And anther for Occupy:

Originally Posted by Masters and Slaves

Do you wish or command?
Are you under the blade?
Power lives off of your fear
And it keeps you in chains

You wanna rise like a star in the night
But something keeps dragging you down
You try to fly like an eagle in the heavenly light
But no one will hand you the crown

It's such a dirty game
That it fills you with rage
There's only kings and queens
And you're a pawn in their game <----------------------- with due not to Big Banking/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/HUD/NAR/Federal Reserve etc. etc.

Of masters and slaves
We're divided that way
Are you a master or slave?
Do you rule or obey?

Now, you better learn your history
'Cause the future won't change <--------------------------------- with due note to TFT
When they tell you it's the home of the free
Well, they must be insane <------------------------------ Department of Homeland "Security"

'Cause it's dog eat dog from morning 'till night
And only the strongest survive
It's the law of the jungle, only winners have rights
The losers relinquish their lives

So, you think you're made
When you have your fortune and fame
But don't you realize
Oh, someone's running the game

Like masters and slaves
(Like masters)
We're divided that way
Are you a master or slave?
(Masters or slaves)
Do you rule or obey?
Whoa, yeah

Like masters
Like masters and slaves
We're divided that way
Are you a master or slave?
Do you rule or obey? <---------------------------- with due not to the "system" in general.

Like masters
Masters and slaves
Like masters
Masters and slaves

Like masters
Masters and slaves
Like masters
Masters and slaves

Like masters
Masters and slaves

FOR POC

The Scorpions - Rock You Like a Hurricane Live @ Wacken (Heavy/Death/Speed Metal) variant of Woodstock wrt crowds and multistage thingies.



PS
Just noticed there's that bull's head lit up thingie. Tauruses should all be at one wrt Wacken.

Something a bit different. This is more of a pleasant memory type thing. Linkin Park was often played on 97.1 KEGL when I'd travel from Houston to visit my folks in Oklahoma. (Often around midnight).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

This might get pretty interesting.

It could!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey Semo. Well for me, "like" is about "connecting" with something in some manner.
And I whole-heartedly agree that what may be more important than recognizing that
I, or someone else, "likes" something, is why, or for what reasons, the thing is "liked".
That "connection" is what I would call a "feeling"(ie: a feeling of connection with something).
IMO, Music, and the other Arts in general, are a prime way in which Individuals, and thus
Societies(or Cultures) communicate(ie: "commune").
(Latin: co-munio : "to build/fortify-together" aka "share")

BTW, thanks for asking.

Not a problem at all. Thanks for the response. It definitely helped me to understand where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

So, when I say I "hated" RHCP-UTB, I'm saying that not only did I not "connect" with the music
and/or the message, but I also was sensing that the whole game for rock-radio was moving in
a direction that was un-sustainable given the parameters that we were working-under. The fans of
these new "grunge"-tunes would go to an establishment and just "hang-out"(ie: not spend any $$$).
That really wasn't very conducive to getting an establishment to buy ad-time on the radio
(and that's how radio-stations earn their keep). So, as far as UTB is concerned, it was an example
(along with a bunch of the other "grunge"-type tunes), of ending what for some of us were
some pretty good times. IOW, I normally wouldn't care, but because of my job, they were
"invading my territory" so to speak.

Well, to the significant extent that mainstream rock radio was headed for a collapse in the late 1980s, it brought it on itself. Growing up in Philly, we had WMMR and WYSP, both of which were extremely successful mainstream rock stations (AOR, primarily). Both were instrumental in helping to launch some pretty major regional acts in the second half of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s (most notably Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Joan Jett, George Thorogood, The Hooters, Poison, and Bon Jovi). Although they each had their own orientation (for examply, WYSP skewed harder), they were both a lot more diverse in the early 1980s. You'd hear The Pretenders, singles-oriented New Wave acts, and the like alongside "core" classic rock acts (old and new releases) and pop hard rock/metal. After 1985, both stations circled the wagons and started focusing really heavily on "core" classic rock acts and pop hard rock/metal to the exclusion of all else.

Around the same time, WYSP and WMMR flat out stopped promoting local and regional acts, putting the focus instead on classic rock cover bands (most notably Crystal Ship). As the classic rock fundamentalist regime settled in, even pop metal/hard rock started to age in place. I mean, sure, I take what your point about having some good times during the 1980s. However, I seem to remember a period when it was all cowboys riding steel horses down the only roads they'd ever known while singing sad, sad songs and learning a little patience on the way. Let's face facts: most of that stuff was about growing old. And when the younger acts on the line-up started singing about slowing down, you'd think mainstream rock radio would have gotten the hint, but it didn't.

Now, I might chalk all of that up to local tastes, but judging from the mainstream rock charts of the time, it seems like it was a nationwide thing. Hell, Billboard even made a new chart for singles- and dance-oriented rock in 1988, the "modern rock" chart, so those damned kids would stop jeopardizing the chart position of acts like the Rolling Stones, Rush, and the Doobie Brothers. By the end of the 1980s, mainstream rock radio had become pretty insular and stale.

