Top 25 (Or So) Music History Books of 2025

Rock books are booming, even as the primary sources for first-hand memories pass away or dim in their accuracy and detail. The range continues to be enormous, from the Beatles to David Ackles, from the Rolling Stones to Neil Innes, from Melanie to the Swinging Blue Jeans. I just hope surviving artists and their associates are more conscientious about preserving and making available archival recordings and documents in the time they have left, considering how valuable those will be to future biographers.

There are still plenty of noteworthy books to fill up a list of 25 or so of my favorites. So many have been released, in fact, that some will have to wait until next year’s supplemental list of 2025 volumes, as I haven’t had time to check out everything I might consider, especially if the book came out near the end of the year.

1.Down River: In Search of David Ackles, by Mark Brend (Jawbone Press). Hard-to-classify singer-songwriter David Ackles put out four albums in the late 1960s and early 1970s, none of which sold well, and which have garnered a passionate but fairly small cult following in the ensuing decades. It’s thus welcome to have a full book on this idiosyncratic figure that draws on much research, even if not all the info could be filled in, owing to the death or inaccessibility of Ackles and many of his associates. However, Brend did interview quite a few of them including Ackles himself shortly before the musician’s death in 1999 and, specifically for the book, Elton John’s lyricist Bernie Taupin, who produced Ackles’s third album. He also gained access to some previously unearthed session sheets and unreleased live and studio recordings. This is contextualized by the author’s detailed description of his tracks and compositions, as well as his perspective on how Ackles fit or, maybe more accurately, didn’t fit into the thrust of his era’s popular music.

Ackles almost backed into a recording career by chance, a meeting with an old friend leading to a writing and, soon, recording deal with Elektra Records. Although there were elements of rock in his records (primarily the early ones), he was really more of a theatrical singer-songwriter, with dabs of folk, jazz, music hall, and satire. Writers of the time, even big fans of his, struggled to come up with reference points in their reviews, comparing him to Randy Newman, Judy Collins, Nilsson, and others, though ultimately he wasn’t too similar to anyone. This both made him more interesting than many cult figures, but also less successful in his time and even after his time, as his music was less accessible than many of his peers working in roughly the same areas was, and certainly less related to rock, even if he was primarily marketed to a rock audience. Elton John and Bernie Taupin were big fans, Elton topping a bill over Ackles at his breakthrough 1970 live Los Angeles performances. Taupin producing Ackles’s third album didn’t help David sell many records, however, though he got some extraordinarily effusive reviews.

Brend is an intense fan, but doesn’t get carried away, acknowledging there are reasons Ackles hasn’t had a huge rediscovery and resurgence in recent years along the lines of Nick Drake, or even Judee Sill. Besides describing many of the rare and unreleased recordings in the main text, he also wrote a specific lengthy appendix going into all the unreleased live and studio recordings he was able to research (and often hear) in great detail. (My interview with the author about this book is at http://www.richieunterberger.com/wordpress/interview-with-richard-morton-jack-editor-compiler-of-world-countdown-august-1966-july-1967/).

2. The Doors: Night Divides the Day, by the Doors (Genesis). This coffee table book is the Doors’ equivalent to The Beatles Anthology and other volumes of bountifully illustrated oral histories of major acts. All of the text is devoted to quotes, from brief to very extensive, from the four Doors and a few of their associates. Of course Jim Morrison and Ray Manzarek couldn’t be interviewed specifically for this project, but Robby Krieger and John Densmore were, and Morrison and Manzarek are represented (as John Lennon was in The Beatles Anthology) by many archive quotes. Archive quotes from Krieger and Densmore were plucked from various sources too, and other voices represented include producer Paul Rothchild, engineer Bruce Botnick, Elektra Records boss Jac Holzman, and some photographers, filmmakers, a road manager, and some others who worked with the group. So are some other musicians, including Van Morrison, as the then-unsigned Doors supported Them at the Whisky A Go Go in June 1966. (Van Morrison’s most favorite Doors songs, incidentally, are “Break on Through,” “End of the Night,” and “When the Music’s Over.”)

It’s true that many of these quotes can be found in various books and other sources by and about the band, and the sources are noted in an appendix, though it would have been good to have footnotes delineating the precise origination of specific quotes. It’s also true that some voices are missing, like manager Bill Siddons and Morrison’s primary partner Pamela Courson, though much more information can be found about Morrison’s personal life in various books if you want it. The focus here is mostly on the music, and it does a good job of hitting many of the interesting points about their songs, albums, and career arc from beginning to end, even including a bit about the post-Morrison Doors. And even if you’ve read as many books about the Doors as I have, you’re not going to automatically recognize the quotes and stories you might have previously come across. 

There are also many photos from throughout their career, quite a few of them rare, and a good number previously unseen to my knowledge. These are augmented by a fair share of memorabilia like tape boxes, show posters, handwritten lyrics, and tickets. Of particular interest for me, in the section on The Soft Parade, there are some observations from both Krieger and Morrison explaining why songs on that album were credited to individual writers, instead of bearing the group credit found elsewhere. In particular, Krieger says had hadn’t written much before then besides “Light My Fire” and “Love Me Two Times,” Morrison noting that “in the beginning, I wrote most of the songs. On each successive album Robby contributed more songs until finally on this album it’s almost split between us.”

3. The Island Book of Records 1969-70, edited by Neil Storey (Manchester University Press). This is the second volume of this coffee table book series, the first having covered the history of the Island Records label from 1959-68. Why suddenly just two years instead of a decade, for a book that’s about as big, with 432 very large-format pages? These were the years when Island became a much bigger force in the marketplace, and particularly the album-oriented rock one. In just these two years, it issued hit albums (and occasional hit singles) by Jethro Tull, Blind Faith, Traffic, King Crimson, Free, Cat Stevens, Fairport Convention, and Emerson, Lake & Palmer. There were also influential folk-rock albums with a smaller audience, particularly the debut by Nick Drake, but also on LPs by Fotheringay and John and Beverley Martyn.

All of Island’s releases in these two years are covered in this hefty volume, with extensive oral history-formatted text and a heap of graphics. The text has quotes from the period, from archival sources, and from many interviews done for this book with many of the artists; people who worked at Island, most notably the company’s head, Chris Blackwell, whose contributions aren’t token, but quite extensive; and others of note, from journalists and LP designers to producers and record store clerks. The illustrations include plenty of those LP covers, of course, but also many advertisements from the era, along with photos, tape boxes, telegrams, press releases, press clippings, charts, inner label variations, and more.

The previous volume in this series had more typos and miscellaneous inaccuracies than it should have, and while a few creep in here, generally there’s a big improvement in those areas. The quotes are almost all interesting, with in-depth insights into the artists, their records, how they were produced, and how Island marketed and distributed them. “All of Island’s releases” really does mean all of them, including some by acts that didn’t really take off, like If, and the occasional weird rarity, like the avant-garde record by White Noise. And even the occasional unreleased one, like a live Traffic LP that was canceled in late 1970. There’s a section for the label’s singles, some of which had non-LP tracks or alternate mixes/versions.

Some of the text dives really deep, to the pleasure of intense collectors, like a graphic detailing exactly who is who on the cover of their popular 1969 sampler LP  You Can All Join In, or the intricate explanation of why a planned album by blues/folk singer Ian A. Anderson came out on a different label. (There are different explanations, but his coincidental bearing the same name as the most prominent member of Jethro Tull seems likely to have had something to do with it.) The most renowned records get the biggest spreads, and these aren’t necessarily the biggest-selling ones of the time, with Nick Drake’s Five Leaves Left getting plenty of ink. So do some acts that might not interest nearly as many readers, like Bronco, though generally the apportionment is as you would expect. It can be a little confusing when non-famous people, like Island staffers, are quoted and it’s hard to follow what exactly their position was, but one of the appendices has bios of everyone quoted.

4. Boom Boom Boom Boom American Rhythm & Blues In England 1962-1966. The Photographs of Brian Smith, by Simon Robinson (Easy on the Eye). Music enthusiast Brian Smith was for the most part an amateur photographer in Manchester in the 1960s, though some have of his photos have previously been published. As it’s one of the biggest cities in England, many touring musicians made Manchester a stop when US blues, soul, and rock’n’roll singers started playing in the country more often by the mid-1960s. In fact, judging from the collection of pictures featured in this 180-page book, very few other towns—including those in the US—would have hosted so many legends in such a short period of time. Listing all of them would take up more than one paragraph, but for a start, there are close-up shots of Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Little Walter, Big Mama Thornton, Howlin’ Wolf, Carl Perkins, Bill Haley, Sonny Boy Williamson, and many others. And these aren’t mere snapshots taken by an unskilled fan. Smith didn’t pursue a career as a professional photographer, but his pictures (almost all in black and white) are generally on par with the best taken of such musicians during this era, capturing them both onstage and in informal backstage and offstage locales. Although there are some slightly apologetic notes about the condition or imperfections of some pictures, all of them are interesting to see, and many are excellent from both historical and artistic viewpoints.

The photos alone would make this a worthwhile book, but there’s also quite a bit of interesting text that’s not, like many such volumes have, limited to brief captions. There are detailed memories from Smith himself and others about the shows and the performers, and they’re not just bland testimonies to how great the musicians were. There are some pretty deep digs of interest to serious fans, like Sugar Pie DeSantos citing Connie Francis as an artist who had soul, and Stevie Winwood discovering the Malibus’ soul obscurity “Strong Love,” which he’d sing when the Spencer Davis Group covered it for a small British hit, at Manchester’s Twisted Wheel club. Smith also photographed plenty of British acts, and although they take a small percentage of the book’s pages in a final section, many good ones are represented by rare pictures, including the Rolling Stones in their very early years, the Spencer Davis Group, Eric Burdon, a pre-stardom Rod Stewart (from a time when his name was misspelled “Stuart” on the billing), Alex Harvey, and even far less celebrated names like the Honeycombs, the Outlaws, and Jimmy Powell.

5. Buzz Me In: Inside the Record Plant Studios, by Martin Porter & David Goggin (Thames & Hudson). There were three Record Plant studios – the first in New York, then a branch in Los Angeles, and then one in Sausalito, near San Francisco. This book focuses on their operations in the period between when the New York branch started in the late 1960s and 1980, when some work was done on John Lennon’s final recordings. Many top artists worked in one or more of the studios during this time, including Jimi Hendrix (their initial primary client), Stevie Wonder, John Lennon, Sly & the Family Stone, Patti Smith, the Velvet Underground, the Who, Fleetwood Mac, and Bruce Springsteen. The full list is much longer, and should also include work done on the soundtracks to Woodstock and The Concert for Bangladesh.

There’s not room for this nearly 400-page book to discuss everything on the list in detail, but quite a bit is. This includes stories that haven’t made the rounds much or at all, like how considerable overdubbing and fixes were done for the Woodstock and The Concert for Bangladesh albums; the massive overindulgence of the sessions for Keith Moon’s solo albums, which were excessive even by mid-1970s rock decadence standards; the limitations of Phil Spector’s roles in some albums for which he has production credit; and the mountains of material, much of which has to be unreleased if the reported quantity is accurate, cut by Stevie Wonder. Hendrix was considered the most important source of cash flow before construction of his Electric Lady studio was finished (and he died shortly afterward). There were hopes that Sly Stone could fulfill this role in the early 1970s, which couldn’t happen as his musical output diminished and his personal eccentricities mushroomed, as covered in depth here.

The technical side of the studios’ construction and recording, as well as the business machinations between owners Gary Kellgren, Chris Stone, and Roy Cicala, might not be as interesting to the general music fan. But they’re pretty interesting, and also reflect the excesses of the era’s music business with their over-ambitious schemes and heavy drug use and partying. Much of the air went out of those balloons when Kellgren died, along with a girlfriend, in his own swimming pool in a still-mysterious tragedy in the late 1970s.

6. Mann Made: The Story of Manfred Mann 1963-1969, by Guy Mowbray (Red Planet). Structured primarily as an oral history with some linking text by the author, this covers Manfred Mann through the years the majority of Mann fans find their most interesting. While their evolution wasn’t as radical as some of the other top British rock bands of the period, it saw them move from jazz-tinged R&B/rock to out-and-out poppy rock, and through several lineups, fronted by original lead singer Paul Jones and then his replacement, Mike d’Abo. All along, however, they put some quite jazzy and occasionally rather strange and experimental stuff on LPs and B-sides. Even in their earliest and bluesiest phase, they excelled at pop-rock singles, and they were among the first rock acts to intelligently interpret Bob Dylan songs.

Add it up and they were a very interesting and eclectic group, even if they weren’t extremely colorful as individuals (apart perhaps from their lead singers), and hampered by production/management advice not to concentrate on songwriting as much they probably should have. Remarkably, all of the surviving members were interviewed at articulate length — which, also remarkably, includes most of their members, though a few (notably Jack Bruce, their bassist for a fairly brief time in the mid-’60s) were no longer around to participate. Even some guys who were only in the band for a few months or so were tracked down, as well as some early members who didn’t record with them.

It’s odd that although their touring (including in Australia) is covered, their one trip to the US (with the Paul Jones lineup) is barely mentioned, let alone detailed. In the linking text between quotes, the author does sometimes digress at unnecessary length on side topics like the kinds of electric keyboards that came into vogue in rock (not just with the Manfreds) in the ’60s. For the most part, however, the musicians are left to speak for themselves, with insight and humor.

7. Love and Fury: The Extraordinary Life, Death and Legacy of Joe Meek, by Darryl W. Bullock (Omnibus Press). This biography of the legendary, and legendarily eccentric, 1960s British rock producer was preceded by an in-depth biography back in 1989 (and published in 2000 in an updated edition), John Repsch’s The Legendary Joe Meek. Meek’s work and life was fascinating enough that it can merit more than one study, however, and this nearly equally detailed volume is a worthwhile complementary work, even if it inevitably covers much of the same ground. Bullock pays some more attention to Meek’s complex and oft-troubled personal life, though without neglecting his music, thoroughly describing many of the records he produced and sessions for those. While not many surviving Meek associates are left, there are also first-hand memories from many of them, all the way up to one of the future superstars with whom he briefly worked, Steve Howe (when Howe was a teenage guitarist in the Syndicates).

While Meek is most known for the Tornados’ “Telstar,” the Honeycombs’ “Have I the Right,” John Leyton’s “Johnny Remember Me,” and Heinz’s “Just Like Eddie,” many of his other productions are discussed, including plenty that never came close to the hit parade. Some of those were by fairly well known names, like Screaming Lord Sutch and (before his hits) Tom Jones; some featured contributions by future stars like Howe and Ritchie Blackmore; and many are known only to collectors. Actually it’s pretty astounding how many records he produced, and when you consider many tracks were unreleased at the time, it’s an overload that surely contributed to the early death (in a suicide-murder) of a man who wasn’t too temperamentally stable to begin with.

Much of what Meek devised to create his trademark sound – compression, weird effects, sped-up vocals, and influences from the occult – is discussed. But some of the specific best of his non-hits could have been covered in more depth, particularly his attempts to get into more updated “beat group” sounds after Beatlemania had changed the industry. Tracks like the Buzz’s “You’re Holding Me Down” and the Syndicates’ “Crawdaddy Simone” deserve more space than getting simply (if accurately) noted as “freakbeat” classics. So do surprisingly cool efforts from Heinz (with help from ace session musicians like Blackmore) such as “Big Fat Spider,” for all the derision the singer suffered as a no-talent who only had a career due to Meek’s infatuation with him. Much of that slack is taken up by the annotation in the ongoing bulge of reissues of Meek’s work.

8. Dip My Brain in Joy: A Life with Neil Innes: The Official Biography, by Yvonne Innes (Nine Eight). Neil Innes’s widow wrote this book about her late husband, the British singer-songwriter-actor who had one of the greatest gifts for combining music with comedy. It’s not so much a straight biography as a combination of a biography and a memoir of their life together, though it doesn’t suffer for that. Yvonne was with Neil from the early 1960s onward, which means she was there, or there for much of at any rate, his stints with the Bonzo Dog Band, the Rutles, and as a seventh member of sorts of Monty Python, for whom he took on some minor acting roles and often performed music with in their live shows. Also covered are his numerous other activities, which will be lesser known to fans outside of the UK, as many of them were not accessible outside of his homeland. These include his work with future members of Monty Python when the Bonzos were frequent guest stars on the late-‘60s children’s program Do Not Adjust Your Set; Monty Python’s Eric Idle on Idle’s mid-‘70s British TV program Rutland Weekend Times, which inadvertently gave birth to the Rutles; the short-lived supergroup of sorts GRIMMS; and various TV and radio series, as well as many live performances Innes gave as the featured/central artist.

Innes’s wife wasn’t around for all of this, as Neil was often away for extended periods working and touring as their family grew. But she was around for a lot of it, and there are plenty of interesting and amusing inside stories of how his projects worked, dating from the chaotic formation of the Bonzo Dog Band from his art school background. She has a good sense of humor herself, as well as insights into her husband’s take-life-as-it-comes demeanor, which gave them lots of easygoing fun, but also might have made him easier than some to take advantage of in music business dealings. It’s disheartening to hear how he lost copyrights to much of the material he wrote for the Rutles, how he fell out with Idle in a business dispute in the 1990s, and how he didn’t get the money he expected from Spamalot, though this didn’t prevent him from simply getting on with as much fun as he could as he constantly juggled creative projects and touring.

Like so many memoirs, this does lose some momentum after his peak projects are discussed, and by the twenty-first century there are some stories of moderately amusing domestic incidents that aren’t of nearly as much significance as tales of the Bonzos/Rutles/Pythons. But Yvonne Innes is an engaging narrator, and while there might not be as much in the way of hard facts and research as a totally straight biography would boast, her tone is in keeping with the good-natured satirical approach to life Innes projected in his music and other forms of entertainment.

9. Blood Harmony: The Everly Brothers Story, by Barry Mazor (Hachette). With both Everlys gone and many of their close associates similarly unavailable, it’s a challenge to do a biography as comprehensive as it could have been with more first-hand interviews, though the author did some. While there haven’t been many books about the duo, this does the best job of blending coverage of their music, recordings, career trajectory, and personal lives. Although press attention paid to them in their late 1950s and early 1960s peak was superficial, Mazor diligently dug up much such clips, and accessed and depicts many of their filmed performances. As their music got more erratic after 1962, and their story as a whole less interesting after the 1960s, the volume inevitably gets less interesting in its final chapters, though their bitter 1973 breakup and 1980s comeback are detailed, along with how they played out the string as a legacy and retired act in the 21st century. Perhaps their more or less constant feuding and personal differences are played up more than they need to be, but the music is central to the story, including the distinctions between what each brother sang and wrote. To its credit, much more of their catalog is discussed than their big hits, though there could have been more in-depth material on some of their LPs, particularly 1960’s It’s Everly Time and A Date with the Everly Brothers, both of which are among the best pre-Beatles rock albums.

10. Times and Seasons: The Rise and Fall and Rise of the Zombies, by Robin Platts (HoZac). There have actually been previous low-profile books on the Zombies, but this is better and more thorough by far, and not just because it’s a pretty lengthy 350-page biography. There’s much first-hand and vintage interview material from all five of the original Zombies, and the author treats the band as the major British Invasion group they were, not the three-hit wonder they’ve often been dismissed as. While numerous interviews and liner notes have dispensed much of the story, this covers their origins and 1960s work with coverage featuring much detail even some of their bigger fans might have missed. There are plenty of deep quotes from the period from the likes of regional newspapers few have seen, and few have also seen all of the reproductions of vintage advertisements and press clippings used throughout the volume. There’s likewise some trivia even Zombies completists might not have come across, like their serious consideration of covering the Temptations’ “My Girl” when the hits had run alarmingly dry, or keyboardist Rod Argent having written an instrumental (never released by the Zombies) on a mid-‘60s single by the obscure group the Second City Sound.

Note, though, that only about half of this covers the 1964-67 period in which the original Zombies lineup was active. The rest covers the members’ musical activities from their breakup to the present, including the 21st century version of the Zombies with Argent and singer Colin Blunstone. The early part of the post-Zombies section remains interesting, if not as interesting as what the Zombies actually did as a unit, including the stories behind the numerous fake Zombies touring the UK and US to capitalize on the belated rise of “Time of the Season” to near the top of the charts. Rod Argent (and to a lesser extent bassist Chris White’s) early years with the band Argent, and Colin Blunstone’s early recordings as a solo artist, also hold some interest, though less so as the mid-‘70s approach. After that, things become something of a grind through increasingly brief recaps of numerous albums and tours that didn’t make a significant commercial or artistic impact.

There could have been more musical/critical description of their numerous 1960s recordings, particularly their non-LP singles, that were very good and intricate, even if they didn’t sell much. Sometimes more attention is given to how high they charted than how they sounded, though if you’re interested in how they charted in non-US/UK territories, and on infrequently consulted charts like those compiled by pirate radio stations and local US stations, an astonishing number of statistics were dug up for those. For more specific info on the songs and the recordings, you can find it in the extensive liner notes for several fine compilations Alec Palao assembled for Ace Records. 

11. Richard Manuel, by Stephen T. Lewis (Schiffer Publishing). This 400-page book is not only a hefty biography of the Band multi-instrumentalist (principally pianist), singer, and occasional songwriter. It’s so thoroughly detailed it also nearly functions as a history of the Band, though the focus is on Manuel, and plenty of other information is in biographies of the group, and in the memoirs of Robbie Robertson and Levon Helm. It not only covers his time in the Band (including their Robertson-less ‘80s reunion years before Manuel hung himself in 1986), but goes way back to his bands in Stratford, Canada, before he joined Ronnie Hawkins’s backup group the Hawks. The Hawks mutated into the Band by 1968, and their very interesting years backing Dylan on tour in 1965-66 and then on the 1967 Basement Tapes recordings are also covered in great depth.

Although he wrote some notable songs on the Band’s debut album and was always vital to their sound as a pianist and lead/backing singer, Manuel had an oft-troubled life, though the author concentrates more on celebrating his artistry. Even before his alcoholism became its worst after the Band’s mid-‘70s breakup, Manuel had piled up numerous car wrecks and generally debauched behavior, balanced a bit by a likable personality that won him friends like Dylan and Eric Clapton. He nonetheless suffered from a lack of confidence that contributed to his near-total withdrawal from songwriting after 1968’s Music from Big Pink, as well as general instability that made his post-Band life (and some of his late-Band life) tumultuous.

The text is a little too bubbly and enthusiastic about his musical virtues, making some similar points quite a bit. However, it’s to be commended for discussing his recordings in extreme detail – not just the albums by the Band, but many live tapes, film clips, and studio outtakes, going back to his pre-Band band the Revols, and including live and Basement Tapes-era recordings with Dylan. That might be too much for some casual fans and readers. But more is much better than less, and more books should take such time to document what’s available, official and otherwise. Many pictures of Manuel and his associates from throughout his life are also featured.

12. Insomnia, by Robbie Robertson (Crown). Although this isn’t nearly as long as Robertson’s memoir Testimony, and doesn’t cover nearly as many years, it’s kind of a sequel. Testimony stopped when the Band came to an end; Insomnia covers the next three years or so, when Robertson didn’t record much music, but was extremely busy as a film producer/actor/composer/soundtrack mixer. Much of this was done in association with Martin Scorsese, of whom he was a housemate in Los Angeles during much of the late 1970s. Both of these figures were going through rough romantic and personal times, and much of their anguish was alleviated by drugs and womanizing. Robertson might not have gone as close to the edge health-wise as Scorsese, but had flings of various length with Genevieve Bujold, Jennifer O’Neill, and Tuesday Weld, among others, before reuniting with his first wife. His wilder and tougher experiences are related in an interesting, zippy storytelling manner that’s neither too frivolous nor too regretful about sowing his wild oats.

Even if you’re not a particular fan of Robertson’s music, there are interesting anecdotes aplenty here, many of his intersections with lots of musical and movie celebrities. There’s Robert De Niro, not unexpectedly, and Bob Dylan, though not a huge amount of text related to the latter. But there are also unexpected interactions with film figures like The Battle of Algiers director Gillo Pontecorvo berating Scorsese’s movies as fascistic, or Robertson and Scorsese cutting out of a London restuarant to avoid a simmering confrontation with a loud and unruly nearby table commandeered by Keith Moon. There are also regretful accounts of his loosening ties with the rest of the Band, and although Levon Helm in particular has given a different perspective, here Robertson views the loss of their musical and personal comaraderie with remorse. There also inside tales of how The Last Waltz documentary was edited and finalized.

One puzzling if minor aspect of this generally good read is that Dylan wanted The Last Waltz not to come out before his own documentary, the ill-received and generally little seen Renaldo and Clara. According to Robertson, an attorney assured him he knew what to do to take care of this, without revealing how to Robbie. But this book doesn’t reveal how this was resolved.

13. Is Everybody Ready for the Next Band? The Rolling Stones 1969 US Tour, by Richard Houghton (Spenwood Books). This isn’t a conventional book about the tour itself, but an oral history collecting memories of people who were at the shows. Most are previously unpublished, although there are a few excerpts from reviews of the time. And almost all of the tales are from audience members, which might make for less inside information than band members and their associates, but allows for perspectives that usually don’t make customary biographies and histories. There’s also one exception to the “US Tour” part of the title, as there are also accounts from those who were there at the Rolling Stones’ July 1969 free concert at Hyde Park—the only show they played outside of the US that year, and their first with Mick Taylor, staged just a couple days after the death of the guy he replaced, Brian Jones.

While there isn’t much here that conflicts with the usual reports of how this legendary tour went down, it’s still interesting to read these anecdotal accounts, which have some personal and informal qualities not often heard in more standard surveys. These testify to the general quality, and occasional sloppiness or substandard sound, of the concerts, including descriptions (usually very complimentary) of opening acts Ike & Tina Turner, Chuck Berry, B.B. King, and (though many didn’t pay him much attention) Terry Reid. Some of the more offbeat sources that stand out are the guy who managed to get into the elevator with the Stones as they were going up to their New York press conference; the official photographer of the West Palm Beach Music & Arts festival that was one of their gigs; and a fan who taped a Boston show that’s now been bootlegged. 

More general things that stand out is how overwhelmingly young the audiences were for the Stones at the time, largely ranging from the mid-teens to early twenties. A good number were high on something, as was often par for the course during the era, and some managed to sneak in without paying or weave their way to the very lip of the stage—accomplishments that are much rarer in our current era of much higher security, and much vaster crowds. The Stones also often did two sets, and often took the stage much later than the official opening time, leading to crowds that had to wait outside in the cold for hours for the second show, which often finished long after midnight.

Recollections of their final and most famous/infamous show of the tour at Altamont are in the final section, and generally confirm the reports of chaos and violence at the concert, though many simply couldn’t tell exactly what was going on, even if they were relatively close to the stage. There are also several dozen photos (including some prevoiusly unpublshed snapshots of the Rolling Stones onstage), programs, tour itineraries, advertisements, and other memorabilia related to their 1969 tour.

14. Waiting on the Moon, by Peter Wolf (Little, Brown). Even if you’re not a J. Geils Band fan (or a fan of Wolf’s solo music), this is a pretty entertaining memoir. For Wolf focuses not on his records or performance career, although there’s some of that, but on the many people with whom he’s been associated, sometimes very closely, sometimes in more passing but interesting encounters. Those started long before the J. Geils Band, particularly when he was a struggling student and musician in Boston, where he often befriended (and sometimes backed up in concert) blues legends like John Lee Hooker, James Cotton, and Muddy Waters. He was also a good friend of Van Morrison when Morrison was struggling to gain a foothold as a solo artist during his time in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1968. There’s a whole chapter about that, and while Wolf still regards Morrison with affection, it will not refute Van’s reputation as an enigmatic eccentric. There’s also a lot about his marriage to Faye Dunaway—not all of it pretty—and his experiences with some non-musical figures you might not expect to show up, like Andy Warhol, David Lynch, Tennessee Williams, and Alfred Hitchcock. Everything’s relayed with humble humor and an engaging storytelling tone.

What’s missing? Even in a nearly 350-page book—which isn’t as wieldy as it might seem from that number, as there’s a lot of white space between sections—there’s not a whole lot about the J. Geils Band. Wolf doesn’t even go over how they formed until one of the final chapters, and then only in a cursory fashion. What’s covered focuses more on some admittedly interesting (and sometimes shady) navigations of the music business, particularly with Atlantic Records and controversial manager Dee Anthony, than the music. If you’re looking for how he and the group felt about devising their take on blues-R&B-rock in their early records, or even anything about their hits from “Give It to Me” and “Freeze Frame,” there’s virtually nothing. He does discuss and lament the end of his songwriting partnership with Seth Justman, and getting asked to leave the group just after their huge commercial success in the early 1980s. There’s the feeling enough about his career could be saved for a different memoir, and that he might prefer to tell tales about his interactions with celebrities (with booze aplenty along the way). Reader interest in his own music might have been underestimated, and interest in his not-so-extensive times with the likes of Julia Child (and a chapter about exchanging a gift of expensive wine from Atlantic for numerous cheaper bottles) overestimated.

15. Wings: The Story of a Band on the Run, by Paul McCartney (edited by Ted Widmer). Although there are many quotes by McCartney in this book, it’s an oral history, not an autobiography. There are many quotes from people in McCartney’s orbit from the end of the Beatles through Wings’ official split in 1981, including all of the other Wings; two of McCartney’s daughters; and various producers, session musicians, graphic designers, and other professional and personal associates. Some of this material was taken from interviews done for the documentary Man on the Run (not in wide release until 2026), but some obviously is taken from other sources, particularly when the subject hasn’t been alive for many years (most notably in the numerous quotes from Linda McCartney). It would have been good for the specific sources to be noted, even if that’s the kind of thing that only bothers intense historians.

In a 550-page book, inevitably there are a lot of stories and detail, some of which cover familiar territory on the first decade of McCartney’s post-Beatles life, some which don’t. Among the less familiar tales are Sean Ono Lennon remembering how his father John must have played Paul’s 1970 debut solo LP a lot considering how worn John’s copy is (as was the case for other Beatles solo albums), and Paul noting that a TV program of Johnny Cash was a specific inspiration for forming Wings, as he was impressed by Cash’s interaction with his backup band, the Tennessee Three. Wings’ first British tour, an informal and somewhat slapdash affair where they’d show up at colleges unannounced, is given a lot of coverage. All of Wings’ concerts are listed in an appendix, which also includes a discography and timeline.

