rockjism: good or bad?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I really dig music and I don't care who did it first (though those thing interest me), how long it's been around, who thinks it's cool and who doesn't. I listen to music for me and not pass it off as another form fashion like some sweatshop shoes that some white kid thinks is fasionable in NYC that day. I love everything about music, whether I hate the band or not.

Rockist........please..........

[pauledwardwagemann]

rockysigman said:

ILX is another internet music forum. I know that is where Ishvaku really picked up on the whole "rockist" thing, so I thought maybe you got into the debate there too.

No, I heard about it awile ago, but within the last year or two its been talked about alot on the Sound Opinion board (being from Chicago you might be familar with that board, no?)

skvorisdeadsorta said:

I really dig music and I don't care who did it first (though those thing interest me), how long it's been around, who thinks it's cool and who doesn't. I listen to music for me and not pass it off as another form fashion like some sweatshop shoes that some white kid thinks is fasionable in NYC that day. I love everything about music, whether I hate the band or not.

Rockist........please..........

I agree with you about Music. But I also think that its important to be able to recognize quality in music instead of just going with whatever the corporate music industry is telling you is good. rockjism IMO helps create the language for people to do that and discuss it.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

No. The coporate music industry gave me the following good records: The Afghan Whigs (electra), Frank Zappa (Warner Bros I believe) , Captain Beefheart (WB), Sonic Youth(Geffen), Nirvana(Geffen), Dinosaur Jr(Sire), The Breeders(Electra), The Pixies(Electra and yes I know they started on 4AD along with the Breeders), John Coltrane, Miles Davis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Talking Heads, Public Enemy, The Ramones, NWA, The Velvet Underground, Mr. Bungle, Faith No More, Smashing Pumpkins, Blondie, Metallica, Slayer, The Black Crowes, The Allman Brothers, The Kings of Leon, The Strokes, The Flaming Lips, Wilco, Bjork, Prince, The Who, The Hives, man......I could go on and on and on and on and on............

Indie stuff is a phenomenon of the late 70s early 80s, though I know of Sun, Motown, Stax, Trojan, and a couple of others that pre date that era.

The only thing rockjism does is make you sound like an elitist freak.

[pauledwardwagemann]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

The only thing rockjism does is make you sound like an elitist freak.

I dont think I'm an elitist freak, just a big fan of music.
Maybe 20 or 30 years ago you could find alot of good bands through the corporate music industry, but the bulk of the good bands out today are on Indie labels. And even Indie labels are becoming too mainstream now. Eventually I think we'll just see bands realizing that they do not need labels at all--and then they will really be DIY. Its really not that expensive to record a song--or even an album and tack it up on the internet so that millions of people have access to you. All the corporate music industry can do for a band is publisize them--which has nothing to do with how 'good' the band is anyway, does it? It seems like on a daily basis the corporate music industry takes the worst peice of crap on earth, dresses it up, slaps some cred onto it, then packages it as a quality product, when in actuallity it is generic dishsoap in a fancy box.
If you want to let the corporate music industry dictate to you what is quality, then by all means go ahead. But a true Rockist isn't buying that sh*t. A true Rockist decides what is quality for himself.

[Kensterberg]

I've got a fundemental problem with the idea that "the internet makes it possible for a band to put out its music to millions of people" idea ...

How many people download music from bands they've never heard of? More importantly, how many people will pay for music from a band they've never heard of, or heard? How does a band get exposure from the internet, and then translate that exposure into money in the band's pocket? If you don't get played on the radio, booked onto tours, and/or exposure on TV, how the hell are you going to get people to check out your web site (and ultimately pay money to hear/see you), etc.?

Labels are ultimately promoters, and the trick to making money as a musician still largely lies in promotion. In the rare instance that a band is able to successfully hype itself on the internet (i.e. Arctic Monkeys), how long does it take the indie kids to scream "sell-out!" when the band (gasp!) actually manages to sell albums and get paying gigs? Not too fucking long, from what I can see.

There is a perverse ethos among a certain group that equates popularity and quality as automatically engaged in an inverse relationship. This just isn't the case: from Bach through the Beatles, the Clash, Nirvana, and Radiohead, great musicians have found at least a modicum of popularity. And if rock and roll (or music more generally) is going to also exist as a social force, it needs to be heard by a broad enough cross-section of society to become a part of our cultural consciousness. Elvis Presley was a great singer, an incredible interpreter of songs, but really he's much more than that. The man is literally an icon, a representation of an ideal of Elvisness that is bigger than any person could be. If Elvis had only been heard by a few random listeners on a web site, he'd still have been just as good, but he would not have been Elvis.

And most people won't take the time and effort to seek out music on the internet ... they bump into it on the radio, in films and TV, and (increasingly) in commercials. Honest to god, if I were an aspiring musician today who wanted to make an impact on people, I'd be looking for all the placements in TV shows and commercials I could find. Especially commercials. It's a win-win for the artist: you get paid by a guy who then goes and pays other people to play your song as often as possible, for as many people as possible.

Popular music has to be heard, and rock and roll is popular music, or at least it used to be.

