|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 7, 2006 16:46:03 GMT -5
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? It was simply one example that illustrates how Cobain made Meatheads look very uncool. Its pretty common knowledge that Hard Rock meatheads were laid to rest by Cobain and the entire grunge movement. Cobain was the most reported on Rock star of that time. If you dont think Cobain was not a major influence on Rock, then I dont know what to tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 7, 2006 18:09:10 GMT -5
This is a great discussion. I am seriously considering a discussion on rockjism vs poptism as a discussion for introductory English Writing next semester.
Personally, I agree with luke's assertion of the now, although I wholeheartedly agree with Mary's claim that, in the past, a focus on the aethetic merits of other pop music relied too heavily on the standards of rock music.
This, of course, is not a problem specific to rock art, but to all art in general. Try explaining the greatness of Sylvia Plath to a Shelley aficionado.
If I have the definition of a rockist down as someone who consigns the label of "crap" to anything that doesn't follow traditional rock and roll sensibilities, then I used to be a pretty hardcore rockist. Were it not for Kid A and the Yak (NdY), I probably would still be stuck in a pretty narrow mindset.
That said, I am still an ardent rock fan. Rocking out the new Sonic Youth right now, loving it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 7, 2006 18:21:39 GMT -5
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? It was simply one example that illustrates how Cobain made Meatheads look very uncool. Its pretty common knowledge that Hard Rock meatheads were laid to rest by Cobain and the entire grunge movement. Cobain was the most reported on Rock star of that time. If you dont think Cobain was not a major influence on Rock, then I dont know what to tell you. And yet Megadeth released an album that year that was wildly popular in some circles, Countdown to Extinction. Let's not give Cobain too much credit here. The guy popularized a certain look and vibe, sure, but he didn't destroy hard rock or anything. Music fashion comes and goes in phases. Hard rock had a down year. So what? The best selling album of '92 was Mariah Carey's debut. Did she kill hard rock? |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 7, 2006 18:39:14 GMT -5
Nirvana killed hair metal. They fired the shot that put hair metal on the ground, and watched it bleed out. Smells Like Teen Spirit was so popular that the rock stations had no choice but to play it, and it was obviously out of place surrounded by Warrant, Motley Crue, etc. If SLTS had been the only radio-friendly cut from Nevermind, things might have been different. But instead of a one-hit wonder, Nirvana went on to dominate hard-rock playlists with Come As You Are and Lithium. So the programmers went looking for other stuff that would appeal to the people who loved Nirvana ... and found a record released in '91 that had been languishing on the shelves by another Seattle band, and began to play "Alive," "Evenflow" and other cuts by Pearl Jam. Soundgarden was another obvious choice, as was another up and coming Seattle band, Alice in Chains. And all this opened the door for Perry Ferrel's "roving Woodstock" Lollapalooza, which was tailor-made for these bands, plus long-time SoCal faves the Red Hot Chili Peppers. The whole rise of this "alternative" scene had been a long time coming, but Nevermind was the beast that broke through the door, and SLTS was the bullet that put down hair metal.
The result of all this was that by the summer of 1992, hair-metal was, if not dead, mortally wounded. Add in the sudden rise of Metallica to the status of mainstream metal, the continued popularity of Megadeath and Guns 'n' Roses, and there was a sea change in what constituted hard rock. Bands that were big in 1991 couldn't buy air play in 1993, that's a change of historic proportions, akin to the Beatles sparking the British Invasion of 1964.
