Alex Chilton Biography: A Man Called Destruction

Found it...it's the Huffington Post review. For a book review, it's utter garbage.

Laura Chilton's comments were:

I'm Alex Chilton's widow. I'll tell you and whoever else cares to listen what his deal was. But first, let's clarify an important fact. Neither I, nor any of Alex's close friends who respected him, talked to Holly George Warren. Alex wasn't sad, tragic or a mess- this book is. Alex knew exactly who he was; he was comfortable with himself from a young age. He also was quick to observe and notice other people- how they think and behave. He reacted accordingly. Don't feel sorry for him. Feel sorry that this incomplete biography full of character assassination has been published. And for the record, Alex would never ever consider writing an autobiography. That fantasy of Ms. Warren's wasn't in his nature nor in his writings he left behind. If words were indeed spoken at the time about co-writing an autobiography, he was obviously having a laugh- at her. Holly George Warren is a music journalist, a species Alex abhorred, with good reason as her book demonstrates.

 

Yeah, I find it difficult to take literary opinion seriously from someone named Binky.

 

Ah the picture is becoming clearer now. Holly writes a sensationalized tell-all with no access to the subject's inner circle, and her pal Binky cheers her on while promoting himself in the name of a review.

I guess they've all got their fingers crossed for a Showtime telemovie deal LOL

 

Laura's been here on SH.tv airing her disapproval of the Big Star Third show also.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...ormance-june-30-nyc-free.318031/#post-8898074

 

Thanks for digging that up.

As for the review, at least I now know why adult men and women were sporting baby binkys in Memphis bars. That was always a bit of a head scratcher for me, admittedly.

 

I have the impression that some people thought they were Alex's friend if they had a conversation with him longer than 5 minutes. Interesting story in Ray Davies "Americana" book about Alex visiting during Ray's recuperation from being shot. The Doc says to Ray "you should have a friend around". Ray looks at Alex who sits there impassively. And this was a guy who was greatly enamored of the Kinks. So I think Alex's whole approach to relationships might have been somewhat unique.

 

You bring up a good point. If the real Alex was only known to 4 or 5 people, and the remainder of people who were, let's say, acquaintances of his, participate in the writing of the book, does the fact that none of them knew the real Alex mean that their thoughts are invalid? To my thinking, it presents a valid partial picture of the man. Parts of his life can be discussed with detail, perhaps, as how he reacted and interacted with people outside his close circle is certainly a valid topic.
But I guess the bigger issue is that the book presents half a picture as the whole picture. I doubt we will ever see any book from the wife or anyone else who knew him intimately for many years. And I think that many people would prefer that Alex remain an enigma forever, safe from the picklocks of biographers.

 

With all due respect, no book can be the "whole picture", and I don't think anyone makes that claim for the Holly book, including Holly herself.

I'm reminded of Clinton Heylin - one of Dylan's best biographers - and his response to an ex-girlfriend of Dylan's, who criticized him for doing a biography of Bob without having met the man (at the time, she was trying to pitch her own bio to publishers). His response, in part:

In my view, that applies here as well: if "the wife" did a book, it would probably be even less of the "whole picture" than what we have. Holly might not have been in the inner circle, but I'm not ready to dismiss her work because of it.

 

I haven't read the book, but going by the title "...Destruction..." and the widow refuting the author's portrayal of the subject's life as a "sad tragic mess" you really do have to question whether or not the author validly proves a thesis statement. This is central to good biography. Without it we're left to question whether or not Chilton was different or significant enough to warrant anything more than a career treatment. Nothing I've read about him or the book indicates that he was unique, or lived and died in an extraordinary way. Perhaps that's the very reason Alex Chilton himself wanted no part of autobiography or otherwise.

With that in mind, it looks like she's skating on thin ice, and had to rely on goosing whatever sensation she could discover or invent. To cash in on a name with some cred.

 

You do realize she lifted the title of the book from one of his albums, right?
And where in the book does Holly use the phrase "sad, tragic mess?"
I'm just asking. I have not read the book yet so I will reserve judgement until I do.

 

That's the widow's response: "Alex wasn't sad, tragic or a mess- this book is."

Now I don't necessarily go along with the idea that you have to interview all the principals in someone's life to do a good biography - the uniqueness of the subject should lay the groundwork - I also don't think the pastiche of gossip and conjecture (that passes for biography nowadays) is actually biography or worthwhile reading.

I won't be reading it until somebody clarifies how well she develops her thesis statement - if indeed she has one.

 

The "book review" was certainly more about Binky's brief encounter with Chilton than it was about the book itself. He even quotes himself from the book...and seemed more interested in telling us how his band were better live performers than Big Star...even to the point of supposedly making Jody Stephens envious.

He also bases his opinion of Chilton on one very short encounter...and only bothers to concentrate on parts of the book that align with his opinion of Chilton. He fails to even mention that Chilton spent the last 30 years of his life sober (with the exception of some pot smoking). But the truth is probably a bit too bothersome to address, when it's contrary to one's own personal agenda.

 

I am more than halfway thru the book and I think it is pretty good. Alex was a complex person, and he did seem to have a lot of negative periods in his life. No one close to a subject wants to hear bad things about their loved one. While I understand Laura's comments, would she expect not hear certain things? Tough route either way, but I do think the book is on the whole good.

 

Whoa, I just read the HuffPost article.
I can understand Laura's reaction. What purposeless drivel. Factually incorrect (Big Star formed in '73? And BTW, that's Ross Johnson who's primarily responsible for Baron of Love, not Chilton), condescending, snark masquerading as informed opinion, pulling out the "I was there too!" card, etc.
What a great bar companion this dude must be. Although I get the feeling "Binky" would just rather stay at home and marinate in his own bitter juices.
Barf.

 

Binky Phillips knows more about music and music history than most of us here combined. And being the leader of The Planets, the group that was apocryphally left in the contractual dust when WB signed Van Halen ("One guitar band is enough for now") he's lived to tell.

I also remember him as the nicest and most generous record store guy in the history of the breed.

He wrote a music blog post, not a book review, and he has a personal perspective to share. Respect.

 

Plus one to all of the above. I spent a lot of time gabbing with Binky at St. Mark's Sounds and CBGB and he is a major rock'n'roll fan (don't know how he feels about the sax). He is also totally sincere and hysterically funny. His post at Huffpo regarding the infamous Coventry in Queens is spot on. The Planets were one of the better early CBGB bands, and if he comes off a bit snarky, well, he's a New Yawker and that's part of the deal. Very cool guy.

 

Yeah, I was just teasing about taking literary criticism from someone named Binky, but, apparently, knowing a lot about music doesn't mean you know a lot about literature. I read Holly's book and I enjoyed it. I'm a huge Chilton fan and there were a bunch of little details in the book which I didn't know. That said, the problem of not speaking to any "real" insiders is most of the general information in the book is out there already in some form or another and the most mysterious part of his life, the last 20 years, or so, are brushed over quickly (as people have already mentioned). Maybe this is because Holly didn't have access to the people closest to Chilton during this period and the details that she DID have were probably less salacious than the earlier part of his career, therefore considered "boring" by whom the publisher and the author imagined to be the target audience: Big Star fans. Most Big Star fans aren't interested in Chilton's post-1990 work besides the Big Star reunion live shows, so that's the main focus of 1990-2010. I LOVE Chilton's albums of this period and was really looking forward to reading the stories behind those albums and why he chose to do what he did, but I was lucky if many of those albums were even mentioned, much less discussed in great detail.

I believe the use of his album title as the book title is more a symbolic reference to his general "destruction" of what most other people might consider valuable, but that's putting a negative spin on something actually rather positive. He chose to follow his muse wherever it led him instead of writing and recording the kind of music everybody seemed to want him to write and record, therefore he "destroyed" his ability to make more money off Big Star by returning to the power pop style for which he eventually became famous.

I agree with the other comment under the review that suggests the book's focus on his "self-destructive" tendencies presupposes that IF he could make more money and become more famous and successful and he CHOSE not to do so, then he self-sabotaged his career, as opposed to giving him credit for realizing what's important in life, valuing his integrity and staying true to himself. He built his career up and tore it down, only to rebuild it again over and over throughout his life so many times that the book could have, just as easily, been titled"Man Called Construction."

 

The controversy over all of this feels almost sadly fitting.... Another something in the story that didn't turn out quite the way it should have/hoped to. Thankfully, we have the music.

 

I would have loved to read some insight from Alex’ wife, but she didn’t want to be interviewed or participate in any manner. That’s fine, I don’t blame her at all for that. She doesn’t gain anything by revealing The True Alex and I can understand her exasperation/contempt for any book about her husband… she knew him in a way no writer can hope to.

But within the context of this forum let’s get real, shall we? We all LIKE a well-written music biography. All of us here are music nerds and have spent plenty of time reading the wit and wisdom of Music Critics. So Alex Chilton abhorred them, who gives a ****? His later career would not have existed without the music press, pure and simple.

Laura Chilton’s claim that none of his true friends spoke with the author may be true and the reasons for that may be altruistic. But maybe they just didn’t want to dish dirt on a guy they liked, faults and all. As it were, many of his ex-band-mates and studio buddies did give interviews and they shed a lot of light on his working methods and his personal character. There was a tremendous amount of respect expressed for Alex by those who were interviewed.

The book wasn’t about character assassination, that’s certainly not what I took away from it. He wasn’t always a Boy Scout and exhibited plenty of predictable pothead traits, but hey… Legalize It! He did remain enigmatic and that’s a testament to Warren, she didn’t try to fill-in the blanks.

 

Oh, I agree. I don't think the book was anything near a character assassination. Again, I enjoyed it. And, yes, I, like many of us, love me some rock music bios. I was actually really glad and surprised to hear anyone was writing a biography on Chilton at all. He really was not a huge popular rock star and remained a cult artist, despite his influence.

I thought Holly was very respectful and fair in the book. A biography should be filled with facts and this one was. If the facts of Chilton's life were sensational, then that's not Holly's fault. His life and career were really quite unique and his "story" is actually very interesting.

That said, as mentioned before, the book does focus on the "facts" from certain periods of Chilton's life much more than others. I assume this is because those are the periods Holly and the publishers felt would be the most interesting to the audience. You can't blame her/them for that. Again, this is only my assumption.

I wonder how people who have no interest in Chilton's music outside of Big Star feel about the book. Particularly people who actively dislike or are bored/terrified/confused by Chilton's post-Big Star solo material and felt letdown, album after album, hoping for more power pop only to met with rare soul, R&B, and jazz standards covers and new Chilton originals that SOUND like rare soul, R&B, and jazz standards covers. As a huge fan of Chilton's work from Big Star through his death, I was disappointed in the book's focus. It felt like the book started off really showing how Chilton's life drove the music that he made, how his life resulted in the music, but then it stopped that approach for his later years.

In the last part of the book, the solo albums he released from 1990-2010 are merely touchstones in between Big Star reunions, floods, "That 70's Show" themes, his influence on post-punk alternative acts and incidental fan run-ins - as if the music he was actually making at that time, itself, was no longer interesting enough to warrant the focus and a vignette-type narrative was needed. I don't imagine this was necessarily a conscious choice, but perhaps they instinctually decided since people seemed to be less interested, in general, about the music he was making during this period they wouldn't care so much about how and why he specifically made it. I, personally, was very interested in that.

I also feel like this lack of focus on the music Chilton was making when he finally was making the music he really wanted make, despite the financial/career incentives for caving in and recording "Big Star's Third Part II," is a bit of an insult to Chilton. It implies an agreement that the new music is of less value or less valid and/or warrants less attention, which would anger me, if I was Alex Chilton - or his wife. Those later solo albums are brimming with a love for what he was doing, as well as organic earthiness, spontaneity, coolness, effortless craftsmanship, positivity and fun. He meant them. No one records two decades of music out of ironic spite.

Unfortunately, the book, by not covering the music of these years of growing contentment and self-actualization in greater detail and with similar weight to his earlier work suggests all that work, itself, doesn't really matter to anyone as much as what happened to Big Star's legacy. It's all kinda summed up, like, "then Chilton finally found inner peace, became content, embraced his past with Big Star/Box Tops reunions, was revered by a generation of new musicians blah blah blah, and then died (oh, and somewhere in there he made a 6 or 7 albums). The End.

 

On the other hand, the book fills in much more of the post '85 comeback era than has ever been written up before, including how Alex's cover band stint in New Orleans inspired his oeuvre for the rest of his career, and how he hooked up with various musicians.

 

Hello,
Laura Chilton here. I value this forum because people here do think carefully and express their thoughts in an intelligent manner. I've read through this thread and agree with almost everything that's been said. It is an effort to think objectively about this biography for me, as it would be for anyone in my shoes. However, I can do that because I care passionately about history. If I'm reading history, I want it to be the truth or as close as possible to the truth. I want to clarify a few things. First, by stating that the book is full of character assassination, I am not only talking about Alex, but about other people in the book. Perhaps "character assassination" is a little harsh- HGW wasn't being malicious but she did bring up a lot of negative stuff about a lot of people in that book that may or may not be true. I could psychoanalyze her and come up with a pretty solid reason why she decided to take that approach personally but I will just focus on the "professional" reason for her approach: to sell books. Viking is a major publisher. Their purpose is to sell books and sensationalism is a surefire way to sell a biography, especially one where the author is a music journalist; not a music writer. There's a huge difference between the two. One subject interviewed was dismayed to find out that only negative things were said about her relationship with Alex when she had talked about positive aspects of the relationship as well with HGW. The positive was omitted and the negative highlighted. This is what I mean by character assassination.

My problem with this book, objectively speaking, is that it is simply an inadequate biography. It is severely incomplete which makes it an irresponsible biography. Just addressing the music aspect- most of his experiences from the 1980s on are missing or at best, get only a few sentences. Loads of musicians he liked and cared about suffer the same fate in this book- missing or just mentioned in a sentence. If this book had been only about the Box Tops and Big Star, his Memphis years, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it because that's where the strength lies; that's who talked to her. People from his Memphis years. Why not- "Alex Chilton: the Memphis Years." But no, she attempted to write a biography. You don't do that unless you have the whole person's life figured out. I find the incomplete biography reprehensibly irresponsible. This was a deal between HGW and Viking to cash in on a public figure's death. That can't be denied here. They even had the nerve to release it the same week of his death. Of course- promotion, gotta sell that book! So yes, I am angry about the irresponsibility and lack of sensitivity on both Viking and HGW's part.

The reason half his life is not covered in this book is because I and other close friends who really knew him decided not to talk to a music journalist. We knew Alex's opinion on that kind of writer. If a musicologist had approached me, I would have considered talking. After a decent period of time. Even if a writer I admired had approached me, I wouldn't have talked because I was still grieving. Grieving the death of your spouse takes time people. Lots of time, as in years. His close friends are in this same predicament. We're not ready ok? Another reason for a lot of people in his life who were excluded is that HGW is ignorant of them. These people did not get a phone call because she isn't aware of them. The final group of people who aren't in the book are various friends/musicians who HGW is aware of but for whatever reason, she didn't approach them. I don't know why. Maybe she suspected they wouldn't talk to her. At any rate, this book is a failure as a biography.

However, as a book on Alex's Memphis years, I consider it a success as far as sensational histories go. Everyone talked in Memphis! Mainly because they are proud of the Box Tops and Big Star, it is part of the city's heritage, identity, etc. That's understandable. They also talked there because, with the exception of a few people at Ardent, they all had lost touch with him including Lesa Aldredge. Those two hadn't talked in at least twenty five years! Same goes for everyone else from 70s/80s Memphis- none of them knew him after that time. The 60s people, from the Box Tops era, he did stay in touch with a little. However, none of them have any clue about his thoughts on music journalists. So what we have here is a pretty in depth book on his Memphis years (a musician in your 20s in the 70s? wild times guaranteed!) but not much else. When I read a biography on someone I admire, say a musician, I hope to not only read about the person's early years but also how they developed as a musician and a human being and what they contributed to the world AFTER they grew up. I am about to read a biography on Chet Baker and hope this is addressed. I saw the film on him, done by a fashion photographer, and I was disappointed. It was a good film stylistically. It got great reviews. But I didn't learn anything about Chet Baker as a musician so that film was worthless for me. I did see a five minute interview with him (Chet Baker) on Dutch TV where he says two or three things that sum him up perfectly as a musician- it's really best to hear what the musician says about themselves as a musician. By the way, the genealogy thing I find totally pointless. That was already done in Bruce Eaton's book and a friendship between the two men was ruined because of that. Alex did say about that book: "Other than the family history stuff, which was not meant to be included in the book, I thought it was a good book. He did a nice job covering the record and music." (paraphrasing but pretty close to original remark)

I won't be responding to anyone because I am done with thinking about all of this for the time being- I have my own life to think about. But I hope I've made sense and yes, hopefully, there will be something out there in the future that addresses Alex as a musician- a lot of beautiful stuff that will please his fans immensely I think. It's not going to be a biography. I don't think he is an appropriate subject for a traditional biography. But a more innovative approach could possibly work and portray him as a musician and a person in a satisfying and truthful manner.

 

Thanks for that Laura. You should give Cameron Crowe a jingle.

 

Thanks Laura. I actually thought my copy was missing pages or something at the final pages, ending so abruptly. You'd think someone at Viking would have been sensitive and wise enough to realize what kind of book Alex deserved... the book I think most of us here on the Forum would have preferred to read.

 

Thanks for your input, Laura. It's great to hear your comments, since it nicely sums up why the book is so weak when dealing with the later half of Alex's life and career.

While I know it may still be too soon to publish or release anything of your own, I wonder if perhaps any more music exists from the last decade or two that the fans haven't heard...perhaps some solo demos or working tapes that could give us greater insight into his writing process and his musical tastes, even if they are just boombox recordings. Having seen Alex perform a couple of times solo, with just an acoustic guitar, I really enjoyed hearing him perform this way.

So if someday you come across some demos (or other unreleased recordings) and find yourself thinking "I wonder if this is something his fans would want to hear," let me assure you the answer is a definite YES!