Books With Pictures - and Some Without

Doug: Hello, and thanks for coming  around this week. It's good to be back in the blogger's chair, even if only for a few days. When last we met, it was over at Back in the Bronze Age when I contributed a post on DC's imaginary stories. That was over a year ago! And other than school work, I've really not written since May 2017. But I've done a heckuva lot of reading, and today I'd like to share some thoughts on the tomes I've consumed over the past 12 or so months.

A year ago I decided to start keeping track of the books I was reading. Since we quit blogging in November 2016, it really freed up time in the evenings for some leisurely reading. And as I got to forming that habit, I found that I'd missed regular reading - and particularly reading comics. Formerly, the comics I read were always blog-oriented. That's not a bad thing - I think our repository of reviews is a real treasure. But we're talking about me consuming 1-2 comics in a week over the 7+ years the BAB was active. However, that commitment had necessitated (at least, that's the story I'm telling) the acquisition of a massive amount of collected editions. At last count I have over 350 books on my shelves. For most of those books, they sat idle since arriving, waiting for a post idea or review to liberate them from their resting place. Once the blog shuttered, I felt able to crack open all of the books I'd amassed. If an evening goes the way I'd like, I'm on the couch or in the recliner with a tpb or hardcover, keeping an eye on some college sports or the Cubs. On a good night, I'll read 2-3 comics. I'd also add that the fact that our sons have been out of the house over the past few years has contributed to my disposable evening time. So you see how it's possible to rip through the amount of material I've read (see below).

Karen long ago said that we live in the golden age of reprints. She's not wrong. Just two weeks ago I finished the Batgirl Bronze Age Omnibus, collecting the character's early appearances in Detective Comics and Batman, up through the Batman Family years. Think about that... A 500-page hardcover devoted to mostly 8-10 page back-up stories, and featuring a C-list character. Karen was right!

You can count the Planet of the Apes B&W magazine strips among material I never expected to read. Thank goodness Boom Studios did what it took to put that mysterious content in my hot little hands. And if you've not seen these archive-like editions, you are missing out. The reproduction is outstanding - heavy stock, the same size as originally published, and wrapped by a sturdy hardcover. I have the first two volumes and intend to buy the next two. And speaking of those "damned, dirty apes", if you're into prose then you might like Tales from the Forbidden Zone. Karen and I both read it, and I can guarantee if we'd still been writing, you'd have seen our thoughts on it. Not every short story was a winner, but more often than not there was a smile and some thoughtful reflection before moving on to the next chapter. One story I'd mention specifically involved Taylor and Nova in a "What if Taylor had survived the nuke at the end of Beneath the Planet of the Apes?" Good stuff.

For our readers who've been with us for a few years, you'll recall that I have done contract work for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's education department. After spending 10 days each July in Washington, DC over the past seven summers, I am somewhat melancholy to report that I am not going back this year. However, my interest in the subject remains high, and you can see across my three reading logs that I've continued with my professional development by reading various selections in Holocaust witness and history. Two books I'd highlight to those interested: if you would be inclined to read a rather raw survivor testimony, told within months of liberation, then Five Chimneys is excellent. Certainly, it's a tough read, but very compelling throughout. If you want a concise history of some of the nuances of the event and era, then I heartily recommend Peter Hayes's very accessible Why? Explaining the Holocaust.

I didn't always care for the books I chose. Last summer I decided to give one of Edgar Rice Burroughs' last Tarzan novels a whirl. Tarzan and the Foreign Legion could best be avoided. In addition to Burroughs' formulaic storytelling, the racism that was so prevalent through the World War II era is off putting. I finished it, but can't say I bettered myself for the experience. Richard Wright's Come Together: Lennon & McCartney in the Seventies was OK, but the author's style was a little wonky; often he was repetitive. If he'd said one more time how much the four Beatles loved each other like brothers, I was going to scream. For funnybooks, I really liked the Essential Man-Thing once Gerber quit toying with the Nexus of Reality. I didn't care for that supernatural/occult stuff... which makes me wax hypocritical, as I absolutely loved the DC Comics Classics Library Roots of the Swamp Thing. I also found volume 2 of the Secret Society of Super-Villains disappointing as compared to my childhood memories. But overall, when you look at the almost-70 books on the lists, there were mostly hits among a few misses.

