From: phatch@solstice.slc.mentorg.com (Phill Hatch (CONTRACTOR Documentation))
Subject: sad (long) (was Re: Alternative Music
Followup-To: alt.music.alternative
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corp.,  Murray, Utah
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:14:58 GMT


>In article <1993Jan10.205659.1789@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Grant A. Barrett ><gbarrett@missouri.edu> writes:
>>Re: Alternative music.
>>Eclectic vs. Alternative is a conversation I remember having before.
>>Hundreds of times. 
>>
>>Point: Hard to listen to does not equal alternative.
>>
>>Ecleticity does equal alternative. 
>
>But it doesn't justify BAD RADIO PROGRAMMING!
>
>>Keep it on for the anticipation, the choices you(ll have in five minutes
>>when the seemless segues lead to yet another music genre. 

>Anticipation, my ass. If I heard Van Halen and the Residents in the same set
>I'd change the channel, too. If the DJ were truly progressive, he/she would
>grab my attention with a reasonably well-known alternative band like the
>Residents then turn me onto something truly esoteric or alternative or >whatever,
>like U Totem, or Biota, or Renaldo and the Loaf. Van Halen and the Black Crowes
>are not part of the college radio equation. Period. There is an alternative
>equilavent for each of these bands: Tool, and Scrawl, for instance. There is
>absolutely no excuse for any well-informed DJ to play Van Halen. 
>
>>What do you think of Diamanda Galas? Burt Convey? Chris Mundy?
>
>They're all just fine. But if I heard them all in the same set, I'd change
>the station. 

All right, I summarize the current content of this thread as 
appropriate content for an alternative radio station.  The best
argument presented yet is "Change the station"  when music 
comes on that you disapprove of.  The person who followed this
post with a description of radio as a medium of commercials with
music filler is, unfortunately, correct.

What promts this post is the attitude, of "...heard them all in
the same set, I'd change the station."  There is a snobbish undercurrent
in this statement and on this newsgroup in general.

Radio has become like fast food restaurants.  You know where 
to go to get what you want.  It won't be significantly better
than the competition, but it is easy, innocuous and predictable.
It's also cheap.  Fine food, like fine music, is rarer, tougher
to find, tends to cost more, takes time to appreciate and leaves
you wanting more, eventually.  And even a properly prepared hamburger
can be fine food.  

Like any experience, music benefits from variety and juxtaposition
with similar and different styles.  Even within the rock subset
of music, variety and juxtaposition are important.  The other
day, the alternative station here in town played "I'm an asshole",
a trite bashing of conservative and unPC attitudes.  All it amounted
to was a self congratulatory recitation of how much better the
artist was than the subject of the song, and by association, the
listeners are better too since they shared the "alternative"
orientation.  To bash anyone from a position of superiority 
doesn't work and is demeaning to the basher.  

Echo:  "There is absolutely no excuse for any well-informed DJ to
play Van Halen."  If this were true, why are Tool and Scrawl 
appropriate alternatives?  Just because they are alternative? 
Is their presentation, execution and conception superior?  

They might, be, I haven't heard either of them.  But before we 
tear down another, shouldn't you at least present why Tool and 
Scrawl might be considered better.  This is akin to saying that 
oil painting is better than acrylic.  It's a statement of opinion, 
but has no persuasive or convincing content just because I said it.

And what does the "college radio equation" have to do with whether
music is alternative or even good alternative music.  Does your
college radio station have classical, metal, jazz and asian 
formats besides rock/alternative?  It should for true exposure to 
music.  But I bet it doesn't.

This doesn't mean that only upbeat, positive music or discussion
about music is right.  Hell, most art is about protest and change.
Discussion of art is too.  But I haven't seen much of it here.

When I posted about Contagion, my personal email replies were all
positive.  Most weren't very explicit in why Contagion is worth
hearing.  One local respondent offered to loan me his Contagion
so I could decide.  The negative responses posted to the net were
more detailed as well and were a welcome change from "Isn't band
XXX cool?  Yeah!  And when they were in town...."  This sense
of community could go on to discuss the content, the style,
the heritage and where the material "takes" the listener.  But
it hasn't.

I encourage the readers of this group to step beyond the radio
mentality and the comfort zone of an alternative audience to 
listen widely, listen attentively.  Music is more than background
accompaniament.  Genre alone cannot be used as the criteria 
to judge music.

Phil

SCARY SIG:  Overheard: "Genesis is a dinosaur.  They suck.
They need to play music more like Peter Gabriel...."