The Anti-Rockist Protests Too Much

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.citypages.com/databank/25/1250/article12687.asp

is a response to Kelefa Sanneh's article about rockism in the New York Times from a few weeks back. Like the title says, it gets pretty over-the-top, and I'm posting the link not so much because I agree with the article, but I'm assuming there are people here who are interested.

One pretty valid point, though:
"This generational screed pretends to "oppose and resist," but is really all about bending over for the "marketplace." "

Any thoughts?

Dr Benway (dr benway), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 08:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I've got some issues with the Sanneh piece, but that piece was so smug and presumptuous that I don't feel like giving it any credit whatsoever. Any sentence I would feel like cut'n'pasting has at least one term I don't want to be associated with.

miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 08:53 (twenty-one years ago)

to clarity, "the smug and presumptuous" piece I'm referring is the City Pages one, not the NY Times one (though there's a bit of the latter quality in that one too).

miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 08:54 (twenty-one years ago)

to clarify. I shouldn't be typing this late.

miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 08:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, he certainly showed me that rockism isn't bigoted. It's kind of hysterical, really, "Sanneh is a mall-ratty kitsch queen in love with what the cute, popular kids are liking." I don't think he's entirely understood Kalefa's arguments, or the wider discussion about rockism at all. It's not that anti-rockism involves cheerleading the market economy, but that rock pretends to be railing against it when it does nothing of the sort. Being anti-rockist doesn't mean you should or shouldn't like 'manufactured' pop queens, it just involves listening to the music without the meaningless and unfounded assumptions and values of the rock establishment; either appreciating it as music, or maybe replacing rockism with a new set of meaningless value judgements if you want. Listening to music without baggage, as it comes out of the stereo, is a more of a radical act that those staged by rock music - it divorces (for me) the marketing from the music. And then the image, the fashion, the dances, whatever it is you want to enjoy, is there to be enjoyed without phoney guilt or shame.

I actually don't think the article says very much, except for an odd preoccupation with sexual preference, and some rather impolite attacks on another journalist, it is mostly unremarkable.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 08:54 (twenty-one years ago)

well, that piece sure was homophobic. This excerpt was especially bewildering:


"You can argue that the shape-shifting feminist hip hop of Christina Aguilera is every bit as radical as the punk rock of the 1970s (and it is), but then you haven't challenged any of the old rockist questions (starting with: Who's more radical?)...The challenge now is to acknowledge that music videos and reality shows and glamorous [magazine photo] layouts can be as interesting--and as influential--as an old-fashioned album."

Note the sly use of '80s academic lingo in this piece.

The word 'radical' is 80s academic lingo?

Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 09:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Thats a horribly written piece.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 09:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Egad! I never thought to look at the man's past work. It's like he's the living embodiment of everything that could possibly be wrong with music criticism.

Dr Benway (dr benway), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 09:48 (twenty-one years ago)

It always galls me that the unholy trinity of female pop icons--Madonna, Courtney Love, and Britney Spears--never get their albums reviewed as music.

Oh the irony.

Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 09:50 (twenty-one years ago)

so is this the same Matthew Wilder who sang "Never gonna break-a my stride" twenty years ago?
His Philip Roth review was even more idiotic than the rockism one.

lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:18 (twenty-one years ago)

This thing's pretty hilarious! I like the part about the luftwaffe best, wtf.

Of course the actual substance of the article is totally clueless and missing the point (I like how he just assumes that Robert "I heart the Backstreet Boys!" Christgau and Greil Marcus are on HIS side, too), but hey, if we're gonna have rockist fogeys around, I'm quite cool with having them be poncey mentalists; beats the triteness of the other Kelefa Hatin' article.

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, if an editor cut every part of that piece which exists only to show off how much the writer knows, there would be about two paragraphs.

Like Warhol snickering up his sleeve at the fatuous über-butch of Jackson Pollock's black T-shirt = Look at what I've heard of!
like a Vichy girl who can't believe how fast her heart is beating as she kisses a Luftwaffe colonel = Look at what I know!
Renata Adler's notorious 1980 attack on Pauline Kael's When the Lights Go Down--a McCarthyite waving of an empty sheet of paper = Look at more stuff I know!
go rent a copy of Kenneth Anger's landmark film Scorpio Rising, in which girl-group doo-wop and novelty toss-offs are given a spectral, alchemic power = Look at what I've probably written an article about!

daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

The other articles aren't as good, tho, he should have put Brian Wilson in the luftwaffe too.

