ROCKISM: good or bad?

[PaulEdWagemann]

Rockism took quite a beating last year and the year before, but since then the tides have begun to change. At first many of the old guard Rockists sat watching and did nothing as Rockism got smeared. A few tried feebly to defend Rockism, but more recently a new approach has been taken. Since Kurt Cobain redefined mainstream Rock in the early 90's it has become in vouge to incorporate his vision into Rockism. This means no more racism, sexism, homo-phobia and it also means that Indieism is good and Corporate Rock is bad...

Please share you thoughts about this ongoing debate and the future of Rockism...

Here are some links to some of the more highly profiled articles against Rockism from the last year:
(http://rocknerd.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/02/0)

http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0518/050504_music_smallmouth.html (http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0518/05050)

(http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?)
http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?storyID=715 (http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?storyID=715)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism)

[aleclee]

It's deja vu all over again

[Zilmo]

Oh for God's sake. Again? Please keep your homophobia to one site and leave BaM alone.

[JMintzer]

Paul,

This was hashed out ad nauseum on TGP. Why do it again?


Jamie

[fatback]

amen brother.

and that goes double for the gear page 2.0, when it's back up.

Who likes reruns?

[entropy]

Please Don't Feed The Trolls

[FrankiePRS]

I like pie.

[Serious_Poo]

Please don't pollute BAM with this nonsense. Thanks.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

is rob halford a homo rockist?

[bassomatic]

Rockism: A term coined by trolls. Never noticed by this somewhat well-read observer anywhere but in these foolhardy threads of one Prince Van Wagonweel.

(Pssst - Indy was always good, corporate bad since at least the 80's. Go directly to your room and bust out some actual homework. Clue: this will not involve a bong, blunt, clip, or 40 - save those for your Arts and Aesthetics Symposium or somesuch).

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Rockism: A term coined by trolls. Never noticed by this somewhat well-read observer anywhere but in these foolhardy threads of one Prince Van Wagonweel.

also note that the links he has are all broken save the wikipedia one.
now what does THAT say.

[Jerrod]

From the NY Times:

===================

The word is rockism, and among the small but extraordinarily pesky group of people who obsess over this stuff, rockism is a word meant to start fights.

A rockist is someone who reduces rock 'n' roll to a caricature, then uses that caricature as a weapon.

Much of the most energetic resistance to rockism can be found online, in blogs and on critic-infested sites like ilovemusic.com, where debates about rockism have become so common that the term itself is something of a running joke.

===================

All of these were taken out of context freely and without guilt. I had to google the term just to understand its meaning. Alas, my research couldn't make me care. I'm off to go play my guitar for a while.

[aleclee]

Words to live by:

http://images.aleclee.com/troll-web.jpg

[bassomatic]

From the NY Times:

===================

The word is rockism, and among the small but extraordinarily pesky group of people who obsess over this stuff, rockism is a word meant to start fights.

A rockist is someone who reduces rock 'n' roll to a caricature, then uses that caricature as a weapon.

Much of the most energetic resistance to rockism can be found online, in blogs and on critic-infested sites like ilovemusic.com, where debates about rockism have become so common that the term itself is something of a running joke.

===================

All of these were taken out of context freely and without guilt. I had to google the term just to understand its meaning. Alas, my research couldn't make me care. I'm off to go play my guitar for a while.


Sounds like the Times has got my back on this one, no? (No surprise, as i was weened on the inky milk of the beloved rag.)

Labels suck when they're used as a tool of separation/dismissal as opposed to those of organized, disciplined learning.

[bassomatic]

Words to live by:

http://images.aleclee.com/troll-web.jpg


I hear you, Alec, but even a beautifully plated, well deserved sh*t sandwich?

Yeah, i guess not then either.

[PaulEdWagemann]

Friends, I dont know how youve all been duped into thiking of Rockism as a negatvie term--if anyone should be defendign Rockism I would think it would be the people here. Sure in the 80s the Corporate take over of Rock Music changed the basic tennants of Rock, but Rockism remains the default option for most opinion-makers (magazines especially) who put music into context take.
And even today Rock's grip on the "grand narrative" of Music is prelevent. You cant jsut despose of something like Rockism because this grand narrative structure has evolved over the years through books, newspapers, magazines, conversations etc (all begining with the critical observation of Dylan and the Beatles for the most part). This grand narrative has evolved into an accepted wisdom and language that is commonly referred to as Rockism.

[Michael Patrick]

Never heard of it, and it hasn't affected the quality of my life.


Where's the "boring" emoticon?

[splattercell]

You cant jsut despose of something like Rockism because
because?
blah blah blah blah blah.
it's amazing how quickly and effectively some musicians can dispose of and dispense with any kind of -ism:
watch me, now.
or:
i'm a disposist;
i subscribe to disposism.
until i dispose of it.
later today.

This grand narrative has evolved into an accepted wisdom and language that is commonly referred to as Rockism.
i do not accept this..... harrumph..... "accepted wisdom and language".
if i may be allowed to say so, here --- and, i do mean this sincerely,
"all your base are belong to us".

dt / spltrcl

[Rusmurf]

I'm an Evil Corporate Lawyer, Rockism must be stopped before it infects the masses!

[Cheebatone]

it's amazing how quickly and effectively some musicians can dispose of and dispense with any kind of -ism:

"Isms are, in my opinion, a bad idea." - Ferris Bueller

[bassomatic]

Friends, I dont know how youve all been duped into thiking of Rockism as a negatvie term--if anyone should be defendign Rockism I would think it would be the people here. Sure in the 80s the Corporate take over of Rock Music changed the basic tennants of Rock, but Rockism remains the default option for most opinion-makers (magazines especially) who put music into context take.
And even today Rock's grip on the "grand narrative" of Music is prelevent. You cant jsut despose of something like Rockism because this grand narrative structure has evolved over the years through books, newspapers, magazines, conversations etc (all begining with the critical observation of Dylan and the Beatles for the most part). This grand narrative has evolved into an accepted wisdom and language that is commonly referred to as Rockism.

Howzabout Go Make Some Decent Music-ism and Then Maybe We'll Give a Fukk-ism. (Prolly not, but your chances of being heard might be better).

Sounds like this Rockism boils down to separatism and i'm just not down with that particular agenda.

[aleclee]

The word is rockism, and among the small but extraordinarily pesky group of people who obsess over this stuff, rockism is a word meant to start fights.I have some issues with the NYT but I must say that I agree with them on this one.

http://images.aleclee.com/troll-web.jpg

[rwe333]

Howzabout Go Make Some Decent Music-ism and Then Maybe We'll Give a Fukk-ism. (Prolly not, but your chances of being heard might be better).

Sounds like this Rockism boils down to separatism and i'm just not down with that particular agenda.Thanks for the Sig & a huge +1 to the rest...

[Adam]

Friends, I dont know how youve all been duped into thiking of Rockism as a negatvie term--if anyone should be defendign Rockism I would think it would be the people here. Sure in the 80s the Corporate take over of Rock Music changed the basic tennants of Rock, but Rockism remains the default option for most opinion-makers (magazines especially) who put music into context take.
And even today Rock's grip on the "grand narrative" of Music is prelevent. You cant jsut despose of something like Rockism because this grand narrative structure has evolved over the years through books, newspapers, magazines, conversations etc (all begining with the critical observation of Dylan and the Beatles for the most part). This grand narrative has evolved into an accepted wisdom and language that is commonly referred to as Rockism.
too long, didn't read

[dougb415]

Friends, I dont know how youve all been duped
The thread that refuses to die :(

[Peter]

By posting in this thread I become One of the People who Posted in This Thread, but I suppose I can live with that.
No, I really can't, but the line's been crossed. I'm one of Those People now.
Seems to me the term Rockism is used to obscure a lot of basic points about popular music that boil down to the notion that some music will stand the test of time while other music will disappear once the fad is gone. Hence Nirvana trumps Mariah Carey and The Clash trump KC and the Sunshine Band. But so what? Lots of Rock & Roll is terrible, most of disco was terrible but not all, we'll forget about Jessica Simpson and Christina Aguilera but some other pop singer from our time will make an impression.
Somewhere there's a place between overly intellectual rock critics and folks who discuss the impact of -isms, and the vast media-controlled front page of popular music. A place where the good music hangs out.

I could almost call myself a Rockist, especially when it's described as a homophobic and racist viewpoint. I remember that from the disco-backlash. In high school, no one I knew had the faintest idea that disco was created by/enjoyed by gays or dark-skinned people - we just hated it for the music's sake. But I just can't get myself to care about what's "legitimate" and what's "phony". I suppose I'm more of a Rock Numbskull. I like the music that rocks and hate the music that sucks.

[Rusmurf]

Peter, where your coming from makes total sense. Because your explaining your foundations, and answering any "why" questions I'd have about why you think what think.

The idiots that continue to circulate this crap, always turn out to be clueless when you start pressing them for depth. At the bottom of their own arguements, all I see are magic words, that don't equal anything that makes real sense to ME.

[Thwap]

Rockism-Good or Bad?

Bad

Why?

Because some people who spout off about rockism are like a really irritating rash, that won't go away no matter where you go.

Fanatic...PEW...go look it up.

[wsaraceni]

This is by far the most annoying font to read on a public message board. I THINK THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE IT MORE ANNOYING WOULD BE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS!!! IT SEEMS THAT IT GETS EVEN MORE ANNOYING IF THE PARAGRAPH IS REALLY LONG. Maybe if you vary between CAPS and lowerCAse LeTTerS You CAn MaKE IT EvEN MorE IntEREsting to REad.


Annoyiningism: the use of Tahoma font (size 3) on a forum.

[wsaraceni]

"all your base are belong to us".

dt / spltrcl
http://protos.dk/public/pictures/protos05/all_your_base.jpg

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

[font=Tahoma][size=3]Friends, I dont know how youve all been duped into thiking of Rockism as a negatvie term--if anyone should be defendign Rockism I would think it would be the people here.

which, of course presupposes that the peeps here are all narrow-minded, pedantic sheep waiting to be herded into whatever little 'box' someone tells them they should be in.
what w/ the level of sophistication of the membership here and at TGP it should be of no surprise to anyone w/ a modicum of intellectual acumen that a post modernist interpretation of such a construct should be rejected outright.
perhaps the promulgation of such a limiting ideology should take place elsewhere in webworld where i'm sure there can be many found that want to ascribe themselves to the type of rigid dichotomy that U seem to hold so dear. i don't need to elucidate the litany of negative comments and outright mocking in reaction to Ur appearance here that should make U realise that these 'cogitations' of Urs are irrelevant in environments such as these.

[splattercell]

The idiots that continue to circulate this crap, always turn out to be clueless when you start pressing them for depth. At the bottom of their own arguements, all I see are magic words, that don't equal anything that makes real sense to ME.
painting in extremely broad & deeply generalised strokes:
i would tend to agree with ya, there:
i perceive those attached to such concepts to be folks who do not actually live music (or, even: live "in" music) ---
folks whose primary concerns reside in "ideas about music", ie, post-facto, remote, armchair viewing:
especially as regards ultimately divisive idiomaticising of music --- the spawn of once-clever marketeers, who needed deeply to distinguish "court music" from "people's music", eh --- wherein "music" might (wrongly, imo) be utilised as stylising emblems for association with particular social groups & strata & "lifestyle"-oriented (ugh) pseudo-philosophies.
ugh, again.

dt / spltrcl

[Brian Kahanek]

Rockism: A term coined by trolls. Never noticed by this somewhat well-read observer anywhere but in these foolhardy threads of one Prince Van Wagonweel.

(Pssst - Indy was always good, corporate bad since at least the 80's. Go directly to your room and bust out some actual homework. Clue: this will not involve a bong, blunt, clip, or 40 - save those for your Arts and Aesthetics Symposium or somesuch).+1 Bassomatic


--------------
We need to take this term and all those who utter it and send them to Rockism island and push the button.

kay.

As Joe Pesci so eloquently said in my Cousin Vinnie, "I'm tchroo wid dis guy"

BK

[Peter]

Less talk, more rock. Can't all of this discussion be concluded by the cranking of amps? Or the spinning of turntables, flow of verbiage, or the focused interpretation of aleatoric scores?
Or even better, all at once.

[Cap'n Fingers]

Funny, I feel less like I do now than I did earlier.

[gainiac]

Fox
Socks
Box
Knox

Knox in box.
Fox in socks.

Knox on fox in socks in box.

Socks on Knox and Knox in box.

Fox in socks on box on Knox.

Chicks with bricks come.
Chicks with blocks come.
Chicks with bricks and blocks and clocks come.

Look, sir. Look, sir. Mr. Knox, sir.
Let's do tricks with bricks and blocks, sir.
Let's do tricks with chicks and clocks, sir.

First, I'll make a quick trick brick stack.
Then I'll make a quick trick block stack.

You can make a quick trick chick stack.
You can make a quick trick clock stack.

And here's a new trick, Mr. Knox....
Socks on chicks and chicks on fox.
Fox on clocks on bricks and blocks.
Bricks and blocks on Knox on box.

Now we come to ticks and tocks, sir.
Try to say this Mr. Knox, sir....

Clocks on fox tick.
Clocks on Knox tock.
Six sick bricks tick.
Six sick chicks tock.

Please, sir. I don't like this trick, sir.
My tongue isn't quick or slick, sir.
I get all those ticks and clocks, sir,
mixed up with the chicks and tocks, sir.
I can't do it, Mr. Fox, sir.

I'm so sorry, Mr. Knox, sir.

Here's an easy game to play.
Here's an easy thing to say....

New socks.
Two socks.
Whose socks?
Sue's socks.

Who sews whose socks?
Sue sews Sue's socks.

Who sees who sew whose new socks, sir?
You see Sue sew Sue's new socks, sir.

That's not easy, Mr. Fox, sir.

Who comes? ...
Crow comes.
Slow Joe Crow comes.

Who sews crow's clothes?
Sue sews crow's clothes.
Slow Joe Crow sews whose clothes?
Sue's clothes.

Sue sews socks of fox in socks now.

Slow Joe Crow sews Knox in box now.

Sue sews rose on Slow Joe Crow's clothes.
Fox sews hose on Slow Joe Crow's nose.

Hose goes.
Rose grows.
Nose hose goes some.
Crow's rose grows some.

Mr. Fox!
I hate this game, sir.
This game makes my tongue quite lame, sir.

Mr. Knox, sir, what a shame, sir.

We'll find something new to do now.
Here is lots of new blue goo now.
New goo. Blue goo.
Gooey. Gooey.
Blue goo. New goo.
Gluey. Gluey.

Gooey goo for chewy chewing!
That's what that Goo-Goose is doing.
Do you choose to chew goo, too, sir?
If, sir, you, sir, choose to chew, sir,
with the Goo-Goose, chew, sir.
Do, sir.

Mr. Fox, sir,
I won't do it.
I can't say.
I won't chew it.

Very well, sir.
Step this way.
We'll find another game to play.

Bim comes.
Ben comes.
Bim brings Ben broom.
Ben brings Bim broom.

Ben bends Bim's broom.
Bim bends Ben's broom.
Bim's bends.
Ben's bends.
Ben's bent broom breaks.
Bim's bent broom breaks.

Ben's band. Bim's band.
Big bands. Pig bands.

Bim and Ben lead bands with brooms.
Ben's band bangs and Bim's band booms.

Pig band! Boom band!
Big band! Broom band!
My poor mouth can't say that. No, sir.
My poor mouth is much too slow, sir.

Well then... bring your mouth this way.
I'll find it something it can say.

Luke Luck likes lakes.
Luke's duck likes lakes.
Luke Luck licks lakes.
Luck's duck licks lakes.

Duck takes licks in lakes Luke Luck likes.
Luke Luck takes licks in lakes duck likes.

I can't blab such blibber blubber!
My tongue isn't make of rubber.

Mr. Knox. Now come now. Come now.
You don't have to be so dumb now....

Try to say this, Mr. Knox, please....

Through three cheese trees three free fleas flew.
While these fleas flew, freezy breeze blew.
Freezy breeze made these three trees freeze.
Freezy trees made these trees' cheese freeze.
That's what made these three free fleas sneeze.

Stop it! Stop it!
That's enough, sir.
I can't say such silly stuff, sir.

Very well, then, Mr. Knox, sir.

Let's have a little talk about tweetle beetles....

What do you know about tweetle beetles? Well...

When tweetle beetles fight,
it's called a tweetle beetle battle.

And when they battle in a puddle,
it's a tweetle beetle puddle battle.

AND when tweetle beetles battle with paddles in a puddle,
they call it a tweetle beetle puddle paddle battle.

AND...

When beetles battle beetles in a puddle paddle battle
and the beetle battle puddle is a puddle in a bottle...
...they call this a tweetle beetle bottle puddle paddle battle muddle.

AND...

When beetles fight these battles in a bottle with their paddles
and the bottle's on a poodle and the poodle's eating noodles...
...they call this a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle
bottle paddle battle.

AND...

Now wait a minute, Mr. Socks Fox!

When a fox is in the bottle where the tweetle beetles battle
with their paddles in a puddle on a noodle-eating poodle,
THIS is what they call...

...a tweetle beetle noodle poodle bottled paddled
muddled duddled fuddled wuddled fox in socks, sir!

Fox in socks, our game is done, sir.
Thank you for a lot of fun, sir.

[Zilmo]

Perhaps he meant..







SPOCKISM !

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y34/Zilmo/spock-idic-mask.jpg

[Zilmo]

Or perhaps it was







CLOCKISM !

After all, Digital gets no respect from us analog types.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y34/Zilmo/digital-desk-clock-cwc250c-large.jpg

[Zilmo]

Or is SMOCKISM the answer? Or does this smack of mock sarcasm?


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y34/Zilmo/smock.jpg

[melondaoust]

Spockism...
Clockism...
Smockism...
Rockism...

Too many newsletters to subscribe to...

[Adam]

I think I know what "ism" it is.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004Y6BE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[PaulEdWagemann]

Less talk, more rock. Can't all of this discussion be concluded by the cranking of amps? Or the spinning of turntables, flow of verbiage, or the focused interpretation of aleatoric scores?
Or even better, all at once.Since this is a discussion board, I thought people would be interested in discussing Rock Music.

