A response to Tim Brown’s book review in Soul Up North

[Paul-s]

 

A response to Tim Brown’s review of my Northern Soul Scene Book Chapter in ‘Soul Up North’. 

I wasn’t, at first, going to bother engaging with this piece and, in fact, it is quite hard to do so with such a poorly considered and badly articulated review: I can’t seriously call it a review as its more of a bitter diatribe against me. 

Before I start, perhaps I should mention that I was once banned from Beatin’ Rhythm, Manchester, following a physical outburst of jealous rage aimed me at an all-nighter by its owner over a presumed liaison. It was witnessed by many, so not a libellous comment. The banning was so puerile that even the shop staff ignored it. Perhaps that sheds some light on the bitter focus of the review and that’s why I think it is important to be honest about these events and why I'm writing this.

I get the impression Brown hasn’t actually read the book or indeed the Chapter I contributed. The art of critique calls for a real engagement with the material and it’s obvious Tim didn’t have the time.

Mr Brown likes to try to give an impression of knowledge and understanding, but it’s clearly evident in what is missing, and what is pure conjecture in the review, that he lacks serious depth of thought, critique and analysis. Let’s take a look:

·      The book in hardback is expensive and I do not own a copy (I can’t afford it). At the same time as it was published, a paperback was made available at £25. I was paid for researching and writing this in the form of 1 free paperback copy: No Ker-ching! as Brown conjectures. It took a year to write, so see how £25 spreads out in that scenario Mr Brown. Do your research rather than presume.

·      Brown seems to think that the world of academic writing profits the writers. WRONG AGAIN.  It is, in fact, an exploitative industry that relies on the writers (if they work in a university or want to) having to contribute to the REF system. They write for free and receive little to no royalties unless they are amongst the top few. It relies on the idea that it is supposed to be good for the writers’ exposure, ratings and academic future. I don't want to work at a university so have no interest in that. I just wanted to write the Chapter to start a discussion, not at Browns level of course, but amongst the many academics who are writing from without the scene rather than within. Critique and criticism are two very different things and Brown fails on the first challenge. It is easy to criticise, but critique demands research and knowledge and at least the ability to articulate a counter narrative.

·      Academics earn nothing like the amount Brown quotes (which is an Associate Professor rate) and they are dependent on the subject. So, if you’re in Finance and Banking, yes, it’s possible, but in the humanities no way. Do your research Mr Brown.

·      Before writing the Chapter I held my B.A. and M.A and was by no means 'new to academic writing' as Tim presumes. Again, his lack of knowledge of the subject he is critiquing is sadly evident and some might say, bitter in tone.

·      If he had read the Chapter, he would understand that it does “challenge the methodologies by which the papers are presented” (note that he uses this phrase in a non-sensical way, but I cannot be bothered pointing out why). Here, Tim tries to sound informed whilst not providing any examples or expanding on what he means, indicating that he has no idea of ‘methodology’ or indeed, what already exists in the field. To help him out, here’s a little pointer. In my Chapter, the ‘methodology’ is one of practice- based research and this alone is new in this subject area. This is clearly outlined at the start on page 293 in the third paragraph of the Chapter. The chapters argument is also presented at the end of the Chapter in the form of a playlist that, I argue, demonstrates how the music and dancing have evolved in a nuanced symbiotic ways over the decades (many of which I didn’t see Tim in, or dancing in, in fact I have never seen him dancing): this is also a new component to the methodological approach.

·      Mr Brown calls me a ‘self-appointed dance aficionado’ which again, sounds a bit bitter. I guess he is a self-appointed record aficionado, book reviewer and 70's hairdresser if we choose to misuse the word in that way. At no point in the book do I say I am an aficionado, and I actually state clearly that this is written from my own experience, part autobiographical, academic-ethnographic and academic auto-ethnographic. I also state how the review of all existing literature on the subject was a part of the writing process and what the methodology is. 

·      I self-funded my PhD and it was very very difficult to do so, a real struggle. Is Brown privately educated, middle class? He comes across as such and seems to resent a working-class man choosing to educate himself at this level. By the way Mr Brown, you can now call me Dr Sadot x.

·      As to his persistence with the 'Ker-ching' that he presumes arises from these books, I have received his record lists and recognise much Ker-chinging in them. 

·      Browns so-called area of expertise is Zoo’s. But he even gets that wrong in the review. Academics discovered Zoo’s as sociological subject matter in the 1920’s and 1930’s, not 20 years ago as Tim states.

·      Keep an eye out for Browns own pretentious use of language in the review preceding the one of the book. Quote: ‘I’ve missed some John Betjeman-styled prose or A.A. Gill-type acerbic insight, but, somehow, I doubt it” 

·      My chapter actually argues for the existence of a domain that Brown clearly sits within, the ‘historico-pastiche’, a re-imagining of what actually happened. Many of the records we broke at Soul or Nothing, DDA and beyond were, and are, a mystery to Mr Brown he had/has no idea about them because he was not out and about listening and dancing. He chooses to sit in the re-imagined past, literally sit, as he rarely dances. 
How on earth ‘Soul Up North’ decided that Brown should review a book Chapter about dancing is beyond me. It’s as relevant as Russ Winstanley judging a dance competition. Is Brown one of the editors?

On a final note, Brown says "the world needs paid for analyses of Hip-hop and Morris Dancing" then goes on to make more puerile conjectures, crap jokes and condemnations regarding such work. Well, in fact, Hip-hop is a multi billion dollar industry that influences many things and it is worthy of much study and it has been written about greatly at a high academic level for a very long time. As a form it contains rich socio-political history, cultural significance and much much more. How arrogant to make such ridiculous and, once again, ill-informed statement. 
Mr Brown may enjoy my forthcoming Chapter: 
Sadot, P., (2021) 'Negotiating the Metaspace: hip hop dance artists in the space of UK dance/theatre' in Fogarty, M. Kai Johnson, I (eds), Oxford Book of Hip Hop Dance Studies, London: Routledge, (forthcoming)

I'm not defending academia and think it is elitist and self-perpetuating, that's why I don't work for money in a University and won't. What I am defending is the right to answer idiotic book reviews that draw on jealousy and inarticulacy as a means of address.

Howard, please feel free to publish this in the next edition..

 

Love and Soul

Paul-S (Dr Paul Sadot).

Edited October 1, 2020 by Paul-s
spelling

[Frankie Crocker]

On 23/09/2020 at 16:22, Paul-s said:

 

A response to Tim Brown’s review of my Northern Soul Scene Book Chapter in ‘Soul Up North’. 

I wasn’t, at first, going to bother engaging with this piece and, in fact, it is quite hard to do so with such a poorly considered and badly articulated review: I can’t seriously call it a review as its more of a bitter diatribe against me. 

Before I start, perhaps I should mention that I was once banned from Beatin’ Rhythm, Manchester, following a physical outburst of jealous rage aimed me at an all-nighter by its owner over a presumed liaison. It was witnessed by many, so not a libellous comment. The banning was so puerile that even the shop staff ignored it. Perhaps that sheds some light on the bitter focus of the review and that’s why I think it is important to be honest about these events and why I'm writing this.

I get the impression Brown hasn’t actually read the book or indeed the Chapter I contributed. The art of critique calls for a real engagement with the material and it’s obvious Tim didn’t have the time.

Mr Brown likes to try to give an impression of knowledge and understanding, but it’s clearly evident in what is missing, and what is pure conjecture in the review, that he lacks serious depth of thought, critique and analysis. Let’s take a look:

·      The book in hardback is expensive and I do not own a copy (I can’t afford it). At the same time as it was published, a paperback was made available at £25. I was paid for researching and writing this in the form of 1 free paperback copy: No Ker-ching! as Brown conjectures. It took a year to write, so see how £25 spreads out in that scenario Mr Brown. Do your research rather than presume.

