Rock: so much more than just popular music.

Motti Regev (1994) wrote;

“Cultural forms gain artistic recognition when their producers of meaning "prove" that they (a) contain "serious" meanings and aesthetic genuineness; (b) they are produced by a definable creative entity and (c) the creative entity is autonomous, producing its works for their own sake. Since the 1960's, critics have claimed artistic recognition for rock music. They have done so by stressing the "subversive" meaning of rock, [and] by identifying the rock-group and the rock individual-musician as autonomous creative entities”.

Popular music is usually recognised by its mass production, profit seeking characteristics and has been “regarded by the dominant forces in the cultural field as an antithesis of artistry and relegated to the inferior position of ‘entertainment’, ‘show business’ or ‘mass culture’” (Regev, 1994). Further more, Adorno (in Regev, 1994) states “it is thus impossible for popular music to contain the redeeming power of art, as a negation of existing reality and as social critique”. This may be true of some forms of popular music – but not rock (well, not all rock at least). Rock adheres to what Regev (1994) calls the “ideology of autonomous art”. The notion that a work is considered art if it’s meaning, production and sound were independently created by the individual or the group - not music created with profits or industry expectations in mind – it is art for the sake of art.

It was around the 1960s that groups and enthusiasts began to realize the difference between the usual popular music (pop) and rock; and as a result the push to have rock recognised as an art form began. Rock was seen to be very true to the ‘ideology of autonomous art’, and furthermore it was founded by an era of musicians who were using their music “as a negation of existing reality and as social critique” (Adorno in Regev, 1994) – much to Adorno’s disappointment, I’m sure.

One of the first signs that rock was seen as different to pop music in the 1960s was with the onset of the F.M. radio station. It, unlike its A.M. counterpart, did not play commercially successful, top 40 style music. Instead, F.M. radio music editors were given much more autonomy over their music selection and were dedicated to rock. Around this time there was also an emergence of publications that treated rock music as a serious journalistic venture, it was no longer written about as simple entertainment (a very famous example of this would be the Rolling Stone magazine).

While rock has been largely influenced by the production and sound methods used to produce popular music, this has not deemed the music void of meaning, emotion and ‘truth’. As Regev (1994) explains, “Components of popular music - lyrics, amplification, recording technology, assemblage, stylistic eclecticism - have been interpreted in the rock context as aesthetic means for expressing rebellion and subversiveness, thus discovering in rock music aesthetic genuineness and serious meanings”. Rock has escaped the criticism afforded to other popular music. Its message is heard irrespective of the electric instruments, recording studios, etc. The lyrics are still read in many cases as poetry (for instance Bob Dylan or Jim Morrison). The imperfection of voices and melodies are considered part and parcel of the beauty that is rock. The often associated antisocial behaviour is the epitome of undermining the dominant societal structures and offering a social critique. It is so much more than just popular music because rock music is “grassroot popular music, it grows from below, from the daily reality of its musicians and audiences, it is the music of the urban era - the sound of the city (Gillett in Regev, 1994). Well said, Gillett, well said.

References

Regev, Motti 1994, ‘Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, (Feb, 1994), pp. 85-102.

Rock Music and Genre: Is Rock undergoing an identity crisis, what's rock n' what's not and where to now?

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

The Power of Rock Music

Too often I hear that rock music is rebellious and anti-social. I have seen rock music and its lyrics blamed for behaviour problems in youth. Most of the mainstream media on rock seems to place it in a negative light. In this blog I am going to highlight the complete opposite side of rock music – its good, politically active, educating side (yes, it does exist!)

“Since the early 1960s, many rock ‘n’ roll bands, folk singers, songwriters, and other musicians have had a visible role as activists at popular protests seeking to bring about social, environmental, and political changes” (Murguia, 2007). Too right they have! From John Lennon to U2, rock ‘n’ roll bands have been using their music as a method of conveying important political messages. ‘Imagine’ has a meaning that still resonates in current society, it still moves people to think just how pleasant life would be war free. Similarly, U2 are well known for their humanitarian efforts, and many of their songs depict their desire to end war, poverty and suffering around the world.

One of my personal favourite political activist bands is Midnight Oil. They have produced many songs that touch on very real, very important political and environmental issues existing within Australia. Whether it be ‘Beds are Burning’ and its overt Aboriginal land rights message, or ‘Blue Sky Mine’ with its anti-mining implications, Midnight Oil have been delivering a very big wake up call to all rock listeners for decades!

Murguía (2007) in his essay on rock band activism proposes that;

The global initiatives led by rock bands to fight poverty, social injustice, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic, along with many other political issues, have become increasingly important and well-known. However, activism is not only a movement but also a way of living, and the continued influence of such bands and musicians is dependent on the interest and acceptance of the emerging generations of the world's youth.

I can only hope that politically minded bands will remain in existence for years to come. Instead of blaming rock for children’s behaviour, Murguia has suggested that it is indeed the up and coming generation’s behaviour that will determine the future of rock. If they choose to not listen to the important politically and environmentally charged songs but ones with anti-social lyrics instead then critics of rock music may have a reason to demonize the genre; however if this style of music remains or even increases in production then rock music could well become one of the most powerful tools in educating and motivating music listeners to be politically and environmentally active throughout their lives. A lesson I wish was mandatory for all future generations.

