Rating: 
Summary: one wise old guy's view
Review: ...This whole book is obviously one man's perspective and I didn't agree with all of it, but I respect Miller's choice of emphases and do understand his feeling that rock "died" a long time ago. His is a thesis that is at least internally consistent and does seem to hold together, although admittedly he is free to cherry pick the rock "historical moments" that make it thesis work. Any reader is going to find points of disagreement here. I always heard that "Rocket 88" was the first real rock song and I had never even heard of Wynonie Harris. I would have thought that the British blues-rock scene would have merited a little more attention. I would have teased the Deadhead readers about the bloated excess of their idols after about 1973. Most of all I would have given a lot more attention to the downtown New York scene of the mid to late 70s that included the New York Dolls, Neon Boys/Television, the Ramones, Blondie, Patti Smith, Talking Heads and so many other bands and personalities. These people invented punk music and also revitalized rock music. There was an enormous underground music scene throughout the late 70s, through the 80s and into the early 90s wherein music was issued by independent labels, played on college radio stations and listened to in small clubs all around the United States. Different college towns successively took centerstage and one or two of their local bands went richocheting onto the national scene, only to be gobbled up by the corporate music industry (R.E.M. is exhibit A) or to implode as their music-first principles collided with corporate unit-moving "principles" (too many examples to mention). Where Miller sees one long arcing rise and then an inexorable decline, I see shorter-term cycles. The music industry that we live with right now seems very much like the one that existed between Elvis's induction into the Army and the arrival of the Beatles in the US. Record-making companies hold the reins and one-hit wonders of minimal musical talent make insubstantial music that challenges nothing except perhaps good taste. Miller rightly laments the fragmentation of the once-united youth audience, but it possible that the internet may in the near future allow young people to make an end-run around the corporate shibboleth and "get together one more time".
Rating: 
Summary: All very interesting but not very rock and roll
Review: All very interesting -- a very interesting look at rock and roll as a musical genre co-opted by "the industry" and ultimately rendered soul-less. Can you really call Elvis, Dylan, the Stones and the Beatles or even the Sex Pistols revolutionary when they are being used to generate billions by the establishment against which they were supposedly rebelling? Not very rock and roll -- where the hell is Brian Wilson, arguably the greatest writer and producer of rock/pop music of his generation. Pets Sounds gets the one-off treatment in a list with Blonde on Blonde and the Byrds Fifth Dimension. Never mind that a 24 year old kid in California wrote, arranged, recorded and produced this MASTERPIECE by himself (instead of having the wiz, George Martin and his orchestra behind the works like another well known band).
Rating:
Summary: More 60's nostalgia...
Review: Although "Flowers in the Dustbin: the Rise of Rock and Roll 1947-1977" uses a quote from the Sex Pistols for it's title, that seems to be the only credit given to the bands of the 70's. This book is yet another aging-boomer nostalgia trip for "when music really mattered" & seems to think anything released post-Woodstock is worthless. The author, James Miller, was also responsible for the original edition of "The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll" as well as the recently televised "History of Rock". His viewpoints haven't noticibly changed or expanded since his previous critical forays. Yes, we know how vital the early rock pioneers like Little Richard were. Yes, I'm sure the 60's seemed very earth-shaking & cosmic in their implications for those who claim to remember them. But for those of us who discovered rock when Ziggy & T.Rex exploded out of the denim-clad, stoned ranks of ...musicians, short shrift is given (as usual) to the cultural significance of glitter & punk. Let's be honest here: in the overall scheme of modern media Iggy, Bowie, the Pistols, even the Monkees have all had a heck of a lot more resonance than any of Miller's psychedelic favorites. Really, how can you take a "cultural history" seriously when it gives many more pages to Elvis' death than it does to Led Zeppelin? It's not even illustrated with photos, which is a great loss considering the visual aspect of rock. If you're not pining with nostalgia for the 60's, skip this book. You've probably read or heard it all before anyway.
Rating:
Summary: More 60's nostalgia...