·      Brown seems to think that the world of academic writing profits the writers. WRONG AGAIN.  It is, in fact, an exploitative industry that relies on the writers (if they work in a university or want to) having to contribute to the REF system. They write for free and receive little to no royalties unless they are amongst the top few. It relies on the idea that it is supposed to be good for the writers’ exposure, ratings and academic future. I don't want to work at a university so have no interest in that. I just wanted to write the Chapter to start a discussion, not at Browns level of course, but amongst the many academics who are writing from without the scene rather than within. Critique and criticism are two very different things and Brown fails on the first challenge. It is easy to criticise, but critique demands research and knowledge and at least the ability to articulate a counter narrative.

·      Academics earn nothing like the amount Brown quotes (which is an Associate Professor rate) and they are dependent on the subject. So, if you’re in Finance and Banking, yes, it’s possible, but in the humanities no way. Do your research Mr Brown.

·      Before writing the Chapter I held my B.A. and M.A and was by no means 'new to academic writing' as Tim presumes. Again, his lack of knowledge of the subject he is critiquing is sadly evident and some might say, bitter in tone.

·      If he had read the Chapter, he would understand that it does “challenge the methodologies by which the papers are presented” (note that he uses this phrase in a non-sensical way, but I cannot be bothered pointing out why). Here, Tim tries to sound informed whilst not providing any examples or expanding on what he means, indicating that he has no idea of ‘methodology’ or indeed, what already exists in the field. To help him out, here’s a little pointer. In my Chapter, the ‘methodology’ is one of practice- based research and this alone is new in this subject area. This is clearly outlined at the start on page 293 in the third paragraph of the Chapter. The chapters argument is also presented at the end of the Chapter in the form of a playlist that, I argue, demonstrates how the music and dancing have evolved in a nuanced symbiotic ways over the decades (many of which I didn’t see Tim in, or dancing in, in fact I have never seen him dancing): this is also a new component to the methodological approach.

·      Mr Brown calls me a ‘self-appointed dance aficionado’ which again, sounds a bit bitter. I guess he is a self-appointed record aficionado, book reviewer and 70's hairdresser if we choose to misuse the word in that way. At no point in the book do I say I am an aficionado, and I actually state clearly that this is written from my own experience, part autobiographical, academic-ethnographic and academic auto-ethnographic. I also state how the review of all existing literature on the subject was a part of the writing process and what the methodology is. 

·      I self-funded my PhD and it was very very difficult to do so, a real struggle. Is Brown privately educated, middle class? He comes across as such and seems to resent a working-class man choosing to educate himself at this level. By the way Mr Brown, you can now call me Dr Sadot x.

·      As to his persistence with the 'Ker-ching' that he presumes arises from these books, I have received his record lists and recognise much Ker-chinging in them. 

·      Browns so-called area of expertise is Zoo’s. But he even gets that wrong in the review. Academics discovered Zoo’s as sociological subject matter in the 1920’s and 1930’s, not 20 years ago as Tim states.

·      Keep an eye out for Browns own pretentious use of language in the review preceding the one of the book. Quote: ‘I’ve missed some John Betjeman-styled prose or A.A. Gill-type acerbic insight, but, somehow, I doubt it” 

·      My chapter actually argues for the existence of a domain that Brown clearly sits within, the ‘historico-pastiche’, a re-imagining of what actually happened. Many of the records we broke at Soul or Nothing, DDA and beyond were, and are, a mystery to Mr Brown he had/has no idea about them because he was not out and about listening and dancing. He chooses to sit in the re-imagined past, literally sit, as he rarely dances. 
How on earth ‘Soul Up North’ decided that Brown should review a book Chapter about dancing is beyond me. It’s as relevant as Russ Winstanley judging a dance competition. Is Brown one of the editors?

On a final note, Brown says "the world needs paid for analyses of Hip-hop and Morris Dancing" then goes on to make more puerile conjectures, crap jokes and condemnations regarding such work. Well, in fact, Hip-hop is a multi billion dollar industry that influences many things and it is worthy of much study and it has been written about greatly at a high academic level for a very long time. As a form it contains rich socio-political history, cultural significance and much much more. How arrogant to make such ridiculous and, once again, ill-informed statement. 
Mr Brown may enjoy my forthcoming Chapter: 
Sadot, P., (2021) 'Negotiating the Metaspace: hip hop dance artists in the space of UK dance/theatre' in Fogarty, M. Kai Johnson, I (eds), Oxford Book of Hip Hop Dance Studies, London: Routledge, (forthcoming)

I'm not defending academia and think it is elitist and self-perpetuating, that's why I don't work for money in a University and won't. What I am defending is the right to answer idiotic book reviews that draw on jealousy and inarticulacy as a means of address.