Still:

"Instead, a record review becomes an occasion for a meditation on the semiotics of the sacred monster, a yeshiva-like passing of the fingers over the dense Star Text."

Don't you hate it when that happens?

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I hated it more in graduate school. There, you couldn't laugh.

daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:42 (twenty-one years ago)

so is this the same Matthew Wilder who sang "Never gonna break-a my stride" twenty years ago?

Haha, I had the same thought.
I liked him better then.

KoenS, Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:43 (twenty-one years ago)

You'd be hard put to find music fans who don't have at least a few bubblegum ditties in their iPods next to Nick Cave's murder ballads.

Erm, I have Nick Cave's murder ballads in my 'Bubblegum Ditties' folder...

KoenS, Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:49 (twenty-one years ago)

daria, what are the semiotics of the sacred monster, anyway? I had the flu that day.

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)

That was a fantastic article. I liked the Kelefa article too. Don't be a knee-jerk hater -- both pieces have their merits and both are very well written.

please, Wednesday, 17 November 2004 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Another easy straw-man DEMOLISHED! Anti-rockism REIGNS SUPREME!

Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)

shape-shifting feminist hip hop of Christina Aguilera

Is that what it is? Shape-shifting feminist hip hop? Funny, all I hear is needlessly melismatic pop FECES!

Am I the only one bored to tears by the never-ending rockism debate?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)

rockist bored of rockism debate shocker

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)

PROUD rockist blah blah blah...you mean.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 12:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Another easy straw-man DEMOLISHED! Anti-rockism REIGNS SUPREME!

I'm sorry, Hurting, I don't think I understand what this means; surely he's not a straw-man, he's a real man - a very bad defender of rockism, but that's not our fault, is it?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 12:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Its rather a cruel, and unneccessarily personal, attack on someone's writing but then I've read quite a few of those here as well.

I haven't read the original article (there's no link to it from the piece, from what I can tell) so its hard to say how many of its points are valid. Most of what this article says relates to the thoughts of somebody else. It isn't really valid to offer thoughts on it without reading the piece which promopted it.

hobart paving (hobart paving), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Interesting to see this on the web page of the NEW YORK TIMES, no less:


Correction: November 14, 2004, Sunday

An article on Oct. 31 about rockism -- favoritism toward traditional rock 'n' roll over producer-driven genres like disco, rhythm-and-blues and hip-hop -- misstated the Web address for the Internet forum I Love Music, where rockism is often debated. It is www.ilxor.com, not ilovemusic.com

Do people debate rockism here, then??

hobart paving (hobart paving), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

A good rule of thumb for NY Times cultural criticism: If they say rockism is often debated here, then it's likely that all meaningful debate has ended some time ago.

Dr Benway (dr benway), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't know Andy Warhol was a queer theorist, I thought he was an artist.

shookout (shookout), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I liked the Warhol connection. I don't see what you're talking about but I read the book he was probably referencing, the Warhol Philosophy one, and he seemed to go on quite a bit about his (seemingly) 100% non-ironic love of pop-culture. According to him, he wasn't parodying it or making satire, he just liked it.

David Allen (David Allen), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, still an excellent article.

And, yes, I guess I am a "rockist", even though I am with the "popists" in a lot of subjects, such as guitar vs. synths, live vs. studio and, well, plainly, whether something has to "rock" to be good.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:09 (twenty-one years ago)

"(the final "a" made me think the writer is a woman, but I thought wrong)"

And that's pertinent why? Oh, wait--

"Sanneh is like a Vichy girl who can't believe how fast her heart is beating as she kisses a Luftwaffe colonel--right here in the café, in front of everyone!"

Because women are silly, unreliable creatures. Duh. Sometimes I forget, tee hee, cuz I'm, like, just a girl. (PS Historically it's dudes who swoon for fascists--check out the gender breakdown for the election sometime.)

Wilder to Sanneh: "Don't be a rockcritical girlieman."

Gross.

