In regards to the questions of ‘cool’ (lame), underground, “it was so much better in ____” nostalgia etc., I find myself inevitably drawn to anything that either glorifies or spits in the face of such indulgence. On the internet particularly, I unthinkingly bookmark sites/articles/videos that delve into this theme in some way- for what I don’t know, I just do it. As dumb as it is, for whatever reason it’s a topic that I’m continually fascinated by- maybe because I find myself somewhat baffled that people still believe so fervently in being “alternative”, in a kind of individualism that is an illusory and mastabatory pasttime. And maybe because even though I hate to admit it, I’m equally suspectible to such (metaphorical) masturbation.
At the moment this theme has been caught once again by hipsterism, rockism whatever you want to call it. Is it just me, or is music a catergory that is more prone, (and more desperate) to hold onto the ideal of the underground, the alternative etc. than other forms of popular art? This article (from 2004) uses the Ashlee Simpson lip synching incident to lampoon the “rockism” tendencies of music critics, but it too misses the point for me. Among other things it spends way too much time talking about how critics are unable to let go of ‘rock n’ roll’ as an idealised music genre that they are unable to embrace pop music without prejudice. This is not only wrong fundamentally (seriously, has the writer never heard of any number of obscure musical genres that music critics love to have pissing matches over these days?), but the writer misses the point of why rock n’ roll ONCE held such a revered place- it is not that critics love rock n roll to the exclusion of all other genres of music- they’re not going around talking about the shallowness and cultural emptiness of jazz or fucking Phillip Glass. They’re not even railing against all pop music- aren’t critics always undergoing a kind of revisionism, constantly returning to eras past and reclaiming past pop hits as classics?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- the underground, the alternative, the counter culture, “hipsterism”, “rockism” only hold value against a perceived mainstream, whether it exists or not. The writer of the NY Times article by clumsily trying to define “rockism” can’t seem to grasp that so called “rockists” (big snort- because frankly as much is it may hold water for different reasons, it is also a myth) by definition cannot embrace pop music, without a sly reference to it being a so called “guilty pleasure”. Because try as such a mythical creature might, they cannot enjoy music unselfconsciously. Or perhaps, this is the only point that the writer does truly understand:
But as more than one online ranter has discovered, it’s easier to complain about rockism than it is to get rid of it. You literally can’t fight rockism, because the language of righteous struggle is the language of rockism itself. You can argue that the shape-shifting feminist hip-pop of Ms. Aguilera is every bit as radical as the punk rock of the 1970’s (and it is), but then you haven’t challenged any of the old rockist questions (starting with: Who’s more radical?), you’ve just scribbled in some new answers.
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.
In the end, the problem with rockism isn’t that it’s wrong: all critics are wrong sometimes, and some critics (now doesn’t seem like the right time to name names) are wrong almost all the time. The problem with rockism is that it seems increasingly far removed from the way most people actually listen to music.
The other frustrating part of the NY Times article is how much it concentrates on music critics et al as encouraging such a phenomenon. For one thing, this is not a recent development- the genre of rock n roll- the power it holds, and once held, and the reason why the writer is using the genre an example in the first place is because of what is meant symbolically when it first appeared- what is that, if not “rockism”??? Furthermore, the writer completely bypasses how deeply complicit commercialism is in maintaining such an underground vs mainstream structure. Who benefits most from perpetuating myths of individualism, etc than capitalism? Isn’t this stuff like 101 advertising or something? I dunno, if it’s not it should be damnnit. Finally the conclusion to the article is so lame- it’s one of those “can’t we just all love each other?” type endings, except… about Ciara i.e. can’t we just like Ciara without shame? Whatever, NY Times article.
