The Future of Rock Discourses That Struggle to Define a Genre

7/24/2019 The Future of Rock Discourses That Struggle to Define a Genre

1/16

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Popular Music.

http://www.jstor.org

The Future of Rock: Discourses That Struggle to Define a GenreAuthor(s): Johan Forns

Source: Popular Music, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 111-125Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/853345Accessed: 21-12-2015 16:46 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:46:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/853345http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/853345http://www.jstor.org/publisher/cuphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/16

Popular

Music

(1995)

Volume

14/1.

Copyright

1995

Cambridge

University

ress

The

future f

rock: discourses

thatstruggle o define genre

JOHAN

FORNAS

Time shifts ncrease our

sensitivity

o birth

nd

death,

to

the rise and fallof cultural

epochs, by drawing

attention to

all

sorts

of

changes.

When

years,

decades or

centuries

turn,

there need not

necessarily

be

any corresponding great

shift n

society

and

culture.

What does

'real'

history

are about

dates and

years?

But our

way

of

measuring

time

produces

a

sort of

numerical

magic

that

sometimes

makes

us

extra ensitiveto collective

ultural

mobility.

n

aesthetical

production

nd

cul-

tural

debate,

each

time turn nduces

a wish

to

reflect

pon

where we stand and

what is

happening.

This

sharpened

timeconsciousness

may

accelerateor consolid-

ate certain

changes,

if

sufficientlymany

and

strong

social

forces

engage

in

the

reflection o transform

rophecies

into

effectivemechanisms of

change, by

the

material

power

of self-definitions.

All

this reflexive

preparedness

is

particularly harpened

as we

now,

after

some

decades

of

speculations

about

post-industrialism

nd

post-modernism,

re

to

leave a

whole

millenium

nd enter a new

one.

This millenial

finalemakes the

long accelerating

erosion of

traditions

vident,

and

may

also

make it easier

to

formulate

omething

of

the era

whose

introduction s

already

fading

n.

It

is

principally

mpossible

to foresee

the future.

The

only prophesy

that can

be made is

to

calculate the

consequences

of tendencies

that

can

already

be dis-

cerned and

extrapolate

them forward

n time. The

creative

opportunity

s then

only

to

choose

which

of

the

contradictory

endencies of the

present

to

bring

nto

the

calculation.

will here take

part

n

this

play by discussing

some

aspects

of the

possible

tomorrowof rock music

in

relationto how rock

s

discursively

defined.

The

rock/pop-field

Like all

other

genre

concepts,

rock

s

very

hard

to define.

A

genre

s a set

of rules

for

generating

musical

works.'

Using

such

conventional

ets

of rules

in

producing

or

interpreting

musical

pieces

can

give

rise to

classifactory ystems,

but

actual

musics

do not

in

themselves

fall

unambiguously

into

any

simple

classes. It all

depends

on which rules are

used,

and this

choice

is

situationally

ound. Genres

are, however,more intersubjective han subjective phenomena. In each temporal

and

spatial

context,

here are certain

genre

definitions

hat are

relevant and used

by

the

most

mportant

roups

of actors

n

the musical field:

musicians,

producers,

marketers

nd audiences.

There are

innumerable

possible ways

to define

rock,

but not all

of them are

meaningful

n a

given

context. On the

other

hand,

there

s no consensus

around

111

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

112

Johan

ornis

one

single

definition.

see

rock/pop

s one

single,

continuous

genre

field rather

than as

distinct

categories.

This field

contains

a wide and

open

range

of sub-

genres,

moving

within certain

imilareconomical and social

frames

nd circuits.

Common, ideal-typicalmusical features re oftenlectronic ound manipulation,

clear

and

steady

pulse,

even

times,

ertain

yncopations

nd

back-beat,

ongs

with

lyrics,

and

settings

within

relatively

small ensembles

with

some soloistic-

improvisatory

lements within a

broadly

collectively omposed

form. There are

innumerable variants here.

Some

artists

emerge

as individual

soloists,

like

Madonna, Prince,

Sinead

O'Connor

or Bruce

Springsteen,

acked

by

more or

less

anonymous

musicians. Others

appear

as small and

tight

ensembles,

from

girl

groups

to black/death/trash

etal bands

-

particularly

ut

not

exclusively

t the

rock

end

of

the

spectrum.

Music-making necessarily

involves

co-operating

human

beings

in certain

institutional ettings and with specific subjectivities.Rock is, therefore, lso

defined

through

social

and

psychic

aspects determining

ts

production

and use.

The

musical

generic

ystem

s

spun

like a web of aesthetic

rules

undissolvably

tied

to

social and

psychic

factors.

n

discourses

where

rock

s

defined,

various

aspects

can be stressed. Some

focus

on

the

strictly

musical

aspects

of

how the

sounds

are

organized,

while

others

stress the social

aspects

of

how

their

organising

s struc-

tured.

In

fact,

both sounds

and human

beings

(both

musical

and

social

factors)

are

possible

and indeed

necessary

elements

of

any genre

definition.

Another

polarity

oncerns

process

versus structure. ome

definitions

tress

historicaltradition

ines while

others

employ

structural

ategories. Again,

both

diachronicand synchronic spects should be relevant.Diachronicprocesses pro-

duce

synchronous

elationsbetween

elements,

that n their urn

get

their

meaning

through nterpretations elying

n

those

historical

rocesses.

A

third

polarity

s between wide

and narrow

definitions.

he wide definition

outlined above

is inclusive

and

imprecise.

The narrow

definition

s

strictly

xclus-

ive,

and

constructs

rock

as

a

definitive

radition

with certain

central actors

and

key

works

in a

chain

from

early

rock

'n'

roll

through

British beat to

punk.

Springsteen,

Guns

'n'

Roses and

grunge.

All else

is

non-rock,

r

maybe

semi-rock,

living

on the

margins

of

true

rock.

This view

is

very

mportant

oday,

and

it exists

within nd

outside

of

rock. But

t s not

the

only

one.

Variations

bound,

and rock

actuallyseems to be moreof a family fgenres

than a

homogeneous category.

The

rock/pop-field

s

a

contested

continuum.

Authenticity

s

frequently

sed

to

distinguish

rock

from

pop,

as rock

ideologists

defined

the values of

the

folk

and/or

rt

genuine

against

commercial

ubstitutes.

Since

the

1960s,

a network

of

institutionalised

oices

(critics,

ournalists,

writers,

media

people

and

producers)

have asserted

and

administered

he

sincerity,

egitimacy

nd

hegemony

of rock

n

opposition

to

the

vulgarity

f

pop.

Some

critics

f

this

rock

establishment ave

on

the other

hand turned

the

same

dichotomy

upside-down

while

allegedly

dis-

missing

t, as

they

deride

the

authenticity

llusions of

the rock

establishment

nd

elevate the honest

construction f

the

pop

machinery.

n

both

cases,

authenticity

is debated, but in different ays. To value the sincerity fartists, he social roots

of the

genre,

or

the

bodily presence

expressed

or

experienced

in the

particular

performance,

re some of

the

possible

criteria.