Shoot, why not toss you a good, better, best type of list?

Good: I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the Aquaman trade "Death of a Prince". Outside of Super Friends, I had zero experience with DC's King of Atlantis. So I was interested at my growing enthusiasm as I waded through these Bronze Age reprints from Arthur Curry's days as a back-up feature in Adventure Comics. Solid art from Mike Grell and Jim Aparo, and a nicely done payoff at the end. Recommended.

Better: Beatles '66 by Steve Turner was wonderful. Turner begins his book in December of 1965, and then charts the careers and lives of the Fab Four month-by-month through December 1966. It's tough to say that the book "centers" on any one thing, as the last world tour, the decision to stop touring, increased drug use, the recording of Revolver, and the appearance of Yoko Ono all conspired to make the year of my birth a landmark era for the Beatles. Great book, and I'd read it again.

Best: I gave no thought to this whatsoever beyond my initial impression. It wasn't even close, or worthy of further consideration. The best thing I've read in the past 12-15 months was the Uncanny X-Men Omnibus, volume 1. The 800+ page heavyweight collects Giant-Size X-Men #1, and X-Men #s 94-131. Also included is the George Perez-drawn X-Men Annual #3. As most of you know, this title just kept picking up steam. Aside from the 2-3 filler issues (the Dreaded Deadline Doom), every issue was pulse pounding and senses shattering. You know what I'm saying!

As to my coming-up reading list, I've already pulled three hardcovers for immediate consumption: Batman Illustrated by Neal Adams, volume 1, Spider-Man Newspaper Strips, volume 1, and The Inhumans Marvel Masterworks, volume 2. Once school's out in a few days, I'll commence to also wading through a large stack of real books -- I need to finish Rep. John Lewis's (D-GA) memoir Walking with the Wind, and then I have a caboodle of additional Civil Rights books already purchased: The Autobiography of Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson. For lighter fare, my son gave me Tim Kurkjian's (ESPN baseball commentator) book, I'm Fascinated by Sacrifice Flies: Inside the Game We All Love and Keith Richards's autobiography, Life.

So what are your thoughts? What are you reading presently, or recently? What would you recommend to me, or do you see something we share that you'd pass along to a friend? If you are just happening by this space for the first time ever, you must know that in order to join our Loyal Order of Water Buffalo Lodge a comment must be made and left for all to see. True story. All you veterans -- you know the drill.

A Simple Question Regarding Longevity of Bands

Martinex1:  Is a band's work considered more favorably if the group breaks up or if they stay together for a significant amount of time?

 

 

Back Me Up on This, Will You?

Doug: Back in 2013 we ran a post about surprise back-up singers. Stevie Nicks, Mick Jagger, Phil Collins, James Taylor, and many others made our list of suggestions for conversation. Today we're not talking surprises at all, but those regulars who appeared... regularly on the songs of certain bands or solo acts.

Doug: Below I've pictured some vocalists/band members who came to mind when, well, this post came to mind. We'd like you to expound on favorite performers of your own, but also favorite performances. We all know that Paul McCartney sang lead on many, many Beatles hits. But one of my favorite performances from Sir Paul is his backing of John Lennon's lead on "One After 909" (the 1963 version).

For those who occasionally enjoy a little AM pop...

Can't You Hear Me Rocking: Sticky Fingers Deluxe

Karen: The Rolling Stones have re-issued their classic 1971 album Sticky Fingers in 374 different versions to choose from -well, maybe not that many, more like nine, with varying price points and formats and goodies included. I purchased the Deluxe edition for $14.99, which includes two discs: a remastered version of the original album, and a second disc, with five alternate takes and five live tracks. I'm going to talk about that second disc in this post.

