Where Be The Rock?
Evan Kanarakis

Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll: Influence, Empowerment and Rebellion, or Commercial Constructs, Cheap Imitation and War Over?

Since it's earliest days, rock and roll has always been dominated by themes of rebellion, sexual empowerment and expressions of lifestyle that are very much free from the constraints of normal, perhaps more conservative aspects of society. Ever since the likes of Bill Haley and the Comets, Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley took to the stage, and all the way through to today's rockers 'Audioslave, the White Stripes, and the Foo Fighters' these themes have been at the forefront of rock and roll. But while there is something important to be gained by an examination of the correlations between rock and roll, sexuality and power, and the association, through the years, of sex and drugs, most specifically, with rebellion in rock and roll, it's also important to recognise how many of these aspects of the scene have become, over the years, very much style and image over substance. That they have become commercial constructs not grounded in the realities of wilder days gone by, and have more to do with the theatre of rock nowadays than anything really that rebellious or at the edge of social norms.

So how is it that rock and roll has been so traditionally associated with sex and drugs not just for men, but women, as well? In the first instance, rock and roll is a product of its direct influences. Rock and roll was a product of the blues, jazz and tribal rhythms 'music that emerged and was inspired by the underclasses of America and, later, the United Kingdom. Seedy bars and street corners in the poor part of town, these were the domain of the early rockers, and no matter how much gloss was thrown across the music and image of it's biggest stars during the late 1950's and 1960's, that was rock. Rock and roll was about screaming for release: release from poverty, release from the miseries of the war era, release from 'the man', release from sexual frustration, and with an electric guitar, a good voice, and some gyrations of the hips, you were well on your way. Rock and roll has always been, in it's original spirit and at its core, about rebellion.

Sex and drugs were also a very convenient marriage with rock and roll in another very practical way that is associated with it's seedier, coarser influences: environment. Whether your name is Jerry Lee Lewis and you're trawling for your first gigs in small'town Louisiana, or you're the Quarrymen'cum'Beatles starving between gigs in the Cavern in Liverpool or across the way in the dark clubs of Hamburg, sex and drugs are probably the most valuable and arguably the most available commodity for those seeking rewards in rock and roll short of those gold records, the large mansion and three limousines.

Further, whether you have a partner back or home or not, whether you're under the watchful eye of a parent or partner back home or not, put a group of highly charged, lonely musicians on a tour bus in a foreign town or country and just try and count the minutes before someone starts misbehaving. No doubt, trouble's brewing, and rock and roll is, after all, very much the realm of young men and women in their sexual prime, and at the apex of what is probably the most convenient period in their life for explorations beyond the norm.

Hopefully, though, they won't go so far as a band from country New South Wales I interviewed some time ago that became so addicted to drugs they somehow fell into the situation of making their drug dealer their band's manager. Though they started out their musical life as a rock band, their dealer expressed more of an interest in death metal music. Soon enough, the band figured out that if they started to play stuff that pandered to his level of interest and even let him act as their manager, he would provide them with plenty of free drugs. And so they did. For four years the group performed in pubs, clubs and at parties as a death'metal outfit even though they really weren't into the music they were playing. So though a slightly extreme example, in many ways yes, especially where misguided youth are involved, sex and drugs are a given in rock and roll.

Of course let's also not forget that fragile egos often go hand in hand with most artistry, and that much of the motivation to actually get up on stage in the first place and share your musical vision is to fulfil the artist's inherent need to have at least one fan nod in approval and get some of that elusive affirmation' money and riches be damned. A few musicians I've discussed this with 'and that shall remain nameless' have, like it or not, taken things a step further and, tying it all back into sex and rock and roll, argue that it's actually impossible for musicians to even grasp the concept of fidelity by their very nature and that matters run deeper than just out of control hormones. They argue that post'performance sexual gratification is in fact the only pure and real source of approval and reassurance for the fragile musician. In an industry where sexual imagery and expressions of sexuality through music are so strong 'Jimmy Hendrix suggestively wielding his guitar almost as an extension of his penis, Tina Turner grinding in front of a speaker so as to suggest her husband Ike's guitar playing is bringing her to orgasm' then perhaps the all'too'common and proudly celebrated promiscuity and quick, grab'and'go sex mentality is grounded in the inherent need for some kind of control and power over the situation. Something that can't be guaranteed in the fragile world of an artist on stage and at the mercy of fickle audiences and even more fickle music money managers. The common male fantasy of the 'omni'available woman' is thus not just a natural by'product of the cult of celebrity in rock and roll, it is something that you can see as tied to the nature of artistry in the sense that it is a stretch for power so as to compensate for the musician's own inadequacy, instability and ultimate lack of control of a situation where an audience might arguably turn at any moment.

