Gluey Tart: Kicking and Dreaming

Kicking & Dreaming: A Story of Heart, Soul, and Rock & Roll, Ann Wilson, Nancy Wilson, and Charles R. Cross (It Books, September 2012)

As I work my way through the biographies of all my seventies and eighties rock heroes, I realize there’s no point in fighting my demographic destiny. I did expect this book to be dreadful, at least. Dreadful and tedious. Dreadful and tedious and full of repetitive boredom. Dreadful and tedious and full of repetitive boredom and clichés.  And of course it is not entirely free of dreadful, tedious, repetitive, boring clichés, but mostly it is “surprisingly readable,” title aside.

I have always wondered how Ann and Nancy Wilson managed to become kick-ass stadium rock stars in the age of Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones and Aerosmith and all those other very, very male bands. I always wanted to know how much of the early guitar sound was Nancy and how much of it was Roger Fisher.  And I always wanted to know how eighties and nineties Ann felt about being piled with huge hair and big, dark costumes, and shot mostly from the chin up in their videos in a viciously stupid attempt to keep us from noticing she had gained weight. (Answers: because they kicked ass; more Roger, in the songs I like best, but the acoustic stuff is Nancy; and humiliated and irritated, as one might expect.)

The book is told in snippets of narrative by Ann, by Nancy, by other members of Heart, by associates, friends, their mom, and Chris Cornell. This is a half-assed way to put a book together, but it does give Ann and Nancy their own voices. And they are charming. As fluttery, breathlessly dancing in a sun-dappled springtime meadow as you’d expect of anyone who wrote “Dreamboat Annie” and “Dog and Butterfly” and so on, but also as driving and relentless as you’d expect of someone who wrote “Crazy on You” and “Barracuda.”

That’s the dichotomy that made Heart brilliant, and frustrating. I can’t listen to any of their albums all the way through, and individual songs are often divided against themselves, the wild, hard-driving fervor never blending seamlessly with the frothy, acoustic effervescence. (I should point out that I speak of Dreamboat Annie through Bebe Le Strange; I don’t entirely acknowledge the existence of any of their other works.) But they have written some of my all-time favorite songs. I wonder if the hit and miss situation with so many Heart songs is because they were feeling out something that nobody had done yet.

A couple of million critics have written about this dichotomy as a balance of masculine and feminine, but that misses the point. It’s all feminine, and what gets called masculine is instead a side of femininity we don’t usually acknowledge. It was thrilling, back in the seventies, and it still is, more than thirty years later, even though we’ve gotten used to seeing women on a stadium stage. (“Straight On,” for instance, or “Magic Man” – these are pretty much perfect rock songs.) Which brings me back to wondering how they did it, when they did it. Or any time – but especially in the mid-seventies.

And they explain pretty well, considering that it’s really just one of those things. They start out by meticulously recounting their early lives, and in fact their entire family history. I found this touching, in part because I’m a huge fan of putting things in chronological order, but also because they love their family, and each other. I’m into that. They were a military family and moved all over the world during the girls’ childhood, making Ann and Nancy a solid, close unit. They were also musical from a young age. And they found the Beatles. Ann and Nancy see that as the crucial pinch of magic dust that launched them – or Ann, specifically – toward stardom. I’m less convinced; while all their friends were playing at being Beatle girlfriends, Ann and Nancy were pretending to be the Beatles, with guitars and everything. They already had whatever it was.

Next up: Who wrote what. I want to know who slept with whom or what as much as the next person, but I also want to know who wrote what, and under what circumstances. And the book has a lot about the music and about dealing with the music industry, which is always fascinating, in a degrading, evil kind of way. I’m curious about what inspired the songs, too, but that’s usually sort of discouraging. Magic Man, for instance, was a straight-up homage to Ann’s first and overwhelming love, Michael Fisher (brother of guitarist Roger Fisher and, for a few years, their manager). I’m somewhat uncomfortable with that overboard, overwrought song being about a specific man. That’s what happens when you listen in on someone’s creative process, though.

The book is also very much about Ann’s struggle with her weight – or, more accurately, the music industry’s struggle with Ann’s weight. She started gaining in the eighties and, eventually, she was fat. It doesn’t seem like such a horrible thing, but it just wasn’t allowed, in society or, especially, in the music industry. The shit everyone gave her over it destroyed her self-confidence, that blistering individualism that allowed her to get on the stage in the first place. (Well, that, and the music industry in general, and coke.) Have you seen any of those videos from the eighties and nineties? They have Ann’s hair so big she can barely stand beneath it, and her jackets and dark and broad of shoulder, excessive of lapel. She is shown in shadow, cloaked in smoke, or only in close-up, where the big hair and startling blush situation are supposed to fool the eye into thinking she’s smaller than she is. Or, perhaps, just short circuit the viewer’s thought process from an overload of confusion and perplexity. Either way, it’s pathetic. This is a beautiful and shockingly talented woman, and all the music industry could think to do with her was turn her into some kind of clown. That, and focus on Nancy.

This was more or less their approach to the music, as well. Most of Heart’s hits came after Bebe LeStrange, the 1980 album I consider their last acceptable one (although I haven’t checked in recently – I guess their albums from the last two years, Red Velvet Car and Fanatic, could be great – but I wouldn’t bet on it). Ann and Nancy tell the story of how the music industry repackaged them in the eighties, choosing hits they didn’t like and clothes they found ridiculous. I was pleased to find this out, because some of that shit is very, very bad, and knowing they realize this, at least to some extent, makes me feel much better about things. All the dirt about the music industry and its hangers on, by the way, is good stuff. It becomes very clear how bands go from brilliant to embarrassing in the space of one album. (Hint: Letting the music industry tell them what they need to do if they want to make it really big. Also, coke.)

I’d read a couple of popular feminist books recently, and I was surprised to find that the Heart biography was one, too. I don’t know why it surprised me, given their beginnings – perhaps because of songs like “All I Want to Do Is Make Love to You” (which it turns out Ann never liked, thank god; that song is the kind of shit you can’t wait to wipe off your shoe, and even then, you keep smelling it anyway). Ann feels strongly that she was judged by different standards than male rockers were judged by, and she suffered for it, and she resents the hell out of it. That isn’t tricky, as feminist arguments go, but sometimes simple is good. (I was glancing through the Amazon reviews, by the way, and noticed that Ron, an Indiana Republican who can’t spell, is unhappy about the book’s liberal leanings. Life must be frustrating for Ron.)

I got involved with this book, and not just because I spent at least a week reading it (its not exactly tight, and when you’re reading it in spurts of fifteen or twenty minutes a day, it seems endless). Also, I feel that now the Wilsons and I are so close, it’s cold of them to obviously leave out so much of the dirt – because the absence of certain things is palpable. (For instance, despite a decent number of generalized statements about drug use, there are surprisingly few actual anecdotes, making me suspicious. And in the later years, we learn about Nancy’s marriage to Cameron Crowe — and the demise thereof — but there’s almost nothing about what Ann was doing in her personal life over the last twenty years. What up, Ann?)  So, it was a bit of a slog, and a vague slog, at times, but that was all right. Ann and Nancy are likeable, and interesting, and they kick ass.

And I just saw that Rod Stewart has a biography out. God damn it.

7 thoughts on “Gluey Tart: Kicking and Dreaming

  1. I loved reading this, and it’s prompting some thoughts on my own one-time fave band, Yes, which also went so wrong after going so right… I’m inclined to think that stadiums aren’t so good for musicians. You gotta fill a stadium with people and noise, and the kind of music and theatrics that get that job done aren’t necessarily conducive to good music. Not that I’ve never had a big ol’ time at a stadium concert, but I’ve had better musical experiences in smaller venues. Stadium concerts are closer to WWF than music.

  2. I’m not sure I buy the curse of the stadium exactly…but I like Britney and Destiny’s Child and Ke$ha, so….

    It could just be sticking around for too long? And being super successful. When you start out, there are a bunch of factors that might make a band have good music — personnel, interactions among the band, particular inspirations, what have you. If you suddenly get very big very fast, a large portion of that gets rearranged. You might have new management, everybody’s relationships with each other are shaken up, you’re in a different milieu, you may have less control over your music in some ways and/or more control in others. It just seems like with all the moving pieces, it’d be hard to keep ahold of whatever went right in the first place. Some folks manage it obviously, but lots don’t.

  3. ———————–
    Noah Berlatsky says:

    I’m not sure I buy the curse of the stadium exactly…
    ————————

    Most assuredly, “stadium concerts are closer to WWF than music.” The musicians — tiny figures on a distant stage — must be amplified on giant TV screens to be seen in any kind of detail; the massive space requires accompanying visual bombast, exaggerated gestures, in order not to appear puny, dwarfed by the surroundings.

    An analogy is how theatrical makeup, because of the distance between performer and audience, needs to be stylized, exaggerated in order to “read” visually at all. Whereas in real life, or movies, it can be far more subtle and naturalistic.

    And why do musicians, whenever feasible, usually prefer more intimate spaces?

  4. Some folks music is augmented/amplified by big massive showiness… (David Bowie, Madonna)….Their music is as much theatre as music to begin with. I’m a big Bowie fan, btw, so it’s not a negative judgment. It depends on the nature of the performer to begin with.

    Billy Joel’s on record as saying he adjusted his music specifically for stadia. As he got more popular, he was playing giant stadia with thin, wispy, piano-based pop….So, he amped up the electric guitars, loud drums and etc. to more appeal to his new environs. Some probably liked the new style…others not so much…Mileage will vary, but playing huge venues can definitely dictate “artistic” direction.

  5. First comment on HU! Thanks kinukitty for a heartfelt post. ba dum bum! Seriously, it’s the kind of review I might write about a DEVO autobiography. I’m also fascinated with what happens to bands that show bursts or long blasts of awesomeness in their more scrappy beginnings (when it’s only about music), then get really big and stay together (in some iteration) a loooong time (and start to think more about units sold, 401 K’s, selling cars). But, no matter what happens, I mean, Barracuda. Hell. Yeah.

    On the stadium topic–
    Part of David Byrne’s book How Music Works relates to the relationship between architecture and live music, basically that as eric b. says “venues can definitely dictate “artistic” direction”. Gothic cathedrals, for example, what with their endless reverb, are not conducive to highly short notes or percussive music which just gets all muddy, or even to fast harmonic changes or key modulation. What does work in a cathedral are long, sustained notes moving slowly and methodically through harmonic changes. And, lo and behold, choral music like Gregorian chants is what you get from that place.

    I now have to tip my hat to Billy Joel for his awareness of his craft, making exactly the corect changes that were necessary to fill a stadium with beefed up anthemic pop after his pseudo-poetic singer-sowngwritery cabaret days were behind him. Look what you’ve made me do, eric b.! Ack!

  6. Well…I think it kind of spelled the end (or the beginning of the end anyway) of whatever was enjoyable about Billy Joel in the first place…but it certainly shifted some units.

Comments are closed.