What Is Rockism ?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What is rockism, what's so bad about it, and why is the term only ever used by English people ?

I like Tom and Robin's writing a lot, but there's often an undercurrent of "take that, you rockists", a kind of lashing out at a perceived classic-rock hegemony (I'm guessing). But unless I've been missing something and there's a huge groundswell of enthusiasm for Lynyrd Skynyrd and Bad Company among people under 30, wouldn't indie purism/insularity/superiority-complex be the bigger cancer among the kind of music fans likely to read FT ?

― Patrick Hould, Thursday, 14 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's a set of biases (critical, which means that they can be held and practiced by anyone who asserts their tastes) which are in favor of various things that are priveliged in discourse abou rock music. Albums over songs. "Feeling" over, uh, other stuff. Individual performance and "real" performance over the "fake" (think synths and drum machines). A focus on lyrics. Narrative. "Development". Um... that's a start maybe.

― Josh, Thursday, 14 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's liking drab music, to put it more concisely ;) Or: it's an apparent presumption that rock is the centre of music and that the ways in which rock gets talked about are the best ways of talking about it and music in general (which is what Josh says). Pitchfork is pretty rockist, so it takes into account indie purism too. But rockist writing is certainly not always bad, and we all have our rockist sides. It's a silly word really.

I dont know about Robin, but I picked up the word from early 80s NME discourse, or rather from reading *about* early 80s NME discourse - it was used a lot by people writing about post-punk and the New Pop.

― Tom, Thursday, 14 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

I think that was a very popist thing to say of you, Tom. Down with isms. Or up with all of them.

― Josh, Thursday, 14 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

the word "rockism" came from a saying of Pete Wylie of Wah! Heat, who announced the "race against rockism" [deriv.obvious, I assume] - and the word was then grabbed by bored crits wanting to summarise everything wrong with rock routine. Wylie later insisted he'd been totally misunderstood: not surprisingly, as Wah! Heat were one of the first groups to be denounced as "rockist".

Other despicably rockist acts included using the words "album", "track" and "group" - better were "LP", "cut", and, oh, this last one I forget.

― mark sinker, Thursday, 14 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Rockism/ Rockist - was a term used in the late 80s in Britain - it indicated people who don't listen to experimental music or diverse music, but only like straight ahead rock/metal music hence the term rockist

someone was rockist if they only listened to hard rock music: AC/DC, Black Crowes, Judas Priest/ Gun/ Tesla/ Guns N Roses/Little Angels/ King Swamp/The Almighty/ Def Leppard etc

and their favoutite music night - was "rock nite" - with long hair/leather jacket/ Guns N Roses patches/ jack daniels/ headbanging/ skinny black jeans - ie all the rock cliches - I am not going there it is to rockist

I used to refer in a derogatory manner to someone in University in the late 80s for being to rockist, i.e they use to read only Raw magazine and their music tastes were too rockist.

While I listened to a wider variety of music Talk Talk/Spacemen 3/ Cocteau Twins/ Yello/Colourbox/ The Fall/ Happy Mondays/ My Bloody Valentine/ arkane/ Front 242/ Husker Du/ Mary Margaret O'Hara/ Kate Bush/Detroit techno/ Wire/ Lowlife/That Petrol Emotion/ Throwing Muses/ Sonic Youth/Phillip Boa & the Voodoo Club/ The Young Gods/ The Chameleons/ Blue Nile/ Voivod/ Sisters of Mercy/ Skinny Puppy/New Order/Killing Joke etc

― DJ Martian, Thursday, 14 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

I think I took the phrase "rockism" from its reuse by the mid-90s MM (in a similar context to the early 80s NME: the dadrock vs. modernist pop debate, etc.)

― Lutra Lutra, Friday, 15 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Alright then. What is dad-rock and why is it inherently bad ? Is the Clash dad-rock ? How about King Crimson ? Ozzy Osbourne ? Beck ? Billy Bragg ? Hootie & The Blowfish ? Jerry Lee Lewis ? Howlin Wolf ? The Velvet Underground ? The Byrds ?

If I were to take the term literally and think "music that males with children listen to", I would think dad-rock would be Celine Dion, Bryan Adams, Pink Floyd, Sting and Chris DeBurgh (at least around here). But I don't get the feeling that that's what you're referring to.