Elitist pretentiousness annoys me, yes it does- but it if came down to a fist fight between that and well, let’s say my oldest sister’s taste in music (it is so awful, every insult intended) because as lame as the first one is, it still implies a level of adventouressness, a desire to challenge yourself and not just listen to what is most accessible. This has everything to do with that willingness, and nothing to do with what pop music has to offer, because frankly there is nothing “wrong” with pop music, and there is nothing wrong with accessibility. Accessibility is available in pretty much most musical genres, it is not that which is offensive- I think aurally “pop music” (as broad and as general as that genre is) suffers the most because it is the most available- it saturates and saturates until it unbearable to listen to. I liked Rihanna’s Umbrella initially- for about a week, until I thought I would rather stab myself in the ear than have to listen to it ever again. For anyone who becomes obsessed with music, or with anything, it’s natural to want to broaden the horizons, to not listen/experience the same thing over and over. There’s a reason why in first year uni I fell alseep through two viewings of A bout de souffe, and why a couple of years later after watching so many more films Godard became so much more interesting to me, and I was so much more willing to watch films that actually allowed distance, space and thought (and I’m not referring to a fucking “Oscar” film here). Many of my friends have had to hear me rant about how much I DETESTED Matthew Barney’s Cremaster Cycle (I’ve only seen one and two, and that was enough for me at the time), I quite honestly wanted to claw my eyes out than watch one more second, but I’m really curious what my reaction to the films now would be. Maybe the same, I don’t know. I hated it so much I don’t know if I would ever be willing to try again. The point is, there are also reasons for why pop music can be considered less palatable to some, but again that is a huge generalisation. I still think, that if you like something, critic or no, you’re not going to say that you don’t on principle, on an outdated, dumb illusory ideal. Unless you’re lame that is.
Which brings us to NME. This review of Coldplay’s latest album by NME is so bad it borders on parody, the fact that it gave the album an 8 out of 10 is besides the point- the review couldn’t just be “it’s good”, it had to reassert the underground/mainstream dichotomy before it could undercut it in a bizarre “Coldplay’s pretty good here, but not in the way that they want, so ha” move. I am neither a Coldplay hater or lover, and I’ve only heard snippets of their latest album, so I have nothing to defend either way, but they interest me exactly because people want to hate them so much, merely for being palatable under the moniker of a “rock band”. The first paragraph includes this gem:
The Edge-aping guitar desertscape bit on ‘Fix You’ and on this, their fourth studio album, they develop full Bono Bombast Syndrome. Sheesh, what next? Can we expect Chris Martin to grow wrap-around shades and lose four feet from his height by Christmas?
Wow, BURN. It just gets worse:
They probably thought ‘Lovers In Japan’, a jaunty piano rollock drenched in enough ‘Joshua Tree’ reverb to demolish Red Rocks, was a searing sonic battle between Echo & The Bunnymen, The Cocteau Twins and A Place To Bury Strangers. They yearn to be recast as outsiders violently opposed to the mainstream hegemony but can’t see that by dint of their incessant knack for a stadium-sized chorus they’re so deeply entrenched in the mainstream that they’re our men on the inside, making the most offensive indie racket palatable to the masses with a sprinkle of their melodic fairy dust.
Case in point: when they say they’ve been influenced by My Bloody Valentine and point to the guitar screes and hazy, unintelligible vocals of ‘Chinese Sleep Chant’, they fail to realise the angelic hooklines they’ve couched within the noisefest make the song as mainstream as ‘Umbrella’.
The first time I skimmed the review I honestly thought it must have been written by a 16 year old. It smacked of unoriginality: insulting Coldplay (easy targets), overworked U2 comparisons (they’re the U2 that are old irrelevant and purveyors of middle of the road ’stadium rock’), overworked Radiohead comparisons (they’ll never be Radiohead as hard as they may try- while taking a lame swipe at Radiohead… is the reviewer an inverse “rockist??!! Or is this a mutant strain of “rockism” that forms the basis for most hipsters??) and continual referals to “the mainstream” and Coldplay’s supposed desperation to be anything but. Reading it again, it seems a slightly more measured review, a little less teenager, for whom ideas of “mainstreamity” seem more offensive than they truly are. But it still unconsciously places stock in the ideal of the underground, emphasising that Coldplay, no matter what it wants to be, by virtue of being, jeez likeable will always be a little to accessible to be “underground”. It’s just… such a DATED idea without somehow acknowleding the pitfalls of such a position, it seems wrong for it to be used so un-critically, even though it is couched in terms of “Coldplay’s” desire for alternative acceptance, the fact of which is only liminally beliveable in the first place. How desperate is Coldplay, one of the most successful bands and well recognised musical acts in the world for this mythical underground’s approval, really? Who is swallowing this bullshit at all is what I would like to know: who reads NME? Seriously, who?
Also, it is seven in the morning and I’ve had no sleep cos I feel AWFUL- so take this post as you will, my head is spinning. Gross.
