Introduction - PDF document

1 Introduction In the 1830s, the French ar
Introduction In the 1830s, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville sat down to record his fresh impressions of a visit to the U.S. One of his conclusions was that since new democracies are characterized by a pragmatic approach to life, there is little time to indulge in refined aesthetic pleasures. What the citizens ask for is enjoy- ment on the spot. Therefore, to this Eurocentric, the Americans possessed, Òprop- erly speaking, no literatureÓ: The only authors whom I acknowledge as American are the journalists. They indeed are no great writers, but they speak the language of their country and make themselves heard. Other authors are aliens; they are to the Americans what the imitators of the Greeks and Romans were to us. (1990:56) There was in fact a period, in the 1960s, when Americans themselves seemed to think that their literature was spearheaded by journalists. Novelists were held to be lagging behind the age in contrast to reporters such as Tom Wolfe and Hunter S. Thompson, who set out to mirror the drama of cultural change taking place in the wake of postwar affluence with tools borrowed from literary fiction. As voices of a generation raised on rock music and other popular culture but sus- picious of academic training, some of these Ònew intellectualsÓ began to make Òenjoyment on the spotÓ a subject for serious treatment, first in the press, later in books. In popular music journalism this introduced a new stage: the advent of a critical discourse on rock. For historical reasons the divide between high and popular culture that was established in 19th-century Europe never reached the same level of institution- alization in the U.S. (which helps to explain both the enormous expectations that rock music gave rise to in the 1960s and the success of postmodernism in the U.S.). But it certainly existed. One of the founding fathers of rock criticism (they were predominantly men) was Robert Christgau, whose 1998 collection of writings called Grown Up All Wrong begins with an anecdote that highlights the irony of the title. Christgau, around 30 at the time, is told by Òa Marcuse translator just out of grad schoolÓ in the course of a film dispute: ÒÔYouÕre really very intelligent. Why do you waste your time on rock?ÕÓ This happened in 1971. Since then rock musicÑlike, for instance, film, photo- graphy, the detective story, science fiction and jazzÑhas moved upmarket in Rock Criticism from the Beginning 2 terms of status. No more does anybody raise an eyebrow at finding rock acts con- sidered fit for the daily newspapersÕ cultural pages. Not many ask, confronted with the latest global hybrid, ÒIs it rock?Ó or ÒIs it art?Ó Such questions seem more or less to hav

2 e lost their relevance. In the terminolo
e lost their relevance. In the terminology used by French cultural theorist Pierre Bourdieu, a legitimation process has occurred that involves several forms of popular culture. Such processes seem to comprise two steps, which tend to overlap each other. The first of these means getting accepted as ÒentertainmentÓ or, in Bourdieu-speak, ÒheteronomousÓ culture. In the case of rock this acceptance came fastÑa few years and rock had become the main force in popular music. The BeatlesÕ key position in rock history is underlined by the bandÕs double achieve- ment: it both completed this phase and initiated the next, gaining recognition as producers of ÒartÓ (ÒautonomousÓ culture). In our view this second process has been completed successfully, too, although it is still a matter of dispute how closely the present status of rock matches that of traditional high culture. It would seem strange if some of the respect bestowed on the music had not rubbed off onto rock criticism as well. But, as Shuker (1994:78) points out, in the fast expanding academic literature on rock, criticism remains a marginal business: [R]ock critics perform an influential role as gatekeepers of taste and arbiters of cultural history, and are an important adjunct to the record companiesÕ market- ing of their products [É]. Given this role, the music press has received surpris- ingly little attention in the writing on popular music. A few years later this still seems to hold true, despite the fact that rock criticism has supplied both popular music studies and cultural studies with useful em- piric material and ideas. The subject of rock criticism is still not covered in many rock histories and encyclopedias. 1 By the turn of the millennium the only full-length studies in English were Nowell (1987), a dissertation on the evolu- tion of rock journalism at two American quality dailies, and Draper (1991), which records the history of the rock bible Rolling Stone . Several sections in books, most of them belonging to the fields of music sociology or media stud- ies, comment on the subject. 2 So do a variety of articles, ranging from different 1An exception is the recent Encyclopedia of the Popular Music of the World . 2E. g., Denisoff (1975:282Ð322), Chapple and Garofalo (1977:154Ð169), Frith (1981:165Ð177), Hebdige (1988:155Ð176), McRobbie (1988:xiÐxvii), Weinstein (1991:174Ð180), Negus (1992:115Ð125), Aronowitz (1993:185Ð202), Shuker (1994:72Ð98), McDonnell and Powers (1995:5Ð23) and Kureishi and Savage (1996:xxiÐxxxiii). Introduction 3 kinds of case studiesÑfor example, Flippo (1974) on Rolling Stone , ThŽbrge (1991) on musiciansÕ magazines, Martin (1993) on criticsÕ reception of the group Milli