Howard, please feel free to publish this in the next edition..

 

Love and Soul

Paul-S (Dr Paul Sadot).

Hi Paul. No need to take Tim’s review seriously. Although he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to soul records and artists, he adopts a Rod Liddle -Jeremy Clarkson persona when at the keyboard. Right from the first sentence he is wrong as he is unaware of Andrew Wilson’s academic work ‘Northern Soul: Music, Drugs and Subcultural Identity (Routledge 2007). If Tim browsed Soul-Source sufficiently, he would perhaps have been aware of the existence of this book as it was discussed a long time ago. Tim can come across as being somewhat pompous and insecure, but there is a rational explanation for this - he runs the number two record business in the UK whilst his priceguides also rank as inferior and out of date. Tim has in fact written a very good book and I would highly recommend it to your good self despite the small number of spelling mistakes.

KTF

Frankie ‘the dance floor aficionado’ Crocker.

[Tai-pan]

On 23/09/2020 at 16:22, Paul-s said:

 

A response to Tim Brown’s review of my Northern Soul Scene Book Chapter in ‘Soul Up North’. 

I wasn’t, at first, going to bother engaging with this piece and, in fact, it is quite hard to do so with such a poorly considered and badly articulated review: I can’t seriously call it a review as its more of a bitter diatribe against me. 

Before I start, perhaps I should mention that I was once banned from Beatin’ Rhythm, Manchester, following a physical outburst of jealous rage aimed me at an all-nighter by its owner over a presumed liaison. It was witnessed by many, so not a libellous comment. The banning was so puerile that even the shop staff ignored it. Perhaps that sheds some light on the bitter focus of the review and that’s why I think it is important to be honest about these events and why I'm writing this.

I get the impression Brown hasn’t actually read the book or indeed the Chapter I contributed. The art of critique calls for a real engagement with the material and it’s obvious Tim didn’t have the time.

Mr Brown likes to try to give an impression of knowledge and understanding, but it’s clearly evident in what is missing, and what is pure conjecture in the review, that he lacks serious depth of thought, critique and analysis. Let’s take a look:

·      The book in hardback is expensive and I do not own a copy (I can’t afford it). At the same time as it was published, a paperback was made available at £25. I was paid for researching and writing this in the form of 1 free paperback copy: No Ker-ching! as Brown conjectures. It took a year to write, so see how £25 spreads out in that scenario Mr Brown. Do your research rather than presume.

·      Brown seems to think that the world of academic writing profits the writers. WRONG AGAIN.  It is, in fact, an exploitative industry that relies on the writers (if they work in a university or want to) having to contribute to the REF system. They write for free and receive little to no royalties unless they are amongst the top few. It relies on the idea that it is supposed to be good for the writers’ exposure, ratings and academic future. I don't want to work at a university so have no interest in that. I just wanted to write the Chapter to start a discussion, not at Browns level of course, but amongst the many academics who are writing from without the scene rather than within. Critique and criticism are two very different things and Brown fails on the first challenge. It is easy to criticise, but critique demands research and knowledge and at least the ability to articulate a counter narrative.

·      Academics earn nothing like the amount Brown quotes (which is an Associate Professor rate) and they are dependent on the subject. So, if you’re in Finance and Banking, yes, it’s possible, but in the humanities no way. Do your research Mr Brown.

·      Before writing the Chapter I held my B.A. and M.A and was by no means 'new to academic writing' as Tim presumes. Again, his lack of knowledge of the subject he is critiquing is sadly evident and some might say, bitter in tone.

