Customer Reviews

New Book of Rock Lists

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have owned two previous editions of "The Book of Rock Lists" and will soon be buying "The New Book of Rock Lists". Why? Because it's fun to read, witty, and incisive! The rock and roll heaven portion, where various deceased rock stars are broken down in terms of how they died, is definitely worth reading.

One or two others have already castigated author Dave Marsh for having somewhat of a left leaning bias in his stinging criticism of the PMRC and certain religious zealots, as well as his categorization of famous right wing rockers. I disagree with the reviewer who referred to Marsh as being "PC". However, if you turn your political filter off and you're not thin-skinned, you'll have some fun reading.

Dave Marsh has outdone himself. The Book of Rock (and Rap) Lists is subjective, annoying, and obsessive. It's also ridiculously entertaining. Marsh's opinions take on an almost disturbingly rabid flavor (no one he likes can do any wrong), and his politically correct mindset gets irritating. But this remains one of the greatest bathroom books ever.

For those interested in best-of song lists, also check out the following:

Dave's Music Database presents: The Top 100 Songs of the Rock Era 1954-1999

This is definitely one of the greatest resources for fans of rock and roll. It definitely gives a comprehensive look at the history of rock as well as gives a detailed account of how rock has influenced modern society.

However, there are a few things that I do have to nit pick about. The first is Marsh's list of performers who appeared at the Monterey Pop Festival. One performer he has listed as playing there was Aretha Franklin. However, she never appeared there. In fact, the closest anything anybody heard from her was when Otis Redding sang his version of "Respect", which he wrote. He also omitted Lou Rawls from the list of performers. Rawls played there on the first night. Other than this criticism, I stil think that this is a great book.

....one that is marred by strident retro-male leftism (I don't know if it comes from Marsh or Bernard) I mean, I agree that Clinton's no better than Bush, but I find it funny that Marsh and Bernard refer to Al Gore as "liberal" (he himself openly admits he's not) in the contemptous way many leftists use the term, while many feminists might find THEM to be "liberals" in the same negative sense for defending the Rolling Stones as the "first victims of political correctness" Having said that, I still like the book. The best parts are when they display a sense of humor. Example: in response to a religious-right rock-hater's charge that a song by the Cars has Satanic "backwards-masking," Marsh and Bernard reply: "Well, now we know how he (Cars frontperson Ric Ocasek) got (80's supermodel) Paulina."

Looking forward to fun book along the lines of THE BOOK OF LISTS, I instead found myself assaulted by an opinionated trashing of a number of performers, a fawning over P-Funk that takes up three pages, (yes, a great band but George Clinton's names for himself as a list, PLEASE!)This book is far too involved with personal attacks to be interesting. I finished based on the idea that I wanted to see who was going to fall victim to the "critical axe" and at the end found this less than rewarding. Even factual errors like song titles (Zevon's "Carmelita" as Carmelita's Way" or Thin Lizzy's "Jailbreak" as "There's gonna be a Jailbreak" were distracting. There is also whole chapters dedicated to rap which is interesting concept in this book of Rock lists. I read this type of book for snippets of info and a few laughs but I just found myself annoyed at the end.

Dave Marsh's original "Book of Rock Lists" was published in 1981 after Irving Wallace's "Lists" books were popular best sellers in the late 1970s. In his introduction to the 1994 update, he accurately mentions that his book "appeared on the cusp of the most important changes since the advent of rock and roll." He recalls the gradual fade of disco and punk styles and their meld into the raw, underproduced 1990s hip-hop and alternative rock.

That first "Lists" was quixotic, goring rock's sacred popular and critical cows while presenting chart statistics - as important to pop as to baseball fans -- as trivia under and around his sharp opinions. Moreover, Marsh's exhaustive knowledge and research exposed rock's lesser known masterpieces, having the effect of a recipe you had to try when you got home. The book re-established what made rock important to many.

By 1994, hip-hop and rap ruled charts, dominated fashions, entranced youth and alienated generations as R&B and rock and roll did for Marsh's generation. But Marsh (who collaborated with "Source" magzzine editor James Bernard on this edition) could not take the breezy, sarcastic approach with this style; to treat the music less than seriously played into the hands of perceived racists and authoritarians wanting it and its young, black artists silenced (Marsh's intriguing "enemies" and "fake friends" lists provide one example.)

Whether Marsh and Herbert admit it (they don't here), rap's use as rhythm as melody sears the music from its tradition and fails to compare with from the bebop jazz Marsh points it to in his list "Discredited Rock Theories." While some important musical statements used the form (one list links Grandmaster Flash's "The Message" and "White Lines" to a Mel Brooks novelty rap), most music fans, black and white, felt betrayed by the lack of continuity. Bob Herbert of the (#10 enemy) New York Times pointed out this week that rap "has so thoroughly broken faith with the surpassingly great, centuries-long tradition of black music in America. With rap, both the music and the poetry have vanished." Marsh and Herbert would strongly disagree, and the book suffers, rather than thrives, for that dichotomy.

"The New Book Of Rock Lists" will entertain rock or rap fans, but convert neither. The incongruence of the first book's hilarious lists play poorly against the later hip-hop updates. Chapters on "Dancing," "Criticism," "Broadcasting" (featuring sly Marsh commentary on today's radio scene), and above all, "History" try bridging gaps while revising the story ("Print the legend, not the fact," the first book exclaimed). Seminal figures like Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley and the Beatles each had chapters in the original version but now are tucked into larger chapters. The essential singles and LP lists from rock's first 25 years are sadly missed.

The book remains fun, teaching much to those willing to see pop music as seamlessly and meaningfully as Marsh has, wise and willing to connect folk and blues songs like "Stagger Lee" to a century's music and a people's history. The good news is that, regardless of music's standing by "Lists" third edition, it will be cohesive or disjointed and a better read in either case.

Dave Marsh has once again out-done himself. In New Book of Rock Lists, he adds to what has happend in the past ten years. The old book was excellent. From Elvis to the Who to the Ramones. This book recieves 4 stars!

I shouldn't have been surprised when I bought a book by Dave Marsh that it would be riddled with politically correct opinions and venom for any performer who doesn't hew the left-wing line. (He lists famous "Right Wingers" near the end of the book, perfomers who may have at some point expessed an opinion slighly right of center, and of course that makes them right-wingers). His lists seem motivated by political concerns and "diversity" as well, which dampens their fun value. My other qualm with the book, and this is, I admit, a point of personal preference, is the seriousness with which the authors take rap music (if such an epithet as "music" can be applied to it). Rap is basically for teenagers, and the image of adults salivating over the likes of Ice T and Easy E. is pathetic. No, Mr. Marsh, the work of Grandmaster Flash does not exist on the same plane as that of Chuck Berry or Elvis Presley. Those men were musicians; rap "artists" are poseurs looking for attention and an easy buck. Still there are some interesting things here, and this is worth at least a casual browse.