The rockism debate (with bonus essay!)

So, let's talk about rockism. It's a bias towards rock music, or in a wider sense, a conviction that all music should be as "authentic" as possible, and played on real instruments by the same people who wrote it. See here and here to get a good idea of what it's about.

Rockism was invented as a disparaging term, but in some circles, whether it's a bad thing in the first place is hotly debated. In other circles, it's generally accepted as a bad thing, but opinions vary on exactly how bad, if and how it should be fought, and if the backlash against it hasn't become just as bad as the original.

So, there's plenty to discuss there, I think. To kick things off, I've written an essay about the subject. My main points:

1) Taste and attitude are different things. Just being into classic rock a lot more than hip-hop or dance doesn't make you a rockist.
2) The anti-rockist backlash has led to some truly ridiculous, Poe's Law-worthy excesses.
3) ABBA can be just as good as Pink Floyd (hey - Ebert's Law!), but it's nonsense to pretend they're equally deep and profound.

Having a taste that favours a particular style of music is fine. It's the attitude that annoys me. I always feel a bit sorry for people who immediately pass of anything that doesn't fit into "their" genre, without actually giving it a proper listen, as I realise how much they are missing out on. At the same time I find them, and indeed anyone who holds any particular pretension against any "genre" or "style" in any given medium, a bit pathetic. All art's quality should be judged in and as itself, comparison to other works can come later.

The example I would always give is that in general guitar solos bore, or occasionally irritate me, but I do not allow that to hold back my enjoyment of Pink Floyd or any other music that I listen to in which guitar solos are present that I happen to like.

Music is one of the most subjective mediums of art, trying to objectify it can ultimately only damage your own enjoyment.

While I'll admit I fall into rockist attitudes from time to time, it is a very pretentious attitude to have. No genre of music should be lorded over others as deeper or more profound in general; besides, there is a lot of really stupid rock music out there, and a lot that people like to think is deeper than it actually is. I remember reading about how someone wrote a deep musicological essay on The Beatles' Meet the Beatles album or something, specifically praising the "Aeolian cadence" of "Not a Second Time". Years later, John Lennon would joke that he thought Aeolian cadences were exotic birds.

And, going off your argument, ABBA or something similar can certainly be just as deep or complex as Pink Floyd. Honestly, ABBA are masters of songcraft in the scope of pop music. Besides, they're like one of the only three good artists to come out of Eurovision, so lay off

Umm, 0dd1, did you actually read my essay, or just the very short summary in the OP? In the first case, it seems a bit weird to be asking me to "lay off" of ABBA...

Your essay claims 'rockists' are supposed to love Radiohead. The band who did this:

I can't help but find that funny, even if that is a minor discrepancy. Sorry.

So, "rockism", in a sense, probably started witn many Post-Punk and Synth-Pop bands, who wanted to either subvert/deconstruct or to go against the conventions of the time regarding Rock music (both in terms or Prog or Punk). It's also interesting to notice the contrast between Pink Floyd and ABBA that happened at that time. "Rockism" also at the time was far uglier (with racist and homophobic attitudes), something explained by the whole "Disco sucks" movement and the explosion of records thing at that arena.

I think ABBA are a different kind of deep and profound. They verged into that sort of territory at times ("Knowing Me, Knowing You", The Visitors album).

While "rockism" may be decreasing in relevance a little bit. It's also interesting to notice the rise not only of "poptimism" (which has a bigger relevance especially when it comes to people like Beyoncé, who apparently led people to discuss her new haircut) but also of "indie-ism" (which is linked to the whole hipster thing).

Indie-ism, for example, does not focuse on an exact sound, style or aesthetic, but rather in a set of emotions that I can only nickname/describe as "lightness of being". That is, the fact that most of the indie stuff (whether Indie Rock, Pop, Folk or whatever) tends to not express emotions strongly (in the lyrics or even the voice), or being particularly defined (it's not as danceable as Disco or House, unless we count LCD Soundsystem, Hot Chip or The Rapture). The sounds which inspired these bands, however, are generally dismissed, or, when they like it, they tend to mock-dance (which is a hipster thing, apparently).

