:00:20. > :00:27.Time for the review show now on BBC Two, with Jo Whiley.
:00:27. > :00:31.On the rock and roll ri view show tonight. Pete Townshend's
:00:31. > :00:36.autobiography. John Lennon's letters, and a biography of Mick
:00:36. > :00:40.Jagger. Do these books reveal anything new about 60s rock legends,
:00:40. > :00:47.now in their seventh decade. In an attempt to balance, we give air
:00:47. > :00:52.time to rock's sworn enemy, disco! Apparently, there is a subversive
:00:52. > :00:56.subtext beneath the flares, platforms and glitter balls. As the
:00:56. > :01:02.world's first record company, Columbia, acceptrates its 125th
:01:02. > :01:06.birth day. Do record labels still have a future in the age of digital.
:01:06. > :01:10.Finally music from ex-Strange letter, Hugh Cornwell, prepare to
:01:10. > :01:14.rock! Joining me tonight are the music
:01:14. > :01:21.critic, Kate Mossman, the writer and former record label boss, Palu
:01:21. > :01:25.Morley, and lead singer of Deacon Blue, Ricky Ross. When Bob Dylan
:01:25. > :01:30.released Chronicles, it set a new standard for the rock confessional.
:01:30. > :01:36.Keith Richards's autobiography, Life was a pretty stuff act to
:01:36. > :01:41.follow. Nevertheless, this summer has seen a bumper crop from Rod
:01:41. > :01:46.Stewart, Neil Young, Prince and Leonard Cohen. We have selected
:01:47. > :01:50.Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, and first up, John Lennon. John
:01:50. > :01:57.Lennon's letters have been compiled from numerous private collections
:01:57. > :02:01.to create a unique insite into the musician's mind. He was a prolific
:02:01. > :02:04.letter writer, it is chronological, thank you notes to fans in the
:02:04. > :02:09.early years, and letters declaring his undying love to his first wife,
:02:09. > :02:19.Cynthia. Other letters reveal his unease about his own fame and how
:02:19. > :02:36.
:02:36. > :02:41.Equally member memorable are the more acidic missives to Paul
:02:41. > :02:47.McCartney's wife Linda. I hope you realise what shit you and my other
:02:47. > :02:53.kind and unselfish friends have laid on me and Yoko have got until
:02:53. > :02:56.we got tolgt together. It might have been more subtle or middle-
:02:56. > :03:01.class, we rose above it at certain times, and forgave you. It is the
:03:01. > :03:08.least you can do for us. Linda if you don't care what I say, shut up,
:03:08. > :03:12.let Paul write, or whatever. Ricky, let's go to you first of all,
:03:12. > :03:17.did it reveal to you a side of John that you were previously unaware
:03:17. > :03:24.of? No, I don't think it went that far. I enjoyed the book, though, I
:03:25. > :03:28.have to say. I think, I'm of an age where The Beatles has meant
:03:28. > :03:32.everything. We are still such suckers that we want to know
:03:32. > :03:35.everything. I think it still charms you. You still open up and think
:03:35. > :03:38.wow, that is a letter from John. The thing that I found the most
:03:38. > :03:42.difficult thing about it, and the most frustrating thing about it is
:03:43. > :03:48.letters from John, but you don't get the letter that he received, or
:03:48. > :03:53.that he was replying to. So, in a sense, it is like someone on a
:03:53. > :03:56.train on the phone. You have got that sense of which you think, I
:03:56. > :04:03.would love to know what the reciprocol letter was like. There
:04:03. > :04:07.is one, isn't there, when there is a letter responding to lind da --
:04:07. > :04:11.Linda McCartney? That is the one there, it is a really interesting
:04:11. > :04:19.period. People will have a million psychological theories about John
:04:19. > :04:25.Lennon. He's fascinating, here is a man that signs his letters "John"
:04:25. > :04:29.and when he gets together with Yoko it is always John and Yoko. He goes
:04:29. > :04:33.crazy if anyone doesn't reply back to John and Yoko. That is one of
:04:33. > :04:39.the things that comes back to the book, he always seems to have to be
:04:39. > :04:42.part of a partnership, it is Lennon and McCartney, and then John and
:04:43. > :04:48.Yoko. Anything stood out for you? He was writing most of his letters
:04:48. > :04:52.because he was retired in the 70, he was writing letters to McCartney,
:04:52. > :04:57.the rants about apple, and all that. He was reconnecting with members of
:04:57. > :04:59.his family that he hadn't seen since a child. The letters to
:04:59. > :05:03.cousin Lelia there. Because you don't see the letter sent to him,
:05:03. > :05:09.you really feel for him. He's quite defensive but very patient. He's
:05:09. > :05:12.going, I really think it's a bit rich of you to criticise my diet,
:05:12. > :05:16.not taking drugs, and you are talking about a private life, and I
:05:16. > :05:20.don't have one, basically. But then it is really funny, there is this
:05:20. > :05:25.patience, and sort of methodical working out, I don't have a weak
:05:25. > :05:32.character. And then he will make reference reference to he's over
:05:32. > :05:38.his Primal Scream phase, apparently he had a phase in his therapy that
:05:38. > :05:45.he actually screamed at his relative, -- relatives, Aunt Me
:05:45. > :05:52.Before You. There are aspects in -- Aunt Mimi. There are aspects of his
:05:52. > :05:55.character that are quite bitchy? would love that, it did get a bit
:05:55. > :05:59.Harry Seecombe, and that, the whole idea of turning it into the gift
:05:59. > :06:03.book, it goes against what we think John Lennon about it. It is not so
:06:03. > :06:11.much letters in way, they are fragment, little bits and piece,
:06:11. > :06:21.issued to the milkman and the staff he had. He had already become he is
:06:21. > :06:21.