I'm going to stop there to keep this from becoming a novel. Personally, I think that a big part of the reason that "grunge" happened at all was that the whole mainstream rock apparatus (of which mainstream rock radio was a part) gave up on the youth market pretty much entirely. From a business perspective, that sort of makes sense. The birth rate bottomed out in 1975 after a period of decline, so every year there were fewer and fewer young people to advertise to. Also, those born in the mid-1940s represented a huge chunk of the adult demographic, and everyone was going after that money. Demographics weren't on our side. There were more older people, and they generally had more money. Still, mainstream rock radio really shot itself in the foot in the long run. There actually was money to be made (and I'll explain that with an example if you'd like), but I think that the whole mainstream rock apparatus got complacent and ultimately shot itself in the foot in the late 1980s (and, again, I'd be happy to explain why I think that).

You closed your response by saying that people your age didn't feel all that alienated. I suspect that's true, but alienation is a two-way street. We were alienated from something and by decisions that were made about our value as a market.

Originally Posted by Rags

One for Occupy Wall $treet. I wonder if they used thematic music if things would be more successful.
Y&T-In Rock We Trust-full album

I was 17 when that record came-out. I played the shit out of it when I first got my drivers licence.
Keep on Running was the song that hooked-me, but almost the entire album(I had the cassette)
is pretty kick-ass. IMO.

I don't believe the OWS-gang is able to connect with our type of inspiration, though.
Plus, they're pretty mis-guided in the whole thing, IMO.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

And anther for Occupy:
Y&T-Masters and Slaves

That's a really good one.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

FOR POC

The Scorpions - Rock You Like a Hurricane Live @ Wacken (Heavy/Death/Speed Metal) variant of Woodstock wrt crowds and multistage thingies.

PS
Just noticed there's that bull's head lit up thingie. Tauruses should all be at one wrt Wacken.

Rock You Like a Hurricaine is cool, but I'm a little more old-school i/r/t The Scorpions.
Lovedrive-live(the entire record is great eg: Holiday).
Falling in Love(wrecked my first car to that one!).
Blackout(FWIW, I've never really connected with No One Like You).
Blackout-(Live @ Wacken)!


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Something a bit different. This is more of a pleasant memory type thing. Linkin Park was often played on 97.1 KEGL when I'd travel from Houston to visit my folks in Oklahoma. (Often around midnight).

Prince doesn't really "do" Linkin Park, but I can get
why some of the kids liked Shadow of the Day.
(My ex-girlfriend's Civic/Artist-cusp(2000-2005) daughter
who basically likes Pink and Katy Perry, liked it).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

first songs?

I honestly can't remember the entire set... I know we did "I like your Mom" by the Bouncing Souls, because I dedicated it to a girl in the crowd and hammed up the intro to sell it. I'm sure we did a Bosstones cover (maybe "Drunks & Children"? I've covered several Bosstones tracks, but Drunks and Children is the only one I specifically remember singing. I'm pretty sure we did Less Than Jake's "Automatic", and there were a couple pop punk tracks we played, which I can't really place (they weren't my picks, and I either already knew the lyrics or I forgot them as soon as we were done).

Originally Posted by Kepi

I honestly can't remember the entire set... I know we did "I like your Mom" by the Bouncing Souls...

So I went and checked-out that tune and just have to say: That's just wrong!
(and by wrong, I mean: awesome!)

Originally Posted by Kepi

because I dedicated it to a girl in the crowd and hammed up the intro to sell it.

A natural-born showman you are.


Prince

...I was thinking about JPT's original idea of the reason he paired the 1920s and 1990s was due to the "party" atmosphere (not exactly his words, but that's what stuck with me) thought I'd post different ideas of what "partying" meant from different Unravelings so as to get a larger sense of what the 1920s meant within the context of their Unraveling.

And for the satisfaction of everyone, I'll include the "cuspy" periods of Awakening/Unraveling and Unraveling/Crisis to keep things fair (Happy Mom? I've adopted your go to word--someone has to in your absence). And what better way to "party" than to look at music and dances...


Disclaimer: Any labeling is hypothesizing and merely cursory summation for those who don't want to click the links.

General Overview:

Civil War Saeculum: Couples Dances everyone knew in the mid-19th Cen. ; Group Dances
Great Power Saeculum: Ragtime Era ; Roaring 20s 1 ; Roaring 20s 2
Millennial Saeculum:

Awakening/Unraveling - Let's Improv it! (referring to the second & third link)

Mazurka

Animal Dances

Between 1905 and 1915 there was a shift amongst the youth of the age as they began to break off from their elders and find their own popular culture. This meant the "kids" were looking for their own music and dance styles to entertain to in the dance halls of the time. What arose were a group of inspired animal dances - the Chicken Scratch, the Camel Walk, the Bunny Hop to name but a few - dances which quickly gained notoriety and prominence amongst the population. They actually made a re-appearance in the fifties and sixties as retro-dances, influencing artists like James Brown, and the Camel Walk even influenced Michael Jackson's moonwalk nearly 80 years later.

http://www.squidoo.com/the-evolution...odule153491179

Break Dancing


Early Unraveling - Let's Formalize the Improv

Galop - became formalized in its position as being the final dance of the evening

Castlewalk

Hip Hop & MTV Styles


Mid Unraveling - hmm... ethnic dancing takes the world by storm...

