people who hate pop music but aren't rockist.

xpost

i don't get the joke.

What do you mean by technique? Playing instruments? Because I definitely think there's technique in rap and dance and whatnot. Don't sweat it, even.

http://todmar.net/quality4u/ebay/books/dr-seuss-hop-on-pop-hb.jpg

Hating technique or musical profiency is uber-rockist, clearly.

those dumb distinctions are implied by the word, however. it would solve a lot of confusion, i think, and spare us this never ending game of re-explination and not getting it if it were phrased differently.

That's ridiculous. You're advocating wilful ignorance. Is it rockist for a reader to understand literary devices?

Rockism is an attitude, not a genre preference.

Can anyone know what music will last and what will not?

Dom, there are definitely a bunch of rockist Jay-Z moments. I think interest in those moments is from a different angle, though. There's a strong street credibility thread to rockism too, though. Any band that "broke" by playing to a group of A&R people is going to get less rockist cred.

essentially, why do we need labels such as "rockist" and "popist" when the real signifier of lasting music is timelessness?

How do we judge what's timeless? Nearly every musical trend or style either has someone currently citing it, and the others appear to be on a now less-than-twenty year cycle of recognition. There's some pop that just falls away, but what is now "timeless" is a wider range than ever before.

or

b) Pop music's immediacy is timeless. Most great pop records are all about melodies/chord progressions that exercise their visceral thump on each new generation that hears them.

Also, with regard to the shallowness of Pop, its depths and hidden spaces are most obvious in the remix. You could say "why remix Black Dice? Their depth is all on the surface." In actual fact, depth/shallowness is a tired, clumsy metaphor, one that Barthes took to pieces 40-odd years ago. All there is is more or less attentive listening. Ask yourself why you choose to listen more attentively to some musics than to others. Answer=Rockism.

If you want to assume that all there is to pop music is catchy hooks, that pop music cannot contain new ideas and moments to be found on subsequent listens, that's fine, but I think you would be wrong there.

Do people really not often take the time to appreciate the music you find timeless? I know pop crit seems to be getting pretty widespread at the moment, but a band like Black Dice is more likely to be, er, 'appreciated' in the manner you seem to be advocating. Do you just wish more people were into the kind of music you're into, and into listening to it the way you listen?

xpost.

The reason "rockism" exists as a term is that it describes a set of real practices which are based on privileging certain ideas about art (and yes, depth above shallowness is one of them) which amount to/equate to ideological positions disguising themselves as somehow "true" or "natural". The reason people don't like the term I won't speculate on.

not much of a value judgment there!

I love Britney and LCD Soundsystem, and there's nothing about the latter which mark them out as noticeably less superficial/hollow than the former.

No one's trying to justify liking Britney Spears. You don't have to "justify" a like of any music unless it's in the face of criticism. noodle vague just set the trap you fell in: deological positions disguising themselves as somehow "true" or "natural". You're assuming that some music sits on privileged ground.

Nigga, please.

There are some of us who like certain pop acts simply BECAUSE they are superficial and hollow. A sense of fun and frivolity in certain kinds of music does not make said music worthless.

(smacks head).

I think I was just looking for an excuse to criticize that John Mayer song.