Cohn v. Miller
So, being a ways into Nik Cohn’s Awopbopaloppbop Alopbamboom, I still can’t decide how I feel about him. There are points where I absolutely love him: he is snarky and hilarious and so much fun to read, because he’s writing about what he lived, right after he lived it, and whether he loves what he’s talking about it or hates it, he’s going to punch you in the gut with what he’s saying. And really, to me, that puts him on the opposite end of the spectrum from James Miller. Miller is bitter, so bitter that he’s hard to read. And to me, Nik Cohn doesn’t have that. Is he controversial? Of course. Is he sick of the Beatles, and doesn’t like Bob Dylan? Sure. But he definitely has an opinion, and he’s going to share it.
One thing that was interesting to me about Cohn was the sheer amount of music that he covers. Where Miller only writes about a few artists, following the birth and (supposed) death of rock and roll, Cohn covers rock, pop, and even some soul music. He’s very talented at using the songs he discusses to illustrate a point. Miller, on the other hand, makes many, many points about each artist and song. I like that Cohn is young and writing, just after the peak of this huge musical frenzy, rather than waiting for a decade or two to publish his book.
One thing that I disliked about Cohn’s book is his seemingly interchangeable use of the terms “rock” and “pop”. To me, these are two entirely different concepts, not to be confused at all. Rock, in my mind, is hard and edgy and shakes you right down to your core. It means something. It isn’t always fun. Pop, on the other hand, is lighter, peppier, and while it doesn’t always have to be meaningless and silly, it certainly doesn’t have that charge that rock does. So how does he use them as the same idea? I have a lot of trouble reconciling that.