NYT: The Rap Against Rockism [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : NYT: The Rap Against Rockism



MindGoneHaywire
10-31-2004, 09:57 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/arts/music/31sann.html

tentoze
10-31-2004, 08:55 PM
J,

I read this article, even printed it out at work today and highlighted several sections of it with full intent to comment in depth. Then I realized I would be entering into a debate with the master, and figgered it would be unproductive to point out the strawmen the critic presents. Instead, I'll respond to one small question posed in the article, in a Luddite (but not rockist) sort of way:

Question: 'Van Morrison's "Into the Music" was released the same year as the Sugarhill Gang's "Rapper's Delight"; which do you hear more often?'

Answer: Into The Music. By a knockout. (Not that I don't realize I am most likely in a minority- I like being that)

MindGoneHaywire
10-31-2004, 09:33 PM
I know a few people who know this guy, and if I ever happen to meet him I will probably mention this article. I agree with his overall thrust, but I'd quibble on several of the details, and I'd make the case differently. Hell, I have, both here & on Rocky Road. But I look at it differently from him. The people I have the biggest problem with, on a philosophical basis when it comes to rock & pop music, are the know-it-all boomers for whom rock music died at the time of The Last Waltz, or thereabouts. Those are the true 'rockists,' to me. Actually, I've referred to them in the past as 'rockheads.'

Nice compliment, by the way...but there's no shortage of folks around here who do an excellent job of getting their POVs across. I'm just someone who uses more words than are probably necessary in my own attempts. But thanks for the thought.

I do think what the article is talking about does exist, but I'm not sure it exists in the form it's presented in, at least not anymore. I don't think I agree that a rockist that will listen to the Beastie Boys or Outkast will automatically refuse to listen to this or that rap act based on...the fact that they don't 'rock?' If you're on the side of the hip-hop divide where you're willing to listen to one rap act & not deride every iota of the genre as being 'not music' or whatever...I don't really buy this premise.

The Van Morrison/Sugarhill Gang thing doesn't ring true to me, either. Maybe Blondie's 'Heart Of Glass' vs., say, 'The Logical Song?' I don't know, I guess posing that's silly too. I think there's definitely a point to be made here, I just would've made it differently...if I'd even bothered wasting my time. I know that most people whose favorite bands are Led Zeppelin or Jethro Tull are probably never going to care all that much about the Replacements or Johnny Thunders...as a generalization. So it's rare that I'd bother trying to turn folks deeply steeped in rock orthodoxy on to bands that they might actually even like, because there is a radio-formed general attitude that has always kept fans of bands like Aerosmith from discovering bands like the NY Dolls. Then there's the Pitchfork-damaged attitude, which I haven't gotten around to addressing in the other thread that I started...and I don't read that publication enough to make any informed judgments, but I'll offer as a general aside that it's always struck me as a zine put together by people who I think would always offer far more credit than I think is warranted to bands like the Pixies (a band with a respectable resume, but one that, for me, always paled in comparison to the SST/Twin-Tone axis of bands that was beginning its decline just as bands like the Pixies & Smashing Pumpkins were establishing themselves). I'm nearly as down on the Pitchfork thing as K is on the rockists, because so many bands I've seen praised by Pitchfork sound like...what I've often said they sound like, to me, glorified singer-songwriter stuff with indie cred, what James Taylor might've sounded like if he'd grown up during the punk era, bands that put out way too much work that sounds like Paul Westerberg solo stuff, most of which I find to be rather boring.

Last point--though I may quibble with part or all of this article, I do like the fact that there's someone who cares enough about music to go through the thought process necessary to see it through from start to finish, never mind that the Times devoted the space to it, and on the cover of the Arts & Leisure section to boot. And in spite of all these quibbles I have with the tastes of others, that's all they are--tastes. Opinions. And arguing that is pointless, so I don't, and for all I know people who do look at music through these prisms I scorn think I've got my head up my butt when it comes to pop music also, and they're certainly entitled to that opinion. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to extricate the old gulliver so I can concoct a different fantasy about how much better the world would be if everyone thought & acted the way I'd like 'em to.

tentoze
10-31-2004, 10:11 PM
A measured and responsible reply, as usual, which is why I always enjoy reading anything you have to say. In short, I agree, and as V. Morrison says "It's not about me, it's the music." Either it sounds good or it doesn't.

BTW, PM me with a snail mail for fruition of long promised B. Rose stuff.

et

nobody
11-01-2004, 08:02 AM
I thought it was an interesting article that made a lot of good points. In particular, I think it is good to observe that musically we don't live in a rock 'n' roll world anymore. Sure, there is still plenty of rock, but it is just a drop in the bucket of what is out there. I think where I take issue is his insistance on elevating the pop idol types.

I'm not saying that there can't be great songs coming out of these groups, but I don't think we need to endorse teen pop lip synchers as great artists. Sure, you can love the music, but if you want to credit such things, let's put the credit where it's due, with those who churn out the songs, produce the records, market the image and so forth. These groups are amazing creations, but the guy or chick on stage often has little to do with it.

My problem is that we shouldn't just credit the girl or guy who fit the costume (the Johnny Bravo syndrome if you will). The problem with the way the author wants to seriously discuss the creation of this style of music, is that by focusing on who ends up on stage at the end of a long process, he's playing by the old rules he is railing against. I would say that if he wants to talk about this style of music, he should be loking beyond the pretty package on the stage.

Still, overall good interesting article that I agree with for the most part. And, I agree that we overlook the vocal abilities of many modern pop/r&b vocalists, dismissing them as vapid while they sing lyrics no more meaningless than the I love you soul songs of years gone by, which are still held in such high regard.

OK...one more thought comes to mind...

This article is pretty well restricted to critics and music geeks. The rest of the world has figured this out and come to terms with a world not led by rock 'n' roll for a long time. Rap and country outsell rock by a long shot anyway.

Troy
11-01-2004, 08:03 AM
The challenge isn't merely to replace the old list of Great Rock Albums with a new list of Great Pop Songs - although that would, at the very least, be a nice change of pace. It's 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.

This is just patently not true. No idea who wrote this article, but they are obviously steeped in today's pop culture of "music videos and reality shows and glamorous layouts". This guy comes accross as a corporate apologist trying to give credibility to the Clay Aikins of the world. He's just a shill.

What's missing in this modern pop music culture is artistry. Popular music today is calculating and plastic. It's just empty, but that's our whole culture today, right? No one seems to give a damn about the music these days. It's all about image and glamour.

Have we raised a generation that honestly can't tell the difference between the merits of Elvis Costello and Ashlee Simpson? THAT'S what this article is telling me. Sad. Pathetic.

I do agree on the fact that the whole idea of "guilty pleasures" is a load of crap tho. You either like it or you don't. If you like Mariah Carrey, cop to it. The fact is, if you feel guilty about liking it, you must actually think it's crap, deep down. Which would mean, this guy's whole case for legitimizing this pre-packaged jive has no credibility. Just read a really interesting Chuck Klosterman editorial on the subject in Esquire last night.

Maybe I'm a rockist according to this guy's definition. But I see myself as a humanist, because THAT'S what's missing in pop culture today. The humanity.

Troy
11-01-2004, 08:04 AM
ISure, you can love the music, but if you want to credit such things, let's put the credit where it's due, with those who churn out the songs, produce the records, market the image and so forth. These groups are amazing creations, but the guy or chick on stage often has little to do with it.

My problem is that we shouldn't just credit the girl or guy who fit the costume (the Johnny Bravo syndrome if you will). The problem with the way the author wants to seriously discuss the creation of this style of music, is that by focusing on who ends up on stage at the end of a long process, he's playing by the old rules he is railing against.

Brilliant.

Davey
11-01-2004, 08:30 AM
Rap and country outsell rock by a long shot anyway.
You make some good points but I've read articles saying rock outsells rap by about a 2-1 margin in recent years. Getting closer, but there are just so many more big selling rock albums compared to rap. I doubt country is in the same sales league as rock either, but I don't recall reading about that. Were you just guessing on that or has it really turned that much? I do think rock sales are actually higher than pop in some markets, but not all. Not sure about this year since I don't follow the charts and most of what I listen to barely sells, but it doesn't seem there has been as many giant selling rock albums as in the past. Lots and lots of smaller ones, though.

