i would say that the values it deploys as a basis for analysing and justifying everything are KOGANIST -- viz explored and justified by YOU -- of course if there were a great kneejerk wave of people who agreed with the attributes you find and favour in the rock you like and assume them to be present generically in stuff they are not present in there would be an issue here but sadly this is not yet the case! (hmmm must pester NLR again)
so are you rockist in yr koganism? sometimes a bit maybe -- your recent anger at the prejudgment of "let it blurt" was (my def) antirockist in essence but a bit rockist in assumption (ie a bit prejudicial about WHY ppl might be making the prejudgement) -- but really pretty rarely
the things you're valuing you would be able to be justified on (your reading of) their own terms here whether or not rock had ever existed -- they are not borrowing rock's "anti-authoritarian" authority to signify; nor are they being used to affirm rock-as-the-genre-which-matters (exactly the opposite i'd say, given yr before rock and after parenthesis); or (which is also part of my defn) to affirm _______-as-the-genre-which-matters*
*i fully acknowledge there is a badly confusing element in the term itself: does it or doesn't it connect more closely to rock than to other genres? erm yes and no: historically the term arose in the context of deciding what genres should be given critical priority, in a magazine which till then had unquestioningly given rock priority; and yes also bz rock occupies a janus-faced position in music generally -- that it was a music which garnered its importance from its unimportance, to be meltzerish for a moment; so that to reach back to pre-rock modes of justification-by-importance to affirm rock against its other challengers was to toss out the importance-in-unimportance clause
but you can discover and energise this same idea in other musics, older and newer -- i would contend it became a BIG TALKED-ABOUT THING in rock first but the same contrary loop certainly operates in jazz, esp.when it was still pop as well as "art"; and in fact all over the place -- so to insist that this insight, this value, this attribute matters because it takes us back to rock is putting the story the wrong way round
rock matters -- or used to? -- because it dramatised the play around this value; but it's the value that matters (if it does); its name is therefore arguably fatally misleading (i used to think "BUT IN A GOOD WAY" but i am no longer at all sure of that)
i think once you pick out something like "outrageousness" as a valued attribute and take it seriously in its meaning (which is not simply musical after all), it helps you here the way other genres operate -- their conventions and code and blah blah -- ie by bringing a strong question into the genre, you put yourself up against and into that genre; it allows that genre NOT to be muffled by other genres
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Your ugly face is going to bland
Date: 2006-09-25 02:06 pm (UTC)so are you rockist in yr koganism? sometimes a bit maybe -- your recent anger at the prejudgment of "let it blurt" was (my def) antirockist in essence but a bit rockist in assumption (ie a bit prejudicial about WHY ppl might be making the prejudgement) -- but really pretty rarely
the things you're valuing you would be able to be justified on (your reading of) their own terms here whether or not rock had ever existed -- they are not borrowing rock's "anti-authoritarian" authority to signify; nor are they being used to affirm rock-as-the-genre-which-matters (exactly the opposite i'd say, given yr before rock and after parenthesis); or (which is also part of my defn) to affirm _______-as-the-genre-which-matters*
*i fully acknowledge there is a badly confusing element in the term itself: does it or doesn't it connect more closely to rock than to other genres? erm yes and no: historically the term arose in the context of deciding what genres should be given critical priority, in a magazine which till then had unquestioningly given rock priority; and yes also bz rock occupies a janus-faced position in music generally -- that it was a music which garnered its importance from its unimportance, to be meltzerish for a moment; so that to reach back to pre-rock modes of justification-by-importance to affirm rock against its other challengers was to toss out the importance-in-unimportance clause
but you can discover and energise this same idea in other musics, older and newer -- i would contend it became a BIG TALKED-ABOUT THING in rock first but the same contrary loop certainly operates in jazz, esp.when it was still pop as well as "art"; and in fact all over the place -- so to insist that this insight, this value, this attribute matters because it takes us back to rock is putting the story the wrong way round
rock matters -- or used to? -- because it dramatised the play around this value; but it's the value that matters (if it does); its name is therefore arguably fatally misleading (i used to think "BUT IN A GOOD WAY" but i am no longer at all sure of that)
i think once you pick out something like "outrageousness" as a valued attribute and take it seriously in its meaning (which is not simply musical after all), it helps you here the way other genres operate -- their conventions and code and blah blah -- ie by bringing a strong question into the genre, you put yourself up against and into that genre; it allows that genre NOT to be muffled by other genres