Mar 072008
This topic for discussion might reek of Rockism like no topic that’s ever crossed my mind, but I suspect I’m not the only person to have thought the following – and even if I am I suspect someone will get outwardly annoyed that I’ve considered these thoughts, leading to another action-packed day in the Halls of Rock:
- What’s the point at which you cannot call an album marketed, broadly, as a “rock” release a Rock album?
- Is there a particular album you recall crossing your Mendoza Line of Rock?
- What makes one of these questionably Rock artists marketed under the Rock banner rather than the banner of some other genre, even a new one that someone needs to create?
- Finally, the all-important Mwall-style converse question: which artist who’s not marketed as Rock do you feel should be?
Please keep in mind that your answers might help us all to better understand exactly what Rock music is in 2008. I, for one, look forward to your responses.
Per (3) on the way in to work I got sucked into ‘Save a horse – ride a cowboy’. Sounds like B&R only thew a lil banjar in the mix so’s they could get played on the country comglomerates – else that’s nuttin butta BTO cover with ZEE-RO dynamic range and less intelligent lyrics…
Do I have to disqualify myself from this discussion because I don’t use “rock” as my umbrella-ella-ella term, but “pop”?
Great One, just for asking that smarty-pants the question I think you should simply replace “rock” with “pop” and answer the damn questions!
To help get some traction on this topic, which I think could be a fun one to discuss or could at least get people to type angrily at each other, I want to rephrase the central question back to you for a second, Mod.
Are there any things that you think must be in place for a song to be a “rock” song, things intrinsic to what you would classify as rock, as opposed to another musical genre? To start with a specific example, which may or may not hold water: are any instruments intrinsic to rock?
My first instinct was to think guitar, but I immediately thought of some examples where something filled in for the guitar to keep the “rock” quotient up for me. How about drums? Take them away, would you say a rock song becomes something else?
Well, since I accept a division between “rock” and “pop,” I’m going to be controversial and say that, for me, most Monkees songs are usually on the wrong side of the Mendoza Line of Rock, despite the fact that their songs have often become rock in the hands of others. It’s simply a personal feeling, not a categorical statement that I would defend. Reason: not enough rhythm guitar. They’re just not quite rock and roll.
Alexmagic wrote:
Tough questions I’ve posed, no? Your questions back at me are equally tough. Let me try to answer your questions first, then I’ll see if I can answer my own.
Deep down, if I were to share my midnight confessions, I think rock music needs to have a driving rhythm. Not every song, but there’s got to be a driving quality behind the beat. Rock musicians can drive heavily, as would be expected, but they can also drive lightly. The Bee Gees’ ’60s stuff – or those Marmalade tracks, for that matter – drive lightly. But they drive.
When Rock started encompassing the likes of James Taylor, some of what I feel deep down would be called into question. Carole King and Joni Mitchell had a driving quality, but James Taylor? I don’t know. He did, however, have the next most characteristic thing I consider intrinsic to Rock music: swing. The hits of JT swing enough to stay within the tradition of some early rock ‘n roll artists, especially vocal groups like The Platters, who were all about a gentle swing.
So, because I can consider a solo artist on acoustic guitar or piano a Rock artist, I don’t think there are instruments required for or intrinsic to Rock. I think the driving, swinging qualities are where it starts.
Then, there’s a whole language of Rock, a certain stance within and against the world that is identifiable with Rock. Again, it need not be limited to stereotypical Fonzie-like points of view. I’ll have to think more about what, exactly, it is and how it differs from the language of some related genres, but I sense that it does. I think I know it when I hear it.
So that’s my start at answering your questions, Alexmagic. As for my own questions, some of them call for me to share my gut feelings, based on experiences and impressions over the years. Let’s see if those answers are easier to nail down.
I wrote:
For starters, I’d say when the music has no drive and no swing.
I’d like to say Love’s Forever Changes, just to piss people off and get back on my “music for bullfighting” riffs, but saying that before having to listen to that thing again would probably leave a chink in my armor that would defeat my thoughts in progress. Christopher Cross was not Rock, and he was a GRAMMY-winning “Best New Rock Artist,” right? There are a number of AAA radio heroes who don’t rock as well, although thankfully their names and songs are not coming to mind. A lot of limp-wristed indie stuff I hear doesn’t qualify as Rock music.
Consumers still think they want to rock, or at least seem as if they’re still rocking. So they’re glad to pull stuff off the Rock shelf. It’s like going to the grocery store, wanting to be healthy, and buying Paul Newman’s Organic, Multi-grain Toaster Tarts (ie, Pop Tarts for the educated, health-conscious hypocrite).
