COSMICBEN'S RECORD REVIEWS
"Is this a website?" "No, it's a science experiment!!" <----Place *that* reference!!
Das Book Sektion
Yes, I read books--not as much as I used to, but sometimes. Here, I'll review some of the music-related (or not, we'll see) books I've read in the last few years.
* * * * * Dave Marsh: The Heart of Rock and Soul: The 1001 Greatest Singles Ever Made (1989)--I really can't do justice to this book in a review. For once, I'm gonna let my unexplained biases do the talking and say that this is the best music book I've ever read. Hell, I haven't even read the whole thing--there are 1001 entries and two huge introductions, and frankly, I've only read the stuff that looked interesting to me. But I've read those parts so many times that the book is falling apart from overuse. I'll say it right now: Marsh is a pompous ass; his sentiments are unbearably sappy; he follows up on pet theories when you wish he'd just shut up and stick to the facts; and half the time, I have no idea what he's babbling about. But I love it. If you buy into his prose, this is a fascinating ride through rock and soul history, and his opinions are unique enough to be entertaining in themselves. You'll probably catch something new each time; I know I do (his overall purpose took me years to come across; the spooky/fascinating story of record #1001), and it's always a thrill to hear a new song and then rush to see what Marsh thought of it. The best part is that he isn't just listing his favorite songs: he's actually pushing an unheard-of theory into the garbled, monotonous dogma that is rock criticism. To him, excitement and soul (not just Otis Redding, per se, but anytime a performer really believes what he or she is singing) are always better than artiness and polish. "I'm Down," an obscure Beatles B-side, is better than all of Abbey Road. "Surfin' USA" is praised; Pet Sounds isn't even mentioned. If that sounds blasphemous--if you immediately disagree with anything he has to say--keep in mind that that's exactly the chance he's taking, and play along anyway. You'll learn as much as you can learn from anyone's opinions, and he adds enough facts to make this work as an opinionated textbook as well. Most representative/mindblowing statement: P. 512--"It remaines important to understand how utterly accidental, if not arbitrary, it is that we have the tradition of telling the story of rock and roll through the album medium." Ever ponder that before?
* * * Philip Norman: Shout! The Beatles In Their Generation--I'm torn. I really enjoyed reading this book, and at 397 detailed pages, it says a lot that this is the first "real" book I've bothered to finish in over a year. And Norman certainly did his homework: he seems to have gotten to every hanger-on, obsessive fan, lawyer, and former Quarryman who was ever present for a memorable Beatles moment. His prose is immaculate: very British, but at the same time, easy to read, making even the most excruciating business deal bearable and even interesting. The final product is a phenomenal account of Beatlemania, of the highs and lows of the greatest musical ride of the 20th century, of the boneheaded moves that almost brought the group down, the charisma that saved them, and the millions of fans who loved them anyway. And yet, one still finishes the book without any sense of who the Beatles really were. Norman freely admits that he was barely able to talk to any of the Fabs himself, but you'd think that after almost 400 pages, the reader would have a sense of what they were like beyond Paul being a perfectionist, John being sarcastic, George being quiet, and Ringo being, well, Ringo. The songs are listed, the rabid public reaction is chronicled in impressive detail, but the Beatles themselves are never shown as anything more than spoiled children, with no indication of how those children still managed to add over a hundred classic songs to our lexicon, no indication of why their music is still revered today. And Norman's critical ear is laughable--George was a talentless kid until the White Album? Paul was never as great as John? "Can't Buy Me Love" was the least memorable Lennon/McCartney song?--making you wonder whether he actually liked the groups and genre he dedicated so many years to chronicling. By the time he asserts that Brian Jones was "the only musician of consequence" in the Rolling Stones and that the world was bored by the moon landing, you start to wonder what planet Norman was writing this book from. His focus is also misguided: he goes pages without even mentioning the Beatles, instead concentrating on the business dealings that went on behind their collective backs--all important information, I'm sure, but ultimately distracting in a book supposedly about a musical group. In the end, we're left with two fleshed-out character studies/pet themes--manager Brian Epstein and arguable "fifth Beatle" Stu Sutcliffe, both apparently more important than the group would have us believe--and vague caricatures of four personalities who certainly deserved better than that. There's tons to be learned from reading Shout!, but I can't help thinking that a single Beatle interview would be more insightful, and ultimately more rewarding, to the interested fan.
* * Tim Riley: Tell Me Why--A song-by-song analysis of everything the Beatles ever released, it's decent, but also exemplifies the fundamental stupidity of lots of "true" Beatles fans: like so many others, Riley slobbers over John Lennon and is downright resentful of Paul McCartney's status as Lennon's equal. And I don't get it. Everyone always complains that Paul was too sissy, too lightweight, and that he didn't rock like John did, that he didn't write great lyrics like John did, and that he simply was no John Lennon. So here you have the greatest band of all time, and one of the two brilliant leaders gets no respect because he's not the other guy. Why would we want another John Lennon? We already have one--in the same band! Face it: without Paul McCartney, the Beatles lose tons of creativity, melody, instrumental virtuosity, commercial appeal, beauty, and the whole second side of Abbey Road, which would be a travesty in itself. McCartney may be a sissy, but he did it better than anyone else, with an impeccable sense of melody and a total mastery of the recording studio. Some people will list his more "rockin'" songs to show how he was less poppy than people would believe, but I think they're missing the point too: he might have rocked on occasion, but that wasn't his forte, and trying to prove his rockin'-ness only further perpetuates the misconception that he should have been another John Lennon--and what a waste that would have been. Anyway, I was reviewing a book... In Tell Me Why, Riley glosses over some of McCartney's most elaborate productions so he can scrutinize every word of Lennon's meaningless (and acknowledged!) throwaways, and those McCartney songs he does go in depth about are either lambasted or, when he's in a generous mood, reluctantly complimented. For example, his nice treatment of "Hey Jude" almost seems guilt-driven because he realizes that halfway though the book, it's practically the only nice thing he's said about Sir Paul. Gee, can you tell that this makes me mad? To be fair, Riley is an intelligent dude, and it's nice to have a comprehensive description of the Beatles' music on hand, even when he's gushing over Lennon's genius in selecting and covering 50's music (!). Worth a read, but please don't take it too seriously.
Ben, stick to the Hardy Boys!
Ben, as a book critic, you make a decent music reviewer.