"Rockism" is still strong, but diminishing. "Poptimism" wants recognition, but they go at absurd lengths. "Indie-ism" either jangles or dances to "light music". Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. But some variety and diversity is recommended, with the whole Internet and globalization current waves. Music from other nations (read: non-British speaking nation) will also become more accepted and appreciated, after being put in the sidelines for so long. I'm going beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll stop.

I thought the OP was the essay. My mistake. Don't have time to read it now, but I will later. And the "lay off" was meant to be lighthearted ribbing, hence the "".

edited 18th Aug '13 8:58:54 AM by 0dd1

Well, I read the essay.

All I can really add to this is that I pretty much agree with you on everything, Rambler.

For me, it all comes down to attitude. Like you said, it's an ideology.

"You like blazing 70s guitar solos? Good for you, I do too. Want a cookie? Too bad, liking rock is not achievement."

Just a thought, but I have to wonder how the 'wanky' and 'pretentious' image of prog-rock (talkin' the 70s stuff, not neo obviously) factors into rockism. Many, many prog acts were run through the wringers back in the day, and still are today, but would still fall pretty much in line with the whole rockist mantra.

@Midnight Rambler: Since I know you're into some classical music as well, here's an essay by Richard Taruskin about a similar issue in the classical world: the Early Music movement.

His conclusion: The sound of Early Music performers is mostly a modern fabrication that had to be dressed up as a restoration of the past in order to be accepted, because classical music fans are wary of anything modern.

Personally I think that musicians should be judged on their musical and lyrical abilities alone, not on their "image" or their "charisma". Judging from your article, rockists seem to be as guilty of that, if not more, as their opposite—they just crave a different image.

edited 18th Aug '13 9:19:55 AM by Fresison

Being a bit guilty of describing music as "wanky" myself, I have to say that prog-rock doesn't generally strike me as "wanky". It often strikes me as self indulgent, and as a result really rather boring, but it still strikes me as being creative and ambitious even if it fails to interest or excite me.

When I describe something as "wanky" what I really mean is that it eschews originality and creativity simply for ego-boosting displays of technical ability, something I observe to be particularly common in metal. This doesn't mean I have anything against metal, there are a few metal bands I really like, but the ones that I do like will always keep it in their interests to produce something which is original and interesting to listen to.

Just because music is ultimately subjective does not mean that one cannot learn over time that there are certain aspects they tend to dislike, but they must do two things with this knowledge:

1. Not fool themselves into thinking that because they generally dislike one aspect, say in my case generic, show offish, "wanky" guitar solos, that they must also dislike other aspects commonly found in music with said aspect they generally dislike, or aspects which appear similar but actually aren't, for example a relatively simple, emotionally driven, bluesy guitar solo.
2. Accept that even though they usually find an aspect unbearable, this does necessarily not stop their tastes from changing and them coming to enjoy said aspect, and also does not mean that there will not be individual cases in which they may actually enjoy said aspect.

Yeah, self-indulgent is probably the better term if that's what you consider wanky. I'm inclined to agree with or, at least, respect that definition.

On a side note, call me a fool, but I've always liked the self-indulgence in prog. It's a group of (typically) geeky people just playing what they really want to play for themselves more than anyone else. I dunno, it's like taking a trip into the minds of the band members in a really off-kilter way. Provide it sounds good, I'll give it pass on the self-indulgence at least, is what I'm saying.

And, agreed on both points on what one must do with with their dislike of something in music.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue boils down to two things:

1) Aesthetic over content

2) A lower form of elitism.

