poptimists | "It's impossible to be Actual* Pop and Actual Rock simultaneously!"

You're viewing

poptimists
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

dubdobdee.livejournal.com posting in

the lex just claimed this: is he korrekt?

my response = it is NOT COMMON CERTAINLY but it has happened, like a kind of harmonic convergence within recorded music after -- with things after never the same as before

for example:
i. stones
ii. sabbaf
iii. slade/pistols (=essentially the same thing anyway)
iv. pulp fiction inspired resurgence of SURF sound

obv plenty of bands have been one then the other but not simultaneously, and some have even switched back again

*note use of ACTUAL here must not be employed in any kind of essentialist slipperiness, bcz that kind of behaviour is INDIE

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

alexmacpherson.livejournal.com

But surely what makes a brand of Rock real as opposed to fake are the good ol' r*ckist reasons - and no matter how much they get the sound right, no matter how heavy and proper (and indeed good) their Rock actually is, Avril and Kelly will always fail it. Evanescence I guess will as well, but I have no idea whether they were ever properly rock-credible prior to BMTL.

From:

koganbot

There are no rockist reasons, because rockism does not exist and has nothing to do with what is rock.

From:

koganbot

Or anyway, if you decide that BY DEFINITION anything that is actual rock cannot be actual pop simultaneously, then indeed nothing can be actual rock and actual pop simultaenously. But since on actual Planet Earth rock and pop have been interchanging genes since 1963, either (1) the phrase "actual rock" does not actually refer to anything or (2) pop and rock actually are mixing all over the place.

But also, I don't see where Kelly and Avril fail "rockist" reasons. Find me a rockist and let's hear his reasons. Kalefa's so-so piece on the subject (which wuz way better than Rosen's or Wolk's, but still not very good, since it's a hopeless topic) starts off by giving Jim DeRogatis as example of the rockist because of the supposedly rockist way he praises Avril. Miccio claims that my reasons for liking Ashlee are "rockist."

Why let "actual rock" be defined by Morons Who Hate Most Good Rock? Anyway, if Ashlee fails, then so do Dylan and Stones.

There is no rockism. Rockism is a phenomena invented by antirockists (not to say that the antirockists aren't noticing anything, but for sure what they're not noticing is a coherent set of reasons consistently applied. "Rockist reasons" not a self-explanatory term.

From:

koganbot

Also, DeRogatis countered Sanneh by saying that potentially anything can be rock or that rock can come from anywhere or something, which means either that DeRo is not a "rockist" (because there is no rockism) or that rockism is not what antirockists think it is (because there is no rockism). DeRo has argued that James Joyce is rock, which might not endear him to the average to the pubster, you know.

From:

koganbot

See, if by Actual Rock you mean "actual rock as a rockist would define it" and then you invent the rockist of your dreams you're stuck with the problem that you've defined "as a rockist would define it" to be stuff that isn't very good rock