Douglas Wolk, clearheaded, on rockism

Honestly scott, I have this argument every time somebody spots my Britney badge.

I did point out it was a straw man position, tho.

We just have to recognize that conviction about and empathy with music should be a more fluid thing that's less bound up in self-image.

Haha, too bad we can't all afford proper Lacanian analysis!

HAHAHAHAHAH..except it's what.. "rock", "rot", and "pop!"

Spencer Chow otm. That said, the final paragraph of the article concerns me. A lot.

One word for reading widely and maintaining awareness of other discourses and other touchstones is "responsibility." But another word for what's described in the position that we ought to "stage raids on other kinds of culture criticism: great writing about movies, about literature, about food" -- dilettantism.

That "great" may be the most troubling moment, as it ::dear god, I swore I'd never use this word again:: reinscribes another normative discourse on top of the one it seeks to erase. Replacing old touchstones with new ones solves nothing -- reliance on touchstones and criteria for greatness represents the very foundation of rockism.

xpost - which is what mrjosh is getting at a couple posts up - damn this thread is moving quickly

I don't know, I think in saying that you want things explained or that you want to explain it is totally all about meaning. See, I don't have a problem with the idea of meaning, though I do have a problem with the idea of a correct meaning. I mean, logos = truth; I think Deleuze is better understood in saying that we don't want to erect a monolithic interpretation and to understand that there should be a proliferation of interpretations, which is sorta beneficial and stimulating to everyone involved.

I agree with this; I meant I want them to explain their interaction, not some universal truth about the music.

Yeah, but I meant critic-wise. But then I remembered that I used to live in Philly and that I sometimes read Tom Moon's reviews and that he was probably guilty of this. And the last time I got seriously pissed-off by an article (other than Hornby's fuckin' nightmare in the NYT) was Moon's thing in Esquire ot GQ where he dismissed R.Kelly as someone who didn't have anything to say to anybody. Anything REAL. Anything POSITIVE. Then he went on to lionize whatever neo-soul titan was floating his boat that week. Someone suitably noble and full of grace.

But I did call Baltimore club music the new Dylan! Wait, maybe that is rockist. Now I'm all bugaboo!

Reasons why auteurist theory falls apart.

I'd be interested in getting to more of what I was talking about upthread - the ways in which critics use rockism to control discourse, and how we can use deconstruction to map out how critics create this heirarchy that says the Beatles made the best record of the 20th Century, for example (see: Rolling Stone's 2003 list of the best albums of all time).

it made me miss my missing of the last emp pop music studies conference all the more.

i was going to write a bunch of things after reading it, but either the noodle vague person said them very eloquently already, or i got so embroiled in reading the thread i forgot what i was gonna say.

i for one have very spotty, primarily self-taught understandings of folks like derrida. i never finished my undergrad degree. but it does seem rather obvious that a lot of this sort of critical rethink regarding the "normative" nature of pop/rock is happening NOW: after 50 years of rock music, a hundred and twenty years of recorded popular music, and roughly forty years of pop/rock criticism. most art forms went through a similar thing critically in the '60s, (notably of course conceptual/ pop artists and postmodern authors), which in its own way made even the concept of pop/rock ("low" culture) criticism possible. the influence of academia on pop/rock crit. is greater today than it was in the '80s when you mostly couldn't write for the "voice" unless you limply quoted baudrillard -- and this is a good thing, but i'll get to that in a second.

i've always thought that what's held back the pop/rock discourse has been more than anything how popular/ "populist" it is. i refer not to the seymour glass approach to music writing (this power-noise-jazz trio is good at least partly because they're unpopular) versus the chuck eddy method (this hair metal band is good at least partly because they're not unpopular), but how commodity-centered and release date/ad-money-driven pop/rock writing is -- the simple/ obvious fact that music writing is an extension of the entertainment industry's need to continually sell more product.

and while i initially balked at the idea of contemporary music studies entering academia, it appears that much of what's being done there is at least a bit fueled by the sort of focused, intense, and marketplace-free FANDOM one used to only find in 'zines, which tended to be written --not so well-- by malcontents living in their mothers' basements. (i don't feel the need to enumerate what's good about 'zines since i've done them, slowly and irregularly, for 22 years myself. and yeah, we all know blogs have replaced 'zines, for the most part.)

i can't wait to read tim ellison's thesis on psychedelic rock or whatever the hell it's on. he's always been one of my favorite writers and it's awesome/ only right and natural that he can get a degree based on this work.

