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

Nathan Brackett (Author), Christian Hoard (Contributor)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 2, 2004

It is often difficult to assess the many new emerging music genres without some guidance from a well-respected voice to help differentiate the good from the mediocre, the classic from the fleeting. THE NEW ROLLING STONE ALBUM GUIDE provides readers with such direction, categorising the new sounds with insightful analyses and critical judgement. The new guide celebrates rock's diversity and it's constant metamorphoses. Continuing the useful one-to-five-star ratings of THE ROLLING STONE ALBUM GUIDE, published in 1992, the new volume gets a fresh makeover with the addition of new artists, as well as updated entries, without compromising the indispensable material in the original guide. In addition, a new introduction addresses the changes in the music industry and explores the brouhaha surrounding internet music downloads. Rolling Stone editors Nathan Brackett, Joe Levy, Christian Hoard, and Jenny Eliscu write new entries and update existing material with flair and authority, making this volume the guide to own. With clarity and accuracy, the editors feature records from the seminal bands and DJs that epitomise the beats of the Nineties and the incipient sounds of the 21st century.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

"How do you make an album guide that fits in a book bag?" Bracket asks in the introduction to this door-stopping compendium. "Selectively," he answers. To trim down the possibilities, the editors of this book decided to limit their entries to domestically released recordings currently available through major online stores. This makes it easy for consumers to buy what they want, as long as they want the latest mainstream music. Roughly 70 percent of the writing in this guide is new; Brackett notes that the editors chose artists who "have made a lasting, undeniable contribution to pop music." There are extra-long entries for Miles Davis, Dion, John Lee Hooker, B.B. King, Elvis and Muddy Waters, but a few baffling oversights (e.g., George Harrison is missing while the maligned Paula Abdul remains). The Guide is not intended for popular music historians, but a comparison with earlier editions reveals much about trends in popular music commentary: Chicago’s recordings, once ahead of their time, are now "schlock;" a Rolling Stone reviewer has realized that Yes made some good records; and Tony Bennett merits triple the space he occupied in 1992. The new edition’s 72 authors (vs. the four in 1992) produce a tone and style less consistent than in past editions. Some things have not changed: the best-selling albums generally get the highest ratings, and punks and bluesmen are demigods. Often entertaining, the guide offers comprehensive album lists and usefully ranks the innumerable collections available for many artists. (Also welcome is the short section on anthologies and soundtracks.) However, readers seeking lengthy reviews of individual albums would probably be better off looking elsewhere.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Nathan Brackett is a senior editor at Rolling Stone, where he has edited the magazine's record reviews section since 1996.

Christian Hoard is a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone. He has also written for The Village Voice, Blender, Spin, and The Boston Globe.

Product Details

• Paperback: 944 pages
• Publisher: Fireside; 4 Rev Upd edition (November 2, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0743201698
• ISBN-13: 978-0743201698
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 7.3 x 2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 3.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (92 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #328,462 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

90 of 95 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Earlier Editions Were MUCH Better, November 5, 2004

By 

Jim Mitchell (St. Louis) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition (Paperback)

The two previous versions of the RS Album Guide that I own are some of the most frequently read music books in my house. I've long been awaiting a new volume, since most of my listening habits started after the release of the '92 edition, and a lot of my favorite CDs were obviously not reviewed. So it's not as if I don't thoroughly enjoy the content of these books. But something is wrong with this update. Maybe access to the internet has made such books obsolete- why pay this kind of money when similar and much more thorough information is available online? Or maybe I'm just not as interested in pop culture trivia as I was ten years ago. Or maybe this book just isn't written as well as the two previous versions were. I think it's a combination of all three, with an emphasis on the latter.

Given the diversity of popular music these days, I think that such a book like this spreads itself too thin. I'm no fan of many of the bands that other reviews have complained about being omitted from the book, but I certainly understand why a Deep Purple or Metallica fan would be upset that a book by Rolling Stone Magazine would skip them. The reviews themselves just seem...I don't know...skimpy. Obviously you can't give indepth reviews of every album by every artist in a book of this scope, but it seems that there was much more information in the previous editions. The reviews seem much more cynical, too- I appreciate that they albums are being reviewed from a contemporary viewpoint, but certainly my favorite classic rock records can't have aged THAT much, can they? Also, the print is enormous in this book, making its bulk somewhat deceptive. With smaller type, the book could have either been smaller and therefore less cumbersome (and less expensive), or far more information could have been packed in on the pages. As it stands, there's usually not more than one artist per page, yet as mentioned, the reviews seem shorter and less substantial than earlier editions. The biographical info is noticably shorter, and rarely is any album given more than one or two sentences.

And sometimes the information just seems inaccurate or misinformed. The Springsteen review dismisses Bruce's admittedly inferior but hardly terrible work of the 90s with 2 star reviews and little justifcation. I don't mind someone giving something a poor review even if I happen to like it, but let's hear why they dislike it. Same way with Pink Floyd- "The Wall" is dismissed as awful (which may or may not be true), but little explanation is offered as to why such a huge album is considered at best mediocre. Bruce Springsteen's "Streets of Philadelphia" is dismissed because it "sucks". Well, maybe it's not a good song, but let's come up with something better than "sucks, which is what you'd expect to read in an average chatroom conversation. Since when has Rolling Stone pandered to such a juvenile mentality? (Wait- don't answer that.)

The book also makes some odd factual statements, such as the blurb about Springsteen's drummer Max Weinberg and his guitarist Steve Van Zandt having greater commercial success in the 90s than did the "solo" Springsteen. Excuse me, but what did Max or Steve record in the 90s that sold more than anything put out by Bruce? Sure, they had TV success, but that's comparing apples and oranges. Minor point, but just seems sloppy, like criticism for criticism's sake. And finally, the thoroughness of the discographies seems a bit inconsistent. Some lists are quite inconclusive, while other artists of the same stature and caliber have only a handful of their albums listed.

Some positives include the addition of various artists from rap and other genres. While I think trying to include them only succeeds in biting off more than it can chew, I'm glad to be able to read about significant artists that fall outside of the narrow definition of rock and roll.

So this new edition of the Album Guide was a huge disappointment. It seems like depth and quality were sacrified for the sake of sheer quantity. Intelligent writing was thrown out the window for the sake of sounding trendily cynical. At $30, save your money and use it to pay a month or two of your internet bill, or buy one of the much more comprehensive Allmusic guides. I'll never argue that the internet can replace a good solid book, but I'll gladly take a good website managed by a true music lover over a sloppy and juvenile work such as this one.

64 of 72 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars George Harrison should not have been omitted, November 11, 2004

By 

TheBandit (SEA-TAC) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition (Paperback)

Milli Vanilli's place in Rolling Stone's Album Guide is secure. Thank God, because they definitely earned it. I'm sure tons of people are holding off on purchasing their albums until they see how many stars Rolling Stone awarded them.

But I guess recently-inducted Rock and Roll Hall of Famer George Harrison, an artist who earned a high ranking on Rolling Stone's own list of greatest guitarist, doesn't really warrant a few paragraphs. After all, who still listens to "All Things Must Pass" anyway?

But if you're interested in the umpteenth live All-Starr band release from Ringo, it is rated in this guide. That's not to say Ringo should've been cut, but c'mon. If Ringo's solo career deserves recognition, I think a half-page or so could've been reserved for George.

I don't want it to seem like that's my only beef with this new edition. I was dissapointed to see that quite a few entries are basically the same as in the previous edition. These guys had 12 years, I think they could've done better than "70 percent" new material (that's by their own admission in the book's forward).

29 of 31 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars If you think "Dark Side of the Moon" was just OK , you found your book~!, October 9, 2005

By 

Anthony (Our Nation's Capital) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition (Paperback)

What a waste of a twenty spot!!!! One star is too much....

Me, I Wished I Had Checked This Out From The Library...Then I could have brought it back. Once upon a time I would look to Rolling Stone for the best in popular music record reviews. No more! Now, much like the decline of the print magazine, the record guide also sucks much more than some of the albums reviewed. I guess I would rather listen to A-ha's second album than read this. Notable for what it leaves out, including George Harrison, Widespead Panic, NIN, Metallica and Ry Cooder, among many others. 98 Degrees and Justin Timberlake ARE included. Take your money, and buy a subscription to Paste Magazine and bookmark the all music guide web site for your record reviews.

Also, the reviewers attempts to sound hip fall flatter than a stale joke. One of these kids thinks Pink Floyd's "the wall" sucks.