For some time, dating back to its initial introduction on our old listserv – possibly in the midst of perhaps the last beating of a dead Elliot Smith that even those of us in the Halls of Rock could muster – the term Winner Rock – and its cohort, Loser Rock – have been met with great consternation and protest. This is understandable, but the day has come to clarify these terms for use in our discussions here and beyond.
Rock ‘n roll, on the deeply passionate and nerdy level with which it is discussed in places like Rock Town Hall, was not set up for life’s “winners.” Typically, life’s winners have been content to wrap themselves in cutting-edge consumerism and McMansions. In musical terms, we haughtily imagine these folks gathering over cocktails and throwing a CD by Phil Collins or Don Henley on in the background. It’s understandable why Townspeople like us, whose lives have been saved by rock ‘n roll, might object to the introduction of the term “Winner” in discussions of our faith. In the real world, the term has become laden with baggage we’d all like to leave behind. But we’re not in the real world. The connotations of Winner Rock (and Loser Rock, for that matter) are not beholden to real-world connotations. We’re here to transcend, through whatever means necessary.
I’ll leave the Rock Town Hall Glossary definition of Loser Rock to our esteemed colleague, Oats, but to define Winner Rock, let’s first review two main functions of rock ‘n roll: one that is centered around building community and the other that is centered around self-identification. Both points of view are essential to being a well-rounded human, so don’t get the idea that a fan of Winner Rock rejects Loser Rock out of hand, or vice versa. Winner Rock aims to win a community over to a point of view, a big beat, a cause of one sort or another. Winner Rock artists are clear about their objectives and the desire to fill a bandwagon of like-minded listeners.
Winner Rock isn’t about winning itself as much as it is playing to win. In a sense, it’s team-oriented rock. For example, a Winner Rock band that I believe few would feel embarrassed liking is The Clash. The music of The Clash is not made for individual listening. Physically, of course, any one of us can and has listened to the music of The Clash in isolation, yet even when listening to their music alone, we’re being addressed in the context of a group, or team, that has a goal of overcoming the odds. I believe that a lot of folks who have objected to this Winner Rock term feel like underdogs and want nothing more than to be associated with society’s notion of “winners,” but the term underdog assumes that you’re playing the game, that you want to win against all odds. The goal of an underdog is to WIN, so embrace it when the right artist comes along!
The Clash, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and many generally unobjectionable artists have practiced Winner Rock. It can be a great thing. It can also be a horrible thing. Journey might come to mind when you think “Winner Rock.” However, as in real-world sports, just because a team plays the game (to win) doesn’t mean you have to root for them. There are Winner Rock artists who you might feel represent what’s best about rock ‘n roll just as there are those who do, in fact, represent what’s worst. That’s OK. The term itself was created to identify a fundamental view of the role of an artist, the listeners, and their music, same as the term Loser Rock identifies another fundamental view of artists and listeners. When one of us says something like, “I love Winner Rock,” it doesn’t mean we love all bands who play with this mindset, just that we embrace the mindset itself and how it can color our listening experience. I hope this is clear.
When you have finished reading this entry in the RTH Glossary, I encourage you to read and review the official RTH Glossary definition of Loser Rock. As you have done here, please read carefully and appreciate the important role that rock ‘n roll can play in developing the self, apart from society. As I mentioned regarding the near impossibility of listening to the music of The Clash with a solitary point of view, consider listening to the music of The Kinks, especially Kinks Kontroversy-era Kinks, with the aim of feeling more a part of a movement, more a part of the whole. Try as you may, I suspect you’ll find yourself twirling that stray curl as you sit beside the bay window with a lone drop of rain running down the pane. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Wow — soft-core porn on RTH! Another first!
Alright, let me try to take this up a notch.
Mr. Moderator, you’re talking about bands who “play to win” and “want to win.” Win what? Is this sort of a “Toppermost of the Poppermost” kind of thing? Is it to do with commercial success?
I will concede that many of the bands I cited had a dismissive or adversarial relationship to the public eye, so you may be on to something there. But on the other hand, The Smiths were all about ambition and ruling the world on their own terms.
But I still think this whole “winning” thing is rather intangible.
By “winning,” in these terms, I mean things like “being all that one can be”; trying to live up to some ideal rock model; believing that what you are doing is approaching par with rock’s highest achievements, even if it’s wholly delusional. And yes, it’s also about winning over an audience, but not in commercial terms.
The idea of winning over an audience is about grabbing the here and now, taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by the media for getting music across to people. This means a Winner Rock band is concerned with projecting, both live and on record. This means a Winner Rock band is more likely to care about production and arrangements – not in nerdy, prock-technical terms but to the extent that it won’t walk away from a recording session and let a mixing engineer produce something as bad-sounding as, I don’t know, The Replacements’ Tim. The Replacements sounded like they’d given up halfway during most of their records.
