Re: Wow, someone's still not happy with someone after all these years...
i think rogans great. hes very objective and most of his books are great though ive not read the one on the kinks. whats the line about myth and truth, that you should always print the myth. i think johnnys more into the myth of rock and roll
Re: Wow, someone's still not happy with someone after all these years...
this is what the guardian had to say about rogan.
"Sadly, Rogan is very much from the “just the facts, man” school of biography. He is obviously a diligent researcher – but you need more than oodles of bone-dry facts for a book this length. It requires someone who could take those facts and turn them into something more readable, and even half as rich and strange as his subject. Rogan is great on things like legal small print and off-stage squabbles, but he struggles to bring the music alive. At no point does he make you want to rush off and play individual songs or albums again. When he does get round to that wonderful cache of 60s/70s Kinks hits, he has a tendency to wander off into contextual blether and lose the thread of what makes the music so unique."
when doing a bio i would much much rather have the facts than a person telling me about how they and i guess the rest of the world felt about them, the subject, or taking the facts and making it readable. it seems like its arguing that well i liked the kinks and would rather hear a piece telling me about how great everything is. tell me the facts and ill make up my own mind to what ever degree. thats what makes a great bio and not just a fluff piece
Re: Wow, someone's still not happy with someone after all these years...
Bare facts tell you nothing at all and tend to be long winded and boring. Also, you can watch the interaction of a group of five people for a day and can describe what you see, what they are doing and what they are saying but you can't get in their minds. You wouldn't be able to tell something about everyone's motives and/or feelings. So, in a sense, people who have the "facts" don't necessarily have the real story. That, for me, was always a reason why I hate biographies which just keep to the facts and overlook everything else, because it's a word which isn't quite impalpable and lacks emotions. (Actually it even disgusts me when a biography strongly claims to have the facts).
Re: Wow, someone's still not happy with someone after all these years...
I'd pay ten dollars to hear the Rogan Hate Chats between Chrissie Hynde and Morrissey. "Can you believe this sunovabitch?" "Yes, he's vile. Completely vile."
Re: Wow, someone's still not happy with someone after all these years...
"Bare facts tell you nothing at all and tend to be long winded and boring."
this is kinda ridiculous and seems to be an oxymoron. as for observing people for five days etc, is that what you think the research for his book was? what about what they had to say about themselves which is what part of the research was about? what about what the people theyve worked with had to say about them? any book about history is told this way, everything you know about history was learned in this way. it seems like most people just want a book that praises whom they like
I'd pay ten dollars to hear the Rogan Hate Chats between Chrissie Hynde and Morrissey. "Can you believe this sunovabitch?" "Yes, he's vile. Completely vile."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.