Karen: Here's a list of the tracks:

1. Brown Sugar (Alternate Version with Eric Clapton)

2. Wild Horses (Acoustic Version)

3. Can't You Hear Me Knocking (Alternate Version)

4. Bitch (Extended Version)

5. Dead Flowers (Alternate Version)

6. Live With Me (Live At The Roundhouse, 1971)

7. Stray Cat Blues (Live At The Roundhouse, 1971)

8. Love In Vain (Live At The Roundhouse, 1971)

9. Midnight Rambler (Live At The Roundhouse, 1971)

10. Honky Tonk Women (Live The Roundhouse, 1971)

Karen: The opening track is Brown Sugar and features Eric Clapton on a very prominent slide guitar (listen below). It's an interesting take on the song, and while kind of fun to hear, I'll take the original. But like everything on this disc, since we've heard the originals so many times, hearing anything different is like a breath of fresh air.

Karen: Wild Horses here is acoustic, and every note rings with clarity. It's pretty, in its way, but also very subdued, and maybe too spare. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure this isn't just the recording we know stripped of the electric guitar parts. Can't You Hear Me Knocking is clearly still in work-out stage, with Jagger still using "filler" vocals. I've read about this practice of his before, so it was fun to listen to him singing a strange tongue of his own creation along with the music. The song itself is in its embryonic stages, with the rhythm coming together but no long, Santana-like solo from Mick Taylor in sight. Bitch is another workout song, with the music mostly all together, but Jagger still groping for the words.

Karen: Dead Flowers is a real standout of the alternate takes, as it is a complete track but sounds  very different from the version on the album (listen to it below). This is much more up tempo, rock and roll as opposed to the country twang of the original. Jagger's vocals sound flat, almost disinterested, although some might prefer that over his exaggerated redneck style that he uses on the Stones' country-tinged tunes.

Karen: The live stuff is really the best part of this disc. Obviously the live tracks are not songs from Sticky Fingers but from the time frame that the band was touring the album. Recorded at The Roundhouse in London in 1971, the sound quality is excellent and the band is in great form. Live with Me is raucous and the horn section really blasts it out. Stray Cat Blues and Love in Vain both feature some excellent guitar work. But the last two songs are truly exceptional.

Karen: Most people are probably already familiar with a live version of Midnight Rambler -the one from Get Yer Ya Yas Out, which was also included on the Hot Rocks compilation album, rather than the studio version from Let It Bleed. That version is a fantastic example of the Stones at their most masterful -it is menacing, hypnotic, and theatrical. This version is a terrific counterpoint, as it goes in a completely different direction, shedding the darkness and going for a blistering raver, with Jagger's harp tearing it up. Charlie Watts propels the song with his chugging rhythm and the band is tight! It's a great cut and I'm glad they included it here.

Karen: Wrapping it up is Honky Tonk Women, a big, loud crowd-pleaser, not even ruined by Keith's screeching background vocals (yeah, I went there). Again, a great song done to perfection by a band at the peak of their abilities.

Karen: Now even though I purchased this "package" -an actual physical CD, which, since I got it through Amazon, I also got the MP3s too -I may be making another purchase. You see, I discovered something about the Super Deluxe version, which includes these CDs and a third CD full of more live tunes, plus a DVD, the vinyl album and a bunch of other crap for $152. For $18, I can just get the MP3s of the CDs, so I could get that third disc of 13 tunes of live material recorded at Leeds University in 1971 (known as Get Your Leeds Lungs Out). Dang it, the Stones are as bad as George Lucas when it comes to double dipping customers!

Discuss: Favorite Music Documentaries

Karen: While vacationing in the Bay Area last weekend, I picked up a used copy of Crossfire Hurricane on blu ray for cheap. I really enjoy this comprehensive documentary on the Rolling Stones. What documentaries about musicians (not just rockers) do you think are some of the best made, or you just find highly entertaining?