Krissy Duncan (kdruinscsayn), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:15 (twenty-one years ago)

gender breakdown ref election: interesting - i've heard (though i can't recall where) that in the UK it was the other way round: male vote would never have resulted in a tory govt ever...

must check that sometime

Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Listening to music without baggage, as it comes out of the stereo, is a more of a radical act that those staged by rock music - it divorces (for me) the marketing from the music. And then the image, the fashion, the dances, whatever it is you want to enjoy, is there to be enjoyed without phoney guilt or shame.

thing is, i feel that the 'baggage' is an important part of enjoying pop (read: rock, rap, any artistic expression), which is why, i guess, i would be considered guilty of 'rockism'. i'd argue there are differing levels of 'truth' within the 'marketing' of any 'band' (like, if part of the appeal of a record is just how shitty it sounds because of the circumstances of the recording, then that's, i guess, a Rockist thing - but it's also the 'truth' of the recording session, vs., say, Milli Vanilli - 'girl you know its true' is a hilarious near-lampoon of the surface-emptiness of 80s pop that i actually really enjoy, as both a tune and as an example of its ilk (and just *how ludicrously* it embodies the pros and cons of that era), but wouldn't it be considered exactly the sort of 'anti-rockist' pop this feature so ineptly rails against?), but the surrounding noise is as much a facet of 'pop' (as music, as culture, as artform) as the music, to me.

that said, i still wholeheartedly agree when you write:

I actually don't think the article says very much, except for an odd preoccupation with sexual preference, and some rather impolite attacks on another journalist, it is mostly unremarkable.

stevie (stevie), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Stevie, I always understood the rockist take on extra-musical baggage to be that it had to be the right kind of baggage; or even more specifically the right kind of baggage produced with the right intentions. So baggage like Male Rock Star X smashing his guitar on stage as a means of, I'd guess, catharsis would be good; but baggage like Britney Spears' hyper-focus-grouped videos would not be. (ie Male Rock Star X was doing his stuff because he 'didn't give a damn' or whatever, whereas Britney was doing her stuff precisely because she gave a damn what people thought.)

The article is mind-bogglingly bad.

The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

ah, i see. is it possible to field both pro- and anti-rckist impulses as a pop fan? is it only a polarising phenomenon?

stevie (stevie), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

There's no degree zero of listening; one's appreciation of music is formed by experience, by 'baggage'. You can be self-aware about what baggage you do bring, and that might help your critical understanding, but can it change your appreciation? I accept many of the anti-rockism arguments, but that doesn't change the fact that when I look at my record collection, it's mostly male, mostly rock, mostly people who write their own music, etc., etc. I can accept that there's nothing more intrinsically "authentic" about it than boy bands or whatever, but that doesn't change my taste.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm actually kinda glad that, having earned my own eternal animosity with that hateful 'Courtney Love obituary' piece, this guy has decided to prove to even more people how much of a douche he is.

The strawman lives!

Flyboy (Flyboy), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

hmm I wouldn't say that talking about extra-musical baggage is at all pro-rockist, but you're probably right in that the popist/rockist binary probably isn't as black-and-white as it can appear sometimes. Most people I know are v popist in some cultural areas and v rockist in others.

(xposts)

The Courtney Love piece was when I decided I could subject myself to his writing no more.

The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Well put, Jonathan

sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

"The challenge isn't merely to replace the old list of Great Rock Albums with a new list of Great Pop Songs," he writes, "...it's to find a way to think about a fluid musical world where it's impossible to separate classics from guilty pleasures."

how could wilder include this quote in his article, and expect people to disagree with it? this kelefa quote is the best distillation of and resolution to the debate for me. i know that doesnt guarantee that everyone else feels that way, but it just seems so REASONABLE...

peter smith (plsmith), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

peter OTM.

No doubt Sanneh wanted to raise hackles and cause many of his fellow--no other word for it, Kelefa!--rock critics to scream in pain.

Uh, how 'bout "music critics"?

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - "no other word for it"!!!

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i didnt even see that part. haha. this guy rules.

peter smith (plsmith), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

From the In the Zone review:

The gym, the phone, the boys--just leave it to those Timbaland nimrods to do...whatever.

Does he even know who Timbaland is?

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

And yeah, is he joking about this -- "It always galls me that the unholy trinity of female pop icons--Madonna, Courtney Love, and Britney Spears--never get their albums reviewed as music." -- because did he actually read his own reviews of those artists?

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I think there's one quote up above from this article that was mentioned which actually encapsulates what's going on:

"Sanneh is a mall-ratty kitsch queen in love with what the cute, popular kids are liking."

