Arguing about music is, by its very nature, rockist.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
discuss.

Special Agent Dale Koopa (orion), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

being a doormat to the music industry is, by its very nature, kinda dumb.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:32 (nineteen years ago)

parodying posts is, by its very nature, whatever cutty.

Special Agent Dale Koopa (orion), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

very true.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

i dont see how discussing music is inherently rockist. or inherently...anything

terry lennox. (gareth), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

hstencil otm.
otm otm.
otm otm otm.
otm otm otm otm.
otm otm otm otm otm.
.
.
.
otm.... [n times] ... otm.

as n goes to infinity... what happens?

i'm not really sure... i'm still otming.

thrusting rockism into every conversation: just as silly.

carving out a seat in rock talk land only to find it not a very pleasant actually: uncool.

asking "what should i do with myself now?" until i'm dead: reality.
m.

msp (mspa), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:44 (nineteen years ago)

how does arguing about music make you a music industry doormat? i keep waiting for the music industry to die, but people keep giving them money. fucking idiots. if you look hard enough on the internet it is all there for free, people! BURN. IT. DOWN.

scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

i still like being a fan. i don't care. i'm probably missing the point tho.
m.

msp (mspa), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:52 (nineteen years ago)

how does arguing about music make you a music industry doormat?

that wasn't what i was saying, scott.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:01 (nineteen years ago)

oh.

scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

it was more a joke on how the more "popist" inclined ilm posters are willing to swallow whatever industry hype, no matter how absurd, basically. like very few are actually willing to understand (at least publicly) how the music industry works (or doesn't work, depending on your p.o.v.), unafraid to champion swill force-fed on an unassuming, politically-unaware public. or something like that. anyway, i like arguing about music.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:07 (nineteen years ago)

has someone already made the popist/catholic joke?

jeanne (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

Freedom is the enemy of art.

Igor Adkins (Grodd), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

has someone already made the popist/catholic joke?

Yeah, Momus.

Dan (Har Har) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

it was more a joke on how the more "popist" inclined ilm posters are willing to swallow whatever industry hype, no matter how absurd, basically.

I don't know that I agree. Are you talking about Perpetua?

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

some people do like following pop the way some people follow baseball or the new network t.v. season. so, i certainly won't throw stones when it comes to those harmless pursuits. i watch Reba every week. criticizing or following major label pop is really not all that different than reading sci-fi novels or playing doom. i'm taking about people who are obssesive about it or who write about it. not people who just turn on their radios.

scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:32 (nineteen years ago)

i can't spell. but i'm not obsessive about it. and people who turn on their radios are, of course, plenty obsessive. i'm at a loss, usually, when it comes to theory-talk on ilm. i don't have much to add. never read adorno.

scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

i read adorno. doesnt help much

rush, push, cash (FE7), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

is it true that there is a Perpetua Motion Machine with infinite blogging capabilities?

amon (eman), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:47 (nineteen years ago)

that would explain a lot.
m.

msp (mspa), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:55 (nineteen years ago)

i'm not talking about anyone in particular, jaymc - moreso the absolute lack of a, for lack of a better word, marxist approach to music on ilm. i don't think adorno is what i'm thinking of, either. his attitude towards popular music doesn't really square with his socialism - at least, afaik.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:17 (nineteen years ago)

actually, fuck marx, just i think a more analytical approach involving the actual economics of the biz would be interesting and/or temper some of the "enthusiasm" (it's ok, great even, to be enthusiastic - that's not the problem exactly).

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:20 (nineteen years ago)

considering the economics of it all makes me want to move to a shack in the woods and neigh see the like of man again.

bb (bbrz), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:46 (nineteen years ago)

im a popist and a socialist, and i know here stencil is coming from, but i cant go as far as 'force fed'. the industry does fail a lot of the time, in selling what it wants to sell, so its not the mere fact that it is product marketed, the product has to have resonance, or qualities of a sort, at least, relevant at that particular time. vagaries often difficult to predict, as the industry often finds out.

yea, i can see ilms popists ignoring that aspect, but i cant really see any popular music as swill, i dunno, industry/economics or no, the music of the charts of a place does tell a lot about a place i think.

ha, we've had this discussion before, haven't we?

terry lennox. (gareth), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

music is, by its very nature, rockist

walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 22:17 (nineteen years ago)

As far as the music itself is concerned, the only thing worthy of criticism from a political perspective is the situation where someone is not making music that they just happen to like, but deliberately trying to make something that will sell.

