Heart of Rock and Soul Poll: the 1001 Greatest Singles Part 20: 501-525

The Bomb!

His essay on Roxy Music is fascinating -- he can't resist the song yet tosses in every conceivable barb.

"Pretty Little Angel Eyes" for its careening doo-wop patterns which The Halos came up with, not Phil Spector as Greil Marcus claims in Mystery Train.

Yes, "Pretty Little Angel Eyes" for me too, over "Blue Moon" and "Do Right Woman".

You've Really Got A Hold On Me, far and away. That's way too low.

i prefer the Beatles version myself.

Miracles, Sam & Dave, Marvin & Tammi, Curtis Lee, Hendrix, Lauper, Marcels, Beach Boys, O'Jays, Everly's, Parliament. But I'm voting for "Sexual Healing" slightly over "It's All Right."

Judging from the songs on here I know, I'm pretty sure this is by far the dullest Marsh list yet -- Don't see anythning on here I wouldn't mind never hearing again. But I'll vote for "Soul Man," I guess; runners-up: Beatch Boys and "Sexual Healing" and "Blue Moon," maybe.

"Bee-otch Boys," whatever they're called.

Weird thing about "Hey Joe" I just now realized is that, while I love the song, I'm not sure I love any individual versions of it! Or at least, I'm not sure which ones would be my favorites, though I have feeling Hendrix's would not be among them. (I knew a guy back in college who collected every version he could find on a couple C-90s. Probably not somebody I'd want my sister to date, come to think of it.)

"Time After Time"

I have never understood the love for Sexual Healing.

Has to come down to the two George Clinton joints here; least interesting set yet (but most of the others were really good and hard to choose).

^^^^Yeah, never cared much for "Sexual Healing" myself either. My favourites are at the very top and very bottom.

My second disco vote: "I Love Music," with the qualification that it be the extra-long extended version found on Philadelphia Classics. For runners-up, Ivory Joe Hunter, the Miracles (although I'm a little tired of it) and Cyndi Lauper. And in the big showdown of white people, Cyndi trounces the Be-lootch Boys and Roxy Music.

Everlys, too.

so many great impressions tracks!

here's my list:

1 - 1969 Impressions Choice of colours Curtom
2 - 1962 Miracles You've really got a hold on me Tamla
3 - 1984 Cyndi Lauper Time after time Portrait
4 - 1961 Marcels Blue moon Colpix
5 - 1980 Roxy music Over you Atco
6 - 1956 Ivory Joe Hunter Since I met you baby Atlantic
7 - 1963 Impressions It's all right ABC-Paramount
8 - 1967 Aretha Franklin Do right woman - do right man Atlantic
9 - 1971 Funkadelic You and your folks, me and my folks Westbound
10 - 1968 Impressions This is my country Curtom
11 - 1961 Curtis Lee Pretty little angel eyes Dunes

"choice of colors" always makes me tear up.

"sexual healing" is k-boring IMO

also i'd say marsh's essay on roxy music is also k-boring. he clearly is working through some ideological animosity to art rock. good for him, i guess. but zzzzzzz for me.

It's not boring, but it's curious how guys like Marsh can't hear the mannerism in Jagger's vocals.

Marsh: "So Ferry learned to manipulate the rudiments of pop without sullying his work with the taint of emotion or sentiment."

I've been saying complimentary things about Marsh through some of these threads and have fought mini-wars on his behalf when confronted with haters in other venues. And though it grates on my nerves, I can live with the fact that he uses the word "ironic" or "irony" about half a dozen times in his "Over You" writeup here. BUT... sorry, that above quote is just flat-out one of the dumbest things a major critic has ever written about Bryan Ferry. It would be much more to the point to charge Ferry with the complete opposite, to say that his work is overwrought with emotion or sentiment. That's just really lazy listening and thinking on Marsh's behalf there, if you ask me.

Anyway... ILM.

The word "sullying" is the key word -- it's as if Ferry, glass of sauvignon blanc between his fingers, couldn't get his suit dirty while walking to the studio.

And that IS a popular idea of Ferry, shared by lots of other critics, and propagated to some degree by Ferry himself, but it just belies what's actually going on in the music (Marsh does admit this a couple sentences later in regards to the rest of the band, though he can't resist knocking them for the genre they represent either). But I think you're right -- it's probably Marsh's tone that rankles.

