Customer Reviews

Kaleidoscope Eyes: Psychedelic Rock from the '60s to the '90s (Citadel Underground Series)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

It seems that the majority of the "reviewers" slaming this book are all grinding one of two axes, either "This guy wrote an ok book, but it isn't about "real psychedelic rock," or "I ain't never heard of any of these bands. What about the Grateful Dead?"

While Mr. Derogatis' definition of "psychedelic rock" may not satisfy everyone, it is at the very least internally consistant. This book deals with subject matter that is, by its very nature, subjective, so there will always be differences of opinion as to what should be included under the title of "psychedelic rock". With that in mind, Mr. Derogatis has presented a thesis that is internally consistant and defends it rather sucessfully. This is evident if one momentarily steps away from the bong and takes the time to actually read the book.

With regard to the second "criticism": If all one wants from a book is an affirmation that "The Dead rule, man!" there are plenty of other, less scholarly, books that will satisfy that need. (And those books have shorter words and lots of pretty pictures.) Just because one has not heard of the Flaming Lips, that does not mean that they are not a GREAT psychedelic rock band. Rather than bemoan the absence of references to the Jerry Garcia and Co., perhaps these critics could venture out into the world and check out some (gasp!) NEW MUSIC! Rock didn't die with the 60s.

I think the most fascinating thing about this book is the author's extension of psychedelic music into the modern era. Musical eras are connected. Styles don't grow up out of nothing. The author pieces together three decades of music in an interesting and understandable manner. Worshippers of the 60s may be put off by this book, but their persistent attempts to cling to cultural hegemony are as sad as a previous generation's battle against Chuck Berry! Jim Derogatis' willingness to gore the sacred cows of classic rock -- when such is deserved -- is remarkable...and I laughed myself silly at his lack of reverence. Readers should know that Jim Derogatis was schooled by Lester Bangs himself. A lot of the stuff that has come down from the 60s era as so called "classic" rock was often just more POPULAR, not BETTER than a lot of the forgotten bands of the day. What I sense is Jim D's willingness to look back with love and admiration at 30+ years of psychedelic music and not be bound in by the partisans of a single moment in cultural history. Come on folks...anybody who can put trip hop in a single history with the Dead is a genius.

Overall, a well below average book on psychedelic music. While the author does cover a wide spectrum of psychedelic artists, he gives very little respect to the classic artists of this genre. And he barely mentions artists like The Chocolate Watchband, The Litter, Electric Prunes, etc. He gives no mention of the dozens of great U.K. 60's and 70's psychedelic bands. It is obvious that the author knows little about mid 60's to mid 70's psychedelic music (psychedelic music's clasic period) outside of the obvious radio bands like Jefferson Airplane, Beatles, etc. The 80's and 90's artists he covers are not psychedelic bands at all (The Orb, etc.) but are groups playing an offshoot of true psychedelic music. The author's style and writing technique are very good. But his overall lack of knowledge and history of the subject make this a sub par effort.

With the acceptance of rock music as a valid art form there has been a proliferation of boring and pretentious literature on the subject. Thank god this book isn't one of them. In fact, Derogatis is able to fuse good writing with the enjoyment of rock music for what it is: a primal illiterate art form. In this particular case, Derogatis presents an overview of a type of rock 'n' roll which is about sensory overload, "unreality", and FUN!!! This book covers everything in "head" music from the Beatles, Beach Boys, to Kraftwerk, Can, and the Flaming Lips. All in pop historical context. Get it.

I see some have left bad reviews which is a shame. Really uncalled for. Do I detect some envy and jealousy in operation here? Not everybody can be a paid rock critic. Been there, done that, wanna see the pay stubs? ... I've been following DeRo for ages in Rstone,Spin and the Sun times website. I'd buy a cd on his thumbs-up. His love for rock is a joy and it's infectious. If only I had more expendable cash for more music! In EYES he goes back to his journalistic roots. The Research is there. Lots of meat, short on Gonzo. I'll tell ya with great authority that you will learn something and get introduced to some groups you've never heard of. Yup, even you, Mr. Lonely Record Collector Guy! Not all Pysch books have to be written by dudes with half their brains eaten away by acid. My only wish is that the publishers would include an accompanying CD. I wanna hear some of these bands! Good job and follow it up soon!!!!

This is a readable and generally interesting book about some of one rock critic's favorite artists, but for reasons cited in previous customer reviews, as a history of "psychedelic" music it is terribly biased and incomplete. In his introduction the author says "Like any history, this one is subjective." Well, yes, but real historians strive for objectivity nonetheless, and while there will always be differing interpretations of past events, particularly in histories of art forms, it is not that difficult to identify the major artists involved in the creation of this genre in the 1960s. The author dismisses so many of them that consequently, this isn't a history at all. If I were to write a history of the American Revolutionary period that claimed greater importance for Benjamin Franklin's nephew than say, Washington, Paine, or Ben Franklin himself, no one would take it seriously, and rightly so. This is pretty much what the author has done.

The main problem here is that Jim Derogatis tries to be too inclusive when it comes to what artists are psychedelic, leaving the less informed reader totally confused about a clear definition of the genre. The inclusion of fairly traditional progressive rock, like Genesis and Yes, which is really sort of "post psychedelic" is inappropriate, as are the hip hop and techno artists which he spends way too much time on. Some important indie and underground "real" psych artists like The Bevis Frond, are given just a token mention and passed off as trivial, or not included at all (example :The Groundhogs,May Blitz, George Brigman, Ronald Warren Ganderton). Artists like Pink Floyd and The Grateful Dead are better documented in works that have been solely devoted to them. If you are a psych collector, you'll dismiss this book as I did

Jim you're a hardy man to attempt a history of psychedelia, one of the most elusive, shapeless musical forms. And to document its evolution over three decades in just over 200 pages of text? Well I say you're a hardy man, many would say you're a fool.

So how do you go about it? Well, firstly it's a history as opposed to "the history of..." It's not comprehensive. I could while away some afternoons listing the incredible psychedelic music that you ignore (Tropicalia!). Maybe spend even more time musing over your intriguing use of the term `psychedelic', but you include a quote from Robyn Hitchcock that usurps me. "If you call my music psychedelic, it is" he says, highlighting the ambiguity of the term. You may of course have misunderstood this and taken it as a divine order, "is that so Robyn?" you exclaim, rubbing your paws together, "OK then... we could say Pet Sounds is psychedelic, Brian had taken LSD by then. And how about Big Star, they use a fair bit of reverb? ...and, oh ***k it, let's bring in Oasis!" Yeah, yeah, I know, that's not the point. You see you readily admit that this is a subjective history. You say that you goal was to "share [your] enthusiasm for music that [you] consider to be the finest that rock has produced". So, really what you're saying is it's `A Personal Journey through Jim Derogatis' Psychedelic Music Collection'. But then if it is subjective, in other words just the psychedelic music that you know yourself, then isn't that a bit poor? Isn't that a bit like a fanzine? That nonsensical chapter on the top 13 (!?) psychedelic one hit wonders? I'm sure I've seen that crazed idea in a fanzine before. In a low rent, half-assed high school pamphlet. And I think I wrote it! "Crashing in at Number 10 this week is REM, with that psychedelic monster, 'Feeling Gravity's Pull'!". What!? You'd think you had too much space. Oh no, wait a second, you haven't, just those 200 and odd pages. And then to cap it off, the way you document these enlightened, or, god forbid, merely imaginative, psychedelicists is actually quite lightweight, humourless and uninspired. It's just little biographies neatly tied together with quotations.

So, yes, you're definitely a hardy man, Jim, but, well, maybe you're a little foolish. You shouldn't have tried to cage this fiendish genre. You needed more focus. Why didn't you just spotlight the revivalists, apers and pop psychedelicists of the 80s and 90s, the ones you plainly know a lot more about?

Oh, well anyway, before one of your minions stumbles on this review and, under your strict orders, feverishly taps the "no, this review isn't helpful" button, I'll grant you that there is some silver to be found in this here shipwreck. As very readable, well researched introductory guide to more experimental and challenging rock music it's, you know, pretty good. And, well, at a bit over 200 pages it's very concise, and very easy to pick up, or put down, or throw around the room.

Everyone's quibbling over such silly things! This person hates the book because it fails to include [insert obscure underground 60's band] that person's ticked off because it DOES include [insert obscure or difficult-to-categorize 90's band]. Lighten up people! This book is not, and does not pretend to be the be-all or the end-all of books about psycho-delic rawk. What it IS is a great read and a great introduction to bands you may not have heard of. I'm especially impressed by the broad definition used here in regards to what is psychedelic. Jim is the man. :)

Jim, Or whose so ever reads this review.....
When I read your book, I had expected more from what you had wrote, but when I came across you so called Bio on Pink Floyd, I felt like really burning the book.
By now, who ever is reading this review is thinking, Under 13? What do they know about Pink Floyd? For your info. my father, who, like I, is a die-hard Pink Floyd fan,had listened to them as soon as their first album had been released, he loves their music, I grew up with Pink Floyd music because I had over heard my dad listining to it since I was little.
I understand all their music, and when Jim had said that The Wall was a opera, sleepfest and, well, no good, I really did burn the book. Why? Because The Wall is one of the greatest albums Pink Floyd has ever recorded. ( The 3 are, The Wall, Wish You Were Here, and Meddle )
I mean really, when David and all the others started recording music after the idiot Waters left, well that was their best music ever,(Momentary Lapse Of Reason & Divison Bell) because all that Waters cared about was how his dad had been killed, well, Get Over It!! I loved the Wall, but after that, he still wanted to record music about his flippin' dad!
Set aside from all my anger, when I told kids at school about what he had said about Pink Floyd......they all got mad, and well, they all wrote letters to Jim about how he should leave all the thinking and deciding to us, the people, they calmed down, and went and listened to The Wall.
And for Marc, well, who had ever heard of The Flaming Whatevers? You should really listen to some of the Pink Floyd music....