Singer Reviews

This is the best book regarding Placido Domingo's career, character and musical abilities, which are considerable. Highly recommended for any fan if you can find a copy of it. Mine is autographed and I consider it priceless.

I didn't think it would come to this... but I need to rave about this book! Rushdie has captured in his beautiful re-telling of the myth of Orpheus the heartbeat of the post-millenium - a world beside all possible worlds and one waiting to be born, where no 'ground' is 'safe' and yearning and love are the true bookends of life. Distinctions and duelisms are irrelevent in the world of Ormus and Vina and, like life, their story keep cycling back into each other as our real stories continue to flood into one truer fiction that is life - its all here folks! I am haunted by this one and well-worth working through. Easier to 'get into' than 'Midnight's Children' and Rock-n-Roll will never win you a Booker like the birth of post-colonial India... but I feel that when we look back, it be will *this* novel that shows the dissolving of East/West, High/Low culture, and all ideological wars in the face of love (yes... it sounds kitsche...but it is also true!)that he will be known for - maybe not taught in post-grad lit courses... but people will understand this - heck, songs are being written for goodness sake - Art begetting art. And besides... VTO is the coolest fictional band since Spinal Tap bar none! Go... stop working at your dead-end job... order the book now and reflect on things eternal for a change! A no-risk read if ever there was one.

"The Ulysses of Rock and Roll", trumpets one reviewer on the dust jacket. Maybe. I can't think of any other decent contenders for that title. Certainly Rushdie has not let his fans down if what they were hoping for was for him to sustain his reputation for daring inventiveness and great writing.

This novel is the story of a rock star couple, in the vein of Ike and Tina Turner (though later on with the reclusive lifestyle of Michael Jackson), told from the perspective of a friend (and sometime lover) photographer. The settings span India (of course), England and the US; the themes include music (naturally), mysticism, insanity and loyalty. Oh, and seismology - the earthquake is ever-present, warning the reader that nothing is to be relied on, that the ground can give way beneath you at any point.

Without giving away too much of the plot, the book is set in what science fiction writers would call a parallel universe, where Simon and Garfunkel are women, where Bill Clinton never makes it to the presidential candidacy (due to the premature discovery of certain extramarital liaisons), and England joins the Vietnam conflict. All the settings are beautifully portrayed, but the greatest literary trick that Rushdie uses is to use real people - mostly rock stars - as characters. U2 put in an appearance (a group called Vox Pop - referring to Bono's full name, Bono Vox, and their mid-90s album Pop) as "a promising Irish quartet"; Andy Warhol is there, with Basquiat, Lou Reed and the rest of the crowd; David Bowie is the "thin guy from England" ; and so on. The rock fan will have a lot of fun looking out for the others. The honour of most prominent real person, though, goes bizarrely to Brian Eno, portrayed as himself (a music engineer). Amazing.

In a case of art imitating art, U2 have written material using lyrics from the book. The songs, in turn, are in the soundtrack to the Wim Wenders movie Million Dollar Hotel. And Rushdie goes on to feature as a character in the spy thriller The Hit List, by (real life) former British special forces operative Chris Ryan. Multimedia indeed.

Where will it end? I don't care. This is great fun, and brilliant writing to boot.

Rushdie delivers a perplexing and interesting novel, as ever. I'm not even going to try to explain the plot. I suggest taking a class on Rushdie- his books go that deep. I have enjoyed everything that I have read so far. This is a great novel, whether you are reading it for school or just for fun.

I'VE ALWAYS ADORED JUDY GARLAND AND HER KIDS, LIZA, JOEY AND LORNA. AT FIRST, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE JUDY'S KIDS.
BUT THEN LIZA CAME INTO HER OWN AND WOWED EVERYONE HERSELF!
LORNA WENT ON STAGE WITH HER MOM A FEW TIMES, AS DID JOEY IN JUDY'S CHRISTMAS SPECIAL.