:06:21. > :06:25.Niles, he's asking the staff to fix the hi-fi. This is sanctioned and
:06:25. > :06:31.official, Lennon comes out weak, there is a softening of Lennon, it
:06:31. > :06:34.is for Paul McCartney. If I got given this as a gift from an aunt
:06:34. > :06:39.Mimi. I wouldn't want to open it. Did you learn anything from the
:06:39. > :06:43.shopping lists, there are a series of post-it notes z they need to be
:06:43. > :06:49.in there? You got a feeling that this is a man who would have loved
:06:49. > :06:54.e-mailing. He fifls in the questionaires? -- He fills in the
:06:54. > :06:57.questionaire. He has 10,000 letters and he plucks one out. He's trying
:06:57. > :07:02.to build a correspondence with these people, and he plucked them
:07:02. > :07:12.out of a bag, and he genuinely tries to have a correspondence. You
:07:12. > :07:16.get a sense of loneliness. Hunter Davies curating, I have read it is
:07:16. > :07:19.avuncular, but it seems distant. What you want is a more charged
:07:19. > :07:25.analysis of what was going on. To me it comes across as a series of
:07:25. > :07:29.foot notes to the ordinary image of John Lennon we already know.
:07:29. > :07:36.not sure we haven't had all that before. There has been an awful lot
:07:36. > :07:40.of desection about him. The other great thing about it is he can edit
:07:40. > :07:44.his past. He can't have any say on this, he's the one person. What is
:07:44. > :07:49.interesting is what percentage of the letters is it, we have no idea.
:07:49. > :07:55.About half a per cent. I think that's missing. You are right about
:07:55. > :07:59.the randomness of it, it could be half a per cent it could be 10%.
:07:59. > :08:03.is great when it is said he didn't keep any of the 60s letters, we
:08:03. > :08:08.didn't keep anything then. They are people who have already spent
:08:08. > :08:13.�10,000 as such on the letters, and then photo copied them. Which has a
:08:13. > :08:19.degraded quality as well. We have two other books we have to talk
:08:19. > :08:24.about. Don't unseal it. We go to the biography of Mick Jagger.
:08:24. > :08:28.At 600 page, Philip Norman's comprehensive biography depicts
:08:28. > :08:33.Jagger's life in meticulous detail. From his early days as a Kent
:08:33. > :08:38.schoolboy, through his rise as the rock God lead singer of the Stones,
:08:38. > :08:42.to his run-ins with the law and media, and succession to the ranks
:08:42. > :08:48.of establishment. Norman sets ja Jagger in a contemporary context,
:08:48. > :08:55.citing bands influenced by him, such as Black Eyed Peas, and Maroon
:08:55. > :09:01.5's Move Like Jagger. However, die hard fan also not be
:09:01. > :09:07.disappointed. With classic stories, such as the infamous 1969 drugs
:09:07. > :09:11.bust, alongside Marianne Faithful. "Mick and Marian often found
:09:11. > :09:16.themselves pariahs, in August they took the only break Mick seemed to
:09:16. > :09:20.need, flying to Ireland spending four days with the brewing head,
:09:20. > :09:25.Desmond Guinness. In Heathrow Airport they hadn't been arranging
:09:25. > :09:32.to meet a limo, so used a black taxi from the rank. The first two
:09:32. > :09:36.drivers they approached, refused to take them.
:09:36. > :09:40.". We have had Lennon in his own words, and Pete Townshend in a
:09:40. > :09:45.minute. What have we learned about the man portrayed by Philip Norman
:09:45. > :09:49.in this book? It is a funny story Keith Richards tells, in the phone
:09:49. > :09:55.calls in the laid 80s when they weren't talking very much. Keith,
:09:55. > :09:59.what were we doing in August 1968. Keith goes, you are writing a book,
:09:59. > :10:03.he goes, what makes you say that. Apparently he had to give the money
:10:03. > :10:10.back. This is the next best thing. It is a completely different story.
:10:10. > :10:15.It is a forensic reaction of Jagger to events in the Stones life, but
:10:15. > :10:19.no access to his feelings whatsoever. It is very meticulous,
:10:19. > :10:26.does it have any heart and soul, do you learn anything? It is like an
:10:26. > :10:29.autopsy, it is like a Mojo article, a very long one, I don't say that
:10:29. > :10:33.in a good way. It is an interesting period, between lived memory and
:10:33. > :10:35.recorded memory. These characters we have issued them forwards in a
:10:35. > :10:39.much more complicated and interesting way. There is something
:10:39. > :10:45.fascinating about the post-war period that these guys emerged into
:10:45. > :10:50.the 1960s and 1970s, and the fact we still keep going into the 80s
:10:50. > :10:54.and 90s and noughties. I wish with Dylan there will be a more
:10:54. > :10:57.impressionistic and staggering analysis of Jagger's position in
:10:57. > :11:00.pop culture and the emergance of pop culture, rather than this
:11:00. > :11:03.rather plodding, everybody's falling apart, there is another
:11:03. > :11:07.girlfriend. And again, a confirmation, in a way, of the
:11:07. > :11:11.story as we know. It is another gift book that shouldn't be read.
:11:11. > :11:16.imagine Jagger is happy because he doesn't want to give too much away.
:11:16. > :11:20.Keeps his emptiness and coldness, he will be pleased is given away.
