Bill Holdship on Creem
Posted by s woods on December 7, 2007
Awesome piece in Metro Times by Bill Holdship on the Creem debacle, tackling head-on what I alluded to earlier as the underlying 70s-80s battle that seems to be going on between former Creem staffers (I’m of course grateful to be quoted, but that’s not why it’s an awesome piece, really). As the lone commenter notes, Holdship sounds like the first sane inside voice to jump into the fray–the first, anyway, to make a specific, well-thought-out argument that doesn’t sound like mere grudge-bearing (mind you, I gave up scrolling through the reams of pissy comments at the end of the NY Observer articles, as understandable and occasionally entertaining as they are, so maybe I’ve missed something particularly insightful). All of Holdship’s arguments as to why John Cougar Mellencamp (re: Whitall’s earlier quote) was anything but “un-Creem” ring loud and clear to me, and his anecdotes are both priceless and fascinating, i.e., hearing how excited Mellencamp was to read Psychotic Reactions or learning that he invited Richard Riegel to his wedding, so impressed was he with a profile Riegel wrote.
There’s another argument lurking around the edges of Holdship’s piece, which he suggests when he writes, “Much like J. Kordosh… some of my best writing in the mag was done on artists I detested, such as Dokken, Marillion or Albert Goldman.” As a reader and not a contributor to Creem, I would take this a little further still to suggest that it’s irrelevant in a way (or let’s say “not entirely relevant”) which artists Creem covered; the point was that every artist Creem covered was covered in the inimitable Creem way. It’s true what Whitall was suggesting, I think, that Iggy (and though she doesn’t name him, Lou as well) was very clearly a Creem-identified artist–in a way that Mellencamp really was not–but that surely has as much to do with the era, and the fact that there wasn’t nearly the same amount of competition in the music ‘zine market in 1970 as there was in 1980 (Creem was able to claim the Stooges and Lou Reed by dint of the fact that no one else really wanted them). Also, Stooges-type of things were hardly anomalous in 1980 the way they were in 1970; the truly “radical” thing for Creem to have done in the early eighties would have been to place Grandmaster Flash on its cover… But that’s another minefield I hope to explore some day (i.e., the ‘zine’s conveniently overlooked disinterest in current black pop, more or less throughout its history).
It’s also a fantasy to suggest that the Stooges and Lou Reed comprised the bulk of Creem coverage in the early seventies (the anthology, to its credit, makes this pretty clear). The Creem I grew up reading was also about Black Oak Arkansas and Wet Willie and Led Zeppelin (tons of Led Zeppelin, in fact) and ELP and the Stones and Rick Wakeman and etc. etc. Hang on a sec–I’m not saying that Whitall actually suggested this, or that any other Creem insiders have engaged in this particular fantasy. But I do think it’s a fantasy that has gained some traction among interested observers over the years–i.e., the idea that Creem was this constant churner-outer of the so-called “trash aesthetic.”
In regards to Duran Duran (who Whitall lumped in with Mellencamp as being “un-Creem“): Holdship’s argument is rooted in specifics and is entirely sound, but again, I would take the argument further and say that the point is less about Duran Duran per se than it is about Creem. Bangs himself might’ve (who knows?) written wonderfully about Duran Duran. As might’ve several other Creemsters I could name off the top of my head, including Sue Whitall and Bill Holdship! Note that I have no vested interest whatsoever in this particular argument. Even at the height of my new wave/synth-pop phase, I think I liked Duran Duran for approximately 23 minutes; the only songs I can listen to by them now are a couple middling hits from their early ’90s AOR (Adult-Oriented Roxy) phase, which were released long after they ceased to matter. Their ’80s pop hits truly are vile. Nevertheless, I don’t believe there’s anything “un-Creem” about them. ’80s Creem would’ve sucked hard if all it covered was indie-punk. ’80s Creem way too good and way too smart for that.
Creem said
Aren’t we somewhat missing the point here? From the posted comments section of Bill Holdship’s piece…
I know both Holdship and Whitall, I respect and have no beef with either. However, in this case, focusing so intently on the Mellencamp issue is a bit like missing the forest because of a single tree.
