Lester Bangs - Classic or Carburetor Dung?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

He was so impassioned and personally affected by the music he loved & enraged by the music he hated, so honest about his own defects - it's hard to argue with his value on some levels. I'd say about half of Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung is among the best writing on music I've ever read. The rest (particularly the stabs at fiction and memoir) is a mess.

On the other hand, his influence has created some of the worst writing on music I've ever read (and written). Anybody who lives in a city with a free alternative weekly magazine will know what I'm talking about. Maybe it's not fair to judge him on that legacy, though.

Any thoughts?

― fritz, Sunday, 24 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

It's like judging Robert Johnson by looking at Johnny Lang, ie patently unfair. Bangs is a classic, no doubt. I think lots of distinctive writers in the gonzo or gonzo-influenced style are great (ie. Hunter S. Thompson), but their imitiators can go stick their heads in pigs.

― Dave M., Sunday, 24 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

For all that I admire him ("classic"), he just wasn't a very good writer, was he? I don't know what you percieve as his "influence" - but then, I'm only passingly familiar with the work of most rock critics later than the early Bronze Age - I can't see that many of his (few) obviously distinctive stylistic tics being used by people on this board, for example, they'd be percieved as pretty corny i would imagine.
I'm always saying this & so are lots of other people but - 1 more time - why is he so famous & Richard Meltzer isn't? Meltzer's even still alive. (did I just answer my own rhetorical q.?) & still writing! Still writing good stuff! yeah i know, start a seperate thread if it's such a big deal. maybe i ought to.

― duane, Sunday, 24 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

I was just thinking the same thing re: Meltzer. Do it! Do it!

― Kerry Keane, Sunday, 24 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

"Bangs'dowry was fealty to the Beats, who inspired his personal voice and speed-fueled meanderings, and a love of jazz, a clear template for the free-form riffage of his careening literary improvisations." Review of a new biography of Bangs: here

Quote from Bangs:

"Van Morrison's Astral Weeks was released ten years, almost to the day, before this was written. It was particularly important to me because the fall of 1968 was such a terrible time: I was a physical and mental wreck, nerves shredded and ghosts and spiders looming and squatting across the mind. My social contacts had dwindled to almost none; the presence of other people made me nervous and paranoid. I spent endless days and nights sunk in an armchair in my bedroom, reading magazines, watching TV, listening to records, staring into space. I had no idea how to improve the situation and probably wouldn't have done anything about it if I had. "Astral Weeks would be the subject of this piece - i.e., the rock record with the most significance in my life so far - no matter how I'd been feeling when it came out. But in the condition I was in, it assumed at the time the quality of a beacon, a light on the far shores of the murk; what's more, it was proof that there was something left to express artistically besides nihilism and destruction. (My other big record of the day was White Light/White Heat.) It sounded like the man who made Astral Weeks was in terrible pain, pain most of Van Morrison's previous works had only suggested; but like the later albums by the Velvet Underground, there was a redemptive element in the blackness, ultimate compassion for the suffering of others, and a swath of pure beauty and mystical awe that cut right through the heart of the work."

I don't understand why Lester Bangs has quite such a grand reputation: this is certainly interesting, but he doesn't resist such obvious things as making yourself the subject of the piece - or at least, if you're going to do this, not being cliched about it - and all the observations are only ever slightly outside of being cliches - I have to go but I think he makes the point better than I could, can someone tell me, maybe I just haven't read the right stuff?

― maryann, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Duane: You did answer your own question, but to elaborate for ev'ry one else who don't know, Lester Bangs died like a rock star, where Meltzer didn't. So he has the untouchable aura of rock royalty about him...

I'll call him a classic, without any sort of justification, because someone else will provide my proof for me!

― JM, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Ah Lester why was you da king? Actually pretty hard to define why. But it probably has to do with the passion he felt for music and he somehow could translate that passion into words. That's as simple and simplistic as I can put it. Somehow people care for that quality and not for Meltzer's cynical "all music is crap" stance or Dave Marsh book full o' lists.

But I wonder if Psychotic Reactions is such a good anthology, as we speed away from the 70s it's becoming harder to decipher. Always hope someone puts together all his reviews in one 1000-page anthology a la Pauline Kael.

― Omar, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Style be fucked, what animates me about Bangs is the freshness and intelligence of some of the insights - thinking Kraftwerk seriously, thinking Metal Machine Music seriously, thinking punk racism and its corrosive effects seriously, not being afraid to mess up or disguise that seriousness, not being afraid to contradict himself. Anyone with a wrap of speed and a keyboard can 'do Bangs' and do it badly, not that many people can think like him well.

The Astral Weeks piece is actually one of my least favourites by him - I'd not read it until recently because I don't know AW well and also just through laziness. And I thought "well, OK". Maybe it's because the web is shifting the baseline of music criticism more towards that kind of personalisation (Good Thing!)