Well, Steve Earle has finally crossed over to the genre in which he belongs. I hear a lot of contemporary country artists who might as well be marketed to Rock audiences.
As XTC said, drums and wires. There have to be drums (played with sticks, brushes don’t count) and at least one bass or guitar. In other words piano + bass guitar + drums can be rock, but keyboard + drums + baritone sax or bass clarinet (or nothing) cannot be rock. I have spoken. Long live Jambi.
Especially when you consider that album’s intense drive, I think you make the right call here.
I’m not sure about this “drive lightly” concept, Mr. Mod. It’s kind of close to the Winner/Loser Rock debate, where the bands that represented discipline, order and hierarchy, wouldn’t you know, turned out to be Winners. So any band you like drives? Is the idea of labelling something non-driving really so anathema to rock, so distasteful that we have to redefine driving just to be safe that no band of value is non-driving. Is being called “non-driving” tantamount to being called a liberal in politics?
My other question in regards to this thread is what is the cut-off point for innovation in rock. There must’ve been some people who consider what Bob Dylan and The Beatles did to the genre to emphatically NOT be rock ‘n’ roll. But most of us don’t feel that way. At what point did the innovations result in getting away from rock, rather than redefining what rock could be? And please don’t say “1981.”
Oats, I can see how I’m treading on dangerous ground regarding this “driving” criterion, but I do believe there are musicians who don’t have a feel for driving rhythms, and I do believe that a song can drive foward in a light way. The point of my questions was, first, to allow for open discussion rather than to be right. Second, I have no interest in redefining driving, but I question whether there’s a point at which the definition of Rock music should be capped.
I don’t know that there is a cutoff point for innovation in rock. Even I, with my 1981 fixation, can hear an innovation in rock every few years. The key is, I think I hear these innovations within the characteristics I’ve tried to express as being key to rock: drive, swing, and the language of rock. Something new that doesn’t meet at least two of those characteristics can still be an innovation, but it should get its own name. I don’t know that they should be called Rock.
I don’t know if it ever was marketed as rock or even pop, but Van Dyke Park’s Song Cycle is one of the most confusing albums I’ve ever listened to. I wouldn’t even call it pop. It’s friggen psycadellic Broadway.
Hissing Fauna, you have identified EXACTLY the moment when a record company abused the privileges of marketing an album via the Rock section at record stores! Song Cycle could not fail more miserably on each of the three characteristics of Rock music that I think I’ve identified. Bravo!
SONG CYCLE is a perplexing record. I’ve owned it on multiple formats as a Beach Boys fan but every time I listen to it it goes in one ear and out the other.
You could probably lump Randy Newman into that non-rock rock stars concept as well.
Possibly, but at least Newman expanded the language of Rock. He found new ways to poke at The Man.
Randy Newman has at least on occasion rocked (for example, Have You Seen My Baby? and a few other tracks on 12 Songs). He’s certainly more Rock than Leonard Bloody Cohen.
Yes, Leonard Cohen needs to get in a more appropriate bin.
Mind you, sensitive types, not landing in the Rock bin does not necessarily mean that I don’t think an artist has value. I’m just trying to preserve what value’s left in the category known as Rock.
Meh. This hairsplitting merely underscores my contention that Rock is far too limiting a genre descriptor to be useful. Van Dyke, Randy and ol’ Laughing Len may not be ROCK, but they’re certainly all welcome in the warm and sunny embrace of Pop.
Hey, let’s given Cohen his due. He writes about getting laid as much as Aerosmith, AC/DC or Led Zep. Surely that must count for something.
My lingering apprehension about this topic is that it presumes that Rock’s value was primarily sapped by fey, wispy, gutless, effete, independent musicians. (Someday, I’m going to form an indie-rock band called Strawman.)
The most popular rock band in America right now is Nickelback. Their music has all the modern trappings of ROCK, not pop. But they’re terrible. I’d argue the Nickelbacks of the world have done more damage to the Rock brand than Belle and Freaking Sebastian, or whoever we’re blaming this week.
Oats, I know you’re feeling most sensitive about this. Remember, I’ve listed 3 characteristics of what I feel make up the foundation or Rock music. My hypothesis is that a band probably needs to meet 2 of the characteristics to qualify for inclusion in the Rock bin at your local record store. I have left quality of an artist’s meeting those 2 minimum criteria completely out of the equation.