Cue the court transcript: “In 2001, Arnold Levitt granted Creem Media, Inc. an exclusive license to use the name “Creem” and all of its intellectual property with respect to Creem related endeavors”
Fast forward to 2006. After five years of peddling CREEM t-shirts, the court transcript quotes Matheu (past tense), as telling Kulpa, “Creem, as we knew it in 2001 was not the same. It was dead. If we didn’t do this deal with Carter and Kramer, we’d have nothing.”
To square Levitt and save Matheu’s ass, Kramer and Carter invest $50K. Matheu and Co. manage to scrape together $21K.
Then Kramer and Carter are apparently iced out while Matheu masquerades as an ‘editor’, hustles the Harper Collins book deal and pockets the cash.
That would seem to be the issue at hand; the Mellencamp angle would seem to pale in contrast, right?
Velvet Rope: http://tinyurl.com/2ydwkh
s woods said
thanks, um, ‘Creem,’ I’ll have to read the comments on Bill’s piece later, but no, I don’t think I (or Bill) is missing the point. The point is that a different point entirely has come to the fore in all this squabbling–different, that is, from the lawsuit, and having virtually nothing at all to do with Matheu–that being the underlying mini-wars between different eras of *Creem*. I have a feeling DeRogatis even alludes to this in his Bangs book–I don’t think it’s something new–but I could be wrong. So no, not missing the point, just harping on a different (and to me, more interesting) one entirely.
Steve Crawford said
Scott,
Think you are right on target. Dave Marsh has claimed that Creem went to hell in a handbasket after he left. I’m not that familiar with the Marsh/Bangs era of Creem. I do know that the magazine improved greatly when DiMartino took over as Editor. Seems like all the old Creem editors are snapping their suspenders in their rocking chairs saying, “Back in my day…”.
Steve
Richard Riegel said
No, “Creem,” Bill Holdship has it right in his Metro Times piece. As he notes near the beginning, “I don’t have anything to write about all the legal stuff at this point in time . . .” Yes, I did some writing for Robert Matheu in the first few years of his attempt to relaunch CREEM, but I’m not here to defend Robert Matheu’s business dealings, as I wasn’t in on them, I don’t know what happened. The lawyers will have to sort all that out now.
The concern that Bill Holdship and I have now, one likely shared by a number of other former CREEM editors and writers, is the anti-book faction’s blanket condemnation of everything published in the “later” period of CREEM. Scott Woods is correct that there’s long been a kind of generational war going on among us CREEMsters, but it’s not neatly divided between the decade of the ’70s and that of the ’80s. If you’re acquainted with the magazine’s history and read the postings carefully, you’ll note that the comparison implied by detractors of Matheu’s book is between the Dave Marsh-edited CREEM (1969-73) and Everything That Came After (1974-88). Marsh himself already established that dichotomy in his 1980 “Book of Rock Lists,” in which he listed the CREEM he edited as among the best rock mags ever, and CREEM after he left as among the worst. Typical Marshian heavy-handed “humor,” but I bet he believes it too, and now some of his followers have signed on to that reductionism.
Bill Holdship goes to some lengths to justify John Mellencamp’s worthiness as a CREEM subject because of Susan Whitall’s comment to the NY Observer that John was “so unCREEM.” Personally, I always regarded ANY pop musician as a fit subject for CREEM, as our TREATMENT of same was our stylistic distinction. Critical correctness was the last thing on our minds (mine, anyway.)
I can verify Bill’s statement that Sue Whitall assigned me the John Cougar feature that ran in the December 1980 CREEM (that was the start of my brief-but-rowdy relationship with that organically-Hoosier punk), and that she also had John Kordosh do a feature on the once & future Mellencamp in 1982, during his breakthrough-rockstar tour.
Anyone who denigrates the post-Marsh CREEM now is writing off Rick Johnson’s entire contribution to the magazine (1975-88), among other memorable writing. As it happens, my own most fecund period of CREEM writing coincided with Sue Whitall’s post as editor-in-chief (1977-83), and she was a good editor to work for, as she was generous in her assignments, open to all subjects and approaches, and skilled at condensing my copy without losing its essence. No matter how this CREEM mess curdles out, I remain grateful for all the column inches and bylines I achieved in America’s Only Magazine during Whitall’s tenure there. I’d just like to see her give herself more credit for the still-robust CREEM she edited during those years, even though they came after Dave Marsh’s reign.
