|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 8, 2006 14:54:11 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know though. Kraftwerk proved that you can invent an entire genre with cold eletronics and computers. It depends on how it's done for me. If it sounds like Detroit House, then no, it ain't my thing, but I still think it's creative on some level. Personally, I love that computers and drum machines have entered the world of music. Brian Eno and several other artists have been able to make some great statements with these tools for a larger palette.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jun 8, 2006 15:38:21 GMT -5
OK, so rockjism is the idea that the basic two guitar/bass/drums set up is the ideal setup for music? I must have missed that point. That's retarded.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 8, 2006 15:44:18 GMT -5
Yeah, rockjism says that the basic two guitar/bass/drums set up is the ideal setup for pop music. Pretty weak.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 8, 2006 16:09:11 GMT -5
Um, Paul, you make zero sense to me. You said that rockjism was a big middle finger to disco, whenever I stated that that wasn't the case. Now, you are saying that rockjism encompasses all of this other "international stuff". This is why I think this whole term is total BS. You can't even make a clear statement defining what "rockjism" is. I said initially rockjism arrose in reponse to the Rock ethos being in opposition to Disco. rockjism has evolved. To understand rockjism you have to understand the nuances. It really shouldnt be that hard to expand your mind in such a manner that you can see the many different international and/or diverse aspects in Rock is not in direct oppostion to the fact that disco was a challenge to the Rock ethos. Take for example the Beatles. Think of the Eastern influences found in the songs of Harrison. Or of Swing influences found in the works of Paul McCartney, or the Rockabilly found in the songs for Ringo. Their is no supremacy in the rock aesthetic. It's just music. That's it! It is probably less dangerous and more acceptable than Mozart these days. Give me a break................. Do you think something has to be dangerous to be of quality? Understand the general trends of the industry? Should the terms music and industry ever be used in the same sentence ever again? Indie labels don't know what pent up 19 year old freshmen at UT with awkward cramps and hormones want to listen to? "Rockists" (ugh) saying they can tell the difference is a blatant self serving LIE. Rockists dont claim they know what 19 year old freshman at UT want to listen to. Rockists only claim is that they can identify quality. Yeah, rockjism says that the basic two guitar/bass/drums set up is the ideal setup for pop music. Pretty weak. No. that's wrong. I'll use the example of the Beatles again. They showed a good song could have orchestration, it coudl have horn sections, a Moog, backwards tracking, Yoko farting into a bullhorn or it could be as simple as nothng but an accoustic guitar. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jun 8, 2006 16:39:15 GMT -5
There are too many Paul's here....I keep thinking people are talking to me...I'm changing my user name...Any suggestions? Be nice.... "Cookie Monster" (or just plain "Cookie" for short;) |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jun 8, 2006 16:40:29 GMT -5
or maybe. . . . "cookie puss"
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 8, 2006 17:22:10 GMT -5
Ok P.E.W., can you explan what rockjism is?
