We had the Beetles and Coltrane the younguns today have Swift. And around we go on the carousel game. I hear Swifts a billionaire.... Kinda hard to wrap my head around that but that's show biz.
Using KC and the Sunshine Band as a stand-in for all disco music is like using Nickelback as a stand in for all rock music, though I'm sure you're not entirely serious.
In an instant, I gladly overlooked my nearly infinite disagreements with Freddie's stances on many important political issues to concur with him on the more vitally important issue of how lame Pearl Jam is and always has been.
I smashed the heart button on this a million times for that alone.
I have never understood how Pearl Jam has had such a devoted following. I think I’m a little on the young side to really be in their sweet spot but regardless.
I'm so old, I remember when they were brand new, and I thought they blew chunks even then. It doesn't help that there's something about Eddie Vedder's entire, I don't know, being?, that just doesn't work for me.
I remember Eddie pulling his Garbo act of "I don't want to be famous" in every interview he did after they made it big. It was very annoying, and yet people took him seriously. Layne Staley was great. Chris Cornell was great. Hell, Andrew Wood was great. They're all gone, but Eddie Vedder is still with us, though perhaps not as famous as he once was.
Garbo act? He was worried about inauthenticity (i.e., selling out). Cobain was similarly afflicted and, so far as I can tell, much of Gen X cultural commentary was, too.
Because when gunge hit, and its hard to explain just what a culture bomb that was at the time (radio stations across the country changed formats overnight), Pearl Jam was the one band that sounded most like classic rock. Soundgarden was metal, Nirvana was punk, Alice was this weird combo... but PJ just cranked out really god rock songs. Ten's an album full of anthemic rock n roll. So Pearl Jam was the choice to be down with the sweeping cultural change, but not really.
And now, they are basically the new Grateful Dead. A legacy touring act with a devoted fanbase operating completing outside the regular pressures of the industry.
Pretty much this. Grunge was such a different sound to what the commercial channels used to play. In the days when there was such a thing as a communally shared media experience.
There were always a number of people that thought Eddie Vedder was either to be admired or was hot, although I couldn't tell you if that counted for the majority of their fans.
The issue with Pearl Jam is that their sound hasn't changed substantially in +30 years. A few exceptions, certainly, but their lack of artistic growth means 2020s PJ is mostly like 2000s PJ. `Dance Of The Clairvoyants' shows they could change if they wanted to...but apparently they don't.
It it makes you feel good if it makes you contemplate and wonder and ask ?s and maybe even find answers than that's you kind of music. Music makes you escape into your mind...
It's an out of body experience. Enjoy the despite from current crazy nonsensical reality.
So I agree with a lot of this piece, particularly about the vast amounts people defending powerful billionaires as if they are underdogs.
I still think poptimism, or at least any frame that seeks to question the idea that rock music is the centre of all serious music, is a better frame though.
I think there are some strange arguments in this piece, for example the bit about Pearl Jam fans. Do you really think there aren't rock fans who react with absolute outrage and fury if someone says they don't like a particular band? How about say, The Beatles? The difference in states of defence between poptimists and rockists is worth exploring in itself. Poptimists archetypally accuse you of bigotry, but in my experience rockists genuinely think you must be lying or fabricating an opinion, or an idiot, because who cannot like The Beatles, or whatever canonical band they see as indisputably good. In that way, the two groups share some similarities.
Lastly, I find it strange when people dismiss entire genres of music, as you do with disco in this piece. Most genres are unfathomably bigger than they appear. That doesn't mean you'll definitely like some bit you haven't heard, but I personally tend to think that the genres I haven't explored are out there waiting, or where I dislike what I've heard maybe it's just too alien to other things or I don't get the culture.
It's a bit like sport. I may never like baseball because I didn't grow up in a country where it is part of the discourse. I think music is more similar to that than we think, albeit it can travel around the world a bit more fluidly and appear in different places in unusual ways.
poptimists regularly say things like "shut up this music is fun and you know it, you're just pretending not to like it to seem cool" - the distinction you're drawing is imaginary
The fact that "rock" is not the center of all music is so glaringly obvious, in reality, that the point doesn't need to be argued. Who is a prominent "rock" musician right now?
And yeah, I think people who grew up having to defend their music against criticism deal with that criticism better than people who have grown up in a rhetorical atmosphere in which they are shielded from ever hearing a bad word about the artists they like.
Sure, but "people who grew up in a rhetorical atmosphere in which they are shielded from ever hearing a bad word about the artists they like" is also an accurate way of describing fans of popular canonical rock music, less so today but still to an extent.
I think if you consider what is canonical and critically enshrined over time rather than what's praised day to day in post-internet media then rock music generally still is the foundation and the middle.
Another aspect of the original articles about rockism was that you could have rockists attitudes in other genres - I think today's pop music actually resembles the structures the poptimists once decried, albeit in a post-woke way.
Basically I don't really trust media and music criticism to tell stories that reflect the truth of what is happening in music or what has happened, but that was just as true pre-poptimism as it is today, we've just added a different rhetoric for shutting down discussion and forcing people to conform.
Less popular genres are still seen as smaller and more peripheral, the corners of a finite system rather than universes in their own right. You could spend your entire life exploring disco or flamenco or western swing or whatever, but the systems we have for talking about music are always about lionising megastars. And they always have been.
"rockists genuinely think you must be lying or fabricating an opinion, or an idiot, because who cannot like the Beatles" — definitely; in that way the two groups do share some similarities. but one big difference is that if I were to say something negative about the Beatles on Twitter, I'd get people saying the above and lecturing me about why I'm wrong. if I said something negative about Taylor Swift, I'd get the lectures (though, from what I've observed, considerably less cogent ones), plus people looking up where I work and trying to get me fired on some bizarre grounds.
(for the record, I like the Beatles and also a decent amount of Swift's music; people who dislike them should get to do so in peace.)
That's a good point, but I guess that's more a symptom of a wider change in society than just in music fandom or criticism? It can be isolated to music in discussion but seems more just... always-online phones? But I do agree - I began above by saying that tbf.
Random plug, but I started subscribing to No Depression about a year ago (roots music journal) and have found a lot of great musicians I never would have known about through their coverage. Obviously no real cultural clout, but if that kind of music is your thing, as it very much is mine, it could be worth checking out
Thank you for the plug! My first musical love is classical, but I also love everything roots and roots adjacent. Americana, Blues especially the Delta blues, folk, folk rock, roots-country….etc.
I always surprise myself by reading all of Freddie’s music related pieces with such great interest — I guess it’s fun for me to read someone so passionate about a game that I have absolutely no skin in whatsoever. The full extent of my interaction with any of the rock or pop artists mentioned in any of his pieces (I guess I was into Nirvana in high school for a while) is popping a song or two onto a workout playlist or learning one for karaoke night to get the crowd with me lol
….anyway now I have a new magazine to follow and I appreciate it! Thanks!
I started revisiting Radiohead the other week, one of the most unfairly maligned "rockist" bands of their era. They still hold up, and I am pretty sure they will be rediscovered with enthusiasm once this moment inevitably passes, even if it takes another 20 years.
They practically topped every best album ever chart for about fifteen years. Saying Radiohead are maligned is no different to saying Taylor Swift is an underdog.
Purely anecdotal but my guess would be there's a lot of Radiohead fans at those Taylor Swift concerts. I certainly don't think the idea of someone being a fan of both is that unusual.
A friend and I were trying to convince the other to open up to each other's music tastes recently. I got him to listen to some Taylor Swift (specifically, folkmore) and he had me listen to some Radiohead.
He said he didn't care for Taylor, other than one or two songs, and I said "I get it, and I'm glad you tried her anyway." We both agreed her new album sucks.
I said I enjoyed In Rainbows and OK Computer, but didn't really like Kid A, and he essentially said that was kind of a basic bitch opinion.
>>elder Millennials were once defined as the “hipster” generation, Williamsburg residents swilling PBR at backyard parties where they listened to the latest indie darling.<<
Uh—NO. Just no.
GenX is the hipster generation. As warranted by the fact that GenX is characterized by its sense of irony, while Millennials are characterized by their stridence.
I honestly have NO idea what point you're making in the rant above though I always admire your rants for their sheer rantiness. 😀 But you seem to be anointing Millennials with an exceptionalism they just don't have. EVERY generation struggles with aging & paranoia about its own irrelevance in a consumer culture that's aggressively marketing youth culture. And, of course, these generational divisions—"Millennials,""GenX," "GenZ," "Boomers"—are a convenient marketing fiction.
First, GenX was not all about "Grunge" - that was one particular subset, demographic, and regional scene. But I think what was a common theme among GenXers was being really *passionate* about styles of music or film or whatever that seemed "authentic" and at least somewhat countercultural.
Second, peak hipsterism is definitely a GenX thing. The figures I can think of off the top of my head - Harmony Korine, Chloë Sevigny, the founders of Vice Magazine, Fred Armisen, and Carrie Brownstein - were all born between 1966 and 1974. Hipsterism included the oldest Millenials, but it was going out of fashion by 2010. (Albeit, "Portlandia", which made fun of that subculture, was a 2010s thing.) It was probably among Millenials where the transition from a culture of irony to one of moral earnestness took place. The poor kids in Gen Z probably have no idea that anything other than earnestness and stridency was ever the norm.
I would say you're thinking of the 'hipster' subset of Gen X, and not the whole cohort itself. I would easily argue those names you list there (I had to look two of them up before recognizing their faces or work) are not core Gen X at all, but rather the Seattle coffee-house wing of them. Sure the Pacific NW gets a lot of the cred for Gen X, (especially grunge, like you said) but it's by no means the least common denominator of the generation. I remember watching a few episodes of Portlandia and thinking to myself, "this would probably be funnier if I grew up along the Willamette."
I would argue that political apathy or general cynicism was a lot more core Gen X than being passionate about authentic or counterculture art ever was. Same with being individualistic, pragmatic, and drinking out of the garden hose. I mean, I grew up with a shit-ton of Xers who never got beyond the relatively benign creations of U2 and Van Halen. Like Grunge, hipsterism was a particular subset of Gen X.
"It was probably among Millenials where the transition from a culture of irony to one of moral earnestness took place. The poor kids in Gen Z probably have no idea that anything other than earnestness and stridency was ever the norm."
PNW? Except for Brownstein and Armisen, most of the folks that I listed were associated with the late 90s/2000s New York scene.
"I would argue that political apathy or general cynicism was a lot more core Gen X than being passionate about authentic or counterculture art ever was."
Clearly, that's a pretty limited subset of GenX that you're familiar with, then. I was born in 1966, so early GenX myself, and subcultures and niche interests were pretty strong (albeit, not universal) for people my age. The hardcore and post-hardcore punk and goth subcultures were largely a GenX phenomenon. Same for much of early hip-hop. If anything, it was during the 2000s and especially 2010s that I saw culture becoming a lot more homogenous, with the dominance of superhero movies and pop music, but maybe that's just me being to old to see what's going on under the surface during that era.
That's odd. Vice news never struck me as a Gen X thing, it always screamed Millennial to me. At any rate, okay - then 90's New York thing too. Those other two peeps (Korine, Sevigny) were both Xers though, they were just putting out material in the 90's when they were in their 20's. They still grew up in the 80's though, and that's how the generations are defined. Most of the 80's icons we think of were probably Boomers themselves, because they were in their 20's and 30's at the time. Madonna is a perfect example of this.
I would agree with you on your ideas about music subcultures and such, I think that is probably pretty obvious to see. I just don't think that music in general is this overwhelming part of generational culture that you seem to think it is. It's certainly an important piece, but it doesn't steer the ship any more than any other piece doesn't. It's a group effort.
I was born 9 years after you, so I'm on the latter end of the cohort. I think I can perhaps see how you feel subcultures and niche interests were strong growing up, for some reason that feels like a remnant of the 60's to me. Perhaps that 'revolutionary' spirit had already died down by the time I was born.
First off, I would say that the conventional generational definitions are off. Look at Gen Z: older Zoomers are much more like Millennials while their younger counterparts are newly enamored of Trump. Similarly I would say that younger X'ers are probably closer to Millennials.
Similarly if you're an older X'er your fashion choices probably tended towards flannel if you were into grunge. Hipsterism was a later phenomenon and, again, I would draw a line between the older Gen X cohort and the younger.
Well, first off, it's always best to remember the old Harold Rosenberg quote that "belonging to a generation is one of the lowest forms of solidarity." There are a great many things, both in terms of identity traits and ideology, that are more defining of an individual than what generation they belong to.
And that said, there are A LOT of problems with generational definitions, the most obvious of which is the fluid boundaries of what defines a generation - somebody born in 1963 will probably have more experiences in common with someone born in 1967 than in 1947, even though, technically, the 1963 birth year is "Boomer" and 1967 is "Gen X". Also the fact that defining these cohorts as coving 15 to 20 years of birth years throws together people of a really very different set of life experiences. Wikipedia defines Zoomers as born from 1997 to 2012, which is an age range of 12 to 27 years old. The older half of that demographic are the twentisomethings of today, but the younger ones are still teenagers and haven't made their mark yet.
In terms of young people being into Trump, from what I've read, that represents a huge gender divide in that generation. Even with earlier generations, women trend leftward, but according to surveys, among people in their 20s, the gender split in basic beliefs is pretty dramatic. So I suppose for Gen Z women (and self-defined gender-fluid types), the more-progressive-than-thou trend we saw among Millenials is only increasing, while for Gen X men, there's a stark shift to the right and toward antifeminism from what was typical of Millenial men.
Factoring into this is also that almost instinctual drive that all generations have to differentiate themselves from their parents' generation. If their parents are self-styled liberals, then by gum, _they're_ gonna go MAGA.
Like Slaw, I'm not sure I agree with your first premise. Xers weren't exactly hipsters, but they were definitely ironic.
Your second point is spot-on though. Every generation DOES go through this, since the beginning of time...or at least since the beginning of mass consumerism. It's not unique to Millennials at all. Although saying so is pretty damn Millennial!
Freddie posits that everyone liked Star Wars, but did they? I'd be willing to bet that people over 40 back then (Silent Gen and Greatest Gen) thought Star Wars was a bunch of silly laser nonsense devoid of a soul.
Disclaimer: I like Star Wars, was never bullied for it.
However.
I don't see a contradiction between Star Wars being massively successful and kids being bullied for liking it 30+ years ago. Bullies will attack whatever the kids they target seem vulnerable about. So if you're an earnest dork who would run around on the playground being Luke Skywalker or whoever, I can absolutely see bullies targeting that.
No, it won't because Star War sitself was the underdog, but that degree of earnestness about it might have been.
I think the difference is that in the late 70s/early 80s, Star Wars was just mainstream culture, with people who were really into it being kind of superfans rather than people who had a non-mainstream interest. I also remember that there was a strong Star Wars vs Star Trek rivelry in fandom - I'm not sure if that's still a thing today.
"Xers weren't exactly hipsters" I'd argue that Xers weren't any one thing. But as I outline in the above comment, the key figures in hipsterdom were definitely GenXers.
Incidentally, for people who love reading unflattering biographies, I whole heartedly recommend reading "Sticky Fingers" - a bio of the mostly loathsome former publisher of Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner. Apparently, it was originally going to be written with Wenner's full cooperation, but Wenner withdrew completely when his designated co-writer Joe Hagan informed him that he was simply going to tell the entire dismal truth.
Among other unsavory tidbits in it, we learn that Wenner's starfucking instinct makes him fundamentally incapable of accepting anything less than gushing reviews of the Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger's solo work in particular. As such, a lot of the reviews written for even the most mediocre or even lousy Stones albums or Jagger solo records would get gushing reviews suggesting that they were works of monumental musical genius, on par with old Wolfgang Amadeus himself, etc. etc.
There's a reason all these magazines bit the dust, but at least Rolling Stone really did deserve to croak IMO.
Wenner also keeps bands that might reflect anything biker-ish and therefore too "low class" out of his very bourgeois Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which inexplicably has rap acts in it, but eschews major rock bands like Steppenwolf, just to name one of many. "Born To Be Wild," but not too wild, I guess.
Yeah, when you read their reviews of Black Sabbath, you get the idea too. They even kept calling him TOMMY Iommi in their magazine for god knows how long.
There were apparently a bunch of people on Wenner's starfuck list. John Lennon used to be #1, but Mick Jagger was never far behind. He even kept worshiping Bob Dylan after Dylan called him a useless prick.
Which is fine (if annoying) in and of itself, but it also affected the neutrality and quality of the reviews. Musn't write something that will piss off the big boss, after all.
Yeah, RS never had much use for Sabbath, which only shows how clueless they were even back then. Sabbath went on to be one of the most copied and influential rock bands of all time, while Rolling Stone just sank to its current dismal state, trying (and failing) to take down Marilyn Manson with gossip and no evidence. I remember when Jann had his mid-life crisis and left his wife for a man. Then later on he tried to deny the whole thing. I might have to read Sticky Fingers for a laugh!
"Sticky Fingers" is a great read that should completely disabuse anyone of the notion that rock 'n' roll is an art form. I fear there are a few such nostalgic souls still around, and I say let's round them all up, inter them in a re-education Camp, and force them to read "Sticky Fingers!"
Rock 'n' roll is an assembly line industry subordinate to the dictates of capital. Once you understand this, you can appreciate it the same way you might appreciate a Ford automobile: It got you where you wanted to go back in the 70s, and chances are today's model will get you where you want to go today.
Jann Wenner comes across as a kind of Gatsby. And it's easy to understand why he hates this book so much, though personally, I think he should chill. After he's dead, and they make the inevitable bioflick, he will come across as a likable, picaresque sort of rascal with a big smile and an amazing capacity for ingesting the complete pharmacological pantheon without any apparent ill effects.
"I think a significant majority of people in our culture industry know that this shit is all crazy. I think they know that the poptimist narrative, if it ever was accurate, has been out of date for at least a decade and a half. "
This may be true in print but in real life being open about your music taste in general is such a fount of disrespect that it’s still a thing that a pretty huge chunk of men become disrespectful if I tell them I love women song writers talking about relationships.
I think there should be a contest to see which of the pop underdogs does the best death vocals. I will promise to celebrate the winner's catalogue dutifully for all eternity.
I don’t know- I think you’re projecting a bit here. Being old and checking out (and sometimes liking) new music is a pretty healthy way to stay in touch with the larger culture. I’m a 53 year old straight white dude, and I kind of like the new Charlie xcx album - I’m not particularly into pop music or anything, but (as you’ve mentioned in another context before), you can appreciate something without it being your entire personality.
I'm not sure if feeling compelled to *like* Taylor Swift if that kind of music isn't your thing, for fear of being dismissed as an old man telling the kids to get off of his lawn, isn't the best instinct either.
Myself, I was never into Madonna back in the day, so it's not like pop is some novel thing that you have to be young to understand. I see no reason to revisit the autotuned descendents of Madonna now.
I'm still rocking out to Electric Wizard, man. Also to new band Margarita Witch Cult, who are from Black Sabbath's hometown and sound like it. The only time I hear that poptimism crap is when I take an Uber somewhere and the driver has it on the radio. It was getting on my nerves so much the other day I asked the dude to just turn it off. I was headed to see the Afghan Whigs and The Church, and the poptimism was really harshing my mellow. I don't care what some of these little airheads listen to, as long as I don't have to listen to it.
Nice. They were great -- they did a wild jam at the end of the encores that sounded like Spiritualized from the "Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space" era. Steve Kilbey was funny and seemed to be really enjoying himself.
We had the Beetles and Coltrane the younguns today have Swift. And around we go on the carousel game. I hear Swifts a billionaire.... Kinda hard to wrap my head around that but that's show biz.
Using KC and the Sunshine Band as a stand-in for all disco music is like using Nickelback as a stand in for all rock music, though I'm sure you're not entirely serious.
I'm sorry. But it's Chappell Roan, with two Ps.
In an instant, I gladly overlooked my nearly infinite disagreements with Freddie's stances on many important political issues to concur with him on the more vitally important issue of how lame Pearl Jam is and always has been.
I smashed the heart button on this a million times for that alone.
I have never understood how Pearl Jam has had such a devoted following. I think I’m a little on the young side to really be in their sweet spot but regardless.
They're the Gen X Grateful Dead. Most people don't care, but their core fans really care.
Phish exists lol.
I'm so old, I remember when they were brand new, and I thought they blew chunks even then. It doesn't help that there's something about Eddie Vedder's entire, I don't know, being?, that just doesn't work for me.
I remember Eddie pulling his Garbo act of "I don't want to be famous" in every interview he did after they made it big. It was very annoying, and yet people took him seriously. Layne Staley was great. Chris Cornell was great. Hell, Andrew Wood was great. They're all gone, but Eddie Vedder is still with us, though perhaps not as famous as he once was.
Garbo act? He was worried about inauthenticity (i.e., selling out). Cobain was similarly afflicted and, so far as I can tell, much of Gen X cultural commentary was, too.
I'm so old I remembered when the GD were brand new.
Because when gunge hit, and its hard to explain just what a culture bomb that was at the time (radio stations across the country changed formats overnight), Pearl Jam was the one band that sounded most like classic rock. Soundgarden was metal, Nirvana was punk, Alice was this weird combo... but PJ just cranked out really god rock songs. Ten's an album full of anthemic rock n roll. So Pearl Jam was the choice to be down with the sweeping cultural change, but not really.
And now, they are basically the new Grateful Dead. A legacy touring act with a devoted fanbase operating completing outside the regular pressures of the industry.
The first time I heard "Outshined" on the radio, I was like, "holy crap, Black Sabbath has ANOTHER new singer?!"
PJ was post-grunge, even before grunge was post?
Pretty much this. Grunge was such a different sound to what the commercial channels used to play. In the days when there was such a thing as a communally shared media experience.
There were always a number of people that thought Eddie Vedder was either to be admired or was hot, although I couldn't tell you if that counted for the majority of their fans.
For a lot of us who were 18-22 yo at the time they came out umm (coughs embarrassedly) he was....
"Oh yeah, well the stuff you listen to sucks worse."
EV got a lot of respect back in the 90’s for reupping Neil Young’s career.
I always considered Pearl Jam to be the musical equivalent of brown corduroy and then I found out they literally have a song called "Corduroy."
Not a huge Pearl Jam fan here, but Corduroy is an objectively great song.
The issue with Pearl Jam is that their sound hasn't changed substantially in +30 years. A few exceptions, certainly, but their lack of artistic growth means 2020s PJ is mostly like 2000s PJ. `Dance Of The Clairvoyants' shows they could change if they wanted to...but apparently they don't.
It it makes you feel good if it makes you contemplate and wonder and ask ?s and maybe even find answers than that's you kind of music. Music makes you escape into your mind...
It's an out of body experience. Enjoy the despite from current crazy nonsensical reality.
Any artist who checks the correct idpol boxes is by definition assigned underdog status.
EDM / Burner types seem unconcerned with the judgment of others.
I think it's doing lots of drugs, for which the awful music is merely a pretext. Seems healthy to me!
So I agree with a lot of this piece, particularly about the vast amounts people defending powerful billionaires as if they are underdogs.
I still think poptimism, or at least any frame that seeks to question the idea that rock music is the centre of all serious music, is a better frame though.
I think there are some strange arguments in this piece, for example the bit about Pearl Jam fans. Do you really think there aren't rock fans who react with absolute outrage and fury if someone says they don't like a particular band? How about say, The Beatles? The difference in states of defence between poptimists and rockists is worth exploring in itself. Poptimists archetypally accuse you of bigotry, but in my experience rockists genuinely think you must be lying or fabricating an opinion, or an idiot, because who cannot like The Beatles, or whatever canonical band they see as indisputably good. In that way, the two groups share some similarities.
Lastly, I find it strange when people dismiss entire genres of music, as you do with disco in this piece. Most genres are unfathomably bigger than they appear. That doesn't mean you'll definitely like some bit you haven't heard, but I personally tend to think that the genres I haven't explored are out there waiting, or where I dislike what I've heard maybe it's just too alien to other things or I don't get the culture.
It's a bit like sport. I may never like baseball because I didn't grow up in a country where it is part of the discourse. I think music is more similar to that than we think, albeit it can travel around the world a bit more fluidly and appear in different places in unusual ways.
poptimists regularly say things like "shut up this music is fun and you know it, you're just pretending not to like it to seem cool" - the distinction you're drawing is imaginary
I wouldn't say I was drawing a distinction so much as saying there is less distinction.
The fact that "rock" is not the center of all music is so glaringly obvious, in reality, that the point doesn't need to be argued. Who is a prominent "rock" musician right now?
And yeah, I think people who grew up having to defend their music against criticism deal with that criticism better than people who have grown up in a rhetorical atmosphere in which they are shielded from ever hearing a bad word about the artists they like.
Sure, but "people who grew up in a rhetorical atmosphere in which they are shielded from ever hearing a bad word about the artists they like" is also an accurate way of describing fans of popular canonical rock music, less so today but still to an extent.
I think if you consider what is canonical and critically enshrined over time rather than what's praised day to day in post-internet media then rock music generally still is the foundation and the middle.
Another aspect of the original articles about rockism was that you could have rockists attitudes in other genres - I think today's pop music actually resembles the structures the poptimists once decried, albeit in a post-woke way.
Basically I don't really trust media and music criticism to tell stories that reflect the truth of what is happening in music or what has happened, but that was just as true pre-poptimism as it is today, we've just added a different rhetoric for shutting down discussion and forcing people to conform.
Less popular genres are still seen as smaller and more peripheral, the corners of a finite system rather than universes in their own right. You could spend your entire life exploring disco or flamenco or western swing or whatever, but the systems we have for talking about music are always about lionising megastars. And they always have been.
"rockists genuinely think you must be lying or fabricating an opinion, or an idiot, because who cannot like the Beatles" — definitely; in that way the two groups do share some similarities. but one big difference is that if I were to say something negative about the Beatles on Twitter, I'd get people saying the above and lecturing me about why I'm wrong. if I said something negative about Taylor Swift, I'd get the lectures (though, from what I've observed, considerably less cogent ones), plus people looking up where I work and trying to get me fired on some bizarre grounds.
(for the record, I like the Beatles and also a decent amount of Swift's music; people who dislike them should get to do so in peace.)
That's a good point, but I guess that's more a symptom of a wider change in society than just in music fandom or criticism? It can be isolated to music in discussion but seems more just... always-online phones? But I do agree - I began above by saying that tbf.
Random plug, but I started subscribing to No Depression about a year ago (roots music journal) and have found a lot of great musicians I never would have known about through their coverage. Obviously no real cultural clout, but if that kind of music is your thing, as it very much is mine, it could be worth checking out
Thank you for the plug! My first musical love is classical, but I also love everything roots and roots adjacent. Americana, Blues especially the Delta blues, folk, folk rock, roots-country….etc.
I always surprise myself by reading all of Freddie’s music related pieces with such great interest — I guess it’s fun for me to read someone so passionate about a game that I have absolutely no skin in whatsoever. The full extent of my interaction with any of the rock or pop artists mentioned in any of his pieces (I guess I was into Nirvana in high school for a while) is popping a song or two onto a workout playlist or learning one for karaoke night to get the crowd with me lol
….anyway now I have a new magazine to follow and I appreciate it! Thanks!
I started revisiting Radiohead the other week, one of the most unfairly maligned "rockist" bands of their era. They still hold up, and I am pretty sure they will be rediscovered with enthusiasm once this moment inevitably passes, even if it takes another 20 years.
They practically topped every best album ever chart for about fifteen years. Saying Radiohead are maligned is no different to saying Taylor Swift is an underdog.
I should have qualified: unfairly maligned *by poptimists*.
Purely anecdotal but my guess would be there's a lot of Radiohead fans at those Taylor Swift concerts. I certainly don't think the idea of someone being a fan of both is that unusual.
A friend and I were trying to convince the other to open up to each other's music tastes recently. I got him to listen to some Taylor Swift (specifically, folkmore) and he had me listen to some Radiohead.
He said he didn't care for Taylor, other than one or two songs, and I said "I get it, and I'm glad you tried her anyway." We both agreed her new album sucks.
I said I enjoyed In Rainbows and OK Computer, but didn't really like Kid A, and he essentially said that was kind of a basic bitch opinion.
Made me wanna become a poptimist.
>>elder Millennials were once defined as the “hipster” generation, Williamsburg residents swilling PBR at backyard parties where they listened to the latest indie darling.<<
Uh—NO. Just no.
GenX is the hipster generation. As warranted by the fact that GenX is characterized by its sense of irony, while Millennials are characterized by their stridence.
I honestly have NO idea what point you're making in the rant above though I always admire your rants for their sheer rantiness. 😀 But you seem to be anointing Millennials with an exceptionalism they just don't have. EVERY generation struggles with aging & paranoia about its own irrelevance in a consumer culture that's aggressively marketing youth culture. And, of course, these generational divisions—"Millennials,""GenX," "GenZ," "Boomers"—are a convenient marketing fiction.
I think your timing is confused. Gen X was cynical slackers. Consider that their signature musical style was called "Grunge".
First, GenX was not all about "Grunge" - that was one particular subset, demographic, and regional scene. But I think what was a common theme among GenXers was being really *passionate* about styles of music or film or whatever that seemed "authentic" and at least somewhat countercultural.
Second, peak hipsterism is definitely a GenX thing. The figures I can think of off the top of my head - Harmony Korine, Chloë Sevigny, the founders of Vice Magazine, Fred Armisen, and Carrie Brownstein - were all born between 1966 and 1974. Hipsterism included the oldest Millenials, but it was going out of fashion by 2010. (Albeit, "Portlandia", which made fun of that subculture, was a 2010s thing.) It was probably among Millenials where the transition from a culture of irony to one of moral earnestness took place. The poor kids in Gen Z probably have no idea that anything other than earnestness and stridency was ever the norm.
I would say you're thinking of the 'hipster' subset of Gen X, and not the whole cohort itself. I would easily argue those names you list there (I had to look two of them up before recognizing their faces or work) are not core Gen X at all, but rather the Seattle coffee-house wing of them. Sure the Pacific NW gets a lot of the cred for Gen X, (especially grunge, like you said) but it's by no means the least common denominator of the generation. I remember watching a few episodes of Portlandia and thinking to myself, "this would probably be funnier if I grew up along the Willamette."
I would argue that political apathy or general cynicism was a lot more core Gen X than being passionate about authentic or counterculture art ever was. Same with being individualistic, pragmatic, and drinking out of the garden hose. I mean, I grew up with a shit-ton of Xers who never got beyond the relatively benign creations of U2 and Van Halen. Like Grunge, hipsterism was a particular subset of Gen X.
"It was probably among Millenials where the transition from a culture of irony to one of moral earnestness took place. The poor kids in Gen Z probably have no idea that anything other than earnestness and stridency was ever the norm."
I do agree with that part though!
WRT Gen Z: the pendulum always swings back.
PNW? Except for Brownstein and Armisen, most of the folks that I listed were associated with the late 90s/2000s New York scene.
"I would argue that political apathy or general cynicism was a lot more core Gen X than being passionate about authentic or counterculture art ever was."
Clearly, that's a pretty limited subset of GenX that you're familiar with, then. I was born in 1966, so early GenX myself, and subcultures and niche interests were pretty strong (albeit, not universal) for people my age. The hardcore and post-hardcore punk and goth subcultures were largely a GenX phenomenon. Same for much of early hip-hop. If anything, it was during the 2000s and especially 2010s that I saw culture becoming a lot more homogenous, with the dominance of superhero movies and pop music, but maybe that's just me being to old to see what's going on under the surface during that era.
That's odd. Vice news never struck me as a Gen X thing, it always screamed Millennial to me. At any rate, okay - then 90's New York thing too. Those other two peeps (Korine, Sevigny) were both Xers though, they were just putting out material in the 90's when they were in their 20's. They still grew up in the 80's though, and that's how the generations are defined. Most of the 80's icons we think of were probably Boomers themselves, because they were in their 20's and 30's at the time. Madonna is a perfect example of this.
I would agree with you on your ideas about music subcultures and such, I think that is probably pretty obvious to see. I just don't think that music in general is this overwhelming part of generational culture that you seem to think it is. It's certainly an important piece, but it doesn't steer the ship any more than any other piece doesn't. It's a group effort.
I was born 9 years after you, so I'm on the latter end of the cohort. I think I can perhaps see how you feel subcultures and niche interests were strong growing up, for some reason that feels like a remnant of the 60's to me. Perhaps that 'revolutionary' spirit had already died down by the time I was born.
First off, I would say that the conventional generational definitions are off. Look at Gen Z: older Zoomers are much more like Millennials while their younger counterparts are newly enamored of Trump. Similarly I would say that younger X'ers are probably closer to Millennials.
Similarly if you're an older X'er your fashion choices probably tended towards flannel if you were into grunge. Hipsterism was a later phenomenon and, again, I would draw a line between the older Gen X cohort and the younger.
Well, first off, it's always best to remember the old Harold Rosenberg quote that "belonging to a generation is one of the lowest forms of solidarity." There are a great many things, both in terms of identity traits and ideology, that are more defining of an individual than what generation they belong to.
And that said, there are A LOT of problems with generational definitions, the most obvious of which is the fluid boundaries of what defines a generation - somebody born in 1963 will probably have more experiences in common with someone born in 1967 than in 1947, even though, technically, the 1963 birth year is "Boomer" and 1967 is "Gen X". Also the fact that defining these cohorts as coving 15 to 20 years of birth years throws together people of a really very different set of life experiences. Wikipedia defines Zoomers as born from 1997 to 2012, which is an age range of 12 to 27 years old. The older half of that demographic are the twentisomethings of today, but the younger ones are still teenagers and haven't made their mark yet.
In terms of young people being into Trump, from what I've read, that represents a huge gender divide in that generation. Even with earlier generations, women trend leftward, but according to surveys, among people in their 20s, the gender split in basic beliefs is pretty dramatic. So I suppose for Gen Z women (and self-defined gender-fluid types), the more-progressive-than-thou trend we saw among Millenials is only increasing, while for Gen X men, there's a stark shift to the right and toward antifeminism from what was typical of Millenial men.
Yeah, I strongly suspect that each "generation" isn't consistently 15 or 20 years but rather fluctuates.
You are correct that the trend in conservatism in Zoomers is being driven by male voters.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4125661-high-school-boys-are-trending-conservative/
Factoring into this is also that almost instinctual drive that all generations have to differentiate themselves from their parents' generation. If their parents are self-styled liberals, then by gum, _they're_ gonna go MAGA.
That pendulum keeps swinging.
Like Slaw, I'm not sure I agree with your first premise. Xers weren't exactly hipsters, but they were definitely ironic.
Your second point is spot-on though. Every generation DOES go through this, since the beginning of time...or at least since the beginning of mass consumerism. It's not unique to Millennials at all. Although saying so is pretty damn Millennial!
Freddie posits that everyone liked Star Wars, but did they? I'd be willing to bet that people over 40 back then (Silent Gen and Greatest Gen) thought Star Wars was a bunch of silly laser nonsense devoid of a soul.
Disclaimer: I like Star Wars, was never bullied for it.
However.
I don't see a contradiction between Star Wars being massively successful and kids being bullied for liking it 30+ years ago. Bullies will attack whatever the kids they target seem vulnerable about. So if you're an earnest dork who would run around on the playground being Luke Skywalker or whoever, I can absolutely see bullies targeting that.
No, it won't because Star War sitself was the underdog, but that degree of earnestness about it might have been.
I think the difference is that in the late 70s/early 80s, Star Wars was just mainstream culture, with people who were really into it being kind of superfans rather than people who had a non-mainstream interest. I also remember that there was a strong Star Wars vs Star Trek rivelry in fandom - I'm not sure if that's still a thing today.
"Xers weren't exactly hipsters" I'd argue that Xers weren't any one thing. But as I outline in the above comment, the key figures in hipsterdom were definitely GenXers.
Incidentally, for people who love reading unflattering biographies, I whole heartedly recommend reading "Sticky Fingers" - a bio of the mostly loathsome former publisher of Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner. Apparently, it was originally going to be written with Wenner's full cooperation, but Wenner withdrew completely when his designated co-writer Joe Hagan informed him that he was simply going to tell the entire dismal truth.
Among other unsavory tidbits in it, we learn that Wenner's starfucking instinct makes him fundamentally incapable of accepting anything less than gushing reviews of the Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger's solo work in particular. As such, a lot of the reviews written for even the most mediocre or even lousy Stones albums or Jagger solo records would get gushing reviews suggesting that they were works of monumental musical genius, on par with old Wolfgang Amadeus himself, etc. etc.
There's a reason all these magazines bit the dust, but at least Rolling Stone really did deserve to croak IMO.
Wenner also keeps bands that might reflect anything biker-ish and therefore too "low class" out of his very bourgeois Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which inexplicably has rap acts in it, but eschews major rock bands like Steppenwolf, just to name one of many. "Born To Be Wild," but not too wild, I guess.
Yeah, when you read their reviews of Black Sabbath, you get the idea too. They even kept calling him TOMMY Iommi in their magazine for god knows how long.
There were apparently a bunch of people on Wenner's starfuck list. John Lennon used to be #1, but Mick Jagger was never far behind. He even kept worshiping Bob Dylan after Dylan called him a useless prick.
Which is fine (if annoying) in and of itself, but it also affected the neutrality and quality of the reviews. Musn't write something that will piss off the big boss, after all.
Yeah, RS never had much use for Sabbath, which only shows how clueless they were even back then. Sabbath went on to be one of the most copied and influential rock bands of all time, while Rolling Stone just sank to its current dismal state, trying (and failing) to take down Marilyn Manson with gossip and no evidence. I remember when Jann had his mid-life crisis and left his wife for a man. Then later on he tried to deny the whole thing. I might have to read Sticky Fingers for a laugh!
"Sticky Fingers" is a great read that should completely disabuse anyone of the notion that rock 'n' roll is an art form. I fear there are a few such nostalgic souls still around, and I say let's round them all up, inter them in a re-education Camp, and force them to read "Sticky Fingers!"
Rock 'n' roll is an assembly line industry subordinate to the dictates of capital. Once you understand this, you can appreciate it the same way you might appreciate a Ford automobile: It got you where you wanted to go back in the 70s, and chances are today's model will get you where you want to go today.
Jann Wenner comes across as a kind of Gatsby. And it's easy to understand why he hates this book so much, though personally, I think he should chill. After he's dead, and they make the inevitable bioflick, he will come across as a likable, picaresque sort of rascal with a big smile and an amazing capacity for ingesting the complete pharmacological pantheon without any apparent ill effects.
"I think a significant majority of people in our culture industry know that this shit is all crazy. I think they know that the poptimist narrative, if it ever was accurate, has been out of date for at least a decade and a half. "
Tell it to the American Musicological Society.
This may be true in print but in real life being open about your music taste in general is such a fount of disrespect that it’s still a thing that a pretty huge chunk of men become disrespectful if I tell them I love women song writers talking about relationships.
I think there should be a contest to see which of the pop underdogs does the best death vocals. I will promise to celebrate the winner's catalogue dutifully for all eternity.
I don’t know- I think you’re projecting a bit here. Being old and checking out (and sometimes liking) new music is a pretty healthy way to stay in touch with the larger culture. I’m a 53 year old straight white dude, and I kind of like the new Charlie xcx album - I’m not particularly into pop music or anything, but (as you’ve mentioned in another context before), you can appreciate something without it being your entire personality.
Of course listening to new music is good. What's not good is THINKING THAT DOING SO SOMEHOW PROTECTS YOU FROM AGING.
Fair enough - I just haven’t really encountered these people in real life. Maybe I just need to get out more (-;
[edit] and I say this as a dude that still lives in now ridiculously gentrified Williamsburg.
Unless you like country music and then nothing old is considered uncool.
Last month at Kyle field largest ticketed event in the U.S.
https://youtu.be/Du8x-XpaK-4?t=41
I'm not sure if feeling compelled to *like* Taylor Swift if that kind of music isn't your thing, for fear of being dismissed as an old man telling the kids to get off of his lawn, isn't the best instinct either.
Myself, I was never into Madonna back in the day, so it's not like pop is some novel thing that you have to be young to understand. I see no reason to revisit the autotuned descendents of Madonna now.
I'm still rocking out to Electric Wizard, man. Also to new band Margarita Witch Cult, who are from Black Sabbath's hometown and sound like it. The only time I hear that poptimism crap is when I take an Uber somewhere and the driver has it on the radio. It was getting on my nerves so much the other day I asked the dude to just turn it off. I was headed to see the Afghan Whigs and The Church, and the poptimism was really harshing my mellow. I don't care what some of these little airheads listen to, as long as I don't have to listen to it.
Just checked out Matgarita Witch Cult on the coolness of their name. I like it! Thanks.
Great, glad you liked them! Yeah, from "Diabolical Influence" on, those fellas have the riffs and the attitude to go with them.
The Church! Going to see them live in a couple of months!
Nice. They were great -- they did a wild jam at the end of the encores that sounded like Spiritualized from the "Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space" era. Steve Kilbey was funny and seemed to be really enjoying himself.
Contempt for the youth and their terrible music! This is the natural order of things.