Think about it like this - all of this talk of "new vs old", "authenticity", narratives of "true musicians" and so on, not just in the "rockist" camp but the shiny new kids on the block, none of it is really about the music anymore. Like the "pop/dance/techno" music these would be rock curators are whining about, they too have bought into image and social reputation over taste. Like the "poptimists", they are not in it for a genuine love of the musical arts, but rather the charade of social drama and vapid games of reputation that surround them. They need their Bob Dylan to show them how down to Earth and like the common man they are, their AC/DC to show their rough and tumble good-old-boy attitude, The Beatles to show that they still haven't forgotten their rots, and other such things that show them using their music taste as indicators of which social strata they inhabit. I have nothing against these people hating more "modern" music (I do quite a bit myself), but they should look through their own mirrors first before throwing abuse at their enemies.

That being said, it ultimately arises from the idea of elitism, something more people subscribe to than the "open minded crowd" (read: elitists in self denial) would like to believe. However, it's not the legitimate elitism that creates an elite based on musical excellence, but rather the elements that pander the most to the more shallow parts of the audience's collective consciousness. As stated previously, it is an elite that is chosen less so on the basis of their actual music but rather its social standing, what record books will claim about record sales, the roar of the crowds as washed up rock star #800 performs at some important public event and so on.

I dislike both sides, even though if I had to pick one, I'd go with the "rockist" crowd or at least the "classic rock" one in its more moderate, self-reflective incarnations. There has always been terrible, terrible music even though the crap we got back then was somewhat more digestible than the crap we have now. Regardless, not only does the rockist worldview wilfully ignore the flaws of the forefathers, but it also distorts the history of the very music it salivates to. I can't tell you how sick and tired I am of hearing (well usually in metal but you get the point) that "one day band A happened and thus genre B came to be" and ignoring the contributions of many lesser known but no less important bands who were both further refining gestating genres, spreading the sonic-genetic information of the progenitors, and developing it towards higher/lower forms.

Basically, I wish there were more legitimate elitists. The ones willing to step on the toes of both sides and reduce all their spires to ashes, taking the best of the best and leaving the rest to rot.

edited 18th Aug '13 11:04:11 AM by StillbirthMachine

I get that. I think I went through a stage of liking some fairly self-indulgent stuff when I was about 12 or 13 (I'm not trying to sound condescending by saying that, I just happened to be that age when my tastes leaned that way), and at the time I would find it very interesting just to sit there and listen to what a band was doing in a 20 odd minute piece, perhaps because at that time I had no exams or particularly hard school work to worry about, yet alone anyting beyond that, so I had the time to sit down and tune myself into a sprawling epic, just as I had the time back then to read two or three novels a week, rather than two or three a year...

But after I got into Nirvana and David Bowie, I started to find longer, more self indulgent pieces boring, and, combined with the aforementioned reduction in the amount of free time I had available, I started listening primarily to shorter music, with the only music I'd listen to typically featuring pieces longer than six or seven minutes being ambient and techno music, which to me is a whole different kettle of fish entirely when it comes to notions of self indulgence.

Of course, I will today espouse the brilliance of I Found A Star On The Ground, despite the fact that that song should be the absolute definition of Self Indulgence, lasting Six (6) hours and all, but I today find my tastes leaning generally towards short, snappy, tight compositions over longer, more sprawling, more self indulgent ones.

edited 18th Aug '13 11:47:59 AM by porschelemans

Somehow I find it ironic you talk about bands being egotistical fretboard wanks when you post up Rage Against The Machine (who aren't a metal band either, neither were hard rockers Led Zeppelin), a band whose supposed guitar hero more or less made his name known with the sort of drawling, directionless whammy bar abuse by far outstrips Jason Becker and Marty Friedman in lack of direction and compositional clarity, not to mention their "original" sound more or less was the hip hop, alternative, and "classic" rock of their time mashed together - everything you've already heard right next to everything else you already heard.

Leading on from that, I find that most folks who whine about "showboating" and "wanking" (not just in metal) tend to be the sort who associate anything brave, bold, and bursting with instrumental colour automatically be some vestige of dated hypermasculine rock-star excess less so on the actual musical content and moreso because it appears "dated". Now, that's not to deny it happens out there (read: most technical "death" metal nowwadays, "djent", your average solo shred musician etc.) but I always find it funny when they post some post-rock/drone/indie influenced music right afterwards and somehow all of that somehow magically isn't self-indulgent or "wanky" at all with all its jazzy rhythms, aimlessly meandering "fluttering" melodies, and segments composed of little more than excessive reverb occasionally with something like choirs over it.

edited 18th Aug '13 11:47:33 AM by StillbirthMachine

@Quag: About the whole Disco Demolition Night thing, it crops up in many articles about rockism. Most link it to racism, as well as rock fans not being able to deal with a strange new genre. One writer - I forgot where - even called it 'fascist', probably because he associated it with the Nazi book burnings.

Our own article on the subject paints a very different picture. The backlash against disco came from both white and black musicians and listeners, and as for the baseball team that organised Disco Demolition Night, their fans 'were black and white in about equal measure'.

I simply see it as an extreme form as Hype Backlash against an extreme form of hype. If people are constantly exposed to something, everywhere, every day, they eventually get sick of it. Disco Demolition Night was a logical, if excessively pyrotechnic, consequence of disco's huge popularity. There's nothing racist or reactionary about that.

I think part of the problem is that in the US, music is so easily drawn into the racism debate. American pop culture, and especially music, is ridiculously segegrated, with every genre being identified as "white" (country, rock, metal...) or "black" (blues, jazz, soul, funk, disco, hip-hop...). But that's another discussion.

@Fresison: Yeah, the whole purist "authentic performance" thing seems a good analogy to rockism. I don't think such an attitude is as much of a problem in classical music as in popular music, though - forgive me for saying this, but I get the impression that the classical music world is pretty conservative and elitist anyway.

Your comment about how artists 'should be judged on their musical and lyrical abilities alone, not on their "image" or their "charisma"' is an interesting one. It's something a rockist might say: 'All those commercial pop stars are only interesting because of their image, not their music! At least Hendrix/Dylan/Jagger/etc... had real musical talent!' At the same time, as you point out, rockists themselves are often guilty of the same thing, fawning over artists with a strongly rock & roll "image", even if the music itself doesn't quite live up to that image.

Anyway, I think it's impossible to entirely ignore an artist's image and charisma. Musical taste is a subjective and highly irrational thing, and whether we like it or not, the broader cultural context in which music is produced influences that. If you hate a certain artist's looks or attitude, it will be harder for you to appreciate his music. Also, whether something is popular or obscure, mainstream or edgy, last week's hype or mostly forgotten material from sixty years ago will influence how we feel about it. We can and should try to keep these annoying influences to a minimum, but we can't get rid of them entirely.

@Porsche, Stillbirth: In my definition, "wank" means any kind of showing off - budget, technology, skills - at the cost of making enjoyable music/films/comics/etc. In music, this can take the form of elaborate solos, extremely complex compositions, or gratuitous screwing around with studio effects.

There's no need to get angry about this, Stillbirth Machine, everyone has their opinion, but others pay far more attention to those who put theirs forward in a civilised tone.

To me, most guitar solos just don't sound particularly good, but a few do, and I have no idea why. When I describe a solo as "wanky", to be honest, I am kind of borrowing etymology, although I do always wind up thinking about how ridiculous it seems that so many musicians seem determined to put one in every song, as if it is some kind of code of honour, and how so many of them wind up just sounding like almost every other guitar solo, as if their creators have fallen into a pattern of always playing a guitar solo in X way, and how that way doesn't generally have much appeal to my ears.

The guitar solos I enjoy are usually ones played by guitarists who use them very sparingly, or by bluesier guitarists who style is much more to my tastes.

To me, I always say that all music is of equal quality until you've listened to it, having been surprised enough times in the past by things I was expecting to hate.

I think "wank" is a term that's both very easy and very hard to use. On one hand it's used so often that it means increasingly less, on the other, there's a thin line between being elegant and fleshed out and being "wanky" that is blurred too frequently. I typically use it to mean when instrumentation becomes the end in and of itself rather than the means to an end of solid composition.