THEN--LIZA BECAME A SUPERSTAR, AND LORNA--ALTHOUGH HER VOICE WAS WONDERFUL ENOUGH, JUST NEVER MADE IT AS BIG AS HER OLDER SIS.
THIS IS THE CRUX OF THIS BOOK.
LORNA HAS A GIANT CHIP ON HER SHOULDER.
EVERYTHING THAT HAS GONE WRONG IN HER SORRY LIFE IS LIZA'S FAULT, HER MOM'S FAULT--LORNA DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING. IT'S A WONDER LIZA WILL EVEN TALK TO HER.
OH, AND WATCH LORNA TRY TO POLISH UP HER FATHER'S ( SID LUFT) IMAGE. THE MAN HELPED TO DESTROY JUDY'S FINANCES--WAS A STRONG ARMED KIND OF A MAN--ROUGH--AND YET--HE IS ALMOST PROMOTED TO SAINTHOOD IN THIS BOOK.
WHEN I FINISHED THE BOOK, I WAS ALREADY WISHING FOR LIZA'S REBUTTAL WHICH I AM SURE NOT ONLY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE TRUTHFUL THAN LORNA'S VERSION--IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A WELCOME, REFRESHING CHANGE FROM LORNA'S MALARCHY.
THE ONLY MAN WHO MATCHED JUDY--BOTH TALENT WISE AND GLAMOUR WISE WAS VINCENT MINNELLI. WHICH MAKES LIZA A POWERHOUSE TO CONTEND WITH.
THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING LORNA WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DO.

I think Lorna Luft has written a very good biography on her mother Judy Garland, without being to tell-all or cruel. I think it's a pretty good book and to tell her story through her own eyes. The only part I didn't agree with is towards the end when she starts bashing Liza. Otherall its a very good book, very poignant and honest. I think Ms. Luft has a lot of courage to write from her heart and tell how it really was to live with her mother Judy Garland and also tells of how her Moms true and dedicated love of her children. Though it is a biogrpahy of Judy Garland it is more a biography on Lorna Luft. It's worth reading.

This the best book written on Judy Garland I think I have ever read. Alot of books I have read focus mostly on her tragic life but the one main focus in this book is on her and her family. Her love as a mother and wife. I think this is wonderful and Lorna Luft is an excellent writer. Its writing style is easy to follow and gives the reader a behind the scenes look at the truly gifted and wonderful person Judy Garland was. There are alot of great pictures and information. I highly reccomend this book to all Judy Fans. I think this is as real as you can get! Good edition to any collection.

Normally, I have no problem taking Anne McCaffrey's recommendations on reading material. However, this time I have to wonder. The story line in this series of books is pretty good. The problem I have with them is the extremely repetitive writing style. You could probably put all 5 books in this series into 3 if you eliminated all the unnecessary repetition. Did you know that all doors in Erde, when knocked upon, go "thrap"? No booming, knocking, rapping - just "thrap". All horses "whuff". No neighing, whinneying, trumpeting, etc. And the protagonists, Anna and her successors, are some seriously angst-ridden folks - you feel guilty - WE GET IT ALREADY! I've read other books by Modesitt and the writing style seemed quite different. These books almost condescend to the reader by implying you can't remember what you read a chapter or even a paragraph before! I've NEVER before thrown a book down in frustration because I told myself that if the character "said that one more time.......". I honestly don't know if I recommend this series or not. I gave it 3 stars for story content only. But the writing style at least makes it a good read for ADD or Alzheimer's patients, I guess. I'm just finishing up the 5th book and I will be glad when it's over but still enjoyed the story. Weird, huh?

As always Modesitt does a good job of world building and character creation. The series has an interesting premise, though one that has been used a bit often. A character is transported to some other world and must deal with the culture and situations found there.

Modesitt is one of the few authors who is able to make the transition between scifi and fantasy. However, in each of these genres he has a distinct political bent to his writing. In scifi he generally writes about religious, economic, and ecologic topics. In his fantasy he generally emphasizes feminism. However, I tend to think that he comes across as a Superfeminist and lays his message on a little to thickly, all men are warmongers and would physically abuse women if they could get away with it. He could be a little more subtle with his message.

However, the Spellsong Cycle is a good series and quite enjoyable. All of his writing is. Just go into it knowing that you will be getting a dose of his political and moral views. I don't mind this because writing is one of the best nonviolent ways to spread ideas and it's always good to expose yourself to another's opinion, though the best reason to read his books is that they're just plain good.

The Soprano Sorceress is the first novel in the Spellsong Cycle. In the world of Erde, sorcerers and sorceresses can use songs to build or destroy. Lord Brill uses song to build the foundations and walls of a fortress and then uses another song to destroy one of his musicians, Culain, whom he accuses of humming despite prior warning. Culain's son, Daffyd, wants revenge for this wrongful death and asks his friend Jenny to bring a sorceress from the mists to kill Lord Brill.