Unsurprisingly, McCartney and others’ take on Wings’ music and accomplishments is unremittingly positive, although (Band on the Run aside) their albums—and this book also covers McCartney’s first two albums, before Wings were formed—all got mixed and sometimes negative receptions. Critics’ reviews in particular are criticized or viewed as inaccurate or irrelevant in the long run. While it’s true some of their records have gotten a fair amount of retrospective reassessment over the years (and sometimes hailed as maverick indie-like in their attitude despite getting massive distribution and often high-gloss production), the possibility that at least some of this criticism might have been valid isn’t given much examination. There are also plenty of accounts of how their tours evolved into multimedia spectaculars and Wings’ constant lineup shifts, where internal tensions that helped caused them are discussed but not too thoroughly mined. McCartney’s brief jail term for bringing marijuana into Japan is a significant part of the book’s final pages, though his foolishness is somewhat underplayed, especially as the cancellation of Wings’ Japanese tour was crucial to ending the band.

Although the book could have had some more balance, the biggest issue shoving it down this list is that Wings simply weren’t as interesting, musically or historically, as McCartney’s previous group, the Beatles. Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair’s two music-centered volumes (there are more to come) on the first dozen years of his solo career, The McCartney Legacy, have much more detail on his music and recordings, and quite a bit on his general career. The first of those books, The McCartney Legacy Volume 1: 1969-73, is recommended more highly than this perhaps somewhat sanitized quasi-memoir.

16. The Hollies: Elevated Observations: The Graham Nash Years 1963-1968, by Peter Checksfield (peterchecksfield.com). Checksfield’s Hollies book follows the format of several of his previous ones devoted to the discography of certain acts: track-by-track descriptions, basic release information, and plenty of black-and-white illustrations of vintage record covers, sheet music, and ads. Although it only covers the first half decade or so of the Hollies’ career, in his, my and many others’ estimation, that’s by far the best portion of their work, going up to original Hollie Graham Nash’s departure from the group at the end of 1968. 

Like his books on the Searchers, Jerry Lee Lewis, the Dave Clark Five, the Brian Jones-era Rolling Stones, Cliff Richard, and the Tremeloes, this is distinguished from most such discography volumes by both its intense attention to detail and actual critical evaluation of the music, as opposed to mere lists. That level of detail encompasses tracks that even completist Hollies collectors might not be aware of, like unreleased BBC sessions, outtakes, and foreign-language versions. There are also lists of the many cover versions the Hollies generated during the 1960s—some of them really obscure—and an appendix documenting their BBC sessions and TV/film appearances. While Checksfield’s love of the group might lead to assessments of their work that some will feel overenthusiastically generous, this is a valuable book for anyone who cares enough about the Hollies to look into their recordings beyond the obvious best-of compilations, and even beyond their multi-disc anthologies.

17. World Countdown August 1966-July 1967,edited by Richard Morton Jack (Landowne). The last years of the 1960s saw the emergence of many underground, or at least alternative-ish, papers that gave far more coverage to rock music than almost any prior publications of the sort had. Most of them are now forgotten and hard to find; many were very short-lived. Some were so odd in their focus, variable writing style, and rococo graphics that they’re hard to easily describe.

World Countdown, published in California from August 1966 to July 1969, was one such magazine, and one of the hardest to classify. It’s also very hard to find, with few surviving in library or institutional collections, and not many having been preserved by private collectors. Author and rock historian Richard Morton Jack has tracked many of them down, and the new book he’s edited, World Countdown August 1966-July 1967, reprints all of them from that year, along with a lengthy introduction covering the history of the magazine.

Original reporting and criticism of the era’s rock scene was not World Countdown‘s forte, although it did have some. Instead, it offered a jumble of reprints of material (ranging from entire articles to bits and pieces) from other magazines; sketchy scene reports and impressions; verbatim reprints of press releases from record labels or publicists hyping specific artists; tons of ads for records, record stores, fashion accessories, music- and fashion-related businesses, and more; and many pictures of music acts from the time, many of them seldom if ever seen elsewhere.

The range of artists covered was almost absurdly wide, from the deepest underground (including quite a few who rarely or never put out records) to the biggest rock superstars, teen pop hitmakers, and even mainstream pop singers. Quite credible early rock journalists could be read in its pages, yet such offerings were outweighed by hype-heavy copy, a good deal of it unattributed. While many of the ads boasted slick professional design, the cut-and-paste layout of many pages could verge on the amateurish.

The obscure pictures and ads are what’s really of most interest, since you really have to sift through the copy to dig out interesting bits of info that rarely surface elsewhere. Some are here, however, like a report on a Fugs concert that mentions their unissued Atlantic album The Fugs Eat It; fleeting bits about Bob Dylan signing to MGM for $2 million (though he’d never record for them) and Capitol considering releasing the Beatles single “A Day in the Life Of” (sic) after the track was illicitly broadcast in advance of Sgt. Pepper‘s release; and Ralph J. Gleason’s accurately enthusiastic review of Jefferson Airplane’s Surrealistic Pillow. Unexpected names pop up among the contributors, like Richard DiLello (before he moved to London and worked for Apple Records) and, as photographer, Ronnie Haran, who helped find acts for the Whisky A Go Go, most notably the Doors. (My interview with the author about the book is at http://www.richieunterberger.com/wordpress/interview-with-richard-morton-jack-editor-compiler-of-world-countdown-august-1966-july-1967/).

18. Before Elvis, by Preston Lauterbach (Grand Central). Subtitled “The African American Musicians Who Made the King,” this focuses on several key black influences on Elvis Presley as he began his recording career in the mid-1950s: Arthur Crudup, Big Mama Thornton, Junior Parker, black gospel in his region, and brothers Phineas and Calvin Newborn. The first three names are known even to many casual Presley fans, as Crudup was the writer and original performer of three early Elvis cuts (“That’s All Right Mama,” “My Baby Left Me,” and “So Glad You’re Mine”); Big Mama Thornton did the original version of “Hound Dog”; and Parker, besides also recording for Sun Records, put out the first version of “Mystery Train.” The Newborns aren’t so well known as the others, in part because they were principally jazz musicians, and didn’t write/perform songs Elvis covered.

The book’s greatest strength is its coverage of Crudup, Thornton, and Parker, which gives overviews of their careers and doesn’t just focus on the original versions of songs Elvis did, though there are plenty of details on those. Among the other interesting points discussed are Crudup’s struggle to get royalties for the Elvis recordings of his songs (ultimately successful, but not until after his death); Thornton’s composition of “Ball and Chain,” made famous of course by Janis Joplin with Big Brother and the Holding Company; and Parker’s successful transition from raw early electric blues to smoother soul. The Newborns’ connection to Elvis wasn’t as firm, though Lauterbach discusses reports that their stage shows were influences on Presley’s live performances, and also relays the difficulties Phineas in particular had due to his psychological problems, though the jazz he did wasn’t too similar to Elvis’s rock. While the book’s subtitle makes its focus on Presley’s African-American influences clear, this volume underplays the substantial effects white gospel and country also had on his work.

19. Treasures Untold: A Modern 78 RPM Reader, edited by Josh Rosenthal (Tompkins Square). Record Store Day is mostly known for limited edition releases on vinyl and, to a lesser extent, CDs. This 155-page hardback book, however, was a spring 2025 Record Store Day release limited to a thousand copies, though it does include a CD. The dozen chapters present memories, stories, and perspectives by (and occasionally interviews with) devoted collectors of 78s, some of whom are also musicians, dealers, archivists, reissue compilers/liner note writers, and/or record label owners. The authors aren’t celebrities on the order of, say, R. Crumb, although there’s a detailed story of an in-person encounter with him in one of the chapters. But some will be known to general music historians, like editor Josh Rosenthal, who runs the Tompkins Square label (and did some of the writing and interviewing), longtime collector/reissue writer/assembled Dick Spottswood, and record label executive David Katznelson, who’s also worn several hats. The focus is usually on blues, country, and folk 78s, though a few other genres like jazz, gospel, and early rock’n’roll are also discussed.

You don’t have to be a collector of original 78s to find this interesting. (Indeed, very few music fans, even those very interested in this type of early-to-mid-twentieth century music, will be collectors as intense as those featured here.) Much of the best text centers around the adventures these fellows (they’re all guys) had in finding these records, whether navigating dusty antique shops, cleaning out moldy leftovers from recently deceased collectors, or coming across rarities in the most unexpected thrift stores or private homes. Attention’s also paid to the ins and outs of negotiating (often absurdly high) prices, speculations as to the future of 78 collecting as the well runs ever drier, and the significance of preserving this music for posterity as it becomes ever scarcer.

The point’s often made, perhaps to the extent of over-repetition, that 78s are precious because they’re tactile and voice authentic sentiments of great cultural import, with sound quality that some argue to be better or at least different than is possible in other formats. Some valuable pure music history pops up from time to time, however, as in Spottswood’s story of how royalties were obtained for the Rolling Stones’ cover of Robert Wilkins’s “Prodigal Son” on Beggars Banquet. The Rolling Stones couldn’t deny Wilkins was the originator, it’s noted, since the original (and banned) artwork for the LP had graffiti noting “The Prodigal Son” was by Reverend Wilkins.

Reproductions of rare inner labels from vintage 78s, as well as some photos and other ephemera, are dotted throughout the book. The enclosed ten-song CD has covers of roots music 78s from the 1920s and 1930s recorded especially for this disc—Michael Hurley might be the most well known of the interpreters–with the artists, labels, and catalog numbers of the original source versions noted. (My interview with the author about this book is at http://www.richieunterberger.com/wordpress/treasures-untold/).

20. The Swinging Blue Jeans: Hippy Hippy Shake!, by Peter Checksfield (peterchecksfield.com). The Swinging Blue Jeans were probably the best and hardest rocking Merseybeat group besides the Beatles and the Searchers, but it still comes as something of a shock to see an entire book about their work. In the US, they’re only known for their sole hit in the country, “Hippy Hippy Shake.” That was a much bigger one in the UK, where it almost made #1, and they also had some other big and small hits in their homeland, especially with their version of the American soul-pop tune “You’re No Good” (the same song Linda Ronstadt had a big hit with in the 1970s). They did, however, record quite a bit—much more than even many British Invasion collectors realize. There’s a four-CD set of their 1963-69 work alone.

Like many of Checksfield’s other numerous books, this is more a reference work than a biography. The bulk of it goes through all of their recordings in order, with some critical description of each one, along with some discographical details. This includes not only all of their singles (of which they had many) and albums (of which they had just a few in the ‘60s, their contents and availability differing according to the country in which they released material), but foreign language recordings, BBC sessions, outtakes, and tracks that only surfaced on obscure compilations. They made many more post-1960s records than people realize—in fact, those take up about half the book—and these aren’t nearly as interesting as the prime earlier work, especially as they were often filled out with remakes of their 1960s songs.

This is a volume for deep British Invasion specialists for sure, but they were a better group than many people realize, and at least get some in-depth appreciation here that will almost certainly never generate another book about them. It’s augmented by numerous black-and-white photos, reproductions of record sleeves/ads/sheet music, and a list of their TV/film appearances. 

21. Yoko: A Biography, by David Sheff (Simon & Shuster). For all Yoko Ono’s fame, there hasn’t been much in the way of straightforward accounts of her life. This is the most serviceable one I’ve come across, by the writer who interviewed her and John Lennon for Playboy shortly before Lennon’s death. Much more detail could have been given about her recordings and wealth of artwork in other media, and this is more an overview of the basics of those and her career trajectory than mounds of background information. Sheff, who was a personal friend of Ono’s for quite a few years after the Playboy interviews, is generous in assessing her accomplishments and significance, but does discuss some of the more troubling incidents of her life and controversial aspects of her personality. Those include her trust in psychics; attempts to vilify her while she was married to Lennon, and then to exploit and rob his archives, and extort and threaten her; and the need to provide bodyguards for her and her son for years after her husband’s death.

While Ono’s activities with and without Lennon while they were together have been covered in much depth elsewhere, that’s not as true for her life before and after John. This book fills in much of those eras, including her upbringing in Japan; her extensive avant-garde artistic endeavors in several fields in New York and London before 1968; her resumption of contact with her and Tony Cox’s daughter Kyoko after many years when her whereabouts were unknown; and her fairly prolific, if sometimes intermittent, work in many areas after 1980. Also covered is the shift in the regard in which she’s held by the public, which has given her more respect among listeners, critics, and musicians in recent decades, though there have always been detractors. For some far more intensely detailed description and discussion of her pre-21stcentury work, the large hardback book Yes Yoko Ono is a good one to check out.

22. The Musical Life of Melanie: From the Village to Woodstock and Beyond, by Craig Harris (Rowman & Littlefield). This biography is noted primarily because there’s not much material available covering Melanie’s life and career. As a book, it’s on the matter-of-fact side; sometimes jumps back and forth chronologically; and doesn’t go into extreme depth on some of her recordings and compositions. But there are details about her pre-recording career background, her husband/producer Peter Schekeryk, and some of her compositions, particularly her more famous ones, that aren’t so widely circulated. Her peak years in the late 1960s and early 1970s get the most attention, as they should, and in common with many biographies of popular musicians, the coverage gets skimpier and more rushed the later the decade. Also in common with many such biographies, there are dispiriting behind-the-scenes stories of sexism, poor business ethics within the music industry, and financial mismanagement, in this case on the part of her husband, who sold her publishing to compensate for his unwise decisions. Melanie wrote and recorded more than can be heard on her records, as the 2024 six-CD box Neighborhood Songs revealed, and while that might not have been available to the author before this book was written, it’s unfortunate that material isn’t covered here.

23. Desi Arnaz: The Man Who Invented Television, by Todd S. Purdum (Simon & Schuster). Does this belong in a list of music books? Well, although Arnaz is known more as an actor than a musician, he also made music a big part of his career, and did make quite a few records. Those records are barely mentioned here, as the focus, as per its title, is on his work as a television actor and producer, especially for I Love Lucy. His behind-the-scenes work on that and other shows is pretty interesting as, among other things, I Love Lucy was a pioneering production in being made on film before live audiences rather than broadcast live. Too, his and Lucille Ball’s Desilu production company was among the first to realize the potential of ownership of episodes that could be syndicated for reruns, though gaining those rights were something of a fluke as part of negotiations for other conditions. To this day, he remains one of the most iconic and powerful Latinos to have attained TV stardom. There were downsides to his 1950s superstardom, including relentless womanizing, a stormy marriage to Ball, and alcoholism. This is detailed in this well researched and well told biography, starting from his early days in Cuba and relentless rise through the entertainment ranks after arriving in Florida as an indigent teenager with few resources.

The following books came out in 2024, but I didn’t read them until 2025:

1.Neu Klang: The Definitive History of Krautrock, by Christoph Dallach (Faber & Faber). This is actually an oral history, and as to whether that’s definitive, it covers a lot, but not everything. That’s not to disparage this worthy tome, which has 432 pages of quotes from first-hand interviews with many of the leading figures, and quite a few minor ones, of Krautrock — i.e. German progressive rock of the 1970s. These include members of Can, Kraftwerk, NEU!, Faust, Tangerine Dream, and Amon Düül, all of whom are given chapters of their own. But many lesser known figures are represented, whether from more obscure bands like Agitation Free or people involved in record labels, journalists, managers, record store owners, producers, and fans. There are also interesting chapters on overall topics like Krautrock’s reception inside and outside of Germany, the influence of drugs and communal living, and ambitions or pressures to be commercial (or not).

The memories and stories are generally entertaining enough, both in their content and how they’re told, that this might be a good read even for those whose interest in Krautrock is casual. Particularly interesting are quotes relaying the sociopolitical context for the counterculture that helped give birth to Krautrock. The harassment and repression from authorities that were endured by the musicians were considerable and sometimes astounding, dating back to the sometimes horrid conditions they suffered in postwar Germany with their families and schools. There were also interactions, if usually tangential, with left-wing German terrorists of the 1970s.

There are numerous weird and sometimes humorous stories, and here’s one example. Steve Schroyder of Tangerine Dream was briefly in a Berlin mental hospital after he was “picked up in a department store because I wanted to stroll out with Deep Purple’s In Rock LP without paying, and made no attempt to hide it. I told the staff the record had been made just for me so I didn’t need money to pay for it, and anyway money would soon be obsolete in the modern world, since everybody knew it would soon be abolished. So I was promptly arrested and handed over to the police, where a psychologist diagnosed me with depression…But I climbed out the window with another guy the next day and split.”

2. I Wouldn’t Say It If It Wasn’t True: A Memoir of Life, Music, and the Dream Syndicate, by Steve Wynn (Jawbone). As the most prominent member of the Dream Syndicate, singer-songwriter-guitarist Wynn was a central figure in the Paisley Underground movement in early 1980s Los Angeles alternative rock. Although he’s gone on to a long solo career (and eventual reunions with the Dream Syndicate), this principally covers his early life, especially the formation and career/records of the Dream Syndicate in the 1980s. His very well written, oft-witty memoir isn’t just of interest to Dream Syndicate fans, as it vividly captures the lives of many alternative rock musicians at the time. Wynn followed the path many took to fame (a highly relative term as these bands were far less famous than the ones with huge-selling records) in the scene, from intense fan with college radio shows who worked in record stores (including the famous Los Angeles Rhino Records) to forming a group. There weren’t deliberate plans to become pretty well known within a year, but that’s what happened after they put out a debut EP that got heavy college radio airplay.

Although Wynn thrived on the life of a traveling musician, driving long distances across the country and then Europe for fairly meager pay and variable reception, original bassist Kendra Smith didn’t, leaving the band fairly early on. Wynn hails her as the soul of the Dream Syndicate, and while a few other lineups had some greater mainstream success over the next few years, there’s a sense they never lived up to the promise a lineup including Smith might have had. Moving between indie labels and the major A&M, there are also instructive tales of how their bigger major-label budget and way-extended studio production process shaped their recorded sound into something different, and not better, losing some of what had made them distinctive at their outset. Wynn also relays numerous encounters with many other acts on the same general circuit, some of whom would go on to great success, like R.E.M. and the Bangles, and more of whom would like the Dream Syndicate only achieve different levels of cult recognition. One casualty of their tangled journey from near-amateur punkish group to verging-on-mainstream one was Wynn’s friendship with fellow Dream Syndicate guitarist Karl Precoda, though he’s remained close with others who passed through their lineups.

3. Talkin’ Greenwich Village, by David Browne (Hachette). Subtitled “The Heady Rise and Slow Fall of America’s Bohemian Music Capital,” this covers the music that sprang from the Village’s scene from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s. Even in about 350 pages, you can’t hope to cover everything worthwhile from that vibrant community. But this does encompass a lot, if sometimes in somewhat breezily capsule fashion. It concentrates more on the neighborhood’s folk music than any other style, but the area’s contributions to rock (often from performers originating in the folk arena) and, to a lesser degree, jazz are also included. So are the numerous venues and their frequent struggles to stay alive in the midst of high overhead and significant neighborhood opposition; Washington Square Park, where much of the folk boom got its traction; and the record labels and recordings that emerged, though the emphasis is more on the performances and interaction between key players. Plenty of interesting quotes and memories, some little known, are sprinkled throughout the text, for which Browne did many interviews.

Note that the boundaries of Greenwich Village are tightly defined, so performers more associated with what’s often called the East Village get less attention. The Velvet Underground, Fugs, Holy Modal Rounders, and some other folk, jazz, and rock performers who made much of their reputation a bit outside those boundaries aren’t heavily covered. Some acts who aren’t nearly as well known as the major figures identified with the scene, such as Bob Dylan of course, get more attention than some readers might expect. In particular, Dave Van Ronk, the Blues Project (especially their guitarist, Danny Kalb), and the Roches get quite a bit of ink, including their numerous post-prime attempts to gain some success and recognition. That’s okay, however, as some of the really big names have received a wealth of documentation in other books, and the aforementioned ones are generally underrated and not as well covered as they deserve.

While the Velvet Underground only get a few sentences in the book, one of these has an inaccuracy that needs to be pointed out and corrected. This states that at Café Bizarre, “Their one show was notable for their future mentor Andy Warhol seeing them for the first time and drummer Maureen Tucker not being allowed to play her instrument due to owner Rick Allmen’s objections; they were promptly fired.” The Velvet Underground played more than one show at Café Bizarre, and actually had a brief residency there in December 1965. Although it’s not known exactly how many shows they played there, it was definitely more than one, and almost certainly more like a week or two’s worth. Playing just one show at which Warhol saw them for the first time and they got fired (which they did, after playing “The Black Angel’s Death Song” after being instructed not to by ownership, according to several accounts) didn’t happen.

4. Cher: The Memoir Part One (HarperCollins), by Cher. At about 400 pages, part one of a presumably multi-part Cher memoir covers her life through the end of the 1970s. Those are probably the years readers primarily interested in her music will be most interested in, though those who want to hear about her movie career will have to wait until the next volume. This is very detailed from her earliest years, with a lot of time given to her rough childhood and adolescence, which saw her move countless times and bounce between relative comfort and poverty. Sonny Bono doesn’t enter the story until after around 125 pages, and the narrative picks up in relative excitement around that point, as Cher finds her voice (having never before sung professionally) as a backup singer on Phil Spector sessions, and then through some flop singles with Sonny before the duo hits big with “I Got You Babe.” The music and recordings then take something of a background role as Cher gets into their lavish celebrity lifestyle, fashions, fitful attempts to make movies, and comeback to 1970s TV stardom.

Bono doesn’t come off too well, as he was quite possessive, short-changed her in business affairs, fooled around with other women, and generally tried (with much success, until their mid-‘70s divorce) to control both her professional and personal lives. What are his good points? Actually, Cher gives about equal time to his good ones, and she often forgave his indiscretions and resumed professional and personal contact with her even after their marriage had faded, to the point where readers will get exasperated. Her serious mid-to-late-‘70s affairs with David Geffen and Gene Simmons are covered without undue salaciousness, as is her brief marriage to Gregg Allman, hampered as it was by his substance abuse problems. Much attention’s given to her clothes, hair styles, home decoration, and free-spending ways, which could be so reckless it’s hard for those of us who’ve never had nearly as much money to feel too much sympathy when those ways cause financial trouble.

For those who do care about her up-and-down but generally quite successful recording career, there’s a frustrating absence of depth. Some big hits are barely mentioned, and one of the biggest, “Bang Bang,” isn’t mentioned at all. There’s little sense of how she felt about dividing her recording career between the duo outings that produced her first big hits and her almost immediate separate (and soon much more successful) solo output. As far as anything beyond those big hits—and she did make a lot of records—there’s virtually nothing, other than the failure of some pre-“I Got You Babe” singles to catch on.

Although there aren’t many passages that need to be called out for inaccuracy, here are a couple. The Rolling Stones hung out with her and Sonny on their first US tour in 1964, which is interesting, but the ages of Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Brian Jones at the time are all given incorrectly. More seriously, it’s stated that “Mick and Keith had been arrested in the UK with drugs on them earlier that year,” but that was three years later, in 1967. Her account of their visit to the UK in mid-1965 gives the impression, as she writes, “that we were American and had to go to Britain to get famous first,” but actually “I Got You Babe” entered the US charts about a month before it entered the UK charts, and when it did enter the UK charts, “I Got You Babe” was #1 in the US. Do these things matter sixty years later? Yes.

Coming in May 2026: My 800-page biography of the Velvet Underground, published by Omnibus Press:

Top Fifteen Music Documentaries of 2025

If not quite as great in number as rock reissues and books of interest to me (with lists to come in the next few days), the number and range of music documentaries continued to be impressive in 2025. It’s not surprising to find docs on superstars like Led Zeppelin and Billy Joel, but more so when cult artists with little surviving performance footage get their turn, like the Fugs. And documentaries on events, festivals, radio stations, record labels, and TV programs show you don’t have to stick to musicians to make a good film about music.

As usual, some of these films might technically have premiered somewhere before 2025. A few have barely been shown, although I was fortunate enough to have been able to see them. They all fall in the 2025 bracket, however, as far as gaining their first wide distribution and/or official premieres.

1. Newport & The Great Folk Dream. For every year between 1963 and 1966, parts of the Newport Folk Festival were filmed, forming the basis of Murray Lerner’s documentary Festival!. Many more hours of footage were taken than were used in that movie, and those in turn form the basis of this new documentary about the festival during 1963-66. While there’s some footage that’s also found in Festival!, most famously Bob Dylan’s electric rock performance of “Maggie’s Farm” in 1965, there’s a lot that isn’t, from famous performers like Johnny Cash and John Lee Hooker through to non-professional pure folk acts that didn’t make records. There’s also some interview footage from those years with performers and audience members at the festival, though the emphasis is wisely on numerous excerpts from performances. Also wisely, while there’s interview material specifically recorded for the film with the likes of Judy Collins and one of the audience members seen in the movie, these are presented in voiceovers rather than as talking heads, allowing the images to complement the memories with fuller power.

Highlights are so numerous they’re difficult to fit into one paragraph, but these include clips of the Chambers Brothers doing electric folk-blues-gospel in 1965; the Paul Butterfield Blues Band performance, with Mike Bloomfield on incendiary guitar, that sparked a fight between manager Albert Grossman and folklorist Alan Lomax over Lomax’s condescending introduction; Howlin’ Wolf in 1966, taking his mike into an audience and gyrating in the middle of a song; the Lovin’ Spoonful performing electric folk-rock in 1966 (it’s sometimes not remembered that electric music became a more accepted part of the festival after Dylan’s controversial 1965 appearance); and Richard & Mimi Fariña merrily playing in a rainstorm in 1965. Yet some of the more purely folkloric snippets are amazing too, like an a cappella group from Cape Breton singing with tablecloth wipes as percussion, or a spiritual group chopping wood as part of their show (one of them losing a grip and dropping his axe in the midst of it). As for the voiceovers, Loudon Wainwright III has a memorable soundbite about Dylan messing with the folk that was expected in 1965, using a much stronger verb than “mess.”

As always with survey documentaries, as good as the vintage footage is, it raises hunger for seeing more that exists, especially since about 80 hours from 1963-66 survives. Perhaps some can be made available as home video extras or on separate releases, as was done with some of the performances Lerner filmed at the 1970 Isle of Wight festival.

2. Sly Lives! (aka The Burden of Black Genius) (Hulu). Sly Stone isn’t the easiest of subjects for a documentary, as the still-surviving legend isn’t easy to access for interviews. He wasn’t specifically interviewed for this nearly two-hour film, but there are a lot of archive clips and, more importantly, quite a few interviews done for the film with close associates. Those include the Family Stone (though his brother Freddie and sister Rose are barely represented by these), several of his children, George Clinton, and some post-1970s stars discussing his influence, with the latter category not overdone, as it is in quite a few such productions. There are also quite a few vintage clips of Sly in performance (usually with the Family Stone during their prime), a wealth of photos (some rarely seen, at least by me), and some context about the times in which he functioned (again, not overdone), including the period’s racial relations.

Refreshingly, the music itself is not neglected, with stories of how hard the band worked (at least in its first few years), the significance of their unison harmonies, and how Stone was among the first musicians to creatively work with drum machines. Although “Dance to the Music” is depicted as a wish for a simple song that could be a hit (which it was, of course), it’s justly praised and detailed as their commercial breakthrough. Sly himself is justly praised as a musician and bandleader, but his lesser qualities aren’t overlooked, including his growing and excessive drug use; freezing out other band members from the creative process in the early 1970s despite their initial family-like closeness, helping lead to the split of the original and best lineup; his growing unreliability at showing up on time or at all for concerts; and his rapid artistic post-Fresh decline, which by the 1980s included a long prison record. The decline isn’t unnecessarily dwelled upon, the emphasis being on his artistry and triumphs. Because his and the Family Stone’s story is so complex that it can’t be wholly covered even in a fairly lengthy documentary, it does make you wish for a comprehensive written biography. None has yet appeared, though Joel Selvin’s oral history has worthwhile information, as does Stone’s rather fragmentary memoir.

3. 40 Watts from Nowhere. In 2004, Sue Carpenter’s engaging memoir of running a couple pirate radio stations in the mid-to-late-1990s was published. About twenty years later, she’s directed a documentary based on those experiences. While it naturally covers a lot of the same ground as her book did, it’s not simply a retelling of that narrative. It draws on a lot of footage taken at the time for an unrealized documentary on the Los Angeles pirate station KBLT that was run out of her apartment. That includes many of the DJs and others affiliated with the operation, as well as some performances artists did for or at the station. Some pretty well known musicians appear in those guises, if fleetingly, including Mazzy Star, Mike Watt, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. More interesting, however, are the numerous interviews done with station personnel at the time and, crucially, quite a few done specifically for this new documentary. Carpenter herself is extensively interviewed both in the vintage footage and the material shot for her own film.

Carpenter had briefly overseen a pirate station in the mid-1990s in San Francisco before moving to Los Angeles to more or less helm the much more well known KBLT for a while in the late 1990s before it was shut down by the FCC. KBLT specialized in broadcasting alternative music of all kinds, if primarily alternative rock, judging from the film. The memories of doing the groundwork for getting on the air, as well as the fun and sometimes rocky times putting music on it to considerable enthusiasm from adventurous locals, are entertaining on their own. An important message that also comes through, however, is how the station helped build a community of people determined to provide something different from what mainstream media could offer, especially (though not limited to) the Silver Lake area in which KBLT was based. Although the station’s operations are the core of the film, not the music itself, there’s also much period detail of the era’s alternative rock scene, and how much different the industry was a generation ago, when physical product still ruled (and took up much of Carpenter’s living space). Some of the bands heard on and playing in support of KBLT were very obscure even by indie rock standards, and there’s also considerable footage (if in snippets) of some of them, in the kind of raw cinematic technique also evocative of the era. (My interview with director Sue Carpenter is at http://www.richieunterberger.com/wordpress/interview-with-sue-carpenter-director-of-40-watts-from-nowhere/).

4. Everywhere Man: The Lives and Times of Peter Asher. Asher was a British Invasion star as half of Peter and Gordon, though he made his biggest impact on pop music as producer/manager of James Taylor and Linda Ronstadt. Both phases of his career, as well as a few others of less renown, are covered in this two-hour documentary. If you’ve seen Asher’s long-running live show of recent years in which he combines extensive storytelling with some music and film, you know a lot of the material, since the directors often use scenes from his actual presentation, filmed at a San Francisco club. Most people haven’t seen that show, so more of this will be novel to them. And even if you have seen that show (I have, twice), it’s pretty entertaining and informative to see and hear Asher talk about his multifaceted life, interwoven with lots of archival clips and photos, as well as interviews done specifically for this project with Asher and several close associates.