Some bands and artists worthy of mention include (this is not an extensive list! There are many more bands not mentioned here that are still worthy);

Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Dead Kennedys, Frank Zappa, U2, Midnight Oil, Yothu Yindi, Xavier Rudd, John Butler Trio, Jack Johnson, Rage Against the Machine, Green Day…

If you know of more worthy bands then please add them in the comments!

Murguía, Diego I. 2007, "Rock Bands and Activism." Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. SAGE Publications. 27 May. 2009.

.

Is this really why rock is a male dominated genre?

This article by William T. Bielby looked into why it is that rock and roll is a predominantly male dominated industry. After a promising introduction I hoped this article might shed some light on the situation. Bielby (2004, p. 1) clearly states, “Drawing on my research on the first generation of grass roots bands in the post-Elvis era, I describe how the social structure and status system of schools shaped this new cultural form and why it developed as a male-dominated form of cultural production”.
However I do not feel that any new or exciting light has been shed on the topic at all, rather just a series of commonsense type conclusions were drawn.

I would like to add that the “grass roots” music production immediately after Elvis’ influence on music and the onset of rock and roll (1958-1963) is a great place to start looking for the answers to these issues – I just feel the answers were quite simplistic (which does not mean they are incorrect).

Firstly, the main argument as to how the social structure and status system of schools shaped this new cultural form was based around two main factors: 1. With rock and roll came the onset of the “party subculture” which involved “parties, concerts, drinking [and] dating” (Bielby, 2004, p. 9). Parental control over women participating in these activities was much stronger that parental control over men, therefore women were excluded somewhat; 2. Boys, while at school, were more into sports than music as an extra curriculum activity – success on the sports field was directly related to popularity. Rock and roll music performance offered the less athletically enabled teenagers to participate in an activity that offered the same amount of popularity, not only with male peers but female ones too. So this is how social structures and schools shaped early rock performance.

This then leads to how rock performance and involvement developed as a “male dominated form of cultural production” (Bielby, 2004, p.1). Bielby calls on the work of Coleman who in 1957 conducted several interviews and surveys on these topics and they showed that women were much more likely to listen to music as a leisure activity and purchase records than men however this interest in popular music did little to improve their involvement in rock. Furthermore, women were often in the charts with hit singles prior to Elvis, it was only rock they were excluded from. The previous paragraph suggests that women were excluded because they were not allowed to participate due to parental restrictions and because they did not value sport therefore did not need the alternate mode of acceptance. Simple but fair explanations. Also, maybe even more simplistic, Elvis was the original rock and roll role model. Men saw Elvis, women wanted Elvis therefore it was men who wanted to be like Elvis. Bielby (2004, p. 4) suggests that the events leading to men’s interest in rock and roll and the desire to learn to play such music went something like this;

“1. See Elvis on TV.
2. Decide you want to be Elvis.
3. Ask mum and dad for a guitar.
4. Discover you are not Elvis.
5. Now what do you do with that guitar? Learn how to play.
6. Start a band? But how?”

Well, if Elvis impressed the girls so much they’d call on their male friends who share a common interest in impressing the girls and there we have it, an all male rock band. Again, simple but possibly true.

The final reason for male dominance offered by Bielby is that rock music is an “anthem for teenage male rebellion and sexuality”, but even he is a little wary of this apparent explanation. It has been suggested by many other writers but Bielby believes that this possible reason neglects the other components leading to female exclusion.

From reading this article I am left wondering if the only reasons females were excluded from rock performance in the very early years (after Elvis but before the Beetles; 1958-1963) was because of some school yard bravado and strict parenting, or because of the males’ desire to impress them, then why is it still a problem? Why, if exclusion was born from such simple social restrictions, are men still dominating the rock scene?

Sarah Gillam


References


Bielby, William T. 2004, 'Rock in a Hard Place: Grassroots Cultural Production in the Post Elvis Era', American Sociological Review, vol. 69, (february), pp. 1-13

http://0-www.jstor.org.library.newcastle.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/3593072.pdf

Tencaious D: Adding the element of humor in today’s rock & roll

We’ve seen the transformation of rock throughout the years – from AC/DC to Nickelback. The difference is clear because we can see how rock stars have evolved and we can hear how their songs have changed. There is no perfect definition of the modern rock star, because they’re all so different in today’s standard.

I’m here to examine one type of the modern rock star specifically: the funny one. Now, you may be asking yourself, ‘how can humor possibly be mixed with rock & roll?’ To be honest, I’m not sure I could be the one to answer that for you. But, let’s take a look at Jack Black and see how he managed to combine the two.

In 1994, Black teamed up with friend Kyle Gass and created the comedy rock band, Tenacious D. They began playing at local comedy clubs and many of their hits were spoofs of 1970s and ‘80s metal bands.

The popularity of this unorthodox rock band grew and before long, they were signed with Epic Records. Comedic rock groups were relatively new at this time and Tenacious D captured many fans with its “bizarre, hilarious songs (that) could only come from a twisted mind like Jack’s” (Mitchell, 2008, p 5).

