Non-Rockist Music?

Alisha's Attic, and nothing else.

mark s- you realize this 'mess' is your fault.

Showtunes.

Jane Olivor. Peter Allen. Andrea Marcovicci. Manhattan Transfer.

Primal Scream? Any band that has a single called "Rocks Off" must be "rockist," I'm guessing. Mogwai? They named their last album after the nickname of the Stooges' drummer, and they've covered Black Sabbath....sounds pretty "rockist" to me.

In the way it's seriously been used here, music itself can't be rockist or anti-rockist - the words describe attitudes taken to music.

Julio - alas it was not Mark S. I spoke the deplorable r-word and woke Mark S from his sleep.

Has anyone else noticed that the word is now in constant (mis)use again in the British press? - I saw it in Mojo and I'm sure I've seen it in the NME. It's generally used to mean "sounding a bit like rock" - surely "rockish" would be more appropriate chiz chiz

or how about "rockesque"?

Julio I have explained abt 40 times on the boards how I use the word (and have used it for 20 years), and what I take it to mean and where it came from, and why. Tim Baron_Smedley is assuming it means something it doesn't mean, as used on the threads it reappeared on (I think Nate revived it on Tim's pop-is-uncool thread). Nate was making a joke, of course. It is only ever really used as a joke, as far as I can see. I now only ever seem to use it when I am explaining what it means: as its meaning is quite precise — unlike "subjective" or "postmodern" or "influence", which are all vague and contradictory and always lead to nasty arguments — I have tend to continue to think it's useful as long as its opponents can't come up with an alternative. But such is the wilful self-pitying defensiveness of some of its opponents, maybe we should just drop it. Value and meaning are made in contestation with the world, not the isolated calm wilderness of the speaker/artist's head, and this contest we seem to be losing.

THOSE LAST TWO SENTENCES ARE JOKES DO YOU SEE!!

it was a joke heh. So OK it was Tom that started it and I think I know pretty well how you use it but it's just the way the meaning of it has been distorted and this results in a lot of these threads that use the r- word and they have no meaning whatsoever.

I think when a redesign of ILM takes place we should put a ILM dictionary/slang for new ppl (or links to to pages that explain such terms) (the 'when' should be a 'if' it does, I reckon there will be a 'fuck it' type attitude once/if the move takes place to a new site and out of this server: will anyone bother?).

primal scream are "rockist" without even being "rock"!

b-b-but what about SIMON REYNOLDS?

It shouldn't be surprising that a term, unfamiliar to many laypersons, used by different people in a confusing variety of ways, and--and this is key--often applied in a derogatory fashion, should raise hackles.

everything i get made fun of for liking on here: fishbone, mr bungle, etc

There is no non-rockist music, "rockist" is just a term used to dismiss music one doesn't like by calling it out-of-touch: the critical equivalent to playground use of "gay" (stateside at least)

except when it's used by people on this board, as i've "just" been explaining for the last 23945680u0§91283674013947690§182673489§1820-457-12903475987190-476 hours

anyway i give up, you guys win: rock is hereby proven by lynchmob to be better than any other music ever

''anyway i give up, you guys win: rock is hereby proven by lynchmob to be better than any other music ever''

yes there's no justice like lynchmob justice.

Correction: lench mob

But is it a lynch mob of SCIENTISTS?

Also, rock must truly be better than pop if Britney Spears aspires to perform it, cf. "Satisfaction" and "I Love Rock and Roll"

(I wasn't being serious, stop catapulting flaming Take That cassingles at my apartment window)

The whole reason Britney has handlers is so she performs stuff which IS good, rather than what she ASPIRES to perform.

The notion that there's any inherent validity to what an artist wants to express is itself rockist.

This is kind of how I see it: being rockist isn't a matter of taste itself; it's rather a matter of meta-taste - of how you approach taste. To put it differently, rockism reveals itself not in someone's praising an album, but rather in the explanation they give. If I say I love Raw Power, that doesn't make me a rockist; but if I say I love Raw Power because it's a cornerstone of rock from a golden age when people used to write real songs and have charisma and attitude, then that kind of does. )That said, liking Raw Power more than Funhouse is a common symptom of rockism.) ;-)

doorag = OTM

I always thought 'rockism' is when people give a free pass to stuff they suspect they don't like purely because of the stuff was made by somebody they've decided to hold in high esteem

So 'Rockism' = Pavlov's Dog ?