So, Joel, how often do you think this occurs, really? Because if the people making, say, a Kelly Clarkson album all just happen to be into that kind of music, then I don't see why the political/economic issues you bring up SHOULD enter the debate.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 22:57 (nineteen years ago)

you don't think there's anything worth analyzing in terms of manufacturing, distributing, marketing, etc.? i mean, that's just off the top of my head. if media consolidation is important re: the news choices consumers have, why isn't it relevant or important to discuss that for music options, too?

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:15 (nineteen years ago)

It's totally relevant, but as a more general issue. Not sure how it would enter into ILM type discussions about particular artists, though.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:33 (nineteen years ago)

well it's not like majors have the same marketing strategy for every single artist, for starters.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:38 (nineteen years ago)

Sure, I just wonder how these topics would enter into a discussion about whether someone is Classic! or Dud!

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:39 (nineteen years ago)

just about everything else does. plus the whole classic/dud thing is soooo lame.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:43 (nineteen years ago)

"just about everything else does"

I'm still not sure HOW it would, though.

"the whole classic/dud thing is soooo lame"

It's just a context for talking about whether you like something or not, really.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:45 (nineteen years ago)

dude, tim, people bring up ANYTHING in ANY ilm thread, it doesn't really matter. "[band name here], c or d?" is an invitation to just about whatever the fuck anybody wants to write. half the time it's like "so-and-so was a jerk at their show" which has nothing to do with anything anyway!

It's just a context for talking about whether you like something or not, really.

true but despite ANYTHING being brought up, i still think it's a kinda limited way to think about music. it's not a competition.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:49 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, man, I'm not trying to exclude these topics from discussion. My original point was that I wasn't sure how the politics and economics or the music industry relate to someone's perception of a given piece of pop music's worth unless there was something cynical and money-driven in the music's creation.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:52 (nineteen years ago)

also i don't agree with this at all:

As far as the music itself is concerned, the only thing worthy of criticism from a political perspective is the situation where someone is not making music that they just happen to like, but deliberately trying to make something that will sell.

aesthetics, marketing, etc., etc. - these are all "political." even the musical is political.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:53 (nineteen years ago)

Well, yeah, you're right. I was just trying to address your point, though - which is that you wanted to see more political/economic analysis re. pop music. It seemed like what you were saying was that you wanted to see more political/economic CRITICISM of pop music, and I wasn't sure what things deserved to be criticized other than the possible scenario I mentioned.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 3 November 2005 00:02 (nineteen years ago)

I agree with Tim. I think a lot of that market analysis you mention, hstencil, would be really interesting -- but I don't quite see how the popist critics are implicated somehow for not engaging in it.

If I talk about how much I like Kelly Clarkson, I don't think I need to examine the market forces that bring her to my attention while another would-be pop star gets left behind. I mean, I'm aware of those sorts of machinations, but they don't do anything to change my opinion that "Since U Been Gone" is a killer song.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 3 November 2005 00:04 (nineteen years ago)

i certainly dont think political/economic angles should be excluded from any discussion. how particular artists/songs break big at certain times is really interesting. but i can't agree with any blanket type industry top down models of success, that the industry forces success. yes, radio is constricted, but i can't go for it being a purely push mechanism.

and as jaync says, im not sure how this implicates popist viewpoints necessarily. i do think theres value in engaging with everything that becomes popular, because its obviously had succesful resonance, it becomes part of the cultural fabric at that given time, and hence is 'important' (not necessarily on an aesthetic level, but thats another kettle of fish now).

but i think popism isnt really about this anyway. i think popism is harder to define than rockism (and look at the trouble we've all had agreeing on what rockism actually is), partly because i dont think its possible to exist (yes i know i said i was one upthread ha). but i guess we could go for it being to do with the 'now' and unconcerned with history/context? it is what it is?

but this doesnt necessarily priviledge pop/chart above other music, just as rockism doesnt inherently priviledge rock/indie music above other music. which is why a lot of ilms 'popists', are just rockists about pop!

which is where, i guess, tangentially, we come back to ians point. does discussing music inherently lead you down a path away from this visceral, for the moment aesthetism?

