Kill Your Idols
edited by Jim DeRogatis and Carmel Carrillo
This is a agreat concept...take classic albums, the records that are always on the "greatest of all time" lists and find someone to bash the hell out of them. You got it, this has bad reviews of classic albums from "Pet Sounds" to "Nevermind."
The book was compiled by Jim DeRogatis and Carmel Carrillo...Jim is a rock critic who writes for the Chicago Tribune and Carmel is an editor for the Chicago Tribune. For the most part, the reviews are intelligent and thought out. While they may not convince you your favorite album is crap, the reviews will certainly make you think about why you perceive something as great. I like things like this, yes I think "Damaged" is one of the best punk records, but here's the thing....some schmuck on amazon.com saying "they suck, Henry�s a sellout" doesn't create thought or conversation. An articulate, lengthy explanation of why someone feels it's flat out bad does. That�s why I like this.
The albums featured in this book cover most aspects of the blanket term �rock.� It's safe to say that at least a few reviews in this book will be relevant to you...and if you do pay attention to "greatest albums" lists (which I do, but mainly so I have something to bitch about), this definitely is great resource.
But as with any anthology, while there is something for everyone, the odds are there's plenty of stuff in here that will be irrelevant to you....Captain Beefheart, The Byrds, Bob Marley, Elvis Costello...none of those bands mean anything to me and I can't really justify sitting down and reading about things that don't interest me when there�s so much out there. While quite honestly, a good 60% of this book is pretty much useless to me, the quality of the relevant material justifies the price (or at least the trip to the library).
Highlights.
I�ll briefly sum up relevant reviews and comment. While I suppose I am giving some information away, I will leave plenty of information out so the book is still worth reading. These aren�t �responses� as much as it�s brief commentary.
----------
I was glad to see The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" in here....that record is one I've listened to about a dozen times since Rolling Stone gave it the number 2 spot in the best albums of all time. It's not something that hit me right away and while I can say that after repeated listens there are some good songs, it's definitely not something I'd rant and rave about.
The reviewer feels that depressing lyrics matched with the happy music is insane, I am one of these fools that enjoys a bit of contrast. The problem seems to be this isn't dangerous enough for "rock" but maybe I'm looking at it through 2004 goggles, but I wouldn't call the Beach Boys a rock band, they're a pop band that became popular singing goofy songs about surfing. Is there a shock it's not "dangerous"?
----------
MC5's "Kick Out The James" is given a hacking as well. The reviewer dislikes just about everything...the sound of the record, the songs, and the lyrics. I am a fan of this band and I enjoy this album (though of the three they released, it is my least favorite). Basically, the band, at this point, was managed by John Sinclair of the White Panthers...now when reading Sinclair's writings, it just looks like someone did too many drugs and was given a pen, a notebook, and a week off of work...it doesn't make sense, it's not practical, he wants to abolish money, kick out the jams, and take over the world with the power of rock and roll. It's goofy, it's nonsense, and the fact that he took himself so seriously is as hilarious as it is sad.
So when I see things like that, my thought is...don't bother analyzing it, what's the point? So the guy was doped up and was blasting whatever trippy crap people listened to and figured out rock and roll would save the planet...to me, that's not worth criticizing.
The overwhelming blast of the record is a bit hard to take at first but once you develop the right "ears" to listen to it with, it makes sense...this one took me a while unlike "Back in the USA" which hit me immediately. So I can see why one would have a problem with it sonically, but I disagree. The band wanted a sound and got it�do you think Van Gogh was really nearsighted and that�s why his paintings are blurry?
But, the lyrics? I guess I'm not a lyrics nut...the songs are pure and primal...it's stereotypical 60s...they were all about love, dope, destroying "the man" and then they grew up and got over it and sold their logo to Levi's...in fact, if my knowledge of the band is correct shortly after this was recorded the band began distancing themselves from Sinclair because even they realized he was nuts and a bit of a hypocrite...Andy Wang, the reviewer here, even points out...how can you support destroying authority and money while you put on a show, charge admission, hire all sorts of security goons, and arrive at the gig in a limo? Well, I guess it's easy...MC5 is not Sinclair...and this reviewer seems to really dislike Sinclair.