Among those associates are Taylor, Ronstadt, Carole King, Peter’s sister Jane, session musicians like Danny Kortchmar, and less expected names like Twiggy, Pattie Boyd (George Harrison’s first wife), John Dunbar (whose countercultural Indica bookstore and gallery Asher helped with in the mid-1960s), Kate Taylor (sister of James), Eric Idle, and (via a 2006 archival interview) Gordon Waller. An impressive wealth of archival snippets were unearthed, from obscure Peter and Gordon appearances through scenes of Ronstadt and Taylor in their prime (and even one of Kate Taylor onstage). Asher also discusses his brief time as head of A&R at Apple Records, where he first worked with James Taylor, as well as Waller’s hell-raising, the shocking suicide of his father in the late 1960s, and the collapse of his first marriage in the 1970s. As Asher himself acknowledges, he’s rather reserved and unemotional, but still a good and oft-humorous tale-teller, and if doesn’t blow his own horn much, several others testify to his skills as a producer.

Asher’s post-1970s productions, which include work with Cher, Neil Diamond, and Diana Ross, are barely noted, the 1970s Taylor/Ronstadt era jumping quickly to his brief reunion with Gordon Waller a few years before Waller’s death. As incomplete as this makes this survey, I agree with the decision to focus on the much more interesting parts of his career with Taylor, Ronstadt, Peter & Gordon, and Apple. His brief stint working at MGM Records in the late 1960s isn’t even mentioned, though you can go to David Jacks’s book Peter Asher: A Life in Music for details on that and many other Asher accomplishments the film doesn’t get to. One incident that will surprise many viewers, even those with a good grounding in Asher’s background, is that he initially turned down Linda Ronstadt as a client as he felt that he couldn’t concentrate on developing both her and Kate Taylor’s career at once, though Taylor soon dropped out of the picture and cleared the way for Asher and Ronstadt to collaborate.

As for something that only intense sticklers for historical detail might notice, it seems that in one instance, telling a good story might have gotten in the way of what might have actually transpired. Asher was best man at Dunbar’s wedding to Marianne Faithfull, and says he also had some responsibility for breaking up that marriage by helping introduce Faithfull to Mick Jagger. That marriage took place in May 1965, yet Faithfull first came across Jagger at a party about a year earlier. At least in the way the incidents are presented, the chronology is somewhat confusing and possibly inaccurate, and the deduction that he both helped instigate and disintegrate that marriage possibly overblown.

5. Fugs Film! Like some other crucial artists, the Fugs are eminently worthy of a documentary, but handicapped by the shortage of prime vintage footage of the group. That’s a factor in this movie, but to its credit, it unearthed more such material than anyone knew was out there. More importantly, it benefits from recent first-hand interviews with the two surviving members of the Fugs’ core trio, Ed Sanders and Ken Weaver. The third, Tuli Kupferberg, is represented (if rather mildly) by some archive clips. A few of the other Fugs who drifted in and out of their numerous lineups were also interviewed (Peter Stampfel, bassist John Anderson, and guitarist Danny Kortchmar), as well as some people who knew the Fugs well, like Betsy Klein, Weaver’s girlfriend in the 1960s (who did the female vocal on “Morning Morning”), and arranger Warren Smith.

Although this isn’t a totally comprehensive history of the group, it does cover most of the main bases, including highlights from their records; their funny and oft-controversial performances, mixing bawdy humor with penetrating social satire; their participation in the effort to levitate the Pentagon in a 1967 antiwar protest; their activities as poets and Sanders’s New York Peace Eye Bookstore; Harry Smith’s production of their debut album; and their breakup in the late 1960s when Sanders got tired of the effort involved in running a rock band. There are some genuinely good, high-quality performance clips filmed in 1968 in Sweden, though as is so often the case in documentaries, the excerpts are on the too-short side. Quips from a late-‘60s David Susskind interview with the three principal Fugs are also worthy. But the biggest surprises are in the interviews. Weaver remembers watching his stepfather beat his mother to death as a youngster. Anderson, now living as a woman named Jackie, recalls getting a frosty reception from the Fugs after he returned from serving in the military in Vietnam, realizing he couldn’t rejoin the group, although he’d tried to get disqualified from service.

There are, however, some interesting aspects of the Fugs’ career that aren’t covered much or at all. These include their sometimes fractious relations with record labels, including ESP, Atlantic (who dropped them post-ESP after they recorded a few tracks), and Reprise; how and why they changed lineups so frequently; and only passing or no mentions of some interesting members, like guitarist Jon Kalb (brother of the much more famous Danny Kalb), Charlie Larkey (later husband of and collaborator with Carole King), Ken Pine, Vinny Leary, and Lee Crabtree (as well as producer Richard Alderson). Some of this is detailed in Sanders’s autobiography Fug You, but as this 83-minute documentary isn’t overly long, there could have been room for more. (My interview with director Chuck Smith is at http://www.richieunterberger.com/wordpress/interview-with-fugs-film-director-chuck-smith/.)

6. Hung Up on a Dream: The Zombies Documentary. The Zombies were a great group, and this is a good if imperfect documentary. The good stuff: all four of the surviving members were interviewed, with the late guitarist Paul Atkinson represented by an interview with his daughter and quite a few compliments about him from the other Zombies. Singer Colin Blunstone and keyboardist Rod Argent get significantly more screen time than bassist Chris White (who was the Zombies’ other primary songwriter besides Argent) and Hugh Grundy, but no one’s limited to skimpy time. In keeping with their genteel image, they are polite and articulate, with perhaps fewer internal tensions than any other major British Invasion band, other maybe than their fairly mild disagreements about whether they should have broken up in the late 1960s. An unavoidable limitation is the lack of vintage film footage, especially if you don’t count clips of “She’s Not There” and “Tell Her No,” though fairly brief excerpts of performances of those two hits and a few other songs were excavated. The pace is fast and the stories interesting and invitingly told, and while there’s the usual drop-off in momentum when things move past the 1970s into their late-life awards and revival performances, that final section isn’t overly long.

As for the imperfections, there could have been more coverage of their extensive body of quality work besides their two big mid-1960s hits and the 1968 Odessey and Oracle album (which is extensively detailed in respect to its recording and belated appreciation as a classic). Here are two important areas that would have been worth a few minutes: their extensive series of excellent flop mid-1960s singles. Were there any they were especially proud of, and how did they feel about such excellent work failing to sell or even gain much recognition at the time? That issue doesn’t come up, and maybe more seriously, what made them most different from the many other British Invasion groups isn’t discussed either. It’s worth a bit of time to note they used minor melodies more extensively than anyone; had haunting harmonies in addition to Blunstone’s fine distinctive lead vocals; had one of the best instrumentalists of the era in Argent; and that while White didn’t write any of their three hits, he was nearly on par with Argent as a songwriter.

You do hear a lot about their strange tour of the Philippines, and in a related subject, how little money they saw in the 1960s and how badly they got ripped off. That’s interesting and not related in an unduly sour manner, and there’s some attention paid to Blunstone’s solo career in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and Argent (the band’s) relatively successful run during that time. It’s revealed that Blunstone was adopted and raised by the sister of his birth mother, though he didn’t learn his birth mother was the sister of his adoptive mother until well into adulthood. As for a worthwhile sentimental concluding note, Rod Argent observes that while they appreciate their eventual recognition as an important act, the big success was that they remained friends all their lives.

7. Becoming Led Zeppelin. One of the most popular documentaries of 2025 covers the roots, birth, and emergence of Led Zeppelin with their first two albums, ending in early 1970. I’m not a Led Zeppelin fan, which is yet another sure way to lose some friends on social media. However, I’m a big fan of the Yardbirds, from whom Jimmy Page transitioned to forming Led Zeppelin. I’m also interested in his pre-Yardbirds work as a session man, and also the much less documented pre-Led Zep work of the other three members. Much of the first hour of this two-hour film is devoted to those pre-1969 years, with extensive first-hand interviews with the three surviving members (the fourth, John Bonham, is represented by audio from a non-video interview he did). There’s a wealth of sound and silent footage of early Led Zeppelin, some of it rarely seen or unseen before this was released. There’s also some scarce footage of artists with whom they were associated, including the first I’ve seen (though silent, with an official recording serving as the soundtrack) of Johnny Kidd and the Pirates, as well as less likely suspects like Lulu, producer Mickie Most, and Shirley Bassey.

Led Zeppelin fans, of course, will be thrilled with both the footage and the articulate, detailed memories of Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones. Refreshingly, they (and Bonham, via the audio interview) are the only interviewees, telling their story themselves without testimonial endorsements about how great and significant they were from much younger rock stars and other celebrities. In large part because I’m not a fan of the group themselves, the second part was less effective for me, with some segments filled out by footage of period non-music news events and ’60s rock culture. (For what it’s worth, some shots of audience dancing at the Fillmore West are from a 1966 film clip of Jefferson Airplane, not from a Led Zeppelin show or even another Fillmore concert from the time Led Zeppelin were active.) To its credit, instead of restricting itself to brief snippets, some performances of their early songs are shown in total, or nearly total.

As long as this is, there is much more that could have been said, though knowledgeable fans have found the information elsewhere. It’s not mentioned, for instance, that when Page joined the Yardbirds, he played bass at first, then moving to share lead guitar duties with Jeff Beck. Controversies about songwriting credits for some of their early tracks aren’t covered, though Page mentions the Yardbirds’ version of “Dazed and Confused” (later of course also done by Led Zeppelin) was “inspired” by singer-songwriter Jake Holmes, and Plant says he came up with Willie Dixon-type lyrics for part of “Whole Lotta Love.” It’s interesting that Page and manager Peter Grant determined to concentrate on the US market even before their first album came out, and that it was recorded in total before a deal was signed with Atlantic Records. It’s odd, though, that while it’s stated that Page had a drummer in mind before Bonham was suggested, that drummer isn’t named; some sources say this was B.J. Wilson of Procol Harum, others that it was the much more obscure Paul Francis. It’s also odd to hear Page remember devising the abstract instrumental break of “Whole Lotta Love” to ensure it wouldn’t be used as a single; as many people and surely Page himself know, it was indeed a big hit single in the US, though an edited version was supplied to radio stations.

8. Sunday Best: The Untold Story of Ed Sullivan (Netflix). This isn’t an overview of the famous TV host’s career, though it includes a lot of detail about it. It focuses on one specific part of his contributions — his openness, perhaps even eagerness, to spotlight African-American performers on The Ed Sullivan Show. His professional stance against bigotry dated back to his time as a newspaper columnist, and during the program’s long run from the late 1940s through the early 1970s, he had many black entertainers on his show. There are clips (brief; the documentary runs about 90 minutes) of quite a few, including the Supremes, Louis Armstrong, Bo Diddley, Nina Simone, Gladys Knight, Stevie Wonder, and the Jackson Five, as well as interviews testifying to Sullivan’s contributions from Berry Gordy, Smokey Robinson, Dionne Warwick, and others. Some archival interviews with Sullivan make clear his commitment to airing African-American entertainment, even under some pressure from sponsors and affiliates (especially from the South) not to. Numerous scenes of Sullivan hand-shaking and embracing black guests on air also make clear his comfort with giving them a showcase.

Although the documentary’s not overly long, it’s filled out some with contextual scenes of Civil Rights activism from the time, as well as his airing of the Beatles in early 1964 and the program’s decline in popularity by the time the 1970s began. Smokey Robinson particularly hails Sullivan’s love of Motown artists, and how much their guest appearances helped soul music and the image of African-Americans in general. Sullivan’s particular taste in and passion for the music he presented isn’t examined, or perhaps even known to a great extent. His sincerity in giving blacks a platform on national television is evident, however, and though some quick cuts between eras and different forms of entertainers gets rapid at times, it’s not unduly hectic.

9. Devo (Netflix). Getting its festival premiere in 2024, this wasn’t widely seen until it got onto Netflix in 2025, hence its qualification for this list. If I was more of a Devo fan this would be higher on this list, but it earns a place in the Top Ten as it’s well made and has points of interest even for those not enamored of their music. There are extensive interviews with members, particularly Gerald Casale and Mark Mothersbaugh, and many archival performance clips, going all the way back to 1973. Plenty of archival interviews are also incorporated via both film and sound recording voiceovers, and naturally there are clips from some of their numerous videos, from early DIY productions through the MTV era. These again have their entertainment value even if you don’t have their records, poking as they often do at institutions, consumerism, and the general deterioration of civilization. The pace is fast to the point of verging on over-hectic, though such rapid-fire imagery is in keeping with much of their aesthetic.

Devo’s music and records come in for a lot of coverage, including their mixed experience working with producer Brian Eno on their first album (as Eno wanted a greater creative role than was reflected in the results), their breakthrough to wider visibility with their Saturday Night Live performance of “Satisfaction,” and of course their huge hit “Whip It,” which was kind of a fluke after a radio DJ in Florida started playing it after a different song had been chosen for a single and flopped. Their roots in the political turmoil at Kent State in the early 1970s gets a lot of attention, as does their use – overuse, in the view of listeners such as myself – of irony and their infiltration, to some degree, of their underground approach into mainstream culture. There are also insights into/examples of the difficulty of an outsider band working within the major label corporate music business, whether it’s conflicts between Virgin and Warners Records in delaying the release of their first album; Warner Brothers’ general impatience with their idiosyncratic way of doing things; and MTV rejecting a suggestive video after playing many Devo videos in the network’s early days.

10. We Want the Funk! (PBS). Funk’s evolution and impact is satisfactorily covered by this nearly 90-minute doc, though there might be a little too much academic analysis by some of the talking heads. Although its echoes in rap and some more modern artists are touched upon, the emphasis is properly on funk pioneers of the 1960s and 1970s. James Brown, Parliament/Funkadelic, and Sly & the Family Stone all get significant airtime and short vintage performance clip excerpts. So do some others, like LaBelle, Bootsy Collins, Prince, and – commendably, as some projects might overlook them – Afrobeat pioneers Manu Dibango and Fela. While there aren’t too many first-hand recent interviews, George Clinton Nona Hendryx, and David Byrne offer some thoughts, and some academics and authors weigh in with funk’s relationship to and reinforcement of African-American identity. Of course some of the less successful and/or critically respected funksters are lightly covered or not covered, but the judgment on whom to focus is sound. Of course, like many documentaries on PBS or elsewhere, the subject merits a more extensive multi-part series if anyone’s up to it.

11. Janis Ian: Breaking Silence. Known to many listeners only for her two big hits “Society’s Child” and “Seventeen,” Ian had a very long career spanning more than half a century, though she recently stopped performing owing to vocal problems. Those two songs get a lot of coverage in this well-made documentary, whose musical focus does emphasize a handful of her compositions, also including “Jesse” (covered for small hit by Roberta Flack) and “Stars.” Ian was interviewed for the film, though her presence is felt more by numerous voiceovers than clips in which she appears. Also heard from are some notable associates and peers, like producer Brooks Arthur, Joan Baez, Arlo Guthrie, Lily Tomlin, and girlfriends and boyfriends. Snippets of a good number of archive clips are present, including her performance of “Society’s Child” on the 1967 Leonard Bernstein-hosted network TV special on pop music that helped the song become a hit single when its controversial lyric about an interracial relationship was limiting its airplay. Numerous gaps not covered by vintage footage or photos are filled in by silent reenactments, which are too heavily used, but not so much that they make for a serious flaw.

A nearly two-hour documentary on any major musician can’t cover close to everything. But there’s much this doesn’t address so much, like her teenage songs besides “Society’s Child” and her time when she was struggling to even get a record deal after being classified as a one-shot child prodigy. Some of that’s filled in by her autobiography. But this does have some unusual stories that will surprise people, like how “Seventeen”’s ascension to hit status was helped when copies of her record were mailed not just to radio programmers, but specifically to women—to their wives and any women working at radio stations. And earlier, when producer Shadow Morton gave her the option of changing the lyric “black as night” in “Society’s Child,” explaining that would remove an impediment to it becoming a hit (Ian didn’t change the lyric). There’s also her near-descent into poverty when it was discovered someone in her management had been fleecing her for years, forcing her to pay off the IRS for thirteen years before she was clear of debt. While like many documentaries this loses some momentum as her more recent years are covered with less depth, but it also recounts her public championing of LGB identity, the archiving of masses of her material at Berea College, and her regrettable need to stop performing (though not writing) when her vocal cords were damaged a few years ago.

12. King of Them All: The Story of King Records (PBS). It doesn’t have the name recognition of Motown, Stax, or Chess, but the Cincinnati-based King label recorded a lot of important soul, R&B, early rock’n’roll, and (mostly in its early days) country music from the mid-1940s through the late 1960s. Lasting a little under an hour, this PBS documentary covers the essentials of the company’s history well, though it inevitably misses out on detailing some notable performers owing to its length. King’s cantankerous founder-owner, Syd Nathan, is represented by some audio interviews, and while his autocratic nature is testified to by some others involved in the label, his dedication to building a powerful independent company is too. So is his willingness to work with African-Americans and southern whites of modest means at a time when that wasn’t encouraged in a more segregated society. So is King’s determination to fulfill the tastes of what were considered minor ethnic markets that weren’t being catered to by major labels, and its role in sparking rock’n’roll by having country artists cover R&B songs, and vice versa.

James Brown was King’s biggest star, and he’s the artist that gets the most coverage here, including with some archival clips that, in keeping with the usual public television format, are short snippets. By the mid-1960s he pretty much was carrying the company, which came to an end when Brown moved to Polydor and Nathan died near the end of the decade. Besides some historians commenting upon King’s significance, interview subjects include Hank Ballard, who discusses his controversial “Work With Me Annie” records and his original version of “The Twist” in footage that must have been shot a long time ago, as he died in 2003. Early King country pioneers like the Delmore Brothers and Merle Travis get some time via recordings heard on the soundtrack and photos. Yet other quite significant R&B/soul/blues artists on King are barely mentioned or heard, including Freddie King, Little Willie John, Bill Doggett, and the Five Royales. King’s legacy is worth a longer or multi-part series, as unlikely as it is that it will be honored with the kind of four-hour treatment given by HBO’s Stax: Soulville documentary.

13. Billy Joel: And So It Goes (HBO). This two-part, approximately five-hour documentary would rank higher if I was more of a Joel fan, or a fan of his music to any significant extent. It’s on this list not just because it’s pretty well made, with plenty of recent interviews with Joel; interviews with close associates covering his whole career, including band members and all of his wives, the first of whom managed him as he shot to superstardom, the second of whom (Christie Brinkley) is extremely famous in her own right: and lots of footage and photos spanning his entire professional life. Much (though not all) of it’s pretty interesting no matter what your take on Joel, particularly the wealth of struggles and professional setbacks he faced in gaining fame (and sometimes, after he became famous). It even goes way back to the two bands he made records with before going solo, the Hassles and Attila, and these aren’t just mentioned in passing, but discussed in reasonable depth. Indeed much of his music is discussed in reasonable-to-considerable depth, including of course his most famous songs and hits, of which there are many.

A few of the obstacles Joel faced — some familiar to those who come to this knowing a lot about his career, but much of them not known, or known much about — including tapes for his first album getting sped up, much to his dissatisfaction, particularly in the vocal department. Some of his producers (though not Phil Ramone) come off pretty badly in their insistence on doing things like that, particularly Artie Ripp and, later, Chicago producer James Guercio. Joel turned down George Martin as producer since Martin didn’t want to use his band, though this actually paid off as when he used Ramone instead, he made the LP that made him huge (1977’s The Stranger). A former brother-in-law manager comes off as quite the villain, though his first wife, Elizabeth Weber, is hailed for assertively playing a vital role in pushing Joel over the top in her years as his manager. If you want some personal intrigue, there’s much, especially as Weber had been married to Joel’s closest pre-solo bandmate when Billy and Elizabeth began their relationship.

The tale gets less interesting after the last of Joel’s most familiar batch of songs on 1983’s An Innocent Man. That still leaves time for two more marriage breakups, subsequent wrestling with alcoholism, and his decision to stop writing original material and, eventually, retire from performing, though he walked back on that to some degree. And there are some reflections on the joys of family life that are common to such celebrity profiles, as well as notes about how the low regard in which he’s held my many critics is countered by his phenomenal popularity. Some of this could have been cut, and indeed some other parts could have been cut down too. But at a time when many American Masters-like studies don’t go deep enough, here’s one that doesn’t shy away from covering multiple sides of the artist at considerable length.

14. The Disappearance of Miss Scott (American Masters). This nearly 90-minute episode of American Masters covers the life and career of jazz pianist/singer Hazel Scott. Her style of mid-twentieth century jazz isn’t among my main interests, but her accomplishments were noteworthy, and this documentary has a good balance of coverage of her musical and social achievements. She integrated some elements of classical music into her fairly mainstream jazz swing, and worked in some all-women bands when such ensembles were fairly rare. At the beginning of the 1950s, she was the first African American to have a syndicated television show. She was also married to Adam Clayton Powell, the famed first black Congress representative from New York State. She also appeared in some movies, although her insistence on not doing a scene with fellow black actors whose wardrobe had been deliberately dirtied cost her Hollywood advancement. She was also among many entertainers who were blacklisted in the McCarthy era. There aren’t many people who knew Scott left, but her son is among the people interviewed, and there are plenty of archival performance (and some interview) clips of Scott herself dotting the program.

This film listed below came out in 2024, but I didn’t see it until 2025:

The Yardbirds: In Their Own Words (Sky Arts). There was a BBC documentary about the Yardbirds almost thirty years ago, but this is both longer (at nearly an hour and a half) and more comprehensive. A good number of band members, associates, and figures influenced by the Yardbirds were interviewed for the film, most especially original drummer Jim McCarty, original bassist/producer Paul Samwell-Smith, and Jimmy Page. Jeff Beck is represented by a good number of archive interviews, though unfortunately Eric Clapton is only seen talking about the band briefly in one. To add to the list, interviewed for the documentary were also Simon Napier-Bell, who managed the group for about a year; late singer Keith Relf’s sister Jane, who’d sing with his post-Yardbirds group, Renaissance; Relf’s wife; and, testifying to their influence, Alice Cooper, Brian May, and Lenny Kaye. While the clips used in archival footage of the band on film are brief, they are numerous, and include the group in their various lineups with Clapton, Beck, and Page, even managing to put in much of their legendary appearance in Blow-Up. Most of their hits and most famous songs are represented in these, though the absence of even discussion of the “Still I’m Sad”/“Evil Hearted You” single is unfortunate. Some of the pictures and home movies are unfamiliar.

The core story of the group will be familiar to many listeners, but even so, it’s good to hear the tale of their unlikely journey from blues group to psychedelic pioneers in their own words. And most of it is in their own words; there’s little narration aside from a prologue, and not much in the way of unnecessary talking heads who weren’t involved in their career. Along the way, the touchstones include how they brought improvisation into blues-rock; the departure of Clapton for blues purism and replacement by the more adventurous Beck; the incorporation of Indian influence; their one album, 1966’s The Yardbirds (aka Roger the Engineer), where they were able to have a reasonable amount of time to record a full LP the way they wanted; their disappointing Page-era Mickie Most productions, for which criticism is not held back; and how Page’s experience in the Yardbirds help set the success of Led Zeppelin. Of particular interest to me were Simon Napier-Bell’s comments, as in his first memoir, he’s pretty flippant about the whole mid-1960s British music scene, as though it was a bit of a joke, though he did write that the Yardbirds were among the few acts who really mattered. Maybe he was writing in that style for effect, but in the documentary, he has serious and accurate comments about the group and the strength of their music. As Jane Relf hasn’t been interviewed too often, her contributions were also welcome. Sure it would have been nice to have more extensive discussion of managers Giorgio Gomelsky and Peter Grant, or of deep tracks like the few they managed in the Page era that were really good like “Glimpses” and “Think About It,” though their version of “Dazed and Confused” is noted (and their French TV performance of it excerpted). It is too bad, however, that this documentary for the Sky Arts channel is difficult to access in the US.

Interview with Fugs Film Director Chuck Smith

Sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Long before the phrase became a cliché, the Fugs combined those elements with political activism, satire, poetry, and other ingredients in a band like no other that operated in the last half of the 1960s. Big in the emerging rock underground, they never became stars, but broke new and often controversial ground in rock lyrics and rock theatrics during their half decade or so.

Like some other crucial artists, such as their Lower East Side New York peers the Velvet Underground, the Fugs are eminently worthy of a documentary, but handicapped by the shortage of prime vintage footage of the group. That’s a factor in Chuck Smith’s new Fugs Film!, but to its credit, it unearthed more such material than anyone knew was out there. More importantly, it benefits from recent first-hand interviews with the two surviving members of the Fugs’ core trio, Ed Sanders and Ken Weaver. The third, Tuli Kupferberg, is represented by some archive clips. A few of the other Fugs who drifted in and out of their numerous lineups were also interviewed (Peter Stampfel, bassist John Anderson, and guitarist Danny Kortchmar), as well as some people who knew the Fugs well, like Betsy Klein, Weaver’s girlfriend in the 1960s (who did the female vocal on “Morning Morning”), and arranger Warren Smith.

Although this isn’t a totally comprehensive history of the group, it does cover most of the main bases, including highlights from their records; their funny and oft-controversial performances, mixing bawdy humor with penetrating social satire; their participation in the effort to levitate the Pentagon in a 1967 protest against US involvement in the Vietnam War; their activities as poets and Sanders’s New York Peace Eye Bookstore; Harry Smith’s production of their debut album; and their breakup in the late 1960s when Sanders got tired of the effort involved in running a rock band. There are some genuinely good, high-quality performance clips filmed in 1968 in Sweden. Quips from a late-‘60s David Susskind interview with the three principal Fugs are also worthy.

But the biggest surprises are in the interviews. Weaver remembers watching his stepfather beat his mother to death as a youngster. Anderson, now living as a woman named Jackie, recalls getting a frosty reception from the Fugs after he returned from serving in the military in Vietnam, realizing he couldn’t rejoin the group, although he’d tried to get disqualified from service.

There are some interesting aspects of the Fugs’ career that aren’t covered in as much depth, including their interesting and sometimes fractious relations with record labels, and only passing or no mentions of some interesting members, like guitarist Jon Kalb (brother of the much more famous Danny Kalb), bassist Charlie Larkey (later husband of and collaborator with Carole King), guitarist Ken Pine, guitarist Vinny Leary, and keyboardist Lee Crabtree (as well as producer Richard Alderson). Some of this is detailed in Sanders’s autobiography Fug You, for those who want more info.

Chuck Smith is quite familiar with the Lower East Side milieu in which the Fugs emerged. He directed the 2018 documentary Barbara Rubin and the Exploding NY Underground, based around underground filmmaker Rubin, who in the mid-1960s was an associate (if sometimes fleeting) of the Velvet Underground, avant-garde filmmaker/critic Jonas Mekas, Andy Warhol, Bob Dylan, and the Fugs, among others. I spoke to Smith in November 2026, shortly after the premiere of Fugs Film! at the DOC NYC festival.

How did you decide to do the Fugs film?

To be honest, Ed [Sanders] asked me to do it. He was a friend of Barbara’s [Rubin’s], and he had seen the film and he loved Jonas Mekas. And he trusted Jonas, and he knew that Jonas trusted me. And so, after he saw that film, I think he’d been thinking of doing a Fugs film. Many other people had approached him over the years, but he’s very smart. Somehow he thought that I would do a good job.

Poster for Fugs shows in Torrance, California in August 1968, with an image of Fugs drummer Ken Weaver.

I didn’t really want to spend more time in the ‘60s. Yes, I knew it well. But I was kind of hoping to get out of that for my next film. But it was just too good of an idea. I said, yeah. Also, I knew he was getting older, and Ken Weaver was still alive. So honestly it was ‘cause Ed asked me to do it, and said he would give me all the music for free, which I knew was a big issue. Because for the Barbara Rubin film, you need to get rights to music. He said he controlled most of it, and that’s a done deal. That’s how it started.

So Ed was the sparkplug. 

Yeah, he was the sparkplug. He’d been going through his archive, because he was about to give his archives to Princeton. So the history has always been in his mind. Not that he doesn’t always think about history. He’s an amazing archivist, an historian. But he’d been preparing his archive to send to Princeton. The first day I filmed with Ed was just before that, because I kind of wanted to see the archive before it moved to Princeton. The week before they picked everything up, I was up there while he was going through the files. I looked at all the Fugs boxes, and started going down memory lane. 

So it’s kind of a good first way to start filming with Ed. In fact, I think a little bit of that interview is in the film from that first day. Because it’s always exciting when you first start talking to someone about something. But right away I knew that Ed has written about this. He’s done an autobiography, he has stock answers to things. And I don’t really like stock answers. I like emotion and some feelings. A little bit like Jonas too…

Anyone who’s been around a long time has been telling stories for years. They say the same kind of things. I could sense right away that Ed was giving me the spiel. What I really wanted was to do it enough that I’d break him down. I finally did get there, both with Jonas and Ed at some point, and break through the stories that are told over and over.

It’s interesting there’s an archive of Ed’s material.

It’s at Princeton. But it was also an archive of the ‘60s. Not only did he collect all the Fugs stuff. He had every issue of Fuck You, his magazine. He had every issue of the [‘60s New York underground paper] East Village Other. He had tons of memorabilia, and all his research for Manson [for Sanders’s Charles Manson biography, The Family]. It was his entire archive, which was about three little cabins or sheds full of stuff. It was a giant truck. It was a big event. He had boxes and boxes of fan mail from then, and that was fun. It’s a cool way to start.

It must have been a big challenge to put together a full documentary with such little vintage film footage of the Fugs. It’s fortunate there’s the fifteen minutes or so of performance from 1968 in Sweden.

Yes. You always hope there’s going to be some great discovery. I’d already known about the Swedish thing, which was great. But that’s really later in their career, and that was one of the problems. Then of course, Ed English had done a film with them, twenty minutes, called The Fugs, which is also in the movie. Those are the two extensive documentations. That Fugs film was from 1966, so that was an earlier version [of the band]. So between that ’66 footage and the ’68 footage, I was like, I could do it. I kept thinking, I’m gonna find something new, something great. But I didn’t find any video. I did find some cool audio stuff.

They were on the BBC in ’67 twice, and I think someone must have shot their Roundhouse shows [at the renowned London venue The Roundhouse]. But I couldn’t find it. In the end, I was stuck with ’66 and ’68. The other interesting thing about that is, the camera wasn’t there during some of the big events, like with the Velvet Underground as well, that you want to document. 

I really don’t like animation or had never used it, and didn’t like it in some films. But I knew I’d probably want to try some animation for this one to tell those stories. And I knew that Drew Christie had already animated the Holy Modal Rounders [documentary The Holy Modal Rounders…Bound to Love] and Harry Smith [the animated short Some Crazy Magic: Meeting Harry Smith]. I was like, okay, that’s a start. So I liked him, and then Lucy Munger, I loved her stuff; that’s the kind of animation I love, the cut-out stuff. So for levitating the Pentagon, I thought, she’s gonna be great.