However for these musicians to even be getting that kind of 'satisfaction' in the first place, there's something more surely going on beyond influences, environment and ego. And it definitely can't necessarily be looks. As the comedian Eddie Murphy once commented, 'because Mick Jagger is an ugly motherfucker'. And that 'something', of course, is the rather difficult to pin'down notion of the aforementioned cult of celebrity. Put another way, the odd, perhaps psychological effect that, since time immemorial, an individual stepping out onto stage and sharing their art with others has upon the levels of desirability and lust that seem to 'sometimes inexplicably' grow in their audience.

People will often be naturally drawn towards individuals they feel have inspired or moved them, and others will feel that association with these sorts of folks 'sexual or otherwise' might rub some of that magic off onto them, or perhaps offer an opportunity to get further afield and live a little of that lifestyle; perhaps enjoy some of those riches for themselves. This can set up the interesting situation where the unenlightened rock and roller has that fragile ego bruised badly upon realising that the 'fan' he just slept with five minutes ago was merely using him as a stepping stone to someone ultimately more desirable... perhaps, shock horror, even more musically talented and famous! After all, some of these groupies have become even more famous than the rock musicians themselves. Take for example Pamela des Barres, famous for her exploits with the likes of Mick Jagger, Keith Moon and Jim Morrison, and who was later used as one of the inspirations behind the 'Penny Lane' character in Almost Famous. There's even a website' www.groupiedirt.com where one can log online to get an assessment of their favourite rock star's length, girth and abilities in the bedroom as reported by groupies. Regardless of how successful they might be, the humiliation of discovering one's partner was merely with you because of the benefits of association may be a private misery that haunts many a rock and roller.

Such risks beckon one of my favourite anecdotes involving a fellow we'll refer to simply as 'Leo'. Leo was lead singer of a Canberra'based band in the late 1990's, and at the time had pined after an especially pretty girl in his English class at the Australian National University for weeks but thus far she had rejected his advances. Heartbroken, the artist that he was, he of course poured his feelings out into his music, and audiences were witness to a particularly touching moment during one of the band's performances in 1999.

Halfway through the gig, and with the object of his affection present in the audience, Leo sang a song dedicated to his 'one and only true love'. Genuine angst and genuinely poor poetry oozed from his lips. His less than subtle lyrics made it obvious to all who it was that he was so eager to share his love with. (Plus, it helped that he pointed at her as he ranted in the chorus, 'It's you who makes me feel complete'.) Still, the public revelation of his undying love for this lucky lady did the trick, for when the song ended and he stepped off the stage and dramatically approached her, she greeted him swiftly with a passionate kiss and they held each other in warm embrace. The audience applauded approvingly. Not a dry eye in the house. It appeared John Lennon was indeed right? 'All you need is love'. After the gig Leo and his new girlfriend were swamped with well wishers offering their heartiest congratulations and it had indeed, been a gig among gigs.

It was rather a shame then, when three weeks later the band again took to the stage at the ANU and this time Leo sang a new song. The title of his song was 'Bitch' or 'Whore', though audiences have disagreed over the years'it may well have been called 'Bitch Whore'. Regardless, it was an angry, scowling tune that spoke of '... the slut that betrayed me' and featured a verse that proclaimed '... now I know the whore that she is.'

True love in rock and roll apparently only had a shelf life of some three weeks, particularly when the more attractive talents of another band's lead singer had beckoned. Touching stuff, and yet another example of how often sex, drugs and rock and roll have been and will always be, inescapably linked.

Being an artist, by definition, is to employ your creative and imaginative skills for expression and, hopefully, without too many restrictions upon your degree of artistic licence and range of movement. When you're an especially successful rock musician, however, and when all of the rewards of success have come your way 'the money, the fame, the sex' very real power begins to accompany that success and notoriety. Up to a point, and depending of course upon the level of intervention and degree of societal constraints upon behaviour at any particular point in history, the latitude with which that artist, that rock star, that celebrity can now behave broadens. Some will argue that their behaviour and actions are simply an extension of their art, whereas others will purely look like they're indulging in excess because they can simply get away with it. But though the line is often blurred between the art and the pure excess, the cult of celebrity will often allow this kind of behaviour to continue relatively unabated because these people are respected and influential.

