Douglas Wolk, clearheaded, on rockism

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.

However, I think there's something important about rockism that isn't discussed explicitly here, and that's the idea that there are opposite (if not equal, at least in terms of the number of times I've read articles about it) ideas in every other intellectual/social group. I remember once at ILM, mark s once described rockism as "moralist", as opposed to materialist. I agree with him: rockism is an example of using one set of morals as a baseline that we can judge all other ideologies. Wolk does talk about baselines in this article, and even brings up racism, which is a good parallel - but doesn't really note that the exact same thing can happen for pop or any other kind of music. I'd assume just see the word rockism vanish, and replace it with moralism.

i wrote about this (badly) elsewhere, but the people tagged with the new dylan tag were never signifiers of massive cultural import. they were all "pale" imitations of dylan. steve forbert? prince was never called the new dylan. neither were public enemy. they both had just as much right to be if you are basing the (admittedly stupid) designation on *POW* impact. thus, rockism. i guess. i'm not a rockism expert.

The tricky thing is that one can have a "whig" perspective, but still produce really good history, in terms of actual narrative of events and research, assuming that the "whig" elements are read out of some of the broader claims. So the norms of what constitutes valid argument, inference, and proof, allow historians to have discourse despite perhaps even having *competing* whig perspectivees.

Whig history is bad for the past coz it doesn't let you recover what was really going on (i.e. seeing the early who through the lens of "finding their way" to the "mature" sound of "who's next") and is bad for the present coz it attaches a fixity and permanence to the "hero" of yr. story, often rooted in some transcendental being-ness of some aspect of it as "demonstrated" thru yr. narrative itself.

This is where a rich constructionist theoretical toolkit comes in, and why i'm starting to heart pickering and other practice theorists in the history of science/sociology of knowledge. but the beauty of the discussions in history is that the shift to "objectivity" came with ranke and the development of history as a "science" in the first place, so there's an established basis of grounded "what really happened" or "who rides whom and how" to appeal to in the course of particular debates, rather than as great a tangle over notions of constructionism themselves. so partially, if someone sez you're a bit "presentist" or there's a "whig" element in yr. outlook, it can be debated in the concrete rather than hackles immediately going up. meanwhile, unfortunately, rock-crit discourse is so grounded in the primacy of individual experience that these discussions can degenerate far more quickly. which is not to dispute great first-person based crit, but rather to point out the (and "logocentrism" works great here) assumption of unmediated expression on the part of the *writer* if not the artist.

When I try to think of "anti-rockist criticism" I end up coming up with theories that basically justify either how I write about music or where I'd like to go with my writing, which is probably a covertly rockist move insofar as rockism is partly about pretending that what feels right/good, be it how and what I decide to write or the transitory effect of a piece of music, is the productive of a universally applicable truth. Nonetheless I'll try to talk about it anyway below.

Such instances of my ongoing rockism involve a delegation of responsibility for my opinions and actions insofar as they posit a disembodied third party as adjudicator and arbiter of these disputes, even if that arbiter is simply the "truth" itself, or rather just "what this music means even when I am not in the room". This is why statements like "no one will listen to this in twenty years time" remain the ultimate rockist move I think - the value of a given piece of music is decided not by the speaker, not by the listener, not by anyone either person knows, but by a hypothetical population who have yet to come into existence. As if the further removed the moment and forum of justice is from one's personal experience of music the more legislative weight it's given.

One of the great things about ILM obv is that the nature of its instant responsiveness tends to work against this: my opinions are not tested for their objective truth value by some future population of music fans, but will instead be weighed and assessed by the next poster on the thread according to their own tastes and experiences. The inability of ILM to ever agree on a group or artist we all unequivocally like or dislike doesn't negate the possibility of truth, but it undermines a certain way of thinking about truth in relation to music.

There's a certain performative contradiction in anti-rockism, which is that pretty much all music criticism implies a certain truth value, a conviction that what is being said needs to be said for the sake of others, and that's a big part of its effectiveness - I'm not about to start attaching subjectivist caveats to every proclamation I make. But I think what we're really doing is not trying to open up people's eyes to the "truth" of the situation (ie. objectively Britney Spears' "Born To Make You Happy" is the best song ever and I'm the only one thus far to realise it) so much as communicate a private experience to others in the hope that it recreates itself for them - truth as infectious rather than universal. What is it work is perhaps some sort of quasi-moral conviction that our enjoyment is worth sharing, that if we can maximise someone else's enjoyment by infecting them with a bit of our own, we should.

Rockism, working on a basis of some universal truth that exists within the music, seeks to repress the accidents, deviations and idiosyncracies of individual experience, in favour of identifying some irreducible core of meaning that should remain stable for all listeners. In truth this "irreducible core" is more hegemonic than objective/universal, the sum total of endlessly reiterated received wisdom in relation to a piece of music (or music generally) and thus usually just about the least interesting thing that anyone can say or read (this is where Deleuze's gripes about people lazily attaching affects to concepts and assuming the link between them is self-evident and eternal become relevant).

Anti-rockism should therefore conversely maintain a level of fidelity to the at times totally contingent specificity of experience, because it is the very contingency of the experience which is also the truth of the experience as such, and it is what makes it valuable: a certain music writer (critic, fan, whatever) comes to a certain piece of music at a certain moment in a certain context and with a certain amount of prior experience and/or set of expectations: their engagement with the music and insight into it thus has the potential to be unique, but once it happens this experience and insight is something which they can (if they write well enough) pass on to others.

Ironic that arch-rockists Manic Street Preachers sum it up in one of their album titles, "This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours"...

...Sterling's post makes an interesting x-post! And it's not surprising that we come back to "is individual experience the ultimate or only ground" which was the same issue that the dissensus pop thread hinged on for ages and still does to some extent. The history comparison is a good and compelling one I think (though I know v. little about the debates you mention Sterling) but what I always get stumped by is how you go about saying "what really happened" in relation to music unless object you're asking it in relation to is your own experience. What really happened for whom?

What rockists don
t get is that rock IS artiface--it glowies and reaches its finest registers when plying the finest in thought-out fakery. Historically, artiface is one of the things that remove it from the blues, very old R&B and other sources.

The few cases of 'authentic' rockist greatness are usally the resuly of simply not having enough money to produce some grade-A artiface, something like Raw Power.

To me, it's just another dregs-of-the-60s idea.

On the other hand, there's artiface and there's artiface. When reviewers start treating B Spears with the seriousness they might better spend on Bjork or Aqua, how do they differ from trying to legitimize dull corporate fancy?

So I guess my dividing line re: artiface is--Is this the product of a zany person or a craven combine--and how should that effect my relationship with it?

Anyway, for me, "Go All the Way" trumps everything by Radiohead in terms of self-honesty and integrity-in-intent.

I'd rather hear Cher than Chan.

What most people utterly don't get about first wave punk was that it was defined by artiface, hence the tolerance of Bowie.

And so on.