:11:20. > :11:25.We have no idea. Did you have any idea after you interviewed him?
:11:25. > :11:31.this was in 1980s, the first questioned asked him, it wasn't a
:11:31. > :11:35.question, it was a statement "you are too old, give up". He He didn't
:11:35. > :11:40.take your advice. They all have a reverential quality, if if they are
:11:40. > :11:44.going to be iconic and transmit into the future, you need more
:11:44. > :11:51.sophisticated analysis, than this awful thing. By the end of the Mick
:11:51. > :11:54.Jagger book, it is like exerts from OK! Magazine. Dylan is a writer,
:11:54. > :11:59.Philip normal, it has a journalistic quality, it is
:11:59. > :12:04.thorough, he is missing out on ant opportunity to place Mick Jagger in
:12:04. > :12:07.a wider post-war context. Did it take you want to go out and listen
:12:07. > :12:12.to the Stones? That is a good question, does it do that?, no I
:12:12. > :12:15.don't think it does at all. I'm reminded of an incident in a
:12:15. > :12:19.holiday a couple of years ago, we were all with another family
:12:19. > :12:23.reading the Obama book. My wife lent it to her friend, and the
:12:23. > :12:27.friend said, don't tell me how it ends. Paul's right, you know
:12:27. > :12:33.exactly where it is going, it starts at the childhood and ends up
:12:33. > :12:37.in the last few minutes, whatever. I just think, it has to be better
:12:37. > :12:42.than that. They deserve better, than that linear plod. It is
:12:42. > :12:46.interesting how he positioned himself in the counter culture in
:12:46. > :12:50.the 60s, he was court bid the Harold Wilson Government in the way
:12:50. > :12:54.that Noel Gallagher was courted by Tony Blair. He's good as explaining
:12:55. > :13:00.how carefully he sided with Labour, without ever becoming involved in
:13:00. > :13:08.politics. He's good on the late 60s. Did it make you wish you lived
:13:08. > :13:12.through the times? No. It made a lot of it, if you get invited to
:13:12. > :13:17.march next to Vanessa red grave in the square and he said he didn't
:13:17. > :13:21.feel like it. I did feel real respect for him not getting
:13:21. > :13:26.involved in it. I like the fact that he kept his aloofness or
:13:26. > :13:31.didn't want to tell the story. He's saying let the music do its job. I
:13:31. > :13:34.think full marks to Mick for that. I think there is a sense that other
:13:34. > :13:37.things combine to make Mick Jagger, including the audience, the culture
:13:37. > :13:42.at the time, and everything going on. Once you strip all that away,
:13:42. > :13:47.and by the end you have done, you are left with a fairly ordinary
:13:47. > :13:51.bloke, if he hasn't anyone pimping up his image he's pretty ordinary.
:13:51. > :13:54.I don't want to think that. They need to make it more damaging
:13:54. > :14:03.rather than soothing and consoling. More about Pete Townshend now, in
:14:03. > :14:07.his own words, this time. It has taken 16 years for Pete
:14:07. > :14:11.Townshend if inish his autobiography, Who I Am. It covers
:14:11. > :14:16.his whole life, beginning with the child, his parents farmed him out
:14:16. > :14:21.to his erratic grandmother, and unsuitable visitors. Then the art
:14:21. > :14:27.school student who reluctantly joined The Who, the band who became
:14:27. > :14:34.the defining sound for a generation of Mods. He uses the book to set
:14:34. > :14:40.the record straight on his 2003 Nadir, when arrested on child
:14:40. > :14:44.pornography charges. According to the front page of the Daily Mail, a
:14:45. > :14:51.nameless millionaire rock star by starrists was in the list of names
:14:51. > :14:54.sent to operation Orr, that will be me then, I said.
:14:54. > :14:58.Of the three books we are discussing here, it is from the
:14:58. > :15:02.heart, in his own words. It took him 16 years to write the book, to
:15:02. > :15:07.the point where he wanted to write the book. Do you have sympathy for
:15:07. > :15:12.the man. Is it personal? Sympathy for Pete Townshend? I feel the same
:15:12. > :15:18.way, it has this awful, dreadful, dreary, linear quality to it. You
:15:18. > :15:21.wish in a way there had been an understanding that what was most
:15:21. > :15:25.interesting about Pete Townshend in The Who. He hinted early on, it is
:15:26. > :15:29.the idea that they are artist who happened to use music, that is the
:15:29. > :15:33.way artists expressed themselves in the 60s. That throws up interesting
:15:33. > :15:38.possibility lts. You get a sense of the people d possiblities. You get
:15:38. > :15:42.the sense of the people around him -- the people of possibility. You
:15:42. > :15:47.get the sense of the people around him, it is the whole superstructure,
:15:48. > :15:51.including record labels, audiences and managers. Townshend has such an
:15:51. > :15:53.interesting mind, I wish there was more of that. It settles down that
:15:53. > :15:57.it has to come up-to-date. I don't know why. Setting the record
:15:57. > :16:01.straight, as soon as you say that phrase, this is awful. What is that
:16:01. > :16:04.about, setting the record straight. It becomes, unfortunately, rather
:16:04. > :16:09.than an interesting piece of writing about an interesting mind.