As a rock star, and especially today in the way in which marketing and the media so specifically launch and position new idols, people look up to you, they imitate you, they aspire to you. They are, very much, as we've seen throughout the last fifty or so years in rock and roll's history, agenda and trend'setters. There's a reason why so many people freaked out when John Lennon commented that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ, or that the FBI bothered to look into Bob Dylan as an anti'war antagonist. Rock and rollers have power. And so when an artist utilises this kind of power, for instance, for sexual exploration and to break traditional gender roles, it's likely to garner attention, and likely to exert a wide influence. Take the obvious contributions made by artists like Joan Baez and Janis Joplin to women's liberation both through their music and their actions. Or the impact of respected and popular artists like k.d Lang, Elton John and George Michael declaring that they were openly and proudly gay, often making such declarations well after they had an established, loving fan'base that would follow them anywhere, no matter what their lifestyle choices. This therefore legitimised their sexuality not just for themselves and in their own world, but for the public sphere as well. Similarly, David Bowie's cross'dressing, make'up wearing alter'ego of the 1970's, Ziggy Stardust, is credited by many for paving a continued path towards sexual liberation and rebellion that began in earnest in the 1960's, fused with the politics and anti'establishment movements of the period. But in the 1970's acts like Ziggy Stardust and even KISS, who also shared Ziggy's love of makeup were still largely a fringe image and fringe expressions of alternative or blurred sexuality.

By the 1980's, however, the New Romantic wave of music, spearheaded by bands such as Duran Duran and Adam Ant, featured acts where expressions of sexuality in heterosexual and gay men alike incorporated lipstick and eye'shadow to create androgynous sex symbols that were a large departure from the combed back hair, coat and tie 'rebels' of 50's and early 60's rock. Some of the most popular acts of the period soon featured cross'dressing, gender bending singers' acts such as Boy George and Dead or Alive. Move on a few years and think of bands like Motley Crue, Bon Jovi and Poison, and by the 1990's hair'spray, rouge and fluorescent tights had somehow been transformed into expressions of confident heterosexual masculinity.

So of course, while fashions and cultural norms of what is and isn't socially acceptable change constantly over time, when some of your most prominent artists are in 'rebellion' and flying the rock and roll banner, and when those prominent artists have influence, they can affect change. More recently, though not necessarily 'rock and roll' artists, nonetheless think of how one little kiss onstage at an MTV Music Awards Show between Madonna and Britney Spears last year suddenly kicked off what everyone was calling 'a new lesbian chic'.

This kind of scandal and edginess of course doesn't hurt record sales either 'that is until the source of that scandal becomes mainstream, accepted behaviour and is seen as old news. Then we presumably wait for new innovators and artists to push the envelope and throw us into more challenging directions. Consider the following contrasts: In 1951 Dean Martin's song 'Wham Bam, Thank'you Ma'am' was banned by many U.S radio stations for its sexually suggestive themes. By 2002, sexual exploration and expression in music had come so far that Marilyn Manson was creating controversy for appearing in concerts and publicity stills clad in a clear white suit that suggested he was a eunuch, something that appalled some members of America's Christian Right and prompted cries of demonic possession and sexual perversion' the same tags applied to Elvis' swinging hips in the '50's. Just as striking, on the drug front, if in 1954 for U.S radio airplay the perceived drug reference ...I get no kick from cocaine,... was changed to ...I get perfume from Spain... in Cole Porter's classic ...I Get A Kick Out of You", by 1997 Bohemian rockers the Dandy Warhols were famously singing that 'Heroin is so Passe'.

But whilst sex and drugs will always be forever linked to rock and roll, is the connection as real and significant as it once was? Is the rock and roll rebellion over?

Interestingly enough, several bands today argue that the days of real sexual hyper'activity are long gone?lost in an eighties haze of excess, and that even if they wanted to bed three hundred women a night, they are nowhere to be found. Sure, some exist, and it will still always happen to an extent 'it'd be being far to general to argue otherwise' but beyond a few well known (and often well avoided) groupies, especially in cities like Sydney, London and New York, the sight of a 'rock star' just doesn't always raise an eyebrow like it used to for a celebrity'jaded public.