Review: Although "Flowers in the Dustbin: the Rise of Rock and Roll 1947-1977" uses a quote from the Sex Pistols for it's title, that seems to be the only credit given to the bands of the 70's. This book is yet another aging-boomer nostalgia trip for "when music really mattered" & seems to think anything released post-Woodstock is worthless. The author, James Miller, was also responsible for the original edition of "The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll" as well as the recently televised "History of Rock". His viewpoints haven't noticibly changed or expanded since his previous critical forays. Yes, we know how vital the early rock pioneers like Little Richard were. Yes, I'm sure the 60's seemed very earth-shaking & cosmic in their implications for those who claim to remember them. But for those of us who discovered rock when Ziggy & T.Rex exploded out of the denim-clad, stoned ranks of ...musicians, short shrift is given (as usual) to the cultural significance of glitter & punk. Let's be honest here: in the overall scheme of modern media Iggy, Bowie, the Pistols, even the Monkees have all had a heck of a lot more resonance than any of Miller's psychedelic favorites. Really, how can you take a "cultural history" seriously when it gives many more pages to Elvis' death than it does to Led Zeppelin? It's not even illustrated with photos, which is a great loss considering the visual aspect of rock. If you're not pining with nostalgia for the 60's, skip this book. You've probably read or heard it all before anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: Insightful, authoritative--and a beat you can dance to
Review: Frank Zappa is supposed to have once said that writing about music is like dancing about architecture--it doesn't make sense. He might have revised his opinion had he been able read Miller's latest work. Even if you have been weaned on music magazines and think you know everything there is to know about America's preeminent cultural contribution (just an opinion), you're going to get an education. But that's not the real reason to pick up this book. The bottom line is, it's just a good read--entertaining, challenging, provoking.
Rating:
Summary: ==
Review: Is this the same Jim Miller of the famed Vibratones (Chicago, circa 1962)?
Rating: 
Summary: Don't believe the hype
Review: Isn't it interesting that rock 'n roll only seems to have validity to these scribes within certain contexts? Elvis, Chuck Berry, the Beatles, The Stones, The Velvets, Springsteen, Punk and (God help us) U2 all make the grade. As for anything else; You can have The Doors only with the caveat that they weren't really very good. Can't have Yes or Jethro Tull, they're too "Pretentious." And Black Sabbath? Steely Dan? Crosby, Stills and Nash? Hey, folks, whether you want to admit it or not, THEY and a ton of other "musical pariahs" were much more a part of rock n'roll's POPULAR history than any critic's darlings ever were and omitting them calls into question how "sweeping" a so-called social history of rock really could be. This book is another bloated text along ROLLING STONE's party lines. It tells you nothing that hasn't already been written, shown on VH-1 and MTV and embalmed in the Rock 'N Roll Hall Of Fame.
Rating:
Summary: an indelible, entertaining read on rock
Review: Jim Miller brings his deep knowledge of rock across in this engrossing cultural history by exploring essential moments in the genre's rise--from Dylan "going electric" to American Graffiti, from Elvis discovering his body to "Anarchy in the U.K."--in entirely fresh and fetching vignettes that convince even hard-core fans that they've hardly skimmed the surface of what made rock the cultural watershed it was and the commercialized washout it was to became. If you're weary of the slavish celebrity pieces or muckraking music-mag stories that define most rock "criticism," give the clear-eyed accounts and ardent intelligence of Miller's Flowers in the Dustbin a try-‹it's a book that might strike you with the novelty and power of your first 45.
Rating:
Summary: an indelible, entertaining read on rock
Review: Jim Miller brings his deep knowledge of rock across in this engrossing cultural history by exploring essential moments in the genre's rise--from Dylan "going electric" to American Graffiti, from Elvis discovering his body to "Anarchy in the U.K."--in entirely fresh and fetching vignettes that convince even hard-core fans that they've hardly skimmed the surface of what made rock the cultural watershed it was and the commercialized washout it was to became. If you're weary of the slavish celebrity pieces or muckraking music-mag stories that define most rock "criticism," give the clear-eyed accounts and ardent intelligence of Miller's Flowers in the Dustbin a try-‹it's a book that might strike you with the novelty and power of your first 45.
Rating:
Summary: Great history, but stops short of excellence
Review: Miller is a great writer, and he conveys an authority about the history of early rock'n'roll that is impressive, but his authority falls off a cliff when he goes past 1975. He has no time for anything recorded after the death of Presley, which means that he essentially snubs everything in the last generation (or more) of popular music. Don't be fooled by the subtitle. Even if the book is supposedly about the "rise" of rock music, it is even more about the author's opinion that the music died off as soon as it "peaked." While I can understand the point of view, especially as I get on in years and cringe at most of what I hear on the radio, to imply that rock music died in 1977 is the height of absurdity, not to mention a willful ignorance of history.
| 