:16:09. > :16:12.It becomes yet another gift book, and up-to-date chronology of Pete
:16:12. > :16:16.Townshend, here is the girlfriend. You are not taking all the books
:16:16. > :16:20.for the Christmas list, that is not happening? I will be getting them
:16:20. > :16:24.for Christmas! Did you warm to him some more? Imagine reading this on
:16:24. > :16:28.Christmas Day, some of the darkest things I have ever read. The thing
:16:28. > :16:34.that haunted me about it was the information gaps that connect to
:16:34. > :16:37.the childhood, he believes he was abused. This, I think the
:16:37. > :16:40.methodical piecing together of his history may be something to do with
:16:40. > :16:43.him trying to make sense of stuff. So much of the book is given over
:16:43. > :16:47.to his childhood. There is a chilling book which, he didn't
:16:47. > :16:51.explain, he still wake up in the mid-of the night in a rage, because
:16:51. > :16:58.his bedroom door was not locked at night. He doesn't explain what that
:16:58. > :17:01.means. There is a whole story there. Does it infuriate to you? No, it
:17:01. > :17:05.just makes me think it is a troubled person who had to become a
:17:05. > :17:09.rocks star, because he was extreme -- rock star, because he was
:17:09. > :17:12.extremely lonely and all over the place and it makes so much sense
:17:12. > :17:18.why he picked up a guitar. What was interesting about all the books is
:17:18. > :17:23.these people are not just the 60s, these people are war babies. It is
:17:23. > :17:26.the war, that is the key. It is big bands. It is reacting to the
:17:26. > :17:29.situation they find themselves in. They are all very lonely and they
:17:29. > :17:34.need a mate. As soon as they have a mate it cause conflict. They buy
:17:34. > :17:39.him a dog, and then they destroy it. He says I'm sure they destroyed it.
:17:39. > :17:43.Did you enjoy the book? No I didn't. For what reason? I certainly didn't
:17:43. > :17:49.think he came out of it very well. If the idea that you want to go
:17:49. > :17:54.back, I love The Who, I travelled from my home town to see The Who in
:17:54. > :17:59.Glasgow, 1976. I tell you, I also think that it is a lot about Pete,
:17:59. > :18:04.not enough about Roger, it is all about what Pete did. Pete taught
:18:04. > :18:07.Jimi Hendrix. It is his book. Do you need to know that about Roger?
:18:07. > :18:12.I told Jimi Hendrix this, it is a lot of that. The central problem in
:18:12. > :18:16.the book is what you said in the introduction. Bob Dylan has written
:18:16. > :18:20.the greatest autobiography ever, in terms of rock music. I think if you
:18:20. > :18:25.are not going to step up to that plate, don't get involved in it.
:18:26. > :18:29.I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Bob Dylan is a writer. What it does
:18:29. > :18:34.is indicate there is a market. And so they are really gift book, that
:18:34. > :18:37.is fine. They are gift book, but the idea, for instance, if somebody
:18:37. > :18:44.more -- if some of the more interesting bits, talking about I
:18:44. > :18:47.Can See For Miles, and how some composer gets in touch and
:18:47. > :18:52.congratulates on the harmony. There is breaking out of the idea of a
:18:52. > :18:56.rocker, into the great artist and musician and composer. He has to
:18:56. > :19:02.justify. That he has a whole thing about being editor at Faber and
:19:02. > :19:08.Faber. There is a lot of bigging himself up. He talks about being
:19:08. > :19:11.haunted by orchestra music. People expect him to be funny. A true icon
:19:11. > :19:15.is a withdrawal of some of that reverential approach we have to
:19:15. > :19:18.these people. Scrub it out and start again and see if they can
:19:18. > :19:21.survive into the 21st century with those images. All they have is the
:19:21. > :19:24.photographs. All you need for the Jagger book is look at the
:19:24. > :19:28.photographs, that is worth the 600 pages.
:19:28. > :19:36.The fact that we are still reading and talking about musicians who
:19:36. > :19:40.shot to fame in the early 60s would amaze the younger selves. A number
:19:40. > :19:45.of ageing rockers have looked at interesting ways to celebrate 50
:19:45. > :19:48.years in the business. 50 years after the first gig at
:19:48. > :19:51.London's Marquee Club, the Rolling Stones career was commemorated in
:19:51. > :19:55.the documentary, Crossfire Hurricane. The group embarks on a
:19:55. > :20:05.series of concerts later this month. Many fans have balked at the ticket
:20:05. > :20:10.
:20:10. > :20:16.# Please Love Me Do It is half a century since the
:20:16. > :20:26.release of Love Me Do. But the remaining The Beatless celebrated
:20:26. > :20:26.
:20:26. > :20:32.quietly by reissuing their backcatalogue on vinyl.
:20:32. > :20:41.Since I saw her standing there Stkpwhrk five decades on from his
:20:41. > :20:48.debut, Bob Dylan proved he's still forever young, with Tempest, which
:20:48. > :20:51.kept the critics happy. # Listen to the Dunquesne Whistle
:20:51. > :20:56.blowing The Beach Boys also commemorated
:20:56. > :21:00.their half century, by urenewting for a new album and tour. Which
:21:00. > :21:05.earned the group a mere $5 million. While some of rock's biggest names
:21:05. > :21:09.may be long in the tooth, they are proving they can keep going in this
:21:09. > :21:12.traditionally youthful business. But in ten years time, will the
:21:12. > :21:16.Stones be celebrating six decades in rock. And will Dylan still be
:21:16. > :21:26.gigging into his 80s. And which of today's acts could aspire to enjoy
:21:26. > :21:29.such a long and successful career in the music industry.
