Douglas Wolk, clearheaded, on rockism

(ok, maybe not *all* the time, but enough of the time. I think we do that already though?)

I question this.

>So, for instance, it's a rockist opinion that pre-stereo-era blues and country are interesting less in their own right than because they anticipated rock, or that Run-D.M.C. and Alison Krauss are notable because their virtues are also the virtues of rock, or that Ciara's Goodies isn't interesting because it fails to act like rock.

...because it crystallized something in my own hearing habits (not listening habits). I don't find it interesting to unpack a sample-based pop or hip-hop song in the same way I find it interesting to pick apart the various instrumentalists' roles in even the most basic hard rock record. In the past four weeks or so (I bought three on April 12 and three last night) I have purchased six remastered Grand Funk Railroad CDs, and they're a perfect example because a) their music is commonly derided as super-primitive knuckle-dragging white teenaged blues-rock crap, and b) there's a ton of separation in the mix on all these albums. I am much more interested in listening to the individual instruments on a Grand Funk album, and figuring out how they work together to create the cumulative organic effect that is a Grand Funk song, than I am in figuring out a Bomb Squad track, or a Mike Jones track (though I greatly enjoy listening to the Mike Jones album, which I bought a little less than a week ago). But I don't think of rock as "normative," I think of it as "ideal." This is, to me, the best that pop music has to offer. I don't like symphonic pop - Brian Wilson does nothing for me, and neither do the Beatles. I think simple hard rock, and hard-edged prog made by a fairly small group of instrumentalists (1972-74 King Crimson, Yes), where each instrument sounds like itself and you can pick the tracks apart and listen to how each player is listening to the others and complementing them with individual contributions, to be the ideal rock/pop musical form. (I also prefer string quartets to orchestras, and small-group jazz - six people or less - to big bands.) Electronic-based, "beat-centered" music like hip-hop, which usually doesn't feature much in the way of organic musical interaction, doesn't interest me as much from a structural standpoint. Does that mean I view it as a lesser form? Not in the sense that I'm incapable of recognizing its virtues, no. But in the sense that I find that I have less to think about when listening to it, yeah.

Thanks, Ian.

we've all spent so much time unpacking this thing (got me trippin) that i really do wonder what someone who's never even encountered the word "rockism" must think of it. (i suspect they don't give a flying fuck, but hope springs eternal.) i don't entirely agree with douglas, but i do agree it's a good framing.

Don't even get me started on that.

haha xpost

by the way matos i'm not ignoring that piece you sent back to me, honest I'm not, my computer's all fucked up and i hate my writing hollaback

but the word "rockism" still applies to all, as to the indie/undie hip-hop spit of say four years ago, where "real" sometimes meant inst ruments and sometimes meant sampls instead of synths, or certain sampled drums rather than others, etc.

that more subtle process, even if first worked out via discussions of "rock" can't just be about rock, or even rock-centric.e

my daughter, this morning: "Dad, what does 'hollaback' mean?"

haha no Haiku I mean I emailed you

That rockism is a normative discourse is Wolk's best contribution to the debate.

My question would be: Where does the pleasure lie in all of this? Rockism seems so much more about the head than the body. It's a raced, classsed and gendered form of normative discursivity and process of legitimation which elides some of the more important dimensions of popular music, which are consequently seen as frivolous or trivial.

The debate will no doubt continue.

What is wrong with this perspective?

(xxpost)

I'm one of them and yes, this piece works quite well for me.

The essentialist would say it's praiseworthy in itself: that the highest purpose is to capture the essence of X. Your position doesn't assume this, but assumes that the performance

... of genre may be praiseworthy as a performance - ironically, the achievement of "essence"' depends on contingent factors.

I don't really understand why we're harping on the notion of genre so much. Is it because it's assumed that rockism is predicated on the notion that rock is a superior genre to others? I never understood rockism to encompass the idea of genre superiority. (Side question: is pop even a genre?)

I wonder if you are speaking somewhat cryptically. Are you suggesting a problem with assuming that the performance of genre may be praiseworthy as a performance? What contingent factors are you talking about with regard to essence and how do they relate to your previous point?

x-post

Tbh Tim I'm not sure I can guess at what you don't understand until *you* unpack what *you* mean by essence.

Don't understand in what I'm saying, I mean. I suspect we'll continue to talk at cross-purposes as long as you're defending your use of the concept "essence" while meaning something different to what I mean.

Because I have no issue with the idea that a performance of genre might be praiseworthy. But I think it's praiseworthy as a great performance, not as pure essence.

Yeah, I agree with that, but I might also praise it in terms of its relation to genre. The execution of that might be a part of what is good about the performance.

But isn't what is praiseworthy that it executes the relationship to genre well or passionately or interestingly, rather than the relationship in and of itself?

Not entirely, because a relationship to genre indicates a personal involvement in their craft.

Or can, anyway - I think it does in the Bangles' case.

