Glitter Up the Dark: How Pop Music Broke the Binary

American Music Series

by Sasha Geffen

Why has music so often served as an accomplice to transcendent expressions of gender? Why did the query "is he musical?" become code, in the twentieth century, for "is he gay?" Why is music so inherently queer? For Sasha Geffen, the answers lie, in part, in music's intrinsic quality of subliminal expression, which, through paradox and contradiction, allows rigid gender roles to fall away in a sensual and ambiguous exchange between performer and listener. Glitter Up the Dark traces the history of this gender fluidity in pop music from the early twentieth century to the present day.

Starting with early blues and the Beatles and continuing with performers such as David Bowie, Prince, Missy Elliot, and Frank Ocean, Geffen explores how artists have used music, fashion, language, and technology to break out of the confines mandated by gender essentialism and establish the voice as the primary expression of gender transgression. From glam rock and punk to disco, techno, and hip-hop, music helped set the stage for today's conversations about trans rights and recognition of nonbinary and third-gender identities. Glitter Up the Dark takes a long look back at the path that led here.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction, LGBT, History, Queer, Pop Culture, Gender

264 pages, Paperback

First published April 7, 2020

Reviews

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this near a multimedia device that will play music loudly and celebrate/mourn the incredible power of pop. I kept a Spotify playlist going throughout for anyone that wants to listen along:


https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4FP...

[Gil · Rating 5 out of 5]

music is gay and so am i!

[slowtime · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like queer books and I like queer music, and I like queer books about queer music, but I absolutely lose it when books I was poised to really really like shoot themselves on the foot by failing to fact check.

On page 68, writing about Joy Division, the author states, "The impulse to outsource illness to women was so strong that [Ian] Curtis devised a female avatar to sing about his epilepsy. 'She's Lost Control' positions the speaker as an onlooker to a woman's seizure." The author goes on to make some interesting points about the lyrics, but all those interesting points are now resting on a problem - the subject of "She's Lost Control" was not a female avatar for Ian Curtis's epilepsy. She was a real person with real epilepsy who Curtis really witnessed having a seizure. Curtis wrote "She's Lost Control" after her death and before his own diagnosis, and was performing it live before he had his first seizure.

The reason this bothers me so much is because the story behind "She's Lost Control" is not obscure. Yes, I happen to be a huge nerd about Joy Division, but also the song has its own Wikipedia page. The author's only citation for the Joy Division material in the book is an article that was written in November 1980. Possibly Mick Middles in 1980 didn't know that the song wasn't autobiographical (the article is behind a paywall, so I can't tell), but it's well established now. This means that either the author went to some effort to make a point about Ian Curtis feminizing his illness without doing their due diligence to make sure it was true, or they knew full well and chose the point they wanted to make over the truth.

It bothers me because it was an easy fact to check, and the failure to do so made me lose trust in just about every other fact presented in the book. I wanted to feel like I could trust the points and observations being made to be built on solid ground, but I couldn't. Which really, really sucks, because the book was otherwise so damn interesting.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

there were a couple things i found incredibly refreshing about this book:

1. on page 1, paragraph 1, it plainly states that the gender binary is not real, and does not stand up to historical or biological scrutiny, simple indisputable fact. this is not a book that is willing to entertain any "debates" on the validity of identities that fall in between or outside male and female. this is the starting point, not something the reader needs to be convinced of - very much a "let's get this out of the way and discuss music."

2. it's not gatekeeper-y at all, in the way that music writing and queer theory can be. the author clearly wants the reader to find joy and meaning in the songs and artists they found it in, not show off how much they know. the Beatles, Prince, and Missy Elliott are introduced and explained with the same level of 101-ness as some of the more obscure artists; it's not assumed that you are coming into the book knowing any given musical era or genre inside and out. it also doesn't assume anything about the reader's own relationship to gender and sexuality; maybe you're reading it for personal insight or maybe you're reading it for cultural history, they're both fine. it felt like a very skillful balance of being accessible to a wide audience without alienating its queer & trans core audience by pandering to all the cishet readers in that wide audience (see thing #1).

as with a lot of cultural essays i've read, there was some stuff that had me going "welp, this is a stretch" (Kurt Cobain's sympathetic menstrual cramps?? so many phallic or non-phallic guitars??). but whatever, it's a book about the personal meanings people find in things, and if people see that stuff then sure, why not.

overall, a nice concise through-line of how gender line-blurring in pop music evolved from the Beatles' scandalously long hair to out-and-proud mainstream trans artists of the 2010s. i wish there were room to discuss even more artists, especially in some of the older eras where i'm sure there is a lot of buried treasure.

[Jerard Fagerberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a clandestine history of queer music but a necessary re-framing of how we look at music history and the queerness that was there all along. Lovingly written by Geffen in their striking, understated style. Decades pass in a beautiful phrase, an elegant through-line drawn from the Beatles to Frank Ocean.