In this novel, Anna Marshall is a singer and music instructor at Iowa State University. She is a divorcee and has recently lost her daughter. She is on her way to sing at the Founders' Dinner for major donors when the world swirls around her. After a swaying step, she finds herself in a small, gloomy room in a peasant cottage on the world of Erde. Trying hard to remain calm, Anna questions Daffyd and Jenny to learn how and why she was brought to Erde. Meanwhile, Lord Brill is notified of the arrival by his magical alarm system and is shown the view in Jenny's cottage.

When Brill arrives at Jenny's cottage, he invites Anna to join him for supper at his Hall. On the way back in his carriage, he explains something of the nature and hazards of sorcery and tries to persuade her of his good intentions and the dangers facing Defalk. Her quarters are sumptuous and even has its own jakes. The Hall is guarded by armored men with swords and bows, yet is cooled by Lord Brill's magic. After washing her face and hands, Anna comes down for dinner, but is more interested in learning more about Erde and magic.

Lord Brill is building a fortress to defend against the Dark Monks, who have used massed Darksong to conquer Ebra. Now they threaten both Defalk and Ranuak. Lord Brill wants Anna to stand with him against the dark ones.

When Anna is brought through the mists to Erde, another alarm sounds among the Dark Monks. The Songmaster is informed that a Sorceress has been taken to Lord Brill's Hall, but nothing is known of her origins. He orders a thorough investigation of the new Sorceress.

This novel is a sword and sorceress fantasy with a number of twists and differences. Of course, the use of song to produce magic is not new; Foster's Spellsinger series exploits the same gimmick. However, this tale is a little more serious, with a more developed sociological and political structure as well as a cast of powerfully portrayed characters. Moreover, the energy losses from using spellsong are well-considered.

While the author shows snippets of Anna's inner thoughts, he does not fully explain her actions, so there is a continual suspense generated by her behavior. At first, she waits and gathers information, but then she cuts loose with her own sorcery.

The autobiographical aspects of this novel, and Of Tangible Ghosts, are intriquing. The author is married to a classical concert singer and some of the concerns and behavior probably come from real life. I wonder if his wife is also an instructor of music and voice tutor? The academic irritations and rewards seem to reflect modern academia.

Highly recommended to Modesitt fans and anyone who enjoys sword and sorceress tales with a strong heroine.

When I first received the book, I was thinking this was a hoax. That the book was going to be another groupie fairytale about Morrison. How wrong I was. From the first chapter on, Linda takes us to a magical realm called true love. She didn't love him because of who he was, she had found her true soulmate, Jim had found his true soulmate. I am not easily impressed by these types of books, most are all flowery and lies, Linda shows that Morrison truly had many different personalities and she has the capability to explain them to you in a very personal way , Ms. Kennealy lives in a fairy world, I read her book, this book takes you deep into the psyche of Morrison, his passions and his madness. Linda tells you the exact truth of Jim Morrison's death. She had a relationship with Pam Courson and was inspired by Anias Nin to write this book. Pam Courson called her the day Jim died from Paris and the exact way she killed him with heroin. This is the real deal people. Get it, read it, absorbe it. You'll see the true "Jim Morrison" through a true writer/artist's eyes, Linda, I would like to shake your hand.

Michele, Oxford, CT

Although, like anyone who was a teenager in the sixties, the Doors' were a part of my life's background music, I read Wild Child because a writer friend recommended the author. So, I may be one of the few who read this book because of the writer and not Jim Morrison. Linda Ashcroft can write!!! But I also became a fan of Morrison's.

I found Allen Ginsberg's quote on the cover to state exactly why this book is important: "Wild Child opens a door and gives an unobstructed view of the human side of genius." (A Great Pun)I heard Ginsberg encouraged Linda to write the whole truth about Jim when she was starting out to tell a couple funny stories about Jim because so many bad things have been said about him.

There were some wonderful revelations about writing in their everyday dialog. This book is what anyone who has kept a diary forever should read to learn how to turn it into literature ...

One of the things I enjoyed most about Wild Child is that Linda Ashcroft wrote without the usual editorializing found in bios. She just let their story unfold. Jim wanted to be a teenager again with her. They were wild children in the best meaning. I really got wrapped up in real feel of the times and the heartfelt truth of the emotions. Dispite what I knew about Morrison's end, I found myself routing for them to make it. If the size of the book imtimidates you, I guarantee it is well worth the late night reading.

True or not? Who really knows? Morrison seemed to be here, there, and everywhere. Each writer has his/her own take on his life.

Wild Child is an excellent read. I thoroughly enjoyed it, reading long after my lights should have been out.

Ashcroft shows many sides of Morrison, not just the good. Had he slowed down and settled down with Ginger, perhaps his tragic story might have had a different end.

The first thing I recommend is that before reading "Practical Ethics", make sure you're acquainted with the principles of critical reading as discussed by Mortimer Adler in his brilliant "How To Read A Book".

Then turn for example to pages 12 and 13 of "Practical Ethics" and apply the principles of logic as discussed by Adler. Singer claims that the universal aspect of ethics (namely, that we make judgements from a universal, not a self-oriented, point of view) provides a persuasive reason for taking a utilitarian position. OK. Get ready to be strictly logical, and read his argument. Do you agree he has made the case?

Here is how it runs ( I summarise ):
1.Suppose the universal position is true.
2.It follows that my own interests as such cannot count for more than the interests of others.
3.Thus I must consider how to maximise the interests of all, equally considered.(2nd sentence, Para 2., p.13.)
4.Thus the universal principle inclines towards a utilitarian position.

My question: Neither 1 nor 2 implies 3. Nor do 1 and 2 in combination imply 3. At most 1 and 2 imply that IF "interests ought to be maximised" (the utilitarian doctrine or at least one variation thereof) is true, one must equally consider the interests of all. But Singer neglects to prove that "interests ought to be maximised" here. And nowhere else in his book does he establish it! Therefore Singer's "proof" is guilty of a common logical fallacy: it assumes (via 3) what has to be proved (4)

Since his entire argument is based on the utilitarian principle, and he fails to derive this successfully, his project is incomplete at the most critical point - its foundation. I know this sounds incredible, considering the esteem in which Singer is held. (Just read the reviews on the back cover.) But how can people blithely pass over such a sloppy piece of reasoning?

There are dozens of other examples of poor thinking in this book. Here's one more that needs discussion. If it's OK to kill babies and the pre-conscious in general because they're just that - not conscious, interest-generating beings - why is it not OK to kill people who are asleep or in comas? Singer replies (pp98,99) that older people asleep or unconscious have once had interests and desires, that and these continue to exist through sleep or inconsciousness. Well, they do and they don't. My ability to drive a car continues to exist while I'm asleep in this sense: if I wake up, I can drive a car. Sleep doesn't extinguish forever my ability to drive a car when I'm awake. But while I'm asleep I can't drive a car. The same rule applies to our having of interests or desires: namely, sleep doesn't extinguish our ability to revive acquired interests when we are awake, but while asleep we are no more "here and now interest or desire - having beings" than we are "beings who here and now can drive a car". The "having of interests" while asleep is not the same thing as the "having of interests" while awake and it is simply disingenuous to imply otherwise. And this point is crucial: Since while asleep I don't "have interests" in the relevant sense - I can't be satisfied by meeting desires or fulfill interests while asleep - it follows I'm in the same position in this respect as an unborn or young baby. Like me, the baby will at some future point acquire interests - only for her it will be for the first time. So why should my dormant interests count, but not the baby's latent interests?

Singer tries to get out of this by observing that even when awake sometimes we are not conscious of some desires until we advert to them.(See pp. 98,99.) Nevertheless, he says, those desires "remain a part of us". True, but irrelevant. Remember: the whole point of utilitarianism is to maximise interests. But interests can only be "met" while they are consciously held.[How grateful would we be if someone were to show us that long desired video while we were asleep?] How then, can interests - which because they are not consciously held are not able to be maximised - count in the consequentialist's calculus?

Singer might reply "Well, you could make these interests count as maximizable by for example reminding this person of her interests or by waking that person up". Sure you could. But are you obliged to? If not, then so what? If so, why? This could only imply that the goal of utilitarians not only to maximize extant (maximizable) interests, but to increase where possible the number of maximizable interests. But if so, are we not obliged not only to awaken dormant interests but also to allow this newborn baby to live so that it can eventually generate a heap of maximizable interests? We thus return to the original question: if babies, why not the sleeping?

The most frightening thing about Singer's book and doctrine is its uncritical reception by otherwise intelligent people. Sure, the man writes smoothly and comes across in print and on air as a genial chap. And for all I know, he may be sincere. Put that aside. These are life or death matters he is pronouncing upon. For heaven's sake, engage your critical faculties. I'm sure it won't take much of a work out before you agree with me that in this nice man's "ethic", mankind has edged one step closer to the abyss.

If you're still having trouble spotting the errors in Singer's book, get a hold of "Moral Theory" and other works by David S. Oderberg.

