I think the question itself is interesting even if the article itself was a bit lackluster. It was at its best in discussing, in more general terms, the curious relationship between history and memory in relation to music. (I'm a history PhD candidate writing my diss now, and part of my project deals with history and memory in perceptions of the 1960s, but I have never thought a great deal about the problem in relation to music or cultural canon formation.) The point that what was once deemed transgressive and revolutionary can change or even flip entirely, conveyed via the punk and disco conflict, is a good one, I think, even if it's something we already know unconsciously. Putting the shifting sands of memory in the context of larger issues of representation and canonization is a complicated endeavor and a worthwhile one.

But Klosterman (who I don't have strong feelings for or against, as others do, although I don't find his writing especially interesting) kind of misses his own best point here. On the one hand, he tacitly acknowledges that the boundaries of "rock" have effectively blurred with pop, were blurred from its beginnings, and that determining where rock ends and something like disco begins is at least somewhat futile. He further recognizes that "rock" has as much to do with performance and character and story as with the music itself, again putting itself firmly within the parameters of pop music. But then relies on a handful of early rock folks as his possible candidates, without ever entertaining the fact that the shifting sands of memory may very well reorganize 20th c. musical categories beyond recognition. I was disappointed, in that respect, that he actually put up a name --- to me, the piece points mostly to the futility of prediction in this regard, even if it's fun to think about. (And is also a great stepping stone to really rethinking standard categories and genre divisions... how *will* 20th c. music be interpreted 200 yrs from now?)

One other point: I'm not sure how much the "big name" representatives in music actually have to do with genre. I am thinking, for instance, of the standard western classical quintet of Bach/Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven/Brahms. On the one hand, each represents a period of musical transition and development. But from another perspective, many of those changes are rather slight (especially from Haydn through Beethoven), revolutionary in their context but only definitive of a "genre" if one really gets into the music. And they were never alone, and we know that: each of these names is more like a centerpoint around which many other important names float, names that are also recognizable even to the uninitiated. So part of me was disappointed that he stuck so closely to the idea of a single representative, when I'm not sure that's an accurate version of how art history generally operates...

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~