Worf101
11-01-2004, 08:30 AM
Like mumbling old soldiers in the club ranting about the way things used to be. Sigh, great article, didn't tell me anything I didn't already know but it was good to finally see it in print. I encounter a lot of Rockism in clubs where I play, I generally have fun with it. Some idjit will yell "Freebird" and I'll respond with "Fleaboard?" or "Freebeer?" . Sometimes I'll just ask them if they know that that plane went down many years ago. They usually laugh sometimes they don't. Sometimes I'll just say "we don't do that", and launch into P-Funks "Standing on the Verge" or some obscure B-side Bobby Bird tune. As I wrote here years ago, rocknroll ain't dead, it's just not king of the hill anymore. It's a fractured world and they just have to live with it... just like the scions of the old British Empire had to realize that navy's don't matter in a nuclear world and that while Brittania may rule the waves, she could not longer rule the world...

Da Worfster :cool:

nobody
11-01-2004, 08:49 AM
Well, here's last years top ten selling records...

1 GET RICH OR DIE TRYIN' 50 Cent Shady / Aftermath / Interscope
2 COME AWAY WITH ME Norah Jones Blue Note
3 UP! Shania Twain Mercury/UMGN
4 HOME Dixie Chicks Monument / Columbia / Sony Music
5 LET GO Avril Lavigne Arista
6 METEORA Linkin Park Warner Bros.
7 8 MILE Soundtrack Shady/Interscope
8 FALLEN Evanescence Wind-up
9 TIM MCGRAW AND THE DANCEHALL DOCTORS Tim McGraw Curb
10 STRIPPED Christina Aguilera RCA/RMG


I see three rock ones (one of which features a lot of hip hop elements) competing with three country, and three rap, with Norah Johnes tossed in there.

I was just repeating something I heard, but chart wise, it sure doesn't look like rock has any sort of 2-1 edge anyway.

nobody
11-01-2004, 08:54 AM
This article's a year old, but I can't see that things have changed too dramatically...

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-07-02-airplay_x.htm">Rap is radio's biggest hit source</a>

Maybe it depends how you frame the arguement, but I think it's pretty hard to see rock as the only big dog on the block anymore.

Davey
11-01-2004, 09:16 AM
Maybe it depends how you frame the arguement, but I think it's pretty hard to see rock as the only big dog on the block anymore.
Well, I'm not arguing that some rap albums don't sell in huge numbers, only that I think rock is still most popular. I guess if you're gonna post something about radio hits to bolster your viewpoint, I'll post some RIAA survey results from last year to bolster mine ;)

<hr size=3 width="100%" align=center>
U.S. music buyers still favor rock over other music formats according to a survey from the RIAA.

The RIAA began taking the survey in 1989 and Rock has been the top pick with U.S. fans since the very first survey. This year rock's popularity seemed to grow while Pop music dropped from 2nd place to third, being replaced by Rap/Hip-hop.

Rock went from 24.4% last year to 24.7% this year. Rap/Hip-hop jumped almost 2.5 points to 13.5%, while the R&B/Urban genre came in third at 11.2%. Country music made a jump from 10.6% to 11.2% but pop music took a nosedive from 12.1% in 2001 to 9% this year.

Other findings in this survey show that women inch out men when it comes to buying music as they account for 50.5% of the market. Surprisingly, the biggest age group for music isn't the youngsters who are often referred to as "tweens" but the 45 and over crowd who made up 25.5% of the market. Lagging far behind in second place at 13.3% is music consumers between the age of 15-19.

What these results will mean in the market place is unknown but it does appear that the pop bubble has burst and rock is still king but look for even more focus on Rap/hip-hop and R&B/urban. With their rising popularity, record companies are sure to try and cash in.

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/051503.asp

nobody
11-01-2004, 09:47 AM
Like all statistical arguements, it's all gonna depend where you get your numbers and either side can twist things to their favor...just look at the election for proof of that. So, I'm not gonna get into a I'm right...you're wrong arguement. I'll just say you may well be right, but those stats still don't hold rock to be the only big fish in the sea by a long shot.

A couple interesting things in that article. One, even the biggest genre, rock, is a bit under 25% of the total. To me that number alone supports the idea that judging everything by the standards of rock is a little silly considering 75% of music is outside that label.

It's also very interesting to see the age move upward of the prime music consumers. I'd be very surprised to see if this wasn't the main factor keeping rock on top. I gotta wonder how much of the rock sales to these older folks were just reissues and/or repackaging of older music.

I could also argue that this group...the boomers, are the ones keeping music critisism stagnant but I won't...mostly because I'm torn on the issue. I find some truth to it, but figure if other generations want to be heard, they need to step up to the plate and say something.