Anyone interested in utilitarianism, the doctrine of ethics undergirding Peter Singer's work, should really first read the works of that school's founders, Victorian men like Bentham and Mill. Utilitarianism is actually quite noble in its intentions--"The greatest good for the greatest number." The trouble comes in the application. Whose definition of the good? And what (moral) limits may be imposed on its maximization? Such questions cannot be answered strictly within utilitarianism. When you're a 19th century English gentleman, your conception of the good will be largely that of traditional Western liberal and classical thought. Fast forward to Peter Singer, though, and you see what happens when you define the good without respect for natural law or the social contract.

I have never understood why organizations opposed to cruelty to animals (itself a worthy end) are called "humane" societies. It is not necessarily the case that a person who loves animals so abounds in the milk of human kindness that his compassion flows beyond the limits of his own species. There are some such people; there are also others whose love of animals combines nicely with misanthropy. I wouldn't place Singer in the second category, but be careful you don't assume he must be in the first.

Actually, the irony is Singer himself doesn't even live out his utilitarianism as carried to its logical conclusion. It's not his fault; it's a problem with the less coherent parts of his philosophy. Snake oil is still snake oil, even when it's made from soy.

Peter Singer's views are very controversial--his recent appointment at Princeton was vigorously protested by various groups--but they certainly make for an interesting read.

He espouses utilitarianism, a branch of ethics that measures "rightness" or "wrongness" on an action's effect on the majority of people (and animals). As a result, there is very little voice given in defense of certain rights that many of us--especially us Americans--consider to be fundamental (except, of course, to refute them). The individual is of little importance in his scheme of ethics, and his brand of utilitarianism, based on a rigorous logic, leads to some pretty scary destinations. For instance, in his argument in favor of animal rights, Singer argues that a) speciesism is no different from racism, that our perception of a difference is no less illogical and unethical than our one-time perception of an ethical difference between, say, men and women, or blacks and whites; b) that intelligence is no basis for dermining ethical stature, that, for instance, the lives of humans are not worth more than the lives of animals simply because they are more intelligence (if intelligence were a standard of judgment, he points out, we could perform medical experiments on the mentally retarded with moral impunity); c) that we need to measure the *interests* of the parties involved, and that, ultimately, all things being equal, an animal has as much interest in living as a human. Therefore, all things being equal, medical experimentation on animals is immoral. If, however, sacrificing the lives of, say 20 animals will save millions of human lives, then all things are not equal, and the interests of millions of people outweighs the interests of 20 animals. The horrifying extention of this principle, though, is that the interests of 20 people outweighs the interests of one, and that this philosophy will give the green light to all sorts of very profound civil rights abuses.

The arguments aren't impenetrable, but singer is very careful in setting them up, and very good at getting the reader to agree with him before the reader really knows what he is agreeing with. His arguments are strong, logical, and convincing (which isn't to say I agree with all of them).

He makes an interesting, very strong case for the ethical necessity of vegetarianism (simply: it is wrong to kill as a matter of tase; we don't need to eat meat, and therefore kill to do so only as a matter of taste; therefore it is wrong to eat meat). He also argues in favor of abortion & infancticide.

This is an excellent book for lay people interested in secular ethical reasoning.

Absolutely fascinating.

Despite what the Library Journal may say (and frankly how you rely on a review by anyone who recommends Sheridan Morley's appallingly incompetent effort is beyond me), this is a tremendously detailed and revealing look at the life of one of America's few genuine legends.

As someone who has read virtually all the books about Miss Garland I would certainly rank this book in the top three. Highly recommended to anyone who has an interest in Judy Garland, Hollywood or what the highs and lows of stardom can really be like.

I have all the Judy books ever published, and this is the only one that presents the whole of her life, so you can see her triumphs far outweighed her tribulations.

I find myself returning to it often. A must-have for any Judy-Lover.

It was hard to put the book down, since it allows you to follow the life of Judy day-by-day. I kept hoping the end would turn out differently for Judy, somehow, but this book is proof that the majority of her days were spent working.

A must-have.

Dylan comes across as an utterly unpleasant person in this rather good biography. As I am not the greatest fan of his music (for reasons I will come to later) this did not bother me too much, but I am sure some of other reviewers would have punished Mr Sounes for this when rating the book.

