Rockism?
My recent visit to Fimoculous directed me to this article and that article, one an attack on stodgy rock criticism, the other an attack on the attack. With all this bandying I was “forced” (i.e. I’ve got more opinions than Hilary Clinton) to mull over the topics of rockism vs. popism.
What I tend to think is a lot more straight-forward, probably because I don’t have a degree in journalism (the ability to bulls**t for 2 thousand words), but here it goes…
Critics generally can’t tell you what great music “is” by definition, if they actually had that kind of talent they’d be making great music. They just stab about like a horny blind man in a whorehouse; excuse the metaphor, every once in a while discovering something interesting. I personally think Kalefa is right when she says, and I paraphrase, critics are astounded by rocks past without having any idea of rock’s future. Evidence of this can be found in the original reviews for Slint-Spiderland or Spiritualized-Laser Guided Melodies whose content seems to be that of stunned indifference, a collective “what the hell?” if you will. Yet, on the other side of that coin, critics are important to people without a major amount of disposable income since you can’t buy everything and they are trying to separate the chaff from the wheat.
I get it, pop music is fun, I accept and enjoy Justin Timberlake’s “Seniorita” as hip gyrating pop fluff but it certainly lacks the immediacy of The Drifters’ “Save The Last Dance For Me” or Martha & The Vandellas “Heat Wave”. There-in lies the problem with this progeny of doltish media-babies; they’ve got none of the spark of early R&B or pop and they totally miss the point which was, to make a crude generalization (may favourite), kissing, a little groping, fore-play, sweat and some sweet, sweet loving whilst the radio played. This new breed of poppers, by comparison, would embody dry, scratchy fully clothed sex in an uncomfortably tiny car with bad shocks. If I want to hear some pointlessly saccharine music my first thought isn’t of Mariah Carey, Tweet or some other precocious dimple butted vixen, I look towards The Platters, The Drifters, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Moonglows, etc.
I think that singles are a fine format for an artist to make a living, but they seem to be producing stank albums to go along with their 3-minute bubbles of joy. It’s infuriating to think that people who can’t sustain an album would make one simply because it creates a bigger profit margin, that entitles anyone to some righteous slandering of their tackiness. Yet artists like Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and Elvis Costello are guilty of the same garishness so I think you should keep slandering to an artist basis.
Rockism seems to be a slur aimed towards people who love their albums, meaningful lyrics and 2/4 rock rhythms. As with every pointless slur, people make them because they’re inexperienced and are seeking to generalize in an attempt to seem intelligent or right as the case may be. It seems to me for every Springsteen there has to be a Prince, for every Elliot Smith a Cat Stevens. It’s all about balance, or to simplify even more (and perhaps sound gangster in a creepy white guy way), keeping it real (brains) and getting it on (hips).
P.S.: What’s with all the discussion about white people? Perhaps the perpetual 30 year backlash is happening and white is beautiful.
Yours truly, stook
:?)
I think Kalefa Sanneh is a tremendous idiot. One can like Bruce Springsteen without being a homophobe, and one can enjoy fun music without listening to crap like Ashlee Simpson. Most shallow pop isn't radical or memorable, and that's why it has such a short shelf life - yet people are still listening to Born to Run 30 years after it was released.
Aha, but pop music is amazingly popular 30 years on, “Macarthur Park” is one of the most played songs in the United States radio right now (that’s by Donna Summer). New Kids On The Block's "The Right Stuff" makes best singles lists 15 years on and still gets rotation on quite a few radio stations. Average, workaday people love this music, hence the term POP (meaning popular). For a modern example I'm sure that Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River" will become a favourite as it is an excellent song, in the league of "She's The One" (Bruce) even.
This is my problem with the whole notion of “disposable pop”, much the same argument was made back in the sixties concerning Motown and look at their catalogue. The Temptations, The Supremes, The Four Tops, Robinson & The Miracles, etc. were dismissed at the time for being too light and fluffy to truly matter (during Dylan's first ascent) by most critically minded people. I suppose you could argue they never made great albums but take a listen to Temptations Sing Smokey or Four Tops Reach Out to waylay that argument. Also, I hate to break it to any Dylan lovers but he never made a song as good as My Girl, it just didn't happen.
Sure I love Bruce Springsteen's Born To Run, as most mid-20's rock lovers do, but it's dated badly and sounds vaguely silly and pretentious 30 years on. I can't imagine recommending this album to a 13 year old and expecting them to enjoy it in the least. Which is the basic litmus test of music, does it sell to the younger generation, will it continue to get re-mastered and released? If it has no lasting power on generations to come it’ll share the same fate as Phil Ochs’ catalogue, “who?” you may say, exactly my point. And I like Nebraska better anyway, which plays a lot better to the younger folks as well. :?)
I think the point Kalefa was trying to make, although he got distracted by the cross-cultural hatred argument (which was kinda bizarre, not to mention racist), was pop music is an effective form of music that appeals to the majority of people. The fact that music aesthetics hate it for exactly that reason means they must have something against mass enjoyment or an artist wanting to please. Which would go against the basic fundament of music…to cause strong feelings in the listener. Let’s not forget that pleasure is an feeling too.
Any thoughts on that? :?)
T'ho
:?)
Some pop music is amazingly popular 30 years later, but most isn't. For proof, let us look to the king of skewering pop music: Weird Al Yankovic. Take his Off the Deep End album, which was released a mere 12 years ago. Look at his polka medley on that album ("Polka Your Eyes Out"), which is a string of some of the biggest hit singles of the time, rewritten with polka music. Let's look at the songs in this medley:
"Cradle Of Love" by Billy Idol
"Tom's Diner" by Suzanne Vega
"Love Shack" by The B-52's
"Pump Up the Jam" by Technotronic
"Losing My Religion" by REM
"Unbelieveable" by EMF
"Do Me!" by Bel Biv DeVoe
"Enter Sandman" by Metallica
"The Humpty Dance" by Digital Underground
"Cherry Pie" by Warrant
"Miss You Much" by Janet Jackson
"I Touch Myself" by DiVinyls
"Dr. Feelgood" by Motley Crue
"Ice Ice Baby" by Vanilla Ice
"Losing My Religion" is of course still enjoyed today, but I doubt any "rockists" would object to REM. Other than that, I've heard "Love Shack" and "Ice Ice Baby" every now and then, but other than that, I don't hear these songs played very often, if at all. In fact, before I looked up the songs in this polka, I hadn't heard of some of these artists; granted, I was only 6 in 1992.
Of course, not all pop is disposable. I think if a song is genuinely enjoyable, like the Motown songs you mention, most rock critics would enjoy it even if it doesn't plunge the depths of human emotions with unrelenting honesty. I would still argue that Dylan made at least a handful of songs better than "My Girl", but we can agree to disagree on that one.
I would strongly disagree with your point on Born to Run though, as I experienced it first-hand. Though I've built up my album collection significantly in the past few years, there was a time when I might have agreed with Kalefa. I embarrassedly confess to owning the first 5 volumes of that NOW! collection of pop music. But when I was 15 (not 13), Nick_Vane told me about a list of the 2001 greatest songs of all-time he had found. I checked it out and started downloading some of the songs. The song "Born to Run" was in the top 25, and I immediately fell in love with it. I went out and bought the album and loved it too. This was one of the first albums that really inspired me to buy more great music. I think Springsteen would be completely accessible to the teenyboppers; they just don't want to give him a chance.
I think where I disagree with you and Kalefa is that music aesthetics hate pop simply because it appeals to most people. Sure, some snobs pride themselves in being anti-mainstream, but I think most rockists know what they're talking about. Let us not forget that Springsteen, Nirvana, and U2 are wildly popular artists that appeal to tons of people. I think most rockists can differentiate popular good music from the popular music that is cliché, whiny, boring, angsty, self-important crap. And when an artist's desire to please forces her to lip-synch a song when she's performing it live (keep in mind, I'm not talking about a two-hour concert here, just a four-minute performance on SNL), maybe she shouldn't be an artist at all.
The songs in Al’s medley are amazing stuff (except for maybe Ice Ice Baby). It’s a good point you make about pop being as apt to date as rock, okay you didn’t make that point exactly but it’s inferred and I thought it was good. Anywho. Cradle Of Love (heard it last week on 2 radio stations), Tom’s Diner (The remixed version plays on much music more than you’d think), Love Shack (I hear it all the freakin’ time). The only song here that has been given a pop music restraining order is “The Humpty Dance”. Plus most of these songs elements leach their way into new music in some way or another. These are the songs that influence million selling albums these days for better or for worse and will until the end of time.
You are a rare young person to like it, because I’ve played it for a group of 13-15 year olds, they managed to get through half of Thunder Road before Eminem made an appearance. I agree that they don’t want to give it a chance, but why should they when Eminem’s bouncing bass-lines are much more catchy. The complicated nature of the music just turns off most people’s ears, because they search for bubblegum.
I used to feel the same way, wondering why Sleater Kinney couldn’t be as popular as Britney because their music was so much more complicated, intriguing, blatantly emotional. I eventually realized I’d answered my own question.
Ah but the point is that Motown was considered disposable at the time, which makes you wonder what will N’Sync be the new Temptations in 20 years. In my opinion it’s certainly possible since “Bye Bye Bye’s” bass line can shake your arse cavity from 20 feet. Sure the lyrics are dumber than a post but then again consider “Jimmy Mack.” Britney has at least 8 songs I would gladly shake my booty to, Christina Aguilara has about 10, Justin’s entire album is pretty rockin’, Whitney Houston’s debut is great cheese, Backstreet Boys have about 6 songs. The list is pretty long, and right now these people are considered crap, yet some of their music is really damn fun and certainly quite good. Perhaps what people object to is the same thing people objected to in the 50’s with Chuck Berry, they are little nuggets of potential nookie. My personal favourite is Pink’s Mizzundastood which is a heck of a lot better than people give it credit for, but it’s sound is really sexual, which somehow makes the music less important.
I think people misunderstand the point being made, which basically is:
Why is Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” better than EMF’s “Unbelievable”? Can a definitive statement be made that the harsher music with more confessional lyrics that owes a debt to punk is better than the lighter sound with the bubbling bass line that owes a debt to disco? Is there any difference between these two? Can people say that Unbelievable is a great song in the same breath as mentioning Smells Like Teen Spirit and not draw the wrath of “rockists”? I enjoy them about the same and isn’t that all that really matters in the end.
About Ashlee Simpson:
To be honest, before I read that article I didn’t know J. Simpson had a sister who was a pop star, but I’m way out of the TV loop. And I’m guessing here, but her music is probably monotone crap of a very generic variety. Which makes me wonder why anyone got mad when she did her little jig, she was doing everyone a favour to not lip-syncing instead shaking that ass for most of North America to see. I also don’t understand why it matters whether moronic music buyers decide to buy Ashlee Simpson since they’re hurting none but themselves. Young people like bad music they can fantasize about without much effort, enjoy the occasional fantasy motivated wank and move on to the next talent less uber-hottie. I don’t care whether she doesn’t lip synch, decides to strip naked and shoot ping-pong balls out of her bum; I’m not paying attention so have at it little girl. If it’s not her who is popular it’s going to be someone like her, and its sure as s**t not going to be The Arcade Fire. People tend to be preoccupied with changing the minds of hormone imbalanced teenagers and average music fans. It’s not going to happen, they like Mariah Carey because she’s bland and are fully aware of the monotony. These people like background music burbling behind them that fill in for the usual ambient noise. Very few people care about music on the level of a music critic, it’s a fact of life.
T'ho
:?)
Hey, I don't have any problem with girls whose sole desire in life is to get teenage boys to ejaculate to them. But since that's clearly Ashlee Simpson's only goal, why does she have to sing and release freakin' albums? It would be just as effective if she didn't, and we would have less crappy music in the world. Would it make it harder for boys to masturbate if she simply released a video of her shaking her booty while Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue" played in the background?
Okay, that would be terrible on so many levels, but you get my point.
Furthermore, did you see this "little jig", which was more like a half-assed attempt to distract the audience from the fact that the lip-synching was botched? It's probably the least sexy dance since the macarena. Here you can download the video of it, and also see a really amusing "remix."
I don't think age really has to do with liking Bruce Springsteen. I'm sure it's just a matter of taste. I have some friends my age who like Bruce Springsteen (and maybe more would if they listened to Born to Run). To strengthen this theory, I don't like Eminem.
In any case, I have nothing against enjoying guilty pleasures and nothing against enjoying music that is trying to be fun. You want to listen to Justin Timberlake, go ahead. I won't. That's just my choice. If you think Justin Timberlake is a better artist than, say, Wilco, that's your choice and I will choose to disagree with you. If you think Justin Timberlake will still be enjoyed in 20 years, I would warn you not to place your bets quite yet. On the other hand, I still listen to plenty of music that is mainly trying to be fun. And in fact, I was on the opposite side of this argument just the other day when I was arguing that Kill Bill Vol. 1 was better than Kill Bill Vol. 2 - where 1 is the thrilling film with not much depth, and 2 is the more emotional film (in this case, however, I think that 2 is just not as successful at conveying emotions as 1 is at exciting us).
However, there are many other statements in the article that I object to. The major one is the idea that rockism is a form of racism / homophobia, a really ridiculous proposal. Here are some other statements in the article, and my comments:
"[The challenge is] to find a way to think about a fluid musical world where it's impossible to separate classics from guilty pleasures. The challenge is to acknowledge that music videos and reality shows and glamorous layouts can be as interesting - and as influential - as an old-fashioned album."
First of all, I can't understand why the writer thinks this would be a good thing. Can't I listen to both Springsteen and the Temptations and enjoy them in different ways? Does he also think that good pulp novels should be considered by literature critics to be on the same level as, say, The Great Gatsby? In addition, I can't think of a single reality show that I would find as interesting as, say, London Calling. Sorry.
"Are you really pondering the phony distinction between 'great art' and a 'guilty pleasure' when you're humming along to the radio?"
For God's sake, there's a difference between a rock critic and someone who likes to hum to the radio. I mean, come on. When you go to a movie, do you think, "Ooh, pretty pictures, that must mean good movie", or do you actually try to follow the movie and see how the images and the story combine to form a film? If the former, you shouldn't be a film critic.
"Rockism makes it hard to hear the glorious, incoherent, corporate-financed, audience-tested mess that passes for popular music these days. To glorify only performers who write their own songs and play their own guitars is to ignore the marketplace that helps create the music we hear in the first place, with its checkbook-chasing superproducers, its audience-obsessed executives and its cred-hungry performers."
Is this supposed to be an endorsement of pop music? Doesn't sound like it to me. I don't listen to music because I'm interested in the business of music.
Etc. I could go on. I could accept much of what you're saying, but the original article is really moronic in my opinion. You make a lot more sense than Kalefa Sanneh, stook - you should be the one writing for the New York Times.
Well that explains it…the "BAND" started playing the wrong song…or was the problem her lip-syncing the wrong song…or was it just wrong in general. I vote for the latter, although the band did get better when she left, but I’ll tell you what this video really is, funny. I now understand the backlash, she’s offering no T&A, dressed like a seriously confused army brat whose impulse to wear pants 10 sizes to big finally won out. Plus she’s kind of (not pleasing to the eye) and she’s got little nubbin like boobs. What the heck are producers trying to foist on an unsuspecting public…did they finally run out of hot talent less chicks so they decided to give their (not pleasant to look at with a bum reference) sisters a chance. I can certainly understand why people like Britney, the schwing happens so fast the blood leaves your brain, but this is a travesty. Yikes! What have I been arguing about?
Okay, lets all agree that Kalefa needs to choose his battles a tad more wisely, and that I should do some research before heading into the fray, although I whole-heartedly stand by my ranting about pop music.
