Premier Rock Forum

M_a_x wrote:I am unsure why the term 'rockist' is such a big deal.

Tell me about it, what about those damn cockists? They are even worse

"Rockism" is the label for the accusation that tocharian leveled at steve. She then proceeded to "back it up" with a totally subjective argument. What I don't get is, what does she hope to gain by joining a community dedicated to a broad genre of art and then lambasting that same genre?

Regardless what Sontag or anybody else says about the definition of camp, to describe something in such a way is still an expression of opinion. It's an opinion that's contrary to the interests of this entire forum, trying to drag the music down to a level that precludes serious consideration or discussion. A troll move, IMO. And the argument that rock music is not art? It's a form of music, so it is, by definition, art.

"Rock" = a genre (subset) of "music";
"Music" = a form (subset) of "art";
Therefore, "rock" = "art".

You can discuss its relative merits and drawbacks, but to claim "rock is not art" is ignorant and arrogant.

Tocharian, I understand that grad school is maddeningly stressful and everything, but please don't come in here and expect to push us around the way you feel your profs are doing to you. It's not achieving anything positive and it's certainly not going to win you any friends. Take my advice: find yourself a nice comfy couch, crack a beer, light up a chillum, put on a High On Fire record and relax. Trust me, you'll feel much better just enjoying the music without all the pressure of relentless analysis, the need to identify the irony, or prove to others how clever, hip and stylish you are. Just give it a try, OK?

M_a_x wrote:I am unsure why the term 'rockist' is such a big deal.

It's a straw man argument wrapped up in one word.

Hardly anyone is a 'rockist.'

Most of the rants against 'rockism' I have had the misfortune to encounter go on and on about rap and hiphop and how bad their practitioners have it in the face of all the mean, nasty, racist rockists out there who don't understand what they are doing.

While some people may value the interplay of musicians over building-block music (a term I use descriptively, not pejoratively), chances are good that they value that interplay across various genres of music.

I know a lot of people who value people playing instruments over people assembling elements in the studio (of course the two sometimes overlap, but allow me to generalize). I do not know a single person who is partial to rock music to the exclusion of other forms of music.

As to the kitsch/camp question, I think most rock and roll is kitsch, sure. No problem. Most poetry as well. Most literature as well. Most painting. Most photography. Most jazz. Most classical music--the nice thing about classical music is that there are many decades of filtering between most of it and most of us.

To define rock as kitsch, as a whole, however, tells me a lot more about the person doing the defining than it does about rock. I think I know rock pretty well by this point, and the rock that has held up as a vital part of my life isn't kitsch or camp by any stretch of the definitions.

Is this thread about burial a band or burial as in something gets buried under a load of crap mounds and mounds of dirty mess(ages)

Because if its about burial under de earth I want to change my vote to not crap I think its a good idea I don't like cremation.

DregsInTheCrowd wrote: Guy Picciotto's spasmodics are unpretentious self-expression. You seem to be suggesting that this is somehow "just for show," and that bands must not have these personas "in real life". Well, when else can Fugazi have a gut reaction to their music except when they are playing it? Seems pretty real and unpretentious to me, and I doubt there's any knowing exaggeration in their self-expression.

I don't want to play the part of the cynic, but I don't think that guy does his spasms at practice, or when no one is watching. It seems pretty deliberate and exagerrated to me. I mean, I know he's supposed to be passionate or whatever but it just looks kind of cute to me. Anyone else?

JDanger wrote:

DregsInTheCrowd wrote: Guy Picciotto's spasmodics are unpretentious self-expression. You seem to be suggesting that this is somehow "just for show," and that bands must not have these personas "in real life". Well, when else can Fugazi have a gut reaction to their music except when they are playing it? Seems pretty real and unpretentious to me, and I doubt there's any knowing exaggeration in their self-expression.

I don't want to play the part of the cynic, but I don't think that guy does his spasms at practice, or when no one is watching. It seems pretty deliberate and exagerrated to me. I mean, I know he's supposed to be passionate or whatever but it just looks kind of cute to me. Anyone else?

Perhaps Guy's "spasms" are more subdued at practice and the live performance juices him up more. It would seem reasonable to assume that a live performance pumps a certain amount of adrenaline through one's veins. Perhaps I am the only one who suffers "spasms" when the right music is played loud enough - even if it is just a record blasting with no one around . . .

and ummm - Burial - Crap.

JDanger wrote:I don't want to play the part of the cynic, but I don't think that guy does his spasms at practice, or when no one is watching. It seems pretty deliberate and exagerrated to me. I mean, I know he's supposed to be passionate or whatever but it just looks kind of cute to me. Anyone else?

I feel sorry for you, I really do

Fuck i love me some fun electronic music. I just can't really dance to :zoviet*france:.

Imagine if you will Tocharian's Message Board....

A World in which C/NC, Crap/Not Crap is replaced by C/NC, Camp/Not Camp.

An example...

Band: Mission of Burma

'Oh Roger, those Ear Protectors are so Kitchy': CAMP
'Where's the affectation, gentlemen? BOR-RING!: NOT-CAMP

Burial has repetitive electronic drum patterns in it. It doesn't make me want to twist my booty like a bionic boogie machine. I dislike the female vocal samples that sound like a chipmunk doing muezzin calls to Allah. I find it bland and dull.

The other evening I was playing an mp3 cd on my girlfriend's dvd player, and it happened to contain a lot of electronica-type or lets say music with a lot of repetitive electronic drum patterns incorporated into it. Of various kinds, but in general having that in common. It's not really the type of music I listen to a lot, but sometimes for mood music/musical background purposes, and also just to listen to and try to understand it better.

My girlfriend listened to one of the songs and commented, "This sounds like a couple of fags making out." My first thought was "what a crude vulgar woman", but then I thought, well yeah I guess it is pretty faggy, the specific song being 80's french new wave pop. Doinky syncopations with blankly repetitive jerky dorkenheimer robot beats. Doesn't seem that sexy but I could see how it would hypnotize somebody into doing boring quick repetitive physical movements in a robot sex pattern.

If a piece of music is going to repeat the same beat pattern over and over, after enough repetition the beat, like anything else, is going to get tired. Unless your brain achieves some kind of hypnotic trance repetiton breakthrough where repetition is change and vice versa, like perhaps a guru mantra is supposed to lead to. Repetitive electronic beat music may also have an appeal to totalitarian regimes, hypnotizing armies of asexualized assembly line workers to perform short quick repetitive body movements over and over without question. I prefer the beat to be more varied or to have the repetition broken up somehow.

As far as rock being kitschy, I could see how Kiss might be an example of this, more for the costumes, but the music too. Initially lots of kids were blown away by Kiss because of the entire Kiss look/sound/world. But years later, after many other sophistications and elaborations in heavy rock had occured, the idea that you could be so amazed by Kiss seems ludicrous. Anything that successfully serves a social purpose will be repeated. After a successful formula is repeated enough times, it's no longer novel and original, it's a cliché, and a recognizable trait. A trait that is recognizeable due to its repetition by those emulating a perceived successful formula is liable to be satirized. As maybe a comment on the opportunistic qualities people exhibit sometimes or something. Or maybe not. Individual tastes.