Kill Your Idols: A New Generation of Rock Writers Reconsiders the Classics

"Kill Your Idols" is a collection of essays edited by Jim DeRogatis and Carmel Carrillo that attack the notion that rock and roll is a dead art form whose best days are behind it. In the book, DeRogatis defines rock and roll as a spontaneous explosion of personality and attitude that makes the listener feel more alive in the present. Rock offers the audience a better understanding of some aspect of the world that surrounds them. DeRogatis says that songs either successfully speak to the listener's real-world experience in the present, or they do not. In the process, he blasts writers who have a nostalgic view of rock - who only live in the past - and do not believe that artists are still creating relevant music today. The book's central thesis is that music should be judged on the merits of how well people can relate to it in the present, regardless of what the listener knows about the timeperiod in which it was created. DeRogatis asks the contributors to write strong, well-considered critiques of albums they do not like. The goal is to prod readers to reconsider why they like music that they enjoy. In his introduction, DeRogatis says that he believes debate about music should be as hands-on and no-holds-barred as debates about politics or sports. He says that people should come right out and say exactly how they feel. Readers who have listened to DeRogatis' weekly rock and roll radio show, entitled "Sound Opinions," know that this is exactly the approach he takes in every review he does - whether it is for a major-label act selling millions of copies, or some unknown indy artist that few people have heard of. He says that, at some level, a writer must admire something about an artist in order to take the time to write an entire essay deconstructing everything that is wrong with one of their works. He acknowledges that focusing entirely on the negative runs the risk of seeming childish, but he believes that readers will benefit from the exercise as long as they remember to take the book seriously, but not too seriously. On the whole, the authors deliver. Dawn Eden's essay on "Smile" by Brian Wilson does a good job of explaining how collaborator Van Dyke Parks brought out Wilson's excesses while he was developing the compositions and arrangements. Keith Moerer successfully documents how the Rolling Stones became distracted by issues external to the band and depended too heavily on sidemen while recording "Exile on Main Street," leading the band to release an unfinished effort that fails to stand up against their best work. Leanne Potts does a great job explaining how Lynyrd Skynyrd's vision of ideal life in the South was out of touch with what most Southerners aspired to. Rob O'Connor demonstrates why Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." seemingly pandered to the audience after Springsteen had written many great songs about the downtrodden that people on the street could relate to. In the book's best essay, Chris Martiniano argues that "Bloo

Wow. I read this book and then, on a whim, decided to see how it fared among other readers. I must admit my simultaneous surprise yet non-surprisedness at the anger/low marks of the reviews. ...it seems people just can't take a slam against Sgt. Pepper. That's not to say I dislike Sgt. Pepper, but it seems people generally are not too fond of reading a negative review of something they (and millions of others... you're not special...) hold sacred. Many of the albums absolutely SLAMMED in this book were, and still are, favorites of mine. I may not agree with the negative marks against some albums, but it helps me to unerstand why people may not like things. Hell, as a self-minded conquistador on my own musical journey, I could empathize with the near-blasphemous status of hating anything by Springsteen or Patti Smith, two "artists" who particularly grate on my last dangling nerves. To also identify with stepping out of the canon, I could understand why people had disdain towards albums I like as well as those I don't. The reviewers' disagreement with your own personal beliefs does not take any merit away from the book. MAYBE someone other than you hears an album differently. Accept it and move the hell on with it. Yet do so with a sense of acceptance. No matter what, the fact is you have heard of each album in this book for some reason or another. THe most underlying reason, of course, is that there are a hell of a lot more people who consider these albums classic than those who don't. If the bee in your bonnet about this book is the fact that these records got slammed, just remember that this book is an affront to the popular music "canon," meaning that although the reviewer in the book does not like the album (and is respectfully entitled to his or her own opinion), there are obviously a lot more people who do, or else you would not have heard (of) them.

I love to see the wind get taken out of a few sails (hell, I enjoy doing it myself). While I don't agree with all the critics here, I can see their point of view and the absolute delight of the whole book is when U2's pompously overbearing Joshua Tree gets knocked down a rung or two. Those guys need a bit of deflating every now and then!!! I really enjoyed Arsenio's (no, not the TV goofball and Eddie Murphy sidekick)expose of Public Enemy (although its more of a band bashing for it's racist tendencies than a review for the album) but it also is part of the problem with the book. The writers have a tendency to have a beef with the bands more than with the album that they are supposed to be exposing oftentimes.But that is a small inconvienience, and I tend to agree with several of the reviews here (especially nice to see someone shares my feelings about Nirvana's Nevermind LP, if interested see my review elsewhere) or at least I am open minded enough to see their point of view. Some people would give a good review to a Dylan album if he was farting over top of a bossa nova soundtrack, and that is a main reason a book like this is a good thing. The fact that this book is going to piss more than a few people off is exactly the reason I enjoy it. In fact, the only essay that was of no interest was the Fleetwood Mac Rumours review which the writting said nothing about the album, but has a minor fantasy about assassinating the band. What's that about? An interesting facet of the book is the writer's tendencies to trash the writers that champion the albums. That to me, just like U2 is a thing that needs to be done once in awhile. (Notice how Dave Marsh responded to the book? He gets his a few times in the Springsteen department so of course he's gonna trash the book!! The truth hurts the holier than thou!) And Rolling Stone magazine gets trashed almost essay by essay, which is also nice, because that rag has been toliet paper since the days of Ben Fong Torres. I personally have refused to read it since they started considering rap music as important as rock n roll (which is baloney any way you slice it and you won't convince me otherwise). Anyone can take other people's songs slice and dice em and come up with something rhythmically and then talk over them. Big deal! Give Nelly a guitar and see if he can write a hit? I doubt it. Sorry got off the track, but Kill Your Idols inspired me! Anyways, if you are a diehard fan of an album that has an entry here, you can either keep an open mind and listen to another point of view, or you can throw a hissy fit and boo hoo all day. But I think it's nice to see I am not alone in feeling contempt for some of those records that make you seem uncool if you don't like 'em. I for one, am ready for the next volume. I only hope that one has Tim Hardin, Eminem, Linkin Park, Bob Seger, Ani DiFranco, and more "can do no wrongs" that need a little grounding.

This is a book that re-enforces what I loved about the albums they trashed, and made me think about guys like Jim Morrison. A lot of people get pissy and defensive when they see something that they love get trashed. If you are one of those people, don't read this book. The book is like a challenge. You are supposed to think about what they say, and almost debate it in your head. The book is a great companion, and more thought prevoking than anything I've read in a long time.