The New Rolling Stone Album Guide : Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition

Rating:
Summary: Omissions CORRECTED
Review:
I was concerned by many of the reviews I read here, so I checked out a copy of the RS Album Guide in Barnes and Noble before I bought one, and noticed that many of the omissions referred to in these reviews have been corrected -- George Harrison and Metallica, for instance, are both in the Guides I saw. I can only imagine that there was a problem with earlier editions.
With those problems fixed, I must say that I've been enjoying the book as a resource -- much of the writing is excellent, and a lot of it is very entertaining. Just make sure that the one you buy has these entries in there ...

Rating:
Summary: Hit&Miss decent but not the same
Review: back in 1992 I was Hyped about having this book. but since that time Roling stone Music Reviews just don't mean the same to me as they once did. also this book is missing quite a few things. it's still cool to read&see what some of the Best Msuic Writers have to say on certain Artists&there Albums over the Years,but unlike back in 92 the feeling&vibe just ain't quite the same for me.

Rating:
Summary: Not bad, and makes for interesting reading
Review: Books like this are always on the bookshelf of rock music historians because they provide both an outline or music history and also help the consumer pick and choose what albums to buy. These books also simply make for interesting reading as you thumb through the pages and compare you opinions with those of the authors.

A common problem in discussing books like this with others is that some people will automatically go to their favorite artist and either howl or smile depending on whether the reviewer gives a positive review. You may turn to, say, the band Yes and declare that the books "sucks" because the reviewer, in your opinion, knows nothing about good music. I personally cannot understand why no rock critic that I know of -- and no consumer guide that I own -- rates Todd Rundgren any higher than 2 or three stars for most of his albums. There is much to agree with and disagree with here, which makes it a great book to have lying around.

The writing is concise and one reviewer, Rob Sheffield, is witty and insightful, having reviewed some of the most important bands in rock history. Of course, there are some glaring omissions. No George Harrison, even though the first edition of the book gave his debut solo album (All Things Must Pass) five stars and declared it a nice signpost for the 1970's. Since George is mentioned throughout the book as an influence on other musicians, his omission is an outrage. No Pete Townshend, who released at least one classic album, Empty Glass, and several very good ones, and shaped rock history through the 1960's and 1970's. As other reviewers have noted some real forgettable and worthless bands eat up valuable space in the book. How can the editors let this happen? I dock one star for this carelessness. Or maybe it is just arrogance.

Rating:
Summary: Too many Omissions
Review: I bought this book right away, as I have the 92 guide and had been waiting for an updated version to come out. I immediatley noticed the omissions other people have mentioned that seem inexcusable, like George Harrison, Metallica, even Nine Inch Nails. It's also riddled with typos and sloppy writing. In the entry for Ry Cooder, it says to see the review for "Buena Vista Social Club" in the soundtracks section. Good luck, as it's not there! It seems like thay rushed this out way too fast without checking for mistakes. I probably won't be buying any more of these guides if Rolling Stone continues to do such a crappy job.

Rating:
Summary: Sloppy edition, yet still good for random browsing
Review: I have been looking forward to a new edition of the Album Guide since the '92 version and was excited to receive this one as a Christmas gift from my wife. After spending some time with this book, though, I couldn't help feeling let down when comparing it with the style and girth of the last one.

This book is still great for random reading by opening up to any page. Usually you'll wind up cross-referencing and thinking of other bands/albums to look up, and it's enough to keep you occupied for as long as you need. But, the book as a whole should be taken with a large grain of salt for a few reasons:

1. Glaring Omissions.
Read the foreward about how albums were selected. Great job including 70% new material, but only seven soundtracks? No Metallica? Re-defining a genre and releasing a new album in the recent past should certainly qualify them for an entry. Or maybe the authors felt by mentioning them in numerous other reviews that they had them covered? The inclusion of Megadeth, Slayer and other contemporaries leads me to think this must have been a colossal typo. Milli Vanilli but not Metallica? Please!

