Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackie Blue]

Why do people like this book?  It's boring.  It has information that is sometimes downright wrong and sometimes annoyingly just wrong enough to be really stupid.  Its historical context value is suspect given that it focuses so ass-kissingly on certain people or concepts (I mean, really, did Greg Ginn pay Azerrad for every mention of his name?) and its eye-rolling namedrop-conceits are somewhere between "Teaser trailer for Our Band Could Be Your Life 2" and "I'm sorry, I'm trying to write a book about dirty noisy rock, here".  The latter is especially ridiculous given that the book is subtitled "scenes from THE American Indie underground" when it patently ignores pretty much literally 95% of said underground - and I don't mean 95% of the bands, I mean 95% of the varied underground styles and movements.

I guess it would be a little more understandable if the book were called "How Punk Turned Into Grunge: Prelude to Nirvana", because frankly, that's what it basically is.

Besides all that, it's boring, has far too much preachy rambling about a subject that, I suspect, the author doesn't honestly care or know that much about (that his journalistic background is "Rolling Stone, Revolver and SPIN" and two books about Nirvana/grunge) and ironically smacks of the corporate appropriation that the introduction posits as a negative force that these bands fought against.

Bleh.

[KharBevNor]

But DUDE! It's a book! Books are intellectual! And it is about Minutemen and Mission of Burma and Black Flag, which are PUNX!

IT IS BOTH INTELLECTUAL AND PUNX.







IT SHOULD REPLACE THE BIBLE AS THE CENTRAL NARRATIVE OF WESTERN CIVILISATION OMG.

[Jackie Blue]

Hahahaha.  Sigged.

(My favorite part, paraphrased: "Sonic Youth (circa 1985) were even sometimes considered "industrial", before that term had much meaning."  Uh, no, "industrial" was pretty well-defined in the mid to late 70s, sir, and only a toolbag from Rolling Stone could possibly consider calling them that.)

[Spinless]

It's just a book that talks about some popular bands in their original context! You guys are silly.

People are going to defend it, I hope that you can defend your post without using the word 'stupid'!

[MusicScribbles]

Now: Defend yourself!

[Jackie Blue]

...are you being serious, tommy?

Really?

I'll admit I laughed at a lot of the stories (especially a stoned Lou Barlow bumping into J Mascis right after Nirvana blew up and telling him that Dinosaur Jr. could have done it and didn't because J is a douchebag) but the book is more than the stories.  If the book were JUST the stories I'd probably like it, though I'd still say that it focuses entirely on, for lack of a better term, "pre-grunge" music and ignores literally everything else that was happening in the 80s.

Maybe it's an age thing, I've never heard anybody over the age of 25 or so say anything positive about it.

EDIT:

It's just a book that talks about some popular bands in their original context!

But my contention is that it presents itself as being more than just that, that many people take it as being more than just that, and that it contains factual errors and hack-journalistic writing.  Hence my question being "Why do people like it?" because I honestly can't understand why.

[KvP]

No offense, zerodrone, but it seems like every time you post you seem agitated and outraged about something. I don't see what the big deal is.

[a pack of wolves]

...are you being serious, tommy?

Really?

I'll admit I laughed at a lot of the stories (especially a stoned Lou Barlow bumping into J Mascis right after Nirvana blew up and telling him that Dinosaur Jr. could have done it and didn't because J is a douchebag) but the book is more than the stories.  If the book were JUST the stories I'd probably like it, though I'd still say that it focuses entirely on, for lack of a better term, "pre-grunge" music and ignores literally everything else that was happening in the 80s.

Maybe it's an age thing, I've never heard anybody over the age of 25 or so say anything positive about it.

EDIT:

It's just a book that talks about some popular bands in their original context!

But my contention is that it presents itself as being more than just that, that many people take it as being more than just that, and that it contains factual errors and hack-journalistic writing.  Hence my question being "Why do people like it?" because I honestly can't understand why.