(The response, not the band)

i don't understand that ray but that is the answer i am giving from now on

Thankyou - all I have to do now is find a way of linking it to my Eminem = Scooby Doo conjecture.

From a semantic persective, 'Rockist', as a descriptive surely implies a degenerative. Though the term is slippery (since it is fantasist bullshit) its usage seems here to presuppose a negative (both from the perspective of those attempting to slap the label on and those wishing to tear it off).

Why does 'rockist' imply a negative? Even, does it imply a negative? This is perhaps a question I would like to ask in the interim since I am still pondering the answer.

Has anyone else noticed that the word is now in constant (mis)use again in the British press? - I saw it in Mojo and I'm sure I've seen it in the NME. It's generally used to mean "sounding a bit like rock" - surely "rockish" would be more appropriate chiz chiz

Probably because what they really would like to say is "hey X is really rockin'!" but realize how geeky and grandfatherly that sounds and try use a word they think sounds cooler but don't quite know the definition of.

It implies a negative yes - the big misapprehension I think is that it implies that liking rock is in itself bad, or even that liking rock for 'rockist' reasons is bad (the set of attitudes that get called 'rockist' actually work pretty well for talking about rock - otherwise they wouldn't have evolved).

It's also totally possible to be 'rockist' and proud of it, though you probably wouldn't use the word. It sounds much worse than it is cause it's semantically linked to words like 'racist', whereas actually being a rockist has the same moral non-weight as being 'prose-ist' might.

I thought of the 'rascist' link you mention initially and now see that perhaps it holds some weight since most terms of classification necessarily resort to 'type' which in an area as fertile as music appreciation is sure to get up noses (not to mention be garbage).

It seems here that 'Rockist' is applied by those wishing to slur the rock music fan, or even the music fan who enjoys rock; who would otherwise have never acknowledged the term. Therefore, the negative definition of 'rockism' is apparent only to those who use the word - it holds a separate definition to those to whom it is applied, who both try to grasp the signified in the initial usage but must also marry any interpretation with a personal incomprehension. Does this mean the whole debate is meaningless? Or am I talking ballderdash?

Given the amount of confusion it has caused, I second (or is it third or fourth?) the motion to forever strike the term ("rockist") from the ILM vocabulary, lest someone get needlessly further hot under the collar.

Can we get some URLs for places on this board where the word's been used seriously? I don't use it simply to mean people who like rock, for instance. I am more likely to use it against arguments which dismiss other kinds of music because they don't conform to practises and values which signal 'authenticity' in a rock context.

An example of a classic and fairly common 'rockist' argument is: Dance/disco music is less interesting/important/good than rock music because very few dance albums have stood the test of time. The elements of 'rockism' in this argument are the idea that the worth of music is measured in albums and not, say, 12" singles, and the idea that 'standing the test of time' is a determinant of a music's value. Both of these are perfectly defensible positions - it's the taking of them for granted that is 'rockist'.

I agree Alex - before this week I don't think it had been used for ages, too.

It always seems to me that 'rockism' basically occupies the same position that 'modernism' did in the old pomo wars.

if we're going to start striking out words because they lead to tantrums what's to stop me upping my tantrum factor over such words as [insert oft-repeated list here]?

(haha ans = lack of hours in the day i guess)

I don't think I was suggesting the word be erased from the records. More that its continued use breeds misunderstanding (not least because the word has no real meaning anyway). Though I have to say that to suggest the your earlier supposition that the word has some precise meaning seems staggeringly erroneous. I think this thread proves that.

Roger - do you agree that the things Mark and I and others on this thread (these threads, sigh) have been talking about exist? If so what would you suggest we call them?

(i understand what it means in a precise way) + (you can't be bothered to) = not actually a disgareement about meaning, roger

The elements of 'rockism' in this argument are the idea that the worth of music is measured in albums and not, say, 12" singles, and the idea that 'standing the test of time' is a determinant of a music's value. Both of these are perfectly defensible positions - it's the taking of them for granted that is 'rockist'.