2. Speaking of Typos...
I find another seemingly obvious typo or lack of proof-reading just about each time I open the book, making it clear that they cut corners in the editing department to say the least. See Radiohead section with repeated sentences, and countless other examples no better than your local newspaper.

3. Overboard on the attitude.
Finally, the much too edgy editorial positions often leave a bad taste behind where simple critique would have been fine. A book like this should appeal to a broad range of tastes, not just the demographic that appreciated the dose of attitude. Worse yet is the sameness of the tone and style of the snide comments that makes it seem that the book was given to one person to "sleaze it up" a bit across the board.

If possible, try to have an earlier edition of the Guide handy to fill in the holes and take the edge off if they hammer a particular favorite too hard. Maybe next time they should separate the sub-genres into their own guides to keep so much from falling through the cracks.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but too flawed to be essential
Review: I should have found this indispensable. After all, I'm still referencing my dog-eared copy of the 1982 Rolling Stone Guide and have always enjoyed the RS style, regardless of my feelings about individual reviews. And I appreciated the editor's desire to both maintain currently relevant content and keep the text's volume down.

But the approach taken to this guide, reflected in the editor's statement that "this isn't for musicologists", resulted in grave inconsistencies, inexplicable inclusion criteria, and dumbed-down content that Dave Marsh never would have abided.

The good sections are very good, with a humorous delivery and an honest reappraisal of some artists that may have been overrated or underrated in prior editions. Many give comprehensive treatment to the hip-hop and R&B genres, whose influences are now unmistakable. The bad sections have kept the entertaining attitude but have lost all insight. Some of these gloss over substantial portions of an artist's career. Other parts go on too long merely in service of a joke. (The second edition managed to dismiss poor material in several words, not half a page.) I wonder what the editor was doing here: he certainly wasn't editing.

The selection of artists is perplexing. Any artist that is cross referenced in the book should merit an entry. The editor clearly disagrees, presumably because "this isn't for musicologists". So if you are interested in the cited influences of Motorhead on Metallica and flip from Motorhead back a few pages you find...nothing. No entry for Metallica.

For consistency's sake alone this omission should never have happened. But Metallica was also the most influential band in heavy metal in the 90s. How did they get left out? For that matter, how did the editors leave out George Harrison and keep Ringo Starr? Leave out Bunny Wailer and keep Milli Vanilli?

And someone should have kept tabs on the number of times the word "suck" appeared, with no irony whatsoever. Sorry, but dismissing music by saying "that sucks" went out after junior high.

There is worthwhile material here for those interested in the musical developments of the last ten years. Unfortunately the editors have ensured that this doesn't approach a comprehensive, literate review. For that you'll want the All Music Guide.

Rating:
Summary: Should have been much much better
Review: If they had only chosen not to omit quite a list of very important artists, this culd have been an excellent guide. the writing is good but the absence of complete discographies is completely inexcusable. This was allways a problem with the red and blue editions previously but they should have tried to go for a more complete approach instead of listing only available stuff.
There is still a lot of stuff inside and if you combine it with the previous editions, the trouser press guide and some others you will be able to get a good overview of rock.

Rating:
Summary: Sins of Omission
Review: It is certainly understandable that the authors could not include all pop albums ever recorded in this guide, but like many others I found this new collection a little short on content and on reviews of groups that are not only still active but still popular. I also don't understand why jazz records of any kind needed to be included in this volume given that RS put out a very comprehensive Jazz and Blues Album Guide in 1999. If they had confined themselves to rock, rap and pop in this new guide it would have been more comprehensive. Aside from the obvious omission of the late great George Harrison they excluded Hot Tuna who I saw perform admirably just a week before getting the guide as a gift. In addition, why are both Jimmy Dale Gilmore and Butch Hancock included while fellow Flatlander Joe Ely is not - especially since many of Ely's earlier albums are much more rock and rockabilly than anything by Gilmore and Hancock. Plus unlike many other omssions, Ely is still making sparkling up-to-date recordings. Finally, a lot of longer reviews like the ones on Dylan and the Stones are filled with trite remarks and cliched uses of song lyrics. Some of these authors ought to grow up and write their own incisive prose rather than just quoting badly from well known songs. The last section of the book on soundtracks and anthologies is extremely weak on content, particlarly omitting several famous charitable concert albums and those from well known festivals.


