What do you think?
Rate this book
Kill Your Idols: A New Generation of Rock Writers Reconsiders the Classics by unknown (2004) Paperback
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
April 4, 2010
Kill Your Idols seemed like a good idea when I bought the book, offering up the chance for a younger set of rock critics to give a counter argument to the well made assertions of the essayists from the early Rolling Stone/Crawdaddy/Village Voice days who's finely tuned critiques gave us what we consider now to be the Rock Canon. The problem, though, is that editor Jim Derogatis didn't have that in mind when he gathered up this assortment of Angry Young Critics and changed them with disassembling the likes of Pink Floyd, The Beatles, the MC5; countering a well phrased and keenly argued position requires an equally well phrased alternative view and one may go so far as to suggest the fresher view point needs to be keener, finer, sharper. Derogatis, pop and rock music critic for the Chicago Sun Times, author of the estimable Lester Bangs biography Let It Blurt, had worked years ago as record review editor of Rolling Stone and found himself getting fired when he couldn't abide by publisher Jan Wenner's policy of not giving unfavorable reviews to his favorite musicians.
His resentment toward Wenner and Rolling Stone's institutional claims of being a power broker as far as rock band reputations were concerned is understandable, but his motivation is more payback than substantial refutation of conventional wisdom. The Angry Young Critics were too fast out of the starting gate and in a collective haste to bring down the walls of the Rock Establishment wind up being less the Buckley or the Vidal piercing pomposity and pretension than , say, a pack of small yapping dogs barking at anything passing by the back yard fence. The likes of Christgau, Marcus and Marsh provoke you easily enough to formulate responses of your own, but none of the reviews have the makings of being set aside as a classic of a landmark debunking; there is not a choice paragraph or phrase one comes away with.
Even on albums that I think are over-rated, such as John Lennon's Double Fantasy, you think they're hedging their bets; a writer wanting to bring Lennon's post-Beatles reputation down a notch would have selected the iconic primal scream album Plastic Ono Band (to slice and dice. But the writers here never bite off more than they can chew; sarcasm, confessions of boredom and flagging attempts at devil's advocacy make this a noisy,nit picky book who's conceit at offering another view of Rock and Roll legacy contains the sort of hubris these guys and gals claim sickens them. This is collection of useless nastiness, a knee jerk contrarianism of the sort that one over hears in bookstores between knuckle dragging dilettantes who cannot stand being alive if they can't hear themselves bray. Yes, "Kill Your Idols" is that annoying, an irritation made worse but what could have been a fine project.
January 23, 2008
Pretty great concept, a host of rock critics each take a stab at convincing you why some of the most widely heralded "great" rock albums actually suck. It was fun reading the trashing of shitty "important" classic rock bands I've always hated, like Fleetwood Mac and Led Zeppelin, but if you dis Smashing Pumpkins you can just shut the fuck up.
April 26, 2016
Funny book. Rock writers write about why classic albums from the Eagles and Beach Boys and the Sex Pistols suck . Lots of inside dirt on bands from the weirdos obsessed with bands. A light fun book I can't put down.
May 16, 2009
Brilliant idea! Some of my own sacred cows were slaughtered here and I enjoyed it none the less. Skip the Jim Walsh chapter unless you want to know how awesome Mr. Walsh envisions himself.
July 21, 2019
It's supposed to be contrarian, that's the point.
January 27, 2008
Collection of essays by rock writers commissioned to tear down albums that belong in the Holy Canon of great rock music. Artists receiving the smack-down range from Led Zeppelin and the Beatles to Wilco and Public Enemy. If you love rock music, and like to argue about it, then this is the book for you.
August 13, 2018
A good read even when I disagreed with the authors at times. Rock music criticism has been in the grips of boomers for too long and it was refreshing to witness the slaughtering of so many sacred cows.
July 15, 2008
I love looking at albums in a new light, and it was refreshing to read these new-ass-tearing criticisms, even of albums I dearly love.
Loses one star for being the idea of Jim DeRogatis.
Loses one star for being the idea of Jim DeRogatis.
February 2, 2008
For rock fans, especially anyone overdosed on “classic rock radio” or just sick of hearing about the monument/milestone/megacanonical status of “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” or “The Dark Side of the Moon.” Not that there’s anything wrong with them….just that it’s hard to disagree with the crotchety, disgruntled critics in “Kill Your Idols” that Rolling Stone Mag and VH1 and all the other “Top 100 Albums of All Time” nazis should just shut the f*#%k up about how transcendent these LPs are. I mean, does anyone understand the lyrics of “Tommy” or really want to take the Eagles’ “Desperado” with them to a desert island? Does anyone really think there was anything original or profound about "Never Mind the Bollocks...Here's the Sex Pistols"? Are you with me, temperamentally, so far? OK, you might enjoy this collection of short rants against 34 of the supposedly greatest rock albums in history. It’s uneven—when the criticism is most effective, it mocks the mainstream critics and the artists for taking themselves way too seriously; when it is least convincing, it obsesses about stuff like incomprehensible or pompous lyrics (do we really expect poetry?) or music that’s more complex than the three-chord three-minute thrashes that some of the “iconoclastic” critics think are “pure” rock. But there’s lots of hilarious, irritating, and weird stuff in this book (like one guy who still blames Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” for his embarrassing over-excitement at a high school dance with a too-touchyfeely girl…you can imagine the details if you like). How about one jaded critic who, instead of bothering to do a track-by-track debunking of the album (Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumors”), creates a fantasy of smuggling a sniper’s rifle into a reunion concert and shooting the entire band on stage. I can sympathize (especially now in an election year when we're bound to hear "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" yet again in someone's campaign...).
October 2, 2011
having read so much rock journalism in the past praising many of the albums dissected in this book, it was nice to read critics presenting the opposing viewpoint, especially when confirming my opinions on albums sold to the masses as classics, such as radiohead's "ok computer" (i think "the bends" is radiohead's best album and david menconi agrees) and the sex pistols' "never mind the bollocks ...here's the sex pistols" (while it was undeniably influential to the punk scene, musically it's nothing special, a sentiment echoed by jim testa).
i wanted to give this four stars, but two things stopped me. the first was jim walsh's chapter on fleetwood mac's "rumours". walsh devotes the equivalent of one paragraph in seven pages laying out his reasons for disliking the album while spending the rest of the time devoted to a fantasy better suited for fiction.
and the second is the utter waste of 16 pages given to coeditor carmel carrillo's "my greatest exes". it doesn't deconstruct a classic. it's basically a poor ripoff of "high fidelity", interspersing songs she associates with exes, many by classic artists but only maybe three or four that are really considered classic songs. the music was basically used as a structure to talk about her own life, with randomly-appearing song lyrics often being the only reminder that it's in a book about rock criticism. it doesn't fit in with the rest of the essays and would be better suited to a personal essay collection. if she hadn't been a coeditor, i doubt this would have even made it in the book at all because it was so wildly off-topic.
so in conclusion, skip jim walsh and carmel carrillo's chapters and you'll enjoy this book a lot more.
i wanted to give this four stars, but two things stopped me. the first was jim walsh's chapter on fleetwood mac's "rumours". walsh devotes the equivalent of one paragraph in seven pages laying out his reasons for disliking the album while spending the rest of the time devoted to a fantasy better suited for fiction.
and the second is the utter waste of 16 pages given to coeditor carmel carrillo's "my greatest exes". it doesn't deconstruct a classic. it's basically a poor ripoff of "high fidelity", interspersing songs she associates with exes, many by classic artists but only maybe three or four that are really considered classic songs. the music was basically used as a structure to talk about her own life, with randomly-appearing song lyrics often being the only reminder that it's in a book about rock criticism. it doesn't fit in with the rest of the essays and would be better suited to a personal essay collection. if she hadn't been a coeditor, i doubt this would have even made it in the book at all because it was so wildly off-topic.
so in conclusion, skip jim walsh and carmel carrillo's chapters and you'll enjoy this book a lot more.
October 21, 2013
I guess by "reconsider" they mean "make unsupported and snarky comments". Many of the reviews in this book seem to have been clearly written with the editorial agenda in mind first and a real look at the musical and cultural impact of the album in question a distant second. There are some fair points made but they are overwhelmed by the obvious intent of the review and ongoing artist and industry bashing. So you don't like Rolling Stone, I get it! Using a good review by Rolling Stone as a reason that an album must have been bad is specious at best. And I don't like Rolling Stone either! Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the book is that the contributors list their top ten favorite albums and almost invariably there are albums on those list that had just been ripped to shreds in the body of the book. Exile on Main Street and Blood on the Tracks, two of the albums ripped the hardest actually appear on a third of the lists!
November 13, 2012
Good gimmick - younger critics throw stones at classic rock's holy grail albums. Most of the reviews reach a little too hard and leave the reader unconvinced as to the album's overrated-ness, although a few of them are well-thought-out and solidly presented. One or two dispense with the traditional criticism altogether and just use the album as a springboard for a rant against the band - most effectively in the piece which outlines the writer's fantasy about sniping each member of Fleetwood Mac during a performance.
The nice thing about this book is that if you find one review boring, you can just move on to the next one. Worth a look if you need something to read in small chunks of time.
The nice thing about this book is that if you find one review boring, you can just move on to the next one. Worth a look if you need something to read in small chunks of time.
January 10, 2015
Before Reading: A book of snarky essays about why the writers hate something much beloved? Yes, Please!
After: These guys are way too concerned with being taken seriously. I expected a bit more tongue in cheek or humor in the essays. There are a few moments of wit. One essay is a fictional account of an assassination of one of the bands. Not something I'll ever read again and quite frankly a little sad that I read it this time.
After: These guys are way too concerned with being taken seriously. I expected a bit more tongue in cheek or humor in the essays. There are a few moments of wit. One essay is a fictional account of an assassination of one of the bands. Not something I'll ever read again and quite frankly a little sad that I read it this time.
September 15, 2007
Hit and Miss collection of album and band reviews done to re-examine 'The classics'.
This is the perfect book for the kind of folks who are willing to listen to all of 'Metal Machine Music' but will trip all over themselves to change the station as fast as possible if 'Brass in Pocket' comes on.
Lots of bitter fun.
This is the perfect book for the kind of folks who are willing to listen to all of 'Metal Machine Music' but will trip all over themselves to change the station as fast as possible if 'Brass in Pocket' comes on.
Lots of bitter fun.
January 5, 2008
Kind of uneven but still interesting. I loved the chapter criticizing The Doors. You'll either enjoy the slamming of the musical icons and/or wonder why he chose to slam your favorite on the list. Some of the writing is a bit smug, but I'd expect that from rock journalists, to be fair. They're not exactly an evolved species.
November 18, 2007
Overall, good, but it'll vary. I love reading someone make fun of the Eagles or Smashing Pumpkins, of course. But some of these were rather weak. Definitely thumb through it before buying.
July 17, 2012
Good idea, (mostly) bad execution.
March 19, 2013
Other than the lame Fleetwood Mac copout, this represents some of the best contemporary rock n' roll counterculture journalism I've seen.
June 17, 2013
Hated this book he slams some of the best classic rock albums of all time This book blows Wonder what his idea of great music is to trash Sgt Pepper "Really"
August 28, 2013
Thought provoking. Supports the "art is in the eye of the beholder" theory.
November 9, 2021
3 stars!? So many hurt feelings? Great, great book.
October 6, 2021
Just want to say a quick word about this book, which is forgotten I’d bought (and read) until I read a review of it recently, sparked my interest to go back and look (even though it obviously never left much of an impression).
There was a short time period a few years back (early-2000s, IIRC) when there seemed to be a movement to retroactively discredit The Doors as really “bad” music, which just kinda sputtered and died because, well, the Doors were a pretty damn good band with good tunes and an original sound…anyway, I only mention that little tidbit because the review here of ‘The Doors’ makes me think that this book is where that little bit of stupidity got started.
To sum up, basically, this is a bunch of “rock critics” who, since finding out that they are not Lester Bangs, and whose independent reviews probably don’t allow them to exhibit their “zanier” or “more rebellious” sides, went back and listened to albums they’ve been listening to for decades, and that are considered “classics”, to “reevaluate” them and to poke holes in the “logic” that makes us believe that these are “good” albums … but rock n’ roll 🎸 is not Classical Music, the best is often made by people who are the near polar-opposite of “professional musicians”; technical ability ALWAYS - not sometimes. Always. - gets trumped by heart/balls/guts/feeling, whatever label you want to slap on it, so this is low hanging fruit. Complaining that Gram Parsons wasn’t necessarily a good singer is, quite simply, an idiotic premise. It’s rock n’ roll, man, “It’s not SUPPOSED to be “good”…
But i do take comfort in the fact that besides DeRogatis, the editor/originator of the project, I have never heard of any of these “critics”. And this book is over a decade old…
if these “critics” were any good, I must assume I’d have read SOMETHING by them that stands out… alas…
Buy/read This for a laugh or to satisfy your curiosity (get it second hand, don’t put anymore money into the Pockets of these douche-y “writers”), but this is not to be taken seriously. As I said, it’s just a bunch of know-it-alls telling you why “conventional wisdom” is wrong and that THEY are right. Lester Bangs wannabe’s…it’s kinda pathetic, frankly.
