Douglas Wolk, clearheaded, on rockism

As noted above, in regard to rock music itself the tendency in music crit discourse is to downplay the importance of technical skill, even to dislike its more overt manifestations. So it's really not a straightforward pro vs con.

The bigger issue to my mind is when and how technical skill gets acknowledged as such - how we acknowledge and treat the "technical skill" that goes into certain gangsta rap or dance music or etc, and what we casually think technical skill must be or involve (or not involve) in order to merit the term.

And, again, my point earlier was that the term "rockism" should only be used in cases of clear BIAS, not just preference.

x-post to myself!

I'm not so sure that the first scenario should be written off entirely as "largely irrelevant to the appreciation of the music."

The distinction between the two scenarios feels a little arbitrary to me. Privileging theatrical value gets a pass, but privileging live musical theatricality in the case of the lip-syncing pop star does not.

Also worth pointing out that lip-syncing was probably often criticized in part for the fact that it was done dishonestly.

― timellison, Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:20 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The original post said the hypothetical reason for dismissal is that "they aren't playing real instruments". I think that's largely irrelevant to the appreciation of pop music that isn't made and played on "real instruments" except at the very widest lens of "do I like or not like this entire swathe of popular music". It's not a logically illegitimate stance, but it has very limited value to others as a critical position (and it's important to remember that talking about rockism is not a witchhunt of what people think in the privacy of their minds, but about what gets written and published).

And, again, my point earlier was that the term "rockism" should only be used in cases of clear BIAS, not just preference.

x-post to myself!

― timellison, Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:22 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is entirely uncontroversial, with the caveat that if, say, 80% of articles on a Britney show said "I can't really enjoy her music given she doesn't play her own instruments" then it would be reasonable to postulate a kind of institutionalised bias at work.

Which is a strawman example itself obviously, but i'm using it to make a theoretical point only.

And, again, my point earlier was that the term "rockism" should only be used in cases of clear BIAS, not just preference.

― timellison, Friday, July 27, 2012 5:22 PM (2 minutes ago)

OTM, and as i keep insisting, where that bias is unmistakably a product of a specifically rock-centric POV. using the term in a more generic sense - for instance, to refer to any privileging of "authenticity" or technical skill - seems inappropriate to me.

i understand why rockism has come, in everyday use, to describe the privileging of "realness" and skill. this has happened because it turns rockism into a ridiculously simple concept, one that anyone can grasp without much thought. tim's definition, where rockism refers to a specifically and uncritically rock-centric view of musical virtue, is complex, and difficult to grasp, especially in the post-rockist era.

extra comma in there

and i suppose it's only relatively complex

The original post said the hypothetical reason for dismissal is that "they aren't playing real instruments". I think that's largely irrelevant to the appreciation of pop music that isn't made and played on "real instruments" except at the very widest lens of "do I like or not like this entire swathe of popular music".

I do get this, but it was also about a "lip-syncing pop star" and I would stand by my statement about the arbitrariness of allowing for the privileging of theatrical value but not the privileging of theatrical musical value.

I have no issue with people disliking lip-syncing though.

I do have an issue with the different proposition, "this artist lip-syncs, therefore he/she has no artistic merit". But that's not a proposition you've made so far.

The distinction between the two scenarios feels a little arbitrary to me.

The distinction I was trying to make is between judging a performance exclusively by a single standard of skill vs. criticizing a performance for showing no recognizable performing skills of any kind. I think most people can now understand the concept that a DJ can select songs and guide the mood of a crowd of dancers. But if you found out a DJ was playing an entirely pre-recorded set, then what exactly are they offering in terms of performance? That's not really a privileging of improvisation.

But at a certain level I guess it's kind of like stage magic. If the audience truly believes that the DJ is creating the music on the fly and they are enjoying the performance under that assumption, is there really any difference? The same would go for lip syncing. Blatant and honest lip syncing can be OK. And lip syncing while successfully fooling people into believing that you're singing live can be OK too! But once the trick is ruined then the performance fails.

What if you believe in a sort of spiritual sickness?

― Clarke B., Friday, July 27, 2012 1:32 PM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

In other words, rejection of the food/music analogy on the grounds of relative severity of our biological response to said product relies a bit more heavily on the ol' mind/body split than some might be necessarily comfortable with.

