What Is Rockism ?

Perhaps it's time to stop calling it 'rockism' then. This debate is terminologically muddled.

an imagined fear, in other words

while I understand the defensiveness on the part of professional critics and editors, is it really so controversial to say, rather than overturning rockism once and for all, poptimism won the battle but lost the war? it would be very unlikely for us to win, ever! the power of rockist prestige to elevate, that the market leverages to sell artists to a different segment of listeners, rests on the existence and distinction between the beyond-the-pale lcd pop that poptimism tells us to reconsider

is it really so controversial to ask for people making these two very similar arguments to point out concrete examples of them in action?

I don't have any names to list off, to tell the truth I only know the names of a handful of music critics, and couldn't tell you that much about any of them. I might be alone in here in never having done any professional music writing, though I do read quite a bit of it.

The point I was trying to make, perhaps clumsily, is that there is a huge spectrum of commentary between respected critics at one end at NV's mates down the pub at the other, and for most of this spectrum the attitude I'm describing is absolutely present. Poptimism, on the other hand - basically I only ever encounter it on here and a couple of other places. Celebrity journalism is everywhere of course, but that's hardly the same thing.

Do I need to give an example of the patronizing way so many writers talk about the music tastes of teenage girls? Not on here, sure, but ILM is in this respect not at all representative.

I might be alone in here in never having done any professional music writing

new board desc obv

Do I need to give an example of the patronizing way so many writers talk about the music tastes of teenage girls?

I think mark's point is yes?

i would seriously like to see a list of the two schools drawn up, preferably w.attention paid to the best writers on each side (hence not lefsetz)

i think it might move the conversation on a bit: 17 years is a ridiculously long time to be pawing at the same bald spot

i continue to think it's a deeply stupid way to frame the discussion -- maura's arguments are to me far more germane, abt the practical pressures from newspapers and magazines and websites making decisions about content, and how these imagined economics affects the writers that can adapt and (even more) the writers not really prepared to

celebrity culture has been with us for decades; bad writing has been with us a LOT longer -- speaking as an editor (more aggressive here than defensive) repurposing the latter as a squabble abt the genres covered is the worst way to tackle a decline in quality; some actual concrete examples would be a lot more useful

adding: most of the worst writing i've had to deal professionally has been writing about the avant garde, which continues to be still far more badly served than rock (whatever it now is) or rap or pop

Afraid I don't have the resources, time or bookmarks required to search out the best examples, sorry.

Would any of these count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism_and_poptimism#References

phony poptimism has bitten the daaaaahst

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a55035/harry-styles-is-the-next-frank-sinatra/

possibly, pomenitul, but you've got to make a bit more effort than that if you want to persuade me this is in any sense a worthwhile avenue

I suppose I'm confused as to the degree of 'extremism' these putative pieces are meant to exhibit. Are we looking for perfect, Platonic exemplars of each position (which would probably flirt would Poe's law anyhow), or does, say, Michael Hann's Quietus article already fit bill? Or Kelefa Sanneh's, for that matter?

oh man I glanced at that Saul Austerlitz article from 2014.

my rule of thumb is that no high-profile article yet written about the face-off between the two schools can have been much good, as we're still stuck at the same place

what i'm asking for is examples from each of the two schools, preferably ones which are well written -- ideally with some analysis of why their strengths are actually undermined, either by their rockism or their poptimism

I'll bite.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7423962/taylor-swift-feminism-impact

ok, in defense of using this as an example, part of the point is the sheer glut of this stuff and the attendant lack of quality. This is content. But the bizarre connections it makes between pop music and denuded social justice concepts, completely decontextualised, is a defining feature of a lot of this stuff that gets tossed in front of my eyeballs. I'm precisely not saying this is poptimism, or even really journalism, but there's a lot of it and it's everywhere (theguardian.com sidebar I feel is always pushing this kind of pop criticism) and I definitely think that some of its assumptions are the corrupted legacy of poptimism. By the way, I've been working in a school with autistic children and I've heard shake it off by taylor swift at least once a day, every day, since september, and part of my antipathy towards this kind of stuff comes from that.

How about this one? I've brought it up repeatedly, but no one ever deigns to touch it:

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/what-if-you-dont-like-beyonces-album/

wait, that is not in response to mark s, my line itt is pretty unrelated to what you are saying in your last post.

it is, i'm not arguing with everyone in the thread (yet)

puzzled why you think that is well written, pomenitul -- it seems a very feeble bit of badge-polishing to me

It's not, I hadn't realized good writing is a sine qua non criterion in this little game.

It’s exhausting to be in a constant state of awe. It’s not as fun as watching the train wreck that is Miley Cyrus. Beyoncé’s sexuality is polished and sophisticated, with none of the edgy vulgarity offered by Rihanna. There’s such a thing as being too well put together, and Beyoncé briefly crossed over into that space for me.

