Customer Reviews

Husker Du: The Story of the Noise-Pop Pioneers Who Launched Modern Rock

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a solid book, but ultimately a frustrating one. First, the good: Earles admirably achieves his aim of refusing to provide more grist to the mill of salacious gossip and speculation that has surrounded this band since their breakup. He also provides a welcome corrective account of the early days of the Minneapolis punk & new wave scene, in which we see the band having to work extremely hard to get people in that scene to take them seriously; this fact is often glossed over in the retrospective accounts that paint an ideal image of a music community that was accepting and nurturing from the get-go. And Earles does a remarkably good job of negotiating his way through Mould's lack of participation in the project; this isn't a Bob-bashing book, but neither does it sugarcoat how difficult it must've been for Grant and Greg to contend with his ferocious drive and massively defensive ego. On the whole, then, this is mandatory reading for anyone interested in Husker Du, whether a longtime fanatic (like me) or a young newbie.

Now, the bad. The editing (as others have noted) is frequently appalling: particular quotes and sentences are repeated verbatim throughout the book; and the bizarre narrative structure, in which earlier material is unnecessarily recapped dozens of pages later, makes for jarring reading (this isn't Earles's fault so much as his editor's, who should be taken outside and given forty lashes for these egregious lapses). But more than these formal matters, the book suffers from an over-emphasis on the band's formative and SST years, all of which have been covered to a significant extent in previous writings, most notably in Azerrad's book. Like Azerrad, Earles unfortunately underrates the Huskers' major label albums, and thus dispenses with them in relatively few pages (I got the sensation while reading that section of watching Earles press the fast-forward button on a remote to get through the part of the band's story that he doesn't like that much). The story of the band's grappling with the unfamiliar environment and demands of major label life in the mid-'80s still needs to be told, and it's frustrating to watch Earles drop little tidbits about dealings with label people, recording sessions, etc., only to rush right past without exploring their implications for the band's creative and professional lives. In this major respect, the book as a whole ends up feeling kind of unfinished.

Nonetheless, any fan of the band will find plenty here worth reading, and even the most hardcore devotee will be surprised by some of the anecdotes that Earles has gathered. But many readers will likely end up feeling that the book could've provided a fuller picture of the band's creative and professional trajectory straight through to its unfortunate end.

I have to admit, I came into this with low expectations, suspecting (correctly) that Bob Mould wouldn't have any part of it, what with his own autobio in the works. But Earles gathered up more than enough archival material to represent Mould's POV and also complement the scads of exclusive new stuff he got from Grant and Greg. He also interviewed scene heavyweights like Mike Watt, Joe Carducci, and Steve Albini, not to mention Twin Cities players like Terry Katzman, Chris Osgood, and Tom Hazelmyer, all to name just a few. Thankfully, Earles chose a straight narrative route rather than the too-oft-used oral history format. Also, the many appendixes at the back of the book are a stellar addition not often seen in other music bios.

My only gripes are very minor: 1) at times Earles seems a bit overly deferential to the band as a whole and the members individually, though given their history, his caution is understandable (to be fair, he is brutally honest--and accurate--in his opinions about some of the band's releases), and 2) even though I find dustjackets archaic and unnecessary, I'm not a big fan of the school book binding.

Oh, and the bumper sticker included inside the book was a very nice, unexpected bonus. What Would Husker Du, indeed.

I wish I could give Andrew Earles' book on Husker Du a higher rating than three stars, because when it is enjoyable, it is thoroughly enjoyable. But unfortunately this book is riddled with factual errors, typos, an inconsistent tone, and an overall "rushed" feeling. I wonder if Earles was trying to get his book out before Bob Mould's memoirs, which as of this writing are still in the works, but will surely cover a lot of the same material.

What makes the book worth reading is the fact that it is the first full-length Husker Du biography. There has been a lot written about the Huskers over the years, but there's never been a book like this. The new and insightful interviews with two-thirds of the band, Grant Hart and Greg Norton, are truly a joy and very welcome. The behind-the-scenes look at the Minneapolis punk scene, and the early alternative rock scene, of the 1980s is also fun to read about, even if there's not much in these areas that haven't been covered in other writings.

Now for the bad stuff. I can overlook a typo or two, or a factual error here or there. But there are so many throughout the book, it gets to be too much to ignore. Off the top of my head, Earles refers to all the early punk/New Wave bands that were signed to Sire Records, and at least twice claims Blondie were signed to Sire. This is just not true, as Blondie was on the New York indie Private Stock, and later Chrysalis, but never on Sire. Candy Apple Grey is mentioned as having been recorded in September 1986, but released in March 1986; it's clear the first date should be 1985. While these typos are in and of themselves not a big deal, when the almost exact same paragraph about Sire shows up a chapter later, you wonder if there was any fact-checking going on here at all. And speaking of repeated sentences and paragraphs, there are a lot throughout the book. It's as if Earles was copying and pasting facts together to form his chapters, and didn't realize he had used a few of them more than once. It's really frustrating, disrupting the reader's enjoyment of the book.

My other big problem with the book is a very inconsistent tone from beginning to end. In the introduction, Earles states that the commonly held notion that Hart's drug use caused the breakup of Husker Du is false. But when it comes time for the breakup, he does not give a solid reason for the breakup. There are several negative things going on within the band at the time--their manager's suicide, Warner Brothers pressuring Mould and Hart to use an outside producer--but ultimately there's a lot of talk about Hart's drug use in this time. The reader is left to assume that yes, this actually was a major factor in the breakup--probably THE major factor, given the amount of coverage--but the reader is left confused, given Earles' earlier statement.

Another example of wishy-washiness concerns the band's final studio LP, Warehouse: Songs and Stories. Earles spends most of the chapter more-or-less calling the album a subpar effort, with his most charitable statement being that it's "hardly an embarrassment." But when it comes time for Earles to go over the band's discography, the Warehouse entry claims that the album is "underrated" and "essential for fans." And while we're talking about the discography section, which could have used more facts and less opinions (The Living End is "odd"? Really? Odd?), Earles at first says he will not be detailing the three members' post-Husker Du recordings, but then actually devotes as much time to Bob Mould, Grant Hart, Nova Mob and Sugar recordings as he did the Husker Du albums!

If it seems like I'm picking on stuff near the end of the book, it's because this is the stuff that is fresh in my mind, having just completed the book. The rest of it is equally inconsistent and riddled with errors. I have already spent too much time listing it all. But one other thing that sticks out is that early on, he paints the Huskers as under-appreciated and not given their due in rock history. I can't agree with this; every rock critic loves Husker Du and places high emphasis on their influence and importance to a lot of rock, indie, metal and punk that followed...including Earles in this book! He cites their influence on a wide range of artists from Slayer and Metallica, to Robert Palmer, and the more obvious influences like Pixies, Nirvana, Green Day, etc.

I don't regret buying the book, because I enjoyed reading what Greg and Grant had to say, and I did learn a few things along the way. But beware, this book is in serious need of some editors: a copy editor, and a regular editor to help shape up the book's overall tone and narrative flow.

Well, let me start out by saying this was pretty great, if you have the patience to get through it. The details are fairly exhaustive, and as others have said the author doesn't waste time with superlatives, rather giving accounts of the era and how the band operated within the hardcore scene at the time. Mould didn't contribute because he's releasing an autobiography soon, obviously a conflict of interest versus a disagreement over the tone/content of the book. Mould always was quite stubborn anyways, it always had to be his way or no way. I have two concerns with the book, the first just that so much of the music presented within can't be had currently (not Husker Du's catalog obviously, the other bands and the comps released on Reflex) without some major trading, how disappointing it is to hear about something you can probably never listen to first hand. The second is that writing style. It goes back and forth from time to time, and can be fairly dense (name check here, date there, et cetera)

Like other reviewers have commented, this tome is a bit verbose. As someone who grew up living for each new issue of Maximumrocknroll and buying every 7" that came into the local record stores, I loved reading the quotes from the early founders of great punk rock institutions. But the writing just isn't that good - it feels like poor editing more than anything else. Entire paragraphs are repeated, and it seems like there's an effort to just find a reason to include more great quotes that end up feeling repeatitive. If you didn't live and breathe this world as a kid, all these details won't seem that interesting. For all the author's talk about wanting to shine more light on the music, I wish he had talked more about the music (ok I'm only halfway through, maybe this comes later) and more about the songwriting dynamics, more about how the music came to be from a musician's point of view and not just repeatedly saying, Husker Du transcended hardcore 100 different ways.

None the less, if you are a fan of this era, there is enough interesting information here to make this a worthwhile read. But frankly, some scandal and dirt is part of the joy of reading books like this. I appreciate having some rumors dispelled and a de-emphasis on trash, but the book could have used a little more spice, and definitely some better editing. It may have worked better as a video documentary than in book format since the book has no real narrative.

When I first started reading this book, I was wondering how well it could work without Bob Mould's direct input. Sadly, the editing of this book is so sloppy that I couldn't even begin to be concerned about such a detail. After finishing this book, I realize how important (and necessary) the editing process is. Be sure and use a bookmark when reading this book because many sentences and ideas are repeated, sometimes in slightly different forms. I would pick the book back up and find where I left off..only to realize a paragraph later that I was in the wrong spot.

A second edition could fix matters considerably. It is "Norton" not "Horton". It is "band morale", not "band moral". Blondie wasn't on Sire. As D.Parent noted above, I too am left wondering just why that experience Grant had of recording the spinning hubcap on "Wheels" was such a bad memory. Was there a paragraph chopped off? Did Grant have a childhood fear of hubcaps? Did Bob get angry at this audio inclusion? We may never know! Be sure and use a bookmark when reading this book because many sentences and ideas are repeated, sometimes in a slightly different form.

Apparently the author (Andrew Earles) does not care for the Warehouse album even though it is the other double album in their catalog, it hardly receives any sort of detailed analysis or any information about the creation of its songs.

I don't mean to be so harsh, Andrew did do a good job of chasing down a wide variety of folks and I learned a few things. I just feel like the poor editing of this book negated a lot of his work. This book is still worth reading, especially if you are new to Husker Du. In addition, be sure to check out Paul Hilcoff's massive Husker Du database (thirdav.com, also mentioned in the book).

Approached this book with great enthusiasm. Was very disappointed to find such sloppy writing. Chronologically, "the story of..." is a mess; it's a mash-up of restrained fandom and loose documentation of the time line of the business environment of the band and less of a story or biography about the art and the artists. It relies heavily on the readers' familiarity with the scene from the late 70's to late 80's and suffers from a lack of editing (and occasionally, proofreading). To be sure, it was a daunting undertaking and it must have been a difficult task to eek out the "true story" from such uncompromising personalities as Bob and Grant (was surprised not see several popularly-known anecdotes about the band). It does do a fair job of describing the topography of the times, but does so dryly. All-in-all, it's juiceless. Would like to have seen more discussed about, say, the lyrical content of their work. Was frustrated to read excuses made by the author for the direction the book went. Was glad to see, however, that it lacked the superlative and hyperbole associated with most 'rock journalism' and for that I give due credit. I'm not sorry I pre-ordered it or read it. I am saddened that such an ambitious undertaking has mediocre results. Recommend for fans of the band, but if you're looking for a full-color treatment, do your own research elsewhere.

I've waited for this book for years, waiting for someone to write it. Husker Du is one of my favorite bands ever. I get a sense of what it must've been like for Hart to realize Mould was going to control how many songs he had on albums and yet that same force of will drove the entire band to do what it did. Personally, I would like to have read more about how they all felt about each other throughout their history. This book does go into that. The narrative drops off after Candy Apple Grey and whizzes through the last year and a half quicker than the rest of their history which I find unfortunate. It seems the author didn't want to step on anyone's toes, but that is where more of the story lies. You can't separate people's personal lives from any band; one influences the other. The author also talks about earlier albums in more depth and less with the last albums.

My main criticism is there are a lot of errors and a number of repeated quotes in this book. That really makes the book seem sloppy. The editor should've done a better job here and the author should get his easy-to-find facts straight. I had the authors email and sent him a list of 42 errors I found. I'm sure he wasn't too pleased with that, but I'm not pleased buying a book with wrong information. I've re-read it and found a few more that I missed the first time. There are also places where the author implies something happening but doesn't say what it was. An example is he talks about Hart having bad memories recording the song Wheels on Everything Falls Apart and talks about recording the hubcap sound at the end of the song, but never says WHY it holds bad memories for Hart.

Given all of that, I am willing to accept it because I do love this book and this band. This will be the go-to book for future ones to be written. Maybe I should write one myself so Earles can send me an errors list. If he reads this, I didn't do it to be a jerk which I'm sure it seemed like it, but you should know about the subject you're writing about. I would've been happy to read it before it came out and helped you with it. I understand books are not easy to write. There is so much info to comb over and get right. Despite it all I am so glad this book exists. Thank you Andrew Earles. I will keep re-reading this book over and over.

I am very glad that this book exists. I also think this book could have been better with one more edit and another round of proofreading. For example, one whole chapter seems to be the author's proposal for a book on the history of American hardcore. While this does apply to the story of Husker Du somewhat, it is also distracts from it. There are also occasional typographical errors (for instance, bassist Greg Norton is referred to as "Horton" at one point, and the post-Husker band Nova Mob is referred to as "Nove Mob"), but those are just minor annoyances, really.

With that said, the book is more than just a collection of press clippings on the band as it contains extensive input and quotes from band members Grant Hart and Greg Norton, as well as people like Steve Albini, Mike Watt, Terry Katzman, and Joe Carducci. Bob Mould did not participate, of course. He is fairly well-represented through information gathered elsewhere, but the book does at times have a slant towards Hart, if only because his is the only view available. And the jab at Mould about his solo album Workbook not being "timeless" is also odd.

This should be a definite purchase for fans of the band or of alternative rock in general, and we should all look forward to Mould's response when his book comes out in 2011. And buy their music, it really is great!

There are WAY TOO MANY "skirted" subjects in this book for it to be taken as a serious, objective writing. The Writer is obviously working closely with Grant Hart as the source of much of what is in the book. This apparently leads to the "rose colored glasses" approach that the Grant Hart is treated with throughout the book. There is barely a passing mention of drug use in the band (laughable ommision). It's not a total dud of a book, but it's WAY too watered down to be taken seriously. The writer even admits that he is too young to have even witnessed the band play. Not enough credibility for this guy to have written a serious book about this band. towards the end, he declares he won't be delving into Nova Mob, Sugar, and solo records. He then delves in to what he's vowed to omit. The end of Nova Mob is TOTALLY glossed over.

In the end, he just handles Grant Hart's shortcomings with way too much sugar coating.

Bob apparently has a book coming out now too. That one I expect to have a completely 180 tilt.