as we may blog

And: Interview with the 13th Floor Elevators

The Times finally catches up with the argumentative zeitgeist of the Joe’s Place back table, circa 2000:

A rockist isn’t just someone who loves rock ‘n’ roll, who goes on and on about Bruce Springsteen, who champions ragged-voiced singer-songwriters no one has ever heard of. A rockist is someone who reduces rock ‘n’ roll to a caricature, then uses that caricature as a weapon. Rockism means idolizing the authentic old legend (or underground hero) while mocking the latest pop star; lionizing punk while barely tolerating disco; loving the live show and hating the music video; extolling the growling performer while hating the lip-syncher.

Over the past decades, these tendencies have congealed into an ugly sort of common sense. Rock bands record classic albums, while pop stars create “guilty pleasure” singles. It’s supposed to be self-evident: U2’s entire oeuvre deserves respectful consideration, while a spookily seductive song by an R&B singer named Tweet can only be, in the smug words of a recent VH1 special, “awesomely bad.”

Like rock ‘n’ roll itself, rockism is full of contradictions: it could mean loving the Strokes (a scruffy guitar band!) or hating them (image-conscious poseurs!) or ignoring them entirely (since everyone knows that music isn’t as good as it used to be). But it almost certainly means disdaining not just Ms. Simpson but also Christina Aguilera and Usher and most of the rest of them, grousing about a pop landscape dominated by big-budget spectacles and high-concept photo shoots, reminiscing about a time when the charts were packed with people who had something to say, and meant it, even if that time never actually existed. If this sounds like you, then take a long look in the mirror: you might be a rockist.

Do you buy it? It’s certainly a phenomenon among those who listen to vast quantities of music, including yours truly who now readily defends both Springsteen and Usher and would like to think he’s far less obnoxious than he used to be.

But does it matter? Does the identification of rockist tendencies in the music critic take away the critic’s power to declare, for example, that Nirvana made substantively better music than Mariah Carey (article’s example, not mine)? Or does it simply assert that the music critic’s rockist comparisons between different genres of music miss the point completely? I’m genuinely interested to hear what people think (if they’ve read this far).

This article coincides happily with the recent controversy surrounding Ocu-Master’s self-proclaimed "Greatest Playlist Ever."

This post also functions as a way to take Frank Broz’s attendance.

Now playing: Richard Buckner, Dents and Shells

Eno is as close as one could get to a cult hero at SI, primarily for his involvement with the Long Now folx and secondarily for his ability to put a sleepy grad student to sleep. Search me why a tired student needs airport music to fall asleep–just grab the nearest organizational information flowchart. Anyway, for whatever reason I’m just now hearing Here Come the Warm Jets. Highly recommended, like this porter.

Eno: Probably not a super-villian

ILX feeds a Slipknot-loving, rap-hating troll:

"when we were kids we would drink koolaid all day and then gather round the ol pepole and just whizz and whizs"

Oh yeah!

E.g.:

"I bought Aja the other day and couldn’t be more pleased, especially with the rhythms and choruses." –mattbot

"I have no idea what ‘Fire in the Hole’ is about but I appreciate the Dan’s efforts to broaden lyrical horizons." –mattbot

And so on!