While there are plenty of musicians, record collectors and journos who will argue (as only musicians, record collectors and journos can) that all rock is "Southern rock" due to its geographical origins, Southern rock is nonetheless a well-defined genre.
And that genre finally gets its comprehensive Bible in Scott B. Bomar's Southbound: The Illustrated History of Southern Rock (Backbeat Books, 304 pp., $29.99). Insanely detailed with band bios, rare live and publicity photos, and chapters giving the context of Southern rock in both the greater world of music and its '70s heyday, Southbound covers the genre's giants (Allman Brothers, Lynyrd Skynyrd, ZZ Top), mid-level players (Marshall Tucker Band, Atlanta Rhythm Section) and more obscure groups (Cowboy, Grinderswitch).
Recently Rocks Off spoke with Bomar, a researcher and music-industry pro who specializes in reissues, about the book, the bands, and how Southern Rock helped elect a U.S. President.
Rocks Off: First, what made you want to tackle this topic? Scott Bomar: Back in the '70s, they had all these "Illustrated History" books on bands and musical styles. And as a young music geek, I loved them because you could see the bands and read about a bunch of them at once. Today, in the age of the internet, you can find the [story] of any band immediately, so the Illustrated Histories kind of went away.
So this book is kind of a throwback to that format, a retro-style book about a retro music. And the original manuscript was at least twice as long! I have one copy that I printed out in the most enormous three-ring binder you've ever seen. But I had to cut it in half before the publisher would even look at it!
The two towers of Southern rock are, of course, the Allman Brothers Band and Lynyrd Skynyrd. But both Gregg Allman and Ronnie Van Zant have said many times that they didn't like having their music called that or the tag as a whole. I interviewed almost 50 people for this book, and most of them did not want to be associated with the term. Only a small minority embraced it. I think it's because they didn't want to be known as "Southern rockers," but just "rockers" who happened to be from the South and not some subcategory somehow not worthy of full membership in the rock world. We don't call Led Zeppelin "British Rockers."
These guys grew up in the south in the '60s and had their bands and were long-haired freaky rock and rollers in a largely conservative culture. People think of Southern Rock as "redneck music" nowadays, but back then, a redneck would more likely be a guy with a crew cut and not smile upon these long-haired rock guys.
And the musicians bonded together in that they were the same in a culture that didn't like how they looked or acted. Then, once they got into the rock world, they were further [ostracized] for being from the South, because they had funny accents or whatever. So they started out as outsiders, and even after they got successful, they were still outsiders!
Of all the lesser-known bands in the book, which one do you think as a music fan should have been much more successful, but for whatever reason wasn't? I think it's surprising that Grinderswitch wasn't a bigger band. The songs were there and the quality of playing was there. And they were opening for the Allman Brothers. Everything was lined up correctly for them, but there's just those intangibles that you can't explain why some bands have success and others don't.
All the pieces were in place for this band to catch on, but they didn't. I can look at some of the other bands and see where there was a misstep here or something that might have derailed them, but not Grinderswtich.
Story continues on the next page.