Polka (1844 Polka-mania swept the US after having swept Vienna (1839), Paris (1840), and London (1844))

Tango (1913 was the year the world went Tango mad)

Macerena (1995 was the year that the Macarena was an international hit along with its dance)


Late Unraveling - Let's Party!



The Charleston, the Raccoon, the Black Bottom, etc.

Swing Revival


Unraveling/Crisis

Actual Footage: Dance Marathon; Dance Marathon; Dance Marathon



And yes, I'm aware some links don't have sound, that's because they're from a company that is posting clips of their videos as a way to get you hooked into wanting to buy their dance videos.

~Chas'88

I think that raving is totally comparable to dance-a-thons, so that's a late unravelling/unravelling/crisis match. We's get out of the Matinee shows (so I guess punk kids were no slouches, either seeing about 8-10 bands and mosing like it was their jobs), and you had to be out of there at 8 sharp so they could hose the floor and get the venue ready for rave night which stretched from 9 until dawn. And that's for the legal shows. The ones that occurred in squats and other abandoned locales would last several days.

Also, let's not forget the unravelling festivals. Where the 2T festivals look a lot like big tent revivals, 3T festivals look like a combination circus/riot... And there were so many of them. Bonaroo and Burning Man may have all the cred today, but the mid and late 90's featured an exponential growth of local, home spun radio endorsed festivals, from the KROQ Weenie Roast to the DC101 Chili Cookoff, and even HFStival if you didn't one one that had the appearance of being food centric. You also had huge festival tours like Lallapalooza, Warped, Ozzfest.

Also, lastly, I wanted to touch on the history of moshing, which started out in the late Awakening as a rather rough and tumble form of self expression, then began to turn violent in the unravelling, and went back and forth between structure and chaos for nearly 20 years. Even though it's something still done today and even though it started in the awakening, it's home really is in the unravelling with all the other high impact danceathons.

All these things together just, it was a time where you partied so hard you needed to worry about hydration.

I'll also point out that the late 1920s were boom years for roller coaster construction. The Great Depression brought that boom to an end. (Without the Depression, we would have gotten steel coasters in the 1930s.) New coaster construction didn't resume in earnest until the 1950s, with coasters being relatively tame affairs thanks to the Theme Park movement and its focus on children (kids were the real customers, adults were just their delivery system). Coaster construction picked up a bit in the 1970s and 1980s (thanks to the Looping Coaster trend and the revitalization of a lot of smaller parks) and then suddenly kicked into high gear in the early 1990s, with the 1990s (and very early 2000s) being boom years for coaster construction. New coasters are still being constructed, but at nowhere near the rate they were ten or fifteen years ago. So, at least at the moment, the 1920s and the 1990s were peaks in roller coaster construction.

So many good coasters in the 90's. So many.

My personal favorites were 2 from Busch Gardens, Big Bad Wolf and Apollo's chariot. But there were just great ones all around. Also, metal roller coasters, while able to do more (like loops), weren't they only names in the game. I really liked the Big Bad Wolf and The Hurler from King's Dominion, which were both pretty standard fare wood coasters.

Originally Posted by Kepi

So many good coasters in the 90's. So many.

My personal favorites were 2 from Busch Gardens, Big Bad Wolf and Apollo's chariot. But there were just great ones all around. Also, metal roller coasters, while able to do more (like loops), weren't they only names in the game. I really liked the Big Bad Wolf and The Hurler from King's Dominion, which were both pretty standard fare wood coasters.

True story: My freshman homeroom teacher would organize a trip to Busch Gardens every year. The year we went, we were riding the Big Bad Wolf, and my buddy's restraint bar came loose and flipped up at the beginning of the ride. Naturally, he hung onto it for dear life! After the ride, park personnel apologized to him profusely, but he didn't seek any compensation or anything. He thought that it made the ride more exciting! We all thought he let them off easy and that he should have insisted on free passes.

The Big Bad Wolf was a good coaster, though, but it was a classic "80s coaster", by which I mean a coaster that's relatively mellow in terms of ride quality because the technology employed (in this case suspension) was new and untested. (My first guess was '82 or '83, but I just looked it up and it was '84. Indeed, it was the first successful suspension coaster.) What they really did right was the theming--the mist, those great swooshy swings on the curves in the village. Not a fantastic coaster, but a really great ride. I was really disappointed when I found out that they tore it down. And yeah, Apollo's Chariot is a great ride too.

I've ridden both Hurlers, and they're pretty representative 90s wooden revival coasters. I didn't like the quality of ride on either too much, but I'm pretty particular with woodies, and a lot depends on how recently track has been replaced. I'm assuming that, the second time you wrote "Big Bad Wolf" you meant the Grizzly? Or was there a coaster called the Big Bad Wolf at Kings Dominion at one point? If you are talking about the Grizzly, then yeah, I like that one a lot, too. Like the Big Bad Wolf, a lot of the ride's appeal comes from the ingenuous placement. A very memorable ride, and obviously late '70s or early '80s. (1982, according to the internet.) And, although it's not a woodie, the Avalanche is a really solid ride, too. (And also obviously 1980s. I don't even need to look it up. Bobsleds automatically have 80s written all over them.)

