What determines new wave from alternative?

[WoodlandParkPunk]

I love new wave but it seems that I just can't get into alternative. To me new wave is short, poppy, fun music with catchy melodies and hooks. Alternative is darker, more depressing, guitar orientated music. To me, new wave is DEVO, Missing Persons, B-52's etc.. and Alternative is The Smiths, REM, The Church, Modern English etc... Am I off base here? Any thoughts?

[hexicon]

Hmmm, I have this theory that the Smiths killed NW, or at least that was the way I experienced it. I'd like to hear what others think.

In spring 1984, several things happened at the same time, and I have a hard time distinguishing cause from coincidence: The Smith's first record came out in the US, I graduated high school and had to start worrying about paying for the UW, the love of my life (up to that point, anyway) dumped me, KYYX's NW format went off the air, and the local NW underage dance club stopped being a fun place to go because it was invaded by jocks and cheerleaders who (at least to me) didn't understand what NW was all about. All of this meant that NW as a lifestyle seemed to come to an end for me.

The Smiths first record seemed so unlike anything NW I'd heard before. My NW interests had been dance pop (Yaz, Thompson Twins, ABC, Duran Duran, other NewRo stuff), and power pop (Marshall Crenshaw, the Heats, Any Trouble), but the Smiths' darker lyrics and guitar driven style seemed to blow this fluff away.

I have this very distinct memory of sitting in my sister's room listening to "This Charming Man" with her (we had to share a stereo). My mom came in and said "Ooh, I like this, it's so bouncy and optimistic." Now it may have a superficially happy beat. . . but my sister and I looked at her like she was nuts and silently vowed "We are SO not getting old."

My life changed so much in those months. So WoodlandParkPunk, I would defintely agree that the Smiths represent some sort of divide. What I can't give you is very much non-subjective proof for that theory.

[pikeprof]

Ummmm.the fact that it wasn't "new" anymore-seriously largely taklking about music marketing terms here. When I was in college radio nobody was really using the word "new wave" by 1983-it was already dated-in 1984-my college radio station was calling itself "the music alternative."

[EchoBeachBunnyBoy]

Ultimately, what determines what is "New Wave" from "Alternative" is the mind of the person buying the music. What someone sees as alternative, could be considered as New Wave by another.
Everyone sees the same thing differently. Not everything is classifiable.
I still say Greg Kihn is neither New Wave or Alternative, but that's just my two cents...[;)]

[SwampThing]

Hexicon,

I think your on to something. I remember borrowing a vinyl copy of "The Smiths" from a co-worker. I retreated to my bed room and listened to it until 3:00AM. I never looked at New Wave music the same after that experience. I discovered I liked the melancholy dark lyrics and layered guitar as opposed to the stuff I had been listening too. Not too long after that I started selling off all my New Wave records and really didn't listening too much new wave/dance music. In fact I came to despised dance music in general.

I also read in The Smiths biography that Morrissey despised dance music and keyboards in general. "Hang the DJ" anyone. Johnny Marr didn't have a problem at first, but eventually this caused some problems since Marr fancied some dance music (he later when on to work with Bernard Summer and other keyboard/dance oriented artists). Morrissey also did not permit remixes/dance versions of Smiths songs. If I remember correctly he wasn't happy about the "This Charming Man" being remixed and released in that format. "How Soon Is Now?" became a club hit, that probably pissed hhim off. "...The music that they constantly play, it says nothing to me about my life..." -- hang the dj

Eventually after 4 years of being an obsessive Smiths fan I choose to take the "Shogaze/Britpop/Grunge" music path, while other ex-wavers stuck with "rave/electronic/dance/house" etc. For my self, I'm glad the Smiths came along and had the impact they did. I consider them the most important band of the 80's.

I rememeber the term "Modern Rock" being used after "New Wave", long before "Alternative". Does anyone else remember it that way?

[Cheetos]

Your giving The Smiths far too much credit.

I remember someone said it previous thread I and agree with them.

The only credit I'd give them is for depressing a generation.

[ghosty]

For me, the label New Wave defines a period in time as well as a sound, so does the label Alternative. I think New Wave ended sometime in the late eighties as tastes changed. Every movement in music is a reaction to the previous movement and is intended for the next generation of music fans. Nothing lasts forever.

Alternative is finished too. Since the Late 90's. Those damn Spice Girls ushered in the teen pop rennaissance! Curse them!..well..maybe not Baby Spice...I sorta like Baby Spice.

[SwampThing]

Cheetos,

I whole heartedly disagree with you. I can't tell you how many times I've heard/read interviews with artists in which they bestow much credit to the Smiths. I'm afraid your in the minority on this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 005033.stm
http://www.nme.com/news/101427.htm
http://www.leftoffthedial.com/theSmiths.htm

Now go back to listening to your worn out copy of Shiny Happy People [:D].

