Given the parade of bio-pics flooding the big screen lately, it's amazing that nobody has tackled the Clash, also known as The Only Band That Matters (which might make a decent working title, actually). If it does, even money suggests that some director will tap Vince White's book, OUT OF CONTROL:: THE LAST DAYS OF THE CLASH (2007) , for source material -- where they'll find enough backstabbing, drugs, groupies and greed to fuel a mini-series.
Or, as Vince says, after the whole band watches the heavy metal mockumentary, “This Is Spinal Tap”: “Spinal Clash would have made an even better film. It would have to be a black comedy though and it would require some skill to make.” While that possibility has yet to unfold, OUT OF CONTROL's black-humored recounting of the Clash's final two years– which produced the prematurely-titled CUT THE CRAP (1985) – has inspired plenty of tongue-clucking, online and off.
In that spirit, now seemed like a good time to run down what's happened since those initial press runs, as well as the proverbial Next Project, and if it's really possible to ignore the man behind the curtain...whether he lurks behind the mixing board, record label boardroom, or political backroom. See for yourself: the highlights follow. (For more information, see www.vincewhite.com/.)
CHAIRMAN RALPH (CR): It is our appointed hour, so...we'll just start with the general, and work our way outwards. What are some of the notable things that have happened, since it's (OUT OF CONTROL) come out?
VINCE WHITE (VW): I was quite surprised, actually, how good the response was. If you look on amazon.co.uk, there's a whole bunch of reviews up there. That's the only site I'm selling it on, apart from my own site. I thought I'd come in for a lot more stick than what I did.
CR: So, from that standpoint, were you surprised by any of the conclusions that reviewers drew?
VW: The message I've got is one that 99.999 percent of people don't wanna hear. They don't mind hearing that I was lied to, and ripped off, and it was all crazy, and out of control. But implicit in that [idea] is, they've been lied to, and ripped off. See what I'm saying?
People were sending emails (saying), “Great book,” but it seemed like they hadn't actually read the book, or at least they hadn't read between the lines. I think they just saw it as a bit of a rock 'n' roll story.
CR: Because it would be easy to take the rock 'n' roll story, and forget about the other subtexts going on...
VW: Well, I deliberately wrote it in that sense. I didn't want it to be some academic trawl through the history, you know? The idea of a culture industry brings up why this band has been separated from every other as being “the band that matters.” You answer that to me, because there's something implied in that statement.
CR: Well, I think – it's because they've (listeners) assumed there was an underlying intellectual edge to this (music) all along, and have sort of embellished on it.
VW: Well, I think that's fairly true – it's just that the intellectual edge isn't the one that people think it is. OK, the way I'd sort of sum it up is...consciously or unconsciously...we don't have a culture – it's an entertainment industry. It's a system, a business. It's all just phony. It's standard, manufactured, you know what I mean? I think people see the Clash as something separate from that, as kind of a street band – that it's authentic culture, it comes from the bottom up.
CR: Sure.
VW: You've got a band that's being backed by this giant conglomerate, corporate structure (in CBS Records, now Sony), calling itself anti-establishment. Something is a contradiction, don't you think? I mean, the band couldn't be there unless it's authorized to be there.
CR: You have the quote by (CBS executive) Maurice Oberstein, and I'm paraphrasing here: “I didn't see the Clash as a social phenomenon. I simply wanted to get on with making records.”
VW: Well, from being behind the scenes -- seeing how it was put together -- it was pretty orchestrated and planned. There was very little spontaneity in the whole thing. You can argue why they would push something like that so strongly. I mean, a band can't make it that big unless it's heavily promoted. That's just the facts.
CR: I think so, too.
VW: It's about promoting the illusion of a free society, “these rebels speaking up for you” -- the illusion of democracy, that anybody can get up and do it, and become successful.
CR: And, as you alluded to in one of your emails, you did an interview with the BBC, and they cut you off after a minute and a half...
VW: Well, it was an annoying interview, because they tried to steer everything into a very shallow area. You couldn't really get into anything, but I deliberately pushed the conversation towards talking about corporate media. I didn't swear, Ralph, you know? I mentioned Sony, and bang, that was it! I was off the air: “We got to move on.”
CR: What were they trying to ask that was so shallow? Give me an example.
VW: It was so shallow, I can hardly remember – I mean, just lightweight questions. The sort of questions they asked me when I joined (the Clash): “Were you a fan before you joined?” That sort of thing. Nothing of any consequence, but that's the way it is. You see that more and more these days.
CR: Did you have any other experiences like that?
VW: Well, there's the book itself. One of the first things I found is that the big publishing houses have all been bought out, the famous names like Penguin, and Granada. Well, they keep the brand name, but they've all been bought out. And then you have to go from there to independents, very small [publishing houses].
CR: And, as I remember you telling me last time, a lot of them said, “Well, great writing, but you're not part of the original band, and we can't compete with Redemption Song”...
VW: Yeah. Well, that's what my agent said.
CR: So, were you shocked by that, or figure that out after the first go-rounds of turndowns?
VW: No, they send letters. Everything goes very slow in the publishing business, you know? It's (taken) over a year to finally get all those letters through. But it should cause people some concern to know that things are being vetted, and stuff only gets out there if it's approved by the establishment.
CR: So, having said that – how well has the book done?
VW: Well, it depends. How are you gonna value it? In terms of response from people, sales, or whatever? Yeah, it's done all right. If you go through a publishing house, it ends up on the shelves in stores – but you're lucky to see a few pennies on the price. But if I sell it independently, I get to keep control of it.
CR: And you get to keep all the money, which is even better.
VW: Yeah, but – even Amazon, they take 60 percent. I'm not kidding. If you've got a £15 book, they take £9 of that. And out of the remainder, you have to make the books, you have to write the book, you have to do the cover – do all the work.
By the end of it, you're left with maybe £2-3 on each book. It's not that clever – everyone else is taking money except you. You know, they've got it sewn up. I mean, these people know what they're doing.
CR: Absolutely. I imagine this was why we didn't have any photos, correct? Because that would really have bumped up your cost...
VW: Well, I never really saw it as that kind of a book, you know – like a normal rock biog thing with pictures. It's written as a work of art, a piece of literature. If I do another print run, which doesn't seem very likely at the moment, I'll probably put cartoons in it. I'll draw them myself. You know, drawings that look cool.
CR: I would love to see that. So what's the next book?
VW: It'd be about my experience in the art world. I went to art college some years back. I wrote an art blurb for my website, and that triggered off a few ideas. I could expand on that quite a lot, do it in the same style (as OUT OF CONTROL) – but include some cultural markers, a commentary on what's going on, from my point of view.
CR: Well, my wife – being an artist – has commented that the art world often seems as manufactured as the entertainment world.
VW: Yeah, it's all part of the same kind of agenda.
CR: So, do we have an idea when this is going to come out, or are you simply just doing it as you go along?
VW: Well, I haven't started it. I've had a year off from doing any arty things. I've got a '65 Mustang, and I've been restoring it. I've put a new top on it, new carpet, and it's looking pretty good – you have to come over, dude.
CR: Oh, absolutely. I really want to see how things have changed in London, and the UK...
VW: Oh, man, it's incredible – it really is off the charts. I got thrown off the tube the other day...
CR: Because?
VW: (For) drinking a beer! Well, they have their little wars, you see? They've started on the smoking – you can't smoke anywhere – now they're coming down on the alcohol. The thing is, they didn't put any signs up.
If they're going to change the rules, I think people need to be told. It's not that I couldn't have a drink. I wasn't bothered. If anyone didn't want me to drink, I won't.
CR: At least let folks know...
VW: I started to argue with them – I pulled my ticket out, paid eight quid, or whatever...and the (transit cop) just grabbed me by the arm -- big guy, you know? He just started lifting me up the stairs, and threw me out of the Baker Street tube station, out on the street! I couldn't believe it! This is the new freedom in Britain, man.
CR: Right. Of course, that's been their “get out” clause to expand all this massive federal power.
VW: Well, yeah – just a lot of surveillance, and police becoming more high-profile everywhere. You're seeing police powers being given to lower and lower functionaries. You've got a whole new bunch of people called community service officers walking around. They started up a few years ago, they're more arrogant now, and they can stop you. Even the traffic wardens are gonna get police powers soon...
CR: Really?
VW: Yeah – everyone's gonna be spying on everyone else soon. It's just like the fucking Soviet Union. Because effectively, we're now in the EU, and all the directors come from that, which is a bunch of bureaucrats – they're not even elected. Don't worry, you'll have it in the U.S. soon (laughs). Was there anything else you want to know about?
CR: I'm assuming, this (book) is your way of moving on (from the Clash) – yet they're (fans) always going to put that association in front of your name. Do you see that as a hindrance?
VW: No, no! I'm never gonna say the Clash didn't rock! I mean, that was a great band to play in. The music and the songs were good. My interest is in the business around it, how that kind of fits together, the way people perceived it, and how the whole culture industry works.
It's the same, like you said, with the art thing. You've got something like Damien Hirst, or one of these artists that becomes really successful – you really think they're making it on their merits? I can't believe that. See, I just see that they're put there.
