Rockists on ILM

Only rarely do music critics address a work of art from a position that is even approximately open minded. Most criticism, consciously or not, springs from a set of values or preconceptions. The criticism on ILM is no different.
Such preconceptions are no doubt inevitable and sometimes useful. By observing the qualities that seem to be shared by "approved" work the critic extracts a set of criteria that appear to characterise good work. This is how the human mind works. A model is developed as an aid to judgement and to allow rapid identifidation of the "obviously" second rate so that the critic can reduce the quantity of music deserving serious consideration to a manageable amount.

But inevitable problems arise. Like all generalisations the model was only an approximate fit and as taste changes and develops its inadequacy becomes more and more apparent. It becomes increasingly apparent that, on the basis of the model, valuable work has been rejected and derivative or second rate work overpraised.

"Rockism" was a set of values that appeared to work for a while (ie it suited the prejudices of the age). Many of these values did not derive from rock itself (for example the stress on the importance of "feeling" and emotional authenticity derived from, inter alia, blues and gospel. As in every walk of life conservatives will fight a rearguard action against the notion that certain values they have held dear no longer describe the world we live in.

People who understand the inadequacy of the rockist model should be wary of smugness. We are no doubt substituting another model that will seem just as absurd in 5 or 10 years time.

-- afrobass

I only enbolden that sentence because it totally contradicts what deej has been arguing all along.. HOWEVER, the end sentence states that the model is usually due to change every five or 10 years anyway, and it has been almost five years since that post...

So, at this point, I now learned my lesson and will never use the "R" word again, and will also make a note to leave any thread that seriously invokes it. Also, I'm not going to take anybody who uses the term seriously in the context of ILM discussions until there is a dictionary/Wikipedia/even some colloquial consensus of the term defined, which there clearly isn't.

I'll happily let the culture vultures of today eat away at the rockism carcass and whoever gets domain over the rotting meat (i.e. can actually patent and copyright the term) wins. Party over.

Ken: no. why would that matter anyway?

(Actually I was just being a wise guy trying to stir up trouble. You're right- it wouldn't matter.)

I'm using rockism as an entirely flexible word that shifts meaning based on the context of the statement.

In this case, I read the Daft Punk post as "if someone doesn't work hard enough on the song, it's not good," which is a blatently irresponsible idea because it isn't accountable to the anti-rockism idea, which is that any song can be good and any song can be bad based on the perspective of the person arguing for or against it. Rockism crops up when people argue against a song for reasons other than how the songs sounds. Its one thing to say "he sounds lazy on his jazz solo, and it doesn't fit the busy arrangement, so i don't really like this" and an entirely different thing to say "This song just loops a single sample, and I require more work to go into the music i listen to."

(What is really ironic, donut, is in that old thread from a year ago, I was trying to argue basically a similar point to the one you're arguing here!!! The biggest problem was that I was being presumptuous about the purpose of Ned's list)

Talk to Ned can only lead to trouble....he tried to sell me some meth in the parking lot behind ILM.

Talking to Ned can only lead to trouble....he tried to sell me some meth in the parking lot behind ILM.

Which is always helpful in arguments with people who don't know exactly how you're defining it for that argument, guaranteeing you'll win the argument. Convenient.

This isn't about having the last word, I think we've got a key misunderstanding going on here. If you want to discuss this discuss it and stop using these "clever" rhetorical tricks like accusing me of trying to get the last word and bringing up old shit.

Which is always helpful in arguments with people who don't know exactly how you're defining it for that argument, guaranteeing you'll win the argument.

I'm using the definition as used in Kelefa Sanneh's article, as well as the things I've gleaned from reading rockism discussions on this board. If you read Sanneh's article, he says that rockism doesn't not have a specific definition with relation to what music it is talking about, and that it is entirely flexible depending on the context.

Like rock 'n' roll itself, rockism is full of contradictions: it could mean loving the Strokes (a scruffy guitar band!) or hating them (image-conscious poseurs!) or ignoring them entirely (since everyone knows that music isn't as good as it used to be).

Ladies and gentlemen, the Simon Reynolds thread, summed up in 25 words. Or "How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Make a 900 Post Thread".

(xpost to M@tt:
That was HI-larious)

My impression of this argument is that DC is arguing that rockism means one, very specific thing.

I'm arguing that we're past that point, and that for the most part the people involved with this dialogue have recognized that rockism means a lot more than that, that it can be applied to a variety of genres and reference points WITHIN genres.

Does Rockism Exist?

The reason no-one can agree upon which music is rockist is that the term doesn't apply to music but attitudes. And the attitudes aren't fixed creeds when it comes to the music itself (eg. synthesisers are bad) but much more positional and relational eg. "Between the [x] and [y], [x] is much better because..." Which is why you can have a rockism of hip hop, a rockism of dance music etc. - at this point I'd invoke my solar system model of rockism/indieness.

I almost made a comp tracklisting for the other thread with stuff like Aphex Twin's "Boy/Girl Song", M.I.A.'s "Galang", Jay-Z's "99 Problems' etc. all of which I lovel.

-- Tim Finney (tfinne...), October 4th, 2004.

(xpost Alex, I love you and your rockist Talk Talkisms.)

I wasn't calling him rockist.

I can say the same thing about him, though. Which makes his argument very circular.

I also agree with this.

(DC I'd prefer if you engage me in a discussion rather than telling me I'm being childish (essentially) and then leaving)

Offense sells tickets.
Defense wins ballgames.