[Kate Cross · Rating 4 out of 5]

really interesting and vital book! i really like geffen’s approach here of making this essentially a history of all western popular music through a queer lens and vice versa, and i like that they include artists that we normally wouldn’t consider in that light and finding new angles on more obvious ones. excited to dig into the stuff here i’m unfamiliar with and for the revised version with a chapter about 100 gecs

[April · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Music dissolves the artificial boundaries we build between each other. In losing yourself, you can better become yourself”

Lovely accessible academic book with a nice overview of chosen benchmarks in queer music history. Could be more in depth but then I guess you couldn’t discuss the extended period of time discussed in the book. Great read for anyone into pop/rock music or queer history

[Nev · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read about the history of how different musical artists and genres have transcended the gender binary. I love reading about queer media and how people analyze different forms of representation. At times I did find some of the analyses to be a bit reaching. But overall I found the book to be a fascinating look at how queerness and gender fuckery have existed in both mainstream and indie musical acts over the years.

[ocelia · Rating 3 out of 5]

not my favorite kind of music writing or history but did introduce me to swedish electronic dance sibling duo the knife and for that I am grateful

[Greg Talbot · Rating 2 out of 5]

Written with the gusto of a TMZ article and an unfocused social critique lens, "Glitter Up the Dark" sullies a potentially rich book about the way gender identity has been challenged by popular music.

At it's best Geffen roots an an artist with a technology enhancement such as the 808 scratching of hip-hop sampling with "Planet Rock" , or details the way an artist purposefully used their image and vocal range to subvert audience expectation with Bowie and Prince.

Too often the book scolds with male bashing, self-serving identity politics, and bombastic writing without much reflection. Statements about Kurt Cobain were some of the most egregious:

"Like many people with uteruses, Cobain suffered mysterious and seemingly untreatable abdominal pain. It was as if the singer were haunted by phantom menstrual cramps. Not only did his sickliness dent his masculinity - the male gender holds little spce for chronic illness - his pain clustered in an area associated with womanhood, like the pain of periods and childbirth."

Honestly what is that?- what college paper would be taken seriously with that?

It isn't to say that trans artist and the LBGTQ community haven't dramatically impacted modern pop music. Geffen's last chapter on the dehumanistic pop of Arca, Grimes and Sophie feels like the forefront of a new musical chapter. But there is so little attention given to how these artists are making music or how these artist appraise their art.

So if you want a screed on identity politics in pop-music, with some flimsy and quirky conclusions read it. Probably better to just listen to the artists themselves though.

[Barbara (The Bibliophage) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Originally published on my book blog, TheBibliophage.com.

4.5 stars rounded up

Sasha Geffen writes a captivating musical and social history in Glitter Up the Dark: How Pop Music Broke the Binary. Not only do they* capture the magic of music through the decades, they also explain how a plethora of performers broke through the limitations of strictly binary gender presentation. I am in awe of the courage each performer exhibits in their own time period. Plus, Geffen’s writing style is lyrical in its own right.

They start with 1930s female blues singers who were both queer and Black like Ma Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Gladys Bentley. Moving forward through time, Geffen discusses both the sounds musicians explore and the way they present themselves to the world. The list they cover is long and varied including The Beatles to Patti Smith, Prince, Kurt Cobain, Frank Ocean, and Sophie.

A musician with a wide vocal range chooses to use certain parts of that range. When combined with their stage or video presence, that person can nudge the binary boundaries. It’s the musicians who nudge the most that Geffen focuses on here. And as they say, “The gender binary cannot really be broken, because the gender binary has never been whole.” (p. 1) If that is the book’s thesis, then Geffen proves it fully in just over 200 pages. Bravo!

My conclusions
This book made me play nostalgic music, as well as some songs and groups new to me. It often made me shake my head and say, “I never thought of it that way … but makes absolute sense.” We cannot assume that binary simplicity ever had its moment in history, musical or otherwise. People chose nonbinary options in many locations and times. But we focus on our own narrow time, sometimes forgetting that a few decades earlier wildly successful artists broke supposedly unbreakable barriers.

Geffen is incredibly granular about their scope. They focus on the artists breaking binary boundaries. But at the same time, this is a wide-ranging, multi-decade history that spans countless musical genres. Sometimes a particular artist dominates almost an entire chapter, while another might warrant only a small mention. Still, when combined, this is comprehensive and sometimes mind-blowing.

But Glitter Up isn’t all sweetness and sparkles. The stories of inner strength against all odds inspired me. It also makes me mad that people have to fight so damn hard to outwardly reflect who they are in their soul. That they transcend the very real potential societal ridicule gives me hope. But not everyone transcends. Some people never escape the anger and lack of acceptance around them. After we shed a tear, Geffen encourages us to open our eyes and support the artists being true to themselves.

“There’s magic in making yourself, and so often that magic leaks out in the form of music.” (p. 220)

I recommend Glitter Up the Dark to anyone who loves music, especially if you also appreciate the complexities of LGBTQIA+ issues or would like to learn more. It’s a stellar exploration of the intersection of both topics.

Pair with Not My Father’s Son by Alan Cumming, a memoir about a performer finding themselves. Or try All the Young Men: A Memoir of Love, AIDS, and Chosen Family in the American South by Ruth Coker Burks, which has some fantastic stories about the world of drag.

* Geffen’s chosen pronouns are they / them, so I follow that convention here.

[Sophia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is gender euphoria

[Tad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Will definitely appeal more to the music nerds out there. I've always been more of a casual music listener so this was a less engaging read for me. But I did learn a lot about the industry and some of the artists behind it. All in all, a very informative and very well researched book. Should come with its own soundtrack!