I agree…I should be writing for the New York Post…and that’ll happen the day bovines erupt from my anus but a dream is a dream. Thanks for the compliment and the download; you’ve opened my eyes.
So it all comes down to Eminem vs. Bruce Springsteen, can I get that on pay-per-view? I agree that masterbation could certainly be easier, but think about this, you're a young boy whose mom is about 20 feet away from you in a different room and is gonna wonder why your room is so silent (watching teasing video of Britney with sound off). Yet if she comes to your room whilst "Hit Me Baby One More Time" resounds she gonna turn around and go back to whence she came leaving said teenager to splurge all over himself. I've thought about this too much now and I'm feeling kind of dirty.
I'm glad we agree to agree to disagree about J.T. ...or something like that.
P.S. She called her dance a Hoedown (place lewd and offensive joke here).
P.S.S. Right now in the land of music "My Girl" is kickin' the crap out of "Tangled Up In Blue". :?)
T’ho
:?)
Yep, Kalefa sucks and you're awesome. I still think "Tangled Up in Blue" could still kick "My Girl"'s ass until bovines erupted from "My Girl"'s anus, but we can agree to disagree on that one too.
If you watch the AMAs, the awards are given out based on sales. Believe me, I hate Avril, the Simpson sisters, Justin and their ilk as much as anyone, but can you really say they aren't any good? How can one opinion be counted over another? If by buying an album you are saying it is good, then some of these artists are the best as determined by a huge demographic of the CD buying public. Other things certainly count in it. Airplay, videos, push by the record company obviously affect sales. But if Chingy sells more CDs than Wilco, if effect, he's better because more people like him and more people enjoy his music. Take for instance the Trashcan Sinatras who I love. Am I a rockist for thinking I'm more musically sophisticated than a Brittney lover? If everything is personal taste, then how can my opinion be more "correct" than millions of others who disagree.
Have you ever been angry that a small band you liked actually hit it big and became popular? I went to college in Buffalo and saw the Goo Goo Dolls all the time at loal clubs. (Superstar Car Wash is a GREAT album.) When they hit it big with Name, I was actually almost sad because I lost my "obscure group that only I like because I'm cool" band. Eliteism is a big part of it.
No matter how much I defend fluff-pop as a viable genre I never tend to agree with the "sales" argument. Here's the reason...They count albums shipped not sold, when a purchaser buys 20 copies, billboard as well as most of these hack organizations list 20 copies sold, even if only one person buys the album in the store. It's a shady practice that allows people like Mariah Carey to sell 1 million records in 2 days. That didn't actually happen, she's lucky if 50,000 copies were bought on those days, but it sends people into a lather thinking they must buy what 1 million other people bought. The average music listener is such a lemming nowadays.
I also tend to think that taste is a cultured skill; no one can definitively say they love punk if the only punk album they've heard is Blink 182. It's the argument of a foundling, based on an amalgam of 20 different sounds from 20 different bands. If you've listened to all the albums on say this list and loved 80% of them then a case can be made that you indeed love punk music. The weird part is, as you listen to these albums you'll find yourself hearing things in other music you didn't realize were there or things you thought were there actually aren't. You've effectively gotten some little piece of culture, learned what you like as apposed to what society has labelled O.K. to like. Take Chingy for example: "I think his music is derivative crap and his vocals are wannabe Snoop Dog without the nasty humour to identify with. He's a wannabe mack who trolls old-school rap for ideas and then gets producers to jazz them up. Unfortunately he has no imagination so his efforts generally sound like an oversexed MC Hammer." If someone can give me a contradicting argument of some kind of value I'd be willing to listen. But if they say, "because he's cool" or "You're to old to understand" I would tend to think this person has a lot of personal growth in front of them. I dare say the moment they hear Jay-Z's: Reasonable Doubt, Chingy will hit the trash.
I don't like "Goo Goo Dolls" but I get your point and it's a good one. Yet I've never understood why people don't like their favourite bands to succeed, since it makes their entire catalogue a hell of a lot easier to purchase. That's just my opinion though.
T'ho
:?)