So that’s the issue Bill Holdship and I are addressing now, “Creem.” BTW –Did you secure permission from Arnold Levitt and/or Robert Matheu to use that handle as your pseudonym?!?
John Kordosh said
Amen to my friend from Cincinnati. Nice use of “fecund,” too.
As a freelancer during the early ’80s, I agree with Richard that Sue Whitall was a great editor to work for. One of her best traits as an editor was that she encouraged and worked with such a wide range of talent, and it showed. The book, under Sue, was generally quite good or great, and often hilarious. I’m proud to have been involved and grateful to Sue for the chance.
And Mr. Riegel is correct about Rick Johnson, too, who was probably the funniest writer to ever grace the magazine. Cutting him out of its history seems spectacularly wrong to me.
I’m also partial to the Dave DiMartino era for a lot of reasons – for one, I think the magazine was never funnier than it was during that time. While Dave Marsh found quite a bit of success from, let’s face it, unmatchable access to Bruce Springsteen, DiMartino went on to be the West Coast Bureau Chief of Billboard and is currently the Music Editor at Yahoo! Music. I suspect his post-CREEM credentials are unmatched by any editor in the magazine’s history.
It’s a big world and I enjoyed all eras of CREEM, including the time when Dave Marsh was involved. I wish he would accord some respect to his successors and look forward to reading Bill’s story in the Metro Times.
Dave Marsh said
Jesus, Riegel, are you under the impression that your sense of humor in Creem was deft and weightless? Of course that’s a joke. And “making that point” (or whatever you imagine I was doing) was so friggin’ important to me that in the New Book of Rock Lists, there is no such list. But it is very Creem of all of you to take it so seriously. Really.
You’d have to show me where I made that claim, other than in a list that’s pretty obviously reaching for a joke (even if the joke fell flat–that’d be the first time that ever happened to a Creemster, eh?). It’d be pretty amazing to ME that I think this.
I’m still friends with Sue, and until this week, I thought Holdship. I don’t really know Dave D although I liked him when he was working there, the couple times we met. I don’t really know Tony Reay; he was kinda snotty to me when he was a record clerk and I was a freshamn but he was gone by the time I got there (and that was the point at which it was obtaining national distribution; I think it was in essence two different publications but then I would).
As I said on the Metro Times site, the issue is one of proportion and while what I said there is arrogant, it has the advantage of being accurate: There would be no Creem and no Creem sensiblity without that four year period, and a book that does not proportionally honor that is off to a lousy start, to put it mildly. So I don’t see where this “disrespect” Kordosh invents is in what I’ve actually said and written. Unless he shares Jeffrey Morgan’s preposterous idea that number of years = amount of importance.
To tell you the truth, when I went back and looked at the transition point (mine, not the magazine’s–in ’73 when I left and everybody else stayed) I noticed only one immediate difference, which was that coverage of black music literally disappeared within three months. So that was probably my biggest effect on the magazine, something it didn’t have at all when I left. Everything I maybe might have contributed, someone else replaced, right?
Ham Tramck said
This is fun!
A.C. said
I write this knowing that it may be read with contempt, derision or scorn, but do so primarily from a fan’s perspective (at least where the reprint choices in the book are concerned).
It was my understanding that since the very early years of Creem were so celebrated and legendary, that some effort was focused on the ’80s decade; one which had many fine, if not book-published, writers.
It also seemed that this was to be a large coffee table book, not superficial, but one that begins to scratch the surface of a long and fabled rock institution.
Having the greatest affection for both decades (acknowledging that the magazine bled into the previous late ’60s & subsequent early ’90s), I find an affinity with each in different ways – much like one would have good and bad memories of phases of his/her life.
In this respect, I can’t help but think that all former editors are locking shields rather than swords (at least in most cases), since each had their own inimitable style, yet which maintained the sharp and humorous trait that Creem was famous for.
Much like radio changing from freeform to straighter formatting in the ’80s, and with the advent of MTV, in order to thrive more mainstream pop icons may have been featured on the cover, but there were more underground goodies inside, which in its way, made it all the more subversive.