And yes, I am an amusement park geek! Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

...I was thinking about JPT's original idea of the reason he paired the 1920s and 1990s was due to the "party" atmosphere (not exactly his words, but that's what stuck with me) thought I'd post different ideas of what "partying" meant from different Unravelings so as to get a larger sense of what the 1920s meant within the context of their Unraveling.

This was the reason I began replying to this thread. The 90's had no "party" atmosphere. It was a worn out decade that was all but glamorous, with everyone aching to leave as soon as possible. The Fall of the Wall only enabled a lot of hot air and energetic vibe to escape. Entropia ensued. The 90's lacked vitality. Not like the 20's when everything was fresh and new, combined with its postwar atmosphere of party desperation. If you want Unraveling party atmosphere you have to go look for it in the 80's, especially the early decade. Being freed from the 60's/70's period, those years amounted to a whiff of that 20's feel.

One could even imagine it like this. In the GPS, the 10's constituted the dull part of the Unraveling, marked by an Art Nouveau in overreach, a celebration of the boring through Cubism, nascent Modernism in architecture and toned down ladies fashions, a grinding, hopeless war, as well as evacuated or stiffened idealisms from la belle epoche/fin de siecle, spreading like cancer into the social machinery and going institutional. The 20's on the other hand marked the vital and energetic part of the 3T when one was happy to be alive again, with a sense of having "survived" or coming out the other end of a dark tunnel.

In similar ways, the MS Unraveling might be thought of as separated into two parts, only reversed. In other words, the colorful 80's are similar to the 20's and the anemic 90's to the 10's. Perhaps this reversal in itself hints at something larger. Maybe it's evidence that while the GPS was a saeculum of the 'Progressive' type, the MS might turn out as a 'Reactive' one. ('Progressive' of course means bad in my book and 'Reactive' good.) I mean, if the 4T turns out well, we might even have the opportunity of dropping the whole 1900's into the dustbin altogether as we revitalize and resurrect the primacy of our civilization (Christendom) in face of the competition.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

This was the reason I began replying to this thread. The 90's had no "party" atmosphere. It was a worn out decade that was all but glamorous, with everyone aching to leave as soon as possible. The Fall of the Wall only enabled a lot of hot air and energetic vibe to escape. Entropia ensued. The 90's lacked vitality. Not like the 20's when everything was fresh and new, combined with its postwar atmosphere of party desperation. If you want Unraveling party atmosphere you have to go look for it in the 80's, especially the early decade. Being freed from the 60's/70's period, those years amounted to a whiff of that 20's feel.

My response, once again, is that I'm talking about the U.S., where you may be talking about Sweden or Europe more generally. In the U.S., there was optimism, futurism and a booming economy in the 80s, but it was tempered by recent trauma and a resurgence of conservatism under GI and Silent leadership. In the 90s, "the end of history" was declared with the fall of the USSR, the Boomers took over, and it was time to wallow in total self-indulgence. Things would just keep getting better and better forever. "Globalization" was the mantra. No longer would there be wars or depressions. The stock market would always go up.

Xers were complaining all the time, to be sure. But that's because they knew (either consciously or subconsciously) where it all came from and where it was going. The Boomers were throwing themselves a party, but Xers weren't invited. Don't get me wrong, I despise the "Gen X" culture of the 90s, and I despise the aspects of that mindset that persist in my generation. But it was the same stuff the "Lost" were up to in the 20s.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My response, once again, is that I'm talking about the U.S., where you may be talking about Sweden or Europe more generally. In the U.S., there was optimism, futurism and a booming economy in the 80s, but it was tempered by recent trauma and a resurgence of conservatism under GI and Silent leadership. In the 90s, "the end of history" was declared with the fall of the USSR, the Boomers took over, and it was time to wallow in total self-indulgence. Things would just keep getting better and better forever. "Globalization" was the mantra. No longer would there be wars or depressions. The stock market would always go up.

Xers were complaining all the time, to be sure. But that's because they knew (either consciously or subconsciously) where it all came from and where it was going. The Boomers were throwing themselves a party, but Xers weren't invited. Don't get me wrong, I despise the "Gen X" culture of the 90s, and I despise the aspects of that mindset that persist in my generation. But it was the same stuff the "Lost" were up to in the 20s.

The party atmosphere of the 20's is ironic since it was the time when liquor was illegal. But I really feel the last big party ended in the mid-80's when the AIDS scare killed of the so-called sexual revolution. Nighclubs began closing in droves, particularly in suburban areas. This was probably the result of stricter DUI laws as in the suburbs a car is an absolute necessity. Guess many didn't want to bother with seeking out designated drivers. One business that was really booming at the time was financial services. A book I am currently reading, titled POUND FOOLISH, is a startling expose on that industry stating that many are in it for their own personal gain more than actually helping others. The Me Generation atmosphere may have begun in the 70's, but by the 90's it was on steroids, even without the level of libido of previous times.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My response, once again, is that I'm talking about the U.S., where you may be talking about Sweden or Europe more generally.

Of course I write about Euro-American culture in general terms. I always do. If I write about a specific country, like the US, I naturally qualify it.

In the U.S., there was optimism, futurism and a booming economy in the 80s...

Like everywhere else.

...but it was tempered by recent trauma and a resurgence of conservatism under GI and Silent leadership.

