Ned Raggett on rockism

Surely (logically) the word Ned's searching for here is "artist"?

But then....

Also, I'm sure we all come across more than enough examples in our every day life or people who quite clearly couldn't give a shit - or have long since lost interest and ceased to give a shit - about actually trying to do the job they're being paid for properly, but just keep doing it because it pays the bills. Why should we expect music critics to be any different?

Let’s say the other person has extremely broad-minded tastes, actively seeks out all kinds of music, isn’t limited to perceptions of what’s ‘real’ and what isn’t – and in almost all other ways turns out to be a totally horrible person, just plain unpleasant...
I think I know just who you are talking about here, Ned.

(x-post)

I like the painting parallel a lot. I was actually thinking along the same lines the other day, but w/r/t poetry, and in a slightly different way.... I'm a grad student in English, and there's a similar rockism-esque divide among the graduate students in my program. Some of us are poetry 'rockists'--we like lyric poetry, and we need to feel _personality_ above all else; others of us are in a different camp, not as interested in lyric, more interested in experimental and abstract writing, as thrilled by 'automatic' poems (John Cage, or the Apostrophe Engine, say) as by lyric poems. It got me thinking that "rockism" is just a really crummy term. This is an issue in a lot of media, not just in popular music, and the word rockism inevitably makes things meaner, narrower, a little more stupid and reactionary.

In the literary context, all of us are extremely knowledgeable about literature--it's not that some of us simply care less about what we read or are close-minded. It's that there is a very real, very complex set of ideas at the heart of the divide that has to do with the purpose and capabilities of art.... On its own level I think the same is true about the rockism debate, which cuts to the root of why people listen to music. So, even as I understand the way in which rockism in its dumbest form--frat-boy rockism, I suppose, expressed at any age--drives people up the wall, I end up wishing that anti-rockists would go easy on the contempt, which ends up directed not at frat-boys but at other people who, in fact, really care about music.

Uhhh no, I think Ned's saying rockism is something worth discussing but that it isn't a character flaw. That good people are rockist too. As far as I can tell he's trying to head off unneccessary defensiveness when it comes to rockism.

But that's precisely what Ned did NOT do. He used his experiences with visual art too.

I tend to be canonist in everything EXCEPT music. I mean, there's no way I'll accept that Bukowski is as good a writer than either Proust or Genet. Then again, this rock/literature analogy probably doesn't wash because I can't think of anyone in rock to whom you can reasonably compare to Proust or Genet.

They don't actually need to (i.e. they've reached a position and a stage in their personal development where they don't need to bother to "keep up" in order to keep themselves on the gravy train) I completely agree; but isn't it (or, at least, shouldn't it be) part of the role of a music writer both to inform and (to some extent) to provoke and challenge their readers?

How are they going to stimulate their audience's interest in any new music if they can't even stimulate their own?

Alternatively; if the readers of any given publicatio really aren't going to be interested in any new music under any circumstances; why bother going to all the trouble and expense of giving them new reviews? Why not just re-print some of the reviews that came out the first time 'round for some of the albums that have just been re-released, and leave it at that?

Alfred, re: literature - I'd say I'm anti-rockist in literature too; if i dont like a book that is canonized, i will express why I dont, read about people who do, try to get an understanding of the text, maybe just throw it out. The difference is that I'm working directly with the texts that history has decided are worth remembering - at least when it comes to the "literary canon." I don't have access to the thousands of books lost to the sands of time, simply because they were the disco-equivelent of the literary world. (if we're talking about recent literature, its a different issue of course). But pop music - I can sift through the stuff that is maligned by critics as readily as I can look through the sales bin.

I hate to break this to you....

I agree it's a rubbish word usually tho cos it makes people think of 'rock'.

(x-post)

Well for some people Dylan is new.

*exit pursued by the demented circus clown from "These Hands"*

Can we just call it "-ism" and broadly apply it to every artistic context?

That's an extremely good point Tom - and I must admit that; although obviously I recognise that there's established body of critical work relating to art and literature; and would insist that there's a comparable one growing in respect of "popular music"; my immediate reaction was to scoff at the notion of serious critical appraisal of comics or videogames.

On reflection I do realise that I'm wrong: just like "popular music", comics and videogames may have originally dismissed as ephemeral and disposable but they have been with us a long time now and are almost certainly here to stay and inevitably therefore must give rise to a related body of critical appraisal - in exactly the same way as "popular music"....

I am deeply concerned however that I may now be labelled as a "comicist" and a "gamist".

