Frank Kogan's forthcoming "Real Punks Don't Wear Black"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (475 of them)
Not by much.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 June 2005 18:35 (eighteen years ago) link

frank has mic skillz. i want this book.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 9 June 2005 18:42 (eighteen years ago) link

five months pass...
From today's Publishers Weekly:

Kogan has been writing about music for some 35 years—for his own blogs; for his zine, Why Music Sucks; as well as for Spin, Radio On and the Village Voice. For this anthology, he's included everything from juvenile high school essays and silly college poetry to some extremely seasoned discussions of punk and hard rock. This collection is much like the music it describes: some polished, some ragged. Readers can browse around and find their own favorite material. Kogan is great, for instance, at explaining the dynamics of punk clubs: why the performers have to insult their audiences or else they're "contaminated" by their acceptance. Unlike most music critics, Kogan's omnivorous, willing to consider music that makes him "feel things that I don't want to feel, so I have to rethink who I am, where I place myself." For example, he loathed Ohio Express's "Yummy Yummy Yummy" when he was 13, but loved it at 18. "I value most the music that I like despite myself," he writes. "The bands that change me are the ones that win me over." Readers, beware: the raunchy rap lyrics and free-floating expletives may turn off some. (Feb.)

Derek Krissoff (Derek), Monday, 14 November 2005 14:17 (eighteen years ago) link

'raunchy' is always the word that comes to mind, with frank kogan.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 14 November 2005 14:54 (eighteen years ago) link

"Raunchy rap lyrics and free-floating expletives!"
Publisher's Weekly

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 14 November 2005 14:59 (eighteen years ago) link

"pretty good"
- cozen

cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 12:20 (eighteen years ago) link

Is this out in the shops? If not, when is the UK date?

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 12:41 (eighteen years ago) link

dunno the due date

I got an uncorrected proof

pretty good

cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 15:49 (eighteen years ago) link

Isn't the date February '06, like, "everywhere"?

t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 15:51 (eighteen years ago) link

ooh cozen u monkey

ysi? photocopier?

hold tight the private caller (mwah), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 16:25 (eighteen years ago) link

"Real Punks Know Ashlee Simpson Ain't One of Them"

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 17:36 (eighteen years ago) link

So does this book contain that whole "people who use critical theory are just avoiding the direct expression of their hopes and fears" argument in a more elaborate form? I remain curious about his position.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:16 (eighteen years ago) link

Cozen you, erm, owe me -- this is what SR said over on Blissblog:

Frank Kogan’s book (don't have a heart attack when you clock the price, there's a ppbk version too) looks amazing at a quick skim. As you'd expect, it's highly unorthodox in its structure and provenance. As well as Village Voice reviews and Why Music Sucks rants, there's an email reply to Geeta, chunks of ILM commentary, interviews with the author from rockcritics.com, unpublished Pazz N' Jop commentaries about 15 times longer than the longest blurbs they ever print, and--piece de resistance--a letter to Voice managing editor Doug Simmonds, with Kogan complaining that the paper is failing to utilise his intellect (the largest, Frank writes, and most self-questioning in all of rockcrit--bigger than Frith’s, bigger than mine, bigger than Bangs', and Meltzer's doesn't count because it's out of service!) to the fullest. All this and an acknowledgements list that takes in virtually everybody in this community and runs for pages. The dedicatee, naturally, is Chuck Eddy.

SR linked it to this page.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:29 (eighteen years ago) link

".... chunks of ILM commentary"

So what are we going to spend our share of the royalties on?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:31 (eighteen years ago) link

gum.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:36 (eighteen years ago) link

http://b4images.blackwell.co.uk/images/jackets/l/08/0820327530.jpg

Is that Frank on the cover? I always imagined he had a beard for some reason.

Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:39 (eighteen years ago) link

So does this book contain that whole "people who use critical theory are just avoiding the direct expression of their hopes and fears" argument in a more elaborate form?

I thought frank was that more elaborate form

cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:46 (eighteen years ago) link

(... means I'm not sure)

cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:47 (eighteen years ago) link

In Soviet Russia, critical theory uses YOU!

karlmarxico (rogermexico), Wednesday, 23 November 2005 00:57 (eighteen years ago) link

i wish they'd used the rockcritics.com pic of him playing the accordion!

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 23 November 2005 05:36 (eighteen years ago) link

Billy, I do have a beard. That picture's 20 years old. Since then I transferred hair from pate to chin.

David, do you still have that picture I sent you last year w/ good-looking friend and beard? I lost the file for it in the great computer crash of '04. Anyway, you can post it if you'd like.

(My rationalization for using the old picture is that since the writing covers a span from 1970 to 2004, I'm justified in using one that plops in the middle at 1985.) (To be honest, the vast majority dates from after 1985.)

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Friday, 2 December 2005 18:06 (eighteen years ago) link

And here's a link to the paperback version.

(They really shouldn't even be listing the hardcover, since my understanding is that it's only going to be available to libraries.)

And here's the link for those of you who use U.S. currency.

And Asian.

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Friday, 2 December 2005 18:27 (eighteen years ago) link

I only pay for things in Byzantine solidii.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 2 December 2005 18:28 (eighteen years ago) link

Frank, I know it's a ways off but is the book getting interest and reviews anywhere? Since I work for one, I'm curious to see whether being on acadameic press helps or hurts in terms of where this is considred for review.

G-Mart, Friday, 2 December 2005 19:44 (eighteen years ago) link

i'm sad to hear thats an old pic, i thought the haircut was er.. brave for 2005.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Friday, 2 December 2005 19:52 (eighteen years ago) link

No bookstore tour (or sales) till February 2006?

curmudgeon, Friday, 2 December 2005 19:55 (eighteen years ago) link

the uga library don't have this book (yet?) :(

j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 2 December 2005 23:14 (eighteen years ago) link

Once more, with feeling, does this book contain that whole "people who use critical theory are just avoiding the direct expression of their hopes and fears" argument in a more elaborate form?

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Friday, 2 December 2005 23:26 (eighteen years ago) link

does it touch on how its kinda passive-aggressive?

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Friday, 2 December 2005 23:49 (eighteen years ago) link

the uga library don't have this book (yet?) :(

it isn't out for three months!

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Saturday, 3 December 2005 00:12 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm sorry if I'm coming off like I'm baiting Mr. Kogan by asking that- it really is a sincere question, I would love it if the answer was "yes it does have that in it", because I would like to read it and (full disclosure) I would like to teach a text along those lines. The only thing I've run into lately that made vaguely similiar moves was a catalogue essay by Kathy Grayson but it was about the art world and had a different angle.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Saturday, 3 December 2005 01:05 (eighteen years ago) link

Not out for three months! Typical for a University press I guess. A private entity would want to have it out and available for the holidays.

curmudgeon (Steve K), Saturday, 3 December 2005 01:47 (eighteen years ago) link

i was actually hoping to ask for it for christmas

tom west (thomp), Saturday, 3 December 2005 02:20 (eighteen years ago) link

just to make things clear, i wasn't referring to anyone's post as passive-aggressive. more just throwing out incomprehensible pieces my own frustration about the cult of not owning up to own's personal experience with music (art), in order to somehow control it or even nullify it. i have no idea if this has anything to do with kogans theories. i do think that these days, people use other thinker's constructs (including critical thoery) in the wrong ways, for wrong reasons ...like the above which i do think is obviously about fear more than some new idea that there is some baseline of experience we all understand connect too...which has all been mapped out in the past.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Saturday, 3 December 2005 03:05 (eighteen years ago) link

oi, i'm not really getting my ideas across. maybe i should use someone elses.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Saturday, 3 December 2005 03:15 (eighteen years ago) link

I do sort of understand why people use theory as a shield in that sense, though--I do it a lot myself. It's because it's hard to write well and interesteingly about yourself without feeling maudlin or vain or wondering if you're giving too much away. Sometimes it's easier to tell the through when you're wearing a mask. Not always, but nothing is "always" anything, y'know?

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Saturday, 3 December 2005 07:07 (eighteen years ago) link

haha "tell the through." tell the TRUTH.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Saturday, 3 December 2005 07:19 (eighteen years ago) link

i sense that's definitely part of it. it lends itself to a potentially uncomfortable and sticky approach with regard to exposure, yeah, and questions about value of that/ie. self-indulgence and also there's alot of oppurtunity for confusion. And while i think this type of writing IS obviously way more personal than its counterpart?, it does not have to be "self-plagairism"/emotional diarhhea etc - it only feels that way b/c a. it is harder and people don't practice this anymore so they are awkward at it b. writers may not see the potential/relationship between this and developing their own theories (that is only something people 50 years ago could do) so it feels like an undesirable exercise in letting your ass hang out d. there seems to be peer pressure to avoid this approach.

i also think its possible people (and maybe particularly masculine types) in general have a hard time reconciling parts of their experience with art and their intelligence. for instance, on ILM we talk this way about rock alot, but less so about disco. and it's interesting that you see WAY less of this type of writing in europe, particularly spain/italy/france maybe too. men are warmer there...just ask mareisa sabiel.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Sunday, 4 December 2005 00:34 (eighteen years ago) link

"for instance, on ILM, we talk this way about rock a lot, but less so about disco" ---i'm referring to the masculininity (not intelligence) inherent in rock. i had added the parentheses around masculine types later.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Sunday, 4 December 2005 00:54 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't follow you, Susan. People talk about the masculinity about rock in masculine ways on ILM? And what do you mean by "reconciling parts of their experience with art with their intelligence?"

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Sunday, 4 December 2005 01:15 (eighteen years ago) link

i was trying to say that maybe intellectuals have a hard time finding a way to explain how their appreciation for music is basic/emotional yet mind-based at the same time,b/c they see a disconnect between it all. and that maybe this is cultural issue, but also more associated with men or with masculinity -i see it cropping up more in the rock (which i feel is a more masculine pursuit) discussions on ILM and less so in the disco discussions where people build more from the ground up.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Sunday, 4 December 2005 01:47 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm afraid I just don't know what you're referring to. What would be some kind of example of a masculine discussion about rock where people are experiencing an emotional/intellectual disconnect and don't 'build from the ground up?'

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Sunday, 4 December 2005 01:53 (eighteen years ago) link

i'll try to find an example.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Sunday, 4 December 2005 01:59 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't think I agree w/Susan here, but that might be because when I think of ILM I tend to think of it more as it was two-three years ago, when I was reading it a lot as opposed to very selectively the way I have the past couple years. earlier on, there was a definite not-macho bent to a lot of the discussions, and disco was spoken about at least as much as anything else, especially rock. whether that's the case now is hard for me to know since I read the boards very pickily.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 4 December 2005 02:29 (eighteen years ago) link

there was a pitchfork review recently that was singled out here b/c it was incomprehensible to ILM. Folks glommed onto author's use flowery language. Even though the author's flowery prose/descriptors/similes made total sense in the context of the rest of the piece. At some point someone recognizes his language as taken from, i can't remember, Thoreau? and the review makes much more sense. Later on, another mentions that it's not pitchfork's fault that ILMers don't know their lit....which could imply that this was the actual problem with understanding the entire piece. Perhaps the author assumed everyone would recognize the verse used, but that seems naive. I really think he probably felt the words stood on their own/meant something. I'm pretty sure this was about denial -everyone knew what the writer was "on about" from the beginning, but it seemed an outrageous approach??

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Sunday, 4 December 2005 03:13 (eighteen years ago) link

keeping in mind that this place is full of reactionary fucktards is very helpful in instances like that

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 4 December 2005 04:18 (eighteen years ago) link

I think most uses of "high culture" materials (whether they are references to critical writings or primary sources- poems, novels, paintings, what have you) in the context of writing about pop music run a terrible risk of being annoying to the reader, however apt or interesting they may be. If somebody doesn't get your reference then you are accused of being elitist and shutting your reader out- but odds are that if somebody *does* get your reference, their reaction is pretty likely to be indignant annoyance along the lines of "oh, fuck off, do you think I haven't already read X for myself don't be a prat / pseud / etc.". So all too often it is a "lose / lose" proposition: those who don't get it feel resentment towards you and those who do feel superior to you.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Sunday, 4 December 2005 04:29 (eighteen years ago) link

It's relative, though. It doesn't matter whether someone is referencing something from high or low culture or wherever as long as there's a real reason for doing it. I would think that in general peopel would be a lot less likely to think you're a prat for referencing so-and-so or such-and-such if your point in doing so is strong and relevant.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Sunday, 4 December 2005 04:39 (eighteen years ago) link

Bear I mind I say the above as someone who referenced fifteenth century translations of Virgil into English in a p1tchfork review of The Psychic Paramount.

Prat Power! Guilty as charged!

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Sunday, 4 December 2005 04:41 (eighteen years ago) link

when you reference someone else's work aren't you using it to illustrate your own argument and isn't it ok to pull abstracts out that fit your purpose, esp. with regard to something like poetry? how does the reader's understanding of the entire work even benefit them in this case? isn't he obviously isolating what he's using if he doesn't identify the work? i mean it depends on how the writer is referencing, but a couple of words drawn from poetry, in a short pitchfork review?? i guess my feeling was that people disregarded the writers ideas b/c he used descriptions and references to things in ways only he could know the meaning, yet once a source for these few words was identified, it was ok. both writers, pitchfork and the famous one, were speaking from "ground zero" at that point and both go on to illustrate their perspective in the rest of their writing. what is the difference then?

also maybe this discussion is best had elsewhere.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Sunday, 4 December 2005 05:00 (eighteen years ago) link


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