[Michael Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting account of how pop musicians have long led the challenge to gender norms and expectations. [Audible]

[Spencer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is perhaps one of the best recent examples of musical criticism I have seen, as it analyzes amusic in the context of the ever-changing world of consumerism, capitalism, and identity. While musical criticism in the past has dealt with these issues, no previous work that I'm aware of has been as exhaustive in its research and examples as this one in demonstrating that the hierarchy and barriers we often apply to music are completely false and that in order to truly embrace music as a form of expression, we must reject these hierarchies and live free of the constraints that society often imposes on us.

Geffen perhaps best demonstrates when she states, "[s]he knows there's no such thing as authentic self-expression in a consumer society, just different ways of negotiating with the false" (56). In this quote, Geffen reveals the inherent hypocrisy in modern society (that many of us have now come to be aware of): while we are given thousands of choices of how we can express ourselves as people by means of our consumer purchases, these consumer purchases don't actually allow us to express ourselves authentically, because they are mere tropes designed by other entities for our consumption. Geffen argues, throughout the book, that in order to truly express ourselves, we must reject the notion of consumer-driven identity and instead break the barriers of consumerism by living an independent ethos whereby we create new forms of expression, rather than purchasing and imitating the old.

They (Geffen, as a non-binary individual, uses they/them pronouns) continue to elaborate this argument by providing examples of ways that music perhaps should be created when we break down these arbitrary hierarchies and subvert the systems to which we often find ourselves bound: "too horny to live and too boring to die, he [Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day] retreats into his weed-enhanced ennui, surviving the only way he knows how: by complaining loudly into a microphone that's just a little too tall for him" (61). In this quote, Geffen reveals that not only should we break down the hierarchies involving the way music should be made, as a means of attaining "true" self-expression, but also the barriers that bind us to our physical bodies. By praising Armstrong for singing into a microphone that's "a little too tall for him," Geffen communicates that we should even break down the barriers that our physical bodies provide to us by rebelling in subtle ways against our physical limitations.

Quoting Douglas Rushkoff, Geffen states "[s/he] instists that if we don't create reality ourselves, someone, somewhere will surely do it for us. And that person will not have our best interests at heart" (78). In this quote, Geffen continues to reveal her thesis that we must break down the arbitrary hierarchical structures of society in order to find true self-expression, and that these hierarchical structures include traditional gender roles. Geffen advocates for breaking the "fixed identity of male and femaleness" and creating one's identity individualistically, demonstrating that hierarchies often exist the way they do because of arbitrary historical context and power structures. They go so far as to call the status quo "claustrophobic" (78), a testament to the fact that power structures and hierarchies are not designed for everyone, especially those who deviate from traditional notions of gender.

Going beyond gender (although that is the main topic of this book), Geffen continues to advocate for rejecting the hypocrisy of authority and hierarchy through the use of technology. Throughout the book, Geffen uses examples of electronic processing, robots, and digital sounds as a way of rejecting traditional structures and hierarchies present in music. In the context of gender, Geffen states, "she used electronic processing (and a keen sense of humor) to imitate the vocal affectations of men" (96). Here, Geffen advocates for the use of electronics as a way to break the hierarchies that bind our to our physical forms and instead transcend to a more individual form of expression. Later in the book, Geffen also cites the movement of Internet "DIY" musicians as a way of breaking the capitalist hierarchies we often find ourselves bound to. She uses Grimes as her primary example: a musician who not only rejected traditional notions of gender, by hesitating to identify as a "woman" (206), but also rejected notions of how music should be made: "she belonged to a new generation of artists who refused to box themselves into a given genre and shied away from traditional production arrangements" (207). By analyzing the use of technology as a way of rejecting the arbitrary structures of the society we live in, Geffen demonstrates that only by rejecting societal constraints can we truly achieve individuality and connectedness.

In the final chapter of this collection of essays, Geffen ties all of these arguments together, by stating the eventual goal of all of this system-crushing and hierarchy-breaking: to "find ways to coalesce—to become more ourselves, and in doing so, become better equipped to reach out to each other" (220). While breaking the traditional hierarchies of the society we live in may seem daunting and at times anarchic, Geffen demonstrates that in the end, it's not all about being violent or uncivil. In fact, the authoritarian structures that we live in are often more violent than the actions we must take in order to break them down! By breaking down these structures, perhaps by means of short-term violence and "incivility," we can build a better world, with fewer artificial boundaries. "In losing yourself, you can better become yourself" (221), Geffen posits, demonstrating that we all have a sense of individuality that we can find, if we remove ourselves from the coercive structures of the society we live in and "lose ourselves" to who we truly are. After all, what is the point of living, if not to find connection and to feel less alone: to become who we "know ourselves to be" (221)?

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a disappointing work that never lived up to the promise on the book blurb, which begins:

"Why has music so often served as an accomplice to transcendent expressions of gender? Why did the query "is he musical?" become code, in the twentieth century, for "is he gay?" Why is music so inherently queer? For Sasha Geffen, the answers lie, in part, in music's intrinsic quality of subliminal expression, which, through paradox and contradiction, allows rigid gender roles to fall away in a sensual and ambiguous exchange between performer and listener."