"Pass interference on Alex in NYC....the ball will be placed at the spot of the foul"

The reason no-one can agree upon which music is rockist is that the term doesn't apply to music but attitudes.

I got that, OK.

And the attitudes aren't fixed creeds when it comes to the music itself (eg. synthesisers are bad) but much more positional and relational eg. "Between the [x] and [y], [x] is much better because..."

Isn't this bit stopping a few words short? Isn't the reason, the "because," key in determining whether it's a rockist statement or not? And anyway, are [x] and [y] genres, songs, artists, what?

Which is why you can have a rockism of hip hop, a rockism of dance music etc. - at this point I'd invoke my solar system model of rockism/indieness.

As soon as you can have a rockism of hip-hop, is that really rockism? I always thought rockism was as someone described it above - a conservatism, specifically a boomerish clinging to the dictates and values of '60s and '70s rock, despite a changing musical and critical landscape.

And if it isn't a fixed creed, what is it? Doesn't the suffix "-ism" tend to indicate a fixed creed?

And I'll save someone the trouble by getting the first "jism" joke out of the way.

By the way, I say this acknowledging the notion that, for example, there are three contradictory reactions to The Strokes which could all be called rockist.

Isn't this bit stopping a few words short? Isn't the reason, the "because," key in determining whether it's a rockist statement or not? And anyway, are [x] and [y] genres, songs, artists, what?

He's stopping a few words short on purpose, because what follows the word "because" is the rockist statement - but the rockist statement can mean anything. [x] and [y] are variables that can represent genres, songs or artists.

As soon as you can have a rockism of hip-hop, is that really rockism? I always thought rockism was as someone described it above - a conservatism, specifically a boomerish clinging to the dictates and values of '60s and '70s rock, despite a changing musical and critical landscape.

What Tim - and me, and Kelefa, and lots of other people - are arguing is that rockism doesn't just apply to that specific example. And we use the word "rockism" for lack of a better term; rockism is confusing because the name itself implies that it relates only to rock, when in fact this is not the case.

And if it isn't a fixed creed, what is it? Doesn't the suffix "-ism" tend to indicate a fixed creed?

Rockism does refer to fix creeds. But the "s" at the end of "creed" is important there - it doesn't just refer to one but to ANY fixed creed that operates on fallacies.

Sorry that was dreadully unclear. It should read: "But the rockist statement can refer to any of scores of rockist statemenst."

So has the term "rockism" evolved to mean a general belief in the inherent, self-evident musical superiority?

duh duh, duuuh duuuuh, duh duh, duh duh

That seems like a good summation of my understanding on the current state of "rockism" as a term.
-- deej. (el...), January 26th, 2005.

Well, if that's the case, I agree with Nate P. (I think it was) who says we need a different term, but rather than all the energy expended on that thread, wouldn't "closed-mindedness" or "bias" do just fine? I think we should save the term "rockism" for rockism that is about, um, rock. Because there seems to be a lot of sociological resonance there (mostly regarding white male cultural and critical hegemony) that is worth discussing that rockism regarding, say, hip-hop doesn't have.

I should add that there's a stray "the" in the post of mine that I quoted above, so my tenuous interpretation of deej's definition of "rockism" would be "a general belief in inherent, self-evident musical superiority," of anything. In case we still want/need to argue that.

Matos was saying in another thread that really what is at the root of rockism is "auteurism" - focusing on how the music is made rather than how the music sounds. I'm wondering if there are rockist statements that don't relate to this binary? Not sure. Have to think about it.

j/k

rock is to rockism what fucking is to sexism, simple eh, wait no that's not right

Like, all y'all should just go visit Ned in the parking lot.

Or like, come visit me and sit in my living room and close your eyes while I play Fair Warning over and over again until you forget what you were discussing before. Or if you're on the East Coast, visit Alex in NYC and let him make you listen to whatever he wants.

But what, though? As for "bias" being too broad a term, maybe, but "rockism, but in regards to hip-hop" (or dance or whatever) is frustratingly broad too. I have trouble keeping straight whether that refers to a hip-hop rockist, or a rock rockist bringing his rock rockism to a discussion of hip-hop. (I think I hurt myself on that one.)

Matos was saying in another thread that really what is at the root of rockism is "auteurism" - focusing on how the music is made rather than how the music sounds.

I like the definition part - focusing on how the music is made rather than how it sounds - though I'm not sure "auteurism" is the right word for that.

I'm wondering if there are rockist statements that don't relate to this binary? Not sure. Have to think about it.

I will too, but I'm going home now. In the immortal words of Gene Simmons, "GOOD NIGHT!"

And yeah, Fair Warning would sound pretty good right about now.

Matos described Auteurism as a starting point or root for Rockism. As such, I think it's pretty dead-on. "Auteurism" wouldn't be the perfect word for it given that it's pretty well defined in the context of film, but it's the same idea and certainly works as a root reference.

I'm POST ROCKIST

Bahahahahahaa

behold post-rockism is not of your world

Even if there was something to grab onto like "bias is bad, preconceptions are bias, so all preconceptions are bad" you'd have to separate your analytical mind from your preconceptions before you could live the non-rockist life. If you could pull this off, you'd be working off of post-preconceptions and turn into a willful contradiction.

or something like that?

xpost haha we should!

*Hi Darin*

With the help of counciling, I've learned to deal with this. Thank you.