3 Vanilli, Sullivan (1995) on being a wom
Vanilli, Sullivan (1995) on being a woman rock criticÑto the more com- prehensive approaches of, for example, Stratton (1982), Hill (1991), Jones (1992, 1993) and Regev (1994). However, interest in the subject seems to be on the rise. There are several recent anthologies of rock criticism, 3 and in the last few years at least two academic studies have been published, Gendron (2003) and Jones (2003). In addition, the critics themselves reflect on their trade in books, many of which possess academic qualities. An interesting sign of advances to- ward academic respectability is the Festschrift dedicated to Robert Christgau, DonÕt Stop Õtil You Get Enough (Carson et al. 2002). As a social institution criticism is a product of what Habermas (1962/1984) calls Òthe bourgeois public sphere.Ó Its origins lie in 18th-century notions of civi- lized conversation between equals and is connected to the growth of the pressÑ papers specializing in music also originate in this early modern era. Two hundred years later, in an increasingly global world where electronic media are taking over from the press, the criticÕs role as an intermediary or guide not only persists (though no one knows for how long) but has even extended into new, popular cultural areas of the consumer society, in which critics operate as experts whose task it is to cultivate a reflexive attitude, develop a language fit for the subject and pass judgments on behalf of their audience. Arguably, these criticsÕ authority is weak in comparison with the power exercised by the representatives of venerable high cultural institutions such as the educational system. But that does not exclude the existence of gurus, battles of taste reminiscent of those fought in high culture, attempts at canon formation, or even the formation of Òcounterpublic spheres.Ó 4 The present study is an attempt to compensate for the lack of more extensive surveys on its subject. But it is not an ordinary history of rock criticism insofar as it strives to move beyond an insiderÕs view and situate rock in a wider cultural context. Together with the notion of historical evolution, the themes of cultural geographies and hierarchies, which were introduced by the references to de Tocqueville and Christgau, play a focal part in the book. Its point of departure is the assumption that critics, as Regev (1994) argues, have played an important role for the elevation of rock music into at least ÒsemilegitimateÓ art. This achieve- 3E.g., Heylin (1992), McDonnell and Powers (1995), Kureishi and Savage (1996), Jones (1997), Gorman (2001) and Hoskyns (2003). 4The term derives from Negt and Kluge (1972/1993) and denotes Òalternative,Ó institutional- ized forms

