rockism

Today's New York Times has a major essay on the subject of "rockism," which the generally sensible (if young and limited in scope) Kelefa Sanneh argues "makes it harder to hear the glorious, incoherent, corporate-financed, audience-tested mess that passes for popular music these days." (To be fair, he says more than that, but you can read it for yourself.)

I've never been happy about the condescending notion of rockism (with its not so subtle connotation of racism), which I remember first reading in the Village Voice about 20 years ago, that devotion to a cultural form is wrong. The idea that straight white men should use their enthusiasm for music outside their immediate cultural experience as the basis to attack other straight white men for caring about music within their immediate cultural experience, for me, walks a fine line between cultural guilt and smug individual arrogance. That's what America's intellectual elite learned from Ivy League cultural studies?

I understand the motivation: many people, including critics, can be absurdly blind to the prejudices they hold about music (e.g., that skin color denotes musical style, that artistic talent is sex-typed, that English is the only language, that popularity determines quality). And I am certainly ready to stipulate that over the course of 50 years, on the most basic level, pop rock and roll (whatever that means) is exactly the same now as it was then.

But there's a lot of distance between thinking songwriters who play instruments are the only legitimate creators of music and denying the contribution they have made, and continue to make. The fact is that every genre has a tiny segment of artists who matter and a huge glut of crud, and that recognition and success do not necessarily go to the right group.

No matter how you slice it, Ashlee Simpson is not a significant musical figure, and not because of rock myopia.

Wherein somebody takes a vaguely defined buzzword and constructs a tome based on that fact. To some it's used in place of 'rock' or rock-'ish'. To others it's liking albums over individual tracks. To others still, it's an insult that describes one as a snob. So you have a music preference. So, unlike most people, you are passionate enough to develop a discerning palate. If you have a sports preference does that make you a footballist? In pop music, without mediocrity meteors shine a little dimmer. Yet it only makes sense, in any milieu of performance, to feel more reverent of the gifted/talented. Music is a giant concept with plenty of room. Because this term crops up in regards to mass situations it often implies, hilariously, there need be some sort of affirmative music action. I also feel the American/Western/Judeo/Catholic guilt underlying the term but often think it's just somebody groping.

Even though the whole article is kind of scattershot , there is an element of truth to the general idea that is interesting. One problem "Rockists" (to use the awful term) have is a somewhat revisionist history to events that encourages conformity of critical opinion.For example, isn't there really a great deal in common with Disco and Punk as a rebellion against corporate rock in the 1970s? When did Disco become perceived as the antithesis of Punk and by what sort of snobbery (racism?)? Ira is dead right that there are only a few important artists who matter while the rest are crud BUT it's often the crud that provide inexplicable moments of pleasure that make being a Rock fan worthwhile. Jet may be a hideous band (they are), but "Are You Gonna Be My Girl?" is a damn wonderful 3 minute piece of disposable joy. It's those contradictions that make Rock and Roll so terrific and too often we're busy trying to deny those contradictions even exist.

Punk was generated in the live venue, but how fun to resuscitate that one for the kiddies.
Punk meets Disco? hissss..you traitor.
Oops, I'm 'rockist'! (see New Order for further input hehehe).
Let's draw a parallel to the 'theory' of rockism by applying it to the other popular medium - cinema. When these 'rules' apply, what then?

One view of this silliness is, if rockists are too prejudiced to recognize the value of [whatever one thinks it would be cool to value], does that by definition mean that fans of the other music have to accept the coolness of rock? In other words, if, say, liking the throat singers of Tuva makes a better person out of an GBV fan, does that mean that Tuvites are uncool if they don't, in turn, get the feel of Green Day? Or is this one of those one-way arguments, like Spike Lee's suggestion that racism is only the province of the racial group in power?