Sounds like this Rockism boils down to separatism and i'm just not down with that particular agenda.Seperatism from what exactly? Seperatism from shlttie music?

By posting in this thread I become One of the People who Posted in This Thread, but I suppose I can live with that.
No, I really can't, but the line's been crossed. I'm one of Those People now.
Seems to me the term Rockism is used to obscure a lot of basic points about popular music that boil down to the notion that some music will stand the test of time while other music will disappear once the fad is gone. Hence Nirvana trumps Mariah Carey and The Clash trump KC and the Sunshine Band. But so what? Lots of Rock & Roll is terrible, most of disco was terrible but not all, we'll forget about Jessica Simpson and Christina Aguilera but some other pop singer from our time will make an impression.
Somewhere there's a place between overly intellectual rock critics and folks who discuss the impact of -isms, and the vast media-controlled front page of popular music. A place where the good music hangs out.

I could almost call myself a Rockist, especially when it's described as a homophobic and racist viewpoint. I remember that from the disco-backlash. In high school, no one I knew had the faintest idea that disco was created by/enjoyed by gays or dark-skinned people - we just hated it for the music's sake. But I just can't get myself to care about what's "legitimate" and what's "phony". I suppose I'm more of a Rock Numbskull. I like the music that rocks and hate the music that sucks.Thanks for your thoughtful response. Against Gear Page conventional wisdom (or so it seems) I do not think it is a crime to at least address these issues that Rockism indubitably conjures up. Especially issues of authenticity, which is an idea that became very important to Rock in the late 60s/early 70s and is one of the undercurrents that caused so much resistance to 'disco'...

[aleclee]

Just a reminder folks. Don't feed the

http://images.aleclee.com/troll.gif

[Zilmo]

Just a reminder folks. Don't feed the

http://images.aleclee.com/troll.gif
No worries. I ran out of quarters anyway.

[aleclee]

Is jas a rockist? That would explain the imperative to whack him.

[Rusmurf]

These people are rockist

http://www.poopreport.com/phpBB/index.php?sid=4cc228a816d73a502270b32b1c019cc1

[bleujazz3]

You know, I've never even heard of the term "rockism" before today. I'm a somewhat normal (?) college-educated guy. I've read Guitar Player magazine for many, many years, and have always thought myself to be somewhat knowledgable about PRSi, amplification, and other minutia that bears worth repeating on a PRS-styled forum.

I've come up with some good and occassionally a bad comment, but something that espouses homophobic, racist, or other politically charged questions should not be discussed on this forum. Read the disclaimer on the main website, http://www.birdsandmoons.com and you'll see that this is a non-religious and non-political discussion website.

Most of us enjoy a healthy discussion, but not if it brings political matters into question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but please, keep them within the limits set forth by our administrators. This is one reason why most of us on this forum are pretty cool about a lot of stuff, we respect other's opinions. Just not when it infringes on the laws we try to uphold.

Paul, I know you mean well, but I'm sure you didn't know the rules. BaMmers, can we give him the benefit of the doubt for BaM? I don't care what's been posted elsewhere. This is BaM. What makes BaM is the people.

You may now proceed to chew me up and spit me out, if that's your intent. I think we need to realize what's valuable here on BaM, and that's our sense of community. Any BaM-chewers may exit at will. ;)

[Jerrod]

You know, I've never even heard of the term "rockism" before today. I'm a somewhat normal (?) college-educated guy. I've read Guitar Player magazine for many, many years, and have always thought myself to be somewhat knowledgable about PRSi, amplification, and other minutia that bears worth repeating on a PRS-styled forum.

I've come up with some good and occassionally a bad comment, but something that espouses homophobic, racist, or other politically charged questions should not be discussed on this forum. Read the disclaimer on the main website, http://www.birdsandmoons.com (http://www.birdsandmoons.com/) and you'll see that this is a non-religious and non-political discussion website.

Most of us enjoy a healthy discussion, but not if it brings political matters into question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but please, keep them within the limits set forth by our administrators. This is one reason why most of us on this forum are pretty cool about a lot of stuff, we respect other's opinions. Just not when it infringes on the laws we try to uphold.

Paul, I know you mean well, but I'm sure you didn't know the rules. BaMmers, can we give him the benefit of the doubt for BaM? I don't care what's been posted elsewhere. This is BaM. What makes BaM is the people.

You may now proceed to chew me up and spit me out, if that's your intent. I think we need to realize what's valuable here on BaM, and that's our sense of community. Any BaM-chewers may exit at will. ;)
Hey, as a Gear Pager, I think I speak for the whole group... don't feel like you have to cut PEW any slack on our behalf!

[George Johnson]

Well, this is a real yawner ain't it?

[lowendgenerator]

Here's a good one. Love image.google.

http://fs6.deviantart.com/i/2005/103/1/b/DO_NOT_FEED_THE_TROLL_by_Bloodlust_Kid.gif

Uno mas?

http://www.mach-1.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/pow.gif

[PaulEdWagemann]

You know, I've never even heard of the term "rockism" before today. I've come up with some good and occassionally a bad comment, but something that espouses homophobic, racist, or other politically charged questions should not be discussed on this forum. Read the disclaimer on the main website, http://www.birdsandmoons.com (http://www.birdsandmoons.com/) and you'll see that this is a non-religious and non-political discussion website.

Most of us enjoy a healthy discussion, but not if it brings political matters into question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but please, keep them within the limits set forth by our administrators. This is one reason why most of us on this forum are pretty cool about a lot of stuff, we respect other's opinions. Just not when it infringes on the laws we try to uphold.

Paul, I know you mean well, but I'm sure you didn't know the rules. BaMmers, can we give him the benefit of the doubt for BaM? I don't care what's been posted elsewhere. This is BaM. What makes BaM is the people.

;)Thanks for this explanation gilbert. Since you've never heard of Rockism before this thread, you may be getting a total false ideal of what Rockism is all about based on the ex-Gear Page crowd's responses. Rockism itself does not espouse homophobia, racism, or politically charged issues. Rockism does deal with music, musicians, musical techniques, theories, etc. Some Rock musicans, as you know, may deal with political issues in their music. Bob Dylan, John Lennon and Neil Young, my three favorite musicians of all-time for instance. It's not because of their politics that I am such fans of theirs, but on the other hand, personally I dont see anything wrong with them being political. I realize this board wants to avoid flame wars that arrise from poltical issues so that other issues can be discussed--I don't agree with that philosophy for numerous reasons, but those are the rules and I dont intend to break them. However to say Rockism is ONLY about politics is like saying Neil Young is only about Impeaching Bush. Neil Young is an incredbile artist in so many ways, he's had an incredibly interesting life, he's been a true legend in Rock and a force that has changed Rock forever. And there is so much more to him than one song that calls for the Impeachment of GW Bush, just like their is so much more to Rockism than the peripherial political issues it may delve into...

[michael.e]

Thanks for this explanation gilbert. Since you've never heard of Rockism before this thread, you may be getting a total false ideal of what Rockism is all about based on the ex-Gear Page crowd's responses. Rockism itself does not espouse homophobia, racism, or politically charged issues. Rockism does deal with music, musicians, musical techniques, theories, etc. Some Rock musicans, as you know, may deal with political issues in their music. Bob Dylan, John Lennon and Neil Young, my three favorite musicians of all-time for instance. It's not because of their politics that I am such fans of theirs, but on the other hand, personally I dont see anything wrong with them being political. I realize this board wants to avoid flame wars that arrise from poltical issues so that other issues can be discussed--I don't agree with that philosophy for numerous reasons, but those are the rules and I dont intend to break them. However to say Rockism is ONLY about politics is like saying Neil Young is only about Impeaching Bush. Neil Young is an incredbile artist in so many ways, he's had an incredibly interesting life, he's been a true legend in Rock and a force that has changed Rock forever. And there is so much more to him than one song that calls for the Impeachment of GW Bush, just like their is so much more to Rockism than the peripherial political issues it may delve into...

Interesting, you just had to mention it twice......

Are you FOR the impeachment of President Bush? M.E.

[JMintzer]

NO POLITICS PLEASE!


Jamie

[gainiac]

Seriously,


Here's a paper for you to read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816611734/002-5758924-9728845?v=glance&n=283155

[FrankiePRS]

Lyotard's brilliant, but I really think Derrida had better tone. Pretty sure it was the Mercury transformers.

[gainiac]

Lyotard's brilliant, but I really think Derrida had better tone. Pretty sure it was the Mercury transformers.
The inaudible sucking sound is my slowly deconstructing cerebrum!

[Serious_Poo]

What this thread really needs is a little:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7374/loctitesthreadlocker2ev.jpg

Seriously, this sort of nonsense is better left for another forum.

[michael.e]

NO POLITICS PLEASE!


Jamie

I get so damn tired of people throwing in unprovoked and unsolicited quips regarding President Bush et al..

This subversive, ninny behavior is really frustrating to read. I read the thread because of the "car wreck" nature anymore. It is one thing to troll and have it tolerated, it is quite another to begin the cheap$h!*, quiet quipping that is somehow gotten away with. Folks speaking volumes of trash without acually saying much.

Pathetic. M.E.

[bleujazz3]

...Some Rock musicans, as you know, may deal with political issues in their music. Bob Dylan, John Lennon and Neil Young, my three favorite musicians of all-time for instance. It's not because of their politics that I am such fans of theirs, but on the other hand, personally I dont see anything wrong with them being political. I realize this board wants to avoid flame wars that arrise from poltical issues so that other issues can be discussed--I don't agree with that philosophy for numerous reasons, but those are the rules and I dont intend to break them. However to say Rockism is ONLY about politics is like saying Neil Young is only about Impeaching Bush. Neil Young is an incredbile artist in so many ways, he's had an incredibly interesting life, he's been a true legend in Rock and a force that has changed Rock forever...
You're welcome. I agree that Neil Young is an incredible artist, including that he has been considered the "grandfather of grunge" as well. Dylan and Lennon were two of the most influential musicians of their time that helped effect change in a time that needed it, namely the late '60s and early '70s.

But for now, let's leave the political discussion out of it. I'm not going to mention names, but there are a lot of musicians today who are politically motivated that desire to bring about change in the world.

If they set about it by leading by example and offering us a reason to listen to them, we might just do that. I don't need to be told that I must contribute to Hurricane Katrina victims, or Third World suffering relief to do it myself. The song that comes to mind is Eric Clapton and Babyface's "If I Could Change The World."

I understand you're not the most well-liked person on TGP. I apologize if this is a bit personal, but here on BaM, we're mostly accepting of opinions, unless it's meant to incite, as you say, flame-wars, or cause general disturbance.

I like to think of BaM a nice haven from everyday craziness. I get a lot of what you're talking about all the time IRL. It would be great if we could keep BaM as that haven, where you're not going to be bombarded by the S.O.S. everyday.

I look to BaM for information, friendship, jokes, and if I'm not careful, I sometimes am the recipient of a virtual wedgie. Enjoy yourself while you're here, and let's talk about gear or music. Or whatever.

I think it's great to talk about ideas and concepts, but let's keep 'em grounded in reality and not about religion or politics. There are plenty of people on TV that already do that.

You want to make a difference? Share your music-related ideas in The Lessons Lab, where we can learn outright. I'm all in favor of learning new things, as many are, and I believe you have a lot to offer, being motivated idea-wise. Channel it into better ideas, and you'll find a more receptive crowd here on BaM. Good Luck!

[bassomatic]

...just like their is so much more to Rockism than the peripherial political issues it may delve into...

Such as?

If this 'Rockism' is such a deep concept or important idea, you've done a very poor job of representing it as such.

In your case, this thread seems to be more about "Me-ism". Where's the G*ddamned beef? If you have an important point to make, it's completely lost on me.

(p.s. -i think Lennon, Dylan and Young would all be appalled to be associated with this silly concept, however indirectly).

One Love,

-conor

[Donnie B.]

Fox
Socks
Box
Knox

HA! I use to keep this book in work and challenge co-workers to read it from start to finish without tripping over their tongue. No-one ever was able to do it. Hilarious hearing them try.

[Jimi D]

Friends, I dont know how youve all been duped into thiking of Rockism as a negatvie term--if anyone should be defendign Rockism I would think it would be the people here... blah, blah, blah, {snip!} To paraphrase the immortal FZ, Shut the f__k up and play yer guitar!

[Rusmurf]

Rockism itself does espouse homophobia, racism, or politically charged issues. Rockism is ONLY about politics, Neil Young is only about Impeaching Bush.
What???

[drbob1]

HA! I use to keep this book in work and challenge co-workers to read it from start to finish without tripping over their tongue. No-one ever was able to do it. Hilarious hearing them try.
Fox in Socks, the only book harder to read aloud than "One Fish, Two Fish". I read both almost daily for years to some very bright kids (not bragging ;) and never got thru the "Cheese Trees" without at least having to slow down.

[Peter]

Maybe this would be a discussion more interesting to more people if we simply eliminated the term "Rockist". I'll confess the first time I heard of rockism was on TGP thread, and after doing minimal research I find I'm not interested in the -ism but quite interested in a few of the issues raised:

Is there an inherent "betterness" to digital-free music?
Is guitar/rock somehow a purer/more honest/more authentic/more ___ form of popular music than others?
Does today's music suck? Was the music of the ___ties better?
Are Clear Channel/MTV/insert-your-favorite-villain-here destroying the music industry?

I probably lean toward "yes" on all these questions, even though I can come up with my own exceptions.

The issues of homophobia, racism, politics inevitably lead to forum-forbidden territory, so if discussed they'll kill a thread, but again speaking for myself, I really have no interest. Overt politics in music turns me off. The notion that I, a white guitar player, am a racist because I don't love Hip-Hop is absurd and insulting.

[PaulEdWagemann]

Such as?

If this 'Rockism' is such a deep concept or important idea, you've done a very poor job of representing it as such.

In your case, this thread seems to be more about "Me-ism". Where's the G*ddamned beef? If you have an important point to make, it's completely lost on me.Here's my point--eventhough I've already stated this before. Over the past couple of years the term 'Rockism' has become popular by i-pod-infested Yupsters (Yuppie + Hipster) to insult those who listen to Classic Rock (or in some cases even grunge or punk or anything that they percieve to take on an anti-commericialism bent). Thee Yupsters quickly dismiss any music that isnt 'hip', 'fresh', 'whack'--or whatever term is the flavor or the month. And the Yupsters act as if anyone who is interested in the history of Rock music or in anything pre-Michael Jackson thriller is an out of touch Dad Rock yokal. Then when you tell them that it's not just the old stuff that you like, but newer stuff as well (for instance Interpol, Modest Mouse, Strokes, Ween, Arcade Fire) they call you an Rockist (Rock elitist).
We are living in the communication age; cellphnes, PCs, Cable TV, i-pds, dvds, MP3s...we are living in an age where a kid in his basement can put together a halfhour of music in a single afternoon, upload it to the internet and have hundreds of people all over the world hearing it before supper time. But its also a world where any Pop song you could ever want is available at the click of a mouse. Its a world where a handful of corporations control and market artists through their media networks of magazines, movies, cable-tv shows, video game, book publishers, etc.
It seems to me that now more than ever Rockism concerns need to be re-examined. The central theme of authenticity for example is more relevent today than ever IMO. Each day millions of people are being bombarded with images and sounds of Corporate sponsored MegaStars--shouldnt we examine if each of these folks are authentic? Each day thousands of musicians are uploading their music onto the internet--shouldnt we examine if each of these folks are authentic?
And shouldn't we examine those artists of the past who the media have told us are masters? Does having a movie about your life automatically make you a master? Does having your song revived as a winning baseball team's anthem make you a master? Or having your song become a jingle for the latest corporate product?
It seems to me these are legitimate issues, and they are issues that Rockism confronts head on...

[signed,D.C.]

Paul, I understand your points; and they are just topics for consideration.


I would say I'm amazed at some of the responses, which largely project something
else onto the mere fact that your bring up these 'topics for consideration'.

It certainly doesn't seem like trolling, but,apparently so, to many; which is a bit
puzzling, the strong, negative reactions.
Not much more to add re: the meat of your subject, I'm afraid.
I find myself not particularly concerned with the 'issue' as it were; on the whole.

[entropy]

Here's my point--eventhough I've already stated this before. Over the past couple of years the term 'Rockism' has become popular by i-pod-infested Yupsters (Yuppie + Hipster) to insult those who listen to Classic Rock (or in some cases even grunge or punk or anything that they percieve to take on an anti-commericialism bent). Thee Yupsters quickly dismiss any music that isnt 'hip', 'fresh', 'whack'--or whatever term is the flavor or the month. And the Yupsters act as if anyone who is interested in the history of Rock music or in anything pre-Michael Jackson thriller is an out of touch Dad Rock yokal. Then when you tell them that it's not just the old stuff that you like, but newer stuff as well (for instance Interpol, Modest Mouse, Strokes, Ween, Arcade Fire) they call you an Rockist (Rock elitist).Who cares what some weenie calls you?

[drbob1]

By the strength of emotions displayed in this thread, I suspect some serious past history that many of us here are unaware of. As for myself, the concept of rockism does nothing for me, I'll decide who I think is "authentic" and I'll change my mind as I mature and am exposed to new influences. I don't think I'll be revisiting this thread...

[Thwap]

By the strength of emotions displayed in this thread, I suspect some serious past history that many of us here are unaware of.
ding, ding, ding...we have a winner.

[bleujazz3]

I'm still interested in why rockism is else but what's considered modernism, for lack of a better term. We could create an entire general category of people who are the Yupsters you describe who have decided that anything slightly dated (which may or may not be considered "classic" by some standards) or obsolete is no longer useful. It is sad that these Yupsters have defined for us that we are no longer in touch with what's current, and cutting edge.

I prefer to think that my musical tastes tend towards classic late '60s and '70s rock, with more recent musical acquisitions as GOOD musicians make their way into the mainstream. Believe me, I won't listen to a CD if it doesn't have at least 2 or 3 good songs on it. And yes, the majority of my CDs are exactly like that.