There was a short time period a few years back (early-2000s, IIRC) when there seemed to be a movement to retroactively discredit The Doors as really “bad” music, which just kinda sputtered and died because, well, the Doors were a pretty damn good band with good tunes and an original sound…anyway, I only mention that little tidbit because the review here of ‘The Doors’ makes me think that this book is where that little bit of stupidity got started.
To sum up, basically, this is a bunch of “rock critics” who, since finding out that they are not Lester Bangs, and whose independent reviews probably don’t allow them to exhibit their “zanier” or “more rebellious” sides, went back and listened to albums they’ve been listening to for decades, and that are considered “classics”, to “reevaluate” them and to poke holes in the “logic” that makes us believe that these are “good” albums … but rock n’ roll 🎸 is not Classical Music, the best is often made by people who are the near polar-opposite of “professional musicians”; technical ability ALWAYS - not sometimes. Always. - gets trumped by heart/balls/guts/feeling, whatever label you want to slap on it, so this is low hanging fruit. Complaining that Gram Parsons wasn’t necessarily a good singer is, quite simply, an idiotic premise. It’s rock n’ roll, man, “It’s not SUPPOSED to be “good”…
But i do take comfort in the fact that besides DeRogatis, the editor/originator of the project, I have never heard of any of these “critics”. And this book is over a decade old…
if these “critics” were any good, I must assume I’d have read SOMETHING by them that stands out… alas…
Buy/read This for a laugh or to satisfy your curiosity (get it second hand, don’t put anymore money into the Pockets of these douche-y “writers”), but this is not to be taken seriously. As I said, it’s just a bunch of know-it-alls telling you why “conventional wisdom” is wrong and that THEY are right. Lester Bangs wannabe’s…it’s kinda pathetic, frankly.
March 15, 2020
As others have said, the idea for this project was decent but its execution was bungled. What should've been a collection of thoughtfully written, objective arguments for why certain "classic" albums don't earn that title ends up coming off as a bunch of contrarian personal essays about traumatic adolescent experiences with said albums, with only the occasional piece that could be considered a serious piece of criticism.
I'll single out the essays about "Pronounced Leh-Nerd Skin-Nerd" (easily the high point of the book) and the opening one about "Sgt. Peppers" as the best of the bunch. These are really the only ones that made me rethink my own positions by using great evidence and deep analysis. Many of the essays in here just sound like they were written by the most obnoxious caricatures of music critics: self-important windbags who are more worried about name-dropping other artists than breaking down the one they were tasked to cover.
I would like to see a less vindictive group of writers do this exact project, but maybe the best criticism of old records is to simply let them fade out of our minds instead of turning the spotlight up even brighter.
I'll single out the essays about "Pronounced Leh-Nerd Skin-Nerd" (easily the high point of the book) and the opening one about "Sgt. Peppers" as the best of the bunch. These are really the only ones that made me rethink my own positions by using great evidence and deep analysis. Many of the essays in here just sound like they were written by the most obnoxious caricatures of music critics: self-important windbags who are more worried about name-dropping other artists than breaking down the one they were tasked to cover.
I would like to see a less vindictive group of writers do this exact project, but maybe the best criticism of old records is to simply let them fade out of our minds instead of turning the spotlight up even brighter.
June 28, 2022
Clever and interesting idea. Tenured rock critics dismantle records cited as the greatest rock records of all time. It works (mostly) but the most compelling reading deviates from the formula, like the submission by Carmel Carrillo.
My challenge seemed to be in large part because I don’t like the records being discussed. You don’t have to say much to convince me that U2 and Bruce Springsteen are vapid and disposable. Neat idea, especially humorous when the records being critiqued are also listed as the critics personal favorites. Chuckle.
My challenge seemed to be in large part because I don’t like the records being discussed. You don’t have to say much to convince me that U2 and Bruce Springsteen are vapid and disposable. Neat idea, especially humorous when the records being critiqued are also listed as the critics personal favorites. Chuckle.
March 12, 2020
I liked reading these alternate takes on albums many critics praise, but the anti-Rolling Stone griping got old quickly. Also, a lot of the anti-60s and 70s "you had to be there" was replaced with newer "you had to be there." Overall, it's an interesting time capsule of criticism.
June 28, 2019
Surprisingly uneven, though no issues with the records being skewered there's definitely some questionable writing amidst the decent essays.
August 20, 2023
Just pointlessly cynical, occasionally funny
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews