richard hell takes apart poor journalist

HELL REPLIES: "Fuck you, you tit-muncher, when there are compliments to be handed to me I'll hand them myself."

As a rebuttal, the whole thing is at least less annoying and self-important than Dave Eggers' assholish takedown of the kid who asked him about staying "real."

i liked the piece -- i have only a very dim idea of who the hell richard hell is, so it's kind of even funnier. clearly hell thinks he's a legend. it's funny because although you can pull it apart, the intro was pretty standard stuff; it's just that you don't usually see the response of the quote-unquote artist.

when people here review music, do they ever think what the artist will think of their review? should they?

better still: the entire nytimes!!

But I've never seen actual editing notes by an interview subject before. This is pretty revolutionary...

and yeah don't let a guy see your work like that, of course. wouldn't any artist take advantage of you giving them that much slack?

"All this writing of yours is presented as if you're a person called upon to make judgments from some position of earned respect. That's not who you are. You're a callow kid."

"You're being an asshole by exercising some grotesquely deluded misapprehension that your role in this includes some call to fucking critically assess my skills."

"An incomprehensibly self-satisfied fool."

this guy's little interview is no WAY in the same league chutzpah-wise (= callow deluded asshole-wise if you like)

if he'd said somethin that really rocked hell on his heels wd hell have responded so brutally? (or wd he have liked that?)

(lydon for example LIKES it when his interviews start to fite back: he stops playing kneejerk headfuck and switches his brain on)

if you're determined to go on with the process, I'd suggest you write a new slightly more appropriately humble intro, and I'd do the work I'd need to on the interview proper over the weekend when I can find the time.

I'D DO THE WORK I'D NEED TO ... so let me get this straight: you interview hell, and he then offers to edit the transcript down to a publishable piece? are there any other interview subjects who offer this service?

I think you're on to something, actually -- what maybe bugged Hell most was the way the kid was so nice during the interview and *then* wrote an introduction that was snarky and judgemental. It felt to Hell (and to me) like he was being snarky and judgemental for its own sake, which is just intellectually lazy.

I don't know the guy who wrote this personally, but I do know that he's 21 years old, cocky as hell (haha), and probably really deserving of being taken down a notch. That email probably bruised his ego more than he would ever admit. The fact that he let it see print, though -- that's remarkable. "Hard knocks" indeed.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. Seemed kinda off the map to me.

Apparently, Pete Astor from the Weather Prophets wrote him for the words to one of his songs "Time", and got a handwritten reply with them, which eventually made a b-side.

This is stupid, in case not everyone realized this.

*thunder and lightning*
*swirls of electricity play up and down the antennae*
*mad pomo laughter*

"My laughter is a pastiche of all modernist laughter."

Cause "the kid" sent it to him for approval or something?

I like this, too, for many reasons cited already, esp. Mark S's.

And why shouldn't he?

You call that "shunning"? Writing a blistering, preening, epic email to some poor college kid? I call it massive insecurity combined with outsized self-importance, both of them rendered ridiculous by citation of the Flaming fucking Lips.

(sorry, not trying to hijack the thread. i'll take my eggers anger elsewhere.)

"Open up, kid, you got a significant cultural impact comin' to you!"

there are (arguably) harsh things a snot-nosed unearned-attitude kid might see and say that no one else ever had, but this is hohum-received-wisdom-pts-43654-9

and this still strikes me as more "tough love" than tantrum

aw, don't pull back the curtain, wiz!

It's gotten to where just the name does it: Lester Bangs. It makes me happy. It's like raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens. Of course, even apart from the guy it signified, its perfection of pure form is stunning, but what it evokes as the signifier of the person is even better. I think of his innocence and goodwill first, and his compulsion to talk about whatever was going on and to figure out what mattered (starting from music) and it makes me sorry I can't call him up. It's strange. I didn't even like him very much when he was alive. Just five or six years ago when his biographer was asking for stories about him I told him that when I knew Lester I didn't take him very seriously or pay very much attention to him. That though doubtless my distaste was partly that of the junkie for the lush, I mostly thought he was a buffoon. Lester was this big, swaying, cross-eyed, reeking drooler, smiling and smiling through his crummy stained mustache, trying to corner me with incessant babble somewhere in the dark at CBGB's, 1976 or so. He was sweet like a big clumsy puppy, but he was always drunk and the sincerity level was pretty near intolerable.
Now I miss him.

Of course it's easier to like a good-hearted, hardworking dead person, the extremely edited Lester, than the obliviously intrusive physically present one, but Lester has made way more friends than most since he died. Posthumously, he's become the noncharismatic Elvis of rock writers: obscene provocateur and polite mama's boy, vulnerable and egotistic, trashily prolific and artistically transcendent, anti-drug and full-time addict (who died young that way); but most of all forgiven everything and adored by his fans while being the most popular model for those who would essay his trade. Well maybe that's a little strained; probably Jack Kerouac would be a better comparison, if not as much fun. Because Kerouac actually did influence Bangs a lot and the appeal of Lester shares a lot with Kerouac: that innocence and goodwill and drive to describe and be true to what matters in life. People like a writer's writing because they like the writer's company. Writing is intimate and finally what draws you to an author's work is the shape of the mind and quality of feeling you find there, and Lester, like Kerouac, reads like a real good friend to a lot of people.

