Forgive me if there's already a thread -- I did a search and didn't find anything.

An Essential Lexicon of Rockological Knowledge

http://snobsite.com



I haven't even heard that yet, though I definitely perked up when Rhino Handmade came out with Three Piece Suite: The Reprise Recordings 1971-1973 which includes the above album -- I was like, ooh! That's the bloke who died before he could produce Mercury Rev's album, who did Neil Young's stuff. I gotta hear that! It's on my list. I'm hopeless, ha ha.

Parts of this guide came from, funny enough, the annual music issues in Vanity Fair from the past few years. David Kamp is pretty witty, and Steven Daly, as the former drummer of the snob-friendly Scottish band Orange Juice, certainly has credentials. I might have to get this for my girlfriend

I think it's interesting though, that having moderately discerning taste and knowledge of music makes you a snob, but the same level doesn't apply to any of the visual arts, literature, dance, etc. Hmmm. Any theories why?

To answer your question, and I'm referring specifically to America, I think that it has to do with the fact that people who have taste and knowledge of music generally don't like a lot of the crap that's on the radio, so perhaps people get the impression that they're egotistic. When it comes to movies, most people who have good taste and a lot of knowledge about film can also enjoy a good crappy movie too. I would say the same for literature -- it's been my experience that people with a great knowledge of literature can also can enjoy a harry potter type book now and then.

As for stuff like dance, painting, photography, etc., there's simply not as many people into these art forms, so I would say that people who are into them generally have a fairly good knowledge of the art form.

Knowing something about music usually implies that one has developed some type of taste or preference for music. Consequently, this also implies that there is music that one doesn't like, and people feel threatened and even angry at the mere possibility that you might not like one of their prefered bands. To put it another way, if you happen to know a bit about music people almost always assume that you dislike a lot of bands. While this might be true, I've found that people who know a lot about music also like tons of bands (usually more than they dislike), and nobody ever associates that with being knowledgable about music.
That and people tend to get really emotional about what they consider "good" music to be.

Post Of The Week!

Fast, thanks fo the link, gonna check it out now.

I think it's simply b/c out of all the art forms listed, music is the one most consumed by the public--usually of the commercial mainstream variety. so, if one has taste that differs, the individual stands out more.

it's the same reason people dont think twice about copying music but would recoil at the thought of copying books and distributing. music is consumed by the masses, and in massive quantities. on the other hand, most people dont really read.

I've been intrigued by this album for a while, but never actually pulled the trigger.

I think it is hilarious that you mention 'funny enough it comes from Vanity Fair'...I have every rock issue and I will put them against any of the more serious magazines issues of the past few years. AWESOME Photography, and really cool stories. Oral history of The Stones, Zep, Brill Building, etc and one of the scariest interviews ever, with Phil Spector. I guess I don't need to but this...but it is pretty cool.

Pretty cheeky, clever book. It's written as if it's for the non-rock snob audience. In one section called "The rock snob hall of fame," they include Kurt Loder for "becoming the smirky Cronkite of the music-television era, for projecting an air of mild contempt for whatever subject matter he happened to be reporting on, for kissing Madonna's sculpted arse..."

Like Loder, about 80 percent of Kamp and Daly's blurbs are injected with thinly veiled contempt for their subjects, so as to sidle up to the non rock-snob consumers, saying -- look, the stuff the rock snobs like is lame, you're not even misssing out! Yet ultimately, I can't see non-music geeks buying this book, because they never cared in the first place. So it's like this abusive, passive-aggressive relationship with their real consumers, all dished out with a knowing wink that it's just satire. You never know when they're being sincere.

The end result is strangely waffling. They write a book to supposedly educate people on "essential" rockological knowledge, yet call most of it shit. Overall it's good for some laughs, even when you disagree, and it might accidentally turn some music fans on to new things, despite the fact that the blurbs reduce most of the artists down to stupid stereotypes.

EDIT: Another thought I didn’t have time to put down before I went off to my haircut and brunch. I think the rock snob is largely a mythological creature. The people characterized by this book as snobs are all trivia, no heart and genitals. Troll-like critters who jealously horde their music and knowledge, listening to records for some sort of snob status rather than pleasure. Do they really exist? You may suspect certain record store employees of having these characteristics, but does anyone actually know anyone personally who’s really like this? The music geeks I know are almost pathologically generous, passing out tapes and CD mixes to friends and acquaintances with no expectation of reciprocation or reimbursement. Lending out loads of CDs and never getting quite all of them back. They’re willing to talk anyone’s ear off and share their knowledge. I’ve found plenty of people like that online who have kindly mailed me all sorts of amazing hard-to-find stuff. I wish I’d been able to tap into a community like that when I was younger and was really starving for music I had no access to or couldn’t afford.