That's not as easy to translate into general European terms. Only the word "conservatism" has a unique set of associations in the US that aren't legitimate currency most place else. True conservatives (not the US kind) have not been in power in Europe since WWII, in many places not since WWI. The 60's-90's in Europe was dominated by a Silent establishment with a notable left wing bent. Only as forced did they adapt and incorporate a free market oriented worldview, ranging from the late 70's to the mid 80's. However, they have simultaneously managed to hold on to their 'progressive' values, so from the perspective of European social conservatism, Europe has gotten the worst of both worlds. It does not mean that conservatism/nationalism/traditionalism etc has not enjoyed a stronger position among people at large since the 70's, only that the ruling elite have been very successful at ostracizing it.

No, nothing was effectively "tempered" over here.

In the 90s, "the end of history" was declared with the fall of the USSR, the Boomers took over, and it was time to wallow in total self-indulgence. Things would just keep getting better and better forever. "Globalization" was the mantra. No longer would there be wars or depressions. The stock market would always go up.

I remember this. Values as thin as dishwater. I still get nausea just by reading it. In Europe, the Boomers taking over mostly meant that politically correct mind control and conditioning grew harsher, more intolerant and more moralistic than ever. We still live in this era, often ruled by traitor Xers who dutifully continue political trajectories of folly now several decades old. Xers first and foremost, even if prime ministers, are of course survivalists.

Xers were complaining all the time, to be sure. But that's because they knew (either consciously or subconsciously) where it all came from and where it was going. The Boomers were throwing themselves a party, but Xers weren't invited. Don't get me wrong, I despise the "Gen X" culture of the 90s, and I despise the aspects of that mindset that persist in my generation. But it was the same stuff the "Lost" were up to in the 20s.

Nothing unfamiliar there.

I see where JPT is getting with using 9/11 as the catalyst. However my main issue is that the terror war was not large or total enough to be THE war. The specific enemies we worried the most about during the 90s were eliminated, but the most dangerous long term threats to our security remain intact and in fact are becoming even more powerful and dangerous. I suspect the real 4T war will come later.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

In similar ways, the MS Unraveling might be thought of as separated into two parts, only reversed. In other words, the colorful 80's are similar to the 20's and the anemic 90's to the 10's. Perhaps this reversal in itself hints at something larger. Maybe it's evidence that while the GPS was a saeculum of the 'Progressive' type, the MS might turn out as a 'Reactive' one. ('Progressive' of course means bad in my book and 'Reactive' good.) I mean, if the 4T turns out well, we might even have the opportunity of dropping the whole 1900's into the dustbin altogether as we revitalize and resurrect the primacy of our civilization (Christendom) in face of the competition.

That last sentence you said is one of the main problems with conservatives In my opinion. Conservatives want to go back to the ideals of the 19th century. The entire 19th century and roughly the last 2/3rds of the 18th century were a dark age spiritually and ideologically. Even your idea of returning to christendom would be a return to hypocritical values if derived from the period in history you envision. The best periods in world history in my opinion were the 10th through early 16th century in europe (and things were still salvagable here even afterwards until about 1650 or so), the 7th through first half of the 17th century in asia (with the exception of the 13th century and first two-thirds of the 14th, not including southeast asia which avoided the disasters just mention and where the golden age lasted until the mid-19th century), the 7th through mid-15th centuries in the middle east and much of africa, and post-1945 20th and 21st centuries so far in most of the world (with the exception of parts of the middle east and africa, as well as the dystopian north korea).

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Grizzly?

Yes, I meant the grizzly. Great Big Bad Wolf story, by the way. And when it comes to coasters, I'm way more about the ride than I am the features. I don't balk at loops by any means (usually if I'm at a park I will ride every coaster there), but for my money the view I'm getting and the feel of the ride is what really matters. If I'm sitting there looking at the track half the time, I'm not as into it. Another Busch Gardens coaster was Alpengheist, which I remember being fun, but I really don't remember much other than the track color (kinda light blue) because you were twisted every which way beyond comprehension. A great coaster, just wish I could remember the ride.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

no part atmosphere

See, I firmly disagree. I think of the 90's after 93 as being all part all the time. When I was in highschool, I think I spent most of my time out of the house, with a schedule that more or less read: Friday: Show then after party, Saturday: Early show, then across town for regular show, after party, Sunday: All day Matinee show (8 bands for $8) starts at 1.

I'd go months where my voice was more or less hoarse and when it's heal up I remember it being weird to hear. When I got to college, it stayed that way for a good long time (because it's college), but tapered off around 02ish. A couple things I noticed about the changing atmosphere was that the less I went out, the more I drank (so the vice aspect of 90's partying was a much more price rationed thing), but also the partying of 03 and beyond had an observably desperate quality to it. People weren't going out to have a good time, they were going out to forget the bad time. Even before I graduated (I wasn't in the work force until Jan 04) and had to share that with them, I noticed the change in temperment.

It seems I missed this response, Copper.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ah so you had a front row, industry seat at just the right time.

