Do I need to, at this point, tell people who Duran Duran are? Do I also have to tell people I am a huge fan and have been since I was 12 and saw the nascent band open for Blondie in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, of all places?
I think not.
Malins, who has also written about Depeche Mode, Radiohead, and Gary Newman, knows his milieu (although he’s a bit better in writing about 80s music than he is in covering Thomas Yorke’s Radiohead.) Too bad he gets some of the facts about Duran Duran wrong. What is totally inexcusable is misquoting lyrics.
Malins does cover the chronology of the band’s work, drug use, hedonistic lifestyle and many relationships with the ladies (and sometimes, barely legal groupies). One senses that, even with the occasional factual error, he did a LOT of research. One wonders where his fact-checkers and editors were that they didn’t catch the poor author’s few obvious mistakes.
On top of that, Malins doesn’t bring a lot of insight about why and how Duran Duran succeeded or why they also faded twice. The band first conquered the world with their second album, Rio; then their overproduced but successful Seven and the Ragged Tiger; their live album Arena, and their best-selling theme for the James Bond film A View to a Kill.
Duran Duran’s second rise and fall was more wrong-headed. After losing their drummer to nervous exhaustion, and then losing their guitarist to the high-rocker LA lifestyle, Duran Duran looked as if they’d fade into oblivion. 55 million worldwide record sales couldn’t save them. Then they brought on Zappa guitarist Warren Cuccurullo and after stumbling for a few years, they created two of the best ballads of the 90s—“Ordinary World” and “Come Undone.” They were on top of the world, only to fall again because of a misaimed covers album (Thank You), slow studio work, and lack of management and marketing. Even critics agree that the band’s late 90s albums were better than sales allowed.
Malins does little to describe why the Wild Boys hit in the 80s, or why they fell while doing some of their best work. What the author does do, for some reason, is add his own long-winded and strange critique of the band’s musical catalogue, disagreeing with several renowned critics by utilizing obfuscating description of the tunes. That aspect of this book made reading it a bit infuriating.
Who is Malins, and why would his opinion matter? Why does he eschew journalistic duty for critique?
Even with all his research and detail, Malins misses the chance to create insight on the musical environment that Duran Duran succeeded and failed in. And his exhaustive interviews with the band and their entourage does add some color and understanding. However, in his unnecessary and senseless commentary, Malins comes off as a failed music critic trying to reclaim his own journalistic dream of pop success on the backs of a band whose work will be remembered long after Malins is forgotten.