Winner Rock artists – and I know this pains some rock fans – are more than happy to EXPLOIT the medium, consciously. They take what’s given to them. The Replacements, to harp on one good example of Loser Rock that really bums me out, passed by numerous opportunities for “victory”: a little more attention to detail and they might have been the one’s raking in the big bucks with a “Runaway Train”, or whatever that big Soul Asylum hit was called. Instead, they had to revel in their “loser” status, showing up onstage too drunk to fuck, making half-assed albums, developing no particular Look… I’m this critical because I feel they had enough going for them that they could have left me with a totally enjoyable, rocking legacy, like the legacy left by their heroes The Faces or the legacy left by another rocking, partying band, Mott the Hoople. Instead, I get tributes to Big Star, another fine band that was, following the departure of Winner Rock-motivated Chris Bell, caught in the Loser Rock cycle. And don’t get me wrong – Big Star created many fine recordings through the Loser Rock approach, and I understand its value. I’m just trying to better define “winning” versus “losing.”
In terms of “winning,” I put forth The Undertones, highly unlikely winners who committed to their little worldview in a positive, proactive manner. If you’ve seen that movie on them, you’ll note the dedication and pride felt by all band members. There’s none of this, “We just got wasted and let it rip, man!” bullshit. There’s no, “We played the same way in the basement as we played before large audiences” fake humility. They are comfortable stating that they moved from point A to point B in hopes of reaching point C. I just watched that Ramones documentary the other night and was a little surprised – as I always am with them – by how deeply they were entrenched in the practices of Winner Rock. Johnny Ramone is like a small businessman. Tommy too. Even Joey and Dee Dee approached the band like they were on a mission. Winner!
That Ramones documentary showed that even a band that plays to win is more likely to lose.
What bothers me about your framing of this winner/loser debate is your subtle insistence that it’s all about choice. That the Replacements “chose” to make a crappy sounding record seems questionable, for example, given all the factors (and a whole lot of luck) that determine success. You thus seem too quick, in my opinion, to leave everything up to a sort of artistic “will to power.”
Exactly. Plus, it’s not like Ramones and Undertones albums are so much more amazing sounding.
Mr. Moderator, I wonder how you would categorize The Stooges. By my estimation, they are Loser Rock. But nowadays, Iggy likes to claim he had some sort of design and sense of hierarchy about the band… things I know you really like and value. But I suspect all that talk is historical revisionism on his part.
Guys, is there any evidence – during the Replacements’ career or since then, in Westererg’s solo career – that the band had a great “game plan” for their recordings? I’d say Pleased to Meet Me is one attempt to make a concise, well-produced album. Westerberg was left holding all the guitars and he came through like a champ. On other albums, excluding the first one, whic has the magic of a teenage band cutting loose and happening in all the right ways, they sound like they cut out for the bar as soon as Westerberg began recording his cryin’-in-his-whiskey piano ballad. This is NOT to suggest that I’m looking forward to framing this entire day’s findings around The Replacements. I’m more than willing to give props to Loser Rock’s merits, as detailed so well by Oats.
As for the “amazing” sound of The Ramones and The Undertones, as I tried to state clearly, it wasn’t about technical stuff but how the albums were framed. Each Undertones albums is consciously crafted to sound like a new step in their development. Each Ramones album, at least the first half dozen or so, when they mattered, is crafted to sound almost exactly like the previous one. They consciously stuck to a very rigid GAME PLAN. It’s very much about game planning, Townspeople.
As for The Stooges, I definitely think the first two albums were in the Winner Rock camp, especially Funhouse. I do think they wanted to conquer the world with those recordings. By the time of Raw Power, they’d cut out of the sessions early and hit the bars and brothels, leaving Bowie to remove all the bottom end.
Yes. Let it Be and Westerberg’s Stereo/Mono. Also, re: the crying-in-your-whiskey ballads; there really aren’t that many in the band’s catalog. It’s a cliche.
Rather than belabor all this, I will say your “very rigid GAMEPLAN” statement says a lot about where we differ here.
I have a few questions in the interest of Rock Etymological clarification:
Can a Loser Rock band write a Winner Rock song?
Can a song that meets the criteria of Winner Rock, as presented via the working definition, be about losers? (This seems like a safe yes)
Where does the concept of “anthemic” songs and music – your rock anthems – fit into the Winner Rock concept?
How would something like Pulp’s “Mis-shapes” fit into the Winner Rock and Loser Rock paradigms?
Alexmagic asks:
I don’t see why not. It’s always “Game on!” for the taking.
Certainly. Remember, it’s about how you play the game more than which game you play.
Well, it would suggest that the artist is compteting, but really, the concept of “anthemic” rock too easily leads folks down all the simplistic readings of Winner Rock. If that’s really all anyone cares about, I’d suggest that person watch the first clip in this post, maybe while flexing in his or her own mirror. It’s The Undertones’ clip that better speaks to the notion I have in mind.
Funny you should ask. Oats has supplied me with a copy of this track, but it seems to have a glitch in it. I’m hoping we can get a version that will play properly for posting on the site. Busy day in progress – hold tight!
I think all this stuff can be distilled into one sentence: Winner Rock is about — both in performance and songcraft — accentuating the positive, striving to win, or triumph over, or survive in the face of, or at least achieve, something; Loser Rock is fatalistic. To expand on this clunky one-liner: both can be anthemic, and can prosper in any musical style — and certainly bands can offer both Winner and Loser Rock creations to their audiences. But it is also true that certain musical styles seem to be better hosts for the Winner and Loser Rock cultures. Hard rockin’/party/old-school metal bands seem to serve up Winner Rock almost exclusively, for example.
