I read a review of this particular book which said he excluded The Grateful Dead as he didn't like them, but Genesis and Jethro Tull are in it!

 

How odd; just got to the section on SF based bands and literally reading about Grateful Dead this morning! He is quite precise about his definition of psychedelic rock, which however, enables him to pull in many other bands which may not seem likely candidates. In his defense he does get more selective (with the constraints of his definition) when it comes to a "psychedelic rock album library", evenso again listing bands that need good explanations for their inclusion. Amused that prog becomes part of psychedelia rather tthan vice versa. Finding the occasional use and then abandonment of chronology in favour of geographical location, muddying the coherence of 'when' as well as 'where' - so I seem to be working too hard think who might of influenced whom?

 

I'm increasingly getting frustrated by a seemingly lack of stable time lines (or ordered chronology), other than the book seeming to be going from ~1965 to the late 90's, but  we are jumped backwards and forwards during the first decade of the psychedelic movement, based  on vaguely geographical/vaguely sub-genre threads. I would suggest a need for at least one rock family tree to demonstate far more fully inter-relationships.

 

I am also concern at the number of relatively extensive quotes taken from references, especially in defining genres and sub-genres, hey we get that line that Macan takes (in Rocking The Classics) that early progressive rock is an exclusively English thing. Even so, here there is vagueness wrt what psychedelia is, and what psychedelia isn't  - although I get a clear impression DeRogatis knows his type of psychedelia when he hears it but doesn't communicate it that well to the reader.  Remembering I've only got to page 200, so far there appears to be a wholesale dismissal of jazz-based psychedelia. This must be bad news to labels such as Warners, who have issued several compilations with "psychedelic jazz" somewhere in the title:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B00005RG5M/sr=8-4/qid=1215003902/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=229816&s=music&qid=1215003902&sr=8-4"> http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000A3OWTM/sr=8-2/qid=1215003902/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=229816&s=music&qid=1215003902&sr=8-2">

and those of us aware of the work by Free Spirits, Charlies Lloyd, Count's Rock Band, John McLaughlin's Devotion, perhaps Herbie Mann, etc. (Indeed, me thinks from various statements in the book, jazz isn't DeRogatis's favourite music).  And I do wish American and other "foreign" authors would make the effort to understand more about societies that are not their own, if they are going write about them, e.g. we get told Jonathon King "graduated" from Charterhouse School (a "high school"???) - it's about time DeRogatis and others realised we Brits only 'graduate 'having passed a degree at university - Jonathan King in fact was an "ex-pupil" of Charterhouse School.

 

There is a huge amount in this book, and clearly the author has great enthusiasm for the subject -  but I don't feel this book is an easy read nor an easy way to absorb information. Evenso it has hooked me to keep on reading. At least in his favour he does quote discussions he has had with people, for instance those who weren't happy of his 'rejection' of the Grateful Dead in the book's first edition - but there also seems a need to have the last word on the subject; but okay this is his book. BTW I do really agree with his assessment of Pink Floyd - but I can be selective too.

 

More  later.

 

(typos and English corrected 1 Aug)

 

I think the writing style eventually gets repetitious and tedious (I got to feel too often I'm reading a shopping list rather than being entertained and informed); even dealing with new (and to largely unfamiliar) bands  he has been failing to turn me on. But then with bands I know, I can't often make out the author's justification for calling  many them 'psychedelic'.

 

I'm reinforced in my feeling that the author clearly knows in his mind what a 'psychedelic band 'is when he hears one (and one that isn't) but can't fully communicate this.  Similarly, I know what a progressive or jazz fusion band is when I hear one (and vice versa), so I can make my case, up to a point. But music being so abstract and without aid of musical examples (and I'm not enthused enough to go out and buy to samples) , then it can be very difficult to justify all the bands listed.