This book though is not focused on answering any questions about pop music's relationship with the Binary. It's merely a recounting of artists, musical trends, etc., that pushed back against the binary. The last line quoted from the blurb above never appears in the book, though the final chapter has a line offering a much simpler version. There is nothing building up to this interpretation, nothing to support it. There was a lot to learn for readers who cared to read between the lines, but nothing the author seemed to want to say.

This book is organized by chapters of (primarily) genres, organized chronologically by the onset of the genre, listing artists etc etc who in various did not follow the gender binary of their time. Connections, though, are rarely made between examples, especially not between chapters.

It would have been interesting to explore how groups breaking the binary in the music compared with the strictures of their times and also how they changed society. It would have been interesting to explore why binary breaking was most notable in some genres. After all, for all that the title references 'Pop Music', Pop Music in it's strictest definition was almost entirely absent, and really only the more ground breaking genres, many of which became popular music (or pop music in certain broad definitions) were seen (at least in this book) to have artists that broke gender norms. Of course, even then many of those artists were exceptions within their genres, a fact that could have been explored. There was a brief mention of a rock artist breaking the binary decades before Lady Gaga--if this had been more than a quick line, the author might have explored how early artists in transgressive genres led to a loosening of rules that allowed a Pop (in the strictest sense) artist to be able to put out music embracing gender benders.

Really, it might have helped to talk a little about what was meant by Pop Music (among many other things. But, again, that kind of analysis seems far from the aim of this book, even if the blurb teased that it would be included.

Ultimately, this book just feels like notes for a much more interesting book on the subject.

I will also say that, despite my limited knowledge of the subject matter, I caught one error. Having recently read Laura Jane Grace's memoir, it's clear that the timing of her coming out and the creation of her band's album Transgender Dysphoria Blues is incorrect in this book. That's not a critical error to the point of this book (then again, what details are critical in a book that refuses to make any point?) but it makes me wonder if there are other errors in this book on subjects that I don't happen to have recently read about.

[Megan]

A terrific look at the way people of all genders have used pop music as a vehicle for all axes of self-expression of gender and sexuality. People have been making space, claiming space, messing around with the concept of time and self, provoking and consoling, around music, gender, and sexuality since forever, and Geffen dips into the various histories and cultural analyses of a selection of that. The history is long and the nuances are interesting, and Geffen's approach is inclusive and intersectional. I enjoyed reading this a lot. (Super bittersweet in 2021, though, that the book's coda opens with a forward-facing, future-expansive SOPHIE concert.)

Re: the book's subtitle, the book's very first sentence is "The gender binary cannot really be broken because the gender binary has never been whole," so between that and the blurb from Kiese Laymon, I felt reasonably sure I was in good hands, and that this was going to be a book about music that wasn't going to drive me up the wall with its blinders. In the past year, I've been looking to read books about music and gender and sexuality, but the unbearably unmarked whiteness and generational differences of so much of that made that difficult. This book's good, though! I loved that Geffen didn't assume readers knew about or shared a specific cultural context, but instead assumed an elegant generosity that readers were coming to the page with a shared curiosity and interest and open-mindedness. (Although I suspect I'm probably close in age to Geffen, as having-given-a-lot-of-thought-to-the-Savage-Garden-song-"Santa Monica" is a definite micro-generation I'm a part of; picture middle school me and my Savage Garden cassette tape, puzzling over whether I could be Norman Mailer, and also who is Norman Mailer, and would anyone know the difference if I was or wasn't??)

[Lily Jamaludin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A glowing introduction into the universe of pop music, gender rebellion, and the brave musicians who lit up the dark. Loved that there was an entire chapter devoted to Prince; really enjoyed the bits (albeit brief) dedicated to David Bowie, Tracy Chapman, Janelle Monae, and Frank Ocean. Geffen shines most when they zoom in closely into an artist, or a single track or performance, and then connect it to larger queer history. Some parts moved too quickly, but discovered a lot of fascinating history and awesome music/artists to listen to.

Excellent last paragraph that sums all of this up quite well: "There's magic in making yourself, and so often that magic leaks out in the form of music. It disarms you, renders you soft and spontaneous, ready to face unknown. It binds you to other people, letting you share in sublingual joy. Music dissolves the artificial boundaries we build between each other. In losing yourself, you can better become yourself--one of music's many odd paradoxes that has made it such a fertile home for expressions of gender weirdness. Whether or not you're trans, I hope there's something in this book and the music it points to that helps you feel a little less alone, a little more connected, a little more like whoever you know yourself to be."

[Abigail · Rating 3 out of 5]

The opening essay on the Beatles and the chapters on house & disco are strong highlights, as is Geffen's address of the music video and MTV era. Unfortunately, other chapters are woefully under-researched and/or rely on pretty strong conjecture in order to make the arguments work -- which greatly detracts from the credibility of this book as a work of music journalism and scholarship. On the other hand, when this works it really works, and Geffen does an excellent job of accessibly analyzing eras of Western popular music and bringing them back to a core and central thesis. (But also, why are 80% of the subjects in a book about gender fluidity cis straight white men?)

[Camila Caamaño · Rating 4 out of 5]

Te parte un poco que el final condense un futuro arrasador con SOPHIE, siendo que el libro se publicó meses antes de su muerte. Dejando a un lado la tragedia, es un gran libro. Y a diferencia de lo que me suele pasar con los textos que citan constantemente material audiovisual (porque me sacan de lugar y prefiero concentrarme en la lectura estricta), suma mucho el ir mirando videoclips a medida que vas avanzando en los capítulos.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like a few of the chapters got a little bit off topic and focused on describing the music instead of furthering the thesis of how pop music broke the binary (I still enjoyed those sections) and thought a few of the connections made were slightly tenuous but, overall, it was a immensely readable book about the erosion of the gender binary in pop music from the 30's to the present.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I blew through this book in just a few days, unusual for me with nonfiction, plus it made me keep wanting to stop and pull out old albums, play favorites, and google new songs. I liked that the analysis was both deeply personal, but also analytical at times, and how it explored rule breakers, and how some of those broken rules became subsumed into the next iteration of acceptable masculinity.

[Rachel Pollock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Smart analytical music criticism, love stuff like this and voices other than cishet male are rare.

[Marianne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book for queer music lovers! Offers the important reminder that queer people have always found ways to express themselves through, and found resilience through music and will continue to do so in the future. The copious amounts of references to specific artists, albums and songs had me stopping up almost every other page to look up a song or a music video I either hadn’t heard or hadn’t heard in a while (which is partially why this book took me almost exactly a year to read, too much music to dive into!!) Thanks to Ron for gifting it to me for my last birthday, loveya

[Rio]

“Transition isn’t a corruption of gender. It’s a fulfillment.” if you love music, and whether you’re trans or nonbinary or conforming to the binary, read this book!!

[Shannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was extremely enjoyable and engaging. Although published by a university press, the writing is very accessible and doesn't get bogged down in dense, long-winded academic speak, which makes sense considering Sasha Geffen's background in journalism. I was a little worried most of it wouldn't personally connect with me because a lot of the contemporary artists I already listen to and love don't come up until the final chapter. However, it actually ended up being incredibly powerful to reconsider those artists in light of the pages and pages of binary-challenging pop history that led up to their success and, in fact, their ability to even exist as proudly and openly as they do in the first place.

Moreover, Geffen has a special talent when it comes to describing music and visuals in a way that makes every song and video sound transcendent. A few chapters in, I decided to follow along as best I could through listening and occasionally viewing, and I was always disappointed when my experience of a track didn't completely drop my jaw like the writing made it sound like it would. Even so, I appreciate some of the gaps that hearing them helped me fill in my knowledge of musical history, and I still ended up adding at least a dozen albums to my "to listen" list (which, like my "to read" list, is constantly growing).

A few notes that are less criticisms and more musings on what I would have included if this were my book:

1. The last chapter moved at breakneck speed from the late '90s through to today. On one hand, this makes sense, considering contemporary music hasn't been around long enough to accrue extensive bodies of analysis or firmly cement its place in musical history. On the other hand, I really would have liked to see incredibly important trans artists like SOPHIE and Arca receive the detailed treatment given to most of the artists from earlier decades rather than the few paragraphs they were afforded. They may be brand new in the grand scheme of things, but I think they represent an extremely important moment in which trans creators are once again innovating the electronic music genre but this time receiving the credit and accolades they deserve for it, a full blossoming of the seeds planted by artists like Wendy Carlos, whose work took many years to be recognized for its full significance.

2. As a result of the speediness of the last chapter, a lot of modern gender-busting artists who I consider essential were left out. As an obvious example, I was shocked that Xiu Xiu never came up once. As a less obvious example, Parenthetical Girls are probably too little-known, but Zac Pennington's presentation and lyrics absolutely follow in the tradition of artists like Prince, David Bowie, etc. who were discussed at length. As they're one of my favorite criminally underrated (and sadly dissolved) bands, I couldn't help imagining how great a deep-dive into Pennington's experiments with traditionally feminine personas and expression would be. Both of these bands have musical and geographical ties to Perfume Genius, mentioned several times.

3. I wish there would have been more trans men discussed. I know it takes a bit more digging to find them, especially within the realm of pop music (even as loosely as Geffen seems to define the word "pop"), but even a discussion of this lack of representation and the implications behind it would have been welcome.

4. I was a bit saddened that aside from Hole and a couple of riot grrrl bands, the incredibly strong '90s female alternative scene was completely ignored. This may be my own bias showing, as they're the sort of artists I consider formative to my own music taste, but I feel like Tori Amos, Bjork, and PJ Harvey would have slotted perfectly into the overall discussion. On a superficial level, they may have often presented in typically female ways and sung from a distinctly feminine perspective, but I think they all pushed against the gender binary in their own ways. Tori Amos straddled her piano bench with splayed legs like a man taking up space on a subway and sang in a harsh, often gutteral snarl, extending her notes into wounded wolf howls. Bjork has always seemed more alien than human, positioning herself as a timeless, placeless, genderless extraterrestrial being. PJ Harvey performed with the swagger and brashness of a male rocker and penned confrontational, grimy lyrics, all while wearing red lipstick and sparkly evening gowns. Not to mention, they all had to battle against relentless misogyny and belittling from the music press and mainstream audiences. All this would have been ripe for an entire chapter, which I now kind of want to write for myself just to see how it turns out.

Anyway, I'll stop there. I didn't mean for this to be so long, but I feel perhaps more passionately about music than books even, so it's hard for me to shut up once I get started. Long story short: I definitely recommend this book, and it's given me enough musical food for thought to keep me full for weeks.

[Koji Yamamoto · Rating 4 out of 5]

RIP Sophie

[Topazthecat · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sasha extremely ignorantly,ludicrously calls The Beatles the first boy band and they *never* were! They were always a great inventive,creative prolific genuine *rock, pop rock and rock n roll band from the start! I have a wordpress blog and that is the title with with tons of very strong great information that totally debunks this idiotic ludicrous common myth that the early Beatles were ever some stupid,uncool,talentless manufactured boy band who start as these geeky teen boys who just sing and dance, never wrote or played a note of music which every famous boy band is), including musicologists detailed analysis including University Of Pennsylvania ( 1 of the most prestigious ivy league universities in the US) graduate who did an extensive 11 year study and analysis of all 200 Beatles song,and it's online called Alan Pollack's Notes On Series,and he demonstrates that they were writing songs even in 1962,and 1963 with complex clever unique chords and arrangements even though most of their lyrics were more simple then.



In his All Music Guide review of The Beatles 1963 second album,With The Beatles Stephen Thomas Erlewine who wrote The All Music Guide's Rolling Stones biography,and reviews a lot of Beatles and solo Beatles albums, says at the end of the very good review that still the heart of With The Beatles lies not in the covers but the originals where it was clear that even at this early stage The Beatles were rapidly maturing and changing turning into expert craftsman and musical innovators.




Paul McCartney said in a 1994 interview that Mick Jagger came to John and Paul in 1963 and asked him if they had any songs for them because the Rolling Stones weren't writing anything of their own on their first several albums they were just doing cover songs.So Paul and John wrote the rock n roll song, I Wanna Be Your Man right in front of them, and in Bob Spitz's very good book,The Beatles he explains that as they were writing it John played Keith Richards guitar and Paul played Bill Wyman's bass and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger who were really impressed that they could just write a song just like that to order, and it became one of The Rolling Stones first hits, and it motivated them to start writing their own songs and both bands became friends from then on.


In addition to The Rolling Stones, John Lennon and Paul McCartney were already such amazing song writers that they wrote hit songs for other music acts in 1963 such as Billy J.Kramer and The Dakotas,Cilla Black and Peter and Gordon in 1963 when their own song writing was getting off the ground.


There is a great 2011 article about Goldmine Magazine's readers poll voted The Beatles The Best Overall, The Song Writing Team Of Lennon and McCartney And the author of this article Gillian Gaar says what I have always said and pointed out,that as early as December 1963 music critic of The London Times William Mann called John Lennon and Paul McCartney the outstanding English composers of 1963 and he analyzed and praised the clever,unusual complex chords they wrote even in their early songs like She Loves you etc.


And In this article it also says the the music critic of The Sunday London Times ( Hunter Davies says in his great 1968 only authorized Beatles biography called,The Beatles which he updated several times that it was classical music critic Richard Buckle) who called John and Paul the 2 greatest composers since Beethoven after they composed music for a ballet,Mods and Rockers.

Gillian Garr also says what I have always said, that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote songs at such a prodigious rate in 1963 and 1964 that they supplied numerous other artists with hit songs as well as looking after the interests of their own group. He doesn't mention the music artists they wrote for in 1963,Billy J.Kramer and The Dakotas, Celia Black,Peter and Gordon and the rock n roll song I Wanna Be Your Man for The Rolling Stones which became one of their first hits.


From Me To You,and especially She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand were praised by some music critics even from the beginning,like William Mann of The London Times in December 1963 pointed out their interesting unusual chords and arrangements and London Times music critic Richard Buckle also in late 1963 called John and Paul the greatest composers since Beethoven after they wrote the music for a play Mods and Rockers.


Bob Dylan ,Roger McGuinn of The Byrds as early as 1963 and 1964 pointed out that even in early Beatles songs like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand had unusual and interesting chords and they arranged them.Roger also has said that The Beatles unusually used folk rock chords in their rock n roll music and that they invented folk rock without even realizing it.



in an article about The Beatles chords,Bob Dylan is quoted saying what he thought in 1964 about The early Beatles music,he said that they were doing things nobody was doing and that their chords were outrageous, just outrageous and their harmonies made it all valid.



Rolling Stone Magazine's 100 Greatest Song Writers Bob Dylan is number 1,Paul McCartney is number 2, and John Lennon is number 3, Bob Dylan is quoted about a car trip when he heard a lot of Beatles songs on the radio, he said they were doing things and that he knew they were pointing the direction where music had to go.


Roger McGuinn has said that he started to play a 12 string guitar after he saw and heard George Harrison playing in in the A Hard Day's Night movie.Roger also said that The Beatles unusually wrote folk rock chords in their rock n roll music and he said that they invented folk rock without even realizing it.


John Lennon and Paul McCartney were such amazingly talented singer song writers that they were already writing hit songs for other artists as early as 1963 when their own song writing success was getting off the ground,besides The Rolling Stones,they also wrote hit songs in 1963 for Billy J.Kramer and The Dakotas,Cilla Black and Peter and Gordon.