Who's The Best... Live Album?

Karen: What's your vote for best live album? There are some obvious choices (Live at Leeds by the Who, Frampton Comes Alive by Peter Frampton are two that immediately spring to mind), but let's hear some of your favorites.

Karen: I'll get things going with a few favorites,a couple well known and one rather obscure. Get Yer Ya-Yas Out by the Rolling Stones is a great example of the band as they transitioned from the Brian Jones era into the Mick Taylor era (which I think was their most musically creative period). The band is tight and energized, and the production is clean -although some of this may be attributed to some clean up in the studio later on. But it's an exciting album that might be the Stones' best live album. Some of these versions of songs sound better than the studio versions -Stray Cat Blues and particularly Midnight Rambler stand out here. I heard this version of Midnight Rambler on the greatest hits album Hot Rocks before I heard the studio version (the original studio version came out on Let It Bleed). It's telling that they used the live version on that collection - it's clearly superior, played with much more drive. Charlie Watts is a beast throughout the album (culled from four performances over a three day period in November 1969).

Karen: Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison is a classic. To me, Cash transcends genres. He's his own type of music. I love listening to his voice here, and it's a kick hearing his interactions with his prison audience and the officials  in 1968. Everything here just screams authenticity, and Cash was certainly seen as an anti-hero type (the Man in Black), playing songs about bad men, regrets, and shots at redemption. I really like Cocaine Blues and I Got Stripes, but I think this is one of those albums where it's best to just listen to the whole thing rather than cherry pick tracks.

Karen: My obscure fave is by proto-punk godfather Iggy Pop. Recorded in 1988, King Biscuit Flower Hour Presents is a tour de force by the Iggster. A combination of old Stooges tunes and Iggy's later solo efforts, it's hard thrashing rock all the way. His backing band isn't particularly noteworthy - they're no Sales Brothers, unfortunately - but they do a good enough job with the material, and Iggy himself provides enough energy to send the set into the stratosphere. There are 17 tracks here and as Iggy says at one point, "we're gonna try to rock it to you straight, no bullsh*t" and they succeed at that. This album is practically worth the price just to hear Iggy's comments between songs. At this point in his career, he was obviously grateful to be performing. He comes off alternately humble ("thanks a f%$* of a lot for being here," "This is all the music I can give,") to crazed, confrontational ("You do it! Go ahead and do it mother f%@#er!"). In other words, prime Iggy. The sound quality is also surprisingly good -unlike some other live Stooges and Iggy albums I've heard.

Karen: All right, I've blathered long enough. Your turn!

Readers' Write (10): True or False? Their Satanic Majesties Request by the Rolling Stones is Criminally Underrated.

While Karen and Doug are on vacation, our readers are setting the day's topic of conversation.  For our "True or False?" posts, the first commenter can pose a statement.  Of course, it should be somewhat controversial, and you of course do not have to believe the statement yourself.  The goal here is to stimulate some lively conversation.  In the past we've had conversations such as - "Rock is dead." and "Fantastic Four is the World's Greatest Comic Magazine."

Thanks for keeping things moving during our break!

Matt Celis says that Their Satanic Majesties Request is a criminally underrated album from the Rolling Stones.

So That's What That Song Was About

Karen: As happens with me at times, I've been on a little reading jag, this time centered on the Rolling Stones. Since I've been doing a bit of traveling I've gotten a lot of reading done. I was on a plane making my way through Robert Greenfield's infamous "S.T.P." tome, a look at the Stones' 1972 tour of America, when I was gobsmacked by this little nugget: the song "Sweet Black Angel" off of the Exile on Main Street album was written in support of activist Angela Davis! I must have heard that song dozens of times and never even thought about it. Now it's not a major cut off that album, but I'm certainly familiar with it. Probably the most memorable thing about it (to me) was the percussion, with the washboards chuck-a-chucking in the back. As soon as I could, I put on my headphones and listened to the song. Admittedly most of Jagger's lyrics were unintelligible to me, but I realized I'd never truly listened to the words before. I went and looked up the lyrics, and then there was no doubt. The song references her being on trial for a judge's murder, and says she's "not a gun totin' teacher, not a Red-lovin' school marm." 

For those who might not know, Angela Davis was a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who was a political activist. She was charged with the murder of a judge because she owned the guns used in the crime, although she was not at the scene of the crime. The case became quite huge in the press and a real cause celebre.

I was both surprised and disappointed in myself that I'd never paid attention to the song and caught all of this before. It's an unusual song in that the Stones were very rarely political. I think I had always assumed  the song had a more sexual meaning and completely wrote it off, not giving it any thought. Now when I hear it, of course it will be in a very different light.

What about you? Are there any songs that you discovered the meaning behind them that really surprised you?

Pounding the Skins

Doug:  Pretty simple question today, kids:  name your favorite drummer, or perhaps your favorite song featuring some awesome backbeating.  Do you go for that confident, enhancing sound -- professional, creating a foot-tapping in all of us, akin to Ringo Starr or Charlie Watts?  Or do you prefer a bit more of a virtuoso (drawing attention to the percussion in its own right), such as Neil Peart of Rush?  Hey, maybe "your guy" (or gal) isn't in the public eye so much -- maybe you're partial to a song or songs that feature a studio musician.  At any rate, today let's talk about our favorite beats.

 

They Should've Stopped While They Were Ahead

Karen: I'm gonna say upfront here, that this post is pretty negative. In fact, it might be considered cruel. But the truth will out - and the truth is (in my humble opinion), some bands or artists would be better off if they had just stopped producing new albums at some point. By better off, I mean their musical legacy would have been more secure, more impressive if they had just stopped at a high point, before they drifted off into mediocrity. My example is the Rolling Stones. I feel they've become a mockery of themselves. Think of all the crap they've put out in the last few decades - Undercover, Dirty Work, Bridges to Babylon -heck, I bought Tattoo You when it came out and I thought they had pretty much hit bottom then. Have they done anything truly memorable since Some Girls? I mean, this was the band that put out classics like Let It Bleed, Exile on Main Street, and Sticky Fingers. That was incredible work. Those albums still have a power and resonance today. Now I don't expect an artist to always hit a home run, but when it's obvious that they're really not even trying any more, well, then they should just pack it up and enjoy their wealth. But not the Stones. They just keep traipsing out on stage, diluting their greatness year after year. A band that was once rebellious and considered dangerous has transformed into a nostalgia act. They haven't made any attempt to reinvent themselves like many other 60s rockers; instead, they are riding on the coat-tails of their youthful selfs. Thankfully they haven't turned out too many albums recently, but it's almost too late, the damage has been done. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about Aerosmith. They were a great hard rock band that arose from the ashes of their own self-destruction to become an over-produced, ballad band? Ugh. Do you think I'm being too harsh? Or do you have another example you want to discuss?

Beatles versus Stones

Karen: Now we come to the age-old question: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Both acts can justifiably claim to be the greatest rock band of all time. Their influence and longevity are undeniable. So it mostly becomes a matter of taste: who do you prefer?

Doug: It's sort of a "Mary Ann or Ginger" question, isn't it?

Karen: Not an easy question at all for me. While I like the overall rawness of the Stones, I feel they have greatly diminished their strength by all the crap they have put out since about 1980. Seriously, their legacy would be much stronger if they had stopped around the time of Some Girls (some would say even earlier than that). They are almost a caricature of their former selves now, and painful to watch.

Karen: But in their prime, the Stones exuded a sense of danger and the forbidden. They were the dark to the Beatles' light. I think they really came into their own around the time of Beggars Banquet in 1968. Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street are fantastic albums. This is angry, lusty music. In the world of the Stones circa 1968-1976, redemption was neither sought nor offered, and love was an impossibility. A grim view, but an exciting sound came out of it all.
Karen: On the other hand, the Beatles even at their darkest point were like cooing doves compared to the Stones. They represent a more upbeat, hopeful outlook. Their musical versatility and the sheer quality of their material can't be overlooked. However, personally, I don't care for much of their later work, including Sgt. Pepper, which I know many consider to be a masterpiece. For me, I'll take Revolver and Rubber Soul - those albums are authentic, musically solid rock, and seem to be more of the work of a band, rather than individuals. Although I enjoy parts of The Beatles (aka the White Album) and Abbey Road, they both feel to me like either John, Paul, or George songs, not Beatles songs. Maybe I am just projecting, knowing what was going on in the group by that time.
Doug: I think a major difference between the two bands is the sound of their history. To me, the Beatles have a very linear history, as you've to some degree pointed out. There is a huge difference between their British Invasion era and their latter stuff -- simple songs based on harmonies morphed into experimentation with non-traditional instruments, string sections, etc. The Stones have less delineation in their career -- while not all songs sound the same, it's a bit more difficult to identify which part of their career a particular track is associated.

 

Karen: Well, here's where we disagree. I think the Stones' early stuff, like Get Off of My Cloud or Under My Thumb, sounds very different from songs like Street-Fighting Man or Gimme Shelter. There's certainly a growth in the band's overall musicianship, if not in the variety of their songs.
 
Doug: I guess for me I'm going to consider my favorite songs from each band. For the Beatles, where to begin? For their early career, it's probably I Saw Her Standing There. For later in their career, ugh... You know what song I really like? The acoustic version of Revolution, Revolution 1, from the White Album. Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight is a strong McCartney song from Abbey Road. You mentioned above Sgt. Pepper and Revolver; don't you think Revolver is a bridge between the British Invasion period and the later, more complex recordings (of which Sgt. Pepper is certainly a part of)? And for my two cents, I do like both of those albums.

Karen: Yes, Revolver is the album where there's a greater depth and complexity to the songs, but they are still great 4 piece rock songs. What bothers me about some of the later work (especially Sgt. Pepper) is that it sometimes feels pretentious. That's my personal take anyway.

Doug: For the Stones, there are a couple of songs that I look forward to hearing, and always turn up a little bit: Sympathy for the Devil and Shattered. I thought you said it well above -- the Stones are raw. And these two songs typify that. Sympathy for the Devil has one of the "rawest" guitar solos I've ever heard -- it's certainly not evoking Eddie Van Halen! And Shattered is raw all the way 'round: vocals, Keith Richards' guitar, all of it!
 

Doug: Maybe a difference for me between the bands is the variety of vocalists concerning the Beatles, as opposed to straight-Mick from the Stones. While McCartney sang lead on the lion's share of Beatles' hits, there is enough of John and even George and Ringo sprinkled in to broaden the vocal spectrum. Don't get me wrong -- Mick's voice is a perfect match for the overall sound of his band... It's just that the Beatles don't always sound the same -- I guess "variety is the spice of life"?

Karen: The more I think about, it really comes down to who am I more likely to listen to, when I turn on my ipod: the answer is the Stones. While I appreciate the Beatles, the Stones just appeal to me more. I guess I should put an asterisk there and say the Stones before 1978 appeal to me more! There really is something to be said for leaving the stage gracefully, and unfortunately the Stones never learned that. But there's no denying their early greatness.

Doug: I listen to both bands somewhat equally, although I do queue them up based on the mood I'm in. I thought what you said earlier about the Beatles being like "cooing doves" compared to the Stones onslaught of energy is good. Certainly the Beatles have some edgier songs (I Want You, etc.), but the majority is more pop than rock. The Stones, on the other hand, lean the other way. So pick your mood, pick your band, I guess.