And this isn’t even counting the way in which the subjects were written about (one need only read J. Kordosh’s Belinda Carlisle feature or Jon Young’s Depeche Mode ‘interview’ for proof), or acts more on the verge that made covers.
Taking into account the devotion that went into each decade, and the amazing things editors and writers accomplished after their departures, one can’t help but think that they would have more in common in most cases than not.
As alluded to above, this only addresses one aspect of an issue with multiple conflicts, but with the means of communication available there should be more opportunity to bridge some gaps rather than widen or neglect them altogether.
Chuck Eddy said
John Cougar made way better music in the ’80s than Iggy did anyway, for Crissakes.
I’ve got some comments on the book at the link below (as do other people), for whatever it’s worth. (Biggest aesthetic problem: too many star profiles that could have been published anywhere; too few letters or album reviews that could have been published nowhere else. Ethical considerations — i.e., that the book includes a piece by me, but nobody putting it together ever told me the book was coming out until the week it hit the stores — are another question entirely.)
http://ilx.wh3rd.net/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=41&threadid=60082#unread
Steve Crawford said
I realize I am way out of my league in any thread that involves Richard Reigel, John Kordosh, Dave Marsh, and Chuck Eddy (and Chuck couldn’t be more on target with his thoughts on the book itself).
However, in the first edition of the Book of Rock Lists, Dave Marsh clearly states that Creem became one of the worst music magazines after the original editorial staff left (to include himself and Lester Bangs). It was a direct statement with nothing to indicate it was a joke. To now state that it couldn’t have been serious, because it wasn’t repeated in another book…wow, Holy Pretzel Logic, Batman!
Bill Holdship said
Dave — I answered you at the Metro Times blog. Not sure how or where or why you believe I “attacked” you…but I’m hoping that what I just posted there answers your questions…at least a little bit. Thanks.
http://www.metrotimes.com/blahg/journal_comments.asp?JournalID=250&PagePosition=1
Susan Whitall said
Good grief, just catching up with this lovefest…it reminds me of something Dave Marsh said once, if we ever had a Creem reunion (before the one Matheu crashed a few years back), you would have to have an ambulance waiting outside, and a police car.
To Mr. Riegel, I appreciate the kind words. But as you know, when you got all excited over Matheu’s plans to sort of, almost exhume Creem, and collaborated with him, that was a breach in our friendship. I’m glad you indeed remember that your writing did not start for Creem in ’83. As for the outlandish claim that I dismiss the quality Creem when I was editor — please! I don’t agree with everything Dave M. says, or Jaan, or anybody. We disagree and we’re still friends. It happens!
My favorite time at Creem might be when Lester and Duncan ran it, and I truly was “features editor” …but when Dave and Bill were there with me, it was a good time musically, and well edited and funny, I thought.
I was talking about this rhubarb with Billy Altman, and we agreed that the best way for this sort of book to happen would be for editors from each of the three Creem “eras” to choose the best material from that era. I started in the middle era, you could say, in 1975, and left in ’83, when the “later” era was just starting.
I also appreciate J. Kordosh’s kind words. I did start him writing for us, because he was a very funny guy. But John, and Richard, were you guys really surprised that I’m described in this tome as “features editor,” who “worked with” Linda Barber? When as you know, Linda worked for me. It looks like I pretty much made coffee for her. That was calculated on Matheu’s part. Of course the reaction of those of us he deliberately marginalized is angry. What do you expect us to say?
Meanwhile, the Mark J. Norton era of Creem — how long did it last, six months? — is lovingly documented, complete with gratuitous mention of some Krushchev award (OK, OK, wrong premier) he won, recently, I think. Can you say, “pretentious”?
As for Bill’s lengthy rant against me, I am … amazed. I was flipping through the Creem book briefly while the NY Observer reporter asked me questions, and Mellenhead’s ’80s visage just pissed me off. I didn’t love him then, and I really don’t like him now. I didn’t see who wrote it, and even when Bill was sending me a million emails an hour about this last week, he never overtly said, “That was my story, so you insulted me.” Nobody else thought I was personally insulting Bill Holdship. I didn’t realize it was his story until I saw his stream of consciousness blog, attacking me. Bill: Blogs aren’t supposed to be every thought that runs through your head. And I was gone from Creem in January ’83. Do you honestly feel I worked that far in advance, to plan a July ’83 feature on Duran Duran? I assure you, I did not.
