Does Rockism Exist?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Inspired by the soundtrack thread, where first of all no two people really seem to be able to agree what the term even really means. (Someone said "as little of black music as possible" - where I've always thought rockists are excessively concerned with authenticity deriving from blues roots.) But is this even a meaningful thing to be concerned about anymore? I could maybe see the use of critiquing rockism in the 70s and 80s. Now, it seems increasingly rare that anyone has a problem, say, with drum machines or songwriting teams or dance clubs, and thinks that everyone should listen to Dylan. If these people exist, they're a small minority AFAICT. If rock critics are taken to be the spokespeople of 'rockism', there doesn't seem to be much consensus - Jim deRogatis celebrates Supertramp and Queen as essential classic rock, which Lester Bangs, for example, would probably never have done. Christgau loves Rage Against the Machine and hip-hop and African music, with justifications that might seem 'rockist'. Chuck loves Def Leppard and Billy Ray Cyrus . . .

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

In fact, if there's one thing that unites rock critics, it might be a distaste for contemporary popular rock music.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

The Tea Party or Dream Theater might be rockist in a way but if they enjoy virtually no mainstream critical support and thus are not granted the 'authenticity' of the White Stripes or someone, where does that leave us?

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Although the adherence to the ideal of authenticity, while certainly challenged of late (I actually think The Matrix had a big hand in this), I believe it is still the (unfortunately) common and dominant approach to art and culture. I mean, Pitchfork is supremely rockist in its way (class issues there too though).

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

"True rockism" can't exist. Even the most die-hard deathmetallers I know have a favorite pop song in their closet somewhere.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Authenticity may still be valued, Spencer, but how much is it still tied to a specific form of guitar rock music vs other types of pop music?

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:19 (twenty-one years ago)

what's wrong with being rocky?

Symplistic (shmuel), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Spencer and Alex are *both* right; to pursue an analogy with the allegation that so and so "is a racist" . . . there aren't all that many people that openly pledge allegiance to an avowedly racist position, but racism remains present all over the place, albeit tacitly. And the discover of what *counts* as racist varies depending on whether you have a "strong" or "weak" definition of the term. I don't mean to derail this interesting thread into an argument about racism, this is really JUST an analogy at this point . . . I think all sorts of media outlets are absolutely "rockist", and they show their "rockist" tendencies precisely in how they talk about all sorts of non-rock genres.

Drew Daniel, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought "rockist" was just shorthand for "ILM strawman". I mean, really, does the term have any currency outside of this totally self-asorbed and inconsequential internet forum?

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Rockism does indeed exist. Go explore other music boards. Go talk to people over the age of 35.

oops (Oops), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The reason no-one can agree upon which music is rockist is that the term doesn't apply to music but attitudes. And the attitudes aren't fixed creeds when it comes to the music itself (eg. synthesisers are bad) but much more positional and relational eg. "Between the [x] and [y], [x] is much better because..." Which is why you can have a rockism of hip hop, a rockism of dance music etc. - at this point I'd invoke my solar system model of rockism/indieness.

I almost made a comp tracklisting for the other thread with stuff like Aphex Twin's "Boy/Girl Song", M.I.A.'s "Galang", Jay-Z's "99 Problems' etc. all of which I lovel.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

consequentialist
xp

Symplistic (shmuel), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Go talk to people over the age of 35.

I'm 37.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah exactly!

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Authenticity may still be valued, Spencer, but how much is it still tied to a specific form of guitar rock music vs other types of pop music?

In my mind, I'm always using the term for non-music attitudes too. I don't think a song or album (or any "text") can be simply labeled "Rockist". It's definitely an interpretation of the text (as Tim was saying). It's also often a categorizational act on the part of the person is "Rockistly" thinking about music or culture.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

That's why the other thread isn't really working out. Except for the Bob Seger track in which he states his rockist beliefs in the song.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

tim said exactly what i was going to say (and what i basically already did say, on the other thread). on the other hand, i've always considered the whole idea of "rockism" a little ridiculous in the first place. but taking as a given the way that people have seemed to use the term over the past decade or two, i don't see how you could suggest that it *doesn't* show up in attitudes toward all genres, by devotees of the genres themselves, putting up barriers to keep suspicious and un-nutritious stuff that doesn't belong there out. if you can't, the word is completely useless, and always has been.

chuck, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

you people are crazy (uh, not you Alex in NYC!)