― Tom, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

yeah but he lacks precision, and isn't that the most important effort involved in writing? having said that, I think I don't understand his historical position properly. The best conception of the value of music I have is that it is expressive of emotion - in different senses I don't need to go into - and if Lester Bangs recognised and expressed the emotional value of music to an unprecedented degree then I can see how much value that would have to the appreciation of rock.

but most of his admirers do say that he had insights they found important, I'm sure he did, and I know his work suffered from his own drug heroism wrote it at 3am the night before bla bla and perhaps I should just believe everybody and persist until I encounter the insights. Is it the case, though, that we forgive him for not editing because of his biography? That's very sentimental.

It's also tricky because, since he exposed so much of himself in his writing, it's like I'm attacking him 'in himself' by not liking it. I guess that means he was brave.

― maryann, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

The reason I like Lester Bangs is exactly that, he was brave. I think he was one of the first people to readily call most all in his profession "sissys", which is something that I would gladly do any day of the week. He wasn't a martyr as people make him out to be today. He's not the John Lennon of writing. Possibly the Iggy Pop. He's a guy with a serious love and passion for music that is very evident in his writing, which is more than I can say for most pen pushers. You free-record hording, same old Can/VU influence citing, aloof, droll sons of bitches know who you are!

― Tim Baier, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Not that I'll necessarily disagree with you, Maryann, about Bangs' tendency to write about himself, but I'd argue that if much of what he wrote seems like cliche, it's only because he's one of the ones who CREATED those cliches in rock writing, along with Meltzer. At the time the two of them started (along with Tosches, too), rock writing was the Ralph Gleason "let's treat this as serious art" style of formal criticism. Bangs writing about his own durn self in his reviews wasn't particularly professional from that perspective, but at the same time, it was truly insightful to a lot of people: rock music was supposed to be involving, not intellectual (necessarily), and what better way to tackle that part of it that to let you know how it makes you feel, as a critic? Granted, you may glean less from that review, as a reader, than you'd necessarily like, but it was certainly engaging writing, and very entertaining. There were still the stuffy shirts out there to review it in a more formal way. But that wasn't what Bangs was trying to do.

― Sean Carruthers, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Well put, Sean. That was the comment that I wanted to make but was too lazy to write out. *high-5*

― Tim Baier, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Yep, yep, yep and yep.

I was going to type something about Bangs' enthusiasm, but Omar beat me to the punch. However, I wish that more people emulated his enthusiasm more than his introspective-to-a-fault prose.

I'm all for personalization, as long as it's either complementary to the subject at hand, or more interesting than the subject at hand. The latter doesn't happen too often, unfortunately. Neither does the former, really.

― David Raposa, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

He did place himself within the action in his stories, but somehow remained an outsider looking in at the action. He shows himself disgusted by his own racist behaviour, feeling like a longhaired old hippy at a Clash show, tossed out of Lou Reed's suite when he's too drunk to continue an interview. Rather than making the critic some solemn anonymous voice from on high, Bangs made us completely aware of his own biases, quirks, and failings. You can read his pieces and figure out whether you're going to like it or not, much as you would if a friend recommended a record.

I think his lack of editing is part of his whole "literature as rock & roll" schtick. Which, like the whole "jam session" mentality in general works best for the wasted.

I would love to have read what he'd written if he'd lived. Though I have a feeling that the 80's would have killed him one way or another.

― fritz, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Tom - that's just what I was going to say - maryann's quoted bit from Astral Weeks review sounds just like a blog!

― tracer Hand, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

marlon brando: the godfather, snoop dogg: the doggfather, lester bangs: the blogfather

― fred solinger, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

"Bob Quine called me up one day and summarized: 'I've figured you out. Every month you go out and deliberately dig up the most gawdawful wretched worthless unlistenable offensive irritating unnerving moronic piece of horrible racket noise you can possibly find, then sit down and write this review in which you explain to everyone else in the world why it's just wonderful and they should all run right out an buy it. Since you're a good writer, they're convinced by the review to do just that - till they get home and put the record on, which is when the pain sets in. They throw it under the sink or somewhere and swear it'll never happen again. By the next month they've forgotten, but you haven't, so the whole process is repeated again with some other even more obnoxious piece of hideous blare... You know, I must say, I have to admit that's a noble thing to devote your entire life to.'" -- from Lester Bang, "Untitled Notes."

IMHO, this was what made Lester Bangs great, or at least unique.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Monday, 25 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

i don't have a strong position one way or the other on lb in general but let's get this one straight: he didn't know shit about shit when talking about "horrible noise." his writings on mmm are about as far from "thinking the album seriously" as i can imagine. that famous review is one long uncomprehending backhanded slag. chuck eddy at least was able to look at the records in some kind of genre context. lb always seemed to think it unbelievably extreme that someone might actually release an instrumental record based on feedback. he treated mmm almost like it invented electroacoustic music (which = music with no emotional affect whatsoever, how appropriate for the shallow 70s). i turned up my lip a bit when i read him commenting about how he likes to play xenakis on his boom box when walking through new york just to piss people off.

the kraftwerk review was cool though. and he gets serious points for recognizing lydia lunch's greatness (which i suspect she never quite recognized, giving up the guitar so soon).

