It's hard to know where to begin with this book. It's long, it's hilarious, it's outrageous, it's sexist, homophobic, and maybe even anti-Semitic. It's also one of the most interesting and insightful books you will read on rock and pop music. If you can swallow hard and get by the uglier side of Carducci's politics, you'll find a guy who loves rock and roll, especially bands that can jam. Anyone who thinks that the main heroes of the last 30 of rock are Black Sabbath and Black Flag can't be all bad.

There are so many interesting theses in this book that a brief review can't do justice to all of them. Let me mention a few and give them some space. The title speaks to one of his main points: rock has been killed by the siren of pop. Carducci draws a very clear distinction between rock music and pop music. One of the key differences is that rock music involves people who write, play, and sing their own music. It also involves a concern with musicianship. Pop refers to music that is often written by one person, played by a variety of folks, but sung by one and released under that person's name. Celine Dion is quintessential pop. Carducci has much good to say about rock and much bad to say about pop. He has particularly bad things to say about folks that claim to be rock but are really pop – and the "pop-ification" of rock in general. Think here about the current music scene and the trends begun by the glam-hair metal bands of the 80s.

This leads to another of Carducci's main ideas: his love of "the band." The basic bass/drums/guitar sound is the core of good rock, and this interplay is best realized in the context of a band, where all the players contribute. The demise of the band is, in my view, one of the most depressing aspects of the current music scene. How many real bands are there out there? How many are sticking it out and trying to make a career as a band? Carducci is right on the money here. Some of his peans to the kind of musical interplay that a true band can create are just beautiful and express much of what I love in the music I listen to.

A not unrelated idea he focuses on is the claim that rock is primarily rooted in the music of black America. He thinks this view is largely wrong, and has been created by guilty white liberals wishing to throw a bone (in a condescending sort of way) to black Americans. One piece of evidence for Carducci's view is a variety of quotes from black artists who point to early rock bands (like The Beatles) or to country music (Grand Ole Opry) as their inspiration. He wants to argue that it seems like only white folks are arguing that black folks had it first. The black rock and pop acts realized (rightly Carducci argues) that the real roots of rock are in the country music of the early 50s (rockabillly fits here) and the Tin Pan Alley songwriters of a generation before. An interesting argument to say the least. One thing it allows him to do is to rescue progressive rock from the complaint by those same white liberals that it ignores those roots by being so "Eurocentric" in its importation of classical structures. Carducci, although no lover of prog, says there's nothing wrong with what those bands were up to.

One amusing off-shoot of this argument is the bashing he does of the bands who are the darlings of the liberal rock press: Springsteen, REM, U2 et. al.. He is vicious in his disgust for them and what he sees as a condescending pandering to white liberal guilt. Now I happen to like early and middle U2, but you have to be amused by this: "U2 doesn't have a musical bone in their bodies. They are a product of ambition, record collecting and reading the rock press and its histories of music. When they went outside the band for musical contributions (Dylan, BB King, etc.), don't you think they might've made a least one garish faux pas and say, got Ronnie Montrose to rip through a solo or two?" You get the picture.

The centerpiece of the book is a long, detailed trip through this history of rock from the 50s to the early 90s. Carducci covers every band you can think of and hundreds I've never even heard of. His knowledge of these small bands is unbelievable – to the point where you wonder if he's making them up. He covers Rush in the 70s section (as well as several other places, all of which are positive). Here it is in its entirety:

"These three epitomize the modern suburban ethos in rock music [a good thing – SH] (Canada being after all just one big suburb of the US). They are duly hated for this by all slumming elites. Rush are bright, well adjusted and earnest. They took music lessons and they practice their instruments because they believe in music – the art of it and the craft of it. In the cities musicians tend to get sidetracked by the scam of it.

Rush has stayed a three piece and developed musically through basic hard rock ("Rush"), progressive hard rock ("2112"), and progressive post rock ("Hemispheres"), before rethinking their approach, adding keyboards to bassist/vocalist Geddy Lee's duties and developing a new high tech, pop textured sound which nonetheless at its best reaches transcendence via an approach (at least once an album) that is harmolodic [that's also good – SH] in all but name.

Their lyrics (by Neil Peart, drummer since the second album) may be dumb a lot but they're earnest and offer a right wing populism which is at least counter to official rock culture doctrine. Another think in their favor is that they have probably never received a good review in their lives. Nevertheless, along with ZZ Top, they remain the class of the enduring 70s band. Their latest album [Counterparts – SH] indicates a second wind." (314-5)

Not bad, not bad at all. Although do note the following explanation for why Rush has never broken big in the pop market:

"Rush has no sense of humor and are ugly as sin and, therefore, their videos have not fared as well [as ZZ Top's... of course a few women with gorgeous breasts and no bras helps a lot too – SH]. Nor do their lyrics revolve around pop concerns (cars, girls, cools), and so although they have made similarly effective production and arrangement concessions to current pop tastes they have not entered the pop market big time. They may have done more than most to help maintain the general mainstream rock market though." (130-1)

I think those two snippets give you a good flavor for the book. I've seen copies at various Borders, if you wish to pick it up. Enjoy!