But by no means did Cobain get rid of assholes in rock music. Unfortunately, there have always been asses in rock, and everywhere else, and all it did was change the names of the asses. I love Nirvana, and have huge respect for what they pulled off with Nevermind, but you can't get rid of all the assholes. That's just the way the world is.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 7, 2006 18:44:06 GMT -5
This is a great discussion. I am seriously considering a discussion on rockjism vs poptism as a discussion for introductory English Writing next semester. Personally, I agree with luke's assertion of the now, although I wholeheartedly agree with Mary's claim that, in the past, a focus on the aethetic merits of other pop music relied too heavily on the standards of rock music. This, of course, is not a problem specific to rock art, but to all art in general. Try explaining the greatness of Sylvia Plath to a Shelley aficionado. If I have the definition of a rockist down as someone who consigns the label of "crap" to anything that doesn't follow traditional rock and roll sensibilities, then I used to be a pretty hardcore rockist. Were it not for Kid A and the Yak (NdY), I probably would still be stuck in a pretty narrow mindset. That said, I am still an ardent rock fan. Rocking out the new Sonic Youth right now, loving it. Something I've tried to point out here (kurt cobain and ian mackay examples) is that rockjism has evolved over the years and the traditonal rock-n-roll sensabilities have been replaced by an updated sensability--which has caused a bit of conflict and definatley some misunderstanding about what rockjism currently is. It was simply one example that illustrates how Cobain made Meatheads look very uncool. Its pretty common knowledge that Hard Rock meatheads were laid to rest by Cobain and the entire grunge movement. Cobain was the most reported on Rock star of that time. If you dont think Cobain was not a major influence on Rock, then I dont know what to tell you. And yet Megadeth released an album that year that was wildly popular in some circles, Countdown to Extinction. Let's not give Cobain too much credit here. The guy popularized a certain look and vibe, sure, but he didn't destroy hard rock or anything. Music fashion comes and goes in phases. Hard rock had a down year. So what? The best selling album of '92 was Mariah Carey's debut. Did she kill hard rock? Cobain changed perceptions of what could be considered cool by a Rock star. How many teenage kids pre-Cobain would have stood up against gay-bashing? Sure it still goes on but Cobain made Rock fans take a look at it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 7, 2006 18:55:48 GMT -5
OK Paul so if rockjism isn't about corporate vs. indie, then can you explain to me what it is about? That is, what do you mean when you call yourself a rockist? I'm just trying to figure out what it means to self-identify as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 7, 2006 19:13:40 GMT -5
Axl beat up Dave Grohl?? When?? I didn't know that. Weird.
I do think there was a pretty seismic shift in popular music heralded by Nirvana, and I do think they should get a certain amount of credit for it. Of course they couldn't wipe the popular music slate clean forever, and of course popular music goes through cycles and eventually Tommy Lee would have to be reincarnated in the form of Fred Durst, or whatever. But if you watched MTV in 1990 and then again in 1993, the transformation would appear very dramatic. I'm not saying this has anything to do with whether "rockjism" is a good thing, a bad thing, or even a clearly defined thing. I'm just saying I don't see any reason to deny that Nirvana had a massive impact on popular music in the early 90s.
Anyhow, I suspect the anti-rockist charge against the racism and heteronormativity implicit in rockjism is a wee bit more sophisticated than simply charging that people are overtly racist and homophobic, like Axl Rose singing the N-word in One in a Million or whatever that stupid song was called. I think the idea is more just that aesthetic standards of quality are being measured against a norm produced largely by a white, male, heterosexual culture. You can be perfectly open-minded toward gays and still unwittingly espouse a kind of heteronormativity. Not charging anyone here with anything....just trying to point out that these kinds of attitudes can be entrenched and subconscious, they don't have to be overt and explicit.
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 7, 2006 19:17:45 GMT -5
OK Paul so if rockjism isn't about corporate vs. indie, then can you explain to me what it is about? That is, what do you mean when you call yourself a rockist? I'm just trying to figure out what it means to self-identify as such. Sure, I'll try, but I'll probablly start rambling a bit. But here goes. At one point Rock was the greatest music on the planet. It was the soundtrack for an entire generation, it changed culture, it changed politics, it had a profound affect on society. It was not mere pop, it was art, it was philosophy, it was mind expansion, creative expression, etc. It also happened to be the most Popular form of music on the planet for nearly a decade. But in the mid 70s other forms of music began to challenge it--namely Disco. And this is what caused rockjism. There was an ethos represented by Rock which Disco--and then later synth/dance 80s stuff--was opposed to. So the Rockists had to look at what made Rock of a higher quality than these other kinds of music. The answer was the Rock ethos has authenticity while these other forms were simply pop. Let me just stop there, becasue I can feel a long-winded urge coming upon me. But basically that's the foundation of rockjism--although like I've said, rockjism has changed since then. I've even heard some people seperate rockjism into rockjism (traditional) and Nu-rockjism. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 7, 2006 19:29:40 GMT -5
OK. But what does it mean to be a "rockist" today, not in the 1970s when there was really only one major fault line (disco)? As a self-identified rockist today, do you think that rock is artistically superior to hip-hop, electronica, techno, post-rock, experimental, synth pop, etc etc? Or is it just about the superiority of rock to mass-produced pop?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 7, 2006 19:30:14 GMT -5
BTW I'm still waiting for Ken Holzman's promised ringing defense of rockjism!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 7, 2006 19:36:36 GMT -5
I promised a ringing defense of rockjism? Um, that was obviously before I got off on these tangents.
