Music Biographies: Killing The Mystique?

i think rock biographies are boring really. in most cases i'm not really hugely interested in the artist per se. the brian wilson autobiography was actually very good, but i haven't been moved to read any others.

there's the danger that the people you read about turn out to be shit, i don't really mean 'nasty', just tedious. just because somebody makes a good record doesn't make them interesting as a person. also, anyone who gets a biography must be pretty established so there's never really anything new (unless you count minutae)

i think i'd rather read about 'scenes' and context, with criticism and analysis and all that gubbins. its hardly controversial to say it here but i'd much rather read a book like energy flash which genuinely excites about stuff i might not have heard. unfortunately, it seems this kind of book isn't particularly common.

They can be a good read, I'm thinking of the Gram Parsons bio and the Keef bio. But there have to be plenty drugs ;) The problem with bio's in general is that they tend to be predictable: you got this kid, he/she grows up, has some talent, conquers the world, takes loadsa drugs and dies a tragic death. I was thinking of reading a Patti Smith bio but in the end I didn't because my own mythology will in the end be far more interesting. That said I'm finishing a Heidegger bio which is rather good, but you don't get endless details about what breakfast he ate on the day 'Being & Time' was published but an excellent intellectual overview of 20th century thought and Heidegger's place in it, while retaining some of the mystery of the dude.

The 'traditional' music biography aims itself at the fan of the artist, and in order to sell copies has to be reasonably flattering in its appraisal of that artist. The better biographies transcend the syndrome with better writing and a more critical approach.

In another sense it somehow removed those records from being 'my' property and turned them back into public property, killing off any remaining mystique they might have had.

You seem to be returning to a pet theme of yours: that your relationship to the music you listen to and write about is personal, and best left unencumbered by knowledge of the people who made the music. I don't really have a strong view on this, except to say that finding out about the tawdry circumstances of how a record was made (and the career-building machinations that might have been going on) needn't diminish the mystique of the record itself. Pop music to me will always be a strange mixture of beauty/poignancy and the cynical business side (then again I suppose this is true of all art forms).

The best band-related biography book I've read is "A Riot of Our Own". Never has killing off mystique about a band been so much fun! No matter, the Clash are *still* my favorite band.

The odd thing is that I just finished Head On/Repossesed yesterday!

Parts of this book are hilarious and fun, but I felt somehow so weary by the end of it. It does kill the mystique. Music is a kind of magic, and that magic can be spoiled for you if the magician tells you how it is done. I usually don't like to read them, but since I have an affection for Copey I couldn't pass it up. I rather wish I had though, because all the acid tales and infighting made everything seem really banal.

At least in this case the writing is enjoyable (for the most part). Another reason to pass up rock biographies is that about 90% of the books are just awful.Bad writers who either make the mistake of fawning over their subject (see Paolo Hewitt's entire written works) or go in with an agenda that doesn't really let the writer get a clear idea of what the artist is all about.

Most of the writers with something interesting to say stick more with the criticism/theory end of things.

I generally have no use for performer mystique, but I once stopped reading Legs McNeil's Please Kill Me after a couple chapters because artists I love were coming across as such major-league assholes that I was afraid I was gonna start hating them. I'm not into biographies in a big way, but they can be a fun read when there's a bunch of good stories to tell about the performer. But yeah, they can be pretty predictable - I hate bios where the second half is all about the artist's business struggles or fights with the record company or whatever.

Tom, sometimes I wonder if you would prefer it if music was created by robots. You always seem put off by the idea of personal lives of the stars, unless it's a single press-worthy moment we can take the piss out of. It's come up before, you seem to feel that knowing about the artists' lives lessens the impact of the song for you personally, which is your thing but it's not something I 100% understand.

I personally read tons of biographies so I read rock bios for the same reason I read other bios: I find people's lives interesting. I like to think about the psychology of other people. Quite obviously, you have to get the bio of someone interesting (ie Keith Moon is intrinsically going to be a better read than Dave Matthews).

I also, from the standpoint of rock bios only, like to know about the artists and their lives because for me it does lead to a greater understanding of the songs for certain artists. I'm someone for whom having an understanding of what the song was about for the artist doesn't change what the song is about for me, so I just find it an interesting thing to know. Other people, knowing what the artist thought would change their idea on the song and that's not always good.

It all depends, I guess.

I think it all depends on what artist is being talked about or does the writing. I have no problem at all with the infighting etc. of _Head On/Repossessed_, simply because I don't see the connections between history and album as all that intrinsic. In otherwards, I can merrily relisten to _Kilimanjaro_ without having to think, "Oh yeah, that was the one song where blah blah blah etc." -- it's sometimes entertaining background info to have, but not a footnote that overwhelms the main text, if you will.

So if the book is well-written, the subject of interest to me to begin with and so forth, bring on the bio. Last year, besides getting that, I also picked up Marc Almond's _Tainted Life_, Tom Doyle's Billy Mackenzie bio and Bill Drummond's _45_. Four distinctly different books stylistically, all containing a fair amount of all-too-human foibles and backgrounds, all fantastically great reads. Love it.

Actually, the best "rock" biograpy that I've ever read didn't even pretend to be "objective" or fawning about the band it was covering...

And that band is flipping Abba!!! The unnoficial biog "The Name Of the Game" by Andrew Loog OldHam, Colin Irwin and erm some other bloke, not only kills the "mystique" surrounding the band, but does so in order to construct another completely different "mystique" in which Abba are not the insanely squeaky-clean pop quartet with cheesy tunes (which invariably sold loads) that we thought they were, but a bunch of ageing complex characters with a previous track record in pop, methodically disguising themselves as an insanely squeaky-clean pop quartet with cheesy tunes which invariably sold loads because they were The Best Band In The World (tm).

It's a bit like Abba's "Hammer Of The Gods", except it's a bit more interesting. :) Especially as the books starts taking obnoxiously opinionated potshots at every conceivable sacred cow of popular music, and even some of Abba's own material. (eg "Let's be honest, it was a donkey of a song") The opening chapter on the 1974 Eurovision in Brighton is also a classic.

So, stuff like that is what I like to see in biogs. But to be honest, I don't read much of them, not necessarily because they destroy "mystique", but they destroy my will to live due to the small fact that they're so bloody boring!!!!!! They're generally so nice to the people they're covering, that any attempt at reportage or discursive discourse goes out the window. The last biog I read, on Syd Barret, did a pretty good job on covering the evolution of the London psychedelic scene in the late 60s, but as soon as it went near Syd's work, it turned into the "Brilliant!!!" character from the Fast Show!!! That's the prob with a lot of biogs- they're often like some bloody annoying bloke at a party contastantly telling you how great the current record playing is, obliterating any chance of actually hearing it!!

Harumph!!!!

Old Fart!!!!!

Is that ABBA bio still in print? I want to read it like right now! I read that Syd Barret bio too, it was allright but still predictable in the end. Now on the other hand: the Miles Davis auto-bio is excellent esp. since every 'motherfucker' is left in the text, so it's more "a conversation with Miles" or "Miles tells it like it is" (which should have been the title of the book really).

Anyone read David Lee Roth's auto-biog "Crazy from the heat"?..I couldnt give a shit about Van Halen but this book is wicked, a right laugh!!I havent read any rock-bios except Albert Goldmans "The lives of John Lennon" which probably put me off them for life. I'd rather read books about music like "Psychotic reactions and carburetor dung" or "Energy Flash".