:21:29. > :21:33.Ricky. You have just recorded a new album, and you have been touring,
:21:33. > :21:38.you have got tours still going on up until Christmas. Can you imagine
:21:38. > :21:42.yourself, at the age of 69, 70, still making music, you went away
:21:42. > :21:47.and come back, and you are enjoying it? Absolutely enjoying it. The
:21:47. > :21:50.honest answer is, I don't think you start off with that idea. I read,
:21:50. > :21:55.and I'm going to answer your question, I read an interesting
:21:55. > :22:02.review of one of the X Factor guise, it might have been Olly Murs, going
:22:02. > :22:07.a gig, he announced to the audience, I want a 25-year career. I think,
:22:08. > :22:12.well, you have damned yourself by your own, you don't think that way.
:22:12. > :22:16.Whoever you are, weather you like my music or anybody else's, all of
:22:16. > :22:18.us who are song writers and artist, you don't think that way. I
:22:18. > :22:22.remember being interviewed in the record company, and they were
:22:22. > :22:26.sitting on the setee, there was a Japanese television thing, I said
:22:26. > :22:29.we will do three albums and break up. They were nervous. You can't
:22:29. > :22:33.think beyond that. It is just a statement, it means nothing.
:22:33. > :22:39.want to do the next thing as well. You just don't think that way.
:22:39. > :22:43.you think that, bands like the Stones and The Beach Boys, should
:22:43. > :22:47.they keep going? If they are fit enough to. The other thing that
:22:47. > :22:50.people find fascinating and odd about Jagger, he's so fit, non-
:22:50. > :22:54.addictive character, very good shape. He will be going in ten
:22:54. > :22:57.years time, I'm sure. The other thing is there is always another
:22:57. > :23:02.generation of rock band to take over. I was at an awards do, we
:23:02. > :23:06.were amazed to be in the presence of Pulp and Blur, the grey beards
:23:06. > :23:11.of rock. It is ten years ago you would be thinking those things from
:23:11. > :23:14.the 1990. It depends ideolgically as well. In the late 1970s there
:23:14. > :23:19.was a clear attempt to get rid of these people. For a moment we did
:23:19. > :23:26.get rid of them. It was glorious, you remember Eric Clapton returning
:23:26. > :23:29.in 1982 and it was depressing. No more The Beatless and no more
:23:30. > :23:37.Stones, things move very quick low and you move forward. They all
:23:37. > :23:42.flopped -- Very quickly and you move forward. They all flopped in
:23:42. > :23:44.the 80s. Everything happens very quickly, the home and the
:23:44. > :23:49.structures being everything. At the moment we are clinging on to our
:23:49. > :23:52.home, these kind of things. Nostalgia is playing a big part?
:23:52. > :23:58.is home and comforting and a panic about what happens when they go
:23:58. > :24:03.away. In the end, Jagger, and to an extent The Who and McCartney, they
:24:03. > :24:10.are vaurd villain acts, -- vaudevillian acts, who will stop
:24:10. > :24:15.them, there was something very thrilling, they are performers, in
:24:15. > :24:19.the 60s you isn't is remarkable that Keith and Mick meet on stage
:24:19. > :24:23.like it is a beautiful moment and they haven't metaphor years. It is
:24:23. > :24:31.Bruce Forsyth rather than rock 'n' roll. Do you want new material?
:24:31. > :24:35.certainly do. I think one of the nice things about it is
:24:35. > :24:39.particularly in the Jagger is how much black music they supported.
:24:39. > :24:43.Paul is right be some of these things, in fairness to Eric Clapton,
:24:43. > :24:47.a lot of us wouldn't know about these musicians. The interesting
:24:47. > :24:51.thing about these gold guy, all these guys that used to come over
:24:51. > :24:55.to Britain, they were in their dotage coming over here. In a sense,
:24:55. > :24:59.there is that tradition of folk musicians and blues musicians and
:24:59. > :25:03.root musicians, being older. And I don't see if the music's good, I
:25:03. > :25:06.don't see any problem with it. There is a freshness within they
:25:06. > :25:10.did it originally, that is impossible to recreate now it is a
:25:10. > :25:16.glut, we are surrounded by a glut. Now people want to see them so they
:25:16. > :25:21.can say they saw them. As with the Stone Roses? It is a landmark, it
:25:21. > :25:25.is the Statue of Liberty, it is something you tick off. A musical
:25:26. > :25:28.movement that once seemed the antithesis of everything rock stood
:25:28. > :25:35.for, The Secret Disco Revolution got its film premier at the London
:25:35. > :25:40.Film Festival a few week ago. It is a revisionist history of a much
:25:40. > :25:47.maligned genre. You will recognise the songs but you may be surprised
:25:47. > :25:53.by the subtext this distoementry reveals. Think about Donna Summer
:25:53. > :25:59.Love To Love You Baby. It becomes the feminist critque of three-
:25:59. > :26:03.minute steps. Academic theory is added to the rich documentary. The
:26:03. > :26:09.Secret Disco Revolution uncovers the genre's hidden history as a
:26:09. > :26:17.refuge for marginalised communities. Saying disco liberated women and
:26:17. > :26:23.black and gay people from a world dominated by Whiterock. Studio 54
:26:23. > :26:27.became the epicentre of the disco beat. I loved in Studio everybody
:26:27. > :26:31.partied together, nobody judged anybody, everyone was there to have
:26:31. > :26:34.a good time. The powder room was really the powder room, I thought
:26:34. > :26:39.it was for the ladies. People doing their thing all over the place,
:26:39. > :26:46.having a good old time. Disco hit New York in theed middle
:26:46. > :26:51.of an economic downturn, at the time of a detrialisation and
:26:51. > :26:55.resurgent feminism. Grungey leather jackets were replaced by high rise
:26:55. > :26:58.boots and volume luminous flares and disco ball. Gloria Gaynor,
:26:58. > :27:02.Thelma Houston and The Village People, bring a firsthand
:27:02. > :27:07.perspective to the narrative. Which doesn't always tally with the
:27:07. > :27:11.thesis. Was disco really a force for liberation, or simply a
:27:11. > :27:17.celebration of hedonism. It is important to remember this
:27:17. > :27:27.was the era of the female orgasam, that is why there was the
:27:27. > :27:27.