It's a non-fiction and non-academic book, so unfortunately it will present itself as being more than it is. 'Scenes from the American indie underground' just sounds better than a plain description of it and given the nature of marketing that's what they'll go for. I'm not saying I like it but I'd be very surprised if you could find a book in a similar genre from a commercial publisher that didn't do something extremely similar, so unless you want to stick to academia (which has its own problems) you'll have to live with this kind of thing.

As for the factual errors, I don't remember any but your industrial example proves there were some (I know about as much about industrial as Azerrad apparently does). Again, not a good thing at all but also something I'd be surprised not to see in a book of this kind so I'm willing to accept them.

Hack-journalistic writing? Hmm, I do see what you mean about Azerrad's style. I don't mind it myself but there you go.

Fundamentally, I suppose it boils down to what Tommy said. If you write a better book about some of my favourite bands of all time like the Minutemen, Black Flag and Minor Threat then I and a lot of other people will no doubt dearly love it, but at the moment there isn't much competition and Our Band... stands out as being very superior to what there is. If you know of anything about similar bands that you believe to be better I'd love to know.

[KvP]

I see. Maybe it's because I haven't been here for very long. Or maybe it's because everything I worship is incredibly bland, which is very possible.

[Jackie Blue]

More importantly, Greg Ginn started SST. This label put out records by the Meat Puppets, Sonic Youth, the Minutemen, Saccharine Trust, Husker Du and Dinosaur Jr. Regardless of what you think of these bands, they were a gigantic influence on a lot of bands you probably quite like. Without Greg Ginn's persistence and strange lunacy in this particular aspect of his life, I don't think SST would have been possible. Without SST we would not have many of the bands or labels we have enjoyed since.

I understand that, what I'm saying is that there was so much more happening than "the SST thing".

Can you at least admit that the focus of the book is extremely narrow?

As for "other books that do it better".  Well, how about Get In the Van?  How about Confusion Is Next?  How about any book written by people who were actually there instead of a rock journalist?

[a pack of wolves]

Get In The Van is an interesting book, but it's doing something very different to Our Band Could Be Your Life. Its focus is even more narrow as it only deals with them on tour, and often not a lot except Henry Rollins being all bitter and hate-filled. I haven't read Confusion Is Next, I'll look into it.

[Alex C]

I'm torn. I don't give a crap about the title (but, in all honesty, I hate hardcore, so I'm inclined to believe just about any portrayal of the bands of the genre as somewhat grandiose) and some of the tales are interesting. On the other hand, yeah, the writing style wore on me. Then again, I'd been reading a lot of old Halberstam and Gladwell articles when I checked that book out, so I can't help but think I may have been inadvertently holding it up to a ridiculously high standard.

[KharBevNor]

Incidentally, I don't think the age thing holds water because on Electrical Audio the vote is 93% in favour. The overwhelming majority of people on EA are over 30 at least.

The overwhelming majority of people on EA probably know people from the bands talked about as well. Not exactly an un-biased sample!

[Joseph]

I look for this book in every single bookstore I go into, and I've yet to have success in tracking it down.  I suppose one of these days I'm going to have to go and order a bunch of stuff on Amazon and pick it up.

Zerodrone, I was wondering if you could possibly provide more examples of where the book is inaccurate.  Just some things to keep in mind when I do manage to find a copy.

[JimmyJazz]

Even though the rest of Black Flag's discography is utter shit, I think Damaged is an incredible album.

Don't hurt me.

[ScrambledGregs]

This thread is essentially "bait indie rock fans into getting angry and have yet another pointless argument about music" so I'm just going to say the following and walk away: if you can look me in the eye and say that Sonic Youth are neither a good band nor important to popular music, you're either a liar or an idiot.

[Joseph]

Gregs, I am utterly baffled as to where you are getting the impression that what you put above is the subject of the thread.

[David_Dovey]

I listen to a lot of bands that I otherwise wouldn't have known about and enjoyed if it wasn't for this book. For that it deserves at least some kudos.

EDIT: OK so that's really got nothing to do with the actual topic but goddamn Mission of Burma and The Minutemen are fuckin rawk

[Jackie Blue]

This thread is essentially "bait indie rock fans into getting angry and have yet another pointless argument about music" so I'm just going to say the following and walk away: if you can look me in the eye and say that Sonic Youth are neither a good band nor important to popular music, you're either a liar or an idiot.

No, that's not what this thread is because I am as much as an "indie rock fan" as you or anyone else on this forum, and probably moreso than many, and I honestly have never heard anyone that isn't under 25 AND on a music forum say anything positive about this book at all.  Seriously.  And I know a lot of people who listen to every band in the book.  And I don't know what the damn you're talking about with the Sonic Youth thing, I didn't say anything about the bands the book talks about, just the book itself.

Anyway, I'll say again that the scope of the book is just too narrow.  I was buying SST albums in the 80s, and I distinctly remember there being a lot more going on than the types of music this book talks about.

The selections are pretty dubious, too.  Black Flag?  Really?  He should have just called that chapter "Greg Ginn" or "SST" because as a band, I'd say that X was slightly more infuential.  His po-faced quoting of Black Flag's laughably asinine lyrics doesn't help his case, either.

And seriously, Beat Happening?  Beat fucking Happening?  Tacking them on to the end of the book as some kind of concession that "Hey, this book isn't JUST about pre-grunge music and boys.  Really."

The glaring lack of The Violent Femmes is also pretty insane.  Yes, I know, "You can't put everyone in the book" but The Violent Femmes were more influential and important than Beat Happening or the Butthole Surfers or Mudhoney (and I'm an huge Butthole Surfers fan).

Anyway, it's really all about the fact that dude is a bad writer and a bad journalist.  It doesn't help that he completel sugar-coats the Greg Ginn/SST thing, either, because Greg Ginn is notoriously a complete asshole who very often didn't pay the bands what they were owed and sometimes completely fucked bands over to the point of bankruptcy (Negativland?  Hello?)  In fact, this is the only bio-book I've read that mentions him and doesn't have a lot of quotes from band members about how much they hate him - particularly odd in the cases of Sonic Youth and Butthole Surfers, since there are whole chapters about them and coincidentally doesn't have any of them quoted as saying anything against Ginn, when Gibby Haynes and Lee Ranaldo have been two of the most outspoken anti-Ginn and anti-SST people of all.

[a pack of wolves]

Actually, Our Band Could Be Your Life is where I found out that SST would very often not pay bands and that Sonic Youth moved to a major in large part because of its failures. He doesn't gloss over it to anything near the degree you're suggesting. He admittedly doesn't attack Ginn for it himself but I'm not sure how productive that would be in any case. These things are definitely in there though.

I disagree about X being slightly more influential too. I suppose it depends on what you're interested in to some extent and as someone who likes hardcore and DIY music in general Black Flag are a far bigger deal, and the same goes for Beat Happening. Their approach to music was as significant for the DIY aesthetic as Dischord's so I regard them as a hugely influential band. I don't think you've given very compelling reasons why either of these bands should be left out, and I also just don't see how anything with a broader scope could avoid being either very shallow or just a plain disorganised mess.

[Ernest]

No offense, zerodrone, but it seems like every time you post you seem agitated and outraged about something. I don't see what the big deal is.

This is the funniest thing I've read all year.  Sigged


Seriously though, I'm somewhere between Tommy and Zero.  I loved some of the chapters, thought others were okay, and others pointless and stupid.

I thought Azerrad did a really good job on Mission of Burma, the Minutemen, Minor Threat, Big Black, and Dinosaur Jr.  I thought chapter about Sonic Youth went on for far too long (just like a Sonic Youth song) and covered a bunch of shit I didn't care about, and I thought the Fugazi chapter was far too short, especially since he said that next to the Minutemen (who greatly influenced Fugazi) Fugazi best embodied the title "Our Band Could Be Your Life." 

Why the fuck did he write a damn thing about the Butthole Surfers?  Why is that stupid, pointless band being covered?  Don't give me any crap about how they were making people uncomfortable and that was important.  They were stupid and pointless, at least during the time that he wrote about them.  Not to mention they were fucking douchebags. 

The section on Dinosaur Jr was my favorite in the entire book.  I mean, here were three guys who were clearly not meant for each other and yet managed to have enough success to try to make their band work for far too long.  All the fights and insults documented in that chapter make it well worth reading.  It is incredibly entertaining.

[Jackie Blue]

OK, I went back to the Sonic Youth chapter and yes, there are two very short and mild quotes about SST not being great to their bands.

Compare this to the dozens of times the author personally - without quoting any musician - kisses Ginn/SST's ass, and I stand by my assertion that he sugarcoated things to make Ginn/SST look better.

Yeah, the Dinosaur Jr chapter is cool, because it's almost entirely composed of quotes from the band.  And it shows that Lou Barlow is pretty clearly a fuck of a lot cooler and more real than J Mascis.

And yes, the Butthole Surfers chapter is completely unneccessary (and another one that contains poor research).  A chapter on the Flaming Lips would have been a much better choice for showcasing "freaky weirdo music" of the era.

Basically I also hate him for not having a chapter on Camper Van Beethoven, too.

[Ballard]

For example, I dislike the Clash and Frank Zappa. If you started a thread on either band, I'd probably drop my two cents also.

I'm not huge on Zappa but I am very curious to hear why you don't like The Clash. Do I need to go start another thread or can we derail for a minute?

[Ernest]

I kept reading the Butthole Surfers section waiting for them to do something cool or make an important album or do anything other than become more and more depraved and idiotic.  They did not.  Having sex on stage is not cool or provocative, it just means you're stupid and on drugs.  Words cannot express how much I hated this band.  What a bunch of fucking nihilists.

Zero, I don't know why you'd think Barlow was cool, because he most certainly wasn't.  He was a vulnerable, whiny little bitch who was in a band with J Mascis, who was an icy asshole.  They were both pretty unappealing.

[Johnny C]

Whenever talk of this book comes up I mention Please Kill Me.

If you've read both that book and Our Band and you still come away feeling like they sucked, all hope may be lost for you.

[Ernest]

Why?  Why is it so important to like those books?  Or are you being facetious?

[Johnny C]

Our Band has merits which have been summed up much more nicely than I could hope to elsewhere in this thread, but it's an important examination of a particular subculture at a particular time in America, chronicling its subsequent branching out into a nearly boundless network of influence across the world. More importantly it's a good read.

Please Kill Me is essential reading for anyone even remotely versed in punk music. It's an oral history, and probably one of the best-organized ones I've ever read. Every single vignette in the book is tailored to convey multiple simultaneous viewpoints of a given event while being incredibly compelling for the reader. It's full of brilliant lines and masterful work on the parts of editors Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain. Most importantly, it gives an incredibly robust, personal and entertaining look at a specific cultural movement, its effects on the world and its ramifications for its members as time went on. It's hilarious, heartwrenching, earnest, wry and remarkably human at every turn of the page. It also has Iggy Pop solemnly telling someone that his shit doesn't stink anymore.

I don't know why you'd think I'm being facetious. If these things are even remotely in your interest then you really ought to find them fascinating, and if you don't you need to seriously re-examine what is in your interest.


p.s. when the fuck did i break nine thousand posts

[Jackie Blue]

That Our Band Could Be Your Life is well-written is a matter of opinion.

It is possible to respect the subject matter of something while despising the thing itself as being the work of a bad, hack corporate journalist who is co-opting the indie aesthetic in a way which very much goes against the very thing it allegedly stood for.

