rockjism: good or bad?

[Mary]

pauledwardwagemann said:

I tried to explain it a few pages ago. Basically rockjism is an attempt to define quality. Theres a couple different catagories of quality. Somethings you instinctively recognize as quality. A Rockists will then try to understand why that thing--be it a song, an album an artist, a movement a scene or whatever--is quality. A second kind of quality is something that may be foreign to you, yet somehow interesting. This thing you wont truly recognize as being of quality until you learn much more about it, scrutinize it, put it into context if need be, and develope a functioning understanding of it. Some might argue that the simple fact that something motivates you to go through this process therefore makes that thing a thing of quality. But I don't subscribe to that way of thinking.
Also there are different levels of quality. But before you get into that, you have to first identify something as quality. A Rockist must be able to say, "Look, This (whatever it may be) is quality, and here's why..."
To give the reason that it is quality just because it has the tradtional R-n-R two guitar/bass/drums set-up simply does not fly--and in fact it never did. The reasoning generally has to be much more complex.

This is ludicrous. As an approach to music, the attitude you've described - basically someone who is interested in discerning what makes particular musical works "high quality" - has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with liking rock and roll. The person in question could be a classical music snob who disdains all rock music as culturally debased, simplistic, and juvenile. It would be utter nonsense to describe such an individual as a "rockist" yet clearly they are someone who fits your bizarre definition of rockjism. Electronic music fans and hip-hop fans are just as capable of carefully considering questions about quality as rock music fans. And, for that matter, people who listen exclusively to rock music are just as capable of being thoughtless bonehead "mainstream music" fans incapable of critical thought.

You go on in another post, yet again, to contrast the rockist with that favorite bogeyman, the "mainstream" music fan. Many pages ago I pointed out that you seemed to be conflating rockjism with someone who has indie sensibilities and doesn't listen to "mainstream" music (whatever that means) and you claimed these were two different things. Yet here again you are offering this groundless opposition between "rockists" and "mainstream" music fans. There is nothing inherently anti-mainstream about thinking that rock music is normative for quality music - indeed, that's a pretty fucking mainstream attitude. Nor is there something inherently mainstream about preferring other kinds of music - people who are into electronica are usually very much on the subcultural fringes of popular music fans, much much MUCH further outside the "mainstream" than someone who worships at the well-worshipped altar of the Ramones.

That's not to bag on the Ramones - I love the Ramones - but only to point out that you are weirdly conflating several different distinctions into one and you don't seem to realize it.

As for the discussion about physical involvement in making rock vs. making electronica, what on earth this has to do with the quality of music is completely beyond me. I have no idea why "physical aggression" in music performance should be a criterion of quality - does that mean Liberace is a better piano player than a relatively still and sedate player, just because he's more physically involved in the playing? Is Johnny Ramone a better guitarist than Django Reinhardt for the same reason? What about people who play small wind instruments like piccolos and flutes - they're not nearly as rambunctious as guitarists - so should they be considered lesser musicians? This whole approach seems completely nonsensical.

On some level I can understand disliking Kraftwerk (or, for that matter, Schoenberg) because they seem too dehumanized, too unemotional, too detached, distant, intellectual, abstract, whatever. If you're looking for a particular kind of emotional kick in the stomach from music, then you're not going to like Kraftwerk, or Schoenberg, and that's fine. But there's no obvious reason to me that this kind of emotional release should be the official standard for judging whether or not music is "good" - perhaps Kraftwerk fans are looking for something different in music. Or at least in Kraftwerk. Why does that automatically diminish the quality of the music? I'm at a loss here.

M

[Mary]

On a pure rock geek note, not because I think it has any remote relevance to musical quality, wasn't Jonathan Richman another drug-free rocker?

[Thorngrub]

Is that why he hated Hippie Johnny so much.