Fair and valid point Doc - but are these journalists actively engaged in introducing Dylan to young people whose previous musical horizons were bounded by Robbie Williams, Kylie, Eminem and that Crazy fuckin' Frog (which would be a very fine thing indeed) or are they just preaching to the converted masses of other hidebound reactionary old farts?

exit pursued by the demented circus clown from "These Hands"

Outside I'm laughing, but inside I'm really wearing a frown.

I love you.

can't this be said about any type of critique? A lot of critics will scoff at people they think are rockists when they themselves have pre-conceived notions of music before listening (The Belle and Sebastian thread and its accompanying comments about twee-ness are a good example)...approaching music from a musician's standpoint rather than a critical standpoint, I find myself more interested in the creative process than the pleasure principle or cultural and social standards...rather than analyize music within a concrete set of criteria, I'm concerned with the extemely vague and undefinable relm of artistic complexity..and therefore I usually find a deeper love in music that would be deemed here as abstract or experimental, and currently find a lot of weakness in current mainstream pop....does this make me "rockist"? By certain definitions it does, but its not as if I treat pop music with a bias (there is plently of pop music I love from the 60s,70s, 80s and 90s), and I approach everything open-minded, just don't happen to find much modern pop music that doesn't feel lacking...so the "rockist" term is definetely thrown around too loosely, and not accurate in many arguments involving people that are passionate about music...its a "strawman" that is used as an easy means of argument, but accomplishes nothing

(I can't italicize.)

Is anyone willing/able to engage me in some sort of visual art parallel? Post-modernism vs. Modernism (latter=rockist)? High art vs. low art? Authenticity based upon "emotions" vs. pure visual aesthetics? What is the most appropriate path of comparison? Very, very curious.

(Or just point me to readings. Or not.)

It's easy. All you need is one of these "" at the beginning; and one of these "" at the end.

ILM reveals it's uncompromisingly intellectual and analytical approach to the world of art.

I think it's easier to define rockism as a sort of conservatism.
-- Jonathan Z.

for me anti-rockism is partly about recognising that there is no unchanging diachronic space from which a piece of music's worth can be judged ultimately and permanently.
--Tim Finney

the initial impulse of 'rockism' I think was to find a way to turn pop into art and the central qn of 'anti-rockism' is "was this actually a good move?"
Tom

Also I liked Tom's "it's a rubbish word usually tho cos it makes people think of 'rock'." That nails what's wrong with Douglas Wolk's take.

Spencer Chow was extremely OTM when he said: "rockism is not only a symptom of but also an enforcement mechanism for an at best stultifying and at worst sinister cultural status quo, and... it should be called out and taken apart at every opportunity - but as per Ned's example - in the nicest way possible."

Of course, Ned's example is "nice", but it's by no stretch of the imagination calling anything out or taking anything apart. An in a time in which "the culture wars" are very real and win or lose elections, it might even be considered a sort of appeasement.

Don't let's be beastly to the rockists
When our victory is ultimately won,
It was just those nasty rock fans who persuaded them to fight
And their Beatles and Dylan are far worse than their bite
Let's be meek to them-
And turn the other cheek to them
And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
Let's give them full air parity
And treat the rats with charity,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

We must be just
And win their love and trust
And in addition we must
Be wise
And ask the conquered genres to join our hands to aid them.
That would be a wonderful surprise.
For many years-
They've been in floods of tears
Because the poor little dears
Have been so wronged and only longed
To rock the world,
To mock the girls
And beat
Our ears to blazes.
This is the moment when we ought to sing their praises.

Don't let's be beastly to the rockists
When we've definitely got them on the run
Let us treat them very kindly as we would a valued friend
We might send them out some records as a form of lease and lend,
Let's be sweet to them
And day by day repeat to them
That saying you're being "4 real" simply isn't done.
Let's join them at their rock shows
Let's stagedive on the third row
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Don't let's be beastly to the rockists
When the age of iPod plenty has begun.
We must send them long grey leather coats and everything they need
For musical investigations into Zeppelin and Creed
Let's employ with them a sort of 'strength through joy' with them,
They're better than us at honest manly fun.
Let's let them feel they're swell again and mock us all to hell again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Don't let's be beastly to the rockists
For you can't deprive a gangster of his gun
Though they've been a little naughty saying that rap and disco sucks
I don't suppose those genres really minded very much
Let's be free with them and share the B.B.C. with them.
We mustn't prevent them basking in the sun.
Let's soften their defeat again - and let them make CDs again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

(After Noel Coward's "Don't Let's Be Beastly To The Germans", 1943)

Are you saying that rockism critiques certain alternative (ideological AND methodological) approaches to music, while simultaneously presenting itself as unideological - in the process presenting itself as anti-ideology? I think this is right but then it's largely true of anti-rockism as well. (also "critique" seems pretty generous!)