It’s funny that YOU brought up Belle & Sebastian. I did not. They often meet all three of the characteristics of Rock, so why feel like I’m picking on them?
The only “blame” being spread is on the marketing types who’ve made a mess of a beloved and once-identifiable genre for consumers. These bands that don’t rock, the Van Dyke Parks of the world, for instance, should be able to find a home in some other section of a record store/online outlet. Why, when I’m seeking to buy a Rock album, should I have to weed through stuff that’s nowhere near rock? If I want to find Song Cycle I should look in the same bin where I’d expect to find a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
Oh, and Oats, Cohen’s lustful lyrics satisfy at least one of the characteristics of a Rock artist, but if it only took one to qualify, we’d also have to file Frank Sinatra and countless other artists we don’t consider Rock in the already crowded bins.
For whatever it’s worth, Mr. Mod, I’m sort of with you in the general idea of this, if not the specific “rock necessities” that you’re backing. I’ve had similar discussions on the topic of sports – what is and what isn’t a sport – and have often been able to come up with intrinsic qualities of “sport” (Defense! Objective scoring system!) that have allowed me to file, say, bowling or ice skating under some other category, like “hobby” or “athletic competition”. Pointless? Sure. But usually a fun diversion that helps me look down on other people’s opinions, which is all I really need in life.
I’m still back on the instruments and like BigSteve’s drums+wires approach, though I disagree somewhat. The guitar can be replaced in rare occasions by a stand-in, like the almighty roxichord. I think you just need something in there that can fulfill the guitar’s rock duties, and someone who knows how to use it. But drums…well, what’s the line between “rock” and “folk”?
Alexmagic wrote:
BINGO! Thanks for your understanding and thick skin.
I cannot yet chime in on the instrumentation requirements. I really feel that in doing so I would jeopardize my presently firm foundation of thinking, but I endorse the rest of you to pick up on this part of the equation. You may be onto something.
Mod, I’m not sure that all rock must have a driving beat. Psychedelia and country-rock often drop this for a more dreamy feel.
Townspeople, in response to Dr. John’s fine question, remember: I’m not sure of all points posed in my hypothesis, but key to it, so far, is the “best 2 out of 3” aspect. Also, remember that my definition of “driving” is very liberal. Sunday drivers are welcome.
Mod’s “driving” idea brought to my mind backbeat, and whether or not one can lose it, in regard to rock. And so I wonder if “Rock ‘n Roll Music” was Chuck Berry trying to set the ground rules for debate on this very topic over 50 years ago, and if his take still holds up. This also reminds me to check for cameras in the RTH restrooms.
Okay, Mod I see your point. May we now discuss what is the language of rock? Can’t wait to see what this opens up.
Actually, no. I’m just, as is my wont, having fun on behalf of Loser Rockers everywhere who missed out on the Rock Zeitgeist. For the record, I do not necessarily feel that *you* are picking on Belle and Sebastian, but this thread does bring to mind past ones — both on this site and the basement version — where the rhetoric on this matter was perhaps a bit more heated. So I may have some lingering issues. But that’s cool. If anything, I was just toying with some thoughts (with some piss and vinegar added for Mwall-like provocation) to see where this thread might go.
Dr. John, you seem to be as skeptical as Oats is sensitive over this hypothesis. Would you care to kick off further investigations into the “language of Rock?” For me, it starts with the birth of youth culture, breaking with the past, self-awareness, and standing in opposition to something, even be it standing in opposition to those who previously stood in opposition of something else.
Oats, I hear you. The only reason the rhetoric has not quite heated up, I believe, is because people have come so far in thinking along these lines. We’re all more comfortable acknowledging that these thoughts have crossed our mind at one time or another. After all these years, perhaps we’re ready to prune the Great Rock Bins of Time and fortify what Rock Values will shelter us through our aging genre’s Golden Years.
“For me, it starts with the birth of youth culture, breaking with the past, self-awareness, and standing in opposition to something, even be it standing in opposition to those who previously stood in opposition of something else.”
Couldn’t that be said of all post-1950s art?
Dr. John wrote:
Was that the question? We ARE talking about a form of art. Doesn’t it make sense that there’d be some overlap?
Come on, Dr. John, I know you’ve got more than questions on your mind. Have you ever felt like the Rock blanket was getting spread too thin to have any meaning? If so, what did you find peeking out from the edges?
Well, sure there is going to be SOME overlap. But there must be a way to find differences that can create a means of distinction.
Now, yes, you do have quite a huge task of setting rock apart from both music, in general, and the art of the post 1950s, but then again, you’re the one that started the discussion.
I’m just gently pointing out where you’re starting to venture into “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” territory.
To clarify, I meant “setting rock apart from both other musical genres and from other art forms of the post-1950’s…”
Dr. John, I know what you’re getting at, but seriously, we’re talking trash on ROCK Town Hall. The scope of my topic is fairly specific. If what you’re saying applies to the music of Christopher Cross or Spyro Gyra, I’ll gladly be taken to task. If you’re trying to make me look like a fool, I long ago beaten you to that task. I don’t have enough BS in me or time in the day to extend these thoughts to the entire Arts community. How ’bout some answers of your own?
Does anyone remember when rockcentric record stores started to use sub-categories for music that wold previously have been in one alphabetical Rock sequence? Late 80s?
Is the Replacements’ recording “Answering Machine” rock? It has no drums. I think it is.
How about Buddy Holly’s “Words of Love”?
In 1969 the Home Store in Roseland classified ‘Pretties For You’ under ‘Wierd With A Beard’…
Also ‘Uncle Meat’…
Words of Love has drums and electric guitar. Rock. Everyday on the other hand — thigh drums, celeste, string bass. Not Rock.
I’m wondering if another way of expressing what Mr Mod is on about is that Rock must have a certain masculine energy.
A bit earlier than that, I think. The small Boulder-area chain Rocky Mountain Records And Tapes — which you could tell was a very forward-looking outfit due to that suffix — had a “Punk/New Wave” subsection in its handful of stores as early as 1980, and a “Metal” section as early as 1983.
A couple of things (I’m glad to see people continue working through these issues):
BigSteve, I do remember the subcategories system. That sucked. I used to think that bands that got lumped into a subcategory, say “hardcore” or “ska,” was being marketed as “second rate.” Rock is rock.
I still disagree with the requirement for drums, or put it this way: if Buddy Holly is usually Rock but then not rock for a particular song, where does that song fall? To my ears, “Everyday” has all the earmarks of a classic Buddy Holly song, just different instrumentation. It drives and swings gently. But I’m not about to force any of my views down anyone’s throat…
I can’t say I think that Rock must have a certain “masculine” energy, although based on my personal experiences with masculine energy, it does seem to respond to those vibrations. Never having experienced feminine energy, except as an “aftershock” of it having mixed with my masculine energy, I do know plenty of women who respond to the same driving rhythms (whether gentle or not), swing, and rock language. “Talk Rock to me, baby!”
Just a few minutes ago, as part of preparations for this coming Monday’s night’s inaugural Rock and Roll Foyer of Fame First Annual Bob Seger Memorial Partial Lifetime Achievement Awards and Chili Cookoff, I wrote an old friend at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum to ask for advice on conducting such an important event. Although we’re going to run head-to-head with the Hall of Fame ceremonies, on Monday, March 10, at 8:30 pm EST, we hold no animosity toward our better-established rock celebrants, as I’m sure they hold no animosity toward us. Short story not quite so long, the tagline in the Out of Office AutoReply may have shed some light on our recent discussion regarding what may not be appropriate for the Rock bins. Check out what the RnR HoF has to say on the subject:
Sure women respond to rock’s masculine energy, since most of them respond to men, though in our culture today the aggression rock sometimes embodies is viewed with some skepticism for a variety of reasons. Guitars and drums are perhaps not required to convey musically the drive you’re talking about, but for me they are the tools Rock uses to best represent it.
I think of Rock as having more drive and less swing than rock & roll, and Rock as having a harder more masculine edge. That’s why I think Buddy Holly’s Everyday isn’t Rock but pop.
As an interesting sidelight, I foiund this brief post on the Pop Life blog the other day:
Certainly one the things that pissed red-blooded men off about Elvis and Jagger was the sense that their energy was not purely masculine, so maybe I’m going in the wrong direction with this. But I do think the distinction between Rock and rock & roll is useful sometimes.
I agree with you regarding the distinction between Rock and Rock ‘n Roll, but for simplicity’s sake for record store bins, I’m not suggesting we separate them. Just file all the albums under Rock, except those that are neither Rock nor Rock ‘n Roll.
My definition of rock would be music that has minimalist chords (major, minor, and 7th), simplistic structured rhythms, linear bassl lines (root-5th-octave), an urban/mechanistic feel, and an intensity from one or more of the following: amplification, volume, dynamics, or the emotions of the singer and/or lyrics.
I like your definition, Dr. John.
Dr. John, I don’t see how emotion is specific to Rock.
