In this post, I wish to ask everyone to state who they think the worst rock n' roll author is, in terms of mangling/distorting facts and the expression of their bias. This is also not counting the likes of Albert Goldman, who only did 2 rock n' roll books, and who simply cannot be topped in terms of hatchet jobs.

In my opinion the worst such author would be Stephen Davis, the man behind Hammer Of The Gods, Old Gods Almost Dead, Jim Morrison: Life-Death-Legend, and Watch You Bleed: The Saga Of Guns N' Roses. Davis is a highly opinionated, almost hipsterish, and blatantly pretentious hack with a penchant for absolute hatchet jobs on his subjects, either inventing incidents or blowing up something out of proportion in order to smear them. He also tars lots of periods and great works with a massive black paintbrush (the Stones basically died with Brian Jones and are just corporate whores, Guns did nothing worthy after Appetite For Destruction, The Doors' Absolutely Live is a worthless album, Paul McCartney's own children heard Guns' version of Live And Let Die and thought it was a Guns original, Jimi Hendrix played a Les Paul at Woodstock, Motley Crue's best album was Girls Girls Girls and faded into obscurity afterwards, rock died in the '90s and was "replaced by the heroin-fueled grunge movement," etc.) The only worthy bits of his work is showing the most complete picture of the last day of Jim Morrison's life and reviewing Chinese Democracy, even though it thoroughly shreds the album apart and gives descriptions that makes it clear he didn't actually listen to it. He is only good when working as the co-author of autobios, as he did with Mick Fleetwood's first book, Walk This Way and This Wheel's On Fire (though the latter contained Levon Helm's baseless accusations of Robbie Robertson stealing songwriting credits). For some reason, working as the ghostwriter for someone else shows a great concern for accuracy and truth, and his independent bios the exact opposite.

A close second would be Mick Wall. Sadly, he started out doing quite wonderful work, as his unauthorized bio of Axl Rose shows. His book When Gods Walked The Earth was a very wonderful look into Led Zeppelin, except for his trashing the Celebration Day O2 Arena concert and unfairly comparing it to the shows they did in their prime. However, he began to slide into Stephen Davis territory with his Metallica book, Enter Night, as he did nothing but tar everything after Master of Puppets, especially Death Magnetic, calling everything on it worthless (not just valid complaints like the "what doesn't kill you makes you more strong" line in Broken, Beat & Scarred and the compressed and artificially louder sound, but outright fabrications and inventions about the record). His recent Black Sabbath book is much better, but it focuses too much on the original Ozzy period. While he gives props to the Dio years, he simply lionizes and fetishes that original lineup to a ridiculous amount, even letting that cloud the results of 13. His newest book, Love Becomes A Funeral Pyre, on The Doors, is his absolute worst book. He simply states that everything we know about them is wrong, and gives alternate explanations, but without the evidence to prove it. He also vilifies Ray Manzarek well beyond his genuine, documented faults, and renders him as absolute scum who deserves to burn in hell.

But these are my thoughts. What about yours?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-11 23:21 by bv.

Albert Goldman springs to mind for the hatchet job on Elvis; why he didn't admit he detested the subject-matter, I don't know ?

I concur with Stephen Davis.

I think you've just about said it all.....

eric clapton's autobiography was pretty horrendous, although i don't know who wrote that.
for best author i'd have to say, hands down, bob dylan and the guy who wrote the beatles book that came out about a year ago.

Well, after some initial help from a ghost writer, I believe Eric said he wrote most of the book himself. I thought it was ok but given that he has been somewhat confessional in interviews over the years, I didnt think it revealed a great deal.

Dylan's Chronicles was typically idiosyncratic but for all that I couldnt put it down....I wish he would get on with Volumes 2 and 3. Knowing what a rascal he is, I just wonder if he seriously ever intended writing a follow up.

Robbie Robertson has his own coming out in the Spring, could be worth checking out.
I hope Van the Man will get round to telling his story one day also.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a rock n' roll author?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-12 10:39 by Koen.

In the '90's I read a terrible book "Jagger Unautorished" from Christopher Andersen, which wasn't realy about the Stones or their music, but all about his women and affairs, which was a bore to read.

Actualy I liked the book "Old gods almost dead" from Stephen Davis, it had a couple of mistakes, but overall a fine read.

Quote
Toxic34
In this post, I wish to ask everyone to state who they think the worst rock n' roll author is, in terms of mangling/distorting facts and the expression of their bias. This is also not counting the likes of Albert Goldman, who only did 2 rock n' roll books, and who simply cannot be topped in terms of hatchet jobs.