I guess you could argue that like conservatism - but also like a lot of different political, cultural or religious positions - rockism presents certain status-quos-under-threat as ahistorical natural phenomena or moral imperatives or both ("live musicianship" is mabe roughly analogous to the concept of "the family"), rather than as a historical development that is useful for [x], [y] and [z] reasons.

I wonder if anti-rockism does this too or does something similar. Is there a sacred cow for anti-rockism? There definitely is for the popist position which it's tempting to conflate anti-rockism with (the celebration and centrality of the single etc.).

But I'd distinguish between two forms of popism here:
1) the popism which is rockist about pop - this is a genuine heartfelt passionate belief that pop and its associated aesthetic approaches are simply better or (uh oh) more authentic than rock.
2) popism as a strategic "identity politics" for the anti-rockist resistance - whereby an alliance with popist values becomes useful as a way of breaking out of rockist tradition - but the value of these values lies more in the fact that by dint of their difference they seem to make the case for critical diversity and open-mindedness.

Were popism ever to become the "new rockism" outside the limited confines of ILX, then the value of the second position would obviously be undermined. And certainly within the confines of ILX there's certainly less and less to be gained from making a point of espousing popist values in this manner (the seasonal influx of rockists notwithstanding).

I wouldn't automatically put myself in the second category either - to some extent I am rockist about pop, although as with being rockist about rock there are actually correct and meaningful insights that can still be derived from this position. One way of framing the problem with traditional rockism is that it's not a matter of it being right or wrong, but a question of whether the rockist position can afford us many new insights, or whether it has in fact been exhausted of its critical and creative acumen.

Any system of thought that denies its ideologicalness is self-deluding, but Popism's work won't be done until Rockism stops being the logical base for the majority of critical thinking, and I think that's still far from the case. And pace Ned, but I do think that aesthetic thinking is rooted in beliefs outside of aesthetics, which is what makes this stuff still worth arguing about.

1. i dont see rockism as "conservatism" per se

2. Anti-rockism is more like refusing to agree to the terms of debate. Removing oneself from any binary. It is simply a critique of methodology, and I dont really see it as critiquing any sort of ideology as much as the idea of ideology in general.

1. i dont see rockism as "conservatism" per se

2. Anti-rockism more like refusing to agree to the terms of debate. Removing oneself from any binary. It is simply a critique of methodology, and I dont really see it as critiquing any sort of ideology as much as the idea of ideology in general.

anyway, Erick's follow-up on rockism is here: http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=1679

I think its pretty great, although i'm not sure that i agree with his description of the MIA debate.

Ned, someone calls yr article last week "meta gobbledygook" in the comments section!

http://img14.imgspot.com/u/05/158/12/Rocky.jpg

still not sure if that is what anti-rockism is about. the most striking about this discussion really is that it is a kind of ghost debate. everyone interprets rockism his way. which is quite rockist in a way. if rockism is about subjectivity, reference points and bias.

Anti-Rockism is a strategy that changes as quickly as the music it's applied to. It can contradict itself, affirm opposite statements and general be slippery and annoying and provocative because it is not in opposition to Rockism, it's inside it, around it, an expression of it as much as a refutation. You don't undermine a value by opposing it with a binary, you change it through mutation and impersonation. We don't oppose Rockism; we decompose it.

I of course meant:
...There is certainly a leap of faith when it comes to telescoping something like rockism debates into something "Important." However, I firmly believe that things like [ENGAGING] rockism are the "act locally" strategies which eventually broaden people's perceptions of themselves and others and lead to real change...

can you post a link to that popthread on dissensus, sterling? i can't find it. yours is an interesting take on the subject. maybe music can change the world (dylan in the 60s?) but that's not what i would ask from it. but i am pretty sure music can change myself, my perspective. i have to gather my thoughts to post something more coherent here.

wha?

exactly.

-- nothingleft (loca...), June 8th, 2005.

But I do feel that it is worthwhile bringing attention to the idea, but clearly it isnt limited to music, or even art in general.

Dude, Tim addressed this upthread.

But, (and I think Ned touched on this) who is the audience that such an article is going to reach? Do you think 'lay people' are going to read an article like that and suddently seek out Fado? Or throw away their Hendrix albums?

and my 'exactly' means I disagree, now doesnt it?

http://philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=10011