The non-rock heart of Rock

nail hit on head, mark (tho i think the concept existed before punk — unless you mean punk existed right from the dawn of rock)

Rockism is about the fall of rock from its own projected state of grace. Rock as state of grace emerged into the world — says me — as the Beatles released a series of LPs 63-65 (subtly difft track-listings UK and US), containing among their own songs a selection of cover versions which DEFINED THE RADICAL CANON w/i pop, streamlining the Gods of 50s RnR and of early 60s girlpop, the twin poles of their new universe. Rock as something that could fail and be corrupted was itself canonised during the bitter self- hating post-split Lennon-Wenner interviews in [date not to hand: 1970?].

First statement of anti-rockism from WITHIN = "I don't believe in *beatles*" from 'God' on John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (note also "anti-rockist" sardonic appropriation of the word "plastic", a very dismissive term in the beat-hippie lexicon — Norman Mailer *still* froths when you get him to talk about plastic — which Warhol had ambivalently rescued viz Exploding Plastic Inevitable, except of course that in orthodox rock thinking in 1971, Warhol and Pop Art were the cynical enemy) (cf eg Dave Marsh on why the Who are good and Warhol not, in his biog of the former)

Handy reductionist motto: Lennon invented hippy, Yoko invented punk.

Depends on how 'rock' you consider Dr Alimentado and VDGG to be.

(yeah, sorry: "hit nail on head" except for use of MAJOR DODGY CONCEPT "influence")

(dodgy = obscure pet peeve of mark s)

(also i typed "DOGGY" first time in, and very nearly decided to go with it anyway heh)

Mark S - Influence is a word that I use far too much, but I can't think of a substitute. I suppose it's a major dodgy concept because it sounds too mechanical and suggests linearity. A influenced B and B influenced C. Whenever I talk about influences I'm thinking about the cultural context in which people grew up. It is possible to be influenced by your background without even realising it. I like talking about influences because they are complicated and confusing.

Dave Q - John Lydon's personal musical tastes were rarely allowed to be exposed during the Sex Pistols' career. Jones and Matlock had more say over the way the music turned out.

Matlock, at the very least, wasn't quite as divorced from rock's 'heritage' as you seem to be suggesting Mark. In his biog he talks abt listening to old blues recs when he was a teenager - Sonny Boy Williamson or similar - just like Mick Jagger and his Slim Harpo fixation!

yes: reason i spose i bridle at "influence" in this sense is that key to what pistols are = not just how the melodies and chords were constructed, and not just how j.rotten er SANG, but how he moved in the world on and off-stage; is this part of the music? Yes (say I). Is it "influenced" by Dr Alimantado, Peter Hammill, Beefheart etc.? Possibly- probably-maybe but how to measure it?

And of course what of negative influence? "We do this because we'd rather DIE than do that…"

[thread hijack alert]

Deliberately ignoring or avoiding something is also a form of influence. Johnny Ramone once--I don't have the quote, but he said something about how the idea behind Ramones guitar was to do something with _no_ blues in it. Bad Brains were fusion guys who decided to deliberately avoid some of the stylistic hallmarks of fusion.

As a general rule, really inspired musicians tend to be people who listen to a whole lot of stuff, whether the "influence" they get from it comes out as sounding like it or not.

And even if you can make the "ahistoric tastes" claim for the Pistols, which is pretty dubious, you sure can't make it for the Clash--!

Only rarely do music critics address a work of art from a position that is even approximately open minded. Most criticism, consciously or not, springs from a set of values or preconceptions. The criticism on ILM is no different.

Such preconceptions are no doubt inevitable and sometimes useful. By observing the qualities that seem to be shared by "approved" work the critic extracts a set of criteria that appear to characterise good work. This is how the human mind works. A model is developed as an aid to judgement and to allow rapid identifidation of the "obviously" second rate so that the critic can reduce the quantity of music deserving serious consideration to a manageable amount.

But inevitable problems arise. Like all generalisations the model was only an approximate fit and as taste changes and develops its inadequacy becomes more and more apparent. It becomes increasingly apparent that, on the basis of the model, valuable work has been rejected and derivative or second rate work overpraised.

"Rockism" was a set of values that appeared to work for a while (ie it suited the prejudices of the age). Many of these values did not derive from rock itself (for example the stress on the importance of "feeling" and emotional authenticity derived from, inter alia, blues and gospel. As in every walk of life conservatives will fight a rearguard action against the notion that certain values they have held dear no longer describe the world we live in.

People who understand the inadequacy of the rockist model should be wary of smugness. We are no doubt substituting another model that will seem just as absurd in 5 or 10 years time.

Punk was more rockist than rock, but dance culture out-punked punk. Maybe the compass model is best?

Ideologically maybe, aesthetically certainly - punk had the same relation to 'rock' as, say, some of the more raucous moments in an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. That is, it 'sounds' like 'rock' - but it's NOT!

birth of punk = jesus christ superstar ("what's the buzz? tell me what's a-happenin'?")

Mind you, some rockist write can be good. Richard Meltzer is hugely entertaining and yet so rockist that he considers rock existed for a fraction of a second somewhere around the eighteenth of October, 1966, then never again.

My original question was inspired by the notion of "Classic Rock". I criticise rockism a lot, but I happen to like many rock bands from the 60s and 70s. It is classicism that I have a problem with. Classicism removes music from its roots and also from its possible futures. The Beatles are now "Classic Rock", yet in their day they rebelled against classicism. They have been remastered and repackaged to appear timeless, but the best thing about them is that they were completely of their time. Nowadays, both supporters and detractors of the Beatles argue over a simplified, ahistorical version of the band. What does Noel Gallagher know about the historical mix that allowed the Beatles sound to develop? Does he care about Carl Perkins, Smokey Robinson, or even George Formby?

Early punk revisited many of the musical moments that had been forgotten by those dreaming of Classic Rock. The Ramones first few albums are catalogues of ephemeral styles from the early to mid 60s: Spectorpop, surf music, Merseybeat, all overlaid with 1970s noise.

The Sex Pistols rebelled against the frozen purity of classicism. The best thing about them was that they were confusing. What were they? A return to 1966-style spiky Mod pop? A deliberately bad rock group? A manufactured pop group for a sick age? An art statement? A bad rock group who wanted to be good? The end of rock or a new beginning?

Classicism occurs when you stop asking questions and rely on old answers.

As gramsci would put it, the objection to ossification and incorporation of innovation into the hegemony is a direct result of the search for solutions to political problems on a cultural plane. Benjamin, meanwhile, would pose the question of rescuing the messianic historical moment at times when the constellation of forces playing on culture yeilds a rift.