Rip It Up and Start Again: Post-Punk 1978-1984

published	February 17th 2006 by Penguin
first published	2007
isbn	0143036726 (isbn13: 9780143036722)
description	Rip It Up and Start Again is the first book-length exploration of the wildly adventurous music created in the years after punk. Renowned music ...more [close] Rip It Up and Start Again is the first book-length exploration of the wildly adventurous music created in the years after punk. Renowned music journalist Simon Reynolds celebrates the futurist spirit of such bands as Joy Division, Gang of Four, Talking Heads, and Devo, which resulted in endless innovations in music, lyrics, performance, and style and continued into the early eighties with the video-savvy synth- pop of groups such as Human League, Depeche Mode, and Soft Cell, whose success coincided with the rise of MTV. Full of insight and anecdote and populated by charismatic characters, Rip It Up re-creates the idealism, urgency, and excitement of one of the most important and challenging periods in the history of popular music. [close]
date added	03-02-07 edit book

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | more...

discuss this book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

friend reviews (0)

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Where's the love? Add this book to your favorite list.

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 512)

David rated it:

(review of isbn 0571215696)

06/24/08

Read in January, 2006

The standard narrative of the pop music history of the late 70’s and early 80’s has the bracing musical revolution of punk quickly degenerating into the more commercial and co-optable form of New Wave. Punk is the honest, authentic voice of political and aesthetic revolution, while New Wave is the watered down, corrupted, commercialized version of that impulse. Now there’s a grain of truth to this interpretation, but it misses a few things about punk that were quickly to drive it into an a...more The standard narrative of the pop music history of the late 70’s and early 80’s has the bracing musical revolution of punk quickly degenerating into the more commercial and co-optable form of New Wave. Punk is the honest, authentic voice of political and aesthetic revolution, while New Wave is the watered down, corrupted, commercialized version of that impulse. Now there’s a grain of truth to this interpretation, but it misses a few things about punk that were quickly to drive it into an aesthetic dead-end, and it downplays the real virtues of much of the music that followed in its wake. Musically, punk wasn’t anything other than good old guitar-driven rock and roll played louder and faster and with a more aggressive, anti-social, overtly political attitude. Basically it layered a new set of attitudes and fashion statements over an already well-established musical form. Not only that, in a lot of ways it was simply updating and recycling traditional rock poses—macho cock rockers, the rock musician as revolutionary, with the model for revolution being the armed guerilla or street fighter. And punk’s politics—its populism and fetishization of authenticity—worked against musical innovation. One aspect of the founding myth of punk was that it was a cleansing force, washing away the excesses of the bloated, decadent, self-important pop music establishment of the 70’s. Consequently musical innovation and experimentation were suspect.

Reynolds takes postpunk out of the shadow of punk rock and presents it as a genre in its own right, distinct it from both punk and New Wave. He shows how little postpunk owed to punk, and how much it owed to other genres (the art rock and experimental music of the 70’s, Reggae and dub, funk) and other cultural and intellectual influences (post-60’s collectivist and communal values, postmodern social and aesthetic theory of the late 70’s and early 80’s). Postpunk was a much less ideologically hidebound, much more sonically adventurous musical form than the punk rock that preceded it. About all it inherited from punk was attitude and energy.

Reynolds dates postpunk from 1978-1984, and the book is divided into two parts. The first part, from roughly 78-80ish, recounts the emergence of postpunk, and focuses on the dour, arty, experimental, socially conscious bands that most music nerds associate with postpunk—Gang of Four, The Fall, early Scritti Politti, PIL, Cabaret Voltaire, Pere Ubu etc. The second half, on new pop and new rock, follows the evolution of postpunk into the mid-eighties and focuses on the more accessible, commercial, radio-and-dancefloor-friendly turn the genre took in the early 80’s. Some bands make appearances in both sections, most notably Scritti Politti, who were one of the more uncompromising bands of postpunk’s early years, but who later made a conscious decision to record more listener-friendly stuff in order to infiltrate the mainstream. Other bands covered in the second half include: the Specials and other two-tone and ska revival bands, Malcolm McLaren projects like Bow Wow Wow and Adam and the Antz, arty synthpoppers like Gary Numan and Ultravox, NYC Mutant Disco groups, Progressive Punk bands like Black Flag, The Minutemen, and Mission of Burma etc.