It's like Sid and Nancy or 24 Hour Party People.  While I personally enjoy both both those movies, I could respect someone who disliked them without dismissing them as ignorant.

It's a book, not a collection of quotes from musicians.  If it were just a collection of interviews, or interviews and articles that were written at the time, I tihnk it would both be more useful and more realistic.

Instead, it comes across as what it is: Rock journalism.  And I cannot stand rock journalism in general, particularly when it comes from someone on the outside looking in.

[Ernest]

@Johnny

I thought you were being facetious when you said that if we thought those books sucked then all hope was probably lost for us. 

I don't see what being interested in indie or punk and thinking those books were good have to do with each other.  Zerodrone read Our Band because he is interested in the subject matter but he doesn't think the book was well-written.  I say that's fair.  I liked the book, but it certainly didn't live up to my expectations.  But then again, what could?  There are a million different takes on what Azerrad was talking about.  Ian Mackaye said that he doesn't want to read the written histories of the punk and indie scenes and movements he was a part of because the authors will inevitably be wrong about certain things. 

I did find the book fascinating.  I found the members of Dinosaur Jr's relationships with each other to be fascinating and I found the antics of the Gibby Haynes to be fascinating (if execrable).  I still don't think the section about the Butthole Surfers had any place in the book.

[Jackie Blue]

Technically the Violent Femmes were on Slash, which the author includes in the introduction as being an "independant label" despite it being distributed by a major.  It's especially hilarious that within a few pages of saying Slash was independant, he says he "couldn't" cover REM because of IRS having an obscure thrice-removed connection with a major label.  He can't have it both ways; if Slash was an indie label, then so was IRS.  I mean, Guns 'n Roses were on Slash, for crying out loud.

As to The Violent Femmes producing one good album, I think you're absolutely insane and need to go listen to them some more.  They were consistently good well into the mid-90s and their live performances are the stuff of legend.

But don't take my word for it.  I think this is more punk than half of what was pushed with that label:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHapDS2fcFE

And even if the Violent Femmes did only make one "great" album - that's one more than Black Flag did.  Black Flag never rose above the level of "decent" in my opinion, certainly nowhere close to the quality of the Minutemen or Mission of Burma.

EDIT: Pasted the wrong live clip.

[ScrambledGregs]

Its historical context value is suspect given that it focuses so ass-kissingly on certain people or concepts...

This is what I was talking about. And complaining that it ignores 95% of the 80s underground makes sense given that the book isn't called "The 80s Underground."

As for your dismissal of Beat Happening, their importance and influence on the twee genre is pretty much concrete even if you think twee is garbage, which you are well within your right to think.

The "tone" of your initial post smacked of the same anti-indie/underground elitism that I get frustrated with. It's fine that you didn't like the book, and while it's admittedly not a perfect book, it's valuable for people my age who want to understand what the 80s underground/indie scene was like and what it was about even if it isn't comprehensive.

[Jackie Blue]

This is what I was talking about. And complaining that it ignores 95% of the 80s underground makes sense given that the book isn't called "The 80s Underground."

Um.  It is subtitled "Scenes From the American Indie Underground 1981-1991".  And the book does not address more than a couple of major movements out of at least a dozen or so.

Even if you like the book I cannot see how you could be so in denial that it is basically a primer on understanding the forces that led to the 90s alternative/grunge explosion.  That really is the focus.  It opens talking about Nirvana and mentions them constantly throughout.  His two previous books were about Nirvana and the Seattle scene.  It is clearly a book which is meant to be exposition on the context and history of how The Nirvana Effect came to be, about how a certain segment of independant punk/post-punk evolved into a mainstream phenomenon.

Whether you like the book or not, you'll have to try pretty hard to convince me that it's anything other than that, especially given that the author basically declares that's what it is in the intro.

[Jackie Blue]

It is an exemplary introduction to the independent ethos itself

Possibly, sure.  But you're arguing apples when I'm saying oranges.  Is it more than a primer on what led to Nirvana?  Yes.  But it is also a primer on what led to Nirvana.  And what I contend still stands and is undeniable: it focuses on showcasing the "independtant ethos" in a very narrow spectrum of bands and even a narrow spectrum of ethos.  There were other independant underground musical movements which executed their agenda in vastly different ways than the bands in the book did.  We could start with everything from Camper Van Beethoven, Scruffy the Cat and Nice Strong Arm to Pigface, Nine Inch Nails, etc.

I don't see how the narrow scope can be denied no matter how much anybody enjoyed it.

[Jackie Blue]

No matter how well-worded, the age-old retort "If you don't like it, why don't you do it better?" used in every form of artistic criticism holds no more water than it ever did.  It's a meaningless placeholder for a real dialogue.  People who aren't musicians write about disliking bands all the time.

[a pack of wolves]

I really don't see how a broader focus on more bands and genres would be workable unless it was to become a gargantuan tome. The subtitle makes it pretty clear that it isn't a comprehensive history, it claims to be presenting only 'scenes from' the underground not the whole thing.

[Jackie Blue]

I'm not annoyed.  I just don't like the book.  The reasons given for those who do like the book seem to have nothing to do with the reasons I have for disliking it.  I think it's poorly-written and an ironically blatant betrayal of the very values it's supposed to be about.

And I object to the notion presented that I can't both dislike the book and like the bands and subject matter it's about, or that I can't dislike the book without somehow betraying some vague notion of indie solidarity.

As far as a book with a broader scope being too big, I don't think that's true.  There is a lot of filler in this book that doesn't bring a lot of meaningful context to the table that could be cut out.  Whole chapters could be removed (the aforementioned Butthole Surfers and Mudhoney could easily be replaced with chapters on Wax Trax and the industrial movement, which were easily as influential and important as Dinosaur Jr or Husker Du).

Also, the laughable notion presented by the author that hardcore music was popular because it "wasn't exclusive or elitist" (from the Fugazi chapter) is just a flat-out lie.  Scenes are always exclusive and elitist, and only someone who has never been part of one could possibly think otherwise.

[ScrambledGregs]

I think it's poorly-written and an ironically blatant betrayal of the very values it's supposed to be about.

I don't agree with either of these statements and I have no idea what you're talking about by a "blatant betrayal."

[Jackie Blue]

How can you disagree with a sentence you can't parse?

[MusicScribbles]

I'm going to jump in here and say that when Gregs lets know he doesn't understand what you mean by blatant betrayal, he's denying the existence of any blatant betrayal. I believe we parse your statement.

[Jackie Blue]

Maybe "betrayal" is a harsh word, but try this:

This is a book published by a major publishing house, hyped on the heels of a book about Nirvana and another book about "the rest of the Seattle scene" which were pushed by corporations for kids to consume en masse, all of which were/are written by a corporate rock journalist.

That's about as far from the spirit of 80s independant rock as you can get.

[Johnny C]

Woah woah woah. Are you trying to equate a major publishing house with a major label here? Those are two really different things.

Besides, not liking something because it's somehow related to a money-making enterprise is and always has been a tremendous cop-out.

[Jackie Blue]

I don't like it because it is poorly written.  As I have stated many times.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the author's tactics.  Tommy said he was quoted as saying he "couldn't" get it published without tying it to Nirvana and other commercial interests.  That's bullshit.  I'm sure if he had written a great book without all that, Rollins' publishing house would have published it, or numerous other small publishers.

What I think he meant was that no major publishing house which would generate him a lot of fame/money would publish it without said connection.

That is the very opposite of the ethic he is writing about.