·      If he had read the Chapter, he would understand that it does “challenge the methodologies by which the papers are presented” (note that he uses this phrase in a non-sensical way, but I cannot be bothered pointing out why). Here, Tim tries to sound informed whilst not providing any examples or expanding on what he means, indicating that he has no idea of ‘methodology’ or indeed, what already exists in the field. To help him out, here’s a little pointer. In my Chapter, the ‘methodology’ is one of practice- based research and this alone is new in this subject area. This is clearly outlined at the start on page 293 in the third paragraph of the Chapter. The chapters argument is also presented at the end of the Chapter in the form of a playlist that, I argue, demonstrates how the music and dancing have evolved in a nuanced symbiotic ways over the decades (many of which I didn’t see Tim in, or dancing in, in fact I have never seen him dancing): this is also a new component to the methodological approach.

·      Mr Brown calls me a ‘self-appointed dance aficionado’ which again, sounds a bit bitter. I guess he is a self-appointed record aficionado, book reviewer and 70's hairdresser if we choose to misuse the word in that way. At no point in the book do I say I am an aficionado, and I actually state clearly that this is written from my own experience, part autobiographical, academic-ethnographic and academic auto-ethnographic. I also state how the review of all existing literature on the subject was a part of the writing process and what the methodology is. 

·      I self-funded my PhD and it was very very difficult to do so, a real struggle. Is Brown privately educated, middle class? He comes across as such and seems to resent a working-class man choosing to educate himself at this level. By the way Mr Brown, you can now call me Dr Sadot x.

·      As to his persistence with the 'Ker-ching' that he presumes arises from these books, I have received his record lists and recognise much Ker-chinging in them. 

·      Browns so-called area of expertise is Zoo’s. But he even gets that wrong in the review. Academics discovered Zoo’s as sociological subject matter in the 1920’s and 1930’s, not 20 years ago as Tim states.

·      Keep an eye out for Browns own pretentious use of language in the review preceding the one of the book. Quote: ‘I’ve missed some John Betjeman-styled prose or A.A. Gill-type acerbic insight, but, somehow, I doubt it” 

·      My chapter actually argues for the existence of a domain that Brown clearly sits within, the ‘historico-pastiche’, a re-imagining of what actually happened. Many of the records we broke at Soul or Nothing, DDA and beyond were, and are, a mystery to Mr Brown he had/has no idea about them because he was not out and about listening and dancing. He chooses to sit in the re-imagined past, literally sit, as he rarely dances. 
How on earth ‘Soul Up North’ decided that Brown should review a book Chapter about dancing is beyond me. It’s as relevant as Russ Winstanley judging a dance competition. Is Brown one of the editors?

On a final note, Brown says "the world needs paid for analyses of Hip-hop and Morris Dancing" then goes on to make more puerile conjectures, crap jokes and condemnations regarding such work. Well, in fact, Hip-hop is a multi billion dollar industry that influences many things and it is worthy of much study and it has been written about greatly at a high academic level for a very long time. As a form it contains rich socio-political history, cultural significance and much much more. How arrogant to make such ridiculous and, once again, ill-informed statement. 
Mr Brown may enjoy my forthcoming Chapter: 
Sadot, P., (2021) 'Negotiating the Metaspace: hip hop dance artists in the space of UK dance/theatre' in Fogarty, M. Kai Johnson, I (eds), Oxford Book of Hip Hop Dance Studies, London: Routledge, (forthcoming)

I'm not defending academia and think it is elitist and self-perpetuating, that's why I don't work for money in a University and won't. What I am defending is the right to answer idiotic book reviews that draw on jealousy and inarticulacy as a means of address.

Howard, please feel free to publish this in the next edition..

 

Love and Soul

Paul-S (Dr Paul Sadot).

 

Well Paul, I think it's clear you and Tim are not fans of each other. I've read both your post and Tim's in the photo.

I'm not judging or getting into the 'rights and wrongs' of who. But I will say that most who have read Tim's columns over the years will probably know he has a direct provocative style. It's his style as a critic, sometimes it's border line, but he tells it how he's see it. Taking out the personal references, I think he makes some perceptive observations that will resonate with a lot of people.

