Douglas Wolk, clearheaded, on rockism

I'd be interested in getting to more of what I was talking about upthread - the ways in which critics use rockism to control discourse, and how we can use deconstruction to map out how critics create this heirarchy that says the Beatles made the best record of the 20th Century, for example (see: Rolling Stone's 2003 list of the best albums of all time).

it made me miss my missing of the last emp pop music studies conference all the more.

i was going to write a bunch of things after reading it, but either the noodle vague person said them very eloquently already, or i got so embroiled in reading the thread i forgot what i was gonna say.

i for one have very spotty, primarily self-taught understandings of folks like derrida. i never finished my undergrad degree. but it does seem rather obvious that a lot of this sort of critical rethink regarding the "normative" nature of pop/rock is happening NOW: after 50 years of rock music, a hundred and twenty years of recorded popular music, and roughly forty years of pop/rock criticism. most art forms went through a similar thing critically in the '60s, (notably of course conceptual/ pop artists and postmodern authors), which in its own way made even the concept of pop/rock ("low" culture) criticism possible. the influence of academia on pop/rock crit. is greater today than it was in the '80s when you mostly couldn't write for the "voice" unless you limply quoted baudrillard -- and this is a good thing, but i'll get to that in a second.

i've always thought that what's held back the pop/rock discourse has been more than anything how popular/ "populist" it is. i refer not to the seymour glass approach to music writing (this power-noise-jazz trio is good at least partly because they're unpopular) versus the chuck eddy method (this hair metal band is good at least partly because they're not unpopular), but how commodity-centered and release date/ad-money-driven pop/rock writing is -- the simple/ obvious fact that music writing is an extension of the entertainment industry's need to continually sell more product.

and while i initially balked at the idea of contemporary music studies entering academia, it appears that much of what's being done there is at least a bit fueled by the sort of focused, intense, and marketplace-free FANDOM one used to only find in 'zines, which tended to be written --not so well-- by malcontents living in their mothers' basements. (i don't feel the need to enumerate what's good about 'zines since i've done them, slowly and irregularly, for 22 years myself. and yeah, we all know blogs have replaced 'zines, for the most part.)

i can't wait to read tim ellison's thesis on psychedelic rock or whatever the hell it's on. he's always been one of my favorite writers and it's awesome/ only right and natural that he can get a degree based on this work.

Bernie Gendron's book, From Montmarte to the Mudd Club, is pretty good on this count and really gets at the history of these kinds of debates as they've played out in relation to the avant-garde and popular music over the course of the twentieth century.

hah. lo siento.

hah. lo siento.

Lethal, this is why those Deleuzian comments seem out of place. This is about taste and gatekeeping, about hierarchies of value, so the obvious go-to man is Bourdieu. If you're going to throw theory around, that is.

Bernie Gendron's book, From Montmarte to the Mudd Club, is pretty good on this count and really gets at the history of these kinds of debates as they've played out in relation to the avant-garde and popular music over the course of the twentieth century.

I don't mean to "throw theory around," I just picked that quote up from the debate on dissensus! and I think those deleuze quotes definitely relete to this discussion in a very real way.

...in a very real way. I will definitely check out that book though.

ill admit that when i first heard the phrase, i filed it in my mental dictionary as a synonym for "elitist".

(or for that matter, the "wrong" politics)

fyi, i've just started a publishing venture with steve from puncture -- the first two titles are gonna be a thick-ass book/ cd "chemical imbalance" best-of and a collection of essays/ writings by luc sante, so i'm very psyched about that! [working title for the c.i. book: "In Love With Those Times: The Best of C.I." -- izzat too flying nun-centric/ stolen, or what?]

i don't remember ever reading a brodsky book all the way through either but i do find him a much better "difficulut" writer than any of the mcsweeneys clan and remain curious re: his lack of renown. game theory = acquired taste, to be sure.

[[has heart attack, dies]]

I'd like to be really annoying and quote myself in order to expand this a bit (in a basic way) and explain why it's a problem.

The "source of true meaning" is problematic because it denies cultural mediation. Most people adhere to a Cartesian worldview "naturally" because it is "apparent" (i.e. *I* attach meaning to things myself and I have agency and authority over my life and my artistic output). Psychoanalysis (among other things) finally taught us to challenge this whole and rational ideal of the self and to recognize the subject's definition from without. The end result of this challenge should be a lessening of the importance of the individual author of a work and a recognition that the work does not spring forth fully formed from the pure unmediated mind of the artist. However, rockism clings to this heroic view of a soulful and pure authorial intent, thereby priviliging singer-songwriting, virtuosity, the live (present) experience, and the timeless nature of true music; and at the same time decries the studio, the producer, recorded music, technology (although the specific technology changes over time), and ephemeral music.

And Spencer, you're just reiterating what I suggested about discourse, and what Douglas was saying about normativity: they each set up regimes of meaning, value and understanding which many people take for granted, or as simple common sense.

More to your point, what precisely is "complex"?

I wanted to explicitly expand upon my logocentrism definition because I've found it's better to overexplain on ILM because people are coming from so many different places.

I wish Drew Daniel was here.

On the other hand, I could say that I like "Go All the Way" by the Raspberries more than I like "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" by the Rubinoos because I think there's a little more to it.

-- Haikunym (zinogu...), May 6th, 2005 4:44 PM. (later)

I'm late to the party, but I'd like to throw my hat in with Haikunym and everyone else who pushed for a non-rockcentric definition of rockism -- for example, techno fans can be rockist about techno just as rock fans can be rockist about rock.