[rockysigman]

I don't know to what degree it's happening, Ken, but it's happening. The internet is exposing a ton of bands to new audiences. Every serious band out there has a website with free songs on it, or at least a MySpace page. No, they don't make money directly from people listening to songs on their sites, but I guarantee that there are a ton of bands that have gained audiences at their shows and sold more CDs because people were able to hear them for free online first. Not to mention all of the other music media out there reviewing music on the internet, and message boards such as this one where people hear about new music from other people on a scale that was impossible before the internet. The ways in which the internet is capable of exposing a band to a new audience are endless.

[Kensterberg]

I think that a band certainly needs to have some sort of internet presence today, but I don't think that the net is any sort of panacea, and certainly doesn't lead to the automatic end of record labels (or some similar creature). For one thing, it doesn't address the question of getting out of the "rockist" ghetto and into the wider culture. There've been bands making their reputation largely on word of mouth and specialty avenues for decades -- hell, U2 initially made their mark in the US this way -- but in order to really break through, you've got to do something that gets to Joe Public, the guy who would enjoy your music if he heard it, but who won't actively seek it out. You've got to have a With or Without You that gets played on the radio, in soundtracks, that the guy hears and goes "Hey, I like that a lot, I'm gonna pick this up when I see it at my local store" or grab it as he goes through the check-out at Target.

I dunno, maybe I'm under-estimating you youngsters today, b/c I think that the vast majority of people need to have exposure to stuff -- they won't seek out things themselves. Maybe that won't be the case in the future, maybe in 20 years the idea of listening to the radio will be completely over and everyone will aggressively go out and find stuff that speaks to them ... but I doubt it.

Yeah, the internet certainly is playing a part in breaking new bands (again, Arctic Monkeys), but is it ultimately putting money in their pockets? Is it getting them gigs? And for that matter, when you look at Arctic Monkeys, where do you go to buy their music? Best Buy and other "corporate" stores, and iTunes or other commercial sites. All the internet buzz in the world doesn't let a band make a living from making music unless there's a way to turn it into sales and gigs. And as of now, that means you need to have a promoter, a manager, a label, something that helps you get the word out.

And also, how many musicians are great internet promoters? Not that many, I would just wager. So at a minimum, if you're going to get your buzz and sales via a net presence, you need people who can do that for you. And if those people do the same thing for a bunch of artists ... well, that's a record label by any other name.

[luke]

I think the accusations of people who listen to garbage like Christina Aguilera that people who don't like the music are "rockists" are no different than and as baseless as people who say that people who don't enjoy Larry the Cable Guy are "too PC."

[Mary]

Erm, I think we're losing the sense of what "rockjism" is really supposed to mean, though. In certain contexts it might be used as a pseudo-intellectual justification for listening to crap like Christina Aguilera, but I don't think it's really about indie vs. corporate music at all. You could be "rockist" whether you listen exclusively to the world's most famous and mass-marketed rock bands or exclusively to obscure indie bands. The point is, rather, that someone with a "rockist" attitude takes the assumptions undergirding traditional rock and roll - in terms of song structure, instrumentation, authentic authorship, etc etc - and uses them as the benchmark against which to judge the quality of all music. It's not just about personally preferring rock music, it's about presuming that there is something objectively superior about the conventions of rock music and thus criticizing other forms of music - such as hip-hop, electronica, DJ music, mass-produced pop, disco, etc etc - for failing to abide by these conventions. And I maintain that there is something useful about being aware of the shortcomings of this approach, even though, as in so many cases, anti-rockjism often means the pendulum swings way too far in the other direction and people will defend anything or everything (witness christina aguilera) that appears to be outside the pantheon of "respected rock", as well as shit on anything within that pantheon solely for the sake of being anti-canonical (I think Ik really tended to do this - he was so hostile to canonicity that he almost refused to accord respect as a matter of principle to bands who had achieved canonical status).

Being aware of the fact that the conventions of rock and roll are, to some extent, arbitrary and conventional and subjective, rather than eternal standards of aesthetic purity, is perfectly reasonable and a useful thing to keep in mind when trying to critique music. So far as I can tell it needn't have anything to do, really, with assumptions about popularity, corporate vs. indie labels, internet vs. traditional means of promoting music, etc etc.

Cheers,
M

[Kensterberg]

I think that the whole internet conversation was really peripheral to the main board theme. I'm good at tangents ...

[pauledwardwagemann]

kenholzman said:

I've got a fundemental problem with the idea that "the internet makes it possible for a band to put out its music to millions of people" idea ...

How many people download music from bands they've never heard of? More importantly, how many people will pay for music from a band they've never heard of, or heard? How does a band get exposure from the internet, and then translate that exposure into money in the band's pocket?