There seems to

be a

continually regenerated

need for

such

distinctions,

resulting

n an

ongoingstruggle

n discourses

on musical

aesthetics.

Still,

think

it is

impossible

to

uphold any

clear

dichotomy

between

rock

and

pop.

The shifts



4/16

The

future f

rock

113

of the

meanings

of these termsbetween

countries

nd

times bear witnessto

their

ideological

character.

Rock/pop

s

a

spectrum

with a

range

of focal

points

n

highly

complex

relationsto each other as well

as

to

other

super)

genres

of

(more

or

less

popular) music. The relevance of certainforms of authenticityrguments s a

common feature.

Rock/pop

s

basically

a

music conceived

in

and

for mass

media

context,

with a

group

of electrified

nstruments,

ocal

song

and

lyrics,

nd

identi-

fiable artistswith

carefully

onstructed

personae,

images

and cultural

dentities.

There are

important

differenceswithin the

rock/pop

world,

but there are also

fundamental

ontinuities.

Rock/pop

thus

contains

a

historically

nd

institutionally

nchored

tension

between rock

in

the

most narrow

sense)

and

something

lse,

like

pop,

rap,

house

or other

subgenre

abels.

Sometimes these other

genres

are

accepted

within

rock,

sometimes

they

re

excluded.

Rock s

a

'supergenre'

whose

totality

s

not

delimited

to

any specific ubculture. Some of itssubgenresare subculturally elated punk,

heavy

metal),

others

re much

more diffuse.

ometimesthese

subgenres

are

separ-

ated in

record

catalogues,

radio

programmes

or

journal

reviews.

Sometimes rock/

pop

is instead treated as a

unity,

associated with

modern

youth

culture

i.e.

as

cultural

expressions

of and/or

for

all

young people,

not

only youth

subcultures).

A

continuous

definitional

truggle

s

going

on

among

the

nterpretive

ommunities

of isteners nd

musicians.

As

long

as this

struggle

s

not

settled,

t

seems

reason-

able

not to exclude

any

of

the

participants,

ut treat

ock s an

open

and

unfinished

category.

Transformations

Since almost its

very

birth,

rock has

been

haunted

by judgements

of its

occurred

or

imminentdeath.

Fans

of classical

music,

folk

music

or

jazz

now and then

hail

the

rumours of

pop's

allegedly

diminishing

ales

figures

or of

young

musicians'

rising

interest

in

their

own

respective

genres.

Young

spokesmen

of

'newer'

subgenres

like

rap

or

house

may

also be heard

to

rejoice

at the

death

of

ageing

parent-generation

ock and

claim the new

hegemony

of their

own

genre.

Also,

within

the rock

world

itself,

ebates

are

sometimes

carried

out around

the

techno-

logical,

economic,

social and

aesthetic

changes

that

seem

to threaten

what

rock

used to be. Older puristsdespair ofshallowness and shattered deals, whilemore

dynamic

voices

long

for

deeper

change.

With

the

millenium turn n

sight,

nvitations

o

celebrate the

death

of rock

have

become a

standard

theme in

popular

music

disclosure.

There are

certainly

many

historical

hanges

that

make

such a

celebration

plausible.

Simon

Frithmen-

tions some

of

them:

In

the ast ten

years

r so

the

organization

f

popular

music

production

nd

consumption

has

changed

ufficiently

o

nvalidate

most fthe

ssumptions

n

which

ock

ulture

ests.

Commercial

opular

musicno

longer epends

on

thesale of

records;

tcan

no

longer

e

understoodn

terms f

fixed

ound

bject;

t s

no

longer

made n

terms fa

particular

ort

of udience, ebelliousouth.nshort,herockystemfmusicmaking o onger etermines

industryctivity.

Frith

989,

.

129)2

The

transformations

oncern

many

different

spects

and

levels of

music and

music-making.

will in

turn

overview

some

technical,

economic,

institutional,

affective,

ocial

and aesthetic

aspects.



5/16

114

Johan

ornds

Technologies,

markets nd institutions

One

of music's 'external'

onditions

is the

technology

f

instruments, tudios,

recording,distributionnd media. Rock used to circle round the electricguitar,

the electric

bass,

the drum kit and the

singer.

Suddenly, synthesizers

nd

com-

puters

have invaded the

scene,

and

induced similar eactions o rock from

ts

own

camp

as

formerly

rom he

azz camp.

If

the

authentic

musicality

f the

saxophone

was then

contrasted o

the

brute

machinery

f

the electric

uitar,

he same

guitar

has

now

come

to

symbolise

the

living

authentic ore of

rock,

n

opposition

to the

technocratic

rtificiality

f

the

synthesizer.

n

both

cases,

musical

technology

has

been

seen as a

killing

hreat

o

authentic

xpressivity.

This

polarity

has been well refuted

by

Simon

Frith

1986),

who

has

shown

that

technology

s a

prerequiste

for

uthenticity,

ather han ts

enemy.

t

is micro-

phone techniquesthat have enabled us to listen ntimatelyo artists'voices. And

the nterest

n

live

performances

as

not

diminished;

n

Sweden,

a

rising

onsump-

tion of

media music

has

been

paralleled by

a

likewise

rising

evel

of

concert-going

as well

as

of

amateur

music-making.3

inally,

s much musical

competence

if

of

another

type)

is needed

to

be

an

MC or

a

DJ

at a

hip

hop jam

as to

sing

or

play

the

guitar

n

a

rock

band.

It

is

interesting

o

note that

digital

technology

has hitherto

mostly

been

absorbed

within a

general

rock

aesthetics.

The

importance

of studio work has

grown,

as has

the

range

of

available

sounds,

and the

symbolic

role of

the

guitar

has been somewhat

essened. But even

purely

omputerised

groups

ike Kraftwerk

have chosen framesofgroup image, song structuresnd musical textures hatdo

not

differ hat much from raditional

ock.

The narrow rock

tradition

may

have

been somewhat

broken,

but

the wide

rock/pop-field

as

got yet

wider creative

possibilities.

The musical

use of

computers, ynthesizers,

equencers,

sampling

and

MIDI

has

enabled

experiments

with

montage

techniques,

with

wide-ranging egal,

eco-

nomic

and aesthetic

mplications

c.f.

Goodwin

1988/1990, 992,

1992;

Redhead

1990;

Reynolds

1990).

Again,

techniques

of

traditional ock

and late

modern

bricol-

age

have

more

often

been

mixed

than

opposed

to

each other.

Live' musicians

often

play together

with

pre-recorded

ounds,

and the new

montage genres

have

in factmade it possible to re-use jazz and otherolder genres in hypermodern

pop,

thereby ffering

hem a sort

of

new life.

As

for

the

media channels

for

the distribution

nd

consumption

of

music,

their

digitalisation

may

increase active

audience

interaction

with the media.

