Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
"Average To Good - pleasurable but not memorable", 5 Jun 2005
Weighing in at nearly a 1,000 pages, The New Rolling Stone Album Guide is not for someone with only a casual interest in popular music; which makes it all the more frustrating that the content decides to play it, by and large, so safe. Of course, this is hardly surprising for a magazine publisher which, while very much a pioneer when it emerged in the heady days of 1967, has now become a by-word for aging (admittedly left-leaning) baby boomers made good, and a new generation of those who aspire to their successes, both financially and culturally. Rolling Stone is then a magazine with a San Francisco 'summer of love' tradition to uphold, and that tradition defines who it has invited to review the over 10,000 albums this guide contains. Don't expect then the deliberate indie obscurisms of pitchforkmedia.com or the neo-archival nostalgia of Mojo magazine. What counts as good for The New Rolling Stone Guide - and make no mistakes, this has been extraordinarily influential in defining understanding of pop history generally - is that consistent with a (overwhelmingly and sadly white) blues and folk roots counter-culture ethic (defined by The Grateful Dead & Dylan amongst others) or the commercial-art rock tightrope of, say, Sgt. Pepper or Pink Floyd. What you get here is not the 'in the pocket of the record company' mainstream but nor is it an inspiring 'I must go and hunt that one down' page-by-page book of revelations or exercise in pop history revision, which is, of course, a pity (and in the case of revisionism, long overdue). The Guide remains, however, a great achievement and there is something rather nice, especially as an Briton, in being confronted by frequent opinions, connections and interpretations so at odds with your own - in essence, opinions worth something just because you disagree with them, and there is much to disagree (though abmittedly agree also) with here! This is the Guide's fourth incarnation (with much made, in reviews, generally negative, of comparison with the third). The addition of albums produced since the last edition in the early nineties are, however, not only valuable per se (Aphex Twin, Stereolab, Boards of Canada, Beastie Boys and Belle and Sebastian resonated well with this reviewer) but generally seem to make good sense of what was a fractured decade of music. It is unfortunate, nonetheless, that the decison was taken to stick with nearly a third of the reviews contained in the third edition (accusations of laziness aside, this is not, as I say, an exercise in revisionism (though quite a bit has been changed (mostly for the better (hip-hop is now better given its due))). It is unfortunate too that not everyone could be included (we have the web now for that I guess). There are a number of surprising ommissions (Suicide, Metallica, for two) as well as inclusions (what more is left to say - good or bad - about The New Radicals (?!) or the Spice Girls? As the gals' review itself begins: "Future generations will wonder why all the fuss. In fact, they probably already do!"). British buyers may also be frustrated by the apparently US-centric circumscription of certain artist's back catalogues (Fairport Convention and Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, as two examples, produced, and you can easily buy, a whole many more albums than are referenced here.) Overall then, this is perhaps a missed opportunity, for a venerable magazine to regain the intelligent and provoking pop musical high ground it once indisputably held. As might be expected with 70 odd contributors, some of the writing is rather too pleased with itself at times, though much is outstanding (Sasha Frere-Jones to name one). Much of it too is riddled with opinions this reviewer totally disagrees with (Basement Jaxx's most recent two albums get 4 1/2 stars?). But perhaps that is not such a bad thing and perhaps, by implication, The Rolling Stone Album Guide is not such a bad thing either? (On its own terms: 3 stars!)
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Lopsided, 25 Jul 2008
On the one hand there are some amusing reviews particularly by RS who justifiably has it in for the dross that was 70s US AOR. On the downside there are some curious omissions of bands that I cant say I like but who really should've been included e.g. Metallica and Deep Purple. It's very biased towards US acts in that it features many indie, grunge/post grunge and hip hop acts that few outside the US will have ever heard of. It's also fairly uncritical of big name rock bands, when in fact some of the albums given 5 star ratings generally dont warrant more than 3.
Also there are many strange omissions in the coverage of the UK punk/new wave scenes. You'll find mention of second division acts like Generation X but nothing on the Stranglers or Simple Minds for example. Although this can be an entertaining reading, informative and encyclopaedic it is not.
|
|
|
3.0 out of 5 stars
A bit too boring, 1 Jun 2009
I think the book is a bit too boring getting in to. And I really wonder about the groups chosen to tell about, and the ones not mentioned. Really bizar choises.
|
|
|
|