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

chuck yr definition seems to be closer to just being plain old closed-minded.

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

didnt matos describe what being rockist was all about in his sign o the times book?

splooge (thesplooge), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

or maybe not just closed-minded, but overly literal, orthodox, conservative, etc. Inclined to reinforce exist boundaries.

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

But if it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with rock anymore (as it definitely did in many critical attitudes in the 70s and 80s - when, yes, it often was associated with specific agreed-on qualities in the music itself -> instrumentation, lyrical content, singing styles, level of production), why still call it "rockism" instead of "elitism" or "political correctness" or somesuch? (Mind you, I have a problem with "PC" too.)

5xpost or "narrow-mindedness", yes.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I actually don't understand the term beyond ILM - i.e. I don't really use the term in its traditional music crit historical sense. For me it's more of a music criticism version of logocentrism.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Sadly people focus a bit too much on the "rock" in rockism. This is a flaw inherent to the word itself I realise.

"or maybe not just closed-minded, but overly literal, orthodox, conservative, etc. Inclined to reinforce exist boundaries."

Yes exactly; where we might disagree is on which attitudes are "inclined to reinforce existing boundaries". The idea that the media's portrayal of, say, Outkast might be contested on the grounds that by supporting Outkast they're certainly not reinforcing existing boundaries. However, supporting Outkast on the grounds that Andre 3000 is a polystylistic maverick in the style of Hendrix and Prince who transcends the crassly commercial, derivative world of most hip hop does tend to reinforce at least a few boundaries - between auteurs and pretenders, between individuals and facsimiles, between the values of specific styles of music and "higher purpose" values against which all styles of music can be judged.

To some extent the use of binaries in music criticism will always lead to backdoor criticism (indeed even a straight reversal of the usual authentic/unnutritious divide can end up being an odd form of rockism) as the binary model is always ultimately a way of distinguishing between honourable candidates and imposters.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

dood, binary relationships rule the universe. get over it.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha ha, actually I just realised that the rockist pop/authentic binary is totally master/slave!

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

more like "rule the human mind."

oops (Oops), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Right, I agree that that type of attitude very much still exists but I'm questioning whether "rockism" is still a valid term for it in the sense of it being associated with the aesthetics of guitar rock vs pop. I think we agree on this too but are bickering over semantics, maybe;) Chuck raises the point that it might even be questionable how much it was ever really associated with rock.

The more I think about it, it would seem that the primary victims of rockism even in the past have always been the major guitar rock artists of the day, going back to Rolling Stone's hate for Led Zeppelin.

3xpost

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the "Disco Demolition" bonfire in Detroit is a better example of rockist tyranny (or the end result of the attitude).

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Chicago, mofo! Show some respect.

oops (Oops), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

and I think the Disco Demolition was more a result of homophobia and reassertion of machoism than any sort of rockism.

oops (Oops), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Right, so that could legitimately be considered "rockism" in that an AOR DJ was destroying non- (or 'anti-')rock records to the cheers of thousands, but how much does that still apply to anything going on now? It is also worth considering that the music that that DJ liked (Journey, Frampton, etc) was probably more critically reviled even at the time than at least 'good' disco was.

xpost

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

(double xpost)

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

African music

I apologize for this lumping-together by the way. I should have maybe said Afrobeat or juju or just said King Sunny Ade.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)

was probably more critically reviled even at the time than at least 'good' disco was

That is a bit revisionist. Disco was pretty consistently reviled (or at least not taken seriously) by establishment critics throughout the 70s. The usual rockist critiques of monotony, frivolity and unclear origins/authorship are directly related to "homophobia and reassertion of masochism".

