Im very late to this – but im very much enjoying Andrew Hickeys’s “History of Rock Music in 500 songs” podcast and trying very hard to catch up. Im sure members of the Afterword will find a lot to like here.
Its a herculean undertaking – he’s been at it since 2018 – and with 150+ episodes he’s currently only up to the mid sixties. I have found each episode to be comprehensively researched with a thorough exploration of the history of the song and artist, in the context of the musical and political landscape at the time. The episode on Hey Joe was two hours long.
Andrew’s delivery is not the most engaging and unfortunately rather soporific I’ve found, but so far I’ve found the content really interesting and entertaining.
https://500songs.com/podcast/
Sounds good! Thanks for the tip.
Use the box!
https://500songs.com/podcast/
It’s an interesting podcast series purely by dint of the subject matter and I’ve learnt a good deal of background information I didn’t know before, but it has to be admitted that Andrew Hickey’s speaking voice is the very definition of northern monotone, and that initially makes sticking with it quite hard work, at least for a certified southerner like me. For a man with such an apparent
love of rock n’ roll in its many guises, he comes over as lacking in humour and the sort of dullard who might corner you at parties and want to describe the route he took to get there in minute detail. Vocal nuance and inflection are strangers to him. Still, it’s worth gritting your teeth and persevering though; his shows are certainly very well researched and informative, and his dull-as-ditchwater voice eventually becomes relatively unobtrusive once you are hardened to it.
Yes I agree. As you say though, after a while you sort of get through the monotone. Its a bit of shame because what he is creating is an astonishingly comprehensive history of popular music in the second half of the 20c no less – if only it were read by someone else.
There is a transcript though, I see, if you really can’t handle his voice. Well, actually, more of a script, I suppose.
The vocal delivery is certainly “unembellished” but you do get used to it and this guy really knows his stuff.
I really like the fact that almost all the music referenced is played (short clips) which helps break it up and illustrates what he’s talking about. I wonder if he’ll be able to continue with that as he get to more recent stuff (i.e. The 70’s!)
AFAIK it’s been deemed OK to play short (less than a minute) clips of songs “for illustrative purposes” in podcasts as long as title/artist are correctly referenced and the podcast isn’t for paying subscribers only.
Keen for this to be resurfaced, as this is – monotone delivery aside – an amazing feat of scholarship. He had a decent interview on the Rick Rubin podcast a couple of months ago which is worth a look.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/podcast-dept/a-music-podcast-unlike-any-other
The Rubin interview makes it clear, by the way, that his manner of delivery is a very deliberate, conscious choice given where he lies on the autism spectrum, and that his natural way of communicating would be incredibly fast and practically unintelligible. I’m with you @juniorwells – it doesn’t phase me at all and is usefully soporific at times!
Its fascinating. I dont mind his delivery at all. Very clear and leisurely so you can take it all in. Handy while driving.
I intended to cherry pick but am notw going through numerically.
The depth of research is staggering. The music bites are best listened through headphones apparently. A bit soft through speakers.
Highlight so far has been the Velvets. Over 2 hours that gave a lesson on Shoenberg, Cage , atonal , free jazz etc as background before he covered VU. Highly educational it was. I must check if he does MMM.
Best fact so far is Jackie Wilson never played Reet Petite live after doing his trademark rrrrrr on Reet and his upper denture flew across the stage.