The Schism? Random Crazed Thoughts on Rockism/Popism and what music is really FOR....

how exactly?

(correct me if i'm wrong)

Custos I'm sorry but this piece of ad hoc psychology is one of the more unconvincing things I've read this week.

it is not theory. it is FACT (not proven by science tho').
I always see the old skool forum members barking that something has been PROVEN BY SCIENCE! (emphasis theirs) and I occasionally ask the one who posted this comment "how do you prove your statement BY SCIENCE!" (emphasis mine) and I never get an answer. In fact...anyone I ask the question to disappears from the forum forever.
I asked ethan. He has vanished.
I asked nitsuh. He has vanished.
I asked masonic boom. He too has vanished.

Coincidence or Conspiracy?

''Ha ha ha ha ha...in 1,000 years you will all look back and say "Custos was right...a man ahead of his time...he deserves a 3000 foot high statue made of pure platinum erected in his honor!"''

custos if you keep going like that you might live for 1000 years.

I was referring to another post on an older thread where I picked up a theme of 'I love buying records because I love that sensation of buying this shiny new record in it's lovely shrink-wrap on the very day it comes out and feeling so contemporary and clued-in to the market and part of the whole chart-pop business and pop culture'

(I thought you were one of the ppl who liked that feeling - notwithstanding financial limitations holding you all back - and isn't d/loading a cheaper version of getting certain elements of the same experience?)

But I didn't think your answer to James's question was going to be that which you posted.
Really. I'm curious...If you had been asked the same question, how would you have answered? You probably have a different set ofd experiences. Please, share them with the forum,

I thought by 'cynically happy' popsters you meant just what you said later in the paragraph: 'glorification of superficiality, disposability and consumerism' - ie a +ve celebration of the near-unavoidable widgety materialism involved in making for-sale artefacts within the contexts of transience and social-self-consciousness engendered by the awareness and feedback of the culture/industry.
Thats one hell of a mouthful, but I'll try to clarify my opinion on this. For the Glorification of Superficiality: I don't mind if people pays lots and lots of attention to whats going on NOW and whats on the surface, but you can see surface with the naked eye. Singing about it is redundant.
For the Disposability issue: This one, by itself is so thorny, I'd have to pass on this for now. I might open a new thread later on in the month if I can think of something pithy to start a debate with.
For the Consumerism aspect: Is it just me or does the quality of a scene drop through a hole in the floor the moment it stops being liquid joy and starts to be a 'commodity' or 'product'; The artists get catty, the ticket prices go up and the quality of the drugs go down. There are some musicians (especially straight-edge punkers) who gets hissy when someone starts "watering down" their scene...and sure, the preaching gets monotonous...but unlike the Rolling Stones on Tour, you get your moneys worth, I think.

So whereas 'rockers' might find (allegedly) there to be a kind of tension or cognitive dissonance involved in the relation between their ideas/notions of 'music' as a supra-material content embedded in or saddled with a money-making form
I think right now, its not their ideas of 'music' but their ideas of 'rebellion' and 'freedom' that trip them up when they try to sell records.

popsters either have no such worries, or else positively love that - because they find the feeling of being 'connected' into the money-dynamic and popular culture a life-affirming experience,
Hmmm. Well, maybe why I hate a love/hate relationship with both rockism and popism is that I believe the the pop culture is generally life affirming, but the money-fixated game of grabass generally soils and trivializes the art. (If that makes any sense at all.)

...part of feeling that they are getting with and staying with the program - and they can point to the necessarily materialist and economic foundations/consequences of music with the same kind of archly 'cynical' mocking that any reductionist uses, eg when they point to the biological underpinnings of something like 'beauty'.
(OK maybe that's a bit cartoonish - but I thought that was part of what you were getting at)
Uh...actually no...but thats really interesting. I hadn't thought about that aspect at all.
Mostly, this mess of thoughts boils down to four basic points:\

• The Ideology of Rockism has some hypocrisy issues that get in the way of its genuinely noble aspirations and sentiments.
  
• The Ideology of 'Popism'/Anti-Rockism has some hypocrisy issues that get in the way of its genuinely noble aspirations and sentiments.
  
• Can't We All Just Get Along?! How can we heal the Schism.
  
