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.

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.

I don't know. "Rockism" has been kicked around in the Village Voice Pazz & Jop Poll for more than a decade now. Christgau was an early adopter of hip hop. Simon Reynolds and most British critics have always made a clear distinction between the larger category of Pop and the subset of Rock. Sasha Frere-Jones has been championing pop for a while. I think rockism has been under scrutiny for a while now.

It was in the early 90s that rap records began to eclipse rock both on the charts and culturally.

Admittedly, there are always going to be little niches of indie rock fans who generate more press about their obsessions. And I definitely see a rockist bias in the mainstream press that will linger until a new critical language emerges which can handle pop.

That's the bigger issue from my perspective. "Authenticity" was true north for hippie culture and punker than thou and blues and the recent jibes at New Country. It was always posited as opposing the dominant corporately owned media. There is, and has been for a long time, an odd leftie/socialist implicit critique of capitalist culture which makes it difficult to grasp pop. Which is all about radio friendly unit shifters.

I still don't think I've ever heard an explanation as to why the R&R Hall of Fame is in Ohio. I mean ... Ohio??

I still don't think I've ever heard an explanation as to why the R&R Hall of Fame is in Ohio. I mean ... Ohio??

Cleveland Rocks.

I think Memphis would've been more appropriate from a historical point of view. However, Cleveland was where Alan Freed's show originated and that did a lot to spread the notion of Rock and Roll. Also, just from my experience in college in Ohio, I'd have to say that rock and roll is just a huge part of Cleveland's identity. Moreso than any other city I know - even ones with more famous scenes, like San Francisco or LA.

San Francisco probably self-identifies as much as a jazz city as it does with its San Francisco Sound era. LA is more about the recording industry. Austin is about blues and songwriting. Like that. But it's rock and roll or nothing in Cleveland.

What about Boston? A HUGE rock town.

What about Boston? A HUGE rock town.

Nah, NSM. It's not a big college town...

Boston's bona fides don't really get going until the 70s. Unless Barry and the Remains means a great deal to you.

I lived there, and it was definitely one of the best club scenes I've ever witnessed. But I don't think Boston even bid on having the HoF there anyway.

Actually, I think LA is the most rock and roll city in the country right now. You can make a case for Detroit though, too.

Does LA still have clubs where bands have to pay the club to be able to play there? Was that phenomena limited to heavy metal bands?

(What had happened is that there were so many heavy metal bands in LA trying to make it big, and not enough clubs for them to be seen, so supply and demand worked out so unknown bands had to pay just to be able to perform in a club and have a chance at beind discovered.)

Last time I went to LA, I saw the Los Feliz street festival. It wasn't about Pay-to-play heavy metal bands on the Hollywood strip. It was about a berjillion tattooed Stooges and Social Distortion fanatics.

Actually, I think LA is the most rock and roll city in the country right now. You can make a case for Detroit though, too.

I thought it was supposed to be Austin?