The ShadowMusic Web Community

Hi,

I recently purchased a copy of Campbell, Bradford and Woosey's A Pocket Guide to Shadow Music. It is full of interesting bits of information. I was surprised, however, at the number of negative entries that were largely of a subjective nature. I was expecting a more objective treatment. Did anyone else have a similar take on the work or is it just my reaction?

regards

Michael

Can you give an example?

Any book will contain a writers perspective and this one is no different, however, it's the detailed information which is useful to most. Whether they think a particular track is ropey (my choice of word) might differ from my view and in contrast I may think a particular track poor whilst they think it's great, but that's just having an opinion.

Hi Alan,

here's an example and I'll quote most of the entry

One Way to Love. ... In the editor's estimation at least, the two and a quarter minutes of this excruciatingly laboured piece are two and a quarter minutes too many: jangly in a self-conscious, showy kind of way, and desperately short on melody, it apes the style of the excellent Searchers--on one of their (occasional) bad days". p.171.

I like the tune, like the sound of the guitars and like the singing. Malcolm Campbell clearly does not. Where does that get us? What does one learn about the track from such an entry? We learn something about Campbell's tastes and that's all.

regards

Michael

Michael - it's just someone's opinion - personally I thought that Malcolm's views made it an entertaining read. If it had been written based purely on facts I think it would have been a more difficult read - and pretty dry. I enjoyed his section on Beatles V Shadows - I found his views fascinating - and very well thought out. Regardless of such personal views,however, it is still an amazing reference point - and must have taken an enormous amount of research and preparation.
One man's meat....

ps michael - by the way, I like that song too!
Bernie

bgohara wrote:Michael - it's just someone's opinion - personally I thought that Malcolm's views made it an entertaining read. If it had been written based purely on facts I think it would have been a more difficult read - and pretty dry. I enjoyed his section on Beatles V Shadows - I found his views fascinating - and very well thought out. Regardless of such personal views,however, it is still an amazing reference point - and must have taken an enormous amount of research and preparation.
One man's meat....

Absolutely right, Bernard!

Malcolm and I have an amusing relationship: we rarely agree on anything about The Shadows! But Malcolm's writing is always engaging, learned, informative and a joy to read (as, in a different way, was the work of our mutual friend, the late Roberto Pistolesi).

That reminds me... I must get hold of copy of the book on The Ventures which MC co-wrote with Secrets drummer (and fount of all knowledge on the The Ventures) Dave Burke...

JimN

PS: It was great to meet up with you on Saturday night at the O2, Bernard. And now you've met someone who played with Les Paul... !

No-one who has heard Jim and Malcolm discuss the 80s output of the Shadows can fail to have been entertained. Malcolm's commentary on the Shads recordings is a personal view - aided abetted and sometimes contradicted by his co-editors - but I do not feel that in any way it detracts from the value of the book.

My personal opinion, of course...

George

I loved the book. It sits in my bathroom permanently! Of course I disagree with some of the opinions expressed, but that just makes the book more interesting. Think how boring it would be if every single track was rated "excellent". Movie critics pan films that I love, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop reading film reviews. What a critic has to say can throw an interesting new light on any piece of "art".

Cheers, Richard

Too much ref. to The Ventures - in my opinion...........
- but it's a good book.............

Lets be honest, some of the Shads tracks were awful. Was the lead bad? No. Was the the rhythm suspect? No. Was the drumming poor? No. Bass flawed? No. Arrangement poor? No. Just very poor choices of instrumental. The point is we won't all agree on which of the 'bad' instrumentals they are. I'm aware that contractual obligations led to recordings that the Shads were not happy about but I'm sure most 'selling' artists have a similar story. (Not now though....:))

Malc.