Even discerning tastes have appalling gaps, I guess. I'm just surprised Marsh bought the publicity re Ferry. I mean, does he believe George is the Quiet Beatle too?

I don't own the book, but isn't there a bit in the blurb in which he constructs these dichotomies (Bowie vs Aretha or something, among others) that can't contain his horror that anyone might prefer these arty fag rockers?

I dunno, I like Roxy Music (the early stuff mainly) quite a bit, and it really doesn't seem that big a stretch to suggest that Ferry is detached emotionally, that there's something constricted and restrained about his soul singing. (Though calling the guy who sang "Sentimental Fool" devoid of sentiment seems somewhat, um, ironic.) (And I realize that Marsh is probably saying more than that, but I guess I just don't understand how he's that all far off. Though on the other hand, again, I also like art rock -- including stuff a lot more prog than Roxy -- a hell of a lot more than he does.)

Btw, I don't love "Sexual Healing" as much as I may have implied above. Still think it's a good record, but it definitely wouldn't have made a book like this if I'd written one. (And going back, maybe I should have voted for the O'Jays in this round instead of Sam & Dave. Oh well.)

(Also, I don't have his entire Roxy Music blurb in front of me, and it's possible that, if I were to re-read it, I'd think it was as dumb as Scott does. The one line Scott quoted though, hits me as more an exaggeration than anything, and really doesn't offend me all that much.)

It seems reasonable to suggest that Ferry's often theatrical sentimentality might prevent honest emotional expression - even that it might be a decadent parody of such. That's a common complaint lodged against yr more contrived art rock personae, and not a completely ridiculous one. Only thing wrong with it, really, is its (seemingly) unquestioned acceptance of the integrity of less flamboyant personae. I mean, if Jagger is being held up as the exemplar of authentically tainted truth, then yeah, bullshit, WTF.

And Sexual Healing is wonderful. Love the tension between rinky-dink 80s synth-soul and the raw, conflicted place the vocals & lyrics are coming from. There wasn't anything remotely like it on the pop charts at the time, in terms of retro gospel flavor and/or raw sexual anguish. Hell, I don't know that the tension between earthly and spiritual need has ever been so vividly depicted in a pure pop context. I remember being disoriented and repulsed by the song as a kid, but I was drawn to it, too. It felt wrong to me, not just because it was "dirty", but because the arrangement was clearly so aggressively at odds with the material. Marvin's lyrics and performance were coming from a universe that had nothing to do with the squeaky clean pop box in which he'd been placed for public consumption, and that jarring discontinuity only made the end result all the more strangely compelling. Couple that with the undeniable appeal of the hooks and rhythm, and you get a song that's stuck with me as a personal favorite for nearly 30 years. Maybe it's been rendered lifeless through ubiquity, I dunno, but I won't hear a word said against it.

I guess the line I quoted just jumped out in what is pretty much an annoying review, top to bottom (not that it's devoid of some okay ideas, I guess). It's long-winded, and as amateurist notes, it's basically Marsh dealing with his dislike/distrust/etc. of art rock. And Alfred is correct too about the Aretha-Bowie dichotomy Marsh posits in the same review (he also makes the shocking claim -- you might want to sit down and pour yourself a drink for this -- that James Jamerson is a better bassist than Greg Lake). I don't know, it just seems like a really pointless dichotomy -- or maybe it just seems too clear that Marsh made up his mind long before writing it? He's not really "working through" any complicated feelings here from what I can tell.

Wish I could be all up in arms about this for a better Roxy song (I like it lots, actually, though it's overshadowed by so many others), but them's the breaks.

I love "Sexual Healing" also, and most of the LP it comes from. Holds up for me as some of Gaye's best music, and it has a LOT to do with the 808, frankly.