• I suspect that the goal of Rockist and Popist music is different: Rock communicates intellectually (while simultaneously appealing to the Id); Ultra-modern Dance Pop (especially Techno/Rave/Electronica) is very openly geared as a tool of creating a tribal communion (while simultaneously attempting to appeal to the higher Leary circuits of the brain)
  

-- Ray M (webmail), October 12th, 2002 12:50 AM. (rdmanston)

But surely if there was lots of totally original, sonically powerful, brilliantly written rock music around right now (which there isn't) then we wouldn't have a problem. That's the main thing to worry about.

Also since when is rock "intellectual"?

Also rock always valued the album over the single -- I don't think it's "popist" (whatever the fuck that is) to get a nice product on the release date, but that rather it's willfully obtuse not to like to do this. Not rockist, but curmodgenly.

-- I don't think it's "popist" (whatever the fuck that is) to get a nice product on the release date,
Relax, Sterling. I'm not hurling invective or trying to start a fight. Putting out recordings is a GOOD THING. Putting them out at regular intervals is even better. I agree with you about this.
As for the term "Popist": I didn't invent the word, I'm just using it. Just as Rockist refers to an almost-but-not-quite definable ideology, "Popist" refers to another almost-but-not-quite definable ideology. I have thought about this for awhile, and have come to the conclusion that both ideologies -- while not perfect -- have valid points and are both meritorious in mine eyes. I just get upset when dualism enters the picture and the old Rockists and the new "Popists" start bickering and denouncing each other. Enough strife, I say. Where's the love?

...but that rather it's willfully obtuse not to like to do this. Not rockist, but curmodgenly.
I never said anything about anyone being surly about "releasing product"; I think the old Rockists have a problem with it being thought of ONLY as 'Product' and not as 'Art.'
I think one of the symptoms of the Schism is that one group snarls that music is always Product and it's pretentious to always call it Art.; while the other groups says it is always Art and it's disrespectful to call it Product.
I think theres a middle ground between these two versions of reality. (Maybe its product until it EARNS the status of being ART? Hmmmm?)

And dylan was folk then when he became "rock" he wasn't about being understood at all. And maybe the message of the genre is the glorification of the trivial.

Rock is intimately bound to the album as product/artifact.
Yes....and....?

And dylan was folk then when he became "rock" he wasn't about being understood at all.
Not only does this not parse gramatically, it doesn't parse logically. Please rephrase this so we can both understand what you're trying to say.

And maybe the message of the genre is the glorification of the trivial.
"...message of the genre..." Which genre? Pop?

Sterling - in that case I admit to CURMUDGEONISATIONALISM ('whatever the fuck that is') - albeit that seems more description than explanation......
An underlying discomfort or dissonance about gleefully accepting the purchase of music as part of a retail-culture experience or as part of a desire to be 'of the moment' has some aspects, identified above by Custos, that I can sympathise with.
I don't enjoy that experience as a thing in itself, I don't get any buzz from it, and although that doesn't stop me buying things, I can have my interpretation and affection for music modified in a negative way by either not liking or not caring for any of the malarky that goes along with it, or with getting hold of it.
I think that for those ppl who DO find this a +vly enjoyable sensation, it seems more in line with a materialist/reductionist or 'cynically happy' (ie happy with one's own irrefutable 'cycnicism') attitude - which I would in turn expect to be more consonant with the cheerful acceptance of Pop as Entertainment Industry rather than the miserable dissonance caused by trying to believe in Rock as Art.
'Wilfully obtuse' could be an equally good description of someone not allowing for this as a possibility!
I don't believe *either* of these extremes are defensible myself - Rock can be commerce and Pop can be art - but I have a bit more sympathy for the latter because it seems a bit of an underdog round here, and I don't like seeing money waved in its face while an implied 'YOU SEE?' is triumphantly shouted.

An underlying discomfort or dissonance about gleefully accepting the purchase of music as part of a retail-culture experience or as part of a desire to be 'of the moment' has some aspects, identified above by Custos, that I can sympathise with.
I like it better when I don't have to purchase it. Just trade in enough old cd's in order to get a used copy of something I've never heard before.

I don't enjoy that experience as a thing in itself, I don't get any buzz from it, and although that doesn't stop me buying things, I can have my interpretation and affection for music modified in a negative way by either not liking or not caring for any of the malarky that goes along with it, or with getting hold of it.
Mod Up: +1 Insightful

I think that for those ppl who DO find this a +vly enjoyable sensation, it seems more in line with a materialist/reductionist or 'cynically happy' (ie happy with one's own irrefutable 'cycnicism')
Okay...first off: if the only pleasure one gets from buying music is the act of buying the music...thats a sign on a shopping addiction, and that falls waaaaay outside the scope of this thread. Second: the 'cynically happy' comment seems to be confusing everyone. Of all the music fans I know, they seem to fall into three main groups:

• one group are old-fashioned, somber and superficially morose but are paradoxiacally very optimistic. They tend to prefer Country, Folk, Blues and straightforward completely canonical oldie von moldie stuff.
  
