Can't we just refer to "rockism" as "purism" from here on in?

less ingredients baggage and all

It doesn't have to be be purism, I mean.

I will have none of this apostasy.

the generation gap is huge. I don't think anyone could have ever imagined political correctness to go quite as extreme as it has by the evidence of this line.

I think what I like about "rockism" is that it defines that sensibility that marks "Dark Side of the Moon" as Great Art or at least Art of some kind but which ignores, oh, the Meters, you know? As if being "funky" or whatever somehow makes it Not Rock. I suppose I'm somewhat rockist just because of generational matters--I perfer condensed forms and so forth. But I hardly think that's the be-all, there are plenty of things that aren't condensed, pop, that I think are great. So I don't know. "Essentialism" is always a good word/concept to have in the back of your mind when you're thinking about pop music or, name it.

I don't think that a logocentric mindset precludes "experimentation".

I don't know who coined the term but I think that you're correct that it wasn't derogatory. I believe that African American newspapers used the term for a while, calling a black man a "race man." As you say, this is not to excuse a modern usage of the word but simply to point out it's history. I was pretty surprised when I read about it since I had always assumed the term "race music" seen on old records was purely racist.

That was a joke. As for the origin of the term, to the best of my knowledge, it was a term used in the first half of the 20th century for music made by and marketed to people of primarily African American descent--mostly blues & jazz.

Because it's NOT in usage. The however-many people on ILM use it, or use it hesitatingly and while cringing (*raises hand*), but everyone else has no friggin' idea what it means, NYT article or no. It smacks of jargon and inside baseballism, and it SUUUUUCKS.

Um, that's my humble opinion, anyway.

I was under the impression that rockism was the imposition of a set of standards (developed and defined by mid-'60s white rock guys and their descendents) on music that never cared about meeting those standards, and thus denigrating music for essentially a made-up reason, or for a reason that shows that you are able to view music through only one lens.

"Purism" reminds me of the application of a set of standards to a music that still has at least one foot in that form. It seems less specific. And if you're going to say "rock purism," you might as well say "rockist," no?

Can you be "rockist" about other forms of music? Sure, I guess, but then call it hip-hopism, countryism, danceism, electronicism. It's the imposition of a different set of standards that's the problem, yes? So it's important to know what those standards are.

f*ck!

I'm telling you guys, spelling mistake and all, my analogy is valid. I wrote my thesis on it haha!

So, it might be in common with other people's personal definitions then. ooooh.

Until Wikipedia or Mirriam-Webster has a term of it, ALL definitions of "rockism" are personal, period. I'm using one that was the least personal of them all, agreed upon by a consensus many years ago. Admittedly, it's still "personal", because it's a made up word. You can certainly argue mine is personal for that reason.

I almost tilted my chair fully back in laughter after seeing you've called me "fool" over such an overtly stupid issue.

I think rockism refers to a prejudice against orange juice.

Once I'm done preparing and finished eating dinner, I can't do some searching for you, Walter..

rockist or no?

but, stop trying to define "rockism" in a universal way when you know the word is a pre colloquialism/made-up word. And don't assume other people know your definition of it.

The non-rock heart of Rock

(perusing it.. it's far different than I remember! Thanks, Walter, for the query)

now, deej, if you feel the issue still could use some expounding upon, i would like, politely, to request that you explain your rationale by responding to my original comments and this.

Here's yet another question about rockism (yawn).
"Rockism" as a word was coined in 1979, but it existed as a nameless concept right from the first days of punk. Rockism refers mainly to the frozen ideological assumptions and overblown marketing techniques that characterised the music of the late 60s and early 70s. However the term doesn't address the sheer diversity of the actual music that was made in the pre-punk era. Almost every rock artist was influenced by non-rock music.

In "The History of Rock" issue 1, Simon Frith claimed that 1967 was the year that rock music became a recognisable genre. All of its precursors (country, folk, blues, rock and roll) were fused together to form a new style. However this style rarely remained formulaic or stable. New hybrids were created (jazz-rock) and non-rock roots were explored in depth (country-rock). Even heavy-metal bands paid lip-service to the blues.

The paradox of punk is that a supposedly anti-rockist music was actually more rock-orientated than anything that had been recorded before. The Sex Pistols had no musical influences other than rock. They aped the Who and the Small Faces but had no knowledge of the roots of their music.

How does all this complicate the rockism debate?

-- Mark Dixon

...................................................

nail hit on head, mark (tho i think the concept existed before punk — unless you mean punk existed right from the dawn of rock)
Rockism is about the fall of rock from its own projected state of grace. Rock as state of grace emerged into the world — says me — as the Beatles released a series of LPs 63-65 (subtly difft track-listings UK and US), containing among their own songs a selection of cover versions which DEFINED THE RADICAL CANON w/i pop, streamlining the Gods of 50s RnR and of early 60s girlpop, the twin poles of their new universe. Rock as something that could fail and be corrupted was itself canonised during the bitter self- hating post-split Lennon-Wenner interviews in [date not to hand: 1970?].

