You’ve probably seen these ever-so-cute little volumes in record stores and bookstores, or maybe in friends’ houses; each one is by a single author about a single album, and there are now, I believe, a few dozen of them out.
I’ve read three of them: The Abba: Gold one by Elizabeth Vincentelli, the Love: Forever Changes one by Andrew Hultkrans, and the Velvet Underground and Nico one by Joe Harvard. I came upon them completely arbitrarily. Well, actually, a combination of chance and fate: I read these three because I am what my grandfather would have called a schnorer, aka a cheapskate (approximately), and I encountered each of these in remainder sections of New York bookstores I frequent. I love all the records, though.
My conclusion, based on this schnorer’s sample: these books are wildly inconsistent in quality.
The Abba book starts strong, discussing the oddness of selecting a Greatest Hits’ compilation for this series, which is supposedly devoted to the great masterworks of the LP format—albums like Sgt. Pepper, Blue, Thriller, and any number of ELO records. The riches of some bands simply can’t be appreciated in that format, Vincentelli (who writes for multiple publications, like the Village Voice) points out; there are simply certain bands that most people encounter through the greatest hits’ format, and in such cases the usually maligned “Best Of” format takes on a life of its own. But after making this point early on, V slides into, basically, reportorial description of each song and its accompanying promotional video.
Unfortunately, Andrew Hultkrans, author of the Love: Forever Changes book, starts with a paean to one of his undergraduate teachers, Sacvan Bercovitch, a big muckity-muck in American Studies at Harvard. In numerous books, Bercovitch writes compellingly about how American political and cultural discourse quashes radicalism by favoring prophetic forms like the jeremiad, with its endless fixation on renewal and rebirth, over critiques that address current, historically conditioned social and political conflicts. That’s admittedly a very thumbnail, perhaps pinky-nail, account of his argument. It’s still better than Hultkrans’s misunderstanding, though, which is that Bercovitch’s point is that Americans “have a responsibility to think in prophetic terms.” Ouch! Then he goes on to celebrate how Arthur Lee, the brilliant leader of this intensely original and weird San Francisco band from the late sixties, fits into this vaunted American tradition. Ooof!
(Interjection: If you’ve never heard the album Forever Changes go out and purchase or steal it now!)
This objection may seem like my nitpicky defensiveness about my field of scholarly interest. But this misreading by Hultkrans, described as "former editor of Bookforum," underwrites and undermines the book as a whole. It sets the stage for a long series of esoteric platitudes about Lee’s lyrics: in other words, to do exactly the sort of thing acvan Bercovitch critiques. I’m not just making a kind of loose, reflexive Marxist point here; in so much journalistic and academic writing about rock, jazz, and hip hop, romanticizing the band as part of a prophetic tradition so often works to allow the critic to avoid the challenge of writing about the material of music, which is sound.
The pleasant surprise (as my father once diplomatically described learning of my mother’s pregnancy with me) here is Joe Harvard. As the most famous underground rock band of all time, the Velvets have a tendency to generate the same kind of romantic generalizations that dominate the Love book. Yet Harvard, who is not a professional writer (he owns Fort Apache studio in Cambridge), and who does not tell us whether or not he attended Harvard, is lucid, and funny, and clearly aware of the problem of writing about rock insightfully. He’s read his stuff, and issues correctives to a lot of misinformation in other books about the Velvets.
There’s a lot of attention to the studio, as you’d expect, and it’s pleasantly surprising that Harvard is able to do so much with an album recorded in a couple of days. I think the edge he has on many other writers is that he simply understands what it’s like to work as a member of a band. I think it’s a consequence of this, too, that he upends the notion that Lou Reed and John Cale were the only important forces in the band. “The Velvets were a band in the truest sense,” he writes, extending this sense out to Sterling Morrison, Mo Tucker, Nico, and others, including Andy Warhol. (I agree that a “band”’s borders often extend outward beyond the musicians who play onstage or in recording sessions).
I was especially impressed by his sustained attention to Warhol. Most rock writing on the Velvets tends to write him off as, basically, a financial sponsor. More generous critics say he had the insight to give the band space to do what it wanted. One sometimes gets the feeling that there’s simply too much weirdness, queerness, and effeteness surrounding Warhol and the Factory for these writers to deal with. But Harvard talks about Warhol’s careful role in surrounding the band with technical people who would maintain the grunginess and perversity that he loved in their sound, and that fit so well with his own work, especially in the mid-sixties when the Factory was in full swing and he had gone headlong into avant-garde film. As Harvard puts it:
"It was Warhol's comment that the band should just rehearse onstage [much in the same way he viewed filmmaking] that helped push them toward their flights of improvised daring. He suggested that Reed write or make changes to "Femme Fatale," "I'll Be Your Mirror," "All Tomorrow's Parties," and "Sunday Morning". . . Were it not for Warhol, of course, Nico would never have joined the band, and that in itself gives him a colossal role in the sound on the first album. "(51)
Or, more generally:
"Warhol did precisely what a great producer should: he achieved an effective translation of the sound the band heard in their heads on to tape, and then he got it out into the world in tact."
The point is that even though he didn't know the first thing about twiddling the buttons on the console, Warhol skillfully produced the conditions that gave rise to the album--and its sound.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for the flattering [blush] but nonetheless insightful take on the book. One cool thing about having been part of the Boston scene - as a fan before anything else - during an especially creative period, full of great bands, was getting to see how important the audience itself was to the scene, which drives the people creating the sound. Like the CBGB's scene so thoroughly lionized in nyc, there are any number of personalities who never picked up an instrument, but were absolutely integral to creating the atmosphere for rock to ferment, or foment, or whatever ment you will.
I knew zilch about Warhol beyond the words to the David Bowie tune when I started the book, but I think his committment to removing the barrier - artificial, I believe - between artists and observer in his films and visual art presaged punk and all that came with it. And as such barriers dissolved, what more likely wall to rip down than the one between literature and rock and roll, which Lou Reed was clearly headed towards when he got an indispensable boost from Warhol. And so was born rock.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no Warhol worshiper or anything. But every musician should be so lucky as to find someone who serves as just that kind of focusing mechanism for their songwriting.
Thanks for the shout-out. And yeah, I went to that vaunted seat of learning, got kicked out in a punk rock, sex and drug scandal even Lou would've been proud of, and to the dismay of many actually got back in later and graduated.
At one point I stopped writing about music because it seemed that I simply did not know how. What you say here reveals to me what I was thinking (which at the time I let remain mysterious to myself). I've always wanted to be better at writing about sound. Like the time my friend Chas described a percussion track to me as the sound of hippos chewing through igneous rock. You know, to capture something like that and have it resonate for someone else. But I think I am too attached to ideas, and then also to letting sound be separate from ideas (which reminds me of some reasons behind my musically talented and philosophically gifted friend Gayle's decision never to write about music). Sound really works on me in a way that is not intellectual at all and maybe that is just how I want that encounter to continue. But one time I was lamenting my relative inability to write about sound to John Vanderslice in a tape-recorded conversation we were having, and he stopped me and said something like (ok, i have the tape so i could go check but that sounds like work), "but you are interested in the lyric content of songs, and you've told me things about my own songs that have astonished me. you should keep doing that." So i guess I will. But it still makes me suspect that maybe I am not really writing about music.
Post a Comment