― sundar subramanian, Friday, 29 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

sundar you are wrong — as have been writing abt bangs and horrible noise and mmm and THAT PIECE (and other things too) for (it seems like) months now, i can SAY this w.unexpected certainty... and then cannot at all BACK IT UP until piece finished and delivered and accepted and printed. how rubbish is that? bangs did not just like it cuz it pissed others off: he did not just like it cuz it was extreme (it IS extreme for 1975: don't be perverse eg all four sides exactly 16.02 mins long): nor is this what he says, even in that somewhat understated and v.deceptive little essay, 20 years old this september hence MY piece

― mark s, Friday, 29 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Whatever contexts Lester Bangs provides for Metal Machine Music or noise music (i.e. HIS, or at least the ones he's making up), they're probably a lot more interesting than any kind of genre context, which would probably be a total snooze for anyone not a convert to that type of stuff.

― Patrick, Friday, 29 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

ok, i'll say first off that it's been a while since i read the piece and that i didn't read with any studious depth. you may well be right on many points, mark, given that i think you have studied it. lb may have thought the record seriously. in general, the wording of my posts last night was probably overconfident. i was pretty excited about finally getting the internet to work at home.

that said, i didn't mean that i thought lb liked mmm because it was extreme or because it pissed people off. the impression i got from the review was that he didn't actually like mmm much at all, that he thought it was entirely devoid of emotional depth or even any sort of affect. ("quick-job exploitation number" was his terminology of choice when he mentioned mmm in the kraftwerk review, right?) i remember the review being basically sarcastic and backhanded. he did seem to think it was more radical a record, and not just for a rock star, than i think it would have been even for 1975. lots of people had been working with drones and noise and feedback through the 60s, often less pretty-sounding than mmm, without meaning it as some sort of statement of emptiness and coldness. this is all i meant by genre context (an unfortunate term, probably) -- an awareness that this stuff is going on and that it means something. sure, you could just review feedback drones by your own rock-centric context but it would be like that wire feature where stockhausen criticized every techno record they gave him for being repetitious, overemphasizing rhythm, etc.

the stuff he said about xenakis was in another, smaller article.

again, i don't know these pieces well. this was just the impression i got when i read them a long time ago.

― sundar subramanian, Saturday, 30 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Lester LIKED tha stuff. And he talked about why. Cf. Tosches (or was it Meltzer) on Dolphy. Period. End story.

― Sterling Clover, Saturday, 30 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Meltzer (if we're thinking of the same piece - it's called "Dolphy Was Some Weird Cat", right?) *liked* Eric Dolphy . I *like* Lester Bangs, too, but I remember him as much for lots of maudlin diary entries , that crap about the Clash, the way he tripped over his dingdong trying to shoehorn rock into being some liberal-humanist thing that it was never going to be, etc etc. That & that I've gotten way more frequent critical insights from Robert Christgau - I don't need to ask why isn't *he* anyone's hero, I guess.

― duane zarakov, Saturday, 30 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Well, he revered Metal Machine Music, so I'd like to propose a toast to that man!

― Kodanshi, Saturday, 30 June 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

I do know what you're talking about (with the negatives that Lester directly inspired, etc). But, he's not nearly (and I do mean nearly) as bad as Robert Christgau, but still. Personally, while I do love passion for art (and all) I find that Lester had some serious "Bleeding heart White guilt" issues eating away at his soul. Which also bled (negatively) into his writing style and views, etc. Still, Christgau's case of the old "BHWG" is downright sad (at times), so. But, all-in-all...sure, why not...Lester was a nifty enough honest and free spirit to rather keep around than lose to drugs.

P.S. I wasn't nearly as impressed by Psychotic Reactions as the original poster. Too much (as typical with him and Christgau) personal baggage for my taste to be effective as a music journalist or reviewer/critic or essayist, etc - writer of non-fiction. Not that I want "Just the fact ma'am", but still. I nice mixture of the two, is what I look for in effective non-fictional writings on art.

― Allison Feldman, Sunday, 1 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Actually, I find lester as the liberal humanist far more interesting for the most part than lester as noize boy. The racism in punk article and the clash article are two of my all time favorites, the feel of a generous and mad intellect seeking to grapple with insoluble questions.

― Sterling Clover, Sunday, 1 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

oh, i forgot to praise the racism-in-punk article. thanks for reminding me.

― sundar subramanian, Sunday, 1 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

I gotta say I have a harder time with the look-what-a-drunken-degenerate-I-am aspect of his writing (cue Otis Wheeler saying that that's the only part he likes) . I don't mind that being integrated into pieces about other things, but stuff like his "New Year's Eve" article just bores me.

― Patrick, Sunday, 1 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

HA!

― Josh, Sunday, 1 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

Is this really all we had to say about Lester? I'm about halfway through Let It Blurt, so it may be time to take another look at Psychotic Reactions. Which is a great collection, but it's frustrating that almost all of his other writing is next to impossible to find. Is another collection on the way? Or a reprint of his Blondie book? (Unlikely, since it was supposed to be 'authorized' and the band hated it and still haven't forgiven him for writing it.)

