rockjism: good or bad?

[Mary]

pauledwardwagemann said:

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.

I'm no expert on the whole debate about rockjism, so I have to confess I don't really understand what it means to self-identify as a "rockist" since, as far as I understand it, rockjism is purely a term of derision used to disparage people who are perceived as narrow-mindedly applying the conventions of one music genre to all music genres. When you call yourself a rockist, what exactly do you mean?

If you just mean that you are skeptical about highly corporate music, and tend to prefer independent or non-mainstream artists, then I guess I just don't understand how that's necessarily rockist. It's as if you're conflating "rockjism" with indie sensibilities or something, whereas it seems to me that these are different, though sometimes overlapping, debates. If someone loves Creed and Nickelback, aren't they both rockist and corporate?? Doesn't that mean that being a "rockist" has nothing to do, necessarily, with a critical attitude toward "corporate" music? Sure, you could also be a "rockist" who preferred Fugazi and, I dunno, Q and not U or something, which would make you an anti-corporate rockist, but rockjism itself doesn't seem to entail any necessary position whatsoever on the superiority of indie vs. corporate music. And practically all of this needs to be in scare quotes anyway, because the precise definitions of "indie" and "corporate" music are so damn blurry.

I'm sure the most virulent anti-rockist would think I'm a terrible rockist. I mean, I do pretty much hate most teen pop, and try as I might, I just can't get the same visceral charge from other genres of music that I get from rock. But what I don't do, and I think the anti-rockists are onto something here, is I don't automatically assume that music which fails to meet rock and roll standards for authenticity derived largely from the late 60s through the early 80s is necessarily inferior - it's just different, and striving for different goals.

Also I disagree with luke that the anti-rockists are just creating some kind of strawman "imaginary" rock critic - I really do think the presumptions of rockjism pretty much ruled rock criticism until recent years, when a self-awareness about the problematic status of these assumptions swung the pendulum way too far in the other direction, such that now music critics are practically falling over themselves to proudly proclaim their love for the latest craptastic Britney Spears song, or whatever. But just because there's an overcompensation here doesn't mean the original problem never existed...

...phew, it's been AGES since I thought so much about music. Gotta thank you for starting this thread, you got me excited about debating music again for the first time in years!!!

Cheers,
M

[pauledwardwagemann]

ryosuke said:

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?

I guess you could say my statement was near-sighted--I know nearly nothing about the Japanese corporate music industry. My comments on rockjism deal mostly with English speaking music (and some European music as well). Like I say rockjism is fairly young--about 30 years old--and it does have its shortcomings.
I dont know how big the Japanses corporate Music industry is and I'm not very familar with the bands you listed. But I'd like to ask you whether you think in general bands/artists have to compromise themselves in order to be on acorporate label. And if so, does that distract them focusing on music?

mary said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

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.

I'm no expert on the whole debate about rockjism, so I have to confess I don't really understand what it means to self-identify as a "rockist" since, as far as I understand it, rockjism is purely a term of derision used to disparage people who are perceived as narrow-mindedly applying the conventions of one music genre to all music genres. When you call yourself a rockist, what exactly do you mean?

...phew, it's been AGES since I thought so much about music. Gotta thank you for starting this thread, you got me excited about debating music again for the first time in years!!!

Cheers,
M

rockjism isn't mainly about corporate versus Indie. That's just one aspect of it. You could like nothing but Corporate Rock and still be a Rockist. Also, rockjism is not the same as Rock criticism--rockjism is more of a belief system that centers around how to define 'quality' music.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Calling yourself a rockist is just as ridiculous is labelling yourself a "rudeboy". Jesus, it makes you sound like your just sitting over there dividing air molecules.
List of great English speaking bands on Major Labels that are of the newer school.
Interscope:
And You Will Know Us By Our Trail Of Dead
TV On The Radio
The Yeah Yeah Yeahs
Beck
Feist
MIA
Nine Black Alps
Queens of the Stone Age
Wolf Mother

Universal Records
Erykah Badu
Kaiser Chiefs
Le Tigre
The Mars Volta
The Rapture
Scissor Sisters
Timbaland and Magoo

Sony Artists
Fiona Apple
Autolux
The Dead 60s
Franz Ferdinand
Modest Mouse
System of a Down
The Zutons

Warner Bros:
The Flaming Lips

Atlantic Records/Elecktra Records
Bloc Party
Bjork
Chromeo
Death Cab For Cutie
Gnarls Barkley
Hard Fi
Junior Senior
The Streets
The Stills
Stereolab
Also owns Rhino and Rykodisc, which puts out some really awesome reissues

Rykodisc also puts out new artists like:
Elf Power
Ladytron
The Eighteenth Day of May
Damon and Naomi
Felix Da Houscat
Miss Kittin and The Hacker
Arto Lindsey (former singer from no wave group DNA)

EMI
Beth Orton
Black Dice
LCD Soundsystem
Doves

[skvorisdeadsorta]

continuing with list from EMI

Fischerspooner
Gorillaz
Radiohead
Sigor Ros
Robbie Williams
The Decemberists (yes they left krs)
The Magic Numbers

Virgin
Daft Punk
Black Label Motor Cycle Club
D'Angelo
Massive Attack
NERD

Man, I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

[Thorngrub]

add KORN to EMI, bitch

[Thorngrub]

*oh, and ALL "-isms" suck by definition*

[skvorisdeadsorta]

"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."