[Grunch]

If you believe the music of an artist depresses a generation, you do not give people much credit. Some maybe, but not a generation, and those it depresses, well, they make too much of it, and perhaps take it too personally. I alwaus enjoyed The Smiths and personally found some humor in their melancholy, I believe alot of it was intentional fodder to stir the masses, and it was effective for some. The Smiths no more depressed a generation than The Beatles could be blamed for urging murder on a generation becuase of Helter Skelter. Sure, the demented mansonian drones followed suit, but they were hell bent on destruction anyway, the song was just an excuse to act upon their excess. I have found music from artists as diverse as Streisand to the Dead Kennedys appealing at times, but never ever have I heard a song, or a collection of songs, or a genre of music, and felt so moved to be defined by it, take action becuase of it, or be lulled into inaction by it. As with anything, you always have choices to react to stimuli around you, I would say a typical person is clearly not influenced by music to any extent to cause a break in their continuum, if they did break, the music was just coincidental happening at the time. Certainly I would surmise music has been a powerful force across generations, I just personally don't believe it moved generational ideology to any great extent. It moved groups, but then they were easily influenced by one another to begin with, because they identified more closely with those they believe helped "make them who they are" than accepting the realization that you make yourself. Who in their right mind would say they are only a product of what happenned around them, versus accepting that today you arrived at your station mostly by your own efforts to become what you truly wanted to become??? I am not talking career-wise, I am talking about what really counts - your image of who you really are, what you stand for, and that you stand on your terms, not ones predicated on your generation. OK - time to step off the soap box. I apologize to those misunderstanding my intent, I just think any person who believes they are a product of their generation instead of a product of their own choosing (for the most part) needs to do some soul searching.

[ghosty]

I've never found the Smiths to be depressing nor did anybody I know who was into them seem melancholy. I always thought Morrissey was funny as hell and we all had a good laugh.

[Ollie Stench]

I'll get this out of the way first off: aside from "What Difference Does It Make" I really don't like the Smiths at all.

The biggest difference I have seen between the late 70's/early 80's New Wave bands and the Alternative bands of the late 80's/early 90's is that the New Wave bands were creating something new, without limits or rules, made possible by the advent of really cheap instruments. Alternative bands were reacting against the pop music of the day.

New Wave seemed a more organic movement with definate originality, Alternative seemed to be just a reactionary move against Debbie Gibson and New Kids on the Block.

[ghosty]

[quote]Originally posted by Ollie Stench
[br]I'll get this out of the way first off: aside from "What Difference Does It Make" I really don't like the Smiths at all.

The biggest difference I have seen between the late 70's/early 80's New Wave bands and the Alternative bands of the late 80's/early 90's is that the New Wave bands were creating something new, without limits or rules, made possible by the advent of really cheap instruments. Alternative bands were reacting against the pop music of the day.

New Wave seemed a more organic movement with definate originality, Alternative seemed to be just a reactionary move against Debbie Gibson and New Kids on the Block.
[/quote]

I don't know. Is'nt it all lebeling? I mean, They Might Be Giants and Smashing Pumpkins were both labeled "Alternative" but had absolutely nothing in common. There are so many sub-genres of everything.
I like 'em both and they don't even exist really.
(the sound of my brain exploding)

[SwampThing]

[quote]I always thought Morrissey was funny as hell and we all had a good laugh.[/quote] And after seeing his latest video, seems he might really need that hearing aid now [:D]

[ghosty]

Y'know, until I found this board I had no idea there was any kind of division between people who liked New Wave and people who liked Alternative. My friends and I were teens in the 80's and listened to New Wave and when the Grunge/College Rock movement hit in our twenties, we enjoyed that too. Never saw there being a dramatic gulf between the decades. We'd drive around listening to the Lemonheads or something and never think twice about putting on Thomas Dolby right after it.

...of course when we hit our thirties we could'nt relate to much that was on the radio and found ourselves dropping out of the bar/club scene because we were now too old (see "Im In My 30's" thread for that can o'worms).

[bpdp3]

For me, "new wave" (those quotation marks encompass perky quirky songs, skinny ties, neon colors, new wave album cover graphics, loads of bands being pushed by record labels in a hurry, etc etc) - - it ended by '82 or '83.

Interesting theory about the Smiths - - it certainly was about that time that something changed...don't know if they deserve the credit or not.

I recall the advent of the term "college rock" about that time, not 'alternative'. College rock was Smiths, mid-80's Cure & Depeche & Echo & New Order, Replacements/Husker Du/Minutemen etc etc, all those roots-rock groups, Love and Rockets, etc etc....

Trying to put a name on a group/era/style is maddening. I don't bother to argue with anyone about what new wave is anymore. I know it when I see it. If they want to believe Huey Lewis is new wave, that's their business....

At this point I pretty much smoosh all the music I liked from the 80's (you know, bands you might find in the Trouser Press guides) under the 'new wave' label to keep it simple.