Also, if this is the least insane rockism thread we've ever had then it's because we've already had 918324 rockism debates* and are tired of yelling at each other, moreso than the genius of DW's article (which is very well written, though).

*I specifically didn't say "we've already had the *same* debate 918324 times" because this one is clearly covering fresher ground, so three cheers for that.

Also, Tim, again "rockism" does not necessarily relate directly to the qualities of "rock" music (although it often does).

Also, saying the rockism debate is over is pure rockism! (I keed!!)

It could be that, it could also be the opposite.

I'd like to know--having read Christgau but not having paid much attention to the British music scene in the '80s, actually--what people think is the musical event that really triggered the anti-rockist thing? Was it disco? To my way of thinking, disco is such a good example of how rockism deforms one's perception of what music does, since the subject matter is usually so frankly concerned with hedonism, and "nothing happens" in the music like it does in rock (usually no guitar solos, lotsa lotsa repetition, "gay" themes, "divas" singing, and so forth.

It does seem to me, too, that the last few years have seen a real and noble attempt to get past that whole perspective of seeing everything pre-rock as a leadup to it--I'm thinking of the renewed interest in stuff from the very early years of the century that weren't exactly blues, or jazz, or ragtime...and for me, once I started thinking about what Bert Williams was all about, for example, things began to get a lot clearer. But I never bought the rockist line, since I was always way more into frankly "unreal" pop music and r&b/soul/funk/disco leading into whatever you want to call Autechre or, to take an example of something I love lately, the Soft PInk Truth...groove-based music being the basic vocabulary of that music, I'd say. In other words, it *always* seemed to me that James Brown was a really fruitful tree and the Beatles were a nice sorta dead end, not that I really want to put it that baldly, just attempting to make some kind of distinction and place my own taste in this discussion/historical continuum.

Anyway, yeah, I know this has been done to death but it seems like we need to keep goin'...

At a particular point in time, though, I might just be interested in asserting my preference of one song over the other, and not interested in going into a full musicological analysis of the Raspberries song. Can it not be a given in this instance that:

1) Saying that the Raspberries song is better "because there's more to it" does not necessarily reflect a bias on my part toward complex things in general, and ...

2) That I am actually implying in my statement that the more simplistic majesty of the Rubinoos song (which I like, and which I do think has a simplistic majesty) isn't as great as the more complex majesty of the Raspberries song?

But when you state it as you did above, it implies just the opposite! If you said "the intricate passage in song a) is more effective than the way song b) employs a more minimal effect" its fine. But if you say "its better because it is more complex" that implies that you mean "complexity" (if such a thing can be defined) is inherently better than "simplicity" (ditto) and the idea of this "inherent" heirarchy is what rockism is about.

A personal point I've suddenly realized which...*might* apply here, a bit. I have not for a long while, and possibly never (but I could easily be wrong), seen music as biographical expression from its creator(s). The 'soul' of said individuals -- whether SAW or Dave Pearce of FSA sitting in his room somewhere -- does not convey itself per se through the music; alternately what meaning I might glean or read into the songs is generally insular or seen through my own specific lens. (I don't hear a death wish in Ian Curtis's lyrics, instead I sense a yearning for connection -- life, if anything; likewise what I hear in Timbaland's work at its best is a staggered shock that turns into motion -- his innermost being, I don't know about and wouldn't expect to.)

Douglas, as Spencer and others have elaborated, is right to focus in on the language used to describe the event. I find it interesting that to me there is no debate in my brain about the 'honesty' of a particular approach, I assume I am far from alone here (and I assume I am not necessarily operating with a uniform philosophy either). At the same time I am less concerned about an artistic expression of honesty in a truth/lie context, I am deeply concerned with celebrated artistic *connections* of...I don't know, head-rush, scramble, shock, being moved and moving. Perhaps it *is* honesty, but honesty separated from the moral requirement or describing factor, more internalized in a 'great, that works!'/'yugh, how boring' fashion...

Hmm...rambling here, I'm losing my point a bit. I think what I am trying to say is that there is a way that the internalized language of rockcrit -- what Tom is noting, in a way, with his question about an anti-rockist critical language -- can function away from the rockist normative, that it can at least mean something on a personal level even if (or because of its nature) as a crutch. That *maybe*...maybe...the reexpression/revision of terminology, as it crackles under expected pressure from a host of continuing new influences and conceptions in life in general, will yet become, not necessarily anti-rockist as such, but...different. Differing. And that to plan it is too much but to watch it happening and to ride the possibilities could be freeing.

Hm, still a ramble. Hopefully there's a point in there.

who still sez this and is taken seriously by anybody anywhere pleeze?

"Writing in The Chicago Sun-Times this summer, Jim DeRogatis grudgingly praised Ms. Lavigne as "a teen-pop phenom that discerning adult rock fans can actually admire without feeling (too) guilty," partly because Ms. Lavigne "plays a passable rhythm guitar" and "has a hand in writing" her songs." -- K. Sanneh

I imagine some writers (sometimes even myself) have trouble reconciling or expressing love for career longevity with the innately temporal and almost by definition trendy nature of pop. Will people be listening to Britney is 20 years? Does it matter if they do or don'? I suppose it's equally interested whether she's completely forgotten or revered in 2025.

Hold on here Josh, this is circular logic. You're essentially claiming Dylan is important because he is important, which is somewhat glib. Also, comparing Patton's far more obscure work in terms of how it was recorded, released, and received with the far more immediate and easy access to Dylan -- major label contracts, high profile media appearances, etc. near the start of his recording career and after, in otherwards the fact that 'millions' could actually *hear* and encounter his work as opposed to Patton -- is an utter apples/oranges situation.

Well, xpost a bit, but still.