Douglas Wolk, clearheaded, on rockism

Also this:

The greatness of music is not the direct expression of the greatness of its creator.

In what sense is this intended? If I believe that Chopin's second sonata is a great piece of music, is there some argument here that it doesn't reflect on Chopin as a person in a way that some might suggest?

― timellison, Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:27 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No it may reflect on Chopin, but it's not a direct reflection, meaning that what a particular piece of music means cannot be reduced to the creator (and the creator cannot be reduced to their music, for that matter).

This particular tenet obviously becomes more pressing as the responsibility for stylistic content becomes more disseminated - if a dance producer creates a piece of music in a particular style that existed before them, and it's a great tune, is it great because it expresses the creator's greatness, or because it expresses the style's greatness (and hence, arguably, the greatness of some prior creator(s))? It is, of course, highly unlikely to be either of these things solely.

I'm not sure what you mean by "really existing" - as opposed to what?

― timellison, Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:42 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

as opposed to something existing for the purpose of definitional consistency - i.e. we choose to describe a group of records of "rock", and we try to agree (not always successfully) about what we mean when we say "rock".

I don't see what it has to do with directness or a lack of directness. The piece was written by Chopin; what does saying that it's "not a direct reflection" of him mean? That there is more to him than the piece? That there is more to the piece than him (because of historical factors that play a part in the piece, etc.)? These statements strike me as being self-evident, but maybe there is some other meaning to "not a direct reflection of him" that I am missing.

Why is anti-essentialism a tenet of anti-rockism, though? It seems like a different issue. I had thought that rockism was the overprivileging of authenticity, seriousness, and enduring importance. It's insidious because, even if one does love trashy pop music, one often attempts to legitimate that love by calling it a guilty pleasure (it's an exception, so the hierarchy of values still holds), or by comparing it to some serious music in order to show that it actually has those values already. Pushing back against that attitude doesn't, as far as I can tell, require any stance on whether genres have essences.

Why is anti-essentialism a tenet of anti-rockism, though? It seems like a different issue. I had thought that rockism was the overprivileging of authenticity, seriousness, and enduring importance. It's insidious because, even if one does love trashy pop music, one often attempts to legitimate that love by calling it a guilty pleasure (it's an exception, so the hierarchy of values still holds), or by comparing it to some serious music in order to show that it actually has those values already. Pushing back against that attitude doesn't, as far as I can tell, require any stance on whether genres have essences.

― jim, Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:58 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Essentialism is the assumed underwriter of authenticity and enduring importance, though: only if a genre has a necessary essence can it be necessarily more authentic and enduringly important than another.

I don't see what it has to do with directness or a lack of directness. The piece was written by Chopin; what does saying that it's "not a direct reflection" of him mean? That there is more to him than the piece? That there is more to the piece than him (because of historical factors that play a part in the piece, etc.)? These statements strike me as being self-evident, but maybe there is some other meaning to "not a direct reflection of him" that I am missing.

― timellison, Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:57 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes. It's self-evident. The reason it remains a tenet is that a lot of people writing about music have resisted the idea that thinking about music can be structured around things other than artists and their greatness. But I would hope that the limitations of that insistence would be obvious to 99% of readers here.

I'm glad we're still debating these points. CNN ran his today:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/showbiz/art-pop-music-image/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Yeah, Tim, that's fine.

The original statement does sound strident to me, though. I don't think "the greatness of music is not the direct expression of the greatness of its creator" can be completely reduced to "thinking about music can be structured around things other than artists and their greatness."

I'm going to go back to Matt P's argument that "essentialist talk is always ideological" also. It's not ideological if I'm writing a positive review of the Bangles' album from last year and praising their (non-ideological) essentialism for the way that it honors a particular genre.

That sounds like you're honoring the "performance of essentialism". Anti-essentialism basically means "essentialism is performed".

Re the artist <=> music issue, the other point in the line is that when we're appreciating a piece of music we're not in absolute communion with the experience of its creation without bringing ourselves and the world to the table (the music crit version of schroedinger's cat I guess).

Anti-essentialism basically means "essentialism is performed".

I apologize, but I'm not getting your point on that one.

Genre essentialism : gender essentialism :: performance of genre : performance of gender.

Actually those are in the wrong order but hopefully you get my point.

But you say anti-essentialism "means 'essentialism is performed'" - does the performance have something to do with the reason for the critique of essentialism?

I'm not sure how it relates to my Bangles example.

Well, maybe we should start with you telling me what you literally mean when you say that the bangles' essentialism honors a genre.