[pauledwardwagemann]

Mary, I didnt read all of your post--it started out as kind of agressive and negative, and I'm just not in the mood for that right now--maybe I'll read it later.

zorndeslammes said:

It's a fact that it takes more physical exertion to play a guitar than it does to push buttons on a laptop--even more so if you are engaging exagerated, high adrenilin aerobic moves that are really working the old cardio-vascular system. This increased physical exertion is going to cause the guitar player to release endorphins, dopemeins, etc in a more intense way, and therefore create a much different phyiscal vibe that standing there with a new wave hair do and pressing buttons on a lap top.

Really? Source to your claims that guitar players feel a different rush (because that's what natural opiates like endorphins and dopamines cause) than those involved in electronic music? You're still not providing them. If you don't have them, stop pretending you have factual basis for your claims.

All right zorndeslames--its a fact that the body reacts differently when doing something as physical as playing guitar than when it does something as simple as push buttons on a laptop computer--I've read studies on it, I dont have any links to provide and I'm not really that interested in trying to prove to you that I'm right that I'd go through the trouble of googling to finding them on the internet. If you don't believe me, then oh well. But geez, you'd think a little common sense might be of good use here--because if you use your head, its pretty obvious.

Anyway, moving on(insert Steven Colbert impersonation here).

Semi-related to the legend of the 'brown note' allusion made previously (and tangentially related to the conversation on how music creates 'vibes') I submit a book called "stone age soundtracks" by paul devereux that claimes native americans made Rock music many moons ago.
'Singing stones' have been found all over the globe, along with specific chambers and caves that were used by shamans. Its theorized that the shamanic used these (and other devices) to crate INFRASOUND(very low frequency) which supposedly had what seems to be a magical healing affect. Apparantly these frequencys have a profound effect on us even though we can't really hear them. Technical investigation into infra sound is conducted to test for impact on operators of machinery or those travelling in vehicles (from cars to rockets) and
they found test that at 15-20 hertz all the subjects experienced "sensations of fear,"including shivering. Swaying and drowsiness was commenly reported at frequencies between 5 and 20Hz as was post exposure fatique.

[pauledwardwagemann]

Okay Mary, I went back and skimmed your post. First of all, jsut chill out. It's great you are passionate about this, but I think you are directing this passion on false assumptions. I dont have time right now to address all the issues you brought up, but there is one example of you making a false assumption that I'd like to touch on.

mary said:

As for the discussion about physical involvement in making rock vs. making electronica, what on earth this has to do with the quality of music is completely beyond me. I have no idea why "physical aggression" in music performance should be a criterion of quality - does that mean Liberace is a better piano player than a relatively still and sedate player, just because he's more physically involved in the playing? Is Johnny Ramone a better guitarist than Django Reinhardt for the same reason? What about people who play small wind instruments like piccolos and flutes - they're not nearly as rambunctious as guitarists - so should they be considered lesser musicians? This whole approach seems completely nonsensical.

Here you've jumped the gun. I never said that physically aggressive method of making music makes it of a higher quality than less agressive music. Specifically what I said was that it 'creates a different vibe'. A vibe that just standing there pushing buttons on a laptop does not create.
Maybe you don't agree with that, in which case we can discuss that.
But if you do agree with it, then it opens up the idea that one criteria for quality may be diversity, for Rock can achieve many different vibes--one being the physically agressive vibe, but Rock can also create a vibe that is as atmospheric as Kraftwerk or computer laptop music.

[rockysigman]

thorny said:

Is that why he hated Hippie Johnny so much.

Hippie Johnny's drug use what the narrator of the song thinks makes him better than Hippie Johnny, but the real reason that he hates Hippy Johnny is because he's snogged the girl he's after.