BigSteve, I didn’t say that emotion was specific to rock. What I said was that the required intensity for rock could be created by the emotions of the singer and/or lyrics.
But intensity of emotion can be expressed by the singer or the lyrics in opera too. What’s Rock about that? Are you trying to allow for a lack of intense volume/amplification/dynamics but denoting Rock by virtue of intense lyrics? It seems to be that’s true of Schubert lieder too.
Logic, Steve, logic.
Saying A may lead to rock and roll does not say that:
A may not lead to anything but rock and roll.
Thanks for your definition, Dr. J. I’ll have to consider its logic later.
Yes but if pretty much all forms of vocal music have A, saying that A is a characteristic of Rock music doesn’t get us anywhere. And condescendingly attributing logic to a position never makes for good conversation.
Steve, Dr. John’s attempt to define rock through several key elements may or may not be too broad, but criticizing them in an illogical, condescending way that seems to purposefully misunderstand them doesn’t make for good conversation either, does it? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…
At least one of the good Dr.’s five possible sources of intensity, amplification, isn’t relevant to conventional opera. Therefore, it seems likely that he’s suggesting that rock differs from earlier forms of music not in some absolute degree, but in the addition of a few elements and the alteration of others because of that addition. Given that, saying “yeah but opera is intense too” doesn’t really help move the conversation forward.
In its original form, rock and roll is a simplification of the chord structures of American folk musics (including jazz) armed with a youth culture focus and new levels of electric noise. What it becomes after that… hell, someone needs to write a book. Or, as it turns out, thousands of them.
Jesus. I am sitting here with a moderate fever, and the miserable-yet-intoxicated state that goes with it. And I genuinely want to thank you all for this Venn Diagram shit of defining Rock once and for all. If A+B intersects with only .75 of C, then Air Supply + Rock, and the planet crashes into the sun. I only read every sixteenth word of this thread, but it is brilliant in that regard. Rock On, +/- 3.214.
The General defines only one problem of this thread, but not the other.
The one is: coming up with one single absolute definition of rock and roll is impossible, since the term varies over time and between individuals.
But two: pretending that you don’t have a definition of rock and roll, when everybody knows that you do, is lame. There’s not a single person on this list that thinks that everything that ever existed is rock and roll, which means that therefore you, whoever the fuck you are, at least have a feeling that you know what it is. Otherwise, we couldn’t have 100% agreement on this list than John McCain is not a rock and roll musician.
Originally, I thought Mr. Mod’s question was more purely a personal one: is there something considered rock and roll that doesn’t really seem to be rock and roll to you? My personal answer was the Monkees. But maybe that wasn’t the question.
Mwall wrote:
True. Now, it might be argued that responding to this thread in the first place was lame, but we’re all mature enough to know what we’re getting into when we enter the Halls of Rock. General, I found your disgusted response as relevant and amusing as any other comment posted here.
Mwall, I certainly was hoping that personal points of view would have made up a chunk of anyone’s initial response. To me, as painfully geeky as the questions raised are to answer, if the answers don’t start with the sharing of some personal views on what Rock music is for YOU, then what can I say? I don’t think these questions are so hard to answer if one starts with the personal.
Sorry but I don’t enjoy being tut-tutted at. My second comment on Dr. John’s categories was an attempt to get come clarification on them. That’s why there was a question in there. And my concern was really about the lyrical part of the doctor’s formula, though my first comment did not make that distinction well enough. What I got perhaps over-sensitive about was the implication that logic played no part in my questions.
I general I have problems with the intensity argument, but it works better in the area of sound and instrumentation. When it comes to lyrics, most forms of vocal music use intense forms of language and vocal presentation as an essential feature. But if anything Rock is more prone to irony and other distancing effects than other forms of music. Hearing Well Respected Man is what put this idea in my head.
In general though we don’t have a good definition of intensity. I think we would all agree that it cannot be achieved by turning up the volume knob.
Yeah, I know “intensity” is ambiguous. For me, though, it functions as the Christopher Cross exclusionary rule: Christopher Cross is not rock because his singing lacks intensity (i.e. sucks).
When I was challenged to come up with a definition by Mr. Mod, I thought, if an alien visited from outer space (to borrow an iudea from Mr. Mod), would he/she/it be able to tell rock apart, using my definition, from other musical genres and art forms?
And Well Respected Man for me still comes across as projecting an emotion: anger.
As usual, your comments are dead-on, Oats. However, as for what you wrote above, it’s been done.
http://deadvinyl.blogspot.com/2005/04/strawman-no-generation.html