In my opinion the worst such author would be Stephen Davis, the man behind Hammer Of The Gods, Old Gods Almost Dead, Jim Morrison: Life-Death-Legend, and Watch You Bleed: The Saga Of Guns N' Roses. Davis is a highly opinionated, almost hipsterish, and blatantly pretentious hack with a penchant for absolute hatchet jobs on his subjects, either inventing incidents or blowing up something out of proportion in order to smear them. He also tars lots of periods and great works with a massive black paintbrush (the Stones basically died with Brian Jones and are just corporate whores, Guns did nothing worthy after Appetite For Destruction, The Doors' Absolutely Live is a worthless album, Paul McCartney's own children heard Guns' version of Live And Let Die and thought it was a Guns original, Jimi Hendrix played a Les Paul at Woodstock, Motley Crue's best album was Girls Girls Girls and faded into obscurity afterwards, rock died in the '90s and was "replaced by the heroin-fueled grunge movement," etc.) The only worthy bits of his work is showing the most complete picture of the last day of Jim Morrison's life and reviewing Chinese Democracy, even though it thoroughly shreds the album apart and gives descriptions that makes it clear he didn't actually listen to it. He is only good when working as the co-author of autobios, as he did with Mick Fleetwood's first book, Walk This Way and This Wheel's On Fire (though the latter contained Levon Helm's baseless accusations of Robbie Robertson stealing songwriting credits). For some reason, working as the ghostwriter for someone else shows a great concern for accuracy and truth, and his independent bios the exact opposite.

A close second would be Mick Wall. Sadly, he started out doing quite wonderful work, as his unauthorized bio of Axl Rose shows. His book When Gods Walked The Earth was a very wonderful look into Led Zeppelin, except for his trashing the Celebration Day O2 Arena concert and unfairly comparing it to the shows they did in their prime. However, he began to slide into Stephen Davis territory with his Metallica book, Enter Night, as he did nothing but tar everything after Master of Puppets, especially Death Magnetic, calling everything on it worthless (not just valid complaints like the "what doesn't kill you makes you more strong" line in Broken, Beat & Scarred and the compressed and artificially louder sound, but outright fabrications and inventions about the record). His recent Black Sabbath book is much better, but it focuses too much on the original Ozzy period. While he gives props to the Dio years, he simply lionizes and fetishes that original lineup to a ridiculous amount, even letting that cloud the results of 13. His newest book, Love Becomes A Funeral Pyre, on The Doors, is his absolute worst book. He simply states that everything we know about them is wrong, and gives alternate explanations, but without the evidence to prove it. He also vilifies Ray Manzarek well beyond his genuine, documented faults, and renders him as absolute scum who deserves to burn in hell.

But these are my thoughts. What about yours?

I think your first paragraph is beyond awesome. And it's hilarious on top of that.

Nice chuckle that the dude who wrote about how bad Metallica was after MAST OF PUPPETS named the book after a lyric from a song from an album that's post-MASTER OF PUPPETS.

It amazes me that these people were allowed to continue writing books on music with such track records (Hammer Of The Gods seems to be often cited for some things as being factual). But, like FOX News, facts can be invented. The guy that slammed Zep's CELEBRATION DAY O2 show obviously didn't bother to listen to it.

The trashing of CHINESE DEMOCRACY is probably accurate even without having listened to it ha ha!

At the moment I can't think of anyone that's written that bad other than Ronnie Wood, whose book is beyond painfully funny, and Tony Sanchez.

Old Gods Almost Dead is, hands-down, the worst book I have ever had the misfortune to read. A total and utter turd of a piece of 'writing'

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Toxic34
In this post, I wish to ask everyone to state who they think the worst rock n' roll author is, in terms of mangling/distorting facts and the expression of their bias. This is also not counting the likes of Albert Goldman, who only did 2 rock n' roll books, and who simply cannot be topped in terms of hatchet jobs.

In my opinion the worst such author would be Stephen Davis, the man behind Hammer Of The Gods, Old Gods Almost Dead, Jim Morrison: Life-Death-Legend, and Watch You Bleed: The Saga Of Guns N' Roses. Davis is a highly opinionated, almost hipsterish, and blatantly pretentious hack with a penchant for absolute hatchet jobs on his subjects, either inventing incidents or blowing up something out of proportion in order to smear them. He also tars lots of periods and great works with a massive black paintbrush (the Stones basically died with Brian Jones and are just corporate whores, Guns did nothing worthy after Appetite For Destruction, The Doors' Absolutely Live is a worthless album, Paul McCartney's own children heard Guns' version of Live And Let Die and thought it was a Guns original, Jimi Hendrix played a Les Paul at Woodstock, Motley Crue's best album was Girls Girls Girls and faded into obscurity afterwards, rock died in the '90s and was "replaced by the heroin-fueled grunge movement," etc.) The only worthy bits of his work is showing the most complete picture of the last day of Jim Morrison's life and reviewing Chinese Democracy, even though it thoroughly shreds the album apart and gives descriptions that makes it clear he didn't actually listen to it. He is only good when working as the co-author of autobios, as he did with Mick Fleetwood's first book, Walk This Way and This Wheel's On Fire (though the latter contained Levon Helm's baseless accusations of Robbie Robertson stealing songwriting credits). For some reason, working as the ghostwriter for someone else shows a great concern for accuracy and truth, and his independent bios the exact opposite.

