the thing wrong with this:
"For purposes of this discussion, rockism is an approach to music that uses the values of one genre as an unquestioned set of rules and then judges other music by those values."
is that there is no consensus in rock discourse about what rock is/when it's good/what it's for, in fact it's a field of dissension... Lester Bangs-ism is different from Greil Marcus-ism is different from Steven Wells-ism is different from Chris Bohn-ism .... you can perhaps identify certain tendencies or core underlying biases and preoccupations, but i'm not even sure about that though.... at any rate the dissensus-zone is so dense with claims and theories (many derived and adapted from high art, or political, or literary, discourses) that it's perfectly likely that some of them would have applicability outside their "field" (since they were taken out of their original field in the first place). Or even beyond that might simply produce interesting results. So e.g. my rockist take on techno (and it's only one kind of rockism amongst many rockisms-- Bangsian i suppose) produced more interesting results -- or at least for me, more enjoyable results -- than if i'd dutifully taught myself to like techno in the proper pious manner, on "its own terms" (if such terms even exist, they're endlessly arguable aren't they? or they should be)