Memorial Device being a cult eighties post-punk band, but also a description for the notebook its brain-damaged singer used to falteringly keep his place in the world, and of course for this book, an attempt by two fans to construct an oral history of the local music scene which defined their youth. They're all made up, of course – the bands, the fans, the small-town legends and local heroes and urban myths. But the beauty of setting it in Airdrie and Coatbridge is that most of us have so little idea what was really happening there in the early eighties that for all we know, it might as well be true. Hell, I imagine plenty of readers even need to check whether Airdrie and Coatbridge are real places to start with. Last month I got quite tetchy with Jeff Noon's latest novel, among other things for being based around the death of a transparent Bowie analogue. For one thing, you can't just remove Bowie from history and then show us everything else unchanged; for another, Noon's King Lost was just a bit rubbish compared to the real world's Ziggy Stardust. Whereas here...well, the web of time can withstand a few local bands who never made an impact beyond local hearts and minds being swapped out. And whatever was going down in Airdrie in the real world, I doubt it was quite this fascinating. But at the same time, this is all weirdly recognisable. All those bands who were famous for fifteen people, who occasioned an epiphany in some nowhere club one night for the few punters actually paying any attention – we all had some of those. The faces on the scene, the notorious loose cannon, the band everyone thought were shit but who still hung out in the same pub. The weird rumours about so-and-so's dad, the indelible anecdote about such-and-such's wanking habits. This is every small-town scene (and a few big city ones, at that), the pure form of which they all partake, or something very close to it. And similarly, the oral history conceit...it's noticeable that however inarticulate any given contributor starts out, as they gather momentum they all approach a similar visionary state, a shared sense of poetry. A bit like the immortality of Greek philosophers, where only by approaching pure reason do we shed everything unshared and become the person who can live forever, at the cost of anything recognisable as personhood. Because it's not just about music, it's about all the big stuff you start pondering at the same age you fall hard for music. It's about time, and the way music or drugs or music and drugs can erase it, and about memory and ageing and the ways people change and whether in the end there's really any core to us. It's about the grand theories of the world which a certain strain of weirdo concocts, half-remembered and still haunting the people whose ears they bent about it decades after the fact. It's a reminder of the odd sort of shared consensus counterculture which used to exist, with its musical touchstones (the Velvets, Suicide, Iggy) but also an unofficial reading list where Kerouac, Celine and Russian novels rubbed shoulders with John Brunner (and not even the cool near-future dystopias), John Norman and Octavia Butler. If there's a weakness here, it probably lies with the female characters - they tend either to be nagging matriarchs, or sexualised visions, and while the latter are given the same chance to rhapsodise as the boys, and offer as many insights, it's noticeable how none of them seem to be just yer basic indie spods in the way many of the guys are. And of course if you hold with the notion that writing about music is like dancing about architecture, well, what does that make a prismatic effort to dance about architecture that was never even built? But that's clearly part of the point, and the charm, for anyone remotely on board with the project.
Also, and this was something I wasn't necessarily expecting from the reviews, or conveying in my own, but it's very funny. By turns recognisable, dry, and plain outrageously daft. Much of it is cumulative in the sort of way quotation doesn't really convey, but I did enjoy this bit, from one of the few entries that's presented as interview rather than monologue:
"RR: Do you have a history of drug use?
SH: A history would imply something that could be pieced together and that could be made sense of. In that case I have no history of drug use to speak of."
And if you do take the plunge, on no account omit at least a skim-read of the index, or you'll miss a treat.