Karaoke

is but one

early

example

of

this.

Video,

cable

and satellite

hannels

have

already

increased

the

scope

of

visual formsof

expression.

And

people

will

prob-

ably

have much

easier access

to music

that

was hard to

reach before.

But

itseems

premature

o

state that records

have

lost

their

mportance.

The

single

musical act

and

its star

artist

will

not

cease to

fascinate.

There will be

changes

in how

musical

creation

s

organised

and

mediated,

and most

certainly

n the

ways

in which

it is

commentedand reflected pon in music journalism,but again, this seems more

to

affect he narrow rock

genre

than the

wide one.

Another

set

of 'external' conditions

for the music

use of

individuals

and

groups

are

producedby

the twin

systems

f

the

capitalist

market

nd state

nstitu-

tions.

Market

conomy

mechanisms

have

continuously

ccelerated

monopolisation,

concentration

nd centralisation

rends.

Through

strategies

f

narrow-casting'

n



6/16

The

uture

f

ock

115

phonogram

industries and

broadcasting

media,

these

trends have

lately

broken

the

law

of

increasing

standardisation nd

homogenity

Burnett

1990).

New,

large

media

conglomerates

operate

in

new formsof

symbiosis

with

small,

sectoralised

units.This makes it hard torevitalise he clearpolarity etweendominatingmain-

stream nd

subversive

alternatives/indieshatwas earlier

o

predominant.

As

rock

has lost ts

marginality

nd entered

the

main-stream

f ate modern

popular

music,

these market

hanges may

be

problematic.

But it has

to be remembered hat

rock

has never as a

totality

een

rebellious

and that

ts culturalcentralisation oes not

necessarily

diminish

the

importance

of

its

radical

fringes.

As

in

other

genres,

among

the

increasingly

differentiated

lurality

f

subgenres

in

rock,

new

niches

for subversion

can

always

be reconstructed s the

old ones are

co-opted.

As

for

the economic effects f

sampling,

the

fiercebattles around

copyright egislation

show

that

here new

technology

s

shaped

by profit

nterests ut

at the

same

time

threatensthe private ownership rules that are the basis of capitalist commodity

production.

These effects are

not

specific

to

rock,

but

apply

to

all

popular

genres.

The

other

large system,

the

state

and

its

political-bureaucratic

nstitutions,

has

traditionally

een

rather

marginal

o

rock,

but not

anymore.

Formal nstitutions

have

entered

the

arena as a third

pole,

beside

the

music

industry

nd the

youth

cultural

peer

groups.

Local

authorities,

established

youth organisations,

social

workers

and

schools have

been

increasingly

active

in

this

field,

offering

ew

resources

(localities,

gigs,

instruments nd

education)

but also

advancing

new

demands. At

least

in

the

Nordic

countries,

rock

playing

has become more

formalised nd

institutionalised,esulting

n

ambiguous tendencies. Firstly,here

is an

increasing

bureaucratisation,

where

rock

playing

has

become

part

of hierarch-

ical and

formalised

institutions

close to the state

apparatus

instead

of

just

depending

on the market.

Secondly,

there s a

continuous

pedagogisation,

a new

apparatus

for

ock

education,

which

makes rock

earning

more similar

o

the

earn-

ing

processes

at

school than

youth

cultural

ctivities sed

to be.

Thirdly,

hrough

new

forms f

nstrumentalisationhe

pleasures

of rock are used

forvarious

extra-

musical

-

political,

ocial or

therapeutic

purposes,

like

keeping young people

off

the

streets

or

counteracting

rug

use

(c.f.

Forndis

t

al.

1990,

forthcoming;

orndis

1990b,

1993).

There is

also

an

increasing nterdependence

of the

two

systems,

market

nd

state. The

days

when

state

support

was a

weapon

against

commercialisation

re

gone.

All

these

systemic

changes

have

certainly

hanged

the

conditions of rock

use,

but t s

too

early

to conclude that t has

been

destroyed.

nstead,

new

alliances

and

oppositions

are

shaped,

opening

other

possibilities

for

dentity

nd

resistance

in

music.

Subjectives,

communities

and

styles

There are

also

internal,

ubjective

onditions formusic use:

individual desires

pro-

duced by processes ofsocialisation,care and education. The riseof rock has built

upon

certain new

psychic

structures,

mphasising

narcissist

desires

through

the

self-mirrorings

n

peer

groups,

audiences and

sound/beat-webs.Later

develop-

ments

have rather

xpanded

than abolished

these

desires,

as can

be heard in

the

intense

play

with

devotion and

distance

in

house and

techno music. The

history

of rock

passes

through

a

series of

phases

of

gendered

identity

orms,

where the



7/16

116

Johan

ornids

relationships

between

adolescent

individuals

and

peer groups

are

continuously

modified.

n

an

early

phase,

oedipal

rebellion

gainst

authoritarian

ather-figures

was

important;

n

the

1960s,

the

id/superego-conflict

eemed

to be

surpassed

by

deeper narcissistic ilemmas relatedto the first ormation fthe ego and the self.

Changing

subjective

need

and

desire structures

have

met

changing

aesthetic

forms,

elated to

the formation f

a

gendered

personal identity.

xperiments

with

new

gender

roles

and

images

will continue

to be of

great

importance

n

future

popular

musics.

But

the fixed

male

peer

group

may

be mobilised

and

partly

dis-

solved

into

a

floating

luster

of

differentiated

elations.

This

may

be one

reason

for

he

looser

artist onstellations

within ome

rap

and house

styles.

But the

small

group

collectivity

oes

not

lose

its fascination

ust

because

it becomes more

dynamic

more

mobile

and

open groups)

and

differently

omposed

(less

male

and

misogynist).

These subjectiveconditionsare closelyconnectedto socialaspects like inter-

subjective

norms

and

group

relations.

Here,

late

modernity

has accelerated

the

mobility,

multiculturality,

ndividualisation

nd

reflexivity

f

the modern

epoch.

Individual

and collective

dentities

ave been

increasingly

roblematised

hrough

higher

differentiation

nd

a

self-mirroring

n

cultural

exts nd

images.

When nor-

mality

becomes

more

diffuse

nd

open,

it is also more

difficulto

be

deviant.

The

borders

of

ubcultures

dissolve

n

a

complex

mess of

more

or ess

diffuse

tyle

mark-

ings.

This

erodes

some

of

he ubversive

deology

of

marginality

hat

has been central

to

some

parts

of

he

rock

radition.

fMadonna

can

be on

top

of

he charts

t

the

same

time

s

advocating

exual

perversity,

hat

s then

normality

nd what

s

opposition?

Buttherehave in fact lwaysbeen subgenresthat ess rebelliously ave playedwith

normality,

nd

there

s still oom

for

esistance

gainst

certain

normalising

orces

n

the

market,

ublic

nstitutions

nd

private

pheres

family,

eligion,

tc.).