In otherwards, besides other things, high school and/or its immediate social milieu. A few times on the boards here I've noticed a slightly reflexive feeling about trying to get over attitudes about music that often seem to have been specifically formed there, and the social context they were formed in -- trying to be different and to stand out and find your own voice, to resist a horrible situation you find yourself in, to retreat to the comfort of a subculture, etc. etc. It's interesting (and to my mind a bit weird but I suppose I was lucky -- I was top 40/MTV strictly throughout high school, and when I did the 'classic rock phase' in senior year it wasn't strange or out of place either, and only really started 'getting into music' again in the sense of active buying of albums right in the last final months; meanwhile, I had friends throughout every social group in what was a very small school).

Now getting back to this article, I'd see this as perhaps almost too classic an example of someone who aligned with certain music(s) almost as much of a reaction against something else rather simply proactively liking it, and can't let go. A bit of a pitiable state -- and yet sometimes I wonder much of what goes on here in terms of 'at least we're not like THIS guy' in response is because we are trying to see ourselves as superior to both the indie snot AND the 'popular kids' as stereotyped. The subtext to Sanneh's article that I realize is all the more interesting now in retrospect is this sense of superiority. Is the secret follow-on phrase for many of us saying "It's great to enjoy all this wonderful music in the charts and all around, without boundaries in our head..." in fact "...and it's even greater for us to think that because we're the ones who take the time to listen to all the other stuff as well."?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, melissa, why?

g--ff (gcannon), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow. This is my favorite part:

Let's accept Sanneh's you-would-think-outmoded Binary Opposition: straight white guys in this corner, Others in that one. What he's saying--though he lacks the sand to come out and say it in so many words--is that the "rock establishment" that enshrines the Lone Wolf is, by dint of its Lone Wolf worship, racist, sexist, and homophobic. Okay...accepting that thesis, you'd expect that next Sanneh is going to come out in defense of subversive, openly politicized, rigorously critical queer artists and/or artists of color. A ringing endorsement of Stephin Merritt and Me'Shell NdegéOcello will now follow--right? Hardly. Instead, it's time for a late-night trip to Wal-Mart, for a jumbo bag of Skittles and all the CDs your poor arms can carry!

"Accepting that thesis, you'd expect ..." is a brilliant dodge. Take something he didn't say, then prescribe what he should've said to follow up the thing he didn't say! Jesus, why bother reading in the first place!

Rick Massimo (Rick Massimo), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

...high school and/or its immediate social milieu. A few times on the boards here I've noticed a slightly reflexive feeling about trying to get over attitudes about music that often seem to have been specifically formed there, and the social context they were formed in -- trying to be different and to stand out and find your own voice, to resist a horrible situation you find yourself in, to retreat to the comfort of a subculture, etc. etc.

Ned, I think you nailed it here. It seems to me that you spend your teenage years forming your musical identity, your early twenties solidifying that identity, and then your mid-to-late twenties either recovering from or expanding upon your original palette. Having just hit thirty, I'm officially in I-like-what-I-like mode, which means that thinkpieces like Sanneh's make me want to gouge my eyes out to in order to avoid ever having to read such drivel again.

Tantrum The Cat (Tantrum The Cat), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Like Sanneh's? I agree the point of the original piece was fairly overdetermined and the positive reaction to it was more one of "Isn't it nice to see this in the NY Times?" than out of any sense of revelation, but it wasn't drivel compared to the nonsense linked above.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Holy shit thats hilarious! And also depressing, thinking about all the shit w/ my name on it on the internet that people can dredge up if they want to be mean :(

But yeah, this is still hilarious.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, wow, I thought his claim that the Renata Adler thing was the "last multi-megaton ordnance to land on the Reading Class" was kinda um lacking in historical perspective (oh, to live in a world where Dale Peck does not exist...) but man oh man...

Ever hear those stories about child-prodigy fire-n-brimstone preachers who turn into acid casualties with butt-length hair before they hit 20? It's sort of like that.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Now that's quite beautiful. It's the Morrissey letters to the NME -- except wrong.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Before we mock Wilder too much, it has to be said that he has an impressive CV as a theater director. And if you think that can't be the same guy, check this page.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow. And yeah, Michael, I thought the same thing about his mentioning Adler in the Sanneh attack. (The answer is B.R. Myers' manifesto in the Atlantic a couple years ago, probably.)

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I will say that the whole tone of the original article takes on further casts the more one learns about this fellow. (I stand by my high school assessment, though -- him at 13 vs. his classmates must have been about what was expected.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I can only imagine.

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think having a CV immunizes him from ridicule here. Maybe the opposite, in fact. That Adler letter is just too amazing.

Scott CE (Scott CE), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

ilx all over that page ye gods!