Well, like I was saying, we were a general rock-radio station. The competion at the time played less
HR/HM. When "grunge-rock" started becoming popular, we had them beat...temporarily. I left the
industry(not like I was a program director or anything!) and basically never looked back. It was a kinda
bad experience. I just briefly looked-up the station and our then competition. The competition switched
the "classic-rock"-format to a different "sister" FM-postion, but are still doing what they were doing
(although it seems they've opened-up the playlist...a little bit). The station I was at started switching
formats and looks as if they're still doing so. That's kinda how the business goes(ie: switching formats).
The bottom line: it was extremely difficult to SWITCH to "grunge-rock"/alt/etc. going-forward IF you
already had a competing "classic-rocker" in your market (keeping in mind that "classic-rock" was not
a title yet at the time). I'm not making any judgements here; Only that it appears to be the case and that
switching formats may be well and good for management, but employees and listeners get pretty pissed-off.

Originally Posted by Copper

I'm curious, what is your opinion of the alt/progressive rock stuff coming out before and after Nirvana (BN, AN)? Not talking heroin grunge, I'm talking about bands like Sonic Youth, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr. and later bands like Radiohead, Hum (my personal all-time favorite band), and Clutch (the ladyfriend's all-time favorite band).

I'll have to get back to you on that(plus I don't want to de-rail the thread too much more!).
I'll PM-you when I get a chance.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

The bottom line: it was extremely difficult to SWITCH to "grunge-rock"/alt/etc. going-forward IF you
already had had a competing "classic-rocker" in your market (keeping in mind that "classic-rock" was not
a title yet at the time).

While I defer to your experience in the field, I think you're a bit off here. Philly's WYSP was billing itself as classic rock when I was a little kid. Here's a promo from '84. Here's another from '85. The internet says that WYSP adopted the term (and an early version of the format) around 1981. Here's a late 1982 Billboard article describing a new "Timeless Rock" format being rolled out by San Francisco's KFOG ("'Timeless Rock' FM Format Is Taking Shape", which starts on the cover). Here's Jacobs Media, a radio consulting firm, claiming to have invented the term and the format in 1985.

I really wish I had the notes I made on this back in the late 1990s, but that was two computers ago (I really need to get in the habit of backing stuff up). It's funny, because pretty much everybody claims to have invented "classic rock" (the term, the format, or both) at some point in the first half of the 1980s. However, while there seem to have been a lot of variations in terminology and differences in formatting, the one thing that unifies all of these "classic rocks" was that they represented attempts to appeal up the age ladder to Baby Boomers (because there were a lot of them and they had more money) rather than down to 13ers (because every year there were fewer and fewer of them--birth rates are a bitch--and they had less money). Here's a mid-1982 article from Billboard about that very shift ("AOR Nears Crucial Crossroads", which starts on the cover).

I'll leave it at that. While I could say that this is representative of what was going on in the culture at large in the late 1980s and early 1990s (a focus on Baby Boomers by Baby Boomers), and that helped to shape the 1990s as a decade, and I think that's sort of relevant, I might be derailing the thread.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

While I defer to your experience in the field, I think you're a bit off here. Philly's WYSP was billing itself as classic rock when I was a little kid. Here's a promo from '84. Here's another from '85. The internet says that WYSP adopted the term (and an early version of the format) around 1981. Here's a late 1982 Billboard article describing a new "Timeless Rock" format being rolled out by San Francisco's KFOG ("'Timeless Rock' FM Format Is Taking Shape", which starts on the cover). Here's Jacobs Media, a radio consulting firm, claiming to have invented the term and the format in 1985.

I really wish I had the notes I made on this back in the late 1990s, but that was two computers ago (I really need to get in the habit of backing stuff up). It's funny, because pretty much everybody claims to have invented "classic rock" (the term, the format, or both) at some point in the first half of the 1980s. However, while there seem to have been a lot of variations in terminology and differences in formatting, the one thing that unifies all of these "classic rocks" was that they represented attempts to appeal up the age ladder to Baby Boomers (because there were a lot of them and they had more money) rather than down to 13ers (because every year there were fewer and fewer of them--birth rates are a bitch--and they had less money). Here's a mid-1982 article from Billboard about that very shift ("AOR Nears Crucial Crossroads", which starts on the cover).

I'll leave it at that. While I could say that this is representative of what was going on in the culture at large in the late 1980s and early 1990s (a focus on Baby Boomers by Baby Boomers), and that helped to shape the 1990s as a decade, and I think that's sort of relevant, I might be derailing the thread.

Well I'll be damned. I'll have to look into this in more depth, but what sticks out immediately is that
they may be including 60's music in their label "classic rock". In my time, that's '60s music(eg: The Beatles),
was labeled "Oldies".
[Note: I just looked up "Oldies", and as expected, it's another loaded-term like "classic rock". What I meant
by Oldies in my market at my time was music from 1960-1970 only. IOW, no rock and roll/no psychedelic rock
(IIRC). Funny thing is that I would really love that station Today, but at the time it was basically just Early Beatles,
Early Stones, Motown, The Beach Boys, and Asst. Singles. I can't recall how successful they were, but in a
large radio market, you don't need to be top-dog; You just need to be able to sell ad-time. And that's where
"promotions" comes-in.]

But sure enough, it appears "classic rock"(as a brand name) was 5+ years earlier than when I was involved
in the industry(neither rock station in my market played any '60s-tunes(except The Doors, Hendrix, some Stones,
and maybe some rock-Beatles(IIRC). But that would be it, really. I'll have to go back-over some old playlists if
I can find them(I saved alot of the stuff). Plus, I'll have to look and see how prevelant the format was.

