Whatcha reading?

[Silent Majority]

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]

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.

[Dr. Medulla]

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.

[Silent Majority]

Like that premise

[Kory]

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.

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.

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.

[Dr. Medulla]

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.

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]

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.

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).

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]

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.

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).

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.

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]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Dr. Medulla]

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.

[iso74]

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?

[Marky Dread]

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?

Way more book on the Sex Pistols than The Clash. Not bad for a band that released one and a half albums.