The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs

By: Greil Marcus

Narrated by: Henry Rollins

Unlike all previous versions of rock 'n' roll history, this book omits almost every iconic performer and ignores the storied events and turning points everyone knows. Instead, in a daring stroke, Greil Marcus selects 10 songs recorded between 1956 and 2008 and then proceeds to dramatize how each embodies rock 'n' roll as a thing in itself in the story it tells, inhabits, and acts out - a new language, something new under the sun.

"Transmission" by Joy Division. "All I Could Do Was Cry" by Etta James and then Beyoncé. "To Know Him Is to Love Him", first by the Teddy Bears and almost half a century later by Amy Winehouse. In Marcus' hands these and other songs tell the story of the music, which is, at bottom, the story of the desire for freedom in all its unruly and liberating glory. Slipping the constraints of chronology, Marcus braids together past and present, holding up to the light the ways these striking songs fall through time and circumstance, gaining momentum and meaning, astonishing us by upending our presumptions and prejudices. This audiobook, by a founder of contemporary rock criticism - and its most gifted and incisive practitioner - is destined to become an enduring classic.

©2014 Greil Marcus (P)2014 Audible Inc.

Critic reviews

"Reading Marcus's words with the intensity and focus of a performance artist, Rollins describes how songs such as 'Crying, Waiting, Hoping' by Buddy Holly, 'Sweet Home Chicago' by Robert Johnson, and 'Money Changes Everything' sung by Cyndi Lauper changed music and changed lives." (AudioFile)

Bait and Switch

Greil Marcus, the shamelessly judgmental music critic, uses the word "cheat" at least twice in this book, most heinously in dismissing Beyonce's entire body of work a "cheat". I barely know Beyonce's music, but I know enough about rock 'n' roll (having been accused, not affectionately, of being a walking RnR encyclopedia and music snob) to know that Marcus is the cheat.

If he wanted to call this book "Hipper Than Thou: Songs I know every little thing about that you never even heard of (and even one that is not a song at all)", then I'd shower him with praise for being honest. He even admits it in the interview tacked on at the end where he confesses that the initial idea for this book was to write about the Flamin' Groovies' Shake Some Action, a song he knew full well has never heard by the vast majority of listeners (and which, along with the entire chapter devoted to it, is not even a footnote in RnR history).

But THE History? The TRUE history, as he promises in his introduction? No. Not here. Not at all. He comes close in only one chapter, using Buddy Holly as a fulcrum to connect Elvis to the Beatles, Stones and Dylan, but his 12,000 word essay does not cover as much ground as the 870 words (repeated choruses and all) of Don MacLean's American Pie (which Marcus does not deign to mention, citing songs and poems referring to Holly's death that no one else ever heard of).

If you're seriously considering listening to this book, start with the chapter on Guitar Drag, which is just noise, not even a song, created by a non-musician (and a friend of the author, to no one's surprise). With all of the songs he could have chosen, even snobby selections like Shake Some Action, Money Changes Everything, Transmission, and Crying Waiting Hoping, he wastes one of his ten entries on noise. He could have written this essay based on John Brown's Body or Jimi Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner, that may have made a sense. As is, it's nothing short of drek. You will not want to read further after sampling it.

Among his other crimes: mistaking movie recreations of scenes of spontaneous creativity for the real thing (Transmission, All I Could Do Was Cry), ranting about commercialism and then failing to address the issue in a chapter covering two songs about money, going on two long fantasies imagining if Robert Johnson and Buddy Holly had lived on in which he engages in the crassest kind of mythologizing that he disparaged in his introduction (the hypocrisy of "I can deify my idols, but you're not allowed"), and worst of all, mistaking his insecure need to re-establish his identity as the smartest guy in the room for true knowledge. As if we care.

Henry Rollins does an excellent job of narration, though he himself doesn't rate a mention by Marcus despite his status as a highly influential punk rock icon.

Much different than I expected

Not a book for those with an average knowledge base of rock music, but for those with an interest in the real intricacies of the same. I found in interesting, but not particularly entertaining.

Great story but wrong narrator

What didn’t you like about Henry Rollins’s performance?

I really enjoy & like Henry Rollins and have seen him on stage for his spoken word tour. Phenomenal story teller but not for this book. He needs to take a breath once in a while so the story will transition better.

How to make the history of rock n roll boring

Monotonous unexciting/uninspiring mater of fact audio read is good only to cure insomnia. Overwhelming detail spitting out facts could have used some of the music softly playing in the background while the songs/lyrics were being described. That would have made a huge difference and advantage to an audio over a history book read reminding me of boring history books of high school years.

Runs all together

If you love Rock history of all kinds you’ll like this. I don’t know if the book doesn’t translate well to audio, but there were times I couldn’t tell if he was focusing on a song or artist, or which song.
I have to say that I’ve attempted to listen to this book multiple times and now I’ve worked out why. I tend to listen while doing something else - in this case, sorting through a pile of papers and miscellania, folding laundry, driving, grabbing a few items at Walgreen’s, etc.
The first thing you notice is Rollins’ deliciously smooth voice. Wonderful, but that smoothness with a very wordy recording tends to disappear into the background and there’s nothing that grabs your attention to say “starting on a new song”. The chapter headings could have been given the song titles - no such luck.
Then there’s the text - while it’s interesting to hear the back stories it tends to be very wordy and it all blends together. To be fair, some stories are more interesting. But is he talking about a song or a group, and which song?
Then there’s the songs - many are obscure and uninteresting to me :::forehead in hand:::
I love music and still have LPs (and a turntable), many CDs, my original dial up iPod, (guess I will be updating my iPhone this year) etc. so that should give me some street cred. But I think T. Bone Burnett would have done a better job of it.

Don't just read the title!

Is there anything you would change about this book?

The title isn't accurate. This isn't really a "history of rock". It's more of an impressionistic word painting of rock. The writer is trying really hard to be unique and interesting in both the selections and the way they're described. If that's what you're expecting, cool. For me, I couldn't finish it. Read the description, decide whether that's what you're into, and then go from there.

Would you be willing to try another book from Greil Marcus? Why or why not?

Probably not...I'm interested in the subject, but not THIS interested.

What did you like about the performance? What did you dislike?

Rollins is good for the subject matter and this writing, but not overall. He. Speaks. Too. Slowly.

Was The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs worth the listening time?

Not for me. For someone who was really into the subject and a conaisseur of the genre, sure. I simply found it obscure and pretentious.

Fresh treatment of Rock history!

Original and thought-provoking history of this music genre that has surrounded my life for decades. I learned some new things and look at others from a new perspective.

My only wish is that these books could include the actual songs!

I recommend this book to all Rock 'n' Roll fans.

Trying to be unique on the history of rock n roll

What did you like best about The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs? What did you like least?

The best part is that the author has some insight on rock n roll, and the feeling behind rock, music for that matter.
The part that I like the least is that it doesn't really tell the "History" of rock. It tells about the feelings behind rock. In addition to this, the author tried really hard to be unique. He acknowledges that he intentionally did not pick the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, etc, which are all obvious choices. However can you really call it a "history" without including the most influential bands in a big way. Finally, the book is very wordy and contains amazing poetry, which I find annoying in talking about history.

Would you recommend The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs to your friends? Why or why not?

To a die hard music fan it might be tolerable. I think the author is wrong at least in the title. It would be better described as capturing the feeling of rock n roll in ten songs. There is a lot of history, but the history lessons are on the songs selected not necessarily how we got from basement tapes to the Beatles to big overdone rock to lofi indie basement tapes.

What aspect of Henry Rollins’s performance would you have changed?

The book wasn't written to be read aloud. Rollins reads it slowly, i.e. half a pace slower than I would like. So I guess speed him up just a little.

Could you see The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs being made into a movie or a TV series? Who should the stars be?

Not with the title being The History of Rock'n'Roll in Ten Songs. I could see an hour long show with this author and a respected musician, but then you would want to have another episode with two different people discussing essentially the same subject matter. The problem is let's hope that this isn't the standard. Does Guitar drag really represent rock music at all?

Any additional comments?

This is an opinion piece. The writing is like poetry in parts, so if that is your thing then you'd like it. The views are unique even ambitious. However, the title is wrong. It is not really a History. A history would include at least a chapter on the Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys and Bob Dylan. You have to acknowledge the 70s and 80s the grunge movement in the 90s. The indie movement into the 2000s. The rise of internet and social media and what that has meant to rock for the last 15 years (circa 2000-present).

Provocative, Intriguing and Uneven

Any additional comments?

Greil Marcus's premise here is striking: that you can take any number of songs and see in them the history of rock and roll over the last 60 years. As he puts it in the bonus interview with narrator Henry Rollins, he sees these songs as kinds of viruses that seek new hosts to play them in new ways.

That's a provocative claim, and it's rewarding to have him follow it in many cases. To clarify, though, the "songs" he refers to aren't exactly consistent over time. Something that Marcus sees as one song, maybe Barrett Strong's "Money," moves on both in the way the Beatles cover it and in a technically different song like "Money Changes Everything" (originally by The Brains but covered more famously by Cyndi Lauper). That gives Marcus a lot of latitude to decide what constitutes a "song," and, while he does great things with it, it also means the foundation of the book is a perhaps too pliable definition.

The best of this book makes me hear some things in a new way, and that's everything I could ask for. The sections on Joy Division and Buddy Holly are brilliant, rock criticism as good as it gets. (He reads Buddy Holly as the first rock and roller to make "normal" into something rock can articulate; it's made me hear one Holly song after another in my head all week.)

There are some weaker parts, though, particularly the extended alternative history of Robert Johnson, imagining his life if he hadn't died so young. It struck me as a flight of fancy, unnecessary (and even distracting from) the real direction of the book.

But my biggest thoughts have to do with the narration and production here. First, I really enjoyed Henry Rollins's voice; he sounds like a slightly less trained Rod Serling. Second, he's Henry Rollins! Here's a guy with his own place in rock and roll history (one unnoted in the book or its bonus material) and knowing that made the whole experience of listening to it all the more compelling. Rollins is earnest and thoughtful about the reading, and I enjoyed hearing him talk about some of the decisions he made as narrator.

For all of that, though, this is an audio book about music. I kept wondering how hard it would have been to slip in 15-20 second clips to give samples of the work Marcus was discussing. The paper copy of the book suggests you go to youtube to find examples; wouldn't it have made sense for the producers here to do some of that work for us? It's one of the implicit advantages a recorded book has over a printed one.

Anyway, I enjoyed the work, and it's good to see that Marcus still has a lot to say.

interesting take

Narration was okay but there should or could have been a version of the songs being discussed.