I dont know how many people do this--but if you are familar with MySpace there are literally thousands of bands/artists who post free samples of their music there. I often sample them and download them, and from the people I talk to there many of them do the same--plus we all recommend bands to each other through world of mouth.
As for how that translates to money in the band/artists pocket it basically builds the band/artist a fan base who will then show up to their gigs and buy their CDs.

mary said:

The point is, rather, that someone with a "rockist" attitude takes the assumptions undergirding traditional rock and roll - in terms of song structure, instrumentation, authentic authorship, etc etc - and uses them as the benchmark against which to judge the quality of all music. It's not just about personally preferring rock music, it's about presuming that there is something objectively superior about the conventions of rock music and thus criticizing other forms of music - such as hip-hop, electronica, DJ music, mass-produced pop, disco, etc etc - for failing to abide by these conventions. And I maintain that there is something useful about being aware of the shortcomings of this approach, even though, as in so many cases, anti-rockjism often means the pendulum swings way too far in the other direction and people will defend anything or everything (witness christina aguilera) that appears to be outside the pantheon of "respected rock", as well as shit on anything within that pantheon solely for the sake of being anti-canonical (I think Ik really tended to do this - he was so hostile to canonicity that he almost refused to accord respect as a matter of principle to bands who had achieved canonical status).

Being aware of the fact that the conventions of rock and roll are, to some extent, arbitrary and conventional and subjective, rather than eternal standards of aesthetic purity, is perfectly reasonable and a useful thing to keep in mind when trying to critique music. So far as I can tell it needn't have anything to do, really, with assumptions about popularity, corporate vs. indie labels, internet vs. traditional means of promoting music, etc etc.

Cheers,
M

Well rockjism has evolved since the golden age of Rock. That was the starting point, but artists like Fugazi, Kurt Cobain and others have (knowingly or not) taken rockjism to new levels. Cobain was crucial for getting rid of some of the meathead mentality that rockjism was associated (anti-female, anti-gay) with, while bands like Fugazi have been crucial for showing that the best Rock music can not only be made outside the scope of the corporate music industry, but it can also sustain the artists with a livlihood. Many Rockists--mself included, believe that selling out to the corporate music industry is a sign that an artists focus is not in the right place. If the artist values money, fame, etc mroe than the music he will buy into the corporate music industry. If he wants to create msuic on his own terms, he will be DIY.

These were some of the shortcomings of rockjism, that have in recent years been overcome. I'm sure other shortcoming of rockjism can be discussed--Racism is one that is often brought up-- but the cool thing about rockjism is that it has the ability to evolve, adapt, change, etc.

[Ryosuke]

kenholzman said:

I would've bet money that this was a thread started by Ryo

Really? Why? I don't think I've even heard this term before.

I read some of the articles that were linked, and my thoughts are: who cares. I have awesome taste in music, and if some intellectualizing rockist or anti-rockist wants to refute that, well then all power to them, but they'd be dead wrong.

[luke]

My point with the whole "it's like a Larry the Cable Guy" fan is that the "anti-rockist" is creating this imaginary music critic who hates everything but rock and its direct influences, when truly, these people are just pissed that their favorite music, on a purely artistic level, is fucking garbage. It's intellectual justification for a lack of taste. There are "rockists" out there, but they have zero critical influence and aren't really a part of anything but the most secular of cultures, i.e., death metal folk.

[Ryosuke]

pauledwardwagemann said:

Maybe 20 or 30 years ago you could find alot of good bands through the corporate music industry

I love the indie scene in Tokyo like my own mother and I support it by going to gigs and buying their records, but to follow Skvor's example, the Japanese corporate music industry in recent years has given me: Mayumi Kojima (Pony Canyon), Supercar (Sony), Great 3 (Toshiba EMI), Number Girl (Toshiba EMI), PE'Z (formerly Toshiba EMI; they're on an indie label now, but what does it say about the "corporate music industry" that they would sign an instrumental jazz band and promote it like they would a pop record?), Quruli (Victor), Ayano Tsuji (Victor) Special Others (Babestar - ostensibly an "indie label" but they're a Victor imprint), Pomeranians (ditto), Yoeko Kurahashi (ditto), Spitz (Universal), Rosso (Universal), Clammbonn (Columbia) and this where I get tired of searching Amazon Japan to see if my favorite bands are on a major label or not. Not that I expect you to know anything about Japanese music, but that doesn't make what you said any less nearsighted in my eyes.

Oh, and as a sidenote, I went to Tower Records in Shibuya (probably the biggest record store in Japan) the other day, and there was a huge billboard display (several meters wide and several meters long) above the front entrance advertising the new bonobos record. They set up a special booth at the side of the entrance where clerks were peddling the CD, furiously trying to get you to buy it. And when you take the escalator up to the second floor, you notice that the album is even being advertised on the handrails. Nauseating? Perhaps. But guess what - the album is easily one of the best releases of the year. Maybe you'll argue that the people who bought it only bought it because they had the album force-fed to them by evil Tower Records, but so what? The music is still great, isn't it?

[Kensterberg]

ryosuke said:

kenholzman said:

I would've bet money that this was a thread started by Ryo

Really? Why? I don't think I've even heard this term before.

I read some of the articles that were linked, and my thoughts are: who cares. I have awesome taste in music, and if some intellectualizing rockist or anti-rockist wants to refute that, well then all power to them, but they'd be dead wrong.

Ryo -- I should apologize here: for some reason I typed your name when I was thinking of Ikshvaku, who was definitely opposed to "rockist" attitudes.