Whatcha reading?
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18754
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
38) I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream and Other Stories- Harlan Ellison. Audiobook, read by the author, who sounds a bit like Brian Doyle Murray. A great selection of stories, all told with the typical pugnacious wit and furious humanism of one of the good.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116675
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Finished up that Rush book last night. I have no greater appreciation for the band, and in many ways have had my contempt confirmed, but, damn, it's a dynamite book for discussion. The author hits a shit ton of themes from my course, so it's really suited well for what I'm trying to do. A pity that it's on such dull and faux deep band.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116675
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Tub book:
I started and abandoned this one years ago, but decided to give it another shot, coming off reading that Rush book and perhaps being in a better mindset.
Audio book:
I've listened to a number of Barry's novels before and, while never fully wowed, been entertained enough by his mild sci-fi thriller style to keep pirating his stuff (his Jennifer Government has a wonderful premise—a future world that is now fully corporate, overtaking nation states—but doesn't quite follow thru on the critique's potential, yet is still worth checking out). This is about a dimension-hopping serial killer who goes after the same person over and over.
I started and abandoned this one years ago, but decided to give it another shot, coming off reading that Rush book and perhaps being in a better mindset.
Audio book:
I've listened to a number of Barry's novels before and, while never fully wowed, been entertained enough by his mild sci-fi thriller style to keep pirating his stuff (his Jennifer Government has a wonderful premise—a future world that is now fully corporate, overtaking nation states—but doesn't quite follow thru on the critique's potential, yet is still worth checking out). This is about a dimension-hopping serial killer who goes after the same person over and over.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18754
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
Like that premise
Re: Whatcha reading?
I have a prog-related book on my shelf that I've been meaning to read forever, maybe I should jump on it. However, I believe it's more of an account of events rather than the critical assessments that you seem to prefer.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 11:29amTub book:
I started and abandoned this one years ago, but decided to give it another shot, coming off reading that Rush book and perhaps being in a better mindset.
Meanwhile, I decided to read this again. Say what you like about Reynolds, the introduction to this book is some mega-inspiring shit for people who aspire to make this kind of music (or any songwriter with a punk background, really). He really captures what makes this cusp so important, and it covers a lot of the ground we did a few months ago in our discussions over what punk and post-punk can actually be defined as.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116675
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
I liked that one much more the second time around, but Reynolds is still annoyingly coy about the point of it all. At least in Retromania he was clear in purpose, but so much of this seems to be just about shining a light on bands he feels are neglected (filling in potholes, so to speak, is generally not a good enough excuse).Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:07pmMeanwhile, I decided to read this again. Say what you like about Reynolds, the introduction to this book is some mega-inspiring shit for people who aspire to make this kind of music (or any songwriter with a punk background, really). He really captures what makes this cusp so important, and it covers a lot of the ground we did a few months ago in our discussions over what punk and post-punk can actually be defined as.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Whatcha reading?
Not academically, but for music fans who want to know more about the background of some of the more obscure types, it's of value. I might argue thought that he is clear about his motivation in the intro, IF his motivation is to detail how different bands took the energy and lessons of punk and applied them in various ways—how punk in its original "intent" is flexible enough to accommodate a lot of different approaches.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:21pmI liked that one much more the second time around, but Reynolds is still annoyingly coy about the point of it all. At least in Retromania he was clear in purpose, but so much of this seems to be just about shining a light on bands he feels are neglected (filling in potholes, so to speak, is generally not a good enough excuse).Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:07pmMeanwhile, I decided to read this again. Say what you like about Reynolds, the introduction to this book is some mega-inspiring shit for people who aspire to make this kind of music (or any songwriter with a punk background, really). He really captures what makes this cusp so important, and it covers a lot of the ground we did a few months ago in our discussions over what punk and post-punk can actually be defined as.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116675
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Right, and I appreciated it more the second time around for that reason, tho there's still the question of why any of it is important. To be a bit fair, lots of writers, even in academia, struggle with that question, but I think you need to tell the reader why you want to occupy plenty of hours of their time.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:05pmNot academically, but for music fans who want to know more about the background of some of the more obscure types, it's of value. I might argue thought that he is clear about his motivation in the intro, IF his motivation is to detail how different bands took the energy and lessons of punk and applied them in various ways—how punk in its original "intent" is flexible enough to accommodate a lot of different approaches.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:21pmI liked that one much more the second time around, but Reynolds is still annoyingly coy about the point of it all. At least in Retromania he was clear in purpose, but so much of this seems to be just about shining a light on bands he feels are neglected (filling in potholes, so to speak, is generally not a good enough excuse).Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:07pmMeanwhile, I decided to read this again. Say what you like about Reynolds, the introduction to this book is some mega-inspiring shit for people who aspire to make this kind of music (or any songwriter with a punk background, really). He really captures what makes this cusp so important, and it covers a lot of the ground we did a few months ago in our discussions over what punk and post-punk can actually be defined as.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Whatcha reading?