― Patrick, Friday, 15 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

dad rock

is Reef, Paul Weller, Cast, Oasis, Shed 7, Kula Shaker, Ocean Colour Scene - all retrogressive music - that took their influences from the sixities and early 70s - hence the old reference - of dad - i.e dadrock.

Dadrock - focuses on dull conformity of their retro influences, it refuses experimentation and new ideas.

Dadrock, was what brit pop morphed into from 1996 onwards.

Ocean Colour Scene - have often been labelled dadrock. For their ghastly plodding music. A truly disgusting horrible vile dadrock outfit, and the english equivalent of the bland Hootie & the Blowfish, Matchbox 20. Music so horrible- just hearing their music can induce vomitry.

Dadrock values are little englander, warm beer, laddish behaviour, loaded magazine, music conformity, waving the union jack while abroad looking for fights, conservatism, thinking Chris Evans is with it etc

in 2000 dadrock is on the slide - with only Toploader emerging, and they were utter shite.

Artists as diverse as Killing Joke, Six by Seven, Mogwai, Rico and Asian Dub Foundation - have been very critical of dadrock and the narrow cultural & musical agenda they promote.

DJ Martian - djmartian.blogspot.com the dadrock/britpop hater since 1994

― DJ Martian, Friday, 15 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Does it have to have a British context, though ? If I remember correctly, Tom has referred to more than once to Steve Earle as the Epitomy Of All That Sucks About Dad-Rock.

Also, when the rockism debate started in the early 80s, who was getting praised by the anti-rockist side ? I'm hoping Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaataa, but guessing Spandau Ballet and the Human League (who were all right one song at a time on the radio, I guess).

― Patrick, Friday, 15 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Dadrock is an even worse term than 'rockist', to be honest, and it holds some implicit and slightly dodgy assumptions about fatherhood and age and so on. But anyway, in its generally understood sense ('boring music, or music which it requires no connection to the pulse of music to 'get'') all the bands previously mentioned were Dadrock. Especially Beck.

And yes, as I understand it everyone you mentioned would have been anti-rockist. It was a term that let in chancers like Spandau Ballet, probably, though for three albums the Human League were at worst interesting and at best brilliant.

― Tom, Friday, 15 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

if the byrds and velvets are dadrock what does that make the smiths and mary chain?

― sundar subramanian, Saturday, 16 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Beck is dadrock? Hmmm, I'd been reading that word as more stodgy than that, even. Id est Beck is too hip (imagine) for dadrock.

― Josh, Saturday, 16 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

ALL boring music is dad-rock ? Even something like Korn ??

― Patrick, Sunday, 17 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Beck is merely the hip (with impressionable ironists) face of dadrock.

― Aquemini, Sunday, 17 December 2000 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

Q: in the early 80s, who was getting praised by the anti-rockist side? A: Dr Buzzard's Original Savannah Band, Dollar

― mark sinker, Tuesday, 20 February 2001 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Alternatively: A: Fire Engines, Raincoats, James White and the Blacks, ABC, Channel 1

You can sneer at it, but it always seemed to me that the term rockist was pretty useful to describe a kind of person (mostly a kind of journalist) who saw their fundamental roots in rock music - white, male, serious, guitar-based - and other musics as an entertaining diversion. I remember thinking Jamming! - for example - was depressingly rockist because I wanted to see them write about reggae and funk alongside the Jasmine Minks. But Jamming! was much happier writing about Billy Bragg and the Alarm. And the Redskins, for that s- o-u-l flavour. Oh yes. I mean, I enjoyed Jamming! but considered it distinctly rockist.

Now I understand that I should expect niche-marketed narrowmindedness. I have learned that it is unreasonable to expect publications to contain a genuine babble of competing voices and tastes.

'Rockist!' was an insult used, it seems to me, to imply that the recipient had seen punk and post-punk as a shot in the arm for rock music, rather than pick up on the various threads of much more interesting music which seemed available at the time. To fall back into a Great Rock Heritage in the shape of, say, the Bunnymen, or U2, or even Magazine (who I love) still seems lazy and tasteless to me. Even though I no longer see either of those terms as valid. Hm.

There's still a great article on the hip hop wars to be written, by the way.

