According to the Rolling Stones [Bargain Price] [Hardcover]

The Rolling Stones (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 360 pages
• ISBN-10: 0811840603
• ASIN: B0007LPDFE
• Product Dimensions: 11.4 x 8.7 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,327,657 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Rolling Stones History Re-Written-A Whitewash, November 12, 2006

By 

R. Morris "Rob & Matt Morris" (Idaho Falls, ID USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: According to the Rolling Stones (Hardcover)

From reading this coffee-table book, a person who did not know much about the Stones could possibly conclude the following:
1. Bill Wyman was not in the Stones
2. Brian Jones made no great contributions and was a drug-addled pain in the a--.
3. Mick Taylor was a Stone briefly
This is a book written by the three original Stones who still play together, plus long-time member Ronnie Wood. It is written in their words and at times I found their comments to be self-serving and overly harsh of others. Wyman, the great bassist, is discussed by his rhythm-mate Charlie Watts because of his effeminate bass playing and tiny hands. Brian Jones, who WAS the Rolling Stones early on and made their music special, is dismissed for his lack of song-writing ability, his drug use, and his mental problems. Should Rolling Stones throw Stones, especially ones who live in glass houses? All of these guys were drug-addled and messed up at one point. Even if he was hard to live with, why not dwell on the many positives that the guy brought to the group? And Mick Taylor, who laid down some of the greatest lead guitar riffs in Stones history, is, like Wyman, alive and well, and yet he and Wyman were never even interviewed for this book. Why is that? Is it because this is a self-serving project aimed at boosting the stock of Rolling Stones, Incorporated, the remaining members?
The photos are excellent. Some of the commentary is interesting, especially from the usually tight-lipped Charlie Watts. The essays by outsiders that are inserted between chapters give new meaning to the term sycophantic.
Reading this as the definitive autobiography of the Stones is like reading a Soviet history textbook from the fifties, the one where all the purged heroes have been airbrushed out of the photos and written out of the index.
For a good illustrated history of the Stones, I highly recommend Bill Wyman's Rolling with the Stones. He kept great records, and he is fair-minded to all the members, past and present.
I love the Stones, but this book brought them down a notch in my pantheon of rock gods.

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Bill anyone?, December 12, 2005

By 

John Berry (San Francisco, CA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: According to the Rolling Stones (Hardcover)

I would agree with most of the negative reviews this book has received so far, and history has indeed been re-written. While Mick Taylor's role in the Stones' career could not be overstated, it is Bill Wyman's virtual absence that is the most shocking. Most of the band's shots from the 70's, but especially the 80's and 90's seem to deliberately leave him out. This is insulting to any self-respecting Stones fan and quite a disappointment (although not a complete surprise). As everyone knows, Bill was an original member of the band and his career as a Stone lasted almost 40 years. The Mick'n'Keef show could never have existed without the steadfast rythm section that anchored the band throughout most of its history. Shame on the other Stones for going out their way to practically eliminate Bill Wyman from this biography. And who exactly does Mick Jagger think he is fooling when he sings about neo-cons, then proceeds to pick Ameriquest, one of the worst predatory lenders in America, as a tour sponsor? Who said the Stones aged gracefully? Get Bill's book instead.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Buy it for the photos only, August 31, 2006

By 

Konrad Baumeister - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: According to the Rolling Stones (Hardcover)

If you want this beautifully laid out coffee table book for its many excellent and in some cases previously unpublished photos, you will not be disappointed. There's a wealth of great shots here, though the emphasis is predictably on Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie, in that order; there are hardly any shots at all of Bill or Brian and only a couple of Mick Taylor.

The spliced up series of interviews that make up the rest of the book, and presumably justify the "according to..." name, are uneven. Keith's excellent (if highly selective) memory and ascerbic wit are still there; Woody is as genial and upbeat as one has come to expect; Charlie is actually pretty reflective at times; but Mick's comments could have been cut in half without losing anything important. Contributions from Wyman or Taylor would have been welcome, but apparently in a book over 350 pages long there was not room for a single word. Especially in the case of Bill Wyman, a founding member putting in 25 years service, this is unforgiveable. There is virtually no, as in zero, indication of who played bass with these clowns for all those years; Darryl Jones is covered in greater detail, and is featured in at least as many photos. Sad.

There are many many good books out there on the Stones which cover, in detail, most of the important ups and downs of their often fascinating career. This is not one of them. If you want to know about the blues scene in early 60s London, it's okay. If you want to know about the tours since the 1980s, it's okay. If you want to know about much in between, it's pretty lame. I looked in vain for some word on Woody's solo albums (frankly the best Stones-related products since 1990), the New Barbarians tour, Maggie Trudeau, Altamont (!! - only Charlie has any comments at all), groupies, Allen Klein, family life on the road, changing wives and girlfriends, etc etc. The text is basically a general whitewash over anything that might be interesting. Too bad.

After each chapter there is an interview with someone associated with the band in 'some' way, and ironically a couple of these are better than most of the Stones contribitions. Most of the comments are sycophantic in nature - Sheryl Crow, Peter Wolf - but two especially stand out: Giorgio Gomelsky and Prince Rupert Lowenstein. Neither are often heard from, both had unique perspectives, and in particular Prince Rupert in very insightful and funny. Fleshing this stuff out into a chapter and ditching a couple thousand words of Mick Jagger's often dishonest and deluded puffery would have been of benefit.