Does that mean I have to be on the knife edge of understanding modern music to appreciate it? No. Most modern rock is angst-ridden, and doesn't appeal to me. I happen to like music that moves me emotionally, and if it makes me feel good, so much the better. I don't want to be feel threatened by music, but that seems to be the trend of modern players today. Therefore, the Yupsters who do talk about how "he beat up his girlfriend when he crashed his car after they had an argument" music doesn't even deserve my attention.

Most music today is designed to have an intrinsic shock value, trying to do something that's never been done before. Unfortunately, a majority of modern music that kids are listening to does what every generation has done before, piss the kids' parents off. It's designed to do that, because the kids rebel against their parents, and they need music to call their own that does that.

Therefore, the Yupsters who tell us we are rockists, or guilty of rockism, are merely trying to define and categorize previous generations or groups of people who appreciate music on their own terms, not because corporate music tells us we should like it, or the media tells us we should like it. YOU should be the person who decides what you like.

I'm no 10 year old girl who has to have the latest Ashley Simpson or Disney Channel CD, but that age group seems to be who the media casts it attention on. MTV or VH1 is no longer about music anymore, it's about media hype. I don't want to have to wait until midnight before I can watch any sort of music video, and don't get me started about hip-hop. It's about the buck, the sex, the angst. Not the music.

Does this make me a rockist? If it does, GOOD! Music today needs a good swift kick in its patoot. For every musician who believes in the blues as an art form, in jazz as it's offspring, and rock as it's grandchild, there will be millions of others from new generations who have never looked back into their past to find out where we came from.

Forgive me, but these Yupsters you describe sound like music snobs who can't find their roots. They're so involved in what's hip today, they forget that modern technology is all based on previous discoveries and built on previous generations. You have to look real hard to find something that is truly unique that hasn't been thought of before.

Go back to our roots, people. We might learn something from our predecessors instead of listening to people who want to categorize us into being out of touch. We're individuals. We can chose to do what we want. Call me a rockist, I'll call you a post-modern, neo-pop, non-conformist, poo-poo head.

Sorry, that's where this thread is headed. Just because I like certain types of music, and you don't. Give me a break.

[Layne]

I'm with Frankie; I like pie too!

[bleujazz3]

I'm with Frankie; I like pie too!

I'm looking at Jack Daniel's Bourbon-laced Pecan Pie right now. You in? I'll save you a big slice.

[PaulEdWagemann]

Paul, I understand your points; and they are just topics for consideration.


I would say I'm amazed at some of the responses, which largely project something
else onto the mere fact that your bring up these 'topics for consideration'.

It certainly doesn't seem like trolling, but,apparently so, to many; which is a bit
puzzling, the strong, negative reactions.
Not much more to add re: the meat of your subject, I'm afraid.
I find myself not particularly concerned with the 'issue' as it were; on the whole.Yeah, the accusations of me being a troll are rather confounding. As for the issues that Rockism raises, I think some of them are very interesting because they ask us to question the artists and they ask us to question what is a musical artist (as opposed to an entertainer or an assembly line hack that happens to make music)...

Who cares what some weenie calls you?
:) Well, if you cant defend you opinions against a wienie, then who can you defend your opinions against?

By the strength of emotions displayed in this thread, I suspect some serious past history that many of us here are unaware of. As for myself, the concept of rockism does nothing for me, I'll decide who I think is "authentic" and I'll change my mind as I mature and am exposed to new influences. I don't think I'll be revisiting this thread...
Rockism doesnt tell WHO is authentic--it implies that authenticity is something you should consider...
If you do choose to revisit this thread, I'd would be interesting to hear who you think are authentic artists and WHY you think they are authentic (that's really what Rockism is asking)...As technologies change, the defintion of 'authenticity' is in jeopardy of changing as well--rap artists can throw a few samples of some reverred master, but does that make them credible or authentic?

[sanhozay]

When people think they know how to recapitulate music by authenticity that’s usually the moment that they have no idea why they’re alive. It probably is how many seasoned music critics reinvent their lost youth or evoke a fleeting moment of vitality but, obviously unbeknownst to them, it’s the bottleneck moment that they stop listening to music with their heart.

[KRosser]

Here's my point--eventhough I've already stated this before. Over the past couple of years the term 'Rockism' has become popular by i-pod-infested Yupsters (Yuppie + Hipster) to insult those who listen to Classic Rock (or in some cases even grunge or punk or anything that they percieve to take on an anti-commericialism bent). Thee Yupsters quickly dismiss any music that isnt 'hip', 'fresh', 'whack'--or whatever term is the flavor or the month. And the Yupsters act as if anyone who is interested in the history of Rock music or in anything pre-Michael Jackson thriller is an out of touch Dad Rock yokal. Then when you tell them that it's not just the old stuff that you like, but newer stuff as well (for instance Interpol, Modest Mouse, Strokes, Ween, Arcade Fire) they call you an Rockist (Rock elitist).
We are living in the communication age; cellphnes, PCs, Cable TV, i-pds, dvds, MP3s...we are living in an age where a kid in his basement can put together a halfhour of music in a single afternoon, upload it to the internet and have hundreds of people all over the world hearing it before supper time. But its also a world where any Pop song you could ever want is available at the click of a mouse. Its a world where a handful of corporations control and market artists through their media networks of magazines, movies, cable-tv shows, video game, book publishers, etc.
It seems to me that now more than ever Rockism concerns need to be re-examined. The central theme of authenticity for example is more relevent today than ever IMO. Each day millions of people are being bombarded with images and sounds of Corporate sponsored MegaStars--shouldnt we examine if each of these folks are authentic? Each day thousands of musicians are uploading their music onto the internet--shouldnt we examine if each of these folks are authentic?
And shouldn't we examine those artists of the past who the media have told us are masters? Does having a movie about your life automatically make you a master? Does having your song revived as a winning baseball team's anthem make you a master? Or having your song become a jingle for the latest corporate product?
It seems to me these are legitimate issues, and they are issues that Rockism confronts head on...OK, so it's a legit issue. Here's a legit response:

What I don't understand about this now, or the first several times you brought this up on the Gear Page, is that this is not about music, it's either about parsing of the label 'rock' by the layman, or it's an argument about some arcana of rock criticism, both of which I think are a huge waste of time for a musician. It's a musician's job to look for inspiration, whether they find it in 'classic rock', 'classic polka', 'classic bossa-nova', 'classic vaudeville novelty tunes', 'corporate commercial rock', 'punk rock', bluegrass, dixieland, Gregorian Chant, 19th century American parlor songs, show tunes, Burundi drums, 80's synth pop, whale songs, etc; this whole "rockism" jive is just a petty argument about who's hipper amongst people for whom being hip is really, really important. And again, like I said on TGP, why don't you just be a mensch and listen to whatever you like and not worry about what anyone (or worse yet, "the media") calls it or you?

So, to answer your initial question, in all seriousness - Rockism: Good or bad? - I say, how can I answer that question when the whole presumption is kind of a joke? Is 'what's popular with the Yupsters du jour' really all that meaningful? Does it mean anything to you that I do manage to make it through most days without being 'bombarded by corporate sponsored Mega-stars'? It's really easy, actually. Turn off the TV and turn off the radio and read a book or go take your kid out for a walk. Piece of cake.

Personally, I could never seriously entertain discussing any musical philosophy or "ism" that takes as its basic assumption that rock is the universal musical language, or even dominant cultural institution, to start with....it's just a way of playing music, to me, and there's lots of them...

[Dormio]

PaulEdWagemann,

You make some interesting points.

To the rest of you non-rock-istic-you-cant-say-rockism-aroun-here-freaks. When did it become OK to just rag on someone around here for starting a thread!!?? The world doesn't revolve around ex-TGP threads. Hello!! This isn't TGP (weill maybe in some regard it is) but WTF. I'm suprised the mods allow some of the shots directed at this dude.

[signed,D.C.]

PaulEdWagemann,

You make some interesting points.

To the rest of you non-rock-istic-you-cant-say-rockism-aroun-here-freaks. When did it become OK to just rag on someone around here for starting a thread!!?? The world doesn't revolve around ex-TGP threads. Hello!! This isn't TGP (weill maybe in some regard it is) but WTF. I'm suprised the mods allow some of the shots directed at this dude.
I agree.

I'm amazed at the tone of some of the responses.

Massive amount of projection going on.

The ones crying "troll !" are actually _being_ hostile trolls.

[hemlock]

Hey Paul,

Can I ask what you get out of this? Do you hope someone is going to lead you to some greater undertanding of music? Do you want to just throw around some isms? Do you hope to educate the folks here and at TGP? I just don't see you managing the threads on Rockism in a way that contributes much of anything worthwhile. Seems to me that you just throw out a sort of controversial pseudo-idea and then sit back and watch people. That's pretty much what trolls do.

If you have some definite ideas on what distinguishes high quality music from low quality, let's hear 'em. That could possibly lead to productive discussion, although the many highly experienced pros/semi pros here have worked their own ways through those issues a long time ago. I'm just not clear at all on what you hope to gain by harping on the Rockism thing. It's not like it's an important idea like grammar or cartoons or directional power cables.

[PaulEdWagemann]

Does it mean anything to you that I do manage to make it through most days without being 'bombarded by corporate sponsored Mega-stars'? It's really easy, actually. Turn off the TV and turn off the radio and read a book or go take your kid out for a walk. Piece of cake.
I agree with this--I only watch about an hour of TV per day. I try to check out the Daly show and then the Colbert Report on the comedy channel (muting the commercials)--and this is only 4 days a week. I get my news from the Internet, my sports from actually playing and my weather by lookin gout the window. But unless you are living in a cave in the hills somewhere it is impossible not to feel the effects of the Corporate Consumer culture that dominates the USA. Have a conversation with someone at the dentists office, or at the park or wherever, and they expect you to know and understand the latest melodrams in Britney Spears or Micheal Jackson's life. I'm not saying everyone expects that, but an overwhelming majority.

[JMintzer]

PaulEdWagemann,

You make some interesting points.

To the rest of you non-rock-istic-you-cant-say-rockism-aroun-here-freaks. When did it become OK to just rag on someone around here for starting a thread!!?? The world doesn't revolve around ex-TGP threads. Hello!! This isn't TGP (weill maybe in some regard it is) but WTF. I'm suprised the mods allow some of the shots directed at this dude.
Did you report any of the 'shots'? I never saw any. I quite reading this thread halfway thru the first page (damn ADD...), so I really neveer saw anythi....


Jamie

P.S. For all intents and purposes, this is TGP (kinda' like an Embassy being home soil in a foriegn country). So the TGP members who are frequenting this section of BaM, this is simply a re-hash of a tire old discussion.

[KRosser]

I agree with this--I only watch about an hour of TV per day. I try to check out the Daly show and then the Colbert Report on the comedy channel (muting the commercials)--and this is only 4 days a week. I get my news from the Internet, my sports from actually playing and my weather by lookin gout the window. But unless you are living in a cave in the hills somewhere it is impossible not to feel the effects of the Corporate Consumer culture that dominates the USA. Have a conversation with someone at the dentists office, or at the park or wherever, and they expect you to know and understand the latest melodrams in Britney Spears or Micheal Jackson's life. I'm not saying everyone expects that, but an overwhelming majority.I hear what you're saying, but I believe that to be a falacious exaggeration. Michael Jackson's Thriller was the best selling pop album of all time, yet MOST Americans didn't buy it. Therefore, no cultural majority hegemony on Michael Jackson.

But, honestly, if I run into someone at the dentists' office and they expect me to be up on the latest celebrity tempest in a teapot, I tell them, "I have no idea about any of that", which is usually true, and it shuts them up. I don't feel obligated to take part in that game. Nothing against anyone that does - I just don't see the point.

I actually find it much more likely that another male will ask me about "the game", and whichever game it is they're talking about, I didn't see it, so....that's OK. I don't mind being in the cultural minority

[Big Mike]

Where's that damn UPS truck......is it Monday yet?

[PaulEdWagemann]

I hear what you're saying, but I believe that to be a falacious exxageration. Michael Jackson's Thriller was teh best selling pop album of all time, yet MOST Americans didn't buy it. Therefore, no cultural majority hegemony on Michael Jackson.

But, honestly, if I run into someone at the dentists' office and they expect me to be up on the latest celebrity tempest in a teapot, I tell them, "I have no idea about any of that", which is usually true, and it shuts them up. I don't feel obligated to take part in that game. Nothing against anyone that does - I just don't see the point.

I actually find it much more likely that another male will ask me about "the game", and whichever game it is they're talking about, I didn't see it, so....Right, your point about Michael Jackson just sorta shows that people are more interested in the pop gossip than the actual music. And eventhough most Americans never bought the album, I would venture to guess than most have seen stuff about his child molesting case or marriage to lisa marie presley, etc.
Also from your post, I would venture to say that you have some of the same frustrations as I have in trying to be a social being in the modern corporate consumer culture. I like people, I like interacting with people and sometimes it seems if you dont watch 25 hours of TV a week then its like you have nothing in common with alot of people you deal with.

[Big Mike]

'Retribution' by Eric Gales. Thanks for asking.

[PaulEdWagemann]

Hey Paul,

Can I ask what you get out of this? Do you hope someone is going to lead you to some greater undertanding of music? Do you want to just throw around some isms? Do you hope to educate the folks here and at TGP? I just don't see you managing the threads on Rockism in a way that contributes much of anything worthwhile. Seems to me that you just throw out a sort of controversial pseudo-idea and then sit back and watch people. That's pretty much what trolls do.
I dont Hemlock--what does anyone get out of posting anything on a message board. I find it an intersesting subject matter and would like to discuss it with other people...

When people think they know how to recapitulate music by authenticity that’s usually the moment that they have no idea why they’re alive. It probably is how many seasoned music critics reinvent their lost youth or evoke a fleeting moment of vitality but, obviously unbeknownst to them, it’s the bottleneck moment that they stop listening to music with their heart.Listening to music with your heart is indeed a great way to do it. But does that make listening with your ears and head a terrible thing?

Did you report any of the 'shots'? I never saw any. I quite reading this thread halfway thru the first page (damn ADD...), so I really neveer saw anythi....


Jamie

I didn't report any of these shots that were taken at me. I really don't see any point in that. If trying to belittle me makes them feel better, then I feel sorry enough for them as it is--reporting them wouldn't help any...

[FrankiePRS]

'Retribution' by Eric Gales. Thanks for asking.Copyright Violation!!!

Hey wait... so is Jamie's ADD crack. If he really had ADD he wouldn't treat the subject so lightly. I mean seriously... to those of us who have to deal with it on a dai

[jmadill]

Here's my take on this ...

Someone attempting to define the rules of music is no better than the alleged corporate types trying to define "the next big thing" ... and if someone chooses to follow those guidelines, they are just another pop culture lemming.

So, some rockism committee somewhere is recommending a definition of authentic? If music is created and selected based upon that definition of authentic, it is not authentic because it is based upon someone else's blueprint.

Free will, people. Create the music in your heads. That's authentic. Listen to the music you enjoy listening to, without anyone else's input. That's authentic.

Rockism is an oxymoron. It's own existence is counter to it's published intention.

If a song is written with the intention of it becoming popular, then it has to be contrived to appeal to the masses. Unauthentic, right?

So, if a song is written with the intention of being authentic, it too must be contrived in some way that considers the definition of authentic, and meets that criteria. By definition, it too is unauthentic.

But, if a song is written with the intention of just being the best you can do, and you do your best at it, it may be unpopular but it will be authentic. But, if YOU are authentic, then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, because you know you did your best.

We spend way too much time trying to understand and define things in our lives. Music has a temporal existence. It is what we experience from it, and then it is gone until we hear it again, and even then it will be different based upon what is going on in our lives. Trying to talk about music with labels, definitions, formulas and standards is counterproductive to the experience of music. Best experienced with an open mind, not preconceived notion. Labels suck.

-jm (who wouldn't want to be in a club that would have him as a member)

[hemlock]

I dont Hemlock--what does anyone get out of posting anything on a message board. I find it an intersesting subject matter and would like to discuss it with other people...



But this is what I don't get. I don't see you facilitating any discussion, just throwing out some label and then moaning about the corporate culture. Jeez, folks don't get much more counterculture than I am, but complaining about other people watching too much TV is about as unproductive as an activity gets. Do you actually DO anything to subvert the corporate culture you decry or do you just get bored in waiting rooms?

As far as discussion, what are your rules, Paul? How do you go about distinguishing high-quality music from other types? How do you separate these rules from your personal preference? Would music be better if everyone adopted your rules? If you don't have any rules which others may adopt, then are we left with anything other than personal preference?

Can we actually go somewhere with this silly Rockism thing or are we only going to talk about some idea that other people have about other people's ideas about what music may or may not be.

[bluessyndicate]

I don't see a problem with his thread (other than the name calling and negative responses)....it's far more intellectual than so much of what get's posted....no one should be questioning why he is posting it, just don't read it or post a response if you don't like it..like the mods have attempted to train us to do.

If someone is following the guidelines and not huring anyone them shame on anyone for presuming to be entitled to judge the worth of the thread. Imagine what someone might say about one of your threads. If there is no worth the thread will die, or the author will have an ongoing monologue which hurts no one. If even one person is interested then leave them to it.

I noted the dead links as well, but I think if Wikipedia has a page devoted to rockism, then that shows someone out there thinks it's worth documenting/discussing.

I don't think an original poster is obligated to facilitate his own thread...so what if he throws out a concept to see where it goes...I just wish people would contribute in good faith if they were interested in the topic and get out of the thread if they are not.

[Dormio]

I quite reading this thread halfway thru the first page (damn ADD...), so I really neveer saw anythi....
Having quoted me, that could not possible be the case! I only just read this thread this evening :D

[KRosser]

Also from your post, I would venture to say that you have some of the same frustrations as I have in trying to be a social being in the modern corporate consumer culture. I like people, I like interacting with people and sometimes it seems if you dont watch 25 hours of TV a week then its like you have nothing in common with alot of people you deal with.Not at all. I'm not an overly gregarious creature by nature, but I have a few really good friends that I have a lot in common with, so I feel pretty good about my social standing. I have no frustration with the culture at large because I know that some of my tastes and interests are in the minority. That's OK. I live in a major metropolitan area, where minority interests tend to be well represented. There are plenty of topics of conversation that might come up at the dentists' office that I'd be perfectly willing to chime in on, such as my dental woes, kids, home values, politics, city life, small talk about the weather or traffic, etc. Since I play music for a living, and a great portion of my life has either been spent delving into musical arcana that most laymen will be unfamiliar with, or has been spent in decidely non-social environments (such as hunkered over a guitar for most of a day), my take on musical culture is likely to seem annoyingly idiosyncratic or pointlessly obscure to many laymen, which is OK by me. I imagine my small talk about dentistry would be pretty lame if I were speaking to a dentist, and I would understand if he decided to change the subject or whatever...