The more these terms get defined, the more bogus I think they are, so thanks for that. Finally, by Winner Rock, Mr. Mod seems to mean very little more than “the values that are important to me in music,” which he then goes on to describe (the usual suspects: well-crafted and focused), while wiggling every which way to put these values under the banner of “Winner,” a nice little trick, but not convincing. He can grant that he likes a few bands that do not quite live up to these values, and those would be the few “Loser Rock” bands that he likes or can tolerate. Ugh. Put me down as being very close to totally grossed out by the flaws in this discussion. What’s next? “Winner Art. Winner Literature. Winner Cultures.” Here comes my gag reflex.
I’ve always had a hard time with these concepts. And now we seem to have a confusion between defining winner rock by the attitude espoused in the lyrics of the songs and defining it by the attitude of the musicians themselves, towards their careers, role in society, etc.
The Smiths had ambition, focus, image, and a clear understanding of their artistic agenda, but the subject matter of their songs was always losers.
Townsman Mwall writes:
Sometimes the close-mindedness of Hall members shocks me. I took on a Glossary assignment; I’m not here to make any pro/con case. This discussion – and the better understanding of these forms of rock – would be prosper by more people like Hrrundi, who was open-minded and level-headed enough to boil down the issues at hand to something that’s not judgemental, something that’s not painting anyone into a corner. You have no idea how many Loser Rock artists I like. Just because I openly lean toward Winner Rock doesn’t mean it’s all about me. I mean, I am writing the definition, but that’s because so many of you are afraid to come forward and do so yourselves!
In all fairness, I think at least a few of us have “come forward” only to be rebuffed because it wasn’t the answer that you particularly liked.
And your claim that mwall is “closed-minded” seems rather like projection–owning up to the problems with your logic would be a step towards exiting the windmill of your mind.
Hey, Mr Mod can’t help it if he’s thinking like a youth soccer coach – all the kids get trophies, so they must all be winners.
First of all, let me just say how much I love the conversations on Rock Town Hall.
Second of all, I waft a great big fart in the direction of the concept of Winner Rock.
It’s telling that Loser Rock is winning in today’s poll.
As usual, those of you who will pull me aside next time you see me in person and say something like, “You really showed ’em with that Winner Rock glossary entry!” will most likely keep their views to themselves here, in this public forum. Sad.
You know, they got a name for the winners in the world. I want a name when I lose.
Moddie, you may not like it, but I am so far in your corner on this Winner Rock thing that I’m outside the goddamn *ring*. To my ears/eyes, you’ve defined the term clearly and, er, non-threateningly. Consequently, I’m pretty much baffled by the hostility and lack of understanding on this. I can only assume that the problem is that most of the folks who hang around RTH are, in fact, losers.
Rock on, and solidarity,
HVB
I’m a loser, but I know it. Self-knowledge means that I don’t have to overcompensate by advocating winner rock.
Sheesh, this Winner Rock thing sounds like it was devised as inspirational by some deluded gym coach or those suit-wearing dudes strumming out “One Bank” to that U2 tune. The last time I heard so much about “teamwork” & “being all I could be” was when that middle manager was trying to get me to work off the clock at Walmart. Winner Rock lovers have a excessive need to be cheered up.
Hrrundi, let’s crack open some champagne!
Well, pardon me for pissing in that champagne, but what kind of losers sit around trying to define Winner Rock? Go out and do something worthwhile with your lives.
As for a discussion as to which of us feel like “winners” or “losers,” which I gather lurks behind this embarrassing and pathetically needy conversation, let me just say this, if anybody came up to me and said “I’m a winner” or “I believe in winning,” I would have to marvel at their obvious ability to lie to themselves.
We’ll leave a discussion of Coach’s Rock for another day!
I’m still stuck between the winner/loser dynamic as it’s played out in lyrics and the way it operates as a part of a band’s identity, ambition, work ethic. I know they’re related, but I think we keep mixing them up and confusing the issue.
Springsteen’s E Street-era music definitely qualifies as Winner Rock — the widescreen production, the artistic ambition, the desire to engage a large audience — and the lyrics were about how individuals could be winners, even those that society would cast as losers. I quoted the final line of Thunder Road recently: “It’s a town full of losers, and I’m pulling out of here to win.” And the uplift in the music that follows that line is unmistakable.
As his career scaled back, so did his subject matter and his ambition. Sometimes he focuses on the downtrodden in a way that could not be characterized as Winner (Tom Joad), and he seems resigned to singing to a smaller audience.
As Oats pointed out though, the Smiths could hardly have been more ambitious or more successful at achieving their goals and reaching a large audience. And at least at times their sound has a ‘go for it’ quality that would never qualify as Loser Rock, if it weren’t for the lyrics.
I guess my point is that we might identify these concepts, but we would be hard-pressed to apply them wholesale to artists. I think even Elliott Smith, who I believe was the original impetus behind this whole discussion, isn’t exactly a slam-dunk. He might have written about losers, he might even have turned out to be a loser in his personal life, but the the amount of focus, drive, willpower, whatever you want to call it required to make those records point in another direction. People sometimes act as if he was some whimpering slob junkie who managed to mumble out a simple song occasionally, but those songs are very well-written and the records are expertly arranged. Losers may have been his subject matter, but losers don’t make records like that or get nominated for Oscars. (And yes I know he lost.)