1. I would argue that the de-hegemonization of the album as musical form is as much due to technological factors as it is to creative backlash.

2. If we define "poptimism" as an opposition to the "authenticity" narrative, does this make THEESatisfaction, who openly flaunt their authenticity, rockist?

3. Poptimism is not populism.

4. The difference between "rockism" and "poptimism" is not a matter of critical approach, which is nearly always too sophisticated to fall into either camp, but refers primarily to the tribal affinities of music listeners.

If you don’t like the new Beyoncé album, reevaluate what you want out of music

This shit is what drives me crazy. The idea, basically, that there is no music but Big Pop. If pop music criticism could exalt the virtues of well-done pop while allowing for the idea that other, very different types of music do exist and are also very good on their own terms, that might be something I'd be interested in reading. Say, if someone analyzed a Beyoncé record alongside an Ambrose Akinmusire record as two contemporaneous facets of 21st century African-American music. But who's doing that besides, say, Greg Tate?

that statement, while it is prima facie idiotic, isn't actually exclusionary in the sense that you read it - it doesn't say that one can _only_ like beyonce, but that one _has_ to like beyonce. it's ridiculous hyperbole, which is well established as part of the critical tradition.

4. The difference between "rockism" and "poptimism" is not a matter of critical approach, which is nearly always too sophisticated to fall into either camp, but refers primarily to the tribal affinities of music listeners.

This is not how I've heard almost anyone use these terms, nor how they are primarily definedhere or even in the Sanneh. In all of these cases, people are mostly talking about critics, not about Wimmels's uncle.

I think the name poptimism is itself very clever, and speaks to some sort of magpie aspect of poptimisms outlook, finding something recuperable out of the ruinous pop landscape of talent-show rejects, reality-stars vanity projects and novelty songs.

Isn't "you MUST like this music" just a hallmark of bad music writing rather than of any particular ideological stance?

Why not both?

it's pretty clearly just "bad writing is bad"

If you don’t like the new Beyoncé album, reevaluate what you want out of music, because she’s giving us the exact type of commitment we so often demand of our artists.

It's the final clause that makes it rockist

This is not how I've heard almost anyone use these terms, nor how they are primarily definedhere or even in the Sanneh. In all of these cases, people are mostly talking about critics, not about Wimmels's uncle.

― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r)

honestly i mean no offence by this but the only people i've ever heard talk about rock critics are other rock critics.

Isn't the entire article the confession of someone who feels forced to reevaluate what they want out of music so as not to appear out of touch with the Zeitgeist? Sounds ideological to me.

I mean maybe my take on this is not right, I feel like "rockism" vs "poptimism" is not so much about whether guitars are involved, it's about whether you think "for a pop song to merit serious criticism we have to see it as a work of art produced by a genius who stands above their peers" vs "one way to think about pop songs is as massively multi-authored industrial products which we can admire and write criticism about just as we would a really fucking amazing toaster"

Valuing or demanding authenticity, commitment, 'real talent', making statements, great works of art - none of these things began with rock music or rock criticism. At one time, they were often used against rock. If "rockism" means anything useful at all (which I have doubts about), it has to mean something more than this.

And yes, that piece is also rockist in the broadest sense of the term.

Sund4r OTM

honestly i mean no offence by this but the only people i've ever heard talk about rock critics are other rock critics.

I'm not offended at all, especially given that I'm not a rock critic, but these are also the only people I've heard talk about rockism and poptimism.

I think a trite confused term is fine for a quick summary dismissal of a trite confused attitude

Ha, I guess my last post is self-contradictory.

the more might be this, sund4r: not those ideals so much as the the importing of all of those ideals into discussions of a pop form -- rock! -- which was most interesting because at first it seemed to it challenge or complicate or refuse them, for example

(it originally had the same relationship sexism had to sex, it wasn't anti-rock at all: just anti some ways of talking about it)

If you don’t like the new Beyoncé album, reevaluate what you want out of music, because she’s giving us the exact type of commitment we so often demand of our artists.

It's the final clause that makes it rockist

It's the word "we" in the final clause that makes it rockist! :)

"rockism", as a derogatory term, seems to me an indictment of whatever the interlocutor feels are the toxic qualities of rock. which vary from person to person. so for instance i'm unimpressed with the singer-songwriter cult and rock's deification of the white male, but others may find different qualities, such as its embrace of "authenticity", to criticize.

it seems that a term which has never attained a generally-agreed-upon definition would be useless, but here we are.

we will never agree on anything as we agreed on elvis. so i won't bother saying goodbye to his corpse. i will say goodbye to you

It's the word "we" in the final clause that makes it rockist! :)

― Tim

"is that the royal we or the schizophrenic we", my dad always used to say.

elvis is dead?

Every time this topic comes up it feels like a dialogue of the deaf. About music, no less.

well at least it's not about architecture

we will never agree on anything again than when we agreed that Elvis is dead.