Kurt Cobain did not get rid of the meatheads as there as been a huge resurgence in meathead rock like Motley Crue. Not to mention the huge blast of numetal like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock and other misogynistic artists that are disgusting but also popular. In fact most of the 90s and the first part of the 2000s have been nothing but a subjugation of women, racism, homophobic, and just down right material greed in most of the subject matter of music and Indie rock is not exempt from this horrible outlook either.

Fugazi was successful because you could tell they were passionate in their stance, like The Clash, and not for some sort of chest beating "I'm DIY" crap. DIY = shit anymore. It's a bunch of elitists who do nothing more than find excuses for why their band sucks and hides it under a guise of some sort of "I'm better than" mantra.

I write alot of music and I have been trying to do my own label for years, but if a major label offered me a deal, I would take it. You want to know why? Health insurance is really hard to pay for on your own and major labels give their artists health insurance. Have you ever toured in a smelly van that breaks down every 178 miles with 4 guys you want to kill, playing some of the worst venues ever and idiot "DIY parties"? If you have, then you would know that touring in a bus with actually something to eat and the artists making money instead of 20 bucks for your ethics sounds a lot more appealing to me. The whole argument that ethics equals DIY is just ridiculous to me. There are plenty of friends and artists on major labels that have ethics and do not suck as I have mentioned above.

[Paul]

lets not forget that J Records has the mighty Pearl Jam! As well as such talents as Barry Manilow, Babyface, Carrie Underwood, Jamie Foxx, and most importantly the newest American Idol, Taylor Hicks!

Maybe all of these acts could do a mega summer festival together; I'd love to see Taylor Hicks, Barry Manilow, and Ed Vedder belt out a few songs together.

[pauledwardwagemann]

thorny said:

*oh, and ALL "-isms" suck by definition*

Does that include Darwinism?

[luke]

mary said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

Also I disagree with luke that the anti-rockists are just creating some kind of strawman "imaginary" rock critic - I really do think the presumptions of rockjism pretty much ruled rock criticism until recent years, when a self-awareness about the problematic status of these assumptions swung the pendulum way too far in the other direction, such that now music critics are practically falling over themselves to proudly proclaim their love for the latest craptastic Britney Spears song, or whatever. But just because there's an overcompensation here doesn't mean the original problem never existed...


Cheers,
M

I can't think of a single magazine or critical base that's going to bash quality electronica, blues, country, hip-hop, R&B, even quality pop music. Individuals, sure, but genre specific fans there will always be. The ONLY group of fans doing the whining fans of crappy pop music. Granted, through over-analyzation and evolution of the term to include this whole DIY/myspace debate, maybe now "rockjism" is something to mentally masturbate over, but the ball seems to have gotten rolling in the last few years by people with really shitty taste who want to alienate critics for not liking overproduced corporate pop monsters.

This may have been a problem with disco not being acknowledged or something in the 70s, but in the past ten years at the least, there's just no way.

[pauledwardwagemann]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

&
Kurt Cobain did not get rid of the meatheads as there as been a huge resurgence in meathead rock like Motley Crue. Not to mention the huge blast of numetal like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock and other misogynistic artists that are disgusting but also popular. In fact most of the 90s and the first part of the 2000s have been nothing but a subjugation of women, racism, homophobic, and just down right material greed in most of the subject matter of music and Indie rock is not exempt from this horrible outlook either.

I didnt say Cobain took the meatheads out of Rock, I said he took it out of rockjism. Not the same thing. There is a classic story of how Axl Rose came up to Cobain backstage at some awrd show and tried to goad Cobain inot a fight by saying something to Courtney Love that was something along the lines of "And you better keep your bitch in line and tell her keep her mouth shut". There were all kinds of reporters and Rock scensters there all lookig at Cobain for his reaction. Cobain incsouciantly turned to Love and said something along the lines of "You better keep you mouth shut bitch" and everyone busted out laughing at the manner that Cobain had made an ass out of Axl. It was moments like that, along with his speaking out against gay bashing and his promoting of grrrl bands that Cobain made being a meathead no longer a cool thing in Rock. The meatheads woud still always be there, only now they would be considered fools.

[luke]

Bet Dave Grohl didn't feel so liberated from meat head-ism when Axl gave him a black eye later that night...

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Yikes, man, you really think that Kurt Cobain making some sort of sideways comment to the white Michael Jackson of metal at an MTV Awards show really has any sort of meaning?

They are not considered fools. Have you watched MTV recently or are you still living in 120 minutes land? And really, while they promoted a ton of great bands, in the end, not very many remember it do they?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Rock, rockjism, what the hell is all of this?

[Thorngrub]

pauledwardwagemann said:

thorny said:

*oh, and ALL "-isms" suck by definition*

Does that include Darwinism?

budum*tish* ;b