I understand you are upset, but I think a lot of what you have asserted about his writing ability and publications, in my view and experience are way off the mark, all of his books have been good in my opinion. Regarding his knowledge of soul music and records, he has forgotten more than most of us know, I could tell you of so many times when I would unearth a totally unlisted 45 (even unlisted in his own guide), only to mention the record to him and discover, it's been in his collection for years! 

Personally, I think good writing and knowledge, comes with many years of experience and is an art developed over time, it ceases to become rigid and becomes expressive, this happens when the writer and the process dissolve. 

I also find most books with bibliography and 'academic style' layout and structure, to be boring and hard work and they generally miss the mark when holding the interest of the reader. Just my personal opinion.

Regards,

Andy K

 

 

 

 

 

[Tomangoes]

Any chance of seeing the actual text that has been criticed?

Ed

[Chas]

And i thought the moaning criticism in the letters pages of 'echoes' was bad, best not to rise to it methinks. People won't have their minds made up for them, not since Christopher Hitchens died anyway! 

[Thinksmart]

Tim's own book on Wigan Casino years, which I do not think had a distribution or readership of others, does not have the style of his reviews and is an enjoyable, straight forward read.  I wouldnt take the review to heart and let it fade. As I was told years ago, a book will be around long after anyone remembers a review of it.  I cannot comment on this book not having read it, but academic books on subculture / folkculture are a slog and are not based on participation.  I have generally stopped reading them but will give this a go.

ps sincrere congratulations on self-funding a PHD, my son is confronted with the difficulty of that (especially right now) and that achievement of yours is worth mentioning in its own right.  

Edited October 2, 2020 by Thinksmart

[Paul-s]

On 02/10/2020 at 10:20, Thinksmart said:

Tim's own book on Wigan Casino years, which I do not think had a distribution or readership of others, does not have the style of his reviews and is an enjoyable, straight forward read.  I wouldnt take the review to heart and let it fade. As I was told years ago, a book will be around long after anyone remembers a review of it.  I cannot comment on this book not having read it, but academic books on subculture / folkculture are a slog and are not based on participation.  I have generally stopped reading them but will give this a go.

ps sincrere congratulations on self-funding a PHD, my son is confronted with the difficulty of that (especially right now) and that achievement of yours is worth mentioning in its own right.  

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I absolutely didn't take the review to heart though, but found pleasure in responding to such a slack attempt at using 'Soul Up North' as platform for personal attacks. Jealousy, as Tim clearly demonstrates in the article, often materialises in babbling rhetorical nonsense. If I get a critique, which the chapter aims to do (to start a dialogue) I always listen and learn, if it is informed and articulated well. There is a massive difference between criticism and critique.

The book is actually a mixture of academic and non-academic writing and was intended as just that. It does what it says on the tin so to speak.

Northern Soul, whether scene goers like it or not, is now studied worldwide in the fields of sociology, criminology,  psychology, dance, culture etc. It has significance in those fields and it's good to represent a scene 'insiders' academically informed perspective rather than be be commented upon by academics on the 'outside' off the scene all the time....this is obviously only my opinion.

The self-funded PhD was extremely hard and demanded a lot of sacrifice and going without. You are warned that it is a long, solitary and often isolating experience and it is. Of course, it is also an exciting, challenging, positive and life changing experience too.. if its done for the right reasons. Good luck to your son and I hope he manages to find a way to do it.

 

 

[Mike]

 

have had a reply via Tim Brown and have posted it below

 as it imo draws a line under this matter am going to now close the topic

cheers all 

mike

---------------------------------------------------------

Paul’s statement is his every right under the freedom of speech which is a foundation stone of British democracy, I’m bound to say that the respondents to the thread seem to have judged the spirit of my book review better than he has. I would further like to say that I was wrong to second-guess Paul’s motivations in pursuing a PhD. There are a number of factual inaccuracies in Paul’s reply however, one in particular I would like to put on the record – I didn’t own, part-own, or even have shares in, Beatin’ Rhythm record shop in Manchester.
Best wishes to all,
Tim Brown