Comments on: What Are The Ingredients In This Nasty Soup We Call “Modern Rock”?

By: Amelia Yanetta

Amelia Yanetta — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:10:34 +0000

I like the weblog, but could not find tips on how to subscribe to obtain the updates by email. Can you please let me know?

By: dougrad

dougrad — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:34:00 +0000

it seemed like there was also another grunge-like wave between 1993-97, right after the Nirvana boom and before the terrible Creed-led boom. this period would include post-grunge bands like Silverchair, Sponge, the Toadies, Local H, Seven Mary Three, Nada Surf, Our Lady Peace, Better Than Ezra, Hum, and a few other bands that also had one or two heavily-played hits.

By: dougrad

dougrad — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:42:38 +0000

i’d also say that the Adult Contemporary reign lasted throughout the late 90s as well, since i remember Matchbox 20, The Wallflowers, Tonic, Eve 6, Marcy Playground, The Verve Pipe, Goo Goo Dolls, The Verve, Dishwalla, etc. getting lots of play around ’97 and ’98. especially Matchbox’s “Push” and Wallflowers’ “One Headlight.” and i’d say the rap-metal boom led by Korn, Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock didn’t get huge until about 1999. before then, i remember Rage being the only rap-metal band that was popular. and there was the “nu-metal” boom of the late 90s, which included bands like Chevelle, Disturbed, Orgy, Static X, Sevendust, Powerman 5000, System of a Down, the Deftones, Slipknot, etc. that sound eventually got too heavy for modern rock airwaves, but like i mentioned in that previous post, it seems like that sound is coming back. it’s surprising to hear a few of those bands, and a few newer bands who sound similar to them, making the modern rock airwaves again.

By: dougrad

dougrad — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:42:48 +0000

wow, i’m surprised at how accurate this article was. i’ve been a big modern rock radio listener since i was in junior high, which was the early 90s, and i remember when most of these sub-genres were the hot new sound on the radio before they quickly faded from popularity. i also remember noticing how crappy modern rock radio had become by the late 90s, with the waves of AC alternative, alternapop, third wave ska, and rap-metal dominance. it’s also funny how quickly sub-genres of modern rock can become less popular. in the early 2000s, i remember when everyone thought the garage-rock oriented “THE Bands” were going to start the next rock revolution similar to the grunge breakthrough, but people quit caring about them a year or two later. the only one you still hear is The White Stripes, and only Seven Nation Army still gets played. however, it seems like now, in 2010, grunge and metal influenced hard rock is getting played a lot on modern rock radio, and you can also hear lots of indie rock bands that probably won’t still be played in the long-term future. but really, you turn on a modern rock station today, and you’ll hear the same heavy-rocking songs you’ll hear on the hard rock stations. one of the only differences is that the modern rock stations still love to crank plenty of 90s favorites we’ve all heard millions of times.

By: Amcreva

Amcreva — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:40 +0000

where do the mars volta fit in?

By: The Sanity Inspector

The Sanity Inspector — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:28:26 +0000

Nineties rock was one long expectoration for me, the handful of agreeable stuff aside. Yes, once you get past age 35, something terrible happens to music.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:33:38 +0000

mad props on the soup album cover

By: acheron713

acheron713 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:06:32 +0000

what about bands in the line of the verve pipe’s other stuff like photograph, and band like folk implosion, the flys, and the toadies? I recall them getting a ton of airplay.

By: MrStarhead

MrStarhead — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:28:45 +0000

I would add a category for “post-jangle” bands: Toad the Wet Sprocket, Gin Blossoms, Better than Ezra, etc. They all sounded like late-’80s REM with distortion pedals. Well, Toad sounded like early ’90s REM on their first album, then sounded like late ’80s REM with distortion pedals on Dulcinea.

By: Narrowcast

Narrowcast — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:53:08 +0000

@Mad_X_World: Don't get me wrong...I actually think the last Fall Out Boy album was kind of incredible and I've been listening to it constantly. I just think, if you look at their Modern Rock chart history, they've quickly faded from prominence, and unless MCR comes back big (whenever they come back), I think the little phase of emo bands crossing over to rock radio is more or less over. I might be a little premature with that, but time will tell.

By: Mad_X_World

Mad_X_World — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:21:48 +0000

I have to admit, I have been thinking a lot about this same topic lately, so I am SOO glad that you addressed it so perfectly!