CR: Yeah, because you see their name mentioned a lot of times, and somebody else's not mentioned as much – or not mentioned at all.
VW: Well – all the art of the last century has been systematically taking away any kind of inherent aesthetics. They're just trying to make things more debased as possible. I mean, you can't make it in the art world, unless you're doing something really disgusting. That's what I see –a debasement of the whole thing.
CR: Is there a particular school (of art) that you're drawn to, more than the others?
VW: No, not really. I mean, one of the things I like doing is just experimenting, and playing with a whole different bunch of things. I don't really have what you call a style. When I went to the (art college) interview, there was a panel, and they dismissed it: “Well, this work could be made by a whole bunch of different people.” I wasn't manufacturing a style, do you know what I mean? That's the way they think.
CR: Well, you've done a couple of your own shows, haven't you?
VW: Yeah, but in terms of the book, I'm more interested in looking at it from a cultural perspective – rather than, “This is my art.” You don't make it in any part of this system unless you're funded heavily in one way or another. Nothing comes from the grass roots. It just doesn't. People need to understand that – it's like the Guggenheim Foundation. They pick you. They decide who they're gonna make stars, who they're gonna make famous...
CR: Right, who's going to be worthy...
VW: They don't make it on their own merits. And I think you can apply that right across the board – through the music industry, and everything. And that ties in with the Clash. You can enjoy the music, but I wouldn't take it too seriously, because it's not what you think it is – that's all I'm trying to say.
It's even more pronounced in the art world, because it's even more subjective. At least with music, you can listen to it, get an immediate feeling about it. Art is a little bit more intellectual – you can bullshit with it, basically. The more educated and cultured people are, the more they get taken for a ride, it seems to me.
A pile of bricks in a gallery, what the hell is that? You can pontificate about it for hours: the joke's on them. That guy who bought the Damien Hirst skull – that was his most expensive piece. It's worth millions. Diamonds on a skull? (Note: check out Hirst's Wikipedia entry for a juicy discussion of this piece.) If there's a massive depression, and the supermarket shelves are empty, he (the buyer) can sell it, and get his money back.
RH: Hopefully, he took all that stuff into account...but, going back to the Clash – the tone was set from the first audition...which was an “American Idol”-type audition, wasn't it? So (Clash manager) Bernie (Rhodes) was ahead of his time, I guess.
VW: Well, Bernie – that guy is just so incredibly secretive. I mean, there are very few photographs of him. You've got to ask yourself, what's this guy got to hide? I'd like to know what organizations he's affiliated with.
My point (to listeners) is, just think a bit outside the box – what they're putting in their heads, as far as music and culture goes, and question it. When you're young, you don't wanna be bothered with stuff like that. you just want to enjoy yourself. You don't think about what's going on behind this...like you say, it's who's behind the curtain, pushing the levers.
“IT'S WHO'S BEHIND THE CURTAIN”: VINCE WHITE SPEAKS (ROUND TWO, 11/09/09)
Comments (0) ... Leave a comment
KEN WALDMAN DISCUSSES HIS BOOK: "ARE YOU FAMOUS?"
Passion is one thing: making a business out of your talent is an entirely different matter. The arts are littered with the roadkill of unsung heroes who never broke out, never found their audience, never got their due, however you phrase it. But there are always exceptions, of which one is Ken Waldman, “Alaska's Fiddling Poet.”
Since taking the plunge as a full-time musician in 1995, Waldman has released six poetry collections, and seven CDs, which you can find through his official site, www.kenwaldman.com/. However, I'm focusing on Waldman's first memoir, ARE YOU FAMOUS?: TOURING AMERICA WITH ALASKA'S FIDDLING POET (Catalyst Book Press: 2008), which tickled my synapses for three reasons.
First, I didn't have enough room to discuss the book in my two local newspaper interviews with Ken, so it only seemed fitting to do so here. Second, there's a lot of straightforward advice that will benefit anybody else in the trenches (see Chapter Five, “Two Gigs And A Tour,” for just one example).
Third, even if you're not a performer, you'll find plenty of foibles here to amuse you –-such as when Ken calls his local bookstore in Anchorage, to see if they'll stock his work. He's swiftly routed to the corporate office, where –- after a go-nowhere conversation –- learns that he's talking to some guy changing lightbulbs!
But Ken remains unbowed, despite his run-ins with the “usual suspects” -- clueless agents, tone deaf art bureaucracies, indifferent bookstores – that he so memorably describes. Here's some of the highlights of our conversation. (For more information, visit www.kenwaldman.com/, or www.catalystbookpress.com.)
“MY JOB IS GETTING OTHER JOBS”
CHAIRMAN RALPH (CR): As I remember, when we talked last time, you said: “My job is getting other jobs.” And so, certainly, that part of it doesn't have seem to have changed, especially from reading your book...
KEN WALDMAN (KW): Oh, yeah, that's part of it -– it's the same work, whether you're making $50, $500 or $5,000.
CR: Very true. So, having said that, what was the basic motivation for writing it [ARE YOU FAMOUS] in the first place?
KW: I had a window of time –- this was June 2005. I had a whole month. In my case, I thought, “If I can just stay on top of this, day in and day out, I can finish something.” I kind of just gutted it out. I thought I had something to share, and the response has been really positive. But it's a tough world out there, with a small press. This was the first book that they'd ever done. I'm not a big name.
CR: The stuff that's most resonant is when you talk about the collisions you've had with the publishing industry [such as a New York agent who decided against taking Waldman's work].
KW: His response wasn't surprising, given the agency. But he read it, and said, “Look, people will ask, 'Who's this guy?', and I've got nothing to say, I can't sell it.” That may be part of it –- there's the haves and the have-nots, you know?
I''m applying for teaching jobs, actually – I have six books of poetry, I have this memoir...but you find that six poetry books and a memoir can get trumped by one book with the right publisher, and this book isn't very good. You have a major publisher, or you have that platform, but it doesn't matter if the quality of the work is not even [readable].
I had kind of a crazy response from a library district. Some libraries have some money, and do summer reading programs. I sent a decent packet to the supervisor, and then the answer comes: “We don't have the budget, and we don't think there's really a fit.” There's a library, a summer of being creative –- I'm going, “If that isn't a fit, I don't know what is.”
CR: Right. Or, as you say so memorably in the book, “Fiddling and poetry? Who needs them? Creative, engaged students? Who needs them?”
KW: Yeah, I know. I [once] got an email from somebody I'd met at a conference, their state arts education person. I'd had dinner with this person, sent them a packet, and never heard [anything]. I followed up, and this person said, “Well, I don't think there's any way I can help you.” Maybe it's because their budgets are cut so much, they are unwilling to do something – but what are they doing,, if...
CR: ...if they can't help you?
KW: If they can't, I go, “Well, is the work deficient somehow?” I go, “I don't think so. You just process it, and go on to the next [project]. It still strikes me as kind of weird. My final response is, “Well, I'll write another book,” you know: THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF THE FIDDLING POET.
CHATS WITH DOUG
RH: So, do you and Doug Yule exchange Christmas cards, now that you've met at the Crocodile [Club]?
KW: I knew him just as a fiddle player in Seattle, and when the book came out in 2000 –- my first book, and CD – he was already curious about I was doing. I saw him at a festival, and he says, “I couldn't get your thing.” We've done shows in the past –- if I'm doing a show in Seattle, I'll either see if he's available, or other people want to play with him, so he can get word out –- because he likes what I do.
RH: One of the more charming anecdotes in your book was running into him in that situation, because he got a bad rap [as the post-Lou Reed Velvet Underground's frontman]. And a lot of people, of course, have written him off ever since.
KW: Yeah. I had a friend who was a big Lou Reed fan, and I go, “Well, he's just somebody that I know.” He got really soured on the music business, because I tell him, “Doug, God –- you could use that [VU name] with your string band stuff.” He goes, “No, I'm not gonna do that.”
I say, “Doug, it would make sense – you're doing that string band stuff, to just kind of bank on your name,” and he goes, “No, that's not what I do.” And I go, “OK, I'll respect that, you know?” To me, it seems a no-brainer –- hey, the Velvet Underground, it brings people out there.
SOME PARTING WORDS
RH: What would tell anybody who picked up your book, and says, “Wow, this sounds like a pretty exciting, maybe difficult, thing to do, but I'm not deterred, I really wanna do it”?
KW: If they have the self-confidence, let them go ahead and do it. Maybe you learn things to save a few steps –- if I look back on it, I don't think I could have done anything differently, and however it ends up, I've done the best I could, I'm doing the best I can, for as long as I can.
RH: Well, the one chapter I could see people borrowing is “Two Gigs And A Tour.” I guess that's the obvious example from the book that comes to mind.
KW: Yeah. How those jobs came into play, and how that tour came into play –- everything I'm doing is a variation of that. And sometimes, you see how a single job for a couple thousand dollars for a solo artist was several years in the making. One of the things that you learn is that you can't micro-manage everything. You can contact people, but you know how it is. If somebody doesn't want to return your call...