But …Bill is focused, and Mellencamp is what he cares about in this inbroglio. That and doing PR for Mark J. Norton. I well remember a time Norton called in “sick” at deadline. Unfortunately (for him) he was seen by our ad director Harvey Zuppke very healthy, riding a motorcycle on Woodward Ave. That was the end of MJN at Creem, a short and not very memorable time.
Ric Siegel said
Sue, I don’t want to jump to any conclusions here, so please spell it out for me… did you just state that you fired someone based on something you heard from Harvey Zuppke?
Lester Bangs said
I’m dead! I don’t have to suffer anymore with all your damn hairsplitting little equivocations!
Send me some Romilar!
tony reay said
1. Y’know, I was trying very hard to let this all GO ON AWAY… as Wayne K. so eloquently once put it. I’ve spoken my peace (pun intended) on this entire topic in several other places recently and thought that would be sufficient for my involvement.
The gist of my comments elsewhere was to agree with Dave and Connie et al that the book SHOULD, by rights, have either given less short shrift to those many talents that graced it’s pages in the earlier years or credited them better in the history (or simply called the book “volume one, the middle ages” and released the entire history in several parts out of chronological order… like Star Wars).
I don’t know Mr. Matheau but I believe that he did have the legal right to publish this – or any other – book using the Creem material… as for his debatable relationship with the other “investors” that’s one for the courts to decide and if he didn’t have the reprint right necessary then where’s all the lawsuits against the publisher?
Like several others in his periphery, I’ve often leaped to Dave’s defense on many a page and during many a phone call or email with mutual friends. I’ve never claimed to be his bosom buddy which isn’t surprising given my own personal memories of the coup that forced me out of the magazine I started – and whose style of arrogant knowledge and opinion I founded from my opening column. But I’ve ALWAYS demanded that he be given full co-credit, with Barry and Charlie, for the establishment and foundation of Creem as a national entity and the strident, often harpish, points of view of its audience it so accurately reflected. The fact that Barry was fortunate to have found Dave when he did was the making of Creem and its resultant legacy – long before Lester or any of the others.
He wasn’t the entire raison d’etre of the history of the rag, but then again, no-one except Barry and maybe Charlie, truly were.
But Dave’s recollection of our own relationship is perhaps suggestive of the very comments I am reading here from others who know/knew him better. It appears that Mr. Marsh is becoming just a little overly paranoid and self-obsessive even for his own good.
I’ve never said a bad word about him… particularly recently.
Maybe he truly remembers me as being “kinda snotty” to him… Hellfire, maybe I was… go figure… I was twenty and fairly fresh off the plane from a little village in Northern England suddenly thrust into the maelstrom that was Detroit music just after the riots… but in all fairness, I was probably snotty to everyone, and it was just that attitude that eventually gave Creem it’s style, remember?
It’s his use of the phrase “record clerk” that irks me… his slanted incompleteness. As I recall it, by the time he met me, I was no longer a record clerk though I had recently been one and very proudly too… in ‘69, being a record clerk was a position of great power and accorded much respect within the fledgling community of heads and hippies around most US campuses… but I was ALSO co-music editor of the Fifth Estate with John Sinclair, a columnist for the Detroit News, temporary MC of the Grande Ballroom, had a radio show on WABX and helped promote several area events, not the least of which were the RocknRoll revival and the great Hudson’s drive-in concert. I was as thoroughly and deeply involved in area rock as it was possible to be when Dave was a… college student.
In fact, long before Creem and Barry and all the rest, I started and published (with help – always with help) a poetry magazine in Windsor Ont., just over the river.
Maybe I didn’t see the talent lay latent within Dave’s student brain AT THE TIME, and, truth be told, he didn’t burst from the womb with the brilliance that he displayed within a short time of the literary freedom afforded him by Barry AND DETROIT.
He’s right, of course… it was two entirely different magazines… and it may well have become very white after he left, but he didn’t BEGIN coverage of black music in Creem – one of the first issues had a wonderful Archie Shepp piece and the magazine was fortunate enough to find Richard C. Walls who remains to this day the best pure music writer to ever grace it’s pages… and who covered music of all shades and genders with equal aplomb and skill… and who ALSO is woefully neglected in Mr. Matheau’s book.
