Douglas Wolk, clearheaded, on rockism

Proponents of a nonrockist criticism have to face the fact that rockism is enormously powerful as a way of defining oneself and ones taste, of separating oneself ideologically and morally from other people who don't like music so much*. Other fandoms - comics, film, TV, videogames, sci-fi, beanie babies, scrapbooking, etc - almost certainly have "rockism"s of their own, though whether these are successful or not within the fandoms surely varies.** I wonder actually whether the acceptability of a fandom within society is proportionate to how successfully it manages to create and sustain an equivalent of "rockism"!

*(This is the crux of a lot of things. I buy a lot of music. My neighbour buys little. He seems entertained and satisfied by what he buys, though. So there must be something more that I get out of music which explains - to me, to him - why I buy so much more of it, otherwise I'm nothing but a glutton. And that something more must be located in the music that I buy and that people like him don't, otherwise I'm nothing but a sucker. So maybe the definition of "rockism" I'm looking for is something like religious apologies.)

**(I actually think Douglas' super-reader piece has MORE to do with how I understand "rockism" than his r-word piece!)

i suppose i can see chuck's point that the latter position *can* also be rockist - eg, a kind of separate-but-equal treatment; but i can't necessarily how you would carry out his exercise of judging a metal song by disco terms convincingly, without being rockist (albeit from a position of disco hegemony). or just unsufferably clever.

but i'm missing something, too, because ultimately i would hope that anti-rockism (a term i hate, but popism isn't quite right) would amount to more than a simple "it's all good" liberal relativism.

i think the example i'm looking for, actually, is chuck's piece from around election time 2004 where he talked about some right-wing country (?) act, praising its artistry at the same time he admitted his discomfort with its ideology. can someone post a link to that piece? sorry for my crap memory.

Douglas, it seems to me that is a problem with the way rockism is being discussed, rather than a problem with a comprehensive definition. What do you think of my definition as stated above (and slightly edited): rockism is an argument regarding music that is based on fallacies that subordinate the experience of actually hearing the music to expecations that music fit into some specific mold.

I should add to this - every rockist is a new orthodoxy, because rockism can be entirely different from person to person; there is no "defining" rockism.

Anyway, the so-called "rockists" are the only ones who are able to argue against fans of jazz or classical music when they say that rock music is "just commerse and entertainment".

Or rather, the so-called rockists are the only ones who could find something there worth arguing over. Definition of "entertainment" needs to be unpacked, etc etc, as does assumption that aesthetic gratification can exist at all outside of a system of exchange.

What needs to be unpacked above all is what it is that makes us (as a modern audience, generally) so devoutly wish to ascribe that sort of purity to our pleasures. Any ideas, foax?

hurting, i have to disagree there. i'm guessing the proportions between types A and B in your example are about the same as, say, hood-wearing klan members and casual racists, or on the other side, committed activists and casual progressives. in other words (lest a perhaps over-provocative image obscure my point), people of both inclinations toward commitment can develop vastly different kinds of musical values, which will determine their assumptions about what music should do.

haha ignorance is bliss eh?

Hooray! (I mean, this is the crux of my own radical subjectivism re: music, which argues for its own particular moral stance -- inasmuch as there is one -- by basically saying "What you listen to does not define how good or bad a person you are" -- and thus tries to fight against the rockism/racism equations drawn in some (not all) cases. That said, I'm NOT saying simply 'it's all good,' rather 'I think this is REALLY FREAKING GOOD/BAD/whatever and that you disagree is fine and all, but I'm not changing my mind because of it.')

Then you don't need the "rockist" term, as this kind of cultural "snobbery" is existant in all kinds of "higher culture".

Well taking this back to the whole question of logocentrism, arguably there's something in the way we actively think/talk about/write about music that forms with knowledge of language and everything attendant. I didn't recall pondering all that went into Free to Be You and Me when I was wearing down the vinyl when I was six (or the Popeye album I had when I was four or whatever), I just...liked it. Coolness, honesty, etc. didn't apply because I don't think I had *any* conception of how that *could* apply to what I listened to/enjoyed/etc.