• the next group is trend-obsessed, manic and superficially cheery but are paradoxiacally very pessimistic. They tend to prefer Pop, R&B, Techno and anything kitschy or cheesy. THIS IS THE 'CYNICALLY HAPPY' GROUP.
  
• The last group is the indie kids. Who swing between manic anger and disgusted apathy. They are a coalescence of both the good and bad qualities of both of the other groups. Each with his own mix of virtues and vices.
  

...which I would in turn expect to be more consonant with the cheerful acceptance of Pop as Entertainment Industry rather than the miserable dissonance caused by trying to believe in Rock as Art.
If its true that Rockists "live in the past" and the "Popists" live in a "never-ending now", then maybe we can close the ideology gap by:
Assuming that it is entertainment NOW and art LATER.

'Wilfully obtuse' could be an equally good description of someone not allowing for this as a possibility!
I don't believe *either* of these extremes are defensible myself - Rock can be commerce and Pop can be art - but I have a bit more sympathy for the latter because it seems a bit of an underdog round here, and I don't like seeing money waved in its face while an implied 'YOU SEE?' is triumphantly shouted.
Mod Up: +2 Insightful
Yes. Yes. YES! Theres nothing more irritating than someone who bases his tastes on such lemming-like criteria as "It Sells Well, ergo I must own it!" If thats ones philosophy, may I suggest giving up music and look into collecting Pokémon cards?

Custos the problem is that you have ficticious notions of "rockism" and "popism" (which in fact you are the only person to ever attempt to use semi-seriously) and even if "popism" did exist it wouldn't be the opposite of "rockism" which is simply "anti-rockism" cf. endless comparisons to the term "sexism".

And having constructed these two complete strawmen you now are attempting to hang everything on this miserably false dichotomy and prove how smart you are by showing how both positions are flawed. Well, duh, because you made them up that way. We're talking about music and culture here, okay, not mathematical theorems. You can't dissect everything to that level with this much reductionism, at least seriously. (jokingly can be great fun).

cf. endless comparisons to the term "sexism".
isms isms isms. Someday we'll throw all isms in the trashcan. Unfortunately, we aren't smart enough to navigate without them...yet.

And having constructed these two complete strawmen you now are attempting to hang everything on this miserably false dichotomy
False? FALSE? I can see it in the behavior of those I interact with. Just because you have yet to encounter it, doesn't mean its not there.

...and prove how smart you are...
*eeernt!*. If I wanted to feel smart, I'd just lurk waiting for my questions to be answered. Instead, I've ALREADY ADMITTED MY CONFUSION and posted a rather arcane and longwinded question about it.

...by showing how both positions are flawed....
*eeernt!* again. I've already stated at least four times in this thread that I admire the two ideologies (Rockism and the other one tentatively "Popism" -- and notice I have it IN QUOTES throughout the entire thread!) very much and have grown ill of the partisanship. I want to start a constructive dialogue about how these two ideologies can be reconciled. Thats it. I'm not taking sides. I'm not pissing on your taste in music. I'm not engaging in intellectual mastrubation. I'm just stating a half-finished premise, so I can get some feedback.
Everyone else has been very civil, but you have been strangely angry at me as if you feel personally insulted. Why?

Well, duh, because you made them up that way. We're talking about music and culture here, okay, not mathematical theorems.
Yes, I'm being a psuedo-Aristotle. I've already acknowledged that. This idea is still in the bearskins-and-stone-knives stage.

You can't dissect everything to that level with this much reductionism, at least seriously. (jokingly can be great fun).
Dissect? I'm trying to sculpt it. Let someone else dissect it, give it an anal probe and test its blood.

And my point about Dylan is that he was a folk musician and then went electric and became "rock" but by that point his lyrics were completely hermunetic and impenetrable and thus hardly on the level of intellectual communication no matter how much the "rockist" lyric-hounds tried to decode them and compare them to Shakespeare.

a) We are in the Fall of Civilization and theres only a finite amount of fun left, so you'd better get as much as you can before it all runs out.
b) We are in the End Times and its every man for himself.
c) We are in the Fall of Rome and that planning for the future or helping you fellow man are acts of hypocrisy and pretention.

But you only discover that they feel this way after the party is over and your sipping coffee in a Denny's with them later on. While the party is still happening they are the happiest people you could ever meet.

-- the former being when it became something *other* than a form of popular music...
Sigh. Balderdash. If it becomes popular, its a form of popular music. Now if you were to say Pop...then I'd agree. Rock (or should I say RAWK!) != Pop and Pop != Rock, but Popstars write Rock Songs and Rockers write Pop songs...so the dividing line is very very very vague.

(I've seen it argued for example that "I can see for miles" was the Who's first rock as opposed to pop/r&b song)
Hmmm. "You Really Got Me Now" or even better the Beatles version of "Twist and Shout" (or, if you wanted to be a smartass...the Isley Brothers version of "Twist and Shout") woulda been a better fit.

but its own thing with lyrical depth and the idea of a certain type of "dangerous" imagery and certain types off stage/arena shows and classic albums as actual albums (which you refered to, but you attributed this to "rock 'n roll")
Did I? I remember saying that albums didn't really become completely a discrete artform until after "Sgt Pepper" (this is the cliche answer, but I can't yet find anything to refute it.)

which eventually led to so called Album-Oriented-Radio.
Argh! AOR is icky. Whenever I hear some REO Stationwagon-styled AOR drivel, I can see where the Anti-Rockist crowd is coming from.
I frankly don't see how Soft (Cock-)Rock got labelled "Album Oriented Rock"...doesn't the musical act in question have to make halfway decent albums before they can be called "Album Oriented"?

And my point about Dylan is that he was a folk musician and then went electric and became "rock" but by that point his lyrics were completely hermunetic and impenetrable and thus hardly on the level of intellectual communication no matter how much the "rockist" lyric-hounds tried to decode them and compare them to Shakespeare.
James Joyce is twice as cryptic. People still recieve the messages he's sending.

Also *sigh*.

Custos: A, B, and C are the same!
Actually....noooot really.
a) is okay. It's kinda like what Prince was saying with "1999" and what Fishbone were saying with "Party at Ground Zero"
b) is actually what Republicans believe. This seems to be the philosophy of the Popists over the age of 40.
c) is not okay. It goes beyong mere anti-rockism into actual eeeevil.
I can stand up for viewpoint "a)" but I think viewpoints "b)" and "c)" are pure poison.

...but you've used 'rockist' throughout this thread to describe this a) breed of a conservative, unadventurous rock fan, even though that isn't what the word means.
No. No. No. No. No I haven't. Thats how EVERYBODY ELSE uses the word Rockist. As an insult. I've said five times now that the nobler aspects of Rockism and "Popism" need to be celebrated, and the negative aspects mitigated or purged. I'm trying to reclaim both Rockist and "Popist" as compliments. To me, the words Anti-Rockist and Anti-"Popist" are insults.
I am neither Anti-Rockist nor Anti-"Popist".
I AM NEITHER. I will repeat this again: I AM NEITHER.

...do you also freely interchange the words 'racial' and 'racist'...
No. Because these are clearly two different words with very different meanings.

...and, um, 'nymphomaniac' and 'sexist', despite the respective meanings of the latter word in both examples? i mean, that could be they mean.
Huh?

The whole delightful frission you get is illusiory, stemming from redefining terms then arguing about how people use the terms, as though they were using them your way, which they're not.

...start using some other term like "people who like rock" or "rock and rollers" and then then you're just talking about people who like rock and roll and people who like r&b or pop...
Okay. Howabout these terms:
"RockLover+" = People who love rock and have no bias against pop, r&b, hiphop, jazz or dance.
"RockLover-" = People who love rock and are bigots toward everything thats not rock, and spend alot of energy denouncing anything non rock. (Old term: Anti-"popist")
"PopLover+" = People who love pop and have no bias against rock, punk, or metal.
"PopLover-" = People who love pop and are bigots toward everything thats not pop, and spend alot of energy denouncing anything non pop. (Old term: Anti-Rockist or Anti-Indie)
Would that work?

and then the whole thread seems silly, yes?
Nope. It's just starting to get good.

...stemming from redefining terms then arguing about how people use the terms, as though they were using them your way, which they're not.
Yes, yes, yes. I will now use the new nomenclature. Will that help? Maybe we can get this back on track and off all this linguistic hairsplitting.