Bernie Gendron's book, From Montmarte to the Mudd Club, is pretty good on this count and really gets at the history of these kinds of debates as they've played out in relation to the avant-garde and popular music over the course of the twentieth century.

hah. lo siento.

hah. lo siento.

Lethal, this is why those Deleuzian comments seem out of place. This is about taste and gatekeeping, about hierarchies of value, so the obvious go-to man is Bourdieu. If you're going to throw theory around, that is.

Bernie Gendron's book, From Montmarte to the Mudd Club, is pretty good on this count and really gets at the history of these kinds of debates as they've played out in relation to the avant-garde and popular music over the course of the twentieth century.

I don't mean to "throw theory around," I just picked that quote up from the debate on dissensus! and I think those deleuze quotes definitely relete to this discussion in a very real way.

...in a very real way. I will definitely check out that book though.

ill admit that when i first heard the phrase, i filed it in my mental dictionary as a synonym for "elitist".

(or for that matter, the "wrong" politics)

fyi, i've just started a publishing venture with steve from puncture -- the first two titles are gonna be a thick-ass book/ cd "chemical imbalance" best-of and a collection of essays/ writings by luc sante, so i'm very psyched about that! [working title for the c.i. book: "In Love With Those Times: The Best of C.I." -- izzat too flying nun-centric/ stolen, or what?]

i don't remember ever reading a brodsky book all the way through either but i do find him a much better "difficulut" writer than any of the mcsweeneys clan and remain curious re: his lack of renown. game theory = acquired taste, to be sure.

[[has heart attack, dies]]

I'd like to be really annoying and quote myself in order to expand this a bit (in a basic way) and explain why it's a problem.

The "source of true meaning" is problematic because it denies cultural mediation. Most people adhere to a Cartesian worldview "naturally" because it is "apparent" (i.e. *I* attach meaning to things myself and I have agency and authority over my life and my artistic output). Psychoanalysis (among other things) finally taught us to challenge this whole and rational ideal of the self and to recognize the subject's definition from without. The end result of this challenge should be a lessening of the importance of the individual author of a work and a recognition that the work does not spring forth fully formed from the pure unmediated mind of the artist. However, rockism clings to this heroic view of a soulful and pure authorial intent, thereby priviliging singer-songwriting, virtuosity, the live (present) experience, and the timeless nature of true music; and at the same time decries the studio, the producer, recorded music, technology (although the specific technology changes over time), and ephemeral music.

And Spencer, you're just reiterating what I suggested about discourse, and what Douglas was saying about normativity: they each set up regimes of meaning, value and understanding which many people take for granted, or as simple common sense.

More to your point, what precisely is "complex"?

I wanted to explicitly expand upon my logocentrism definition because I've found it's better to overexplain on ILM because people are coming from so many different places.

I wish Drew Daniel was here.

On the other hand, I could say that I like "Go All the Way" by the Raspberries more than I like "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" by the Rubinoos because I think there's a little more to it.

-- Haikunym (zinogu...), May 6th, 2005 4:44 PM. (later)

I'm late to the party, but I'd like to throw my hat in with Haikunym and everyone else who pushed for a non-rockcentric definition of rockism -- for example, techno fans can be rockist about techno just as rock fans can be rockist about rock.

Also, if this is the least insane rockism thread we've ever had then it's because we've already had 918324 rockism debates* and are tired of yelling at each other, moreso than the genius of DW's article (which is very well written, though).

*I specifically didn't say "we've already had the *same* debate 918324 times" because this one is clearly covering fresher ground, so three cheers for that.

Also, Tim, again "rockism" does not necessarily relate directly to the qualities of "rock" music (although it often does).

Also, saying the rockism debate is over is pure rockism! (I keed!!)