clementine
Written on Mar 21, 2016
That said, I did have some issues with the book. Firstly, it wasn't unbiased - not that I was expecting that, but there were times when Stanley's personal opinion was almost too present. Like, he spent one of the chapters on punk relentlessly dragging The Clash through the mud, which didn't seem necessary. Most chapters were devoted to genres (or groupings of genres), but then he'd dedicate an entire chapter to a single group once in awhile - which is perhaps justifiable for truly iconic acts like The Beatles, but then he didn't give Bowie his own chapter but he did allocated one to the Pet Shop Boys. The organization by genre also made for issues with chronology - the book does go in roughly chronological order, but whereas you might end one chapter in, say, 2009 with the death of a particular artist, you'd then start the next chapter in 1985. Or, you'd think you were firmly in the 90s, but a chapter would start in the late 70s. Necessary to tell the stories of the genres properly, but the chronological organization (and the positioning of the book as "the story of pop music") didn't quite work.
Stanley also really fell into a rockist trap throughout the book, as well (including in the aforementioned chapter on The Clash). There were many times when he debated the authenticity of certain groups or songs or forms of pop music and posited a divide between commercial and creative success. The conclusion of the book is rather teleological and cynical; Stanley seems to think that pop music is past its peak, basically because musical technologies have changed. I definitely don't agree with this, but it's something every generation goes through once they're no longer young and on the cutting edge of everything.
Most troubling, though, is Stanley's sometimes patronizing attitude towards women and people of colour. There is some uncomfortable discussion of rap; he argues that "something was lost" with rap without a message: he actually says, of Straight Outta Compton, "There was no Nation of Islam revolution in their words - this was a world of dope deals ho's, and violence..." (498) - as if rap needs to carry a heavy duty political message to be worthy? And let's not pretend that drugs, sex, and violence are not present in other genres! Ridiculous.
And he makes a lot of troubling statements about women; generally nothing, like, overtly disgusting, but just small condescending remarks. Case in point: "I roll my eyes at Patti Smith for constantly mentioning Rimbaud, so why do I find it OK for the Human League to use an obscure term for silk manufacture and open a song with the line "Listen to the voice of Buddha"? Why do I find one good pop and the other bad? Maybe because Patti Smith was using Rimbaud as a prop, a symbol of rebellion" (391) vs. "If 1991's dance music was short on lyrical bite, then the Manics made up for it all by themselves. The quoted Rimbaud and Debord in interviews..." (477) Like, why can The Manic Street Preachers quote Rimbaud but not Patti Smith? UGH.
More: "Courtney Love eventually channeled her attention away from media-baiting, until 1998's Celebrity Skin felt like a proper record rather than just a vehicle for her problems..." (523). Could he have been a little more patronizing?! Fuck Courtney Love for not using her music for the exact purpose Bob Stanley thinks is "proper", right?
I mean, do these things ruin the book? No, it was still packed full of good information and written well. But is it annoying to NEVER be able to escape the pervasive sexism and racism that's embedded in the music industry and every other part of society? YES. For its sheer comprehensiveness I'd certainly recommend this book to someone interested in modern pop music, but I didn't think it was as good as the reviews made it out to be, and not just because I have my feminist hat on.