I have to interrupt and confess how I'm struggling to resist taking revenge on rock critics. I was a musician and I've thought a few times of rating the critics the way they do the artists. But I'm really really going to try to restrain myself. How petty would that be, if I were to go after them? Not only have they generally been real good to me but my life is more fun than theirs. I must try to be large I must try to be large. I don't want to be a jerk. I'll just say that I believe Lester deserves his supreme popularity (he liked me the most).

But I've got to go after the self-importance of the best-known worst of them a little. The rock writers, naturally, want to believe that their genre, like say the movie criticism of the Cahiers du Cinéma writers such as Godard and Rivette, is sometimes actually the work of important artists. In fact Greil Marcus, in the introduction to Bangs's previous collection of rock journalism, Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung (1987), wrote, "Perhaps what this book demands from a reader is a willingness to accept that the best writer in America could write almost nothing but record reviews." (That line is typical of the way Marcus ruins good things by laying the burden of his pretentiousness on them.) And it's true that writers as good as Patti Smith and Nick Tosches wrote about pop music seriously, with full respect, and really well. But I don't see much justification for a line like Marcus's about Lester. Lester was lovable and perceptive, but the writing is wired thinking-aloud; it's pure process, and my feeling is that Lester had too many blind spots and neuroses for writing that depends so much for its value on the shapeliness of his mind and reasoning. As with Kerouac, you go to Bangs's work to be refreshed with your pleasure in the characteristic beauty of his mission and mind, to be reminded of the presence of a certain being that inspires and provokes. But it hardly matters what pages you read—all the appeal is in the tone and ethical/aesthetic values, and you get them immediately, so a little goes a long way.

Nevertheless, of all the most highly regarded rock journalists (say Tosches, Robert Christgau, Marcus, and the execrable and excremental Richard Meltzer) Lester was the only one who valued self-doubt and who actually seemed to like the music more than he liked himself. Lester was a critic who reserved the right to be wrong, which seems to me admirable. Like many rock writers Lester took extreme stances, but unlike the other most flamboyantly contrary of them, he didn't paint himself into a minuscule corner of supported music, and he didn't go sour with cynicism and resentment (or maybe he did a little toward the end—1982 for Lester—when punk seemed to end up genuinely, fatally, hopeless). Lester was large and he was interested in doing what was right—which sometimes entailed willfully offending those whose values he opposed—not merely being right in his taste and musical standards. He wanted to learn. What's appealing about him is the same thing that he valued in the music he wrote about: the life in it—engagement with and responsiveness to the world. To put a positive spin on the spew-and-rant factor, he didn’t care about beauty except as flow. He wanted everything included. He was confrontational but it came from goodwill, from his belief that feelings—sensitivity to what's going on—are what matter and that if you're going to really notice things, really perceive, there's going to be a lot of sadness and horror and filth as well, so to some extent they're a necessary part of beauty. Basically, Lester always wanted people to care more. That could be really tedious, but when the examples of things due more loving regard are such as White Light/White Heat and Raw Power and Pangaea, it gets interesting.

If you like Lester, you'll like this new book. It's a lot like the other one but it has more Miles Davis and Rolling Stones than Lou Reed and Iggy and some big chunks of autobiographical writings.

Ah, Hell has just become a god for me.

richard hell is great

this is also a good thread

i'd like to note that Hell didn't like Meltzer at least partly because Meltzer didn't like Hell. (Unsure whose dislike came first.) Meltzer wrote in at least one essay if not more that one of Lester's unsupportable tenets was using Richard Hell as an example of anything positive. Sounded like a personal vendetta.

Meltzer's written plenty of crap over the years, but when he's on his game, he's as strong and thorough as any first-rate writer. Hell? I can't say. Blank Generation, the album, is a masterpiece. But I've never been inclined to read his prose. I might be missing something here. Am I?

My own extremely limited experience with both of them was completely cordial. I didn't ask them to share a room.

A good complement to this one is Prindle's interview w/ Hell:

http://www.markprindle.com/hell-i.htm

Speaking of musicians taking apart poor journalists:

There's trainwrecks, there's horrible uncomfortable trainwrecks, and then there's Mark's interview with HR of Bad Brains. Awesome!

the chapter Hell wrote in Rock & Roll Cagematch about the Stones vs. Velvets was pretty good.

Xgau on Hell's autobio, and Hell's whole thang---really rich:
http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Rock-Roll/Richard-Hell-The-Thrill-Seeking-Years/ba-p/10073

And speaking of rich, leave us not forget Hell on Bangs upthread: terrific!