When the Sex Pistols sing “No Future” do we believe the thrilling sound or the hopeless lyrics?
The lyrics of “God Save the Queen” that I always found most powerful were:
When there’s no future, how can there be sin?
We’re the flowers in the dustbin
We’re the poison in the human machine
We’re the future, your future
Sounds like what is really being suggested is an overthrow of the old regime, a decaying empire that has “no future.”
I don’t think this conversation is inherently without merit. If I had a meta-criticism of the debate at hand, it’s that so far I can only see the terms Winner Rock and Loser Rock as being particularly useful in discussions about defining Winner Rock and Loser Rock. Which is to say that these pages in the Rock Glossary may not end up as dog-eared as the Rug Harmonies, Holstering, Power & Glory of Rock and (one day) Prock pages.
Perhaps some people are simply frustrated that the time and effort might be better spent working on entries for a Rock Atlas or Rock Almanac, which could determine the population, exports and chief customs of famous Rock Locales such as This Place, The Other Side or The Crossroads.
I wasn’t sold on the Winner Rock concept as initially presented in the post, though hrrundivbakshi’s definition above feels closer to what I had been gleaning from the Moderator’s prior use of the term. BigSteve’s most recent comment gets to what I think the issue still is – intent – but I think I’ll save that for the Pulp post.
In the meantime, I still can’t help but think there’s something else at work here. While I don’t know the Moderator personally, the accumulation of recent threads about Rubber Soul and Songs About Competition and Ethiopian DJs still lead me to believe that perhaps he is afraid to accept – even by his Rock Connotations – that it’s really the McCartneys and KISSes who play for his Winner Rock team and the Lennons and Clash who wear the Loser Rock jersey. I, for one, hope he feels safe to truly explore these feelings and will be there for him as a Townsperson when the healing begins.
Sure he’s suggesting the overthrow of the old regime, but he sings “no future for me” and well as “no future for you.” I think this is what makes the song great, that it doesn’t just point the finger at someone else.
mwall, your excellent point about self-deception makes me wonder if Winner Rock is just another form of Psychic Oblivion.
Just when I think some of you get what I’m getting at, you crawl back under the safety of cheap shots at McCartney and Kiss. I truly wish more of you could feel The Power and Glory of Winner Rock. Embrace it, even. Someday I might have to tie this into my thoughts on dietary habits, but not on this day.
I will say that my disappointment in future pats on the back from the Silent Majority who have yet to step forward on this issue continues to deepen.
Ah, Mr. Mod. We all get what you’re getting at. I get it perfectly. I’m just rejecting what it is that I’m getting.
Good Doctor, I find your comment very funny and insightful. Of course, since I reject the idea that there is such a thing as Winner Rock, except perhaps in an ironic and ridiculous way in the imagination of our wonderful Moderator, then I can’t really compare it to Psychic Oblivion. But I will say that while there are many types of self-delusion in rock and roll songs, Psychic Oblivion is a very particular kind.
To be totally fair, I certainly invite Mr. Mod to dispense with his Corporate Jock Rock language fetish and come back to earth, where a few of us here still respect his ideas, or at least could. One could have an interesting conversation on the way ideas of fatalism and self-determination permeate the rock ethos, and one could do it without resorting to the cheapest kinds of capitalist doublespeak. In the meantime I can only be sorry about the degree to which the numerous middle managers of the world (of whom I’m certainly one) have seized music in a massive hammerlock hold.
Mwall wrote:
Mmmm…I think you’re rejecting the way I have framed this discussion. You ask me to dispense with my language, brother. That’s my language, and I’ve offered it to all of you. Don’t fear the ball. You know what I’m saying? You play the ball? It’s good fun.
I recall a young Sammy being offered the ball once, and in the split second he hesitated in taking the ball…well, I’ll let him tell you about it.
I’d really like to hear this explanation. I think it would honestly give me a better feel for what you’re talking about with this Winner rock stuff. I think music is a lot like food, actually. For instance I think junk food (or its musical equivalent; say a totally cheesy pop hit) is OK in small quantities occasionally, but otherwise one’s diet should comprise of healthy, hearty, balanced (and tasty) meals and that goes for music as well.
With that said and knowing that I may not get a response on this subject, I can only analyze the rest of the conversation above. Mr. Mod, I think this “winner rock” stuff is a symptom of your deep-seated antipathy towards indie-rock not just as a musical genre but as a
philosophy and a way of life. It’s no coincidence that you routinely dismiss ’80s alt/indie trailblazers like Husker Du or The Replacements (the subject of much of the discussion above) and thus much of what came after them as well.
This is directly tied to your theories about bands wanting to be The Sonics as opposed to The Rolling Stones. I’m comfortable with “small” rock, “loser” rock, “bedroom” rock and other things that probably make you and hrundi cringe, at least in part. Bands who wanna sound like The Sonics, to use an example, more than likely are comfortable working day jobs and adding to a community of like-minded scenesters who don’t particularly wanna explain their passions/obsessions to the outside world. This applies for any other cult band as well. I have no idea why you find this to be a problem, but maybe it’s just a generational thing or something.