:27:27. > :27:32.outpouring of concern about the big # I love to love you baby
:27:32. > :27:36.Amazing scenes there, should we just say that, to start off with.
:27:36. > :27:40.Does the theory to the film hold any water, do you think? It is such
:27:40. > :27:44.a funny film. It is like he set out to make a revisionist history. He
:27:44. > :27:47.assembles all the critics and they say very intelligent things. And
:27:47. > :27:51.then they say disco was all about the high hat. There were obviously,
:27:51. > :27:55.the weirdist bit of all, you don't want to ruin the plot of the film.
:27:55. > :27:59.When he interviews The Village People, and the producers who
:27:59. > :28:03.conceived YMCA, the difference in their opinions about what the song
:28:03. > :28:07.of. That is The Village People? They are still with the leathers
:28:07. > :28:11.and doing the whole act. They contradict each other? The producer
:28:11. > :28:14.is saying we conceived this as a liberation song for gay people. And
:28:14. > :28:17.interviews The Village People, they go, I don't know what you are
:28:17. > :28:21.talking about. Half of you are gay, this is very strange. The music,
:28:21. > :28:26.when you are watching it, does it stand the test of time? I think so,
:28:26. > :28:31.there is a lot of great music in disco music. Definitely. I'm not a
:28:31. > :28:36.personal who 0 is dancing, but I bought Donna Summer's greatest hits.
:28:36. > :28:44.I loved, even Champagne King, who is mentioned at the end. These were
:28:44. > :28:50.time, I think, Paul was talking earlier on, the post-punk era, you
:28:50. > :28:54.went to the record store and bought 12 muchs and EPs, I liked a -- 12
:28:54. > :29:00.inches and EPs. I liked the film. I didn't like the clunky device, I
:29:00. > :29:05.don't know who thought it up, they had a liberated woman, a gayman and
:29:05. > :29:10.a -- a gay man and black person. They are like superhero crusaders?
:29:10. > :29:14.I bought the idea, I liked the idea. The narration is very arch, I'm not
:29:14. > :29:17.sure that works? What I liked about it t the guy who made the film, at
:29:17. > :29:23.the end allows himself to be kind of ridiculed a little bit by people
:29:24. > :29:27.going, yeah, he reads too much big book. Absolutely infuriating film.
:29:27. > :29:33.The theory theself is not new at all. Because the whole point, if
:29:33. > :29:36.you go back to Philadelphia Record in the early 670s there was a --
:29:36. > :29:40.07s, there was a definite political idea about what they were doing
:29:40. > :29:45.about liberating black music and repairing and confirming all sorts
:29:45. > :29:50.of relationships across cultural divides, that was the point. It got
:29:50. > :29:54.whiteened and corporatised by the time of Saturday night fever. And
:29:54. > :29:57.Ethel Merman doing disco and the Muppets. It can't take itself
:29:57. > :30:01.serious enough to be serious about the idea. But there was a lot of
:30:01. > :30:06.innovations in that whole period of what was and ended up being disco
:30:07. > :30:14.music, and rebranded theself as house, and the whole pop world as
:30:14. > :30:18.it is now. It pretends it disappears, but it doesn't, it
:30:18. > :30:22.rebrands itself. The narrative it uses, and setting up the poor
:30:22. > :30:26.academic to make her claims about the genuinely interesting idea of
:30:26. > :30:31.the sub-culture and knocking her back interviewing the artist about
:30:31. > :30:36.it. It is like interviewing the beans inside the tin and asking
:30:36. > :30:39.them about Heinz. You are not supposed to do that. It was the
:30:39. > :30:43.contextualising of the music that didn't come from the artists.
:30:43. > :30:47.seemed heart done by? Because one of the wonderful things is they
:30:47. > :30:51.have to go around the world for 45 years singing one song. They were
:30:51. > :30:56.not artist, they were merely the transmitters of some very great
:30:56. > :31:03.ideas. We see the role of the producer in the film. That was one
:31:03. > :31:08.thing that was interesting? Molton invented the idea of the 12
:31:08. > :31:14.inch and creating music, and it gets buried, the whole truth about
:31:14. > :31:19.exploring this in an exciting imaginative way, gets buried.
:31:19. > :31:23.Bringing records into the charts from the club, the DJs having to
:31:23. > :31:28.play them even if they didn't want to. The mass burning of disco
:31:28. > :31:33.records, was it in San Francisco. What happened after the burning of
:31:33. > :31:35.the records? In a way it got rebranded, if you think about Blue
:31:35. > :31:39.Monday and the Pet Shop Boys, you are seeing something not talked
:31:39. > :31:42.about at all, suddenly rock and dance did actually come together in
:31:42. > :31:44.a rather wonderful fusion that created some of the most
:31:45. > :31:50.interesting things in the 80s. He doesn't want to deal with any of
:31:50. > :31:54.that. Or the way that disco was rebranded instantly as house, and
:31:54. > :31:59.became some of the most interesting and innovative electronic music of
:31:59. > :32:03.the 80s. It turned it into a joke. Which is one of the many reasons it
:32:03. > :32:07.is infuriating. That is the wore, you look infuriated? It is like
:32:07. > :32:09.amnesia, we go through so many turns, as with Jagger and Lennon,
:32:09. > :32:13.we have to start again. There has to come a moment when we accept
:32:13. > :32:17.there are younger people and they might not know the story yet, and
:32:17. > :32:20.it is up to them to find out and keep moving forward with the way we
:32:20. > :32:25.tell the story, rather than going backwards and starting again. It is
:32:25. > :32:32.not good enough. I do agree with you. The establishment of Fabricio
:32:32. > :32:36.Coloccini dates back to the beginning of recorded sound -- cull
:32:36. > :32:43.Columbia Records dates back to the beginning of recorded sound. It is
:32:43. > :32:47.also a pioneer of what was then called "race music".
