RIP Ian Macdonald?

He wrote 'Revolution in the head' and a book abt shostakovich (sp?), which apparently caused a lot of controversy among classical crits at the time but his son thought it was the best thing written abt him.

The orbit notes that, while at the NME, he was abt the only one that gave neil young's 'on the beach' a positive review.

he was 54 and 'died by his own hand'.

I've read little by him and the only thing I remember was a review of Coltrane's 'Last concert'. It was lame (it was 'late period' and so you know, that's that) but it was published in Uncut mag, which only gives a couple of paras max. I hate that fucking mag.

I bought Revolution In The Head in hardback at the height of my Beatles fixation and loved it to bits. I always think of him cursing the demise of craft (and rhythm guitarists) in pop and the advent of the power rock trio.

I always find it sadder when it's an older person who kills themself.

RIP.

He always seemed to want to judge records not just on their own merits but where they sat in the culture as a whole and what impact they had on that culture, which is valid but sometimes you just want to enjoy music on it's own terms. I particularly remember the 2 stars he gave to the Zombies box set in Uncut rubbing me up the wrong way.

What the...? I liked "Revolution In the Head" and I don't even like the Beatles (sadly however his Nick Drake thing was one of the worst things I've ever read in my life). I think the fact that he was one of the first (and one of the only) British journalists in the 70s to pick up on German rock is worth noting. Shame.

It may not be much given my low level of interest in rock/pop criticism but he was probably my favourite critic (ie, the only one whose opinions I ever paid any attention to).

i remember reading his 70s nme reviews with anticipation and glee - his opinions always seemed to match my own: when i was a teenager you needed your half baked opinions stamped with someone elses authority. his small review of robert wyatt's 'rock bottom' was the thing that drew me to it initially (and it's easy availability helped too) even if it's grand claims ('the future of music') were obviously o.t.p.

i finally picked up 'revolution in the head' last year and, even though i'm not a beatles afficianado, i loved it to bits. once again his grand essay claims were slightly ridiculous (eg modern pop is all sampled, looped music and this can never generate melodic interest... unlike the bealtes who were the masters and so on) but the bulk of the book is extremely well written and informative and the unadulterated obsessional character of it is impressive.

Should take this off thread though, respects 'n all, e-mail is here.)

Barney Hoskyns' obituary.

If I had made my debt to Ian MacDonald clearer in his lifetime, maybe even tried to contact him, I wonder if I could have made him feel more optimistic about the next generation, my being 32 years his junior? Ah well, in the final analysis maybes don't really count. All I can say is thank you, Ian; you made me think harder, and although you didn't inspire me to love most of the music I chose to love, you *did* have a great effect on the way I think about it.

And was the world any better in the 60s, 70s or 80s ?

It's very sad news - I don't agree with some of his main musical tenets (e,g the destructive influence of punk and sequenced music), but he was always worth reading. Revolution in the Head is fantastic and I loved his long-ish reviews which were in Uncut for a while. RIP.

has anyone read his book on Shostakovich?

The one IMacD is rilly RILLY right abt = "Let It Be."

A lot of Beatles obsessives got annoyed with what they claimed were errors of fact in RITH. See here for example.

I'm confused - "I Want You" isn't rock?

Geez I never knew, until today, what ILM was.
Now I know. Bit slow on the uptake, is Baal. And this time of night talks in third person as well.

anyone know anything about the status of ian macdonald's last book, "birds, beasts & fishes"? it was apparently uncompleted at his death but there's a "december 2007" release date on amazon.

excerpt here: http://rfrederick.diaryland.com/ian_mac.html

Been reading REVOLUTION IN THE HEAD at last.

N said: "I bought Revolution In The Head in hardback at the height of my Beatles fixation and loved it to bits. I always think of him cursing the demise of craft (and rhythm guitarists) in pop and the advent of the power rock trio."

I just read this bit, having been told about it by someone else (it's in the Helter Skelter section).

I don't get this pro-rhythm-guitar thing at all. Rhythm guitarists are not a very interesting sound and not always necessary. The most obvious contradiction to IM's view is the Smiths - OK, they did take an extra guitarist on the road for late tours, but you don't listen to their work and think 'if only this band had a Rhythm Guitarist, they'd be subtle'.

You can do a lot with one guitar on its own, never mind a rhythm section. If you have a rhythm section and an electric guitar, you have more than enough to be going on with.

(That theme is a small detail, to be sure - never mind IM's theories of Western Civilization etc)

slate has been posting a bunch of excerpts from 'revolution in the head' as part of a beatles series. not really doing more than skimming most of them since i'm way overdue for a reread anyway, but this one's a good reminder that iMac wrote about the beatles better than just about anyone:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/12/03/the_beatles_love_me_do_rises_up_the_charts_blogging_the_beatles_50_years.html