That’s not to say that I feel like there’s something WRONG with a band wanting to be the biggest band in the world, but more often than not, they’ll fail not only for lack of trying, but for other factors out of their control like looks, timing, management, etc. This is an important thing to consider.
Furthermore, like Oats said before, I’m also very glad that the ‘Mats don’t have a “Runaway Train” in their catalog and never really tried to sell out (well except for maybe Don’t Tell A Soul, which was a half-hearted attempt to do so). It has preserved their reputation and ultimately that’s worth more than anything in the eyes of fans.
All in all, this “winner” vs “loser” dichotomy is something I’m not that comfortable with because the not so hidden implication is that if a band doesn’t try to appeal to as many people as possible, there’s something wrong with them. I find nothing wrong with playing esoteric music designed for small, appreciative audiences. In fact, I live for that sort of thing. Not everyone can be Green Day, you know.
Ultimately, I believe that all art cannot be judged by sales figures and its value is only in the eye of the beholder.
I’m the disappointed one, that you would assume the McCartney mention must be a cheap shot. I truly believe that – Fireman/Thrillington side projects as important exceptions – Paul was the one always playing to win, and that the overall output of Wings is far and away a more clear cut example of Winner Rock than most of Lennon’s output of the same era.
We are, after all, attempting to define without judging, as per your post. And “Out the Blue” and Walls and Bridges are both examples of Loser Rock success, aren’t they? By the same token, what ever you think of the music, what’s more Powerful and Glorious than “Rock Show” or a bigger Winner Rock move than flying in James Coburn to take a picture for your album cover?
All I’m saying is, Winner Rock bands don’t need primal scream therapy, they need to save their voices for arena shows in Rio.
You’re right, Alexmagic. I know it’s hard to believe, but sometimes even your level-headed, clear-thinking Moderator gets too emotional for his own good. The things we do for love…
Townsman Berlyant checks in with this nuggest of insight:
You’re right about that! But hold on…
No, no, no, no, no, my friend. This is so NOT what I mean. It’s not about appealing to a broad audience but appealing to Rock ‘n Roll itself! This is only a part of the whole Winner Rock philosophy, so don’t get too tied in knots by the negative side of what I’m about to say.
Some of you may scoff at such a notion, but deep in your heart of hearts you must know that it’s not an “I’m OK, You’re OK” world. We must face the “I’m OK, You’re Better” situation that greatness in the arts presents. There are at least two ways of facing up to it: trying to live according to the ways of greatness (“It is right to give thanks and praise,” say some ministers and priests) – maybe even becoming great yourself – or shirking the ways of greatness altogether and feeling pride in your bold stroke against the ideal. I know this risks getting us into new areas of simplistic thinking, but it’s really part of what I find wrong with a good deal of “indie rock.” Not all of it, mind you, because ther are many models of greatness that an artist may strive to attain. Also, I strongly caution anyone reading too much into this regarding Winner and Loser Rock. As I’ve suggested from the start, Loser Rock should be a fine approach to rock ‘n roll. It’s part of the yin-and-yang, if you will, of the genre.
This is absolutely true. I am rejecting the frame of the discussion. Whatever insights we might otherwise gather than been polluted by this frame.
Here we are talking about music, and some dude keeps trying to hand me a ball. Look, get it straight: no one will be playing any balls on stage tonight. There’s not even a good way to mic the thing.
and from magic:
I’m certainly amused by this idea of talking about “winners” and “losers” without judging. Next thing you know, we’ll be talking about “cool guys” and “total assholes” without judging.
I’m finding it tremendously fun–thanks! I hope you’ll recognize that I’m refusing to play from a position of understanding what it is that you’re trying to play. I could play, but the game’s already been bought out by the referees.
I still feel like I’m not getting any answers. Can Winner Rock ever be quiet and/or slow? If so, please give an example.
Actually real life examples would help focus this discussion tremendously.
I don’t see why it can’t be quiet or slow. What’s not to like, in terms of Winner Rock, with a song like “In My Life”?
Hi Steve:
I’m not backing off from my categorical objection to the terminology here. However, if I were to answer your many questions, I would see the following frameworks in question:
“Good teamwork”: a band in which the members work together to make good music.
“Commercial success”: this is the attempt to win in the world in the terms of business.
“Getting your message out there”: this is the quality of insisting on the importance of your statements to the world, and having those statements taken seriously at least by some.
“A positive attitude”: this is an issue of lyrics: songs which insist it is possible to overcome diversity and/or defeat a powerful opponent.
Finally, “good music” period. Although there’s been some attempt to suggest the terms “winner” and “loser” do not speak to the quality of the music necessarily, the waters here are very muddy, since lack of teamwork, lack of commercial success, having and getting no message out there, and believing in fatalism and defeat are unlikely to lead to a long run of making quality music.
Clearly, what you’re pointing out is that a band could “win” at some of these things and “lose” at others, in which case it would be unclear to which category they belong. Nor is it clear so far which of these categories are more primary or secondary.
Mwall, please explain where you have gotten this notion of “commercial success” from my definition and any thought I’ve had on the matter since. So many of you are getting hung up on stuff that I clearly separated from the subject. It’s fine if you’re uncomfortable with dealing with what I’ve laid out because of the language, but jeez louise, commercial success is only, at best, a possible byproduct of this approach. There are plenty of Loser Rock artists who are also commercially successful.