And right now, quite frankly, I'm waaaaaaaaay confused about what Paul means by "rockjism." At least when Iksh used to label me a rockist, I knew what he meant. I'm not at all sure about what this term is supposed to mean here. I can defend rock and roll, and I can defend a certain kind of rock related aesthetic, but I can't defend "rockjism" at this point because I (quite frankly) don't know what we're talking about!
(How was that for a defense?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 7, 2006 19:39:26 GMT -5
I promised a ringing defense of rockjism? Um, that was obviously before I got off on these tangents. And right now, quite frankly, I'm waaaaaaaaay confused about what Paul means by "rockjism." At least when Iksh used to label me a rockist, I knew what he meant. I'm not at all sure about what this term is supposed to mean here. I can defend rock and roll, and I can defend a certain kind of rock related aesthetic, but I can't defend "rockjism" at this point because I (quite frankly) don't know what we're talking about! (How was that for a defense?) Acceptable, because I'm just as confused as you  I think ultimately the confusion comes down to the difference between being someone who likes rock music (or even someone who prefers rock music to all other genres of music) vs. being a "rockist" - the two things are, supposedly, different. So defending rock is very different from defending rockjism. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 7, 2006 20:20:20 GMT -5
OK. But what does it mean to be a "rockist" today, not in the 1970s when there was really only one major fault line (disco)? As a self-identified rockist today, do you think that rock is artistically superior to hip-hop, electronica, techno, post-rock, experimental, synth pop, etc etc? Or is it just about the superiority of rock to mass-produced pop? Well it may be hard for me to be objective since I was raised on rock, and therefore there is something visereal that takes place deep inside my soul when I hear a crunchy guitar riff as opposed to when I hear a sampled techno beat. Afterall, music is very sbuconsious. When Cheap Tricks 'southern girls' comes on the toe automatically starts tapping. I start singing along to Pavement's 'shaddy lane' without even realizing it whenever it comes on. So when trying to define quality, it is this visereal reaction that you first of all have to deal with. That's not to say some of these other forms of music dont strike me on that 'gut' level--because they sometimes do. But what a Rockist does--what they simply cant help from doing--is try to find out why they are having that reaction--Why they think that song is 'good'. That's basically what a Rockist is trying to figure out. what is it that makes a song, an artist, and album, a concert to be of high quality. The first step in doing that is to learn as much about the song/artist, etc that you can--learn what went into to making it, the artists influences, the artists background, the artists experiences, the type of equipment used, and so on and so forth, until what developes is a overall picture of the artist/song, etc that either has a lot of depth to it or does not. And from there you can decide whether the work is authentic or rather fluffy. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 7, 2006 21:15:59 GMT -5
Which I don't disagree with. I just pointed out that Nirvana didn't kill anything. Nirvana became the popular facet of something that was due and was already taking shape in the West Coast/Seattle rock scene. It was great and all, and they had a huge impact. But they didn't necessarily create a movement, they became the archetype for one.
How this applies to rockjism is beyond me. Excuse the tangent.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 7, 2006 22:02:03 GMT -5
OK. But what does it mean to be a "rockist" today, not in the 1970s when there was really only one major fault line (disco)? As a self-identified rockist today, do you think that rock is artistically superior to hip-hop, electronica, techno, post-rock, experimental, synth pop, etc etc? Or is it just about the superiority of rock to mass-produced pop? Well it may be hard for me to be objective since I was raised on rock, and therefore there is something visereal that takes place deep inside my soul when I hear a crunchy guitar riff as opposed to when I hear a sampled techno beat. Afterall, music is very sbuconsious. When Cheap Tricks 'southern girls' comes on the toe automatically starts tapping. I start singing along to Pavement's 'shaddy lane' without even realizing it whenever it comes on. So when trying to define quality, it is this visereal reaction that you first of all have to deal with. That's not to say some of these other forms of music dont strike me on that 'gut' level--because they sometimes do. But what a Rockist does--what they simply cant help from doing--is try to find out why they are having that reaction--Why they think that song is 'good'. That's basically what a Rockist is trying to figure out. what is it that makes a song, an artist, and album, a concert to be of high quality. The first step in doing that is to learn as much about the song/artist, etc that you can--learn what went into to making it, the artists influences, the artists background, the artists experiences, the type of equipment used, and so on and so forth, until what developes is a overall picture of the artist/song, etc that either has a lot of depth to it or does not. And from there you can decide whether the work is authentic or rather fluffy. I didn't get any of this from the articles that were mentioned above. If a rockist is just some sort of uber rock fan, then this argument kinda bores. What distinguishes a rockist from anyone else (by my reading of the articles) is his ardent belief in the supremacy of the rock aesthetic. |
|
