Original_To:  ALLM
Original_cc:  OLIVOTTO
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:09:00 N
From:         "Out,
              out - you'll not feel the fall-out..." <OLIVOTTO@ITNCISCA.BITNET>
Subject:      mainstream and alternative war XXXII

Michael Bloom says:

>I came up with a Masudaoid notion I want to run by you guys.
>
>Proposition: that a relationship exists between the frequency spectrum of
>music and the socioeconomic status of its fans.

        Mike Masuda surely remembers the book I bought in Menlo Park with
him. It's called "The Secret Power Of Music", and is devoted to all those
strange interactions between music and, ultimately, human/social behaviour
and how these relate to each other. I've almost gone through it, and this
notion is not touched, but in principle I guess the "socioeconomic" term
is a bit misleading.
        I would rather say that the frequency spectrum of music has a rela-
tionship with the character of the ones who listen to it, and of course this
may be influenced (can be influenced / is influenced) by the socioeconomic
condition. Now this doesn't mean that every metal fan is equal to every other,
but simply that, probably, the mass of frequencies tumbling through the sound
of screaming guitars, booming drums and slashed cymbals are significant to
his "feelings". I believe that a serious music listener always experiences
both a mental and bodily reaction to music: and, in general, this is a sort
of pleasure (notice: a very twisted pleasure at times, since it may even be
a bit masochistic, but let's call it so; ask Carol for black leather details
and whips if you want :) ). That this pleasure is closely connected to the
very essence of the music (and ultimately the frequency spectrum) is patently
obvious, for me, and this is one of the reasons why Totentanz sound pretty
different from Enya :). But the real connection with the socioeconomic status
fails me, since the subject should probably be: "how one's environment can af-
fect his way of seeing/feeling/living things?". I don't know, and all this
is far out of my way. I'm sure someone can elaborate about this more cogently
than I ever could.

>skewed toward the high end, and this is the stuff that appeals to list members
>as apposed to the proverbial gas station attendant. Taking that to extremes,
    ^^^^^^^
        Michael, I'm so puzzled: you never leave typos in your messages! :) :)

>From: Robert Garret Gruhn <1418@EF.GC.MARICOPA.EDU>
>Subject: Music diversity

        Here's a new friend :)...

>This is my first post to this list...so be gentle...;)

        I will, but can't promise anything about other guys... ;)

>I like a majority of different styles of music, I find something worthy in
>every type of music out there.  I mostly listen to what people deem
>"Alternative" (i.e. Smiths, Concrete Blonde, Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys,
>etc...), but I've been known to like groups and artists diverse such as
>Amy Grant, Mary Chapin-Carpenter, Pink Floyd, and Metallica.

        Well, the first sentence of yours is a winner in itself on ALLMUSIC.
*Our little group has always been* kind to those who show open-mindedness,
*and always will until the end*. Hello... :)

>The reason for my post is this.  Do you think that the genre refered to as
>Alternative is taking over the mainstream?  I know many people who find
>every group that makes it to mainstream a "sell-out".  I'd just like to
>hear your opinions as to this.  Thanks.

        You're very welcome, and I will get serious at this point, though
I realise that my following statements may cost me the trust and friendship
of Michael Bloom forever.
        In general, the point is what happens to a band when they move from
a small label to a large one. Or, also, from cult-band level to worldwide
(or at least nationwide) success. There are three examples, two of which are
known to all of you, whereas the third probably isn't, being related to an
Italian band. The examples are: Nirvana, REM, and Litfiba.
        Nirvana didn't change much when they made it to Geffen. They actually
settled a style which is (utterly vaguely) called "alternative". There is
little doubt, by the way, that they actually are a mainstream band. Whether
one likes them or not, the enormous amount of copies that "Nevermind" sold
should point to the fact that there was a sort of need for a band like that
in the people, and that of course means all and nothing at the same time. In
glorious times, hard rock had bands like Deep Purple. Punk had The Clash and
Sex Pistols. Now "hard" music has Nirvana, and if you listen to them closely
you'll realise they are not actually inventing anything, but only chewing up a
well-learned lesson from the past. But they didn't compromise that much, even
after becoming a very famous and popular band. So, are they alternative or
mainstream? End of first scenario.
        Let's take REM. Their last two albums gave them stardom. Here in Italy
there was a small bunch of people who actually cared for them 5 years ago. Now
everyone's into their music, and they are stars, but at the same time 90% of
the listeners don't know a thing about their past career. Needless to say that
their music has mellowed out a lot (even though they haven't lost their charac-
ter) in the last three years or so... but that was the key to success, since
their music (again, like it or not) can now reach a very large number of peo-
ple. I don't really dislike their latest albums, but at the very same time I
have to admit that Elton John could have written "Everybody Hurts", and so I
question whether their being into music now is exactly like it was 10 years
ago, and I suspect that the answer is a plain "no". By the way, I happened to
by "Fear" by Toad The Wet Sprocket, never having heard of them before. These
guys are very REM-ish, in my opinion, but I like them better than the fathers
who inspire them... just because their work as a whole sounds a bit more ho-
nest and unbiased by market reasons. But, again, are REM mainstream and Toad
The Wet Sprocket alternative? So much for the second scenario.
        Litfiba hit the big time after moving from an independent label to
a major, in Italy. They were a very powerful and political band until three
or four years ago, and just before they moved they were probably one of the
best bands in Italy. Notice, they weren't starving, they had a success they
could surely live on. As it often happens, musically they're gone. Only two
of the original members still take part in the project, and their music has
nothing to do with what they did until a few years ago. At the same time, the
volume of their sales has grown by a factor of 5, and they've become stars.
Needless to say, their political involvement is now very stinking, and one
can only recognise a shadow of truth and sincerity in what they say. So,
what is mainstream and what is alternative?
        There is always a problem with music: when it's good enough and serious
enough to deserve a large diffusion, labels won't bite for the usual reasons
(it won't sell, it won't pay, in general -- it won't). The problem is that,
as I've often had the chance to know, only 17% of the acts of a major label,
on the average, recoup money and pay for others. 83% of them are dead weights.
My opinion is that this deadlock won't be broken until there will be a big and
serious change inside the people, and I mean a cultural change. There have been
moments in history when the antennas were more open towards art than now, and
I would argue that this tendency is unlikely to come back in the short run.
The good side of it is that until there is a small freedom left to try, we'll
have good music which has very little or nothing to do with corporate rock:
which is ot negative or bad in itself, by the way, only it is so desperately
spoiled by different reasons than art that the best we can do is... wave to
each other (those who know this reference may follow :) ).

        End of the rambling for today. Much more important: Robert, welcome
to ALLMUSIC!

        Ciao, Marco
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU