What's That Sound? Books on rock history

[Big Beat Steve]

14 hours ago, EKE BBB said:

I am very fond of 60s and 70s rock (beat and British invasion, R&B, blues-rock, psychedelic rock, garage, hard rock, punk...), but always open to different styles.

And was looking for a "history book" but I understand your concers on rock being too widely diversified to be properly covered in a history book.

Basically the Rolling Stone encyclopedias would be a good starter if you are interested in the 60s and 70s and not so much in later decades.

But these books of course pick representative artists and bands to describe a style, i.e. they do not cover the ENTIRE history in an equal manner IMO.

Maybe someone will be able to comment on the "Rock of Ages" books from Rolling Stone too?

If you should want to get individual history books on the various styles of rock from that era (there must be dozens of books ...), here is one for 60s beat:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Beat-Chris-May/dp/0903985012

I bought this at the time (mid-70s) during a stay in London while still in high school. To this day this still is "second to none" to me from what I have seen elsewhere on the subject of British beat and R&B bands. BUT - this part of rock is not my primary focus in the history of rock so I have not kept abreast of other books that may since have been published.

This one (which goes beyond beat and the British invasion) might be worth checking out too.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Then-Now-Rare-British-Beat/dp/0711990948

And there may be others. But you will have to wait for comments and recommendations from those who know this scene better than I do.

As for psychedelic rock and the flower power era, there was a huge (almost LP-sized) book produced about 15 to 20 years ago by (or in close cooperation with) the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio that was lavishly produced and a real eye-catcher. I leafed through it at a local bookstore but did not buy it as I am not really into psychedelic rock but it WAS impressive.

I cannot guarantee it but it may have been this one:

https://www.alibris.com/I-Want-to-Take-You-Higher-The-Psychedelic-Era-1965-1969-Chronicle-Books/book/9041655

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[Simon Weil]

On ‎18‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 2:48 PM, EKE BBB said:

How's this one as an overall history of rock?

What's That Sound?: An Introduction to Rock and Its History [Author: John Covach], 3rd edition, published on February, 2012

 

Any other recommendations?

Hint: I have been listening to rock for almost all my life since I was around twelve years old (now I am 46), except for several periods of jazz-only listening, but never cared to buy and read a rock encyclopedia (unlike my quite extensive collection of jazz books of any type).

Thanks in advance!

Agustín

I don't have this book, but the first 2 lines of the song quoted on the cover (For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield):

"There's something happening in here/ What it is ain't exactly clear..."

Do seem to capture the 60's.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Simon Weil
Wrong word in quote

[sgcim]

I'm just finishing Jann Wenner's biography, 'Sticky Fingers', and anything having to do with RS creeps me out! I don't know who was worse, Ertegun or Wenner...

I think the most common phrase in the book is, "Ralph Gleason is turning over in his grave...".

[medjuck]

1 hour ago, Simon Weil said:

I don't have this book, but the first 2 lines of the song quoted on the cover (For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield):

"There's something happening in here/ What it is ain't exactly clear..."

Do seem to capture the 60's.

1 hour ago, Simon Weil said:

I don't have this book, but the first 2 lines of the song quoted on the cover (For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield):

"There's something happening in here/ What it is ain't exactly clear..."

Do seem to capture the 60's.

I dunno, seems to capture 2018 pretty well:  

 

[Simon Weil]

1 hour ago, medjuck said:

I dunno, seems to capture 2018 pretty well:  

 

That's not untrue - And perhaps there's a reason for that.

[Big Beat Steve]

And how and when is this going to become part of ROCK history?

Any today's Dylans singing about "The times they are a-changing" out there yet?

Just wondering about on-topic/off-topic matters, you know ...

 

[Simon Weil]

It's expensive (£64), written by an academic for a University course and I found the style in the preview on Amazon unbearably dry. As It happens it also gives short shrift (or no shrift) to the groups I came into Rock with (Soft Machine and Fairport Convention - both rock-something else fusions).

 

[Big Beat Steve]

15 hours ago, Simon Weil said:

It's expensive (£64), written by an academic for a University course and I found the style in the preview on Amazon unbearably dry. As It happens it also gives short shrift (or no shrift) to the groups I came into Rock with (Soft Machine and Fairport Convention - both rock-something else fusions).

 

The book/edition of "What's that Sound" (a line that I am pretty sure comes up in quite a few other rock songs too, FWIW) shown by the thread starter retails from $15 or so. Is the new (5th?) edition that you seem to be referring to (and that IS expensive, according to Amazon) worth that much extra money? If the 5th ed. has been updated only with more recent developments since the previous edition then it probably is not what the thread starter is looking for (as he says he has a particular interest in 60s/70s rock).

Amazing, BTW, that the newer the editions, the older the cover layout seems to get. This 5th edition shown on Amazon looks like an early 70s PRINTING to me. Baffling! The kind of effort to recapture a "period" feel one only sees very rarely these days in book artwork.

As for the "short shrift/no shrift" problem - maybe a general problem with books that set out to cover an all too wide field in one single tome (considering the diverse developments in rock since the 80s alone)? I've often found that many authors writing about a "history" in the field of popular music are very much skewed with too much of a bias towards the most recent happenings (with the possible exception of jazz). What's been big in the, say, 10 past years figures prominently in there but the preceding periods are almost only covered by the huge, huge names that still are fairly huge (or remebered through recycling in omnipresent oldies shows) at the time of writing, and this slant becomes more pronounced the further back you go in history. Whereas, if you were to do the subject justice, you'd have to give each decade fairly equal coverage to highlight those that were big in THEIR day (but may have been forgotten except to REAL fans and collectors since) in an even manner that reflects the TIMES and presents the ENTIRE picture of the history in a balanced way. Because who knows who from the most recent years given huge coverage now will still be a household name 10 or 20 years from now, particularly if you take today's increased media exposure into account?

