Sanneh seems to paint things into two opposite corners where music is really a continuum.

She makes some good points, but then throws in stupid comments like "There's a place in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for doo-wop groups and folk singers and disco queens and even rappers - just so long as they, y'know, rock."

Uhh... it's the ROCK AND ROLL hall of fame, not the Music hall of fame.

Fair enough, I look forward to someone started the doo-wop hall of fame!

There is actually now a dance music hall of fame, and no doubt a hip-hop one won't be far behind.

I guess, though, the point is that because rockists treat rock music as the paradigm case of all popular music, rival institutions will inevitably be treated as marginal by the music press and so on. But I'm pretty suspicious of any attempt to institutionalise a popular music canon, so personally I'd bomb the lot of them.

I found the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to be scary.

I found the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to be scary.

What specifically about it?

Too slick and corporate.

Not that there's anything wrong with that - just not my personal preference.

I've no use for the R&R Hall of Fame either. It's still a stupid comment.

But the basic point still stands -- most music writers are rock biased, which makes them unable to appreciate a lot of current pop culture, which makes them actually unqualified for their so-called jobs.

Agreed Rio. I think some of her examples are just a little bit strange, like if you want to pick a pop song from 1979 that would have been considered "disposable" at the time in comparison to Van Morrison and is now an unimpeachable classic, I'd have gone for "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough".

t edit Actually, it appears the author is a man. So make that "his examples".

if you want to pick a pop song from 1979 that would have been considered "disposable" at the time in comparison to Van Morrison

Seriously. "The Message" was never considered disposable.

I think that the writer has a point (which is, in fact, a point I made to a overly dismissive metalhead music critic the other day), but I think rockism is built on class issues: to be a pop music writer is to be an expert in pop music history, which is, in my experience, usually built on a foundation of serial obsessions with certain kinds of music. Which is generally rock and indie rock, because the people who are generally going to be obsessed with pop music enough to waste time learning its history and obsessing over it are fairly well-educated middle-class guys. In other words, I agree there's room for wider perspectives in pop music criticism (and a number of the residents of this thread have those wider perspectives), but the vast majority are going to be rockists by the very nature of the required engagement. Any of these guys worth their salt should be aware of their prejudices, but being aware of prejudices and getting rid of them (or even wanting to get rid of them, this being a discussion about pop culture entertainment, not policies affecting basic liberty or something like that) are two different things.

Now that I've written this, I realize I'm probably saying things y'all already know. But I'm going to post this anyway.