Punknews.org
MOJO Magazine - Punk: The Whole Story [book] (Cover Artwork)

MOJO Magazine

MOJO Magazine: Punk: The Whole Story [book]Punk: The Whole Story [book] (2006)
Mojo/DK

Reviewer Rating: 3


Contributed by: nedsammynedsammy
(others by this writer | submit your own)

More like Punk: A Mainstream Music Journalist's View. Let's address this book's merits: It is big, glossy, contains a lot of information, big articles, photos (and features on some of the great punk photographers), and interviews, is well-presented, and great to look at. It comes with bonus featu.


More like Punk: A Mainstream Music Journalist's View.

Let's address this book's merits: It is big, glossy, contains a lot of information, big articles, photos (and features on some of the great punk photographers), and interviews, is well-presented, and great to look at. It comes with bonus features, such as recommendations of great punk albums and 20 great heyday punk singles from the UK. Were all this in order, this would leave us with a pleasant five stars--were it not for the price, and the usual bias away from the U.S. punk and Orgcore that this website so appreciates. Okay, 4 and a half stars then.

But consider this: If it doesn't look at bands like NOFX and Bad Religion, how can it be the whole story? This is certainly an inconsistancy: The third section of the book, entitled "What Happened Next?", contains only three big articles: one on Black Flag's early years; one on Sandinista!; and one on Green Day. Refused are congratulated on The Shape of Punk to Come, but don't make the classic albums section (which consists largely of debuts, discographies, and collections). NOFX are not mentioned once, or Operation Ivy, Strung Out, the Lawrence Arms, Against Me!, the Adicts, Leatherface or any of the bands that the underground holds to be heroes (it also misses out on a certain band that claimed to have fucked a cat). Glen E. Friedman doesn't get a feature for his photos. Obviously they couldn't be bothered to dig deep enough to find them, or didn't see them as important as they weren't there in the glory days, which is what can be expected from mainstream journalists. Crass get mentioned once or twice; Bad Brains once, for breaking stuff in CBGB. This and other odd things (Green Day are praised but they do not make the "Greatest Punk Albums" list, unlike the Hives and the Lemonheads) puts the book down to three and a half stars.

Finally, there are little bits in some of the articles that differ from more worked-out articles in the magazines. This could be expected, though, considering the huge amount of information in the book, there's obviously a chance of this happening. However, the book loses half a star. Sorry.

Now, I'm not saying I hate this book. No way. When I got into punk I read this book like the Bible, and I learned a lot of the basics, and the huge knowledge I gained almost scared my Dad, who was actually alive in 1977 and now knew less than I did. If you want lots of information on the Sex Pistols, the Clash and the New York scene, you have come to the right place (the book says more on Patti Smith than the Sonics!). Want something easy to read? The book is lighter than this review.

I recommend it to new punks or people who want to find out about the genre, but when you're done with it, you have a long way to go.

 


Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on the stories that interest you
  • Rate music and bands and help shape the weekly top ten
  • Let Punknews.org use your ratings to help you find bands and albums you might like
  • Customize features on the site to get the news the way you want.
Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not respon sible for them in any way. Seriously.
froggerwithmylife (November 11, 2010)

What Half-idiot said

patod (November 9, 2010)

The best part is the pictures of Shane MacGowen at the Clash show.

joeg (November 9, 2010)

they don't mention bad religion..ok fine. but they didn't mention a bunch of bands from fat....wait a minute, where's the glaring error again?

Half_Idiot (November 9, 2010)

I'm more than OK with a punk rock history book that doesn't feature Against Me.

Cos (November 9, 2010)

Yeah, from your description this book sounds like it takes the more mainstream/UK rock press view on punk--that it happened between 1974 and 1979, with sporadic revivals ever since. They fold post-punk into new wave/alternative to make it something separate and do the same with hardcore instead of viewing them on one contiguous line.

I still love reading these books for the breadth of knowledge they provide on the early days of punk (even if they inevitably skew to the side of "The Sex Pistols were the most important punk band" view). But criticizing this book for not including popular US underground bands of the last 10 years like the Lawrence Arms is kinda like complaining your turkey sandwich doesn't taste like the ham sandwich you had yesterday--don't ask it to be something that it isn't.

fox82 (November 9, 2010)

MOJO, at least for me, focuses too much on anything that came out in the 1970s, hence they probably didn't care too much about punk rock after the 1980s. They probably (and to a certain extent rightfully) think that bands like Sum41 and Good Charlotte and not worth talking about. I'd recommend Jon Savage's book 'England's Dreaming' for a good and in-depth account of the early British punk scene over this one.

hamonrye (November 9, 2010)

Yeah what definitely sucked about this book was the typical over-coverage of the more well known bands (the clash the ramones the sex pistols blondie talking heads television the dead boys the damned the buzzcocks). I dub those bands "rolling stone punk"

Exclusive Streams

Sponsored


Newest Reviews

Punknews.org Team

Other Places to Go