Rules Of The Game #32: Where The Real Wild Things Are

[koganbot]

Here's the latest column, once again about antirockism.

The Rules Of The Game #32: Where The Real Wild Things Are

I agonized for about ten seconds as to whether I was being fair in the sentence "the antirockists put defeating an enemy ahead of trying to understand him, so in effect were seeking stupidity in others rather than trying to strengthen their own comprehension." Then I figured if I was being unfair, you'd tell me. It doesn't seem to me that those of you who used the word on ilX weren't trying to understand Patrick Hould or Dave Q or Sundar Subramanian or Glenn McDonald or Alex In NYC, but then I don't think the first three had anything to do with "rockism" as you guys seemed to be using it (though I think that Patrick was confused enough by your usage to think he might be a "rockist") or that your use of the term had anything to do with your actual attempts to interact with and understand these guys.

Also, dickmalone made an interesting point at the end of last column's thread where he said "applying 'rockist' principles to acts from the rockist era (60s/70s) is totally fair, and that's why those terms of discourse came to be so prominent." I didn't have the time to respond that day, but one of the problems I'd have had in responding is that I really really really did not know what he meant by "rockist"; if he meant what most of you seemed to be meaning, he's wrong, in that it was just as stupid in 1966 as it is now to say an act is no good if it doesn't write its own songs, and conversely if it was valid in 1968 to praise a performer for trying to oppose or stand outside an injust socioeconomic system, and to criticize performers that seemed to reinforce the injust system, it's just as valid now. Or if "rockism" means assuming that electric guitars mean electric excitement and that other instrumentation doesn't, yes that was more true in 1967 than it is now, but it was still dumb as a principle, and anyway that isn't what most antirockists mean by "rockist," I don't think. And also, I'd say the average rock critic in the '60s was probably more antirockist then than the average rock critic is now, if "antirockism" means something (obv they didn't use the word "rockism" then), though that's just because there are way more rock critics now and the average is someone who's a lot stupider.

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

Comments

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

I didn't include 'authenticity' in my definition as I'm not sure what *I* mean by the word in this context, let alone what rockists make of it! I guess it would be a combination of originality and meaningfulness (ie James Bourne would write song X about fancying his teacher to overcome his childhood trauma at doing badly in Chemistry lessons, rather than writing for the Jonas Brothers to sell a bunch of albums to schoolkids who funnily enough like jumping up and down).

I think your Busted fan is probably a rockist by my definition, he's just not very good at it. If the Jonas Brothers *had* written their own stuff but still aiming at the teen girl market, I doubt our Busted fan would have had as much of a problem with them.

[koganbot]

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?

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

I think this is why a lot of poptimist-minded folks groan whenever the rockist debate surfaces (ie ALL THE TIME). Perhaps we could rig up a big sign on the internets saying "ROCKISM: YR DOING IT WRONG"?

Your questions are still good ones though: WHY are the dudes getting it wrong, and why is originality valued and so on. For the latter, it could be a logical extension of 'making new things is good, otherwise there wouldn't be anything at all' that has been mangled into 'making the *right sort* of new thing is good'.

Sorry - I've just been distracted by the sight of Justin from Hollyoaks wearing a generic superhero's glittery cape and talking to Basil Brush on kids telly. I like being home from work sometimes :)

[koganbot]

Well, one thing I keep emphasizing is I don't see how I'm so different from the "rockists," and another is that I don't see how the antirockists are so different either. So, rather than dismiss "rockism," is there a way to do it right, whatever "it" is? I doubt that anyone would say that there's no value in originality, after all.

[koganbot]

I didn't include 'authenticity' in my definition as I'm not sure what *I* mean by the word in this context, let alone what rockists make of it!

Well, "authenticity" is a buzz word, so you don't have to have a definition yourself, and the "rockist" doesn't know what he means by it (when he's using the word itself) or what is stirring him up and bugging him when he makes an authenticity-type argument (which he can do whether he's using the words "authentic" and "real" or not). But the point is, you can recognize when someone is making an authenticity argument even if you yourself don't know what you would mean by the word in this context. And this (from my Busted fan) is a classic authenticity argument, even though it doesn't use the word "authenticity": "they don't give a shit about what people think." In fact, I'd say that this is the authenticity argument, and all the other reasons he gives (which were all over the place as to whether they're about the creative process, the music itself - its having and "edge" - or the audience (older than Jonas Brothers' and not exclusively female)) are subsidiary to this one. Except maybe for "originality," he wouldn't care about the other reasons if "giving a shit about what people think" weren't the big issue for him. And again, how am I different from him, other than being more self-aware and sociologically probing? I'm the one who wrote, "Now that Paris has been beaten down, Britney seems like the last remaining public figure who's not trying to say the right thing." How is this statement of mine not an authenticity argument, and how is it not "rockist"?

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Your statement may well be rockist, but that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing - you have greater respect for Britney as an artist because she is doing whatever she's doing for herself rather than her audience. Others may have less respect ('anti-rockist', I guess) or be entirely unbothered (neither rockist nor anti-rockist).

I still think this example of authenticity can be included under the creative process umbrella. A lot of artists are criticised for 'pandering to the fans' or 'shifting units' rather than following their Muse, but the decision whether to do this or not surely occurs during the creative process? (OK, sometimes it can be the record label releasing *that* single instead of *this* single, but the artist had to have produced both songs in the first place.)

I agree that most Rockists, like Mr Busted Fan, haven't really thought about any of this in depth. This is why it's easy for Anti-rockists (who probably *have* given the matter some thought and *can* recognise Mr Busted as using authenticity arguments) to tear them apart in this sort of debate.