what do you think of Jon Savage?

-- J.D. (aubade8...), November 13th, 2005.

is this not a "little" disingenuous though? mcewan comes from, i would guess, a quite similar background to savage, as it happens.

but the idea that mid-'70s new york rock was not "incredibly small, and inward-looking clique" is just hilariously dumb. patti smith is at least as vile as amis -- and i like them both.

england's dreaming really shook me out of a "no music" phase I was going through. he's probably my fave music writer just for the effect that one book had on me. I recently found that time travel anthology, haven't really had time to dip in yet though.

No further info on the Hac story, Matos. And frankly I have no idea what I was thinking here, because in it I say that I read something of Savage's in NewOrderStory, which is a film.

I would cut off a toe to read the Hac book.

Any Vagues are worth picking up and reading if you can find them, I particulatly love "The West Eleven Days of my Life".

Also: the book Teenage that he's working on is supposedly about youth culture from the turn of the century? Haven't really heard a lot about it.

Surely this could be better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Savage

Hey, apparently that Haçienda Must Be Built book even has a Fac number!

Vague back issues, and the anthology The Great British Mistake: Vague 1977-92 (Savage interview included), are available from AK Press, it looks like.

also looking fwd to the gay-pop-thru-the-ages comp he's putting together for this year, also on Trikont

That comp thing sounds fantastic!

Also:

http://69.93.254.120/G/storage/site1/files/24/51/42/245142_76323876e8d154tarctm06.jpg

Has anyone here read "Teenage" yet ?

I'll start paying attention to Jon Savage when he acknowledges that The Stranglers and The Jam were as great as any bands that were around at the time, the former outlasting most of those punk bands considerably and The Jam going on to become incredibly big in the UK in the early '80s.

You may have a long wait, here he is in England's Dreaming:

Punk was politically riven as it interacted with the world outside. If the Jam and the Stranglers were going to coast in the slipstream of the Sex Pistols, then it was not surprising if they were judged on the same radical criteria and found wanting. Despite the element of novelty in both groups, there were also strong traces of stylistic and/or ideological conservatism which made them a satisfactory bridge between the mainstream and Punk’s all-out assault.

Yeah, I'm aware of his "stance" on both bands, and have always thought it was complete bullshit. If one listens to Never Mind The Bollocks and Black and White back-to-back, it's apparent which one sounds the most musically "conservative", and it ain't The Stranglers. IMO, the Pistols' music was far more monochrome by comparison, and both bands had a lot of attitude. Yes, The Jam were influenced by '60s acts, I don't think they ever denied that. However, surely not even Jon Savage can deny that that band meant a hell of a lot to a lot of people in the late '70s/early '80s, and if he does, then he's full of shit... and if he's implying that "punk was meant to be new", and that the Sex Pistols weren't influenced by anything and came about in a vacuum, then he's also full of shit. IMO, of course.

have you actually read his books?

https://thequietus.com/articles/30314-jon-savage-englands-dreaming-teenage-1966-owen-hatherley-interview

His perspective is so thought-provoking and really resonates with me.

That was a very interesting interview. Makes me want to read Teenage, but not 1966. England's Dreaming I've had for years.

1966 is pretty solid, I'd say give that a whirl. And yes to England's Dreaming, had the paperback run of that forever -- picked it up in 1992 when I visited the UK for the first time.

more than "pretty solid", 1966 is his best book IMO -- the interview doesn't really do it justice bcz it gets derailed into a (yes justified but also irrelevant) hate-fest against the very bad tory social historian dominic sandbrook

(this also means the much trickier question that hatherley asks -- abt the left-revisionist treatment of the 70s (historians beckett and edgerton) -- doesn't get explored)