Re: The dark stuff
Date: May 15, 2007 00:05
I had a run-in with Gazza about this (our only disagreement). I think the book's one of the best books written about modern music this side of Nick Tosches' Hellfire. Shawn Levy's Ratpack Confidential, Albert Goldman's Elvis (yes, yes, I know, it was cruel and twisted and deceitful - and that's just the author - and had nothing much about the music, and Peter Guralnick's books were better (indeed they were), but it was a groundbreaking book). Gazza took exception to the apocryphal tale of Keith biffing ron when he fell asleep on stage at Wembley in '82. Gazza and I were both there and - well, I didn't see it, and neither did anyone else?
Does this, therefore, make Nick Kent full of s.hit? Yes and no. He has a singular (and, in my opinion) flawed take on artists' output. He wrote a blinkered review of The Clash's Sandinista when it came out, and dismisses Some Girls along with everything the Stones released after Exile.
The Sly Stone piece is great, but Fresh was an underrated album, he doesn't fully grasp the dark warped genius that is There's A Riot Goin' On, and, yes, Sly's subsequent output was deeply flawed, but it had its moments.
In short, don't read The Dark Stuff if you want serious music journalism. Kent is a failed musician - literally: he was in a band which splintered and became the Sex Pistols, then reconvened into a Television tribute act. His opinions on albums will infuriate hardened fans.
And don't really read the book for serious character appraisals of the people he writes about. This is literate tabloid stuff, full of drugs, dementia, booze, sex and scandal. It's highbrow muchracking. It's tits and tokes for the chattering classes.
But guess what? I f.ucking love it! Buy it and weep!