Nick Kent's Bangs piece was run-of-the-mill, as far as "the fragile-hearted, drunken bozo word-magician who took rock criticism to a giddy height of vicarious readability" type articles go, but he had one poignant insight that never crossed my mind before: people who read his articles thought he was fab and wrote him fan letters, but the people Bangs really idolized and wanted to like him (Lou Reed, Iggy Pop) thought he was just an irritating prick, and this was devastating to him. I can't decide whether this is pathetic (who in their right mind would CARE if a snake like Reed didn't like you?) or horribly ironic and sad. Probably both.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 29 December 2002 11:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

Lester was the only rock critic to trancend the oxymoron. Unlike his peers (Morrison wannabee Patti Smith, 3-chord wannabee Lenny Kaye, the fabulous Chrissie Hynde, and the critic that if he had not existed - would've invented himself anyways - Jon Landau, to name but a few...) Lester was savvy enough to realize (like James Dean's Charlie Tuna) that having good taste didn't neccesarily mean that he tasted-good!

RIP Glen Buxton. RIP Lester Bangs.

― TC, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 04:42 (10 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

I'm sure that I'm the last to know, but there's a 'new' Lester Bangs anthology coming out on the 15th August.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:33 (9 years ago) Permalink

No, I was the last to know. ;) This is amazing news. Just was getting back into Bangs thanks to the Starsailor review Lee Underwood quotes in Blue Melody. Bad writing my arse.

― Omar (Omar), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 19:50 (9 years ago) Permalink

Quote from Bangs:

-- maryann (tedium200...), June 25th, 2001.

Because read that quote again. Because screw that its cliche, or has been done, or done better. Because he has such an ENGAGING style of writing. Because he writes with such ease and grandeur without ever getting bogged down in the references and allusions, and mathematical doublespeak that makes most modern criticism read like stereo manuels. Because it's impossible to not relate to him on some level, and want to love it just as much as he does, even if you've never heard it.

― David Allen, Wednesday, 30 July 2003 21:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

Ok, I was 14 and madly in love with Stephen Tyler, Joe Perry, Robert Plant and Jimmy Page. Bangs took the people in the photos in Creem and the music on the records and held it to the highest standard possible. He said if you want to act like Gods, be treated as Gods, then you fuckin' well got be Gods. If not, then get off your golden throne and go clean toilets. He called Bowie a cheap pretender and Lou Reed a whiney fag. But in that honesty we began to see that Rock and Roll was sacred, not the Rock and Rollers. We are all shit but at 3am with a head full of bad speed, cheap dope and warm beer, Young Americans become the most sincere song ever written and The Day John Kennedy Died ring like a book in the New Testement. Lester Bangs changed my life and if you have an issue witth that then mount it on the hood ornament of a '71 Mustang Mach 1, put Jonathon Richman's "Roadrunner" on the 8 track, rev it up to the redline, dump the clutch, and drive that sucker up your uptight ass.

― Speedy Gonzalas (Speedy Gonzalas), Thursday, 31 July 2003 05:43 (9 years ago) Permalink

rock and roll is shit

― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 31 July 2003 10:42 (9 years ago) Permalink

its here to stay ambrose. something you must deal with it.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 31 July 2003 11:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes, like dominoes.

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 31 July 2003 11:23 (9 years ago) Permalink

heh.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 31 July 2003 11:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

why do people feel the need to go all gonzo on my ass when writing about bangs? do they feel like that's the only way to do him justice or something? .it's especially funny when it's someone who ordinarily writes like a wet piece of cardboard. say it. don't spray it.

― rick rockwrite, Thursday, 31 July 2003 12:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

re: my earlier comment:

th reason is this: "We are all shit but at 3am with a head full of bad speed, cheap dope and warm beer, Young Americans become the most sincere song ever written and The Day John Kennedy Died ring like a book in the New Testement. Lester Bangs changed my life and if you have an issue witth that then mount it on the hood ornament of a '71 Mustang Mach 1, put Jonathon Richman's "Roadrunner" on the 8 track, rev it up to the redline, dump the clutch, and drive that sucker up your uptight ass. "

see also 'dance music is shit' - reason: "we were listening to banco de gaia and sitting in crookes valley park and the sun was coming up and we were tripping on acid and everything was crazy colours and it was so spiritual etc etc etc"

― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 31 July 2003 12:39 (9 years ago) Permalink

I've read that quote carefully several times and it doesn't make me want to hear Astral Weeks or read more of Lester Bangs.

Put crassly, some old guy liked some other old guy's music. So?
What's it to me?

― mei (mei), Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

he wasn't old when he wrote it; come to that, nor wz VM (haha though the INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH SOFT FOCUS LENS PHOTO ON THE SLEEVE sets some kind of record i think)

i lke LB but not that piece; VM can eat a bag of dicks

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:40 (9 years ago) Permalink

(I know he wasn't old, I was being crass/facetious.)

(VM must have a voracious appetite)

― mei (mei), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:19 (9 years ago) Permalink

i hope so, the bag i have just prepared is v.large

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:20 (9 years ago) Permalink

mark you hurt me in my heart.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

Hey Mark S, the 'S' wouldn't stand for 'Dahmer' by any chance?

