Initially, for the subject matter, I was thinking it was a four star book, but as I read and found the writing to be dry, I thought it more of a three. Upon completion, I was torn between a three or a two. Ultimately, the conclusion left me wanting, the perspective was biased, and I was left feeling like so much significant information was missing while too many trivial details dragged it down.
My major grievances:
The author describes music poorly. After reading a chapter of songs listed and having what I thought to be a firm grasp on what to expect of them, I pulled them up online to listen to them. Things that were called haunting were relaxed with a building tempo. Passionately described moments were tame and sometimes really deflated. The author claims Lou Rawls voice is gritty and lacking versatility, but I found his voice deep and smooth. I understand that people hear and feel music very differently sometimes, but I feel the author sometimes listened to songs with the hopes of describing them to fit his narrative. This biased portrayal, sometimes complimentary and sometimes not, was frequently falling short of not only my perception, but the perceptions of society in general based on how they were received. Rather than spending time describing them, I feel a cd or media download should have been available with the book with simpler descriptions that might be more open to individual interpretation.
Over detail versus under detail. Some things like their personal lives were glossed over. When did Pervis have children? How did they juggle traveling with marriage? Anything at all about Cynthia? Meanwhile details like Prince's speech habits and a mistakenly consumed pot brownie carry on and on. If this book was solely about their careers and the artists they impacted along the way, this would make sense. I kind of wish it was done as the biography with details of her family and career and a perspective of how they impacted the civil rights movement. (Which is the order of importance the title implies.). But instead, we look how they impacted the music of their time, their significance in and a part of the civil rights movement and why Pops was so great and important to the other minor characters. Maybe we should call it, "I'll Take You There: The Evolution of Gospel Singers, Music that Shaped the Civil Rights Movement and Roebucks Staples... Isn't He Great?!
Which brings me to my next point. Mavis Staples plays second fiddle to her father throughout her life and in this book. The two greatest gifts a parent can give a child are roots and wings. Pops gave roots in abundance, but clipped his children's wings. I know this was based on interviews with Mavis and she likely would have been deeply hurt by this, but I can't get past it. Pops controlled and manipulated his children, held them back from their aspirations because it didn't fit his limited vision. But when it suited him, he explored his own interests. They were forced to march at his pace, missing out on innovation in their prime and never really realized great success until he was out of the room. Mavis is described as confident and a fighter, but lacked the confidence to strike out as the frontman until Pops made her. She lacked the confidence to pursue a marriage with a man she clearly loved. She lacked the confidence to sing solo. Even as an adult in her 40s, she couldn't engage in a private collaboration with Prince without Pops barging in. Pops is made out to be this great anchor in the family, and he's not. He disrespected his wife, flirting and who knows what else out on the road. He forced Yvonne in when she wanted out and kept Cynthia out when she wanted to be included. She was shunned and forgotten. Nice house, Cadillac, etc. But maybe some formal musical training for his family to give them an edge or versatility? No. On his death bed he puts it on Mavis to get his last album out there... not pursue her dreams, his. Even after he was gone, he was "close at hand" which in any manipulative relationship means they'll never shake those oppressed feelings.
I was very tired of going over how they didn't fit in a category. Join the club. Usually any genre has a solid mix of definitive artists or a single artist who defines it, and anyone who experiments or mixes other influences in falls into a grey area. Yes, they were hard to define, but one or two mentions should be enough. I didn't need to be repeatedly pelted with this information.
The first half was most interesting because it focused on their rising career. Once they hit their prime, all other discussion of their music focused on comparison and revisiting old themes. They stagnated. In that time there were some notable songs, but only because they revisited past successes. This isn't bad, they had good music, but not good enough for the lengthy lip service they are paid in this book.
There were more things. Mostly small and petty ones. I'll leave it at this.
If Mavis wrote an autobiography, I would like to see how she felt and hear about the things she felt had meaning. Hear what these songs meant to her. I would rather have read that.
If someone else wrote a book discussing songs used in the civil rights movement and wanted to discuss lyrics and interpretation, public acceptance of the songs and the results they brought about, I would like to read that.
But this book was not as worth my time as I had originally hoped. I learned about assorted musicians and constructed a timeline. It definitely sparked a woman's right chord in me, wanting to see these women not so controlled and doubtful of themselves... but I don't feel that was the author's intent. I am left very disappointed.