The

static

dichotomies

between

the normals

and

the rebels

may

dissolve,

but

the result

s

not

any

homogeneous

mass,

but

rather

wide

spectrum

f

shifting

nd

conflicting

ub-

cultural

alliances,

and

interpretive

ommunities.

t

is

yet

hard to

say

if this

will

increase

or

diminish

he

scope

of

rock,

.e. how

the oss

of

absolute

dichotomies

s

balanced

by

a widened

fieldof

collective

dentity-offers.

A

second

subaspect

of

this

ntersubjectively

hared

level consists

ofthe

cul-

tural

enres

and forms

f

expression

themselves,

he network

f

genres

and

styles,

images, words and music. New aestheticconventionsdevelop new expressive

forms.

Some

examples

of

such

new aesthetic

tools

are

speech

song

and

sampled

sound

collages

in

rap,

deep

male

chanting

n death

metal,

and

post-tonal

harmonic

structures

n

pop.

New

stylistic

means

produce

new

sounds and

new

narrative

forms.

But

again,

only

certain

phases

and

subgenres

of rock have

been bound

to

fixedformal

nd

stylistic

models,

so

this

can

be

as much

a

sign

of

transformation

as

of

death.

Similar

ambivalent

conclusions

can

be

drawn

from

the

crossing

of

historical

epochs,

genre

boundaries

and

the

high/low-distinction

hrough

sam-

pling,

world

music'

and

nostalgic

pastiche,

camp

orretro

tyles.

t is

particularly

important

hat

a

heightened

reflexivity

as

problematised

more

naive

versions

of

authenticityiscourses.Authenticityan hardlybe defendedas a pureand natural

origin

anymore,

but

this does

not

mean that

this

concept

has

lost

all

relevance.

There can

still

be

a thematisation

f 'social

authenticity',

.e. an

anchoring

of

a

voice

(work, tyle,

genre)

na collective

ommunity,

nd a

'subjective

uthenticity',

i.e.

a

legitimation

hrough

references

o individual

bodies

and

minds.

But

these

forms

have

been

increasingly

ften

ccompanied

by

a third

ne,

'cultural

uthenti-



8/16

The

uture

f

ock

117

city',

s a

meta-honesty

hat

stresses the

self-reflexive

onsciousness of

one's

place

within

symbol-making

rocess.

Authenticity

an

remain as

an

important

heme,

but

only

if t

is

de-naturalised

and

demystified,

econstructed s

a

socio-cultural

and

mediated

construction,

ather han

as

a

simple

and

immediate

destiny.Notall

music use makes

authenticity

n

important

heme,

but

t

can

always

be

activated

again

in

reflexive

iscourses

(cf.

Grossberg

1993;

Forndis

994).

Use

values

It

is not

possible

here

to

make

any

complete presentation

of

all

the

aspects

of

rock's

transformation

hat have

been under

debate,

but

it

might

be useful to

sort

out the

arguments

along

the mentioned

dimensions.

The

conditions of

rock

are

changing,

on

many

evels. Peer

groups

have

been

opened

and

dynamised,

dentit-

ies have

become

more individualised and

heterogeneous,

the

body

has

become

more

problematic,

and

authenticity

iscourses have

been

reconstructed

y

an

increasingreflexivity.

n

the other

hand,

important

table

structures

ersist.

The relative

quantity

and

prosperity

of

young people

may

decrease,

and

youth

subcultureshave been

radicallydisplaced

and

modified,

but this should

not

lead us

to

any

too

quick

conclusions.

First,

these

demographic,

economic and

subcultural

factors re

very

different

utside

of Northern

America and Western

Europe.

In

great

parts

of

the

world late

modern

youth

culture

has

only

recently

began

to

flourish,

nd it is hard

to foresee ts

future

development.

Second,

the

particular

penness

of

adolescence

is

not so

easily

dissolved

-

filledwith

ntense

learning, eparation,

ndividuation

nd

identity

work. therefore

oubt

that

young

people

will lose their

centrality

n the culturalfield. t is

simply

not a

product

of

conjuctural

oincidences,

but a

structural

ffect

f

very

basic

socialisation

patterns

and the

continuing

processes

of

modernisation,

none of

which

will

disappear

tomorrow. And

the

use

values of rock

for

young

people

seem

also

to

be

repro-

duced.

These

can be

summarised

under

three

abels:

collective

utonomy,

lternat-

ive

ideas and

narcissistic

njoyment

c.f.

Fornais

t al.

1990,

forthcoming;

ornas

1990b,

1993;

Roe

and

Carlsson

1990;

Berkaak

and

Rund

1992).

As

for

collective

utonomy

-

doing

something

on

your

own,

with

your

best

friends

it is

obvious that

both

collectivity

nd

autonomy

are still

sought.

While

individualisation

has

to some

extent

dissolved the

experience

of

being

born

into

natural

collectives,

there are lots of

examples

of how

people

long

for and seek

occasionally

constructed

ollective

xperiences,

on

dance

floors,

n

rave-parties

r

at

giant gigs

(cf.

Hebdige

1990).

If

the

fixed

peer

group

is

being

differentiatednd

mobilised,

rock bands

may

also

do

likewise,

crystallising

ither

around

looser

constellations

or

close

friendshipdyads,

hiring

other

musicians at

special

occa-

sions. And

while the

intrusion of state

institutions nd

the

educational

sphere

may

threatenthe

autonomy

of

rock,

this

autonomy

has

always

been

fought

for

against

systemic

market

forces. t

may

even

become an

advantage

now to be

able

to

play

with

both the

systemic

poles,

using

them

against

each

other in

more

complextypes

of

resistance

againstdomination and goal-rationality.he problem

with

systemic

demands

in

institutions

f

socialisationwill

not melt

away

with

the

old

millenium,

and

therewill

stillbe a

need

for

culturalforms

to

handle and

counteract such

demands.

Rock has

never

been a

pure

non-systemic

orum

for

communicative

ction

-

instead,

ts

very

mixture

f

manipulation

nd

communica-

tion

s

what

keeps

it

moving.



9/16

118

Johan

orni's

The

second

type

of

use

value concerns

the

alternative deals

rock offers

ts

users,

opening

up

the immediate

context f

parents,

teachers

and

neighbours.

As

the

normality/deviance

olarity

s

becoming

slightly

lurred,

he need

for

lternat-

ive

ideals are rather

ncreasing

than

diminishing.

nstead of

being grouped

in

a

single

polarity,

hey

form

omplex

clusters.And basic social differences hat fuel

and direct this search

for alternatives lso

persist.

Gender

roles

and

dominance

patterns

are

changing,

but

far

from

disappearing,

and the

same can be said

of

class

and

ethnic differences.

Thirdly,

ock

offers

many

opportunities

ornarcissistic

njoyment, emporar-

ily dissolving

fixed

ego-boundaries

and

touching

deep, pre-verbal

psychic

evels

of

experience.