The fact is, there's little doubt that the common impression most people have of the rock lifestyle has more grounding in fantasy than anything else. Excess and excessive behaviour particularly here in Australia just isn't like it used to be. Sure there are times when bands, whether on the road or not, go completely nuts, and guys are guys, and testosterone fuels genuine insanity, but most hotels will likely report that footballers are often worse behaved than musicians. Typically, and especially in a music world populated by more men than women, post'gig revelry consists of a bunch of guys back in their hotel rooms?whether it be the headlining band, the local support act, tour crew, management, and so on?downing drinks and kicking back.

One former manager once commented to me that, since the 1950s when Mick Jagger first started exercising his vocal chords as a youth, rock and roll has always been a way for nerds and ugly guys to play rudimentary music riffs so they can have plenty of sex. Of course a few folks get lucky here and there, but when it comes to sex in rock and roll, today there's not necessarily the constant rampaging orgies in full swing that we might expect from the well'entrenched mythology. After a show, by the time a band might de'sweat, crack open a beer or two and have the regular gig post'mortem with their tour manager or others, any admirers may well have already left. Even then, the musicians may have to either head straight to the next town or get to bed in anticipation of an early departure in the morning. Indeed the busy band juggling a hectic touring schedule coupled with other promotional commitments often barely has time to meet people on tour let alone get laid.

The fact is, today rock and roll has very much become a complete business, where dollars and cents can be considerable, and the stakes higher than ever. You better get to that gig instead of screwing around because the label, like it or not, largely owns you. The musician that loses his voice or breaks his guitar'plucking hand in the middle of a tour because he's been overdoing it loses money for everyone. Unless they're so successful that they can weather the storm without too much trouble, a band will simply not be tolerated long enough to survive, let alone function, if they are eating cocaine like Scarface. And today, you won't find too many recent stars of the rock stage that haven't been closely monitored and filtered on their way to the top to ensure the record company's investments are safe. There's too much money at stake, and too many audience members that have learnt a little over the past twenty years of their 'consumer rights' to a full'show for money paid. Just ask Barry White, English band the Happy Mondays, and U.S rock act Creed, who have all faced heat over the years for lost profits in the wake of miserable concert reviews and complaints, and subsequent miserable ticket sales.

In the same vein, compared to the freer reign of years gone by, if a band trash or break something today, managers will often now have the systems in place that ensure the individual artist responsible for the damage will cough up the cash. Arguably it's unfair anyway that the rest of the band should have to pay $12,500 each because the bass player decided to set the sculpture in the hotel's reception area on fire as he 'needed a light for his cigarette' (and yes, that happened). Televisions simply don't fly out of hotel windows like they used to because they are so damned expensive.

No, money matters reign supreme at this level, any behaviour that threatens the profit margin will not ride, and unless you're the hottest property in town, labels generally have another three hundred artists they can take a risk on if you look even slightly suspect. So when you're as much in love with the rock and roll lifestyle as the music, things will unravel rather more quickly. Shed a tear for the local band that ended up losing a record deal because one of their group slept with the wife of a label boss. He did this while at the party the label had thrown for his rising band. Similarly, the band that was wined and dined in Sydney's Chinatown one evening by label executives as prospective artists for the company should probably have eased up on the drink if they wanted to make a good impression. When the night culminates in one of the band members holding an executive in a head'lock at the bar and, while patting on his head, shouting out 'Buy me gin! Buy me gin!', a deal it doesn't make.

In this business environment, the kind of artistic integrity and artistic explorations we might have seen in the rock and roll heroes of yesteryear are harder to come by because they may be viewed as risky investments. So if the millions of dollars are what a musician craves above all else, then perhaps their creativity will bend to meet demand. That means there's less rebels and innovators, and more replicants and copy'cats. Hell, even one of the greatest innovators of them all, David Bowie, securitized the future royalties to his music in 1997, garnering $55 million from the move.

We're now in a world where rock music has become a part of the establishment. It is now a wholly commercial, corporatised institution and this kind of machine is no longer a vehicle for rebellion as it once was, and is quite separate in many ways from the true spirit from which it was born. In a way rock and roll has become so big that it has been subsumed by more conservative and commercial restraints and realities; because such is the nature of big business.