― Tim, Tuesday, 20 February 2001 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Tim, how is that lazy and tasteless (lazy I can kind of understand, but the tasteless part baffles me) ? I mean, it's customary to dismiss punk and new wave as old-fart music by now, but back in the early 80's in North America it was pretty bold to even pay attention to the stuff. It was damn near non-existent commercially, you really had to dig to find it. The mainstream was dominated by people like REO Speedwagon, Journey and Alabama, which were somewhat, uh, unsatisfying to anyone who gives a shit about music.

― Patrick, Tuesday, 20 February 2001 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Sometimes I feel that the one thing that irritates me more than 'guitar-music-snobbery' is 'anti-guitar-music-snobbery'.

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 14 March 2001 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Really Foxy? *The* one thing? Goodness.

― Tim, Thursday, 15 March 2001 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Heavens.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 15 March 2001 01:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

"Anyone who likes [Television] is irredeemably rockist" (Guy, elsewhere).

Is rockism the liking of rock or the preference for it? Should we distinguish between anti-rockism and pop separatism? ;)

― Tom, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's, uh, interesting when "rockism" is used in the same tone that one would use, say, "pedophile", which is pretty much what Guy did there. Hmmm, I don't know. If rockism = blanket dismissal of all non- rock music that doesn't fit *stereotypical* (I can't emphasize that word enough) rock values, then saying you have to be an irredemable rockist to enjoy Television is just a ludicrous display of attitude.

A lot of the anti-rockism mentality seems to imply that the only way someone can possibly dislike, say, Destiny's Child, is by filtering their music through an outdated set of rock-dude values - I say it's entirely possible to listen to both DC and Television with the same open ears, come away prefering Television by miles, without being a ideologically-rigid pop-hating wet-blanket.

― Patrick, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

This might be a bit intra-Derrida twisty even by my standards, but isn't the ESSENCE of anti-rockism the kneejerk redemption of the currently irredeemable? Whatsoever that be...

I'd kinda like to quote the original Pete Wylie interview in which the term arose, but you know what — I lent my copy of NME that week to Matt Black of Coldcut (then Matt Cohn of the Jazz Insects), because it contained a review of the first A Certain Ratio LP — and he THREW IT AWAY instead of returning it!! When I complained — noting that Ian Penman had written said review — Matt replied: "Mark, you ARE Ian Penman."

So can I be Everett True yet?

― mark s, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

My "irredeemably rockist’ comment was aimed at Tom because rockist is one of his favourite terms, and there seemed some irony that he was extolling Television who are obviously part of the modern rock canon – as of course are the Clash, Pistols et al.

The origins of the term don’t matter too much. For me rockist means an approach – current irredeemable rockers include U2, Primal Scream, Manic Street Preachers, Pearl Jam. If you can air guitar to it, it’s rock. Whether you care for redemption is a separate issue.

― Guy, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

"If you can air guitar to it, it’s rock."

Best definition of rock. Ever. :)

― Omar, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Maybe so, but it clearly includes great scads of disco: you can air guitar to Chic.

― mark s, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Which makes sense: see Chic - Television debates (threads). Ah, this all starts to make sense now :)

― Omar, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

You could air guitar to The Carpenters... but no-one does. I suspect Chic fans practised nifty steps (do you remember when dancing involved the feet!), rather than air guitar - whilst Talking Heads, who employed the same sound, always attracted air guitaring fans.

― Guy, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Air guitar is dancing for people who are frightened of the middle of their bodies.

― mark s, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Absolutely!

― Guy, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ergo: rockists are afraid of the middle of their bodies.

Who says ILM debates never get anywhere?

― Nick, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

do you remember when dancing involved the feet!
I think everyone decided to keep their feet firmly planted on the ground after seeing Brother Beyond dance. Yikes!

― Stevie Nixed, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

rockists are afraid of the middle of their bodies

Surely this would mean that Smiths and Belle & Sebastian fans = rockists, and Rolling Stones fans = non-rockists ?

― Patrick, Tuesday, 21 August 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

If only all Rolling Stones fans were as unafraid of the middle of their bodies as Mick was, this would be true.

― Tim, Tuesday, 21 August 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

(if unafraid of middle of mick's body, then surely unafraid of middle of ANY body)

Stones = MOST INAUTHENTIC ROCK GROUP OF ALL TIME BAR NONE, and that's what's GRATE abt em of course. Rockists SAY they like em, but when you go deeper, it's all talk.

(Patrick, is that you moved and back and settled in? Or are you another anti-anti- rockist Patrick joined forces with the first?)

― mark s, Tuesday, 21 August 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Mark S - correct-o! If I had a quid for every 'rockist' who tried to tell me that Van Halen was better than the Stones (faster guitar player, of course), I could afford every Stones bootleg ever.

― dave q, Wednesday, 22 August 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Mark - same anti-anti-rockist Patrick as before, new e-mail address, new country.

― Patrick, Wednesday, 22 August 2001 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

"rockist" was a term coined by Melody Maker journalists in the early 80s to denote a sort of attitude that is obsessed with authenticity, worships the canon (ie only likes things if they have/will "stand the test of time", favours albums over singles, mind over body, moralism over materialism.

― Jan Geerinck, Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Is it time to revive this discussion? Some possibly contentious points and questions then: Is 'rockist' as a term only relevant in debates over the value of particular forms of popular music of the late 20th (now early 21st century)? Because it seems most useful to me in describing how most critics' only reference points exist in that span. Rock criticism is cut off from much understanding of all the kinds of music that have come before and often those that coexist. The very idea of 'rock' is itself a phenomenon of rockism.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 23 December 2002 06:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 23 December 2002 06:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

Is it time to revive this discussion?
I say YES

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Monday, 12 May 2003 11:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

Rockist!

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 12 May 2003 11:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Rockism is great!

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Monday, 12 May 2003 11:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Rockism = everyone should like what I like because what I like is OBJECTIVELY great.

Did I get that right?

― Frühlingsmute (Wintermute), Monday, 12 May 2003 11:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

Okay, let me explain. "Rock" (big word, only 4 letters) is a cool thing. I'm sure most of us agree with that. Now, rock usually works with or within the things that anti-rockists take umbrage with :

Albums over songs. "Feeling" over, uh, other stuff. Individual performance and "real" performance over the "fake" (think synths and drum machines). A focus on lyrics. Narrative. "Development".

says Josh.

AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!

As a side point, I don't think that the world is rockist at all. It only turns into a rockist review when a reviewer who's only used to reviewing rock tries to review somethign else - not equipped with the tools maybe? If you're used to talking about how an album flows from song to song (which is often, for me, an element in the enjoyment of music) how do you cope if there's only 1 track? Or 12 indistinguisble tracks? How do you give a drum machine a mark out of ten for the drumming?

P.S. I'd like to append all of this by saying that I really don't knwo what I'm talking about. Thank you.

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Monday, 12 May 2003 11:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

I've always found that American "indie" people have a far deeper appreciation of rock music than their British counterparts. You know that Thurston Moore not only grew up listening to Kiss and Foghat but probably still digs them whereas someone like Stephen Pastel would piss his pants if you turned his amp up above 3 let alone 11.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Monday, 12 May 2003 12:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

He loved/loves maybe Sparks, too

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Monday, 12 May 2003 12:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

...and you count Sparks as a rock band?!?!?!

― Dadaismus (Dada), Monday, 12 May 2003 12:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

Rockism is;

Privileging of received wisdom over new discourse
Privileging of credibility / authenticity
Privileging of numbers and categorisation / lists

Mythology making the arbitrary appear necessary / essential

Making the cultural appear natural by making it appear to be invisible

The pursuit of objectivity

― Jimmybommy JimmyK'KANG (Nick Southall), Thursday, 16 September 2004 08:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 18 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Stop reifying the boundaries of fantasy, you.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 27 January 2007 16:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

I mean as in listening to an album straight through rather than as individual songs - the album over the song.
obviously one can listen to an album in one go many times over the course of a lifetime.

OK, I getcha.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 27 January 2007 22:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

ned, i wouldn't know how to reify a boundary of fantasy if it bit me in the ass!

― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Saturday, 27 January 2007 23:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

reify a boundary of fantasy if it bit me in the ass

Hmm...ideas for future Teena Marie album liner notes.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 27 January 2007 23:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

Tiim's pretty much got what I meant, only slightly backwards (it all still makes sense though, because it's a kack-handed system [rockim vs popism] and backwards-reinforces itself).

