Now it's never good to start off on a derivative note, the world of blogs being as it is dominated by the innovative, the serendipitous discovery, the unassuming revelation; followed by the compulsive communication of said topics. Yet i find myself having been beaten to the punch in tackling the issue of genre and rock music by Katie and so it is on this note that I wish to expand the debate on her previous explication.
As Katie insists in her previous posts, Rock music is supposed by a wider polity of certain academics, musical aficionados and listeners to be in a state of identity crisis. Rock music could be supposed to have reached its early 20's so to speak. It had its early and heady years of childhood following on the heels of its wizened partner, The Blues and its now distant cousin, Jazz, went through some disconnected and intoxicated times in its teenage years in the 60's and became a somewhat rebellious creation in the 70's. By the 90's, a disillusioned and disenfranchised generation of lost youth was nodding its monotone head nod to the discordant melodies of grunge; and now since then? Such confusion is where our identity crisis enters the picture.
However, from where does this identity crisis arise? Whilst many causes are cited for this: a departure from musical purities, a cheapening of the culture, intensification of marketing and the influence of corporate juggernauts, i would argue that all of these are in ignorance of and thus also a denial of at least one or more fundamental parts of the process behind musical creation. Johan Fornas (1995) seizes upon the crux of the problem in his article when he states in his dissertation on Rock, Pop and genre discourse that:
"Like all other genre cocnepts, rock is very hard to define. A genre is a set of rules used for generating musical works. Using such conventional sets of rules in producing or interpreting musical pieces can give rise to classifactory systems, but actual musics do not in themselves fall unambiguously into any simple classes."
Now i'm not so presumptuous as to suppose that those criticising rock are themselves insistent on a coherently homogenous sound in rock or the adherence to classical conceptions of the genre (there will be exceptions to these though, especially among older musical purists), although i would accuse some of those claiming an identity crisis in rock music of ardent and sentimental romanticism.
Consider that the very definition of the act of innovation is "to introduce something new; make changes in anything established". What we have continually witnessed is an evolution of the cultural aspects of the rock aesthetic, evidencing shifts in the dominant images, sounds, influences and ideological attitudes of various social, cultural, abstracted and artistic movements within a global community. Continual innovation catalysing these shifts is the mother of Rock’s dynamic and vibrant image. Furthermore to insist as others have that Rock is in a state of artistic and generic flux, a proverbial game of neverending limbo-is merely to obviate that rock is undergoing a redefinition of its aesthetic in kind with a shift in social preferences. A fluid and dynamically shaped genre such as Rock can only expect as such, especially with the dissemination of musical production tools and the ease of access to music culture itself.
In closing, this debate itself is not aimed at conclusivity, nor is it best referenced as a balanced perspective considering both sides of this debate. Rather its is meant as an alternative discourse which could allow for a celebration of musical diversity and change, rather than a distrust for the new and a lamentation of older trends passed. If one accepts its validity, this fluid understanding of genre allows for the rationalisation of Katie's dilemma in the list of top rock songs containing Michael Jackson alongside others such as ACDC, David Bowie and Nirvana.
Lastly, this debate itself could serve as a platform for further discussions on the role of audience, industry and producers/artists in shaping cultural and audio aesthetics, with authors such as Chester (1970) seizing upon these complexities early on: 'The meaning of the term "people's music" and the gap between those who produce and those who appropriate art' are crucial questions'. In accepting or at least entertaining these notions, Rock music itself could experience a renaissance in its sounds and take greater agency in shaping its form and function. One can't help but feel that looking only to classical depictions of the form itself can only create more of the same although conversely, embracing a language glorifying the new falls into the same essentialist discourse. How then to proceed? Comments?
Bibliography
1. Fornas, J. (1995), ‘The Future of Rock: discourses that struggle to define a genre’, Popular Music, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 111-125
2. Chester, C. (1970), ‘Second Thoughts on a Rock Aesthetic’, New Left Review, Vol. 1, No. 62, accessed 27 May, 2009, www.scholargoogle.com
No comments:
Post a Comment