----------
I enjoyed reading the essay on Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album. About half of the review is the point that Zeppelin ripped off most of their music from not only old blues, but even from contemporaries (the intro to "Stairway" was stolen from a band named Spirit who Zeppelin toured with). The author fleshes out the review (40% of the �review� to be exact) by telling us about being at a school dance, slow dancing to "Stairway to Heaven," and suffering from a bit of...well, read the book. This is one of my favorite reviews because the author�s point was simple, he backed it up, and he fleshed out the review by telling a great story.
----------
DeRogatis and Lorraine Ali's review of the The Best of the Doors is basically a conversation with them ranting about how much they hate the band...basically, Jim Morrison was the Ashton Kutcher of his time...unintelligent, handsome so the ladies love him and macho so the guys like him. The music is pop and sound like bad lounge songs. Lyrically, they find that Morrison's poetry was juvenile at best, pretentious and flat out bad at worst. I'm not sure how many people seriously view Morrison as a poet...but I guess I'm about to prove myself to be an illiterate boob...but isn't poetry almost always pretentious? Maybe I'm confusing the folks who meet down at the coffee house on Saturday "Slam Nights" with "real" poets, but I think pretension comes with the territory. I like The Doors as it happens, but I'm not foolish enough to call them a great rock band, they were ultimately little more than a pop band who experimented a bit. Every argument made in this review is legitimate and the conversation is good and spiteful.
----------
The Sex Pistols �Never Mind the Bollocks� according to the author has two good songs, maybe one or two decent songs, and the rest filler. The band were not the first punk band and didn�t influence anyone�at least not anywhere near to the extent of bands like The Ramones, New York Dolls, and though the author doesn�t name them, Black Flag. Guess what? He�s right. There�s plenty more to read�I�m not a Sex Pistols fan, I listen to this album every year or so in hopes I hear something new but it never happens. Great review.
----------
The review of Dead Kennedy�s �Fresh Fruit For Rotten Vegetables� is one of the most irrelevant. Basically, the reviewer hates Jello Biafra. From reading interviews (and not personal encounters) I gather the guy�s an arrogant asshole too. That being said, I can�t deny this is a great album, in fact it�s one of the best punk albums out there. The complaints: the sound is flat, the lyrics are erratic, and �what is with that voice?� Of course the sound is flat, of course the lyrics, and of course Jello has a strange voice...my retort? ProTools didn�t exist back then, the lyrics are pretty normal for schticky political punk, and Jello�s voice is unique love it or hate it.
----------
The review of Public Enemy�s �It Took A Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back� is well�the reviewer feels that by the time this album came out racism had become a non-issue. That there really wasn�t much discrimination anymore and certainly not a �nation of millions� trying to oppress blacks. Also, Public Enemy�s lyrical influence from the Nation of Islam, actually suggest that if anyone is a bigot, it would be the band who support an anti-Semitic organization. Amazing. There�s plenty more in the review�and hopefully this summation will perk your interest enough to read further.
----------
The last review I�ll comment on is Nirvana�s �Nevermind.� This is the type of review that demonstrates musical snobbery at its best. Nirvana didn�t create anything, they didn�t invent this style of music, and they did nothing that The Pixies or Husker Du didn�t do far better, years earlier. The reason why this is a great album is because of�ironically�music critics! The media created this band because they felt they were rock�s last hope. My take is pretty simple, Nirvana is alright. This album is okay, I prefer In Utero, but even that album isn�t great. Rock critics, alternative radio, and MTV created this band just as they created the icon status of Kurt Cobain. The album isn�t bad, but man�if people think this is great �alternative� rock, check the local bargain bins for a band named Circus of Power, that�s some good shit right there.
----------
Did you actually make it this far? I�m impressed.
If you made it this far, then you definitely should check out this book. There are plenty more reviews that I enjoyed, and plenty I skipped over and hope I never become lame enough that I would want to read a U2 review.