You always do hope for this great footage that no one discovered, but I couldn’t find any. It’s amazing, because they did over 500 shows in New York City at the Players Theater, and nobody…no TV station [filmed them there]. As you know with the Velvets, the other problem is that the people who were running around with cameras were Barbara Rubin and the people who were avant-garde. So nobody was locking down and shooting a show the way they did in Sweden, or the way they did in Europe. Frankly, if the Velvets had gone to Europe in ’67 or ’68, someone might have shot them beautifully, like they did the Fugs. All the best Coltrane and jazz stuff, it’s all from Europe in the ‘60s.

So I had tons of really wacky footage. In fact, I did discover some psychedelic footage of them in San Francisco in ’67. But you can’t even see who’s playing. It’s just a bunch of lights and stuff. It was a crazy time for whatever the handheld cameras were. But there’s just enough.

I did find some actual footage that [renowned independent filmmaker] Shirley Clark and Barbara Rubin shot of them flying down to DC for the Pentagon protest and levitation. So that’s in the film. I can see Shirley Clark onstage with the Fugs with a big sixteen millimeter camera. I know that footage exists, and I think it’s in Ornette Coleman’s son’s, Denardo’s, garage. But I couldn’t get Denardo to get it together to give it to me. It’s almost easier when there’s not much footage (laughs).

The Fugs’ career had a lot of different aspects. There’s the music, the political activity, their literary activity, their lyrics. What did you want to focus on for the kind of story you wanted to tell, in a little less than 90 minutes?

The good news is, I wasn’t really a huge…growing up, I did like the Velvet Underground. I knew of the Fugs, but it wasn’t like I was a fanatic. I knew they did some interesting things, but I wasn’t enamored. So I was really coming to their catalog and what they did cold, which was great. You always want to make the film you want to watch. I just wanted to watch a good summary of all the cool things they had done. 

And they are super-eclectic. From their first album to all the different…it’s almost operatic, some of their later songs are like opera. They do have people going “ahhh.” It was very diverse, but I knew it was all interesting in little bits. I really just wanted to let someone who knew nothing about the Fugs to uncover a huge strange band that came from these zines. They really did the first zines. That’s part of the film too; both Tuli and Ed had done very cool magazines. And that they were poets.

It wasn’t one particular thing, but how you condense it all. Every time I look at it, I think of all the stuff I left out. So much stuff, we left out. But you get the idea that the Fugs were interesting and innovative, and that’s all you need.

Another challenge is that in documenting what happened 55-60 years ago, a lot of the people aren’t around, or might not be around much longer. You got two of the three most important Fugs. You couldn’t get Tuli [who died in 2010 at the age of 86], obviously. That must have been a good head start in telling the story.

Yeah, absolutely. Ed has been around forever; I knew Ed was gonna know everything and be able to give stories. But I really feel very proud [of] the moments where he got emotional, which he hasn’t talked about much—his mother, or losing Tuli. So to get Ed to get a little emotional was key for me.

Then I didn’t know Ken’s story. Ken Weaver was a mystery. I knew that I wanted to talk to the Crumbs [cartoonist R. Crumb and his cartoonist wife Aline Kominsky-Crumb] when I was out there, ‘cause I knew they were good friends. When Ken starts talking about his childhood, I was like flabbergasted. I was like, oh my god, this is another level. These are things you don’t know going in, and Aline was a huge Fugs fan and told some great stories. Six months after we talked to Aline, she passed away, sadly, and she was so healthy and vital. It’s really important to get all these things.

The good news with Tuli was that he was very well documented, more than the other guys. Even though I didn’t do an interview with Tuli, there were interviews with him, and there was tapes of him. There was actually film footage from some of the movies he was in. So I felt like I got really lucky that the one Fug that I couldn’t talk to personally, there was a lot of documentation of.

You talked to some important other members and associates, like Peter Stampfel, John Anderson (now living as Jackie), and Betsy Klein. Was there some really valuable material from those interviews that you weren’t expecting?

Betsy Klein is a fascinating person. She knew Timothy Leary very well, and helped him get out of jail. She has stories, but she’s also incredibly private, and she lives hidden somewhere. It’s not even the name she’s going by now. So the fact that Betsy agreed to be in the film and to give me an interview…and I didn’t know if I was going to be able to use it after we interviewed her. She would have had to feel comfortable. And thank Betsy that she really did feel comfortable.

But she was another big mystery. People knew she sang on “Morning Morning” [a highlight of the Fugs’ second album, 1966’s The Fugs], but she was a huge part of the Fugs back then. And she was with Ken Weaver. Obviously she’d be an interesting person to talk to, but she was extremely private, and not the kind of person who would agree to everything. She didn’t even sign a release. I had to interview her first, and then got the release. Thank god she did like the way she turned out, and I kept it private enough, and we call her Betsy Klein, so that’s good. People wouldn’t be able to find her. So that was a blessing. And because of Aline Crump…that’s her best friend, was Betsy.

I wanted to find all these Fugs, and I didn’t know which ones I could find. I keep hearing Vinny Leary’s around, but I wasn’t able to find Vinny. I don’t know if he’s a great storyteller. But John Anderson just looked interesting, and I had footage of him in that ’66 thing. I could see he was a cute young guy, so I knew I wanted to find him. I didn’t know he changed his name, so I went to Yale [where Anderson had gone to college]. Then of course to discover that he’d become a woman was like, oh my god, this is really good. And then to discover that he was the one who went to Vietnam, it was like a double win.

Her story, Jackie’s story, really makes the film much deeper than it would have been. Because it brings home the Vietnam story. Also, she’s a great interview. I reintroduced her to Betsy, so Jackie and Betsy are best buddies again. They loved each other back then, too. So I love that story. Those are the things you can never imagine before you start.

The Fugs’ second album, 1966.

Peter Stampfel must have been very accessible.

Peter’s an unfiltered, amazing resource. Steve Weber [who was in an early Fugs lineup with Stampfel, though Stampfel and Weber are more well known as longtime collaborators in the Holy Modal Rounders] would have been amazing. But thank god Paul [Lovelace, co-director of The Holy Modal Rounders…Bound to Lose] did the Holy Modal Rounder doc, and got Steve before he burned out. Really, the Fugs went on to be more than that. But at least getting Peter to talk about those early days was great, too. And kudos to Lenny Kaye and Jeffrey Lewis, who are both true fans, and Penny Arcade, who really know the subject well, and were able to talk very well about [the Fugs, when interviewed in the film].

Ken Weaver having watched his stepfather beat his mother to death, and John Anderson’s transition to a woman, must have been the biggest surprises.

I would say it’s not just a tragic incident for Ken Weaver, it’s his whole fucking childhood was a disaster. I couldn’t even begin to tell you all the shit he went through. We touch on a little bit. He’s written a memoir where he doesn’t even mention the Fugs. The memoir’s about the first eighteen years of his life, and it’s really good, dramatic, and crazy. Yes, definitely Jackie was a great story. 

And learning about Ken’s motivation explains Ken very well, and makes him a sensitive character. Because he always looked like the toughest Fug, but he was also the sweetest in a way.

Jackie talked about her experience getting drafted and going to Vietnam, where she didn’t want to go. It’s poignant how when she came back, the main Fugs were kind of aloof and disapproving of her having served there. It seems like they could have been a little more understanding of his situation.

Yeah. I have to say, I don’t tell the whole story there. Because honestly, Tuli from the get-go would have preferred if [John, as he was known at the time] had gone to Canada. He would have helped him get to Canada. The Fugs, when [John] said I’m not a speed freak, they actually did load him up with tons of drugs and take him down to make him look crazy. So they helped him try to get out by becoming a crazy drug addict. It didn’t work. 

So they were trying to help him get out of it, and to this day, I think Ed still has a hard time with anybody who goes in. I don’t know what Jackie did exactly in the war, but from Ed’s point of view, he called in some strikes on Vietnamese or whatever, that he was involved in bombing. He still says she didn’t have to do that. 

You know, life is messy. Jackie did have family members who’d been in the military and she didn’t want to go, but she also knew that everybody else in her family had. You know, it’s tough. But if you’re really gonna be such an antiwar band and take stands, then yeah, it’s hard to come to grips with someone who actually went over there.

It’s kind of odd, in the Swedish footage, to see Tuli onstage with the band, but he’s not singing or playing anything, just dancing.

(laughs) Somebody watched it and said, I love Tuli, but what did he do in the band? First of all, he wrote a lot of great songs. So the fact that he’s even there is because he’s kind of like the Robert Hunter or whatever of the Dead. But he did play the [handmade percussion instrument] rectarine, and he did sing some of the stuff. Ed was a very different kind of singer, very perfectionist, he wanted everything to sound perfect. It bothered him that Tuli would get off-key a little bit. I wish he would have trusted Tuli a little more on that stuff. Because there’s an emotion when Tuli does stuff that really cuts through the bad notes. Certainly if you watch Bob Dylan enough, you’ll know that he doesn’t care about bad notes. And it comes through.

So Ed was a real perfectionist and sort of ran things, and I wish there was more footage of Tuli singing. But he didn’t really sing very often. If you went to see the Fugs, he would do two or three songs max. So that was tough.

Someone told me he saw the Fugs around 1967, and for the whole performance, Tuli just lay in a coffin and didn’t do anything else. I haven’t been able to verify that story. Did you ever hear that?

No, but it sounds like it absolutely could have happened. There’s no doubt that could have happened. I’m sure he didn’t sing at all on several shows. He was always into the theatrics of it. Really, the early shows were very theatrical. They were probably one of the first super-theatrical bands. Later of course everybody got theatrical. But what they were doing was theater as much as anything else. Tuli was a real part of that.

I saw Beck play once, and there’s a guy in front that was just a party motivator. He was just dancing. I was like, what is he doing? Well, he was keeping everybody excited, and taking the attention away from Beck, who preferred to be off to the side. I thought, that’s genius. So he had a party motivator center stage, and in a sense I think Tuli was a little bit of the sub-motivator, even though he doesn’t sing much.

Some of the footage of Tuli was from the [1971 underground ]movie W.R.: The Mysteries of the Organism, right? The color footage, especially.

Yeah, when he’s dressed up like a military, running around, the “Kill for Peace” stuff. Yeah, that’s great. Again, the fact that he was in these movies and there’s footage of him makes him become a part of the film more than he should have been. Because I didn’t find anything else.

You found some good interview footage, the David Susskind clips especially. Did you know about that before you did the film?

I kind of might have, because from the Barbara Rubin days, I was definitely looking at some old Susskind shows. ‘Cause he really had everybody on the show. The funniest thing is, it says “part 2” of the Fugs. And I’ve never known what’s in part 1. So that’s part 2 of the Fugs, the one that’s on tape, the one that Ed has a transcript from in his book. So I knew that existed. But it says part 2, and I’ve never been able to find part 1.

That kind of stuff really gives you a flavor of the time, when you get to see people in the audience asking questions. I just saw John and Yoko’s One to One film [a recent documentary about their early-‘70s activities]. One of my favorite things is that it just plays commercials from 1972, like Chef Boyardee. It puts you in that mood. You really remember what it’s like to be in 1972. I think one thing that Betsy said that she really likes about the [Fugs] film is that it really captured what it was really like to be back then. I’m happy she picked up on that, because I love the ‘60, and I want people to understand the ‘60s. With the Vietnam story and the free love and all that psychedelic drug stuff, that’s what it was about.

The Fugs’ lyrics have sometimes been criticized for being sexist, or obscenely explicit. Betsy Klein, Aline Kominsky-Crumb, and Penny Arcade’s comments put a feminist perspective on them, seeing them as liberating in some ways. Penny Arcade, for instance, views their “Supergirl” as being empowering. 

Penny Arcade, I knew I wanted her to play that role in the film. Because she wasn’t personally connected to the Fugs as Aline or Betsy [was]. Of course they’re gonna like the Fugs, ‘cause they were dated them, or they loved them. But Penny, I used her as an outsider. I’m glad she’s there for that purpose. 

I asked Patti Smith if she wanted to be in the film, but Lenny [Kaye, longtime guitarist in the Patti Smith Group and rock historian] had already said he’d do it. She said, they weren’t too friendly to women, were they? I was like, well, you know, that’s debatable. She said, I’ll let Lenny do the talking. That’s fine.

I think the Barbara Rubin film showed how sexist the ‘60s were. They were in a way. But the whole society was breaking out of stuff. So I really think the Fugs, talking about women or sex, is just more like freedom of speech, and breaking all boundaries. Which included sex, very much.

There’s some other even more egregious stuff in the Fugs’ catalog which people can discover on their own. But you can’t judge a band by their least politically correct song. If you would, the Fugs would never be in the running at all.

The Fugs ran through a lot of musicians in five years in various lineups, besides the mainstays of Sanders, Kupferberg, and Weaver. In the Swedish footage, I’m not even sure who the drummer is, though I know it’s Ken Pine on guitar and Charlie Larkey on bass. Do you have any speculation as to why that was?

Jeffrey [Lewis] is very good on Wikipedia to list pretty much everyone. But that was Bob Mason on drums in Sweden. I think Kootch [Danny Kortchmar] sums it up the best because he was in the band for a while too, and Charlie Larkey. I talked to Charlie too, but it’s not in the film, because he’s a very quiet, private guy. But it was fun to talk to Charlie. But I think at one point [I asked Kootch] why did you leave the band. He said, well, I kind of wanted to play with real musicians who knew what they were doing. 

Also, Ed knew right away that these are the three Fugs [Sanders, Kupferberg, and Weaver], and he knew that people would cycle through. Some of the very early days band members came and left. So they were not full band members. They were sort of hired guns from the get-go. Probably Ken Pine is the one Fug who I think they should have just welcomed into the band, he might have stayed longer. Ken came to the premiere the other night. I was so happy to meet him. He’s a genius guitar player. He used to play with Hendrix. He really was a great musician. 

But it’s hard to be supporting the band every night and arranging stuff and playing a real part in the band, and not being treated like the three main Fugs. I understand why Ed did that, because it’s hard to lock in somebody who may not want to do this every night. But that’s probably why they went through a number of people. Because other opportunities came up. And for a musician, you might to move on. ‘Cause this was theater, a lot.

It’s interesting that Kortchmar and Larkey went on to the very top of the session world. Kortchmar as one of the top Los Angeles studio session guitarists, and Larkey as a collaborator with Carole King, to whom he was married for a while.

They sure did. When they were in the Fugs, they sounded tight. They were good. Ken [Weaver] will be the first to tell you he’s not a good drummer. That’s why, in that footage, there’s a second drummer, Bob Mason. And Kootch would play drums sometimes too. So I think it was frustrating for these really good musicians to be in the Fugs. At a certain point, their show became sort of fixed. It was like a touring show. There wasn’t so much new music, and they didn’t have time to do new music. I think that’s another factor of them wanting to play with bands that might jam, or do something fun.

Jonathan Kalb [brother of Blues Project guitarist Danny Kalb] came the other night too. Jackie remembers that summer of ’66, when Jonny Kalb and Jackie were in the band, Jackie was a very good musician, and a great bass player. So Jackie and Jonny were in this band, and Jackie said, there’s no recording of it, but that summer of ’66 she felt like they were a really good blues band. They were a really tight band. I wish I had recordings of that, but I haven’t heard any. But Kalb was only in the band for three months. So again, you’re hurting for not having good recordings of things.

Of course, the sound back then was horrible. I don’t know if you noticed, but almost none of the music is the actual sound from the live performances, or not all of it is. It’s synced up so it seems like it is, but it’s from better recordings. Live audio recordings sucked in ’67, ’66. There’s other docs on the Dead or the Beatles where really great footage had bad or no sound, but they found other performances that had great sound and that makes it great. So I did a little of that kind of—magic.

I have to give a shout-out to one other person who wasn’t around to talk to, Lee Crabtree. Lee Crabtree is an amazing, interesting story. He did help arrange a lot of the early songs. He was there at their transition from the Peter Stampfel style, the folky stuff, into the more musical. Lee Crabtree really helped a lot, and then he jumped off the Chelsea Hotel and killed himself [in 1973]. He was friends with Patti Smith. But he was a troubled person. But he’s in the background there in the film, and he came up here and there. And he’s on the albums. He was a great musician, and a very interesting person.

Besides their first album on Folkways and Harry Smith producing that, there’s not much about their involvement with record labels. Did Ed Sanders not want to get into that, especially ESP, who put out their second and most popular album (The Fugs, 1966) and then put out an album of outtakes (Virgin Fugs) without their permission?

No, it gets into inside baseball. But you’re right, he hates ESP like everybody else does. He did buy his catalog back from ESP at one point. He was particularly pissed off about Virgin Fugs. Because for the year of ’67, the summer of love, Ed was always upset that the Fugs had nothing to release. They had recorded all the songs [for an album on Atlantic Records], and they could have put ‘em out. But there was no label, no deal. I guess Atlantic dropped them, they declined to pick it up.

So during that summer, ESP released Virgin Fugs, and Ed was so pissed, because he didn’t even know they were gonna do that. There’s a song on there, [based on the opening line of Allen Ginsberg’s poem] Howl, “I Saw the Best Minds of Mine Rot,” that Allen didn’t like. Ed had promised it wouldn’t come out, and then it did come out. Ed loved Allen, he didn’t want to upset him. He apologized, he knew why it happened. But he was very upset with ESP.

The Reprise years, I think [when they were on Warner Brothers subsidiary Reprise in the late 1960s], they were very happy to be able to do what they wanted. But there was that key year where they really didn’t release anything, which was kind of tragic. Except Virgin Fugs came out.

When Steppenwolf mention the Fugs on a clip from the Ed Sullivan Show and Sullivan himself actually says the name, did that actually get on the broadcast?

Yes.

Did you know about that before doing the film?

No, not at all. And shout-out to [filmmaker] Jacob Burkchardt, Rudy Burckhardt’s son. Jacob knew about it. He said, have you heard that? ‘Cause it was very funny to him. His father, genius filmmaker, has amazing archives. Also, in terms of the archival footage, I have to give a big shout-out to Jonas Mekas, his archive, amazing. My friend Ken Brown, who had done the light shows at the Boston Tea Party in the ‘60s, his light show footage is in there.

I really feel blessed that I know these people who have these amazing ‘60s archives, which gives the feeling. And to be able to use Rudy Burkhardt’s footage, to tell stories in the ‘60s, is amazing. Same with Jonas, and same with Ken Brown, and Ken Jacobs. I mean, all the geniuses of ‘60s filmmaking. So if I have any great thanks, it’s that I already knew all these people from the Barbara Rubin film, and being able to use their archives for fairly good deal, because they’re friends, is great. Because it’s amazing stuff.

Ed talks about how the Fugs broke up at the end of the 1960s as he didn’t want to keep running the band any longer. What do you think the Fugs might have done had they stayed together longer?

I don’t know. I really think it’s sort of a perfect example of a band that only lasted as long as it could have. We don’t get into it so much, but Ken will tell you again, he was a huge drinker, and not a very good band member. He wouldn’t show up sometimes. Him and Janis Joplin and Pigpen would drink entire bottles of bourbon sometimes together. So he was not a healthy person then, Ken. It almost became like, get up there and do your thing, Ken, and he was drunk, and he would just do it.

So there was some serious issues. I think Ed got very political and was so busy that he even said – it’s not in the film, but in one of our interviews – I wanted to take the time to write a really antiwar song, or I wanted to write more songs. But I didn’t have the time. And Tuli needed someone like Ed to keep him going on things like that. He wrote some amazing songs. But I think in a way they lasted exactly as long as they should have, and could have. Separately, they might have been able to do more. And they did.

But they were never only musicians. That’s the key thing, that they really were more than that. When I talk to [Ed], he’s always moving on, he’s like, I just gotta write one more book, I’m gonna write another book. He’s always got stuff going on. So shout-out to Ed for being committed to getting the work done, and all these years. He’s a creative force.

Ed Sanders’s autobiography.

How do you see the legacy of the Fugs now, long after they broke up?

I think any band that’s out there doing wild stuff. When I wear my Fugs shirts now, people say, oh, the Fugs! Some guy in a band said, we do a cover of “I Couldn’t Get High,” and everyone thinks it’s our song. And I tell ‘em, no, it’s the Fugs. They’re a perfect discovery for people who – people love discovering unknown things, and their archive is vast. Also, they’re TikTok ready. “Boobs a Lot” is a TikTok-ready song. 

In little clips, they’re amazing. So in some sense, I really hope people rediscover the catalog. I keep telling Ed, you’ve got to manage your legacy better musically, because it was a little bit left unmanaged. And still is, kind of. He’s in control of things, but I do see in the future someone organizing it better and hopefully it being presented well. Like the Velvets has gotten—a reassessment and a look at it. I really think if they’re edited and curated well, the Fugs have amazing gems, as you can find in the film. There’s more that I didn’t put in. I hope to put out a playlist, or at least maybe get a Light in the Attic to put out a soundtrack album, or something.

It is the kind of music that I think still sounds fresh, and it sounds like a discovery. ‘Cause nobody quite sounds like the Fugs, let’s be honest.

Are there plans for a home video release that might have more footage?

I’ve definitely got a lot of that stuff. I’m thinking about it. Certainly Aline Crumb’s story of getting dope backstage didn’t make it in the film, but that’s a great story. There’s more gems in there. I’m a very tight editor, and I cut things out all the time. I’ve still got stuff from the Barbara Rubin film that I should release.

Was the Doc NYC screening the first one?

Yes. Two showings, it sold out. We have one more screening December 1, at Upstate Films, Saugerties [New York State]. We’re gonna do a sneak peek, and that’ll be on Zoom, and I’ll be there. There’ll be no more showings until 2026. Then we hope to do some more festivals, maybe get out to the west coast, and then find a streamer or some way to release it online.

You’ve gotten good reactions so far?

Yeah. I’m not trying to brag, but people have liked it a lot. What I really like is young people have liked it. I was going to one of the Doc NYC events the other day, and like a 25-year-old who was checking tickets at the door said hey, thank you so much for making that movie, that was the best thing I saw. Then this woman from Brazil said, oh man, that’s film’s amazing, the aesthetic is so cool. But the ‘60s are always cool, I think, for younger people. I really hope young people discover the Fugs. Certainly the old radicals are loving it, but so do the younger people, which has really made me feel good. These are deep dives into stories, and the Fugs are a rich one. 

What are you doing next?

I have two projects that are hot to trot. One is a David Cassidy/Partridge Family musical, actual theater, that I’m working on, which I’m really excited about. I think their catalog has been woefully ignored. Just before the Fugs, I wanted to do Bobbie Gentry, who’s amazing. Even if you don’t get to talk to her, keeping the mystery is amazing. She has not talked to anybody. Apparently she kept all her own publishing, and she wrote all those songs. She’s genius. I love mysteries like that, and I would love someone to do it if I can’t do it. But boy, it’s a good story. And the songs sound good.

Interview with Richard Morton Jack, Editor/Compiler of World Countdown August 1966-July 1967

The last years of the 1960s saw the emergence of many underground, or at least alternative-ish, papers that gave far more coverage to rock music than almost any prior publications of the short had. Most of them are now forgotten and hard to find; many were very short-lived. Some were so odd in their focus, variable writing style, and rococo graphics that they’re hard to easily describe. 

World Countdown, published in California from August 1966 to July 1969, was one such magazine, and one of the hardest to classify. It’s also very hard to find, with few surviving in library or institutional collections, and not many having been preserved by private collectors. Author and rock historian Richard Morton Jack has tracked many of them down, and the new book he’s edited, World Countdown August 1966-July 1967 (on Lansdowne Books), reprints all of them, along with a lengthy introduction covering the history of the magazine.

Original reporting and criticism of the era’s rock scene was not World Countdown‘s forte, although it did have some. Instead, it offered a jumble of reprints of material (ranging from entire articles to bits and pieces) from other magazines; sketchy scene reports and impressions; verbatim reprints of press releases from record labels or publicists hyping specific artists; tons of ads for records, record stores, fashion accessories, music- and fashion-related businesses, and more; and many pictures of music acts from the time, many of them seldom if ever seen elsewhere.

The range of artists covered was almost absurdly wide, from the deepest underground (including quite a few who rarely or never put out records) to the biggest rock superstars, teen pop hitmakers, and even mainstream pop singers. Quite credible early rock journalists could be read in its pages, yet such offerings were outweighed by hype-heavy copy, a good deal of it unattributed. While many of the ads boasted slick professional design, the cut-and-paste layout of many pages could verge on the amateurish.

The obscure pictures and ads are what’s really of most interest, since you really have to sift through the copy to dig out interesting bits of info that rarely surface elsewhere. Some are here, however, like a report on a Fugs concert that mentions their unissued Atlantic album The Fugs Eat It; fleeting bits about Bob Dylan signing to MGM for $2 million (though he’d never record for them) and Capitol considering releasing the Beatles single “A Day in the Life Of” (sic) after the track was illicitly broadcast in advance of Sgt. Pepper‘s release; and Ralph J. Gleason’s accurately enthusiastic review of Jefferson Airplane’s Surrealistic Pillow. Unexpected names pop up among the contributors, like Richard DiLello (before he moved to London and worked for Apple Records) and, as photographer, Ronnie Haran, who helped find acts for the Whisky A Go Go, most notably the Doors.

I asked Richard Morton Jack about the compiling and editing of World Countdown August 1966-July 1967 shortly after the book was published in 2025. Info about the book and purchasing a copy is at https://lansdownebooks.com/products/world-countdown.

World Countdown isn’t well remembered or documented, even by its contributors. How did you find out about it?

A number of years ago I bought an American copy of the (sadly mediocre) album by the Scottish pop group Cartoone, which came out on Atlantic in early 1969. With it was a promo folder containing a copy of World Countdown, with them on the cover. I’d never heard of it and was struck by the amount of information it included about obscure or semi-obscure artists. It was Volume 5, issue 5, so obviously there were other copies out there. I set about trying to find them, but there was almost nothing on the internet about it. I eventually established that a total of fifty-seven issues were published, but to this day few fellow historians or collectors of that period have heard of it, let alone encountered it. 

You’ve collected many music magazines from the period. What’s different about World Countdown?

Speaking as a collector, it represents a challenge: it’s easily the most enigmatic music publication of its era that I’m aware of. It appeared in California every fortnight during an extremely exciting and important time in the development of modern pop/rock, yet hardly anyone has ever heard of it or seen a copy, and no library that I’m aware of has more than a couple of issues.

From a broader perspective, it includes photographs and information about some very obscure, in some cases mythologized, artists. These are often straightforward reproductions of record company handouts, rather than original journalism, and – ironically – are more useful to posterity than the self-indulgent ramblings one often finds in underground publications of that era.

What were the biggest challenges in assembling a World Countdown run?

Firstly, I live in England, so the chances of chancing upon it here were negligible (in fact, it has yet to happen). Secondly, I soon realized that, when copies did occasionally surface, other people were bidding hard for them. My main rival was a dealer who seemed to spend his every waking hour patroling eBay, and would snap up practically everything I was looking for before I had seen it. But even he had his limits: one issue with a large image of Jimi Hendrix on the front sold for $750 over a decade ago. I haven’t seen another of those (apart from my own) since. 

When I did eventually buy another issue on eBay, I asked the seller if he had more copies for sale and he told me yes, he’d sold the paper on the street himself and did keep a few, which he was happy to sell me for whatever I’d paid for the first one. I happily coughed up and couldn’t wait for the package to arrive. When it did, I found that it contained numerous copies of the exact same issue. Thankfully, I later had a stroke of luck to cancel that out when I managed to track down one of its contributors, who’d kept single copies of various latter-day issues and was happy to sell them to me. Again, to this day I haven’t seen or heard of other copies of most of them.

My other major source of copies was my friend Andrew Sandoval, who’d been buying World Countdown whenever he encountered it for several years, and sent me his entire collection for free when he heard I was trying to get a complete run together. That’s the sort of generous and cool gesture that the best of collectors, like Andrew, often quietly make.

What made you decide to put them into a book?

Having assembled what I assume is the world’s most complete run of the paper, and being convinced of its cultural and historical worth, I wanted to preserve it. It’s no exaggeration to call most issues of it vanishingly rare, so felt that proliferating its contents would be useful as well as entertaining for other serious fans of late 60s music. 

In addition, having got to know the children of its late founder and editor, Charles Royal, I knew they were eager to commemorate his work, because he really put his heart into it. They have happy childhood memories of helping him glue it together at home, and of trailing around with him to the Haight or the Fillmore to sell it (because most copies were sold on the street or in dancehalls, not professionally distributed).

You write quite a bit about Charles Royal in the book’s introduction. He was a colorful Englishman who launched numerous odd projects throughout his life. How much of his incentive to run World Countdown do you think was honest enthusiasm for the late-’60s rock scene, and how much was it an attempt to cash in on it?

I’m not convinced that he was a devotee of underground rock per se, but he was undoubtedly a sincere believer in the personal freedom and anti-authoritarianism that the late ’60s promoted (and that psychedelic music encapsulated). He certainly didn’t get rich publishing Countdown: it was poignant and rather amusing to learn from his kids quite how barter-based an enterprise it was. If the family car was dirty, Royal would put an advert for the local carwash in the paper rather than pay. His son Vince vividly remembers selling copies of Countdown at the Monterey Pop Festival in June 1967, and having to heave sackfuls of quarters into the nearest bank at its end. This was not a slick, corporate operation, and meeting the printing bill each month was always a challenge. I’m sure that Royal believed that he was contributing to the general good by producing World Countdown.

Though much of World Countdown is devoted to press releases, advertising and reprints of material from elsewhere, I think the most valuable parts are the original articles that can’t be found anywhere else. What are the most surprising and interesting of these?

For the paper’s first year, which is what this book contains, it was more of a music-centered collage than a journalistic undertaking, so I can’t point to many particularly important original pieces. One that comes to mind is an early article about the Grateful Dead (so early that Bill Kreutzmann is using the pseudonym Bill Sommers), with first-hand quotes from Jerry Garcia.

In addition, there are adverts, reviews and facts about a range of artists I’ve never seen elsewhere. Clearly, filling each issue without any staff or budget meant that Royal had to be creative, so there are lots of psychedelic graphics – most of them unique to the paper, and some by leading San Francisco artists – some material from other publications, some wonderful photographs that can’t be seen elsewhere, and many press releases promoting obscure acts. To me the latter are especially interesting, because in many cases it seems plausible to assume that Royal inadvertently preserved the only copies posterity would have.

Do you think World Countdown missed opportunities to include more interesting first-hand interviews, concert reviews etc., given its apparent openness to almost anything in the contemporary scene? 

I think one has to accept Countdown for what it was in its first year: a freewheeling, eccentric potpourri of whatever material came to hand to meet the next deadline. It would be wonderful, of course, if it had included serious and lengthy interviews from the start, but that simply wasn’t Royal’s modus operandi at the time. However, there are wonderful columns by the prolific and reliably articulate and interesting Derek Taylor, as well as one-offs such as a very long and personal memoir by Jeremy Clyde (of Chad & Jeremy). Such people were personal friends of Royal, and presumably happy to do him the favor of hammering out copy for Countdown.

In the early issues there are also ads for records and other businesses that are unique to the paper: for example, Golden State Recorders, which recorded a lot of mid-’60s San Francisco rock. (Perhaps relatedly, its owner, Leo Kulka, had a column in which he discussed some of these acts.) There’s a full page ad for the Generation that mentions an upcoming Capitol live album, The New Generation. No such record came out. There are also quite a few ads for Dino Valenti concerts, showing how active he was in late 1966 and early 1967, even though he wasn’t recording at that point. There are also many adverts for head shops and other businesses, by no means all countercultural, which give interesting context to the musical content.

Those examples, and others like them, emphasize the sheer immediacy communicated by World Countdown. There’s a strong sense of reporting events in haste as they happen, and turning through the issues in sequence gives a powerful sense of just how much was going on in San Francisco in such a short space of time. 

There’s a wealth of photos, many rarely seen, and not just of obscure bands. There are pictures of the Byrds and Buffalo Springfield, for instance, that I don’t recall seeing elsewhere. Also, some of the photographer credits are interesting, such as Ronnie Haran, who booked the Whisky for a while and got the Doors to do a residency there.

Of course, any unfamiliar image of a famous artist is a welcome surprise at this stage, and World Countdown offers many (alas not always with credits, which means negatives are unlikely to be traceable). In particular there are very early images of groups including Quicksilver Messenger Service, Blue Cheer, and Moby Grape (Skip Spence with a perm!), which I’m grateful to Charles Royal for preserving. And the last issue reproduced in the book carries a large number of rare images taken at the Monterey Pop Festival, which are of obvious historical interest. There’s also the only decent image of Tripsichord Music Box I’m aware of.

Some bands that didn’t put out records are detailed, even with a photograph. One interesting example is Flesh & Blood, an integrated group with two drummers, when neither of those attributes were common. 

I’ve tried and failed to find out who Flesh & Blood were! Again, there’s a sense of newly formed groups being promoted in ways that larger or more professionally managed publications wouldn’t have been open to. World Countdown is the only place I’ve seen coverage of groups such as Sons Of Adam, Tripsichord Music Box, Crystal Syphon, and West Coast Natural Gas, all of which have gone onto some form of renown. There’s also coverage of non-musical acts such as Congress Of Wonders, whose names will be familiar from gig posters, and tangential figures like Gipsy Boots and Vito Paulekas, which all add to the portrait.

As skimpy on hard data as World Countdown was, some of its contents contain valuable clues. The release date of Love’s Da Capo is usually given as November 1966, but a World Countdown ad clearly states it would be released January 3, 1967. 

Yes – the release of Da Capo was delayed, probably so Elektra could market it alongside the first Doors album. Countdown also contains ads for other widely misdated releases, such as Love’s Forever Changes and Captain Beefheart’s Safe As Milk. Reliable information like that is invaluable for pinning down dates. 

Some acts from outside North American and the UK got coverage in World Countdown, like the Motions from Holland and MPD Limited from Australia, neither of whom were exactly huge in their homelands. How did World Countdown access this?

A definitive answer is lost in the mist of time, but Charles Royal had business interests in Australia and weird and wonderful contacts elsewhere, so I imagine he was doing favors for like-minded folks – or, perhaps, desperately filling up pages with promotional materials he happened to have to hand.

Some news snippets are intriguing. In February 1967, for instance, there’s a report that Bob Dylan is to sign a $2 million dollar contract with MGM (“$400,000/yr, movie potential unlimited”). In April 1967 the Fugs state they’re expecting their Atlantic album The Fugs Eat It to come out in May (it didn’t), and for them to tour the Orient (they didn’t). And I think this is the first I’ve read of Capitol considering releasing “A Day In The Life” as a single. 

Like any newspaper, World Countdown was always on the lookout for a scoop, and contributors like (say) Ronnie Haran and Jerry Hopkins were very much plugged into the zeitgeist. Tales like those, unfounded though they turned out to be, give an evocative sense of pop history unfolding in real time.  

That Fugs feature is mostly flippant and vacuous. Do you find it frustrating that such pieces sometimes couldn’t get useful quotes or info from their subjects?

I do – and they were probably stoned, which doesn’t help. It’s easy to look back and feel vexed that Countdown didn’t feature (say) the Velvet Underground or West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band in depth, because it’s exactly the sort of publication that might have. But at the time, of course, no one knew which obscure acts posterity would be curious about. And, as I said earlier, at this stage of its existence Countdown was more of a collage than a journalistic enterprise. 

There aren’t many reviews in this run of World Countdown, but Ralph Gleason’s pieces on Between the Buttons and Surrealistic Pillow are notable. He wrote that Grace Slick “has an uncanny ability to aim her voice like a pistol at a note, hit it true and then let the power expand.” Are there any other phrases that struck you as above-average for what most music journalism was offering at the time?

None spring to mind, but for me one of the pleasures of Countdown is that it doesn’t aspire to literary distinction. (I find early issues of Crawdaddy, for example, all but unreadable because its writers were hellbent on mimicking the adventurousness of the music they were writing about.) By contrast, the sincerity of Charles Royal’s editorial commentary cuts through. For example: “World Countdown advocates that MUSIC is a strong emotional unifying force for good, and if promoted and expanded it will unite peoples of all tribes, languages, colors, countries and circumstances in peace and love.” 

Some of the magazine did reprint material from elsewhere, often not bothering to change the typeface and design of the original source. Is it surprising that Royal got away with lifting wholesale from other sources? 

World Countdown belonged to the Underground Press Syndicate, meaning it was free to reproduce articles from fellow publications such as International Times, which accounts for many of the non-exclusive pieces it printed. Pinching from Melody Maker was in a different category, but I doubt anyone noticed or cared…

The stylistic coverage of World Countdown is all over the place – maybe more so than any other non-mainstream music paper of the time. Way-underground acts are featured before they made any records, and pretty radical bands like the Fugs and the Velvet Underground are covered too. Yet there’s also attention paid to the likes of Johnny Mathis and Gary Lewis. How do you account for that?

Fundamentally, Charles Royal had set himself the target of producing a reasonably long newspaper every fortnight, so to an extent he had to include whatever he could. Because he was a generation older than most hippies, his own tastes probably touched on mainstream entertainers more than his readership’s did, but I also think he had a genuinely Catholic attitude towards the underground, and believed that music should all be regarded as one broad church. From a historical perspective, of course, his very early evangelizing for almost every significant San Francisco psychedelic group is the most notable aspect of this, but flicking through Countdown does remind one of their context.

Is there a notable difference in the content and tone of World Countdown post-July 1967?

It never lost its homespun, eccentric charm, but it became more concertedly focused on contemporary underground rock, partly in response to the sheer number of records in that area that appeared post-Monterey. Nor did it broaden its horizons to encompass politics or other countercultural themes common to better-known underground papers of the time – and I for one am glad of that! As an aside, Royal was a family man and a Christian, and although he didn’t use the paper as a soapbox, it entirely omits bad language and sexual content, something that also sets it apart from its peers.

What are the most striking pieces in the issues that postdate the timeframe of this book?

There are interviews with major artists, including one with Neil Young from the time of his first album, and a long piece about Van Morrison from the time of Astral Weeks. In fact, across two issues from 1968 is just about the longest interview I’ve ever seen anywhere, with David Axelrod, and there’s valuable coverage of some of Led Zeppelin’s earliest American shows, as well as in-depth information about groups I’ve seen nothing about elsewhere, such as the Crystal Syphon and Fifty Foot Hose.

Do you intend to publish further World Countdown reprints?

I would certainly like to, but will be led by the response to this volume. My hope is eventually to reproduce the paper’s entire run, which ended in July 1969. That would fill four large books. Unfortunately, however, I’ll need to locate the four issues I’m missing before I can proceed with Volume Three. I’ve been searching for them for many years, and – you guessed it – not only have I never seen or heard of copies, nor has anyone else I’ve communicated with about it. One day…

Info about the book World Countdown August 1966-July 1967 and purchasing a copy is at https://lansdownebooks.com/products/world-countdown.

Interview with David Ackles Biographer Mark Brend

Hard-to-classify singer-songwriter David Ackles put out four albums in the late 1960s and early 1970s, none of which sold well, and which have garnered a passionate but fairly small cult following in the ensuing decades. It’s thus welcome to have a full book on this idiosyncratic figure that draws on much research, even if not all the info could be filled in, owing to the death or inaccessibility of Ackles and many of his associates. 

However, for his new biography Down River: In Search of David Ackles (on Jawbone Press), author Mark Brend did interview quite a few of them. Those include Ackles himself shortly before the musician’s death in 1999 and, specifically for the book, Elton John’s lyricist Bernie Taupin, who produced Ackles’s third album. He also gained access to some previously unearthed session sheets and unreleased live and studio recordings. This is contextualized by the author’s detailed description of his tracks and compositions, as well as his perspective on how Ackles fit or, maybe more accurately, didn’t fit into the thrust of his era’s popular music.

Ackles almost backed into a recording career by chance, a meeting with an old friend leading to a writing and, soon, recording deal with Elektra Records. Although there were elements of rock in his records (primarily the early ones), he was really more of a theatrical singer-songwriter, with dabs of folk, jazz, music hall, and satire. Writers of the time, even big fans of his, struggled to come up with reference points in their reviews, comparing him to Randy Newman, Judy Collins, Nilsson, and others, though ultimately he wasn’t too similar to anyone.

This both made him more interesting than many cult figures, but also less successful in his time and even after his time, as his music was less accessible than many of his peers working in roughly the same areas, and certainly less related to rock, even if he was primarily marketed to a rock audience. Elton John and Bernie Taupin were big fans, Elton topping a bill over Ackles at his breathrough 1970 live Los Angeles performances. Taupin producing Ackles’s third album didn’t help David sell many records, however, though he got some extraordinarily effusive reviews.

Brend is an intense fan, but doesn’t get carried away, acknowledging there are reasons Ackles hasn’t had a huge rediscovery and resurgence in recent years along the lines of Nick Drake, or even Judee Sill. Besides describing many of the rare and unreleased recordings in the main text, he also wrote a specific lengthy appendix going into all the unreleased live and studio recordings he was able to research (and often hear) in great detail. I interviewed Brend about the book in September 2025, the month after its publication.

You wrote a chapter on David Ackles in your 2001 book American Troubadours, and managed to interview him for a short piece a few years before that, shortly before his death. Down River, of course, is much more extensive. What most made you want to motivate writing a full-length book on Ackles, who isn’t too well known even by cult figure standards?

MB: The short answer is that he’s one of my favorite recording artists – I first heard his music forty years ago and I’ve never tired of it – and I wanted to investigate his work more thoroughly than I have done before. But in addition to enthusiasm for his music, I became intrigued that his records were and are fervently admired by a small group of people from the music world who, one way of another, know what they’re talking about. I’m thinking of the likes of David Anderle [who co-produced Ackles’s first album and also produced Judy Collins in the late 1960s], Jac Holzman, Elton John, Bernie Taupin, Elvis Costello, Jim O’Rourke, Greg Ginn, Phil Collins, and quite a few seasoned rock writers. I wanted to investigate why Ackles has a small but devoted audience yet failed to make much commercial headway when active and – as you indicate – barely qualifies as a cult figure. Is it something about him and his music? Is it the way the music business is set up? Or are there other reasons? 

Although Ackles made four albums and didn’t have the psychological and substance abuse problems or reclusive inaccessibility so often associated with such figures, there really wasn’t too much known about him before you started writing Down River. What did you most want to find out about him and his music that hadn’t previously been uncovered?

MB: I had some pretty sketchy knowledge of his life before I started serious research, but I wanted to get more detail. For example, I knew about his enthusiasm for musical theatre, but I didn’t know how much work he put into that field of creative endeavor, both before and after his recording career. Similarly, I knew he’d lived in England while recording American Gothic [his third album, from 1972], and I wanted to try and get a sense of what his life was like then. I succeeded in the sense that I now know more about these aspects of his life, and other things, than I did when I started. But of course, there’s so much I don’t know and probably never will. 

What were the biggest challenges in devising an in-depth biography of Ackles? One, obviously, is that many of his associates are no longer around, or impossible to trace.

MB: That’s certainly true. Also, associates, friends and family members I spoke to often simply couldn’t remember things. Or had recollections that contradicted the recollections of others. This is hardly surprising, as we’re talking about events that happened many decades ago. A good number of session players appeared across Ackles’s four albums, and quite a few are still around. But I accept it’s a tall order to expect anyone to remember what might have been just three hours of work one day in – say – 1969. Another challenge was that his recording career was short – covering about six years. About ten percent of his life. I had to think about how much focus to give to all those years before and after. I decided early on that I would devote most of my attention to those six years, and bookend them with briefer summaries of the before and after. And accept that there would be gaps in the story. And there are. I’m not claiming this is definitive. 

Even not considering the idiosyncratic nature of his music, one of the most interesting aspects of Ackles’s career is the unlikely path he took to making records. He didn’t have an extensive background in, or even big passion for, folk or rock, although those are the audiences his record labels targeted. He didn’t even seem to have many aspirations to being a performer or recording artist. Although he wasn’t that much older than most pop and rock artists of the late 1960s, he was older enough that he almost might have been considered part of an older generation to most of the ones gaining attention in that era. He was first signed as a songwriter, and then got a recording contract with one of the best labels of the time, Elektra, as what seems kind of a fluke when it was determined he should sing and record his own compositions.

Reflecting on all of this, especially with your deep knowledge of the era’s singer-songwriting, does it seem like Ackles is almost unique in the way he became a recording artist, almost like it was accidentally through a back door? And could it partially account for how his work was so idiosyncratic?

MB: The way Ackles secured a recording contract was unusual, to say the least. Even singer-songwriters of a similar age to Ackles who started to make albums around the same time tended to have some sort of background that helps explain how they got to that point. I’m thinking of Fred Neil, for example, who had been knocking around the fringes of the music business since the late ‘50s. And Leonard Cohen, whose earlier creative life as an experimental novelist and poet gave him some counter-culture credentials, I think. Creatively, Ackles spent much of his twenties doing student and community musical theatre. I don’t really know what his ambitions were at this stage in his life. He said he always wanted to be a songwriter, but I could find no evidence that he recorded demos or approached publishers.

But he was writing songs, because when he bumped into David Anderle – an old college friend who had, conveniently, just started in A&R at Elektra – Ackles had songs ready to play Anderle. The various accounts of that meeting indicate that things moved very quickly, maybe even in one day – Anderle and Ackles met, Ackles played Anderle some songs, and Anderle signed him (or at least expressed an intention to sign him – no doubt that actual contracts came later). Without that chance encounter with Anderle, Ackles might never have got signed.

And then there was the added good fortune of being signed to a label run by Jac Holzman, at Elektra, who decided that Ackles should record his own songs after hearing some piano/vocal demos that Ackles recorded after signing as a songwriter. The label was still small enough and non-corporate enough for that sort of thing to happen, yet it was also starting to make some serious money from the Doors and others, so could afford to take risks. And Holzman’s position was that he could just decide to do something like that and it happened. He didn’t have to persuade anybody. He had control. 

But I’m not persuaded that the manner in which Ackles got signed accounts for his idiosyncratic work. I think that comes from his unusual combination of influences, and also that he – not really a rock musician – was paired with producers and musicians from the rock world. For the first two albums at least. I’d suggest this led to a sort of creative tension which makes those albums so unusual. And then by the time he got more artistic control – arranging the third album and arranging and producing the fourth one – his own tastes prevailed, making those records just as unusual, but in a different way. In my mind there’s a definite divide there, between the two halves of his career. 

Ackles’s self-titled 1968 debut album.

In the 1960s, the music industry often had the mindset that some major songwriters should just be behind-the-scenes songwriters, rather than making records of their own compositions, especially if their voices and image weren’t considered as commercial as some artists who could interpret their work. As just a few examples, Randy Newman mostly wrote for other singers, actually with a fair amount of success, before doing albums; Carole King, of course, was largely a songwriter (with Gerry Goffin) for others before starting to make albums at the end of the decade; the first hit records of Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell songs were interpretations by others; Jackson Browne was only signed to an Elektra publishing deal, not a recording one, and didn’t make his recorded debut for a few years; Janis Ian told me Elektra only wanted to sign her as a songwriter and not a singer; etc.

Do you think Ackles’s timing, for all the bad luck his subsequent career might have suffered, was just right for getting a record deal, coming just at the time when people like Jac Holzman and others were realizing there was a market for songwriters with non-standard voices and images doing their own material?

MB: I think his timing was right, but it seems to have been more happenstance than intention. Elektra had already released records by David Blue, Phil Ochs, Tim Buckley, Fred Neil and Tom Rush by the time the Anderle signed Ackles. I think most of those artists fit into the “non-standard” voices category and were writing their own material. But, as we’ve discussed already, the difference with Ackles is that he doesn’t seem to have been trying to establish himself in that capacity before he got signed. He arrived at the right place at the right time, but it wasn’t planned. 

Another unlikely aspect of Ackles’s emergence is that his first album was recorded with rock musicians, none of whom he knew, although he seems to have had no experience with rock, or particular knowledge of the form. But although the backing seems mostly to have been Elektra’s idea and arranging, it comes off pretty well, and not forced. Do you think Ackles simply had a musical talent, versatility, and personality that sort of made it easy for him to adapt to a new and pretty unfamiliar setting quickly? 

MB: He was musically gifted and adaptable. Certainly, live tapes I’ve heard demonstrate that he could play and sing to a very high standard in that context. And everyone I spoke to commented on how congenial and friendly he was, so he would have been adept at getting on with people. But he also had a clear vision. There was a failed initial attempt to record that first album with Wrecking Crew musicians, and Ackles (and Anderle) decided it wasn’t working. He could tell – and articulate – when things weren’t right. That happened several times throughout his career. 

The funny thing about that first album is that David Anderle said (to you, in fact) that a lot of it was pieced together and fixed in the mix, with the musicians playing to pre-recorded Ackles piano and vocal takes. And it really doesn’t sound like that. It has a loose, live in the studio sort of feel. So I think Anderle and (co-producer) Russ Miller deserve some credit. 

I’m not trying to pat myself on the back too hard, but it was interesting to read  that Jonathan Romney compared “Sonny Come Home” to the film The Swimmer in The Guardian. I regard that song as one of Ackles’s standouts. When I interviewed David Anderle about Ackles, I made that exact comparison, with no knowledge of that 1999 comparison in The Guardian. As you note in the book, Ackles couldn’t have seen The Swimmer before recording this, though it seems possible (I think unlikely) he read the short story on which it was based. Especially if you’ve seen The Swimmer (which I think is very good for the most part despite some dated elements), do you have any thoughts about the song and how it at least mirrors the spooky “empty desolate home” final scene of The Swimmer

MB: I love The Swimmer. It’s a top ten film for me. I think the film and “Sonny Come Home” share two things. First, the arriving at what once was home, to find it’s all changed. Second, a general atmosphere of disorientation. But there are differences. The film follows the lead character, played by Burt Lancaster, as he makes his way home by swimming through his neighbors’ swimming pools. The arrival at the former home is the culmination of that journey. But in the song there’s no journey – it starts with ‘Sonny’ arriving at the now-changed former home. A related difference is that in the film there’s a creeping sense of something being not right that builds as the film progresses. But in the song the disorientation prevails from the start. 

In his concerts, Ackles performed solo on piano, not with a band. This wasn’t unusual among singer-songwriters of the era, perhaps for financial reasons; Donovan and Simon & Garfunkel used few onstage backup musicians in their early years, Carole King, Randy Newman, and James Taylor performed solo on their early-‘70s BBC TV concerts, and I’m sure there are other instances. Although Ackles’s concerts seemed to be well received, do you think that live approach might have restricted his chances to break out into a wider audience?

As far as I could discover, Ackles played live with a band just once. This was when he visited the UK in 1968 and played with a pick-up band of bass, drums, organ and guitar, who approximated the arrangements on the first album. They recorded BBC radio and TV sessions, and played lived at least twice (once, a sort of private press function, secondly, on a shared bill at Fairfield Hall, in Croydon). Apart from that he played solo, as you say. And I think that did come with limitations, because he wasn’t a good fit playing to bigger rock audiences. He tended to play small theatres, clubs and coffeehouses, with correspondingly small audiences – maybe a couple of hundred people per night. If he’d had a regular live band he could have toured supporting rock acts, to far bigger audiences.

And it wasn’t just that he was a solo performer. He was a pianist, and in an age way before digital keyboards there was no way he could transport a decent-sounding instrument to gigs. This meant he was dependent on whatever instrument the venue happened to have. And if it was a poor-quality instrument, there was a corresponding impact on Ackles’s performance. 

The second David Ackles album, 1970s’ Subway to the Country.

But I think another factor that limited the impact of his live work in terms of building an audience, is that he didn’t want to go out on the road and tour in the conventional sense. He said quite early on, in several interviews, that he didn’t want to do an endless run of one-nighters. So, I suspect that winning an audience through relentless live work was never going to happen, even though he played a fair number of shows. 

Because Ackles didn’t sell a lot of records, it’s a bit of a surprise to learn from your book that he actually did a fair amount of concerts, though he favored residencies of sorts at certain venues, like the Main Point in the Philadelphia Area and the Canterbury House in Michigan. It’s nothing like Nick Drake, who did barely any concerts and seemed not to enjoy doing them, or Skip Spence, who didn’t do any as a solo act as far as I know. Ackles also seemed fairly at ease at his shows, with some audience repartee – nothing like the stereotype many have of cult singer-songwriters. Did this live activity also come as a surprise to you, especially as you were able to access tapes of some of those live concerts?

MB: I was surprised that Ackles played live so much. I don’t know how many shows he did between 1968 and 1973, when he was recording, but it must have been in three figures. For example, I know of four residences at the Troubadour in Los Angeles (one supporting Joni Mitchell, one supporting Elton John, one headlining and one sharing a bill with Dave Mason). That alone amounts to more than twenty shows. 

I’m not sure that he was particularly at ease playing live, though. Or at least, he was often not at ease. His wife, Janice, said he was a nervous performer and sometimes got ill before shows. I’ve heard two tapes of him playing live at Canterbury House. On both his musicianship – his playing and singing – is superb. And on the second there’s a lot of good-humored chat with the audience between songs. But by the time that tape was made Ackles had played several shows at Canterbury House, and felt at home. Reviews of earlier shows at Canterbury House comment on his apparent nervousness. 

Over the course of his four albums, Ackles moved from the vaguely folk-rockish backing of his first LP to increasingly theatrical music with looser ties to folk and rock, and eventually not many ties to folk and rock. Do you see this as him managing to circle back to the style he truly loved the most; a natural progression as his songwriting and studio experience evolved; or some combination of such factors?

I think the musical theatre influences were there from the start – see “Laissez-Faire,”  “Sonny Come Home” and “His Name Is Andrew” on the first album. But they were partly disguised because the songs were performed by rock musicians playing rock arrangements. As you say, the albums became progressively more theatrical thereafter. I see this as a process of Ackles gradually getting more control of his recordings and pushing them in the direction he always wanted to take. The sound and feel of the third album, American Gothic, is as much to do with the arrangements – which Ackles wrote – as the songs themselves. I think the title track of that album, for example, would “feel” a lot less theatrical if the first album’s band had worked out some parts and performed the song.

Getting back to the process of what you wrote and researched, what were the most interesting and surprising things you learned, even having come into the project with about as much knowledge about his background as anyone?

MB: I knew before starting that there had been aborted attempts to record the three Elektra albums, but I hadn’t appreciated the stature of the musicians and arrangers Ackles worked with, unsuccessfully. Lots of Wrecking Crew players, Al Kooper, Don Ellis, Del Newman. People at the top of their game at the time. Yet it seems that Ackles was quite assertive in deciding that things weren’t working and insisting on moving on. That tells me he had a strong artistic vision from the start. 

Similarly, I knew that he worked on musical theatre projects after his recording career ended. But I didn’t know the extent of that. To write a complete musical theatre play, with twenty plus songs each and a full script, must be a huge undertaking, and Ackles did it at least twice, as well as lots of other projects that didn’t progress so far. He chipped away at that work for decades, up until the end of his life.

The third David Ackles album, 1972’s American Gothis.

As you note early in the book, many figures who worked with and knew Ackles are dead or untraceable, or might not remember much or anything about him even if you found them. Who were the associates you would have been most eager to speak with had you been able to, and why?

David Anderle, definitely. He knew Ackles before and at the start of his recording career, so would have had some unique insights.  

You unearthed a lot of positive print reviews of Ackles’s records, some of which are almost shocking in the intensity of their praise, comparing his work to Sgt. Pepper in its quality and scope, for instance. Different reviews called American Gothic “the best pop album ever made…or maybe the second best,” and “the best album of the year? Undoubtedly. The best of the decade? Probably.” But as many such reviews prove, they’re examples of how even rave reviews don’t necessarily sell records. That happened, just drawing on a biography I’ve done, with the Velvet Underground’s records (more so near the end of when they were active) and John Cale’s first solo album. What do you think was preventing Ackles from breaking out to a wider audience – not just James Taylor or Joni Mitchell stardom, but even more modest sales that could sustain a career, like for Randy Newman and Leonard Cohen?

MB: Overwhelmingly, the main reason was the rock audience’s unfamiliarity with the styles and conventions of musical theatre, which came to dominate Ackles’s albums. I came across quite a few people who bought American Gothic on the strength of the reviews and were somewhat baffled by it. I think I was when I first heard it. Not that they, or I, didn’t like it. It’s more a sense of not really understanding what’s going on. There are some country-influenced songs that fit very loosely with the sort of thing people like Mickey Newbury and Kris Kristofferson were writing at the time (“Another Friday Night” and “Waiting For the Moving Van,” for example). But I can see why songs like the title track, or “Midnight Carousel” or “Montana Song” baffled people. 

That aside, I think there’s a sense that, in terms of his character and persona, Ackles didn’t fit comfortably into what the music business or rock audiences expected at the time. I see something indefinably “rock and roll” about Leonard Cohen as a personality – even though he wasn’t a rock musician – that isn’t there in Ackles. And, after the first album, his songs weren’t widely covered. 

Then, toward the end of his career, he had some bad luck. After he left Elektra Clive Davis, an admirer, signed him to Columbia. But Davis was sacked while Ackles was recording what became his final album, Five & Dime, and at almost the same time Ackles’s manager dropped him without warning. These were events completely outside of Ackles’s control, but I think they finished off his career because he didn’t know anyone else at Columbia and he didn’t have a manager to advocate for him. If those two events hadn’t happened I feel certain that Five & Dime would have got more attention, and probably that Ackles’s recording career would have continued. And if it had continued, who’s to say he wouldn’t have eventually built up a bigger audience.  

Something also apparent from the reviews you quote is that, even in the many positive ones, writers seem to be at something of a loss to fully describe or classify Ackles’s music, owing to its lack of familiar reference points. That led some of them to often use comparisons that might have been somewhat in the ballpark but weren’t totally apt, like to Randy Newman, Nilsson, or even Judy Collins. Could his elusive-to-classify style have been both a hindrance to his recognition at the time, and a reason he stands out now as more interesting in some ways than the many more conventional singer-songwriters of his era?

MB: Yes, to both parts of that question. I think most of the references writers used in the ‘60s and ‘70s when trying to place Ackles give some sense of him as a serious, song-based performer, with influences outside of those usually associated with pop and rock, while at the same time not really telling you what he sounds like. In addition to the names you list, other frequently-used comparators were Leonard Cohen, Laura Nyro, and Jacques Brel. And very often, there were references to Brecht/Weill. Musically, the Brecht/Weill comparisons are the most accurate, but I’m not sure how useful they are, or were then, as I suspect that Brecht/Weill’s work has never been widely known to your average rock listener, apart from a few cover versions (i.e. “Mack The Knife” by Bobby Darin; “Pirate Jenny” by Judy Collins; “Alabama Song” by the Doors). 

Ackles’s biggest boosters were Elton John, for whom Ackles opened at John’s breakthrough 1970 concerts at the Troubadour in L.A., and John’s lyricist Bernie Taupin, who produced David’s third album. While that didn’t mean Ackles sold more records, what do you think were the biggest benefits of the Ackles-John-Taupin association?

MB: I think that connection is a big factor in helping ensure that Ackles retained his admittedly very modest corner in rock’s collective memory. Both Elton John and Bernie Taupin have taken multiple opportunities over the decades to talk about how much they admired Ackles. And the fact that Taupin produced American Gothic is of interest in itself, as we know him as a lyricist, not a producer. 

For all the quality of Ackles’s work, for me personally, it’s not a surprise that he didn’t sell much, or even gain retrospective sales boosts and prestige like Drake and Spence did. The music’s just too theatrical and far from rock, especially on his later albums. What do you view as the reasons he hasn’t garnered a posthumous cult following on the order of someone like Drake’s? And do you see it as possible, even at this late date, that he could start to gain some more cult appreciation, and your book might help in that regard?

MB: In summary, I think there are three reasons. One – the unfamiliarity of his musical theatre influences; two – the absence of a tragic back story; three – the cancellation of the There Is a River box set [which almost came out in 2007]. But I think, with the help of a reissue campaign, he could get more attention even now. 

The fourth and final David Ackles album, 1973’s Five & Dime.

Something that might have helped built Ackles’s career and visibility to a greater level was covers of his songs, which was probably Elektra’s initial thought in signing him first to a writing deal. To list just a few examples, some hit covers definitely boosted major singer-songwriters’ careers in their early days, like Three Dog Night’s “Mama Told Not to Come” for Randy Newman, Three Dog Night’s “One” for Nilsson, and Judy Collins’s “Both Sides Now” for Joni Mitchell. There weren’t that many Ackles covers. Personally I don’t hear a song that could have done this for him in this manner, though Julie Driscoll/Brian Auger & the Trinity’s “Road to Cairo” was about the best, and the best shot at doing so. Do you have any thoughts about why he wasn’t covered more often; what Ackles composition might have helped him via a cover; and what you think of Driscoll’s “Road to Cairo”?

