Nick Hornby's 'Songbook' : A Mix Tape in Prose

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
(With apologies for length)

February 16, 2003
Nick Hornby's 'Songbook': A Mix Tape in Prose
By GERALD MARZORATI

SONGBOOK
By Nick Hornby.
Illustrated by Marcel Dzama.
147 pp. San Francisco: McSweeney's Books. $26 (includes CD).
[!] Mentalites is one of those terrific contemporary French terms that suavely reduce to a word what remains difficult to say in an ungainly English sentence or two. When employed, mostly by cultural historians, it is meant to convey a given society's worldview and sensibility, along with the more inward habits of thought and feeling as they develop among ordinary men and women during particular historical m
oments. In a way, these historians are doing the work we have come to expect from good novelists: delineating the cultural manifestations, practices and shifts of a given epoch through the detailed stories of individuals, and exploring how those manifestations, practices and shifts -- fairy tales, joke telling, the rising importance of newspapers -- shape interior life.

A hundred, two hundred years from now, a historian of our mentalite might well want to investigate the role played by recordings of popular music. How did those four-minute songs, listened to while driving or walking, at gatherings or in the privacy of a bedroom, by youths especially (or those wishing to feel youthful); heard over and over again and then abandoned (but never forgotten) for new songs (and what heralds newness, exactly?); these songs, the tens of thousands of them: how did they bind people together culturally, and how did they resound in the deepest reaches of the self?

That historian's work will be made a whole lot easier if Nick Hornby is still in print. Hornby's ''High Fidelity,'' published in 1995, is a great English comic novel, but also an extraordinarily perceptive inquiry into the ways pop music can shape and bend being. From the book's first sentence, it's frighteningly (and hilariously) clear that Rob, the 30-something narrator, has gravely internalized the habitudes of rock: he's essentially reduced the failed romances of his youth to ''my desert-island, all-time, top five most memorable split-ups.'' Records are more than his job, though he does own a not-quite-for-profit north London shop for the discerning collector of vinyl, and they are more than what keeps him company, though he is lonely enough to spend too many evenings reorganizing his own vast collection. Listening to records day in, day out, has, in a very real sense, reordered his temperament, as Rob himself comes to understand: ''Maybe we all live life at too high a pitch, those of us who absorb emotional things all day, and as a consequence we can never feel merely content: we have to be unhappy, or ecstatically, head-over-heels happy. . . . Maybe Al Green is directly responsible for more than I ever realized.'' That, as any music freak would acknowledge, is a No. 1 all-time insight.

Rob is an extreme case, true -- how many guys find it comforting that no one can figure out that their records are arranged according to the date of purchase? -- but it's the intensity of his syndrome that is rare, not its instance. That, essentially, is the theme Hornby develops variations on in the 26 brief essays, each devoted to a pop recording or two, that constitute his small, singular and delightfully passionate new book. ''Songbook'' is a kind of prose equivalent of a mix-tape -- as the cover, with its evocation of a hand-labeled jewel-case insert, beautifully imparts. The writing isn't music criticism: Hornby isn't all that interested in trends in music, or the unfolding careers of the artists making the music, or the discourse, such as it is, about music. He is interested in -- no, taken by -- songs.

He hears Nelly Furtado's ''I'm Like a Bird'' on the radio, buys the CD and listens to it 10 or 15 times a day. He is sure he will be tired of it in a few weeks, tops, but for now its sheer freshness, the sense of change and possibility that it conveys, is enough: ''The point is that a few months ago it didn't exist . . . and now here it is, and that, in itself, is a small miracle.'' Then, as he sits in a doctor's waiting room one day, another miracle: four Afro-Caribbean girls sitting across from him begin singing the song together. He felt for a moment ''as though we all lived in the same world'' -- which is not pop criticism but pop theology. Actually, more than once in ''Songbook'' Hornby writes of records as vehicles for approaching something like the divine: ''I try not to believe in God, of course, but sometimes things happen in music, in songs, that bring me up short, make me do a double take.'' What will the ''explicit content'' scolds make of that?!?

But back to earth: songs, Hornby observes, can make you aware of your complacency (Led Zeppelin's ''Heartbreaker''). Songs can reinforce your ignoble sense of self-pity (Aimee Mann's ''I've Had It''). Songs don't tend to remind you of specific places or lovers, unless you are someone who doesn't care enough about songs. All songs remind you of, if you love them, is of themselves, and of yourself -- ''that is to say, of nothing much and too much.'' The song that especially does that for Hornby is Bruce Springsteen's ''Thunder Road,'' which he has listened to, he figures, about 1,500 times.

The subtext of ''Songbook'' is that Hornby has entered middle age, and still wouldn't think of hauling his records up to the attic. He can't stand it when his friends start going on about how they've tired of pop and discovered the oh-so-grown-up satisfactions of classical music -- ''shouldn't we be sick of the 'Moonlight' Sonata by now?'' He goes through a painful divorce, and Jackson Browne for the first time sounds bearable to him -- more than bearable, soulful. Intimations of mortality provide an excellent reason to consider what recording he'd like to have played at his funeral: Van Morrison's ''Caravan,'' the version on ''It's Too Late to Stop Now,'' that is, though he does worry whether the string-section bit will be taken by those friends of his as a sign of a deathbed conversion to classical.

His one profound worry, in truth, is his young son, Danny, who is autistic and can barely communicate. (Proceeds from the book benefit children's educational organizations in London and San Francisco.) Danny's relationship to music is different from his dad's, but, not surprisingly, no less intense: he has to listen before he goes to sleep at night, he wanders the house with a portable cassette player, the volume cranked, and he goes to his room sometimes to listen to songs more carefully, his head lowered onto his player's speaker. What can he be hearing? What can the music be saying to him? Perhaps, Hornby suggests, what Danny is listening so intently for is that something everyone longs for from a song -- that ''something in him that he wants others to articulate.''

Gerald Marzorati is the editorial director of The Times Magazine.

Yay/Nay?

I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Monday, 17 February 2003 05:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Matos to thread!

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 17 February 2003 05:07 (twenty-three years ago)

if you think the book is boring, wait'll you hear the CD

M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 February 2003 06:01 (twenty-three years ago)

but isn't "Frakie Teardrop" on it? and "Push It/No Fun"?

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 17 February 2003 06:10 (twenty-three years ago)

just read the actual review. it's much better written than anything in the book. I am impelled to point out, however, that when Marzorati sez "What will the 'explicit content' scolds make of that?!?" he surely must be thinking of the part in Songbook where Hornby outlines his listening process: "It is only when you know and love a band that you become the kind of music critic that every magazine and newspaper should employ. I have been doing some writing about pop for The New Yorker over the last couple of years, a gig that necessitates having hundreds of CDs you don't want thrust through your letter box every morning...My usual response to these unwanted CDs is as follows: a) I look at the cover. If it has a parental advisory sticker, and the artist is called something like Thuggsy Breakskull, or PusShit, I don't play it. Nor do I bother if the artist in question is pretty, or has big hair, or is snarling, or has blood coming out of his or her nose, or looks like he or she has appeared in a teen soap [[I must interrupt here--what the hell is a teen soap? *Dawson's Creek*?]], or looks very old, or looks very young, or simply vaguely clueless (a complex judgment, this last one [[another interruption--none of your other judgments seem that complex, why start now?]], and possibly not one I can describe coherently--something to do with the eyebrows, I think, although occasionally there is a helpful tattoo, or smile, or sneer, or item of headwear), or records for a label that I don't like."

It goes on, but you get the idea.

M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 February 2003 06:14 (twenty-three years ago)

and to think I rented About A Boy tonight (it was a freebie, and I ended up watching Oz, but still)

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 17 February 2003 06:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I like his novels fine (well, High Fidelity and About a Boy, i.e. the ones I've read). I just think he should never write about pop again.

M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 February 2003 06:23 (twenty-three years ago)

A teen soap would be the two key Australian soaps shown over here (Neighbours and Home And Away) and homegrown items like Hollyoaks - plus the teen characters from the so called adult soaps. There is a grand tradition in the UK of these actors going off and making relatively cookie cutter pop songs trading on their previous fame.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 17 February 2003 10:02 (twenty-three years ago)

ah. sort of like Dawson's Creek here, then. so I wasn't too far off. just wanted to clear up the terminology; thanks Pete.

M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 February 2003 10:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Dawson's Creek has much higher production values though, and also is series and weekly based. The UK soaps are on at least three times a week (five times for the Aussie ones). But the theory (attractiveyoung things living their lives) is much the same.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 17 February 2003 10:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Having made wild claims about Hornby and post-punk paradigms I now need to read this thing - has anyone got a copy they can lend me?

Tom (Groke), Monday, 17 February 2003 10:41 (twenty-three years ago)

My usual response to unwanted books is as follows: a) I look at the cover. If the artist is called Nick Hornby I don't read it.

Archel (Archel), Monday, 17 February 2003 11:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Jesus. That bit about not listening to CDs has totally put me off the man. I worked for him a few years ago (on "About a Boy") and he was totally delightful. I like his books. But how can he think like that? OR is it the persona in the book that's thinking like that?

Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 17 February 2003 12:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hold up though - isn't this the way we all listen to music. While we might be paying for this we feel this is a satisfactory judgement to make. But he is paying for it in time - and if he can choose what he wants to review from this flood then why should he waste his time on stuff that admittedly he is prejudice against but also his predjudices will mark him out as not knowing much about.

I think its a wholly defensible position couched in honest if misguided language.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 17 February 2003 12:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Pete has a point. You can't listen to everything.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 17 February 2003 12:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, he goes on: "Sometimes--although admittedly not often--I turn the CD over, to check song titles, song lengths, occasionally the name of a producer, hoping something will lead me to conclude that this album is Not For Me--that it's for teens, or squares, or ravers, or headbangers, or conservatives, or anarchists, or just about anyone other than a forty-four-year-old who lives in North London and likes Nelly Furtado and Bruce Springsteen. If I still haven't managed to form an antagonistic prejudice, then (b) I look at the press release. If it uses as a comparison any of the approximately three hundred thousand names whose music I don't have time for (and it usually does, because my three hundred thousand names have been very carefully chosen), well, I don't play it then, either. So very, very few albums make it as far as step c), which is wehre I actually put the fucking thing in the CD player and listen to it."

Here's the thing: I review records for a living, and I certainly go through something like what Hornby describes here every day. I'm not saying he's wrong to be choosey, or that I don't have plenty of prejudices of my own (God knows), or that he isn't trying to some degree to take the piss out of himself to some degree (he's talking about a friend's band in the piece I quoted, and goes on to say that if you know him and have a band he will listen to every single thing you have ever recorded), or saying "what a square this guy is." But there's something that cuts really close to the bone about all this for me--it is the language, and the smugness of it, and the idea that anything that Isn't Meant Specifically For Nick Hornby is therefore Not Worth Nick Hornby's Time. Part of it is that there are quite a few records I've liked in various ways--from learning interesting things from them to flat-out loving them--that don't necessarily fall in the purview of what some people might think of as Music Meant Specifically For M. Matos. What I object to is the implication that if it's Not Aimed At Nick Hornby than it's Automatically Dismissable For Everyone, something he did explicitly in his New Yorker review of Kid A, where he complained about rock albums that actually required or inspired in-depth listening on the part of their audiences, the kind of thing N.H. just doesn't have time for (and with good reason, he has a child with a severe disability). Irritation with things you don't understand is natural, but it's not a worldview, or shouldn't be.

M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 February 2003 12:58 (twenty-three years ago)

[strike one of those "to some degree" to some degree please.]

M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 February 2003 12:59 (twenty-three years ago)

actually, "don't understand" is kind of grandstand-y and pompous, so let me rephrase that. He understands why an album like Kid A is popular; he just resented Radiohead for making something that required more work than most busy adults had time to give it, which just seems wrong to me: even if you don't like the album, it seems more laudable to give a large, devoted audience something to sink their ears into since that's what a lot of them are going to do anyway. maybe it's immodest, maybe it's not a good record (though I like it), but it's generous in a way that Hornby's criticism of it is not. and quite a lot of the sour taste that piece of writing and others he did for The New Yorker (especially the top-ten albums one) has remained for me reading Songbook, which on its own is mostly just...trite, hard to care about one way or the other.

all right, I'm finished now, promise.

M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:04 (twenty-three years ago)

But the way Hornby efficiently dispatches very wide swathes of the musicworld is just gross. An effective critic understands his prejudices; Hornby succumbs to them, then passes this off as some kind of twinkly-eyed wit.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Umm...sorry, I was responding to Ptee and Tom up there.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:14 (twenty-three years ago)

No - I agree. The way he writes about it is both obvious and smug, and perhaps a short precis of it should be infront of every musical review we read of his.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:25 (twenty-three years ago)

it's men-behaving-badly syndrome really

mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Matos, you are totally OTM. Please find your way to the "my favourite posters" section.

(of course, what I'm really saying is that *my* favourite posters should be everyone else's favourite posters too :p)

Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 17 February 2003 17:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Thank you, all of you but especially Matos, for the feedback on this book - I have enjoyed "About a Boy" and "High Fidelity" and even that one about soccer...but detested the "How to Be Good" gunk. Therefore, I was uncertain about this one - I think I shall avoid it, at least until it makes it to my local library and I can browse through it myself.

I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Monday, 17 February 2003 20:48 (twenty-three years ago)

"He hears Nelly Furtado's ''I'm Like a Bird'' on the radio, buys the CD and listens to it 10 or 15 times a day."

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 17 February 2003 20:54 (twenty-three years ago)

anyone who uses the term "squares" seriously in 2002: kill yourself

sock it to me, big daddy, etc etc *vomits*

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 17 February 2003 21:09 (twenty-three years ago)

jess you're such a dodecahedron

Michael B, Monday, 17 February 2003 21:12 (twenty-three years ago)

don't be L7 jess!

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 17 February 2003 21:15 (twenty-three years ago)

see, if he had said "L7's", i'd have loved him forever

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 17 February 2003 21:20 (twenty-three years ago)

What I object to is the implication that if it's Not Aimed At Nick Hornby than it's Automatically Dismissable For Everyone, something he did explicitly in his New Yorker review of Kid A, where he complained about rock albums that actually required or inspired in-depth listening on the part of their audiences

Yeh, Matos, but he's writing for the fuckin' New Yorker, for people who want some guidance. People who are a little insecure about their own tastes. Isn't this the piece where he takes apart what Radiohead really do, musically--the whole prog-rock thing?
Plus, you don't have to work to understand Radiohead's "Kid A." Just let it wash over you, like Pink Floyd. I mean, really, that's not work as I was brought up to understand the term.

I regard writers like Hornby as a menace to society. Shut up already. There are people who do the whole nostalgia trip much better than he does it, who actually project themselves into the situation. He's such a sentimentalist. Good for him, though--he's made his money.

frank p. jones (frank p. jones), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 00:01 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.