What do you think?
Rate this book
Rock and the Pop Narcotic: Testament for the Electric Church
Book by Joe Carducci
529 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1990
6 people are currently reading
398 people want to read
About the author
Joe Carducci
11 books14 followersDonald Joseph Carducci is a writer, record producer, and former A&R executive, formerly most closely associated with the influential record label SST Records.
He was born in Merced, California in 1955 but grew up in Naperville, Illinois. He also lived for a time in Chicago in the late 1970's where he ran an independent mail-order record retailer. From 1981 to 1986 he was an A&R man, record producer, and co-owner of SST Records, working with, among other bands, the Minutemen, Saint Vitus, the Meat Puppets, Black Flag and Saccharine Trust.
He wrote lyrics for the song "Jesus & Tequila" by the Minutemen (Double Nickels on the Dime, 1984) and "Chinese Firedrill" from Mike Watt's 1995 solo album Ball-Hog or Tugboat?. He now resides in Centennial, Wyoming, where he runs Redoubt Press and O&O Recordings. Carducci is probably best known as the author of Rock and the Pop Narcotic.
Carducci wrote the screenplays for the 1998 films Rock and Roll Punk and Bullet On A Wire, and has other script projects in the works. Carducci has also been known to contribute to bimonthly rock periodical Arthur the Aardvark.
In 2007, Carducci published Enter Naomi: SST, L.A. and All That..., which contained his reflections on his time at SST Records and the life and death of former SST photographer Naomi Petersen.
He was born in Merced, California in 1955 but grew up in Naperville, Illinois. He also lived for a time in Chicago in the late 1970's where he ran an independent mail-order record retailer. From 1981 to 1986 he was an A&R man, record producer, and co-owner of SST Records, working with, among other bands, the Minutemen, Saint Vitus, the Meat Puppets, Black Flag and Saccharine Trust.
He wrote lyrics for the song "Jesus & Tequila" by the Minutemen (Double Nickels on the Dime, 1984) and "Chinese Firedrill" from Mike Watt's 1995 solo album Ball-Hog or Tugboat?. He now resides in Centennial, Wyoming, where he runs Redoubt Press and O&O Recordings. Carducci is probably best known as the author of Rock and the Pop Narcotic.
Carducci wrote the screenplays for the 1998 films Rock and Roll Punk and Bullet On A Wire, and has other script projects in the works. Carducci has also been known to contribute to bimonthly rock periodical Arthur the Aardvark.
In 2007, Carducci published Enter Naomi: SST, L.A. and All That..., which contained his reflections on his time at SST Records and the life and death of former SST photographer Naomi Petersen.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
August 6, 2017
I've owned this book since 1995, and skimmed key sections many times, but I didn't finally sit down to read it all the way through until recently. Carducci has a provocative and useful concept of small band rock music, and advancing that aesthetic argument (with which I frequently find myself in disagreement) is the primary purpose of the book. In short, he believes 'rock process' occurs when bands with dedicated rhythm sections play together regularly. (So singers with hired session players, groups that favor drum machines - these are all generally outside the definition.) Unfortunately, he devotes nearly half of the text to axe-grinding with the professional music critic press, and railing against various 'scams' - primarily the 'pop scam,' but also the reliably liberal ('commie') culture of rock & pop music writing from the '60s up through the early '90s. While this book was largely penned around 1990, with a major rewrite undertaken for this 2nd edition in '94, Carducci's class-based ressentiment is the sort of thing that continues to drive a lot of American politics to this day - that of working class people who resent the managerial bourgeoisie and equate any kind of left or center-left politics as unfairly redistributing their honestly-got earnings. But what does this have to do with music? Well, Carducci's class-consciousness drives his greater appreciation of various hard-rock and metal forms than is typical in most rock-crit. (He also doesn't give much of a shit about lyrics.) But he also gets tripped up when he assumes that the ink spilled over critical favs like Springsteen and the Clash is all about politics. (And the VU and Captain Beefheart are definitely 'rock,' no matter what point he thinks he's making here by excluding them from his definition.) The more argumentative sections of the book are a slog, though insightful paragraphs pop up here and there. Particularly confounding is his assumption that the rock press should have been covering 'rock' as he defines it, even when it's clear that most of his don't share his narrow definition of what the term encompasses. (And most professional music critics would not claim to specifically cover 'rock' exclusively, let alone his definition of it.) But Carducci's real-life experience in management of the classic indie rock label SST provides much insight into the American indie rock scene of the '80s, and that pops up here and there. The best part of the book, and the part that makes it worth reading/owning, is The Psychozoic Hymnal, a 150 page final section wherein he maps out the various rock scenes going back to the '50s, describing canonical bands and the interaction of their players, and following up with briefs descriptions of thousands of bands, both known and deeply obscure, and figuring out how they fit into his geographic and aesthetic mapping of the music. The final section makes the rest of the book worth it, but he could have written a much better text by confining the axe-grinding to a brief intro and focusing on his vision of rock aesthetics.