― mei (mei), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:24 (9 years ago) Permalink

sinker isn't right abt things usually but he is here.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

sinker is usually right abt things but he isn't here.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

amt is usually wrong abt things and he is wrong abt this here.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

snap!

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:32 (9 years ago) Permalink

julio should go play with mark and his v.big bag of dicks and leave vm circa aw alone or i will cry and then hurt you all

― J (Jay), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:33 (9 years ago) Permalink

crackle! pop!!!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:40 (9 years ago) Permalink

i thought we established that "eat a bag of dicks" was a reward not a punishment?

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:57 (9 years ago) Permalink

Mark S? Sutherland?

― David. (Cozen), Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

we did? i must have missed that.

― J (Jay), Thursday, 31 July 2003 20:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

I've read that quote carefully several times and it doesn't make me want to hear Astral Weeks or read more of Lester Bangs.
Put crassly, some old guy liked some other old guy's music. So?
What's it to me?

-- mei (meirion.lewi...), July 31st, 2003.

Then why give a shit about anything?

― David Allen, Friday, 1 August 2003 01:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

stupid pointless story: a friend of mine was being bugged by this crazy pseudo-stalker chick last year, and he asked me to do something weird to annoy her. so i IMed her the entirety of lester bangs's "astral weeks" review, with no explanation.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 1 August 2003 04:21 (9 years ago) Permalink

unfortunately she turned out to be a VM fan so it didn't work as well as i'd planned. i followed up with long excerpts from "concrete, so as to self-destruct," and that worked a lot better.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 1 August 2003 04:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

Because he has such an ENGAGING style of writing....Because it's impossible to not relate to him on some level, and want to love it just as much as he does, even if you've never heard it.

-- David Allen (en@senbm), July 30th, 2003.

Many reasons to give a damn, but LB doesn't convince me to.

― mei (mei), Friday, 1 August 2003 06:33 (9 years ago) Permalink

er there is more to that piece than just the first paragraph yknow.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 1 August 2003 06:51 (9 years ago) Permalink

No, I didn't know.

― mei (mei), Friday, 1 August 2003 06:52 (9 years ago) Permalink

time to go pick up a book then innit?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 1 August 2003 06:57 (9 years ago) Permalink

or: http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 1 August 2003 06:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

I like bang's aw piece, but only cuz I know and like his other stuff alot more - it's good to see him get gushy, astral weeks is like his hailey mathers. I like the father (meltzer) and the holy ghost (tosches) alot more than lb, but I still love lb plenty, enough that it pisses me off that jim derogatis his the officially sanctioned keeper of the flame now; bangs cronies should spend alot more time bitching about let it blurt (particularly since it's gonna be the lester bangs bio) than continuing to harp on about griel marcus' agenda pushing in psychotic reactions....

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Friday, 1 August 2003 07:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

yeah, it's not really his best, but it's the one that first made me realize how good a writer he was. my favorite's probably "i saw god and/or tangerine dream."

greil marcus's agenda pushing amounted to including two pieces on elvis and nothing on black sabbath. that and calling bangs "the best writer in america." gee, what a rotten guy. let it blurt, meanwhile, includes about a million "wow, what a slob lester was" anecdotes and next to nothing about his actual writing. conclusion: jim derogatis is a twat.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 1 August 2003 07:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

to be fair, lester bangs' elvis obit is probably pretty easily his most quoted piece (I remember seeing jane pauley quote it on something about elvis)

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Friday, 1 August 2003 07:26 (9 years ago) Permalink

and I think it's the inclusion of 'the white noise supremacists' that really rankles the ranks

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Friday, 1 August 2003 07:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

haha justyn i kill you with gun

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 1 August 2003 07:42 (9 years ago) Permalink

well I agree with justyn. what's the 'agenda' here? Lester was a good writer (loads of US ILXORS may not agree bcz of the copyists but that's not my problem).

I still kill him with gun tho'.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 1 August 2003 09:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

time to go pick up a book then innit?

I'm not going to read more just to check I'm as uninterested in it as I am in what I've already read.

I _am_ intrigued as to why he's so revered though.

― mei (mei), Friday, 1 August 2003 10:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

I'm not going to read more just to check I'm as uninterested in it as I am in what I've already read.

I _am_ intrigued as to why he's so revered though.

Gee, so I guess you just want someone to explain it to you? If you're not interested enough to try and find out for yourself . . .

― J (Jay), Friday, 1 August 2003 11:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

You're right in a way, I've read enough of him to know he's not for me, but I still don't know why he's so well liked.

I don't want someone to explian LB to me, but rather why they like him. In fact there are a few good answers like that above, so I think my question's answered.

While we're on the subject can someone explain the appeal of REM or U2?

― mei (mei), Friday, 1 August 2003 11:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

3 years pass...

Interesting mechanism at work whereby the Count Five were, in part, great precisely because of their inconsequentiality and yet:

"Paul McCartney makes lovely boutique tapes, resolute upon being as inconsequential as the Carpenters...You could hardly call him burnt out--Band on the Run was, in its rather vapid way, a masterful album. Muzak's finest hour. Of course he is about as committed to the notion of subject matter as Hanna-Barbera."

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

Lester Bangs was an overrated drug-addled Mark Prindle-wannabe. He wrote maybe three good articles.

― Mr. Snrub, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

BUT WHAT ARTICLES THEY WERE

― Edward III, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

and I think it's the inclusion of 'the white noise supremacists' that really rankles the ranks

-- nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Friday, 1 August 2003 07:27

Why did it rankle?

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

all blount's saying is that that article is what people have in mind when they accuse marcus of editing the bangs' collection with an agenda in mind.

― Edward III, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

i.e. if you expected the book to be a representative sample you might come away thinking he engaged politics overtly more often than he did?

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

or that marcus is more interested in politics, even politics as banal as those in the white noise supremacist piece, than music?

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

sorta, probably closer is that the book is more reflective of marcus' interests than bangs'.

or what tim said.

― Edward III, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

it's not the same anthology of lester's writings that richard meltzer would have put together, let's say that.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

not that meltzer's book would have been better! in fact, given a whore like the rest, there's perhaps reason to think it might have been worse.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

With time I've realized I actually like Mainlines, Blood Feasts & Bad Taste better.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Paul McCartney makes lovely boutique tapes, resolute upon being as inconsequential as the Carpenters...You could hardly call him burnt out--Band on the Run was, in its rather vapid way, a masterful album. Muzak's finest hour. Of course he is about as committed to the notion of subject matter as Hanna-Barbera."

I don't think this is a pan.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

How can you tell?

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

If I'm interpreting that piece right, Bangs does put McCartney on top of his list of the four Beatles in terms of descending credibility - meaning, I think, that he was the least offender at the time ('73-ish).

Whether it's an official pan or not, he makes particular criticisms. (Another is "If he was a little more gutsy, he might almost be Elton John." Lester must have written off Ram too easily.)

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

(Because you can't hear "Monkberry Moon Delight" and say that, I don't think.)

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

Or jeez, how about the vocal on "Let Me Roll It," which was on the then-current album?

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

lester bangs is great if only for getting me interested in the stooges, the godz, velvets, tangerine dream and van morrison at the same time when i was 15.

― ian, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

"if only?"

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

How can you tell?

You can't! The ambiguity's the most interesting element.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

Right, I was being jokey.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

lester bangs is great if only for getting me interested in the stooges, the godz, velvets, tangerine dream and van morrison at the same time when i was 15.

-- ian, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:40

Me too! plus Black Oak Arkansas and Sir Lord Baltimore

― Stormy Davis, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

shouldn't you guys be thanking GREIL MARCUS

― Edward III, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

"You're Welcome!"

― C. Grisso/McCain, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Whadda 'bout me? I WROTE the stuff!"

― C. Grisso/McCain, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

He got too depressingly moralistic and fogeyish in his Village Voice daze (too much booze, not enough speed), but EVERY article/review/profile/whatever he wrote for Creem had at least memorable (or unforgettable) turn of phrase or cracked simile or (yes) dope-addled pronouncement, or even the occasional bit of insight for those who value that sort of thing. Plus he was damned funny (always a good thing in my view), even if not as consistently hilarious as Meltzer or (especially) Rick Johnson. Basically I just plain liked how the guy's prose looked on the page, more than I can say for his hero Jack Kerouac. And finally, it was Bangs who (from beyond the grave!) turned me onto the Stooges/Velvets/Beefheart, not to mention Mingus and the rest of those cats, for which I thank him. Doesn't matter that he'd certainly hate 40% of the music on my personal shelves and hard drive, or how immature and self-destructive an asshole he probably was. I never let such trivialities concern me.

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Quiet you!"

(x-post)

― C. Grisso/McCain, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

racism's "banal," huh?

― Matos W.K., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

uh oh

― Edward III, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Saint Cough Syrup

― Gorge, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

i don't know, the inclusion of the White Noise article in Caburetor Dung seems to me pretty necessary, if you're looking at the anthology as a portrait of Bangs -- which I think is how Marcus set it up. There's a lot of liberal guilt hand-wringing and self-flagellation in the article (which Bangs acknowledges) but it strikes me as an honest attempt to address some of the blatant and not-so-blatant racism that the punk scene contained. it's by no means a perfect article, but I don't think there was anyone else at the time actually attempting to deal with that stuff. I'm sure that within the NYC scene then, it caused a bunch of controversy, but it also may have caused some people to rethink their casual racism.

anyway, i definitely don't lionize Bangs, but I do think he's an often perceptive writer -- and most of all extremely funny, when he wanted to be.

― tylerw, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

I always thought it was cool that Marcus was such a huge supporter of Bangs since their writing styles and really, the whole essence of what they seemed to get out of rock music, seemed to be at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Which isn't to say that Bangs didn't sometimes stumble onto the cerebral - he just surrounded it with a lot of hubris which was fine.

There was a phrase in baseball about how an unworthy successor to some superstar's throne "couldn't hold his jock." I often used to say that one day I would welcome being only so good as to hold Lester Bangs' typewriter and I know for a fact I ain't there and probably never will be, but it's a noble goal nonetheless.

I also think Bangs was the first Blogger as much of his output is so personalized it predates the Blogosphere that since came to redefine criticism.

Oh, and for the OP: Classic without a doubt.

― NYCNative, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

Matos, no, that's not what I was saying. More so that Bangs' ruminations about it in that article were maybe a little banal? I don't know - I'd have to read it again.

― Tim Ellison, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

I can see that, though as someone else just said, I think the writing itself was really terrific in that one. Maybe the conclusions were banal, but I think the ways he got to them were perceptive.

― Matos W.K., Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

I dunno, I like the openended soulsearching of "the white noise supremacists." and the honesty. he doesn't just walk around pointing fingers, he pulls his own bigoted skeletons out of the closet for examination, too.

look, the guy wrote "of pop and pies and fun" at the age of 21. that alone blows my mind.

― Edward III, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

21!

Part 1
Part 2

― Edward III, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

I hate myself. Same damn thing last year, this year, on and on till I’m an old fart if I live that long. Shit. Think I’ll rape my wank-fantasy cunt dog-style tonight.

Classic.

― ian, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

I find his style unbearable.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

The whole affected talky thing - it's like reading Thomas Friedman

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

you read a message board all day and complain of "the whole affected talky thing"?? mindboggling.

― ian, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, zing, I know. But it works fine for a message board, and not as well for essays.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

motherfucker didn't have no message board, you schmuck.

― chaki, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 09:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

ian and myonga OTM -- reading bangs reviews of lou reed's TRANSFORMER and RAW POWER by teh stooges in stereo review when I was 15 turned me on to THE PATH and I'll always revere him for that. when carburetor dung was published in the mid 80s I was working at r0llin $toned where I combed the archives and read everything lester wrote for the rag (no wonder I got fired)anyway I was shocked because contrary to the conventional wisdom bangs wrote some of his best stuff there, breathtaking essays like "the carpenters and the creeps" and a stinging indictment of the counterculture in the wake of janis/jimi's deaths along w/runofthemill LP reviews that would just OPEN UP into streams of postbeatnick sartori and wizdom at the drop of a roachclip.

anyway I think his best work remains unanthologized. greil marcus didn't do lester any favors by printing the failed fiction, breakdown-period rants and lonely-guy musings in the second half of that book, put it that way. and I've always thought that anti-racism article was the precise moment when les "jumped the shark" turning into another self-righteous/hypocrite baby-boomer lecturing the young folks.

the second lb anthology was a huge disappointment, which I don't blame on editor john morthland (who's an lowkey genius writer/critic himself)but on the transitory nature of journalism , y'know how it's tied to the time it was written in. so reading about wet willie makes more sense in 1974 than it does now DUH. still the shocking thing about this book is how dated it feels. take the stuff on miles davis' electric funk -- arguably the most prescient influential and rich music of the 70s and gotdamn if lester didn't get it either he just blabs on and on speculating about miles' emotional state or whatever. bummer.

bottom line: I'm forever in his debt but I think lester bangs' memory/legend has been held up for so long that he's become a negative or even destructive influence, like w/pauline kael in film criticism his ghostly & intimidating presence hovers over the next generation of writers effectively scaring them off of finding their own voices and forging a fresh approach. at the end of the day thurston moore was right you've got to KILL YR IDOLS and find out the new goal.

― m coleman, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 10:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

bangs on sabbath. so damn perceptive to peg them as moralists.

Part 1
Part 2

I've always thought that anti-racism article was the precise moment when les "jumped the shark" turning into another self-righteous/hypocrite baby-boomer lecturing the young folks.

but that's part of the history isn't it? laughner dies, bangs rejects r. hell's "never grow up" philosophy. it's not like he stumbled blindly into obsolescence, he was making some decisions about the kind of person he wanted to be. he recognized he wasn't gonna stay 21 forever and struggled with it and wrote about it, directly, openly. and I'd rather get lectured by bangs, who was decent enough to be forthcoming about his own foibles, then just about any other rock crit. (btw you're 100% otm about everything else)

it would be great to see the complete works of bangs published.

― Edward III, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

i dont get the complaints about his influence on writers. i'd like to see some examples cited. at least people were biting someone whose style is readable.

m coleman OTM as usual though i've never read any super old rolling stones. i didn't read him until i was 18, HOLY SHIT did i think he was awesome and an equal of Hunter S. Thompson who i had read when i was 15.

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

i dunno, i kind of liked that Lester completely missed the boat on Miles' electric stuff (xpost) -- shows just how way the fuck ahead of its time it was -- not even Lester "I Love Metal Machine Music" Bangs could see it for what it was. He really struggles with it and you can see that he's just on the verge of accepting and loving it (wouldn't be surprised if this happened later on, but he just didn't write about it).

yeah, a complete works would be cool (i'd buy it!) -- I guess I figured that the best stuff was in the two anthologies...but i guess not? What are some of the good unanthologized pieces?

― tylerw, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 22:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

He really struggles with it and you can see that he's just on the verge of accepting and loving it (wouldn't be surprised if this happened later on, but he just didn't write about it).

