The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll: The Definitive History of the Most Important Artists and Their Music (Paperback)

by Rolling Stone Magazine (Author) "Several dozen black dancers shuffled around the floor of the tiny rural church, stamping out a steady rocking beat on the floorboards and clapping their..." (more)
Key Phrases: fine fine boy, pop explosion, pop music critic, Warner Bros, New York, Rolling Stones (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description
The ultimate illustrated history of rock & roll--comprehensive, authoritative, and fully updated with coverage of the most important new sounds and artists of the 1980s and `90s.

From the Inside Flap
The ultimate illustrated history of rock & roll--comprehensive, authoritative, and fully updated with coverage of the most important new sounds and artists of the 1980s and `90s.

Product Details

• Paperback: 720 pages
• Publisher: Random House; 3 Sub edition (November 10, 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0679737286
• ISBN-13: 978-0679737285
• Product Dimensions: 11.9 x 9 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 3.8 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #95,576 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

53 of 56 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Mixed Bag, May 4, 2003

By	Zettel "Matt" (Iowa City, IA) - See all my reviews

This history of Rock and Roll comes from Rolling Stone, one of the biggest and longest-lasting names in Rock reporting and coverage. It is truly a mixed bag, ranging anywhere from great historical content to outright howlers.

First, the book does an excellent job of covering the entirety of rock history and drawing out its influences and evolutions. It does a wonderful job of covering the different local scenes and how they were integrated in with the whole of rock music. Whole chapters are generally rewarded to the most influential bands, and not just those that sold more album.

However, the book suffers a number of strong drawbacks. First, as many pointed out, the book is clearly slanted toward the Rolling Stone perspective. Artists such as Billy Joel, who have not had good relations with the magazine, have been omitted. Several others, such as Bob Seger, were also given no treatment. There is also a bit of redundent content, such as giving the Beatles two whole chapters and then devoting a third (British Invasion) to a primarily Beatles-related topic. Also, there are separate chapters on Motown and Stevie Wonder.

Secondly, the book is often skewed toward the "pop" scene when it comments on more current acts. Rolling Stone has been getting even worse about this in its magazine. One particular example that stands out is in the heavy metal section. My edition was published in 1991 and the writer heaps load and loads of praise upon such hair-metal acts as Motley Crue, Poison, Ratt and Warrant. Other, more talented but less popular metal acts, such as Metallica, are put down and summarily dismissed. However, we all know that if this were to have been written 5 years later, Rolling Stone would be worshipping Metallica and praising them for destroying such hair-bands. RS makes the mistake of "going with the flow" one too many times.

Overall - nice book, but with some obvious problems.

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars So so, May 14, 2005

By	Val - See all my reviews

Good writing, great photos - but lacks the last 20 years
(and sooooo many of the legendary bands).
Get Pierre Scaruffi's history of rock'n'roll.
Much more indepth and covers up to 2000
(also rap, glitch, post-rock, drum'n'bass...
all missing from RS)
RS is ok for beginners.

27 of 36 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Definitive? According to who?, November 24, 2001

By	GBS "showbiz27" (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews

Rolling Stone has been around reporting on rock music for nearly 35 years. That longevity only earns them stripes, but not exactly the monker of expert.

RS editors - in all fairness like most journalists - have an agenda, and accuracy and fairness in rock isn't exactly one of them. One writer (below) asked why Billy Joel was snubbed. Simple; RS and Joel have publically feuded for years so as far as RS is concerned, one of rock's greatest acts (and an inductee to the Rock Hall of Fame) doesn't exist. In the rock world according to Jann Wenner, there is no greater act in rock history than the Rolling Stones. They're certainly a bellweather act in rock history, but not "the greatest"...but that's how RS sees it, and apparently so should history.

So take what they say with a grain of salt, enjoy it for what it is (their fave-raves, as valid as the Listmania right here on Amazon) - cuz after all, it's only rock and roll.