that claims to be Active Rock shouldn't be playing 50% rock oldies -- large percentages of stuff that is 30 to 40 years old.
Well, maybe they should. Maybe that is the new paradigm.
Agreed. That's one reason why Sirius/XM has the "Turbo" channel. Mid-90's to 2000's heavy rock. It fills the niche nicely.
A comment was made earlier that "If you're a kid hearing classic music like Led Zeppelin or The Who for the first time, it's not stale to you. Especially if current acts are basically doing the same thing."....I disagree. While the heritage to Led & the Who is there, the sound (downtuned guitars, (LOUDER guitars for that matter)) and the intro of guttural voicing have separated the two styles in a very pronounced manner. I'm in my upper 40's and flip the station when Led comes on, but crank it when Godsmack or "old" Korn comes on. The bands of today tend to rock harder and heavier than those of old.
The bands of today tend to rock harder and heavier than those of old.
Maybe. As I have said, we're not musicologists. We're not saying one is "better" than the other.
Our only job is to play the music that gets the best ratings.
Agreed. That's one reason why Sirius/XM has the "Turbo" channel. Mid-90's to 2000's heavy rock. It fills the niche nicely.
A comment was made earlier that "If you're a kid hearing classic music like Led Zeppelin or The Who for the first time, it's not stale to you. Especially if current acts are basically doing the same thing."....I disagree. While the heritage to Led & the Who is there, the sound (downtuned guitars, (LOUDER guitars for that matter)) and the intro of guttural voicing have separated the two styles in a very pronounced manner. I'm in my upper 40's and flip the station when Led comes on, but crank it when Godsmack or "old" Korn comes on. The bands of today tend to rock harder and heavier than those of old.
True enough. And Led Zep and the Who had no rap included in the music -- something included in a lot of the top rock from 1995-2005. To a rock listener, there is a vast difference between 70's rock and 90's or 00's rock.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.