MB: There were quite a few covers of songs from Ackles’s debut by established artists, in addition to the Driscoll/Augur version of ‘Road To Cairo’. Martin Carthy did ‘His Name Is Andrew’, and the Hollies and Spooky Tooth recorded ‘Down River’. And there were several other covers by lesser-known artists. But the covers tailed off for [Ackles’s second album, 1970’s] Subway To The Country, with Harry Belafonte’s version of the title track being the only one of note. This surprises me a little. I can see why something like “Inmates of the Institution” didn’t attract any other artists, but there are some quite simple, accessible songs on that album that are ripe for reinterpretation (for example, “That’s No Reason To Cry”). 

But having said all of that I don’t see Ackles as a hit single songwriter, more a potential provider of album content. The Driscoll/Auger recording of “Road to Cairo” is a case in point. I think it’s a decent version, though there was talk of mastering and/or pressing problems that made the original single sound a bit weedy. But I can see why it didn’t repeat the success of “This Wheel’s On Fire,” the big Driscoll/Auger hit it followed. “Road To Cairo” is a story song – much of its appeal is in the unfolding narrative. The chorus “I’ve been traveling …” doesn’t have the rousing, catchy quality of “Wheel’s on fire, rolling down the road,” even though both songs share a similar brooding feel in the verses.  

One of the greatest attractions of your book is that you were able to access, and describe in considerable detail, a good number of unreleased studio and live recordings. What were the most interesting of those to you, and what do you think they most revealed or added to his legacy that’s not apparent from his official albums?

MB: The unreleased recordings I heard – live, studio outtakes and demos – revealed to me that Ackles was prolific, and his standards were consistently high. Though he only made four albums (a total of 41 songs), he wrote dozens of other songs and the ones I’ve heard are all good. And I know I haven’t heard everything he did by any stretch. Among the most interesting to me is “There Is A River,” an outtake from American Gothic, which sounds something like a location recording of a street preacher. After he lost his deal Ackles worked on several musical theatre projects, including a contemporary setting of Puccini’s La Bohème. I’ve heard a demo of four songs from that project that, as you’d expect, deploy all Ackles’s musical theatre techniques. There are two ballads on that demo – “Mississippi Small Talk” and “Country Home,” that, to my ears, are the equal of anything he released.

You note that some of that unreleased material came very close to coming out in 2007 on the There Is a River anthology, though the circulation of advance copies means that a number of serious Ackles fans have been able to hear that. This of course is frustrating for serious Ackles fans, and finding out about quite a bit more unreleased material will make them yet more eager to hear more from the vaults. Do you see any possibility that unreleased recordings – both studio outtakes and the live tapes you detail – might come out in the future, and that your book might help with making that possible?

MB: One of my main hopes for the book is that it helps prompt a reissue campaign, and the release of previously unreleased material. There are fully realized studio outtakes from all three Elektra albums – both previously unheard songs and completely different versions of familiar songs. And I’d say there’s scope for a Live At Canterbury Housedouble album, which could include four previously unknown songs, alongside solo versions of songs from the albums. And there are all sorts of demos and other scattered live recordings for television and radio. There’s a lot of potential. 

This is a very difficult hindsight question to answer, but had Ackles been able to make more albums, do you have any thoughts as to what directions he might have gone?

MB: I feel that if he’d been able to carry on and been given artistic freedom, he’d have done what he tried to do anyway – though without any backing – which is write, perform and record musicals. 

The book hasn’t been out for long, but have you had any interesting reactions to it, including from people who might have known Ackles?

MB: So far people have been kind. I’ve had some touching emails from old friends and family. 

To restate the cliché that’s on the verge of going viral: Q: Didja hear the one about David Ackles? A: Only a few thousand people bought his first LP – and none of them formed a band! (Boom-boom!) Do you see Ackles somehow becoming an influence, even a small one, on current/future musicians, as he was on you in your early musical career? 

MB: I wouldn’t say Ackles was an influence on my early band, the Palace of Light. We loved his records, but I think we always understood we couldn’t get anywhere close to sounding like him, in any way. In fact, our record company suggested we cover one of his songs (“Postcards,” from the final album) and we declined. But I see no reason why he couldn’t influence contemporary musicians. I think that streaming – whatever anyone thinks about it – does allow people to investigate all kinds of music. And one consequence of that is that there are now lots of artists with very eclectic influences. Incidentally, my view on streaming is that the technology itself – like most technology – is neutral. I object strongly to the business model, as artists aren’t paid.

Interview with Sue Carpenter, Director of 40 Watts from Nowhere

In 2004, Sue Carpenter’s engaging memoir of running a couple pirate radio stations in the mid-to-late-1990s, 40 Watts from Nowhere, was published. About twenty years later, she’s directed a documentary of the same title based on those experiences. While it naturally covers a lot of the same ground as her book did, it’s not simply a retelling of that narrative. It draws on a lot of footage taken at the time for an unrealized documentary on the Los Angeles pirate station KBLT, which was run out of her home.

That footage includes many of the DJs and others affiliated with the operation, as well as some performances artists did for or at the station. Some pretty well known musicians appear in those guises, if fleetingly, including Mazzy Star, Mike Watt, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. More interesting, however, are the numerous interviews done with station personnel at the time and, crucially, quite a few done specifically for this new documentary. Carpenter herself is extensively interviewed both in the vintage footage and the material shot for her own film.

Carpenter had briefly overseen a pirate station in the mid-1990s in San Francisco before moving to Los Angeles to more or less helm the much more well known KBLT for a while in the late 1990s before it was shut down by the FCC. KBLT specialized in broadcasting alternative music of all kinds (if primarily alternative rock, judging from the film). The memories of doing the groundwork for getting on the air, as well as the fun and sometimes rocky times putting music on it to considerable enthusiasm from adventurous locals, are entertaining on their own.

An important message that also comes through, however, is how the station helped build a community of people determined to provide something different from what mainstream media could offer, especially (though not limited to) the Silver Lake area in which KBLT was based. Although the station’s operations are the core of the film, not the music itself, there’s also much period detail of the era’s alternative rock scene, and how much different the industry was a generation ago, when physical product still ruled (and took up much of Carpenter’s living space). Some of the bands heard on and playing in support of KBLT were very obscure even by indie rock standards, and there’s also considerable footage (if in snippets) of some of them, in the kind of raw cinematic technique also evocative of the era.

KBLT was shut down by the FCC in 1998, in a dramatic scenario where Carpenter raced to the roof of the building on which the transmitter was located  when the station went off the air. I spoke with her about the film in July 2025, not long after it screened at the Roxie in San Francisco.

Why did you want to do a film of the same story you wrote about in a book?

I had no intention ever of making a movie. I thought the book was going to be the definitive account of the radio station. I wrote it shortly after the radio station was over, just because I have a horrible memory, and I needed to get everything down. And I just thought that was it.

But that book got rediscovered by “experience designers.” They design experiences at theme parks. They also have their own side business of experiential theater. They heard about three years ago that there had been a pirate station in Silver Lake, and there was a book about it. They found the book, tracked me down, and said they wanted to make it into this experience.

I helped them re-create the space, and it was right around the corner from where the radio station had been. It looked so much like the old station, because it was in the old neighborhood. I started reaching out to some of the DJs and said hey, let’s have a reunion and do a livestream with a bunch of the old DJs. So we did that – Mike Watt was a part of it, Keith Morris, like the celebrities, and a lot of the other DJs whose shows I really enjoyed. 

Through that, because I was reconnecting with all these DJs that I hadn’t seen in years, somebody just piped up and said, “You know, I’ve got twelve hours of video. You can have it if you want. I don’t know if it’s worth anything. I was just cleaning out my garage, and I was about to throw these anyway. But you can have ‘em.”

I went through the tapes, and I was shocked at what was there. He’d started shooting in the summer of 1998, which was arguably our peak. Then we had an FCC scare and went dark, and then we came back on the air. He sort of captured the arc of the story. He did a sit-down interview with me that I had no recollection of doing. He had the original engineer for the station, who I’d completely lost touch with and couldn’t track down. He had the helicopter ride that we took to sort of scout rooftops [on which to put the transmitter]. He had Sunset Junction, a big street fair [at which KBLT had a booth]. He just had like the whole arc of the story, and I figured I could flesh it out with modern interviews that tell the story completely.

I started as a print journalist, moved into radio journalism, and now I work in broadcast TV. Although I don’t do a lot of work on the broadcast side, I’ve been trained. I have done some broadcast features where I shot, edited, like did everything. I just thought I could do it. I could make a movie with what I had.

This is your first film…

First and only, ever (laughs)!

What did you want to make different about the film than what is read in the book? Not just the content, but also the approach.

To be able to see it…because we did not realize how the world as we knew it was about to end. The analog era, the “have an idea, make it happen, it doesn’t matter if it you make any money” sort of idea. The analog, the creative ‘90s. I had all this footage that showed that.

The other thing is, I was very close to my own story when I wrote 40 Watts from Nowhere the book. It really lacked a lot of self-awareness, I think. What was weird about that book is that men really seemed to like it. Women did not like it, because they read the book, and didn’t feel like they understood who I was. I feel like it was because I was guarded about who I am. I think the difference with the film is, working with the editor I worked with, she really pulled out the emotional part of the story—not just for me, but in the community, and of the era.

I didn’t think of the book as something that would have that difference between men and women readers. I can see the reaction that readers might not know as much about you as a person. But why the reaction would be so much greater for women, I don’t know. 

I think it’s because the book was billed as a memoir. It didn’t really go into me so much. It was really a memoir of the radio station. The reviewer who wrote about it for the Chicago Tribune when the book first came out, that’s how he characterized it. I feel like that was exactly accurate.

If you read memoirs, they’re really intense. Because people “go there.” And I’m just a guarded person. I wouldn’t even have known how to plumb that.

What surprised you so much when you looked at the footage that was taken in the late 1990s? Not just what you didn’t remember, but the perspectives, where you and others at the station might be thinking of the experience in a different way 25-30 years later?

Just the joy that people had. It’s not like I didn’t know at the time, or think about that in retrospect. I feel like that’s really palpable, and it really struck me. A lot of it was just the excitement of seeing it. Like you have in your mind’s eye what happened, but then to actually see it was fun. Just like, oh, this is how I remember it being.

There are a bunch of snippets of  footage of obscure regional bands who were barely filmed at all anywhere, as far as I know. Did that strike you when you put together the movie?

That was hard. Because back in the time, almost nobody did have a camera. There was a guy who has since passed away, Rush Riddle. He had an apartment down by the University of Southern California, where he used to have a lot of live shows with all of the bands that kind of lived in that area at the time, and would perform at the official clubs. But he had this space where bands could come and play, and there’s hours and hours and hours of footage of a lot of the bands from the scene that were shot. They’re not very dynamic, they’re from one angle for hours on end. But that’s all been given to USC to archive. I don’t know where that currently stands. 

Then there’s some other footage that some people shot. They put it out on youtube, and my producer tracked them down, because he’s more connected with that scene than I am. They let us use it. But it was sort of few and far between. There’s just very few people who actually have [such] footage of the band playing live.

A lot of these bands never went on to achieve anything, really. But it does sort of capture the spirit of the era through these different bands.

What was the difference between launching a station in San Francisco and then the one in Los Angeles?

I think the motive in the beginning of both stations were the same. It was just to see if I could do it and create this alternative space for the kind of music I wanted to hear. What’s weird about San Francisco is that it took off way faster than the station down in Los Angeles. It took off like from the get-go. People were finding it, tuning in, listening, and calling. 

I was hoping to have that repeat experience when I went down to L.A., not knowing anybody. That is not how it happened in Los Angeles at all. Which could have everything to do with me being the DJ and just doing a shitty job (laughs). I’ve always said that I was the worst DJ on my own station, which I think is very true. 

But all the people from the community came in through Brandon Quazar, just like the movie says. I’d not had anything to do with Quazar for decades when I reached out to interview him for the movie.

When it started to take off, as you hit different milestones, it sort of reinforced what I was hoping to achieve, which was be a place where people could play anything. But it was realized in a better way in Los Angeles, just because of these true music lovers who had great collections and great sensibilities. It played out way better than I ever would have expected it to.

KBLT transmitter

Maybe it was a blessing it took off slowly in Los Angeles, because it gave you more time to operate under the radar. Maybe in San Francisco the hammer would have come down from the authorities much quicker.

That’s entirely possible. It was a slow burn for a while, and because of where I was located in Los Angeles, we didn’t have a lot of range. It was very much in the neighborhood itself.

How much of your motivation was music, and how much was activism, making a statement about the importance of providing alternative media?

I was very hesitant to identify myself as an activist when I started up in San Francisco. But then in Los Angeles, I think that became a bigger part of it. As the movement was growing, I was actually reporting on it myself as a freelance journalist, and sort of coming into contact with the scene in Florida, or Pete Tridish [of pirate station Radio Mutiny] in Philadelphia. It was part of my awakening.

The scene in San Francisco was very political and not musical, and in Los Angeles all the stations were about music. They weren’t about politics. Weirdly, I sort of feel like I became – not overtly, but internally, within myself, more of an activist. Like, just keep it going, we’re fighting The Man and we’re winning. That’s sort of how I felt.

But I would not have characterized myself as an activist in the same way [as] Stephen Dunifer [of the pirate station Free Radio Berkeley, interviewed in the film]. Those people were like out there, “come and get me.” I was like, “don’t get me” (laughs).

What do you think the difference was between your station and the several community and college stations in L.A., in its format and content? Some of them did offer really uncommercial material.

I feel like it probably had more of a real reason to exist in San Francisco. That’s because KUSF [the station of the University of San Francisco, which offered alternative programming until the university sold its frequency to classical music programming in 2011] switched from music programming at 6pm to community international programming in different languages at that time. So that was why I went on the air when I did, other than having a full-time job at the time too. I [felt] like it really was necessary to fill that void, because there was no other alternative radio station. Live 105 definitely was not it; that was commercial. But [to have a station] that sort of did this KUSF-style programming.

When I came down to L.A., I didn’t know anything about L.A. But I was quickly schooled in the stations that you’re talking about – KCRW [an NPR affiliate broadcasting from Santa Monica College], KXLU [a college station broadcasting from Loyola Marymount University]. Some of the DJs on KXLU were actually DJs on my station too. I feel like the M.O. that I had, like playing stuff outside the norm, was already being done by those other stations, especially by KCRW at that time.

But I had tried to be a DJ on KCRW and on KXLU, and you couldn’t. Because the policy of the college radio stations in Southern California was different from San Francisco. I had volunteered and gotten on the air both at KALX in Berkeley and at KUSF. Well, I never got on the air at KUSF, but you could get in the door. They did not have the open-door policy in Los Angeles at the college radio stations. You had to, at KXLU, be a student. And at KCRW, I still don’t understand how they had these people who had these DJ slots for decades. It’s almost impossible to get on.

But their musical selection was a little bit softer, I think. Like it was within parameters. There were no parameters at my station. You could play something completely off the rails, like Don Bolles, right? [Bolles, drummer in early L.A. punk bands like the Germs and 45 Grave, DJd on KBLT, and is shown in the film’s vintage footage airing the Golden Orchestra’s absurd “The Chocolate Cowboy” on one of his shows.] Whether you wanted to listen to that is another question.

When Mike Watt was DJing, [in the film] he plays something from a cassette by the Screamers. They were a legendary early L.A. punk band that never put out any records. Only very recently has anything come out by the Screamers that’s commercially available. That’s something cool he could offer, especially being an insider on the scene, that maybe couldn’t have gotten on college or public radio, or seldom would have. It’s one example of how the station could offer something that couldn’t have been found elsewhere. Even if you heard the Screamers elsewhere, to hear Mike Watt talk about them when he played them was a unique experience.

[When] a few years ago I brought the DJs back for that livestream reunion, Keith Morris’s concept for his show—he was like begging me to bring the station back, because he wanted to continue this concept. He’s from L.A., so in the ‘70s and in the ‘80s, he was just out on the Sunset Strip, which is where the rock clubs were. He would go to shows all time, and he had all these stories to tell. I love that. That was Watt too. Having these guys who were locals who went to become legends, that’s what they would do.

DJ on KBLT

I think the sense of community as the station grew was reflected more strongly in the film than the book. Much of what community you see in the film in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Los Angeles was sparked by the station, even for people who didn’t have a show there.

Yeah, but it was also happening in the music venues. I have a very specific perspective on it, because I was at the radio station from the get-go, within a month of moving down there. So my whole social circle sort of formed around my running this radio station. But I think a lot of people knew each other just from being in the bands, supporting their friends in other bands. A lot of it was happening in the clubs, at private shows in people’s houses. 

The community aspect that is more prevalent in the movie really came up in the modern interviews that I was doing. How fondly people felt about it, even thirty years later. And how connected they felt, how the station itself felt like a center for their social life. I think that’s why you’re sensing more of it coming through in the film. Also, my editor drew out the emotional part of the story.

The film vividly reflects how logistically difficult it was to run a station out of where you were living. There’s that scene that notes a lot of the station was between the toilet and your bed. That’s a lot of personal sacrifice to accommodate something that needs a lot of raw material to function, even if it’s nothing like how much was used by stations like KCRW.

I definitely marvel at it. I almost don’t even recognize myself for tolerating it. But my take on it is, [the station] started [broadcasting] 8 to 10pm. Two hours every night, seven days a week. It’s sort of like the frog in boiling water. The frog is in the warm water, the frog is fine. Then you need to keep upping the temperature, and then eventually the frog wants to jump out of the water, the frog dies.

I feel like growing the station the way that I did, it was easy in the beginning, ‘cause it was just regular hours, like when I would normally be up, and when you would be hanging out with your friends. As the station became more popular and grew out to the point where it was around the clock, that was pretty intense. I definitely don’t know how I would have been able to continue like that, to be perfectly honest. It was sad when the station was over, but on some level it was like, “make it gone, get these people out of here.”

But the reason I did it that way was there was no money to have a separate space, like a rented space. I suppose we could have talked about the financial model for that. Back then, rents were cheap and maybe we would have been able to do it. But it didn’t really occur to me at that time.

It was interesting to see that the problems of theft of records, and careless treatment of equipment, were as rife at your small pirate station as they were at established community and college radio stations.

My math on humanity is that 90% of people do the right thing. Then there’s this other group. Like one percent is hell on wheels; four percent, wish you had never met them; five percent you can deal with it. The other 90 are great. 

So I don’t feel like I ever knew who those people were who were ripping me off. If they would break something, some people would say hey, I just broke this. But I don’t necessarily think anybody said hey, I’ll get a replacement. I don’t remember that. I’m sure some people did, I just don’t remember.

You had some pretty high-profile artists who were interviewed at the station. Jesus & Mary Chain, the Dandy Warhols, Spiritualized – this is aside from local underground music celebrities like Mike Watt, Keith Morris, and Don Bolles, who I think would have been easier to get on the air. What did those artists think of coming to the station? Did they have a good idea of what the station was and its audience, or were maybe thinking it was a more commercial or had a bigger range than it did?

I so rarely met these bands when they came in. It wasn’t like I was told, hey, Dandy Warhols are coming in. People would just bring people in. I know the guy from Rancid, back when they were a thing, they were there. There was a ton of bands. I just recently found out that Hope Sandoval from Mazzy Star was actually at the station with Jason Pierce from Spiritualized. I had no idea. I literally found this out within the last six months.

Jesus and Mary Chain, I’m not sure what they were told. I think they were supposed to go to a more mainstream station. But I think some of them sort of liked the idea of coming in to a place that was a little bit more underground. ‘Cause it felt more authentic, it felt more real. It would be sort of like, going into a commercial station, you sort of have to be on, and on your best behavior. But coming in to a place like our station, they could just be whatever. It wasn’t being recorded to your knowledge. It was just, you came in, you did your thing, you left.

I think most of them knew that they were coming in to a pirate radio station. The one artist that I remember who came in who really didn’t understand why we needed to exist was Wayne Coyne from Flaming Lips. I remember having a conversation with him, and he really challenged me on like, why? He was the one artist who I don’t think got it. Which is weird, considering that he’s like a far-out kind of guy.

I know someone who was on KUSF in the early 1980s who felt like some of the touring artists being interviewed actually didn’t know where they were because their schedule was so hectic and they were being told do go here and there doing interviews between concerts, Some of them thought KUSF was going to be a much bigger station than it was, and didn’t realize it had a small range and was a tiny couple of rooms in the middle of a college campus with tons of other unrelated things going on. Did you have reactions like that with the musicians who came to the station?

It was clearly in a house. I think they were aware of where they were. But I think it’s the same thing. Like, we were slotted into a schedule among many places that they were supposed to be. 

When you had the benefit for the station when it was operating, that was cool to build support for and awareness of the station. But were you thinking at the time, that’s great to build visibility for the station, but at the same time make it more likely you’ll get busted?

Yeah, that was such a clusterfuck of emotions. Because it was super exciting to be doing a show that was out in public that had that lineup, that was getting media attention. It was sort of like that double-edged sword of you want to attract the right people, not the wrong people. But obviously that is not in your control. If you’re going to be public like that, if you’re going to advertise that, if you’re going to have people talking about it, you don’t know who’s gonna be hearing it. And just showing up as a fan, versus showing up as, “we’re gonna shut you down.”

Luckily, that isn’t what happened. We got some very high-profile media in ’97, that’s when it started. That’s when I think we sort of got put on the FCC’s radar. Through the media, not necessarily because of the show. It was the media that came out of the show.

Do you think it was a source of satisfaction to the bands at the benefit concert done for the station, and who went on air at the station, to be feeling like they didn’t have to be doing this for promotion, but they wanted to because they believed in what stations like yours were doing? Because as a well known name, like Mazzy Star and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, they could promote something that really needs promotion, even more than KXLU or KALX?

I don’t think Mazzy Star really knew that — when I talked to her [Mazzy Star’s Hope Sandoval] after the [benefit] show, I don’t think she really…it was [like], “show up, appear at this time.” I don’t necessarily think that she was presented with this as a benefit for a pirate radio station, are you on board? I think her people did. I don’t think she necessarily knew.

Red Hot Chili Peppers, making this movie brought up the debate about, who got more out of them coming by the station? I feel like we got more out of it, because it upped our profile and our credibility. This is hindsight for a lot of the DJs and their very punk ethos. They’re like, “Oh, no, they got so much more out of it. Because we were so cool.” (laughs)

Mazzy Star

I agree the station got more out of it, though I guess it could have been said, “The Red Hot Chili Peppers are so big they don’t need to do this, but doing it made them seem cooler and more underground.” 

[People] also accused us of selling out. We wouldn’t normally play their music on our station. That wasn’t what a lot of the DJs would have been playing.

I’m still wondering how Mazzy Star got on the benefit if they didn’t know what it was for or what the station did. They weren’t as big as the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but they were pretty well known and on a big major label, Capitol. Capitol’s headquarters [the famous circular Capitol building] is about five miles or less from where the station was.

Yeah. Laurel Stearns, who’s in the film and was a DJ, she has magical powers. She’s just a very beloved person that can make things happens. I mean, lord knows what she said. But she was friends with Mazzy Star’s manager.

It seems like something someone managed to sneak through. They’d been on Capitol for a while, and it doesn’t seem like the kind of publicity the label would go after, or even approve, because they wouldn’t have wanted to be associated with a pirate radio station.

That’s why I think it was done with outside management, not having to do with the label at all.

One of the most effective scenes in the film was when the station had a booth at Sunset Junction, and you were literally being drowned out by the sound coming out of the speakers in a nearby booth from the commercial dance music station Groove Radio. It’s almost a literal representation of stations with tiny signals like yours being drowned out by big commercial ones. Not just the signal range, but the different message that smaller stations have from commercial ones.

I felt really lucky when I saw that whole sequence. It was like yeah, this is like, you actually see it. That was the whole point of the movie – you can see it. It’s like the whole thing in journalism, show don’t tell. So this whole movie was about showing it.

Your line in the movie about getting drowned out by Groove Radio was, “We’re battling this huge radio station. We’re just battling to be heard.” It’s aside from just battling to exist. Even if you had a license, because of your small range and the nature of your music, you’d be battling to get an audience.

I feel like Don Bolles’s favorite thing to say about the station is, “KBLT, the station with more DJs than listeners.” Which probably was true. I don’t honestly know how many listeners we ever had at one time. But everybody seemed to know about it who lived in the neighborhood. How often they tuned in, I’m not sure. We weren’t part of Nielsen.

In the movie there’s a sense of, the bigger you got, the more likely you knew the hammer would be coming down. If you could have operated for at least another year or two, are there things you would have liked to have been able to do with the station?

I feel like at the time, when we got busted, the station was firing on all cylinders, and that’s how I would have wanted it to continue. I would have moved it out of my house. That’s probably the only thing that I would change. But I wouldn’t change the way I programmed it, which was to say that I did not program it. I just had an open door policy, and tried to let as many people come in and DJ as I could.

How is how you went through almost thirty years ago relevant to today, when the means for programming music and public affairs is much different than it was then, with podcasts, streaming, and other things now possible? In some ways the outlets are infinite compared to what existed then.

When you look at it through the modern day lense, it seems like a really ludicrous thing to have done. There is human curated radio being done the way that we used to do it, online everywhere. So there’s a lot of real DJing, like real low-power community radio happening, enabled by the Internet.

What I really enjoyed about my station, and I think would still have a lot of value in the present day, is just the community nature of it. Just a group of people who come together to do something that everybody cares about. I’m disappointed in My Spotify, because I feel like every time that I just want to listen to something, just check it out, which I might not even ever want to hear again, it messes with my algorithm. That’s not cool.

There’s just so many options now. Which is a good thing, but I do like the local and community aspect of a terrestrial radio station, and the effort of that, and the effort of listening to it and the effort of doing it. I like effort-ful things.

What were the biggest challenges in the transition from writing about a subject to doing a film about it, many years later?

The biggest challenges were finding more archival footage and photos, tracking certain people down, convincing people to let me use some of their images in the film. And that just because I’m making a movie doesn’t mean that I have a ton of money and that I can afford to buy everything that we’re using. Financially it’s also really been unfun. I thought that I could make this for a lot less than it’s turned out to be.

Also, digitizing things that didn’t need to be digitized, or trying to make the footage, or using AI to make the footage look better. Which introduced all these like hallucinations. That was an expensive thing to learn that didn’t work. We subtracted all that footage out after we had to put in. So it was a very steep learning curve on many levels.

Are there any interesting stories that didn’t fit into the film?

There were certain things that were cut together that we didn’t use that were in the very first version. For the cleanliness of storytelling, we didn’t talk about being busted by the FCC, and then going back on the air. Just on holidays, when we thought the FCC wasn’t gonna be in the office. That was just too confusing to tell. We had cut together a sequence like that. And our signature campaign, like out in the community, like trying to get people to sign up and say we want this station, that we were gonna send in to the FCC somehow to like prove that we deserved to be on the air, like that would have done anything.

Once in a while, I wish I could bring the station back. It makes me sad that back in 2000, Congress was like, if you’ve ever run a pirate radio station, you can’t have a legit license. Because I feel like people now would have a lot of appreciation for it again. I know a lot of the DJs would like to do this again, and I just am in a different stage where I could never do this. Also the penalties for being a pirate are so much worse than they were back when I was doing it. 

What are the plans for screening and distributing the film?

We’re still waiting to hear back from about fifteen different film festivals. We are gonna be screening at Long Island Music Hall of Fame, their first music documentary film festival on August 8. We’re going to Cleveland in September. I was just accepted into an Atlanta film festival. 

Then distribution, which is really more important, we have offers. But I haven’t accepted any of them yet. I’m still considering them. Ideally, we want to be placed with a streamer, and then have another company who could do physical media. Then we’re looking at doing a soundtrack. None of that has been decided yet. There’s offers on the table, but no deals have been signed.

Jack London State Historic Park Visit

I’ve lived in the Bay Area for about forty years, but there are still a number of things I’d like to do that I still haven’t done. That spans visits to as far away as the Farallones Islands and as close to the city as the ferris wheel recently installed at Fisherman’s Wharf. In June, I did manage to cross one longstanding attraction off my list when I made it up to Jack London State Park in Sonoma County, about an hour and a half north of San Francisco.

Although there are structures and exhibits related to the life of famous writer Jack London, who had a ranch and home on the grounds during his final years, the main reason to go is for the actual park and hiking its trails. There are about thirty miles of trails, and unless you’re a mountain biker or an ultra-marathoner, you’re best of picking one long one or two short ones per visit, especially as the park’s only open 9am-5pm. I opted for what seemed like the easier of the two long trails, the Sonoma Ridge Trail, though the park map ($1 at the entrance; entrance fee is $10) classifies it as “strenuous.”

On the Sonoma Ridge Trail.

The trail isn’t so much strenuous as continuously hilly, with few truly steep grades, but not many level sections once you get past the lake. Adding up to almost ten miles out and back, it narrows considerably after you turn off the Mountain Trail to get to its main portion, though that’s not an issue unless you need to step to the side to let mountain bikes pass. On a beautiful, sunny June Friday, I saw just two mountain bikes, and only two hikers on the main part of the trail, though that might have been in part because I entered the park right after it opened.

Near the lake.

As you can see from the pictures, beautiful foliage is abundant, though it gets more open as you approach the trail’s highest point. At 2100 feet, it’s not that high, but it takes almost a couple hours with the hills, much of it ascended by switchback. It was a little hazy the morning I visited, but you can see much of surrounding Sonoma County at a couple of the more open spots.

There are many people, though not exactly crowds, walking around the moderate parts of the trails near the parking lots, lake, and surviving buildings from London’s time. The most striking of those are a couple large silos, standing out for their stark difference from the 1500 or so acres of trees, vegetation, and farmland.

Near one of the two parking lots, there’s also a small museum, the ruins of London’s home on the property, and the gravesite for London and his wife Charmian. I have to admit I’ve only read one of London’s many books and his classic short story “To Build a Fire,” but I appreciated how the museum noted that his wife (actually his second) was a very progressive and adventurous woman for her time. If you’re visiting for both a long hike and the Londonalia (also including some of his farm buildings), you might want to split those into separate visits, since you do have to walk an additional couple miles or so to get to all of these.

The ruins of Jack London’s home.

The Beatles and A Taste of Honey

Among the numerous songs the Beatles put on their 1960s releases that had been written by others, “A Taste of Honey” is one of the most obscure, and perhaps among the most underappreciated. Appearing on their first album, Please Please Me (and then on Introducing the Beatles and The Early Beatles in the US), it perhaps isn’t as accorded as much respect as their most famous cover versions because it isn’t a rock song. The primal importance of artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and Buddy Holly—all of whom the Beatles interpreted on their early albums—is both unquestioned and justly considered eternally hip. Not so much “A Taste of Honey,” although it’s a very good Beatles track, with a haunting melody, superb Paul McCartney vocals, and fine backup harmonies.