[Paul]

"Here you've jumped the gun. I never said that physically aggressive method of making music makes it of a higher quality than less agressive music. Specifically what I said was that it 'creates a different vibe'. A vibe that just standing there pushing buttons on a laptop does not create.
Maybe you don't agree with that, in which case we can discuss that.
But if you do agree with it, then it opens up the idea that one criteria for quality may be diversity, for Rock can achieve many different vibes--one being the physically agressive vibe, but Rock can also create a vibe that is as atmospheric as Kraftwerk or computer laptop music. "

I've never considered myself a rockist, never even heard about it until this thread, but I pretty much agree w/ everything written above...Now some bands like Wilco give us the best of both worlds...Forgot the guys name, but he uses a Mac to loop stuff live, and Mission Of Burma were very early pioneers of this as well...I'm not against electronics, and I do understand that a lot of emotion can be packed into the music, but IMPO there is a whole other vibe at work when people are using instruments and feeding off each other.....I have no fucking clue how to explain it, it's just shit I've observed over the years...Again, I'm not anti-electronic, I worship the Beastie Boys for crying out loud, I just think anytime something is programmed, spontaneity gets somewhat diminished...and that spontaneity can make all of the difference when people are jamming w/ instruments...

[Thorngrub]

rockist, I dunno . . .highly opinionated about music, hell yes. Um, thas all I got to say right now on the matter.
Can't wait to see Hank III + Assjack 1 week from today.

[Kensterberg]

Here is the Wickipedia definition of "rockjism" (BTW, this is the top hit on Google for the term) ...

rockjism is an ideology of popular music criticism, originating in the British music press in the late 1970s or early 1980s. The fundamental tenet of rockjism is that some forms of popular music, and some musical artists, are more authentic than others. More specifically, authentic popular music fits the rock and roll paradigm; it is made using the basic rock instrumentation of guitars, bass guitars and drums, and fits the structures of a rock and roll song.

In a lot of ways, I fit this definition. I not only like the sound of two guitars, bass, and drums, I think it's one of the most effective ways to communicate certain musical and social messages. I like the ideology of people playing songs they wrote themselves, and I like the idea of capturing a moment of interaction between these people. And I'm really prone to saying that music that embodies these traits (as well as some other, in many cases more important, ones) is "better" than music that doesn't. But ultimately, I can't say that I am a "rockist" by this definition, or by the principles that PEW is trying to articulate (as best I can follow those, any way).

While I value spontaneity, it doesn't matter how spontaneous something is if it sucks. And it doesn't matter how planned something is if it feels like it was created on the spot. A lot of the stuff that Bono or Bruce do on stage is planned (at least in part) in advance. They pull it off because when they are performing they get caught up in the moment and it feels like the first time they've ever said those words or done that move. When a large jazz ensemble is playing well, the sound that comes out is absolutely amazing, as these slinky, creative grooves appear from twenty or so musicians -- who appear to have thought of them in lock-step! In reality, they're all just playing the parts that are written down for them, while only the solos are at all "improvised." In the end, it is the appearence of spontaneity that matters, not the fact.

Also, not all musical ideas are served well by spontaneous or primitive performances. An awful lot of good/great dance music falls into this category, as does practically all classical music. I am moved practically to tears by the totality of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, a piece which the composer never got to "hear" b/c he was completely deaf by that point. Beethoven wrote out the entirety of the Ninth Symphony based solely upon the sounds he heard in his head: this is one man's artistic vision, brought to life through the efforts of other people trying to reproduce this unheard music. At its debut, Beethoven conducted the Ninth himself, counting on the musicians to keep up with his direction. At the end of the piece, he remained with his back to the audience, deaf to the thunderous applause filling the auditorium, until he was turned around to see and acknowledge his well wishers.

How is someone programming a piece on their computer different than Beethoven in this regard? How is laying down layers of tracks recorded separately distinguishable? It is not spontaneity or even group interaction that is ultimately the key to great music, it is artistic vision and the execution of that vision.

Finally, much is being made of the impact that playing an instrument or layering sounds has on the performer, but what about the audience? Yes, a mosh pit is chock full of adrenalin (and almost always testosterone), but so is a dance floor (and with a lot more estrogen, making it ultimately at least sexually a more democratic and open forum). Is the interaction between artist and audience fundamentally different based upon the types of instruments involved? I (quite frankly) don't think so, and this is a subject which I've given a LOT of thought to over the last five or so years.

There are assholes in every artistic genre who don't give a fuck about their fans, or anyone else. There are also folks in every genre who are gracious and giving with their audience, who don't hold themselves out as being "special" and separate. In many ways, DJs are much more a part of their audience than are musicians who often adopt a "rock-star" or "diva" mentality. (This is IMHO a large part of why rap and hip-hop became the overwhelmingly dominate musical forms among the disenfranchised urban population, as these performers initially were very much a part of their local communities in ways that rockers have not been for some years: both rap and hip-hop started out as extremely regional scenes, and even today there is generally more local and regional affiliation for rappers than for rockers). I like artists (generally) who recognize that they are not "above" or even "apart" from their audience, but merely the lucky ones who got singled out and recognized. There are a lot of rockers who embody this, but they certainly don't have a monopoly on it. For that matter, I had the privelege of once seeing Yo-Yo Ma perform a recital with only a piano accompaniment. I was only a few rows back, and the energy of his performance was absolutely incredible - every bit as physical, emotional, and gripping as any rock show. And the man was incredibly giving and gracious with the audience, chatting about the pieces he was playing, why he thought it was important for someone with his reputation to go out and play these kind of shows and this kind of music (French pieces for solo cello and piano), why classical music is still relevant, etc. It was absolutely spellbinding, and I cannot imagine more "authentic" music and interaction, although there was absolutely nothing "rock and roll" about it.

Hope this all made some sort of sense ... that was basically a stream of consciousness ramble with little or no editing for form or content, so if it doesn't make sense, that's why. Feel free to ask questions, pick it apart, whatever ...

[kmc]

I generally disagree with just about everything that has been proposed on this board.

I love Daft Punk. I think Discovery is one of the greatest albums ever. With synthesizers and machines and computers and whatever, those guys created one of the warmest albums of all time; an album that almost always kicks the party off wherever it's played, an album that is instantly recognizable, is transcendent, and is every other cliche that you can attribute to well crafted music.

I cannot think of a single argument that can be crafted to support the opinion that the mood created by a dude banging on a set of drums is better, more physical, or otherwise more valid than the mood Daft Punk creates with Discovery.

That said, for P.E.W.: As a "rockist", you must be familiar with the Radiohead catalog. Can you claim that "The Bends" is inherently a better, more emotional, more physically demanding album than "Kid A" simply because the fact that one album is more "rock", and another more "electronic"?

[luke]

kmc said:

That said, for P.E.W.: As a "rockist", you must be familiar with the Radiohead catalog. Can you claim that "The Bends" is inherently a better, more emotional, more physically demanding album than "Kid A" simply because the fact that one album is more "rock", and another more "electronic"?

Well, there's quite a few other reasons, but surely this is at least one of them? ;D

[bowiglou]

........never heard this term before, i.e., rockist/rockjism..............I just like what I like and akin to Ken (whoo.....neat alliteration!!) I tend to gravitate to your basic 2 guitar/1 bass/1 drum +/- one vocalist!!.............however, I have loved the occasional symphonic touch to rock (e.g, Elton John's Funeral for friend/love lies bleeding or intro to Waterboys 'church not made with hands'), keyboards (i.e, Neil Young, Cat Stevens) and all types of horn sections (60s era motown)...............but I will admit, the electronica/hip-hop genre has pretty much flown under my radar..............but I'm not one to say "all the great music was made in (fill in the decade) ______________"...........I'm sure there are quality bands/artists/DJs, etc. nowadays that rival the best of any given decade, I just have nary a clue who they are.........