@Porsch: I'm not "angry", merely noting that you made some of the generally dismissive conclusions of those who barely understand the genre and what goes under it and then go on about who's "original" and "unique" when a closer examination merely reveals the same-old same-old wrapped up in a different set of clothing. Not to mention I don't see how you can claim a band is creative in metal when it doesn't actually fit in the genre. It's more or less the equivalent of trying to put Sum 41 or Three Day Grace into the prog rock genre.

edited 18th Aug '13 12:45:31 PM by StillbirthMachine

It is true, I know very little about Metal, and I know very little about it because in general I find it is not to my personal tastes. Also, I think Midnight Rambler pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to what can make music "wanky". Although in my definition "wank" means A Date With Rosie Palms, "wank" and "wanky" have very different meanings to a British English speaker, even if they sound very similar.

I think the debate here can in many ways be traced down to a broader conflict between camp and masculinity. The rockists (subconciously) like to feel their music is reassuredly masculine, even if they are not so masculine themselves, while the poptimists (perhaps a little more conciously) seek out the camp. I guess you could say I start to fall on the poptimists side here, however much I try to remain neutral, and however much my tastes generally lean away from mainstream pop music, as they generally do away from Hard Rock and Metal, as I will often find works which are masculine, but do not cross the line twice into camp, somewhat grating, while camp is something I am more inclined to be amused by.

In all honesty, to me the use of "camp" and "cheese" usually feels like a self denying, ironic kind of distancing from what I guess we would call the heart and spirit of a genre. I see it used often by supposed burn out and "ex members" of a particular musical group usually attempting to distance themselves from their youthful days of unashamed vigour and energy. It's understandable (even though I think you can be dedicated to something without coming off as a cheesecake) but it gets grating when the self-awareness snowballs into a whole movement and blocks out legitimate discussion on the artistic merits and cultural significance surrounding a genre because "hurr lol so cheesy" and then go around to show how "refined" they are with whatever twaddling Pitchfork-crowd approved pile of artistically directionless nonsense is in season again.

I don't deny their existence, but to me they're often merely just particular perspectives rather than set in stone details.

edited 18th Aug '13 12:55:08 PM by StillbirthMachine

Well, yeah, of course "wank" means A Date With Rosie Palms first and foremost. It's just that it also has a figurative meaning of showing off gratuitously. A term like 'masturbatory' is used in a similar way.

Also, Stillbirth makes good points about cheese.

(And this will be my last post here in a while - I'll be gone for most of next week).

I've seen some relatively oldder people in the metal community, fans and musicians, that have kids and full timme jobs but are about as enthusiastic and dedicated to the genre as they were when they were in their teens. Sure they're more refined now, but it's good to see that they haven't fallen into the trap of hating their past and feeling the need to give it a sort of insincere two-faced affection. It's cool when you can talk to them not so much as idols on pedestals but just fans and creators of the same music you and they enjoy.

edited 18th Aug '13 1:07:46 PM by StillbirthMachine

Yeah Stillbirth, i doubt cheesy has an actual meaning outiside of "Complain about old things I don't like"

Well I do think it has a meaning myself, it's just over-used and often as I said in a self-denying/distancing manner.

As for the meaning, I always saw it as genuine joy and enthusiasm invested in a particular culture or activity usually seen as being of low or unrefined taste by outsiders.

I've always seen cheesy more as meaning "hard to take very seriously" myself. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing unless you're actually trying to be very serious about something. Cheesiness at least usually implies a sense of fun.

RE: OP. Personally I think a huge chunk of the rockist thing is about race/class. A lot of the genres that get put down upon are mostly liked by black people (hip hop, jazz, etc.) or poor people (again hip hop, also country). It might not be conscious racism but it's definitely there. I see it a lot in the feminist community as well, rap is immediately dismissed as being nothing but sexist garbage but rock/metal gets a pass. There's also the fact that most music critics are white so that doesn't help. There's not a lot of differing perspectives in the music criticism scene, you don't see someone who grew up listening to, say, reggae or R&B, it's always someone who grew up listening to The Beatles or Queen or something like that, at least in my experience.

edited 18th Aug '13 7:34:20 PM by wuggles