First statement of anti-rockism from WITHIN = "I don't believe in *beatles*" from 'God' on John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (note also "anti-rockist" sardonic appropriation of the word "plastic", a very dismissive term in the beat-hippie lexicon — Norman Mailer *still* froths when you get him to talk about plastic — which Warhol had ambivalently rescued viz Exploding Plastic Inevitable, except of course that in orthodox rock thinking in 1971, Warhol and Pop Art were the cynical enemy) (cf eg Dave Marsh on why the Who are good and Warhol not, in his biog of the former)

Handy reductionist motto: Lennon invented hippy, Yoko invented punk.

-- mark s

...................................................

My original question was inspired by the notion of "Classic Rock". I criticise rockism a lot, but I happen to like many rock bands from the 60s and 70s. It is classicism that I have a problem with. Classicism removes music from its roots and also from its possible futures. The Beatles are now "Classic Rock", yet in their day they rebelled against classicism. They have been remastered and repackaged to appear timeless, but the best thing about them is that they were completely of their time. Nowadays, both supporters and detractors of the Beatles argue over a simplified, ahistorical version of the band. What does Noel Gallagher know about the historical mix that allowed the Beatles sound to develop? Does he care about Carl Perkins, Smokey Robinson, or even George Formby?
Early punk revisited many of the musical moments that had been forgotten by those dreaming of Classic Rock. The Ramones first few albums are catalogues of ephemeral styles from the early to mid 60s: Spectorpop, surf music, Merseybeat, all overlaid with 1970s noise.

The Sex Pistols rebelled against the frozen purity of classicism. The best thing about them was that they were confusing. What were they? A return to 1966-style spiky Mod pop? A deliberately bad rock group? A manufactured pop group for a sick age? An art statement? A bad rock group who wanted to be good? The end of rock or a new beginning?

Classicism occurs when you stop asking questions and rely on old answers.

-- Mark Dixon

...................................................

and probably the most relavant point of all...

Only rarely do music critics address a work of art from a position that is even approximately open minded. Most criticism, consciously or not, springs from a set of values or preconceptions. The criticism on ILM is no different.
Such preconceptions are no doubt inevitable and sometimes useful. By observing the qualities that seem to be shared by "approved" work the critic extracts a set of criteria that appear to characterise good work. This is how the human mind works. A model is developed as an aid to judgement and to allow rapid identifidation of the "obviously" second rate so that the critic can reduce the quantity of music deserving serious consideration to a manageable amount.

But inevitable problems arise. Like all generalisations the model was only an approximate fit and as taste changes and develops its inadequacy becomes more and more apparent. It becomes increasingly apparent that, on the basis of the model, valuable work has been rejected and derivative or second rate work overpraised.

"Rockism" was a set of values that appeared to work for a while (ie it suited the prejudices of the age). Many of these values did not derive from rock itself (for example the stress on the importance of "feeling" and emotional authenticity derived from, inter alia, blues and gospel. As in every walk of life conservatives will fight a rearguard action against the notion that certain values they have held dear no longer describe the world we live in.

People who understand the inadequacy of the rockist model should be wary of smugness. We are no doubt substituting another model that will seem just as absurd in 5 or 10 years time.

-- afrobass

I love this post. It pretty much makes me very embarrassed to have used the word, vigilantly even, in the past few years myself.

anyway first, your clarification doesn't sound rockist to me, but in its original context, it sounded rather so. Obviously something fell short to you MUSICALLY, but it seemed like you were arguing that they just hadn't worked hard enough and that there was some minimum amount of work they should have to do in order to make music you would appreciate.

donut christ jumped to your defense because he's defining rockism in the most unbelievably limited way possible - the idea that rockism applies specifically and ONLY to rock fans who hate synthesizers is ludicrous. In thread after thread we've gone over the fact that there are rockists of rock, rockists of hip-hop and YES, rockists in DANCE music - who by Donut's logic can't possibly be rockists because they don't have anything against synths?!

Hey Deej? Remember your intro to that board? Good times.

-- Spencer Chow (spencercho...), January 26th, 2005.

yes, and that's why yr logocentricism analogy doesn't work, because a) rockism is NOT always about an emphasis on live work -- that's why i mentioned experimental works like 'Sgt Pepper', which are non-live but canonical for rockists. b) why the distinction between 'improvisation' and 'experimental recording'? both would seem to be difft aspects of the same thing. experiment can = improv, obv. c) the bit about 'real source and meaning of the truth' is closer to the mark, but has little to do with these concepts in the linguistic sense. the 'realness' factor in rockism is to do with concepts like not being plastic/fake/selling out. ie essentially non-musical things one of whose musical signifiers can be the acoustic guitar, ability to play live, for example. reversing the polarity is a silly game though -- there's nothing WRONG with live work.

Now, I can get off to an over-produced slab of sugary pop just as easily as I can a band that is completely nailing it live. I don't need Britney Spears to be a great live performer, but I also don't need someone like Wilco to necessarily compose a radio friendly single either.

I feel your mocking tone. I don't appreciate it.

Unless someone seriously hijacks the thread and talks about cybernetic Beyoncé robots.

Then: Enter DC.

actually it's kind of odd how annoyed i was at being interpreted as rockist. perhaps i should go for a nightly walk. thanks though.