November 5, 2007
Holy smoke, not for the faint of heart, but this is the best about rock, what it is and isn't, and why Rolling Stone/Christgau/Marcus and almost every other rockwriter for a daily is so stupid. I read the original version of this way back in 1990 or so, before Nirvana broke. Then Carducci wrote a post-Nirvana version and I bought that too and devoured. My original copy has totally self-righteous and indignant notes scrawled over the margins--what an angry young simp I was! Anyway, if you're interested in rock music at all, and ever wondered why your favorite indie band wasn't covered in your local paper, read this and find out why. Of course now the internet has come along and made some of this irrelevant but not much. I want to be buried with this book.
March 9, 2017
There came a point when I said to myself, "If this guy says the word 'britfag' one more time, I'm going to close this book and never pick it back up."
He did and I did.
I keep it on the shelf because I paid 20 bucks for a severely abused copy and I'm too much of a penny pincher to throw it away.
{Update: I threw it away. It felt good.]
He did and I did.
I keep it on the shelf because I paid 20 bucks for a severely abused copy and I'm too much of a penny pincher to throw it away.
{Update: I threw it away. It felt good.]
December 9, 2008
Odd coincidence: in 1990 two snarky outsiders decided to recast the rock canon in their own image, thereby exploding rock history in an ecstacy of Spenglerian divination. One was Chuck Eddy, whose Stairway to Hell is hilarious and infuriating throughout, with some great suggestions for metal research. Plus his assumption of prophetic powers (he predicted disco-metal as the future, while the grunge tsunami swelled just offshore) seems both quaint and brave in retrospect.
The other one is Carducci's Rock and the Pop Narcotic, which is admired equally by cynical bizzers and self-loathing rock critics. I didn't like it much: an emetic rockist brain stew spackled with some sparse golden insights. The first part features his rock vs. pop dichotomy (which I still don't quite get: he counts Velvet Underground as pop, for example), some interesting viewpoints on drumming, band longevity, and SST Records (though not nearly enough of that last), and far too much baiting of the "fags" (his recurring term) that are ruining rock.
Indeed, Carducci's obsession with "fags" seems irrelevant to his rockist thesis ("get your fag hands off my book" he says at one point to anyone who didn't like Magma), while simultaneously undermining it (Little Richard gets hardly a mention, Queen not at all, Buzzcocks barely). Dare I cite all those social psychology experiments that demonstrate that those who are obsessed with "fags" are likely in the closet themselves?
BUT, the second half of this book -- the "Psychozoic Hymnal" -- is a fun journey through Carducci's bigoted canon. Not nearly as fun as Eddy's iconoclastic metal (cum pop) canon, but it does feature some groovy insights into dinosaurs like West, Bruce, & Laing or Cactus. Plus he gives Saccharine Trust their props (they were always one of my SST faves), mentions both Oar Folkjokeopus and Electric Fetus, and provides the best one-sentence summary of the Mats I've ever seen:
Also in Minneapolis at this time, the Replacements, a young high energy rock band, were skating by on a performance theatre of drunken dramaturgy until later in the decade they learned temperence, at least as far as packaging their rock for rock critics and the collegiate pop crowd.
