What Is Rockism ?

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

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.

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.

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

no chillax no cred

"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.

sheeeeit.

that's big.

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

So is this thread ground zero?

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

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 (6 years ago) Bookmark Link

you couldn't make it up.

you have to read 'slash' out loud

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

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

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.

^^^ban

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

*Think you got

sorry, I'm hungover

A love hangover for Geiry-boy.

Geir of the dog

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

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)

Goddamn, Martian stole my record collection in 1989.

holmes is on point re. 12-tone.

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

Is it six times better?

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

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

11 Mansun

THEY CAN GO TOO

why does this feel like a Friday

12 Oasis

13. Tupac

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

15 Tupac Shaker

16 Oasis

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

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

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.

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

Rockism is a ham hock in your corn flakes.

how great is it

fuck off