Genre Discussion

..

Alternative Rock gets a lot of slack for being a very "generic" genre that could encompass almost any post-80's Rock, but there are also several bands that don't really fit into any other categories. Take for example "Foster the People," Most people would classify them more as rock than anything else, but they are not your typical-sounding rock, they have a bit of a different sound to them.

Wikipedia describes "Alternative Rock" as stated:

"Alternative rock (also called alternative music, alt rock or simply alternative) is a genre of rock music that emerged from the independent music underground of the 1980s and became widely popular by the 1990s. Most commonly associated in its heyday with a distorted guitar sound, transgressive lyrics and a nonchalant attitude, its original meaning was broader, referring to a generation of musicians unified by their collective debt to either the musical style, or simply the independent, D.I.Y. ethos of punk rock, which in the late 1970s laid the groundwork for alternative music.[2] At times, "alternative" has been used as a catch-all description for music from underground rock artists that receives mainstream recognition, or for any music, whether rock or not, that is seen to be descended from punk rock (including some examples of punk itself, as well as new wave, and post-punk)."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_rock

I want to focus mostly on this part: "...referring to a generation of musicians unified by their collective debt to either the musical style..."

The whole point of the label "alternative" is because it doesn't really fit into the genre "Rock" by itself since it usually incorporates elements of other genres, creating it's own unique sound. I understand the fact that nowadays most bands that fit into this genre can also fall into other genres that have been created since the invention of the term "alternative," but that should not discredit the value of the genre "Alternative." If anything, this should bolster it. None of these subgenres would exist without the mastergenre "Alternative." As it said in the wikipedia article, there was an entire GENERATION of artists that not only identified as "Alternative," but helped shape it's meaning!

Look at bands like "The Red Hot Chili Peppers," "Foo Fighters," "3 Doors Down," and "Third Eye Blind." These bands don't fit into any other category BUT "alternative Rock, it is literally the only way to describe them. Without the genre "Alternative Rock" they would be forced into categories that don't describe them such as "Indie" and "Grunge." I think we can all agree that none of those four bands are "Indie," or "Grunge." (and if we can't all agree, then we need to seriously have a discussion on our definitions of "Indie" and "Grunge")

Should we discount an entire Genre just because it has grown to be so broad-termed? Does the fact that it is the parent of many subgenres make it no longer a genre in and of itself? Or does it only lend credence to the fact that it is such an accurate description of the sound of so many of today's artists that it fed the need for additional subgenres to further describe artists within this category? I, personally, lean toward the latter.