― Clarke B., Friday, July 27, 2012 1:45 PM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Clarke I really hope you're just saying this to be devil's advocate.

― Tim F, Friday, July 27, 2012 7:45 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

For sure I am. I'm trying to inhabit various iterations of a rockist mindset, however, because I'm not entirely convinced that it's a worthless position.

sorry all, that last post came out a lot more jerky than i intended. and badly written to boot.

it'd be nice to have a term for the privileging of technical performance skills in the arts that isn't so imprecisely tied to a particular musical context. "jockism" maybe, to tie back to tim and spencer's earlier comments about sports fandom.

I have no issue with people disliking lip-syncing though.

I do have an issue with the different proposition, "this artist lip-syncs, therefore he/she has no artistic merit". But that's not a proposition you've made so far.

― Tim F, Friday, July 27, 2012 8:45 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Who cares about artistic merit? I always thought it was rockists who cared about stuff like that...

Well, clearly you mean some sort of codified use of "artistic merit" and not artistic merit per se, correct?

I'm more just suspect of the use of the term "artistic merit", not the idea of it. It sometimes feels like the term only gets trotted out in situations where one would naturally question whether or not said merit is actually present.

what would be an acceptable substitute for the term "artistic merit" given you have no problem with the idea of it?

i think clarke's got a point. the problem isn't necessarily the idea of artistic merit, but that it's become the kind of concept we trot out only to note its supposed absence.

I don't know if I just want to substitute another term in... It's the scenario of insisting on imparting artistic significance to something that neither asks to be taken on those terms nor relies on that framework in order to achieve its desired effect that makes me suspicious and feels like a maneuver to legitimize/elevate unnecessarily.

i think clarke's got a point. the problem isn't necessarily the idea of artistic merit, but that it's become the kind of concept we trot out only to note its supposed absence.

― contenderizer, Friday, July 27, 2012 11:14 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, exactly, and it's pretty universal a maneuver, too. I mean, haven't hardline classical music snobs always basically just written off all pop/rock/jazz as non-sophisticated commercial pabulum?

i think tim's point got swept under the rug upthread

tim is arguing there is more technique to cooking because it has a function. it's like comparing architecture to art. "here's a building that kills the occupant by collapsing!". nobody would call that good architecture any more than they'd call badly prepared fugu good cuisine, no matter how succulent. on the other hand, people go to pan sonic shows. and there don't seem to be such restrictions on art - even ones like "looks like something other than art"

also there *are* definite cultural values. no one eats hair. it's inedible. no one cooks air. yet 4'33 exists.

gah i mean biological limits on what food is

it's why some of the shit in willy wonka works as absurd humor ... what if you inhaled a spray that tasted like hamburger. is that food?

But as for "falls down," that simply insists we are all obligated to appreciate music solely on its own terms and none of our own.

quite the opposite! we appreciate music solely on our terms. the music has no "merit" w/o the frame of the listener.

"artistic merit" is one of those meaningless terms like "nutritional value"

even things like "danceable" are suspect

or "performance" vs "technical skill"

it's why some of the shit in willy wonka works as absurd humor ... what if you inhaled a spray that tasted like hamburger. is that food?

― the late great, Friday, July 27, 2012 11:26 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You should visit a restaurant that specializes in molecular gastronomy some time.

yeah but they don't serve sprays that taste like hamburger, they serve things you can pop in your mouth and digest that are accompanied by sprays

next i'm going to say people don't eat coal and you're going to point out the grill lines on my steak

also it's interesting that it's called molecular gastronomy and not molecular food

i dunno though, maybe molecular gastronomy is the dada urinal of food writing

Whereas claiming the privileging of improvised music as rockism is an incoherent usage.

Not sure I understand why. Improvisation signifies to some a transcendent connection to the author in the moment of creation, compounded by audience presence and even the influence of the audience on the act of creation. Rockism is more than just Real music by Real musicians on Real instruments especially in front of a Real audience - but this is exactly that.