RH: They don't.
KW: If somebody doesn't want to return your email, you can't make 'em return your email. But then you meet people happy to hear from you, and wonder where you've been their whole life. You do what you can. I don't know what to say, other than, “Keep at it.” When there's a complete obstacle, just go, “OK, work around that,” or try to make something useful.
RH: Work around it as best as you can – and do the best you can, when something like that happens.
KW: Yeah -- it's like the times in Barrow [Alaska]. I remember the first time I went there. Worked at the middle school, stopped at the elementary school, and the principal said, “We don't see ever having a need or interest in you do.” And that guy was gone, and for the next four years, I worked at that elementary school. What does that say? If I hadn't gone the first time, I wouldn't have had that conversation.
RH: You never know.
KW: You never know, man.
Since taking the plunge as a full-time musician in 1995, Waldman has released six poetry collections, and seven CDs, which you can find through his official site, www.kenwaldman.com/. However, I'm focusing on Waldman's first memoir, ARE YOU FAMOUS?: TOURING AMERICA WITH ALASKA'S FIDDLING POET (Catalyst Book Press: 2008), which tickled my synapses for three reasons.
First, I didn't have enough room to discuss the book in my two local newspaper interviews with Ken, so it only seemed fitting to do so here. Second, there's a lot of straightforward advice that will benefit anybody else in the trenches (see Chapter Five, “Two Gigs And A Tour,” for just one example).
Third, even if you're not a performer, you'll find plenty of foibles here to amuse you –-such as when Ken calls his local bookstore in Anchorage, to see if they'll stock his work. He's swiftly routed to the corporate office, where –- after a go-nowhere conversation –- learns that he's talking to some guy changing lightbulbs!
But Ken remains unbowed, despite his run-ins with the “usual suspects” -- clueless agents, tone deaf art bureaucracies, indifferent bookstores – that he so memorably describes. Here's some of the highlights of our conversation. (For more information, visit www.kenwaldman.com/, or www.catalystbookpress.com.)
“MY JOB IS GETTING OTHER JOBS”
CHAIRMAN RALPH (CR): As I remember, when we talked last time, you said: “My job is getting other jobs.” And so, certainly, that part of it doesn't have seem to have changed, especially from reading your book...
KEN WALDMAN (KW): Oh, yeah, that's part of it -– it's the same work, whether you're making $50, $500 or $5,000.
CR: Very true. So, having said that, what was the basic motivation for writing it [ARE YOU FAMOUS] in the first place?
KW: I had a window of time –- this was June 2005. I had a whole month. In my case, I thought, “If I can just stay on top of this, day in and day out, I can finish something.” I kind of just gutted it out. I thought I had something to share, and the response has been really positive. But it's a tough world out there, with a small press. This was the first book that they'd ever done. I'm not a big name.
CR: The stuff that's most resonant is when you talk about the collisions you've had with the publishing industry [such as a New York agent who decided against taking Waldman's work].
KW: His response wasn't surprising, given the agency. But he read it, and said, “Look, people will ask, 'Who's this guy?', and I've got nothing to say, I can't sell it.” That may be part of it –- there's the haves and the have-nots, you know?
I''m applying for teaching jobs, actually – I have six books of poetry, I have this memoir...but you find that six poetry books and a memoir can get trumped by one book with the right publisher, and this book isn't very good. You have a major publisher, or you have that platform, but it doesn't matter if the quality of the work is not even [readable].
I had kind of a crazy response from a library district. Some libraries have some money, and do summer reading programs. I sent a decent packet to the supervisor, and then the answer comes: “We don't have the budget, and we don't think there's really a fit.” There's a library, a summer of being creative –- I'm going, “If that isn't a fit, I don't know what is.”
CR: Right. Or, as you say so memorably in the book, “Fiddling and poetry? Who needs them? Creative, engaged students? Who needs them?”
KW: Yeah, I know. I [once] got an email from somebody I'd met at a conference, their state arts education person. I'd had dinner with this person, sent them a packet, and never heard [anything]. I followed up, and this person said, “Well, I don't think there's any way I can help you.” Maybe it's because their budgets are cut so much, they are unwilling to do something – but what are they doing,, if...
CR: ...if they can't help you?
KW: If they can't, I go, “Well, is the work deficient somehow?” I go, “I don't think so. You just process it, and go on to the next [project]. It still strikes me as kind of weird. My final response is, “Well, I'll write another book,” you know: THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF THE FIDDLING POET.
CHATS WITH DOUG
RH: So, do you and Doug Yule exchange Christmas cards, now that you've met at the Crocodile [Club]?
KW: I knew him just as a fiddle player in Seattle, and when the book came out in 2000 –- my first book, and CD – he was already curious about I was doing. I saw him at a festival, and he says, “I couldn't get your thing.” We've done shows in the past –- if I'm doing a show in Seattle, I'll either see if he's available, or other people want to play with him, so he can get word out –- because he likes what I do.
RH: One of the more charming anecdotes in your book was running into him in that situation, because he got a bad rap [as the post-Lou Reed Velvet Underground's frontman]. And a lot of people, of course, have written him off ever since.
KW: Yeah. I had a friend who was a big Lou Reed fan, and I go, “Well, he's just somebody that I know.” He got really soured on the music business, because I tell him, “Doug, God –- you could use that [VU name] with your string band stuff.” He goes, “No, I'm not gonna do that.”
I say, “Doug, it would make sense – you're doing that string band stuff, to just kind of bank on your name,” and he goes, “No, that's not what I do.” And I go, “OK, I'll respect that, you know?” To me, it seems a no-brainer –- hey, the Velvet Underground, it brings people out there.
SOME PARTING WORDS
RH: What would tell anybody who picked up your book, and says, “Wow, this sounds like a pretty exciting, maybe difficult, thing to do, but I'm not deterred, I really wanna do it”?
KW: If they have the self-confidence, let them go ahead and do it. Maybe you learn things to save a few steps –- if I look back on it, I don't think I could have done anything differently, and however it ends up, I've done the best I could, I'm doing the best I can, for as long as I can.
RH: Well, the one chapter I could see people borrowing is “Two Gigs And A Tour.” I guess that's the obvious example from the book that comes to mind.
KW: Yeah. How those jobs came into play, and how that tour came into play –- everything I'm doing is a variation of that. And sometimes, you see how a single job for a couple thousand dollars for a solo artist was several years in the making. One of the things that you learn is that you can't micro-manage everything. You can contact people, but you know how it is. If somebody doesn't want to return your call...
RH: They don't.
KW: If somebody doesn't want to return your email, you can't make 'em return your email. But then you meet people happy to hear from you, and wonder where you've been their whole life. You do what you can. I don't know what to say, other than, “Keep at it.” When there's a complete obstacle, just go, “OK, work around that,” or try to make something useful.
RH: Work around it as best as you can – and do the best you can, when something like that happens.
KW: Yeah -- it's like the times in Barrow [Alaska]. I remember the first time I went there. Worked at the middle school, stopped at the elementary school, and the principal said, “We don't see ever having a need or interest in you do.” And that guy was gone, and for the next four years, I worked at that elementary school. What does that say? If I hadn't gone the first time, I wouldn't have had that conversation.
RH: You never know.
KW: You never know, man.
ZOE STREET-HOWE (TAKE THREE, 11/13/09): THE SLITS IN THE ROCK 'N' ROLL SCHEME OF THINGS
CHAIRMAN RALPH (CR); What's your view of the present-day Slits, since we're essentially dealing with a quorum of the old firm -- two-fourths, Ari and Tessa? As you know, when so many bands reunite, the results are often dubious, at best, embarrassing, at worst...so how does the present band hold up?
ZOE STREET-HOWE (ZSH): Indeed...
Sometimes it works but sometimes when bands reform there's a sense of going backwards, which is confusing and disappointing because what you loved about them was that they were originally so forward-looking! I sort of felt that about John Lydon when he revived the Pistols after PiL.
I also, on the other hand, don't think bands should be expected to stay in stasis, they're working musicians at the end of the day and can't just cryogenically seal themselves and their sound for the sake of a nostalgic audience. They should move forward and should do other things, not necessarily under the title of their original band. It can be done and it tends to be more interesting! It's braver though, too, that's not to be underestimated.
In the case of The Slits now, it's like a different band, really isn't it, to be frank? I saw them live in London last month, they sounded great on stage, very tight. I felt some of the things that inspired me about hearing the early Slits stuff had been replaced by other elements, but it's up to them what they do and where they go. I'm not so into it personally, if I'm being honest, that's my personal taste, but I think it's still fun, there's good stuff happening.
CR: Where do the Slits stand in the framework of contemporary music? Everyone talks about the riot grrl connection, but plenty of less-obvious names have referenced them, too -- Madonna apparently came to their first NY shows, as LOST WOMEN OF ROCK MUSIC details -- so, given that interest from mainstream performers like her, what (in your opinion) is the band's legacy?