i still dont think it does, but i can see the argument there, for sure

terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 3 November 2005 08:12 (nineteen years ago)

because i think of rockism as a loose hierarchical framework where certain factors and rules are accepted, and leads to an order about things. ie, of course the byrds are better than kelly clarkson, theyve stood the test of time, wrote their own songs, yadda yadda yadda. and of course, some of these things are right, and seductive. in 5 years time the byrds will still be relevant, and kelly will have been forgotten, most likely. an anti-rockist viewpoint would be that these things are secondary and peripheral, or unimportant. its about NOW (nb, i love the byrds and am uninterested in kelly clarkson, but thats not really the issue)

the industry/economics thing is interesting, because while on the surface it could be seen as quite rockist, or anti-popswill, its also the opposite. after all, it was the same industry that made the byrds sell x amount of records. is kelly popular because her music is good, or because the industry pushed it? are the byrds enduring because their music was good or because the industry pushed it, and continues to push it (obv in different and more subtle ways today, but its an ongoing self-perpetuating process)

terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 3 November 2005 08:22 (nineteen years ago)

haha, though, to be honest, on ILM, all i really see are anonymous middle american dorks talking about college rock, mojo style rank the songs on VU and compare them against the songs on astral weeks and then decide which of them rock writing will focus on most next , punctuated by occasional villalobos and electrohouse threads

terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 3 November 2005 08:26 (nineteen years ago)

maybe both the grasshopper and the ant are both wrong.

Igor Adkins (Grodd), Thursday, 3 November 2005 09:58 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.londonstimes.us/toons/cartoons/pop.gif

Igor Adkins (Grodd), Thursday, 3 November 2005 10:03 (nineteen years ago)

well i dont think rockism or 'popism' (or rockism-about-pop) are wrong, i think they are just outlooks.

terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 3 November 2005 10:08 (nineteen years ago)

good work lennox

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 3 November 2005 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

hstencil:

"Rock & Roll Is Here To Pay" by Steve Chapple & Reebee Garofolo is an analysis of the music business through the mid 70s that addresses many of the issues you raised re: the effects of economics on music. It's an academic study and though lefty-oriented remarakably free of pomo jargon etc (written in the mid 70s). a modern-day version of this book is what you're pining for (me too).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882293958/002-7213165-8971268?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

m coleman (lovebug starski), Thursday, 3 November 2005 13:43 (nineteen years ago)

Music Genres and Corporate Cultures  
Keith Negus
Synopsis
Music Genres and Corporate Cultures explores the seemingly haphazard workings of the music industry, tracing the uneasy relationship between economics and culture; 'entertainment corporations' and the artists they sign. Keith Negus examines the contrasting strategies of major labels like Sony and Polygram in managing different genres, artists and staff. How do takeovers affect the treatment of artists? Why has Polygram been perceived as too European to attract US artists? And how did Warner's wooden floors help them sign Green Day? Through in-depth case studies of three major genres; rap, country, and salsa, Negus explores the way in which the music industry recognises and rewards certain sounds, and how this influences both the creativity of musicians, and their audiences. He examines the tension between raps public image as the spontaneous 'music of the streets' and the practicalities of the market, and asks why country labels and radio stations promote top-selling acts like Garth Brooks over hard-to-classify artists like Mary Chapin-Carpenter, and how the lack of soundscan systems in Puerto Rican record shops affects salsa music's position on the US Billboard chart. Drawing on over seventy interviews with music industry personnel in Britain and the United States, Music Genres and Corporate Cultures shows how the creation, circulation and consumption of popular music is shaped by record companies and corporate business styles while stressing that music production takes within a broader culture, not totally within the control of large corporations.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415174007/qid=1131075968/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/202-5095520-2570263

one of my professors!

tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:49 (nineteen years ago)

haha what:

Customers interested in this title may also be interested in:
What's this? ( What's this? ) Feedback

* Papers on Cultural Anthropology for Sale
Hundreds of anthropology-related papers, articles and essays designed to assist university students writing and researching their own.
www.the-paper-store.com


* Sea Pearls, Alternative Natural Tampons
Healthy, Environmental, Economical, Comfortable and Convenient. For your reproductive health and comfort, for the planet, for a change... Try Sea Pearls.
www.seapearls.co.uk


tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:50 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.