One reason “A Taste of Honey” is relatively seldom discussed, and sometimes even denigrated, seems to be its origins as a show tune, far from the world of rock and roll. Bobby Scott and Ric Marlow wrote it as an instrumental song for a 1960 Broadway play, itself an adaptation of a 1958  British play. The narration of one documentary I’ve seen declared that while the Beatles had put two show tunes on their early albums (“A Taste of Honey” and, on their second album in late 1963, “Till There Was You”), the Rolling Stones would have never considered performing something so sentimental. Never mind that one of the first songs Mick Jagger and Keith Richards actually wrote was the quite sentimental “As Tears Go By”; that their first US hit was the fairly sentimental Jagger-Richards ballad “Tell Me”; and that they sometimes covered sentimental American soul songs like “You Better Move On” in their early recordings. The point seemed to be that the Beatles, and particularly McCartney, could be sentimentally soft, and that this wasn’t a virtue.

Certainly McCartney was the Beatle principally behind choosing to cover “A Taste of Honey,” as well as “Till There Was You” and another show/movie tune they’d play on the BBC in 1963, “The Honeymoon Song.” Possibly John Lennon wasn’t so enthusiastic about this corner of the group’s repertoire, as he’s heard semi-mocking the lyrics of “Till There Was You” on December 1962 versions of the song taped at the Star-Club in Hamburg, though he plays it straight on all the other numerous surviving versions from live/BBC/Decca demo tapes. Such show tunes likely had an influence on his songwriting too; he’d later recall that “Do You Want to Know a Secret” was influenced by “I’m Wishing” from the Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Still, on a different Star-Club version of “A Taste of Honey” than the one that’s been issued on the numerous albums taken from their December 1962 tapes, Paul introduces it as “a Lied [German for ‘song’] which John’s gonna hate.” As the Beatles were deciding what to include on their first album, “A Taste of Honey” was likely not among Lennon’s top choices. But it wasn’t as though the Beatles’ interpretation wasn’t liked by their audiences and admired by at least one of their peers. According to Merseybeats bassist Billy Kinsley, he played a part in convincing the band to put it on Please Please Me

“We played a gig with the Beatles at Liverpool University [on October 11, 1962] when they’d just entered the charts with ‘Love Me Do,’” he told Spencer Leigh for the liner notes of the 1982 Merseybeats compilation Beat…and Ballads. “It was the first time Paul had sung ‘A Taste of Honey’ and the others didn’t particularly like it. Paul said, ‘What did you think of it’ and I said, ‘I was knocked out by it. Superb.’ Paul grabbed hold of me and said, ‘Go and tell the others that.’ He took me into their dressing room and John said, ‘Go on then. What do you think of it?’ I was sixteen years old and very nervous. There was Big J.L. asking me what I thought of a song that he didn’t like. I said, ‘I thought “A Taste of Honey” was great.’ Paul said, ‘Ha, ha, John, told you so.’ They decided that night that they’d put ‘A Taste of Honey’ onto their first album.” A very similar quote appears in Leigh’s book It’s Love That Really Counts: The Billy Kinsley Story, where Kinsley also states, “Maybe they took other soundings, but I like to think I was partly responsible for it going on their first album.”

For what it’s worth, it’s unlikely the Beatles decided to put the song on their first album at the October 11 show Kinsley saw. According to the expanded edition of Mark Lewisohn’s Tune In, his detailed history of the Beatles through 1962, George Martin’s decision to make a full LP with the group wasn’t relayed to the group until a meeting on November 16. It’s also possible the October 11 gig wasn’t the first occasion on which they’d performed “A Taste of Honey,” as Lewisohn refers to it as “one of the first times the Beatles played it.” More important than the chronological sequence, of course, is the main point that McCartney and Lennon disagreed about the song’s merits and suitability for their set.

Mark Lewisohn gives a full page or so to how “A Taste of Honey” entered their repertoire in the expanded edition of Tune In. The gist of it is: “There was resistance, most vociferously from John, that it was soft, not the sort of thing they should be doing. It would become a sustained point of contention between them…Confronted by his opposition, Paul said ‘A Taste of Honey’ was just another in the vein of ‘Wooden Heart,’ ‘Over the Rainbow,’ ‘The Honeymoon Song,’ and ‘Till There Was You,’ all of which were obviously popular. Didn’t the Beatles always embrace diversity, something for everyone? John still hated it, and it was probably with ‘A Taste of Honey’ in mind that he remarked [in a February 24, 1971 affidavit when McCartney was suing the other Beatles to get out of his official partnership with them], “From our earliest days in Liverpool, George and I on the one hand and Paul on the other had different musical tastes. Paul preferred ‘pop type’ music and we preferred what is now called ‘underground.’”

Adds Lewisohn, “It went into the set, not every night but often. John was pragmatic—he sang a bit of the backing vocal, played the rhythm guitar lines, and made his feelings felt. But it was no stretch for Beatles audiences, who got out-and-out rock, Tamla R&B, bluesy harmonica songs, quality pop, country numbers, love ballads and three-part harmonies in every show.”

The origins of “A Taste of Honey,” and how it came to the attention of the Beatles (and likely through McCartney), are more complex and uncertain than they are for most of their covers. One thing to clarify at the outset: though the 1960 Broadway play, also titled A Taste of Honey, for which it was written was based on the 1958 British play A Taste of Honey—and although that play was made into a fairly popular 1961 British movie starring Rita Tushingham—the song is not heard in that film. And as noted, when the song was first used in the 1960 play, it was instrumental, without lyrics.

The first vocal version, with lyrics, was recorded the following year by a very famous guy—but not one famous for his singing. It was on the 1961 album Let’s Misbehave by Billy Dee Williams, the same man who’d become a star actor in the early 1970s with one of the most popular television movies of all time, Brian’s Song, and then with major roles in early Star Wars films. However, he’d been acting on stage and in films since the late 1950s, and one of his stage roles was indeed in a Broadway production of A Taste of Honey, which could well have been where he first became aware of the song. Let’s Misbehave is a vocal jazz album that’s not close to rock, and Williams’s unspectacular version is not the one the Beatles heard. In fact, it seems likely that to this day, Paul McCartney might well be unaware of Williams’s version.

The source for the Beatles’ version is the 1962 recording by Lenny Welch, a US pop singer with some mild soul influence. Welch is mostly known for his big 1963 hit “Since I Fell for You,” but he put “A Taste of Honey” on a 1962 single. How the Beatles found that 45 is one of many testimonies into their deep record collective dives, as it didn’t even chart in the US let alone the UK. But this was certainly version they found, as the arrangement, particularly the backing vocals, is quite different than what Williams recorded, and quite similar to how the Beatles performed it. Tellingly, it also has a switch into double-time in the bridge—also missing from Williams’s version, and also featured in the Beatles’ adaptation. Roy Carr and Tony Tyler were likely unaware of Welch’s version when they wrote in their 1975 book The Beatles: An Illustrated Record that “the imaginative creak into 4/4 time for the middle eight was a masterstroke,” though that doesn’t take away from how well the Beatles did it.

They certainly started playing it live quickly after discovering it. Welch’s single was issued simultaneously in the US and UK in late September, and Billy Kinsley’s account confirms they were already putting it into their set, or at least trying it out given some reservations within the band, by October 11 a couple of weeks later. What’s more, they performed it on the BBC on October 25, along with both sides of their debut 45 “Love Me Do”/“P.S. I Love You,” at a time when “Love Me Do” was just a small UK hit and no other records by the Beatles were available.

Maybe “A Taste of Honey” was selected for broadcast to demonstrate the Beatles’ broad range and as an attempt to appeal to mainstream pop tastes. McCartney even introduced it as “a lovely tune, great favorite of me Auntie Gin’s” on the Beatles’ BBC session on April 1, 1963. But its inclusion as the only song on their October 25 session they hadn’t released indicates it was already something the group were serious about featuring. They also did it on Granada TV four days later on October 29, and a mediocre-fidelity recording of the last minute and seventeen seconds of that performance is in circulation.

Not too long ago, however, the full October 25 BBC session got into unofficial circulation as an off-air recording whose fidelity’s fair but listenable. “A Taste of Honey” offers a notable difference from the familiar Please Please Me track, as Paul sings a verse about clinging lips not heard in the studio version. He’d also sing this full version, following the lyrics of what Lenny Welch sang in the arrangement upon which the Beatles modeled their cover, on the unreleased version taped in late December at the Star-Club in Hamburg—not the same as the Star-Club one that’s long been available on official releases, if you’re keeping track. Paul’s vocal on this initial BBC version might have just a bit more trace of tremulous slight Elvis Presley-isms than subsequent ones, but otherwise this is quite similar to the Please Please Me take, and quite polished.

In his intro, incidentally, BBC emcee Ray Peters mentions the American pop-jazz vocal group the Hi-Lo’s having done a version, which indeed came out on a July 1962 single. It’s evident, however, that the Beatles must have learned the song from Lenny Welch’s slightly later version, whose arrangement is far more similar to what the Beatles employed.

Also, iIn his introduction to the song (possibly one of the last times it was performed) at a show in Bournemouth, England on August 23, 1963, McCartney mentions it also having been recorded by Acker Bilk. The clarinetist had scored a #1 hit in both the UK and US with “Stranger on the Shore” in 1962. His rather unremarkable easy listening-ish version of “A Taste of Honey” came out on a January 1963 single, which made #16 in the UK. While the Beatles wouldn’t record the song until February, their Welch-based arrangement had already been performed in concert for months, and clearly wasn’t influenced by Bilk’s.

And while Herb Alpert’s swinging instrumental jazz-pop take on the song would be the most popular version, making #7 in the US in late 1965, and the Hollies did a respectable vocal version (possibly influenced by Alpert’s, with its similar jazzy tempo) in early 1966, the one by the Beatles remains the best.

Editor/author Josh Rosenthal on the New Book Treasures Untold: A Modern 78 RPM Reader

Record Store Day is mostly known for limited edition releases on vinyl and, to a lesser extent, CDs. The 155-page hardback book Treasures Untold: A Modern 78 RPM Reader, however, was a spring 2025 Record Store Day release limited to a thousand copies, though it does include a CD of contemporary artists performing songs from the 78s era. The dozen chapters present memories, stories, and perspectives by (and occasionally interviews with) devoted collectors of 78s, some of whom are also musicians, dealers, archivists, reissue compilers/liner note writers, and/or record label owners. The authors aren’t celebrities on the order of, say, R. Crumb, although there’s a detailed story of an in-person encounter with him in one of the chapters. But some will be known to general music historians, like editor Josh Rosenthal, who runs the Tompkins Square label (and did some of the writing and interviewing), longtime collector/reissue writer/assembler Dick Spottswood, and record label executive David Katznelson, who’s also worn several hats. The focus is usually on blues, country, and folk 78s, though a few other genres like jazz, gospel, and early rock’n’roll are also discussed.

Collecting and even listening to 78s isn’t a terribly common pastime in 2025, and not even “coming back” to the extent that the consumption and manufacture of vinyl music releases are. But there are still people seeking 78s, and the book illuminates how and why the search continues, and probably always will. I spoke to Treasures Untold editor Josh Rosenthal, who wrote one of the chapters himself, shortly after the book came out in spring 2025. Copies of the book are still available on Bandcamp, at https://tompkinssquare.bandcamp.com/merch/treasures-untold-a-modern-78-rpm-reader.

Why did you assemble a book about 78s and collecting them, a niche that’s pretty small, if growing?

It’s a really small niche. I explain the impetus for the book in my chapter pretty extensively. But basically, I’ve been around 78s a lot over the past twenty years with the label. [Rosenthal runs Tompkins Square Records, which has put out many reissues of all sorts, in addition to some recently recorded works.] Especially in the first ten years of the label, I put out a lot of compilations that were derived from 78rpm records. Like the Charlie Poole [anthology The Complete Paramount and Brunswick Recordings 1929], the People Take Warning set [of Murder Ballads & Songs of Disaster 1913-1938]. Arizona Dranes, who is a gospel singer back in the ‘20s, very influential but not well known. So we did a book/CD on Arizona Dranes [He Is My Story: The Sanctified Soul of Arizona Dranes]; Michael Corcoran wrote the book, and there’s a CD in there. Early Cajun stuff. I did a three-CD set of stuff in the Ottoman empire [To What Strange Place: The Music of the Ottoman-American Diaspora, 1916=1929] that’s produced by Ian Nagoski. Just a whole host of different releases and compilations and stuff that were derived from 78s.

So that’s been in my whole world. But I didn’t start collecting [78s] until June of 2023. I started because a friend of mine up in Napa was opening a record store, and she was like, “How would you like to try to find some records for me?” I was like, that sounds fun. I’ve never done anything like that. It was a lot easier then to find good quality collections than it is now, even two years later. It’s like so competitive for vinyl.

But I saw this listing on Craigslist, and it listed all these cool artists, like Muddy Waters and Lightnin’ Hopkins and all these people, for 78s. I was like, I’ll go out there. Why not? It’s in Berkeley [in the San Francisco Bay Area where Rosenthal’s based], I’ll go check it out. So I went, and there was like one other person in this garage. It was some guy who was moving to France, and he wanted to just get rid of everything super-cheap. So I wound up just buying a couple crates’ worth of 78s, and I started listening to them. 

I didn’t even have the proper equipment yet. I didn’t have the right three-millimeter stylus. I had a one-millimeter stylus, which is basically what everybody uses for vinyl. So then I got myself a real stylus, and I started listening. I was just taken aback by how moved I was by the sound of so many of these records. Then I got a couple more collections in quick succession; I got these three big collections probably within the space of like eight weeks. They were all super-cheap, and they were all really, really good. That was the basis of the collection. 

At that point, I was like, I wonder if I can get myself a Washington Phillips 78. So I put the search in eBay, [for] Washington Phillips [a gospel/blues singer who recorded in the late 1920s]. One showed up, and I bought a Washington Phillips 78 for 75 bucks. I was like, okay, check that box. I don’t have to have every Washington Phillips 78, ‘cause that would probably never happen, and it would be so expensive to try to track down good quality copies of that stuff. 

At that point, I was just looking for representation from some of my favorite artists. Then that’s when the learning exploded. That’s when I started just going so deep on things. Any day that I want to dedicate time to learning about 78s, researching 78s, I will invariably find something new, or learn something new, or discover some new string band, or some weird blues guy. Or make a connection.

One of the most wonderful things about this is if you’re a true music fan, is there’s so many touch points of rock’n’roll that revert back. Like, I got this 78 by Jay McShann, called “Confessin’ the Blues” [released in 1941].

Yeah, the Rolling Stones did that song on their second British EP (and second US LP) in 1964.

Yeah! I forgot the name of the tune, but I’m listening to this 78. I’m like, holy shit, this is that Rolling Stones song. Then I learned that they learned it from someone else who covered it, but the Jay McShann version is actually the original version. [The Stones could have first heard the 1958 version by blues harmonica great Little Walter, or the 1960 one by Chuck Berry.] That record’s in my collection. That’s so cool.

Another example of that on the jazz side is, I got this Coleman Hawkins 78. Coleman Hawkins is one of those guys who never recorded a single bad thing, and a lot of his records are very cheap. You can get them for ten dollars or less, for some reason. I don’t know why he gets a pass, and his records are so cheap. But I got this Coleman Hawkins record, and in the small type on the label, it said “Thelonious Monk, piano.” So I looked up this 78, and lo and behold, Thelonious Monk’s first appearance on a record is on the Coleman Hawkins 78 that I own. And I probably got it for five bucks, or I didn’t pay any money for it. 

Then I learned that Thelonious Monk returned the favor to Coleman Hawkins by inviting him on the very famous legendary Thelonious Monk-John Coltrane collaboration, their only album that they made together. Coleman Hawkins guests on that record. So it’s just like you’re making these connections. And it happens all the time, over and over again.

So that experience, that first feeling, kind of led me to just being compelled to create a book about it. But I also wanted to learn. I wanted to have the most knowledgeable people, and ask them to write the chapters, so that I could learn.

What are the most important qualities you get on a 78 that you don’t get with other formats?

The main thing is feel. I also address this in my chapter. You can listen to like a cleaned-up, remastered digital version of a 78, and sometimes you’ll hear more nuance, you’ll hear more detail. Obviously you won’t have surface noise as much, so it’ll be pretty clean to listen to. But one of the reasons I started really getting into 78s is, there’s something missing in that equation. In the digital transfers, there’s something lost.

It’s hard to describe it. But it’s definitely something that you can feel, like, in your body when you listen. And it has a lot to do with, I guess, the analog chain and the ways that something that was recorded, and the actual physical aspect of a 78 connecting with a three-millimeter needle and what that does in a physical sense. I’m not an engineer, so I can’t really articulate that part. 

But I can say that it’s definitely something that you can hear. And it’s definitely something you can feel. It’s just a closeness to the music. When you listen to a digital format, or even an LP that’s remastered, I don’t think it’s bad. I think it’s different. So it’s a different experience; it’s not better, or worse. It’s different.

I would also say that it’s possible that the artist – you never know how much of a say they had, especially in the ‘20s. Like, how much control did Blind Willie Johnson have over his content? Probably none, right? But I think maybe later, if you think about some of the jazz artists who recorded, or OKeh Records—let’s say in the ‘40s, or something like that—they probably had a certain amount of control over what was heard. Whether it’s a test pressing or a playback of some sort. So you’re getting pretty close to what the artist actually intended something to sound like. Whereas today, you don’t have as much assurance that what their intent was sonically is what’s coming through.

I think today, if there’s a lead artist—if their name is on a record—I think they probably have a lot of say and a lot of control. But the extent to which they actually care, is like another question. If a few people come in and they have names and work with other major artists, and they slap some stuff on somebody’s track and the artist thinks it sounds good, that’s an example of them not really controlling things, but someone else controlling their song. I don’t know how it works, ‘cause I’m not in that world. I have no idea how hit records are made these days. No clue.

Is there a lot of worthwhile material that was only on 78 records that’s never been reissued?

There’s so many things that have been uploaded on youtube that are not reissued. There’s a few areas where a lot of 78s are being uploaded and being digitized. The main ones are youtube, where someone may have the only copy, or just a super-super-rare record, and the only way you can hear it is on youtube, because a collector uploaded it. Then you have the Internet Archive, The Great 78 Project. That’s ongoing, and they’ve been going for years now, uploading content to The Great 78 Project on Internet Archive. Then there’s also DAHR, which is Discography of American Historical Recordings. That’s through UC Santa Barbara. They have a tremendous amount of stuff that’s either streamable or downloadable on their website.

To me, those are the main ones. If you take all three of those, you’re probably going to be able to find what you’re looking for, if you need to listen to something. But there’s still tons of stuff that hasn’t been digitized.

This Tony Russell discography [shows me the book Country Music Records: A Discography, 1921-1942], there’s very little writing. There’s a foreword by him where he discusses his methodology, but it’s all this [shows a few pages of small-print listings]. It’s 1200 pages. This is every country music record [from 1921-42], and a lot of different genres kind of bleed into that. If you want to listen to any of these songs, I would say maybe 90 to 95 percent of all the songs that are in this book, you can hear somehow online. That just gives you an idea.

But have I been stumped? Yes. There have been times when I’ve been like, I can’t hear this thing. But most of it’s up, most of it’s available. I guess that’s good.

Are there certain important artists whose 78s have never been reissued, although the material really should be heard in other, possibly more widely available formats? For me personally, my top example is when Dust-to-Digital put John Fahey’s earliest and rarest records into the Your Past Comes Back to Haunt You: The Fonotone Years (1958-1965)  box set in 2011. [Recorded between 1958-1965, much of the material on this five-CD box came out until 1970 as cut-on-demand 78s on the Fonotone label; after 1970 and until 1985, these would still be cut-on-demand, but issued in the 45rpm format.] I’d never seen the original discs on this set, and didn’t even a way of hearing them.

I think there’s probably tons. But I’d have to really think about who. There’s a lot of artists who, even though their music is “available,” like I said—you can hear it if you want to—there’s so many artists that deserve to be anthologized that have not been. It just depends on how much effort somebody wants to put into that. In the early 2000s, Dust-to-Digital did the Goodbye Babylon set [of rare vintage sacred music], that was important. In the early 2000s, you saw a lot of that stuff. There were a bunch of labels out there, including mine, that were doing that sort of reissue stuff.

I don’t know why labels have stopped basically putting out reissues of stuff from 78s, other than a few notables, like the King Oliver set that won a Grammy. [Centennial: King Oliver’s Creole Jazz Band won a Grammy for Best Historical Album in 2025.] There’s just not a lot of activity in that space. I don’t know if they feel like a lot of the consumers for that sort of stuff are dead, have died, or maybe they’re spooked by the lawsuits on Internet Archive from the major labels. Or maybe they feel like things have been exhausted.

Are there notable 78s that are known to have been released, or possibly released, that have never been found? I think the two most well known examples are a couple of singles from 1930 by bluesman Willie Brown.

It’s funny, because somebody just sent me a graphic of the Willie Brown 78 on the side of a milk carton. That was just sent to me, like, two days ago. I’m not qualified to say what’s supposedly out there but not discovered. There are people who can answer that question, though. [Collector and dealer] John Tefteller can definitely answer that question, and a multitude of other 78 collectors who are super-deep into it could answer that question.

I do know that someone [recently] discovered an unknown Big Bill Broonzy record. [“Station Blues”/”How You Want It Done,” a 1931 78 on the Paramount label, was discovered in 2023.] In this Tony Russell book, there’s tons of records that say “unissued.” So the recording data is there, but the record isn’t. So that definitely happens, and it’s rare. I’m not expert on it, I don’t know a lot about that.

There are a couple different approaches to preserving 78s, and rare music discs in general, that people give pro and con arguments for and against. One is to arrange for them to be given to an institutional archive, like at a university or museum. Another feels it’s more appropriate for the material to circulate in private collections. Do you have any views on this?

I think it depends on a bunch of different things. I think it depends on whose collection it is and where it’s going. So those are the two variables. Whose collection is it, who’s the recipient of the collection, and what are they going to do with it? Without knowing those two factors, I wouldn’t be able to say.

But I will say this. I went to the Dylan Center in Tulsa, and the guy who runs it was nice enough to take me into a non-public area where there was some stuff. He said hey, by the way, that’s [top folklorist] Harry Smith’s record collection and book collection. And there it was. I took pictures of all the spines, and it blew my mind. 

So when someone prominent dumps their collection, or sells their collection piecemeal, obviously it’s going to be up to the heirs what they want to do, or maybe to the individual when he writes his will. But to have all Harry Smith’s records in front of you – that tells you a lot about Harry Smith. That informs you about his taste and his interests. And it’s fucking fascinating. If all his books were just sort of like sold and splintered out and sent this way and that way, you wouldn’t have that. Yes, it would be nice for people to own one of Harry Smith’s books, that’s cool. But taken together, they tell you a story about the person.

If it’s a prominent person, I’d like to see that collection go someplace where it can stay intact. If it’s a random collector—and it could be a prominent collector. It could be someone like Joe Bussard [who had a large and legendary collection of rare 78s], right? I spent time with him, worked with him on different projects. His family decided, and I’m sure they discussed it before he died, to just sell it off piecemeal. I think that’s fine. I think people should enjoy Joe’s collection.

But for somebody like [producer] Hal Willner, it could be really cool if people could just see his collection. [Legendary British radio presenter] John Peel’s a good example of somebody whose collection’s intact, people can go and see it. I don’t know if publicly, but there’s videos of Damon Albarn hanging out in John Peel’s record collection and pulling records, playing records. That is very cool. In fact, you could go on a website—you could actually go record by record in John Peel’s record collection. You could scroll over a record, and it would give you all of this discographical information. [Some of the material from Peel’s collection can be accessed in this fashion at johnpeelarchive.com.] Maybe you could even hear it. That was so cool.

So I guess my answer is, I think it’s good for records to circulate. If it’s just a random person like myself, then those records should just go out into the world. If it’s a prominent name who’s contributed hugely to culture, even like a David Lynch or something…wouldn’t you like to see David Lynch’s record collection? That would be again up to the family, and up to David Lynch if he had a will. But I think for something like that, it’s cool to have it intact and accessible in some way.

Some collectors and historians champion the 78 as the best sonic format for recorded music. In an update to his book The Sound of the City, perhaps the first first-rate history of rock music (originally published in early 1970s), British journalist and radio presenter Charlie Gillett wrote: “The deep wide grooves of 78 singles generated a big, warm sound which progressively disappeared with each successive format—45 rpm singles, 33 rpm albums, and digitally mastered CDs all tended to favor higher frequencies, at the expense of the ‘bottom end.’ Played through the huge speakers of jukeboxes, 78s delivered a massive sound which can only be vaguely approximated by CDs on a domestic hi-fi or portable system. Owners of Elvis’s 78 rpm singles on Sun justifiably believe that no other format has come close to reproducing their impact. It may help to turn up the bass on your amp, but you’ll never quite get there.” Do you think the difference in quality is that great?

I said in my chapter that condition is subjective, just like music is subjective. I would also add that format is subjective, just like music is subjective. It’s about taste. So somebody could listen to an Elvis 78 and then they’d listen to the CD. Depending on their point of view, or what they’re used to, or what their brain is wired for, they might think that the CD sounds better. I’ve noticed my ear is becoming more and more attuned to 78s, to analog, almost to the point where I just prefer it so much more now to listening to CDs, for example, that I just can’t think about even going back.

So I think that taste is a big part of it, and he’s expressing his opinion about what he enjoys. A lot of that has to do with what frequencies he enjoys, or speaks to him. If you talk to an engineer, they could explain it better.

[When] 78s were manufactured, the players were manufactured to match sonic quality of the 78. So a lot of purists, and a lot of 78 collectors that I know, want to listen to the 78s on period equipment. Somebody will want to listen to their Billie Holiday or Charlie Parker 78 from the ‘40s on ‘40s-era equipment. To say that it’s better or more bass or this or that, I don’t know that it’s about anything other than subjective taste when it comes to playback.

Again, I’m not engineer, but the two things that folks point to is, [on 78s] there’s more space between the grooves. If you’re using a three-millimeter needle, you’re picking up more information. Also the 78 speed allows you…that’s why people go nuts for a Miles Davis that’s on 45rpm. Somebody who’s an engineer could explain this to you, but the speed has a factor as well. 

I’m not an audiofile, so I don’t care beyond feel. And I have a very basic setup with, like, a Marantz from the ‘70s and decent bookshelfy type of speakers, and a modern Audio-Technica turntable. So I’m probably not a great person to talk to about this stuff. Because beyond sort of almost like a superficial enjoyment of how 78s sound, I’m not an audiofile, and I’m not an expert, and I’m not an engineer. I just know what sounds good.

Some of the prices for the really rare desirable 78s are really high. Some of the stories in the book discuss discs being sold for sky-high sums. Is this a hobby that’s affordable for people with average/modest incomes?

Yeah, I talk about it in the chapter. I think you can amass a really respectable 78 collection without losing your shirt, selling the farm so to speak. If you want to spend $100-200 a month or something like that on 78s, you can get some really nice 78s. There’s a lot of major artists whose records are not expensive. Just as a few examples, you mentioned Little Walter. Most of his records on Checker, you can pay $20 or $30 for those records, and they’re unbelievable. They sound amazing. They’re classic recordings. People tend to not realize that the MGM Hank Williams records are 75 years old now. And you can get one for ten bucks. Like I said, you can get pretty much any Coleman Hawkins record. You can get Duke Ellington records very inexpensively.

So it just depends what you want to do. If you want to start getting into the nosebleed territory, it’s crazy. What people are paying for 78s never ceases to astound me. There’s two songs that come with the CD on Treasures Untold by Wilmer Watts, who’s a country figure from the ‘20s. Two of his 78s went for $4400 and $5700 respectively on eBay last week. So $5000 for Wilmer Watts, [on] Paramount. Paramount records don’t sound very good, traditionally. So just think about it. $5000. I had no idea what they were worth or how high they could go. I was just watching it on eBay, just for fun. That’s astounding. 

I’m never gonna be that guy. I wrote that in the chapter too. It’s not that I can’t buy a $5000 Wilmer Watts. It’s just I never would, and I don’t want to. I just don’t wanna be that guy. I’ll buy a Washington Phillips 78 for $75 in so-so condition. I’ll buy a Blind Willie Johnson record for $100 if I can find a beater, like a VG [i.e. in “very good” condition, which for 78s often means considerable surface noise, though still very listenable]. I have numerous Blind Lemon Jefferson records that I got for about $100 each, some a little less.

There’s really good attainable records for a couple hundred bucks. If that’s your thing, and you feel like having a treasure, and treating yourself and spending a couple hundred bucks, then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that as long as it’s within your budget.

There’s a couple of really good auction sites that I don’t want to name, other than eBay, ‘cause I don’t need the competition. I love going on there and it’s kind of like a closed system, because there’s only a certain amount of people who know about it. Every month they’re on there looking for stuff. I buy things from them, and maybe I’ll spend a couple of hundred bucks a month on those sites, and I’ll get some really great stuff. It doesn’t impact my lifestyle, so it’s fine, and I’m happy. I’m happy with my records, I’m happy spending the money, I’m happy supporting the people who are selling the records, and what they do.

So I guess the answer is, it depends on your means, your goals in terms of collecting, and what’s important to you.

Many people don’t realize that in the early years of rock’n’roll, many records were still being made as both 78s and 45s. There are Fats Domino 78s, for instance, that have the reputation of sounding good.

Fats Domino is a great example that I should have named of someone of whom you can amass their records for super-cheap. All [his] Imperial records, you can get pretty much for under twenty dollars. They sound fantastic, the Imperial pressings are great. I bought a “Blueberry Hill” for eight dollars because basically the 78 version is different than the version that’s been on every fucking CD reissue ever. I bought that one because there was some kind of edit, or fix, or something that he had to sing over, or something like that. So that the 78 is minutely different from all successive versions of it. I’m not a forensic scientist when it comes to music, but that was really interesting.

There are a lot of interesting stories, some of which are in Treasures Untold, of collectors actually knocking on doors in neighborhoods in the South in the 1950s and 1960s where it was thought likely for some of those desirable 78s to have been bought when they were released. The collectors would ask the residents if they had any records to sell, and got some of their 78 collections that way. Is that possible to do these days, 50-70 years later, and find some rare 78s?