ZSH: Riot Grrrl is less talked about here than in America I feel, but it's still very significant in this context, of course. Yes, Madonna did come to some Slits shows apparently, although other than having started wearing ribbons and ripped tutus a la Viv Albertine, I can't really see any other signs of Slits attitude or creativity, and she's so desperately thrusting in her sexuality in a way that the most British punks at least were not, they were more laid back about that, they didn't feel they had to rely on that to get their attention. There are plenty of others who really liked the group (I always think Cyndi Lauper was quite Slitsy, and Bjork of course).
I think their legacy in this context is also an attitude -- a little more free, a little more wild, a lot less obvious when it comes to sexuality, but who has the courage to be like that now, really, in the mainstream?
Sometimes I hear bands who proclaim: “we're like The Slits!” and then sound like early punk-era Slits. Well, in my opinion, if you're really like The Slits, then you would be more original and have your own sound. The Slits were interesting because they weren't like anyone else. And don't patronise the Slits by copying them when they were still developing musically, they worked hard and were getting better all the time, to copy them at a time when they were safely thrashy and easier to imitate is just lazy and affected.
One contemporary band I love is Wetdog, they have a similar spirit to the original group but are very much their own thing. I also love Ida Maria for that free, funny Slitsy attitude.
CR: How do the band see themselves and their contributions, especially -- since -- the playing field for women rock 'n' roll performers seems as uneven as it's ever been? Could a band like the Slits even exist now, given that the industry seems more monolithically set up than ever before to guard against such possibilities?
ZSH: I think they see themselves as running parallel to the mainstream, with little interest in it, as always I guess. I don't know. Now is a better time than ever to do it yourself, punk-stylee though! I think some people get in a habit of having a kind of broken-record negativity about this, which I don't think is too helpful.
Look at the free improvisation scene, it's been going for decades, the mainstream has never bothered it, nor vice versa, and they coexist quite happily, it thrives perfectly well on its own. I think that's a very positive example and I don't think it needs to be all doom and gloom.
CR: One thing that fascinates me is that people constantly compare (and contrast) the Slits against the Raincoats -- because Palmolive drummed for both, obviously -- back then, they were taken as kindred spirits. True, or not true? Why, or why not, in your opinion?
ZSH: The Slits used to get quite irritated by this from what I've been told, it goes back to that lumping people together thing again. They were totally different, even if they were simpatico in their manifesto. I really adore the Raincoats, as people and musically, but again I think it's easy and lazy to pin them together for the rest of time just because they're women, they're post-punk, they both had Palmolive in the group. Their output was very different and we do both groups a disservice if we don't take the time to appreciate that.
CR: How has the band's music held up against the other stuff (postpunk and otherwise), to which it's often compared?
ZSH: I think it holds up great, it's very individual, I don't tend to compare it to be honest, I think it stands up in its own right, as does the output of PiL, Wire, Gang Of Four, Blurt, Pop Group, Glaxo Babies. Similar era, similar ethos, totally different groups. I don't think the Slits' music is even comparable to the Raincoats', they are totally different even if they shared a similar stance, and gender, (and Palmolive! If the Raincoats were the same as the Slits Palmolive possibly wouldn't have joined!)
CR: I've already talked to Viv about this, as you've seen, but -- what was the key catalyst in getting her to play again, after so long? How she does view her contributions to the band's music?
Did you manage to track down the bygone members (Kate Korus, Suzy Gutsy)? How do they view it all now? Are they still creative, or working at some horrible Barclays branch in suburban Luton?
ZSH: Well, I don't generally regard it as something for me to say, but as you ask! Viv has often said elsewhere at least, and to me, that it was our meeting for the book which initially helped sparked things off, which is very flattering and exciting for me. Ari had contacted me (we were in email contact) as I'd said I'd managed to get hold of Viv thanks to Tessa putting me in touch with former Slits manager Christine Robertson.
This was quite important as apart from anything else she had not talked about The Slits since she'd put her guitar down in '81/82 time, it was obviously just good timing. Ari said to send good wishes and basically say that if she wanted to play with them again that would be great, something to that effect, and told me to pass that on.
I didn't know how Viv would react, but we got on very well and we started talking about the possibility of what it would be like if she did get back into it. I'm sure there were other elements that came into play too. I then told her I was going to be meeting up with Tessa to go to Mick Jones' Carbon Casino gig night in Ladbroke Grove and she said she'd come too, and so there was a little reunion! Cutting a long story short Viv also ended up reconnecting with her old guitar mentor Keith Levene, and others, and ultimately played a couple of gigs with The Slits.
Viv decided to concentrate on her own stuff, which I played on frequently live (lots of little instruments, singing, etc.) and also played on her record, which my husband Dylan played amazing drums on and produced. It was great fun, we also recorded a session with Mick Jones after I did a reading at his Rock and Roll Public Library exhibition over the summer, at which Viv played some solo songs. The book sparked off lots of exciting happenings all round, I think, life certainly seemed to start really blossoming in many ways, for me at least. Viv also connected me with Keith, who has become a really lovely inspiring friend, and also Budgie (the drummer as opposed to your wife!)
It was a fantastic couple of years of connecting, healing, having fun, learning, opening up creatively and also undergoing A LOT OF STRESS! But it was all worth it. Working with The Slits and on this book catapulted me into fast forward in a brilliant way and I'm honoured to have been able to do this, and that they were up for being involved, I think we made something really special. I will always appreciate their support. Tessa, I must say was also absolutely amazing in her support all the way through.
You'd have to ask her how Viv views her own contributions to the Slits' music, I don't want to speak for others too much but if you were to ask my opinion I would say all of the Slits, individually, made their significant contributions: Viv's diary-entry style, very personal, quite literal lyrics, those eccentric melodies and guitar stylings, and quite driven creative ambition for a start. She wrote a lot of the songs, a lot were Palmolive's too, of course.
I spoke, and still speak, to Kate Korus (Corris), she's an absolutely great person, I love her guitar work in the Modettes. No one seemed to know where to find Suzy, but a fan who read the book approached me recently to say she is working as a security guard at the British Museum!
ZOE STREET-HOWE (ZSH): Indeed...
Sometimes it works but sometimes when bands reform there's a sense of going backwards, which is confusing and disappointing because what you loved about them was that they were originally so forward-looking! I sort of felt that about John Lydon when he revived the Pistols after PiL.
I also, on the other hand, don't think bands should be expected to stay in stasis, they're working musicians at the end of the day and can't just cryogenically seal themselves and their sound for the sake of a nostalgic audience. They should move forward and should do other things, not necessarily under the title of their original band. It can be done and it tends to be more interesting! It's braver though, too, that's not to be underestimated.
In the case of The Slits now, it's like a different band, really isn't it, to be frank? I saw them live in London last month, they sounded great on stage, very tight. I felt some of the things that inspired me about hearing the early Slits stuff had been replaced by other elements, but it's up to them what they do and where they go. I'm not so into it personally, if I'm being honest, that's my personal taste, but I think it's still fun, there's good stuff happening.
CR: Where do the Slits stand in the framework of contemporary music? Everyone talks about the riot grrl connection, but plenty of less-obvious names have referenced them, too -- Madonna apparently came to their first NY shows, as LOST WOMEN OF ROCK MUSIC details -- so, given that interest from mainstream performers like her, what (in your opinion) is the band's legacy?
ZSH: Riot Grrrl is less talked about here than in America I feel, but it's still very significant in this context, of course. Yes, Madonna did come to some Slits shows apparently, although other than having started wearing ribbons and ripped tutus a la Viv Albertine, I can't really see any other signs of Slits attitude or creativity, and she's so desperately thrusting in her sexuality in a way that the most British punks at least were not, they were more laid back about that, they didn't feel they had to rely on that to get their attention. There are plenty of others who really liked the group (I always think Cyndi Lauper was quite Slitsy, and Bjork of course).
I think their legacy in this context is also an attitude -- a little more free, a little more wild, a lot less obvious when it comes to sexuality, but who has the courage to be like that now, really, in the mainstream?
Sometimes I hear bands who proclaim: “we're like The Slits!” and then sound like early punk-era Slits. Well, in my opinion, if you're really like The Slits, then you would be more original and have your own sound. The Slits were interesting because they weren't like anyone else. And don't patronise the Slits by copying them when they were still developing musically, they worked hard and were getting better all the time, to copy them at a time when they were safely thrashy and easier to imitate is just lazy and affected.
One contemporary band I love is Wetdog, they have a similar spirit to the original group but are very much their own thing. I also love Ida Maria for that free, funny Slitsy attitude.
CR: How do the band see themselves and their contributions, especially -- since -- the playing field for women rock 'n' roll performers seems as uneven as it's ever been? Could a band like the Slits even exist now, given that the industry seems more monolithically set up than ever before to guard against such possibilities?
ZSH: I think they see themselves as running parallel to the mainstream, with little interest in it, as always I guess. I don't know. Now is a better time than ever to do it yourself, punk-stylee though! I think some people get in a habit of having a kind of broken-record negativity about this, which I don't think is too helpful.