Compared to what?

Missed your Xpost - doesn't that just repeat my prior point?

E.g what if they performed the relationship without passion?

Sure, but I was reacting to the statement "I think it's praiseworthy as a great performance, not as pure essence." Sometimes the Bangles are at their best when they appear to be performing "pure essence." Performing it well, sure, but the essential aspect of it is crucial.

"appear" to be "performing" "pure essence"?

http://www.gonemovies.com/www/Drama/Drama/StrangeloveRipper1.jpg

Anti-essentialism = there is only appearance, but that can include the appearance of an idea of essence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxP9mmrPvE

To put it another way: I was reacting to your argument that a performance is praiseworthy "as a great performance, not as pure essence." I interpreted this to mean that one praises the performance itself and not merely the creation of some sense of a *pure essence* of genre (given that this genre evocation could result in something great or something not so great).

In the Bangles' case, though, I would praise their performance but I would also praise the fact that they do seem to create a sense of a *pure essence* of genre. I'm not just praising their performative execution, but factors like their personal involvement, commitment through a sense of historical place, etc.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zrUBF8ePJD8/TOr7WYHadBI/AAAAAAAABQI/h_vZ2zpNfdw/s1600/Bangles.jpg

love that picture.

So nowadays it's Susanna, the Petersons and a random bass player?

But isn't what is praiseworthy that it executes the relationship to genre well or passionately or interestingly, rather than the relationship in and of itself?

My argument re. the Bangles is that their particular relationship to genre is praiseworthy (for the reasons I mentioned).

in and of itself

I don't understand what about their particular relationship is "essential".

D Wolk's see-thru head

"Essential" in what sense? Meaning necessary or crucial? Or "essential" as evocative of the essence of a particular genre?

I'm guessing you mean the latter - to which I would say that the evocation of genre is a very large part of their aesthetic.

I still don't understand what is essential about it, except in the most casual sense of meaning "this captures absolutely what I love most in X music." In which case why defend such overblown terminology for something that can be described in other terms?

If it seems like I'm pushing this back on you, it's because you're using this example as a defence of the concept, so I'm trying to get at why your experience of The Bangles' greatness requires it.

I'll clarify it in a couple of ways. I"m not saying that they capture THE (i.e., the one and only) essence of the genre. And it's not about "what I love most in X music" either. I am saying that their music is very much about genre and I don't think it's overblown in the least to say that, at their best, there is very much something of the essence of the genre (or parts of the genre) in what they do. Sometimes, their most ringing successes are when they seem to have pulled something from the past out of a hat and you can't even put your finger on where you have heard it before.

(And, by the way, I'm talking about essence not of rock itself, of course, but of a fairly narrow subgenre - folk-rock, baroque-rock, sunshine pop, garage, British Invasion, whatever else is in their mix.)

http://blog.seattlepi.com/movielady/files/2010/08/abbott-and-costello.jpg

Holy fuck, liberal arts/gender studies/english lit major flashback. So glad music never fell into those traps for me.

I'll clarify it in a couple of ways. I"m not saying that they capture THE (i.e., the one and only) essence of the genre. And it's not about "what I love most in X music" either. I am saying that their music is very much about genre and I don't think it's overblown in the least to say that, at their best, there is very much something of the essence of the genre (or parts of the genre) in what they do. Sometimes, their most ringing successes are when they seem to have pulled something from the past out of a hat and you can't even put your finger on where you have heard it before.

― timellison, Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:56 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, in that case I don't think we disagree on anything.

Like, your use of genre there seems to me to get at something quite different to what the original "tenet" I listed was driving at, which was more that something like the idea of "rock" is basically something that we, as a society, make up as we go along, its meaning subtly changed and distorted and extended by each new song or performance that proposes to call itself "rock".

And the importance of this for music criticism is itself quite subtle: mainly, that the ideas of real vs fake or pure vs impure are implicitly based on a misnomer even though their application might be trying, wrongheadedly, to describe something meaningful. "Genre purism" (i.e. being a "house purist") is not empty, but there's nothing guaranteed or inherently correct about wishing to freeze a style of music and say "this is what real X is."

To my mind (and tell me if I'm still not getting something), in your Bangles example what is treasurable is The Bangles' commitment to a particular idea or small set of ideas about a genre or genres, and part of what is treasurable is that this choice is essentially arbitrary - e.g. it's possible that no-one except them and you and some others in the room would invest so much importance in the particular ideas of genre which they are then transmuting into new music.

I actually love this idea of commitment because I think there are no particular transcendental rules about what ought be committed too - accordingly, there's something wildly excessive about the process which makes it seem more noble to me.

First line there should be "your use of essence there".

Well, like I said this on here last year:

"Anna Lee" is so good. The bridge toward the end with the vocable singing is a great 'going the extra mile' moment. Very moving.

― timellison, Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:54 AM (10 months ago)

So, I don't think "excessive" is applicable in their case, but they don't need to be excessive in my opinion; they go far enough. We are definitely in the same ballpark there, though.

I don't know if I'm keen to play up its arbitrariness, though, as it makes me wonder if some suggestion is being made about the past as just a level playing field. The thing that knocked me out about "Anna Lee" is that it's this folk-rock song but then those vocals come in and it's, "Man, that is the freaking Free Design!"

Arbitrary as in nothing necessitates that someone recreate the free design so it's all the more enjoyable when it happens anyway. The past isn't a level playing field, sure - i'm not sure if the past can even be mapped in those terms but if I had to choose one it'd be a battlefield where the ultimate outcome is forever undetermined.

From the latest issue of the New Yorker:

"More and more people expect of rock what they used to expect of philosophy, literature, films, and visual art."

the passage is from 1968--it's essentially an early diagnosis of rockism...

...but the funny thing is the author of said passage would go on to say "I saw rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" six years later!

I've never understood the syntax of that sentence - surely there's a missing apostrophe s? But no one ever corrected it.

one small step for rock, one giant leap for rockkind.

Last night the NBC announcer called the olympic closing ceremony a "tribute to British rock".

in your Bangles example what is treasurable is The Bangles' commitment to a particular idea or small set of ideas about a genre or genres, and part of what is treasurable is that this choice is essentially arbitrary - e.g. it's possible that no-one except them and you and some others in the room would invest so much importance in the particular ideas of genre which they are then transmuting into new music.

I actually love this idea of commitment because I think there are no particular transcendental rules about what ought be committed too - accordingly, there's something wildly excessive about the process which makes it seem more noble to me.

― Tim F, Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:20 PM (2 weeks ago)

love this post, and i think it gets at the heart of what made revivalist genre formalism so interesting to me over the past couple decades. i remember seeing the flat duo jets a few times in north carolina during the the early 90s. they put on an incredible show, driven by dexter romweber's passionate and knowledgeable commitment to his genre (a combination of garage rock, rockabilly, the blues, gospel and southern soul). the band's performances had the quality of a tent revival. they were driven and elevated by romwebber's explosively intense devotion to genre, to the idea that such devotion might transcend formalist cribbing and become Real. there was something unnerving about it. dexter's display of devotional fealty seemed both desperate and incommensurate with the actual substance and capacity of genre. it didn't make sense. he was only executing a clutch of familiar moves, after all, rehashing bygone styles for a roomful of enthusiasts, but he did it like he thought it could save his life, and yours along with it. it was "wildly excessive", and yes, this made it seem nobly romantic.

for quite some time after this, i was interested in commitment to rock & roll as a sort of salvation-seeking. it's what i initially liked in the murder city devils, the white stripes and the bellrays. i loved their perverse willingness to say "yes, this is THE TRUE PATH, the ONLY WAY" (obviously not true), coupled with their ability to invest tired rock tropes with a scary kind of frankenstein energy. when the devils' spencer moody sang about iggy pop "rolling in that broken glass", he wasn't just paying tribute to a forebear in rock. he was reaching out to something holy, something bigger, better and more real than himself, and he was investing far more in this gesture than reason could justify, offering his performance as a sacrifice in return for some promised transformation.

this is what's interesting about devotion to genre. not the fact that genre deserves it, but the belief that it does.

okay, so this is ridiculous and i apologize in advance, but i get all obsessive about letting shitty posts lie. take 2:

I remember seeing the Flat Duo Jets a few times during the the early 90s. They put on an incredible show driven in large part by singer/guitarist Dexter Romweber's passionate commitment to his genre (a combination of garage rock, rockabilly, the blues, gospel and Southern soul). The band's performances had the quality of a tent revival, even to the extent that there was something slightly unnerving about them. Dexter's desperate display of devotional fealty seemed incommensurate with the actual substance and capacity of genre. It didn't make sense. He was just running through a clutch of familiar moves, after all, rehashing nostalgic glories for a roomful of enthusiasts, but he did it like he thought it could save his life. His appreoach was "wildly excessive", and yes, this gave it a romantic sort of nobility.

For quite some time after this, I was interested in attachment to genre as a form of salvation-seeking. It's part of what initially attracted me to late-90s rock revivalists like The Murder City Devils, The White Stripes and The BellRays: I loved their perverse willingness to over-commit. When the Devils' Spencer Moody sang about Iggy Pop "rolling in that broken glass", he wasn't just paying tribute to an influence. He was reaching out to something holy, something bigger, better and more real than himself, and he was investing far more in this gesture than reason could justify, seeming to offer his performance as a sacrifice in return for some promised transformation.

That's what's interesting about devotion to genre. Not the fact that genre deserves it, but the belief that it does.

what's done is done

Buzzfeed on Why Beck Beat Beyoncé:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/why-beck-beat-beyonce?s=mobile

Yeah, that bullshit set me off on fb.