michael said:Hmm.... everyone else in the thread seems to be defining rockism as being about the listeners/critics, not about the music.
the music is the message , the rest sorts itself out ultimately.
michael said:Hmm.... everyone else in the thread seems to be defining rockism as being about the listeners/critics, not about the music.
Buick6 said:the music is the message , the rest sorts itself out ultimately.
k-punk said:1. A mode of auteurism limited to a discussion of those who 'actually' play and sing on the record; the privileging of the singer-songwriter mode. (So, sexist, racist, heterosexist).
2. The privileging of a notion of 'authenticity', typically identified with 'playing live'. Songs have to be thought of as organic, spontaneous expressions of an uncorrupted, really present subjectivity.
Buick6 said:Rock n' roll and it's ejaculative offshoots, ideologically in it's most distilled and absolute form, is about personal freedom.
The idea that Detroit punk and drum'n'bass somehow incarnate the same essence is a brilliant example of rockism getting it wrong. Rock'n'roll is human in essence, amplifying your self, rave is machine music, dissolving your self. This is also why rave is great, and rock'n'roll isn't.Buick6 said:Layman terms: music that shakes the fucken floorboards when you hear it live, vibtrates you in yr bones and makes you wanna fuck.
It could be a neo-Detroit punk band, crankin' ACCADACCA, a booty shaking bling, a Drum n' bass 'woarw bassline' or a 4-stomping house track.
hamarplazt said:The idea that Detroit punk and drum'n'bass somehow incarnate the same essence is a brilliant example of rockism getting it wrong. Rock'n'roll is human in essence, amplifying your self, rave is machine music, dissolving your self. This is also why rave is great, and rock'n'roll isn't.
It isn't the only thing it's about, but it's at the heart of it.if you think rock has only ever been about ego and self-aggrandisement they you've got a very restricted sense of rock
Why do you think that? I'd agree that there was a potential in rock, but that goal was only reachable by machines, which is exactly why many rockers find all kinds of techno so dreadfull - this is stuff that no human can play, you have to surrender to the machines to make it.Rave fulfils the immanent or perhaps i mean latent techno-pagan/electrical-mystical potential in rock, discarding the humanistic detritus still clinging to the rock band. But i think at heart Rock has always been ultimately about energy-worship.
hamarplazt said:if you allready have decided what you want the music to be - like, say, "the new rock'n'roll". Then, obviously, you're likely only to hear the elements supporting that view.
hamarplazt said:Its music that makes you feel like a human with the power of a machine, but that power is still used to your own human ends, not against them. Rock empower you, rave overpower you.
.
hamarplazt said:that goal was only reachable by machines, which is exactly why many rockers find all kinds of techno so dreadfull - this is stuff that no human can play, you have to surrender to the machines to make it.
Well, just because you're "into" or even inspired by something doesn't mean you're directly expanding on it. They wanted to use an element they liked in rock, and by doing so, something new happened, because that element change character when played by machines. Anyway, far more people got into electronics through Jean Michel Jarre than people like to acknowleedge. The silly, catchy elements of his hits are all over rave. My point still is that music is one big continuum, and yes, there's rock<>rave connections, but also all other sorts of connections, and rockists tend to look at the connections they like the most. What's so frustratingly messy about music is, that someone you really dig is most likely inspered by all sorts of unlikely things that you don't dig at all.blissblogger said:this is a good point, but the fact is when you run through the history of rave, from marshall jefferson saying when he was making sleezy d 'i'm losing control' that he was thinking about black sabbath and such, or that acid house got named acid cos it reminded them of acid rock, or joey beltram also being into sabbath and led zep, or the riff-based nature of techno, up to certain things by basement jaxx, or... just too many examples really.... there's much more if a continuum, more connections and parallels, than people like to acknowledge....
But unlike rock, the way the techno producers feel about his "playing" have no direct influence on the final output. As for the surrendering-to-sound in rock, this have allways seemed to me to be about feeling alive, intensity-through-pain, where rave is about becoming void. Rock=heaven & hell, rave=nirvana. Of course, we're very much down to gut feelings here, this is how I directly (and indirectly) experience it.blissblogger said:except that i think there's almost as much an overpowering/surrender to sound thing going on in rock, and nearly as much as power complex/i control the machines thing going on in techno -- A guy called gerald told me he felt like a god when he manipulated his machines..
The motorik-as-proto-techno have allways seemed to me as a rather lazy comparison, far too obvious. Trying to sound like a machine doesn't make you one. It can have some other, fascinating effects, but in the end it's more like a novelty-thing, like using machines to make "real" music, undistinguishable from something played by acoustic instruments. Something different happens when machines are playing, whether through a sequencer or a loop - something with the precision makes a lone breakbeat or 909 pattern fascinating, even those so simple and minimal that they would be deadly dull were they played by a live drummer. This is mystification to me.blissblogger said:the meeting point between rock and techno is motorik i think -- beach boys>>kraftwerk>>cybotron/model 500 ... music of transit... speed worship... thrust but also impact
hamarplazt said:Why do you think that? I'd agree that there was a potential in rock, but that goal was only reachable by machines, which is exactly why many rockers find all kinds of techno so dreadfull - this is stuff that no human can play, you have to surrender to the machines to make it.
hamarplazt said:My starting point is this: Why do I love 'ardcore, acid, gabber, jungle, breakcore, etc., but not punk, garage rock, rock'n'roll, metal, etc, if all these genres is about the same thing? Obviously, there's some of the same elements present, but why use exactly these elements to decide the musical relationship?
I'd agree that there was a potential in rock, but that goal was only reachable by machines, which is exactly why many rockers find all kinds of techno so dreadfull - this is stuff that no human can play, you have to surrender to the machines to make it.
huffafc said:This is why I have some problems with the term, and also why I think if the term rockist is used you have to be careful about what you mean. But I do think that there are valid criticisms that have been made, not of rock music as a genre (if anyone can even claim to pin down what rock as a genre is), but of a certain way of listening to music more generally that many people have identified as rockist. Specifically, the 'rockist' process of dismissing or elevating music on the basis of some myth of authenticity.