4 of interaction and discourse, related to
of interaction and discourse, related to counterculture movements. Rock Criticism from the Beginning 4 ment was made possible by diverse alliances: the critics became spokesmen for musicians or trends whose ambitions seemed Òserious,Ó as well as for Òprogres- siveÓ social forces (working-class youth, white trash, African Americans); now and then they received support from agents in more established cultural fields disposed to spot nuggets in unexpected places. The outcome was both a con- struction of rock music as different from and more valuable than other popular music and a parallel construction of criticism itself as a ÒseriousÓ business. However, we take this argument further than Regev, suggesting that by the early 1970s, rock music and rock criticism had already reached such a level of relative autonomy that one may speak of weak fields in BourdieuÕs sense. This means a level of specialization with distinct positions, rules and authorities, and especially the construction of a ÒpureÓ aesthetic pole opposing a ÒcommercialÓ one in ways specific to the field. The primary aim of the present study is to exam- ine the growth of the field of rock criticism (situated at the intersection of the rock field with the journalistic field), major changes in agentsÕ positions over the years and the complex relations between the American and the British (part-)fields. A secondary aim is to characterize rock criticism as a form of discourse . Rock critics have been responsible for the growth of a public aesthetic discourse with strong ÒheteroglotÓ tracesÑa hybrid discourse in which elements of Òhigh theoryÓ mingle with discursive practices derived from everyday intercourse with the mu- sic. This Òintermediary,Ó tension-based sty le of writing mirrors its aesthetic and makes it differ from the middlebrow. Here the study focuses on what Bourdieu calls Òthe space of possibilities,Ó that is, the reservoir of specific assetsÑschools, genres, styles, worksÑto which all age nts in a cultural field must relate. The social field deals with agent positioning, the space of possibilities with the aesthetic means at the agentsÕ disposal. In the book, attention is paid both to aesthetic ideology and to style in a broad sense ranging from writing to graphic design. In terms of theory this book approaches rock criticism via an apparatus in- formed by sociological theories of modernity, globalization and the public sphere, cultural theory, popular music studies and literary theory. As signaled above, it is first and foremost a critical appropriation of BourdieuÕs field theory (Bourdieu 1992/1996, 1993) and, to some extent, his understanding of taste (Bourdieu 1979/1984). In our opinion, B

5 ourdieu gives the most systematic accoun
ourdieu gives the most systematic account avail- able of a cultural condition that we are departing from but still have not left behind. His basic tenets should be familiar by now. Distinction , his most widely read book, advances the thesis that taste and distaste greatly serve social distinc- tion. Taste always hides a will to power, and judgments of taste are strategic investments (in Òcultural capitalÓ), determined on the one hand by agentsÕ dis- Introduction 5 positions (ÒhabitusÓ), on the other hand by social systems of positions, struc- tured as fields. A field has its own rules, institutions and experts, whose battles in the case of cultural fields roughly concern the right to decide what should be counted as Òart.Ó Besides legitimate culture, Bourdieu also distinguishes Òille- gitimateÓ (everyday, such as cooking) and ÒlegitimableÓ (popular representa- tional) cultural practices. He assumes the existence of a cultural center, whose backbone is the educational system, but also recognizes a dynamism in the field that allows for movements up and down the market. Critics have rightly questioned the validity of BourdieuÕs theses in an age of rapid cultural change, but sometimes the criticism goes too far. The position of Laermans (1992), who describes the present condition as Òpolyhierarchic but still centered,Ó seems valid for most Western countries. It recognizes the useful- ness of BourdieuÕs contribution as well as the need to complete it with others. The present study confronts Bourdieu both with the short-term perspective inherent in the concept of late modernity , which includes the erosion of tradi- tion that some theorists term ÒpostmodernÓ and others Òcultural release,Ó 5 and with a long-term perspective of a struggle between Ò highÓ and ÒlowÓ culture , which harks back to premodern times. From an orthodox Bourdieuan perspective, the founding fathers of rock criti- cism appear as Ònew intellectuals,Ó whose outsider positions in relation to the educational system predestine them to specialize in ÒlegitimableÓ rather than ÒlegitimateÓ culture. The birth of rock criticism then becomes a market strat- egy, characteristic of a particular class faction. But the same phenomenon could be interpreted also as an act of popular resistance, a democratization process, or the effect of Òuncommon learning processesÓ 6 triggered by the cultural release. Here the aestheticization of everyday life observed by Featherstone (1991) and others becomes interesting. 7 There is no need to exclude a will to power, but 5ÒCultural releaseÓ derives from Ziehe and Stubenrauch (1982). It denotes the effect of late modern capitalist dynamism on the cultural heritage, including