The success of Tencious D helped Black land several major movie roles, almost all as quirky as his personality. After shining on the big screen, Black returned to Tenacious D in 2006 and released the film, Tencious D in The Pick of Destiny.  As part of the movie release, Black and Gass took Tencious D on tour and sang in front of audiences around the country.

Tencious D is still popular among fans and modern rockers. By adding humor, it’s stirred another element into present day rock & roll. Below is one of Tencious D’s songs, ‘Kickapoo.’ Have a listen. The humor elements are pretty obvious, as well as the element of modern rock & roll.

References

Susan K. Mitchell, 2008, “Jack Black”

YouTube, Tenacious D’s ‘Kickapoo’ song, accessed on May 26, 2009.

Women's Role in Rock

I’m Just a Girl. These words may sound familiar. Gwen Stefani, an integral member of the group No Doubt, blasted these words on the radio in her 1996 hit ‘I’m Just a Girl’.  After nearly a decade together, it was this song that was said to increase the group’s commercial visibility. It also established Gwen Stefani “as the latest in a series of female rock musicians to have attracted widespread commercial visibility as well as a loyal following of young female fans” (Wald, 1998, p 1).

Gwen Stefani isn’t the first of her kind. Long before she was introduced, women were entering into the male-dominated music industry with powerful vocals and memorable lyrics.  It was these earlier women who paved the way for the modern female rock artist such as Gwen Stefani and Avril Lavigne.

Looking back, the great rock artists have been predominantly male. In many media outlets, the ‘best artists’ are written off as male.  They’re seen as the best guitarists, with the best stage presence and the best number one hits. But, what about the female rock stars? They’ve entered new territories and made a name for themselves in a male dominated industry.

Mina Julia Carson, Tisa Lewis and Susan Maxine Shaw, authors of ‘Girls Rock!’, interviewed around 50 female musicians back in 2001 in an attempt to showcase the self-perceptions of women musicians.

In their research, they found that several women see their identity reflected in their clothes as much as in their music. Lynn Frances Anderson revealed that in the 1980s, she “had big hair and wore tall shoes and glittery, shiny clothes” in order to complete her feminine persona on stage (Carson, Lewis, Shaw, 2004, p 116).

Men can take stage wearing jeans and a T-shirt, but a major role in women artists is their look. Sociologist Rose Weitz explained that “attractiveness serves as an indirect form of power, by increasing women’s odds of obtaining the protection of powerful men – at least so long as the women’s attractiveness lasts” (Carson, Lewis, Shaw, 2004, p 116). This sense of appearance is heightened when women artists are constantly being looked at, as well as heard.

Going along with appearance, body image was also one of the first pressing issues in the history of women in rock and roll. Tina Turner knew this concept and when she performed for television shows in the mid sixties, she had to do more than sing – she had to act the part.

With the introduction of television, female artists made it big with sexy music videos.

“Early music videos with women artists were fairly innocuous, almost innocent … But when the tide began to turn, even teenage girls wanting to ‘make it’ found themselves succumbing to the pressure to sell sex” (Caron, Lewis, Shaw, 2004, p 127).

Even though the emergence of female rock stars has been a struggle for independence from the mainstream issues of appearance and feminism, there have still been a great number female legends.  To name a few – Aretha Franklin, Janis Joplin, Tina Turner, Bonnie Raitt, Joni Mitchell, Patsy Cline and Billie Holiday.

Not only did these women break into a man’s industry, but they also defied the traditional norms of rock and roll. Through their own voice and style, they have created legends for themselves.

References

Wald, Gayle 1998, ‘Just a Girl? Rock Music, Feminism, and the Cultural Construction of Female Youth’

Carson, Mina Julia & Lewis, Tina & Shaw, Susan Maxine 2004, ‘Girls Rock!’, University Press of Kentucky

Cleveland Rocks

True, the origin of rock might lie in the way notes are struck on a guitar and how lyrics are sung to a crowd. But, if we wanted to talk location – it would be Cleveland, Ohio.

Cleveland joined the tourism industry as a founder of rock music. It is the birthplace of some of the greatest rock bands of all time. Dating back to the 1950s and ‘60s, it has been the place for new artists to debut their music to start their music career.

Cleveland was “one of the first large cities to give rock media exposure to both black and white audiences” (Unterberger, Hicks, Dempsey, 1999, p 281).

Another first, Alan Freed was the first to coin the term ‘rock & roll’ to describe the new music playing on his radio station in Cleveland. With his radio show, he debuted rock music and influenced its popularity within the city of Cleveland.

Now, as a tribute to its past, Cleveland is home to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. Interestingly enough, the hall’s nominating committee selects about five to seven artists each year to enter the hall. The only eligibility is that 25 years must have passed since their first album release. The hall, which has become a top tourist destination in the Midwest United States, is constantly changing. They display various exhibits each year and try to focus on a variety of rock music and artists.

 

References

Richie Unterberger & Samb Hicks & Jennifer Dempsey, 1999, “Music USA”