Of course it is, Geir. I believe that the term "rockist" exists as it does because it implies a certain kind of cultural snobbery that emerged from within popular music. (Analogue: photography critics — that is, defenders of an art form that was once maligned from outside as being artificial, mechanical, and not art at all — who went on to attack the snapshot aesthetic of Cartier-Bresson, then Robert Frank, etc., for the same reasons, while defending modernist vanguardists, pictorial landscapes, etc.)

"i can't necessarily how you would carry out his exercise of judging a metal song by disco terms convincingly, without being rockist (albeit from a position of disco hegemony)"

For me, this is the kind of liberal use of the term "rockist" where the meaning of the term feels very muddled. Even if the person was, in fact, arguing from a position of "disco hegemony," I don't understand what this has to do with "rockism." "Rockism" is now any perspective involving elements of any kind of stylistic hegemony at all? That feels to me like a dilution of the term.

Also, why assume that the disco loving critic writing about metal is, in fact, arguing from a position of disco hegemony? The critic may merely be making a point (as Chuck has done, obviously) that metal has sometimes functioned as dance music. If a particular band is lacking this element, the critic is surely entitled to wonder why the band chose to ignore this aspect of metal and even lament its loss.

But it's been argued again and again that rockism rears its head in any genre; what, then, are the hallmarks of that, without diluting the specificity of the term?

1. Someone continually saying that they hate everything that doesn't rock out can be rockist. Biased against everything that doesn't rock out.

2. Someone saying that the Jackson Five are horrible manufactured crap that has nothing to do the great depth of someone like Bruce Springsteen. Biased against stuff that doesn't have the same type of "meaning" as Rock Gods.

Then there are the Sanneh points as summarized by Douglas

1. "idolizing the authentic old legend (or underground hero) while mocking the latest pop star." Same as my # 2.

2. "lionizing punk while barely tolerating disco." Well, someone might do this for a number of reasons. Could imply bias against music irrationally perceived to be "manufactured." Could imply something similar to my # 1, i.e., disco doesn't rock out like the Ramones do.

3. "loving the live show and hating the music video." Could imply bias about artists irrationally felt to be too caught up in the trappings of music as commerce. Could imply nostalgia for the good old days before TV.

As for Douglas' argument about the term "rockism" being used to refer to anyone treating any genre of music as normative: Not sure that this bias is such a salient feature of rock criticsm (as opposed to other types of criticism throughout history) that any instances of treating any genre as normative in the future should be labeled as "rockism."

I mean, if someone was indeed arguing that "rockism" was an argument involving any kind of bias asserting the stylistic hegemony of any genre of music or any genre in any other art medium, that feels silly to me. Do we go back and in history and assert that Adorno was a rockist because he was probably biased about popular music in general?

(Tim: my argument's not the one I think you're ascribing to me! Treating any genre of popular music as normative is not the same as rockism; rockism, I'd argue, is the one kind of pop-normativity that is actually a problem, because of a) its hegemony and b) its played-out-ness.)

(As a flawed but not entirely inaccurate analogy: the Baseball Hall of Fame doesn't have display areas devoted to football, chess and cricket, does it?)

But there are a couple of flaws here:

First of all: They are usually met with criticism that they are "derivative" and that there is no innovation. But this entire way of thinking sort of requires sort of a "history line" where you have all these historic innovators, changing history, and thus becoming "part of history". And isn't this really a very "rockist" way of thinking? Particularly when arguments about hip-hop being, indeed, quite stagnant with not much of a historic development or obvious stylistic innovation within the genre, are indeed met with the "rockist" term?

Another thing: Coldplay and Keane are very much part of today's music scene, they are music that people love today, and a lot of people consider them great entertainment. Doesn't this mean they should be defended from criticism in the same way that 70s disco and boy/girl bands are also defended from the criticism they met with? I mean, if you reject the idea of anything but today's music, Coldplay and Keane are today's music. They may not be the same genre as R&B and hip-hop, neither the same genre as the metal stuff the kids love today. But they still represent a very popular direction in today's popular music, loved by a lot of people. They represent today as much as they represent yesterday.

Well, if the typical "rockist" is the typical music nerd, then, I guess that, other than the occasional Googler, everybody on ILM is a rockist :-)

Any genre of music should be defended against bias. I think people believe that you tend to assume that there is bias against these particular artists, however.

Geir, get one Sophie's World.

I have never seen those speaking positively of any act within the same style, at least not a recent one.