:32:47. > :32:53.# I wish to see # The evening sun
:32:53. > :32:59.# Go down. Columbia championed black artists in the early 20th
:32:59. > :33:04.century. At a time of racial segregation, it gave performers
:33:04. > :33:12.like Bessie Smith and others a chance. It went on to showcase many
:33:12. > :33:21.of the biggest names in jazz, Duke Ellington and Miles Davis, Kindp of
:33:21. > :33:23.Blue is one of the best-selling jazz albums of all time.
:33:23. > :33:27.Leonard Bernstein, Barbara Streisand, Bob Dylan and Bruce
:33:27. > :33:33.Springsteen, have all been Columbia artists. Recently the label has
:33:33. > :33:39.done very nicely out of Adele's multiplatinum albums, released by
:33:40. > :33:41.Columbia in the state, through a deal with the singer's UK label
:33:41. > :33:44.Excel. # Don't forget me
:33:44. > :33:49.# I being # I remember you --
:33:49. > :33:54.# I beg. It is one of the small label that
:33:54. > :34:01.is now give the big ones a run for their money. Last week's Mercury
:34:01. > :34:06.Prize winners, Alt-J are also on an indie label, Infectious. Now EMI is
:34:06. > :34:10.part of the international conglomerate, Universal Music, many
:34:10. > :34:13.prefer a smaller scale. Before Columbia reaches another milestone,
:34:13. > :34:17.will the Internet have killed off the traditional record company, or
:34:17. > :34:21.is there still a place for the label, even when there is nothing
:34:21. > :34:26.to stick it on. The story of Columbia, wonderful
:34:26. > :34:31.photographs, and documentation of the history of the label and music,
:34:31. > :34:37.do labels exist now that have the same kudos and credibility that
:34:37. > :34:45.Columbia did in the past? You have the indie labels doing well, like
:34:45. > :34:50.Rough Trade. Interesting to see Columbia made grammar phone, and
:34:50. > :34:53.the records were -- gramophone, and the records were there. If you look
:34:53. > :34:56.at HMV, they are selling the stuff you listen to music on because they
:34:56. > :35:00.are not selling records any more. It is a very interesting time. We
:35:00. > :35:05.don't know how to make money from recorded music. These labels were
:35:05. > :35:08.pioneer, let's make a waxing and see what we can. Do but the primary
:35:08. > :35:12.object is the gramophone. It is a fascinating time. We don't know
:35:12. > :35:15.what is going to happen. You were signed to Columbia, what was the
:35:15. > :35:20.attraction? It was the label. You grew up with that label, if you had
:35:20. > :35:23.Bob Dylan records, and you had Simon and gar funkle, and Bruce
:35:23. > :35:26.Springsteen records, part of the thing is you went from meeting with
:35:26. > :35:30.a lawyer, who said it is not the best deal, you think I don't care,
:35:30. > :35:38.I want that label in the middle. Now that label doesn't really exist.
:35:38. > :35:41.In fairness, one of the things that the Columbia did in the 1990, I
:35:41. > :35:45.remember meeting Don about bringing the label on toe the CD. I don't
:35:45. > :35:53.know if it was his big idea, I bought it at the time. It was a
:35:54. > :35:57.good idea, it got the link to the past. There is a great story there.
:35:57. > :36:02.From the book, you know from the recent stuff it is pretty skimpy.
:36:02. > :36:05.All the information. If you go back and read the 30s stories, it will
:36:05. > :36:08.make you find out more. You seek out the records. What is the
:36:08. > :36:17.benefit of being on a label, from your point of view, would you
:36:17. > :36:23.rather be on a major, or a -- doing it the ind dough way? Where you do
:36:23. > :36:26.you want to start -- Indie way? Where do you want to start. I like
:36:26. > :36:29.having someone to blame. What you notice from this is there is no
:36:29. > :36:33.difference between a major and an indie ultimately, they are a bunch
:36:33. > :36:37.of people that really love their music that want to transmit it. I
:36:37. > :36:41.think the history of pop music can be told through record labels. The
:36:41. > :36:47.record labels reached a point we will all reach, which is the
:36:47. > :36:49.dismantling of structure. They got there first, that is why they will
:36:49. > :36:54.disintegrate, we will all disintegrate in the same way.
:36:54. > :36:58.Whatever still exists it will take an extraordinary amount of
:36:59. > :37:05.imagination to make the label and replace the society we have lost.
:37:05. > :37:09.It is a metaphor for everything we see. They thought the label was
:37:09. > :37:13.over with the radio? There was always the solid object. This one
:37:13. > :37:19.is more disturbing, it is the removal of the things all labels
:37:19. > :37:24.did so well, which is make the context for the music, the
:37:24. > :37:29.packaging, the photographs, the meaning of music. That has gone.