However, alot of you bring up some great points/tangents........as for internet exposure, though I'm somewhat savvy with computers, and a few years ago I did spend a disproportionate amount of time on Kazaa-lite, nowadays I get all my music via legal purchasing (!) and really only find out about worthwhile purchases via you all and certain mags such as Mojo/uncut...so I'm wondering if the internet exposure to music will primarily be the domain of the younger ones (approx age < 35) whereas for us older farts, we will still rely on recommendations, word of mouth, and written reviews (I intentionally exlude radio)................

And Mary, I loved the allusion to the mainstream 'bogeyman'!!...........I have listened to rock since Feb of 1964 and have counted among my favorites bands that could be considered ridiculously popular (and now indie types might refer to them as sell-outs!!) such as the Beatles and the Stones......and I loved the first half of Elton John's catalogue...and adore Bowie and the Doors, both of whom were huge.......so I'm mainstream all the way............but then when punk/new wave came out, I loved the Clash, Ramones, Magazine, Talking Heads, etc....all of whom were popular (some more so than others).......so if one likes mainstream or classical or jazz or blues (or any combination thereof) or the 'divas' or only bands you can find on diffult-to-locate indie labels, it all comes down to just the simple notion of enjoying the music you personally enjoying and respecting what others like...........I really don't care if someone solely gravitates to Brittney/Aguilliera, etc. and others of that ilk...................that is their choice....though, as I type this, I do realize I may have more in common with someone who counts VU amongst their faves as opposed to Brittney!!.......................

[Paul]

........never heard this term before, i.e., rockist/rockjism..............I just like what I like

Yep, that's pretty much it for me too.

I like instruments more so than electronics, but some really neat things have been done by some of my favorite artist using electronics (Beasties, Wilco, Mission of Burma, Radiohead). Plus, I'm a sucker for horns, and is one of the many reasons why I think Arthur by the Kinks is one of the greatest rock ablums ever made. However, I still think like PEW was talking about, there are different vibes that musicians get more so than just relying on electronics...and bands like Radiohead, and Wilco have figured out how to do both, and very well I might ad. All in all what I like about those bands are the multiple layers within the music/song...it makes repeated listens better.

[zorndeslammes]

All right zorndeslames--its a fact that the body reacts differently when doing something as physical as playing guitar than when it does something as simple as push buttons on a laptop computer--I've read studies on it, I dont have any links to provide and I'm not really that interested in trying to prove to you that I'm right that I'd go through the trouble of googling to finding them on the internet. If you don't believe me, then oh well. But geez, you'd think a little common sense might be of good use here--because if you use your head, its pretty obvious.

Its not. I've played guitar. I've played with turntables and Fruit Loops.

Anyway, moving on(insert Steven Colbert impersonation here).

Semi-related to the legend of the 'brown note' allusion made previously (and tangentially related to the conversation on how music creates 'vibes') I submit a book called "stone age soundtracks" by paul devereux that claimes native americans made Rock music many moons ago.
'Singing stones' have been found all over the globe, along with specific chambers and caves that were used by shamans. Its theorized that the shamanic used these (and other devices) to crate INFRASOUND(very low frequency) which supposedly had what seems to be a magical healing affect. Apparantly these frequencys have a profound effect on us even though we can't really hear them. Technical investigation into infra sound is conducted to test for impact on operators of machinery or those travelling in vehicles (from cars to rockets) and
they found test that at 15-20 hertz all the subjects experienced "sensations of fear,"including shivering. Swaying and drowsiness was commenly reported at frequencies between 5 and 20Hz as was post exposure fatique.

[/i]

Uhh, so? What does that prove exactly? How does it differ from the sounds of electronic music (noted particularly because of the deep bass seen in Miami Bass or Deep House, for instance)? You haven't provided any evidence at all with this, nor noted how it should matter to the listener.

[pauledwardwagemann]

zorndeslammes said:

Uhh, so? What does that prove exactly?

It proves nothing--its just food for thought, which you seem to be in dire need of...