I'm inclined to agree with this. That series of befuddled essays turned me on to electric Miles in the first place ("wtf are these crazy records that are getting to Lester so much?"), and I'd say that if you can get past his value judgements of the fusion stuff, his ideas about the albums still hold up. Miles imagining a less-human future, etc, that shit comes off as kinda prescient to me.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 23:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'll also back MC on the Miles stuff; there's some good reading in the Morthland anthology, but those pieces really disappointed me. I do like the long reggae excursion in which he decides Marley is a hippie and prefers Lee Perry because he's a fellow boozehound.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

HOOS, that stuff about a less-human future is one of LB's major tropes; I definitely see what he's getting at, but as someone living in that future with plenty of truly human friends, I think he leans a little too hard on it. I wonder sometimes how much clinical depression figures into that stuff.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

I do wish Lester had lived to write about Flipper. They were working his side of the street in more ways than one.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

Also, good non-anthologized pieces include "Free Jazz Punk Rock" from a 1980 Musician, and a long interview with Brian Eno in the same magazine.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Cranky manfulness = authentic

― Hurting 2, Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

― Tim Ellison, Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

Also, good non-anthologized pieces include "Free Jazz Punk Rock" from a 1980 Musician, and a long interview with Brian Eno in the same magazine.

Supposedly he was planning on writing something along the lines of A.B. Spellman's Four Lives In The Bebop Business, with Eno as one of the...um...four lives.

― Sara Sara Sara, Thursday, 19 April 2007 02:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah I would've loved that, I think.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 19 April 2007 02:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeah those Musicianpieces were great. the classic "stone" stuff by Lester Bangs that I can excavate from the canyons of my mind:

"The Carpenters And The Creeps" (1971) a live review of the Carps that incorporates autobiography and actual music criticism, becoming a tour-de-force summary of then-current pop scene. Tightly written, too.

review of some Jack Kerouac paperback reissues around the time of his death, a hommage to beat at the height of hippiedom (1969)

the Janis/Jimi riff (late 1970) I think may have occurred during a piece abt something else, but it was definitely the only moment in the history of the publication where the virutes/values of the counterculture were questioned.

and his record reviews 1969-71 were the main event, not only for the writing but musical insight, at the point Lester was like his disciple Xhuxk Eddy in this respect: he listened to everything w/fresh ears including a lot of stuff that other critics didn't take seriously.

that's another reason post-1976 Lester bums me out, he's so jaded.

I've got xeroxes of this stuff but they're BURIED in storage bin :-(

but hey, I forgot that my all time favorite Bangs piece is included in Mainlines:"Bob Dylan's Dalliance With Mafia Chic."

― m coleman, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

ha ha, yeah the "Mafia Chic" story is amusing because Lester spent about 100 times longer thinking about "Joey" than Dylan did.

I think that the Eno piece is on Perfect Sound Forever...

Who were the other "lives" Bangs was planning on covering in his proposed "Four Lives" book. Quine, maybe?

― tylerw, Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think Marianne Faithfull was one of them. There was a list in the foreword to PR&CD, which stated that three of the four lives were set and the fourth was up in the air.

― C. Grisso/McCain, Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

3 years pass...

From "Lester Bangs - Last Interview" by a then-17-year old Jim DeRogatis:

Do you think there's a danger of rock 'n' roll becoming extinct?
Yeah, sure. Definitely.
What would there be to take its place?
Video games.

― NYCNative, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 10:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

now if only JDR had taken this^ to heart...

― gravity tractor VS asteroid B612 (m coleman), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 11:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

seriously,"video games = death of rock" was a popular music-biz meme ca.1982

― gravity tractor VS asteroid B612 (m coleman), Tuesday, 8 March 2011 11:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

Now that the music-playing game genre has been declared dead, I wonder how many adherents moved on to actual guitar playing.

― bendy, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 12:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

Have to say I never cared for either his writing style or, all too often, his musical tastes.

― Lee626, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 12:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

A couple of posts on Facebook alerted me to the fact that it's the 30th anniversary of his death. I'm guessing there are one or two older posters here who can say they met him. I interviewed Chuck and Marcus in '86; I'd like to think that if I'd started a little later or he'd lived a little longer, I would have tried to interview Bangs (and succeeded, I imagine--he seemed extremely accessible). I didn't start reading Creem till '80 or thereabouts, so I'd read very little by him before the first book came out--really only some Rolling Stone reviews in an early-'70s collection, and some RS reviews later in the decade, when Paul Nelson was publishing him regularly. I tried to write like him early on, and of course it was egregiously wrong. Blaming him for the misdeeds of people like me makes no sense.

― clemenza, Monday, 30 April 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

Haven't read it yet, but a New Yorker contributor on Bangs's influence on her:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/08/how-lester-bangs-taught-me-to-read.html

― clemenza, Thursday, 23 August 2012 13:51 (9 months ago) Permalink

that is a really, really fantastic article. i don't think i've ever actually seen anyone else -- apart from marcus in his intro to the bangs collection -- actually pin down what i love(d) about bangs's writing so much (haven't read him in a while): even at his silliest, he was a genuinely thoughtful, reflective writer. likening him to DFW is really inspired: i don't know why i didn't think of that before.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 25 August 2012 05:08 (9 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.