The "rockism" debate

[marios]

Music does not suck nowadays.

marios, yesterday.

I look old.

[king feeb]

There is a rockist attitude on this board on the whole, and I'm not surprised at that. It's the authenticity factor that I think most people are attracted to, and I can see why. Rap and a lot of modern pop perhaps lacks in many people's eyes on this board that factor because it's not made with "real" instruments and is part of a process rather than reaching for a dream that fuelled the ambition of many of yesteryear's musical legends.

I think you're right about that to an extent. But, I think it comes down to whether music has an artistic vision and purpose or not. This is a lot less likely when music is done by committee. The tools and processes aren't the problem- in fact, modern equipment and working methods actually allow the individual (or group) more individual artistic expression, and we see this every day in self-contained electronic artists and underground hiphoppers as well as rockers creating, recording and releasing their music by themselves. But there is an aspect of auteurist artistic control in these projects. I don't necessarily think that's the type of thing that raises our (okay...my) objections.

But when you're talking about a "music act" that's more of a marketing plan...
when you're talking about song writer/song-doctor teams that provide "content" to producers who then concoct a saleable "product" in which the alleged "artist" is a cipher/vocalist that plugs in at the top end of the production chain...
and when the artist in question is the public-relations "face and voice" (often chosen more for photogenic qualities than musical talent)of a mass-marketed commodity...

THEN you're reducing a great art form to the level of a McDonald's hamburger, and I will proudly be not only a "rockist", but also a deliberate and complete snob in passing up this crap in favor of Black Dice, Icarus Line,Deerhoof, Comets On Fire, Fennesz, Plastic Crimewave Sound,The Liars or any of the other fine acts I've picked up on recently. There is plenty of great new music to listen to without supporting the artistic Ponzi Scheme that is the Britney/the Matrix/Aguliera/etc modern "pop" axis.

Some great music may come out of this current pop phase(some good stuff certainly came out of Motown's earlier use of similar production techniques), but so far I haven't heard anything that gives me any hope of that.

"Rockism" is beside the point- "auteurism" is where it's at! An artist taking control of his or her own destiny and producing great music art that stands or falls on it's own artistic merits- that's what music should be.

[emerson boozer]

What he said, I couldn't have put it better.

[Wet Blanket]

I don't think there's much to debate.

You've got to get out there and sing your heart out.

[The Modernist]

I don't think there's much to debate.

You've got to get out there and sing your heart out.

Are you sure? It is rather late.

[Wet Blanket]

I don't think there's much to debate.

You've got to get out there and sing your heart out.

Are you sure? It is rather late.

Yer not wrong, son.

Never too late for a good tune, though.

[Harry Webster]

Music does not suck nowadays. The statement that music was somehow better back in the day is utter arse. You could argue that the whole of 20th century popular music since the War is utter fucking bilge compared to the artistic splendour of the 19th century, but we all know that music was very different to what it is know, and that the same rules on music in the 60's cannot apply to this time.

There is a rockist attitude on this board on the whole, and I'm not surprised at that. It's the authenticity factor that I think most people are attracted to, and I can see why. Rap and a lot of modern pop perhaps lacks in many people's eyes on this board that factor because it's not made with "real" instruments and is part of a process rather than reaching for a dream that fuelled the ambition of many of yesteryear's musical legends.

As you say Bleep, where are the tunes that you can whistle to nowadays?

[Quaco]

King Feeb, that was one of your most perfect and coherent posts (not that that's saying much...).

[Snarfyguy]

Yeah, seriously, great rebuttal.



...for a rockist.

[Quaco]

rebuttal

I didn't see it as a rebuttal as much as a clarification of definitions. Bleep's definition of rockist naturally has to do with rock as it was traditionally defined (guitar/drums-based mostly) versus what can be done in the electronic realm. To say that electronic or heavily seqenced music isn't authentic because it's not played on "real" instruments is silly.

Feeb clarified how a lot of the modern methods of record-making in fact give the artist much more control than they ever had before, making them if anything more authentic (or auteuristic).

But others define rockist as being an artist-as-composer thing versus music manufactured by professionals or committee, which is different than quibbling over instrumentation and production methods. I agree that, on the whole (there are of course exceptions), an artist who writes his own material will tend to be more authentic than someone whose songs are put together by someone else behind the scenes -- because the former is more responsible for what he says, while the latter doesn't have to answer to anything other than whether it sells. It doesn't mean self-penned music is better than pop; all too often it isn't, because these artists aren't good writers and the pros are. But there is often something more real about it.

What is perhaps the greatest things is when self-penned music is inclusive and merges willfully with pop. Though I may sound like someone's definition of rockist (i.e., old fart) by bringing them up, The Beatles were a good example of self-composed rock having (as Charlie O. says) outreach. They did not hide away, but confronted the pop charts head on. And many others did so at the same time, emboldened by them. I think it produced some of the best -- and best-manufactured -- pop music of the century.