Furthermore, he seems to love Byron Coley (and I do mean "love"), while dispensing qualified praise upon Robert Christgau of all people (for daring to pitch rock criticism to consumers rather than fellow eggheads and bizzers). He also lusts after Motorhead and the Fall; this is why I added an extra star to this review.
The whole effect is of a jaw-rippling scribbler stewing in his own juices (not sure if he'd moved to Wyoming by this point) -- anti-pop, anti-rock-crit, anti-"fag". Too much nasty; not enough joyful raving about rave-ups.
The other one is Carducci's Rock and the Pop Narcotic, which is admired equally by cynical bizzers and self-loathing rock critics. I didn't like it much: an emetic rockist brain stew spackled with some sparse golden insights. The first part features his rock vs. pop dichotomy (which I still don't quite get: he counts Velvet Underground as pop, for example), some interesting viewpoints on drumming, band longevity, and SST Records (though not nearly enough of that last), and far too much baiting of the "fags" (his recurring term) that are ruining rock.
Indeed, Carducci's obsession with "fags" seems irrelevant to his rockist thesis ("get your fag hands off my book" he says at one point to anyone who didn't like Magma), while simultaneously undermining it (Little Richard gets hardly a mention, Queen not at all, Buzzcocks barely). Dare I cite all those social psychology experiments that demonstrate that those who are obsessed with "fags" are likely in the closet themselves?
BUT, the second half of this book -- the "Psychozoic Hymnal" -- is a fun journey through Carducci's bigoted canon. Not nearly as fun as Eddy's iconoclastic metal (cum pop) canon, but it does feature some groovy insights into dinosaurs like West, Bruce, & Laing or Cactus. Plus he gives Saccharine Trust their props (they were always one of my SST faves), mentions both Oar Folkjokeopus and Electric Fetus, and provides the best one-sentence summary of the Mats I've ever seen:
Also in Minneapolis at this time, the Replacements, a young high energy rock band, were skating by on a performance theatre of drunken dramaturgy until later in the decade they learned temperence, at least as far as packaging their rock for rock critics and the collegiate pop crowd.
Furthermore, he seems to love Byron Coley (and I do mean "love"), while dispensing qualified praise upon Robert Christgau of all people (for daring to pitch rock criticism to consumers rather than fellow eggheads and bizzers). He also lusts after Motorhead and the Fall; this is why I added an extra star to this review.
The whole effect is of a jaw-rippling scribbler stewing in his own juices (not sure if he'd moved to Wyoming by this point) -- anti-pop, anti-rock-crit, anti-"fag". Too much nasty; not enough joyful raving about rave-ups.
June 5, 2008
What a horrible book. Not because of the controversy attached to it, but it was boring. I thought there would be more insight to how Black Flag/SST operated from a guy who was part of it all. Carducci's history of rock is good for about thirty-seven pages, not over 300. Many of the bands he uses as references are pretty standard, and his opinons on rock writers/critics are spot on; but I really don't care about someone's concept of what band rocks and what band doesn't. He picks on Crass alot and to be honest Crass and Black Flag are similar in how they operated. Both had their own record labels, both promoted artists they liked, and although Crass had a more political activist stance with their audience, whereas Black Flag had more of a anti-authoritarian policy of non-involvement with theirs;they both had a message and it's "think for yourself"... Which this book doesn't really want you to do.
I have my opinions on certian rock/pop music, but in the end I'm more of a lyrics guy. I need something I can relate through words that's being driven by the sound. Power is also a big thing. Depeche Mode's "Violator" has that same power as Black Flag's "Damaged". Carducci's writing is all over the place. I like that in a writer but when it comes to rock music and its history it should be more technical and less opinionated. Perhaps fiction would better suit his writing style.