This is effected

y

the

power

of

volume,

beat

and

sound,

as well

as

by

the

intersubjective

mirrorings

within and

between bands

and

audiences.

Nothing

mplies

that

these desires

are

diminishing,

t would be more reasonable

to

suggest

that

they

are

more

and

more

general

n

the

population

of late modern

societies.

On

many

levels,

the

arguments

bout the conditions of

rock

do

not

come to

any

clear

conclusion.

New

cultural

forms

may

fill

ts functions

nd it

must

surely

change,

but no univocal

evidence

appears

to

prove

that

t

has to die from

anishing

external,

nternal r

socio-cultural

rerequisites.

ome conditions

re

pretty

table,

others have been

radically

transformed,

ut

it seems hard to conclude that

any

necessary

requirement

s

definitely eing

lost

today.

A

genre

and its Others'

The futureof rock

may,

however,

not be a

question

of

objective, subjective

or

intersubjective

onditions.

It

might

be more

fruitful o

study

its discourses.

Its

future

s

influenced

by

developments

in

technology,

conomy,

institutions,

ub-

jectivities,

ocial norms

and aesthetic

styles,

but

it is decided

by

the

ways

its

meanings

are

negotiated

by

various

discursive

agents

in the

musical

field.

Three

of

the contested borders

of

rock

are with the

genres

of

pop, rap

and

house/techno.

n all

cases,

some

think

of

them as

different

rom

more

narrow

definition f

rock,

while others

nclude

them

in a wider

rock/pop-field.

one of

these definition

ssues

are as

yet

resolved,

but

I

want to

make a

proposal,

as a

stake in this

struggle

f

nterpretations.The

happy

or sad statements fthe death of rockseem to me to be based on

a

very

narrow

genre

definition

nd to

hide a certain

ssentialism.

Genres

are

not

fixed essences

that

can

evaporate.

They

are

dynamic

sets of

generic

rules

for

the

shaping

of musical

works,

and

as

such

they

re

continuously

ransformed,

ccord-

ing

to

the

contexts

nd

conditions

that

frame

hem,

and the

interpretations hey

are

given.

If

rock

s

not

an essence

living

ts own

life,

but

a set of

authorised

rules

for

the construction

f

music,

then how

can

it

die,

as

opposed

to

develop

and

transform?

If what is called rock

changes

so

much thatno

important

tructural ssence

bindsnew rockto tspredecessors,thenonlyan essentialist enre

definitionwould

claim rock to be dead. A more constructivist iew would instead claim that a

'family

ikeness'

-

an historical

ontinuity

nd a clusterof

nterrelated ut

varying

elements

-

is

enough.

This would

then be

in line with

the actual

praxis

n music

discourses,

but it

implies

a

break with essentialist

notions that seek a

definite

'ethos' of rock.

It

is this constructivist

enre

definition

hat eads me to

prefer

he



10/16

The

future f

rock

119

wide

rock definition o

the

narrow

one,

and

yet accepts

both as two

interacting

discursive

abelings

that

together

orm

he

dynamics

of

the

genre.

However,

if the same

genre

developments

nstead lead

its

actors to

leave

the

label 'rock' n exchangefor notherone, thenrockmightdisappear,however little

the sound difference etween the new

pop

and the

old rock.

Has that

happened?

Historically,

his s

not

the first ime the death

of rock

has

been

prophesied.

When the

pioneers

of

the

1950s

suddenly

left he scene

to

softer

eenage

pop

idols

and

girl

groups,

many

believed that rock

n'

roll would

only

be

a

parenthesis

n

music

history.

Similar

fears

or

hopes appeared

when

glam

and

disco

seemed

to

have won the

battle

with

rock

n

the 1970s. On both these occasions rebuttals oon

came in the

British

eat wave and in

punk/metal,

espectively.

And in

both

cases,

as

now

in

the

years

around

1990,

it

is

interesting

o note

that t

was an advance

of

feminine'

nd 'black'

elements

and

subgenres

that

made

the

old rock

defenders

despair, while the subsequent triumphantdiscourses of a rock recovery'were

oftenbased on

young

white males

recapturing

he

initiative

even

if

other voices

were in

reality

trong

even at the

peak

of these

revivals).

It

is true that some

protagonists

f recent

dance

music,

notably

withinhouse

and

techno,

have

explicitly

efined their

music as

non-rock.

House

music

is

often

seen as

part

of

the same

camp

as

rap

and

hip

hop

music,

and there

are

parallels

in

the

sampling

techniques,

rhythmic

eats and

generational

ettings.

But

n

many

ways

house/techno

s

musically

and

aesthetically

much

further emoved from

he

conventional

rock/pop-field.

oore

(1993,

p.

60)

mentions

that

house music is

not

accepted by

its fans as

rock,

which is

supported

by

many

interviews nd articles

fromwithinthisscene,whilerap is muchmoreambiguous in thisrespect.Bloom-

field

1991,

p.

77)

writesthat

young

dance

music sees

'the whole

point

of the

new

technology

s

challenging

he

ethos of

"guys

and

guitars".

A

new

Swedish dance

music

journal,

NU

NRG,

introduces

tself

n

the

summer of 1993

by asking:

'Do

you

want

not

to

have

read

about

r**k?',

nd

then

writes at

length

about

precisely

(the

presumed

and wished death

of)

rock

-

again

a

gesture

of father-murderhat

as

such bears witness that the

label of

rock

at

least

carries ife

enough

to

make

people

want

to

kill t.

From the

other

camp,

rock musicians defend

their

separateness

from

pop

and

dance music. When

Guns

'n'

Roses

-

together

with Nirvana

and

Seattle

'grunge'thepraised flagship f a recentmalewhiterockrevival wereinterviewed

at the MTV

awards

event

of

1992,

Axl

Rose

finished

y

declaring

This has

nothing

to

do

with

Michael

Jackson '

They

could

as well

have

mentioned

Madonna.

'Rock' s art.

Madonna,

n

contrast,

s

'pop'

-

juvenile,

ormulaic,

rtificial,hallow,

elf-

centred,

scapist

antasy,

ommitted

o

making

profit.

adonna s a

commodityroduced

by industry.

learly, ushing

Madonna to the

bottom

ungs

of the

pop

cultural adder

makes

space

at the

top

for

op

music art'.

Furthermore,

espite

he

fact hat

Madonna

is located n

opposition

o female

inger-songwriters,

t

s

Madonna nd

pop

that

refemin-

ized.

...

A

number

f music

criticsink

Madonna,

pop,

and

'feminine'

ualities using

adjectives

ike

fluffy,oy,

bubbly,

tc.)

to construct

transcoded

ersion

f theart

versus

massculture

istinction ithinhe

domain f

popular

music.

Schulze

t l.

1993,

.

18)

Rock/pop

s

a

genre-field

f

conflictingnterpretations,

elated

to

age, gender,

ethnic and class

conflicts.

Young

generations

have a

need

to define themselves

against parents

and

their

tastes,

but can

also be fascinated

by

the

styles

of

yesterday.