Look at the free improvisation scene, it's been going for decades, the mainstream has never bothered it, nor vice versa, and they coexist quite happily, it thrives perfectly well on its own. I think that's a very positive example and I don't think it needs to be all doom and gloom.
CR: One thing that fascinates me is that people constantly compare (and contrast) the Slits against the Raincoats -- because Palmolive drummed for both, obviously -- back then, they were taken as kindred spirits. True, or not true? Why, or why not, in your opinion?
ZSH: The Slits used to get quite irritated by this from what I've been told, it goes back to that lumping people together thing again. They were totally different, even if they were simpatico in their manifesto. I really adore the Raincoats, as people and musically, but again I think it's easy and lazy to pin them together for the rest of time just because they're women, they're post-punk, they both had Palmolive in the group. Their output was very different and we do both groups a disservice if we don't take the time to appreciate that.
CR: How has the band's music held up against the other stuff (postpunk and otherwise), to which it's often compared?
ZSH: I think it holds up great, it's very individual, I don't tend to compare it to be honest, I think it stands up in its own right, as does the output of PiL, Wire, Gang Of Four, Blurt, Pop Group, Glaxo Babies. Similar era, similar ethos, totally different groups. I don't think the Slits' music is even comparable to the Raincoats', they are totally different even if they shared a similar stance, and gender, (and Palmolive! If the Raincoats were the same as the Slits Palmolive possibly wouldn't have joined!)
CR: I've already talked to Viv about this, as you've seen, but -- what was the key catalyst in getting her to play again, after so long? How she does view her contributions to the band's music?
Did you manage to track down the bygone members (Kate Korus, Suzy Gutsy)? How do they view it all now? Are they still creative, or working at some horrible Barclays branch in suburban Luton?
ZSH: Well, I don't generally regard it as something for me to say, but as you ask! Viv has often said elsewhere at least, and to me, that it was our meeting for the book which initially helped sparked things off, which is very flattering and exciting for me. Ari had contacted me (we were in email contact) as I'd said I'd managed to get hold of Viv thanks to Tessa putting me in touch with former Slits manager Christine Robertson.
This was quite important as apart from anything else she had not talked about The Slits since she'd put her guitar down in '81/82 time, it was obviously just good timing. Ari said to send good wishes and basically say that if she wanted to play with them again that would be great, something to that effect, and told me to pass that on.
I didn't know how Viv would react, but we got on very well and we started talking about the possibility of what it would be like if she did get back into it. I'm sure there were other elements that came into play too. I then told her I was going to be meeting up with Tessa to go to Mick Jones' Carbon Casino gig night in Ladbroke Grove and she said she'd come too, and so there was a little reunion! Cutting a long story short Viv also ended up reconnecting with her old guitar mentor Keith Levene, and others, and ultimately played a couple of gigs with The Slits.
Viv decided to concentrate on her own stuff, which I played on frequently live (lots of little instruments, singing, etc.) and also played on her record, which my husband Dylan played amazing drums on and produced. It was great fun, we also recorded a session with Mick Jones after I did a reading at his Rock and Roll Public Library exhibition over the summer, at which Viv played some solo songs. The book sparked off lots of exciting happenings all round, I think, life certainly seemed to start really blossoming in many ways, for me at least. Viv also connected me with Keith, who has become a really lovely inspiring friend, and also Budgie (the drummer as opposed to your wife!)
It was a fantastic couple of years of connecting, healing, having fun, learning, opening up creatively and also undergoing A LOT OF STRESS! But it was all worth it. Working with The Slits and on this book catapulted me into fast forward in a brilliant way and I'm honoured to have been able to do this, and that they were up for being involved, I think we made something really special. I will always appreciate their support. Tessa, I must say was also absolutely amazing in her support all the way through.
You'd have to ask her how Viv views her own contributions to the Slits' music, I don't want to speak for others too much but if you were to ask my opinion I would say all of the Slits, individually, made their significant contributions: Viv's diary-entry style, very personal, quite literal lyrics, those eccentric melodies and guitar stylings, and quite driven creative ambition for a start. She wrote a lot of the songs, a lot were Palmolive's too, of course.
I spoke, and still speak, to Kate Korus (Corris), she's an absolutely great person, I love her guitar work in the Modettes. No one seemed to know where to find Suzy, but a fan who read the book approached me recently to say she is working as a security guard at the British Museum!
ZOE STREET-HOWE (TAKE TWO, 11/12/09): LIFE WITH THE SLITS (FROM PUNK, TO POST-PUNK)
CHAIRMAN RALPH (CR): As we both know, there's a “lost” Slits era between '77 and '79, when CUT saw the light of day...well, technically, there's two lost eras, if you count the early transition from Flowers of Romance/Castrators to the Slits. What kept the Slits from getting a record deal for so long?
ZOE STREET-HOWE (ZSH): A lot of people seem to think The Slits were deliberately trying not to "sell out" by staying away from record labels when others, like the Clash, were being snapped up by majors, but they actually really wanted the support of a good label, it just had to be the right one.
For better or worse, actually, a lot of the punk groups at that time were being practically hoovered up by labels, and according to Ari, lots of labels were on the phone, trying to get the Slits, but they didn't want to sign with just anybody. They wanted to be ready, they were taking it seriously and didn't want to sign up with the wrong person. There were offers and opportunities elsewhere, but it was when Island approached that they felt they could be on the right track.
The Flowers of Romance/Castrators get romanticised (no pun intended) a lot, but if you were to ask any of them they'd probably say they just were a bunch of teenagers clanking away in a basement not really getting anywhere, and not getting much better! Tessa says the Castrators were more of a concept than a band too. I think these early groups sometimes get a bit mythologised when actually they were at best stepping stones that might have been more significant as a result of the people they met via being in those groups within that scene than the music that they were / weren't making! It was all part of a community though, which is interesting.
I don't know whether I'd describe the years leading up to CUT as lost, people just don't know a lot about them (they need to read the book!). I think everything they were doing was leading up to it, they were vital years in which they were touring and getting better musically, writing songs and of course, there were two now legendary Peel Sessions recorded and broadcast within that time.
CR: How do you feel the other two albums...THE SLITS (Y Records: 1980), RETURN OF THE GIANT SLITS (CBS: 1981) stand up vs. CUT? Seems to me, CUT was so well-loved, it overshadowed the group for much of their original career. Did the band members feel this way, and if so, why or why not?
ZSH: The Slits did end up signing to the subsequent record label Y after being dropped by Island. They shared Y with the Pop Group, and it was run by their manager, Dick O'Dell. Y by the Pop Group is a really interesting album -- it came out just before CUT -- same producer, of course, Dennis Bovell, so a lot of the same hallmarks too. It's quite challenging, mixing free and funk.
CUT was the Slits' finest hour, but I think RETURN is criminally under-appreciated, it demands more from you but is equally rewarding. CUT is more immediate in its appeal, still challenging, but totally different to RETURN. I think to be able to record an album like that at all is a wonderful achievement, so to go on to an album like RETURN... I think it was a natural step, it was just a bit avant garde for some, I suppose.
Maybe there was a lot to live up to after CUT, but I didn't pick up any particular anxiety over that, from what they said. They raised the bar for themselves and others, and were better musicians as a result, I would imagine they felt it had broadened their horizons and skills, as opposed to feeling concerned that they couldn't follow it. It was a landmark, and I imagine they're just incredibly proud of it, as they should be all of their output.
CR: What did your interviews and research tell you about the musical dynamics within the group? How did the group's chemistry change over time, in terms of how they worked together, and the music they made?
ZSH: They were growing up together, Ari and Tessa were just teenagers when the group started. So growing up, becoming women, in this very tight group over the period of five years, they were changing as individuals within the group, within the scene, and naturally, becoming interested in different things. As Viv says in the book, "it sounds corny to say musical differences but that's what it was." When they split, that really was a major thing, they were all becoming different people, as you do when you go from teenager-hood to adulthood.
You meet different people, you become defined by different things, you're working out who you are. The Slits were doing that but within this very intense, five-year experience! That's not an easy way to grow up, and as Tessa says in the book, I think they felt they missed out on a bit of growing up as a result. I'm quite impressed they managed to stay together for five years!
Dynamics-wise, they were always very different from each other anyway - Tessa was a more introspective character, but also was perceived as quite tough. Ari was like a wild child, very creative, very free-wheeling, Viv was a bit more grown-up and very driven. Palmolive was a colourful character too, very deep, a thinker and quite a serious creative mind, which shows in her lyrics. She was also great fun of course.
The first major change for that definitive line-up was that Palmolive started to become dissatisfied with the scene, she was a bit of a seeker I guess, she wasn't happy and wanted to find something that would make her feel more grounded. It turned out that Christianity was what she was looking for in the end, she's still a committed Christian to this day.
CUT was a bit more light-hearted and fun than RETURN, they were changing and the music on RETURN reflects those changes, it was a darker time too, for a lot of people.
CR: Like many bands of that era, the Slits got a fair amount of press in America, but didn't make much of an impact. Was it a case of not really trying, or not fitting in, or both?