Anyway, my point is: we're all a part of SOME minority, somewhere, and SOME majority somewhere else. It's really OK...

And so anyway, "Rockism" doesn't interest me. How's your kid?

[Big Mike]

Copyright Violation!!!

Hey wait... so is Jamie's ADD crack. If he really had ADD he wouldn't treat the subject so lightly. I mean seriously... to those of us who have to deal with it on a dai


You have a copywrite on Eric Gales new tune? Are there royalties invol

[aleclee]

So, some rockism committee somewhere is recommending a definition of authentic? If music is created and selected based upon that definition of authentic, it is not authentic because it is based upon someone else's blueprint.

Free will, people. Create the music in your heads. That's authentic. Listen to the music you enjoy listening to, without anyone else's input. That's authentic.

Rockism is an oxymoron. It's own existence is counter to it's published intention.Whoa! :dude:

[PaulEdWagemann]

Not at all. I'm not an overly gregarious creature by nature, but I have a few really good friends that I have a lot in common with, so I feel pretty good about my social standing. I have no frustration with the culture at large because I know that some of my tastes and interests are in the minority. That's OK. I live in a major metropolitan area, where minority interests tend to be well represented. There are plenty of topics of conversation that might come up at the dentists' office that I'd be perfectly willing to chime in on, such as my dental woes, kids, home values, politics, city life, small talk about the weather or traffic, etc. Since I play music for a living, and a great portion of my life has either been spent delving into musical arcana that most laymen will be unfamiliar with, or has been spent in decidely non-social environments (such as hunkered over a guitar for most of a day), my take on musical culture is likely to seem annoyingly idiosyncratic or pointlessly obscure to many laymen, which is OK by me. I imagine my small talk about dentistry would be pretty lame if I were speaking to a dentist, and I would understand if he decided to change the subject or whatever...

Anyway, my point is: we're all a part of SOME minority, somewhere, and SOME majority somewhere else. It's really OK...
You're probablly right, but sometimes when I talk to people I like to try and find a common point of interest, as to make it an ingaging conversation--small talk is fine I guess, but it kinda bores me and I lose attention. So I like to find a subject matter that whoever I'm talking with is interested in--and it just seems that way too often as of late the people I'm talking to are mostly interested in pop culture bullshoot...



And so anyway, "Rockism" doesn't interest me. How's your kid?
My 4 month old son Jack, just got his second round of vaccination shots today. This was a huge ordeal for many reasons--the main one is that I dont know enough about the vaccination process that I'd like to know. I have a hard time trusting the medical/pharmacuetical industries in general in the US, so I really wonder if all of these vaccinations are necessary. I've done a little research, but I dont even trust the research--I'm just a skeptic that way. It's like, just a couple of years ago they were giving vaccinations that were preserved with mercery and its now believed that this process has caused autism in a large number of kids? So who knows if these 'experts' know what the hell they are doing or not?


I noted the dead links as well, but I think if Wikipedia has a page devoted to rockism, then that shows someone out there thinks it's worth documenting/discussing.

I don't think an original poster is obligated to facilitate his own thread...so what if he throws out a concept to see where it goes...I just wish people would contribute in good faith if they were interested in the topic and get out of the thread if they are not.I totally agree with yoru post bluessyndicate...and I'm sorry about the dead links--they exist, I must have just copied them wrong, I'll go back and get them first chance I get. Or you can google Rockism and I'm sure they will show up...

But this is what I don't get. I don't see you facilitating any discussion, just throwing out some label and then moaning about the corporate culture.
So I dont meet your standards, 'Oh well, life goes on'

Here's my take on this ...

Someone attempting to define the rules of music is no better than the alleged corporate types trying to define "the next big thing" ... and if someone chooses to follow those guidelines, they are just another pop culture lemming.

So, some rockism committee somewhere is recommending a definition of authentic? If music is created and selected based upon that definition of authentic, it is not authentic because it is based upon someone else's blueprint.

Free will, people. Create the music in your heads. That's authentic. Listen to the music you enjoy listening to, without anyone else's input. That's authentic.

Rockism is an oxymoron. It's own existence is counter to it's published intention.

If a song is written with the intention of it becoming popular, then it has to be contrived to appeal to the masses. Unauthentic, right?

So, if a song is written with the intention of being authentic, it too must be contrived in some way that considers the definition of authentic, and meets that criteria. By definition, it too is unauthentic.

But, if a song is written with the intention of just being the best you can do, and you do your best at it, it may be unpopular but it will be authentic. But, if YOU are authentic, then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, because you know you did your best.

We spend way too much time trying to understand and define things in our lives. Music has a temporal existence. It is what we experience from it, and then it is gone until we hear it again, and even then it will be different based upon what is going on in our lives. Trying to talk about music with labels, definitions, formulas and standards is counterproductive to the experience of music. Best experienced with an open mind, not preconceived notion. Labels suck.
I think you might have somewhat of a misconception as to what Rockism is. ~Rockism is not someone trying to define the rules of music.
~There is no Rockist committee that recommends a definition of authentic. If you are a Rockist you will create your own defintion of authentic.
~Rockism is not an attempt to label music, it is an attempt to learn as much about music as possible and be able to discuss and argue what you've learn and in the process hopefully you will learn some more.

[entropy]

:) Well, if you cant defend you opinions against a wienie, then who can you defend your opinions against?Only another wienie thinks it's important to "defend your opinions" against a wienie.

[PaulEdWagemann]

Only another wienie thinks it's important to "defend your opinions" against a wienie.So you are calling me a wienie--and yet you are also trying to defend your opinion that I should not care about the opinions of wienies...so therefore doesn't that make you a wienie?

[Big Mike]

My Bologna has a first name..........

[George Johnson]

Nice Top! :dude:

[jmadill]

I think you might have somewhat of a misconception as to what Rockism is.

That's entirely possible. It's also possible one of us might have a misconception of the term "authentic"

~Rockism is not someone trying to define the rules of music.

Then why would it even exist? If it can't be defined, what's the point.

~There is no Rockist committee that recommends a definition of authentic. If you are a Rockist you will create your own defintion of authentic.

I have a definition. It exists. And it is not tied to Rockism in any way.

~Rockism is not an attempt to label music, it is an attempt to learn as much about music as possible and be able to discuss and argue what you've learn and in the process hopefully you will learn some more.

The word "Rockism" has the word "Rock" as it's root. Rock is only one type of music, so therefore it sets boundaries on styles of music. How does this encourage one to "learn as much about music as possible" if it limits the type of music considered? Why not "Musicism"? Or just "Music"? Maybe "Honest Music" would be a better label, if authentic is the real goal.

And what is the point of being able to argue about music? Why not just make music using what you've learned instead?

Get out of your head, dude! It's called "playing" for a reason.

You originally asked if Rockism is good or bad. I'm in no position to judge, and for me it's just pointless.

Feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves. I'm outta here! ;-)

-jm

[Adam]

I vasilated(sp?) back and forth about replying to this thread. It's in my "subscribed list" because I posted on it. Oh well - the monkey likes to click his links.

Paul, you're obviously not a dumb guy. In fact, some of your statements aren't that far off from my own view of things. I also sometimes shake my head at our corporate consumerist culture, but I eventually get distracted from my head-shaking by something shiny that I want to buy.

Art is and has always been tied to fashion. Things come in and out of vogue - that's part of the nature of humanity. Authenticity is something that can only be defined by each individual, and no one's definition is likely to be exactly like someone else's. To universally define what makes art "authentic" I think would be counter-productive. It's the definitions and categories that can rob art of authenticity in the first place, right?

Just because *I* think that Nickelback is a corporate rock construct designed purely to sell records with little or no artistic value doesn't mean it's not the next guy's "new Beatles." That's OK. I won't think too highly of that other guy's musical tastes, but that's my perogative just like it's his to listen to a sh1tty band. :)

The only thing that's keeping me from really diving head-first into this discussion you're trying to raise is the fact that I'm not sure you're really looking for discussion at all. In a discussion there is give-and-take, but so far all I've seen from you is give-ignore-restate. That doesn't really make me want to devote a lot of time or thought into typing a response.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be combative, and I would probably enjoy talking about the "realness" of music, but not really on a genre-based platform, if you get what I mean.

[Sherpa]

My Bologna has a first name..........

Wasn't "My Bologna" a hit song by the Knack?

Catchy, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to enjoy them in this day and age.

They were somewhat corporate, weren't they?

I trust Devo is OK, though, as they wore red planters on their heads.

Maybe I'm just a Rockette at heart.

Progrockette at that.

Back to music.

[Big Mike]

My Bologna
by
Wierd Al Yankovik.

A counter to rockism icon. :D

[FrankiePRS]

Okay Paul, I'm curious to see whether Adam's observation is correct. (<<I'm not sure you're really looking for discussion at all. In a discussion there is give-and-take, but so far all I've seen from you is give-ignore-restate.>>)

1) I'm curious about what I perceive to be a basic tenet of Rockism. Why is the priviledging of "real" instruments so often assailed as a racist stance, when the roots of "Rock" are so obviously tied to Blues artists, who were often African Americans?

2) Do you believe that there even is such a thing as "corporate rock"? And if so, how would you identify it? I ask this because I find it difficult to slap this label on anything that wasn't literally put together by a corporation, i.e. The Monkees. Even then, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that any music is inherently "better" or "worse" than any other. As it turned out, The Monkees were a vehicle for some really well-written pop songs.

[entropy]

So you are calling me a wienie--and yet you are also trying to defend your opinion that I should not care about the opinions of wienies...so therefore doesn't that make you a wienie?No, but it makes you...a Wienist !

:D

[Adam]

2) Do you believe that there even is such a thing as "corporate rock"? And if so, how would you identify it? I ask this because I find it difficult to slap this label on anything that wasn't literally put together by a corporation, i.e. The Monkees. Even then, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that any music is inherently "better" or "worse" than any other. As it turned out, The Monkees were a vehicle for some really well-written pop songs.I think, if I may, that I can step in here for Paul and give you some pretty good examples:

Real/Good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5y6BbOjYqg&search=fishbone) / Corporate/Bad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA4T77EuzGk&search=wicked%20wisdom)

... at least by my own personal definition (for my own personal use). :)

[Thwap]

No, but it makes you...a Wienist !

:D
No, wienists are a group who classify and compartmentize the music of John Mayers dad......Oscar.

And to me, that was indeed "corporate music" for the masses.

Showing up for concerts in that Wienie mobile...Puhleeeeze.

And the blatant plagiarism of classics:
You ain't nothin but a Hot Dog
Here comes the Bun
Couldn't stand the Relish
Little Wienie

Discuss

[KRosser]

You're probablly right, but sometimes when I talk to people I like to try and find a common point of interest, as to make it an ingaging conversation--small talk is fine I guess, but it kinda bores me and I lose attention. So I like to find a subject matter that whoever I'm talking with is interested in--and it just seems that way too often as of late the people I'm talking to are mostly interested in pop culture bullshoot....
But see, here you are surrounded by musicians, pro, semi-pro, etc with which you could engage in all kinds of discussions on music and here you are talking about "pop culture bullshoot". This is why I'm confused about your message here....

My advice to you, as a musician, is to forget about this, and all the minutia involved in the arguing about music criticism and make music. To my estimation, even the most crass corporate musician is giving something positive to the world that the cleverest of critics can't take away. I relate more to thier motivations than the motivations of someone who would engage in arguments over what kind of music is more "authentic".

I have nothing personal against critics; it's an honest profession. But personally, I feel better about music and the making of it when I read less criticism. I deliberately stay away from criticism-based publications like DownBeat, etc for that reason, even though I know a couple DownBeat writers and they're very good guys.


My 4 month old son Jack, just got his second round of vaccination shots today. This was a huge ordeal for many reasons--the main one is that I dont know enough about the vaccination process that I'd like to know. I have a hard time trusting the medical/pharmacuetical industries in general in the US, so I really wonder if all of these vaccinations are necessary. I've done a little research, but I dont even trust the research--I'm just a skeptic that way. It's like, just a couple of years ago they were giving vaccinations that were preserved with mercery and its now believed that this process has caused autism in a large number of kids? So who knows if these 'experts' know what the hell they are doing or not? .
Yeah, I did some of that research too, but I found the alarmist stories and "studies" were mostly anecdotal. I got the full round of vaccines for my kids and they're fine, if it's any consolation

[hemlock]

To my estimation, even the most crass corporate musician is giving something positive to the world that the cleverest of critics can't take away.
Well said. My own personal opinion of the pneumatic Ms. Spears may be that she is uninspiring, but if she gets some 11 year-old girl (or 16 year old guy!) fired up about listening to music, that's great and who cares what some critic says?

OT- My daughter played Mr. Bungle's cover of Hit Me Baby One More Time. Brilliant! More cohesive and incisive commentary than any Rockist treatise.

[PaulEdWagemann]

But see, here you are surrounded by musicians, pro, semi-pro, etc with which you could engage in all kinds of discussions on music and here you are talking about "pop culture bullshoot". This is why I'm confused about your message here....
I'll be honest with you, being new to this forum I'm still a little gunshy--I'm not sure what is acceptible and what isn't--everyboard has its own interpretations of the rules, so I'm still feeling the waters...I certianly dont want to say anything that can be remotely construed as political for instance...

Okay Paul, I'm curious to see whether Adam's observation is correct. (<<I'm not sure you're really looking for discussion at all. In a discussion there is give-and-take, but so far all I've seen from you is give-ignore-restate.>>)

1) I'm curious about what I perceive to be a basic tenet of Rockism. Why is the priviledging of "real" instruments so often assailed as a racist stance, when the roots of "Rock" are so obviously tied to Blues artists, who were often African Americans?

2) Do you believe that there even is such a thing as "corporate rock"? And if so, how would you identify it? I ask this because I find it difficult to slap this label on anything that wasn't literally put together by a corporation, i.e. The Monkees. Even then, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that any music is inherently "better" or "worse" than any other. As it turned out, The Monkees were a vehicle for some really well-written pop songs.
On Issue #1, if you could clarify your statement with a specific example I might be able to give a better attempt at answering it. I'm just not sure what you are referring to or where you got it that this was one of Rockisms basic tenets.
Issue #2, Yes I beleive that corporate rock exists. It's evolution began as soon as the first large company realized they could exploit Rock and make money from it. It really began taking root in the 70's when Arena Rock/Stadium Rock was riding a high horse and the concert shirts became a must for any young adult. I look at Bruce Springsteen as a prime example of Corporate Rock. There was a coming together of a team of corporate clones whos job it was to sell a product. The product was Springsteen and everything related to Springsteen.
I can give you two reasons off the top of my head why Corporate Rock is bad and exploitattive.
First one, in the late 70s/early 80s Dave Marsh wrote a 'biography' praising Springsteen as if he was greater than Dylan and Elvis combined and multiplied by ten--ofcourse what Marsh didnt write in his book was that his wife (marsh's wife) was on Springsteen's PR team.
Second One, in the mid 80s Springsteen married a certian song of his (cant remember which one now--maybe someone can help me with this) with a certain charitible organization(again I forget the charity, but this is all documented in a book called 'Mansion on the HIll'). In concert each time he woudl play the song he'd mention the charitible organiztion, in interviews he'd mention the charity, etc. The charity made a few thousand dollars from all of this publicity, but Springsteen's image as an 'american good guy' skyrocketed and the single and the album sold millions. Basically he exploited the charity to promote his career.
Now I'm not saying Springsteen did any of this on purpose, but certainly his corporate team did. You could blame him for not overseeing every aspect of his career, if you wanted to or better yet you could simply blame him for selling out--letting other people control his music and message.

[KRosser]

Art is and has always been tied to fashion. Things come in and out of vogue - that's part of the nature of humanity. ."Fashion" is reactionary in nature though. My personal feeling is that an artist should follow his muse, even if it takes you into decidely unfashionable territory. After all, who would have predicted ten years ago that post-"O Brother, Where Art Thou", old-timey bluegrass would become one of the hippest things on the charts and festival circuit, and would land Ralph Stanley on the cover of magazines all over the place?

[bassomatic]

I agree.

I'm amazed at the tone of some of the responses.

Massive amount of projection going on.

The ones crying "troll !" are actually _being_ hostile trolls.

Are you a hack therapist, or do you merely play one on TV?

(yeah, Alec's a troll)
:rolleyes:

[aleclee]

I'll be honest with you, being new to this forum I'm still a little gunshy--I'm not sure what is acceptible and what isn't--everyboard has its own interpretations of the rules, so I'm still feeling the waters...I certianly dont want to say anything that can be remotely construed as political for instance... Sounds like you missed his point. If you talk about making music, you'll be fine. You're much less likely to t get in trouble if you choose to discuss your favorite gear, technique, etc.

Now that I think about it, the key word in the previous sentence was "discuss". The vast majority of your posts, here and on TGP, have been what I will delicately describe as attempts to educate us as to why Rockism is a good way to evaluate music. Any refutation of your thesis has been met with charges of ignorance ("you don't understand ...").

Telling someone how to view art is kind of like telling them out to view sexiness. If it gives me a chubby, it's sexy to me. It might not do anything for you but you've got no right (nor would you be correct) to tell me it's not sexy outside of your personal context.

Bringing us back to the original discussion, why must music be "authentic" (assuming you can come up with a definition on which we can all agree)? Much of Mozart's music was as commercial as anything that came out of Tin Pan Alley but it certainly has survived the test of time?

Here's a hint: if you keep going to the "you just don't understand" argument, you're going to end up on a lot of folks ignore lists.

