Customer Reviews

The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

There are two reasons why I had to get this book. Firstly, my 1995 copy crumbled into an oblivion of dry glue, a spine torn in half and a cover too flabby to endure. I did turn to the book often for information, but from the looks of it, you'd think I shot it out of a canon once a week as well. The book is just as cheaply constructed as other reviewers contend, while the Q Rock Stars Encyclopedia is much friendlier to the reader both aesthetically and physically. Secondly, Rolling Stone's web site used to contain all the information found in this book. Recently, though, the disappointing decision was made to scrap those lengthier and more informative biographies for the infuriatingly cursory headnotes they recently replaced them with.

Some of the omissions noted by other reviewers here are remarkable not necessarily because of the bands omitted, but because of the "artists" Rolling Stone replaced them with. I mean, come on, the guys in Great White aren't exactly pioneers, and why anyone thinks the exclusion of Wierd Al Yankovic is at all noteworthy mystifies me. But to leave them out for Britney Spears? Ricky Martin? What a blow! Couldn't we just scrap Milli Vanilli, for the love of God? It isn't as though Tiffany, who is included in this book, will be remembered any more than Britney 30 years from now; nonetheless I don't consider either pop star worthy of inclusion at the expense of decently talented blues bands such as Great White who at least know what a "chord" is. The real crime with regard to the debate over who's in and who's out is the exclusion of various Native American songwriters such as Jim Boyd or Bill Miller. The former in particular continues to make unbelievable folk rock (some of which was featured on the "Smoke Signals" Soundtrack). The work Boyd has done with Sherman Alexie (songs like the incomparable "Million Miles Away") especially warrants recognition here.

Those objections aside, this really is a nearly inexhaustible resource for fans of any of the 1,900+ bands the book takes a look at. I think that the distant tone with which the entries are written will infuriate more passionate fans who think their heroes aren't getting the accolades they deserve. But as an Encyclopedia's duty is to provide the essential information, this book at least succeeds more often than it fails. My own relationship with its past and current editions is going on about 8 years now. Along with the "Rough Guide to Rock" or the "Encyclopedia of Record Producers," it continues to be one of the few resources I run to for answers to questions or quick tutorials on bands whose work I am yet to be familiar with. I think it should also be noted that people ought not to be mislead by the "Rock 'N Roll" title, as the book includes many bluegrass, country, and folk artists who may not immediately be associated with Rock 'N Roll per say, but who influenced the genre to such an extent that their exclusion from this book would have been egregious. I mean people like Dave Van Ronk, Bill Monroe or Townes Van Zandt.

Why include a nothing group like the Classics IV and not include the group they imitated who had more hits (the Hilltoppers)? Why exclude one-hit wonders, but include Bobby "Boris" Pickett (Monster Mash)? Why include Sam Phillips, but exclude Leonard Chess who may be even more important? How can they include the Flamingoes, the Penguins, the Moonglows and leave out the Harptones? And two of the worst ommissions: the Duprees and the Skyliners! Amazing!
I don't like the fact that they included Phil Spector as a performer and then wrote a lengthy article about him as a producer. If his reason for being in the book is that he sang with the Teddy Bears (another one-hit wonder), then he shouldn't be in for that. If he is in because he was a seminal producer, then Lou Adler and John Hammond should be in. How can you leave out Alan Freed and Murray the K? What happened to Lieber & Stoller? Eddie Holland?
Of course, there are wonderful articles that are gems such as the one on the Airplane, Mamas & Papas and others. There is a wealth of information that one would be hard pressed to find elsewhere, but the inconsistencies are astonishing. The real problem lies, I think, in that this should be a larger book, or a CD-ROM. Further, the discography listings that precede each article should have the correct number of stars assigned. Obviously, this may not be possible (or even desirable)for every album, but this information already exists in the RS database. A couple of more editions and they may just get it right.

I won't be as kind as some of the other reviewers who were disappointed in this edition. It's a load of crap! Back in the 80's it was the only thing going, but each successive edition has gotten less and less helpful, until it's finally degenerated to a great big commercial for What's Playing On The Radio. Hey, if I needed to know what was playing on the radio, I'd turn on the radio!

I just saved you thirty bucks. You can thank me later.

This is a huge book with lots of bands and solo artists inside but many are not here. Where is Weird Al Yankovic, Ben Folds and others? This book does have some basic information on the bands contained such as when and where they formed, were signed etc, but nothing you probably don't know if you're already a fan. It is also missing albums such as for example Bon Jovi's One Wild Night Live album. This book is good maybe for school assignments if you are researching bands that you have no knowledge of but this book's competitors have much better information. There's also no index or contents page which makes finding who you're after take a bit longer. The paper the pages are written on is also fairly cheap ... feeling yellow looking white paper. If you want a book on this sort of thing try Q Rock Stars Encyclopedia and others. They're much better.

This is clearly not the success they would like it to be. it is very incomplete and patchy. Some artists are covered too succintly and some should not be included in a rock encyclopedia. If you need one reference work, this is clearly not it. This is probably due to the direction that RS magazine has taken over the last decade or so. While it was indispensable reading it has become hopeless and out of touch. I really used to read it but the quality of the writing has gone down the drain and this is reflected here. It is surprising since the early editions of their album guide were quite fantastic.

The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock&Roll is the bible of Rock&Roll for the most of music lovers except those who like to listen to the music of e.g. The Mission (UK), M People, Talk Talk and Nik Kershaw who aren't included (they weren't in the second edition neither!). Among the artists who were excluded from this edition are some that didn't deserve this, e.g. The Soup Dragons, Level 42 and Gene Loves Jezebel. On back cover of the encyclopedia it's written that it's "the authoritative volume on world's music makers - from the one-hit wonders to the megastars". But most of the artist I've just mentioned are more than one-hit wonders.

However, the essential fault of this (self proclaimed?) music bible is a fact that there is no index in it. I can hardly believe that in the era of computerized text editing such book (with a plenty of names mentioned) is published without an index! Very well written articles are a poor consolation if I can't find which band's member is e.g. James Iha whose solo CD I've seen once, or - if I can't recall the name of The Fugees - where to search for Pras.

PS
I gave The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock&Roll 4 stars for its articles and 1 stars for its editorial scheme (missing Index!).

Usually I have a problem with Rolling Stone because many of the critics they have are notoriously biased towards or against certain genres of music, like Dave Marsh. But this book is nothing like that at all. It's as unbiased as they come. Bands and artists are alphabetically categorized, so if you're looking for AC/DC, look in the front, if you're looking for Frank Zappa or ZZ Top, look in the back. A complete discography (well, as complete as they were able to get with the information they had at the time), with year of release and label of albums included. Members of the bands are mentioned (including even their birthdate and where they were born), when they left, and when new members came in. A description of the band or artist is included, the bigger names, obviously getting more print. The book seems to avoid criticisms of certain albums, which is great, so not to scare people off when they show interest in a certain band/artist, although they would point out how the critics scorned Jethro Tull's A Passion Play, there's no opinion themselves that this is a bad album or not (in in my opinion, it's a great album, but then I like prog rock). Big names like the Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, The Rolling Stones, are all naturally included, to '50s pioneers like Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, etc. Even the prog rock scene like Yes, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Genesis, Jethro Tull, etc. gets a fair shake (something you can't say of their magazine, particularly when albums like Tarkus, A Passion Play, and Tales From Topographic Oceans are concerned), and even lesser known prog rock bands like Soft Machine, Gentle Giant, Can, Amon Düül II, Gong, and Van der Graaf Generator get mentioned here. Big time folkies like Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Joni Mitchell, etc. are included, while Fairport Convention, Steeleye Span, Nick Drake, The Pentangle, etc. are also covered. Plus there are some jazz, country, traditional pop, electronic, etc. that also have an importance to the rock music in general, be it directly or indirectly. This book, being from 1983, even covers rap music way before it became popular by anyone except maybe a small portion of fans on the streets of New York. I love this book, it's very useful. Yes, it's outdated, it's from 1983, so if you're looking for Metallica, Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, or the latest rap star, you'll be disappointed (it's been revised since, however). But for those trying to build up your record collection, this is a great book to try.

Searching bookstores far-and-wide, even Amazon's huge selection, you still won't find another reference source as vast as this one currently in print. If you know of any, let the rest of us know. And what is Rock & Roll anyway? An extension of the black music scene. So it's a little closed-minded to try and limit what genre of Rock should be included. For some to say certain types and individuals should not be included, (Notorious B.I.G., Tupac, Destiny's Child, or even Britney Spears) is like saying turn-back-the-clock to the early 1980s and MTV's total exclusion of certain genres. Is Rock only Heavy Metal, The Rolling Stones, or The Beatles? Or maybe some need reminder of its true roots. For what it's worth, an all-around great source of reference, despite ones particular taste.

For the money, this book really covers a lot of ground. I am a working DJ, and I use the information I found in this book every time I am behind a mic. No matter if it's to mention what city the band was formed in, to who the lead singer is this week, er month. It's handy, useful and very well written. Even if you are just a fan of Rock & Roll, you should own this book, you could almost consider this a history book of modern music.
I found very few bands that are not included, (i.e. larger regional acts, etc.) Over all you can't go wrong.. buy this book now!!

A good read with plenty of information. Unfortunately the information is unbalanced in terms of amount of print dedicated to certain artists. Ex: Eric Clapton gets only a few paragraphs while The Clash gets several pages ? Are you kidding me ? It should be just the opposite. As I said unbalanced.