koganbot: (Default)
Frank Kogan ([personal profile] koganbot) wrote2008-02-20 02:08 pm

Rules Of The Game #31: Rockism And Antirockism Rise From The Dead

Here's my latest, in which I reveal myself to be a rockist, unless that's not what I'm revealing. I also don't come to a conclusion about what rockism is. Stay tuned for the exciting sequel.

The Rules Of The Game #31: Rockism And Antirockism Rise From The Dead

EDIT: Here are links to all but three of my other Rules Of The Game columns (LVW's search results for "Rules of the Game"). Links for the other three (which for some reason didn't get "Rules Of The Game" in their titles), are here: #4, #5, and #8.

UPDATE: I've got all the links here now:

http://koganbot.livejournal.com/179531.html

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] edgeofwhatever.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 04:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Re: Are you a rockist: Aren't we all?

(I'm not being sarcastic.)

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] freakytigger.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 05:01 pm (UTC)(link)
"But rockist writing is certainly not always bad, and we all have our rockist sides. It's a silly word really." - that is from, as far as I can see, the first thing I ever wrote about rockism on ILX, in December 2000.

So, yes!

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] freakytigger.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 05:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Unfortunatley I think the categories are dead. I got that from putting "rockism" into the thread title search and looking at the first ILM thread that came up. I read a bunch of the others too, all of which confirm your basic view that the word is indefinable, I think!

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] freakytigger.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 06:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I'd argue that its value in its heyday worked socially, not intellectually: it was used in the formative months of ILX as a way to blank or short-circuit arguments, not to develop them. The word was useful as part of the culture emerging in ILX, viz.

1. We have started a music board in which we are talking seriously and hopefully intelligently about music which a lot of people dismiss, putting it on equal or better footing with what they don't dismiss.

2. If a lot of the dismissers joined the board it would most likely lose the character it was developing, because it's quite small and there's a lot of them out there.

3. If we have a word that dismisses the dismissers then it will work as a filter on the numbers of them coming in. The fact we can't agree on EXACTLY what it means is, AT THIS STAGE IN THE COMMUNITY, less important than its existence and the fact that we generally agree on the badness of the arguments it dismisses.

4. Oh bollocks the word has taken on a massive life of its own and has become a total rod for our own backs.

This is all huge post facto rationalisation in that nobody thought through "rockism" working like this, but I think it's how it *did* work.

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] edgeofwhatever.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 06:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I mean, rockists are just making value judgments: this music is valuable because it is "authentic," and that music is not. This music matters to me, and that music doesn't.

Trade "authentic" for "well-written" or "aggressive" or "fvcking mental" and it's just another day at poptimists.

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] mcatzilut.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 05:25 pm (UTC)(link)
"A rockist is someone who reduces rock 'n' roll to a caricature, then uses that caricature as a weapon. Rockism means idolizing the authentic old legend (or underground hero) while mocking the latest pop star; lionizing punk while barely tolerating disco; loving the live show and hating the music video; extolling the growling performer while hating the lip-syncher."

So in the Sanneh sense, I don't see why'd you be a Rockist. But you're trying to ask, when you deride new punk as fashion and not music (compared to class punk) whether you're being Rockist. But obviously, Rockism is supposedly blind prejudice. So if I like new punk music, I'm going to say you're a Rockist. And if I agree with you that new punk lacks the same value, I'm going to say you're not a Rockist. (For the record, I think the new punk = fashion statement *is* a Rockist assumption. Since, wtf? Plenty of Hot Topic bands are GREAT. And some of them are even dangerous and punk and very much *something*.)

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] mcatzilut.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 05:37 pm (UTC)(link)
You *can*. But you weren't. "this primitiveness is a cliché, it’s a new brand of deodorant, punk-hardcore deodorant; ultimately, it’s nothing. Punk isn’t punk anymore, it’s a bunch of musical/clothing signs that symbolize punk." You're inherently linking (if not in argument, then in proximity) the idea that punk is fashion and that it isn't "punk anymore." And since I happen to believe that fashion punk (or mascara punk, or emo, or hardcore, or hot topic punk) is "punk," I obviously have to call that sentence a Rockist assumption. Since you're saying that 'grit' has become cliche, it first appears that you're subverting the Rockist beliefs (since a Rockist belief is that any grit is good) but you're still championing grit. You're just saying that you only champion real grit, and that this is bogus cliche fashion grit.

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] mcatzilut.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 05:37 pm (UTC)(link)
To wit: Glitter Grit!

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] skyecaptain.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)
This might relate to something I said to Carl Wilson about "dismantling my contempt" being analogous to "dismantling my gun"; i.e., am I dismantling it to disarm myself, or am I just one of those people that likes to see how well they can dismantle and recombine their guns?

I think good rock criticism can do the latter -- I understand my contempt better, but hell if I'm going to STOP feeling contemptuous (see: mumblecore!!!).

So maybe one question here is: is there any way to use rock 'n' roll as a weapon in which contempt ISN'T at issue? How can I use rock 'n' roll as a weapon that doesn't hurt someone, or why would I even want to?

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[identity profile] skyecaptain.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 09:02 pm (UTC)(link)
That is to say, if rockism is about contempt in some fashion -- for a piece of work, for an audience, often both -- the problem with rockism can only be whether or not that contempt is misplaced, either because when you try to dismantle it it comes apart (poor craftsmanship) or when you try to put it back together in a new circumstance you find the pieces won't go together the way you want them to.

In the former category, dismantling "but they don't write their own songs!" usually just makes the argument fall apart. But let's say this IS a valid criticism that reflects your values: does it apply when you start talking about a different kind of music, a different production method, or a different sensibility? Does my dad, who only listens to classical guitar music and for whom skill and excellence in performance are key, really get to level his skill-and-excellence gun at Ashlee?