George Martin Says In This book his biography,All You Need is Ears,There's No Doubt Lennon and McCartney Were good Musicians,They Had Good Musical Brains and The Brain Is Where Music Originates,It Has Nothing To Do With Your Fingers,As It Happened They Could All Play Their Own Instruments Very Well,And that Paul is an excellent music all- arounder, probably the best bass guitar-player there is, a brilliant guitarist,a first class drummer and a competent piano player.






George Martin said in The Beatles early days he tried to learn to play the guitar in order to have a better musical communication between him and The Beatles,but he couldn't learn it and gave it up,but he says that John and Paul learned to play the piano far more quickly than he was able to master their instrument.











From the site Grade Saver, What Was Important About Hamburg Germany To The Beatles Success As A Band? 1000's of hours of live playing experience The Beatles had 1000's of hours of live playing experience by the time they recorded & played their first album Please Please Me in February 1963 live in only 1 day





They played 8 hours a night from 1960-1962 in the sleazy strip clubs of Hamburg Germany and they had to take speed pills to stay awake to do it and as John Lennon said in a 1971 interview all of the guitar solos were 20 minutes long and 20 minute solos in them.


And when the interviewer asked him if playing in Hamburg Germany improved their playing,he said oh amazingly because before then they were only playing little bits and pieces but in Hamburg they developed a sound by playing hours,and hours and hours together,and that's how they really got stomping.


There is a youtube video with musicologist, Beatles expert, musician, Scott Freiman who is the author of the book, and video series lectures, Deconstructing The Beatles Chords including their early music, Interview The Beatles: What Made Them Unique? They Had 3 Very Strong Song Writers Who Honed Their Craft By Playing hours and hours together, and this was by the time they recorded and played live on their first album, Please Please Me all in one day in February 1963


The Beatles: What Made Them Unique? -


I also met two people and know a third one who saw The Beatles in concert, one woman and one man who were my high school teachers one who saw them in 1966,and one who saw them in 1965 and the other is my second cousin who saw them at the Baltimore Coliseum when she was 16 in 1964, a year before I was even born and she became a psychologist. They all told me that they were close enough to them to see and hear the The Beatles and that they were great.


I'm sure that when teenage girls listened to The Beatles records and songs on the radio most of them weren't screaming,they knew what their music sounded like and they loved it.


In a 2016 BBC interview Larry Kane who interviewed The Beatles from 1964-1966 and says he was at 46 Beatles concerts and there wasn't a bad one among them.


He also said that he thinks Ron Howard's documentary (Eight Days A Week) is a reminder how good The Beatles were as musicians, that modern musicians will look at the puny sound equipment they had and will be amazed and that some concerts had the music going out on the stadiums public address systems.


Larry Kane: The reluctant Beatles fan BBC News



There is also very online good London Times review of the remastered The Beatles Live at The Hollywood Bowl album says it’s remarkable that The Beatles played as well as they did given that they couldn’t hear a thing beyond the screaming of 17,500 teenage girls. They should have also mentioned the poor very primitive and limited sound systems of the time and no feedback monitors so they also couldn’t hear themselves singing and playing but the amazingly sang and played great and in sync with each other anyway.





It rightly says that they were a lean and vibrant rock n roll band honed to perfection after toughing it out with five sets a night in rough Hamburg nightclubs


12 Of Paul McCartney's Greatest Basslines Ever

One of the greatest songwriters of all-time also helped write the book on rock and roll bass guitar.


There is also a great article by DJ Ken Dashow from classic rock radio station Q104.3 very accurately says in the description of The Beatles 1963 live performance of Paul's great rocking song I Saw Her Standing There,that Paul was already a killer bassist by the time the band broke through in America,his line from I Saw Her Standing There positively cooks with rock n roll walking bass excitement!


And there is also a great PDF file of a chapter from bass player Dennis Alstrand's very good book, The Beatles And Their Revolutionary Bass Player and he points out that when you listen to Paul's bass playing when The Beatles backed up singer Tony Sheridan on the song My Bonnie, Paul's bass playing was already first rate and he said the bass is not an easy instrument to learn and Paul mastered it right away after teaching himself to play it at 18 almost 19 and he then became one of the greatest most influential bass players a few years later and many famous successful bass players such as Gaddy Lee,Sting, Will Lee,Billy Sheeran, Stanley Clarke, John Stirratt etc call him one of the best most melodic influential bass players ever.


Also there is a November 1963 interview with The Beatles in Ireland on youtube on several channels, and the interviewer asked them why they had more female fans and Ringo said that they don't know. And obviously they didn't form as a genuine great rock n roll band who worked their backs off for years playing 8 hours a night in sleazy strip clubs in Hamburg Germany, from 1960-1962 taking speed pills to stay awake to do it, and John Lennon said every song was 20 minutes long and had 20 minute solos in them, and then they played successfully at their home town of Liverpool's Cavern Club for years,to get female hysteria that drowned out their great music, writing and musicianship!



And they had no life because they were mobbed everywhere they went and were trapped in hotel rooms the only perks were the many young women groupies they had sex with ,many who were the teen girls screaming in their concerts.





