In her best-selling biography, Polly Tarantella makes clear that she ranks the most significant days of Crystal Passion's life as those from when she arrived at JFK airport until her fateful last day on American soil. It's probably not surprising that an American writer asserts that Crystal's few weeks in America should be her most important. Although Polly interviewed me for the book and we continue to exchange e-mails, there's a lot in her account I don't really recognise. And this is even though I'm so liberally quoted: to the extent that I seem to be by far the most important member of her band (with the possible exception of Judy).
The Customs Officers who interrogated us at the airport were just doing their job. I don't agree that their actions were either unwarranted harassment or a concerted effort to keep Crystal Passion out of the United States. The weeks we toured America were undoubtedly important but even though this was where her career as a singer and musician came to an end, I wouldn't say that this episode in her life is what defines her or what most makes her music worth listening to. Surely it's not the manner of your passing but what happens before that exemplifies the worth of a person's life. I definitely don't believe that Anna Walentynowicz framed Crystal or anyone else in our entourage. I don't subscribe to the theory that the drugs they found in the corridor had been deliberately planted as an excuse to charge and prosecute Crystal. I think they were dumped simply because if they'd been discovered on the person of Jenny or anyone else in the band, our tour would have ended before it even began. And I don't believe that Peter Piper the Senior Customs Officer was a reluctant partner in a shadowy conspiracy to bar Crystal Passion from ever entering America.
On the other hand, it would be difficult for Polly to make such grandiose claims for Crystal Passion and her music if she didn't present our disastrous final tour as one that had been deliberately sabotaged. I don't think she could have called the biography
Crystal Passion: Saviour of Rock
and make so many bold claims if our tour across the United States hadn't somehow been the victim of a deliberate policy of harassment rather than just an unfortunate comedy of errors.
Many people, including me, take issue with Polly's characterisation of our music as being Rock at all. In the United States in particular, but to a certain extent in the UK and Europe also, Rock Music has become so elevated in popular esteem for the older generation that almost any type of music needs to be marketed as such to attract the attention of the wider media. It can then be marketed as being sonically accessible and benefiting from a rich venerable heritage. Crystal Passion's music was a lot of things, but it probably can't easily be placed on a dotted line of musical progression that begins with Bill Haley and Chuck Berry, rises to its most lavish and pompous in the 1970s, and has ever since limped along as the music of middle-aged Dads and Russian Prime Ministers.
I don't blame Polly for how she's made such a big deal. Nobody would buy a book about Crystal Passion if they didn't think there was something special and compelling about her. Of course I
do
think she was special and compelling. It's just that when she was alive she attracted almost none of the attention she's getting now.
I think Polly addresses an apparent need to plug in the gaping hole in Rock Music's myth of popular music's cyclical reinvention. There's been nothing especially significant since Acid House burst onto the scene. And that was big mostly in Europe and hardly at all in America: the original home of House music. Rock critics like to have a narrative to describe the history of popular culture. And Rock fans like to define their lives in relation to this narrative. 1967 was the Summer of Love. 1977 was when Punk shook up the musical establishment. 1988 was when clubbing went from the periphery to the heart of youth culture. Hair-length, trouser flare, attitude, turn of phrase, and record collections all become part of something bigger and more significant. And even though British Rock critics have a different perspective to those in the States, they all have a shared faith in a similar mythology.
And then come the 1990s, what happened? Where was the next musical revolution? And into the 21
st
Century, what happened to that elusive next big generation-defining event?
My opinion is that teenagers and young people just switched the focus of their attention away from music. Now they've got the internet and mobile phones and computer games and all that stuff, what's so important about the music in the background? Is it any coincidence that the last noteworthy musical revolution (in Europe at least) came about in 1988 just before the time PCs started to appear in ordinary people's homes?
Nevertheless, if you're a Rock critic who's written for
Rolling Stone
,
Mojo
,
Q
and the
New York Times
, you're not going to buy into the idea that the history of Rock Music and its musical revolutions have just come to an end just because you can download
Angry Birds