ABSTRACT

In the early 1970s, the increasing popularity of so-called corporate rock prompted rock critics, musicians, and fans to engage in high-spirited debates concerning the aesthetic and affective dimensions of "authentic rock." In many cases, the most common line of argument centered on a postmortem 1960s premise: authentic rock was analogous to a folk art. 1 Accordingly, this assumption suggested that authentic rock was inextricably tied to its audience, the implication being that authenticity automatically dissolved the star/fan dichotomy. In this sense a kind of "community agreement" determined the range of rock-oriented experiences that were deemed allowable. Hence, when championing "real" rock genres (such as punk), rock critics and fans lauded bands that remained "true" to their roots, especially if this meant signing with local, independent labels. By way of comparison, bands were quickly labeled "inauthentic" if they willfully succumbed to the managerial/promotional practice of "creating" (and therefore "manipulating") an audience. Likewise, harsh criticisms often surfaced when authentic bands chose to develop musical styles and/or visual formats that attempted to move beyond "community appeal" and into the arena of "mass rock." In all of these cases, the arguments focused on a negatively inspired view of capital; fans of authentic rock believed that they owned the communal rights to "their" bands.