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 8, 2006 17:44:26 GMT -5
Ok P.E.W., can you explan what rockjism is? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jun 8, 2006 19:34:58 GMT -5
Ok P.E.W., can you explan what rockjism is? 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. See this is what I thought it was and I agree. I don't see why music can't be discussed on the same level as philosophy or literature. There certainly are definite marks of quality, I don't however beleive the public at large should beholden to these standards but if you're going to come a forum such as this and start throwing around your opinions you should be able to back them up. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Jun 9, 2006 3:08:25 GMT -5
Why arent you interested in the 'general'? I think if you can understand the general trends of the industry it make you more educated and more likely to sidestep the pitifalls that the 'general' way presents. For instanst if you understand the general way that a marketing or PR campaign is approached by Pop artists, it will let you see throught he BS--anything from ringing endorsements from 'independent' media sources to choreographed PR appearances, etc. It's about knowing thy enemy and all that jazz... I'm not interested in "the general" because generally speaking, the Japanese music industry mostly puts out crap music. And I'm not interested in crap music. Simple as that. And I disagree with the notion that knowing how the industry works will inform my taste in music in any way. Maybe it does for you, and maybe for some other people even, but as for me personally, actually hearing the music is enough to do the trick, thanks. No amount of knowledge can beat that. I have faith in my own ears. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 9, 2006 8:01:41 GMT -5
Why arent you interested in the 'general'? I think if you can understand the general trends of the industry it make you more educated and more likely to sidestep the pitifalls that the 'general' way presents. For instanst if you understand the general way that a marketing or PR campaign is approached by Pop artists, it will let you see throught he BS--anything from ringing endorsements from 'independent' media sources to choreographed PR appearances, etc. It's about knowing thy enemy and all that jazz... I'm not interested in "the general" because generally speaking, the Japanese music industry mostly puts out crap music. And I'm not interested in crap music. Simple as that. And I disagree with the notion that knowing how the industry works will inform my taste in music in any way. Maybe it does for you, and maybe for some other people even, but as for me personally, actually hearing the music is enough to do the trick, thanks. No amount of knowledge can beat that. I have faith in my own ears. If youve come to the conclusion that in general the Japanese muisc industry is crap then most likely you already know enough about 'the general way' to come to that conclusion. But for young kids and teenagers who can get swept up in the image that the marketing folks create for bands/artists, they probablly arent awared of how the music industry is manipulating them. I was a teen in the 80s and often read articles, books or listened to radio programs or even tv/film documentaries that exposed the PR wizards behind the curtains. I think developing this knowledge is benifital. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 9, 2006 8:10:33 GMT -5
See this is what I thought it was and I agree. I don't see why music can't be discussed on the same level as philosophy or literature. There certainly are definite marks of quality, I don't however beleive the public at large should beholden to these standards but if you're going to come a forum such as this and start throwing around your opinions you should be able to back them up. Yeah, this is the thing that seperates the Rockist from the mainstream consumer. The mainstream consumer will go, "Gee I really like that new song by so and so." And then the conversation pretty much ends there--or it will digress into who the lead singer is dating or something like that. Kinda boring. I think it might help people understand what rockjism is by giving examples of Rockists. The first one that comes to mind is Jack Black (or at lest his characters from High Fidelity and School of Rock). Certainly authors such as Chuck Klosterman and Kevin Chong appear to be Rockists. The problem is however that rockjism has been given such a bad reputation, that alot of folks are embarrassed to admit that they are a Rockists. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jun 9, 2006 8:18:14 GMT -5
Learning more about history and the industry would effect the way you listen to music the same way learning about anything changes the way you view it. The preception is, it seems, that your tatses are impared now but that's not the case...well, I'm sure some would tell you it is. There's no subsitute for simply listeing to something but I don't see how beng able to put it in context and add it the big picture in your head couldn't change the way you listen to music. Alot of people just like what they like and that's fine, but it's perfectly valid to discuss it on more academic terms. I guess the diuscussion perhaps is whether uneducated ears can truly appreaciate music but that's nonesense. It's the difference between people who like a good murder mystery and those who read everything they get their hands on. In my case reading and learning about music has expanded my tastes and opened up doors I had no idea were even there. I beleive the alility exists to a certain degree to seperate your opinions from the larger picture. I still like plenty of bands that don't offer much on a debatable level, they're just enjoyable and sometimes that's all music needs to be but it can be so much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 9, 2006 9:14:19 GMT -5
There are too many Paul's here....I keep thinking people are talking to me...I'm changing my user name...Any suggestions? Be nice.... "Cookie Monster" (or just plain "Cookie" for short;) I think that'll do it; thanks thorns! soon paul shall rise from the ashes and be known as cookie monster! |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 9, 2006 9:25:39 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know though. Kraftwerk proved that you can invent an entire genre with cold eletronics and computers. It depends on how it's done for me. If it sounds like Detroit House, then no, it ain't my thing, but I still think it's creative on some level. Personally, I love that computers and drum machines have entered the world of music. Brian Eno and several other artists have been able to make some great statements with these tools for a larger palette. Don't get me wrong, I like computers and drum machines in music as well (to a certain extent). IMHO no one has done a better job w/ this than the Beastie Boys...both Hello Nasty and Paul's Botique are prime examples of HOW to sample, and incorporate electronics into music.... |
|