[PaulEdWagemann]

The word "Rockism" has the word "Rock" as it's root. Rock is only one type of music, so therefore it sets boundaries on styles of music. How does this encourage one to "learn as much about music as possible" if it limits the type of music considered? Why not "Musicism"? Or just "Music"? Maybe "Honest Music" would be a better label, if authentic is the real goal.
This is a misunderstanding a lot of people seem to have. First of all Rock DOES incorporate nearly every other kind of music. Their is soft rock, ProgRock, country rock, southern rock, BluesRock, Folk Rock and on down the line. The reason Rock is the touchstone of Rockism is because at one point Rock was the greatest form of music on the planet. In thelate 60's/early 70s it was not only the best selling music, but it also was providing the impetis for social and cultural change, PLUS it was exploding creatively. Rock to a typical american teen in the 70s was WAY more important than religion. In fact Rock was there religion. So my point is, Rock set the example of what music is capable--its capable of changing the world, its capable of changing lives and the personal awareness and values of an individal. Why not aspire for the best? Why not hold up music of today against the standards of the the highest quality?


Just because *I* think that Nickelback is a corporate rock construct designed purely to sell records with little or no artistic value doesn't mean it's not the next guy's "new Beatles." That's OK. I won't think too highly of that other guy's musical tastes, but that's my perogative just like it's his to listen to a sh1tty band. :)

I disagree--it may seem harmless, but pumping more shlt into the atmosphere only goes to make it harder to breath. What I really dont like though is corporations telling teenagers what is entertaining by oversaturating them with tv clips, radio spots, magazine articles, billboard ads, etc of shotty second-rate musicians when there are some really good bands out there. I think one important aspect of being a Rockist is to bring awareness to the lesser known bands who are of high quality. This is what Kurt Cobain did on his records, live shows, interviews, etc. And evnthough Nirvana signed with Geffen, at least Cobain championed the small bands of high quality...

[aleclee]

The ones crying "troll !" are actually _being_ hostile trolls.In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Big Mike]

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:
"Inconceivable!"

[FrankiePRS]

I'll be honest with you, being new to this forum I'm still a little gunshy--I'm not sure what is acceptible and what isn't--everyboard has its own interpretations of the rules, so I'm still feeling the waters...I certianly dont want to say anything that can be remotely construed as political for instance...


On Issue #1, if you could clarify your statement with a specific example I might be able to give a better attempt at answering it. I'm just not sure what you are referring to or where you got it that this was one of Rockisms basic tenets.


Issue #2, Yes I beleive that corporate rock exists. It's evolution began as soon as the first large company realized they could exploit Rock and make money from it. It really began taking root in the 70's when Arena Rock/Stadium Rock was riding a high horse and the concert shirts became a must for any young adult. I look at Bruce Springsteen as a prime example of Corporate Rock. There was a coming together of a team of corporate clones whos job it was to sell a product. The product was Springsteen and everything related to Springsteen.
I can give you two reasons off the top of my head why Corporate Rock is bad and exploitattive.
First one, in the late 70s/early 80s Dave Marsh wrote a 'biography' praising Springsteen as if he was greater than Dylan and Elvis combined and multiplied by ten--ofcourse what Marsh didnt write in his book was that his wife (marsh's wife) was on Springsteen's PR team.
Second One, in the mid 80s Springsteen married a certian song of his (cant remember which one now--maybe someone can help me with this) with a certain charitible organization(again I forget the charity, but this is all documented in a book called 'Mansion on the HIll'). In concert each time he woudl play the song he'd mention the charitible organiztion, in interviews he'd mention the charity, etc. The charity made a few thousand dollars from all of this publicity, but Springsteen's image as an 'american good guy' skyrocketed and the single and the album sold millions. Basically he exploited the charity to promote his career.
Now I'm not saying Springsteen did any of this on purpose, but certainly his corporate team did. You could blame him for not overseeing every aspect of his career, if you wanted to or better yet you could simply blame him for selling out--letting other people control his music and message.
1) So then are you saying it is not, in your opinion, one of the basic tenets of Rockism? I'm not going to sift through all the criticism right now, but I have read that in more than one place. What do you think? Are 'real' instruments priviledged over synths/sampling/etc or not?

2) Here's where we part ways. I saw Springsteen with the E St. band early on, and it was a truly great live performance. Nothing that his handlers did with him after that matters, and no amount of exploitation changes the temporal significance of that live performance; the urgency of Clemon's sax solos, the stinging punctuations of Little Steven's guitar, and the raw energy that Bruce exuded throughout the entire 2 1/2 hour show. Did he live up to the hype created by others to make money? There is no correct answer to that. It's completely subjective.

Why doesn't the Beatle's success qualify them as "corporate"? Mass-marketing from lunch boxes to dolls earned millions of dollars for everyone involved, and Lennon's peace-nik stance could be read as an image-retooling designed to move more units to the fashionably anti-war youth. Does his apparent sincerity invalidate that claim, and if so, why?

The same could be said for Elvis before them, and it's far from exclusive to "Rock", so my question is: Why "Rockism", when it seems to be more of an attack on, or questioning of capitalistic capitalization, i.e. the merchandising and mass marketing of product?

Rock is just one example of that, but it seems that some are offended by the use of Rock as product, which i find inherently naive. Everything that's not free is product. To label an artist "corporate" is to pass judgement on the viability of their art based on the amount of product shipped and the way it is marketed. It reeks of jealousy, IMO.

[Rusmurf]

This thread is making my head spin. I'm not sure what point is even trying to be made. If there is one, could you(Paul) sum it up in a FEW CLEAR SENTENCES....

[signed,D.C.]

Sounds like you missed his point. If you talk about making music, you'll be fine. You're much less likely to t get in trouble if you choose to discuss your favorite gear, technique, etc.

Now that I think about it, the key word in the previous sentence was "discuss". The vast majority of your posts, here and on TGP, have been what I will delicately describe as attempts to educate us as to why Rockism is a good way to evaluate music. Any refutation of your thesis has been met with charges of ignorance ("you don't understand ...").

Telling someone how to view art is kind of like telling them out to view sexiness. If it gives me a chubby, it's sexy to me. It might not do anything for you but you've got no right (nor would you be correct) to tell me it's not sexy outside of your personal context.

Bringing us back to the original discussion, why must music be "authentic" (assuming you can come up with a definition on which we can all agree)? Much of Mozart's music was as commercial as anything that came out of Tin Pan Alley but it certainly has survived the test of time?

Here's a hint: if you keep going to the "you just don't understand" argument, you're going to end up on a lot of folks ignore lists.
I think by him saying "you don't understand" is that the points he's trying
to make/offer as again furthering the general discussion are being mischaraterized as mere :

- trolling
- hollow pontificating, etc.

I'm not reading a preachy 'this is the one true absolute,blah, blah ..' tone
from his postings .

But that's just me(clearly in the minority .. which is OK, also)

[signed,D.C.]

Are you a hack therapist, or do you merely play one on TV?

(yeah, Alec's a troll)
:rolleyes:
Neither. Are you Dan Akroyd hiding behind an alias ?

Now, that would be cool .:D

[signed,D.C.]

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:
Perhaps, so .

I do know unmerited hostility when I see it.

And no, I'm not singling out anyone, in particular .

Carry on, gents, carry, on ..

[KRosser]

The reason Rock is the touchstone of Rockism is because at one point Rock was the greatest form of music on the planet.
...Nonsense.

In thelate 60's/early 70s it was not only the best selling music,
...You really want to start the argument that "best selling" is indicative of importance? It contradicts everything you've said here.


but it also was providing the impetis for social and cultural change,
...That's the critic's romantic hindsight view of it, sure. I don't buy it though. Name me one important social or cultural change that "Rock" instigated (as opposed to 'reflected')

PLUS it was exploding creatively. Rock to a typical american teen in the 70s was WAY more important than religion. In fact Rock was there religion.
...This says nothing whatsoever about the superior "quality" inherent in rock, as you're trying to portray it. I was an American teen in the 70's and I thought this was total baloney back then too. Again: you speak like someone who wasn't there.

So my point is, Rock set the example of what music is capable--its capable of changing the world, its capable of changing lives and the personal awareness and values of an individal.
...Yeah, sure, if you're incredibly shallow. Why should I ape the values of shallow people?

Why not aspire for the best? Why not hold up music of today against the standards of the the highest quality?
...Because "best" and "quality" are entirely subjective terms?

Now I have a couple questions for you -

1) Are you a musician?

2) If the answer to #1 is yes, what does that mean?

[michael.e]

This thread is making my head spin. I'm not sure what point is even trying to be made. If there is one, could you(Paul) sum it up in a FEW CLEAR SENTENCES....

To quote Sammy Hagar......
"It's all just Mental Masterbation"



Hmm,
Sammy Hagar.............

Montrose
Hagar
HSAS
Van Heflen



Lotta changes that created a great history, great body of work...

Cooperate sellout[?]
Bar owner in Baja
Killa pipes
Renaissance Man

Somebody should get him on the horn to see just where he weighs in on this "rockist" thing and as a musician, just how important is the knowage of whether or not one is a rockist seems to be in the scheme of things.


:rolleyes:


Paul is getting his excitement and his ego stroked by getting all of these responses to his "lofty" :rolleyes: thoughts. That imo is his objective, which is why he is continually re-charging the steam cell in the thread with the "you don't understand" subtleties.
This is so trite.

Paul, what do you think of Bruno amps?

[Adam]

Rock is just one example of that, but it seems that some are offended by the use of Rock as product, which i find inherently naive. Everything that's not free is product. To label an artist "corporate" is to pass judgement on the viability of their art based on the amount of product shipped and the way it is marketed. It reeks of jealousy, IMO.
It seems to me that it's more a matter of the artist's intent. Is the motivation behind their public persona and songwriting style a true reflection of themselves, or is it a fabrication based on data from market analysis?

I can kind of get that.

Look at it this way - a photographer considers themselves an artist. They take photos of the things that move them in compositions they think relate appropriately to the subject. Their art is bought and sold, but it's still art, right?

What about a billboard that's advertising the new Rallyburger - is that art too?

[KRosser]

Their art is bought and sold, but it's still art, right??
Of course. It's an honest trade by which a lot of people all over the world make an honest living. Who's arguing this?

What about a billboard that's advertising the new Rallyburger - is that art too?
I can think of two important artists, Andy Warhol & Roy Lichtenstein, who seemed to be intrigued by this idea.

[KRosser]

Paul is getting his excitement and his ego stroked by getting all of these responses to his "lofty" :rolleyes: thoughts. ...<snip, snip>

This is so trite.

Paul, what do you think of Bruno amps?
Yeah, man, way to keep things from getting trite...

:)

[hemlock]

I think the elevation of rock to the level of religion pretty silly although it makes sense in terms of Rockism. Religion has rules that specify how one must approach the ineffable. Seems Rockism does, too. The more rules, the less experience of the ineffable. That's why I agree with the post about how oxymoronic the whole idea of Rockism is. It's self-defeating.

Music is just music. It's a means of communication among people. Sometimes people have something profound to say and they say it in a way that shakes our foundations. More often, people just natter on and on about the same old stuff and we listen for a bit to the parts that interest us. Music, film, dance, literature, speech, visual art- it's all the same. Some of it is great, most of it is pedestrian, some of it is awful. What I've found, though, is that the more I'm able to jettison my preconceptions about what's good and what's bad about music, the more music I'm able to enjoy both in terms of quality and quantity. Seems to me that Rockism is all about preserving preconceptions rather than eliminating them and, personally, I find that stifling.

As for rock incorporating all other types of music, one can find a very few exceptions, but rock doesn't incorporate Indian ragas or Gregorian chants or Mongolian throat singing or West African drumming or Australian aboriginal bullroarers or Native American sacred songs or Sufi azans. Rock seems so important to us in the western consumer culture precisely BECAUSE it is so easily commodified. It seems strange to then turn around and complain about that commodification. Besides, commodification isn't negative in and of itself.

[Adam]

Of course. It's an honest trade by which a lot of people all over the world make an honest living. Who's arguing this?


I can think of two important artists, Andy Warhol & Roy Lichtenstein, who seemed to be intrigued by this idea.
You're missing my point, I think.

Warhol and Lichtenstein used advertising as the medium for their own art - their intent was to make art, not to sell soup. See what I mean? Was the Campbell's soup can art before Warhol made it so? In my view, no. I don't think it was.

[michael.e]

Yeah, man, way to keep things from getting trite...

:)

HEY LOOK NOOB!!:mad: :mad:



:D

No, really. If you don't see it, that is EXACTLY my point. M.E.

[Big Mike]

I love Sammy Hagar.

[hemlock]

You're missing my point, I think.

Warhol and Lichtenstein used advertising as the medium for their own art - their intent was to make art, not to sell soup. See what I mean? Was the Campbell's soup can art before Warhol made it so? In my view, no. I don't think it was.
Warhol's intent was to sell art. For him, to some extent, art is soup.

[RickC]

You're missing my point, I think.

Warhol and Lichtenstein used advertising as the medium for their own art - their intent was to make art, not to sell soup. See what I mean? Was the Campbell's soup can art before Warhol made it so? In my view, no. I don't think it was.one might be tempted say that Warhol's intent was to sell Warhol

/rick

[Adam]

Warhol's intent was to sell art. For him, to some extent, art is soup.
I think I'm still not conveying the root of my point..

It would be pretty easy to say that Warhol's art, while obviously intended to sell, was also an expression of his artistic vision. The fact that it was so unique only goes to prove that - there was no status quo to conform to for that stuff (though I'm not a huge pop art buff so I could be off on this).

The Campbell's can was never meant to mean anything to anyone except "there is tasty soup in this can."

Of course, no one has issues with the poor can, despite the fact that it's not art. I don't doubt the can's authenticity, BUT if that can played bass and sang in a band that recorded songs about soup, it would raise a red flag.

[KRosser]

HEY LOOK NOOB!!:mad: :mad:



:D

No, really. If you don't see it, that is EXACTLY my point. M.E.
Dude, I was being sarcastic...OK? We're all good here....

[Dormio]

I think by him saying "you don't understand" is that the points he's trying
to make/offer as again furthering the general discussion are being mischaraterized as mere :

- trolling
- hollow pontificating, etc.

I'm not reading a preachy 'this is the one true absolute,blah, blah ..' tone
from his postings .

But that's just me(clearly in the minority .. which is OK, also)
I'm on board with this too...but then again, I am a "nice" guy.

[PaulEdWagemann]

Nonsense.

You really want to start the argument that "best selling" is indicative of importance? It contradicts everything you've said here.


That's the critic's romantic hindsight view of it, sure. I don't buy it though. Name me one important social or cultural change that "Rock" instigated (as opposed to 'reflected')

Off the top of my head I can think of a few, the concert for Bangladesh, the John Lennon rally in which he debuted his song "John Sinclair" and then 55 hours later Sinclair was released from prison...then there the Farm Aid etc of the 80s. But in a more subtle fashion Rock raised awareness, from civil rights issues (Dylan) to police brutality (For what its worth) to injsutices of all kinds.

As for Rock being the best selling form of music in the late 60s--of course that is not something that is indicative of its 'quality' but I do think it reflects its importance. For instance, I dont think the Boy band stuff of the late 90s was of much quality but it was very influential--if only in terms of fashion. What I'm saying is that popularity is a guage of influence...And what would you rather society be influenced by? Something of quality or somethng of crappiness?

[KRosser]

You're missing my point, I think.

Warhol and Lichtenstein used advertising as the medium for their own art - their intent was to make art, not to sell soup. See what I mean? Was the Campbell's soup can art before Warhol made it so? In my view, no. I don't think it was.
Right, but I don't think Warhol was as interested in making answers as he was posing questions, and I think it's possible he meant to question what would happen if you took something as commonplace and clearly functional as a soup can label and present it, without changing it or adding ironic commentary, as art?

I also agree with one other poster, that Warhol was more interested in selling Warhol, which is something I don't think he would have been offended by. Miro said the same thing about Picasso, too, FWIW.

[Dormio]

I love Sammy Hagar.
I like Hagar Sport Jackets, but usually I cant get sleaves long enough for my monkey arms.

[entropy]

http://www.thewag.net/graphics/bob.jpg

Bob don't give a damn about "rockism".

[Adam]

Right, but I don't think Warhol was as interested in making answers as he was posing questions, and I think it's possible he meant to question what would happen if you took something as commonplace and clearly functional as a soup can label and present it, without changing it or adding ironic commentary, as art?

I also agree with one other poster, that Warhol was more interested in selling Warhol, which is something I don't think he would have been offended by. Miro said the same thing about Picasso, too, FWIW.
OK, then you see where I'm coming from. I think art is defined somewhere between the intent of the creator and the perception of the observer.

[KRosser]

Off the top of my head I can think of a few, the concert for Bangladesh, the John Lennon rally in which he debuted his song "John Sinclair" and then 55 hours later Sinclair was released from prison...then there the Farm Aid etc of the 80s. In these cases rock was used to generate money and the money was put to a certain purpose. I don't think rock organically changed any of these situations. In John Sinclair's case, it wasn't rock that got him released, it was John Lennon's celebrity and the influence it had. This is how things change - people rolling up their sleeves and getting to work. Art can deeply change people on a very basic level, sure. I might not even be a musician if I didn't think that was the case. But it's up to people and their actions to put those to work if they want change on a societal level. And even then, I'd make the argument that exposure to art doesn't "change" anything in a person so much as it awakes something already there but dormant.

But in a more subtle fashion Rock raised awareness, from civil rights issues (Dylan) to police brutality (For what its worth) to injsutices of all kinds.Again, reflected, not instigated. Civil rights issues were a pretty big deal and the subject of much public unrest long before the 60's. Dylan's innovation was to make them fodder for Top 40 songs. Even still, I can't think of one piece of civil rights legislation Dylan's music was directly responsible for. Bono has sure attempted, but that's only because he took off his musician's hat and became an activist.

As for Rock being the best selling form of music in the late 60s--of course that is not something that is indicative of its 'quality' but I do think it reflects its importance. For instance, I dont think the Boy band stuff of the late 90s was of much quality but it was very influential--if only in terms of fashion. What I'm saying is that popularity is a guage of influence...And what would you rather society be influenced by? Something of quality or somethng of crappiness?But the thing is, society will influence and be influenced by everything, whether I like it or not, and no matter how you define quality, crappiness or the gray area in between. To argue that society needs to be directed towards influences that you find "good" is starting to sound subtly facistic.

