For many on RTH, Loser Rock is the ultimate musical bete noire. On the face of it, the words “Loser Rock” conjure the image of a broken, simpering man, venting his pain by cradling an acoustic guitar, mousily whispering words of a bottomless yet superficial despair, before finally collapsing in a pile of tears. Or perhaps the term summons the memory a doomed, slovenly, possibly soused twentysomething, howling against the elements, wringing a tortured sound from his Fender Jaguar, while a rhythm section plods along with a distinct lack of commitment.
Here in the halls of rock, Loser Rock can take on mythic proportions, often becoming the convenient scapegoat for the decreased popularity of party-rock, cock-rock… in fact, one could conceivably pin the decline of rock ‘n’ roll in the public sphere at the feet of Loser Rock. The ultimate sin of Loser Rock is that it ultimately encouraged listeners to equate rock with bad times, not good ones. And who honestly wants spend time at that party?
But of course in many ways this characterization of Loser Rock is a straw argument. Re-read the first paragraph; now, do you actually know any well-known musicians who are really like that, and nothing but that? I submit that the likes of The Smiths, Elliott Smith, and Belle and Sebastian are not Loser Rock so much as they are Alone Time Rock. (Paradoxically, The Smiths and Belle and Sebastian’s cult audiences have swelled to the size of their own social sect, practically. Of course, these fans are often cited as part of the problem by the anti-Loser Rockers. But that’s a whole other essay.)
That said, there is something called Loser Rock and it can be a positive or a negative. At its best – when acts like The Replacements, Aimee Mann, Nirvana, and Quasi are firing on all cylinders – Loser Rock owns up to reality. If Winner Rock thrives on the delusion that the odds can be defied (hence its frequent connection with sports), Loser Rock achieves catharsis by facing failure and articulating it accurately and perfectly. Sometimes, shit goes down and it’s best not to pretend otherwise. Loser Rock can allow you to wallow, and sometimes we all need a good wallow. But that’s not the only way. For a time, The Replacements showed us how to turn losing into a good party. Aimee Mann displayed the effectiveness of a precisely worded and dryly delivered summation of a losing situation. Nirvana wedded hopeless desperation to corrosive guitars and a rhythm section that frankly eats Winner Rockers for dinner. Quasi have entire albums that act as the indie-rock equivalent of Peter Finch’s famous Network speech, or perhaps Alec Baldwin’s in Glengarry Glen Ross. Get mad, sons of bitches.
In contrast, it seems to me, Winner Rock as Mr. Moderator defines it, is an almost abstract concept. The Clash addresses its audience as a whole? Doesn’t this tie in with that great band’s worst attribute – their rhetoric? I’m not convinced that Winner Rock is not, in fact, best represented by Survivor and Journey.
One final point, and an olive branch of sorts: An appreciation of Loser Rock does not mean one cannot also listen to Winner Rock. The point is that a person should be able to access a wide variety of emotions in their music collection, if they so choose. One day you might want to hear “Eye of the Tiger.” Another day you might want “Needle in the Hay.” Must every song be connected to “Satisfaction”?
Oats writes:
Did you mean to write “…is not, in fact, best represented…”? I know I should ask you this offlist, but the fate of Winner Rock has been challenged.
Yes, you’re correct. It should be “is not…” Thanks.
Fixed. Thanks. This is an important distinction.
I’ll have to say, Oats, you have presented some good examples of effective Loser Rock. Would you agree that The db’s practiced Loser Rock? I think so. They seemed to have a downbeat, fatalistic approach to not only their music but their career.
Am I right in thinking that a degree of apathy or negative feelings toward careerism play a role in the Loser Rock profile? In a sense, I’m flipping your question concerning “commercial success” regarding the “winning” aspect of Winner Rock.
I gotta say, I’m not sure I hear it. There’s a winsome, wry side to much of their music that doesn’t really jibe with this Loser Rock aesthetic. I think. They have some downbeat, fatalistic songs, but they also have “Big Brown Eyes” and “Love is for Lovers.”
Certainly Aimee Mann and Nirvana (and, yes, Elliott Smith) were very vocal in their ambivalence regarding commercial success. But I think a better sign of Loser Rock status comes, again, from The Replacements. Regarding their eventual failure in the rock marketplace, Westerberg once said, “At the end of the day, we just didn’t want it that much.” There’s a clear-eyed, honest reckoning in that statement that’s a real and valid Loser Rock Value.
Also, I am very, very happy the ‘Mats do not have a “Runaway Train” in their catalog.
Oats wrote:
What a clear-eyed and honest answer, Oats. You have definded Loser Rock with the heart of a Winner! Beware of Mwall and his disgust over your efforts at doing a job that clearly needed doing.
Here’s an other advantage to Loser Rock — you don’t actually win any thing when you play Winner Rock.