But the paradox in this kind of situation is of course that in a purely commercial sense, promoting the images and scandals of the sex and drug'fuelled rock rebel helps, as discussed, to move units. At the same time, however, labels don't want their rockers so 'actually' messed up that they become some kind of monster that can't meet their deadlines, perform as needed, fulfil their contractual obligations, and will ultimately hurt record sales. Perhaps this is one reason why so many bands today shy away from diving too deeply into living those kinds of rock and roll lifestyles, and exploring the edges of fringe behaviour' because maybe today it's harder than ever to make it in rock and roll, so once you're there, try not to mess it up.

Yet while some bands adopt a more professional attitude to their careers, when it comes to the sex and drugs components of the rock equation, some acts simply perpetuate a hard living and crazy image just for the sake of the show 'for theatre, essentially' and to satisfy whatever it is to be 'rock and roll'. Many people would be amazed at the number of well'known so'called 'bad boys of rock' acts that most think are constantly out drinking and doping up. In fact, prior to a show they're more likely to be found backstage drinking a glass of milk, doing push'ups and talking to their wife on the phone about putting the kids into bed on time and trimming the front hedge rather than anything else. When the lights come up on stage, however, as is the specific case with one established English act, they'll happily stumble out and act like they're wasted for the sake of performance and expectation.

Another artist noted for me that when he did, in the past, do drugs or get drunk before a show, either one of two things usually happened. First, he'd often completely make a mess of things during his performance, and discover that what he thought had been stunning, amazing guitar solos were really genuine rubbish' as pointed out furiously by his record label after the show. And second, the drugs and alcohol would generally amplify the entire experience for him while on stage. That might be great at times, but it had also sent him on other occasions into a reeling mess of paranoia, convinced he was making mistakes when he wasn't, and worried about 'the eyes... all the cursed eyes watching me!' When he figured the nerves of performing were bad enough without adding new dramas to the equation, he wisely stopped getting trashed before gigs. A decision which, of course, was warmly greeted by his enthusiastically litigious record label.

In another example, sometimes a certain expression of sexuality in rock and roll has become fairly widely accepted and is almost of the norm, but drugs are no longer a relevant part of the equation. This can lead to confusing situations. For several years Faye Reid served as publican of the old Iron Duke Hotel in Sydney's west, and it was Faye that opened up the pub as a venue for independent bands. Though a former musician in her own right, as publican Faye had certain responsibilities that came with the job. One of these, at risk of losing her licence, was that she obviously couldn't turn a blind eye to illegal drug activity. When something caught her eye as she entered the pub one evening, it was with such a responsibility in mind that she reacted immediately.

The women's toilets in those days were in a portion of the pub that ran adjacent to Botany Road. Though passer'bys could not actually see into the toilets, through the frosted glass one could relatively easily make out the outline of ladies using the amenities. It was here that, as she entered the building, she spotted what appeared to be the shadowy outline of a female form hunched over the sink and, moving back and forth, making a slight cutting movement of the hand. Faye had seen just about everything through her many years in the music industry. She knew what was happening?this individual was racking up lines of cocaine?and Faye had told these kids once, she'd told them a hundred times, so drugs in my pub! Angrily, Faye now charged inside ready to bust the trouble'maker.

As she burst through the door and into the women's toilets, she instantly began her tirade and prepared speech about 'No bloody drugs in my venue!' when she stopped cold in her tracks. It appeared she'd forgotten the special 'type' of artists set to perform in the Iron Duke that evening. Standing over the sink was a young girl in her twenties. Comb in hand, she was carefully teasing out the hair laid over the sink that belonged to a cross'dresser in a sequin'laden frock and red stilettos seated patiently below. As something to the effect of 'Awww, crap!' went through Faye's mind, she wheeled her vigilant self around and cursed the illusions generated by frosted glass and transsexual guitarists.

But while the rock and roll landscape has changed considerably over the last fifty years, so too has the outside world. We've been through a sexual revolution and many forms of drug use are not nearly as stigmatised as they once were. Even drugs have almost become corporatised in a sense, and an entire industry of dance music practically thrives based upon on the presence of drugs. We've since had the onset of AIDS and an era of political correctness. We can now presume that overall many people display more educated judgement in their sexual practices nowadays than they did back in 1982 when a condom was thought of only as a great item within which to hide cocaine.

The world is more litigious. Apparently many rock stars and celebrities in the United States have become so fearful of false rape and assault allegations that many are now employing 'bedroom witnesses' whose sole job is to be in the bedroom while a star is engaged in sex with groupies, thus providing proof against any wrongdoing should the issue arise. Rock and roll sexual empowerment in that kind of circumstance has certainly taken a battering.

We've had some tightening of censorship over rock music' it's arguably harder for a rocker to push that envelope to as broad an audience as possible while there are 'parental advisory, explicit lyrics' labels on his or her albums. And in the wake of 9'11, there's been even more of an encroachment, particularly in America, upon certain types of more 'liberally challenging' art and behaviour. The Federal Communications Commission has tightened its reign over what it deems to be profane and offensive material. In 2001 Clear Channel Communications, the largest owner of radio stations in the United States, released a list of more than 150 ...lyrically questionable" songs that station's might have wanted to to pull from their playlists. Few songs portrayed explicit violence or overt sex and drugs references, but most had metaphoric themes that rang a bit too close to the September 11 tragedies. The list, containing music from almost every genre in popular music, included the song ...Jet Airliner... by Steve Miller, AC/DC's ...Highway to Hell,... Pat Benatar's ...Hit Me with Your Best Shot,... ... REM's ...It's the End of the World as We Know It,... ...Only the Good Die Young... by Billy Joel, and all songs by Rage Against The Machine. It's hard to consider that under these kinds of restraints rock and roll is as effective and powerful a vehicle for expression as it once was (for more information on music censorship in America, check out the excellent www.http://ericnuzum.com/banned/).

But perhaps audiences have simply become tired of scandal and constant extremity in an era where media saturation makes the explicit and the taboo almost impossible to avoid. From the titillation of Madonna and Britney's kiss, we've reached the backlash against Janet Jackson's breast, and increasingly it seems that kind of fringe behaviour and expression is seen less with an interested eye among the public than with a cynical sneer. Perhaps (and we can only hope) the public are public are recognising such incidents for what they are' not innovation and exploration, but cheap exposure, self'promotion and scandal for the sake of scandal.

Or maybe we've just gone as far as we can? While some might posit that acts like Britney Spears dancing around in a school uniform, or pseudo'lesbian teen'pop act Tatu from Russia are flirting with almost paedophilic suggestions that are 'new to the mainstream', these artists aren't really innovative or artistically motivated, and neither are the middle'aged men behind the scenes managing their careers and images' they're just after quick record sales.

Instead, if it takes Marilyn Manson appearing onstage as a eunuch to prompt real outcry, perhaps it's worth arguing that just about every avenue for sexual and alternative rebellion in rock and roll has almost been explored. That when every angle has been broached, you almost need to take away the sexuality altogether and turn it in on itself in order to head into new directions. Maybe that kind of sexually'neutral approach is why we've seen the success in recent years of so many overtly non'sexual rock acts that make a point of not selling themselves as sex symbols, or on hard living images' Bands like Beck, Weezer, Moby, Coldplay, and the English rockers Radiohead singing 'I'm a freak, I'm a loser'.

Or is it just that the rebellion is no longer relevant to rock and roll? Though you could debate exactly how successful the war has been, perhaps the real mantle for rebellion, for new expressions of male and female sexuality and power was transferred from rock and roll to rap and hip'hop in the early'1980's. Maybe it was here that the torch passed on to a whole new generation of disaffected individuals that sought out music 'of a different form and style' that represented a vehicle for their own escape and for their own expression.

At the end of the day, it's certainly true to say that whether at the grassroots or megastar levels of the music scene, sex, drugs and rock and roll are a given, and rock and roll has certainly proven itself as source of sexual and other empowerment for many a successful, innovative and, indeed, fragile artist over the years, inspiring and effecting reaction and change in the community. On and off'stage antics, revelling in excess and embracing insanity might be ill'placed in other professions, but for some, it's text book behaviour that should be encouraged as part of every musician's esprit de corps.

However as we've seen, the mythology of sex, drugs and rock and roll won't always match the reality'a reality in which corporatisation, professionalism, changed attitudes and long gone eras and, in a sense, social evolution have at times dramatically altered the rock and roll landscape. 'Sex, drugs and rock and roll' is a cliché, but it's become a cliché because it's true, and the three still very much go hand in hand, even though dollars and something of a slow decline in the rock rebellion are an intervening factor more than ever.

This essay was first presented as a lecture at Sydney University in September, 2004.