Nr. Mod, I believe we were all hashing this matter out, not referring it simply to your definition. As you suggest, it’s a “possible byproduct,” so it’s a relevant issue pretty clearly. The term “winner” is simply too loaded with that commercial connotation to abandon it so easily. Furthermore, the relation between positive attitude, fist-pumping emotion, and commercial success is part of what’s complicated and troubling about the concept of Winner Rock, and most “positive attitude rock” has a direct commercial goal as its main goal, much more so than “quality music.” So leaving out commercial success would be like saying a team “wants to be the best” but neglecting the fact that being identified as such requires winning a World Series ring.
If I had to rank your personal hierarchy on the subject, I would certainly put “commercial success” at the bottom of the characteristics I mention above. But were you to try to take it out entirely, I would feel that you would be unaware of the full implications of the concept of Winner Rock.
I don’t think I can state my position anymore openly and objectively than that, especially since I still think this topic might be best responded to by cutting a big fart. None of this is meant as a criticism of you personally of course. It’s just that the idea sucks. But I think you have to admit that given my attitude, I’ve tried in these last several posts at least to be helpful.
Mr. Mod, I don’t think the Beatles are a re a good example. By their nature, they’re winners. It’s kind of like using Hitler as an example; it’s so extreme it’s not helpful. And I don’t see how a piece of wistful nostalgia, as pretty as it is, fits into this definition.
Mwall never said commercial success was essential or that it was a primary goal of winners, but it does seem to be related to the issue of engaging an audience. And anyway, isn’t it possible that with discussion we might gravitate towards a slightly different definition than the one you originally outlined?
And to mwall I would say that teamwork, commercial success, having and getting a message,and believing in success are equally unlikely to lead to a long run of making quality music. In fact almost everything in rock music works against long runs of quality music, which is why so few people have done it.
Speaking of teamwork, a week or so ago I claimed that the way the Who played live was athletic and in some way analogous to competition. But even though they fought both personally and musically, doesn’t the Who stand as a good example of Winner Rock?
What I’m finding most fascinating about this discussion is the extent to which those opposed to the concept of Winner Rock seem willing to put words into Mod’s mouth. To pick on mwall, I hear his most recent exchange like this:
mwall: Winner Rock = commercially successful rock!
Mod: I never said that!
mwall: You didn’t have to — it’s obvious!
Mod: No it’s not — but perhaps you’d care to define the term as you see it?
mwall: As I see it? I don’t see it at all — in fact, I reject its existence!
Nope, I never said anything close to that.
That is indeed what I took the Mod to be saying.
Nope, I never said that either.
Nope, Mod never asked that. He’s made quite clear that he’s only interested in whether we understand his definition.
Yep, I said that.
Your score: 2/5: 40%. Result: loser.
You are a fatalist, Steve. I’d be glad to discuss the issue of fatalism vs. self-determination, which I find fascinating. I would argue that teamwork, commercial success, having and communicating a message, and believing in success are probably 8-12% more likely to result in a long run of quality music. To the extent of that 12%, I am on the Mod’s side in this one. I am thus 88% a fatalist, which is why I find total fatalists so frustrating. You gotta stop overlooking that 12%.
I’m not saying that no one can ever succeed. Some artists obviously do. I think what I’m saying is that we don’t understand why some some succeed and some do not. And I don’t accept the proposition that believing you’re a winner makes you significantly more likely to succeed.
This is sort of like the nature vs. nurture debate. There’s so much we don’t understand, and I’m glad we don’t. If scientists ever figure out the mechanisms behind these things, we’ll be in big trouble.
mwall, I like where you’re going with this. Whether you’re being to some degree ironic, I think it is possible to quantify the terms for which a band is seen to win. What’s the artistic equivalent, then, of a late 4th quarter come from behind victory?
Mr. Mod, I hope I heard you correctly, because if you did say that a band could win by striking against the ideals of winner rock, then I can think of no better band than DEVO. They’re the most victorious band of all time.
“Good teamwork” should be less about the band working together to make “good music” than the concept of a band where all the members are on the same page, working to achieve a common goal. And that goal, of course, is winning.
From the scientific standpoint we must adopt, it seems important to discourage use of a value term like “good music” in order to remove the impulse to judge the quality of a band’s output, so that future Winner Rock aficionados can see room for a band like Journey on Team Winner, whether they like the music or not.
Despite his reservations to embrace the subject, I applaud mwall’s participation, as he continues to bring important contributions to the work at hand. He’s hit once again on what has to be the key factor in Winner Rock: believing in success. Winner Rock bands have a plan to win, and believe that, by following that plan, they will succeed.
At winning.
Regarding the suggestion of “In My Life” as a Winner Rock song that fits into the quiet or slow mold…would it help, Steve, if I supported the notion that “In My Life” is Winner Rock, while suggesting that a song like “Julia”, which may be equally lovely, is not?
What makes them different is the approach. Lennon came at the former with the Will To Pow..er, Win, but to hear him in the studio on outtakes from “Julia”, it is clear that the same spirit had been replaced by something else, and it took the intervention of McCartney to pull him through.
