Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(26)
1 star:		(28)

 

 

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.

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).

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.

Think about a classical music guide that omits Mozart, claims that Bach is a mediocre composer, and tries to make you believe that Richard Clayderman's recordings are underrated masterpieces. The guys at Rolling Stone try to remind you how cool and intellectual they are, and how stupid and naive their readers are. The previous editions are less pretentious and much better. Don't waste your time and money with this one.

Many reasonable music fans would be utterly baffled by the obtuse, eccentric, inconsistent, inaccurate, incomplete, scattershot, scatterbrained, and ultimately irrelevant nature of this Fourth Edition of the once-proud Rolling Stone brand Album Guide. How can such a fat, sprawling, ostensibly labor-intensive work be so shoddy and gap-filled?

One scarcely knows where to begin in criticizing this book. Some have mentioned the puzzling, random way in which artists are included or excluded. For example, here are a few of the classic rock/pop/soul artists that are not included at all (love 'em or hate 'em, they are significant):

Metallica
Emerson, Lake, & Palmer
George Harrison
Asia
Deep Purple
Nine Inch Nails
Dan Fogelberg
Dixie Dregs
Lionel Richie
Al Stewart
Marshall Tucker Band
Alan Parsons
Ambrosia
Gerry Rafferty
Chris Rea
Badfinger
Vangelis
The Move
Rick Wakeman
Maze featuring Frankie Beverly
Crowded House (The Finn Brothers and Split Enz also)
Tom Jones
Toto

And, if you're going to include some country artists, how can you leave out longtime major artists such as Alabama, George Strait, John Denver, Martina McBride, Andy Griggs, Toby Keith, Kenny Chesney, The Judds, Kenny Rogers, Brad Paisley, or any number of others?

Plus, albums in the Christian and Gospel genres are almost completely blackballed here, in a neat bit of exclusion, despite the fact that there are some worthy artists out there who have made groundbreaking, compelling, beautiful, rocking, daring, and moving music over the years.

Oh, but the wise editors made sure we got to read reviews on such "vital" artists as:

The Dictators
Boredoms
Aceyalone
Kid Koala
Gorky's Zygotic Mynci
Buju Banton
Marky Mark
Beanie Sigal
Spain
Green Velvet
Black Dice
Roni Size/Reprazent
Saint Etienne
Amy Rigby
Swell Maps
Pernice Brothers
The Sea and Cake
Mogwai
Shellac

Please note: the above list represents just a five-minute random thumb-through of the book, which is chock full of obscure, irrelavent "artists" who the editors feel the need to inflict upon the reader/listener. This is typical of the sneering arrogance that pervades this book like stink on a rat.

Enough of that. Let's just say the selection of artists is, at times, incredibly random.

Among an unwieldy, inconsistent, motely crew of writers in the book, perhaps the worst offender here is "reveiwer" Rob Sheffield who could not possibly be more in love with himself. He forgets that it's all about the music, not about him. His comments strain to be witty, but come off as the snotty spoutings of an immature little smart-aleck brat. He is not nearly as informed as he imagines, and if being cool were a physical attribute, then he would need a hip replacement.

Of course, Sheffield is not the only malcontent turned loose with a pen; another standout in the lowdown category is Keith Harris, who is obscene, offensive, and guilty of being the pot who calls the kettle a pot...ie, hurling accusations of blandness and lack of imagination at certain artists. And doing so in an unecessarily graphic and nasty way.

This book could have used some writing from a thoughtful, knowledgable reviewer like David Wild, but instead, what we get is mostly a bunch of juveniles--or crusty old windbags who are way past their prime and locked into some kind of mental prison (JD Considine, I'm looking at you, kid). I have seldom read a work that was more rigidly politically correct; the pandering, patronizing, drooling worship offered up to all things hip-hop, for example, is ludacris...I mean, ludicrous.

But, at the same time, there is a hateful animus against anything to do with progressive rock. The few prog bands that are actually mentioned here are, by and large, mercilessly slagged. Particularly egregious is the revisionist and pernicious caterwauling against the fantastic music of Kansas. Or parroting the phony worm-brained canard that the genius Jeff Lynne is somehow a "hamhanded" producer.

But, of course, every MC and hip hop pimp wanna-be woman hater is a genius, according to this book. How trite. Adhering to the old pat standard of attacking art and defending "trendy" rubbish is so tired and shopworn; but, it's just another facet of this book's worthlessness. Obsequious political correctness and conformity is the order of the day among these music writers.

As others have noted, the "star ratings system" in this book does not always match up with the descriptions written below them. Some four star albums are ripped and some two star albums are hailed. What gives? Didn't anybody proof this tree-slaughtering tome?

What a wasted project. With review sites such as Amazon flourishing, the need for "experts" at ROLLING STONE to tell us what is supposed to be cool is vanishing. Perhaps, if we are all lucky, RS will not see the need to get around to publishing a 5th Edition and this 4th Edition will sink into the swamp of it's own rot.