6 the conquests of early mo- dernity, and
the conquests of early mo- dernity, and appears as a release from the binding force of tradition, which instead becomes the object of subjective choice. 6This notion, which designates learning in a late modern context (that is, with little support from tradition), derives from Ziehe and Stubenrauch (1982). 7The aestheticization of everyday life is, as Featherstone (1991) points out, a process that may be followed from 19th-century Romantic bohemian artists via the aristocratic figure of the dandy and the historical avant-garde to postÐWorld War II youth subcultures and late mod- ern consumer culture, whose flow of images and signs invests everyday life with the compul- sion of as well as the raw material for self-styling. Rock Criticism from the Beginning 6 one should also recognize that the birth of rock criticism indicates an increase in cultural competenceÑnew ways of attaining aesthetic pleasure, the intro- duction of new objects as aesthetically valuable and the formation of a dis- course capable of doing justice to them Ñthat questions BourdieuÕs rather static understanding of Òcultural capital.Ó Rock criticism draws on a number of sources, British as well as American: film criticism as well as jazz criticism, discourse on folk art as well as on high art, the Frankfurt school as well as New Journalism. Both this eclecticism and its invest- ment in a form of low culture would seem to make it paradigmatically postmodern (or perhaps Òpre-postmodern,Ó being a product of the clashes between neo-avant- garde experimentation, pop culture and political revolt in the 1960s). However, one may question the conceptÕs explanatory power today. Despite the thorough- going, unresolved disagreement on the meaning of the term left behind by the leading theorists of the 1980s, 8 ÒpostmodernismÓ has become another of those master narratives that were its original target. At the same time, the break with modernity implied by ÒpostÓ has come to seem exaggerated. As FornŠs (1995:35Ð 38) and others have observed, most allegedly ÒpostmodernÓ traits can be found far back in the modern era. In comparison the concept of Òlate modernÓ seems preferable, especially because it designates not only continuity, but also and more accurately the intensification of modernization processes (in terms of dynamization, rationalization and universalization) that becomes noticeable from around 1960. In our account, Òlate modernityÓ is the primary, epochal level, which provides the background for a secondary level of Òcultural release.Ó ÒPostmodernÓ appears as a third-degree concept, which roughly indicates the unsettling impact of cultural release in the area of the arts. 9 8Thus Collins (1992) obs

7 erves that postmodernism denotes (1) a s
erves that postmodernism denotes (1) a specific style (e.g., in archi- tecture), (2) a movement during the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, (3) a Òcondition,Ó (4) a specific, deconstructive philosophy, (5) a specific type of ÒpoliticsÓ and 6) a form of cultural analysis that involves points 1Ð5. It is in the aesthetic area that one finds a common denominator for the different uses of the concept: the thrust of postmodernism is directed at a monolithic and exclusive modernism. However, as we will argue, there were several modernisms, and it is quite possible to regard that allegedly ÒpostmodernÓ characteristic, the dissolution of high/ low divides, as a climax of a long process rather than as a break with the past. In the long-term perspective suggested above it seems that the exploration of the abyss of the low, trivial and ugly has been a trademark of modern art from its very inception. In a literal sense, there never was any ÒGreat DivideÓ (Huyssen 1986) between ÒhighÓ and ÒlowÓ culture. 9It is here that the concept makes most sense. As Featherstone (1991:7Ð8) points out, it is possible to reach a relative consensus on a number of ÒpostmodernÓ features in the arts: Òthe effacement of the boundary between art and everyday life; the collapse of the hierarchical Introduction 7 It should be observed that as used here, Òrock criticismÓ does not equal but is taken as a qualified subdivision of Òrock journalism.Ó The term designates printed texts, which have argumentative and interpretive ambitions but are more Òjour- nalisticÓ than Òacademic.Ó News is not criticism according to this definition, nor is practical information or passing commentary, while reviews, in-depth inter- views, overviews, debate articles and essays (or Òthink pieces,Ó as rock critics like to call them) are. For practical reasons, our prime sources of information have been the specialist press and books. It is true that some well-informed criticism has appeared under the covers of, in particular, novels from Colin McInnes to Irvine Welsh; however, it has been excluded here, and so have biographies and rock histories. 10 Among the different types of magazines categorized by Shuker (1994), we have focused on the consumer press (the established Òinkies,Ó the Òstyle bibles,Ó the Ònew tabloidsÓ and, to some extent, fanzines) rather than on musiciansÕ magazines or Òteen glossiesÓ (and electronic magazines, which ar- rived post-Shuker). Finally, we have privileged two kinds of agents in the subfield: critics and magazines. Our selection is based part on a canon deriving from rep- resentatives of the field, part on our wish to isolate distinct and exemplary posi- tions. Other choices and narratives are certainly po