I suppose it depends on the audience with regard to how explicit you would need to be on that. I don't know who he was gunning for with this book, but I would guess that a lot of people who are interested in punk history will find its importance self-evident. Implied importance to the audience of the already-converted, as it were. I can't see a lot of people who aren't already interested in post-punk reading a book like this, so maybe he thought he could just bypass that part.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:25pmRight, and I appreciated it more the second time around for that reason, tho there's still the question of why any of it is important. To be a bit fair, lots of writers, even in academia, struggle with that question, but I think you need to tell the reader why you want to occupy plenty of hours of their time.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:05pmNot academically, but for music fans who want to know more about the background of some of the more obscure types, it's of value. I might argue thought that he is clear about his motivation in the intro, IF his motivation is to detail how different bands took the energy and lessons of punk and applied them in various ways—how punk in its original "intent" is flexible enough to accommodate a lot of different approaches.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:21pmI liked that one much more the second time around, but Reynolds is still annoyingly coy about the point of it all. At least in Retromania he was clear in purpose, but so much of this seems to be just about shining a light on bands he feels are neglected (filling in potholes, so to speak, is generally not a good enough excuse).Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:07pmMeanwhile, I decided to read this again. Say what you like about Reynolds, the introduction to this book is some mega-inspiring shit for people who aspire to make this kind of music (or any songwriter with a punk background, really). He really captures what makes this cusp so important, and it covers a lot of the ground we did a few months ago in our discussions over what punk and post-punk can actually be defined as.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116675
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Oh definitely, you're completely correct in terms of the likely audience and why he doesn't have to prove himself. But Reynolds does aspire to be more of an intellectual rock historian, so he's got an eye on assholes like me who treat their work as serious discourse. I'd definitely be more forgiving if I wasn't aware that Reynolds is more than just a narrative guy.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 6:52pmI suppose it depends on the audience with regard to how explicit you would need to be on that. I don't know who he was gunning for with this book, but I would guess that a lot of people who are interested in punk history will find its importance self-evident. Implied importance to the audience of the already-converted, as it were. I can't see a lot of people who aren't already interested in post-punk reading a book like this, so maybe he thought he could just bypass that part.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:25pmRight, and I appreciated it more the second time around for that reason, tho there's still the question of why any of it is important. To be a bit fair, lots of writers, even in academia, struggle with that question, but I think you need to tell the reader why you want to occupy plenty of hours of their time.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:05pmNot academically, but for music fans who want to know more about the background of some of the more obscure types, it's of value. I might argue thought that he is clear about his motivation in the intro, IF his motivation is to detail how different bands took the energy and lessons of punk and applied them in various ways—how punk in its original "intent" is flexible enough to accommodate a lot of different approaches.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:21pmI liked that one much more the second time around, but Reynolds is still annoyingly coy about the point of it all. At least in Retromania he was clear in purpose, but so much of this seems to be just about shining a light on bands he feels are neglected (filling in potholes, so to speak, is generally not a good enough excuse).Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:07pmMeanwhile, I decided to read this again. Say what you like about Reynolds, the introduction to this book is some mega-inspiring shit for people who aspire to make this kind of music (or any songwriter with a punk background, really). He really captures what makes this cusp so important, and it covers a lot of the ground we did a few months ago in our discussions over what punk and post-punk can actually be defined as.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Whatcha reading?
Yeah, this is the only thing of his I’ve read, so I don’t really have a sense of what his motivations/intentions are in being an author. Is Retromania the only work of his that you’d recommend on that score?Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 7:13pmOh definitely, you're completely correct in terms of the likely audience and why he doesn't have to prove himself. But Reynolds does aspire to be more of an intellectual rock historian, so he's got an eye on assholes like me who treat their work as serious discourse. I'd definitely be more forgiving if I wasn't aware that Reynolds is more than just a narrative guy.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 6:52pmI suppose it depends on the audience with regard to how explicit you would need to be on that. I don't know who he was gunning for with this book, but I would guess that a lot of people who are interested in punk history will find its importance self-evident. Implied importance to the audience of the already-converted, as it were. I can't see a lot of people who aren't already interested in post-punk reading a book like this, so maybe he thought he could just bypass that part.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:25pmRight, and I appreciated it more the second time around for that reason, tho there's still the question of why any of it is important. To be a bit fair, lots of writers, even in academia, struggle with that question, but I think you need to tell the reader why you want to occupy plenty of hours of their time.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:05pmNot academically, but for music fans who want to know more about the background of some of the more obscure types, it's of value. I might argue thought that he is clear about his motivation in the intro, IF his motivation is to detail how different bands took the energy and lessons of punk and applied them in various ways—how punk in its original "intent" is flexible enough to accommodate a lot of different approaches.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 4:21pm
I liked that one much more the second time around, but Reynolds is still annoyingly coy about the point of it all. At least in Retromania he was clear in purpose, but so much of this seems to be just about shining a light on bands he feels are neglected (filling in potholes, so to speak, is generally not a good enough excuse).