Dylan is portrayed as thoroughly self-centred, somebody with enormous sensitivity in terms of his own feelings (which he conveys with great intensity via his music), but absolutely no sensitivity in terms of others' feelings. This includes wives, girlfriends and musical associates, all of whom are discarded with disdain when no longer required. This leaves Dylan a deservedly lonely and disillusioned person towards the end of the book. In fact, when he falls seriously ill, only one of his many former band members write him, a fate which is not unexpected to the reader given how he had treated them. It is hard for the reader of this book to have any sympathy with Dylan, and I think the author does a good job of paiting a picture if Dylan without being judgemental- praising the music, but not the man.

In terms of music I find Dylan very variable in quality- all of his earlier recordings contain some great songs, but the weaker songs are always too weak for my liking, and not as good as, say, the weaker songs on a Simon and Garfunkel recording. And some of his songs are incredibly naive in terms of lyrical content, like Sunshine on the Union on Infidels. The author describes Dylan's musical decline well, including his return to live performance form in the middle 90's. I just shudder to think how bad exactly his live performances must have been in the early 90's, because I saw him live in 1996 in London and he was still bad enough.

The book has some weaknesses admittedly. The writing is not always of the highest standard and I sometimes got the impression that the author was quoting people simply because he had spoken to them, and not because they had said anything worth quoting. But all in all he has produced a fine biography of Dylan, clearly the fruit of much labour.

After having been a fan of Dylan for a long time, I finally sat down to read about him when a friend gave me this book. I found the book easy to read, and left me hungry for more biographical stuff.

Bob Dylan is as much a cultural icon as one person can be in our times, but he is a secretive and lonely person. It is difficult for a biographer to weave together an honest look at such a person without their cooperation. Yet Howard Sounes does a great job of looking past the image and providing his readers with a glimpse of the person behind the legend. Without being able to interview the man himself, he uses Dylan's words from past interviews, legal records, and interviews with friends and associates to piece together a picture of the life behind the legend.

Telling the story of Dylan from birth to the year 2000, this book focuses on the details of a life devoted to a musical career. I found particularly interesting the section on Dylan's musical roots in Hibbing, Duluth, and Minneapolis. Also, interviews with some of the few people Dylan befriended over the years give us a wonderful peak at his human side. Finally, producers and musicians tell fascinating stories about recording sessions that add to our understanding of the music on his CDs. The author has interviewed many people who had contact with Dylan through the years so we get much detail, but ultimately are still only on the outside looking in. Usually Sounes takes the high road and refrains from telling salacious details.

The book will appeal to devoted fans who love Dylan's music and want to know about the person behind it. If you are new to Bob Dylan and want to understand his cultural impact, this is not the book for you. It is also a very revealing study of the isolating effect that fame can have on people.

I don't feel I can give a proper assessment of the book since I couldn't get past the first couple of pages. The beginning didn't hook me in.

I LOVE Bebe Moore Campbell. She is among my top 10 favorite female authors. I rushed to the bookstore when I heard this book came out and I wasn't disappointed. I must say, however, that I really had to struggle through the first 50-75 pages because nothing really "happened" in the beginning -- Ms. Campbell took too long setting up the characters and plot. But I'm glad I held on because it is a beautiful story about love, family ties, honesty, and dealing with life one day at a time. Maxine is a remarkable, brave woman. The storyline was a BIT predictable (I think because of the title!) and some of the characters were not as developed as her characters usually are. But Lindy was so real I felt like I knew her. But I wanted more info. on Satchel and his childhood. And I really wanted to know more about his affair with Sheila. Why did he do it? (Besides the obvious!) What was going on in his marriage to Maxine that caused him to stray? I also wanted to know more about Maxine's mother Millicent and her relationship with Lindy. BUT..you can't have everything and on the whole I thoroughly enjoyed the book once it got going. A must read for Camplbell fans!!! And hang on...it gets GREAT!

This is the second book I have heard on tape by Bebe Campbell Moore and I thought it was wonderful. She showed a true devotion to her career and her family. This book is a definite portrayal of how women struggle to balance their career as well as their personal life. I truly admire and respect how Maxine managed to juggle her career with the Ted Graham Show, overlook and stay with her once cheating husband, and take care of her long distant aging grandmother Lindy, all while being pregnant. I really loved how Lindy, as stubborn as she was, finally realized it is never too late to Come Back and be loved. Let's not forget how the once beautiful neighborhood, turn drug infested, managed to come together and clean up its act. Singing in the Come Back Choir is rich in character and in content. I just bought the book, Your Blues Ain't Like Mine, by this author and can't wait to read it!