But anyway, what's really cool(and why I'm really glad I screwed that up, and that you responded)
is that you said it may have been an attempt to chase the Boom vs 13ers(X). My initial inclination is:
Absolutely. But I still want to dig-around a little before I comment further. FWIW, I may have used
the term "classic rock" in my recent observations, but I never used that term when I was contemplating
the future of "rock radio". What I saw was that there would be a decision that would be necessary as
far as continuing with PJ, Nirvana, STP, Etc. and sticking with Bad Co., The Eagles, Genesis, Etc.

Note: I really wanted to get back to you earlier on this topic because I find it interesting(especially your
analysis and opinion on this sort of thing). I was going to talk about "WHFS" and the "HFStival" i/r/t
a successful(and it really was!) support of newer grunge/alt/etc-music. It was an excellent model, but
then again, where is it now? Non-existent. That's not to say that the model wasn't productive given a
temporary "goal"(so to speak). FWIW, I attended two HFStivals(1996 and 1999); they were both
pretty cool(eventhough I'm a "rock-guy").


Prince

PS: Thanks again for finding the "classic rock"-thingy. I believe(hope!) you understand that,
above all, I'm interested in a greater understanding, as opposed to being "right" or "cool" or
"whatever". IOW, successfully correcting me is not a "bad thing"; It's a "good thing"!
And I'm saying this publicly, because that occurance seems to be prevelant on the MB; And,
I find that annoying(as opposed to being succesfully corrected!). So, thanks. And no, don't
defer to my "supposed" experience! IOW, my POV is only one aspect of what occured; You
could just as easily know more than me(and probably do, IME!).

See, DC area has always had a successful underground scene, though. Alternative rock in the 90's for the DC area was totally marketable because it was underground lite. That's why DC101 really kept a strong 90's bent for way longer than was acceptable, honestly, and why our local classic rock stations started playing Nirvana, Pearljam and even Lenny Kravitz and Blues Traveller as early as 04-05.

HFStival, huge. DC101's festivals (chili cookoff, there was some Chrismas thing, and I think still yet the otherone), also huge. HFStival was so big that 2 years after 99.1 had a spontaneous format change to El Zol, a Spanish Language Latin format (which from a business perspective makes absolute sense) they had an HFStival again.

So it really depends on where you are and, like you said POV.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

It could!

Hey Semo. I intended to get back to you earlier, but wanted to contemplate and dig-around
a little first. There's a number of directions I could go from here, but I'm just going to pick one
and see what happens.

Originally Posted by Semo

Well, to the significant extent that mainstream rock radio was headed for a collapse in the late 1980s, it brought it on itself. Growing up in Philly, we had WMMR and WYSP, both of which were extremely successful mainstream rock stations (AOR, primarily). Both were instrumental in helping to launch some pretty major regional acts in the second half of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s (most notably Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Joan Jett, George Thorogood, The Hooters, Poison, and Bon Jovi). Although they each had their own orientation (for examply, WYSP skewed harder), they were both a lot more diverse in the early 1980s. You'd hear The Pretenders, singles-oriented New Wave acts, and the like alongside "core" classic rock acts (old and new releases) and pop hard rock/metal. After 1985, both stations circled the wagons and started focusing really heavily on "core" classic rock acts and pop hard rock/metal to the exclusion of all else.

Around the same time, WYSP and WMMR flat out stopped promoting local and regional acts, putting the focus instead on classic rock cover bands (most notably Crystal Ship). As the classic rock fundamentalist regime settled in, even pop metal/hard rock started to age in place. I mean, sure, I take what your point about having some good times during the 1980s. However, I seem to remember a period when it was all cowboys riding steel horses down the only roads they'd ever known while singing sad, sad songs and learning a little patience on the way. Let's face facts: most of that stuff was about growing old. And when the younger acts on the line-up started singing about slowing down, you'd think mainstream rock radio would have gotten the hint, but it didn't.

Now, I might chalk all of that up to local tastes, but judging from the mainstream rock charts of the time, it seems like it was a nationwide thing. Hell, Billboard even made a new chart for singles- and dance-oriented rock in 1988, the "modern rock" chart, so those damned kids would stop jeopardizing the chart position of acts like the Rolling Stones, Rush, and the Doobie Brothers. By the end of the 1980s, mainstream rock radio had become pretty insular and stale.

I'm going to stop there to keep this from becoming a novel. Personally, I think that a big part of the reason that "grunge" happened at all was that the whole mainstream rock apparatus (of which mainstream rock radio was a part) gave up on the youth market pretty much entirely. From a business perspective, that sort of makes sense. The birth rate bottomed out in 1975 after a period of decline, so every year there were fewer and fewer young people to advertise to. Also, those born in the mid-1940s represented a huge chunk of the adult demographic, and everyone was going after that money. Demographics weren't on our side. There were more older people, and they generally had more money. Still, mainstream rock radio really shot itself in the foot in the long run. There actually was money to be made (and I'll explain that with an example if you'd like), but I think that the whole mainstream rock apparatus got complacent and ultimately shot itself in the foot in the late 1980s (and, again, I'd be happy to explain why I think that).