Male and

female

positions

are

confronted

nd

exchanged.

'Black' and

'white'

cultural

traditions meet and

interplay

by

means of

identifications nd



11/16

120

Johan

ornds

delimitations.

Working-class

ife

styles

are

colliding

with

those associated

with

economic or cultural

apital.

Distinctionswithin

genre

are

often

made in

efforts

to excommunicate others from

t. Some restrict ock to

a male white

canon of

heroes,marginalisingwomen,African-Americansr othergroups and subgenres

as deviant

Others. Some

respond by avoiding

the

rock

label,

while

others

fight

for

the

right

o rock. Such discursive

struggles

ver

the

definition

nd

borders of

a

genre

are a

sign

of

ts creative

ife.5

While

some

house,

rap

or

pop

voices

distance hemselves rom

narrowly

on-

ceived rock

genre,

others

fight

or

their

right

o

take

part

n

the

wider

rock

field.

Hence the

many

crossovers

etween

subgenres.

On the

partly endered

rock

border

with

pop,

for

xample,

t s

interesting

o note

that n

theSwedish tour

package

called

'Rocktaget'

the

Rock

Train),

he

famous

pop

singer

Eva

Dahlgren

was the 1992main

attraction.

t

s

harder nd harder

o

see the

precise

difference

etween

groups

nom-

inatedas best rock' bands

and best

pop'

bands of the

year.

On

the more

ethnically

ncoded

border

with

rap, many

black

hip hop

artists

have worked

with

hard

white

rock

bands,

as when Run-D.M.C.

and

Aerosmith

made 'Walk

This

Way',

or

when Public

Enemy

used

Anthrax

n

'Bring

Tha Noize'.

Ice-T's move

from

ap

to

hardcore

punk

with

the

band

Body

Count

in

songs

like

'Cop

Killer' s another

example

of

the

continued

attraction f

rock on

its

margins.

Like

rock,

rap

depends

on

a

vocal

performance

acked

up

by

instruments ften

played

by

an ensemble of

musicians

and/or

Js.

Sections

with

song might

lternate

with

the

rhythmical

ap

speech.

There s

today

a

sortof

continuum

between

hard-

core

rap/metal,

uristrap,

toast and

pop/soul-rap,

art

of

t

oosely

associated

with

hip hop

subculture.

t is

really sign

of

heterogeneity

hat two

musics so close to

each

other

in sound

and

spirit

as

the L.A.

rage

against

the machine and the

Swedish/Norwegian

Clawfinger

have

put

opposite

claims

on

their atest releases:

'No

samples, keyboards

or

synthesizers

sed

in the

making

of

this

recording'

rage

against

he

machine,

992),

and

-

ironically

'This record

s

loaded

with

samples,

loops,

and

no

guitar

mps' (Deaf

Dumb

Blind,

1993).

This

opens up

a

very

complex

discussion

around

the relations

between

ideologies,

genres,

instruments

nd

technologies.

In a

book

about

rappers

as

'a

generation

of

black rockers'

),

the

following

statement

an be

read:

Then gain, ap srock, fterll,androck asalwayseenat east ncidentallyboutpissing

off he

old folks.

.

Of

course,

ll of

this s

predicted

n an

Afrocentric

nderstanding

f

the

history

f

rock.

f,

ike

he

whitebreads

ho

program

OR

radio,

you

believe

hat

ock

proceeds

rom

lvis o the

Beatles nd

the

Who to

Led

Zeppelin

nd Elton

John

nd

finally

Bon

Jovi

nd

Phil

Collins,

hen

rap

s

not

only

not

going

o

fit

your

definition

f

rock,

t

likely

won't

ven

qualify

s

music.On

theother

and,

f

your

halloffame uns rom

ittle

Richard

nd Bo

Diddley

o

James

rown

nd

Jimi

endrix

nd

Sly

& the

Family

tone,

o

Kool

and the

Gang

and

Parliament/Funkadelic

nd

finally

o Prince

nd theheroes f

hip

hop,

then

you're

oing

o understand

hat

ap

s

strictly

n

the

radition.

Alder

nd

Beckman

1991,

.

xviii)6

Here genredefinitionsppear as arenas ofa culturalpower struggle,where

oppositional

agents

mobilise

alternative

canons

against

a

dominating position.

Each such

reconstructed

hain is

problematic

n

trying

o establish

a

single,

clean

and

unitary

radition

ine nstead of

accepting

he

hybridity

nd

crossings

hat

give

a

genre

ife.

A series of

genealogies

coexist,

pointing

out

quite

different

egitimate

'origins'

in

country

r

blues,

America,

Africa r

Europe;

cf. van derMerwe

1989).



12/16

The

future

f

rock

121

All

such

genealogies

are stakes

n a

power

game,

where their oexistence ndicates

that

none of

them alone can be more

than

locally

correct.

'I've seen the futureof

rock

and it

sucks',

sings

Graham Parker

on 'Love

is

a

Burning

Question'

(on

Burning

Questions, 992).

This

can be read as

a

general

pessimistic rock-prophesy

r a

specific

ronic reference o the famous statement

about Bruce

Springsteen

s

the ncarnated

future f

rock.7

A

more

optimistic

nter-

pretation,

might,

however,

say

that

rock

will

continue to

attract

nterest,

r

that

its

sucking

in

of various

new and

non-orthodox

endencies is indeed

what

will

keep

it alive

into the

next

millenium.

Its

hegemony

as

youth

music

might

be

broken,

but the

present fragmented op

music field will

probably

not

again

rise

to one

single

heir to

its

throne,

and neither will

rock

die

just

because

it is

not

alone or

has

become

reflexively

ware of its

history.8

The

efforts f

a

strong

ockestablishment o claim

hegemony

for

ne tradition

line

covers

and hides

various

sub- and

side-traditions

hat

compete

within

the

genre and in factgives it dynamicsand life.Periods of

increasing

openness (the

explicittransgressions

f

gender, sexuality, ge,

class,

ethnic and

genre

borders

by

artists ike

Madonna,

Michael

Jackson

or

Prince)

may

alternate

with

phases

where dominant

forces

ry

o reinforce trict

oundaries.

It

is then that the defini-

tion

struggles ntensify,

s threatened

positions

defend their

egitimate ights.

But

no such

purist

movements can

avoid late

modern

flexibility

nd

reflexivity:

t

is

essential

to

grunge, heavy

metal and trad

rock

as

well,

as these

subgenres

foster

new

types

of

hybridity

n

style

and

identity.

n

beat,

punk

and

grunge-metal,

he

claims of white male

bonding

were

in

fact

mmediately

crossed

by

other lines:

black sounds

in

the

1960s,

female

voices

in

the

1970s,

complex

crossovers

n

the

1990s.

Rock will die

(petrified

nto

a

cliche)

if

ts

hegemonic

line is

strong

nd stiff

enough

to

repress

all

Others

in

its

efforts o

establish

a

pure

origin

nd

canon.