The ethic he is writing about is "Do what you want, publish it yourself if you have to, fuck the corporate appropriation of artistic movements".  He then goes on to kowtow to corporate ideals in order to discuss an artistic ethos which rejects the notion of kowtowing to corporate ideals.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with whether you like the book or not.  Sonic Youth's Dirty is an obvious bid for more mainstream appeal.  It also happens to be one of their best albums, if not the most "experimental" or "groundbreaking".

[Johnny C]

Once again, I see no hypocrisy because a major record label is a different entity in almost all ways from a major publishing house. They are two different fields with two different approaches.

If you wanted him to roll out his own Guttenberg press I guess it's conceivable but he wanted to print a book that he knew people would want to read and he found a method that would let that book reach the interested parties. It's ridiculous to hold that against him.

There's a great thread over in the Movies, TV Shows and Books forum where people are basically just taking huge shits on books like The Great Gatsby, The Catcher In The Rye, Of Mice And Men, Jane Eyre and a number of others. I bring this up because each of those books has at least one person in that thread calling it poorly written. I happen to disagree. I don't think The Great Gatsby is poorly written. Sticking to your guns and repeating it over and over again will not convince me that it's poorly written.

Your argument isn't that it's poorly written anyways. It's that it doesn't stick to the ethos, it doesn't cover the bands that you want to cover and that it is enamoured with SST. The first two have no bearing on the actual quality of the book and the last one is at best questionable, as a couple of people in this thread has pointed out.

I'm really left wondering what your grudge really is against the book. If you didn't like the writing, that's fine, but I really don't buy that as your only complaint.

[Jackie Blue]

My only complaint about the book as far as people liking it en masse is that it's poorly written.

My secondary complaints about why the book should be considered important are a different matter.

Hope that clears things up.

I agree that The Great Gatsby is a wonderful novel.

I don't want to convince anyone that this book is poorly written, I just couldn't understand liking a book because of its subject matter and ignoring the style and tone of it.

It seems like everyone likes this book because of the information - band quotes and facts - but that makes no sense.  That's like saying that an encyclopedia is a great book.  I'm not saying this book is not at least fairly informative, I'm asking why people like it so much when frankly basically everything in it could be more easily discovered by reading articles online without all the obnoxious drivel of the author's personal asides which read like a paper a music major would get a C- on.

[Johnny C]

This has actually cleared up quite a bit!

It doesn't seem like the bulk of people in favour of this book are arguing exclusively in favour of its information, though they are suggesting that the breadth of it is worth noting. An encyclopedia may not be the best written book but it likely covers a broad range of topics to enough of a depth that it has at least some value. They are suggesting mainly that the tone and style are really not so bad, and certainly not bad enough to completely discredit the entire book.

[Jackie Blue]

I don't think you can infer from my posts that I think the book should be entirely discredited.

My first question was "Why do people like this book so much?"  Not "Why do people like this book at all?" or "Why do people find this book useful?"

Example: the film Kurt and Courtney.  I love that film.  Is it accurate?  I don't know.  Probably no one will.  Is it well-directed?  Arguably it is above average at best.  But on balance, I find it to be a fascinating cultural artifact.

[Johnny C]

I really love that film myself. But why do you love it? If it's at best arguably directed, and considering that it's a documentary following the director around, what makes it so compelling? Is it the direction, or is it the subject matter?

[Jackie Blue]

I think it's a great film because it's like a train wreck.  The documentary scenes are fascinating, the interviews with Courtney's dad and... that dude from the skinhead band who claimed she paid him to kill Kurt... it's just a neat little movie.

It's kind of like Blind Eye Sees All.  I could watch that over and over and over, yet I don't think anything the Butthole Surfers were doing at that time was important or relevant.  It's just fun to kick back and watch a bunch of high people in a bed talking Moon Language, and live performances with flaming cymbals.

[ScrambledGregs]

I see where you're coming from. I'm going to stop arguing now.

[Gilbert]

yeah, it's getting kind of pointless. you obviously don't agree and pretty much every angle of the argument has been discussed! chill!!