But still, for the most part pop culture and fashion to me are reactionary, in that they constantly have their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. They reflect more than they create. It doesn't mean I think it's worthless; I like lots of pop culture. I just don't think it's at all something that should be consulted for direction when its very nature is to follow.

By the way, I'm not upset by, angered at, etc by Paul or this conversation, nor do I see myself as having any kind of adversarial relationship to him at all. In my world view, it's possible for intelligent and friendly people to vigorously debate something. I hope it's being taken that way.

[KRosser]

OK, then you see where I'm coming from. I think art is defined somewhere between the intent of the creator and the perception of the observer.
Right, and I'm saying I think it's possible there are as many definitions of art as there are both creators and observers.

[KRosser]

http://www.thewag.net/graphics/bob.jpg

Bob don't give a damn about "rockism".
Isn't that the Cialis guy?

[aleclee]

It seems to me that it's more a matter of the artist's intent. Is the motivation behind their public persona and songwriting style a true reflection of themselves, or is it a fabrication based on data from market analysis?

I can kind of get that.Does porn give you a stiffy? It might not be "authentic" but it's still sexy.

F the artist's intent. If their music is evocative, it's cool by me. If it curls your toes and I don't get it, that's fine, too.

If someone wants to judge rock music by the shape and thickness of the picks used by the rhythm guitar player, that's their kink and I'm not gonna ride their ass about it. If, on the other hand, they try to shove their views down my throat telling me "but you don't understand..", I'm gonna get irked. When they start multiple threads on the topic to push their views, I'm gonna get pissed off.

Either articulate your friggin' position or back off. If you can't give an objective definition for your terms, stop acting like you have some litmus test. Saying that "authenticity" is the key to good music and leaving its definition to the individual is pseudo-intellectual at best. Like I wrote above, if that's your kink, feel free to carry on but don't waste bandwidth dismissing those who disagree with you as ignorant of the true message. If you can't articulate the true message to the reasonably intelligent folk we have here, the problem is yours, not theirs.

It is okay to disagree so stop treating people like they're ignorant just because they don't share your world view.

[michael.e]

Dude, I was being sarcastic...OK? We're all good here....

It was directed in 'th fun zone mahself. We are good here.

M.E.

[Adam]

Right, and I'm saying I think it's possible there are as many definitions of art as there are both creators and observers.
I'm in agreement with this.

Cool. :)

I could bring this up, though - more to the direct topic of the thread - that almost all musical "movements," be they rock'n'roll in the 50's, phychadelic rock in the 60's, prog, arena rock, and disco of the 70's, new wave, metal, and hip-hop of the 80's, grunge and gansta rap of the 90's, and whatever you want to call what we have now - each have two phases.

There is the innovation phase and the immitation phase. I never really wind up being a fan of the artists who come out in the immitation phase.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Right, and I'm saying I think it's possible there are as many definitions of art as there are both creators and observers.

the exact point of post-modernism in rejecting 'definitions' per-se. once we try and define something, the definition becomes too small to encompass the abstract experience of said object. we live in a existential world where we simultaneously experience a collective unconscious and a unique and personal interface w/ the mundane. up until the 19th century, western thought tried to make knowledge and experience universal and failed over and over again (with all due respect to the great thinkers that made these promulgations) and it was only in the middle of the 19th century that a few thinkers began to realise the inherent flaw of universal constructs.
what surprises me today is the ostensibly large group of peeps that shackle themselves with these outmoded, meaningless constructs. alas, such is the overall pattern of humanity as demonstrated for millennia. at least there is a growing, sophisticated movement that rejects these constructs and the futility of talking about music being like dancing about architecture.

[Adam]

Does porn give you a stiffy? It might not be "authentic" but it's still sexy.

F the artist's intent. If their music is evocative, it's cool by me. If it curls your toes and I don't get it, that's fine, too.

If someone wants to judge rock music by the shape and thickness of the picks used by the rhythm guitar player, that's their kink and I'm not gonna ride their ass about it. If, on the other hand, they try to shove their views down my throat telling me "but you don't understand..", I'm gonna get irked. When they start multiple threads on the topic to push their views, I'm gonna get pissed off.

Either articulate your friggin' position or back off. If you can't give an objective definition for your terms, stop acting like you have some litmus test. Saying that "authenticity" is the key to good music and leaving its definition to the individual is pseudo-intellectual at best. Like I wrote above, if that's your kink, feel free to carry on but don't waste bandwidth dismissing those who disagree with you as ignorant of the true message. If you can't articulate the true message to the reasonably intelligent folk we have here, the problem is yours, not theirs.

It is okay to disagree so stop treating people like they're ignorant just because they don't share your world view.

??????????????????????????

Did I piss you off, Alec? Calm down, dude. I'm not here to irk you, and I don't especially appreciate you projecting your frustration with PEW at me just because I found some of his points interesting.

If you want to have a discussion with me that's cool, but the only person I let vent at me like that is my girlfriend, and she makes it up to me in ways you can't.

[KRosser]

There is the innovation phase and the immitation phase. I never really wind up being a fan of the artists who come out in the immitation phase.
Well, yeah. Two people can arrive at point B from point A, but the one that actually cleared the pathway is going to have something more visceral to say about the journey than the one who merely trod the path.

But, there is potential that either one might have something to say that will resonate with you, at some point, for some reason.

[aleclee]

??????????????????????????

Did I piss you off, Alec? Calm down, dude. I'm not here to irk you, and I don't especially appreciate you projecting your frustration with PEW at me just because I found some of his points interesting.

If you want to have a discussion with me that's cool, but the only person I let vent at me like that is my girlfriend, and she makes it up to me in ways you can't.Actually the first two sentences were a rebuttal of your thoughts.

The rest were not. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[KRosser]

the exact point of post-modernism in rejecting 'definitions' per-se. .
I always considered myself more of a pre-post-neo-modern...http://forums.birdsandmoons.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif

Seriously, good points, all...

[Adam]

Actually the first two sentences were a rebuttal of your thoughts.

The rest were not. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
It's cool. That wasn't exactly clear in your first post, though.

My point was simply this: Music comes from an artist taking their personality and feelings and using them to interpret their world, other art, their relationships and their lives into works of sound and words. That to me is the origin of music in the mind. As such, it can come out like anything and be art to anyone or no one, and I would never presume to tell people where to find this response in themselves.

But --- I do consider myself to be a perceptive, somewhat empathic guy. I like to think that there are some times when I can tell where the artist is coming from beyond my own mere relationship to the music. I'm not psychic or anything - of course I can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt, but sometimes it's pretty clear.

When that message is clearly "This other guy over here made a whole bunch of money by selling records that sound like this and putting up posters where he's dressed like this, so here I am doing the same thing. Can I have that money too?" I get turned off. I perceive that music as being of "lesser quality," and yes, I'll even go as far to say that it's less authentic to me as well.

If you like that band, that's totally OK with me - I'm willing to bet that you're just not receiving the same message from it as I am, and who's to say who's right? The reason I'll still argue about it sometimes is because it might be very, very difficult to believe that someone else could "miss" (in my perception) the phoniness that seems so blatant to me.

M2CFWIWYMMVetc.

[gainiac]

the exact point of post-modernism in rejecting 'definitions' per-se. once we try and define something, the definition becomes too small to encompass the abstract experience of said object. we live in a existential world where we simultaneously experience a collective unconscious and a unique and personal interface w/ the mundane. up until the 19th century, western thought tried to make knowledge and experience universal and failed over and over again (with all due respect to the great thinkers that made these promulgations) and it was only in the middle of the 19th century that a few thinkers began to realise the inherent flaw of universal constructs.
what surprises me today is the ostensibly large group of peeps that shackle themselves with these outmoded, meaningless constructs. alas, such is the overall pattern of humanity as demonstrated for millennia. at least there is a growing, sophisticated movement that rejects these constructs and the futility of talking about music being like dancing about architecture.
Yes!

In a nutshell:

"Rockism" = An outmoded, meaningless construct.

[KRosser]

Yes!

In a nutshell:

"Rockism" = An outmoded, meaningless construct.
...and with that, I believe we've finally come full circle...

[KRosser]

When that message is clearly "This other guy over here made a whole bunch of money by selling records that sound like this and putting up posters where he's dressed like this, so here I am doing the same thing. Can I have that money too?" I get turned off. I perceive that music as being of "lesser quality," and yes, I'll even go as far to say that it's less authentic to me as well.

.Yeah, but what if you don't know the first artist? No rock critic or historian in the world is going to knock Elvis or Dylan, but what if I can say that Elvis was just commercial rehash of what so many southern black R&B singers were doing authentically, or that Dylan was just commercial rehash of good ol' authentic Woody Guthrie? Especially since Elvis & Dylan made so much more money than their predecessors....

Now keep in mind, there's lots of Elvis and Dylan's music I deeply dig, I'm just building a model for you to take a swing at...

[Adam]

Yeah, but what if you don't know the first artist? No rock critic or historian in the world is going to knock Elvis or Dylan, but what if I can say that Elvis was just commercial rehash of what so many southern black R&B singers were doing authentically, or that Dylan was just commercial rehash of good ol' authentic Woody Guthrie? Especially since Elvis & Dylan made so much more money than their predecessors....

Now keep in mind, there's lots of Elvis and Dylan's music I deeply dig, I'm just building a model for you to take a swing at...
You're absolutely right, hence my heavy-handed use of qualifiers. :)

They did, however, have the content to back up their borrowed style. There are those who to my ears do not.

You don't have to be the first to be good, but you still have to be good. AND just being first doesn't make you good, but hell, at least you were first. :)

[KRosser]

You don't have to be the first to be good, but you still have to be good. AND just being first doesn't make you good, but hell, at least you were first. :)Dude...I'm seriously tempted to make this my new sig....

http://forums.birdsandmoons.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

But still, my point is that ultimately, after all this brouhaha over authenticity you end up coming back to "what works for me, works for me, and what doesn't, doesn't".

[FrankiePRS]

As Alec said, "F the artist's intent". .
PoMo declares authorial intent irrelevant, and this whole thread is about as postmodern as it gets.
.
Oh, and since PEW didn;t respond to my last post, I win. :dude:
.
.
.
Thank you. Thank you very much.

[KRosser]

As Alec said, "F the artist's intent". .
PoMo declares authorial intent irrelevant, and this whole thread is about as postmodern as it gets.
.
.
Warm fuzzies all around. It's so nice to get all post-modern here with you guys...(best Bill Murray imitation)..now get out of here you knucklehead, and I mean that...

[hemlock]

http://www.thewag.net/graphics/bob.jpg

Bob don't give a damn about "rockism".
All bow before the power of slack!

[entropy]

Isn't that the Cialis guy?No, but I'll bet the Cialis guy doesn't give a damn about 'rockism' either.

(You don't know Bob?)

[Rusmurf]

I'm a WordIST expressing WordISM against Rockist and Rockism.

[Bill McDowell]

I'm looking at Jack Daniel's Bourbon-laced Pecan Pie right now. You in? I'll save you a big slice.yummmmmmmmm

[Jo]

I looked up rockism in the dictionary and it wasn't there. Therefore, rockism doesn't exist.

It's twue, it's twue... see for yourself. :)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rockism

[hemlock]

I looked up rockism in the dictionary and it wasn't there. Therefore, rockism doesn't exist.

It's twue, it's twue... see for yourself. :)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rockism

Where were you 17 pages ago????

[Rusmurf]

So are you saying that if you had your choice that society should be directed towards thing that you find crappy? If you believe in free will, then what woudl be your rationale for not trying to use to spread quality instead of crap?


This is called reading what YOU want to read.

[Big Mike]

WHoa!

Everybody can the personal attacks please. Disagree peacefully.

~Mike

[hemlock]

So are you saying that if you had your choice that society should be directed towards thing that you find crappy? If you believe in free will, then what woudl be your rationale for not trying to use to spread quality instead of crap?I think it's smacks of megalomaniacality to talk about directing society toward anything. It seems those attempts usually turns out badder than intended. I prefer to turn my friends on to music that I dig and get the favor returned. That way, I'm not frustrated when society doesn't listen to me like they should.

I believe in free will and that includes the freedom to choose crap if that is one's inclination.

I still haven't seen a response to the questrion of how you go about discriminating between good music and crap, though, Paul. How do you do that? How has Rockism helped you in that regard? Without answers to those questions, it doesn't seem like there's much to actually discuss.

[splattercell]

But the thing is, society will influence and be influenced by everything, whether I like it or not, and no matter how you define quality, crappiness or the gray area in between. To argue that society needs to be directed towards influences that you find "good" is starting to sound subtly facistic.

So are you saying that if you had your choice that society should be directed towards thing that you find crappy? If you believe in free will, then what woudl be your rationale for not trying to use to spread quality instead of crap?

paul.
rockism, if you embody its tenets (somehow), does not seemingly espouse the actual spreading (ie, *creating*) of "quality" vs. the spreading of "crap".
rockism, as it appears to me, merely espouses the (seemingly endless) discussion of "quality" vs "crap".

ken rosser, otoh & imo, *creates* quality instead of crap, and infuses same into his daily, very active musical life:
it is NOT armchair philosophising, for him.

fwiw, which may not seem much:
in my short life, i have come to respect humans more for their actions (and, yes, the clarity of intention behind them) than for their mere words.

dt / spltrcl

[Jo]

look up shlt for brains in the dictionary and tell me if that's there...:D
Seriously though, do a google of Rockism if you really want a better definiton that what youve gotten here...
Yup, 'sh!t' is in the dictionary and so is 'for' and so is 'brains'. Ironically there was a photograph of Jas for the definition. :confused:

[KRosser]

So are you saying that if you had your choice that society should be directed towards thing that you find crappy? If you believe in free will, then what woudl be your rationale for not trying to use to spread quality instead of crap?
1) The fact that "quality" and "crap" are subjective terms.

2) The fact that I don't see any good reason why someone should be prevented from listening to "crap" if that's what they want.

3) The fact that I don't see any quantifiable harm to the society coming from the people that consume "crap" as a direct result of such a presumed abuse.

4) The fact that there is bound to be some elitist snob that thinks everything I value highly is "crap", so I just think it's probably better to not get into finger pointing and name calling that way.

5) I happen to know many people who made a good honest living playing said "crap" and even more that listen to it. I happen to know they're good, smart, hard-working, law-abiding members of society that contribute matters of great depth to the culture in other ways and I see no reason to have such a condescending and judgemental attitude towards them.

6) Where is it written that anyone is obligated to support something critics define as having "quality", particularly if it doesn't fit their entertainment needs or tastes?

7) I think it should ALL be out there, everything from corporate prefab pop divas to electronica remixes of nails on a chalkboard, in one big happy cultural free-for-all, and I really don't care what ultimately becomes more popular. I will always call for the culture to err on the side of over-inclusiveness.

[KRosser]

WHoa!

Everybody can the personal attacks please. Disagree peacefully.

~Mike
As I said before, I have no ill will towards PEW at all; I very much consider this a friendly debate.

[KRosser]

No, but I'll bet the Cialis guy doesn't give a damn about 'rockism' either.

(You don't know Bob?)
No, since it's already been determined here that I have my head in the sand, apparently this was something very important that I missed.

Fill me in on the power and mystery that is the devishly dashing Bob!

[entropy]

All bow before the power of slack! :D :D

[entropy]

No, since it's already been determined here that I have my head in the sand, apparently this was something very important that I missed.

Fill me in on the power and mystery that is the devishly dashing Bob!It's not a very practical thing to know much about, so it actually says a lot about you that you don't know Bob.

But sometime when you're in a mood not to be very impressed, put 'subgenius' into a Google search.

[DanHund]

So, let me get this straight...

Some people prefer "Classic" rock, and think new music is crap, and the artists are selling out, and the people who like it are dumb lemmings.

Some people like new music, and think that people who prefer "Classic" rock, and dislike new music, are "Rockists", and suffer from "Rockism".



...is that right? I'm trying to keep up.

[Bill McDowell]

Where were you 17 pages ago????
18 now - maybe 19

[JMintzer]

I find it ironic that this thread was started my someone who was only a gleam in his father's eye when most of the music he's talking about was created...


Jamie

[hemlock]

But sometime when you're in a mood not to be very impressed, put 'subgenius' into a Google search.

Swell post!

[Bill McDowell]

Swell post!
I did and it came up with the "church of the subgenius" - a none too clean site

have we been converted?

[hemlock]

I did and it came up with the "church of the subgenius" - a none too clean site

have we been converted?

Not until after you've excommunicated all the other popes.

[Peter]

Oh dear, a crowd of people that doesn't know about the church of the SubGenius. They wouldn't know what "pinks" are, then.

Bill: you would do much better to find the "Book of the SubGenius" than to wander through the many web sites you will find. For me the section on "Bulldada" is worth the price of the whole book.

Isn't it totally COOL, by the way, that we're closing in on twenty pages of heated discussion which in large part dwells on how pointless it is to waste words on music? I'm guilty too, just less guilty than others. (The little devil smiley is needed here).

If the argument is to be about what music is worthy, authentic, "good", and so on, maybe that needs to be identified. I don't mind those discussions, provideed I'm not expected to qualify every statement with "IMHO". I believe pretty deeply in what I believe, and if I didn't think that I was identifying some core Greatness in the music I like I wouldn't bother with it. Do some of you feel differently - that all opinions on art are relativistic? That'd be enough to make me give up capital letters.
... even give up rambling, unfocused posts.

[hemlock]

Do some of you feel differently - that all opinions on art are relativistic?

Sure. But I hope this doesn't make you give up capital letters.

By its nature, art is subjective and all opinions are thus relative to the observer/hearer/taster's physical, emotional, and intellectual capacities for appreciation. No mater how much I may appreciate a painter's use of subtle blues and grays to evoke melancholy, I will never be able to get a guy who's color blind to appreciate it in the same depth. We all come to various forms of art with various handicaps and advantages and all opinions are relative to those conditions. You can never share the exact experience I may have in encountering some work of art (or some work of crapulescence). The key to productive discussion about art is the acknowledging of those relative conditions so that we may embiggen our own relative experiences. That's the whole value of art to me- it's relativity. Here's something that an artist created with blood, sweat, and tears- how do I encounter it? What does it mean to me in my condition relative to it?