Too bad. I own earlier editions of the RS Album Guide and it used to be of some use. No more. To steal a quote from an earlier RS book, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

I'll keep this as short as possible.
How could Rolling Stone put their respected name to this crap??
There are omissions and errors throughout.
Omissions include: george harrison; deep purple; 13th floor elevators (although roky erickson makes it); nine inch nails; asia; howlin' wolf; ella fitzgerald; the albums "live at last" & "reunion" by black sabbath; legendary john coltrane albums "blue train", "lush life" and soultrane".
Errors include: "thank you" by led zeppelin is listed as being both on "led zep 2" & "houses of the holy"; under the ry cooder listing, it is suggested to look for the "buena vista social club" albums in the anthologies section at the back of the book but there is no listing.
For some unknown reason the reviewers in this edition seem to skip reviewing certain albums (that are actually listed) in an artists' listing if that artist has more than a handful of releases.
A laughable matter is when an album is listed as being a "disappointment" yet manages to get 4 and a half stars.
This is just at a glance and i haven't even read anyone elses review on this book so i'm sure there's plenty more to gripe about.
Unfortunately, there is only the option of rating this between 1-5 stars. I would have given it a zero if that was an option. Don't waste your money like i did.

Back in 1983, when I was, er....14,in a Barnes and Noble in Manhattan, I came across a book that would become in my mind the definitive book of album reviews. That Blue Book, as I refer to it (and later, I would discover the previous 1979 edition, which I would refer to as the red book) would be read from cover-to-cover many times. The blue book wisely updated the listing of the albums with the actual years next to the albums (something the red book had mysteriously overlooked). Mixing Olivia Newton-John reviews, with actually any artist, seemed diverse and made for one interesting read. How many books would dane call Ms. Newton-John, who has influenced music for better or worse, a singing barbie doll? The book was put together so cohesively that I found it more interesting to read it as a novel than the typical reference book.

I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited.....and finally in 1992, the next edition came out. First thing I noticed was the incorporation of 1/2 stars, ok, that was fine, but then.....some of the reviews were, um, changed. Carole King's Tapestry no longer 5 stars? I was outraged. The ostracizing of Newton-John, among others, I mean really, how could they????? The diversity was still there, however, it seemed less comprehensive, less consistent, and displaced some major artists. I learned to accept it. The read was not as enjoyable, but still, it was easily the definitive album guide of the time.
Now, 12 long years have come and gone. Top 40 is completely different, music styles have changed greatly, however, what Rolling Stone version 4 has forgotten are some of the major influences that have contributed. I won't go into the complete list, as some of the previous reviewers have touched on (yes, Newton-John is still missing, but now along with her is the woman she influenced, Sheena Easton). Along with these omissions, the book has changed. It seems self-conscious, dull, and spotty to say the least. It's actually a boring read and as a reference guide it certainly is not complete or comprehensive. Before you buy it, make sure that you realize that it is a selective review guide, which if you think about it, isn't really an update of the former definitive record guide versions. George Harrison, Chaka Khan and Metallica are deleted?? No thanks. Do yourself a favor, check EBAY or your local used book store for the ultimate reference guide: the 1981 edition.

1979 Version **** Stars
1981 Version *****Stars
1992 Version **1/2 Stars
2004 Version 0 Stars

Many people have made the point but I'll add some omissions of my own. First, reviews are obviously subjective - so that's a given going in but there is just too much inconsistency to ignore.
Examples: No George Harrison (as stated a number of times already-this is stunning), no Deep Purple (the writers of "Smoke On The Water" can't make the cut but Deep Dish does???), no Free, no Gordon Lightfoot-a favorite of mine with four decades of incredible music-please check him out (imho one of the most underappreciated songwriters in history) you won't be sorry; in a similar genre, no Jim Croce, no John Denver; From the blues, no Albert King???; no Pete Townshend (but we get Grace Slick's solo output???).
My favorite inconsisteny (of what's actually IN the book) is how, in the introduction, they point out that where an artist has a vast catalog they will only give a partial list of reviews but we have Miles Davis with 122 reviews (believe me he deserves it!) and Frank Sinatra every bit as influential and important as Miles Davis in their respective genres and who is much more of a "pop" star as this book is advertised to cover, who gets 17...that's right, 17 reviews in a career that covered over 50 years of recorded material!! This is unbelievalbe - especially in light of the fact that Bobby Darin gets more albums reviewed and his biography is longer! Can we count on one hand (or one finger in many people's opinion) the artists in the last century more important than Sinatra? Oh, and by the way - we have Sinatra and Darin reviewd but no Dean Martin.
Bottom Line - Rolling Stone got lazy on this one. Don't waste your money - find a copy of the last edition for an important resource on the seminal recordings, across genres, made in the last century

I plunked down $20 for this expecting a major upgrade. What I got instead:
1. The quality in writing seems to have nose-dived. Rolling Stone seems to want to attract a younger audience so a lot of the reviews are just plain juvenile, written by what seems like high school kids. Compare the feature written on the Stones vs the one in the 1992 edition - no comparison. Note to the editors - good writing never goes out of style.
2. Omissions galore! Some I've noticed:
- Metallica (huh???)
- Pete Townsend
- Deep Purple
- Queensryche
- George Harrison
- Scorpions (to be fair they weren't in the 92 edition)
I'm sure there's more...either this was a monumental screw-up or they meant to leave these artists out. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the editors there!
But that's ok, we got those bastions of rock, 98 degrees and Justin Timberlake!!! Whew!!!

The previous Rolling Stone Album Guides are two of the most frequently read books I own. This one leaves out several important artists. The artists it does include often have imcomplete discographies. The reviewers skip over complete albums and the ones they do mention leads one to believe that they are unfamiliar with the album or are just plagiarizing a review from a former edition. The whole book has an incomplete feeling to it as if they put it out to meet a deadline without really listening to the albums they were supposed to review. Very weak effort. Buy one of the earlier editions instead.