Even though it's not explicitly present in the lyrics, the song (Sexual Healing) plays a weird, subversive trick, too. The heavy gospel flavor and tone of desperate pleading in the face of cataclysmic need suggest that Marvin's trying to lead us to some sort of transcendence, perhaps religious, perhaps only vaguely spiritual, but the song clearly draws us into this upward-gazing position relative to earthly squalor. But the chorus pulls the rug out from that, revealing that the only solution to the spiritual crisis occasioned by unmastered desire is ... total submission to the demands of the flesh. This head-spinning inversion isn't presented with a wink or a smirk. It isn't even underlined. Instead, it's assumed as the only reasonable resolution of the song's basic tension. Strange and, I think, damn near unique (on the 80s pop charts, anyway).

contenderizer, puzzling about the relations between godly eros and fleshly eros is my favorite pop theme, so I'm with you on much of what you're written on "Sexual Healing". I think you overstate the case for its exclusivity, though. Even in 1982 there were other songs on the pop chart exploring similar territory---I'd say "Thriller" was, for one. And it's a frequent theme of country music as well, and I'd be surprised if we couldn't identify another pop country hit from 1982 (or 1981 if we have to broaden this). But 1982 isn't the point: this concern has been a pop concern from the start, because of pop's (partial) roots in the church, and because church folks (here I mean Christianity as it's the one most allied to the pop theme we're talking about in the history of pop we've been given---maybe there are pop songs depicting this clash from a Jewish perspective but I don't know them) often struggle with this (always do, I'd say, if they take their bodies and their god seriously enough). So anyway, I don't want to undermine what you're bringing into the open at all, indeed I want to talk about it more (I've been telegraphing a thread/article/whatever on it for a while, but my thoughts aren't yet ripe enough). I just wanted to suggest that "Sexual Healing" isn't unique here---a case that it's somehow paradigmatic would be closer to the truth, I think.

Al Green and Prince to thread.

xp

re: Ferry - my theory is that Marsh experienced severe emotional trauma when listening to These Foolish Things at a rather tender age. also, fellow Creemster Bangs' assertion that Ferry was the most boring rock star he ever met may have had something to do with his take there.

Bangs is right about Ferry-the-person: I wrote somewhere else once that Ferry's the most boring major rock artist of all time.

He doesn't even dislike Ferry all that much; art-rock and liking art-rock are so alien to him that his reserved affection for "Over You" (as "distanced" as he claims Ferry's singing is) stems from how much the organ and guitar parts remind him of older soul songs.

t really doesn't seem that big a stretch to suggest that Ferry is detached emotionally, that there's something constricted and restrained about his soul singing.

Two different things, no?

detachment (irony) can occasionally be in the eye (ear) of the beholder; oh, the ghosts of art-rock sins past. think the above sez more about Marsh the person than it does about Ferry the artist, actually. also, Scott otm as usual.

detached emotionally, that there's something constricted and restrained about his soul singing...Two different things, no?

Uh, I suppose so. But they go hand-in-hand enough that making a connection between the two isn't exactly far-fetched.

detachment (irony) can..be in the eye (ear) of the beholder

So are a lot of other things in music. Doesn't make them off-limits to talk about.

And by the way, I say that as somebody who has a lot more use for Bowie and Roxy than Aretha and, say, Otis Redding or whoever. And also somebody who feels that, the more "sincere" Bowie and Ferry tried to come off, the more laughable they got, too. So I'm not agreeing with Marsh's conclusions here. Just not yet seeing major flaws in logic.

euler OTM. Wasn't trying to say that Sexual Healing was unique its sexual/spiritual tension, that's a familiar pop trope, but I think it is very nearly unique in its intensity and directness (at least in the 80s, at least on the US pop charts). Even the title, such an awkward and crassly titillating phrase in the song, compresses the basic concept with overheated efficiency. Thriller's a fair comparison, but much more coy and distanced from its subject. We don't get the impression that MJ is actually experiencing a moment of crisis between spiritual conscience and sexual need.

I'm with you that it's an exemplary example of this trope, and that's good enough for me.

re. Ferry, I don't hear emotional detachment. I hear self-awareness, but that's not the same as detachment. I can both "mean it" and be self-conscious of my "meaning it". Like, I can love a person and express my love to her, while being self-conscious about the expression, aware that my expression might look funny outside of our context, despite its not looking funny to me since I am presently in that context.

actually, i agree, Chuck. but it is good to remember where Marsh is coming from: i.e., college-educated arty dude = detached = bad; church-going soul sister = earthy = good.

xp Also not convinced that Ferry and Bowie were more "self aware" than Otis or Aretha, fwiw.

Yeah, I'm not either. I just wanted to try to get clearer on what feature of Ferry's singing is noteworthy. If it's shared by lots of other singers, so much the better: self-awareness seems like a mark of emotional intelligence and that's appealing to me in a pop singer.

Also not convinced that Ferry and Bowie were more "self aware" than Otis or Aretha, fwiw.

― xhuxk

No, not at all -- but they do flaunt & foreground their own self-awareness in a way that the latter two don't. That both performer and audience are conspiratorily aware of the self-aware artifice is a big part of the point for many of the more outré 70s art rockers. And that theatrical gamesmanship makes "authentic" emotional expression a much more dicey proposition. That's not at all the case for Otis & Aretha.

my theory is that Marsh experienced severe emotional trauma when listening to These Foolish Things at a rather tender age.

Unfortunately it's not on Rolling Stone's extremely selective web archives, but Marsh actually reviewed TFT -- lead review, I think -- and raved about it! I should read it again tonight when I get home to see if he registers similar complaints but I'm pretty sure it's not nearly as bogged down in what he doesn't trust about the guy and more focused on what he finds interesting or moving in the music, the choice of covers, etc. I could be totally wrong about that.

is that included in Fortunate Son? i've got that but haven't read it as of yet.

I'm not sure how a guy as smart as Marsh can listen to Ferry's covers of "Don't Worry Baby" and "River of Salt" and think he Doesn't Mean It. Singing in a fruity voice doesn't denote an ironic treatment.

I believe Marsh did the Roxy Music reviews for the blue book, and there's several 4- and 5-star ratings among them. Just sayin.

I think you guys are seriously underestimating how perverse and challenging the Ferry record is. The fact that it leads off with a heavily camped-up version of Dylan's A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall sets a tone and establishes a conceptual framework that the rest of the material hardly subverts. It isn't a "false" record, but it's certainly arch, and it revels in discontinuity between its own flagrant, cruelly mocking contrivance and the authenticity fetishism attached to much of the material. To pretend that it wasn't intended, at least in part, as a deliberate provocation is seriously disingenuous.

Scott nails its charm better than anyone has.

you don't say.

xp

I'm not claiming that as any great insight, Ioannis. It's obvious as hell, and I only said it in response to Alfred attempt to downplay the album's deliberate irony.

Scott's review is great, but grounded in an ignorance of pop context that would have been all but impossible for the album's audience at the time of its release. It wasn't made for people who'd never heard A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall.

I'm not downplaying anything.

grounded in an ignorance of pop context that would have been all but impossible for the album's audience at the time of its release.

I'm not even sure what this means.

tr00 dat.

I think you guys are seriously underestimating how perverse and challenging theFerry recordis.

fixed. ;?)

xps

grounded in an ignorance of pop context that would have been all but impossible for the album's audience at the time of its release.

I'm not even sure what this means.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn

It means that the album takes for granted that its audience will be familiar with several of its key tracks, and that this familiarity will shape their understanding of what the artist is doing. If a Bulgarian art musician recorded a album of wildly camp burlesques of sacred-cow Bulgarian classics, I might, in my ignorance of the assumed/intended cultural context, take it simply as collection of interesting songs. This would be fine, no harm done, but I'd be missing most of the point. And if I held it up as an example of emotional authenticity in musical expression, I'd risk making a fool of myself.

Who cares though? An album review isn't a stone tablet.

Isn't that a good reason to avoiding taking pop songs/albums to have a point, and to recognize that pop music can be emotionally subtle in what it expresses (whereas looking for authenticity is to miss those subtleties)?
xp

Yeah, I'm not big proponent of the value of perceived authenticity. I don't fault the Ferry album for its inauthenticity (or even really care about that analysis), nor do I value Aretha Franklin on the basis of her supposed "realness". That said, I think that one can still admit that what Ferry is doing depends in large part on our awareness of the deliberate perversity of his contrivance and of his delight in that perversity, and that this is not at all true of Aretha Franklin. Surprised that this is a controversial stance, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something, or failing to make myself clear...

sorry this post can't be longer but I guess one of my problems with marsh is that he seems to assume (against his better instincts?) that "emotion" in music is some absolute quality, at its best not subject to convention or mediation. so certain music has "emotion" or "soul" and other music--like art rock, by his reckoning--seeks to banish it or create a simulacrum of it. whereas emotion--both in terms of its expression in music and in our reactions to the music--is a heavily conventionalized and mediated process. the signifiers of "emotion" in e.g. otis redding or aretha franklin are no less contrived and conventionalized and mediated than those in bryan ferry's music.

i think marsh underestimates, or completely ignores in some cases, the formalism of, say, aretha franklin, in wanting to identify that music with "soul" (in the nongeneric sense) and by contrast to say that bryan ferry's music is somehow soulless.

all his ruminations on ferry/roxy music just seem built upon a naïve fallacy. again, maybe he was working through these issues on his own, good for him, but i don't find it enlightening to read.

also re. marsh's taste he does seem to have gone in for more proggy or at least "rockist" critical moves earlier in his career, so his reviews in the rolling stone guide don't always seem to jibe with what comes later.

"heart of rock and soul" finds him moving away from that, maybe embracing elements of "popism" avant la lettre. although he carries with him the "rockist" concern for authentic emotion and experience.

Oh yeah – he loves Newcleus!

and Zappa's We're Only in It for the Money.

What troubles me about this familiar discussion is its tendency to resolve into absolutes. Personally, I think the self is always "contrived" to some degree, at least in terms of how it relates to others. But in spite of that fundamental constraint, the self can present itself to others in a relatively authentic/naked/naive manner -- or in a more contrived/complex/sophisticated manner. This is true of art just as it's true of non-art communication and interaction.

Taking that a step further, I believe that we really can correctly perceive the degree of emotional authenticity present in human communication -- at least some of the time, though not reliably. Therefore, despite the fuzziness built into such perceptions, it does seem reasonable to characerize art as authentic or inauthentic... With the caveat that these evaluations reflect unreliable (but not worthless or meaningless!) assessments that might have nothing to do with the art's "true essence".

Even if you don't accept any of that, I hope we can agree that art can call attention to its artifice and/or to its supposed authenticity. Crafting and communicating a relationship to the idea of emotional authenticity is a big part of a lot of art, and I'd argue that this crafted relationship can be productively discussed in terms of its assumptions, function and execution. Given all of that, why shouldn't we talk about what does or doesn't signify authenticity to us, and how we feel about this or that version of ostensible authenticity? It's a useful element of critical perspective, especially in light of the fact that so much art appreciation is based on these sorts of perceptions, however dubious they may be when presented as fact.

In other words, maybe it's better to take Marsh's revealed biases as nothing more than an articulation of his particular view of and taste in authenticity, even if he presents shaky assumptions about artistic "soul" as simple facts. I mean, it seems strange to look for 21st century reflexivity or even late 20th century relativism in reviews written more than twenty years ago (probably based directly on writing and thinking that go back twice that far)...

actually, i can agree with that. but again it's more a question of principle than practice. soul music proper (as opposed to "music that has soul") seems like a highly formalized language to me that nonetheless invests itself heavily in the articulation of authentic emotion. i think acknowledging the formal qualities that seek to express (and mediate) that authenticity is critical. in some ways that is the work that many of ferry's cover versions do in themselves--modify the original with a self-consciously ornamental vocal style that defamiliarizes by exaggeration. i suppose that leads people to question the "sincerity" of the music but as you write, it's more a question of function and purpose than "sincerity." and yes marsh's article is revealing of his tastes and prejudices--i'd assume that. i just don't think his essay on "over you" is a particularly searching or original articulation or questioning of those tastes and prejudices. he seems instead to be trying to make a sort of special case for one song (even ascribing its good qualities to the band over the lead singer, which just seems wrong), rather than to reorient his aesthetic prejudices/heuristics to account for its power over him.

maybe embracing elements of "popism" avant la lettre

A tad apres la lettre. I'm not allowed/promised not to being up you know/who. But certainly the British press had been critiquing rockism since the turn of the 1980s.

Probably a thread derailment (or is it?) but I wonder how "popism" (as it's understood above) relates to "popism" before it had a name (e.g., Nik Cohn).

I almost feel like inserting a "Caution: Danger Ahead" sign here, as discussion of this one review of this one song may be leading into a more sweeping indictment of Marsh as some kind of penultimate rockist. Not that it might not lead into interesting areas or something, but...

like i said, marsh was far from an orthodox "rockist" at the time of writing the book in question, but elements of that rhetoric and assumptions cropped up in his writing. he tends to view "flaky" pop singles as privileged exceptions.

in some ways you could say he has his popist "moment" and then retreats into more comfortable territory. if you have the stomach to read his "rock and rap confidential" (which i find mostly unreadable) he's really insistent on the need for pop music to "mean something"/signify/etc.--which means about what you'd expect it to mean.

in some ways you could say he has his popist "moment" and then retreats into more comfortable territory.

That's how I treat him generally. Most of the writing is really fine, but even when I agree with a selection he fucks it up by framing in a disagreeable context (like praising Peter Gabriel's "Don't Give Up' for being an oasis of solemnity in the most dance-crazy moment in rock history -- I mean, really? More dance-crazy than the seventies? And what's wrong with dance-crazy?).

"popism" before it had a name (e.g., Nik Cohn)

Not sure I buy this (even less sure I buy that there's ever been any such thing as "popism" in the first place, but what the heck); I've been re-reading Rock From the Beginning this month (called Pop From... in the UK, right?), and he sure does dismiss a lot of music, especially in the early '60s, as phony and calculated or watered-down by the cynical biz. But (like any supposed "popist" or "rockist" worth anything, Marsh included), he's way more complicated than that.

One thing I will say -- again, without having read that Roxy review in whole for a couple decades -- is that, if I wrote a book like this, and I included a couple stray (token, whatever) records from genres I have major reservations about (indie rock, alt country, '00s r&b, whatever), I'd be surprised if I wouldn't use blurbs about those records to try to get to the bottom of my feelings about their genre in general. Which seems to be part, if not all, of what Marsh is being criticized for here. (Also, just because not everybody hears Ferry's singing as embodying artifice doesn't mean it makes sense to act aghast when somebody like Marsh does happen to hear Ferry's singing that way. Especially when such a stance, in this case, is hardly rare.)

(I think that last point is what contenderizer had been trying to get at with his posts above, unless I'm misinterpreting him.)

Yeah, pretty much. The idea that someone might not hear confrontational perversity and camp delight-in-artifice in the Ferry record stuns me a little, but whatever...

God, but now that I say that, WTF me? Neither perversity nor camp necessarily subvert the idea that "real feelings" are being communicated. See Antony and the Johnsons, f'rinstance. Still, I don't think Ferry is doing anything similar. He's not calling attention to what the deliberate artifice conceals or encodes. At least I don't think so...

I'd say that he does remain aloof both from the material and the feelings portrayed in it. He's not denying the emotion, not always or entirely, but rather experimenting with it in various ways. He treats the idea of emotional communication as an interesting object rather than as an end in itself. At least on TFT.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

"Sexual Healing" - Classic or dud?

(for Giorgio)

If I wrote a book like this, and I included a couple stray (token, whatever) records from genres I have major reservations about (indie rock, alt country, '00s r&b, whatever), I'd be surprised if I wouldn't use blurbs about those records to try to get to the bottom of my feelings about their genre in general. Which seems to be part, if not all, of what Marsh is being criticized for here.

I agree, I'd do the exact same thing, but there's a big caveat in regards to Marsh's entry: his lumping in Roxy Music (especially eighties Roxy Music) with Genesis, Pink Floyd, et al., is a bit of a stretch to say the least. But that's probably a different conversation.

I dunno, I admit that I'm tending to read Marsh in a less favourable light lately, due to some recent things he's written which actually angered me a lot -- the first being some stuff he wrote about post-Marsh era Creem in some comments sections of rockcritics.com -- also in a piece or two in which he was quoted -- as well as his most recent book on The Beatles Second Album. His anger about the Creem anthology which came out a couple years ago is completely justified, but to claim that the magazine itself was useless from the day he walked out the door -- as he did, again and again -- is just ridiculous and self-serving in the extreme. The Beatles book irked me enough to put it down before getting 3/4 of the way through (he managed to turn what should have been a joyously reflective essay on the Fab Four's early music into page after page of bile about a dead jazz guy who hated rock and roll... reading it was a bitter experience). I consider the guy one of my all-time writing heroes, but I think I am maybe a bit too willing these days to read into motives when I read him now, and that's always a bad idea. Anyway... I think I've said my piece on the guy for now.