If that is indeed what 'rockism' means, then it seems to be somewhat of a misnomer. There is nothing inherent in rock music that requires that it has to be packaged into album-length portions. It's true that it is usually marketed that way these days, but so are jazz, classical, country, folk, etc. So that idea is just as much jazz-ist or folk-ist as it is rockist. The same goes for the idea of standing the test of time. Surely that idea is not confined to the realm of rock music. Perhaps it would be better termed 'classicalist' or some such.

Except that we already have a perfectly good word with a well established meaning. That word is "rockist". End story.

I have decided that Language is better than Parole.

Locus of value in 'jazz' surely is the live improvised performance, rather than the recording of the event? The locus of value in 'classical' music is the composition? These values help give birth to the conjuction of values we're calling 'rockism' and end up as part of it, but with the technological shift to the 33rpm album and the concurrent birth of 'rock criticism' I think what happens IS a shift to the 'album' as determinant of value.

("But live performance is valued in rock!" you say? Yeah, to a point. Think about how many top-100-albums lists you've seen, and then think about how many top-100-gigs lists you've seen).

The test of time thing is common to most value-systems, yes. Oops!

Tom - I dig to the maximum what you guys on these threads talk about and it all exists to a degree. But from my perspective, that degree might be off to the left and upside down. I guess that's what I'm talking about... What do I suggest you call them? I don't know, the first thing that enters your head or the last - or anything in between. Keep 'em coming though.

mark: I like your diagramatics though in this case:

(i understand what it means in a precise way) + (you can't be bothered to) = not actually a disgareement about meaning, roger

Is a bit silly isn't it? Not sure that I have this right (if I'm wide of the mark please don't get upset) but if you are suggesting that I can't be bothered to understand your suppositions; well, this is insulting to both of us. I think, if you read my warblings earlier, you will note that I was pointing out that whilst you might understand your classification in a precise manner, I (and I am sure, others) am less sure of your definitions. And this, might I assure you, is not related to laziness (though it might perhaps be due to being a bit thick in comparison to your gargantuan intellect).

spinal tap II

SCENE ONE

mark s opens his eyes. he is in hell. in huge letters on the wall before him is written WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING SEXY?

he turns. in huge letters on the wall before him is written HAHA YOU SHOULD HAVE CALLED IT GEOLOGISM DO YOU SEE HAHA?

enter the devil

THE DEVIL: What is Rockism?

MARK S: [starts to speak, but notices the devil has earplugs in]

THE DEVIL: Come on, come on.

prods mark s with red hot fork thing

Is it that bad? Sorry man...

no don't it's a trap

too late

with the technological shift to the 33rpm album and the concurrent birth of 'rock criticism' I think what happens IS a shift to the 'album' as determinant of value

I have also noticed this tendency in rock criticism to consider the 'album' as the basic unit of creative endeavor. There are probably many reasons for this. One reason, as you mentioned, is that the rise of the 33 RPM coincided with the rise of rock criticism. However, rock music itself predated both rock criticism and the 33 RPM album. Like most other popular forms, rock was first marketed in a singles format - however, this was due to the techonological constraints of the time and not a deliberate choice as such. Another factor in the primacy of the album in rock criticism is probably the Beatles. In the second half of their career, they retreated into the studio, stopped playing live gigs, and began crafting album-length statements that were more than just collections of songs (the whole being greater than the sum of its parts?). For many years, the "concept album" Sgt. Pepper's was hailed as the best album ever, perhaps due in large part to the sense it gave of being a single cohesive statement. Notwithstanding these points, however, I still feel that rock as a musical form is indifferent to single vs. album considerations. Rock is defined by certain elements (among them amplification, repetition, beat) that can operate just as comfortably at single-length as at album-length or even in a live setting. It should also be remembered that other musical genres adopted the idea of the album-length statement at the same time, or even earlier, than rock did. As soon as the technology of long- playing albums became widely available, jazz artists such as Miles Davis began crafting album-length statements that were built around a cohesive theme or concept, for example: "Sketches of Spain", "Kind of Blue", and "Porgy and Bess" - all of which came out in the late 1950's - long before the Beatles ever made their first LP. You might argue that a composition or improvisation is the basic unit of creativity here, but the albums were crafted as cohesive statements that stood on their own.

example of rockism:

mojo's "50 greatest reggae albums of all time" this month. a "rockist" approach to reggae.