[Jo]

Is PEW related to Darial by any chance?

[Lanceaman]

Oh dear, a crowd of people that doesn't know about the church of the SubGenius.
I am a great believer in more slack.

[entropy]

Oh dear, a crowd of people that doesn't know about the church of the SubGenius. They wouldn't know what "pinks" are, then.I wrote a post relating pinks to rockists, but I figured it would be completely misunderstood so I put that one in the null bin.

[JMintzer]

Is PEW related to Darial by any chance?
LOL!


Jamie

[JMintzer]

look up shlt for brains in the dictionary and tell me if that's there...:D

Obviously you've never talked to Alec's old frat buddies...

OKay, Mike asked once to tone down the rhetoric. I'm asking a second time. Three strikes and you're out...


Jamie

[Phil Macino]

OKay, Mike asked once to tone down the rhetoric. I'm asking a second time. Three strikes and you're out...


Jamie
Agreed...We've let this one run itself into ground. No?

[Gavin]

Soooo...any guess as to when TGP will be up and running?


Gavin

[Gavin]

I feel like I just drank an entire Super Slurpy without taking a breath. BRAIN FREEZE!!!


Gavin

[TRandy16]

Is PEW related to Darial by any chance?
ROFLMAO....

Too funny Jo...:D

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Yes!

In a nutshell:

"Rockism" = An outmoded, meaningless construct.

um, sorry for being verbose.
that's EXACTLY what i'm saying.
20 some odd pages of virtually nothing except for the odd display of humour (facetious, tho' it may be), some cultural references to pop culture, some rather axiomatic explanations of the futility of embracing said construct, a few personal bashes here and there and the endless stream of random words displayed via the magic of technology.
riveting.

[TRandy16]

To quote Tom Hanks:

"So...How about those Knicks?"...

[Adam]

But still, my point is that ultimately, after all this brouhaha over authenticity you end up coming back to "what works for me, works for me, and what doesn't, doesn't".
And you are 100% correct.

Not like you needed me to tell you that, but... just in case. I'm here to serve. :)

[bassomatic]

paul.
rockism, if you embody its tenets (somehow), does not seemingly espouse the actual spreading (ie, *creating*) of "quality" vs. the spreading of "crap".
rockism, as it appears to me, merely espouses the (seemingly endless) discussion of "quality" vs "crap".

ken rosser, otoh & imo, *creates* quality instead of crap, and infuses same into his daily, very active musical life:
it is NOT armchair philosophising, for him.

fwiw, which may not seem much:
in my short life, i have come to respect humans more for their actions (and, yes, the clarity of intention behind them) than for their mere words.

dt / spltrcl


This really nails it, for me. Especially the last bit about words/actions of clear intention.

[entropy]

I did and it came up with the "church of the subgenius" - a none too clean siteIt does sort of throw you into the deep end first. The Wikipedia entry is a little easier on the eyes.

[Peter]

Clearly, the true value lies in the discussion of the discussion of quality versus crap. Would that be Rockismism? I could get into rockismism, because there's a good rhythm to it you could definitely jam to.

[splattercell]

Clearly, the true value lies in the discussion of the discussion of quality versus crap.
no, you're missing the big picture, here:
the true value would lie in the discussion of the discussion of QUALITY quality vs. CRAP crap, and a discussion about how that discussion could be discussed when QUALITY crap is pitted against CRAP quality.
dontcha think so?
let's discuss it.
dt / spltrcl

[hemlock]

no, you're missing the big picture, here:
the true value would lie in the discussion of the discussion of QUALITY quality vs. CRAP crap, and a discussion about how that discussion could be discussed when QUALITY crap is pitted against CRAP quality.
dontcha think so?
let's discuss it.
dt / spltrcl

That's right. I wrote a song about it. Wanna heah it? Heah it go!

[Peter]

no, you're missing the big picture, here:
the true value would lie in the discussion of the discussion of QUALITY quality vs. CRAP crap, and a discussion about how that discussion could be discussed when QUALITY crap is pitted against CRAP quality.
dontcha think so?
let's discuss it.
dt / spltrclI think that's a load of crap. Quality crap, by all means.

Upon consideration, I think I would choose quality Crap over crap Quality.

Boy to Basil Fawlty: "That's puke, that is."
Fawlty "Well at least it's fresh puke."

[splattercell]

Boy to Basil Fawlty: "That's puke, that is."
Fawlty "Well at least it's fresh puke."
now THERE is quoted some QUALITY CRAP,
In My Hummable Opinion.
dt / spltrcl

[Brian Kahanek]

........ when QUALITY crap is pitted against CRAP quality.
dontcha think so?
let's discuss it.
dt / spltrcl

Sounds like Capitalism vs.Communism.... both are trying to do what they think is right - but Fascist Rockism spies are F'n it all up with a cold war.

BK



wow - I am gunna step away from the glue sniffer now :-)

[fatback]

I just read the whole thread... (my own fault) ...and HCfx is starting looking better by the minute...:p



When the GearPage 2.0 gets running again are we going to have to go through this again (third time)?!!

http://www.nitido.com/art/gallery/escher/moebious.jpg

[PaulEdWagemann]

So are you saying that if you had your choice that society should be directed towards thing that you find crappy? If you believe in free will, then what woudl be your rationale for not trying to use it in order to spread quality instead of crap?
1) The fact that "quality" and "crap" are subjective terms.

2) The fact that I don't see any good reason why someone should be prevented from listening to "crap" if that's what they want.

3) The fact that I don't see any quantifiable harm to the society coming from the people that consume "crap" as a direct result of such a presumed abuse.

4) The fact that there is bound to be some elitist snob that thinks everything I value highly is "crap", so I just think it's probably better to not get into finger pointing and name calling that way.

5) I happen to know many people who made a good honest living playing said "crap" and even more that listen to it. I happen to know they're good, smart, hard-working, law-abiding members of society that contribute matters of great depth to the culture in other ways and I see no reason to have such a condescending and judgemental attitude towards them.

6) Where is it written that anyone is obligated to support something critics define as having "quality", particularly if it doesn't fit their entertainment needs or tastes?

7) I think it should ALL be out there, everything from corporate prefab pop divas to electronica remixes of nails on a chalkboard, in one big happy cultural free-for-all, and I really don't care what ultimately becomes more popular. I will always call for the culture to err on the side of over-inclusiveness.As a Rockist you have to take that frigthening step of determining for yourself what is quality and what is crap. Ofcourse its all subjective, but if you can get it clear in your own mind why something is quality while somethgn else is crap, then perhaps you can express your rationale to someone else and then they may be able to realize yoru standarad and embrace it. Most of these points you make above (especially one through four) seem as if you have not taken that brave step to define what is quality and what is crap in your own mind.



So, let me get this straight...

Some people prefer "Classic" rock, and think new music is crap, and the artists are selling out, and the people who like it are dumb lemmings.

Some people like new music, and think that people who prefer "Classic" rock, and dislike new music, are "Rockists", and suffer from "Rockism".



...is that right? I'm trying to keep up.No, Rockists like quality Rock music--when it was created doesnt matter except for the value and knowledge you get from putting it into that context...

OKay, Mike asked once to tone down the rhetoric. I'm asking a second time. Three strikes and you're out...


JamieI must have missed Mikes comment--can you tell me which post of mine Mike was directing this comment at?


I find it ironic that this thread was started my someone who was only a gleam in his father's eye when most of the music he's talking about was created...


Jamiewhy is that ironic?

[hemlock]

Most of these points you make above (especially one through four) seem as if you have not taken that brave step to define what is quality and what is crap in your own mind.


This makes me laugh a lot! You're actually going to lecture a long-time professional musician (and a freaking excellent one at that!) about the 'bravery' of sorting out quality from crap? Wow.

[Big Mike]

\
I must have missed Mikes comment--can you tell me which post of mine Mike was directing this comment at?


How bout this one?? CAN THE RHETORIC.

Personally, I think it's your goal to just piss people off, and be a troll. You've got plenty of slack, and still personally attacked a few members. '**** for brains' ring a bell?

Cut the BS, or one of us will just be forced to make the whole thread disappear.

[PaulEdWagemann]

This makes me laugh a lot! You're actually going to lecture a long-time professional musician (and a freaking excellent one at that!) about the 'bravery' of sorting out quality from crap? Wow.I'm not lecturing anyone--I asked Krosser that if he had his choice to spread songs that were of quality (in his opinion) to the world over songs that were crap, which would he do. And his answer was basically that quality and crap are too subjective of terms. This seemed to me to be a bit of a cop out, as if he didnt think his opinon of what was quality was very certain--at least not certain enough to share with others...

[PaulEdWagemann]

How bout this one?? CAN THE RHETORIC.

Personally, I think it's your goal to just piss people off, and be a troll. You've got plenty of slack, and still personally attacked a few members. '**** for brains' ring a bell?

Cut the BS, or one of us will just be forced to make the whole thread disappear.I think the post you refer to is the only post in which I insulted someone. If you go back over my posts you will see that this is not a habit--even though I've certainly had over a dozen insults thrown at me (to which no warnings were given by the way). So I'm feeling a bit persecuted now, to be honest. You say I'm just trying to piss people off, but other than that one post (which I did put a smiley face on, which I've always taken to express that I'm just joking anyway) I've only been engaging in civil discusssion about a topic that I'm interested in. If you coudl show me another example, besides that post, to show that I'm just here to troll, then that would be very helpful for me to see what you are talking about, becuasu quite honestly and with all do respect, I'm just not seeing it and that has never been my intention...

[rwe333]

...Most of these points you make above (especially one through four) seem as if you have not taken that brave step to define what is quality and what is crap in your own mind...Man, if you had any idea about the experience of the musician you're directing this at (KRosser) you'd go ahead and stick that other foot in your mouth... Ridiculous.

[Big Mike]

I think the post you refer to is the only post in which I insulted someone. If you go back over my posts you will see that this is not a habit--even though I've certainly had over a dozen insults thrown at me (to which no warnings were given by the way). So I'm feeling a bit persecuted now, to be honest. You say I'm just trying to piss people off, but other than that one post (which I did put a smiley face on, which I've always taken to express that I'm just joking anyway) I've only been engaging in civil discusssion about a topic that I'm interested in. If you coudl show me another example, besides that post, to show that I'm just here to troll, then that would be very helpful for me to see what you are talking about, becuasu quite honestly and with all do respect, I'm just not seeing it and that has never been my intention...

You're not baiting me dude.

[JMintzer]

why is that ironic?
Because you're pontificating about all of Rock's so called "Social Changes" that occured before you were born!

You've only read about the times, or watched some videos and you seem to have some sort of romantic illusions of the 60's and 70's...

To me, that's 'ironic' (with aplogies to Alanis... :p)


Jamie

[Peter]

Man, if you had any idea about the experience of the musician you're directing this at (KRosser) you'd go ahead and stick that other foot in your mouth... Ridiculous.I guess, not knowing that, he had only Krosser's own words to go on.:rolleyes:
I wish the "sarcastic" smiley wasn't grinning.:(

Originally Posted by JMintzer
I find it ironic that this thread was started my someone who was only a gleam in his father's eye when most of the music he's talking about was created...

Jamie
I also ask: why is that ironic? Don't lots of musicologists do that very thing without irony?

I'm in a weird place here. I really don't agree with a lot of Mr. Wagemann has written, nor do I like his telling a friend she has feces for grey matter. But we're all past that point.
I just can't get with a lot of his opponents, especially when the rhetoric turns to arrogance. I have no idea who you people are, professional musicians or not, but I'd gladly "lecture" you on what is crap and what isn't, and I am - and Big Mike can back me up on this - a semi-competent guitarist. Would it make a difference if I were University-educated and had three degrees in music? Not to me.
I find the argument of absolute relativism in music pretty unconvincing, but I'd like to hear someone defend it with more than name-calling and chest-thumping. Maybe it's possible to have a discussion of substance if we change the focus away from personalities.

[Big Mike]

I guess, not knowing that, he had only Krosser's own words to go on.:rolleyes:
I wish the "sarcastic" smiley wasn't grinning.:(

I also ask: why is that ironic? Don't lots of musicologists do that very thing without irony?

I'm in a weird place here. I really don't agree with a lot of Mr. Wagemann has written, nor do I like his telling a friend she has feces for grey matter. But we're all past that point.
I just can't get with a lot of his opponents, especially when the rhetoric turns to arrogance. I have no idea who you people are, professional musicians or not, but I'd gladly "lecture" you on what is crap and what isn't, and I am - and Big Mike can back me up on this - a semi-competent guitarist. Would it make a difference if I were University-educated and had three degrees in music? Not to me.
I find the argument of absolute relativism in music pretty unconvincing, but I'd like to hear someone defend it with more than name-calling and chest-thumping. Maybe it's possible to have a discussion of substance if we change the focus away from personalities.

You are much better than a 'semi competant guitarist' that I can and glady do vouche for.

As for the rest of this load of bollocks on this thread (your posts excluded) I'm pretty well done.

Someone report the thread if it gets out of hand. I'm going to find a life now.

[Peter]

Because you're pontificating about all of Rock's so called "Social Changes" that occured before you were born!

You've only read about the times, or watched some videos and you seem to have some sort of romantic illusions of the 60's and 70's...

To me, that's 'ironic' (with aplogies to Alanis... :p)


JamieDon't apologize to Alanis. The fact that none of the lyrics of that song are ironic is not the intended irony. They're just bad lyrics.
In fact, dare I say it - it's CRAP!:D Objectively. I'll put my life on the line for that one...and raise you a Jessica Simpson and two Carter brothers.
And, oh yeah, you don't have to have been alive when something happened to have the right to comment (or "pontificate", if you will) on it.

Just trying to stake out a bit more of the rhetorical territory for myself, here.

[Big Mike]

Hey! No picking on Alanis.

I have it on authority from Kevin Smith, that she's God.

[Peter]

You are much better than a 'semi competant guitarist' that I can and glady do vouche for.

As for the rest of this load of bollocks on this thread (your posts excluded) I'm pretty well done.

Someone report the thread if it gets out of hand. I'm going to find a life now.Don't become my enemy by failing to insult my posts. THAT would be irony.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment.

[Big Mike]

Don't become my enemy by failing to insult my posts. THAT would be irony.

Um...okay.

You're word phrasing sucks.;)

[Peter]

Um...okay.

You're word phrasing sucks.;)That is also an ironic post.

I ain't winking at you, I know you to well.

edit: by the way, if you or any other mod locks this thread I will personally do you harm. I am having fun. I also pray it doesn't die just when I start to enjoy it as is so often the case.:mad:

Oh, and :p

edit2: you said you were done with this thread and I made you stick around. Ha ha ha

[Big Mike]

edit2: you said you were done with this thread and I made you stick around. Ha ha ha


Oh yeah? Well watch me not post...

CRAP!!!


Damn I did it again.

[JMintzer]

Don't apologize to Alanis. The fact that none of the lyrics of that song are ironic is not the intended irony. They're just bad lyrics.
But of course! Hence, my :p...
In fact, dare I say it - it's CRAP! Objectively. I'll put my life on the line for that one...and raise you a Jessica Simpson and two Carter brothers.
Now, let's not get too harsh on Alanis. She's written some pretty good songs (that Psycho 'You Ought to Know' not withstanding :eek:)

And, as Mike said, she's got that 'God Thing' goin' for her... Which is 'Nishe!" :D
And, oh yeah, you don't have to have been alive when something happened to have the right to comment (or "pontificate", if you will) on it.
Agreed. However, living it will tend to give you a better perspective, imo...
Just trying to stake out a bit more of the rhetorical territory for myself, here.
Troll (rhetorically, of course! :D)


Jamie

[Jerrod]

As a Rockist you have to take that frigthening step of determining for yourself what is quality and what is crap.
This is TRULY outstanding! It's all so important and monumental! I did not know that when I went to the music store and bypassed Jessica while on my way to Jimi that I was achieving something... that I was making the world a better place by doing something that I didn't even realize was so dangerous and scary! Thanks PEW! And shame on you all for trivializing the truly colossal duty of separating the quality and the crap. Please don't shirk your responsibility by imagining that you're simply selecting music that you would enjoy listening to. Nay, the obligation is much greater, for should you choose poorly, there are grave ramifications for the very underpinnings of society. May the Force be with you.

[Peter]

Troll (rhetorically, of course! :D)


JamieYour aim was off:

<quote> As a Rockist you have to take that frigthening step of determining for yourself what is quality and what is crap. </quote>

This is TRULY outstanding! It's all so important and monumental! I did not know that when I went to the music store and bypassed Jessica while on my way to Jimi that I was achieving something... that I was making the world a better place by doing something that I didn't even realize was so dangerous and scary! Thanks PEW! And shame on you all for trivializing the truly colossal duty of separating the quality and the crap. Please don't shirk your responsibility by imagining that you're simply selecting music that you would enjoy listening to. Nay, the obligation is much greater, for should you choose poorly, there are grave ramifications for the very underpinnings of society May the Force be with you.There's your troll.

[Jerrod]

Your aim was off:

There's your troll.
Nah, just a clown. :D

[Zilmo]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y34/Zilmo/fish2060.jpg

[Dormio]

I see no point to this picture other than to agitate PEW.

With regards to Alanis, she swallowed it down, it was swimming in her stomach. The next step had to be crap.


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y34/Zilmo/fish2060.jpg

[Dormio]

--even though I've certainly had over a dozen insults thrown at me (to which no warnings were given by the way) ...
Noted and pointed out early on in this longa$$ thread.

[Bill McDowell]

will this threat never end?

one thought - its spring outside

[Peter]

I see no point to this picture other than to agitate PEW.I dunno - I think it was to agitate me, too, as I've been the most recent "troll".

[Peter]

Nah, just a clown. :DFair enough. It was funny.
I actually believe you are doing the world a great service when you walk past the Jessica Simpson albums and buy a Jimi disc. At least inasmuch as if you're making that decision consciously and due to careful judgment on your part, rather than going out and buying what you are directed to buy by advertising and marketing. If you are, in essence, voting with your wallet, you are making the world a better place.

[Peter]

will this threat never end?

one thought - its spring outsideIf you go outside you can't turn your amp up as loud. Stay inside.

[Jerrod]

Fair enough. It was funny.
I actually believe you are doing the world a great service when you walk past the Jessica Simpson albums and buy a Jimi disc. At least inasmuch as if you're making that decision consciously and due to careful judgment on your part, rather than going out and buying what you are directed to buy by advertising and marketing. If you are, in essence, voting with your wallet, you are making the world a better place.
True, but if I LIKED the Jessica Simpson album and bought it, I claim "I ain't hurtin' nobody, I ain't hurtin no one."

:cool:

[Peter]

I suppose. But you'd be so profoundly, cosmically WRONG.

Plus, buying Jessica Simpson albums spawns MORE Jessica Simpsons. It's like a virus, which can't reproduce without a host. YOU, Jerrod, would be that host.
You could try to spin it, and say "I got a virus from Jessica Simpson," but I don't think you'd be fooling anyone.

[KRosser]

I'm not lecturing anyone--I asked Krosser that if he had his choice to spread songs that were of quality (in his opinion) to the world over songs that were crap, which would he do. And his answer was basically that quality and crap are too subjective of terms. This seemed to me to be a bit of a cop out, as if he didnt think his opinon of what was quality was very certain--at least not certain enough to share with others...Why don't you allow me to speak for KRosser?

I don't think you understood a word I've said. You're not getting the ramifications behind my claims to subjectivity of all this, so I'll spell it out for you as simply as I know how:

I have been around hundreds, if not thousands of musicians in my life, from the most crassly commercial to the most stubbornly avant-garde. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER in my life heard a musician say, "stupid fools, they're giving me their hard-earned money and I'm giving them derivative crap with no substance!".

IN OTHER WORDS: The is no such thing, in my experience, as a musician who knowingly and willingly produces "crap".

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician, in my experience, is attempting to produce something of "quality".

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician I've known has tried to make the best music they can under the circumstances they're in for an audience they want to reach, and tried to find a way to get that music to that audience. And musicians are my people. Critics and wannabees are not. I'll take a failed musical venture over a clever criticism any day. Make fun of Jessica Simpson all you want - she's out there trying at least. What are you doing?

I've asked you this question three times - since you called me on my "bravery", why have you never answered it? I'll ask it again:

1) Are you a musician?

2) If the answer to #1 is "yes", what does that mean to you?

[bassomatic]

Why don't you allow me to speak for KRosser?

I don't think you understood a word I've said. You're not getting the ramifications behind my claims to subjectivity of all this, so I'll spell it out for you as simply as I know how:

I have been around hundreds, if not thousands of musicians in my life, from the most crassly commercial to the most stubbornly avant-garde. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER in my life heard a musician say, "stupid fools, they're giving me their hard-earned money and I'm giving them derivative crap with no substance!".

IN OTHER WORDS: The is no such thing, in my experience, as a musician who knowingly and willingly produces "crap".

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician, in my experience, is attempting to produce something of "quality".

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician I've known has tried to make the best music they can under the circumstances they're in for an audience they want to reach, and tried to find a way to get that music to that audience. And musicians are my people. Critics and wannabees are not. I'll take a failed musical venture over a clever criticism any day. Make fun of Jessica Simpson all you want - she's out there trying at least. What are you doing?

I've asked you this question three times - since you called me on my "bravery", why have you never answered it? I'll ask it again:

1) Are you a musician?

2) If the answer to #1 is "yes", what does that mean to you?

Class dismissed!

(And mentioning Alanis and Simpson in the same sentence is a bit clueless, imo).

[entropy]

Why don't you allow me to speak for KRosser?

I don't think you understood a word I've said. You're not getting the ramifications behind my claims to subjectivity of all this, so I'll spell it out for you as simply as I know how:

I have been around hundreds, if not thousands of musicians in my life, from the most crassly commercial to the most stubbornly avant-garde. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER in my life heard a musician say, "stupid fools, they're giving me their hard-earned money and I'm giving them derivative crap with no substance!".

IN OTHER WORDS: The is no such thing, in my experience, as a musician who knowingly and willingly produces "crap".

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician, in my experience, is attempting to produce something of "quality".

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician I've known has tried to make the best music they can under the circumstances they're in for an audience they want to reach, and tried to find a way to get that music to that audience. And musicians are my people. Critics and wannabees are not. I'll take a failed musical venture over a clever criticism any day. Make fun of Jessica Simpson all you want - she's out there trying at least. What are you doing?

I've asked you this question three times - since you called me on my "bravery", why have you never answered it? I'll ask it again:

1) Are you a musician?

2) If the answer to #1 is "yes", what does that mean to you?<Bow of respect for KRosser>

With this post, IMHO this thread has just paid for itself.

[George Johnson]

<Bow of respect for KRosser>

With this post, IMHO this thread has just paid for itself.
Uh huh... and that's no mean feat.

[Peter]

<Bow of respect for KRosser>

With this post, IMHO this thread has just paid for itself.Ah yes, the assassination of PEW is complete! I forgot that that was the point of this thread.
So I'm a fool for sticking around hoping for substance. Can I have my money back?

(And mentioning Alanis and Simpson in the same sentence is a bit clueless, imo).Actually, that was me who did that, not PEW. Get with the program.:p One time I actually came up with a sentence that contained both "Iggy Pop" AND "George Maciunas" and a full third of my brain literally shut down and deteriorated on the spot. No joke. I think Big Mike and others who know me can attest to at least the strong likelihood that this happened. They'd also probably assume it happened at least two other times.

But back to the topic at hand. Bad, bad PaulEdWagemann. :rolleyes:

[KRosser]

But back to the topic at hand. Bad, bad PaulEdWagemann. :rolleyes:
No, Paul's not bad. He's just a guy with a strong opinion. No problem.

FWIW, when my twin daughters were 8, they wanted the Ashlee Simpson CD. So, I took them to Target and bought it. Stood there in line, put the Ashlee Cd down, whipped out my credit card and bought the sucker, without apology and without shame. What was I supposed to do, tell them they really should be listening to the Bartok string quartets?

Also, FWIW, they've now moved on from Ashlee of their own accord.

[jmadill]

I've really tried hard to back out of this thread, but for some reason, the Forum keeps mailing me all of the responses to the thread, and wont let me quit! ;)

KRosser has my vote for the most thoughtful post on this topic. Thanks, KRosser!

However, on the other hand, without the contrast between KRosser's very honest response and the angry and judgmental posts on this topic, it wouldn't stand out as much. The lack of a personal attack in his post is only obvious because there are so many attacks against PEW. So, as is life, good is only obvious when there is bad in contrast.

Same with the "quality" vs. "crap" aspect of this thread. Without "crap" the "quality" would be boring and redundant. And, without the "quality", the "crap" would be the norm. But, in the end, as many have pointed out, it is all very subjective.

If there was a point that was driven home, it is that the INTENT behind the "crap" is not to create "crap" ... but to create music. And, the "crap" was most definitely NOT created to upset anyone. So what is all the fuss about?

As I understand it, Rockism is a tool of critics, not necessarily artists. So, maybe it should be called "Criticism" instead since that is what is. It is a reference point for people to use in judging music and artists.

For me, there is no "right" or "wrong" here, only what I choose to associate with. The music I make is from my soul, and I DON'T CARE what others think of it. I don't make it for anyone except me, and possibly the others I play with. When we play, we all play to the best of our abilities to make it sound it's best. If people dig it, that's cool, but if not, so what?

My intent is to make music, not change anyone else's life or give them a profound experience. When you create music for the critics, you cease making music.

I also assume the same when listening to music. If it doesn't resonate with me, I move on. It's not "good, or bad" it's whether it works for me or not. If I'm asked my opinion, I give it honestly ... but I focus on the positive side as opposed to personal attacks. It's never a comparison of quality vs. crap.

It is becoming apparent to me that this topic has devolved into a series of attacks on concepts and individuals, and "listening" has been replaced by "judgment" on behalf of many of the participants.

"Judge not, lest you be judged." No way I give anyone permission to judge my music, so I refrain from judging theirs.

So, "Rockism - Good or Bad?" should have been a poll, but if it was, I'd choose "C: None of the above" or "D: Not my place to judge"

And as for "PEW - Good or Bad?" I'd also choose "C: Not my place to judge"

-jm

[KRosser]

If there was a point that was driven home, it is that the INTENT behind the "crap" is not to create "crap" ... but to create music. And, the "crap" was most definitely NOT created to upset anyone. So what is all the fuss about?

As I understand it, Rockism is a tool of critics, not necessarily artists. So, maybe it should be called "Criticism" instead since that is what is. It is a reference point for people to use in judging music and artists.

For me, there is no "right" or "wrong" here, only what I choose to associate with. I just wanted to see that one more time....

Thanks for the kind words, to you, splatt, rwe333, rh, hemlock and everyone. Again, I have no feelings of ill will towards Paul, nor do I realistically expect to change his opinion. Hopefully it's provided some food for thought for others and helped sharpen and clarify my own perspective as well as my own resolve. The questions I asked him (Are you a musician? What does that mean?) are questions I ask myself on a semi-regular basis.

[entropy]

So I'm a fool for sticking around hoping for substance.
Melodrama notwithstanding, I though Ken's post was pure substance.

[Peter]

I've really tried hard to back out of this thread, but for some reason, the Forum keeps mailing me all of the responses to the thread, and wont let me quit! ;)

KRosser has my vote for the most thoughtful post on this topic. Thanks, KRosser!

However, on the other hand, without the contrast between KRosser's very honest response and the angry and judgmental posts on this topic, it wouldn't stand out as much. The lack of a personal attack in his post is only obvious because there are so many attacks against PEW. So, as is life, good is only obvious when there is bad in contrast.I'm sorry my posts came across as angry and jugmental. I admit I was angry, because I have a deep interest in a portion of this topic and I felt it was being ignored for the sake of personality clashes. I also had an intent to focus some of the energy away from PEW, and onto myself, in hopes of continuing the debate.
For the most part, I do not judge people. At times I fail in that - and I can track those moments down in this thread quite easily.

Same with the "quality" vs. "crap" aspect of this thread. Without "crap" the "quality" would be boring and redundant. And, without the "quality", the "crap" would be the norm. But, in the end, as many have pointed out, it is all very subjective.

If there was a point that was driven home, it is that the INTENT behind the "crap" is not to create "crap" ... but to create music. And, the "crap" was most definitely NOT created to upset anyone. So what is all the fuss about?

As I understand it, Rockism is a tool of critics, not necessarily artists. So, maybe it should be called "Criticism" instead since that is what is. It is a reference point for people to use in judging music and artists.

For me, there is no "right" or "wrong" here, only what I choose to associate with. The music I make is from my soul, and I DON'T CARE what others think of it. I don't make it for anyone except me, and possibly the others I play with. When we play, we all play to the best of our abilities to make it sound it's best. If people dig it, that's cool, but if not, so what?

My intent is to make music, not change anyone else's life or give them a profound experience. When you create music for the critics, you cease making music.

I also assume the same when listening to music. If it doesn't resonate with me, I move on. It's not "good, or bad" it's whether it works for me or not. If I'm asked my opinion, I give it honestly ... but I focus on the positive side as opposed to personal attacks. It's never a comparison of quality vs. crap.

It is becoming apparent to me that this topic has devolved into a series of attacks on concepts and individuals, and "listening" has been replaced by "judgment" on behalf of many of the participants.

"Judge not, lest you be judged." No way I give anyone permission to judge my music, so I refrain from judging theirs.

So, "Rockism - Good or Bad?" should have been a poll, but if it was, I'd choose "C: None of the above" or "D: Not my place to judge"

And as for "PEW - Good or Bad?" I'd also choose "C: Not my place to judge"

-jmAll this is so utterly opposite of how I approach music. I judge music very, very deeply. I choose what I listen to based on careful judgment, and I am constantly modifying my judgment based on what I learn. You may not "grant me permissioin" to judge your music, but if I hear it I will judge it. I will give it the same amount of consideration I'd give anything else. In my mind, that's respectful. I do appreciate that others would find it arrogant or hostile to do that. I just disagree.
I don't care in the least about the concept of Rockism.
For me there HAS to be, ultimately, a concept of "Good" and "Bad" in music. I need that belief to continue doing what I do. If I didn't think what I was doing was a striving to Goodness I wouldn't bother. It's not about caring what other people think about it, it's attempting to express what is in me, a sum of my experience and learning.
It's not attempting to force anyone to share my view, or rejecting others' preferences. If you enjoy something I dislike, fine. If you want to engage me and show me why you enjoy it, even better! If you want to hear my views, great. I'm very enthusiastic about the music I make and the music I listen to. I love to proselytize.

And to answer question '1' from sometime back: Yes, I am a musician.
'2': What does that mean to me? Why, I have been paid to make music. I hold Bachelors degrees in Voice Performance and Theory/Composition, and a Master of Music in Voice. I know what Schenkerian Analysis is.
WRONG! Credentials are worthless, ultimately. I know Tenured Professors and Multimillionaire recording artists, and I know novice guitarists who play out of tune and I give their opinions equal attention. You don't have to have achieved something in order for your opinion to be valid, in my book.
What does it mean to me? A tautology. It means: I am a musician.

Let me conclude by reiterating my apology: I am sorry for the angry stance I took and the sarcastic swipes I wrote.

[Matte]

Rockism took quite a beating last year and the year before, but since then the tides have begun to change. At first many of the old guard Rockists sat watching and did nothing as Rockism got smeared. A few tried feebly to defend Rockism, but more recently a new approach has been taken. Since Kurt Cobain redefined mainstream Rock in the early 90's it has become in vouge to incorporate his vision into Rockism. This means no more racism, sexism, homo-phobia and it also means that Indieism is good and Corporate Rock is bad...

Please share you thoughts about this ongoing debate and the future of Rockism...

Here are some links to some of the more highly profiled articles against Rockism from the last year:
(http://rocknerd.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/02/0)

http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0518/050504_music_smallmouth.html (http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0518/05050)

(http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?)
http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?storyID=715 (http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?storyID=715)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism)I'll leave such world shaping manifestos to entitlement /special issues based end users (who are eminently more "qualified" to determine their "relationship" to music).

[Matte]

I just wanted to see that one more time....

Thanks for the kind words, to you, splatt, rwe333, rh, hemlock and everyone. Again, I have no feelings of ill will towards Paul, nor do I realistically expect to change his opinion. Hopefully it's provided some food for thought for others and helped sharpen and clarify my own perspective as well as my own resolve. The questions I asked him (Are you a musician? What does that mean?) are questions I ask myself on a semi-regular basis. Never underestimate the power of repulsion.

[Peter]

KR: Your reply is substantive. I was wrong to consider it otherwise.Why don't you allow me to speak for KRosser?

I don't think you understood a word I've said. You're not getting the ramifications behind my claims to subjectivity of all this, so I'll spell it out for you as simply as I know how:

I have been around hundreds, if not thousands of musicians in my life, from the most crassly commercial to the most stubbornly avant-garde. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER in my life heard a musician say, "stupid fools, they're giving me their hard-earned money and I'm giving them derivative crap with no substance!".
Agreed. Do you believe the same of record company execs? I think that is precisely the mission of a significant portion of the industry: to locate, produce, and distribute derivative crap with no substance, solely for the sake of profit. They have every right to do this - conducting a profitable business is fine by me.

IN OTHER WORDS: The is no such thing, in my experience, as a musician who knowingly and willingly produces "crap". I've done it. It's the primary reason I chose not to pursue a career in music. As a singer I was too often called on to perform music I hated, and I saw in that a path to cynicism I did not like.

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician, in my experience, is attempting to produce something of "quality".William Hung? The Shaggs? Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music"? Any number of "Double Live Albums" released for contractual obligation purposes?

How do you feel about the hordes of truly bad singers put in for laughs in the early stages of American Idol? They may be attempting, in all sincerity, to produce something of quality, but must we sit silently without passing judgment because the musical experience is a subjective thing?

IN OTHER WORDS: Every musician I've known has tried to make the best music they can under the circumstances they're in for an audience they want to reach, and tried to find a way to get that music to that audience. And musicians are my people. Critics and wannabees are not. I'll take a failed musical venture over a clever criticism any day. Make fun of Jessica Simpson all you want - she's out there trying at least. What are you doing?I'm afraid I'm a wannabee. I'm not out there trying. Jessica has me beat on that point. All I do is goof around and jam with my friends, futz with my electronic toys, study voice for fun knowing I will likely never perform in public. Your question (What are you doing?) sounds like a challenge to me. Do you consider my viewpoint less valid because I'm a 'wannabee'?

I've asked you this question three times - since you called me on my "bravery", why have you never answered it? I'll ask it again:

1) Are you a musician?

2) If the answer to #1 is "yes", what does that mean to you?[/QUOTE]I answered those in the previous post.

Respectfully,

Peter Johnson

[KRosser]

How do you feel about the hordes of truly bad singers put in for laughs in the early stages of American Idol? They may be attempting, in all sincerity, to produce something of quality, but must we sit silently without passing judgment because the musical experience is a subjective thing?

No, I'm not suggesting you have to listen to anything you don't like. I don't. What was being called into question was their motives, even their right, to do so.

I'm afraid I'm a wannabee.Your question (What are you doing?) sounds like a challenge to me. Do you consider my viewpoint less valid because I'm a 'wannabee'?


No, and I regret using that term. If it's a challenge, please take that up in your own heart. I have no squabble with you or anyone else here.

[KRosser]

Do you believe the same of record company execs?
Record company execs are not my peers or my concern. I can't speak to their motives. I have met some that loved music as much as any musician I know. I have met some that are so full of jive they made me wanna scream. I only hope most of them know what they're doing.

[Peter]

Then what does the question mean? I inferred that it meant "If you're not out there doing something, what right do you have to pass judgment/criticize/expound on what others are doing."
Perhaps I misunderstood.

[Jerrod]

Record company execs are not my peers or my concern. I can't speak to their motives. I have met some that loved music as much as any musician I know. I have met some that are so full of jive they made me wanna scream. I only hope most of them know what they're doing.
And whether they know what they are doing or not... they are paid to maximize profits, not to advance the arts. If those goals coincide, it's a happy accident.