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

dude was only 13 when he wrote the letter.

i'm excited for an Art Spiegelman musical! (has this been performed elsewhere already?)

as far as the piece, i didn't like it much.

i do remember being a bit angry at the brian wilson review which i thought was just totally wrongheaded....i did not for the life of me get what he was talking about....

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think having a CV immunizes him from ridicule here. Maybe the opposite, in fact.

I don't think it immunizes him at all! But as Momus has noted, the sexual politics of the piece are now shown to be more complex than I (and others?) had originally assumed.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

If he can give it up for Richard Foreman, that's a good thing and I certainly won't mock that. Working with Oliver Stone, on the other hand...

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait a minute...

Matthew Wilder is a Los Angeles-based writer and a frequent contributor to City Pages. He will direct Antigone in Dallas this spring and is writing a screenplay on terrorism for director Oliver Stone.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Hah, xpost!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

you should see the cartoon i got published in the new yorker when i was 7

artdamages (artdamages), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

they should do musical based on any given sunday!

willie....beaman got all the girlies....steamin'

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

the sexual politics of the piece are now shown to be more complex than I (and others?) had originally assumed.

Maybe more complex but not necessarily more relevant or revealing about anti-rockism.

Is it rockist to let Wilder's CV grant a degree of immunity to criticism for this piece?

don weiner, Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:19 (twenty-one years ago)

It's momist.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I'm not saying that at all.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 17 November 2004 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

OK i realize there's basically an infinite amount of things wrong with the original piece, but
accepting that thesis, you'd expect that next Sanneh is going to come out in defense of subversive, openly politicized, rigorously critical queer artists and/or artists of color. A ringing endorsement of Stephin Merritt

The Magnetic Fields are openly politicized? WTF?

Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Thursday, 18 November 2004 02:02 (twenty-one years ago)

pro-gay marriage but not in an 'openly' politicized way

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 18 November 2004 02:04 (twenty-one years ago)

The "Meet The Lucky Ones" ad campaign did make me want to fight the power, though.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 18 November 2004 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the piece is well written too, in a purely stylistic sense. His sentences have momentum and flair and just the right sorta rhyhtmic building adjectival strings -- witness "The Rap" uses the "flap"--one could not use the word more lightly--surrounding Ashlee Simpson's Saturday Night Live lip-synching to deliver a sexy steel-toed kick in the 'nads to rock-critic phallocentrism". A rhyme, a snide aside, a metrically dense and intricate combination of assonance (surrounding thru lip-synching) and a snappy inversion of kicking "phallocentrism" in the 'nads, with just the right shift from semi-formal to casual and back again between the "one could not use" and the "'nads" and he "phallocentrism".

I could name a dozen or so sentences of similar quality.

This one, for example, makes Sanneh's piece sound pretty damn appetizing: The days of isolated, tormented, anti-commercial white male geniuses are done and done. The days of rampantly commercial, craftless, contentless, corporate-driven pop, especially as practiced by artless teenage girls, are here. Why is this a good thing? Because these bopsy post-tweens don't come with the self-serious old fartiness of the Springsteens and Costellos of this world (and, by implication, the Hilburns, the Christgaus, the Marcuses).

Anyway, the article seems affectionate enough in the end, even if it never comprehends Sanneh's real argument at all.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 18 November 2004 04:03 (twenty-one years ago)

The britney review is totally wrong, but I like it too. He's shallow, snide, catty, but whatever -- its just a weekly man, and all the stuff he writes about begs to be chewed over lightly and spat back out (no matter the greater gain to those who expend more effort).

Anyway, whatever he is, it's pretty clear that Wilder's approach as a whole is anything but rockist.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 18 November 2004 04:11 (twenty-one years ago)

hes too impressed w/himself

artdamages (artdamages), Thursday, 18 November 2004 05:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I do think that stylistically, he's got a knack for it, even if his opinions are disagreeable.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 18 November 2004 06:12 (twenty-one years ago)

hmmm ... well-written, semi-formal yet hip, neoconservative essays that propose no particular ideas of their own while delivering a sexy steel-toed kick in the 'nads to another writer's ideas. does every city have an outlet for these things? here in ny, we've got the ny press, which i was startled to discover hasn't (yet) published this piece.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 18 November 2004 06:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I do think that stylistically, he's got a knack for it, even if his opinions are disagreeable.