The Lesterisation of the mag, which divided its history and reputation almost surgically in two – or three, as I look at it, probably completed the task of turning a successful and unique regional magazine into the national icon that it became and possibly remains.
But Lester wouldn’t have had anything of the foundation for frolic that he enjoyed and manipulated so ardently were it not for the work, skill, diligence, passion and bullheadedness of the young and irrepressible Mr. Marsh… and, Mr. Marsh wouldn’t have had his own foundation were it not for those same elements that I, often by accident and never without great help, brought to the table before him. It’s always easier to ghostwrite book two than to author the first edition.
By the time Dave got there, Barry was already involved. Dave didn’t have to sell ads, set up and carry out distribution, learn layout or answer his own phones… all one of them. Barry had taken care of that. Dave just had to concentrate on being Dave.
My point here is not self-agrandisation but rather the seeking of the full story and that the story of Creem varies considerably dependent on what you consider to be the “early days”. The “early days” for many of us, were not in the upstairs of the house on Cass avenue or the farm in Walled Lake, not even in the basement of Mixed media, higher up on Cass, but rather in the basement apartment on Gladstone Street… it’s all about perspective, yea?
It’s sad that Dave and his wonderful career should be so sidetracked by attempting to get due credit from such a fait a complit as this book… he must surely realise it is his own stirring of the storm-in-a-creemcup that has given the book much of it’s attendant publicity, far beyond the normal round of reviews and articles that it’s release would have otherwise accomplished. He must also realise that his vitriol will only further persuade the unknowing general public to want to see what all the fuss is about and buy the thing.
Reading his foaming-lip words today remind me of nothing so much as Hoffman’s “Lenny” towards the end. LET IT GO, Dave… no one denies your contributions and, sadly, no-one gets to design the headline fonts in their own history… not even you. It’s not necessary for all of this back-biting from everyone about who did what and why to whom about which…
Anyone who reads the early issues of Creem, including – I’m proud to say – my own, will see that everyone in the realm of the arts “belongs” in its pages… EVERYONE. Just ‘cos you don’t like Johnny Cougar, or Alice Cooper, or Melanie, or Miles or Iggy or Leon or… WHOEVER, doesn’t mean they don’t belong and often that was sufficient reason alone.
Dave did a fabulous job with Creem, as did Lester, Ben, Jaan, Sue, Dave and all the others who followed the star – ecclesiastically speaking. I personally would have like nothing more than a book that reflected such shining lights… but I’d also like cows to give Jack Black and that ain’t happening either.
I admit that I don’t know Dave Marsh EITHER. I have had the advantage and great pleasure to have followed his career since the early days when I hated him for being a part of the theft of my baby, which is the way I saw it back then… and it is testament to the greatness of his talent that he overcame my initial feelings and turned me into a fan of his writing. But y’know what? He doesn’t answer MY emails either…
On this day when I awake in frosty angle-land to the news that Ike Turner has died… I wonder if Dave will bestir himself to write the eulogy rather than continuing to attempt to rewrite his own illustrious history… after all, there’s no-one better qualified or equipped to do so anywhere on the planet.
P.S. Just for the record, when I speak of the relationship between myself and Barry regarding his “taking the magazine from me” I do not mean to imply that Barry did anything wrong – because he didn’t. His actions were fair, if not just, and I remained – to MY way for thinking – friends with him and miss him quite terribly. When all the sheep come home to roost… or something like it… the credit is all Barry’s. If I hadn’t started Creem, he would have ended up with something like it anyway, if only because he didn’t like what Werbe was doing with the Fifth Estate and wanted somewhere to promote his own stores apart from ABX whose ad rates were rising significantly in ‘69.
If he hadn’t stumbled upon Dave and Lester and Ben etc. he would have found others… writers, editors, photographers, regardless of the immense skills that they bring to bear, are not uniquely irreplaceable. But Barry Kramer was most certainly a mold-breaker and, despite the recollections of many others with their own bias, a good friend and brilliant businessman.
tony reay said
and another thing…
for fear that my snapping suspenders and frontporch rocker should propel me away before I get to say it… Creem Magazine, at it’s worst and that includes this book somewhere within those parameters, was always light years better than it’s closest competitors and every single contributor to it’s legend and legacy can be proud of their involvement in whatever decade it took place… and that, as Lily sez, is the twooff.
Bill Holdship said
Nice posts, Tony. Thanks.
Just returned to this Website today, as I actually had some work to do this week, so I hadn’t read Sue’s response until today:
>>>As for Bill’s lengthy rant against me, I am … amazed.
It wasn’t a rant against you, Sue. It was a rant against you (or anyone) rewriting CREEM’s history.
>>>I was flipping through the Creem book briefly while the NY Observer reporter asked me questions, and Mellenhead’s ’80s visage just pissed me off.
You mean the visage that you assigned four or more major features on in the ’80s?
>>>I didn’t see who wrote it, and even when Bill was sending me a million emails an hour about this last week, he never overtly said, “That was my story, so you insulted me.” Nobody else thought I was personally insulting Bill Holdship.
Sue, I have all the e-mails on my computer – the “million” I sent you, and the “million” you sent me beginning the day you received the book in the mail (I hadn’t even addressed the subject with you yet) and your blood pressure went “through the roof.” Shall I post them for others to judge? I mean, since you brought it up, it seems like fair game at this point.
>>>I didn’t realize it was his story until I saw his stream of consciousness blog, attacking me. Bill: Blogs aren’t supposed to be every thought that runs through your head.
When exactly did you become the expert on blogs, Sue?
>>>And I was gone from Creem in January ‘83. Do you honestly feel I worked that far in advance, to plan a July ‘83 feature on Duran Duran? I assure you, I did not.
>>>But …Bill is focused, and Mellencamp is what he cares about in this inbroglio.
No. What I care about is your rewriting of CREEM history. But at least you’ve been consistent in that over the years; I’ll certainly give you that.
>>>That and doing PR for Mark J. Norton. I well remember a time Norton called in “sick” at deadline. Unfortunately (for him) he was seen by our ad director Harvey Zuppke very healthy, riding a motorcycle on Woodward Ave. That was the end of MJN at Creem, a short and not very memorable time.
Again, Sue, I’m not doing PR for Mark J. Norton, a man you hired and eventually promoted to Associate Editor. I’m doing PR for factual accuracy. In those “millions” of e-mails last week (and elsewhere), you argue that he was never anything more than “editorial assistant.” I told you that was untrue; that he was promoted when you were editor. Then you e-mailed me that “Barry fired him.” I replied, asking “How could Barry have fired him when Barry was already dead?” You wrote back that you never said Barry fired him. And I sent back the e-mail that you’d sent me hours before, stating just that. You then responded that if I continued to “defend him” people would be “laughing at me.” As if I care about that…!
At any rate, as you also stated to me: “I have the right to my opinion.” And you do. But no one has the right to rewrite history. And those with the slightest power of reading comprehension understand that’s what my rant was about, not defending John Mellencamp or Mark J. Norton.
tjmertz said
All this sniping is pretty funny, funnier than the book.
That’s the big problem – not who was slighted and who was glorified – the book isn’t as entertaining as it should be or could be. No Punky Meadows, no Canadian jokes…
I was a loyal reader back in the days (say 1975-83). The person who gave it to me for xmas paid hard earned money for it and for that hard earned money better is deserved.
The layout is ugly too and not CREEM ugly, just ugly. No proof read apparently either.
Rev. Keith A. Gordon said
Wow, what a brouhaha going on ’round these parts! I honestly don’t know where to start…how about with some simple, cosmic truths?
1) Few people outside of the Detroit area knew ANYTHING about Creem magazine before 1971 or so, and my guess is that the publication’s national reputation wasn’t really established until ’73 or later. As a teen, I was a RABID consumer of music rags (RS, Crawdaddy, Fusion, Zoo World, Bomp) and I didn’t find a copy of Creem in Tennessee until late 1971. It doesn’t really matter how GOOD the rag was in the early days when comparing it to the latter days if nobody got to see it….
2) The Reverend is going to go out on a limb here and commit a major sin, but there has NEVER been a rockcrit more overrated than Mr. Lester Bangs. It may be blasphemy to say so, but Bangs’ death at an early age has made him the Jim Morrison of rock writing, placing every word above reproach. Did he expand the vocabulary of rock criticism? Sure. Was Bangs highly influential on a generation of writers to follow? Without a doubt. Was his work entertaining and humorous? Yes, it usually was. But Bangs was also often long-winded and purposely obscure, and his stream-of-consciousness style of writing read better in the chemically-altered ’70s than it does today. For my money, Marsh and Holdship are better journalists, Rick Johnson was a more entertaining critic/reviewer, and Kordosh one of the funniest scribes I’ve ever read. That being said, I still enjoy reading Bangs’ work, but hindsight and an early death have clearly served to inflate his reputation.
3) Nobody – and I mean NOBODY – outside of a small circle of insiders and hangers-on (and I probably fall in the latter category) really cares about this Creemtastic feud! Yeah, I began reading Creem in ’71 and devoured each monthly issue throughout the decade, but the vast majority of people that I’ve spoken with recently about Creem remember the magazine of the ’80s, most of them quite fondly. The magazine’s lofty reputation does not rest merely on the small, sparsely-circulated 1969-73 era but rather on Creem’s impressive overall run, circa 1969-1988. That’s what really matters to most people (i.e. everybody that’s not a rock critic or journalist).
All of that being said, I did buy a copy of the Creem book and will be working up a review of it for my Trademark of Quality blog sometime soon. Truthfully, though, if Matheu had been a really savvy businessman, he would have pitched Harper on a three-book deal…maybe toned down the coffee table book aspect a bit…and assembled a Creem-of-the-70s volume, a Creem-of-the-80s volume and, of course, a Creem reviews book. It would have made a buncha cheddar, to be sure….
Of course, the Reverend always has more to say on anything, and for anybody wanting the full, overwrought story, here’s a link:
The Battle Over Creem’s Future from my Ryan Adams Sucks blog
Rudy said
As an old punk and a follower of Creem…I can say this…
It was a great rag from about 75 to 85..then it poofed.
As far as the John Cougar stuff….not sure what you are talking about…but I do remember thinking that I hated him back then and why the #$^)%($*$* is Creem wasting space and Ink about him…
I’d say that’s when Creem started to lose its cool. (Both figuratively and literally)
Bill Holdship said
A little late on the draw there, are we, Rudy? Actually, we’ve moved onto more timely news at Detroit Metro Times:
http://www.metrotimes.com/music/story.asp?id=13608
Since I started at CREEM in 1981, I won’t take your assessment as an insult, although I’d say most people thought it was pretty damn great from 1970 through ’75 as well. In fact, many consider those its golden years, having something to do with a dude named Bangs or something like that. As an “old punk,” I thought maybe you’d appreciate that.
And I’d also like to point out that John Cougar got his first major feature story in CREEM (by our friend Richard Riegel) in 1979. There were reviews and other mentions long before that. So the magazine went poof and “started losing its cool” when it started writing about John Cougar, yet CREEM was cool from ’75 to ’85, even though Cougar was featured on its cover the first time in 1980…before I started working there? Somehow that time frame is just slightly skewed.
So to use your own quote: “not sure what you are talking about.” Like I said, a little late on the draw there, Rudy…but thanks for playing!
A.C. Rhodes said
Mitch Ryder and Steve Wynn are admirers of Mellencamp. I think he won over some other musicians and writers over the years, as well. Peter Buck and the rhythm section of R.E.M. voiced similar sentiments.
Rudy said
Well Bill…I didn’t like him (Cougar) at his ’79 appearance at MSU’s McDonel Kiva when I went with Saj…and I kinda recall bitchin’ to you personally about puttin’ him in Creem in that 81-83 time frame…and you’ll have to believe me when I say I have ragged on him ever since…so…yeah…I may be a little late…but at least I’m consistent!
Bill Holdship said
Sorry, Rudy, but I didn’t even realize you were somebody I knew. Well, everyone’s entitled to their opinion…though I thought he was great at McDonnel (I’d have never remembered that name, btw!), especially the encore of “Search & Destroy.” Predicted he was going to be a huge star in my review of that show…and at least I was right about that. For what it’s worth, I thought JCM’s performance at the Obama thing last Sunday was one of the strongest of the bunch…and I don’t even particularly like that “Pink Houses” song.