I don’t know, I think a song like “Julia” doesn’t fit into either category, regardless of how it was recorded and/or the state of Lennon’s head at that time. I don’t think Winner and Loser Rock are easy catch-alls into which we can divide the whole spectrum of rock.
Let’s try and remember some basic things. “Winner Rock” was coined as a sarcastic rejoinder to a withering comment (“Loser Rock”) hrrundi made about Elliott Smith. It was not meant as a compliment. In ensuing months, Mr. Moderator was among those who claimed Winner Rock as a positive and he did so by framing his own preferences as Winner Rock. Nothing wrong with that, really.
It seems the issue many of us have now — I know I do — is that we want to know, “Win what?” How do you quantify Winner Rock. We’re using this barometer because, unlike Loser Rock, Winner Rock, as Mr. Moderator sees it, does not contain songs about winning. It’s something else, something that seems a little intangible.
If a band maintains Mr. Moderator’s Winner Rock values but does not really win, are they Loser Rock? For example, a band I know our Moderator doesn’t care for, Jellyfish. Spilt Milk sure sounds like Winner Rock to me. All that ambition, design, hierarchy, procktomusicology, Power and Glory. But the album went way over budget and flopped (1993 being a bad year to release foppish, Queen-esque pomp-rock), and the band broke up when the two principle players bitterly fell out. Nowadays the album is a cult favorite for nerds. It mostly sounds like Winner Rock, but it’s a story of Losers. So which is it?
Oats, the “final outcome” is not of issue in Winner Rock. It’s a matter of, does a band enter the “competition” with the goal of winning or with the resignation that it might as well lose spectacularly. Again, don’t concern yourselves with this issue of “flopping!” I think you can tell when a band has its “eye on the prize” and when a band, instead, tries to carve our its own niche, avoiding the likely paths of failure. I wish this wasn’t all so complicated. I’d like to see a show of hands for Townspeople who really enjoy competing, whether in an athletic sense or otherwise. I mean really enjoy it to the point that you structure parts of your life around competition. Then, of those of you who have raised your hands, tell me whether you get an idea of what it is I’ve really been saying. Another way to ask this question: When you were a kid, were you aware of the kids who didn’t give it there all in whichever sport you played, or were you that kid? Being “that kid” is not bad, mind you – “that kid” probably excelled in other areas. PLEASE understand that I’m not conducting this discussion in order to single out “that kid.” Don’t you think “that kid” is the norm in the arts? I mean, who’s cooler, the Oscar winner who doesn’t show up to claim an award or that Titanic director who shouted he was “King of the world!”?
Ok I guess I was one of those kids. When I was young, the leagues I played in were ruled by assholes. The coaches were idiots who treated us like shit and who didn’t understand that it was a game that supposed to be fun. I had to play, because my dad decreed that I should play. So from the age of 7 to 13 I played year round — basketball from December to March, baseball (real hardball, none of this softball shit) from March to August, and football from August to December. And it’s not that I sucked either. I was above average, especially at basketball, but the coaches made life miserable. This may have ruined my competitive spirit for life, and it may explain why I don’t get Winner Rock. As I felt back then, if I win this game, then what? The outcome did not seem commensurate with the effort. Fortunately in high school I was allowed to concentrate on academics.
There was another cultural factor at play too. At that time sports represented the straight world. It was the antithesis of rock & roll and what would become the counterculture. When I was in college there was an incident where football players attacked antiwar demonstrators. I knew which side I was on.
Later when I rediscovered sports on cable, I often cursed those people who had ruined sports for me, especially baseball, the sport that most resembles music. I now understand that sports are ritualized aggression. Maybe some kinds of music function in a similar way. But it would also be true that there are many other realms of experience besides aggression that are worth embodying in music.
I have to ask again, winning what? It supposedly not commercial success. And if even the advocates of Winner Rock acknowledge that Loser Rock has equal access to artistic success, then Winner Rock seems like a distinction without a difference.
Mr. Mod, thanks for framing so perfectly my problem with this discussion.
I enjoy competing, and am pretty good at a number of sports. I’ve been the player manager of several championship winning softball teams, and have done well in both basketball and football.
I’m also a practicing artist/writer (whatever the fuck you want to call it), and while the desire to do good work is important to me, and I always attempt to excel, what is great about art is that it is NOT framed by the idea of competition, winners, and losers. Yes, competitive feelings enter into the equation at times for me, but they’re hardly the dominant reasons I participate.
In short, while there are superficial comparisons between the arts and sports, the moment you push those comparisons, they become ridiculous.
Well, I’m a pretty uncompetitive person. For most of my formative years, super-competitive kids were pretty annoying, usually puffing themselves up to compensate for some deep, unacknowledged feelings of inadequacy. Mind you, I don’t feel this way about everyone with a competitive spirit. But I agree with BigSteve and Mwall that one of the values of music and other artforms is that competition is not the framing device.
Neither. The cool ones are the people who accept their award without feeling the need to act like a dick-swinging, braying jackass.