[Snarfyguy]

rebuttal

I didn't see it as a rebuttal as much as a clarification of definitions.

To the Times piece, I meant. Sorry, should have been more clear.

I thought it took apart her thesis pretty well.

[The Write Profile]

deleted

[The Black Shadow]

Yeah, seriously, great rebuttal.



...for a rockist.

Ha ha, you said "butt"!

[doctorlouie]

I've read with a lot of interest pretty much all of this thread and I wonder how the following two bits of pop/rock/soul history fit in regarding the original lip-synch is evidence of phoneyness (in the article on page 1):

1 There's film of Ben E King when in the Drifters singing a song recorded by the previous lead singer. Fake. Sure. Less good as art or music. Doubtful.

2 Jimmy Page mimed Jeff Beck's guitar part on TV after he'd left the Yardbird's US tour. Definitely two rockist icons. But fake. Absolutely.

[Hugo]

There are a lot of defenses here of the idea of "authenticity" and its importance in qualifying music as good or bad - some revolving around musicianship and "really" singing or "really" playing your instrument, but the most potent argument is the "auteurist" one, that an artist single-mindedly pursuing his/her artistic vision is more likely to produce great work than music by committee. Motown is a counterargument someone else here has brought up, but I think more generally it's hard to deny that a) the roots of rock were very much to do with copying, mimicking and pastiche (all the early beat groups for example, not to mention Presley), and that b) making music is essentially a collaborative business, albeit one that pays a lot of lip service to the "auteur" ideal. Bowie's great 70s albums, just to take one example, were clearly the result of a constellation of musical collaborations, studio jams, production interventions, happy coincidence, stolen ideas, recycled riffs, etc., etc. This is basically how art works, and the image of the lone artist is more a romantic ideal than a reality.

[doctorlouie]

There are a lot of defenses here of the idea of "authenticity" and its importance in qualifying music as good or bad - some revolving around musicianship and "really" singing or "really" playing your instrument, but the most potent argument is the "auteurist" one, that an artist single-mindedly pursuing his/her artistic vision is more likely to produce great work than music by committee. Motown is a counterargument someone else here has brought up, but I think more generally it's hard to deny that a) the roots of rock were very much to do with copying, mimicking and pastiche (all the early beat groups for example, not to mention Presley), and that b) making music is essentially a collaborative business, albeit one that pays a lot of lip service to the "auteur" ideal. Bowie's great 70s albums, just to take one example, were clearly the result of a constellation of musical collaborations, studio jams, production interventions, happy coincidence, stolen ideas, recycled riffs, etc., etc. This is basically how art works, and the image of the lone artist is more a romantic ideal than a reality.

The Electrician speaks a lot of sense. I understand Bowie used to come up with a lyric and an idea for a tune and pass it to the band. They then work up a few versions - rock - soul - garage (and reggae for all I know) and then he would choose the version he liked best. But he gets the plaudits.

You can usually judge someone's success at a project by the quality of their collaborators. And often it's up to the producer to edit, reign in or give freedom to move for an artist. Dylan is the obvious one. When producers were in awe of him he got away with murder. When Lanois suddenly stood up to him we got a good album.

[The Modernist]

I'd just like to echo The Electricians lucid and insightful post. He's absolutely right; In an artform shaped by the commercial possibilities of mass electronic communication, it is rather naive to uphold "auteurism" as an ideal.

[The Modernist]

I'd just like to echo The Electricians lucid and insightful post. He's absolutely right; In an artform shaped by the commercial possibilities of mass electronic communication, it is rather naive to uphold "auteurism" as an ideal.

i completely agree.

Good point, well made.

[Quaco]

Even if the music is being made from many sources (samples, for example), it's still the artist himself who's in control. It's still auteuristic. I don't see how the commercial possibilties of electronic communication makes him (or her) any less so.

This is still quite different than music-by-committe artists like Ashlee Simpson, isn't it? Am I totally misunderstanding you guys?

[The Modernist]

Even if the music is being made from many sources (samples, for example), it's still the artist himself who's in control. It's still auteuristic. I don't see how the commercial possibilties of electronic communication makes him (or her) any less so.

This is still quite different than music-by-committe artists like Ashlee Simpson, isn't it? Am I totally misunderstanding you guys?

This is an interesting debate. Is the artist in control? Well sometimes, to a point. Nevertheless no artist creates in a vacuum, there is an intrinsic link between the activity (even if this is artistic) and it's reception in the commercial marketplace. Thrrough examining this we can often see what shapes the text (sorry..I'm drifting off into Media studies speak here..). This is not to deny that some artists may be the primary creators of their records but they are not the only things that shape how that record will sound.