That their adherence to genre is done in honor of the genre. This isn't praiseworthy in itself, but in my opinion is praiseworthy in the Bangles' case because of the sincerity of the gesture and the depth with which it is executed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol4MaEPayv0

The essentialist would say it's praiseworthy in itself: that the highest purpose is to capture the essence of X. Your position doesn't assume this, but assumes that the performance

... of genre may be praiseworthy as a performance - ironically, the achievement of "essence"' depends on contingent factors.

I don't really understand why we're harping on the notion of genre so much. Is it because it's assumed that rockism is predicated on the notion that rock is a superior genre to others? I never understood rockism to encompass the idea of genre superiority. (Side question: is pop even a genre?)

I wonder if you are speaking somewhat cryptically. Are you suggesting a problem with assuming that the performance of genre may be praiseworthy as a performance? What contingent factors are you talking about with regard to essence and how do they relate to your previous point?

x-post

Tbh Tim I'm not sure I can guess at what you don't understand until *you* unpack what *you* mean by essence.

Don't understand in what I'm saying, I mean. I suspect we'll continue to talk at cross-purposes as long as you're defending your use of the concept "essence" while meaning something different to what I mean.

Because I have no issue with the idea that a performance of genre might be praiseworthy. But I think it's praiseworthy as a great performance, not as pure essence.

Yeah, I agree with that, but I might also praise it in terms of its relation to genre. The execution of that might be a part of what is good about the performance.

But isn't what is praiseworthy that it executes the relationship to genre well or passionately or interestingly, rather than the relationship in and of itself?

Not entirely, because a relationship to genre indicates a personal involvement in their craft.

Or can, anyway - I think it does in the Bangles' case.

Compared to what?

Missed your Xpost - doesn't that just repeat my prior point?

E.g what if they performed the relationship without passion?

Sure, but I was reacting to the statement "I think it's praiseworthy as a great performance, not as pure essence." Sometimes the Bangles are at their best when they appear to be performing "pure essence." Performing it well, sure, but the essential aspect of it is crucial.

"appear" to be "performing" "pure essence"?

http://www.gonemovies.com/www/Drama/Drama/StrangeloveRipper1.jpg

Anti-essentialism = there is only appearance, but that can include the appearance of an idea of essence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxP9mmrPvE

To put it another way: I was reacting to your argument that a performance is praiseworthy "as a great performance, not as pure essence." I interpreted this to mean that one praises the performance itself and not merely the creation of some sense of a *pure essence* of genre (given that this genre evocation could result in something great or something not so great).

In the Bangles' case, though, I would praise their performance but I would also praise the fact that they do seem to create a sense of a *pure essence* of genre. I'm not just praising their performative execution, but factors like their personal involvement, commitment through a sense of historical place, etc.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zrUBF8ePJD8/TOr7WYHadBI/AAAAAAAABQI/h_vZ2zpNfdw/s1600/Bangles.jpg

love that picture.

So nowadays it's Susanna, the Petersons and a random bass player?

But isn't what is praiseworthy that it executes the relationship to genre well or passionately or interestingly, rather than the relationship in and of itself?

My argument re. the Bangles is that their particular relationship to genre is praiseworthy (for the reasons I mentioned).

in and of itself

I don't understand what about their particular relationship is "essential".

D Wolk's see-thru head

"Essential" in what sense? Meaning necessary or crucial? Or "essential" as evocative of the essence of a particular genre?

I'm guessing you mean the latter - to which I would say that the evocation of genre is a very large part of their aesthetic.

I still don't understand what is essential about it, except in the most casual sense of meaning "this captures absolutely what I love most in X music." In which case why defend such overblown terminology for something that can be described in other terms?

If it seems like I'm pushing this back on you, it's because you're using this example as a defence of the concept, so I'm trying to get at why your experience of The Bangles' greatness requires it.

I'll clarify it in a couple of ways. I"m not saying that they capture THE (i.e., the one and only) essence of the genre. And it's not about "what I love most in X music" either. I am saying that their music is very much about genre and I don't think it's overblown in the least to say that, at their best, there is very much something of the essence of the genre (or parts of the genre) in what they do. Sometimes, their most ringing successes are when they seem to have pulled something from the past out of a hat and you can't even put your finger on where you have heard it before.

(And, by the way, I'm talking about essence not of rock itself, of course, but of a fairly narrow subgenre - folk-rock, baroque-rock, sunshine pop, garage, British Invasion, whatever else is in their mix.)