Rock, as we know it now, is made up of so many different elements,
and can’t be pinpointed to just one thing or another. You did a great job, I think, of pointing out all of those different elements, and I definitely give you MAJOR kudos, for being able to pick through so much music history…But as much as I hate to admit it, there is just one thing in this whole article, that I don’t quite understand:

Why did you dismiss emo the way you did?

Sure, Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance haven’t been exactly headline news lately, like they were back in 2007, but that sure doesn’t mean that they suddenly became “has-beens”. They still hold just as much influence today as they ever did, if you stop and listen to the dozens of bands out there trying to ride their proverbial coattails…And Fall Out Boy, in particular, was ALWAYS a “Pop” band to begin with. They never tried to market themselves as the next Metallica or Green-Day; they wanted to make poppier, more radio-friendly fare than what they had started out doing in other bands,
So you can’t really bash them for false advertising, if they never really changed, to begin with, can you?

By: KikoJones

KikoJones — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:53:31 +0000

@Cam/ron: Except that those folks will listen to stuff that fulfills whatever their criteria of "rock" is if they hear it before they're told about it. For example: there's a story about The Chemical Bros playing some festival early on and being looked at funny by the stage crew when they loaded their turntables and other gear. After their set a burly, bearded biker-type from the crew approached them with a big smile and blurted "You guys are alright!". So, labeling it electronica may have hampered a bit of their chances, but more flat-out exposure would've worked greatly in their favor. Like everything, I guess.

By: Narrowcast

Narrowcast — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:34:12 +0000

@djid: Well, again, this is all done strictly in terms of radio play, and as influential as Ministry were, Stabbing Westward got more airplay. And really, this column is more about the sellouts and bandwagon-jumpers than the innovators anyway.

By: djid

djid — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:20:18 +0000

no Ministry? Verily, the industrial list is bereft!

By: summeroflove

summeroflove — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:03:36 +0000

This was a great post. It kinda pinpoints in my mind what was happening in the mid-late 90′s when grunge felt like it was getting more and more derivative. I also would make a case for Elliott Smith somewhere in there but not sure where he’d fit in. I think he had a lot of influence towards today’s 21st Century Indie Bubble.

By: Narrowcast

Narrowcast — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:08:21 +0000

Another note of clarification: the revisionism of recurrent playlists plays a big role in how I shaped this thing. Bush probably would’ve been bumped up to A-List if any of the singles from Razorblade Suitcase, which were big at the time, got played at all anymore (their top 5 recurrents are all from Sixteen Stone). Likewise, “Killing In The Name Of” never even charted, but I put it as the defining hit of rap metal because it’s by far the most played song from that movement today.

By: Narrowcast

Narrowcast — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:02:03 +0000

@k-rex: It's just a matter of stratifying types of success, or levels of success. This is all pretty arbitrary, I'll be the first to admit that. But anyway, to answer your question: the OAW category is explicitly mid-90s guitar bands, so Prodigy and Portishead are out just based on music, plus they weren't really that big on the radio (in the U.S. anyway). Alanis is an honorary member of the OAW club but she had already started to drift away from alt-rock playlists halfway through the long cycle of Jagged Little Pill.

By: k-rex

k-rex — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:54:14 +0000

@Narrowcast: I was always under the impression that Bush was viewed, heard, and marketed as Nirvana Jr. If they had only one hit album, they managed to stretch it out for several years. Live also wouldn't go away at the time. I don't see how these bands are the same as each other yet not like any other categories. What kept Prodigy, Alanis, Portishead, off this list? Maybe a Non-Seattle Grunge? The argument would be better served if there less categories rather than arbitrary categories based on whether or not their half dozen hit songs were sold on one piece of plastic or two.

By: Cam/ron

Cam/ron — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:54:05 +0000

@brooklynradio: There's also the old American rockist tradition of loathing anything played on synths, computers and drum machines.

By: brooklynradio

brooklynradio — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:42:36 +0000

@Cam/ron: Oh boy. Let's not discuss Tortois. Also, the mistake in the music industry with electronica was calling it electronica instead of simply calling it rock. Once it got pushed into that squishy realm of dance music, a lot of white American males didn't want to be associated with it because of what they saw it as: Disco. You know what, it is. But if you didn't tell them that, I think The Chemical Brothers, Fatboy slim, etc. would still get some spins on modern rock stations. Because, really, Norman Cooke sampled The Who, The Beatles, etc. to create his Big Beat pop. These guys were AC/DC with samplers, midis, and synths.