This book is a part of a series on cult artists that is published by White Lion Publishing. It was interesting to see which musicians were chosen for the book, and I was wondering how some musicians made the cut. Bobby Gentry, for example, I would consider pretty mainstream country. It was nice to see Roky Erikson from Austin, Texas included. I was pleased to see some of my favorite artists like Nick Cave and Gil Scott Heron included but why not include Jack White or Billie Eilish? ( )

Cult Musicians: 50 Progressive Performers You Need to Know by Robert Dimery is a collection of short write-ups about, you guessed it, 50 musicians. While overall the book is very good I do have a bone to pick.

With both Cult Filmmakers and Cult Writers the author made an attempt to actually define how he was using the term "cult." When you are using a term that means something different to different people, having a working definition makes sense for both the writer and the reader. For the writer it helps in deciding who to include and who to exclude. For the reader it serves to provide some context for the inevitable debate about who was shunned and who the reader thinks doesn't belong. Those debates, or complaining as some people do it, is a big part of the fun. Dimery, however, does not actually define the term either in an attempt to clarify what he views a "cult" musician as or to give the reader some idea what makes a musician a cult musician. Instead he mentions different aspects of many of the artists, but none that carry throughout the list. It is the equivalent of the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" rationale. In other words it is a cop out. He should have just said these are 50 musicians I think you should either know about or know more about (since the majority will be known to at least some degree to most music followers but maybe not "the rest of the story"). Dimery is the master of overblown hyperbole, just look at some of his other titles. You need or you have to do what he says you must in order to qualify for the club, in case anyone wants to be in a club he would be in.

Now that I have discussed what irked me, I can talk about all that is right with the book. If you just look at it as a list of 50 musicians with interesting stories, you will be very satisfied with the book. Each entry goes into enough detail to give a very good idea of what makes the artist's story a compelling one. But the entries are also brief so you can decide whether you might want to move on to the next entry or do some online research and listen to some of their work. I found myself looking up most of the artists and many of the songs mentioned, even if I was familiar with it. Coming back to a song, or any artwork, from a different perspective is rarely disappointing.

While I made the lack of clarity about how Dimery understands the word "cult" it is really a minor bump in the overall trip through the book. There likely wasn't an honest attempt at a definition because it didn't really matter to him, he knew who he wanted to include and working with a definition would have meant making them fit or eliminating them. It is a little disingenuous but the book as a whole is well worth reading and you may just find some new artists or new songs from old artists.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley. ( )