Edited March 3, 2018 by Big Beat Steve

[Simon Weil]

1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

The book/edition of "What's that Sound" (a line that I am pretty sure comes up in quite a few other rock songs too, FWIW) shown by the thread starter retails from $15 or so. Is it the new (5th?) edition that you seem to be referring to (and that IS expensive, according to Amazon) worth that much extra money? If the 5th ed. has ben updated only with more recent developments since the previous edition then it probably is not what the thread starter is looking for (as he says he has a particular interest in 60s/70s rock).

Amazing, BTW, that the newer the editions, the older the cover layout seems to get. This 5th edition shown on Amazon looks like an early 70s PRINTING to me. Baffling! The kind of effort to recapture a "period" feel one only sees very rarely these days in book artwork.

As for the "short shrift/no shrift" problem - maybe a general problem with books that set out to cover an all too wide field in one single tome, considering the diverse developments in rock since the 80s alone. I've often found that many authors writing about a "history" in the field of popular music are very, very much skewed with too much of a bias towards the most recent happenings (with the possible exception of jazz). What's been big in the, say, 10 past years figures prominently in there but the preceding periods are almost only covered by the huge, huge names that still are fairly huge today, and ths slant becomes more pronounced the further back you go in history. Whereas, if you were to do the subject justice, you'd have to give each decade fairly equal coverage to highlight those that were big in THEIR day (but may have been forgotten except to REAL fans and collectors since) in an even manner that reflects the TIMES and presents the ENTIRE picture of the history in a balanced way. Because who knows who from the most recent years given huge coverage now will still be a household name 10 or 20 years from now, particularly if you take today's increased media exposure into account?

This is the link to Amazon.co.uk:

What's That Sound 4th Edition

£64.12 is the price there. It doesn't have any UK reviews, but the top 2 reviews from the states (imported to the UK site) do talk about price.

This is a link to a search of Amazon.com versions of the book:

What's That Sound (Amazon.com)

There's a version available for rent at $14.99, but the standard edition still seems to cost $91 (though there's a loose leaf ed. for $63). Of course you could buy second hand....

My problem was mostly with the style - that's how I will characteristically go about deciding whether I want to buy a book, the first thing I'll look at is the style. I don't think I could read this book - so there wouldn't be a whole lot of point in me expending anything, let alone the high price. I mean, I did seriously look, because I could probably do with a book on this general subject (Though I have the Rolling Stone).

My impression of the book was the actual stuff you need to know about gets diluted by the academic verbiage, the kind of rote sociological analysis and the decision made to take a "long" view of Rock history - so too wide and too deep a field. There might be value buried in it, but...I couldn't be bothered to look.

 

[Big Beat Steve]

I checked amazon.com and the price indicated there in US$ for the 5th ed. matches the price you quoted. I missed the "for rent" line on amazon.com (never seen that category before) for the 3rd ed.. My fault. So it is secondhand or pay up indeed. Secondhand copies on amazon.de start at $30 too, so ...

I agree with your point about the style. I'd find that off-putting too, and I've been disappointed in a number of cases where interest in the subject matter made me jump for a book. I won't name a jazz book written by a board member here on a subject I find very interesting where reading is very, very tough going, and I am not sure yet if this is partly due to my lack of deep knowledge in music theory, but it is a tough row to hoe. I'd cut that one some slack (as no doubt it is very profound), but another one bought recently is to some extent overladen with what you call "academic verbiage". It is a series of essays on individual aspects of European jazz, and some are more "accessible" than others, but those that go overboard in their acedamic pretense - ouch ... If the most frequently used term seems to be "vernacular" then I am beginning to wonder ... Of course jazz (particularly its early history) is part of "popular" music rather than classic or "serious" music so if you have to circumscribe the notion of "popular" (in a looser or wider sense - we are not talking about dialects or folksiness etc.) to this extent by such academic deadweight, then ....  And I can well imagine such academic lingo to be even more burdensome in a book on rock where the music and the target audience on average should be even more down to earth than with jazz (taken as a whole across all genres).

Anyway, so this book has been settled for the thread starter, I guess ...

BTW, talking about the UK and scholarly writing, did you ever see this one?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Britain-Got-Blues-Transmission/dp/1138259357/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520081654&sr=1-1&keywords=How+Britain+Got+The+Blues

The title sounds exceedingly scholarly but this book seemed to fill a niche in writings on my fields of interest in music I took the plunge, and I found it a surprisingly good read as an introduction to this subject from an angle not covered in other books touching on the "white British blues boys" phenomenon (particularly when read in conjunction with other related books).

[Simon Weil]

It's kind of difficult for me to answer you on the point about style without specific reference (I fear I'm going to get caught betwixt and between). I do always try and get a look inside a book before I buy because of the issues you mention.

The preview of the British blues background book is engaging. British Blues is not really one of my subjects, but the background goes to other places as well, and I can see how I might buy it for that.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Simon Weil

[ghost of miles]

On 3/2/2018 at 8:23 PM, medjuck said:

I dunno, seems to capture 2018 pretty well:  

 

That is amazing--thanks so much for posting it, Joe.

And good to see you around these parts again, Simon.

[Simon Weil]

1 hour ago, ghost of miles said:

That is amazing--thanks so much for posting it, Joe.

And good to see you around these parts again, Simon.

Thanks, Ghost. Good to be back.