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116675
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Yeah, it's worth reading as both a hate-read and as something provocative. He's written a book on glam, too, I believe, but haven't looked at that.Kory wrote: ↑18 Aug 2021, 1:09amYeah, this is the only thing of his I’ve read, so I don’t really have a sense of what his motivations/intentions are in being an author. Is Retromania the only work of his that you’d recommend on that score?Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 7:13pmOh definitely, you're completely correct in terms of the likely audience and why he doesn't have to prove himself. But Reynolds does aspire to be more of an intellectual rock historian, so he's got an eye on assholes like me who treat their work as serious discourse. I'd definitely be more forgiving if I wasn't aware that Reynolds is more than just a narrative guy.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 6:52pmI suppose it depends on the audience with regard to how explicit you would need to be on that. I don't know who he was gunning for with this book, but I would guess that a lot of people who are interested in punk history will find its importance self-evident. Implied importance to the audience of the already-converted, as it were. I can't see a lot of people who aren't already interested in post-punk reading a book like this, so maybe he thought he could just bypass that part.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:25pmRight, and I appreciated it more the second time around for that reason, tho there's still the question of why any of it is important. To be a bit fair, lots of writers, even in academia, struggle with that question, but I think you need to tell the reader why you want to occupy plenty of hours of their time.Kory wrote: ↑17 Aug 2021, 5:05pm
Not academically, but for music fans who want to know more about the background of some of the more obscure types, it's of value. I might argue thought that he is clear about his motivation in the intro, IF his motivation is to detail how different bands took the energy and lessons of punk and applied them in various ways—how punk in its original "intent" is flexible enough to accommodate a lot of different approaches.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116675
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Finished listening to Max Barry's novel this morning. It was … meh. Part of the problem with parallel universe stories, as Rick and Morty has made clear, when there is an infinite number of the same people, it's hard to give a shit about any of them. It's also hard to care about the build-up when one of these versions of the character who gets killed over and over, well, gets killed. In the end, the premise contained the seeds of its own mehness.
New audiobook. And I do mean new, as in it was released only a couple months ago. Burton is a major historian of race in the US; I know zilch about his co-author. But I'm super keen on this one.
Current ebook. I found this quite by accident, but wanted a different semiological book for my popular culture course in January, so I'm reading this for potential.
New audiobook. And I do mean new, as in it was released only a couple months ago. Burton is a major historian of race in the US; I know zilch about his co-author. But I'm super keen on this one.
Current ebook. I found this quite by accident, but wanted a different semiological book for my popular culture course in January, so I'm reading this for potential.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Whatcha reading?
I quite like Simon Reynolds. The first book I read of his was "Retromania", because I am a retromaniac. I enjoyed it a lot, and thought Glam was a good mixture of narrative and commentary. "Totally Wired: Postpunk Interviews and Overviews" is very well done oral history. I'm not into dance music or hip-hop so I haven't checked out much of his writing on that, but i'm sure it's worth reading.
As a new convert i've just started reading books on The Clash. I'm amazed at how many there are out there. Only Dylan, Bowie and the great 60s bands seem to be as well-chronicled. Finished the Sean Egan, Pat Gilbert and Kris Needs books, all good in different ways, and i'm just about to start Salewicz's bio of Joe.
Any other recommendations?
As a new convert i've just started reading books on The Clash. I'm amazed at how many there are out there. Only Dylan, Bowie and the great 60s bands seem to be as well-chronicled. Finished the Sean Egan, Pat Gilbert and Kris Needs books, all good in different ways, and i'm just about to start Salewicz's bio of Joe.
Any other recommendations?
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 59026
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: Whatcha reading?
Way more book on the Sex Pistols than The Clash. Not bad for a band that released one and a half albums.iso74 wrote: ↑30 Aug 2021, 8:48amI quite like Simon Reynolds. The first book I read of his was "Retromania", because I am a retromaniac. I enjoyed it a lot, and thought Glam was a good mixture of narrative and commentary. "Totally Wired: Postpunk Interviews and Overviews" is very well done oral history. I'm not into dance music or hip-hop so I haven't checked out much of his writing on that, but i'm sure it's worth reading.
As a new convert i've just started reading books on The Clash. I'm amazed at how many there are out there. Only Dylan, Bowie and the great 60s bands seem to be as well-chronicled. Finished the Sean Egan, Pat Gilbert and Kris Needs books, all good in different ways, and i'm just about to start Salewicz's bio of Joe.
Any other recommendations?
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia