Rock Criticism from the beginning: Amusers, bruisers, and cool headed cruisers is Co-written by two Danish men, a Swedish man, and a Norwegian man; it is not written from the perspective of an insider American, but rather a group of countries that have been influenced in one way or another by Rock and Roll from both America and Britain. Their perspectives have the potential to differ from that of an American or British disposition, as they don’t hesitate to mention that all “serious” Rock criticism has come from America and Britain, that the field is dominated overwhelmingly by white men[1], and that a lot of it is US-centric (though not all, especially in the case of Lester Bangs).
Rock criticism from the beginning starts by explaining first the difference between high culture, that of established and accepted artforms (think classical music, and eventually jazz) and low culture (rock and roll in the beginning, and most African American music in its genesis). They mention that high culture tries to degrade low culture, but it is dependent upon it at the same time as a defining “other”. They proceed to take Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology and applies it to rock criticism. What is this reflexive sociology? I might be able to answer that. His theory supposedly has transgressed the boundaries between objectivism and subjectivism, making social reality a “dynamic unity of the agents’ [or person?] dispositions [habitus] and systems of positions (fields), which are subject to historical change” (29). Habitus is “embodied knowledge- a person’s taste, style and way with words. It determines how people think, perceive, evaluate and act, not as a fixed prescription but rather as adjustable dispositions, which are internalized very deeply and change very slowly. Habitus is embodied socialization, determined by background, present circumstances and future prospects… the market value of certain habitus is settled only as it is realized in a social field.” (30) Basically, The “social field” is a place of conflict “occupied by special agents and institutions”. Fields are comprised of “production and consumption” and are “dominant and dominated”. They are “populated by different kinds of artists, directors, producers, publishers, gallery owners, journalists, critics, editors, etc” (31). All fields require a habitus because “in order to have any success in the game/struggle of the field the participants must have incorporated certain ways of thinking and acting, some of it consciously but always to a high degree unconsciously” (31) A field takes time to develop and is always in conflict with some other field about taste. It tries to gain credibility, or “cultural capital”, and autonomy from these other fields that are trying to suppress it. Tastes are divided into three categories; “legitimate (already established and respected) “middlebrow” (the potential to bring highbrow to the masses) and “popular” (hedonistic pleasure, no educational worth). But all of this explanation is just one of many lenses with which to explore their study. They are going to keep an open mind.
So, when thinking about Rock music, rock criticism can be seen as a field with many people in it that possess certain habitus that might be different or similar, who all possess strong urge to legitimize rock and roll through their blossoming discourse. This discourse began a little after Rock began- in the 60’s and initially with the hope that rock would save the world. Critics felt the compulsion to write about it because it was serious to them and they felt its healing powers and hoped they could convince others of It as well. It developed when pop art was in vogue and when new journalism (see tom wolfe and maybe even Thomspson) was in its prime. But Rock Criticism actually started as an attempt to legitimize rock in Britain with magazines like melody maker and NME, whose writers, and musicians for that matter, thought that rock was exciting, a common first inclination of the rock fan to become the rock critic. Instead of asking rock musicians trivial questions like what’s your favourite colour, these critics sought to treat them seriously. People like welch and coleman were spreading the news abou the beatles and Clapton, making sales go up exponentially because their magazines had that much power. They also took an interest in American Blues as an “authentic” form of expression when American music critics were totally dismissing it as trash because of its lack of technical skill. In this develops the question of authenticity. Authenticity in terms of the blues was actually experiencing the blues. If you had never had it, you couldn’t play it Interestingly British critics found the rolling stones to possess the ability to play the blues authentically because they were working class kids even though the stones denied that. Rock criticism would develop a little bit later in the us
There were three main rock critic magazines in the 60’s – Crawdaddy!, Rolling stone, and Creem. Crawdaddy! Was the first. But the most influencial critics of this time period according to this book were, Jon Landau, /Robert Christgau. Greil Marcus, Steve Marsh, and Lester Bangs. Landau, based out of Boston, was a firm believer in the 50’s rock n roll as opposed to the conventional belief that the 60’s was king. He was skeptical of white bands save the ones who played the blues right, even though he was the cause of Cream’s break up. Landau’s credibility is based upon academic training and record production experience. His idea of authenticity is “a ressurection or extension of the spirit of early rock ‘n’ roll” . He always promoted African American music, (despite the rolling stone’s hesitance to cover acts). However, he is extremely US centric, and does not consider any other countries. Rober Christgau, based in New York, was an“opinionated, self-conscious, and antielitist”, critic who distinguished rock from the academic. He took no prisoners, save women and non white people, because he felt guilty. Unlike his counterparts who promoted the live experience as an atmosphere for review, christgau supported AM radio. Christgau is versatile yet has had consistent tastes for the past 4 decades. Greil Marcus, unlike Christgau, supported the idea that rock was not counter culture, It was a part of American history and pointed to more cultural and political ideas of the 60s. This became a legitimizing force for rock music. He paid attention to overarching thenes.figures, and myths in the music which reflected American culture. Unlike other new jounrnalists who championed their own presence at an event as the credibility that reader needed to believe, marcus was more subtle. He explained how he felt watching it instead of placing himself in the action. To marcus, rock is respectable and it forms the American identity. He is supposedly the best person to connect rock to “wider cultural and political discourse” and has written many books about it. Dave Marsh, based in Detroit, was a supporting member of the white panthers in this ultra politically charged atmosphere, supported all the African American artists, but got his big break when he covered MC5. He believed that “rock music” was “ aform of culture for the uncultured, and particularly as a means of expression for those to whon more rigorously credentialed channels are denied”. To him, good works were always collaborations, and seldom was something good was done alone. Instead of catering to the idea that britian reintroduced rock with the british invasion, Marsh insisted that “rock and soul” are “a fruitful interplay between black church-based music and crossover rock” (173) His writing was deeply involved in the personal experience, and when heavy metal came around, Marsh defended the freedom of expression. Lester Bangs was a wild man who died of a drug overdose in 82. He did not write with credentials to back him up like other critics; all he had was a deep commitment to writing about music. He was a fan of the beats and crafted his whole sensibility based on this mentality. Culture, to him, was defined by the negative ways in which culture reacted against him. He spared no one in his interviews and became “the master of irreverence”. Lou Reed was his hero because “he stands for all the most fucked up things that I could ever possibly conceive of” (181). All of these critics were searching for an identity and authenticity in their writings. They began with a love for rock and roll and helped uplift rock to legitimacy because they felt that rock was the vocal chord of some cultural movement, whatever they saw that culture being.
[1] They say that “until recently the female critic’s choice seem to have been limited to becoming a token, identifying with the male dominated approach of the critical institution or moving into another niche….publications which have a higher female readership and emply more women as journalists tend to be in the teenage pop area…which treat music in a less analytical and more anecdotal manner, and are more concerned with fashion, health, and social relationships” (21)
No comments:
Post a Comment