Reynolds does a fine job of connecting the music to the larger cultural, intellectual and political contexts from which it emerged. Postpunk was born along with Thatcherism in the UK. It also coincided with the rise of postmodernism and critical theory in the universities. It likewise coexisted, in the UK, with a strong tradition of communist and socialist-friendly left-wing politics. There was a bit of this in the US as well, especially in the Reagan 80’s, with bands like The Minutemen proselytizing for the Central American solidarity movement (D. Boon often worked the crowd for CISPES after many Minutemen shows). And, there were certainly strong residues of 60’s and 70’s collectivist, counter-culture politics within postpunk—Factory Records and Rough Trade most notably. And while most pop artists certainly try to manage their careers, and think hard about their self-presentation, the art school refugees and brainy autodidacts who made up the first wave of postpunk were a particularly self-reflective bunch. It would be wrong to describe the music as un-commercial, or to portray the musicians and artists as completely unconcerned with popularity or commercial success, but there was a definite sense of existing to negate the corporate hit-making machinery and the ideology of 70’s corporate rock and pop, at least until New Pop came along and rebelled against postpunk rebellion by emulating the most listener-friendly, anti-rockist pop forms.

There’s always a danger in any social-intellectual history of the pop arts of inflating the art form’s significance simply by virtue of placing it within a well-developed reconstruction of the cultural milieu in which it emerged (on the other hand, the mistake many highbrow critics make—are there any of them left?—is to avoid looking beyond the shiny surfaces to the more serious elements embedded in pop art forms). There may be some pop songs, genres, movements about which there really isn’t much of interest to say—bands and scenes that don’t merit more than a glib one-paragraph squib in a music magazine, and that don’t connect to larger trends and issues or ideas in any kind of interesting way. But as Reynolds shows this is certainly not the case with postpunk. One could argue that Reynolds is too much of a fan, and that he overpraises much of the music—as the Vanity Fair critic tapped to review the book for the New York Times did, though it’s hard to take such criticism seriously from someone who writes for what’s essentially a middlebrow version of People—but to me he gets it absolutely right 95% of the time. He convincingly makes the case that, despite the preeminent place punk has occupied in rock-crit mythology, postpunk was by far a more interesting and influential movement—sonically, intellectually and politically.

Reynolds comes to praise, rather than bury, postpunk, but his fanboy’s enthusiasm is balanced by a 40-year-old’s sense of how sophomoric much of the politics were and how crappy, ultimately, a lot of the music was, in traditional musical terms. But this is balanced by an admiration for the creativity and idealism of the various scenes, the sense of mission, willingness to experiment, and to bend musical tastes to the bands‘ will rather than simply playing what was popular in order to be rock stars, that characterized much of postpunk. And while he spends almost 600 pages lovingly reconstructing the scene and it’s influences and musical products, he doesn’t make much of an argument for its larger significance outside of the world of pop music. He never loses sight of the fact that the end product, even of the more uncompromising or abrasive variants—like Gang of Four, Throbbing Gristle, Crass, The Minutemen etc.—was one form or another of pop music. I’m not sure how to say this exactly, but the idea, the concept of pop—as something youth-oriented, playful, ephemeral, disposable, commercial, popular, relatively undemanding, not meant to last—is the reality check that keeps Reynolds from overpraising the music. Reynolds, shows how the world shaped the music, but thankfully stops short of arguing that the music changed the world....less

Like this review? yes

title link
avg rating
small image
med image
large image

Rip It Up and Start Again: Post-Punk 1978-1984

discuss this book

friend reviews (0)

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 512)

book data (includes all editions)

blog this book

popular shelves

other editions