If

and when

rock

can

be

unambiguously

defined,

then

it

will

be dead. But

as

long

as

various Others

'Afro-American'

oul,

reggae

and

rap,

female'

pop, non-Anglo-

American

voices,

etc.

fight

tylistic

ars

with

the

male, white,

Western

rockheroes

for

the

right

to

rock,

the

genre

will

survive as an

open

and

unpredictable

field.

No one

yet

knows the

result of

its

discursive

struggles.

They

are decided

by

no

single

actor,

but

in

a

polyphonous

process

among unpredictable

lliances

among

listeners,

ubcultures,

musicians,

ournalists

and

music

industryprofessionals.

Late modern tendencies have problematisedone rock deology, thatwhich

formulated

bohemian,

male

father

rebellion

through

ageing images

of

lonely

marginality

nd

raw

naturalness.

The

space

may

have

shrunk

for uch

melancho-

lian

macho-rebels.But

whatever ts

claims,

this

deology

has

never

been the

whole

truth

bout the

'essence'

of

rock. Its

current

weaking

-

in

spite

of the recurrent

efforts

o revive it

-

may open

a

larger scope

forother

subcurrents,

ther

defini-

tions.

Important

conditions still

exist

for

some

sort of

aesthetic

activity

with

at

least

some of the

functions,

se-values and

characteristics

f rock.

What name it

will have

is

not decided

by

whether this

future

music-making

will

adhere to or

deviate

from

ny

once-and-for-all

iven

rock-essence. t is instead

theresult

of as

yetundecided strugglesofgenredefinitions nd rights f nterpretation.

This

constructivist

iew is

also

congruent

with

a

general

problematisation

f

earlier

ways

of

looking

at

subcultures and

other

cultural

phenomena,

in

which

'homologies'

were

sought.

Looking

for

regular

patterns

may

be

necessary

for

ny

theoretical

nderstanding,

ut

they

do not have to

be

homogeneous

and

univocal.



13/16

122

Johan

ornds

Instead,

cultural studies

have become more

and

more

interested

n

what can be

called

'heterologies':

contradictions

nd tensions

within

cultural

phenomena.9

Applied

to rock

and

pop

music,

we

might today

prefer

o see

these

genres

as

internallyontradictory,arrying mportant ensions

that define

them and

propel

their

diachronous

developments.

nstead of

trying

ll the time to

pinpoint

a

single

and uniform

essence, ethos,

foundation

or

homology

within rock

as a

genre

(emphasising

consistencies

between

various

subgenres;

between musical

para-

meters;

between

musical,

verbal and visual

levels of

styles;

and between cultural

forms

nd

social

formations),

would now

prefer

o look for

the most

important

sets

of

nternal ontradictions

nd fractures

hat drive

the

genre

forward.

I

would

for

my part

bet that come

the milleniumno

single

label

will be

able

to claim to

stand for

youth

music,

the

way

rock once

did.

That

way,

rock

will

lose

its

hegemony

-

which

is

not

the same as

its life.

I

expect

to

experience

a more

open fieldofrock/pop/rap/house

r

whatever

the new

subgenres

will be called.

In

such

a

situation,

t

may

be better to

returnto

'popular

music'

(or,

once

again,

'pop')

as the

unifying

oncept.

But

my

reluctance

o

leave

'rock'

behind derives

from belief

hatthe

specific

dialectics

around

the narrow/wide ock-definition

ill be relevant

nd

interesting

enough

for

years

to come.

If

the

ethos

of rock

s

interpreted

s white

and

male,

its

disintegration

ould

be welcomed.

But

is it

really

necessary

to

surrender o

the

hitherto

ominating deology

of rock?

f

the

genre

s

instead constructed

s

a

more

open

field of

tension

between

different

ositions,

t

can

be understood

and

used

not

only

to

express

but also

to

thematise

nd

problematise

he

complex

forms

of

hegemonysurroundinggender,ethnicity

nd class.

And this s

exactly

what

has

been

happening

in what

I

perceive

as the most

interesting

evelopments

within

rock,

where

the

male

white

position

has been

turned

nside-out

n the confronta-

tion

with

various

Others.

Rock

has from

ts

very beginnings

developed

through

young

male

white

position

meeting

and

breaking through

the

prisms

of

a

series

of

others':

blacks,

women,

homosexuals

or

older

tradition-bearers

rom

other

genres

(blues,

jazz,

music-hall, ai

and various

other

popular

genres).

Much

traditional

ock nd

young

white

male culture

s

certainly

oaked

with

romantic

misogyny,

nd a

longing

for

a unisexual

homosocial

world

where mothers

are

kept away,

or for

ost,

fixed

patriarchal

norms

in

what

is

perceived

as

a

too

chaotic

and

floating

ate

modern

world.

But

the

history

of

rock

has also

always

been nourished

by

inflowsfrom

Afro-American,

emale

and other

alternative

xpressions.

It

may

be

possible

to

thinkof

the

narrow rock

concept

as a

semi-subcultural

and

socially

defined

stream

within

the

open,

fluid

and

more

clearly

musically

defined

wide

rock/pop

ield.

Maybe,

then,

t is rock

as a

socially

and

functionally

defined

genre

with certain

nstitutions,

alues,

etc. thathas come

to an

end,

while

rock

as

a musical

genre

s still

usable.

If

rock

was once

a

leading

rebellious

genre

with almost

a subculture

of

its

own,

it is now

not

much

more than memories

of

thatera

and a

fragmented

rism

ofvarious

stylistic

lements.

But

then,

the

talk

of ts death can onlyresonate n those who once believed in thehighesthopes

of

its

proponents.

Like the death

ofthe

subject,

of

the author or

of

history,

he

death

of rock

can

only

be

perceived

by

those

who have

formerly

hared

an

exaggerated

belief

n

rock

as

a

super-fetish,

arrying

he load of

being

the

high-road

o

revolu-

tion,

freedom

nd

utopia.

To

others,

who do

not

share

the

disappointment

over

thedisenchantment

f

this subcultural

deology,

the

present

state

of the

genre

as



14/16

The

future f

rock

123

one

among

others

may only

appear

as

a

highly

reasonable and even fruitful

orm

of

necessarily

contingent,hybrid

nd

contradictory

ife.20

Whatever,

predict

that the

dethroning

f

rock

will

not

be

at all like its

first

break-through,when in some ways it seemed to replace jazz. It willbe, rather,

diffuse

process

of

fragmentation

nd

hybridisation,

n

which rock

will

in fact

not

die

(anymore

than

azz

died in

the

1950s),

but become one

of

several

elastic

threads

in the

increasingly

motley

web

of

popular

music.

The future

will

be

What has

changed

within

rock/pop

s ambivalent. New

technologies

may

have

threatened

older

formsof

music-making,

ut have also

enabled

a

growing

global

communication nd plurality, s well as an increasing nteractivityn media forms

like karaoke or

digital

sound

systems.11

ampling

and

eclecticismhave not

only

expanded

commercialmarkets

but also

questioned

the

foundations of

capitalist

production

n

private ownership.

