Scan barcode
mdettmann's review against another edition
3.0
I thought this was an interesting read, but the organization wasn’t my favorite or made it a very cohesive narrative overall. There are also some cases of deadnaming and I think was still a narrowly focused music history of LGBT artists when I was hoping for something a little more inclusive.
madelineb's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
A really interesting and important read but the formatting made it so difficult.... The author sometimes used first names, sometimes last names, sometimes dead names, sometimes stage names, AND would introduce and discuss multiple people in a small section so I spent more time saying WHO??? than absorbing the information.
lexcro's review against another edition
2.5
Honestly, this book reads like the first draft got published. It has numerous grammatical errors (I know it's almost unavoidable for it to be imperfect, but there were more than a few errors). "Brain Eno" was one of my favorite mistakes. How did no one catch that? At least it was entertaining.
The paragraphs were long, jumbled, and had way too much information, a lot of it unnecessary or out of place, in my opinion. I got whiplash from trying to piece together what was trying to be said in many of them.
This brings me to my biggest complaint: the deadnaming of trans artists. With some artists, Bullock introduced them by their chosen name and referred to them with correct pronouns, but other artists he used their deadnames and incorrect pronouns until the very end of that particular artist's section. It felt really disrespectful, and he seemed to acknowledge their identity as an afterthought, which is extremely disappointing for an LGBT(QIA+) book.
The paragraphs were long, jumbled, and had way too much information, a lot of it unnecessary or out of place, in my opinion. I got whiplash from trying to piece together what was trying to be said in many of them.
This brings me to my biggest complaint: the deadnaming of trans artists. With some artists, Bullock introduced them by their chosen name and referred to them with correct pronouns, but other artists he used their deadnames and incorrect pronouns until the very end of that particular artist's section. It felt really disrespectful, and he seemed to acknowledge their identity as an afterthought, which is extremely disappointing for an LGBT(QIA+) book.
mschlat's review against another edition
2.0
Overall, I found this a very disappointing read. I think the idea of the book (tracing the influences and performers of LBGT music) is great, and the introduction --- with a big focus on Bowie's importance --- makes an excellent case for the exploration. I learned a lot, including the facts that Johnny Mathis and Leslie Gore were gay, the existence of Camp Records and gay novelty LPs, the support of African American communities in the 1920's for LBGT performers, and the differences between the Women's Music movement in the US (folk-based) and the UK (punk-based). There's a ton of information, much of it beyond what this straight reader knew about LBGT music.
However, the organization is often horrible. The first chapters, which focus on just one or two performers, have a better focus, but later chapters suffer from information overload and no narrative structure to give the reader any guidance. A common practice by Bullock is to spend one to two paragraphs on a subject, talk about the performer's contributions, say where they are now, and then repeat with very little transition. (You can even find some sentences which appear to change focus midway through.) There's very little clear connective tissue and an overabundance of personalities. The result is often confusing and feels shallow. I'm sure there are some fascinating stories and thematic explorations that can be written about LGBT music, but this wasn't it for me.
However, the organization is often horrible. The first chapters, which focus on just one or two performers, have a better focus, but later chapters suffer from information overload and no narrative structure to give the reader any guidance. A common practice by Bullock is to spend one to two paragraphs on a subject, talk about the performer's contributions, say where they are now, and then repeat with very little transition. (You can even find some sentences which appear to change focus midway through.) There's very little clear connective tissue and an overabundance of personalities. The result is often confusing and feels shallow. I'm sure there are some fascinating stories and thematic explorations that can be written about LGBT music, but this wasn't it for me.