It seems to me that we're back at the beginning here.
As far as I can tell, the people who get called "rockists" don't place value in the creative process, nor are even interested in it - again, how many of them could say what the difference is between John Shanks' creative process and Bob Dylan's? how many of them know a thing about it? - but rather in who they think does the creating, and what the perceived motives are of the music maker, which they try to read off the style of music. So they're very interested in the product, but they "read" the product for a hero or villain story about who made it and what the music maker's social or commercial intentions were. (Aesthetic intentions never seem to come into the rockist's discussion.) In any event, what I want you to explore is why the rockist values "the creative process" or whatever it is he's valuing when he seems to you to be valuing it. What does he value about it? Why does he value X in the creative process but not Y?
no subject
As far as I can tell, the people who get called "rockists" don't place value in the creative process, nor are even interested in it - again, how many of them could say what the difference is between John Shanks' creative process and Bob Dylan's? how many of them know a thing about it? - but rather in who they think does the creating, and what the perceived motives are of the music maker, which they try to read off the style of music. So they're very interested in the product, but they "read" the product for a hero or villain story about who made it and what the music maker's social or commercial intentions were. (Aesthetic intentions never seem to come into the rockist's discussion.) In any event, what I want you to explore is why the rockist values "the creative process" or whatever it is he's valuing when he seems to you to be valuing it. What does he value about it? Why does he value X in the creative process but not Y?