Ok. There's a number of topics in your response, so I'll just hit a couple. To re-state, I agree that AOR
and Rock Radio(AOR being 70's/Early 80's and Rock Radio being basically the same, but attempting to
still play newer released music) were sorta stale. What I mean is that the pop-metal bands did all sorta
embrace the cowboy-thing, but I'll also add that, what I would call "The 3rd-wave" of the genre was (for
lack of a better term), "lacking"(i/r/t their genre). I'm talking about bands like Faster Pussycat, LA Guns
(sans Never Enough), Etc.(and I'm not saying that they're "bad" or anything; Only that they weren't at
the level of a 1st-wave band(eg: Def Leppard, Van Halen, GnR), or a 2nd-wave band(eg: Winger, Nelson,
Extreme) i/r/t Marketability(ie: chart action, image, "sound", melody, etc.). So even though the "culture"
was still intact, the content was "lacking", IMO. So, in a way, I'm saying that I believe it wasn't only the
stations fault; The newer "pop-metal" bands were of a lesser caliber.

Also, if a station is to survive playing "Rock Music"(ie: AOR-ish), they pretty much have to be able to play
certain core-artists without splintering into pieces. One of the ways to do this is by playing the newer younger-skewing stuff from 9-Mid, but you sorta end-up with almost two different stations. The bottom line is whether
the newer bands(and more importantly, their "sound") can mesh alongside the "sound" of those core artists.

What happened with "Grunge" was that it became nearly impossible(at the time) to "square the circle" i/r/t
for example: Pearl Jam and The Eagles. It really was two different worlds. Now I assume the same thing occurred
in the past(eg: when New Wave got popular in the early-80's), but the "sound" of "Grunge" was really different.
And the lyrical content and "vibe" were both a lot more "intense" and "darker", simulataneously. I don't think it's
necessary to go through the tunes, but there sure were a lot of cages, holes, and boxes, not to mention
a placenta!(Live-Lightning Crashes).

Nirvana-SLTS really was the catalyst, but the mainstay was Pearl Jam-Ten. Like you said, it was Alive,
Evenflow, and then the big one: Jeremy(FWIW, we also played Black). Now here's the thing. The better
these records did(i/r/t Record Sales), the more other bands in the genre were promoted, and the less
other styles of music were cultivated. So, even if a station wanted to stay with "hard rock", there were
no real bands being promoted. Plus, a record like GnR's Appetite for Destruction had 3 top 10 hits;
Pearl Jam's Ten had...none(Jeremy wasn't even initially released as a single). IOW, there's a certain amount
of Top-40 crossover you can get by playing pop-rock; Not as much with "Grunge"(although we have
talked about RHCP-UTB going #1). Note: That could be part of the reason that all those new charts started
coming-out(FWIW, we really didn't look at them, but they did have some value i/r/t seeing what other stations
were doing). One last thing i/r/t radio sticking with Boomer-Rock/abandoning 13(X)er-Rock. Grunge-artists
(and Pearl Jam in particular) didn't do themselves any favors i/r/t working-on creating a sustainable genre.
I would almost classify the movement as being anti-popular i/r/t Marketing as far as the AOR-stations were concerned. I'll restate here that "WHFS" and the "HFStival" were very popular and successful i/r/t embracing
newer music. Anyway, enough about radio.

But here's the thing. "Grunge" was trying to tell us something i/r/t the "creators" and the "consumers", IMO.
It took a virtual "wrecking ball" to the existing model, IMO. Was it necessary to happen? Well, we both described reasons why that existing model had grown horribly stale. Let's just say(agree) it was necessary to end it;
The bottom-line is that it did end-it, to a degree. So, The Eagles survived, and Warrant didn't. But, if it was
difficult to stick The Eagles next to "Grunge", I can only imagine how difficult it would be to do the same with
the likes of Limp Bizkit or Korn(I seriously don't know because I was out of the industry at that point).

My main points are that I believe that "Grunge", spearheaded by Nirvana-SLTS and PJ's Ten was a
"wrecking ball" to the existing model that was unlike anything that radio had experienced up to that
time, and in some ways could be considered a necessary occurance.

Originally Posted by Semo

You closed your response by saying that people your age didn't feel all that alienated. I suspect that's true, but alienation is a two-way street. We were alienated from something and by decisions that were made about our value as a market.

I'm kinda done i/r/t radio, and I don't really want to direct the conversation, but I did find something I
found extremely interesting, IMO. You mentioned the "triumph" that was conveyed via PJ's Alive. Were
you aware of Vedder's original intent i/r/t the lyrics? Apparently, the song was kinda mis-interpreted by
the audience(There's a little bit of commentary on the wiki-link I provided. I want to look into this further,
though. Anyway, I find the whole thing fascinating(especially i/r/t Alive).

And I'm going to make one last comment here. I contend that the "rock song" that bookends the end
of the 1990's i/r/t "rock music" is U2's 2000-release "Beautiful Day" from All You Can't Leave Behind
(ie: The start of something new/different).


Prince

PS: I was just thinking about the popularity of Metallica's Black Album and Ozzy's No More Tears
i/r/t a heavier "sound" and getting that to mesh with the existing format. They both did have a ballad
at least(ie: The Unforgiven/Nothing Else Matters and Mama, I'm Coming Home).
"Grunge" was just a different animal altogether.