The

expansion

and

differentiationf

media in

everyday

ifehas

increased the

potential

of both

power

and resistance.

All

these

ambivalent

developments

vibrate

n

the

discussion of

the future

f

rock.

Metamorphoses

are continuous and

the

past

lives

on

in

undercurrents f the

present. Nothing

will

become either

totally

new

or

totally

he same

in

the

year

2000. The

metaphors

around

death

and

birth,

fall and

rise,

hide

many

different

motives.

Ageing

rock

journalists

mourn their lost

youth.

Young generations

emphasise

the

decay

of

parentalgenres

n

order to open spaces for heir wn new

beginnings.

At

the

bottom,

there s

a

fundamental

human desire

for

narrativity,

to understand life as a

(hi)story,

with

a

beginning,

a

climax and an

end.12

The

metaphysical

discourse of lost

innocence,

departed

glory,

passed

Golden

Age,

a

vanished

Eldorado

-

all this s

not

limited o the

rock

discourse,

to the 1990s

or

to the

already

obsolete

'post-isms'

(headed

by postmodernism).

It

is instead a

particularly

tubborn ine

through

human

history.

By

our

prophecies,

we

shape

the

millenium hift s

a

mega-event.

t

might,

therefore,

e

strategically

mportant

o

formulate

elf-reflective

ounter-visions,

n

spite

of all

doubts

of

their

validity.

do not

hope

for

ny

new

uniformity

r strict

dichotomies. What

I

hope

for

s a

growing space fordifferences nd pluralities,

for ommunication

nd

creativity,

or

resistance

gainst

systemic

demands and

for

as

domination-free

ialogues

as

possible.

I

look

forward

o musical currents

hat

experiment

with

the

potentials

of

modernity

or

elf-reflection,

issolution

of

sup-

pressing

traditions,

ndividualisation

of life

choices and

mobilisation

of

identity,

while at the

same

time

resisting

ts

negative

risks

for

ecological

collapse,

social

control,

commercial

cynicism

nd

the

broken

conversations

of cultural

conflicts.

Popular

music can

be

predicted

to find

new

ways

of

voicing oppression

and

injust-

ice

on

many

different

rontiers,

f

which the

age

and

generational

one will

be

of

crucial

mportance

n

theface of the

ways

in

which

young

people

are hit

by

ecolo-

gical, psychological,social and culturalproblems n late modernity.The twenty-

first

entury

nd

our third

milleniumwill

need broad and

deep

cultural

dialogues

and

music will be

an

important

means of

communication cross and

underneath

borders: between

people

and

deep

under the level

ofverbal

discursivity.

Here is

a

continuing

mission forrock and its

growing

numberof

companions

and

compet-

itors. The music of

tomorrow and

future ock as a rich

subfieldwithin t

-

will



15/16

124

Johan

orniis

hopefully

be

anti-,

poly-

and

heterophonic

Only

then will

the

words

of Prince

n

'The

Future'

Batman, 1989)

be

applied

to rock:

I've seen the

future

nd it

will

be

I've seenthefuturend itworks

In

any

case,

the future

s

already working

n and

on

the

present

-

through

our discourses on

what will

be.

Endnotes

1 A

style

s

a

particular

ormation

f formal ela-

tions in one

single

work,

in

the

total work

of

an

artist,

r

in

a

group

of works across

many

genres

cf.

Ricoeur

1976,

1981).

2 Cf. also

Frith 1981, 1986, 1988), Grossberg

(1986/1990, 993)

and

Ihlemann

(1992).

3

Figures

can

be found

n Roe & Carlsson

(1990).

According

to

Gottlieb

1991),

the US

popula-

tion

spends

more

money

on

musical

scores,

software

and instruments

than on

phonograms.

4

For

example, punk

obviously opened

crucial

new

spaces

for

female

voices,

but

the

early

comments

of how

punk

had revitalised

the

decaying

rock field

usually

stressed

the

return

to male roots.

Only

later

t was the

new divers-

ity of voices celebrated.

Thanks

to Hillevi

Ganetz,

who

is

presently

writing

dissertation

on

female

Swedish rock

yrics,

or

making

me

think bout these

gendered

historical

erspect-

ives. Wise

(1984/1990)

iscusses

the

repressed

female

aspect

of

Elvis

Presley.

Cohen

(1991)

describes

the

misogynist

lements

of

the indie

rock

culture

of

Liverpool.

Compare

also

how

Andreas

Huyssen

(1986)

analyses

literary

modernism

as a

reaction

towards

the feared

femininity

f mass culture.

5 Middleton

1990)

has a similar

view

of rock

as

a discursivelycontested

and

dynamic

field.

Ricoeur

1981)

discusses

the

necessity

nd

pro-

ductivity

f conflicts

f

interpretation.

6

Swedenburg

1992,

pp.

55,

65)

also stresses he

continuity

between

rap

and rock

and

sees

these

genres

as

open

discursivefields.

7

'I

saw rock

and roll's

future nd

its name is

Bruce

Springsteen',

wrote

Jon

Landau

in

Roll-

ing

Stone

n

1974.

8 Moore

(1993,

p.

179)

underlines

that self-

references

nd

pastiche

forms are

not neces-

sarily

signs

of

decay,

but rather f continued

vitality.

9 The

concept

of

'heterology'

derives

from

Michel

de Certeau

(1986).

10

'[W]hat

has

"died"

is

the

ability

of

the

dis-

course

of "rock'

to

impose

a

unity

n

the

form

of the

white,

male

subject/author

pon

the

het-

erogeneity

of "other'

racial,

sexual

and

gen-

dered

identities

and

musics on which

rock

music itself

ed'

(Bradby

1993,

p.

163).

11

Bloomfield

1991,

p.

76)

optimistically

opes

that the

proliferation

f

a

karaoke-style-do-it-

yourself

ap may

n the future

llow

for

com-

bined

political

nd aesthetical

break with com-

modity

culture'.

12

Ricoeur

(1983-5/1984-8,

991)

discusses

the

close

relation

between

life,

time,

history

nd

narrative.

My

view

of the life

of

genres

as

an

openness

towards

conflicting

nterpretations

are

inspired

by

Ricoeur

(1976).

Compare

Fornas

1990a)

on

rock,youth

and

late modern

time

experience.

References

Adler,

B. and

Beckman,

Janette.

991.

Rap

Portraits

nd

Lyrics

f

Generation

f

BlackRockers

London)

Berkaak,

Odd

Are and

Ruud,

Even.

1992. Den

pdbegynte

irkelighet.

tudier samtidskultur

Oslo)

Bloomfield,

Terry.

1991.

'It's sooner

than

you

think,

or

Where

are we

in the

history

f rock

music?'

Documents

The Future of Rock Discourses That Struggle to Define a Genre