A close second would be Mick Wall. Sadly, he started out doing quite wonderful work, as his unauthorized bio of Axl Rose shows. His book When Gods Walked The Earth was a very wonderful look into Led Zeppelin, except for his trashing the Celebration Day O2 Arena concert and unfairly comparing it to the shows they did in their prime. However, he began to slide into Stephen Davis territory with his Metallica book, Enter Night, as he did nothing but tar everything after Master of Puppets, especially Death Magnetic, calling everything on it worthless (not just valid complaints like the "what doesn't kill you makes you more strong" line in Broken, Beat & Scarred and the compressed and artificially louder sound, but outright fabrications and inventions about the record). His recent Black Sabbath book is much better, but it focuses too much on the original Ozzy period. While he gives props to the Dio years, he simply lionizes and fetishes that original lineup to a ridiculous amount, even letting that cloud the results of 13. His newest book, Love Becomes A Funeral Pyre, on The Doors, is his absolute worst book. He simply states that everything we know about them is wrong, and gives alternate explanations, but without the evidence to prove it. He also vilifies Ray Manzarek well beyond his genuine, documented faults, and renders him as absolute scum who deserves to burn in hell.

But these are my thoughts. What about yours?

I think your first paragraph is beyond awesome. And it's hilarious on top of that.

Nice chuckle that the dude who wrote about how bad Metallica was after MAST OF PUPPETS named the book after a lyric from a song from an album that's post-MASTER OF PUPPETS.

It amazes me that these people were allowed to continue writing books on music with such track records (Hammer Of The Gods seems to be often cited for some things as being factual). But, like FOX News, facts can be invented. The guy that slammed Zep's CELEBRATION DAY O2 show obviously didn't bother to listen to it.

The trashing of CHINESE DEMOCRACY is probably accurate even without having listened to it ha ha!

At the moment I can't think of anyone that's written that bad other than Ronnie Wood, whose book is beyond painfully funny, and Tony Sanchez.

When I wrote my intro, I forgot to mention that I was referring only to people who write bios, not stars who've written their own book. That said, I'm curious to know what you thought was the problem with Ronnie's book (though I'm already aware of one, talking about an alleged meeting during John Lennon's househusband years (after Sean was born) where he, Keith and Ronnie did heroin and/or coke together, which is clearly untrue and Keith doesn't even bother to refute against in his own book).

I also disqualified Albert Goldman from the list, because though his only rock and roll tomes are Elvis and The Lives of John Lennon, the depth and extent of his massive distortions and slander simply cannot be topped.

You mentioned the recent book about Mick that was only tabloid trash. I agree that there was no business even printing it. Thank god for Philip Norman's book that came out a few months later.

As per Mick Wall, the curious thing is in his Zep book, he was actually in the audience in the O2 Arena for that show, and he was still unimpressed. He even said he preferred the shambolic Live Aid show over this one, simply because it "had more energy!" But like I said, he started out quite well with his work, but now basic fact-checking doesn't matter to him, and he now spends so much time letting his opinions color the material. Like I said, he hates all Metallica work post-Master of Puppets despite using a lyric from that period for the title, he overemphasizes and lionizes the original Ozzy period of Sabbath (though he trashes Technical Ecstasy as a worthless piece of shit) and gives only grudging appreciation for 13, and he simply states that the accepted history of The Doors is wrong, gives his own version, and doesn't provide any evidence to prove it. He also has such an axe to grind against Ray Manzarek that makes even John Densmore and his rewrites of history seem like kid gloves in comparison. Wall even has the gall to attack Ray's happy, fruitful 45-year marriage to his college sweetheart and claim that Oliver Stone's hatchet job of a film was truthful and that Ray's anger about the distortions was unwarranted.

if sharon osbourne writes a book about ozzy's career you can bet its the most lie filled book out there

Victor Bokris

Adam Clayson. His writing is dreadful, impossible to understand.

Quote
john lomax
Adam Clayson. His writing is dreadful, impossible to understand.

Yeah clayson gets my vote too.....

Quote
From4tilLate
Victor Bokris

In THE ANDY WARHOL DIARIES, Warhol mentions a friend at a magazine "trying to find out how you find new writers. And today she's having lunch with Victor Bockris to try to pick his brain. So she's scraping the bottom of every barrel."

Quote
detroitken

Quote
john lomax
Adam Clayson. His writing is dreadful, impossible to understand.

Yeah clayson gets my vote too.....

Yeah! I forgot all about him, but his books are realy, utterly terrible! So boring and a lot of pages not about the subject, but about other musicians. That wouldn't be so terrible, if his books were not that short.

I have tried to read his Keith and Jagger books, but I got the feeling after reading one very boring Keith book, that the other was just the same, only a couple of changes to fit it more for Mick.

I have also a book about Charlie written by him, but it's too much to ask trying to read that one too, after the first two.

All his other books about the Stones I didn't bought anymore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-13 20:39 by GJV.

To me, no one will ever compare to Laura Jackson, who wrote a bio of Brian, Golden Stone, and a bio of Mick, Heart of Stone. Aside from being a laughably bad writer - never have I seen more hopeless, cliché-ridden writing - her determination to enshrine Brian through demonising Mick is astounding. She glosses over Brian's much-verified abuse of others. She really seems to hate Mick.

However - to give her her due - she was the first to name Frank Thorogood as the most likely culprit in Brian's murder.

I have hundreds of shitty ones so why not concentrate on them thats really good? Like for example Scaduto's Dylan-bio...

2 1 2 0

My nomination is...

Geoffrey Giuliano

(Not really disagreeing about Clayson, which is a shame as his early books were good).

Turning the thread on its head, one of the best Rock authors I've ever read was Tony Fletcher who wrote an excellent book about Keith Moon.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
CaptainCorella
My nomination is...

Geoffrey Giuliano

(Not really disagreeing about Clayson, which is a shame as his early books were good).

Turning the thread on its head, one of the best Rock authors I've ever read was Tony Fletcher who wrote an excellent book about Keith Moon.

Thank you! If I am faced with choosing between Davis and Giuliano it will be the latter I reed...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
I have hundreds of shitty ones so why not concentrate on them thats really good? Like for example Scaduto's Dylan-bio...

And Scaduto followed up the Dylan travesty with "Everybody's Lucifer." Double dumpster fire on that clown.

Quote
Jesse1960

Quote
Come On
I have hundreds of shitty ones so why not concentrate on them thats really good? Like for example Scaduto's Dylan-bio...

And Scaduto followed up the Dylan travesty with "Everybody's Lucifer." Double dumpster fire on that clown.

Really So he lost it...

2 1 2 0

"Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger" by Christopher Andersen is by far the worst bio I have ever read. In fact it is probably the worst book I have ever read. It is only about Mick's love affairs with women and largely with men, that the author keeps on claiming Mick has slept with. According to him. I have read Stephen Davis' Old Gods Almost Dead, which is a great book compared to the one by Andersen. I have thrown it into garbage when I finished it, which I have never done with any other book. I still don't understand why I spent my time on reading it.

Quote
Turner68
eric clapton's autobiography was pretty horrendous, although i don't know who wrote that.

I have actually really liked that one

Quote
From4tilLate
Victor Bokris

I second that...

Quote
Come On

Quote
Jesse1960

Quote
Come On
I have hundreds of shitty ones so why not concentrate on them thats really good? Like for example Scaduto's Dylan-bio...

And Scaduto followed up the Dylan travesty with "Everybody's Lucifer." Double dumpster fire on that clown.

Really So he lost it...

Everybody's Lucifer: 1974, is basically Marianne Faithful's recall of people and events given during a time when she was a junkie doing whatever she had to obtain a fix. Scaduto preyed on her situation, and somehow( most likely due to his Dylan courtesy of Al Aronowitz bs bio)managed to have the ruminations of an at the time full blown junkie published.

Quote
Happy24

Quote
Turner68
eric clapton's autobiography was pretty horrendous, although i don't know who wrote that.

I have actually really liked that one

me too

Quote
Happy24
"Mick: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger" by Christopher Andersen is by far the worst bio I have ever read. In fact it is probably the worst book I have ever read. It is only about Mick's love affairs with women and largely with men, that the author keeps on claiming Mick has slept with. According to him. I have read Stephen Davis' Old Gods Almost Dead, which is a great book compared to the one by Andersen. I have thrown it into garbage when I finished it, which I have never done with any other book. I still don't understand why I spent my time on reading it.

That's probably an updated version of his earlier published book "Jagger Unautorished", which I have read in the 1990's and is for me one of the worst books about the Stones I have ever read.

Gee, I hope I never end up on this thread (when I do publish a book).