I amit I dont know what Mr Sanneh has been listening to thats "making it hard to hear" because GOOD rock music is good AND LOUD. Maybe he should pick up an old TP and start the essay over?

i also amit i cant spell admit, however, the point Im trying to make is that all anyone needs to do is review the fourth edition of the TP to conclude that the rock world has always been a bastian of expression from the inner city blood stained streets, to the frozen Icelandic tundra, Islands of oppression, the lost continent or the wealthiest college campuses...the rock arena has accepted them all, some more harshly than others.

speaking of rockism

terry knight, garagey popster and manager of stupid/retard frat party nascar idols Grand Funk RR was stabbed to death last night; my instincts tell me kervorkian because of proximity and motive ("We're An American Band" my ass!) but I think he's still up or down river, in the hole.

I know IR digs slade--cf his list--and is attracted to Farner's ironed long hair--cf his comments re Yanni's conditioners--but was GFRR band ever good? Live? (no pun intended.)

i saw the raw power tour 3 times (R Asheton fancied Sue Schmidt, friend and guitarist in recently-released Chi-Pig, so free ticketsd and all access passes) and at 17 I was already on the dole (!), and slade headlined, but I was too busy scurrying around hotel lobbies for glimpses at groupies lugging Iggy's comatosed and percodaned bare-chested body up to their rooms to stick around for slade's antics.

those were the daze!
now you know why kerry was defeated.ira wrote:

> One view of this silliness is, if rockists are too prejudiced
> to recognize the value of [whatever one thinks it would be cool
> to value], does that by definition mean that fans of the other
> music have to accept the coolness of rock? In other words, if,
> say, liking the throat singers of Tuva makes a better person
> out of an GBV fan, does that mean that Tuvites are uncool if
> they don't, in turn, get the feel of Green Day? Or is this one
> of those one-way arguments, like Spike Lee's suggestion that
> racism is only the province of the racial group in power?

Most of the posts in this thread (at least at first) were more interesting than the Times article!A couple points :1. Punk and Disco had alot of similarities at least spiritually as rebellion against corporate rock. Just because you can point out a difference (Punk was in the live setting) doesn't invalidate the connections. So, if you view a predominantly African American cultural phenomenon with urban roots born as a reaction against mainstream music (Disco), compared to a predominantly White cultural phenomenon with urban roots born as a reaction against mainstream music (Punk) and fail to note ANY similarities, well, don't gripe when people call you "Rockist" (or narrow-minded at least, and racist, possibly at worst).2. Ira has it nailed when mentioning Spike Lee's "racism" theory here. Rock is the target of this type of attack because it was the musical-cultural phenomenon for so long, and now, I suppose no longer is. The music of choice for young America is Hip Hop so, in the great tradition of youth culture, what came before is scrutinized and attacked. The discussion is healthy.

If thats true then I cant wait to read and respond to future threads that attack Kelefa Sanneh as the "old champion to the MEGA STARS" whee!

Kelefa Sanneh IS the old champion to the MEGA STARS. (I'm not even sure what that means!)
Actually, I think I pointed out the difference because disco (the product) was largely generated by the corporate harnessing of the dance trend whose roots were on the dance floor. It became a musical movement DUE to corporate sponsorhip which in turn generated more music for the dance floor. Punk rock (the product) was an attempt to capture the movement as it occured live. Punk existed without corporate sponsorship. Disco needed the product. This is somewhat antithetical. I don't think disco WAS a reaction AGAINST mainstream music. Particularly given that it became mainstream music. It was simply functional. I recall this as the basis for the historical punk vs. disco war and will be petitioning my state representatives to bring it back. Whether or not it's a racist viewpoint exists in the eyes of the labeler. I don't hear skin color coming out of my speakers when I play either. I'm not sure that the phenomenon of disco in the 1970's CAN be quantified as predominately African-American. Using, say, the Bee Gees, you could argue the opposite. Regardless, I see Disco as BEING rock in the subjectively 'rockist' milieu.



Post Edited (11-06-04 18:06)

i argue that minimalism, moment for moment's sake, and lack of sponsorship WERE critical for punks' rapidly-evolving codification, soon out in my second part of my clevo piece re pagans in PSF.

in other words, everything you say i agree with esp re racism.

all i can say about disco is that disco demolition night is my favorite sporting event, right up with albert belle telling hannah storm to go F herself before atl/clevo world series.


go cavs!!!!