Elijah Wald - How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll:

[JSngry]

The Beatles did NOT destry Gil Melle!

[elijahwald]

Unfortunately, this discussion started by repeating what the LA Times reviewer wrote about my book--and that review was the first time in my career that a major publication has simply lied about what I wrote. All the quotations he gives as my purported "bitter rant" against the Beatles are not from my chapter on them (as he says), but from a paragraph in my introduction in which I characterize the way a "small world of music nuts" have sometime portrayed the band.

Despite its title, the book is not in any way an attack on the Beatles. The title came from a comparison of the Beatles with Paul Whiteman, and its point is that all changes create winners and losers, and what is an advance for some musicians is career-destroying for others.

The book starts around 1890 and is an attempt to write nonjudgmental pop music history, looking at the effects of such phenomenally influential figures as Whiteman, Lombardo, Mitch Miller and the Beatles without rendering artistic judgments about their work.

All the other reviews have been more accurate--many attack me for having a misleading title, but all the others point out that in fact I do not attack the Beatles, and I'm in a discussion with the Times about getting some kind of retraction....

Which is not to deny that my book may have plenty of problems, but I wish it could be judged on its real problems, not the ones invented for it by the Times reviewer. (And if anyone wants a better sense of it, check out my website, http://www.elijahwald.com

[jlhoots]

Good review in 3rd Coast Music.

[jazzbo]

No Wolf, that CJ sold the same day I believe.

This might be an interesting read. . . but I've way too many books in large stacks waiting for me to read them.

[Hot Ptah]

Unfortunately, this discussion started by repeating what the LA Times reviewer wrote about my book--and that review was the first time in my career that a major publication has simply lied about what I wrote. All the quotations he gives as my purported "bitter rant" against the Beatles are not from my chapter on them (as he says), but from a paragraph in my introduction in which I characterize the way a "small world of music nuts" have sometime portrayed the band.

Despite its title, the book is not in any way an attack on the Beatles. The title came from a comparison of the Beatles with Paul Whiteman, and its point is that all changes create winners and losers, and what is an advance for some musicians is career-destroying for others.

The book starts around 1890 and is an attempt to write nonjudgmental pop music history, looking at the effects of such phenomenally influential figures as Whiteman, Lombardo, Mitch Miller and the Beatles without rendering artistic judgments about their work.

All the other reviews have been more accurate--many attack me for having a misleading title, but all the others point out that in fact I do not attack the Beatles, and I'm in a discussion with the Times about getting some kind of retraction....

Which is not to deny that my book may have plenty of problems, but I wish it could be judged on its real problems, not the ones invented for it by the Times reviewer. (And if anyone wants a better sense of it, check out my website, http://www.elijahwald.com

Hey, you're derailing a perfectly good batch of speculation and conjecture with actual facts!

I agree that it would be a good idea for us to read the book before dismissing it. I liked Wald's book on Dave Van Ronk a great deal, and am willing to give the Beatles-titled book a chance.

[seeline]

I'm planning to read the book.

To be honest, I think trashing (or simply dismissing) something without having read (or heard) it is just plain stupid.

[J.A.W.]

To be honest, I think trashing (or simply dismissing) something without having read (or heard) it is just plain stupid.

Yes, you have made that very clear more than once in this thread. Thank you

Edited June 18, 2009 by J.A.W.

[AllenLowe]

interesting about the LA Times review - this would not be the first time I have seen someone review a book after having read only a part of it -

as a matter of fact, when my American Pop book came out, Gary Giddins criticized it for not having certain references, which it did in fact have - when I realized he had only read the liner notes and not the actual book, I wrote a letter to the Voice, and boy, was he vicious in response. To this day I am mad at myself for not suing him for libel -

I know Elijah's work well and can recommend it, though I have not read the latest - and the Van Ronk book is excellent -

[randyhersom]

I am quite willing to trash the title as sensationalist and unnecessarily accusitive. Anything with a timeless quality that is preserved at all is not destroyed. One of these days I may or may not read the book. The Beatles did not destroy Rock 'n Roll. Neither did the Seeds, the Monkees or even the Archies. Interesting that rock 'n roll does not figure in the chapter subjects until chapter 13 of 17.

[Jazzmoose]

I'm planning to read the book.

To be honest, I think trashing (or simply dismissing) something without having read (or heard) it is just plain stupid.

To be honest, thinking that what's driving the discussion here is the book rather than the question asked in the first post is missing the point.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Jazzmoose

[JSngry]

Do you think they destroyed Rock and Roll? Well my opinion of course not they actually saved it and transformed it.

[Chuck Nessa]

I agree, it wasn't complete pap;

I love the idea of incomplete pap!

[AllenLowe]

it's time to take the pap test -

[Chuck Nessa]

it's time to take the pap test -

time for you to give a smear.

[Hardbopjazz]

I thought Rock was dead the "Day the Music Died" in 1959. It was in the song. That worked for me.

[Teasing the Korean]

The Beatles did indeed destroy rock 'n' roll, and thank God that they did.

I'll take their music from the Rubber Soul/Yesterday and Today/Revolver period over any early rock 'n' roll.

[JSngry]

their music from the Rubber Soul/Yesterday and Today/Revolver period

Seems to me that a lot of the parts of that music showed up in the C&W of the 90s. Quiet as it's kept...

So maybe they destroyed Country too!

Jolly good show, lads!

