Are You a "Rockist?"

[NashVegas]

Great article in the NYT on a subject some of us have debated in the Lounge in the past:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/arts/music/31sann.html

Music critics have a word for this kind of verdict, this knee-jerk backlash against producer-powered idols who didn't spend years touring dive bars. Not a very elegant word, but a useful one. The word is rockism, and among the small but extraordinarily pesky group of people who obsess over this stuff, rockism is a word meant to start fights. The rockism debate began in earnest in the early 1980's, but over the past few years it has heated up, and today, in certain impassioned circles, there is simply nothing worse than a rockist.

A rockist isn't just someone who loves rock 'n' roll, who goes on and on about Bruce Springsteen, who champions ragged-voiced singer-songwriters no one has ever heard of. A rockist is someone who reduces rock 'n' roll to a caricature, then uses that caricature as a weapon. Rockism means idolizing the authentic old legend (or underground hero) while mocking the latest pop star; lionizing punk while barely tolerating disco; loving the live show and hating the music video; extolling the growling performer while hating the lip-syncher.

[henslee]

1. Not militant but rockist type friends have taught me to love lots of stuff

I never would have been into, like Ron Wood's first band or the original Fleetwood Mac line up. Cream. Even much later import stuff like Dave Edmunds. Old Byrds. Gene Clark, Graham Parsons. Plus lots of those old 60's studio session players were outta site. Can't get too purist about it though. (on edit) For me, it's all about the sound and oh yeah, talent. The near extinction of the concept album is a sad thing. The whole download singles phenom short changes us all in a way.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. No, I'm a lot worse than that.

I loathe overproduced cookie-cutter pop as much as the worst rock snob, but I think Springsteen is terribly overrated; most of the obscure indie singer-songwriters sound annoyingly similar; rock is nearly dead as a vital form; the cult of the live show is a tiresome excuse for people who are excessively social to go somewhere in a group, get drunk, and be annoying by dropping how they saw so-and-so and it was really fucking great; music videos, in the hands of some artists, are a valid expression fusing the visual and the musical...and, for me, music isn't about some imagined "authenticity" which is, in any case, more often than not something carefully constructed from a dozen disparate influences. It's about actual musical skill (in which I include everything from guitars and drums to completely electronic compositions) and lyrical quality (either as poetry or as vocal instrumentation).

[NashVegas]

3. I Saw So-and-So -- And It WAS Great

:)

Actually I do prefer live shows, now, as a way to be introduced to a band. More surprising that way if they're any good.

I've long been saying in this forum that the disco backlash was the worst thing that ever happened to popular music.

[chicagojoe]

5. I think it was more of a dislike for the trappings, not the music.

[chicagojoe]

4. More victim whining.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the lipsynced, B.S. pop has ALWAYS sucked, and will always suck.
Rock and roll is no place to bring the political correctness police, or to force a level playing field.
You rock or you don't; not everyone is "entitled" to be considered
a bad mo fo. You gotta sweat for that title!!!

[chenGOD]

6. What a load of horse-shit...

So people spit on someone with apparantly no musical talent whatsoever and they get called "rockist"? Give me a break. How is it possible that pop stars "create" guilty pleasure singles? They do not create anything, the producers create it all. Rap can rock just as hard as punk or grunge. Disco divas in the 70's could actually sing.And you can't "argue that the shape-shifting feminist hip-pop of Ms. Aguilera is every bit as radical as the punk rock of the 1970's"(from the article) because she hasn't done anything really different to pop music, except for perhaps show that nowaday female artists need to show a whole lot of skin to satisfy record execs. And to refute the (somewhat confusing)last paragraph of that article wher the author states:"But it does mean we should stop taking it for granted that music isn't as good as it used to be," of course music isn't any worse than it used to be, it's just that the popular music that gets rammed down our throats as it's marketed to 12 year olds is worse than popular music of the past. The author goes on to say that:"...let's stop trying to hammer young stars into old categories."; the record labels are the ones who are the guilties of trying to genrefy and categorize everything. It makes it easier to sell.

Ashlee Simpson and her sister can both go rot.


Oh and by the way, Giorgio Moroder wrote some great tunes. U2 is merely average and the Strokes are neither here nor there (but at least they play their own instruments) and both of them are what I would consider pop music. And I've never heard the term "rockist" before today.

[mitchum]

7. Beautifully said, chenGOD

It's a pity that you're not the one writing about popular music :)
once again, well done

[chenGOD]

9. Thanks.

I don't think I have enough ego to be a music critic. lol

[asthmaticeog]

8. You realize that the NYT

is the LAST place to go for useful writing about music? They're always six months to two years behind the curve. Question: if producer-driven musical product is as valid as artist-driven music, why then are producer-driven "artists" always trying to cadge "rockist" credibilty? What we have here is an industry shill trying to placate the record labels that advertise in the publication he works for. Happens ALL the time. It's why I stopped being a music writer six years ago.

[NashVegas]

10. I Don't Agree With Their Conclusions, But

Simply the fact the phenomena is there.

Liz Phair's most recent album was an excellent example of a "rockist" backlash. She was accused of selling out and all manner of things. What, IMO, many of those same critics missed the first time around was, her melody structures were always downright girly-girl. But throw in a few provocative lyrics and oy! Indie credibility & the (mostly male) critics love you.

Question: if producer-driven musical product is as valid as artist-driven music, why then are producer-driven "artists" always trying to cadge "rockist" credibilty?

Because they're buying into the "rockist" arguments, themselves. How many 16-23 year olds - with a craving for fame - have the kind of confidence needed to see through it?

Question for you: if producer-driven music is so awful, why does anyone give a fuck whether it's Steve Lillywhite or Flood or Eno/Lanois who are producing the latest U2 album? The rock field itself is producer-driven, else no one would know who Steve Albini is, nor care.

Yes, the labels are indeed foisting a shitload of crap down our throats. I certainly wouldn't argue against that. But if you were to turn the clock back 20-25 years, when the phenomena first emerged, there's no denying how incredibly diverse the marketplace was, likewise no denying the effect AOR radio had on fragmenting it, in the name of marketing, to create a perception of format (rock) superiority.