In more organized school sports, I was always the second smallest kid, wearing glasses who got picked after all the larger and jockier boys as an afterthought. I watched my taller brother get no playing time in pop warner football and concluded it was useless to waste my time in arbitrary leagues like that full of bullies, jerks, and kids with new shoes. Anything that requires a group mentality is problematic for me. In the neighborhood, where appearances mattered less than being able to get a decent game going, I was good. Hell, we had a guy with Muscular Dystrophy, who could hit, but we’d have to run for him. That was perfectly fine for whiffleball and his yard was the best spot. I probably had the best hands playing street football, my favorite player was Paul Warfield, but I was a lot more like Fred Biletnikoff.
But I was in the school BAND, dude. Sixth through 12th grade. If you played the notes properly, no one called you a “winner”. Blow a couple clams and you were not a “loser”, just not playing your part correctly. And there was always something you could do better. But now you seem to be making this about trying, or competing – that is a different definition. As Yoda says, “Do or do not, there is no try.” Now, in rock and roll, there is room for more interpretation. But how often can anyone say they did a song perfectly? Chances are, another guy in the band would not agree. This idea of winning in music doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. I mean, who’s the opponent?
Has it become “Competitive Rock” instead of “Winner Rock”? Is there a band out there where everyone has the same opinion all the time about everything they do? Who goes into a studio and says, “I’m trying to suck”? The Replacements on stage basically did what they felt like doing, they obviously could have played better and stuck to the set list. But if that wasn’t their “goal”, who’s to say they did not compete well as a partying band? The effect they created on stage was more important to them than particular notes or even complete songs. Granted, this approach is maddening to the paying listener who enjoys more than six of their songs, but if they had an antiprofessional viewpoint, they certainly succeeded in carrying that out. I mean, they didn’t even care if they knew the song before playing it.
And who’s to say there wasn’t a method behind the production, Jesus, do you remember all that slick reverby shite all over the place in the mid 80s? Even without that, trying to get the sound you actually want in a studio is and endless process. There’s always something else that could be done. The record needs to be put out eventually, bootleg live albums are much harder to find.
Do you think Henry Fonda never acted well? He had to die to get an oscar. Look at how many Oscars are won with performances as losers!
BigSteve asked a question that I TRULY hopes help to bridge this discussion:
I’m going to give you a straight answer from my personal experience that I TRULY hope helps you understand more about Winner Rock, as I see it. For me, it’s all that goes into the competition – as well as the competition itself – that makes it worthwhile. It’s the hopes and dreams, the planning, the strategy, the practice (PRACTice?!?!), the trash talk, the high fives, the anticipaton, even the sense of well-earned failure and your opponents’ well-earned victory… It’s a rush, and it’s a rush I have always equated with rock ‘n roll. I was turned onto rock ‘n roll at a young age, but it wasn’t until late in high school, when it was pretty clear I would not be a professional baseball player, that I started learning to play the guitar and write songs in earnest. My partner in musical crime all these years has had the same view as me – as have most of our other bandmates through the years – in terms of always doing what we’re doing as the practice of “gearing up” for something. We’ve never just gotten together to “jam.” We’ve never just “rolled tape” to see what might happen. We’ve always had “rules.” I am not saying that everyone needs to live their creative lives that way – and I’m not even saying that it’s healthy – but for some of us the process of making music together as a team, for a “goal” of whatever sort, is the prize. When I categorize a rock artist, for the most part, as a practitioner of Winner Rock, I imagine that this artist feels a kinship with me over these parts of creating rock ‘n roll. There are other artists for whom the process of making music is entirely different, and that’s cool too. What really matters is whether we dig the music. As I’ve said, there are plenty of Winner Rock artist I strongly “root against.”
Mr. Mod, what you seem to be describing is a ‘be all you can be’ mindset. This is an effective approach in athletic competition, but not always in artistic endeavors.
The crucial aspect of athletic competition is that you are trying to beat a specific opponent at a specific kind of event. The only way this is true in rock music is in the marketplace, or maybe in the attempt of the support band to ‘blow the headliner off the stage.’ The rush you’re describing seems more like a struggle to reach goals, artistic goals. But you’re not defeating anyone.
You’re a coach now, and the ‘be the best you can be’ approach is crucial as a way of defusing the importance of victory. Kids get crushed by defeat very easily, as I remember well, and emphasizing the importance of playing well, win or lose, is the sane approach. And I think it carries over well into music.
Let me tell one of my favorite baseball anecdotes, and I feel bad that I remember what was said, but not the player or the teams involved. It was a World Series, and a particular star player was injured and unable to play the following day. A reporter joked to a player on the other team that he assumed he was glad his opponent would not be in the game the next day. The player said, “No, man, this is the World Series. It’s about being the best. And in order to be the best you have to beat the best. I wish he was playing.” I remember thinking that this guy, who was not especially articulate otherwise, somehow knew in his bones what it all was really about.
I think the way this spirit applies to music is in the realm of intraband dynamics, the way playing with good players helps you to play better, the way band members are sometimes competitive with each other but also sometimes able to use that tension as a way to egg each other on to greater achievement than they might otherwise be capable of. And this is why I said earlier that ‘be all you can be’ doesn’t always work with art. Very often the best thing for the music is for certain band members to become what sports analysts call role players. You’re not the star, but the role you play is essential to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. But it’s not to make your whole bigger than someone else’s whole.