ZSH: I think they went down well in places like New York, but they were very experimental by the time they got to the US, even more so, their ideas were even more broad and avant garde. Now, of course, America seems to be home to a lot of Slits fans, since Riot Grrrl I guess. Different thing. Also, certainly during their second tour of America, they had been touring and working hard for ages and they were exhausted, which can't not make a difference.
CR: As we both know, RETURN OF THE GIANT SLITS wasn't as well-received as the other albums had been. This development seemed to coincide with a general tapering off of the postpunk scene, with the Slits...among many bands...were associated. How did this affect the group, and why did the scene taper off?
ZSH: In my opinion the scene tapered off partly because a lot of people within it were finding different ways to express themselves (I'm thinking of PiL, members of the Slits, Pop Group, Rip Rig and Panic, Pigbag). A lot of people were moving forward and into different groups, with different people, and trying new things and also embracing the underground free scene, all in all I think what was originally a "post-punk scene" became dissipated, but I think that was understandable. They were all artistic, creative people, it is totally in the right spirit that they would have moved on and tried new things, splitting away from each other in many cases.
I don't think it could only be blamed on the New Romantics coming in -- punk and post-punk managed to survive in spite of disco, et cetera! But the music industry was changing, values were changing, Margaret Thatcher had come to power in England in 1979, everything was changing and there was a new kind of bleakness. But some punks and post-punkers managed to morph into pop -- Frankie Goes To Hollywood, for example (Paul Rutherford was a hardcore Slits fan and a real punk), Thompson Twins, people like that.
Post-punk, as we now call it...for better or worse...like punk itself was really about a moment in time, and the book is about that moment in time.
ZOE STREET-HOWE (ZSH): A lot of people seem to think The Slits were deliberately trying not to "sell out" by staying away from record labels when others, like the Clash, were being snapped up by majors, but they actually really wanted the support of a good label, it just had to be the right one.
For better or worse, actually, a lot of the punk groups at that time were being practically hoovered up by labels, and according to Ari, lots of labels were on the phone, trying to get the Slits, but they didn't want to sign with just anybody. They wanted to be ready, they were taking it seriously and didn't want to sign up with the wrong person. There were offers and opportunities elsewhere, but it was when Island approached that they felt they could be on the right track.
The Flowers of Romance/Castrators get romanticised (no pun intended) a lot, but if you were to ask any of them they'd probably say they just were a bunch of teenagers clanking away in a basement not really getting anywhere, and not getting much better! Tessa says the Castrators were more of a concept than a band too. I think these early groups sometimes get a bit mythologised when actually they were at best stepping stones that might have been more significant as a result of the people they met via being in those groups within that scene than the music that they were / weren't making! It was all part of a community though, which is interesting.
I don't know whether I'd describe the years leading up to CUT as lost, people just don't know a lot about them (they need to read the book!). I think everything they were doing was leading up to it, they were vital years in which they were touring and getting better musically, writing songs and of course, there were two now legendary Peel Sessions recorded and broadcast within that time.
CR: How do you feel the other two albums...THE SLITS (Y Records: 1980), RETURN OF THE GIANT SLITS (CBS: 1981) stand up vs. CUT? Seems to me, CUT was so well-loved, it overshadowed the group for much of their original career. Did the band members feel this way, and if so, why or why not?
ZSH: The Slits did end up signing to the subsequent record label Y after being dropped by Island. They shared Y with the Pop Group, and it was run by their manager, Dick O'Dell. Y by the Pop Group is a really interesting album -- it came out just before CUT -- same producer, of course, Dennis Bovell, so a lot of the same hallmarks too. It's quite challenging, mixing free and funk.
CUT was the Slits' finest hour, but I think RETURN is criminally under-appreciated, it demands more from you but is equally rewarding. CUT is more immediate in its appeal, still challenging, but totally different to RETURN. I think to be able to record an album like that at all is a wonderful achievement, so to go on to an album like RETURN... I think it was a natural step, it was just a bit avant garde for some, I suppose.
Maybe there was a lot to live up to after CUT, but I didn't pick up any particular anxiety over that, from what they said. They raised the bar for themselves and others, and were better musicians as a result, I would imagine they felt it had broadened their horizons and skills, as opposed to feeling concerned that they couldn't follow it. It was a landmark, and I imagine they're just incredibly proud of it, as they should be all of their output.
CR: What did your interviews and research tell you about the musical dynamics within the group? How did the group's chemistry change over time, in terms of how they worked together, and the music they made?
ZSH: They were growing up together, Ari and Tessa were just teenagers when the group started. So growing up, becoming women, in this very tight group over the period of five years, they were changing as individuals within the group, within the scene, and naturally, becoming interested in different things. As Viv says in the book, "it sounds corny to say musical differences but that's what it was." When they split, that really was a major thing, they were all becoming different people, as you do when you go from teenager-hood to adulthood.
You meet different people, you become defined by different things, you're working out who you are. The Slits were doing that but within this very intense, five-year experience! That's not an easy way to grow up, and as Tessa says in the book, I think they felt they missed out on a bit of growing up as a result. I'm quite impressed they managed to stay together for five years!
Dynamics-wise, they were always very different from each other anyway - Tessa was a more introspective character, but also was perceived as quite tough. Ari was like a wild child, very creative, very free-wheeling, Viv was a bit more grown-up and very driven. Palmolive was a colourful character too, very deep, a thinker and quite a serious creative mind, which shows in her lyrics. She was also great fun of course.
The first major change for that definitive line-up was that Palmolive started to become dissatisfied with the scene, she was a bit of a seeker I guess, she wasn't happy and wanted to find something that would make her feel more grounded. It turned out that Christianity was what she was looking for in the end, she's still a committed Christian to this day.
CUT was a bit more light-hearted and fun than RETURN, they were changing and the music on RETURN reflects those changes, it was a darker time too, for a lot of people.
CR: Like many bands of that era, the Slits got a fair amount of press in America, but didn't make much of an impact. Was it a case of not really trying, or not fitting in, or both?
ZSH: I think they went down well in places like New York, but they were very experimental by the time they got to the US, even more so, their ideas were even more broad and avant garde. Now, of course, America seems to be home to a lot of Slits fans, since Riot Grrrl I guess. Different thing. Also, certainly during their second tour of America, they had been touring and working hard for ages and they were exhausted, which can't not make a difference.
CR: As we both know, RETURN OF THE GIANT SLITS wasn't as well-received as the other albums had been. This development seemed to coincide with a general tapering off of the postpunk scene, with the Slits...among many bands...were associated. How did this affect the group, and why did the scene taper off?
ZSH: In my opinion the scene tapered off partly because a lot of people within it were finding different ways to express themselves (I'm thinking of PiL, members of the Slits, Pop Group, Rip Rig and Panic, Pigbag). A lot of people were moving forward and into different groups, with different people, and trying new things and also embracing the underground free scene, all in all I think what was originally a "post-punk scene" became dissipated, but I think that was understandable. They were all artistic, creative people, it is totally in the right spirit that they would have moved on and tried new things, splitting away from each other in many cases.
I don't think it could only be blamed on the New Romantics coming in -- punk and post-punk managed to survive in spite of disco, et cetera! But the music industry was changing, values were changing, Margaret Thatcher had come to power in England in 1979, everything was changing and there was a new kind of bleakness. But some punks and post-punkers managed to morph into pop -- Frankie Goes To Hollywood, for example (Paul Rutherford was a hardcore Slits fan and a real punk), Thompson Twins, people like that.
Post-punk, as we now call it...for better or worse...like punk itself was really about a moment in time, and the book is about that moment in time.
ZOE STREET-HOWE (TAKE ONE, 11/12/09): THE SLITS' BOSWELL RECALLS THE BAND
Suitably fired up by my chat and meeting with Viv in Chicago -- not to mention a great show -- it only seemed logical to contact Zoë Street-Howe, author of TYPICAL GIRLS? THE STORY OF THE SLITS (UK: Omnibus Press), the first real (and long overdue) in-depth look at this ever-provocative band, who -- even now -- don't comfortably fit the arid cultural landscape of what is often accidentally labeled "rock 'n' roll."
Kudos to Zoë for the wit and wisdom that she displays so abundantly here -- so much, in fact, that we ended up with roughly 15 questions! As with Viv's interview ("Not Your Typical Girl"), the answers will run in several bite-sized chunks, so -- without further ado, here's Take One of my email chat with Zoë!
CHAIRMAN RALPH (CR): As you've proudly detailed in one interview, you were born only four days before "Typical Girls" came out (in 1979). What inspired you to write a book about the Slits? What makes their story interesting to you, and why is it relevant for today's audience?
ZOE STREET-HOWE (ZSH): I don't know if it's so much a matter of pride, but I think it's nice, and auspicious perhaps, that the Slits' debut single and I "came out" within days of each other...!
I first started thinking I wanted to write about them because I passionately felt they deserved more recognition for what they did, musically, socially, artistically, in so many ways and for many reasons. I was broadcasting a punky reggae/alt music radio show at the time, very underground but good fun, and I was really getting into the Slits, adored CUT and their second album, RETURN OF THE GIANT SLITS, and just thought they were such an interesting band, I couldn't understand why nothing had been written about them, but that there were books on The Clash, etc.