Come to the Dark Side, Scott.

j/k

I consider the guy one of my all-time writing heroes

Didn't know you held Marsh in such high esteem. What are some of your favorite pieces by him (or is that already on rockcritics.com)? Matos pointed out to me his entry on "Soldier Boy" in Heart of Rock and Soul as a great example and he was right. It's my favorite writing in the book.

Thing about Marsh in Heart is that he's beating the drum for understanding the music through singles-not-albums, and Roxy is a definitive albums band. I was shocked when I eventually saw the RS albums guide, which I didn't read till after Heart, and saw that he actually liked certain bands/albums that he'd seemed to dismiss in the singles book, though my tendency to take everything literally (especially then, as a teenager) undoubtedly played a big role there too.

KJB: I will email you Marsh's essay on Lionel Richie from The Rock Yearbook IV when I have the chance. (Probably not for a bit.) It's the only critical piece I've read on Lionel outside of contemporaneous album reviews, and while I certainly don't agree with all of it I've always liked it a lot.

I should say, Roxy are a definitive albums band in Marsh's view--I've never been all that into them myself and couldn't make a call either way.

the "soldier boy" essay is indeed great, as are a number of others in the book. as might be expected it's hit-or-miss.

xxpost

Ah yes. I have that and reread it last night. And I agree with everything you said - good piece with some silly claims re: funk and 'chic'(not Chic) music. Of particular note is the material on Motown filler and Richie's Southern roots.

Thanx for reminding me about this (and for offering to copy it for me).

Can I trade someone a copy of Marsh's These Foolish Things review for a copy of the Lionel Ritchie piece (which I've heard about before)? Not kidding... I can probably make a readable JPG of the Ferry review from the Rolling Stone DVD (tho' it'd have to be next wk probably).

what can I offer to get into this horse trading? I know – how 'bout a C-90 of my grandmother mimicking Lionel's "Outrageous!" bit from the '84 American Music Awards?

I'll Xerox Marsh's excellent appendix from 1985's The First Rock & Roll Confidential Report (blurbs about tons of good records from 1984) in exchange for a xeroxed appendix from The Book Of Rock Lists (you know, with his 40 best charting singles and albums for every year dating through 1980 or whatever.) (Well actually, I may have kept the latter pages in a manilla envelope somewhere, so let me look first.)

I used to own that version of Rock Lists and don't know what happened to it. The updated vers. doesn't have it, unfortunately.

People know about these, though, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKHvhshNMDM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhWJYEQRPfI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_lbOYCirs

Hope the formatting works...

Oh wow! A friend told me about that interview at the time but I never got to see it. Thanx for posting these!

Here's the Richie piece. Actually, Matos, you CAN pdf me part of that Rock Yearbook when you get the time. I lent it to a friend in high school and she returned itn with ONE PAGE RIPPED OUT! Page 159/160, funnily enough the "No Thanks!" page with pix of acts the critics hate.

appendix from The Book Of Rock Lists (you know, with his 40 best charting singles and albums for every year dating through 1980 or whatever.)

I have The New Book of Rock Lists and I can't find such an appendix in there. Perhaps it was dropped for the new edition? btw this is an alternately exhilarating/infuriating bathroom book. Strongly recommended! So many great lists, e.g., Greil Marcus on the Best Pop Fiction, "28 Songs About The Beatles," "Best Non-Dylan Dylan Records," etc.

I made a list called "Shut Up!" in one of the editions, I think! (I was either right before or right after Steve Albini, I'm pretty sure.)

Man, this list is hard to pick from, he's quickly getting to the point where almost everything on the list is right up my alley. The Impalas don't do much for me, but otherwise ... Voting Miracles. Also, hats off to SMW for the Ferry/Rock Dreams analogy.

Miracles for me, next is Parliament.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Thx for the Ritchie piece. Looks great.

I WANT IT

Never mind. Thanks, KJB!

me too!

d'oh! got it.