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Let's make the straw man nice and big and obvious so we can see him: when Roger Rockist (ILM DJ name or what?) loves music he says that it is "authentic", "spontaneous", "emotional", "warm", "direct", "confessional", "heartfelt" etc. Yet somehow Roger Rockist doesn't actually like lots of genres that would seem to hinge pretty strongly on these qualities (such as gospel music) because the records Roger likes the most tend to be made by white male foursomes with guitar, bass, drums, and singing, recorded in a manner that keeps the foregrounding or intrusion of technology to a minimum. None of which requirements have any logical relationship to the above described pleasure-giving adjectives. Correspondingly, when Roger Rockist doesn't like music he says that it is "artificial", "slick", "fake", "too self-conscious", "cold", "pretentious"etc. What is annoying about our strawman Roger Rockist's nasty old rockist views? 1) A sneaking sense that a particular site of identification (usually white, usually male) is being praised for its supposed articulation of a general, inclusive humanity. 2) The older rock gets, the harder the authenticity shtick is to swallow, precisely because its expressive tropes are so calcified that their citation in new rock records couldn't possibly be the spontaneous outburst of adolescent innocence. 3) hinging your appreciation of art on a claim about the sincerity of the people who make it is naive, or simply optional etc. etc.

can we get this straw man list to 100?

Drew Daniel, Monday, 4 October 2004 22:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Correspondingly, when Roger Rockist doesn't like music he says that it is "artificial", "slick", "fake", "too self-conscious", "cold", "pretentious"etc. and in person that it "sucks" or "is gay"...

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:00 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, I'll concede that I haven't comprehensively studied pop criticism from the 70s so you may well be right. Your second point is probably true also, which is why I think rockism might have been a useful thing to critique at that time, but not now in the way that it tends to be used on this board.

xpost: Yes, I know that's what rockism is supposed to be.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

double xpost

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, it seems like maybe "rockist" discourse is particularly guilty of trait #1 (see for example: pennebaker's footage of dylan singing to black farmers in "don't look back" and the lingering looks at them listening to him), but a lot of the critical reception of hip hop hinges on trait #3 just as much as rockist discourse. it's not like only rock and roll types care about authenticity by any means . . .

Drew Daniel, Monday, 4 October 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that as long as official music opinion is still tied to rock, "rockism" will still have some useful meaning, and I guess that will continue as long as rock is the default option for most opinion-makers (magazines primarily). eg. the idea of Outkast "transcending" their formally limited field to a broader audience wouldn't make sense if it was acknowledged that the broader audience actually *was* people who listen to hip hop, or country, or seventies hits on the radio. Otherwise we might actually read the same story about how "Coldplay have transcended the crass [x] of rock to win the hearts and minds of [y] (being hip hop listeners, being "us").

I think that rock still has the grip on the "grand narrative" as it is structured by all of this accepted wisdom percolating through books, newspapers, magazines, conversations etc, and it's a grand narrative which seeks to *include* hip hop and dance and etc. while still tracing back to Elvis or The Beatles or the Sex Pistols etc. as a foundation. By contrast hip hop or dance magazines (themselves rife with rockism) don't tend to attempt such an ambitious project, and their "grand narratives" where they exist are more strictly circumscribed, fringed by an awareness that they can't take centrality for granted. A good example of that is the opening self-justifications in Reynolds' Generation Ecstasy. I'm sure that in the past and perhaps even today discussions of rock might be or have been prefaced with a self-justification wrt the importance and validity of rock notwithstanding the dominance of classical music or jazz (this is I think mark s's point about rockism, it's very much a "sins of the father" type of affair) but it's not really very common now.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Otherwise we might actually read the same story about how "Coldplay have transcended the crass [x] of rock to win the hearts and minds of [y] (being hip hop listeners, being "us").

Well, I have read several stories of them winning the hearts and minds of a bunch of influential hip hop/R&B producers at least :-)

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:08 (twenty-one years ago)

though those stories are about jay-Z or Timbaland or whoever, not about Coldplay themselves. unlike the analogous outkast stories.

Symplistic (shmuel), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I still think, going back to what I was saying above, that regardless of whether it was the biggest victim of what is called 'rockism', popular guitar rock has always been one of its chief targets to the point where Joe Carducci or Joe Harrington don't even consider the biggest rock acts of the 70s and 80s to even be 'real' rock bands. So maybe "rockism" was never really the best term?

Tim: Right, I can see what you're saying.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

post-punkism?

Symplistic (shmuel), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

But this may simply because, frankly, it isn't usual for white guitar oriented rock acts to cross over to audiences that do usually buy hip-hop. Sure, they may like the odd bassline or guitar riff, but that's really not enough.

