PaulEdwardWagemann

I'm not an elitist, but it seems to me that it is only human nature to be inquisitive about why you like something or to have a curiouslity as to why you find something to be of high quality... Right, when I wrote that statement it wasn't my personal opinion that grunge music was the way Rock was supposed to be made. It was more of away of describing the consensus of how Rock critics saw Grunge. Fromthe way I wrote it, I can see why you would think that to be my opinion. I should probablly rewrite that to be honest.

But certainly content, technique, influences, etc all go into the making of the 'product', right? So why not examine those things? That's what Rockism is essentially about. If the music is of high quality, then try and understand why it is of high quality. And if the music is crap, then try and figure out that as well...

The links I provide kindof go over some of the basics. Rockism was a term first used in the 80s as a way of putting music into context in order to define quality in music. Certain tennants were recognized, but Kurt CObain sorta knocked down many of these tennants and since then there has been a new school of Rockism. This new school is above some of the things that were kindof accepted in the old school. For instance sexism, homophobia, racism(arguably), self-indulgance, etc. Perhaps most importantly the new school embraced the DIY spirit of the punks so that any band that is corporate rock sucks and any band that is Indie is good. The problem is that a lot of the new school ways have put the emphasis on image. They also seem more uptight (some are a bit posuerish) and not as much fun. Often musically alot of new bands copy a lot from the old school bands, but one of the biggest criticism of the new school is that the vocals seem whiney and overall the bands dont have as much of the 'fun' spirit...

I fudged on a couple of these, Love and the Ramones and Liz Phair arent exactly Classic Rock, but oh well...

What's going on? No one has an opinion on this crucial issue?

Rockism took quite a beating last year and the year before, but since then the tides have begun to change. At first many of the old guard Rockists sat watching and did nothing as Rockism got smeared. A few tried feebly to defend Rockism, but more recently a new approach has been taken. Since Kurt Cobain redefined mainstream Rock in the early 90's it has become in vouge to incorporate his vision into Rockism. This means no more racism, sexism, homo-phobia and it also means that Indieism is good and Corporate Rock is bad... Please share you thoughts about this ongoing debate and the future of Rockism... Here are some links to some of the more highly profiled articles against Rockism from the last year: http://rocknerd.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/02/0 010252&mode=thread&tid=2 http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0518/05050 4_music_smallmouth.html http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso? storyID=715 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism

gg allen was mental. Fugazi is over rated imo... As for the Sex Pistols I suggest you read a book called Too Much Too Soon--which is the NY Dolls story, then a book called England is Dreaming and another called From the Velvets to the Voidoids or a book called Please Kill Me. They all make it pretty clear that the Sex Pistols were fabricated with the motive of getting fame, attentions and money. Malcolm McLaren stole the look and attitude for the Sex Pistols from Richard Hell. He made them into a bunch of posuers. 'The Great Rock-n-Roll' swindle was as choreagraphed as a BackStreet Boys video. I admit there was some talent in the Sex Pistols, but Malcom exploited 'punk' to make fame and money. I really dont see anything so innovative about that or their music or their lyrics.

No, but that was their intention. There focus want the music it was the 'image'. They were posuers...punk rock posuers--not the real deal at all!

Admittedly there were some good Punk Rock records made after the Sex pistols. ANd to be honest, it would be giving the Sex pistols too much credit to say that they killed punk--so I retract my statement. The Sex Pistols did however bring Punk into the Pop Mainstream. But I cant even say thta they did that, because IMO they werent really punk. They were pop all along. If they were really punk they wouldnt have been so concerened with being popular. The bands mentioned above were more punk because they knew they would never achieve mainstream Pop success...

How old were you in '77? 12 or 13, right? Were you into Brit Punk at that time?

How about if you try reading a book called Too Much Too Soon--which is the NY Dolls story. Or a book called England is Dreaming and another called From the Velvets to the Voidoids or a book called Please Kill Me. They all make it pretty clear that the Sex Pistols were fabricated with the motive of getting fame, attentions and money. Malcolm McLaren stole the look and attitude for the Sex Pistols from Richard Hell. He made them into a bunch of posuers--I cant believe anyone could have really teken them serioiusly except for old British geezers who were so out of it that they really thought that a snotty teenage boy band could overthrow the Queen. 'The Great Rock-n-Roll' swindle was as choreagraphed as a BackStreet Boys video. I admit there was some talent in the Sex Pistols, but Malcom exploited 'punk' to make fame and money, that's why I want to wrap people upside the head who say the Sex pistols invented Punk or they were the greatest punk band, etc. They exploited punk and killed it.

I think one of the things that seperated Punk from Rock was that Punk was intentionally taking a pi** on the established Music Industry--punk didnt want their songs on the radio, they didnt want to play to jocks and hipsters in huge arenas, they didnt want 'polished' and slickly produced albums and songs, and because of this the developed a DIY attitude.

I think they explotied Punk and in the process ruined it... http://generation-add.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-everything-you-think-you-know-about.html

The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is one of the best albums of all time. Other than that I'm not too much of a fan of Pink Floyd...