This book is somewhat hard to come by so if you're willing to shell out $33 dollars just think twice. "Rock" and "pop" will mean different things to everyone. To me "rock" means any music that's powerful, intense, unfiltered, and honest (regardless of speed and style. To me "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis is a rocking recording), and "pop" means any music that's made for entertainment and has no real creative or artistic value (80's hair metal, KISS, Beyonce, Mariah Carrey). But also there's many rock bands that want pop acceptance, and pop groups that want to come off street. You also don't need a book like this telling you the difference. Just listen to what you like.
I have my opinions on certian rock/pop music, but in the end I'm more of a lyrics guy. I need something I can relate through words that's being driven by the sound. Power is also a big thing. Depeche Mode's "Violator" has that same power as Black Flag's "Damaged". Carducci's writing is all over the place. I like that in a writer but when it comes to rock music and its history it should be more technical and less opinionated. Perhaps fiction would better suit his writing style.
This book is somewhat hard to come by so if you're willing to shell out $33 dollars just think twice. "Rock" and "pop" will mean different things to everyone. To me "rock" means any music that's powerful, intense, unfiltered, and honest (regardless of speed and style. To me "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis is a rocking recording), and "pop" means any music that's made for entertainment and has no real creative or artistic value (80's hair metal, KISS, Beyonce, Mariah Carrey). But also there's many rock bands that want pop acceptance, and pop groups that want to come off street. You also don't need a book like this telling you the difference. Just listen to what you like.
July 22, 2021
Strange, strange, strange but lovely book. Ironically, and Carducci would probably fucking throttle me if he saw me make this comparison, the first half has a lot in common with Deleuze of all people (in terms of structuring if nothing else).
The thing about this book that puts it light years past anything else I’ve actually read about this shit is its attempt to actually formalize an aesthetic of what rock music IS, filtered through an extremely class- and historically-conscious lens. And shit, I think he does a pretty good job to tell the truth. The latter half is also great, as a great overarching history of the music, even if it’s a bit over-saturated with rants of the borderline unhinged reactionary variety (but who cares? I live in Texas, I’m not gonna run off with my tail between me legs because I hear something I disagree with). Whatever his political beliefs are here, they don’t really undermine his central theses - which brings me to the other component: the takedown of much of rock criticism.
Jesus fuck this was cathartic. As a musician, I have always had a great deal of contempt for the Music Critic. Always extremely self-assured, always using seventeen-dollar words to disguise a severe lack in cognitive faculties, always overly skinny in a way that doesn’t betray an unkempt gawkiness, always having wanted to be a musician but too self-conscious to devote hours to time with a metronome - those types. And the way in which he brings them down by diagnosing much of the predominant intellectual basis of music criticism as lying in various academic forms of critique (and who fucking likes ACADEMIA?) as opposed to meaningful analysis and appreciation of the music, its composition, its conception and its underlying historicity inherent is very, very good. By the time you are done reading it, you will want to burn the Pitchfork offices to the ground.
One star short of five, because some sentences are clunky and he also disses Siouxsie and the Banshees. Sorry, amigo.
The thing about this book that puts it light years past anything else I’ve actually read about this shit is its attempt to actually formalize an aesthetic of what rock music IS, filtered through an extremely class- and historically-conscious lens. And shit, I think he does a pretty good job to tell the truth. The latter half is also great, as a great overarching history of the music, even if it’s a bit over-saturated with rants of the borderline unhinged reactionary variety (but who cares? I live in Texas, I’m not gonna run off with my tail between me legs because I hear something I disagree with). Whatever his political beliefs are here, they don’t really undermine his central theses - which brings me to the other component: the takedown of much of rock criticism.
