Pop History

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What would a good history of pop (or rock) be like? Has one been written? What would it focus on? What historical approaches would it take? Who would it interview?

― Tom, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think any attempt to create a definitive history of music would have to wander into the dark forest rather than keeping to the paths as most books of this type have done.

The disco movement to be recognised over and above punk as the first truly multi cultural musical phenomenon and the catalist formuch of what we now know and love as pop.

Thrue innovators such as Mark E Smith, Jimmy Webb (of course) Nile Rodgers/Bernard Edwards, Jonathan Richman etc to be recognised rather than the tried and trusted names that have already been analised a million times over.(and no, that's not a spelling mistake)

Lots of pretty pictures and maybe a free video of unseen footage.

Lots of lists cos I like lists.

Kris.

― Kris England, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Wouldn't it be interesting for high-profile pop stars to interview critics and pop fans, rather than the other way around?

― Clarke B., Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Didn't Chuck Eddy already do this? ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Wouldn't it be interesting for high-profile pop stars to interview critics and pop fans, rather than the other way around?

"Why do you like me?"

"Because you're so goddamn great."

"Why thank you!"

End of discussion. Or me and Billy Corgan -- but who is who?

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

James Brown, various teens from american Bandstand, John Peel and Ringo for sure. Hopefully David Wisdom or Brent Bambury. Jay Ferguson (Sloan), Jack Rabid and The Sex Pistols Manager could possible be an interesting interview.
The only thing I would enforce on all videos is no one could talk about themselves and interpreters would be present for Bob Dylan and Kieth Richards.
Id start at the rise of jazz only briefly mentioning the movements before it that could be fitted into a pop catagory.

― Mr Noodles, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Kris,

It wouldn't be terribly historical to leave out the names that have already been analyzed extensively merely because they have already been taken care of elsewhere.

20th Century European history: well, WWI and WWII have been dealt with ad nauseum, let's leave them out.

― DeRayMi, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes that would be punk history.

― mark s, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Take the text book approach, leave it as exercise for the viewer.

― Mr Noodles, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I really like the multi-author, overlapping essays approach, a la the 1976 or (especially) 1979 editions of The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock, edited by Jim Miller (who as James later wrote the singularly hateful Flowers in the Dustbin). I imagine my ultimate history would be some kind of cross between that book, Ed Ward et. al.'s Rock of Ages (another Rolling Stone brainchild, three writers taking on three eras, very well too), The Ego Trip Book of Rap Lists, Generation Ecstasy, England's Dreaming, plus expert chapters/sections on music from Africa, Brazil, and whatever the hell else seems relevant. Sue me, I want it all.

― M Matos, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There's some sort of alt-era book of lists I've got around the place which is actually pretty damn amusing. If Ego Trip keeps getting namechecked, this one belongs there too. But not the Dave Marsh-edited book of rock lists wazoos that inspired them both.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ed Ward
Erase from memory. Failed. ILM keeps inserting it back in zee mega byte bank.
Shuker's "Understanding Popular Music" is, so far, entertaining. A bit dry and *conservative* though.

― nathalie, Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

One person.....The King......Marc Bolan.Enough said!

― James H., Tuesday, 16 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

DeRayMe. What I meant was that although the obvious topics, Blues, the development of Rock and roll, Jazz, the protest movement of the 60's, Punk, etc are important and would have to be covered they have already been done to death and in order to produce a definitive (note that word definitive)guide to music other areas would have to be explored and re evaluated as certain genres/artists have been undervalued regarding their relitive importance.

Social history in general is regarded as important in defining the bigger picture and an empirical study of the history of music would be both pointless and predictable (my bookcases are full of such stuff and it's dull)

I was merely pointing out a few names/genres which I feelhave been overlooked in the past.

Why does every American study of music include a big section on Carl Perkins? does he own the publishing rights on any interpretation of music or what?

Kris

― Kris England, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It would be nice for it to be organzied some other way than chronologically, too. The sheer timeline-iness of most pop/rock histories just reinforces and encourages the lazy notion of a historical/causal Chain Of Influence.

― Clarke B., Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The Accidental Evolution of Rock'n'Roll isn't chronological. Luckily it doesn't interview anyone.

― mark s, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Semi-serious answer: about half the book would be about OPERA. This is assuming we are talking about pop as mass-consumer experience/phenomena (which means we can conveniently ignore all folky nonsense too hurrah!).

― Jeff W, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I know this makes me the uncoolest clown in christendom, but I really really like Dave Marsh's 'Heart of Rock and Soul' bk - you get actual erm facts (the entry on 'Louie Louie' is superb), a fairly decent range of styles/tunes, and PLENTY to argue w/ or abt. If you bought every one of those 500 singles you'd have a fantastic - if demented - rec collec, and a v. good 'grounding' in the roots of modern (post) pop.

― Andrew L, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Donald Clarke wrote a very interesting book called The Rise and Fall of Popular Music that takes a macro look at the history of pop music, from ballads sold on broadsheets all the way up to the (relatively) contemporary era. It's quite fascinating from a historical perspective, although it's not likely to please many ILM readers with its conclusion: pop music pretty much peaked in the big-band era and it's been all downhill from there.

― lee g, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Mr. Matos: 1979 edition of Rolling Stone Illustrated History = auf dem Geld!

― Colin Meeder, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The best book of this kind that I have is the Faber Book of POP, edited by Jon Savage & Haresh Kureshi (sp?). It's short essays and excerpts covering post-WW2 => the mid-90's. It's far from perfect & a bit stuffier than it needs to be considering the subject but has some smart choices like Nik Cohn's original piece that was the basis for "Saturday Night Fever", a bit from a pulp novel on Glam by that creepy guy who wrote the Skinhead novels, a hilarious bit from Iggy Pop's autobiography about how he avoided the draft...etc. etc.

Anyway, I think the approach of using writing on Pop from the time it was current is a good one. It's interesting to see what the dominant and insurgent forces were perceived of at the time, what people thought was going to be The Next Big Thing.

― fritz, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What use would a band interviewing a journalist be?

Bands rarely have anything useful to say... unless a journalist prompts them

― Sonicred, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There's some sort of alt-era book of lists I've got around the place which is actually pretty damn amusing. If Ego Trip keeps getting namechecked, this one belongs there too.

Ned--you don't mean that Rolling Stone Alt-Rock-a-Rama book, do you? just curious.

I know this makes me the uncoolest clown in christendom, but I really really like Dave Marsh's 'Heart of Rock and Soul' bk - you get actual erm facts (the entry on 'Louie Louie' is superb), a fairly decent range of styles/tunes, and PLENTY to argue w/ or abt. if you really want to have some fun, seek out Allen Lowe's American Pop From Minstrel to Mojo, a very argumentative and quite fun book with a similar structure. And get the 9CD box (retails around $75, a bargain) that covers the same terrain from 1893-1946--a GREAT listen.

The best book of this kind that I have is the Faber Book of POP, edited by Jon Savage & Haresh Kureshi (sp?). It's short essays and excerpts covering post-WW2 => the mid-90's.

Clinton Heylin did a similar book but it's nowhere as good as it should be. Ditto William McKeen's atrocous Rock and Roll is Here to Stay from 2000.

― M Matos, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ned--you don't mean that Rolling Stone Alt-Rock-a-Rama book, do you?

That's the one -- you sound dubious. It's not a *perfect* book, but there's some hilarious individual bits in there, like Zu-Zu's Petals talking about their various incarnations on the road.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Gosh, I really need to read The Accidental Evolution of Rock and Roll.

― Clarke B., Thursday, 18 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

one year passes...

that faber book of... POP is going for £5 (down from £20!!!) at yr local fopp.

any opinions on the book beyond what fritz said?

― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 21 December 2003 10:53 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.