The early Beatles hair cuts in 1963,1964,and 1965 were actually quite long for the time,most men in 1963 and 1964 had short almost bald crew cut army hair cuts,and Brian Epstein had nothing to do with their hair cuts,they were created by photographer Astrid Kirchherr in Hamburg Germany before Brian Epstein even met them.

The early Rolling Stones and Eric Burdon and The Animals also wore matching suits and ties also and I have pictures of them on my Pinterest board which is appropriately called,The Beatles Were NEVER A Boy Band!


And The Rolling Stones had screaming teen girls at their concerts even up to 1966,and I have pictures of them and pictures of The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger on the covers and inside teen magazines in 1964,1965,1966,and 1967 and I found some on google that have The Beatles on the cover too.





Also there are many *male* famous successful rock and other types of musicians who say that when as kids they saw The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964,they thought they were really great and that they inspired them to go into music and become musicians.



Among the many are Tom Petty who said he thought they really great,Billy Joel,Richie Sambora of Bon Jovi said this and he was only 5 years old when he first saw them on this show,and Gene Simmons of Kiss etc etc.

There is also an online interview on the site Nola with 2 women who saw and screamed for The Rolling Stones as teens in July 1966 and here are pictures of them screaming in the concert.



One of these girls was 16 at the other was 15 almost 16 at the time and one of them said how cute Keith Richards was.One of the girl's mothers gave them smelling salt so they wouldn't faint. And I saw more pictures online of teen girls screaming for The Rolling Stones at 2 different concerts in 1965 one in Australia and the other in California.


There are also many pictures I have on my Pinterest board appropriately called,The Beatles Were Never A Boy Band of The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger by himself inside and on covers of Teen magazines in 1965,1966,and 1967

There are pictures of the very early Rolling Stones in 1963 wearing matching suits,vests and ties just like The early Beatles did with their fake cleaned up image their manager created for them in their early days and then The Rolling Stones manager took them out of the matching suits and ties and created their exaggerated ''bad boy'' image.
















There are also many pictures I have on my Pinterest board appropriately called, The Beatles Were Never A Boy Band of The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger by himself inside and on covers of Teen magazines in 1965,1966,and 1967



There are pictures of the very early Rolling Stones in 1963 wearing matching suits, vests and ties just like The early Beatles did with their fake cleaned up image their manager created for them in their early days and then The Rolling Stones manager took them out of the matching suits and ties and created their exaggerated ''bad boy'' image.


In 1965 The Rolling Stones Were Asked To Wear Neckties By the Royals and the Illuminati




The Rolling Stones were asked to wear neckties in 1965 to create a demand for ties by young men as the neck wear industry in England was failing.


There are also online pictures of Eric Burdon and The Animals wearing matching suits and ties in the early mid 1960's.



There is an online interview on a site Nola with 2 women who saw and screamed for The Rolling Stones as teens as friends together in July 1966 one was 15 almost 6 and the other was 16 and here are pictures of them screaming in the concert and one of the women said how cute Keith Richards was, and one of the girl's mothers gave them smelling salt so they wouldn't faint at The Rolling Stones concert.


There are more teen girls screaming for The Rolling Stones at 2 different concerts in 1965 one in Australia and the other in California.


There are The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger by himself inside and on covers of Teen magazines in 1965,1966,and 1967


There are pictures of The Rolling Stones Inside Tiger Beat Magazine For Teens October 1965 Tiger beat, Rolling stones, The Beatles



There are pictures of the early Rolling Stones wearing matching vests, shirts and neck ties,


There are are pictures of the very early Rolling Stones in 1963 wearing matching suits and ties just like The early Beatles did with their fake cleaned up image their manager created for them in their early days and then The Rolling Stones manager took them out of the matching suits and ties and created their exaggerated ''bad boy'' image.




In 1965 The Rolling Stones Were Asked To Wear Neckties By the Royals and the Illuminati

The Rolling Stones were asked to wear neckties in 1965 to create a demand for ties by young men as the neck wear industry in England was failing. The Rolling Stones were asked to wear neckties in 1965 to create a demand for ties by young men as the neck wear industry in England was failing.



There are pictures Early Rolling Stones Wearing Matching Vests,Shirts & Neck Ties Rolling stones, Keith Richards, Swinging sixties



There Is A Black & White Picture Of Smiling Early Rolling Stones Wearing Matching Outfits Rolling stones, Rock and roll bands, Rolling stones albums

Dec 6, 2021 - The Rolling Stones celebrate 50 years in the business.


There is also a youtube black and white video of The Beach Boys performing Surfer Girl live in 1964 and thery are wearing shirts with matching stripes and writing and singing teenage surfing hits and teen girls are screaming at their concert. Were they a boy band too then?



Tom Petty On What The Beatles Mean To Me On Music Radar 2009 He said when he saw them on The Ed Sullivan show when he was just a kid he thought they were really, really great.


There are lots of online articles rightly calling The Monkees the first boy band *not* The Beatles.

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Choice line I want to remember: "The album was quietly popular among exquisitely sad gays." I fall elsewhere under the umbrella than gay, but I still feel very seen in this succinct and subtle burn.

[Jack Cheng]

Interesting read, like a history of pop music from a gender studies point of view. The one thing that sticks with me for some reason is that Bowie's Starman chorus jumps an octave in the same way that Somewhere (over the rainbow) does.

Fine, a bit academic