The style of it is awful. I mean, I suppose its not too far from some Villiage Voice type stuff and so maybe it's because I don't like his opinions that the style of it rubs me the wrong way, but it feels like he's trying to too hard to impress me with analogies designed to be just obscure enough/out of reach (as alluded to upthread). Thats sort of why the 13 year old him's letter to the editor is so telling (wtf is that real?).

artdamages (artdamages), Thursday, 18 November 2004 08:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I love analogies designed to be just obscure enough/out of reach! Why else would I listen to Hip-Hop?

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 18 November 2004 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

(kidding, kinda, but it does factor in.)

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 18 November 2004 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I just remembered the most rockist thing I think I've ever said. It was at a party at Pinewood Film Studios outside London, a nice metaphor for pop's artificiality. It felt like being on a set, because it was a set. Actually, it was like a scene from the Monkees movie 'Head'. I went up to Bill Drummond and said 'I like what you've done with KLF. But when are you going to start making real records, with songs that are more than just the name of the band over and over again?'

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 18 November 2004 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Heavens. Rather bold of you.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 November 2004 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I might even have said something about his acoustic-guitars-and-songs album 'The Man' being 'timeless and classic'. Of course, now nobody remembers that, but people still remember the KLF. Sample lyrics: 'KLF! Uh uh, uh uh, KLF!' A postmodern, er, classic!

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 18 November 2004 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

you could be one of those Channel 4 talking 'eads if you keep this up

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 18 November 2004 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Just to annoy the rockists, I could take this thread even further into pomo celebrity tittle tattle. At the same party I went up to Jim Bob from Carter The Unstoppable Sex Machine and said 'Wow, you made an album for £1000 and it went top ten! How can you top that?' He replied 'I dunno, maybe by making two albums for £500 that both go Top 5?' At a different party I went up to Blur's Graham Coxon and suggested he make some songs for Kahimi Karie. Thinking he might be interested in making some extra pocket money, I told him that her records sold over 100,000 copies. 'That's too much,' said Graham, in a lovely demonstration of hipster inverse snobbery and indie rockism.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 18 November 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Do these rockism/anti-rockism threads make anybody else's heads hurt?

Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Thursday, 18 November 2004 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

At the same party I went up to Jim Bob from Carter The Unstoppable Sex Machine and said 'Wow, you made an album for £1000 and it went top ten! How can you top that?' He replied 'I dunno, maybe by making two albums for £500 that both go Top 5?'

Now this is a beautiful tale. (As for Coxon, I fart in his general direction.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 November 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

so blur put all their records out of print as soon as they hit 99,999 in sales? is that how it works?

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 18 November 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

They live in a hovel, a very greasy hovel in Camden.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 November 2004 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Coxon has tried to ensure his solo albums have so low sales by making them more boring than they strictly needed to be.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 18 November 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

and also by ignoring the idea that singing in tune might help

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 18 November 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with Sterling and others that the piece is well-written from a style perspective. I found it more readable than the average weekly music piece. However, content-wise, it's rather scattershot. Say what you will about Sanneh's original rockism piece, but at least it was somewhat coherent. Wilder, OTOH, seems intent on exhausting all of the possible ways that anti-rockism could be viewed as an example of critical bad faith, while never managing to come up with a consistent, coherent theory of why it is factually incorrect. Wilder's forensic approach is to attribute all kinds of unpleasant motives to Sanneh's piece, all of which may be diverting, but which is essentially a means of avoiding the basic premise of the piece.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:13 (twenty-one years ago)

re: "well-written", a reminder -

a record review becomes an occasion for a meditation on the semiotics of the sacred monster, a yeshiva-like passing of the fingers over the dense Star Text.

The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Was that in this piece? Or is it from one of his other pieces? Because my judgment on the writing is only based on this one.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

That was in the Britney review.

The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't that rockist, citing past form?

dave q (listerine), Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway, I don't even think that sentence is all that bad, though I don't know what a "Star Text" is.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, it's quite good in a campy costume jewelry bitch slap kind of way. He's an Oliver Rhine Stone Cowboy!

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I'm just a sucker for ponceyness, is all. He manages to almost totally evade the usual rockrit dictionary, which I don't often do, and he can be quite funny (though always wrong.) Sometimes I don't get what's he's on about but, you know, I like that, I see it as a challenge. And most of the time he doesn't make much sense even when I understand what he's saying, but hey, at least the words sound pretty.

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 18 November 2004 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

The Star Text bit is swanky, and I identified with that sentiment.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 19 November 2004 01:48 (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.