They were inspiring to me because of their free-thinking approach, they weren't labelling themselves and the onus wasn't on sexualising themselves in order to get attention, it wasn't on perfect body images. I think we can learn a lot today from the way the Slits were at that time, and what they achieved.
Initially it was solely going to be about CUT, but, while the album is still very much the heart of the book, as I believe it to be a watershed for the group and a seminal album, it evolved into the book it is now because it needed context and history. Because not much was out there about the Slits, you couldn't just go in and write about CUT exclusively, you couldn't risk it going over people's heads.
Ari Up wanted it to be only about CUT, but while that was my initial idea, it soon became apparent that doing it in such a limited way wouldn't have worked. The point of it was to flag up the importance of the Slits and relevance of what they were doing, so I felt it had to be more than that. Ultimately, the book was intended as a huge compliment, a tribute, a gift to the Slits, really. A celebration! Which I felt was long overdue, and came out at the right time to celebrate 30 years of CUT, as was my intention.
I know I'm a lot younger than them, obviously, but I also felt that on the plus side this a) meant I did my utmost to get my information from the horses' mouths and b) I didn't write it through my own filter of having been part of that scene or time myself.
CR: Having written a book myself, I know this quite well...every biographer runs head-on into myths, half-truths, and total PR fabrications. What's the biggest misconception about the Slits? Did you run into any surprises during your research, things that you didn't know befiore? If so, what?
ZSH: There was plenty I didn't know before because, as I say, there wasn't much out there, comparatively.
There were a few things out there that seriously needed righting - a myth that the Raincoats and Slits started a "bloody riot" at a Throbbing Gristle gig -- this didn't happen, although something much worse did, and it was misreported by, apparently, someone who actually had a ring-side seat to the whole shebang, but still chose to misrepresent it for the sake of a "good story". You'll have to read the book to find out what happened!
Obviously the most popular misconception about the Slits is that "they couldn't play", very boring and tired that one! They were rough at the beginning of course, as most punk bands were, very rough according to some, but then so were Buzzcocks initially, so was X-Ray Spex and so was Siouxsie, going on stage at the 100 Club with her mates, having never picked up an instrument before. That was kind of the point. The Slits moved on quickly but people were keen to keep them in that pigeonhole. They were very creative, very exciting musicians with some great musical ideas.
Talking of myths and misrepresentations, funnily enough Ari recently said the "biggest mistake" in the book was that she and Palmolive met at a Patti Smith gig, but this story was told to me by Palmolive. Plus a respected rock writer friend of mine mentioned that Ari herself had previously told him they'd met at Patti's gig! I don't know, I could only try my best and repeat what they told me in good faith.
In the meantime, while this was all being picked over, what seems to have been missed is the fact that the book totally celebrates them. I always called it an "appreciation" as opposed to a "biog" -- it was written from a place of love and respect, that was always my motivation, and I think most people can see that!
The more people involved, particularly in the case of a band, the more people's memories and perpectives differ, which can be tricky especially when, at the end of the day, the biographer is held responsible! Because everyone is so different, they all have a very different reality...
CR: Adverse perceptions and run-ins (with the press, the general public, and so on) seemed to be a defining theme within the Slits' career. To what extent do you feel they fit -- or didn't -- into what was going on back in '76-'77, and beyond?
ZSH: They fitted into the scene that didn't fit! They fitted snugly into that counter-culture, and it must have been a very exciting time. There was a core of people who felt like outsiders and thankfully they found each other and that scene was born and they sparked off each other creatively. They quickly outgrew it of course, as did The Clash and other groups of that ilk.
I know The Slits had some really intense experiences, there were times they were attacked physically by members of the public, people threatened by their confrontational appearance who felt they had to strike first, even if The Slits themselves weren't going to strike out anyway.
There were run-ins galore, by the sound of things! There were people in the music press and the public who loved The Slits too, but I guess it's human nature to focus on the not so good stuff over time. We have to fight that!
Presswise, as I say, there was a lot of quite patronising, unhelpful coverage, but looking at the old music papers, which I did for my research, there was also a lot of love. It's always the way that if you get nine good cuttings and one not so great... well, which one are you going to remember?
At times, back in the day, they could also be challenging to interview if they weren't in the mood, from what I've heard from old tapes, and when that's the case, you can't really be shocked if the journalist then reflects their subsequent feelings in print, I guess! But on the other hand, music journalism could be very male and rockstarry at the time, and certain writers' attitudes towards The Slits and similar artists might have been sufficient irritants to make for a bit of a stale-mate.
Why should the Slits pander to the rules of how they "should" behave, if a lot of the people in the music industry were just old-fashioned sexists trying to be like rock-stars? There had to be mutual respect. I can only imagine how hard it must have been, and we've still got a lot of evolving to do!
While I know the mainstream press were very silly about punk in general and helped to actually stoke its notoriety, there were plenty of powerful people, Vivien Goldman, Kris Needs, Nick Kent and Caroline Coon, for example, as well as their musical contemporaries, who really bigged them up and continue to do so to this day.
CR: Of course, another running theme -- to the music press, anyway -- was the Slits' perceived lack of musical ability. By the time of CUT, of course, the band's sound had changed quite a bit from the punk era: in your judgment, what was the turning point in that change?
I think they worked very hard, and they were listening to new and different music all the time, they went from straight-up punk rock to absorbing the reggae sounds that were pulsing around them in Ladbroke Grove, and really reflecting that in their sound, they started going to free improv gigs as well, listening to the free jazz of Ornette Coleman and Don Cherry, they were very open to new ideas. But also there was something intrinsically them about their sound, they never sounded like a pastiche back then. There was something eccentric about the musical and lyrical ideas, and those were the things that attracted my ear to them.
Of course when they came to make the album with Dennis Bovell he pushed them hard to be the best they could be, and they really developed during the time they spent on CUT, plus he was a very broad-minded, musically versatile producer with wide reference points, perfect for The Slits. But listen to their cover of "(I Heard It Through The) Grapevine" - they recorded that and mixed it themselves before Dennis was on the scene, and they play just fine! That was the track which was my first "in" with the Slits' music, as I think it probably was for a lot of people. It's great.
CR: Sexual politics is yet another theme in the Slits's story, which brings to mind a Caroline Coon quote from this book, THE LOST WOMEN OF ROCK MUSIC: she says that many of the male musicians would be quite surprised to know that the history of punk could be written without them.
I'm sure that Caroline is prominently thinking of the Slits there -- do you agree with that comment, and to what extent did the band change the whole girls-against-boys equation in rock 'n' roll?
ZSH: It is a really important, exceptional book. Generally, I have issues with segregating "women in rock" all the time, maybe that's just me! I feel it's a shame and does us no favours that "female" has become a genre in itself. What next, you know?
In an old NEW MUSICAL EXPRESS (NME) I read, someone had written in to suggest they do a "women in rock" piece, with all good intentions, and NME wrote back that that was a splendid idea, and while they were at it they were going to work on a piece on Short People in Rock, Blue-eyed People In Rock, etc... "Let's get together and split up", I seem to remember they concluded their response with. I did see their point. It's sad that there has to be a special piece on women just to ensure we're even included.
It's like the way the music press used to write about groups from the regions, the Manchester photographer Kevin Cummins was talking about this the other day. It's much better now (probably because so many of Britain's best groups come from the regions) but back in the day, Kevin observed that music papers would lump all those groups together in one issue in which they featured "regional bands" and basically get them out of the way so they could spend the rest of the year with the focus back on London groups again.
They did this with "female" groups too, or groups with women in them, you'd get these "Women in Rock" articles, in which sometimes those featured would have little in common but their gender. I think at the time, certainly, it was probably taken as a bit patronising, but on the other hand at least they were being written about!
I'm sure Caroline is right, she was there at the time in the thick of it, she managed the Clash for a while, didn't she? She was totally part of that scene and was a very strong figure within it so she has her reasons for saying that.
Maybe age has mellowed their egos a bit, but a lot of the guys I spoke to for the book, Keith Levene, for example, genuinely had plenty to say about how vital bands like The Slits were, also X-Ray Spex, the Raincoats, Penetration and musicians like Lora Logic... so I think it would be a pity to assume they would so easily pass over their female contemporaries, but I don't know what it was like at the time!
I'd always hoped that punk was a little more free of those gender divides but I'm probably being very idealistic! But, certain people's motives or individual ego stuff aside, punk was in essence idealistic, I think?
Kudos to Zoë for the wit and wisdom that she displays so abundantly here -- so much, in fact, that we ended up with roughly 15 questions! As with Viv's interview ("Not Your Typical Girl"), the answers will run in several bite-sized chunks, so -- without further ado, here's Take One of my email chat with Zoë!
CHAIRMAN RALPH (CR): As you've proudly detailed in one interview, you were born only four days before "Typical Girls" came out (in 1979). What inspired you to write a book about the Slits? What makes their story interesting to you, and why is it relevant for today's audience?
ZOE STREET-HOWE (ZSH): I don't know if it's so much a matter of pride, but I think it's nice, and auspicious perhaps, that the Slits' debut single and I "came out" within days of each other...!
I first started thinking I wanted to write about them because I passionately felt they deserved more recognition for what they did, musically, socially, artistically, in so many ways and for many reasons. I was broadcasting a punky reggae/alt music radio show at the time, very underground but good fun, and I was really getting into the Slits, adored CUT and their second album, RETURN OF THE GIANT SLITS, and just thought they were such an interesting band, I couldn't understand why nothing had been written about them, but that there were books on The Clash, etc.
They were inspiring to me because of their free-thinking approach, they weren't labelling themselves and the onus wasn't on sexualising themselves in order to get attention, it wasn't on perfect body images. I think we can learn a lot today from the way the Slits were at that time, and what they achieved.
Initially it was solely going to be about CUT, but, while the album is still very much the heart of the book, as I believe it to be a watershed for the group and a seminal album, it evolved into the book it is now because it needed context and history. Because not much was out there about the Slits, you couldn't just go in and write about CUT exclusively, you couldn't risk it going over people's heads.
Ari Up wanted it to be only about CUT, but while that was my initial idea, it soon became apparent that doing it in such a limited way wouldn't have worked. The point of it was to flag up the importance of the Slits and relevance of what they were doing, so I felt it had to be more than that. Ultimately, the book was intended as a huge compliment, a tribute, a gift to the Slits, really. A celebration! Which I felt was long overdue, and came out at the right time to celebrate 30 years of CUT, as was my intention.
I know I'm a lot younger than them, obviously, but I also felt that on the plus side this a) meant I did my utmost to get my information from the horses' mouths and b) I didn't write it through my own filter of having been part of that scene or time myself.
CR: Having written a book myself, I know this quite well...every biographer runs head-on into myths, half-truths, and total PR fabrications. What's the biggest misconception about the Slits? Did you run into any surprises during your research, things that you didn't know befiore? If so, what?
ZSH: There was plenty I didn't know before because, as I say, there wasn't much out there, comparatively.
There were a few things out there that seriously needed righting - a myth that the Raincoats and Slits started a "bloody riot" at a Throbbing Gristle gig -- this didn't happen, although something much worse did, and it was misreported by, apparently, someone who actually had a ring-side seat to the whole shebang, but still chose to misrepresent it for the sake of a "good story". You'll have to read the book to find out what happened!
Obviously the most popular misconception about the Slits is that "they couldn't play", very boring and tired that one! They were rough at the beginning of course, as most punk bands were, very rough according to some, but then so were Buzzcocks initially, so was X-Ray Spex and so was Siouxsie, going on stage at the 100 Club with her mates, having never picked up an instrument before. That was kind of the point. The Slits moved on quickly but people were keen to keep them in that pigeonhole. They were very creative, very exciting musicians with some great musical ideas.
Talking of myths and misrepresentations, funnily enough Ari recently said the "biggest mistake" in the book was that she and Palmolive met at a Patti Smith gig, but this story was told to me by Palmolive. Plus a respected rock writer friend of mine mentioned that Ari herself had previously told him they'd met at Patti's gig! I don't know, I could only try my best and repeat what they told me in good faith.
In the meantime, while this was all being picked over, what seems to have been missed is the fact that the book totally celebrates them. I always called it an "appreciation" as opposed to a "biog" -- it was written from a place of love and respect, that was always my motivation, and I think most people can see that!
The more people involved, particularly in the case of a band, the more people's memories and perpectives differ, which can be tricky especially when, at the end of the day, the biographer is held responsible! Because everyone is so different, they all have a very different reality...
CR: Adverse perceptions and run-ins (with the press, the general public, and so on) seemed to be a defining theme within the Slits' career. To what extent do you feel they fit -- or didn't -- into what was going on back in '76-'77, and beyond?
ZSH: They fitted into the scene that didn't fit! They fitted snugly into that counter-culture, and it must have been a very exciting time. There was a core of people who felt like outsiders and thankfully they found each other and that scene was born and they sparked off each other creatively. They quickly outgrew it of course, as did The Clash and other groups of that ilk.
I know The Slits had some really intense experiences, there were times they were attacked physically by members of the public, people threatened by their confrontational appearance who felt they had to strike first, even if The Slits themselves weren't going to strike out anyway.
There were run-ins galore, by the sound of things! There were people in the music press and the public who loved The Slits too, but I guess it's human nature to focus on the not so good stuff over time. We have to fight that!
Presswise, as I say, there was a lot of quite patronising, unhelpful coverage, but looking at the old music papers, which I did for my research, there was also a lot of love. It's always the way that if you get nine good cuttings and one not so great... well, which one are you going to remember?
At times, back in the day, they could also be challenging to interview if they weren't in the mood, from what I've heard from old tapes, and when that's the case, you can't really be shocked if the journalist then reflects their subsequent feelings in print, I guess! But on the other hand, music journalism could be very male and rockstarry at the time, and certain writers' attitudes towards The Slits and similar artists might have been sufficient irritants to make for a bit of a stale-mate.
Why should the Slits pander to the rules of how they "should" behave, if a lot of the people in the music industry were just old-fashioned sexists trying to be like rock-stars? There had to be mutual respect. I can only imagine how hard it must have been, and we've still got a lot of evolving to do!
While I know the mainstream press were very silly about punk in general and helped to actually stoke its notoriety, there were plenty of powerful people, Vivien Goldman, Kris Needs, Nick Kent and Caroline Coon, for example, as well as their musical contemporaries, who really bigged them up and continue to do so to this day.
CR: Of course, another running theme -- to the music press, anyway -- was the Slits' perceived lack of musical ability. By the time of CUT, of course, the band's sound had changed quite a bit from the punk era: in your judgment, what was the turning point in that change?
I think they worked very hard, and they were listening to new and different music all the time, they went from straight-up punk rock to absorbing the reggae sounds that were pulsing around them in Ladbroke Grove, and really reflecting that in their sound, they started going to free improv gigs as well, listening to the free jazz of Ornette Coleman and Don Cherry, they were very open to new ideas. But also there was something intrinsically them about their sound, they never sounded like a pastiche back then. There was something eccentric about the musical and lyrical ideas, and those were the things that attracted my ear to them.
Of course when they came to make the album with Dennis Bovell he pushed them hard to be the best they could be, and they really developed during the time they spent on CUT, plus he was a very broad-minded, musically versatile producer with wide reference points, perfect for The Slits. But listen to their cover of "(I Heard It Through The) Grapevine" - they recorded that and mixed it themselves before Dennis was on the scene, and they play just fine! That was the track which was my first "in" with the Slits' music, as I think it probably was for a lot of people. It's great.
CR: Sexual politics is yet another theme in the Slits's story, which brings to mind a Caroline Coon quote from this book, THE LOST WOMEN OF ROCK MUSIC: she says that many of the male musicians would be quite surprised to know that the history of punk could be written without them.
I'm sure that Caroline is prominently thinking of the Slits there -- do you agree with that comment, and to what extent did the band change the whole girls-against-boys equation in rock 'n' roll?
ZSH: It is a really important, exceptional book. Generally, I have issues with segregating "women in rock" all the time, maybe that's just me! I feel it's a shame and does us no favours that "female" has become a genre in itself. What next, you know?
In an old NEW MUSICAL EXPRESS (NME) I read, someone had written in to suggest they do a "women in rock" piece, with all good intentions, and NME wrote back that that was a splendid idea, and while they were at it they were going to work on a piece on Short People in Rock, Blue-eyed People In Rock, etc... "Let's get together and split up", I seem to remember they concluded their response with. I did see their point. It's sad that there has to be a special piece on women just to ensure we're even included.
It's like the way the music press used to write about groups from the regions, the Manchester photographer Kevin Cummins was talking about this the other day. It's much better now (probably because so many of Britain's best groups come from the regions) but back in the day, Kevin observed that music papers would lump all those groups together in one issue in which they featured "regional bands" and basically get them out of the way so they could spend the rest of the year with the focus back on London groups again.
They did this with "female" groups too, or groups with women in them, you'd get these "Women in Rock" articles, in which sometimes those featured would have little in common but their gender. I think at the time, certainly, it was probably taken as a bit patronising, but on the other hand at least they were being written about!
I'm sure Caroline is right, she was there at the time in the thick of it, she managed the Clash for a while, didn't she? She was totally part of that scene and was a very strong figure within it so she has her reasons for saying that.
Maybe age has mellowed their egos a bit, but a lot of the guys I spoke to for the book, Keith Levene, for example, genuinely had plenty to say about how vital bands like The Slits were, also X-Ray Spex, the Raincoats, Penetration and musicians like Lora Logic... so I think it would be a pity to assume they would so easily pass over their female contemporaries, but I don't know what it was like at the time!
I'd always hoped that punk was a little more free of those gender divides but I'm probably being very idealistic! But, certain people's motives or individual ego stuff aside, punk was in essence idealistic, I think?