Jesus fuck this was cathartic. As a musician, I have always had a great deal of contempt for the Music Critic. Always extremely self-assured, always using seventeen-dollar words to disguise a severe lack in cognitive faculties, always overly skinny in a way that doesn’t betray an unkempt gawkiness, always having wanted to be a musician but too self-conscious to devote hours to time with a metronome - those types. And the way in which he brings them down by diagnosing much of the predominant intellectual basis of music criticism as lying in various academic forms of critique (and who fucking likes ACADEMIA?) as opposed to meaningful analysis and appreciation of the music, its composition, its conception and its underlying historicity inherent is very, very good. By the time you are done reading it, you will want to burn the Pitchfork offices to the ground.
One star short of five, because some sentences are clunky and he also disses Siouxsie and the Banshees. Sorry, amigo.
October 8, 2008
Who gave this meathead a typewriter? Okay, but seriously, when he is actually writing about music he has a lot to say that is worth reading and much of it has already affected the way I approach writing about music. But to get to those nuggets you have to wade through the entire contents of his fevered brain and much of that doesn't bear repeating. And he makes up words.
July 23, 2008
The best writing about rock music (literally, writing about the music itself) I've ever come across.
Carducci is a libretarian right-winger. His version of popular music history and cultural theory, upon which he expounds at length, contains a fair amount of homophobia and sexism. It's up to you to decide if you want to deal with that. I have read this bk multiple times.
Carducci is a libretarian right-winger. His version of popular music history and cultural theory, upon which he expounds at length, contains a fair amount of homophobia and sexism. It's up to you to decide if you want to deal with that. I have read this bk multiple times.
Read
January 8, 2015I can't fucking rate this book. Some of the best prose I've ever read about what ROCK is mixed with a reactionary's rants. It did make me think every time he called out bleeding heart liberals like myself but there is so much fucking borderline Elders of Zion stupidity mixed in it was tough to take.
June 4, 2021
If you've made your way towards this idiosyncratic and esoteric volume, it is probably because you have read a lot of rock history books and desire a tome that tells you something you haven't already heard a hundred times before about the music you love. And yes, there are a few original and thought-provoking insights here about what makes for good rock music, but they are buried amongst whole chapters of long-winded, bitter diatribes against certain left-leaning rock critics, and liberal politics in general. I have rarely read a book that needed a good editor more than this one. The critics he goes after mostly deserve it on the grounds of superficiality alone, but he can't stop beating a dead horse, and most of his own boring and at times bigoted proto-Trumpist political insights could use the vigorous fisking he gives the dilettante left.
The latter part of the book, where he namechecks every band that meets his narrow criteria of "good rock music," is basically just an extended laundry list. Each artist gets a one-line summary, and they all blur together after a while. He probably should have sculpted this into more of an overview that encourages the reader to go deep on the particular audio threads he wants them to follow, but as presented it's overwhelming, exhausting and makes listening to rock music feel like homework.
Unless you share some of the author's reactionary outlook on life and music (you probably can already tell if you do without having read the book) you can skip it.
The latter part of the book, where he namechecks every band that meets his narrow criteria of "good rock music," is basically just an extended laundry list. Each artist gets a one-line summary, and they all blur together after a while. He probably should have sculpted this into more of an overview that encourages the reader to go deep on the particular audio threads he wants them to follow, but as presented it's overwhelming, exhausting and makes listening to rock music feel like homework.
Unless you share some of the author's reactionary outlook on life and music (you probably can already tell if you do without having read the book) you can skip it.
June 18, 2020
I’ve been looking for a copy of this book for years and I finally got ahold of one a few months ago. Carducci worked for SST Records during their heyday, and his take on rock/pop music and the record business as a whole is endlessly appealing to me. Large portions of this book were really engaging but for the most part this wasn’t a very enjoyable read. Paragraph after paragraph of dense, overlong, unwieldy sentences that were just a slog to get through. This was like reading Chomsky: interesting author and subject matter but written in a way that is just no fun to read. I shouldn’t have to be an English professor to read about, like, Saint Vitus or whatever. (And I don’t know that this book warranted the use of the word ‘politico’ over what seemed like a thousand times.) Still, the final 1/3 of the book where he’s analyzing bands decade-by-decade was pretty great. Worth reading, but could’ve been so much more.