Rating:
Summary: pointless re-issue, buy AMG's book instead
Review: Like most of the reviewers here, I owned the previous edition of this guide and used it for years to build my record collection. This was before allmusic.com and Amazon entered the picture, so unless you knew people that had great collections or worked in a record store, it wasn't exactly easy to find out which records to buy. I practically memorized the 3rd edition and I still browse through it occasionally.

I bought this expecting to be disappointed, so I'm not upset with my purchase. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that this book is a serious failure. Some points to consider:

* Everyone's going to have their own personal grievances about what is missing (the omission of Metallica and George Harrison are OBVIOUSLY editing errors, not deliberate choices), but one omission I cannot ignore (since I'm sure it was deliberate) is the absence of a Captain Beefheart entry. Listenable or not, "Trout Mask Replica" is a major work, and "Safe as Milk" is easily one of the best late 60's rock LP's.

* Certain genres have been winnowed down to nothing or removed all together. Brazilian giants Gilberto Gil and Cateano Veloso are gone, and the jazz entries (while pitiful in the first edition) are even worse in this one (still no Thelonious Monk, goodbye Wes Montgomery).

* The lack of a five star rating for a single anthology by the Supremes, Smokey Robinson or the Four Tops is downright ludicrous. If these artists aren't "essential", I don't know what is.

* The writing in the original was pithy and occasionally brilliant. Most of the entries look identical (although truncated), but a few (mostly major artists) have been re-written. In almost all cases these changes do not produce any noticeable improvement.

* The general increase of five-star ratings righted many wrongs in the previous edition. Undisputable five-star records such as Gang of Four's "Entertainment", Bowie's "Hunky Dory", Roxy Music's "For Your Pleasure", The New York Dolls' first record and the Kinks "Village Green" are now are honored as such. This is a good thing. But this generosity has also resulted in a lot of undeserving albums sharing this status.

* A few glaring omissions in the previous edition have been added (e.g. Can and Scott Walker), but this doesn't make up for the overall lack of depth and breadth to be expected from the book.

* Cutting and pasting seems to be the modus operandi of the editors here. Obvious errors in the 3rd edition still haven't been corrected. (e.g. 4 stars for Otis Redding's masterful "Dictionary of Soul" but 5 for the relatively ho-hum "The Soul Album", even while the accompanying text claims the former is the better album).

* Overall, the book is just lazily assembled, without any of the care or passion that obviously went into the previous edition. For instance, why list all of Miles Davis' discography but only list part of Charles Mingus' discography? And the aforementioned "editing errors" are too numerous to be acceptable in a book like this. I could go on with examples, but it's hard to flip through this book page by page and not feel cheated.

All of this leads to the real question: what is the point of this book? Younger readers certainly won't bother with it (and they shouldn't), and older readers who are looking for guidance on newer artists or just want this information in book form would be much better off purchasing the far superior "All Music Guide to Popular Music," or even just using the allmusic.com web site.

So that leaves just the obsessive and the curious. If you're one of these, you may be better served by parking yourself in a bookstore for an hour and going through it.



Rating:
Summary: Pompous Garbage
Review: This is typical RS elitist, pompous garbage. Don't waste your time. Every review I read downplays the significance of the artist's contributions in a most condescending way. I don't know if this is their sad attempt at humor but I found it irritating. It's as if the reviewers were jealous that they never made it as an an artist so they deem themselves fit to sit in judgement of others. Go to the Allmusic guide instead.