8 ssible. Little attention is paid to edit
ssible. Little attention is paid to editors, again for practical reasons, though it can safely be assumed that a maga- zineÕs image and cultural position is largely the product of editorial decisions. These limitations deserve some commentary. For instance, it may be argued that many more people form their primary impressions of rock music via other mediaÑprimarily daily newspapers, radio, television (particularly since the 1981 distinction between high and mass/popular culture; a stylistic promiscuity favoring eclecti- cism and the mixing of codes; parody, pastiche, irony, playfulness, and the celebration of the surface ÒdepthlessnessÓ of culture; the decline of the originality/genius of the artistic pro- ducer, and the assumption that art can only be repetitious.Ó 10While rock history is worth a study of its own, biographies are (together with encyclopedias) the big sellers in rock literature. Very few take a critical attitude towards the sources and the artists they deal with. It seems that since the late 1980s in particular, biographies on major stars have become a route to Òeasy money.Ó They are often written during short periods of time off from academic or critical institutions, or under the conditions of freelancing. Set journalistic standards tend to be more or less discarded, biographies being commonly written without the artistÕs authorization and often on the basis of very sparse investigation and original material. The framework around which such texts are usually organized consists of data gathered from easily available resources, such as discographies in rock encyclopedias and biographical infor- mation drawn from magazine articles. The circulation of such data between various authors promulgates the repetition of many errors and their general acceptance as factual. Rock Criticism from the Beginning 8 introduction of MTV) and, since the mid-1990s, the Internet. This is true, but also beside the point, since criticism in our sense is practically absent, at least in radio and television. The part played by the dailies, however, requires attention, especially in the U.S., but also in other countries where the specialist press has played a subordinate part. One might also question the exclusion of other rock journalism in favor of criticism on different grounds. It could be argued that this introduces or ce- ments a high/low divide, and that this divide might have dire consequences in terms of, say, gender and/or ethnicity. It would have been very interesting if it had been in our power to show, for instance, that the rise of criticism increased the dominance of white male writers, but to substantiate that would take a dif- ferent study. What we can say

9 is that the breaking up of the authenti
is that the breaking up of the authenticity dis- courses that prevailed until the late 1970s was favorable to the presence of women critics as well as artists. Another interesting question to which we have not been able to provide more than guesses is why influential African American critics appear so late in the field. In sum, it should be borne in mind that rock critical discourse was shaped overwhelmingly by the pens of white males. The book starts with a theoretical discussion in two chapters. The first of these contains some basic remarks on criticism as a discourse type, on music criticism and on the frames that rock critics work within. ÒFramesÓ are, in our account, not only material (e.g., pressure of time) but also social (e.g., male and white dominance) and immaterial (e.g., rules governing what is fit to print). Chapter 2 is divided into seven sections, the first of which introduces the per- spectives of high versus low and late modern versus postmodern culture. The middle sections introduce BourdieuÕs cultural theory and its possible applica- tion to rock culture. The last sections examine the strategies used to legitimize film, jazz and rock, ÒauthenticityÓ as a key concept of this process and rock criticism in relation to place. Part II covers the results of our investigation of the British and American fields. Chapter 3 outlines the social and cultural background for the rise of rock criticism as a discourse in its own right. The beginnings of this process are de- tailed in chapter 4, which follows the confluence of different sources in Britain leading to the development of a serious critical attitude toward rock, while chap- ter 5 contends that the ideological elaboration of that attitude into an Òautono- mous poleÓ was the contribution of Am erican critics profiting from specific national conditions. As shown in the following chapter, this achievement was fed back into Britain in the early 1970s and made visible the contours of a trans- atlantic Anglo-Saxon critical field, which was dissolved by the advent of punk. Introduction 9 The first of the two chapters that constitute part III demonstrates how this split deepens as the seed of punk matures into a heterodox criticism in Britain but is largely integrated in the ruling critical orthodoxy in the U.S. In the con- cluding chapter, which draws a line from the mid-1980s to the present, the key terms are market differentiation and polarization. The fourth, conclusive part of the study is an attempt at summing up main lines of flight: on the one hand the developments in the social field, on the other hand those pertaining to Òthe space of possibilities,Ó that is, aesthetic thought and stylistic pract