I mean that, in 2006, it is not "natural social behaviour" to listen to an album in one go on vinyl in a room, but it IS to listen to MP3s in bits on the bus. The rockist constructs false environments in which to consume rock because rock needs to be consumed "properly", that's how it's designed - the popist consumes pop whenever and wherever he/she can, because that's what pop is for. Ergo the consumption of pop is more authentic, because it doesn't require falsely-constructed environments, and I would argue that, say, Lex (as definitive strawman popist!) would see it as a positive thing that people listen to Ciara on the bus, because that(consumption)'s authentic, and who gives too figs whether the music was made "because Ciara was feeling it, man, and needed to express it", or because some producer had a tune and some A&R man had a face for the tune (which is inauthentic, because it is manipulative.

And we all know how rock is (supposedly) produced - friends-from-childhood in the garage.

So, pop manipulates you when it is produced, because of the (supposed) unnaturalness of it's production, but not when it's consumed, cos you can consume it whenever and wherever you like. Rock manipulates you when it is consumed, because it ought to be live, or all in one go, but not when it's produced because kids in garages with cheap guitars is "natural".

Of course, pop lies about it's autheticity of consumption just as much as rock lies about it's authenticity of production; the lies necessary tools in the pop playbook in order to construct myths which fit the music into the right slot in order to attract the pre-ordained fanbase necessary for it to succeed. Which is why Scritti Politti "fail" at pop and The Kooks "fail" at rock.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Sunday, 28 January 2007 07:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

I should explain that I have a raging hangover right now.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Sunday, 28 January 2007 07:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

"constructs false"

― bobby bedelia (van dover), Sunday, 28 January 2007 07:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

Eh?

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Sunday, 28 January 2007 07:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

Wow. Nice explanation. Of course, my reaction is to challenge the listener - not the genre. And you're making a lot of assumptions about where these fantasies exist. Because the fact is that you can listen to rock music as pop music (to reference the dad-rock conversation - rip World Wide Suicide off the new Pearl Jam album and listen to it as a single. Or find a non-single from a rock album and rip it as a single) just like you can listen to pop music as rock music. Just take a bunch of singles, make them a compilation, and listen to them as a cohesive message from one artist. (Britney Spears collection V. Phil Spector Mono. One favors the artist, the other the producer.) Neither are the "correct" way to listen, they are merely possible ways of listening. I think the problem with Rockism isn't the attitude - it's the limitation of attitudes. Instead of being able to decide on the fly how he wants to listen to his music, the listener is forced to grapple with his assumptions first. That's why the opposite of Rockism isn't Poptomism (or whatever), it's anti-Rockism. Because dismissing one model of listening for the other is equally problematic (which I think is where you concluded also, Sickmouthy. Which the equally problematic dynamics of each style.)

― Mordechai Shinefield (Mordy), Sunday, 28 January 2007 08:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

in 2006, it is not "natural social behaviour" to listen to an album in one go on vinyl in a room, but it IS to listen to MP3s in bits on the bus.

this is just wild, unsupported assumption stated as fact, on the basis that there is such a quantifiable thing as 'natural' social behaviour in the first place. social behaviour is in no way homogenous, and both can be seen as as 'natural' as each other. there's nothing unusual about the fact that many people who are into music can and do engage in both of these activites, albeit not usually at the same time. there's nowhere to plug in your turntable on the N73.

― m the g (mister the guanoman), Sunday, 28 January 2007 11:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

That's what I'm saying, m the g - both rockism and popism (or anti-rockism) fulcrum on wild, unsupported assumption. Natural behaviour when listening to music for me is an expensive head-fi set-up in a dimly-lit room, but the popist would see that as contrived and false (if the popist actually existed).

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Sunday, 28 January 2007 11:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

7 months pass...

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1663591,00.html

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

no chillax no cred

― ledge, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

"Rockite: A member of an Irish organization associated with agrarian disorders in the earlier part of the nineteenth century. Also Rockism."

Not online yet then.

― ledge, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

sheeeeit.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

that's big.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT GEIRBAIT

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

So is this thread ground zero?

― Hurting 2, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

I like how most of the other words there are only used by corny nitwits as well

― DJ Mencap, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

I used to refer in a derogatory manner to someone in University in the late 80s for being to rockist, i.e they use to read only Raw magazine and their music tastes were too rockist.

