Isnt it awfully rockist to

So, Bright Eyes is overexposed, whereas John Mayer is just another cog in the machine.

I love this, it sounds like a retired Major writing to the Daily Telegraph. "In my day, we just bloody well got on with it and listened to Sabbath and Zeppelin. There were none of these so-called anti-rockits running around claiming nancy bloody pop music was any good. Call me old-fashioned etc etc etc..."

xpost - TOUCHDOWN ATLANTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

xxpost - zoe that movie's ok enough, but that path leads to them new yorker pieces and that claire danes novel he wrote ie. a highway to hell.

I don't want to imagine what Steve Martin's doing with his nose in them.

Where or how did I give the impression that I dislike mainstream pop? Cause I dont. I thought I gave the opposite impression.

Maybe it's my imagination, but I do think I've seen more sheer glee in piling the hatred on acts like Bright Eyes, Franz Ferdinand, Death Cab for Cutie, yadda yadda, once they became successful, than for acts like Hoobafish, etc.

And yes it is kinda rockist. At least I think it is. It certainly makes the mistake of taking things that are external to the music (e.g., packaging, or degree of "indie" posture, amount of mainstream success, "overexposure") and using them to muddy the discussion of whether or not the music is good.

It's at least as much of an error as saying, "Dave Matthews' fans are all white baseball-hat-wearing fratboys therefore his music must suck." Or "People who wear ties and work in banks listen to that music, therefore that music must suck."

Or "People's moms aren't offended by that music, therefore that music must suck."

Shouldn't part of the anti-rockist project embrace rejecting THOSE kinds of extra-musical judgmentality?

I mean, if the anti-rockist project is to reject extra-musical judgmentality like "They don't play their own instruments, therefore they suck," wouldn't it logically extend to a rejection of "they're successful, therefore they suck"?

To really discover this hypocrisy at work in the anti-rockist brain, though, you'd really need a before-and-after case, where a particular poster is caught out in praising a certain act when it is obscure but then denigrating it when it becomes popular. I must admit I don't have such evidence (nor do I have the time to seek it out).

So, never mind.

its because they're lame!

Take other examples if you like. Has no one else noticed an ever-so-slight ILM tendency to be harder on bands/acts with "indie" pretensions than those without?

And if this tendency exists in those who are otherwise anti-rockist, does it speak of an inconsistency in the kinds of extra-musical information that is an acceptable basis for making a value judgment about said band/act?

WHY I LIKE THE KILLERS: A NOIZE BOARD EXCLUSIVE

always here to help

Uh, no.

Isnt it awfully smurfist to dismiss a certain indie artist(anyone) just because they are being hyped by everyone

Sure, but nobody does that. People dismiss an artist because they don't like the music and then they complain about the hype because it doesn't match up with their personal opinion of the artist's worth. Selfish: yes. Smurfist: no.

whereas a mainstream pop and/or rap act can be all over the media and yet not fuel any hatred for it(the overexpostion)

That's because the people you're talking about don't care about the mainstream media. Is the hypothetical indie-ist going to be concerned that so-and-so is getting way overly hyped in Teen People? Uh, probably not.

I´m not talking about the stereotypical indie listener here. I´m talking about anti-rockists(who may or may not like indie music). my point is that many of them choose different ways to criticise artists when one of their main viewpoints is to NOT do that.

Isn't it actually, the exact opposite that usually draws ire from rockist name-callers?

my point is that many of them choose different ways to criticise artists when one of their main viewpoints is to NOT do that.

Anti-rockists want to NOT criticize artists? I think you misunderstand. The point is simply to not criticize artists using critera that are meaningless. So yes: if you actually like an artist but you criticize him for getting too much publicity and fool yourself into thinking you don't really like that artist's music, then that would be pretty dumb.

if you had read the post I posted just under the one you quoted you would have seen what I really meant(and do understand the word).

"So yes: if you actually like an artist but you criticize him for getting too much publicity and fool yourself into thinking you don't really like that artist's music, then that would be pretty dumb."

the thing I'm trying to get across here is that "overexposure"(ie a few too many positive record reviews for an indie artist) is often criticised by anti-rockists when they shouldnt take it into consideration. that's ALL I'm saying. surely you cant deny that this happens? just look at this board. the same people who say music/musicians should be judged by the same criteria choose not to do so depending on who it is(indie or mainstream).

Mission accomplished, roger *beep*