I guess it’s possible. It’s interesting, because I had this conversation with Wade Falcon, who’s a descendant of Joseph Falcon, who is one of the first recorded Cajun artists. I was like, do you think that any of the Cajun records are still out there in people’s homes, in attics and basements and garages? He said, definitely. He said, if you went to some of these parishes in Louisiana, like in some of these obscure towns and stuff, you would probably find some records. But you can’t just knock on people’s doors down there. They won’t take too kindly to that. 

So yeah, I think it’s possible. But it’s probably not as fruitful. Because when Joe [Bussard] and Richard Nevins and all those people were going around doing that, they were only like one generation away from when those people first collected those records. Now we’re fifty or sixty years past that, and a lot of things happen. A lot of people throw stuff out, or they junk stuff, or they sell stuff. So there’s that.

But also, Malcolm [Vidrine] at Venerable [Music, an auction site for 78s] told me that back in the ‘90s, let’s say, like twenty or thirty years ago, you could still raid all the antique shops in the south and find amazing shit. And that is over. So are there records out there? Yeah. It’s much harder to find stuff. I don’t care if it’s from a private collector person who’s a hoarder or…people know the value of records in a way that they never did all the way back then.

Those guys [collecting 78s many years ago] totally took advantage of that, I think, ‘cause they wanted the music. Joe [Bussard] didn’t go around to houses ‘cause he thought he would make a mint off the records. I don’t think that’s why he did it. He just loved the music, he knew this stuff was rare, and he wanted to get out the rare good stuff. It wasn’t about oh, I can get this record, and in twenty or thirty or forty years later I could sell it on eBay for a thousand bucks. That’s not how he operated, and I’m sure it’s not how those other guys did either. 

Was it profitable in the end? Yes, very. But that’s sort of almost besides the point when you look at the contributions of those people. They didn’t just hoard the records and keep them for themselves. Joe Bussard found all those records, and then he made mountains of cassettes that he sold to people, compilations. He had a radio show. He used to loan his records out to the people who do compilations. He shared his stuff. And that’s what it’s about. It’s not just about knocking on a door, getting records from some poor soul who doesn’t know what they have, and exploiting that person. You can make up your mind whether or not that’s exploitation or not. But these guys, they definitely did good things with the records they got.

Bussard also helped John Fahey a lot by actually recording Fahey on 78s for Bussard’s Fonotone label [which were finally reissued on Dust-to-Digital’s 2011 Your Past Comes Back to Haunt You Fahey box].

I’ve never heard this or read it anywhere or anything, but I really think that Fahey’s impetus for starting Takoma [Records, which released LPs by Fahey, Robbie Basho, Leo Kottke, and Bukka White in the 1960s] – he looked at Joe. He was like, well, Joe’s got his own label. Why can’t I have my own label? Why can’t I record myself and other people who’ve put out records? I’m sure that’s where he got the idea.

Because in 1959, when Fahey first put out his self-produced, self-released first album, there was no one doing that. It was unheard of, to put out your own record. I think he got all the ideas and probably a lot of the tactical side of it, like learning how to do it, from Joe.

Going back to one of your main reasons for doing the book, what were the most interesting things you learned in the process of assembling it?

The most important takeaway for me in this entire project is that I learned how deep the well is, in a way that I did not anticipate. Because you think you know something, but you don’t really know. once you start to explore, you realize that you have so much more to learn. And the past just keeps giving these gifts. On any given day if I want to, if I feel like just hunkering down and like researching, going down rabbit holes, learning about different artists, I can do it, and I’ll learn something new every single time I do that. 

The other takeaway is, I have such a clear understanding of the timeline of music now that I’m collecting 78s. Because you see how genres impacted. You see the overlapping, or the melting pot or whatever, of all these different genres and how things progressed from the ‘20s. I start in the ‘20s, because I’m not as interested in music pre-1920, 1923. Like when Fiddlin’ John Carson [did] the earliest earliest country records, that’s kind of where I start. I’m not interested in music from the 1890s through like 1915 or something. I don’t care about marching bands, I don’t like opera, I don’t like military music. Some of the stuff from like the early 1900s, the Spanish records are very nice, some of the ethnic stuff in the 1910s. But I’m sort of ignorant about it, so it’s not even worth commenting, ‘cause I just don’t know. It’s not really my taste. I just don’t care about that stuff.

But you start learning about how the artist found songs. For instance, the Carter Family. They had this African-American person who used to take A.P. Carter around black churches, where he wouldn’t have been welcome necessarily. He was like A.P. Carter’s muse for finding songs that the Carter Family would record. That’s an amazing revelation. And it ties into today, because you have, like, Beyoncé going out there with her Cowboy Carter [album] and being so controversial. Like, what is country music? Where did it start? How did it start?

Jimmie Rodgers learned from black musicians. Carter Family picked up a lot of their songs…it says A.P. Carter on the record as the person who wrote the song. But a lot of those songs came from traditional black churches. So you start putting this stuff together, and it’s totally fascinating. Then you just see how the music moved through the 20th century. Like the early country stuff, some of the sort of hybrid pop-country kind of stuff, like Vernon Dalhart. Then the ‘30s, things really changed because of the Depression and people weren’t buying records. So you have a totally different kind of sound, almost, in that era.

Then moving into the ‘40s, which is kind of like an iffy decade, you have like Andrews Sisters and all this kind of stuff. You get into the jump blues, rhythm and blues, and all that. You just have this different perspective based on records that you see on a regular basis, stuff that you’re seeing, stuff that you’re listening to that is different that you’ve never heard before. Maybe you don’t like it, but it’s still part of that process.

You also learn a tremendous amount about what you don’t want. Like, I don’t want any [early jazzman] Jimmie Lunceford records. And there’s a very good reason for that. Not to be a snob, but there’s a multitude of artists that I probably never had any awareness of before that I have an over-awareness of because they’re in like every collection that you see. 

It’s totally fascinating to listen to something like Billie Holiday. Listening to how timeless it is. You’re like, why isn’t this dated? There’s so much music from this era that’s so dated. It sounds like something you just don’t want to hear. And then you have this timelessness that comes through these artists. That’s the other thing you start to realize. You realize there’s a reason why everyone remembers Bessie Smith, and they don’t remember like dozens of her contemporaries. It’s because she was great. You hear the records, and you’re like, well, there’s all these other contemporaries that were basically plying the same trade. But they’re not as good. They don’t hit you the same way.

I think it’s true of Bessie. I think it’s true of Billie Holiday. She just completely wiped the competition. That’s how you remember certain artists, and certain artists go by the wayside. But there’s also pockets of collectors who really are interested in some of these more obscure ancillary characters from those eras.

There have long been rumors or stories that some hardcore collectors actually destroyed some of their extra copies of prime rare 78s so their own copies would be more valuable, and copies in general would be scarcer. Is there any substance to those?

I’ve heard that same thing, but it doesn’t make sense. If there’s only five copies known in the world, why would you break one? Why wouldn’t you sell it? I mean, rare is rare, whether it’s one copy or five copies or even thirty copies, or more. These records are rare. So breaking a record just doesn’t improve your position. It’s crazy. I don’t know who did that. I don’t know if it was done. It’s more like a rumor or something. Until I find out something solid on that, it’s just fake news or something. I don’t know what it is.

There’s some haggling and negotiation for getting rare 78s that can seem like gamesmanship. Harvey Pekar wrote about some of this kind of negotiation with collectors like R. Crumb in a pretty lighthearted way in his comic American Splendor, but sometimes it can seem to get pretty heavy, and get into back-and-forth and high prices that some people outside of this world will find mystifying.

It’s all fair game, right? It’s just like any other commodity. It’s like something’s really rare, and it’s worth what someone’s willing to pay for it. Is a Wilmer Watts record worth $5000? It certainly isn’t to me. I love Wilmer Watts, I think he’s amazing. I’d love to own a Wilmer Watts record. But not for five grand. Who is this person who paid $5000? I don’t know. But it’s madness. I’m not saying it’s not worth $5000. I’m just saying, it’s madness to pay that much money for a record. It just doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me. But I guess I feel that way about Wilmer because I don’t look at Wilmer the same way I look at Robert Johnson, or Charley Patton.

Like, if you’re gonna spend $5000, why not buy a Charley Patton record? You know you’re gonna get that value, if value is your thing. Maybe you just wanna live with it the rest of your life, and that’s it. But if you’re really thinking on a monetary level with this stuff, which can get really convoluted and crazy…

I would just buy something that I would know would appreciate in value. If I’m at that level, I have to know that I’m getting value. Maybe the person who bought Wilmer Watts is just such an uberfan that he has to own it, and that’s okay. That’s great. Just like anybody who wants to buy a Maserati, like, you can have a Subaru, but you want a Maserati. To me, it’s crazy. I would never spend $200,000 on a car. That’s insane, even if I could go out and buy a $200,000 car.

So it’s kind of a similar thing. There’s a lot of stuff that’s done not online, but between collectors. There’s collectors hitting up other collectors and making deals and stuff like that, which is fine.

Do you think the book will raise enough awareness of 78 collecting that it might actually make it harder to find and collect 78s?

I don’t think I wield that kind of power. I wish! I don’t think Tompkins Square does. Will it turn on some people to collecting? I certainly hope so. Because I want people to feel the joy that I have felt in this revelation over the past couple years. So I encourage that.

There’ve been these certain flashpoints for 78s over the years. Ghost World, or the Jack White PBS special, or old music coming back through Ken Burns’s Jazz [PBS series], or Brother Where Art Thou. And also Goodbye Babylon when that came out, and the Charley Patton box set, and maybe some of the stuff that I did. So there’ve been moments when 78s have come to the fore culturally a little bit. 

So who knows at one point people got on the train? But I do feel like, just judging from some of the sites that I frequent, some of these, it’s very closed. It doesn’t seem like it’s growing exponentially. I don’t know that it will, and it’s fine if it does. I mean, either way.

Some people in the world of music criticism see what you’re doing with your book and label, and what I and plenty of other music historians of past eras are doing, as irrelevant nostalgia, when listeners should only be paying attention to what’s happening now. But I, many others, and probably you feel like it’s not just worth doing because it’s great music and fascinating history, but also because, in our particular times, cultural and ethnic diversity is often under attack. Many people in power would like to negate or erase this history, as part of their agenda of making culture and artistic expression narrower, attacking certain social and ethnic classes they feel threatening to their power structure, or even eliminating the benefits and riches of cultural diversity and history altogether. 78s, and what you’re doing with your book and label, are preserving vital history that not only reflects their times, but has something to say about our times, and always will entertain and inspire people.

I think it’s a great point. I have thought about that. I wish I had thought about it more, but it wasn’t in the main when I was writing in 2023. It’s more prevalent now, obviously, with what’s going on. Look at what’s happening. Like defunding this and that, going after cultural things. The National Endowment for the Humanties, they slashed that. Somebody at DAHR said that they lost their funding at UC Santa Barbara. I guess they were using some of that NEH funding to do transfer work on 78s that they can no longer do. So there is a connection, however tenuous, to this work and what’s going on.

I think anything that’s historical, that tells a story…that’s the other thing about the timeline. You’re seeing how culture and music like were impacted by events in the world. There’s a lot of historical recordings based on events. This is preserving our history, our culture. Again, how people from different cultures came together. It’s almost like the best of America, right? It’s like the ideal of America. It’s all these people, immigrants basically from different countries, from Africa, from France when you look at the French Cajun stuff, the Celtic music that informed so much early country and folk stuff, Mexico, Hawaii. I mean, the influence of Hawaiian guitar on Jimmie Rodgers, on like so many blues and country musicians. So you’re talking about native cultures that impacted American music.

It’s all this stuff. Obviously, it seems like they’re trying to chip away at the values that inform projects like this. Today you heard about PBS and NPR getting defunded. These are our values. These are the things that we hold dear. These are the things that we value. Like, you have a bookshelf there with a bunch of stuff that the administration would like to burn, all your books. They’re not interested in this stuff. They don’t want this stuff to be propagated. So your point is very relevant.

Although the book was, unusually for the occasion, a Record Store Day release, copies are still available post-Record Store Day?

The book, post-Record Store Day, is now available on Bandcamp. I don’t know how long the product will be there, but I have some copies that I held back for my fans on Bandcamp and friends and etc.

Copies of Treasures Untold are still available on Bandcamp, at https://tompkinssquare.bandcamp.com/merch/treasures-untold-a-modern-78-rpm-reader.

The Who Sings My Generation: Behind the Who’s First Album

Recently I came across a copy of the US edition of The Who Sings My Generation in a three-dollar bin. Why was it just three dollars? It’s in stereo, not mono; the cover is very worn, and in fact the top of the cardboard sleeve is partially split; and an illegible name is scrawled in magic marker near the top of the back cover. Why did I buy it? Although I’ve had the tracks on the record since I was in high school in the late 1970s, and I have expanded CD editions of the record, I never have had a copy with the original US cover. My late-‘70s vinyl copy was as part of the double LP reissue that combined My Generation with Magic Bus. Yes, the same one that’s seen in the background in the party scene in the Quadrophenia movie. Despite its general excellence, that film, or at least that scene, was justly criticized for showing that record in a movie set in around 1965, though the double LP didn’t come out until 1973.

Although its music is by now super-familiar, there are reasons to own the original US cover, and not just to put on top of a shelf as sort of ambient artwork. The cover photo, of the moody Who with Big Ben hovering in the background, is entirely different than the UK edition, which used an overhead shot of the Who in colorful mod gear (and had the same tracks as the US version, except for substituting “I’m a Man” for “Instant Party” aka “Circles”). I’m guessing the Who didn’t choose the US cover photo, and many feel that US releases of the time in general bastardized the intended artwork of UK acts. I actually prefer the US cover photo, however, even if, I’m guessing, Decca Records chose it to emphasize that the band were from England. For what it’s worth, the vinyl itself on the copy I found plays surprisingly well, with no skips, and not too much surface noise, though there are some ticks.

The unsigned liner notes on the back cover are garnished with a bit of hype, and misspell the singer’s name as Roger “Daltry.” Actually, they’re fairly accurate, except for the claim that “following an extended engagement at the Marquee, the Who embarked on a fantastically successful tour with the Beatles.” They never toured with the Beatles, although they were one of the Beatles’ opening acts (in their High Numbers days) at a couple August 16, 1964 shows in Blackpool, and were one of many acts on a bill with the Beatles at the New Music Express Pollwinners concert on May 1, 1966.

There was a bit of image-building in the assertion that the Who are “often described as four tough, modern guys. They all hail from Shepherd’s Bush, West London [actually Keith Moon was from a different part of London], which is an area where most boys would sooner join a street gang than play in a group.” On stage Daltrey, it was noted, was “generally imitating whatever dances the audience may be doing on that particular night”; Moon “invariably winds up each performance with a bunch of broken drumsticks”; and Pete Townshend “has smashed fourteen guitars.” For those youngsters that did find this LP when the group were barely known in the US, the liners probably did the job of whetting their appetite, whether or not they’d managed to hear any Who singles on the radio.

Note, by the way, that the very title of the record was slightly different in the US and UK. The UK edition was simply titled My Generation, after the hit single title track. The US changed it to The Who Sings My Generation. I read at least once someone writing that the title was inappropriate considering singing wasn’t what the Who were most known for then, perhaps implying they also didn’t sing so well, or not so much sing as put vocals in a record dominated by instrumental mayhem. If so, that’s ridiculous. Roger Daltrey might not have been Roy Orbison, but he did sing effectively for the Who, and their harmonies might not have been as slick as the Hollies’, but they worked well for what they were doing. If Decca’s hope was to make the Who seem a little more palatable to US audiences by putting “Sings” in the title, it didn’t yield commercial results. The LP didn’t make the charts in the US, though it made #5 in the UK.

Decca Records has been criticized for poorly marketing the Who in the mid-1960s, one example being the graphic near the bottom of the back cover, which advises, “If you’ve enjoyed this recording…you’re sure to like these other great Decca albums…” The four shown are by Rick Nelson, the Kingston Trio, Len Barry, and Brenda Lee, none of whose music was similar to the Who’s in 1965, though all had done some records of merit, some of which the Who must have heard. It wasn’t an appropriate selection, but such back cover in-house ads weren’t uncommon at the time. The back cover of Bob Dylan’s rare 1967 Benelux single “If You Gotta Go, Go Now,” for instance, advertised nine singles by other CBS artists, including the Ray Conniff Singers, an easy listening act that couldn’t have been more unlike Dylan than almost anyone on CBS.

The actual music on the LP has been written about a lot, and properly praised. It could, however, have been a lot different, and appreciably worse. Unusually, most of the details were laid out back in July 1965 in the British magazine Beat Instrumental, about five months before the Who’s actual debut album came out.

John Emery’s story reported the album “has been completed,” producer Shel Talmy playing him an acetate with nine tracks. Nine tracks wouldn’t have been enough for an album; presumably, it was the basis of an album that might have come out, with two to four additional songs. What’s more, the story only detailed eight specific songs, making one wonder whether someone’s math was off. If not, what was the missing ninth track?

Anyway, these are eight tracks that were on the acetate. Although the exact sequence isn’t known, maybe it was in the order the story discussed them:

I’m a Man (included on the official UK version of the album; originally by Bo Diddley)


Heat Wave (not released until 1987 on the archival compilation Two’s Missing; not the same as the remake on the UK version of the Who’s second album, A Quick One; originally by Martha & the Vandellas)

I Don’t Mind (included on both the official US and UK versions of the album; originally by James Brown)

Lubie (not released until 1985, under the title Lubie (Come Back Home), on the archival compilation Who’s Missing ; originally by Paul Revere & the Raiders, under the title Louie, Go Home)

You’re Going to Know Me (retitled Out in Street, included on both the official US and UK versions of the album; the sole original song on the acetate, written by Pete Townshend)

Please, Please, Please (included on both the official US and UK versions of the album; originally by James Brown)

Leaving Here (not released until 1985 on Who’s Missing ; originally by Eddie Holland)

Motoring (not released until 1987 on Two’s Missing; originally by Martha & the Vandellas)

Even the Beat Instrumental reporter was hit “slap in the face just looking at the titles [by] the lack of originality in choice of material.” Not necessarily the songs chosen, I’d think, but the presence of just one Pete Townshend composition. That’s all the more odd since the Who had already made their UK reputation with a couple originals on hit 1965 singles, “I Can’t Explain” and “Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere,” the latter co-credited to Townshend and Daltrey.

One would guess the record would have been filled out by, if possible, more Townshend originals. Or, if there was haste to get an album out quickly, more R&B/rock/soul covers. They’d already used one such number, “Daddy Rolling Stone,” on the flipside of the UK 45 “Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere.” Often groups tried to avoid using previously issued singles as album tracks, in which case they could have put on the Garnet Mimms cover “Anytime You Want Me,” which was mysteriously used as the US B-side of “Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere,” and hadn’t been issued in the UK.

They could have also put on “Shout and Shimmy,” the James Brown cover that ended up on the B-side of the UK “My Generation” single. That’s not to be confused with the much more famous Isley Brothers song “Shout,” though they’re pretty similar. Maybe they could have also revived “Baby Don’t You Do It,” the Marvin Gaye cover they’d already recorded at Pye Studios in late 1964 (as heard on the CD version of Odds and Sods); the song was clearly a group favorite, as they put a live version on the B-side of their 1972 single “Join Together.” The running order could have been topped off with an instrumental group jam a la “The Ox,” which wouldn’t have taken as much writing or arranging effort as a full-blown Townshend original.

Had all this happened, the Who’s first album would have been more akin to the Rolling Stones’ first album than The Who Sings My Generation. The Rolling Stones’ self-titled debut LP had, sort of like this acetate, just one fully developed original song, “Tell Me.” It wasn’t as characteristic of the early Stones as “Out in the Street” was of the early Who, but it was a good Mick Jagger-Keith Richards composition, and was a substantial US hit. But the rest of the first Stones album—which, like the Who’s first, was nearly identical in its US and UK editions, the US one replacing “Mona” with “Not Fade Away”—was entirely devoted to covers of American soul/blues/R&B/rock, with the exception of a couple songs that sounded like they were written in the studio. One was the basic, nondescript instrumental “Now I’ve Got a Witness”; the other was the Jimmy Reed-like “Little By Little.”

A sober difference between the early Stones and Who, however, is that the Stones were much better at covering R&B/soul/blues songs. So the first Rolling Stones album is very good overall; a good representation of the best of what they had to offer at that very early point in their career; and much better than a comparable Who album would have been. I like some of the Who’s early covers, especially “Daddy Rolling Stone,” though they did it better live on TV than they did in the studio. But the four songs from the acetate that didn’t surface until archival compilations—“Heat Wave,” “Motoring” (which was the B-side to Martha & the Vandellas’ hit “Nowhere to Run”), “Leaving Here,” and “Lubie”—are rather pedestrian, though “Leaving Here” is the best of that batch.

It’s odd, incidentally, that “Lubie”—sort of a novelty sequel to the infinitely more famous and better “Louie, Louie”—found anything of an audience in the UK. It’s not known how the Who became aware of Paul Revere & the Raiders’ version, actually titled “Louie, Go Home” when they put it on a non-hit 1964 single. But the Who weren’t the first British act to record it, as David Bowie—then known as Davie Jones—put it on the B-side of his first single in 1964, as leader of the King Bees. His version—using the title “Louie, Louie Go Home”—wasn’t very good either. Why the Who mangled the lyric into “Lubie” isn’t apparent. Maybe they simply misheard a record being played that wasn’t in their collections?

The James Brown covers and “I’m a Man” were better, though the lumbering feedback-strewn arrangement of “I’m a Man” isn’t nearly as good as the scorching hit version of the same tune by the Yardbirds. But although those three songs did get onto the album (only in the UK in “I’m a Man”’s case), in this acetate’s context, “Out in the Street”—or “You’re Going to Know Me,” as it was then known—clearly sticks out as the most exciting and original track by far. And the one that clearly displays the Who’s greatest assets, including Townshend’s feedback and distortion, and Daltrey’s aggressive mod posturing.

Displaying sensible judgement that was uncommon at a time when record labels were often rushing to put out whatever they could to capitalize on hit singles, the Who regrouped, canceled the supposedly completed or near-completed LP, and redid most of it from scratch. Presumably at least part of the main purpose was to allow more time for Townshend to write original material that would be more distinctive than the R&B covers filling out the acetate. As co-manager Kit Lambert told Melody Maker in its July 17 issue, “The Who are having serious doubts about the state of R&B. Now the LP material will consist of hard pop. They’ve finished with ’Smokestack Lightnin’.” The “hard pop” term might, incidentally, be the germ of the origin of the phrase eventually popularized as “power pop,” a genre of which the Who are usually acknowledged as the principal father.

The record that appeared in December 1965 would be mostly different, and mostly Townshend compositions:

Out in the Street

I Don’t Mind

The Good’s Gone

La La La Lies

Much Too Much

My Generation

The Kids Are Alright

Please, Please, Please

It’s Not True

I’m a Man (UK edition only)

The Ox

A Legal Matter

Instant Party aka Circles (US edition only)

They did put on a single after all with the title cut. As far as the nine originals go, there’s not a dud in the bunch. “The Kids Are Alright” could well have been a hit single, and aside from “My Generation” is probably their most famous 1965 track. “A Legal Matter” was good enough to make it onto the first proper Who best-of, Meaty, Beaty, Big and Bouncy. “Out in the Street,” “The Good’s Gone,” “Much Too Much,” “La La Lies,” “It’s Not True,” and “Circles” (mysteriously titled “Instant Party,” and redone in an inferior lower-energy version for a UK-only 1966 EP) might not be too well known outside the circle of Who fans, but they’re all good, tuneful, and bursting with vigor. Even the minimalist instrumental “The Ox” has its place for its sheer outrageousness, at least by 1965 measures, in its all-out fury.

So after the rehauling that had resulted in a much better LP than the one that apparently almost came out in mid-1965, was Pete Townshend happy? He never seemed entirely happy with the Who’s results, and even this early in the band’s lifespan, The Who Sings My Generation was not an exception. In the December 4, 1965 Record Mirror, he gave a very detailed track-by-track rundown of the LP—about as detailed as any such exercise of the time. These are worth repeating here and analyzing, especially as the column of sorts hasn’t often been reprinted:

On “Out in the Street”: “This was gonna be a single. I hate that ‘no, no, no’ bit. It was originally ‘show me, show me’ but Kit Lambert thought it wasn’t very good. He wrote all the new lyrics. I’m not gonna take the blame for any of them. It sounds all cut about and edited.”

Interesting that this was apparently considered as a single, presumably their third one (not counting the High Numbers “I’m the Face” 45 in 1964), to follow up “Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere.” It did end up as the B-side to the US 45 of “My Generation.” Did Lambert write a bunch of new lyrics—in which case it seems like he might have been entitled to a co-composing credit—or just change “show me, show me” to “no, no, no”? I think “no, no, no” (which I always heard as “know, know, know”—maybe the reporter got this wrong) does sound better.

On “I Don’t Mind”: “This was gonna be on our first LP which never came out. It’s just a straight copy, well the best we could do of a James Brown number. It sounds better the way we do it now.” That seems to confirm they kept doing it live for a while, through the end of 1965, though no other version survives for comparison.

On “The Good’s Gone”: “One of mine. I like it. Roger sounds as though he’s about six feet tall when he’s singing. It’s a big bore this.” A direct contradiction between “I like it” and “It’s a big bore,” but Townshend often hasn’t been consistent in his evaluations, sometimes within the same interview. It’s unstated that Daltrey is considerably less than six feet tall, though his shorter stature is implied.

On “La La La Lies”: “It wasn’t as good as this before I did it with Keith. It’s not my favorite one on the LP. It reminds me a bit of Sandie Shaw.” Shaw never had a big hit in the US, but was very big in the UK in the mid-1960s with singles like “Girl Don’t Come,” which did get to #42 in the US. Townshend still had the Shaw comparison in mind when he put his 1965 demo on his Another Scoop compilation in 1987, writing in the liner notes, “Sandie Shaw had several hits, written by Chris Andrews, with songs that employed this rhythm.”

On “Much Too Much”: “I like the beginning of this. Sounds like Barry McGuire, doesn’t it? [McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction” had just been a huge hit.] Very sort of folky. ‘Green Green.’” McGuire’s voice was gravelly, and Daltrey’s is gravelly on some of “Much Too Much.” “Green Green” was a hit McGuire sang lead on with the New Christy Minstrels. But “Much Too Much” does not sound folky.

On “My Generation”: “Rubbish! Any record that can’t get to number one is rubbish. If it gets to number one, it proves I’m wrong.” The “My Generation” single had entered the British Top Twenty a few weeks before this was published, and would peak at #2. This seems like an awkward attempt at humor by Townshend, poking fun at how a record’s status might be considered greater if it managed to top the charts.

“The Kids Are Alright”: “This was gonna be the B-side of ‘Generation.’ It’s our French EP. Shel Talmy said he’d prefer it as the ‘A’ side in the States. He doesn’t like taking chances, he doesn’t like doing anything. I don’t know where I got the idea for this one from, it sounds sort of symphonic. This is the favorite number on the LP of John, Keith, and me.”

Interesting that Talmy, probably correctly, sensed hit potential in “The Kids Are Alright.” Townshend later slagged Talmy on several occasions, and Talmy and the Who would engage in a lengthy legal fight by early 1966 when the Who and their managers didn’t want him to produce the group anymore. This indicates some resentment might have been growing before that. Note that Daltrey is the only member not named as considering the song his favorite. Did he not like it as much as the others?

“Please Please Please”: “This is another one of the old LP, same old crap. We didn’t want all this stuff on it. I’m a bit gone on all these electronic toys, these robots we’ve got. I don’t like all this rhythm and blues. I don’t play like that anymore.” Townshend seems to be referring to some distorted guitar effects in the break, where there are series of rapid wobbly notes. It’s fair to say he doesn’t seem too fond of the track.

“It’s Not True”: “This is everyone else’s favorite track. I hate it. Yes, I’m thinking of giving this one to a country and western group actually. They’re called the New Faces.” I originally wrote in this post, “More awkward attempts at humor, I think. It seems Townshend didn’t take everything in this summary seriously. The New Faces seems like a lame reference to the Small Faces, then the second-hottest mod rock band in the UK, behind the Who.”

But in the comments section, reader Scott Charbonneau notes there was an actual UK group called the New Faces who had four British singles in 1965-69 with a lightweight folk-pop sound, like the Seekers without the guts. So Townshend might indeed have wanted the New Faces to do “It’s Not True,” maybe in a country style. It does seem like the New Faces could not possibly have been confused with the Small Faces.

“I’m a Man”: “We recorded this years ago [probably meaning in the earlier batch that was on the acetate – not years ago, probably early-to-mid-1965]. I hate this as well. I don’t actually like the LP. It strikes me as kind of weird the way there are so many numbers from different stages of our career. I only hope they don’t expect us to do it on stage. It’s great how I get that plane sound out of my guitar. This is probably our best recorded feedback.” He hates it, but likes the feedback—more contradictory remarks. He does seem frustrated that the album is split between more recent original material (the substantial majority) and the four tracks that were on the acetate.

“A Legal Matter”: “I’m singing on this one. Put that it’s a similar voice to Paul McCartney.” More joking around. This was Townshend’s first lead vocal, and it’s okay for the Who’s purposes, but it doesn’t sound like McCartney.

“The Ox”: “This is the lead track on the LP [an odd remark—it was the final track on the UK version, though it was third to last on side two of the US version], we all wrote it except Roger [who doesn’t sing on it as it’s an instrumental, and presumably doesn’t play an instrument on it]. It’s an American sound like something you get from the Wailers. I got out of this something I’ve always wanted to get out of a piece of music. I like that piano break. Actually it’s John getting a piano sound out of his guitar. Nicky Hopkins is on this, he used to be with Cyril Davies. This session went on much longer and at the end we were all falling about.”

It’s interesting Townshend was aware of the Wailers, the Northwest band who did basic R&B/rock, and were not the same as Bob Marley’s reggae Wailers, who were barely known outside of Jamaica then. As the Wailers’ only Top Forty hit was the instrumental “Tall Cool One”—and not a huge hit—and “The Ox” was an instrumental, I’m guessing “Tall Cool One” is the record Townshend knew, and that he wasn’t aware of their numerous subsequent ones, which were often vocal with a frat rock/garage rock feel. But “Tall Cool One” isn’t nearly as fast and frenetic as “The Ox.”

So there’s a lot to say about The Who Sing My Generation. A lot more, in fact, than Decca wrote in the liner notes on the back cover of the US edition, even though those liner notes were pretty long for US releases of British rock bands that hadn’t yet become known in the US. Who would have predicted there would be so much to say so many years later when Decca put out the LP?

Author Richie Unterberger's views on vintage rock music; San Francisco Bay Area biking and hiking; socially responsible living; and baseball.