-- DJ Martian, Thursday, 14 December 2000 01:00 (6 years ago) Bookmark Link

― DJ Mencap, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

you couldn't make it up.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:59 (2 years ago) Permalink

you have to read 'slash' out loud

― gff, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL BUZZKILL

― The Reverend, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

I enjoy a bit of rockism now and again, I don't take it too seriously of course.

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

Rockism was a meaningful word when originally used by people such as Paul Morley back in the 80s, to defend acts that were taking their music just as seriously, only with synths rather than guitars being their main instrument.

When used to defend corporate teenyboppers unable to write their own material, and with outside people deciding their musical style, it is pointless.

― Geir Hongro, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:09 (2 years ago) Permalink

^^^ban

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:10 (2 years ago) Permalink

Think you Morley's ideas arse over tit there, you crazy bastard, Hongro. Still love you loads tho, babe. xxx

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

*Think you got

sorry, I'm hungover

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

A love hangover for Geiry-boy.

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

Geir of the dog

― DJ Mencap, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

Geirsy would never let one of these "outside people" decide his musical style.

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

Worst and most unlistenable genres/eras ever:
1. 12 tone music (1920-1940)
2. Hip-Hop (1979-present)
3. Funk/disco (late 60s-around 1980)
4. "Contemporary R&B" (Early 90s - present)
5. Bop (1940s)

-- Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 24 April 2003 08:09 (4 years ago)

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

Goddamn, Martian stole my record collection in 1989.

― NickB, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

holmes is on point re. 12-tone.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's no 2-tone, that's fer sure.

― NickB, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

Is it six times better?

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

Worst bands ever:

1 Oasis
2 Kula Shaker
3 Oasis
4 Kula Shaker
5 Oasis
6 Kula Shaker
7 Oasis
8 Kula shaker
9 Oasis
10 Skrewdriver

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

I am weary and my brain is malfunctioning and WHY HAS THIS THREAD NOT BEEN HURLED INTO SPACE

― Just got offed, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

11 Mansun

― NickB, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

THEY CAN GO TOO

why does this feel like a Friday

― Just got offed, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

12 Oasis

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

13. Tupac

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

14. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah (ask yer dad)

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

15 Tupac Shaker

― NickB, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

16 Oasis

― max r, Thursday, 27 September 2007 15:44 (2 years ago) Permalink

I hate Pink for her fake "real-ness" but I love Rachel Stevens for her real fakeness. Does this make me a Rockist?

― I know, right?, Saturday, 29 September 2007 13:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

everything's a joke now guys, so just chill ;)

― max r, Saturday, 29 September 2007 14:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

What is Really Real?

Vic Stenger

"Reality Check" in Skeptical Briefs September, 2003

Since I have been writing a column called "Reality Check" for several years now, perhaps it is time for me to say what I think is really real. The best definition I can think of is inspired by a comment made by Samuel Johnson in 1763. As described in Boswell's Life of Johnson,

We stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I shall never forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."

So, I define something as real when it kicks back after you kick it. In simple terms, this describes the processes of everyday observations, but also the most sophisticated scientific experiments. When we look at an object with our naked eyes, light from some source bounces off the object into our eyes. Or, the object itself may emit light. In either case, the object and the light receptors in our eyes recoil from the momentum that is transferred in the process and generates an electrical signal that is analyzed by our brains.

Scientific observations are basically the same. Not only visible light, but the whole electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves to gamma rays are available to joggle reality, along with sensors far more precise than the human eye to detect the jiggles that are returned. What's more, other particles, such as electrons and neutrinos, are also available as probes and computers are utilized to supplement the analytic capability of our brains. In short, science is not some special method of learning about the world. It is an enhancement of the only method by which we humans, in fact, learn about the world--empirical observation. The stuff of reality that kicks back when you kick it is called matter. And, that's all there is.

― artdamages, Saturday, 29 September 2007 14:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

I think it's something to do with doric columns.

― Dom Passantino, Monday, 31 March 2008 14:16 (1 year ago) Permalink

Rockism is a ham hock in your corn flakes.

― Sara Sara Sara, Monday, 31 March 2008 14:32 (1 year ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.