May 14, 2019
Carducci's analysis of music, the distinctions of rock vs. pop, and timeline of music history as seen through his particular lens is nothing short of absolute genius, despite some less-than-ideal derogatory language. Will read again, for sure.
January 1, 2018
A totally different approach to rock criticism
October 8, 2020
Didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would. A long thesis to define the differences between rock and pop. In the end, I didn't care - it's all just music for me.
February 29, 2008
Kind of an eye-opener at times, and nothing if not pithy, though how much it impresses you depends on how much you buy into its central argument. I've got to give credit to the guy for having the balls to state (correctly) that the role of blues in rock has been overstated. But his anti-pop biases are colossally annoying, and his attempts to impose some sort of campaign of eradication of the pop element from rock ridiculous.
Also, filled with inane comments like "Amon Duul sold out to no-one in 1972." Really? WTF is that supposed to mean? That Viva La Trance is commercial pop? Are you kidding?
Also, filled with inane comments like "Amon Duul sold out to no-one in 1972." Really? WTF is that supposed to mean? That Viva La Trance is commercial pop? Are you kidding?
May 20, 2008
If you want to know what's up with american independent rock music, no other book even comes close to Carducci's. Yes, he's as snobby as french poodle but he's probably sniffed more asses then anyone else so you don't have to. The way Carducci puts it, rock is simply what gets played live, in front of an audience. When the Beatles stopped touring and stayed in the studio, they stopped being a rock band and started their exclusive addiction to pop.
October 6, 2011
Rock& the Pop Narcotic is one of the essential pieces of rock writing, and Joe Carducci get's damn close to "Bangs-hood" with this extended essay on rock - what it is, what it's not, and why kicking out the jams is still a righteous preoccupation for long-haired lunk-heads everywhere. I'm still reduced to tears of laughter and mirth as fast as I was 20 years ago when I first read his 1 line appraisals/dismissals of rock bands.
August 6, 2013
Arguably the best and certainly the most blistering aesthetic screed in rock and roll history, a lovingly (and profanely) detailed exploration of an art form and its practitioners and a brutal takedown of the frauds and pharisees who have twisted it to their own ends over the decades (spoiler: Carducci does not like Jann Wenner). If this sounds fun to you, find a copy immediately. If not, save yourself a headache.
December 15, 2007
A scathing and highly opinionated look at rock music. Carducci clearly has his opinions and he doesn't care if you disagree with them or not. I found the book intersting but also frustrating at times. I do not want to be buried with this book like Vaughn does but I understand why he would want to.
July 6, 2010
A tribute to the essence of 'rock', and an indictment of its dilution into 'pop', from the former label manager at SST Records. If you can get over the attitude - and he's got a lot of attitude - his ideas are just as interesting, thought-provoking and worthy as those of Lester Bangs, et al. He brims with enthusiasm for the sounds that a simple guitar-bass-drums set-up can produce, and it shows.
June 22, 2014
Another reread. I don't think any other book on rock criticism has quite the flavor this one does, nor does any other have the capacity to be thorough as well as a measurement for rock's social impact.
January 16, 2008
A rather exhaustive critical summary of the musicians and bands that comprise rock and not-rock musics. Very masculine and opinionated writing style.
December 30, 2020
One of the most interesting books of rock criticism around, and I recommend it.
May 4, 2008
everything i NEEDED to know about music is here. from forecasting mp3s in 1991 to the concept of "yeah, but DOES IT ROCK!"
October 30, 2011
Best book about rock music ever. Not just about music or history, but how rock and roll works in society and what it represents.
February 3, 2008
Carducci's classic screed damns all music that's not on SST Records.
April 9, 2017
The first half of this book is a pretty scathing critique of rock criticism as well as an explanation of what is actually meant by the term "rock". The second half is an encyclopedic overview of hundreds of rock bands from the 50's to the 90's. A lot of great music is covered, but there are many aspects of this book that I think have aged poorly.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews