It seems clear to me, unless anyone can argue otherwise, that the term 'rockist' is as good as meaningless, but I get the impression that it refers to, as you said, a conservative attitude to how music should be experienced. An orthodoxy, perhaps. Both the constructionist and deconstructionist have a prescriptive element, but the deconstructionist attitude, particularly in the way you have described it, i.e. "any version of "Comfortably Numb" must be considered..." sounds more so, which would lead to your assertion that the deconstructionist view is more conservative.
But the point is that the term 'rockist' seems to be applicable, in some people's eyes, to any attitude towards music which is prescriptive or conversative. So its application is quite arbitrary. But the implication is that people who are into rock music are more likely to have these kinds of attitudes than people who favour other styles. So it is arguably an attitude of prejudice against rock music listeners which makes them synonymous with narrow-minded and elitist attitudes.
And besides, your arguments seem to make it quite clear that the term 'rockist' has no useful application to this discussion.
But the issue itself is whether the song itself or the 'definitive' performance of it should be a reference point. I have a friend who was into hip-hop and rock for a lot of the time we were growing up, and he introduced me to some important groups. But his view now is that these forms of popular music are essentially egotistical, based on individual's experiences rather than on a sense of a shared culture. And he finds folk music more satisfying for this reason.
I have mixed feelings about this. For me, I have generally approached music on an emotional level, in terms of whether the person who wrote the music feels the same way as I do. So it's essentially about identification with that artist. So for me, I'm less keen on covers, unless they clearly have some particular relevance, because I see the song as being inherently connected to the person who wrote it, rather than any given performance of it.
I don't tend to view music in terms of its cultural context so much, and that is probably a weakness of mine. But it seems to me to be in the nature of a lot of our popular music that its view of the world is very localised. There is a sense of alienation and fragmentation in our culture generally, and I think the kind of music we listen to reflects that.
I would see the issue you raised as being a part of that larger discussion, of music as a reflection of shared culture vs music as an expression of individual experience. If a piece of music is to be viewed as a part of our culture in general, then there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be taken and used by different people in different contexts. However, if it’s viewed as being mainly an expression of the person who wrote it, then it makes less sense for people to re-appropriate it.
My personal view would be that a cover should be, if not a direct comment on the original piece of music, at least done with an awareness of the meaning of the original piece, whether as a piece of individual expression, or as a cultural artefact, or both. To cover a song which you don’t really understand fully in these ways strikes me as quite arrogant. Alien Ant Farm’s cover of “Smooth Criminal” is an example of such arrogance to me. They’ve taken the underlying chords and ‘re-appropriated’ them, but there’s no way that they could do justice to the original, because there is such a gulf between them and the original writer, probably in terms of individual experience, but definitely in terms of cultural context.
So, to attempt to summarise my position, I would say that whether re-appropriation is appropriate or not should be judged by the extent to which the artist doing so is able to identify with the original writer. The underlying chord patterns and lyrics can’t be shifted around from one performer to another without any effect on their meaning, because a performance of any kind can’t be separated from the individual making that performance. So I would say that any cover or re-appropriation should be done with awareness of the writer, as a matter of respect, rather than with any particular performance in mind.
What do you think about the use of sampling in hip-hop and dance music, Jack? To what extent is sampling a loaded act? Hip-hop tends to use samples in a radically different context (think about Xzibit’s “Paparazzi”, for example), so can that be said in any way to be a comment on the original music? Then there are other tunes that are more explicitly referening the original e.g. Tupac’s use of “That’s Just the Way it is”. Then at the extreme you have people like Fat Boy Slim and Moby who pretty much just pimp the whole thing.
And as a matter of interest, what do you feel is at stake in this discussion? Why is this important? |