:37:29. > :37:32.there a benefit of major labels? Really we should all get together
:37:33. > :37:36.as a revolution and audience and demand the return of these
:37:36. > :37:38.structure, without them things do disappear. As much as we might
:37:39. > :37:42.become machines, that is a different society all together. The
:37:42. > :37:46.thing we liked the most was the idea of the structure, they have
:37:46. > :37:50.been removed, oddly enough, by people replacing them with machines.
:37:50. > :37:54.We get more excited by buying a machine, we cues today queue for a
:37:54. > :37:58.new single, now it is the machine. There is more freedom to set up the
:37:58. > :38:01.label before, it might last a week a you may never make any money from
:38:01. > :38:06.it. It is a 20th century thing, there is nothing wrong with, that
:38:06. > :38:10.we are going through a weird period. It is like evolution? In the 19th
:38:10. > :38:16.century there was no such thing, things change! You were in
:38:16. > :38:23.agreement with Paul? It feels like 100 had you years. It is about 1903
:38:23. > :38:25.-- 100 years, it it was about 1903 where they leased their first
:38:25. > :38:30.gramophone. We are already nostalgic about it, we will always
:38:30. > :38:35.make music, but not necessarily with the great producers and in
:38:35. > :38:38.great studios. I think the moment of truth will be Bob Dylan's last
:38:38. > :38:41.sound. It all comes back to Bob Dylan in end. Thank you very much
:38:42. > :38:46.indeed. Earlier this year if you were accosted with stranger and
:38:47. > :38:53.given a free copy of Pride and Prejudice, it wasn't a literary
:38:53. > :38:59.mugging, it was world book week. Volunteers set to the streets again
:38:59. > :39:03.to give away free books. Now in its third year, World Book Night is a
:39:03. > :39:07.celebration of the art of reading, it encourages people to read by
:39:07. > :39:11.giving books to the harder to reach communities. Co-founder Julia
:39:11. > :39:14.Kingsford is spearheading this year's project to hand over one
:39:14. > :39:18.million books.. There are too many people in this country who never
:39:18. > :39:25.had somebody, a friend, parent or teacher, whoever it was in their
:39:25. > :39:29.lives, put a book into their hands and say this one is amazing, you
:39:29. > :39:33.absolutely have to read T we are looking for 20,000 volunteer, the
:39:33. > :39:37.sign up process has begun. We produce hundreds of thousands of
:39:37. > :39:41.copies of the specially-select books and distribute them to the
:39:41. > :39:44.volunteer, and put them out into the communities to people who don't
:39:44. > :39:48.regularly read to celebrate reading. You have to give personal details
:39:48. > :39:53.so we can contact you. Most importantly tell us why you want to
:39:53. > :39:57.give these books away, who you want to give them to, and where you want
:39:57. > :40:00.to give them. You have to choose one of our 20 books you want to
:40:01. > :40:05.champion. This year's titles include Ian Fleming's Casino Royal,
:40:05. > :40:10.singled out for being thrilling, sexy but brutal and Me Before You
:40:10. > :40:14.poi David Moyes, described as beautiful but truly heart-breaking.
:40:14. > :40:20.With hundreds of events planned up and down the country, World Book
:40:20. > :40:23.Night is set to take place on 23 of April, sharing the date with
:40:23. > :40:32.Shakespeare's birthday. If you want to see the full list of Bocas and
:40:32. > :40:37.details of how to apply, there is a link on our web page. My thanks
:40:37. > :40:41.Paul Morley, Ricky Ross and Kate Mossman. The musical theme now
:40:41. > :40:47.continues on this channel. A little later on Jools Holland will be on
:40:47. > :40:53.and his guests are Soundgarden and Two Door Cinema Club. Now music of
:40:53. > :40:57.our own. We leave you with Hugh Cornwell, lead singer of scat the
:40:57. > :41:07.Strange letters, and he has a new album out. He's going to sing
:41:07. > :41:15.
:41:15. > :41:19.tonight Totem and Taboo. Hugh Cornwell from the --
:41:19. > :41:21.Stranglers. # Every day I wake up feeling
:41:21. > :41:24.better # Than I ever did
:41:24. > :41:28.# Opened up the mailbox # There is a letter
:41:28. > :41:32.# When I am it's read # I'm up and out the door
:41:32. > :41:36.# Walking out the street # I'm a in no hurry
:41:36. > :41:39.# I see a lot of people on the run # I ain't got a problem
:41:39. > :41:44.# With your anger # I hope you get around to
:41:44. > :41:53.# Having fun # What's totem to me
:41:53. > :41:58.# Is totem for you # Just listen to me
:41:58. > :42:01.# Am I getting through # Once I was a rebel
:42:01. > :42:05.# With an answer # I shoved it in your mouth
:42:05. > :42:09.# Without a spoon # And then I realised that
:42:09. > :42:13.# Ain't no answer # Juts a lot of problems
:42:13. > :42:18.# In the room # I took a pill and dropped
:42:18. > :42:23.# Right off the radar # Thought I could find peace
:42:23. > :42:28.# And greener grass # I then got woken up
:42:28. > :42:35.# Two decades later # What's totem to me
:42:35. > :42:45.# Is taboo for you # Just listen to me
:42:45. > :43:21.
:43:21. > :43:24.# There is a lot of lonely # Inus
:43:24. > :43:27.# I would really like to know what makes you tick
:43:27. > :43:36.# I wish I had the secret to happiness
:43:36. > :43:41.# I could lead it out # And heal
:43:41. > :43:45.# Keep on walking # Blaming on God or just pretend
:43:45. > :43:49.# I guess I'll let your signals do the talk