It is extremely hard for rock acts to cross over to the hip-hop audience. Not to say impossible.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Exactly. Which is why it's weird that while Outkast's popularity among non-rap fans was mentioned in practically every single outkast review, while Coldplay's popularity among rappers hasn't been discussed much (outside of here). Which proves that according to the rockist media, the important and authentic fans are the rock fans.

Symplistic (shmuel), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I recall being kind of weirded out even when Linkin Park started getting airplay on Wild 94.9 (hip hop station) here in SF; it is so unusual for cross-over like that to happen, and yet there are so many rock and roll samples all over recent commercial hip hop . . .

So Sundar, you're saying that maybe one of the extra planks of the rockist view is a committment to a certain kind of scale- that "big" bands fail the rockist authenticity test simply because of their very popularity and mass spectacle status?

first album/first show/basement rehearsal = "real" rock
big sales/big shows/crossover = fake

Drew Daniel, Monday, 4 October 2004 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I would rather say that rock fans are obviously at least slightly more open minded than hip-hop fans when it comes to "the other side".

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

"obviously"???!!!?!!

oops (Oops), Monday, 4 October 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, I don't even think you've seen this film (which I must say confounds me), but I'll assume you understand the broad strokes of the narrative.

I believe this movie is an example of a new acceptance of definition from without, of the (subjective) sense of a de-centered subject. It is the most populist example of a direct challenge to the dominance of Cartesian notions of apparent being and apparent reality which include authenticity, authorship, origin myths etc (and by extension then, rockism). I could go on, but I think it would be veering way OT.

Now you know how I feel about The Matrix or rather the benighted star of same.

My only feeling is that he doesn't annoy me as much as he does some people. I'm actually fascinated by others' revulsion for him, and I fear that your critique of the film (which again I remember saying you refuse to see) is deeply colored by yours.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 01:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but it is worth noting that the Disco Demolition DJ -- Steve Dahl (still on the air in Chicago) -- is an insanely HUGE Beach Boys fan and has been for many years. Although I'm not sure what else he was listening to in 1979; I've only heard him for the last 15 years or so.

(Acutally, Beach Boys probably an interesting band to discuss w/r/t rockism: early stuff "just silly pop," but Pet Sounds vaunted by the crit-establishment because it "aims higher," it's "more personal," it showcases B. Wilson as "auteur," etc.) (As far as I know, Dahl likes it all.)

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 02:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll assume you understand the broad strokes of the narrative.

I do know most of the story! That's not the issue for me. Feeling the film holds a prominent role in terms of a challenge to concepts of authenticity -- if anything this strikes me as the same thing which informs/afflicts so much of Star Wars criticism regarding a somewhat ex post facto, evanescent importance, except substitute Derrida or Chomsky (if you like, other examples can be found) for Jung and Campbell. It becomes a reference point but I don't think it necessarily shifts the goalposts so much as slots into something already there. I think where we differ is that you imply (though I could be reading this incorrectly) that concepts of authenticity were being challenged all the more by the films when I'd think the existence of the films themselves was just a natural progression from what had come before.

I actually find the story of whichever Wachowski is completing the sex change to be more fascinating than the idea of the movies, though, and of course there's challenges to notions of authenticity right there with what (s)he is doing.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

jaymc: Actually I didn't know anything about Steve Dahl. I'd just read in a couple (critical) writings about the Disco Demilition that he was an AOR DJ who favoured Journey over disco. Looking him up on the web, I don't find any support for that. It seems that he's more of a talk DJ than anything.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I think where we differ is that you imply (though I could be reading this incorrectly) that concepts of authenticity were being challenged all the more by the films when I'd think the existence of the films themselves was just a natural progression from what had come before.

Ned, I've always assumed that culture is always already dynamically being created and creating itself. However, I feel that The Matrix is a special case where difficult academic concepts were sucessfully translated directly into populist terms, thereby accelerating the discourse. "Welcome to the desert of the real..." etc.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

The Zionists in the Matrix 2 would seem to prefer house over rock.

sexyDancer, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 03:24 (twenty-one years ago)

But who's doing the talking in said discourse, and who did it accelerate for? I'm not being flippant, I'm honestly curious.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 03:29 (twenty-one years ago)

sci fi fans?

sexyDancer, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 03:33 (twenty-one years ago)

"Rockists" v. "Popists". Hard to believe this is an issue with anyone over the age of 14, itching to fight during school recess.

Though I would have to assume that the burly greasy rockists would kick the milquetoast popists' scrawny little asses up and down the football field.

I'm trying to decide if that's a good thing or not. I guess it is.

I'm A Mama Papa Comin' For You, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 04:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, I fear that you'll just peck away at me and The Matrix simply because you hate Keanu Reeves.

That said, when you get "everyday people" talking about concepts straight from Baudrillard, and considering their own subjectivity in new ways (through identification with the Neo character - something which I don't think is possible for you), then I feel that a major shift has occurred.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 04:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I always thought the poppists were the bohunk cali surfer dudes and supahtite cheerleaders and the rockists were the reedy greaseball heshers smoking weed under the bleachers.

Depends on yr perspective, no?

Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 04:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno. Reading this thread, all I could picture was Lemmy swinging a chain, chasing Howard Jones up and down a field. But what the fuck do I know?

Time He Flexes Like a Whore, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 04:44 (twenty-one years ago)

splooge: I tried at least. probably didn't succeed fully.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 04:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I apologize for going way OT with lots of academic cliches.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 05:13 (twenty-one years ago)

It's crackers to think about 'rockism' as being about some kind of "love of rock music" per se; when I use the term I mean it as a shorthand for an attitude which is one of over-reliance on received wisdom, or, if you like, the meta-narratives of popular ([not necesarily] rock) music. It doesn't matter whether those received wisdoms, meta-narratives or cultural myths are ones which emphasise authenticity or guitars or independant record labels or danceability or which dismiss indie in favour of hip hop or microhouse - it's any deferal of taste, of personal critical faculty, of engagement with and judgement of music, to some kind of arbitrary system of value judgement, and an attempt, post-establishment of said system, to represent it as the natural way of the world rather than as an arbitrary cultural construct. Hence Geir is rockist when he dismisses music which isn't melodic and tries to claim that it is intrinsically inferior to melodic music, thus attempting to establish his personal taste as some kind of universal standard when it isn't.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 07:47 (twenty-one years ago)

It's crackers? That's where the term comes from!

sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I know it does, but the term arose in the late 70s early 80s, and is used (especially here) so widely that restricting it to its precise etymological remit doens't go anywhere near explaining what it actually means or whether it exists anymore.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:25 (twenty-one years ago)

(i.e. from countercultural privileging of rock over pop and the associated reasons for this, which ostensibly became culturally dominant in the 70s and 80s. I still think that to be meaningful it has to mean something more specific than just narrow-mindedness or conservatism, for which there already much better terms. Tim raises a worthwhile point that rock is still the default option for pop critics. But then I haven't actually read those Outkast reviews. It might not actually still be tied to a love of rock music per se, in that by privileging 'rockist' values - maybe still based on a love of classic rock - one actually ends up hating most mainstream rock post-1975.)

xpost: Right, that's part of why I think its use here is so questionable.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:29 (twenty-one years ago)

But language evolves, just the way music does. It would seem nuts to me to neologise a new term for hip-hopism or popism or danceism everytime the similar traits of bias and reliance on meta-narrative (from whichever direction) emerge regarding different genres. It strikesme as all being the same attitude, which is one of I am right and you are wrong because my opinion is the natural way of things and yours is just opinion. I recognise that I use it in a slightly different way to how other people use the term.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Wasn't it Pete Wylie who invented the term "rockism"? I think it was.

Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:54 (twenty-one years ago)

people saying they dont want to make up a new term like popism or rapism or whatever is essentially rockist in itself, its saying their own rockist term rockism came first so everything that came after is still rockism even if its to do with a completely different genre. its like those who think everything from fela kuti to hip hop fall under 'rock' which is ridiculous in my view.

splooge (thesplooge), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha, splooge I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that rockism is an ever-evolving and expanding term of prejudice and one day it will grow to hate all musics and never think for itself about anything!

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

we know that music is music

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 10:09 (twenty-one years ago)

rhythm, blues AND jazz

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 10:09 (twenty-one years ago)

im going to try and introduce rhythm and blues-ism to the masses because all musics came from rhythm and blues and that is that!

splooge (thesplooge), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 10:36 (twenty-one years ago)

scratch that, blues-ism it is. no blues = no popular 20th Century music!

splooge (thesplooge), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 10:37 (twenty-one years ago)

"scratch that, blues-ism it is. no blues = no popular 20th Century music! "

WORD UP!

Jack White (dickvandyke), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

So Sundar, you're saying that maybe one of the extra planks of the rockist view is a committment to a certain kind of scale- that "big" bands fail the rockist authenticity test simply because of their very popularity and mass spectacle status?

I think it's a little more complex than just that. I think "rockism" might be a bit of a misnomer even for the classic form of the prejudice. It seems that it comes from what was privileged by the counterculture - but this wasn't always really rock per se, at least as it came to be defined, I don't think. 'Great artists' like Dylan or Van Morrison or Neil Young were among the most privileged in this view it seems - and in part, because of the 'authenticity' of folk or blues or country roots and because of the oppositional politics with which they were identified. So in the 70s a stadium star like Springsteen would be celebrated, partly for his aesthetics but also because he was a left-leaning working-class voice with a lyrics-heavy post-Dylan singer-songwriter sensibility and folk roots. A stadium band like Queen would however be critically reviled because they were merely decadent showboats, with roots deriving maybe more from the aristocratic European classical tradition rather than from authentic American sources. Significantly, non-rock artists like Bob Marley or Robert Johnson or Johnny Cash would also be favoured in this view to a rock band like Queen. (And I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with this taste - these are all great artists.) I'm just saying that the values associated with "rockism" aren't necessarily the values of rock as it has ever been actually practised.

Of course, there was another crasser sort of rockism from this era, the rockism of classic rock radio and your guitar teacher, which might actually deserve the name - where Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and Rush and Metallica and Eddie Van Halen are privileged artists because they're real musicians who have mastered their real instruments etc and Boston and Journey and AC/DC and Bryan Adams are also (maybe lesser but still fun) artists but country and disco and anything that's not on rock radio (except maybe Jimmy Page's favourite blues acts) doesn't matter because it's 'gay' or whatever. It just seems that this view in its simplest form, which I'm sure still has its adherents, is so overtly ignorant that we're not even really taking it seriously enough to talk about it when we talk about "rockism".

sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 11:54 (twenty-one years ago)

partly for his aesthetics but also because he was a left-leaning working-class voice with a lyrics-heavy post-Dylan singer-songwriter sensibility and folk roots.

Actually, making this separation was wrong.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 12:01 (twenty-one years ago)

And, consequently, in the 80s, rockism #1 favoured punk rock, postpunk, and 'real' hip-hop because of their working-class or lower-class roots, oppositional qualities, and authenticity - and in the case of punk and indie, their emphasis on the live band without studio gimmickry.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 12:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Mind you, rockism #2 can actually be a bit more complex and eclectic than many would give it credit for so maybe it's not necessarily fair to call it more ignorant.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 12:18 (twenty-one years ago)

> It is also worth considering that the music that that DJ liked (Journey, Frampton, etc) was probably more critically reviled even at the time than at least 'good' disco was
That is a bit revisionist. Disco was pretty consistently reviled (or at least not taken seriously) by establishment critics throughout the 70s. <

Nah, it ain't revisionist at all - check any pazz and jop poll from the late '70s. Disco definitely did scored way better among critics than Journey/Frampton/Styx/Foreigner/etc AOR stuff (though still not nearly as well as it should have, obviously.)

chuck, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmmm, most of the research I did at school on disco was Rolling Stone, the NYTimes, Time and some other big papers, and the prevailing opinion was either discomfort or outright revulsion - the criticisms were consistent as well.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Pazz and Jop Singles Poll, 1979 --

1. Ian Dury & the Blockheads: "Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick"/"Reasons to Be Cheerful, Pt. 3" (Stiff/Epic) 29 *
2. M: "Pop Musik" (Sire) 26
3. Donna Summer: "Hot Stuff" (Casablanca) 22 *
4. Sister Sledge: "We Are Family"/"He's the Greatest Dancer" (Cotillion) 20 *
The Pretenders: "Stop Your Sobbing"/"The Wait" (Real import) 20
6. Fleetwood Mac: "Tusk" (Warner Bros.) 17
The Knack: "My Sharona" (Captiol) 17
8. Blondie: "Dreaming" (Chrysalis) 16
9. The Brains: "Money Changes Everything" (Gray Matter) 15
The Flying Lizards: "Money" (Virgin) 15
The Specials: "Gangsters" (2 Tone import) 13
12. Michael Jackson: "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" (Epic) 12
The Pretenders: "Kid" (Kid import) 12
The Records: "Starry Eyes" (Virgin) 12
Talking Heads: "Life During Wartime" (Sire) 12
16. Lester Bangs: "Let It Blurt" (Spy) 11 **
Chic: "Good Times" (Atlantic) 11
Dave Edmunds: "Girls Talk" (Swan Song) 11
Funkadelic: "(Not Just) Knee Deep" (Warner Bros.) 11
Peaches & Herb: "Reunited" (Polydor) 11
Donna Summer: "Bad Girls" (Casablanca) 11
22. Gang of Four: "At Home He's a Tourist"/"It's Her Factory" (EMI import) 10
Robin Lane & the Chartbusters: "Why Do You Tell Lies"/"When Things Go Wrong" (Deli Platters EP) 10
Nick Lowe: "Cruel to Be Kind" (Columbia) 10
McFadden & Whitehead: "Ain't No Stoppin' Us Now" (Philadelphia International) 10 *
Sugarhill Gang: "Rapper's Delight" (Sugarhill) 10 ***


----

Note the absence of, for instance, "Dirty White Boy" by Foreigner and "What a Fool Believes" by the Doobie Brothers and "Heartache Tonight" by the Eagles and "Babe" by Styx and "Flirtin With Disaster" by Molly Hatchet and "The Logical Song" by Supertramp and, er, "Old Time Rock and Roll" by Bob Seger, Spencer. And Time, NY Times, and Rolling Stone critics definitely voted in this poll, by the way.

chuck, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

That poll is very interesting, but I have hundreds of quotes from those publications in interviews, reporting, features and reviews that relate the "usual" disco critique.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

And there were no quotes from those publications in interviews, reporting, features and reviews saying how horrible the Eagles and Foreigner and Styx were??? (I mean, yes, disco got negative reviews really often. Obviously. But that doesn't mean it was the *only* music getting negative reviews, right?)

chuck, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck, I was specifically researching criticisms of disco. I'm probably not knowledgeable enough to make the "revisionist" claim as it relates to other music. I should have just left it at "there was *plenty* of examples of the standard criticisms of disco".

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Maria shares an office with a guy who told her the other day - with a straight face - that Bob Dylan will probably never get the kind of recognition that he deserves until he's dead. (!!)

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

He also doesn't like all that "kill whitey" kind of rap music.

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Never forget Bob Dylan is an ace liar.
That said,
New York City was a funky, funky place.

Loose Translation: Sexy Dancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

This is totally off-topic, but I had a OMGWTFLOL moment when I read this in the '79 P&J list:

16. Lester Bangs: "Let It Blurt" (Spy) 11 **

Carry on.

(that really is an amazing list ... the P&J writers even liked "Tusk" at the time!)

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Does existentialism rock?

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:59 (twenty-one years ago)

DEFINE+EXAMPLES: ELECTRONICA, HOUSE, TECHNO, TRANCE, ETC

Professor Challenger (ex machina), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

What is annoying about our strawman Roger Rockist's nasty old rockist views? 1) A sneaking sense that a particular site of identification (usually white, usually male) is being praised for its supposed articulation of a general, inclusive humanity.

It's also interesting how non-white and non-male (or rather non-heterosexual male and/or female) audiences similarly privilege the same things. Nowadays I always think of how so many women talk about how much they love "live" and "real" music, and usually really conservative garage rock and/or post-punk.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Note that some of the harshest critique of disco during the 70s came from the musical camp where it originated from. I mean, George Clinton didn't have much positive to say about disco, did he?

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:33 (twenty-one years ago)

most of these women have seen like 4 bands live

Professor Challenger (ex machina), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, not the ones I'm talking about.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

From the "Electroclash - commercial flop or not?" thread:
Electroclash - commercial flop or not?
Electroclash - commercial flop or not?

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Those are individual post links.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 21:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Note that some of the harshest critique of disco during the 70s came from the musical camp where it originated from. I mean, George Clinton didn't have much positive to say about disco, did he?
He merely chuckled about the shitness of (bad) disco. He didn't organize a mass vinyl burning orgy at a baseball game, though.

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.