I wonder if this thread were on ILE if we could ignore the rock part of rockism and discuss it as a symptom of something bigger with less terminological difficulty.

also a lot of what goes into our conception of "good food" has to do w/ a balance of processes (acidity, salting, heating, oiling, soaking, cleaning, cutting) that have as much to w/ making certain things other than nuts and fruits edible as they do w/ making them pleasurable

yeah but they don't serve sprays that taste like hamburger, they serve things you can pop in your mouth and digest that are accompanied by sprays

next i'm going to say people don't eat coal and you're going to point out the grill lines on my steak

― the late great, Friday, July 27, 2012 11:39 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm just sayin' don't underestimate the ability of chefs and food writers alike to treat food as something completely divorced from notions of nutrition and sustencance. (Your bad fugu example still relies on the notion of potability in it that it will hurt you if you eat it; avant garde cuisine is all designed to be safe to eat, but that's the least salient feature of it.)

Not sure I understand why. Improvisation signifies to some a transcendent connection to the author in the moment of creation, compounded by audience presence and even the influence of the audience on the act of creation. Rockism is more than just Real music by Real musicians on Real instruments especially in front of a Real audience - but this is exactly that.

That makes me a little uneasy, but I guess I can reconcile myself to it by a pejorative interpretation of the term "privileging."

Improvisation signifies to some a transcendent connection to the author in the moment of creation, compounded by audience presence and even the influence of the audience on the act of creation. Rockism is more than just Real music by Real musicians on Real instruments especially in front of a Real audience - but this is exactly that.

I think you have rockism confused with romanticism, the 19th century variety, here working as a performance art.

i'm actually kind of shocked that i can't recall any critic calling an album "very drinkable"

rock part of rockism and discuss it as a symptom of something bigger with less terminological difficulty

semioticians would say that any ideology happens because it happens to serve the interests of a group of people. they use their influence to put norms and limits on what signs can mean to maintain their influence

there was an aube album that came in a fluid filled plastic bladder, that was drinkable

When I was really into Disneyland I understood certain records as theme parks, or at least "lands" in a theme park.

some are still drinkable apparently

http://www.discogs.com/sell/list?release_id=114069&ev=rb

vic that's the best way to understand sun ra's free jazz works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qssnsXgQLU

Hell yes Sun Ra is theme park, theme park you bring.

i think the critical framework of 'rockism' vs 'pop(ul)ism' is not a good one.

Vic that great! i've now got a plan to put my 90s house records into loose groups based on the indoor pavilions at the brooklyn botanic garden - "desert", "warm temperate", "tropical" etc

to be more specific, i think using these words/the ideas behind them to assess music made in the past, when the creation & production of records was less democratized, can lead to a lot of wrong-thinking. some people find it too convenient to rely on these binaries and do not look at the more subtle differences in the creation & production of music and instead choose to examine the values of the audience.

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/images/smilies/48.gif

not only that but get a big boxy space and decorate different parts and play the appropriate music....push people around in shopping carts and wheelchairs for "rides"....

semioticians would say that any ideology happens because it happens to serve the interests of a group of people. they use their influence to put norms and limits on what signs can mean to maintain their influence

It isn't only semioticians who talk this way, it's pervasive throughout vast corridors of academia. Talk of hegemony has a lot in common with conspiracy theory, and I mean that in the mean way.

I'd be startled if many people didn't accept the concept of hegemony these days - even the center right tacitly accept it in the characterisation of the liberal media.

like clarke b, i wonder if anything can be salvaged from "artistic merit"...

when i was a kid, i was a hardline atheist/materialist, but as i've gotten older, i've softened considerably (ahem). i'm no longer inclined to aggressively deny the existence of things simply because they can't be proven, and even if i could be purely rational about everything, i doubt that i'd want to. i guess i try to leave a little room for the ineffable.

similarly, and though i can't satisfactorily define it even on a personal level, i'm loathe to entirely discard the notion of artistic merit. to do so would feel too much like surrender to the cruelest and most lifeless aspects of rational materialism, where all things become inert objects, and nothing has any value or meaning other than that which we arbitrarily assign. of course, that position is eminently defensible, unassailable even - but it seems so pinched and defensive. so, you're right. so what?

rather than insist on the tedious equivalency of all things, it seems much more interesting to me to risk foolishness in pursuit of what is valuable, as one sees it. that could be the worship of superhuman technical expertise, or an identification with the margins and extremes of culture, or even a moral vision of art's higher purpose. i respect the sort of devotion that outstrips any rational justification, at least where art is concerned.