[Alexander]

Having read a bit about the book (I ordered it from Amazon, since it looks quite interesting) it does seem that the title is an inaccurate reflection of the book's content. But then, if he had called it "A Quite Different Look At American Popular Music," I doubt we'd all be talking about it at all!

[thedwork]

Unfortunately, this discussion started by repeating what the LA Times reviewer wrote about my book--and that review was the first time in my career that a major publication has simply lied about what I wrote. All the quotations he gives as my purported "bitter rant" against the Beatles are not from my chapter on them (as he says), but from a paragraph in my introduction in which I characterize the way a "small world of music nuts" have sometime portrayed the band.

Despite its title, the book is not in any way an attack on the Beatles. The title came from a comparison of the Beatles with Paul Whiteman, and its point is that all changes create winners and losers, and what is an advance for some musicians is career-destroying for others.

The book starts around 1890 and is an attempt to write nonjudgmental pop music history, looking at the effects of such phenomenally influential figures as Whiteman, Lombardo, Mitch Miller and the Beatles without rendering artistic judgments about their work.

All the other reviews have been more accurate--many attack me for having a misleading title, but all the others point out that in fact I do not attack the Beatles, and I'm in a discussion with the Times about getting some kind of retraction....

Which is not to deny that my book may have plenty of problems, but I wish it could be judged on its real problems, not the ones invented for it by the Times reviewer. (And if anyone wants a better sense of it, check out my website, http://www.elijahwald.com

very cool for you to join the discussion elijahwald.

i was asked to choose from a list of books up for review for a print magazine/online zine i do a little writing for about a month or two back and yours was on the list. i put it on my request list as one i'd really like to get assigned but they gave me something else instead. too bad...

i haven't read your Beatles book. i'm with everyone else here who thinks your book has a silly, intentionally polemic title. it may prevent me from ever reading it at all - and that's really too bad.

whoever chose the title can say that's not what was intended (ie: relatively semantic rock vs. rock 'n roll distinction, yada yada...). but saying the title wasn't meant to be overly controversial or polemic leaves only two possibilities as far as i can tell: 1) someone's lying about their intent of the title; or 2) the person(s) actually didn't realize the title was inciteful and inflammatory and (insert other obvious words like the previous ones i've been using here) which means they're wildly oblivious to basically the entire pop music scene and its attitudes of the last 40 years. neither is a good possibility.

that all being said, obviously you can't judge a book by its cover. but you can judge a cover by its cover. or... you can judge a cover on its own. or you can judge a... well, you know what i mean.

everything i'm writing about here is about the title. there may be plenty of great stuff inside the actual book. too bad i'm not too interested on what's inside because of how it's presented from the outside. i'm rather obviously not the only person to have this reaction. it's a reality of human behavior. call me shallow: titles matter. there's waaaayyyyyyyyy too many books out there to waste time on something that's immediately offensive from it's cover.

if i'd been reviewing it, however, it would have been a different story. maybe i'd be on this thread telling everyone to do their best to ignore the idiotic title and run out to read the best book ever written on the Beatles.

oh well...

[seeline]

I started this book earlier today and am about 1/3d of the way through. It's very, very good - and not really what the main title makes it out to be.

the subtitle is An Alternative History of American Popular Music, which is far more accurate.

Although I disagree with some of Wald's conclusions (in this book as well as in some of his other work), he's a dedicated researcher and a talented writer, and I like what he has to say (whether I agree with him or not ). I'd recommend the opening chapter of the book without any reservations, as he hits on so many important points there. (You can check out some of it at Amazon.com)

Factoid: John Philip Sousa coined the phrase "canned music." Who knew?!

Edited July 8, 2009 by seeline

[Alexander]

So I got it and I read it. It's fascinating and extremely well written. Makes some darn good points too. I was particularly interested in some of the lawsuits that were filed during the 1940s to prevent music from being disseminated for "free" via the radio. Sounds an awful lot like the industry's hand wringing over file sharing...

[BruceH]

The Beatles did indeed destroy rock 'n' roll, and thank God that they did.

I'll take their music from the Rubber Soul/Yesterday and Today/Revolver period over any early rock 'n' roll.

their music from the Rubber Soul/Yesterday and Today/Revolver period

Seems to me that a lot of the parts of that music showed up in the C&W of the 90s. Quiet as it's kept...

So maybe they destroyed Country too!

Perhaps they destroyed themselves, too: "She said---I know what it's like to be dead..."

[BruceH]

I was particularly interested in some of the lawsuits that were filed during the 1940s to prevent music from being disseminated for "free" via the radio. Sounds an awful lot like the industry's hand wringing over file sharing...

When it comes to music industry stupidity, there is truly nothing new under the sun. They've been pulling essentially the same dumb stunts over and over for many decades.

[Jazzmoose]

Perhaps they destroyed themselves, too: "She said---I know what it's like to be dead..."

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2fb0fbb0d...-w-fred-willard

[Stereojack]

I was particularly interested in some of the lawsuits that were filed during the 1940s to prevent music from being disseminated for "free" via the radio. Sounds an awful lot like the industry's hand wringing over file sharing...

When it comes to music industry stupidity, there is truly nothing new under the sun. They've been pulling essentially the same dumb stunts over and over for many decades.

The action in the 1940's actually stemmed from the musicians' union, calling a strike against record companies. The union felt that radio and jukeboxes were taking work away from live musicians, and they felt that record companies ought to compensate musicians for airplay. They won, and to this day, radio stations are required to pay licensing fees to music publishers and to the union. I'm not sure how the jukebox issue was settled, but I'll bet it's a similar deal.