Spectroscopist here (chemical physics). we're not the bad guys here! It's the biochemists fault!
Here are the most recent "pure" chemical physics Nobel prizes: 2014, 2013 (I'd argue this is more a biochemical win than anything), 1999, 1998, 1992, 1991. Maybe you could argue fullerenes in 1996, since Kroto and Curl are pure-bred spectroscopists.
Organic/inorganic chemistry: 2011, 2010, 2007 (sort of), 2005, 2001, 2000, 1994, 1990
Then there's biochemistry: 2013, 2012, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1997, 1993...
I'd say at the rate that organic chemistry develops, I think they're pretty well-represented, same with physical chemistry. Can you think of a major development in organic chemistry outside of cross-coupling and Grubbs metathesis that is Nobel prize worthy at this point? Dave MacMillian has iminium catalysis and chiral Diels-Alder, perhaps, but it's still early. After Corey's win in 1990, I can't imagine that total synthesis needs another Nobel, unfortunately. There is a lot of good developments in this field but nothing stands out to me for Nobel at the moment.
In terms of spectroscopy, maybe the next "big" win is surface-enhanced Raman? Solid state NMR? There's the Nature paper from last year where from John Doyle at Harvard demonstrating enantiomer-specific spectroscopy using microwave spectroscopy, that could be a big deal in the next 10 years perhaps.
Anyway, tl;dr: I'd argue biochemistry is over-represented, especially in the general literature, but that might just be me being bitter.